If its claims are true, I believe the article may be on the right path to dissolving this problem - especially the question of why we experience qualia at all. — Luke

I found the article scientifically interesting, but philosophically unsatisfying. As I noted to : "The Aeon article is extremely interesting in terms of the science, but it only describes a separate pathway for sensory signals to reach the brain, and sheds no light on how those signals are interpreted into a meaningful mental experience" --- how we experience Qualia.

In Semiology, a Signal is distinguished from a Sign, in that a "signal" is not inherently meaningful to the observer, but a "sign" has personal significance to the recipient of the signal*1. That distinction is what Gregory Bateson defined as Information or Meaning*2 : "the difference that makes a difference" to a sentient viewer. So, a camera can detect a Signal (e.g. photon), but only a mind will interpret it as a meaningful Sign (e.g. predator!).

As you noted, a key distinction is the ability to "take ownership" (make it personal ; subjective) of the incoming objective information. The article's author seems to assume that feedback loops in the brain could somehow convert an abstract quantitative Signal into a meaningful qualitative Sign. And I agree. But how? That's the philosophical "hard question". :smile:


*1. Sign :
In semiotics, a sign is anything that communicates a meaning that is not the sign itself to the interpreter of the sign.
https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Sign_(semiotics)
Note --- A "sign itself" (signal) is some physical event (Quanta of energy) that can be used to convey information. But the energy (e.g. light) must be interpreted by the receiver into meaning (a sign). For example, smoke rising into the air only indicates that perhaps a bush is burning, but pulsed smoke signals from Indians on a bluff indicate that some intentional message is available to one who knows the code.

*2. Information :
The anthropologist Gregory Bateson's phrase “the difference that makes a difference” has a powerful and intuitive resonance. He was talking about how a 'difference' can represent information that helps us see a situation from a different angle. This can reveal new possibilities for understanding or acting.
https://metalogue.co.uk/2023/01/23/how-did-we-get-back-here-again/
Note --- The first difference is a physical event (signal) and the second difference is a meaningful change (significance) in the mind of the observer : one who can tell the difference. For example, Anatole France is attributed with creating the meme, “Vive la difference!” referring to the differences between women and men. That gender difference is typically significant only to one of the diametrically opposite sex. Alphabet genders (LGBTQ) only muddle the signal.

*3. FWIW, here are a few more comments on the Aeon article :

A. In mammals, an incoming signal can be just quantitative : yes or no (1 or 0). But a sensation is a range of quantities : pain from 0 to 10. For humans, a sensation can be qualified as a metaphor, a likeness ; what it is like.

B. A Quantum is a unit of Perception. A Quale is a unit of Conception. Both signal & sign are transmitted via Energy, but the mind must convert objective sensory Quanta into subjective sentient Qualia.
Quale : a quality or property as perceived or experienced by a person.

C. Psychonic energy may explain the physical signals, but not the subjective meaning of sensations.

D. Self consciousness = self ownership

E. Qualitative sensations are evaluations

It’s called ‘the hard problem’ for a reason! You’re dealing with a question that is at the basis of a great many philosophical questions and there are no easy answers. — Wayfarer

The April-May 2024 issue of Philosophy Now has an article by Raymond Tallis entitled The Illusion of Illusionism. Speaking of Consciousness, Tallis says, “There is . . . . nothing in matter or energy as seen through the eyes of physics that explains how a part of the material world might become aware of itself”. {my bold} The Aeon article is extremely interesting in terms of the science, but it only describes a separate pathway for sensory signals to reach the brain, and sheds no light on how those signals are interpreted into a meaningful mental experience.

In the Aeon article Humphrey quotes Encyclopedia Britannica (1929) : "One theory holds that each atom of the physical body possesses an inherent attribute of consciousness". {my bold} But Humphrey seems to think we have "moved on" from that Panpsychism solution to the Hard Problem. Ironically, the "all mind" approach has recently become popular among some prominent psychological scientists : e.g. Christof Koch.

Humphrey seems to favor the Psychonic Theory*1: "The psychonic theory contends, in the end, that consciousness equals synaptic function. It is evident where consciousness, defined as psychonic energy,".{my bold} It describes a stimulus/response mechanism that produces an "electrical aura", but nothing we could interpret as conscious awareness. Therefore, to be effective, that Psychonic Energy must include the missing something that Tallis noted..

My own pet theory is philosophical instead of scientific, and it postulates a form of Energy that could be described as Psychonic, but I call it Enformy, alluding to Plato's Forms. And, like Panpsychism, it postulates that the potential for Consciousness is inherent in the Energy that causes all transformations in the material world. So, my hybrid theory has one foot in Physicalism, and one in Panpsychism.

My amateur philosophical thesis says that there is "something in matter and energy" that might explain how the physical world could become aware of itself. That "something" is the power to transform one kind (form) of thing into another. It is implicit in the program of Evolution, which began with nothing but a speck of Potential, and constructed the vast multiplex world of matter/energy/mind we now sentiently "see" around us*2. Unfortunately, the original source of that transformative power will be another "hard" philosophical problem.

I may have more to say about the Blindsight article in another post. But I'm in over my head as it is, so the less I say the better. . . . for now. As you said, there are no easy philosophical answers. :smile:


*1. The psychonic theory of consciousness
If human behaviour is composed of Unit Responses and if, in the preceding section, without any reference at all to consciousness, we have briefly described what such a response is and how it is determined, can we say with the behaviorist that there is no need to postulate the entrance of any conscious factor in the process beginning with stimulus and ending with final reaction?
https://psycnet.apa.org/buy/2006-20942-004

*2. Sentience is the capacity to experience feelings and sensations, to have affective consciousness, subjective states that have a positive or negative valence
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/neuroscience/sentience#:~:text=Sentience%20is%20the%20capacity%20to,From%3A%20Neuroscience%2C%202022

This is to conflate two different ideas in Aristotle. What's usually translated as 'function' is 'ergon', the special nature of what is named, e.g. a knife cuts, humans engage in soul-based rational consideration. This is different to 'telos' or 'end', the purpose of an activity. — mcdoodle

Thanks. Yet I think Aristotle did associate both ideas in his discussion of Natural Purpose.
The "everything has a purpose" quote combines several words & meanings into a definition of Teleology*1 : essential nature (phusis) + work (ergon) => ultimate aim (telos). However, the universal Purpose (telos) of Nature is not the local purpose (ergon) of any particular element.

Instead of postulating Intelligent Design*2 though, he used more abstract & impersonal terms like First Cause & Final Cause. The initial Cause can also be interpreted as "design intent", which produces Essential Nature, which is processed by the teleological work of Evolution, to eventually result in the ultimate Goal : the Final Cause. Hence, Teleology is the Intentional Logic inherent in progressive Evolution.

Of course, Ari probably had only a rudimentary notion of Natural Progression*3, but his First Cause could do the Darwinian Selection, and the Formal Causes (natural laws) would produce the physical novelty (mutations) in the Material Cause (elements) necessary to fabricate the intended Final Form of Nature-in-general. Ari didn't specify, and we moderns still don't know, what that ultimate state will be. But we can, like Aristotle, recognize the signs of Intention (Prohairesis) in the progression of Nature from hot-dot to comfortably-cool-Cosmos. Physics (machine) needs Meta-Physics (intention) in order to evolve from Big Bang to Poetry to Philosophy. :smile:


*1. télos, lit. "end, 'purpose', or 'goal'") is a term used by philosopher Aristotle to refer to the final cause of a natural organ or entity, or of human art.

*2. Did Aristotle believe in intelligent design?
Which means that Aristotle identified final causes with formal causes as far as living organisms are concerned. He rejected chance and randomness (as do modern biologists) but unlike Dembski did not invoke an intelligent designer in its place.
https://philosophynow.org/issues/32/Design_Yes_Intelligent_No

*3. Aristotle's Evolution :
The concept of evolution is as ancient as Greek writings, where philosophers speculated that all living things are related to one another, although remotely. The Greek philosopher Aristotle perceived a “ladder of life,” where simple organisms gradually change to more elaborate forms.
https://www.cliffsnotes.com/study-guides/biology/biology/principles-of-evolution/history-of-the-theory-of-evolution

Regarding the significance of teleology and its place in Aristotle's metaphysics, I happened on a very succinct explanation in a video talk by cognitive scientist Lisa Feldman Barrett. She simply says that teleology is 'an explanation of phenomena in terms of the purpose which they serve rather than of the cause by which they arise'. That says a lot in very few words, as it demonstrates the sense in which reason also encompasses purpose for Aristotle, in a way that it does not for modernity. — Wayfarer

Unfortunately, we can't see "purpose" in the non-self world with our physical senses, but we can infer Intention from the behavior of people & animals that is similar to our own, as we search for food or other necessities, instead of waiting for it to fall into our mouths. Some of us even deduce Teleology in the behavior of our dynamic-but-inanimate world system, as described by scientific theories. If there is no direction to evolution, how did the hot, dense, pinpoint of potential postulated in Big Bang theory manage to mature into the orderly cosmos that our space-scopes reveal to the inquiring minds of the aggregated atoms we call astronomers. Ironically, some sentient-but-unperceptive observers look at that same vital universe, and see only aimless mindless matter moving by momentum.

The current Philosophy Now magazine has several letters on the topic of Time. One says : "If time is subjective, an observer is needed to make the distinction between past & future, and so to turn a probabilistic quantum phenomenon into a known result." Another responded to Tallis' comment that "the most successful organism is the non-conscious cyanobacteria" with : "Humanity's domination of the planet is so extensive that evolution must be redefined." The next letter notes : "from the outside, reality is matter, from the inside, it's mind".

Aristotle knew nothing of gargantuan galaxies full of whirling worlds, or indeterminate quantum probability, or progressive novelty-creating evolution, or brainless bacterial objectives, but he could "see" that his primitive pre-industrial world was purposeful. "Everything has a function or purpose and its essential nature is to grow and achieve its purpose." https://open.library.okstate.edu/introphilosophy/chapter/__unknown__/ :smile:


Teleonomy : a sign of Aristotle's Final Cause : the End or Purpose
This essay brings to mind Terrence Deacon’s Incomplete Nature, FWIW. On what we observe as teleonomy: “…unrealized future possibilities appear to be the organizers of antecedent processes that tend to bring them into existence,…
https://medium.com/@mmpassey/this-essay-brings-to-mind-terrence-deacons-incomplete-nature-fwiw-83a7e2a4b1a7

Within this context, 'noumenal' means, basically, 'grasped by reason' while sensible means 'grasped by thesense organs'. In hylomorphic dualism, this means that nous apprehends the form or essence of a particular - what is really is - and the senses perceive its material appearance. That's the interplay of 'reality and appearance'. Again from the article on Noumenon: — Wayfarer

Thanks. That summary is in agreement my own understanding of the Real/Ideal and Phenomenal/Noumenal dichotomy. But my question was about your characterization of Kant's "equivocation" of that neat two-value division of the knowable world*1. Of course, in philosophical discourse, that "interplay" can get complicated, to the point of paradox.

I have the general impression that both Plato (real/ideal) and Aristotle (hyle/morph) also divided the philosophical arena of discourse into Sensory Observations and Rational Inference. So, I was wondering if Kant had posited a different analysis of the Things & Dings that philosophers elaborate & logic-chop into such tiny bits of meaning. Physical things can be reduced down to material atoms by dissection. And Metaphysical dings (ideas about things), presumably can be analyzed down to conceptual atoms. But does the distinction between Physical & Meta-Physical remain in effect?

That said, your comment about Kant's "confusing equivocation" raised the question in my simple mind : is there a third (non-quibbling) Ontological category of knowledge, other than Phenomenal (sensory) & Noumenal (inference) : perhaps Intuition (sixth sense) that bypasses both paths to knowledge? Is a ding an sich Phenomenal or Noumenal or something else? :smile:


*1. Quote from this thread :
"I would agree with that description, although not with the equivocation with ‘ding an sich’. That is owed to Kant’s confusing equivocation of ‘thing in itself’ with ‘noumenal’ which actually have two different meanings."
___ Wayfarer

PS___ Post posting, I found this summary of Ways of Knowing. I don't know where it came from, or if it's even relevant to Aristotle's Metaphysical Ontology.

I would agree with that description, although not with the equivocation with ‘ding an sich’. That is owed to Kant’s confusing equivocation of ‘thing in itself’ with ‘noumenal’ which actually have two different meanings. — Wayfarer

Thanks. But, can you clarify Kant's "equivocation" for me? If the ding an sich is not Phenomenal, is it not then Noumenal by default? Is there a third category of Being : things vs dings vs (?) ? Or more than two ways of Knowing : sensation vs imagination vs (?) ?

I usually think of dings as existing in a Platonic Ideal Realm, or God's Mind, beyond the reach of the human meat-mind --- except as inferred by Reason from the inherent Logic of the Real World : Concept vs Percept. How did Kant know about dings, if not by sensory observation or rational imagination/representation? Did he know by Direct Revelation or by Inner Vision (clairvoyance)?

The Noumenal vs Phenomenal dichotomy*1 seems to be intended to avoid ambiguity. But I suppose later philosophers have analyzed that black vs white meaning into a variety of nit-picky interpretations. For example, I just noticed the definition of ding an sich below*2. Neither sensory "observation" nor mental "representation", but perhaps some spooky third category of being & knowing. :smile:


*1. What is the difference between noumenal and phenomenal?
The phenomenal world is the world we are aware of; this is the world we construct out of the sensations that are present to our consciousness. The noumenal world consists of things we seem compelled to believe in, but which we can never know (because we lack sense-evidence of it).
http://people.wku.edu/jan.garrett/303/kant120.htm
Note --- "Compelled to believe", by what power?

*2. Thing-in-itself
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

So, I wonder if real numbers are either subjective or objective. I mean, they're not to be found anywhere in the world, as such. Nor are they products of the mind, as they are the same for all who can count. That is the sense in which 'intelligible objects' are transcendent - they transcend the subject/object division. And not seeing that is part of the consequences of the decline of realism. The culture doesn't have a way of thinking about transcendentals. From an article on What is Math that I frequently cite in this context: — Wayfarer

Disclaimer : not erudite on Aristotle, Plato, or Kant. But I think they were onto something, even when I can't say exactly what it is.

I suppose the issue you raise here is what prompted Kant to develop the tricky concept of Transcendental Idealism. Plato's Ideal Forms seem to be implicitly supernatural, so how do we natural beings know anything about them? Kant placed such imaginary things off-limits to human experience, in the heavenly realm of ding an sich. So, we cannot "know" them via empirical experience, but only "imagine" them as abstract concepts. From that perspective, Numbers are not "real" in any natural sense, but "ideal" in the sense that we abstract those bare bones (ding an sich) from fleshly experience with multiple objects. Numbers are transcendental place-holders for abstract values. Those ideal tokens are not "products of any one mind", but are universal truths that logical minds have access to.

Therefore, "transcendentals" are "intelligible objects" that are not perceptible to the senses. Hence, their questionable status of "reality". Yet, like verbal viral Memes, such unreal abstractions can be exchanged from one mind to another carrying some non-monetary value. In math, transcendental numbers (like PI) are defined as non-algebraic. Which means they can only be written down with symbols, qualifiers & modifiers to indicate their abstraction, infinitude & unreality*1. As a judge once said about Pornography : "I can't define it, but I know it when I see it". When we encounter an abstract bare-bones concept like "Beauty", we can't define it in a few words, but we can mentally put imaginary flesh on the metaphorical bones.

Some animals, such as crows*2, seem to be able to extract numbers from their concrete experience. So the ability is natural, even if the dings are somehow super-natural, or transcendental. I suspect that the general universal concepts that philosophers create in their minds are representations of the dings that Aristotle discussed in his Meta-Physics (lit. beyond physical) addendum to his book on Physics. However, as I disclaimed above, I don't know what I'm talking about, but I know it's not pornography. Maybe it's above & beyond vulgar Physics*3. :smile:


*1. Transcendental Numbers :
More formally, a transcendental function is a function that cannot be constructed in a finite number of steps from the elementary functions and their inverses.
https://www.mathsisfun.com › numbers › transcendental-...
Note --- A Function is an abstract relationship between two or more objects or quantities. We can't see it, but we can infer it.

*2. Can crows recognize numbers? :
Crows can use and even make tools, reason via analogies, and have been said to rival monkeys in cognitive capacity. They also seem to have a remarkable ability to understand numeric values.
https://www.audubon.org/news/crows-can-count-aloud-much-toddlers-new-study-finds

*3. Aristotle's Transcendent Reality :
In Plato's theory, material objects are changeable and not real in themselves; rather, they correspond to an ideal, eternal, and immutable Form by a common name, and this Form can be perceived only by the intellect. . . . .
The relationship between form and matter is another central problem for Aristotle. He argues that both are substances, but matter is potential, while form is actual. . . .
Thus Aristotle's conception is full of paradoxes.
https://www.sparknotes.com/biography/aristotlebio/section7/
Note --- Did Ari really (actually) know what he was talking about?

I think it started as pure philosophy, then wandered into superstition and lost its way in organized religion. — Vera Mont

Well put! Compared to blasé moderns --- with artificial senses, allowing us to see our "pale blue dot" from a god-like perspective --- ancient humans may have been more in awe of the immeasurable magnitude of the world, compared to the insignificance of the observer. That wonderful awesomeness may have been the inspiration for "Philosophy" (the search for understanding) and Science (attempts to control), and Religion (efforts to placate the sovereignty of Cosmic Powers).

But those early crude limited views left most of reality as a black box mystery. Hence, the emergence of "Superstition" as a means of coping with things beyond comprehension : natural events imagined as divine or demonic activities. Then, eventually, the primitive attempts at understanding and controlling Nature, became formalized into the religious symbols & rites & prayers we know today as "Religion" : a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe ; and our humble place in its superhuman schemes.

Modern Science & Technology have given us almost divine power over Natural forces. And for some, that may be all the "religion" they need. But at the same time, the complexities of Culture present seemingly insuperable obstacles to personal peace & justice. So, the modern role of Religion may be more Ethical than Creedal & Intercessory. Yet, the essence of Religion remains : to serve as a go-between for impotent minuscule Man versus all-powerful magnificent Nature & Culture. :smile:

To conclude, I have proven I can change the future indirectly by interrupting the flow of the present. I also assert that at junctions we can change the future directly. This is my argument that life is both determined and has free will, but neither purely. — Barkon

I happen to agree with your conclusion that, in the real world, FreeWill and Determinism co-exist in the paradoxical synergy of statistical Probability. But proving that union of opposites will be like prying apart a paradoxical black box. FWIW, here's my personal take on the philosophical Compatibility Question from a few years ago. :smile:


Paradox of FreeWill :
Thus, the incompatibility of Fate and Freedom has been debated for millennia. . . .
So, it seems that any self-determination or freedom-from-causation we humans possess must be found in that tiny statistical gap between cause & effect.
https://bothandblog5.enformationism.info/page13.html
Note --- The world is predestined by probability (maybe -- maybe not).

Mathematical Probability :
Probability means possibility. It is a branch of mathematics that deals with the occurrence of a random event. The value is expressed from zero to one.
https://byjus.com/maths/probability/
Note --- Einstein didn't like the gambling odds of quantum physics. But the sub-atomic world has since been proven to be founded on a crap shoot. So, the appearance of "pure" determinism is an illusion.

All his works are freely available online. Granted, a fair amount of reading, but the World as Will and Representation Vol 1 is a good start. In respect of the nature of the will, and why everything should be seen as its manifestation, read the paragraphs beginning here. Not easy reading, but then which of the German idealist were? — Wayfarer

Thanks. But it's a bit late in life for me to begin a scholastic study of "German idealists". I have a pretty good foundation in the pioneering Greeks. But I've never read any of Kant or Hegel or Schop --- other than popular quotes, Wiki articles and Wayfarer posts. So, all those famous philosophers are, for me, mainly symbols of specific concepts (Hegelian Dialectic) or general worldviews (Transcendental Idealism) that I may, or may not, want to use in what's left of my own real life. :smile:

In the OP, ↪Shawn found Schop's "denial of the will to live" unacceptable. — Gnomon
Yes, I would like to elaborate on why I find it unacceptable. How is one to deny the will to live? Doesn't this imbue a persons life or deny their adaptability to the environment they are in?
Compare and contrast the Darwinian notion of the survival of the fittest with Schopenhauer's notion of the denial of the will to live? — Shawn

I'm not a Schopenhauer scholar, so I'm just shooting in the dark here. His description of WILL --- "a blind, unconscious, aimless striving {random erratic motion?} devoid of knowledge {unintentional ; indeterminate?}, outside of space and time {supernatural?}, and free of all multiplicity {singular ; monistic?} " --- sounds like a natural mechanical energetic force, except for the "outside" and "monistic" modifiers, which sound more like a deity. Yet it's not an individual object or person, but more like an impersonal energy field or Causal Essence.

For example, Aristotle's Prime Mover kicks-off the world in a certain direction, then innate mass/velocity Momentum keeps it going. Ironically, Schop's term "Striving" makes it sound like a goal-directed, self-directing (cybernetic) mechanism/organism. Or perhaps like Plato's intentional First Cause/Logos.

In any case Schop's mechanical "Will" may be only distantly related to the animal "will to live". In Darwinian terms, the latter is merely an instinct to avoid death, in terms of pleasure vs pain motivations. Hence, animals are goal-directed organisms. But Schop could be interpreted to generalize that selective avoidance-of-pain into a cosmic drive-to-survive that propels the animate & inanimate world to evolve from a fetal state into a more mature system. He seems to think humans are merely sentient animals with only short-term emotional goals.

Could Schop really imagine that the evolutionary world system was internally motivated by an ultimate goal of perfection to "strive" (expend Energy) against Entropy? If so, I would think he'd be more sanguine about the world's prospects for a better future. And wouldn't be associated with "toxic" Antinatalism. :cool:


Will to live :
The will to live (German: Wille zum Leben) is a concept developed by the German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer, representing an irrational "blind incessant impulse without knowledge" that drives instinctive behaviors, causing an endless insatiable striving in human existence.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Will_to_live

One question on the link to note 3:where does Socrates say he knows nothing? I think it is a misquotation but would be glad to be shown that I am wrong. — Fooloso4

He probably didn't say that in so many words. But the common quote attributed to the "wise man" is an English paraphrase of the Greek original, intended to indicate that it's wise to not be too cocky about your all-knowingness. Especially on philosophy forums, where you will be called to account. :wink:

Socratic Paradox :
"I know that I know nothing" is a saying derived from Plato's account of the Greek philosopher Socrates: "For I was conscious that I knew practically nothing..." (Plato, Apology 22d, translated by Harold North Fowler, 1966).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_know_that_I_know_nothing

Interesting comment on one sense of divine, but he is talking about divine beings. — Fooloso4

Ari did seem to assume the existence of some kind of supernatural beings, beyond the limits of human senses*1. But to me his "unmoved mover" sounds more like an abstract Nature-God than the Judeo deity, who walks in the garden with his creatures, and communicates his divine Will in no uncertain terms. In any case, I was using the term "to divine" in a colloquial metaphorical sense, not to be taken literally.

More to the point, I'll address your question "Is Aristotle wise?". I suppose the answer depends on whether you agree with Ari on the requirements for wisdom : one being the knowledge of Causes. In the quote below*2 though, he sets a high standard : "knows all things". But also admits to limits : "as far as possible". One cause of the limitation on human knowledge may be the aloofness of the deity, who gave humans the ability to "divine" via intuition & reason, instead of by direct revelation & slavish acquiescence.

Socrates opined that “Wisdom begins in wonder", and Ari's treatise on Phusis reveals a sense of encyclopedic inquisitiveness. Both of those paragons of sagacity also paradoxically expressed doubt about their own wisdom*3. So, Wisdom seems to require childish curiosity constrained by adult skepticism. :smile:


*1. What does Aristotle say about the divine?
Here Aristotle bases his doctrine of God on his cosmology. He conceives of an unmoved mover or first cause, eternal, invisible and unchangeable, who initiates all change in the universe by his attractive power, by arousing the desire to be like him in those heavenly beings which most nearly resemble him.
https://academic.oup.com/book/26477/chapter-abstract/194921046?redirectedFrom=fulltext

*2. “The wise man knows of all things, as far as possible, although he has no knowledge of each of them in detail.” — Aristotle

*3. Why did Socrates say I know nothing?
The meaning of Socrates' reflections in the phrase “all I know is that I know nothing” consisted of two paradoxical things. Firstly, Socrates doubted his own wisdom's superiority over other people's wisdom.
https://www.thecollector.com/all-i-know-is-that-i-know-nothing-socrates/

I decided to start a new discussion rather than continue in the thread on the hard problem. . . .
"Thus it is clear that Wisdom is knowledge of certain principles and causes." — Fooloso4

I'm not an Aristotle expert, but I do refer to his ideas on Metaphysics whenever discussions about philosophical "hard problems" --- as contrasted with scientific empirical problems --- come up. Perhaps Ari is saying that in order to divine*1 First Principles, penetrating wisdom (insight) is more important than mere superficial observation.

For example, I just began reading Steven Strogatz' 2003 book Sync, How Order Emerges From Chaos. His first example is fireflies (lightning bugs) in Asia that gather in the thousands, and begin to spookily blink in rhythm : all on, all off. The mere observation was that this orchestrated behavior is not normal for "glow-worms". So some mathematical principle was sought to explain this "spontaneous order" without a conductor, and without faster-than-light communication.

That it should be explainable by a general "principle" was implicit, because other cases of order out of chaos have been observed, as in the steady rhythm of the heartbeat, with thousands of cells contracting simultaneously. Actually, a mathematical theory of order-out-of-chaos*2 was constructed by merging the observations & insights of many scientists over several years ; not by instant revelation. In fact, the search continues after many decades of effort*3.

The author doesn't mention Metaphysics, but he does attribute the progress toward a Principle of Order to the collective wisdom of many observers. Presumably, each instance of emergent Order from normal Disorder is caused by some "trigger". And that Causal Principle should be describable in mathematical symbols. But understanding the metaphysical meaning of those abstract numbers & symbols will require some philosophical wisdom. :smile:


*1. To divine : gain knowledge by nonlinear insight or intuition, as if by revelation, instead of by logical linear reasoning

*2. Order out of Chaos : Chaos is random -- no rules -- but Order is regulated by logical/mathematical rules. But what triggers the change? Don't ask me; I just started the book.

*3. Complexity Systems Science : The Santa Fe Institute was established in 1984 to study some of the "hard problems" that emerged from Quantum Physics.

In other words, what we see in a mirror is an optical illusion? — Gnomon
Assuredly not! As this paper by a famous mathematician demonstrates. — unenlightened

So, Lewis Carroll proved that what we see in the "looking glass" is actually a separate dimension where everything is reversed from the normal world. Now it all makes sense. :joke:

It doesn't flip things vertically or horizontally but in the third dimension - front to back. The confusion arises because humans have bilateral symmetry. — unenlightened

In other words, what we see in a mirror is an optical illusion? Does the brain try to make sense of the symmetry flip, by imagining the third dimension inverted? :joke:

PLATO
Forms(X)-->Particulars(Y)
KANT
Noumena(X)-->Phenomena(Y)
SCHOPENHAUR
Will(X)-->Representation(Y)

ALTERNATIVELY
Being(X)-->Becoming(Y)
[Body]-->[Mind]*
[Living]-->[knowing]* — ENOAH

Interesting summary of general philosophical principles, extracted from real-world details. Forms are the essential idea of a thing that is instantiated in actual real things. The Noumenal ding an sich is also the idea of a Phenomenal object, as represented in a mind. The World-Will concept has been represented both as an unstoppable destructive tidal wave, and as an ongoing creative process, suitable for the evolution of thinking & willing & adapting beings. We are all in the same world, but we can choose to look at the dark side, or the brighter side of the same cloud.

Schopenhauer's pointless power of natural Will, may describe a snapshot of "Being" similar to Einstein's frozen Block Universe, going nowhere. But a "Becoming" world would offer more opportunities for growth & learning & evolution. Your notion of Living, as an opportunity for Knowing, is also more optimistic about the human condition. Instead of helplessly chained to the whipping wall, we are able to devise (represent) ways to escape, in reality (plan) or ideality (hope). :cool:

Schopenhauer’s Will as Intention :
For most humans though, Willpower is presumed to be both self-control and control over the environment. Hence, neither “aimless” nor “devoid of knowledge”.
http://bothandblog8.enformationism.info/page19.html

In other words, it's not suffering all the way down - suffering has a cause and an end. I wouldn't look to Nietzsche for insight on that, however. — Wayfarer

Yes. I don't project a sunny Pollyanna view onto our imperfect world. But I also can't subscribe to Schop's gloomy-give-up outlook. I wouldn't want to model my personal worldview on his example of analytical intellectual critical methodology*1. His scientific approach to criticism is reductive, but I look to philosophy for a more holistic & creative big picture, including both the bad and the good stuff. Since I am a sentient creature, I can experience pain & suffering for myself. I don't need Schop's help to touch it where it hurts, to feel the exquisite agony of physical & psychological trauma. But I could benefit from a longer-broader view that envisions some "end" of suffering, preferably in the here & now world.

I suspect that Schop, as a young man, was an Idealist, taught to expect a more perfect world. But, as cynical comic-commentator George Carlin noted, a cynic is a disappointed idealist. When I was young, I too was indoctrinated with an idealistic worldview, in which a loving father in heaven was there to sooth my suffering. Unfortunately, I learned the hard way that divine succor was an ideal concept, not to be found in this real life, but in some remote angel-harp-cloud-world. Instead, I realized that practical succoring is found in your fellow sufferers, and in your own inner fortitude. So, instead of descending into angry Atheism, I became a Stoic Agnostic, and looked to human-authored philosophy, rather than cleric-authorized religion, to inform my pragmatic self-dependent positive forward-looking worldview.

If I found the world to be completely irrational & absurd, then my rational self-help plan of action would be insane. In the OP, found Schop's "denial of the will to live" unacceptable. But that sad state of mind would be sane, if the "Will" running the world had no inherent Logic or direction. And, if the world is a creation of my own mind, its absurdity would be a reflection of my own state of mind. Schop, like other European intellectuals of his era, was impressed by the "Eastern" holistic, non-dogmatic philosophies that contrasted with his own dualistic, legalistic religious heritage. Yet, I suspect that he failed to find any reason for living, other than fear of death, in a godless directionless life.

But, enough of this sober serious "Big School" stuff. As my teasing about Debbie Downer should indicate, I don't take Schop's worldview so seriously. It's not an ideal model for me to emulate. I prefer to filter the bad stuff through a sense of humor. That said, I can see that his notion of a "mind created world" would resonate with your own. But don't take it too literally. The imperfect real world will still be following its own internal logic (natural laws) into the uncertain future, long after your personal Mind has graduated to Nirvana. :cool:

PS___ My answer to the OP question is that Schop may be right about the imperfections of the not-yet-complete world process, and about our human ability to create a world-model of personally experienced & selected facts, but wrong about the hopelessness of the whole enterprise, which is not about little ole me.



*1. Why does negativity seem more intelligent than positively?
Negativity deals with the analytical while positivity is more creative.
https://www.quora.com/Why-does-negativity-seem-more-intelligent-than-positively

I have never been able to get on board with his Debbie Downer*1 "wanh, wanh, wah" Pessimism and Roseanne Rosannadana "it's always something" — Gnomon
Grow up mate. Schopenhauer is for Big School, not kindy. — Wayfarer

OK. I'll leave the grown-up philosophy to those who are able to gnaw on tough gristly meat. But his fatalistic worldview (amor fati) is not for me. Although Siddhartha was also moved by the suffering of his huddled masses of countrymen --- several thousand years before Schopenhauer's insight --- at least he proposed a self-help attitude that might make the toughness more palatable. Other than a few quotes & wiki articles, I know little about scowling Schop, and I'm content to leave it that way.

I'm currently reading a historical novel, Hawaii, by James Michener. He doesn't pull any punches, as he describes innumerable instances of "man's inhumanity to man" over many centuries. In a scene on a Leper's Island --- where those infected, through no fault of their own, were banished to suffer & die, out of sight & touch of the unaffected fat & happy Hawaiians --- an uninfected Chinese woman, who volunteered to go to the miserable colony with her leprous husband, years later asked about a missionary who had died of the disfiguring disease, "did he suffer?". The reply was, "here everybody suffers". To me, that sounds like Schop's world. But I prefer the world of the stubborn stoic woman, who was the heroine of this episode. She didn't wallow in misery & self-pity, but -- with low expectations --she got to work and made a good life out of the bad hand she was dealt. I suspect that Schop's idealistic expectations of life were too high, out of his reach.

Optimism is not about looking the other way, but focusing on what's within arm's reach. "Pessimism leads to weakness, optimism to power." — William James. :smile:

Schopenhauer ended up saying that the meaning of life is to deny it . . . .
When Schopenhauer explicitly asks the question (in On Human Nature), it is this sense of it he appears to have in mind. His answer is depressing. The point or purpose of life is to suffer. We are being punished for the crime of being born, punished for who we are, namely, the nasty thoroughly egoistic will. https://iep.utm.edu/mean-ear/


If Schop's world is inherently irrational, how can we find enobling meaning in suffering?

This is extremely uncharitable... This is dismissive, trivializing, mocking, etc. all with admittedly not reading much of his ideas. This is a transparent smear campaign! — schopenhauer1

I wasn't talking about , but about a dismal worldview that is not amenable to my own. From comments by other philosophers, I concluded long ago that "his ideas" were not conducive to rational philosophy*1*2*3. As depressed Hamlet said, "there is nothing either good or bad but thinking makes it so. To me, it is a prison". He wishes that his “thinking” would allow him to live out his life in ignorance, insentient of the tragedies of his polarized political world, in which fatherly kings can be slain, by a treacherous mother. The Will of the world may seem "aimless", in that it is not aimed at yours truly. But, the Will of a human is aim-able by intention.

Sure, sh*t happens, but I don't have to sit sourly in the stinky sh*thouse, breathing its stench, after the bad stuff has been "eradicated" from my person. On a more positive note, I found the Buddha-like quote below, about not dwelling on depressive thoughts. A more balanced worldview does not have to be "deluded". The Carlin quote above, echoes the Buddha, in that desire for an unattainable perfect world can be the cause of psychological suffering. Maybe Schop should heed his own advice. Compared to images of the serene Buddha, Schop's portraits as an old man look pretty grim.

If Schop's absurd, perverse, strife-filled world is "Idealism", I prefer the imperfect Real one, where I can sit quietly in my little relatively strife-free zone of willful ignorance, and read a book, without thinking tragic thoughts. I apologize if I indirectly offended you in my post to Wayfarer. It was not a critique of Schop's corpus of work, but of his gloomy opinion of cosmic Will, especially as it manifests in human behavior. :smile:



*1. Arthur Schopenhauer was among the first 19th century philosophers to contend that at its core, the universe is not a rational place. Inspired by Plato and Kant, both of whom regarded the world as being more amenable to reason,
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/schopenhauer/

*2. In the sphere of thought, absurdity and perversity remain the masters of the world, and their dominion is suspended only for brief periods.
___ Arthur Schopenhauer

*3. As a man thinketh, so is his worldview
“Do not eat the bread of a miser,
Nor desire his delicacies;
For as he thinks in his heart, so is he."
___ Proverbs 23:7

I still think the opening few sentences of WWR are among the immortal utterances of philosophy:
“The world is my idea”. — Wayfarer

I can see why Kastrup might endorse Schopenhauer's analytical Idealism, and why you could appreciate his notion of a Mind Created World. But I have never been able to get on board with his Debbie Downer*1 "wanh, wanh, wah" Pessimism and Roseanne Rosannadana "it's always something" Cynicism. Hence, I've never attempted to actually read any of his "succinct" prose. All I know of his work is limited to his aphorisms. One of which inspired my latest contrarian blog entry*2.

Was Schopenhauer right : that the world is a sh*thole, and human sh*t is the worst kind? So, abandon all hope, ye who enter this hell on Earth? Or was the Buddha right : that the world is a sh*thole, but willful humans can look up at the holy seat and follow the light to get out of nastiness, and into Nirvana? It may be true that sentience is the ability to suffer, but it's also the ability to know and to enjoy.

Is it true that optimistic Idealism is self-refuting? Leibniz said this sh*thole is the best possible world --- considering the compromised circumstance : that God & Satan are competing to run this defiled paradise. But his hopeful Idealism was ridiculed by Voltaire's cynical sarcasm*3. If this imperfect world is "my idea" why is it far less than ideal?

In the OP, found Schopenhauer's "denial of the will to live" --- what 180 labeled Antinatalism*4 ---off-putting. Since he was influenced by Buddhism, why didn't Schop find inner peace? Why didn't he follow the eightfold path to Nirvana? Schop's ironic Idealism seems to imply that he & we project our dismal depression onto our mind-made worldview. That's contrary to a traditional notion of "Ideal" as perfect and all good. Like Voltaire, he derided Leibniz's Theodicy , that this is the best possible world. But, unlike the Stoics, he didn't advise that we create the best possible life from an imperfect world.

Schopenhauer's assessment of the human condition seemed to be similar to that of the Buddha : "the cause of suffering is Desire" ; and of Stoicism : "Stoicism teaches that we should discern our desires carefully"*5. But both of those philosophies offered a way to a more positive outlook. Yet Schop took a darker branch of the Buddha's path of enlightenment*6. One commentator observed : "If he was indeed depressed, it was depression as an intellectual disposition, not the usual sense of the word "depressed" {see Carlin quote below}. Consequently, I find his harsh intellectual analytical Realistic Idealism to be depressing --- intellectually of course, not emotionally. :worry:


*1. Debbie & Roseanna are Saturday Night Live characters

*2. Schopenhauer’s Will as Intention :
In his 1818 book, The World as Will and Representation, philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer “identifies the thing-in-itself — the inner essence of everything — as will: a blind, unconscious, aimless striving devoid of knowledge”. Hence the material world, as represented in a conscious mind, is more like a challenging ever-changing dynamic system than an inert material object. For most humans though, Willpower is presumed to be both self-control and control over the environment. Hence, neither “aimless” nor “devoid of knowledge”. Will is intentional in the sense that an idea ─ a desire, need, goal ─ in the metaphysical mind is directed out into the physical world, as-if the immaterial mind had some ability to affect material objects. I’m not talking about mind-over-matter magic, but about human technology, the application of knowledge (information) for practical physical purposes : i.e. Science.
http://bothandblog8.enformationism.info/page19.html

*3. Voltaire is a cynic (someone who believes people are selfish) and a misanthrope (someone who dislikes humanity)
https://webpages.uidaho.edu/engl_258/lecture%20notes/voltaire_and_candide.htm

*4. Side note : the Wiki entry on Antinatalism has a picture of Schopenhauer.

*5. Desire is want --- lack of something needed --- but it's also the motivation (Will) to acquire something to fill that need.

*6. The dark philosophy :
"Schopenhauer developed a distrust of people in general, a depressed view of the world, an inability to maintain close relationships with anyone ..."
https://eternalisedofficial.com/2022/03/25/philosophy-of-

Oh no, that's not it. I'm just saying that it cannot do what it doesn't do. This is the law of non-contradiction: it states that contradictory propositions cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time.
Hence it cannot simply be omniscient when it interacts with the universe. The only way the demon can be omniscient about an universe is when it's not part of it. And when it's not part of it, it cannot give any information to anybody (interact with it, in general). — ssu

I'm not sure what the "contradictory propositions" are in this case. Are you talking about A> knowing-Omniscience vs B> acting-Immanence : design & creation of A> perfect self-adjusting evolutionary space-time system vs B> imperfect mechanism requiring occasional adjustments (interactions ; interventions) to physical settings? "A" would leave the creator-demon outside the creation, but "B" would require the demon to stick-around to tweak the dials of Nature to keep it on track.

As I understand Laplace's metaphor of godless purposeless Determinism, it postulates setting Initial Conditions, but not subsequent demonic-intellect "interventions", and would play-out via random physical interactions ; not by divine dial-tweaking. That would be equivalent to the Big Bang Theory, in which the Singularity (the Demon) was a physical state similar to a Black Hole. There was no prior intention or later intervention. That super-dense dot of matter/energy simply exploded. And the happenstance state of the Singularity set the initial conditions for the Bang, which physically determined all future evolutions of matter/energy, which are destined to die in a Big Sigh.

The philosophical problem with the burgeoning*1 Singularity postulation is : C> how did it get into that particular state, and D> what caused the imploded matter to explode? One proposed answer to C & D is that a previous incarnation of a hypothetical Multiverse ended with all matter compacted into a Black Hole, which "bounced" back into a reverse of the implosion motion : an explosion*2.

The Singularity-Demon metaphor could be explained as the intake of knowledge (information) from a previous (precedental) world experiment, which made it effectively omniscient about the new (subsequent) venture in world-making. If the cause & effect are imagined as natural & accidental, then no Creative Intention was necessary to Cause the eruption of an embryonic Cosmos, providentially furnished with DNA/information from a parent world.

Of course, the Mutiverse-Big-Bounce theory is just as unverifiable as a Demonic or Genesis creation story. So, we are arguing about the credibility of a scientific Myth. What's "true" in the metaphor, is not necessarily true in the real world. So, we're back to the OP question of the role of Information and Randomness in our Organic and Entropic world. :nerd:


*1. Burgeoning : beginning to grow or increase rapidly; flourishing.

*2. The Big Bounce hypothesis is a cosmological model for the origin of the known universe. It was originally suggested as a phase of the cyclic model or oscillatory universe interpretation of the Big Bang, where the first cosmological event was the result of the collapse of a previous universe.[1][2][3][4] It receded from serious consideration in the early 1980s after inflation theory emerged as a solution to the horizon problem, which had arisen from advances in observations revealing the large-scale structure of the universe.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bounce

Everything is truly predetermined. The future is what it will be. There is simply no room for choice, chance or randomness.
The negative self-reference refutes this possibility. — ssu

Some self-reference is necessary to have a self-concept. So I guess you're saying that Laplace's demon is omniscient until it begins to doubt its own abilities : to have a negative bias against itself. However, there may be another interpretation of that negative-self-reflection notion*1.

The Centipede story*2 is an illustration of the psychological effect of too much self-concern, or introspection. Normally, the centipede is able to walk by instinct, without consciously thinking about how to coordinate so many legs. But when her focus is directed from a single goal to the many steps in between, a subconscious process (no need for choice) became a conscious concern (necessity for choosing). I suppose you could say that the complex walking procedure was "predetermined" by instinctive genetics, until it became a rational mechanical design problem.

What would cause the demon's intellect to change her cosmic worldview from A> frozen totally-non-random block-time eternal-isness, to B> dynamic space-time partly-randomized evolution-over-eons? If predestination is switched to free-will, then every step becomes a problem to be solved. Hence, the demon might get distracted from the simple "why?" of the world, to questions of "when & where & how", then confused by so many contradictory options, might fall in the ditch of choice-paralysis*3. :smile:

*1. Negative Self-Reference : "question our assumptions"
https://thenegativepsychologist.com/trap-self-reference/

*2. The Centipede's Dilemma :
The centipede effect occurs when a normally automatic or unconscious activity is disrupted by consciousness of it or reflection on it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Centipede%27s_Dilemma
A centipede was happy – quite!
Until a toad in fun
Said, "Pray, which leg moves after which?"
This raised her doubts to such a pitch,
She fell exhausted in the ditch
Not knowing how to run.


*3. the paradox of choice suggests that having too many choices actually limits our freedom.
https://thedecisionlab.com/reference-guide/economics/the-paradox-of-choice

My take is - and this is another digression, but what the heck - there is no electron until it is measured. — Wayfarer

OFF TOPIC AGAIN. You might want to move these devolutionary digressions to a new or old thread : Realism vs Idealism or Phenomenal vs Noumenal, or Physical vs Metaphysical.

Bohr's mysterious comment seems to be implying that the physical phenomenal (real) world is eternally meta-physical noumenal (ideal) until a sentient observer releases it from its non-existent imprisonment in a genie bottle. But Wheeler made a similar -- strange but not quite so spooky -- suggestion : that there is a single-universal-electron, lurking out in the not-yet-real Future, which when probed by an intrusive inquiring mind "collapses" a part of the whole anonymous-set-of-possibilities into the knowable-nameable-Now. If so, we can add Potential vs Actual to the list of digressive dilemmas. :worry:

One electron or no electron :
The one-electron universe postulate, proposed by theoretical physicist John Wheeler in a telephone call to Richard Feynman in the spring of 1940, is the hypothesis that all electrons and positrons are actually manifestations of a single entity moving backwards and forwards in time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-electron_universe

When those elementary particles are entangled, acting holistically, are they real or ideal? These are philosophical questions about physical & meta-physical states of being. — Gnomon

In my own attempts to make sense of quantum queerness, I have postulated that an "entangled" particle is unknowable only because it is immersed in a holistic system of particles, like a drop of H2O in the ocean. If so, how does the observer pry-apart the entangled mass of particles in order to isolate a single part from the whole? Does the observer imagine the revealed particle by analyzing part-from-whole, or conjure from scratch, ex nihilo? Does the inquiring mind "create" a real world from scratch, or an ideal world-model from concepts? Is this physics or metaphysics?

Presumably, this question is only a problem for scientists poking around in the invisible foundations of Reality. The rest of us look at a table and see only a functional item of furniture, not a swarm of buzzing atoms. That's merely a matter of scale, not of matter vs mind, right?. We're not creating the Real (physical) world out of Ideal (metaphysical) whole-cloth, are we? There is some pre-existing something out-there for us to see, isn't there? :wink:

From Scratch : American idiom
made from raw materials, or from nothing

Made out of Whole Cloth : American Idiom
completely fictitious or false; made up.

Metaphysical : abstract abstruse esoteric mystical philosophical spiritual supernatural theoretical

I’m curious about your reaction to his take on the ’mind-dependence’ of the world.
<< Dreyfus and Spinosa do much the same-‘consequently they are led to suppose that there is no possibility of access to things `in themselves’ from within the framework of the everyday and that the defence of scientific realism must therefore depend on severing the scientific from our ordinary, everyday access to things >>. — Joshs

OFF-TOPIC : not specifically about evolution vs alternative theories of how we got to here

Since my knowledge of the long-running Realism vs Idealism debate is minimal, I would also be interested in 's response to the Malpas quote. But, until he replies to your post, I'll muse a bit about my own perplexity toward Kant's Phenomenal vs Noumenal world.

Obviously, Phenomena are what "ordinary" humans sense in the world around them. Ostensibly, that's also what empirical science studies. With the possible exception of quantum scale physics, which is beyond the scope of unaided senses, and requires subjective interpretation of uncertain observations. As an "ordinary" observer, I have never sensed any sub-atomic Phenomena. So, for me, "neutrons" are just as noumenal as nature-spirits. In professional practice, extra-sensory Noumena (dings ; ideas ; symbols ; representations ; mental models) are typically relegated for study by "extraordinary" philosophers and psychologists.

The beginning of that division of labor seems to fade in the mists of ancient time. Some of the early noumenalists were thinkers like Plato and Lao Tse. But Aristotle, in his Physics, seemed to implicitly draw a line between our objective sensory observations of the physical world, and our subjective rational analysis of what we see. The former is what we now know as Physics, and the latter became known as Meta-Physics. Some classify metaphysics are merely "religious dogma". But I think Aristotle viewed it as philosophical extrapolations from phenomenal experience : e.g. First Principles.

For ordinary people like me, the existence of the supra-atomic world is unquestionable, until we get down to the sub-atomic realm, which requires imagination to perceive. So, are such things as entangled Electrons Real or Ideal? Electrons & Photons are supposed to be fundamental to physics, but do they qualify as ding an sich? Although we can sense the heat & light of their passing, if we can't see & touch them, are they really real? If so, in what sense do we have "access" to them? When those elementary particles are entangled, acting holistically, are they real or ideal? These are philosophical questions about physical & metaphysical reality. :smile:


Thing-in-itself :
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
Note --- Are dings physical objects even when nobody is looking at them?

Mind-Dependence :
Idealism is the thesis that the world is mind-dependent. In particular, the things we call material objects are dependent on the mind for their existence: to be is to be perceived. Realism is the thesis that the world is mind-independent, so that material objects can exist whether perceived or not.
https://www.colinmcginn.net/mind-dependence/
Note --- Does this mean that ideal entangled electrons wait patiently for a physicist to poke his nose into their business before they reveal themselves as real independent particles?

Again the objective view relegates us to blip-hood in our own minds. — Wayfarer

Yes. That's why the quantum physics discovery of an active role for the observer challenged the Copernican Principle, that Earth and its inhabitants entail less than .00001% of the matter in the universe. But your focus on who is doing the observing implies that -- as far as we know -- earthbound subjective observers constitute at least 99% of the sentience in the world. The contrast in those views reveals the values of each commentator : Mind or Matter. :nerd:

I've been reading The Huxleys, Alison Bashford. — Wayfarer

I noticed that Chapter 2 of the book labeled the insignificant "blips" in the universe as "trustees of evolution". A "trustee" is one who administers the affairs, and makes decisions, on behalf another who is incapable. Hardly a role for a mere blip. :wink:

The Huxleys, An Intimate History of Evolution :
2 Trustees of Evolution: The Intellectual Inheritance
https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/H/bo187886458.html

It also shows that T H H was scrupulously agnostic, as distinct from atheist, and that he disdained the Dawkin's style of scorched-earth scientific atheism. — Wayfarer

Ironically, in his book debunking Theism --- although he dismissed it as "watered down theism" --- Dawkins admitted that Deism could be considered the "god of the physicist". It was probably Blaise Pascal, the god-gambling philosopher, who dismissed Deism as "the god of the philosophers. :cool:

The God Delusion :
The debate was titled "Has Science Buried God?", in which Dawkins used a form of an Eddington concession in saying that, although he would not accept it, a reasonably respectable case could be made for "a deistic god, a sort of god of the physicist, a god of somebody like Paul Davies, who devised the laws of physics, ..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_God_Delusion

We’re the only ‘tiny fraction of the cosmos’ who know what that means. It’s amusing in the extreme that objective science, which is a cognitive mode only available to h. Sapiens, then declares its authors insignificant in the ‘grand scheme’ - a grand scheme that is their own mental creation!
(I have read that that Tipler book is unbridled nonsense, but the Tipler and Barrow book The Cosmic Anthropic Principle seems reasonably well-regarded.) — Wayfarer

Yes, but I'd say : "bemusing". The Weak Anthropic Principle*1 seems to be reasonable & uncontroversial. And in accordance with scientific guidelines. But Strong AP interpretations go beyond un-interpreted "self-evident" facts, to infer that intelligent observers were inevitable or even intentional. So, it's conjecture, not verified fact; hypothesis not observation. The authors, both physical scientists, try to make it clear when they cross the line.

The conjecture of 'Fine Tuning" raises the spectre of Intelligent Design. It also contradicts a common presumption of many scientists and philosophers : the Copernican Principle*2, which trivializes your observation that mere human observers & inquisitors are the ones asking the cosmic questions*3. To whom else would it matter if the world was a fortuitous accident? To whom would a world of intrinsic intention (meaning) be regarded as "unbridled nonsense"? To whom would Teleology be a "bad interpretation" of a directional pattern in evolution?

Modern Cosmology traces, in retrospect, the development of a hypothetical initial eruption of energy & matter from an unknown Prior State --- which contradicts the law of thermodynamics : that nothing moves without an internal (animation) or external (momentum) Cause. This uninterpreted model of Origins is satisfactory for the worldviews of Physicalism and Materialism, only if homo sapiens is presumed to be an "insignificant" accident of history. But most of us smart apes tend to hold a higher opinion of our role in an uncaring world : to care about what happens, and to whom it happens. That non-mechanical affect-of-feeling is hard to imagine as a random accident of gambling atoms. Hence, the Hard Problem. :smile:


*1. The anthropic principle is the belief that, if we take human life as a given condition of the universe, scientists may use this as the starting point to derive expected properties of the universe as being consistent with creating human life. It is a principle which has an important role in cosmology, specifically in trying to deal with the apparent fine-tuning of the universe.
https://www.thoughtco.com/what-is-the-anthropic-principle-2698848
Note --- The uncanny "fine-tuning" of many dimensionless constants was a surprising observation. That those numbers are also necessary to permit life to emerge, was an unexpected inference. Together, those fortuitous "facts" are used in the "FT argument" to imply that evolution is not completely random, but follows rules compatible with "life as we know it".

*2. The Copernican Principle :
Which asserts as a “principle” – based on 17th century observations – that “we [humans] do not occupy a privileged position in the Universe”. To which, the authors reply that “our location in the universe is necessarily privileged to the extent of being compatible with our existence as observers”.
https://bothandblog7.enformationism.info/page10.html
Note --- If astronomer-occupied Earth is not in a "privileged" position to judge the provenance of their own Life & Mind, where else would be a better perch for observation of the Cosmos as a whole system? Where better, except the view-from-everywhere of a god, or omniscient other-worldy alien?

*3. How The Anthropic Principle Became The Most Abused Idea In Science :
Barrow and Tipler go further, and offer alternative interpretations, including:
a. The Universe, as it exists, was designed with the goal of generating and sustaining observers.
b. Observers are necessary to bring the Universe into being.
c. An ensemble of Universes with different fundamental laws and constants are necessary for our Universe to exist.
If that last one sounds a lot like a bad interpretation of the multiverse, it's because all of Barrow and Tipler's scenarios are based on bad interpretations of a self-evident principle!
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/01/26/how-the-anthropic-principle-became-the-most-abused-idea-in-science/?sh=a2235d77d690
Note --- Strong TAP is a "bad interpretation" only because it contradicts the objective empirical science principle of Parsimony : avoiding assumptions & imputations that are not evident. Hence, it is a philosophical conjecture, not a scientific observation. Besides, in practice, the simplest solution is not always the most accurate. The book does not claim that TAP is empirical or verifiable; it's just a hypothesis.
a. Intentional design is taboo for Modern Science. b. Self-creating observers is spooky. c. An infinite multiverse is compatible with Physicalism, but an eternal spiritual Creator is not. And neither is empirically verifiable. So, what would option "d." be?

*4. The Anthropic Cosmological Principle :
In the foreword, prominent physicist John Archibald Wheeler summarized the philosophical meaning of this scientific data : “It is not only that man is adapted to the universe . . .”, as implied by Darwin’s Theory of Evolution, but that, “the universe is adapted to man.” He goes on to assert the “central point of the anthropic principle”, that “a life-giving factor² lies at the centre of the whole machinery and design of the world.”
https://bothandblog7.enformationism.info/page10.html
Note --- That "life-giving factor" is what Bateson labeled elan vital, and others Chi or Prana. My own term for the evolutionary engine combines Energy with Information : EnFormAction.

He (Laplaca) doesn't need a math Demon or God. Because there is no selection done. — ssu

I'm afraid you're getting way over my head, since I know nothing about Laplace, except for a couple of famous quotes. I assume you're referring to Laplacian Scores (I Googled "Laplace Selection"), but I won't be able to follow your reasoning on that "score".

However, I do infer that his reference to an "Intellect", capable of knowledge that is beyond human ability, was an oblique reference to a god-like mind, without using that taboo word in a scientific context. Later philosophers made the same inference, but used a different term, "demon"*1, to indirectly imply super-human observation & calculation powers. :nerd:

*1. Laplace's Demon :
This intellect is often referred to as Laplace's demon (and sometimes Laplace's Superman, after Hans Reichenbach). Laplace himself did not use the word "demon", which was a later embellishment.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laplace%27s_demon

If you define the future being that will truly happen in reality, you do have determinism: no chance, no choice, no uncertainty. It's really the block universe, everything is predetermined, like this discussion with you and others. It will go only one way and that's it. — ssu

I doubt that Einstein intended for his as-if Block Universe metaphor to be taken literally. But, as you noted, such a world would be completely predestined, and unlike the probabilistic (partly randomized) reality*2 that us humans have to deal with. Perhaps you are arguing against Causal Determinism*3, as an argument against human Choice & FreeWill. If so, I'd have to agree with you. :smile:

*2. Order within Chaos :
Chaos is where things are so complex that you can't handle it and order is where things are so rigid that it's too restrictive. In between that is a place that's meaningful; where you're partly stabilized and partly curious.
https://zaidkdahhaj.medium.com/how-to-practically-understand-order-chaos-8c4fefb12e30

*3. Determinism :
Determinism is the philosophical view that all events in the universe, including human decisions and actions, are causally inevitable.
https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Determinism

But then there is the real twist: this understanding of the universe is useless for us. We cannot model it, we cannot extrapolate from it because we are part of the universe and thus we have this limitation on modelling. — ssu

I'm not very familiar with Wolpert or Cantor, so "diagonalization" doesn't mean much to me. I suppose our "limitation on modeling" means that, pace Einstein, most of us parts-of-the-whole are not even close to omniscient. What does "negative self-reference" mean to you? In layman's terms, please. :wink:

Buddhism, for one example, has had this creed of "no origin" for a few millennia now. — javra
Buddhism actually has a rather strange and not very well known creation story. — Wayfarer

I'm no expert on Buddhist beliefs, but a quick Google indicates that there is no single dogma on the topic of Evolution ; instead there are "schools of thought"*1. One description*2 sounds like a world marking-time -- marching in place -- without any progress : perhaps an eternal alternation between Potential & Actual : cosmic vibrations of positive & negative energy. However, the rapidity of alternations might make a series of still-shots look like a movie, to an outside observer.

The oscillating-non-progressive school of thought makes no sense in the light of modern physics, unless you interpret those eternal positive/negative alternations as the essence of creative Energy vibrations (or quantum fluctuations) that could serve as the Cause of our Big Bang model. That flickering-reality notion might accord with the Many Worlds interpretation of Quantum Uncertainty : "This implies that all possible outcomes of quantum measurements are physically realized in some "world" or universe" ___Wiki.

Like Buddhist traditions, modern cosmology has produced a variety of explanations (opinions ; schools of thought) for the existence of our evolving home-world. The Big Bang theory even sets a birth-date for the beginning of our own bubble of space-time. But a "no origin" theory avoids the Creation problem by arguing that Time is only local*3, implying that space-time-vacuum energy is eternally creative of local bubbles. Despite the various hypothetical attempts to work around the empirical evidence for Creation From Nothing, the most logically acceptable explanation*4 for existence is the one with a creation event evocative of Genesis*5. :smile:


*1. No Beginning vs Alternation of Potential/Actual :
There are three schools of thought regarding the origin of the world. The first school of thought claims that this world came into existence by nature and that nature is not an intelligent force. However, nature works on its own accord and goes on changing.
The second school of thought says that the world was created by an almighty God who is responsible for everything.
The third school of thought says that the beginning of this world and of life is inconceivable since they have neither beginning nor end. Buddhism is in accordance with this third school of thought. Bertrand Russell supports this school of thought by saying, 'There is no reason to suppose that the world had a beginning at all. The idea that things must have a beginning is really due to the poverty of our thoughts.'
https://www.budsas.org/ebud/whatbudbeliev/297.htm
Note --- "No Reason" ? see *4 & *5.

*2. Buddhism and Evolution :
Buddhists believe the beginning of this world and of life is inconceivable since they have neither beginning nor end. Buddhists believe that the world was not created once upon a time, but that the world has been created millions of times every second and will continue to do so by itself and will break away by itself.
https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/33133

*3. Does time have a beginning? :
After the Second World War, two different schools came to dominate cosmological thinking. One told a story in which time begins at the Big Bang, while in the other, there is no cosmic time and no Big Bang — time passes locally, but the Universe remains the same on average. The two schools would go to battle to decide who was right.
https://bigthink.com/13-8/does-time-have-a-beginning/

*4. Is the Big Bang still the most accepted theory?
A wide range of empirical evidence strongly favors the Big Bang event, which is now essentially universally accepted.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

*5. Creation with a Bang :
The most popular theory of our universe's origin centers on a cosmic cataclysm unmatched in all of history—the big bang. The best-supported theory of our universe's origin centers on an event known as the big bang.
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/origins-of-the-universe

Does life have any potential to be anything beyond suffering, or is that too much of a pessimistic stance? — Arnie

No and Yes. All living organisms must be able to sense both positive and negative environmental impacts on Self. So, focusing solely on the negative is Pessimism, unbalanced by Optimism. Such an attitude only adds to the suffering, by ignoring the soothing. The Good is not beyond the Bad, but parallel to it. :smile:

When you read that, I don't see any reference to any open ended question rather than perhaps the difficulty of knowing "all forces that set nature in motion" and obviously "all positions of all items of which nature is composed". — ssu

Your quote is exactly the "open-ended question" I referred to. Is it possible to calculate the future position and momentum of multiple particles accurately enough to predestine the end of the world? The "intellect" he postulated is not any known entity in the physical world, so others labeled it a "demon" or "daimon". For the ancient Greeks, a daemon was a lesser deity with limited powers. But for Enlightenment Age philosophers & scientists, the term "demon" was an oblique reference to an omniscient being, which for Christians would be the unlimited deity known as "God".

Laplace's hypothetical metaphor was open on both ends, in the sense that a> it postulated a supernatural entity to serve as a stand-in for Christianity's deterministic creator, and b> in his assumption that future events, to the end of the physical world, could be prophesied by the all-knowing daimon, presumably by mathematical calculations. However, years later mathematicians bumped heads with the "three-body problem" of complexity, and eventually Goedel concluded that human mathematics will never be able to predict world events (e.g. weather) beyond a few days in advance.

Those impediments would doom "natural" computations of far future events. So, only a truly omniscient & omnipotent supernatural deity would be able to create a predestined world, with a certain beginning and end. Hence, Laplace's mere "difficulty" for a far-sighted daemon, would be "impossible" for a natural being, living within the incredibly complex system he's modeling. Ironically, some modern scientists, working with a classical model of reality, ignore the role of Chance, Choice, and Uncertainty. :nerd:

"Laplace's Demon" concerns the idea of determinism, namely the belief that the past completely determines the future. Clearly, one can see why determinism was so attractive to scientists (and philosophers — determinism has roots that can be traced back to Socrates). Indeed, this passage had a strong influence on setting the course of science for years to come, and by the early 1800's determinism had become very firmly entrenched among many scientists. In Laplace's world everything would be predetermined — no chance, no choice, and no uncertainty.
https://www.stsci.edu/~lbradley/seminar/laplace.html

The next question is that can randomness be defined also with this phenomenon in mathematics? After all, if you have an random string, you cannot extrapolate how it's going to continue from what it has been. — ssu

Yes. That's why natural evolution must harmonize Random Mutations with specific Selection Criteria. Working together, these complementary factors combine freedom for exploration of solutions with limitations on the combinations that will survive into the next generation. But who does the selecting? A math Demon? :smile:

I'm not a deist, but I don't see that the position that something created the universe any more or any less problematic than to say that the universe was uncaused. The deist needn't posit anything to do with intent or purpose either. He need only say the universe was caused by some cause. As to what caused the deistic god to come into being, the deist lays the mystery there, in the god, the thing that defies causation. — Hanover

At least you are open-minded on the question of origins. Some posters on TPF are self-labeled Absurdists*1. For them, asking about Origins & Causes is irrelevant to their meaningless life. But I suspect that most of us on this forum are not quite so apprehensive or pessimistic about open-ended philosophical questions. We humans seem to be innately curious*2 about the causal history prior to important observed events and processes : i.e. a Reason for Being. Rather than using contemporary humanoid gods to explain the existence & operation of our world, Plato and Aristotle postulated descriptive abstract labels such as First Cause and Prime Mover.

Darwin's theory of Evolution was probably intentionally left open-ended. But subsequent scientists have never ceased to push back the Chain of Change, seeking a priori. For example, 20th century astronomers attempted to turn-back the clock, with empirical evidence, to see when/where the first step in cosmic expansion/emergence occurred . This led to the Big Bang conjecture, which only incited additional questing for a more satisfactory beginning of the storyline than just "once upon a time".

Non-empirical hypothetical attempts to fill-in the before-big-bang gap include : a> quantum field fluctuations, b> eternally cycling Multiverse, c> Penrose cycling universe, d> exponential inflation of low entropy universe, e> zero-point energy of empty space, etc. All of these assume eternal existence of some unspecified or vague Creative Potential. And most are simply mechanical or accidental or Random, with no awareness or intention or Purpose (enabling Information). But whatever that cryptic world-causing Event/Entity*3*4 was, we know for sure that it has created creatures with both awareness and intention : us TPF posters, for example.

So, explaining where inquisitive Mind originated is a harder problem (mystery) than imagining where lumpish Matter came from (theory). Deists don't claim to know the answer to the unyielding "Hard Problem", but they typically infer that self-conscious animated Sentience could not emerge naturally from inert Matter or entropic Energy without some defining Information (formula). Hence, the reference to a generic Deus*5 : (1 = X). :smile:


*1. Absurdism is the philosophical theory that the universe is irrational and meaningless. It states that trying to find meaning leads people into a conflict
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absurdism

*2. What did Einstein say about curiosity?
“The important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existing".

*3. Deus otiosus : a creator God who has entirely withdrawn from governing the universe after creating it or is no longer involved in its daily operation

*4. Deus absconditus : hidden god

*5. Deism : immanent creative Force

X

But Laplace really missed the point that a forecast of the future can have an effect on the future, the subjectivity of this entity — ssu

I don't know that Laplace "missed the point". Perhaps, in order to keep his metaphor simple, he avoided getting into the open-ended question : "is foreknowledge deterministic?" :smile:

Why is this important? My view is that people think this is some kind of "problem" that needs to be fixed, averted or bypassed by some method. In fact it's a very important limitation itself, especially when you think just what something "random" should be. — ssu

I'm not sure what "this" refers to : a> foreknowledge = determinism? b> omniscience = omnipotence? c> randomness = incompleteness?

I'm also not sure of what the "problem" is that needs to be fixed : a> subjectivity = negative self-reference? b> randomness = indeterminism? c> negative self reference = unquestioned assumptions?

What does "this" have to do with Laplace's demon or the OP question about the equation of randomness and information? :nerd:

Would you agree that an omniscient entity is preternatural? — Gnomon
Omniscient?
You can turn that other way: anything part of the university cannot be omniscient. — ssu

Yes. That's why Laplace postulated a preternatural "demon" instead of a natural scientist, to keep track of all positions and motions in the world, from his objective observatory outside the universe.

Laplace had confidently responded to Napoleon's question, about a place for God in his theories of a deterministic world : "I have no need for that hypothesis". Yet, his argument for determinism used a god-substitute to make his point that natural laws leave no gaps for divine intervention. Ironically, the demonic entity would need to know all natural laws and all physical properties in order to predetermine the future development of the whole universe.

On the other hand, Maxwell's demon --- organizing only gas particles in a box, instead of an entire universe --- may not need to be omniscient, just uncannily knowledgeable and quick ; in order to violate the Second Law. In both cases of teleological determinism, the prophetic or organizing entity must be able to comprehend current complexity and future complications arising from lawful interactions of zillions of zooming particles. :cool:

PS___ A> Teleological Determinism is not the same as B> Theological Determinism. "A" requires only an unidentified philosophical (axiomatic) First Cause, while "B" specifies the creator deity of some historical religious myth.


Q: How is quantum mechanics an obstacle for the demon?
A: The demon’s job is to determine the future of the entire universe from initial conditions and the laws of physics and he’s got the brains to do it.
https://elements.lbl.gov/news/spooky-science-laplaces-demon/

Laplace's demon as a secular substitute for an omniscient God with perfect foreknowledge.
https://www.informationphilosopher.com/freedom/laplaces_demon.html

Laplace's demon is omniscient and god-like: no mortal could ever hope to have the kind of perfect knowledge that Laplace alludes ...
https://www.bayesianspectacles.org/laplaces-demon/

The future is determined. This is known as scientific determinism. Laplace expanded this idea to the entire universe – if some creature knew everything's position and motion at one moment, then the laws of physics would give it complete knowledge of the future.
https://elements.lbl.gov/news/spooky-science-laplaces-demon/

By definition a metaphorical demon is not part of the real world, hence super-natural. It "interacts" only in hypothetical worlds. — Gnomon
I'm not sure that Laplace himself thought so. His idea was this kind of idea of extrapolation to the extreme, if an entity would have all the information at hand and all the laws of nature. That idea is false, because it doesn't take into account that any entity is part of the world. This is usually referred to being part of the problem that Quantum physics brings to us, but surely the problem is far more general. — ssu

Would you agree that an omniscient entity is preternatural? Non-omniscient human observers of quantum events cannot be as objective & well-informed as a metaphorical demon seeing the world from a privileged perspective. Hence, the Quantum Observer Effect. :smile:

Laplace's supernatural demon :
The demon must be an outside observer of the deterministic universe.
https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/104560/could-laplaces-demon-be-the-universe-itself

OFF-TOPIC : non-random evolution

Orthogenesis, on the other hand, is an evolutionary hypothesis suggesting that life has an inherent tendency to evolve in a unilinear direction towards some kind of predetermined goal or ideal form. This concept implies that evolution is guided by an internal or directional force rather than by random mutations and environmental pressures.

As I was developing my own personal philosophical worldview, I was prejudiced against Intelligent Design arguments by the mainstream scientific accusations, that it required faith in the God of Genesis. But I had rejected that ancient hypothesis when I reached the age of Reason. Instead, I was impressed by emerging developments in various threads of scientific understanding in the 21st century, pointing toward Teleology or Teleonomy in evolution.

Surprisingly, even Darwin, in the primitive 19th century, postulated something like natural laws that regulated biological change in order to "select" fitter organisms for reproduction*1. Unfortunately, he lacked knowledge of chemical genes to serve as biological memory from one generation to another. In our own time though --- using randomly generated mutations and electronic memory and software selection (regulations, algorithms) --- computerized engineering*2 has learned to emulate Nature in its law-like limitations on replication to design improved or novel forms of technology.

Anyway, the term "orthogenesis" was "obsolete" long before my time. So, I had to rediscover the concept of directional evolution on my own. Several threads of empirical and theoretical science were attesting to the complementary roles of disorderly Randomness and orderly Natural Laws. But they carefully avoided any words suggestive of Teleological progression. Consequently, I had to coin my own terms --- EnFormAction and Enformy --- to encapsulate the concept of a natural tendency toward increasing complexity & coordination in physical processes. Being inherent in nature, these "laws" required no occasional divine interventions.

Another such orthogenetic thread is the surprising effectiveness of Artificial Selection in designing complex products for specific functions*3. Also, to the chagrin of most scientists, Secular Cosmology arrived at the Big Bang model of our universe, ironically reminiscent of a creation event. From that First Event, the physical world began to expand & evolve, from near nothing to almost everything*4, along a "unilinear" Arrow of Time, as portrayed in the image below. Note the progressive Phases*5 that emerge along the way, despite the random fluctuations within the quantum foundation of physical reality. Another thread was the developments in Information Theory, which portray mathematical information as both a causal and organizing force in the physical universe*6.

I could present lots of circumstantial scientific evidence in this post, but none of it would carry the weight of scientific orthodoxy that Modern Physics has constructed as a wall of separation between Religious Dogma and Empirical "Truth". FWIW : my personal name for that "internal or directional force", powering & guiding evolution, is EnFormAction (causation + information), of which physical energy is the best known form. :smile:

*1. Laws of Evolution :
Correlation of Growth, as Darwin called it. This law states that the specialised forms of separate parts of an organic being are always bound up with certain forms of other parts that apparently have no connection with them. . . . .
"The gradually increasing perfection of the human hand, and the commensurate adaptation of the feet for erect gait, have undoubtedly, by virtue of such correlation, reacted on other parts of the organism."
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/272577459_Orthogenesis_and_Evolution

*2. Evolutionary Programming :
Special computer algorithms inspired by biological Natural Selection. It is similar to Genetic Programming in that it relies on internal competition between random alternative solutions to weed-out inferior results, and to pass-on superior answers to the next generation of algorithms. By means of such optimizing feedback loops, evolution is able to make progress toward the best possible solution – limited only by local restraints – to the original programmer’s goal or purpose. In Enformationism theory the Prime Programmer is portrayed as a creative principle (e.g. Logos), who uses bottom-up mechanisms, rather than top-down miracles, to produce a world with both freedom & determinism, order & meaning
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page13.html

*3. Evolutionary programming is one of the four major evolutionary algorithm paradigms. It is similar to genetic programming, but the structure of the program to be optimized is fixed, while its numerical parameters are allowed to evolve.
It was first used by Lawrence J. Fogel in the US in 1960 in order to use simulated evolution as a learning process aiming to generate artificial intelligence.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_programming
Note --- The software is structured by specific limitations (laws) on selection, while the intermediate forms produced are free to explore many unspecified niches (random). Note the irony of using ChatGPT to research the roots of its own evolution.

*4. Orthogenesis and Evolution :
Misinterpretations of orthogenesis describing it as mystical, teleological and linear are invalid. The orthogenetic aspect of evolution was recognized by Darwin as "laws of growth", but was neglected in favor of natural selection. Although an internal component to evolution is recognized by contemporary biologists, it is often considered to be secondary to natural selection. Where recognition is given to an internal tendency for evolution to proceed without requiring the action of natural selection, terms such as "constraints," "bias," and "potential" may imply orthogenesis.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/272577459_Orthogenesis_and_Evolution

*5. Teleological Emergence :
Expand that notion to a Cosmological perspective, and we can identify a more general classification of stratified phase-like emergences : from Physics (energy), to Chemistry (atoms), to Biology (life), to Psychology (minds), to Sociology (global minds). Current theories attribute this undeniable stairstep progession to random accidents, sorted by “natural selection” (a code word for “evaluations” of fitness for the next phase) that in retrospect appear to be teleological, tending toward more cooperation of inter-relationships and entanglements between parts on the same level of emergence. Some AI enthusiasts even envision the ultimate evolution of a Cosmic Mind, informed by all lower level phases.
https://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page23.html

*6. The Guiding Force of Evolution :
Glattfelder reaches the same conclusion that other Information theorists have inferred : that we live in “a universe built of Information”. Again, that insight is in agreement with the Enformationism thesis. Likewise, he concludes that “overall, the universe appears to be guided by an invisible force driving it to ever higher levels of self-organized complexity”.
https://bothandblog7.enformationism.info/page19.html
Note --- Glattfelder is a "Theoretical physicist turned quant, turned complexity scientist, with a strong commitment to philosophy."


TELEOLOGICAL EVOLUTION :

It's not even predictable to the demon, if the demon is part of the world itself and has to interact with it. — ssu

By definition a metaphorical demon is not part of the real world, hence super-natural. It "interacts" only in hypothetical worlds. Hence, its predictions would be true only in the context of the metaphor. :joke:

What is "irrational infinity"? Infinite sided die seems like a sphere in 3D. — jgill

Sorry, I misspoke. According to the opinion below, Infinity is not a natural or real number, hence the rational vs irrational labels do not apply. Does that agree with your understanding?

Since infinity is un-real and non-dimensional, I assume the infinite die would be a spheroid in all non-real non-dimensions. :joke:

Infinity neither rational not irrational :
Infinity can be expressed as any fraction a0 where a is a natural number. Due to the denominator being zero, it is not rational. An irrational number is a real number that is not rational. As infinity does not exist in the real number system, it is not irrational.
https://www.quora.com/Is-infinity-a-rational-or-irrational-number

Does magic influence the world around us? Wow, what bizarre powers I wield! :cool: — jgill

I think the quote was merely making an analogy between Magic & Math --- not to be taken literally. However, perhaps you can apply your bizarre mathematical powers in a "possible world". :nerd:

What is the relationship between mathematics and reality?
Answer: When plugged into a possible world, mathematics gives us the tools to analyze the logically possible outcomes. Therefore, when a possible world that is expressed mathematically sufficiently aligns with reality, mathematics becomes effective at expressing relationships and outcomes.
https://brainly.ph/question/31124265

Those "Other Minds" may filter information about True Reality through their own private or communal prejudices. — Gnomon
Kastrup's 'dissociated alters'. — Wayfarer

Actually, the "other minds" I referred to are the perspectives of physically & mentally different people, who presumably have their own peculiar Solipsistic worldviews. Does Kastrup view his 'dissociated alters' as Other Minds in that sense?

My understanding of DID is more like demon possession. Jesus asked a demented man's possessors "what is your name?". The answer : “My name is Legion,” he replied, “for we are many.” {5 or 6 thousand soldiers}

Since I am an Introvert, a crowd of 100 alters, all babbling at the same time, would be confusing and unbearable. I would find single-self Solipsism more comfortable. In that case, other minds would be just a theory. But Wayfarer is a pretty good hypothesis. :joke:


Solipsism and the Problem of Other Minds :
Solipsism is sometimes expressed as the view that “I am the only mind which exists,” or “My mental states are the only mental states.”
https://iep.utm.edu/solipsis/

Dissociative Identity Disorder
“Alters” are your alternate personalities. Some people with DID have up to 100 alters. Alters tend to be very different from one another. The identities might have different genders, ethnicities, interests and ways of interacting with their environments.
https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/diseases/9792-dissociative-identity-disorder-multiple-personality-disorder