Being distances itself from itself in ways that create myriad, unique, fleeting perspectives from which to experience itself, and each person is one of these perspectives. — charles ferraro

FWIW, here's my personal definition of holistic BEING, as contrasted with any particular being. Is that close to your understanding? Eternal BEING looking at He/r reflection in a panoply of created beings. :smile:

BEING :
In my own theorizing there is one universal principle that subsumes all others, including Consciousness : essential Existence. Among those philosophical musings, I refer to the "unit of existence" with the absolute singular term "BEING" as contrasted with the plurality of contingent "beings" and things and properties. By BEING I mean the ultimate “ground of being”, which is simply the power to exist, and the power to create beings.
Note : Real & Ideal are modes of being. BEING, the power to exist, is the source & cause of Reality and Ideality. BEING is eternal, undivided and static, but once divided into Real/Ideal, it becomes our dynamic Reality.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page10.html

Ground of Being :
Paul Tillich was critical of the view of God as a type of being or presence. He felt that, if God were a being, God could not then properly be called the source of all being (due to the question of what, in turn, created God). As an alternative, he suggested that God be understood as the “ground of Being-Itself”.
https://religiousnaturalism.org/god-as-ground-of-being-paul-tillich/

Lets assume if two integers collide their values combine and gain different properties, however collisions become exponentially(?) harder as the size gets bigger. — Ben Ngai

I think your intuition has some validity, But, in what sense could "two integers collide"? In order to literally bump into each other, mathematical values (quanta) would have to possess material properties (qualia) That's why it's always hard to discuss metaphysics without using physical metaphors.

Values are subjective & relative evaluations from some perspective. Even mathematical "values" are assigned in the context of their relationship to subjective human observers. Nevertheless, my intuition is that ultimately "objective" mathematical & logical values & functions must be assigned relative to an observer outside the system : the universe. So, when universal or abstract values are added or subtracted (due to "collisions" or inter-relationships) the computation would be in a Mind of some kind, not in "empty space". Does that make any sense? :smile:

I think the main focus of IIT is more in predicting consciousness with greater accuracy. — Possibility

Yes. That too. IIT may be useful for the current application of computers in the search for hidden signs of consciousness in people that outwardly appear to be in a vegetative state (wakeful unawareness).

I doubt that Tononi had Star Trek technology in mind as he developed his theory. But the notion of quantifying consciousness would be a necessary step in that direction. The question remains though, if the quantitative values (objective numbers) would also include qualitative values (subjective feelings). Or would the holistic Self be filtered-out in the process of reducing a person to raw data? :smile:

PS__Rovelli's book focuses on the fundamental physical quantum-level inter-connectedness of the universe -- as the "web of relations that weaves reality". But, as a sober scientist, he avoids speculating on such meta-physical holistic notions as Cosmic Consciousness. He does, however, in a footnote, comment on Thomas Nagel's Mind & Cosmos : "on a careful reading, I find that it doesn't offer any convincing arguments to sustain his thesis".

Where these guys deficient in their logic or where they on to something? — Trinidad

All those guys had different definitions of the apex (God), but most took the existence of pyramidal Natural Hierarchy for granted. The notion of a non-hierarchical (egaliatarian) Nature seems to be a rather modern idea. Obviously, that classless concept does not describe how-it-is, but how-it-ought-to-be. Since the order of the real world (red in tooth & claw) is not Edenic (Lions eat grass and play with Lambs), they conclude that it was not created by someone as smart, or moral, as themselves. Hence, our disorderly world, with random acts of cruelty, is a result of erratic events instead of intentional intelligence. QED

However, that idealistic appraisal seems to assume that an all-powerful God would or should create only perfection. But perfection is complete & static, with no room to grow. So, what if the top guy (mono a mano) intended instead to create an ongoing logical process that approaches perfection gradually and slowly? In that case, the current hierarchical structure of evolution would make sense in terms of Bayesian Logic. No? :chin:

Bayesian Logic :
probabilistic logic that evolves over time
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayesian_probability

I understand quality to be pure relational or organisational structure: an existence of relation without substance. In language, we can’t really make sense of quality until we attribute it as a property of. — Possibility

IIT seems to be intended as a step toward computerizing Consciousness. If you can quantify mental qualities, then you can conceivably construct a Star Trek Transporter, which analyzes a human body & mind into 1s & 0s, then transmits that digital information across space to a receiver, which then interprets the abstract numbers back into a concrete living thinking feeling human. But some Star Trek episodes addressed the reluctance of some people to be transported. Not because they doubted the mathematical algorithms ability to quantify matter, but because they were afraid that the essence of their Self/Soul would be filtered-out in the process of turning Qualia into Quanta. Other Science-Fiction writers have expressed that same concern in personal terms : "will that reconstituted body still be me?"

Physicist Carlo Rovelli, in his latest book HELGOLAND, presents his "relational" interpretation of Quantum Theory. He says "properties do not reside in objects, they are bridges between objects". Those "bridges" are what we know in other contexts as "relationships". And the human mind interprets those patterns of relations as Qualitative Meaning. On a cosmic scale, it's what Rovelli calls : "the web of relations that weaves reality". And Reality is the "organizational structure" of the world. Ironically, this approach to physics places the emphasis on the mental links (relations, meanings) instead of the material nodes (substance). So, some of his fellow physicists will find that promotion of Mind above Matter to be tantamount to Panpsychism. Although, Rovelli doesn't go quite that far in his book. :smile:

But again, if you are agnostic, why did something I said get you to respond to me with such ... well, interest, passion, anger, whatever word you like. I said something that triggered you. Why else would you repeatedly say I don't belong on this forum, only in the end to completely agree with everything I said? What was it all about? — fishfry

Nothing you said "got to me", and nothing "triggered my anger". To the contrary, I got the impression that you were offended by my reference to the "G word", or to my use of the term "metaphysical". Personally, I don't care what you believe about Gods or UFOs. And I have no religious Faith to foist on you. I continued sparring with you though, because that's what I do on this forum. I have dialogs with many posters who don't agree with my worldview. But we are usually able to have calm, rational philosophical communication -- up to a point. And those who do get riled-up tend to gag on the notion of Meta-Physics.

So, I must ask why you continue to reply to my posts, even though both of us have said that we have nothing further to talk about. Apparently, something "got under your skin". And I suppose it's because your definition of "Metaphysics" is radically different from my definition of "Meta-Physics". FWIW, I'll give you my definition again, below. :grin: :joke: :cool:

PS__I never said that you "don't belong on this forum". I merely asked why you post on a philosophical forum, when you only want to talk about physical (empirical) evidence. Philosophers are theorists -- they don't do empirical research. Abstract, theoretical entities, such as gods & ghosts & neutrinos & dark matter, are "super-sensual" (i.e. no-one has ever seen or touched a chunk of Dark Matter, because "it's just a theory"). And reasonable people remain "agnostic" about things that seem plausible but can't be verified by personal experience. :smile:

PPS__Dark Matter has measurable effects on the physical world even though it is invisible --- just like the ancient weather "gods" and the "angels" that pushed planets around. They were like "Dark" Agents of change. :joke:

PPPS__ I can go on like this as long as you hold-up your end of the dialog. :halo:

See! -- "no blood, no foul".

What is the difference between Philosophy and Metaphysics? "
. . . . the difference between philosophy and metaphysics is that philosophy is an academic discipline that seeks truth through reasoning rather than empiricism while metaphysics is the study of a supersensual realm or of phenomena which transcend the physical world.
https://wikidiff.com/philosophy/metaphysics

Meta-Physics :
The branch of philosophy that examines the logical nature of reality, including the relationship between Matter & Mind, Substance & Attribute, Fact & Value, and Quanta & Qualia.
1. Often dismissed by materialists as idle speculation on topics not amenable to empirical proof.
2. Aristotle divided his treatise on science into two parts. The world as-known-via-the-senses was labeled “physics” - what we call "Science" today. And the world as-known-by-the-mind, by reason, was labeled “metaphysics” - what we now call "Philosophy" .
3. Plato called the unseen world that hides behind the physical façade: “Ideal” as opposed to Real. For him, Ideal “forms” (concepts) were prior-to the Real “substance” (matter).
4. Physics refers to the things we perceive with the eye of the body. Meta-physics refers to the things we conceive with the eye of the mind. Meta-physics includes the properties, and qualities, and functions that make a thing what it is. Matter is just the clay from which a thing is made. Meta-physics is the design (form, purpose); physics is the product (shape, action). The act of creation brings an ideal design into actual existence. The design concept is the “formal” cause of the thing designed.
5. I use a hyphen in the spelling to indicate that I am not talking about Ghosts and Magic, but about Ontology (science of being).
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page14.html

However "why questions" otherwise addressed to nonpersons (e.g. the universe) or mysteries (e.g. g/G) are based on assumed category mistakes; — 180 Proof

Actually, as I noted in my last reply to Fishfry, the nonperson (g/G) is a metaphor that philosophers have used for millennia in reference to holistic concepts that are beyond our personal sensory experience, but not beyond the reach of human Reason. The "category mistake" that is common with metaphors is to confuse the part with the whole.

For example, we speak confidently of "The Universe", as-if we know what we are talking about. But no-one on this planet has ever experienced that holistic entity. All we know about The Cosmos is a conceptual model that has been gradually assembled by sages & scientists, from fragments of empirical data. And even those bits of information are limited to our finite cosmic light horizon. Consequently, when we talk about "The Universe", we don't really know what we are talking about. We are just using models and metaphors to convey our subjective ideas & opinions. And that is the sense in which I use the terms "Programmer" and "G*D". :smile:


G*D :
An ambiguous spelling of the common name for a supernatural deity. The Enformationism thesis is based upon an unprovable axiom that our world is an idea in the mind of G*D. This eternal deity is not imagined in a physical human body, but in a meta-physical mathematical form, equivalent to LOGOS. Other names : ALL, BEING, Creator, Enformer, MIND, Nature, Reason, Source, Programmer. The eternal Whole of which all temporal things are a part is not to be feared or worshipped, but appreciated like Nature.
I refer to the logically necessary and philosophically essential First & Final Cause as G*D, rather than merely "X" the Unknown, partly out of respect. That’s because the ancients were not stupid, to interpret what we now call "Energy" as purposeful agencies, but merely shooting in the dark. We now understand the "How" of Nature much better, but not the "Why". That inscrutable agent of Entention is what I mean by G*D.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page13.html

Cosmos often simply means "universe". But the word is generally used to suggest an orderly or harmonious universe, as it was originally used by Pythagoras in the 6th century B.C. Thus, a religious mystic may help put us in touch with the cosmos, and so may a physicist.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cosmos

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

all that would be needed is a brand new mathematical tool that'll do the job in a manner of speaking. — TheMadFool

Some mathematicians & physicists, have advocated the "new science" of Cellular Automata, as a way to go beyond Analytic and Algorithmic methods in the search for knowledge. Unfortunately, as a path to new knowledge, CA may not appeal to analytical and reductive thinkers, because it is ultimately "undecidable". Stephen Wolfram, in his book, A new Kind of Science, advocates CA as a way to study complex systems, such as Minds, that are resistant to reductive methods. In other words, the new methods, including IIT, take a more holistic approach to undecidable and non-computable questions, such as "what is it like to be a bat?". :smile:


Penrose argues that human consciousness is non-algorithmic, and thus is not capable of being modeled by a conventional Turing machine, which includes a digital computer.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Emperor%27s_New_Mind

Cellular Automata :
The Game of Life is undecidable, which means that given an initial pattern and a later pattern, no algorithm exists that can tell whether the later pattern is ever going to appear.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway%27s_Game_of_Life

A New Kind of Science :
Wolfram argues that one of his achievements is in providing a coherent system of ideas that justifies computation as an organizing principle of science. For instance, he argues that the concept of computational irreducibility (that some complex computations are not amenable to short-cuts and cannot be "reduced"), is ultimately the reason why computational models of nature must be considered in addition to traditional mathematical models.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_New_Kind_of_Science

* Regarding the ultimate nature of the world, I have no opinion, no beliefs, and little philosophical interest. That is, I am ignorant and apathetic. I don't know and I don't care. — fishfry

That's why we don't really have much to talk about. I responded to your original post, because it seemed to have something to do with the OP. But since then, you have indicated that both of us are wasting our time talking past each other. So, thanks for the exercise, but both of us have more important things to do. :cool:

PS__Regarding the implications of a God programming this world, I remain agnostic, since for me it's just a philosophical metaphor to explain why the world works as it does. When we talk about Minds & Consciousness, we have no choice but to discuss Meta-physics in terms of Meta-phors. For the record, I have no personal contact with any supernatural beings.

Ok, I like this. And if it's true that matter is a form of energy, then nothing belongs to anybody? — Foghorn

Are you advocating Communism? :joke:

Casual power to enform? — Foghorn

The terminology I'm using here comes from my personal worldview, as expressed in the Enformationism thesis, in which everything in this world is one form or another of generic causal creative Energy, which I call "EnFormAction".

EnFormAction :
Ententional Causation. A proposed metaphysical law of the universe that causes random interactions between forces and particles to produce novel & stable arrangements of matter & energy. . . . AKA : The creative power of Evolution; the power to enform; Logos; Change.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html

Enform : To form; to fashion, to create.

I'm arguing along the lines that "intelligence" (likely a wrong word to use) is a property, not of this or that thing, but of reality itself. If we change the word "intelligence" to "data" maybe my theory becomes more science-like? — Foghorn

Yes. But I prefer the term "Information", because it exists in two basic forms in the real world. The original meaning of the term, referred to meanings in minds. But it has recently been applied to describe the causal power (to enform) of Energy. Since Energy is not a static property of matter, limited to a single form, it hops from one physical object to another. It's a general property of reality, not a specific property of any one thing. :smile:

This relationship between that which exists, and that which is real but doesn't exist, is of increasing interest here. — Foghorn

That's the crux of the Black Hole Information paradox. Everything that exists in reality is ultimately a form of quantum information, sometimes called a "quantum field" of empty space, where potential (virtual) particles pop in & out of existence. But when matter is sucked into a Black Hole, it's crushed & ripped-apart like a garbage grinder. So, where does the essential information go?

Since structural information is equivalent to causal Energy, complete destruction would contradict the First Law of Thermodynamics. Some have guessed that the squeezed essence of matter (thinking it's like orange juice) may have disappeared into a parallel universe. But, since quantum level Information (patterns, relationships) is mathematical, it actually occupies no space. So, compression doesn't destroy it, it just deconstructs the physical form that we can sense. Hence, I would say that the original information still exists, but is recycled back into Potential instead of Actual matter. :nerd:

Energy - Information equivalence :
The bit of information is equivalent to a quantum of minimum energy
https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1401/1401.6052.pdf

The First Law of Thermodynamics (Conservation) states that energy is always conserved, it cannot be created or destroyed. In essence, energy can be converted from one form into another.

The black hole information paradox :
The black hole information paradox is a puzzle resulting from the combination of quantum mechanics and general relativity. Calculations suggest that physical information could permanently disappear in a black hole, allowing many physical states to devolve into the same state. . . . This is controversial because it violates a core precept of modern physics—t
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole_information_paradox

What happens to those instructions after the big bang? — Foghorn

Those instructions are now doing their job. Like the encoded patterns of DNA, they are used as blueprints for construction of matter. And, like DNA, the code is recycled (reproduced) from one job to another, to continue the assembly of an expanding material universe.

keeping my fingers crossed that consciousness turns out to be a mathematical pattern — TheMadFool
How on Earth can mathematical patterns be consciousness? — RogueAI

The technical mathematical calculations of IIT are way over my head. But, I think 's wording of the relationship -- seeming to identify Consciousness with Mathematical patterns -- has the direction of perception backward. Patterns (forms), mathematical or otherwise, are what we are conscious of. Patterns are the external "objects" that our subjective Consciousness interprets as meaningful, including mathematical values & social relationships.

IIT is a novel way of thinking about Consciousness, which gives the impression of scientific validity in its use of mathematics. But it still doesn't tell us what Consciousness is, in an ontological sense. Since Consciousness as a computative process is meta-physical, we can only define it with metaphors -- comparisons to physical stuff. And Mathematical Logic may be as good an analogy as we can hope for. But the big C is not simply a pattern itself, it's the power (ability) to decipher encoded patterns (think Morse code). That's why I say it's a form of generic Enformation (EnFormAction) : the epistemological power to create and to decode Forms into Meaning. :smile:

Can Integrated Information Theory Explain Consciousness? :
So, although IIT is a useful theory for understanding “C” for scientific purposes, it doesn’t really answer the “hard” philosophical questions, such as “how and why do we experience subjective qualia?”
http://bothandblog7.enformationism.info/page80.html

Consciousness :
Literally : to know with. To be aware of the world subjectively (self-knowledge) and objectively (other knowing). Humans know Quanta via physical senses & analysis, and Qualia via meta-physical reasoning & synthesis. In the Enformationism thesis, Consciousness is viewed as an emergent form of basic mathematical Information.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page12.html

Where can DNA be found outside living organisms? — Wayfarer

The reference was not to bio-chemical DNA, but to the non-physical "instructions" encoded in the chemical structure. The distinction is between the "carrier" of information Quanta (def 1.)and the message "content" Qualia (def 2.). We now use those letters metaphorically in reference to any design information (blueprint) that results in the construction of physical structure, such as the Universe. The Big Bang Singularity is sometimes compared to a Black Hole, in which material information is compressed into something we would no longer recognize as matter. It's close to pure, un-embodied mathematical information. :nerd:

DNA :
1. self-replicating material that is present in nearly all living organisms as the main constituent of chromosomes. It is the carrier of genetic information.
2. the fundamental and distinctive characteristics or qualities of someone or something, especially when regarded as unchangeable.
___Oxford

I just never got the idealist materialist split. The idealists seem to be claiming the existence of something that's not needed for explaining anything. — khaled

I suspect that Descarte's duality was a philosophical compromise to allow Materialist Science to do its thing, without stepping on the toes of Spiritualist Theologians. So the "split" was not really between Materialism (atomic theory) and Idealism (Plato's Forms), but between pragmatic Science (bodies) and hypothetical Religion (souls). Yet that rupture also reflected different values. Most of us are Materialists in our daily lives, as we tend to the needs of our physical bodies. But some among us are Spiritualists, in that they are also concerned with the needs of their meta-physical minds or souls.

The mind/soul/consciousness is not a thing at all, as far as our senses are concerned. But to our sixth sense of Reason, it's a non-physical property (Qualia) that we value because it seems to be the essence of each person. However, that idealized or reified essence doesn't "explain anything" in a measurable scientific sense. It merely gives us an idea to hang-our-hat-on so to speak, to indicate that I am more than a lump of meat. That practically useless concept (of Me, or You) is what makes the difference between im-personal objective Science, and inter-personal subjective Social relationships.

Since Descartes, Scientists, freed from concern for Souls, have gone-on to change the physical world radically. Meanwhile, Philosophers are still arguing about the same old ideas & ideals that the Hebrews & Greeks wrote about 2.5 millennia ago. And they seem to value those things-that-are-not-things, not because they are pragmatically useful, but because they are personally meaningful. Ideas (words, metaphors, memes) are "not needed to explain anything" in a scientific sense, but they are absolutely necessary to convey explanations (ideas, opinions) from one immaterial Mind to Another ghost-in-the-machine. :cool:


“Who can find a virtuous woman? for her value is far above rubies” (Proverbs 31:10-31).

I've been suggesting that what we call intelligence, and matter, may be not two things but one. That is, two different words for the same thing. United in reality, divided conceptually.
Isn't this the case with energy and matter? Isn't matter just one of the expressions of energy? — Foghorn

Yes. According the the Big Bang theory, All Energy, Matter, Intelligence, and Consciousness in the universe came from the same source, called "The Singularity". But the question arises, what form did those different expressions take when they were united in the "seed" of our universe. My guess is that the Singularity contained generic Information (program), analogous to the DNA in a seed or egg -- or like the "Boot Program" of a computer. And since Information is non-physical (e.g. mathematics & logic) everything in our vast current universe could be compressed into a tiny package with no physical dimensions (i.e. occupying no space).

Therefore, in my personal worldview, all Matter & Energy in the world originated as something with the Potential to develop into a variety of physical (Matter) and meta-physical (Mind) forms. Hence, both Energy and Matter are "expressions" of generic Information. And Quantum Theory supports that notion, in that physical Atoms of Matter, are reduced to mathematical Wave Functions on the quantum scale. One physicist remarked on the strange notion of a superposed particle, with no definite position or velocity : "it's nothing but Information!"

That's why scientists track those neither-here-nor-there particles by their effects on other particles. It's like following the spoor of a deer in the forest, without ever actually seeing the deer. What we "see" is Information about (related to) the particle, not the object itself. So, we use different words, and have different concepts for the various aspects of our world, that in fact are all "expressions" of the same Universal Potential : the power to Enform. :nerd:


The initial singularity is a singularity predicted by some models of the Big Bang theory to have existed before the Big Bang[1] and thought to have contained all the energy and spacetime of the Universe. . . . Although there is no direct evidence for a singularity of infinite density, the cosmic microwave background is evidence that the universe expanded from a very hot, dense state.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Initial_singularity

Boot Program :
In computing terms, the term “boot” means to start a computer up from cold. When a computer is initially powered on, commands in the computer's ROM are automatically executed that instruct the computer to load the boot program into memory and execute its instructions.
https://www.dataclinic.co.uk/what-is-a-boot-program/
Note -- the Singularity was the "memory" and the Big Bang was the "execution" of the program.

What if intelligence is like this? What if it's not a property of this or that thing, but a property of reality which is expressed in many different ways in many different circumstances? — Foghorn

Your question describes universal "Intelligence" as-if it is something "out there in Nature", like Energy, except that, instead of converting Cold to Hot, it converts Dumb to Smart. Perhaps, everything in the world is being irradiated with that ambient Smart Power, but only certain things are receptive to it's wisdom. Similarly, some people have postulated that "Consciousness" is being beamed at us like radio signals, but only a select few (humans, apes, whales) are tuned-in to the proper frequency to get a clear signal. But where (out there in the ether) is the Intelligence radio station? And who is the station manager?

Radio Brain :
"the brain may be a receiver and transmitter of consciousness."
https://medicalxpress.com/news/2019-06-spiritual-science-perspective-consciousness.html

I have considered a similar idea, but I use the more generic term "Information" instead of anthropocentric "Intelligence". Information is indeed related to Intelligence & Wisdom, but as a transmitter and transformer, it works more like Energy as an agent of Change. Scientists have found that Information is an essential Quality of everything in the world. I won't go into the details of that notion here. Yet, it's the basis of my personal worldview that I call Enformationism. Like Energy, Information is a "property of reality", but it has Mental effects in addition to its causal effects on Matter. Its expression as Intelligence is a matter of degree : some have it and some don't. :smile:

Is information the only thing that exists? :
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg23431191-500-inside-knowledge-is-information-the-only-thing-that-exists/

Information :
Knowledge and the ability to know. Technically, it's the ratio of order to disorder, of positive to negative, of knowledge to ignorance. It's measured in degrees of uncertainty. Those ratios are also called "differences". So Gregory Bateson* defined Information as "the difference that makes a difference". The latter distinction refers to "value" or "meaning". Babbage called his prototype computer a "difference engine". Difference is the cause or agent of Change. In Physics it’s called "Thermodynamics" or "Energy". In Sociology it’s called "Conflict".
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page11.html

When the ad hominems start I always know I'm in the presence of a superior mind. Teach me, oh wise one. — fishfry

What did you interpret as an ad hominem? Is "missed the distinction" a personal attack? I'll have to be more careful in stating any disagreement, to avoid cracking your "thin shell". Ooops! There I go again. :joke:

Finite compared to infinite. Was the Great Programmer always there? How's that any different from a universe that's always there? — fishfry

First, according to modern Science, the knowable universe cannot be infinite, since it had a specific origin. Any speculations about an a priori infinite Multiverse are just that : conjectures with no evidence. So my conjecture of a pre-existing Programmer is just as valid as any other. A popular question asked of Astronomers is "what existed prior to the Big Bang?". And their guess is usually "more of the same". Which is not a conclusive answer, but a "turtles all the way down" non-conclusion. Simply "being there" does not explain why the world works as it does, and gives no hint of where it's going.

Second, did our universe write its own program? Do, you think the Chance + Choice evolutionary algorithm was an accident? If not, does the self-existent universe do what it does with an intended goal in mind, or is its evolution totally random? It's the signs of teleology that allow me to infer the necessity for a Programmer. If you're interested, those "signs" are discussed in the Enformationism thesis and in the BothAnd Blog. :nerd:

"Turtles all the way down" is an expression of the problem of infinite regress.

And when someone uses the phrase, "close to infinite," I know I'm in the presence of someone who hasn't given five minutes thought to their own words. — fishfry

Ouch! Was that remark an ad hominem? "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone". :gasp:

Something I said pushed your buttons, and that was not my intention. I only stated my opinions. — fishfry

My buttons are hard to push, because my emotions are well-balanced. My intention here is to share opinions. And I enjoy having my ideas challenged. That's what philosophy is all about. But in a text only format, it's all to easy to offend others by challenging their certainty. That's why I use a lot of smilies & emojis : to indicate that I mean no offense. If I step on your toes, it's either because they were in the wrong place at the right time, or because I'm clumsy, but not malicious. :blush:

You're gonna blow a gasket, man. Do you understand you're arguing with someone who's not arguing back? — fishfry

Yes. You seem to be playing rope-a-dope, by making evasive maneuvers. But I get that a lot, from those who have no answers to hard questions. Besides, I'm not boxing with you, but merely using you as a sparring partner to develop my own skills. As long as you're willing to play the game, I can do this all day. :wink:

Rope-a-dope : a boxing tactic of pretending to be trapped against the ropes, goading an opponent to throw tiring ineffective punches.

You're going to wear out your smiley button. — fishfry

See above.

I hope you can find peace in this life that doesn't involve converting me to a point of view that you're not articulating very well. — fishfry

Apparently, you don't understand the purpose of a philosophy forum. It's not intended to reinforce your own beliefs & biases, but to have them tested by others, who don't share your point of view. I don't have any religion to convert you to. And I don't think the Programmer will send you to Hell if you don't believe as I do.

Site Guidelines :Don't start a new discussion unless you are:
a) Genuinely interested in the topic you've begun and are willing to engage those who engage you.

but your own passion for ... something or other ... is blinding you to the points I'm making, and upsetting you besides. — fishfry

I could say the same about you. But I won't. I do indeed have a "passion" for my personal worldview, and like to share it with others. That's why I responded to the OP : "In other words, and here's where it gets interesting, mindless evolution through random mutation is exactly what a mind which is as intelligent as us would do given the way things were, are, will probably be." The "intelligent mind" behind the evolutionary algorithm is what I call "The Programmer". But, obviously, you take exception to any suggestion of intelligence in Evolution. Preferring instead to believe that this world is a cosmic accident. Is that true, or another ad hominem? :yum:

I did say that I do not find "God did it" helpful in the least, because it explains nothing. — fishfry

Do you have another answer to the "why" of our existence, that explains everything? Or do you prefer the attitude of Nihilism? "It just is, and always has been", explains nothing. How would you describe your personal worldview? If you would be less evasive, and more forthcoming, perhaps I could avoid stepping on your toes. If you are not interested in "why" questions, why are you posting on a Philosophy Forum? Philosophy "explains nothing" about the physical world, but focuses on understanding the meta-physical aspects of the world. :cool:

"The problems that metaphysics attempts to solve are existential, essential, and origin-al. But philosophy covers these and more. . . . We could say: metaphysics ⊆ philosophy, but vice versa is not true." ___ Quora

Nothing you said was responsive to my point. There is no difference between an eternal universe and an eternal creator that creates a short-lived universe. — fishfry

Apparently, you missed the distinction between a random accidental event as the beginning of our world, and a programmed intentional act of creation. If that makes "no difference" to you, then you are wasting your time with science & philosophy. You'd do better to just "eat, drink, and be merry . . . for tomorrow we die". For me, it's the difference between a meaningless absurd universe, and a world that grows & matures like a living organism.

As for the "short-lived" creation, I must ask, relative to what? Compared to your individual life, the span of the universe is close to infinite. But when compared to a timeless Creator, this experiment in living & thinking is a mere momentary blip in eternity. mentioned the "rejection of transcendence by Absurdists". They must have been appalled by the new science of Quantum Theory, which seemed absurd compared to the intuitive Classical worldview. But those who actually study, and engage with, the Quantum realm are excited by the opportunity to explore "strange new worlds". Instead of retreating into pessimism, they view this opportunity almost like a vacation trip to exotic locales. It allows us to momentarily "transcend" our mundane classical reality, and to experience a "higher" ideality. Does String Theory seem realistic to you? :joke:

You have no idea what "most mathematicians" believe. And if R & W are your idea of mathematicians, you are making the same mistake made by many philosophers, which is to imagine that mathematics is what philosophers of math were doing in 1900. — fishfry

I suppose then, that you do have an idea of "what most mathematicians believe". You claim to know that "most give the matter no thought at all". Does that defect make you feel superior to B. Russell and A.N. Whitehead? What do you know that they didn't, a century ago? What novel philosophical insights to reality are revealed in non-linear or differential geometry? Have you found a topological path around the roadblock of the Incompleteness and Uncertainty principles? If not, what's your point? :chin:

I find metaphysical explanations unsatisfying is because they don't explain anything. — fishfry

Apparently, you think Meta-Physics is a perverse attempt to "explain" the mechanisms of Matter. But Aristotle's purpose in his second volume, was not to explain Physics, but to set out some principles of Logic & Reason, in order to explain the mysterious workings of the human mind. Now 2500 years later, physical science has made great progress in inventing gadgets like Cell Phones and Nuclear Weapons. But the Quantum Leap from objective neurons to subjective consciousness remains a "hard question". Aristotle's Physics is completely out-of-date. But his Meta-Physics is still debated by scientists and philosophers. Science is good at explaining the mundane Mechanisms of things, but not so much for explaining the sublime Meaning of inter-relationships.

You admit that "In the end science itself tells us what but not why". But, if you are not interested in "why" questions, why are you posting on a feckless philosophy forum, instead of discussing Physics and Formulas? :nerd:

But science has one big advantage: It makes specific, measurable predictions. That makes science preferable to God as an explanation. — fishfry

If you are only interested in measurable "how" explanations, this is the wrong forum for you. Can science measure Morality? Can it predict the overthrow of US Democracy by a mendacious Autocrat? Can physics explain why people fall for Fascism? Maybe a better understanding of the human mind can help us to understand the "whys" & "wherefores" of this crazy mixed-up world. But then, the simple notion of a Programmer of this Cosmos will not explain all of our questions. But if we can understand better how & why the "Program" works as it does, we may alleviate some of our existential angst. :cool:

PS___I'm currently reading a book by physicist Carlo Rovelli, Helgoland. And he takes a rather metaphysical approach to understanding the apparent absurdities of Quantum Physics. He advocates a different path to explaining its counter-intuitive aspects in terms of "the relational interpretation of quantum theory". And that is exactly the point of the Enformationism thesis. What's philosophically important is not physical objects but the metaphysical relations between them.

Spinoza's pure immanence isn't "materialist". Neither is the rejection of transcendence by Absurdists (e.g. Nietzsche, Zapffe, Camus) nor by Schopenhauer "materialist'. I'm curious, Gnomon, how you account for these so-called "short-sighted responses" by non-materialists. — 180 Proof

I often refer to Spinoza's theory of Universal Substance as a forerunner of my own Enformationism thesis. But, I also note that Spinoza lived long before the Big Bang theory put a damper on early astronomer's unproven assumptions that the physical world is eternal, and self-existent. Now, even "short-sighted materialists" have been forced to postulate the existence of something that transcends our space-time world. Which we now know had a sudden beginning (along with space-time itself) from some prior ghostly Singularity, that either "gave birth to" or "created" our universe, depending on your preference of descriptive terminology. Moreover, as I noted above to the only scientific alternative to "creation from nothing" is the Multiverse conjectures, which are merely updates of the discredited notion of Continuous Creation.

Therefore, I stand by my description of Materialist or Non-transcendental theories to explain the conditional existence of our universe. Which are all dependent on some implicit creative act that preceded the Big Bang. And that includes the Inflation theory -- instantaneous emergence from a transcendent (pre-existent) quantum field -- which seems even more like a magical "voila", than the explosion of a non-dimensional Singularity. :cool:

PS__ I don't waste much time on the writings of Nihilists and "Absurdists", who seem to reject both Science and Philosophy, in their cop-out from a rational approach to understanding the world, in which "they live and breathe and have their being". At least, Mysterians don't ridicule the power of the human mind that raised us from hooting apes to tweeting geeks. :joke:

Absurdism : the belief that human beings exist in a purposeless, chaotic universe.

scientific assumptions :
Nature is orderly, and the laws of nature describe that order. ...
We can know nature. ...
All phenomena have natural causes. ...
Nothing is self evident. ...
Knowledge is derived from acquisition of experience. ...
Knowledge is superior to ignorance.

Well then why can't the world be self-existent without the need for the Great Programmer? — fishfry

Before the Big Bang theory became accepted by physicists and cosmologists -- including Einstein -- their unproven assumption was that the physical world had always existed in some form. One theory was the Steady-State or Continuous Creation postulation, in which new energy & matter was constantly emerging to replace that lost to Entropy. But when astronomers proved conclusively that the whole universe was expanding like a balloon, from a single point of space & time, the notion of a sudden creation act was no longer scientifically deniable. Ironically, the best alternative to the Big Bang theory is the various versions of Multiverse theories, which are merely updates to the old Continuous Creation concept. Moreover, just like the creation myth in Genesis, the Multiverse Myth has to be taken on faith, because there is no physical evidence to support it. :nerd:

Continuous Creation :
https://sc663henad.weebly.com/steady-state-theory.html

Cosmic Constant : Einstein -- "my biggest blunder"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_constant

I don't necessarily regard myself as a materialist, but I don't find non-material explanations satisfying. — fishfry

I apologize, if my descriptive, not pejorative, label offended you. Some on this forum prefer the label "Physicalist". But most of us are Materialists in practical matters. We assume that the wooden table in front of us is solid matter. But Quantum Physics asks us to believe that 99% of that table is empty space, and even the atoms of wood are in constant motion. The reason you find Meta-physical explanations un-satisfying is that the evidence is purely subjective. But then, your personal subjective mental image of reality is the only reality you have any direct experience of. Most of the "objective facts" presented by Science -- especially those of Quantum "reality" -- must be taken on faith in the abstruse "knowledge" of the researchers. I've never seen a Quark, have you? :joke:

That's why materialist Multiverse proponents must assume, without evidence, that the Forces and Rules-for-their-application logically pre-exist any functioning world or mini-verse. — Gnomon
A criticism I myself have leveled at the physicists. — fishfry

But still, you prefer their Physical "assumptions" to any Meta-Physical "conjectures", no? Most people are not familiar with the subject matter of Aristotle's second volume, commonly known as The Metaphysics. :cool:

Meta-physics :
The branch of philosophy that examines the nature of reality, including the relationship between mind and matter, substance and attribute, fact and value.
1. Often dismissed by materialists as idle speculation on topics not amenable to empirical proof.
2. Aristotle divided his treatise on science into two parts. The world as-known-via-the-senses was labeled “physics” - what we call "Science" today. And the world as-known-by-the-mind, by reason, was labeled “metaphysics” - what we now call "Philosophy" .
3. Plato called the unseen world that hides behind the physical façade: “Ideal” as opposed to Real. For him, Ideal “forms” (concepts) were prior-to the Real “substance” (matter).
4. Physics refers to the things we perceive with the eye of the body. Meta-physics refers to the things we conceive with the eye of the mind. Meta-physics includes the properties, and qualities, and functions that make a thing what it is. Matter is just the clay from which a thing is made. Meta-physics is the design (form, purpose); physics is the product (shape, action). The act of creation brings an ideal design into actual existence. The design concept is the “formal” cause of the thing designed.
5. I use a hyphen in the spelling to indicate that I am not talking about Ghosts and Magic, but about Ontology (science of being).
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page14.html

But your "most believe" formulation is surely false, since most haven't given the matter a moment's thought. — fishfry

Perhaps, "most assume without question" would suit you better, than "most believe". It's true, that Russell and Whitehead attempted to validate mathematical axioms once & for all. But then their dream of certainty was undermined by Goedel's Incompleteness Theorem, among other Uncertainty principles. Math is supposed to be the bedrock foundation of Science. Yet we now know, but prefer not to accept, that all of our knowledge is conditional. And that includes both Physical and Meta-Physical knowledge.

philosophical expositions make my eyes glaze — fishfry

The Enformationism thesis is non-academic and non-professional. So its "exposition" may not be as dense & dull as a lot of philosophical arguments. It does however, present a lot of terminology coined specifically for a novel non-traditional worldview. that's why it has both an internal Glossary of Terminology, and a more extensive blog-glossary to explain those neologisms in ordinary language. :smile:

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

When did you butt out? How did you butt in without butting out? :rofl: — TheMadFool

The post was not addressed to me. So, I butted-in without giving you a chance to respond. For that breach of etiquette, I apologize. :yikes:

Who created the Great Programmer? All creation myths that depend on an 'original intelligence" have a regress problem. — fishfry

That is a typical short-sighted Materialist response to any notion of Transcendence. It assumes that the Programmer is a player in his own program, and subject to its rules. But the most reasonable solution to the eternal "regress problem" is to assume that the Programmer is self-existent. In my thesis, the "Creator" of our evolving world is not a humanoid deity existing in space-time, but an eternal principle existing in timeless Eternity and spaceless Infinity.

Of course, there are no such unlimited things in our physical world, but we can imagine unreal concepts like "Zero" and "Infinity", which have proven to be quite useful in higher mathematics, such as Calculus. In fact, most mathematicians assume that the axioms of their trade are timeless. And most physicists assume, without evidence, that causal Energy and natural Laws are eternal, and not created in Big Boom explosions. Without causal power, and logical limits, our world would be chaotic.

That's why materialist Multiverse proponents must assume, without evidence, that the Forces and Rules-for-their-application logically pre-exist any functioning world or mini-verse. The Multiverse theory itself takes for granted that there is something which transcends the beginning of our little pocket of space-time. In order for anything to exist in space-time, something must exist necessarily (i.e. not on our local clock).

That's why my thesis takes as a logically necessary Axiom, that the power-to-be (exist) is eternal, or self-existent, and not limited to any particular instance of physical reality. My name for that power-to-exist is BEING. "To be, or not to be", does not apply to the Programmer, who is Being per se. :nerd:

Self existent : existing independently of other beings or causes ; un-conditional ; non-contingent

Necessary Existence : To say that a being necessarily exists is to say that it exists eternally in every logically possible world; such a being is not just, so to speak, indestructible in this world, but indestructible in every logically possible world

BEING :
In my own theorizing there is one universal principle that subsumes all others, including Consciousness : essential Existence. Among those philosophical musings, I refer to the "unit of existence" with the absolute singular term "BEING", as contrasted with the plurality of contingent "beings" and things and properties. By BEING I mean the ultimate “ground of being”, which is simply the power to exist, and the power to create beings.
Note : Real & Ideal are modes of being. BEING, the power to exist, is the source & cause of Reality and Ideality. BEING is eternal, undivided and static, but once divided into Real/Ideal, it becomes our dynamic Reality.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page10.html

Well God could have invented evolution, if that's your point. — fishfry

Sorry to butt-in again . . . . but that is exactly the point of my Enformationism thesis. I didn't set-out to prove or disprove the existence of God. But since meaningful Information (the power to enform) is a product of intentional minds, I concluded that Aristotle's First Cause logically must have been a Mind of some kind. But, I long-ago lost faith in the humanoid deity of the Bible. So, when I refer to that unknown entity I use the ambiguous spelling "G*D", to indicate that it's not the traditional superhuman of most world religions. It's closer to the unconditional and unknowable "Tao" of Lao Tse.

I have no problem with Darwin's theory of Evolution, as a means to explain the Origin of Species. Or of the general Big Bang theory of cosmic creation. But they don't even begin to explain the Origin of Energy or Life or Mind. So, I have proposed a hypothetical process that I call Intelligent Evolution. The "mechanism" of evolution is viewed as something like a program written by a Programmer, and encoded in the Singularity that preceded the Big Bang. Since this scenario is a product of my fallible mind, and not of infallible revelation, I refer to it as just another "Creation Myth" among thousands, but based on the latest scientific understanding of our world. In my blog, I have even addressed the logical question of "why would a god choose to create a world by such a slow and meandering procedure as Natural Evolution, instead of an instant, or seven-day miracle?" :nerd:

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

Well God could have invented evolution, if that's your point. — fishfry

Sorry to butt-in again . . . . but that is exactly the point of my Enformationism thesis. I didn't set-out to prove or disprove the existence of God. But since meaningful Information (the power to enform) is a product of intentional minds, I concluded that Aristotle's First Cause logically must have been a Mind of some kind. But, I long-ago lost faith in the humanoid deity of the Bible. So, when I refer to that unknown entity I use the ambiguous spelling "G*D", to indicate that it's not the traditional superhuman of most world religions. It's closer to the unconditional and unknowable "Tao" of Lao Tse.

I have no problem with Darwin's theory of Evolution, as a means to explain the Origin of Species. Or of the general Big Bang theory of cosmic creation. But they don't even begin to explain the Origin of Energy or Life or Mind. So, I have proposed a hypothetical process that I call Intelligent Evolution. The "mechanism" of evolution is viewed as something like a program written by a Programmer, and encoded in the Singularity that preceded the Big Bang. Since this scenario is a product of my fallible mind, and not of infallible revelation, I refer to it as just another "Creation Myth" among thousands, but based on the latest scientific understanding of our world. In my blog, I have even addressed the logical question of "why would a god choose to create a world by such a slow and meandering procedure as Natural Evolution, instead of an instant, or seven-day miracle?" :nerd:

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

Is Enformationism your pet theory? I'm inclined to agree that everything is about information. — TheMadFool

Yes. It's my "pet" Thesis, and the foundation of my personal Worldview, which I am developing into a more complete philosophical theory. According to that thesis, everything is not just "about" information, everything in this world is Information. Information is the "universal substance" postulated by Spinoza, long before computers and Information Theory emerged. But what is Information, you ask? The most intuitive comparison is to causal Energy. Since Einstein equated Energy with Matter & Math (E=MC^2), we can now safely say that all of the Forces & Materials in the world are forms of general purpose Energy, which is a form of generic Information. :nerd:


Information :
Knowledge and the ability to know. Technically, it's the ratio of order to disorder, of positive to negative, of knowledge to ignorance. It's measured in degrees of uncertainty. Those ratios are also called "differences". So Gregory Bateson* defined Information as "the difference that makes a difference". The latter distinction refers to "value" or "meaning". Babbage called his prototype computer a "difference engine". Difference is the cause or agent of Change. In Programming it's 1s & 0s. In Physics it’s called "Thermodynamics" or "Energy". In Sociology it’s called "Conflict".
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page11.html

Enformationism :
A worldview or belief system grounded on the assumption that Information, rather than Matter, is the basic substance of everything in the universe. It is intended to be a 21st century successor to the 19th century paradigm of Materialism. It's also an update for the ancient worldview of Spiritualism, which was an attempt to understand the phenomenon we now call Energy.
http://enformationism.info/enformationism.info/

Haven't followed the thread, only responding to this. But I don't agree. Say I'm a wooly mammoth and I notice the climate is getting cooler. By random chance I would mate with any old mammoth and if the weather gets colder and I mated with a not-so-woolly mammoth, my offspring would be out of luck. But if I'm a smart, planning kind of mammoth, I would mate with the wooliest mammoth I could find so as to give my offspring the best chance of survival in the coming cold snap. — fishfry

Sorry to butt-in, but . . . TMF was probably referring to the intelligence behind long-term plans (teleology) instead of short-term utility calculations (more wool good). And the "intelligence" is not in the individual fuzzy elephant, but in the emergent system. Modern scientists are now copying the Chance + Choice model of evolution in order to design complex products that would otherwise take years of trial & error (more wool not so good in a warmer climate). :nerd:

Evolutionary programming :
It was first used by Lawrence J. Fogel in the US in 1960 in order to use simulated evolution as a learning process aiming to generate artificial intelligence.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_programming

I maybe way off the mark but I've always felt that the difference between the mind (humans) and mindless life (bacteria) is greater ergo, harder to explain than the difference between life (bacteria) and the lifeless (stone). This is what Gnomon is probably referring to by Quantum leap.
Having said that, we've been able to replicate logic, an ability we pride ourselves as possessing, we even go so far as to define ourselves with it, on unmistakably dead matter (computers) while as of yet being unable to create a synthetic cell that can match up to a single bacterium. — TheMadFool

Yes. Like those pioneers of queer Quantum theory, serious scientists have been working, since the turn of a new century, on a plausible theory to explain -- without resort to miracles -- how Life arose from non-life, and how Mind emerged from Mindless matter. And the spotlight is now pointing at generic (universal) Information as the "difference maker".

is concerned that the Mysterian approach is a cop-out from continuing to pursue the scientific method across the Forbidden Zone into the realm of Meta-physics. Perhaps the most influential proposal at the moment is the Integrated Information Theory (IIT), which attempts to quantify the basic elements of both Life and Mind. What we call Logic or Reason cannot be accounted for by reductive analysis down to a physical Atom of "mind stuff". But, IIT is a mathematical thesis, and the idealized Axioms of math are as metaphysical as it gets. Yet, they are essential to the progress of modern physical science.

Today, the notion of "Information" has been expanded from its original reference to the ethereal contents of Minds, to the mathematical logic of computers, and even to now being equated with the causal force of Energy. Post-Darwinian Evolution's multi-modal and deductive (principles & laws) logical process, of creating novel things from pre-existing things, is what I call Enformation or EnFormAction. Moreover, it's an Aristotelian Axiomatic theory instead of a Mysterian by-pass, or a religious "Leap of Faith". However, for most of us it's also a "Quantum Leap" across the formerly impenetrable Cartesian Matter/Mind divide. :nerd:

Information :
Knowledge and the ability to know. Technically, it's the ratio of order to disorder, of positive to negative, of knowledge to ignorance. It's measured in degrees of uncertainty. Those ratios are also called "differences". So Gregory Bateson* defined Information as "the difference that makes a difference". The latter distinction refers to "value" or "meaning". Babbage called his prototype computer a "difference engine". Difference is the cause or agent of Change. In Physics it’s called "Thermodynamics" or "Energy". In Sociology it’s called "Conflict".
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page11.html


Axiomatic versus Mysterian explanation :
I propose that the Enformationism thesis may not solve, but at least, point in the direction of a solution to that philosophical and scientific mind-boggler. Moreover, my approach is axiomatic (self evident) instead of mysterian (occult). The primary axiom of my thesis derives from Aristotle’s theory of causation, in which all observed causes & effects in the world can be inferred to follow from an ultimate First Cause.
http://bothandblog7.enformationism.info/page8.html

Meat puppets have no intrinsic value. — Gnomon
They seem to value each another, so I don't see what "intrinsic" has to do with it. — 180 Proof

As a philosophical worldview, regarding our fellow humans as possessing "intrinsic value" is what makes the difference between love & tolerance for our neighbors, and exterminating masses of them in gas ovens, as-if they are vermin to be eradicated. The alternative view is Instrumental value : what can you do for me?

The notion of Moral Law, or Natural Law, is based on "intrinsic value" instead of "instrumental value". Novels and movies about sentient robots usually hinge the drama on that very question : "They're just machines, with no human rights, So we can use them, and dispose of them, as we see fit." For millennia, the inhumane treatment of dark-skinned people and animals was warranted on the assumption that they have no Souls, hence no Intrinsic Value. But for early hunter-gatherers (who were animists), the animals they killed were assumed to have some Intrinsic Value, so their Instrumental Value (food) had to be morally justified -- in some cases by begging forgiveness. Was that just a case of primitive ignorance & superstition, or did they know something about the Balance of Nature that modern people have forgotten? :cool:

Intrinsic value :
The intrinsic value of a human, or any other sentient animal, is value which originates within itself, the value it confers on itself by desiring its own lived experience as an end in itself. ... Because intrinsic value is self-ascribed, all animals have it, unlike instrumental or extrinsic values.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intrinsic_value_(animal_ethics)

Natural Law : a body of unchanging moral principles regarded as a basis for all human conduct.

Animism : the attribution of a soul to plants, inanimate objects, and natural phenomena.

I maybe way off the mark but I've always felt that the difference between the mind (humans) and mindless life (bacteria) is greater ergo, harder to explain than the difference between life (bacteria) and the lifeless (stone). — TheMadFool

Yes. But the Enformationism worldview provides a novel vocabulary to explain that vital distinction : the difference that makes a difference to sentient creatures. That theory pictures Evolution as a process of converting simple into complex, and potential into actual. Information (EnFormAction) is the universal Force that causes such progressive change -- from lifeless matter, to living matter, to thinking minds. And that creative Energy exists in both physical and metaphysical forms, just as intangible Energy can be converted into palpable Mass, which we interpret as Matter. :nerd:

How the brain functions and outputs "consciousness" is a scientific problem, it seems to me, and not "a valid philosophical query" as it might have once been. — 180 Proof

I've noticed that a significant number of posters on The Philosophy Forum seem to be embarrassed by Philosophy as a discipline, because it studies things that literally don't matter : ideas & ideals & beliefs. But those unreal things do indeed matter to the majority of humanity, who know nothing of Science or Philosophy. Perhaps the huddled masses don't matter either. Meat puppets have no intrinsic value.

I just came across an internet article, which articulates the crux of those opposing values -- what's important. Some view consciousness as a their personal Self (ghost), while others view it as "just another output" (the Mind is what the Brain does). The latter think of humans as machines (meat robots), while others think of humans as something more than the sum of their parts. It boils down to a Reductive versus Holistic worldview. Ironically, those contrasting views are not Objective observations, but Subjective beliefs about the world in general. For the record, I don't believe in immortal ghosts, but I do believe in self-conscious minds in mortal meat costumes. :cool:


Is it time to give up on consciousness as ‘the ghost in the machine’? :
* As individuals, we feel that we know what consciousness is because we experience it daily. It’s that intimate sense of personal awareness we carry around with us, and the accompanying feeling of ownership and control over our thoughts, emotions and memories.
* But science has not yet reached a consensus on the nature of consciousness – which has important
implications for our belief in free will and our approach to the study of the human mind.
* Beliefs about consciousness can be roughly divided into two camps. There are those who believe
consciousness is like a ghost in the machinery of our brains, meriting special attention and study in its own right. And there are those, like us, who challenge this, pointing out that what we call consciousness is just another output generated backstage by our efficient neural machinery.
https://theconversation.com/is-it-time-to-give-up-on-consciousness-as-the-ghost-in-the-machine-160688

I can't see how you can still ask this (mysterian) pseudo-question . . . . Again, mind is what a sufficiently complex brain does. — 180 Proof

Sure. But how does it do it? How does a jello-like mass of electrical & chemical wiring convert incoming energy into Perception, and thence into Conception? Do physical computers & robots have a subjective perspective of their world? Do they know that they know? Is that a "mysterian" question, or a valid scientific & philosophical query? A materialistic description of brains provides a simplistic mechanical answer to what the brain does, but it doesn't explain how or why that transition from Objective to Subjective occurs. Several philosophers of mind have argued that animals & machines could perform their survival functions without knowing why they do what they do. Discerning the difference between Brain & Mind is what Chalmers called the "hard question".

Transportation is what wheeled vehicles do -- duh! that's their function -- to move people & things from one place to another. That general simplistic notion does not explain the difference between an oxcart and a Tesla -- pulled by spooky electricity instead of normal muscles. Science is the process by which humans learn how the world works. But some scientists do it empirically -- by manipulating concrete matter -- and others, such as Einstein, do it theoretically -- by manipulating abstract ideas. Your quote above indicates the attitude that is satisfied with oxcarts, and labels the notion of electric cars as mysterious speculation.

You imply that my understanding of Science is superficial. And, it's true that I have no depth in any particular field of scientific endeavor. But my grasp of the current state of knowledge is quite broad, and sufficient to support a personal non-professional philosophical worldview. I am not unaware of the emotional motive behind your tautological "Mind is what Brains do" answer to the "hard question". I too (being presumptive) am a recovering fundamentalist Christian. And I know well the pitfalls of irrational Faith & Spiritualism. That's why I approach all mysteries with a sword of curiosity, and a shield of skepticism. And yet, I have followed the available evidence to a point not far from the worldview I once rejected. But I stop short of making the "quantum leap" of Faith, that all too often lands you in a sticky mire of self-confirming dogma, from which it's hard to escape. :cool:

Martin Garner -- Mysterian :
"I can say this. I believe that the human mind, or even the mind of a cat, is more interesting in its complexity than an entire galaxy if it is devoid of life. 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

Note -- Martin Gardner was an American popular mathematics and popular science writer, with interests also encompassing scientific skepticism, . . .
"He's universally acknowledged as the founding father of the modern skeptical movement, . . ."

Physicalists do. Read some philosophy of mind and especially some good neuroscience. — 180 Proof

I read "philosophy of mind" and "neuroscience" all the time. But Physicalist explanations always seem to teeter on the edge of the old Cartesian duality gulf : how do you make the Quantum Leap from Brain to Mind? Sure, Mind is the function of Brain, but there is a qualitative difference between objective neuronal wiring and subjective perception. Does a TV camera know what it is looking at? Can you give me a brief summary of the physical explanation for Perception you are referring to. Maybe I missed it. :smile:

THE NEUROSCIENCE OF PERCEPTION
Neuroscience explains that we do not experience the external world exactly how we perceive it consciously. Sensors in our body sense electromagnetic waves but we perceive colors. . . . So how do we know what reality really is like? Even though we are able to name the things we perceive, we don’t know exactly how such things relate to the external world themselves and we might never know.
mariaraujoatbrainsupportdotco" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">https://www.brainlatam.com/blog/the-neuroscience-of-perception-1564?email=mariaraujoatbrainsupportdotco

PS___I enjoy dialoguing with you, because you don't just close your eyes to concepts that don't "compute" from your personal perspective. A lot of religious and New Age beliefs are not a part of my own Ontology or Epistemology, but I remain open to the possibility that they Perceive the world differently from me. I don't just assume they are ignorant or lying. My information-based worldview opened the door to many exotic possibilities, that I previously dismissed, but that beg to be explored. However, I try to remain grounded in empirical evidence, even while my head is in the clouds of Meta-physics.

PPS___Meta-physics is what we do on this forum. We are not professional empirical scientists here, but amateur theoretical philosophers. Unlike blind & dumb atoms & billiard balls, we exchange meaningful Information instead of impulses of Energy. And that makes all the difference between the Physical world and the Mental realm. :cool:

PS__Hmmmm. What is the physical substance of illusions ; ectoplasm?

Same as the "physical substance" of e.g. perception or memory. — 180 Proof

And that similar substance is . . . . ? Materialists have no explanation for real-ideal phenomena, such as Perception. Can a rock perceive? Does matter have memory? If not, where did those handy functions of minds come from? Neurons store electrical energy in chemical form : a transformation. But what transforms those chemicals into salient memories? Could it be . . . . Information???

In my post-materialist worldview, the "substance" of mental phenomena is Information. Which is the meta-physical equivalent to physical Energy in its ability to cause change, not in matter, but in minds. Information is meta-physical (Aristotle, not Acquinas), because it causes change in minds, not matter; in dynamic processes, not in static things. :nerd:

Benedict de Spinoza : Substance
According to Spinoza, everything that exists is either a substance or a mode (E1a1). A substance is something that needs nothing else in order to exist or be conceived. Substances are independent entities both conceptually and ontologically
https://iep.utm.edu/spinoz-m/

Btw, each in his own way shows that "panpsychism" amounts to a woo-of-the-gaps solution in search of a "hard" pseudo-"problem". — 180 Proof

I understand your skepticism of much "science of mind", which strays into woo territory. For example, Parapsychologists tend to view the mind (Psi) as-if it's an intangible substance (dark energy??) out there in the Aether. I just read a section of Information-Consciousness-Reality, in which the author concludes from his review of Classical Physics, Psychology, and Quantum Physics, that the "seeds" of consciousness are inherent in the physical world. That is how Panpsychism explains the "hard problem" of how Objective matter & energy can combine to produce a Subjective perspective. The assumption is that it was not a miraculous effect of cosmic-scale statistics, but a natural process like a "seed" becoming a tree. As with DNA, the design-of-a-tree (its Platonic Form) was already encoded in the seed, waiting to be transformed by the process of metabolism from potential to actual.

Similarly, the Brain doesn't make Mind magically out of "whole cloth" (pure fabrication), but processes mundane information (the code), in the form of energy & matter, into the meta-physical function we call Consciousness. The same metaphor applies to the Big Bang, in which a tiny Singularity (the seed) gave birth to an evolving cosmic-scale organism that eventually transformed ordinary energy & matter into the amazing Process that allows humans to know-that-they-know -- to become aware of their material surroundings, as well as of their mental milieu (human culture). Materialist scientists still have no plausible explanation for that emergence, other than the random statistical power of large numbers.

Ironically, the parapsychologists and para-physicists typically base their "woo-of-the-gaps" on that same miraculous ability of Darwinian stochastic mathematics to evolve humans from apes, and trees from slime-mold. Glattfelder quotes skeptical researchers tying to reproduce the "statistically significant" evidence of Psi found by parapsychologists. Although their numbers agreed with the prior Psi research, they concluded that, "due to this data set, we do not believe that humans possess telepathic powers, Further, the approximately 32% correct figure obtained in an enormous number of psi studies remains perplexing". [my emphasis] So believers and non-believers interpreted the same data in different ways.

I also remain skeptical of any statistical studies that result in evidence for super-natural magic. I keep in mind Mark Twain's quip, "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." But my own version of Panpsychism doesn't rely on Las Vegas gambling odds. Instead, it is based on physicist John Wheeler's "information-theoretic paradigm shift", from which he derived the epithet : "IT from BIT". Consequently, I have to keep an open, but agnostic, mind toward the various formulations of the common notion that Mind is inherent in Nature. :cool:

I am more familiar with Kant than with Plato. Would you agree that for Kant the the physical exists but is unknowable in itself , the mental exists in itself but is empty without sensations from the world ('concepts without percepts are empty; percepts without concepts are blind‘). So Kant’s metaphysics shows us that the physical is an ideal , not an actuality. It is an ideal in a different sense than the mathematical concept of zero, yet still an ideal. Therefore his metaphysics is showing us that ‘what is’ ( both as fantasized concept and as physical ) is the product of an indissociable interaction between external reality in itself and subjective mental process. — Joshs

I'm not an expert on Kant or Plato. But I would hazard to say that Kant's Noumena is equivalent to Plato's Ideal. However, the Ontology of those terms is debatable. By definition, the "Ideal" is not "Real" -- they are contrasting Either/Or concepts. But what does that mean in practice? My full-spectrum worldview is Both/And.

As you noted, our mental Concepts are mostly based on our physical Percepts. Our mental worldview is constructed from basic elements of perception and sensation. But we also create abstractions that bear little resemblance to concrete Reality. Yet, I can't imagine a mind that is completely disconnected from the physical world. And yet, it's true that our self-created conceptual worldview (e.g. Surreal Art) can mix & match the elements of mundane Reality into bizarre unreal forms. For example, Psychonauts, who experiment with drugs (opening the Doors of Perception), claim to experience a "higher" mental or spiritual realm divorced from reality, where the body & ego don't exist. Personally, I have had no such subjective experience. So, I have to take their word for it . Such noumenal "sensations" are completely foreign to my own drug-free mundane reality.

That said though, as a way to scientifically conceptualize the distinction between our Percepts and Concepts, I like the metaphor of an "Interface Reality" used by Don Hoffman in his book, The Case Against Reality. He doesn't deny that there is something "out there" for our senses to perceive. But like Kant, he concludes that our personal conception of that underlying Reality is a simplified symbolic abstraction of "what-is". :cool:

Interface : Window to Reality :
Now, cognitive scientist Hoffman has produced an updated version of Kant’s controversial Occult Ontology. He uses the modern metaphor of computers that we “interface” (interact) with, as-if the symbolic Icons on the display screen are the actual things we want to act upon.
http://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page21.html

Both/And Principle :
* My coinage for the holistic principle of Complementarity, as illustrated in the Yin/Yang symbol. Opposing or contrasting concepts are always part of a greater whole. Conflicts between parts can be reconciled or harmonized by putting them into the context of a whole system.
* Conceptually, the BothAnd principle is similar to Einstein's theory of Relativity, in that what you see ─ what’s true for you ─ depends on your perspective, and your frame of reference; for example, subjective or objective, religious or scientific, reductive or holistic, pragmatic or romantic, conservative or liberal, earthbound or cosmic. Ultimate or absolute reality (ideality) doesn't change, but your conception of reality does. Opposing views are not right or wrong, but more or less accurate for a particular purpose.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page10.html

Ideality :
In Plato’s theory of Forms, he argues that non-physical forms (or ideas) represent the most accurate or perfect reality. Those Forms are not physical things, but merely definitions or recipes of possible things. What we call Reality consists of a few actualized potentials drawn from a realm of infinite possibilities.
1. Materialists deny the existence of such immaterial ideals, but recent developments in Quantum theory have forced them to accept the concept of “virtual” particles in a mathematical “field”, that are not real, but only potential, until their unreal state is collapsed into reality by a measurement or observation. To measure is to extract meaning into a mind. [Measure, from L. Mensura, to know; from mens-, mind]
2. Some modern idealists find that scenario to be intriguingly similar to Plato’s notion that ideal Forms can be realized, i.e. meaning extracted, by knowing minds. For the purposes of this blog, “Ideality” refers to an infinite pool of potential (equivalent to a quantum field), of which physical Reality is a small part.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page11.html

The sum of federal laws in a country like the United States is seemingly uncountable; no lawyer or judge, let alone the layman, could know what they all are. In a system where ignorance of the law is no excuse this presents a problem. — NOS4A2

Now that is a problem of centralized government that could, and should, be alleviated, if not eliminated. I've long thought that a rule-of-law should be : for every new law passed, an old one should be removed. Instead of just piling law on top of law, until common sense is legislated away, and replaced with an overwhelming Tower of Legal Babel. :cool:

I thought metaphysics was the science of the conditions of possibility of ‘what can be’. As such it includes within itself things and concepts. — Joshs

Yes. But I was talking about the fact that Meta-physics is the study of non-physical ideas, such as "Zero". Physicists can't experiment with "Zero", because it doesn't exist in actuality, but only in potential. So, it's left to Philosophers to imagine such possibilities. Eventually, they realized that the concept of "that which does not exist" is a useful tool in mathematics. Although it took millennia for thinkers to accept that non-existence could be a logical operator. That's why computer programs use the simplest logical concepts : All (1) or Nothing (0).

So, you are correct that Meta-physics is a legitimate science of Possibilities and Probabilities -- things that "are not", but "could be". Plato is best known for his dialogues about the non-physical aspects of the world : most famously, the concept of such logically possible notions as "Ideal Forms", as contrasted with Real Objects. Those perfect patterns don't exist in a real sense, but we can recognize their incomplete logical structure in real things that fall short of seemingly impossible perfection. We never see Ideal things with our senses, but we know them with our reasoning ability, regarding what seems "possible" given what's "actual". :smile:

I fear the latter end of the spectrum because it approaches a degree of statism expressed in fascism and made concrete by a variety of totalitarian regimes. — NOS4A2

In philosophical discussions, it usually helps to narrow the range of responses by defining primary terms. In this case, the core problem to be addressed seems to be the degree of centralized control. For example, a positive assessment of a Fascist Dictatorship, is that "they make the trains run on time", while laissez faire decentralized governments tend to be disorderly and inefficient. Which is why democratic states, in their official charter, tend to aim for a happy middle-ground. For example, the framers of the US Constitution argued on one side for the individual freedom of a Greek Democracy, while the other side preferred the communal stability of a Monarchy. The result was a strained compromise.

So, in practice, due to the polarization of populist politics, states typically swing back & forth between too much freedom and too much regulation. However, does that erratic balancing act indicate "obsequious human tendency towards statism", or simply a Hegelian dynamic of progressive historical evolution? We do indeed now seem to be at a tipping point between recent world-shaking experiments in both directions : Communism & Fascism. And each attempt at Utopia showed a tendency to "totalitarian" rule, working in the interest of the heads-of-State, rather than the masses. So "government by the people", despite its frustrating tendency to disorganization and confusion, at least provides a tipsy balance of freedom within determinism. :cool:

Statism : a political system in which the state has substantial centralized control over social and economic affairs.
Definitions from Oxford Languages