All this is well put and quite interesting!

I’ll post it as a minor sidenote regarding alternative views. — javra

I believe that you should post it as a major note and in big letters! :grin:
(Just joking ...)

“information as substance” — javra

Information is not a substance. It is facts, which can be known, evaluated, processed etc. by the mind. So, both information and consciousness are non-substance --better, non-physical.

Substance theory — javra

Thanks for this. I had to look it up! :grin: According to this theory, substance can mean the foundation, property of an object or the object itself. And this, indeed, creates a pysical - non-physical dualism. Nice! :up:

we take information to be something that can be both ontically created and eradicated ... — javra

I don't see the other leg of "both" ...

duality between “awareness as substance” and “information as non-substance” — javra

Well, I have already rejected consciousness as substance ... :smile:

physical information of the body — javra

Not sure about the meaning of this. Information that comes from the body or that refers to the body?
Anyway, I already talked about the non-physicality of information.

awareness devoid of any information — javra

Awarenes does not contain or has information. It is a state that makes it possible for us to acquire (perceive, know about) information. So, it is knowledge that contains information.

awareness would then be literally infinite ... as an ultimate reality that consists of a literally selfless/egoless awareness — javra

OK, I can see why you mentioned "ego" and "self" ...

Why is that more correctly? — Raymond

Because, in the subject of consciousness, it is better and more exact to speak about "non-physical" than "non-substance", which can mean anything, physical and non-physical.

No, it's a flow of energy.
(If you refer to "'substance - non-substance' dualism" that I mentioned, it was just to differentiate from your "'substance-dualism", which I undestood it meant "dualism between different substances". But "non-substance" does not mean "non-physical": e.g. energy is non-substance but it's still physical.
So, to speak more correctly, the actual dualism is between "physical and non-physical".

OK

Thanks :smile:

Supposing consciousness to be a different substance — javra

Consciousness is not a substance (Re: Substance is a particular kind of matter with uniform properties.).

wouldn't you agree that all this scientific evidence nevertheless demonstrates that the limits or boundaries of an individual human consciousness is for all intended purposes largely, if not fully, set by the brain? — javra

Yes, as far as the senses --i.e. the physical world-- are concerned. In fact, both the sences --e.g. bad vision-- and the brain --brain damage-- set limits to consciousness, since they limit perception. This is as far as science can attest to. But when it comes, for example, to feelings --joy, sorrow, etc.-- and other human emotional manifestations, things get outside science's jurisdiction.

In this substance-dualism supposition — javra

I would rather say "substance - non-substance" dualism ...

be it the physical information of the body, the psychical perceptual information of what is perceived, and so forth - would literally give form to, i.e. in-form, one’s consciousness such that it holds specific limits or boundaries — javra

I agree. (This can be derived from what I said earlier.)

[consciousnessw] is nevertheless dependent on the body’s being for its moment to moment form — javra

.
I agree. (This can be also derived from what I said earlier.)

for its identity as ego or self — javra

Now here we are moving into a quite controversial area! :smile:

More than that I'm afraid. Nature, I was told, is lazy — Agent Smith

I don't get that ... Example?

Limits are restrictions, restrictions are imposed, imposed implies absence of, not presence of, freedom. — Agent Smith

No, no. I am referring to the limits/restictions selected and applied by ourselves. Hence, free will.
Example: I set a limit for time of 2 hrs, a limit for cost of 1,000 euros. I decide that freelly and willingly.

:up: Excellent description -- or should I say "essay"?.
The only problem is that it is useless to connect consciousness with the brain directly, i.e. as if consciousness is created and maintained by the brain. Science, neurobiologists included, have actually not a clue about the nature, location and functioning of consciousness. (I don't think I need to bring dozens of references that prove that fact, based on scientists' words themselves.) After more than a century of research, in and out of laboratories, the only thing that they have to show are reactions of the brain triggered by patients watching videos, images, etc. and, of course, by tampering with the brain itself. I think that science has been given more than enough time to come up with something substantial on the subject of consciousness. I don't think they will ever do. They are looking to a wrong direction and use the wrong tools.

it all depends on keeping one of the many variables involved at a minimum. — Agent Smith

Right, as far as time and cost are concerned. But we may want the opposite --increase the criterion to a maximum-- as in the example of "quality" and "pleasure". However, maximums can certainly create problems. E.g. drinking. That's why they also require setting llimits, whereas minimums don't.

The point is we can take an unreasonable course of action - prolong our journey and pay a hefty sum - and that's what I feel is free will at work. — Agent Smith

Right. That's why I mentioned setting "limits". Anyway, the essential point is that acting based on setting, deciding on and applying any criterion for any action is enough to prove the existence of free will.
That's why I can't see how can a large part of "thinking" people maintain that there's no free will!

hinge upon the notion of "isomorphism" — jgill

Thanks for reminding me of this term! It's quite a long time since it has disappeared from my view ... Well, who knows, there may be some analogy between our mathematics and some inherent system in the universe ... If something like that is discovered, it will certainly be a huge scientific revolution. (Anyway, I will certainly not be here to enjoy it! :grin:)

we do things in very inefficient ways, most of the times failing to take the shortest route between beginning (of a project) and its end — Agent Smith

The shortest route between A and B is not always the most efficient. There may be other factors that can be applied to evaluate efficiency. One of them is "cost". If we travel from Italy directly to London by plane may cost more than through Germany. The direct way can be called "time-efficient" and the indirect one "cost-efficient". So, if we mind more about the cost of travel than how long it takes, its more efficient to take the indirect route. Other criteria can be "quality", "pleasure", etc.

So, if I am not wrong, you tried to prove the existence of free will based on human inefficiency. Yet, the above examples I gave are better, I think, than inefficiency. The willingness to apply personal criteria of efficiency and decide on a different way than the default, easiest or shorter way to a destination or end purpose, is a better proof of free will than following the shorter, easier, safer, more comfortable or common path.

I have read most of the article your link leads to. Among other things it talks about "non-mathematician mathematicians" which can be only taken figuratively, since obviously it is quite a conflicting expression! Anyway, I can't see what is the point the author of the article the position is trying to make besides that we are all mathematicians and we apply math in our everyday life. Well, this sounds like what I say sometimes about philosophy, namely that everyone is a philosopher and has a philosophy on life and various subjects. But I think we have to address Math as a scientific subject, i.e. the discipline and study of numbers, formulas, relational structures, shapes, etc.
For example, are we inventing mathematical formulas or discovering them?

So, instead of non-mathematicians, let's talk about Mathematics and other sciences themselves.

Now, since I am not a scientist myself, first I bring in some data I found from a short research I did. Then I will tell my views as a non-scientist, from a philosophical view (even if I am not an actual philosopher myself :smile:)

The term "Mathematical universe" leads to "Mathematical Universe Hypothesis", according to which "the physical universe is not merely described by mathematics, but is mathematics (specifically, a mathematical structure)" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_universe_hypothesis).

"Mathematical universe" also leads to Max Tegmark, who wrote a book entitled "Our Mathematical Universe".

Tegmark says, "our external physical reality is a mathematical structure. That is, the physical universe is not merely described by mathematics, but is mathematics (specifically, a mathematical structure). (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_universe_hypothesis)

Tegmark explores the possibility that "math does not just describe the universe, but makes the universe."
(https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-the-universe-made-of-math-excerpt/

(The book is discussed in detail at https://space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/mathematical.html)

***

Now, about my view on the subject:

Maybe we should start with talking about numbers, the basis of Math. It is supposed that the numeral system was discovered by Egyptians, but this is not important in this topic. It only shows that numbers are apparently human-made. So, we have to ask ourselves, is there a numerical system in the physical universe --independent and different from ours-- based on which the universe "works"? For example, there are three trees out there in the field. Does it matter for the universe? Does the universe use this as information to "act" or "behave" in some particular way? Would it matter if there were four trees or one tree or none? We certainly cannot say.
But this is something more or less concrete. Can such a concepts like "zero", "infinite", etc. have a meaning for or application by the universe? What about "calculus", "combinations" and hundreds of other math methods? I mean, not as terminology but what these represent? In other words, if the nature of the universe or a characteristic of it is mathematical, if the universe has its own way of using what we call "mathematics", how could we ever understand it?

So, on a purely logical basis, a "mathematical universe" makes no sense to me. On the other hand, a "mathematical mind" does.

I hate discussions of free will — T Clark

This is a surprising statement for someone who has started a discussion about good will!! :grin:

And it would be also surprising for me if I were involved in it, because I also hate discussions about free will! :grin:

not many of us would be able to write a book on quantum physics, — Athena

I'm not talking about writing in a scientific style or sophisticated manner. I'm talking about inconsistencies. If I say that I am the only child and later Ι say that I have two brothers, how can you take what I am saying seriously?

Hebrews knew they were using stories. They were meant to be interpreted literally. — Athena

Maybe you mean "They were not meant ..."?

Is an expression of my own personal interpretation of the Bible. — Athena

I can accept that fully.

I don't think anyone has an exclusive hold on "God's truth" — Athena

Certainly not.

There is an increasing demand for a more spiritual experience. This is where our understanding of the trinity is so important! — Athena

I agree.

Some like to say we are spiritual beings having a human experience. — Athena

One can also say, "We are spiritual beings having a spiritual experience". It depends on the kind of experiance ...

I am really sitting on the fence between being materialistic or more metaphysical. — Athena

I don't think you have to be either of them. You are a spiritual being living in a world that is both material and spiritual.

I have had experiences that can not be explained with a purely material understanding of reality. — Athena

Certainly!

What I don’t understand is in the Bible, Jesus communicates directly with God. Wouldn’t this amount to nothing more than talking to yourself? — Pinprick

You just pinpointed one of the many inconsistencies existing in the Bible! :smile:
Do this kind of stories ring a bell? To me yes. It reminds me of school essays written by children. It also reminds me how people with insufficient rational abilities argue in discussions, talk and write on various subjects. Arguing with those persons usually leads to nowhere. So is the study of the Bible!

@Roger Gregoire- your analogy fails on multiple levels. Fix the analogy and your conclusion gets traction. — Caldwell

I agree.

The sense and meaning of will for Schopenhauer has nothing to do with your definition above. — Raul

I see. In that case, I was wrong to respond to your topic. Sorry.

(BTW, I have read some works of Schopenhauer a very long time ago. I have grown up a lot since! :grin:)

I would think that a quality or attribute which is impossible for a thing to have, is a false principle. — Metaphysician Undercover

From Oxford LEXICO:
A principle is "a fundamental truth or proposition that serves as the foundation for a system of belief or behaviour or for a chain of reasoning"
A quality is "a distinctive attribute or characteristic possessed by someone or something."

So, no. A quality cannot be true or false. A principle, on the other hand, can.
They are totally different things.

Crucially, the parts are interchangeable with respect to the whole

Well, try to change the left and right hands in a human body! :grin:
(Just a joke, but still, it defeats the above statement.)

BTW, referring to the title of your topic, "symmetry" is not either a true or a false principle. Because it is a quality or attribute, not a principle! :smile:

I find a lot of similarities with the contemporary concept of intentionality. — Raul

Of course there are a lot. Simply put:
Will is the power with which we can decide on and initiate an action.
Intention is a condition of the mind or force directing us towards deciding on and initiating an action.
They are very closely related.
(There's no need for much pondering on that! :grin: )

Anyone that advises (or mandates) that we socially isolate and clothe our healthy immune population is LOGICALLY IGNORANT — Roger Gregoire

Who is advising for or applies isolation of the healthy immune population???

Then, the mosquito example you gave supports the isolation illusion principle, because the mosquito(s) can be killed before doing harm or die after a bite. But what about a virus, which cannot be killed but instead spread in the environment and transmitted even by relatively immune people (who will also be infected but they won't suffer from severe health conditions)?

First of all, I'm sorry, I gave you the wrong link to look at: The right one, which was my response too your topic is https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/633941 . Anyway, the thing has been carried on for too long. My bad. So let's drop it.

Give me a take and I’ll try see what’s unclear. — Ignoredreddituser

I have enumerated my questions! You can read them (again) if you like at https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/633623

Higher level facts are facts about people, places, things, that aren’t bottom level of analysis, like for example atoms, quarks, what have you. — Ignoredreddituser

OK. Thanks. I didn't know that.

it’s in my OP it’s an objection that causal continuity isn’t enough for personal identity. In metaphysical parlance ground, as I understand it, explains the higher level facts. — Ignoredreddituser

OK. One answer, 3 to go! :grin: (I had 4 questions)
Unforturnately though, I got another one from this reply of yours: What are "higher level facts"?

Suppose that science have achieve immortality for humans (whatever the mean for this).
What would be philosophical consequence? — John Pingo

Interesting assumption. Only that you maybe forgot about the overpopulation that will ensue! :smile:
But if we also assume that science finds also a way for our resources to become unlimited and save our planet from destruction or that we'll be able to spread the population of Earth to other planets, then philosophy will be greaty benefited because the persons involved in it will have much more time to come with more plausible, fruitful and useful answers on life and the universe. Because, even if someone is influenced and continues the work of a great philosopher after he has left, it's not the same thing as if that philosopher were still alive and active in the field.

An individual subscribes to an idea or philosophy due to their personal biases and intuitions — clemogo

Strange that you are reducing one's reality of the world to biases and intuitions. Bias implies inclination to prejudice. Intuition implies instinctive understanding. Both of them exclude conscious reasoning, observation, perception, cognition, ... Do you maybe reject the existence of consciousness?

The objection is that we stand in causal relationships with over people, yet have no relationship of personal identity with them. — Ignoredreddituser

1) What objection? Objection to what?
2) What exactly do you mean by "relationship of personal identity"?

For example, I can make my mother angry or make her remember last Christmas, yet we are in no way identical. — Ignoredreddituser

Why should you be identical? In fact, can anyone be identical to anyone else?

causal continuity cannot ground personal identity. — Ignoredreddituser

Can you explain "ground"? It normally means prohibit or prevent and I cannot see the meaning of the above statement.

Premise 1: some things are pious while others are sin.
Premise 2: God decides which is pious or not because he is all knowing. — Vanbrainstorm

I believe that you should include a few very important premises before #2: that God exists and is so and so and can do this and that, etc. Or, if he doesn't really exist, you must assume that he does, otherwise you have no "game". But I can overlook this because there are more important things: the "traps" or inconsistencies in these two introductory lines of your description:

1) If God "is all knowing", he will never have to decide about anything because he knows a priori what is right or wrong, good or bad, pious or sin, etc. ("Decide" means arrive to a result or select among possible options about something after consideration and God would never need to do that.)

2) How could anyone know what God considers as right or wrong, good or bad, pious or sin? How could anyone know the will of God?

3) If you assume that God is omniscient, then most probably you also assume that he is omnipotent, isn't that so? Does then "free will" have any meaning for him, since he is assumed to always act at his own discretion?

So, according to my opinion, and I am sorry to say that, this topic is built on quicksand. It has no foundations, if no meaning at all.

Where do you wanna go with this? — Agent Smith

Nowhere! I'm good. :grin:

Comprehensibility is not something we can project/impose onto something that is inherently incomprehensible — Agent Smith

In case you refer to "must" in my statement "We must create one for ourselves", I didn't use it in the sense of an absolute need or of imposing comprehensibilty onto something incomprehensible, as you say, but rather that if we want that life has a meaning for us, then we should create one ourselves (and for ourselves).

What's the Ancient Greek for 'Neepheid'? — Amity

I don't know what does this word mean and I can't find it in the Web ...

I've enjoyed it but perhaps enough already — Amity

Maybe you must stop being fed with this stuff before you get yourselg an indigestion! :grin:
Otherwise, you have good points about the usefulness of literature. If not anything else, it can add some "color" or "salt" to philosophical discussions. But, as a principle, I personally am very strict about exact language when it comes to logic and philosophy. There must no be ambiguity in the logical world, including descriptions, examples, distractions, etc. So, literature is not so much of value to me. I prefer adding "spice" to a discussion using "colorful" examples, including analogies. Analogies are great. Much better than metaphors! :smile:

what do you mean by... 'too much literary input' ? — Amity

I mean I have taken in too much literature data, esp. terms. I am not at all in the literature field, you see. Hence "too much input" for me, i.e. I am fed up with metaphor stuff! :grin:

I enjoyed the discussion though! :smile:

:up:
But for me, all this is too much literary input! :grin:

Why should the universe (1) make sense (2) to us? — Agent Smith

That's a very good question! :smile:
Well, I personally have no problem not knowing the meaning and purpose of the universe. It's enough for me that I can make use of it, i.e. create a meaning, purpose and uses for it.

Fire had no meaning or purpose by itself. Man has created one. (In fact, a lot ot them.)

Likewise, life per se has no meaning or purpose. We must create one for ourselves.

Technically, I think it is what's called a metonymy — T Clark

Thanks! I got richer today by one literary term! :grin:

Wikipedia describes the differencr bewteen "metonomy" and "metaphor":
"Metonymy works by the contiguity (association) between two concepts, whereas the term 'metaphor' is based upon their analogous similarity. When people use metonymy, they do not typically wish to transfer qualities from one referent to another as they do with metaphor. There is nothing press-like about reporters or crown-like about a monarch, but 'the press' and 'the crown' are both common metonyms."

Well, that's enough for me for one day as far as literature is concerned! :grin:

I would say these are only one word (compound nouns)...denoting the existence of only one entity! — jancanc

You are right. That's why I said, "it's the best one could do", i.e. the nearest to single-word metaphors one can get.

@jancanc In fact, a complete metaphor cannot be formulated by a single word, and this is I think the answer to the topic.

therein lies my problem with saying a mere word (in isolation) is a metaphor. — jancanc

What about two words blended into a single one (scapegoat, portemanteau, mockingbird, ...) ? :smile:

Found this but haven't read it through properly
https://www.thoughtco.com/what-is-conceptual-metaphor-1689899 — Amity

:up: Nice! It gives examples of single-word metaphors (emphasizing the word that is used metaphorically), as I did too.

I don't think these are metaphors. — T Clark

Which particularly? (I can't handle "these" ...)
I assume you mean all of them. Anyway, it depends on how one defines the word "metaphor". I use the definition from Oxford LEXICO: "A figure of speech in which a word or phrase is applied to an object or action to which it is not literally applicable."

'Literary Devices' defines it as "a word or phrase that is used to make a comparison between two things.". And it offers a lot of examples. I list some of them that apply to "my case":
- Battle of egos: The word "battle" is used figuratively (metaforically)
- Better half: The word "half" is used with a different meaning than its basic one
- Early bird: The word "early" is used with a aspecial meaning, other than its basic one

In my example "he holds a chair in physics" the word "chair" is used figuratively. It fits the scheme used by 'Literary Devices'. At least this is how I see it.

The example used py the poster himself --"she has a heart of gold"-- also fits to the abobe scheme, only that in this case both words are used metaforically (figuratively). We could change it to "a person of gold", in which s single word is used metaforically, "gold". The scheme is always the same.

Anyway, the topic asks for single-word metaphors. And the above examples fit the case. If, however, the topic asks for striclly single words, i.e. creating a metaphor by uttering a single word, then the words "scapegoat" and "portmanteau", which I also mentioned, and similar ones, is the best one could do. And, like early bird, mentioned above, we can mention "mockingbird", which is mimicking the songs of other birds and which is another example of a single-word metaphor.
(Yet, note that these too consist of two words, only that they are blended together! :smile:)