It doesn't seem to me that we are talking about the same things, or at least in the same way about things, so I don't know how to respond. — Janus

Obviously, we are not talking "in the same way" about our conscious perception of Reality. Philosophers often distinguish between Phenomenal Reality (perception, appearances, maya) and Ultimate Reality (the source of the Information that we interpret as the real world).

I defined "ultimate or absolute reality" in Platonic terms as "Ideality", which consists of metaphysical Ideas (Forms) instead of physical objects (things). Now, what were you talking about, in your reference to "phenomenal reality' versus "ultimate reality", and "concrete or physical" versus "ideal for us"?


Reality versus Ideality : https://www.quantamagazine.org/the-evolutionary-argument-against-reality-20160421/

Normal people would be ashamed to admit they were talking nonsense the whole time, that's what you just said. There is no such definition in English dictionary. Your imaginary language only makes you insane, and it does not answer my point: there is no uncertainty in computer algorithms, do you understand this? — Zelebg

I guess I'm not normal, and have no shame, or perhaps I'm just unconventional. But, I have good company. Most of the leading philosophers have been noted, not for using dictionary meanings for old words, but for creating new meanings and new words. This innovation often makes their writings difficult to understand until someone produces a glossary of their technical vocabulary to supplement the common words in Webster's.

For example, have you ever tried to read A.N. Whitehead's Process and Reality? A century later, you will find "actual occasions of experience', "concresence", and "prehension" in philosophical dictionaries, along with his personal definition of, Creativity : "The fact that endlessly the past is blended with the possible in order to make new units of reality". Does his creative language make him "insane", or merely "imaginative"?

In my previous post, I noted that the whole point of Shannon's Information Theory and its application to computers is precisely because it minimizes uncertainty. But what does that have to do with human consciousness? Do you understand the difference? Materialists assume that computers can eventually emulate human consciousness. But some very smart people say "not so". Yet for both sides, it's an opinion, because computer consciousness (not intelligence) has never been demonstrated. So, you can have your opinion, and I can have mine, without resorting to insulting each other's intelligence. :smile:

Whiteheadian Terminology : http://ppquimby.com/alan/termin.htm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_North_Whitehead

Computer Consciousness : http://www.cogsci.uci.edu/~ddhoff/HoffmanComputerConsciousness.pdf

But, the only reason to regard the sub-atomic domain as foundational, is a hangover from philosophical materialism and the quest to resolve everything to 'fundamental particles'. ' — Wayfarer

I agree. But I was including the current theoretical (immaterial) "foundation" of perceived reality, Quantum Fields, in the sub-atomic domain. I also agree with cognitive researcher Donald Hoffman, that what our senses perceive as real (matter, particles) is not fundamental reality, but symbols representing the underlying "ideality". He illustrates the perception/reality interface as a computer screen displaying symbolic icons instead of the invisible patterns of coded electrons in the CPU and memory. I think you would appreciate his mind-bending (idealistic) take on consciousness.

Vicktor Toth on Quora : But no, quantum fields do not interact with matter. Quantum fields are matter. In a quantum field theory, what we perceive as particles are excitations of the quantum field itself. https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2017/12/20/what-is-a-quantum-field-and-how-does-it-interact-with-matter/#4082644728c4
I disagree. A sub-material field (empty space) has no real stuff to stimulate. The excitations are actually in the visual system of the observer.

Donald Hoffman to Francis Crick : I agree wholeheartedly with you that "seeing is an active, constructive process", that what we see "is a symbolic interpretation of the world", and that "in fact we have no direct knowledge of objects in the world.
Hoffman, The Case Against Reality
https://www.quantamagazine.org/the-evolutionary-argument-against-reality-20160421/

You are confusing computation with communication, neither of which is 'information', — Zelebg

No. I'm using a broader definition of "Information" as both noun and verb. That's the whole point of the Enformationism Thesis. Information is not just 1s and 0s, it's also everything in between. Information is data, Enformation is energy, EnFormAction is both. Probably the best explanation of the development of Information theory, post-Shannon, can be found in the series of books by prominent Physicist & Cosmologist Paul Davies.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=paul+davies+books

The Mind of God is a 1992 non-fiction book by Paul Davies. Subtitled The Scientific Basis for a Rational World, it is a whirlwind tour and explanation of theories, both physical and metaphysical, regarding ultimate causes. Its title comes from a quotation from Stephen Hawking: "If we do discover a theory of everything...it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason—for then we would truly know the mind of God."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mind_of_God

I can understand why you would think "ultimate or absolute reality" is "ideal" for us as opposed to phenomenal reality which is concrete or physical for us. — Janus

You may have misunderstood my usage of abstract "ideality" in contrast to concrete "reality". Plato's realm of perfect Ideas or Forms was never meant as a perfect abode for flesh & blood humans. Instead, it would be more suitable for the generalization "humanity", which is merely an abstract idea, a concept, which has no concrete instance. We can go to that ethereal "place" in MInd, but not in Body. :smile:

Ideal :
1. satisfying one's conception of what is perfect; most suitable.
2. existing only in the imagination; desirable or perfect but not likely to become a reality.

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. A formal name for that fertile field is G*D.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page11.html

Realize : 1.become fully aware of (something) as a fact; understand clearly.
[to form a mental image, not to make a physical thing]

The phrase "gaussian uncertainty" does not and can not exist in computer science. — Zelebg

I get the belated impression that your original post was talking about Computer Consciousness, while most of the discussion here has been about Human Consciousness. That may explain the failure to communicate.

"Gaussian Uncertainty" applies only to non-semantic numerical Information. "Bayesian Uncertainty" is necessary for analyzing semantic verbal Information. If you only communicate with computers in machine language (1s & 0s), uncertainty is at a minimum, but meaning is also minimal : syntax without semantics. But, if you want to communicate with humans in one of the thousands of historically-evolved culture-bound languages, uncertainty is high, yet the potential for transmitting meaning is also high.

Computers talk to other computers in binary (digital) language. And they can interface with programmers in one of the many artificial programming languages. But when they must communicate with ordinary humans, they have to translate from the sterile purity of syntax to the contaminated complexities of semantics. Apparently, you are trained to think in simplistic binary terms, so the ambiguities of confusing multi-value language makes human-speak sound like "greek" to you. :smile:


Human vs Digital Language : https://medium.com/@anaharris/human-languages-vs-programming-languages-c89410f13252

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

In degrees of uncertainty, how much information is in this program? — Zelebg

That depends on how many alternative interpretations are possible. As a computer algorithm, the Gaussian uncertainty is small. Which is appropriate for an artificial system with only two possible values :1s and 0s. But for often ambiguous human language, the Bayesian uncertainty is moderate, depending on the prior knowledge of the person trying to interpret the code. For an Amazonian tribesman, the coded information may be completely meaningless : it could mean anything or nothing. Why do you ask? :smile:

If discover how to decode all of the brain signals, so we can extract qualia from it to read thoughts and watch dreams, for example, then we would have solved all and every mystery there is about consciousness. No? Then what more could you possibly want? — Zelebg

Meaning.

It takes two informed parties to communicate in code. Both sender and receiver must understand the intended meaning of the symbols (signals) in order to encode and decode (interpret) them. Morse code is a conventional language of symbols that are meaningless in themselves. The audible or visual symbols (signals) are not the Information, but merely physical carriers of metaphysical Information in abstract bits and bytes. Meaning is in the Mind, not in the neurons (correlates of consciousness). Information causes meaning.

Neuroscientists have been able to decode brain signals (quanta) in a manner similar to the British breaking the Enigma code in WWII : by comparing overt behavior with meaningless symbols. Yet they are not tapping into subjective metaphysical consciousness, but only objective physical actions. The British were not reading the minds of the German high command; they were merely comparing code symbols with spying observations, in order to determine which symbols correspond with which ship maneuvers. That's a slow & crude method of communication compared to direct mind-reading. The use of a common language of conventional symbols is a much more effective way to "read" a mind. But it only reveals what the sender wants you to know, and your interpretation of the intent (qualia) could still be wrong.


"The process of encoding converts information from a source into symbols for communication or storage. Decoding is the reverse process, converting code symbols back into a form that the recipient understands,"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code

Correlation does not imply Causation : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation

But hell, the whole question about whether monism, dualism or pluralism is a better fit to reality in itself might just simply be an altogether incoherent one. — Janus

That's why I resolve the inherent contradictions and paradoxes of Dualism vs Monism with the BothAnd Principle. The "correct" term depends on your perspective*1 : Physical Monism, Metaphysical Monism, or Physical/Metaphysical Dualism, or Information Monism : Spinoza's "Single Substance" is protean polymorphic Information.

Spinoza's Substance : "God is the only substance in the universe, and everything is a part of God. “Whatever is, is in God, and nothing can be or be conceived without God”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_Baruch_Spinoza

*1 perspective

I'd say we cannot prove anything at all, except in relative contexts. — Janus

So the notion of the universe being a program irresistibly suggests a programmer. — Wayfarer

Apparently, for many scientists, that cause/effect inference from Program to Programmer is quite resistible --- if it is taken to imply a supernatural Creator. For example Max Tegmark and Seth Lloyd don't have much to say about the Programmer of their hypothetical universal computer. But I can't resist speculating about how the operating system for our universe came to be organized like an evolutionary program (Global Optimization algorithm) converting raw data (information) into more and more intellectually-powerful creatures (forms).

Of course, I must remain Agnostic about any specific characteristics of the implicit Coder, beyond what's logically necessary to produce such a marvelous "virtual machine" from scratch. Anything we might say about that intriguing possibility can only be in the form of familiar worldly metaphors. That's why I refer to the unknown programmer cryptically as "G*D" or "G?D". But you can insert whatever name you prefer into the blank.

Evolutionary Programming : http://www.cleveralgorithms.com/nature-inspired/evolution/evolutionary_programming.html

I'm out of here. — Zelebg

Before you go :

"This is your last chance. After this, there is no turning back. You take the blue pill --- the story ends, you wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe. You take the red pill --- you stay in Wonderland and I show you how deep the rabbit-hole goes."
Morpheus, The Matrix :wink:

You're trying to come up with an explanation of foundational principles. I don't think you realise quite how big an undertaking that is. The 'first principle' or 'ground of being' or 'source of what is' can't be so easily depicted in a new catch-phrase like 'enformationism'. — Wayfarer

Ha! I am acutely aware of how big an undertaking it is to flip my own understanding of reality upside down. Enformationism began as a flash of insight --- that immaterial Information is the foundation of reality --- and I have been trying to test that hypothesis, skeptically, for the last ten years. I have almost convinced myself, but I find it's difficult to convince others, if they don't have the same intuition that "reality is not what it seems".

I have mentioned the recent book by quantum scientist Carlo Rovelli, primarily because of its title : Reality Is Not What It Seems. But his explanation is mostly about the paradox of Quantum Gravity. I'm currently reading a book by cognitive scientist Donald Hoffman, The Case Against Reality, which is closer to the concerns of this thread : Consciousness and Perception. His explanation argues that our perception evolved to be Pragmatic (what works) instead of Veridical (truth).

All mammals, including humans, are Pragmatic Materialists by nature, because it is adaptive to assume that what you see is what's really out there. But humans are also capable of looking beneath the superfical surfaces to the underlying "foundational principles". Yet, what we have found there is the weird world of Quantum Physics, where the foundation of reality can be described, not in terms of macro-level space-time properties, but only in terms of arcane quantum mathematics, and of Unicorn metaphors for individual Particles that behave like holistic Waves. Counter-intuitively, "Wavicles" seem to be both particles and waves. Hence, Reality has been de-materialized by our extended technological senses. But most of us still act as-if what we perceive via unaided sense is what's really out there, despite the current consensus of Science that it ain't so.

Although Quantum theory has turned Classical Materialistic Physics inside-out, it is now grudgingly accepted by most scientists. So, I have tried to develop a worldview that can reconcile the reports of our Physical senses with the revelations of our technology, and our logical/mathematical inferences about the Quantum Metaphysical foundations of Reality. I call that compromise conciliation the BothAnd Principle. :cool:


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."

That's not the reason it doesn't make sense to me. — Wayfarer

Other than my arcane vocabulary, is the "reason" you're dubious because Enformationism combines Physics and Metaphysics? Most scientists are careful to not cross that line. But I'm not a scientist, nor a professional philosopher. So I don't have to worry about being ridiculed by my peers. Or, is there another reason? I'd like to address it if possible.

PS__Christof Koch, in his recent book, Consciousness, subtitled it : Confessions of a Romantic Reductionist. His basic question is one that crosses those same taboo lines : "What links conscious experience of pain, joy, color, and smell to bioelectrical activity in the brain? How can anything physical give rise to nonphysical, subjective, conscious states? Christof Koch has devoted much of his career to bridging the seemingly unbridgeable gap between the physics of the brain and phenomenal experience." [my emphasis.]

In The Feeling of Life Itself, Koch admits that, "Speculations about ultimate "why" questions are enjoyable at the intellectual level. But they also contain more than a whiff of the absurd, trying to peek behind the curtains that hide the origin of creation only to find an endless set of further curtains." [my emphasis]

Note : Koch's theory of Consciousness is based on Integrated Information Theory, which is compatible with my own thesis.

Isn't this a tacit affirmation that, given the means and opportunity, an intelligent designer can surpass blind evolution in every way? — TheMadFool

Perhaps. If the final outcome was the most important goal of the designer. But multiplayer video games are intended to provide an ongoing experience for the players, not to rig the game for a predetermined end state. So, maybe the "designer" of our world was more interested in the Process than the Product.

As you suggested, "given the means and opportunity", why should it take over 14 billion human years to create a perfect world with perfect people? In Genesis, the Creator produced a perfect paradise, complete with vegetarian lions and innocent humans, in only six days, and then took some time off. Ironically, during his vacation, a Troll hacked-in to paradise and "put up a parking lot".

However, since our turbulent Game of Thrones is still evolving in fits & starts, I must assume the Designer is either absconded, or incompetent, or is enjoying the ride, and in no hurry to see the drama end. :smile:

To LearN the MeaninG of the WordS look into DictionarY. YoU may use yoUr own PersonaL LanguaE to talk with yoUr ImaginarY FriendS, but in the ReaL WorlD it only makes you InsanE and IncompetenT to have ConversatioN. — Zelebg

I'm sorry you feel that way. Since I'm breaking new ground in the Enformationism Thesis, rather than just recycling old ideas, I am forced, like many philosophers and scientists, to coin new words to express novel ideas. Have you ever heard of a "wavicle"?

With "imaginary friends" like you in mind, I have provided an extensive Glossary of Terminology, and a Blog to expand on difficult concepts. In order to learn the meaning of my words, you'll have to look into my dictionary. :nerd:

Neologisms : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neologism

Lexicon of Neologisms : http://www.emory.edu/INTELNET/lex_philosophy.html

Enformationism Glossary : http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/

But I'm sorry to say that I think the extraction of a 'metaphysics' from information theory is pure science fiction, I don't think that definition of 'information' would pass muster in any serious journal or department. (Sorry to be so blunt.) — Wayfarer

That's OK. My thesis is also quite esoteric, and is not amenable to mainstream reductionist materialist Physics. But there are plenty of Physicists and Mathematicians out there on the fringes, that hold a more holistic worldview. Some of them (e.g. physicists Paul Davies and Max Tegmark) are published in serious journals, and hold their own in both scientific and philosophical debates. Unfortunately, for me, such holistic ideas are readily accepted by those of the New Age persuasion (e.g Deepak Chopra), but they tend to lean a bit too much toward Spiritualism for my comfort. :confused:

Knowledge is not information, knowledge is 'understood information'. Ability to know is not information, ability to know is ability to understand information. — Zelebg

Knowledge is just one form of Generic Information. In my thesis, Consciousness is a highly evolved form of Generic Information. Generic Information is essentially abstract mathematics, and is physically manifested as Energy. Mathematically, Energy is a proportion --- a ratio between Cold & Hot, for example. And metaphysical mathematical Energy, according to Einstein, is equivalent to Mass (ratio of inertia to acceleration) , which is the measurable property of physical Matter. But, Meaningful Information is in the relationship, not the things.

So, Information (knowledge) in it's traditional sense is a property of Mind, of Consciousness. In my view, it's both the ability to know (verb; action; to enform), and the thing known (noun; object; a physical form). The multiple functions of Information can get confusing when you switch from Physics to Metaphysics, but it's both Quanta and Qualia. That's why my thesis proposes Enformationism as a modern update of ancient Materialism. The thesis goes into much more detail to explain that apparent paradox, and the underlying unity of Mind & Matter, Brain & Consciousness. Enformationism seems to be related to Mathematical Platonism, but I'm not very familiar with that contentious concept .

Mathematical Platonism : Mathematical platonism has been among the most hotly debated topics in the philosophy of mathematics over the past few decades
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/platonism-mathematics/

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

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. . . . — Gnomon
I'm highly dubious about this. You can't make up definitions of fundamental words, like 'information'. — Wayfarer

You are probably most familiar with Claude Shannon's definition of Information. But, my general definition of Information above is a distillation of many technical definitions. For example, Shannon defined Information in absolute digital terms suitable for computers : either 1 or 0; either True or False. Hence, no uncertainty. But humans are analog computers, and parse information in terms of relative certainty : a ratio between 1 or 0; a probability range from True to False. Shannon's Entropy is defined in terms of a degree of order relative to disorder. The complete concept of Information is so broad that you will find almost diametrically opposite definitions depending on the application. For example, Shannon equated computer Information with physical Entropy, expressed as a Ratio between Randomness and Order : "Information entropy is the average rate at which information is produced by a stochastic source of data." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_(information_theory)

My thesis goes step-by-step through the evolution of the modern meaning of Information, and has several pages of references. But in the final analysis, it's all mathematical and metaphysical : a Rate or Ratio is not a specific thing, but a general range of probabilities from certain information (100%) to uncertain Information (0%). The human analog brain uses fuzzy logic (intuition) to extract meaning from incoming information. That may be why precise mathematics does not come easy for most of us; it requires hard conscious thinking. :nerd:

Enformationism : http://enformationism.info/enformationism.info/

Not only then is the ratio a : b the fundamental notion for all activities of perception, but it signals one of the most basic processes of intelligence in that it symbolizes a comparison between two things, and is thus the elementary basis for conceptual judgement . . . A proportion, however, is more complex, for it is a relationship of equivalency between two ratios . . . An analogy.
—-Robert Lawler, Geometry

But there is no such information encoded in the vast majority of matter and energy found throughout the cosmos. — Wayfarer

According to the Wiki definition below, mathematics is not a physical thing, but simply "knowledge", "number", "structure", "geometry". All of these are forms of generic Information. So wherever you find mathematical "structures" you have Information.

My first insight into the essential role of information in the living and non-living world came from a surprising assertion by a quantum physicist years ago : "a quantum particle is nothing but Information". By that he meant, all we can observe is mathematical "position and velocity", but not at the same time (uncertainty). All other properties are inferred from that basic Information. My own definition of multi-function Information is also linked below.

Mathematics : (from Greek μάθημα máthēma, "knowledge, study, learning") includes the study of such topics as quantity (number theory), structure (algebra), space (geometry), and change (mathematical analysis). ...

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

All of this centers on deriving the best structural model of the math, and when it comes to that issue I'm the student. Basically scientists have to hypothesize possible structures as mechanisms by utilizing geometrical forms and then construct experiments that will verify or refute their hypotheses. — Enrique

Off topic. I just happened upon this post on Quora Forum, which claims to show a structural geometrical proof of God. It's an interesting concept, but he offers no argument to make the connection between the pretty torus/mandala pattern of Magnetism and divine design. Based on the poster's name, I'd guess that his god is Allah. :grin:

Proof that God exists : https://www.quora.com/Is-there-proof-that-God-exists-1

All of this centers on deriving the best structural model of the math, and when it comes to that issue I'm the student. Basically scientists have to hypothesize possible structures as mechanisms by utilizing geometrical forms and then construct experiments that will verify or refute their hypotheses. — Enrique

Are you aware of any mathematical models of entanglement that would yield geometric structures? It seems to me that the key characteristic of entanglement is lack of internal structure. By that I mean, when particles are in the wave-form state, they are no longer discrete parts, but somehow merge or blend into a whole system. I too, suspect that this transition from grainy particularism to fluid holism is a major factor in the emergence of Consciousness from Matter. But the current models are unable to describe what-is-going-on (mechanism) inside the "black box" of entanglement. :worry:

Smart... Real smart.. That makes a lot of sense. Jesus must have been a genius for his time to predict the outcome of his preaching. Or at least highly emotionally intelligent — Reverie

Jesus didn't have be too smart to predict the Roman suppression of sedition; just a basic knowledge of Jewish history. He had a series of predecessors, back to the Maccabeans, who were either killed in battle or executed for insurrection against oppression by gentile world powers. That may also explain why Paul decided, if you can't beat'em, join'em. :smile:

Isn't this a tacit affirmation that, given the means and opportunity, an intelligent designer can surpass blind evolution in every way? — TheMadFool

Yes, but that assumes the Designer intended to create a perfect Garden of Eden. If so, then we have to invent an evil god who is powerful enough to foil that intention. However, what if the whole point of creation was to produce a self-perfecting Experiential Process? Some philosophers have postulated that God experiences reality through our eyes, ears, and feelings. I can't speak for God's intentions, but the self-improvement Process of Intelligent Evolution makes more sense to me than the failed Perfection of Intelligent Design. :smile:

Omega Point : Perfection at the end rather than the beginning of the creation process.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omega_Point

gods conciousness was created by a paradox that allowed certain pieces of information to come together and form a sentient being. then god reorganized all the information to make the universe less chaotic. — Flupentixol

My Creation hypothesis is similar, except that G*D is Chaos : defined as Eternity/Infinity. Hence, with no space-time limits, all things are possible, including paradoxes. Rather than G*D being created from an un-caused Paradox (quantum fluctuation?), self-existent G*D created our paradoxical world from the randomness of Chaos.

An essential assumption of my thesis is that Eternity/Infinity, besides the potential for any possibility, includes the causal power of Entention. By that I mean, G*D has the power to Enform, to cause new Forms to emerge from Chaos. When applied to our real world, I call that "divine" power EnFormAction, which is experienced as mundane Energy.

Chaos : http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page12.html

G*D : http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page13.html

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

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

Note : For Plato and Aristotle, Chaos was not just craziness, but infinite Potential, and perhaps the source of Ideal Forms. In modern terms, Chaos is a Dynamical System, which has intrinsic causal power.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/chaos/

Christianity started off as the religion of the dispossessed. After a period of class warfare the ruling class (polytheistic) adopted the religion of the lower classes and turned it into the state religion (Constantine). This was the formation of Catholicism. A new counter revolution happened under the banner of Protestantism and this was also eventually adopted by the ruling classes (Northern Europe). The ruling class is and always will be right-wing and any religion they adopt will always be as such interpreted. — ovdtogt

Yes. Jesus was not a Christian, but a Jewish reformer. Because he preached to the "dispossessed", and understood how the Romans would react to his rabble-rousing, he anticipated a period of extreme hardship for his followers, preceding the "end of the age". That may be why he advised a communal lifestyle of mutual support : "They had all things in common". (Acts 2:42, 4:32)

Years later, when it became obvious that Jesus was long gone, and the "end of the age" had not come, the early Christian tactic of circling the wagons, began to shift toward preparing for a long haul. By the time it became the State Religion of the dominant world power, a complete attitude adjustment was needed. The religion of poor subjugated Jews, meeting in humble homes, was converted into a replica of Roman emperor worship with pomp & splendor appropriate for a wealthy imperious gentile culture, and meeting in grandiose pagan temples. Thus Jesus, the crucified downtrodden Jew, was transformed into the risen triumphant Christ, ruling over the whole world from his exalted throne in the clouds.

So, the modern Christian religion has a split personality : a> the poor-in-spirit tend toward communism or socialism, while b> the rich & powerful tend toward individualism and capitalism. Ironically, some of the poor-in-money like to interpret their scriptures as offering them, in exchange for faith offerings, miraculous access to the wealth of the upper class, and un-christ-like displays of extravagance. Consequently, while a "hard reading" of the Bible may sound leftist, a looser reading can seem downright right-wing. Ironically, the current Pope*1 seems to be leaning leftward, making the conservative Curia uncomfortable.


*1 Caesar Augustus was the Pontifex Maximus of Roman emperor worship. And that title was inherited by Catholic Popes.

Particles are conscious in exactly the same way humans are. — bert1

How do you know this? I can only infer that other humans are conscious because they behave the same way as I do in similar situations. Do particles behave like humans? Do they show signs of fear as a strange energetic particle approaches? Do they love their entangled partners? Is your little toe conscious in "exactly the same way" as you are?

Consciousness is an evolutionary advantage for living creatures, but how would it be adaptive for atoms and billiard balls? My worldview makes a functional distinction between raw Information and highly evolved Consciousness.

Why can't all these emergences happen in the dark? Why is consciousness a necessary consequence of all this? — bert1

Emergence is in the mind of the beholder. So no Mind, no illusion of sudden change. A magician could try to make his assistant disappear without using a cape, but then the trap door that's usually hidden in the dark would be apparent, and nobody would be fooled. Emergence only seems like magic, because the audience is figuratively "in the dark".

A minor detail, but I'm not a fan of the suggestion that reality is not objective, — Enrique

I suspect that the article's title was intentionally provocative. All they did was to come to the same conclusion that Schrodinger did in his Cat-in-the-Box thought experiment. When a particle is in a so-called "state of superposition", it only exists in a statistical sense as a probability. Actually, the "state" may tell us more about the Mind than the Matter.

We can't observe the virtual particle's physical properties in the usual way. That's because properties (Qualia) are in the mind of the beholder (ideas). On the macro scale, we can act as-if redness is in the apple. But on the Quantum level, it's like the bald kid in The Matrix said, "there is no spoon (apple)". It's only mathematical probabilities (ideas).

Obviously, human mammals are not evolved to relate to abstract statistics, but to concrete things. Yet, for practical scientific purposes we can, and must, assume that objective reality is out there. But for theoretical philosophical purposes, we must admit that all we know about Reality is our personal subjective opinions. Just as I can't know your mind, I can't know your reality. Hence, objectivity is merely a social convention.That's why, in my personal worldview, I assert that our world is both Real and Ideal, depending on your perspective (relativity).

In fact it could be said that if nature is truly efficient it would favor directed evolution which necessitates an agent with intelligence AND free will rather than just leave everything to the vagaries of chance. — TheMadFool

So, you think evolution "intended" to create intelligent agents all along, but it took 14 billion years to create a working prototype? I'm kidding, but most materialists would find the notion of teleology in Nature to be magical thinking. I happen to agree with your intuition, but instead of promoting Intelligent Design (ID), I propose Intelligent Evolution (IE).

The primary difference between blind groping evolution and directed evolution is the foresight to imagine something better than what is. According to Darwinism, Nature is an ad hoc process : it works with what worked in the past, and adapts it to a new function. Early humans were not much better. They found rocks lying around and used them to pound on nuts. Only thousands of years later did their intelligence invent the hammer, which is intended specifically to pound on nails.

Intelligent Design envisions a world that began as a perfect design, but has been corrupted by an evil deity. Intelligent Evolution proposes a world that began as a primordial Egg, and is still developing and evolving toward the complete design. Both theories explain the imperfections, but only one explains the necessity for gradual evolution, and for the belated emergence of Intelligence, Will, and Morality. :smile:


Intelligent Evolution : http://gnomon.enformationism.info/Essays/Intelligent%20Evolution%20Essay_Prego_120106.pdf

I'm conjecturing that the synthetic fluidity of perception can only be explained with quantum entanglement or some kind of quantum mechanism. — Enrique

I agree with your intuition that the Qualia of Subjective Consciousness may be somehow related to the mystery of Quantum Entanglement. Unfortunately, we don't have a good theory for how entanglement works. So, for all practical purposes, it's magical. That's why some scientists and philosophers are offended by appeals to Quantum Magic.

I have my own hypothesis to explain the "spooky action at a distance" of Entanglement. But it involves Infinity and Eternity. So It will also be offensive to those who prefer to remain within the familiar bounds of Reality. That's probably why even Roger Penrose proposes a material medium (quantum tubules) to explain how matter can become mind. :chin:


Quantum physics: Our study suggests objective reality doesn't exist
https://phys.org/news/2019-11-quantum-physics-reality-doesnt.html

It's a pseudo-materialist solution, in my view. It says there must be some extra, magical ingredient in everything which is 'consciousness' in some latent or implicit form, which then manifests in living beings in particular. — Wayfarer

Panpsychism, which assumes that every particle in the cosmos is Conscious, does make it sound like there is some "magical ingredient" in addition to the material substance. That's why my thesis avoids using the misleading terms "psyche" and "consciousness". Not because they are inherently wrong, but they can be misinterpreted as implying that particles are conscious in the same way humans are. But atoms mechanically absorb & emit energy, and change physically, without forming any abstract images (imagination). Instead, I propose a view that could be called Pan-Informationism.

In the 21st century, we are familiar with computers that process mathematical (immaterial) information, but are not perceived as conscious, though some can fake it (Chinese Room thought experiment). So, "Information" per se, does not necessarily imply Qualia : the "what it's like" of conscious conception. Ironically, the original meaning of "Information" referred to the metaphysical quality of Knowledge (awareness). But, we now know that it can also refer to physical states and mechanical processes of matter/energy (electrical logic gates in computers).

So, I take that dual definition of "Information" literally, and infer that Qualia only emerged from Quanta after 14 billion years, not by magic, but by evolution. The potential for awareness was inherent in Energy (EnFormAction) from the beginning. And Emergence is not an act of magic, but of evolution (turning the page to reveal something that was there all along). Thus, your assessment is correct that " 'consciousness' in some latent or implicit form, which then manifests in living beings in particular." But the imputation of "magic" is unnecessary, because Emergence of new properties is a function of Whole Systems, that is completely natural, but immaterial. By that I mean, qualitative properties exist only in subjective Consciousness, not in objective Matter. Hence, all Magic is subjective. :cool:


Emergence : emergence occurs when an entity is observed to have properties its parts do not have on their own. These properties or behaviors emerge only when the parts interact in a wider whole.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence

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 phase-change from one logical category to another.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html

Qualia : the internal and subjective component of sense perceptions, arising from stimulation of the senses by phenomena.

Dualistic Information : The act of enforming (energy) and the product (material form). Both verb and noun.

If "directed evolution" means that the average Joe takes all applicable factors into account then chooses the most efficient way to live and reproduce, then I am yet to be sold. — ZhouBoTong

Maybe TMF is talking about Cultural Evolution in general, rather than Eugenics or Transhumanism in particular. Cultural Evolution occurs much more rapidly than Natural Evolution. Cultural Selection is cumulative human choices. Unfortunately, the "unfit" consequences of our short-term efficiencies come back to haunt us quickly (e.g. burning fossil fuels, buried over millions of years, turned into aerosols in just a few human generations). Fortunately, if we learn from history, we can try to avoid making the same short-sighted choices over & over.

Cultural Evolution : http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page12.html

I must get stuck in that moment of decision then. My fight or flight is f***ed. It almost always results in freeze. I did kickboxing for about a decade and the only fights that went well were the ones where I was calm enough for fight or flight to never kick in. — ZhouBoTong

Ha! That's why martial arts and competitive sports emphasize "practice, practice, practice". When you practice a move, your conscious mind analyzes the motions into small details. But your subconscious mind remembers only the whole movement (muscle memory). Eventually, you no longer need to freeze long enough to analyze, you just do it without thinking --- without willing. I suspect you may be an introvert, who is always consciously monitoring what you are doing. Top athletes and artists just go with the flow. :smile:

Flow : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flow_(psychology)

You keep making empty statements. How does that have anything to do with this thread and what I said in the opening post? — Zelebg

The statements you refer to are empty (meaningless) to you, because you don't understand the unconventional worldview that the assertions are derived from. That's why I provide links for those who are interested enough to investigate a novel way of looking at the world.

In the OP, you stated, as-if a matter of fact, that "At the bottom of it all is just plain mechanics, . . ." My replies have denied that assertion, and offered an alternative to the Mechanical worldview of Classical Materialism. I suppose you think the opposite of Materialism is Spiritualism. But my BothAnd philosophy accepts both the Materialism (Quanta) of Science, and the Spiritualism (Qualia) of Religion, while noting that they each exclude or ignore the other side of reality. When you can see the world as a whole, the Hard Problem of Consciousness vanishes as an illusion. :cool:


PS__Unfortunately, my worldview has some features in common with New Age philosophy. Which is why I spend of lot of verbiage to distance myself from the NA merging of science and magic. Whatever seems like supernatural magic is actually either obfuscation or natural phase changes.

Note : Richard Feynman quipped "If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics." I believe that's because Quantum Mechanics is not mechanical at all, it's emergent. Physicist Carlo Rovelli labeled his new book Reality Is Not What It Seems. . . . from the conventional classical scientific perspective.

BothAnd Principle : http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page10.html

How did you come up with your BothAnd principle? — DanielP

The BothAnd Principle emerged from my development of the Enformationism worldview. And that unconventional understanding of how the world as-a-whole works grew out of the 20th century revelations of Relativity and Quantum and Information Theories indicating that Mass (matter) is a form of Energy, and that Energy is a form of Information. Basically, metaphysical Information is both causative Energy and substantive Matter.

Analogies to Taoism and YinYang came later, as a way to express the counter-intuitive concept of dualism within holism in simple symbols. The principle is also useful for making sense of the mystery of Subjective experience within an Objective world. As a matter of fact, the concept of Complementarity makes sense of a whole range of philosophical and scientific puzzles, that are usually approached in Either/Or terms.

In the definitions linked below, a popup article about the BothAnd Philosophy is linked in red at bottom,


BothAnd Principle : http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page10.html

I think it springs from naturally emergentist assumptions. Namely that the universe started out unconscious, and then, as a result of non-conscious stuff doing things, consciousness arises. — bert1

Unfortunately, some people interpret Emergence Theory as a technical-sounding term for Magic. But it's not a perceptual gap, obscured by smoke & mirrors & black capes. Instead, Emergence is simply a conceptual phenomenon.

In my thesis, the universe began as non-conscious creative Energy, or as I call it, EnFormAction : the power to enform. Then via a long gradual process of Phase Transformations (emergences) raw Information (mathematics) was developed into the complex chemistry of Life (animation), and thence into the compounded complexities of Mind (intention). The Potential for Consciousness was there all along, but only at the tipping-point was it actualized, or crystallized, into the power to know. The link below is a brief overview of Evolution via EnFormAction. No magic; just continual incremental changes.


Emergence : 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 phase-change from one logical category to another.

The EnFormAction Hypothesis : http://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page23.html

Your thesis explains nothing, it postulates another question as an answer. And questions are not answers, you know? — Zelebg

No. My thesis takes a stand, and like math, reasons answers from axioms. The Multiverse theory is likewise a non-answer, but it allows physicists to continue thinking in materialistic terms. Which led them to the Big Bang conundrum in the first place.

The multiverse thesis explains nothing; it just kicks the ball further down the road. At least my approach allows me to think outside the box of classical cause & effect physics, and to apply the implications of quantum queerness to Big Questions.

PS__If it will make you feel any better, I'll note that my Enformationism thesis requires no miracles or magic in the world after the Big Bang. Presumably, only in Eternity/Infinity can creatio ex nihilo occur. Admittedly, some quantum phenomena, and emergences, and phase changes can seem magical, but all require exchanges of Information/Energy. In space-time reality, with natural laws, all Magic is done with smoke & mirrors to obscure the cause & effect steps between the set-up and the volia! :wink:

I think I agree overall, assuming you are using some figurative language. But as a small disagreement, couldn't our sub-conscious also be influenced by morality — ZhouBoTong

Yes. I use metaphors as a short-cut for extremely complex "mechanisms". And I agree that the sub-conscious mind can be "programmed" by conscious concerns for morality : that's what we call "developing Character". But, once programmed, the subconscious system operates the body automatically, until some problem requires an executive decision. For example, the emotions quickly prime the body for "fight or flight". But the exec has to decide which. That's why we tend to freeze, when startled, long enough to assess the situation. Of course, when faced with a seven foot tall, 800 pound bear, the feet may start running before the exec even gets the request for orders. :smile:

I don’t know if I accept the idea of “the selfish gene”. — Brett

It's just a metaphor. You can substitute whatever "programming" results in the body's ability to run itself, like a robot, without the mind consciously directing a million events every second.

If information isn't the foundation of our known universe already, it will become so, assuming theory, technology, and communal rationality can continue to progress. Very idealistic! — Enrique

My personal worldview, and my understanding of Consciousness, is based on the assumption that Information is indeed the foundation of the universe. But, it's not just me. A lot of physicists, and especially quantum physicists, have come to the same conclusion. One consequence of that axiom is that I began to give more credence to Plato's theory of Ideal Forms. But that doesn't mean that I have to abandon the materialistic notion of Realism. Instead, at the core of my thesis is the BothAnd Principle. Which grew out of the Quantum theory revelation that matter (substance) is made of energy (causation), and energy is made of Information. So, Information is Causation in both physical and metaphysical senses.

Generic Information is both Energy and Matter, both Cause and Effect. Therefore, it should not be surprising that the ability to know Information could arise from a system comprised of both Matter (brain) and Energy (the power to enform). However, those who seek to explain immaterial Consciousness in terms of material neurons (neural correlates of consciousness) are missing the other half of the correlation, the other half of the E=MC\2 equation. Our world is both Real (material; mechanical) and Ideal (mental, quantum continuum). So, progress in the science of Consciousness should follow the adoption of more Idealistic philosophical attitudes, but correlated to Realistic scientific skepticism.


BothAnd Principle : http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page10.html

The Case Against Reality : Why Evolution Hid the Truth From Our Eyes
Donald Hoffman, professor of Cognitive Science
https://www.quantamagazine.org/the-evolutionary-argument-against-reality-20160421/

Reality Is Not What It Seems :
Carlo Rovelli, physicist/poet
https://www.npr.org/sections/13.7/2017/02/01/512798209/reality-is-not-what-we-can-see