It is thought that two photons colliding can produce an electron and a positron, if this is what you mean by them slowing down, and this is under study. Photons don't decay on their own, which is why they will be left at the end of the universe. Also, "barely physical" is still physical.
I see that you have Mind's information operating a photon. — PoeticUniverse

It is imagined that two photons colliding is like a standing wave in a continuous Field of mathematical "substance". No one has ever observed such a collision of massless particles, they only see it's effects on massive matter as tracks in a fog chamber. Anyway, it's that hypothetical "standing wave" that I refer to as stable Matter. But, as I imagine it, the wavey Field of Energy (the power to Enform) exists only in the Mind of the Enformer (the Operator), who is able to transform nothing (or near nothing) into something. :smile:

PS__A massless Photon at rest (energy & momentum but no mass) qualifies as Meta-Physical in my usage of the term -- Potential but not Actual. No mass, no matter. It's a metaphor for a particle.

The Enformer :
AKA, the Creator. The presumed eternal source of all information, as encoded in the Big Bang Sing-ularity. That ability to convert conceptual Forms into actual Things, to transform infinite possibilities into finite actualities, and to create space & time, matter & energy from essentially no-thing is called the power of EnFormAction. Due to our ignorance of anything beyond space-time though, the postulated enforming agent remains undefined. I simply label it ambiguously as "G*D".
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html

It may seem that an idea is definitely non-physical and yet causal (this is Descartes' problem). As Spinoza, solving this problem, would have it, I think that physical and non-physical (mental) are not two substances, but two kinds of perspective or ways of thinking about (some) things. So we can look at ideas as being non-physical (mental, semantic and so on) or physical (neural). Insofar as ideas are physical (neural) then they can of course be causative. — Janus

I agree. I am not a Cartesian Dualist. but an Information Monist. :smile:

Information already has this monist/dualist BothAnd property, which could explain how metaphysical minds emerge from the functioning of material brains. It might also suggest how a physical universe could emerge from a mathematical Singularity consisting of nothing but the information for constructing a universe from scratch : a program for creation.
http://bothandblog.enformationism.info/page14.html

Like Spinoza's Pantheistic "God", Information appears to be the single substance of the whole World.
http://bothandblog2.enformationism.info/page29.html

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

You can define words any way you want. You can define a dog turd a large breed of poultry, but please don't invite me to Thanksgiving dinner at your house. — T Clark

Now, you're just getting nasty. So, I'll back-off the stinky word "Metaphysics", and present my aromatic turkey dinner in the form of Karl Popper's notion of non-falsifiable Worlds 2 &3 as noted in the reply to Janus below. Now, would you accept my invitation? :smile:

Physics --
World 1 : the realm of states and processes as typically studied by the natural sciences.
non-physical Meta-Physics --
World 2 : the realm of mental states and processes.
World 3 : the realm of the 'products of thought' when considered as objects in their own right.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popper%27s_three_worlds
Note -- as typically studied by the philosophical sciences

Karl Popper is generally regarded as one of the greatest philosophers of science of the twentieth century.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/popper/

PS___I don't know about you, but I'm learning a lot about this topic. But it's all in the form of Ideas and Information, not Physics.

Note that Popper thinks world 2 and 3 are emergent, not primordial; they are exclusively human phenomena for Popper. — Janus

Yes. Popper made the same kind of distinction that I am making to distinguish Meta-Physics (world 2 &3) from Physics (world 1). Even though they like to quote Popper's Falsifiability rule for unconscious physical World 1, they deny the "emergent human phenomena" of conscious minds, that mysteriously evolved from insentient matter by a hypothetical phase change that left a record in fossils in the form of a gap (insert unknown cause here). :smile:

World 1 : the realm of states and processes as typically studied by the natural sciences.
World 2 : the realm of mental states and processes.
World 3 : the realm of the 'products of thought' when considered as objects in their own right.

Photons are a good source of information in our macro world; light peels information off of an object for us to receive. — PoeticUniverse

Yes, but physical Photons are not the Information (meaning ; difference) itself. They are, like the 1s & 0s of computers, merely empty carriers of cargo (meaning). So, the physical Effects of photons are due to the non-physical contents, not the container. As a metaphor, imagine that an empty brass shell becomes a bomb when it is filled with potential energy. Besides, a Potential photon is barely physical, and it only becomes Actual when it slows down to "macro" speeds at which its potential condenses into Matter. So, the "source of Information" (meaning) is always a differentiating Mind of some kind. :cool:

Photons have no charge, no resting mass, and travel at the speed of light.
That's about as close to nothing as you can imagine. But modern physicists have become grudgingly resigned to treating nothingness as-if it is a physical (material) object. Photons, Fields, & Quarks would have been dismissed by Aristotle as Platonic Ideals. :nerd:

I think you're mistaken and have bought into the pop-science hype ofter promulgated by philosophically illiterate / negligent scientists and academic idealists and other latterday woo-woo sophists. — 180 Proof

You are mistaken, my friend. As I noted in my previous post, I don't do woo. So your prejudice against Metaphysics causes you to mis-interpret the meaning of my words. But that's OK. We'd have no use for philosophy if people didn't disagree on the applicable meaning of words in different contexts. But our good intentions keep us dialoging toward a meeting of minds. :cool:

Insofar as "information" has causal efficacy, it is physical (i.e. not "immaterial" or merely abstract/formal). — 180 Proof

From reply to above :
Metaphysical Causation : Ideas are abstractions and have no material form. But they can be Causal, as in the Aryan Myth that motivated millions of people to join in a world war, and a holocaust, with devastating physical effects. The ideas and Ideals of Jesus, an insignificant Jewish preacher, motivated millions of minds to convert the pagan Roman Empire into the Christian Church. Some insist that anything Real must interact with the physical world in some way. But they tend to ignore the mediation of minds in real-world Causation.

tell me succinctly, Gnomon, how "work" differs significantly from "change". — 180 Proof

Physical change is called "Work". Mental change is called "Information". In the human brain, Mental Work burns a lot of energy, even though the Brain does not change its physical form. The mental "difference" is in the abstract meaning of the Information. But hey, It's all the same to me : EnFormAction is transformation, which is Change, whether mental or physical. :smile:

The novel concept of Enformation is also a synthesis of both Energy and Information. So I invented a new portmanteu word to more precisely encapsulate that two-in-one meaning : “EnFormAction”. In this case though, the neologism contains three parts : “En” for Energy, “Form” for Shape or Structure or Design, and “Action” for Change or Causation. But Energy & Causation are basically the same thing.
http://bothandblog2.enformationism.info/page29.html

"Doing work" and "change ... both physical and mental" is, in my mind, a distinction without a difference. — 180 Proof

In my world, there are physical differences (ratios ; numerical values) and there are mental distinctions (meanings ; reasons). But your worldview doesn't seem to have a place for a Meta-physical Mind. So, you look for physical analogues to such "nonsense" (woo) notions as : Betrayal, Charity, Courage, Cowardice, Cruelty, Forgiveness, Truth, Love, Anger, Fear, Grief, Happiness, Jealously, Sympathy, Insanity, Knowledge, Wisdom, Right/Wrong, Duty, Fame, Justice, Liberty, Friendship, Greed, Innocence, Rules, Social Norm, and Religion. If they are not physical, they don't exist, hence have no importance to a "Physicalist Mind" (an oxymoron) :joke:

In philosophy, physicalism is the metaphysical thesis that "everything is physical"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physicalism

Information :
Knowledge and the ability to know. It’s also what you know. But technically, it's the ratio of order to disorder, of positive to negative, of knowledge to ignorance. It's measured in degrees of uncertainty. Those ratios are also called "differences". So Gregory Bateson defined Information as "the difference that makes a difference". The latter distinction refers to "value" or "meaning". Babbage called his prototype computer a "difference engine". Difference is the cause or agent of Change. In Physics it’s called "Thermo-dynamics" or "Energy". In Sociology it’s called "Conflict".
http://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page16.html




The BothAnd principle is a corollary of the Enformationism thesis. It views the world as a process motivated and guided by antagonistic-yet-complementary powers. For example, Energy is the motive force for all physical actions, but it is offset & moderated by the, less well known, antithetical force of Enformy in the great dialectical process of evolution. The overall effect of energy in the universe is destructive, as encapsulated in the concept of Entropy. Yet, by balancing destructive Entropy with constructive Enformy, evolution has proven to be a creative process. However, since the existence of Enformy has not yet been accepted by mainstream science --- except in the crude concept of “negentropy” --- any worldview based on such a flimsy foundation is likely to be dismissed by either/or empiricists as a bunch of Woo. Yet, all scientific & philosophical speculation inevitably begins with a leap of imagination. And this hybrid world-view is one such leap into the unknown.

Your idea of "meta-physics" may have value in philosophical discussions, but it isn't "metaphysics" as we normally use the word. We've been through all this before. I don't think we'll get anywhere going through it again. — T Clark

The topic of this "philosophical discussion" is "what IS metaphysics", not "what is the correct or conventional definition of an obsolete Aristotelian concept". We agreed earlier that your definition and mine are different. And that's OK. I'm not arguing over conventional usage of the term, but attempting to show that there is a different interpretation of Aristotle's usage, with a practical application to 21st century Reality.

If I insisted that mine is the correct definition, that would be the One Word One Meaning Fallacy. Instead, I am trying to show you a different-way-to-think-about-the-philosophical-concept of Metaphysics. If you have a problem with the neo-Greek word itself, ask yourself if there is something Non-Physical about our mutual Reality. If so, that's what I'm talking about. :smile:


Non-Physical : 2. not tangible or concrete ; 3. immaterial ; incorporeal.
Examples : digital money (cryptocurrency ; bitcoin) ; abstractions ; culture ;

How can something non-physical exist? :
The mind can conceive of objects that clearly have no physical counterpart. Such objects include concepts such as numbers, mathematical sets and functions, and philosophical relations and properties. If such objects are indeed entities, they are entities that exist only mind itself, not within space and time.

Metaphysical Causation : Ideas are abstractions and have no material form. But they can be Causal, as in the Aryan Myth that motivated millions of people to join in a world war, and a holocaust, with devastating physical effects. The ideas and Ideals of Jesus, an insignificant Jewish preacher, motivated millions of minds to convert the pagan Roman Empire into the Christian Church. Some insist that anything Real must interact with the physical world in some way. But they tend to ignore the mediation of minds in real-world Causation.

Gnomon: why do you post on a Philosophy (i.e. contra sophistry, pseudo-science, woo-of-the-gaps) website instead of a site dedicated to New Age (esoteric) "theories"? :eyes: :sparkle: — 180 Proof

Although there is "some overlap" between my worldview and New Age spirituality, I don't consider myself a New Ager. For me "Spirituality" is an outdated model of reality. But I don't cast aspersions on those who are motivated more by feelings than facts. They are free to interpret the world as they see fit. I don't practice any form of Western Esotericism, or Religion of any kind, for that matter. Yet, I do find some wisdom in both Eastern and Western Philosophy, that has stood the test of time, despite being sublimated under the communal rituals & mystical practices of popular religion, that appeal to the emotions instead of the intellect. I don't feel the need for such diversions & consolations from the raw reality of a world that seems indifferent to human needs & feelings. So, I don't burn incense at shrines, or recite mantras, or pray to any "higher beings". Consequently, the consilience between my worldview, and the traditional religions of the world, is in the ancient wisdom of rational thinkers (Philosophers), who tried to make sense of the world without the artificial sensory enhancements of modern science.

Unlike the ancient sages though, I do have access to the latest developments in science, and strive to reconcile my personal paradigm with current models of Physics, etc. And that's where a prominent role for Information comes in. I once read an article by a practicing physicist, who commented on the so-called "particles" of Quantum Physics with : "it's nothing but Information". So, I began to investigate the implications of that assertion, by asking "what then is Information?". From that study I learned that Atomism and Materialism are just as outmoded as Spiritualism. Pursuit of the holy grail of a fundamental Atom, has revealed that Physical Reality actually consists of various sensible forms of invisible immaterial Information (the power to create material things). You may think of that active force as Energy (E=MC^2), but I call it EnFormAction, because it is much more than just "the capacity for doing work". So my website and blog expand upon that basic capability-for-causing-machines-to-work, in order to show that EnFormAction is the Cause of all Change in the world, both Physical and Mental.

What I'm saying here is that you are mis-interpreting my rational Information-based philosophy in terms of something that you obviously despise : irrational Religion. Instead, it is the cutting-edge of Information-centric Science. Yet, like all novel paradigms of Reality, it will take time for this new worldview to percolate down through human society, until it seems just as natural as Spirituality to the ancients, and Materialism to moderns. Materialism began to die on the vine, in the early 20th century, at the advent of Quantum Theory and Information Theory. Yet, those powerful new ideas were at first resisted, even by such wise philosophers as Einstein. So, the time has come for a new paradigm that combines the best of Spiritualism & Materialism with a Quantum Foundation & Information Power. :nerd:


The German physicist Max Planck said that science advances one funeral at a time. Or more precisely: “A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.”
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-10-10/science-advances-one-funeral-at-a-time-the-latest-nobel-proves-it

Consilience : agreement between the approaches to a topic of different academic subjects, especially science and the humanities.



Information :
* Claude Shannon quantified Information not as useful ideas, but as a mathematical ratio between meaningful order (1) and meaningless disorder (0); between knowledge (1) and ignorance (0). So, that meaningful mind-stuff exists in the limbo-land of statistics, producing effects on reality while having no sensory physical properties. We know it exists ideally, only by detecting its effects in the real world.
* For humans, Information has the semantic quality of aboutness , that we interpret as meaning. In computer science though, Information is treated as meaningless, which makes its mathematical value more certain. It becomes meaningful only when a sentient Self interprets it as such.
* When spelled with an “I”, Information is a noun, referring to data & things. When spelled with an “E”, Enformation is a verb, referring to energy and processes.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page11.html

I've nothing to say about the content of any woo-of-the-gaps — 180 Proof

That's OK with me. So why are you "saying" whereof you know nothing? Why are you posting on a Philosophy Forum instead of a Science Forum? Do you feel a "calling" to cleanse errant philosophers from the error of the Metaphysical way, or the Way of the Buddha, or the Way of the TAO? You must find it frustrating that the freshly-washed pig returns to wallow in the mud. :joke:

That's part of it, until it becomes part of empirical investigation, then it's stops being called metaphysics. — Manuel

Exactly. But some un-named posters on The Philosophy Forum try to limit our discussions to "empirical investigation", which is Physics, not Metaphysics. They don't like to go beyond the edge of the conventional "Map of Reality" into the uncharted territory . :brow:

PS__Pure Reason is Philosophy. Practical Reason is Science. Since this is a philosophical forum, it is not limited to Practical Pragmatic reasoning. That's why we do a lot of "speaking" about a variety if "whereofs". :cool:

This proposes nothing but idle speculation aka "pure reason" (i.e. pseudo-science, woo-of-the-gaps). Caveat: Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent, no? — 180 Proof

Since you seem to know or care nothing of "pure reason", you should take your own advice. :joke:

PS__Pure Reason is Philosophy. Practical Reason is Science. Since this is a philosophical forum, it is not limited to Practical Pragmatic reasoning. That's why we do a lot of "speaking" about a variety of non-woo "whereofs". :cool:

Critique of Pure Reason :
Kant explains that by a "critique of pure reason" he means a critique "of the faculty of reason in general, in respect of all knowledge after which it may strive independently of all experience" and that he aims to reach a decision about "the possibility or impossibility of metaphysics."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critique_of_Pure_Reason

↪Gnomon
I admire your openness and the friendliness of your posts. But I'm afraid the idea of 'representations of reality' is much more associated with the British empiricists than with Aristotle. — Wayfarer

That may be true. But I am discussing the meaning of "metaphysics" from the perspective of my personal worldview, not that of Aristotle. I refer to the Greek Philosopher simply because he literally wrote the book on this topic. My interpretation includes scientific and philosophical knowledge that Ari did not have access to. "Representations of Reality" falls under the heading of Generic Information Theory, as defined in the Enformationism Thesis. :smile:

What is Information? :

Information is Generic in the sense of generating all forms from a formless pool of possibility : e.g. the Platonic Forms.

Reality is not what you see :
In other words, what we think we see, is not absolute reality but our own ideas about reality. Donald Hoffman calls those mental models “Icons”, serving as symbols that merely represent the unseen information processes within the computer system.

"Metaphysics arises from the mismatch between what we can experience given the creatures that we are, and the craving that we have for knowledge which we cannot fully attain."

In other words, the Absurd (re: Zapffe, Camus, Rosset). — 180 Proof

Not necessarily. When practiced by scientists and philosophers, Metaphysics is merely the extension of Reason into un-mapped territory, beyond current understanding, or beyond the scope of empirical evidence : e.g. essences. :nerd:

Absurd : wildly unreasonable, illogical, or inappropriate.

Metaphysics and logic are both concerned with all being (common material object), but under different aspects (proper formal object). The object of metaphysics is real being considered formally in its real quiddity, invested with real attributes. ... Logic is the science of the science of the real.
https://maritain.nd.edu/jmc/etext/logic-06.htm

Quiddity : the inherent nature or essence of someone or something.

Metaphysics then is the study of the models we create of reality, it doesn't seek empirical verification for it makes no empirical claims. — TheMadFool

That's a good summary. If you don't mind, I may add it to my blog post on Meta-Physics. :smile:

Post done :
http://bothandblog7.enformationism.info/page22.html

I'm not sure you and I are using "theory" the same way. I don't see a scientific theory, e.g. general relativity, as a metaphysical entity. Theories have truth value. For me, the scientific method is a metaphysical entity. Perhaps that includes the methods by which theories are developed and verified. I'll have to think about that. — T Clark

I started posting on this forum to discuss the big issues of Metaphysics, not the mundane details of Physics. But, in all too many threads, a stalled discussion turns to challenges of "what can you prove?", instead of "what is reasonable?" Metaphysics, in my opinion, is supposed to be focused on ideas that literally transcend the scope of empirical scientific methods, such as "what caused the Big Bang?" There is no way for us to know for sure about the time before Time, or a place outside of Space. As philosophers, all we can do is to make educated guesses, and then test them against the critical faculties of other educated guessers. The result will not be absolute Truth, but it may get us closer to truth.

Those educated guesses are what we call "Hypotheses", and when some guesses survive the scrutiny of peers, or lead to some replicable evidence, we may even call them "Theories". But even the best of our Theories, such as Thermodynamics and Evolution, are based on incomplete evidence. Hence, they are subject to falsification or revision in the future*1. Consequently, understanding the difference between Theory and Practice is essential to my understanding of Meta-Physics. A theory may-or-may-not have truth value, but only when it is put into practice will we know which. For example, Darwin's Theory of the Origin of Species has been tested and proven accurate regarding adaptation to a changing environment. But after two centuries, evidence for divergent speciation has been iffy. *2 Likewise, Quantum Theory violates many of our reasonable intuitions, yet some of the mathematical models can be proven in practice.*3 So, we are sometimes forced to accept facts that defy common sense. And we have to adapt our incomplete theories over time.*4

My point is that a Theory is a "metaphysical entity" --- a meme in a mind, not a thing in the real world. A bird is a physical thing, but a species of birds is a mental category. General concepts and Universal Properties are Meta-Physical, according to the same categorical distinction between a Mental Meme and a Physical Gene. A theory is a model or map, not the physical thing or terrain. That's why I think it's important to differentiate between meta-physical theories and physical testing, between metaphysical "methods" (Philosophy) and physical methods (Science). Unscientific conjectures, such as Multiverses & Many Worlds, cannot be verified empirically, because they go beyond the physical limits of the Real World, into the Ideal Realm of Meta-Physics. *5

To many posters on this forum though, the distinction between Physics and Metaphysics is like the post-enlightenment political division between rational methodical Science and irrational mythical Religion. But that's not what I mean when I use the hyphenated term "Meta-Physics". By that I simply refer to the same difference that Descartes formalized between a physical Brain and a metaphysical Mind. A material Brain can be studied empirically, while the immaterial Mind can only be studied metaphorically. That's why the Behaviorism trend in Psychology was so brief. They soon realized that documenting physical actions was not the same as verifying mental intentions. Their hypothetical inferences often depended on the personal subjective biases of the observer. So, their "verifications" consisted mainly of confirming bias. That's why both Scientific and Philosophical models are subject to Peer Review. Only by comparing the "theories" of several observers can the errors be canceled out.

In my theory of Philosophy, Meta-Physics is about models and theories that are not currently verifiable. They can only be determined to be reasonable or not, based on Logic and incomplete evidence. And that requires Wisdom. Yet, we can't even define that term objectively, even though we may know it subjectively when we see it*6. So, let's not play the "show me the evidence" card, when the game is non-linear and open-ended. :nerd:


*1 Superseded theories in science :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superseded_theories_in_science
.
*2 Adaptation vs Speciation :
A new bird species that is only slightly different from others of the Finch family. So, it's more like evidence of adaptation, than of something entirely novel.
https://www.sciencealert.com/darwin-s-finches-evolve-into-new-species-in-real-time-two-generations-galapagos

*3 "The verbal interpretation, on the other hand, i.e. the metaphysics of quantum physics, is on far less solid ground. In fact, in more than forty years physicists have not been able to provide a clear metaphysical model. "
___Erwin Schrodinger

*4 “It is impossible that there should be demonstration of absolutely everything; [for then] there would be an infinite regress, so that there would still be no demonstration.”
― Aristotle, Metaphysics

*5 "Nature is under no obligation to conform to our mathematical ideas—even the most brilliant ones"
___Avi Loeb, Astronomer

*6 "The phrase "I know it when I see it" is a colloquial expression by which a speaker attempts to categorize an observable fact or event, although the category is subjective or lacks clearly defined parameters".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_know_it_when_I_see_it

“The devotee of myth is in a way a philosopher, for myth is made up of things that cause wonder."
― Aristotle , Metaphysics

"He, however, who begins with Metaphysics, will not only become confused in matters of religion, but will fall into complete infidelity."
___ Maimonides

To do so we must find an inescapable, or deniable only on pain of self-contradiction, position from which to proceed; if so, then I propose the Principle of Non-Contradiction (PNC) with which to begin and regulate (my own) speculative droppings ... — 180 Proof

I'm not smart enough to know anything with such absolute certainty. That's why I look to geniuses like Aristotle to categorize General Principles that stand the test of time. And PNC was at the top of his list. :joke:

↪Gnomon
How do we know Aristotle wasn't suffering from episodic psychosis and that metaphysics was what happened in one of his fits of madness. — TheMadFool

How do we know YOU are not suffering from some psycho malady? I don't care. On this text-based forum, I'm interested in the reasonableness of your expressed ideas, not your mental health. Besides, an ad hominem attack on an ancient philosopher, who remains a major influence on Western thought after thousands of years, is (or should be) beneath you. :cool:



PS__Did you choose "Mad Fool" as your screen name, based on personal experience? I have dialoged with several forum posters who have admitted their drug-dampered insanity. :smile:

Last question: are you the enformationist? — Cartuna

No. Someone else from another forum has borrowed that label. But Enformationism is the title of my worldview website. :smile:

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

“What do you mean when you say ‘metaphysics’” — T Clark

Please don't give up on your Grail Quest for a definitive definition of the "M" word. For some on this forum it's a four-letter word, rhyming with "cr*p". But for me, Metaphysics is the essence of Philosophy. So, if we are going to dialog effectively on this forum, we need to get the General Principles nailed down before we get bogged-down in Specific Details. Yet, many physicists and philosophers reject such idealized notions as being-qua-being and essence to be un-real & super-natural, hence subversive of the Realistic & Materialistic dogma of post-Enlightenment Science. So, if 21st century Philosophy has any purpose at all, it should fall under the categorical heading of "Before Physics", or "more General & Universal than mere physical phenomena". Admittedly, Philosophy shares some of those supra-mundane interests with traditional & mystical Religions, but it also shares the goal of understanding the mundane real world with Physics. "Can't we all just get along?". ___Rodney King :cry:

FWIW, I have added a new post to my BothAnd Blog, as an attempt to explain, in more detail than possible in a forum post, my personal meaning of "Meta-Physics", as it applies to my personal philosophical and scientific worldview. :smile:

Meta-Physics : The Purview of Philosophy
http://bothandblog7.enformationism.info/page22.html

PS__ the popup at the bottom of the second page is addressed to the Transcendent implications of the first principles of philosophy.

see it like a fuzzy sphere that can vibrate and take all kinds of forms. — Cartuna

Aggh! That mental image makes me dizzy. :gasp:

Like that man seeing his back in the mirror. Seeing yourself from the back can only be done wìth video. — Cartuna

Or with mental imagination. :joke:

How the artist sees himself

I think the ego is neither material neither mental. It lies at the boundary between them. So in a way it's both. Strange loops I see! — Cartuna

Interesting! How would you describe that "strange" neither-here-nor-there "boundary" -- metaphorically, of course. That's the beauty of metaphors, they help us to form our own personal images of the imaginary objects in other minds. Sometimes, the communication solution is to assume that a coin has two sides that we can't see simultaneously, That ambiguity requires us to do some mental (metaphorical) flipping. :smile:

neither fish nor fowl :
of indefinite character and difficult to identify or classify
to seem partly one thing and partly another,
not belonging to any suitable class or description.

NEITHER FOWL NOR BUNNY

I think this is true. I've been reconsidering my initial question. Maybe it should be: is the Internet allowing democracy to destroy itself? — Tim3003

The internet itself is hypothetically neutral, in the sense of The Wisdom of Crowds. The Net merely provides more-or-less equal access to information. But users choose which sources to rely on. That's our constitutional right. But the difference between Anarchy and Viable Democracy is chaos versus the organization of representative self-regulation.

In theory, we are supposed to elect regulators, who are more like Plato's Philosopher Kings than lawless rule by the rabble. In practice though, we tend to choose people who reflect our own biases (ahem -- tr*mp), not those noted for Rational Thinking. So, it seems that we need an Internet Constitution to regulate how we choose our regulators. Then, we need to institute some central body, not to dictate, but merely to curb our excesses. :cool:


A Constitution for the Internet :
http://www.federalist-debate.org/index.php/current/item/371-a-constitution-for-the-internet

Bill of Rights for the Internet :
https://edtechbooks.org/mediaandciviclearning/internet_constitution

Why You Can’t Always Trust the Wisdom of the Crowd :
https://time.com/4588021/power-of-networks/

I can't tell the difference between mass delusions/hallucinations and objectivity. — TheMadFool

The only difference is in the metaphorical interpretation of the mental image : i.e. what it means to you.
Unfortunately, abstract mental images & metaphors are too easy to mis-interpret, due mainly to pre-conceptions. So who deludes who? :chin:

But we decide which is right
And which is an illusion
___Moody Blues, Late Lament

↪Gnomon
I like the images you post. I wish we could do this for all of philosophy. Pictures have a certain quality to them that allows them to get a point across in ways that words somehow can't. — TheMadFool

Yes. A picture is worth a thousand philosophical metaphors. :smile:

You consider the ego as a mental thing. I don't. . . .
. . . . .So the strange loop is a metaphorical loop, but at the same time it has a material counterpart in the brain. Looking at yoursel mentally will lead to inwardly radiating droste effects. — Cartuna

Yes. Ideal metaphors usually have some concrete counterpart in the real world that it refers to as a crude approximation of the abstraction in the mind. That's how we communicate images in our minds to other minds. They can look at the concrete object and form an approximate idea of what I'm imagining. However, if I show them a brain "gyrus" (something that loops back on itself) they won't understand what I mean by "self" or "ego" or "i".

The metaphorical object is not the mental image, but merely has some essential similarity : e.g. a physical thing that loops back on itself to represent by analogy the concept of a mind looking back at itself.. The Ego is an especially difficult notion of metaphorize in concrete terms :cool:

Analogy :
1. An analogy is a comparison made to show how two different things are similar, especially in limited ways.

Mind/Brain problem in Psychology and Philosophy :
https://www.simplypsychology.org/mindbodydebate.html

Apparently, you think of the Ego as a material object. Where is the Ego in this picture of a "physical thing"? Hint : there are lots of "strange loops" (gyri) in the picture. :joke:


THE BALLOON IS NOT THE EGO


This image is not the pipe

You reply by just stipulating that 'effect' and 'change' mean the same. — Bartricks

That's not what I said, or meant. I merely pointed-out that "cause", "effect", and "change" are inextricably (logically) linked in our experience. If we notice a Change in something, we look for the Cause of that Effect. Change, or Difference, is a clue that something happened. So, curious humans instinctively want to know how or why that happened, and the answer is in the Causation. The Cause is not the Effect ; the Change is not the Cause ; and the Effect is not the Cause, but merely a sign of Causation. Cause & Effect are the "causal relata" of Change.

Change is news; it could be good or bad for us. No-change is not interesting. Change is a Transformation from before to after. "Exchange" is the Cause of that new Form. Change is not a physical thing, it's a rational inference from experience with Before and After. For humans, Difference is the essence of Meaning. No difference, no significance. Meaning is the Difference that makes a Difference to me. Even the "change" in your pocket, is implicitly the result of a Cause or Action that exchanges one form of currency (paper money) into a different form (metal money). "Change" can be a noun ( referring to an Effect) or a verb (referring to the Cause).

The original Big Bang Theory appeared to imply a Change from Nothing to Something. But people instinctively began to ask about the Cause of that existential Conversion. A Multiverse would merely beg the question ; just a never-ending series of Effects. Likewise, Inflation tries to answer the Change question, without mentioning the Ultimate Cause. That's because, a First & Final Cause would be a Creator from scratch.

Does your Acausal definition of "Change", not somehow imply a Cause/Effect relationship? Or, are you talking about transcendent Change? That's a horse of a different color. In the real world, you can't have physical or metaphorical Change (Effect) without a Cause, unless the Cause is Absential, in which case, the Cause is not apparent. :joke:

PS__I apologize for going on & on about such an academic question. But the answer to "what is change" is essential to my worldview.

The Metaphysics of Causation :
Absences: The main argument for transcendence is that absences can be involved in causal relations. Absences are said to be transcendent entities. They are nothings, non-occurrences, and hence are not in the world.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/causation-metaphysics/

Power of Absence :
http://bothandblog4.enformationism.info/page17.html

That image freaks me out. — john27

A lot of people feel that something is wrong with their face in photographs, because they are more accustomed to seeing a reversed image in a mirror. For some, it gives them a creepy feeling of looking at a clone or doppelganger. :gasp:

Anyway, do not be distracted by that example. For this thread is about change, not causation — Bartricks

Your example is quite a stretch, so it is not much of a distraction -- more like a paradox or riddle. :joke:
Note -- see Koan below

Since you want to separate Causation from its Effect (Change), how would you define a "Cause", or an "Effect" without reference to the other? If a cause makes no difference (change) what does it do? :cool:

Causation : the relationship between cause and effect; causality.
Effect : 1. a change which is a result or consequence of an action or other cause.

PS___Koan : If Aristotle's First Cause (principle of causation) had existed forever, without any real world effect, was it really a cause?

I don't think this is what strange loops are. How can a conception go out in the world? It's the conception that loops internally. The conception conceptualized. — Cartuna

Apparently, you're having difficulty with my metaphorical language. The ability to imagine ideas as-if they are real is a faculty limited to animals with rational minds : e.g. homo sapiens. A concept is not a physical object, but an ideal mental (meta-physical) subject. So, it can perform feats that are impossible for physical things ; just as your avatar in a video game can throw Chi (Qi) from its hands as-if it was a flame-thrower.

For a more philosophical example, a self-concept can metaphorically "go out into the world", then turn around and look back at itself. But, if you prefer to imagine the self-concept as some mysterious "thing" rotating inside the brain, that's OK with me. It's just another metaphor, though. Unless, you have some empirical knowledge of what kind of material that looping "thing" is made of. :smile:

Subjectivity in a philosophical context has to do with a lack of objective reality.
Note -- the Subject is your imaginary self (Latin - ego ; self ; "I"), not your physical body (Latin - Id ; Greek - soma).

Ego :
1. the part of the mind that mediates between the conscious and the unconscious and is responsible for reality testing and a sense of personal identity.
2. (in metaphysics) a conscious thinking subject.

Note : Reasoning is thinking without actually doing. Once you have reasoned an appropriate behavior, you can safely perform the action in the real word. When reasoning, you can metaphorically project yourself out into the world to see what the results of that action might be. AFAIK, there is no actual "thing" that gets projected. or "loops internally".

Mirror Image vs Self Image :

Sstrange loops won't help to explain the perception of the I. — Cartuna

The notion of a "strange loop" is a metaphor, not a mechanical diagram. When you "see" another person, it's direct perception. When you see yourself in a mirror it's reflected perception. But, when you see yourself in your mind, it's a conception : a meta-physical reflection. The metaphorical loop begins from your internal brain, goes out into the world, then loops back to take a "selfie" without a camera or phone. In some cases, we call it "insight". :cool:

Self reflection is like looking into a mirror and describing what you see.

↪Gnomon
That's not true - one can have a cause and effect relation without there being any change. — Bartricks

If so, it's not a causal relationship, but an inert (no change) relationship? For example, you might have a static geometric or positional relationship, without any change in either factor. :chin:

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