A brain does not perceive itself to be a brain. — 180 Proof

That's true. A brain doesn't have internal sense organs to make a physical sense of itself (neuronal pattern). But it does have a mind, to create a self-image, which is our meta-physical sense of self. Douglas Hofstadter refers to that internal feedback as a "strange loop". :cool:


I Am a Strange Loop :
Strange Loop says that each of us is a point of view, and one's perspective – indeed our most intimate subjectivity – can exist in other substrates, outside of the brain. No, Hofstadter hasn't gone mystical, religious, or superstitious; but he has pushed the boundaries of science by thinking poetically.
Book by Douglas Hofstadter
https://philosophynow.org/issues/78/I_Am_A_Strange_Loop_by_Douglas_Hofstadter

A strange loop is a cyclic structure that goes through several levels in a hierarchical system. It arises when, by moving only upwards or downwards through the system, one finds oneself back where one started. Strange loops may involve self-reference and paradox.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strange_loop

:up: Convenient fiction? — TheMadFool

Yes. Without that fictional Self, we would not know where we fit into the story of Life. We are the stars of our own show, playing in the Cartesian Theater. :smile:

Is everything we need to know about an effect already present in the cause? — Joshs

In theory, that may be the case. But in reality, there may be multiple causes for a single effect. In my information-based personal paradigm, I call the power of causation "EnFormAction". It's the cause of all changes in the world, both physical and mental. That general power to cause change (to enform) is also the source of all meaning (need to know) for our bodies and minds. It's analogous to both Energy and Willpower. Anything else you need to know? :smile:

The EnFormAction Hypothesis :
http://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page23.html

Yes, the relationship between the construct of the self and the 'I' is not straightforward. It does seem to be an aspect of awareness arising in brain consciousness, but the 'I' is not simply the brain. The concept of I is probably used in different ways but the elusive sense of I is likely to have given rise to the idea of 'the ghost in the machine'. — Jack Cummins

Apparently, you think of "I" as something different from the psychological Ego, or Self-Consciousness. I agree that the Self-image is not simply the physical brain. But it is an imaginary creation of the brain. That's why I place the Self under the categorical heading of Meta-Physical. But I don't view it as a Soul or Ghost that can run around outside the body-brain complex. The link below is a discussion of Terrence Deacon and Jeremy Sherman's notion of Causal Absence and human Agency to explain the sense of an immaterial Ghost in a biological Machine.. :smile:


The Ghost in the Organism :
So Sherman chose to expand upon the allied notions of "Selves" and "Aims" as meta-physical agents in physical reality.
http://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page20.html

Some say that we have a change when a thing has a property at one time that it does not have at another. However, that either doesn’t tell us what change in itself is - it just tells us when we typically recognize there to have been a change - or it is a circular and so tells us nothing. For it appeals to a change in temporal properties. — Bartricks

Change is the effect of a Cause. And we detect Change in the same way know Meaning ; by measuring the Difference in form : Information. By comparing prior Form to latter Form we infer the Cause of the Change. And my name for the cause of all change in the world is EnFormAction, which is analogous to Energy. So, Change is Transformation. That may not answer your question, but it may give you something to think about. :smile:

What is EnFormAction? :
http://bothandblog2.enformationism.info/page29.html

I wonder why does each of have an 'I' as an aspect of consciousness, or self consciousness? Are human beings the only living beings with a sense of 'I'? — Jack Cummins

FWIW, here's my take on the self-concept, from the perspective of Enformationism theory. The Self is not a Real thing, in the sense of a ghost, but it is an Ideal concept. As such, it is as useful as your mental model of the Real World, which according to Kant is not the ding an sich. We can't ask animals if they have a sense of self, but like humans, they act as-if they do. :cool:


Self/Soul :
The brain can create the image of a fictional person (the Self) to represent its own perspective in dealings with other things and persons.
1. This imaginary Me is a low-resolution construct abstracted from the complex web of inter-relationships that actually form the human body, brain, mind, DNA, and social networks in the context of a vast universe.
2. In the Enformationism worldview, only G*D could know yourself objectively in complete detail as the mathematical definition of You. That formula is equivalent to your Self/Soul.
3. Because of the fanciful & magical connotations of the traditional definition for "Soul" (e.g. ghosts), Enformationism prefers the more practical term "Self".
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page18.html

Animal self consciousness :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_consciousness

I didn't realize the question of whether or not a field is physical remains contested by some of the most accomplished Ph.d's in the world! — Enrique

Those phd's do indeed treat their mathematical fields as-if they are real. But they are "physical" only in the sense that physicists use those statistical models to predict physical behavior. But the ideal points that represent particles are mathematically defined, not detected empirically. So, those hypothetical fields are not "contested" any more than "virtual particles" are contested. But, if you will Google "are quantum fields real?" you will see that some thinkers still worry that ideal "mental constructs", while theoretically useful, are not actually real things, hence un-verifiable and un-falsifiable. Empirical scientists and theoretical philosophers tend to have different standards for what is Real (material), and what is Ideal (mental).. :nerd:

Fields are an excellent model for a large number of phenomena, and provide excellent predictive power. However, models don't equate to reality.
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/47q8uf/are_fields_real_or_just_a_mathematical_tool/

Fields are virtual mathematical models within another mathematical model :
https://www.quora.com/If-the-quantum-field-is-not-composed-of-particles-what-is-the-field-made-of

Looking at it from my realist perspective, I think organic bodies are probably infused with nonelectromagnetic substances that instrumentation has not yet been designed to register. — Enrique

Is that "infusion" another kind of physical field or a "nonelectromagnetic" mental "field"? Mental (mathematical) fields can't be detected with EM instruments. But they can be inferred by rational methods. BTW, if the EM field of a brain constitutes the mind, according to CEMI theory, does the EM field of the heart also produce a mind? Some fringe scientists believe so, and propose heart-brain coherence as a therapy. That may be possible, but it's not a mainstream idea. :cool:

. With an electrical component about 60 times greater and an electromagnetic energy field 5000 times greater than the brain’s, the heart has a significant influence on the body down to the cellular level.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/building-the-habit-hero/202011/the-hearts-electromagnetic-field-is-your-superpower

I also think phenomena akin to a morphogenetic field exist, — Enrique

The general notion of a morphogenetic field (MGF) makes sense to me. But, like other Mental fields, it remains undetectable by conventional electromagnetic methods. For my philosophical purposes, I simply place the MGF under the broad heading of an Information Field : not physically detectable, but rationally inferable. However, I don't mean that Reason is a form of ESP, in a paranormal sense.. :wink:

Absence as causal factor is a powerful idea. — Enrique

I agree. :smile:
What Is The Power of Absence? :
http://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page33.html

You might notice that the question was put in respect of a claim by a computer scientist that information is physical. — Wayfarer

I'm late to the party, and I may have replied a year or so ago. But FWIW, I'll add my two-cents worth to the Reification of Information question. My Enformationism thesis is based on the concept that Information is both Physical and Meta-physical ; both Material and Mental. To see both sides of the Information coin though, you have to look through two different Frames with different assumptions : Scientific and Philosophical.

Basically, Information is physical in the sense that Energy is physical : it's the power to cause change of form (E=MC^2). But Information is also meta-physical in that it is the abstract knowledge content of a Mind (i.e. meaning). The link below is my personal answer to some what-and-how Consciousness questions on this very forum. :smile:

What is Information? :
Is Information Physical or Metaphysical? . . . or both
http://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page16.html

What I've discussed so far seems to be based on electromagnetism. . . . . Consciousness explained? — Enrique

Electro-Magnetism is just one of many ghostly field theories : e.g. Classical, Quantum, Statistical, Gravitational. So what qualifies photon or electron dynamics to produce Consciousness? Do they have some Mental Property that is expressed as Awareness and Self-Consiousness only a high levels of complexity and concentration? Is that latent power a physical or meta-physical property? The inherent "mental property" in physics is what I call "EnFormAction" (causal Information). :chin:

By the way, I gave that book by Deacon a look, seems epic! My first impression is that his concept of absentia simply refers to the predictive capabilities in different arrays of matter and won't provide a unified framework of formal/final causality, but he could have evidence that disproves my intuitions. No doubt an awesome read! — Enrique

I was impressed by Deacon's insights & explanations, and have incorporated some of his ideas & analogies in my blog posts. For example, I refer to Causation in the real world (Energy) as a product of the "power to create novelty". Which is what I also call EnFormAction. :smile:


The Causal Power of Absence :
EnFormAction is not a physical force, pushing objects around. It’s more like Gravity and Strange Attractors of Physics that “pull” stuff toward them. It is in effect a Teleological Attractor. How that “spooky action at a distance” works may be best explained by Terrence Deacon’s definition of “Absence”.
http://bothandblog2.enformationism.info/page29.html

What Is The Power of Absence? :
Deacon says that Absence is “a defining property of life and mind”. Like the nameless Tao, it’s a way, not a wayfarer, it’s a channel, not the flowing water.
The notion of efficacious Absence is counter-intuitive, so it requires a lot of explanation and examples : Absence is like the emptiness of a cup that is able to contain & constrain coffee for the purpose of drinking. Potential is not real, but the power to realize.
Absence is like the “Strange Attractors” of physics, that act as-if they had a gravitational pull to cause things to move toward an empty point in space. By analogy with the physical law of Thermodynamics, think of it as Cold, the absence of Heat.
http://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page33.html

The Ghost in the Organism :
he developed a theory of "Autogens" to explain how Life and Mind could emerge from lifeless & mindless matter, without any divine intervention.
http://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page20.html

and I am hesitant to express this thought because it may sound misleading but I am talking about “panpsychism,” . . . .
I didn’t mean to sound preachy here. I am just expressing my views of Christ and how I see the world through my own eyes. — TheQuestion

Please don't worry about expressing non-mainstream views on this forum. That's what it's here for. But you can expect some negative feedback, along with the positive. Just let it roll off like water off a freshly waxed duck's derriere. :joke:

I doubt that Jesus was a PanPsychist (all is mind) or PanTheist (all is god), but he was in favor of Monotheism (my god for all men). However in recent years, many philosophically-inclined people have adopted some kind of PanPsychism paradigm. But that worldview pictures amoral Nature as the deity. The impartiality of Nature may seem ideal to some, who are tired of conflicts between "chosen people". But I think a more reasonable god-model would be the Logos, which was characterized by harmony & balance, instead of just an indifferent laissez faire deity.

So my hypothetical non-denominational First Cause is best described as PanEnDeistic ( all-in-god). This is still a nature-god, but one that is infinite & eternal, hence encompassing not just our little selfish world, but all possible worlds. Such a deity cannot be expected to answer partisan prayers, but will treat all creatures impartially, and allow them to develop according their natural and cultural talents. :cool:


Trump’s Top Pastor Delivers What May Be The Most Partisan Prayer In Convention History :
https://archive.thinkprogress.org/trumps-top-pastor-delivers-what-may-be-the-most-partisan-prayer-in-convention-history-6dbfab3552dc/

For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; 4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth,” (1 Tim. 2:3-4).
Does this verse prove that God will save all people? No, it simply states that God “will have all men to be saved.” The word “will” in Greek is “thelo.” It means “will” (1 Cor. 7:36), or “desire” (Mark 9:35; Phil. 4:17). God desires that all people be saved. But, not all people will be saved.
https://carm.org/universalism/1-tim-24-2-pet-39-and-universalism/

Alongside top-down dictatorships like Russia and China, we end up with bottom-up dictatorships, instigated by the jungle of social media, wherein the loudest beasts attract followers and in time rule. Can informed Democracy survive? — Tim3003

Ancient philosophers warned against the pitfalls of Democracy ("popular rule" ; "mob rule"). Over the millennia since, people have experimented with variations on bottom-up rule, and have gradually weeded-out some of its weak points. The US Constitution was a major milestone in limiting the dangers of "tyranny of the majority" along with "tyranny of the few".

Many of the pioneers of the Internet envisioned it as an ideal format for Direct Democracy with no rules, just freedom to express the art of humanity without censorship. Ironically, that unbridled freedom has resulted in exactly the social problems that Plato predicted : "mass ignorance" (Twitter) ; "hysteria" (viral conspiracy theories) ; and "tyranny" (social media bullying). Unfortunately, proponents of Web 3.0 seem to focus more on technical improvements than moral & social considerations. Nevertheless, the wild-west freedom of the early internet has been partly & inconsistently tamed by the introduction of civilized laws (rule by rational rules, not reigning rulers). Maybe we need a formal Constitution for the Internet.

Until natural evolution has time to breed rational & civilized traits into brutish internet barbarians though, we'll just have to muddle along with cultural patches & temporary fixes. You might call the desired development : survival of the nice-est. :smile:


"Plato uses The Republic to deliver a damning critique of democracy that renders it conducive to mass ignorance, hysteria, and ultimately tyranny."
https://medium.com/the-philosophers-stone/why-plato-hated-democracy-3221e7dcd96e

Web 3.0 :
https://blockgeeks.com/guides/web-3-0/

Maybe I am just an odd person with odd perspectives but when I research thermodynamics and biblical scripture and articles of cosmology. I see the logic behind there being a God. — TheQuestion

I too see a role for "a God" when I contemplate the logic of our physical world. Unfortunately, it's not the God-of-the-Bible that I learned about in my religious upbringing. After the age of reason, my own skeptical review of the "Holy Book" led me to doubt that it is the word of God. Ironically, it was my education in Science that eventually convinced me that the ancient Greeks were correct in their conclusion, that a First Cause is logically necessary to explain "why there is something rather than nothing". But the humanoid deity of most popular religions -- while useful for tribal cohesion -- is a poor model for a Cosmic Creator. On the other hand, the philosophical thinkers of most world religions have agreed, in general, on a creative Principle, that is not subject to the emotional outbursts of a sky-king with a fragile ego. Blaise Pascal dismissively called such an abstraction "the god of philosophers", which paled in comparison to "the God of Faith".

Some examples of philosophical god-concepts are : Greek Logos, Hindu Brahman, Chinese Tao, and the Jewish Alpha & Omega. These all are attempts to explain the existence of a Real Temporal & Spatial world in view of the Ideal concept of Eternity & Infinity. Most of them see signs of ideal Cosmic Order, within an imperfect & dissipative reality. Even modern Science acknowledges that, despite the ravages of Entropy, the world is organized in such a way that human reason can understand it. And even atheist scientists reluctantly use the ancient notion of divine "Laws" in reference to the orderly principles of Nature that make their pragmatic purposes possible.

These rational god-models may not be as emotionally satisfying as the notion of a super-hero who will save the world. But, they allow reasonable people to label the logical patterns of Nature, upon which they depend in order to survive and thrive, amid randomness & uncertainty. That's not an irrefutable Faith, but it is a reasonable Foundation upon which to build a positive outlook and a successful life. :smile:


G*D :
An ambiguous spelling of the common name for a supernatural deity. The Enformationism thesis is based upon an unprovable axiom that our world is an idea in the mind of G*D. This eternal deity is not imagined in a physical human body, but in a meta-physical mathematical form, equivalent to LOGOS. Other names : ALL, BEING, Creator, Enformer, MIND, Nature, Reason, Source, Programmer. The eternal Whole of which all temporal things are a part is not to be feared or worshipped, but appreciated like Nature.

I refer to the logically necessary and philosophically essential First & Final Cause as G*D, rather than merely "X" the Unknown, partly out of respect. That’s because the ancients were not stupid, to infer purposeful agencies, but merely shooting in the dark. We now understand the "How" of Nature much better, but not the "Why". That inscrutable agent of Entention is what I mean by G*D.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page13.html

I'm not much of a propheteer either lol I'll just say I think specialized AI, algorithms programmed for specific analytical tasks, are an invaluable tool, but I'm quite frankly afraid of generalized AI, — Enrique

In the article noted in my previous post, McFadden says : "Consciousness is a product of evolution and, as such, it has a role to play in our survival. What is that role? The most obvious answer may be the right one – we are aware because we then have the power to change our actions. Consciousness endows us with free will". Since human C evolved by the trial & error process of Evolution, perhaps Evolutionary Algorithms are our best bet for cultivating Awareness in artificial Minds.

But, if our AI/Robots someday become sentient, we'll be forced to treat them as equals, instead of slaves. And we'll have just as much reason to fear them, as we now fear our human peers. Hopefully, they will not be as omnipotent as apocalyptic movies portray. Maybe they will be just as conflicted & uncertain as their freewill-faking flesh & phlegm forebears. :joke:


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.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page13.html

CEMI (Conscious Electromagnetic Information) theory claims that synchronous neuron firing generates strong electromagnetic fields which build up such that even further neurons are activated via an amplifying feedback loop. Upon reaching a sufficiently robust level within relatively large regions of the brain, EM fields can graduate to CEMI fields, integrating brain matter into the substance of fully conscious awareness. . . .
The following is my similar "coherence field" theory: — Enrique

I had read Johnjoe McFadden's book, Quantum Information, several years ago. So, I was vaguely aware of CEMI before I came across this thread. However, I just found a PDF of an article by JJMcF, that I had set-aside on my PC desktop a few years ago. So, now I am better able to comment on his "CEMI theory", and on your "Coherence Field" concept. Both seem to be correlates of Tononi's "IIT theory", and assume that an essential feature of Consciousness is "coherence", unity, integration, feedback loops, interconnection, synchronicity, wholeness, and Monism. (i.e. single-mindedness).

So, we all seem to be on the same track for discovering, not just correlates-of-consciousness, but the essence-of-awareness (EOA). McFadden goes one step beyond neuronal rhythms to the EM field generated by the symphony of synapses. Tononi postulated that some kind of measuring device, a PHI meter, could verify the presence of awareness in a brain. And McFadden implies that something like a hospital EEG machine would detect Consciousness, if we knew how to interpret the signals. Likewise, Rupert Sheldrake theorized that Biological Life is characterized by a Morphogenetic (form creating) Field. Some quantum theorists assume that the Quantum Field is the fundamental Reality. Other researchers believe that all of those unifying physical fields are ultimately expressions of a universal meta-physical Mathematical Field. And that is getting closer to my personal postulation of an immaterial "Information Field", that I call Enformy or EnFormAction.

Unfortunately, a mental field is (currently) only detectable by a conscious Mind, not by a machine. So, Consciousness may never be as simple to verify as running an EEG or an MRI. I don't doubt that we can gain a deeper understanding of the mental feedback loop we call "Consciousness" by focusing on the Correlates our instruments reveal. Which may be one reason why direct Mind-Reading has been a Holy Grail for millennia. Yet, in the article linked below, JJMcF answers the question : Can the cemi theory account for telepathy? with "No, I’m afraid not. The em field outside the head is far too weak and it is highly unlikley that any other brain could detect it", :nerd:

The Conscious Electromagnetic Information (cemi) Field Theory :
"However, all electrical circuits – and that’s basically all neurones -- generate an associated
energy field, known as an electromagnetic field or em field. This field contains precisely the
same information as the circuitry that generated it."
"our brain is both the transmitter and the receiver of its own electromagnetic signals in a feedback loop"
"time: we can only have one idea in our head at a time."
"a single unified idea, or gestalt,"
"My hypothesis is that consciousness is the experience of information, from the inside."
"we are aware because we then have the power to change our actions. Consciousness endows us with free will."
https://johnjoemcfadden.co.uk/popular-science/consciousness/

Physical Fields as mental constructs :
https://www.quora.com/How-can-one-treat-electric-field-in-that-case-any-field-as-a-physical-entity-rather-than-a-mathematical-construct
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/193281/does-a-field-have-any-physical-meaning-or-significance
https://www.quantamagazine.org/the-mystery-at-the-heart-of-physics-that-only-math-can-solve-20210610/

The EnFormAction Hypothesis :
http://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page23.html

Maybe you watched my 'Energy' video… Let me know if the answer is in there. — PoeticUniverse

Sorry, I was distracted by the girl in the red dress. All that dancing energy. . . . :wink:

I suppose the answer to the QG mystery may lie in-between Qualia & Quanta. Unfortunately, I couldn't find my long-ago poem about "Skebleens" : the binding forces in between. But I did find this pathetic puerile poesy in the archives :

Quantum gravity hasn't been figured out yet, but isn't it then a wonder then how QM works so well? — PoeticUniverse

I'm just guessing. But perhaps the Quantum Gravity gap is simply a matter of scale. Quantum effects typically manifest only on the smallest scales. And gravity is so weak that its effects only become apparent on cosmic scales, such as the curvature of vast quantities of space. Gravity is general and diffuse, while sub-atomic forces are specific and focused. Particle colliders require massive energy inputs just to study local quantum scales, but that's trivial compared to the gravitational forces of non-local Black Holes. Apparently, we need to amp-up our instruments in order to study Quantum effects inside a ginormous gravity well. Could the QG mystery be that simple, and that monumental? :chin:

Black Hole :
You might expect the authors to celebrate, but they say they also feel let down. Had the calculation involved deep features of quantum gravity rather than a light dusting, it might have been even harder to pull off, but once that was accomplished, it would have illuminated those depths. . . . .
In some way or other, space-time itself seems to fall apart at a black hole, implying that space-time is not the root level of reality, but an emergent structure from something deeper. Although Einstein conceived of gravity as the geometry of space-time, his theory also entails the dissolution of space-time, which is ultimately why information can escape its gravitational prison.
https://www.quantamagazine.org/the-most-famous-paradox-in-physics-nears-its-end-20201029/

Physical "things" are material, specific, and subject to the laws of Thermodynamics, hence temporary and impermanent. But Meta-Physical Principles are rational concepts, general, universal, holistic, and ideal. So, only such non-things could possibly fit your unconditional answer to "why there is something?". — Gnomon

For my own interests, I will expand on that inherent limitation of Quantum Physics : it explains why things fall apart (Entropy), but not why they assemble into whole systems. QT does not account for "spooky" Gravity. Perhaps that's because G is not a Quanta, but a Qualia : not Physical, but Metaphysical. (am I barking up the wrong axis?)

The article below, by British physicist Julian Barbour, reveals that "There is nothing in the form of the laws of nature at the fundamental microscopic level that distinguishes a direction of time" (upward complexifying Evolution). Then, he notes that "Gravity presents many puzzles because it gives rise to “anti-thermodynamic” behavior: Under its influence, uniformly distributed matter tends to break up into clusters. As of now, no one knows how to describe this behavior using an entropy-type concept". That mysterious "clustering" behavior of matter is called by the negative-name of "Negentropy", attractive "Forces".

But, in my thesis, I call the positive aspect of Evolution : "Enformy". Previously, I had metaphorically compared it to the "strange attractor" force of Gravity. But I didn't think it was that simple. Now, I may have to rethink the Something that causes Things to gravitate into new things -- parts to become wholes -- elements to become systems. :chin:


The Mystery of Time’s Arrow :
anti-thermodynamic” behavior
https://nautil.us/issue/71/flow/the-mystery-of-times-arrow-rp

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

I am a man of faith but I can still consider myself as a skeptic on particular topics. — TheQuestion

Yes. The apostle Paul taught that -- in some cases and on some topics -- we should temper Faith with a touch of Skepticism :
"Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try [test] the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world" (I John 4:1).
He was not talking about Ghost Hunting, but of new trends in popular opinion : especially a packaged belief system. If someone tells you "this pill will open your eyes to true reality", it would be wise to examine the label for a list of ingredients before swallowing. For example, LSD & PCP may show you a psychedelic alternative reality, but an overdose might just expand your mind until it pops.

Unfortunately, like street drugs, most religious doctrines don't come with a warning label. On the surface, they may sound attractive, but inwardly they may be full of "false prophets' or "ravening wolves". So how can we "try" or "test" the bitter pills? Trustingly try it and see what happens? Or use our rational faculties to research the alleged contents? When, long after the age of reason, I did the research, I learned that the book I was taught to take on Faith, was full of false spirits (unverifiable facts) and ravening prophets (those who assure you of "things hoped for". :cool:


hallucinations, or sensations and images that seem real though they are not.
https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/drugfacts/hallucinogens

People will never be able to create a human outside the womb of an already existing human being. By the very nature of human beings (or other organisms). — Cartuna

Transhumanists are aware of the biological facts of life. But they have faith in human creativity and ingenuity. Since the essence of a baby human is encoded into a spiral of physical stuff in the form of digital mathematical symbols (abstract Information), scientists assume that they can also use chains of 1s & 0s to produce, first a thinking machine (AI), and eventually a living machine (AL). And they see no need to add a dollop of Magic or a soupçon of Spirit to the formula, in order to manufacture a living organism. I don't believe in Magic, but I do believe in the multiplied power of leveraged Information (knowledge).

The history of human technology is littered with confident "nevers" -- "Men will never fly" -- that nevertheless became routine "evers". So, while I realize the Holy Grail of man-made-life may be harder to achieve than the Trans-homo-sapienistas assume, I'm not certain enough of my predictive abilities to prophesy the long-range future of a Global Science Project. Human Culture usually finds a way to exceed the limits of Human Nature. Maybe they will,or maybe they won't, make artificial babies. But some visionaries will die trying. :smile:

The past, present, and future of artificial life :
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/frobt.2014.00008/full

PS___Giving them the benefit of the doubt, even if god-like scientists do avoid the pitfalls of Frankenstein --- to finally rejoice : "it's alive!" --- they will never be able to create something from nothing. :starstruck:

Nothing has infinite potentiality.
[Infinite potentiality = (God's) omnipotence!] — TheMadFool

Yes. That equation works, if you define "nothing" as "no-real-thing but all-ideal-possibilities". Of course, empirical scientists don't believe in Ideals, such as Plato's Forms. For example, pragmatic skeptics find "something-from-something" to be logical, and "nothing-comes-from-nothing" as a fact. And that's true in our imperfect real world. But philosophers are theorists, who are not bound by pragmatic reality. For example, Einstein could envision riding on a photon at light speed. So, just as we can imagine the concepts of Zero & Infinity --- which are never found in Reality, but are useful in the Ideal Realm of Mathematics --- the notions of unlimited Possibility and infinite Potential are serviceable only for hypothetical purposes. That's why we eventually have to make our liberal hypotheses conform to conservative reality.

Unfortunately, for those who expect their "omnipotent God" to intervene on their behalf in the Real World, that hypothetical hope can only be fulfilled in imagination, in the form of idealized Faith. Even Plato's ideal Forms lose their perfection when transformed into real Things. That's because there is a logical categorical barrier between Ideal and Real ; between Idealism and Realism. Ideals are perfect immaterial meta-physical models, while Reality is an imperfect physical system. So, just as the Map is not the Terrain, our possible mental models are not actual physical things. Each realm has its own set of rules & laws.

The Relative laws of physical Reality are derivatives of Thermodynamics : the fractional ratio between this & that, hot & cold, simple & complex. But the Holistic laws of meta-physical Ideality are logical : 1 or 0, all or nothing, and-or-not. So, there is no imperfect in-between. The Ideal Omnipotent God either is (ideally) or is not (really). Yet, that black & white logic doesn't apply in the fractal Real world, where things may approach infinite perfection, but never reach that impossible dream. Reality always remains asymptotic to its boundary (the imaginary line between Real & Ideal ; Finite & Infinite ; Defined Order & Undefined Chaos). Perhaps that's why Fractals always fade to black before reaching infinity --- no matter how far in-or-out you zoom. :cool:


FRACTAL ZOOM : animated link

https://www.storyblocks.com/video/stock/digital-animation-of-a-fractal-zoom-s_qr0t59wj7niomu1

We have no idea what's going on, do we? — TheMadFool

We philosophers are free to speculate from ignorance, because we practice Nescience (why?) instead of Science (what). :joke:

Then the question is what exactly is it that flows through the posited feedback loops? Unclear! — TheMadFool

From behind the speculating spectacles of Nescience, it's clear to me. It's all EnFormAction all the time. :nerd:

EnFormAction :
Metaphorically, it's the Will-power of G*D, which is the First Cause of everything in creation. Aquinas called the Omnipotence of God the "Primary Cause", so EFA is the general cause of everything in the world. Energy, Matter, Gravity, Life, Mind are secondary creative causes, each with limited application.
All are also forms of Information, the "difference that makes a difference". It works by directing causation from negative to positive, cold to hot, ignorance to knowledge. That's the basis of mathematical ratios (Greek "Logos", Latin "Ratio" = reason). A : B :: C : D. By interpreting those ratios we get meaning and reasons.
The concept of a river of causation running through the world in various streams has been interpreted in materialistic terms as Momentum, Impetus, Force, Energy, etc, and in spiritualistic idioms as Will, Love, Conatus, and so forth. EnFormAction is all of those.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html

It is the simplest, so there's really no more to go with it to keep it Fundamental. Its math may be messy, though. — PoeticUniverse

Some forum posters have asserted that the Cause of our world must be more complex than the Effect : e.g. an infinite array of multiverses. And in some cases that may seem to be true. For example, humans are still trying to create something (AI) that is at least as complex as a human. In speculation, it's possible that human culture will eventually create a race of robots that are equal-to or superior-to humanity.

But, I envision the "something" that created our complexifying universe as both more-than in Potential and less-than in Actual. For example, the math for computing the possibilities of Infinity (outside of space-time) is simple : just start at 1 and keep counting forever. But, if you start counting at 0 (zero), the first step is infinitely wide, and the math-machine just spins its wheels.

That's why I assume that the First Cause must be BothAnd. Both Infinity (all possibilities) and Zero (no thing). One of those possible powers is the god-like ability to lift itself with its own bootstraps : i.e. to be self-existent. But, an infinite Tower-of-Turtles is always missing something "fundamental" : a Foundation. So, for me, Aristotelian Potential is a necessary attribute of the Prime Cause. It may be "First" from our perspective in the gravity-well of space-time. But from the God's-eye-view of unlimited possibilities, it's a Forever Cause. :smile:

That our universe is somewhere in between perfect and the worst shows that there has to be a multiverse. Also, if there can be one universe then there can be more. — PoeticUniverse

The "argument from mediocrity" may be a reasonable statement. But, outside of our unique universe, it's unverifiable. so we'll never know if it's true. The infinite Potential of a Forever Cause, could very well include a Zillion Multiverses. But the only 'verse I know anything about is good ole GAIA. So I don't bog-down my mind by trying to do the math of Eternal Infinities. It's an unreal, meta-physical concept. More like Qualia than Quanta. Fun to speculate, but messy to calculate :wink:

Halt and Catch Fire :
a program command, such as dividing by zero, that will cause a computer to crash & burn.

Enfernity : my coinage of Spatially Infinite & Temporally Eternal

OMNIVERSE :

TURTLEVERSE :

So, Something had to ever be, it having no alternative, with no option not to be, with no opposite, and with no possibility of it coming from the impossible ‘Nothing’. The Something, then, is eternal, in that it is uncreated can never go away. It is Permanent as the Causeless Cause of what comes forth of it, which can only be temporaries. — PoeticUniverse

This description of the hypothetical First Cause of the Big Bang sounds like something I might write. It accurately outlines what I call : BEING ; Enformer ; LOGOS ; G*D ; etc. But we seem to differ in our opinions of exactly what that "Something" is, essentially.

In some of your retorts, you seem to imagine the Prime Cause as a Physical Thing -- like a cue ball -- while I lean toward a Meta-Physical Principle -- like Logos. Physical "things" are material, specific, and subject to the laws of Thermodynamics, hence temporary and impermanent. But Meta-Physical Principles are rational concepts, general, universal, holistic, and ideal. So, only such non-things could possibly fit your unconditional answer to "why there is something?".

Temporary physical things are Real & Embodied & Relative. But only the eternal essential creative power-to-embody could be "Permanent", and all those other Absolute adjectives. Unfortunately, such a non-thing (absolute Zero ; Infinity) cannot exist in the thermodynamic Real world, because it would then be subject to Entropy and extinguishment (heat death). Yet, in the Ideal world of human reason, unconditioned Universals are essential to understanding of relative Reality. :cool:

Metaphysics is a type of philosophy or study that uses broad concepts to help define reality and our understanding of it. ... Metaphysics might include the study of the nature of the human mind, the definition and meaning of existence, or the nature of space, time, and/or causality.
https://www.pbs.org/faithandreason/gengloss/metaph-body.html

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

PS___Did I misunderstand your position, or did you misinterpret mine? :chin:

So, Something had to ever be, it having no alternative, with no option not to be, with no opposite, and with no possibility of it coming from the impossible ‘Nothing’. The Something, then, is eternal, in that it is uncreated can never go away. It is Permanent as the Causeless Cause of what comes forth of it, which can only be temporaries. — PoeticUniverse

I agree that your logic is impeccable. Yet, intelligent people still disagree on the details of exactly what that essential "Something" is, Ontologically. Is it a material Thing like a self-organizing planet? Is it an immaterial Force like Chi? Or is it an immortal Wizard like The Great OZ behind the curtain? I have my own notions on the subject, but others may disagree, depending on their idiosyncratic worldview, or their communal mindset. :smile:

Sorry, one cannot diminish the Casmir effect by saying ""Spooky". — PoeticUniverse

Yes. But I wasn't referring to the Effect, which is an empirical observation. It's the Cause that's uncanny. For example, both Newton and Einstein were perplexed by the implicit "spooky action at a distance" of Gravity. That's because such a sucking force was not allowed in their realistic mechanistic paradigm, where a pushing force was transmitted by direct matter-to-matter contact. A come-hither pulling force smacked of witchcraft.

Einstein evaded that problem of Causal Agency by proposing the counter-intuitive notion of curved space-time. Which merely replaced one mystery with another. So, now the old materialistic paradigm has been replaced by the metaphor of matterless emptiness as an Aethereal substance. Ironically, he was the one who applied the scare-word "spooky" to "diminish" another concept that defies common sense. Yet, today most scientists have accommodated their professional worldviews to the experiment-baffling-randomness, and the non-local weirdness, and the wave-particle non-sense of Quantum Theory. In effect, they accept the strange empirical Effects, even as they rationalize even more occult theoretical Causes. :cool:



* We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances. . . .
* Gravity must be caused by an Agent acting constantly according to certain laws, but whether this Agent be material or immaterial I have left to the consideration of my readers. . . .
* I have explained the phenomena of the heavens and of our sea by the force of gravity, but I have not yet assigned a cause to gravity. . . ."
___Isaac Newton

* Einstein's general theory of relativity has an unusual answer to that question which will be explored in this spotlight text. In part, gravity is an illusion. In part, it is associated with a quantity called “curvature”. Overall, gravity is intimately connected with the geometry of space and time. . . .
* Albert Einstein said: “Recapitulating, we may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an ether. . .
* Albert Einstein famously said that quantum mechanics should allow two objects to affect each other's behaviour instantly across vast distances, something he dubbed “spooky action at a distance”
* “Quantum theory yields much, but it hardly brings us close to the Old One's secrets. I, in any case, am convinced He does not play dice with the universe.”.
* “God Integrates Empirically”
___Albert Einstein

threshold network complexities that divide the conscious from the unconscious; — TheMadFool

Perhaps, those complexities (uncertainties) don't really divide Consciousness neatly into Awareness & Nescience, but are merely a foggy phase in a continuum of sensation from rock to rocket scientist. :nerd:

Don't you think feedback loops defined in terms of just energy istoo broad a definition for consciousness? — TheMadFool

Of course. It was just a concrete metaphor for something meta-physical. :wink:

Information then underpins consciousness. I thought IIT was was designed specifically to divorce/delink information from consciousness. — TheMadFool

I suppose IIT was a reductive attempt to quantify a mushy quality that is otherwise hard to pin down. To arbitrarily divide a Platonic continuum, that has no natural joints to carve. In my view, Generic Information is at one end of the evolutionary hierarchy, and evolved Consciousness is at the other. No gaps in the chain of emergence. :nerd:

No, the virtuals can't become particles; they don't have the full quanta. — PoeticUniverse

So, they're not even real enough to be virtual??? :joke:

They as real although brief make for the Casmir effect. — PoeticUniverse

Sounds like "spooky action at a distance".
Like Gravity, Casimir "sucks". :joke:

The Casimir effect: a force from nothing :
https://physicsworld.com/a/the-casimir-effect-a-force-from-nothing/

Chaos Theory : The term 'Strange Attractor' is used to describe an attractor (a region or shape to which points are 'pulled' as the result of a certain process)
Note -- the "region" is in abstract Phase Space, not real State Space.

↪Gnomon
But I think the question remains. Why is quantum field theory, logic or statistical probabilities there? If we say the laws of math, logic and physics exist always in some sort of Platonic realm, where is this realm and why is it there instead of nothing. — Roger

One answer to such existential ontological questions is that, if anything exists now, something must have always existed. For Realists that bottomless Tower of Turtles is called the "Multiverse", more of the same forever. But a more philosophical answer is that the Potential for a new world must have always existed in the ideal realm of Possibility. And infinite Potential exists ("is there") because of Logical Necessity : being implies prior existence.

To materialists, such philosophical reasoning may sound like non-sense. Yet, for those who know that matter is subject to Entropy -- here today, gone tomorrow -- the timeless Source-of-Something must be immaterial, in some sense. For example, Claude Shannon defined his novel notion of Information as Negentropy (creative instead of destructive force or trend). Anyway, nothing come from nothing. And Matter comes from immaterial Energy : creative power.

And that's what Plato & Aristotle were referring to as the Ideal realm of Potential Forms, which are not Material, but Mental -- not Physical but Meta-Physical. Another Platonic term for a creative organizing power was LOGOS (the power of Reason). However, in my personal worldview, I use a modern concept to refer to the pre-space-time Potential for creating Real Things : Intentional Information (EnFormAction). Scientists sometimes speak of knowing the "Mind of God", when faced with that great unknown reservoir of not-yet-real reality. You can call it God, or G*D, or eternal Potential, or Logos. But wherever and whatever it is, that power-to-create-a-world-from-nothing is awesome. :smile:


“Stephen Hawking said that his quest is simply "trying to understand the mind of God".” ...

Negentropy is reverse entropy. It means things becoming more in order. By 'order' is meant organisation, structure and function: the opposite of randomness ...

What is EnFormAction? :
EnFormAction is not a physical force, pushing objects around. It’s more like Gravity and Strange Attractors of Physics that “pull” stuff toward them. It is in effect a Teleological Attractor. How that “spooky action at a distance” works may be best explained by Terrence Deacon’s definition of “Absence”.
http://bothandblog2.enformationism.info/page29.html

Logos :
In Enformationism, it is the driving force of Evolution, Logos is the cause of all organization, and of all meaningful patterns in the world. It’s not a physical force though, but a metaphysical cause that can only be perceived by Reason, not senses or instruments.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page14.html

"Skeptic" is define as a person inclined to question or doubt accepted opinions.
"Doubt" is define as a feeling of uncertainty or lack of conviction. — TheQuestion

Yes. As a young Agnostic I had doubts, instead of convictions, about my childhood religion. But now, as an elderly Skeptic, I am open to new evidence, but not bound by faith to accept un-verifiable beliefs. A Cynic doubts all beliefs of other ("stupid" ; "ignorant") people. So, my worldview is still growing and expanding, because like a shark, a philosophical Mind must keep swimming in order to survive. :joke:

Why is that something that must be/quantum field there? While it's possible there's no explanation possible, I think that to ever get a satisfying answer to the question "Why is there something rather than nothing?", we're going to have to address the possibility that there could have been "nothing", but now there is "something". — Roger

Quantum Field theory has been adopted as a metaphor for that which is not Real, but merely Potential, or logically Possible. The mathematical "points" in the field are described euphemistically as "Virtual" particles. In calculations, they are treated as-if real, even though they are only potential : not yet realized. The "nothing" that preceded the Big Bang Birth of our world may be compared to the un-real Statistical Probability of a mathematical Field. The field is characterized by Logic, but not Matter. :smile:

Are virtual particles Real ? :
Compared to actual particles — It is not. "Real particles" are better understood to be excitations of the underlying quantum fields.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particle
Note -- In QT, some external "excitation" or "perturbation", such as a Measurement or Choice triggers the transformation from Virtual to Actual, or Potential (hidden ; implicit) to Explicit.

Virtual :
(Computing) not physically existing as such but made by software to appear to do so.
___Oxford

No need for such consideration. The OP is talking about Buddhism being "realistic" in the popular, vernacular sense of "realistic", namely, "commonsensical", "practical". It's a catchy self-help term.
Hence my reply. — baker

OK. But who is doing the marketing : The Mad Men? Asian practitioners of Buddhism would be expected to evangelize their own "brand" of Buddhism. For example, Chinese immigrants in the 19th century were mostly religious instead of philosophical. So, the marketing of an obscure oriental Philosophy to Westerners seems to have begun with academic scholars, such as D.T Suzuki. His austere Zen variant may have been presented in "realistic" terms, in order to make it more acceptable to secularists, and less threatening to Christians. But the non-scholars were seldom so pragmatic. And acceptance of vague Buddhist notions in the US, first became widespread among Beatniks and New Age Hippies, looking for an alternative to stagnant Western religions. So, even in its self-help forms, it retained some religious trappings such as mantras & symbolic spiritual candles. :smile:

Buddhism Travels West :
Knowledge of Buddhism has come through three main channels: Western scholars; the work of philosophers, writers and artists; and the arrival of Asian immigrants who have brought various forms of Buddhism with them to Europe, North America and Australia.
https://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/buddhistworld/to-west.htm

D. T. Suzuki :
Note -- not a marketer of motorcycles. :wink:
https://www.britannica.com/biography/D-T-Suzuki

Because it is omnipresently aware, it has no need to learn in a way comparable to humanity's and certainly no need to write. . . . . so that as consciousness theory advances we might have to increasingly come to terms with a dimension of existence residing beyond the purview of information. — Enrique

In general, that sounds like a description of an ineffable god : immaterial, eternal, infinite, omniscient, etc. And such reasoning is how I came to conclude that a non-dimensional (un-measurable) Cosmic Enformer is necessary to explain why & how our 3D universe suddenly emerged from nowhere. That Creative Principle is indeed beyond the purview of our physical Science, but not inaccessible to philosophical reasoning. As a Meta-Physical (outside the contingent universe) entity, the Creator can only be understood in terms of Generic Information. :nerd:

Generic Information :
Information is Generic in the sense of generating all real things from a formless pool of possibility : the Ideal Platonic Forms.
http://bothandblog2.enformationism.info/page29.html

G*D :
An ambiguous spelling of the common name for a supernatural deity. The Enformationism thesis is based upon an unprovable axiom that our world is an idea in the mind of G*D. This eternal deity is not imagined in a physical human body, but in a meta-physical mathematical form, equivalent to Logos. Other names : ALL, BEING, Creator, Enformer, MIND, Nature, Reason, Source, Programmer. The eternal Whole of which all temporal things are a part is not to be feared or worshipped, but appreciated like Nature.

I refer to the logically necessary and philosophically essential First & Final Cause as G*D, rather than merely "X" the Unknown, partly out of respect. That’s because the ancients were not stupid, to infer purposeful agencies, but merely shooting in the dark. We now understand the "How" of Nature much better, but not the "Why". That inscrutable agent of Entention is what I mean by G*D.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page13.html

How is an infocentric, technocultural paradigm going to approach this in the advent that it proves vital to constructing an accurate model of the world and perhaps humanity's prospects? — Enrique

I suppose the next few generations will use the Information Paradigm in the same way humans have always incorporated a novel technical worldview : by making a Religion out of it. It seems to be human nature to worship or fear whatever is beyond common understanding. So, I'm not making any prophecies or promises. :smile:

Where do you draw the line? How can you tell the difference between an interconnectedness that's conscious and one that isn't? I guess such questions expose the weak spots in IIT. — TheMadFool

Well, there's no empirical test for consciousness, although IIT was intended to be a step in that direction. So, we draw the line via philosophical inference. We try to establish a baseline from observation of a hierarchy of intelligent behaviors. For example, scientists searching for signs of life or extra-terrestrial intelligence (ETI) make lists of criteria, based on our understanding of terran biology & psychology.

As I noted in the previous post, I look for indicators of feedback loops between inputs and outputs of energy. Life itself is one kind of loop, which makes use of the incoming energy, before it eventually returns the waste, in the form of entropy. And since Entropy has been equated by Shannon with Information, it's also a sign of minimal intelligence. Since we can't draw a hard line between Chimps & Dophins & Robots and Humans, we may have to give them the benefit of the doubt. And to assume that their behavior is consciously directed, with some minimal degree of Self-Consciousness. But the final arbiter may be feelings instead of reasons. :nerd:

What are internal information feedback loops? Are you talking about learning? — TheMadFool

Yes, the ability to learn, and to adapt behavior is a sign of Information loops, that use some of the incoming Information (EnFormAction) for the selfish*1 benefit of the organism. Atoms exchange energy and change electron orbits temporarily, but they show no signs of long-term learning. And yes, learning makes those entities somewhat unpredictable. Which is why psychology is not an exact science. :wink:

*1. Selfish, in the Dawkins sense

I'm about 90% confident we're not living in a computer simulation. — TheMadFool

I do sometimes use the metaphor of a Computer Simulation to describe how the origin and evolution of our world works, But, I don't take it literally. Gaia, as a self-regulating & self-improving system, works like a goal-driven program in some ways, but the processing is not limited to silicon logic gates. The Operating System was preset by initial conditions, while the Logic was encoded in natural laws, and Natural Selection serves as a high-level logic gate. :cool:

Programmer God :
A competent computer programmer doesn’t have to make frequent corrections to the operation of the program. Likewise, an omniscient Creator shouldn’t have to make special interventions in order to keep the world running properly. A world-wide flood would be a sign of gross incompetence.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page13.html

I suppose there's room enough in IIT for a lot of weird conclusions: crystals e.g. by virtue of the "interconnectedness" of their molecules/atoms and the worldwide website, for the same reason, should be considered conscious. — TheMadFool

Yes. That's why I spend a lot of time on this forum denying that my Enformationism worldview is Mystical or Magical in it's implications. Everything is indeed interconnected by causal links, but not all nodes are causes in themselves, or self-aware. Instead, there is a hierarchy of Enformation organization.

For example, even though I have concluded that EnFormAction is universal in its effects, that doesn't mean that atoms are conscious in the human sense. Atoms and crystals may be "sentient" in the primitive sense of action & reaction, cause & effect. But, in order for anything to be Self-Conscious, it must have internal information feed-back loops, that result in novel outputs & behaviors, instead of just direct pass-thru of energy.

Ironically, the typical human ape-mind seems to automatically jump to human-like intentional interpretations of natural events. For example, a book falling off a shelf, may be attributed to a mischievous ghost, instead of a breeze or gravity. Many people are also overly dramatic & imaginative. It's more interesting, when you hear hoof-beats in Houston, to look for exotic Zebras, instead of mundane Horses. :joke:

I know some get into the "rich" symbolic undertones of religion, but I'm pragmatic and not much mystical (though like most I do get inspired), so not what I think about. — Enrique

Me too. When I first started investigating the ubiquitous role of Information in the world, I tried to avoid using the "G" word to describe the logically necessary Enformer behind the Big Bang beginning. But, eventually I gave in to the fact that most cultures are generally agreed on a few essential properties of their "god" models, even as they diverge on specifics : primarily creation of the world, or Ground of Being. And philosophical deities -- such as Brahma, Tao, and Great Spirit -- are more like intellectual Principles than humanoid supermen.

So, I chose to spell the word "G*D" to indicate that it means something different to me, than to most religious believers. The primary distinction is that we no longer need to posit an intervening (meddling) deity to explain most mysteries of Reality. Modern science has provided more likely explanations of cause & effect. However, the First Cause remains unresolved by any of the natural forces in the universe.

On the other hand, what the ancients called "Nature Spirits", causing things to move and change, is better understood as the work of invisible Energy. But, the Enformationism thesis notes that the combination of Quantum and Information theories have concluded that Matter is a tangible form of Energy, and Energy is a causal form of Information. Or as I spell it : EnFormAction --- the power to cause change in form.

Another remaining unresolved question is how to explain the apparent direction of Evolution, from simple things to complex organisms, and from dumb rocks to smart-*ss humans. Where some scientists emphasize the role of Randomness in natural changes, I see that Natural Selection plays the role of preset Criteria (conditions ; values) in a program. So, I can't deny the inference of Intention that was imparted to the space-time world in the Initial Conditions. That's why I conclude that the Enformer was equivalent to a Programmer, who creates a plan with built-in Logic, and an ultimate goal or problem to solve.

Since I have no way of knowing the Mind of G*D, I don't presume to understand the Whys of Creation, or the Final Cause of evolution. Consequently, I have no reason to fear or worship that Ultimate Principle, as-if it was an emotionally volatile human personality. Besides, the creeds and rituals of most Religions are addressed primarily to human Passions (Desires & Fears), not to their evidence-based Reason. That's why Enformationism is not a religious theology, but a philosophical worldview. :smile:

I suppose you're referring to paradigm shifts and I see one on the horizon but not in my lifetime though. — TheMadFool

Me too! But, instead of laughing or crying, I try to stay ahead of the curve leading to a civil war in Philosophy and Science. The shift has already begun, and I chronicle some of its tectonic effects in my BothAnd blog. But Rome didn't fall in a day. So I expect the overthrow-of-authority to be long and messy. Although I advocate a Copernican Revolution --- from Materialism and Spiritualism to an Information-Centric worldview --- I don't want to be there when the shooting starts. :joke:


quote from TPF . . . .
Uniting CEMI and Coherence Field Theories of Consciousness :
"The Enformationism thesis is my amateur synopsis of another new paradigm : an "information theoretic" worldview. As one writer put it, this is another "Copernican Revolution" in perspective."
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/622840

Introduction to Enformationism :
http://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page80.html

That science has a role in addressing the significance for humanity of what we call God is an interesting proposal. — Enrique

Here's a blog post to address the notion of "The God of Science", from the perspective of the Enformationism thesis. :smile:

The G*D of Science :
Eternal External Causal Agent
http://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page29.html

Introduction to Enformationism :
From Form to Energy to Matter to Mind to Self
http://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page80.html

I agree with you that matter and mind arise from the same basic substance and knowledge in these domains is mutually reinforcing: they expand together. — Enrique

in my thesis that fundamental Substance is more like Energy than Matter. And it's equivalent to Aristotle's definition of abstract "substance" (Ousia), which is what we now call "Essence" or "Potential". For Kant, it was "ding an sich". Those were all logical conjectures, to explain the emergence of new forms from old fhings.

But now we have empirical evidence for the transformation of Energy into Matter and vice-versa. However, Energy is typically labeled "physical" because it can be measured in terms of its effects on matter. Yet, scientists still can't say exactly what Energy IS, essentially. What is energy made of?

So my definition places Energy under the heading of Meta-Physics. because we can never directly know the ding an sich. And even Energy is categorized under the General label of EnFormAction -- the power to Enform, to Cause, to Create. They all "expand" (evolve) together as a single monistic Substance. :nerd:

The Measure of MInd

Is the mind in what is understood, or in the way in which it understands? — Pantagruel

Both. Mind is not an object, but a subject; not a thing, but a process. Specifically, processing Meaning. And Meaning is a relationship to Me. What is understood is Memes : units (bytes) of meaning. And the way memes are understood is by connections to other memes (memeplexes ; concepts). So Mind is both the process (thinking),and the stuff processed (data), plus the output (thoughts, meanings, consciousness). So, just as Mind (process) without Brain (processor) is useless, What without the Way is sterile. One without the Other is meaningless. It takes two to tango ; to understand. to know.

Integrated Information Theory (IIT) is an attempt to measure the Mind in terms of Wholeness (Phi). It adds-up the unit parts and computes the degree of interconnectedness. That holistic function of the Brain/Mind complex is Consciousness : the ability to extract personal meaning from inputs of data from the environment. It converts concrete Quanta (physical sensations) into abstract Qualia (meta-physical feelings).

Unfortunately, the Real physical stuff is easy to measure, but to measure the Ideal abstractions would require direct mind-reading. IOW, You would have to be Me. So, at this point in time, the only technology for knowing the world through someone else's eyes, is the old-fashioned method of converting mental abstractions (ideas, concepts) into material metaphors (words, memes). And in order to understand those memes, You would have to imagine what it's like to be Me. Which, as social animals, we do intuitively all the time.

However, Psychology is a formal attempt to rationally reduce those ethereal personal thoughts into realistic generalized meanings that we can all share. It converts private feelings into public symbols of common emotional states. So, it seems that the only way to measure a mind is to transform its hidden contents into conventional representations that all members of our verbal species can relate to. To Under-Stand is to put Your-Self in My position. :cool:

What is it like to be Me? :
Nagel believes reductionism is the most unlikely of all the current philosophical beliefs to shed life on consciousness.
http://www.esalq.usp.br/lepse/imgs/conteudo_thumb/mini/What-is-it-like-to-be-a-bat--2-.pdf

But "it from bit", which he claims as reduction to a "yes and no" interrogation of existence seems manifestly superficial and even pernicious. — Enrique

As I see it, the existential impact of 21st century Science is 1> to reopen the God-question, that was a closed book since the Enlightenment rejection of biblical authority, 2> to reassess the role of Consciousness in a world of thinking machines, and 3> to undermine the classical physics of Atomism & Materialism. First, the Big Bang theory slammed the door on assumptions of a self-existent world, with no role for a Creator. Then, Information theory called into question the role of humanity as the dominant thinkers of the world. And finally, the replacement of material particles with ethereal Quantum Fields, as the fundamental substance of Reality, pulls the rug from under the classical Physical paradigm of "what you see is all there is".

I'm not sure what you mean by "it from bit" reduces existence to "yes or no". In my view, it expands the 21st century paradigm of science to include all-of-the-above. By that I mean, shape-shifting Information (Potential) is the essence of Matter & Mind & Energy. It's both Physical (Matter, Energy) and Meta-Physical (Mind). In what sense is the notion that real Matter (IT) is derived from essential Information (BIT), "superficial and pernicious"? It may be harmful to outdated scientific paradigms, but it should be beneficial for constructing new models of Reality. For many of us, nineteenth century Materialism is much more appealing to common-sense. But, philosophers & scientists need to go beyond common-knowledge. and learn to adapt their Darwinian ape-sense to fit the counter-intuitive "facts" of post-Quantum science. :smile:

How is a philosophy of information theory going to be integrated into cultural evolution as the predominant paradigm while meeting these challenges? Perhaps you can give this some informed thought. — Enrique

I have given it some considerable thought. And my Enformationism website was a first step in the direction of constructing a new paradigm upon the ashes of the old. But I'm not the only one involved in this Copernican Revolution. The webpage and the blog have links to many books and organizations that are on the forefront of this emerging worldview. However, I don't expect my puny personal efforts to have much impact on cultural evolution. Only if & when these new ideas catch-on among philosophers and scientists though, will it have a chance for widespread effects around the world.

Enformationism website :
http://enformationism.info/enformationism.info/

What to do about all of this? — Enrique

First educate yourself. Then spread the word. Then do what you can do. Unfortunately, at the moment, this is an abstruse intellectual worldview, and it will take time for it to trickle-down, so to speak, to the common folk. And I don't expect to live to see Materialsm and Spiritualism replaced by Enformationism. :cool: .