You use the word "science" in the same way I use "science (modern meaning)" in the OP. In that sense, I agree with you that math, logic, epistemology, metaphysics and ethics do not fall under science (modern meaning) but under philosophy (modern meaning). — A Christian Philosophy

Yes. Those thought-experiment tools (logic, etc) are used to extract general or universal meaning from personal & local experience. As a matter of fact, theoretical & mathematical physicists (e.g. Einstein & Tegmark) are actually doing philosophy, leaving the messy hands-on mechanic-work to others*1. Ironically, some believers in Scientism act as-if the reductive & empirical methods of modern Science, have eliminated the need for the ancient holistic & intuitive methods of Philosophy. Which also provided the illuminating metaphors that inform the various worldviews of Religion (e.g. Plato's LOGOS vs John's Logos).

Unfortunately. that questionable exclusionary presumption often leaves stalwarts of Sovereign Science unable to articulate the general significance of their abstruse findings*2. Hence, their explanations sometimes take the sole-authority form of "because . . . science". In other words, their proof is based on the authoritative status of the "scientific method", which differs from Philosophy in its use of telescopes, microscopes, and cyclotrons. On the other hand, Philosophy is essentially Science without artificial tools -- using only your god-given reasoning ability : both deductive and abductive.

The distinction you seem to be making is that Scientism tends to lump Philosophy & Religion together as faith-intuition-based reasoning. Whereas, another way to look at those relationships is to view Religion & Science as the offspring of Philosophy. In that case, Science concerns itself with Physics (Matter-Energy), and Religion with Metaphysics (Mind-Soul), while Philosophy covers both aspects of this "blue dot" in the cosmos, inhabited by thinking lumps of matter : Reality & Ideality. :cool:

*1. Einstein's lab is a pencil :
"The supreme task of the physicist is to arrive at those universal elementary laws from which the cosmos can be built up by pure deduction. There is no logical path to these laws; only intuition, resting on sympathetic understanding of experience, can reach them."
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein
Note -- a child once asked Einstein, "if you are a scientist, where is your laboratory?". To which he replied, wordlessly, by holding up a pencil.

Deduction : Literally subtraction of parts from wholes, specific from general, particular from universal ; analysis of integrated systems into isolated components.

Intuition : acquiring knowledge without recourse to conscious reasoning ; to know without proof ; instinctive ; holistic insights.
That's OK for the individual. But others may not intuit exactly what you feel "rings true". Hence, the necessity for logical or empirical demonstrations that are not peculiar to a single person. Yet, skeptical sounding may find that the bell is cracked, contrary to faith-based assumptions.

*2. Thus, the many Science-for-Dummies videos on YouTube, such as Science Without the Gobbedygook and Complex Questions Answered Simply.

PS___We can't depend on Empirical Physics to test the validity of Metaphysical beliefs. Skeptical Science may discover little evidence for the physical existence of Jesus (e.g. bones in a cave ; Roman records). But belief in the role of the Christ is predicated upon the axiom of a non-physical Father in Heaven. And the only evidence to support or deny that common concept is metaphysical in (super) nature, hence a Philosophical question.

Thanks for sharing. All I can respond is keep searching for truth. I'll do the same. If one of the religions is true and can be found, then philosophy, being the search for truth, will sooner or later find it. — A Christian Philosophy

FWIW, my "search for truth" was never emotionally motivated (e.g. to find a warm & welcoming religious community to replace the ultra-conservative clique I was born into)*1. Instead, it was simply a dispassionate (agape) love of Wisdom (i.e. philosophy).

My current view is that all religions are "true" for people of faith, but are "false" for those outside the faith community. So, my current "church" is a community of one not-so-true believer. Hence, I'm standing up here alone, preaching to the invisible choir. I don't recommend it for die-hard truth-seekers. :joke:

*1. That's only partly true. After I got out of the Navy, I started going to a Unity church. But that was mostly to meet "nice" girls, and only partly out of curiosity about the way-liberal Unitarian off-shoot of the Christian religion. They had a sort of Pagan/New Agey truish Truth, but it wasn't my kind of truth. The girls were nice though.

Robert Grosseteste¹ was not a 20th century "Catholic priest" but a 13th century Bishop. (re: De Luce, 1225 CE)² — 180 Proof

Thanks for the obscure info. I had never heard of Grosseteste. I was referring to Lemaître in the 20th century. And the oblique reference was merely intended to suggest that the notion of a sudden beginning to space-time would seem more reasonable to a Christian than to an Atheist. Ever since, Atheists have been trying to find alternative philosophical (hypothetical ; speculative) explanations for the scientific evidence of a creation event (something from nothing). And they are still at it. (see below). :wink:


The Big Bang no longer means what it used to :
The idea that the Universe had a beginning, or a "day without a yesterday" as it was originally known, goes all the way back to Georges Lemaître in 1927.
Although it's still a defensible position to state that the Universe likely had a beginning, that stage of our cosmic history has very little to do with the "hot Big Bang" that describes our early Universe.
Although many laypersons (and even a minority of professionals) still cling to the idea that the Big Bang means"the very beginning of it all," that definition is decades out of date.
https://bigthink.com/starts-with-a-bang/big-bang-meaning/
Note -- In place of a magical act of creation, this article is based on the magical notion of instantaneous Inflation ("Presto!") of a universe from a random "fluctuation" in a hypothetical "field" of nothing-but Potential.

Is The Inflationary Universe A Scientific Theory? Not Anymore :
Inflation was proposed more than 35 years ago, among others, by Paul Steinhardt. But Steinhardt has become one of the theory’s most fervent critics.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/09/28/is-the-inflationary-universe-a-scientific-theory-not-anymore/?sh=1832b18fb45e

Sounds like a good approach to me. If you already accept a being that is the First Cause, then here is a simple argument to tie it to the God of the bible: — A Christian Philosophy

Using personal Experience and innate Reason to hack a path through the jungle of religious beliefs was my only philosophical option. A common religious/political solution is to eliminate those who believe differently (excommunicate, burn at stake). Anyway, even though I had doubts about some aspects of my childhood religion, I could think of only two explanations for why-there-is-something-instead-of-nothing : A> Eternal Something (objects) or B> Eternal Potential (creative force). Before I was born, a Catholic priest proposed a controversial scientific point-of-origin hypothesis. Shortly afterward, Astronomical evidence for expansion of everything from a single speck of space-time began to pile-up. From those bits of logic & evidence, the Big Bang theory was formulated. Which called into question, the long-standing scientific & philosophical presumption that our physical world (something) was eternal, and all there is.

At first, that idea sounded heretical to most empirical scientists. Probably because, if you accept that our Something (universe) is contingent upon some Unknown Factor outside of spacetime, the notion of an intentional world-creator begins to make sense. But those opposed, on principle, to the creator-concept preferred to imagine an infinite super-universe of randomly popping Big Bangs, and space-time without beginning or end. From the premise that some essential something (e.g. matter & space & energy & time & laws) abides forever, you can reason-out the Axiom underlying the Multiverse theory. Unfortunately, that precept is no more provable than the traditional Creator & Law-Maker assumption. It has to be taken on Faith.

But to common-sense, ever-changing (entropic/self-destructive) matter/energy is an unlikely candidate for an everlasting substance or eternal essence. So, the remaining contender is the governing Laws of organization (LOGOS), that are not subject to thermodynamic decay. That seems to be a more promising postulate for the First Cause of -- and reason for -- the Big Bang. Furthermore, since Natural Laws are a form of immaterial Information*1, I think of the presumptive Law Maker as The Enformer. Which is a Causal*2, but non-anthro-morphic, concept. And that became the axiom for my personal (philosophical, not religious) Enformationism thesis. Consequently, my worldview is not exactly Atheistic, or Pantheistic, but PanEnDeistic. Moreover, since I can't prove empirically that such a super-universal entity exists, I must remain religiously Agnostic.

Even with a philosophical First-Cause-concept, I don't "tie" that god-model to the Hebrew/Jewish/Christian/Islamic/Mormon scriptures. Based on my rational/critical investigations, none of those books "rings true" as of the Word of God. Yet, all of those "Holy Books" are accepted, on faith by millions, as authentic revelations (attested to by witnesses) from God directly, or from Angels, or other Divine Beings. From an outsider perspective though, they all have the earmarks of ordinary human fiction*3. My own religion, was a Protestant sect --- a stem off a limb branched off from the Catholic tradition. Which placed its faith in the earthly authority in the Church (i.e. Pope), instead of the canonized collection of first-century writings, assembled & edited by its own in-house redactors. Ironically, by rejecting the sovereignty of the human Pope, Protestants were forced to rely on unaided fallible human Reason to interpret their inherited Catholic scriptures. And the result of that freedom of interpretation is the cacophony of Christian sects we have today.

Therefore, the foundation of my back-to-the-bible religion was undermined by my own Reasoning. So, like the Atheists, I found that I could only rely on my own personal Power of Inference, to discern the "truth" of how & why there is something-instead-of-nothing. Yet, my rational philosophical approach didn't find evidence to support the notion of accidental emergence of our self-organizing world from the random roiling of self-existent atoms & forces. Instead, it came to the same conclusion that Spinoza was excommunicated for. What Blaise Pascal derisively labeled : "the god of the philosophers" (nature god). However, Spinoza assumed that the lawful physical world itself was eternal, whereas I think it was the pre-big-bang Lawmaker (the Enformer) that logically must be self-existent. Beyond that general notion derived from "the inner light" of fallible reasoning, I have no direct revelation from the LOGOS. Hence, no mandate for a worshipful or ceremonial religion. And, I can't even say, for sure, that contrary opinions are wrong. Does that sound pathetic to you? :cool:

*1. What is Information? :
Information is the power to enform, to create
http://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page16.html

*2. Causal Information :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_causality

*3. It's easy to be skeptical & critical of other people's weird beliefs. But not so toward your own principles, premises & passions.
Note -- Empirical philosopher David Hume once said that "reason is, and ought to be, the slave of the passions". He's merely saying that reason, or logic, does not produce actionable beliefs. Apparently, he exempted freethinking philosophers from that servitude.

“Science is what you know. Philosophy is what you don't know” – Bertrand Russell

“Metaphysics is a dark ocean without shores or lighthouse, strewn with many a philosophic wreck” – Immanuel Kant

“Philosophy is at once the most sublime and the most trivial of human pursuits” – William James

“The only thing I know is that I know nothing” – Socrates

It would be easier to engineer an artificial virus than an artificial mind. So fear the nanobot pandemic first. — apokrisis

Ouch! Is that why I feel so itchy & drippy around artificial organisms? :joke:

And then life and mind become the mechanical addition to this base layer of "pure organicism". — apokrisis

Ironically, the emergence of Life & Mind from the heuristics of evolution, is what resulted in Human Culture. And intentional artificial culture is now evolving much faster than the blind groping of the natural process. Anyway, I think the Simplistic Mechanistic products of techno-culture are merely the low-hanging fruit. We may have to climb the organic tree to get at the more functionally-organized systems. Systems Science is still waving a rattle in the cradle. So, there's hope that holistically-designed systems might eventually reach the sophistication of self-organized organisms that took billions of years to create. You might call it "alloyed organicism" :cool:


Evolutionary Design :
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.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page13.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_programming

Do you think artificial consciousness/ sentience is possible without understanding exactly how consciousness works? — Benj96

Possible?, maybe. Probable?, who knows? Advisable?, pioneers are seldom deterred by lack of understanding. Dangerous?, a shot in the dark is always perilous.

The physicists creating the first atomic bomb were painfully aware that they did not fully understand how splitting of atoms worked. And some even worried that such a powerful bomb might set-off a chain reaction that would ignite the atmosphere of the whole world. Yet, they persevered, because of the "better-us-good-guys-than-those-bad-guys" reasoning. Likewise, some scientists at CERN were concerned that smashing atoms together might create a black hole, that would swallow the whole world.

This is not Luddite thinking, but merely reasonable caution ( or worst case scenario), when entering unknown territory. Since we have survived both of those scary situations, I wouldn't worry too much about AI. The writers of post-apocalyptic movies do enough of that wolf-crying for the rest of us. Did you survive the Y2K, and other technological end-of-world-as-we-know-it, predictions of how meddling-with-what-we-don't-yet-understand-might-come-back-to-bite-us-in-the-end? The Stoics had a solution to such techno-fear : "what, me worry?"

My worst case fear of semi-sentient AI, developed before we even understand how natural intelligence works, is that some of those sketchy moral agents might move into my neighborhood, and lower property values. :cool:

I've studied this very issue for a long time. And as an ardent holist and organicist myself, the great irony has been to discover that life and mind – representing the highest levels of "organismic complexity" – came about by semiosis, or the ability to organise nature by employing the constraints of a mechanistic causality. — apokrisis

This is slightly off-topic, but I just read a book review in Philosophy Now magazine (issue 150), which reminded me of this thread. The name of the book is Organicity : Entropy or Evolution. Written by an Architect & Urban Planner, the book proposes an attitude of "organicity", to guide those involved in trying to deal with cultural entropy by aligning with the organic-systems-approach of Nature. This is not a new idea --- in the early 20th century, Frank Lloyd Wright called his design-with-nature approach "organic architecture" --- but the book uses some novel terminology. For instance, he labels Mechanistic Thinking (dominant & competitive) as "machinic" to contrast with "organic" (cooperative & mutual aid).

His political and economic philosophy seems to be openly socialistic. Yet he refers to it as "anarcho-communism", and says its socially-responsible adherents are "communists who won't wait for the state". He also insists, ominously, that "Nature is going to compel posterity to revert to a stable state on the material plane and to turn to the realm of spirit for satisfying man's hunger for infinity". That latter remark doesn't sound like Marx's atheistic prescription for the ills of industrial & mechanistic society. So, I suppose he's merely acknowledging that the human "spirit" cannot live on mass-manufactured bread alone (Matt 4:4). :smile:

Maybe I'm still too hopeful and naive, but I'd say we could find the true religion in the same way we find any truths, and debunk false religions in the same way we debunk any errors:
False religions will have contradictions or will be unreasonable, e.g., fail Occam's Razor.
The true religion will have no contradictions and will be reasonable, i.e., arguments may not give certainty but at least reasonableness. — A Christian Philosophy

I too, was once "hopeful & naive". By the time I graduated from high school, I had doubts about my own fundamentalist ("back to the bible") Christian religion. Around that time, my older brother came back from California, with enthusiasm for his new-found religion. It was the Worldwide Church of God (WWCG), headed by radio & TV preacher Herbert W. Armstrong. His writings provided reasonable-sounding answers to some of my own concerns. And his son, Garner Ted Armstrong, was even more charismatic & persuasive on TV. Their "heretical" departures from the Catholic heritage were justified from the perspective that the Old Testament was the revealed Word of God, and not to be dismissed as merely a temporary Law for errant Jews.

Some of those radical unorthodoxies made sense to me, on a rational basis. For instance, I could never find any scriptural evidence for changing the clearly commanded seventh day Sabbath to the indirectly inferred first day Sunday, as the "Lord's Day" for Christians. We seemed to have inherited that Catholic tradition, based originally on papal canonical councils, and on some questionable biblical exegesis. Anyway, I observed the WWCG from a distance, and even visited their campus in California. But H.W. Armstrong made some bold prophesies about "signs of the last days". Although he was in his eighties, he emphatically asserted that he knew he would still be alive when Jesus returned in triumph. He lived well into his nineties, but eventually died, and I saw no sign of The Second Coming (forty years ago). Therefore, I took that absence of evidence as empirical demonstration of a false prophecy. I also concluded from other evidences that the WWCG was a personality cult. And it soon fell apart upon the death of the prophet.

Therefore, you could say that I discovered a negative "truth" by means of experience, instead of by rational analysis of teachings. And I "debunked" certain beliefs by Bayesian probability updates, instead of by Logical certainty. As I said before, reasoning is only as good as it's premises. And religious premises are usually un-verifiable Axioms that must be taken on Faith, because conclusive evidence is not available. Those premises may be "self-evident" to yourself, but not obvious at all to someone else. As we discover daily on this forum. Consequently, ultimate "Truth" remains an unfulfilled quest for the Holy Grail. So, I practice no formal Religion, but I do have a personal Worldview, which guides my fallible reasoning about ultimate reality. FWIW, it does have a role for a G*D-of-the-philosophers (First Cause ; Logos),

There are thousands of religious sects, and they can't all teach a single cohesive Truth. So, their internal "contradictions" tend to be dismissed as "improper" interpretation, or surrounded by spurious sophistry, or dismissed as close-enough to "reasonableness". So, I don't engage each belief system in rigorous rational analysis. Instead, I have developed my own personal non-scriptural non-religious Philosophical belief system. It's based as far as possible on empirical evidence, but also supplemented with philosophical speculation. As you said, it's not absolute Truth, but it seems "reasonable" to me. :cool:


Bayesian probability is an interpretation of the concept of probability, in which, instead of frequency or propensity of some phenomenon, probability is interpreted as reasonable expectation representing a state of knowledge or as quantification of a personal belief.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayesian_probability

The problem is more that quantum physics has essentially zero philosophical content: as much compatible with free will as determinism, miracles "can happen" as much as they are extremely unlikely to happen, could be all a simulation and a way to simply compress the data of the simulation and so on and so on. — boethius

That's a provocative assertion for a philosophy forum. Of course, Quantum Physics has no philosophical content for those who prefer to "shut up and calculate". Likewise, the self-moving rocks in the desert have no inherent philosophical implications, for those who are content just to dispassionately observe a strange phenomenon.

But some of us are inclined to ask "how" (scientific) or "why" (philosophical) questions about mysterious events, such as invisible mathematical quantum fields suddenly manifesting detectable physical particles, only when actively measured. We can either explain one mystery by another, as in Miracles, or we can try to find a direct mechanical cause & effect connection (how).

Or, we can propose an answer that is somewhere in between Magic & Mechanics (why). For example, the relationship between Information & Energy suggests a possible relationship between Quantum Queerness and Consciousness. Why? Because the physicist wants to know "how". :nerd:

Does Consciousness Cause Quantum Collapse? :
In conclusion, the ‘consciousness causes quantum collapse’ hypothesis – at least when combined with modern neuroscience – is a viable theory of physical and mental reality, which offers a clear research program and distinctive experimental predictions. It proposes a solution to the measurement problem by defining when and where collapse occurs. And it provides a place for consciousness in nature by giving consciousness a causal role. Developing this theory may well enable us to answer even deeper questions; questions such as why consciousness causes collapse and why consciousness exists at all.
https://philosophynow.org/issues/121/Does_Consciousness_Cause_Quantum_Collapse

Quantum Weirdness :
Phillip Ball introduces his topic by clarifying the murkiness of Quantum Physics : “what has emerged most strongly from this work on the fundamental aspects of quantum theory is that it is not a theory about particles and waves, discreteness or uncertainty or fuzziness. It is a theory about information.” [My emphasis] He then admits that “quantum information brings its own problems, because it raises questions about what this information is . . . because information is not a thing that you can point to . . .” Consequently, his book is more about Philosophy than Science. Ironically, the exotic mathematics of Quantum Theory has become the foundation of 21st century science, even though its implications cannot be understood intuitively, or in terms of 19th century Classical Physics. Hence the so-called “weirdness” of QT has remained as queer as ever over the last century.
http://bothandblog7.enformationism.info/page43.html


Mystery of Death Valley's 'Sailing Stones' Solved :
The rocks' apparent movement has been blamed on everything from space aliens and magnetic fields to pranksters. But no one has actually seen the rocks move, which only adds to the mystery.
https://www.livescience.com/37492-sailing-stones-death-valley-moving-rocks.html

The question remains,why is G the value it is in the first place. Either mathematics spontaneously caused itself, which I cannot accept, or there is something deeper than mathematics, meaning that the universe is not, at its core, mathematical. — RussellA

Why ask why? Oh yes, we're doing philosophy here, not calculation. Richard Feynman warned fellow physicists about getting side-tracked on "why" questions, when there were still so many "what" & "how" questions to resolve. Apparently he was quoting David Mermin : "If I were forced to sum up in one sentence what the Copenhagen interpretation says to me, it would be 'Shut up and calculate!'"

Anyway, I agree that there must be "something deeper than mathematics". As I mentioned before, numbers have only abstract values, hence they can't explain the emergence of reasons and personal meanings. So, I infer that the First Cause of our world must have possessed the Potential (creative power) for an organized world and for reasoning beings, which Plato labeled "LOGOS".

You can't go any "deeper" than the Primary Source of everything in our expanding & complexifying universe. It seems to be going somewhere, instead of just cycling in one place. So, that observation of direction implies some Intention behind the original causal impulse : the Mind behind the cue stick. Therefore, if a unique Singularity was the space-time point-of-origin for the Big Bang (not a self-destroying explosion, but an expansion of Potential into Actual), then it may have been like DNA, preprogrammed with enough information to construct a cosmos from scratch. Is that deep enough for you? :wink:

PS___In my personal thesis, I propose that the universe is, "at its core", Informational. And acausal abstract Mathematics is just one of many forms of Information ; causal Energy being another form. So, Tegmark is on the right track, but didn't go deep enough.

What is Information ? :
EnFormAction --- The power to enform, to create, to cause change ; the essence of informed awareness ; the act of enforming
http://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page16.html

LOGOS :
Logos became a technical term in Western philosophy beginning with Heraclitus (c.  535 – c.  475 BC), who used the term for a principle of order and knowledge. . . . . For Heraclitus, logos provided the link between rational discourse and the world's rational structure.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logos#:~:text=Plato%27s%20Theory%20of%20Forms%20was,the%20creation%20of%20the%20Universe.

Hello, and thank you for the feedback. Yeah - I agree that a lot of people believe in a religion because of emotions and not reason. That said, I also think the right religion can be found by reason. — A Christian Philosophy

Perhaps. But how can we sort-out which of the many "true" religions is the "right religion" for me? In forum discussions, I've noted that Muslims (Islamists) make some quite rational & reasonable arguments for certain beliefs, such as the existence of an abstract (non-anthro-morphic) G*D. But in the final analysis (premises), they will insist that Muhammad was the last true prophet, that the Koran is the true word of G*D, and that Islam is the only "true" religion. By implication, your religion is false.

Unfortunately, reasoning is only as good as its premises. And, religious premises are seldom empirical or verifiable. Hence, as tolerant philosophers, we argue politely for our "truths", yet when all is said & done, we agree to disagree. :smile:

Premise : 1 : a statement or idea taken to be true and on which an argument or reasoning may be based.
Note --- For Christians, the veracity of the New Testament is their basic premise or axiom. Yet, for Muslims, the authenticity of the Koran is their starting point for reasoning. Belief bias is what allows some premises to "make sense" within one belief system, and to be non-sense for another.

Belief Bias :
https://www.forbes.com/sites/stephaniesarkis/2019/05/26/emotions-overruling-logic-how-belief-bias-alters-your-decisions/?sh=22bc3e9f7c56

10 Reasons Why Islam is the True Religion :
So to prove that veracity of Islam rather than showing people subjective miracles, instead I am presenting 10 proofs/evidence found in Islam for why Islam is the true religion.
https://themuslimscomic.com/2020/12/13/10-reasons-why-islam-is-the-true-religion/

Which, if any, of the world's 10,000 religions is the true one? :
https://www.religioustolerance.org/reltrue.htm

"A great many people think they are thinking [reasoning] when they are merely rearranging their prejudices." ___William James

Is this your understanding of the terms philosophy and science? — A Christian Philosophy

As a former Christian, I must say that your post is quite logical, and well-presented. And I agree that "The empirical sciences have not replaced the rational sciences". I also accept that " there must be at least one thing that is eternal, unchangeable". Moreover, I concur that "Scientism, the belief that any claim that is not provable by the empirical sciences is meaningless”, is itself not provable by the empirical sciences". Hence, it must be accepted on faith in human senses, and their artificial extensions. Yet, Logic (Reason) is a sort of sixth sense, that deals with subjective ideas, not objective things.

I can even agree that "Metaphysics - the science of reality" --- but with the proviso, that it's a "science" in the general sense of "a way of knowing". But, since the 17th century, Empiricism has arrogated the term "science" to its sense-experience experiments. Therefore, rational Metaphysics has been relegated to feckless Philosophy, with its debatable logical inferences. Ironically, Einstein was a theoretical physicist, who used rational-thought-experiments to determine the unseen forces and mathematical structures of reality -- only later confirmed by empirical methods.

However, while most religions have rational philosophical/theological traditions, their popularity is not based on logic, but due to emotional appeals, prejudices & preferences. Which is why they tend to eventually break-down into passionately defended sects, with only a veneer of dispassionate logic. Even a calm rational philosophy like Buddhism, has it's zealous religious sects. Likewise, Scientism is a sect of Science, that is directly opposed to all hypothetical belief systems. Hopefully though, we can all get-along under the broad umbrella of Philosophy, with its dispassionate love of both empirical and theoretical truths. :cool:


Theoretical : considered, contemplative, speculative ; as contrasted to practical, pragmatic, empiricial

IE, what does the mathematical symbol G mean to us ? It means that we can predict what will happen, it does not mean that we know why it will happen. — RussellA

Perhaps those mathematical ratios & regularities tell us only that whatever happens is natural & logical -- or G*D's Will, if you will. From that assumption, we can make short-term predictions. But if we want to know where this trend will ultimately end, we'll need some prophetic powers. Otherwise, the "why" may be simply, as believers in holy scripture say : "it is written".

Of course, as philosophers, we are not content with such fatalistic shoulder shrugs. So, we are free to speculate about the intentions behind mathematical & logical destiny. Why "mathematics is the language of the universe"? Or why mathematics is "unreasonably effective". My observation is that the universe is not random & arbitrary, but is obviously governed by intention & logic. But "why?" can only be inferred from the history & direction of evolution. My feeble guess is that this expanding & complexifying universe is an experiment in freewill, limited only by natural laws. To paraphrase famous philosopher Dirty Harry, "Do you feel free, punk?" :smile:

The collapse of the wave function in quantum mechanics is sometimes loosely described as caused by “observation,” which implies consciousness can physically affect the universe by causing the collapse. However, “measurement” is more accurate that “observation” because measurement apparatus itself rather than consciousness causes wave function collapse. — Art48

I agree that "measurement" is more appropriate as a causal force, than mere "observation". The latter term can be construed as Passive, while the former is Active. But the causal "apparatus" here is not necessarily the dumb machines focused on the event. For example, a video camera aimed at a physical incident does not cause anything to happen (e.g. video of Rodney King being beaten by police). Yet human minds, not just docilely observing, but actively extracting meaning from the video, can eventually cause a rioting mob scene.

In a similar manner, a scientist setting-up a quantum experiment is guided by the conscious intention of extracting information from the observed "collapse"*1 of wave-like behavior into particular activity. The key word here is "information", traditionally known as "meaning in a mind". 21st century physics is now equating Information with Energy. So, it's not surprising that extracting bits of information from a physical process could have measurable physical consequences. In the 20th century that suggestion sounded like magical mind over matter. Now, it's no more magical than a physical particle passing through a solid barrier (as in Flash Memory). Remarkable yes, but magical no. A number on a dial has no meaning until interpreted by a mind in the observer. :smile:

*1. More like an instantaneous Phase Transition (e.g. water to ice)

The mass-energy-information equivalence principle :
Here we formulate a new principle of mass-energy-information equivalence proposing that a bit of information is not just physical, as already demonstrated, but it has a finite and quantifiable mass while it stores information.
https://aip.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.5123794

ENERGY AND INFORMATION :
https://www.jstor.org/stable/24923125

Mental Measurement -- Physical Effect :
The author notes that “everything strange about quantum mechanics comes down to measurement”. But, what’s so odd about taking the measure of things? In this case it’s the active intrusive role of the mind of the measurer. The Latin root is “mensura”, from the word for “mind”. Which may be why Protagoras claimed that “man is the measure of all things”. So the “measurement problem” of quantum physics is concerned with what causes the superposed (all over the place) continuous wavefunction to “collapse” into a single discrete particle in one location. How does an inquiring mind cause an invisible potential object to suddenly appear, as-if from nowhere?
One clue may be found in the notion that a scientific measurement can be construed as extracting essential Information (like pulling a Linchpin⁹) from the oceanic waveform. Thus disentangling the whole system into its components, one of which is a quantum of energy that we perceive as a specific particle of matter. That’s a metaphorical¹⁰ explanation for an otherwise inexplicable physical event, barring magic of course. . . . . Bohr explained that the difference-that-made-a-difference¹² in information received by an experiment is not just looking, but in “the way we look”. And the “way” (the question) is determined by what we want to know.
Note --- quotes from Phillip Ball's, Quantum Weirdness
http://bothandblog7.enformationism.info/page45.html

The issue I have is that it has a human component. The thinker. Then observer. And therefore I’m not sure if logic exists without an aware/ sentient observer in the environment or of logical processes occur regardless of us and that “order” is relevant even without people in the picture. — Benj96

Modern Science has concluded that every physical thing in the universe is essentially a form of mathematics : geometric relationships & algebraic ratios & formal proportions. Quantum theory has revealed that matter is math --- fields of relationships between dimensionless points. Yet, all those res extensa (spatial things) have numerical values, but no meanings. It is "sentient observers" who give personal (relevant) meaning to otherwise impersonal (abstract) relationships. That's why the "human component" relates all things in the world to Self : the focal point of perspective.

Descartes defined the human mind as res cogitans (thinking thing). Because invisible intangible Thoughts have no physical extension in space. So, René thought of thoughts as more like math : abstract definitions of concrete things & external events. But, it's the concrete thinker who evaluates abstractions in terms of relationship-to-Self. Those personal ME meanings put flesh on the bare bones of geometry.

Metaphorically, what we call "Logic" is simply mathematics with Words (Gk. logoi). And words are merely encapsulated & portable commonly-relevant meanings. Each person's experience of the world is different, but all sentient beings have mathematical bodies, engendered from mathematical topological DNA. So, all mind-making brains are akin, and similar in their basic physical structure. The brains of orcas, octopi & orioles may look different superficially. But in their fundamental physical structure they are similar. They all process information in logical patterns, which are essentially mathematical.

Therefore, the universe, from top to bottom --- from constellations to consciousness --- is essentially a network of logical mathematical interrelationships. So, the eventual emergence of sentient minds, with logical & mathematical talents, is not so surprising. Formal Logic may be an artificial construct in the natural world. But the roots of human Logic are entangled & embedded in the soil of Natural Math. :nerd:


Physical spatial objects are fundamentally mathematical fields :
A field itself, either in classical physics or in its quantization, is simply a function on spacetime, assigning to each spacetime point the "value" of that field at that point.
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/337423/what-are-quantum-fields-mathematically

ONE OF THESE IS A BRAIN, THE OTHER IS THE UNIVERSE

While science suggests that we ought to be humble about the extent of our current knowledge,the mechanistic worldview, where it has mostly been faithful to scientific methods and principles, now has departed from it. — Tzeentch

Perhaps, the "mechanistic worldview" you are referring to is the philosophical faith labeled "Scientism"*1. It seems to consider mechanistic Classical Physics as a final revelation of the absolute Truth about Reality. That worldview envisions a Newtonian clockwork universe, which runs reliably until human egos & passions (and religions) interfere to knock the smoothly-running system off course. However, that simplistic model of reality was called into question by two parallel developments in the early 20th century : Quantum Physics and Information Theory.

Quantum Physics undermined the ancient Atomic dream of a firm foundation to reality by revealing that particles of matter, hopefully labeled "Atoms", were actually composites of even smaller bits of stuff. Scientific slicing & dicing of matter has continued to the point where now the foundation of the material world is considered to be merely matter-less mathematical fields of abstract potential*2. At the same time Information Theory was revealing the ubiquitous role of Information (Ideas) in the real world. That led physicist John A. Wheeler to conclude that we live in a "participatory universe", where the minds of men can interact with the physical world*3. He wasn't talking about Magic though, but about Meta-Physics*4 (ideas & intentions).

Wheeler was re-interpreting Classical Physics in terms of Information Theory. And that novel concept is also at the root of my personal worldview : Enformationism. Such analog holistic views (e.g. Systems Theory) are already beginning to fill some of the gaps in digital reductive science. This development does imply an "end of the Mechanistic Worldview", in the sense of outdated physical models. The information-based approach doesn't do away with the reliability of physical mechanisms though, it merely learns to control them more accurately, with meta-physical understanding, to allow us to work with the Fuzzy Logic, and spontaneity, of the quantum foundation of reality. :nerd:


*1.What is the Difference Between Science and Scientism :
Conclusion. The main difference between science and scientism is that science is the study of nature and behaviour of natural things and knowledge obtained through them while scientism is the view that only science can render truth about the world and reality.
https://pediaa.com/what-is-the-difference-between-science-and-scientism/

*2. Quantum Non-Mechanics :
"One of the least mechanical aspects of QT is the “wave/particle duality”. What Schrodinger’s wavefunction equation refers to is neither a wave in a medium, nor a particle standing alone, but BothAnd. “In fact it’s not a wave that corresponds to any concrete physical property. It is just a mathematical abstraction . . .” Surprisingly, the equation that is the primary tool of QT includes Imaginary Numbers. And its solution is not a “description of an entity”, but a “prescription” for a future measurement. It doesn’t refer to a physical thing, but information about a possible thing. Which is why Ball says that QT is "a theory about Information." quotes from___Philip Ball, Quantum Weirdness
http://bothandblog7.enformationism.info/page43.html

*3. Participatory Universe :
Wheeler divided his own life into three parts. The first part he called “Everything is Particles.” The second part was “Everything is Fields.” And the third part, which Wheeler considered the bedrock of his physical theory, he called “Everything is Information.”
https://futurism.com/john-wheelers-participatory-universe

*4. Meta-Physics :
This is not the scholastic topic of gods & ghosts, but the Aristotelian observation that human intentions can make a difference in the physical world. For example, the Panama Canal was nothing but a dream in imaginative minds (1513), until their designs were implemented in money & machinery to literally move mountains (1914). What Nature (physics) had left undone after millions of years, Culture (metaphysics) accomplished in a few generations.

Totalitarian states have been characterized by such beliefs in singular truths; a belief that complex human systems and problems can be solved like scientific or mathematical equations. — Tzeentch

One "singular truth" of the Mechanistic worldview may be the assumption that humans in a "state of nature" are completely selfish, and always in a "war of every man against every man", as Thomas Hobbes put. So his solution, like Plato's, was to appoint a "philosopher king", presumably from among the aristocracy, to rule over the unruly masses. But history shows that "philosopher kings" are in short supply. Which is why Democracy eventually seemed to be the least-bad option for controlling the irrational urges of human animals. And that common-people-rule premise may be based on the "wisdom of crowds" postulate, which mathematically averages-out extremes in favor of moderate positions. Yet again, reality reveals that not all crowds are wise : e.g. stock market stampedes & crashes.

What then are we to do? Today, many Western societies seem to be leaning toward the sovereign king solution. Technically, Hitler was not elected to his position, but he was popular in some segments of society, frustrated with the debacles of Democracy. And his simplistic mechanical logic seemed to promise a more orderly state. Unfortunately, that group order was purchased at the cost of diminished individual rights. Ironically, his avowed goal to Make Germany Great Again had popular appeal to both aristocrats & plebeians. So, it seems that societies tend to vacillate between the poles of loosely bound Liberty and rigid mechanical Order. And the statistical political math usually produces a muddled middle state that is not acceptable to either pole of the political spectrum.

Organized state religions have always been integral to the political purposes of ruling factions. For example, the Pagan Romans had an official chief priest, called a "Pontifex". And that political role was transferred to the Christian Church after it became the official state religion. However, over the years, the top-down rule of the secular & sacred Empire varied from Liberal (weak) to Totalitarian (strong), depending on internal & external circumstances. When economically & militarily stable, it relaxed the rules. But when threatened from within & without, it tightened the reins of the reign. Consequently, it seems that a simple singular solution to social order has not been found by the heuristics of history. :smile:

Disclaimer: this thread is inspired by recent interviews by Prof. Dr. Mattias Desmet — Tzeentch

A quick Google search indicates that Dr. Desmet is primarily concerned with The Psychology of Totalitarianism. And I infer that he views the current trend toward Fascist politics as a return to the ruthless top-down control of the Catholic Church, that eventually led to the Protestant rebellions and to the Scientific emancipation from Inquisition-enforced dogma. One ironic result of the rise of sectarian & secular worldviews was the emergence of NAZIism in Germany a few centuries after the Enlightenment era. The Industrial Revolution, built upon scientific knowledge, but allied with top-down Capitalism, fostered the rise of robber barons, and allowed Hitler to produce the most powerful war machine the world had ever known. His radical worldview was a sort of secular revival of the "glory that was Rome", including the imperial Roman Church. Hitler's implementation of that dream of world dominion was also based on a belief in essential superiority & purity of the Chosen People. A pseudo-religious political worldview, based on strict obedience to authority.

Although that kind of Totalitarianism was tamped-down for a while, it is currently resurgent in the secularized & scientized Western democracies. Donald Trump, among others, has revived the spirit of Totalitarianism, by synthesizing politics with a religious inclination to worship a higher power, as embodied in an all-powerful Father Figure : the Fuhrer, the King, the Pope. Apparently, some people are not comfortable with free-thinking; preferring to be told what to do, and to believe. Such top-down control systems -- in both Fascist & Communist forms -- tend to emphasize the collective "Folk" over individual persons, and conservative traditions over progressive innovations. Yet it utilizes the fruits of Science -- technology; weapons, etc -- while ignoring the free-thinking philosophy underlying its Mechanistic Power over Nature.

Perhaps it was the observation that Totalitarian Politics is based on a Mechanistic Paradigm of centralized power, that roused Dr. Desmet to call for the End of the Mechanistic Worldview. I'm not sure what alternative egalitarian political system he has in mind, but I doubt it requires submission of Science & Philosophy to Politics & Economics & popular Media. Tzeentch, do you know what he envisions as a Non-Mechanical Worldview to guide a multi-cultural & querulous planet, that is about to conquer new worlds beyond Terra Firma? :smile:

First, I like the 'handle'. As a desultory maker of sundials, I'm aware of its function and etymology. — Torus34

Why desultory? Sounds like a fun hobby. As an architect, I once designed a Sundial Tower, just for funsies. It wasn't really a sundial, but merely "inspired by". For practical purposes though (uninspired clients), I eventually did a more conventional campus landmark tower. That was long before I adopted "gnomon" as my online handle. :smile:

Philosophically, we can seek for philosophers who were skilled in multivariate modes of thought. They may be few on the ground. — Torus34

You are not alone, in looking for an alternative to negative-combative-simplistic-two-value-Either/Or thinking. In my personal philosophy, I call that positive multi-value worldview The BothAnd Principle. FWIW, here's a summary. :smile:

The BothAnd Philosophy :
* Philosophy is the study of ideas & beliefs. Not which are right or wrong – that is the province of Religion and Politics – but which are closer to universal Truth. That unreachable goal can only be approximated by Reason & Consensus, which is the method of Science. In adition to ivory tower theories, applied Philosophy attempts to observe the behavior of wild ideas in their natural habitat.
* The BothAnd philosophy is primarily Metaphysical, in that it is concerned with Ontology, Epistemology, & Cosmology. Those categories include abstract & general concepts, such as : G*D, existence, causation, Logic, Mathematics, & Forms. Unlike pragmatic scientific "facts" about the physical world, idealistic Metaphysics is a battle-ground of opinions & emotions.
* The BothAnd principle is one of Balance, Symmetry and Proportion. It eschews the absolutist positions of Idealism or Realism, in favor of the relative compromises of Pragmatism. It espouses the Practical Wisdom of the Greek philosophers, instead of the Divine Revelation of the Hebrew Priests. The BA principle of practical wisdom requires “skin in the game”* to provide real-world feedback, which counter-balances the extremes of Idealism & Realism. That feedback establishes limits to freedom and boundaries to risk-taking. BA is a principle of Character & Virtue, viewed as Phronesis or Pragmatism, instead of Piety or Perfectionism.
* The BA philosophy is intended to be based on empirical evidence where possible, but to incorporate reasonable speculation were necessary. As my personal philosophy, the basic principle is fleshed-out in the worldview of Enformationism, which goes out of the Real world only insofar as to establish the universal Ground of Being, and the active principle in Evolution.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page10.html

The BothAnd Principle in action :
* Individuals may have strong beliefs & principles. But interpersonal endeavors require more flexibility. So, this blog is an argument for Relativism, Negotiation, Compromise, & Cooperation.
* The usual alternative to these wavering wimpy ways is the unyielding dominant stand-point of Absolutism, Conflict, and Competition. Royal and Imperial political & religious systems tend to adopt an autocratic stance of “my way or the highway”. Whereas, In more democratic and egalitarian systems, the marketplace of ideas will determine truths and values.
* Nationalism is a modern pseudo-democratic off-shoot of Royalism, with its divine right to rule a nation of pawns. Democracy and Socialism are imperfect attempts to accommodate the needs & wishes of all citizens from top to bottom.
* The Blog assumes that we will always have people on both sides of every issue. Yet, we can still have our private beliefs, even as we make public concessions to necessity.
http://bothandblog5.enformationism.info/-BothAndPhilosophy

Well, I'm not sure how to judge your post. It rings true but, absit iniuria, that can be for so many reasons other than it being true if you catch my drift. Verisimilitude is rather complex it seems! I digress though. — Agent Smith

That's OK. No offense taken. I was just riffing on one implication of your post : that humanity might be devolving due to unfitness : not having the "right stuff" for survival. Au contraire mon fre're, the Enformationism worldview implies that humanity is now a major driver of evolution -- for better or for worse. Humans have added Cultural Selection to Nature's weeding-out mechanisms. And one aspect of Cultural Selection is the Moral Dimension. It's an unnatural (artificial) way of guiding the selfish masses toward the common good. Animals don't have a formal Moral Code, because they are driven mainly by emotional instinct, instead of rational planning.

Some cynical philosophers see only the sensationalized media view of humanity's immoralities. But, a few scientists have dug up evidence to tell a mundane story of man's humanity toward man & nature. Steven Pinker's The Better Angels of Our Nature ; Michael Shermer's The Moral Arc ; and Rutger Bregman's HumanKind, are just a few examples of a more hopeful outlook for the future history of humanity. There are plenty of negative "truths", if that's your thing. But I prefer to focus on the much more common positive "truths" that can be interpreted as upward moral evolution. Our technological progress is undeniable, but moral progress is not so obvious. That's why Steven Pinker wrote Enlightenment Now, to present the case for Reason, Science, Humanism, and Progress. These books give some "reasons" for "it being true". :grin:


Enlightenment Now, Again :
Pinker is optimistic about human flourishing, fostering, enhancing, and progressing, as we overcome inherent and environmental limitations with grit & reason.
http://bothandblog2.enformationism.info/page41.html

I see. So is that an absolute truth ? Or just a guess ? Just 'appearance' or 'phenomenon' ? Does the person a in private dream somehow figure it out ? And assume that everyone else must also be in a private dream ? But isn't this just more of that private dream ? Mere illusion ?
The trick is its vainglorious humility, its wilting arrogance. — Pie

Is that your humble way of implying that, contra Kant, you do have personal access to "absolute truth"? What "trick" are you referring to? Do you think that Empirical Science reveals "absolute truth" that is hidden from "arrogant" philosophers? :smile:

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

Perhaps I speak too soon - the circumstances are such that some of the traits we possess can't be identified as good/bad for survival; are some qualities we possess being maintained/honed/discarded? Only time will tell I guess. In addition we seem to have created a quasi-Matrix-like artificial world for ourselves with its own set of rules and only a handful will survive for more than a few hours out in the wild. — Agent Smith

Don't give up on us yet. I hope our good qualities are not being "discarded". But sometimes one talent comes to the forefront, and another recedes. For example Darwinian Evolution emphasized the role of competition in the "struggle for survival" : mano y mano ; one-on-one. But other naturalists, such as E.O.Wilson, saw that cooperation within cohesive systems (Group Selection) was a major factor of evolution. The "honing" process works in more ways than one, to "maintain" a balanced system.

That maintenance includes Cultural selection & progression. In the 20th century, most Western societies rejected cooperative Socialism, and focused on competitive Capitalism as the main driver of social evolution (measured in terms of money). But, that "greed is good" policy resulted in some dire social consequences, as economic competition tended to let the cream rise to the top (the super-rich 1 or 2%), while the watery whey sank to the bottom (Zion in the Matrix). In reality though, what we now have is a hybrid (off-setting) system of Socialism & Capitalism.

However, Nature tends to automatically react to re-balance an out-of-whack system; sometimes via violent natural disasters. And Culture ("artificial world") also seems to offset extremes in order to harmonize the general human welfare. However, apologies to Marx, Social systems are unnatural, and seldom automatic. So the polarity may have to get very disproportionate before civil wars break-out. Hence the history of human culture seems to follow the up & down path made famous by Hegel. Yet, somehow the general trend seems to keep us, as a world-wide social system, on a fairly stable path. That may be because natural & cultural Evolution have an inherent stabilizing force to keep it on track. Being a pragmatic optimist, I call that implicit equilibrator "EnFormAction". :smile:

PS__One example of balancing Aristocracy (the few) and Proletariat (the many) is in the Parliamentary proportioning of Lords (few) and Commons (many). It acknowledges the social disparity, but tries to provide a political counterbalance. This is a cultural example of the natural balance between Predators (few) and Prey (many). It's an eccentric symmetry, and a dynamic balance, but it seems to work . . . . in the long run.

Social Re-Balance :
Picture a country plagued with financial struggle, unaffordable food, looting and rioting due to heavy disdain for the current regime, the wealthy exempt from paying taxes, and an expanding urban poor.
Thinking of the United States during the good year of our Lord 2020?
Think again. We’re talking late 18th century France.
https://www.polljuice.com/vive-la-revolution-comparing-u-s-inequality-with-1789-france/

THE EVOLUTIONARY DIALECTIC


PYRAMID PROPORTIONS

Given the choice truth or survival, we've been programmed to opt for the latter. A delusion/illusion can make the difference between life and death and hence the abundance of cognitive biases which, though leads us away from the truth, keeps us safe and sound. — Agent Smith

An interesting perspective! It reminded me that lower animals have no illusions. For example, an ant is not concerned with "Truth", and doesn't worry about "Death", but only with what works right here, right now. Homo sapiens is a different animal though. Our rational ability to project here & now into the near future, causes us to worry about things that are not things, and about events that may never happen. We sometimes treat those imaginary possible futures as-if they are the wolf at the door. That's the root of most anxiety disorders. But the stoics among us understand, that if an imaginary wolf is at the door, all we need to do is not open the door.

Discerning True-from-False is sometimes taken to extremes by philosophers. That's why we need to be reminded by thinkers like Kant and Hoffman, that we have no way of knowing Absolute Truth. So, we have to do the best we can with our little cache of personally proven facts, and whatever useful truths we can glean from the experiences of others. We weave all those particular truths together with links of Logic, to fill-in the gaps in our direct & indirect knowledge. The patchwork result is Pragmatic Wisdom, not seamless Divine Revelation.

The BothAnd Principle is based on viewing "True-False" as a continuum, not as absolute extreme positions with nothing in between. So, instead of going to one-end-or-the-other of those simple-minded oppositions, philosophers are advised to shoot for the "sweet spot" at the Golden Mean. Apparently, species that succeed at maintaining an "even keel" (stability ; consistency) survive long enough to reproduce, and to propagate their informed genes (molded by experience) into future generations. That's not out-dated Lamarckism, but merely the observed fact that genes are not merely inert carriers of information, but are modified by the experience of their host (neo-Lamarkism). Moreover, humans have invented an artificial form of embodied experience : writing & recording (techno-Lamarkism).

Life is not simply a stark choice between door A (true?) & door B (false?), but a more interesting game with multiple options, some more true than others. Perhaps, what 180 Proof labeled "partial truths". The first of all Principles in the game-of-Life is "choose life". However, Wisdom is the talent to know how to choose the least-bad option, from a spectrum ranging between Good & Evil. Evolution seems to reward such Pragmatic Truth, instead of the vain treasure-hunt for the Holy Grail of Absolute Truth. Nevertheless, idealistic humans tend to err on the side of Truer Truth (e.g. philosophy ; science ; technology), thus advancing cultural evolution from Cave Man to Rocket Man -- from bare survival to thrival. :smile:


A cognitive bias is a strong, preconceived notion of someone or something, based on information we have, perceive to have, or lack.
https://www.masterclass.com/articles/how-to-identify-cognitive-bias

I am terrible at collectivism, methodologically and in practice. Whether by nature or nurture I lack the necessary neural connections required to see the world as the activity of groups, nations, races, classes, or communities as Stalin did, so giving any priority to these over flesh-and-blood human beings is an impossible task for me. — NOS4A2

Apparently, Stalin saw only the forest, and not the trees. Which is why he could view individuals as expendable for the higher purposes of the collective. I suspect that Kings, Dictators, and Potentates-in-general share that view from on high. So, they have different "priorities" from those of us in the "huddled masses".

But, philosophers are supposed to be able to see the whole picture, including both general and particular, both classes and instances. So, it's strange that many utopian philosophers, such as Plato, believed that the masses should be governed by philosopher-kings. In practice, such unlimited power corrupts, so it's hard to avoid becoming absolute autocrats. Fortunately, for us in the "democratic" world, some of our political thinkers saw the need to limit the powers of forest-over-seers, with input from the limited perspectives of the single-tree-seers. :smile:

If evolution is to succeed with humans, it has to balance reality with illusion, hit the sweet spot so to speak just so that we stay alive long enough to transfer our genes to the next generation. Wicked! — Agent Smith

Yes. Evolution weeds out un-fitness, but useful (pragmatic) "illusions" (models of reality) are fit-enough to pass the survival test. Donald Hoffman doesn't deny that there is a real world out there. He just argues that our mental models of reality are based on limited information & experience. He uses the analogy of computer screen icons as abstract & simplified symbols of the underlying complexities hidden inside the processor.

Hence, he agrees with Kant, that we don't have direct knowledge of (real) things, just our indirect (ideal) mental representations of them. And he concludes that our imperfect replicas of reality are "good enough" to guide us through the exigencies of evolutionary extraction (culling of the herd). Good enough is near the balance point ("sweet spot") between too much and too little. Even if it doesn't hit a home-run every time at bat, it will be sufficient to result in a high batting average. :smile:

PS__Even as the technological extensions of our senses add more detail to our world model, we discover that, like fractals, the subtleties go on toward infinity.


The Case Against Reality :
As we go about our daily lives, we tend to assume that our perceptions—sights, sounds, textures, tastes—are an accurate portrayal of the real world. Sure, when we stop and think about it—or when we find ourselves fooled by a perceptual illusion—we realize with a jolt that what we perceive is never the world directly, but rather our brain’s best guess at what that world is like, a kind of internal simulation of an external reality. Still, we bank on the fact that our simulation is a reasonably decent one. If it wasn’t, wouldn’t evolution have weeded us out by now? The true reality might be forever beyond our reach, but surely our senses give us at least an inkling of what it’s really like.

Not so, says Donald D. Hoffman, a professor of cognitive science at the University of California, Irvine. Hoffman has spent the past three decades studying perception, artificial intelligence, evolutionary game theory and the brain, and his conclusion is a dramatic one: The world presented to us by our perceptions is nothing like reality. What’s more, he says, we have evolution itself to thank for this magnificent illusion, as it maximizes evolutionary fitness by driving truth to extinction.
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/04/the-illusion-of-reality/479559/
Note -- Hoffman insists that our survival was not due to a "true" picture of reality, but to a model (that I call "Ideality") that is true-enough for minimal fitness. For example, our ancestors survived for millennia without knowing much about Physics, or Quantum Physics, or the vastness of the universe. So, they "got by" with their superficial models of the entangled complexities of the underlying & overlying world that is hidden from our eyes -- but not from our sense-extending technology. :nerd:

Clearly, Gnomon, you don't drink bleach – no doubt because the "representation" of its toxicity corresponds sufficiently with the bleach's "ding-an-such" for you to heed the poison warning label. Anti-realism (i.e.immaterialism) is demonstrably bad for your health — 180 Proof

I also don't imbibe 180 proof Materialism. It's bad for your mental health; even for those who don't believe in immaterial Minds. :joke:

Anti-Idealism :
Type-A materialists hold that phenomenal facts (insofar as there are such facts) are necessitated a priori by physical facts. Such a materialist denies that physically identical zombie worlds or inverted-qualia worlds are coherently conceivable, denies that Mary (of the black-and-white room) gains any factual knowledge on seeing red for the first time, and typically embraces a functional (or eliminative) analysis of consciousness.

Type-B materialists accept that phenomenal facts are not necessitated a priori by physical facts, but hold that they are necessitated a posteriori by physical facts. Such a materialist accepts that zombie worlds or inverted-qualia worlds (often both) are coherently conceivable but denies that such worlds are metaphysically possible, holds that the factual knowledge that Mary gains is knowledge of an old fact in a new way, and typically embraces an a posteriori identification of consciousness with a physical or functional property. ___David Chalmers
http://consc.net/papers/modality.html

PS__Maybe "G-mon" is a type A Materialist. Phenomena is a function of Noumena. In that case, Phenomena are recognized as models of Noumena because the a priori template of Aristotelian Categories (Quanta/Qualia) fits the incoming information. Partial fit = questionable; No fit = false. :cool:

So "human minds" are human minds-dependent "facts"? — 180 Proof

Say what?
Alls I'm sayin is that our understanding of what's real or unreal, true or false is subjective phemomena, not objective noumena. That's why Kant concluded that we KANT know the ding an sich (true ultimate perfect reality, which I call "Ideality"). All we know is our own concepts about perceived reality. So our "facts" are "human-mind-dependent". G*D only knows what's what out there in the Real world.

Unfortunately, most of us assume that our mental models are perfect representations of Reality. Although empirical scientists do generalize, they are aware that their models are never perfect, and fall short of absolute Facts. Hence, the necessity for methodological skepticism.

That's also why Aristotle made a distinction between Universal Ideal Generic Forms (morph), and particular physical Instances (hyle) of those Ideal Abstractions. Science attempts to generalize universal Facts from a few instances. In practice though, our common language too often allows us to confuse physical real Instances (Things ; Facts) with metaphysical ideal Forms (Universals ; Truths) ; the Ding with the Ding An Sich. :worry:

Ding an sich :
noumenon, plural noumena, in the philosophy of Immanuel Kant, the thing-in-itself (das Ding an sich) as opposed to what Kant called the phenomenon—the thing as it appears to an observer. Though the noumenal holds the contents of the intelligible world, Kant claimed that man’s speculative reason can only know phenomena and can never penetrate to the noumenon. Man, however, is not altogether excluded from the noumenal because practical reason—i.e., the capacity for acting as a moral agent—makes no sense unless a noumenal world is postulated in which freedom, God, and immortality abide.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/noumenon#ref182175

Universals :
The Problem of Universals asks three questions. Do universals exist? If they exist, where do they exist? Also, if they exist, how do we obtain knowledge of them? In Aristotle's view, universals are incorporeal and universal, but only exist only where they are instantiated; they exist only in things
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristotle%27s_theory_of_universals

Methodological skepticism is distinguished from philosophical skepticism in that methodological skepticism is an approach that subjects all knowledge claims to scrutiny with the goal of sorting out true from false claims, whereas philosophical skepticism is an approach that questions the possibility of certain knowledge
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartesian_doubt

Platonic Form :
The theory of Forms or theory of Ideas is a philosophical theory, concept, or world-view, attributed to Plato, that the physical world is not as real or true as timeless, absolute, unchangeable ideas.
___Wiki
Note -- Those perfect Ideals exist only in the mind of G*D (or Spinoza's Nature), not in the minds of mortal men. If there is no eternal state of Being, there is only imperfect ever-evolving reality -- no absolute Truth. G*D's ideals are the ultimate objectivity that fallible humans futilely strive for in Science & Philosophy. Hence, if there was no G*D, we would have to invent one to serve as the Ideal Objective Observer.

"Spinoza argues that there is only one substance, which is absolutely infinite, self-caused, and eternal. He calls this substance 'God', or 'Nature'.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_Spinoza

MIND-DEPENDENT FACT

↪javi2541997
I believe this :point: What makes an observation true or false will be helpful!
Synthetic a priori? — Agent Smith

True & False are opinions, not facts. They don't exist apart from human minds. That's why Kant labeled them "synthetic" (artificial instead of natural). But, all animals have an interest in determining which appearances are Real (true & natural) from which are Unreal (artifacts of mind).

For instance, the appearance of tall grass may, or may not, indicate edibles for ruminants. There could be a tiger lining-up its stripes with grassy shadows. But fawns don't need to know that "fact" from personal experience. So, most prey animals are jumpy, because they were programmed -- a priori by evolutionary education -- to err on the safe side, and be prepared to run, if the grass moves when the wind is not blowing.

Homo Sapiens have inherited that habit of synthesizing physical percepts into meta-physical concepts, to mentally compare true grass with fake grass (a thought experiment). But humans have expanded that analytical talent to include complex meta-physical concepts in their appearance-vs-actual scrutiny. But out there in harsh Reality there is only "is" or "ain't". True is only "true" in Ideality.

So, philosophers invented new words to differentiate non-physical noumena (ideas, beliefs, opinions) from physical phenomena (facts, percepts, sensations). Those abstract logical categories all distill-down to True vs False. But, it's seldom that black & white. Anyway, since noumena are not empirical (known by physical evidence) they exist only in the abstract realm of Logic & Reason. Which Kant assumed was inherent in the human mind, not learned from experience. Yet, "a priori" could be interpreted as "from creation" or "from evolution". So, which belief is true, and which false? :cool:

Kant and Evolution :
https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/abs/problem-of-animal-generation-in-early-modern-philosophy/kant-and-evolution/DF6CE471233694FEC1A8B45AABBA8EB9

Bell said in a BBC interview in 1985 that the puzzle of nonlocality vanishes if you assume that “the world is superdeterministic, with not just inanimate nature running on behind-the-scenes clockwork, but with our behavior, including our belief that we are free to choose to do one experiment rather than another, absolutely predetermined.” — John Horgan, SciAm_Opinion

I just read, in Stephen Nadler's A Book Forged in Hell, about Spinoza's concept of divine determinism, as evidenced by reliable (consistent ; unvarying) natural laws. "Spinoza's cosmos is, in other words, a strictly deterministic, even necessitarian one. Everything, without exception, is causally determined to be such as it is . . . " To me, that sounds like "superdeterminism", or perhaps super-natural-determinism. But since Spinoza's day, empirical Science has found that, ironically, on the most fundamental scale, nature seems to be random & acausal*1. Fortunately, on the macro level of reality, the aimless vectors of quantum chaos cancel-out to present the superficial appearance of an unbroken chain of cause & effect*2. Which allows us to predict future events, at least statistically & locally.

So, the universe appears to unfold in an orderly manner, but with some room for creative disorder. If so, the "behind-the scenes clock" may not be absolutely deterministic, but occasionally skips a beat, -- allowing for the obvious creativity of Evolution. If Change was rigidly regular, nothing new (random mutations) would ever emerge from the chaotic swirling of atoms. In fact, the result of haphazard mutation & systematic selection is the syncopated rhythm of reality. This emergent order from random events permits us to depend on stable locality at the human eye-level, even though the underlying quantum field is non-local.

Hence, the symphony of nature has many parts. In the quantum section, causality is randomized, allowing for jazz-like free-style within the limits of Probability. Meanwhile, the macro instruments follow the causal conductor to play a harmonious melody, that appeals to our sense of order. Translated into philosophical jargon, such freedom within determinism is "compatible". Such flexibility is the only way to have both determined Destiny, and freedom of choice, resulting in Order within Chaos*3. As an example, imagine mountain climbers planning to ascend to the top of Mt. Everest, The ultimate goal is predetermined as the highest point. But there are many alternative paths to the top, hence options to choose from. The end of the world may be determined, but there are many ways to get there. :smile:


*1. Acausal :
Albert Einstein, also a founder of quantum physics, strenuously objected to the notion of acausality in the theory. He famously argued that “God does not play dice.” Einstein felt that if something in the universe appears to act randomly, it’s only because our understanding of it is not deep enough. He felt that there is always a cause.
http://www.quantumphysicslady.org/glossary/acausal/
Note -- Einstein's "God" is the First & Final Cause, but in-between there is freedom of choice for sentient & rational agents

*2. Quantum Mischief Rewrites the Laws of Cause and Effect :
Spurred on by quantum experiments that scramble the ordering of causes and their effects, some physicists are figuring out how to abandon causality altogether.
https://www.quantamagazine.org/quantum-mischief-rewrites-the-laws-of-cause-and-effect-20210311/

*3. The Order in Chaos Theory :
Freud believed that human experiences emerge from past experiences based on linear cause and effect. The Chaos Theory negates this belief as it dictates that nature is created out of a sum of many tiny pulsating objects that we now know as patterns. . . . This is justified by the Uncertainty Principle, which rejects accuracy in all its form. This is the reason why systems are called complex because they are unsolvable by either the human mind or any super computer.
https://medium.com/@universalintelligencespace/the-order-in-chaos-theory-192e2d67154a

Freedom within Determinism :
https://www.ucl.ac.uk/~uctytho/dfwTerminology.html

ONE OF MANY PATHS TO THE DESTINATION

Nevertheless, I think Aristotle's principles of logic are still important in some ways. — javi2541997

Yes. If we couldn't agree on some universally applicable First Principles (starting point for reasoning), Philosophy & Science would be a political contest of whose personal opinions should rule. Most of Aristotle's principles have held-up to skeptical scrutiny over the years. But, logical reasoning from abstract principles can still be questionable. For example, even if you accept a particular axiom, as the first of a series of logical causes & effects, you could still go wrong.

That's because of the skeptical distinction between "relations of ideas" and "matters of fact". David Hume noted that there is no "logical necessity" between a cause and its effect. He said that our intuition of logical cause & effect is basically a "habit of thought". Hence, one experimental outcome doesn't prove anything. So, scientists can't accept a single result as typical, until it has been repeatedly replicated. Nevertheless, reasoning from First Principles is a stubborn, and useful, habit.

Kant said he was "awakened from his dogmatic slumber" by Hume's skepticism. So, he tried to find a way to justify our intuitive "habit of thought" by means other than endless inconclusive experiments & observations. Yet, he was forced to conclude that we can't know anything about the world with absolute certainty. We can only know our own minds. Even our sensory Perceptions are filtered through our metaphysical Conceptions. Hence, it is only "knowledge of causation itself that is a priori (i.e. knowable prior to experience)"*1. We seem to be born with a mental template of metaphysical Logic and physical Cause & Effect, which we refine over time by adding confirming experiences.

Yet we must always be on the lookout for the exception that proves the rule : miracles are rare & usually based on trust in someone else's experience. So, who do you trust : Aristotle or Augustine? :joke:



*1. Reference : Philosophy Now Magazine, June/July 2022

A) Which are the “first principles” Aristotle is referring to?
B) If they are not need to be proven... their premises are universal affirmative? (According to Aristotle's syllogisms) — javi2541997

I think you have put your finger on a sore-point of Philosophy & Science : the necessity to take some "facts" for granted without empirical proof. The only evidence to support such unproven premises (axioms) is logical consistency. But, even that assumption is based on the presumption that the human mind and the real world are inherently logical, hence share a firm foundation. I suppose Aristotle's Universal Principles are the metaphysical analog of physical atoms : not reducible to anything more fundamental. First Principles are simply labels for First Causes : the cornerstone of all practical knowledge. Example : the distinction between Substance (matter) and Essence (form ; qualities).

However, some fundamental premises are themselves subject to disproof, by stumbling across an exception to the rule. For example, physicists rejoiced when the long quest for the Democratean Atom seemed to be fulfilled in the 1800s, when Dalton & Thompson inferred that they had found the smallest possible piece of matter. Yet, no sooner had Rutherford produced his plum-pudding models, it was replaced by the planetary model of Bohr, introducing even smaller bits of stuff. Unfortunately, their dissecting & reductive methods soon hit a softer underlying layer of reality, which we now label, not as compact lumps of stuff, but as extended Fields of potential. Therefore, the 21st century foundation of the material world, now seems to be somewhat fuzzy & mushy, acausal & non-classical. Yet the operations of those amorphous immaterial mathematical fields have proven to have a perverse holistic logic of its own, as proven by the real-world success of "weird" Quantum Theory*1.

Apparently, Aristotle's First Principles were presumed "self-evident", based on his self-confidence in his own reasoning ability. But quantum scientists are no longer so self-assured, regarding their ability to make sense of the evidence available for the fuzzy logic of the sub-atomic realm of reality. It even calls into question our long-held assumptions about the linear logic of the Universe. Maybe our time-honored First Principles should be considered as local rules-of-thumb for taking the measure of the immense universe. :smile:


*1. Famously, physicist Feynman advised his bewildered students to avoid the trap of trying to make philosophical sense of quantum non-mechanics. Instead, "just shut-up and calculate".

Negative numbers, as some members have already realized, are simply extensions of numerical patterns, not forwards like how we're so habituated to doing but backwards. — Agent Smith

Good point! In Physics, changes in value can only proceed "forward" (positive) one-step-at-a-time. But in meta-physical*1 Mathematics, we can imagine the number-line as a whole, and see both forward (future) and backward (past) at a glance. Likewise, we can imagine Time as a number-line, allowing us to follow it back to the beginning of time . . . and beyond. That's why Physicists can only work on the here & now, while Cosmologists & Sci-Fi-ers can speculate on Multiverses-without-beginning and Many-Worlds-without-location. Such conjectures are mathematical concepts instead of physical observations. :smile:


*1. Meta-physics, in this context refers to abstract mental processes, instead of concrete material objects. Hence, has nothing to do with ghosts or spirits. Numbers, ratios, & relationships are mental concepts, not physical things. So, they can act in ways that are physically impossible, such as to go backward & forward in time, outside the momentary Now. To infinity and beyond . . . .

NUMERICAL VALUES EXTEND TO INFINITY IN BOTH DIRECTIONS

This could be related to what I think is perhaps the most basic function of cognition, to prime an organism for future experiences. — Enrique

In sci-fi movies, AI robots, such as the Terminator, are represented as recognizing a target person by rapidly overlaying templates, until a match is found. That match evokes recorded data ; which, among other things, allows the AI to anticipate what the target will do next. The template includes, not just physical shape geometry, but other properties & qualities that may be relevant to an encounter with the target.

Structural protologicality, intuitive notions of particularized form . . .
Linear protologicality grants all kinds of organisms the proficiency to execute reasoning sequences, — Enrique

Again, I'm afraid you are way above my pay grade in the technical aspects of cognition. I had to look-up "protologicality" to confirm that it means what I guessed from the Latin : primitive forms of logic. Apparently, its a non-symbolic (non-conceptual) logic closer to mathematical relationships, than to formal philosophical reasoning. That may be what I was implying, when I defined Logic as "Geometry with words"*1. Seems that may be better equipped to delve deeply into your theories. :nerd:

*1. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/725311

This is an introspective insight that fits well with my model. The image "seen" by reason could be at least partly a coherent and vibrational light/molecular field that the brain participates in generating, and the logicality or "abstract" nature of the image might be a product of neural architecture coordinated with this energy field, so that the experience "makes sense". — Enrique

I have toyed with the notion that the human brain comes equipped with "templates", abstract images, that we apply to percepts in order to "make sense" of them. For example, the male of our species may not be aware of how they came to be aroused, but somehow certain percepts (e.g. curvy shapes) are interpreted as a possible instance of the typical female form. Those templates may not be physically embedded in the brain architecture. But neural processes seem to direct conscious attention to those hypothetical templates, which may be mathematical instead of material. :nerd:

PS__In constructed architecture there are two kinds of "structure". The kind seen by the Eye is physical objects, such as arches, beams & columns. But the kind that is seen by Reason (ideal templates for comparison to actual things) is the abstract proportions, which indicate the balanced flow of forces in the building; and which we interpret as stability and beauty.

Template : an abstract (e.g. geometric) pattern that exemplifies an ideal form, which the perceiving mind wants to reproduce, or to recognize (know again).

What I mean by panprotopsychism is that fundamental matter is not conscious, but percept constituents that compose consciousness are material and form at very basic levels of emergence, — Enrique

Yes. Obviously "fundamental matter is not conscious" (dumb as a rock). But some foundational element of Nature must at least have the Potential for percepts & concepts. Otherwise, consciousness would have to be super-natural or alien.

Not all percepts are conscious (e.g. blind sight), but concepts (knowledge) are the essence of Consciousness. So, if anything physical is responsible for the emergence of consciousness, I'd nominate Energy (EnFormAction in my thesis). These natural forces are not just inert clay to be manipulated, but are causal, acting upon material nature to change its form. And Form (information) is the essence of Meaning to the human mind. :cool:

Consciousness :
Literally : to know with. To be aware of the world subjectively (self-knowledge) and objectively (other knowing). Humans know Quanta via physical senses & analysis, and Qualia via meta-physical reasoning & synthesis. In the Enformationism thesis, Consciousness is viewed as an emergent form of basic mathematical Information.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page12.html

The question seems a correspondent of the most popular question “Was mathematics invented or discovered?” and relates to the nature of mathematics as well as to the philosophical problem of applicability of mathematics. However, there are anthropocentric and evolutionary features that the philosophical investigations on this topic have not focused on much: — Doru B

Most of the proposed answers I've seen, to the "invented vs discovered" question, seem to conclude that it's a little of both. The "unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics" in science indicates that Nature is in some sense fundamentally mathematical. But the history of math shows that humans using abstract "pure" mathematical principles, eventually find concrete practical applications for many of them.

That's why I have concluded that human Logic (Reason) is basically Geometry with words. Both manipulate abstract relationships (ratios ; relative values) in order to discover wider or narrower practical applications of those ratios. Ratios are inherent in Nature : for example, Energy is essentially a thermodynamic ratio between high & low, hot & cold, here & there. Likewise, Morality is basically an interactive ratio between me & you, us & them, good & evil. So, it seems that Evolution has programmed the human brain with a rudimentary sense of ratio, that we can expand on with education & practice. But, we can also lose that sense, when it is not exercised. Which is why I can no longer add 2 + 2, without the crutch of a non-human calculator.

I just read an article that deals with a similar topic : Human mathematics and God’s mathematics, by Catalin Barboianu, mathematician & philosopher of science. For the purposes of this thread, you can interpret "God's Mathematics" as the logical structure of Nature, and "Human Mathematics" as the human talent for discovering and inventing applications for that knowledge. He seems to believe that "to mathematize is human", so to speak : "Whatever mathematics is (science, method, formal language or logical symbolism), we do mathematics without being mathematicians". Yet, he also offers an alternative theory, that humans project their own subjective values onto Nature.

Speaking of subjective math, he adds that "The history of application of mathematics in the sciences also has a “mysterious” element. Being driven by their natural impulses of inquiring and generalizing, but also following some special criteria of beauty, symmetry and elegance specific to the mathematical creation". Although we can't yet describe the evolutionary mechanics that created the aesthetic sense in humans & animals, it's more taken for granted than viewed as mysterious. Without consciously thinking about it, we can immediately recognize the symmetry & elegance in a beautiful face. And some have even tried to reduce it to geometry. :yum:

"Contemporary pioneering studies in what is called perceptual mathematics . . . . came to shape an interdisciplinary cognitive theory that claims that all mathematics is human, resides in the mind, and is not an external product of the mind. The human mind is endowed with innate primordial perceptions such as spatial (metric, linearity), numerical, and topological (proximity, relational structures), reflected by the common empirical concepts such as distance,motion, change, flow of time, and matter. It is further hypothesized that animals also hold such perceptions.Thus, the concepts of mathematics are not platonic, but are built in the brain from these primordial perceptions, and brain neurophysiology gives rise to the extremely precise and logical language of mathematics
https://medium.com/@cb_67963/human-mathematics-and-gods-mathematics-682ac8e7bba

If somehow evolution has equipped us with mathematical minds, it is fair to hypothesize that the "book of nature is written in the language of mathematics" just because we see it that way. — Doru B

Some thinkers assume that Nature is Mathematical (abstract values, sans meaning) while others believe that Nature is Mental (logic plus meaning). So, I suspect that the replies to your topic will divide along those lines. A purely mathematical universe just is, and must be taken for granted. That's why many scientists assume that Energy (cause) & Laws (logic) exist eternally, and need no explanation. But some scientists observe that the universe, that began from abstract Cause & Laws, has evolved animated self-aware beings with personal values & meanings. How is that possible?

I'll propose that, logically, the Potential for Awareness & Feelings must have existed, in potential, along with Causation & Organization. Over time, that Potential for both Material and Mental processes has been Actualized into physical Bodies with non-physical Minds. Why do I label Mind as non-physical (or metaphysical)? Because, the reductive sciences of humanity have not yet discovered an Atom of Mind. So, they label Mental processes as "epiphenomena", hence, not nearly as important (for practical purposes) as Physical phenomena.

As a thought experiment, which would you prefer to be : a> a phenomenal Brain in a vat, without awareness & feeling, or b> an epiphenomenal Mind in a vacuum, with sentience & sensations. Your answer will reveal which you believe to be most essential to your being. Of course, a Mind without hands cannot do anything physical. But it can imagine doing anything imaginable. So, which is more important to you : Mechanism or Imagination? :joke:

PS__How about option c> a physical body & brain plus a non-physical mind? Is that the best of all possible worlds?

Epiphenomena :
1. a secondary effect or byproduct that arises from but does not causally influence a process.
2. mental state regarded as a byproduct of brain activity.

Potential is Primary :
In physics as in Logic, an Action Potential necessarily exists prior to the Action.

If you have specific, credible, referenced, scientific information that describes or explains mental processes, please post it. That's what this thread is about. — T Clark

Since I'm not a practicing scientist, I don't presume to provide "specific, credible, referenced, scientific information". So, as an amateur philosopher, on a philosophy forum, I have to limit my posts to philosophical theorizing & speculation.

However, in my blog posts, I do include copious references to the informed opinions of professional scientists. And Information Theory is on the cutting edge of Mind research. I thought that might be relevant to a thread on the underlying causes of mental processes. But I now see that the OP assumes a narrow definition of what constitutes Science. So, I'll tune out. :smile: