Your number 5 reference (just above here) is interesting. Information, the word, seems to have morphed and diverged a huge amount since it's origin.

Common usage now seems to be an abstraction that has no physical basis so I think the original meaning is more true to physicalism. And the ancient philosophers wouldn't have had the word or the current ideas of what information is. I just think it's current usages (the word information) conflict and cause confusion — Mark Nyquist

Yes. That's why I have to provide my own non-dictionary definitions*1, whenever I mention my Information-centric thesis. After the early 20th century, two terms --- "Information: and "Computer" --- radically changed meanings. Before, both referred to flesh & blood humans*2. After, both terms now refer to abstract Data and bloodless Machines.

Terrence Deacon noted that Shannon chose the wrong word to describe the physical nature of his novel notion of Information*3. Unfortunately, the physical term "Entropy" (negation of energy) is misleading. And the more appropriate term "Negentropy" (negation of the negation of Energy) is still confusing. Yet, it relates mental Information with physical energy. And that is the basis of my Enformationism thesis.

However, as Deacon notes below : "information is neither matter nor energy" in a physical sense. Instead, it is an elemental pre-cursor of both, in the philosophical meaning of Creative & Causal Power (Potential ; power to transform Possible into Actual). In a practical evolutionary sense, Information (EnFormAction) is both causal physical Energy and the Matter formed from its creative power : (E=MC^2). But in an Ontological philosophical sense, Information is the meta-physical contents of a Mind. Those who limit Physics to fundamental Materialism cannot grasp the relation between abstract intangible causal potential and concrete tangible actual stuff. They tend to equate natural mental Metaphysics with supernatural spiritual Ghosts. :nerd:

Note --- Aristotle defined "Potential" as the ultimate source of Actual things. Similar to Plato's notion of Ideal "Form" as the source of all Real Things.

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

*2. What did it mean to be a human computer?
Before there were actual computers, they were people. At NASA, women had to do all the math and science calculations for aircraft and space missions. From 1935 to 1942 more women began to work at NACA because many men volunteered to be in the war. The women that worked for NASA were often called "Human Computers".
https://digitalcommons.macalester.edu › amst_humanc...

*3. Terrence Deacon on Information :
Deacon introduces a second triad he calls Shannon-Boltzmann-Darwin (Claude, Ludwig, and Charles). He describes it on his Web site www. teleodynamics.com . I would rearrange the first two stages to match his homeodynamic-morphodynamic-teleodynamic triad. This would put Boltzmann first (matter and energy in motion, but both conserved, merely transformed by morphodynamics). A second Shannon stage then adds information (Deacon sees clearly that information is neither matter nor energy); for example, knowledge in an organism's "mind" about the external constraints that its actions can influence. . . .
Confusingly, John von Neumann suggested that Shannon use the word entropy for his measure of information. Then Leon Brillouin coined the term negentropy to describe far-from-equilibrium conditions in the world epitomized by information.
https://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/scientists/deacon/

Hasn't capitalism increased the standard of living immeasurably over the last 100 years? — RogueAI

Collectively, the US standard of living has increased since the advent of industrialization, urbanization, and representative Democracy. But that general upward trend looks quite different when you break the sample down into classes*1. Historically, societies have been characterized by a tiny minority Upper class (royalty), and a great majority Lower class (slaves & serfs), with a small Middle class in between (merchants). Industrialism temporarily increased the SOL of the Middle class, but Computerization (mechanical slaves) is beginning to reverse that trend, as the Middle class is sliding downward : becoming computer operators instead of mule-drivers*2.

One consequence of that downward trend seems to be : for the Declasse*3 Middle to look for a King-like Tycoon --- with executive immunity --- to restore their semi-exalted status by fiat from above (MAGA), not by economic improvements. The Upper classes benefit by owning the means of production and by increasing the number of mechanical slaves working for the 2% at the tip of the top class. Democratic Capitalism is a feudal economy, with Oligarchs instead of Kings*4*5.

Personally, as the son of a unionized blue-collar worker, my economic status increased due mainly to socialistic GI Bill education. But since the last "great" recession, it has taken a nose-dive. But I'm getting by with help from Democratic Socialism : VA medical care plus Social Security. The American economy is a hybrid of Socialism & Capitalism, with those at the top controlling and reaping the economic largesse. But history has shown that Communism is not the answer for modern nations. So, don't ask me what WE need to do. I'm just an over the hill serf, and nobody cares what I think. :cool:


*1. Upper class increased SOL, Middle & Lower classes decreased :
The middle class, once the economic stratum of a clear majority of American adults, has steadily contracted in the past five decades.
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2022/04/20/how-the-american-middle-class-has-changed-in-the-past-five-decades/

*2. LOWER & UPPER CLASSES INCREASE ; MIDDLE CLASS SHRINKS


*3. Déclassé : having fallen in social status.

*4. Does 1% own 90% of wealth?
The accumulation of wealth enables a variety of freedoms, and removes limits on life that one might otherwise face. Federal Reserve data indicates that as of Q4 2021, the top 1% of households in the United States held 32.3% of the country's wealth, while the bottom 50% held 2.6%.
Wealth inequality in the United States - Wikipedia

*5. ECONOMIC CLASS PYRAMID

On my view, there are no purely immaterial things (although I may be able to be pursuaded to see things otherwise). On your view there is. It's a matter of methodological approach. The differences between our two views are so stark that we may not even be talking about the same things despite using the same words.
For example...
When you use the term "mind", what are you referring to such that it does not consist - in part at least - of biological machinery? — creativesoul

As you implied, we seem to have different vocabularies : e.g. materialistic Scientism & wisdom Philosophy. But, I haven't said anything about "purely immaterial things", yet you seem to interpret the word "Mind" as-if it refers to a Soul or Ghost*1. For the record, I have no experience of a Mind without a Body (ghost). Instead, I define the human Mind as the primary Function of the human Brain. Technically, a "function" is not a thing-in-itself, but a causal relationship between inputs & outputs, as in the information processing of a computer. The biological Brain is a machine, but the psychological Mind is a process, a function : the creation of Meaning.

You may also interpret my use of Aristotelian "metaphysics" in terms of Catholic "theology". Philosophically, the Brain is physical (objective quantifiable matter + energy), but the Mind is meta-physical (subjective qualitative matterless meaning). That's a philosophical distinction --- Quanta vs Qualia --- going back to Aristotle*1. But you may be influenced by the anti-philosophy notion that "Metaphysics" means "religious beliefs". For me, it merely means "non-physical" or "immaterial" (i.e. mental)*2. Can you see or touch an Idea or a Feeling? If not, that's because it's Meta-physical (read -- non-physical). Philosophers don't study material objects, but they do examine the immaterial functions of material brains.

You won't understand my philosophical language from a scientific perspective. But that doesn't mean it's anti-science. Instead, my thesis returns "Science" to the broader meaning of the ancient Greeks : both Physics and Metaphysics. Both Material and Mental. Both Objective Things and Subjective Ideas about Things. The common denominator is Generic Information. Not the empty meaningless 1s & 0s of Shannon's data-containers (registers), but the intellectual content of communication.

Metaphysical Ideas, feelings & beliefs are indeed immaterial, but they are not "pure", because they are inextricably linked to a material substrate. Just as information processing requires a biological or mechanical computer, meaning-making and self-knowing requires an information-processing organ. But Generic Information is both Biology & Life and Brain & Mind. That statement won't make sense without an understanding of General Metaphysics*4 and Generic Information*5.

For philosophical purposes, I do study Mind as a separate topic from Brain. But I've never seen a Ghost walking around without a Body, or a meaningful Mind functioning without a mechanical Brain. Could you be persuaded to view the Mind/Body problem from a Philosophical perspective? :nerd:


*1. Mind/Body Problem :
Philosophers and scientists have long debated the relationship between a physical body and its non-physical properties, such as Life & Mind. Cartesian Dualism resolved the problem temporarily by separating the religious implications of metaphysics (Soul) from the scientific study of physics (Body). But now scientists are beginning to study the mind with their precise instruments, and have found no line of demarcation. So, they see no need for the hypothesis of a spiritual Soul added to the body by God. However, Enformationism resolves the problem by a return to Monism, except that the fundamental substance is meta-physical Information instead of physical Matter.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind%E2%80%93body_problem
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page15.html

*2. Special Metaphysics :
The philosophical science of Metaphysics is essential to my worldview, because, unlike Physics, it allows us to study the immaterial aspects of our reality, such as Qualia (properties) and Ideas (meanings).
https://bothandblog2.enformationism.info/page74.html

*3. Physics & Metaphysics :
Two sides of the same coin we call Reality. When we look for matters of fact, we see physics. But when we search for meaning, we find meta-physics. A mental flip is required to view the other side. And imagination is necessary to see both at the same time.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page14.html

*4. General Metaphysics :
“General metaphysics, also referred to as Ontology, is the study of being or existence and is in line with Aristotle’s conception of metaphysics. Special Metaphysics, on the other hand was divided into three disciplines; cosmology, rational psychology, and natural theology. While general metaphysics was concerned with being at a broad, fundamental level, special metaphysics addressed more specific questions concerning existence. Topics addressed within special metaphysics included such things as immortality, freedom of the will, and the mind body problem.”
https://academyofideas.com/2013/06/introduction-to-metaphysics/

*5. Generic Information :
Originally, the word “information” referred to the meaningful software contents of a mind, which were assumed to be only loosely shaped by the physical container : the hardware brain. . . . . So now, Deacon turns the spotlight on the message rather than the medium.
http://bothandblog4.enformationism.info/page26.html

We're working from very different linguistic frameworks. For one, you're drawing a distinction between minds and the world in such a way that minds are not in the world. On my view, there is no emergence without some physical elemental constituent(s). — creativesoul

Yes, but an emergent immaterial function (Mind) from a mundane material substrate --- after 10B years of lifelessness & 13B years of mindlessness --- is a novel & unique phenomenon in the evolution of the near-infinite cosmos ; hence worthy of philosophical & linguistic distinction. If the phenomenon of Mind was not in & of this mundane world, I would not be here to talk about it. So, the metaphorical "distinction" is between the clay and the sculpture ; not between this world and one of many alternative universes.

Moreover, it's the job of philosophers to study the software, not the hardware or wet-ware ; the cathedral, not the stones or the scaffolding. Hence, my use of language appropriate for a philosophical forum. I'm sure you can find neurology forums that will use the linguistic framework you prefer. :wink:


Understanding complexity in the human brain
The human mind is a complex phenomenon built on the physical scaffolding of the brain
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3170818/

If you think living things are "conscious" or aware or have a "me" from which they reference the world, does this apply to all living things? Or where is the cutoff point? And why? — Benj96

A rock is moved only by external forces. But a living organism is self-moving and self-sustaining to various degrees. So in order to continue to live, it must be able to interact with its environment for sustenance. On another thread, we discussed how Venus fly-catchers and earthworms have rudimentary senses to help them obtain nutrients. Therefore, it's essential for animated matter to be aware (to some degree) of what's going-on around it. That's what senses are for. And the human brain/mind is merely an advanced sensory organ.

Therefore I would guess that "all living things" are at least minimally conscious. But, it's possible that only the more highly-developed (brainy) animals are Self-Conscious. So Consciousness covers a broad range of Knowingness, As to where is the cut-off, your guess is as good as mine. As to why consciousness is rampant on our little ball of earth, and seems to be absent in the other 99.99% of the Cosmos : who's asking, and why? :wink:

That hasn't aged well. The gains made by minorities and LGBTQ aren't even close to being wiped out. — RogueAI

Not for lack of trying. A current candidate for president of US frequently criticizes past & current attempts to "level the playing field" politically, economically, and lingustically. "Typically, the upper political classes go on the defensive and criticize "political correctness" as reverse tyranny." Maybe the candidate prefers proactive tyranny. :cool:


The Tyranny of Political Correctness? :
Claims of so-called reverse racism mainly circulate within closed social media groups
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/japp.12690?af=R

"One thing that is very likely to happen is that the gains made in the past forty years by black and brown Americans, and by homosexuals, will be wiped out. Jocular contempt for women will come back into fashion. The words [slur for an African-American that begins with “n”] and [slur for a Jewish person that begins with “k”] will once again be heard in the workplace. All the sadism which the academic Left has tried to make unacceptable to its students will come flooding back. All the resentment which badly educated Americans feel about having their manners dictated to them by college graduates will find an outlet."
Richard Rorty Achieving Our Country 1998[/quote]
Ironically, although some pundits accuse Trump of trying to destroy Democracy, Fascism seems to be surprisingly popular in democratic societies, where formerly-favored groups long for a return to the glory-days of a monarchy or autocracy (MAGA).

For example, Mussolini's Fascist Party won election by a landslide in a multi-party democracy. Typically, the upper political classes go on the defensive and criticize "political correctness" as reverse tyranny. So yes, history could repeat, even in an economically powerful Democracy with Free Speech laws. Ironically, the Will of The People may lead to their own ruin, when the system becomes unbalanced without loyal opposition. :meh:

Emergence is a continuous process that appears to be sudden only because the mind reaches a tipping-point of understanding between an old meaning and a new meaning, — Gnomon
As if all emergence results from a tipping point between an old meaning and a new one. — creativesoul

Not necessarily "all" transformations. The quoted phrase was not referring to the physical Emergence, but to how it appears to the observer. The "tipping-point" trope is about an epistemological event in the mind, not a physical occurrence in the world. I assume that most physical emergences (e.g. phase changes) occur unobserved, unremarked, and unrecorded, hence unsurprising. :smile:

Emergence is what's going on when such knowledge is being formed. — creativesoul

Yes, the awareness of physical emergence usually comes as a surprise, due to its suddenness and unexpectedness. The intermediate steps between before & after states of phase change may be masked by "Noise" (chaotic information), giving the appearance of a causal gap. To some observers it may seem to be magical ("presto!"). For example, exponential Cosmic Inflation in 10−33 seconds from nothing to something could be described as a surprising "Phase Transition", or as a "Miracle". :gasp:

Tipping Point in Physics :
In discussions of global change, the term tipping point has been used to describe a variety of phenomena, including the appearance of a positive feedback, reversible phase transitions, phase transitions with hysteresis effects, and bifurcations where the transition is smooth but the future path of the system depends on the noise at a critical point.
https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.0705414105

I think an oft missed distinction here is between the idea that "every thing around us is physical" and the broader claim that "all facts can be explained in terms of facts about physical entities." Abstract objects are more of a problem for the second claim. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Yes. Everything we know via the five senses is physical. But we know some abstract concepts via the sixth sense of Rational Inference. We typically call sensory knowledge "Facts", and theoretical conclusions "Beliefs". Facts can be proven, but Beliefs can only be argued. :smile:

Note --- Of necessity, philosophers have developed Rules of Argument, which are themselves moot.

...can anyone set out clearly what emergence is? — Banno
On my view emergence makes the most sense when used to refer to a naturally occurring (evolutionary) process that began long before language use emerged. — creativesoul

Emergence is a Holistic concept, that doesn't make sense from a Reductive perspective, such as Physicalism. Hence, it is sometimes dismissed as anti-science, although Emergence is essential to the 21st century sciences of Systems and Complexity. :smile:

Emergence :
Emergence is a continuous process that appears to be sudden only because the mind reaches a tipping-point of understanding between an old meaning and a new meaning, causing a conceptual phase-change from one logical category to another.

Holism, reductionism and emergence :
Emergence is the opposite of reduction. Holism is the opposite of separability.
The difference is subtle, but emergence and reduction are concerned with concepts, properties, types of phenomena, being deducible from other (lower level) ones, while holism is concerned with the behaviour of parts being independent from relational aspects, or their pertaining to a whole.
https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/21419/holism-reductionism-and-emergence
Note --- Holistic properties are top-down phenomena that emerge from collective interrelations within an integrated unified System. :smile:

A Test of Emergence :
This chapter illustrates how the concept of emergence has become a great attention grabber due to the striking behaviors demonstrated in artificial life experiments. Emergence has been called upon conveniently whenever the unexpected intrudes into the visual field of the experimenter, consequently requiring or justifying an economy of explanation. This abuse of the term will eventually devalue its significance and put the concept of emergence itself under a bad light.
https://academic.oup.com/mit-press-scholarship-online/book/13765/chapter-abstract/167404766?redirectedFrom=fulltext
Note --- Unexpected results may result from erroneous expectations. Physical Emergence happens regardless of your presumptions.

Waveforms & wavefunctions are subjective metaphors, not objective things. — Gnomon
Seems to me that these concepts transcend the division between subject and object - which you actually posit here:
a quantum particle is both Real (physical) and Virtual (mental or mathematical) — Gnomon — Wayfarer

The concepts & language in Explanation, Idealism, and Design may be way over my head. So, I only read the Abstract. But you may be able to make sense of it.

When I said a sub-atomic particle is both Real and Virtual, I wasn't making a counter-factual or profound statement. It was just an expression of my personal BothAnd philosophy, wherein both material objects and mental concepts are included in my Holistic worldview. I suppose you could say that it "transcends" our conventional divisions between mental & material Reality, as in Brain/Mind categories.

For example, I accept the scientific/mathematical definition of sub-atomic particles as a practical tool for understanding physics. Yet the waveform itself is not a particle, but a metaphorical representation of a particle's mathematical properties. Ironically, if taken literally, Physicalism might omit philosophical metaphors from its definition of Reality. Which is OK by me. I simply put such non-things into the category of "Ideality". Is that a legitimate word? :smile:

PS___ I don't think UFO's are alien spacecraft in Reality, but I accept that the notion of alien visitations is a popular belief in Ideality.

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. . . .
This principle is also similar to the concept of Superposition in sub-atomic physics. In this ambiguous state a particle has no fixed identity until “observed” by an outside system. For example, in a Quantum Computer, a Qubit has a value of all possible fractions between 1 & 0. Therefore, you could say that it is both 1 and 0.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page10.html

It's the nature of that existence which is the philosophical conundrum — Wayfarer

Precisely! The enigmas of quantum physics are Ontological, not Physical. Waveforms & wavefunctions are subjective metaphors, not objective things. They offer material analogies (water waves) to symbolically represent unseen causes of observed effects (wave-like behavior in aether-like empty space).

Some posts in this thread focus on scientific Physicalism beliefs about quantum queerness, and miss the philosophical Metaphysicalism notions about the fundamental nature of Being. Obviously, an objectively observable material form is necessary for Real existence. But beliefs & ideas having no physical form, can only be "observed" by imagination, and possess only Ideal existence.

The worldview of Physicalism (matter + energy) seems to deny the existence & meaning of immaterial Ideas (mind) that don't seem to be either of those types of real things. Perhaps a perspective of BothAnd Meta-physicalism could combine Real & Ideal into a single monistic über-Ontology, where the prefix doesn't mean "Supernatural", but "Beyond" or "Holistic" or "Comprehensive" : more-than the sum. For example, a quantum particle is both Real (physical) and Virtual (mental or mathematical). :smile:


Physicalism, Dualism, and Idealism :
The debate between physicalists, dualists, and idealists is often presented as an ontological one—a debate over what exists. Very roughly, physicalists hold that everything is physical, dualists hold that some things are physical, and some are mental, while idealists hold that everything is mental.
https://academic.oup.com/book/26763/chapter-abstract/195671674?redirectedFrom=fulltext

If this is the case, and things can start to exist, for no prior reason (they are uncaused), then why don't we see more things starting to exist at different times? — Count Timothy von Icarus

They're called virtual particles. — Philosophim

A mathematical convenience that cannot be observed through instruments. — jgill

Virtual Particles don't exist physically, but theoretically, as a mathematical definition*1. For such existential mysteries, Aristotle defined "Potential" under the heading of Causation. It's a creative power, not a physical thing. So, if a new thing is observed to "start to exist, for no prior {observable} reason", Aristotle would say that Causal Potential of some unknown etiology, must logically exist in some meta-physical sense, prior to the creative event.

But he would have to admit that the Potential itself is never observable by the senses, but only detectable by rational (if-then) inference from its Actual physical effects. For example, if a book suddenly jumped off a shelf and flew across the room, some would infer that an invisible Ghost had pushed it. Other, more practical minds would look for a more plausible physical explanation. And some, more theoretical, would have to be satisfied with a metaphysical philosophical solution : "X" (unknown -- to be determined).

So, the "spontaneous creation" of a whole functional evolving machine (universe) for "no prior reason" would imply either a> a timeless, but intentional, ghostly Creator ; or b> an un-observable prior pre-space-time chain of cycling self-existent physical universes ; or c> perhaps just some un-observable non-physical timeless Potential for creation of novelty from nothing. The first possibility is traditionally labeled "G*D", the second is typically called "Multiverse", and the third could be categorized as mere un-grounded Philosophical Conjecture. In the absence of plausible a> or b> options though, can we --- like quantum physicists --- be satisfied with an empty definition c> with no known referent? :smile:

*1. Virtual Potential (symbol Ue) where "U" stands for unknown, and "e" for Energy.

Not according to Brian Greene:

The explanation of uncertainty as arising through the unavoidable disturbance caused by the measurement process has provided physicists with a useful intuitive guide… . However, it can also be misleading. It may give the impression that uncertainty arises only when we lumbering experimenters meddle with things. This is not true. Uncertainty is built into the wave structure of quantum mechanics and exists whether or not we carry out some clumsy measurement. As an example, take a look at a particularly simple probability wave for a particle, the analog of a gently rolling ocean wave, shown in Figure 4.6. — Wayfarer

This quote raised a strange & confusing possibility in my mind, that may or may not be provable. Greene's illustration of quantum Uncertainty*1 notes that the "particle" being sought is not in any particular place, but "spread out" throughout the universe. In other words, non-local. So, it seems that the fundamental problem is not a mental state (uncertainty) in the mind of the observer, but a Holistic state (eternity) in the really-real world. Ironically, the reductive scientist is looking for a particle where there is nothing particular. This sounds like the drunk looking for his lost keys under a street light, because that's where the light is.*3

From direct sensory experience with the human-scale macro world, we have learned to expect things to be local & particular & changeable. But, when scientists experiment with the quantum foundations of the world, their artificial sensors return the appearance of a non-local & holistic & a-causal BlockWorld*4. In such a world all reasoning would be circular (non-linear). So, which is true : our common-sense ever-changing linear-logic reality, or an eternal state of Potential from which we sample statistical contingencies? What does this possibility say about Physicalism? :smile:


*1. Quantum Uncertainty :
Philosophers of science have long associated the claim that observations or experimental results in science are in some way theory-laden with a logical/epistemological problem regarding the possibility of scientific knowledge: reasoning from theory-laden observations may involve circularity. . . .
Measurement results depend upon assumptions, and some of those assumptions are theoretical in character. . . . . Our analysis shows how the evaluation and deployment of uncertainty evaluation constitutes an in practice solution to a particular form of Duhemian underdetermination[*2] that improves upon Duhem's vague notion of “good sense,” avoids holism, and reconciles theory dependence of measurement with piecemeal hypothesis testing.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0039368120301886
Note --- Theories tend to become beliefs to be verified, or if not provable, to be accepted as ever-pending facts. Accepting quantum Uncertainty as a brute fact of life, allows us to "avoid" the logical conclusion of Holistic (non-reductive) foundation of Reality.

*2. Underdetermination :
In the philosophy of science, underdetermination or the underdetermination of theory by data (sometimes abbreviated UTD) is the idea that evidence available to us at a given time may be insufficient to determine what beliefs we should hold in response to it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underdetermination

*3. Why quantum mechanics favors adynamical and acausal interpretations such as relational blockworld
We articulate the problems posed by the quantum liar experiment (QLE) for backwards causation interpretations of quantum mechanics, time-symmetric accounts and other dynamically oriented local hidden variable theories. We show that such accounts cannot save locality in the case of QLE . . . . In contrast, we show that QLE poses no problems for our acausal Relational Blockworld interpretation of quantum mechanics, which invokes instead adynamical global constraints to explain Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen (EPR) correlations and QLE. We make the case that the acausal and adynamical perspective is more fundamental and that dynamical entities obeying dynamical laws are emergent features grounded therein.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1355219808000592
Note --- This source is over my head. But it seems to be arguing that Einstein's hypothetical timeless & changeless & placeless Block Universe may be more real (in some strange sense) than the dynamic particular world that our senses interpret as Reality.

*4. EINSTEIN'S ETERNAL BLOCK WORLD

↪Gnomon
Honestly there are many things about that text's format that bother me, the semi-colon thing was the only one that I saw that would not be justified by stylistic choice. — Lionino

Again, I apologize for not following protocol. I have no formal training in Philosophy, so I'm making-up my formatting as seems best to present my informal science-based arguments. My website would jog your noggin. Please feel free to pass-over any of my posts that might "bother" your sensibilities. :smile:

You're judging my post based on the title? Isn't that the same as reading the title of a news article, then commenting on it at the bottom of the forum? Come on, you're better than that. — Philosophim

Actually, should be "better than that", since he has a deep understanding of post-enlightenment philosophy. But he seems to dismiss any philosophy before the 17th century as religious (woo-woo) metaphysics. His self-professed worldview is Physicalism/Immanentism*1 {he'll correct me, if I'm wrong}. Which means that the notion of a First Cause, prior to the Big Bang scenario, is literally non-sense . . . from his truncated perspective.

Consequently, his self-assigned role on this forum is the resident nay-sayer to any supernatural notions. He seldom contributes anything positive to the conversation. Apparently, he views himself as a Socratic gad-fly*2. Ironically. Socrates' disciple, Plato, is the one most often identified with the philosophical concept of a necessary First Cause*3*4. So, more-inclusive philosophers on this forum will be more-open to your exoteric/elliptical . . . . arguments. :smile:


*1.Immanentism :
(ˈimənənˌtɪzəm) noun. the belief that the Deity indwells and operates directly within the universe or nature.
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/immanentism
Note --- I don't know if 180 is a Deist. But I can provisionally agree with this concept. However, a temporary universe, like ours seems to be, must have a beginning and an Eternal Cause.

*2. Gadfly :
A gadfly is a person who interferes with the status quo of a society or community by posing novel, potentially upsetting questions, usually directed at authorities.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gadfly_(philosophy_and_social_science)
Note --- Synonym : nuisance. annoyer. pest.

*3. First Cause :
Plato (c. 427–347 BC) and Aristotle (c. 384–322 BC) both posited first cause arguments, though each had certain notable caveats.[7] In The Laws (Book X), Plato posited that all movement in the world and the Cosmos was "imparted motion". This required a "self-originated motion" to set it in motion and to maintain it. In Timaeus, Plato posited a "demiurge" of supreme wisdom and intelligence as the creator of the Cosmos. . . . . In what he called "first philosophy" or metaphysics, Aristotle did intend a theological correspondence between the prime mover and a deity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_argument

*4. Necessary First Cause for a space-time universe :
For Aristotle, the existence of the universe needs an explanation, as it could not have come from nothing. . . . . Aristotle rules out an infinite progression of causes, so that led to the conclusion that there must be a First Cause.
https://www.qcc.cuny.edu/socialSciences/ppecorino/INTRO_TEXT/Chapter%203%20Religion/Cosmological.htm
Cosmological Argument : This is an argument or proof that is based on Reason. It is an a posteriori argument and by that is meant that it proceeds after considering the existence of the physical universe.

↪Gnomon
There is no space before a semi-colon or a comma. — Lionino

Sorry! Does that extra white space bother you? It's a personal quirk of mine ; to make the transitional conjunction mark stand-out. Another eccentricity is the use of smilies as a message-concluding bullet-period. The smile or frown is an implicit part of the message. Are you OK with that? :smile: :wink:

Right, an informational basis of the universe would seem to hint towards a mind of sorts. — NotAristotle

I agree. But, I am agnostic about any divine characteristics beyond the otherwise unexplained chain of causation in evolution, and the mysterious emergence of immaterial noumenal phemomena (Mind & Consciousness) in an otherwise physical universe. Without a direct introduction, the First Cause may forever remain a philosophical enigma. But without such mysteries, what would we have to chat argue about on this forum? :smile:

The information is basic. Metaphorically. Because what is transformed is the physical into the mental, no? Or is it the physical into the physical? Energy, mind…what do they have in common? Nothing, and that’s the point – one must transform into the other by means of a unity that is the(i)re.. informational content. Information is meaning, but it is also wave functions. A graph of reality? — NotAristotle

Yes. My Enformationism thesis posits that Information/EnFormAction (EFA -- power to transform) is fundamental ; hence is the precursor of Energy, Matter, and Mind. The thesis is an expansion of physicist John A. Wheeler's visionary & controversial concept of "It from Bit" : material things evolve from elementary information. Since he made that connection, scientists have been finding evidence to expand on Einstein's equation of Energy & Mass to include a role for Information*1. My thesis is merely an amateur conjecture, intended only for the purpose of forum discussions about Physics & Metaphysics. I rely on professional scientists to vett the speculations.

We already accept that Energy can transform into Mass (E=MC^2), which is the mathematical measure of Matter. Scientists have also been stumped by the causal gap between initial & final forms of Physical Phase Transitions*2 (e.g. water to ice). So this thesis postulates that physical & biological Evolution is a series of transformations from the First Cause to EFA to Energy to Matter to Mind to Self-Consciousness. "What is transformed" in each instance is Potential into Actual. Hence, all physical & mental forms in the world can be traced back to a single unitary monistic First Cause (???). Some call that Prime Mover "G*D", but in view of the information function, I call it "The Programmer". Below, I have pasted my own Graphs of Reality*3*4. :smile:


*1. A proposed experimental test for the mass-energy-information equivalence principle
A recent conjecture, called the mass-energy-information equivalence principle, proposed that information is equivalent to mass and energy and exists as a separate state of matter. . . .
“The implications of this experimental confirmation are huge, as this would affect all branches of physics, expanding our understanding of the universe, without contradicting or violating any of the existing laws of physics,” said Vopson. ___American Institute of Physics
https://pubs.aip.org/aip/sci/article/2022/9/091111/2849001/A-proposed-experimental-test-for-the-mass-energy

*2. PHASE TRANSITION MYSTERY


*3. GRAPH OF EVOLUTION AS POTENTIAL TO ACTUAL


*4. GRAPH OF INFORMATION EVOLUTION

↪Gnomon
Thanks for your comments. I've had somewhat of a shift in perspective the last couple days. I now think the question you cited --why is this energy conscious -- may not be the most productive. It would be like asking, why are coyotes alive, but rocks are not? The fact is, coyotes are alive and rocks are not. So the answer both for consciousness and living organisms, in my opinion, has to do with the biological history to which both belong. On that understanding, we needn't postulate anything extra or in addition to the physical. — NotAristotle

Are you giving-up on philosophy? Are you no longer interested in "why" questions about Purpose? Will biological histories, speculating into cosmic eons past, satisfy your mild curiosity about impractical questions of "Life, the Universe and Everything"? If that is the case, my proposal for a scientific "how" answer, about mechanisms, may produce too much information for you. But, I don't claim to have THE answer, merely a path to a solution for age-old mysteries of living & thinking matter. Do you know of a settled physical answer to those questions?

This thread is about Mind questions, but Life questions are similar. Life & Mind are observed facts, still waiting for a How or Why explanation. The science of Biology has lots of hypothetical scenarios about how living creatures evolved from non-living matter, but no consensus answer to "how/why is a coyote alive, but rocks are not". Various Abiogenesis*1 theories about warm pools have been postulated, but life-in-a-vat experiments have never produced any living matter. Some modern biologists admit that spontaneous generation of life was disproven long ago by Pasteur. So, they propose stories about Exo-biology, wherein life on Earth was seeded by organisms on crashing comets. But the look-over-there ploy doesn't answer either of the Origin (genesis) questions. To date, there is no empirical evidence of Life emerging from non-life*2. So, instead of trying to answer such vexing questions, most biologists & psychologists today simply take Life & Mind for granted : "it is what it is". Is that what you are recommending? Do you think evading those questions is scientifically or philosophically productive?

This thread raises questions about the scientific history and philosophical status of Consciousness. Physics is focused primarily on Energy & Causation, not Life or Mind. Do you expect physicists to answer those questions "without postulating anything extra"? My Energy-based proposal above suggested an approach that might be able to show how it could conceivably be possible to derive Life & Mind from Energy --- if you take Energy as a given. The only "extra" is the concept of an integrated wholistic state, that is currently being studied under the heading of Systems & Complexity Theories. It also points toward a Why answer to the Purpose of Life & Mind in a mechanical-material world. But I won't get into that on this thread. :smile:


*1. Abiogenesis :
Charles Darwin once theorized that the origin of life — known as abiogenesis — could have happened as precursor compounds came together in "warm little ponds."
https://www.businessinsider.com/life-origin-abiogenesis-warm-pools-darwin-2017-10

*2. How close is science to achieving artificial abiogenesis in the lab?
Abiogenesis is not a theory. It is a fact that some theory must explain. There was a time when earth had no life, and then a time when there was life. That is a fact disputed by nobody: Something caused life to exist where it had not previously existed. The question that gets so much attention is whether that something must have been supernatural. Typically, “abiogenesis” is the preferred label for any explanation that does not presuppose supernatural causation. There are several under consideration, but none is sufficiently supported to have achieved consensus.
https://www.quora.com/How-close-is-science-to-achieving-artificial-abiogenesis-in-the-lab

Granted that little is known of the brain's mechanics, but the seeming obscurity regarding experiential quality is perhaps not so empirical. . . . One might suspect that its true explanation is not empirical but conceptual. Hence my previous reference to direct realism (the philosophy of perception, recall, not social psychology). — jkop

Sorry, my previous post was based on the definition of "Direct (naive) Realism" in Wikipedia. Apparently, your definition is more like "Indirect (representational) Realism"*1.

Actually, modern neuroscience has amassed a lot of data about the "brain's mechanics", but the gap between neural Mechanics and mental Experience remains enigmatic. So, perhaps you are correct that the solution to the puzzle is not Empirical, but Philosophical. In the last century, we have learned from Quantum science that the foundations of physical reality are not classically mechanical & certain, but statistical & uncertain : hence, Probabilistic. Since probability is somewhat chaotic, it can confuse logical thinking. Which is why Bayesian Statistics*2a was developed, in order to work around the unpredictablity of non-mechanical systems --- including social systems. Bayes' methods begin with predictive Concepts (beliefs) based on incomplete information, then adjust that subjective credence as more objective data becomes available.

The brain is basically an organic machine for making predictions from current evidence. Like a computer, It works with stored memories, and extrapolates past events into the future. But objective neurons have no Beliefs about those prophesies ; that's the function of the subjective Mind. And Beliefs are basically automatic probability assessments. Unlike a mechanical system, the belief system of the mind can be internally contradictory. Which is why a more deliberate & rational adjustment*2b was deemed necessary to upgrade subjective beliefs into more objective assessments of likelihood. That's also why Quantum theory is not directly objectively Empirical, and requires some statistical manipulations to get Closer to "Truth" --- to the "participatory realism" of rational/emotional humans. :smile:


*1. Indirect Realism :
In the philosophy of perception and philosophy of mind, direct or naïve realism, as opposed to indirect or representational realism, are differing models that describe the nature of conscious experiences; out of the metaphysical question of whether the world we see around us is the real world itself or merely an internal perceptual copy of that world generated by our conscious experience.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_and_indirect_realism

*2. Quantum Bayesianism :
a> In QBism, all quantum states are representations of personal probabilities. This interpretation is distinguished by its use of a subjective Bayesian account of probabilities to understand the quantum mechanical Born rule as a normative addition to good decision-making. . . . .
b> For this reason, some philosophers of science have deemed QBism a form of anti-realism. The originators of the interpretation disagree with this characterization, proposing instead that the theory more properly aligns with a kind of realism they call "participatory realism", wherein reality consists of more than can be captured by any putative third-person account of it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_Bayesianism

On Participatory Realism :
Physics is about the impersonal laws of nature; the "I" never makes an appearance in it. Since the advent of quantum theory, however, there has always been a nagging pressure to insert a first-person perspective into the heart of physics. In incarnations of lesser or greater strength, one may consider the "Copenhagen" views of Bohr, Heisenberg, and Pauli,the observer-participator view of John Wheeler, the informational interpretation of Anton Zeilinger and Caslav Brukner, the relational interpretation of Carlo Rovelli, and, most radically, the QBism of N. David Mermin, Ruediger Schack, and the present author, as acceding to the pressure. These views have lately been termed "participatory realism" to emphasize that rather than relinquishing the idea of reality (as they are often accused of), they are saying that reality is more than any third-person perspective can capture. Thus, far from instances of instrumentalism or antirealism, these views of quantum theory should be regarded as attempts to make a deep statement about the nature of reality. This paper explicates the idea for the case of QBism. As well, it highlights the influence of John Wheeler's "law without law" on QBism's formulation.
https://arxiv.org/abs/1601.04360

The translation may be merely a physical Phase Transition, whose meaning is Metaphysical knowledge. — Gnomon
Direct (naive) realism? Perhaps depending on how we use the words 'code' or 'translation' or 'transition'. In any case it is not the process of seeing that one sees but the objects that emit or reflect visible light. — jkop

No, informed realism*1. I was merely comparing the Hard Problem --- of how the experiential quality of Consciousness could "abruptly" emerge from the physical properties of Energy or Matter --- to a well-known, yet still mysterious, transformation in Physics.

The experience of seeing is indeed a process of translation of light energy into mental imagery. But scientists still can't explain that transformation in physical terms, because Conception is supervenient (metaphysical*2) upon the physics of sense Perception. Yet we can understand it philosophically by analogy to "mysterious" Phase Transitions*3 in physics. The before & after states are well known, but the intermediate steps remain obscure, despite centuries of attempts to construct an empirical explanation. :smile:

*1. Naïve realism :
In social psychology, naïve realism is the human tendency to believe that we see the world around us objectively, and that people who disagree with us must be uninformed, irrational, or biased.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Na%C3%AFve_realism_(psychology)

*2. Metaphysical :
Derived from the Greek meta ta physika ("after the things of nature"); referring to an idea, doctrine, or posited reality outside of human sense perception.
https://www.pbs.org/ . . ./gengloss/metaph-body.html
Note --- The "posited reality" is what I call mental Ideality, not supernatural Spirituality.

*3. Mysterious Phase Transition :
Phase transitions, such as ice melting or turning graphite into diamond under intense pressure, are common phenomena. They are abrupt, qualitative changes in the properties of a substance and usually occur when a physical system approaches a specific critical temperature. Many physicists believe that phase transitions happened in the first moments after the Big Bang, when all matter in the universe was an extremely hot and dense plasma. . . . . The physics of these primordial phase transitions go beyond the Standard Model of elementary particles.
https://www.advancedsciencenews.com/footprints-of-phase-transitions-in-the-early-universe/

However,there is also such a thing as top-down causation which mitigates against purely physicalist explanations of consciousness. — Wayfarer

FYI, in Terrence Deacon's book Incomplete Nature, he discusses Emergence and Downward Causation. He explains, "downward causation . . . is in this sense not causation in the sense of being induced to change . . . but is rather an alteration in causal probabilities". He also says, "supervenience is in many respects the defining property of emergence, but also the source of many of its conceptual problems".

One way to think of Supervenience is to note that Emergence follows a series of changes as an unforeseen development, due to statistical Uncertainty (probability), as in Quantum theory. That may be why erroneously assumes that you are denying physical Reality, when you are merely asserting the existence of non-physical Ideality --- as supervenient upon reality --- and noting that --- perhaps due to human intention*1 --- causation can flow both ways. :smile:


*1. Entention : An intention is a mental state in which the agent commits themselves to a course of action.
"The natural sciences must exclude ententional explanations, whereas the so-called special sciences*2 cannot" ___ Deacon, Incomplete Nature
Note --- Philosophy is, in this sense, a Special Science.

*2. Special sciences :
Special sciences are those sciences other than fundamental physics. In this view, chemistry, biology, and neuroscience—indeed, all sciences except fundamental physics—are special sciences.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_sciences

But the problem is, you’re still regarding ‘it’ as a phenomena, as something that exists. But consciousness is not ‘something that exists’, it is the ground of experience. Now, certainly, consciousness can be treated as a phenomena, as something that can be studied and understood - that is what cognitive science and psychology deal with. But I think the ‘hard problem’ argument is not addressed to that - it is about the meaning of being (‘what it is like to be….’), which is not an objective phenomenon. — Wayfarer

As you implied, the key to your differences with is in divergent definitions of "To Be / To Exist". A typical dictionary definition says that "To Exist" means Objective Reality, which seems to exclude Subjective Ideality. Reality is taken to be what the physical senses sense, and implicitly denies what metaphysical Reason infers, often by analogy, not experiment. Yet physical science could not function without inferences of that which is not apparent to the 5 senses, including invisible Energy, known only by deduction from its effects on matter.

I suspect (infer) that Kant coined the term "Noumenon" with such to-be-or-not-to-be debates in mind. The term tries to make Ideas seem like merely a different kind of Phenomenon, which exists in a nonphysical/metaphysical sense. That's also why I have recently been emphasizing the scientific relationship between causal Energy and intentional Mind. But it still sounds like non-sense to some. :smile:

My usual spiel, physicalism (a version of materialism) doesn't really have a good definition anymore, because there's nothing which can sensible be made that physicalism can be opposed to. — Manuel

I suppose you mean that modern Physicalism is more inclusive than ancient Materialism (Atomism). It's intended to include the full-range of modern science : especially chemical substance and dynamic causation ; hence covers the major categories of empirical Science : Chemistry (matter) and Physics (energy), along with their sub-categories : biology, geology, astronomy, etc. So, anything "opposed" to Physicalism would be implicitly classified as Pseudoscience. Yet, the "hard" sciences do omit the "soft" sciences of Psychology, Sociology, Anthropology, and Politics. All of which are closer to Philosophical (theoretical) than to Empirical (experimental) methodologies. Are they also pseudosciences?

On a philosophy forum, the Physicalism label is usually contrasted with Idealism or Spiritualism, or Pseudoscience-in-general. The primary distinction is that "Physics" is Natural Science, whereas "Spirit" is Supernatural Superstition. Yet in reality the line between them is blurry. For my own discussions, I prefer dualistic Physicalism to monistic Materialism because it is more inclusive : tangible Matter and invisible Energy. Unfortunately, the physical concept of Energy is also acceptable to modern Paranormalists, Spiritualists and Ghost Hunters, who seek for evidence of their spiritual quarry with technology designed to detect physical energy and spooky forces. Is that what you mean by "doesn't have a good definition anymore"? :smile:


Physicalism :
This includes not only material objects, but also energy, forces, and physical laws. In summary, while materialism asserts that everything is made up of material substance, physicalism goes further to claim that everything can be explained by physical entities and their properties.
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-materialism-and-physicalism

Even if, as you suggest, some waveform of energy is responsible for consciousness, a natural question arises: why does that energy produce consciousness, while some other energy does not produce consciousness? — NotAristotle

That is an astute question : why does a particular physical waveform transform into metaphysical (meaningful) awareness? It's easy to imagine that Consciousness is a process caused by some form of Energy. But what specific form (or waveform) causes Awareness instead of Light or Heat or Motion or Gravity? I don't know the answer to that query, but it seems to be a good direction for scientific investigation. One clue to the puzzle of Personal Experience may be that both Consciousness and Energy are special forms of non-specific Generic Information (the power to change form ; to transform ; energy?). And in human experience, Information is also Meaning, Significance, Relevance to Self.

So, if we picture a waveform of Light (for instance), it may function like Morse Code (max-min instead of dot-dash). For a computer analogy, consider the maximum & minimum intensity to be equivalent to a digital code : On & Off, or light & dark, or Positive & Negative, or 1 & 0. With that metaphor in mind, we can imagine that a ray of light is transmitting a message of some kind. If so, then our visual sensing (receiving) apparatus can interpret the quantitative signal as the qualitative experience of Redness. This presumes that evolution equipped the brain with a table of numerical codes & their nominal/symbolic meanings. The physical-to-mental Interpreter is often imagined as a homunculus, but it might be simply a probabilistic computing*1 device with genetic memory*2 trained by eons of evolutionary events (experience?).

Having established Color as one kind of meaning to a Mind, we can carry the metaphor on to greater levels of information complexity, which the brain mechanism can compute-interpret as qualities of experience and properties of the material world. Hence, our senses are like the receiving end of a morse code transmission, and the mental images or impressions are the self-relevant interpretations of that abstract code. The translation may be merely a physical Phase Transition, whose meaning is Metaphysical knowledge. I'm just riffing on a philosophical theme here, and will leave the science to those more qualified. :nerd:


*1. Probabilistic Computing :
an emerging discipline integrating probabilistic programming and generative AI into the building blocks of software and hardware, and using computer science concepts to scale up computations involving uncertain knowledge.
https://medium.com/digital-architecture-lab/what-is-probabilistic-computing-and-how-does-it-work-1efea7d780c9


*2. Genetic memory :
In psychology, genetic memory is a theorized phenomenon in which certain kinds of memories could be inherited, being present at birth in the absence of any associated sensory experience, and that such memories could be incorporated into the genome over long spans of time. ___Wikipedia

LIGHT OSCILLATIONS MAX-MIN = ON-OFF = LIGHT-DARK = 100%-0%




LIGHT OSCILLATIONS AS CODE


MIND IS THE TRANSLATOR OF WAVEFORM CODES

My issue again is the assertion that because we can think of a possibility, that this somehow invalidates what we know today. — Philosophim

Coincidentally, the same day you posted that skeptical warning of the perils of un-grounded speculation beyond current evidence, I read in Skeptical Inquirer magazine (vol 48, issue 1) an article by philosopher Massimo Pigliucci on Pseudoscience. He includes a list of criteria*1 to "demarcate sense from nonsense". The items on that list were written down in Roman orator Cicero's On Divination circa 44BCE, in which he compared Astrology negatively to scientific Astronomy.

In my own speculative thesis, the logical consistency*1a, will have to be judged by others, because we have difficulty seeing the errors in our own reasoning. Since Enformationism is a philosophical conjecture, about a topic with little or no empirical evidence*1b to date, confirmation of the postulation will have to wait for hard Science to catch up with soft Philosophy. The causal mechanisms*1c underlying Consciousness remain mysterious, but the thesis specifically postulates a primordial prototype of modern Energy as the First Cause. The evolutionary process that produced Mind from Matter is not arbitrary*1d, but its intermediate steps are currently unknown, just as material Phase Transitions (states of matter) remain opaque after centuries of study. Moreover, the thesis does rely on a community of experts*1e (e.g. Santa Fe Institute)*2, who are investigating the emergence of Consciousness and Complexity from Holistic physical mechanisms.

Regardless of compliance with Cicero's Criteria, and with Skeptical caution, the Enformationism thesis remains a philosophical conjecture, not a scientific fact. So, those more interested in Confirmation Bias may be able to point to my own concept of how Mind emerged from Matter, as confirmation of their personal pseudoscience inclinations. For example, the article mentions Deepak Chopra, who follows similar reasoning to the conclusion of what he calls "Quantum Mysticism"*3. Which Pigliucci thinks is pseudoscience : "there is no such thing". Although, Chopra did not intend to "invalidate what we know today" about Mental phenomena, but to explain such "hard problems" in meaningful modern and traditional philosophical terms. Although his views are Holistic, I don't follow Chopra as an "expert", because he too often goes beyond the metaphorical/mystical point that I am comfortable with.

also classifies my thesis as "mystical woo", even though I make no "spiritual" claims or magical assertions, only philosophical interpretations of physical observations. He seems to think Philosophy began in the 17th century, after the Enlightenment, and trails behind Science picking up crumbs. I repectfully disagree. :smile:


*1. Cicero's Criteria for making sense
a. Internal logical consistency
b. Empirical confirmation
c. Specificity of proposed causal mechanisms
d. Degree of arbitrariness
e. Existence of a qualified community of experts

*2. What does the Santa Fe Institute actually research/study? :
The Santa Fe Institute was founded in 1984 by a man named George Cowan, with the help of Murray Gell-Mann who is a Nobel-prize physicist, Phil Anderson, another Nobel-prize physicist, Ken Arrow who won a Nobel prize in economics, and others. These guys all got together and decided to help found this thing, and ‘this thing’ was a new way of doing science… [they] said ‘let’s start looking at ways we can study the whole thing, instead of reducing things.’ And this came right at a moment when personal computers were coming into their own.
https://www.reddit.com/r/cormacmccarthy/comments/t5shni/what_does_the_santa_fe_institute_actually/
Note --- 180 associates Holism with New Age woo


*3. Quantum mysticism
Quantum mysticism, sometimes referred pejoratively to as quantum quackery or quantum woo,[1] is a set of metaphysical beliefs and associated practices that seek to relate consciousness, intelligence, spirituality, or mystical worldviews to the ideas of quantum mechanics and its interpretations.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mysticism

I think you would very much enjoy Cosmosapiens by John Hands, he goes over these theories, and a few different ones, other than the Big Bang Model and much, much more. Though not pop-sci, it's not too bad to read at all. — Manuel

Hands finds relevant ideas for a Philosophy of Cosmology in several ancient myths. He doesn't take them literally though, but as metaphorically relevant. A similar look at cosmology is physicist Joel Primack's The View From the Center of the Universe. He also finds some ancient mythical scenarios pertinent to our modern worldview, including those of the magical mystical Kabbalah.

For example, "But today we can see that the Kabbalistic metaphors suggest a reality closer to our modern astrophysical view than Newton's unchanging empty space does". He notes that "mythology . . . is different from theory because it makes "me" part of the story". Then emphasizes, "There is no deeper source of meaning for human beings than to experience our own lives as reflecting the nature and origin of our universe". After discussing the re-cycling Ouroboros myths, he concludes that it "helps us understand why this physical/spiritual dichotomy is illusory". "By the 'spiritual' we mean the relationship between a conscious mind and the cosmos".

Although we science-informed big-bang-begat moderns tend to imagine the evolving space-time world as analogous to an expanding balloon, most cosmologists insist that it has no geometric center. But Primack says that it does have a meaningful center-of-perspective: the point-of-view of its curious conscious beings perched on the surface of an insignificant rock on the outskirts of a middling galaxy among a panoply of celestial constellations. :smile:

↪180 Proof
Is this a correct paraphrase of your response to Philosophim’s thesis: spacetime, an unbounded, finite, beginning-less phenomenon, requires an arbitrary starting point re: sequential processes. It can be considered a “working” starting point, but there’s no logical necessity guiding the choice of a particular starting point. — ucarr

Don't get me started . . . . . . . . . . . . :joke:

Metaphysical necessity :
In philosophy, metaphysical necessity, sometimes called broad logical necessity, is one of many different kinds of necessity, which sits between logical necessity and nomological (or physical) necessity, in the sense that logical necessity entails metaphysical necessity, but not vice versa, and metaphysical necessity entails physical necessity, but not vice versa. A proposition is said to be necessary if it could not have failed to be the case. Nomological necessity is necessity according to the laws of physics and logical necessity is necessity according to the laws of logic, while metaphysical necessities are necessary in the sense that the world could not possibly have been otherwise. What facts are metaphysically necessary, and on what basis we might view certain facts as metaphysically but not logically necessary are subjects of substantial discussion in contemporary philosophy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysical_necessity

. Because there are no other plausibilties to how causality functions, the only {logical} conclusion is that a causal chain will always lead to an Alpha, or first cause. — Philosophim

Pardon me for my audacious assumption. For clarity, I replaced your second "only" with "logical". Although the assertion would work as written, with "only-only" as an emphatic way of saying "no alternatives".

I doubt that can refute your reasoning, so he merely denies your conclusion. First Cause arguments open the door to inferences of Creator Gods, that 180's belief system explicitly excludes. Therefore, Atheistic worldviews must assume, as an implicit axiom, that the universe itself is eternal, without beginning or end. In which case, there is no need for a First Cause. As a hypothetical worldview, Einstein's Block Time Eternalism is static & acausal, and bears little resemblance to our incrementally-evolving ever-changing space-time reality, with something new every day. In which case our common sense notion of Time is a "persistent" illusion.

But if our increment of eternity is causal & sequential, 180's non-starter world must then be acausal & discontinuous. If so, his logic is circular, while yours is linear & reasonable : it begins with an either/or premise, and reaches an irrefutable logical conclusion. Unless, of course our world is a Block-time Universe, or one big random series of accidents : no logic, no reason, no direction, just "it is what it is". Atheistic scientists & philosophers are not embarrassed to fill the Causal Gap before the Big Bang with a tower of turtles Multiverse : causes stacked on top of each other, rather than sequential. :smile:

PS___"First Cause" arguments are literally & deliberately agnostic about the gap-filler.

A Causal Theory of Knowing :
A causal chain is described as a sequence of events for which one event in a chain causes the next. According to Goldman, these chains can only exist with the presence of an accepted fact, a belief in the fact, and a cause for the subject to believe the fact.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Causal_Theory_of_Knowing
Note --- Since Plato, the First Cause argument has been an accepted premise for reasoning about causation. Of course, like a pool-shooter, the initial impetus (causal power) may not itself be a link in the space-time chain of bouncing balls.

IT'S TURTLES ALL THE WAY DOWN TO THE ETERNAL TURTLE


WHERE'S THE FIRST CAUSE?

Even if, as you suggest, some waveform of energy is responsible for consciousness, a natural question arises: why does that energy produce consciousness, while some other energy does not produce consciousness? — NotAristotle
In any knowledge that we create, we can always generate new "why" questions that we aren't able to answer, this isn't specific to consciousness. — Skalidris

Maybe we can get closer to plausible answers to such enigmas. Folk wisdom has equated Mind with Energy for centuries, and that notion is often the basis of Magical thinking. However, there is now some scientific evidence to suggest that Consciousness is not a material substance, but an energetic process*1. Yet Energy itself is not made of Matter, but is a primordial-essential-causal form of existence that can transform into Matter (E=MC^2), and Mind. So, the Hard Problem of Consciousness may be related to the equally mysterious nature of Energy itself*1b.

In my Enformationism thesis, I equate both Energy & Mind with an even more general & fundamental process in the world : EnFormAction, which is merely a novel spelling of "Information"*2. We typically associate information (power to enform) with Knowledge, or computer Data, but it's also the causal agent of human culture that can put a man on the moon --- not by magic, but by collective communal Intention (mind power to imagine and to execute a plan of action). Unfortunately, the procedural steps by which Information produces Energy, which produces Consciousness, remains a "how" question for Science, and a "why" question for Philosophy. :nerd:


*1. Mind Energy :
a> Is the mind made up of energy?
Yes, there would be no conscious experience without the brain, but experience cannot be reduced to the brain's actions. The mind is energy, and it generates energy through thinking, feeling, and choosing. ___Caroline Leaf, Ph.D., Communication Pathologist and Neuroscientist
https://www.mindbodygreen.com/articles/difference-between-mind-and-brain-neuroscientist

b> Consciousness as a Physical Process Caused by the Organization of Energy in the Brain
Recent neuroscientific evidence can be interpreted in a way that suggests consciousness is a product of the organization of energetic activity in the brain. The nature of energy itself, though, remains largely mysterious, and we do not fully understand how it contributes to brain function or consciousness
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02091/full

c> Consciousness as a Form of Energy
An electromagnetic field is a type of material reality, and so is consciousness. Alternatively, consciousness is one form of energy, along with kinetic energy or electrical energy. If this hypothesis is true, then consciousness is material after all—though not in the Cartesian sense.
https://academic.oup.com/book/1758/chapter-abstract/141408450?redirectedFrom=fulltext


*2. What is Information? :
Linguistically and grammatically the word information is a noun but in actuality it is a process and hence is like a verb. . . .
What is the role of information in the propagation of life? What is the relationship of information to energy and entropy? What is the relationship of information to science?
___by Robert K Logan, physicist

The problem that I see is if there is no objectivity, then there is no scientific standard. — Philosophim

That's why I get most of my information about the multiple roles of Information from professional scientists --- Paul Davies, Terrence Deacon, Santa Fe Institute --- and not from Twitter or Tik Tok gurus & influencers. Their work is on the periphery of current science, but it reveals signs of an emerging new Paradigm of Science, that I, not they, call Enformationism --- to distinguish from older -isms, such as Materialism, Idealism, or Spiritualism.

My own investigations into Causal Information are not "objective", in the sense that I am not held accountable by specially-trained & narrowly-focused colleagues. Which is why I depend on amateur generalists on TPF to vett my amateur musings. Their philosophical skepticism should help to keep me honest. But it's possible that some of us merely share a bias toward Materialism or Idealism. So, it's up to me to question my own motives. :nerd:

I feel subjective experiences are honestly best left to psychology. — Philosophim

Unfortunately, most modern Psychological research is still working from a Materialistic worldview*1. So, they may be blind to the evidence of immaterial "forces", such as those that Deacon describes in his books : Morphodynamics, etc. For example, Pavlov's salivating dogs were influenced by mental imagery to respond to the sound of a bell as-if it was the sight or smell of tasty food. But he didn't focus on how one form of Information (alarm sound) could transform in the mind into a representation of a different form of Meaning (smell or taste).

Besides, most current experiments on Information Theory focus on quantification, storage, and communication, not on meaning & significance & semiology. So, what little work is being done on Holistic Information is left to Philosophy. By that, I mean scientists & scholars who are not afraid to speculate beyond the current paradigm. :smile:

*1.Eliminative materialism :
is a materialist position in the philosophy of mind. . . . . Eliminativism about a class of entities is the view that the class of entities does not exist . . . . Since eliminative materialism arguably claims that future research will fail to find a neuronal basis for various mental phenomena, it may need to wait for science to progress further.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eliminative_materialism

PS___ I just received my copy of Steven Pinker's Rationality. He is a renowned professor of Psychology. But he describes his focus as "cognition", not "consciousness". And I suspect that most psychologists prefer to avoid becoming mired in unanswerable questions about imaginary minds. They leave such open-ended arguments to Philosophers, with nothing better to do than to look for the homunculus inside their own heads --- to study the mind with mental tools.

I have no problem with the metaphysics description and the use of words that do not lean on the physical. My concern is that it should not be forgotten that it is all physical at its core. — Philosophim

That's where you and I agree & disagree. Many years ago, after becoming disillusioned by the fundamentalist religion of my youth, I may have tended toward the opposite worldview. But as I learned more about Reductive science --- took basic courses in all the major divisions of science in college --- I saw the "real" world differently. But I also began to appreciate the philosophical underpinnings of most world religions, especially their Integrated Holistic approach .

My emerging new worldview was influenced mainly by Quantum Physics and Information Theory, which I did not learn in college. Prominent physicist John A. Wheeler's "It from Bit" concept gave me a new way to understand the substance of the world, wherein the core is indeed "physical", but with tangible Matter animated & motivated by causal Energy, and organized by logical Information*1. More recently, quantum physicists began to equate Energy with both Matter and Information. There you have have a combination of Space (corporality) , Time (change), and Form (organization)*2. In Terrence Deacon's triad : Material Morphodynamics (form change) + Energetic Teleodynamics (directional change ; purpose) + Causal Homeodynamics (evolution). So. Enformationism is about all of the above, but not about Religion. Instead, its a novel philosophical & scientific understanding of the immaterial (quarks & qualia) foundations of Reality. :nerd:

*1.
a> In classical physics and general chemistry, matter is any substance that has mass and takes up space by having volume. ____Wikipedia
b> In physics, energy is a property intrinsic to anything that is able to interact in the universe. ___Wiki
c> Information is an abstract concept that refers to that which has the power to inform. ___Wiki
Note --- You could say that I am a Physicalist (matter + energy), but not a Materialist (matter is all). However, it now seems that shape-shifting Information (EnFormAction) is all.

*2. Experimental test for the mass-energy-information equivalence principle :
A recent conjecture, called the mass-energy-information equivalence principle, proposed that information is equivalent to mass and energy and exists as a separate state of matter.
https://pubs.aip.org/aip/sci/article/2022/9/091111/2849001/A-proposed-experimental-test-for-the-mass-energy

I agree. I've noted several times that it is currently impossible to objectively evaluate someone else's subjective experience. But do note that this problem does not go away even if we remove science. — Philosophim

Objective or empirical evaluation of subjective experience may be an oxymoron. But Subjective theoretical evaluation of subjective Ideas is what Philosophy*2 is all about. No need to "remove" the reasoning of Science, just the requirement for empirical evidence. :smile:

*2. Purpose of Philosophy :
The study of philosophy enhances a person's problem-solving capacities. It helps us to analyze concepts, definitions, arguments, and problems. It contributes to our capacity to organize ideas and issues, to deal with questions of value, and to extract what is essential from large quantities of information.
https://www.jmu.edu/philrel/why-study-philosophy/why-study-philosophy.shtml

New perspectives should always be brought forward, but they must be tested against the hard rock of existence. — Philosophim

Rock on! New philosophical perspectives on specific material subjects (hard rocks) are indeed tested for empirical evidence. But new paradigms of universal concepts (worldviews) can only be tested for rational consistency, and conformance with ontological coherence. :cool:

I really appreciate your viewpoints as well Gnomon! I'm glad you're not taking my points the wrong way. I greatly enjoy chatting with thinkers like yourself, and I think you're setting up your language and approach to science and consciousness that is palatable to someone like myself. — Philosophim

Anthropologist Terrence Deacon's predecessor in the study of humanity, Polymath Gregory Bateson, unlike Shannon, defined "Information" as the Difference (distinction) that makes a Difference (meaning) to the observer*3. Since groundbreaking holistic scientists like Deacon & Bateson are not well known by professionals in the "hard" sciences, their vocabulary, and mine, may not be "palatable" to their Reductive way of thinking. But it should be acceptable to those of us in the "soft" science of Philosophy. The study of Minds does not lend itself to the knife-wielding dissection methods of Material science. :wink:

*3. In his 1972 book, Steps to an Ecology of Mind, Bateson developed his idea of a "difference that makes a difference" in his talk to Alfred Korzybski's Institute of General Semantics. The talk was entitled "Form, Substance, and Difference." Form and substance referred to the famous Korzybski maxim "the map is not the territory."
https://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/scientists/bateson/

PS___Speaking of "vive la Difference"*4; one way to discuss the difference between philosophical evidence and scientific evidence is to think about the "hard" question of sexual attraction. For example, some men are crass materialists who view females as a loose aggregation of parts : t*ts, *ss, p*ssy, etc. But that analytical approach misses the intangibles of femininity that are so irresistible to those who appreciate the finer non-things of life. :joke:

*4. Who first said Vive la difference?
Anatole France is attributed with first declaring the wonderful refrain, “Vive la difference!” with particular reference to the differences between women and men.

You can examine a lit object under a magnifying glass, but you can't examine a sound under a magnifying glass. We're using the wrong tool and looking for the wrong thing. We measure consciousness by behavior. We experience our own consciousness, but no one else's. As such, we cannot measure our own subjective consciousness, nor any other. But we have determined that the brain affects consciousness over multiple scientific discoveries over decades now. Its incontrovertible. — Philosophim

Again, you take my metaphors literally. The point of the question is that immaterial functions cannot be studied by empirical methods. There is no empirical evidence for Ideas ; only behavioral inferences, as you said. In other words, the tool for examining the Mind is the Mind itself. Materialists see the world through the (metaphorical) lens of the Mind, but can't see the Mind itself.

Again, you erroneously imply that I deny the role of Brain in Mind functions. Not so. Mind is merely what the Brain does : its function, its action. The engine (a physical object) of an automobile directly affects the quality of Transportation, its immaterial action. What we call "mind" is the immaterial function of a physical brain. But a brain in a vat, with no connection to the outside world, would have no mental functions. We'll never know if the isolated brain has a self-concept, but I doubt it, because it would have no non-self to contrast with. A primary evolutionary function of Mind is to relate Self to Other (environment). :smile:

Note --- I like to use the Aristotelian concept of Metaphysics in place of "immaterial". But that term is now mainly associated with Catholic theology. Yet, five centuries BC, Ari added an appendix to his work on Physics (nature) for a discussion of philosophical Ideas --- over & above physical Things --- immaterial Concepts*1 about nature (Ontology). For Ari, those ideas are not super-natural, but merely immaterial Forms, or in modern terms : Information (EnFormAction). For example, Properties are not material things, but mental attributions.

*1. Aristotle About Ideas :
The Peri ide^on (On Ideas) is the only work in which Aristotle systematically sets out and criticizes arguments for the existence of Platonic forms. . . . . , and why and with what justification he favors an alternative metaphysical scheme. She examines the significance of the Peri ide^on for some central questions about Plato's theory of forms--whether, for example, there are forms corresponding to every property or only to some, and if only to some, then to which ones; whether forms are universals, particulars or both; and whether they are meanings, properties or both.
https://www.amazon.com/Ideas-Aristotles-Criticism-Platos-Theory/dp/0198235496
Note --- Contra Plato's monistic universal Forms, Aristotle proposed the dualistic notion of HyloMorphism : a combination of Matter and Essence : car engine + transportation as a team. Different ways of looking at the same thing. The embodied causal force that enforms material objects is the Essence (property, qualia) of the Thing.

The problem with the theories that consciousness is separate from matter and energy, is that there is no evidence from tests. — Philosophim

That's the problem with Materialism, it looks for empirical evidence of something that is immaterial. The only evidence of Mental Functions is philosophical inference. If a pile of rocks suddenly formed a tower of stones, we would have to infer Mental Intention behind the balancing act*2. :joke:

No, because Genesis was not known and provable with evidence, it was myth. Beliefs are not the same as what is known at the time. — Philosophim

You may not think Darwin was asserting something unbelievable, but most of his contemporaries did, because they were convinced of a different belief system. You think Gnomon is proposing something unbelievable because it does not align with your materialistic beliefs. Scientific paradigms change, not only due to empirical evidence, but to philosophical perspective. "To biologists, it is puzzling that Kuhn failed to mention the two greatest paradigm shifts in the biological sciences — Darwinism and Mendelism." https://laskerfoundation.org/paradigm-shifts-in-science-insights-from-the-arts/ :nerd:

And this is not a problem. This is the limit of what we can measure today, and we take what is most reasonable from that analysis. — Philosophim

I agree. Yet Reasoning is not empirical, but philosophical. A Paradigm Shift is a change of perspective on the evidence. :cool:

PS___ I appreciate your respectful skepticism. It forces me to tighten-up my own reasoning. And to find new ways to describe an emerging new paradigm of Philosophy and Science.


*2. We infer that a carefully balanced stone stack is not natural, but intentional

But is what emerged something other than matter and/or energy? To my knowledge, no. If you think it is something other than matter and energy, do we have evidence of it existing apart from our imagination? — Philosophim

The Hard Problem is all about that familiar-yet-mysterious "something other". If you prefer to think that your Mind is a material object, what are its tangible properties : entangled neurons? Can you examine an Idea under a magnifying glass? How much does a Feeling weigh? If your Mind is instead an energetic force, what are its causal effects? Can you move an object with mind-force? If you can't produce those evidences, maybe Consciousness is indeed something other.

However, I'm not introducing something supernatural into the real world. My thesis postulates that the universe began with prototypes of Matter, Energy, and Mind in place. Of course, I can't prove that's true, any more than scientists can prove that a cosmic Bang created a universe from nothing-nowhere. Scientists do have names for some of those hypothetical proto-elements of modern reality : Quarks are unproven theoretical (imaginary) bits of matter with no discernible properties, but strange antithetical attributes : up/down ; top/bottom ; charm/strange. Is your consciousness one or more of those materials? Gluons are also theoretical binding forces with a metaphorical name. But, unlike real forces, Gluons cannot be measured by instruments. Are your Ideas & Feelings constructed of charming Quarks glued together by sticky Gluons? Do you have "evidence" of those elements of matter & energy, apart from the imagination of Quantum theorists studying the squishy quantum foundations of the physical world. Some accept those theories as descriptions of reality, even though the evidence is "locked away"*1 from the prying eyes of Materialists. Have you ever seen or touched a Mind Quark?

My thesis merely proposes a new name for a phenomenon/noumenon that has puzzled scientists and philosophers for ages. It seems obvious that mental qualities supervene (follow ; depend) on material properties, but how? I just flip the script to view Matter & Energy as dependent from a singular aboriginal predecessor, with the Potential for both Matter & Energy. Plato used a variety of labels for his First Cause : Logos, Form, etc. So, you can think of EFA metaphorically as a "seed" with the power to produce both the Logical Structure and the Material Form of Darwin's manifold "forms most beautiful". Is that close enough to philosophical Materialism for you? Or is it too close to philosophical Idealism? I could argue from that other direction, if I had time for such nonsense. :cool:


*1. By the mid-1970s, however, 10 years after quarks were first proposed, scientists had compiled a mass of evidence that showed that quarks do exist but are locked within the individual hadrons in such a way that they can never escape as single entities.
https://www.britannica.com/science/subatomic-particle/The-development-of-quark-theory

No. My issue is not with speculation. Its with assertion. Maybe we'll find out in the future that consciousness isn't physical. But today? It is. — Philosophim

Sounds like you do have an issue with philosophical and scientific Postulation*2. In Darwin's day, the explanation for the variety of plants & animals was based on the Genesis myth. Do you think he was out of line to "assert" that there was another way to make sense of biology? Do you think Gnomon is asserting falsehoods on a philosophical discussion forum, or is he merely postulating alternative views for discussion? Is Physics the source of all Truth for you? :wink:

*2. Postulate : to suggest or accept that a theory or idea is true as a starting point for reasoning or discussion.

So we can see that quarks have mass and have been conclusively measured. So as you can see, there's still no evidence of something in the universe that cannot be confirmed to be matter or energy yet. — Philosophim

Just as Catholics believe in angels based on infallible scripture, modern physicists definitely believe in Quarks based on infallible math. So it doesn't take much indirect evidence*3*4 to confirm their faith. But which are you going to believe : proponents or doubters? Personally, I don't know or care if they are real ; they serve a function for imagining the quantum realm as tiny particles of stuff, like the holy grail of ancient philosophical Atoms. :joke:

*3. "Quark masses are fundamental quantities in particle physics, but they cannot be accessed and measured directly in experiments because, with the exception of the top quark, quarks are confined inside composite particles," said Andrea Dainese, who is the ALICE physics coordinator.
https://www.space.com/large-hadron-collider-quark-mass-measurement
Note --- If you can't measure it, mathematize it.

*4. Are quarks hypothetical particles?
We will never know for sure.
That’s because quarks, by the nature of their interactions with each other through “gluons”, can never get far enough apart to be “observed” directly.
For many years most physicists thought quarks were just a Reductionist gimmick for remembering the rules of SU(3) — a symmetry of elementary particles also known (equally fancifully) as “the eightfold way”. But today the consensus is that they are real particles.
https://www.quora.com/Are-quarks-hypothetical-particles-Why
Note --- Consensus opinion, not empirical fact.

Another way to express the Hard Problem is : "how does physical activity (neural & endocrinological) result in the meta-physical (mental) functions that we label "Ideas" and "Awareness"? — Gnomon

I still see that as the easy problem, as its a very clear approach. Eventually after research, we find that X leads to Y. Its a problem, and I'm not saying its 'easy', its easy in contrast to the hard problem. Its called a hard problem because there's no discernible path or approach towards finding the answer. If you shape a question about consciousness that has a clear path forward to attempt to solve the problem, that is an easy problem. — Philosophim

How does Physics (matter/energy) produce Metaphysical phenomena (mind/intention)? Nobody knows for sure, but there is a name for it. “Emergence” is a philosophical term for mysterious appearances with "no discernible path". Typically, the novel form is a whole system (with new properties & functions) derived from a previous system with different properties : e.g. solid an-isotropic crystalline Ice emerges from liquid isotropic water. In my thesis, I compare Mind-from-Matter emergence to physical Phase Transitions, not to occult Magic. :smile:

Emergentism is the belief in emergence, particularly as it involves consciousness and the philosophy of mind. A property of a system is said to be emergent if it is a new outcome of some other properties of the system and their interaction, while it is itself different from them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergentism
Note --- Emergence is typically associated with Holism and Systems Theory. Information is the "difference that makes a difference".

Teleological Evolution
So it seems that our world got to where it is now via a series of identifiable stages due to "quantum fluctuations", "phase changes", "emergences" and "speciations" that collectively we call Evolution. But only the human-scale (macro) transitions seem to follow the normal macro level rules of billiard-ball cause & effect, instead of "spooky action at a distance". On larger & smaller scales those transformations seem to be much less random and more directional, even ententional. We can classify those various emergent phases into three domains : Quantum, Classical, and Cosmic.
https://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page25.html

The easy is the 'how', the hard is the 'why'. — Philosophim

“How” is a scientific question, in search of intermediate physical steps. “Why” is a philosophical question, in search of meaning or purpose. How Mental functions emerged from Material brains is subject to empirical evidence. Hence, relatively easy compared to the Why question. The evolutionary purpose of C is fairly obvious, in that knowing-that-you-know gives you the advantage of flexibility of approaches to a problem. But the Cosmic purpose of C is less obvious, in that mechanical operations, sans awareness, were able to function for 14B years. Why now, does the cosmos manifest a new property : Self-Conscious? We sentient beings appear driven to know where we came from, and where we are going ; on a cosmic scale. The final or ultimate answer to such holistic questions seems to require information about origins & destiny, which has been offered by religions for millennia. For those of us lacking direct access to a Cosmic Mind, mundane philosophy will have to do the best it can. :wink:

The mind has three basic functions: thinking, feeling, and wanting. The three functions of the mind — thoughts, feelings and desires — can be guided or directed either by one's native egocentrism or by one's potential rational capacities. Egocentric tendencies function automatically and unconsciously.
https://www.criticalthinking.org/files/SAM-TheHumanMind.pdf

What we don't do is assume because we cannot answer the details, that there is some unidentified third property that must be responsible for it. That's a "God of the gaps" argument. — Philosophim

Not necessarily. The Enformationism thesis builds upon what we now know, by means of Scientific & Philosophical exploration, and to postulate a rational “third property” : EnFormAction, that has hitherto been called by another name, "Energy". EFA is envisioned as a kind of Proto-Energy (a seed) that can explain, not just material evolution, but the emergence of Mental properties, only after billions of years of “preparing the ground” for planting. The thesis acknowledges the logical question of “where did the Energy & Laws --- that propelled & guided evolution --- come from? Materialists typically take such immaterial necessities for granted. But philosophers tend to question everything, and to speculate beyond current knowledge. Do you think Science has all the answers that we need to know? Are you not curious about “Why” questions? A famous architect, an atheist, when questioned about his meticulous work, once said : “God is in the details”. :halo:

The only disagreement I have with you is that I believe we act exactly like physical machines, only more advanced. I do not see anything about humanity that is separate from the universe, but is one of the many expressions of the universe. — Philosophim

I'll grant you that notion of progression in natural evolution. But you seem to think I'm proposing something supernatural, or otherworldly. Supposedly-scientific postulations such as Many Worlds & Multiverses, do indeed go beyond the only world we know anything about. But EFA is merely a new name for a natural function that is well-known, but not well understood : the emergence of novelty from evolutionary mechanisms.

Do you think Darwinian Evolutionary Theory was the final word on how such things as eyes & minds came to exist in a material mechanical world? In recent years, scientists & philosophers have added such notions as Plasticity, Rapid Development, Epigenetics, and Cultural Evolution to Darwin's basic model. The article below illustrates the “gaps” in current biological science. The Modern Synthesis added genetic information to the crude notion of Random Mutation. The Extended Evolutionary Synthesis added such concepts as multilevel selection, transgenerational epigenetic inheritance, niche construction, evolvability, to Darwin's simple-but-powerful notion that biological novelty occurs without divine intervention. However, his evolutionary mechanism did assume that nature is capable of making informed choices (Selection) based on some logical criteria for fitness.

So, my thesis is just carrying-on the tradition of questioning supposedly "settled science". EnFormAction is merely a fresh look at an old scientific term for the physical Change Agency. EFA is not just brute force, but Directional Motivation (energy + information) . Evolution, like a guided-missile, seems to be moving, not randomly, but persistently toward more complexity & integration of sub-systems, with the human mind as the current apex. That direction is provided by the Information encoded in the program of evolution ; similar to what we now know is the key function of biological Genes, that Darwin had no mechanism for. :nerd:

Do we need a new theory of evolution?
Strange as it sounds, scientists still do not know the answers to some of the most basic questions about how life on Earth evolved.
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2022/jun/28/do-we-need-a-new-theory-of-evolution

Also, my understanding is that this primordial state is also matter and energy. It is a 'thing', and until we can find the state of a thing that exhibits itself differently from matter and/or energy, it fits in one of those two categories. — Philosophim

The Primordial State I referred to is not a scientific fact, but an informed guess. And the current best guess is that the universe started-out with no actual Matter, as we now know it. For example, both quarks & gluons are unobservable hypothetical entities, that are basically definitions without referent. So, I would prefer to call it an “Idea”, not a “Thing”. The postulated plasma had none of the structure* that we identify with Matter. So, cosmologists have proposed semi-magical “mechanisms” (e.g. instantaneous Inflation) to explain how the current clumpy configurations could have formed from such an unorganized state. My third category is merely a combination of Energy and Logic (the missing element of Darwinism). Anway, I figure that my informed guess is as valid as their speculation into the unknown. :cool:

Quarks appear to be true elementary particles; that is, they have no apparent structure and cannot be resolved into something smaller.
https://www.britannica.com/science/quark
Note --- No structure = no matter

In physical cosmology, structure formation is the formation of galaxies, galaxy clusters and larger structures from small early density fluctuations . . . . . In this stage, some mechanism, such as cosmic inflation, was responsible for establishing the initial conditions of the universe: homogeneity, isotropy, and flatness
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structure_formation
Note --- Cosmic Inflation is essentially mathematical magic: "Voila! an instant universe!" Is EFA any less plausible?

↪Gnomon
the idea of the absential resonates strongly with the experience of no-thing-ness that was foundational to my Zen practice. It's linked to the Hindu aphorism, neti neti, 'not this, not that' - which is about how the mind attaches to objects and soon learns to orient itself solely to the sensory domain, forgetting its true nature, which is not any thing. — Wayfarer

Deacon's Causal Absence is also similar to the notion of Emptiness in Taoism :

Thirty spokes share a central hub;
It is the hole that makes the wheel useful.

Mix water and clay into a vessel;
Its emptiness is what makes it useful.

Cut doors and windows for a room;
Their emptiness is what makes them useful.

Therefore consider: advantage comes from having things
And usefulness from having nothing.

PS___Perhaps empty minds are also useful in some way. Meditation? :joke:
PPS___ Modernism seems to focus on advantage over others in the race to acquire things. Maybe having less can be useful? My penurious financial status seems to indicate an experiment to find the economic usefulness of nothingness.

↪Gnomon
Where is said thesis? — Patterner

The website was the beginning of a long journey, and there are still mountains & swamps ahead. :
Enformationism
https://enformationism.info/enformationism.info/

The blog entries are ongoing, but the latest post, on Enformationism vs Panpsychism, is at http://bothandblog8.enformationism.info/page7.html

I still see that as the easy problem, as its a very clear approach. Eventually after research, we find that X leads to Y. Its a problem, and I'm not saying its 'easy', its easy in contrast to the hard problem. Its called a hard problem because there's no discernable path or approach towards finding the answer. If you shape a question about consciousness that has a clear path forward to attempt to solve the problem, that is an easy problem. — Philosophim

I'll get back to you about your "easy" solution to the Consciousness problem. In my blog, I compare the emergence of Sentience to the emergence of Phase Transitions in physics. Due to complexity, the before & after are easy ("X leads to Y"), but tracking the steps in between is hard, in both cases. So, although we are making progress, both emergences remain somewhat mysterious, and emergence itself is scientifically controversial.

BTW, I had to post the opinions you are responding to without editing --- ran out of time. I have now added to and revised the post, in hopes of making more sense, and conveying clearer ideas. :smile:

Not arguing for proto-consciousness here.
Greene quote : ". . . . Perhaps we will one day have a mathematical theory of proto-consciousness that can make similarly successful predictions. For now, we don’t." — Patterner

My amateur philosophical thesis Enformationism, is not expressed in mathematical equations, or in logical syllogisms, but I hope it's more accessible to those without special training in those areas. I provide links & references & glossaries for those looking for more technical information. The website was a proto-essay, that is now sadly out of date, and full of evidence of ignorance. Lacking formal training in Philosophy, this forum has been my teacher for how to, and not to, argue for/against philosophical topics.

I also coined a neologism, EnFormAction --- to represent proto-Energy, "proto-Consciousness", and proto-Life --- as the predecessor of all emergent features of the expanding, complexifying, and maturing universe. EFA is basically multipurpose Causation (Energy) for a multi-form world. :smile: