Historically, politics has been reserved by and for the rich & powerful, leaving the masses (hoi polloi) to meekly accept whatever policies are decided at the top. Athens had a brief experiment with Democracy, but only for a minority group of nobles & landowners. Even when the unwashed masses were excluded, Plato was skeptical & sarcastic of such a political mechanism : "Democracy... is a charming form of government, full of variety and disorder; and dispensing a sort of equality to equals and unequals alike". But he later came to view popular rule as inherently "corrupt and unjust"*1 ; hence his imaginary ideal leader was a Philosopher King. Unfortunately, such rational, ethical, and egalitarian leaders have proven to be rare among the opposing interest groups of human politics.So, is it the case that it is just the ultra-wealthy and elite supporting their own candidates? What are your thoughts on the matter of the medium being dominated by conservatives more-so than democrats, and what does this actually mean about having their talking-points heard more than one or the other? — Shawn
Since you have already started, maybe I should leave it to you to digest the book into its fundamental elements, and then post your understanding on the forum, for those of us less erudite.↪Gnomon
I read Federico Faggin's 'Silicon' last year, and have started his 'Irreducible'. This last one is difficult material and there's a lot about it I don't understand, but there are some elements beginning to crystallise. — Wayfarer
I've never had anything close to an "awakening" or "mystical experience", but like Faggin, I did have a sudden insight --- upon reading a quantum physicist's unexpected conclusion, while trying to make sense of enigmatic sub-atomic reality --- into the Life & Mind problem of modern physical science and metaphysical philosophy. Speaking of aethereal Photons and other Leptons, he concluded, "it's all information". To which I might add : "all the way down". Or as you said : "the whole {holistic} enchilada".Folllowing this and his awakening, he rejected scientific materialism as an inadequate foundation for exploring and understanding the nature of consciousness, which has significance for both AI and the relationship of the quantum and classical physical domains. In the new book he takes the next step and attempts to articulate a fully-formed idealist philosophy of quantum and classical physics, consciousness, computers and meaning - technically known as the whole enchilada. — Wayfarer
Ha! You caught my tongue-in-cheek implication that the Cosmos might consist of something other than, or in addition to, Matter & Energy. I think both are forms of Causal Information : EnFormAction. :joke:Mostly? :yikes: — Wayfarer
Panpsychism*1 [panP] seems to be a popular --- among theoretical scientists --- post-relativity and post-quantum alternative to traditional simplistic Materialism. The ancient form of [panP] may have been a primitive philosophical attempt to understand Animation (Vital Energy), and the inexplicable behavior of iron & magnets*2. But this modern resurrection of an outdated worldview seems to be a response to such anomalies as the Observer Effect in quantum experiments*3.As far as panpsychism is concerned - please have a read of the post I entered in the Quantum Classical thread about Federico Faggin. I'm just dipping my toe in those particular waters, but it's a very different conception of panpsychism, based on the conjecture that consciousness is a quantum field state, not an attribute of what we understand as matter. Perhaps the universe is part of the fabric of consciousness. — Wayfarer
Our Cosmos, at least since the Big Bang, appears to consist mostly of Matter & Energy : Temporal Priority. But some of that gravitationally-influential matter/energy now seems to be missing in action : Dark Energy & Dark Matter. And the BB theory has no explanation for the original source from which the matter/energy emerged into space-time : Ontological Priority. So, which came first : the Ontological Chicken or the Epistemological Egg? :wink:Philosophically, the key term is 'prior to'. There is temporal priority, coming first in a sequence of events. But then, there's also ontological priority, of what is more fundamental as matter of principle. — Wayfarer
Some years ago, I worked with a woman who had a shapeless obese body, but a pretty face. She would take selfies that carefully excluded the body. I suppose the cropped pictures agreed with her "representational self".If it was either of the options you gave, it would be part of the Mind element. Now what I call the reputational self is internal and is about how you see yourself, and how you perceive (ie estimate, hypothesize) that others see you. I think those two things are closely linked and can be confused or conflated by the reputational self. And I mean everyone's reputational self, not just Trump's. The reputational self serves a function analogous to the public relations department of a large organization. Its job is to represent 'this brain and this body' to others. And we can all start to believe our own publicity. — GrahamJ
Sorry. Under the heading of "Three stages of self - Damasio" I picked the one that looked most like a diagram instead of text-based tables. :yikes:Three stages of self - Damasio — Gnomon
Thanks for the link. Note that the figure you provided is not Damasio's, it's one of the other figures from the linked article. — T Clark
Here's a Diagram of the Self as proposed by Damasio --- also from ResearchGate. It's much more complex than the previous image, but may be more like what you had in mind. Click or Double-click the image to enlarge.Diagram : Structure of the self. — Gnomon
That is a diagram of something else, but it is good to see reputation being mentioned. (I might say more later.) — GrahamJ
FWIW, this simple diagram is from Research Gate*1, and not directly related to Damasio or Seth. It does show Mind & Body as separate categories (boxes) within the general concept of subjective Self.It would be nice to have some kind of diagram where Damasio's and Seth's ideas appeared fairly close together, because they are of the same general type, — GrahamJ
No. But I haven't make a study of economics beyond 101 courses in college. Nevertheless, as a philosophical by-stander and on-looker in the "game" here are a few thoughts.As rationality increases through iterated game-theoretic strategies, then a desire to dominate the market landscape forces companies to cooperate and form syndicalist tendencies.
Would you agree with this? — Shawn
The Big Bang hypothesis didn't "make sense" to atheistic naturalists, back in the early 20th century. For example, Einstein included a dimensionless "cosmological constant"*1 in his theory of relativity, specifically to force the numbers to describe the static eternal universe, that he believed was necessary. He later abandoned that attempt to make the numbers "make sense", after Hubble provided evidence that the universe was not static, but expanding, and not eternal, but temporal. Also, the origin of that expansion has been calculated as a dimensionless-spaceless-timeless-matterless Singularity, from which space-time-matter-energy suddenly appeared . . . . much to the surprise and chagrin of those who assumed the universe was eternal & self-existent & godless."Something from nothing" at the start of the universe is problem inherent in our understanding of linear time, whether you agree with Berkelean idealism or not. Theists often cite it as proof of god, because it seems impossible and attributing the impossible to god makes sense to them. But while they're wrong about it proving god, you can't use it to disprove god either. The universe's beginning simply doesn't make sense to our normal way of thinking, we can only conclude that it doesn't work like the rest of time, not whether there could or couldn't be a god involved. — Paul
I assume Syndicalism is what you think should be happening. I agree with that sentiment. But I see no evidence that it is actually happening in the US. Some American companies refer to their employees as "associates", implying that they have a stake in the profits. But, I doubt that the employees are actually unionized, or have ownership, in any practical sense.No, I think this is mistaken. I believe we are living in an age of syndicalism. — Shawn
Is that statement of belief a reaction to the sad state of American politics, in which top-down competitive Capitalism is winning the "game" against bottom-up Cooperative Socialism? The 18th century revolution against Monarchy allowed a few decades of Republican rule by the common people. But now it seems that the republic itself is being ruled by egotistical Oligarchs --- with their trickle-down economics --- and may be trending back towards a Monarchy, with one Oligarch to rule them all. The few decades of cooperative democracy seems to be a mere blip on the age-old historical chart of world economy, no? :smile:Anyway, I believe that cooperation leads to better results, and with the bloated concern with rational self-interest and egotism and deterrence, we are living in a fearful and less efficient state than possible. — Shawn
I did not mean that characterization to be derogatory, but merely descriptive. As I said above, I have no formal education in Philosophy, and my background is more in Science. So, the layman's opinion you are questioning covers several thousand years of philosophizing. It's just my general impression of a gradual trend from mytho-poetic Hindu, Chinese, Pre-Socratic-Greek and Hebrew wisdom literature, to modern analytical & science-based philosophizing. Nietzsche may be a throwback to the mythopoetic style in his Also Sprach Zarathustra.Aristotle, Plato, Lao Tzu, and Epicurus were "mainly story-telling & myth-making?" — T Clark
Sorry, I'm not qualified to offer an opinion. I have no formal training in philosophy, and I've never read any Kant or Hegel, except in Wikipedia and popular books. There are others on the forum who might chime in. :smile:it's all "apologetics" for one worldview or another. :smile:
@Gnomon. And this is the point I want to explore. Is there a relation between writing style and worldview/Apologetics?
To elucidate,,,,,politicians when they don't believe what they are saying, overtalk,obfuscate and divert from obvious truths. Is anybody brave enough to say this of Hegel and Kant etc al??? — Swanty
Ancient philosophy was mainly story-telling & myth-making : what we now call Religion. But modern philosophy --- since the Enlightenment's rational-turn --- has become an amalgamation of abstract reasoning (logic) and metaphorical story-telling (meaning). You can take your pick of various writing styles on this forum. But it's all "apologetics" for one worldview or another. :smile:So what is your opinion,are dialectical or enycopediac philosophers suspect,and guilty of Apologetics? — Swanty
If G*D is sentient, in a manner similar to human perception, then a feeling of incompleteness might be imputed. But, if G*D/Nature is purely rational, Spock-like, then emotions & feelings may not be included in its super-natural constitution. These are big "ifs" though, and we will never have enough evidence to allow a conclusive "then".I don't know if the absence of there being anything to perceive would be necessarily a hindrance for God, although there are tropes that the reason anything exists at all, was because He experienced a sense of incompleteness without there being something other than Him to contemplate. — Wayfarer
FWIW here's what artificial intelligence says :↪I like sushi
Well, according to Wikipedia, authority on all knowledge :D --
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristotle — Moliere
One troll on the TPF forum likes to uses "Dunning-Kruger" as a code word to call his interlocutor "stupid" without using a forum-forbidden word. He thinks he's clever for sneaking in an ad hominem instead of actually making a philosophical counter argument. Have you experienced that illicit usage of a technical term? Is that why you started this thread? :smile:I think a lot of interest in the Dunning Kruger effect comes from pride. A lot of people think, "Ha ha, stupid people are so stupid that they don't know how stupid they are." I would think that if you were actually smart and you realized how dumb other people were, then you'd feel sad, because it would severely limit all your interactions with them. Or, in the case of a malicious smart person, I suppose he could feel greed, because he would realize that he has the opportunity to manipulate the stupid people. In this case, he might laugh at the stupid people, but he'd probably keep his laughter to himself, or else the people would be harder to manipulate. — Brendan Golledge
I get the impression that you would prefer to find evidence that Aristotle was not a mystic. Is that because you think of him as the original empirical scientist? :smile:Do you think such a mystical worldview is not characteristic of Aristotle's more mundane view? — Gnomon
Possibly. I am curious if anyone knows of any evidence. — I like sushi
Is the forum biased toward metaphysical Materialism by its common language? — Gnomon
Participants in the rites were supposed to be rewarded with some form of eternal life or reincarnation. Do you think such a mystical worldview is not characteristic of Aristotle's more mundane view? As the note below indicates, Ari had an ambiguous attitude toward such spiritualistic beliefs. For him, the Soul was not a separate thing that could animate several bodies, or walk around as a ghost. As I understand, his "Soul" was more like our modern notion of "Life" : an activity, not a thing. :smile:Do you have any evidence to suggest that Aristotle went through the Eleusinian Mystery ceremonies? — I like sushi
My economics text in college was The New World of Economics by Mckenzie & Tullock. They didn't define Economics explicitly in terms of Game Theory, but it was based on the "new work" in the 1960-70s, including Public Choice Theory.Economics can only be called a science with the fundamental underlying feature of game theory, explaining it. . . . . why economics is in a dismal state — Shawn
A somewhat different perspective might postulate that truly "Intelligent species" cope with evolutionary pressures by finding practical solutions, not by "making sh*t up" as one poster put it. From the beginning of complex societies, Religion was been intertwined with Politics and Science. For example, the Pagan Nature Gods were typically metaphorical attempts to understand the vagaries of weather & climate & human interactions. They were early "theories" of how the world works. And "adaptive responses", if you will.This essay proposes the Evolutionary Coping Mechanism Theory, suggesting that intelligent species create religion and science as adaptive responses to existential threats and uncertainties. — ContextThinker
Who, then, do you trust to answer "philosophical questions" of meaning? Feynman gave-up on trying to understand quantum reality in non-mathematical terms : "shut-up and calculate". Yet, unlike most American scientists, the European pioneers of quantum physics were trained in both Science and Philosophy*1.It's a philosophical question which most philosophers are not equipped to even begin to answer. Understanding what the mathematical concepts mean at root takes quite a lot of effort and study, and I fear most philosophers want to give their philosophical take on quantum physics without having done the prerequisite work of actually understanding the physics.
It's a philosophical question that I don't trust philosophers to answer. — flannel jesus
Did scientists "catch god with his pants down", or are they too far from the measured "forest" (quantum field) to clearly see the statistical "trees" (fluid/solid wavicles)? Unlike yes/no mathematics, probabilistic Statistics must be interpreted in a specific context, and from a personal perspective. Hence, interpretation of meaning is the purview of Philosophy, not Science. :smile:Quantum physics observes what appears to be a statistical "glitch in the matrix" — Gnomon
Yes. The calculation is intentionally deterministic, but when scientists observe (measure) what actually happens, it doesn't make sense*1. Measurement is an attempt to make observations consistent with our expectations. Schrodinger's half-dead Cat is an illustration of the problem of how to interpret the results of calculations that don't conform to our deterministic prejudices.According to John Fernee QM is entirely deterministic (Schrödinger's Wave Equation). Cause and effect. It's in measurement that things seem non-traditional. — jgill
Are you saying that scientists should simply leave the Mind/Body problem to impractical philosophers? I suspect that pragmatic scientists and Buddhists, with no metaphysical axe to grind, would agree with you : "shut-up and calculate"*1. Yet, metaphysical monistic Materialists also simplify the "problem" by insisting that Mind is nothing but Matter doing what comes naturally*2. So, they resolve the "problem" by telling Idealistic philosophers to butt-out.↪Gnomon
No, no, no. It's not nearly so complicated, there's no need for all this complicated verbiage. Science studies objects and objective facts - how big is it, where is it, how fast is it moving, how does it interact, what causes it, etc. This it does for everything from the sub-atomic to cosmic scales. But as consciousness does not appear as an object, it is not included in that analysis as a matter of principle. Let's not loose sight of the forest for the trees. — Wayfarer
Presumably, Science studies reality "as-is", while Philosophy studies the world "as-if"*1. That's why scientists observe the Brain, but philosophers imagine the Mind. Consciousness is not a material object, but our Minds can picture the state or qualia or function of Knowingness*2 as-if it is an object-of-interest in a hypothetical context.The whole 'hard problem' arises from regarding consciousness as an object, which it is not, while science itself is based on objective facts. It's not complicated, but it's hard to see. — Wayfarer
I have no formal training in philosophy, so most of your questions are over my head. But, since your post has elicited only one response, I might as well give it a shot. One shot (question) at a time please.I have a few questions about Spinoza’s substance monism, which I’m quite new to. Am I right in saying this is the (broad) outline of his argument: — tom111
Our discussions about Consciousness have branched off into questions about "Potential" : what is it? In the quote*1 below, the postulated pre-existent "nothingness" consists of noumenal (ideal) Causal Laws*2 whose effects are what we call "real". Those pre-big-bang Laws & Energy may be what Aristotle postulated as Potential, and what Schopenhauer called WILL*3. :smile:How does saying that potential is not-yet-real differ from saying it doesn't exist? In your example, it seems that you are simply saying that potential is simply the current state of an electric battery before being connected to a system to supply it with energy. Some batteries are never connected to a system so it would be incorrect to say that they have the potential to do anything. It is our ignorance of what the future holds for the battery that makes us think of "potentials" and "possibilities" when, in a deterministic universe, there is no such thing except within our minds. — Harry Hindu
Potential exists only in our minds. Potential is Ideal, not Real. Potential is knowledge in a mind, not a material substance or physical force. Not-yet-real is also an idea in a mind, consisting of knowledge of a possible future state given specified conditions*1.How does saying that potential is not-yet-real differ from saying it doesn't exist? . . . . there is no such thing except within our minds — Harry Hindu
For my philosophical purposes, I'm more interested in abstract Cosmic Potential than in concrete battery potential. A physical form of cosmic potential is Energy, in all its aspects*1 . But the universe has enormous abstract potential that is not-yet-actual. One example is the hypothetical Vacuum Energy. Potential energy is just knowledge of a possible future state.Our difference centers on whether or not a potential current embodied within a charged battery is physical whereas a potential current embodied within the mind's memory is abstract. In both cases the potential is tied to something physical: a) the charged battery and its difference of potential; b) the mind's memory and the difference of potential it represents abstractly. — ucarr
Yes. The battery poles are certainly Real. but until they are connected into a circuit, the electric current is only Potential.Difference of potential is rooted in the extant charge of the concentrated particles. It is real. . . .
There is a basic difference between having an idea about current flow and having a charged battery ready to deliver current flow. — ucarr
Yes. Potential is not-yet Real. Science and philosophy are tools for dispelling our ignorance. :smile:I think the idea of potential is just that - an idea and not some inherent property of reality. Ideas like randomness, probability, possibility and potential are all ideas that stem from our ignorance. — Harry Hindu
Please explain. :smile:No. Does "the power to enform" seem paradoxical to you? — Gnomon
Yes. — ucarr
Yes. Parts are also Holons. :smile:I thought maybe your holistic combination of substance, form and dynamics creates an environment wherein parts are simultaneously discrete and gestalt. — ucarr
Yes. Evolution combines old parts into new complex-integrated-systems (gestalts : holons) by drawing different boundaries and combining old elements into novel Sets. The "power to enform" is the ability to draw boundaries forming different sets of components with new properties and functions. That's also what we call "design" or "programming". :smile:The whole landscape of evolution is a branching web of boundaries both combining and separating. — ucarr
Yes. What else could it be?So, for sentients, meaning is always personal? — ucarr
No. Does "the power to enform" seem paradoxical to you?Is paradox a synonym for enformaction? — ucarr
That may be the evolutionary adaptive function that led to conscious awareness of Self & Other, which are often at odds.Premise -These questions make an approach to distilling what consciousness does objectively: it resolves paradoxes. — ucarr
No. All Energy Fields are also Information Fields. Its all information all the time. EnFormAction is singular and monistic. According to my thesis, it's the source of all physical fields. :smile:So, in the case of an information field flanked by energy fields, we have a grouping of three energy fields, a two-plus-one with info being one type of energy and the flanks being another type of energy? — ucarr
Yes. I call Energy the power to enform, to give form to the formless*1. The roots of "information" literally mean : the act of giving form". The result is to create meanings (forms) in a mind. The link below expands on on that strange notion.21st century physics has equated Information with causal Energy — Gnomon
So, you embrace the understanding information is physico-material? — ucarr
Meaning is a Meta-Narrative that is created in the brain out of incoming information, from external environment and inner milieu. In lower animals, Memory may simply record raw data. But in humans, Meaning places the world data in relationship to the Self-concept. As I understand it, meta- refers to anything that is over & above meaningless matter : the Map is not the Terrain. The rational Mind gives us a new perspective above & beyond that of the physical eyes.If so, why is this brain-centered higher-order memory function immaterial? — ucarr