Sure, but it sometimes leads to nice postings... Straight from the hurt! — EugeneW

Ha. To be sure, conflict has its germs.

Thanks! Old Wet-gun-sign talked about a philosophy made of jokes, and I think word play can just maybe show wet cannot be sad. — lll

Sounds a new light shining light into some pretty serious darkness showing itself here sometimes. Keep it shining!

I very much appreciate the kind and encouraging words. Till necks time, friend.

Righdijo! Necks time!

IIRC, positivism says only empirical & formal statements are verifiable and therefore 'meaningful'; whereas scientism says only verifiable explanatory models (i.e. theories) constitute 'knowledge'. The latter may or may not consist of the former. In any case, both are self-refuting – positivism is not an empirical statement or formal expression and scientism is not verifiable – so neither floats my boat.

(NB: Broadly, I'm a pragmatist (re: meaning, inquiry-research & truth) and a naturalist (re: explanation, description, interpretation / evaluation) in the service of an absurdist (i.e. neither "idealist" nor "nihilist") project.)

It means the many worlds interpretation. — EugeneW

thanks!

Old Wet-gun-sign — lll

Ah! Wet-gun-sign! Only now I see! :wink:

Like Lack A. Toss told Fire A. Bent: Nut Anni Thing, ghost!

This is fun!

You guys are making a mess of OLP.

YEA!!!!

This confusing mix is made even more complicated by your idiosyncratic understanding of what metaphysics; or as you put it, meta-physics; is. Even I, who am sympathetic to discussions of the subject, find your approach difficult to defend. — T Clark

I understand your confusion. My Enformationism worldview is indeed idiosyncratic. It doesn't fit neatly into traditional philosophical niches of Physics or Metaphysics. Instead, it conceptually bridges the philosophical gap between scientific Materialism and religious Spiritualism.

The ubiquitous role of Information seems to be an emergent idea that is ahead of its time. That's partly due to the dominant-but-narrow definition of "Information" as presented by Shannon. But it's an idea being explored by a handful of scientists & philosophers on the cutting-edge of human understanding. Of course, I'm just a minor player in the emerging new paradigm of information-based reality. But everything I say on this forum is grounded in the notion that shape-shifting (causal & substantial) Information is the essence of both Matter and Mind.

You seem to find my "approach difficult to defend". How would you characterize that approach ? Does it seem confrontational, or adversarial? That's ironic, because all my life I've been a mild-mannered Caspar Milquetoast character, who kept his mouth shut when others were debating. But, now in my sunset years, I have gained more confidence in my own opinions; especially since I developed my own personal philosophical/scientific worldview. That mask of confidence might come across as aggressive or ego-centric. But, my Ukrainian defense is mostly a reflection of the aggressive attacks I get from those opposed to whatever-it-is they imagine I'm postulating. On a religious forum, I would expect a similar negative response.

Another weak aspect of my "approach" is that I have no formal training in Philosophical methods of argumentation. So my lack of sophisticated technique results in a crude seat-of-the-pants approach to the give & take of dialog. Consequently, I may seem like a bull-in-a-china-shop. But, my motivation is merely to advance an inclusive perspective that could eventually change the world's worldview toward a more moderate position, somewhere between the ideological poles that currently divide us. Yet, since moderation is often mistaken for weakness, a firm stand is necessary to avoid being blown-away by the Trolls on both sides. :cool:

idiosyncratic : distinctive. peculiar, quirky

Philosophical : relating or devoted to the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence.

I’m generally sympathetic to your motives, although I have to say, critical of your methods. — Wayfarer

You are not the only one critical of my methods. (see reply to TClark above). I seem to have inadvertently stumbled into a hornet's nest, getting stung from both sides of the Physical-vs-Meta divide. How would you characterize my methods, and what would you recommend to refine them? :smile:

PS___If nothing else comes from this thread, we will at least learn to avoid those posters with tender toes that get stepped-on by Metaphysical dancers. Ouch! :gasp:

Einstein's Fallacy of Non-Physical Yet Physical Space
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/321080710_Einstein%27s_Fallacy_of_Non-Physical_Yet_Physical_Space — Gnomon
Just filing this away. — ZzzoneiroCosm

The article is a scientific analysis of just one among many paradoxes that arose from Einstein's revolutionary classical-paradigm-challenging worldview. But my interest is more philosophical and focused on the emergent Information-centric understanding of reality. I may write a blog post on this topic when I get time. :smile:

PS___I don't consider Albert's redefinition of Space to be a "Fallacy". but merely an apparent Paradox. that is hard to reconcile with our inherited & intuitive worldviews.

I understand your confusion. — Gnomon

I didn't say your position is confusing, I said it is difficult to defend.

How would you characterize that approach ? Does it seem confrontational, or adversarial? — Gnomon

There is nothing wrong with the way you express your thoughts. You are generally civil and even-tempered. "Difficult to defend" just means I'm not convinced.

So my lack of sophisticated technique results in a crude seat-of-the-pants approach to the give & take of dialog. Consequently, I may seem like a bull-in-a-china-shop. — Gnomon

Again, no - we're all, or mostly all, amateurs here. I have no problems with the way you present your discussions. As I said, I'm just not convinced. I don't find focusing on information a useful approach, at least not the way you do it.

Yet, since moderation is often mistaken for weakness, a firm stand is necessary to avoid being blown-away by the Trolls on both sides. — Gnomon

I don't see a lot of trolling in the responses to your posts. Your ideas just get the typical dismissal that all mystical/spiritual ideas do here. People here can be arrogant jerks. Welcome to the forum.

I didn't say your position is confusing, I said it is difficult to defend. — T Clark

I understand that my BothAnd-ism worldview doesn't fit neatly into a traditional Scientism Either/Or pigeonhole, or even the traditional philosophical niches of Ethics, Epistemology and Metaphysics. Yet, I'm not so much trying to defend my "idiosyncratic" personal philosophy, as to defend a besieged moderate position in a polarized world. In this thread, the poles seem to be Physics vs Metaphysics. When I naively started posting on TPF, I assumed that Metaphysical topics would not be controversial. But I soon found that, in the binary worldview of anti-metaphysical "Trolls", Meta-Physics is interpreted as traitorous "anti-science".

Ironically, my unorthodox thesis originated from a seemingly paradoxical comment by a Quantum physicist, to the effect that : "on the quantum scale there's nothing but abstract Information". With that in mind, I studied Information & Systems theories, and concluded that mental Information is just as "physical" as immaterial Energy. By that I mean, it's not material -- there's no tangible substance to it -- but it has measurable effects on matter. So, in that sense, Information is the kind of Qualia that Aristotle discussed in his Metaphysics, and that Spinoza called the "universal substance" of the world.

Therefore, my middle-of-the-road position may be sympathetic with some mind-based Eastern philosophies (not religions), but it is still compatible with (post-Quantum) Western matter-based science. Unfortunately, from the polarized perspective of Scientism, "East is East and West is West", period. So, I'm fighting an uphill battle to change that binary & exclusive attitude. :smile:

Oh, East is East, and West is West, and never the twain shall meet,
Till Earth and Sky stand presently at God's great Judgment Seat;
But there is neither East nor West, Border, nor Breed, nor Birth,
When two strong men stand face to face, though they come from the ends of the earth!
___ Rudyard Kipling

Philosophers often use the term ‘qualia’ (singular ‘quale’) to refer to the introspectively accessible, phenomenal aspects of our mental lives. In this broad sense of the term, it is difficult to deny that there are qualia. Disagreement typically centers on which mental states have qualia, whether qualia are intrinsic qualities of their bearers, and how qualia relate to the physical world both inside and outside the head. The status of qualia is hotly debated in philosophy largely because it is central to a proper understanding of the nature of consciousness. Qualia are at the very heart of the mind-body problem.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qualia/

Information :
* Claude Shannon quantified Information not as useful ideas, but as a mathematical ratio between meaningful order (1) and meaningless disorder (0); between know-ledge (1) and ignorance (0). So, that meaningful mind-stuff exists in the limbo-land of statistics, producing effects on reality while having no sensory physical properties. We know it exists ideally, only by detecting its effects in the real world.
* For humans, Information has the semantic quality of aboutness , that we interpret as meaning. In computer science though, Information is treated as meaningless, which makes its mathematical value more certain. It becomes meaningful only when a sentient Self interprets it as such.
* When spelled with an “I”, Information is a noun, referring to data & things. When spelled with an “E”, Enformation is a verb, referring to energy and processes.
BothAnd Blog Glossary

BothAnd-ism :
An inclusive philosophical perspective that values both Subjective and Objective information; both Feelings and Facts; both Mysteries and Matters-of-fact; both Animal and Human nature.
* It’s a cosmo-centric view-point rather than an ego-centric, or tribal, or national, or creed-centered standpoint.

Yet, I'm not so much trying to defend my "idiosyncratic" personal philosophy, as to defend a besieged moderate position in a polarized world. — Gnomon

In the arguments you have provided, you are defending one particular position that you characterize as moderate. If I say that I don't find your argument convincing, that doesn't mean I reject the idea of moderation.

Therefore, my middle-of-the-road position may be sympathetic with some mind-based Eastern philosophies (not religions), but it is still compatible with (post-Quantum) Western matter-based science. Unfortunately, from the polarized perspective of Scientism, "East is East and West is West", period. So, I'm fighting an uphill battle to change that binary & exclusive attitude. — Gnomon

No, not really. You are fighting an uphill battle to defend one particular view. One that I, and some others on the forum, don't find convincing.

I don't consider metaphysics as "the mental aspects of the world," and I doubt Aristotle did. Admittedly, that opinion is based on what I've read others say Aristotle said, not on a personal reading. — T Clark

Google "aristotle metaphysics topics". Then ask yourself if "Categories"; "Being Qua Being"; Principles"; or "Substance & Essence" are physical things or meta-physical (mental) ideas about the world. I merely adopted "metaphysics" as an inclusive term for the non-physical aspects of the real world that we distinguish from Nature with the name "Culture". For nearly 14 billion years the world was totally physical. But when the human mind emerged from the muck, immaterial memes began to evolve in an artificial simulation of genetic evolution. Do you think that immaterial (imaginary) "mind-stuff" has had any significant impact on the "real" world? :smile:

PS___It's not just my unorthodox usage of the term "Metaphysics", that the adherents of Scientism object to, but anything referring to non-physical or emergent aspects of the world. I have tried "Non-Physical", "Menta-Physical", "MInd-stuff", :Memes", "Cultural", "Ideal", "Qualia", and various other alternatives. But they just don't see anything non-physical about Reality. For them, Ideas are merely neurological states. That's like saying the Function of an automobile is a steel structure. They also interpret all immaterial or non-physical notions as spooky "super-natural" beliefs, even though I try to avoid that baggage-laden term. Anyway, if you can suggest another way to talk about the perennial Mind/Body and Brain/Mind questions, please let me know. :meh:

:up:
:up:

How would you characterize my methods, and what would you recommend to refine them? :smile: — Gnomon

On the plus side, I note that you're making an effort to relate your idea of metaphysics to Aristotle's. Also on the plus side, you go to a lot of trouble to try and included definitions, references, glossary entries and links. You try and define your terms. And I think you're a good sport, considering how much flak you get. I spent a little while perusing your blog, I can see you've put in a lot of thought and work. So I think overall your approach is commendable in many ways - I've warmed to it over time.

I've explained some of my criticisms in previous posts - that yours is rather a pop-philosophical approach to a set of pretty thorny and difficult topics - particularly the key concept of 'enformationism'.
But on the other hand, since you started these last two topics, I'm more in agreement than disagreement overall. The only thing I would caution you is - get some other interests as well. This kind of quest can become all-consuming. (I speak from experience. :roll: )

I think also, maybe, we have to learn to let it go sometimes - I think your criticisms of 'scientism' are generally warranted but it is deeply embedded in today's culture, but sometimes we have to resist the urge to try and explain that to everyone, all the time. (Again, speaking from experience.)

Like Lack A. Toss told Fire A. Bent: Nut Anni Thing, ghost! — EugeneW

Yes, slur. Lag a toe shed to fire ah bend knot over thong goose.

This is fun! — EugeneW

Agreed.

But they just don't see anything non-physical about Reality. For them, Ideas are merely neurological states. That's like saying the Function of an automobile is a steel structure. — Gnomon

But where are such rascals hiding ? Will anyone here defend that claim? It's so loopy to see nothing 'non-physical' in reality that misunderstanding is far more likely than your straw man with a vacuum tube for as hole.

But, now in my sunset years, I have gained more confidence in my own opinions; especially since I developed my own personal philosophical/scientific worldview. That mask of confidence might come across as aggressive or ego-centric. But, my Ukrainian defense is mostly a reflection of the aggressive attacks I get from those opposed to whatever-it-is they imagine I'm postulating. On a religious forum, I would expect a similar negative response. — Gnomon

You might come off as ego-centric, but what ambitiously creative philosopher is not? You might come off as accidentally aggressive by harping on the Scientism scarecrow. Just because a person uses a term like 'woo woo' (which is a symmetrically pejorative mirror-image of 'scientism') doesn't mean that they aren't another 'moderate' who nevertheless finds fault with your brew. It's as if you view the 'motherphysical' spectrum as a unidimensional continuum, with yourself at the proper origin, golden and harmonized, misunderstood on both sides for pitiably partial minds, irrationally allergic to either science or religion.

But what if this vision of the situation is itself a 'superstition' or self-flatteringly oversimplified map of the territory? Is it possible to be criticized not from the liquid left or rigid right but from another dimension entirely (for instance, along a semantic vector?)

You guys are making a mess of OLP. — Mww

Who was that fool officer who goddess chews dunk in the mud ? Or was it a bottle-bested beetle ?
Shall we tank away his budge? (We did muck a mash of thinks.)

Information just means in formation. A volume of space may contain a Bekenstein entropy, but this number doesn't show how the matter inside it is in form. Black holes are not bold with three hairs only. There is more than just mass, angular momentum and charge. A black hole made of peanuts is different from a strawberry hole.

Likewise for our brain. Our brain can resonate with all physical structures in the world. It doesn't compute on zeroes and ones like a computer does. A constellation of ones and zeroes in a computer is not comparable to constellations of ion currents on the neural network. A constellation of zeroes and ones in a computer refers to other structures. It's us assigning meaning to these patterns. A random sequence of zeroes and ones on a memory chip weighs a tiny weeny bit less than an ordered sequence of them. The random structure can be compared to a hot gass, while the most ordered state (say all ones, or 101010...) can be compared to a zero temperature solid. The interesting combinations, containing intermediate information and mass, lay between these extremes. But they can only get meaning if we assign it to them. Contrary to patterns of currents running on the brain, which have intrinsic meaning. That's an important difference with computers, together with the difference how currents flow. In a computer this happens by externally applying a voltage, while the current pulses in the brain run rather autonomously, following paths of least resistance (a pulse will easier run on a neuron path with strengthened synaptic connections). In the brain, there is no program pushing the pulses around.

What am I saying? I say that the physical and metaphysical are mutually dependent.

Just because a person uses a term like 'woo woo' (which is a symmetrically pejorative mirror-image of 'scientism') doesn't mean that they aren't another 'moderate' who nevertheless finds fault with your brew. — lll

:up:

I say that the physical and metaphysical are mutually dependent. — EugeneW

Perhaps, but I don't think so. I find it more parsimonious and persuasive to hold that (for me, at least) 'metaphysics' consists in the speculative negation, or elimination, of non-physical (e.g. super-natural) predicates from the concept (and epistemic interpretations) of the physical (i.e. nature). A negative ontology – generalization of/from old-time negative theology – which by implication culminates in (modal) actualism and something like (N. Goodman's epistemic) irrealism; or, in other words, speculatively using (aspects of) the territory for conceptual mapmaking of the territory wherein the physical functions as an independent variable..

you go to a lot of trouble to try and included definitions, references, glossary entries and links. You try and define your terms. — Wayfarer

Yes, I agree this is a good thing about @Gnomon's posts. I should have mentioned it.

But they just don't see anything non-physical about Reality. For them, Ideas are merely neurological states. That's like saying the Function of an automobile is a steel structure.
— Gnomon

But where are such rascals hiding ? Will anyone here defend that claim? It's so loopy to see nothing 'non-physical' in reality that misunderstanding is far more likely than your straw man with a vacuum tube for as hole. — lll

There are many here who will defend the claim that ideas are merely neurological states.

There are many here who will defend the claim that ideas are merely neurological states. — T Clark

That's just an idea, another neurological process running around. Their definition of an idea seems to harbor envy for people with real ideas. It's like the memes of Dawkins. He made them selfish and in control of human behavior because he has no better memes himself. To come up with a meme about memes is a very sneaky and sleazy procedure. Same for ideas.

I think also, maybe, we have to learn to let it go sometimes - I think your criticisms of 'scientism' are generally warranted but it is deeply embedded in today's culture, but sometimes we have to resist the urge to try and explain that to everyone, all the time. (Again, speaking from experience.) — Wayfarer

I am by nature a passive person. But as I get older, I get ornerier. I used to let the opposition push me around. But now I am more likely to fight back, not with volume, but with persistence. That's primarily because I believe the universal role of Information in the world, is the future of both Science and Philosophy.

The anti-metaphysicalists tend to argue their position by simply insisting on the final authority of reductive materialistic science, and by shouting-down the holistic non-physical "idiots". I don't have any problem with empirical Science on legitimate physical topics. But I think non-empirical Philosophy is the better way to discuss, not necessarily prove, questions about intangibles, such as the never-ending Origin-of-Life & Body/Mind controversies.

Yes, Enformationism is my retirement hobby. And it is my personal position on almost all philosophical questions. So, I join a handful of leading-edge scientists & philosophers in trying to promote a new paradigm of Science. It's a novel approach to the "hard problem" of Consciousness, which addresses the question of how dumb Matter can produce Mind. In a previous paradigm shift, Information theory & Quantum mechanics both forced-open new doors to our comprehension on Reality. And both have revealed paradoxes underneath our classical and intuitive understanding of the world, that were grudgingly accepted, despite their absurdity. Enformationism is not about Information Technology, but about non-physical Philosophy, the science of Ideas.

Although Quantum Theory is counter-intuitive, its success in controlling Nature has forced us to admit that small-scale physics is weird. And Information Theory has been proven to be effective in opening new channels for communication of ideas. Ironically, its success in Artificial Intelligence, has obscured it's role in Natural Intelligence and in Ideas per se. So, those of us who do grok the universal applications of essential (and causal) Information, are facing a general lack of comprehension, and resistance from the dug-in old guard. Undaunted, we soldier on, as the proponents of a new paradigm must do, in order to advance both Science and Philosophy. :nerd:

New Paradigm :
1. A new way of thinking or doing things that replaces the old way.
2. A set of beliefs that replaces another set which is believed no longer to apply
3. A new logical framework for understanding a situation
4. Science has a paradigm which remains constant before going through a paradigm shift when current theories can’t explain some phenomenon [e.g. consciousness], and someone proposes a new theory [i.e. universal causal information].

Information and Causality :
Recent advances suggest that the concept of information might hold the key to unravelling the mystery of life's nature and origin. Fresh insights from a broad and authoritative range of articulate and respected experts focus on the transition from matter to life, and hence reconcile the deep conceptual schism between the way we describe physical and biological systems. A unique cross-disciplinary perspective, drawing on expertise from philosophy, biology, chemistry, physics, and cognitive and social sciences, provides a new way to look at the deepest questions of our existence. This book addresses the role of information in life, and how it can make a difference to what we know about the world. __Paul Davies, physicist, et al.
https://www.amazon.com/Matter-Life-Information-Causality/dp/1107150531

What am I saying? I say that the physical and metaphysical are mutually dependent. — EugeneW

Agreed. :smile:

All things in formation in the physical world have a potential counterpart in our brain. The brain is a micro version of the macroscopic universe, actively shaping the appearance of that wonderful universe, created by the Logos, be it intelligently thoughtfully spoken or uttered in an accidental, divine curse.

:clap: