I believe the potential reality of the New Age, a time of peace and high tech, and the end of tyranny. A future so different from our past, those in the New Age will not be able to relate to the past. It is that change in consciousness that truly makes it a New Age. — Athena

The term "Age of Enlightenment" is usually applied by historians to an era in 17th & 18th centuries, that was sparked by the re-discovery of Greek Rationalism, and spread by the new technology of the printing press. Its early stages were marked by a formalization of the empirical scientific method, and later by the emergence of Individualism & Humanism, as a philosophical reaction to the intellectual suffocation imposed by the Collectivism and Spiritualism of the dominant Christian Church of the Dark Ages.

But a "New Age of Enlightenment" emerged in the 19th & 20th centuries as a reaction to the dominance of Modern Scientism and Secularism. The New Age movement was a return to Collectivism (communes) and Spiritualism (Buddhism, Hinduism, Theosophy). It also expressed a distaste for Rationalism & Empiricism & Objectivism & Modernism. Unfortunately, like the return of Christ, the prophesied Age of Aquarius (peace & love) never occurred, and many old hippies became pot-smoking suburbanites.

These different interpretations of "Enlightenment" seem to be recurring examples of Hegel's historical Dialectic, in which a once dominant worldview is challenged, and sometimes replaced, by a new opposing paradigm. Yet eventually, some of the key ideas of the previous "enlightenment" are retained in the subsequent "synthetic" worldview. Many people now claim to be "spiritual but not religious", and even "back to nature" types have made accommodations for the technological fruits of Modern Science. So, you could say that the world of human culture is progressing by erratic (zig-zag) stages of enlightenment toward a more flourishing and moral future.

However, at this moment in time, there is a new burgeoning movement called the "Enlightenment Project", which is a counter-attack on the anti-Science and anti-Reason worldviews, not so much of old hippies, but of old Republicans. And so it goes, on & on. Enlightenment is not a specific age or sudden inspiration, but the evolving learning process of humanity. :smile:

Enlightenment : education or awareness that brings change; consciousness raising

Hegel's Dialectic : Thesis >>> Antithesis >>> Synthesis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectic

Historical Progression : see Age of the Sage link
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page11.html
https://www.age-of-the-sage.org/philosophy/history/hegel_philosophy_history.html

Dark Side of Enlightenment : https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-dark-side-of-the-enlightenment-1523050206

I think of function as an empirical condition....it is the function of this to do that, a necessary product of cause and effect. — Mww

The primary function (purpose) of your automobile is "transportation", which is a process, not an object. Can you put "transportation" or "consciousness" under a microscope to see its component parts? As Hume pointed out, the connection between Cause and Effect is an attribution, an association, and a label of convenience for an invisible link or relationship between things or events that have a history of occurring together. His analysis raised the Problem of Induction, which is the method of empirical Science. In practice though, most pragmatic scientists ignore Hume's quibbles, and take the causal connection for granted. Yet technically, the "invisible link" is an imaginary concept in the mind (consciousness) of the observer --- it's a belief, not an empirical fact.

Problem of Induction : https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/induction-problem/

I’m not sure I’d think of consciousness as a function. What does consciousness actually effect, and how can anything be said about its effects, when its cause is itself unknown. — Mww

Good question. Except for spoon-bending psychics, Consciousness doesn't seem to have any empirical effects on the material world. But you know from personal experience that it does affect your immaterial behavior. Your intentional activities are a function of your awareness of the environment, and of mental projections into the future, to predict possible consequences of specific behaviors. Can you say "conscious behavior" and "subconscious reflexes"?

Again, we moderns attribute conscious behavior to the brain. But ancient Egyptians imagined that the heart was the seat (cause) of the conscious Soul. Some fringe thinkers argue that the source (cause) of consciousness is out-there in the universe (Panpsychism). So, it's a matter of opinion as to the Cause of Consciousness. FWIW, my opinion is that Awareness of the external & internal milieu is a holistic function of the whole brain and body.

Function :
1. an activity or purpose natural to or intended for a person or thing.
2. Mathematics --- a relationship or expression involving one or more variables.

Behavior : the way in which a natural phenomenon or a machine works or functions.

we’ve got mind as consciousness as emergent function of brain, which seems altogether overly-complicated, for it appears to make mind practically synonymous with consciousness — Mww

Do you think it's less complicated to identify "world-changing" Consciousness with a lump of Brain Matter? Isn't that a bit simplistic? :joke:

Mind :
1. the element of a person that enables them to be aware of the world and their experiences, to think, and to feel; the faculty ofconsciousness and thought.

Metaphysical :
1. In modern philosophical terminology, metaphysics refers to the studies of what cannot be reached through objective studies of material reality. ... Metaphysics might include the study of the nature of the human mind, the definition and meaning of existence, or the nature of space, time, and/or causality.

PS__By "world-changing" I refer to the sudden acceleration of Evolution after the emergence of Conscious Organisms from non-conscious Matter.

Not sure how holistic and emergent can coexist simultaneously, and not sure how either is possible for humans if not for neural physics. — Mww

Holism is the concept that a single functional system (a whole thing) is "more than the sum of its parts". The "more" is an emergent property of the whole system that is not characteristic of any of its parts. I'm not sure what you meant by "coexist", but a Whole System would not exist if not for the phenomenon of Emergence. That's why I say "the Mind is an emergent property of the whole Brain".

What we call "Mind" is essentially the Consciousness function of the Neural Net. But no single node in that net is conscious. The nodes process bits & pieces of Information, but it takes a whole integrated system to become aware of the output from those processes. So yes, the neurons are necessary but not sufficient, to produce the emergent function of Consciousness. :nerd:


Emergent Holism : Holism in science, or holistic science, is an approach to research that emphasizes the study of complex systems. Systems are approached as coherent wholes whose component parts are best understood in context and in relation to one another and to the whole. . . .
David Deutsch calls holism anti-reductionist and refers to the concept as thinking the only legitimate way to think about science is as a series of emergent, or higher level phenomena.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holism_in_science

Emergent Properties : Examples of emergent properties include cities, the brain, ant colonies and complex chemical systems.
https://sciencing.com/emergent-properties-8232868.html

NOTE :An emergent property is a property which a complex. yet integrated, system has, but which the individual members do not have.

Integrated Information Theory : http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Integrated_information_theory

“mind” being a concept of explanatory convenience — Mww

Yes. "Mind" is a term of convenience to label the non-physical Function of the Brain. Likewise, "Word Processor" is a convenient concept to stand as a symbol for all the complicated electronics going on inside your computer. In both cases, the Process is not a single physical object, but a metaphysical sequence of physical events. But some of us like to know what's going on inside that black box. :joke:

Is fundamental logic instinctual to organic cognition as a function for processing certain types of spontaneous causality? — Enrique

Socrates taught that all basic knowledge (principles) was innate, and we merely combine them into new forms to suit different contexts. That's equivalent to what some thinkers have called "Logical Intuition". :smile:

Logical Intuition : Bertrand Russell, though critical of intuitive mysticism, pointed out that the degree to which a truth is self-evident according to logical intuition can vary, from one situation to another, and stated that some self-evident truths are practically infallible:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_intuition

Even Crows Can Count : https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/64743/how-do-crows-count

As perception is the recognition of something already learned, then, how to perceive objective information, when subjectivity (its antithesis) lies in perception? — Marax

That is the point of Buddhist meditation. Not necessarily to achieve absolute Objectivity, but to "approximate" (Pantagruel) an Other's perception (judgment) of your own behavior. Unfortunately, as Nils Loc noted, "there is no thing in the ding-an-sich", and no subjective Self in Non-Self. :joke:

there is some moral evaluation of that event in that context that it is correct for everyone to make, — Pfhorrest

I hadn't thought of it in this way before, but I suppose I am a theoretical Moral Objectivist, but a practical Moral Pragmatist. I assume there is universal moral Truth in the same sense that there is ultimate Mathematical Truth. My worldview requires an absolute state or principle that most people call "god". Only a transcendent omniscient Observer would have an Objective perspective on all human moral agency. This has been the traditional role of a monotheist deity : to be an "all-seeing eye" in the sky, or a Santa Claus "making a list of good little boys & girls". But I no longer think in those terms. Instead my Absolute is a logical necessity, just like Mathematical Truth. In theory, all partial real values will add-up to a final universal Evaluation : all things considered, the Moral Equation should add-up to Zero, i.e. perfect balance.

The pragmatic Moral rule in effect in the world is some form of Relativism, in which moral judgments are made by your collective human peers about your individual inter-personal behavior. But the ideal rule is that a complete holistic universal judgment is made at the highest possible level of discernment. So, Moral Objectivity requires an Idealistic worldview, such as that of Plato's Logos (perfect proportion & reason) . However, in the Real world, we don't have access to Absolute Knowledge, so we have to make-do with ever-changing human judgments of Right & Wrong, Good & Evil. And we use relativistic rules of thumb, like the Golden Rule, to imagine our behavior from another person's perspective.That's about as close to Objectivity as we can get. :smile:

PS__I didn't check a box, because of my BothAnd philosophy, which let's me have it both ways. Either-Or thinkers will find that to be morally evasive. But I find it philosophically useful for keeping an open mind. There is no absolute Certainty in human mathematics, but Mathematicians must assume there is an ultimate correct answer to every question or equation.

Uncertainty Principle : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle

an enlightened mindset — Enrique

Unless you are the Buddha, philosophical Enlightenment is a process, not a sudden revelation. The light-bulb insight is only the beginning of an ongoing learning procedure, following the light of reason (the mindset). Human culture began its evolution toward enlightenment eons ago, but we haven't yet reached the mountaintop. :smile:

Do you think “the mind is what the brain does” to be just a somewhat lame effort to eliminate epiphenomenalism? — Mww

No. I think that defining the Mind as the Function of the Brain is a pragmatic explanation. Epiphenomenalism is a kind of Property Dualism, while the functional definition can be interpreted as a Substance Monism, as proposed in my Enformationism thesis. Mind is an emergent holistic property of Brain, not a sub-system of the neural net. In my view, both the material Brain and the immaterial Mind are forms of Generic Information. But that's an emergent concept in Science, not yet orthodox doctrine. :cool:

Function : an activity or purpose natural to or intended for a person or thing.
___Wiki
NOTE : a flatworm can perform its basic functions without a brain. But humans are not automatons, precisely because their over-sized brains can choose between options, based on rational projection of future consequences. Choice is a purposeful function.

Emergent Functionalism : 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.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence

Substance Monism : https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=substance+monism+spinoza

Epiphenomenalism : the view that mental events are caused by physical events in the brain, but have no effects upon any physical events.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epiphenomenalism/
NOTE : If the Mind has no causal effect on the physical world, how can your ideas and intentions have any effect in the outside world? Are you (your mental Self) a robot driven by automatic mechanical processes? Or do you have some freedom to choose your actions? I know, the question is moot, but I choose the freewill option. https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/03/philosophers-and-neuroscientists-join-forces-see-whether-science-can-solve-mystery-free

Brain/Mind Paradox :
Empirical Science treats the human mind as an integral function of the physical brain. But we intuitively put the mind in a different category. That's why it has traditionally been associated with a non-physical Soul, which requires a dualistic notion of humanity. The Enformationism paradigm though, is ultimately monistic, viewing Information as the single "substance" of reality. But that primordial stuff has two aspects : an active verb form, EnFormAction (energy), and a passive noun form, Information (embodied potential in material forms). The brain is enformed stuff, which converts stored Information (memory) into ideas, images, and feelings.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page10.html

lawfully transcendent functionality — Mww

Rather than defining Mind as a "transcendent" function of the Brain, I'd say it's an Emergent Function. Emergence is a natural process of Phase Change. :nerd:

PS__I agree that the Mind/Body conundrum ("the hard question") is only a problem for the scientific method of Reductionism, while the philosophical method of Holism can easily explain emergent properties as potentially inherent in the parts, due to their latent Information.

Ok, how about we say mental states are conditioned by brain states. That way, we can talk all day about the one, without having to know anything at all about the other. — Mww

Yes. I like to say that "Mind is what the Brain does" --- its function. Just as the function of your computer is to process input information, so you can talk about that meaningful information in plain English, without using the technical computer code that does the actual processing.

A similar analogy is used by cognitive psychologist Don Hoffman in his book, The Case Against Reality. He doesn't deny the underlying coded reality, but says that we evolved to think in terms of metaphorical symbols (concepts that he calls "Icons"), rather than in terms of Neurology. That helps me to clarify the old Brain/Mind conundrum. :smile:

Underlying Reality : http://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page21.html

PS__In response to the OP, you could say that MInd states are analogous to Brain states.

For me, the traditional Stoic view of God is appealing, as I can easily think of the universe/nature as something to be revered. — Ciceronianus the White

Yes. I appreciate their pragmatic worldview, but not their religious practices. I find it to be similar to Buddhism, as a practical psychology, but not the later religious trappings added-on after the death of Siddhartha. I have my own personal philosophy, that I call BothAnd, which incorporates various bits of wisdom from over the ages. :smile:

I have been thinking on how the health care system seems incomplete. — Saurabh Bondarde

The fragmented American health care system is both empowered (medical entrepreneurs) and limited by the laissez faire (hands off) economics of our "free market" government. Hybrid Market-Socialist nations tend to have more top-down control over the functions & operations of the nationwide health & insurance systems. But I haven't seen a study to determine how effective they are in dealing with national emergencies like the current crisis. The article linked below says that the Obama administration had a "Pandemic Game Plan" that was canceled by the new Trump administration. That's fragmented us-vs-them politics for you. :lol:

Pandemic Game Plan : https://khn.org/news/evidence-shows-obama-team-left-a-pandemic-game-plan-for-trump-administration/

Whatever "secular nature" may be, I don't think it is essentially the Stoic deity. I doubt most of us today would consider nature to be infused with what the Stoics considered the generative, rational aspect of the universe, or its mind as it was sometimes called (also Divine Fire, or pneuma), which though material functioned as something like its soul. — Ciceronianus the White

I'm not an expert on Stoicism, but I get the impression that traditional polytheists would have considered them Secular --- if not Atheists. The difference between then and now is the state of their scientific understanding. They didn't have the modern concept of impersonal Energy and Forces, so any kind of physical change was attributed to various invisible agents. But the Stoic's Logos was more like a universal principle of Reason, serving as an explanation of the natural order that can be recognized by rational humans . Yet, they didn't seem to be as cultish as the Pythagorean Math Cult.

Anyway, modern Stoics are not beholden to that ancient god concept. But I still like the metaphor of the universe as a living & growing & maturing organism. The only divine dictates of that kind of deity are what we now call "Natural Laws". We are obliged to respect & obey them (e.g Gravity), but not to worship & pray to the law-giver in order to obtain special favors and exceptions. :smile:

Logos : "The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences" ___Eugene Wigner
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Unreasonable_Effectiveness_of_Mathematics_in_the_Natural_Sciences

The pragmatic thing to do is just relax and keep floating, — Pfhorrest

Great analogy! This is essentially the Buddha's (and the Stoic's advice) to those who are treading water in depressing absurdity and existential angst : Pragmatic Acceptance (as opposed to Fatalistic Resignation --- just give up and drown). Unfortunately, most philosophers can't resist trying to touch the bottom, or to understand ultimates. That's why they quite often get in over their heads. :joke:

Acceptance vs Resignation : https://secularbuddhism.com/acceptance-vs-resignation/

how to perceive objective information, when subjectivity (its antithesis) lies in perception? — Marax

The Buddha recommended cultivating the non-perspective of No-Self. Although some are put-off by the paradoxical notion of Nirvana (extinguishment, non-existence), the practical task was to relinquish the Ego (self perspective) --- at least temporarily --- and to identify (become one) with the Cosmos : a universal perspective. I suspect that few humans have actually achieved Nirvana, but some meditators and drug-users have reported an Oceanic Feeling of Oneness with the whole world. Whether that results in practical wisdom is hard to prove. But it's one way to deal with the subjective-objective dilemma you are struggling with. :smile:

Oceanic Feeling : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oceanic_feeling

As practical wisdom, Stoicism may provide a "secular" code of ethics, but Stoicism's ethics had its basis in belief in an immanent deity, something that many of its modern proponents (including Pigliucci) prefer to ignore or note only in passing. — Ciceronianus the White

You might want to clarify that the Stoic deity was Pantheistic, and essentially what we now identify with secular Nature, complete with natural laws. Their Logos was more like a universal principle than a conventional anthro-morphic god. Although Pigliucci is uncomfortable with the notion of the universe as a living organism, there are plenty of practical scientists who have come to that same conclusion. Besides, most modern ethical systems are grounded in the universal laws of Nature, in part because the are perceived to be logical.

Stoic Deity : Stoic physics is the natural philosophy adopted by the Stoic philosophers of ancient Greece and Rome used to explain the natural processes at work in the universe. To the Stoics, the universe is a single pantheistic god, but one which is also a material substance.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoic_physics

Pigliucci : Here is the problem: the notion of the cosmos as a living organism, which held pretty well until roughly the 17th century, is not tenable in the face of everything that modern science—both physics and biology—has discovered so far.
https://thesideview.co/articles/the-stoic-god-is-untenable-in-the-light-of-modern-science/

Is the Universe Alive? https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg14119083-900-is-the-universe-alive-the-radical-idea-that-our-universe-may-be-evolving-like-a-living-creature-is-making-cosmologists-think-like-biologists/

PS__I'm not a Stoic, I just appreciate their practical philosophy

But what if... What if mathematics IS metaphysics? — Eremit

I think that Metaphysics is all about Abstractions in the human mind, and Mathematics is about as abstract as you can get. So yes, "mathematics is metaphysics". But I am not qualified to prove that metaphorical similie mathematically. Perhaps the Metaphysical Lab mentioned by jgill will shed some light on the subject. Since modern philosophy is mostly concerned with Metaphysics (e.g. Consciousness), some mathematical evidence may bring it closer to the fold of empirical science. :smile:

Is Stoicism a suitable alternative . . . — Ross Campbell

Yes. Stoicism is enjoying a modern revival in the US. This forum recently had philosopher Massimo Pigliucci, as a guest speaker on the topic of Stoicism. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/7089/discuss-philosophy-with-professor-massimo-pigliucci

Stoicism 5.0 : https://theconversation.com/stoicism-5-0-the-unlikely-21st-century-reboot-of-an-ancient-philosophy-80986

How To Be A Stoic : https://howtobeastoic.wordpress.com/massimo-on-stoicism/

Hoffman is just re-casting age-old idealism (mental monism) in the image of a couple odd theses of his.
I suppose, if you really think this holds water, then you could put together a concise and short argument in a new opening post. (y)
Keep in mind, if Hoffman wants to raise this stuff to science, then the requisite falsifiability criteria and such applies. — jorndoe

Yes. Idealism is an ancient philosophical worldview that never went away. To me, Hoffman's theory seems to be an update of Kant's Transcendental Idealism. However, Hoffman calls it Model Dependent Realism. I suspect that the notion of "transcendence" does not fit your worldview. So you may dismiss Hoffman as an occultist, but he is an MIT educated occultist.

I'm not a credentialed cognitive scientist, so I'll let Hoffman make his own argument. Obviously, Idealism is not compatible with the current dominant doctrine of Materialism. But Quantum Theory has already undermined the foundation of that ancient hypothesis. I presented my concise & short "argument" in the blog post linked above.

Do you know of any cognitive or psychological theory that is empirically falsifiable? Mind studies are not "hard" sciences, so their theories are essentially philosophical. Only time will tell if Hoffman's provocative theory gains credibility among his peers in cognitive science. At this time, his theory is "challenging leading scientific theories", so you would expect that many of his peers are skeptical. But his theory has been enthusiastically received by several prominent cognitive scientists, including Steven Pinker. :cool:

Quotes :

"SHORTLISTED FOR THE PHYSICS WORLD BOOK OF THE YEAR 2019 : A groundbreaking examination of human perception, reality and the evolutionary schism between the two"
https://www.penguin.co.uk/books/295/295303/the-case-against-reality/9780141983417.html

Challenging leading scientific theories that claim that our senses report back objective reality, cognitive scientist Donald Hoffman argues that while we should take our perceptions seriously, we should not take them literally.

"Don Hoffman . . . combines a deep understanding of the logic of perception, a gift for explaining it with simple displays that anyone can-quite literally-see, and a refreshing sense of wonder at the miracle of it all."--Steven Pinker, author of How the Mind Works

Is that state of contented acceptance something that people have actually experienced? ...and is it possible to experience this when you have doubts about having chosen the right thing to do (at any point in time) and the right way to do it? — living-sisyphus

Yes. "Acceptance" is a basic doctrine of Buddhism and of Stoicism. In meditation, if doubts arise, you simply observe them non-judgmentally and allow them to fade away. A key to Acceptance & Contentment is the counter-intuitive notion of Non-self. If Sisyphus could reach Nirvana, his struggle to reach the top of the hill would be over.

I am neither Buddhist nor Stoic in any official sense, but my BothAnd philosophy is based on acceptance of what you have no control over. It's not fatalistic, but simply realistic. Some people imagine that they have more power over the outside world than they actually do. All you can control is yourself, and even then to a small degree. But it does you no good to stress about the lack of control, unless you have a way to gain control. For example, some Buddhist monks are said to be able to control involuntary body functions. But it would be sufficient if most of us could just control our primitive urges and feelings in modern stressful situations. :smile:

The Buddha said, “Contentment is the greatest wealth.”

Regarding the Information thing (paraphrasing Gamez), by wholesale I meant thorough all-embracing hypostatization, but that wasn't about Davies. — jorndoe

Hypostatization is the fallacy of Reification : ascribing reality to abstractions. But recent neurological studies are finding that what we humans take for reality is actually a figment of our imagination : an abstraction. Cognitive Psychologist Donald Hoffman has produced a novel theory of perception that sounds a lot like the ancient Buddhist teaching of Maya (illusion). If you are not familiar with that notion, the book review linked below will give you a brief glimpse from a non-Buddhist perspective. But, if you have any interest in cutting-edge Information theory and Consciousness science, I recommend that you read the book for yourself. :cool:

The Case Against Reality : http://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page21.html

Paul Davies goes a wee bit overboard on occasion, — jorndoe

By "overboard" do you mean he goes beyond current materialist doctrine into speculations on quantum queerness? If so, I agree. And I find it to make a lot of sense, at least as far as Quantum theory can make sense.

it's just another sample "all-embracing monstrous metaphysical vision" when taken wholesale. — jorndoe

I take it that you don't approve of Scientific Speculation and Metaphysical Philosophy? Davies doesn't ask you to take what he says "wholesale". You are expected to take a scientific analytical approach, up to the point where Reductive analysis bogs down in Holistic metaphysics, such as Quantum Entanglement. QE doesn't "make sense", but it does seem to be a fact of physics. So Davies uses Information theory to peer into the mists of murk beyond classical Newtonian physics. :smile:

Thanks for the example but I think it proves my point. Everything we do is predicated on the belief that such action is the one that will bring us the most pleasure. — Bert Newton

That may be true, but it's also why civilized people need some kind of ethical principle that is not based on primitive urges. Utilitarianism was intended to allow an objective rational calculus for good & bad, but some people are not inclined to dispassionate dissection of their urges & motives, or informed calculation of consequences. That's why cultivating a virtuous character in children may allow their Superego to instinctively override the Freudian Id, in the interest of moral behavior in public. :smile:

Can you give me an example of an altruistic action or deferred gratification action, or any action at all for that matter that isn't predicated on the belief that it will give you pleasure? (Perhaps substitute "pleasure" with "happiness" or "wellbeing" as they mean the same thing here). — Bert Newton

I won't get into that tangled can of worms. The ambiguous meaning of such notions as "pleasure", "happiness" or "wellbeing" have been debated for years. But it all boils down to how we choose between Good & Bad. In general it's a Cost vs Benefit analysis, but some human behavior is not rational or analytical. Deferred gratification is not "good" for you right now, but it may allow you to find "pleasure" or "success" later. Some have rationalized Altruism as an ironic or paradoxical form of Pleasure. But most human behavior is assumed to be directed toward "what's good for our genes" and to avoid what's bad. So why do so many people do things that are obviously bad for them, such as smoking tobacco? Do they have "bad" beliefs about what's good for them? Does present pleasure outweigh eventual pain in their analysis, or do they just do "what they d*mn well please"? :cool:

Altruism Paradox :
http://yalescientific.org/thescope/2016/11/the-problem-with-altruism/
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13752-013-0120-4
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01006/full

↪Gnomon
That makes no sense to me; as in, your post is opaque. — Banno

That's OK. The new paradigm --- that all is Information --- is a radical departure from the conventional scientific worldview of Materialism, and the ancient worldview of Spiritualism. Like Quantum Theory it departs from classical doctrines on reality. It also shifts the meaning of many common terms, such as "space" & "substance". But it is an emerging theory among some prominent scientists.

If my layman's Enformationism thesis is not your style, you may find the technical and academic approach of physicist Paul Davies and the Santa Fe Institute more to your liking. Davies is a very clear writer, and brings you along gradually to this new perspective on reality. But at first, even his upside-down physics may seem opaque. At Santa Fe think tank, they address fringe subjects, but stick as close as possible to conventional empirical science, while I am free to ad-lib and riff on related philosophical themes. I'm not beholden to any scientific or religious doctrine. :smile:


Information and the Nature of Reality :From Physics To Metaphysics
"Many scientists regard mass and energy as the primary currency of nature. In recent years, however, the concept of information has gained importance."
Ed. by Paul Davies, & Henrik Gregersen

The Matter Myth: Dramatic Discoveries that Challenge Our Understanding of Physical Reality
by Paul Davies & John Gribbin

Space and Time in the Modern Universe
by Paul Davies

From Matter to Life : Information and Causality
Edited by Walker, Davies, and Ellis of Santa Fe Institute
Note : mostly about information in living organisms

1) Human beings take action on the desire they believe will give them the most pleasurable experience. — Bert Newton

Perhaps the ethical theory you had in mind is the one called Hedonism or Epicureanism. Both rely on the "pleasure principle" as the arbiter of good & evil, which is indeed the basis of egocentric self-interest. But as an ethical principle it lacks the Altruism necessary for the Public Good, and it provides no reason for Deferred Gratification essential for mature human behavior. :smile:

Pleasure Principle : Specifically, the pleasure principle is the driving force guiding the id
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pleasure_principle_(psychology)

Stylistically, tacking a list of links on the end of your posts without explanation doesn't work for me. Nor Qualia as properties and fields? Not following that. — Banno

Sorry you don't like my "style", but the links are intended to be the "explanation" of terminology in the post, for those who are interested in more detail. But, if that doesn't do it for you, I have lots of additional explanatory material that is too extensive for a forum post. The links also refer to other thinkers who share some of my unconventional views.

In the context of this thread, it's not important to grasp the equation of Qualia, Properties, & Fields. But for anyone interested, I can go into excruciating detail. It's all based on my personal Enformationism thesis, which envisions a paradigm shift in Science. Once you grok the new perspective, those technical peripheral issues will be easier to understand.

Anyway, I didn't expect my comments to have much impact on this thread. I post these esoteric notes in order to apply my unorthodox worldview to interesting questions about the nature of reality. It's a form of intellectual exercise ---primarily for my own benefit --- not a pedagogical or evangelistic endeavor. A few readers seems to find them of interest. The others just ignore them, or disparage them. :cool:

Grok : understand (something) intuitively or by empathy.


PS___When I referred to "Qualia as properties & fields" it was in the context of the definition of "Energy" in my previous reply to you :
What is energy made of ? : Energy is not made of anything, energy is a term used to describe a trait of matter and non-matter fields.
A "trait" is a property or quality of the thing referenced --- in this case the Vacuum or Plenum we call Space. And physicists today tend to imagine empty Space as a Potential Energy Field. Although the Space is a "non-matter" field, they treat it in their calculations as-if it was a material Substance that can be warped and compressed. Like Space, Energy is a vacuum full of Potential. It consists only of statistical Probability. So Potential Energy is a quality or trait of empty Space, which is imagined as a mathematical Field. Does that help you to follow the gist of my comment? :smile:

As-If : a hypothetical or imaginary concept; a metaphor

Vacuum (zero-point) Energy : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_energy

↪apokrisis
An odd reply. Mass is measured in kg. What do we use for the unit of substance? — Banno

That reply is odd only because we are not used to thinking of tangible Matter in terms of Qualia (properties, fields). Instead, we typically think of matter as Quanta (countable objects). We measure (compare) one thing to another (KG = a standard massive object), not the thing-in-itself (ding an sich).

Mass is measured indirectly by its effects on our senses, or our measuring tools. A unit of Substance (an object or thing) is measured the same way, by its effects on our senses. Like zero-mass Photons, we can't detect Aristotelian (Soul) Substance directly, so we look for chemical reactions (physical change) to its energy input or output. Energy & Mass are potential, Chemistry is actual. But our metaphysical rational minds can recognize the signs of potential, and estimate its probability. That statistical prediction is a form of mathematical prophecy. :smile:

What is energy made of ? : Energy is not made of anything, energy is a term used to describe a trait of matter and non-matter fields.
___Wiki

Potential :
1. having or showing the capacity to become or develop into something in the future.
2. the quantity determining the energy of mass in a gravitational field or of charge in an electric field.
___Wiki

Entelechy : the realization of potential. . . . the supposed vital principle that guides the development and functioning of an organism or other system or organization.
___Wiki

Quantum Potential : https://www.infoplease.com/math-science/space/universe/theories-of-the-universe-quantum-potential

Or is this the beginning of a deadly pandemic? — Punshhh

Covid-19 is officially a Pandemic by definition (all people) and by declaration (WHO). Like the Spanish Flu of 1918, it affects the whole (pan-) world. You should "worry" about it though, only only to the extent that you can do something about it. Right now, about all non-specialists can do is wear masks and practice social distancing. But for those who think it's a hoax, we should be worried about them, because they could be asymptomatic carriers. All you can do in that case is shun those who don't wear protection. For example, some men don't wear condoms during casual sex, so it's up to the woman to shun them, or accept the fetal consequences. :joke:

Covid-19 vs Spanish Flu :
"Generally speaking, the fatality rate for the Spanish flu is calculated at about 2%. . . . .
the global fatality rate for COVID-19 as of April 1 is about 5%, although in the U.S. it is about 2.16%. . . . Some experts, . . . project the fatality rate will be about 1%, which is still about 10 times the fatality rate of a typical seasonal influenza of 0.1%."
https://www.biospace.com/article/compare-1918-spanish-influenza-pandemic-versus-covid-19/

World population 2020 = 7,800,000,000 x 2% = 156,000,000 people dead :fear:

Could there be no "bottom" to that stuff we call matter? Could it be "particles all the way down"? — Olivier5

Most quantum physicists have reluctantly abandoned the ancient theory of Atomism : self-existent particles at the bottom --- the rest is all Void. Instead they have devised a Field Theory to describe fundamental Reality. But a "field" is essentially an empty space (void) where statistically possible Virtual particles could suddenly-and-without-warning become Actual particles. In that case, you could say that reality is Ghost particles all the way down. But I prefer a less spooky theory. :joke:

Field Theory : "QFT treats particles as excited states (also called quanta) of their underlying fields, which are more fundamental than the particles."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_field_theory

Long ago I came across (I vaguely remember doing, at least) a school of ethics that was somewhat like utilitarianism but instead of favouirng the maximum pleasure it attempted to favour the most just. — Bert Newton

I don't know what flavor of ethics you are referring to, but one alternative to Bell Curve Ethics and Duty Ethics, is Virtue Ethics, as espoused by Socrates & Confucius. Instead of rigid rules or hypothetical pro-con calculations, VE is adaptable to various circumstances. The moral agent may use rules-of-thumb, or try to predict the consequences, but he may also invent an intuitive pragmatic response on the spot, based on his personal character. Since your concern seems to be Moral Relativism, Virtue Ethics allows the agent to exercise a more nuanced notion of right & wrong, adapted to the current context. Unfortunately, he can't justify his individual choice with numbers or by citing legal authority or precedence. :worry:

Justice Ethics : "Utilitarianism's primary weakness has to do with justice."
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/ethics-everyone/201506/whats-wrong-utilitarianism

Virtue Ethics : "emphasizes the virtues, or moral character, in contrast to the approach that emphasizes duties or rules"
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-virtue/
"In the Apology, Socrates says that a man worth anything at all does not reckon whether his course of action endangers his life or threatens death. He looks only at one thing — whether what he does is just or not, the work of a good or of a bad man"
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-ancient/

Do you think the existence of 1 + 2 above in today's society makes it impossible to fill your heart with the struggle itself? — living-sisyphus

If Sisyphus was a Stoic or Buddhist, he might just focus on the job at hand --- rolling the rock --- and not worry about the secondary issue of keeping it at the top of the hill. The practice of Mindfulness may not bring ecstatic "peak experience" happiness, but it could allow enduring contentment : Shantih = peace.

The Nietzschean in me can't get out of the view that information is a conditional content of the mind. — Enrique

It's true that mental phenomena --- ideas, thoughts, feelings, etc --- are products of brain processes : Mind is the function of Brain. But I was talking about a universal phenomenon, that I call EnFormAction, which is in some respects analogous to Energy, but also to Mathematical Statistics. This unconventional concept is hard to wrap your mind around, but some physicists have come to the conclusion that everything in the world is a form of Information. The notion that Energy & Matter are composed of Universal Information, can lead to the inference that the "conditional content of the mind" is also a form of Generic Information (my term) : the power to enform, to create. This is not a religious concept, but I think it is a modern mathematical version of the Logos or Spirit that ancient myths were trying to understand metaphorically.

A Universe Built of Information : https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-03633-1_13

And if everything is defined as informational, how can you be wrong? — Enrique

Ha, you nailed it! Although the remark was meant sarcastically, it may be literally true. The operative assumption of modern Science is actually the ancient hypothesis of Atomism. That's the reductionist view of reality as composed of tiny particles. But Quantum science, while still using the metaphors of Particularism, has concluded that the foundations of reality are actually holistic Fields, from which virtual particles may or may not emerge. The links below discuss the concept in more detail than I can put in a post. My concept of Universal Information is closer to the Mathematical definition of a Field. And if it's universal it's always true. :joke:

Atomism : a theoretical approach that regards something as interpretable through analysis into distinct, separable, and independent elementary components.
___Wiki

Field Theory :
1. Physics --- theory which employs fields in the physical sense
2. Mathematics --- the algebraic concept of field
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_(mathematics)

Substance was used before mass was properly identified and defined. It is now no more than philosophers continuing a bad habit. — Banno

"Mass" is not matter per se, but a measure of a quality or property of Matter (i.e. inertia). Aristotle's "Substance" is also an evaluated quality (what kind of thing) of Matter (physical object). "To measure" (from mensura = mind) is to convert a material thing into a mental or mathematical quality (value). Mass is a measure of Substance only in the sense of Qualia. Philosophers have a "bad habit" of trying to understand the essence of material objects (things). :smile:

Mass : both a property of a physical body and a measure of its resistance to acceleration
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass

What is the difference between mass and substance? : https://socratic.org/questions/what-is-the-difference-between-mass-and-substance

Substance : Aristotle analyses substance in terms of form and matter. The form is what kind of thing the object is (identity), and the matter is what it is made of. . . .
Aristotle’s preliminary answer to the question “What is substance?” is that substance is essence,
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-metaphysics/#SubsEsse

Essence : In philosophy, essence is the property or set of properties that make an entity or substance what it fundamentally is, and which it has by necessity, and without which it loses its identity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essence

Maybe instead of panpsychism, this paradigm can be thought of as something like transpsychism, meaning that mind transcends organic matter. Coinage of a really good term for it might be fun to contemplate. — Enrique

I coined the terms Enformationism and EnFormAction to serve as a modern indication that Information (mind stuff, psyche) is universal (pan-) throughout the natural world. Other theorists have coined their own novel technical terminology to describe their new paradigm of a world made of metaphysical Information, of which Energy is one form, and Matter another. A literal translation of "Panpsychism" in view of the new paradigm would be "Universal Informationism". I just changed the spelling for reasons spelled-out in the thesis.

But few of those theoretical physicists have noted that this new concept is akin to the ancient notion of Spirit --- "invisible, immaterial, and powerful", like Energy. Or, if they did see the connection, they wouldn't admit it for fear of ridicule by peers. My equation of mundane Information with transcendent Spirit is what freaked-out Sir Philo Sophia. He couldn't wrap his materialist mind around such a transgression of physicalist dogma, and accused me of theological propaganda. It's true that I see parallels between pre-scientific metaphors (Spirit is like Wind or Breath) and modern empirical models, but I'm no theologian or evangelist. :nerd:

Forget Space-Time: Information May Create the Cosmos
https://www.space.com/29477-did-information-create-the-cosmos.html

A Universe Built of Information : “Information is physical” and “Information represents the ultimate nature of reality.”
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-03633-1_13

Fundamental Information : The basis of the universe may not be energy or matter but information
https://bigthink.com/philip-perry/the-basis-of-the-universe-may-not-be-energy-or-matter-but-information

Spirit : The Greek word for Spirit is pneuma (Strongs 4151), which has a similar meaning to the word ruach. “Pneuma; to breathe, blow, primarily denotes the wind. Breath; the spirit which, like the wind, is invisible, immaterial, and powerful”
https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Hebrew_Roots/Trinity/Holy_Spirit

It just seems space has too much going on to be considered immaterial or nothing or without substance. — Benj96

What's "going on" is Potential (Virtual), the statistical possibility of Actual (Real). See my reply to Apokrisis above. :smile:

Surely what Aristotle meant by prime matter is one of the most fraught debates in metaphysics. But it can’t be cashed out as mental stuff. Nor even, immaterial essence. — apokrisis

Aristotle was uncomfortable with Plato's notion of supernatural Forms, yet he still applied the same term to natural things. And the distinction is moot, since he used the metaphysical term "Soul" to describe the "form" component of all beings. So "Form" is both Matter and Mind/Soul, both Potential and Actual. I try to make a distinction, to avoid confusion, by capitalizing the Platonic ideal "Form" (qualities we conceive), as contrasted with real "forms" (things we perceive).

Platonic Form is equivalent to my concept of Universal Information (EnFormAction) : it's not only a physical substance (Matter, objects, Quanta), but metaphysical essence (Mind; processes, Qualia) --- reason, feelings, consciousness, thought, etc, and Soul/Self. Abstract Information is equivalent to the Mathematical/Logical Ratios/Relationships that we rationally infer in physical objects.

The Form or Design or Structure of a physical thing is Informational. And empty space is essentially Form Potential (probability), until something Actual emerges. For example, a Field in physics is empty space with a percentage potential for Virtual Particles to become Actual particles. The "structure" of the Field is mathematical, not material. This is getting enigmatically esoteric, so I'll stop here. :nerd:

Soul : Soul or psyche (Ancient Greek: ψυχή psykhḗ, of ψύχειν psýkhein, "to breathe") comprises the mental abilities of a living being: reason, character, feeling, consciousness, memory, perception, thinking, etc.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soul

Prime Substance : Hylomorphism (or hylemorphism) is a philosophical theory developed by Aristotle, which conceives being (ousia) as a compound of matter and form . . .
Aristotle applies his theory of hylomorphism to living things. He defines a soul as that which makes a living thing alive. Life is a property of living things, just as knowledge and health are. Therefore, a soul is a form—that is, a specifying principle or cause—of a living thing. Furthermore, Aristotle says that a soul is related to its body as form to matter
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hylomorphism

Information : So, my reading of cutting-edge science indicates that the quantum description of physical reality (informational, relational, mental) is akin to pre-scientific concepts of the metaphysical spirit realm, which is more Potential than Biological. Hence, on the cosmic scale, Mind seems to be more fundamental than Matter.
http://www.bothandblog.enformationism.info/page12.html

Does the sum of all things equal something? Is their an inherent balance to the universe. — Benj96

Several recent science writers have used the analogy of an Algorithm (program, Logos) to describe the inherent logic of Evolution. They don't usually carry the metaphor to its logical conclusion though : our dynamic universe is like a Thermodynamic equation that must be balanced by averaging to Zero, as in:
[ positive energy (+1) + evolution (computation) + negative energy (-1) = 0 ]

In my view, the original Singularity was nothing more than an algorithm, with no matter, only mathematical information. After the Big Bang, it became slightly unbalanced (the Swerve or Clinamen or Inclination). Ever since, the calculation of evolution has been trying to return to Zero in the process of Entropy vs Enformy. But, in the meanwhile, intelligent beings emerged and began to do calculations of their own. And, for obvious reasons, they don't like the notion of perfect balance : Nothingness. :joke:

Evolutionary Algorithm : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_algorithm

The Swerve : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Swerve

Ultimate Entropy :the heat death of the universe
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_death_of_the_universe

Thermodynamics : The law of conservation of energy states that the total energy of an isolated system is constant; energy can be transformed from one form to another, but can be neither created nor destroyed.
But energy can be dissipated. Before the BB, energy/matter value was Zero (0), after the BB it was One (1, a universe), but in the end it will return to Zero (0, nothing). So, we are in the middle of an equation that will eventually add-up to Zero (extinguishment). Will that be Nirvana ? :pray: Namaste (hello & goodbye)

It just seems space has too much going on to be considered immaterial or nothing or without substance. — Benj96

For most people, the words "substance" and "substantial" are referring to solid matter (Quanta -- tangible stuff). But Aristotle's Primary Substance was described as more like immaterial Essence (intrinsic quality necessary for existence; Qualia -- mental stuff).

In that case, empty Space (plenum, vacuum) is essential for the existence of Matter. Mathematicians use material metaphors to explain their calculations of spatial topology, even when its "structure" consists of immaterial numerical values. So, yes, Space is a philosophical Substance, even when it contains no matter. :smile:

Substance : https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/8807/is-spacevacuum-a-substance

Space : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_(mathematics)

Nope, the "wisdom of crowds" is false. There is no rational reason to believe that averaging naive guesses increases accuracy, unless by fluke the average of these naive guesses is the right answer. — sime

Does empirical statistical evidence count as rational? This intelligent "fluke" seems to be built-in to the mathematical foundation of Nature. :smile:

Wisdom of Crowds : "There is growing evidence that the wisdom of crowds can be really powerful," Kao says. "A lot of studies show that you can calculate the average of estimates and that average can be surprisingly good."
https://phys.org/news/2018-04-crowd-wisdom.html
"Do you believe that a crowd can be more intelligent than any individual in the crowd?"
https://nrich.maths.org/9601

Law of Large Numbers : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_large_numbers

Enformy — Gnomon
This is so interesting — Benj96

In case you missed the sidebar, here's a little more detail on the concept of positive Enformy, which is called "Negentropy" by physicists. They probably missed the progressive implications of evolution because they believed it to be totally random & directionless. :smile:

Entropy :
A quality of the universe modeled as a thermodynamic system. Energy always flows from Hot (high energy density) to Cold (low density) -- except when it doesn't. On rare occasions, energy lingers in a moderate state that we know as Matter, and sometimes even reveals new qualities and states of material stuff .
The Second Law of Thermo-dynamics states that, in a closed system, Entropy always increases until it reaches equilibrium at a temperature of absolute zero. But some glitch in that system allows stable forms to emerge that can recycle energy in the form of qualities we call Life & Mind. That glitch is what I call Enformy.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html