The system with the metabolism. Don't pretend this is some tricky mystery. — apokrisis

So you would agree, then, that the appearance of organisms is also the appearance of intentionality and agency?

Consciousness is not a noun but a verb. And if I say I am conscious, it is of something. What I really mean is that I can attend and report. I can introspect in the socially approved fashion of turning my neurobiology of attention onto even things that I wouldn't naturally waste time noticing – like the "redness" of red – and speak about it in a narrative fashion as something that "I" have "experienced".

So to be able to look inwards and report is a skill we learn that boils down to being socially trained to use language to direct our attention to all the "phenomenology" that our brain is instead evolved just to "look past". The brain is busy trying to assimilate the world to its running predictive models. Society sets itself up as a higher level self in our heads and demands a full account of all our thoughts and feelings so that we can become "self-regulating" beings – aware of ourselves as actors within larger sociocultural contexts.

Consciousness is treated as a big deal in modern culture because it really matters to society that it can sit inside our heads and make sure we run all our decisions through its larger filter. We must notice the details and be ready to report them. — apokrisis

:up:

There's also the challenge of inventing a fascinating personality, becoming a success in a creative field : the personality as product. Strong poet, original philosopher, revolutionary scientist, etc. Revolutionize the means of production and seduction, to burn always brighter and hotter. To conform is to violate the norm in just the right way.

Hence, is consciousness actual rather than illusory, fictional, etc.? — javra

This is monism. This is reductionism. So how I think of things – how Peirce thought of things, how systems science thinks of things – just doesn't share your ontological commitments. You are trying to jam square pegs into round holes. — apokrisis

My lack of effort, you say. Alright then. Baby steps.

Here's a proposition: "I am conscious of this text." In your worldview, does this proposition have a truth-value?

So you would agree, then, that the appearance of organisms is also the appearance of intentionality and agency? — Wayfarer

Sure. That’s what semiosis explains. The feeling of being a self in its world by being a prediction machine with its collection of interpretive habits.

Seems to me you, or the author you're discussing, is trying a bit of flashy rhetorical footwork by misrepresenting the ideas of people you disagree with. — T Clark

You seem to be a level-headed fellow. So, I was concerned that you interpreted my brief sketches of three competing worldviews as "mis-representing" the ideas of those who hold such views. It was not intended as a put-down, but as a way to distinguish the philosophically pertinent differences between them. If you are willing, I'd like to hear your own compare & contrast between monistic Materialism and monistic Panpsychism. For example, here's what I said in the post above :

"Apparently, monistic Materialism solves the origin problem by denying that it is a problem : consciousness is not real, but ideal : a figment of imagination, so it literally does not matter. Dualism just accepts that we tend to think of Mind & Matter as two completely different things, and never the twain shall meet : hyle + morph = real matter + ideal form. Monistic Panpsychism assumes that Matter is an illusion generated by the inherent mental processes of nature (a priori Cosmic Consciousness), hence matter does not matter."

You admitted to being a Materialist, depending on circumstances ; and I admitted to being a Materialist, for all practical purposes. But I suspect that you assumed I was prejudiced in favor of spooky Panexperientialism. So, I confessed that I am not a panpsychist in any formal sense. And I don't believe that grains of sand are conscious. Besides, I have never been a hippie or Hindu, and I don't personally know anyone who admits openly to being a Panpsychist, except for a few scientists & philosophers whose books I have read. Yet, ancient Cosmic Mind theories do seem to be prescient of modern non-mechanical post-classical physics.

To clarify where I'm coming from, I'll note that I have been steered away from conventional Materialism by the elementary physics of 20th century Quantum Theory. The QT pioneers were shocked to discover that the fundamental indivisible Atom they were seeking seemed to fracture into a menagerie of sub-atomic particles. Eventually, even the evanescent sub-sub-particles (e.g. Quarks) soon dissolved into nothing more substantial than uncertain statistical equations*1. So, the mathematical physicists began to describe their new Reality in terms of a Quantum Field of "virtual particles", that only become real when observed by experimenters*2. That's not magic, it's physics.

Any effect of the observer's mind upon material reality was, of course, quite controversial for those steeped in classical mechanical physics. But, after a century of debate, the flame-wars have calmed-down. So, QFT now seems to be almost mainstream*3. Today, some quantum physicists and mathematicians (noted in post above) openly admit to some form of Panpsychism worldview. However, my personal view has little to do with that ancient Cosmic Mind concept. Instead, it's a combination of Quantum & Information theories, as advocated by physicist Paul Davies, and the Santa Fe Institute for the study of complexity, for example.

I just started reading a book, by mathematical physicist Charles Pinter. And the subtitle says : "How the Mind creates the features & structure of all things, and why this Insight transforms Physics". It mentions Quantum Bayesianism*4, which I was only vaguely familiar with. Perhaps, a glance at the excerpt below will give you an idea of the 21st century notion that Mind is fundamental to reality, not an incidental side-effect of random evolution. I mention all of this abstruse & esoteric stuff, just to let you know that I'm not an anti-science nut-case spouting hippie non-sense. :smile:


*1. A quark is a type of elementary particle and a fundamental constituent of matter. Quarks ... which means they are fermions according to the spin–statistics theorem.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quark

*2. The observer effect is the fact that observing a situation or phenomenon necessarily changes it. Observer effects are especially prominent in physics where observation and uncertainty are fundamental aspects of modern quantum mechanics.
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8423983

*3. Quantum field theory,a framework for explaining how subatomic particles behave, ... Mathematician Seeks to Bring Quantum Field Theory into Mainstream Math
https://bfl.cns.utexas.edu › news › mathematician-seeks-t...

*4. Quantum Bayesianism :
In physics and the philosophy of physics, quantum Bayesianism is a collection of related approaches to the interpretation of quantum mechanics, of which the most prominent is QBism (pronounced "cubism"). QBism is an interpretation that takes an agent's actions and experiences as the central concerns of the theory. QBism deals with common questions in the interpretation of quantum theory about the nature of wavefunction superposition, quantum measurement, and entanglement. According to QBism, many, but not all, aspects of the quantum formalism are subjective in nature. For example, in this interpretation, a quantum state is not an element of reality—instead it represents the degrees of belief an agent has about the possible outcomes of measurements. For this reason, some philosophers of science have deemed QBism a form of anti-realism. The originators of the interpretation disagree with this characterization, proposing instead that the theory more properly aligns with a kind of realism they call "participatory realism", wherein reality consists of more than can be captured by any putative third-person account of it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_Bayesianism
Note --- QBism expands upon the notion of "participatory realism", that quantum physicist John A. Wheeler postulated back in the '60s. From the perspective of Materialism, it may sound like anti-realism.

The feeling of being a self in its world by being a prediction machine with its collection of interpretive habits. — apokrisis

How is that feeling generated from non-feeling matter? Why is there a feeling at all? Why is there a feeling associated with some brain processes but not others? Doesn't the regulation of hormones and digestion, to give two examples, involve prediction and habituation? Could that feeling be generated in machines? How would you test whether an alien species has this feeling?

Today, some quantum physicists and mathematicians (noted in post above) openly admit to some form of Panpsychism worldview. — Gnomon

Quantum Bayesian is really out there. Consciousness is all the rage these days.

This goes out to those who are not irreducibly fixated on the unquestionable reality of their own particular worldview, whatever it might be (if any).

"Apparently, monistic Materialism solves the origin problem by denying that it is a problem : consciousness is not real, but ideal : a figment of imagination, so it literally does not matter. Dualism just accepts that we tend to think of Mind & Matter as two completely different things, and never the twain shall meet : hyle + morph = real matter + ideal form. Monistic Panpsychism assumes that Matter is an illusion generated by the inherent mental processes of nature (a priori Cosmic Consciousness), hence matter does not matter." — Gnomon

While I wouldn't say that physicality doesn't matter, I'm in general agreement with the given description of panpsychism. Nevertheless:

So conceived it seems to me that a world of so called “monistic panpsychism” would yet necessarily consist of an ontological duality: namely, between 1) awareness (with any kind of ur-awareness which might apply to non-life included) and 2) everything that is not awareness (which, as such, thereby informs, and thereby gives form to, awareness). Here, then, all aspects of mind and body that awareness can be in any way aware of would ultimately consist of the same basic stuff - with mind and matter being only a property dualism of this substance (rather than being two ontological substances). And, in conformity with the boldfaced and underlined parts of the quote, this underlying stuff/substance which is “everything that is not awareness” would itself ultimately be the product of awareness when globally addressed - this then likely in a multiplicity of different ontological manners.

Then: Properly speaking, would you interpret panpsychism thus understood to be an ontological monism or an ontological, non-Cartesian dualism?

QBism expands upon the notion of "participatory realism", that quantum physicist John A. Wheeler postulated back in the '60s. From the perspective of Materialism, it may sound like anti-realism. — Gnomon

The less woo understanding of this Bayesianism is that the human measurer can construct the mechanical constraints on a prepared quantum system so as to decohere it to the degree it answers to a classical counterfactual description.

This is biosemiotic. The basis of biology itself is the ability of cellular machinery to decohere the quantum nanoscale realm of chemistry to ratchet the available energies in the desired metabolic fashion.

An enzyme mechanically grips and forces two reactants into the exact conjunction that gives them no choice but to bond. A respiratory chain gives a hot electron no choice but to quantum tunnel down its mechanically structured pathway.

In effect, this biological machinery is making quantum measurements. The fixed shaped of proteins assembled by genetic information prepares the world in a way that quantum wave functions are left with “no choice” but to collapse in the counterfactual fashion that the biological machinery is insisting on.

So ontologically, the physics of the world can always be “quantum”. You don’t need actual collapse. You just need systems of constraint that limit the possibilities to the degree that the state of a mechanical switch is “almost surely” flipped. On the side of the physics, it is still a probabilistic world. But encounters with the mechanical structures built with genetic information can make those probabilities asymptotically close to 1.

Humans in labs are simply doing the same trick at a much larger energy scale. Biology lives right on the quasi classical border of the quantum realm, milking its potential for tunneling, superposition and other holistic actions. Labs use special gear to create states of coherence over metres that can they be decohered by mechanical structures which enforce measurements that then fit their models of quantum physics.

So the key here is to realise that the physics takes place in a decohering environment. There is no “collapse of a wavefunction” needed. But you get the effective collapse because environments certaintly reduce the uncertainty of quantum probabilities in a historical fashion. The holism of contextuality means the Universe does develop classical looking structure in terms of its statistics.

And then life and mind can apply mechanical logic - the counterfactuality of informational structure - to impose its schemes on the physical world. Genes code for biological molecules which can “make measurements” and entrain chemistry at the nanoscale to an organised metabolic network. Human scientists can likewise create informational theories that are a recipe for the electronic devices which can likewise entrain the quantum realm to a technological level of metabolism - the sapiens-feeding metabolism of the modern global economic system organised by its micro-electronics and informstion flows.

Then: Properly speaking, would you interpret panpsychism thus understood to be an ontological monism or an ontological, non-Cartesian dualism? — javra

Depends on how you look at it. :joke:

Empirical science ignored the mental aspects of reality for centuries, because it was associated with Souls, Spirits, and Ghosts. But now, quantum scientists are forced to deal with the effects of observation on the foundations of reality. I'm not aware of any results of that new insight that could be called "practical magic".

Except, of course, for the ability to transform immaterial information into physical matter & energy*1. But the science of "virtual reality" certainly gives philosophers something to think about. Quantum Bayesianism is one way of looking at how personal beliefs & expectations can affect the models of Reality that we construct. For theoretical philosophy though, I see many possibilities for making sense of a non-classical non-mechanical world, where ideas are either a dime a dozen, or the substance of human culture.

For me, the Statistical Holism of quantum entanglement is not a sign of divine perversion (e.g. trickster god). But it does put ancient holistic models into a new light. Seems like it could be interpreted as Ontological Monism. But from another angle, we've intuited for millennia that reality is a mind/body Substance Dualism of some sort. Personally, I have interpreted this New Science in terms of Quantum & Information theories : evolutionary EnFormAction*2 and ontological Enformationism*3. :smile:



1. Elemental Information Hypothesis :
Several philosophers and scientists have concluded from implications of Quantum Theory, Information Theory, and Computer Simulations that mathematical-mental Information is the elemental substance of reality underlying the Space-Time-Matter-Energy we observe on the macro level of human perception and in classical physics.
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/article/is-information-fundamental/
https://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page23.html
Note -- "Physicists in Japan have shown experimentally that a particle can be made to do work simply by receiving information, rather than energy".
https://physicsworld.com/a/information-converted-to-energy/

*2. The EnFormAction Hypothesis :
EnFormAction theory takes a leap of imagination, to envision a more holistic interpretation of the evidence, both empirical and philosophical. Contrary to the Neo-Darwinian theory of Evolution, EFA implies a distinct direction for causation, toward the top rung in the hierarchy of Emergence, as denoted by the arrow of Time. Pure Randomness would just go around in circles. But selection (Entention) works like the ratchet in a clock-work to hold the latest cycle at a useful, and ultimately meaningful, stable state : a Phase Transition, or a step on the ladder of Being. Darwinian Evolution is going nowhere, but EnFormAction is going out-there.
https://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page23.html

*3. What is Information? :
The Enformationism thesis and the BothAnd Blog are based on a multi-level understanding of the phenomenon known as “Information”. Unfortunately, most people have only a vague or general concept of what the term means scientifically and philosophically. So, in answer to a request for a general definition, as it “pertains to inorganic (physical), organic (biological), and semantic types of information”, I have defined “Information” in the context of various real-world instances of ubiquitous enforming power.
https://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page16.html

Depends on how you look at it. :joke: — Gnomon

That's as good an answer as I'll probably get in regard to my question. :grin: Thanks for it.

Empirical science ignored the mental aspects of reality for centuries, because it was associated with Souls, Spirits, and Ghosts. — Gnomon

I myself think of this as "Empirical science ignored the mental aspects of reality for centuries, because it was associated with Psyche (as in "psychology" - the study of psyche)". But yea, your assessment seems to be about right.

I'd like to hear your own compare & contrast between monistic Materialism and monistic Panpsychism. — Gnomon

I don't really know much about panpsychism, so I won't comment on it. When I talk about materialism, I mean pretty much the standard meaning - the universe is made up of matter and energy interacting in space and time. That manifests in living organisms with nervous systems as neurological processes which manifest as mental processes which manifest as behavior. Mental processes in humans include thoughts, feelings, memories, perception, experience, consciousness, and other similar processes. They also include unconscious processes such as autonomic responses, reflexes, maintenance of physical homeostasis, and many other processes. Together those processes make up the mind. Is it real? Yes. Is it physical - good question. What kind of a thing is it? I'm not sure, but I do believe it is a manifestation of physical, biological, neurological processes.

[...] Together those processes make up the mind. Is it real? Yes. Is it physical - good question. What kind of a thing is it? I'm not sure, but I do believe it is a manifestation of physical, biological, neurological processes. — T Clark

Shoot. Going by that definition, I could qualify as a materialist myself. :wink: No bones to pick. Cool definition. :up:

This goes out to those who are not irreducibly fixated on the unquestionable reality of their own particular worldview, whatever it might be (if any). — javra

Coincidentally, I just came across a YouTube video, by Sabine Hossenfelder, on the topic of "why the universe is not locally real". After a quick Google, I found that it's a hot topic right now, because of the recent Nobel winners. Quantum physics should give those who are "irreducibly fixated" pause to question their assumptions about their own local Reality. To quote an old TV ad : "Is it real, or is it Memorex?" :smile:

Why No Portals?
Universe is not locally real
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpkgPJo_z6Y

The Universe Is Not Locally Real, and the Physics Nobel Prize Winners Proved It
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-universe-is-not-locally-real-and-the-physics-nobel-prize-winners-proved-it/

The less woo understanding of this Bayesianism is that the human measurer can construct the mechanical constraints on a prepared quantum system so as to decohere it to the degree it answers to a classical counterfactual description. — apokrisis

The quoted sentence above, sounds pretty technical (abstruse). Can you deconstruct it for someone not familiar with Biosemiotic jargon? Does it deny that the observer of a quantum experiment can influence, but not control, its outcome? Is Biosemiotics derived from a metaphysical Materialism worldview? Hence, avoiding the "woo" label, signifying non-sense? Do you think that Wheeler meant to imply a mind-over-matter form of magic?

Are you implying that Wheeler's Participatory Realism is more woo than Biosemiotics? Does PR sound like "anti-realism" to you? What does Biosemiosis mean for a human "construct" like Participatory Realism? The meaning of that phrase is simple enough : biological humans play a role in the construction of their own personal mental model of reality. And Bayesianism is about private subjective first-person beliefs (models), not about ding an sich reality. Third-person objective models of reality (science facts) are based on a consensus drawn from among various first person models (opinions). But it's still a mental map, not the physical terrain. :smile:


On Participatory Realism :
These views have lately been termed "participatory realism" to emphasize that rather than relinquishing the idea of reality (as they are often accused of), they are saying that reality is more than any third-person perspective can capture. Thus, far from instances of instrumentalism or antirealism, these views of quantum theory should be regarded as attempts to make a deep statement about the nature of reality. This paper explicates the idea for the case of QBism. As well, it highlights the influence of John Wheeler's "law without law" on QBism's formulation.
https://arxiv.org/abs/1601.04360

Instrumentalism is thus the view that scientific theories should be thought of primarily as tools for solving practical problems rather than as meaningful descriptions of the natural world.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/instrumentalism

Anti-Realism : in philosophy, a belief that is opposed to realism (= the belief that objects continue to exist even when no one is there to see them):
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/anti-realism

Coincidentally, I just came across a YouTube video, by Sabine Hossenfelder, on the topic of "why the universe is not locally real". [...] To quote an old TV ad : "Is it real, or is it Memorex?" :smile: — Gnomon

Just saw the video. Very interesting. Still, first off, I’m no expert in the intricacies of modern physics and, secondly, all modern physics is chockfull of inference (the speaker’s reference to multiple worlds theory’s possible disagreements with some of the premises as one example). So, I’ll let others engage in the heavy-duty physics interpretations of these latest findings.

For what its worth, though, in terms of non-locality and all the other weird aspects of quantum physics:

We often assume that we conscious humans are the be-all and end-all of awareness – this as (mind-endowed) observers. Bring back the facts of biology into this equation and we multicellular organisms are constituted of individual living cells – from individual skin cells to individual neuron cells. Grant that each of these individual cells is endowed with its own primitive mind (as per, for example, the enactivist stance of Evan Thompson in his book "Mind in Life") – needless to add, cells to which the multicellular organisms in which they occur serves as their commonwealth upon which each such cell is dependent and whose preservation each such cell operates to maintain – and you obtain the following biocentric like perspective:

Each one of these primitive mind endowed (and, hence, awareness endowed) cells is constituted of organic molecules – some of which which have been empirically evidenced to exhibit at least some QM properties. *** The cell itself, however, does not exhibit QM properties. Skipping a good deal of rational inference, for each cell to properly function so as to live requires that each cell of itself settles all the QM weirdness (which, again, can apply to various organic molecules and, needless to add, their components) in a way that at the very least ends up resembling our locally real world.

We are constituted of these cells. Those that pertain to our CNS then constitute our own mind and give form to our own conscious awareness.

Going by the aforementioned, then, our own empirically known world will then necessarily be locally real.

I know, the just expressed is in certain respects speculative – or at least will appear so to those who might disagree with some of the premises expressed, such that an individual cell holds its own primitive mind, one that thereby also observes its environment (think, for a blatant example, of an ameba that recognizes and must readily distinguish predator from pray). All the same, this perspective so far works for me as a way of making sense of how QM applies to our empirically known reality.

At any rate, nice video / info!

----
*** for example:

https://www.technologyreview.com/2019/11/09/238365/a-natural-biomolecule-has-been-measured-acting-in-a-quantum-wave-for-the-first-time/

https://phys.org/news/2020-07-diffract-molecules.html

------

Edit: As a quick addendum to the proposed perspective: I take this to be readily evident but it might not be so to others: our immediate environment is always thoroughly infused with cellular life, be it diploid (e.g., eukaryotes such as ameba) of haploid (e.g. bacteria on solid surfaces and pollen in the air) – all of which would, in the previously given perspective, of itself settle quantum weirdness so as to successfully persist as an individual cell … one that interacts with its environment, including with other (locally real) cells. So, in this interpretation, we always dwell in a non-QM empirical world - this if one’s own body’s makeup were to not be enough (though I currently think it is). Our empirical awareness of QM's validity only comes into play when we focus - not on life, but - life's (as well as non-life's) material components.

You questions were incoherent.

Together those processes make up the mind. Is it real? Yes. Is it physical - good question. What kind of a thing is it? I'm not sure, but I do believe it is a manifestation of physical, biological, neurological processes. — T Clark

I didn't think you were an expert on the philosophy of monistic Panpsychism; neither am I. But you seem to have a negative opinion of it. Others on this forum openly label such immaterial notions as "woo". It is obviously contrary to the fundamental axiom*1 of monistic Materialism. And it may seem contradict another basic assumption of Naturalism : "nothing supernatural"*2. Both of those positions are presumptions, not conclusions from the empirical scientific method.

Ironically, some supporters of the Ppsyche idea are professional scientists (see my post above). Yet they will admit it's not an objective empirical observation, but a merely philosophical conjecture*3 from personal experience with the immaterial (i.e. mathematical) non-classical non-mechanical sub-atomic nature of the foundations of Reality. So, that raises the question : Is the Universal Mind Conjecture a plausible/tenable/rational philosophical (not scientific) inference/hunch/hypothesis (e.g. from quantum evidence) to explain the emergence of mental phenomena late in the evolution of material phenomena. If so, why or why not? I have an ulterior, but not nefarious, motive for soliciting your unbiased opinion.

My understanding of the traditional & modern Universal Mind theories is also superficial. As they used to say, "all I know is what I read in the papers"(e.g. Wiki). I'm not a member of any group of believers. But, as I understand it, the Cosmic Mind concept assumes that the quality of Consciousness (summarized as Mind) is prior to quantitative Matter. Hence, the material objects we know via the 5 senses, are manifestations of some loosely-defined mind-like power inherent in the universe. Some may think of that universal power as an eternal consciousness (e.g. Brahma). But others may be content to think of it as simply an impersonal primordial Principle of some kind : Logos. All cosmic conjectures are, of course, non-empirical, hence objectively unprovable.

Are you familiar with 21st century Information Theory? My own Information-centric view is similar to Ppsyche in some ways, except that the ultimate Principle (EnFormAction/Directed Energy) is not defined as a conscious Mind, but more like an evolutionary computer program. It's also limited to our best understanding of foundational sub-atomic Physics, plus observed evidence of astronomical evolution, and interpreted in terms of Information Theory. No reference to traditional or biblical or shamanic sources.

So, Enformationism is intended to be more specific in its definitions, and attempts to adhere more closely to current scientific knowledge. It also avoids putting words in the mouth of the Unknown God/Principle (e.g. thou shalt/shalt not). Instead, the "book of nature" (e.g. Laws of Physics) is the only Word (Logos) of the hypothetical Programmer. I know, it's a bit much to grok. But, does that kind of conjecture sound any more plausible/tenable, to you, than traditional Panpsychism? Yes, no, maybe? :smile:

*1. Is materialism an axiom or a metaphysical belief?
On this understanding, materialism is a metaphysical belief. It is unclear, however, whether we can consider it an axiom
https://www.quora.com/Is-materialism-an-axiom-or-a-metaphysical-belief

*2. Naturalism Is Not an Axiom of the Sciences but a Conclusion of Them :
the sciences have de facto conceded ontological naturalism: supernaturalist belief systems simply aren’t tenable anymore
https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/16193

*3. Philosophical Conjecture :
In scientific philosophy, Karl Popper pioneered the use of the term "conjecture" to indicate a statement which is presumed to be real, true, or genuine, mostly based on inconclusive grounds, in contrast with a hypothesis (hence theory, axiom, principle), which is a testable statement based on accepted grounds.
https://psychology.fandom.com/wiki/Conjecture

↪Gnomon
You questions were incoherent:smile: . — apokrisis

Apo, I could say the same about the quote from your post. But I didn't want to be crass. :joke:

I was simply asking for clarification of unfamiliar jargon and technical idioms. Is that so hard? :smile:

I was simply asking for clarification of unfamiliar jargon and technical idioms — Gnomon

You cut and paste all this stuff you don’t understand. That is why you can’t follow an informed discussion about it.

What kind of a thing is it [mind]? I'm not sure.... — T Clark

What I said :-)

What kind of a thing is it [mind]? I'm not sure....
— T Clark

What I said :-) — Wayfarer

I read the post you linked. It doesn't really say anything about what the mind is, only what it isn't.

The whole blind spot argument doesn't make sense to me. I can certainly see my mind from the inside, but I can also see it from the outside. I can also see other's minds from the outside. I don't see any big mystery.

Both of those positions are presumptions, not conclusions from the empirical scientific method. — Gnomon

Agreed. They are what R.G. Collingwood called "absolute presuppositions."

All cosmic conjectures are, of course, non-empirical, hence objectively unprovable. — Gnomon

If that's true, they are metaphysics - ways of looking at the world. The question to ask is whether or not they are useful ways.

I don't see any big mystery. — T Clark

Well, philosophers do say that 'wisdom begins in wonder'.

I can also see other's minds from the outside. — T Clark

Well, you can see their behaviors. Their inner experiences (or lack thereof) are out of reach. Do other people see red the way I see green? Who knows.

You cut and paste all this stuff you don’t understand. That is why you can’t follow an informed discussion about it. — apokrisis

Sorry to have bothered you with dumb questions about an esoteric topic. I guess Biosemiotics is not for the uninformed general public. Are you reserving that secret information for only the cognoscenti? :joke:

Well, you can see their behaviors. Their inner experiences (or lack thereof) are out of reach. Do other people see red the way I see green? Who knows. — RogueAI

It's true. From the outside, the mind manifests in behavior. That behavior includes self-reporting, which I think gives valuable insights about other people's inner lives. Who cares if other people see red the way I see green. That doesn't mean anything.

Each one of these primitive mind endowed (and, hence, awareness endowed) cells is constituted of organic molecules – some of which which have been empirically evidenced to exhibit at least some QM properties. — javra

You seem to be more familiar with Biology than with Quantum Physics*1. If so, you may be able to enlighten me about Biosemiotics (BS). Which has been proposed as an alternative to Panpsychism (PP) as a mechanism for the emergence of Mind from Matter. doesn't seem to be willing to engage with an infidel (unbeliever in Materialism) to explain some of the technical jargon he uses in his posts. My interest in BS is simply that the semiotic (symbolic) aspects of the BS theory may be related to the Information Theory that I am better aquainted with. But some of the language sounds like Postmodern linguistic analysis*2 that is opaque to my simple mind. Does BS tell us anything new & important about Biology in general, or about the symbol manipulating Mind?

Although It's clear to me that the Potential for Mental Phenomena (sensation ; psychology ; awareness ; knowledge, etc) must have been inherent in Nature from the beginning, my understanding of Information Theory tells me that the "primitive mind" wouldn't necessarily be Conscious or Aware. Instead, it could have begun as nothing more sophisticated than exchanges of Energy, which are meaningless abstract interrelationships. Yet the human brain seems to be capable of processing & integrating perceived-information-structures/patterns into personally relevant meanings. Those private subjective meanings are what I would call "awareness". Anyway, that's the hypothesis I'm working on. :smile:


*1. Quantum biology at the cellular level :
Quantum biology is emerging as a new field at the intersection between fundamental physics and biology, promising novel insights into the nature and origin of biological order.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23470561/

*2. Postmodernist Writing :
I think most Postmodernist writing can be classified into these categories: ... Much of analytic philosophy is so abstruse and hermetically sealed that it too becomes an exercise in obscurantism. Where the style of thought diminishes content.
http://socialdemocracy21stcentury.blogspot.com/2015/02/nonsense-and-postmodernist-writing.html

If that's true, they are metaphysics - ways of looking at the world. The question to ask is whether or not they are useful ways. — T Clark

Yes. But useful for what purpose?

The materialists on this forum appear to be only interested in physical scientific uses : e.g. can we build artificial intelligence into computers? However, the panpsychists seem to be focused on metaphysical philosophical purposes : e.g. can we understand the relationship between the real world of physics and the ideal world of metaphysics?

For the purposes of this forum, do you prefer impersonal mechanistic objectives, or personal meaningful motives? Is that a fair question? Some posters are clear about their preferences. But you seem to be somewhat ambivalent about siding with Science or Philosophy or Both. Perhaps that's a sign of an open mind? And I applaud the open-door policy. At least it leaves the door ajar for exchanges of views : "ways of looking at the world" :smile:

physical scientific uses — Gnomon

Yes. Exactly. Science needs materialism to work. Are there aspects of life where a materialist view is not helpful? Sure. Metaphysics is a toolbox. You can pull out the right metaphysical tool for the job when you need it.