'God'/Bible gets shown up again, as always. — PoeticUniverse

I can understand why the Bronze Age Bible condemned homosexuality. First, they had no knowledge of genetics, and judged gender only by obvious characteristics. Second, at least 90% of the human population seemed to fit neatly into the two basic sex categories --- both physically (innies vs outies), and behaviorally, (masculine vs feminine norms). So those persons who didn't fit their normal natural niche, were deemed abnormal unnatural perverts. Third, humans and animals have an innate revulsion or disgust reflex toward strange (queer) or suspicious (dangerous) things and behaviors. Consequently, until modern science began to study such atypical anomalies in detail, the safest course for people was to avoid them, to quarantine them, and to label them as taboo or cursed. Most world cultures had similar attitudes toward perceived perversions and deviations from cultural norms : gender/behavior misfits, left-handedness, extremes of skin color, witch-like improprieties, and so forth.

Therefore, those who didn't fall into the middle of the normal Bell Curve of common experience were treated with wariness at best, and those on the extremes (flaming queers) could trigger subconscious reactions of disgust, that we now assume are evolutionary products of experience with dangerous snakes, spiders, and poisonous plants. From our scientifically-enlightened modern perspective, we can regard those negative attitudes --- common to 98% of homo sapiens existence --- as primitive, benighted, and wrong. However, a majority of the human population today still treat the novelties of empirical Science with suspicion, and when faced with cognitive dissonance, may prefer the security of their traditional black & white beliefs over the multi-valued precepts of Science. That's a common turtle-defense mechanism for challenges to settled beliefs.

Liberal attitudes toward the varieties of human nature may be the norm on a philosophical forum. But such open-mindedness may be the exception, rather than the rule, in the rest of the world. And Conservative intellectuals, such as David Berlinski, can make a convincing case for the validity of Essentialism, and the dangers of modern Relativism. Ironically, the best-selling author is an agnostic secular Jew, who denies the validity of Intelligent Design, but who works for the conservative think-tank, Discovery Institute (purveyors of ID). So, I will be interested to see how his reasoning comports with my own middle-of-the-road philosophy. Presumably, his arguments will not be appeals to the authority of the Torah, but exercises in Greek reason. We'll see about that. :nerd:

So there you go - produce and consume a large amount of information for a happy, long, life - my take on the meaning of life. What do folks think? — Devans99

I agree with your intuition that Information is essential to Life (Enformy), and the cessation of information processing is what we call Death (Entropy). But the statement above is a "bit" too simplistic. By that definition, an elderly computer will have lived a happy meaningful life. So, if you are interested in a more complete worldview based on the role of Information in the Cosmos, here are some links to my personal understanding of Life, Mind, and Meaning.


The Enformationism Worldview : http://enformationism.info/enformationism.info/

Enformy : "In the Enformationism theory, Enformy is a hypothetical, holistic, metaphysical, natural trend or force, that counteracts Entropy & Randomness to produce complexity & progress."
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html

EnFormAction : "the general cause of every-thing in the world. Energy, Matter, Gravity, Life, Mind are secondary creative causes, each with limited application."
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html

The meaning of life is the story you write with the information you process.

I am not a believer in ID either, but I think the field is at least a required counter-balance to mainstream evolutionary science. — Devans99

Yes. That's the point of the BothAnd philosophy. Materialist Science and Spiritualist Religion serve well in their own Magisteria : physical vs emotional welfare, But when they stray into the opposition's domain, the inherent limitations of their methods run into roadblocks. For example, as you noted, the materialist approach of Science cannot explain the emergence of "comedy or music", which have little to do with survival of the fittest. And Religion's resort to divine revelation to resolve philosophical mysteries leaves it open to various interpretations, and no way to weed-out false prophets, except politically-motivated inquisitions.

So, my solution to the dilemma is to accept the best of both methods, and to apply them judiciously : Science to Quantitative (physical) questions and Religion to Qualitative (metaphysical) mysteries. Ironically, the result of that marriage of estranged bedfellows is essentially a return to the basic methods of Philosophy : Research and Reason; Facts and Theories; with a soupçon of skepticism.

So, I feel that ID arguments mirror the materialist arguments they’re wanting to disprove. Lean one way, then you’re tending towards religious fundamentalism which is the literal interpretation of mythological truths. Lean the other way, you’re tending towards materialism which is the metaphysical interpretation of methodological naturalism. A ‘middle path’ is able to accommodate a religious sensibility and a thoroughly empirical attitude, by recognizing something like Gould’s non-overlapping magisteria (which is accepted by neither Dawkins nor his ID antagonists .) — Wayfarer

I agree that ID uses materialistic arguments to counter materialism. From empirical evidence, they reach the same conclusion as materialists : "it's turtles all the way down". Or as they prefer : "irreducible complexity" can only be resolved with a leap of faith. Therefore, faced with a brain boggler, they add a hypothetical black box to absorb the infinite regression : "God is the big turtle to end all turtles".

From the neutrality of that elliptical thought stopper . . . they assert that their own religious tradition has provided authoritative insights to the mind of the Big Turtle. To that, I reply ipse dixit. On the other hand, physicalist scientists have rewound the "tape" of empirical Evolution until the evidence ran-out at the "Big Bang" beginning. So, apart from divine revelation, nobody on this side of the creation event has any verifiable knowledge of the other side : Infinity & Eternity. Hence, both Big Turtle and Multiverse notions are intrinsically imaginative speculative opinions, with inherent biases.

Therefore, having followed both lines of reasoning to their point of divergence, I have concluded that neither side knows what it is talking about, when they make ultimate claims about what's inside the Black Box. Scriptural revelations are obviously based on pre-scientific human speculations rather than supernatural Gnostic knowledge. And scientific cosmologies are inherently limited to the post-Big Bang era for empirical evidence. Hence, neither side has any claim on ultimate Truth. So, for those of us motivated to go beyond the frustrating limits to human perception, we have no choice but to resort to fallible human reasoning, for constructing our own personal imaginative speculative opinions. And we must deal with our inherent subjective biases and areas of ignorance as best we can.

Since the beliefs & opinions of religious & scientific authorities can't be trusted to provide the final word on the mysteries of Reality, my belief system must remain flexible & open-minded --- following the pragmatic policy of Jesus : "be wise as serpents and innocent as doves". Therefore, I have resolved to follow the "middle path" between "religious sensibilities" and scientific dispassion, guided by my own principle of BothAnd. It accepts information from both sides of Gould's pragmatic compromise. But it remains "woke" to the reality that both Magisteria will occasionally violate the DMZ truce, and cross the line between the authority of Faith and that of Reason.

The result of that attempt at Consilience is my own personal Myth of the creative process : Intelligent Evolution. :nerd:


BothAnd Principle : My coinage for the holistic principle of Complementarity, as illustrated in the Yin/Yang symbol. Opposing or contrasting concepts are always part of a greater whole. Conflicts between parts can be reconciled or harmonized by putting them into the context of a whole system.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page10.html

Intelligent Evolution : This open-ended essay is not intended to present a scientific theory, but merely the kernel of a modern myth based on a 21st Century worldview.
http://gnomon.enformationism.info/Essays/Intelligent%20Evolution%20Essay_Prego_120106.pdf

Stephen Jay Gould raised this question with respect to the history of life on Earth. He supported the "butterfly effect" view: replay the tape of evolution, and due to the accumulation of contingencies, life would most likely go on a different path, and there would probably not be anything like the human species. Others, including another eminent paleontologist Simon Conway Morris, took the opposing "ergodic" view: convergent evolution would lead to similar, if not exactly the same forms developing, assuming the environment is roughly the same. — SophistiCat

In my personal Enformationism thesis, I hold to a synthesis of both views (BothAnd). Most materialist scientists & philosophers, assume that randomness (chaos) and Entropy are the dominant forces in evolution. But, if that were the case, the human species would be astronomically unlikely to emerge (e.g. billion to one odds). Yet, other eminent researchers & theorists have observed the recent rapid pace of evolution --- since Life, with its novel function Mind, emerged from eons of incremental physical & chemical aggregations --- and have concluded that logically there must be some kind of counter-balancing (Ergodic) force that serves to bring order out of chaos. IOW, thermodynamics has a thermostat.

In my view, that organizing force, which I call Enformy, offsets the disorganizing force of Entropy, but only in a precious few pockets of biological and psychological phenomena. In fact, out of the whole universe, the only known examples of anti-entropy are right here on the "pale blue dot". Ironically, in this otherwise insignificant corner of the Cosmos, Physical Evolution has given birth to Cultural Evolution, which is accelerating at a neck-snapping pace, compared to the previous billions of years of Natural Evolution. As far as we know, only here on Earth is evolution being influenced by human intentions. Which makes us co-creators of the emerging universe. And which may indicate that the sudden appearance of conscious beings is not an accident, but an important phase of an overall plan with some higher hidden purpose, as presumed by meaning-seekers over several millennia.

So it seems that the Butterfly Effect has been in charge of creating minimal order out of Chaos up until now. And from here on out, Ergodic processes, including human ententions will be in charge of directing the progression of Evolution. Toward what end, you well might ask? I dunno, I could frankly answer. That's the perennial mystery of life, for curious humans who woke up in the middle of an ongoing story that fades into the barely remembered Past, and a future that can only be known by turning a page each day. Which perhaps indicates that the ultimate Author only wrote the outline, and left it to us characters to improvise the details. In that case, the meaning of your life will be written by you (the actor), instinctively or rationally (Ergodically) responding to the unpredictable surprises of the Butterfly Effect.. :cool:


Enformy : causal Energy plus directional Entention
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html

From the essay as a whole, I get an impression of what I might call "radical charity." Are Davidson's philosophical forays in general stabilized by a kind of radical charity? — ZzzoneiroCosm

What do you mean by "radical charity", in the context of Truth and Knowledge?

If anyone has access to a pdf link, that would be extremely helpful. — ZzzoneiroCosm

I'm not familiar with Donald Davidson, but a quick Google search found this link to a PDF :
https://epdf.pub/the-essential-davidson.html

After such considerations of concepts and actual phenomena, only one question remained to be answered. That is...
"With respect to knowledge, what is the difference between the information of the concept and the actual phenomena?" — BrianW

Cognitive researcher Donald Hoffman, in his recent book, The Case Against Reality, offers an interesting metaphor that may shed some light on your question. He calls it "the interface theory of perception (ITP)". By analogy to the display screen (interface) of your computer or phone, he notes that the icons you see are not the "actual phenomena", but merely symbols that you interpret as-if they are the hidden mechanisms inside the computer that do the actual work, and the ideas that are encoded in the original document.

What he means by that analogy is that what you take for reality (percepts) are merely triggers for imagination (concepts). You see the symbol of a generic file folder with label (32bits, 16 pixels), which represents a link to the digital information on your hard drive (32Kbits), which in turn represents a page of text on paper (wood pulp & ink), in a language you already know how to interpret.

By analogy, what you see before you (physical object) is also a symbol representing a concept that is meaningful to you, and which in turn refers to some metaphysical information underlying the "actual phenomena". Hence, you never see the ding an sich with your eyes, but merely a collection of photons that are converted to chemical and electrical codes that in turn remind your brain of a similar "object" that you have experienced before. The abstract memory of that prior experience is then conceived in your imagination as-if it was a concrete thing. But, as you and Einstein have noted, imaginary Ideality is not constrained by the physical laws of Reality.

Here's my interpretation of the ITP theory : Imagination (inner-sight) can conjure past events and future possibilities, while the eyes can only see the ephemeral here & now. Unconstrained Imagination can even combine past empirical experiences into physically impossible or improbable concepts, such as a unicorn. Both the information of the concept (horse + horn), and the information of the past experience (horses and goats) are essentially unreal mathematical probability calculations in your brain. The imaginary unicorn functions as an example of the mystical magical possibilities of the vast unknown world. Yet it's possible that, by combining your imagination and genetic technology, you could produce the "actual phenomena" of a horse with a horn --- lacking only the magical qualities.

Information is meaningful difference. And the difference between Percept and Concept is also meaningful : what you think you see, and what caused that mental image. As Hoffman has concluded, the ultimate "reality" we assume to be out there, is nothing like the symbols and icons we perceive, or the meanings we conceive. However, for all practical purposes (non-theoretical), we are justified for behaving as-if what we see is what's real.

PS___If my brief description of the Interface Theory of Perception doesn't make sense to you, I highly recommend the book. https://www.amazon.com/Case-Against-Reality-Evolution-Truth/dp/0393254690

ETA: I'm disappointed that this thread isn't about the progress (or lack thereof) in philosophy, as the title would suggest. — Pfhorrest

Me too! Although I suppose that question has been debated to death on some forums, if not this one. But the OP raised a different question for me : Is the implied babble of rational philosophers a fact, or an unsupported attribution by those who prefer "infallible" divine Revelation to "fallible" human Reason?

As I see it, the relatively "easy" questions have already been pinned-down like butterflies by speculative philosophers like Aristotle, and theoretical physicists like Einstein. After the basics are settled, pragmatic scientists fill-in the gaps with more details & data & decimal points, and engineers turn that knowledge into useful stuff. But the remaining elusive butterflies, like the "hard" question of consciousness, are still being debated, because the available evidence remains ambiguous. How many philosophers still debate the notion of Phlogiston?

I'm guessing that most philosophers would prefer handed-down Truth over the hard work of reasoning, if they could find any reliable revelations among the babble of world religions. :cool:

“virtual” as a potential particle in quantum field theory — Zelebg

If quantum particles are "real" objects, why are they labeled with the unreal term "virtual"?

I suspect that your understanding of quantum "virtual" is based on something like this :
Are virtual particles really constantly popping in and out of existence? Or are they merely a mathematical bookkeeping device for quantum mechanics? :
Virtual particles are indeed real particles. Quantum theory predicts that every particle spends some time as a combination of other particles in all possible ways. These predictions are very well understood and tested. ___Gordon Kane
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/are-virtual-particles-rea/

Note : For the purposes of calculation, virtual particles are treated as-if they are real.

But here are some other expert opinions that treat "virtual" particles as Metaphysical Concepts, not Physical Things :
Are virtual particles a cop out? Are physicists just attributing things to virtual particles when a real particle doesn’t fit, or are they real after all?
https://www.quora.com/Are-virtual-particles-a-cop-out-Are-physicists-just-attributing-things-to-virtual-particles-when-a-real-particle-doesn-t-fit-or-are-they-real-after-all
"Virtual particles are simply a convenient intuitive label attached to terms in a power series expansion of integrals in quantum field theory." ___Viktor Toth,
"They are used as a conceptual tool for solving equations." ___David Rosen,
"Yes, citing virtual anything, negative mass, massless bosons as a reason for is a scientific lazy way to say the math does not work out." ___Kenneth Oglesby

Note : my perseverance in this dialog is not due to obstinacy, but because Quantum Virtuality is an essential element of my Enformationism worldview. In effect, the squishy quantum foundation of the physical world is on the borderline between Reality & Ideality, Space-Time & Infinity-Eternity, Matter & Mind, Physics & Metaphysics. That's how I discriminate between Ultimate Reality (Reason) and Perceptual Reality (Sensation).


And we indeed, rightly considering objects of sense as mere appearances, confess thereby that they are based upon a thing in itself, though we know not this thing as it is in itself, but only know its appearances, viz., the way in which our senses are affected by this unknown something. ___Kant, Prolegomena,

Note : Kant's ding an sich is a bookkeeping device for an object known only by reason.

Instead, I pointed out your failure to distinguish between “virtual” as made by software and “virtual” as a potential particle in quantum field theory — Zelebg

You point to my discernment failures, but you fail to support your personal definitions with applicable examples that might help me to see where you are coming from. We seem to be consulting different dictionaries. That's why I provide links to my sources. Please point to something relevant to Consciousness that supports your discrimination between "software virtual" and "particle virtual". :confused:

Virtual = Not Actual = Potential (statistically possible) or Non-existent (not physically existing)

Gnomon program does not understand words. — Zelebg

Teach me. Show me how I misinterpreted your "words". :smile:

Probably, I should not have used the word "ergodic" and would not have done so were it not Lem's appellation. — John Gill

Lem's association of Ergodicity with History was probably based on a philosophical, rather than mathematical, definition. Mathematical theories of dynamics-in-the-abstract may be too far removed from our experience of the dynamics-in-practice we call "history". But the Information Philosopher has applied the abstruse notion of thermodynamic Entropy and Enformy (my term) to the personal values of progress and retrogression in human culture. That's why your original post struck a chord with me. Like Hegel, and many others, I see evidence of a progressive "force" or trend in natural and cultural evolution. But a mathematical definition of that positive path within randomness might make the concept of an upward arc in history more palatable to skeptics, who view Randomness and Entropy as all-powerful. It could also help to explain how highly-organized Life & Mind emerged from the erratic path of evolution.


Ergodicity : Ergodic processes (in our new technical use of the term) are those that resist the terrible and universal Second Law of Thermodynamics, which commands the increase of chaos and entropy (disorder). Without violating that inviolable law overall, ergodic processes reduce the entropy locally, producing pockets of cosmos and negative entropy (order and information-rich structures).
https://www.informationphilosopher.com/value/ergo/ergodicity.html

Enformy : In the Enformationism theory, Enformy is a hypothetical, holistic, metaphysical, natural trend or force, that counteracts Entropy & Randomness to produce complexity & progress.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html

To suddenly confuse the two like that is not simply senseless, it requires total cognitive blindness. — Zelebg

So, you believe that "virtual" and "potential" existence are equivalent to "real" and "actual or physical" existence? Hence, nothing in the world is "unreal" or "ideal" or "metaphysical", yes?

Is it true that Platonic Idealism and Aristotelian Metaphysics are literally non-sensical, hence meaningless? If so, then anything you can't detect with your senses does not exist, and does not matter; correct?

PS__I'm enjoying our philosophical ping-pong, because it challenges me to refine my own ideas and beliefs about reality and consciousness. :nerd:

but you are failing to make any sense as you are unable to google properly because you do not understand words. — Zelebg

If you don't like the Google definition of "Virtual", which alternative definition would better suit your personal preference, and preconceptions?

you even gave correct definition: — Zelebg

That was my own personal definition.

I think the intended application to history is something like the question of whether WWII would have still happened had Hitler died in infancy. If a strong attractor is involved in the human cultural system of the time, then the answer is probably yes. If Hitler was a butterfly, then no. — Pfhorrest

Ha! I suspect that Hitler was more of a Strong Attractor than a Flitting Butterfly. His "Make Germany Great Again" (MGGA) campaigns were obviously attractive to patriotic Germans after the humiliations of WWI, and his Aryan Myth was appealing even to many comfortable Americans & Britons, feeling besieged by pro-melting-pot Liberals. However, Churchill and Roosevelt were unpredictable butterflies flapping stubbornness and altruism. Perhaps we could put numbers on those leader's political baggage to make their contributions to bringing "order out of chaos", and "justice out of injustice" more objective.

I'm sure that any historical applications will have to begin with retrospectives. But eventually, once the definitions and inter-relationships are refined, the Ergodic theory should be able to put some numbers on trends projected into the near future. If so, then history would be able to look forward, and provide substance for our intuitive expectations. For example : is Trump enough of a Strong Attractor to swing the politically-divided US toward the stability of Fascism? Is his ergodic influence positive or negative, from the perspective of oligarchs or plebians?

It might be that one could begin with a narrow account of a relatively isolated State and make some sort of historical sense. — mcdoodle

Surely, some economists and historians have already begun to computerize social progress or regression.

From a different perspective these ideas constitute interesting theories of history. — John Gill

In my brief online review of Ergodic theories, I noticed that they are mostly applied to abstract mathematical concepts, such as Riemann Manifolds and Markov Chains, that are far from my everyday concerns. Other than the sci-fi stories you mentioned, are you aware of any applications of Ergodicity to human cultural history? Are there any examples of historical trends and transformations that have been interpreted in terms of Ergodic Theory and the Butterfly Effect?

I suspect that history could be analyzed as a form of statistical thermodynamics, in the sense that changes (historical "energy") flow from Hot to Cold; such that, if cultural hot & cold spots could be defined ergodically, then future trends in history could be predicted mathematically --- at least in the short term. This might be presented graphically as a flow chart, and understood metaphorically like Hegel's "Spirit of History" following a zig-zag course from positive Thesis (hot) to negative Antithesis (cold), and thence to moderate Synthesis (lukewarm).

As a test case, the flow of Socialist/Communist sympathies relative to Capitalist/Fascist hot spots in Europe, Asia, and South America could be tracked as they flipped back & forth (e.g. Russia and China) after WWII. What butterfly flaps caused those flips from Communist Prole-tocracies to Capitalist Oligarchies? Capitalism and Communism seem to be powerful social organizing forces that at first appear to be unstoppable as they spread out from Hot Spots. But it takes only a few generations for them to flip-flop, or zig-zag, if you prefer..

Pointer points FROM something to something. Do you understand the difference when that pointer of yours points from, say an actual chair in a room, and virtual chair on a computer screen? — Zelebg

Yes. A symbol points to something else. But it is not the actual something else. And the something else is not necessarily concrete or real. It may be an idea or concept. In that latter case, the physical symbol points to a meta-physical concept. The pointer points FROM something symbolic or virtual, TO something semantic, which is an abstraction pointing BACK TO something real or physical. The "difference" is between Mind & Matter, Substance & Attribute, Potentiality & Actuality. "Vive la difference!"

If you point a camera at an actual physical chair in a room, and display the collected optical information on a TV screen, the image on the screen may be defined as a "virtual" chair, but you can't sit on it. The image is a simulation, or a symbol, or an illusion of a chair. The symbol has a physical reality, but not that of a chair. The symbol only serves to remind you of the idea of a chair. The meaning of "chair" is already in your memory as a pattern of abstract information, but not as a little chair inside the head.

In computer theory, a symbolic reference is sometimes called a "semantic pointer". It redirects to the metaphysical meaning of a thing, but not to the thing itself. Meaning is in the mind, not the brain. A symbol is not the thing symbolized. A virtual thing is not the thing symbolized. A virtual electron is not an actual electron; it's the idea of an electron. You might say it's the Platonic form of an electron. :nerd:

Note : a Virtual Electron is a potential particle, not an actual particle.

Semantic pointers : neural representations that carry partial semantic content and are composable into the representational structures necessary to support complex cognition.
http://compneuro.uwaterloo.ca/research/spa/semantic-pointer-architecture.html

Metaphysics : the branch of philosophy that examines the fundamental nature of reality, including the relationship between mind and matter, between substance and attribute, and between potentiality and actuality. ___Wikipedia

"You equate "physical" and "actual", and I agree. But if a simulated electron is not physical & actual, what is it?" --Gnomon
It's virtual. It means it is represented as information by some other physical form rather than its actual form. — Zelebg

I'm beginning to see a part of our communication glitch. You seem to think that a "virtual electron" --- as represented by illuminated pixels on a computer screen --- is still an electron in a different physical form. Yet, those screen pixels have none of the physical properties of an actual electron. Instead, they only have the potential to cause the metaphysical idea of an electron to be generated in the mind of the observer. The graphic symbol is merely an illusion or appearance, due to its conventional association with a real object. I'm sure you know this, but your terminology is misleading.

The physical pixels are not the thing represented, but a coded message (information) that triggers the idea of an electron in a conscious mind. So, the physical representation on the screen (symbol) is converted into an abstract idea (eidos) in a conscious mind. Hence, a virtual electron is not, as you suggested, an electron in an alternative "physical form" in space-time, but merely a pointer to a meta-physical form in consciousness. A simulated electron is not a virtual electron, but an abstract sign directing your mind to recall the idea of an actual object that you are already familiar with. :nerd:


Virtual : not physically existing as such but made by software to appear to do so.
___Google

Symbol : a thing that represents or stands for something else, especially a material object representing something abstract.
___Google

PS___ Your definition of "virtual" above is like saying a statue of an invisible god, is still the god, but in a different form. Early Christians ridiculed pagans for equating the powerless symbol with a powerful deity. Our God, they said, is a spirit and will never be found in a physical form. Ironically, the Christians could see the error in pagan idolatry, but not in their own equation of human Jesus with divine Jehovah : spirit in the flesh. :smile:

But nevertheless, we can still differentiate two distinct categories of existence — Zelebg

So, what's the problem?. As far as I can tell, no one here is denying that humans have two ways of thinking about existence : sensory reality and mental ideality. Which category would you place Consciousness in : mental or physical --- or metaphysical?

unable to understand the difference between physical existence of actual electron in the outside world,virtual existence of simulated electron in a computer, and mental existence of imagined electron in the brain. — Zelebg

You equate "physical" and "actual", and I agree. But if a simulated electron is not physical & actual, what is it? Why do we call it "simulated"? If a "virtual" particle is not real, what is it? If an imaginary electron in a mind is not real, what is it? I call it "Ideal" : the idea of an electron. These are all conventional dictionary terms to describe those "distinct categories of existence".

Besides coinages for unconventional concepts (see Glossary), I do use some ordinary dictionary terms in personal ways to make a point about my personal worldview. For example, I use capitalized "Ideality" in the philosophical sense of "existence only in idea and not in reality", as the opposite of "Reality", as an allusion to the "Forms" of Platonic Idealism. Is that an example of "malfunctioning logic"? I also adopted a common philosophical term related to Aristotle's book on ideas that were not discussed under the heading of "physics" for my personal worldview. Would you place Consciousness in the category of Physics or Metaphysics?

Metaphysics --- Latin: Metaphysica, lit: "the beyond the physical". Is that hard for you to understand?

Perhaps if you will answer your own question [ "My question then, again, is whether mental existence of imagined electron is like physical existence of real electron or like virtual existence of simulated electron" ] in your own highlighted terms, we can compare terminologies to discover the cause of our failure to communicate. I'm hoping it's not due to immature robotics or a "malfunctioning logic and semantic unit". :joke:


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

Why can you not understand this? — Zelebg

See my reply to Mww. :smile:

On the one hand, fields are real and modeled mathematically: — Mww

And on the other, fields are completely abstract and quantitatively incommensurable directly: — Mww

Yes. The intrinsic Either/Or aspect of our apparently dual "Reality" is what Einstein was talking about in his Theory of Relativity. What's real depends on who's looking. That's also why my personal worldview is based on a complementary Both/And perspective. For all practical purposes (science), what we perceive as concrete objects and physical effects is what is Real. But for theoretical purposes (philosophy), our perceptions of those objects are mental constructs. So discussions about Consciousness must make that distinction clear, or else, by reifying Consciousness, we run into the paradoxical "hard problem".

Like all mammals, the human species has evolved to trust their perceptions as reliable guides to survival in the "real" world. But, unlike other mammals, humans have also evolved a rational extension of perception (conception), which allows us to see aspects of the world that do not exist in space-time. For example, we can make survival decisions for now, based on past or future. We can build instruments to extend our natural perception into aspects of space-time that are otherwise invisible and intangible, hence unreal. We can create abstract concepts, such as Unicorns and Hobbits, and act as-if they are real.

Unfortunately, our cleverness leads us into seeing counter-intuitive and paradoxical "realities", such as quantum "wavicles". Thence, the question arises, "are they tangibly real, or merely useful ideas like mathematics?" For example, can we see or touch a magnetic field, or do we reify the field in order to explain otherwise inexplicable effects? Ancient people saw the effects of invisible Energy, and imagined invisible Spirits or Gods as the cause. Modern people see the effects of Magnetism on matter, and imagine a Force Field as the cause. Yet that field can be described, not in terms of material properties (redness, solidity, liquidity), but only of mathematical relationships (positive or negative).

The world that rational humans live in is both concrete (real) and abstract (ideal). Moreover, abstract ideas can have real effects, as in Memetics. So we have difficulty drawing a hard line between real & ideal. Which is why my worldview is BothAnd, until it's necessary to draw a distinction, as in theories of Consciousness.


Memetics : Memetics describes how an idea can propagate successfully, but doesn't necessarily imply a concept is factual. https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=memetics

BothAnd Principle : Conceptually, the BothAnd principle is similar to Einstein's theory of Relativity, in that what you see ─ what’s true for you ─ depends on your perspective, and your frame of reference; for example, subjective or objective, religious or scientific, reductive or holistic, pragmatic or romantic, conservative or liberal, earthbound or cosmic. Ultimate or absolute reality (ideality) doesn't change, but your conception of reality does. Opposing views are not right or wrong, but more or less accurate for a particular purpose. http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page10.html

Like magnetic field, liquidity, or acidity is physical. I explained all this the first time around. — Zelebg

You seem to be confusing subjective concepts with physical objects. In the typical bar magnet illustration of a magnetic fleld, you never sense the field itself, only its effect on iron filings. Your cause-seeking brain fills-in the gaps between lines with an imputed force. This is also how optical illusions work : fill-in the blanks. The field is not an actual thing, but a metaphorical creation to represent something invisible, similar to gravity imagined as the "fabric" of empty space.

Einstein didn't intend for people to take his analogies literally, but that makes metaphysical existence easier to understand than abstract mathematics. Likewise, space-time is a metaphor-in-the-mind for us to make sense of certain invisible, intangible aspects of the natural world. Physical properties (qualia) like "magnetic field, liquidity, or acidity" exist only in minds, but are attributed to our mental models of the outside world. As Kant noted long ago, we never know the ding an sich. only our ideas about them. "Reality" is the name we give to our beliefs about ding an sich based on our mental images of them. Reality is mathematical relationships, not physical objects. :nerd:

Thus the nature of subjective experience, aka qualia, can either be physical or abstract phenomena. — Zelebg

In what sense can Qualia be physical? Is "redness" a force or a material object? That question is the crux of the mind-body debate. Physicalists try to define Qualia as-if they are real things apart from conscious minds. But that presumption is what makes the problem "hard".

Just as Minds are correlated with Brains, and Qualia with Objects, correlation does not prove causation. As Hume noted, even though not physically connected, proximity in space-time merely implies a connection for an intuitive cause-imputing mind. As you noted in the quote below, Qualia are relations between things, not things in themselves. As an abstract concept, the correlation "1 : 2" is meaningful even in the absence of physical objects. That's why Algebra works.

Qualia : The status of qualia is hotly debated in philosophy largely because it is central to a proper understanding of the nature of consciousness. Qualia are at the very heart of the mind-body problem.

Correlation : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder : "Beauty is no quality in things themselves : it exists merely in the mind which contemplates them ; and each mind perceives a different beauty."
___David Hume

It is important to note that being abstract or virtual does not mean immaterial per se, it only means it is not directly physical, but instead it exists in the relations between chunks of matter, like angle exist wherever two lines meet. — Zelebg

If abstract concepts in mind are material, what kind of matter are they made of : atoms of consciousness? In my thesis they are made of Information (i.e. mental relationships). I suppose you could call bits & bytes "atoms of information". :wink:

What does "not directly physical" mean? Is that a reference to Virtual Reality? If its existence is uncertain, in what sense is it real? In The Matrix, did Neo begin in the Real world, or in the Virtual simulated world? The bald kid answered that question, "there is no spoon". That's why Neo was able to dodge bullets : they were not real. [the movie is a metaphor of the Mind/Body problem ]

Virtual Particle : In physics, a virtual particle is a transient quantum fluctuation that exhibits some of the characteristics of an ordinary particle, while having its existence limited by the uncertainty principle. [actually VP exhibit no characteristics (properties, qualities) until observed (measured).]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particle

Virtual = simulation = imitation = illusion = deception

Thus, to expand a bit, ergodic theories of history (ET) imply modest alterations of a causal process do not change the final outcome substantially, whereas butterfly theories (BT) imply even very tiny alterations in a causal process produce dramatically different results. — John Gill

I'm only superficially familiar with Ergodic Theories, and what little I know comes from the Information Philosopher instead of sci-fi authors. As far as I can tell, Ergodicity is equivalent to Enformy in my own theory of Enformationism. Both terms refer to an observed, but often denied, trend in evolution that works counter to Entropy to bring order out of chaos, and patterns out of randomness. When applied to history, these ideas may be related to Hegel's causal force that he called the "spirit of history". FWIW, here are some links to related theories of Negentropy, or to directional evolution.


Ergodicity : https://www.informationphilosopher.com/value/ergo/ergodicity.html

Enformy : http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html

Extropy : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extropianism

But if you could sense every tiny vibration, or quality of each atom in every molecule, and see all of the electro-magnetic spectrum, then perhaps you would be staring into the pure chaos and things would only make less, not more sense. So limits are not necessarily a bad thing, they can help put things into a context or bring them under a certain perspective. — Zelebg

That's exactly why Evolution, according to Hoffman, has hid the "chaos" of ultimate reality from the eyes of humans with limited intelligence. That partial perception is sufficient for survival in an imperfect world, where fitness requires only enough "truth" to stay one step ahead of competitors.

Absolute "Truth" is concealed behind the curtain of intuitive classical Physics. Yet, highly-evolved humans have recently learned how to peek behind the curtain into the counter-intuitive realm of Quantum Physics. There, they are baffled by Virtual Particles and impossible Entanglements. But they continue doing science with the partial understanding of incomplete Standard Models..

This gives us confidence that reality is objectively real and indeed like what we think it is, as much as it matters to us at least. — Zelebg

Yes. In our human-scale macro world, we may be confident that reality is "like what we think it is". But Quantum Theory has revealed that the solid desk I perceive is "really" mostly open space, that our physical fingers would pass right through, if not repelled by strange forces in the space between protons and electrons. So, our pragmatic confidence is due to theoretical ignorance.



Richard Feynman : “I think I can safely say that nobody really understands quantum mechanics"

Physicist Sean Carroll : "What’s surprising is that physicists seem to be O.K. with not understanding the most important theory they have".

There is no reason to call mental reality "ideality". English dictionary already suggests pretty meaningful distinction: actual/material/real vs virtual/mental/abstract. — Zelebg

I had my own reasons for coining the neologism "Ideality". Partly to serve as a contrast to the noun "Reality". And partly to make a distinction between belief in Realism versus Idealism. It also entails a distinction between Physics (actual/material/real) and Metaphysics (virtual/mental/abstract).

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

Yes, but that doesn't necessarily mean panpsychism. It's also compatible with emergentism and even dualism in some way. I'm not sure if it even excludes any theory at all, so it doesn't mean much as an explanation. — Zelebg

I agree. That's why my thesis proposes a Programmer / Enformer / Creator outside of space-time. Panpsychism explains the intelligible order in the universe as an intrinsic (uncaused) property of space-time. But the actual First Cause of organization in the world must exist beyond the perceptual boundaries of space-time.

Einstein upset our intuitive understanding of space-time by saying that it is not absolute, but relative to the observer. Donald Hoffman refers to space-time as our "interface" (computer screen) between observer and ultimate reality : "we will find that the distinction we make . . . is an artifact of limitations of our space-time interface, not an insight into the nature of reality".

Donald Hoffman : The Case Against Reality, Why Evolution Hid The Truth From Our Eyes

Well, I suppose one could interpret that as a form of Metaphysical Will in nature. — 3017amen

Yes. In my thesis, I refer to the "force" or "intention" behind progressive evolution as EnFormAction, which is similar in effect to the various notions of World Will, proposed by philosophers, and of God's Will as proposed by theologians.

Unfortunately, it still leaves us with the all of the existential questions about the nature of such existence; the why's of higher consciousness, the metaphysical features of consciousness itself, so on and so forth..... — 3017amen

We may be getting closer to answering some of those existential puzzlers. But the answers will typically be in the form of metaphors based on our incomplete perceptions of reality. I'm currently reading Cognitive Scientist Donald Hoffman's book, The Case Against Reality. It proposes an evolutionary explanation for the emergence of Consciousness, and concludes that we perceive just enough of ultimate reality (symbolic objects) to negotiate the exigencies of the world (survival). That's because ultimate reality is more like Quantum than Classical physics, and would make survival decisions too complex & ambiguous for creatures with limited intelligence. [that's my brief summary of Hoffman's much deeper and broader analysis]

What is EnFormAction? : http://bothandblog2.enformationism.info/page29.html

Thanks ...but I must have missed something, it doesn't explain how consciousness came from matter ? — 3017amen

I suspect that the confusion comes from using the word "consciousness" as-if it's an object or substance. Instead, Consciousness is a process of transformation (awareness) from objects to meanings.

As suggested by Zelebg, consciousness is in the "bricks", the basic components of material reality. But only in the metaphorical sense of using a single step in place of a whole process. As I like to describe that process, everything in the world begins as a form of Information : the clay that composes the bricks, from which our reality is constructed. Eventually, the human mind interprets (consciousness) the coded information (matter) that our senses detect into the kind of decoded information that is meaningful for us (knowledge). For example, dots & dashes of Morse code are physical carriers of information that are meaningless, until interpreted. Information is in the code; the bricks are bits & bytes; Consciousness is the interpretation.

The process of converting being to knowing : 1. Information (potential) is the cause of change (difference). 2. Information (energy) is enformed into matter (bricks), 3. which are constructed into objects (house), 4. which can then be deconstructed into meaning (consciousness). Meaning is not the house itself, but the significance (what difference it makes) of the object to the observer. So what began as impersonal Information, eventually becomes transformed into personal value.

Now, that should be clear as Mississippi mud. :cool:

Synecdoche : a figure of speech in which a term for a part of something refers to the whole of something or vice versa

so the reality of the objects absolutely must be different. — Mww

That's why I make a pragmatic distinction between Reality (sensory) and Ideality (mental).

Unfortunately for the Realists, what we take for real objects is actually ideas in the mind that serve as symbols referring to a hidden "ultimate reality". That's the conclusion of Donald Hoffman, which he explains in an analogy between the Mind and a computer screen. What we interact with on our computer display is Icons, that are merely intermediate symbols of the "hidden" physical and mathematical functions inside.

We accept the simple abstract pixelated icon as-if it is the complex concrete mechanism inside the black box computer. And that acceptance is a useful belief for our non-technical purposes. What we see is 2D pixels, constructed by 4D computer processes, to represent some aspect of reality outside the box. Hence, Hoffman asserts : "we see the theories we believe". You and I act as-if our senses are reporting reality, when actually all they see is the symbols. In other words, we see reality in the form of as-if ideas, not as-is matter & energy.

Donald Hoffman TED talk : https://youtu.be/oYp5XuGYqqY

The Case Against Reality : https://www.quantamagazine.org/the-evolutionary-argument-against-reality-20160421/

There’s no profit in thinking experience is something that exists. Existence is a condition only of sensible objects, and experience is very far from a sensible object. — Mww

Unfortunately, defining "experience" and "existence" has been a subject of debate in philosophy for millennia. Scientists typically try to limit experience to Empirical or A Posteriori Knowledge gained from sensory impressions. But Philosophers and Theologians often include Theoretical or A Priori (tautological) knowledge in their discussions of Consciousness. So, whether there is profit in talking about the ontological "existence" of Experience may depend on your worldview : Materialism or Idealism. Is unproven, but reasonable, Theoretical knowledge a form of non-sensory Experience? Some call Reason the sixth sense.

The confounding problem here is that human beings are capable of acting as-if concepts that exist only in the mind (e.g. fictional characters) are real. Apparently, posters in chat rooms for Game of Thrones or Lord of the Ring seem to gain some profit from imaginary beings. That's not to mention all the various gods of world religions that are treated as-if real in some sense. So, apparently there is Material "profit" and Ideal "profit". If we were discussing a material object here, your assertion would be accurate. But Consciousness is not that kind of thing. :wink:

Just to clarify, I think consciousness is form of integrated unified experience. I think experience is universal. Mind (a less unified and integrated form of experience) is widespread in nature and “consciousness” is a fairly rare form of mind and experience. I thus fall into the category of panexperientialism or a form of Whiteheadian process philosophy which some classify as a variety of panpsychism. — prothero

This sounds similar to my own worldview, except for some of the outdated terminology. "Experience" and "Consciousness" and "Panpsychism" are terms that are normally defined from the human perspective. So I have substituted the less anthro-morphic term "Information" as a reference to the fundamental element of the universe --- by contrast to "occasions of experience". Hence, "Information" is universal in Nature, but "Consciousness" is a limited and late-emerging phenomenon of evolution.

Panpsychism is often criticized for implying that atoms are aware of their environment in the same manner that humans are. But human Consciousness necessarily includes Self-consciousness. Ironically, some physicists are guilty of suggesting that sub-atomic particles are self-aware, when they say metaphorically that a particle "feels" the weak or strong forces. That's OK, as long as the term is not taken literally. But such literalism is why some New Agers assume that non-biological crystals have a sort of spooky Mind power, or that they can communicate with the universe as a whole.

So, just to be clear, I call my version of Panpsychism "Enformationism", which asserts that both rocks and rabbits are composed of bits of Information, but only the rodents are somewhat self-aware.


Integrated Information Theory : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrated_information_theory

Criticism of IIT : https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/can-integrated-information-theory-explain-consciousness/

I as really alluding to the idea of whether intelligence is an advantage or mistake of evolution — Brett

The answer to that question depends on whether the "goal" of evolution is Quantitative (reproduction) or Qualitative (teleology). Atheists assume that evolution has no ultimate aim, hence it's only the raw numbers that count. If so, then the emergence of Intelligence is not necessarily a mistake, but merely a Spandrel. However, non-atheists may see signs of intention and qualitative progress in evolution. If that is the case, then Intelligence -- and perhaps freewill -- may be an essential function for the program of gradual improvement.


Spandrel : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spandrel

Evolutionary Progress : http://www.bothandblog.enformationism.info/page29.html

Progressophobia : http://bothandblog2.enformationism.info/page27.html

I’m not sure, but I think viruses are more successful in reproducing than us. But we would not regard them as intelligent. But then again it’s us ourselves defining intelligence. Not the most unbiased assessment. — Brett

That's why I limited my example to vertebrates. For sheer reproductive power, single cells that divide every few minutes don't need much intelligence to survive as a species. Ironically, as humans have expanded their mental power (not just intelligence) via science & education, they have tended to reproduce less often. Perhaps that's because the human mind is gaining more survival advantage from their memes, than from their genes.

Memetic Evolution : http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/MEMEEVOL.html

PS__ world evolution has evolved from slow erratic Natural Selection to rapid targeted Cultural Selection.

We had a long debate on Hoffman a couple of years back. I concluded his resemblance to 'idealist philosophy' is superficial, his program is fundamentally neo-darwinian and not really connected with philosophy. — Wayfarer

I'm sure that was his intention. And he doesn't have much to say about Platonism. In his chapter "Illusory" though, he says, "In Plato's allegory of the cave, prisoners in the cave see flickering shadows cast by objects, but not the objects themselves." But in Hoffman's 21st century update, the cave is replaced by a computer screen, and the shadows by pixelated icons. In both cases, the actual objects (shadow-casters; computer processes) are hidden behind the Wizard's curtain. Presumably, modern cell-phone addicts are the "prisoners".

His latest book was published in 2019, so maybe his argument has been refined in the last two years.
https://www.amazon.com/Case-Against-Reality-Evolution-Truth/dp/0393254690

I agree, but there is also a little bit of humor in there. — Zelebg

Yeah! It's just philosophical locker room talk. :nerd:

In short, any form of Platonism is a positive reification. — Janus

That may well be, but a lot of smart people, including pragmatic scientists, not noted for fanciful thinking, argue that Materialism might also be a form of reification. Cognitive researcher Don Hoffman has concluded, after many years of trying to explain Consciousness, that : "our senses are simply a window on this objective reality. Our senses do not, we assume, show us the whole truth of objective reality".

For me, his experiments, arguments and illustrations are compelling. And his alternative to Objective Realism is essentially a 21st century form of Idealism. But of course, it is outside the materialist mainstream, epitomized by Daniel Dennett. Here's a brief synopsis of his recent book.


The Evolutionary Argument Against Reality : https://www.quantamagazine.org/the-evolutionary-argument-against-reality-20160421/

YouTube Video of Hoffman TED Talk : https://youtu.be/oYp5XuGYqqY

After all the dinosaur age makes it quite clear that intelligence isn't necessary for life. That said intelligence does give us an edge in the survival business doesn't it? — TheMadFool

Maybe a slight edge. Arthur C. Clarke once wrote, "It has yet to be proven that intelligence has any survival value." I don't know if he was being sarcastic, but biologist Ernst Mayer also voiced that same opinion. Yet how else do you explain that, of all vertebrates, only humans have adapted to every environment on Earth, and even in space? Plus, of all mammals, humans are the only ones increasing in population, while many others are facing extinction. If successful reproduction is a sign of evolutionary fitness, then intelligence must be a big success. Unfortunately, as you noted, intelligence can be a two-edged sword, like the taming of fire. And intelligent humans have only one rival in the survival business : other humans. :cool:


PS___Birds are considered to be the literal descendants of dinosaurs, and they seem to be doing pretty well considering, millions of years after the Saurian "Extinction". Relatively smart, and warm-blooded.

What I mean is that given any project - life and anything else for that matter - an intelligent person with a good plan will be produce better and faster results than a person without a plan. — TheMadFool

I agree. But I'm not talking about an "intelligent person" whose intentions and methods are presumably similar to my own. Just as the Atheists argue, the fact that our world is flawed, indicates that a traditional creator-entity failed to achieve his goal of perfection, either because he was a flawed designer (demiurge), or that his perfect plan was opposed by an evil deity (Devil). A variety of such rationales have been proposed in the past. But my thesis reverses that assumption of divine intention. What if the "plan" was to create an evolving process instead a perfect world?

Since evolution does show signs of progress toward some ultimate goal*, I must assume that the intention was not to instantly create a Garden of Eden 6000 years ago. Instead, the intent was focused either on a distant future resolution, or on the process itself. As I suggested, human multi-player game designers (SimCity; Dungeons & Dragons) don't create a perfect world, but provide a base reality, and then allow the players enough freewill to evolve their world according to a collective intention. The omniscient designer turns over the base design to the hive-mind of fallible players with selfish motives.

I don't mean to take the simulated world theory (Matrix) literally, but just as a metaphor for a designed Process instead of a designed Product. The ultimate end of such a process might be perfect in some sense, or it might just play itself out as entropy reaches a maximum. I take an optimistic view based on the novel concept of Enformy (negentropy). Enformationism is a theory of an Enformed System.


Enformy : In the Enformationism theory, Enformy is a hypothetical, holistic, metaphysical, natural trend or force, that counteracts Entropy & Randomness to produce complexity & progress.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html

Theory of Enformed Systems : http://hilgart.org/enformy/$wsr02.html
https://hilgart.org/enformy/enformy.htm

Simulated Reality : https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/oct/11/simulated-world-elon-musk-the-matrix
https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/science/are-we-living-simulated-universe-here-s-what-scientists-say-ncna1026916

* Progression of Evolution : http://www.bothandblog.enformationism.info/page29.html

that's not just stupid, it's so idiotic it deserves prison punishmet. Go away child robot, shoo, shooo! — Zelebg

Ouch!! The entropy between sender and receiver is astronomically high. There must be a short somewhere producing stupid static. :groan: