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

I'm interested to hear about other terms, or sets of terms, that have a habit of stagnating discussions in philosophy and of ideas about how to deal with this. — I like sushi

We could always go back to the grunts & gestures of cavemen. :joke:

Ultimately, in the very distant future, God will come into existence (The Omega Point). — TheMadFool

In Teilhard deChardin's Omega Point, the future-god was imagined as the prophesied return of The Cosmic Christ. But his fellow Catholics were not impressed by his tainting of Faith with scientific evidence. First century Christians expected Jesus to return in their lifetime. So the idea of a trillion year delay is not very supportive of fragile Faith.

Likewise, the Anthropic Cosmological Principle seems to be a stretch, if it is intended to reinforce any religious belief. The book took it on faith that the Big Bang was the creative act (insemination) of an eternal deity. And it seemed to view Evolution as as sort of gestation process to give birth to the Son of God. The authors didn't say that in so many words, but it's my takeaway.

My own worldview is also based on the axiom of an eternal creative force. but remains agnostic about the deity's specific intentions [1]. I label that model as "PanEnDeism" because our current understanding of physics is information-centric. In that case, both the Creator (Enformer) and the Creation (Enformed) are essentially the same stuff : infinite Potential-to-Be. And Evolution is the creative work of enforming, as performed by EnFormAction. In other words, it's all Information from Energy to Matter to Mind, and from Alpha to Omega.

That said, I still must label myself as Agnostic, because my personal worldview is just an educated guess, not a revealed prophecy. And it's not beholden to any religious tradition. So, this rather abstract model of Reality does not provide any of the emotionally appealing mythical elements, that would serve as a popular religion. It's more along the lines of Plato's LOGOS, and Lao Tse's TAO :meh:


PS__I did at one time play around with the idea of writing a mythical version of the Intelligent Evolution postulate : beginning with a self-fertilized goddess. Unfortunately, I have no talent for dramatic or romantic Fiction, and I have scruples against pandering to popular beliefs. So, I'll have to leave the myth-making to someone else. Any volunteers?

[1] One possible scenario imagines that the disembodied deity created a material world as a way to know itself through the metaphorical eyes of millions of little gods. But, for now, I am resigned to remain a Mysterian regarding the Creation. Although I do have a theory about the emergence of Life & Consciousness. Which is more amenable to philosophical & scientific methods than the God Problem.

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

↪Gnomon
The link in my previous post sketches where my conception of pandeism (xaos redux) deviates from Chardin / Tipler's omega point (cosmic telos). — 180 Proof

This is the basis of pandeism: the deity annihilates itself by becoming the universe in order to experience not being the deity. The end of time, maximum universal expansion, "heat death", etc is the deity reborn? Works for me, closes the eternal loop ouroboros-like. If I was in need of such a (minimal) metaphysical extravagance, I'd be a committed pandeist. — 180 Proof

That description sounds like the God's Debris story, in which the deity, due to a bad case of eternal ennui, made like an Islamic suicide bomber, and blew herself into smithereens. Except that in this case, the "debris" is not simply splattered blood & guts, but is our complexly evolving universe. Which, instead of dissipating into thin air (xaos redux), has developed into the highly organized & beloved world of living thinking beings, in which we now live & breathe & sh*t & love.

For me, Deism was a rather vague & pointless alternative to the faux certainties of traditional Theism. And PanDeism is somewhat fatalistic, in that "what you see is all you get", and leaves the beginning & end of the story unresolved. Moreover, your notion of PanChaos pictures our world as "in a state of complete confusion and disorder". But I don't see it that way. I doubt that Steven Pinker is a Deist of any prefix. But he has written some well-informed & erudite books that dispel the cynicism of the intelligentsia class, and the despair of the downtrodden class. They include, The Better Angels of Our Nature, Enlightenment Now, and most recently : Rationality. These works illustrate that our world, which began in Chaos (Bomb Bang), but is now evolving & progressing, not only in technology (cybernetics), but also in moral progress and social justice. Fake news, from both Left & Right, focus their spotlight on the ugly underside of reality, ignoring the beauties of the upside.

Therefore, as I see it, the world is far from perfect, but it is also far from worthless debris. So, the Deus, whatever its other qualities, is not an Evil Genius, or a bored know-it-all. Instead, it's more like a scientist experimenting with the volatile alchemy of random Chance & rational Choice (determinism & freewill) -- what could go wrong? Anyway, our world is a living growing maturing organism with innate Potential for both Good and Bad. Therefore, instead of hopelessly killing myself, I'm going to stick around to see what happens next, in the unfinished Story of Life. :joke:


[1] God's Debris : A Thought Experiment is a 2001 novella by Dilbert creator Scott Adams.
God's Debris espouses a philosophy based on the idea that the simplest explanation tends to be the best. It proposes a form of pandeism and monism, postulating that an omnipotent god annihilated himself in the Big Bang, because an omniscient entity would already know everything possible except his own lack of existence, and exists now as the smallest units of matter and the law of probability, or "God's debris".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God%27s_Debris

Note -- I went through the stages of Agnosticism, then Deism, then PanDeism, and am currently in the unstable state of PanEnDeism. But so far, I have avoided the pitfalls of Atheism and Cynicism. Like the world around me, I continue to evolve.

Sorry. I seem to have wandered off into sermonizing. :roll:

I can't parse how a deity becomes one or merges with the universe? Do you mean like a cyborg, one of the predicted futures of humanity when man and machine become symbionts? — TheMadFool

They seem to think that human culture will continue to evolve in intelligence and causal power, until their technological descendants become almost omniscient and omnipotent. For the details, you'll have to read some of the Omega Point theories of deChardin or Tipler, to see how they propose the transition from non-deity to deity.

In my worldview though, the deity -- whatever else S/he might be -- is, and must be, eternal (BEING ; Brahman ; Tao), always existed and always will. It's our temporary world that is contingent and emerging. Also, the notion of a deity "merging" with its creation may be misleading. In my view, the so-called deity is not a physical thing, but instead the timeless immaterial Potential for enforming (creating) physical things. So, the merging was from the top-down, and from the beginning to the end, not as an after-thought, or bottom-up evolution. The deity doesn't evolve, but the creation does.

Some versions of Deism do indeed imagine that the Creator "became" or "merged with" the Creation [1]. But the ACP is not overtly Deistic, only implicitly. On the other hand, in my view, the Creative Principle is PanEnDeistic. Which means that the Deus has always existed, but for some unfathomable reason, decided to Enform a temporary experiment in world-building. In that case, the "how" was probably like any other act of En-form-ation : eternal Potential (Platonic Form-giver) actualized the concept of an evolving world, maybe with "let there be light", or with "Shazaam!" or "Bang!", and suddenly a world (Matter) appeared in the midst of nothing (Space), and the clock of Time began ticking. "Voila!"

The rest of the story is pretty much as the typical creation myths, and evolutionary theories, and Big Bang theories have laid it out. Of course, I was not there to witness the creation. And I have no divine revelation. So I'm just making it up as I go along, by piecing together bits & bytes of previous stories. And by binding it all together with the Enformationism Thesis, based on the latest scientific hypotheses, that shape-shifting Information (power to enform) is the essence of Reality. [2] :cool:


PanEnDeism :
"Panendeism is an ontological position that explores the interrelationship between God (The Cosmic Mind) and the known attributes of the universe. Combining aspects of Panentheism and Deism, Panendeism proposes an idea of God that both embodies the universe and is transcendent of its observable physical properties."
https://panendeism.org/faq-and-questions/
Note --- PED is distinguished from general Deism, by its more specific notion of the G*D/Creation relationship; and from PanDeism by its understanding of G*D as eternal creative Potential, rather than the emergent Soul of Nature. Enformationism is a Panendeistic worldview.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page16.html

Enformationism :
* As a scientific paradigm, the thesis of Enformationism is intended to be an update to the obsolete 19th century paradigm of Materialism. Since the recent advent of Quantum Physics, the materiality of reality has been watered down. Now we know that matter is a form of energy, and that energy is a form of Information.
* As a religious philosophy, the creative power of Enform-ationism is envisioned as a more realistic version of the antiquated religious notions of Spiritualism. Since our world had a beginning, it's hard to deny the concept of creation. So, an infinite deity is proposed to serve as both the energetic Enformer and the malleable substance of the enformed world.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html

Note -- If you don't like my story, try this one :

[1] God's Debris: A Thought Experiment is a 2001 novella by Dilbert creator Scott Adams.
God's Debris espouses a philosophy based on the idea that the simplest explanation tends to be the best. It proposes a form of pandeism and monism, postulating that an omnipotent god annihilated himself in the Big Bang, because an omniscient entity would already know everything possible except his own lack of existence, and exists now as the smallest units of matter and the law of probability, or "God's debris".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God%27s_Debris

. . . . or this one :

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

↪Gnomon
Pandeism is "my omega point". — 180 Proof

That seems to also be the implication of physicists Barrow & Tipler in their 1985 book : The Anthropic Cosmological Principle. It was a sort of scientific update of Teilhard deChardin's Omega Point theory. However, in my personal worldview, the Alpha Point or First Cause is also Pantheistic, or as I prefer : PanEnDeistic. The "Omega" term is sufficiently suggestive & ambiguous, that many interpretations would fit the tenuous evidence at the current mid-point of Evolution. So, I don't pretend to know exactly where this evolving organism is headed. :smile:

The Anthropic Cosmological Principle : blog post
http://bothandblog7.enformationism.info/page10.html

1. It was assumed that the correct vowels were universally known. Ergo, there would be no confusion. — TheMadFool

I suspect that written language without vowels was only possible when the vocabulary was small. As writing and literacy and intercultural communication became more common, the sheer number of words would make a more explicit coding necessary. For example, the total number of separate English words is almost 200,000, and expanding every day. And a single person's vocabulary would be a fraction of the total. But, with vowels, we can sound them out, and perhaps guess at their meaning.

Besides, even YHWH became a taboo word and the vowels for a different word (Adonai ; Lord) were substituted. So, the inherent ambiguity was convenient for coded messages and magical implications. And the Hebrews made liberal use of both. :smile:

I wonder which of the two futures will come true? It doesn't hurt to look at the bright side, does it? :chin: — TheMadFool

Yes. The current mood, especially in the US, and on this forum, is pretty dismal. For example, it seems that the majority of movies in recent years have an end-of-world or post-apocalyptic theme. But downtrodden people are still motivated enough to push for positive change, despite their long history of struggling against all odds. So, for privileged people like me, pessimism is pretty petty.

Physicist Neils Bohr, channeling Yogi Berra, once said “Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future!” Typically, like weathermen, our future forecasts are merely short-term projections of current conditions. But history has a roller-coaster track-record of ups & downs. That's why I prefer to take the long-term view of Hegel, who despite the short-term oppositions, derived a somewhat optimistic view of the future.

That's because he inferred an overall tendency or positive principle, the "World Soul", which keeps the undulating universe on an upward track. In my personal worldview, that positive trend or principle is labeled "EnFormAction". It's similar to Plato's Logos, in that it's not just aimless Energy, but also the Rational power to enform. It's not just Tele-, it's also -Logical. :joke:


Hegelian dialectic :
an interpretive method in which the contradiction between a proposition (thesis) and its antithesis is resolved at a higher level of truth (synthesis)
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/hegelian-dialectic

EnFormAction :
Logos & Spirit

Logos …..pattern forming
Spirit …….active principle

En ………..direction, intention
Form …….meaningful pattern
Action …...creative force

COSMIC PROGRESSION

The real issue for me is that this understanding of information ( If we bundle the above definitions into one ) is really quite divergent from the normal understanding, which is various and situationally specific. — Pop

That situation is indeed ironic, since the original meaning of "information" referred to ideas situated in an immaterial mind. Before early humans developed explicit speech & writing, they were like chimpanzees, who communicate their ideas in implicit hoots & gestures. Today, we are so accustomed to the ease of moving memes from one mind to another, that we take it for granted. And sharing information is the essence of human culture. Yet, Shannon focused on one specific situation (mechanical movement of information), to the exclusion of other means of sharing memes.

Consequently, most applications of the term "information" now refer to machines instead of minds. And machines only have the values (meanings) that were programmed into them by others. Yet, humans are still capable of self-programming, by actively seeking relevant information*. It remains to be seen, if humans can develop machines capable of a personal self-image, which would add self-reflective value (meaning) to a stream of impersonal data. If and when that happens, we will see the beginning of machine Culture, as envisioned by sci-fi writers, e.g. The Matrix. :gasp:

* Note -- Current AI computers are programmed to actively seek "relevant information". But the motivation (and the relevance) comes from the programmer, not the machine. Hence, lacking freewill, they simulate communication of meaning without the ability to make sense of it. In that situation, they are not even on a level with apes in intelligence. They are merely processors of information, without actually possessing it.

Here's an article on the math of Self-Oganization. You may already be familiar with the math of organized chaos. But the article has some images to illustrate the result, based on the mandala math of a fractal sandpile. :smile:


https://nautil.us/issue/107/the-edge/the-math-of-the-amazing-sandpile?utm_source=pocket-newtab

If consciousness is like a radio signal and brains are radio receivers, doesn’t this posit a dualism between the physical and consciousness? Like a sort of ‘pandualism’ where there’s a non-physical/immaterial ‘field’ of consciousness that is tuned into by the brains of organisms composed of entirely non-conscious physical substance? — Paul Michael

Most of the early theories of Life & Mind assumed that some physical substance was the cause. For example, the Soul/Anima/Life was compared to Breath (intake of air). So they assumed that life could be breathed into a body like CPR. What they didn't know was that an invisible substance, Oxygen, was the essential ingredient. But we now know, that even oxygen is not capable of reviving a dead body. So there must be something more to life.

We now are capable of understanding that, the life-giving "something more" is not any physical stuff that could be taken like medicine. Instead, Life is a Holistic Metaphysical Process, not a single thing. So, that Whole Organized System is the missing element in the duality of Body/Mind, and Life/Death. In-organic substances lack Life. But organic systems live & breathe & think.

Therefore, what remains to resolve the apparent duality is a way to convert dead stuff into a living organism : like Frankenstein. Unfortunately, even the power of lightning energy is not sufficient to organize inert matter into a living being. And that's the basic problem with the "naturalistic model" : it's strictly materialistic, with no organizing essence -- soul/anima/psyche. :smile: