These were the key paragraphs for me:

Certainty itself is an emotional state, not an intellectual one. To create a feeling of certainty, the brain must filter out far more information than it processes, which, of course, greatly increases its already high error rate during emotional arousal. In other words, the more certain you feel, the more likely you are wrong....
...Life is hard for the certain whenever reality crashes upon them. But it's abundantly exciting and filled with value and meaning for those who embrace its inherent uncertainty.

Conviction is the strong belief that a behavior is right, moral, and consistent with your deeper values. It offers a kind of certainty, not about the world, but about the morality of your own behavior. — Psychology Today

So certainty is about (potential) information you have in qualitative relation to (potential) information you don’t have, whereas conviction is particularly about your own behaviour: what you (should) do in qualitatively relation to what you (should) don’t do.

I believe that thinking there is no way to be 100% certain is a belif too. Consider me to be the particle in the QM wave. With hidden variables though. And you are the wave (nice analogy!). — Prishon

I want to clarify here that I did qualify this: not without ignoring or excluding information.

P.S. I like the ‘hidden variables’ edit!

Assume, Possibility, let's go hog wild, you're totally uncertain, say God's existence is 50/50. Do you pray or not? Why? — TheMadFool

Well, that depends on a number of other factors. Not least of which is: what would count as ‘prayer’?

You see, I could believe in God’s existence, and still decide to not pray. Or I could behave in a way that I consider to be along the lines of prayer, yet some theists would be of the opinion that it isn’t prayer. Or I could not believe, and yet communicate with an awareness of possibility in the universe that would have some theists claim that I’m ‘really praying’.

But to keep it simpler, I don’t pray in the conventional way I was taught to, but I do sometimes put my thoughts or desires ‘out there’ with a vague sense that this can make a difference in some situations. At the very least, it orientates my sense of self in relation to existence.

But that’s probably not the answer you were looking for.

If I pray to God Im 100% certain He exists. I dont pray (I dont care about Him). But if I did I would do it with full conviction. Not while thinking there is a 63% chance he doesnt get my message. — Prishon

That’s a choice you make, sure. I’ve had the luxury of gradually deconstructing my belief system. So, yes, there have been times when I’ve technically prayed - with about 63% certainty that anyone might be listening.

But perhaps you aim to do everything with 100% conviction, because that’s just how you see the world. My son is like that. The difference between his perspective and mine is a bit like a particle and a wave.

I think that conviction is different to certainty, though.

Correct the scenario then - make it better, add/delete as it seems fit; remember, you have to be agnostic about some claim and make a decision based on that uncertainty, then compare that too how you would make the decision based on knowing i.e. you have to be certain about whatever it is that you're agnostic about. — TheMadFool

Aye, there’s the rub. There is no way to be certain in making a decision without some degree of ignorance/exclusion. As I said, it’s about how much inaccuracy you’re willing to overlook.

So, not knowing whether it'll rain or not tomorrow means you'll take your umbrella.

What about if you know it'll rain tomorrow. You'll take your umbrella, right?

Being agnostic about tomorrow's precipitation status is the same as knowing tomorrow will be a rainy day. What's the point of being an agnostic then? After all, an rain-agnostic taking the umbrella is equivalent to assuming it'll rain and doing the same. — TheMadFool

Oversimplification, but I’ve come to expect that from you. It’s only ‘the same’ with regard to the specific decision to take or not take an umbrella with you.

This isn't an analogy. It's a real-world example of how being agnostic won't cut it when it comes to decision-making. — TheMadFool

Won’t cut what? Being agnostic is, by definition, not knowing. That doesn’t stop me from either acting or making decisions. We don’t act based on knowledge alone, nor do we act based only on belief systems. We relate knowledge, beliefs and ongoing sensory information (and lack thereof) to determine action in an ongoing predictive process, which includes (among other elements) a consideration of alternatives as well as how much time/effort/attention we have available before any decision may be irreversible.

Granted, being a theist/atheist would make some decisions seem easier to make, but are arguably less accurate. A stopped clock is correct twice a day; the rest of the time it’s subject to a variable degree of inaccuracy. It’s about how much inaccuracy you’re willing to overlook, I suppose.

I just no longer think the question definitively answered by atheists/theists is a useful one to ask. The useful question isn’t “do you believe it will rain tomorrow?” but rather “do you believe you should/will take an umbrella tomorrow?” That one I will have an answer for.

It seems I've failed to make my point. If you don't know whether it'll rain or not tomorrow, what do you plan to do the coming day with your umbrella or Mackintosh? — TheMadFool

It seems so. Another poor analogy, I’m thinking.

I’ll take my umbrella with me, obviously. That doesn’t mean I’ll be upset if I don’t have cause to use it.

My point is that I fail to see the necessity of permanently locking in one belief or another. The only reason I can think of is that it renders my actions more predictable for others. There is an overall pattern to my actions in some areas of life that could be interpreted as a belief in God, and others that could be construed as atheism. But I don’t think the apparent contradiction is my problem, really.

If you come up with a better reason, let me know.

No, It takes a** third person perspective and first person perspective into account and I can see the abyss at its end. Hence my conclusion with the anthropic principle doing the thinking.

This is a forum. I try to simplify and reduce things to a minimum of wordage. I cannot do what Joshs and Apo do, it would take me all day. Misunderstanding results from this, but I cannot see a way around it. — Pop

All I can say is look deeper. The anthropic principle deals with possibility, not perceived potential or intentionality. Many a poor argument starts with this misunderstanding. There’s a deeper level of discussion regarding information that both you and Gnomon are avoiding. It’s what leads to conclusions such as the anthropic principle (or G*D) doing the thinking. But we can’t force the paradigm shift, and you seem pretty comfortable where you are. Oh well.

No not faith. Just take a look around yourself and understand all this was once quantum foam. — Pop

That’s not understanding, it’s accepting without understanding. The reason I challenge you to back up these statements is because you have a tendency to make sweeping claims such as ‘everything is information’ and ‘form is fundamental’ without much qualification. The rampant misunderstanding that results from taking these kinds of statements at face value is why posters such as Banno won’t take it seriously.

The Order of Time’ is a good starting point, because it explains why it makes sense todescribe reality as consisting of interrelated events, not objects.
— Possibility

Please reread my previous post to you, and point out where I am not describing this. — Pop

I haven’t said that you’re not. What I’ve said is that you don’t seem to really understand why it makes sense to do so. It feels true, so you run with it. I’m not convinced by that, even though I agree with it. I’d like to see your working out.

I said that form can appear to develop through spontaneous change, depending on your intentional embodiment as observer
— Possibility

This was Apo's defence with the epistemic cut. Please yourself, but understand that your subjectivity is not ungrounded, but grounded entirely in information, in the sense I am describing it. — Pop

What you need to understand is that your interaction model does not include you, but is relative to you: a potential idea in relation to an intentional mind manifesting two-dimensional information as an observable property of both. Relation is the ground, not information. Look deeper.

“Everything that manifests itself does so in relation to something” (Carlo Rovelli, ‘Helgoland’)

Right! So something without form - without any characteristics or perturbation or properties can interact? — Pop

See above. You’re interacting with an idea that has no form, and manifesting form in a written description.

This notion of self-organisation is your personal focus. You could just as easily say no interaction, no universe. Or no change, no universe.
— Possibility

You totally misunderstand. It is all evolution, not arbitrary change. A primer in systems theory would fix this.

Self organization is what makes systems organize. Everything is a self organizing system in systems theory. Please catch up on it and we can speak again. — Pop

Yes, you could say that the eternal universe is self-organising. But you have to keep in mind: “The Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao.” The universe you describe in a system is not absolute, because you exist outside the system you use to describe it. So we can’t really avoid subjectivity here, only recognise it as such. This is why I keep going back to the Venn diagram. We can agree on this logical relation, at least, as a grounding to our discussion/interaction.

So when you attribute self-organisation as a potential of the system itself, you’re attributing your intentionality (ie. form) to the system you have formed. But you can’t presume that self-organisation is the intentionality of the universe, just because it’s how you understand it. The intentionality behind systems theory is form - I get that. The intentionality behind the universe could just as well be information.

This may also be why there are so many interpretations of the Tao Te Ching, and of QM....:chin:

You are looking for inconsistencies in my argument, and I appreciate it. Testing for inconsistencies and cracks is so difficult to do on ones own. However, insisting I should know how QM works is a little unreasonable. Who knows how QM works? But clearly form arises from it. No? — Pop

Well, technically everything arises from quantum foam, so...

Simply stating that ‘quantum foam somehow develops form’ is a leap of faith you’re expecting us to take with regards to your theory. You do need to understand how your model works with QM if you’re going to reference it to plug the gaps. Rovelli’s ‘The Order of Time’ is a good starting point, because it explains why it makes sense to describe reality as consisting of interrelated events, not objects.

How can it occur through spontaneous change? — Pop

I said that form can appear to develop through spontaneous change, depending on your intentional embodiment as observer. You need to be careful here, because all of these terms (form, interaction, change and information) can be defined as objects (3D), events (4D) OR potential (5D). If they’re all events, then all elements remain interchangeable. If even one of them is perceived as either fixed object or potential, then the observer is embodied, and there is a direction of intentionality/causation in play (5-4-3).

Everything is articulated, interrelated, and situated within the progressive forming of the universe. as illustrated in this graph. We are situated somewhere in there evolving interrelationally with everything else. The variety of form is open ended. The variety of forms of life is open ended, and the variety of forms of consciousness is open ended. If you accept consciousness is integrated information, you can appreciate the form of the integrated information is progressively evolving and can have no end. — Pop

The graph is based on an assumption that the universe is infinitely expanding, which is why the variety of form appears open-ended. But it’s not that simple. Rovelli describes two postulates of QM in relation to information theory, which I think is relevant here:

Postulate 1: there is a maximum amount of relevant information that may be obtained from a quantum system.
Postulate 2: it is always possible to obtain new information from a system.

At first glance, they appear to contradict each other. Is it ‘open-ended’ or not?

Everything exists as a self organizing system formed bottom up, where the underlying layer creates the layer on top. It is all vertically and then also laterally informationally connected. All the complexity of this can be simply represented by the form of one system interacting with the form of another system ( this captures everything - all the articulations). Information describes the process of form enabling the interaction of form. That something has form, enables it to interact with something else that has form. It does not enable it to interact with something else that does not have form, for our purposes at least since we can never know about it. The Definition information enables the interaction of form captures most of the facts: that things have to have form to interact, and that what is interacting is the form of the things. — Pop

This moves away from the process model even further - plus you’re using ‘form’ to describe both a process and a property here, which compounds the confusion. You’ve completely lost sight of the observer now. It is not that something has form (ie. as a property) which enables it to interact, but the process of form in relation to change and information that amounts to interaction. Things do not have to ‘have form’ to interact, but form as a process is present in any interaction.

Why only form? It could just as easily be about the creation of an interaction, or of change.
— Possibility

Form represents the underlying self organization that creates order in the universe. No form, no order, no universe. — Pop

This notion of self-organisation is your personal focus. You could just as easily say no interaction, no universe. Or no change, no universe.

I would say you do not play a stable part. You evolve interrelationally with everything else. In the variability of this dimensional arrangement, the multiplicity of causal factors converge to allow the emergence of random novel form. Because of the role the novel form plays in future integrations novelty of form is assured......... But for the most part I would agree with this paragraph. Intentionality is variously construed, particularly in phenomenology - can you be more specific? — Pop

Stable is not the same as static. I am a relatively stable living organism in an ongoing interaction (of a particular duration). This stability or dynamic balance is related to the notion of wu-wei in the Tao Te Ching: acting without attributing intentionality, or going with the natural flow of energy (chi).

Of course, I can also attribute intentionality (awareness of potential) to interaction, form, change or information, which directs the flow of energy in a particular direction and momentarily positions me somewhere in an intentional process (5-4-3). But there are many different ways to describe this shift.

I'm not getting this. Change would be form(1)--->form(2), or f(2) - f(1), right? Is this supposed to be tied to something in the physical world? Can it be multi-dimentional? Does it handle the 'non-physical'? Can you give physical and non-physical examples to show that it works. Maybe something like process notation would work better. Does interaction imply brain presence or not? — Mark Nyquist

Process notation includes a directional flow of energy, so no, it wouldn’t work better. The equations refer back to a Venn diagram on entropy from earlier, and the notion that ‘everything is information’. There is no distinction between physical and non-physical here - this is a logical relation only - no directional flow of energy, and no particular quality attributed to any of the elements. I thought we could use the Venn diagram to explore the logical relation between information, interaction, form and change. When all four terms refer to purely logical events (no energy, no quality), then each element in the Venn diagram is interchangeable. You can literally put the terms in any of the four spaces, and the relationship makes sense.

An interaction consists of ongoing form, change and information. Form in this sense is not a static measurement, but a process. It refers to the Aristotlean notion of arrangement or organisation (of matter). So we’re not talking about the static form of a rock, for instance, but the process of looking at a rock. An observer is always involved in the event somehow - here’s your brain presence. If you’re going to relate any two of these events, it implies a living system. Any three, and it implies a brain.

All the elements here are four-dimensional on purpose - a five-dimensional perspective of reality as consisting of interrelated events takes the human experience of ‘time’ out of the equation. Time necessarily involves a directional flow of energy, as a distribution of attention and effort. Rovelli’s ‘The Order of Time’ suggests this as a way to incorporate quantum theory into a more accurate understanding of reality that dissolves the physical/mental divide. I find it’s particularly useful in discussions about information.

I hope this helps a little.

I get what you are saying but I'm not convinced by this. I think that metaphor is off the mark. For one thing, lions exist and we can readily test if they are in a cage or not. — Tom Storm

I agree with you - the metaphor wasn’t mine, I was just messing with it.

You either believe or you don't believe. The 'don't know' option doesn't address belief, it addresses knowledge - a separate dimension to this matter. Like many others I would consider myself an agnostic atheist. I don't believe in God, but I am agnostic about its existence. — Tom Storm

The point is that we don’t have to know - it doesn’t stop us from making decisions or from acting as if we believe one or the other is true.

How do you make decisions when you don't know (something)?

Say you don't know whether it'll rain tomorrow or not. How will you plan for the morrow? You have to assume either that it'll rain or not, right? — TheMadFool

There’s no final decision either way to be made here. As you say, either it’ll rain or not. You can plan for only one outcome, taking a calculated risk, or choose to include both possibilities in your plans. And all of this regardless of what you believe, which could well change every time you ask yourself the question, or check the forecast. Why lock yourself into a plan until you have to?

The fundamental problem with agnosticism seems to be that it can't be used to guide our actions, make decisions, to name a few.

Take prayer for instance. The decision to pray or not is a question of whether you believe God exists or doesn't. Being an agnostic - to hold that one doesn't know if god exists or not - can't in any way help to take a stand on prayer.

It appears that agnostics are in some kind of ontological cum epistemological limbo that precludes any sort of decision-making on other related beliefs/actions.

Thus, necessarily that the agnostic has to pick a side - become an agnostic theist or an agnostic atheist.

It's kinda like not knowing what's inside a cage, recently arrived from Africa. Is there a full-grown, hungry, lion inside it or not. That uncertainty will not allow you to decide how to deal with the cage and its contents. You'll have to assume either that there's a lion or not to inform your approach towards the cage. In other words, being agnostic about what's inside the cage is a dead end insofar as your subsequent actions are concerned. You'll have to be either a lionist or an alionist. — TheMadFool

Agnosticism CAN be used to guide our actions, make decisions, etc - it’s just not as obvious to everyone else.

Why should we take a permanent stand on prayer? Does it make a difference if I take a moment to declare my private wishes to the open possibility of existence, or to any potential or actual being that I believe will hear me?

The agnostic picks a side based on the sum of experience at the time. Being an atheist/theist is like assuming there’s a lion in the cage or not, and stating this claim well before approaching the cage. The agnostic stays aware of changing conditions, and is open to continually revising their prediction on approach.

The theory is that through random interaction form develops. Daniel posted a video earlier of one way it might happen. — Pop

Except that you also said:

Without form there is no information, so no interaction is possible. — Pop

I did watch Daniel’s video, hence my question.

You’ve said that:
1. Information enables interaction of form.
2. Form develops through interaction.
3. Interaction is not possible without information.
4. Information is not possible without form.

But that’s not really saying anything much at all.

I’ve said before that the most stable description of reality consists of three interrelated (4D) events, which is what you’ve described here. That’s all well and good - it’s satisfyingly symmetrical, if anything.

The truth is that form can appear to develop either through interaction OR through spontaneous change; and that information can be perceived as either a cause OR an effect of interaction, form and change - depending on your intentional embodiment as observer, on what you think/feel/believe you’re interacting with, and what kind of information you’re looking for.

Information is this variable interrelation of interaction, form and change. But you still don’t have a useful definition. You have a description of variability at the level of interrelated events.

It isn’t until the dimensionality shifts that information becomes useful to any aspect of reality, including us.

But what about what we don’t know that we don’t know?
— Possibility

I don't think it is about us Possibility ( nonanthropocentric ). I think it is about the creation of form. In the creation of more and more complex form, new function arises. In the case of our interaction, random elements will click, but we will maintain the momentum of our personal knowledge Juggernaut. Its direction and momentum cannot shift drastically, but will shift in some small respect in the process of interaction, even if only in understanding each other. — Pop

Why only form? It could just as easily be about the creation of an interaction, or of change. It’s really about intentionality creating an object by subtracting information from entropy - a momentary dimensional shift from (4,4,4) to (3,4,5). In the case of our interaction, it’s possible to shift as far as (5,2,5), recognising a two-dimensional difference (direction and momentum) between two minds.

But the point I was making was that your model appears to assume zero entropy, which we need to keep in mind when we apply it to real interactions. This is where the twelve aspect values (dimensions) come in handy for me. If I embody a 5D intentional mind in relation to a 3D object I assume exists, then the information that remains to be known will be x = 12 - (5+3) = four-dimensional: that is, an ongoing informational event that varies over time. If I understand that my interaction is with another intentional mind, then the information that remains to be known need only be two-dimensional: x = 12 - (5+5). Put simply, if the structure doesn’t add up to twelve, then I’m missing information, denying an aspect of form or capacity for interaction or change somewhere.

More importantly, if information appears as an ongoing event (consciousness), and I assume that the universe exists as an ongoing event (physics), then the stable part I play in this interaction as observer is that of an unintentional, ongoing event (organism). It is the variability in this dimensional arrangement that informs, enabling an awareness of intentionality: the capacity to shift and rebalance a relational structure of form, interaction and change by rearranging energy, quality and logic.

Form is endlessly variable. Form varies, but the underlying informational process is constant. — Pop

Form is not endlessly variable in reality - its possibilities are limited by a relation of energy, quality and logic.

This is an assumption, that a system is already recognised and distinguished prior to interaction (by whom?). It’s the interaction that exists prior, and these properties that interact consist of unattributed quality, taking on form only with interaction, by structuring different quality according to pre-existing logic.
— Possibility

This is true, but we have to describe it somehow. There are certain attributes necessary before information can take place, such as form, interaction, and change. Of course we don't find ourselves at the beginning of any process, but in the midst of it. — Pop

So there is no ‘before’ - but I get that language structure doesn’t help us here. If information is the variable interrelation of form, interaction and change, then the question becomes ‘how would one describe/define these attributes?’

To describe interaction, for instance, we embody the relation between form and change.

interaction = x - (form, change)
form = x - (interaction, change)
change = x - (form, interaction)
Where x is information.

But what about what we don’t know that we don’t know? How do we determine what remains to be known? What is the ground on which we can understand what information is? I don’t think any of these three will suffice. You need to look deeper. What does interaction consist of, for instance?

The quantum foam has to develop to form. Without form there is no information, so no interaction is possible. — Pop

But how does quantum foam develop form without interaction? As I said, you need to look deeper. If quantum foam has no form, then what does form consist of? Let me try: quality, logic and energy...

So we can look at a rock without experiencing any change in neural patterning that would amount to information at that level.
— Possibility

No, I don't think so. Try shutting your eyes and opening them. Or turn your head to the side. Its quite different. Of course the environment is probably memorized and so you will not see anything new that can draw your focus. — Pop

Sure - as long as you recognise that you’ve relinquished any intentionality in this model. There is no mind or cognition here, just interrelated events. You’re mindlessly going with the flow, not intentionally turning your head to the side.

We CAN look at a rock without gaining information, if we recognise that the change is in turning our head to the side, not in looking at the rock. But if we’re looking FOR changes in the rock, then of course we’ll find them. This determination occurs at a level deeper than your interaction-form-change model can explain. It’s a slippery slope of panpsychism not to acknowledge the intentional shift in embodiment when deriving information from interaction, form or change.

A system ( or any object / being ) has its properties, perturbations, characteristics, persona, etc without which it couldn't be recognized and distinguished from other systems. These properties are the things that interact, when interacting with another system ( or person or object or anything ). — Pop

This is an assumption, that a system is already recognised and distinguished prior to interaction (by whom?). It’s the interaction that exists prior, and these properties that interact consist of unattributed quality, taking on form only with interaction, by structuring different quality according to pre-existing logic.

It might seem tangential to your own aim in this thread, but I’ve found it’s worth reading the discussion between apokrisis and Joshs here, and trying to make sense of where they’re going with this in relation to an understanding of information at a level beyond (or prior to) an assumption of existing systems.

These properties can all be reduced to the concept of form. So form is a precondition of interaction. Without form there could be no interaction. Without form a substance can not be! — Pop

Yet form is also a consolidation of ineffable quality, logic and energy relating in potentiality - at least that’s my understanding. So without this relation there could be no form, and without form there could be no systems. Reducing properties (in relation to a system) to the concept of form doesn’t help in understanding what information is - only what it does in relation to existing systems. If everything is information, then how does any system form in the first place? What are these ‘properties’ prior to distinguishable systems as such? How do we go from vagueness to form without an assumption of differentiated systems? This is what Joshs and apokrisis seem to be exploring.

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. — Pop

Neural patterning is not static. Change for neural patterning is the norm, and therefore not informative in itself. When we look at a rock, any change in neural patterning that amounts to information is limited to variability in relation to what we expect from the experience.

It seems there’s a lot going on between looking at a rock and any change in neural patterning (of which the rock is unaware). To say that an interaction we describe as ‘looking at a rock’ causes a change in neural patterning ignores the variability in our intentional ‘looking’ as well as our concept of ‘rock’, which are the real sources of any informative change in neural patterning. So we can look at a rock without experiencing any change in neural patterning that would amount to information at that level.

We cannot extract ourselves. The exchange and ourselves, to some extent, become one. — Pop

Not in a reductionist sense, though. We are not one with the exchange, but only with a part of it. The question is, which part?

The intersection is the relationship of two systems exchanging information. The systems are mutually changed in his exchange.

Please see my post above regarding enactive world. I would love a comment? — Pop

Enactive in this context simply means that we are part of any interaction, and cannot objectively talk about ‘information’ without including ourselves and what we don’t know that we don’t know.

Any change you’re referring to in the diagram, then, is only a possibility. H refers to entropy. You need to identify yourself in the diagram. Are you the entity that doesn’t know what it doesn’t know - the outer box? If so, how certain are you regarding how you define each system? Or are you one of the two systems, and if so, is your consolidation as such at the level of meaning, intentionality, consciousness, life or object? And how would you define the other system? This determines to what extent a system can change, and therefore what kind of information is available in the interaction.

Yes, I recognise that the quote was taken out of context (to illustrate my point), and I will get to reading the full article...

But I do think that even Yockey is copping out here - excluding what we don’t know that we don’t know for the sake of certainty. Everyone then has their own version of ontological duality, with a dividing barrier that absolutely cannot be crossed, even as it can be shifted with an alternative interpretation.

The reactions of chemistry, understood as three-dimensional, cannot generate linear and digital sequences from interactions. We have to recognise the part that we play as observer in understanding the interaction.

The variability (information) in a chemical reaction process is four-dimensional at least - it varies over a duration. When this interacts with another four-dimensional structure, an informative event (4D) occurs - regardless of whether or not anyone notices. The possible information in an interaction between two ongoing chemical reactions is equal to what remains when you subtract from entropy what information one reaction cannot obtain about the other in that interaction.

If we recognise our part in this as mind, then we restructure the interaction as:

- our intentional evaluation (5D) of a meaningful (3D+3D) interaction generates a linear or digital information sequence (1D); OR

- our intentional evaluation (5D) of life as an ongoing event (4D) generates a biochemical (3D) information structure;

Or frankly any way you care to divvy it up, so long as the aggregate is twelve.

If we recognise our part in this as irrelevant or unintentional, then we can restructure the interaction as:

- any temporal observation of an ongoing event generates an informative event.

But we can’t just write ourselves (or what we don’t know) out of the equation.

A metaphysics of stuff can't account for its own origin. It leads to the irresolvable paradox of getting something out of nothing.

A metaphysics of statistically emergent regularity can replace that by starting with the "everythingness" of a vagueness or uncertainty. Anything at all might be the case. Then the mathematics of patterns tells us the kind of determination in terms of self-consistent form that must then constrain that everythingness to a more organised somethingness. — apokrisis

I have been processing some of the references offered here, and the article ‘What is information?’ from Christophe Adami caught my attention - in particular a Venn diagram showing information as ‘what you don’t know (entropy) minus what remains to be known given what you know’.



If we consider that the ‘observer’ is one of these variables, and the ‘observed’ the other, then ‘information’ depends on how we structure them in this interaction.

There is a tendency to perceive information as something separate from the two interacting systems. The quote @Wayfarer gave from Barbieri, for instance, talks about life manufacturing observable information as molecular artefacts, as if from nothing. But I’m thinking it isn’t from nothing - rather it’s constructed from what we don’t know, in this way.

Earlier in this thread I made idle (and confusing) reference to dimensional structures of interaction, suggesting that an uninformative ‘interaction’ consists of two six-dimensional systems, the most stable consists of two interrelating four-dimensional events producing a third 4D structure as an ongoing process, and the most dynamic consisting of an interchangeable 3-4-5 structural relation. This is based on a speculative, heuristic structure of all possible relation consisting of six dimensions (in which anything at all might be the case) and every interaction, with an epistemic aggregate of twelve aspects, is ‘cut’ into a triadic relation. I don’t expect this to make a whole lot of sense in reality - it’s just a different (qualitative) way of approaching relational structure to incorporate the infinite uncertainty of entropy, information and meaning. But the above Venn diagram offers a visual that might help illustrate what I mean.

As an example, interaction between an intentional, potential observer mind (5D) and a fixed, material object (3D) generates information as an ongoing, changing event (4D) - eg. consciousness. For that same intentional observer to recognise actual information as a fixed (3D) object (eg. material evidence), they must recognise the observed as a changing (4D) event.

But most epistemology ignores ‘what we don’t know that we don’t know’ as part of a six-dimensional system (unformed possibility), and focuses instead on the single epistemic cut, arbitrarily made (eg the internal curve on the left hand circle), by which we distinguish ‘self’ and ‘other’. So an interaction is cut into two 3D objects, or an observer event (4D) and a wavefunction (2D), or affect (2D) and action (4D), or a mind (5D) and a linear (1D) value. The ‘epistemic cut’ in each explanation of these interactions refers to an indefinable, unformed idea being ignored: what we don’t know that we don’t know.

For me, this diagram solves or (at least keeps straight in my mind) the problem of identifying the nature of ‘information’ in any discussion, in relation to any assumptions made regarding the observer and the observed.

Now we’re getting somewhere...
I have an enormous amount of respect for both approaches here. I am reading along, taking notes and doing background research. I’ve let you know because I’m hoping you keep us spectators in mind with handy references and refrain from academic shorthand. And try and keep it respectful, gentlemen.

Carry on...

If you have time would you want to disambiguate the various kinds of information? It does seem like there's a common thread through them, so it's easy to just end up sliding them altogether. — frank

There are so many different ‘kinds’ of information. The common quality, in my view, is variability in an interaction. So the focus is a point of interaction, but the variability in question can be in time, energy, space, direction, intention, meaning, etc. It is how our own relation to this variability can be qualitatively structured in relation to the point of interaction that differentiates information.

This may be why apokrisis focuses mainly on the Planck scale - because it is at this point we have minimal qualitative variability in an interaction. This is where our predictions are most certain. From here, we need to account for variability in energy, space, time, etc. It’s where an understanding of information starts. And it starts with us, because the variability we can’t account for is the quality of our own interaction.

(@Possibility - sorry if I sound like I’m lecturing you here. I just like your comments and wanted to see if I could make my own position more clear.) — apokrisis

Thank you for adding this - it prompted me to re-read your reply a couple more times to see if I could better grasp what you’re saying (I must admit that I don’t often understand your posts fully). But in this case, I do agree with all of it.

Personally, I think the tendency to talk about ‘substance’ and ‘objects’ and ‘properties’ only sustains the confusion here - but I do recognise that this makes sense to most. Rovelli talks about understanding the world as consisting not of objects in time but of interrelated events, and I think this is an important paradigm shift that in my view gives ‘information’ a more predictable quality.

I will admit that I understand QM only intuitively (qualitatively), though, if at all. It makes more sense to me in how I think about the world than classical physics - even though I can’t do the math, and my interpretations are rarely understood. I’m not entirely sure why that is.

So you would advise that we specify what kind of information we're talking about? What modifiers should we use? — frank

It can’t hurt. At the very least we should acknowledge the ambiguity of the term, referring to an interaction, its evidence and potential. This is why I describe information as ‘variability in an interaction’. I think we need to be clear on our position in relation to the interaction in using the term ‘information’, and recognise that this determines the qualitative structure of that use.

Information and the speculative sense of information. — Cheshire

This still implies that information is definitive, but as what? As an (unobservable) action or as evidence or potential of such? The reality is that we rely on piecing together or constructing evidence of or potential information far more than we observe an actual interaction first-hand. I think that what isn’t a speculative sense of information would be almost entirely constructed from it as a prediction.

even though no answer can be given for “what is not information?”
— Possibility

Hey. I am interested in knowing why you think no answer can be given to such question; it's just curiosity. — Daniel

I could be wrong, but I’d like to see you try. I believe it’s the ‘what’ that stumps...

But that’s not to say that ‘everything is information’ - I think I get what Pop is trying to get at, but that statement is oversimplified and therefore fraught with miscommunication, in my view.

Call me stubborn, but I keep thinking of information as being subjective; with that I mean that it is not a quality of an object, but it is instead (in its basic form) the effect caused by a given object onto another (the amount of change depends on the "strength" of the effect and on the amount of change the affected object is able to support). Thus, information is a quality of an object if and only if it is caused by something else [and information is not a quality of the object that causes the change but of the object(s) on which the change occurs]; this way, I think information is not a fundamental quality, for in a universe in which there is only one object, information would not exist (although the object does?).

Edit:

We could say information is potentially a quality of an object if such object has the capacity to interact with other objects. But information can only actually be a quality when it has been caused by another object (it is the result of an interaction). I dunno, what do you think? — Daniel

It’s confusing, isn’t it? For me, information IS a fundamental quality, because ‘a universe in which there is only one object’ must also contain potential in relation to which an object might occur, at the very least. An object is the result of interacting potential and/or events, after all.

Feldman Barrett’s constructionist theory, in which consciousness is constructed as an ongoing predictive event from incomplete, potential and affected ‘information’.
— Possibility

So you would agree with the view that we are a body of information integrating more information in our path? :up: — Pop

Again, I think you’re oversimplifying it. If you describe us in this way then you risk drawing inaccurate conclusions - especially with regard to intentionality and purpose. We have an aspect which can be described as ‘a body of information’, and an aspect which can be described as ‘integrating information’. But they are not the same aspect, and the qualitative structure of ‘information’ is not the same.

"our model challenges prominent theories on philosophy of mind, which assume that consciousness is a continuous stream." - Time Slices: What Is the Duration of a Percept? — Pop

For the record, I don’t assume that consciousness is a continuous stream, nor do I assume the alternative must be discrete packets or ‘moments’ of consciousness. What I’ve read of the article you linked supports Feldman Barrett’s constructionist theory, in which consciousness is constructed as an ongoing predictive event from incomplete, potential and affected ‘information’.

Why does it have to pertain to interactions? There's 8nformation associated with a particular photon whether it I teracts with anything else or not, right? — frank

You can predict information, sure - but until that photon interacts, you’re talking about potential information. It’s a calculation based on potential interaction. This is the problem with talking about ‘information’ as if it has one qualitative definition. I could be referring to the object, event or potential when I use the term ‘information’ - how would you know?

Information refers loosely to the variability in any interaction. How we structure this in terms of logic, idea and affect encompasses the topic at hand.

There is a tendency to assume a particular qualitative structure of embodiment in any approach without specifying it - ie. acknowledging its limitations. The main difference between classical and quantum physics is this recognition that we’re approaching ‘information’ from the perspective of an observer-event, with which anyone must qualitatively align in order to make sense of the results.

This is most important when we talk about ‘information’, with its multiple ‘simplest’ forms, the most stable of which consists of three interrelated ‘events’, the least useful consisting of a paradoxical ‘relation’ of six-dimensional ‘meaningfulness’, and the most dynamic - and potentially confusing - a combination of ‘object’, ‘event’ and ‘potential’ (a differentiated triadic structure of 3-4-5).

The most difficult part about understanding ‘information’ I think is how we incorporate an awareness of our approach into this understanding. Even the question “what is information?” assumes a process of differentiating what it is from what it’s not, even though no answer can be given for “what is not information?”

IIT is panpsychist. Mass - energy - information is the new way forward. — Pop

Hold your horses - IIT is an interesting theoretical approach, but is firmly grounded in Cartesian dualism, and based on an assumption that it’s even possible to qualify consciousness as a consolidated event and then isolate it as a stable evaluation applicable to any interaction. But in reality, consciousness must be qualified differently for interactions between different systems. So there’s still a lot of work to do before one can even meaningfully ask ‘are you a 1 or a 0?’ of an event in relation to consciousness, even though IIT downplays this and carries on as if this value structure is real. It’s a placeholder that proponents of IIT have named and put their faith in, without evidence. As exciting as it may seem to throw your lot behind this idea (and you know I’ve explored this theory with enthusiasm), it’s still an empty promise...

And why does every 'thing' need to irreducibly contain information? So would you say something elementary like a hydrogen atom has some information pixies hanging about. How does that work. Why not make it easy on yourself and identify it as a hydrogen atom, period. — Mark Nyquist

Because to identify it as “a hydrogen atom, period” would be inaccurate to a certain extent, if we’re being honest. A hydrogen atom doesn’t so much ‘contain’ as consist of information that is variable in a way that transcends its definition as such. This variability contributes to any interaction in a way that is not accounted for in its consolidation as a hydrogen atom. This indeterminate ‘difference that makes a difference’ to any interaction is what we’re referring to when we talk about ‘information’ in a ubiquitous sense. Most definitions of ‘information’ are qualified structures of this variability, such as Shannon information. Because unqualified information is random, meaningless ‘noise’.

Those who speak do not know. Those who know do not speak
— Lao Tzu

Mighty interesting, once you compare the above to,

The limits of my language means the limits of my world
— Ludwig Wittgenstein

Lao Tzu seems to be saying that there are things you can know but can't put into words.

Wittgenstein seems to be saying that what you can't put into words, you can't know. Socratic!

1. If you know then you can word it (False as per Lao Tzu, True as per Wittgenstein).

Contradiction!

Both Lao Tzu and Ludwig Wittgenstein seem to be doing a dance around, this is important, ineffables. The former claims that the ineffable is knowable while the latter claims that the ineffable is unknowable. — TheMadFool

I think you’re missing Wittgenstein’s point - you’re assuming that my world, all I know, is all that exists in the interaction. It’s missing something: the I that knows, the relation of knowing. This is the aspect of existence that one embodies in order to know, and is therefore missing from what one knows.

And Lao Tzu is not talking about things we know here, but the relation of knowing.

For me, there’s no contradiction.

Thanks for the link.

I find this idea of ‘family resemblance’ to be similar to Darwin’s ‘population thinking’, as termed by Ernst Mayr. As a very brief summary: “any description of a species is at best a statistical summary that applies to no individual”.

Before I continued to wade through the thread or step into the argument - and given that I haven’t read Wittgenstein on this - am I even on the right track with this understanding?

I find this a very interesting account of the younger female perspective. I don’t want to discount the points you’ve made here - I think this provides a very clear example which follows from younger girls who find, in these singers we’ve been discussing, an alluring expression of their inner experience.

I will say, though, that the OP was not discussing sexuality in particular, but allure: the quality of being powerfully and mysteriously attractive or fascinating. As a woman (albeit a decade or two older), I obviously don’t find the female form distinctly ‘mysterious’ as such. My eye is, however, attracted to the potential of the female form: ie. those qualitative aspects in other women’s appearances that are suggestive of my own untapped capacity, such as fitness and strength.

I think this is one area where we do ourselves a disservice to mimic the limitations of the ‘male gaze’ and dismiss this attraction to our own gender on the grounds that we’re not sexually aroused by it. You’re telling Tiff that her attraction to women is sexual because it’s based on physical touch and comfort, but that doesn’t ring true for me, and I would say the same thing about men who find comfort in the sports-sanctioned physical touch of other men. Not everything is about sex.

I don’t find a ‘lap-dance’ all that appealing myself, and I would actively discourage an attractive woman who thought she could entice me in this way. However, I don’t think ‘disgusted’ would be a response to the female form as such, but more to her intentions towards me, especially if she blatantly disregards my intentionality. I’d respond the same way towards a man who didn’t bother to gauge my interest, even if he were ‘objectively’ attractive.

But I do agree with you that women’s attraction to men (or women) is not always visual or sexual. It’s not about observation and measurement, but about perceived potential in our interaction with them. When we actively choose to engage, we’re looking for what we both potentially bring to the encounter. If what I’m looking for is diamonds, then I’m chasing a very different potential in a man to if I was looking for an all-night romp.

Even sexually, we know that a man who looks attractive but doesn’t show any interest in our intentionality - in what we really (not assumedly) want in that moment - is going to be a very unsatisfying fuck. We want men who can make an effort to attract ALL our sensory attention throughout the encounter. The most arousing aspects of a man are his attention to what we want, and his capacity and willingness to collaborate in getting what he wants. It’s really that simple. We are guided by sensory cues, but an intelligent woman isn’t fooled by them, unless she chooses to be.

If there is a problem with how women are judged and valued by men, then this implies that changes must be made in the way men view women.

Men in general. Not all men, because some men, myself included, do not have any problems with women. I do not go around attacking women, disrespecting them, asking them to cover up or whatever you are accusing me of. — Apollodorus

You seem very keen to distance yourself from any implication that you are part of the problem. But just because a man is not actively attacking or disrespecting women, does not give them a free pass. Nor does being a man automatically render them guilty, I might add. I do want to commend you for being part of this discussion, though - I don’t imagine it’s easy discussing a topic such as this from your position. I imagine it can feel like you’re torn between defending behaviour you cannot condone and accepting culpability as a representative of all men. So I will endeavour to keep my language less accusatory. I owe you that much, at least.

But I’m going to ask you to accept a small dose of humility here, and entertain the possibility that this enlightened position ‘some men’ have is not as accepting of women as they might think. And I’m going to ask you to keep in mind Turner’s perspective as an example of what men are evidently capable of in this respect (I disagree that this is ‘just a gay thing’). I acknowledge that most men don’t have a problem with women in general, so long as they fit neatly into a particular value system, rendering their intentionality predictable. I’m saying that’s not enough. The evaluation of female singers performing in their underwear, for instance, while not actually attacking them, is nevertheless disapproving, disrespectful, and dismissive - not of the women, but of their intentionality. But I accept that I’m challenging an awareness of just how variable intentionality is, and the value of those variations, especially for women.

I’m willing to accept that what I’m trying to address here is a perspective that limits acceptance of the actions of other men as much as women. I think it has to do with the limitations of the traditional ‘male gaze’ (which I’d honestly prefer a less gender-specific name for), and I’m persisting with this discussion because I think there’s a possibility that you can understand what I’m trying to get at.

There is a standing assumption that value is measured by the appearance of an object. I don’t think that Turner is talking about equating individual value with appearance at all - he’s talking about recognising aesthetic value as potential evidence of intentionality. A woman wearing makeup and a beautiful coat has made aesthetic choices with respect to her appearance because she can, and K Turner is admiring the quality of these choices that she makes, evident in her appearance. He’s seeing past the object to her intentionality, recognising that she could have chosen any number of different aesthetics, from shape and colour to intensity and texture in every element, and that the way these chosen qualities play off each other (as well as the qualitative aspects of her form and features, movement, etc) enhances the event of perceiving her overall appearance.

But I recognise that this may not be obvious, and that we appear to be making a lot of assumptions here, with no evidence that she didn’t just fluke it, or perhaps relied on external advice. Because of this uncertainty, there’s a tendency to rely on cultural assumptions - such as the idea that women cover up to divert the male gaze - and assume Turner’s appreciation of her choosing to wear such a beautiful coat is really an appreciation of her covering up. I find this to be a reductionist view. It reduces her aesthetic value to an object in motion, denying her intentionality because it makes it easier to interpret Turner’s behaviour in appreciating her appearance. This perspective attributes all intentionality to society, whereas Turner is attributing intentionality to the woman.

Well, I never said that she cannot be. What I am saying is that those shows do not have that sort of effect on me. If as you say, male viewers’ assumption is supposed to be that a singer’s intention is “to make herself available to you - that by writhing around in her underwear, she’s obviously asking for it,” then that is a total miss because it doesn’t work that way on me at all. — Apollodorus

I think you’re missing the point, but I’ve probably contributed to that by my accusatory use of ‘you’, so I apologise. Only men who ARE attracted to these video clips (and I would say that most men are NOT) would see it this way - and it is supposed to be unconvincing as an allure to men. It forces intelligent men such as yourself to look away, recognising that she isn’t intending to be attractive, much less alluring, to you.

Because she’s not doing it for you or for any other men - she is expressing a potentiality that is denied to most women. So she’s doing it for women. We watch and admire the power she has to act this way without fear. We see that it is possible, and it empowers women and girls to argue against expectations that we behave and dress modestly so as not to inadvertently ‘invite’ men to attack us. That doesn’t mean I’m going to dance on the street in my underwear, but it’s important to recognise both that I CAN and that the fact that I’m afraid to is not because I’m a woman, but because there’s still a problem with how women are judged and valued.

Other than that, I tend to agree with Wayfarer. Either someone is alluring or they are not. They don’t need to be in their underwear. :smile: — Apollodorus

Agreed.

In addition, the female performers do not always appear to be be "in charge" or "empowered" at all. In many cases, they seem to suggest the role of street girls whilst male singers appear in fur-coats, expensive cars, and exaggerated jewelry. — Apollodorus

Hmmm...No, I don’t suppose they would appear that way to you - although it would be nice if you could entertain the possibility that a woman can be semi-naked and still in charge of her own body...

You’d assume it’s the case that a semi-naked man (unrestrained) is still very much in charge of his own body, why not a woman?

In my opinion, the men flaunting their monetary value in videoclips are mainly addressing racial empowerment, which is another issue.

:vomit: What a crock. I don’t even know where to start with that. It barely addresses the OP at all, let alone reality.

And for some reason the female body tends to be the center of attention as exemplified by the growing trend for female pop singers to perform on stage in their underwear whereas males tend to cover up. Apparently, this is supposed to be an expression of "female empowerment", though it is rather difficult to follow the logic of it .... — Apollodorus

That’s because you don’t see her as an ‘angel’, let alone recognise that she may also be a ‘mother’. You also tend to block out the teams of male dancers around her that she bends to her will. You assume that her intention is to make herself available to you - that by writhing around in her underwear, she’s obviously asking for it.

But she’s willing to let you imagine that, because in reality (and with the money you dish out to feed your little fantasy) she has enough resources at her disposal to put you in the ground if you so much as speak to her in a way that isn’t in line with what she wants. Most women put themselves at risk of physical harm if they appear before men in their underwear and then have the audacity to say ‘no’. Why do you think that is?

I like the way you think. I agree with what you are saying. Unfortunately society puts a lot of pressure on how women look. — Maximum7

I think we need to stop blaming ‘society’ for this, and recognise that we construct and reconstruct society in how we relate to each other. We need to reflect on how we each respond to a woman’s appearance, and ask ourselves why we ignore the woman in the room who doesn’t engage us visually, but not the men. Why does she have less value in an interaction that has nothing to do with sex? What would happen if we threw a little attention her way? How would our intentions toward her be assumed - and is that really a fair assumption?

I think most men have reduced their social interactions to a shorthand of cultural assumptions, many of which are woefully inaccurate, but can be contrived for effect. It’s such a limited view of their potential, like a low resolution image. Reality isn’t constructed from pixels. Most men as well as women are far more complex, capable and interesting than ‘society’ gives them credit for. But they’d rather be misunderstood than admit that they misunderstand.

Personally, I think the difference between the ‘male’ and ‘female’ gaze is more to do with dimensional awareness than gender. demonstrates a perspective of value/potential that transcends this gender distinction, and renders the ‘male/female’ labels inaccurate. Rather than reducing potential/value to a measurement/judgement of intentions, his gaze recognises the variability of intention on both sides of an interaction. Intersubjectivity need not assume a dominant perspective, or a culturally determined ‘view from nowhere’. Even sexual interactions are more rewarding when the genuine intentions of all parties are understood and integrated, rather than assumed. It’s less certain, sure, but more accurate, practically speaking.

I don't think you are mistaken at all. I don't know about "objectifying", I don't believe it is happening to the extent that is being alleged, in any case. But I fully agree that it has something to do with fragile male egos. If something is aesthetically attractive then one should be able to say so, irrespective of whether it is the body of a woman, man, horse, dog, cat or anything. — Apollodorus

As a happily married woman, I like to be able to openly appreciate and encourage the care and effort another man has taken with his body and appearance without everyone making assumptions about my intentions. Among married women, we can (sometimes) discuss this quite openly, but we’re more careful in mixed company - someone is bound to make assumptions.

If you’ve ever witnessed a male revue, the married women there enjoy the freedom to openly and even actively appreciate the male form without being labelled a ‘whore’ based on assumed intentions. How we perceive the abandon with which they embrace this rare opportunity says more about how society imposes assumptions about our intentions in interacting with men, especially once we’ve been ‘claimed as property’, than about a woman’s marriage or real intentions toward the male forms on display.

I am a heterosexual male and find the female form to be amazing. When I was in college, one of my professors said that everything in media was through the male gaze. I definetely see this in movies and TV. A woman in a bikini always elicits a strong response from men and even non-gay women as well. The female body is objectified and obsessed over. Most people who watch porn are men and most nude photos of celebrities we want are women celebrities. Why is this so? Who decided the female form was more alluring than the male? I know men were dominant in ancient times but I never got the reason why female bodies are considered more coveted. — Maximum7

I am a heterosexual female and I find human potential/value to be beautifully demonstrated by the female form as well as the male form. I’m more curious why there seems to be so much cultural resistance to admiring or objectifying the male form (I have a feeling it has something to do with men’s fragile egos, but I could be mistaken).

I think what captures our attention with the female form is an awareness of qualitative variability in the value of women which cannot be predicted. To objectify is to try and define identity, form or potential to a point where we can consolidate some semblance of predictability in our interactions. By excluding or denying a woman’s capacity for intentionality other than these culturally consolidated options (angel, whore, mother, crone), we attempt (in vain) to maintain an illusion of predictability.

According to the male gaze, a woman in a dress always intends for us to focus attention and effort on her potential identity as female (ie. not male). A woman in a bikini always intends for us to focus attention and effort on her potential form as female. A woman naked always intends for us to focus attention and effort on her potential accessibility as female. An ‘angel’ will passively accept or deflect our intentions, a ‘whore’ will confront us with her own intentionality as defined. A ‘mother’ affords a temporary suspension and a ‘crone’ a more permanent loss of her accessibility, both charged with preparing other females for the male gaze. It seems so simple. Any ambiguity/uncertainty allures and motivates us to interact, actualising a consolidated judgement one way or another. A woman’s value is then determined by her perceived potential to fulfill the role assigned to her by this male gaze.

But to say that the response to a woman in a bikini is ‘strong’ among women in the same way I think misrepresents the variability of intentions and potential we perceive as women. According to the female gaze, a woman wears a bikini for any number of reasons, including but certainly not limited to intending a male’s culturally consolidated response to her female form. A woman in a bikini can elicit from other women a variety of responses, from admiration or inspiration, to jealousy or disappointment, depending on how we might interpret their intentions and perceive their potential. So, too, with the female gaze upon men. There’s much more variability here, and the assumption that all women objectify or judge other women (or men) just as men do is imposing this cultural consolidation of predictable intentionality on women.

Out of curiosity: how would you respond to a man whose intentions and/or potential is unpredictable?

Men are straight lines and angles. Women are arcs and curvature. I suppose a lot of male and female attractiveness has to do with geometry. Straight lines and angles are easily "measured" (a scale and a protactor is all we need). Women, if they play their yin card well, are a different story, "measurable" only with indirect methods and that too only approximately. A lot of male casualties have been reported while trying to negotiate the curves of the female form. — TheMadFool

Personally I don’t see men as straight lines and angles at all, and I think that’s a rather limiting perspective that excludes more men than it describes. Plus, I find that men have the potential for some pretty impressive and even enjoyable arcs and curvature!

Is Nietszches attack on the value systems of traditional philosophy correct, not only Christianity but on secular ethics of both ancient and modern philosophers. He attacks The whole Enlightenment tradition of the values of freedom, liberty and equality and democracy. He thinks they are part of the herd mentality, or offshoots of the slave morality of Christianity. — Ross Campbell

I’d say it’s the construction he’s attacking - the way we value ‘freedom’ and ‘equality’, for instance, without really understanding what it means to be free or equal human beings, except in some narrow-minded, culturally assumed sense. When it was written into the US Constitution that ‘all men are created equal’, they didn’t really mean all men, let alone humanity. It was a value whose upper and lower limits were culturally imposed, constructed from ignorance, isolation and exclusion in how we don’t or won’t relate to each other. In this sense, supposedly ‘enlightened’ culture was no better. People were still herded or enslaved by assumed limitations on their potential - based on moral judgement without empirical understanding.

I think the constructed values Nietzsche suggests are largely misunderstood because there’s a tendency to try and define what his ambiguous terms of ‘power/life’, ‘affirmation’, ‘truthfulness/honesty’, ‘art and artistry’, ‘freedom of spirt’ and ‘pluralism’ mean in language - which defeats the purpose. All that does is impose upper and lower limits to our interactions based on cultural assumptions, and then we’re back to square one. I think it’s more about awareness of our potential to interact, not how we describe it.

but why can't Nietszche express himself more clearly and if he has a positive view of women why didn't he just make that clear instead of leaving himself open to misunderstanding. As far as Im aware most other famous thinkers throughout history from Plato and Aristotle to Hume , Betrand Russell, Stuart Mill, Satre and Camus, and many more , all of them express themselves clearly, they are not readily open to misunderstanding, and thinkers like Camus use fictional techniques , like philosophical novels to express their ideas. Yet it's clear what all these thinkers ideas are. Why Nietszche has to be so ambiguous . Every time I read an article about Nietszche it says some scholars interpret Nietszche this way and then there's another camp who interprets him in a different way. Who are you supposed to believe. — Ross Campbell

I think Nietzsche’s philosophical approach identifies an internal, qualitative process at the heart of our interaction with the world, which language seems ill equipped to define. It’s all well and good to insist on clarity, but to do so with language requires a reductionist methodology that either explains affect or excludes it. For Russell, at least, this was a sacrifice he was willing to make for the sake of certainty. Nietzsche’s approach was to try and retain qualitative variability in the process, at the cost of clarity/certainty. In this, his approach is more aligned with quantum theory than analytical philosophy or existentialism, metaphorically speaking. This may be why there are still so many different interpretations of Nietzsche. It’s not so much about the right interpretation, but the most reliable and precise process for predictability in interactions.

Is philosophy - wisdom - more about its applicability or its description?

I was puzzled why such a brilliant genius like Nietszche who is so popular today would make such statements. I Know it's taken out of context but nevertheless if a philosopher today was to make such pronouncements I think he/she would be severly attacked for what seems discriminatory. And the argument that Nietszche is a product of his times doesn't hold water for me because other 19th century thinkers like John Stuart mill expressed more enlightened views about women. — Ross Campbell

But the point is that he’s NOT a philosopher today, so it’s unfair to attack his words out of context, as if he were.

It was J S Mill’s focus on equality and freedom of thought that led him to speak up in support of women’s suffrage. Nietzsche’s focus, though, was on the process of disentangling social interactions from religious moral assumptions - he highlighted the cultural views about women as lacking empirical substance, but he was in no position to represent women here. As a woman, it’s practically impossible to accept his articulation of the cultural perspective on face value - which is kind of the point. We’re supposed to react, to speak up and demand to be heard and represented accurately. For Nietzsche to do it for us defeats the purpose. So I think both these men supported women’s suffrage in their own way.

”A closer examination of his book Beyond Good and Evil will reveal a different picture. There is a different exegesis of Nietzsche which exonerates him from the charge of misogyny. Properly construed, Nietzsche is revealed as a man who appreciated the natural instincts and potential power of women, and who, through his use of irony and his criticisms of both ‘woman as such’ and women, wished to educate women on approaching the emancipation issue more effectively without losing their inherent femininity. He in fact implored women to cease in the cannibalization of other women and ‘woman as such’ in order that they could better achieve their goal of emancipation or even better, from Nietzsche‘s perspective, to achieve a goal of self-overcoming, and in so doing become free spirits.” — Joshs

:up:

So you're saying I shouldn't be blogging on this site because I'm giving opinions without hard evidence. I find that an unfair comment. Show me please where it says in the administrators ground rules on this blog that people are not allowed express their OPINIONS on this site unaccompanied by hard evidence. — Ross Campbell

No, that’s not what I’m saying at all, and I don’t know where you got that from. Show me please where I made that comment.

I did ask you to clarify whether you were making a suggestion, expressing an opinion or stating a fact. You keep shifting from one to another, sometimes in the same post, and it’s quite confusing. If you’re making a suggestion or expressing an opinion in a philosophy forum, then you should be willing to at least temporarily entertain the possibility that you don’t have the full picture, and be open to hear and discuss other perspectives that don’t quite align with your own. But you seem a little too attached to your opinion to engage in a philosophical discussion of the topic. Which is why so many contributing to this thread are assuming that you’re making some kind of argument, and asking you to support it with reasoning and evidence.

You’ve been criticising a particular philosopher for what you assume to be his ‘hatred’ of certain virtues, based on an interpretation of his writings that many here have refuted. And then you’ve highlighted a particular quote that you believe supports your argument (or may at least render Nietzsche’s position indefensible). When it’s made clear that it doesn’t, and that your argument fails, your only defence is to try and refashion your statements as mere opinion, and to then appeal for the validity of expressing this opinion in a philosophical forum - which is what you are trying to deny Nietzsche.

I believe that you’ve made a number of unfair comments against Nietzsche in a thread that you started. Each of us are allowed to defend him in his absence with reasoning and evidence. You can express your opinion, sure - but if you want us to agree with you, to not dismiss them as unfair comments, then I’m afraid you’ll need to back them up with more than rhetoric.

And here we have Nietszche, one of the most important and influential philosophers of the 20th century saying that he would prefer to fall into the hands of a murderer than a lustful woman. That sounds like an attack on the secular Enlightenment and progressive philosophy which was trying to usher in a more Enlightened culture free from the Catholic misogynistic culture of the old older in Europe. — Ross Campbell

Yes, Nietzsche was critical of the Enlightenment’s approach to constructing a more secular culture based on prevailing assumptions they considered to be empirically beyond question. Their views on women would be among those assumptions, and while Nietzsche was in no position to question these gender assumptions himself, this ‘progressive philosophy’ had NO interest in freeing culture from its misogyny. Don’t try to make it out as if Nietzsche was critical of any existing gender progressiveness.

So what does the quote really mean in the context of chastity? Isn't it a description on how Christianity formed a notion that it is better to be a murderous person than to feel sexual lust? That when you stigmatize sexuality and lust to be a form of sin while speaking of killing and murder almost as a lesser sin, it robs man of sexuality as a form of love. That those choosing chastity shouldn't be forced to it, but that they themselves choose it for as long as they feel it is good for them.

He speaks of how Christianity suppressed sexuality down to a sin worse than murder and how the form of chastity they conduct within the church only pushed the bestiality further by suppressing people's urges. He speaks of a balance where choosing your own chastity, but not be bound to it, makes you a balanced person capable of not giving in to be beast of lust nor the suppression of irrational religious belief.

How is this in any way the same as a literal interpretation of the cherry-picked quote you chose? This is why I think that for someone who points out having a degree in philosophy, but not knowing how to read and decipher Nietzsche, it is irrelevant how many years you've been involved with philosophy and I'm a bit concerned that you actually teach philosophy. Is such a literal interpretation of a cherry-picked quote from Nietzsche's writing something you teach your students? Because that is pretty far from philosophy. — Christoffer

:up:

I made the SUGGESTION that Nietszche hates the virtues of Love, compassion and kindness and pity — Ross Campbell

Now that's not a bias or a misunderstanding of Nietszche. I'm merely making a statement of fact. — Ross Campbell

But I disagree. I think I'm entitled to have that opinion. I'm sure there are millions of others who would share that opinion. I don't think I need to back up my view about the merit of these virtues with Philosophical argument. — Ross Campbell

Well, I’m confused...which one is it that you’re presenting: a suggestion, a statement of fact, or an opinion?

Ok Here's a Friedrich Nietzsche Quote:
“Is it not better to fall into the hands of a murderer, than into the dreams of a lustful woman?” — Ross Campbell

I'm simply giving you what seems to be a famous quote from Nietzsche and giving you my opinion that it's a rather inane statement also seems a rather misogynistic comment. I'd like to know what women would think about it. As far as I'm aware Nietzsche didn't have a very high opinion of women anyway. — Ross Campbell

I wasn’t going to bite on this one - it didn’t seem worth the effort. As a woman, I’m aware of expectations that I should be offended by the many derogatory statements that Nietzsche appears to make regarding women. And taking each one out of context, that’s easy enough to do. While in most cases I think he was rendering as caricature the cultural view of women by men, there is one quote that always makes me smile, from the preface to ‘Beyond Good and Evil’:

Suppose that truth is a woman - and why not? Aren’t there reasons for suspecting that all philosophers, to the extent that they have been dogmatists, have not really understood women? That the grotesque seriousness of their approach towards the truth and the clumsy advances they have made so far are unsuitable ways of pressing their suit with a woman? What is certain is that she has spurned them - leaving dogmatism of all types standing sad and discouraged. If it is even left standing! — Nietzsche, ‘Beyond Good and Evil’

I think Nietzsche acknowledges that the men of his time, himself included, were entirely mystified by women in general, and made little attempt to understand them as anything more than social constructs. He certainly makes no claim to experience or knowledge himself - it’s all very obviously based on cultural assumptions. That’s enough for me to dismiss the apparent misogyny as simple ignorance. His ‘understanding’ of women was limited to imposed cultural views, caricatured beyond any relation to empirical reality. I think anyone who takes Nietzsche’s statements about women seriously as his personal or intellectual opinion doesn’t really understand his philosophical approach, or women for that matter. It wasn’t that he didn’t have a very high opinion of women, but that he didn’t have a clue, and he made that abundantly clear - to me, anyway.