I was thinking of getting Hoffman's book a while back, but the reviews were terrible. — Down The Rabbit Hole

I suspect that the reviews you referred to were negative, due to the slightly New-Agey tone of his book. New Age guru, Deepak Chopra, was much more positive : “A masterpiece of logic, rationality, science, and mathematics. Read this book carefully and you will forever change your understanding of reality, both that of the universe and your own self.”

Personally, I am wary of some New Age notions that cross the line into Magic & Mysticism. But, what I most appreciate in Hoffman's book is the useful and meaningful metaphor of our subjective worldview as an "Interface", which represents ultimate reality via symbolic icons. I wouldn't call that an "illusion", but a pragmatic necessity due to the limited capacity of the human brain, which is still a work-in-progress. Anyway, I have no problem at all with combining Realism and Idealism into a single comprehensive belief system. :smile:

True Reality : Both Real & Ideal :
For empirical scientific purposes, those ideal aspects of the world can be safely ignored. But for theoretical personal reasons we have no other choice but to deal with the unreal.
http://bothandblog.enformationism.info/page30.html

The proposition is, without Ockham's razor, the chances that this is reality is the same as it being an illusion. — Down The Rabbit Hole

That equation of Real and Illusory may be true in one sense, but it seems to be based on a loose use of terminology. I prefer to make a comparison between Real and Ideal. That's because everything you "know" is a mental construct, a Subjective Idea, not a direct perception of Objective Reality. Kant's Transcendental Idealism used the terms Phenomenon and Noumenon to describe what we perceive (appearances) and what we imagine (noumena) to be really out there in the world.

A more recent formulation of the same notion is cognitive psychologist Donald Hoffman's theory, expressed in The Case Against Reality, that Evolution, in the interest of fitness, filtered-out the messy complexities of "Reality" from human observers -- like the smoke & mirrors of a stage magician -- by reducing our incoming sensory information to simple symbolic Icons (mental imagery = Ideality). In that case, the subjective illusion (phenomenon) is all we ever know about the objective ding an sich (noumenon). His "Fitness Beats Truth theorem is a modern version of the ancient notion of Maya, the veil of illusion".

Fortunately, the human mind has developed a method to get closer to the underlying truth : the Scientific Method (including Okham's Razor). It's still not direct access to Reality, but it allows us to peek behind the curtain to see the mechanical dials and levers that produce the iconic mental images that we naively accept as True Reality. :cool:


Kant: Experience and Reality :
Phenomena are the appearances, which constitute the our experience; noumena are the (presumed) things themselves, which constitute reality. ... Since the thing in itself (Ding an sich) would by definition be entirely independent of our experience of it, we are utterly ignorant of the noumenal realm.
http://www.philosophypages.com/hy/5g.htm

Reality is not what you see :
In his doctrine of Transcendental Idealism, 18th century philosopher, Immanuel Kant argued that our perception of reality is limited to constructs created in our own minds to represent the invisible and intangible ultimate reality that he mysteriously labeled “ding an sich” [things-in-essence, as opposed to things-as-we-know-them]. In other words, what we think we see, is not absolute reality but our own ideas about reality.
http://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page21.html

Is Reality a Cosmic Simulation? :
“Musk is just one of the people in Silicon Valley to take a keen interest in the “simulation hypothesis”, which argues that what we experience as reality is actually a giant computer simulation created by a more sophisticated intelligence. If it sounds a lot like The Matrix, that’s because it is.”
http://bothandblog4.enformationism.info/page23.html

Reality is a Theory :
“Let us remember that our knowledge of the world begins not with matter but with perceptions. I know that my pain exists, my “green” exists, and my “sweet” exists. I do not need any proof of their existence, because these events are a part of me; everything else is a theory.” ___Andre Linde, theoretical physicist
http://bothandblog5.enformationism.info/page15.html

Reality is Ideality :
Physics is ultimately Meta-Physics
http://bothandblog5.enformationism.info/page17.html

I find this interesting that you understand entropy to be energies Achilles heal. I actually believe it’s energies greatest feat. . . ,
“Entropy” in this case is the “rate at which energy is converted into time” - it’s reciprocal.. . .
It is the form of energy that comes together (negative entropy) as time dilates. — Benj96

My characterization of Entropy as Energy's weak point, was not concerned with Time. Instead, it was based on their opposite "reciprocal" roles in Evolution. Basically, Energy is construed as Constructive while Entropy is Destructive. Figuratively, Entropy tears-down what Energy builds-up.

You are correct though, that Entropy is a measure of Time's Arrow. It's the rate at which our world is "going to hell in a handbasket", to borrow a phrase. Evolution began with maximum Energy & Order in the Singularity. But the original order was essentially crystaline, with no room for change, except as an explosion of Cosmic power --- which could have positive or negative results, depending on the degree of control : Atomic Bomb vs Atomic Energy. However, as evolution proceeded, that pent-up energy loosened-up enough to create organization : not just Matter, but also Life & Mind. Ironically, we may now be near the peak of evolution's creativity ; so from here on out, it's all downhill toward the frozen Hell of Heat Death --- which is maximum disorder and disorganization and dissolution.

That's why I referred to destructive Entropy as constructive Energy's Achillies Heel. But it's just a metaphor, because Energy is only constructive when circumstances (and natural laws) allow it : what I call Enformy. And Entropy can be a positive function of Change, as it removes the detritus of the past to make room for novelty in the future. That ecological notion may be the more positive "reciprocal" role for Entropy that you were referring to. :smile:


Entropy and disorder :
Entropy is sometimes referred to as a measure of the amount of "disorder" in a system. Lots of disorder = high entropy, while order = low entropy. And again, the more orderly states are the states with the lower entropy. ...
https://webs.morningside.edu/slaven/Physics/entropy/entropy7.html

Entropy (arrow of time) :
Entropy is one of the few quantities in the physical sciences that require a particular direction for time, sometimes called an arrow of time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_(arrow_of_time)

Heat death of the universe :
The heat death of the universe (also known as the Big Chill or Big Freeze) is a theory on the ultimate fate of the universe, which suggests the universe would evolve to a state of no thermodynamic free energy and would therefore be unable to sustain processes that increase entropy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_death_of_the_universe

Enformy :
In the Enformationism theory, Enformy is a hypothetical, holistic, metaphysical, natural trend or force, that counteracts Entropy & Randomness to produce complexity & progress.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html

Our best cosmologists can only come up with absurdities to avoid believing "God did it." Yet "God did it" is useless as a scientific theory or an explanation of anything. — fishfry

Yes. Although I am not religious, I would hope that scientists could come-up with something better than the Multiverse theory --- which doesn't attempt to answer the First Cause question, but simply assumes that "Energy & Laws" have always existed : a Forever Cause. That sounds like a generic description of the worldwide God-concept : the creative force and organizing principle of our world. So, I long-ago, gave-up trying to avoid the most common vernacular term for the philosophical "First Cause". In my personal thesis, I attempt to re-formulate traditional god-concepts (Logos ; Tao ; Brahma ; etc) in a way that could be useful as the philosophical foundation for a scientific Theory of Everything. :smile:

It is aware of itself. It observes. It is power, it is information and even the void is thermal - the seemingly nothingness of empty space has a certain level of energy intrinsic to it. . . . seems to be the ultimate agent. — Benj96

In my personal philosophical worldview, Enformationism, I do focus on the ubiquitous role of Energy as the active agency that is constantly enforming the world, as it evolves from a pin-point of Potential (Singularity) to the mind-boggling universe that human agents have discovered out there beyond our local habitat. I refer to that teleological Energy as EnFormAction. And, I do sometimes use the label "G*D" when referring to the logically necessary First Cause (the ultimate agent) of the evolutionary process. But I also use a variety of other descriptive terms in different contexts. For example, when discussing the information processing of our world, I refer to the presumed "Programmer", who encoded the natural laws that guide & moderate the explosive burst of Energy that brought our universe into existence. When discussing how order can arise, despite Energy's Achilles Heel of Entropy, I use the term "Enformy". In my blog, I attempt to answer many of the questions your raised in the OP. :nerd:

The EnFormAction Hypothesis : That neologism is an analysis and re-synthesis of the common word for the latent power of mental contents : “Information”. “En” stands for energy, the physical power to cause change; “Form” refers to Platonic Ideals that become real; “Action” is the meta-physical power of transformation, as exemplified in the amazing metamorphoses of physics, whereby one kind of thing becomes a new kind of thing, with novel properties. In the Enformationism worldview, EnFormAction is eternal creative potential in action : it's how creation-via-evolution works.
http://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page23.html

Notice the word, "strategy" above vis-à-vis evolution. If anything, it implies that were there a being as intelligent as us behind the "creation" of life, that being (some call it god/creator) would do exactly what evolution does right now. — TheMadFool

If I understand what you are implying, I must whole-heartedly agree. In my own theory of Creation via Evolution, our world has grown from a tiny fetus (Singularity) to the most complex system in the known universe, by implementing a simple algorithm : Chance + Choice = Progress. Random variations provide novelty from which the most adaptive forms are Naturally Selected to pass on into the next generation. That is indeed the "strategy" of the Genetic Algorithm.

The very fact that the natural world is currently & automatically implementing such a concise algorithm implies the necessary existence of a Strategic Mind to invent the procedure (logical plan of action) and a set of rules (natural laws) that will progress toward a pre-defined ultimate goal (teleology). In light of modern Science, this kind of creation makes a lot more sense than the "let-there-be-light" method of Old Testament Creation. That wishing-makes-it-so method fits the ancient notion of God as a super-human Wizard wielding weird powers. But, the concept of G*D as a Programmer fits our modern understanding of how things get done in the real world.

Lacking a direct divine revelation though, I must admit that I don't know what the implicit ultimate goal of ongoing creation is. But I can recognize the clear pattern of Cause - Effect Intention in the workings of Nature. And it seems to require ever-increasing Complexity & Consciousness. Several years ago, based such observations and inferences, I wrote a little essay to briefly introduce a thesis that I called Intelligent Evolution, to serve as an alternative to the then popular notion of Intelligent Design. The primary difference is that my notion of creation is an on-going billion year process, instead of an instant fait accompli (a done deal). So, I must agree that an intelligent designer wouldn't create a world as imperfect as ours, but might possibly create a world that could mature toward a more perfect state in the future. :cool:


Strategic : relating to the identification of long-term or overall aims and interests and the means of achieving them.

Algorithm : An algorithm is a set of instructions designed to perform a specific task.

Genetic Algorithm :
A genetic algorithm is a search heuristic that is inspired by Charles Darwin's theory of natural evolution. This algorithm reflects the process of natural selection where the fittest individuals are selected for reproduction in order to produce offspring of the next generation.
https://towardsdatascience.com/introduction-to-genetic-algorithms-including-example-code-e396e98d8bf3

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

Evolutionary (Genetic) Programming :
The program does not specify the final outcome. But it does define a “fitness function”, which sets the criteria for acceptable solutions. With-out those limits, the process could go on indefinitely.
We can see that natural evolution is circling around some future state, like a moth to a light. The ultimate-fitness-point functions like a Strange Attractor to “pull” the present toward that future state.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page13.html

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

she has a perfect working model of the brain — Benj96

Hmmm. Interesting concept. But, it sounds like the "self-simulation problem" raised by computer science. Obviously, a computer or brain can create a model of a small portion of reality. But, since the human brain has been called "the most complex entity in the world", it would be quite a feat to model even a sub-system of the brain. However, in theory, we can create a simplified model of just about anything. It's the practical implementation that runs into self-feedback loops, which tend to result in the "halting problem".

Nevertheless, I suspect that some science-fiction writer has already built a story around such a remote possibility, in which the mind-model takes control of its own brain, and chaos ensues. :joke:

Can a computer simulate itself as part of a simulated world? : "No, a computer cannot perfectly simulate itself in addition to something else without violating basic information theory: there exist strings which are not compressible."
https://cstheory.stackexchange.com/questions/2894/can-a-computer-simulate-itself-as-part-of-a-simulated-world

Halting problem :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem

Simplified model of brain function :

Pantheism is "a doctrine which identifies God with the universe, or regards the universe as a manifestation of God". But what exactly does this mean when taken literally? — Michael McMahon

My philosophical worldview PanEnDeism, is historically related to PanTheism. However, due to its secular mindset, mine is not a traditional religious perspective, in that it does not require sycophantic worship or arbitrary rituals & practices. Instead, it is intended to be more like an empirical scientific worldview, in that it takes a Pragmatic approach to understanding the real world, and our relationship to it. There is no authoritative or formal definition of PED, but my general concept is similar to Spinoza's notion that the "universal substance" of our world is not physical Matter, but meta-physical Mind *1. Meaning that our reality is essentially an idea in the Mind of G*D. That may not sound scientific, but for me, that general concept of Reality was derived from the counter-intuitive weirdness of Quantum Theory, and the all-encompassing reach of Information Theory. It's not a mystical or magical belief system, but a practical mundane worldview, based on the the scientific conclusion that Information = Energy = Matter *2.

In this post, I won't attempt to explain the conceptually-simple-but-technically-complex reasoning process by which I arrived at that strange worldview *3. So, I'll just get to the bottom line : Taken literally, "PanTheism" means that our apparent Reality is actually an interpretation of ultimate Ideality *4. What this means, when taken literally, is that particular Reality (Pan ; All) exists within (En) holistic Ideality (Deity ; First Cause ; Enformer). In other words, G*D's mental substance (Information, Meta-Physics) is what we know via our senses as material reality (Physics). From that simple equation of Ideal Stuff (substance) with Real Stuff (matter), we can derive all we need to know about the world, and our place in it. Of course the human mind is free to posit conjectures about the logically necessary First Cause. But the current fragmented state of world religions, indicates that such fictions can wreak havoc among competing belief systems. Which may be why the ancient faith-based religious notion of Pantheism, eventually evolved into theoretical philosophical PanDeism, and finally into evidence-based PanEnDeism. :cool:


*1 Spinoza's Substance Monism : Substance monism asserts that a variety of existing things can be explained in terms of a single reality or substance. Substance monism posits that only one kind of stuff exists, although many things may be made up of this stuff, e.g., matter or mind.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monism

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

*3 I have already provided a variety of explanations for my rationale in several of my blog posts, and in many posts on this forum.

*4 Empirical Idealism :
Scientific Materialism is the assumption that particle Physics is the foundation of reality, and that our ideas are simply products of material processes. Empirical Idealism doesn't deny the existence of a real world, but reasons that all we can ever know about that hypothetical reality is the mental interpretations of sensory percepts. Platonic Idealism (Myth of the Cave) calls those interpretations illusions, and asserts that true Reality is equivalent to an idea in the mind of God. Enformationism is compatible with both views, depending on your perspective.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page11.html

PS__I expect challenges to labeling PED as "empirical". So, I'll simply say that it's just as empirical as Inflation Theory, Multiverse Theory, and String Theory, which all postulate entities that are literally out-of-this-world.

I stand by my own close textual analysis and previous post though. — 180 Proof

OK. I bow to your authority on Spinoza's written beliefs. But, for the purpose of my own "quixotic metaphysics", I'll still consider him to be an honorary PanEnDeist (it's a small club), Yet, I doubt that he was familiar with that term, which seems to be of recent origin. The ancient notion of PanDeism --- now extended beyond the scope of our local, contingent world --- may be a development out of modern Big Bang physics, as applied to metaphysics. It portrays the logically necessary First Cause of our universe, as "Deist" (creating but non-intervening) + "Pan" -- substance of all the actual (knowable) world + "En" --- not limited to this finite world, but encompassing all possible worlds (if any). So, Spinoza would have to join the club retroactively, ex post facto. :joke:

Pandendeism is a fairly recently coined term to describe a sort of ``open'' pandeism
https://webhome.phy.duke.edu/~rgb/Philosophy/god_theorem/god_theorem/node28.html

What do you think of Being as opposed to Schopenhauer's Will and of Whithead's process philosophy's "occasions of experience" and such? — schopenhauer1

As I said in my previous reply, I'm not really familiar with Schopenhauer's philosophy. But I just read an article that mentioned his concept of The Will. FWIW, here's what Peter Kassan, Artificial Intelligence journalist, says about Schop's Will, in the context of Free Will :
"Perhaps more than any other classical philosopher, Arthur Schopenhauer fetishized the will above all else, elevating it to a universal principle pervading the universe, thereby reducing it to to the equally empty idea of energy (not in the scientific sense, but the mystical)."

I assume he might also denigrate my own notion of Enformy. But, Although it is in a sense "the Will of God", it's not intended to mean a magical or mystical force, but merely a positive version of the scientific term "Entropy". Something like this may have been Schopenhauer's intent, although he may not have been aware of the 20th century concept of Entropy. Enformy is not an obsession for me, but I think it is a more meaningful term than the current alternative : "Negentropy". :nerd:


Enformy-- the power to enform :
In the Enformationism theory, Enformy is a hypothetical, holistic, metaphysical, natural trend or force, that counteracts Entropy & Randomness to produce complexity & progress. [ see post 63 for graph ]
1. I'm not aware of any "supernatural force" in the world. But my Enformationism theory postulates that there is a meta-physical force behind Time's Arrow and the positive progress of evolution. Just as Entropy is sometimes referred to as a "force" causing energy to dissipate (negative effect), Enformy is the antithesis, which causes energy to agglomerate (additive effect).
2. Of course, neither of those phenomena is a physical Force, or a direct Cause, in the usual sense. But the term "force" is applied to such holistic causes as a metaphor drawn from our experience with physics.
3. "Entropy" and "Enformy" are scientific/technical terms that are equivalent to the religious/moralistic terms "Evil" and "Good". So, while those forces are completely natural, the ultimate source of the power behind them may be super-natural (or meta-natural), in the sense that the "First Cause" (of all natural effects) logically existed before the Big Bang.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html

Don Watson's Enformy : http://www.vxm.com/2.CompTheory.html
Note : he does sometimes stray into Mystical territory, but otherwise, his notion of "Enformy" is similar to mine.

PS__ Energy is indeed "empty" in the sense that scientists know what-it-does, but not what-it-is essentially. So, in my thesis, I try to fill-in the blanks with a comprehensive theory of what-everything-is, ultimately --- without adding to the mystery with spooky allusions.

Since for Spinoza substance is infinite, or has no exterior, and eternal, or is not the effect of an external cause, and nothing ontologically transcends it, therefore substance is not "within" another substance. For this, and other reasons in Spinoza's oeuvre, "Panentheism" does not obtain. (Re: Ip5-p8, p13-p15) — 180 Proof

I agree, that if the "substance" of our world was infinite & eternal, it would be God per se, as in Pantheism. However, since we have discovered, long since Spinoza's theory, that the physical universe is not eternal, as he supposed, and that its material "substance" is temporary (subject to Entropy), I conclude that our finite world is merely a small part of the Enfernal (eternal + infinite) realm of the hypothetical Creator. Since there was a creation event (Big Bang), we must conclude that the Mother "substance" (eternal essence; necessity) existed prior to the birth of our child "substance" (finite material ; contingent) .

Therefore, I conclude that our space-time Reality could be merely one of many offspring of the Enfernal Ideality. Hence, PanEnDeism, a part within the whole. A scientific-materialistic alternative to this eternal vs temporal existence is the Multiverse Theory, in which our world is merely one of an infinite regression of bubble-like Mini-verses. But I don't waste time speculating on such "out of this world" possibilities. That's because we are quibbling about unproveable conjectures, not known facts. So, your guess is as good as mine. :cool:

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. A formal name for that fertile field is G*D.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page11.html

A Multiverse of bubble-verses

What do you think of Being as opposed to Schopenhauer's Will and of Whithead's process philosophy's "occasions of experience" and such? — schopenhauer1

I have no formal philosophical training, and I've never read any of Schopenhauer's works. But my guess is that his notion of "Cosmic Will" is more like my concept of creative "Intention", than of static "BEING" (the eternal Potential to Exist). Although, since our evolving world is a product of that generic power-to-be, BEING must also include the creative power-to-become. Which could be interpreted as Will-Power.

In my personal thesis of Enformationism, the "energy" or "impetus", that propels our world to evolve from a Big Bang embryo to a maturing universe with conscious wilful organisms, is the Intention ("Will of God") of the hypothetical Creator/Designer/Programmer. For example, a computer programmer has a design intent (goal or quest) that is implemented in the program, and which "propels" the system toward that ultimate end-state : the output. Unfortunately, I can only speculate as to what that "Omega Point" might be.

I've scanned Whitehead's Process and Reality. And, although it seems to be very similar to my own view of Reality as a process of becoming what the Creator intended, I'm not sure I understand all of his technical terminology. So, it would be best for me not to pontificate on the meaning of "occasions of experience". :cool:

"Whitehead uses the term 'actual occasion' to refer only to purely temporal actual entities, those other than God".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Process_and_Reality

I think it is pantheism, — Eugen

See my reply to above.

Sub specie aeternitatis Spinoza's "worldview" is most consistent with acosmism (vide Maimon, Hegel ... Deleuze); otherwise, sub specie durationis, his "worldview" seems to me quite consistent with (as mentioned) pandeism. — 180 Proof

I had never heard of Acosmism before. It seems that almost every philosopher, who tries to pigeonhole Spinoza's novel belief system, comes up with a new label that is close to the interpreter's own view. That's because his god-concept contained elements that were both traditional (Stoicism, Judaism, etc) and highly original (Enlightenment Science ; God and/or Nature). Consequently, his complex god-model loosely fits several philosophical god-models, such as PanTheism, PanPsychism, and PanDeism. But, as far as I know, he never specifically presented a Hindu version of our Cosmos (Nature) as Maya (illusion). Apparently, it was Hegel, who interpreted Spinoza's view in those terms.

The main reason why I chose to label his philosophy with PanEnDeism, is because he describes God as "infinite". At the time he wrote, most scientists & philosophers assumed that our universe was both Infinite and Eternal. And they had no clear concept of a Big-Bang-beginning or Evolution. But, 20th century science discovered plausible evidence to indicate that our world, along with its characteristic Space-Time dimensions, had a (birth-like) beginning, and will eventually go out of existence (heat death) : hence neither Infinite nor Eternal. Therefore, our Cosmos exists contingently & finitely within the infinite BEING of God. So, the label that best fits the notion of an Infinite & non-intervening Creator, within which our natural world exists, is PanEnDeism : all-in-god. :cool:

Acosmism : "Acosmism, in contrast to pantheism, denies the reality of the universe, seeing it as ultimately illusory"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acosmism
"Furthermore, because Spinoza’s cosmos is part of God, it is not what it seems to be. He is acosmistic insofar as “noncosmic” seems to deny the cosmos—a position, however, very alien to Spinoza’s thought."
https://www.britannica.com/topic/acosmism

Spinoza's God :
“By God I understand a being absolutely infinite,
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/spinoza/

Substance of God :
“Whatever is, is in God, and nothing can be or be conceived without God”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_Baruch_Spinoza

"One verse from the famous opening invocation to Zeus became even more famous because it was quoted in the New Testament (Acts 17:28): “For 'in him we live and move and have our being'; as even some of your own poets have said, 'For we too are his offspring." ___Aratus; Greek poet
https://www.britannica.com/biography/Aratus-Greek-poet

Spinoza said every object is, to some degree, animated. Isn't this panpsychism? — Eugen

Spinoza's worldview is often equated to PanPsychism, but I think PanTheism or PanDeism or even PanEnDeism (PED) are more accurate labels. PanPsychism tends to view the "universal substance" as a multipurpose form of mechanical Energy (Chi), and is equivalent to the early human beliefs of Animism. Yet, although Baruch was an outcast Jew, he described that essence of all things as "God". However, he was not referring to the traditional tribal god-models of Judaism or Christianity, but to the abstract philosophical notion that has come to be labelled as the "god of philosophers". My own concept of a PED universal substance is "BEING". Obviously, the "power to exist" is essential to all things in reality. But it doesn't just "animate" dead matter, it also produces all other properties, including Mind, that characterize living beings. :cool:


Animism :
1. the attribution of a soul to plants, inanimate objects, and natural phenomena.
2. the belief in a supernatural power that organizes and animates the material universe.

PanEnDeism :
Panentheism, from the Greek πᾶν pân, "all", ἐν en, "in" and Θεός Theós, "God" is the belief that the divine pervades and interpenetrates every part of the universe and also extends beyond space and time.
___Wiki
Note : The substitution of "Deism" instead of "Theism", merely removes the various positive & negative anthro-morphic (i.e. physical & emotional) attributes, such as "wrathful, Joy, sadness, anger, hatred, despair" from traditional & scriptural descriptions of deity.

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.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page10.html

I'm thinking that the heaviness of objects causes a squish on spacetime and that actions that seem like a "force" are really radiations of energy. So we would have weight and energy that would account for what appears to be Newtonian force. Is that explanation sound in your mind? — Gregory

That sounds OK intuitively. But it's not how a physicist would describe it. What we experience as a pulling or squishing Force, according to Einstein, is merely acceleration in space. It's the relative motion that we subjectively feel as gravity "squishing" us. Objectively, an object that is not moving relative to the weighing device has no measurable "heaviness" (weight), but it may still have theoretical Mass. It all depends on your frame of reference.

I haven't yet fully integrated gravity into my Enformationism thesis. But then, physicists haven't been able to reconcile Gravity with Quantum mechanics. Besides, ancient Greeks metaphorically equated Gravity with Love, as an attractive "force"..

Gravity is physically experienced (felt) as an attractive "pulling" force, but technically, it's an abstract spatial relationship. But then, energy is also a physical relationship (a ratio), that somehow causes things to move and to change. Sometimes, gravity is called a "pseudo-force", but that may be even more confusing.

I'm not so sure that even physicists really understand what gravity and energy are in essence. They define Gravity & Energy in specialized terms, such as Fields", that allow them to measure & calculate quantities of stuff, that is not really quantifiable in an ordinary sense. How many Gravitons to the pound? Here's a few Google-search quotes about Gravity and Energy that seem to be contradictory :

"Gravity is not a form of energy but gravity creates potential energy."

"Anyhow, the object responsible for the gravitational force is a tensor field called the metric, and when we quantise gravity we are quantising the metric not the force."

"Einstein argued that gravity isn't a force at all. He described it as a curvature of time and space caused by mass and energy." ..

"Gravity is a force of attraction that exists between any two masses, any two bodies, any two particles"

So now, what were you trying to say about Gravity? :grin:

If gravity is not a force how can there be gravitational waves? — Gregory

Gravity is a strange property of "curved" space. Perhaps gravitational waves are merely regular short "curves" propagating through space. Unfortunately, the notion of curved emptiness is counter-intuitive. Go ask Einstein -- it's all his fault. :smile:

Digression: does a photon lose anything for having reflected? — James Riley

When light impacts matter it usually transfers some of its energy to the impactee. But a reflective surface, like a mirror, seems to act like rubber to bounce the light away without absorbing much of its energy. I don't know the physics behind mirrors, but I suspect it has something to do with smooth continuous surfaces and short wavelengths. A mirrored surface seems to work like the opposite of a black body, which absorbs almost all energy. :chin:

Does reflected light lose energy? :
Often it does not lose much energy on being reflected. It loses energy on being absorbed. Each reflected photon has the same energy as before. ... Light may lose or gain energy on being reflected from a moving mirror because of the Doppler shift.
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/373577/loss-in-energy-by-light-after-reflections

Could a photon, now or sometime in the future be found to have any data imprinted upon it recording all that which it has "hit" or ricocheted off of? — James Riley

The concept of recording historical information in waves of Photons, sounds similar to the notion of information "imprinted" upon gravitational waves of Gravitons. But since gravitons are still hypothetical, the question is moot. :chin:

Gravitational wave :
Gravitational waves transport energy as gravitational radiation, a form of radiant energy similar to electromagnetic radiation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_wave

Many years ago, I read a sci-fi novel that was based upon the fictional-but-seemingly-plausible notion of an alien machine "The Macroscope", which could read the entire history of the universe from enformed "gravitational" waves. However, the enformed particles were dubbed "macrons". That wild conjecture opened the entire universe to exploration, and allowed the author to weave a complex story that traversed all of space & time. :nerd:

The Macroscope
___Piers Anthony
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macroscope_(novel)

What does entanglement have to do with light. I know light can be turned into heat but I am not aware of it having spin — Gregory

Like any other quantum particles, Photons can become entangled. But I don't know if that coupled state can be used to record arbitrary information, beyond the historical fact of entanglement. Maybe you can dig deeper into the DARPA report. :smile:

Quantum entanglement :
One of the most commonly used methods is spontaneous parametric down-conversion to generate a pair of photons entangled in polarisation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement

I knew it was a "reach" but whenever I think of something as a particle, I can't help but wonder what might be gleaned from it, based upon it's experiences. — James Riley

You may be led astray by some interpretations of PanPsychism, in which every particle in the world has "experiences". But, I'm afraid that a lonely photon would experience a poverty of meaning. What does a photon remember of the "experience" of bouncing off of a proton? "Watch where you're going idiot!" :joke:

Could a photon, now or sometime in the future be found to have any data imprinted upon it recording all that which it has "hit" or ricocheted off of? — James Riley

Actually, photons are the universal "carriers of information" in a manner similar to Shannon's "bits" & "bytes". Yet a single photon (bit) is too simple & generic (all identical) to carry much info. But, if you cram a bunch of photons together (bytes), they begin to look like the EverGreen EverGiven ship in the Suez canal. :nerd:


The photon is a fundamental carrier of information, possessing numerous information carrying degrees of freedom including frequency, phase, arrival time, polarization, orbital angular momentum, linear momentum, entanglement, etc.
https://www.darpa.mil/program/information-in-a-photon

A bulk information carrier :

In layman's terms, are you saying you're an extremist? — 3017amen

"Militant Moderate". Perhaps I should have used a smilie icon after that remark, to indicate that I was kidding. :joke:

Another way to put is that, philosophically, I'm an "extreme anti-extremist". Or maybe, I'm "militantly against militancy". As bruised & battered Rodney King plaintively pleaded : "why can't we all just get along".

Actually, I am mostly apathetic about polarized politics. That's because, in most cases, "I don't have a horse in that race". So, I don't have emotional attachments to the "things of this world". Ironically, my fundamentalist religious upbringing inadvertently gave me one philosophical meme useful for dealing with the chaos of the crazy world : "I am in the world, but not of the world". The image that suggests to me is of "hovering above the fray".

My position on most topics is vaguely somewhere in the middle of the range. I am OK with some Conservative positions and with some Liberal positions, but not with their polarized extreme end-states. Unfortunately, when the shooting starts, I get caught in the crossfire. :cool:

It's a long hard climb to get above the frayed fabric of human relations :

Perhaps James was right, concerning the human condition, — 3017amen

I just noticed that, in The Moral Equivalent of War speech, William James came to the same conclusion, to explain why major wars are becoming fewer & farther between, that Steven Pinker discovered in his historical research, a century later. Human nature hasn't changed so much, but human culture has made war & conquest a less attractive way to obtain resources, than peaceful trade. :smile:

"Modern war is so expensive that we feel trade to be a better avenue to plunder;"
___W. James, 1906
http://www.uky.edu/~eushe2/Pajares/moral.html

"so the arrival of the infrastructure of trade and commerce reduces some of the sheer exploitative incentives of conquest."
___S. Pinker, 2012
https://www.vox.com/2015/6/4/8725775/pinker-capitalism

The book I was referring to was The Naked Ape, published in the mid-60's, and one of my main sources of sex education when I was about 12. It points out that h. sapiens is the sexiest beast on the planet (something I instinctively knew, somehow). Most other mammals' sexual behaviors are regulated around cycles, but humans are up for it any time. There are also major consequences from being upright bipeds. It had lots of titillating detalls and was the first place I learned about fellatio. — Wayfarer

Did you read The Human Sexes, by DM? Lots of nudity. :yikes:

One obvious takeaway was the lessons in extremism (both sides). With few exceptions, we need more moderate's in both our political and religious institutions. I think Aristotle was right — 3017amen

Yes. That's why I am a Militant Moderate.

Ironically, immoderate Trump faced-down "little rocket man", and didn't get into a shooting war with North Korea. That may be because Kim Jong Un was afraid that he was just crazy enough to push the red button. :joke:

Actually, dogs, unlike humans, only copulate when the female is in heat. Without those pheremones, dogs are not the least interested. Humans are unique in that respect. (I learned that from Desmond Morris, aged about 12.)
Other than that, I have not the least idea what you're talking about. — Wayfarer

Morris may have meant that dogs actually copulate (inseminate) only when in heat. But both male & female dogs will playfully simulate sexual intercourse almost anytime. Much like human petting and pornography. :cool:

Regarding my rambling remarks about Denial of Service Attacks : please Disregard. Apparently I didn't know what I was talking about. The stuff about CyberBunker was correct, but as it turned out, didn't have anything to do with my inability to connect to some of my regular websites. Various unhelpful diagnostics & troubleshooters led me in a spiraling circle, right back to my own erratic router. After a reboot, I'm again able to copulate, er connect, with all my favorite webpages, such as TPF, which was one of the few that worked during the 2-day downtime. :yikes:


Do Male Dogs Mate With Females Not in Heat? :
Of course a female dog in heat will attract suitors, but male dogs -- neutered or intact -- may attempt to mate with a female who's not in heat. And female dogs aren't the only potential targets of an interested dog. People, other animals and inanimate objects such as toys, pillows and stuffed animals may be on the receiving end a dog's mounting behavior. Mounting isn't just boys being boys; female dogs engage in mounting behavior as well.
https://www.cuteness.com/blog/content/do-male-dogs-mate-with-females-not-in-heat

what is the connection with the subject matter? How do you know it's not your ISP or a config issue with your home internet? — Wayfarer

I suppose this thread is talking about how bad Porn is morally. But that's not the point of my post. It was motivated mostly by frustration, because TPF is one of the few websites I can log onto tonight. Most of my regulars are timed-out, due to denial-of-service attacks. Apparently, liberal-minded philosophical sites are not considered an enemy of the free-speech porn sites. Personally, I don't concern myself with porn, because I don't have young children to be corrupted by its graphic depiction of what shameless naked animals (e.g. dogs) do in public all the time.

My post was only connected to the topic of this thread because CyberBunker is a host for a variety of illicit spammers, black-marketers, and political-secret sites. Porn sites merely happen to be some of their biggest cash-flow customers. In their favor though, they have scruples against child porn. But, like the mafia, they have no qualms about violently attacking their adversaries, by shutting-down half the world's websites, as collateral damage. "How bad is it?" Black-Market & Dark Web Providers like Cyberbunker may be like the Mafia, in that they opportunistically move into any money-making business that is somewhat illicit, and regulated by uptight nanny governments. At least they're not using Thompson submachine guns to massacre their opponents . . . yet. .

Even in liberal Western societies, Porn is still not good for the "clean" image of mainstream internet providers, so they resort to back-channel providers like CB. But it was the fact that a purveyor of porn, among other annoying or illicit or illegal black-market goods & services, that suggested to me a comparison with the rise of the Mafia from immigrant neighborhood gangsters to nationwide semi-legit businessmen. Is that situation morally bad, or just bad for competing legal businesses?

BTW, I know it's not just my local provider because I checked with services that keep tabs on internet outages. The link in the post above gives a graphic global image of how pervasive the problem is. :gasp:

Global Down Detector : Pingdom
https://livemap.pingdom.com/

https://insuretrust.com/worldwide-internet-slowdown-due-to-largest-cyber-attack-in-history/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CyberBunker

This site is not available at this time, due to "time out" error :
Major Internet Outage Cripples the United States ...
https://www.bectechconsultants.com › major-internet-o...
We are issuing a warning to businesses that there is a major internet outage being reported across the United States today.

PS__Just in case you accidentally stumble upon a porn site :
" The NSA gathers evidence of visits to pornographic websites as part of a plan ..." :joke:
https://www.businessinsider.com › Tech Insider › Politics

Statistics say that 25 percent of all internet searches are related to porn. Pornography laws differ from region to region. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pornography_laws_by_region — TaySan

Ironically, the Power of Porn is being revealed today (3/31/2021) on the internet. We're experiencing a worldwide (mostly US & Europe) Denial-of-Service blockage of net sites. Whenever I point my browser to a favorite website, I get "timed-out" error messages, and no email in my boxes. (note : TPF is an odd-but-welcome exception) Apparently, this is another skirmish in a long-running battle between spammers & porn-purveyors of various kinds, and the watchdogs that try to limit clogging of mailboxes with unwanted solicitations and sexploitation.

A major player in this cyber-warfare is CyberBunker, located in actual underground bunkers in Holland and Germany. In 2013, when a spamblocker site put them on their blacklist, they viciously retaliated with a global targeted denial-of-service attack (flooding email servers with spam). Some individuals were later arrested, but often got off, due to "lack of evidence", and probably to lawyers-on-retainer.

This sorry state of cyber-affairs reminds me of the US crime-wars in the US after Prohibition laws (1920s & 30s) suddenly made alcoholic beverages illegal. Since a large segment of the population had a strong desire for alcohol (for self medication of emotional problems?), some formerly small-time neighborhood thugs, quickly became multimillionaires, and semi-respectable businessmen. They capitalized on a vacated niche of legal drugs, by supplying an illegal product on the black-market. In our anything-goes modern society, is it a crime to violate "community" moral standards? Do we still have ethical communities in that medieval sense?

The "self-righteous" tee-totaling moralizers lost that "moral equivalent of war" big-time. I grew-up in a dry county, where alcohol was seldom seen in "respectable" society. But now, in the 2020s, almost 25% of grocery stores are devoted to various flavors of alcoholic beverages. And formerly illegal Marijuana is about to become legalized, after many years as the drug du jour of rougishly-romanticized devil-may-care hipsters. Now, it may become just another mundane market item -- readily available to pre-teens. Unregulated Capitalism dutifully serves its paying customers, without irrelevant moralizing. Apparently, the nanny-state can't "just say NO!" to deep-seated desires.

Will Junkmail and Pornography follow the same path to semi-legitimacy? How much longer will black-market purveyors be relegated to the ethical underworld? Not too many years ago, Cosmopolitan women's magazines, with occasional nip-slips, were covered-up on grocer store checkout counters. Now, almost anything goes. It seems that whatever is morally condemn-able, soon becomes monetarily profit-able. Just goes to show that you can't hold animal urges & desires down for long. So, your best option to deal with the spam flood is to just get a bigger mailbox. :cool:


Global Down Detector : Pingdom
https://livemap.pingdom.com/

Cats most definitely imagine the near future. — fishfry

The human advantage over cats is in the degree & detail of its imagery -- including abstract models of Probability. I assume that cats have an instinctive sense of near- future prospects, but the theory of Probability goes beyond the innate dispositions that humans share with cats, into ideal realms where the cat food doesn't require human servants with hands & can openers. What if cat food just grew on trees -- what are the chances? :joke:

Cats most definitely imagine the near future. — fishfry

The human advantage over cats is in the degree & detail of its imagery -- including abstract models of Probability. I assume that cats have an instinctive sense of future prospects, but the theory of Probability goes beyond the innate dispositions that humans share with cats, into ideal realms where the cat food doesn't require human servants with hands & can openers. What if cat food just grew on trees -- what are the chances? :joke:

↪simeonz
Thanks for the link. You are a little difficult to follow once you get going, but on the whole I was quite impressed. We agree on a systems / embodied approach. I would disagree on pantheism, but I think Gnomon would agree with you. — Pop

In a broad sense, I am OK with the general notion of Pantheism, but for my particular worldview, I call it PanEnDeism. :cool:

PanEnDeism :
Panendeism is an ontological position that explores the interrelationship between God (The Cosmic Mind) and the known attributes of the universe. Combining aspects of Panentheism and Deism, Panendeism proposes an idea of God that both embodies the universe and is transcendent of its observable physical properties.
https://panendeism.org/faq-and-questions/
Note -- PED is distinguished from general Deism, by its more specific notion of the G*D/Creation relationship; and from PanDeism by its understanding of G*D as supernatural creator rather than the emergent soul of Nature. Enformationism is a Panendeistic worldview.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page16.html
Note 2. -- Panendeism is not equivalent to the bible-god, but is an alternative to the eternal/external Multiverse theory, in which our space-time bound world is a small part of the infinite whole.

Great point! William James (aside from being one of my favorite psychologist-turned-philosopher's) was also a self proclaimed pacifist. In your view, how did he reconcile his pacifism with the so-called human need to fight wars? — 3017amen

James was both a Pacifist and a Pragmatist. Which means that, if we can't change the warlike nature of humanity, we must learn to live with it. Perhaps by channeling our aggressive instincts into less destructive activities -- such as win-win businesses. Ironically, Steven Pinker attributes our "long peace" (since WWII) to global trade -- due in part to the inherent morality of Capitalism. It's only when win-lose capitalists (I won't mention a recent example) fail to respect their trading partners, that war becomes a plausible option. :cool:

William James on Peace & War :
One hundred years ago the philosopher and psychologist William James set down his thoughts on war and peace in an essay for McClure’s magazine titled “The Moral Equivalent of War.” In that essay he examined the role of the martial virtues in keeping a society vigorous and proud and explained why pacifism, in the merely negative sense of opposition to war, could not succeed.
http://blogs.britannica.com/2010/03/william-james-on-peace-and-war/

Pinker explains ‘The Long Peace’ :
https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2012/03/pinker-explains-the-long-peace/

Steven Pinker explains how capitalism is killing war :
https://www.vox.com/2015/6/4/8725775/pinker-capitalism

Capitalism and Morality : First, capitalism is moral because — unlike socialism — it respects individuals, their rights, and their pursuit of happiness. In fact, capitalism requires this respect for individuals and rights. This is why capitalism often is defined as a social system, not an economic system, which protects individual rights.
https://www.johnlocke.org/update/capitalism-and-morality/

Well, it's an awkward question, but, what in fact is probability? — denis yamunaque

Humans have an advantage over most animals, in that we can imagine the near future, and prepare to make our next move, before the future actually arrives. Most animals deal with unexpected events with automatic knee-jerk reflexes. Which serves them well, in their narrow niche of the tooth & claw jungle. But humans have created a variety of artificial niches to suit diverse specialized needs and preferences. Consequently, our "asphalt jungle" is even more complex & chaotic, and rapidly changing, than the natural habitat of other animals.

That may be why we were forced to supplement our basic animal survival instincts, with formal methods for more accurately predicting the moving targets of the future. Ancient prophecy was merely educated guessing, based on direct experience from past events and trends. But humans also learned to create abstract mathematical models of how the world works. And Probability Theory eventually emerged, ironically from Game Theory, based on long experience with gambling competitions, to give those-in-the-know an advantage over other players. For example, a card game is an abstract simulation of real-world social situations. If you can "count cards" you will have a better idea of what hand your opponent is holding, and what his next move might be. Hence, when such unknowns can be reduced to number values they can be manipulated more quickly & accurately than the nebulous social values of human communities : e.g is he bluffing?.

Therefore, what we now call "Probability" is essentially a formalized form of intuition or foresight. It allows us to calculate what is normally-to-be-expected in a well-defined situation. Hence, It gives us an edge in dealing with the unnatural exigencies of the complicated civilized world of cunning thinking animals, and with the unfamiliar uncertainties of the natural world. Probability Theory is "in fact" a new tool, like teeth & claws, for humans to use in the high-stakes game of survival. Unfortunately, Probability is still not a perfect form of Prognostication. :brow:


There are three major types of probabilities:
Theoretical Probability.
Experimental Probability.
Axiomatic Probability.

Every time the economy slowed down the US went to war; — Book273

A century ago, William James described the need for an occasional external (or internal) motivating threat to the Body Politic as the "moral equivalent of war", for reviving the spirit of national unity, and the discipline to weather the disrupting storms. Later, Jimmy Carter gave that same label to the impending climate & energy crisis. Perhaps the current Pandemic has served a similar purpose, by challenging our national political unity, and our communal resolve to repel the threat. Unfortunately, the economy seems to have come through the crisis in better shape than the union. :worry:

Moral Equivalent of War : "James considered one of the classic problems of politics: how to sustain political unity and civic virtue in the absence of war or a credible threat"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_Equivalent_of_War_speech

Some scientists think consciousness is directly related to language. Hence, dependent on the typically “dominant”, “rational” and verbal left-brain. — Gnomon
Also worth knowing about Iain McGilchrist — Wayfarer

The title Master & Emissary reminded me of Jonathan Haidt's interesting metaphor of the relationship between Conscious & Subconscious mind as the Mahout (rider) and his Elephant. That may not be what McGilchrist is referring to though.

Opinions on the book were polarized. Some reviewers focused on the poor quality of an $85 book, while others praised its focus on the whole brain, and others complained about its technical denseness and "verbal diarrhea", plus one described it as "for masochists only". Is it really that off-putting for those who don't buy his holistic view?

Jayne's notion of the "invention" of consciousness placed its emergence around the time of written language. But presumably un-written verbal language evolved long before written symbols began to replace or supplement untold millennia of communication via vocalizations along with hand & body gestures, as in chimps. Surely, some form of self-other consciousness accompanied those early forms of communication of inner concepts & feelings. Perhaps what coincided with complex social communities and written language was a more modern conception of self-consciousness and individualism. :smile:


Elephant & Rider :
https://www.jch.com/jch/notes/TheElephantAndTheRiderMetaphor.html

invention of "consciousness" — Gus Lamarch

When I fist heard of Jayne's hypothesis, I thought the notion of a bicameral brain -- to explain the emergence of human-type consciousness -- was a good literary or historical metaphor, if not a scientific thesis, based on hard evidence. Unfortunately, it seems that neuroscience has not taken it very seriously. That may be because their emphasis is on the physical substrate of the mind (neurons), rather than the spiritual Cartesian res cogitans. As you said, "the mind is a nonphysical — and therefore, non-spatial — substance". If so, it might not be limited to physical spatial boundaries. Which sounds spooky to pragmatic scientists, because it might also be able to transcend the individual's brain & body. However, I assume that the conscious & subconscious Mind is not a ghostly Spirit, but merely a brain Function : Mind is a name for what the brain does -- thinking, feeling, etc.

Freud may have intuitively referred to the bicameral nature of the mind in his metaphors of Id, Ego, and Superego. In that case, the "Super-ego" might refer to the role of the dominant "conscious" chamber of the brain. But, I still doubt that General Consciousness is limited to one hemisphere. The creative-emotional "language" of the right brain seems to be a non-verbal form of conscious awareness. But only the left brain can make itself known to other minds via language. Lacking the words to express its visions and urges, schizophrenics may appear to be motivated by external demons, rather than conflicting inner emotions or drives.

Some scientists think consciousness is directly related to language. Hence, dependent on the typically “dominant”, “rational” and verbal left-brain. But that could be due to their bias toward rational thinking, and distrust of irrational motives. But both "fast" Right Brain & "slow" Left Brain modes of thinking are normal for humans. However sub-conscious thoughts & feelings are mostly concerned with emotional functions. In that case, the commanding "voices" & visions might be merely non-verbal automatic reflex urges & feelings (i.e. "Fast" thinking).

Split-brain experiments seem to result in two minds in one body, But that's difficult to parse into an understandable model of general consciousness, which might explain how the "bicameral mind" could present a consistent singular.personality . It's possible that a study of close relations to humans, e.g. chimpanzees & bonobos, could shed some light on Jayne's notion of "pre-conscious" humans. If they are driven only by inner emotional urges, chimps might be equivalent to philosophical zombies, or robots. Their inner drives would not be experienced consciously, but more like encoded instructions, blindly converted into explainable actions. Has anyone done such a study, with a view toward a bicameral explanation? :chin:

Fast vs Slow Thinking : "System 1" is fast, instinctive and emotional; "System 2" is slower, more deliberative, and more logical.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thinking,_Fast_and_Slow

Right Brain, Left Brain: A Misnomer : A More Holistic Picture
https://dana.org/article/right-brain-left-brain-really/

So, in what sense can God or M'verse be said to exist? If they are not here & now, are they Nothing? A mere figment of imagination? Or the potent Cause of all actual things? . . . . Why is there something? Because there was always the Potential for something. — Gnomon

Why is there Something Instead of Nothing?
Off-topic diversion continued . . . . chasing the elusive butterfly of Why?
Another "simple desultory philippic" ???
Feel free to ignore these rambling wonderings.
But, remember that Wonder is the philosophical emotion.

Per Actualism : "to be is to exist, and to exist is to be actual"

The weak point in that assertive affirmation is the word "Actual", which is the opposite of Potential, and implies an act of transforming a pre-existing Possibility into a currently existing Actuality. If so, our actual world is contingent, and there was also the alternative possibility of non-existence. Hence, the assertion contains the seed of its own negation. Whatever exists must have been actualized or created by some prior Power or Potential. Knowledge of that a priori Something could point toward a meaningful answer to "why?".

Another thread on this forum asserts that "Existence is infinite in extent and eternal in duration. Only nothing or nonexistence could actually limit existence". That very long post attempts to support that questionable conclusion with philosophical reasoning. Yet, "Infinity" is not a provable actuality in our real world. It's merely the conceptual negation of "Finite". So, to assert that Actual Existence (physical reality) is infinite seems to go beyond our ability to know such things. Of course, our physical universe could conceivably be unbounded in space & time, but our means of measurement are limited by the speed of light, which forms a boundary to our observations. Hence to claim that “existence” is infinite (as in Multiverse theories), sounds more like a statement of faith, than of fact. So, we could just as well assume that before the Big Bang, there was nothing Actual --- perhaps only unknowable Potential.

Therefore, this thread's topical "why" question seems to logically require some Outside (transcendent) Force, or Actualizing Agent, to convert non-existence (nothingness) into existence (somethingness). Whatever, that exotic Actor might be, it alone could provide a knowledgeable answer to the "why" question. Yet, some early human thinkers assumed, as an axiom, that their world was eternal, and didn't bother themselves with questions about origins or beginnings. But philosophers, and some scientists, are not known for leaving well-enough alone. So, they deign to ask hypothetical “why” & “how” questions. Yet, “why” questions go beyond the scope of physical science, to inquire about meta-phyical Reasons for Being. Moreover, reasons are properties of conscious agents, not aimless atoms.

In the current issue of SKEPTIC magazine, one article is entitled "How did it all begin?". Which seems to be related to the topic of this thread. The transition from Nothing to Something implies a Point of Beginning -- the locus of the act of Actualization. And the article attempts to supply a scientific & physical answer. First, it notes that "modern cosmologists cannot resist exploring models which neatly incorporate any date in the past, even one predating the beginning of our current universe." Apparently, the notion of a self-existent universe does not make sense, so they are logically motivated to explain Why there is Something. Although our current entropic universe seems to be finite, anything prior to the beginning might not be so limited.

Unfortunately, the only solution offered in the article is an imaginary scientific hypothesis, not an observation of something physically Actual. It says, "Inflation explains why there was a 'bang' and even provides a 'banger' . . . in the form of an exotic form of energy known as a quantum field". So, their answer to "how" and "why" is a barely existing exotic non-thing that was originally proposed, in desperation, as a solution to the frustrating quest for the fundamental building block of the Actual real world. An early unproven hypothesis was Atomism : something you can't see or touch is responsible for the stuff that you know as actual reality. So far, we have found no such concrete foundation, so theorists are reduced to proposing fluffy clouds of invisible intangible insubstantial potential (virtual) causal power. Which, ironically, sounds a lot like an ancient ghostly creative Deity. That being the case, have we really made progress in understanding ultimate “why” questions? :cool:

What Does Quantum Theory Actually Tell Us about Reality? : Nearly a century after its founding, physicists and philosophers still don’t know—but they’re working on it
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/what-does-quantum-theory-actually-tell-us-about-reality/

Is The Inflationary Universe A Scientific Theory? : Not Anymore
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/09/28/is-the-inflationary-universe-a-scientific-theory-not-anymore/?sh=5a88f917b45e

It's the same for paper money. It's the same for ownership of any sort.
But off topic. — Banno

Sorry. I had just read an article about Bitcoin. Hence the discursive diversion off-topic. But what if it was actually a prologue to an on-topic post, that didn't actually exist -- until now?

So, the relevance to this thread is that Bitcoin is treated as-if it's a real thing, even though the "coins", and their ownership, only exist as notions in human minds. That raised the question in my mind about its actuality -- its reality. "As-if" is not real existence, but an ideal mode of being.

I had never heard of the philosophy of Actualism, but I suppose it's a variant of Realism, and opposed to Idealism. So, I wondered if Potential money had any meaning in that philosophy. Aristotle made a distinction between Actual and Potential, but treated Potential as-if it's a potent force in the real world. Perhaps Potential exists only as a Possibility or Probability. And it would be easy to dismiss such non-existing non-actual things as equivalent to Nothing. Like Bitcoin, statistical Probability does not exist, until actualized. Yet, it's a useful & meaningful concept for those of us who are not Actualists. :smile:

OP --- "argument for existence :
1. Things (God and/or matter) either always existed or spontaneously emerged.
2. Therefore there is no Cause either way."

According to cosmologists, our space-time world did not exist, as such, prior to the Big Bang Prime Cause. But, as OP noted, logically Something must have existed, unless Spontaneous Generation is a real thing. Some call that necessary Actualizer "God" (i.e. eternal Mind), while others call it "Multiverse" (i.e. eternal Matter). The M'verse theory assumes that Matter actually existed forever, while the God theory supposes, as an axiom, that the divine Potential for our world existed eternally before the Causal act of creation. Therefore, we have a choice between an Actual material Cause and a Potential mental Cause. Hence, there must a Cause either way. No?

Per Actualism : "to be is to exist, and to exist is to be actual"
So, in what sense can God or M'verse be said to exist? If they are not here & now, are they Nothing? A mere figment of imagination? Or the potent Cause of all actual things? . . . . Why is there something? Because there was always the Potential for something. :cool:

Actualists suppose that everything that exists is actual. — Banno

That's an interesting philosophical concept. For example, in what sense is Bitcoin actual? Perhaps it becomes actualized when a coin miner cashes-in the current value of his imaginary coins. Until then though, the bitcoin "money" exists only in the form of abstract information (data) on a worldwide distributed network of mindless & soulless computers. Therefore, until actualized, Bitcoin has only Potential value. To sell your coins you must make the buyer believe that it has actual cash value. So, in what sense is your belief in the value of your abstract coins reality based? Is Bitcoin Something or Nothing? Actual or Notional? Real or Imaginary? :chin:

PS___Many years ago, my brother was convinced that the US should return to the Gold Standard, based on a similar notion : that only actual (physical) money is real. Anything else is fake-money, non-existent, like "vaporware". But, even the currency value of Gold -- beyond its intrinsic value as an industrial metal -- is based on Faith in an emotional system of human beliefs & values. Reportedly, Trump was also in favor of the Gold Standard. Perhaps, that's because it is tangible, and appeals to the physical senses with its glimmer & heft. Also, because he wouldn't have to place his faith in the integrity of fellow humans -- some of whom may be grifters & con-men, or Mexicans. Another hypothetical, if Trump became dictator of the US. he might prefer "fiat" currency, In that case, its value would be whatever he dictated by fiat. :joke:

Bitcoin : Like fiat currencies, Bitcoin is not backed by any physical commodity or precious metal.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitcoin
Note : which is better : fiat or faith? Command or cooperation?

Vaporware : software or hardware that has been advertised but is not yet available to buy, either because it is only a concept or because it is still being written or designed.

Fiat :
1 : a command or act of will that creates something without or as if without further effort According to the Bible, the world was created by fiat. 2 : an authoritative determination : dictate a fiat of conscience. 3 : an authoritative or arbitrary order : decree government by fiat.

THE VALUE OF MONEY