What I am aiming at in this thread is whether the fundamental features of the human psyche can even be definitely determined and codified. Genes change and if it's impossible to determine human nature from philosophy, psychology seems to be only capable of general vague suggestions — Gregory

I suspect that most questions about "human nature" are looking for properties ("fundamental features") that are different from "animal nature". But as mammals, we share most of our emotional actions & reactions with the majority of warm-blooded animals. So, what's distinctive for humans has traditionally been attributed to our "angelic nature", which is supposedly the ability to govern emotions with reason. But even that quality of human nature is controversial. So, I doubt you'll find a consensus, even among experts.

Theoretically, if humans are eventually replaced by robots or cyborgs, they would or could come closer to the "ideal" of purely rational beings, as exemplified by Mister Spock and Commander Data of Star Trek fame. That's an interesting hypothesis. But, would life be worth living without emotions? Again, consensus will be elusive. Because emotions motivate us to do both positive and negative acts. So, our complicated urges & feelings are both good and bad for us. Yet, maybe it's the challenging balancing act that makes life interesting and worth living --- if only to see what happens next. Hence, my BothAnd philosophy : which seeks to balance opposing motivations into a pleasant harmony, without losing the the positive aspects of our animal nature. :smile:


How Much Better Life Would Be Without Emotions :
All my decisions would be based on logic and mathematical precision and all my actions would be in accordance with a well-crafted plan.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/smashing-the-brainblocks/201710/how-much-better-life-would-be-without-emotions

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

Angel Nature : purely rational; emotionless, genderless, hence perfect obedient servants.
Robot = slave

PS___In discussions with "intuitive" (feeling driven) people, who prefer to fly by the seat of their pants, I have been accused of being too rational, in that I try to keep my life neat & orderly. What they don't realize is that my calm rational demeanor is a constant dynamic balancing act. :cool:

Anyway, I am wondering today if there is such a thing as a common human psychology in general? — Gregory

Modern psychology has been searching for the common denominator -- or the "essence" -- of the human Mind/Body for several generations. But they typically avoid resorting to the simplistic notion of a spiritual Soul. There are many theories, but little agreement. Ironically there seems to be some parallel between Emotions and Tastes. Strangely, one synonym for "Flavor" is "essence, spirit". :joke:
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/flavor


Passions of the Soul :
All human behaviour can be broken down into four basic emotions, according to research by Glasgow University.
The study has challenged a commonly-held belief that there are six basic emotions of happiness, sadness, fear, anger, surprise and disgust.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-26019586

A matter of taste :
Western food research, for example, has long been dominated by the four "basic tastes" of sweet, bitter, sour and salty.. . . .
Humans May Taste at Least 6 Flavors :yum:
https://www.livescience.com/17684-sixth-basic-taste.html

Humans, Nature, and Ethics
None­theless, out of this overall general understanding of the range of traits pos­sible given the human genome emerges what is distinctively human, which Fukuyama calls “the hu­man essence” or “Factor X.” This is not itself a trait but an emergent property that depends on the entirety of human traits. Thus, though Fukuyama holds that human nature is definable, he does not hold that we can easily articulate human nature.
https://www.humansandnature.org/humans-nature-and-ethics

The 3 Natures of Man :
[Man's] nature is threefold, animal, human and divine
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=human+nature+angel+or+animal

Seems that something in the unity needs to be responsible for what particular energy levels got chosen to make the 'particles' that would work or else they are the default. — PoeticUniverse

In my layman's philosophical thesis, what's "responsible" for initiating the "multiplicity from unity" sequence of events is Intention. That hypothesis is not based on any quantum field theories, but on a general comprehension of how a causal Agent (the unity) is responsible for its effects. My understanding of Quantum Theory is superficial. I know just enough to be dangerous. :cool:

Intention : Purpose, inclination, motive

Motive : Does God have emotional urges, like humans, that overwhelm the rational mind? Or does G*D create for no practical reason? My guess is that eternal/infinite, omniscient/ omnipotent deity lacks only one thing : imperfection. So creating space-time worlds may be the only way to experience change, desire, love, need, etc. In a state of perfection there is nothing to do . . . except create.
http://bothandblog2.enformationism.info/page60.html
Note -- "God" = traditional anthro-morphic deity ; "G*D" = hypothetical abstract integral Unity (ALL; Whole) from which our multiplex world emerged in the Big Bang.

I found this pdf: http://www.jonathanschaffer.org/monism.pdf — PoeticUniverse

I've saved a copy of the article to peruse when I have time. But my sense of the whole/part priority question is related to the polarized Top-Down versus Bottom-Up worldviews. Bottom-Up, as in Darwinian evolution, builds-up the whole from aggregation of parts. But the Top-Down view prioritizes the whole : e.g. a unitary Creator -- who exists as an undivided singular eternal whole, but then, in order to create a complex space-time world from its own Substance, begins to divide into smaller parts, that add-up to complexity within unity -- like an ovum turning into a bubbly blastocyst, and eventually into a enformed fetus. Since both processes can be found in reality, my worldview is based on the BothAnd principle. So, whether you see parts or wholes, monism or pluralism, depends on your personal perspective.

Regarding the mechanism of Entanglement that welds the manifold universe into a singular System, here's an article that reports : "New research indicates the whole universe could be a giant neural network" The implication of that assertion is that our Cosmos is like a giant brain. But the article is not about New Age notions of Holism, which views the world system as a Cosmic Mind. Instead, it's about a new attempt to construct a viable Theory of Everything : the Whole Story.

However, the author raises this cautionary caveat : "The root problem with sussing out a theory of everything – in this case, one that defines the very nature of the universe itself – is that it usually ends up replacing one proxy-for-god with another. Where theorists have posited everything from a divine creator to the idea we’re all living in a computer simulation, the two most enduring explanations for our universe are based on distinct interpretations of quantum mechanics". The notion of the universe as a big brain, composed of many neurons, is a pretty good concrete metaphor for the abstract notion of Monism. Yet, of course, "it's just a theory". :nerd:
https://thenextweb.com/neural/2021/03/02/new-research-indicates-the-whole-universe-could-be-a-giant-neural-network/

The substance theory of Aristotle underlies his entire philosophy. Substance theory is the belief that substances are the ultimate things in the universe. The universe at rock bottom is not made up of elementary particles but substances. This is completely different from our modern view of the world.
https://simplyphilosophy.org/study/aristotles-substance-theory/

Holism : Philosophy
the theory that parts of a whole are in intimate interconnection, such that they cannot exist independently of the whole, or cannot be understood without reference to the whole, which is thus regarded as greater than the sum of its parts. Holism is often applied to mental states, language, and ecology.

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

Holistic..
Life can exact a heavy toll
Unless you pay heed to your whole;
Your mind, your body and your soul!
___Damian Murphy

This solution is not predicated on vagueness or fuzzy logic - it is simple recognizing the limits of how our brain creates images of objects. — Don Wade

Yes. I'm not qualified to follow the complex logic & arcane terminology of your link : Supervaluationism ; Hysteresis ; Resolutions in utility theory ; etc. But a simple philosophical change of perspective can allow you to see the Whole instead its Parts. No abstruse math required --- not even addition (summation). Just re-focus the eye of your mind. :smile:

Holism : Philosophy
the theory that parts of a whole are in intimate interconnection, such that they cannot exist independently of the whole, or cannot be understood without reference to the whole, which is thus regarded as greater than the sum of its parts. Holism is often applied to mental states, language, and ecology.

Holism as a philosophical perspective :
https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/holism#Holism_as_a_philosophical_perspective

↪norm
I am grateful for this reply. This Enformationism is rather interesting and I will attempt to think about it more. — Franz Liszt

I assume you intended to reply to Gnomon. Enformationism is my attempt to resolve the paradox of Living - Thinking - Loving Matter, without bowing to the authority of any particular scripture or tradition --- amd without hiding my head in the sand. Atheism is the belief system that assumes (without evidence) that the material world (or multiverse) is eternal and un-created. But self-existence (aseity) is a signature property of a Deity. Before astronomers were forced to conclude that the world, suddenly-and-without-warning, began to exist 14 billion years ago, it was logical to conclude that our physical reality was eternal, and possibly self-existent.

Centuries before the BB theory, "atheistic" philosopher Spinoza assumed that the world was eternal, but he called the immaterial "substance" of the world, "God" --- for reasons similar to those you expressed in the OP. And, scientists still have no idea how the property of Consciousness could evolve from an un-conscious origin. So, that's why I propose that Information, not Matter, is the fundamental substance of the real world.

Hence, the hypothetical Originator or Source of our world is presumed to be conscious, at least in potential. If so, then that proto-consciousness may have been encoded into our evolving system as shape-shifting Information, which is the essence of both Matter & Mind. If you don't like the baggage-laden term "God" though, then perhaps "The Prime Programmer" would be more acceptable. :smile:

Aseity : existence derived from itself, having no other source

Physics Is Pointing Inexorably to Mind :
Matter is done away with and only information itself is taken to be ultimately real. This abstract notion, called information realism is a popular philosophical underpinning for digital physics.
___ Bernardo Kastrup : Computer scientist
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/physics-is-pointing-inexorably-to-mind/

New research indicates the whole universe could be a giant neural network :
The root problem with sussing out a theory of everything – in this case, one that defines the
very nature of the universe itself – is that it usually ends up replacing one proxy-for-god with
another.
https://thenextweb.com/neural/2021/03/02/new-research-indicates-the-whole-universe-could-be-a-giant-neural-network/

Baruch Spinoza : defines "God" as a singular self-subsistent Substance, with both matter and thought being attributes of such. ... God has infinitely many other attributes which are not present in our world.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spinozism

Enformationism :
A philosophical worldview or belief system grounded on the 20th century discovery that Information, rather than Matter, is the fundamental substance of everything in the universe. It is intended to be the 21st century successor to ancient Materialism. An Update from Bronze Age to Information Age. It's a Theory of Everything that covers, not just matter & energy, but also Life & Mind & Love.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html

The key could be that the Whole (Cosmos) is entangled with itself. — PoeticUniverse

The only problem with that notion is nailing-down the definition of "entanglement" in this cosmic context. Normally, the term is limited to quantum scale situations. Yet, in physicist Frank Wilczek's article below, it seems that Entanglement is a function of knowledge. So we can assume that it's somehow related to consciousness & awareness, specifically incomplete knowledge. Which leaves the actual "mechanism" as a mystery.

But, for those whose worldview includes a Cosmic Mind, those interconnections & interrelationships could be compared to the network of neurons that meld a tangled mess of wires into a whole system of unitary awareness. Instead of physical wires though, I would guess that the connections are via meta-physical Enformation channels (similar to energy) transporting bits & bytes of Information (potential knowledge).

Ironically, Goedel's Incompleteness theorem says that there is an inherent imperfection in Mathematical Logic, at least within an imperfect world of limited space-time. So, the Global Mind of the physical world may not be as omniscient as an eternal deity. But that does not rule-out a more perfect meta-physical Programmer, as postulated in my thesis. But, I'm just riffing on your theme here, so don't hold me to this guesswork. I'm not sure there is such a thing as a Global Mind. :joke:


Entanglement Made Simple : Entanglement is often regarded as a uniquely quantum-mechanical phenomenon, but it is not. . . . Entanglement arises in situations where we have partial knowledge of the state of two systems.
https://www.quantamagazine.org/entanglement-made-simple-20160428/

A Quantum Entanglement Revenge
I'm just a miserable bunch of quantum field excitations.
A bag of bags of quarks. And so's my truck.
I was entangled with a gal, but things went South.
We're still ensnared— unmeasured and immeasurable
with no divorce.
Dark energy, dark matter, dark thoughts--
I'll go to the dark side and jump in a black hole.
That'll teach you, bit.... [loss of signal]
___JV Beaupre

I suggest that the Whole (Cosmos) is primary over its parts, that there is One (holistic). This is Monism.
Having the parts to be primary over the Whole (Cosmos) is Pluralism (separation).
The key could be that the Whole (Cosmos) is entangled with itself.
(I think Gnomon likes this approach.) — PoeticUniverse

Gnomon likey! :grin:

My worldview is indeed Monistic & Holistic, as opposed to Pluralistic & Reductive. But that all-is-one philosophy takes different forms depending on certain assumptions and interpretations. For example, Spinoza's "substance monism" implies that our physical world is the body of God's mind. But, he didn't pretend to know what God thinks about this imperfect & ailing body. Holism implies that all parts of the world system are "entangled", or otherwise integrated, into a single functional entity. What is the "Force" of Entanglement anyway? FWIW, I call that organizing power : EnFormAction.

But I don't know how to prove that theory empirically or mathematically, unless some quantum entanglement theorists were interested in deriving a philosophical ontology along the lines of Spinoza's worldview. Would they call that Cosmic System "GOD", or just "our-local-bubble-in-the-multiverse"? My question is whether such a God would only relate to & communicate with Her internal parts --- for example, by exchanges of Enformation (Energy)? Or, are there other god-like systems (cosmoses???) out there for our God to commune with. I don't have a clue. Do you? :joke:


Monism is a philosophical and cosmological stance which posits an ultimate Unity of all things, and that all apparent differences, distinctions, divisions and separations are ultimately only apparent or partial aspects of an ultimate whole.
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Monism

Holism :
the theory that parts of a whole are in intimate interconnection, such that they cannot exist independently of the whole, or cannot be understood without reference to the whole, which is thus regarded as greater than the sum of its parts. Holism is often applied to mental states, language, and ecology.
Note -- "interconnection" = entanglement???

The most distinctive aspect of Spinoza's system is his substance monism; that is, his claim that one infinite substance—God or Nature—is the only substance that exists.
https://iep.utm.edu/spinoz-m/

The Meaning of Quantum Holism :
If one endorses quantum holism, one is committed to a minimal requirement for an ontological interpretation of quantum theory: a system has those properties at a given time of which its state is an eigenstate. If one accepts this minimal requirement, one has to acknowledge that entanglement extends as far as the whole of matter at the level of quantum systems.
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-94-017-1787-8_8

I sent you the link to the emergence article because your question indicated to me you don't understand what emergence is. I got whatever grasp of the issue I have from this article. — T Clark

Since I'm not likely to read that highly technical article, I was hoping you would be able to define "Emergence" in your own words. That would show that you actually have a "grasp" of the concept, as it applies to Quantum Mechanics. I suspect that your understanding may be a Reductionist (individualist) version of the sudden "coming into view" (appearance) of something that was hidden. And that might be compatible with a general dictionary definition.

But my definition of "Emergence" is Holistic, in the sense of something with novel properties or qualities "coming into being". It is also a defining feature of complex systems, including Quantum Entanglement. So that's why I think there is indeed a relationship between quantum mechanics and the phenomenon of Emergence. :smile:

Emergence :
1. the process of coming into view or becoming exposed after being concealed.
2. the process of coming into being, or of becoming important or prominent.
___Oxford Dictionary
3. Evolution. the appearance of new properties or species in the course of development or evolution.

Holism, Emergence, and the Crucial Distinction :
One issue of dispute between methodological individualists and methodological holists is whether holist explanations are dispensable in the sense that individualist explanations are able to do their explanatory job.
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-05344-8_10

Emergence :
In philosophy, systems theory, science, and art, emergence occurs when an entity is observed to have properties its parts do not have on their own, properties or behaviors which emerge only when the parts interact in a wider whole. Emergence plays a central role in theories of integrative levels and of complex systems.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence

Defining emergence in physics :
The term emergent is used to evoke collective behaviour of a large number of microscopic constituents that is qualitatively different than the behaviours of the individual constituents.
https://www.nature.com/articles/npjquantmats201624

Strong Emergence Is Holism, Not Magic :
Strong emergence doesn't hold that high-level or irreducible properties arise spontaneously or inexplicably from aggregates, as if by magic. Instead, strong emergence is a type of holism in which complex aggregates are seen as more than mere aggregates from the start
https://www.zacharyfruhling.com/philosophy-blog/strong-emergence-is-holism-not-magic

My philosophy is most closely aligned with idealism, so, for me, attributing extra information to sense mediated perception is just a normal part of constructivist cognition. Spiritualism suggests an immaterial element, whereas I see a monist universe full of materials - no room left for the immaterial. — Pop

For me, Information can be both Ideal & immaterial and concrete & material. As a Platonic Ideal Form, the power of Enformation is timeless & spaceless. But, as a Material Real form, the energy of EnFormAction is bound by space & time. It's difficult to convey that dualistic Monism, but the BothAnd principle is my attempt to do so. Enformation is both material and immaterial. :smile:

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

Note -- I use the term "Spiritualism" to indicate the primitive understanding of EnFormAction flowing in the world, enforming things and communicating ideas. Their "Spirit" (animating breath) is what we now know as "Energy" (causal force), and what I call the process of enforming (changing from one form to another). Sometimes the form changes, via evolutionary steps, from inert to living matter.

Yes, I have always agreed with Enformation, with energy, information and matter being in a relationship, — Pop

Ironically, one problem with using "relationship" to define Information, is that a Google search almost always returns a long list of human relationship advice. Which is why I try to use more abstract terms like "ratio" or "pattern" or "form" or "Logos". One definition of "pattern" is :to give a regular or intelligible form to things. That's also similar to the definition of "geometry" : the shape and relative arrangement of the parts of something. So, I tend to think of "Enformation" as a process of re-arranging the geometric patterns of objects in the world. An enformed thing is essentially a meaningful pattern of both geometric and logical relationships.

Unfortunately, defining Ultimate Ideal Information as abstract (immaterial), geometric (measurable) or logical (meaningful) relationships is accurate, but even those terms carry some ancient metaphysical baggage, ascribing religious or sacred significance to mere angular ratios. Which implies that God has set-apart certain patterns & relationships as holy or consecrated or taboo. And, apart from specific religious traditions, I have no reason to think that anything in this world is off-limits to the inquiring mind. Likewise, defining two people or things as being "in a relationship" often implies a sacred emotional connection or bond. Which in the real world is, sadly, seldom actually inviolable.

So, it's hard to find words to describe information patterns & relationships, without getting entangled with gods & taboos & sentiment & magic. But I keep trying to find words to describe Enformationism, that don't remind people of specific religious & mystical traditions, when I'm trying to formulate a secular scientific paradigm. :worry:

Metaphysical Geometry :
Thus, we believe and we can show that metaphysical truths, which are entirely independent of the concepts of god, creation, divine, etc. but are at the same time the very source and ground of all these concepts and realities, is best conveyed through geometry.
https://tomajjavidtash.com/2016/03/13/metaphysics-geometry/

Sacred geometry : Sacred geometry ascribes symbolic and sacred meanings to certain geometric shapes and certain geometric proportions.[1] It is associated with the belief that a god is the geometer of the world.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacred_geometry

LOGOS : the principle of reason
Logic : pattern recognition

It discusses how different levels in the hierarchy of science relate to each other. For example, all of biology is consistent with chemistry and physics. That's the reductionist view and is non-controversial. But that doesn't mean you can generate the behavior of biological organisms and the laws of biology from the behavior of non-living matter or the laws of chemistry and physics. Biology emerges out of chemistry and physics. — T Clark

That stuff is way over my head. So, I'm still waiting for your dumbed-down philosophical summary of whatever that scientific jargon has to do with the topic of this thread : "What is the relationship, if any, between emergent properties and quantum mechanics?" Here's a clue : it's not questioning whether "biology emerges out of chemistry and physics". :smile:

Information and energy are always embodied in matter. Even in transit from one mind to another they transmit over matter. I see it as a material universe - even a vacuum is not empty. — Pop

True. That's because Materialism is a commonsense view of reality. Information & Energy are invisible and intangible until embodied in some material form. For example Light energy is invisible, but we now know that it causes the "visual purple" chemical in the eye to initiate a chain reaction of physical changes that eventually produce an enformed (meaningful) image in the brain, which we then interpret as a material object out there in the real world. Those phenomena are what we know as reality, because we can only "know" the existence of noumena by rational inference.

Ancient people had no notion of Energy, so they explained its observed effects in terms of Spiritualism. Likewise, an information-based worldview is literally non-sense. It requires the ability to go beyond the senses. The "true" nature of Energy was unknown until Einstein equated it to the Mass --- a mathematical relationship between lightspeed (rate or ratio of change) and the causal energy content of light --- that our brains interpret as Matter. "Mass" literally means "coming together" of causation & form. In his theory of Relativity, Einstein also asserted that all things (physical objects) are relative. The real world is an interconnected network of relationships. Yet, both the connections (links) and the communications are forms of the fundamental universal (spiritual) power of Enformation.

So, the material universe is merely an imaginary image constructed in your brain/mind out of invisible Information. But it's not an illusion, because that pattern of information in your mind is as real as it gets. We cannot even imagine anything immaterial, except by analogy with the physical world. That's why ghosts are described in terms of imaginary substances like Ectoplasm. To understand Enformationism you have to go beyond the range of the physical senses, and use the sixth sense of Reason. Even then, as laymen, we have to accept that our Scientific priests -- who speak the arcane language of Math -- know what they are talking about. In their esoteric math-speak, they tell us that, what commonsense takes to be empty space (vacuum), is full of Potential. But, I have to take it on faith, because I can't see Probability (the future). :nerd:


Spiritualism, in philosophy, a characteristic of any system of thought that affirms the existence of immaterial reality imperceptible to the senses.

Is everything made up of matter? :
https://www.quora.com/Is-everything-made-up-of-matter/answer/Spencer-Kirk-13?ch=99&share=915c2cdd&srid=ozk3M

The mass-energy-information equivalence principle :
https://aip.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.5123794

Reality is not what you see : In his doctrine of Transcendental Idealism, 18th century philosopher, Immanuel Kant argued that our perception of reality is limited to constructs created in our own minds to represent the invisible and intangible ultimate reality that he mysteriously labeled “ding an sich” [things-in-essence, as opposed to things-as-we-know-them]. In other words, what we think we see, is not absolute reality but our own ideas about reality.
http://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page21.html

The artist never creates exactly what they set out to create. I imagine you, as an architect , would be able to relate to this. There is always the X factor - which is the difference of what one sets out to create, and what one actually creates. Where dose the X come from, or go to? I have no idea, but I feel there is an X factor to all intentional activity. Would you agree? — Pop

Yes. In my conjecture, the Artist deliberately encoded an "X factor" into the program of evolution. If evolution was completely determined by the intention of the artist, there would be no room for randomness in the world. And yet, modern science is reconciled to the essential randomness of physics (chaos) and biology (mutations) that are constantly opening new opportunities for novelty.
Hence, they conclude from that lack of determinism that the world could not have been created by an omnipotent God.

My notion of G*D is not biblical, but I see a good reason for including randomness to provide gaps in the chain of causation, allowing novelty to emerge. How else would big-brain humans, with freewill, evolve from single-cell organisms in a deterministic system? Since our world is both orderly & rational and chaotic & irrational, I conclude that the artist used randomness (like spattering paint) in order to achieve a specific effect. Historically, artists have ranged back & forth between Deterministic (realistic) portrayal and Free (impressionistic). So, I see our world as incorporating both, and evolution itself seems to be an open-ended experiment, where the final product is not fore-known. In my architecture, to my chagrin, I never had total control over the final outcome. But it usually worked-out OK. :grin:


Randomness in the Composition of Artwork :
https://tylerxhobbs.com/essays/2014/randomness-in-the-composition-of-artwork

THE ROLE OF RATIONALITY IN ARTISTIC PROCESS : An irrational way of making might involve an artist either knowing or not knowing fully what they want to create, but when making it, embracing the elements of chance, failure and experimentation.
https://www.assemblagemagazine.co.uk/rationality-in-artistic-process

Evolutionary Programming :
Special computer algorithms inspired by biological Natural Selection. It is similar to Genetic Programming in that it relies on internal competition between random alternative solutions to weed-out inferior results, and to pass-on superior answers to the next generation of algorithms. By means of such optimizing feedback loops, evolution is able to make progress toward the best possible solution – limited only by local restraints – to the original programmer’s goal or purpose. In Enformationism theory the Prime Programmer is portrayed as a creative deity, who uses bottom-up mechanisms, rather than top-down miracles, to produce a world with both freedom & determinism, order & meaning.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page13.html

I've mentioned to you previously that I've been grappling with information, energy and matter - thinking one might be a quality of the other, but not quite being able to fit it together satisfactorily in terms of qualities. I'm satisfied now that the correct term is relationship - the relationship of information and energy is matter. — Pop

Yes, I've noticed that you tend to lean toward Materialism. But my worldview reverses your priority -- matter & energy are transient forms of eternal fundamental Enformation. In my view, matter is merely the container for information. Aristotle's Hylomorphism also placed Form & Matter on the same plane. But Plato's version of "Form" was Logos : a divine principle of order and knowledge. Which is what I call EnFormAction : the power to enform. to fashion, to create. In other words, the eternal potential of Ideality (Enformatiion) must logically be prior to the actual objects of physical reality ( Matter).

Did you notice that in Spinoza's own words, his God (my Enformer) has "attributes that are not present in our world". Hence, his God must exist outside of material reality. He rejected your materialistic God as "mistaken" ("mass of corporeal matter"). Instead, his "eternal universe" is not the one we experience with our physical senses. What he called "Thought" is what I label "Ideality", and his "Extension" is my material Reality. So, my worldview is compatible with Plato & Spinoza, while yours is amenable to Aristotle's. Yet, I don't base my philosophy on ancient authorities, but on modern reasoning. :smile:

Spinoza's God :In a letter to Henry Oldenburg, Spinoza wrote: "as to the view of certain people that I identify god with nature (taken as a kind of mass or corporeal matter), they are quite mistaken". For Spinoza, our universe (cosmos) is a mode under infinite attributes, of which we can perceive two: Thought and Extension. God has infinitely many other attributes which are not present in our world.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spinozism

Ideality : http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page11.html

This goes against my instincts, but from a philosophical standpoint, science and logic are kind of dependent on this to be true.
I feel the only way to escape this paradox is to say that we are designed by some higher truth in the universe. — Franz Liszt

I can relate. I too was indoctrinated into a theistic worldview by my back-to-the-bible fundamentalist religion. But, upon reaching the age of reason, I began to ask embarrassing questions. Since no satisfactory answers were forthcoming, I eventually rejected scriptural Theism. But I also asked embarrassing questions about the Materialistic model offered by modern science. So, for a while, I became an undecided, yet still searching Agnostic. Apparently Atheists simply abandoned the search for any "higher truth" (than Science) long ago. The "delusion" of Atheism is that it has found a plausible answer to the "hard" questions of "God, the Universe, and Everything".

Ironically and paradoxically, modern Science has never reached the final truth on anything. It's always evolving into newer Theories of Everything to replace the old TOE. For example, the quest for a fundamental "atom" of reality, has led scientists down the yellow brick road to a magic world in the clouds, made of amorphous "fields" of mathematical probabilities. Like the "elusive butterfly of love", the higher truths remain just beyond our grasp.

Nevertheless, in my old age, I am comfortable with my own personal philosophical worldview, that I call Enformationism. I won't go into the technical details here, but the relevant point is that it's neither Theistic nor Atheistic, but Deistic. It's based on the philosophical axiom that a First Cause (your higher truth?) is logically necessary to explain the subsequent series of causes & effects since the hypothetical Big Bang beginning. But, it provides no thus-saith-the-lord assurances to assuage the doubts raised by our limited understanding of how & why the world exists and works as it does, in a progressive & orderly fashion. So, Science will continue to pursue mundane truths, while Philosophy fecklessly attempts to net the "higher truths", fluttering just out of reach. How do your instincts feel about that kind of open-ended paradigm of contingent truth? :cool:

God, the Universe, and Everything Else
https://youtu.be/-IbIzCwb1xQ

“The Ultimate Answer to Life, The Universe and Everything is...42!”
― Douglas Adams, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

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

The term "emergence" has a specific technical meaning in this context. If it means what you indicate it does, all physical and chemical interaction between matter and energy represents emergence. The word loses all meaning. — T Clark

You referred to a technical article about "broken symmetry", which may or may not apply to this thread. I didn't login to read the article, so please summarize, in your own words, what "Emergence" means to you? With that information we may be able to communicate with clearer "meanings". I assume the context is Quantum Mechanics, which we have touched-on only briefly, then moved on to other kinds of relationships.

As we are using the term "emergence" here, it does not apply to "all physical and chemical interactions", but only to those physical changes that result in a new kind of thing, with novel properties. Emergence is what identifies a whole system (concrete) as more than the sum of its parts (sand + cement + water). None of the constituent parts has any significant structural rigidity. As you pointed out : "Not every change in characteristics is emergence". Only those that create something new, from something old, But something borrowed or something blue does not count as emergence. :grin:

FYI -- here's my reply to the OP :
Generally, Emergent Properties are characteristic of a system-as-a-whole, rather than of individual components of the system. Those collective properties seem to mysteriously emerge from complex interrelationships between parts of the whole. The emergent effects are called "weak" when the ultimate cause is hidden within the complexity of causation. But when the effect can be traced back to a specific cause, it is considered to be "strong". So, Quantum Mechanics is a misnomer, because the links between causes & effects are seldom traceable to an obvious unbroken chain of causation. That's why I say that Quantum Theory has crossed over the line between reductive Science & holistic Philosophy. :smile:

Enformation cannot exist without being embedded in matter, in my understanding. — Pop

Yes. But, I make a spelling distinction between the causal Energy form (Enformation) and the embodied form (Information). In its raw disembodied form I spell it EnFormAction, to denote the general causal potential of the evolving universe. Technically, ideas (information) in the mind are embodied, even though they can be transferred into the energetic form for artificial transmission between bodies. :nerd:

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. It’s the creative force (aka : Divine Will) of the axiomatic eternal deity that, for unknown reasons, programmed a Singularity to suddenly burst into our reality from an infinite source of possibility. AKA : The creative power of Evolution; the power to enform; Logos; Change.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html

Information :
When spelled with an “I”, Information is a noun, referring to data & things [physical objects]. When spelled with an “E”, Enformation is a verb, referring to energy and processes.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page11.html

Yes. It's the mind of the artist that imagines the future interrelations that are currently only potential. — Gnomon
This would be G*D? — Pop

Yes. In the Enformationism thesis, I refer to the First Cause Enformer as the "Programmer", "Creator", or "G*D". But, since that "Artist" necessarily exists outside the artwork, S/he cannot be identified with Nature. Anyway, my G*D is just a hypothesis : a figment of my imagination. So, I sometimes refer to the Enformer as "Spinoza's God", which is usually taken to be the physical universe (Nature) itself. However, Spiny's theory was based on the 17th century assumption the world itself was Eternal. Now that we are told by experts that space-time-matter-energy began almost 14 billion years ago, and seems to be headed for a frosty finale in another 14+ billion years, I must assume that the hypothetical First Cause existed prior to the creative act of causation (Big Bang). :cool:

Spinoza's God : In a letter to Henry Oldenburg, Spinoza wrote: "as to the view of certain people that I identify god with nature (taken as a kind of mass or corporeal matter), they are quite mistaken". For Spinoza, our universe (cosmos) is a mode under infinite attributes, of which we can perceive two: Thought and Extension. God has infinitely many other attributes which are not present in our world.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spinozism

The relationship actualizes the potential. Kaiser Basileus nailed it! — Pop

Yes. It's the mind of the artist that imagines the future interrelations that are currently only potential. The artwork is the final (actualized) product or output of combining several raw potentials. Hence, the art is in the Actualization of Potential. :smile:

Enformation : The Latin root “informare” meant to give recognizable (meaningful, significant) shape to something. In that sense a sculptor “in-forms” a blank slab of marble with a physical shape to represent a pre-existing image in his mind. In other words, a mental image somehow “causes” physical raw material to take on a shape that, in turn, “causes” cognition in another mind.
http://enformationism.info/enformationism.info/page2%20Welcome.html

"Every block of stone has a statue inside it and it is the task of the sculptor to discover it."
___Michaelangelo

Not every change in characteristics is emergence. In your example, the behavior of the concrete is directly causally related to the physical and chemical characteristics of the sand and cement. That's not emergence. — T Clark

Are you saying that concrete does not have emergent (structural) qualities that are not characteristic of the sand & cement separately? Since the new properties of the combined elements are directly caused by combining specific chemical qualities, I'd call it "Weak Emergence". But, I was only trying to give a simple example of emergence. A complex example of "Strong Emergence" would involve the same kind of technicalities and uncertainties as the "Hard Problem" of Consciousness. :smile:

The best way to become an atheist is to read the Bible — Dan Barker
A penny for your thoughts. — TheMadFool

I became a Non-Theist from reading the Bible with a skeptical eye. But I later became an Agnostic after my introduction to nuanced philosophical thinking in college. Eventually, I became a Deist, due to the inherent evolutionary logic of Physics & Biology. Finally, I became an Enformationist after putting all of the above together.

Sorry, that progressive sequence of events is not as neat & simplistic as Barker's two-step epigram. Perhaps the complications resulted from combining self-doubt with Skepticism, in order to avoid the pitfall of Cynicism. That's my two-cents worth. :yikes:

Enformationism : all is Information; all is Mind; Enformation is energy + laws

What is the minimum number of parts required to constitute a system? I think two! — Pop

That's a hard question to answer. A system is composed of interacting parts, not just to a particular number of elements. For example, a pile of sand might contain thousands of grains, but each grain reacts to inputs of energy independently. Yet, if you add some lime cement to the pile, it will soon harden into the integrated system of grains we call "concrete", with emergent structural qualities not found in the grains. In that case, the multiple grains act together as one. Such interaction is what the site linked below calls "Process". :smile:

1. Sorites paradox : If one removes a single grain of sand from a heap, they still have a heap. If they keep removing single grains, the heap will disappear. Can a single grain of sand make the difference between heap and non-heap? [Holism]
http://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page85.html

When you look at any system, in its simplest form, it has 3 components. It’s what I’ll call IPO: Input, Process, Output.
https://www.asianefficiency.com/systems/3-parts-to-every-system/

If I follow the logic, it leads me to conclude that the relationship of information and energy is matter, where matter is an emergent property! I think this is correct. . . . enformation = matter. As per above post. What do you think? — Pop

Yes. But it depends on what you mean by "matter". Aristotle's Hylomorphism (matter + form) was not referring to any particular lump of actual Matter, but as the general Potential to become a particular material object. For example, raw copper & tin, have the potential to become bronze, and a shapeless lump of bronze has the potential to become a statue of Zeus. But what actualizes that potential is the mind or soul of the artist, who enforms the raw materials.

So, being picky, I would reword your equation as Raw Material + Enformation = Artwork (a physical work of art). Or perhaps : matter (lower case) + Enformaction (guided energy) = Novel System (with emergent properties). Or, more to your point : Primal Energy (input) + Natural Laws (process) = Organized Matter (output). That equation is referring to the energetic blast of energy from the Big Bang, which becomes organized (processed) into matter (atoms of hydrogen). Anyway, your equation of Enformation with Matter is essentially what Einstein was saying in (E = MC^2) : raw energy + the enforming power of light vibrations = produces the emergent property of matter called "Mass". Sorry, I may be just complicating your elegant equation. :yikes:

I think there's some credit due to logical positivists with the advent of computer science and formal systems like programming languages. — Shawn

I'm hardly an expert on Logical Positivism (LP), but I think I see the connection you are making between their emphasis on pure mathematical Logic in the search for true knowledge. You could say that Shannon's distillation of communication down to True (1) or False (0) statements owes some debt to Logical Positivism. Hence, computer programming is about as close to Pure Logic as humans have come. I don't know if their digital logic led directly to digital computers, but the historical turn toward Yes or No purity in logic probably should include their contribution to clarity in language.

The radical philosophy of LP may have been a reaction to what they saw as irrelevant excursions into metaphysics, based on Intuition rather than Reason. Ironically, their quest for perfection in reasoning met the same fate as Russell's attempt to ground mathematics in the certainty of pure Logic. His Holy Grail was dashed by Godel's proof of inevitable Incompleteness and Heisenberg's principle of Uncertainty. Likewise, Logical Positivism failed in its attempt to mathematicize philosophical reasoning. That may be because modern Philosophy, post-enlightenment, has relinquished the purity of Physics to scientists, and is now primarily concerned with messy Meta-Physics. :smile:

Logical Positivism :
Essentially, logical positivism is empiricism pushed to the extreme, absolutely as far as it can go. It is antimetaphysical, anti-idealist, and convinced that science alone can provide knowledge.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/social-sciences/logical-positivism

Why Metaphysics Needs Logic and Mathematics Doesn't :
https://www.jstor.org/stable/40321072?seq=1

The language used in the discription of Emergent Properties seems very similar to the language used to describe quantum mechanics. The relationship - if any - seems to be philosophical. Can someone provide references? — Don Wade

Generally, Emergent Properties are characteristic of a system-as-a-whole, rather than of individual components of the system. Those collective properties seem to mysteriously emerge from complex interrelationships between parts of the whole. The emergent effects are called "weak" when the ultimate cause is hidden within the complexity of causation. But when the effect can be traced back to a specific cause, it is considered to be "strong". So, Quantum Mechanics is a misnomer, because the links between causes & effects are seldom traceable to an obvious unbroken chain of causation. That's why I say that Quantum Theory has crossed over the line between reductive Science & holistic Philosophy. :smile:

Emergence in Philosophy :
In philosophy, systems theory, science, and art, emergence occurs when an entity is observed to have properties its parts do not have on their own, properties or behaviors which emerge only when the parts interact in a wider whole.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence

Emergence in Physics :
The term emergent is used to evoke collective behaviour of a large number of microscopic constituents that is qualitatively different than the behaviours of the individual constituents.
https://www.nature.com/articles/npjquantmats201624

Emergence is a Holistic phenomenon, that can't be explained via reductive methods of science :
Reductionism breaks the world into elementary building blocks. Emergence finds the simple laws that arise out of complexity. These two complementary ways of viewing the universe come together in modern theories of quantum gravity.
https://www.quantamagazine.org/to-solve-the-biggest-mystery-in-physics-join-two-kinds-of-law-20170907/

Causality in a quantum world :
. . . quantum superposition can create situations in which cause-and-effect relationships between events are not well-defined.
https://physicstoday.scitation.org/do/10.1063/PT.6.1.20180328a/full/

Are you disputing that many, many, many, people think Libet's experiment disproves free will? — Bartricks

No. I was just linking to another TPF thread on a similar topic. You are free to draw your own conclusion. :smile:

There are many - and almost invariably they lack any expertise in philosophy - who think that a famous experiment performed by Benjamin Libet somehow disproves that we have free will. Unsurprisingly, they're wrong. — Bartricks

Libet's experiment was discussed in the FreeWill thread : https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/503684

Note : even Libet did not claim that his experiment disproved freewill. See link below. But it seems that our conscious freedom may sometimes be limited to a final Veto over the subconscious action potential. In other words, the body has already made up its mechanical mind, but the freethinking Mind still has the final word : yes or no. It ain't much, but it's not nothing. :smile:

"Conscious-will could thus affect the outcome of the volitional process even though the latter was initiated by unconscious cerebral processes. Conscious-will might block or veto the process, so that no act occurs.The existence of a veto possibility is not in doubt."
___Benjamin Libet, the 'freewill' experiment
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/551587e0e4b0ce927f09707f/t/57b5d269e3df28ee5e93936f/1471533676258/Libet%2C+Do+We+Have+Free+Will%3F.pdf

but I would question the sense in which minds (and the like) are 'objects'. — Wayfarer

Ha! I suspected that someone might call me on that ironic assertion. But my intention was merely to indicate that Ideas & Minds are themselves sometimes objects of conscious thought. Through introspection, your own Mind can be an object of your thought, even though the observing mind is a subject. Self-reference can be confusing.

However, if everything is a form of Information, then even the material objects we "see" in our minds are ultimately objects of thought in the Cosmic Mind. The Enformationism worldview does turn some commonsense notions upside-down and inside-out. But then, you can always continue to view your "illusory" objects of thought in the customary manner, if it please you. :joke:

Object of the mind : An object of the mind is an object that exists in the imagination, but which, in the real world, can only be represented or modeled. Some such objects are abstractions, literary concepts, or fictional scenarios.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object_of_the_mind

Reality is not what you see : “there is an objective reality. But that reality is utterly unlike our perceptions of objects in space and time.” ___Hoffman
http://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page21.html

Is it still a popular view that everything that exists in the world is matter ? And do we have any good reasons to believe that there are non material objects ? — Swimmingwithfishes

Materialism still seems to be the default view of most scientists, even after Quantum Physics raised doubts about the "materiality" of fundamental "objects". For pragmatic reasons though, Biologists & Chemists probably continue to think in terms of Materialism, despite the de-materialized picture of Nature drawn by theoretical-mathematical Physicists. The current orthodox model of physical reality has demoted wishy-washy particles, in favor of ethereal Fields, as the foundation of the real world. But many of those post-particle physicists seem to imagine that those amorphous fields are made-up of point-like particles of stuff, even if that "stuff" consists of merely mathematical definitions.

However, a few pioneering physicists & cosmologists are beginning to "face facts", and to model the world on the basis of "non-material" Mathematics. And they sometimes describe the geometry of reality in terms of the mind-stuff posited by Information Theory. Consequently, my own personal layman's worldview replaces outdated Atomism & Materialism with 21st century Enformationism. In that model, everything in the world is a form of fundamental Information. Hence, ideas & minds are real-but-immaterial objects. That may sound like a preposterous notion, but my Enformationism thesis explores the practical applications of the post-atomic post-matter world-model. :smile:

If everything is matter, then what is matter? : Matter is not a fundamental building block in our universe, it is an emergent phenomenon resulting from certain elementary particles and force fields interacting with each other through various processes.
https://www.quora.com/If-everything-is-matter-then-what-is-matter

Mathematical universe hypothesis : the physical universe is not merely described by mathematics, but is mathematics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_universe_hypothesis

Virtual Reality : How Close Can Physics Bring Us to a Truly Fundamental Understanding of the World?
http://bothandblog5.enformationism.info/page35.html

Introduction to Enformationism : Matter is Energy and Energy is Information
http://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page80.html

The problem is trying to describe a "nebulous-point" - and it doesn't seem to exist in our language. So we end up trying to define a point-particle as a non-intuitive thing. Is this a language problem? — Don Wade

I have my own personal solution to the "nebulous" nature of physical particles. And I have developed my own language to express the apparently dualistic nature of Nature. That's because, I think it's actually a WorldView problem.

In the 18th century, physicists thought they have found the long-ago predicted fundamental element of matter. So, thinking they had found the "holy grail" of physics, they named that supposedly smallest unit of matter "The Atom". But, in the early 20th century, their allegedly un-cuttable "atoms" were split into a so-far un-ending list of constituent parts. Hence, the "ultimate particle" was found to have parts of its own. And the dividing continued until there was nothing material left, except a mathematical definition of a hypothetical "point", with no extension in space.

Consequently, the current fundamental element of Matter contains only the potential for physical substance. It's no longer called an indivisible Atom, but instead, a statistical mathematical "Field". That's essentially an empty place in space where a measurable iota (mass) of matter might or might not appear at some point in the near future. So, the physicists were again forced to find a new term to describe a particle-that-is-not-yet-a-real- thing : it's now called a ghostly "Virtual Particle".

At the same time that the substance of matter was found to be insubstantial, the behavior of those "nebulous" bits of matter, was also neither here nor there. So, the physicists again searched for a new way to encapsulate the essential nature of an object that exhibits both discrete point-like "particle" motions, and continuous wave-like "entangled" motion. Such counter-intuitive comportment required a dualistic, or binary, or bipartite, or amphibian, or dyadic term, but "wave-particle" was the best they could come up with. Strangely, 2500 years ago, Aristotle coined an apt term for such a thing that seems to have-it both ways : hylemorph (form + matter) or (soul + body). Or, as I would call it : "In-form-ation" or "EnFormAction".

However, I have what I think is a more definitive name for the fundamental essence of reality : "Information". Unfortunately, few readers of this post will understand how or why that term applies to the foundations of physics. The philosophical worldview that is based on that "all-is-information" concept is Enformationism, as summarized in the BothAnd Blog. :nerd:

Introduction to Enformationism :
". . . it’s based on the emerging evidence that invisible Information, instead of tangible Matter, is the fundamental substance of everything in the universe, including Energy, Matter, and Mind."
http://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page80.html

"The subjectivity of history, in a matter that in different periods and in different cultures, was conceived in a way that mirrors the morals and values ​​of that whole culture, does demonstrate, through a logical argument, that history as a concept, its nothing more than anthropology, as its study differs from people to people?" — Gus Lamarch

You may have answered your own question, about teaching History & Anthropology as different academic subjects : "History" (the story of humanity) studies human cultures as abstract whole systems, while "Anthropology" (the science of humanity) studies the individual parts (people) of those systems. So, History is a Humanities subject, while Anthro is a Science topic. History allows for some subjective philosophical conjectures about "why" certain events happened, while Anthro (as an empirical reductive science) tries to avoid such generalizing and speculation about essences. However, "Philosophical Anthropology" may be what you have in mind, since it seems to be a specialized form of History. :smile:


History : a continuous, systematic narrative of past events as relating to a particular people, country, period, person, etc., usually written as a chronological account; chronicle:

Philosophical Anthropology : the study of the nature and essence of humankind.

I wish to see a compelling argument that makes thinking of free will as a possibility without the use of some outside power. — Barondan

The question of FreeWill came up in a thread on Religious Belief. One common modern "scientific" argument against Freewill in general (not specifically religious choice) is the findings of Benjamin Libet's experiments on voluntary acts. A common interpretation of those results was to conclude that the body had already chosen to act before the mind became conscious of its own intention to act. Hence, "freewill is an illusion". But Libet himself left open the possibility of minimal freedom, in the form of a final conscious Veto of the body's subconscious decision to act. For me, that narrowly-limited-freedom-to-choose is sufficient to validate our intuitive feeling of moral & functional Freedom. It's what I call "FreeWill within Determinism".

I'm not sure what you meant by "outside power". Are you referring to a divine gift of Free Will? My notion of Freewill is not based on any scriptural authority, but on the role of Randomness in Evolution. My later post on that same thread gives my reasoning. :smile:

FWIW, here's a link to my reply on the Religious Belief thread : https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/503419

Conscious-will could thus affect the outcome of the volitional process even though the latter was initiated by unconscious cerebral processes. Conscious-will might block or veto the process, so that no act occurs.The existence of a veto possibility is not in doubt.
___Benjamin Libet, the 'freewill' experiment
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/551587e0e4b0ce927f09707f/t/57b5d269e3df28ee5e93936f/1471533676258/Libet%2C+Do+We+Have+Free+Will%3F.pdf


Rationalism versus Fatalism : Freewill Within Determinism
http://bothandblog2.enformationism.info/page67.html

PS___Here's a discussion on "apparent randomness :
Apparent randomness is strong evidence for the existence of free will :
https://www.kialo.com/apparent-randomness-is-strong-evidence-for-the-existence-of-free-will-5685.2309?path=5685.0~5685.1-5685.2309

Maybe this observation belongs on a more Spinoza specific thread but the determinism relates to how something is either caused by itself or by something not itself. That is quite different from viewing the matter as whether one can insert a cause between other causes. The point of "God" not being able to do it is pointing to a structural problem with the question more than offering an opinion about what is possible. — Valentinus

Yes. That's two different ways of looking at Causation and Determinism. Animals are differentiated from inanimate objects by their ability to cause themselves to move. But that's not much of a philosophical issue. The debatable question is whether the animal can make moral choices. For example, most animals seem to follow the First Commandment of "thou shalt not kill thine own kind". Predators sometimes fight amongst themselves, but seldom actually kill their rivals. But is that moral restraint built into their genes, or is it a situational choice? We can only guess about their motives. Bet humans can tell us why they did what they did. And they can lie about it. Yet few of us would admit to ourselves that "the devil made me do it". We tend to accept responsibility for our positive actions, and deny being self-caused in the case of negative or immoral acts.

However, a God is assumed to be able to do anything that is logically possible. So, the creator of this world might be faced with a choice : a> build a mechanical world that always does exactly what it is programmed to do (efficient, but boring!), or b> create a smoothly-running world that evolves into an uncertain & interesting future. Option <b> could be achieved by merely adding an element of randomness to the mechanism of option <a>. The latter is what we see in Darwinian Evolution : a continuous chain of Cause & Effect, but with statistically probable effects, instead of absolutely certain consequences.The Freewill vs Determinism debate would be a waste of time, if our world was completely determined or absolutely random. But it seems to be a delicately balanced blend of both. Hence, evolution makes a Natural Selection between the options presented by random changes. And humans make their own artificial selections between forks in the moral highway, based not on chance, but on personal preferences. Randomness is the "structural problem" in an otherwise flawless machine for replication of identical clones.

With those alternatives in mind, I have created my own personal theory of FreeWill within Determinism. It's not based on any particular religious doctrine, or philosophical authority. It's also grounded on neither Theist nor Atheist assumptions, but on a moderate philosophical position. This theory is how I justify the assumption that my socially significant choices are free-enough to make me morally responsible, and morally laudable. :cool:

Evolution -- a game of chance : https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/evolution-a-game-of-chance-observations/ .

Rationalism versus Fatalism : Freewill Within Determinism
http://bothandblog2.enformationism.info/page67.html

Spinoza didn't believe in free will. When I was reading his Ethics at first I thought he was a compatibilist until he directly denied that any free will was real. I would guess Einstein was of the same frame of mind. This is indicated by his desire to fully understand God by finding a scientific "theory of everything". I see this as just Gnosticism — Gregory

Spinoza's expressed position on freewill was based on his understanding of Cause & Effect Determinism, for which he saw no gaps. (But he may not have been familiar with Pascal's statistical & probabilistic definition of Chance) Anyway, in lieu of religious consolation, perhaps he found contentment in philosophical freedom of imagination. However, in my Enformationism thesis, the inherent randomness of natural events allows a small degree of freedom for the human Will to act as a Cause. I have several blog posts to explain how I arrived at that conclusion.

Let me know, if you are interested in my variant of Compatibilism : Conditional or Contingent Freedom Of Will (via Veto). Only the Creator or Cause of the world system would have Absolute freedom to deviate from the inevitable chain of cause & effect. But, any broken links in the chain would seem to be a self-contradiction of He/r expressed Will in the program for evolution. Unless, of course, the Programmer intended for some creatures to have the power to make moral choices : by taking advantage of random deviations from determinism.

Einstein, likewise, saw no loopholes for exceptions to inevitable Causation. But he also didn't seem to believe in classical Fatalism. Perhaps the mere illusion of freedom was enough to give him some comfort in his prison cell. FWIW, Albert called himself an "Agnostic". :smile:

He was also an incompatibilist; in 1932 he said: I do not believe in free will. Schopenhauer's words: 'Man can do what he wants, but he cannot will what he wills,'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_and_philosophical_views_of_Albert_Einstein

Conscious-will could thus affect the outcome of the volitional process even though the latter was initiated by unconscious cerebral processes. Conscious-will might block or veto the process, so that no act occurs.The existence of a veto possibility is not in doubt.
___Benjamin Libet, the 'freewill' experiment
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/551587e0e4b0ce927f09707f/t/57b5d269e3df28ee5e93936f/1471533676258/Libet%2C+Do+We+Have+Free+Will%3F.pdf

Yes thanks that worked. Still the text at the bottom of the pop up couldn't be read. The content seems spot on however. — Pop

Just for the record, I have revised the Thesis Abstract popup indicator so that it changes when you hover over it, to indicate that a click will cause an action. It doesn't turn blue, like a hyperlink, it merely fades, like a Cheshire Cat. :joke:
http://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page82.html

PS___In the Information-Consciousness-Reality book, I just came across a line, in his abstract of all chapters, that is relevant to your thesis : "Self-organization appears like a fundamental force guiding cosmic evolution". That's essentially what I call EnFormAction in my own thesis. He also has a chapter entitled : A Universe Built of Information , which is what the Enformationism thesis is all about.

If you are interested, there is a free PDF download available, and the Kindle version is Free on Amazon : https://www.amazon.com/Information-Consciousness-Reality-Understanding-Questions-Existence-Collection-ebook/dp/B07QLN9X14/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=Information-Consciousness-Reality&link_code=qs&qid=1614303194&sourceid=Mozilla-search&sr=8-1&tag=mozilla-20

In as short as possible, would it be possible to entertain the notion that complexity in non-congruent mathematics is determinable?
I say this because I am assuming that the theorem itself is not ascertainable in complexity due to Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem itself. However, on my other account "Shawn" I have surmised that a growing alphabet can be able to determine the complexity of the proof of the theorem if logic comes next to mathematics. — Shawn W

I'm not qualified to attempt an answer to your question. But, I'm currently reading a book by Complexity theorist, James Glattfelder , Information - Consciousness - Reality : How a New Understanding of the Universe Can Help Answer Age-Old Questions of Existence. Some of his chapters get into mathematical technicalities, and uses arcane vocabulary & symbols. But he also gives plain language layman summaries of the mathematical reasoning. Here are few of the topics he covers that are also involved in your question : Simplicity within Complexity ; Goedel's Incompleteness of mathematics ; Analytical vs Algorithmic approaches to nature , and so forth.

Perhaps more pertinent to your topic though, is an article in the Dec2020-Jan2021 issue of Philosophy Now magazine. The article, by Luc deBrabandere, is entitled Homo Informaticus. He traces the history of "the dream of bringing mathematics and logic together" He refers to Leibniz, whose great dream was to "bring together mathematics and logic". He notes the contributions of various mathematicians, scientists, and philosophers (e.g. Leibniz, Kant, Boole, Russell, Chaitin & Turing) who first tried to equate Logic with Math, and then, after Goedel rained on Russell's dream of unification, they have been working on ways around Goedel's roadblock. He concludes by asserting that, even the promise of Big Data, combined with powerful computers, to make old-fashioned mathematics obsolete, with run into the same incompleteness barrier.
:smile:

If you google ungrounded variable mental construct you'll see what I mean. — Pop

Ooooh! That's quite a technical philosophical concept. But your summation is on target :
“Art is an expression of human consciousness. Art work is information about the artist’s consciousness.”

Yes. Art is a form of communication. And some older definitions of "art" emphasized how it conveys the feeling of beauty. Yet a lot of modern art is not intended to display beauty, but the ugliness of reality. So, I think you nailed-it, that what is communicated is how the artist views the world. This reminds me of the epigram -- attributed to Kant, The Talmud, among others -- "we see the world, not as it is, but as we are" :smile:

BTW your pop-up is not working for me - Chrome browser on windows. — Pop

It works in Firefox and Edge, so I don't know what the problem is. Unlike an internet link, this page link doesn't change the place marker to a finger pointer. You just have to put the place marker over the text and click. I might try a "rollover" popup instead of a "click" to see if that will work in other browsers. The problem with that solution is the popup box disappears if you move the mouse. Anyway, here's the content of the popup ---


 Abstract of the Enformationism Thesis :
1. The Enformationism hypothesis aligns with the ancient, but still controversial, theory that the fundamental “substance” of reality is not sensible physical energy or tangible matter, but the abstract meta-physical contents of a cosmic mind, or what we might now call : a universal “information processor”. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/substance/
2. Yet it concludes that those mysterious, metaphysical, mental building blocks of reality (bits & bytes) are no more mystical than the ordinary, mundane objects of thought (ideas) that we take for granted in our own personal neural information processor.  https://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/. . . .xml
3. Axiom : Enformation (the power to enform) is real and primal. Hence, Mental concepts are categorically and hierarchically prior to material things. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consciousness/
4. Premise 1 : At the quantum level of reality matter is essentially reduced to mathematical information.
5. Premise 2 : The essence of mind and thought is Information, which consists of patterns and relationships between things.
6. Conclusion : Matter, Energy & Mind are evolved forms of abstract, ethereal information encoded in the Primal Singularity.
7. Therefore, the 19th century, reductive, physical, scientific Paradigm of Materialism should be updated to include the knowledge emerging from 21st century, holistic, meta-physical Information Sciences.

This is more like it, in my opinion ( particularly the stuff highlighted in bold ).I am much more inclined to read something like this as you are unifying and integrating your knowledge and drawing some conclusion from it. — Pop

FWIW, I have added a pop-up on the last page of the Introduction to Enformationism blog post. It is a revised version of the Abstract post previously. It's more compact and less personal than this one. But it's not really an article. I may reserve the abstract for those who specifically request a brief summary, before they invest any time in some nobody's vanity blog. :cool:

Abstract pop-up : http://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page82.html

The working definition of religion which I will offer is one offered by William James in, 'The Varieties of Religious Experience' :
'Were one asked to characterise the life of religion in the broadest and most general terms possible, one might say that it consists of the belief that there is an unseen order, and that our supreme good lies in harmoniously adjusting ourselves thereto.' — Jack Cummins

That's a pretty good non-sectarian definition of Religion. So, in that case, Albert Einstein was a religious person. But I would distinguish between a personal unofficial Philosophy and a communal doctrinal Religion.

I call my "belief in an unseen order" in Nature, and my attempt to "harmoniously adjust thereto", merely a personal philosophical worldview. However, most people are not so rationally or philosophically inclined; hence their "need" for a religious community of faith & feeling, may result from the cognitive dissonance between their intuition of "Order" in the world, despite the obvious Disorders of life, and their uncertainty about the ambivalent "Unseen" organizer. Having a scriptural authority for your belief, releases you from responsibility for personally resolving the "need" for assurance that someone is in control, and that things are going to be alright.

Those who are philosophically opposed to any form of Supernaturalism or Religion though, may either deny the inherent order of Nature (emphasizing randomness instead), or place their trust in Science (to reveal the self-ordering powers of evolution). :smile:

"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings."
____Albert Einstein

"there is found a third level of religious experience, even if it is seldom found in a pure form. I will call it the cosmic religious sense. This is hard to make clear to those who do not experience it, since it does not involve an anthropomorphic idea of God; the individual feels the vanity of human desires and aims, and the nobility and marvelous order which are revealed in nature and in the world of thought."
___Albert Einstein, Religion and Science

"We're hand-wired to avoid uncertainty, because it makes us feel lots of negative emotions,"
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/05/17/coronavirus-psychology-of-uncertainty-not-knowing-whats-next.html

Panpschism is gaining momentum, with people like Tononi, Koch, Hoffman, etc, but it will be up to the millennial generation to really cement it into place. You and I will just beat our heads against a brick wall, but who knows we may displace a brick or two along the way. :grin: — Pop

Yes. I think a revival of the old Panpsychism worldview is a step in the right direction. But it is currently most popular in the form of mystical magical New Age religions. Apparently the notion that everything, including a grain of sand, is conscious makes them feel a part of something greater than themselves. However, I think it's more comforting to feel that humans are an important part of the whole. However, our self-importance is diminished somewhat by the knowledge that the higher animals are also sentient. So, homo sapiens seems to be merely one step in the stairway to heaven, not the "chosen people" with a reservation in the Eternal Bliss suite. :cool: