Paying a mother is paying a carer.

Seems as you are having trouble following this. What it has to do with the Taliban is quite beyond my keen.

Again, your comments are frenetic. — Banno

Once upon a time societies were organized by family order. Admittedly there may be some problems with that, but it does not become the government's problem. Finally, a discussion worth having, huh? It might suck to be a homemaker but that does not have to be so and when the kids are in school the homemaker can work outside of the home. The homemaker does so much more than change diapers and feed children. A homemaker has perhaps the most important job because the health of the whole community really depends on her.

In a matriarchy both genders are subject to becoming narcissistic coroporate machines. Then, we end up raising a generation of psychopaths that keep shooting up all the public schools. Just spit balling. — Cheshire

Oh is that why our banking system and some industries have been run by psychopaths, a lack of a father in the home? I think you may have a point. Would you like to explain it? What is the problem with single mothers raising children without fathers?

Moreover, if we take state institutions like police, judiciary, civil service, and political leadership to be "oppressive" because they are mostly run by men, at what point can we say that they cease to be oppressive and become non-oppressive? — Apollodorus

Oh my goodness, you asked a very, very important question!

There are two ways to have social order, culture or authority over the people. Native Americans have a tradition of handling social problems without authority over the people and more in line with the correction of our correction system that is not just and is not correcting!

Correct. I can think of no explanation as to why western governments would pump trillions into Afghanistan and arm the Taliban instead of using the money to help their own citizens when in need. — Apollodorus

That is a different subject but it is related to this one. Perhaps we can move closer to the subject by asking how do men organize and how do women organize? I will prime the thinking pump with a link to information about native Americans and matriarchy. With an understanding of native American matriarchy, we can then see how the Taliban is different. The link will partially answer the question about the difference between male and female organizations.

We might what to consider, in these different societies is a noticeable difference in ideas about the creator/god? Can we be clear that Judaism, Christianity, Islam are basically the same father in heaven worshiping religion. The big difference between patriarchy and matriarchy is the decent of property and ownership is related to power, right?

American Indian Women - Teachinghistory.orghttps://teachinghistory.org › ask-a-historian
In many North American societies, clan membership and material goods descended through women. For example, the Five (later Six) Nations of the Iroquois ... — teaching history

I can be clearer that was muddled.
What I meant was the merits/demerits of a gender based society would match the merits/demerits of the genders themselves. I’m not making a commentary about what those gender merits/demerits are Im just pointing out the society would reflect them, whatever you think they might be.
The second point I intended to make was that gender is not a very good metric by which to appoint rulership or or who makes good leaders. I stand by what I said, that it is foolish to think a particular gender better equips one to lead or ideas by which to base society. Patriarchy and matriarchy are both flawed ways of structuring society. — DingoJones

How are both patriarchy and matriarchy flawed? If you can answer that, it would be the discussion I was hoping to have.

You mean Scylla and Charybdis? Not much of a choice there - do you want a female prison warden or a male prison warden? Either way, you're in prison. :joke: — TheMadFool

That question is not relevant to the importance of the homemaker.

The term "patriarchy" - with all the negative connotations - also occurs among left-wing and far-left groups where it tends to crop up in slogans like "smash patriarchy" that appear side-by-side with "smash capitalism", etc., at some rallies.

I think one problem with the "feminist" view of patriarchy as a system where women are subordinate to men, is that the reality is we all take orders from the police, courts, civil service, politicians, etc., and are subordinate to some authority or another.

In any case, you don't often see men in Western society with an army of women under their command, or going out of their way to "exploit" and "suppress" women.

And, of course, whilst in the West we are waging divisive culture, race, and gender wars, other truly repressive and violent regimes are on the march in Asia, Latin America, Africa, etc. — Apollodorus

We used to educate for independent thinking and for civic and industrial leadership. I have this crazy notion that democracy in American meant not relying on the government, you know as Tocqueville said in 1830 when wrote the book "Democracy in America". I think traditional family values are important to our liberty and that is why I started this thread. I don't think having to leave children in a daycare center and working like men to support the family is liberating women.

This is my understanding of an oversimplified example of what "patriarchy" means in feminism. Here's my translation in to T Clark-speak - Women are not responsible for the society in which they live. Or more strongly, men are to blame. My problem with such statements is not so much they're wrong, although they are, it's that they are deeply disrespectful to women. And men too, for that matter, but that's not the issue I'm trying to deal with. — T Clark

Hum another very interesting reply and also far from what I expected. You might notice how much the function of government has changed since women have filled the seats of government. I am absolutely blown away that we are now talking about how women can not work unless someone cares for their children so the government needs to provide child care. I never thought, in the US, we would say the government needs to assume that much responsibility for our children. For sure it is a change in what we think the government should do for us and it follows "liberating women" to work in the industries just like the communist did long before the US "liberated" women. I have a 1940 Oregon Family Law book and it says only when a woman has fulfilled her family responsibilities can she work outside of the home.

I imagine benefits and problems of a gender based social structure would match pretty closely to the benefits and problems of the genders themselves.
Of course a problem common to both a patriarchy and a matriarchy is that it ignores merit in favour of an accident of birth. Anyone who thinks gender is more telling of leadership or social order than individual merit is a fool imo. — DingoJones

Well, that is an interesting comment. Before you decide who is a fool you might want to have more information. But I am pondering what you said and wondering why you said it. It kind of reminds me of the movie Brave New World. The way technology has impacted our consciousness is fascinating, but that is a different discussion I would love to have.

↪Athena Sure. My point was that the US could dispense from looking for new enemies all the time. The books are now closed on Afghanistan, thanks to Biden. That was the longest war the US ever fought... and for what? — Olivier5

The US is unlikely to have a new enemy as long as fracking meets our oil needs. However, it could very well create new enemies. I so wish we would learn from Athens and Rome but that is another topic. I write to stir our conscience and raise our wisdom and I appreciate help in doing this.

But for the Taliban and ISIS what the US did in Afghanistan is like letting in the killer wasp that destroy all the bees needed for pollination. We screwed them over so badly because we did not have a good understanding of human reality. We were not there for any of the good reasons. We were there to maintain control of oil until fracking gave us independence from foreign oil. The idea of nation-building came after we were there and it was poorly thought out.

The nation-building may have succeeded had we used Islam for the foundation of that nation.

Hence policy is made by what the voter wants in a democracy. Or otherwise you would have to have politicians with real leadership skills to change and mold the views of the voter, to make him or her to understand that realpolitik is the way to go. For example to us Finns this is easy to understand as we know that we are the quite dispensable country, so for us foreign policy is not about right or wrong, but basically survival. — ssu

I love your statement. :heart: When in the 21 century has the US fought a war for survival? Our constitution tried to limit our wars to our defense and survival but that has not been the reason for the wars of the US since Eisenhower established the Military-Industrial Complex. The US was not in Afghanistan because God willed us to be there. The US was not in Afghanistan because it was a nation that threatened our nation. The US was not in Afghanistan to spread democracy. We do have politicians with real leadership skills. We are fed lies and still believe them.

I love Biden's move of delaying our exit until the anniversary of 9/11 so he could counteract the bad news that he knew would result from the withdrawal, and use television to hammer away at remembering 9/11 desperately hoping to rekindle the fear and lies that made us willing to support a war that never should have happened.

:rage: who here does not believe the enemy is Muslims? Our belief that the enemy is Muslims is US/ Christian propaganda. The enemy that gets us into war is the Military-Industrial Complex, the oil industry and banking, and Christians believing they are doing the will of God when the US commits acts of war.

As for enemies... The Americans always look for some enemy or another. I guess they're convenient to justify enormous military spending, huh? — Olivier5

Whoo, whoo, the US was known for its resistance to entering wars and coming up with the idea of a United Nations, to resolve conflicts with reason, a hallmark of democracy. It also has a history of using the military to defend its economic interest. Seriously, we need to understand the difference and why we were in Afghanistan in the first place and especially why we turned on Saddam and invaded Iraq. We made enemies and need to take responsibility for that, but as long as we believe the war is Christians against Muslims, we will not be living with the truth.

↪Apollodorus Nobody said Pakistanis were Arab. I just said that there was once a brilliant Arab civilization. I don't think this is in dispute by any serious historian. — Olivier5

Yes, and that civilization surpassed Christian Europe. My above post was too long so quickly I say in this short post, the enemy is not Islam. The enemy is backward people who think they are doing the will of God, not so different from some Christians. War is good for religion and religion is good for war.

As someone noted already, this depends on how you define success. If their goal is to maintain age-old traditions unaffected by foreign influences, they might do well. — Olivier5

That is not exactly what they want. The first thing they accomplished is convincing Turkey to operate the airport. The airport is essential to receive foreign aid and International organizations are scrambling to get those who stayed in Afghanistan and those who have fled, food. The only way to feed the large populations today is with modern technology and never in history have people followed someone when they are starving. No one who has had modern plumbing and understands the control of disease is going to settle for living as people did before indoor plumbing. Bottom line, success means living in the 21 century also throughout the koran there are sentences that support learning such as "God will exalt those of you who believe and those who have knowledge to high degrees". This has a large part to play in the earlier success of Islam.

Islam comes out of an existing civilization and Mohammad was a trader. Succuss in trading and economics is a hallmark of the historical Islam, but not the Taliban who come from the backwoods and have been nomadic. The Sumerian story of Ishmael tells of the difference between those who live in the city and those who do not. We might want to apply that story to what is happening in Afghanistan. Even though the invaders are Muslim, they are not civilized Muslims and I think the International effort to change that region failed because it did not recognize the important difference between the nomads and city people.

History of Islam - Wikipediahttps://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › History_of_Islam
Baghdad was home to Christians, Jews, Hindus, and Zoroastrians, in addition to the growing Muslim population. Like his father, Al-Hadi was open to his people ...
‎Early sources and historiography · ‎Early period · ‎Islamic Golden Age · ‎Islam in Africa

I think it is a mistake to think it is Islam that defines our enemy because the enemy is those nomadic hicks who have lived for war all this time. Another serious problem is they turned male children into warriors and they do not respect women and will be a social problem for a long time. But perhaps we should keep in mind so did the Germans resort to recruiting child soldiers.

slam was successful in the past because it celebrated diversity and pluralism. It practiced religious tolerance. The fundamentalist groups you are talking about are at war with modernism and pluralism and are essentially a savage pietistic reform movement. People keep saying Islam needs a reformation. The problem is Islamic State may be what a reformation in Islam looks like. Stephen Schwartz wrote an interesting book on the nature of Islam's struggle with fundamentalism called the Two Faces of Islam back in 2002. Irshad Manji ( a gay, Canadian Islamic woman) wrote an equally interesting book on the nature of contemporary Islamic intolerance called The Trouble with Islam. It's hard to imagine a successful state emerging from a foundation of captious hatred, but anything is possible. — Tom Storm

That appears to be a well-informed answer. I am impressed. I am also uneasy because the US seems to be experiencing the same intolerance.

War is good for religion and religion is good for war.

It did not happen out of the blue though. It was all borrowed from the Greeks, Persians, and others. And there was a gradual transition (and learning) phase.

When Muslim Arabs conquered Christian countries like Syria, Egypt, etc., that had been part of the Byzantine Empire, they took over the entire administrative apparatus sometimes complete with Christian officials.

The same applies to architects, scientists, philosophers, artists, military leaders, etc. They did not disappear, they simply adopted Arab names and language and carried on as normal until they were gradually replaced with Muslims. — Apollodorus

Absolutely, what they developed did not come out of the blue, and that is why I do not expect Afghanistan Muslims to do well. I think you hit upon something. Back in the day, they were looking forward and were willing to adopt what they could learn from others. But I think the Taliban and ISIS are looking backwards, and therefore it will not succeed. This time the Taliban pushed away the people who could have helped them move forward.

I think some of them are capable of being good leaders, but their followers value violence and will not become "weak city people". It is like being a gang leader. I am thinking of Weber here and the different kinds of leadership. A gang leader can not betray the gang by not being one of them. They invaded with brutal men who do not know it is not okay to rape and brutalize females and so they had to tell the women what they must do for their own safety. I don't think this will be an easy transition to acting like civilized people.

I think it is exactly because of this brutal male instinct that the Koran speaks of protecting women and treating them well. Unfortunately, it takes more than a holy book to civilize people.

"New Human Rights Watch research shows that the Taliban have been training and deploying children for various military operations including the production and planting of improvised explosive devices (IED). In Kunduz province, the Taliban have increasingly used madrasas, or Islamic religious schools, to provide military training to children between the ages of 13 and 17, many of whom have been deployed in combat." This is a problem for a civilization with females. Age matters and the age of these fighters is not apt to lead to civilized behavior.

From a historical perspective, the Taliban and ISIS are comparable to the "primitive" tribal barbarians, who sacked Rome, bringing an end to a world-wide military empire, but releasing & spreading the energy of a new world-dominating Imperial religion. At the time (circa 410 to 455 AD) the Vandals (etc) were disorganized & uncivilized, but fierce & hungry & bloodthirsty.

Centuries later, many of us on this presumably modern & civilized forum are descendants of those uncouth barbarians, So, there is room for hope that Afghanistan can recover from decades of being squeezed between the rock of dug-in defensive intolerant Islamic tradition, and the driving force of forward-leaning & aggressive Western Capitalism. Yet, it remains to be seen, if this sacking of a remote outpost of capitalist imperialism, will be followed by an adaptation of money-driven Western notions of civilization, or by a resurgence of the Islamic brand of sword-won colonialism. Or, perhaps to a re-flowering of the Golden Age of Islamic philosophy. :smile: — Gnomon

I totally love a historical perspective. If Islam regains its glory, I do think that will happen in Afghanistan because they are not coming from a civilization. Nomadic people do not develope civilizations. It is city living that develops civilization but as you said, those civilizations can fall.

So a (small) contribution provoking more clarity of purposes, no? — 180 Proof

No, the only thing disrespectfulness will get is negative.

↪Bitter Crank

I am arguing to include employers as agents who can and do enforce strict obedience to their authority. In a different thread I'd argue that workers need more power to resist employers.

That’s very true, though I think it is much easier to change employers than it is to change state authority. — NOS4A2

Yes, the US modeled its industry after Britain's autocratic order and it follows that the US is more autocratic than democratic.

There are two ways to have social order, culture, or authority over the people. In 1958 the US stopped transmitting its culture and that leaves only authority over the people for social control.

Good point but I'm only interested in the Philosophical aspect of Buddhism not the religious part. And the philosophy in my opinion is neither chauvinistic to my knowledge and is full of practical wisdom. What do you mean it falls way short of the Greek effort to know truth with its science and political leaning. What science are you referring to. Greek and Roman Stoic philosophy has many similarities with Buddhist philosophy. They may have influenced each other as a result of Alexander the greats conquering of the Middle East and the fusion of Greek and Eastern culture in the Hellenistic period
37 minutes ago — Ross Campbell

I don't think Buddhism has one official book like the Christian Bible. It is not an organized religion like Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, but is like philosophy where anyone can make an argument for this or that, and if is liked, it gets passed on. Buddhism is not "God's truth" or "God's commandments".

Greek logos, reason, the controlling force of the universe. That means asking the question "How do things work?" What is the "cause and the effect"? It is concerned with what we now call science and religion is not. Philosophy can help us make good moral judgments but does not help us understand our planet and how to manifest all the different parts of a city or protect endangered species.

A sophist's notion of 'wisdom' – a syllabus of self-help nostroms. — 180 Proof

How do you think that put-down contributes to the thread?

Let us assume that life has evolved elsewhere in the universe, but different from ours. It also develops from a simple to a more complex state, sense organs arise and a sort of a central processing system, but again completely different from ours. Let´s assumethat the sensory impressions these beings receive does not at all overlap with how we perceive the enviroment. With one exception: like us these beings differentiate between an outside world theire conception of it.
Now the question: Do we share at least the fundamental logical rules of inference with these beings, who perceive so differently?
If not, that would mean that even most fundamental building blocks of thinking are dependent on experience and experience itselfe would in turn depend on the way sense organs developed.
But if we share the same logic with these beings regardless of the experience we have, the question arises as to where logic comes from?
This could mean that even the most specific factors that determine our thoughts are inherent (so far undiscovered) properties of the matter we are made of.
Both conclusions don`t really get us anywhere. What objections are possible? — Mersi

The most fun thing about philosophy is the questions that are asked. I want to applaud you for asking such an interesting question.

That said, I think what would make a difference is not a difference in the ability to perceive, but rather a difference in what is perceived. We have a very simple earthly example. The Mongols originated in a very harsh environment where survival very much depends on cooperation with others and hunting. Deadly storms mean locking someone out of your shelter could lead to that person's death, and next time it could be you needing shelter in a storm, so it is important everyone agrees to help each other survive. Stealing and lying can also be serious survival issues, so the punishment for either is death.

Genghis Khan thought city people were very immoral. He saw the difference in wealth and poverty as intolerable and leading to lying and stealing. Cities developed where life is good and with a little effort farms produce an abundance of food. The farming mentality is very different from thehunting mentality. Genghis Khan stopped killing everyone and razing everything to the ground when a man from China taught him to harvest the cities like a farmer.

Genghis Khan was aware of a sky god who just assume kill pathetic humans. While in the valley where cities first developed people believed in a goddess/god that takes care of them. Genghis Khan thought that was a pretty silly idea, and he continued to prove the Mongols were mightier than their God. If the people refused to pay him tribute he left a message about the will of God. Leading to Christians fearing it was the will of God that sent the Mongols to punish them for their sins and making them even more powerless to defend against the Mongols.

Bottom line, it would be our environment that leads to different logical conclusions, not a difference in the ability to perceive information.

I will vote for Buddhism over Christianity. However, Buddhism can be filled with demons and gods and it can be chauvinistic. It also falls way short of the Greek effort to know truth with its science and political leaning.

That was just to say, that your example of child cannot do math is not relevant or sensible in the arguments by giving you the contradictory case. It is just a logic. — Corvus

That was not logic, it was a stupid argument. We are not born with knowledge of math or anything else. We only have the potential to learn. When we are knowledgeable we gain the ability to create math and comfortable beds and high-rise apartments, etc.. The more knowledge we have the more we can learn. It took mankind millions of years to get to where we are today. Our capability to fill our heads with knowledge is not different but because we know more we can understand more. However, now we have unrealistic expectations of children and locking them up in classrooms and expecting them to learn what they have no interest in learning is not healthy.

I'm trying to point out that in the process of exchanging information two interacting systems get changed. Change is the necessary thing that needs to occur for information to take effect between any two or more substances. When we look at something it is not immediately clear, that this changes us physically by changing our neural patterning. ...........No the universe does not have a neural system, it incurs a physical change otherwise. — Pop

Awe, the word "effect" makes all the difference. We are all trying to exchange information and only rarely do we have the pleasure of success. The information can be all around us but that does not mean it affects us.

There are some child prodigies who can do high level calculus. — Corvus

I am done. Not even a child prodigy would do simple math without a teacher. Mathematical concepts do not automatically come with being human. Only the potential to learn comes with being human.

Yes. without that form, there would be no information. It is the fact that something has form, that allows us to interact with it. The form changes the patterning of our brain somehow. This change that the form imposes on our brain patterning, at a subconscious level, embeds us in a meaningful exchange with the object. If mind is a state of integrated information, then a disturbance to that state is more information.

If we accept that information is fundamental, then this process of mutual change between systems ( objects, people ) is what happens in every transaction that can possibly happen in the universe at any scale. Information enables the interaction of form - says to me: because something has form it is able to interact with another something that has form. A change in that form is information.

If something has no form, then it has no information - so cannot effect a change in our neural patterning. — Pop

I am good with what you said up to the last line. Why did you have to add the term "neural system?" Does the universe have a neural system?

Just looked up my Dictionary of Philosophy for "Logos". It says - Greek, statement, principle, law, reason, proportion.

It derived from the verb "lego" which denotes "I say".
Therefore, I say and confirm that Logos comes from language. — Corvus

And human, when broken down to its root meaning, means moist soil, That means contained in our word human is the belief that a god made us from mud, but few of us are aware of that. And to stop at the root of logos being connected to the spoken word and dropping its meanings of being a principle, law, and reason is a failure to understand the meaning of logos. That law meant universal law, not man-made law, and a democracy is supposed to build it isn't laws on an understanding of best reasoning and universal laws, but in our ignorance, we don't know that.

Logic, maths, deductive knowledge don't need experience. 1+1 = 2. You know it instantly without having to experience anything. — Corvus

No, a child does not automatically know 1+1 = 2. It takes a lot of work to get a child to understand the concepts of math. There are primitive tribes today that do not have the ability to count above the number 3 and it took us centuries to understand the importance of the zero.

I think what animals do for their survival is their instincts, not reasoning. The logos original meaning is for language. — Corvus

You may think that but how much have you studied the subject of animal thinking and communication?

Where do you get your information about the original meaning of logos? I am looking for a reason to believe you know what you are talking about, versus you just heard something and came up with an idea you believe is true. The reason it rains is not because a god says rain, fall from the sky. The reason for rain is more complex than that, and that is logos.

Reason for all things is in the universe, because humans explained them via observation, analysis and theorising. — Corvus

No, the reason of all things in the thing. Humans may or may not come to understand the reasons. We do not have global warming because humans reason this is so. We have global warming because the conditions are right for that, and it is our task to discover the reason. Science is discovering the reasons, not creating them.

Sure. This is a huge topic, and I am sure there is plenty of online information for it.  But what I normally take their meanings for are,
Reason is unique to humans, and is a faculty of mind, that when presented with problems, it (reason) produces knowledge or conclusions without having to rely on experience. (foundations for logic, mathematics knowledge, deduction)

Empirical knowledge is knowledge or conclusions coming from experiences.  With learning, observations and tests, empirical knowledge increases. (all scientific knowledge, induction)

Information is generated via the above 2x faculties of the human mind working together towards producing tailored, organised and arranged knowledge system about objects and events in the universe which are useful for human life, or meaningful for human intelligence. — Corvus

Without experience, human beings would not be as they are and they would not be able to function in the man-made reality we have created. Higher-level animals learn from each other and this is essential to their survival. Humans have created huge vocabularies that make it possible to think about many things, such as what is the difference between reason and empirical thinking, and a great ape can not, and would not, get involved in such a discussion.

I am really curious about how well the Taliban will do when they have control of Afghanistan because I don't think they know much about the modern world and things like managing the utilities of a nation so that everyone has clean water and electricity. Organizing a nation requires more than fighting for power and the Taliban have a lot to learn about the modern world. Humans are born only with the capability of learning, not with the ability to reason that must be learned and their ability to learn has a window of time. Referal children will never be as normal people if their windows of learning close before they are found.

If you think the controlling force of the universe is reason, then I feel that you are stretching the concept of reason too wide.  The universe works the way it does, because that is what they do, you cannot ask why. Because they will keep silence to your questions. It is humans, who have been observing the workings of the universe, and found the universal laws out of the workings of the universe with the application of human reason, and have been explicating how and why the universe work the way they do.  IOW the universe does not have reason like humans do. — Corvus

Asking why is fundamental to reasoning on a human level. Studies of Bonobo indicate they can think abstractly and reason but they do not have the richness of language that we have. Language has made human reasoning much more than the reasoning of animals. The degree of how much more complex our thinking is, depends on our vocabulary. People who have very limited vocabularies can not argue as we are doing.

The reason of all things is in the universe as @Pop explained. The communication of that reason is in the form, not words. Animals perceive the reasons essential to their survival and react accordingly, Higher-level animals must learn and the social ones learn from each other. Lions by their social nature have a higher IQ than solitary cats that do not learn from each other, and democracy makes the highest IQ possible because it is inclusive of everyone's thinking.

So you seem to be confused between reasoning and empirical learning from the start. — Corvus

Hum, how is reasoning different from empirical learning? I get that not all reasoning is empirical, but I would not say empirical learning is not reasoning.

this is all that ever happens in this universe ( that information causes change to form ), and it is a precondition for the universe. The Universe, to exist, needs to have form, and needs to be interrelated and connected, acting upon itself and giving form to itself. Hence all of its component parts are in the same act, including ourselves. The definition : "Information enables the interaction of form", describes the role of information in the universe. It is a fundamental quality / quantity - connecting a formed universe that is interacting and evolving.

I'm trying to get at the fact that information is present in every transaction in the universe ( this being a result of it being fundamental ) but we are normally blind to it, and this thread largely remains blind to it :angry: — Pop

That seems agreeable with the notion of logos and when you study the information that is in the form, you can be conscious of it, right?

from there we have an interaction, and this interaction causes a change in form ( change in the properties of the system ) - when we look at a rock, we experience a change in our neural patterning.

I am not sure of that statement. It is possible for something to be in our sight without seeing it and :lol: lately, any change in my head is very temporary. Part of the complexity here is understanding logos involves how our brains work :lol: or don't. It is just as important for us to filter out unnecessary information as it is important to perceive necessary information and when we learn something new, we have to forget the old. :grimace: that can make adjusting to change very challengingly. But that is also a different subject from the information is in the form.

As I have said before, I will say again. The rock for the geologist to study is just some physical substance with molecules and particles. The geologist will break it and look inside of the rock, and look into the patterns and shapes of the interior of the rock to come to some conclusion on how old the rock is, and what type of rock it is. OK. I don't think that is information in the rock at all. It is just a physical entity with the observable property for the geologist. And the geologist has observed it, and constructed the intelligent data about the rock.

When the observed data had been established with the analysis and expertise of the geologist into some sort of useful and intelligent and organised data, we could call it, then information. But what is just in the rock itself prior to that process is not information. I would like to draw the line in that.

It doesn't matter what all the other scientists or writers are saying in their books and websites about these things. We philosophers shouldn't be blindly accepting their definitions on these concepts without the critical philosophical analysis based on our reasoning. I don't think the physical processes and how they do these things are even in the slightest interest of philosophy. The detailed knowledge on the physical process and structure of the instructions are the topics of science, not philosophy. Philosophy does not go to the fields, observe, investigate and analyse the physical processes of the objects in the universe. Its operations are performed on the abstract concepts on the objects by reasoning.

Philosophy must be able to point out these irresponsible uses of blurred concepts by the scientists who are borrowing and mixing the abstract concepts by their instincts. IOW Philosophy shouldn't be brushed under the same carpet as those sciences, because Philosophy is a different subject in nature and its operations from all other subjects. It's duty is to criticise and clarify all the abstract objects and concepts in the universe. — Corvus

Oh, oh I am afraid we have an argument of conflicting ideas. Every creature on earth must perceive and use information for survival. I also think the planet and sun can share information but that is going too far for "normal people". Our concepts of god are very different when we believe information is in the rock or believe it is only information if a person thinks it. Logos is reason, the controlling force of the universe. For me, that does not mean there is reasoning being, but that things are as they are for a reason, and it is up to us to learn that reason. Which also leads to a notion of predetermination versus quantum uncertainty.

I so disagree with your reasoning and it is weird how people can have totally different understandings of the same thing. Geologists read the earth and get the earth's story. That is the ability to understand the information that is there. To think it isn't information until we put words to it, is incomprehensible to me. Like oh my gosh, your preception eliminates the reality of animals also perceiving and using information for their survival. I can not think like that because my way of understanding reality is so different from yours.

Wow, science is not blindly accepting their definitions on these concepts. :gasp: Are you one of those people who refuses to wear a mask and get a vaccine? You sure do seem to present their thinking, and this is fascinating to me. How many times do you have to prove to yourself the truth of what science says or do you disregard it all? I think we would be stuck with a very primitive reality if we could not trust what others think. But do you trust the Bible is God's truth? Excuse me, but your line of reasoning reveals a lot about people's completely different senses of reality and what is believable. That makes this thread extremely interesting.

A scientist is not thinking with instincts. Everything is tested and reviewed by peers and then the facts become an agreement on the best reasoning. But it does not stop there. New information will lead to a review of old facts, and that stated fact will be changed if there is better reasoning. Understanding this is very important to understanding democracy. I wait with excited anticipation for your explanation of the way you see reality and if you are a religious person or not.

Sorry that must have been confusing. I'm trying to define information, and you said something that made me realize that information is causal. In monism, rocks have their neural correlates - the usual counter is that correlates are not causal, BUT information is!

So I realized from your comment that information causes neural correlates.....Thank you. :up:

↪Athena Information in the third person point of view is an internal representation - which you are talking about.

Information in the first person point of view is a causal process - the qualities the rock possesses travel via light waves to effect a change in our neural state. Thus informing us physically.
a day ago — Pop

Wow, this is a challenge. I still don't think I am getting your meaning. I looked for the meaning of "casual" and got this "not regular or permanent". Is that the correct meaning for the way you use that word? Information is not regular or permanent?

That does not make sense to me, because some information is eternal but a rock mountain may wear away. I am thinking we can learn something about the rock by using ultraviolet light or grinding it into a powder, or by applying chemicals to it. :lol: If we use oil shale rock to build a fireplace, we can watch it burn like coal. That had to be amazing to the first people who found burning rocks. My point is we can read nature and learn about the earth's elements and apply what to learn to study the universe. The information of everything is in it, what we can learn depends on our ability to perceive. Does that work with what you are meaning or is there a gap between our understandings? I am feeling like my tie to the spaceship got broken and I am drifting with no connection to your thought.

You speak of information we can see, but we can also smell information, and if we can't smell the milk is sour, and drink it, we will taste if it has gone sour or not. I am probably strange, but it absolutely fascinates me how an odor becomes information. It is easier to understand how what we see becomes information we can use. And perceiving things through touch is a totally different experience. That is really experiencing information. Am I lost in space or do my words make sense?

Information is causal!!

Rocks have their neural correlates, because information is causal ! I think we are getting somewhere? — Pop

Ouch, I am not understanding what you said. Can you reword that?

From my perspective, the information is in the rock if we are conscious of it or not.

I think everything is up to interpretation. And if we agree God is out of the boundary of human reason, then it is comforting for some people to base all the mysteries and unknowns to him.

But still, information is something that people seek, provide, supply and use. If something is information, then it cannot be unknown. If something is not unknown, then it must be able to be demonstrated and verified when required. If it cannot, then it is a myth and speculation. — Corvus

Everything might be up to our ability to precieve and our interpretation of what we perceive, but to think that covers everything that can be known, is a bit presumptuous. Because our consciousness is limited to our perceptions and vocabulary there is far more that we do not know, than what we know. To think we know God's truth, and God's will is pretty presumptuous because we do not experience that. That puts God outside of our comprehension and it is a huge mistake to not be aware of that. This is an edited insert. I am not saying there is a god, only that if there is a god we can not know that god because we can not experience god.

How about this, information is what is. A geologist can read the earth's history in the rocks. Information is everything in the universe, and our ability to perceive and understand it is growing, but thinking information is what we possess instead of what there is to learn, is a mistake.