it's impossible to conceive of any of them in absolute terms apart from perspective. (...) And there is no 'world' apart from that. — Wayfarer

Every human being ever, finds himself at the inescapable mercy of his own kind of intellect, which is the only possible origin of ‘world’ in absolute terms. Incident to the occupation of that intellect.....

“....we should require to affirm the existence of an appearance, without something that appears—which would be absurd....”
(CPR Bxxvii)

.....is all he is ever entitled to say about ‘world’, or, in fact, anything else.

Both of these giants blamed the schools, which was meant to be taken as the source of any formal, rote, instruction, including parents. We are taught, from the earliest of our individual times, at the expense of understanding how it is we learn. Ironically enough, perhaps it is Mother Nature Herself that should be faulted, insofar as in our earliest times formal instruction doesn’t permit understanding qua non-contradictory judgement, and even if it did, we are not sufficiently capable of it. And to heap insult onto injury, upon becoming so capable, that is to say when we turn our investigative attention inward, in conjunction with, or in despite of, experience, we already lay claim to so great an empirical knowledge base, itself grounded by a set of rules by which the internal human, albeit speculative, learning process itself does not abide, we inevitably end up disguising the entire human knowledge system as merely a product of the rules by which we are taught.

This is a pencil. It was a pencil to your father, and his father, and his. That’s all you need to know.

(Sigh)

So the idea that the fields are physical is not supported with any empirical evidence. — Metaphysician Undercover

“...By a field, you remember, we mean a quantity which depends upon position in space....”
(Feynman Lectures, Vol 2, Ch 2. Sec 2, 1964, CalTech)

As in most stuff....depends on who’s talking.

Whereas materialists of all stripes believe that the objects of perception have intrinsic reality - the kind of reality that persists independently of any perception, sensation or judgement. — Wayfarer

Patently false. Again. :sweat:

A lot of misunderstanding is caused by this [my] confusion. — Wayfarer

:smirk:

If there was no substance behind the appearance reality would be dreamlike.

Of course, the nature of this substance will remain a mystery while it's so obvious at the same time. It's like knowing what time is but not knowing how to tell what it is. The difference being that time is easy to explain.

No. I'm implying that your either "material" or "immaterial" formulation is fallacious because "immaterial" is neither an intelligible nor a corroborable option compared to – negation of – the material. — 180 Proof

Since "immaterial" literally means "not made of matter", why is my conclusion that "material" and "immaterial" are categorical oppositions "un-intelligible"? I'm aware that materialists may prefer to define "immaterial" as "unimportant" or "irrelevant". However, that's not a literal meaning, but an antagonistic denigration. To use one of your favorite phrases, you are "cherry-picking" my words to suit your strategy of belittling what you don't like. Personally, I have no problem with your 19th century Materialism, because I can reconcile it with 21st century Information Theory. I dialog with you, not to convince you that I'm right and you're wrong, but to convince myself that my worldview can withstand attempts to suppress novel ideas with passionate put-downs.

Since my thesis uses that ambiguous term to describe the natural human mind, and its imaginary product (ideas), you are reading "supernatural" where my reference is to a natural phenomenon. You continue to miss the point of the Enformationism thesis: not to deny material reality, but to corroborate the old common-sense worldview of Materialism with the new paradigm paradoxes of Quantum Physics & Information Theory. Are non-local Entanglement & Quantum Tunneling & Acausal Events intelligible or sensible phemomena from a materialist perspective? Attempts to explain them away usually focus on the immaterial (mental) math instead of material (physical) substance.

My apologies to Einstein, God does play dice with the universe. And the consequences of that innate randomness made common-sense deterministic Classical Materialist Physics immaterial for the un-common-sense & Indeterminacy of the 21st century paradigm. Fortunately, Information Theory can ride to the rescue, by looking at both sides of a single coin. :cool:

Immaterial synonyms : intangible, incorporeal, not material, bodiless,
Also : transcendental, unearthly, supernatural.

On September 27, 1972, scientists performed the first test of Bell's inequality. God does play dice with the Universe, after all.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2018/09/27/happy-anniversary-to-the-test-that-showed-god-does-play-dice-with-the-universe/?sh=1720f2f17b05

Quantum Physics : Yes, physicists have said that it makes no sense. For example, Richard Feynman said “No one understands quantum mechanics” and Niels Bohr famously said, “Those who are not shocked when they first come across quantum theory cannot possibly have understood it.”
https://www.quora.com/Many-physicists-have-said-that-quantum-mechanics-makes-no-sense-What-needs-to-be-discovered-understood-for-quantum-mechanics-to-make-sense

https://sebjaniak.com/acausal-information.html

↪Gnomon
If you really want to learn why your "immaterialist" speculations 'about information' (or "mind") is, at best, mere 'pseudo-science rationalized by bad philosophy', study Metzinger's work. . . . I'm confident you won't bother — 180 Proof

Why is Metzinger the sole authority on "immaterialist speculations"? If you really want to know what I mean by "Immaterial", study the Enformationism thesis, or any number of Information-centric studies. But I'm "confident you won't bother", because you are so invested in your outdated Classical interpretation of Physics. Yes, I'm mocking you with your own words. But I'm just kidding, because your old-fashioned belief system is "immaterial" to me, literally & figuratively. :joke:

Physics is the science of material Things & Forces. Things are Objects (nouns)
Metaphysics is the science of immaterial Non-Things such as Ideas, Concepts, Processes, & Universals. Non-things are Agents (subjects), Actions (verbs), or Categories (adverbs, adjectives).
BothAnd Glossary

PS___I prefer not to engage in mutual mud-slinging, so I consider this dialog as a harmless snow-ball fight, that we can laugh about.

So is there an observer effect? I'm a math professor, not a physicist. I'm open to being proven wrong, but can you cite a source that is more than opinion? — Real Gone Cat

This surprising "effect" puzzled the pioneers of Quantum Physics, who had no common sense explanation. Since then, their interpretation has been debated by experts in the field, with no final resolution. So any "source" will necessarily be someone's "opinion".

My own understanding of how a machine can "observe" an experiment, is that it extracts information from the process. And that knowledge has meaning only for the human experimenter. When I get time, I'll try to find a source for that interpretation. It only makes sense though, if extracting Information is equivalent to extracting energy, hence affecting the chain of causation. And that's a whole 'nother debate. I don't take it as gospel, but it makes sense in view of my non-expert Enformationism thesis. :nerd:

What is the Observer generated information process? :
Up to now both information and its connection to reality have not scientifically conclusive definitions neither implicit origin. They emerge in observing multiple impulses interactive yes-no actions modeling information Bits. The observed information process connects reality, information, and creates Observer.
https://arxiv.org/abs/1602.05129
https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1212/1212.1710.pdf
Note -- This technical report doesn't directly address your question. But it does imply that extracting bits of information (data ; meaning) is equivalent to extracting energy, thus having "real" effects. It's a negative impact on the measurement, similar to letting a bit of air out of a tire. But not necessarily like one billiard ball hitting another, for a positive impact. Extracting Information may be the "non-physical component" mentioned by Fernee.

Whereas materialists of all stripes believe that the objects of perception have intrinsic reality - the kind of reality that persists independently of any perception, sensation or judgement. — Wayfarer
Patently false. Again. :sweat: — 180 Proof

In An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding (1748), Hume considers the common-sense view that we directly perceive material objects, such as a table. This sort of naïve realism is, Hume says,
destroyed by the slightest philosophy, which teaches us, that nothing can ever be present to the mind but an image or perception, and that the senses are the only inlets, through which these images are conveyed. (Enquiry, XII.I.9)
He then argues:
The table, which we see, seems to diminish, as we move farther from it: But the real table, which exists independent of us, suffers no alteration: It was, therefore, nothing but its image, which was present to the mind. — Gary Hatfield (upenn) for SEP

Being limited by having only eyeballs to see the material world, such as it may be independently of our existence, says nothing whatsoever about the reality or lack of reality of that world. But it does show that we cannot possibly have direct irrefutable knowledge of that world. There are many alternative ways to prove this point, especially through quantum physics or any other science for that matter. Perhaps that may be what science does the best.

... we cannot possibly have direct irrefutable knowledge of that world ... — magritte

... which, in fact, we do not need in order to survive and thrive in the world, so why does that matter?

Since "immaterial" literally means "not made of matter" — Gnomon

Wouldn't it still be the stuff of something to be able to be?

which, in fact, we do not need in order to survive and thrive in the world, so why does that matter? — 180 Proof

To survive we only need enough partial knowledge to guess right about the next step, if we are wrong we pay the price. To do philosophy, it matters. We can only see physical projections from material objects that happen to land on the retina. Therefore direct realism cannot be more than a useful simplified model that roughly imagines our naive conceptions of the world.But indirect realism introduces physiological and psychological mechanisms that we can't explain. Therefore, direct realism.

Whereas materialists of all stripes believe that the objects of perception have intrinsic reality - the kind of reality that persists independently of any perception, sensation or judgement.
— Wayfarer
Patently false. Again. — 180 Proof

materialism, also called physicalism, in philosophy, the view that all facts (including facts about the human mind and will and the course of human history) are causally dependent upon physical processes, or reducible to them.

So this definition is wrong?

The fact that our sensory abilities are only adapdatively 'beneficial for survival' is another form of reductionism, namely, biological reductionism.

Since "immaterial" literally means "not made of matter" — Gnomon
Wouldn't it still be the stuff of something to be able to be? — PoeticUniverse

Yes. I call it "mind stuff"; otherwise known as Information. It's being is both Ideal (meaning) and Real (matter). Unfortunately. some on this forum have had a bad experience with religious damnation and New Age superstitions. So they lump all immaterial notions into the same category with ancient Spiritualism and New Age Mysticism. Such belief systems were reasonable back when gods & nature spirits were the best explanation for mysterious natural phenomena. But, today we have different words to explain those causal forces (e.g. Energy = power). And yet, Energy (kinetic ; mechanical) itself is not any concrete material "stuff". It's abstract & invisible & intangible, so we can only infer its existence from its effects (changes in material things). But scientists still don't know any more about what it is (its being), than the ancients, who inferred whimsical invisible personas making things move. Their poetic & romantic worldview is understandable in view of their limited technological knowledge. But it was logical, for the time.

However, the unromantic Greek philosophers saw no reason to infer personal intention (spirits) behind causation. So, they used more abstract terms, such as "Potential" & "Logos" to label those creative & organizing forces. My own information-based worldview combines the insights of the ancients with the empirical evidence of the moderns. And Information Theory is able to bridge the gap between Spiritualism and Materialism with a more mathematical terminology for invisible causes. One of those is "Ratio", which is the essential causal force of Thermodynamics (ratio of hot to cold). But that term is also the root of "Rational" which refers to mental processes (reasoning) rather than to any tangible stuff. Moreover, all mental abstractions (ideas, concepts) are stripped of their physical "stuff", so their being is literally "immaterial" & meta-physical (or preter-natural, if the "meta" term offends you).

Since "stuff" is an indeterminate label for the substance or essence of something, Realists & Pragmatists think of it as Matter, while Idealists & Theorists may imagine it as Mind. For example, some mathematical theorists have concluded that the basic stuff of the world is invisible loops of energy in an esoteric hyper-dimensional space. Since those different perspectives are often viewed as polar opposites, I tend to compromise with what's known as Pragmatic Idealism. I didn't make that up, but it seems to fit my Holistic BothAnd worldview. :cool:

PS___This and other similar threads tend to quickly entropy (verb) from a search for Consilience via intellectual philosophical dialog into an emotional ideological debate. That's not philosophy, it's politics. My position is unaligned & moderate, but the man in the middle gets caught in the crossfire. So I try to take my pummeling with good humor, while standing my middle ground.


Pragmatic Idealism :
This term sounds like an oxymoron, combining practical realism with otherworldly fantasy. But together they describe the BothAnd attitude toward the contingencies of the world. Pragmatic Idealism is a holistic worldview, grounded upon our sensory experience with, and knowledge of, how the mundane world works, plus how Reality & Ideality work together to make a single whole. As a personal philosophy, it does not replace scientific Realism — and doesn't endorse fantasies of magic, miracles & monsters — because every thing or fact in the “real” parts of the world is subject to logical validation or empirical testing prior to belief.
BothAnd Blog Glossary

Pragmatic Idealism : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Practical_idealism

Consilience : agreement between the approaches to a topic of different academic subjects, especially science and the humanities.

NO MIDDLE GROUND FOR POLARIZED POLITICS

So this definition is wrong? — Wayfarer

It's serviceable and has nothing to do with the your statement which is, again, patently false.

Therefore, direct realism. — magritte

Now you switch to ontology but I'd responded to your previous epistemological statements. :roll:

which is, again, patently false — 180 Proof

in ways that you are never able to say.

Yes. I call it "mind stuff"; — Gnomon

I'll take it as something. The word 'immaterial' doesn't seem to be doing any work. It's like 'unstuff' that is still stuff.

Since the universe has atoms, 'mind' would be of atoms.

Whereas materialists of all stripes believe that the objects of perception have intrinsic reality - the kind of reality that persists independently of any perception, sensation or judgement. The difficulty with that view is that, even though it seems to accord perfectly with common sense, we can obviously never say of the reality of anything that it persists independently of perception, sensation and judgement, because in order to assess its reality, we have to perceive or sense it. We can presume with sound reason that the object persists in the absence of any perception of it, and act as if to all intents and purposes that this is true, but this is still a presumption, not a demonstrated certainty. — Wayfarer

I think it's a stretch to think that all that goes on is a hoax, such that the senses don't take anything in, that it is a story in a 4D movie in which everything matches perfectly with reality as if it were real. This is describing the block universe, and if it is then I think it all still had to have happened at some point—all at once, I suppose, and then it plays out.

The block universe would be merely the implementation—the messenger, but the message is still the same. It would be that a difference in implementation that makes no difference to the message is truly no difference.

I think it's a stretch to think that all that goes on is a hoax... — PoeticUniverse

If you think that's what I said, then your interpretation is at fault. It's real, but not in the way that it seems.

Why is Metzinger the sole authority on "immaterialist speculations"? — Gnomon

You say that (?), not I. :roll:

Your uninformed statement, as they say, speaks for itself, Wayf. Anyone familiar with Democritean-Epicurean-Lucretian atomism or with G. Deleuze, A. Badou, R. Brassier or with Q. Meillassoux's speculative materialism recognizes the "vulgar materialism" with which you're always shadowboxing. As pointed out by others, "vulgar materialism" (stipulated here ) isn't a position any significant philosopher or scientist has held in over a century, so your anti-naturalistic, dualist-idealist opposition pathetically pushes only on an open door.

nyone familiar with Democritean-Epicurean-Lucretian atomism — 180 Proof

I liked De Rerum Natura. Submitted a term paper on it, in Keith Campbell's Philosophy of Matter class, back in the day. Oddly enough, obtained a High Distinction.

My claim was that materialism generally is obliged to uphold the 'mind-independent reality' of material objects. Do any of the sources you cite differ with that view?

Your continual blathering about 'woo of the gaps' signifies to me a deep confusion in your views which is not alleviated by dropping names.

Of course consciousness produces this image, but we don't we all want an objective reality to exist? — Cornwell1

There is the well-known anecdote:

We often discussed [Einstein's] notions on objective reality. I recall that during one walk Einstein suddenly stopped, turned to me and asked whether I really believed that the moon exists only when I look at it. — Abraham Pais

In asking the question, Einstein was challenging the Copenhagen interpretation - that quantum mechanical systems lack definite objective properties independent of observation. The example of 'the moon' was making the point rhetorically. Schrödinger's famous cat paradox makes the same point.

Einstein was convinced that there were good philosophical grounds for realism, and he considered it a foundational principle of science. After his death, however, it was shown that local realism, as he described it in his famous EPR paper, is not compatible with the predictions of quantum mechanics, or with physical experiments, as demonstrated by the famous Alain Aspect and Anton Zellinger experiments.

So, that question is precisely what is at stake, and why I introduced this topic to this particular thread, as in my view, it undermines materialism.

I liked De Rerum Natura. Submitted a term paper on it, in Keith Campbell's Philosophy of Matter class, back in the day. Oddly enough, obtained a High Distinction. — Wayfarer

I'm sure you did ... :clap:

My claim was that materialism generally is obliged to uphold the 'mind-independent reality' of material objects.

Insofar as "mind" is material-dependent (had you learned anything from De Rerum Natura, ... :roll:), your claim, sir, is incoherent and, as usual, shallow.

Ah, Schrödinger. I've often wondered how the cat feels about all this.

Well, I see physicist Sean Carroll now talks about an 'asleep' cat versus an 'awake' cat, the poison being swapped with a mere soporific. Even QM is politically correct it seems. I wonder if that proves God exists...

Einstein was challenging the Copenhagen interpretation — Wayfarer

I'm not a QM junkie, but didn't we end up with (amongst other things) the Everett interpretation or (thanks to DeWitt), the 'many worlds interpretation' to get us out of that conundrum? What wave function collapse?!

Insofar as "mind" is material-dependent — 180 Proof

So you're claming that mind is dependent on matter? (As always, reading between the emoticons and slurs is a challenge and possibly not even a worthwhile one.)

I've often wondered how the cat feels about all this. — Real Gone Cat

'Erwin! What did you do to the cat? It looks half-dead' ~ Ms Schrodinger.

I'm not a QM junkie, but didn't we end up with (amongst other things) the Everett interpretation or (thanks to DeWitt), the 'many worlds interpretation' to get us out of that conundrum? — Tom Storm

If Everett's is the solution, then what is the problem? (I've asked that question on The Physics Forum and never got a very good answer.)

I think there is a simple solution that I don't ever see mentioned : If it's measurement that collapses the wave (and not the presence of a mind), then as soon as the Geiger counter detects the decay of an atom (i.e., a measurement is made), the wave collapses and the kitty goes to that great litterbox in the sky.

If Everett's is the solution, then what is the problem? (I've asked that question on The Physics Forum and never got a very good answer.) — Wayfarer

Did no one say consciousness?

If Everett's is the solution, then what is the problem? (I've asked that question on The Physics Forum and never got a very good answer.)
— Wayfarer

Did no one say consciousness? — Tom Storm

I think the simplified version of that is that the relative state formulation avoids the wave-function collapse, which is extrinsic to the mathematical formulation of quantum physics but seems to play a central role. That is sometimes described as 'consciousness causing collapse' although I think that's also a pretty lame description. So in Everett, every possible outcome is realised on one or another 'world', thereby avoiding the hard-to-explain 'collapse', but at the cost of a seemingly infinite proliferation of sliding-doors universes.

Philip Ball has a long analysis taken from his recent book.

So you're claming that mind is dependent on matter? — Wayfarer

Yes, as classical atomists and methodological (scientific) materialists conceive of "mind".

Yes, as classical atomists and methodological (scientific) materialists conceive of "mind". — 180 Proof

Right. Well, that's what I'm taking issue with, so stop saying that I don't understand it, or I'm bashing straw men. I know perfectly well what materialism is, and I disagree with it.

I think there is a simple solution that I don't ever see mentioned : If it's measurement that collapses the wave (and not the presence of a mind), — Real Gone Cat

It takes a mind to make a measurement, as per the first excerpt in this post.