Virtual particles are as real as real particles. — EugeneW

If so, why give one of them an un-real name? I'm aware that mathematical theorists treat "Virtual" Particles as-if they are real. But the differentiating name they pinned on them belies their reality from a common sense perspective. This is just one of many paradoxes emanating from the Pandora's Box of quantum science. They make our world seem to be an mirage of many delusions, as contrasted with the mundane Actual Reality of classical science. Biologists & Chemists are still mostly working in the old-fashioned Real world. But Physicists seem to be exploring a sci-fi fantasy realm of parallel Realities.

Ironically, Aristotle made the same real/unreal distinction 2500 years ago, when he defined the meanings of "Actual" and "Potential". So, which is it : is the "Real" world Potential or Actual or both? As a non-mathematical layman, I have been forced to punt on that either/or question, and to view paradoxical reality in terms of the BothAnd Principle. Reality is a system of systems, but only the more familiar material aspects seem really Real, and the immaterial, non-physical parts seem weird, or surreal, or imaginary. :gasp:

Virtual :
1. almost or nearly as described, but not completely or according to strict definition.
2. not physically existing as such . . .

Sir Roger Penrose details three different kinds of reality :
The three levels are Proto Energy which is energy as pure vibration, Proto TimeSpace where space and time become a single point looping with no direction, and Proto Matter where matter is infinite potentialities.
https://www.vice.com/en/article/kbnkqx/explore-the-subatomic-world-of-energy-fields-in-virtual-reality

The Paradox of Reality :
It was interesting to read great scientific minds like Prof Roger Penrose grapple with the apparent paradox of reality. . . . . Objective, impersonal reality, untainted by private sensation, must ever remain an inference and construct, however successfully these may seem to approximate to that reality. . . . We mortals are heir to illusion...but at least we may strive to avoid delusion.
https://ronaldtkwong.com/news/TheParadoxofReality.html

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.
BothAnd Blog Glossary
Note -- Apparently, our world is neither Actual nor Potential, but both simultaneously. However, the Actual stuff of reality is physical, while the Potential essence of reality of non-physical (mathematical, ideal, meta-physical, etc.). So, Physical Reality is merely the sensory part of the whole world, and Virtual Reality is the imaginary or ideal aspect of the world system.

energy with zero momentum — EugeneW

Yes, but energy-without-momentum is what we know as Potential energy, as contrasted with the Kinetic (or Actual) energy of moving matter. For example a typical car battery has 12 volts of Potential, but when no current is flowing there is no Actual physical work being done. That reminds me of the storage box used by the Ghost Hunters to trap poltergeists so they can do no harm. :joke:

Can you have energy but no momentum?
Yes, something can have energy without having momentum. Momentum is defined as the mass of an object times its velocity. Even in a rest state, when momentum is zero, Body still has potential energy, U=mgh (where, m= mass of body). Hence, it is possible to have energy without having momentum.
https://www.quora.com/Can-something-have-energy-without-having-momentum

You could say that the point signifies something. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes. An immaterial grid-point in empty space is like the symbol "X" (unknown) which serves as a stand-in for a real number, that is un-realized until calculated. I assume that, for a physicist, defining a Virtual Particle as a mathematical point, is essentially an ellipsis, a blank to be filled-in at a later date. So it points toward something imaginary, that could be realized, but not yet physically real.

Using Terrence Deacon's Incomplete Nature terminology, a non-dimensional point on a Quantum Field grid is "Absential". But would I be understood, if instead of labeling a non-physical concept as "Meta-Physical", I called it "Absential"? For example, "the general, non-specific philosophical notion of 'Being' is Absential" ; a potential existence at a point in space to be specified later". Perhaps, "non-being" would be, not only non-physical, but also non-potential, or impossible.

I'm sorry, but I'm confusing myself with the limitations of common language, which is necessarily Materialistic, and forces abstract concepts, like "LOGOS" and "Logic", to be expressed in physical metaphors or analogies. That's why the term "Meta-Physical" seems to me more concise & intuitive : implying something non-physical, yet meaningful. It's too bad, such a useful comparative term has acquired a negative association with flesh-less Spirits & Ghosts, instead of with matter-less Ideas & Abstractions. :smile:

Ellipsis :
1. the omission from speech or writing of a word or words that are superfluous or able to be understood from contextual clues
2. a set of dots indicating an omission..

Absential :
1. the state of a thing not yet realized
2. un-realized potential

Material Numbers
If a thing has many uses within the real world, is that proof of its reality? — ucarr

I suppose you're indirectly asking if Reality is necessarily Material or Physical. The Non-Physical Reality thread is seeking a similar clarification of Realness. :nerd:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/12585/non-physical-reality

I would say a zdp is both real and ideal, but not physically real. As for vps, they are excitations of the underlying quantum fields, so perhaps zdps are as well.
It's all Greek to me. I just try to do the math. — jgill

That's coming close to what I was getting at. The linked quote below indicates that a Virtual Particle is treated as-if it's "Real", but it doesn't add your qualification : "but not physically real". So my question, is "in what sense is a non-physical object Real?. Is that faux reality an equivocation?

Since Quantum Fields consist of dimensionless-points-in-space, they are "real" only in the sense that they have the Potential to produce physical particles. So, it seems that a mathematically-defined Field is deemed capable of creating mathematical (virtual ; un-real?) particles from nothing-but-numbers. Yet, Aristotle contrasted "Potential" with "Actual". So, you could say that the statistical-possibility-for-future-existence "exists" only as the hypothetical power to create Actual (now) particles from mathematical Probability (predictability). Ouch! I grok what you mean by "it's Greek to me".

I understand "as-if" to mean "hypothetically" or "metaphorically". As you noted, and as the VP definition below indicates, such conceptual objects are "not physically real". But isn't it misleading to label such abstract notions as "real". When I use the philosophical terms "Ideal" or "Meta-Physical" for such common conceptual abstractions as "Zero" & "infinity", I get protests for employing a religious term, even though I'm not using it in a strictly philosophical context. [edited to strike out "not"]

Therefore, I've been searching for a viable alternative term to mean "non-physical reality". "Virtual" and "Essential" do indeed refer to abstractions, such as " "excellence, potency, efficacy". Even "Mathematical" or "Statistical" refer to non-physical or not-yet-actual abstractions. But they have traditional non-philosophical scientific currency. So, I guess the "real" question could be expressed as, for example : A> "Is Mathematics Real, or is it Metaphysical, in the sense defined below?" or B> "does a Virtual Particle have physical form?" How can we distinguish between Physical Reality and Virtual Reality? Is it OK for philosophers to postulate in terms of "non-physical Ideality", or "beyond-physical-reality"? :brow:


Is a Virtual Particle Real ? :
Compared to actual particles — It is not. "Real particles" are better understood to be excitations of the underlying quantum fields. . . . .
Since it is possible to perform quantum field theory calculations completely absent virtual particles being referenced in the math used, as seen in lattice field theory, then it is believed virtual particles are simply a mathematical tool.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particle

What keeps space empty? :
Perfectly "empty" space will always have vacuum energy, the Higgs field, and spacetime curvature.
https://www.wtamu.edu/~cbaird/sq/2012/12/20/what-keeps-space-empty/
Q : do those mathematical entities actually occupy space?

Aristotle describes potentiality and actuality, or potency and action, as one of several distinctions between things that exist or do not exist. In a sense, a thing that exists potentially does not exist, but the potential does exist.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potentiality_and_actuality

As-If Fallacy :
Offering a poorly supported claim about what might have happened in the past or future, if (the hypothetical part) circumstances or conditions were different. The fallacy also entails treating future hypothetical situations as if they are fact.
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Hypothesis-Contrary-to-Fact

Virtual :
The meaning "being something in essence or effect, though not actually or in fact"
https://www.etymonline.com/word/virtual

Metaphysical : adjective. without material form or substance.
https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/metaphysical

What's philosophical is the idea of a dimensionless point producing an offspring. — jgill

In the context of this thread, is a zero-dimension point considered to be Real or Ideal, Physical or non-Physical? As a philosophical or mathematical thought-experiment, the notion of "nothing producing something" might be a valid ideal concept. But as a scientific observation it might be as unrealistic as a vacuum fluctuation popping a particle of matter into existence.

As I understand it, a Virtual Particle is equivalent to a dimensionless point. It works mathematically, but does it exist in reality? And that raises the old conundrum : "is mathematics real or invented?" My question is serious, because the answer could shed some light on the OP topic. :smile:

Is math invented or discovered? :
Mathematics is an intricate fusion of inventions and discoveries. Concepts are generally invented, and even though all the correct relations among them existed before their discovery, humans still chose which ones to study. ___Mario Livio, theoretical astrophysicist
https://www.sfu.ca/~rpyke/cafe/livio.pdf
Q : are "correct relations" equivalent to logical relationships?

Are virtual particles really constantly popping in and out of existence? Or are they merely a mathematical bookkeeping device for quantum mechanics? :
Virtual particles are indeed real particles. Quantum theory predicts that every particle spends some time as a combination of other particles in all possible ways. These predictions are very well understood and tested. ___Gordon Kane, theoretical physicist
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/are-virtual-particles-rea/

Philosophy that dismisses science is not philosophy, it is casuistry. — Garrett Travers

Your unconditional faith in an infallible entity (science + sophistry = sciphistry) is touching. But it turns a philosophical forum into a mudslinging contest. Not surprisingly, your churlish clods memetically miss their mark. (that's a philosophical speculation, not a scientific fact)

You've made your point though : Sciphistry can lick Philosophy in a childish power struggle. So, if there's any dominance-dissing in this thread, its the subordination of Philosophy under the jackboot heel of Sciphistry (allegations without evidence). This thread is a silly cyberspace analogue to the Ukraine invasion. (again, a top-of-the-head conjecture, not a validated truth-claim)

It's been fun trading insults with you, But I prefer to waste my time actually engaging in intellectual philosophical dialogue, instead of below-the-belt who-hit-who harangues. Have a nice day. :joke:

I have never encountered so many narcissists. — Garrett Travers

There you go again, slandering your fellow "denizens". Is that your idea of a philosophical argument? :joke:

Yes, of course, it is a Category Error because this is a philosophy forum. As if philosophical training isn't science intensive and focused. Unreal. — Garrett Travers

So, you place Scientists & Philosophers into the same professional category? Do you make no distinction? Do you hold philosophers to the same standards of evidence as scientists? Is Psychology a scientific endeavor, even though it produces no empirical results of its own? Do you think we are supposed to be doing Science on this forum? Do you have formal training as a Scientist or Philosopher? :nerd:

Science vs Philosophy :
The main difference between science and philosophy is that science deals with hypothesis testing based on factual data whereas philosophy deals with logical analysis based on reason.
https://askanydifference.com/difference-between-science-and-philosophy/

Complete nonsense. Albert Einstein was an open point of skepticism within the scientific strata until.... guess when.... Empirical assessment validated his claims. — Garrett Travers

As usual, you missed the point. Did Einstein "validate" his own "claims". How do you define the job of a philosopher? Are we doing science on this forum? Like Einstein, I am skeptical of those who make knowledge claims of Incontrovertible Truth. Unlike wise old Albert, I am not skeptical of Quantum Entanglement . . . are you? :wink:

Albert Einstein, Philosopher-Scientist :
https://www.amazon.com/Albert-Einstein-Philosopher-Scientist-Philosophers-Paperback/dp/0875482864

In a modern sense, a philosopher is an intellectual who contributes to one or more branches of philosophy, such as aesthetics, ethics, epistemology, philosophy of science, logic, metaphysics, social theory, philosophy of religion, and political philosophy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosopher

A scientist is someone who systematically gathers and uses research and evidence, to make hypotheses and test them, to gain and share understanding and knowledge.
https://sciencecouncil.org/about-science/our-definition-of-a-scientist/

skepticism, also spelled scepticism, in Western philosophy, the attitude of doubting knowledge claims set forth in various areas.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/skepticism

Disregarding Known Science — Garrett Travers

Quoting GT : "Evidence please". You make such broad general allegations as-if Science is a canonical Bible, but you don't cite book, chapter & verse. Can you be more specific about a particular "unequivocal" Fact of Science that I've "disregarded". What evidence has been "Suppressed". Do you think the general consensus of science is Final canonical Truth. Where is it written . . . . . . ? :cool:

Trump's Uncorroborated Allegations :
President Trump's baseless and desperate claims . . . .
https://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2020-55016029

Does science tell the truth? :
The conclusion is that there are not absolute final truths, only functional truths that are agreed upon by consensus.
https://bigthink.com/13-8/science-what-is-truth/

I haven't had much luck getting my point across on this issue, so I plan to start a new thread soon to discuss a broader application of my understanding in this area, but focused on the scientific hierarchy. — T Clark

You mentioned "different levels of organization", and listed some different words that we apply to phenomena on those different levels : level A -- "neurons and synapses" (Quanta) or level B -- "thoughts, feelings, and perceptions" (Qualia). When I Googled "different levels of organization", the articles didn't mention level B phenomena specifically.

Are you talking about increasing physical complexity of evolved organisms over time (level A)? Or are you referring to the emergence of novel system behaviors as individual parts merge into a unified System (level B)? Level A is clearly concerned with physical properties that are detected by the 5 senses. But Level B qualities (feelings) are imperceptible to human senses, except what I call the "sixth sense" of Reason (not to be confused with proprioception).

I'm guessing that your "scientific hierarchy" is limited to Level A organization, which are clearly physical. But philosophy & psychology add another level to their hierarchy, which is emergent from or superposed upon a physical substrate, but lacks the usual material properties. By that I mean, "thoughts, feelings, and perceptions" are invisible, intangible, and odorless. Hence, they are not material substances, but mental qualities that we attribute to certain human, or human-like, behaviors. :nerd:

PS___In vernacular speech we often use "properties" and "qualities" interchangeably. But psychologists & philosophers have to make a clear distinction, to avoid category errors.


What are the 7 levels of organization in the human body? :
The major levels of organization in the body, from the simplest to the most complex are: atoms, molecules, organelles, cells, tissues, organs, organ systems, and the human organism.

Typical levels of organization that one finds in the literature include the atomic, molecular, cellular, tissue, organ, organismal, group, population, community, ecosystem, landscape, and biosphere levels

What is the difference between reason and sense? :
is that reason is to exercise the rational faculty; to deduce inferences from premises; to perform the process of deduction or of induction; to ratiocinate; to reach conclusions by a systematic comparison of facts while sense is to use biological senses: to either smell, watch, taste, hear or feel.
https://wikidiff.com/reason/sense

Metaphysics is the branch of philosophy that examines the fundamental nature of reality, including the relationship between mind and matter, between substance and attribute, and between possibility and actuality. .

THE THINKER

One topic that denizens of TPF seem to be under the impression that empirical research has left the door open for the discussion of philosophers to "speculate" about. — Garrett Travers

As one of the dissenting "denizens" of The Philosophy Forum, I'll reiterate my contention that empirical scientists and theoretical philosophers are interested in different kinds of "evidence". Some early philosophers, such as Aristotle, included both observational evidence, and speculative reasoning under the heading of Natural Science. Yet, he astutely separated his generalizations from the specific observations .

After the contentious divorce of Philosophy from Theology, the partition of Physics (science) from Meta-physics (philosophy) was made official. Hence, the focus of Natural Science was limited to A> objective evidence that can be replicated by any well-informed person. But that strict requirement eliminated from consideration any B> subjective evidence that is restricted to individual minds. And it's your narrow focus on type A evidence, that allows you to boast about the "unequivocal triumph of neuroscience". Admittedly, abstract rational Philosophy is still tarred with the same brush as spiritual revealed religion. There is some conceptual overlap, but they are not the same paradigm.

However, only a few modern philosophers are also practicing scientists. So their reasoned opinions, including those of Daniel Dennett, are easily dismissed as mere illusions or "speculations". Some mind-miners may do psychological or sociological studies to obtain statistical evidence of Ethical beliefs & behaviors. But few scientists would call their interpretations of such bell curves "empirical". And the philosophers don't consider their circumstantial evidence to be in competition with an empirical smoking gun. Instead, the role of Philosophy is not to reveal the structure of Reality, but to dissect our subjective beliefs-about and mental-models-of Reality. Mind-excavating Philosophers ask the hard questions -- e.g. about unknown-unknowns -- then speculate on possible answers, but ultimately leave the pragmatic spade-work to lab-laborers.

One example of that division of labor is Albert Einstein : he split no atoms, and looked through no telescopes, He merely used subjective imagination & mathematical logic to construct hypothetical experiments for others to carry out. He was, what we now call, a "Theoretical Scientist", not an Empirical Researcher. Likewise, those engaged in String Theory research, have no hard evidence of their own to crow about. Yet, they like to think of themselves as "real" scientists. However, you might reasonably describe their efforts as "mere speculation", unsupported by "unequivocal" evidence.

Consequently, my "impression" of the OP is that it is based on a typical Category Error, to hold the arguments on this Philosophy Forum to the same standards-of-proof as topics discussed on a Neuroscience Forum (see below). FWIW, I don't deny that it's possible for AI to eventually become Self-Aware. But I'm not aware of any current empirical evidence of computed Consciousness. Nevertheless, I take Neural & Computational research into account, as I pursue my own interests in the philosophical implications of Human Consciousness.

Moreover, I would caution anyone cognizant of the history of science from making "unequivocal" assertions. When scientists resort to exasperated use of such absolute categorical declarations, it's usually in cases of harsh political backlash, as in Global Warming. But, this is not a political forum, so the hyperbole is unnecessary. You won't convince anyone here by shouting "you're a pseudo-scientist, if you don't agree with my unequivocal worldview". :cool:


Philosophical Science :
Aristotle's contribution to science is perhaps best demonstrated by his classic description of the growth of a chick inside an egg.
https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/general-science-history/aristotle-man-who-relied-observed-facts

Neuroscience Readies for a Showdown Over Consciousness Ideas
“I don’t know of any philosophical reason why [it] should be inherently unsolvable” — but “humans seem nowhere close to solving it.” ___computer scientist Scott Aaronson
https://www.quantamagazine.org/neuroscience-readies-for-a-showdown-over-consciousness-ideas-20190306/

Philosophers use science in free will arguments :
Philosophy Professor Paul Davies and Associate Philosophy Professor Matt Haug both call upon scientific findings and research in their arguments, because both philosophy and science are concerned with some fundamental questions: What makes us act? Is it our intentions, or something else? What are our minds? Are they simply our brains? Or is there more beyond the physical structure?
https://www.wm.edu/news/stories/2016/neuroscience-in-philosophy.php

The Neuroscience Forum :
http://www.neuroscienceforum.com/

If You Say ‘Science Is Right,’ You’re Wrong :
It can’t supply absolute truths about the world, but it brings us steadily closer
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/if-you-say-science-is-right-youre-wrong/

We're talking about the same thing, but using different terminology. — Gnomon
No, unless when we're talking about what kind of pie to have, we want to talk about the hypanthium, endocarp, and mesocarp of the pome. — T Clark

OK. Let's talk about an apple pie. There is an analytical vocabulary for describing the chemistry and physics of apples, sugar, spices & dough. But that reductive analysis cannot describe the taste of an apple pie. What it feels like to eat a slice of pie requires a Holistic & Synthetic vocabulary. Likewise, we can analyze physical neural nets all day, and never know the mental sensation of enjoying a sweet dessert. Same pie, different words.

That's why cookbooks may take advantage of physics & chemistry & biology (some may even mention the "hypanthium, endocarp, and mesocarp of the pome", but their focus is on the final product as experienced by the mind of the consumer. The cookbook is talking about the same pie, but using language that is more relevant to the gustatory Qualia than to the physical substance. In a similar manner, Philosophers have developed a different vocabulary (thoughts, feelings, cognition, reason) for describing the Mind, from that of scientists analyzing the Brain (see image below). :yum:

No, unless when we're talking about what kind of pie to have, we want to talk about the hypanthium, endocarp, and mesocarp of the pome. — T Clark

Sorry! I thought you might agree with my non-reductive holistic perspective on the topic, I didn't realize you were talking about fruit pies. :joke:

See my reply to EugeneW above, for clarification of my Holistic approach. Do you equate Holism with Magic? I don't. :nerd:

Saying that mental phenomena are fully explained by neurological phenomena is the old reductionist "nothing but" argument. — T Clark

Yes! I agree holistically. :wink:

The fact of Phase Change is undeniable ─ you can feel snow melt on your tongue ─ but explaining the mechanics of how it happened in terms of known physical laws proved impossible. — Gnomon
That is no proof that it's impossible. Non-equilibrium thermodynamics is still in infancy shoes. — EugeneW

FWIW, I meant it's impossible for reductive science. Non-reductive Systems Theory may be on the verge of an understanding of the nanoscale intermediate steps in a phase transition. In the link below, they conclude that different levels of organization play by different rules (parameters). That is the whole point of Holism. On the quantum scale, scientists have found that a particle can, under certain conditions, relocate on the other side of a solid barrier without passing through the space between. That may be a form of phase transition, and might be related to the holism of Entanglement. Stay tuned. :smile:


Phase transitions occur when order parameters change as a function of another parameter of the system, such as temperature. An order parameter is a measure of the degree of order across the boundaries in a phase transition system.
https://content.csbs.utah.edu/~butner/systems/DynamicalSystemsIntro.html

How Ghostly Quantum Particles Fly Through Barriers :
At the subatomic level, particles can fly through seemingly impassable barriers like ghosts. Particles can pass through solid objects not because they're very small (though they are), but because the rules of physics are different at the quantum level.
https://www.livescience.com/65043-tunneling-quantum-particles.html

No, I'm talking about different levels of organization. When we talk about the nervous system, we talk about neurons and synapses. When we talk about the mind, we talk about thoughts, feelings, and perceptions. They're not the same thing whether we talk about them scientifically, philosophically, or just in an everyday manner. — T Clark

That's OK. We're talking about the same thing, but using different terminology. Empirical scientists have a matter-based vocabulary to discuss "neurons & synapses". But Psychologists and Philosophers use a different terminology to describe "thoughts, feelings, and perceptions". As far as I'm concerned, "Psychology" is merely a sciencey-sounding label for the philosophical investigation of the human Mind *1. Likewise, "Sociology" is a narrower niche for the exploration of human Culture. Both of those sub-disciplines sometimes cross the line into such traditional philosophical topics as Ethics & Beliefs. By contrast, the ancient philosophers were generalists, and did not make such reductive distinctions. Ironically, some haughty empirical scientists disparage those theoretical fields as "soft" science, because they produce no material evidence, but merely statistical correlations.

In my personal philosophical worldview, Brain & Mind are on the same evolutionary continuum, but at "different levels of organization". As noted in my reply to GT above, each transitional phase of evolution is the emergence of a more complex system from a structure of lower complexity. Ultimately, everything in the world is a specific form of fundamental Energy. But physics is now discovering that Energy is a causal form of even more essential Information : the power to enform. Shannon defined "Information" in terms of Entropy, which is merely the disorganization of Energy. I still consider Philosophy to be a general-purpose science, that can synthesize the sub-divisions of Science into a whole system of Knowledge : a worldview or cosmology. :nerd:

*1. Behaviorism was a short-lived attempt to put Psychology on an empirical basis.

How is information related to energy in physics? :
Energy is the relationship between information regimes
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/22084/how-is-information-related-to-energy-in-physics

Is science a type of philosophy? "
Philosophy has its distinctive, traditional and more recent, sub-disciplines and themes: metaphysics, epistemology, logic, ethics, political philosophy, etc., and also includes philosophy of science.
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is-science-a-part-of-or-separate-from-philosophy

Yes, and the problem here is, that's an anti-philosophical cop-out for disregarding the science that has been established, that people employ here almost every single time I bring this u on this website. — Garrett Travers

You've made it clear that you interpret non-empirical philosophical interests as "anti-science". But some of us on this forum don't agree with that assessment. For me, Physics is the science of the Actual & even Probable, but Philosophy is the science the Possible. Scientists have been seeking an explanation of Consciousness for many years. But, due to the inherent limitations of their matter-based methods, they are no closer to understanding the transformation of matter into mind. Except that Claude Shannon's use of a mental term "information" --- to describe a new way to communicate ideas, beyond gestures, vocalizations, and writing --- opened-up a new direction in Science. Ironically, what is now labeled "Information Science" is based mostly on its material carriers, instead of its energetic power of transformation.

My personal understanding of the Qualia question is based on 21st century science, but is not limited to its atom-splitting methods. Instead, I take a Holistic or Systems approach. From that perspective, Mind is a recent innovation of evolution, in which novel forms emerged as Phase Transitions from lower to higher levels of complexity : mathematical singularity, energetic plasma, sub-atomic particles, atoms, molecules, material objects, stars, galaxies, planets, plants, animals, minds. You may not agree, but I perceive an upward arc of complexification in that sequence of events. Building on the scientific notion of Phase Transitions, I have produced a Philosophical model of evolution, which is summarized below. This is not presented as a scientific model. But it is definitely not anti-science. There is no magic involved, unless you think of Holistic Emergence and Phase Transitions as magic. :smile:

Science as we know it can’t explain consciousness – but a revolution is coming :
We have made a great deal of progress in understanding brain activity, and how it contributes to human behaviour. But what no one has so far managed to explain is how all of this results in feelings, emotions and experiences. ___Phillip Goff
https://theconversation.com/science-as-we-know-it-cant-explain-consciousness-but-a-revolution-is-coming-126143

Emergence :
In philosophy, systems theory, science, and art, emergence occurs when an entity is observed to have properties its parts do not have on their own,
___Wiki

Emergence of Mind :
Each phase of cosmic emergence creates a new holistic system with unique properties. But the Cosmos is a nested system of systems that interpenetrate and interact to some degree. The Quantum Field is a world unto itself with weird phenomena, such as entanglement, not found in the classical real world. The Physical Phase has only mechanical properties, but from it emerged the Organic Phase with mental qualities.
BothAnd Blog


Phase Changes of Evolution :
0. Omega Point :
Who knows?
9. Reiterate
Ongoing Emergences
8. Artificial Forms :
Machines, Computers
8. Metaphysical Forms
Reasoning & Designing
7. Organic Forms :
Life, Minds, Societies
6. Physical Forms :
Stars, Galaxies, Planets
5. Matter :
Primitive Particles
4. Energy :
Unformed Plasma
3. Quantum Field :
Statistical Possibilities
2. Big Bang :
Start the computation
Set initial conditions
1. Singularity :
Design, Codes, Laws

Emergence, Phase Transitions and Quantum Leaps :
* The unprecedented appearance of Life & Mind from a 13.8 billion year process of inorganic physics and chemistry was impossible for scientists to account for in their materialistic worldview. But even before those non-physical features arose, there were similar puzzling gaps in development. Everyone is familar with the strange behavior of water, which changes form significantly, depending on its energy state : solid, liquid, gas, or plasma. The fact of Phase Change is undeniable ─ you can feel snow melt on your tongue ─ but explaining the mechanics of how it happened in terms of known physical laws proved impossible.
* So, in the early 20th century a few philosopher-scientists began to develop a theory of Emergence. The primary defining characteristic of emergent states of matter was that the properties of “higher” phases were impossible to predict from those of the lower phases. It was as-if matter on a macro scale made a quantum leap from one energy state to another, just like electrons jumping from orbit to orbit around an atom without passing through any of the intermediate possible states : like going from 5 to 10 without passing through 6-7-8-9. In a deterministic materialistic worldview, this just does not compute.
* Meanwhile the problem of mechanically unpredictable behavior was causing problems in other macro scale material phenomena. For example, within the random interactions of Chaotic Systems, stable form patterns, feedback loops, and fractal self-similarities appear out of nowhere as-if self-organized. These novel states of matter can be traced back to initial conditions, but again the intermediate steps are blurred by randomness. So, the novelty and discontinuity of those observed stable states seemed to emerge from nowhere.
* From Quantum Leaps to Phase Changes to Chaotic Structures, Nature seems hide some of its magic behind the smokescreen of Randomness. Which is why scientists working on the fuzzy fringes of their specialty ─ like Einstein and Quantum Theorists ─ are forced to think like artists or poets by leaping from Rigid Reasoning to Fluid Imagination without being able to explain the steps from problem to intuition. Because such leaps of Logic cannot be justified by tracing new ideas directly back to their source, they lend them-selves to cynical manipulations of credulity, which is anathema to the scientific method, but not necessarily to non-empirical philosophical methods.
* In any case, the unprecedented emergence of Life, Mind, and Self-Consciousness from a purely physical process may not be such a mystery, if the reality of Metaphysics can be taken seriously. We all know that mental processes follow different rules from those of Physics, with only a foundation of mathematical logic in common. Which is why EnFormAction theory posits a new kind of causality, involving un-scientific notions of Holism (versus Reductionism), Emergence (versus Determinism), and Teleology (versus Random Accidents). Those philosophical terms are attempts to explain the mysteries of physical transformations without resorting to smoke & mirrors. They are all subsumed under the concept of EnFormAction, which bears an uncanny resemblance to ancient pre-scientific notions of Divine Will, and Elan Vital. The difference that makes a difference, is that EFA does not need to hide behind artifacts of faith. It should be completely open to critical questioning and rational testing, even as it requires some tolerance for flights of fancy and leaps of Logic, to inject some freedom into the strait & narrow path of hard science. At the moment, it’s not Science, but Philosophy
BothAnd Blog, post 60

When I talk about mind, I talk about thoughts, emotions, knowledge, imagination, perception.... Just because I can pinpoint the locations in the brain that light up when I do those things, that doesn't mean they're the same thing. — T Clark

As I understand your point, you are drawing a distinction between a scientific model and a philosophical representation. Modern Science is methodologically Physicalist, and studies material Quanta (neurons). But Philosophy is methodologically Mentalist, and examines immaterial Qualia (e.g. Ideas). As far as Science is concerned, Mind is merely the function of the Brain. No argument there.

However, Philosophers are more interested in the intangibles of Qualia questions : not what Mind consists of (physical structure), but what it does (mental functions). A Biologist will describe what the Brain looks like physically (mechanism), while a Philosopher is more interested in what Mind feels like experientially (thoughts, emotions). So, the Mind/Brain identity presumption may be appropriate for a Science forum, but not for a Philosophy forum. Hence, as far as Philosophy is concerned, they're not the same thing. Therefore, the fallacy here is to equate Mechanism with Meaning. :smile:

The Mind/Brain Identity Theory :
It has commonly been thought that the identity theory has been superseded by a theory called ‘functionalism’.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mind-identity/

What would a physicalist explanation of mind look like? — Agent Smith

Since you referred to "Causation" several times, I'll propose a causal explanation for the Brain Function we know as "Mind" or "Consciousness". According to the definitions below, Causation is not a physical object or substance, but an external force acting on something, whether Matter or Mind. That "influence" is a causal relationship, and in Physics is usually called "Energy". Yet, energy per se is not a material object with physical properties, hence is known only by its effects on matter. So, it can't be distinguished from "Spirit" or "Ghost", except by noting who uses those terms. Spiritualists speak of "spiritual energy", while Materialists avoid any implications of an intentional Cause.

In world events, we observe both Natural and Cultural causes. The former are assumed to be mechanical, while the latter are implicitly mental. For example, the Russian invasion of Ukraine is obviously not a natural phenomenon. So we assume that some human mind imagined that future event, and set-up a series of intermediate causes & effects that were directed toward the result of Ukraine being re-absorbed into a resurrected Soviet Union, or Russian empire (i.e. intended to Make Russia Great Again, MRGA). In other words, the power-of-an-idea, imagining an ideal future state, was the initiating Cause of the invasion.*1

Likewise, Brain & Mind can be construed as Natural & Cultural sources of Causation. The primary distinction between those sources is local direct mechanical transmission of energy versus non-local (end-directed) communication of the power-of-an-idea. So, natural processes are Deontological (obeying natural laws), while cultural developments are Teleological ( obeying political or mental influences). The primary difference between "mechanical transmission" and "mental communication" is that the operator of the "machine" is included in the communication system. In philosophy, we label that initial force as the "First Cause" of a subsequent chain of causation.

Which raises the philosophical question, which is phenomenal (fundamental) and which epi-phenomenal (incidental) : the original Cause or the intermediate Effect? This could be interpreted as a "physical explanation" of the role of mind in the world, in that the mechanical system is completely physical, yet the Cause of the process is external to the machine. So, which more essential, the Teleological Intention, or the Local Mechanism -- the intentional ghost or the perfunctory machine -- the Programmer or the Program? :nerd:


Causality is influence by which one event, process, state, or object contributes to the production of another event, process, state, or object where the cause is partly responsible for the effect, and the effect is partly dependent on the cause. ___Wikipedia
Note -- "Influence" is a graphic metaphor of something fluid flowing-in from outside, instead of internally generated.

Causation : the relationship between cause and effect; causality.
Note : "Relationship" is a mathematical metaphor indicating some invisible connection between two or more points or objects.

Epiphenomenalism is the view that mental events are caused by physical events in the brain, but have no effects upon any physical events.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epiphenomenalism/
Note -- did the mind of Putin have any effect on his physical tanks & planes?

What is relationship between nature and culture? :
Nature provides the setting in which cultural processes, activities and belief systems develop, all of which feed back to shape biodiversity. There are four key bridges linking Nature with culture: beliefs and worldviews; livelihoods and practices; knowledge bases; and norms and institutions.
https://www.resurgence.org/magazine/article2629-nature-and-culture.html
Note -- Materialist Science studies Nature, while Mentalist Philosophy studies Culture

*1. Some might give a technical label to that invisible energy : "Psychic Power". But on this forum, we'll do well to avoid such baggage-laden nomenclature, as a red-herring.

WHO'S RESPONSIBLE : MIND or MACHINE ?

My contention is that some kind fo dualism is more scientific than materialism. — lorenzo sleakes

On this forum, you probably won't get much traction with that assertion. Since the Enlightenment era, modern Science has been identified with ideological Materialism and philosophical Monism. So. "more scientific" could be interpreted as "more materialistic". In which case, your contention would be easily dismissed as misconstrued. For example, a materialist would demolish your claim with "show me the money empirical evidence!" As you admitted, "No theory of a purely epiphenomenal mind can ever be tested".

However, if you would re-word your postulation to say "dualism is more Reasonable", it would qualify as a debatable philosophical hypothesis instead of an empirical scientific Theory. In philosophy, there are few settled facts or closed questions. So, you could proceed to support your contention with logical argument. Unfortunately, doctrinaire Materialists do not accept Reason as evidence of anything. Reason is itself epi-phenomenal, and non-empirical. The material phenomenon is the Brain, and its epi-phenomenon is viewed as merely a byproduct of neural processes. Hence, Brain is defined as the fundamental element of which Mind is a mere illusion, generated by brain matter.

Consequently, any response to your re-worded proposal for discussion, should be limited to Philosophical Evidence. In that case, it would be an open-ended dialogue of personal opinions, not of objective facts. Your thesis couldn't be proven or dis-proven, merely subjectively accepted as more or less reasonable. If it came to a vote though, few practicing scientists would agree, but the majority of non-scientists would find your mind/body dualism to be intuitively satisfactory

That said, in my personal opinion, everything in the world is dualistic, in the sense of Universal Symmetry. That is a fundamental assumption of Physics : implying that opposites, such as Matter & Antimatter, are merely different forms of the same thing. So, you could make a case that Matter (epi-phenomenon) & Mind (phenomenon) are merely dualistic forms of some underlying essence. However, binary Symmetry also implies that the whole world system is ultimately Monistic.

Some scientists & philosophers have postulated that Energy is the essence of everything. But, more recently, intangible Information has been proposed as the fundamental element of both Matter & Energy, and even of Mind. All being symmetrical forms or phases of a singular Quintessence. If so, your contention for Mind/Body dualism, could be construed as an Information Monism, in which Energy, Matter, & Mind are all epi-phenomena of the unitary power to Enform. But, don't expect many pragmatic scientists or ideological materialists to agree with you. :nerd:


A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed .
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

Epiphenomenon :
a secondary phenomenon accompanying another and caused by it specifically : a secondary mental phenomenon that is caused by and accompanies a physical phenomenon but has no causal influence itself.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/epiphenomenon

Philosophical Evidence :
In philosophy, evidence has been taken to consist of such things as experiences, propositions, observation-reports, mental states, states of affairs, and even physiological events, such as the stimulation of one's sensory surfaces.
https://iep.utm.edu/evidence/

Symmetry :
Symmetries lie at the heart of the laws of nature. . . . Symmetry represents those stubborn cores that remain unaltered even under transformations that could change them.
https://www.nature.com/articles/490472a
Note -- broken symmetry results in duality

Is Information Fundamental? :
What if the fundamental “stuff” of the universe isn't matter or energy, but information?
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/article/is-information-fundamental/

Is ‘Information’ Fundamental for a Scientific Theory of Consciousness? :
After a brief primer on Shannon’s information, we are led to the exciting proposition of David Chalmers’ ‘double-aspect information’ as a bridge between physical and phenomenal aspects of reality.
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-981-10-5777-9_21

Quintessence :
The fifth element refers to what was known as the aether, a special unknown substance that permeated the celestial sphere and was purer than any of the four terrestrial elements. The notion of a fifth element was broached by Plato and later written about by Aristotle, but neither philosopher used the term.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/quintessence-origin-meaning-history-elements

Sure. Even setting aside ontological disputes, physicalism vs idealism vs dualism, you have the whole question of modality. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I'm not up to speed on modal theories. Are Realism & Idealism merely different modes of thinking, or modes of being? Aristotle seemed to view Potential & Actual as different modes of being. But hard-core Materialists might dismiss "Potential" & "Possible" as meaning "un-Real" and "non-Existent", hence not worth thinking about, even by feckless Philosophers. Can you expand on the application of modality to the question of Non-Physical Reality? :smile:

PS__For example, a button-pushing comeback above says :
"No, it implies you lack the capacity to accurately describe what you are attempting to, which would imply that you're talking about something."
This seems to be asserting that scientific communication should be limited to proper nouns referring to real things. That might eliminate a lot of mis-understanding caused by the casual use of metaphors, analogies, and allusions in vernacular language. But it would also forestall any discussion of Invisible or Non-Physical aspects of perceived & conceived Reality. For example, Einstein's paradigm-challenging theories were presented in two forms : Mathematics and Metaphors. How does Modal theory account for poetic Metaphors in place of prosaic Facts? :smile:

On the Problem and Promise of Metaphor Use in Science and Science Communication :
The language of science is largely metaphorical. Scientists rely on metaphor and analogy to make sense of scientific phenomena and communicate their findings to each other and to the public. Yet, despite their utility, metaphors can also constrain scientific reasoning, contribute to public misunderstandings, and, at times, inadvertently reinforce stereotypes and messages that undermine the goals of inclusive science.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5969428/

What does modality mean in research?
Modality means that there is reference to actualization of a situation in a world that is not represented as being the factual world.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/276273181_The_definition_of_modality

Don't waste your time arguing against the omniscient. — Wayfarer

As a wrap-up review -- to this and the Non-Physical thread -- what do you think of my assessment that the opposing positions are viewed as A> Real Science vs un-real Pseudo-science by conservative hard-liners, but as B> Reductive Science vs Holistic Science by more progressive pioneers of unexplored territory ? The result of such binary framing is that we end-up debating different questions from polarized positions. Unfortunately, the Science=Truth posters, don't accept that there is another way to do scientific research. And of course, it's easy to go wrong, when you go beyond "settled science" into open-ended questions. But that's the difference between tinkering Technology and Progressive Science, otherwise known as Pure Science or Basic Research.

What I'm labeling as a Holistic approach to science, or Systems Science, would in theory include most reductive evidence, but not be limited to it. Yet, some on the holistic side could go the the extreme of "disregard for known science fallacy", as GT put it. However, the pro-thought posters on this thread seem to be merely more interested in "Soft Science" with theoretical evidence (concepts), than in "Hard Science" with empirical evidence (things).

Another way to frame the debate is between Inductive & Deductive reasoning. Empirical science is supposed to be strictly Deductive from direct experience (experiment). But a lot of modern science, especially the Soft Sciences, have little hard evidence to work with, so most of their reasoning is Inductive, from a general hypothesis to a more developed theory (what if?). Yet again, trying to prove a prior belief, without skeptical pruning can result in a self-fulfilling prophecy. So, I can't blame the Realists for their hard interrogation. In fact, that why I invite such challenges for my somewhat fringey notions. :nerd:


Holism in science, and holistic science, is an approach to research that emphasizes the study of complex systems. Systems are approached as coherent wholes whose component parts are best understood in context and in relation to one another and to the whole.
This practice is in contrast to a purely analytic tradition (sometimes called reductionism) which aims to gain understanding of systems by dividing them into smaller composing elements and gaining understanding of the system through understanding their elemental properties.[1] The holism-reductionism dichotomy is often evident in conflicting interpretations of experimental findings and in setting priorities for future research.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holism_in_science

Empirical vs Theoretical evidence :
Empirical: Based on data gathered by original experiments or observations. Theoretical: Analyzes and makes connections between empirical studies to define or advance a theoretical position.
https://coloradocollege.libguides.com/c.php?g=286871&p=1911416

Inductive vs Deductive reasoning :
The main difference between inductive and deductive reasoning is that inductive reasoning aims at developing a [new] theory while deductive reasoning aims at testing an existing theory.
https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/inductive-deductive-reasoning/

I am not sure how this relates to my post, may you clarify the connection to me? — IP060903

Sorry. I may have clicked on your link by mistake when I meant to link back to the OP. :yikes:

NON-PHYSICAL REALITY

Are there any non-physical aspects of reality that are proper topics of calm collegial philosophical dialog? Can such ideas be discussed without eye-rolling, name-calling, mud-slinging, ideological labeling, and anathematizing? Is philosophical dialog even doable in the current climate of polarized Us vs Them & Orthodox vs Heretical posturing? Has modern Philosophy become "politics by other means"? — Gnomon

Well. It looks like my question has been answered . . . . in the negative. Empirical Science versus Theoretical Philosophy is non-negotiable . . . for the emotional extremists among us. It's just as polarized & politicized as Western society in general.

Fortunately though, warfare in non-physical cyber-space doesn't have physical fatalities, just metaphysical casualties. So, our bloody-but-unbowed souls will survive this thread to fight again on another controversial topic. Can I at least have the last word? :joke:

No it's just not making a "disregard for known science fallacy" — Garrett Travers

If you are going to insist on referring to "known science", you should at least cite book, chapter & verse. Where is it written that "there are no Thoughts or Minds, only Neural Nets & Brains"? Is that from the Authorized Version, or the Revised Standard Version? The non-specific Appeal to Authority is also a fallacy.

Back to the topic of this thread : Thought. Steven Pinker, a prominent expert in the "soft science" of Psychology, wrote a popular book (not authorized by any ruling power) entitled, The Stuff of Thought. In the chapter on metaphor, he quotes Lakoff & Johnson's Philosophy in the Flesh, the Embodied Mind : "the mind is inherently embodied". To which statement-of-fact Pinker suggests an alternate "we offer the metaphor that the mind is inherently embodied " He goes on to note that, "in the very act of advancing their thesis, they presuppose transcendent notions of truth, objectivity, and logical necessity, that they ostensibly seek to undermine". Note : Pinker is as scientific & empiricist as possible for someone who writes about Mind Stuff.

The abstract notion of Mind, is also a metaphor, imagined as a container for similarly abstract thoughts. But abstractions are like skeletons : de-fleshed. :smile:


Philosophy in the Flesh review :
It's funny that, given the authors' explication of metaphors in all the world's philosophies, they should blatantly ignore the metaphorical assumptions which they make themselves. Specifically, they denounce all the metaphysicians for assuming that "there is a category of all things that exist"
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/31856.Philosophy_in_the_Flesh

Opinion :
"Western philosophy, then,is not an extended debate about knowledge, ethics, and reality, but a succession of conceptual metaphors." ___Steven Pinker, The Stuff of Thought

METAPHORS & ANALOGIES ARE "TRANSCENDENT NOTIONS"

I don't know what any of this means. Science, as per basic philosophical understanding, is never to be dismissed and should inform one's philosophical theories. Period, no ifs, ands, or buts. — Garrett Travers

That is a pretty good summary of the authoritarian worldview called "Scientism". Technically, it's not a religion, but a dogmatic philosophical position, based on the absolute authority of some intangible entity called "Science". However, it may be described as "puritanical", in that it rejects such unreal impurities as "theories" and "opinions". Scientism may be considered political, in that it is identified mostly with Left Wing political views. Until now, I had never concerned myself with Scientism, partly because those who espouse the gospel of materialistic Science, don't think of themselves as political or religious, just as Orthodox believers in scientifically revealed Truth.

Scientism preaches a narrow definition of Science, and rejects most of the "soft sciences", especially, the Humanities, such as Philosophy. Coincidentally, I read a Scientific American article this morning on the topic of Anthropology & Paleontology, comparing "Neanderthal Thinking" with modern human beliefs and behaviors. From examining ancient bones the "scientists" concluded that those cave men had primitive forms of symbolic art and religious rituals. But, if you demand to see their falsifiable evidence, you would be disappointed to learn that it consists mainly of expert interpretations (inferences ; opinions) from vague data such as scratches on bones, and holes in eagle claws that resemble a necklace. You could say that they had hard (petrified) evidence for the soft thoughts of long dead people.

In philosophical dialogs, arguments from Final Authority are a win-lose strategy. Hence, there is no incentive for someone with different views to play their no-win game. Except perhaps, for those who enjoy sharpening their flexible philosophical skills on the unyielding rock of flawless Diamond-Hard Science. :cool:

The Curse of Scientism :
Not only is current scientific knowledge treated as gospel, but non-scientific knowledge is considered oxymoronic. At best, this means that we can never verify any knowledge that could not be verified through scientific methods.
https://www.calais.news/lefts-strange-morality-and-problem-scientism

Dogmatic Philosophy :
To be dogmatic is to follow a set of rules no matter what. The rules might be religious, philosophical, or made-up, but dogmatic people would never waver in their beliefs so don't even think of trying to change their minds.
https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/dogmatic

Science as Ideology : Scientism. Finally, it is worth noting a sense in which science itself can form a basis of an ideology. When science is credited as the one and only way we have to describe reality, or to state truth, such restrictive epistemology might graduate into scientism.
https://iep.utm.edu/sci-ideo/

Hard science and soft science are colloquial terms used to compare scientific fields on the basis of perceived methodological rigor, exactitude, and objectivity. Roughly speaking, the natural sciences are considered "hard", whereas the social sciences are usually described as "soft".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_and_soft_science

Why did Karl Popper reject positivism? :
Popper disagreed with the positivist view that science can be reduced to a formal, logical system or method. A scientific theory is an invention, an act of creation, based more upon a scientist's intuition than upon pre-existing empirical data. “The history of science is everywhere speculative,”
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/the-paradox-of-karl-popper/

In my view, it is interesting that the primary cause for this total rejection of the non-physical is well, non-physical. — IP060903

Sad, but true. Philosophy has become polarized around political positions, usually hinging on the definition of "admissible evidence". See the thread below for more on that angle.

Political worldviews are non-physical, hence not amenable to scientific methods. That's why, after all these years of ascendant physical science, we are still forced to debate Meta-physical questions, for which there are no final answers . And even that ancient term for philosophical analysis is politically fraught. Yet, I reserve "Physics" for Natural questions, and "Meta-Physics" (i.e. Philosophy) for Cultural questions, that arise from the human condition as animals with self-pondering brains. :smile:

Are there thoughts?
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/12586/are-there-thoughts

I have no place in this analysis. I don't give a shit about politics, except where it violates my freedom. — Garrett Travers

I referred to political polarization because you seem to be defending an ideological position, which some refer to as "Scientism". I'm reluctant to use such categorical labels, but your insistence on empirical evidence --- for Philosophical concepts that are not amenable to reductive dissection --- is a mis-application of a good policy. You portray my not-yet-orthodox cutting-edge "evidence" as in-admissible. But a Mind is not a lab rat.

In this thread, we are discussing a phenomenon (Thought) that is invisible & intangible -- only inferrable & theoretical -- yet you demand empirical evidence for its existence. Since, after 2500 years of speculating, there is no hard evidence forthcoming; from your ideological perspective this thread is an exercise in futility -- except as a political arena to display the superiority of the Scientism party. I apologize for using a shorthand label for your view. But, it omits the very essence of Philosophical Evidence : subjective experience & rational appraisal, in cases where objective testing is not applicable. Unfortunately, that includes most of the topics that politicians come to blows about. :cool:

PS__Even on Scientific forums, pioneering theories, such as Strings & Loops, are hotly debated, because the only evidence is mathematical (mental), not empirical (material). Some opponents say such theories are "not even wrong", but that's also true of all perennial philosophical questions. So why do we bother with philosophy anyway? Philosophy is not Natural Science, it's Cultural Science. :smile:


Phenomenon :
1. a fact or situation that is observed to exist or happen, especially one whose cause or explanation is in question.

Empirical vs Theoretical evidence :
Empirical: Based on data gathered by original experiments or observations. Theoretical: Analyzes and makes connections between empirical studies to define or advance a theoretical position.
https://coloradocollege.libguides.com/c.php?g=286871&p=1911416

Scientism :
“Scientism is a matter of putting too high a value on natural science in comparison with other branches of learning or culture.”
“Science, modeled on the natural sciences, is the only source of real knowledge.”
https://sciencereligiondialogue.org/resources/what-is-scientism/

Philosophical Evidence :
In philosophy, evidence has been taken to consist of such things as experiences, propositions, observation-reports, mental states, states of affairs, and even physiological events, such as the stimulation of one's sensory surfaces.
https://iep.utm.edu/evidence/

Philosophical Evidence :
According to the phenomenal conception of evidence, only one's experiences can serve as evidence.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/evidence/

Evidence-based Medicine :
My sister has been suffering from a mysterious debilitating ailment that mainstream doctors have not been able to correctly diagnose & treat for over 40 years. It forced her to give-up her work toward a Phd. The affliction has been given various labels, such as Chronic Fatigue Syndrome. Another, non-mainstream label, is Toxic Mold Syndrome. Her doctors have tried to treat it as a typical allergy with no success. Some people with this syndrome go to live in tents in the desert, to avoid contact with ubiquitous mold. So, she has been desperately seeking relief via "alternative medicine", which at least took her subjective-suffering-with-little-objective-evidence seriously.
Only recently has her quest found significant relief from a common vitamin (niacinamide), that is reputed to stimulate the energy-producing mitochondria in human cells. Ironically, one of the alternative non-MDs claims that his treatment is "evidence based", even though it is not reviewed or approved by the FDA. I tend to be somewhat skeptical of much "alternative" medicine. But for me, the evidence that counts is that she is a completely different person from the shell-of-a-self that has been dragging around for all those years. That's subjective, not empirical evidence.
To mirror your apolitical expression above : I don't give a sh*t about medical politics, except where it marginalizes what works subjectively as non-empirical.

Any truth that could be found in the not absolute category, would at that moment constitute a place in the absolute state of truth. It's completely reductive. — Garrett Travers

The last part of this assertion belies the first part. The "absolute category" would be inherently all-encompassing & Holistic, hence not piecemeal & Reductive. Which reminds me that these politically polarized threads (e.g. FreeWill vs Determinism : Mind vs Brain) tend to begin as philosophical dialogs with sharing of information & opinions. But they quickly devolve into political sniping across the dividing line. The opposing poles can be labeled as either Reductive or Holistic. But the BothAnd philosophy crosses the no-man's-land to unite those disparate worldviews. Unfortunately, the politicization of the discussion forces each participant to retreat into an Either/Or stance. :angry:

Go check out General Systems Theory, and Informationa Integration Theory to compliment some of the understandings you placed underneath this banner. — Garrett Travers

To "complement" your mis-understanding, you could check-out the BothAnd Blog to discover how Systems Theory and Information Theory are integrated into the BothAnd Principle of Complementarity. You may be surprised that your interlocutor is not quite as ignorant as your political jibes make him out to be. Of course, your Conservative vs Liberal dichotomy might be offended by the fraternization of opposing worldviews, such as Religion and Science. The moderate BA position doesn't accept the dogma of either side, but it does try to understand how they became entrenched in their defensive postures. :cool:

PS__ Are you politically conservative to match your conservative Science=Truth ideology? :joke:


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

BothAnd-ism :
An inclusive philosophical perspective that values both Subjective and Objective information; both Feelings and Facts; both Mysteries and Matters-of-fact; both Animal and Human nature.

HOLISM IS COMPLEMENTARY
REDUCTIONISM IS INCOMPLETE

I absolutely love the picture you posted. I would like to enlarge it and put it on my wall. — Athena

Here's a link to a YouTube video of a Ukrainian woman handing an invading Russian soldier some flower seeds to plant on her martyr's grave. Now isn't that a Romantic idea? :smile:

PS___Ooops! Apparently I misinterpreted the gesture. The seeds were intended to grow from his rotting corpse on Ukrainian soil. At least a romantic way to say "f*ck you, and the tank you rode in on". :angry:

https://www.newser.com/story/317392/ukrainian-hands-soldier-seeds-so-flowers-can-grow-from-corpse.html?utm_source=part&utm_medium=earthlink&utm_campaign=rss_top

As far as New Age nutcase, what views are they specifically criticizing? — Garrett Travers

You can find the Black vs White critics replying to my BothAnd posts all over this forum. They try to push me to their side of the absolute Truth spectrum. Fortunately, most posters are somewhat humble & flexible in their philosophical opinions. Only a few are absolutely certain of their scientific or religious Truth.

Apparently, the Yin-Yang symbol is a badge of NewAgeism, even though Aristotle advised a similar middle-of-the-road approach, in order to avoid the Either/Or Fallacy. I try not to be peremptory (dogmatic) about Science vs Religion, or Real vs Ideal. There is good & bad on both sides. So, I get to sample the best of both worlds, without getting stuck in a pile of dogma. :joke:

Note -- There's an old saying : "I must be doing something right, if I get criticized from both extremes".

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.

* The Enformationism worldview entails the principles of Complementarity, Reciprocity & Holism, which are necessary to offset the negative effects of Fragmentation, Isolation & Reductionism. Analysis into parts is necessary for knowledge of the mechanics of the world, but synthesis of those parts into a whole system is required for the wisdom to integrate the self into the larger system. In a philosophical sense, all opposites in this world (e.g. space/time, good/evil) are ultimately reconciled in Enfernity (eternity & infinity).
* Conceptually, the BothAnd principle is similar to Einstein's theory of Relativity, in that what you see ─ what’s true for you ─ depends on your perspective, and your frame of reference; for example, subjective or objective, religious or scientific, reductive or holistic, pragmatic or romantic, conservative or liberal, earthbound or cosmic. Ultimate or absolute reality (ideality) doesn't change, but your conception of reality does. Opposing views are not right or wrong, but more or less accurate for a particular purpose.
* This principle is also similar to the concept of Superposition in sub-atomic physics. In this ambiguous state a particle has no fixed identity until “observed” by an outside system. For example, in a Quantum Computer, a Qubit has a value of all possible fractions between 1 & 0. Therefore, you could say that it is both 1 and 0.
BothAnd Glossary

By this standard, empirical evidence provided to you that would explain the "transition from numb & dumb Matter to self-aware Conscious Matter," would " add-up to a holistic hill-of-beans," because you're a "numb & dumb," "explanation" "specialist." — Garrett Travers

GT, I appreciate your willingness to engage in a principled philosophical exchange of views on a controversial topic, without resorting to (much) name-calling and ad hominem aspersions. At least you mostly attribute my "numb & dumb" explanations to mere ignorance & stupidity instead of intentional malice.

Unfortunately, unlike empirical Science, theoretical Philosophy is not progressive but circular. We are still arguing about the same issues that Aristotle articulated 2500 years ago. And no impasse is more contentious than Physics versus Meta-Physics, AKA Science vs Religion. I am not a practicing scientist, and I don't practice any religion. But in this thread my arguing position is somewhere in between Materialistic Scientism and Spiritualistic Religionism. I suppose you could label it as Philosophism.

My purpose for exposing my heterodox worldview to opposing orthodox views is to help me weed-out my own ignorance & misunderstandings. That's how I learn to see both sides of many disputes. But my moderate stance places me in the middle of a circular firing squad. My religious family think I have gone over to Satan's side, while my scientific friends suspect that I may be a closet New Age nutcase. Se la vie. I can see where both are coming from, but I took the path less traveled by true-believers on either side. Thanks for playing the philosophy game of Virtual Dialogue. :smile:


"There are no 'good' or 'bad' people. Some are a little better or worse. but all are activated more by misunderstanding than malice."
___Tennessee Williams

I've looked at life from both sides now
From win and lose and still somehow
It's life's illusions I recall
I really don't know life at all
___Joni Mitchell

". . . . since the human mind is capable of dealing with both empirical reality and intangible imagination. In fact, most people do indeed manage to hold both idealistic worldviews (religious myths, romantic stories, hypothetical conjectures) and pragmatic views (technical knowledge, scientific models of reality), although in discrete mental compartments. So in order to understand the whole truth of our existence, we need to look at both sides of every polarized worldview. In the non-fiction world, we don’t always have to choose either Good or Evil, but we can look for a moderate position near the Golden Mean, the sweet spot I call BothAnd."
____BothAnd Glossary

No, you misunderstand, I have loads of empirical evidence of that — Garrett Travers

Your usage of "Empirical" seems to go beyond the literal meaning, to include Theoretical inferences. So, we are, as usual, talking past each other ; using different vocabularies (Science vs Philosophy). Empirical evidence would be a list of observed facts (theory-neutral raw data). But an interpretation of those facts (pro-or-con-Mind) would be a conjectural postulation, since no "load" of reductive empirical data will prove the physical existence of something holistic & hypothetical. So, the electro-chemical activities of neurons would be empirical, but attribution of a thought, connected to that behavior, would be theoretical. (Until MRIs can read minds directly, rather than by human inference, that is) Therefore, as non-specialist non-scientists, we can only discuss various theories about Brain & Mind, not empirical facts.

You can give me a list of experts who conclude Mind = Brain, and I could give you a list of experts who conclude Brain does not equate to Mind. The difference is not necessarily in the data, but in the interpretation. And It's not simply Materialism versus Spiritualism (as you may presume), but more like Classical Physics versus Post-Classical. Yet the primary difference between your theory of Mind and mine, is Reductionism (empirical trees) versus Holism (conceptual forest).

As an example of a classical approach to Mental phenomena, Behaviorism expected to explain Consciousness without resort to any Theory of Mind. But, while it produced some useful facts, it never explained how Matter could become aware of its environment, or of itself. Since I'm not a specialist, I can only say that in my skeptical opinion, the "loads of evidence" you refer to does not add-up to a holistic hill-of-beans -- an explanation for the phase transition from numb & dumb Matter to self-aware Conscious Matter. Instead, the reductionist Materialism & Behaviorism theories actually took the conclusion as a premise. But, the current wave of Holistic theories (e.g. I.I.T) are looking beyond the bare facts toward a rational inference, that actually explains the distinction between a thinking brain, and an isolated brain-in-a-vat. :nerd:

PS___If we took a vote of all Brain-Mind experts right now, I suspect that your side would win. But my experts are "on the side of the angels". :joke:
.

It is argued that a scientific theory, together with its concepts, is simply a postulated system of logical categories for conceptualizing a theory-neutral experimental datum. This entails that the mind-body problem is a methodological rather than an empirical or even a metaphysical issue regarding the logical adequacy of one or another theoretical framework for construing the relation between mental, bodily, and environmental categories.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF03394144

Science as we know it can’t explain consciousness – but a revolution is coming :
In fact, we should not be surprised that our standard scientific method struggles to deal with consciousness. As I explore in my new book, Galileo’s Error: Foundations for a New Science of Consciousness, modern science was explicitly designed to exclude consciousness. Phillip Goff, Gallileo's Error
https://theconversation.com/science-as-we-know-it-cant-explain-consciousness-but-a-revolution-is-coming-126143

Why is behaviorism wrong? :
In this version of history, there was something wrong with behaviorism in the 1970s and 1980s – it became too focused on specific problems and lost the big picture.
Note -- the Reductionist approach has failed, so Holistic approaches, such as Tononi/Koch's Integrated Information Theory are now the cutting-edge of Mind Science.

For this "difference that makes a difference," to be anything other than other than fabricated woo, each difference is going to have to be clearly explained, and then shown to exist outside of neural function. I'll wait for any explainer on earth to provide me this information. Hint: I'll not be getting any. — Garrett Travers

I agree with that last prediction. You won't be getting any empirical evidence for mental phenomena. Not due to absence of evidence, but to categorical rejection of Reasoning as evidential. It's also a rejection of common sense & intuition as evidence of something unseen, but obvious. Such hard-evidence skepticism is a good policy for scientific exploration of classical physical phenomena. But it breaks down at the Quantum level, where the evidence is mostly inference from circumstances. For example, atom-smashers don't directly reveal sub-atomic particles. Instead the existence & properties of such things must be inferred from circumstantial evidence (e.g. tracks in a cloud chamber). So, scientific knowledge of such ephemeral entities depends on agreement between the opinions of experts doing the experiments. The rest of us must take their word for the existence of Quarks & Neutrinos. They can't show us the evidence, because it exists only as subjective ideas in their minds.

Likewise, no-one can show us direct evidence of other minds, because it's circumstantial & inferential. We know our own minds directly by the feeling of thinking (cogito ergo sum). The epistemological question of Solipsism only arises when we look for tangible evidence of Other Minds. We can cut their skulls open to see if they have a brain. But, even zombles have brains; which is, presumably, why they have to eat brains to keep their resurrected bodies going. Since you are holding out for empirical evidence of res cogitans, the only evidence you will find is for res extensa. That's why nobody doubts the existence of Brains, but a few hyper-skeptics will demand sensory evidence of Minds. They take their own thinking-thing for granted, but demand objective proof for all other minds. That's what we call Solipsism.

A solipsist seems to think of himself as a machine, running a program. In which case, he is a robot, and has no Will of his own. His cause & effect logic is impeccable, except that he denies the First Cause : the Programmer. Are you self-programmed? Do you think for yourself, or as directed by some outside force, such as Destiny? The Mind/Body problem turns on the question of Free Will. They go hand-in-hand. If you doubt your own Willpower, you will also doubt your own Mind. But, that's OK. According to the Constitution, brain-eating Zombies have equal rights with law-minding citizens. Except for the brain-eating thing : in a court of law, the mindless defense will not get you off for a murder rap . :confused:

Clear explanation of The Difference :
https://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/scientists/bateson/

circumstantial evidence, in law, evidence not drawn from direct observation of a fact in issue.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/circumstantial-evidence

problem of other minds, in philosophy, the problem of justifying the commonsensical belief that others besides oneself possess minds and are capable of thinking or feeling somewhat as one does oneself.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/circumstantial-evidence

Why do most neuroscientists remain strict materialists? :
There is no evidence to suggest otherwise. Neuroscientists, like all scientists, are quantitatively driven. If you can't measure it, it doesn't exist. Since you can't measure mind, you can't quantify mind—so by definition, it's not physical. . . .
This debate dates back to the early 1900’s and the quantum era, when physicists like Einstein and Heisenberg were exploring the tools we have to measure objective reality, and realized that there is a point where humans can never transcend their subjective assessment of reality. It’s impossible. There is no way out of that matrix, if you will.
___Dr. Jay Lombard, neurologist

Truly holistic theories are adaptive to all new objectively verified phenomena, like science, and philosophy. — Garrett Travers

Do you really require objective verification for all of your beliefs? Most people get their technical knowledge second & third hand. So, they must trust their sources. I am not a practicing scientist, so my understanding of abstruse topics, such as we discuss here, is verified only by comparing one expert opinion to another. That's why I read widely. And I actively look for opinions that are different from my own : this forum, for example. That's how you learn. But there are not enough minutes in eternity to "verify" all sources, or for critical analysis of every "fact". So, I suspect that like most folks, even you remember mostly those "facts" that seem to agree with your prior beliefs, as vetted by the Availabilty Heurstic. :smile:

The Influence of Prior Beliefs on Scientific Judgments of Evidence Quality
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0749597883710447.

Availabilty Heurstic :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Availability_heuristic

This knowledge-of-the-gaps is so instinctive for humans that we hardly notice when we cross the line between empirical evidence and theoretical speculation. — Gnomon
Man's greatest murder, and I will not fucking stand for it for another day in my life. I will ridicule and rationally destroy it of the face of the earth with pleasure for the rest of my days. — Garrett Travers

Whoa! That sounds like Antihumanism or Transhumanism or even Antinatalism. Which means you won't rest until the scourge of irrational caveman intuition is eradicated from the planet. It must be frustrating to share the world with imperfect people who are not as logical as Mr. Spock, or as computational as Commander Data, or as intolerant as GT. My condolences. :sad:
PS___It's a good thing we are not in the same room. My occasional lapses into instinct might get me exterminated.

Read above what I have posted to you here again, and come back and read this statement of yours: "a map, not the territory." You sure it isn't..... both? Or, more than both? — Garrett Travers

Hey, you're not arguing with me. that's a quote from Alfred Korzybski. His point was that your mental model of the world is a figment of your imagination, not a miniature clone of reality. And he would probably agree with Don Hoffman, that your model of Reality is an "illusion". Or with Carlo Rovelli, that Reality is "not what it seems". However, they are not denying the existence of both mental Maps and material Territories in the same world, but in different forms. Each has its place in the grand scheme of things . . . an non-things. :cool:

Map vs Territory :
This quote comes from Alfred Korzybski, father of general semantics: “A map is not the territory it represents, but if correct, it has a similar structure to the territory, which accounts for its usefulness”. To sum up, our perception of reality is not reality itself but our own version of it, or our own “map”.
http://intercultural-learning.eu/Portfolio-Item/the-map-is-not-the-territory/

I'm sure there may be many interesting implications from these works. I'm just wondering if they make any difference to how we live our lives on a day to day basis (which seems, to me, to involve reality). — Ciceronianus

Unless you are a professor of Consciousness Studies, you are not likely to put food on the table by understanding Non-physical Reality. But, if you are an amateur philosopher, like me, that deeper understanding of reality, may make a difference in how you perceive & conceive the puzzling world around you. That, in turn could make you a better person (wisdom & virtue) in your day-to-day dealings with other people. Besides, it might give you fodder for contentious TPF topics. Do, you have something more important to do with your time on Earth? If so, why are you wasting it on feckless Philosophy? :smile:

There is no distinction. — Garrett Travers

For a biologist there may be no distinction, because he's interested in mechanisms, not functions. But for psychologists and philosophers, the meaning in a mind is the "difference that makes a difference". :nerd:

No, photons have mass, what are you talking about? Light and energy are material forces. — Garrett Travers

Photons only have mass when they slow down and transform into matter. Besides, Mass is not a material object, but a mathematical function otherwise known as "inertia". It's defined as a "property" of matter, but not as matter per se. A property is a mental attribution, a thought.

Energy-in-general likewise transforms into mass only when it slows from lightspeed into velocities our senses can detect. They are different forms of the same fundamental force, which is neither light nor matter, but the potential for both. Their distinct measurable properties are how scientists distinguish between each form and give it a special name. For example, an electron is intermediate between photon and matter. Hence, deserves its own designation.

Unfortunately, Mind & Thought have no measurable properties apart from their associated material or energetic forms. Their existence must be inferred indirectly. :smile:

What is Mass? :
mass, in physics, quantitative measure of inertia, a fundamental property of all matter. It is, in effect, the resistance that a body of matter offers to a change in its speed or position upon the application of a force.
https://www.britannica.com/science/mass-physics

"But, the function of a machine is "non-physical", so we can't see it, and only know it by what it does" — Gnomon
No. You need to brush up on cog-sci, this is an utterly unscientific assertion. Yes, we can see it through functional mri. — Garrett Travers

That assertion is a category error. It confuses the function of an MRI machine --- to display the Effects of a magnetic field on the iron molecules in blood --- with brain functions. MRI images require a human Mind to interpret that feedback in terms of malfunctions. :worry:

Yep, and they were wrong, all of them. I wish I could say it to their faces. — Garrett Travers

It's too bad that you can't argue with dead white men. But you could in theory tell Neurobiologist Christof Koch that he's wrong about The Feeling of Life Itself. The "feeling" he refers to is not a physical object, or a neuronal computation, but something else entirely. He calls it a "hack", but it's essentially an emergent Quality, which can't be measured, but can be experienced. He even toys with the notion of Panpsychism (i.e. widespread). Is he "wrong", in your expert opinion? You could suggest that he "brush-up on cog-sci". :wink:

The Feeling of Life Itself :
Why Consciousness Is Widespread but Can't Be Computed
https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/feeling-life-itself

The thoughts are in fact the functions. There are no "thoughts," just computations which are observed through executive function, another brain function. — Garrett Travers

A "function" is a mathematical concept, not a tangible object. See the Koch quotes above & below for his opinion on thoughts as computations. In what sense is a computation a material thing? :grin:

Confessions of a Romantic Reductionist :
What links conscious experience of pain, joy, color, and smell to bioelectrical activity in the brain? How can anything physical give rise to nonphysical, subjective, conscious states? . . .
In which I muse about final matters considered off-limits to polite scientific discourse: to wit, the relationship between science and religion, the existence of God, whether this God can intervene in the universe, the death of my mentor, and my recent tribulations
http://cognet.mit.edu/book/consciousness

That's because that which does not exist leaves no evidence of itself having not existed, except the absence of evidence existence itself. — Garrett Travers

You, perhaps deliberately, missed the point of "non-physical existence". If ideas & thoughts are experienced in your reality, then they have an existence of some kind. It's just a question of labeling. Consciousness researchers refer to "ideas", not as material things, but as immaterial "representations" of both objective things and subjective thoughts. Long after the idea or feeling is gone, we can recall then in the form of Memories, which are also subjective Thoughts. :nerd:

Representationalism :
philosophical theory of knowledge based on the assertion that the mind perceives only mental images (representations) of material objects outside the mind, not the objects themselves.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/representationism

"Immortality, we can only argue its existence by comparing opinions & beliefs." — Gnomon
We actually can't even do that. — Garrett Travers

If you can't compare opinions and beliefs, what are we doing on this forum? Are we teleporting physical objects over cyber-space? :cool:

Everything but Strings, yes. The domain of ideal existence exploration is here, right here on earth, — Garrett Travers

Are you denying the existence of "Strings" & "Loops". You may not be able to see them, even in principle, but the idea of such entities certainly "exist" as thoughts or feelings in the functioning minds of earth-bound mathematicians. They don't attempt to prove their existence empirically, but merely ask you to take it on faith, until they are eventually able to use the power of Strings to cause changes in the real world. Meanwhile, their only evidence is long strings of abstract numbers & symbols that are intended to "represent" unseen things. :joke:

Oh, because of Kant, and Heroclitus, and Descartes, and all manner of people who didn't understand that mind and body weren't seprate, but the very same entity. — Garrett Travers

If mind & body are the same entity, shouldn't they have the same properties? Yet, we give them different names & meanings because we perceive a significant difference between them. The body/brain has physical properties, and the mind has "non-physical" qualities. We detect the existence of physical objects via our 5 senses. But we infer the existence of "non-physical" non-things by deduction from circumstantial evidence.

I don't know anyone who denies that there is a causal relationship between Brain & Mind. But, the function of a machine is "non-physical", so we can't see it, and only know it by what it does. Which is how we know there's such a thing as Energy. It has no physical properties, only physical effects. That's also why Kant, Descartes, et al, made a categorical philosophical distinction between Mind & Body.

The Mind/Body problem only arises when some people attribute "non-physical" properties to Mind/Soul that are not rationally inferred, but emotionally imputed : such as Immortality & Ghosts. It's those unverifiable attributions that are debatable, not the intuitive functions such as verbally communicable Thoughts and Ideas. Yet, we can't find physical evidence to support or deny "non-physical" existence.

We simply take other people's thoughts for granted, because of our personal experience with the phenomenon of thinking. But, lacking direct experience with Immortality, we can only argue its existence by comparing opinions & beliefs. We may debate the mysterious hows & whys of Ideal existence, but that's also true of such presumably physical objects as Quarks & sub-quantum Strings. :smile:

Now consider where your thoughts come from. What is the source and origin of thoughts? — Garrett Travers

I understand where you are coming from. But you redirected the intent of the OP, to change the controversial subject to one less debatable. OP seems to assume the existence of brains. So his question regards the conditional existence of "thoughts" -- e.g. what do they consist of?. If mental phenomena are included in your personal model of reality. in what sense do they exist? Is there more than one way to be? If thoughts are not existent in some sense, why do we have a noun name for them? It's a theoretical philosophical query, not an empirical scientific slam-dunk.

Some people go so far as to reverse the hierarchy of material existence, postulating that Mind is more fundamental than Matter. Of course, they have no empirical evidence to support that position. So, it's just another age-old philosophical conundrum. Why then, does the notion of an immaterial aspect of reality persist in this day & age? It's easy to haughtily label such childlike questions as coming from ignorance or stupidity. But some proponents of a separate realm for invisible & intangible Ideas & Thoughts are manifestly of high IQ. Some are even highly credentialed mathematicians. Are they insane, or is there some philosophical meat to chew on?

My personal worldview is not Either-Or, but BothAnd. So, I can see the reasoning behind both perspectives. Which is why I accept that both Science and Philosophy have valid roles in human culture. And Quantum queerness has just added fuel to that long-burning fire. So, why can't we have an adult conversation about an idea that won't go away? :smile:

Mathematical Reality :
Andreas Albrecht of Imperial College in London, called it a "provocative" solution to one of the central problems facing physics. Although he "wouldn't dare" go so far as to say he believes it, he noted that "it's actually quite difficult to construct a theory where everything we see is all there is".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_universe_hypothesis

Gonna butt in here with some of my homespun analysis. Universals don't exist, but they're real. They're real as constraints and possibilities, the forms that things must take in order to exist. But they're not real on the level of existent things, their reality is of a different order to phenomena. — Wayfarer

Yes, It's that dual meaning of "exist" & "real" that causes us to talk past each other. Some deny the existence of "a different order of phenomena". AFAIK for almost 14 billion years, there were no minds, and hence no Universals or General Concepts and no Ideas or Ideals. When your dog is looking pensive, is he pondering Universals? Is your talking parrot a philosopher?

"Constraints" and "absences" are essential to Deacon's book Incomplete Nature. But some can't wrap their matter-based worldview around the notion of nothingness. But even the ancient Atomists were forced to assume a Void for their atoms to move around in. No void, no motion, no change, no evolution. :smile:

I regret I haven't read the works you refer to, but just what is that supposed to mean? — Ciceronianus

It means that what you think of as capital "S" Science is a moving target. And these envelope-pushers may know something you don't. For example, Deacon has postulated the counter-intuitive notion of "causal absence". Check it out. But hold your prejudice until you understand what he's talking about. :wink:


Incomplete Nature : How Mind Emerged from Matter
is a 2011 book by biological anthropologist Terrence Deacon. The book covers topics in biosemiotics, philosophy of mind, and the origins of life. Broadly, the book seeks to naturalistically explain "aboutness", that is, concepts like intentionality, meaning, normativity, purpose, and function; which Deacon groups together and labels as ententional phenomena. . . .
The book expands upon the classical conceptions of work and information in order to give an account of ententionality that is consistent with eliminative materialism and yet does not seek to explain away or pass off as epiphenominal the non-physical properties of life.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incomplete_Nature

Oh, I see. I am in 100% accord with this analysis. — Garrett Travers

Good! The problem with Systems Theory is that, like all Holistic attempts to understand Nature, General & Universal concepts are not knowable by sensory observation or reductive analysis. Instead, we develop such mental models of reality by rational inference from direct personal experience, or from second-hand learning from other envelope pushers.. The next Theory of Everything will never be a confirmed fact, but merely a new target to shoot down.

That's why scientists, who make general judgments about whole sub-categories of Nature, are going beyond the empirical evidence to make metaphysical philosophical postulations. They can't possibly observe every possible combination of elements. And they are seldom testable with current technology. So, they fill-in the gaps in direct knowledge with the imaginary links of pattern recognition (inference). This knowledge-of-the-gaps is so instinctive for humans that we hardly notice when we cross the line between empirical evidence and theoretical speculation.

The scientists, in the books I listed above, are professional empiricists, but their topics of study are on the cutting-edge of technology, Some focus on Abstract Math (string & loop theory), others on Quantum Weirdness (entanglement), and a few on Consciousness (the last frontier of science). Consequently, like all philosophical postulations, they are open to challenge. You might call them "un-settled science": And they are often accused of dabbling in Metaphysics. But. I'm inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt, even if it challenges my "settled" opinion of how the world should work.

Science evolves & advances by pushing the boundaries of the current world map. And yet, just as in politics, conservatives typically accuse the pushy pioneers of "pseudoscience", or even worse "metaphysics". And it seems to be true, historically, that unfettered liberal minds do tend to make discoveries before the plodders, who don't stick their necks out. For example, Einstein was not a practicing scientist when he published his five papers that turned the classical world upside down. So, I'd be careful not to label those long-neck scientists as anti-scientific. Unless they claim to see the promised land from the mountain of Metaphysics.

The purpose of this thread is not to propagandize pseudoscience, but to translate the fringey findings of Science into meaningful philosophical concepts. For example, Hoffman's provocative assertion that "Reality is an Illusion", makes a lot of sense to me. And, I understand that he is not denying our common sense model of material reality, but merely noting that that notion is a map, not the territory. :smile:


The problem of universals is an ancient question from metaphysics that has inspired a range of philosophical topics and disputes. Should the properties an object has in common with other objects, such as color and shape, be considered to exist beyond those objects? And if a property exists separately from objects, what is the nature of that existence?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_universals
Note -- Einstein's Block Time is not an empirical observation, but a universal extrapolation. But is it Real?

Consciousness: The Final Frontier :
Understanding consciousness may be the greatest challenge posed to science.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/consciousness-self-organization-and-neuroscience/201804/consciousness-the-final-frontier

Science advances one funeral at a time :
Planck's principle is the view that scientific change does not occur because individual scientists change their mind, but rather that successive generations of scientists have different views.
"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck%27s_principle

TERRA INCOGNITA

I think there's a lot more to learn about this before we start speculating about "non-physical reality." What takes place at the quantum level isn't necessarily the "reality" we live in anyway. — Ciceronianus

Since when do philosophers wait for more facts before they start "speculating"? Besides, the authors of the books referenced are pragmatic scientists, who were forced by the counter-intuitive "facts" they dug-up to speculate on what they might mean for our intuitive worldview and our incomplete "standard theory" of reality. Scientist have been trying over the last century to reconcile Relativity and Quantum models of reality. How much longer do we need to wait? Anyway, on this forum of philosophical dilettantes, we don't do empirical, we do conjecture. And Quantum un-reality is a fervid ferment of speculation, even among those who eschew philosophy. :smile:

Emergent Space-Time :
"A growing number of physicists . . . are increasingly converging on a profound idea : space -- and perhaps even time -- is not fundamental, Instead, space and time my be emergent. . . . While quantum physics treats space and time as immutable, general relativity warps them for breakfast."
Scientific American magazine, Feb 2022
Note -- Sci-fi novelists dramatically speculate on the possible implications of such scientific profundities all the time. So, why can't prosaic philosophers dabble in such open questions?