Who created the Great Programmer? All creation myths that depend on an 'original intelligence" have a regress problem. — fishfry

That is a typical short-sighted Materialist response to any notion of Transcendence. It assumes that the Programmer is a player in his own program, and subject to its rules. But the most reasonable solution to the eternal "regress problem" is to assume that the Programmer is self-existent. In my thesis, the "Creator" of our evolving world is not a humanoid deity existing in space-time, but an eternal principle existing in timeless Eternity and spaceless Infinity.

Of course, there are no such unlimited things in our physical world, but we can imagine unreal concepts like "Zero" and "Infinity", which have proven to be quite useful in higher mathematics, such as Calculus. In fact, most mathematicians assume that the axioms of their trade are timeless. And most physicists assume, without evidence, that causal Energy and natural Laws are eternal, and not created in Big Boom explosions. Without causal power, and logical limits, our world would be chaotic.

That's why materialist Multiverse proponents must assume, without evidence, that the Forces and Rules-for-their-application logically pre-exist any functioning world or mini-verse. The Multiverse theory itself takes for granted that there is something which transcends the beginning of our little pocket of space-time. In order for anything to exist in space-time, something must exist necessarily (i.e. not on our local clock).

That's why my thesis takes as a logically necessary Axiom, that the power-to-be (exist) is eternal, or self-existent, and not limited to any particular instance of physical reality. My name for that power-to-exist is BEING. "To be, or not to be", does not apply to the Programmer, who is Being per se. :nerd:

Self existent : existing independently of other beings or causes ; un-conditional ; non-contingent

Necessary Existence : To say that a being necessarily exists is to say that it exists eternally in every logically possible world; such a being is not just, so to speak, indestructible in this world, but indestructible in every logically possible world

BEING :
In my own theorizing there is one universal principle that subsumes all others, including Consciousness : essential Existence. Among those philosophical musings, I refer to the "unit of existence" with the absolute singular term "BEING", as contrasted with the plurality of contingent "beings" and things and properties. By BEING I mean the ultimate “ground of being”, which is simply the power to exist, and the power to create beings.
Note : Real & Ideal are modes of being. BEING, the power to exist, is the source & cause of Reality and Ideality. BEING is eternal, undivided and static, but once divided into Real/Ideal, it becomes our dynamic Reality.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page10.html

Well God could have invented evolution, if that's your point. — fishfry

Sorry to butt-in again . . . . but that is exactly the point of my Enformationism thesis. I didn't set-out to prove or disprove the existence of God. But since meaningful Information (the power to enform) is a product of intentional minds, I concluded that Aristotle's First Cause logically must have been a Mind of some kind. But, I long-ago lost faith in the humanoid deity of the Bible. So, when I refer to that unknown entity I use the ambiguous spelling "G*D", to indicate that it's not the traditional superhuman of most world religions. It's closer to the unconditional and unknowable "Tao" of Lao Tse.

I have no problem with Darwin's theory of Evolution, as a means to explain the Origin of Species. Or of the general Big Bang theory of cosmic creation. But they don't even begin to explain the Origin of Energy or Life or Mind. So, I have proposed a hypothetical process that I call Intelligent Evolution. The "mechanism" of evolution is viewed as something like a program written by a Programmer, and encoded in the Singularity that preceded the Big Bang. Since this scenario is a product of my fallible mind, and not of infallible revelation, I refer to it as just another "Creation Myth" among thousands, but based on the latest scientific understanding of our world. In my blog, I have even addressed the logical question of "why would a god choose to create a world by such a slow and meandering procedure as Natural Evolution, instead of an instant, or seven-day miracle?" :nerd:

Intelligent Evolution : A 21st Century Creation Myth
http://gnomon.enformationism.info/Essays/Intelligent%20Evolution%20Essay_Prego_120106.pdf

Well God could have invented evolution, if that's your point. — fishfry

Sorry to butt-in again . . . . but that is exactly the point of my Enformationism thesis. I didn't set-out to prove or disprove the existence of God. But since meaningful Information (the power to enform) is a product of intentional minds, I concluded that Aristotle's First Cause logically must have been a Mind of some kind. But, I long-ago lost faith in the humanoid deity of the Bible. So, when I refer to that unknown entity I use the ambiguous spelling "G*D", to indicate that it's not the traditional superhuman of most world religions. It's closer to the unconditional and unknowable "Tao" of Lao Tse.

I have no problem with Darwin's theory of Evolution, as a means to explain the Origin of Species. Or of the general Big Bang theory of cosmic creation. But they don't even begin to explain the Origin of Energy or Life or Mind. So, I have proposed a hypothetical process that I call Intelligent Evolution. The "mechanism" of evolution is viewed as something like a program written by a Programmer, and encoded in the Singularity that preceded the Big Bang. Since this scenario is a product of my fallible mind, and not of infallible revelation, I refer to it as just another "Creation Myth" among thousands, but based on the latest scientific understanding of our world. In my blog, I have even addressed the logical question of "why would a god choose to create a world by such a slow and meandering procedure as Natural Evolution, instead of an instant, or seven-day miracle?" :nerd:

Intelligent Evolution : A 21st Century Creation Myth
http://gnomon.enformationism.info/Essays/Intelligent%20Evolution%20Essay_Prego_120106.pdf

Is Enformationism your pet theory? I'm inclined to agree that everything is about information. — TheMadFool

Yes. It's my "pet" Thesis, and the foundation of my personal Worldview, which I am developing into a more complete philosophical theory. According to that thesis, everything is not just "about" information, everything in this world is Information. Information is the "universal substance" postulated by Spinoza, long before computers and Information Theory emerged. But what is Information, you ask? The most intuitive comparison is to causal Energy. Since Einstein equated Energy with Matter & Math (E=MC^2), we can now safely say that all of the Forces & Materials in the world are forms of general purpose Energy, which is a form of generic Information. :nerd:


Information :
Knowledge and the ability to know. Technically, it's the ratio of order to disorder, of positive to negative, of knowledge to ignorance. It's measured in degrees of uncertainty. Those ratios are also called "differences". So Gregory Bateson* defined Information as "the difference that makes a difference". The latter distinction refers to "value" or "meaning". Babbage called his prototype computer a "difference engine". Difference is the cause or agent of Change. In Programming it's 1s & 0s. In Physics it’s called "Thermodynamics" or "Energy". In Sociology it’s called "Conflict".
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page11.html

Enformationism :
A worldview or belief system grounded on the assumption that Information, rather than Matter, is the basic substance of everything in the universe. It is intended to be a 21st century successor to the 19th century paradigm of Materialism. It's also an update for the ancient worldview of Spiritualism, which was an attempt to understand the phenomenon we now call Energy.
http://enformationism.info/enformationism.info/

Haven't followed the thread, only responding to this. But I don't agree. Say I'm a wooly mammoth and I notice the climate is getting cooler. By random chance I would mate with any old mammoth and if the weather gets colder and I mated with a not-so-woolly mammoth, my offspring would be out of luck. But if I'm a smart, planning kind of mammoth, I would mate with the wooliest mammoth I could find so as to give my offspring the best chance of survival in the coming cold snap. — fishfry

Sorry to butt-in, but . . . TMF was probably referring to the intelligence behind long-term plans (teleology) instead of short-term utility calculations (more wool good). And the "intelligence" is not in the individual fuzzy elephant, but in the emergent system. Modern scientists are now copying the Chance + Choice model of evolution in order to design complex products that would otherwise take years of trial & error (more wool not so good in a warmer climate). :nerd:

Evolutionary programming :
It was first used by Lawrence J. Fogel in the US in 1960 in order to use simulated evolution as a learning process aiming to generate artificial intelligence.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_programming

I maybe way off the mark but I've always felt that the difference between the mind (humans) and mindless life (bacteria) is greater ergo, harder to explain than the difference between life (bacteria) and the lifeless (stone). This is what Gnomon is probably referring to by Quantum leap.
Having said that, we've been able to replicate logic, an ability we pride ourselves as possessing, we even go so far as to define ourselves with it, on unmistakably dead matter (computers) while as of yet being unable to create a synthetic cell that can match up to a single bacterium. — TheMadFool

Yes. Like those pioneers of queer Quantum theory, serious scientists have been working, since the turn of a new century, on a plausible theory to explain -- without resort to miracles -- how Life arose from non-life, and how Mind emerged from Mindless matter. And the spotlight is now pointing at generic (universal) Information as the "difference maker".

is concerned that the Mysterian approach is a cop-out from continuing to pursue the scientific method across the Forbidden Zone into the realm of Meta-physics. Perhaps the most influential proposal at the moment is the Integrated Information Theory (IIT), which attempts to quantify the basic elements of both Life and Mind. What we call Logic or Reason cannot be accounted for by reductive analysis down to a physical Atom of "mind stuff". But, IIT is a mathematical thesis, and the idealized Axioms of math are as metaphysical as it gets. Yet, they are essential to the progress of modern physical science.

Today, the notion of "Information" has been expanded from its original reference to the ethereal contents of Minds, to the mathematical logic of computers, and even to now being equated with the causal force of Energy. Post-Darwinian Evolution's multi-modal and deductive (principles & laws) logical process, of creating novel things from pre-existing things, is what I call Enformation or EnFormAction. Moreover, it's an Aristotelian Axiomatic theory instead of a Mysterian by-pass, or a religious "Leap of Faith". However, for most of us it's also a "Quantum Leap" across the formerly impenetrable Cartesian Matter/Mind divide. :nerd:

Information :
Knowledge and the ability to know. Technically, it's the ratio of order to disorder, of positive to negative, of knowledge to ignorance. It's measured in degrees of uncertainty. Those ratios are also called "differences". So Gregory Bateson* defined Information as "the difference that makes a difference". The latter distinction refers to "value" or "meaning". Babbage called his prototype computer a "difference engine". Difference is the cause or agent of Change. In Physics it’s called "Thermodynamics" or "Energy". In Sociology it’s called "Conflict".
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page11.html


Axiomatic versus Mysterian explanation :
I propose that the Enformationism thesis may not solve, but at least, point in the direction of a solution to that philosophical and scientific mind-boggler. Moreover, my approach is axiomatic (self evident) instead of mysterian (occult). The primary axiom of my thesis derives from Aristotle’s theory of causation, in which all observed causes & effects in the world can be inferred to follow from an ultimate First Cause.
http://bothandblog7.enformationism.info/page8.html

Meat puppets have no intrinsic value. — Gnomon
They seem to value each another, so I don't see what "intrinsic" has to do with it. — 180 Proof

As a philosophical worldview, regarding our fellow humans as possessing "intrinsic value" is what makes the difference between love & tolerance for our neighbors, and exterminating masses of them in gas ovens, as-if they are vermin to be eradicated. The alternative view is Instrumental value : what can you do for me?

The notion of Moral Law, or Natural Law, is based on "intrinsic value" instead of "instrumental value". Novels and movies about sentient robots usually hinge the drama on that very question : "They're just machines, with no human rights, So we can use them, and dispose of them, as we see fit." For millennia, the inhumane treatment of dark-skinned people and animals was warranted on the assumption that they have no Souls, hence no Intrinsic Value. But for early hunter-gatherers (who were animists), the animals they killed were assumed to have some Intrinsic Value, so their Instrumental Value (food) had to be morally justified -- in some cases by begging forgiveness. Was that just a case of primitive ignorance & superstition, or did they know something about the Balance of Nature that modern people have forgotten? :cool:

Intrinsic value :
The intrinsic value of a human, or any other sentient animal, is value which originates within itself, the value it confers on itself by desiring its own lived experience as an end in itself. ... Because intrinsic value is self-ascribed, all animals have it, unlike instrumental or extrinsic values.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intrinsic_value_(animal_ethics)

Natural Law : a body of unchanging moral principles regarded as a basis for all human conduct.

Animism : the attribution of a soul to plants, inanimate objects, and natural phenomena.

I maybe way off the mark but I've always felt that the difference between the mind (humans) and mindless life (bacteria) is greater ergo, harder to explain than the difference between life (bacteria) and the lifeless (stone). — TheMadFool

Yes. But the Enformationism worldview provides a novel vocabulary to explain that vital distinction : the difference that makes a difference to sentient creatures. That theory pictures Evolution as a process of converting simple into complex, and potential into actual. Information (EnFormAction) is the universal Force that causes such progressive change -- from lifeless matter, to living matter, to thinking minds. And that creative Energy exists in both physical and metaphysical forms, just as intangible Energy can be converted into palpable Mass, which we interpret as Matter. :nerd:

How the brain functions and outputs "consciousness" is a scientific problem, it seems to me, and not "a valid philosophical query" as it might have once been. — 180 Proof

I've noticed that a significant number of posters on The Philosophy Forum seem to be embarrassed by Philosophy as a discipline, because it studies things that literally don't matter : ideas & ideals & beliefs. But those unreal things do indeed matter to the majority of humanity, who know nothing of Science or Philosophy. Perhaps the huddled masses don't matter either. Meat puppets have no intrinsic value.

I just came across an internet article, which articulates the crux of those opposing values -- what's important. Some view consciousness as a their personal Self (ghost), while others view it as "just another output" (the Mind is what the Brain does). The latter think of humans as machines (meat robots), while others think of humans as something more than the sum of their parts. It boils down to a Reductive versus Holistic worldview. Ironically, those contrasting views are not Objective observations, but Subjective beliefs about the world in general. For the record, I don't believe in immortal ghosts, but I do believe in self-conscious minds in mortal meat costumes. :cool:


Is it time to give up on consciousness as ‘the ghost in the machine’? :
* As individuals, we feel that we know what consciousness is because we experience it daily. It’s that intimate sense of personal awareness we carry around with us, and the accompanying feeling of ownership and control over our thoughts, emotions and memories.
* But science has not yet reached a consensus on the nature of consciousness – which has important
implications for our belief in free will and our approach to the study of the human mind.
* Beliefs about consciousness can be roughly divided into two camps. There are those who believe
consciousness is like a ghost in the machinery of our brains, meriting special attention and study in its own right. And there are those, like us, who challenge this, pointing out that what we call consciousness is just another output generated backstage by our efficient neural machinery.
https://theconversation.com/is-it-time-to-give-up-on-consciousness-as-the-ghost-in-the-machine-160688

I can't see how you can still ask this (mysterian) pseudo-question . . . . Again, mind is what a sufficiently complex brain does. — 180 Proof

Sure. But how does it do it? How does a jello-like mass of electrical & chemical wiring convert incoming energy into Perception, and thence into Conception? Do physical computers & robots have a subjective perspective of their world? Do they know that they know? Is that a "mysterian" question, or a valid scientific & philosophical query? A materialistic description of brains provides a simplistic mechanical answer to what the brain does, but it doesn't explain how or why that transition from Objective to Subjective occurs. Several philosophers of mind have argued that animals & machines could perform their survival functions without knowing why they do what they do. Discerning the difference between Brain & Mind is what Chalmers called the "hard question".

Transportation is what wheeled vehicles do -- duh! that's their function -- to move people & things from one place to another. That general simplistic notion does not explain the difference between an oxcart and a Tesla -- pulled by spooky electricity instead of normal muscles. Science is the process by which humans learn how the world works. But some scientists do it empirically -- by manipulating concrete matter -- and others, such as Einstein, do it theoretically -- by manipulating abstract ideas. Your quote above indicates the attitude that is satisfied with oxcarts, and labels the notion of electric cars as mysterious speculation.

You imply that my understanding of Science is superficial. And, it's true that I have no depth in any particular field of scientific endeavor. But my grasp of the current state of knowledge is quite broad, and sufficient to support a personal non-professional philosophical worldview. I am not unaware of the emotional motive behind your tautological "Mind is what Brains do" answer to the "hard question". I too (being presumptive) am a recovering fundamentalist Christian. And I know well the pitfalls of irrational Faith & Spiritualism. That's why I approach all mysteries with a sword of curiosity, and a shield of skepticism. And yet, I have followed the available evidence to a point not far from the worldview I once rejected. But I stop short of making the "quantum leap" of Faith, that all too often lands you in a sticky mire of self-confirming dogma, from which it's hard to escape. :cool:

Martin Garner -- Mysterian :
"I can say this. I believe that the human mind, or even the mind of a cat, is more interesting in its complexity than an entire galaxy if it is devoid of life. I belong to a group of thinkers known as the 'mysterians.' It includes Roger Penrose, Thomas Nagel, John Searle, Noam Chomsky, Colin McGinn, and many others who believe that no computer, of the kind we know how to build, will ever become self-aware and acquire the creative powers of the human mind. I believe there is a deep mystery about how consciousness emerged as brains became more complex, and that neuroscientists are a long long way from understanding how they work."
http://martin-gardner.org/MYSTERIAN.html

Note -- Martin Gardner was an American popular mathematics and popular science writer, with interests also encompassing scientific skepticism, . . .
"He's universally acknowledged as the founding father of the modern skeptical movement, . . ."

Physicalists do. Read some philosophy of mind and especially some good neuroscience. — 180 Proof

I read "philosophy of mind" and "neuroscience" all the time. But Physicalist explanations always seem to teeter on the edge of the old Cartesian duality gulf : how do you make the Quantum Leap from Brain to Mind? Sure, Mind is the function of Brain, but there is a qualitative difference between objective neuronal wiring and subjective perception. Does a TV camera know what it is looking at? Can you give me a brief summary of the physical explanation for Perception you are referring to. Maybe I missed it. :smile:

THE NEUROSCIENCE OF PERCEPTION
Neuroscience explains that we do not experience the external world exactly how we perceive it consciously. Sensors in our body sense electromagnetic waves but we perceive colors. . . . So how do we know what reality really is like? Even though we are able to name the things we perceive, we don’t know exactly how such things relate to the external world themselves and we might never know.
mariaraujoatbrainsupportdotco" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">https://www.brainlatam.com/blog/the-neuroscience-of-perception-1564?email=mariaraujoatbrainsupportdotco

PS___I enjoy dialoguing with you, because you don't just close your eyes to concepts that don't "compute" from your personal perspective. A lot of religious and New Age beliefs are not a part of my own Ontology or Epistemology, but I remain open to the possibility that they Perceive the world differently from me. I don't just assume they are ignorant or lying. My information-based worldview opened the door to many exotic possibilities, that I previously dismissed, but that beg to be explored. However, I try to remain grounded in empirical evidence, even while my head is in the clouds of Meta-physics.

PPS___Meta-physics is what we do on this forum. We are not professional empirical scientists here, but amateur theoretical philosophers. Unlike blind & dumb atoms & billiard balls, we exchange meaningful Information instead of impulses of Energy. And that makes all the difference between the Physical world and the Mental realm. :cool:

PS__Hmmmm. What is the physical substance of illusions ; ectoplasm?

Same as the "physical substance" of e.g. perception or memory. — 180 Proof

And that similar substance is . . . . ? Materialists have no explanation for real-ideal phenomena, such as Perception. Can a rock perceive? Does matter have memory? If not, where did those handy functions of minds come from? Neurons store electrical energy in chemical form : a transformation. But what transforms those chemicals into salient memories? Could it be . . . . Information???

In my post-materialist worldview, the "substance" of mental phenomena is Information. Which is the meta-physical equivalent to physical Energy in its ability to cause change, not in matter, but in minds. Information is meta-physical (Aristotle, not Acquinas), because it causes change in minds, not matter; in dynamic processes, not in static things. :nerd:

Benedict de Spinoza : Substance
According to Spinoza, everything that exists is either a substance or a mode (E1a1). A substance is something that needs nothing else in order to exist or be conceived. Substances are independent entities both conceptually and ontologically
https://iep.utm.edu/spinoz-m/

Btw, each in his own way shows that "panpsychism" amounts to a woo-of-the-gaps solution in search of a "hard" pseudo-"problem". — 180 Proof

I understand your skepticism of much "science of mind", which strays into woo territory. For example, Parapsychologists tend to view the mind (Psi) as-if it's an intangible substance (dark energy??) out there in the Aether. I just read a section of Information-Consciousness-Reality, in which the author concludes from his review of Classical Physics, Psychology, and Quantum Physics, that the "seeds" of consciousness are inherent in the physical world. That is how Panpsychism explains the "hard problem" of how Objective matter & energy can combine to produce a Subjective perspective. The assumption is that it was not a miraculous effect of cosmic-scale statistics, but a natural process like a "seed" becoming a tree. As with DNA, the design-of-a-tree (its Platonic Form) was already encoded in the seed, waiting to be transformed by the process of metabolism from potential to actual.

Similarly, the Brain doesn't make Mind magically out of "whole cloth" (pure fabrication), but processes mundane information (the code), in the form of energy & matter, into the meta-physical function we call Consciousness. The same metaphor applies to the Big Bang, in which a tiny Singularity (the seed) gave birth to an evolving cosmic-scale organism that eventually transformed ordinary energy & matter into the amazing Process that allows humans to know-that-they-know -- to become aware of their material surroundings, as well as of their mental milieu (human culture). Materialist scientists still have no plausible explanation for that emergence, other than the random statistical power of large numbers.

Ironically, the parapsychologists and para-physicists typically base their "woo-of-the-gaps" on that same miraculous ability of Darwinian stochastic mathematics to evolve humans from apes, and trees from slime-mold. Glattfelder quotes skeptical researchers tying to reproduce the "statistically significant" evidence of Psi found by parapsychologists. Although their numbers agreed with the prior Psi research, they concluded that, "due to this data set, we do not believe that humans possess telepathic powers, Further, the approximately 32% correct figure obtained in an enormous number of psi studies remains perplexing". [my emphasis] So believers and non-believers interpreted the same data in different ways.

I also remain skeptical of any statistical studies that result in evidence for super-natural magic. I keep in mind Mark Twain's quip, "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." But my own version of Panpsychism doesn't rely on Las Vegas gambling odds. Instead, it is based on physicist John Wheeler's "information-theoretic paradigm shift", from which he derived the epithet : "IT from BIT". Consequently, I have to keep an open, but agnostic, mind toward the various formulations of the common notion that Mind is inherent in Nature. :cool:

I am more familiar with Kant than with Plato. Would you agree that for Kant the the physical exists but is unknowable in itself , the mental exists in itself but is empty without sensations from the world ('concepts without percepts are empty; percepts without concepts are blind‘). So Kant’s metaphysics shows us that the physical is an ideal , not an actuality. It is an ideal in a different sense than the mathematical concept of zero, yet still an ideal. Therefore his metaphysics is showing us that ‘what is’ ( both as fantasized concept and as physical ) is the product of an indissociable interaction between external reality in itself and subjective mental process. — Joshs

I'm not an expert on Kant or Plato. But I would hazard to say that Kant's Noumena is equivalent to Plato's Ideal. However, the Ontology of those terms is debatable. By definition, the "Ideal" is not "Real" -- they are contrasting Either/Or concepts. But what does that mean in practice? My full-spectrum worldview is Both/And.

As you noted, our mental Concepts are mostly based on our physical Percepts. Our mental worldview is constructed from basic elements of perception and sensation. But we also create abstractions that bear little resemblance to concrete Reality. Yet, I can't imagine a mind that is completely disconnected from the physical world. And yet, it's true that our self-created conceptual worldview (e.g. Surreal Art) can mix & match the elements of mundane Reality into bizarre unreal forms. For example, Psychonauts, who experiment with drugs (opening the Doors of Perception), claim to experience a "higher" mental or spiritual realm divorced from reality, where the body & ego don't exist. Personally, I have had no such subjective experience. So, I have to take their word for it . Such noumenal "sensations" are completely foreign to my own drug-free mundane reality.

That said though, as a way to scientifically conceptualize the distinction between our Percepts and Concepts, I like the metaphor of an "Interface Reality" used by Don Hoffman in his book, The Case Against Reality. He doesn't deny that there is something "out there" for our senses to perceive. But like Kant, he concludes that our personal conception of that underlying Reality is a simplified symbolic abstraction of "what-is". :cool:

Interface : Window to Reality :
Now, cognitive scientist Hoffman has produced an updated version of Kant’s controversial Occult Ontology. He uses the modern metaphor of computers that we “interface” (interact) with, as-if the symbolic Icons on the display screen are the actual things we want to act upon.
http://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page21.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.
* 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.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page10.html

Ideality :
In Plato’s theory of Forms, he argues that non-physical forms (or ideas) represent the most accurate or perfect reality. Those Forms are not physical things, but merely definitions or recipes of possible things. What we call Reality consists of a few actualized potentials drawn from a realm of infinite possibilities.
1. Materialists deny the existence of such immaterial ideals, but recent developments in Quantum theory have forced them to accept the concept of “virtual” particles in a mathematical “field”, that are not real, but only potential, until their unreal state is collapsed into reality by a measurement or observation. To measure is to extract meaning into a mind. [Measure, from L. Mensura, to know; from mens-, mind]
2. Some modern idealists find that scenario to be intriguingly similar to Plato’s notion that ideal Forms can be realized, i.e. meaning extracted, by knowing minds. For the purposes of this blog, “Ideality” refers to an infinite pool of potential (equivalent to a quantum field), of which physical Reality is a small part.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page11.html

The sum of federal laws in a country like the United States is seemingly uncountable; no lawyer or judge, let alone the layman, could know what they all are. In a system where ignorance of the law is no excuse this presents a problem. — NOS4A2

Now that is a problem of centralized government that could, and should, be alleviated, if not eliminated. I've long thought that a rule-of-law should be : for every new law passed, an old one should be removed. Instead of just piling law on top of law, until common sense is legislated away, and replaced with an overwhelming Tower of Legal Babel. :cool:

I thought metaphysics was the science of the conditions of possibility of ‘what can be’. As such it includes within itself things and concepts. — Joshs

Yes. But I was talking about the fact that Meta-physics is the study of non-physical ideas, such as "Zero". Physicists can't experiment with "Zero", because it doesn't exist in actuality, but only in potential. So, it's left to Philosophers to imagine such possibilities. Eventually, they realized that the concept of "that which does not exist" is a useful tool in mathematics. Although it took millennia for thinkers to accept that non-existence could be a logical operator. That's why computer programs use the simplest logical concepts : All (1) or Nothing (0).

So, you are correct that Meta-physics is a legitimate science of Possibilities and Probabilities -- things that "are not", but "could be". Plato is best known for his dialogues about the non-physical aspects of the world : most famously, the concept of such logically possible notions as "Ideal Forms", as contrasted with Real Objects. Those perfect patterns don't exist in a real sense, but we can recognize their incomplete logical structure in real things that fall short of seemingly impossible perfection. We never see Ideal things with our senses, but we know them with our reasoning ability, regarding what seems "possible" given what's "actual". :smile:

I fear the latter end of the spectrum because it approaches a degree of statism expressed in fascism and made concrete by a variety of totalitarian regimes. — NOS4A2

In philosophical discussions, it usually helps to narrow the range of responses by defining primary terms. In this case, the core problem to be addressed seems to be the degree of centralized control. For example, a positive assessment of a Fascist Dictatorship, is that "they make the trains run on time", while laissez faire decentralized governments tend to be disorderly and inefficient. Which is why democratic states, in their official charter, tend to aim for a happy middle-ground. For example, the framers of the US Constitution argued on one side for the individual freedom of a Greek Democracy, while the other side preferred the communal stability of a Monarchy. The result was a strained compromise.

So, in practice, due to the polarization of populist politics, states typically swing back & forth between too much freedom and too much regulation. However, does that erratic balancing act indicate "obsequious human tendency towards statism", or simply a Hegelian dynamic of progressive historical evolution? We do indeed now seem to be at a tipping point between recent world-shaking experiments in both directions : Communism & Fascism. And each attempt at Utopia showed a tendency to "totalitarian" rule, working in the interest of the heads-of-State, rather than the masses. So "government by the people", despite its frustrating tendency to disorganization and confusion, at least provides a tipsy balance of freedom within determinism. :cool:

Statism : a political system in which the state has substantial centralized control over social and economic affairs.
Definitions from Oxford Languages

Physics describes but the extrinsic causes,
While consciousness exists just for itself, — PoeticUniverse

Yes! Consciousness is meaningless without a Self-concept. And that's why Physics without Meta-physics will never understand the human mind.

Thusly, it forms an irreducible Whole,
And this Whole forms consciousness directly, — PoeticUniverse

Yes, again. Consciousness is not reducible to neural correlates. It is an emergent quality of the Brain-Body complex. It's ironic that the bicameral brain can have a singular viewpoint : the "what it's like" to be me.

Oh, those imaginings of what can’t be!”
Such as Nought, Stillness, and Infinity,
As well as Apart, Beginning, and End,
Originality, Free Will, and He. — PoeticUniverse

Meta-physics is the science of "what can't be". It's how we discover the ethereal "existence" of Zero & Infinity -- as concepts, not things. From a reductive physical perspective FreeWill "can't be". :cool:

IIT, originated by Giulio Tonini, is an attempt to specify the system requirements for consciousness. — frank

I appreciate that Tononi began with abstract mathematical Information as fundamental, and derived human-like Consciousness as an emergent phenomenon. That bypasses the distractions of worrying about the feelings of subatomic particles. :smile:

What are your thoughts on this idea? Are we born from a negation - God's denial of Himself and his subsequent self-annihilation? — CountVictorClimacusIII

I read the book. And I suspect that Adams wrote with tongue-in-cheek. The God's Debris hypothesis has some things in common with PanTheism and PanEnDeism. But it treats the Creator of our world as a depressed deity, who commits suicide in anticipation of reincarnation as a physical universe. Unlike Jesus, who gave his mortal life for the benefit of mankind, but rose again as the immortal Christ. Anyway, I don't take the amusing story seriously. :joke:

I have skimmed through the book you mentioned - gnomon recommended it a while back. It covers many areas rather inconclusively, as I suppose you have to, in order to show you know something about what you are writing about. The author makes one notable conclusion, which I would agree with - that things are relational, but pretty much ends there. However I did not really read it in great depth. — Pop

The book referenced is Consciousness -Information-Reality, by James Glattfelder. Since he covers a lot of ground in the early chapters, they are necessarily "inconclusive". He presents lots of evidence, both pro & con -- regarding the relationship of subjective Consciousness to objective Reality. In the later chapters though, he makes his case for Panpsychism and a "Participatory Ontology". But he leaves the conclusions up to the individual readers.

Also, he insists on making his Metaphysical speculations compatible with the available scientific knowledge. For example, the notion that "things are relational" is compatible with Einstein's Relativity, even though that perspective has some counter-intuitive implications. He also quotes Carl Sagan : "Science is not only compatible with spirituality, it is a profound source of spirituality". But each person's acceptance or rejection of that assertion will depend on their subjective definition of "spirituality". That's why we have philosophical forums, to hash-out those clashing definitions. :smile:

A metaphysical speculation that attempts to use the word without such a particular context fails to gain traction. — Banno

The defining context for "metaphysical speculation" is the contrast between Subjective and Objective Reality. Those who label metaphysical topics as "illusion, fake, forgery, toy, hologram, mirage" tend to devalue non-empirical subjective concepts, even though our subjective worldview is all we ever know for sure. Everything else is "physical speculation", based on "appearances". Hence, objective truth is essentially the majority opinion of experts in any field. We know that something exists independently of subjective minds, by popular vote. Most of us don't see ghosts, so they are merely metaphysical, and not real. Don't you agree? :smile:

Does objective reality exist? :
Subjective reality means that something is actual depending on the mind.
Objective reality means that something is actual (so it exists) independent of the mind.
https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Does_objective_reality_exist%3F

So You Think Humans Can’t Know Objective Reality :
Our beliefs are based on appearances but are supposed to be about something — reality — that transcends appearances. . . .
Something in us will always influence the resulting picture.
https://medium.com/the-understanding-project/so-you-think-humans-cant-know-objective-reality-e609346c2682

This topic was prompted by another poster: to state it simply are there legitimate metaphysical questions as opposed to problems related to language use? — Manuel

Analysis of language is indeed a legitimate topic for philosophy. But if that language is too specific & reductive, we soon lose the general & holistic meaning of the words. I just came across this quote, which seems to reveal the Achilles Heel of the "linguistic turn" in Postmodern philosophy. :smile:

"Yet again, the detailed technical discussions about the theoretical concepts threaten to become postmodern narratives, where meaning, clarity, and understanding is at stake."
James Glattfelder, mathematician
--- referring to pro & con arguments about the mathematical & metaphysical theory of Consciousness, known as "Integrated Information Theory" (IIT)

I'm aware this topic enters into the whole realism vs anti-realism debate. I would still be careful in saying that the stuff posited by science is a metaphysical entity. We can of course debate if science is metaphysics or not. One can make a case that part of science is metaphysics, sure. But I wouldn't tell the physicist that I have special knowledge regarding his field. — Manuel

It was not the intent of my post to imply that Philosophers have "special knowledge" that Scientists don't. Just the opposite : I was noting that when scientists theorize and speculate about topics with no empirical evidence, they are crossing over into the purview of Philosophy. Experimental scientists are doing highly specialized & technical work. But when Theoretical scientists, such as Einstein, use their imagination to "see" things that are not visible to the senses, they are actually practicing Philosophy, Someone once asked Einstein where his lab was, and he held-up a pencil.

There's nothing "special" or "technical" about imagination, except that some choose to focus their imagination on questions that were heretofore inaccessible to the physical tools of Science. For example, when Maxwell proposed the existence of an invisible and counterintuitive "field", to explain the weirdness of electromagnetism, he was practicing Philosophical Meta-physics. Today, we are accustomed to the concept of "fields", even though we have never seen one. What we observe are the effects of the field on certain kinds of matter, such as iron filings. We "see" those fields with the inner "eye" of imagination.

For many years, most scientists believed that studying Consciousness, was a silly philosophical pursuit, and not worthy of the time for serious scientists. That's because, they viewed Mind-stuff as Metaphysical, not physical -- hence not Real. But today, plenty of Neurologists and Physicists are beginning to take Consciousness seriously. They are not practicing "anti-realism", but merely expanding our definition of what's real. :nerd:

I largely agree on your last point here. Matter looks and feels substantial to us, which it is. But at bottom, it isn't. So we have two views on the nature of matter, our common sense conception of regarding tables and chairs and then we have what physics tells us about matter. This brings forth epistemological consideration on top of metaphysical ones. — Manuel

Yes. Quantum physics opened a can-of-worms for Materialists. They expected to find hard little Atoms at the foundation of reality. Instead, they found fuzzy mathematical Probabilities. Quantum theories defy commonsense, but seem to work well with mathematical logic. Maybe that's why Mathematicians are more likely to accept Metaphysics as a serious occupation, because they are acutely aware that the objects of their calculations do not exist in the Real Material world, but only as Ideas in the immaterial Mind. :cool:

Mathematical Metaphysics :
Platonism about mathematics (or mathematical platonism) is the metaphysical view that there are abstract mathematical objects whose existence is independent of us and our language, thought, and practices.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/platonism-mathematics/

Peirce divided metaphysics into (1) ontology or general metaphysics, (2) psychical or religious metaphysics, and (3) physical metaphysics.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outline_of_metaphysics
Note -- Quantum Physics probably falls into the category of Physical Metaphysics

Meta-Physics :
4. Physics refers to the things we perceive with the eye of the body. Meta-physics refers to the things we conceive with the eye of the mind. Meta-physics includes the properties, and qualities, and functions that make a thing what it is. Matter is just the clay from which a thing is made. Meta-physics is the design (form, purpose); physics is the product (shape, action). The act of creation brings an ideal design into actual existence. The design concept is the “formal” cause of the thing designed.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page14.html

All I ask is for two things: 1) what metaphysical problems do you think can be resolved by analyzing our language and 2) which metaphysical questions are actually substantive? — Manuel

I prefer to define the term "metaphysics" to describe the subject matter of Aristotle's second volume of his post-iron-age encyclopedia of knowledge -- but not as it was later interpreted by Catholic theologians. Volume 1, now referred to as "The Physics", was describing the material world as known by direct observation of Nature (Science). Then, volume 2, now known as "The Metaphysics", analyzed the immaterial aspects of the world (human nature), as known by rational inference (Philosophy).

But the Catholic Scholastics later interpreted those non-physical features of the natural world as super-natural & spiritual. Hence, the term "Metaphysics" came to be associated with Theology instead of Science. That's why, when I discuss the non-physical realities (Ideality), I spell it with a hyphen "Meta-Physics", to indicate that I'm not talking about Magic, Mysticism, or Religious Doctrines. Basically, it's anything that is not accessible to the 5 senses, but only to the sixth sense of Reason (inference). For example, the Quarks that are supposed to be the building blocks of sub-atomic matter, "have never been observed empirically" (Science), but are inferred theoretically (Philosophy). Hence, I would say that Quarks & other hypothetical particles are meta-physical, They exist in a limbo realm of insubstantial Ideas, beyond the reach of Sensation, but not of Reason.

Therefore, I think all Meta-Physical (theoretical) questions are grist for the philosophical mill. Yet not all of them have any "substantive" effect on the material world, but may have "significant" effects on the human Mind (memes). Metaphysical questions are not resolved by practical experimentation, but only by philosophical argumentation, or mathematical calculation. Which means that, ultimately, they are subjects of belief & faith, not fact. And the arguments will seldom convince believers to change their opinions.

For example, the children at Medjugorje in Bosnia, claimed they "saw" the Virgin Mary. But their parents, at first didn't believe them. Yet, now the site of the "sighting" is a popular destination for millions of faith-driven pilgrims. That is "Metaphysics" in the Catholic sense. On the other hand, investigations into the "substance" of intangible Consciousness have recently become a popular topic for Neuroscientists, as well as New Agers. And that is a valid subject for philosophical research -- including linguistic analysis, even though any "substantive" conclusions will remain subjective, and may be accepted or rejected based on prior beliefs.& attitudes toward Meta-Physics or Metaphysics. :smile:


Quark :
any of a number of subatomic particles carrying a fractional electric charge, postulated as building blocks of the hadrons. Quarks have not been directly observed but theoretical predictions based on their existence have been confirmed experimentally.

Massless Particles :
But an object with zero energy and zero mass is nothing at all. Therefore, if an object with no mass is to physically exist, it can never be at rest. Such is the case with light.
https://wtamu.edu/~cbaird/sq/2014/04/01/light-has-no-mass-so-it-also-has-no-energy-according-to-einstein-but-how-can-sunlight-warm-the-earth-without-energy/
Note -- Other essentially massless particles are neutrinos, gravitons, & gluons. And their physical existence is inferred from theory, not directly observed. Even further down the rabbit-hole are Strings, that may never be empirically provable, and yet mathematicians imagine them as ghostly mathematical objects in a dimension far-far-away from the "real" world.

It seems unlikely that people will want to engage in conflict of any kind once the world has been fully transformed into a completely human-friendly environment - there's just too much at stake. — TheMadFool

Apparently, you feel that humans are essentially good, and it's merely unfortunate circumstances that make them "break bad". I optimistically tend to look for the good in people, and I don't believe in Evil Incarnate. But it's obvious that every human has the potential to go both ways. And that's what Hegel saw playing-out in human history. The Bible blames the potential for evil in humanity on a free choice by Adam & Eve to ignore the command of God, which resulted in all their descendants being born with the stain of Original Sin.

My view, though, is not so dramatic or simplistic. Yet, it does have something to do with Freewill. Humans, more than any animal, have the ability to choose to obey (adapt to) Nature, so to speak, or to go contrary to Nature. Hence, our talent for technology has created an artificial world (civilization), which partly shields us from Nature's jungle, "red in tooth & claw". But that isolation also fosters an inner "jungle" of competing personal interests. Moreover, our limited freewill allows us to choose differences of opinion (belief). So, when some people do bad things, they usually believe that they are doing what's in their best interest. But it may happen to go against the interests of others. That freedom to serve self-interest, as well as to serve others, is just inherent in human nature. :cool:


why good people do bad things :
Exploring Jung's concept of the Shadow—the unconscious parts of our self that contradict the image of the self we hope to project--Why Good People Do Bad Things guides you through all the ways in which many of our seemingly unexplainable behaviors are manifestations of the Shadow.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=why+good+people+do+bad+things

I hazard to interpret Dennett meaning that "consciousness or mind" is not a thing but a process. For me, minding is to brain as breathing is to lungs. — 180 Proof

That's exactly my understanding of Consciousness, as the Metaphysical Function of the physical Brain. Minding is what the Brain does. But the "atoms" of Mind are "bits" of Information. A "process" is not a physical "thing" but an inductive inference from observation of Change. For example, a stationary billiard ball begins to move when struck by the cue ball. But we don't actually see any transfer of momentum, we infer it. And the human ability-to-infer-the-unseen (e.g. invisible forces) is (strawman alert) what you call "woo". :grin:

PS__Materialist scientists infer (imagine) that the Strong & Weak Forces are "carried" by invisible particles of some magical stuff they like to call "Energy" -- which is not quantitative matter, but qualitative "ability to cause change". If that ain't Woo, what is? As usual with woo-stuff, we observe the Effects, but not the Cause, which must be imagined. :nerd:

PPS__Enformation is Causation

Causation :
Hume shows that experience does not tell us much. Of two events, A and B, we say that A causes B when the two always occur together, that is, are constantly conjoined. Whenever we find A, we also find B, and we have a certainty that this conjunction will continue to happen. Once we realize that “A must bring about B” is tantamount merely to “Due to their constant conjunction, we are psychologically certain that B will follow A”, then we are left with a very weak notion of necessity. This tenuous grasp on causal efficacy helps give rise to the Problem of Induction–that we are not reasonably justified in making any inductive inference about the world.
https://iep.utm.edu/hume-cau/

This was and is the status quo but the future doesn't necessarily have to be like that - our technological prowess could one day free us of the need to adapt to the world by granting us total control of our environment, the one we're comfortable in and that I'm quite certain is one of the main objectives of science. — TheMadFool

The total freedom of the human Will may indeed be an aspiration of those who look forward to The Singularity, or to the Apotheosis (deification) of Humanity. But there is one thing that may hold us back : the friction of differing opinions & worldviews -- as is evident on this forum. As long as we are free to choose what we believe, even if it's wrong, we will make grudging gradual progress only after protracted political struggles. Some humans are Luddites & Heaven-bound, while others are Technophiles & Transhumanists. History is a Hegelian struggle between opposing forces. So, I don't expect to see that Technopia in my lifetime. :cool:

PS__The quickest way to overcome political friction is to eliminate the opposition : "kill them . . . kill them all!" And some visionaries with Utopian dreams, such as Hitler's Third Reich, believe that the idyllic ends justify the bloody means. :sad:

The latter has no bearing on the science, however, just as "warmth" has no bearing on explaining temperature. — 180 Proof

I suppose that's why some people find Science to be "cold" : it doesn't understand the significance of metaphysical "warmth", as opposed to physical Heat. But this thread is only indirectly about Science anyway ; it's about the philosophical conjecture of a Mind behind Evolution. So, we've gotten way off track. But (strawman warning) I suppose you agree with Daniel Dennett that there is no such thing as Consciousness or Mind -- just neurons creating illusions. :grin:

PS__Hmmmm. What is the physical substance of illusions ; ectoplasm?

Well, okay, so when you say "information is physical and metaphysical" you are, in effect, saying that information can be scientifically treated like e.g. temperature without bothering with phenomenological "warmth", that is, as I've said, in a way that is completely physical. — 180 Proof

No, that's a "strawman", as you like to say. When I describe Information as both physical and metaphysical, I mean exactly that. In its physical forms, Information is the same matter & energy that physicists, chemists, and biologists have been studying for years. Yet, in its metaphysical forms, Information is the ideas & feelings that psychologists and philosophers are still struggling with today. Moreover, understanding the distinction between them is what Chalmers famously called "the hard problem'. Studying matter & energy is "easy" because they are accessible to our physical senses. But Information is only known via the sixth sense of Reason, which "sees" the invisible relationships between both material objects (geometry) and between mental concepts (ratios, meanings).

Christof Koch is probably the most prominent Neuroscientist today. Years ago, with his mentor Francis Crick, he proposed that Consciousness would soon be explained by examining its physical Neural Correlates : like a black body radiating physical phenomenal measurable heat. But they eventually found that Consciousness is more like the metaphysical noumenal feeling of "warmth". So, Koch today, has rejected the materialist approach, and he wrote a book on The Feeling of Life Itself. He even subscribes to a modern scientific version of the ancient notion of Panpsychism. My own worldview is similar to that, but it's not a Dualism, because I think Information is both Material and Mental, both Physical and Metaphysical. So, I wrote a thesis, explaining how I came to that conclusion. Everything I say on this forum comes from that Monistic worldview. :nerd:

PS__In the immortal words of Cool Hand Luke, "What we have here . . . is a failure to communicate." Talk to the Strawman. :wink:

Consciousness: 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?
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B08BT4BWVB/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1

Panpsychism: The Trippy Theory :
Though it sounds like something that sprang fully formed from the psychedelic culture, panpsychism has been around for a very long time. Philosophers and mathematicians Bertrand Russell and Alfred North Whitehead, physicists Arthur Eddington, Ernst Schrödinger, and Max Planck, and psychologist William James are just a few thinkers who supported some form of panpsychism. The idea lost traction in the late 20th century, but recently, philosophers and scientists such as David Chalmers, Bernardo Kastrup, Christof Koch, and Philip Goff have revived the idea, making strong claims for some form of panpsychism.
https://www.discovermagazine.com/mind/panpsychism-the-trippy-theory-that-everything-from-bananas-to-bicycles-are

http://enformationism.info/enformationism.info/

The paradox is that science is about us adapting (our hypotheses/theories) to the world but once we have good hypotheses/theories, science helps us in adapting the world to us. — TheMadFool

The positive, forward-looking, progressive attitude of Science, stands in contrast to the ancient worldview of Fatalism. If humans are merely pawns of the gods, our best response to the imperfections and evils of the world was to knuckle-under & kow-tow to the mercurial tyrannical deities. In other words, to adapt our personal needs & wishes to the dominant Will of the inscrutable gods.

But the Enlightenment revolution allowed some of us -- the fortunate few -- to throw-off the chains of Fate, and to approach Nature as an insentient machine that can be re-tuned to suit our human purposes. However, as time went by, we began to realize that Nature, if not a supernatural force, is a living organism with global power over our puny individual purposes. So, our continued freedom to enforce our collective Will in the world, requires that we respect, and adapt to, the natural forces that still dominate our artificial endeavors.

For example, we escape the "surly bonds" of gravity, only by expending extravagant amounts of energy. Yet, some of us look forward to the day when humans, or transhumans, have the power to bend Nature completely to our will. Then we will truly be the gods of this world. But like the Greek Pantheon, we will still have to grudgingly adapt ourselves to the contrary wills of each-other. :cool:

This might seem like a straightforward question given how it's phrased; but, is there another classification for emotions that neither labels them as "rational" or "irrational"? — Shawn

Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky, in their book, Thinking, Fast & Slow, described the function of Emotions in terms that don't demean them as "irrational". Emotions (Happiness, Sadness, Fear, Anger, Love) are typically quick automatic responses to situations that have been encountered before, and recorded in memory as beliefs about what's good or bad, and what behaviors worked in the past, to maximize the good and minimize the bad. Although some innate responses seem to be somehow recorded in genes as "race memory".

Those encoded beliefs were a rational, but subjective (good for me), condensation of specific complex experiences in the past. And they prepare us for fast reaction to future challenges. But, when we encounter novel circumstances, those old responses may not work as well in a different context. So, we have a backup plan : to take more time to examine the new case in detail. Then, instead of just generalizing the old knee-jerk response to different contexts, we can tailor our reaction to the current conditions. :smile:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thinking,_Fast_and_Slow

Race Memory : a supposedly inherited subconscious memory of events in human history or prehistory.

My recent thoughts on "thoughts": — 180 Proof

Your reductive attitude toward "thoughts" seems to be similar to that of B.F. Skinner's "radical behaviorism", back in the stone-age of psychology. It was a valid scientific approach to the human mind. But it ignored equally valid psychological & philosophical questions, such as "what are thoughts?" and "what is music?" That's why Behaviorism is "no longer a dominating research program". It failed to consider the subjective & holistic aspects of the mind that are most important to ordinary humans. What are your "thoughts" on that topic? :smile:

PS__is "reductive attitude" another strawman? It's not a personal attack, but a condensed mirror of your argument against studying non-physical features of the world, such as Mind as contrasted with Brain. I was surprised to hear that exclusive notion coming from you, because I had previously gotten the impression that you were more philosophically-inclined (broad-minded instead of narrowly-focused) than that. :cool:

Behaviorism :
Why has the influence of behaviorism declined? The deepest and most complex reason for behaviorism’s decline in influence is its commitment to the thesis that behavior can be explained without reference to non-behavioral and inner mental (cognitive, representational, or interpretative) activity.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/behaviorism/

For instance, when you say "X is metaphysical", this amounts to saying X is imaginary to my ears. As I've pointed out, for me, 'metaphysical' pertains to a speculative way of looking at – re/presenting – the physical (vide Spinoza) and N O T an ontological fiat of 'things-in-themselves' (vide Kant). — 180 Proof

Metaphysics is "imaginary". That's the whole point. The term pertains to subjective Ideality, which is the worldview that exists in your imagination. Unfortunately, medieval theologians interpreted Aristotle's discussion of the human perspective on Nature in terms of religious Spirituality. That's how the subject matter of Aristotle's second volume became associated with Catholic doctrine. And that made the term anathema (accursed) to post-Enlightenment scientists. So, if you will pardon another "strawman", you seem to retain that prejudice against the realm of (metaphysical) ideas, preferring the safer realm of actual (physical) things. But remember that theoretical physicists, such as Einstein, routinely rely on "a speculative way of looking at things". Yet, it's primarily experimental researchers (chemists, biologists, atom smashers), who following Bacon's method, close their eyes to metaphysical subjectivity, while pretending to be completely physically objective.

However, that classical scientific attitude (Objectivism, Materialism) was undermined by the advent of Quantum Theory. In which reality was discovered to be subjective & "imaginary" to some degree. And which opened the door to a variety of Transcendent theories of reality*1. But that development was foreseen by Kant in his Transcendental Idealism. He wrote his Critique of Pure Reason in response to Hume's radical skepticism toward Berkeley's Idealism. "A more disturbing consequence of Hume's critical analysis was its apparent undermining of empirical science itself, for the latter's logical foundation [induction] was now recognized as unjustifiable". [Tarnas, quoted in I-C-R] Other philosophers also anticipated the subjectivity of reality that became most apparent in the Quantum realm. "Secondary qualities such as color exist only in our minds, and therefore cannot be said to be independently existing real qualities of physical objects". [Locke, quoted in I-C-R] But hard-nosed empiricists rejected that philosophical view of quantum reality with "shut-up and calculate". In other words, shut your mind to transcendental imagination, and focus on manipulating pragmatic numbers.

Ironically, Mathematics -- the language of physics -- is itself "nothing but" Metaphysics. And professional mathematicians (such as Glattfelder) seem to be more open to metaphysical (and transcendental) interpretations of their calculations. As astronomer Neil deGrasse Tyson said, "the more profoundly baffled you have been in your life, the more open your mind becomes to new ideas". Yet, as seekers for truth, not fantasy, we need to be skeptical of the more radical (imaginary) flights of fancy. To avoid imaginary Metaphysics though, you would need to have no intuitive ideas of your own, and to rely on the objective communal view of fellow scientists. PS__ I look forward to seeing the stuffing knocked-out of my strawman, by your denial of its implications. :joke:


*1 Transcendent Theories : (non-empirical)
Inflation ; String ; Multiverse ; Many Worlds : Holographic ; Simulation

Mathematics is Metaphysics :
On the one hand, philosophy of mathematics is concerned with problems that are closely related to central problems of metaphysics and epistemology. . . . mathematics appears to study abstract entities.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/philosophy-mathematics/

Metaphysics As Mathematics :
While metaphysics as science is a dead-end for me, metaphysics as mathematics is ripe for very interesting insights. Instead of asking directly about “our” reality, we should be asking about hypothetical realities.
https://sciencehouse.wordpress.com/2012/01/09/2308/

Is math a metaphysics? :
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/platonism-mathematics/

Kant -- Transcendental Aesthetic :
"From this investigation, it will be found that there are two pure forms of sensuous intuition, as principles of knowledge a priori, namely space space and time . . . . Space is nothing else than the form of all phenomena of the external sense . . . . Time is nothing else than the form of the internal sense . . . these, as phenomena, cannot exist in themselves, but only in us."

For instance, when you say "X is metaphysical", this amounts to saying X is imaginary to my ears. As I've pointed out, for me, 'metaphysical' pertains to a speculative way of looking at – re/presenting – the physical (vide Spinoza) and N O T an ontological fiat of 'things-in-themselves' (vide Kant). — 180 Proof

Metaphysics is "imaginary". That's the whole point. The term pertains to subjective Ideality, which is the worldview that exists in your imagination. Unfortunately, medieval theologians interpreted Aristotle's discussion of the human perspective on Nature in terms of religious Spirituality. That's how the subject matter of Aristotle's second volume became associated with Catholic doctrine. And that made the term anathema (accursed) to post-Enlightenment scientists. So, if you will pardon another "strawman", you seem to retain that prejudice against the realm of (metaphysical) ideas, preferring the safer realm of actual (physical) things. But remember that theoretical physicists, such as Einstein, routinely rely on "a speculative way of looking at things". Yet, it's primarily experimental researchers (chemists, biologists, atom smashers), who following Bacon's method, close their eyes to metaphysical subjectivity, while pretending to be completely physically objective.

However, that classical scientific attitude (Objectivism, Materialism) was undermined by the advent of Quantum Theory. In which reality was discovered to be subjective & "imaginary" to some degree. And which opened the door to a variety of Transcendent theories of reality*1. But that development was foreseen by Kant in his Transcendental Idealism. He wrote his Critique of Pure Reason in response to Hume's radical skepticism toward Berkeley's Idealism. "A more disturbing consequence of Hume's critical analysis was its apparent undermining of empirical science itself, for the latter's logical foundation [induction] was now recognized as unjustifiable". [Tarnas, quoted in I-C-R] Other philosophers also anticipated the subjectivity of reality that became most apparent in the Quantum realm. "Secondary qualities such as color exist only in our minds, and therefore cannot be said to be independently existing real qualities of physical objects". [Locke, quoted in I-C-R] But hard-nosed empiricists rejected that philosophical view of quantum reality with "shut-up and calculate". In other words, shut your mind to transcendental imagination, and focus on manipulating pragmatic numbers.

Ironically, Mathematics -- the language of physics -- is itself "nothing but" Metaphysics. And professional mathematicians (such as Glattfelder) seem to be more open to metaphysical (and transcendental) interpretations of their calculations. As astronomer Neil deGrasse Tyson said, "the more profoundly baffled you have been in your life, the more open your mind becomes to new ideas". Yet, as seekers for truth, not fantasy, we need to be skeptical of the more radical (imaginary) flights of fancy. To avoid imaginary Metaphysics though, you would need to have no intuitive ideas of your own, and to rely on the objective communal view of fellow scientists. PS__ I look forward to seeing the stuffing knocked-out of my strawman, by your denial of its implications. :joke:


*1 Transcendent Theories : (non-empirical)
Inflation ; String ; Multiverse ; Many Worlds : Holographic ; Simulation

Mathematics is Metaphysics :
On the one hand, philosophy of mathematics is concerned with problems that are closely related to central problems of metaphysics and epistemology. . . . mathematics appears to study abstract entities.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/philosophy-mathematics/

Metaphysics As Mathematics :
While metaphysics as science is a dead-end for me, metaphysics as mathematics is ripe for very interesting insights. Instead of asking directly about “our” reality, we should be asking about hypothetical realities.
https://sciencehouse.wordpress.com/2012/01/09/2308/

Is math a metaphysics? :
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/platonism-mathematics/

Kant -- Transcendental Aesthetic :
"From this investigation, it will be found that there are two pure forms of sensuous intuition, as principles of knowledge a priori, namely space space and time . . . . Space is nothing else than the form of all phenomena of the external sense . . . . Time is nothing else than the form of the internal sense . . . these, as phenomena, cannot exist in themselves, but only in us."

Again, what you "acknowledge" is mistaken, a strawman of your own presumption. I've not "recanted or revised" anything, merely corrected you. — 180 Proof

So you still believe that "information is completely physical"? If so, what kind of material is it made of? And what does Consciousness consist of : atoms? If you answer that Information is made of Energy, I might agree with you. Except that "Information" is a broader, more inclusive concept than just Energy. Energy is physical in the sense that it has a causal effect on matter. But Energy is not made of concrete atoms; it's made of abstract potential for change. It's a human-attributed property of natural matter. And, Information is physical in the same sense -- it is the power to enform (to give form to the formless, meaning to the meaningless). My "strawman" consists of information in your posts, as interpreted in terms of my own information-theoretic worldview. I'm just trying to show you that you are hung-up on an outdated interpretation of "metaphysics", and "idealism".

Both Energy and Information are abstract concepts about the physical world. And abstractions are made of Information, not matter. As physicist Seth Lloyd put it : "Everything in the universe is made of bits. Not chunks of stuff, but chunks of information" --- Qualia not Quanta ; Metaphysics not Physics. So, the distinction I'm trying to make here is between physical stuff (tangible & visible) and meta-physical Information (intangible & invisible). That will make sense to you, as soon as you grasp the fact that Metaphysics is not about Magic, but Mind. And the human Mind abstracts ideas from objects & actions, them constructs its abstracted worldview to represent its belief of what's really out there. That's why Carlo Rovelli entitled his book : Reality Is Not What It Seems. To our common sense, reality appears to be "completely physical", but science & philosophy are supposed to be un-common sense, and to see beyond superficial appearances (phenomena).

I'm close to the end of the book, Consciousness-Information-Reality. And the author says, under the heading of An Information Ontology, that "the intangible notion of Information is undeniably a physical manifestation". So, in that sense your notion that "information is physical" is correct, but incomplete. It's much more than that. The C-I-R book is not about the classical view of reality, or even the quantum nature of reality. Instead, it proposes "a radically new ontology of reality". And that cutting-edge paradigm is what I'm trying to introduce you to. No Magic involved, just Metaphysics. :nerd:

What is Energy made of? :
Energy is not made of anything, energy is a term used to describe a trait of matter and non-matter fields. When matter has velocity, for example, it is said to have kinetic energy. There are also various forms of potential energy.
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/14444/what-is-energy-made-of

Meta-physics :
The branch of philosophy that examines the nature of reality, including the relationship between mind and matter, substance and attribute, fact and value.
1. Often dismissed by materialists as idle speculation on topics not amenable to empirical proof.
2. Aristotle divided his treatise on science into two parts. The world as-known-via-the-senses was labeled “physics” - what we call "Science" today. And the world as-known-by-the-mind, by reason, was labeled “metaphysics” - what we now call "Philosophy" . Aristotle's two volumes covered Physics (the concrete stuff of the world) and Meta-physics (abstract ideas about the world).
3. Plato called the unseen world that hides behind the physical façade: “Ideal” as opposed to Real. For him, Ideal “forms” (concepts) were prior-to the Real “substance” (matter).
4. Physics refers to the things we perceive with the eye of the body. Meta-physics refers to the things we conceive with the eye of the mind. Meta-physics includes the properties, and qualities, and functions that make a thing what it is. Matter is just the clay from which a thing is made. Meta-physics is the design (form, purpose); physics is the product (shape, action). The act of creation brings an ideal design into actual existence. The design concept is the “formal” cause of the thing designed.
5. I use a hyphen in the spelling to indicate that I am not talking about Ghosts and Magic, but about Ontology (science of being).
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page14.html

Repeating this indicates to me that either you didn't read my previous reply or you can't understand what I wrote. — 180 Proof

Sorry about that! When I started to reply yesterday, I found that the previous day's reply was already in the comment box, and the only option was to "post comment" -- resulting in a duplicate post. That has happened before, and I don't know what causes the old comment to be retained as a draft after posting.

Anyway, I acknowledge that you recanted or revised your previous statement that "'information' is completely physical". But, I'm still not convinced that you realize that Information is both Physical and Metaphysical. And that understanding makes a big difference in my philosophical worldview. Glattfelder calls it an Information-theoretic Ontology. That's why I persist in insisting that our mutual Reality is not "completely physical"

That realization is important when addressing the OP assertion of "Mind (creator) = Mindless (evolution). The Mind-No Mind Equivalency Paradox " I hadn't thought of it that way, but the "equivalency" applies to my concept of Intelligent Evolution. Which proposes that the unfolding of our world was fully programmed in the Big Bang to search all possible variations on physical forms in order to find the "fittest" or most perfect form for the programmer's teleological goal. Hence, there is no need for divine intervention with the process. By contrast with Genesis, the world was not "perfect" in the beginning, but is working toward perfection.

Consequently, the common religious concept of a humanoid deity interfering with natural functions is misguided. Instead, I conclude that Max Eherman's Desiderata got it right :
"You are a child of the universe,
no less than the trees and the stars;
you have a right to be here.
And whether or not it is clear to you,
no doubt the universe is unfolding as it should."

Hence, no need to worship and sacrifice to unseen deities, in order to placate their whimsy and wrath. Unfortunately, the notion of a Cosmic Coder of the evolutionary program may still be considered : "irrelevant when discussing science or nature". Yet, this thread is not discussing physical Science, but the metaphysical mental aspects of the world. The mind is still a mystery to materialists, who can't put it under a microscope or dissect it with scalpels. That's because the human Mind is not a tangle of jelly-like neurons, but an intangible function of the processing of Information. The physical Brain is merely the container for Information (data) that it processes in a manner similar to a computer.

There is another pertinent equivalency, which some scientists are beginning to take seriously : Mind = Information = Energy. And that radical concept puts conventional notions of Matter, Energy & Mind in a whole new light. Like Information, Energy is invisible & intangible until it is converted into Mass, which our senses interpret as Matter. Most of the scientists studying the Information Ontology of the universe prefer to think of it in terms of invisible intangible Mathematics. Which is simply the geometric ratios & meaningful relationships between physical things that our minds "see" via Reasoning, not by senses. Information is the non-physical structure of meaning in a mind. :nerd:


The mass-energy-information equivalence principle :
https://aip.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.5123794

Function : (math) a relationship or expression involving one or more variables.

Ontologyis studying the structure of the nature of reality or the nature of exists and, epistemology is studying the potentiality of the knowledge of human being. Ontology is about Being that exists as self-contained or independent of human.
https://www.researchgate.net/post/What-is-the-difference-between-Ontology-and-Epistomology

Structure : the arrangement of and relations between the parts or elements of something complex.

Right there I refer to My Understanding and do not make an ontological claim or commit to physical monism. No ontological "eliminating" on my part. "What else is there?" Whatever else there might be is irrelevant when discussing science or nature. — 180 Proof

Yes, but this is not a science or nature forum. Our interests here include what is known via the scientific method, but are not limited to the physical world. In fact, after post-Enlightenment Science came to dominate the exploration of the world, as known by the physical senses, Philosophy was left holding-the-bag of extra-sensory Metaphysics. By "extra-sensory", I don't mean magical powers, but merely the aspects of the world that are known via Reason instead of Sensation. By "Metaphysics" I'm referring to what Kant called "Noumenal" Ideality, as opposed to "Phenomenal" Reality. And shape-shifting Information seems to be the bridge between Noumenal and Phenomenal.

Unfortunately, some people assume that Metaphysics is merely the study of supernatural spooky stuff, like ESP, reincarnation, and communing with the dead. But, it also includes the natural spooky stuff, like action-at-a-distance and quantum leaps. So, I believe that asking "what else is there" is relevant to the purpose of The Philosophy Forum. Ironically, some posters on this forum seem to have Physics Envy, and reject anything that smacks of Meta-Physics. Of course, when delving into the immaterial aspects of Reality, a healthy dose of skepticism is necessary to avoid confusing normal Mental topics with paranormal Spiritual belief systems. Which is why I try to ground my Meta-Physical notions with empirical Physical knowledge, where possible. :nerd:


Both physics and metaphysics are concerned with describing our reality. One could say that both attempt to give an account of what the world is like, but physics is concerned with what it is like according to our experience of reality, whereas metaphysics is concerned with what it is “really” like.
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-physics-and-metaphysics
Note -- "What it's really like" is what Plato called the "Ideal" Realm, known only via Reason.

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

Physics Envy :
The term argues that writing and working practices in these disciplines have overused, confusing jargon and complicated mathematics to seem more 'rigorous' and like mathematics-based subjects like physics.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physics_envy

The Case Against Reality : How Evolution Hid the Truth from Our Eyes
"Do we see the world as it truly is? In The Case Against Reality, pioneering cognitive scientist Donald Hoffman says no? we see what we need in order to survive. Our visual perceptions are not a window onto reality, Hoffman shows us, but instead are interfaces constructed by natural selection."
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/04/the-illusion-of-reality/479559/

Cite any post anywhere on this forum where I have claimed or implied that "reality is nothing but physical stuff". Your "presumption" is a strawman, G — 180 Proof

I was responding to this quote :
My understanding of 'information' is completely physical, and not "ideal" (or platonic) in any significant sense. — 180 Proof
If "information" is "completely physical" what else is there? By eliminating all options that seems to imply "nothing but". So, I merely turned the quote around to say "reality is nothing but". Was that "presumptuous"? Based on my exploration of the role of Information in the world, I have concluded that Reality is both Physical (matter stuff) and Metaphysical (mind stuff). Anyway, you can correct my presumption by denying that reality is "nothing but" physical.

I apologize, if I misinterpreted your statement. I'm really trying to communicate with you, because you seem to be on the verge of understanding the ubiquity of Information. And communication is transmission of information. So, it will help if we understand what Information actually is. Just for the record, my notion of Ideal Information doesn't come from the Bible, or from New Age tracts, or from Plato. It comes primarily from well-known scientists, especially those on the cutting-edge of Quantum Theory

I'm currently reading the book by James Glattfelder, Information-Consciousness-Reality. In the chapter entitled, Information is Physical, he quotes several of those famous scientists. First, he reminds us that, before Shannon, information was considered to be non-physical, or meta-physical, as I call it. "What link establishes the relationship between the ethereal nature of information and it's physicality?" Then, he quotes physicist Rolf Landauer : "Information is not a disembodied abstract entity; it is always tied to a physical representation". But the same could be said of Energy : no-one has ever seen or touched pure Energy, because our senses are only tuned to experience its material forms. But energy is ethereal in its ability to transform from massless light-waves into the Mass (a property known only by reason, not sensation) that we associate with Matter.

In the next section, It From Bit, he quotes physicist John Archibald Wheeler : "The bit is a fundamental particle of a different sort : not just tiny but abstract -- a binary digit . . . it is insubstantial . . . more fundamental than matter itself." He's not contradicting Landauer, just focusing on a different aspect of Information, which is both abstract and concrete. He goes-on to say : "Information gives rise to every it -- every particle, every field of force, even the spacetime continuum itself". That covers just about everything in the physical world ; hence Information is ubiquitous -- it's both abstract Energy and concrete Matter. Then, he concludes : "All things physical are information-theoretic in origin, and this is a participatory universe." That last assertion was quickly adopted by metaphysical-oriented New Agers.

Wheeler doesn't use the term "Ideal" or "Platonic", but that's what he means, when he says : "The notion that the world exists 'out there' independent of the mind is a view which is abandoned." Other physicists have gone even further in expanding on the role of "ethereal" information in the real world. Seth Lloyd says that : "Once you adopt the notion that [concrete] reality and [abstract] information are the same, all quantum paradoxes and puzzles . . . disappear." [my brackets]. The he makes the bold assertion : "the entire universe is computing reality". From that concept I conclude that Evolution is essentially a computer program, which must have a Programmer to establish the rules and the teleology of the computing process. :nerd:


Ethereal : heavenly or celestial

Abstract : detached from physical, or concrete, reality

Ideal : existing only in the imagination

Seth Lloyd : "everything in the universe is made of bits. Not chunks of stuff, but chunks of information."
Note -- both Wheeler and Lloyd make a clear distinction between physical Stuff and metaphysical Information. So, their worldview is not "completely physical", but both Real and Ideal.

Cite any post anywhere on this forum where I have claimed or implied that "reality is nothing but physical stuff". Your "presumption" is a strawman, G — 180 Proof

I was responding to this quote :
My understanding of 'information' is completely physical, and not "ideal" (or platonic) in any significant sense. — 180 Proof
If "information" is "completely physical" what else is there? By eliminating all options that seems to imply "nothing but". So, I merely turned the quote around to say "reality is nothing but". Was that "presumptuous"? Based on my exploration of the role of Information in the world, I have concluded that Reality is both Physical (matter stuff) and Metaphysical (mind stuff). Anyway, you can correct my presumption by denying that reality is "nothing but" physical.

I apologize, if I misinterpreted your statement. I'm really trying to communicate with you, because you seem to be on the verge of understanding the ubiquity of Information. And communication is transmission of information. So, it will help if we understand what Information actually is. Just for the record, my notion of Ideal Information doesn't come from the Bible, or from New Age tracts, or from Plato. It comes primarily from well-known scientists, especially those on the cutting-edge of Quantum Theory

I'm currently reading the book by James Glattfelder, Information-Consciousness-Reality. In the chapter entitled, Information is Physical, he quotes several of those famous scientists. First, he reminds us that, before Shannon, information was considered to be non-physical, or meta-physical, as I call it. "What link establishes the relationship between the ethereal nature of information and it's physicality?" Then, he quotes physicist Rolf Landauer : "Information is not a disembodied abstract entity; it is always tied to a physical representation". But the same could be said of Energy : no-one has ever seen or touched pure Energy, because our senses are only tuned to experience its material forms. But energy is ethereal in its ability to transform from massless light-waves into the Mass (a property known only by reason, not sensation) that we associate with Matter.

In the next section, It From Bit, he quotes physicist John Archibald Wheeler : "The bit is a fundamental particle of a different sort : not just tiny but abstract -- a binary digit . . . it is insubstantial . . . more fundamental than matter itself." He's not contradicting Landauer, just focusing on a different aspect of Information, which is both abstract and concrete. He goes-on to say : "Information gives rise to every it -- every particle, every field of force, even the spacetime continuum itself". That covers just about everything in the physical world ; hence Information is ubiquitous -- it's both abstract Energy and concrete Matter. Then, he concludes : "All things physical are information-theoretic in origin, and this is a participatory universe." That last assertion was quickly adopted by metaphysical-oriented New Agers.

Wheeler doesn't use the term "Ideal" or "Platonic", but that's what he means, when he says : "The notion that the world exists 'out there' independent of the mind is a view which is abandoned." Other physicists have gone even further in expanding on the role of "ethereal" information in the real world. Seth Lloyd says that : "Once you adopt the notion that [concrete] reality and [abstract] information are the same, all quantum paradoxes and puzzles . . . disappear." [my brackets]. The he makes the bold assertion : "the entire universe is computing reality". From that concept I conclude that Evolution is essentially a computer program, which must have a Programmer to establish the rules and the teleology of the computing process. :nerd:


Ethereal : heavenly or celestial

Abstract : detached from physical, or concrete, reality

Ideal : existing only in the imagination

Seth Lloyd : "everything in the universe is made of bits. Not chunks of stuff, but chunks of information."
Note -- both Wheeler and Lloyd make a clear distinction between physical Stuff and metaphysical Information. So, their worldview is not "completely physical", but both Real and Ideal.