I am repeating myself, but the non-physical does not exist. So I do not disagree. What does exist are our brains that have the capacity to deal in the non- physical.

What do you think of the idea that brains can configure physically to represent things that do not physically exist? — Mark Nyquist

It's true that meta-physical ideas do not exist, as far as our physical senses are concerned. But our brains are "configured" to conform with the logical (mathematical) structure of the universe. That's why I view human Reason as the sixth sense. It can "see" (imagine) invisible links (relationships) between things, as in Geometry.

"Reason" is both a noun and a verb : a non-physical power/ability (to systematize groups of ideas) and the action of linking independent sensations into holistic concepts. Physics is concerned with "How?", but Meta-Physics seeks to answer "Why?" Reason converts physical sensations into meta-physical meaning. It's the search for invisible Causes to explain observed effects. :smile:

Object : a material thing that can be seen and touched.

Idea : an immaterial thing that cannot be seen by the physical senses.

Hume argues that we cannot conceive of any other connection between cause and effect, because there simply is no other impression to which our idea may be traced. This certitude is all that remains. For Hume, the necessary connection invoked by causation is nothing more than this certainty. . . . Causation is a relation between objects that we employ in our reasoning in order to yield less than demonstrative knowledge of the world beyond our immediate impressions.
https://iep.utm.edu/hume-causation/
Note -- Causation is not empirical, but it is rational.

↪Gnomon
Okay, don't take me too seriously. — Mark Nyquist

Don't worry, I don't take myself too seriously.
Why does the turkey say "gobbledy google"? I don't know, why don't you Google it? :joke:

Hey you guys, Enrique and Gnomon, off the top of my head a neuron is something like 10 to the 12th power greater in scale that the atomic level so what mechanism are you talking about other than a vague reference to nanotubes. And why not just the normal functioning of neurons in the classical sense? — Mark Nyquist

Ha! You got me. I'm in over my head as a layman discussing nano & neuro stuff, that's usually reserved for professionals --- except on amateur philosophy forums. Presumably, Enrique has more depth of knowledge in such matters. FWIW, my proposed explanation involves a fundamental element that has no physical scale : Information/Energy.

Elsewhere on this forum, I discuss my own information-based hypothesis of how consciousness could emerge from matter. It's a general philosophical thesis, not a settled scientific theory. So, in this thread, I'm just asking dumb questions, in hopes of stimulating Enrique to develop his hypothesis into a complete theory that will withstand the criticism of Consciousness researchers. For example, Roger Penrose is a certified genius, but he has not yet convinced his critics that macro-scaled microtubules have something to do with Consciousness. This exercise in looking at someone else's theorizing helps me to see my own ideas in a different light (pardon the pun). :smile:


Woo-monger or Genius? :
"Conventional wisdom goes something like this: The theory is almost certainly wrong, but Penrose is brilliant."
https://nautil.us/roger-penrose-on-why-consciousness-does-not-compute-236591/

I do not claim any special knowledge in the ways of cosmic or itsy-bitsy-teeny-weeny strings lol The concept of a coherence field is based on a fact that continues to be proven by experiment: EM radiation combines with atomic structure to produce fields of coherent energy. — Enrique

My knowledge of Coherence Fields is also superficial (Googled). But in laser light "coherence" basically means "organized or focused" instead of randomized and incoherent. The effect is to turn ordinary harmless light waves into guided missiles of energy. In the terminology of my Information thesis, the light is "enformed" : it is no longer a diffuse acausal field, but a condensed zone of causal "power to enform".

As I understand it, in laser light (coherent EM radiation) the waves interfere with each other without canceling-out (stationary interference): producing "constructive interference" (standing waves??). So, in my information terminology, the coherent enformed light is causal and capable of creative organizing. Unfortunately, the effect of laser light on matter is usually destructive. So how does the interaction of coherent EM radiation and atomic structure produce positive (constructive) results? Specifically, a phase transition from mechanical to mental properties?

Also, is it the material conduits (tubules) that focus random EM light waves into coherent energy? I'm just grasping at quantum straws here. Trying to understand how EM fields can be stimulated into human awareness. See image below, for my imagined analogy. But it fails to show how the coherent light becomes conscious meaning & knowledge. :smile:

Coherent Waves :
In physics, two wave sources are coherent if their frequency and waveform are identical. Coherence is an ideal property of waves that enables stationary interference. ___Wikipedia

Coordination : the organization of the different elements of a complex body or activity so as to enable them to work together effectively.

Which type of interference is taking place in laser? :
This is because the laser light diffracts around both edges of the hair, and those two diffraction patterns interfere with each other. We see dark spots at areas of destructive interference, and bright spots at areas of constructive interference.

RANDOM LIGHT FOCUSED INTO NON-RANDOM LIGHT by internal reflection in a tubule

BUT WHERE IS THE CONSCIOUS ENLIGHTENMENT?

There is something to work out as far as the specific mechanics of materialism producing mental content such as ideas, thought and the components of consciousness. I brought up the subject of ideas because they exist as brain state that should be identified as the physical brain and the emergent mental content. I get into trouble if I call it a contained non-physical but that is a loose discription of the problem. There might be something non-physical involved in consciousness. The work around is to call the contained non-physical...mental content.

The point relating to consciousness is that mental content emerging from the physical brain is a component of consciousness and should be included in any model. — Mark Nyquist

That's exactly why I have concluded, along with some professional physicists*1, that Matter is not the fundamental element of reality. Instead, Information*2 (the power to enform) is viewed as the precursor of Energy, which is the precursor of Matter. To indicate the relationship of Information & Energy*3, I call the fundamental Substance (non-physical essence per Aristotle) of the universe : EnFormAction*4.

Since the term "Information" originally referred to the contents of a mind, it's easy to imagine a process by which Generic Information (Potential for change) could transform (via phase transitions) into causal Energy, thence into physical Matter, and finally into metaphysical Mind. We know that the material Brain somehow generates the immaterial Functions we call "Ideas" & "Feelings". But exactly how that happens remains a mystery. A recent hypothesis focused on quantum scale micro-tubules as the locus of the magical transformation. But without including Information in the recipe, the Mind Magic remains unexplained. However, in my Mind model, Consciousness is the tip of the evolutionary pyramid*5, and Generic Information is the base. :smile:

PS__Human Consciousness was a late emergence from eons of Evolution. So, instead of PanPsychism, I would call that funda-mental Cosmic substance "Information". Hence the worldview could be known as PanEnformationism. Enforming (causal) Power is the essence of Reality and Ideality.


*1. Is Information Fundamental? :
Could information be the most basic building block of reality?
https://www.closertotruth.com/series/information-fundamental

*2. Information Fundamental :
Could information be the fundamental "stuff" of the universe?
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/article/is-information-fundamental/

*3. Both Information and Energy are defined in terms of dueling dualities : 1/0, hot/cold

*4. EnFormAction :
As a supplement to the mainstream materialistic (scientific) theory of Causation, EnFormAction is intended to be an evocative label for a well-known, but somewhat mysterious, feature of physics : the Emergent process of Phase Change (or state transitions) from one kind (stable form) of matter to another. These sequential emanations take the structural pattern of a logical hierarchy : from solids, to liquids, to gases, and thence to plasma, or vice-versa. But they don't follow the usual rules of direct contact causation.
http://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page23.html
Note -- the tip of the logical causal pyramid is the emergence of Mind from Matter

*5. THE HIERARCHICAL INFORMATION PYRAMID

BASE = GENERIC INFORMATION (potential causation) >> PHASE 2 = ENERGY (causation) >> PHASE 3 = MATTER (causal effect) >> PHASE 4 = MIND (energy as intention)

Microscopic platinum sensors have been inserted into individual neurons, revealing a crystalline structure located just beneath the axon’s outer membrane, wrapped around a core support framework of microtubules. — Enrique

Again, I'm coming from a completely different angle -- Information Theory -- and trying to tread water in the deep end of the Neuroscience pool. But from my cursory review of your presentation of Coherence Field Theory -- maybe I missed it -- but I don't remember a specific mention of Hameroff & Penrose's theory of microtubules, to explain how the Consciousness function could emerge from hot, wet & mindless Matter. Yet it seems to be poking around in a similar neighborhood.

I'm currently reading the 1992 book, The Matter Myth, by physicist/cosmologist Paul Davies and astrophysicist John Gribbin. Although they were discussing Cosmology -- specifically Inflation & quantum fluctuations -- the topic of Cosmic Strings came up, and reminded me of similar cylinders & loops on the quantum scale. Apparently, the hypothetical tubule bounds & encloses its own little "domain" of reality.

After picturing those "fluctuations" as "phase transitions", they mention something like a "topological defect". Then, "One feature that would be produced by these mismatches is a series of slender tubes. Outside the tubes there would be the usual empty space . . . . but inside the tube the quantum state would remain trapped in its excited primordial phase . . . . the result is an object known as a cosmic string. . . . They are not made of matter, they are essentially tubes of field energy." That reminds me of how fiber optics work to carry information from one end to another.

From that point on, their description of universe-spanning Cosmic Strings sounds like the itsy-bitsy-teeny-weeny Quantum Strings on the opposite end of the scale. The authors conclude, "cosmic strings play a key role in structuring the universe on a large scale". Apparently, Penrose thinks their quantum cousins also structure the brain to produce Consciousness. I don't follow the logic or the math, but I have to take their expert conjectures as serious extensions of current science into unproven realms.

Anyway, do you see a connection between topological tubes of energy on the cosmic scale, and the wavy loops that are proposed to produce matter (and mind??) on the immeasurably small scale of sub-atomic reality? If so, maybe aligning your theory with that of a certified genius could offset some of the criticism that it borders on woo-woo metaphysics. Unfortunately, my own referenced geniuses are not yet certified with Nobel medals. :smile:


Microtubules :
Hameroff suggests that microtubules are the quantum device that Penrose had been looking for in his theory. In neurons, microtubules help control the strength of synaptic connections, and their tube-like shape might protect them from the surrounding noise of the larger neuron.
https://nautil.us/roger-penrose-on-why-consciousness-does-not-compute-236591/

Woo-monger or Genius? :
"Conventional wisdom goes something like this: The theory is almost certainly wrong, but Penrose is brilliant."
https://nautil.us/roger-penrose-on-why-consciousness-does-not-compute-236591/

Complex numbers and complex analysis, for one thing, simplify wave equations due to Euler's formula:
eiθ=sinθ+icosθ. — jgill

As I interpret the necessity for imaginary numbers in the wave function equation, it allows a metaphysical (ideal ; mental) concept to be calculated as-if physical. For example, the square root of a negative number makes no sense in physical reality, but in mathematics it is just as logical as the root of a positive number. So it seems that math is an idealization of physical logic. Since the notion of Uncertain Statistics (possible future states) is mental & mathematical instead of natural & physical, it requires some "simplification" (interpretation) from high levels of abstraction (space waves) down to analogies from mundane concrete observation (matter waves). :nerd:

Does quantum mechanics need imaginary numbers? :
The square root of negative one doesn’t correspond to any physical quantity, but that doesn’t mean it has no place in the physical sciences.
https://physicstoday.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/PT.3.4955

"The electromagnetic waves were interpreted, not as 'real' waves, but as probability waves"
___Werner Heisenberg
Note -- Probability waves are statistical, hence not-yet real. So they are literally imaginary.

"Mathematicians . . . work with an imaginary unit, the square root of -1 . . . does not figure among the natural numbers. . . .These relations are rendered more comprehensible by the introduction of the abstract concept of square root of -1, although that concept is not basically needed for our understanding. . . . mathematics introduces ever higher stages of abstraction . . ."
___Heisenberg, Physics and Philosophy
Note -- our mental & mathematical abstractions are not real, but realistic. They are not natural or physical, but mental & meta-physical.

That's true. I grew up with little BBs circling a big BB, which was easy to visualize — jgill

Back when I was first exposed to the notion of light as a wave function, I imagined it as an actual machine gun spray of bullets that only appear to come in waves. But later, I found that quantum theorists insist that the wave is real, and the particles are illusions. :cool:

What I mean is that energy flows from more (relative presence) to less (relative absence) in pursuit of equilibrium, but the combination of vast quantities of such motions unbalances a system to make even the most equilibrated states dynamic, a constant unsettlement.. . .but a system's structural properties make it dynamic in a particular way, introducing intrinsic constraints, hence being and becoming with all the logiclike form that seems to be embodied. — Enrique

That description sounds like quantum vacuum fluctuations boiling with "excitations". But those manifold "unsettled" states (noise) are merely Potential or Virtual (equilibrated ; offsetting?) until Actualized by some intervention (interference) that unbalances the field. Is that de-stabilizing (directional) interference from an internal or external source? Can the human brain/mind intentionally destabilize itself in order to convert unthought ideas into active concepts and causal choices? Or must the unbalancing energy have to come from outside the system?

Being & becoming sounds like an either/or dual state, similar to on & off, or something & nothing, or one & zero. Is that the basis of all Logic, and especially of human meaning? As usual, this is way over my head (or underlying my observed reality), so I'm just trying interpret your ideas in terms of my limited knowledge of Quantum Theory and Information Theory. Have you gotten useful feedback from specialists in these arcane areas of science? :smile:

The pursuit of abolishing absentia or equivalently a void, which can never be conclusively actualized, applies from atoms in a solution to the goal-driven behaviors of human cognition. — Enrique

How can you accomplish the abolishment of that which doesn't yet exist (void ; emptiness ; absence)? By converting its Potential into Actual? Deacon has some ideas, but they were also nebulous to me. The quote sounds like striving toward a goal (willing) might in some sense effect the achieving of the goal. They say a journey of a thousand miles begins with the first step in the direction of the destination. Does the quote imply some kind of causal power for human will-power? Again, I'm just playfully shooting in the dark here. :cool:

EXCITATIONS OF THE CONSCIOUSNESS FIELD?
maybe the blobs are actualized ideas



Man is a goal-seeking animal. His life only has meaning if he is reaching out and striving for his goals".
___Aristotle

"Legitimate physicists" tend to cling closely to Classical Newtonian Science, and studiously avoid feckless Philosophy, lest they be accused of taboo woo-woo. — Gnomon
Would you find quantum physicists doing that? Clinging to Newtonian ideas? — jgill

I just finished reading Physics and Philosophy, by Werner Heisenberg, and The Philosophy of Physics by Max Planck. And they both noted that some physicists (e.g Einstein) grudgingly accepted the evidence for counterintuitive quantum behavior, yet tried to interpret those apparent paradoxes in terms of Classical Physics (e.g. deterministic causation). But that was a century ago. And the evidence to support the non-classical aspects of reality has forced physics professionals to learn to deal with Reality's unreal undergirding.

Besides, my quoted assertion was not describing the scientific methods of modern quantum physics, but the philosophical worldviews of the scientists themselves. Classical Realism is just more intuitive & familiar, than weird Quantum Idealism. Classical Atomism remains more sensible than the abstract Quantum notion of mathematical Fields forming the foundation of Physics. Apart from brute-force atom-smashing, most modern quantum physics is done with abstract computer-driven mathematics, which is inherently abstract & idealistic.

Nowadays, most physicists seem to be comfortable with the abstruse math (e.g. imaginary numbers) of quantum weirdness, but they still find the philosophical implications untenable & unbelievable. That's where the "shut-up and calculate" attitude came from. So yes, it is possible for pragmatic physicists to do their subatomic work without committing to a position on such non-classical notions as the Observer Effect or the Measurement Problem. Hence, Practical scientists and theoretical philosophers tend to differ on their interpretation of what's really happening down there in the realm of reality beyond human senses. The PhilPapers Survey 2020 indicates that there is still room for disagreement on Classical vs Quantum worldviews. :smile:

Einstein's skepticism of the "new physics" :
Einstein saw Quantum Theory as a means to describe Nature on an atomic level, but he doubted that it upheld "a useful basis for the whole of physics." He thought that describing reality required firm predictions followed by direct observations.
https://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/einstein/legacy/quantum-theory
Note -- Bohr interpreted statistical & uncertain quantum physics in non-classical terms, but Einstein tried to retain the deterministic certainty of Newton's physics.

Is Quantum Physics a Sort of Idealism? :
https://realitysandwich.com/is-quantum-physics-a-sort-of-idealism/

Observer Effect :
The observer effect is the phenomenon in which the act of observation alters the behavior of the particles being observed.
https://www.scienceabc.com/pure-sciences/observer-effect-quantum-mechanics.html

There is no quantum measurement problem :
The idea that the collapse of a quantum state is a physical process stems from a misunderstanding of probability and the role it plays in quantum mechanics.
https://physicstoday.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/PT.3.5027

the absentia phenomenon . . . . The only fundamental logic of reality is the abolishment of absentia, — Enrique

I googled "absentia" and found a paper on "absential physics". But it was in a technical journal that I don't have access to. So, I'm still in the dark about the logic of absence/presence.

However, I am familiar with Terrence Deacon's notion of "absence and constraints" in his book Incomplete Nature. Does absential physics have anything to do with Deacon's concept of "constitutive absence" (essence)? Also, do you "abolish absentia" by causing something that exists only in potential to become actual? Please describe how such abolishment is the "logic of reality" How does Nature replace Absence (unreal ; nothingness ; Potential) with Presence (realness ; somethingness ; actuality)? . :smile:

Absence as Potential :
Absential: The paradoxical intrinsic property of existing with respect to something missing, separate, and possibly nonexistent. Although this property is irrelevant when it comes to inanimate things, it is a defining property of life and mind; elsewhere (Deacon 2005) described as a constitutive absence
http://absence.github.io/3-explanations/absential/absential.html

Constitutive absence :
A particular and precise missing something that is a critical defining attribute of 'ententional' phenomena, such as functions,
http://absence.github.io/3-explanations/absential/absential.html

I see why very few legitimate physicists are on TPF, even though they might be philosophical physicists.
Of course, they have their own forums. — jgill

Hey, give Enrique a break! He's not reporting on settled science, but exploring the fuzzy fringes of Epistemology. As a modern philosopher though, he's spring-boarding from the current cutting edge of Quantum Physics and Neuroscience. "Legitimate physicists" tend to cling closely to Classical Newtonian Science, and studiously avoid feckless Philosophy, lest they be accused of taboo woo-woo.

Among the "philosophical physicists" who do explore similar uncharted territory many are "information scientists" and those who examine the spooky world of Quantum Weirdness. Pragmatic Physicists typically limit their studies to Matter & Energy. But "philosophical physicists" include immaterial Mind in their scope of work. But that allows Physics to bleed-over into Meta-Physics. They go where pragmatists fear to tread : the inner world of the human mind. :smile:

PS__I don't know if his theory is correct, but I'm willing to engage in the expedition with him. After all, many of the wagon trains on the Oregon Trail never made it to the promised land. But some settled along the way.


“Reality, according to Heisenberg, is built not out of matter, as matter was conceived of in classical physics, but out of psycho-physical events – events with certain aspects that are described in the language of psychology and with other aspects that are described in the mathematical language of physics – and out of objective tendencies for such events to occur. ‘The probability function…represents a tendency for events and our knowledge of events’ (Heisenberg, 1958, p. 46).”
― Paul Davies, Information and the Nature of Reality: From Physics to Metaphysics
Physicist, Astrophysicist, Cosmologist

Matter is quantized or discrete at a fundamental level, but evinces unity on emergent scales due to synchronization — Enrique

Physicists do indeed make discrete measurements at sub-atomic levels of reality. But at the sub-quantum levels (superposition) they can't discriminate between "entangled" or "virtual particles" or "fields", which display holistic or analog behavior. This leads me to believe that reality is fundamentally continuous & inter-connected. & synchronized, but our perception requires discrete patterns. Does the collapse of unitary synchronous (block time) Superposition also break the static synchrony, allowing for the perception of discrete asynchronous moments of Time (illusion per Einstein)? Just a rhetorical question, since your statement sounds like just the opposite.

Quantum Theory without Quantization :
The only evidence we have for a discrete reality comes from quantum measurements; without invoking these measurements, quantum theory describes continuous entities. This seeming contradiction can be resolved via analysis that treats measurements as boundary constraints. It is well-known that boundaries can induce apparently-discrete behavior in continuous systems, and strong analogies can be drawn to the case of quantum measurement. If quantum discreteness arises in this manner, this would not only indicate an analog reality, but would also offer a solution to the so-called "measurement problem". ___Ken Wharton, Professor, Physics & Astronomy
https://arxiv.org/abs/1106.1254

So the substance of perceptual form is material mechanism. — Enrique

I'm trying to interpret that statement. Does human perception impose its own patterns on the incoming noise of energetic signals, or are the mechanical patterns prior to perception, or both? Is the brain programmed to expect certain logical patterns in Nature? Is Logic simply the organizing principle of nature. Perhaps Logic is the Mechanism of Nature. In that case the "substance" of meaningful Form may be abstract Essence or Qualia or Inter-Relationships.

What is pattern recognition in perception? :
Recognizing patterns allows us to predict and expect what is coming. The process of pattern recognition involves matching the information received with the information already stored in the brain. Making the connection between memories and information perceived is a step of pattern recognition called identification.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pattern_recognition_(psychology)

I think the substance of mechanism and the concept of information are closely related. — Enrique

To me, Mental Information seems to be a logical meaningful arrangement of Causal Energy. But is the logical pattern inherent in the incoming energy or overlaid as a template by the brain? As the Ken Wharton & Recognition quotes above imply : measurement (importing information into the mind) seems to impose "boundary constraints" on incoming data.

But this does not necessarily preclude a designer who guides the process, though I of course wouldn't claim any privileged knowledge in this respect even as I do have my personal beliefs. — Enrique

My question about a Cosmic Coder or Programmer was intended to distinguish between meaningful logical patterns (signals) in Nature, and meaningless accidental impacts (noise) of random energy. If Nature had no rational Logos to impose order on Chaos, how could novel (progressive) Information (Forms) emerge from mere round & round clockwork Mechanisms?

Information, Mechanism and Meaning :
A collection of selected papers written by the information theorist and "brain physicist," most of which were presented to various scientific conferences in the 1950s and 1960s. Most of this collection concerns MacKay's abiding preoccupation with information as represented and utilized in the brain and exchanged between human beings, rather than as formalized in logical patterns of elementary propositions.
https://direct.mit.edu/books/book/4240/Information-Mechanism-and-Meaning

PS__I'm still just riffing on some of your ideas. As an amateur philosopher, I don't know the answers to my own questions. :smile:

‘To choose’ implies that a set of options exists *from which one chooses*. — Paul Michael

Several posters have taken exception to the abstract notion of freely choosing from among equal options : door A, B, or C. One objection is that we don't create the options we are faced with. That's true, but an un-forced situational choice is "free", if it is made with personal needs & preferences in mind. A convict may be given the preferential choice between life in prison (more options ahead) or immediate death (no more options).

Generally, Nature randomly shuffles the cards from which we must choose : the luck of the draw. In gambling, the blind choice is also random. But more often our choices are not quite so arbitrary. For example, if we encounter a fork in the road, presumably we chose the original road because we assumed it would lead to a willed destination. So, the choice of left or right is made on the same pragmatic basis. It's not a blind draw, but a goal-driven decision made with eyes wide open. In choosing between options, we may decide, for teleological reasons, against the path not taken. Likewise, our various thoughts & feelings may emerge instinctively or intuitively, but we still have the rational choice to act or not.

SKEPTIC magazine editor Michael Shermer coined the term "Free Won't" to emphasize that often there is no perfect option, so we accept the most promising path, and reject the one that doesn't lead to our goal. Moreover, our goals are not necessarily limited to the destination. For example, sometimes how you get there, a learning experience, is as important as the envisioned objective. So Free Will involves both positive & negative choices from among less than perfect options, for less than clear reasons. :smile:

Free Won't : Volition as self-control exerts veto power over impulses
"But if we define free will as the power to do otherwise, the choice to veto one impulse over another is free won’t."
https://michaelshermer.com/sciam-columns/free-wont/


"When you come to a fork in the road, take it."
___Yogi Berra

"

physically, but this energy flows smoothly through space (though rate transitions are nonlinear), more like a fluid, at the microscale and larger. From this perspective, the concept of an atom is somewhat arbitrary, for electromagnetism is really a bending and morphing of the aether field by the fields of nuclei.
Heat, color, vibrational texture, etc. are an intrinsic signature of perception and energy, from both inside and outside. Awareness is simply an emergent byproduct of this energy field's organization. . . . "It is well-established that neural signaling is modulated by diffusion of ions through channels in a neuron’s membrane, but ion collisions cannot explain some features of signal transmission." . . . "Overall oscillation patterns within one of these minimum phase-locked assemblies may involve a continuum of relativities rather than simply being a steady state, on or off phenomenon, doing double duty in the formation of multiple percepts," . . .In the OP I could get a long ways with a couple basic premises: electromagnetic matter consists of density maxima/minima, " — Enrique

As usual all of this postulation of possibilities is over my head. But I keep seeing references to "organization", "signal", "steady-state", "modulation", and "density maxima/minima". Such terminology reminds me of the elements of coding, such as Morse Code. To transfer information from one point to another you need a steady-state background "field" upon which to superimpose a pattern of positive & negative signals (maxima/minima). And it's the flow of individual signals that add-up to a dynamic meaningful code that can be translated by reference to a pre-established "organization" : the code key.

So, I imagine waves of information embedded in their frequency & wavelength, serving as the dots & dashes of Morse Code. Presumably, in space (Aether) only light-energy could carry the coded signals that our senses interpret as reality. But in the brain those signals could be conveyed by other physical means, but always in the form of a two-phase digital difference. Meaning is "the difference that makes a difference".

From that digital-computer-like signaling in the outside world, the Brain would translate pulses of energy into abstract yes/no signals that could be further inferred in the Mind as specific concrete meanings or images. That would function like the random light/dark spots (background) on a TV screen upon which meaningful images (signal) are superimposed. The patterns of dots are not inherently meaningful until the "relativities" (inter-relationships) are inferred by a conscious mind.

Pardon my intrusion. I'm just riffing off the top of my pointy head from a vague image of energy flowing smoothly through space, but in the form of waves "bending & morphing" the Aether into the light we see from stars. Then that uniform coherent light is reflected from matter, picking up new patterns (such as color & texture) to be received by physical sensors, and interpreted (decoded) by meta-physical pattern-recognition receptors. :smile:

PS___All this ineffable effing leads to one final question : who or what organized the coding system of the universe by which conscious minds can be influenced from the outside world, and by which one mind can influence another from afar?

Most his writing does not assume something like a "universal consciousness" as a starting point. He spent most his time asking why people thought they knew something about the matter. — Paine

OK. I was just trying to make his statement non-paradoxical. But another way to look at it is that Self-Consciousness is a person thinking about his own thought processes. Actually, everything we know, or think we know, comes from introspection : consciously examining one's own inner model of reality. So, maybe he was cautioning those who are not reasonably skeptical of their own beliefs. Maybe he was practicing the Socratic method.

That said, I'll just listen to those who know more about what they are talking about. :smile:

mistaking empathy for morality. — god must be atheist

I suppose that innate Empathy serves for morality in animal behavior. Instinctive positive feelings toward kith & kin helps to explain why most (but not all) predators don't kill & eat their own kind. But that would not suffice for the complex behaviors & cultures of human animals. So, most societies have been forced by transgressions of Empathy (e.g. murder) to construct formal codes of morality. But the basic motivator of moral behavior, even in humans, may be the visceral feeling of Empathy, not the intellectual knowledge of moral laws. Except for psychopaths, most humans do have feelings of empathy & remorse after the motivating passion of the murderous moment has passed. :smile:

Empathy : the ability to understand and share the feelings of another.

Psychopathy : a condition characterized by the absence of empathy and the blunting of other affective states.

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

I'm not very familiar with Krishnamurti's philosophy, but apparently he is saying that Universal Consciousness can be conscious of the thoughts of individual thinkers. From that pan-psychic whole/part perspective, it's not a paradox.

But then he could be making a counterintuitive assertion to make a metaphysical point about "Total Awareness". However, Paradox is often a teaching tool in Eastern philosophy. So, I guess you'll have to ask him what he is trying to say. :smile:

You links seem to be in the main, irrelevant.
...using Aristotelian logic. Oddly anachronistic¹. Frankly, your posts do not make much sense. — Banno

That's OK. We all have our blind spots. Yet, there are plenty of other posters who are not mystified by metaphysics, or flummoxed by feelings. But you're the one that raised a question about that which cannot be expressed in prosaic words. Ironically, this thread fills four pages of effing about the ineffable. Apparently your own negative feelings about "the ineffable" can be expressed in scornful language.

In Aristotle's day, much of what he discussed at length in The Metaphysics was ineffable to non-philosophers. Yet 2500 years later, even practical physical scientists are using his outdated-but-illustrative anachronisms to label some of the paradoxical & counter-intuitive concepts of Quantum Physics and Cosmology (e.g. Aether). :smile:


Ineffability and its Metaphysics : The Unspeakable in Art, Religion, and Philosophy
https://ndpr.nd.edu/reviews/ineffability-and-its-metaphysics-the-unspeakable-in-art-religion-and-philosophy/

Effing the Ineffable :
Ludwig Wittgenstein, for example, was convinced that it was nonsensical to try to speak about what lies outside the limits of language. Even so, he wrote an entire book about what cannot be said, the Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus (1921), concluding with the observation: ‘Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.’
https://aeon.co/essays/what-if-anything-can-be-said-about-what-is-unsayable

EFFING IRRELEVANT NONSENSE

↪Gnomon
Would you be content with a chemist who refused to make use of the atomic theory of matter, insisting instead on dealing only in earth wind, fire and water?
That's how your insistence on applying only Aristotelian essentialism appears. — Banno

Who said anything about "earth wind, fire and water"? I'm not discussing physical Chemistry. Just meta-physical philosophy (ideas ; relationships ; categories). Do you believe that Philosophy should be about the physical world (matter) instead of the intellectual models (mind) of the world? We all look at the world through a framework, a paradigm, of some kind. The Chemistry frame is looking for the mechanics of matter, so that's what it sees. But the Philosophy frame is focused on the ineffable essential structure of those ideal constructs. That's why it's so difficult to express in conventional matter-based words. Some modern philosophers have gone so far into abstract abstruse linguistic analysis that they bury common sense under a pile of BS. Effing about the ineffable.

Apparently you haven't noticed that almost all of my links in Meta-physical topics are to the opinions of professional scientists, not theologians, or gurus, or mystics. What I'm presenting is a 21st century development from Quantum Science & Information Theory. Both of which have undermined outdated Atomism and Materialism. Science is indeed self-superseding. What nineteenth century scientists labeled "atom" was similar in function to the ancient Greek "atom". But, in the 20th century they were forced to abandon the search for a tangible foundation of reality. In essence, Materialism now comes down to Mathematics : formal (information) relationships.

As I mentioned before, Aristotle's physical science is obviously outdated in specific details, but not in general categories*1. For example, what he called "Fire" is what we now know as "Energy", but they are philosophically & essentially the same thing : dynamic change. Even his notion of "Aether", has been recently resurrected to explain how empty Space can act as a "Fabric" or Medium*2. Of course, fashionable philosophical paradigms, such as Atomism & Materialism evolve as new evidence comes in. But the essence of those categories remains : e.g. the smallest material element is now known as a trinitarian Quark, which is more of a mathematical philosophical notion than a tiny ball of tangible stuff*3. But what are quarks made of? The emerging physical/philosophical paradigm could be called Informationism. Please don't dismiss it (out of hand) until you try to understand (grasp) it. :smile:


*1. Evolution of Atomic Theory :
In the fifth century BC, Leucippus and Democritus argued that all matter was composed of small, finite particles that they called atomos, a term derived from the Greek word for “indivisible.” They thought of atoms as moving particles that differed in shape and size, and which could join together. Later, Aristotle and others came to the conclusion that matter consisted of various combinations of the four “elements”—fire, earth, air, and water—and could be infinitely divided. Interestingly, these philosophers thought about atoms and “elements” as philosophical concepts, but apparently never considered performing experiments to test their ideas.
https://chem.libretexts.org/Courses/Oregon_Institute_of_Technology/OIT%3A_CHE_101_-_Introduction_to_General_Chemistry/02%3A_Atoms_and_the_Periodic_Table/2.01%3A_Evolution_of_Atomic_Theory

*2. What is the Aether? :
The aether is a critical,missing component of physics that must be considered to explain the wave nature of matter.
https://energywavetheory.com/explanations/aether/

*3. Mathematical Matter :
We discuss the nature of reality in the ontological context of Penrose's math-matter-mind triangle.
https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510188

↪Tom Storm
Part of the impact of his development of formal modal logic was the implications for consideration of essence, especially and interestingly the necessary yet a posteriori connection between two properties, like water being necessarily H₂O.It's difficult stuff, and brings with it its own controversies. But it does allow that a dead frog is a frog, unlike ↪Gnomon's odd, self-defeating metaphysics. — Banno

Since I am a late-comer to Philosophy, I am not well-versed in modern abstruse & esoteric modes of philosophizing. I prefer the timeless common-sense of the old dinosaurs. So, please allow me my amateur dabbling in the shallow end of the pool : where a dead frog is a carcass, and H2O is a universal solvent, not something to drink. :smile:

Saul Kripke :
“A Puzzle About Belief” (1979) generated surprising and paradoxical conclusions from seemingly innocent applications of the principles employed in reporting the beliefs of others, and it derived cautionary lessons about attempts to infer facts about linguistic meaning from analyses of belief-reporting sentences.
https://www.britannica.com/biography/Saul-Kripke
Caution : Banno errs in his biased reporting on Gnomon's beliefs. He adeptly skewers a risible straw man with his modal sword.

Perhaps, there's your problem. There have been a few developments since then. — Banno

That may be a problem for you, but not for me. Aristotle may be outdated in Science, but in Philosophy his concise categories are still applicable. Scientific facts may have changed, but the Philosophical problem of effability remains in our time. Scientists confronted with ineffable Qualia and Essences may chose to "shut-up and calculate". But undaunted philosophers continue to eff away with metaphors & analogies. Why else do you think the topic of effability keeps coming up on this forum? :smile:


The renowned British philosopher A.N Whitehead once commented on Plato's thought: “The safest general characterization of the European philosophical tradition is that it consists of a series of footnotes to Plato.
https://www.college.columbia.edu/core/content/whitehead-plato

Answers for Aristotle :
Pigliucci is a singular bridge-builder, one who connects science as the investigation of what is with philosophy as reflection on what should be. Pigliucci acknowledges that Aristotle constructed such bridges long ago, but he laments that many modern thinkers, irrationally suspicious of science, have now abandoned half of Aristotle’s enterprise. Bravely renewing the entire Aristotelian project, Pigliucci surveys the latest scientific research in primatology, psychology, and neurobiology, always integrating the researchers’ empirical findings into a meaningful philosophical perspective. This scientific-philosophical (or “sci-phi”) perspective
https://www.amazon.com/Answers-Aristotle-Science-Philosophy-Meaningful/dp/0465021387

Ideas of Plato and Aristotle in the 21st century :
The goal of the stream is to demonstrate influence of philosophy of Plato and Aristotle on the contemporary society, science, technology, mathematics, philosophy and general culture reflecting new advances in understanding and development of their vision and ideas.
https://www.atiner.gr/humpla

Aristotle in the 21st Century :
Aristotle's essentialist metaphysics can assist in clarifying contemporary issues in (ii) value theory and (iii) economics as ethics.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/268505732_Aristotle_in_the_21st_Century

The ineffable now in physics :
While physicists know how to use quantum mechanics, there is no consensus on what
quantum mechanics is a mechanics of. The aim of this paper is to introduce the beginning of what
might turn out to be an interpretation of quantum mechanics—one that leaves all calculated
probabilities intact. The basic idea is that quantum mechanics describes the objective world, but there
must be added to it ineffable variables, one of which is the temporal 'now'. Ineffable variables are not
'hidden variables'.
https://philarchive.org/archive/MERTIN-4

Aristotle on Einstein's Block Time :
Aristotle’s argument may or may not be a good one, but even if it is unsound, many people will feel, purely on intuitive grounds, that the idea of time having a beginning (or an end) just does not make sense.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/time/

↪Gnomon
A dead frog is not a frog? That is, not sure about your notion of essence. Nowadays a property is considered essential if and only if it belongs to the individual in question in every possible world.You seem to be using some other notion... — Banno

My notion of "essence" (e.g. of frogginess) is based on Aristotle's definition of "substance". Biologists may think of substance as material properties (the frog's physical body), but naturalists & philosophers tend to include such qualities as behavior, to define "frogginess" : definitive features that frogs have in common with each other. So the essence of Frog is more than physiology. It includes instincts & mental factors that differentiate a frog from a lizard. "Properties" are known via the physical senses. But "qualities" are known via rational inference. Pragmatic scientists necessarily focus on effable Properties, But theoretical Philosophers are more concerned with ineffable Qualities. :smile:

Essence or Substance :
In Aristotle essence was identified with substance (ousia) or sometimes substantial form. The essence is what makes the thing be what it is. The essence of a thing or substance is able to be known and so defined accordingly. It is through the definition that we come to know essences.
https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Essence

Qualia :
Philosophers often use the term ‘qualia’ (singular ‘quale’) to refer to the introspectively accessible, phenomenal aspects of our mental lives. In this broad sense of the term, it is difficult to deny that there are qualia. Disagreement typically centers on which mental states have qualia, whether qualia are intrinsic qualities of their bearers, and how qualia relate to the physical world both inside and outside the head. The status of qualia is hotly debated in philosophy largely because it is central to a proper understanding of the nature of consciousness. Qualia are at the very heart of the mind-body problem.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qualia/

There has always been a deep debate on the significance of the monolith which appears in the beginning of the movie. — javi2541997

To me, the monolith represented an artifact, which would only be apparent to rational beings. Presumably, ordinary apes would treat it a useless black rock. But a few began to realize that the monolith was not natural, so someone must have created it. Thus began the ontological quest to understand why anything exists. Which eventually led to the ever-evolving god concept.

So the space odyssey was merely the continuation of that eons-old search for the Ultimate Source of Being. In the movie, we never see any divine beings, only symbols & metaphors of omnipotence & omniscience. That ambiguous presentation left open the nature of the Creator : advanced aliens or introverted deity? :smile:

But if coherence field theory is accurate, all of this will prove amenable to empiricism, and it's simply a matter of investigating the binding and modulation that occurs among atoms and light. — Enrique

Even when you conscientiously try to stay on the empirical side of Consciousness -- "wish to avoid pseudo-science traps and quantum woo sophistry" -- you are treading on shaky ground. You may be subjected to ad hominem labeling of "quantum woo-woo speculations (e.g. pseudo-scientistic / idealst reductionism", from those who equate Holism & Idealism with New Age Mysticism.

However, part of that hard-line Reductionist Realist stance seems to be the questionable assumption that our current understanding of Quantum physics is complete. It also presumes that there is a well-defined border between Empirical Science (observation) and Theoretical Science (conjecture). Perhaps, it ain't that simple after all. Maybe it helps to be a maverick genius, with Nobel certification, to be bold enough to speculate across that contested borderline to see what un-discovered truths might be languishing on the other side. :smile:


Roger Penrose On Why Consciousness Does Not Compute :

The breadth of Penrose’s interests is extraordinary, which is evident in his recent book Fashion, Faith and Fantasy in the New Physics of the Universe—a dense 500-page tome that challenges some of the trendiest but still unproven theories in physics, from the multiple dimensions of string theory to cosmic inflation in the first moment of the Big Bang. He considers these theories to be fanciful and implausible.

But his theory of consciousness pushes the edges of what’s considered plausible science and has left critics wondering why he embraces a theory based on so little evidence.. . .

Penrose’s theory promises a deeper level of explanation. He starts with the premise that consciousness is not computational, and it’s beyond anything that neuroscience, biology, or physics can now explain. . . .

Quantum coherence occurs when a huge number of things—say, a whole system of electrons—act together in one quantum state. . . .

In the Penrose-Hameroff theory of Orchestrated Objective Reduction, known as Orch-OR, these moments of conscious awareness are orchestrated by the microtubules in our brains, which—they believe—have the capacity to store and process information and memory. . . .

Most scientists believe the brain is too warm and wet for quantum states to have any influence on neuronal activity because quantum coherence only seems possible in highly protected and frigid environments. . . .

“What I’m saying—and this is my leap of imagination which people boggle at—I’m saying what’s going on in the brain must be taking advantage not just of quantum mechanics, but where it goes wrong,” he said. “It’s where quantum mechanics needs to be superseded.” So we need a new science that doesn’t yet exist? “That’s right. Exactly.” . . .

“I’m not even sure what materialistic means, quite honestly. Quantum mechanics behaves in ways that one thinks are certainly at odds with the view we used to have.” . . .

it’s going to be a lot deeper than even straightforward, non-computable deterministic physics. It’s a kind of delicate borderline between completely deterministic behavior and something which is completely free.” . . . .
https://nautil.us/roger-penrose-on-why-consciousness-does-not-compute-236591/

When you think about the complexity that must be present in a coherence field of macroscopic emergence it is hard to imagine. — Enrique

Coherence is an essential quality of any holistic system. Yet, the mysterious integrating "force" that binds isolated parts into a functional system has always seemed ineffable. Is it a measurable physical force, or an immensurable metaphysical influence?

Intuitive Unity is not hard to imagine, but is hard to describe in reductive scientific terms. A multiplex system is typically defined in terms of its parts, not its unique singular essence. Yet, despite its complexity, we usually know wholeness intuitively when we see it, by inferring its teleological Purpose or Function. Ironically, goal-oriented "purpose" is not a scientific concept, and future-oriented "function" is an inference, not an observation.

So, physical causation seems to result in directional change due to consistency of effects. We then interpret the invisible arrow of the trail of effects as Purpose or Function. The observing mind connects the dots by filling-in the blanks with imagination. And for humans, the purpose (intention) precedes the causation. :smile:

What is system? :
A system is a collection of elements or components that are organized for a common purpose.

What is a Force? :
An influence ; a cause ; an attraction or repulsion

Teleological :
relating to or involving the explanation of phenomena in terms of the purpose they serve rather than of the cause by which they arise.

Indeed, I've much sympathy with that. The further question might be what it is that they ought be quite about, and that, if anything, is the topic of this thread: delineating, so far as it is possible to do so, what it is that is ineffable. — Banno

Even for voluble verbose philosophers, the concept of Holism seems to be inherently ineffable, in the sense that a complex whole system cannot be understood when "delineated" in terms of its parts, without losing the integrated wholeness. An old high school biology example says that "if you dissect a frog, you lose the interrelating & binding effect of Life, which defines the essence of a frog. A dissected frog is no longer a functioning organism : it's "-ology" without the "bio-". So you learn about organs apart from the organism. Hence, you can't have your frog, and cut it too.

Naturalists typically define general essential frogginess in terms of how it differs from other aquatic animals. A specific specie can be described in terms of what it does, and how it fits a niche, instead of what it is. The "-ness" suffix is an indicator of essential qualities, that are difficult to describe or define, apart from enumerating its parts. Green is a physical property, but It isn't easy being green. :smile:

Ineffable :
Let's think the unthinkable, let's do the undoable. Let us prepare to grapple with the ineffable itself, and see if we may not eff it after all.” ― Douglas Adams, Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency

EFFING GREENESS

What has philosophy answered for use in the previous 100 years? — TiredThinker

What about the modern concept of Holism? Since the golden age of Greece, philosophy had become somewhat moribund. And since the Enlightenment rejection of religious authority on secular questions, philosophy once again went underground, and basked in the shadow of empirical Science.

In 1926 though, as "quantum mechanics" was found to be surprisingly non-mechanistic, a new light was focused on the "scientific method". Lawyer Jan Smuts was concerned about the inherent limitations of the analytical/reductive trend in science since the Renaissance. His practical yet evocative philosophical concept soon led to the emergence of Systems Science & Cybernetics & Quantum Holism. It also spurred interest in Eastern philosophy. The notion that whole systems are fundamentally different from isolated parts changed the direction of modern culture. What question did it answer? Perhaps "why are complex systems so hard to make sense of via analytical methods?" :smile:


Holism :
Although the concept of holism has been discussed by many, the term holism in academic terminology was first introduced and publicly shared in print by Smuts in the early twentieth century.

Although Smuts' concept of holism is grounded in the natural sciences, he claimed that it has a relevance in philosophy, ethics, sociology, and psychology.[19] In Holism and Evolution, he argued that the concept of holism is "grounded in evolution and is also an ideal that guides human development and one's level of personality actualization." Smuts stated in the book that "personality is the highest form of holism"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jan_Smuts

Quantum Holism :
The essence of quantum holism lies in translating the idea of wholeness into the fundamental property of the finite indivisibility of quantum systems into any kind of elements or sets.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/physics-holism/

I've long considered mathematics a metaphysical realm with varying degrees of reality. Rates of change, derivatives, are close to physical reality, whereas infinitesimals are out there towards the other end of the spectrum. — jgill

Yes. All of those mathematical concepts are related to physical reality, but not detectable by the 5 senses. The connections are logical, not material. That's why I call the logical structure of the world, Meta-Physical. We "know' such things only by the 6th sense of Reason, which "sees" invisible relationships between things, and even between non-things (e.g. ideas). Even Infinity is conceivable relative to physical Finity. It's merely Space that is more-than-the-sum-of-its-parts, as indicated by unending ellipsis . . . . . . .

The "meta-physical realm" is not super-natural though, but simply mental (and meta-animal). It's an imaginary world parallel to (not above) the sensory world. Even gods & ghosts are imagined with evanescent bodies analogous to physical human bodies. Mystics who are especially tuned-in to the metaphysical world, seem to take their fantasies as more-real than reality. I've never had a mystical experience, but I have had, what you might call a "mathematical experience"*1 : when a logical interrelationship pattern suddenly becomes apparent. Some of those numerical epiphanies may sound like woo woo*2 to hard core materialists. :smile:

*1. Mathematical Experiences :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mathematical_Experience

*2. My mathematical talents & skills are very ordinary, but in a Calculus class, I (me??) was surprised to be asked by a straight-A math major to explain the holistic concept of "Integrals". I guess the notion of wholes as more-than-the-sum-of-its-parts was more instinctive to little ole me, than to an either/or analytical/reductive thinker. On this forum, the taboo term "holism" will often bring-out the woo-boo-birds. But the concept of a composite whole is not super-natural, merely meta-physical : a rational concept, not a physical percept. :nerd:

I thought it was Feynman, also, but it wasn't: David Mermin — jgill

Apparently, Feynman was quoting Mermin. But it was Feyman who made the quip famous as a viral meme. Quotes are usually attributed to the popularizer, not the originator, of catchy ideas. :cool:

It's tough being a leading edge physicist these days. At least mathematicians get to create their weirdnesses and don't have to attempt to interpret what nature throws at them — jgill

Yes, but even uber-logical mathematicians work on the basis of a metaphysical worldview, implicitly assuming the existence (being qua being) of non-physical mathematical objects, that they mentally manipulate as-if real things. Time is just another non-physical notion that has practical applications. Subjective Metaphysics is usually about generalities & causal processes, not specific inert lumps of Objective Matter. :smile:

Mathematical Metaphysics :
A third option immediately presents itself, which is a metaphysical account
that admits the existence of mathematical objects but not of physical objects.
Because it is intuitively obvious that physical objects exist, this appears absurd,
and so it should not be surprising that few philosophers have considered it
http://shelf1.library.cmu.edu/HSS/2015/a1626190.pdf

Metaphysical Mathematical Objects :
Unlike physical objects and properties, mathematical objects do not exist in space and time, and mathematical concepts are not instantiated in space or time. Our mathematical intuition provides intrinsic evidence for mathematical principles.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/philosophy-mathematics/

Awareness is simply an emergent byproduct of this energy field's organization. — Enrique

Yes. That is generally how I see the relationship between physical structure and mental logic. But it's the steps in-between Energy and Intention that are still hard to imagine. There is still a gaping gap between quantum mechanics and spooky mysticism*1. That's why my own theory of EnFormAction requires an intentional First Cause to set Nature on a course from Material Mechanics to Mental Motives*2.

I suppose, proposing a hypothetical conscious First Cause*3, could be dismissed as a god-of-the-gaps solution to the emergence of consciousness conundrum. But, I see no viable alternative, except to just assume -- on faith in mechanical Materialism -- that there is no gap, from which purposeful Life & Mind mysteriously emerged out of inert Matter & aimless Energy. :smile:

*1. Quantum Mind :
The quantum mind or quantum consciousness is a group of hypotheses proposing that classical mechanics alone cannot explain consciousness, positing instead that quantum-mechanical phenomena, such as entanglement and superposition, may play an important part in the brain's function and could explain critical aspects of consciousness. These scientific hypotheses are as yet untested, and can overlap with quantum mysticism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mind

*2. EnFormAction :
Ententional Causation. A proposed metaphysical law of the universe that causes random interactions between forces and particles to produce novel & stable arrangements of matter & energy. It’s the creative force (aka : Divine Will) of the axiomatic eternal deity that, for unknown reasons, programmed a Singularity to suddenly burst into our reality from an infinite source of possibility. AKA : The creative potential of Evolution; the power to enform; organizing Logos; directional Change.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html

*3. Isaac Newton's First Cause :
God is the same God, always and everywhere. He is omnipresent not virtually only, but also substantially, for virtue cannot subsist without substance. We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances.
https://www.brainyquote.com/authors/isaac-newton-quotes
Note -- "Virtue", in this case, is creative power, and "Substance" is the creation
Note -- Newton mathematicized celestial mechanics : the logic of Change

Ineffable concepts are usually expressed indirectly by metaphors & analogies. — Gnomon

Yes, but doing so has the drawback of inferring false information while attempting to make an arcane subject accessible to the average person. Here are two examples of existing realities that are difficult to convey with words, hence a bit ineffable, where popularization by science writers is misleading. However,no harm is done. — jgill

Yes. Ideally, Science is supposed to be objective and dispassionate. But scientists are human beings, whose reasoning may sometimes be used in service to emotions, including comfortable prior beliefs & paradigms. So they can't help having feelings about their facts. And it's those ineffable Feelings that cannot be encapsulated in objective language.

That's why the pioneers of Quantum Theory so often resorted to metaphors, analogies, and Eastern religious concepts in their struggle to make sense of counter-intuitive and non-classical behaviors of sub-atomic reality. Presumably, it was the potential for watering-down of truth-values due to the fuzziness of feelings, that motivated frustrated Feynman to argue that physicists should not play the role of feckless philosophers ; instead, just "shut up and calculate". :smile:

David Hume on Reason :
Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions, and can never pretend to any other office than to serve and obey them.
https://sites.pitt.edu/~mthompso/readings/hume.influencing.pdf

Shut up and calculate :
does a disservice to quantum mechanics
https://aeon.co/essays/shut-up-and-calculate-does-a-disservice-to-quantum-mechanics
Note -- By focusing solely on abstract Mathematical Values, purely objective Science loses the concrete and humanizing touch of Philosophy, which takes into account Moral Values & Personal Meanings : seeking to average individual emotions into universal motives, such as Love, Curiosity, etc..

Feelings :
"a feeling is an idea that hasn't been articulated yet" ___Timothy Morton, Object Oriented Ontology
Note -- Poetry & Philosophy are different ways of articulating ineffable feelings & hunches. No harm, no foul.

Thus, not only our experience of the imaginary, but also our experience of the actual is a synthetic construction of the real. The real is a production and not a passive
observation , something we enact as much as discover. — Joshs

Yes. Some posters on this forum naively assume that they know Reality, when what they know is an imaginary construct inferred from a variety of sensory inputs. Those mental models tend to be based on limited experience with reality, and include some emotional evaluations that are specific to the observer. These limitations & filters are what make philosophical Epistemology necessary for weeding out the irrelevant or erroneous elements of our worldviews. It's a never-ending struggle, that has a modern nemesis in the ease-of-access to fringe opinions, viral memes and assorted misinformation & disinformation. Fortunately, by exchanging opinions with opinionated people (in real or virtual forums), we can learn where our models of reality overlap, to reinforce or weaken our prior opinions.

Back to the OP : the "mystery" about Time involves the philosophical problem : that we can legitimately question whether it is a property of Reality, or of human Imagination or both. :smile:

The illusion of time :
According to theoretical physicist Carlo Rovelli, time is an illusion: our naive perception of its flow doesn't correspond to physical reality.
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-04558-7

Epistemology :
the theory of knowledge, especially with regard to its methods, validity, and scope. Epistemology is the investigation of what distinguishes justified belief from opinion.

to bind matter into a percept — Enrique

It's that binding force that I have difficulty understanding. Philosophically, I can see how energy (physical causation) could be related to human intention (cultural causation). But the mechanics of that transformation from physics to percepts are beyond my comprehension. Perhaps it's like a physical Phase Change (e.g. liquid water to solid ice), in which the intermediate steps are blurry. It seems to be merely a re-arrangement of links between atoms. But what magic makes that new pattern of inter-connection emerge into consciousness as a Percept or Concept? I can only guess that the Potential for Perception is inherent in the direction of causation : a metaphor for Aboutness. :smile:

Aboutness : https://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/scientists/deacon/

When you get into phenomenology of physics the vast possibility is hard to get a grip on and concepts haven't progressed far at this point. I read a book by a Nobel laureate who imagined aether as a multicolored, multilayered superconductor, with electromagnetic matter an impurity in the aether. — Enrique

Yes. The Nobel Laureate you mentioned might be Frank Wilczek, whose 2008 book, The Lightness of Being, introduced the notion of space as a super-conductor. That's way above my pay grade, but the general concept of Space as an Aether Field makes some sense to me, especially as it dovetails with some of the woo-woo implications of quantum theory.

Other physicists are beginning to take the Aether concept seriously again, in order to make sense of Maxwell's electromagnetic "field", and Einstein's references to the "fabric" of space, and the 'wave function" of quantum physics. I'm not sure what Aether has to do with Consciousness, but some thinkers view it in terms of a Mind-Field. However, any notion of a matterless Field of influence is a spooky non-classical kind of phenomenon. :smile:


Aether as a physical Field :
"Under a surface of vociferous denying and pointing to flawed experiments there is a general acceptance even among modern physicists and Nobel Laureates that there is a physical strata that plays fundamentally the role of an Aether, although the term is so laden with philosophical prejudices that no one really dares to commit to the name Aether and all sorts of alternative and rather silly sounding denotations are invented: “quantum foam”, “quantum fluid” for instance or this “field” or that field”, where nobody ever can point out what kind of physical species a field IS. There are at best vague ideas what a field DOES." ___Michael Brenner
www.quora.com/Does-Aether-exist-according-to-modern-physics

It's not easy to talk about something that can't be expressed in words. Good luck. — jgill

That doesn't seem to inhibit scientists & philosophers from inventing new words to express formerly ineffable concepts. For example, C.S. Pierce coined the term "pragmaticism" to distinguish his personal philosophy from what he considered to be a corrupted sense of "pragmatism". Creation of Neologisms is a form of terminological innovation. Ineffable concepts are usually expressed indirectly by metaphors & analogies. :smile:

Neologism :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neologism

Ineffability and its Metaphysics: The Unspeakable in Art, Religion, and Philosophy :
https://ndpr.nd.edu/reviews/ineffability-and-its-metaphysics-the-unspeakable-in-art-religion-and-philosophy/

And the physical and the mental are separable aspects? — Joshs

Of course! Don't you distinguish between those categories? Physical is real & tangible, while Mental is an imaginary intangible model of Reality. One is matter-based, and the other is meaning-based. One is here & now, while the other is anywhere & any-when.

Animals, who don't make such "trivial" irrelevant distinctions, live in a material world of the 5 senses, while humans live in a cultural world modified by the mind. For example, turkeys feel blessed to be currently living high-on-the-hog, with no mental concept of Thanksgiving in their future. :smile:

GLEN willows
These are the folk who will explain the ineffable at great length, with no awareness of the irony involved. Historically such a thread runs parallel to, but against the flow, of philosophy, which seeks open rational explanation. — Banno — GLEN willows

Empirical Science studies the effable & phenomenal (physical) aspects of the world. So, it's left to Philosophy to dabble in the ineffable & mental (metaphysical) features of reality. Whenever a scientist makes a generalized inference about her object of study, she's doing philosophy or metaphysics, not physics. The art of philosophy is to describe abstractions, such as space & time, in metaphors that allow us to imagine concepts that are not physical things, but "psychologically real" metaphysical meanings. Metaphors & analogies are intended to express ineffable ideas in meaningful comparisons.

Ironically, the best scientists are not just data-loggers, but philosophers who extract general meaning from the specific data. "Rational explanation" is not a phenomenal observation, but a logical (philosophical) inference. Nobel-prize-winning scientists are usually the ones who make the ineffable effable. For example, Einstein replaced the notion of Space as a vacuum lacking contents & properties, with the metaphor of space as a flexible fabric and a pool of potential (virtual ; unreal) energy. :smile:

phenomenon : noun. any state or process known through the senses rather than by intuition or reasoning.

Ineffable :
There are two slightly different flavors to 'ineffable', let's call them 1) things impenetrable to our understanding and 2) things that defy description. For the latter we need not venture beyond our imaginations to find the limitations of language...
https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/65854/have-philosophers-explored-the-ineffable-and-what-in-our-language-makes-it-impo

The illusion of time :
Why is time controversial? It feels real, always there, inexorably moving forward. Time has flow, runs like a river. Time has direction, always advances. Time has order, one thing after another. Time has duration, a quantifiable period between events. Time has a privileged present, only now is real. Time seems to be the universal background through which all events proceed, such that order can be sequenced and durations measured. . . .
To many physicists, while we experience time as psychologically real, time is not fundamentally real. At the deepest foundations of nature, time is not a primitive, irreducible element or concept required to construct reality.
https://www.space.com/29859-the-illusion-of-time.html

I made it explicit that I was referring to Popper, and hence to falsificationism. The comment had nothing to do with mind/body; why you would go off on that tangent is enigmatic.
It is common curtesy in the forum to link when quoting or referring to a contributor. — Banno

Sorry. I was replying to 180proof's out of context post, which didn't link to the source of the quote. So, my response was only to what was explicit in his post : metaphysics is integral to physics. :smile:

Metaphysics is not post hoc, but an integral part of physics, and of whatever else we might do.

— Banno

180wooboo quoted Banno to say that "metaphysics" is included under the heading of Physics. I'm not sure what he meant by that counterintuitive assertion, which ignores the "meta" qualifier. Maybe he's suggesting that Mind (mental properties) is an integral component of Brain (physical properties), hence a category error. Perhaps he's implying that non-material Metaphysics, like everything else in reality, is subordinate to all-encompassing Physics. However, that could be construed to equate metaphysics with Energy & Matter as a third manifestation of Physics*1.

I doubt that 180 actually agrees with even that rephrased equation. Instead, he seems to think that the term "metaphysics" necessarily implies something un-natural & perverse : an abomination. Whenever I use the meta-word (referring to consciousness), he rises-up in righteous indignation to despise, execrate, and condemn the very idea of anything that is not simply matter-energy Physics. As a considered opinion, that's OK with me, except for the dialog-dampening effects of emotional denunciations, and appeals to orthodoxy instead of reason. :smile:

PS__I could agree with a re-worded version of that statement : "Metaphysics is not an afterthought, but an integral feature of NATURE". Since the human Mind -- and its energy analogue Intention -- emerged from the natural processes of evolution, the potential for its emergence must have been encoded in the Natural Laws & Initial Conditions of the physical and metaphysical universe. Otherwise, it would have been a post hoc (supernatural) intervention into the mundane evolutionary mechanisms.

Metaphysical Foundations of Natural Law :
One's view of the natural law is based on one's view of human nature. Human nature is what all humans have in common at all times. The natural law must be universal because human nature is universal. If there is a natural law, it applies to all humans just because they are humans.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1741-2005.2006.00106.x

Are the laws of nature metaphysical? :
Some philosophers think that laws of nature are contingent, others think that laws are metaphysically necessary.
https://academic.oup.com/pq/article/72/4/875/6454669

Meta-Physical Mind :
The argument against materialism in The Conscious Mind has two parts. The first part, in Chapter 3 of the book, argues that there is no a priori entailment from physical truths to truths about consciousness. The second part, in Chapter 4 of the book, argues that there is no a posteriori necessary entailment from physical truths to truths about consciousness.
http://ruccs.rutgers.edu/images/personal-zenon-pylyshyn/class-info/Consciousness_2014/Chalmers_ConsciousMind/Chalmers_Response1999_OCR.pdf

*1. Ironically, in my personal worldview, I do equate Matter & Mind as emergent forms of universal causal energy (EnFormAction). But Mind & Consciousness have completely different properties from Matter, hence (contra Materialism doctrine) im-material & non-physical attributes.