Put otherwise, anyone can make shit up. We need an evaluative eye that can spot the crap. . . . Along side a desire for stories of breadth and completeness, we need to foster a critical attitude. That seems to be missing here. — Banno

Sure. And philosophers tend to be good at "making sh*t up". Some of it turns out to be pragmatically useful, in which case science takes over to make use of the ideas. And this forum is an arena for presenting ideas to a wide variety of critical eyes. Some here find Hegel's ideas useful for their insights into the "teleology of history", while others find fault for the same "sh*t". Suum cuique."To each his own"

Yet all too often what we get is not constructive criticism, but censorious or condemnatory attacks on ideas that don't conform to a personal belief system. My comments in this thread are not intended to be scientific criticism, since I'm not a scientist with expertise in the mathematical concepts presented here. Instead, I'm trying to be supportive of philosophical exploration of ideas that are of interest to me personally --- especially the philosophical implications of Information Theory and Quantum Theory, which are ripe targets for both positive & negative criticism. :smile:

PS__FWIW, I did quibble about his notion of Mathematical objects as existing "outside spacetime". Does that count as critique, from your perspective? Math is indeed something that humans "make up", but based on observations of relationships that exist or persist within space & time. Then again, space-time is also an abstract concept (mental model), which is intended to describe observed changes in location and in relation. Yet the generalized or universalized concept of Mathematics seems to point beyond any particular brain/mind. So, where could it be located in space-time?

Critique vs. Criticism :
In general, criticism is judgmental and focused on finding fault, while critique is descriptive and balanced.
https://medium.com/storygarden/critique-vs-criticism-36ddf0d191ff

Was mathematics invented or discovered? :
Both discovered and invented. When humans perceive the world through consciousness, everything is an abstract entity without a pre-defined representation. When we discover something in the world (such as ability, physical object, event, causality, pattern, etc.), we start to use our minds to describe it. Our consciousness will create personal ‘representations’ of everything for reasoning and thinking
https://www.quora.com/Was-mathematics-invented-or-discovered-1
Note -- We "discover" consistent patterns of inter-relationships between objects & actions, and then we "invent" formal symbols & language to allow us to discuss the invisible Logic that serves as the underlying inter-connection structure of the physical world.

↪Gnomon
Have you looked at ↪Art48's book? What do you make of it? — Banno

No. But I did look at another of his long essays, and he seems to be generally well-informed. In this thread, I'm only responding to the concepts expressed in this thread, not to Art's book. I'm aware that some of his ideas are fringey, but so are mine. That's why I try to encourage him to explore beyond the known into terra incognita, despite negative feedback.

For philosophical purposes, I'm not concerned about compatibility with "settled science", as long as the general idea makes sense to me (sounds logical). The notion of Mathematics as the foundation of physical reality, corresponds to my own understanding that General Information (which includes Math & Energy) may be the essential structure of Reality. That's not "settled science", but some prominent scientists are enthusiastic about such non-physical (abstract) aspects of Nature/Culture. :smile:

PS__I don't think that the mathematics of physics & minds is "outside of space-time". But, as non-physical abstractions, mathematical concepts only exist mentally & ideally, so not directly affected by the causal changes that we interpret as space-time. However, I do go so far as to postulate a timeless First Cause to explain the existence of our physical -- and meta-physical (mental) -- world. But I don't presume to speak for that hypothetical entity.

We have quantum entanglement, which says that signals can travel faster than light. — Art48

You'll get some negative feedback for that assertion. Actually, at first experimenters were baffled by the "entanglement effect" which seemed to imply faster than light communication. Since then though, other explanations for the instantaneous correlation between particles have been proposed. I'm not a physicist, so I prefer a model that fits into my personal information-theoretic worldview. From that perspective, there is no movement of matter, energy, or information between entangled particles. Instead, the opposite spins are metaphorically two sides of one particle. And all particles in the universe are non-local & unreal (virtual) until triggered by an interaction to manifest with physical properties. In other words, the world is a single holistic (non-space-time) reservoir of infinite Potential, until transformed into Actual bits of matter/energy. The particle doesn't have to go anywhere, because it's already there.

Unfortunately, that holistic description will not make sense to those with a Reductive scientific paradigm of reality. But it fits neatly into the philosophical Enformationism worldview, in which abstract (non-concrete) Information is the fundamental substance (essence) of the world. Another way to look at it is to say that abstract Mathematics is the logical structure (interrelationships) of reality. Mathematics (numbers ; ratios ; equivalences), like Logic, exists only ideally, with no physical properties at all. The science of mathematics is a product of human inference & imagination, hence Idealistic instead of Realistic -- a theory instead of an observation.

However, the human brain is programmed, by pragmatic evolution, to interpret abstract relationships in concrete terms. Consequently, our worldviews are seen through a matter-based frame. So, Materialists and Nominalists are merely saying what they are seeing with their eyes. But, as cognitive scientist Donald Hoffman has proposed, those real things we think we see are merely "icons" or symbols (mental representations) of the underlying reality, which is mathematical or informational. So, Realists are seeing their own conceptual models of reality, not ultimate reality.

Hoffman uses the metaphor of a computer interface to describe how our brains are deceived by our own pre-conceptions. But, in keeping with the Enformationism thesis, I like to use The Matrix movie as a metaphor. In one scene, Cypher is showing Neo the green raining code, and remarks that "I don't even see the code anymore". Like computer screen icons, the code is an abstraction of an underlying reality -- or in this case a simulated reality. Perhaps the real world your senses perceive is a simulation of the true reality : the mathematical information (code) that constructs the world of the senses. :smile:


The Evolutionary Argument Against Reality :
The world presented to us by our perceptions is nothing like reality
https://www.quantamagazine.org/the-evolutionary-argument-against-reality-20160421/

Don Hoffman :
The Case Against Reality
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_D._Hoffman

SEMIOLOGY : REFERENCE vs REFERENT


Simulated Reality Code :
Matrix digital rain, Matrix code or sometimes green rain, is the computer code featured in the Matrix series. The falling green code is a way of representing the activity of the simulated reality environment of the Matrix on screen by kinetic typography.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matrix_digital_rain
Don't see the code anymore :
https://kugelmass.wordpress.com/2012/03/29/i-dont-even-see-the-code-anymore/

SEE THE REFERENT (the object being described) NOT THE REFERENCE (the code, symbol, model)

Which suggests that reality—that me, you, Earth, universe, etc.—is fundamentally some sort of abstract object*1 existing outside spacetime. Hm. — Art48

Yes, we humans are essentially "abstract mathematical objects"*1 in space-time. I have arrived at a similar conclusion, except I typically use a more general term for reference to both the subjective objects of minds, and the objective things of physical senses : Information. From a scientific perspective, Mathematics*2 may be the fundamental aspect (essence) of reality. But, for Philosophical purposes Information*3 may be more broadly applicable. Math seems to be the most abstract form of Generic Information*4, yet it is the logical structure of the physical world.

Abstract objects*1 are not knowable by physical senses, but only by mental introspection or by communication with other minds. So, they are in the space-time world, but not of the physical world. Space-time is itself an abstract concept, that we measure indirectly by observing physical changes in the environment. Even the causes of change, Energy & Forces, are abstract concepts, not material things. We only know them indirectly by their effects on matter.

In my personal thesis, I refer to the universal power-to-enform (causation) as EnFormAction*5. And the logically necessary First Cause (the Enformer, the Programmer, the Great Mathematician, etc) is the only abstract thing that exists prior-to and outside the evolving (self-enforming) space-time world. I assume that you lean toward Platonism instead of Nominalism. Can you see the connection between Enformationism and your own proposal of a Mathematical universe? :smile:

*1. Abstract Object :
One doesn’t go far in the study of what there is without encountering the view that every entity falls into one of two categories: concrete or abstract. . . . Though there is a pervasive appeal to abstract objects, philosophers have nevertheless wondered whether they exist. The alternatives are: platonism, which endorses their existence, and nominalism, which denies the existence of abstract objects across the board.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/abstract-objects/
Note : while Mathematical Objects are typically accepted as real, in some sense, by pragmatic physicists & mathematicians, their Ideal (abstract ; non-concrete) existence puts them in the same ontological category as Souls & Ghosts. Hence, philosophically controversial.

*2. Mathematical universe hypothesis :
The theory can be considered a form of Pythagoreanism or Platonism in that it proposes the existence of mathematical entities; a form of mathematicism in that it denies that anything exists except mathematical objects; and a formal expression of ontic structural realism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_universe_hypothesis

*3. Information :
Information is an abstract concept that refers to that which has the power to inform. At the most fundamental level information pertains to the interpretation of that which may be sensed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information

*4. Information :
Knowledge and the ability to know. Technically, it's the ratio of order to disorder, of positive to negative, of knowledge to ignorance. It's measured in degrees of uncertainty. Those ratios are also called "differences". So Gregory Bateson* defined Information as "the difference that makes a difference". The latter distinction refers to "value" or "meaning". Babbage called his prototype computer a "difference engine". Difference is the cause or agent of Change. In Physics it’s called "Thermodynamics" or "Energy". In Sociology it’s called "Conflict".
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page11.html
Note -- Information (EnFormAction) is generic in the sense of causing all forms of being in the universe.

*5. EnFormAction : The creative act of enforming; to give form to the formless.
Ententional Causation. A proposed metaphysical law or principle of the universe that causes random interactions between forces and particles to produce novel & stable arrangements of matter & energy. It’s the creative force of the universe. AKA : The innovative power of Evolution; the power to enform; Logos; Change.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html

I don't agree with you that we are arguing, on this forum, about whose model is "Closer To Truth"; the way I see it we are arguing for how things seems to each of us, from our own perspectives. — Janus

Perhaps. But don't you think each poster on a philosophy forum is trying to get as close as possible to ultimate truth : Ontology & Epistemology? Don't we tend to judge other opinions by how close they are to our personal model of true (ultimate) Reality --- even though we are aware that our models are merely approximations of The Truth? Science may be content with pragmatic understanding, but Philosophy aspires to ultimate Ideal Truth. Kant merely advised philosophical humility, in view of human limitations. Our ultimate sky-castles are constructed from mundane proximates.

Some models of ultimate Reality -- belief systems (-isms) -- include Meta-Physics (beyond Phenomena) while some exclude Noumena from consideration. Ironically, some posters seem to think they should be limited to pragmatic space-time (i.e. scientific) questions on a Philosophical forum. But, as you noted, even Kant couldn't help asking Ultimate Questions about the roots of Reality that lie beyond mundane Phenomenal experience via the senses. And the only way to such theoretical speculative knowledge is via rational inference from both personal experience and the shared experience of hypothetical conjectures. ad astra per aspera. :smile:

From the OP :
But whence the universal mind/consciousness? Is it eternal? How did it originate? What is its nature? If that’s what we really are, then we must be capable of answering the questions.
Note 1 : Isn't it ironic that Kant proposed both Transcendental Idealism and ding an sich, while believing in God (rational theology)? Regarding transcendent Truth, God only knows; but philosophers & cosmologists strive to "know the mind of god" (Hawking).
Note 2 : One answer to to OP might be : "Who cares? We'll never know. Besides, anything Noumenal or Transcendent has nothing to do with our Phenomenal Physical lives". But it's typical of Philosophers that they care about things that are not immanent phenomenal physical objects : e.g. beliefs, possibilities, cosmologies, worldviews, etc.

Einstein's Quest :
In 1925, Einstein went on a walk with a young student named Esther Salaman. As they wandered, he shared his core guiding intellectual principle: "I want to know how God created this world. I'm not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts; the rest are just details."
https://www.livescience.com/65628-theory-of-everything-millennia-away.html

thing-in-itself :
…philosophy of Immanuel Kant, the thing-in-itself (das Ding an sich) as opposed to what Kant called the phenomenon—the thing as it appears to an observer. Though the noumenal holds the contents of the intelligible world, Kant claimed that man’s speculative reason can only know phenomena and can never penetrate to…
https://www.britannica.com/topic/thing-in-itself

Closer to Truth :
Asking Ultimate Questions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closer_to_Truth

Our experiences may be different, but if they have nothing in common then they would not qualify as experiences of reality, even though they might qualify as real experiences. We actually don't perceive reality at all, we conceive it. — Janus

Yes. That's what I was implying with the map vs terrain examples. But, to gain leverage in philosophical arguments, some people act as-if their personal map is the true model of reality. And, some claim that an abstraction -- sometimes labelled "settled science" -- is the final authority on Truth. Ideally, "settled science" would serve as a compendium of what all observer's models should "have in common". Yet philosophical debates tend to focus on unsettled marginal science : e.g. the meaning of quantum paradoxes, such as the Many Worlds interpretation. :smile:

Map–territory relation :
The map–territory relation is the relationship between an object and a representation of that object,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Map%E2%80%93territory_relation

Map/Territory Fallacy :
“The map is not the territory” is a phrase coined by the Polish-American philosopher and engineer Alfred Korzybski. He used it to convey the fact that people often confuse models of reality with reality itself. According to Korzybski, models stand to represent things, but they are not identical to those things.
https://www.the-possible.com/the-map-is-not-the-territory/

In order to approximate "true" reality (ding an sich), we would have to compare our varying worldviews, looking for areas of overlap. — Gnomon
This is not Kant, though; according to him we cannot approximate to the noumenal. We can only say how things seem in our experience, and if our experiences align, then we have empirical reality. Empirical reality is reality for us according to Kant. So, logically we can then ask "what about reality in itself or beyond the "for us"?", and Kant's answer is that we can have no idea of what that could be. — Janus

That aspirational assertion is merely my opinion, not attributed to Kant. Even though we cannot directly know the ding an sich, we can -- via the observational methods of Science, and the reasoning of Philosophy -- construct models of ultimate reality that "approximate" the true ding. On this forum we argue about whose model is Closer To Truth, which is the pragmatic goal of Philosophy. Even Kant seemed motivated to get as close as possible to Transcendental Idealism. :cool:

PS__Was the TI term a case of sour grapes?

The meaning of SOUR GRAPES is disparagement of something that has proven unattainable.

Kant vs Scientific Rationalism :
Science deals with what we can perceive (empiric knowledge = empiric truth), not with the Ding-an-Sich. We don't have access to it, and reaching it is not the goal of science, it is impossible.
https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/84710/kant-vs-scientific-rationalism-do-we-need-the-ding-an-sich

I read Kant more as saying that what we experience is a human reality. — Janus

Yes, vivid personal subjective realities. My experience is my reality. But, it's just one of many experienced "realities", because your experience may be different. For those born blind, their "reality" lacks the visual evidence of light-reflecting matter. So they may substitute imaginary representations of things, completely different. However, if they compare their partial subjective realities*1, they may be able to compile a comprehensive representation (objective reality), that more closely resembles the "reality" that sighted people experience. Kant's distinction was not between individual subjective reality, and collective objective reality -- that had already been made by previous generations of philosophers. Instead, he distinguished those mental models (maps) from ultimate Reality beyond*2 human experience.

In order to approximate "true" reality (ding an sich), we would have to compare our varying worldviews, looking for areas of overlap. Yet for scientific purposes, we have to ignore areas influenced primarily by personal emotional commitments and conventional belief systems. But even then, we are not guaranteed to reach the core reality. For example, not long ago scientists thought they had catalogued all forms of Energy & Matter. But now they have different opinions on the substance of Dark Matter & Dark Energy, constituting most of cosmic reality. :smile:

*1. Subjective Reality :
Knowledge of objective reality is gained by the five senses of sight, hearing, touch, taste, smell. 2. Subjective reality is the inner world of the mind. The world of emotions and feelings.
https://corporatecoachgroup.com/blog/the-difference-between-objective-and-subjective-reality

*2. I don't mean supernatural, but comprehensive, global, universal view of Nature, which we can only imagine, based on what we experience via our limited senses.


BLIND MEN EXPERIENCING REALITY



THE BLIND MEN AND THE ELEPHANT.
A HINDOO FABLE.
I.
IT was six men of Indostan
To learning much inclined,
Who went to see the Elephant
(Though all of them were blind),
That each by observation
Might satisfy his mind.
II.
The First approached the Elephant,
And happening to fall
Against his broad and sturdy side,
At once began to bawl:
"God bless me!—but the Elephant
Is very like a wall!"
III.
The Second, feeling of the tusk,
Cried: "Ho!—what have we here
So very round and smooth and sharp?
To me 't is mighty clear
This wonder of an Elephant
Is very like a spear!"
IV.
The Third approached the animal,
And happening to take
The squirming trunk within his hands,
Thus boldly up and spake:
"I see," quoth he, "the Elephant
Is very like a snake!"
V.
The Fourth reached out his eager hand,
And felt about the knee.
"What most this wondrous beast is like
Is mighty plain," quoth he;
"'T is clear enough the Elephant
Is very like a tree!"
VI.
The Fifth, who chanced to touch the ear,
Said: "E'en the blindest man
Can tell what this resembles most;
Deny the fact who can,
This marvel of an Elephant
Is very like a fan!"
VII.
The Sixth no sooner had begun
About the beast to grope,
Than, seizing on the swinging tail
That fell within his scope,
"I see," quoth he, "the Elephant
Is very like a rope!"
VIII.
And so these men of Indostan
Disputed loud and long,
Each in his own opinion
Exceeding stiff and strong,
Though each was partly in the right,
And all were in the wrong!

MORAL.
So, oft in theologic wars
The disputants, I ween,
Rail on in utter ignorance
Of what each other mean,
And prate about an Elephant
Not one of them has seen!

The unseen ding an sich : the whole system of many parts

Also, I'd say taking consciousness as foundational and the world as derivative is similar to Descartes’ certainty about inner sensations (I think therefore I am) while admitting the world he perceived might be caused by some evil demon. — Art48

Regarding the OP, I'd like to re-word that statement. I take Causal Information as foundational and Mental Consciousness as derivative. Generic Information (the power to enform, to create) may or may not be conscious, but since mental consciousness did in fact emerge from eons of physical change, the potential for awareness must have been inherent in the First Cause -- or Initial Conditions, if you prefer. Causation is definitely directional, and possibly intentional, but I don't know what those intentions are. I can only guess about why the "demon" wanted to cause Descartes to believe a lie.

I'm just beginning to read a new book by astronomer Caleb Sharf : The Ascent of Information. Although he is a professional scientist, he writes like a philosopher, trying to see the big picture, instead of the microscopic view of Reductionism. In the first chapter, he says that "a number of thinkers . . . have asked whether information itself may be the fundamental currency of the universe". Currency is a medium of exchange, so Information is portrayed as the medium of Change (the essence of Energy) circulating within the world system.

Sharf goes on to note that physicist John A. Wheeler "explored the notion that the ultimate nature of physical reality is inextricably linked to observation and experimental interrogation" That may sound odd, but a lot of Quantum Physics is weird. Referring to quantum collapse of superposition, due to experimentation, he goes on to say that "the very act of observation or interaction is what causes their properties to snap into focus. In other words, this is a participatory universe of yes/no information, in which, as Wheeler put it, we get 'it from bit' " The implication is that the experimenter's setup is like a binary yes-or-no question : is a particle there or not? And the answer is to produce a local particle from a continuous wave-form : Voila!.

The notion of a "Participatory Universe" reminds me of the concept of Universal Mind/Consciousness. Yet in Wheeler's model, it's the human experimenter who consciously participates in the processes of physics by formulating a yes/no (1/0) question mathematically. Which leaves open the bigger question : is the universe conscious of our probing, or just a machine grinding out evolutionary products? In quantum experiments, the human operates the machine to output an answer. But is the response conscious or automatic? What do you think? :chin:

I wasn't referring to Kantian ideas. I intended to point out that we don't experience an external world, meaning that we don't experience anything that we know to be a mind-independent external world, even if an inference to a mind-independent external world might seem most plausible. — Janus

OK. But that description sounds Kantian to me. Scientists & Philosophers may be aware that their observations are subjective, even when they are presented as objective : "most physicists agree that . . . . is a fact". Yet, non-philosophers, who haven't given it much thought, might not "know" that their experience is not of direct reality, but of the external world as mediated via an internal "frame" of prior beliefs. Kant seemed to be saying that, although we might infer an objective "mind-independent external world", our internal working model of that world is actually a subjective construct. Hence, we like to think we are seeing reality, when in fact we are imagining an artificial (man-made) model of reality. :cool:

Also, I don't know what you mean by "realist's noumenal worldview". — Janus

Sorry, I was obliquely referring to the realist's imaginary model of the world, which may be intuitively accepted as the true objective reality. That's how we navigate through the world, using our mental maps as proxies for the actual terrain. But on a philosophical forum we soon discover that my noumenal worldview (my map) may be rejected by others with different maps of true reality : e.g. Idealism vs Materialism. :nerd:

Whereas Functionalism*5 seems to be a half-step toward Idealism. — Gnomon
I not sure what you mean here. To my way of thinking functionalism just says that mind is a real function of the brain, which is again a kind of realism, if not strict eliminative physicalism. — Janus

Off the top of my pointy head, I was trying to say that a Function*1 is not a material thing, but an inference about a Causal Process*2 : not Real, but Ideal. The Brain is a real tangible object, but the Mind is an ideal imaginary subject. We know the Mind by rational inference, not by sensory observation. Hence Functionalism treats the idea of Mind as-if a Real thing.

The notion of "Phenomenal Experience" (mental currency) was new to me. But it makes sense that when we discuss the idea of a brain function (not what it is, but what it does) we must translate our perceptions of behavior into a conventional metaphorical language that serves as a representation of a concept that is not an objective thing, but a subjective inference : an idea. :smile:

*1. Function : an inferred causal relationship between an input and output

*2. Causation : Hume saw causation as a relationship between two impressions or ideas in the mind.

As I said above, apart from the experience of the "external, objective" world there is also the experience of freedom and moral responsibility, and although we don't directly experience what goes on in other minds, similarly we don't directly experience an external world either, although we do have plenty of experience that provides individual evidence that something exists outside of our skins, just as we have plenty of experience that provides evidence for the existence of other people.. — Janus

I assume you're referring to Kant's ding an sich noumenon*1, which presumably exists "independent of representation and observation". Yet "Universal Mind/Consciousness" as an abstract idea, lacks phenomenal experience. So Realists tend to dismiss such unverifiable ideas, asserting that their phenomenal existence (as brain states)*2 is the only reality. Anything else suffers from the major limitation of Idealism : subjectivity. Which can be dismissed as "imaginary", or "mere opinion", or even "woo-woo" -- if it clashes with the Realist's noumenal worldview.

I just discovered the notion of "Phenomenal Experience"*3 as an argument in favor of Consciousness as a real thing. But I doubt that a Realist would be convinced. They might admit that the human Mind has a general function : processing ideas (representations of experience), while insisting that the mechanism generating that useful function is the material brain. Hence the "function" does not exist "independent of observation". Materialism reserves "experience" for the five physical senses of the body*4. Whereas Functionalism*5 seems to be a half-step toward Idealism.

The hard distinction between Realism & Idealism seems to imply that "my sensory experience counts as real" but your subjective experience counts only as hearsay. As a defense against manipulations via Faith, such skepticism might be necessary, in order to screen for truth. But openness to the experiences of others results in social cooperation, even in the profession we call Science. But the soft distinction typical of the profession of Philosophy makes a forum for sharing personal, non-empirical, opinions possible. I can import some of your ideas into my own worldview, as long as they pass the Plausible (logical, but not necessarily factual) test. From my perspective, "Universal Mind" may sound reasonable, depending on prior assumptions -- which may or may not be acceptable. :smile:

PS__Personally, I can't make a black vs white distinction between Real & Ideal or Mind & Matter. As you seem to imply, what we know as real is a subjective feeling about the representation of an observation.

*1. Ding An Sich :
In Kantian philosophy, the thing-in-itself (German: Ding an sich) is the status of objects as they are, independent of representation and observation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thing-in-itself

*2. But what is a brain state, other than a temporary pattern of interrelationships? Its function is in motivated behavior based on belief in a the represented idea.

*3. Phenomenal experiencemight act as a mental currency of sorts, which not only endows conscious mental states with intrinsic value but also makes it possible for conscious agents to compare vastly different experiences in a common subject-centred space—a feature that readily explains the fact that consciousness is ‘unified’.
https://academic.oup.com/nc/article/2022/1/niac007/6573727

*4. . . . .Omitting the sixth sense of Reason, which ties separate sensory inputs into meaningful, non-physical, patterns of relationships.

*5. In philosophy of mind, functionalism is the thesis that mental states are constituted solely by their functional role, which means, their causal relations with other mental states, sensory inputs and behavioral outputs. Functionalism developed largely as an alternative to the identity theory of mind and behaviorism. ___Wikipedia

Ok. It makes sense alright and I have a feeling you'll find many takers with regard to self-organization. It also seems to square, quite perfectly, with your Enformy which is G*D (you should learn some Latin, quidquid Latine dictum sit altum videtur). Good job! — Agent Smith

Just a quibble : "Enformy" is a technical scientific concept, equal & opposite to "Entropy" -- not a miracle-working deity. The term is not intended to sound profound, but to be an accurate assessment of how evolution progresses -- via self-organization -- despite the digressive laws of Thermodynamics. :smile:

Enformy : neo-Latin, for Pro (forward) Gressus (to move)

Some genetic re-engineering may have to be done on humans at some point in order to counter the physical and mental effects of living and working in non-Earth environments for extended periods of time. Our ability to genetically re-engineer ourselves will be a new form of hyper-adaptation to extreme environments. — punos

Since natural genetics takes eons to effect change, and humans are aspirational & impatient, it seems quicker & easier & cheaper -- if not aesthetically better -- to outsource our physical improvements to geneless artificial bodies. According to Google, messy, bodily-fluid swapping, STD-fraught, progeny producing, emotionally contaminated human intercourse, is currently being countered by antiseptic sex dolls, that make no long-term demands on humans. No surgical enhancements necesssary. However, some imagination is required. :joke:

PS__Seriously though, even exploring Mars is a job for robots, in the foreseeable future. Humans on Mars would have to be imprisoned in stark artificial habitats. I apologize for dampening your genetic dream, with practical considerations. On the other hand. maybe aliens already adapted to alien habitats will be available in the future for such slave-work, so we won't have to engineer them, a la Blade Runner. :wink:

NEW, IMPROVED SELF-PLEASURING

Your theory doesn't require minds then - information is self-sufficient and yet ... — Agent Smith

That's not what I said, or intended. Instead, Generic Information (programmed causation) was responsible for gradual emergence of Minds -- among many other things -- from eons of information processing. For billions of years, Nature got along fine without Minds -- or Universal Consciousness. But natural EnFormAction (energy + direction) laid groundwork for the eventual emergence of rational Minds. Those mammalian minds later evolved self-conscious homo sapiens Minds, that only recently began to take over the creative function of Evolution via Culture.

With that in mind, I would re-word your statement to say that "self-sufficient" Information (EnFormAction) worked automatically for eons (no need for miracles), to construct a world and local environment suitable for warm-blooded vertebrate creatures to proliferate, and to evolve complex brains on top of their up-right spines. Those information-processing brains then evolved cooperative Culture (combined minds) to expand the reach of subjective Information via communication to all sentient creatures on Earth.

What I was implying is that evolutionary EnFormAction functions automatically (self-controlled) like a computer program, with creative feedback loops, to process initial general Information (Forms) into novel & unique forms as outputs. That's an imaginative metaphor, as an attempt to make sense of a world that makes sense to rational minds. The universe is much more "self-sufficient" than any current computer though. For example, it has produced interim outputs (organisms ) that are self-organizing. Does any of that make sense, not as a scientific conclusion, but as a philosophical metaphor? :smile:

Intitial Program Data :
In mathematics and particularly in dynamic systems, an initial condition, in some contexts called a seed value,[1]: pp. 160  is a value of an evolving variable at some point in time designated as the initial time (typically denoted t = 0).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Initial_condition
Note -- Metaphorically, the Singularity was the program for evolution, and Generic Information was the "seed" containing coded directions (like DNA) and selection criteria for eventual development of Conscious Minds. Unfortunately, the implicit Programmer is beyond the scope of Science, but not out of reach for philosophical conjecture.
Can you see the analogy? Evolution works like a computer, using natural selection to filter out wrong answers to the original question. Today, human programmed computers use artificial selection (programmer's intentions) to weed-out a range of variables, down to a precious few that meet the programmer's criteria. :nerd:


"To him who looks upon the world rationally, the world in its turn presents a rational aspect."
___Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel

With intelligent hyper-evolution it would be possible to genetically re-engineer the human hand to have fingers with ball and socket joints instead of hinge joints; alternatively you can get rid of bones all together and have fingers like tentacles. — punos

I agree. But I'd prefer to "engineer" man-made machines, and leave DNA-made machines as they are. Our physical limitations are partly due to our mental excellence in generalized multi-tasking, so we are not stuck in a single evolutionary niche. The girl is pretty, but she might not appreciate it if I tried to wrap my tentacles around her. Yuk! :joke:

BIONIC TENTACLE ARM

What do you make of the QM claim that consciousness is vital to physical processes e.g. in the double slit experiment? — Agent Smith

I doubt that Consciousness per se is responsible for the QM "collapse". Instead, I would say that extraction of Information from superposed (holistic) waveforms cause the statistical state (probability ; potential) to collapse (like a pricked balloon) into particular states (actual photons). That's the basis of John A. Wheeler's "It from Bit" postulate. His idea is sometimes misinterpreted as "mind over matter", because of the confusion between Human Consciousness and Generic Information (i.e. EnFormAction ; the essence of Energy).

"Consciousness" is associated with a particular person, and brain. But Information (EnFormAction) is the general causal process of the world. In my thesis, EnFormAction (the teleological program of Nature) was the driving force of evolution for billions of years --- before Human consciousness emerged in the last million years or so. Therefore, during the pre-human era, waveforms were caused to collapse by energy (information) exchanges when waves intersected & interacted to produce the peaks our senses interpret as particles of matter or energy.

Information (EnFormAction) was entirely physical until evolution complexified the interactions of energy & matter into brains that could process general information into personal meaning (measurement of the environment). Ut Sensum? :smile:

Information exchange vs Conscious measurement :
The claim that an observer is needed to collapse the wave function has injected a severely anthropomorphic element into quantum theory, suggesting that nothing happens in the universe except when physicists are making measurements. An extreme example is Hugh Everett’s Many Worlds theory, which says that the universe splits into two nearly identical universes whenever a measurement is made.
https://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/experiments/wave-function_collapse/
Note -- the measurement occurs only when the new pattern is interpreted by a mind. Yet physics works in the absence of minds.

NON-CONSCIOUS SLITS CAUSE CONTINUOUS WAVES TO BECOME PARTICULAR

↪Tom Storm
I think the problem with any form of idealism is that we cannot adequately model what we imagine might be going on. We can model the physical because it is observable, but we can model mind only in terms of reasons (and along the lines of how we understand our own), it seems to me. — Janus

That is the crux of the Realism vs Idealism controversy. Our common language is inherently concrete-based (realistic) because our mutual experience is of the (external ; objective) Real world. We only know of other people's mental models from their metaphorical expressions. Only the individual knows what's going on in their own psyche. So the Mind Doctor is working blind.

The physical sciences, such as Physics & Chemistry, can describe their observations in terms of visual & tangible physical properties. But the meta-physical sciences, such as Psychology & History, must communicate their "observations" in terms of analogies to physical behaviors. But analogies & metaphors are subject to contrary subjective interpretations. That's why Psychology & Philosophy are not considered to be hard (concrete) sciences. They are sciences of invisible intangible minds, not quivering jello-brains.

For example, B.F. Skinner assumed that he could put the philosophical Psychology of Freud on a more scientific basis, by ignoring occult mental processes, and focusing on overt physical behavior. IOW, treating humans like non-verbal animals. Consequently, Psychology soon developed in Psychiatry, using drugs & surgery to modify behavior, without much concern for "what it's like" for the patient. Likewise, science-emulating Philosophy tends to treat verbal persons like dumb animals

Today, self-help Pop-Psychology attempts to allow the person to heal their own mind via non-physical interventions such as Meditation. Its methods & language have lapsed back into ancient Western & Eastern forms of mind-centered Philosophy. Yet, there is at least one intermediate mainstream approach that successfully combines both mental & physical treatments : Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy. It's a kind of guided self-help process that allows the anxious or depressed patient to "heal thyself". Its technical vocabulary is necessarily analogous to physical treatments, but also metaphorical enough to be understandable by non-professionals. It allows us to "model the mind . . . along the lines of how we understand our own". Maybe we need to develop a Cognitive-Behavioral Philosophy. :smile:

What is meant by consciousness being aware of itself?

Can thoughts ever be aware of themselves or can only the thinker create thoughts without fully knowing what they are? What is being asked? — TiredThinker

We seem to be presented with two different "thinkers" here : General Consciousness vs Specific Thinkers or Thoughts.

In some philosophical or religious worldviews, Godlike Cosmic Consciousness has spawned -- or is produced by -- a multitude of local consciousnesses, and can view the world through the eyes or minds of each of its offspring -- or sentient parts. Unfortunately, I have no way of knowing what a CC knows. So for me, It's a hypothetical as-if speculation.

The second postulated "thinker" (res cogitans) seems to be a mundane human thought-processor. And we know from experience that a person can be self-aware in some sense. Physically, we get feedback about the thinker's body via Proprioception (to see one's self). But that sense is typically subconscious. Yet it may be the physical foundation of a conscious meta-physical self-image (model of the self), which includes non-physical memories, qualities & values. The "red dot mirror image" experiments have shown that most vertebrates are self-aware to some degree.

Presumably, humans are also aware of their own abstract thoughts & images. In that case, the whole system is reflecting on a portion of its thinking process. But I would re-word the topical question to imply, that the holistic Thinker -- not the particular Thought -- can be aware of its own being, its position in space-time, and of its own thought processes.

This rambling thought probably has nothing to do with Krisnamurti's Koan. :smile:

SELF-AWARE THINKER


COSMIC CONSCIOUSNESS AWARE OF ITS SELF COMPONENTS

Well, if photons and matter waves, surely there's a duality that isn't complementary, rather they're annihilatory (MAD) and although Gnomon's BothAnd is more of the former, it easily accommodates the latter. — Agent Smith

Yes. Modern physics has discovered both complementary partnerships, as in wave/particle duality. But it also has evidence for contradictory interactions, as in Particles vs Antiparticles. But, on a cosmic scale, this universe seems to be a non-dual holistic system, in that particular positives & negatives interact dynamically, but also collectively cancel-out to Zero or Neutral values : Thesis -- Antithesis -- Synthesis. :smile:

PS__That complementary holistic notion ain't "sympathetic magic", it's cosmic physics.

Wtf are you talking about? — 180 Proof
:grin: I don't know. As I said I'm not sure I understand duality. Can ya help? What's duality? — Agent Smith

I just came across a purported Shakespeare quote that epitomizes 's belittling "arguments" toward forum posts that don't fit his own fossilized philosophy. Ironically, the same quote could be reflected back at the belittler. :joke:

"I would challenge you to a battle of wits, but I see you are unarmed." ___Anon E. Mous

We can do a great many things and there are few things we can't do that other animals can as far as dexterity so we generally don't think about our limits. But there must be something that could be different that could allow usto do even more? — TiredThinker

Humans have already invented technologies that expand the precision & strength of hand movements. For example, surgeons routinely use robotics to do work that used to require the steady hands of doctors with exceptional eye-hand coordination, and years of training. So it seems that Culture has taken over from Nature the role of evolutionary innovator. :smile:

Where does consciousness begin? Without the language parts of our brains are we even conscious? — TiredThinker

I recently read an article -- can't put my hand on it now -- arguing that human consciousness differs from animal awareness primarily in its use of verbal concepts : i. e. language. It also concluded that human language is both cause & effect of complex social situations. Language allows us to communicate in abstract symbols instead of grunts & gestures. It also allows individuals to function as integral parts of a larger system (society) with common goals & intentions, beyond simple inborn instincts.

The implication, as I recall it, is that consciousness predated language. But its expansion and emergence from basic animal communication of feelings -- e.g. monkey calls that mean "predator!!" -- to more complex and abstract mind pictures (imagination), has resulted in technology & civilization.

Apparently, consciousness began as a form of early-warning radar for animated beings. For example, a worm can't see, but it can feel & smell positive or negative sensations -- food & danger -- in order to wriggle toward or away. As animal mobility increased though, that primitive kind of knowing had to keep pace with the speed of locomotion. And as social interactions complexified, basic awareness of the environment evolved to keep track of a rapidly changing tangle of interrelationships.

Living beings all have some form of immune system -- detecting & dealing with threats to life -- to keep them alive. In single-cell organisms that system is simple & chemical. But in more complex organisms, the life-preserving function became more complex & physical (neural). Then, in humans the need to project current conditions into a not-yet real future, resulted in the ability to conceptualize time & space beyond the scope of the senses. Yet that is a Meta-physical function of Imagination, which as humans, we take for granted. We may equate imagination with consciousness, but not all beings can do so. Basic awareness may be simple & physical. But human consciousness is complex & meta-physical.

So, human consciousness is an evolutionary adaption to the changing conditions of evolution. Physical & Mental progress in evolution results from both feed-back and feed-forward. It allows us to know, not only Now, but Past & Future. And to communicate those figments & fantasies to other humans via language. But try to tell your dog that he's going to the Vet tomorrow, and he'll just smile, and hear: "that's a good boy". :smile:

180 Proof
You're too kind sir. As I thought, Enformationism is untestable (forgivable), but I didn't expect it was also not "soundly logical" (sacrilege :grin: ). :chin:
However BothAnd, a key tool in Gnomon's Enformationism, suggests prima facie defiance of logic. — Agent Smith

A philosophical (metaphysical) thesis is inherently "untestable" by physical experiments. But it must be amenable to Reason. However, most of the scientific evidence underlying the thesis has resulted from both physical (empirical) and mathematical (logical) testing. The equivalence of Energy and Information is a scientific conclusion from evidence*1, not a philosophical conjecture from phantasy. Most of my post links are to scientific publications*2, and none are to magical or religious beliefs. So, don't take 's disparaging assertion as authoritative evidence that the thesis is "illogical". Think for yourself*3.

180's classical "sound" logic is two-valued*4, and dismisses all values between the extremes of True vs False. So, I conclude that 180's antipathy toward the Enformationism thesis is based on his ignorance, or distrust, of Quantum Physics with its non-classical logic. Quantum physics requires Boolean algebra in order to make sense of the Fuzzy Logic of quantum Uncertainty. To 180, BothAnd reasoning is sacrilegious, and "defiance of logic". But to Gnomon, it is practical secular reasoning for Metaphysical questions such as Mind/Matter and Quantum Fuzziness*5. So, if non-mechanical quantum physics makes you uncomfortable, you can hide under the security blanket of mechanical Classical physics. If 180 doesn't grasp the meaning of quantum physics and information theory, he can dismiss them as "sour grapes". :joke:


*1. Information & Energy equivalence :
In 2019, physicist Melvin Vopson of the University of Portsmouth proposed that information is equivalent to mass and energy, existing as a separate state of matter, a conjecture known as the mass-energy-information equivalence principle.
https://www.zmescience.com/science/news-science/information-energy-mass-equivalence/
Note -- Information & Energy are not the same thing, but different forms of the same metaphysical substance : EnFormAction (power to change form)

*2. Information and Energy As Independent Forms of Bookkeeping
Energy and information are related but independent, so the dynamical restrictions for one cannot be derived from those for the other. From this perspective, we also suggest the possibility that the foundation of the second law may be linked to the finite capacity of nature to store information about its own state.
https://arxiv.org/ftp/cond-mat/papers/0501/0501014.pdf
Note -- Shannon defined his novel concept of "Information" mathematically (syntax), instead of semantically (meaning). He borrowed the notion of Information entropy from the physics of Energy. But the original meaning of "information" remains semantic. So Information is BothAnd (syntax & semantic), not Either/Or. N'est pas?

*3. "Think for yourself, or others will think for you without thinking of you."
___Henry David Thoreau

*4. Two Value Logic :
Classically, a logic is two-valued if every proposition (without free variables) is either true or false and none is both; that is, the logic is consistent and every proposition is decidable. Being two-valued logic is a key feature of classical logic; any logic that is not two-valued is ipso facto nonclassical.
https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/two-valued+logic
Note -- True/False logic assumes complete information & arrogant certainty. Yet, in cases of incomplete information & fuzzy uncertainty (e.g. Quantum Physics & Mental Phenomena), a more modest form of reasoning is advisable.

*5. BothAnd thinking :
Quantum thinking is the ability of the mind to view a problem from all sides.
https://interestingengineering.com/culture/decoding-quantum-thinking-what-it-feels-like-to-think-free

The universal mind is quite the idea. It's right up yer alley. Wayfarer would've loved to discuss it from his unique Buddhist perspective. — Agent Smith

Except that I try not to think of the Enformer in terms of a "Universal Mind", but as the universal power to enform. I have my reasons for making that distinction : we have no information about personal characteristics of the eternal enforming Force beyond the bounds of space-time. The mind behind that power is occult (hidden by necessity or by intention). So imagining the Enformer as a metaphorical humanoid Mind is presumptive. But if you prefer a more personal Mind, instead of an impersonal Power to Enform, more power to you. I'm open-minded. :smile:


Creator in Buddhism :
Buddhism is a religion that does not include the belief in a creator deity, or any eternal divine personal being.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creator_in_Buddhism

Leading neuroscientists and Buddhists agree: “Consciousness is everywhere” :
New theories in neuroscience suggest consciousness is an intrinsic property of everything, just like gravity. That development opens a world of opportunity for collaboration between Buddhists and neuroscientists.
https://www.lionsroar.com/christof-koch-unites-buddhist-neuroscience-universal-nature-mind/
Note -- I make a technical distinction between human Consciousness and Generic Information. EnFormAction is the power of Causation (similar to physical Energy), and human Consciousness (Mind) is one effect of that cause. The ultimate source of that power may have mind-like properties, but I don't presume to know for sure. Yet we can know that Information (Energy+Matter+Mind) is an intrinsic property of everything in the real & ideal worlds*1. :smile:


*1. To see how informational realism dissolves the mind-body problem, we need first to be clear on what informational realism is and why it is credible. Informational realism is not simply the view that information is real. We live in an information age, so who doesn’t think that information is real? Rather, informational realism asserts that the ability to exchange information is the defining feature of reality, of what it means, at the most fundamental level, for any entity to be real.
https://mindmatters.ai/2021/07/how-informational-realism-subverts-materialism/

Cosmopsychism vs Enformationism :
Nature as a conscious Agent
http://www.bothandblog.enformationism.info/page53.html

Intriguing ideas mate! I'm not sure how they tie up though. For the moment though, in me humble opinion, I do see a blurry picture forming - you need to now bring it into focus or not, the choice being yours entirely. — Agent Smith

No. You need to bring it into focus. These TPF posts on disparate topics are inherently fragmented. But the Enformationism thesis begins at the beginning of the Energy+Matter+Mind equation and moves toward a novel information-theoretic worldview. The BothAnd Blog articles continue to explore specific applications of the basic concept : Generic Information is the fundamental substance of the universe. Links to opinions of Information-oriented scientists & philosophers add more detail to the emerging Information-based scientific paradigm. So, the choice is yours, to explore beyond my layman's opinions, expressed in bits & bytes of information. :smile:

PS__ You can choose to take "s jibes seriously or not. To throw you off the scent he makes a bold assertion : "Neither "multiverse" nor "many worlds" are "scientific postulations". I assume he's aware that both of those philosophical conjectures were conjured-up by theoretical physicists to explain infinities or dead-ends in their mathematical theories. Admittedly, those hypothetical solutions to quantum & cosmological conundrums were adopted more often by imaginative sci-fi writers, than by pragmatic scientists. Being unfalsifiable, they are actually philosophical speculations, even when proposed by baffled scientists. But they were intended to be mathematically-supported interpretations of enigmatic physical evidence. :nerd:

The bizarre logic of the many-worlds theory :
***At the beginning of Something Deeply Hidden, Sean Carroll cites the tale of the fox and the grapes from Aesop’s Fables. A hungry fox tries to reach a bunch of grapes dangling from a vine. Finding them beyond his grasp, but refusing to admit failure, the fox declares the grapes to be inedible and turns away. That, Carroll declares, encapsulates how physicists treat the wacky implications of quantum mechanics.
***Carroll wants that to stop. The fox can reach the grapes, he argues, with the many-worlds theory. Originated by US physicist Hugh Everett in the late 1950s, this envisions our Universe as just one of numerous parallel worlds that branch off from each other, nanosecond by nanosecond, without intersecting or communicating. (The many-worlds theory differs from the concept of the multiverse, which pictures many self-contained universes in different regions of space-time.)
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-02602-8

Multiverse :
***In Dublin in 1952, Erwin Schrödinger gave a lecture in which he jocularly warned his audience that what he was about to say might "seem lunatic". He said that when his equations seemed to describe several different histories, these were "not alternatives, but all really happen simultaneously". This sort of duality is called "superposition".
***Some physicists say the multiverse is not a legitimate topic of scientific inquiry. Concerns have been raised about whether attempts to exempt the multiverse from experimental verification could erode public confidence in science and ultimately damage the study of fundamental physics. Some have argued that the multiverse is a philosophical notion rather than a scientific hypothesis because it cannot be empirically falsified. The ability to disprove a theory by means of scientific experiment is a critical criterion of the accepted scientific method.[9] Paul Steinhardt has famously argued that no experiment can rule out a theory if the theory provides for all possible outcomes.
***Modern proponents of one or more of the multiverse hypotheses include Don Page, Brian Greene, Max Tegmark, Alan Guth, Andrei Linde, Michio Kaku, David Deutsch, Leonard Susskind, Alexander Vilenkin, Yasunori Nomura, Raj Pathria, Laura Mersini-Houghton, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Sean Carroll and Stephen Hawking.`
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse

What did Einstein say about multiverse?
The concept of the multiverse stems from the big bang theory — Albert Einstein's once controversial, but now widely accepted, idea that the universe instantaneously expanded from a tiny point called a singularity.
Note -- Some scientists realized that the only logical option to a singular Creation Event (implying a Creator), was to imagine that a Multiverse has always existed, with intrinsic Energy, Laws & Matter. In a series of "big bounces" this eternal source of being repeatedly recreates itself in the form of an infinite regression of creation events. The Multiverse theory basically replaces a traditional eternal spiritual Creator with an eternal material process of temporal change.

SELF-EXISTENT GODLESS MULTIVERSES vs UNITARY ETERNAL CREATOR

↪180 Proof
Good observation as far as I can tell. What's exactly the problem with infinite regress? Not that I haven't done me homework mate. The Wikipedia page doesn't mention anything specifically wrong with infinite regress. Ok, so it goes on forever, backwards. So?

As for Gnomon's Enformationism, it's, at the end of the day, a half-theism and half-atheism if there's such a concept afloat in the ideaverse. In line, of course, with his BothAnd synthetic idea-tool. — Agent Smith

"Infinite Regress" is inherent in all scientific postulations (Multiverse ; Many Worlds) that go beyond Post-Big-Bang-Space-Time. On the other end of the space-time scale from Cosmology, Quantum Theory is riddled with logic-stopping infinities, that must be "re-normalised" in order to make sense to the human mind. So, is using a double-standard for Science & Philosophy.

Enformationism is not an attempt to reconcile Theism & Atheism. It makes no theological claims, pro or con. But its BothAnd position on G*D questions is similar to the non-religious philosophical worldview of Deism. More specifically, it is a form of PanEnDeism, not PanPsychism, as 180 seems to misinterpret.

"Gnomon's crypto-idealist pseudo-scientism aka "Meta-Physics" is inconsistent with atheism" FWIW, Enformationism is both Realist and Idealist. It reconciles how a Real world can have non-physical Ideas : both are forms of Generic Information. Apparently, 180's anti-idealism Reality does not include any Ideas. So his own posts are literally meaningless non-sense. :smile:

PS__I could facetiously retort that 180 is a crypto-fascist, but I don't know anything about his politics. Yet, even though he knows nothing about Gnomon's philosophy, he feels entitled to use polemical ad hominems instead of rational arguments to refute his own mis-perceptions.
PPS __ This post is not directed at 180proof, because ideas just bounce off his physical head, but AgentSmith seems to absorb information presented in the form of metaphysical ideas, not spit-wads. :joke:


Renormalization is distinct from regularization, another technique to control infinities by assuming the existence of new unknown physics at new scales.
renormalization, the procedure in quantum field theory by which divergent parts of a calculation, leading to nonsensical infinite results, are absorbed by redefinition into a few measurable quantities, so yielding finite answers.
https://www.britannica.com/science/renormalization
Note -- One way to re-normalize quantum infinities is to divide by the square-root of minus one. Which results in Imaginary numbers.

The square root of minus one √(−1) is the "unit" Imaginary Number, the equivalent of 1 for Real Numbers. In mathematics the symbol for √(−1) is i for imaginary.
https://www.mathsisfun.com/numbers/imaginary-numbers.html

Metaphysics is the branch of philosophy that studies the fundamental nature of reality, the first principles of being, identity and change, space and time, causality, necessity, and possibility. ___Wikipedia
Note-- The topic of this thread is Meta-physical (ideas about ideas). Science studies the phenomenal (physical) nature of Reality, while Philosophy studies the noumenal (mental) nature of Nature. Again, 180 dismisses the existence of Mind in the Real world. So his Physicalism is essentially mindless.

Metaphysics :
Physical objects are real. Or at least most people think that they are real. Ideas are real. Relationships (taller than, older than) are real. They are all real but they are not real in the same way
https://www.qcc.cuny.edu/socialsciences/ppecorino/intro_text/Chapter%204%20Metaphysics/OVERVIEW.htm

Does the OP mean panpsychism when he talks of universal consciousness or is he referring to some kind of emergent egregore(-like) mind? A hive mind perhaps? What does Enformationism have to say about such entities? Is there a slot for them in your theory? — Agent Smith

I suppose an Egregore-like emergent entity from collective thoughts could be one answer to the OP. Hive Mind might be another form of collective consciousness. But that doesn't seem to be what Art is grasping for. Collective consciousness would be an emergent Awareness from integration of all lesser minds of the world. Instead, he seems to be thinking more in terms of Panpsychism, as the general potential from which individual minds arise, and as a contrasting concept to isolated apathetic Solipsism floating in the void.

Enformationism has little to say about intermediate forms of consciousness on a continuum between G*D & Man. Instead, the thesis focuses on the only kind of mind we humans know directly : "I think, therefore I am". But it accepts, without direct evidence, the existence of Other Minds, both Human and Animal. However, it also speculates on the OP questions : origin, nature, etc. Lacking any empirical evidence though, the thesis uses abstract terms, such as "Logos", when referring to the ultimate rational intellect, and "Programmer" in reference to the intentional direction (conatus) of the Evolutionary Program. :smile:

PS___Plato assumed that his mind, as a descendant from progenitor LOGOS, should be able to rationally probe its Origins (eternal) & Nature (order/organization).


"But whence the universal mind/consciousness? Is it eternal? How did it originate? What is its nature? If that’s what we really are, then we must be capable of answering the questions." ___Art, from OP

"Universal consciousness is a metaphysical concept suggesting an underlying essence of all being and becoming in the universe." https://www.longdom.org/open-access/proof-of-universal-consciousness-with-the-direction-of-energy-flow-63888.html
Note -- "Proof of Universal Consciousness with the Direction of Energy Flow" could be construed as Conatus.

Egregore is an occult concept representing a non-physical entity that arises from the collective thoughts of a distinct group of people. ___Wikipedia

EEYORE AS EMERGENT ENTITY (note; no pictures of Egregore as emergent Mind)

I was attempting a pun (hence the apology). Con artist. But I see now it doesn't work on the word pronounced properly. — bongo fury

I saw the possible pun, but I thought you might know of some new philosophical concept. "Conatus" was an old word, but new to me, not long ago. Yet the notion of a positive tendency in Nature fit with my emerging worldview. Some see Evolution as a pointless random walk, but I see signs of intention & direction in its increasing physical complexity, and the emergence of consciousness from a Big Bang beginning. Hence the applicability of "Conatus" to the OP. :smile:

Conatus : a natural tendency, impulse, or striving : conation. used in Spinozism — Gnomon
and by conatists — bongo fury

Who or what is a "conatist"? I Googled the term, and got only irrelevant links. Literally interpreted, the word refers to someone with WillPower. Is there a cult of Conatism? :smile:

↪Gnomon
One thing's for sure, either there is a God or there isn't one. It's quite embarrassing if you ask me. — Agent Smith

For me, that Epistemological dichotomy*1 is not so "sure". From the BothAnd perspective, it's not an Either/Or conundrum, but a statistical spectrum. Moreover, as a non-religious Agnostic, the ambiguity is not embarrassing to me. It's just another example of the uncertainty of Reality, which Stoics*2 accept as a fact of life. Philosophically, I assume that there was a First Cause of some kind, to kick-start the Big Bang. Beyond that logical axiom*3, I have no information about the presumed Programmer.

Whereof one has no idea, one must not speak*4. But philosophers are free to make-up words to express ineffable*5 concepts : e.g. "Enformer". Besides, physicists & cosmologists are not embarrassed to assume the unproveable existence of Many Worlds and Multiverses*6, to explain how something could arise from something outside of space-time as we know it. Are you sure about Many Worlds and Multiple Agent Smiths? :smile:

*1. Epistemology :
Some have also attempted to offer significant revisions to our notion of belief, including eliminativists about belief who argue that there is no phenomenon in the natural world which corresponds to our folk psychological concept of belief (Paul Churchland) and formal epistemologists who aim to replace our bivalent notion of belief ("either I have a belief or I don't have a belief") with the more permissive, probabilistic notion of credence ("there is an entire spectrum of degrees of belief, not a simple dichotomy between belief and non-belief")
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology

*2. Embrace the Uncertainty :
Which is why [Stoic] Seneca reminds us: “The whole future lies in uncertainty: live immediately.”
https://dailystoic.com/embrace-the-uncertainty/

*3. Axiom : In mathematics or logic, an axiom is an unprovable rule or first principle accepted as true because it is self-evident or particularly useful.

*4. "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent. What we cannot speak about we must pass over in silence". ___Wittgenstein

*5. Ineffable : Silvia Jonas sets out to articulate 'a common ground for any account of the metaphysics of ineffability'. She defines the ineffable as a nonlinguistic item which it is in principle impossible to express in conceptual terms or to communicate to others by the use of language. She is particularly interested in the uses of the term 'ineffable' in religious, aesthetic, and philosophical contexts, where it seems to mark something of special importance or significance
https://ndpr.nd.edu/reviews/ineffability-and-its-metaphysics-the-unspeakable-in-art-religion-and-philosophy/
Note -- ideas about non-physical notions (metaphysics) are inherently "ineffable" in conventional matter-based words. For example, "matter" could refer to a physical object, or to a mental evaluation ("it doesn't matter" : has no physical manifestation, but may have emotional significance)

*5.Like the multiverse, true infinity is a mathematical construct. Mathematician extraordinaire David Hilbert (1862–1943) said it succinctly: “… the infinite is nowhere to be found in reality. It neither exists in nature nor provides a legitimate basis for rational thought…”
https://mindmatters.ai/2021/10/why-just-anything-cant-happen-given-an-infinite-sum-of-universes/

The universe is inside Krishna (you)!
— Agent Smith
This thread should have a warning sign : "twisty Metaphors ahead, not to be taken literally".
Metaphors can't be refuted with empirical evidence, you either get the oblique inference, or you don't. If you do, it's safe to proceed slowly, and you might learn something -- something meta-physical. — Gnomon
Awesome! Krishna is a Hindu god, infact he's the supreme deity in human form; the universe is the universe ( :chin: ). Does anything follow? The universal mind - what is it from a God's eye point of view? — Agent Smith

I don't think of the Enformer or Programmer or First Cause as the universal Consciousness. All of those labels point to something outside the space-time universe. And I don't know how Consciousness would work without a physical world to be aware of, or without a local Self to serve as a point-of-view.

However, if the a priori Cause (EnFormAction)*1 is also the substance of reality (Matter, Energy, Mind are all forms of Generic Information), then perhaps eternal Brahma has a zillion viewpoints*2. He/r worldview is also your perspective, and that of every conscious mind that ever existed. But that's a mind-boggling feat of imagination, so I try not to think about it too much. Philosophers who try to imagine what Eternity & Infinity are like*3, may become multi-schizophrenic. :grin:


*1. EnFormAction :
Metaphorically, it's the Will-power of G*D, which is the First Cause of everything in creation. Aquinas called the Omnipotence of God the "Primary Cause", so EFA is the general cause of everything in the world. Energy, Matter, Gravity, Life, Mind are secondary creative causes, each with limited application.
   All are also forms of Information, the "difference that makes a difference". It works by directing causation from negative to positive, cold to hot, ignorance to knowledge. That's the basis of mathematical ratios (Greek "Logos", Latin "Ratio" = reason). A : B :: C : D. By interpreting those ratios we get meaning and reasons.
   The concept of a river of causation running through the world in various streams has been interpreted in materialistic terms as Momentum, Impetus, Force, Energy, etc, and in spiritualistic idioms as Will, Love, Conatus*4, and so forth. EnFormAction is all of those.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html

*2. Imagine the Architect of the Matrix, sitting in a room surrounded by a zillion TV screens.

*3. What is it like to be a bat, or a timeless non-local deity?

*4. Conatus : a natural tendency, impulse, or striving : conation. used in Spinozism with reference to the inclination of a thing to persist in its own being.

David Chalmers is a genius; most philosophers are. — Agent Smith

Apparently Chalmers merely pointed-out an ironic situation -- mind/body disjunction -- that some people accepted as normal (mind physical), and others as impossible or illogical (mind metaphysical). :smile:

You described Irony as directed inwardly. — Gnomon
I see irony as an experience, something mental, not as an objective or physical event. — T Clark

Yes. I was trying to distinguish the inner feeling of Irony (private experience) from projecting that feeling toward others, as in Satire or Sarcasm (public experience). I suppose that Satire (e.g. stand-up comedy) could be considered an objective form of Irony, in that it depends on a common feeling among the audience. Those who don't share the feeling will not find it funny. Especially, if they are the butt of the joke. :joke:

Objective : 1 · being outside of the mind and independent of it.
Note -- Viral Memes (e.g. knock-knock jokes) begin as subjective ideas, but when they go public, the associated feeling is communicated to others. Many, if not most jokes, are funny because they point-out situations that are contrary to expectations, or to logic, or to social oughts.

The feeling of holding two contradictory ideas in my mind at the same time. Being pulled in two different directions but not being able to choose one over the other to resolve the contradiction. That is the feeling of irony for me. — T Clark

You described Irony as directed inwardly. That internal ironic feeling could be rationalized as simply realizing that things are not as they seem, or as they ought to be ideally. But emotionally, the feeling may be somewhere between Enlightenment and Disappointment. Either a private joke, or a personal farce.

When the logical or physical contradiction is expressed outwardly, it could be intended as a shared feeling of recognition of what's wrong with a particular situation. That's how stand-up comedians establish empathy with the audience. Satire is when we're all in on the joke.

But, when the conflict between what is, and what seems to be -- or should be -- is directed at a particular person or group, the humor is not intended to be shared, but to hurt the target. Judgmental Sarcasm is an ad hominem attack, which varies from a pinch to a bleeding wound. Unfortunately, forum posters too often mistake Sarcasm as a philosophical argument. Isn't that ironic? :joke:

irony :
Reserve irony for situations where there's a gap between reality and expectations, especially when such a gap is created for dramatic or humorous effect.
satire :
Satire is a way of making fun of people by using silly or exaggerated language. Politicians are easy targets for satire, especially when they're acting self-righteous or hypocritical.
sarcasm :
Irony employed in the service of mocking or attacking someone is sarcasm. Saying "Oh, you're soooo clever!" with sarcasm means the target is really just a dunderhead.
https://www.vocabulary.com/articles/chooseyourwords/irony-satire-sarcasm/

Your honor, Mr. Brown's fingerprints were all over the house - on the door knob, on the knife, on the faucet, on the TV remote. However, there were two cigarette butts in the ashtray and a glass of half-finished Whiskey on the kitchen table. Neither Mr. Brown nor the deceased who was stabbed 22 times smoked or drank. — Agent Smith

Are those all the facts of the case? If so, what is your verdict? If not, what is the missing piece of evidence? :joke:

Ex mea (humble) sententia, let the facts speak for themselves. It can't be denied that when one is (sensu amplissimo) thinking, there's electrical activity in the brain. — Agent Smith

Yes, but in this thread we differ on our humble opinion of The Facts. For example, is it a "fact" that "Correlation does not imply Causation", as Hume concluded? Or is the notion that electrical activity causes thinking an instance of the "correlation causation fallacy"*1. Obviously, physical processes (electrical) must be somehow converted into non-physical (mental) processes. But continues to chase his own tail, by repeating the fill-in-the-blank query "How does non-physical A affect physical B and yet remain discernibly non-physical?"*2 That sounds like a typical gotcha trap. It's like asking "when did you stop beating your wife?". There's no way to answer without admitting guilt -- in this case the crime of Dualism, denying the ultimate authority of materialistic Science.

The scientific genius Descartes could not answer his own skeptical question about the relationship between Mind & Matter. So, he punted with a "non-overlapping magisteria" philosophical compromise : Mind/Body dualism. Four centuries later, the philosophical genius Daniel Dennett, claimed to explain Consciousness in terms of the interaction of physical and cognitive processes in the brain. Yet again his "explanation" assumes that Correlation is Causation. Which begs the question of "how?". Another materialistic explanation is "Consciousness as a physical process"*3. Ironically, one definition of Information is "organized energy". Which could be construed to imply that physical Information (energy ; neurons) is also meta-physical Information (ideas ; aboutness ; awareness).

And that is close to my own gap-filler hypothesis : Mind is the result of a Phase Transition from one form of Generic Information*4*5 (power to cause change) to another (power to communicate ideas). But the notion of GI is unfamiliar, so I relate it to Plato's Logos, and Aristotle's Reason, and to the fundamental mathematical principle of Ratio (correlation). However, this kind of Correlation is not between "discernibly different" Magisteria, but between Physical Form and Metaphysical Function*6. Your cell phone is a physical object, but its function is non-physical communication. And the communication is meaningless until the sender Mind is connected to the Receiver Mind.

The key concept here is the multiple roles of Information in the universe. Scientists have recently concluded that Mathematical (logical ; non-physical) Information*7 can transform into physical Energy*8, which in turn can transform into Matter*9. What this means is that Generic Information can transform into Causal Energy, and thence into malleable Matter. Therefore, it's all Information, all the way down (i.e. Information Monism). :smile:

*1. correlation causation fallacy :
The phrase "correlation does not imply causation" refers to the inability to legitimately deduce a cause-and-effect relationship between two events or variables solely on the basis of an observed association or correlation between them. ___Wikipedia

*2. I would reply that the physical cause (organized patterns of energy ; the code) does not remain physical. Instead it transforms into the non-physical logical patterns that we consciously interpret as Meaning. Of course Mind/Meaning is correlated to Brain/Energy, but they have different functions. The physical dots & dashes of the Code (physical information) must be translated into the imagery of interpreted Meaning (metaphysical information).

*3. Consciousness as a Physical Process :
The aim of this paper is to outline a principle according to which consciousness could be explained as a physical process caused by the organization of energy in the brain
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02091/full

*4. What is Information ? :
The power to enform, to organize, to create, to cause change, the essence of awareness. . . . .
http://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page16.html

*5. Information is :
Claude Shannon quantified Information not as useful ideas, but as a mathematical ratio between meaningful order (1) and meaningless disorder (0); between knowledge (1) and ignorance (0). So, that meaningful mind-stuff exists in the limbo-land of statistics, producing effects on reality while having no sensory physical properties. We know it exists ideally, only by detecting its effects in the real world.
   For humans, Information has the semantic quality of aboutness , that we interpret as meaning. In computer science though, Information is treated as meaningless, which makes its mathematical value more certain. It becomes meaningful only when a sentient Self interprets it as such.
   When spelled with an “I”, Information is a noun, referring to data & things. When spelled with an “E”, Enformation is a verb, referring to energy and processes.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page11.html

*6. Function : a relationship or expression involving one or more variables.

*7. Mathematical Information :
https://academic.oup.com/book/410/chapter-abstract/135212067?redirectedFrom=fulltext

*8. Information converted to energy :
https://physicsworld.com/a/information-converted-to-energy/

*9. Information to Energy to Matter :
The fundamental triad of energy/matter/information
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/The-fundamental-triad-of-energy-matter-information_fig1_275017053

↪180 Proof
I too wonder how the immaterial can interact with the material. What is your response if the theist who believes in souls interacting with bodies shrugs and says "God makes the interaction possible. Somehow."? Is the immaterial interacting with material even logically possible, though? — RogueAI

Before attempting to give a "how" answer to such querulous Matter/Mind questions, I would first ask IF the presumed interaction actually occurs. Does the material Brain mechanically produce the phenomena we know as Consciousness. If so, the product should also be physical, and the "how" should be obvious to physicists. If not, then per Descartes' dualism, Consciousness is independent of material substrate --- and the how question is irrelevant, except for philosophers. Or perhaps Mind & Matter are simply different forms of the same shape-shifting Substance : the power to enform.

Next, if there is a Cause & Effect relationship, is the effect or product --- Ideas, Thoughts, Meanings, Feelings --- some kind of material substance, reducible to atoms of Mind? If not, then we have established that material stuff can indeed interact with immaterial stuff, but how?. If Consciousness is instead a semi-physical phenomenon, is it empirically perceptible by senses or instruments? Remember, EEG & MRI squiggles & blobs only detect energy pulses (dots & dashes), not meanings. But immaterial Ideas are essentially logical patterns : coded Information. Is Consciousness then merely a decoded message, from some occult Sender, with a secret code-book?

If we have decided that Consciousness (awareness ; knowing) is not a physical phenomenon, made of atoms or quarks, we must change the "how" question to allow something more (as in Holism) than merely mechanical transfers of mindless energy to material objects. Instead, we must determine at what point deterministic causation becomes an intentional act : a coded message. In this thread, I have presented a brief synopsis of my extensive Information-theoretic thesis, intended to explain how a physical process can result in meta-physical (non-physical) outputs. But to condense a long complex argument : the ultimate point of beginning of Consciousness is at the beginning --- the emergence of space-time from nowhere-nowhen. Physically at Initial Conditions, metaphysically at the First Cause.

By that I mean, the potential for Mind has been inherent in Energy/Matter/Information from the Big Bang beginning. From a Reductive-Materialist perspective that won't make sense. But from a Holistic Information-theoretic worldview it is logical necessity. If so, then Mind is not a local product of brain mechanisms, but of ultimate Singularity coding. :smile:

PS__No, I'm not implying that G*D put thoughts in your mind --- merely the potential for thoughts, that you purposefully orchestrate into personal meanings.


How the Mind Emerges from the Brain’s Complex Networks :
The new discipline of network neuroscience yields a picture of how mental activity arises from carefully orchestrated interactions among different brain areas
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-the-mind-emerges-from-the-brains-complex-networks/
Note -- do the physical instruments comprise an orchestra, or does the design intent of the conductor, transform tune-up dissonance into symphonic harmony?

To orchestrate :
1. To orchestrate is to design or organize something, like a plan or a project. You could orchestrate an orchestra or you could just orchestrate a yard sale.
2. arrange or direct the elements of (a situation) to produce a desired effect, especially surreptitiously.
Note -- Can matter be intentional : to design or produce desired effects. Can matter envision a future composition? If not, where does the Intention come from?

Intention : noun. an act or instance of determining mentally upon some action or result. the end or object intended; purpose. intentions, purpose or attitude toward the effect of one's actions or conduct:

Those concepts don't physically exist except as a configuration of matter generated in consort with our minds, so I agree. I don't find this particularly mysterious. Everything our minds do has some basis in matter, even if this matter is currently beyond scientific models. — Enrique

From the perspective of Enformationism, I would say that the "configuration of matter" is its Logical Structure. Most people interpret the word "structure" in terms of physical objects, such as steel beams or protein tubules. But engineers distinguish their mathematical structures from those physical objects in terms of logic diagrams (vectors of force & direction)*1. The vectors themselves are merely symbols, which are mental Qualia (representations), not actual objects with physical properties. So, in that sense, I would agree that mental concepts result from the logical configuration*2 of their material substrate, as a Holistic system. And that's why the relationship between Matter & Mind remains beyond the scope of Reductive models. :smile:

*1. Form as a Logical Structure :
https://www.sensesatlas.com/research/form-as-logical-structure/

*2. Structural qualia: a solution to the hard problem of consciousness :
The hard problem of consciousness has been often claimed to be unsolvable by the methods of traditional empirical sciences. It has been argued that all the objects of empirical sciences can be fully analyzed in structural terms but that consciousness is (or has) something over and above its structure. However, modern neuroscience has introduced a theoretical framework in which also the apparently non-structural aspects of consciousness, namely the so called qualia or qualitative properties, can be analyzed in structural terms.
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00237/full

continues to challenge the "hard problem" by asking for reductive scientific evidence. Apparently, he wants to see a step-by-step mechanism connecting "discernibly physical" Neurons with imaginary Ideas & Thoughts -- that remain imperceptibly non-physical. It would be nice though, if Neuroscience could come-up with such a deterministic sequence. However, while we wait for empirical evidence to fill-in the gaps between physical processes and non-physical consciousness, my philosophical thesis suggests that the "gap" is similar to ordinary physical Phase Transitions*3 that connect one kind of thing with another (different physical properties). But even the "critical" steps in-between mundane water & ice remain elusive for Physicists. So, maybe the Psychologists behind the link below are on the right track : redefining the problem in terms of Qualia in the form of Logical Structure and Phase Space*4. :nerd:

*3, The Phase Diagram of Water :
Four lines cannot meet at a single point. A 'critical point' is where the properties of two phases become indistinguishable from each other. The phase diagram of water is complex, having a number of triple points and one or possibly two critical points.
https://ergodic.ugr.es/termo/lecciones/water1.html

*4. Dimensions of consciousness :
In a previous article, we hypothesized that consciousness might be related to phase space, a mathematical construct where the geometry of dynamic systems takes place. We conjectured that complex neural function developed within a framework of mathematics just as bones developed around the demands of gravity, that objects in physical space are translated into perceptual space within phase space.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1201004/

Since we deal with things based on a buildup of past experiences and our current beliefs are held as mental content and we study this with our minds then our minds should be included. This can be entirely materialistically based with our minds emerging as a special case of physical matter. — Mark Nyquist

Reductive Classical Science had no place for mental "beliefs", thoughts or ideas. Instead, scientists focused on the "physical foundations of consciousness", such as neurons. Which left open a question opposite to the one asked above : "how does physical B affect non-physical A ?" And that's an example of the "hard problem of consciousness, which puzzles philosophers, and merely annoys materialists. How can physical mechanisms (neurons) produce non-physical mental processes? Mind is not known by observation, but by introspection and projection.

Any attempt to explain how Conscious Thoughts & Beliefs arise from neural foundations will founder on Hume's quandary of Causation*1 : which comes first, the physical mechanism or the mind that conceptualizes the invisible connection? Even if minuscule tubules have something to do with consciousness, how does the causal process leap from physical A to non-physical B? Yet 180 may have implicitly answered his own question : "yet remain separately non-physical". My own proposal is based on the understanding that Mind & Matter are separate only in our Reductive worldviews. From a Holistic perspective*2, the fundamental substance of both Mind & Matter is Generic Information, of which Energy is one form.

In the Enformationism thesis, Generic Information (EnFormAction) is the essential factor of Causation : the power to cause changes in form. In the vocabulary of Plato & Aristotle, Form is the logical structure of a thing. It's what makes a thing unique (its essence). A macro-scale tubule has both physical structure (cylinder of tubulin proteins), and a meta-physical structure in the geometry (inter-relationships) of its component parts. They are presumed to have a physical structural function (support beams) in the Brain. But their meta-physical function (thoughts & beliefs) in the Mind remains hypothetical.

Therefore, instead of looking for a physical structure of Mind, I propose that mental functions, like all coherent directional processes, arise from the Holistic interaction*3 of all parts. Consciousness is not found in any subordinate parts of the system. Like all complex functions, it emerges from coordinated operation of the components. So, as you implied, Consciousness is not separate & apart, but an emergent function, as a "special case" of general Information. :smile:


*1. Hume Causation :
A CAUSE is an object precedent and contiguous to another, and so united with it, that the idea, of the one determines the mind to form the idea of the other, and the impression of the one to form a more lively idea of the other.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humean_definition_of_causality

*2. I just discovered via Google that there is an academic theory of "holistic interactionism", proposed to explain the Nature-Nurture conundrum. I'm not familiar with its tenets, but the name sounds like it could be applied to the Enformationism thesis. *3

*3. Nature, Nurture, and the Folly of “Holistic Interactionism.” :
Equally untenable for the author is the now-popular academic doctrine he dubs “holistic interactionism” (HI). Carrying a “veneer of moderation [and] conceptual sophistication,” says Pinker, HI is based on a few “unexceptional points,” including the facts that nature and nurture are not mutually exclusive and that genes cannot cause behavior directly. ___Kenneth Krause
https://thedotingskeptic.wordpress.com/2015/10/27/nature-nurture-and-the-folly-of-holistic-interactionism/
Note -- 180proof might give this article a thumbs-up, because it is skeptical of Holism and Mentalism. I would agree that Genes, as physical containers for Information, do not directly cause mental phenomena. Yet, Memes are non-physical carriers of Meaning. And, somehow the physical embodiment of information, as part of a complex system, seems to result in the meta-physical expression of the human person as a holistic Self : an Opinion.

Meme : an element of a culture or system of behavior that may be considered to be passed from one individual to another by nongenetic means, especially imitation.

Enrique, I think my issue with you is an inability to grasp that brains
have the ability to grasp the non-physical.... — Mark Nyquist

The "nonphysical" is just a way of experiencing and describing matter in terms of noncorporeal concepts, an evolutionary adaptation that is in reality an illusion. Perhaps you disagree with me about this. — Enrique

This sounds like another case of differently-defined terminology. Nyquist seems to include concepts known only by Reason -- such as mathematical fields -- in the noumenal category of Non-Physical. Yet, theoretical physicists tend to treat Quantum Fields & Virtual Particles as-if (counterfactual) they are real, even though they cannot be detected by the 5 senses. As long as their abstract (un-real) equations work-out they are satisfied. But laymen could be excused for thinking those undetectable fields are no more real than imaginary ghosts.

However, another way to look at Matter-vs-Mind or physical-vs-non-physical questions may be to think in terms of Classical vs Quantum science. Most sub-atomic-scale "mechanisms" have defied attempts to define their cause/effect sequences in traditional Classical terms. That's why QM now assumes that the fundamental element of reality is non-local intangible continuous Mathematical (metaphysical) Fields of dimensionless Points, instead of local reductive Material (physical) Particles of measurable size.

Those cloud-like Fields of geometry are literally Non-Corporeal. And they are Non-Physical, in the sense that dimensionless Virtual (potential) Particles have no physical interactions until they become Real (actual) Particles. So, they could also be defined as Non-Physical in the sense that they are hypothetical and un-measurable until the field is "collapsed" into detectable objects. So, which is the "illusion" : the invisible fields presumably permeating the Physical (real) world, or the non-physical objects of Mind (thoughts) that pervade the Cultural (ideal) world? :smile:

Physical : relating to things perceived through the senses as opposed to the mind; tangible or concrete.

Virtual Particles: What are they? :
A virtual particle is not a particle at all. It refers precisely to a disturbance in a field that is not a particle. . . . A “virtual particle”, generally, is a disturbance in a field that will never be found on its own, but instead is something that is caused by the presence of other particles, often of other fields.
https://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/particle-physics-basics/virtual-particles-what-are-they/

This Is Why Quantum Field Theory Is More Fundamental Than Quantum Mechanics :
The idea of an objective reality went out the window, replaced with notions like:
***probability distributions rather than predictable outcomes,
*** wavefunctions rather than positions and momenta,
***Heisenberg uncertainty relations rather than individual properties.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2019/04/25/this-is-why-quantum-field-theory-is-more-fundamental-than-quantum-mechanics/?sh=3ecb76912083

I'm not sure if Enrique's theory is based on classical Maxwellian Electromagnetic Fields or on quantum ElectroDynamic Fields. But some Consciousness theorists have given-up on macro-scale fields, and are focused on quantum-scale functions. The link below may shine some light in that direction. :smile:

Consciousness relies on quantum entanglement :
Seeing entanglement in the brain may show that the brain is not classical, as previously thought, but rather a powerful quantum system. If the results can be confirmed, they could provide some indication that the brain uses quantum processes. This could begin to shed light on how our brain performs the powerful computations it does, and how it manages consciousness.
https://bigthink.com/hard-science/brain-consciousness-quantum-entanglement/

I have confessed that I have a fixation on the concept of irony. To me irony is a cheap and easy way, a fix, to exercise the part of my brain that seems to demand philosophical thought. My thoughts on irony extend to its nature as a form of argument, an antagonism, an object of confusion, an element of humor, a threat to objectivity, a method of subjectivism and more. — introbert

In the iconoclastic 1960s, coming from a non-philosophical Modernist background, Postmodern irony just seemed annoying to me. For example, postmodern architecture tended to turn formerly pretentious buildings & monuments into play-toys. In general, Postmodernism seems to be intended to knock the props (logic & science) from under arrogant Modern reasoning, with withering Skepticism : ironically a key tool of the scientific method.

This not a completely new innovation of PM though. Since antiquity, for some philosophers, an attitude of smirking irony was used to make them seem smarter than the gullible herds. The ancient antidote to that sophistry though was the Socratic method of questioning assumptions, including those of the skeptic. So now, I just smile knowingly at expressions of PM irony, and search my own opinions for signs of hauteur. :smile:

Postmodern Irony :
In their view, postmodernist irony is a form of blank parody, a cannibalization of old styles that is not inspired by a genuine historicism and ultimately turns cultural tradition into a set of dusty spectacles deprived of any value and unable to add meaning to the present.
https://sk.sagepub.com/reference/encyclopedia-of-humor-studies/i7888.xml