I considered referring to the Dunning-Kruger effect for that post, but it's so cliché.

Fiction is written self-consciously, in that the author understands that what they are writing didn't happen. This is different, in that the author apparently thinks they are writing down what did happen.

It's not bullshit, either, since it is sincere.

Self-deception?

It wouldn't be problematic if @Benj96 had set out to write a poem imagining what it would feel like to be a photon. Indeed, Einstein imagined what it would be like to ride on a photon while developing the Special Theory. But then Einstein did the maths.

It's wanting to be "profound" without doing the work.

Well, we do live in an era where expertise has been diminished and is often looked upon with scorn. Everyone believes that can say something profound, whether it is about socialism or the role of quantum entanglement in proving spiritual truths.

It's wanting to be "profound" without doing the work. — Banno

Or, perhaps more importantly for some, to appear so.

And what might be said about the energy we use to live? That which does all the computations and organismal procedures used to sustain us for a minute of experience. Can we say that that specific quantity of energy is used for self determination and agency? — Benj96

Organisms obviously utilise energy on a cellular and also bodily level. But 'that which does all the computations' is what, exactly? Whatever it is, I don't think it can be described as energy. It's something more like order. Perhaps the place to look for that, is the work of someone like Ilya Prirogine.

we cannot deny that the positioning of molecules in a specific way that confers sentient life is not a process carried out by energy. — Benj96

Confusing double negative, but I think what you're saying is that whatever it is that orders matter in such as way as to give rise to sentient beings, it not 'carried out' by energy. In which case I agree. Energy - which is the capacity to do work - is obviously an intrinsic aspect, but order is something else again.

I disagree. Consciousness requires storage - namely memory. Without memory, our sense of self, of place, of time, of coherent chronology, breaks down. As one with dementia experiences as their brains architecture breaks down due to disease.

If we had no memory (storage), we would not be able to revisit mentally the past, and thus contextually would not be aware that the present moment is indeed the present because we cannot retrieve anything beyond it historically. And lastly we could not anticipate a future because we don't have a past, nor present. So why expect a future? — Benj96

I understand the sentimental value you attach to memory. Memory is a very important part of consciousness. But memory and consciousness are not interchangeable. Amnesia is one condition which allows a human being to be conscious but lacking memory. In another thread some time ago, I mentioned that there are perceptions we experience that are not temporal.

"Not temporal" in the sense that memory is not needed for us to experience, objectively, a thing. Brightness is one of those. If a light flashes on you, it doesn't matter which rock or cloud you grew up in, you will experience brightness, and you will know what brightness is (though you might not have a word for it).

There's a few folk hereabouts, including Benj96, @ucarr, @Gnomon, who seem to think that philosophy consist in doing physics without the maths. — Banno

Hello Banno, Can you or someone you know examine my logic calculus in the post linked below? I'd sure like to have a useful assessment.

Is such work 'physics without maths', or is it speculative fiction... — Tom Storm

Hello, Tom Storm, can you render an opinion on the link below?

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/842888

Hello, Tom Storm, can you render an opinion on the link below? — ucarr

No. Physics or logic (or speculative fiction) are not my expertise - hence why I don't usually participate in speculative discussions.

Since both f(t) + f(f) = f(t+f) and f(t+f) = {t,f}, then X, a transcendent fact TF transcends itself and thus TF and its transcendence {t,f} reciprocally vary i.e., transcend each other. This is higher-order transcendence_supervenience as determined by the paradoxicality of self-transcendence (a transcendent fact). — ucarr

What is that?

It's not a logical system I recognise, nor is it something that I can locate in Wolfram Mathworld.

What is that?

It's not a logical system I recognise, nor is it something that I can locate in Wolfram Mathworld. — Banno

I'm glad you asked me the question.

It's trying to say that if X is transcendent, the domain of its transcendence can include itself.

Self-transcendence, being complicated, leads naive logicians like me to messy expressions like the one you quoted.

It's saying the function of a transcendent fact is the set of that transcendent fact correlated with its antecedent definition reciprocally. That simply means that a self-transcendent fact is a higher-order of itself in a paradoxical configuration. This isn't really mysterious, the wacky language be darned, because an emergent property can be predicated upon a ground lacking utterly that property. So then, the ground, in this scenario the lower order or lower set, supervenes upon the property not like itself, although, in this case, the higher property is itself, and thus the paradox.

What's exciting about my logical calculus is that it talks about paradox as an emergent property in extremis: self-transcendence. Might it be the way out of the OBO (Origin Boundary Ontology = the first/eternal existing thing) puzzle?

You're supposed to go through the terms of my logical calculus and discover breaks in the inferential chain, perhaps ultimately reducing the statement to reductio ad absurdum status.

Looks like gobbledegook dressed in formal clothing.

So how am I to read f(t)? That f is a function acting on t? Or as a predication? And if it's a predication, what's the addition symbol doing? And how do I read {t,f} - what do the curlies do?

And how does it relate to my post?

There's a few folk hereabouts, including Benj96, @ucarr, @Gnomon, who seem to think that philosophy consist in doing physics without the maths. — Banno

That comment is an ad hominem, which -- as you well know -- should have no place in a philosophy dialog. It's also a Straw Man fallacy, which attacks a soft target, instead of addressing the hard question of the role of Mind in a material world. It may also be a Red Herring fallacy, to distract a discussion from focusing on the "real issue". Which, to paraphrase the topic of this thread is : "what does it feel like to be energy".

As worded the issue : "So either energy carries an inherent conscious currency/property, or matter does". That may sound ridiculous to you, but it is a legitimate philosophical question for some of us, who take consciousness seriously, and don't dismiss it as immaterial. Is Consciousness a manifestation of causation (energy) or a material substance made of atoms? For example, Nagel's "what is it like to be a bat" is not a question that can be answered by Physics or Chemistry or Biology, but can be addressed only by Philosophical methods, which may use physical or mathematical metaphors, but is not provable by mathematical calculations.

Physics Envy philosophy is a common communication barrier on this forum. You seem to think we are doing Physics on this forum, instead of Philosophy. I don't know about the others mentioned, but I am not a physicist. So why would you accuse me of "doing physics without the math"? Why would you expect "expertise" in physics, when physical examples & analogies are used to make philosophical points? Taking metaphors literally may be another logical fallacy. :smile:

As ↪Benj96 worded the issue : "So either energy carries an inherent conscious currency/property, or matter does". — Gnomon

On the topic of fallacies, that is a false dichotomy. Is it energy, or the matter from which your car is constructed, that enables your car to take you to the grocery store?

Can you provide any evidence that consciousness exists apart from dynamic (energetic) processes occurring in matter?

Energy as consciousness or mind?  A gigantic and unacceptable categorical mistake. Imagination gone wild in PhyFi (yet again). Energy lacks everything that is mental. 

Have you seen what direct contact with the high power energy (for example the high voltage electricity of 10k volts) does to animals or material objects?  Burning, breaking, exploding, melting and destroying.  There is nothing reasonable about it.

That comment is an ad hominem — Gnomon

Well, no. Pointing out that you repeatedly produce bad arguments is not an ad hom. It would be an ad hom if I'd said your arguments were bad because of some irrelevant personal characteristic of yours. But your arguments are bad because the conclusions do not follow from the assumptions. Or, often, the assumptions do not cohere.

And what you cite from @Benj96 is an obvious false dilemma.

...how does it relate to my post? — Banno

The attempted logic calculus is supposed to show me doing the math you claim I'm not doing.

Since both f(t) + f(f) = f(t+f) and f(t+f) = {t,f}, then X, a transcendent fact TF transcends itself and thus TF and its transcendence {t,f} reciprocally vary i.e., transcend each other. — ucarr

↪ucarr Looks like gobbledegook dressed in formal clothing. — Banno

You ever try to converse with an english-as-a-second-language learner? Consider such a learner who's never been in an ESL classroom. Some immigrants learn english by watching tv commercials, right?

Ever read any quotes from Yogi Berra, the NY Yankees manager who was born across the tracks from logic? If there's gonna be a formal ceremony, "include me out."

f(t) + f(f) = f(t+f) is supposed to show that tf (transcendent fact) occupies the set of transcendent facts {t,f}. Since transcendent means "going beyond a boundary" the set {t,f} holds members that are paired with set {t} and set {f}, but the latter two sets are not subsets of {t,f}. By stretching the common sense meaning of things to an extreme, I'm saying {t} and {f} are transcendently members of an empty set.
180 Proof is using tf = { } to show that, so far, there's no evidence for the existence of such facts.

My intention is to show, through a logic calculus interpretation of his argument that, with the terms of his argument rearranged, it says that, {t,f} does exist as a logical relationship. This, of course, falls short of existential proof of real TF, but it's something to keep the debate going re: the possibility of the emergent property: super-nature.

So how am I to read f(t)? That f is a function acting on t? Or as a predication? And if it's a predication, what's the addition symbol doing? And how do I read {t,f} - what do the curlies do?[/quote]

You're supposed to read it as "a function acting on t, or a function acting on f," such that the empty set of {t,f} is populated, albeit transcendently.

Correction: f(t) + f(f) ≆ f(t+f) is supposed to show that the terms are approximate because non-local members of a set aren't members in a straightforward and simple situation.

The parallel is that inorganic matter gives no clue to the possibility of the organic matter of living organisms, yet it's a predicate for life. Just as non-life predicates life, emptiness acts on transcendent facts to populate an empty set. The somethingness of an empty set is consistent with it being a member of every set.

I'm sorry, I still can't make sense of this. I see that you are using curls to mark sets, and it seems you are using "f" for both a non-specific function and something else... the set of facts? Is "t" a transcendent fact? I cannpt see what system you are using here for the formalisation.

I'm sorry, I still can't make sense of this. I see that you are using curls to mark sets, and it seems you are using "f" for both a non-specific function and something else... the set of facts? Is "t" a transcendent fact? I cannpt see what system you are using here for the formalisation. — Banno

Thanks for bearing with me up to this point. Clearly, the fog is coming solely from my side. That you see a couple of things I'm attempting in fumbling fashion marks progress in my mind although for you such micro-advances are cold comfort.

Yes, t = transcendent fact. There's also set {f} because, through labyrinthine logic (I think), transcendence is modular to everything else, even its own attributes. Saying set {t} and set {f} are not subsets of set {t,f} is my attempt to incorporate the wave function into logical expressions.

Yes, f(f) is supposed to be a generalization denoting the commonwealth of sets of facts.

My engagements with proficient logicians helps me in the same manner that a new speaker of english, while stumbling through conversation with a native speaker, manages to understand a few meaningful communications and, even better, manages to send one or two.

On the topic of fallacies, that is a false dichotomy. Is it energy, or the matter from which your car is constructed, that enables your car to take you to the grocery store? — wonderer1

No. It's simply a Chicken or Egg conundrum for us to argue about. It's stated as a dichotomy, but that's simply to simplify the premises. Either/Or questions are like Ockham's Razor. However, if you can think of a third or fourth source of consciousness, we can add those options to the discussion, at the risk of obfuscation.

Your postulated alternative is not really an alternative. In view of modern physics, your car is constructed of Both energy And matter : E=MC^2. According to Einstein, they are merely different forms of the same essential stuff. And 21st century physicists have further postulated that matter & energy are different forms of another fundamental essence*1 : Information = en-form-action. And information is the meaning in a conscious mind.

's OP question may be a philosophical form of the same conceptual equivalence. Is Consciousness a property of Energy or Matter? My answer would be : Yes. But E & M are both proximate forms of the ultimate Power to Enform*2, which I call EnFormAction for brevity. By that made-up name, I'm referring to the Big Bang Singularity (a computer algorithm?) from which every thing in the Now universe was formed*3. Which came first, the energetic chicken or the embryonic egg? :smile:


*1. A proposed experimental test for the mass-energy-information equivalence principle :
A recent conjecture, called the mass-energy-information equivalence principle, proposed that information is equivalent to mass and energy and exists as a separate state of matter. In other words, stored information has mass and can be converted into energy, and a full hard drive is marginally heavier than an empty one.
https://pubs.aip.org/aip/sci/article/2022/9/091111/2849001/A-proposed-experimental-test-for-the-mass-energy
Note --- 21st century physicists are extrapolating Einstein's Energy/Matter equivalence to include the strange "force" behind the Information Age and Artificial Intelligence. As professional materialists though, they are not making the further extrapolation that Energy = Matter = Mind. That's the contribution of Information scientists, such as those at the Santa Fe Institute for the study of Complexity.

*2. EnFormAction :
Universal Causation. A proposed metaphysical law of the universe that causes random interactions between forces and particles to produce novel & stable arrangements of matter & energy.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html
Note --- This is a philosophical conjecture, not a physics assertion.

*3. What powered the Big Bang? :
The key assumption of this model is that just before the Big Bang, space was filled with an unstable form of energy, whose nature is not yet known. At some instant, this energy was transformed into the fundamental particles from which arose all the matter we observe today.
https://lweb.cfa.harvard.edu/seuforum/bb_whatpowered.htm
Note --- this hypothesis is not the basis of my Universal Causation. I just provided the link to show that Cosmologists are still looking for the ultimate cause of the original Bang, that Plato called the First Cause.

And what you cite from Benj96 is an obvious false dilemma. — Banno

See my reply to above.

Before you accuse me of making assertions that should be restricted to physics experts, I'll deny in advance that my proposal is a Physics Fact ; it's merely a Philosophy conjecture. But, it helps to have some familiarity with cutting-edge Physics and Information theory. :smile:

Your postulated alternative is not really an alternative. — Gnomon

You aren't being consistent. You start by recognizing a distinction between matter and energy, and when shown that you have posed a false dichotomy, you deny the distinction.

You aren't being consistent. You start by recognizing a distinction between matter and energy, and when shown that you have posed a false dichotomy, you deny the distinction. — wonderer1

No, you are merely missing the philosophical point . . . . again! :sad:

You seem to think the Chicken & Egg conundrum is a logical puzzle. It's a philosophical koan, something to think about. :smile:

If Schopenhauer is right, which he might be, I share that intuition, I think that the mere awareness of say the feel of moving your arm, is the closest approximation we have to "what it's like to be energy" - in the external world.

But if he's wrong, then there's nothing it's like to be energy, because energy as used in physics, is a technical term which loses strength when it comes to human beings.

No, you are merely missing the philosophical point . . . . again! :sad: — Gnomon

Whatever.

A recent conjecture, called the mass-energy-information equivalence principle, proposed that information is equivalent to mass and energy and exists as a separate state of matter. In other words, stored information has mass and can be converted into energy, and a full hard drive is marginally heavier than an empty one. — Gnomon

Melvin Vopson could've made a mistake in his interpretation and conjecture deriving from Laundauer's principle.

Is Information Physical and Does it Have Mass?

As it is possible to see from the discussion above, information is not physical by itself but has a physical representation and, naturally, this physical representation complies with physical laws. This is in good agreement with what Landauer actually wrote and not with his more far-reaching claims. Thus, the physical properties that Landauer and other researchers conjectured, ascribing them to information [10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19], are actually the properties of the physical representation of information. — url=https://www.mdpi.com/2078-2489/13/11/540

One wonders if it light waves in a vaccum would count as a non-material medium for the storage of information. So if information has mass from nowhere, how could it travel at the speed of light? Only massless particles can travel at the speed of light.

Move over Einstein.

:monkey:

Move over Einstein. — Nils Loc

:snicker:

Yes, t = transcendent fact. There's also set {f} because, through labyrinthine logic (I think), transcendence is modular to everything else, even its own attributes. Saying set {t} and set {f} are not subsets of set {t,f} is my attempt to incorporate the wave function into logical expressions. — ucarr

Are you playing the game,labyrinthine logic? The wave function is already a logical expression, subject to interpretation. This is all very mysterious. :chin:

From a Computing Science standpoint, information is not fundamental, it is an output, a result of data processing. Data is the fundamental and data has no inherent meaning. 23 has no meaning. Age of human: 23 or number of apples: 23 has meaning and is information as it is processed data.
Photons are used in fiber optic cables to 'represent' data, traveling from a source to a destination.
This is energy representing data but not energy that is data and no information with meaning/intent exists at that lowest level of data transmission.

I asked the following question of chat GPT:
How can information be fundamental when it is processed data?

ChatGPT's response:
The concept of information being fundamental relates to its significance in various fields of science, philosophy, and information theory. While information often involves processed data, its fundamental nature lies in its ability to convey meaning, reduce uncertainty, and play a crucial role in understanding the universe and our place in it. Here are some key points to consider:

Information as a Concept: Information is not limited to data or raw facts. It encompasses the interpretation and organization of data to create knowledge and meaning. In essence, information is the result of processing data to extract meaning or insights.

Information Theory: Information theory, developed by Claude Shannon, provides a framework for understanding the fundamental aspects of information. It quantifies information in terms of bits and defines concepts like entropy, which measures uncertainty and information content.

Communication and Cognition: Information is essential for communication between individuals, species, and even between machines. It underlies our ability to convey ideas, transmit knowledge, and make decisions. It's also fundamental to cognition and how we perceive and understand the world.

Emergent Properties: Information can exhibit emergent properties, meaning that the way information is processed and combined can lead to new insights and knowledge. This is evident in fields like artificial intelligence, where complex algorithms can generate novel solutions based on the information they process.

Fundamental Role in Science: In various scientific disciplines, such as physics and biology, information plays a fundamental role in understanding the universe. For example, in quantum physics, information is a key concept in describing the behavior of particles and the nature of the universe at the smallest scales.

Philosophical Considerations: Philosophers have debated the nature of information and its relationship to reality. Some argue that information is a fundamental aspect of reality itself, akin to energy and matter.

In summary, while information often involves the processing of data, its fundamental nature arises from its ability to convey meaning, reduce uncertainty, and serve as a cornerstone for communication, knowledge, and understanding across various fields of study. Information is not merely processed data; it represents the essence of how we make sense of the world and the universe.

No, it doesn't. Not unless you're a materialist :rage: — Wayfarer

What laws would you determine consciousness as obeying. For me consciousness requires a spatial dimension (from which to perceive environment) , energy (to run cognitive processes) and matter (to store memory). And thus would assume that the laws that govern these things would uneccesarily also imoavt the consciousness carried/conveyed or manifest by them.

And yet Interference happens. — Banno

Intereference can't occur between photons travelling at the same velocity. It is the result of an interaction with a physical barrier that deflects them - either Co vergently of divergently (for example via double slit experiment).

I said "how does something interact with itself when the velocity is equal". In interference, the velocity is not equal is it.

care to argue a point of some/any form to support your assumption that it is..."BS".

A declaration without supporting explanation is hardly philosophical at all is it.