I really like Wheeler as a bold and holistic thinker. The anthropic principle is also an obviously powerful argument when it comes to the cosmological problem. And I even agree - as Peirce argued - that the cosmos arose from unbound possibility as the inevitable growth of a rationalising structure. Wheeler also got that right with his geometrodynamics. — apokrisis

Wow!! I didn't expect such an expanded & erudite response to my open-ended question. Since my brain is also a "dissipative structure", it may take me a while to digest all that "Piercean vagueness". A lot of it goes right over my pointy little head. So, I'll have to get back to you. :wink:


In theoretical physics, geometrodynamics is an attempt to describe spacetime and associated phenomena completely in terms of geometry. Technically, its goal is to unify the fundamental forces and reformulate general relativity as a configuration space of three-metrics, modulo three-dimensional diffeomorphisms. ___Wikipedia

PS__My own attempt to make sense of Big Bang & space-time may be labeled "geo-info-metro-dynamics". But, at the moment, I'm not sure what that means. :cool:

Now you start to talk nonsense, fine, wikipedia definition of God is same as God described in the bible: — SpaceDweller
Nonsense from your POV. Calling something nonsense is usually done when the sense of the competing POV (mine) is in contradiction with the POV it contradicts. I merely use the vocabulary of infinite potentiality (be it moral, physical, or semantic) and make a kin of reductio ad absurdum to reveal the shortcomings the POV. That's all it is: a point of view. It's not mine though. — GraveItty

Pardon the intrusion, but I just copied this Dilbert cartoon from Steven Pinker's Rationality, and was looking for a place to put it. Just kidding! :joke:

From a historical point of view, these questions have predated any "religions" we think of today, ancient/modern philosophy and certainly modern science. — Xtrix

For me personally, I have only an archaeological interest in popular (of the common people) world religions --- including that of my own culture --- which are specific to a place & time that no longer exists. But I find a lot of commonality in the more elite philosophies of the deep thinkers in each culture. The religions retain their cultural flavor, for sampling in small doses, but even the obsolete worldviews still contain some nutritious meat for thought about perennial questions. :smile:

Even non-Christians know the rather tragic tale, The Fall Of Man. The story goes that Eve was enticed by Satan in serpent form to eat the forbidden fruit - — TheMadFool

As you implied, the Garden of Eden myth seems to be intended as a warning against "evil" Science, which trusts its sensory extensions and rational conclusions more than the absolute Word of God : "apple bad, trust me". That's also why the Bible repeatedly indicates that physical Flesh (including taste & touch) is corrupted, and only the non-physical Spirit is pure & good, and a direct link to God --- so, trust, and don't bother to verify..

Of course, in the Garden, those child-like humans had direct sensory experience with God, who walked in the garden, making sounds that frightened the babes-in-the-woods. Today, we are bereft of that intimate contact, and the original words of God, are now -- reportedly -- recorded in man-made books, after passing through the fallible minds of many generations of sinful fleshly humans. Therefore, it follows that the self-reliance of Science may be the product of a Satanic plot. Hence, your label "malus scientia" seems to be appropriate. Unless, human reason is the only remaining reliable Word (Logos) of the Creator. :chin:

So one way to arrive at a constant in a dynamic world is perfect symmetry. — apokrisis

Does that relationship between Symmetry and physical Constants, imply that the Big Bang Singularity was also perfectly symmetrical and unchanging (e.g. eternal), until some perturbation (outside force) broke the symmetry, resulting in our dynamic and evolving world? I ask that strange question because I just wrote a review of a book that reaches Anthropic conclusions from the : "unique “initial conditions” and “fine-tuned constants” that seemed arbitrarily selected to produce a world with living & thinking creatures."
http://bothandblog7.enformationism.info/page10.html

Immanuel Kant, likely for profound reasons, associated space with geometry and time with arithmetic. — TheMadFool

Perhaps, for similar profound reasons, Einstein associated Space with physical Matter (Objects), and Time with metaphysical Energy (Change). Maybe not in so many words, but implicitly in his Relativity theory. :smile:

Geometry seems, in a certain sense, more physical than arithmetic. I'm not as certain about this as I'd like to be. — TheMadFool

In my personal Information thesis, Geometry is indeed more "physical" than abstract math, in the sense that it measures relationships between real things, instead of relationships between abstract concepts. But, it's still the metaphysical (mental) relationship (inter-connection) that makes the meaningful difference (qualia), not the physical object (quanta) itself. :nerd:

But if God created time, then time was not needed for that initial act of creation. We can conclude, then, that there can be creation without time, for otherwise time itself could not have been created. — Bartricks

I'm a late-comer to this thread, and haven't read much of the subsequent discussion following the OP. But I may have something to add, relevant to the quote above. I don't have any direct knowledge of the Creator of our temporal world -- it could have been a tower-of-turtles in a time-bound Multiverse, for all I know. But I think it's more reasonable that the creator of Space-Time & Matter-Energy was independent of such limitations. In other words, whatever caused the hypothetical initial Singularity to explode into space-time must have existed in some sense prior to Space-Time.

So, it seems that the Creator (which I label ambiguously as "G*D") could only have existed as Eternal-Potential, instead of Temporal-Actual. Admittedly, Aristotelian "Potential" does not exist in any physical empirical sense. You can't examine it under a microscope. But as a metaphysical theoretical Platonic "Ideal", it encompasses unlimited infinite Possibilities. In the Real world, only lawful things are possible, By that, I mean, Natural Laws are the boundaries of Nature. In which case, only something not subject to those laws --- not natural ; unbounded --- could create the laws themselves : The Lawmaker.

Therefore, I conclude that the Singularity, and its subsequent Big Bang blowup, was not a physical thing --- subject to limits & laws --- but a program (design ; plan) for world creation, existing as an ethereal idea in the timeless Mind of G*D. And that is what I would call "creation without time". Real world Space-Time --- an ideal mathematical model --- exists only in the presence of Matter-Energy --- the physical elements of the real world. Hence, the Eternal Cause of our Temporal World cannot be Real ; so must be Ideal : existing only in unbound Potential. That is the assumption of PanEnDeism. :cool:



"Turtles all the way down" is an expression of the problem of infinite regress.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down

Aristotelian Potential :
In philosophy, potentiality and actuality[1] are a pair of closely connected principles which Aristotle used to analyze motion, causality, ethics, and physiology in his Physics, Metaphysics, Nicomachean Ethics, and De Anima. . . . The concept of potentiality, in this context, generally refers to any "possibility" that a thing can be said to have . . . Actuality, in contrast to potentiality, is the motion, change or activity that represents an exercise or fulfillment of a possibility, when a possibility becomes real in the fullest sense
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potentiality_and_actuality

Platonic idealism usually refers to Plato's theory of forms or doctrine of ideas. It holds that only ideas encapsulate the true and essential nature of things, in a way that the physical form cannot.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platonic_idealism

Panendeism is an ontological position that explores the interrelationship between God (The Cosmic Mind) and the known attributes of the universe. Combining aspects of Panentheism and Deism, Panendeism proposes an idea of God that both embodies the universe and is transcendent of its observable physical properties. https://panendeism.org/faq-and-questions/
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page16.html

Most of us don't either. — jgill

When I said I don't take irrational & infinite concepts in Mathematics "too seriously", I meant they don't bother me, as they did the ancient Greeks. But, they do intrigue me, in the sense that many scientific & mathematical discoveries have resulted from anomalies that evoked a "huh? that's strange" response.

I'm aware that Pseudo-scientists tend to cut themselves loose from Physical grounding when they explore the open-ended possibilities of ethereal Meta-physical implications. But, although my personal experience is the touchstone for my belief-system, I am painfully aware of how biased misinterpretations of observed "facts" can lead us astray. Anyway, I find the metaphor of the physical world as a manifestation of its mathematical/logical structure to be useful for my personal worldview. :nerd:

All this math stuff exists in the mind only. All math stuff has acounterpart in physical reality — GraveItty

Yes. I typically refer to Mathematics as Meta-Physical, because it is not physically real, but a logical abstraction from Reality. So, since this is a philosophical forum, you'd think Metaphysical topics would be routine. But I get a lot of negative feedback whenever my arguments veer from Empirical Physics into Non-empirical, hence debatable topics. That's why I thought the notion of Irrational and Transcendental mathematics would encounter some friction from those insecure posters with Physics Envy. :smile:

PS___Of course, I understand their uneasiness with fringe ideas and pseudoscience. But, I have learned to deal with the uncertainties of the borderlands. So, I like to discuss edgey ideas, but prefer open-minded Skepticism to encapsulated Cynicism. :smile:

Physics Envy :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physics_envy

All physical constants are irrational numbers — TheMadFool

That strange fact does suggest something mysterious about a Real world with transcendental numbers. They do imply, not just the logical-geometric foundations of the physical world, but that abstract (metaphysical) geometry is not limited to the space-time boundaries that we take for granted. For example, the transcendental numbers, such as "Pi" and "e" are never-ending, Such fractured integers just keep on going long after our finite minds give up.

The ancient mathematicians were so baffled by the notion of infinity, that they labeled such numbers "irrational". Which they are literally, since human reason is only capable of dealing with fractions of whole numbers. But, now that we have tireless computers to calculate those amaranthine digits, the mystery goes beyond just human limitations, to suggest that even the material world, that we assume is a stable comprehensible reality, is somehow transcendental. Leading some to imagine things that never were, and cannot be . . . in reality.

Personally, I don't normally take such anomalies too seriously, since I'm not a professional mathematician. So I can usually just ignore anything that points beyond space-time. But as an amateur philosopher, I do find that inherent irrationality to be somewhat spooky. I just posted a new blog essay, which reviews a science-based book that reaches some transcendental conclusions, which seem to point beyond the limits of empirical science into the Great Transcendental Beyond. Since I remain somewhat agnostic about such ideas, I'd appreciate your comments. It's only three pages. :nerd:

Information-Consciousness-Reality :
http://bothandblog7.enformationism.info/page18.html

Amaranthine : ceaseless, eternal, never-ending, . . . immortal ???

I think that AI are a greater species. — Varde

That seems to be the assumption of Technological Evolution theorists. But science-fiction writers always look for the fly-in-the sweet-smelling-ointment, and point-out some of the ways that homo techno could go wrong (e.g. The Matrix ; Foundation Series by Asimov).

Nevertheless, I too, have an optimistic Omega Point theory, but I don't make any predictions of how that far-off high-point of evolution would be reached. The advantage of Artificial Evolution (or Intelligent Evolution as I call it) may be the combination of goalless random alternatives (mutations) with future-oriented conscious Intention. :nerd:


An AI takeover is a hypothetical scenario in which some form of artificial intelligence becomes the dominant form of intelligence on Earth, as computer programs or robots effectively take the control of the planet away from the human species.
Wikipedia

Omega Point Theory :
The Omega Point Theory is a scientific hypothesis about the possibilities and fate of intelligent life in the universe. It was proposed by physicist Frank Tipler in The Physics of Immortality.

The theory is named after the Omega Point concept of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, a concept widely regarded to anticipate the internet and the technological singularity.

The Omega Point Theory provides a foundation for scientific theism, such as is often used in Christian transhumanism and other variants of religious transhumanism.
https://hpluspedia.org/wiki/Omega_Point_Theory

"The only way to predict the future is to have power to shape the future." ___ Eric Hoffer
https://www.brainyquote.com/topics/predict-quotes

"We know from chaos theory that even if you had a perfect model of the world, you'd need infinite precision in order to predict future events". ___ Nassim Nicholas Taleb
https://www.brainyquote.com/topics/predict-quotes

Indeed I am a believer because I still want to see the good (which I however can't find in evolution, or at least in the theory of evolution as it is formulated in the moment). — FalseIdentity

Several years ago, I wrote an essay -- based on my work-in-progress personal worldview, Enformationism -- which was intended to be an update to the current state of Evolution theory, combined with Information & Quantum theory. It was also presented as an alternative to the Intelligent Design theories based on the Genesis myth. It combines the basics of Darwinian theory with later developments, including Evolutionary Programming, which combines computer Logic with a randomized heuristic (trial & error) method of gradually evolving an optimum solution to a specified problem.

Of course, it's not a divine revelation, just a novel way to think about how we got from Big Bang (the creation event) to the emergence of Life & Mind from Matter & Energy plus Information. I haven't revised the essay with the later developments of my philosophical worldview. But it was a crude attempt to offset the afterlife-optimism (deferred gratification) of the Judeo-Christian myth, and the make-the-best-of-a-bad-situation pragmatism of the Existentialism solution to the problem of Evil.

It doesn't make any promises for personal salvation. But it does offer reasons for viewing Evolution as an upward trend in the arc of an expanding universe. "I suppose we can do what all human societies have done before us: use the myth as a map to guide us through the wilderness of this wacky world." Maybe it will help you to offset the cynicism & pessimism of current popular culture. :smile:

Intelligent Evolution , A 21st Century Creation Myth :
"Religions have historically
fossilized around an antique world-view,
which is taken to be more true than any new-
fangled notions of science. But a map is not
the territory. And maps quickly become out-
dated. So consider this story of Intelligent
Evolution to be merely an update to older
scriptural and scientific paradigms."
http://gnomon.enformationism.info/Essays/Intelligent%20Evolution%20Essay_Prego_120106.pdf

Optimum :
1.most conducive to a favorable outcome; best.
2.the most favorable conditions or level for growth, reproduction, or success.

Hi Wayfarer. Are you able to deconstruct for us "al-arif bi'lah"? — tim wood

Pardon my intrusion, but I googled it, and this is one explanation :
"This Man is the one who has fulfilled his 'reason to be'. He has purified himself in readiness to receive the supreme mystic knowledge . . .:
http://www.almirajsuficentre.org.au/qamus/app/single/168

What's in a preposition? The by makes all the difference. The wisdom and importance of little words, oft neglected by people who think they have big ideas, but don't. — tim wood

Yes. Some people attribute their own personal intuitions & instincts to a mysterious outside (extrinsic) source. When someone says he "trusts his gut", he's probably simply referring to the emotional heart rather than the rational head.

However, some literally believe that they are in communication with some spiritual realm : god, or jnana, or "inner knowledge of dharma", or Akashic Record, or spiritual gnosis. But most Western educated science-based thinkers simply assume that subconscious instincts & intuitions are the result of eons of incremental Darwinian programming into perpetuating genes. Which is more Believable, depends, I suppose, on innate or acquired individual preferences. Which is more True though, remains debatable on philosophical forums. However, there seems to be an interesting parallel between Paranoia (unwarranted feelings) and Intuition (gut feelings). :cool:


Trust your gut… That’s God speaking through you
http://hannahebroaddus.com/trust-your-gut-thats-god-speaking-through-you/

Difference between paranoia and intuition :
Paranoia is defined as: Suspicion and mistrust of people or their actions without evidence or justification. And here's the definition of intuition: The ability to understand something immediately, without the need for conscious reasoning.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=intuition+vs+paranoia+cheating

Carl Jung on Gnostic, Gnosis, Gnosticism :

At the other end is Gnomon’s desire or affected awareness of possibility - the recognition that we construct intentionality not just from our knowledge but from our own aesthetic relation to every particle. — Possibility

Yes. Affect, emotion or feeling, may be the missing bookend of Artificial Intelligence. Current examples of AI are good at processing data dispassionately, without actually being affected by it. Some social robots are being programmed to simulate affection, but they are still far from emotional, even though they may be able to consult a list of possible outcomes of their actions. Ironically, humans are so "programmed" for affect, that they come to "love" their robotic companions. Probably the humans project their own feelings onto robotic behavior, even when they lack essential human features. Including the intangible & complex quality of personality.

Their lab-developed mathematically-processed "feelings" are far from human passions, evolved over millions of years of inputs & outputs, good & bad, beautiful & ugly, to the point where they are subconscious automatic reactions. However, AI researchers are also simulating Darwinian evolution, by allowing their programs to learn from experience. If they succeed in creating learning programs that can reproduce their memes, then artificial evolution may eventually give birth to the successors of homo sapiens, as the internally-motivated (intentional) masters of the world. :nerd:

AI Quiddity :
Is artificial intelligence the new alchemy?
https://www.quantamagazine.org/science-has-entered-a-new-era-of-alchemy-good-20211020/?utm_source=pocket-newtab

Why not? Distrust? — GraveItty

No. Philosophical skepticism. As Reagan responded to a Russian nuclear-proliferation treaty : "trust but verify". :smile:

Skepticism :
Some people believe that skepticism is the rejection of new ideas, or worse, they confuse “skeptic” with “cynic” and think that skeptics are a bunch of grumpy curmudgeons unwilling to accept any claim that challenges the status quo. This is wrong. Skepticism is a provisional approach to claims. It is the application of reason to any and all ideas — no sacred cows allowed. In other words, skepticism is a method, not a position. Ideally, skeptics do not go into an investigation closed to the possibility that a phenomenon might be real or that a claim might be true. When we say we are “skeptical,” we mean that we must see compelling evidence before we believe.
https://www.skeptic.com/about_us/

More and more people I see retreat socially and trust only a very small number of friends. Attempts to make more contacts mostly end in fighting, injury and biterness. If we would give up the idea that our mind can be neutral or that we are fighting just for "the truth" in such disputes like this one we might be able to understand why our societies implode in this way and prevent it. — FalseIdentity

Our times do indeed seem, at least in politics & fake news, to be devolving into cynicism, bitterness, & apocalyptic thinking. For example, many blockbuster movies in recent years seem to be built upon apocalyptic themes (e.g. Zombie Apocalypse).

But then, there's nothing new about that. History, as Hegel noted, tends to swing up & down, back & forth, toward positive (optimistic) or negative (pessimistic) extremes. At the low points of negativity (antithesis), people cry-out that "the end is near". But, eventually a new synthesis becomes dominant, and optimism reigns for a while. All I can say, based on historical dialectic is, "stay tuned, it can only get better". :smile:

PS__as an introvert, I am always in social retreat. But that's just my individual personality quirk. And I'm quite comfortable in my little hermit hole. But it doesn't mean that I am also, anti-social, pessimistic, or bitter. On this forum, I am often challenged to defend my Pollyannaish optimism. But I merely think of it as being realistic about the overall progressive trend of the world as a whole. :starstruck:


Apocalyptic Thinking :
The end is always nigh in the human mind
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21028156-300-the-end-is-always-nigh-in-the-human-mind/

The end is near :
An Assyrian clay tablet dating to around 2800 B.C. bears the inscription: “Our Earth is degenerate in these later days; there are signs that the world is speedily coming to an end; bribery and corruption are common; children no longer obey their parents; every man wants to write a book and the end of the world is evidently approaching.”
https://quoteinvestigator.com/2012/10/22/world-end/

Where is it written that the philosophy here should be western? It's called the philosophy forum. Not the western philosophy forum. — GraveItty

You missed the point. I was not denigrating Eastern philosophy, which I find often enlightening. Instead, I was merely noting that TPF is usually not very "accepting of personal confidence as evidence of truth". Instead, any confident assertions are expected to be supported by articulated argument. Although, some seem to think that this is a scientific forum, and demand empirical evidence. :smile:

There is the difference between you and I:I have not endeavored to articulate any un-orthodox ideas. Hence my curiosity about why your initial response launched into an argument as if I had. — James Riley

I apologize if I misunderstood your intentions. But if you were not "endeavoring " to postulate or defend any debatable or "unorthodox" ideas, why were you posting on a Philosophy forum?

Were you merely seeking for like-minded people? There may be a few closet Gnostics on this forum, but I suspect you would find more of them on the alternative truth forums. Perhaps, on such platforms they can share feelings, without enduring any critiques or challenges. Personally, I enjoy the civilized give & take of this forum. That's even though my personal philosophical position may be in the minority. :smile:

PS__You might find some compatible community on a Quaker forum. Their services are characterized by sitting silently until the spirit ("light of God") moves them to speak. Such messages -- sometimes called a "word of knowledge" (i.e. gnosis) -- are usually received without critique, since it is presumed to be literally the Word of God (amen).

Perhaps it is a continuum which is at one end is alertness to chemical surroundings: an atom of carbon being alert to the proximity of another atom of carbon such that they bond. At the other end it is being able recognize oneself as distinct from one's surroundings. Not too different though; mostly a change in scale.

That's one way to look at awareness. But for me, having a self-perspective allows me to establish relative values for making judgments of where to take my atoms next. Not because physics says I have to, but because I, myself, want to. :joke:

Or, am I wrong in trying to frame philosophy as an alternative to religion? — Jack Cummins

I recently admitted publicly, on this forum -- only partly tongue-in-cheek -- that my personal Religion is Philosophy. It doesn't promise deferred gratification in another life. But it does allow me to define & refine my personal beliefs into a coherent worldview, which helps me to navigate the ups & downs of the only life I know for sure, here & now. I comfort myself for losing the anticipation of a better life tomorrow, by telling myself that "a living bird in hand is worth eternal life in the mythical bush". :joke:

↪Gnomon
We have a disagreement here on which are the best options for an analogy: you think it's the organisation of a business I think it's a matrix where the conscious part is imprisoned in the matrix and dosn't even understand what the matrix does or that there is one. — FalseIdentity

I apologize for reminding you that The Matrix movie, like Hoffman's thesis, was also based on a computer metaphor. But perhaps, it seemed more realistic, because the fake-reality program's sub-routines had human faces, instead of abstract icons. Anyway, you are welcome to whatever "analogy" has personal meaning for you. I happen to prefer smiley-face icons, instead of evil icons. :smile: :naughty:

Essentially I'm now faced with a choice whether pursue path of learning in that direction that may ultimately lead me nowhere — DenverMan

Before I retired, I was interested in Science and Philosophy, but my time was mostly wasted in the rat-race of making a living. Now that "living" is behind me, and I am merely waiting for rigor mortis to set-in, I am free to work for free. And the only practical product of my valuable time is increased confidence that I have a reasonable worldview. That, and 50cents five ten dollars will buy you a cup of nutritious cappuccino. :joke:

I do not have a monopoly on how one arrives at that which I know-but-cannot-articulate. . . .my understanding of why a person who knows might appear sanctimonious to those who don't, only arose when I see what I perceive (mistakenly?) as a prevalent pre-emptive defensiveness to the idea that another might know something which they can't explain — James Riley

I understand your problem with being perceived as sanctimonious. But that's to be expected on a philosophy forum. Greek Philosophy, and its offspring empirical Science, are not in the business of private beliefs, or secret wisdom. Instead, they are attempts to shine a light on beliefs hidden in the darkness of subjectivity. So, they have developed a variety of methods to reveal those inner truths to public scrutiny, in order to share any validated wisdom therein. Of course, I'm no scientist, so I am limited to the ancient philosophical tools of reasoning, as a way to test any proposed truths, before I add them to my personal collection.

Unfortunately for you, Philosophy & Science make it mandatory to defend your own beliefs in a public forum. And it may be that skeptical attitude toward Truth that you perceive as "pre-emptive defensiveness". Because that's what it is : a defense against the "Dark Arts". For example, I just read an article, a moment ago, about a physicist, who has a novel theory to explain Black Holes. Contrary to popular opinion among scientists, he thinks they are actually stars composed of Dark Energy. Unfortunately for him, "Chapline’s papers on this topic have garnered only single-digit citations." His private beliefs at this moment are merely hypothetical, and are met with "defensive" disbelief from his peers. Unlike you, though, as a scientist, he doesn't expect his peers to take his word for the new "wisdom". So, he is not offended, but content to take his time to compile supporting evidence, which is hard to come by.

My purpose in responding to your post is not to ridicule your beliefs, but to make you aware that, on a public philosophical forum, you are expected to defend your assertions. So, explaining that your secret wisdom "cannot be articulated" will not gain you much sympathy here. I "know" that first hand, because some of my feeble attempts at articulation of un-orthodox ideas are also meet with defensive disbelief. We are always on guard to defend Philosophy from Sophistry. :smile:

I think knowing the one thing that can't be articulated may be enough. Maybe "A". Nevertheless, western philosophy has it's hooks in me, so I struggle anyway. — James Riley

I feel your pain. You feel the need to somehow share your private wisdom, but analytical & empirical Western Philosophy does not accept your pointing & gesturing as a legitimate argument. Eastern Philosophy may have been somewhat more accepting of personal confidence as evidence of truth, but that won't fly on this forum. Of course, there's a variety of alternative Eastern and New Age forums to choose from on FaceBook, where alternative truths are acceptable. :cool:

The Difference Between Sophistry & Philosophy :
Many people confuse “sophistry” with “philosophy.” They think that philosophers are arrogant charlatans who foolishly think they know something. However, that description better fits those we now call “sophists.”
https://ethicalrealism.wordpress.com/2012/09/23/the-difference-between-sophistry-philosophy/

Philosophy vs Sophistry - What's the difference? :
the difference between philosophy and sophistry. is that philosophy is an academic discipline that seeks truth through reasoning rather than empiricism while sophistry is cunning, sometimes manifested as trickery.
https://wikidiff.com/sophistry/philosophy

Note -- Sophistry is a sort of Gnosis that is over-articulated, in an attempt to give the impression of logical argument.

I perceive, not just in your post but in others in this thread, a certain defensiveness in the need for clarification about charlatans, or those so-called "gnostics" who pretend to superiority or secret. I don't know where that comes from, since it's as easy as breathing for me to spot the pretenders. — James Riley

Defending the truth was bred into me, as I was raised in a fundamentalist Christian church. We learned to be critical of other religions' erroneous beliefs -- most based on ancient revelations -- but not so much of our own baseline beliefs. As I matured though, I learned to be objective & analytical toward my own beliefs, and eventually left the church. Since then I have been constructing a belief system (worldview) of my own. It gives me a new baseline for critiquing suspicious "facts". But I don't make any absolute-Truth claims for it.

Consequently, I find it much easier now to spot suspect "truths", especially those hiding behind unverifiable claims of Gnosis. But it's still not that easy, because most strong belief systems are guarded against apostasy by either defensive or offensive reasoning (Theology). Early religions, such as Judaism and Catholicism, didn't have much local competition, since they usually had a monopoly on their home turf. But today, in the Information Age, we are exposed to a long menu of alternative belief systems. And that includes the long-defunct Gnosticism, that was put out of business by the Catholics.

So, my policy is not to adopt any new creed wholesale, but to pick & choose whatever elements fit into my personal worldview. For example, I can accept some general philosophical concepts from Hinduism, Buddhism, and Taoism, but not their specific religious beliefs & practices. It may be "easy as breathing" for you to "spot the pretenders". That sounds like a simple Black & White worldview. But, since I try to keep an open mind to other perspectives, I have to take a BothAnd approach.

Consequently, it takes hard philosophical work to separate the sheep from the goats. As Pilate replied to Jesus, "what is truth?" And that question still founders on the complexity & ambiguity of competing claims to truth. Therefore, you could say that my "religion" is Philosophy : the search for practical wisdom -- pragmatic truth value -- not for comforting illusions or secret ego-boosting beliefs. :smile:

PS__I've never had any personal spiritual insights or Gnostic revelations from above. My mundane belief system is derived from careful analysis of my personal experiences, and those of others, to find what is useful for me, not necessarily absolutely True. Does that sound selfish or egotistical? If so, that's because my personal philosophical Karate is not used for offense, but for self-defense against a world full of false prophets and self-deluded gnostics.


Knowledge (or gnosis) in Sufism refers to knowledge of Self and God. The gnostic is called al-arif bi'lah or "one who knows by God".
Do you accept Jewish, or Christian, or Sufi gnosis as truth? Is their "Truth" the same as yours? Or do you go your own way, with your own personal relationship with God?

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

Yes. Wisdom, unlike science, does not need to be repeatable, shared or reviewed. — James Riley

That's true of personal wisdom, as long as you don't try to proselytize. As soon as you tell someone else that you want to pass-on some "secret knowledge" though, you may legitimately be asked to prove it. But Gnostic revelations and Buddhist insights are entirely subjective. So, they can only reply : "try my method and see for yourself". By definition, subjective truth cannot be shared.

But most folks are not inclined to live as monks in silent meditation on a mountaintop. So, they may follow the advice of the Apostle John "Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world." The Old Testament is full of stories about deceiving prophets being shown-up as phonies by the "true" prophets, usually in the form of miracles. The moral of such stories is, if you want me to believe your truth, you prove it to me.

However, some Gnostics (and Bhuddists) have not been content to keep their spiritual wisdom to themselves. So, they have responded to skeptical challenges by predicting future events or by performing minor miracles -- usually of the type that were unrepeatable and difficult to disprove. Another private obstacle for Gnostics is how to make sure that their visions & revelations come from the "True" Good God, and not from the "False" Evil God.

Whatever you believe is "legitimate" wisdom for you. But for me, any postulated truths must meet my minimum requirements. And I don't take anyone's word on faith. As they say in Missouri, show me! :cool:


A Course in Miracles and Gnosticism :
https://translatedby.com/you/a-course-in-miracles-and-gnosticism/original/

I'd be more concerned with their diseases. — James Riley

True. But how could we convince a superior power to spend a month in quarantine, while we check them out.? Hopefully they will quarantine themselves, as humans do, by encapsulating themselves in spacesuits until safety is confirmed. That would be better for both of us. Many, if not most, early sci-fi movies portrayed invasive aliens as naked & unafraid. :joke:

Basically, the point I'm trying to get across is that predators need to be more intelligent than prey. Planet earth is a case in point -the most intelligent organism viz. humans are predatory, in fact they're the apex predator. Makes me wonder about the wisdom of the Arecibo Message, SETI, Voyager Golden Record. Are we sending out an invite for a gala feast, us on the menu? — TheMadFool

Yes. Technologically advanced aliens would presumably also be somewhat smarter in general. But it's not their intelligence that we need to look-out for -- it's their motives. Historically, when advanced humans invade a new territory, the inhabitants usually become extinct, or learn to survive as slaves. It's not only selfish predatory Genes though, but also the self-aggrandizing Memes, that disrupt the former balance of power. The conquistadors and colonizers were not primarily motivated by scientific exploration, but by the mandate for new resources to exploit.

I wonder if a democratic society would be more peacefully scientific, and less aggressively predatory, than the old-fashioned autocratic civilizations. Kings & emperors were typically lauded for their predatory exploits as warriors, not for their concern for civil rights & infrastructure. Modern leaders of market-driven democracies, even including hybrid command economies like China, tend to be more in favor of cooperation than domination. Steven Pinker, in The Better Angels of Our Nature, presented evidence that more technologically advanced societies are also more democratic and peaceful. I hope he's correct.

Of course, we are still in a transition phase between the old insular tribal warring, and the we're-all-in-this-together global civilizations. I suspect that Carl Sagan, and his we-come-in-peace gold record, envisioned space-faring aliens as scientifically-motivated for cerebral knowledge, instead of predatorily-inclined to appease their visceral & power hunger. For example, more Star Trek than Star Wars. :smile:

I realize physicalist believe the mind is caused/emerges from matter but do they believe the mind is non spatial. İf yes than how is that monism ? there are still 2 “substances”. The only main difference is that spatial matter(brain) is primary and the non spatial mind(mental states) is secondary. — Quickquestion1233457

As a model for philosophical analysis, I would compare spatial Matter with non-spatial Energy. The current understanding of Energy is that it is an all-pervasive mathematical, immaterial, field of Potential. Only, when it is condensed into a material form can we say that Energy is embodied. Likewise, if Mind is like a field, our senses could only interact with it in some material form. So I would say that the Brain is the embodied form of Mind. Also, the field of energy Potential is not real until the virtual photons are actualized into real photons that our eyes can detect, in the form of a chemical change in the material Visual Purple. So, in Einstein's equation of E = MC^2, each side is a different "substance" in the sense that one is Real (material) and the other is Ideal (mind).

To be clear, there are no virtual photons cruising around in 3D space. Instead, they are virtual figments of scientists' imagination as the massless matter we call photons-on-the-move. Only when they come to a halt do photons have a "rest mass", as they convert into material structure. Energy is a "substance, only in the definition of Aristotle : the logical (Potential) Form of a thing. And Matter is a different "form" of the same potential "substance", which exists in the commonsense "form" of ordinary sensible stuff. Potential only exists in the mind, including the potential Voltage of a battery that is not connected into a material circuit.. The meaningful difference between the two substances is that one is exists as non-spatial Potentiality (imaginary), and the other as spatial Actuality (sensible stuff).

So, to answer your implicit question : No, there is no Actual Mind out there in space, thinking cosmic thoughts. Of course, there may be Potential Mind out there as a field of Universal Logic, that could be parceled-out into embodied particles of Mind. But, we'll never know for sure, except in our non-space-bound imagination. :joke:

Massless Particles of Pure Energy :
Since photons (particles of light) have no mass, they must obey E = pc and therefore get all of their energy from their momentum. ... Therefore, if an object with no mass is to physically exist, it can never be at rest. Such is the case with light.
https://www.wtamu.edu/~cbaird/sq/2014/04/01/light-has-no-mass-so-it-also-has-no-energy-according-to-einstein-but-how-can-sunlight-warm-the-earth-without-energy/
Note -- when light particles are on the move, at light speed, they are only Potential Energy. Yet, when that Energetic Potential comes to a rest, it converts into Actual Matter, and we call that conversion "Energy". This is my personal interpretation of the paradoxical relativity theories.


Voltage is the electromotive force, or the electric tension. Potential difference is a measure of stored energy of any form.
https://socratic.org/questions/what-is-the-difference-between-potential-difference-and-voltage

predatory logic — FalseIdentity

I had never heard of "predatory logic" before. But, after a brief review, I see it's not talking about capital "L" Logic at all. Instead, it refers to the innate evolutionary motives that allow animals at the top of the food chain to survive and thrive. PL is more of an inherited hierarchical motivation system than a mathematical logical pattern. Logic is merely a tool that can be used for good or bad purposes. To call the "logic" of an automobile "evil" is to miss the point that a car without a driver, is also lacking a moral value system. It could be used as a bulldozer to ram a crowd of pedestrians, or as an ambulance to carry the wounded to a hospital. The evil motives are in the moral agent controller, not the amoral vehicle.

It may be true that predators possess an innate "logical" pattern of predation. But it's also true that their prey have a "logical" pattern of evasion. Those patterns are simply what actions have worked in the past to allow the animal to survive long enough to reproduce. For example, african ungulates have typically relied on their speed & evasive maneuvers to outrun their predators with sharp teeth & claws. Yet, on the whole, there is a balance of power between prey & predator. Only in unusual circumstances does that balance tip one way or the other. If the prey escape every time, the predators starve. But, if the predators are too successful, again some of them starve. So generally, the predator/prey equation remains balanced, Hence, there is no moral inequity that one could justify labeling Nature or Logic as "Evil".

The term "Evil" is a generalization or personification of the outside world, as related to the self. And it would more accurately be labeled "imbalance" or "unfairness" or "injustice". Is it unfair for a lion to use its "predatory logic" & natural weapons to overwhelm a gazelle? Philosophically, we tend to think of Nature as amoral, and reserve immoral or "evil" labels for human behaviors, assuming that they should know better. Yet, only recently has the notion of Ecological Balance occurred to humans. And we are only gradually learning how to apply that knowledge, without tipping the balance against the survival of homo sapiens. To do so, would be Misanthropy, which is an injustice to the majority of innocent humans, who live modest & moral, sometimes oppressed, lives.

BTW, None of that Natural Logic is what Hoffman was talking about in the OP video. He was talking specifically about our innate blindness to the underlying logical mechanisms of nature, which we "see" only in the abstract. Yet again, that's normally enough information for our species to survive and thrive. Those short-sighted "wise apes", as a group, are indeed at the top of the world's food chain. And the natural balance has certainly become temporarily imbalanced, due to human Culture (reason) & Technology (tools). So, predatory humans do use their innate advantages, including the applied logic of Science & Engineering, to modify natural niches to suit human preferences. But, I wouldn't put the blame on the tool : Logic. As gun advocates accurately point out : "guns don't kill people -- people with guns kill people". Should we lobotomize people who are guilty of using Logic?

We civilized apes just happen to be in a position similar to the (formerly extinct) wolves, returned by humans to Yellowstone, to reset the imbalance of over-populated prey animals. Due to their innate talents & tools, including Predatory Logic, they quickly became too successful. So now, environmentalists are calling for culling. Not because their (wolf & human) logic is evil, but because "success" is a two-edged sword. Fortunately, humans, being moral agents, are capable of setting limits (government, laws) on their own group behavior. That doesn't convert Devils into Angels, it merely restores temporary balance to a dynamic world. :naughty: :halo:


Moral agency is an individual's ability to make moral judgments based on some notion of right and wrong and to be held accountable for these actions. A moral agent is "a being who is capable of acting with reference to right and wrong."
___Wikipedia

FOOD CHAIN JUSTICE


PS__A logical system without a good/bad value system is merely a dumb mechanism.

To be able to occasionally overrule the motivation it must always have the first access to information and decision about such informations or the occassional overuling would not work reliably — FalseIdentity

In the business model example, there are different levels of "access to information". The workers on the front lines (physical senses) typically receive new information first. They then pass it up the hierarchy, where it is sorted based on the need to know. So the CEO at the top is usually unaware of the bulk of information flow. He/she only receives the most important or urgent data, after it is filtered up through the system. However, an alert CEO may also have his/her own "spies" to actively look for relevant unfiltered information, before it is affected by the mundane priorities of lower levels.

Presumably, an alert rational mind also has feelers out for direct access to what's happening inside and outside the system. That doesn't come naturally though. It is learned through experience and special training for the job of chief executive. Philosophy is one method for training the mind to be prepared for unexpected events and sudden crises. You learn to be on the lookout for the warning signs of danger, before it becomes obvious to the lower level senses. Some people call this a "sixth sense", but it's simply what Reason does. The Boy Scout motto was "be prepared".

For a different metaphor : the sailors run the ship, even while the Captain is asleep. But once the ship hits an iceberg, the Captain is aroused, and begins to issue direct orders to all levels of the hierarchy. Even though the Captain didn't have first access to the knowledge that the ship was in danger, and even based on limited knowledge of what's happening, the Captain's general orders overrule the specific instincts of the sailors attempting to repair the breech. For example, don't try to fix the devastating damage, just seal-off the compartment, and retreat to a safer place. :smile:

In my opinion the true reason/motivation why your subconscious allows you to think in some situations and not in others could be key to understand if logic is of any value at all. — FalseIdentity

I doubt that the subconscious mind "allows" you to think rationally. Instead, the executive Conscious mind must occasionally overrule the default motivations of the Subconscious. If your worldview is somewhat Fatalistic, you may not believe that you have Freewill to choose a conscious logical method, instead of being driven by the animal-like, automatic, subconscious, instinctive reaction to every situation.

To clarify the long-debated question of FreeWill, I have developed a philosophical scenario of the human Mind, based on the model of a large business. It has many well-trained low-level subordinates, a few mid-level managers over departments, and one chief executive officer who rules them all. Typically, the business runs smoothly without direct orders from the top, as each subordinate level does its job almost automatically. But when the firm faces an unusual or difficult problem, the subordinate subconscious (instincts ; emotions) may report to the top, with a quick pre-set solution, or with a menu of options.

If the dire situation is too complex & critical, or portends bad consequences for the business (as a whole system), it's the job of the executive (conscious Reason) to leave the golf-course, and come into the office, to make the hard choices, as a singular official decision. Normally, the rational faculties lie dormant, until the quarreling instincts report that they are confused, and unable to reach a unified decision. That's why a past president once said, "the buck stops here", at the top. The human mind is not a discordant anarchy, or an oppressive dictatorship, but it does have a remote semi-retired chief executive officer : Reason.

Some of the subordinates may think the golf-playing CEO is a freeloader, who doesn't do any of the "real" work. But when a crisis portends, they all look to the Boss to set a direction for the company. David Hume may have spoken tongue-in-cheek, when he said, "reason is, and ought only to be, the slave of the passions". By "passions", Hume was referring to the emotionally-mature Character (virtue) of a person (a logical value system of what's important), not to irrational, crazy, anything-goes, spontaneous, emotional outbursts. :cool:


I summarize my personal hypothesis of FreeWill Within Determinism as follows : Freewill is the ability of self-conscious beings to choose preferred options from among those that destiny (or subconscious) presents. In the complex (non-linear) network of cause & effect, a node with self-awareness is a causal agent. With multiple Pre-determined inputs, and many Potential outputs, the Self can choose from a wide range of Possibilities, creating local novelty within a globally-deterministic system.
http://bothandblog5.enformationism.info/page14.html

Hume's Passions :
https://psyche.co/ideas/neuroscience-has-much-to-learn-from-humes-philosophy-of-emotions

Moral Character :
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-character/

Dopamine works to create refreshment, calibration, etc. To appease the side effect of calibration as a reward is criminal-ish, no(petty)? — Varde

Neurotransmitters all work together. But I was referring specifically to the "pleasure & reward" system, which lets you know that what you did was good for you. Or, rather, for your genes. Sometimes, what's good for your amoral genes is not so good for your moral "self". I suspect that most criminals feel good about themselves, until they face the legal consequences. :smile:

Dopamine and serotonin regulate similar bodily functions but produce different effects. Dopamine regulates mood and muscle movement and plays a vital role in the brain's pleasure and reward systems. Serotonin helps regulate mood, sleep, and digestion.
https://www.verywellhealth.com/serotonin-vs-dopamine-5194081

↪Gnomon
Nice idea but not falsifiable. It could be an evolved intuition and a dopamine shot but it could as well be something else. — FalseIdentity

Of course it's not that simple. But, the dopamine reward may allow Dunning-Kruger types to feel good about their hobbled rationality, even while they restrict the rational method to defending their prior beliefs. As David Hume asserted "reason is . . . a slave to the passions". And dopamine is essential to passion.

However, Pinker notes that Reasoning is not an end in itself, but merely the means to an end. And people have a variety of non-rational methods for achieving their goals, which are defined by their "passions". For example, a self-confident D-K person may choose to convince you of their belief by force. That's how the medieval church dealt with infidels, not with Reason, but with Fire. So, I still think that a confidence-inspiring dopamine boost could be one mechanism for making sure that certain intuitive beliefs are protected from the weeding-out chopping block of natural selection, by marking then as "good for you", if not "true for everybody".. :smile:

↪Gnomon
I approve of good intuition as an argument in this context :) It could be from a place beyond logic. However I would love to think more about how this place could look like and why it is protected against logic. — FalseIdentity

I am currently reading Steven Pinkers' new book, Rationality. And his first step was to discuss the complementary roles of Rationality (Logic) and Irrationality (Intuition). Each is appropriate in some contexts and not in others. Ironically, the stumbling block for Intuition is Probability : conjecturing about future events and outcomes. Intuition reaches its assessment quickly, but is subject to gaps in knowledge & experience that result in erroneously biased projections. Calculating likelihood comes easily to intuition, but all too often goes astray due to Cognitive Illusions.

On the other hand, slow step-by-step reasoning is more likely to find the gaps & pitfalls, but it may not reach a conclusion in time to be useful. Fortunately, humans have developed beyond the quick intuition of their animal nature -- sufficient for the simple eat-or-be-eaten milieu of cavemen -- in order to see the invisible logical structure of reality -- necessary for the complexities of the modern urban jungle. Unfortunately, reasoning is hard mental work, and some of us are too lazy to put in the time & effort to make use of our logical faculties. Yet, others (e.g. mathematicians & analytical philosophers) are so motivated to parse the world into fine details that they can't "see the forest for the trees".

So, it seems that the "place beyond logic" (e.g. heart ; gut feelings) provides emotional rewards, by simplifying the world into knee-jerk reactions. Therefore, I would say that the Heart is protected against Logic by the shot of dopamine that gives us the satisfied feeling that we know what's-what, even when what we know is illogical. :smile:

Note -- we tend to switch between Intuition and Reason depending on the context. Intuition is better suited for concrete real-world situations, but Logic is more accurate for abstract hypotheticals.
". . . people do apply logic when the rule involves shoulds and shouldn'ts of human life rather than arbitrary symbols and tokens." quote from the book.

Logic is evil. Change my mind!

If Logic is "evil", hence unacceptable, the only way I could change your mind is via "good" Intuition or Emotion. Would you accept that kind of argument, in place of fallible human reasoning? Perhaps the problem with Platonic Logic is that it is filtered through innate human biases, resulting in cognitive errors. :smile:

"Non-self" would be whatever AI "observed" that it could not control or it would have to use its executive functions to manipulate. Such a system maps its environment to include itself as a token which is also a parameter (or axis). — 180 Proof

That seems to be a semantic quibble. A morally responsible agent maps its environment, with Self as a as a You Are Here "token", in order to properly execute its cybernetic responsibilities. In other words, executive self-control must precede other-control. Yes?

Cybernetics :
Margaret Mead emphasised the role of cybernetics as "a form of cross-disciplinary thought which made it possible for members of many disciplines to communicate with each other easily in a language which all could understand".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cybernetics

Executive :
of, relating to, or suited for carrying out plans, duties, etc.:
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/executive
Note -- by controlling others

For our descendants' sakes, let's hope not. I think 'human-level artificial intelligence' without any unnecessary atavistic, evolutionary-baggage like that metacognitive bottleneck "self-awareness" would be optimal. — 180 Proof

Humanoid descendants without "self-awareness"??? Where's the fun in that? Our self-oriented egos may be an atavistic bottleneck. But at least it allows us a perspective from which to critique the non-me world. A rock on a mountain cannot see the stars, because it's not self-motivated to look up. :cool:

PS___Artificial Intelligence without a self-image would also lack free-will. Because it would not be able to distinguish Self from Non-self. Hence, no firm grounds for making choices. That might make a good slave Robot, but a rather boring Person. Besides, with no self-perspective, those arrogant AI would not see us metacognitively-confused NI (Natural Intelligences) as ancestors. Perhaps only as insignificant bits of their highly-evolved post-genetic code. :joke:

That's a perspective I haven't seen in a long time. Good to know people aren't using their brains for just mundane activities. Imagination is a marvelous thing - there are so many possibilities to think about. Our abject ignorance is duly compensated for by the richness of our hypotheticals. — TheMadFool

Where have you seen a similar perplexed perspective? Are you referring to PanEnDeism, or to Mysterianism, or simply to Inquisitive Agnosticism? :smile:

"All I know is that I know nothing"
___attributed to Socrates
This is technically a shorter paraphrasing of Socrates' statement, "I neither know nor think I know" (in Plato, Apology 21d).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_know_that_I_know_nothing