As to the first part of your quote, regarding language applied to physical processes, as to that, I say, "language is physical."

How language is physical and what structure supports the physicality of language are two questions that have been under consideration and attacked in debate for at least the last two millennia.

I’ll venture an intuitive conjecture that we, too, have really been considering the physicality of language. — ucarr

The physical dimension of language cannot be ignored. Just as you cannot ignore the sounds uttered by speakers and interlocutors in a communication. But you can't ignore the sound-perception, nor the symbolic, nor the meaning either. Some of those, however, cannot be spoken of in physical terms, and some in subjective terms either. That is why it seems necessary to understand language as a multidimensional phenomenon that encompasses different genres, or categories if you will.

Consequently, the generalization of the concept of sign is very useful here. Since it refers to the relation, to being-in-place-of, and to a teleological process that jumps from one system to another. We cannot however, given specific limitations, assign a substance to language. That is, reduce it to a substance called "physical", "subjective", "ideal", etc. A theory of the sign (such as the one required) seems that it must be formal, in the sense that it must respect the differences and relative autonomies of the indicated dimensions. Some will say: Genres of plural materiality.

the intelligibility of a sign. — ucarr

This baffles me a little. Doesn't the term "Intelligibility" refer to an "intellect" or a "mind"? Isn't that giving mental properties to the sign? But a sign may never be addressed by a human; and for this reason the essential intelligibility of a sign cannot be implied except for some type of mentalism, or an anthropic principle (even the idea of intelligent design). I can't agree with that. I claim that a sign does not possess intelligibility prior to its relation with a human intellect.

For these reasons, I claim that information is ambiguously internal-and-external to both the physical signification and the physical Agent Intellect who decodes the information and meaning of the former. — ucarr

I think it can be said that the information is internal to a whole that encompasses different moments: sound, symbolic subjectivity, and meaning. That is, it is internal at all moments as a whole, but it is external for each moment. Information is produced when these moments come into relation. It must be an insubstantial relation (due to the limits of reductionism mentioned above).

I guess you have a different definition of the term "sentient" than the ones I presented and what is commonly meant by them. — Alkis Piskas

I do not believe this is the case. Remember, in philosophy, words generally have field-specific meaning:

https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/4682/what-are-the-differences-between-sentience-consciousness-and-awareness
https://www.animal-ethics.org/problem-consciousness/#:~:text=The%20difference%20in%20meaning%20between,experiences%20of%20her%20own%20thoughts.
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/FhjwbQ3RfYeC6ZJWe/sentience-sapience-consciousness-and-self-awareness-defining
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-31011-0_2

So, consciousness is actually very well understood to be the basis for sentience, but not the same, and while there are fuzzy edges the major difference between them (value-informed experience) seems universally accepted.

OK, it was a ref that I found handy. You can chose youserf from among 150 million Google results for < perception of plants > (w/o quotes) or the 2.5 million results on < "perception of plants" > (w/ quotes). :smile: — Alkis Piskas

I'll just note that I would expect references which would support the points being made, from the person making them :)

(BTW, my saying "they must feel something" is very general and the wor "feel" in it has the meaning of "perceive" or "sense", not any emotional state.) — Alkis Piskas

In discussions of sentience 'feeling' indicates a subjective, value-informed state of mind, viz. emotional responses to stimuli.

Now, you assert that a plant needs not to be aware of -- i.e. perceive-- anything n order to react to stimuli. — Alkis Piskas

I didn't. I indicated self-awareness is not required for mechanistic reactions to stimuli without analysis. Gnomon sort of went over this too - a VFT doesn't actually know a fly is there in the way a human or dog does. You actually replied to my replacement for that theory - they are able to sense air pressure differentials (possibly). They note some underlying change in their environment and mechanical reactions are triggered. There's no mental image or deliberation. No sentience.

Which means that it can identify them, distinguish one from another. — Alkis Piskas

It does not. Recognition is a matter for sentience.

It cannot "choose" how to react. Choosing involves free will or at least the existence of a mind, which are both absent in a plant. Besides, we have already that it reacts mechanically ... — Alkis Piskas

This runs counter to some of your comments above. If they 'recognize' flies, then they are choosing to snap out at them. But we know that isn't the case.

Because "feeling" as a sense belongs to perception, which is our subject and can certainly not follow cognition. Right? — Alkis Piskas

This seems extremely confused. Cognition is almost correlate of sentience and feeling. It is the ability to recognize and deliberate to gain knowledge and understanding. Feeling is a result of perception, but it's not a 'part' of it.

I only would like to say that my definition of consiousness --esp. in its basic form-- has not been disproved by anyone until now. — Alkis Piskas

No idea where this is coming from? No one has tried to do that - though, i should point out it has be very adequately pointed out that consciousness doesn't entail feeling.

Here's once more my basic definition of consciousness: "The state and ability to perceive". — Alkis Piskas

Again, i think you're having a different conversation then. No one has an issue with that conception of consciousness, i wouldn't think. But sentience requires much more.

What do you mean by "from the exterior and interior"? Example? — Alkis Piskas
I mean, from the perspective of the sensing organism : interior = self ; exterior = other or environment. :smile: — Gnomon

OK. Just checking ... :smile:

[Re "emothional" thinking] The evolution of conscious thinking seems to be built upon a foundation of sub-conscious feeling. :love: — Gnomon

Well, I find this somewhat twisted, but anyway, it's besides what we are looking for, i.e. the word "feeling" and how it is related to perception (as "touch") and unrelated to it (as "emotion").
Besides, I think I have talked a lot about how thinking is not involved in perception, and hence in consciousness.

Does thinking or emotion come first?
In the primary case, in the standard situation, feelings come first. Thoughts are ways of dealing with feelings — Gnomon

Well, at risk of perpetuating a subject that is besides our main point (perception and consciousness), I have to let you know that it is the other way around: It is thinking (the mind) that produces feelings (emotions). This can be easily understood: You think (consciously) about an accident you had and this produces you fear, disgust or other emotion. Try it if you don't believe me.:smile: (But better think about something pleasant, not unpleasant!)
Now, if this emotion is produced without you thinking about the event, it means that the thought comes from the subconscious (mind). That is, emotion is always producred by thought, whether this is conscious or unconsious.
These things are well-established, Gnomon. They are "textbook" material.
But again, they are besides what we are looking for ...
And I have a share in this, because I have picked these things up from your message and perpetuated them in a way.

The mental images are abstract in the sense of lacking material substance ; not in the sense of lacking material substance — Gnomon

Not true, but whatever they are, they are thoughts, i.e. irrelevant with perception and, by extension, consciousness. Lower organisms can't think and yet they can pereive and are considered conscious. Only this observation explaina and can establish the direct relation of perception to consciousness, and the absence of any kind of thinking, concepts, feelings/emotions etc. in the equation.

OK about the rest. I read it and I thank you for your indeed rich and fruitful information.

in philosophy, words generally have field-specific meaning — AmadeusD

Certainly.

So, consciousness is actually very well understood to be the basis for sentience — AmadeusD

Maybe the other way around ... In order to be aware of something you must first perceive it, don't you?

I'll just note that I would expect references which would support the points being made, from the person making them — AmadeusD

Does this mean that you just don't believe or trust what a person says or you can't debate what that person says or you don't trust your own reasoning, knowledge and jugment?
And that you can accept what the person says only if it is supported by some authority?
But then, what if that authority is wrong? How can you judge that if you can't judge what the person says in the first place? Or are you going to believe that authority unquestionably because it is a famous personality? Or are you going to start doubting or arguing about what that authority says or even about the authority iself? Wouldn't that end up in a vicious cycle?
It all loses its meaning, doesn't it?

See, from whatever point you are looking at it, the bottom line, the final acceptance or rejection of a proposition will always depend on your own jugment.

I indicated self-awareness is not required for mechanistic reactions to stimuli without analysis. — AmadeusD

I know that. And this is exactly what I objected to! :smile:

You actually replied to my replacement for that theory ... There's no mental image or deliberation. No sentience. — AmadeusD

OK about the 1st, but not the 2nd: I never said that there is no sentience. In fact, I explained that "sentience" and "perception" are very close. I alo talked about what I often like to say: Consciousness is a characteristic of life; of sentient beings.

Recognition is a matter for sentience. — AmadeusD

Well, I said that "sentient" by definition is "Having the power of perception by the senses; conscious."
"Recognition" goes a step further. It involes comparison, classification, identification, etc. That is, thinking.

This seems extremely confused. Cognition is almost correlate of sentience and feeling — AmadeusD

I see that we go in circles. You just reject the definitions, descriptions and examples I'm bringing up.
Why don't you look up for yourself and clear the meaning of all these words/terms in a dictionary? Do you hate dictionaries as a lot of people in here do?

Dictionary definitions seem like a really bad idea.

You seem to be focusing on small peculiarities.

Here is a list of the brain biology words that have shown up in the last few days:

Consciousness, cognition, sentience, thinking, perception, senses, mental images, deliberation, knowledge, judgment, thoughts, information, emotion, understanding, mind, language, imagination. More if you go back further.

From a materialist perspective they all involve the same brain biology, have some energy draw from the body's metabolism, are location and time specific and operate always as a whole.

An over reliance of definitions in this discussion will just cause problems. There is a connectedness to these words not a separateness.

I know it's a philosophy forum, but you said yourself that things are going in circles.

EFA... is the "Ground" of Being, including both Mind & Matter. — Gnomon

The upshot of our dialogue so far, as I see it, involves two cruxes: 1) We have a disjunction to evaluate: We know matter via mind, or we know mind via matter; 2) Mind/Matter are not two parallel categories, but rather two positions on a continuum within one category.

Regarding the first crux, is it just one or the other? If so, we have a conditional: x ⟹ y or y ⟹ x, with x = mind and y = matter. If x = True, which is to say if mind as a distinct category exists, and if y = True, which is to say matter as a distinct category exists, then x ⟹ y = True and y ⟹ x = True. In this case science and religion have no argument.

Even if x = False, x ⟹ y = True. In this case, the existence of mind as a distinct category is false, but its implication of matter, while logically valid, is not existentially real.

If y = False , meaning the existence of matter as a distinct category is false, then x ⟹ y = False, even if x = True. Thus, mind as a distinct category, while logically valid, in this situation does not imply matter is independently real.

Given these complications, I surmise that the second crux is the better choice regarding the search for a clear path forward to the truth rooted within common sense.

Now we can evaluate a bi-conditional representing two positions within one category: Mind_Matter are two states positioned along one continuum.

Given x ⟺ y, with x = True and y = True, we have a bi-directional implication of two states being one value in variant forms along one continuum. Whether this equivalence refers to an independently real phenomenon is a moot question with respect to logic.

Given x ⟺ y, with x = False and y = False, we have a bi-directional implication of two non-existent states. This equivalence, being non-existent and therefore meaningless, has nothing to say.

Since we're here and dialoguing about the nature of the states of things, we have evidence of Mind_Matter, and thus x ⟺ y, with x = True and y = True, looks like our best choice.

My conclusion allows me to claim that when you say:

EFA works only within the physical constraints of the only entropy-increasing world that we know via our senses, but understand via our reasoning & imagination. — Gnomon

You're referring to a realm of mind_matter monism. The mind/body problem is a problem due to a category error in physics_philosophy (mind_matter are two parallel categories).

Doesn't the term "Intelligibility" refer to an "intellect" or a "mind"? Isn't that giving mental properties to the sign? — JuanZu

"Intelligible" simply means "able to be understood," as with the example of a book. Do you think something devoid of information can be understood?

Regarding the interface linking object with observer, we have the question: What does each correspondent contribute to the interface?

If the observed object, in this case the sign, contributes no information to the interface, then we’re back to claiming the human mind dreams the details of the sign internally. This explanation must then further explain how, or if, any mind makes contact with an objective reality beyond itself.

We should bear in mind that pattern recognition (reading of signs) involves both information and information processing. How can the latter be performed without input from the former?

Of the two options here: 1) The mind is an idealistic producer of dreamworlds populated by Plato’s ideal forms, or 2) Intelligible object and Agent Intellect are two objects that interact to form an interface interior & exterior to both, I expect most thinkers will find it easier to embrace the second option.

Interface represents an entangled objectivity that possesses both interior and exterior surfaces. Following this claim, we can say that the sign reads the Agent Intellect just as the Agent Intellect reads the sign. In the case of the former, the sign exerts the shaping influence of a gravitational field curving the mind with its intelligibility. This is a mirror of what the Agent Intellect does to the sign. In this situation, information is physical.

Do you propose to throw all dictionaries and encyclopedias to the garbage can and with them more than 4,000 years of knowledge? (The first recorded dictionaries date back to Sumerian times around 2300 BCE.)
Then each one start using one's own meaning of words and terms according to one's undestanding, whith no aggreement to be ever established on these words and terms?
And you think that philosophy, science and any other field of knowledge will still survive?

Just rhetorical questions. I'm not interested in talking more about this subject. It's totally useless.

My conclusion allows me to claim that when you say:

EFA works only within the physical constraints of the only entropy-increasing world that we know via our senses, but understand via our reasoning & imagination. — Gnomon

You're referring to a realm of mind_matter monism. The mind/body problem is a problem due to a category error in physics_philosophy (mind_matter are two parallel categories). — ucarr

I think you are picking up on the perplexing problem, with online philosophical dialogs, of using common conventional language, which is inherently materialistic/quantitative, to discuss immaterial/qualitative concepts, such as Consciousness.

In my thesis, Mind & Matter are "parallel" in the sense that they are both descendant forms of Generic Information (EFA) that exist side-by-side in the real/ideal world. But they are separate categories, in that Mind is an an emergent quality separated from the Matter-only state by billions of years of evolution. So, qualitatively Mind & Matter are completely different kinds of thing/entity : metaphysical vs physical. Likewise, Ideas exist in the "Real" world, but are qualitatively different. Ironically, Materialists define "Ideal" as un-real ; denying the reality of their own immaterial concepts.

It's hard to make such philosophical distinctions, due to the basic materialism of the language : e.g. "thing" typically designates a material object, whereas "entity" is a more philosophical term. The materialism embedded in our common language only becomes a problem when we try to convey ideas that are not objective things : e.g. Consciousness. :smile:


Thing vs Entity :
An entity is something that exists as itself. It does not need to be of material existence. In particular, abstractions and legal fictions are usually regarded as entities. In general, there is also no presumption that an entity is animate, or present.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entity

Mind/Body Problem :
Philosophers and scientists have long debated the relationship between a physical body and its non-physical properties, such as Life & Mind. Cartesian Dualism resolved the problem temporarily by separating the religious implications of metaphysics (Soul) from the scientific study of physics (Body). But now scientists are beginning to study the mind with their precise instruments, and have found no line of demarcation. So, they see no need for the hypothesis of a spiritual Soul added to the body by God. However, Enformationism resolves the problem by a return to Monism, except that the fundamental substance is meta-physical (causation) Information instead of physical (consequence) Matter.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind%E2%80%93body_problem
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page15.html

'Cause and Effect' : Hume''s view that the relation of cause and effect supplies the basis for our factual beliefs. Observation leads us to believe in connections between physical objects and events. The power and force of these connections are not observable, only the changes in spatio-temporal relations.
https://academic.oup.com/book/400/chapter-abstract/135206122?redirectedFrom=fulltext
Note --- EnFormAction is a power or force that has both physical/material & metaphysical/immaterial effects/consequences.

Regarding the interface linking object with observer, we have the question: What does each correspondent contribute to the interface?

If the observed object, in this case the sign, contributes no information to the interface, then we’re back to claiming the human mind dreams the details of the sign internally. This explanation must then further explain how, or if, any mind makes contact with an objective reality beyond itself. — ucarr

I claim that the sign by itself does not "contribute" information at all. But, equally, the subject does not contribute information either. The information would not be something that passes or transits from one system to another (between a book and a reader), but rather it is generated. That is, it is not cause but effect.

In Our everyday, when we talk about information, we say that a book has information, we also say that among all the ink marks there is something that, however, those ink marks are not. How is that possible? It is not possible to think such a thing unless we fall into a kind of Platonism, which, according to, the history of the book, or knowledge, is inside like an ideal and fantastic form in the middle of the ink mark; and somehow jumps from the ink marks to our head.

To avoid this type of Platonism, it is necessary to say that the information is not found there, neither in the book nor in the reader, but is produced as both systems of signs enter into some type of relation.

"Intelligible" simply means "able to be understood," as with the example of a book. Do you think something devoid of information can be understood? — ucarr

I understand. However, I believe that a sign can become unintelligible. In the sense that a sign can always not enter into a relation with human understanding; or can be erased, like a footprint in the beach. That's why I find it difficult to say that there is such a thing as an intelligible sign. It may be, but also may not be. I prefer to say that a sign is always ready to enter into a sign-ificative relation.

You think I've become ensnared within physicalism?

You talk of mind emergent from matter. How does a non-physical entity emerge? Is not emergence, like all actions, a matter_energy, dynamical process (of geometrical transformation with attendant momentum)?

What does a non-physical entity emerge from? When you say mind emerges from matter, you imply mind is a component of matter and thus mind, like matter, is material. (See example directly below)

Note --- EnFormAction is a power or force that has both physical/material & metaphysical/immaterial effects/consequences.

Name some metaphysical effects of physical force.

EnFormAction ⟹ energy = causation; form = matter; action = control. Energy_form_matter are physical things. Where is the immaterial component of EnFormAction?

An entity is something that exists as itself. It does not need to be of material existence. — Gnomon

Since thought, the supposed immaterial medium of your metaphysical abstractions, manifests and functions as a physical activity of our physical brains, and spacetime, the medium through which empirical experience funds our thoughts, likewise is physical, you must, as many others before you have not, explain how things immaterial shape and control things material.

Isn't it clear we can't even conceptualize immaterial things except as negations of material things, with these said negations also being material things in obverse mode?

Might it be possible that the claims for certain attributes of the immaterial world made by religionists and spiritualists can all be expressed through material phenomena? Under this configuration, a monist physical universe is no less soulful or spiritual or eternal than a dualist matter/spirit universe. One possible difference might be deletion of mysticism from the monist_physical universe.

Note how I haven't made declarations about the immaterial universe being fictional. Instead, I've presented arguments you must demolish en route to establishing its reality.

The information would not be something that passes or transits from one system to another (between a book and a reader), but rather it is generated. That is, it is not cause but effect. — JuanZu

This effect is generated by what cause? What is the location of this effect? (If you're theorizing an effect without a cause, elaborate essential details of this phenomenon).

I claim that the sign by itself does not "contribute" information at all. — JuanZu

Picture yourself reading a printed-on-paper book. The common-sense view says the conjugated signs in the book diminish the possible meanings of the employed sign system to some specific meanings that the reader cognizes within the brain as a narrative of visuals, dialogues, actions and events, all of which conjoin to express a hero's journey of discovery and change.

Now, imagine all of the signs on the pages of the book being deleted, leaving behind blank pages. What is the additional component or dynamical process, beyond the signs, that communicates the narrative to the reader?

Also, imagine that nothing transits from the blank pages to the reader's brain. How does the reader glean a narrative from the book?

...the subject does not contribute information either. — JuanZu

Finally, imagine that the reader, with respect to the book, brings a mind that is a blank slate devoid of information pertinent to the book's contents. How does the reader decode and understand a narrative totally foreign to everything the reader knows?

In a nutshell: because correlation doesn’t explain consciousness. — Art48

I just received my copy of Bernardo (BK) Kastrup's 2020 book, Science Ideated. He doesn't discuss the "Hard Problem" directly, but the subject matter seems to be pertinent to this thread. So, I'll mention a few first-glance quotes & comments here.

A. BK approaches the Science vs Philosophy controversy from a position of Analytic Idealism*1. "AI" (pardon the unintentional sentient-computer implication) sounds like a succinct description of Modern (post-17th century) philosophy : forced --- by the successes of physical science --- to focus primarily on the metaphysical aspects of Nature : e.g. Ideas ; Self-Consciousness. It accepts the material facts provided by modern physics, but interprets (analyzes) the data as it applies to the immaterial functions (conceptualization ; semiotics) of the human brain.

B. BK says that modern Science "began attributing fundamental reality only to quantities". Then, "we began cluelessly replacing reality with its description, the territory with the map." And notes that "we now face the so-called "hard problem of consciousness" : the impossibility of explaining qualities in terms of quantities." So, he concludes that we "managed to lose touch with reality altogether".
Note --- "Reality" as a whole system, including both Mind & Matter.

C> He defines Analytic Idealism as "the notion that reality . . . . is fundamentally qualitative." Thus denying the basic principle of Materialism. Idealism views the world through the lens of subjective Consciousness, while Materialism views it through the lens of objective Technology.
Note --- Qualia :the internal and subjective component of sense perceptions, arising from stimulation of the senses by phenomena. Hence, Reality converted to Ideality via physical senses, and metaphysical symbol synthesis.

D> BK says that "Panpsychism ultimately implies universal consciousness". But then he dismisses that theory as "a halfway compromise between materialism and idealism". Instead, BK seems to favor full-on Idealism, devoid of the contamination of Physicalism. Paradoxically, it's difficult to even talk about metaphysical topics without getting entangled with the physicality embedded in common languages.
Note --- Kastrup wrote "Why Panpsychism is Baloney", perhaps to complement his book Why Materialism is Baloney. https://iai.tv/articles/bernardo-kastrup-why-panpsychism-is-baloney-auid-2214

Comments :
We humans are only able to communicate the Qualia of our sensory Experience by asking : "do you see what I see?". The response must be translated from private Ideas into public Words, by following the rules of conventional language. Yet, that's where the Hard Problem begins. Our public language is necessarily built upon the material foundation of our common human sensory apparatus, that we share with apes. Even apes, such as Koko, seem to be able to communicate feelings/ideas in sign language, which can only express abstract concepts in concrete gestures. Yet, the implication that ape sentience is comparable to human consciousness has been criticized as anthropomorphic interpretation*2.

The Science-based metaphysics of Materialism is supposed to be dealing directly with physical Reality. But, since the subject "matter" is immaterial, BK says their arguments are based on hypothetical conjectures (maps), not empirical (territory) observations. So, their boo-hiss criticism of Consciousness queries on this forum, is a case of the pot calling the kettle a "woo-monger". Consciousness is inherently subjective, hence not objectifiable under a microscope.

My own theory of Consciousness has a "defect" similar to Panpsychism : jumbling Matter together with Mind. That's because the fundamental element of our real world is neither a physical thing, nor a metaphysical entity, but the not-yet-real Potential for both. Terrence Deacon calls it "constitutive absence", but I call it "causal information" (EnFormAction). Materialism & Spiritualism typically view Mind & Brain as incompatible opposites. But the BothAnd principle*3 allows us to see both sides of reality, where Mind & Matter are parts of a greater whole system : the enminded universe.

I may have more to say about Science Ideated later, after I finish the book. This is just a taste, to give us some ideas to argue about in a thread on Consciousness in a material world. :smile:


*1. Analytic Idealism in a Nutshell :
While being a realist, naturalist, rationalist, and even reductionist view, Analytic Idealism flips our culture-bound intuitions on their head, revealing that only through understanding our own inner nature can we understand the nature of the world.
https://www.collectiveinkbooks.com/iff-books/our-books/analytic-idealism-nutshell

*2. Koko the Impostor :
The apes taught sign language didn't understand what they were doing. They were merely "aping" their caretakers.
https://bigthink.com/life/ape-sign-language/

*3. Both/And Principle :
My coinage for the holistic principle of Complementarity, as illustrated in the Yin/Yang symbol. . . . Conceptually, the BothAnd principle is similar to Einstein's theory of Relativity, in that what you see ─ what’s true for you ─ depends on your perspective, and your frame of reference; for example, subjective or objective, religious or scientific, reductive or holistic, pragmatic or romantic, conservative or liberal, earthbound or cosmic. Ultimate or absolute reality (ideality) doesn't change, but your conception of reality does, as you re-frame the question.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page10.html

This effect is generated by what cause? What is the location of this effect? (If you're theorizing an effect without a cause, elaborate essential details of this phenomenon). — ucarr

The cause is the relation between sign systems and the encounter between those. The effect is something that happens inside each sign system. For example, if we talk about a book, ink marks have an effect on human language, something like a story appears in subjectivity, or what we call knowledge appears, depending on the context of the book, it's a different relation each case. It even has effects on our imagination, we create images as we read, we listen to the inner narrative as we read, etc. They are effects on sign systems from other sign systems.

If we imagine that something happens to the book: it is scratched, it is burned, or any misfortune, then the book, as writing, no longer has effects on subjectivity. What's left? Something remains in memory, but memory is a different system of signs already configured at the moment we had read the absent book ( This said, in the event that there is no longer writing). What happens in the case of a blank book? In that case the book becomes a different sign; It could mean different things: That someone left it there for a reader to construct his own story; or it can be a postmodern book which expresses silence as a theme and as a blank page, etc.

Also, imagine that nothing transits from the blank pages to the reader's brain. How does the reader glean a narrative from the book? — ucarr

In fact, it doesn't transfer anything. A resonance happens, so to speak. One thing produces effects on another. For Example by analogy: The physical light of a book, the photons (as wave), does not transit to the brain, but makes contact with the eyes, and then the eyes with the brain, etc. Nothing is transferred, there are simply translations, transcriptions, interpretations, etc

A blank mind cannot enter into a especific meaningful relation, to the extent that there is no especific resonance, or not resonance at all. Resonance is a process of differentiation in which a relation becomes specific and differentiates itself from other relation. But the lack of specific relation does not imply the absence of any relation. This is the case when we read a book wrote in an unknown language: It does not resonate in a way it usually does if the reader speak same language, there is no determined contact (translation relation), but not the absence of any contact or any relation: since in any case if we see a book we assume that "it means something" or it is something with which we could enter into a meaningful relation.

I claim that the sign by itself does not "contribute" information at all. But, equally, the subject does not contribute information either. The information would not be something that passes or transits from one system to another (between a book and a reader), but rather it is generated. That is, it is not cause but effect. — JuanZu

The relationship between Book_Reader, as described by you above is Book ¬⇋ Reader: no info passes between them.

Also, as described by you above:

but rather it (info) is generated. — JuanZu

In the picture you give us, there is no info transit, in either direction, between book and reader.

Even so, the info is generated.

...we say that a book has information, we also say that among all the ink marks there is something that, however, those ink marks are not. — JuanZu

...it is necessary to say that the information is not found there, neither in the book nor in the reader, but is produced as both systems of signs enter into some type of relation. — JuanZu

Give us a picture of: both systems of signs entering into some type of relation; also, give us a picture of the environment in which both systems of signs are entering into some type of relation.

This request does NOT seek after language that is a vague, abstract description such as:

the information is not found there, neither in the book nor in the reader, but is produced as both systems of signs enter into some type of relation. — JuanZu

No. This request seeks after a description (of both systems of signs entering into some type of relation producing the info) within the everyday world of human experience. An example of a successful response to the request is a narration of a movie that shows both systems of signs entering into some type of relation producing the info as an event unfolding within the everyday world of human experience.

Since thought, the supposed immaterial medium of your metaphysical abstractions, manifests and functions as a physical activity of our physical brains, and spacetime, the medium through which empirical experience funds our thoughts, likewise is physical, you must, as many others before you have not, explain how things immaterial shape and control things material. — ucarr

Mind/body questions are at the root of the Enformationism thesis. If you accept quantum physicist J. A. Wheeler's "It from Bit" conjecture, then Mental Information (Ideas) can in theory exert control over Material things. I could get into the Mind over Matter question deeply, but that would require a separate thread. Yet I doubt that it would be persuasive to a hard-core materialist. And to be clear, I am not talking about Magic.

Some scientists regard Mind-stuff (what I call "information") as more fundamental than Matter-stuff. For now, here's a quote from a neuroscientist*1, who seems to lean toward Panpsychism, which is not my personal position. Meanwhile, I'll look through my extensive body of work to see if I have directly addressed your question in past philosophical musings, as a side topic. However, I doubt that there is any slam-dunk science on the question*2. :smile:

PS___See my next post for a philosophical postulation.


*1. Mind over Matter :
"Now the materialists say that conscious experience has no effect on matter. Therefore it can’t influence behavior. Therefore it can’t increase survival or ‘thrival’ of the organism. Therefore conscious experience confers no evolutionary advantage, according to narrow materialists!
Which means what? Consciousness can’t have evolved. Conscious experience must have come into being by the most extraordinary accident ever!!! But this ‘miraculous accident’ explanation is a complete contradiction to the whole methodological thrust of materialism!"
___Nicholas Rosseinsky, Neuroscientist
https://bothandblog.enformationism.info/page27.html

*2. A quantum case of mind over matter?
New research proposes a way to test whether quantum entanglement is affected by consciousness.
https://insidetheperimeter.ca/a-quantum-case-of-mind-over-matter/

It is relatively easy to give examples on the matter. I have already given several, as in the case of two people who speak the same language. The sounds uttered by each individual are nothing more than sound waves with a certain structure (this includes syntax). But in themselves, these waves do not contain information: if we assume that we have supertechnology with which we can isolate some sound wave and analyze it, we will not find anything other than sound -because is in abstent of relation.


Returning to our case, the sound uttered by one individual reaches the ears of another individual; This individual makes an acoustic image (just as Saussure understands it) of what he has heard; but now what appears is the language that the listener individual possesses. It means something to him: the sound uttered (one system of signs) has effects on another system of signs (the language sedimented in the listener's memory). The information in this case is nothing other than the specific configuration that the listener's language has acquired: "hello, how are you" our listening friend understands. They are specific effects in the listener's language due to the more or less ordered structure of the sound waves uttered by the speaker.


But in a communication between two persons we cannot think of this specific configuration ("hello, how are you") without a cause, and equally we cannot think of this specific configuration as something mysteriously contained in sound while it flies through the air. Given these two impossibilities, the conclusion, evidently, is that the effect suffered by the listener's is produced and not transferred.

Since thought, the supposed immaterial medium of your metaphysical abstractions, manifests and functions as a physical activity of our physical brains, and spacetime, the medium through which empirical experience funds our thoughts, likewise is physical, you must, as many others before you have not, explain how things immaterial shape and control things material. — ucarr

Are you expecting a Scientific, or Philosophical, explanation on this forum? In addition to "spooky action at a distance", Quantum Physics raised unsettling metaphysical Mind over Matter questions with its observation that a scientific Measurement seems to reduce the Uncertainty of an entangled system, somehow causing it to "collapse", or manifest, from an undifferentiated non-local holistic state into a single physical particle of matter*1. Scientific "explanations" for phenomena that don't conform to Classical Physics are typically of the metaphysical philosophical type.

Of course, that Copenhagen Interpretation is still debatable, but the before/after states are about as empirical as it gets on the quantum scale of physics. It's the in-between state (the causal factor) that remains a philosophical conjecture after all these years. But then, mundane-but-instantaneous Phase Transitions, such as water-to-ice, are not yet explicable in terms of step-by-step physical processes. The lack of a slam-dunk physical explanation does not stop us from intentionally manipulating the mysterious Phase Change phenomenon in our technology*3.

One example of Mind over Matter that I have used in the past is to point-out a common feature of modern civilization : abstract ideas implemented in the concrete world. For example, in the early oughties, Elon Musk had some far-out concepts : a> provide transportation to Mars, and b> transform automobiles from gas-guzzlers to electron-zappers. They said it couldn't be done, but only a few decades later we have both Space-X and Tesla. Without his immaterial Ideas and non-thermodynamic Will-power, those things would not have happened naturally. So, there must have been some other kind of Causal Force, working behind the scenes to make it happen. In my thesis, I call it "Causal Information".

Admittedly, this is not a scientific explanation. But then, materialistic Science has no better way to describe how physical rocket ships and electric cars could become manifestations of something as aethereal as a felt need, that Terrence Deacon called "Absential Causality" or "Constitutive Absence"*4. Do you agree that such "ententional phenomena" would never evolve in the absence of human minds? :smile:

*1. Does Consciousness Cause Quantum Collapse?
What causal effects does consciousness have on physical matter?
https://philosophynow.org/issues/121/Does_Consciousness_Cause_Quantum_Collapse

*2. The Copenhagen interpretation postulates the spontaneous reduction of only one final observer. The experiment should be described from this observer's perspective. The reduction, like the velocity of the system, depends on the choice of the final observation system.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/mathematics/copenhagen-interpretation
Note --- Is it the Observer's mental measure or the instrument's physical intervention that "causes" the change of state?

*3. Air Conditioning :
Phase Change Technology utilizes the Latent Heat of Vaporization of a working fluid to absorb thermal energy during the evaporator cycle and release this energy during the condenser cycle.
https://norenthermal.com/resources/phase-change-technology/?lang=en
Note --- Latent ˈ: existing in hidden or dormant form.

*4.a Absential : The paradoxical intrinsic property of existing with respect to something missing, separate, and possibly nonexistent. Although this property is irrelevant when it comes to inanimate things,it is a defining property of life and mind; elsewhere (Deacon 2005) described as a constitutive absence.
*4.b Constitutive absence :A particular and precise missing something that is a critical defining attribute of 'ententional' phenomena, such as functions, thoughts, adaptations, purposes, and subjective experiences.
https://absence.github.io/3-explanations/absential/absential.html
Note --- Deacon spells his neologism for purposeful behavior, ententional with an "E"

What does a non-physical entity emerge from? When you say mind emerges from matter, you imply mind is a component of matter and thus mind, like matter, is material. (See example directly below) — ucarr

The only non-physical entities I'm aware of are Mental Phenomena (e.g. ideas), which I place into the philosophical category of Meta-physical. My use of that term is based on Aristotle's discussion of Nature*1 --- as a whole system of matter & mind. He describes metaphysics in terms of Causes. And in my thesis, EnFormAction (EFA) is the Causal agency of the universe (energy + laws), with the ability to transform one Form (relationship pattern) into another. So it is the origin of both Matter and Mind. But I did not intend to imply that Mind is a "component" of Matter.

From our perspective, looking backward at Evolution, from Bang to Now, Mind does appear to be emergent from Matter. But, if you look closely at the beginning, as described by Big Bang theory, there was no Matter in the modern sense, but something more akin to a Quantum state. Moreover, the initial Singularity, preceding the physical Bang*2, is a hypothetical mathematical concept, which is undefined due to infinities. For my thesis, I interpret that not-yet-real state (infinite Potential) as functioning like a computer program, with an evolutionary algorithm (instructions for development), and with the information processing power (creative Energy) to compute a universe from raw data. But first, the Singularity has to create a physical computer to run the evolutionary program. You can think of it in terms of instantaneous Inflation*2 (something from nothing-but-potential), if you prefer that to a magical Voila! ("here it is").

Since I imagine Evolution as-if a computer is processing Information (encoded data) according to natural (mathematical) laws*3, it creates "candidate solutions" to partial problems in sequence, for selection conforming to functional criteria. The early (hot & dense) universe was the raw (quantum) material for further development into Atoms & Molecules ; the first real matter. Each subsequent phase of emergence produces novel forms, never before seen in the world : e.g. stars create new forms of matter. such as iron. After further processing, a non-physical Function emerges : Life -- animated matter ; single cells. Next, those organisms develop another novelty : Brains -- material central processors of information ; control systems. And eventually, those Brains produced a new function : Mind -- with awareness of relationship of Self to Environment.

So, that's an abbreviated summary of how I see Mind emerging from Matter, which emerged from Math (abstract information). As I get time, I may address some of your other mis-understandings. :smile:

*1. What did Aristotle argue in his metaphysics?
He argues that the study of being qua being, or First Philosophy, is superior to all the other theoretical sciences because it is concerned with the ultimate causes of all reality, not just the secondary causes of a part of reality.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics_(Aristotle)

*2. Cosmic Inflation :
The Big Bang wasn't the beginning, after all. Instead, that honor goes to cosmic inflation, and everyone should understand why.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2019/10/22/what-came-first-inflation-or-the-big-bang/?sh=3b5c4c044153

*3. Evolutionary computation :
In evolutionary computation, an initial set of candidate solutions is generated and iteratively updated
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_computation

I'm still on the energy-consciouness relation.
Our brains use 20 percent of our bodies total energy. In terms of power it's about as much as a 10 watt light bulb. So we should suspect consciousness is energy driven. I don't think that's the end of it though. Once we have functioning consciousness the subject matter can drive physical matter.

You could actually do rough math on this for example how much energy a single mental task would require using a fraction of a daily total available. Consciousness isn't a freebie.

I'm still on the energy-consciouness relation.
Our brains use 20 percent of our bodies total energy. In terms of power it's about as much as a 10 watt light bulb. So we should suspect consciousness is energy driven. I don't think that's the end of it though. Once we have functioning consciousness the subject matter can drive physical matter. — Mark Nyquist

In my thesis, there is indeed a close relationship between Energy and Consciousness. Both are emergent forms of a cosmic predecessor that I call EnFormAction. But each sub-form has its own characteristic properties. Energy is physical causation, but no material properties. Instead, in my hypothesis, tangible Matter --- mathematically defined in terms of Mass --- is what happens to Energy when the speed of Light slows down enough for a phase change (to Mass) to occur (E=MC^2). So, Light & Matter & Mind are different phases of the same Universal Substance (essence), to which I apply the modern term "Information", but translate into EnFormAction : the creative act of enforming (i.e. transformation or causation).

If you can accept that far-out philosophical posit, then yes : "Consciousness is energy driven". Yet again, in my thesis --- not in standard physics --- both C & E are forms of Generic Information : the universal metaphysical power (potential) for form change. Pre-Big Bang, the unknown "nothing" from which our "something" physical universe suddenly popped into existence was simply Eternal Potential. That's equivalent to Plato's Logos/Form, and to Aristotle's Prime Mover.

But the heat given-off by a hard-thinking brain is more closely related to the work of pushing electrons & calcium around in the neural net, than to processing massless immaterial thoughts. Conscious Awareness doesn't radiate like a light bulb . . . . except perhaps as a graphic metaphor. :smile:


No, Roger Penrose, We See No Evidence Of A ‘Universe Before The Big Bang’
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2020/10/08/no-roger-penrose-we-see-no-evidence-of-a-universe-before-the-big-bang/?sh=16ddef047a0f

Does the human brain get hotter when thinking?
https://www.quora.com/Does-the-human-brain-get-hotter-when-thinking

The hotter when thinking link is interesting.
I think I used to notice brain warming when playing Tetris at a high level. A little worrying.

Good graphic.

I was making the point that since consciousness is mass and energy dependant then thoughts are not immaterial.

I was making the point that since consciousness is mass and energy dependant then thoughts are not immaterial. — Mark Nyquist

If thoughts are physical (and located somewhere in the brain presumably), and you imagine an orange, did a part of your brain turn orange?

https://iep.utm.edu/identity/#H2
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mind-identity/#Lat

Certainly. — Alkis Piskas

Hi Alkis :) Thanks for your thorough response.
I\ve started with the above as i believe it, in some senses, makes some of your other responses redundant or contradictory.. though i do not think this is on purpose, a result of stupidity or anything.

Maybe the other way around ... In order to be aware of something you must first perceive it, don't you? — Alkis Piskas

Consciousness entails perception. Sentience entails feeling about perception. It seems counter to both the definitions used by philosophers, and the basic notion of these two concepts, that Sentience could precede consciousness. That seems exactly backwards to me and i can't grasp how you're seeing it another way.
To my understanding, consciousness is more basic than sentience. Sentience is in addition to consciousness. This someone goes to my first response above - you seem to be not really using the correct distinction that philosophers use when discussing this - but that is based on my understanding just there, so i may be wrong. But it doesn't seem in any way a philosophical problem in the sense of 'debate'. One of us is using hte wrong term.

Does this mean that you just don't believe or trust what a person says or you can't debate what that person says or you don't trust your own reasoning, knowledge and jugment? — Alkis Piskas

No. It means i expect someone presenting sources for their arguments to actually have verified sources, rather internet articles for which there are no references, no credible citation and no clear author or institutional source. And to note, I did, in fact, critique it via my own 'judgement' anyway.

How can you judge that if you can't judge what the person says in the first place? Or are you going to believe that authority unquestionably because it is a famous personality? Or are you going to start doubting or arguing about what that authority says or even about the authority iself? Wouldn't that end up in a vicious cycle?
It all loses its meaning, doesn't it? — Alkis Piskas

Give both aspects of what i've said about, i think this entire passage is misconceived and potentially a way of trying to deflect from a lack of support for the initial assertion. I don't know that to be true, but its a huge protest that doesn't make any sense given i addressed the article and the lack of credibility. I would also note that being directed to Google for sources supporting your own argument is bizarre, and Twitter-level interlocution to my mind. I left Twitter to avoid that type of "Do you own research" kind of thing. To be a little more direct, If i can't find a good reason to take your assertion on board, or consider it seriously due to it failing at xyz hurdle, your sources are the way to convince someone you have something. Your sources are used to ensure you're not making stuff up - in this case, as your source fell well short of being credible, thorough or even clear in its origin and thesis, i can't understand why you're being dismissive of wanting sources. Seems counter to what we do here.

the final acceptance or rejection of a proposition will always depend on your own jugment. — Alkis Piskas

That's true. But unless you're suggesting we jettison understanding, reason, veracity and debate - i can't see how this is relevant.

I know that. And this is exactly what I objected to! :smile: — Alkis Piskas

If this was your intention, it was not clear and doesn't seem to be relevant to what we're actually talking about.
If we both agree sentience isn't required for the above, we are left with consciousness (which was my assertion all along). That means you've somewhat shot your objection in it's own foot.

I explained that "sentience" and "perception" are very close. I alo talked about what I often like to say: Consciousness is a characteristic of life; of sentient beings. — Alkis Piskas

This, again, doesn't seem relevant. They aren't particularly close in the context we're discussing, but further, even if they are 'close' its their distinction that matters to us here - not their similarity. And in any case, we seem to both have established (albeit, you've done it by accident) that sentience is further up the chain from consciousness, as consciousness is not required for thought (mental images) where sentience is. This ...almost... feels like you're pulling my leg.

I see that we go in circles. You just reject the definitions, descriptions and examples I'm bringing up. — Alkis Piskas

No. That is not the case, at all. I have pointed out to you that the definitions you are using are both non-philosophical, and fail us in making a distinction (which clearly exists).
The fact that your utterances aren't taken as wrote is not any indication of some kind of resistance or dishonesty on the part of your interlocutor. As i've found out, it's difficult but extremely helpful to accept where you are wrong, or where your thinking isn't clear. More below...

Why don't you look up for yourself and clear the meaning of all these words/terms in a dictionary? Do you hate dictionaries as a lot of people in here do? — Alkis Piskas

If you are not apt to use philosophical definitions and usages of words, this may not be the best place to discuss these things. I also note three instances of ad hominem in this response ( most recently, in the quote immediately above this section of my comment.

Just rhetorical questions. I'm not interested in talking more about this subject. It's totally useless. — Alkis Piskas

Are you suggesting you have no further interest in establishing communal philosophical usages of words, that you have no further interest in discussing consciousness, or that you have no further interest in philosophy?

IN all three cases, i return to my earlier suggestion - this may not be the place for you to discuss these issues. Given that you've been here three years and amassed more than 2000 posts, this strikes as quite odd. Has this been a long time coming, or have you long-had a distaste for the nitty-gritty as it were?.

I'm saying we need to be rigorous in how we approach the problem of the immaterial or non-physical.

Non-physical means it does not exist.
But the physical brain has the capability to handle the immaterial. For example zero, the past and future. So the immaterial, stand alone, does not exist but the paired brain-immaterial does exist and that is exactly the form of immaterial we experience.

I would admit in your example of the orange that that too is immaterial so maybe all mental content is immaterial...I'm okay with that as long as it's paired with a physical brain.

Maybe we get lazy and want to deal with the immaterial as an abstraction because it's generally understood that way. Maybe subconsciously we know better.

See the little graphic next to my name. So x would be the orange and Y(o) the brain-immaterial pair.

The only non-physical entities I'm aware of are Mental Phenomena (e.g. ideas), which I place into the philosophical category of Meta-physical. — Gnomon

Mental phenomena inhabit the natural world as material realities.

...I did not intend to imply that Mind is a "component" of Matter. — Gnomon

Your language implies mind is a component of matter because in your thinking about its emergence, your language invokes the concept of emergence, an action that, in context here, manifests physically. Your usage is evidence your thinking alternates between two realms, one material, the other immaterial. When you argue that immaterial things emerge from material things, you imply that the material and the immaterial have common ground. This means the two modes have an intersection wherein their supposed parallelism collapses. The necessity of common ground for interaction means the spirit world cannot interact with the material world and remain wholly spiritual. Familiar evidence of this is the manifestation of Jesus as flesh and blood.

Quantum Physics raised unsettling metaphysical Mind over Matter questions with its observation that a scientific Measurement seems to reduce the Uncertainty of an entangled system, somehow causing it to "collapse", or manifest, from an undifferentiated non-local holistic state into a single physical particle of matter — Gnomon

There's no metaphysics here. This is physics within the framework of thermodynamics. This framework includes the higher-orders of thermodynamics: morphodynamics and teleodynamics. This broadly inclusive framework includes mind, but there's no mind-over-matter in the sense of Cartesian Dualism. This is to say there's no metaphysical entity inhabiting an immaterial universe and spiritually controlling material objects within the natural world.

The theme behind my arguments thus far is the premise that much (if not all) of what spiritual parallelism to date claims for itself is actually higher-order materialism. My premise is not, however, an expression of reductive materialism. It is, instead, a mandate to seek the release of spirituality from Cartesian Dualism.

Are you expecting a Scientific, or Philosophical, explanation on this forum? — Gnomon

The disjunction: science or philosophy, with respect to consciousness studies, runs parallel to the disjunction: physics or math, with respect to Relativity. Anyone operating within either of these two disciplines who aligns with either of these disjunctions assumes position to play the part of the fool.

You can hover in the vicinity of philosophy without a grounding in science, and you can hover in the vicinity of physics without math, but the immersion-in-depth requisite for proficient, authoritative understanding of either necessitates these groundings.

My own theory of Consciousness has a "defect" similar to Panpsychism : jumbling Matter together with Mind. That's because the fundamental element of our real world is neither a physical thing, nor a metaphysical entity, but the not-yet-real Potential for both. Terrence Deacon calls it "constitutive absence", but I call it "causal information" (EnFormAction). Materialism & Spiritualism typically view Mind & Brain as incompatible opposites. But the BothAnd principle*3 allows us to see both sides of reality, where Mind & Matter are parts of a greater whole system : the enminded universe. — Gnomon

To me this sounds like a description of stored energy and, therefore, I say in response: Where there's energy there's material and thus your attempt to occupy ambiguous position between material/immaterial is false. Your Enformaction, like Deacon's constitutive absence, stands squarely within the material world.

Materialism & Spiritualism typically view Mind & Brain as incompatible opposites. But the BothAnd principle*3 allows us to see both sides of reality, where Mind & Matter are parts of a greater whole system : the enminded universe. — Gnomon

*3. Both/And Principle :
My coinage for the holistic principle of Complementarity, as illustrated in the Yin/Yang symbol. . . . Conceptually, the BothAnd principle is similar to Einstein's theory of Relativity, in that what you see ─ what’s true for you ─ depends on your perspective, and your frame of reference; for example, subjective or objective, religious or scientific, reductive or holistic, pragmatic or romantic, conservative or liberal, earthbound or cosmic. Ultimate or absolute reality (ideality) doesn't change, but your conception of reality does, as you re-frame the question. — Gnomon

I surmise from your above two quotes that you wish to escape the mind/body conflict by pairing the two positions such that you transcend the impasse while at the same time carving out a niche for your own postulations. Speaking structurally, with Enformaction, you're going non-binary.

So, the Both/And Principle is the lynchpin of Enformation.

Both/And translates to: disjunction operator (or)/conjunction operator (and).

Let’s examine your Both/And principle logically with X = Material and Y = Immaterial.

If Material = True and Immaterial = True, then

(X or Y) / (X and Y) translates to (True or True) or (True and True). This evaluates to (True or True). This evaluates to True as the final state. If both material world and immaterial world exist, then the Both/And Principle contains truth content.

Let’s assume the reality of the material world is not in dispute (Solipsists speak now or forever hold your peace).

What about the reality of the immaterial world? It’s in dispute.

Does Gnomon’s claim for the ambiguity of Enformaction hold true? I dispute Gnomon’s defense by arguing his Enformaction, as defined, equals potential energy and that, being energetic (although non-kinetic), is material, not ambiguous.

So now we can evaluate the truth content of the Both/And Principle in application to Enformaction as defined: …the fundamental element of our real world is neither a physical thing, nor a metaphysical entity, but the not-yet-real Potential for both[/i].

If Material = True and Immaterial = False, then

(X or Y) / (X and Y) translates to (True or False) or (True and False). This evaluates to (True or False). This evaluates to True as the final state. This means that within the disjunction operator, there’s truth content even if only one of the terms is true because they’re not connected. The Both/And Principle contains truth content within one of its chambers.

An example of the disjunction operator containing truth value for (X or Y) which evaluates to (True or False) which evaluates to True is: "…the fundamental element of our real world is neither a physical thing, nor a metaphysical entity, but the not-yet-real Potential for both."

If, as I argue, this is a claim for a transcendent ambiguity that is really a description of stored energy, a material reality, then we’re looking at a (True or False) disjunction that evaluates to a final state that has truth content.

The conventional interpretation of my argument expresses as the claim the material world is true whereas the immaterial world (and evasive ambiguity) is false and yet, claims about the immaterial world can nevertheless make statements true in the material world.

One possible further interpretation is that spiritual claims about existence draw some of their truth from claims that ultimately pertain to attributes of human nature as it expresses itself within the natural world. This indicates in turn that spirituality is sometimes in fact a sub-division of human psychology.

Finally, this leads us to speculate about spiritualist-human-psychology occupying a position on the continuum of material things inhabiting the natural world.