No problem, and thank you for the discussion. I will say that, in my view, the conflux of mathematics and magical thinking was formalized by Georg Cantor and has been nearly universally adopted in modern mathematics. If you believe that infinite sets cannot exist, then I am preaching to the choir. — keystone

Paradoxically, Empirical Science "facts" are believed to be true to the extent that they are reducible to mathematical ratios, or other incorporeal abstractions. According to some interpretations of irrational Infinity though, an infinite-sided die is not impossible, only supernatural, in the sense that you can imagine it, as an ideal concept --- e.g. a perfect multidimensional sphere --- but never reach-out and grasp it, in the real world. In what sense does that set of one "imaginary die" exist? :joke:

Math Magic :
Mathematics has a similar structure to certain conceptions of magic. It requires years of studying something entirely incorporeal, it seems to exist independent of the physical realm, it’s very powerful and has the ability to predict and influence the world around us, and it’s practitioners are BIZARRE.
https://www.quora.com/What-are-some-examples-of-math-being-magical

Imaginary Dice :
A ten-sided die of Fibonacci, imaginary, and irrational numbers used to abolish intellectual property
https://rollthedice.online/en/cdice/imaginary-dice

↪Gnomon
I'll try and find time for that video, the first presenter, Beau Lotto, also figured in a video I attached to the Mind Created World OP. As for 'subjectivism', I almost accept that, with the crucial caveat that we are all subjects of similar kinds, and so the world occurs for each of us in similar ways. The subjective, so-called, is an ineliminable pole of reality, but there's no use looking for it, because it is what is doing the looking. — Wayfarer

I understand your qualification of acceptance regarding absolute Subjectivism*1, which would be essentially Solipsism. We moderns avoid the slippery slope of solipsism by comparing our private personal point-of-view with the publicized perspectives of others (e.g. TPF), in order to find commonalities between them. Modern Scientists tend to treat those common denominators*2 as-if they are Objective facts about True Reality*3.

As you suggested though, Subjectivism entails the Part looking at the Whole, from within the system being observed*4. That's why naive Solipsism must be viewed through a lens of reflective Skepticism*5. Those "Other Minds" may filter information about True Reality through their own private or communal prejudices. But that couldn't be true of Moi, could it? :cool:


*1. Subjectivism is the theory that perception (or consciousness) is reality, and that there is no underlying, true reality that exists independent of perception.
https://www.philosophybasics.com/branch_subjectivism.html
Note --- Subjectivism = no absolute or objective Truth

*2. common denominator : a fact or quality that is shared by two or more people or groups.

*3. Empirical Science reveals the "Mind of God" without direct revelation :
Many early scientists were not only inspired to do science because they believed in God; they also thought that the natural world revealed the attributes and reality of God. . . . . Sir Isaac Newton argued that the delicate balance of forces at work in our solar system revealed “an intelligent and powerful Being.” . . . .
So how did we get from these great founders of modern science—with their conviction that science reveals the handiwork of God—to the modern New Atheists such as Richard Dawkins and Victor Stenger who think that science properly understood renders belief in God untenable?
https://stephencmeyer.org/2021/04/01/scientific-discoveries-reveal-the-mind-of-god-behind-the-universe-2/
Note --- The "handiwork" is self-existent? Hence no "hand" or "mind" needed?

*4. What is my invisible Milieu? :
Two young fish are asked by an older fish, “How's the water?” and one young fish turns to the other and says, “what the hell is water?”
https://humanitiesmoments.org/moment/this-is-water-banalities-of-living/
Milieu : environment ; ambience ; surroundings ; context ; background
Caveat : a warning or proviso of specific stipulations, conditions, or limitations.

*5. Solipsism and Skepticism :
What is most distinctive about solipsism lies in what it calls for us to be skeptical of. Solipsism tends to involve skepticism about our knowledge of the world itself. It also involves a skepticism about the minds of others.
https://www.thecollector.com/what-is-solipsism/

I must say this is a cop-out somehow more ridiculous than the "God made the Big Bang then pissed off". — Lionino
Isn't this just the definition of deism? — Hanover

Not necessarily. One interpretation of Deism is that G*D is the universe*1. For example, G*D may exist eternally as a disembodied spirit, but occasionally transforms --- for no known reason --- into a physical material form. In that case, the Big Bang would be a birth event, and it took almost 14B years to mature into a world with self-conscious creatures. From that point onward, homo sapiens are god's way to "know thyself" (self-realization). Hence, our interactions with Nature constitute our relationship with G*D, and G*D's dealings with man. This is similar to some ancient notions of eternal formless deity (rational creative power : Brahma, Logos) and a temporal constructive demi-god (demiurge)*2*3.

However, the notion of gradual evolution (maturation) of the physical world is a rather recent cosmological & teleological concept. So the ancient god-models may not fit any of the Evolution-based options in the OP. But the Deist model emerged, along with modern empirical Science, in the 17th century, so 18th century Darwinian evolution should fit neatly into the general concept of a Nature God. Such an immanent deity does not "interfere" with natural processes, but is undergoing constant changes & transformations, just as the human body does during its allotted years. And we can assume that the Big Sigh, in about 10 trillion years, will mark the death of G*D's current incarnation. :smile:

PS___ I suppose a Deist could check None or All of the Above options.

*1. Deism's immanent deity :
Influence of Deism since the early 20th century There is thus no theological need to posit any special relationship between God and creation; rather, God is the universe and not a transcendent entity that created and subsequently governs it.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Deism

*2. Plato’s Timaeus
The universe, he proposes, is the product of rational, purposive, and beneficent agency. It is the handiwork of a divine Craftsman (“Demiurge,” dêmiourgos,) who, imitating an unchanging and eternal model, imposes mathematical order on a preexistent chaos to generate the ordered universe (kosmos).
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/plato-timaeus/.
Note --- In the immanent nature-god model, Chaos would be the "pre-existent" formless eternal spirit that takes on the material form of the physical universe we know and love. Presumably, Chaos-god has no properties or qualities that we humans could know or love, other than abstract mathematical Logic.

*3. Hindu Creation Myth :
For Hindus the universe was created by Brahma, the creator who made the universe out of himself.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/guides/zv2fgwx/revision/7

Deism is the philosophical position and rationalistic theology that generally rejects revelation as a source of divine knowledge and asserts that empirical reason and observation of the natural world are how we come to know god. ___ Wikipedia

By the way, I've worked out how to embed Youtube shorts. If you follow the usual procedure and embed the raw url enclosed in the media tag: — Wayfarer

FWIW, I just embedded a whole (non-short) YouTube link in a post by clicking the "Share" button at the top of the video, and then right-click the "Share Link" that pops up, then select "copy link", next go to the forum and click the "You Tube" menu button and paste the link into the Insert Media box, then click "Go". Voila!

You Tube insert button :

The tree search algorithm in AlphaZero is 'nothing but' an algorithm for the allocation of resources to nodes in the search tree. This example is interesting from another point of view. At a node deep in the tree, AlphaZero uses a slimmed down version of itself, that is, one with less resources. You could say it uses a model of itself for planning. It may be modelling itself modelling itself modelling itself modelling itself modelling itself modelling itself. Meta-management and self-modelling are not in themselves an explanation for very much. — GrahamJ

The self-referencing models sound reminiscent of Douglas Hofstadter's nested feedback loops espoused in his 1979 book, Gödel, Escher, Bach, and elaborated in his 2007 book, I Am a Strange Loop. He suggested that one of those "slimmed-down models" might be the sentient core of what we experience as The Self and know as "I" or "me", the central "Planner".

Of course, big-C consciousness is not that simple. Current attempts at Artificial Intelligence are trying a variety of models : Language models, Neural Networks, Random Forest, Linear Regression, etc, etc. But self-modeling may be, not more "intelligent", in terms of processing power, but more human-like, in terms of self knowledge. :smile:

PS___I have no computer credentials, just a philosophical interest in Consciousness.

More broadly speaking, Einstein always stood for a realist attitude: that everything is determined by or subject to general laws. That's why he couldn't abide the implications of quantum physics - entanglement ('spooky action at a distance') and uncertainty being prime examples. — Wayfarer

Yes, it was that "Realist Attitude" that I was referring to in my post above : "Yet, the general scientific attitude toward Nature is that nothing is left to Chance". I suppose the necessity for mixing subjective Metaphysics*1 with objective Quantum Physics is what Realists and Materialists most strenuously object to. By "chance" I refer, not to Luck or Fate, but to the free-wheeling randomness underlying the apparent mechanical determinism of macro reality.

Since I'm an amateur philosopher, not a professional scientist, the "contamination" (impurity) of Reality with a bit of Ideality is a feature of sub-atomic science, not a fault. The 17th century Enlightenment revolution prided itself on empirical Objectivity (reality) & mathematical Precision (certainty), as opposed to the Subjectivity (private revelation) & Assurance (dogmatic faith) of Christian theology. So, it's understandable that the attribution of lawlessness on the frontiers of civilized Reality would be unbearable to those trained in the law & order certainties of Classical Physics.

Since modern Science was the legitimate offspring of secular Greek philosophy, I'm not offended by the family resemblance manifesting in the margins of observable reality. Besides, even the reality of Reality is not as unambiguous as philosophical Realism portrays it. Due to my BothAnd*2 attitude toward Science & Philosophy, I am able to accommodate the Yin and the Yang opposition in a single complementary worldview. ☯︎


*1. Metaphysical subjectivism is the theory that reality is what we perceive to be real, and that there is no underlying true reality that exists independently of perception. One can also hold that it is consciousness rather than perception that is reality (idealism).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjectivism

*2. Both/And Principle :
My coinage for the holistic principle of Complementarity, as illustrated in the Yin/Yang symbol. Opposing or contrasting concepts are always part of a greater whole. Conflicts between parts can be reconciled or harmonized by putting them into the context of a whole system.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page10.html

Yet, the general scientific attitude toward Nature is that nothing is left to Chance. — Gnomon
That's metaphysics not science. — Wayfarer

Historically, Luck does play a role in scientific discoveries. But, I assume the pragmatic scientists don't like (metaphysical attitude) to depend on fickle Luck or capricious Serendipity.

Perhaps I should have limited my scientific attitude assessment to Einstein's "god doesn't play dice" remark. Could that general/universal assertion apply to both physics and metaphysics? :joke:

That "flavour of characteristics" is what I call ambiguity. Your use of this word conflicts with the idea you expressed above, about using well defined words with less baggage. — Metaphysician Undercover
Your whole argument for less ambiguity is based on an impractical desire for words to be absolutely concrete and defined. — Benj96

Although I assumed I knew what you were referring to in the OP, I also think has a good point. Perhaps most of the never-ending argumentation on this forum hinges on ambiguity in language. That's why Voltaire challenged, "If you want to converse with me, first define your terms". Verbal precision is difficult, but not "impractical".

It's true that the term "information" has spawned many new shades of meaning*1 since Shannon redefined it for his data engineering purposes. So, broadly referring to that inherent ambiguity as "the flavour of characteristics" does not pin down the particular Flavour of Information you are connecting to Randomness in the OP.

That's why my Information-based blog has attempted to define the term, as I use it in the blog posts. Unfortunately, some ambiguity is unavoidable, since it is a "shapeshifter" with many ordinary and exotic "flavours". The links below are just two of several attempts to clarify the various ways the term is now used in scientific & philosophical discussions. Terrence Deacon, author of Incomplete Nature, may have touched on MU's need for either/or information on both/and Information*2. :smile:


*1. The many faces of Information :
Colloquial info = Predicate; a noun: what it's about; the meaning; what is gained; the referent.
Shannon info = Quantified; a verb; what it does; gain vs loss; energy.
Boltzmann info = Randomized, absent, what was lost; entropy.
Deacon info = Referential; statistical; pointing to an absent future state.
Teleodynamic info = Semiotic; symbols; words that point to absent things; indicate future possibilities.
http://bothandblog4.enformationism.info/page29.html

*2. The Many Forms of Information :
He points out an unintended consequence of the statistical definition of Information, “By stripping the concept of its links to reference, meaning, and significance . . . The result is that the technical use of the term information is now roughly synonymous with difference, order, pattern, or the opposite of physical entropy. . . . This redefinition of the concept of information as a measure of order has, in effect, cemented the Cartesian cut into the foundation of physics. . . . implicitly support the claims of both eliminativism and panpsychism.”
http://bothandblog4.enformationism.info/page29.html

What is Information? :
So, in answer to a request for a general definition, as it “pertains to inorganic (physical), organic (biological), and semantic types of information”, I have defined “Information” in the context of various real-world instances of ubiquitous enforming power.
https://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page16.html

The philosophical point about sub-atomic physics is mainly that it torpedoed the notion of an ultimately-existing material point-particle - 'the atom' of classical thought. C S Pierce, with his 'tychism', would have been perfectly comfortable with the uncertainty principle. But for those seeking the atom as a kind of bedrock foundation of reality - no joy. And it is amazingly difficult for a lot of people to cope with that.

By the way, I love Zizek's take on this. He says that when God was programming the universe, like when programmers create background scenery on a video game, he thought 'why should I bother programming the atom? People are too stupid to see down to that level'. He left it undetermined. But then we out-smarted God - we caught 'God with his pants down', so to speak. — Wayfarer

Yes. Pierce seemed to be comfortable with flexible fundamental Chance, working in opposition to mechanical cause/effect Necessity*1. Yet, the general scientific attitude toward Nature is that nothing is left to Chance. Although some might prefer that nothing is certain. Anyway, that may be why Einstein thought Quantum theory was missing some hidden variables*2, that would cancel-out undetermined Randomness (essential uncertainty) and justify absolute Determinism (mathematical certainty).

In my own musing about the vagaries of Nature, and of moral freedom, I concluded that the Program for evolution must have included opposing YinYang forces of accidental Chance and intentional Destiny. Hence, all changes in the world can be either Positive or Negative, but average-out to Neutral (balanced). An ethical or religious reason for allowing exceptions to determinism, might be to include gaps in the chain of Destiny (necessity) for moral Choice (freedom). If so, we didn't "outsmart G*D", but belatedly discovered that, in making the rules (natural laws), S/He had made allowances for He/r not-so-stupid little gods to make free (unforced) choices, using the willpower of moral agency. :smile:


*1. Tychism (Greek: τύχη, lit. 'chance') is a thesis proposed by the American philosopher Charles Sanders Peirce that holds that absolute chance, or indeterminism, is a real factor operative in the universe. This doctrine forms a central part of Peirce's comprehensive evolutionary cosmology. It may be considered both the direct opposite of Albert Einstein's oft quoted dictum that: "God does not play dice with the universe" and an early philosophical anticipation of Werner Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tychism

*2. God Plays with loaded Dice :
Einstein described his "private opinion" of quantum physics in one of the 1945 letters by referencing a phrase that he had already made famous: "God does not play dice with the universe." In the letter, he wrote: "God tirelessly plays dice under laws which he has himself prescribed."
https://www.livescience.com/65697-einstein-letters-quantum-physics.html

Paradox of FreeWill :
Consequently, Unwin concluded that Quantum Theory indicates that “At the bottom of everything, the smallest particles that exist are ruled by chance. Nothing is predestined.” I happen to agree. But I added a slight twist from my own musings on fatalism :“Or, everything is probably predestined”. Like him, I found reasons for assuming free-agency in the paradoxical probabilistic underpinnings of our seemingly certain cosmos. It’s true that science can rely on the same effect following the same cause, to an accuracy of several decimal points of probability – but not always to the point of certainty. So, it seems that any self-determination or freedom-from-causation we humans possess must be found in that tiny statistical gap between cause & effect. You might call that an “odds of the gaps” argument.
https://bothandblog5.enformationism.info/page13.html

I don't believe all information in the universe is predictable because of heisenbergs uncertainty principle. Sure 99% of things can be non random but even if the fundamental 1% is that throws a huge spanner in the works — Benj96
I don't agree with the use of random here. Stochastic phenomena are just simply not precise (this is the word I was looking for) as an analysis. Commonly, (and I say erroneously) it is the precision upon which we judge whether something is random, or in the case of Heisenberg, uncertain. But to further judge a phenomena as undetermined is really troubling. — L'éléphant

Both of you may be correct. You're just focusing on different aspects of the Uncertainty problem. seems to be assuming that the world itself is fundamentally stochastic, while seems to be saying that the uncertainty is an observer problem. In truth, the answer to the "troubling" emotion caused by the random appearance of quantum phenomena may be to do as the quantum pioneers did : accept the inherent limitations of both observer and object.

As long as scientists were observing macro scale objects, their assumption of predictable mechanical determinism was pragmatic. But now, as we delve into levels of reality that the human mind and eye were not adapted to, for all practical scientific applications, non-classical sub-atomic physics is indeterminate & uncertain. Hence, for theoretical philosophical purposes we must accept the ambiguity of our knowledge (measurements) of reality at the fringes of technological precision and human decision. :nerd:



Is reality fundamentally random? :
The answer is that yes, as far as we can test, all quantum interactions that rely on a statistical or stochastic effect are random, as far as we can measure. The less helpful answer is that we don't know, because there is fundamentally no way to know if something is truly random just by its output.
https://arstechnica.com/civis/threads/does-true-randomness-exist-quantum-physics-question.1497773/

Is anything in nature truly random? :
This is a problem about the philosophy of physics; it's sometimes known as Laplace's demon. Our current best theories of the fundamental laws of nature are quantum mechanical in nature. In this theory, the outcome of measurements is truly random; however, whether this implies that nature contains fundamental randomness depends on how you think the measurement problem should be solved.
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskPhysics/comments/lls1tk/is_anything_in_nature_truly_random/

Laplace's Demon :
The future is determined. This is known as scientific determinism. Laplace expanded this idea to the entire universe – if some {omniscient} creature knew everything's position and motion at one moment, then the {mathematical} laws of physics would give it complete knowledge of the future. That creature is Laplace's demon. {my brackets}
https://elements.lbl.gov/news/spooky-science-laplaces-demon/
Note --- From the perspective of the all-knowing demon, the physical world is precisely determinate and predictable, but in the view of a mortal scientist, using imperfect machinery, the quantum realm is indeterminate & unpredictable, and perplexing. Which may be "troubling" for those who can't deal with ambiguity.

↪BC
I understand that you enjoy the taste of meat. Most people do. We evolved as omnivores. I am pleased that you see how going vegan would help the environment. It would also help people and the sentient organisms we consume. — Truth Seeker

Meat-eating humans were never a threat to the natural ecosystem, until modern science/technology began to work contrary to evolutionary selection : a> partly by allowing "unfit" humans to survive long enough to reproduce ; also b> artificially forcing nature to produce more human food than normal ; and c> resulting in an exponentially expanding human population that is overwhelming nature's ability to support life, on a globe of finite resources.

What I'm saying is that technology is the root of the food-supply problem, not meat-eating. A carnivorous lifestyle didn't un-balance the biosphere, as long as the vegetarians could out-breed the predators. One ideal solution to the world-food problem is for carnivores & omnivores (e.g. dogs, cats, and humans) to magically de-evolve into herbivores. That might be the Luddite answer to the (factual?) food insufficiency, and would incidentally end the Moral Evil (opinion) of wolves, lions, and humans killing innocent sentient creatures in order to survive.

However, a technological solution to the science-caused limited-resource problem would be to export meat-eating humans to another planet, such as Mars. Since natural evolution has not prepared the red planet for producing human foods, the technology of terra-forming must be developed by artificial evolution of a lifeless planet into a life-bearing world. Perhaps, by then, the technology for plant-based meat-analogues will be developed to the point where it solves both the insufficiency issue, and the moral problem --- "killing two birds with one stone" (sorry for the predatory metaphor).

At this point in time, the vegan/vegetarian approach seems to be focused on the moral side of what they view as an ethical/existential problem. And I doubt that they would be satisfied with a pragmatic technical solution to a moral problem, even though it might indirectly address the ethical evils. So, how can the rest of us decide which is an objective fact (insufficiency), and which is a subjective opinion (morality) ? :smile:



GRASS-EATING CARNIVORE

Things don't pop up for no reason, in fact, that is an assertion that implies a cause(in this case, 'no reason'). Given this, it is wiser to assert that the universe came into existence by some manifestation in, per se, a multiverse, than it is to park randomly on the conjecture it just popped up for no reason. We must assume a cause, so we must base theories on an existence that was caused rather than aiming at cause-less-ness and failing to describe it alongside many other inconsistencies concerning things happening without causes. — Barkon

I'm not sure what prompted you to make such an emphatic assertion. David Hume threw a monkey wrench into ancient confident causal assumptions with his astute observation that "correlation does not prove causation". {my emphasis} Nevertheless, a long chain of observed & recorded cause & effect links does point to the logical conclusion that certain kinds of temporal Priors (before state) are consistently followed by specific Posteriors (after effects). Otherwise, empirical science would not be as successful as it has been. And Bayesian Probability calculations allow us to calculate a reasonable expectation for a specified result.

Both sides of the contentious Causation controversy are personal opinions (beliefs) though, grounded on generalization from limited evidence. Causation was taken for granted by philosophers until the secularization of Science in the Enlightenment era, due to rejection of church authority on such questions. Yet, Modern Science is still based on the conditional presumption that every type of event that consistently follows another event was caused by the prior. Otherwise, our experience of the "arrow of time" would be misleading.

Even today, secular scientists typically assume continuity-of-causation all the way back to the beginning of Time : Big Bang theory. But at that point, natural knowable causation ends and supernatural conjectural causation must be inserted. Hence, their chain-of-causes abruptly ends at the beginning. So, any a priori causation or First Cause ceases to be a scientifically answerable question. Any speculations beyond that point are illegitimate, except for religious or philosophical purposes. I must assume that your OP was not a scientific statement, nor a religious doctrine, but merely philosophical in intent. :smile:

PS___FWIW, I just added a blog post in response to Arthur Schopenhauer's World As Will assertion that all change in the world results, not from a logical consecutive chain of causation, but from "a blind, unconscious, aimless striving devoid of knowledge" In other words, our world is not orderly, but chaotic; not rational, but random. I disagree with him, and agree with your assertion that we amateur philosophers "must assume a cause". Yet, some scientists & philosophers assume that they are exempt from that rational necessity, in cases that could be misconstrued as religious statements.


Schopenhauer’s Will as Intention :
Schopenhauer argued that the flawed world is not rationally organized. But, if so, how could reasoning beings evolve, and how could human Science gain control over the physical realm?
http://bothandblog8.enformationism.info/page19.html

How do we decide what is fact and what is opinion? There are more than 8.1 billion humans on Earth and our conflicting ideologies, religions, worldviews and values divide us. I worry that we will destroy ourselves and all the other species with our conflicts. I think thatif we could work out what is fact and what is opinion, it would help us get on with each other better. — Truth Seeker

You seem to be describing the role of Philosophy in a world of divided opinions. Modern Science has found that the job is easier if you focus only on the objective material world. Today, Science works on the "easy" problems ("what is?" ; "how does?" ; Quanta), and leaves the "hard" problems ( "why?" ; "whence?" ; Qualia) for Philosophy to contend with. Both approaches are supposed to "decide" on the basic of observation and reason, but measures of success are easier to quantify when we objectify. And resolution of opinion-based conflicts are easier to find when we agree in advance to accept ambiguity in our answers. :worry:

. Perhaps, its more a research question as to whether there is some way to intuitively hold onto those poetic perennial forms of philosophy without succumbing to the same critiques from the 'shut up and calculate' crowd. — substantivalism

As I was developing my personal philosophical worldview, I didn't intentionally seek to cast hard science into softer poetic forms. But Quantum Physics --- "the most mathematically accurate theory in the history of science" --- is also the most counter-intuitive and irrational. So, the use of metaphors & analogies seems to be mandatory. But such mushy terminology --- wave-particle is an actor playing two roles --- goes against the grain of classical mechanical physics. The simple cause-effect relationship is complicated by inserting a conscious mind into the event : cause-observation-effect (two slit experiments). Even the math of Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle includes confounding infinities. Consequently, I was left with no choice, but to follow the lead of the Copenhagen compromise between objectivity and subjectivity. Hence, to combine physics with metaphysics. :cool:

However, that did not stop the mechanistic theories of Classical physics of accepting such an entity, as that book by Milič Čapek supports, and that there are more concepts that such a view of the world accepted than is usually let on. — substantivalism

I assume the "entity" you refer to is something like an entangled wave-particle, which is neither here nor there, but everywhere. That's literally non-sense, but physicists eventually learned to "accept" such weirdness in exchange for uncanny technologies like quantum tunneling, that make your cell phone work wonders. I'm not familiar with Čapek, but Bergson and Whitehead were influential in the formation of my information-based worldview. :nerd:

Perhaps its not just obscure philosophy that needs to do some better PR but also modern physics as well — substantivalism

Former professional physicist, now video blogger, Sabine Hossenfelder agrees with that assessment in her critiques of What's Wrong With Modern Physics : "What can we learn from this? Well, one thing we learn is that if you rely on beauty you may get lucky. Sometimes it works." :smile:


HOSSENFELDER at 28 : did she rely on beauty?

Do you think that modern physics, or even philosophy in general, has gone off the rails with regards to non-visualized poetry/metaphor and abstract obsessions? — substantivalism

Perhaps 17th century "classical" physics did initiate a clean break from its predecessor --- Christian theology --- by insisting on "hard" (orthodox ; on the rails) science, free from metaphorical language and metaphysical implications. But then, 20th century physics took a turn back toward softer philosophical methods, which use symbols & analogies to describe things & systems that are too complex, abstract, or entangled for the simplifying human mind to deal with. The early Quantum physicists, in particular, were perplexed by the "weirdness" of their sub-atomic physics experimental results.

So, they turned to philosophical metaphysics and Eastern religious tropes for poetic words*1 (quantum contextuality) to describe the non-particular & non-mechanical behaviors of energy & matter within the invisible foundations of reality. That "off the rails" departure from mechanical explanations was quickly labeled "quantum mysticism", and "anti-science". But, that was just a brief phase in the history of modern physics, as its hard technology products became profitable, and the mushy poetry was devalued. Consequently, hard-nosed scientists were taught to ignore the metaphorical mysteries and "just calculate".

Are you longing for a return to a softer kind of science, or maybe a more poetic brand of philosophy*2? Your screename, "Substantivalism"*3, harks back to the ancient roots of modern science in debates about the substance of reality. Greek Atomism was a good start toward a mechanistic worldview, except that it postulated no empty space for change, because nothingness was taboo. Yet, mechanism requires both hard stuff (substance) and soft space (relation) to produce a dynamic material & physical world that won't stand still for us to examine it.

The Mechanical imagery of ancient natural philosophy helped to simplify the complexities & mysteries of reality. But it omitted a role for the observer & manipulator of squirrely squirming quantum systems. Nonetheless, that voided vacancy was discovered by the quantum "mystics" as they groped in the spooky darkness of the unseen realm, where causation seemed to propagate its relationships instantly across empty space..

If that's what this thread is all about, you will find some sympathetic ears, but be prepared for accusations of preaching mystical "obsessions" and metaphysical woo-woo. :smile:



*1. Poetry as a Quantum Phenomenon :
Another quantum effect one sees in poetry is what’s called quantum contextuality. In terms of language, this simply means that a word’s meaning changes depending on the words that it’s entangled with.
https://northamericanreview.org/open-space/8263-2

*2. Metaphors We Live By is a book by George Lakoff and Mark Johnson published in 1980. The book suggests metaphor is a tool that enables people to use what they know about their direct physical and social experiences to understand more abstract things like work, time, mental activity and feelings. ___Wikipedia

*3. Substantivalism vs Relationalism
About Space in Classical Physics
https://shamik.net/papers/dasgupta%20substantivalism%20vs%20relationalism.pdf

This differs markedly from religions like Buddhism, where practice, experience, and a phenomenological approach to understanding mind and reality are central, rather than the adherence to orthodox beliefs. — Wayfarer

I've heard it said that Zen Buddhism is a "practice" not a religion. But it is a "practice" with specific beliefs and group requirements or expectations. Years ago, at a hippie-like alternative church deep in the US "bible belt", I experimented with Alpha-Theta meditation, which omitted the associated Hindu/Buddhist beliefs, and focused solely on reaching a "deep, meditative, hypnotic-like state". An EEG machine was used to verify the brain-wave status during meditation.

Was that too quick & technical to qualify as a "practice"? Anyway, I enjoyed the waking-sleep relaxation, but never achieved any remarkable insights or feelings. I guess I didn't practice enough, but EEG readings are not the kind of feedback that would keep me coming back. Repetitive Practice requires emotional commitment to some personal goal, and belief that the goal is achievable. Probably, my intellectual curiosity was not sufficient for devoting my life to the practice of "wasting time". :smile:


Buddhism is variously understood as a religion, a philosophy, or a set of beliefs and practices based on the teachings of the Buddha,
https://tricycle.org/beginners/

"As the old joke goes, a tourist asked a New Yorker how do you get to Carnegie Hall. And the answer was: Practice! Practice! Practice!"

Buddhist Metaphysics :
Although mainstream Buddhism is a “form of mystical idealism”, the author says that it’s actually “a heady mixture of four quite distinct and contrasting metaphysical systems” : Common-sense Realism ; Theistic Spirituality ; Phenomenalism ; and Mystical Idealism.
https://bothandblog7.enformationism.info/page21.html

Why Buddhism is Enlightening :
This book is not recommending conversion to one of the various Asian religions that evolved from the Buddha’s teachings. Instead, he sees secular Meditation as a viable technology for taking command of our lives, and for avoiding or alleviating the psychological suffering — mostly Freudian neuroses — that plague many people today.
https://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page51.html

How To Practice Stoicism :
“A Stoic is someone who transforms fear into prudence, pain into transformation, mistakes into initiation, and desire into undertaking.” — N.N.Taleb
https://mindfulstoic.net/how-to-practice-stoicism-an-introduction-12-stoic-practices/
Note --- Although it's closer to my own Western worldview, I don't consciously practice Stoicism. Perhaps because I'm not aware of any personal neuroses that need to be "transformed" into more positive behaviors.

That is how it is nearly always (mis)interpreted. Your interpreting it as 'nothing as opposed to something', or the 'cosmic void'. It's not that, but don't feel as though you're alone in seeing it that way, it is an almost universal misunderstanding. — Wayfarer

Apparently, the Buddha's "emptiness" is supposed to be taken metaphorically instead of literally. The Bhikkhu quote describes it as a "mode of perception", which I would interpret as an attitude of "open-mindedness". And which, as described in the link below, should be essential for the practice of philosophy. But religious Faith would seem to be the antithesis : to hold stubbornly to "one's favored beliefs". Long ago, I gave-up my childhood faith, and have not found any ready-made off the shelf belief system to replace it.

That's why, over many years, I have been reviewing a variety of alternative religious, scientific, & philosophical beliefs, as I gradually construct a customized bespoke physical/metaphysical worldview of my own. I try to keep an open mind*1, but retain the truth-filter of skepticism*2 to weed-out any true-believer BS. Since I have never experienced anything Mystical or Magical, I am not predisposed to accept paranormal or transcendental beliefs that require a prejudicial "eye of faith".

The C.S. Lewis quote in my post above noted that "His faith changed his direction from 'self-scrutiny' {introspection?} to 'self-forgetfulness' {dissociation?}". {my brackets} Hence, as an adult he was transformed from dour Irish Anglican upbringing, to death-dispirited Atheist, to liberal non-denominational Theist. Does that sound like a case of "emptiness" or "open-mindedness" or "no self" to you? Obviously, he created a new personal worldview, but did his mind create a new world, in the sense of the OP? :smile:


*1. Open-mindedness is the willingness to search actively for evidence against one's favored beliefs, plans, or goals, and to weigh such evidence fairly when it is available.
https://www.authentichappiness.sas.upenn.edu/newsletters/authentichappinesscoaching/open-mindedness

*2. Skepticism is derived from the word skepsis, which means inquiry, examination, or investigation of a perception. More specifically, scientific skepticism refers to a method of systematic doubt used to objectively examine a premise, usually on the basis of empirical evidence, wherever possible. It is about cultivating critical habits of mind to weigh evidence. Scientific skepticism is a balance between being open to new ideas and being skeptical of claims that lack supporting evidence.
https://www.intelligentspeculation.com/blog/skepticism-not-cynicism-for-a-world-dependent-on-intellectual-inquirynbsp

Emptiness, the most misunderstood word in Buddhism?
The first meaning of emptiness is called "emptiness of essence," which means that phenomena [that we experience] have no inherent nature by themselves." The second is called "emptiness in the context of Buddha Nature," which sees emptiness as endowed with qualities of awakened mind like wisdom, bliss, compassion,
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/emptiness-most-misunderstood-word-in-buddhism_b_2769189

The first footnote in the Medium version of the essay refers to Kant, as does the first quotation from the Charles Pinter book Mind and the Cosmic Order, which I understand you're familiar with. I would hope overall not to stray too far out of the bounds set by Kant. — Wayfarer

I've never attempted to read Kant's "difficult" works, so I only know the Wikipedia version. But I have read Pinter's Mind and the Cosmic Order. Both of those explanations of the Mind/World relationship are easier for me to identify-with than the Hindu/Buddhist texts. In my blog book review*1, I found Pinter's western-oriented analysis of the Real vs Ideal question to be mostly compatible with my own.

For example, in order to make sense of the Buddha's "śūnyatā", I would have to picture its "emptiness" in terms of the void or nothingness (absence of matter) that presumably preceded the Big Bang of modern Western cosmology. In my own worldview, I imagine the logically necessary First Cause as existing eternally in an un-real im-material meta-physical state of Nothingness, that we westerners call "Potential". Perhaps, when my Ego is "extinguished" in death/nirvana, my self/soul will return to the void/sunya from whence it came. It's just speculation, but, for a Materialist, even that secularized de-personalized implication of matterless existence might be as unrealistic as any religious heaven.

The Nothing vs Something notion of Shunyata is itself a dualism. But then, the only way to eliminate Dualism in philosophy is to avoid rational analysis of whole systems into more digestible parts : e.g. Mūlamadhyamakakārikā vs 'Root Verses on the Middle Way'. For most of us, the first step toward understanding is to differentiate This-from-That, or Real-from-Ideal. Besides, without analytical Reason, we would have nothing to talk about, and this forum would have to communicate directly and wordlessly via mind-reading. :smile:


*1. Creative Mind and Cosmic Order :
The traditional opposing philosophical positions on the Mind vs Matter controversy are Idealism & Realism. But Pinter offers a sort of middle position that is similar in some ways to my own worldview of Enformationism.
http://bothandblog8.enformationism.info/page10.html

Not to create a physical world from scratch, but to create a metaphysical model of the world that we sense (feel) and make-sense of (comprehend). ___Gnomon
Notice the duality you introduce between model and world — Wayfarer

The Gnomon quote is how I understand the phrase "a mind-created world". But the Wayfarer quote seems to imply that my individual ego-driven Soul/Self/Mind does create, not a separate simplistic subjective model-world, but the actual all-inclusive complex objective world of physical bodies and metaphysical minds, from the whole cloth of unlimited imagination. That would be a good trick for a god {image below}, but could a very limited mind like mine pull it off? The duality is a distinction between one man's imagination, and the one real world of space-time, or perhaps a Cosmic Mind's Maya illusion.

Kant's Transcendental Idealism*1 seems to imply an unbridgeable (dualistic) gulf between imperfect & incomplete (i.e. evolving) physical Reality, and a perfect & unchanging metaphysical Platonic Ideality. The human ego produces an imaginary (ideal) world model, limited in scope & detail by our inborn or learned assumptions and associations*2. At least, that's how I interpret his notion of a transcendent ideal world*1. Other than divine magic, does your concept of a Mind-Created World agree with Kant, or a more radical sense of "created"? :smile:

PS___The NETFLIX movie Freud's Last Session, provides a fictional encounter between Sigmund Freud, a famous atheist, and C.S. Lewis, a former atheist who converted to a personal (non-Catholic) faith in "Mere Christianity"*3. Their gentlemanly give & take discussion reminded me of our dialogues, even though I am not an angry Atheist, and you are not a non-denominational Christian.


*1. Kant's Mind-Created World :
Kant's transcendental conditions of knowledge portray the mind not as creating the physical world, but as necessarily structuring our knowledge of objects with a set of unconscious assumptions; yet our pre-conscious (pre-mental) encounter with an assumed spatio-temporal, causal nexus is entirely physical.
https://philarchive.org/archive/PALKPS-4
Note --- Are those "unconscious assumptions" the prejudices you see in my dualistic worldview?
The "causal nexus" may be another term for my own EnFormAction hypothesis.

*2. Kant’s Perspectival Solution to the Mind-Body Problem :
Kant’s Critical philosophy solves Descartes’ mind-body problem, replacing the dual-
ism of the “physical influx” theory he defended in his early career. Kant’s solution, like
all Critical theories, is “perspectival,” acknowledging deep truth in both opposing
extremes. Minds are not separate from bodies, but a manifestation of them, each
viewed from a different perspective. Kant’s transcendental conditions of knowledge
portray the mind not as creating the physical world, but as necessarily structuring our
knowledge of objects with a set of unconscious assumptions; yet our pre-conscious
(pre-mental) encounter with an assumed spatio-temporal, causal nexus is entirely
physical. Hence, today’s “eliminative materialism” and “folk psychology” are both
ways of considering this age-old issue, neither being an exclusive explanation. A
Kantian solution to this version of the mind-body problem is: eliminative materialism
is good science; but only folk psychologists can consistently be eliminative material-
ists. Indeed, the mind-body problem exemplifies a feature of all cultural situations:
dialogue between opposing perspectives is required for understanding as such
to arise.
https://philarchive.org/archive/PALKPS-4
Note --- The "perspectival" solution to opposing worldviews may be similar to my own BothAnd methodology.

*3. The Most Reluctant Convert :
His faith changed his direction from “self-scrutiny” to “self-forgetfulness.”
https://www.cslewisinstitute.org/resources/the-most-reluctant-convert/
Note --- Could "self-forgetfulness" be a form of non-self egolessness?


Vishnu Dreaming Worlds into Existence

None of which has much to do with blind faith, has it? — Wayfarer

The "blind faith" was snuck into the book only in the final chapter, after many chapters of "rational argumentation" against commonsense Materialism, and even Kingsley's version of Idealism. So, how am I to interpret "transcending reason through reason" except as a "rational" choice to close the eyes to "objective" Reality, and take a leap of faith into extrasensory subjective Ideality*1? :smile:

*1. Eyes of Faith, not Reason :
He has said "He who has eyes to see, let him see, and he who has ears to hear, let him hear." This whole concept of the Lord coming to make someone blind or giving sight to those who cannot see is hard to visualize (no pun intended).
https://www.dneoca.org/articles/eyestosee0794.html

Quote from Science Ideated : "The point here, however, isn’t that reality is constituted by personal, egoic beliefs; the foundational beliefs in question aren’t accessible through introspection; they underly not only a person, not only a species, not only all living beings, but everything. They aren’t our beliefs, but the beliefs that bring us into being in the first place". — Wayfarer

I'm aware that Kastrup's language could be "misinterpreted" by those who are alien to egoless Eastern maya-based*2 worldviews. But my own personal experience, with mostly Western religions, taught me to be on-guard against those who use Maya/illusion concepts to undermine confidence in my personal reasoning abilities. Christianity uses the image of deceiving Satan for the same effect : to make believers dependent on "seers" & "prophets" for their knowledge of paradoxical Truth. So, my problem is not prejudice against Kastrup's idiosyncratic Idealism, but of the necessity for making his esoteric ideas fit into my own personally experienced model of reality, that has outgrown some Western religious beliefs, by means of philosophical reasoning. Even as I try to keep an open mind to unfamilar ideas, I remain unable to access those hearsay "foundational beliefs . . . . underlying everything". :cool:

*2.What does Maya mean spiritually?
Maya originally denoted the magic power with which a god can make human beings believe in what turns out to be an illusion. By extension, it later came to mean the powerful force that creates the cosmic illusion that the phenomenal world is real.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/maya-Indian-philosophy

'egological'. . . . . Rather it pertains to the way the ego constitutes experience of the objective world into a coherent, subjective stream of consciousness related to the ego or self — Wayfarer

Yes. I am aware that my "ego's role" in construing the world is an obstacle to the Buddhist goal of "non self" (i.e. perfect objectivity or God's view of the world). I suppose, if "god" wanted us mortals to "become like God" (Genesis 3:5), then s/he wouldn't allow Satan/serpent/Maya to deceive us with the apple of Egoism. Does it make sense to sacrifice the Self (soul) in service to an anonymous/imaginary Cosmic Concept? To me --- in view of recorded human history of religious warfare*3 --- it seems like a choice between self-control and other-control. {image below} :gasp:

*3. Divine Dharma & Karma Yoga :
To set the stage, the Bhagavad Gita begins with Arjuna and his family about to go to war with one another. Not wanting to shed his families' blood, Arjuna refuses to fight. Ironically, this is where the god Krishna steps in and tries to convince Arjuna it is his duty to kill his rebellious kinsmen.
https://study.com/academy/lesson/the-bhagavad-gitas-story-of-arjuna-krishna-the-three-paths-to-salvation.html

it encourages us to go beyond the egological constitution of internal and external objects which `foolish, ordinary people’ habitually `seize’ upon in their everyday standpoint. — Wayfarer

"Everyday standpoint = common sense?? If so, I suppose I am one of those "foolish ordinary people" who put their trust in personal reasoning, in order to defend against exhortations to take some sacred ideas on ego-blinded faith*4. Most doctrinal religions encourage their "ordinary people" to submerge their egos into a faith community, a single-minded union of believers : "being in full accord and of one mind" (Philippians 2:2). I'm OK with unbiased-universal-perspective as a philosophical concept, but not OK with religious exhortation to extinguish the ego. I'm wary of becoming a remote-controlled robot, subject to centralized orders from high command {image below]. Do Islamic terrorists submerge their egos, and sacrifice their bodies, in order to serve their omnipresent-but-invisible Allah? :chin:

*4. Eye of Faith reveals unseeable Allah :
"Well, HE is invisible for those who do not believe in HIS existence."
https://www.quora.com/Is-it-true-that-Allah-is-invisible-If-yes-then-why-did-he-ask-the-polytheists-to-show-their-Gods-knowing-that-Gods-are-invisible-How-can-non-Muslims-subscribe-to-Islam-when-its-God-say-such-meaningless-things-Or-is

transcend the mentality which invests the objective domain with an inherent reality which it doesn't possess — Wayfarer

My hybrid matter/mind-based philosophical worldview accepts the subjectivity of its own "reality" model. But my BothAnd bridge-between-worldviews allows me to imagine that hypothetical divine objective perspective, even as --- in the absence of divine revelation --- I make-do with my innate subjective view of the outside world. I can accept the natural world of the senses as the "inherent reality", while labeling the metaphysical model of that world as an as-if ivory-tower artificial reality : i.e. Ideality. One "reality" has physical Properties (possessions), while the other has metaphysical Qualities (attributes). Like Infinity, we can aspire to perfect Objectivity, but our attempts, on an asymptotic curve, miss the ultimate goal :nerd:

"egoless mechanical robot/slaves" would indeed be an unfair assessment. Would it be wise for you to engage with Sufism? Probably not, given your background. — Wayfarer

How would you fairly assess the ego-less faith of Islamic terrorists (as one example among many of faith-motivated extremists)? Would it be more appropriate for me to "engage" with a Christian Mysticism that is closer to my own background? The peaceful Quakers (or Islamic Sufis), for example. They "believe that all people are capable of directly experiencing the divine nature of the universe". But they don't seem to be violent or robotic to me. Perhaps because their individualized experiences of divinity are not easily translated into centralized directives. "Spirit led" is a nice theory, but dogmaless Ego interpretations tend to keep them quiescent, instead of aggressive, in practice. Their unorthodox religions were persecuted in the early years, but their institutional passivity eventually allowed them to co-exist with non-mystical Christians, who had more threatening fish to fry. Do these egoless exceptions to the ego-driven rule fit into your Mind-Created World picture? Would I be advised to join them in their direct access to Divine Mind? :chin:

The fact that you can only interpret any of this as 'religious dogma' seems to me, and pardon me for saying, a consequence of the views you bring to it. — Wayfarer

Again, you imply implacable prejudice against doctrinal religion due to its restraints on ego-serving Reason. It's true that my religious upbringing involved minimal mystical elements, but it also had no official creed, so each believer was expected to interpret difficulties in the received scriptures according to his own "reasoning". Like the Quakers, it had few doctrinal rules, apart from the admittedly ambiguous New Testament record of early Christian beliefs. Hence, we didn't have any creedal or papal justification for burning infidels at the stake.

In retrospect, it seemed almost like non-dogmatic Buddhism*5, due to its "rational, individualistic, and democratic “spirituality”. So, my individualistic interpretations ("views") of Christian traditions were tolerated, as long as I didn't make an issue of it. My label of "religious dogma" was intended only in the sense that most sects have a few basic rules (doctrines) that establish their position in the plethora of religious interpretations "views" of their belief community. I have no animus against practical rules (doctrines) for governing religious communities. I do, however, have a skeptical philosophical attitude toward unquestioning Blind Faith as a condition of membership. :smile:

*5. Buddhist Doctrine (dogma) :
Buddhists believe that the human life is one of suffering, and that meditation, spiritual and physical labor, and good behavior are the ways to achieve enlightenment, or nirvana.
https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/buddhism/
Note --- Compare Zen Calvinism

EGOLESS CENTRALLY-CONTROLLED ROBOT ARMY OF GOD

...submissive behavior in the presence of great power.......I don't tremble in contemplation of the mighty Absolute's power to strike me down as an unbeliever......I am not cowed into quaking awe at the concept that I am an insignificant insect in the eyes of the all-seeing Almighty.... — Gnomon
What, in this passage, suggests something like that? — Wayfarer

I was not referring to "this passage" but to "the deeply religious attitude" in general. I don't think Kastrup is promoting any particular traditional religion in his books, but merely the philosophical worldview of Analytical Idealism. However, his last chapter uses quotes from Peter Kingsley to illustrate some of the concepts he's trying to convey in order to "break down" our rational defenses. Kingsley is described as a Sufi mystic, which emerged from within the rule-bound Islamic religious traditions. The primary belief of Sufism is that "unification with Allah" is the most important goal of an individual's life. That sounds like extremely "submissive" behavior to me, turning egoistic self-conscious rational humans into egoless mechanical robot/slaves. Is that an unfair assessment? Would I be wise to transform into a "whirling dervish"? Would I then "know the mind of God"?

Kastrup's final chapter is focused primarily on breaking down the rational defenses of the self-centered Western mind. And it uses some of the same mind-bending "tricks" that Roman Catholic theology employs to make counter-intuitive notions, like a unitary/triune deity, seem plausible to the mortal mind ; as-if viewed from a higher perspective. He deprecates Greek Logic & reasoning in favor of what he calls "true logic" --- what I might call "religious reasoning". But the path to that divine perspective seems to require --- like all "true" religions --- a leap of blind faith : "true logic must come disguised as reason ; it must entail embracing the illusion fully". He seems to be suggesting that we voluntarily blind our rational minds in order to allow a divine "illusion" to dispel a mundane mirage. As Kastrup puts it, with no sign of irony : "transcending reason through reason".

Kastrup says that "it's critical that we first bring down our defenses . . . . because the intellect is the bouncer of the heart". Yes, but the skeptical intellect is also the shield against BS. My early religious training also insisted on lowering our shields in order to allow a higher Truth to penetrate the hardened heart. Once our intellectual defenses are down, we are prepared to accept whatever irrational religious doctrine is poured into our open un-defended heads. And that is why, as I reached the "age of reason", I chose to keep my mind open, but "not so open that your brains fall out".

In the sub-chapter labeled Beyond Idealism, he describes the Western worldview as a "hoax". In place of that fake-reality, he describes the True Reality of oneness with God-Mind : "everything is one, whole, motionless". Ironically, Einstein posited a similar mathematical Singularity-universe in his eternal timeless placeless "Block Universe" thought experiment ; perhaps to illustrate the concept of Relativity by contrast to Absoluteness. As an as-if metaphor, he didn't expect us to take it as a physical Reality, but only as metaphysical Ideality --- something to think about, not to lay hands on. Kastrup goes on to assert that "it is true that reality is constructed out of belief". But that's all the more reason we should be very careful about what we believe.

He goes on to explain that, from the perspective of Idealism, "the only way for things to feel real is if consciousness tricks itself into believing that its own imagination is an external phenomenon. Consciousness's prime directive is to trick itself, for if it doesn't, nothing is left but a void". So, he seems to be saying that we must learn to distrust our own senses, our only physical contact with external reality, in order to get in touch with what Kant called the unknowable ding an sich. I suppose that's the essence of pure Idealism. Which may be why my own worldview is an impure amalgamation of pragmatic Realism and intellectual Idealism. Can I have my Ideality and eat the cake too? :wink:

Is it possible that The Absolute is also a figment? — Gnomon
Only when we talk about it. ‘The way that can be named is not the real way’. — Wayfarer

Although my personal philosophical worldview assumes, as an unprovable axiom, an original universal First Cause of some kind, I don't go so far as to label that unknown Source as "The Absolute". And I am not aware of any personal benefit from Worshiping, or attempting to "unite" with that cosmic principle. I guess that's because I am lacking the political & religious gene for submissive behavior in the presence of great power. For me, The Unknown is intellectually compelling (a mystery to be solved), but not emotionally attractive (a mystical force to be worshiped or appropriated).

I am in sympathy with highbrow & holistic Eastern philosophy in general, but not with its popular & emotional religious forms. I don't tremble in contemplation of the mighty Absolute's power to strike me down as an unbeliever. So, my dispassionate demeanor is more appropriate for Stoicism than for Mysticism. I am not cowed into quaking awe at the concept that I am an insignificant insect in the eyes of the all-seeing Almighty. So popular rule-based Religion, and less popular euphoria-based Spiritualism, do not appeal to me. Also, mystical & arcane Kabbalah-type "secret wisdom" is not the powerful lure for me that it is for some seekers. Is there any hope for me, as an aspirant of mundane Socratic wisdom? Do I need to be "transformed" in order to escape the modern/western hell-bound herd? :nerd:

PS___Other than an antagonistic attitude toward human Reason, mystical religious practices seem to have little in common. Some use deep awareness meditation, some hallucinogenic drugs, and some physical Yoga or whirling dances to achieve union with the Divine. I am at a loss in all of those avenues.

I don't know. The fact you think it's a religious argument says something. I've gotten hold of the ebook and will peruse it. — Wayfarer

Sorry, if I came on a bit strong in that previous post. All through Kastrup's book, I was nodding in agreement, since it sounded like rational philosophical arguments against non-idealist worldviews. But, in the last chapter, his arguments began to sound irrational and polemical. Kastrup himself introduced "cunning" religious arguments, intended to "undermine reason" and to "trick, enchant or persuade" unbelievers. That's the kind of argumentation that I identify with religious and political campaigns. However, I didn't have to characterize the chapter as a "religious argument", because Kastrup did it for me : "to serve the divine, requires 'a deeply religious attitude".

In that final chapter, Kastrup seems to be advocating, not just philosophical Idealism, but also religious mysticism. He was more specific about his ineffable experience of "the Other" in a previous book : The Idea of the World. As a child, my own religious experience was mostly toward the passionless rational end of the spectrum. So, I have always looked at mysticism as an outsider. I once attended a "holy roller" service with my parents, and experienced (objectively) individuals who would stand up, gesticulate, and speak in tongues (not human dialects, but angel language). That was about as close to mysticism as I came, during my impressionable years.

Years later, curiosity motivated me to deliberately investigate the "other side" of religion. I learned a lot from Evelyn Underhill's (1911) Mysticism : The Development of Humankind's Spiritual Consciousness. I suppose her background was Catholic theology, because she seemed highly educated and fluent in Latin. Like Kastrup, she was also skeptical of fake spiritualism : "Mysticism has been misunderstood . . . . has been claimed as an excuse for every kind of occultism, for dilute transcendentalism, religious or aesthetic sentimentality, and bad metaphysics." In her first chapter, she discusses various alternative worldviews. After dismissing Realism/Materialism, she says "the second great conception of being --- Idealism --- has arrived by a process of elimination at a tentative answer to this question." The question was "whence comes the persistent instinct which --- receiving no encouragement from sense experience --- apprehends and desires this unknown unity, this all-inclusive Absolute, as the only possible satisfaction of its thirst for truth."

Lacking a talent for ecstasy, I have attempted to quench my own thirst for truth by using Western philosophical methods. Which Kastrup is also very familiar with, but uses its own logic to "undermine" its rational conclusions. Throughout the years, the Judeo-Christian-Islamic traditions have used rational arguments to justify their institutional power over the hearts & minds of men. So, they have attempted to suppress the mystical "instinct" of those who prefer to go directly to the source of all authority : the "absolute". Hence, esoteric religious trends have always been marginalized by the mainstream institutions. Yet, I have unintentionally minoritized myself, by straying from the Doctrinal mainstream, without reaching the opposite shore of Spiritualism.

Although accuses me of being a New Age mystic,my personal non-religious philosophical worldview is a sort of blend of Realism & Idealism, with no mystical aspects. I assume that there is a physical world out there sending signals to my senses. But I am aware that my internal model of that world is a figment of my own imagination and reason. Is it possible that The Absolute is also a figment? :cool:

Kastrup's analytical idealism suggests that the ground of existence is experiential, rather than material, and that the universe is ultimately a single, universal mind. — Wayfarer

That's a plausible hypothesis, and somewhat similar to my own emerging worldview, both of which are unprovable in any objective sense, and moot for any except philosophical purposes. My personal philosophical thesis is "grounded" mostly on modern scientific discoveries, instead of traditional/cultural religious doctrines. It concludes that the "ground" of physical existence is Causal, not Material, nor Experiential. As far as we can tell, 99.999% of the universe, until recently, lacked subjective Experience. Instead, most inter-communication involved exchanges of Energy, without personal meaning. Parallel to my own critique of Materialism, I can agree with Kastrup in his skeptical analysis of Panpsychism : it "implies universal consciousness, and fails to explain our own personal subjectivities". My own view is closer to Platonic Idealism, which postulated an eternal source of Abstract Forms with the Potential for both embodied Material things and Mental ideas. But he avoided anthro-morphing that unknown & unknowable abyss of Possibility, along with the myriad religious rules that arise from human interpretations of divine Will.

I too have toyed with the notion of a "Universal Mind". But, lacking direct revelation, I don't know if that Form Source is aware of anything in our world. What human science tells us is that Sentience eventually emerged, after eons of insentience. For all I know, the Source could be more like a mindless Multiverse with eternal Causal/Creative powers. Everything my biblical source-of-information told me about the Eternal Universal Deity of the Hebrews came from human philosopher/prophets, using their observation & imagination to make sense of the ever-changing material world with spooky invisible causal forces labeled "spirits". Today, we call those forces "energy", but its only scientific property is causation of material change. Unlike the biblical Holy Spirit, Energy is assumed to be random and insentient. And, except for a historical tendency toward complexity & consciousness, I have no evidence to prove otherwise.

I can understand Kastrup's analogy of "dissociated alters", but I find that abstract notion difficult to convert into an empirical "fact" of reality. Likewise, I am probably better informed than most westerners about eastern philosophy, but I'm not persuaded that the religions based on that grounding are any closer to ultimate Truth than the Judeo-Christian religions ; which are splitting like atoms into nit-picking sub-atomic interpretations of interpretations of what is and what must be. Therefore, I must remain agnostic about philosophical Universals (e.g. Divine Deities) rationalized from a few specific bits of information. :nerd:

But I would venture that the influence of dogmatic religion in your earlier life has prejudiced you against these ideas, so that you tend to view them through those spectacles. — Wayfarer

Due to years of reflection on my own back-to-the-bible decentralized priestless written-scripture-based Protestant religion, I can admit to being post-judiced against some of its essential ideas, ironically based on faith in the Roman Catholic Bible, but not its pope & priests. In Science Ideated, I was going along with Kastrup's "cunning" arguments against competing philosophical & religious belief systems. But then, the last chapter, in defense of Analytical Idealism, began to sound a lot like a faith-based religion. Jesus warned his disciples about Spiritual Blindness, and admonished them to be "wise as serpents". Now, Kastrup describes how we may break-out of the western "illusion" by means of "cunning wisdom". He says : "true logic must come disguised as reason". This notion of Parmenidean True Logic is distinguished from the presumably False Logic of Aristotle, which defined the reasoning process for western Science. Years ago, I abandoned Faith Wisdom in favor of Evidential Reason. Now he wants me to go back, to take a leap of faith into eastern wisdom???

Having dismissed the scientific worldview as illusory, he quotes Kingsley : "to serve the divine, requires 'a deeply religious attitude, the sense that it's all for the sake of something far greater than ourselves". Strangely, that "something" else is just as mysterious as the invisible immaterial deity of the ancient Hebrews, who seldom spoke publicly to ordinary men, but always through a human mouthpiece. Yet, he quotes Kingsley as advocating "a kind of cunning wisdom that can be used to trick, enchant, or persuade". Sounds like Donald Trump to me. Then, Kastrup suggests a ploy "to use pure, strict, sharp reasoning to undermine reason itself". To replace Greek reason with Hindu devotion or Buddhist hyper-subjectivity? That's when alarm bells go-off in the once-burnt mind of someone prejudiced-by-personal-experience against Faith ; not against Divinity per se, but in skepticism toward the cunning spokesmen for an absentee deity. For now, I prefer to remain Agnostic, and to let the unknown Creator speak to me through the public evidence of the knowable Creation. :halo:

But I can assure you the experience of 'the unitive vision' is a real thing — Wayfarer

I don't doubt that the Cosmic Unity or Oceanic*1 experience seems real. But I remain skeptical of the philosophical/religious doctrines associated with that feeling. From a more materialistic perspective, the perceptual/conceptual distinction between Self & Other has been experimentally traced to the Prefrontal Cortex (PFC)*2 . . . . among other brain modules. Presumably, when the operations of that module are depressed by neurotoxins (e.g. alcohol), the person may begin to act "intoxicated". Which, in some cultures, has been identified as a sign of spiritual possession (inspiration). Perhaps, due to the "out of the mouths of babes" effect*2{note}.

Since I have never been intoxicated with chemical or heavenly "spirits", I have no experience with the associated "unitive vision". So, I have to take the word of others (e.g. enraptured mystics) for what it's like to become One with God. I also have no idea about how deep meditation could produce a similar physical effect. But it might be a self-fulfilling prophecy (non-self state), or a form of self-induced depression of PFC. Some Buddhist monks have claimed to be able to control various sub-conscious bodily function via deep meditation.

Therefore, while I take your word for the "reality" of the Unitary way of viewing/experiencing the Cosmic Self, for me it remains an instance of Chalmers' "what it's like" problem of consciousness/awareness. :nerd:

PS___In the final chapter of Kastrup's Science Ideated, he distinguishes between traditional Reason, and "True Logic" as a means to discriminate "between reality and deception". I suppose that means my feeble philosophical attempts to make sense of the world, according to the conventional rules of reasoning, are in vain. He criticizes Western Reason for its lack of a role for the "divine". So, he concludes : "to serve the divine requires 'a deeply religious attitude' ". In my personal experience, that attitude was labeled "Faith". Unfortunately, my sojourn with Western religious Piety makes it seem to be a case of Self-Deception. Is an attitude of open-minded Creedence necessary to experience "the Unitive Vision"? Again, I apologize for slipping back into old dualistic habits of thought. It seems that, for me, Self is the sole reality, and Other is merely a plausible hypothesis. :cool:


*1. Oceanic Feeling :
"the phrase "oceanic feeling" to refer to "a sensation of 'eternity'", a feeling of "being one with the external world as a whole", inspired by the example of Ramakrishna, among other mystics." ___Wikipedia

*2. Which part of the brain is most associated with our self concept?
Neuroscientists have believed that three brain regions are critical for self-awareness: the insular cortex, the anterior cingulate cortex, and the medial prefrontal cortex.
https://now.uiowa.edu/news/2012/08/roots-human-self-awareness
Note --- The Prefrontal Cortex provides the so-called "Executive Function" of the body. This is supposed to be "Self/Soul", who is in control of all conscious bodily functions. When that function is disrupted by toxins, or even internal neurotransmitters, it may begin to malfunction. That's why a person intoxicated from alcohol, begins to act like a young irresponsible child, and may eventually lose its grip on some semi-conscious functions, such as bladder control.

Not to create a physical world from scratch, but to create a metaphysical model of the world that we sense (feel) and make-sense of (comprehend). — Gnomon
Notice the duality you introduce between model and world. — Wayfarer

For practical purposes, I will admit to being a subject/object dualist. But for philosophical reasons, I am a substance monist : Causation/Information is fundamental, not Consciousness/Mind, nor Particulate Matter. However, since I am not a card-carrying Idealist, I don't identify Self with God/Universe/World-Mind. And I don't feel a visceral union of Self-Awareness with Primal Consciousness. So, I can't imagine that I am the all-powerful Creator of the complex & contradictory world that I experience via my physical senses. Instead, I merely accept that my split-brain (two hemispheres, two-eyes) somehow merges separate Information Processors into the single stereoscopic perspective of a physical/mental Self.

Kastrup argues that the human mind can split into two or more "alters". But I have no personal experience with that kind of "dissociation". So, I just have to take his word for it. I have never meditated to be point of dissolution of self into the cosmos. And never took psychedelic drugs to depress my self-identifying frontal lobes into an oceanic cosmic Self. Moreover, my religious upbringing was decidedly dualistic. But, I can understand rationally that the world we perceive is actually a concept : an internal imaginary model, constructed from minuscule bits of incoming information. So, Monism & Holism are intellectual notions, not visceral feelings.

As I noted in my previous post, I came to my current Holistic/Monistic worldview from a layman's grasp of 20th century science --- especially the nebulous foundations of physical reality on the subatomic level ; and the equally-hazy open-ended origin-story of the Big Bang. I have no formal training in metaphysical Philosophy. And I never personally knew a Buddhist practitioner, or Hindu guru, or New Age hippie. Consequently, I remain an outsider from those perspectives. So, I hope you will forgive me for clinging to my innate & cultural dualistic worldview, even as I experiment with holistic ideas as a philosophical dabbler. :smile:

This is why the argument in the OP says that an alternative to this view is a perspectival shift, a different way of seeing, which also turns out to be a different way of being. — Wayfarer

I don't have much to add to this long-running discussion of Mental vs Physical priority. So, I'll just post a few thoughts stimulated by the OP.

BTW, my personal "perspectival shift" resulted, not from heart-felt religious motives, or rational philosophical arguments, or "hard" scientific evidence, but from the mundane paradigm shift of 20th century quantum theory. It was not a sudden "voice of god" conviction, but a gradual dawning of realization of the essential role of Sentience & Reason in our worldviews. Not to create a physical world from scratch, but to create a metaphysical model of the world that we sense (feel) and make-sense of (comprehend).

Some seem to think that Idealism means that Reality is imaginary, or that Subjective views are solipsistic, hence suspect. Yet my BothAnd perspective is wide-angle enough to see some truth in all of the above. Materialism is our common-sense perception of reality, but Idealism extends our sixth-sense of Reason, to construct a metaphysical conception of what lies beyond our enhanced physical senses, in the near-infinite Cosmic ceiling above, and the infinitesimal Sub-atomic foundation of reality. :smile:

The following is not a numbered argument, but merely foot-notes to establish a trail of my personal understanding. Quotes are from the Mind-Created World OP :

1. "The second objection is against the notion that the mind, or ‘mind-stuff’, is literally a type of constituent out of which things are made,"
Note --- In my information-based worldview, Mind-stuff is not a material substance, but more like a causal force --- the power to transform --- in the sense of E=MC^2, where causal Energy is equated with massy Matter, by means of logical Mathematics. There are no aggregating atoms of Energy, only a continuous trend of change in both Space and Time.

2. "To think about the existence of a particular thing in polar terms — that it either exists or does not exist — is a simplistic view of what existence entails. This is why the criticism of idealism that ‘particular things must go in and out of existence depending on whether they’re perceived’ is mistaken."
Note --- Instead of a bi-polar view, my personal perspective is intended to be stereoscopic, wherein opposing views are merged & blended into a single model of Reality, inclusive of both Mind and Matter. The iffy existence of Ideal vs Real makes Being seem to be contingent on polar perspectives. That may sound like Limbo, neither saved nor unsaved, but undecided. Or like quantum Uncertainty, a state of subjective knowledge that is neither true nor false : indeterminacy.
But to me, it seems more like a Holistic state in which the parts are dissolved (like salt) into the oceanic system. Quantum Entanglement can be viewed as a Holistic state, in which the inter-twined component parts are unknowable (Uncertain) as separate entities. So, the "existence" --- that reality goes in and out of --- is also a state of knowledge (known/unknown), from the perspective of the observer. As postulated by Berkeley, only an omniscient observer would know all possible states of "existence" (being).

3. "Let me address an obvious objection. ‘Surely “the world” is what is there all along, what is there anyway, regardless of whether you perceive it or not!"
Note --- According to Plato & Aristotle, "what is there all along" is Eternity, not ever-changing Space-Time. The Eternal realm is self-existent, not dependent on observers, whether subjective or objective. But the Contingent world, as demonstrated in Quantum experiments, is somewhat dependent on the perspective of the observer. For example, Einstein's Theory of Relativity divided reality into Special (particular) and General (universal). Only an omniscient view from outside of the material world could encompass all states of Being, in & out of space-time. Apparently, Einstein was trying to simulate a universal divine perspective, to "know the mind of god", as Hawking put it.

4. "This in turn leads to the over-valuation of objectivity as the sole criterion for truth."
Note --- Science aspires to absolute Objectivity. But, in practice, only calculates the mean values of multiple subjective views. That computed average is supposed to cancel-out all extreme views, as well as personal emotional commitments, such as religious faith. Let's not deceive ourselves that physical Science actually achieves its noble aspiration of Absolute Objectivity, by eliminating personal biases, emotions, and false beliefs. It is still groping to meld isolated observations (experiments) into a singular summary of Truth. When physical science expands into philosophical territory, by studying Psychology and Sociology, the shortcomings of its matter-based methods become apparent.

5. "By ‘creating reality’, I’m referring to the way the brain receives, organises and integrates cognitive data, along with memory and expectation, so as to generate the unified world–picture within which we situate and orient ourselves."
Note --- The individual human mind "creates" an imaginary model of reality. The scientific method merges multiple particular models into a collective consensus of verified Facts and acceptable Generalizations. Yet, even the consensual model continues to evolve over time, in evolutionary paradigm shifts. So, like chasing Infinity, we can only strive to come Closer to Truth. We don't create Truth, we learn it as best we can.

6. "By investing the objective domain with a mind-independent status, as if it exists independently of any mind, we absolutize it."
Note --- To "absolutize" is to generalize and universalize the various partial understandings of independent minds. The current generally-accepted scientific/philosophical model, a political consensus of many opinions, may be our best approximation to absolute Truth, at that point in time. So, a synergetic hypothesis of Reality may be as close to a "mind independent" worldview as possible. Yet, as philosophers, our job is to refine our received reality-model, to weed-out any remaining blind-spots, such as the various conventions & presumptions (-isms) that remain in circulation. Materialistic Scientism is one such metaphysical belief system, imagined as the final arbiter of physical Truth.

The Meta-management Theory of Consciousness uses the computational metaphor of cognition to provide an explanation for access consciousness, and by doing so explains some aspects of the phenomenology of consciousness. — Malcolm Lett

As I said before, I'm not qualified to comment on your theory in a technical sense. So, I'll just mention some possible parallels with an article in the current Scientific American magazine (04/24) entitled : A Truly Intelligent Machine. George Musser, the author, doesn't use the term "meta-management", but the discussion seems to be saying that Intelligence is more than (meta-) information processing. For example, "to do simple or rehearsed tasks, the brain can run on autopilot, but novel or complicated ones --- those beyond the scope of a single module --- require us to be aware of what we are doing". In a large complex organization, such supervision --- etymology, to see from above (meta-) --- is the role of upper management. And the ultimate decision-maker, the big-boss, is a Meta-Manager : a manager of managers.

Musser notes that, "consciousness is a scarce resource", as is the supervising time of the big boss, who can't be bothered with low-level details. Later, he says, "intelligence is, if anything, the selective neglect of detail" Which may be related to your item (3) Limited Access. So, researchers are advised to "go back to the unfashionable technology of 'discriminative' neural networks". Which may get back to your item (1) Intentionality. Intentional behavior requires discrimination between inputs & outputs : incoming low-level data and executive actions. After "all those irrelevant details are eliminated", the manager can focus on what's most important.

The article refers to a "key feature" of GWT (Global Workspace Theory) as a "configurator to coordinate the modules and determine the workflow". Again, the "Configurator" or optimizer or designer seems to be a high-level management position. That role also seems to require "self-monitoring". The GWT expert speculates that "consciousness is the working of the configurator". Musser notes that, "those capacities . . . aren't relevant to the kinds of problems that AI is typically applied to". So, the GWT guy adds, "you have to have an autonomous agent with a real mind and a control structure for it" Such executive agency also requires the power to command, which your item (2) calls "causality", the influence determining subsequent effects.

Neuroscientist Anil Seth makes an important philosophical observation : "Consciousness is not a matter of being smart, it's equally a matter of being alive". And that makes the "hard problem" of creating consciousness even harder. Perhaps requiring divine powers. Or a bolt of lightning : "it's alive!!!" :joke:

*3. "In attempting to answer these questions, we’re up against the so-called ‘hard problem of consciousness’: how a physical brain could underwrite the extra-physical properties of phenomenal experience."
Note --- What he calls "extra physical" I'm calling Meta-physical, in the sense that Ideas are not Real. — Gnomon
And yet ideas obviously exist. If they're not physical, what are they? Are you a substance dualist? — RogueAI

Yes*1. Physical substances are made of Matter, but what is matter made of?*2 Einstein postulated that mathematical Mass (the essence of matter) is a form of Energy. And modern physicists --- going beyond Shannon's engineering definition --- have begun to equate Energy with Information. In that case, Causal Information is equivalent to Energy as the power to transform : some forms are Physical (matter + energy) and other forms are Meta-Physical (mental-ideal).

Philosophical "substance" is made of something immaterial. Plato called that something "Form", but I call it "EnFormAction" (the power to transform). Which you can think of as "Energy", if it suits you. Aristotle concluded that material objects consist of a combination of Hyle (stuff) and Morph (form)*3*4. What kind of "stuff" do you think conceptual Ideas consist of? Is it the same substance that elementary particles, like Electrons & Quarks, are made of?

Ideas do "exist" but in a different sense from physical Matter. They are intangible & invisible & unreal (ideal) --- so we know them only by reasoning or by communication of information --- not by putting them under a microscope or dissecting with a scalpel.

I can also answer "no" to your question, because essential Energy is more fundamental than substantial Matter. From that perspective, I'm an Essence Monist. :smile:

*1. Substance Dualism :
Substance dualists typically argue that the mind and the body are composed of different substances and that the mind is a thinking thing that lacks the usual attributes of physical objects : size, shape, location, solidity, motion, adherence to the laws of physics, and so on.
https://iep.utm.edu/dualism-and-mind/

*2. Substance :
To account for the fundamental whatness of a thing, Plato posited an unchanging form or idea as the underlying and unchanging substance. As all things within a person's reality are subject to change, Plato reasoned that the forms or unchanging basic realities concerning all things must not be located within this world.
https://openstax.org/books/introduction-philosophy/pages/6-1-substance

*3. Hyle + Morph ; Substance + Essence :
Matter is not substance, nor is any universal, nor is any combination of some form and some particular matter. Identifying a substance with its essence helps Aristotle to solve a difficulty about the unity of the individual sub-stance: over a period of time an ordinary substance is likely to change in some ways.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/2184278
Note --- Modern dictionary "substance" refers to the Hyle, and omits the Form.

*4. Hylomorphism : (from Greek hylē, “matter”; morphē, “form”), in philosophy, metaphysical view according to which every natural body consists of two intrinsic principles, one potential, namely, primary matter, and one actual, namely, substantial form.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/hylomorphism
Note --- In our modern context, it might make more sense to characterize Matter as Actual and Form as Potential. For Ari, "Actual" meant eternal & unchanging.

the counterintuitive phenomenon of "blindsight", in which patients behave as-if they see something, but report that they were not consciously aware of the object — Gnomon
Maybe you missed the link posted by "wonderer1" ... — 180 Proof

Thanks for the link. https://aeon.co/essays/how-blindsight-answers-the-hard-problem-of-consciousness

The article is interesting, and it may offer some insight as to why the Consciousness problem is "hard". The notes below are for my personal record, and may interpret the article's implications differently from yours.

The article refers to Blindsight as a "dissociation" (disconnection) between physical Perception (biological processing of energetic inputs) and metaphysical Sensation*1 (conception ; awareness) {my italics added}. And that seems to be where easy physics (empirical evidence) hands-off the baton of significance (semiotics) to hard meta-physics (non-physical ; mental ; rational ; ideal). Apparently the neural sensory networks are still working, but the transition from physical Properties to metaphysical Qualia doesn't happen*2.

Of course, my interpretation, in terms of metaphysics, may not agree with your understanding of the "phenomenon" which lacks the noumenon (perceived, but not conceived). The author suddenly realized that "Perhaps the real puzzle is not so much the absence of sensation in blindsight as its presence in normal sight?" That's the "Hard Problem" of Consciousness.

The article describes a primitive visual system that evolved prior to warm-blooded mammals, in which the cortex may represent a social context for the incoming sensations. Presumably, social animals --- perhaps including some warm-blooded dinosaurs, and their feathered descendants)*4 --- are self-conscious in addition to basic sub-conscious. The author says "I call these expressive responses that evaluate the input ‘sentition’."*5 The evaluation must be in terms of Personal Relevance. Non-social animals may not need to view themselves as "persons" to discriminate between Self and Society.

The author refers to Integrated Information Theory (IIT), which seems to assume that some high-level functions of brain processing supervene --- as a holistic synergy --- on the chemical & electrical activities of the neural net*6. As I interpret that insight, Perception is physical*7, but Conception is metaphysical*8. i.e. Holistic. System functions are different from Component functions. Some Bits of Neural data are useless & valueless (irrelevant) until organized into a holistic system of Self + Other. It puts the data into a comprehensive, more inclusive, context.

Like a cell-phone Selfie, the broad-scope perspective puts Me into the picture. Neuron sensations (data) are impersonal ; Mind feelings (qualia) are personal. Evolutionary survival is enhanced by the ability to see the Self in a broader milieu, as a member of a social group : a community*9. Feeling is a personally relevant evaluation of incoming sensations. This ability to re-present physical as personal is the root of consciousness. :smile:



Excerpts from An evolutionary approach to consciousness can resolve the ‘hard problem’ – with radical implications for animal sentience, by Nicholas Humphrey

*1. "Sensation, let’s be clear, has a different function from perception. Both are forms of mental representation : ideas generated by the brain. But they represent – they are about
– very different kinds of things. . . . It’s as if, in having sensations, we’re both registering the objective fact of stimulation and expressing our personal bodily opinion about it."
Note --- In blindsight, the objective data is being processed, but the subjective meaning is missing. Terrence Deacon defines "aboutness" as a reference to something missing, "incompleteness", a lack that needs to be filled.

*2. "The answer is for the responses to become internalised or ‘privatised’. . . . . In this way, sentition evolves to be a virtual form of bodily expression – yet still an activity that can be read to provide a mental representation of the stimulation that elicits it."
Note --- Virtual = not real ; ideal. Representation = copy, not original

*3. "In attempting to answer these questions, we’re up against the so-called ‘hard problem of consciousness’: how a physical brain could underwrite the extra-physical properties of phenomenal experience."
Note --- What he calls "extra physical" I'm calling Meta-physical, in the sense that Ideas are not Real.

*4. My daddy used to say that "chickens wake-up in a new world every day". Maybe their primitive neural systems don't register meaning in the same way as hound dogs.

*5. "To discover ‘what’s happening to me’, the animal has only to monitor ‘what I’m doing about it’. And it can do this by the simple trick of creating a copy of the command signals for the responses – an ‘efference copy’ that can be read in reverse to recreate the meaning of the stimulation."
Note --- Efference copy is a feedback loop, that adds Me to data : supervenience.

*6. "it {consciousness) involves the brain generating something like an internal text, that it interprets as being about phenomenal properties."
Note --- Terrence Deacon " . . . variously defines Reference as "aboutness" or "re-presentation," the semiotic or semantic relation between a sign-vehicle and its object." https://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/scientists/deacon/

*7. "Sensation, let’s be clear, has a different function from perception. Both are forms of mental representation : ideas generated by the brain. But they represent – they are about – very different kinds of things. Perception – which is still partly intact in blindsight – is about ‘what’s happening out there in the external world’: the apple is red; the rock is hard; the bird is singing. By contrast, sensation is more personal, it’s about ‘what’s happening to me and how I as a subject evaluate it’
Note --- In this case, "sensation" is the visceral Feeling of What Happens to yours truly.

*8. "ask yourself: what would be missing from your life if you lacked phenomenal consciousness?"
Note --- You would lack a sense of Self and self-control and ownership, which is essential for humans in complex societies.

*9. "What about man-made machines?"
Note --- Sentient machines could possibly emerge as they become dependent on social groups to outsource the satisfaction of some of their personal needs.

The Meta-management Theory of Consciousness uses the computational metaphor of cognition to provide an explanation for access consciousness, and by doing so explains some aspects of the phenomenology of consciousness. For example, it provides explanations for:

1) intentionality of consciousness - why consciousness "looks through" to first-order perceptions etc.
2) causality - that consciousness is "post-causal" - having no causal power over the event to which we are conscious, but having direct causal effect on subsequent events.
3) limited access - why we only have conscious experience associated with certain aspects of brain processing. — Malcolm Lett

I'm not competent to critique your theory, much less to "roast" it. So, I'll just mention a few other attempts at computer analogies to human sentience.

The April issue of Scientific American magazine has an article by George Musser entitled A Truly Intelligent Machine. He notes that "researchers are modeling AI on human brains". And one of their tools is modularity : mimicking the brain's organization into "expert" modules, such as language and spatio-visual, which normally function independently, but sometimes merge their outputs into the general flow of cognition. He says, "one provocative hypothesis is that consciousness is the common ground". This is a reference to Global Workspace Theory (GWT) in which specialty modules, e.g. math & language, work together to produce the meta-effect that we experience as Consciousness. Although he doesn't use the fraught term, this sounds like Holism or Systems Theory.

Musser asks, in reference to GWT computers, "could they inadvertently create sentient beings with feelings and motivations?" Then, he quotes the GWT inventor, "conscious computing is a hypothesis without a shred of evidence". In GWT, the function of Meta-management might be to integrate various channels of information into a singular perspective. When those internal sub-streams of cognition are focused on solving an external problem, we call it "Intention". And when they motivate the body to act with purpose to make real-world changes, we may call it "Causality". Some robots, with command-line Intentions and grasping hands, seem to have the autonomous power to cause changes in the world. But the ultimate goal of their actions can be traced back to a human programmer.

In 1985, computer theorist Marvin Minsky wrote The Society of Mind, postulating a collection of "components that are themselves mindless" that might work together to produce a Meta-manager (my term) that would function like human Consciousness. In his theory, their modular inputs & outputs would merge into a Stream of Consciousness (my term). Yet one book review noted that : "You have to understand that, for Minsky, explaining intelligence is meaningless if you cannot show a line of cookie crumbs leading from the 'intelligent' behavior to a set of un-intelligent processes that created it. Clearly, if you cannot do that, you have made a circular argument." {my italics}

In computer engineer/philosopher Bernardo Kastrup's 2020 book, Science Ideated, he distinguishes between "consciousness and meta-consciousness". Presumably, basic sentience is what we typically label as "sub-consciousness". He then notes that meta-C is a re-representation of subconscious elements that are directed by Awareness toward a particular question or problem. He also discusses the counterintuitive phenomenon of "blindsight", in which patients behave as-if they see something, but report that they were not consciously aware of the object. This "limited access" may indicate that a> subconscious Cognition and b> conscious Awareness are instances of a> isolated functions of particular neural modules, and b> integrated functions of the Mind/Brain system as a whole. :nerd:

The relationship of logical necessity and physical causation is a deep topic and one of interest to me. . . . .
I think where it shows up is in Wigner's unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics in the natural sciences. — Wayfarer

I have come to think of human-constructed Mathematics as our synthetic imitation of the natural Logic of the universe. By that I mean, chemistry/physics is an expression of fundamental Logic in the substance of Matter (functional organization) and the action of Energy ("physical causation"). Another way to put it is that "all Math is Geometry", where we can extend the geo-centric label to include all causal & formal inter-relationships in the entire Cosmos.

If so, then the "effectiveness" of Math, in scientific endeavors, is an indication that we humans have correctly interpreted the Logic of the universe --- "constraining affordances" --- as natural laws and mathematical ratios. Hence, our artificial "designs" (e.g. computers) are workable as information processors, even though they may not yet be literally "semantic engines" (apologies to ChatGPT). :smile:


The Logic of Information: A Theory of Philosophy as Conceptual Design
by Luciano Floridi
This is a book on the logic of design and hence on how we make, transform, refine, and improve the objects of our knowledge. The starting point is that reality provides the data, to be understood as constraining affordances, and we transform them into information, like semantic engines.
https://academic.oup.com/book/27824

Randomness & Information : inverse logical/mathematical relationship
In a statistical mechanics book, it is stated that "randomness and information are essentially the same thing," which results from the fact that a random process requires high information. . . . .
But, later it says that entropy and information are inversely related since disorder decreases with knowledge. But, this does not make sense to me. I always thought that entropy and randomness in a system were the same thing.
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/447465/understanding-entropy-information-and-randomness
Entropy & randomness are directly related; but randomness & semantics (meaning ; useful information) are inversely related.

I'm reading his Demon in the Machine at the moment, and I've been reading Deacon. But I'm still dubious that 'information' has fundamental explanatory power - because it's not a metaphysical simple. The term 'information' is polysemic - it has many meanings, depending on its context. — Wayfarer

Your ambiguity (uncertainty) about Deacon's novel notion of Information as Absence is understandable, because Shannon defined his kind of Information*1 as the presence of detectable data. The essence of his statistical definition is the Probability ratio of 0% (nothing) to 100% (something) : 0/1 or 1/0, and everything in between. So, information is like a quantum particle in that a Bit exists only as a Possibility until measured (understood). Moreover, several quantum theorists concluded that Probability (not yet real) was converted into Certainty by the evaluation of an inquiring mind. That sounds magical & mystical, but the scientists' intentions were pragmatic*2.

Deacon saw what others missed in the statistical nature of Information : Probability is nothing until Actualized somehow. But that nothingness (absence) is the metaphysical power behind all Change (causation) in the world. He referred to that invisible power as "Constitutive Absence"*3, which is the capability (force + control) to construct something from scratch. The most familiar causal power in science is labeled "Energy", and defined as the ability to do useful work. Yet the substance of that power is left undefined, because it is not a material object, but more like a metaphysical force, which is knowable only after it has done its work and moved on.

In my personal information-based thesis, I merged several of those polysemantic applications of "Information" into a single "metaphysical simple"*4 : the power to transform. Which I labeled EnFormAction to make it signify Energy + Form + Action. I'm sure that Deacon has never heard of that term, and he may not think of his Constitutive Absence as a metaphysical concept. But I think it can be used to narrow down the various meanings of Information to something like a philosophical Atom, brimming with potential causal power. :smile:


*1. What is Shannon information? :
Although the use of the word ‘information’, with different meanings, can be traced back to
antique and medieval texts (see Adriaans 2013), it is only in the 20th century that the term begins
to acquire the present-day sense. Nevertheless, the pervasiveness of the notion of information
both in our everyday life and in our scientific practice does not imply the agreement about the
content of the concept. As Luciano Floridi (2010, 2011) stresses, it is a polysemantic concept associated with different phenomena, such as communication, knowledge, reference, meaning,
truth, etc.
https://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/10911/1/What_is_Shannon_Information.pdf

*2. Information, What is It? :
Deacon addresses many of those self-referencing feedback-loop mind-bogglers in his book. But perhaps the most fundamental enigma is the ultimate “nature” of Information itself. The original usage of the term was primarily Functional, as the content of memory & meaning. Then Shannon turned his attention to the Physical aspects of data transmission. Now, Deacon has returned to the most puzzling aspect of mental function : Intentions & Actions. For example : a> how one person’s mind can convey meaning & intentions to another mind; b> how a subjective intention (Will) can result in physical changes to the objective world? How can invisible intangible immaterial (absent) ideas cause physical things to move & transform. Occultists have imagined Mind as a kind of mystical energy or life-force (Chi; psychokinesis) that can be directed outward into the world, like a laser beam, to affect people and objects. But Deacon is not interested in such fictional fantasies. Instead, he tries to walk a fine line between pragmatics & magic, or physics & metaphysics.
http://bothandblog4.enformationism.info/page26.html {click here}
Note --- Jesus told his disciples that Faith can move mountains. But his brother James explained "“Show me your faith without the works, and I will show you my faith by my works.” Today, if you want to move a mountain, it helps to make use of dynamite and earth-moving equipment : pragmatic faith.


*3. Constitutive : having the power to establish or give organized existence to something.
___Oxford Languages

*4. Metaphysical Simple : an immaterial atom ; a non-physical element ; the fundamental constituent of a complex structure

It occurs to me that maybe you could say that Deacon is trying to establish the linkage between physical and logical causation. Ran it by ChatGPT, it says that it's feasible. — Wayfarer

I had to Google "logical causation". What I found was not very enlightening*1.

Apparently, Logical Causation is what Hume said was "unprovable"*2, perhaps in the sense that a logical relationship (this ergo that) is not as objectively true as an empirical (this always follows that) demonstration. Logic can imply causation in an ideal (subjective) sense, but only physics can prove it in a real (objective) sense.

Of course, even physical "proof" is derived from limited examples. So any generalization of the proven "fact" is a logical extrapolation (subjective) from Few to All, that may or may not be true in ultimate reality. I suppose It comes down to the definitional difference between Ideal (what ought to be) and Real (what is) causation. How is linking the two realms (subjective logic and objective science) "feasible"? Isn't that where skeptics confidently challenge presumably rational conclusions with "show me the evidence"?

Do you think Deacon's "constitutive absence"*3 is the missing link between Logical truth and Empirical fact*4 regarding Abiogenesis? I'm afraid that proving a definite connection is above my pay grade, as an untrained amateur philosopher. What is ChatGPT's philosophical qualification? :grin:

*1. What is the difference between logical implication and physical causality? :
Logical implication refers to the relationship between two statements where the truth of one statement guarantees the truth of the other. Physical causality, on the other hand, refers to the relationship between events where one event is the direct cause of another event.
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/logical-implication-vs-physical-causality.1015629/

*2. Hume Causation :
Hume saw causation as a relationship between two impressions or ideas in the mind. He argued that because causation is defined by experience, any cause-and-effect relationship could be incorrect because thoughts are subjective and therefore causality cannot be proven.
https://study.com/academy/lesson/the-metaphysics-of-causation-humes-theory.html

*3. Causation by Constitutive Absence :
According to Deacon, the defining property of every living or psychic system is that its causes are conspicuously absent from the system
https://footnotes2plato.com/2012/05/23/reading-incomplete-nature-by-terrence-deacon/

*4. Causal and Constitutive explanation :
It is quite natural to explain differences or changes in causal capacities by referring to an absence of certain components or to their malfunction. . . . .
most philosophers of explanation recognize that there is an important class of non-causal explanations, although it has received much less attention. These explanations are conventionally called constitutive explanations
file:///C:/Users/johne/Downloads/Causal_and_constitutive_explanation_comp.pdf

↪Gnomon
Thank you. I shall persist with Deacon, I petered out in his polemical section contra ID, although I'm more drawn to Kastrup's analytical idealism. — Wayfarer

FWIW, I just came across the excerpt below from a reply to you on the Absential Materialism thread.

"In a marginal note of Incomplete Nature, I summarized the book as "a naturalized account for Life, Mind, Soul, Sentience, & Consciousness". But, as a practicing scientist, he seems to carefully avoid crossing the taboo line between Physics vs Metaphysics, Realism vs Idealism, and Science vs Philosophy. So, I also noted, "In order to establish the plausibility of absence-based (Metaphysical) causation, Deacon has to weed out unwarranted assumptions of Physicalism and Materialism". This straddling strategy and ontological balancing act led me to add : "The deistic inferences I'm drawing from Deacon's evidence & reasoning are precisely the one's he's trying to avoid".

I give him some slack though, because Deacon is a scientist whose specialties --- Anthropology, Biosemiotics & Neuroscience --- straddle the dividing line between Science & Philosophy and Classical & Quantum worldviews. My own Enformationism worldview also tiptoes along the same borderline . . . .

And the associated philosophical attitude of BothAnd --- neither Realism nor Idealism, but Both --- places me on the same moot margin as Deacon."

Thank you. I shall persist with Deacon, I petered out in his polemical section contra ID, although I'm more drawn to Kastrup's analytical idealism. — Wayfarer

I doubt that Deacon is a fan of Idealism, whether Analytical or Metaphysical. He's a traditional academic scientist who, following the evidence, has strayed across the taboo line between Hard Science and Soft Philosophy. Unfortunately, he hasn't published much since his 2011 book, except a few videos.

I'm still reading Kastrup's Analytical Idealism, so I'll reserve any pro or con comments for a while. My first impression, regarding The Idea of the World was that it mostly aligned with my own worldview. But it also went beyond my grasp in some areas. His defense against hardline materialistic attacks are very persuasive in most cases. :smile:

All knowledge requires belief.
— ENOAH
That's true, but the OP asks if knowledge is merely belief. Apparently, it's implying that the difference between knowing and believing is empirical verification or rational justification. And so, we argue about shades of truth. :smile: — Gnomon
I question whether all knowledge does require belief. I know how to ride a bike, plane a board, paint a picture, write a poem, play the piano and so on, and I don't see how any of that requires belief. — Janus

The examples you give are not abstract True/False beliefs, but internal mental states (memories ; representations) that we rely on to make our way in the real world. Do those representations depend on a reliable understanding (belief) of how the world works? I suppose that depends on how broadly you define "knowledge" and "belief". As I said, we philosophers argue about nit-picky shades of meaning. :smile:


To Know : to understand what something or someone truly is.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/know%20something

Did Shannon ever write or say anything about 'mental information'? And have you read the origin of how Shannon came to start using the term 'entropy' in relation to information, on the prompting of Von Neumann, who was a peer, and who said one of the advantages of using the term is because he would always win in arguments if he used it, because 'nobody knows what it means'? — Wayfarer

No, Shannon was not concerned with the metaphysical aspects of Information. He was focused on physically communicated Data, not metaphysically (semiotics, metaphors, analogies) communicated Meaning. In my post I used the "mental" term to distinguish Metaphysical from Physical forms of information. In my Enformationism thesis, I refer to Generic Information (universal power to transform) as a "Shapeshifter", taking-on many physical and metaphysical forms in the world. That notion is based, in part, on Einstein's E=MC^2 formula. In my view, Causal Energy is merely one of many forms of Generic Information (EnFormAction).

Yes, I'm aware of the "entropy" backstory. That abstruse term may be responsible for the common mis-understanding that Information is essentially random. It is instead, the Order within Chaos ; the Surprise within Randomness ; the Relevant bits within the mass of Irrelevant bytes. :smile:


von Neumann Versus Shannon Entropy :What is the difference between entropy and Shannon entropy? :
The intuition for entropy is that it is the average number of bits required to represent or transmit an event drawn from the probability distribution for the random variable. … the Shannon entropy of a distribution is the expected amount of information in an event drawn from that distribution.
https://machinelearningmastery.com/what-is-information-entropy/

The greatest degree of information is found in the most random or irrational sequences.
I find this strange and counter intuitive. — Benj96

That common mis-understanding of Information theory is indeed counterintuitive, because we know from experience that randomness is the antithesis of meaning-bearing Information. But Shannon was not claiming that random sequences are inherently meaningful. Instead, he compared mental Information to physical Entropy. And noted that it is "surprising" to find meaningful information in random patterns*1. That eye-opening distinction of meaning from background noise is what semiotician & cyberneticist Bateson called "the difference that makes a difference"*2. . The first "difference" is the Surprise, and the second is the Meaning.

According to the second law of thermodynamics, all order ultimately decays into disorder. And yet, here we stand on a tiny exception to that rule in the vast universe : the pocket of organization we call home. As far as we know, this is the only instance of Life & Mind in the universe. Ironically, some thinkers miss the exceptional nature of Information, and are still looking for communications from little green men, or the advanced race of San-Ti, out there in the near infinite crucible of random accidents. Information is not accidental. :nerd:

*1. Information is the surprising exception to common randomness :
The core idea of information theory is that the "informational value" of a communicated message depends on the degree to which the content of the message is surprising.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_(information_theory)

*2. Information as a difference :
We propose a difference theory of information that extends Gregory Bateson’s definition that information is any difference that makes a difference.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/0960085X.2019.1581441

CAN YOU SEE THE DIFFERENCE ?
Surprising Signal within Meaningless Noise

Note --- Are you familiar with Deacon's Incomplete Nature? — Gnomon
Me? I love the book. At least the half I've gotten through. — Patterner

Stick with it. Incompleteness in reading leaves an ignorance Absence. Taken as a philosophical worldview, Deacon's theory of Creative Absence is a paradigm changer. :wink:

From the little I know of Complexity and Self-organization, I think it's plausible. I don't know enough specifics to defend the theory, though. And I don't think there's one specific abiogenesis theory that's considered more likely than others? Other than various creation stories, I don't know of other types of theories. — Patterner

Yes. There have been several scientific & philosophical attempts to explain the emergence of Life from non-life*1. But so far, none has hit a home-run, and all leave some unexplained gaps, such as the emergence of Mind from mindless Matter. I have my own personal Information-based Genesis hypothesis, which is more general & philosophical than just Biogenesis. But it lacks the mythical poetry of an anthro-morphic deity speaking the world into existence, and animating dead clay. So, it's not likely to serve as the basis for a popular religion. :smile:

*1. Origin of Life, Theories of :
There are many facets to the problem of understanding life’s origin and equally many ways to address it. The origin of life can be viewed from a variety of different standpoints: information theory (Yockey, 2005), RNA replication (Eigen and Schuster, 1977), meteorite impacts (Brack, 2009), physics (Smith and Morowitz, 2016), specific chemical synthesis (Powner et al., 2009), geo- chemistry (Martin and Russell, 2003), or entropy (Russell et al., 2013), to name a few.
http://www.esalq.usp.br/lepse/imgs/conteudo_thumb/Origin-of-Life--Theories-of.pdf

LET THERE BE BIOLOGY