Somewhere "a something", which is closer to the highest truths, can be unearthed, studied, understood and applied. — Bret Bernhoft

I too, am an Atheist -- or technically an Agnostic -- but due to my philosophical explorations of "something" like Plato/Aristotle's First Cause/Prime Mover, I am often labelled a woo-monger. As you implied, Atheism & Theism are typically viewed in terms of polar opposites, with no in between. But I find plenty of room in the middle ground for philosophical probing without falling into the trap of Tribal Faith or Sophistic Scientism.

Its the 'and its properties change' bit, that I have an issue with. — universeness

Yes. That's the part of the Consciousness Causes Collapse metaphor that sounds like mind-over-matter magic. But, if we remember that Properties (attributes) are attributed*1 to a particle by the mind of the observer, the focus turns back onto the Attributor. So, the sudden change may be in the mind, not the matter, as different attributes*2 come to mind when possible properties are actualized by the experiment. That's why I think the "collapse" (change) occurs in a mind (Voila!), not in a particle of matter. So, the quantum Magic may actually be a case of Mind over Mind insight (e.g. pattern recognition). :smile:



*1. Attribute (verb) : to regard as resulting from a specified cause
Note --- Qualities (e.g. redness) are mental, not physical. To Regard is to imagine as an opinion. Causation is an inference from material change, not an observation.

*2. Attribute (noun) : a quality or feature regarded as a characteristic or inherent part of someone or something.
Note --- to attribute is to pass a mental quality or value onto an object of attention. Tribute goes from payer to payee.

What I was trying to get at is that there was “what it’s likeness” before there were homo sapiens. What you are describing here:

"Likeness" is the ability to make analogies & metaphors to represent experienced reality in abstract concepts. — Gnomon

is not the “likeness” Nagel is describing. He’s just saying there is something it is like to be a bat. A bat has subjective experience. He is not saying a bat has the ability to make analogies & metaphors. — Patterner

Yes, animals also seem to experience "what it's likeness". But we only know that by inference from animal behavior that is analogous to human behavior while experiencing such "likeness" as pain. Nagel wasn't talking about bat metaphors, because we have no way of knowing what they are thinking. So anything we say about animal mentality will be by analogy to human ideation.

That's why I, not Nagel, suggested that animals probably share the human ability to create analogies & metaphors. But I can't prove it without getting inside the mind of a bat, to see what it's like from the bat's POH (point-of-hear). Or until bats begin to share their inner imagery in poetic similies that humans can understand. Til then, we will just have to guess "what it's like to be a bat", silently soaring in the dusky dark, and seeing fleeting flying bugs with sensuous sonar barks. :smile:

I don't think quantum mechanics has any special understanding to add to the study of consciousness beyond it's role as the substrate for all physical phenomena. — T Clark

Actually, the special nature of quantum physics is not deterministic & mechanical, but uncertain & informational : i.e. non-classical. Thus, the need for philosophical interpretation of spooky quantum results led phycisists to include the experimenter's subconscious preconceptions & intentions as a force to be reckoned with : The Observer Effect*1.

Moreover, In the anthology by a variety of scientists & philosophers : Information and the Nature of Reality, physicist Paul Davies said, "if quantum mechanics really does provide the most fundamental description of nature, then at some level it must incorporate an account of consciousness and other key mental properties". Then, theoretical physicist Henry Stapp noted : "Thus the replacement of classical mechanics by quantum mechanics opens the door to religious possibilities that formerly were rationally excluded".

What Stapp called "religious" possibilities was also an open door to philosophical interpretations of such metaphysical phenomena as Consciousness. Yet, Physicalists typically equate mind-probing philosophy with the supernatural nonsense of religion*2. Hence, they see no realistic understanding in such exegesis, beyond the obvious fact that basic Consciousness is an entry-level requirement for both pragmatic Science and impractical Philosophy. :smile:

*1. Observer Effect :
The observer effect is the fact that observing a situation or phenomenon necessarily changes it. Observer effects are especially prominent in physics where observation and uncertainty are fundamental aspects of modern quantum mechanics.
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8423983

*2. Quantum Philosophy :
Frustrated by the re-introduction of flighty philosophy into practical Physics, some experimental scientists decided to avoid dealing with the mental/emotional aspects of fundamental physics, in favor of abstract mathematical/logical factors, hence to just "shut up and calculate". But the book referenced above reveals a variety of important roles for consciousness (and information) in the real physical world. Several of the authors are physicists & biologists, who do more with their minds than just calculate.

Things happen to a bat. And the bat has subjective experiences of the things that happen to it. There is something it is like to be a bat from the bat’s pov, because the bat has a pov. — Patterner

Yes, events happen to a rock, but the rock doesn't seem to feel it ; to be moved by it --- unless you count gravity & momentum. In humans, the basis of Consciousness is emotion, to be mentally memorially changed by an experience, not literally physically moved by impetus. :smile:

You speak of secondary consciousness. Primary consciousness is also "what it's likeness", but it is not conceptual or self-aware to the kind or degree of humans. — schopenhauer1

I didn't realize that Consciousness had so many degrees, like a PhD. I suppose an earthworm, nosing thru the soil has minimal consciousness -- taste & touch -- like a kindergarten degree. Even an amoeba, with no obvious organs, also seems to be sensitive to touch & taste. Apparently, once life (animation) emerged on Earth, consciousness began to evolve, in complexity & sensitivity, in order to enhance survival probability.

Sentience is now at the point where humans can send artificial sensors to Moon & Mars to experience those alien environments. But, although scientists know what Consciousness does, they can't say for sure what it is, essentially. My philosophical thesis suggests that human Consciousness is a high evolutionary stage of causal Energy, combined with directional Enformy*1. :smile:


*1. Enformy : antithesis of Entropy (negentropy); a directional form of Energy
In the Enformationism theory, Enformy is a hypothetical, holistic, metaphysical, natural trend or force, that counteracts Entropy & Randomness to produce complexity & progress. [ see post 63 for graph ]. I'm not aware of any "supernatural force" in the world. But my Enformationism hypothesis postulates that there is a meta-physical force behind Time's Arrow and the positive progress of evolution. Just as Entropy is sometimes referred to as a "force" causing energy to dissipate (negative effect), Enformy is the antithesis, which causes energy to agglomerate (additive effect).
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html

Thus information can process with no "what it's likeness" to it. It is just behavior all the way down. And wherever there is "what it's likeness" happening, "what" then is that as opposed to the other behavior that was going on? Then you are back to a dualism of some sort of mental space that pops out of physical space which is basically the question all over again. — schopenhauer1

That's an interesting way to phrase the "hard problem" of "what it's likeness". A computer can mechanically process information without bothering with mentally processing the mathematical data into personal (self relevant) meanings. Brainy Animals seem to be able to compute likeness (analogies) to some degree (gestures, behaviors), but not to the point of intentionally communicating meanings from mind to mind in the concise packages of intention we call "words".

Likewise, the whole universe can be imagined as a computer*1 : mechanically processing mathematical information into the physics that scientists study. But, until homo sapiens eventually became Self-Conscious, there was no "what it's likeness" as postulated by Nagel. "Likeness" is the ability to make analogies & metaphors to represent experienced reality in abstract concepts. Animals seem to know what they are doing, but are not able to articulately enform other minds with that personal knowledge. The abstractions we call "words" require analytical abilities that allow precise control of conveyed meaning --- including more than just blunt emotions (danger!), but sharp reasons (look behind you, there's a monkey eagle).

So, the "hard problem" of Consciousness --- to know that you know, and to let someone else know --- is only a problem for humans, who strongly desire to communicate subjective ideas & feelings to other minds*2, in a manner that is not too vague (gestures), and can be objectively tested (philosophy). After a football game, the on-the-field reporter points a microphone at the winning athlete, and asks "what is it like?". An animal answer would be, "it feels good, you know". No, I don't know! I don't have endorphins stimulating my body. Hence, the Hard Problem. :smile:

PS___For humans, the dualism of Consciousness is Self vs Other, not necessarily Natural vs Supernatural, as typically argued.


*1, Universe is a Computer :
This leads to the extraordinary possibility that our entire Universe might in fact be a computer simulation. The idea is not that new. In 1989, the legendary physicist, John Archibald Wheeler, suggested that the Universe is fundamentally mathematical and it can be seen as emerging from information.
https://www.sciencealert.com/expert-proposes-a-method-for-telling-if-we-all-live-in-a-computer-program


*2. problem of other minds, in philosophy, the problem of justifying the commonsensical belief that others besides oneself possess minds and are capable of thinking or feeling somewhat as one does oneself.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/problem-of-other-minds

Again, there is no literal 'wave function collapse'. It's a metaphorical expression for the reduction of possibilities to a certainty. The mystery is the implication that prior to measurement, the target object cannot be said to definitely exist. And if the purported 'building blocks of reality' can't be said to exist, then you have to ask 'what is real?' which is the name of one of the books mentioned about this subject. — Wayfarer

Yes. I think Bohr's magical/statistical metaphor was taken literally by those who wanted a more mechanical/physical explanation for the non-classical "Quantum Weirdness" that perturbed the pioneers of sub-atomic physics. Apparently the literalists intended to make Bohr's implicit mind-over-matter notion seem absurd. For them, unreal Mind & real Matter are like oil & water.

A century later, the role of the observer is simply ignored by those for whom the mind doesn't matter. Yet, those less opposed to Mental-Physics, now use statistical Quantum Bayesian calculations to measure experimental results in terms of "degrees of belief". It accepts that mental Belief may not have a physical effect on matter (ontological Being), but it certainly has a metaphysical effect on interpretation (epistemological Knowing). :smile:


The Observer Effect :
Abstract: The observer effect is the fact that observing a situation or phenomenon necessarily changes it. Observer effects are especially prominent in physics where observation and uncertainty are fundamental aspects of modern quantum mechanics.
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8423983

Wheeler's Observer Effect :
The surprising implications of the original delayed-choice experiment led Wheeler to the conclusion that "no phenomenon is a phenomenon until it is an observed phenomenon".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheeler%27s_delayed-choice_experiment
Note -- prior to the experimental observation, the Phenomenon is statistically unknowable, and even after the test, it's still statistically uncertain, perhaps because the object is Virtual, not Actual.
"the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle has nothing to do with the observer or equipment used during observation". https://chem.libretexts.org/Uncertainty_Principle

I actually think I more or less agree with a fair amount you talk about in the last two posts you make about information and the "arms-length" separation of observer, though maybe I would describe it in different language. I definitely do have a different perspective but there is definitely stuff I agree on, I think. — Apustimelogist

I understand that my discussions of the Mind vs Matter question may be difficult to follow, in part because I have no formal training in Philosophy, and partly because most of my knowledge of Information is derived from Quantum Physics instead of Shannon's mathematical theory of communication. Another hurdle in communicating my ideas about a Monistic theory of Mind/Matter is that I have been forced, by the complexity of the content, to coin neologisms (new language) that bundle contrasting concepts into single words : e.g. EnFormAction and Enformy.

The bottom line though, is that both physical Matter (phenomena) and metaphysical Mind (noumena) are derivatives from the pre-Big Bang essential causal Power to Enform (to create and to transform), that we now know scientifically as Energy. But, from my information-centric perspective, I call it EnFormAction or Enformy*1. Of course, religious-minded folks call it "God", or "Will of God". Philosophically, this notion is related to Plato's concept of an ideal realm of FORM, which is similar to Kant's hidden reality of ding an sich. It's also similar to Spinoza's & Aristotle's definition of essential Single Substance*2 as the First Cause of the Cosmos.

That hypothetical eternal pool of Potential is unitary (monistic), but everything Actual in the real world is pluralistic*3, beginning with a dualistic distinction between This & That; before & after, Self & Other. Dualism is exemplified in the first stage of cell division, when one thing becomes two, and two further divides into the variety of parts of a holistic organism*4. The human Observer sees the Cosmos as a Part trying to understand the Whole*5. :smile:


*1. Enformy :
In the Enformationism theory, Enformy is a hypothetical, holistic, metaphysical, natural trend or force, that counteracts Entropy & Randomness to produce complexity & progress. [ see post 63 for graph ]
1. I'm not aware of any "supernatural force" in the world. But my Enformationism theory postulates that there is a meta-physical force behind Time's Arrow and the positive progress of evolution. Just as Entropy is sometimes referred to as a "force" causing energy to dissipate (negative effect), Enformy is the antithesis, which causes energy to agglomerate (additive effect).
2. Of course, neither of those phenomena is a physical Force, or a direct Cause, in the usual sense. But the term "force" is applied to such holistic causes as a metaphor drawn from our experience with physics.
3. "Entropy" and "Enformy" are scientific/technical terms that are equivalent to the religious/moralistic terms "Evil" and "Good". So, while those forces are completely natural, the ultimate source of the power behind them may be supernatural, in the sense that the First Cause logically existed before the Big Bang.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html

*2. Aristotle’s “Substance" :
In one sense, substances are the fundamental subjects; in another sense, a substance is the “cause of being” of a substance in the first sense. A substance in the second sense is the essence (the “what it is to be”), the form (morphê or eidos), of a substance in the first sense.
https://faculty.washington.edu/smcohen/SubstanceNote.pdf

*3. What is the philosophy of the one and many? :
The problem of finding the one thing that lies behind all things in the universe is called the problem of the one and the many. Basically stated, the problem of the one and the many begins from the assumption that the universe is one thing. Because it is one thing, there must be one, unifying aspect behind everything.
https://www.faculty.umb.edu/gary_zabel/Courses/Phil%20281b/Philosophy%20of%20Magic/Dante.%20etc/Philosophers/Idea/www.wsu.edu_8080/~dee/GLOSSARY/ONEMANY.HTM

*4. Cell Division Duality within Unity :
Out of Unity comes Plurality. But the potential for multiplication is inherent in the One.


*5. Physics vs Philosophy :
Reductionism vs Holism ; Part vs Whole ; Mechanism vs System

Cool stuff, but I think it goes too far. Enthusiasm for the subject doesn't pull the rabbit out of the hat, unfortunately. That is to say abstraction already needs the observer. Abstraction isn't the observer. If it is, then that has to be explained, and like "illusion" or "integration", it all becomes hidden dualisms of begging the question. — schopenhauer1

I think the point of the quote is that Abstraction is a function of the Observer's data-filtering belief-forming system. Hence, not so much a Dualism but merely different aspects of the same process : interpreting incoming sensory information. Reality is complicated, but perception automatically simplifies our sensory signals into parcels (e.g. Gestalts), in part by omitting unnecessary data*1; before it appears into consciousness. Observing is Interpreting.

This subtraction of unnecessary irrelevant data, and integration of relevant data into Concepts, is related to Don Hoffman's Theory of Perception*2. The Observer is separated (at arm's length) from the environment by his own built-in data-compression algorithms. The brain's programs (procedures) & memories (beliefs) are designed, not for absolute Truth, but for pragmatic Facts. Thus, the stripped-down mental model of reality is good enough to enhance the survival of living organisms.

The Abstract model (a belief) is an Idealized (unrealistic) & Integrated (holistic) representation of Reality, not a glimpse of Heaven or ding an sich. It's a Dualism only in the sense that a Map is not the Terrain. However, the question remains : how does a neural map become conscious knowledge? I have a monistic/holistic hypothesis, but it may not appeal to those committed to reductive methods for answering philosophical questions. :smile:

PS__ I just read two articles about Creative Emergence*3*4, in which novel structures (e.g. conscious Brain/Mind systems) emerge from the convoluted interactions of subatomic particles & forces. Maybe Perception/Conception is an example of subtractive Divergence, on top of additive Emergence. But that might require a new thread.


*1.Data compression is a reduction in the number of bits needed to represent data. Compressing data can save storage capacity, speed up file transfer and decrease costs for storage hardware and network bandwidth.
https://www.techtarget.com/searchstorage/definition/compression

*2. Conscious Perception :
. . . . our perception of the world is not accurate. In reality, it is a simplified representation and projection of something more complex that our brains have created for us. He argues that our perceptions are optimized for survival and reproductive success (so-called fitness functions) rather than for providing an accurate depiction of reality.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbesbusinesscouncil/2023/05/11/how-the-theory-of-conscious-agents-can-revolutionize-your-leadership/?sh=5eff0ca52318

*3. Did physicists get the idea of “fundamental” wrong? :
there’s a difference between phenomena that are fundamental — like the motions and interactions of the indivisible, elementary quanta that compose our Universe — and phenomena that are emergent, arising solely from the interactions of large numbers of fundamental particles under a specific set of conditions.
https://bigthink.com/starts-with-a-bang/physicists-fundamental-wrong/

*4. Novelty is Emergent :
How does the new come about? This is the fundamental question of creativity
https://emergentfutureslab.com/blog/systems-are-creative

Information is another abstraction and any notion of information depends on the ability for an observer or detector to make distinctions; information is therefore not really a thing but is something that can be characterized in the interaction between a stimulus and observer / detector. What this means is that any notion of information would be at least implicitly embodied in the physical processes that enable an observer to make distinctions (e.g. so that I can recognize a photo or a neuron can selectively respond to different inputs): the information is physical, just not in any way independent of an observer. — Apustimelogist

Yes, Information is inter-dependent. It's physical, in the sense that it is transmitted from mind to mind via physical vehicles (ink, sound, rhodopsin, etc). But information is also metaphysical, in the sense that Shannon defined it in terms of statistical probability (potential, correlations, not-yet-real).

In its statistical state, Information is not a material thing, but --- as you implied above --- it is reified*1 as a "distinction" by an observer. Even more spooky, is that Information is an intentional process (an act) --- the "-ation" part of the word is an abbreviation for "action". So, Information is both an "abstraction" process in a mind, and the embodiment of an idea in matter.

EnFormAction*2 is the bridge between Noumena and Phenomena. A spectator on the sideline contributes the metaphysical component to physical information in the playing-field of the environment. Hence, the meaning of Information is dependent on the mind of the observer. Thus, my position on the phenomena/noumena controversy is BothAnd*3. :smile:

*1. To Reify :
reification transforms objects into subjects and subjects into objects
When an abstraction (abstract belief or hypothetical construct) is treated as if it were a concrete, real event or physical entity
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Reification

*2. EnFormAction :
“En-” within ; referring to essential changes of state
“Form-” to mold or give shape to : it's the structure of a thing that makes it what it is.
“Action-” causation : the suffix “-ation” denotes the product or result of an action.
https://bothandblog2.enformationism.info/page29.html

*3. The 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.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page10.html

Intriguing! I have at times thought about conceptualizing reality in terms of information. I think I have quite a way to go before I can consider myself to have a precise well-thought out kind of manifesto about what I actually believe about reality or how I should view it. Still have to think out a lot of kinks. — Apustimelogist

I began to "conceptualize reality in terms of information" about 15 years ago, when a quantum physicist --- studying the material foundation of reality --- exclaimed that he had just realized "it's all information!". His, oh-by-the-way exclamation led me back to John A. Wheeler's 1989 "it from bit" postulation*1. What he meant by that cryptic quip is : every-thing (its ; material stuff) in the world can be reduced down to binary information (bits ; mind stuff). That equation of mind & matter would not go down well with committed Materialists though, because it opened the door to such spooky ideas as "mind over matter" (magic).

I don't see any reliable evidence of spooky magical powers in the world --- other than deception by distraction, by manipulating information --- but it is evident that the human mind has gained almost magical*2 control over the natural world by the application of Mind Power (the power of ideas)*3 in completely mundane sense. An idea begins as a bit of information in a mind (noumena), then is expressed in the material form of sounds & text (seeds), which then is trans-planted into other minds (memes), and eventually is transformed into action (energy), and finally into physical form (phenomena).

One way to "conceptualize reality" in terms of Information is to think about how the Big Bang created material & mental reality from nothing more than a Singularity (program code). The EnFormAction hypothesis*4 is my own "manifesto". It's an extrapolation from E=MC^2 ; to Causal Information ; to Teleological Evolution ; to the current state of reality that is changing faster than we can comprehend it. The Webb telescope is now allowing us to look back in time, to gain information about the beginning of Time itself. From top to bottom, reality is all about the creative power to enform*5 ; to transform reality into ideality. :smile:


*1. John Archibald Wheeler Postulates "It from Bit" :
"It from bit symbolizes the idea that every item of the physical world has at bottom — at a very deep bottom, in most instances — an immaterial source and explanation
https://historyofinformation.com/detail.php?id=5041

*2. Almost Magical :
Compared to natural processes prior to the emergence of the human Mind, and thence the formalization of information.
https://gnomon.enformationism.info/Images/Cosmic%20Progression%20Graph.jpg

*3. The Power of Ideas :
"Nothing is more powerful than an idea whose time has come." ___Victor Hugo, on Political Revolution
Note : Vlad Putin's motivating idea (irresistible force) of a re-unified Russian Empire has encountered a countervailing idea (immovable object) in the sovereign nation of Ukraine.

"Right now it's only a notion, but I think I can get the money to make it into a concept, and later turn it into an idea". ___Woody Allen

"Ideas are easy. Implementation is hard". ___Guy Kawasaki
Note : Information is easy to find, but hard to implement into novel forms.

*4. The EnFormAction Hypothesis :
Therefore, as a hypothesis, I accepted the axiom of a First Cause as a reasonable premise, and began to follow the dots through history. And since this new creation myth is grounded on our modern understanding of pluripotential Information, I use a lot of computer-related analogies and terms. Clearly, the Cosmos was not created as a perfect fait accompli, but as an ongoing process working toward consummation.
https://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page23.html

*5. What is Information? :
So, in answer to a request for a general definition, as it “pertains to inorganic (physical), organic (biological), and semantic types of information”, I have defined “Information” in the context of various real-world instances of ubiquitous enforming power.
https://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page16.html

"Information is neither matter nor energy, although it needs matter to be embodied and energy to be communicated" ___The Information Philosopher

“Information and causation are one and the same thing”
___Giulio Tononi , Phi

I think what should be abandoned is the metaphysical assumption of some kind of dualism where over here sits physical things and over there sits mental things and they are totally separable. In that regard, the idea that matter generates consciousness is based on a faulty assumption. — Apustimelogist

I don't think Dualism is a "faulty assumption" for dealing with complex reality (Epistemology). But I can agree with your implicit criticism of the common "metaphysical assumption" of a Matter/Mind partition, imagined as the ultimate & final fact of reality (Ontology). That binary perspective is prevalent because it's just commonsense to view a material object (Brain) and its metaphysical function (Mind) as two separate classes of things. Those discrete conceptual categories are also where Science (matter ; mode) and Philosophy (mind ; essence) divide and conquer.

However, in my own personal Ontology, and from a Cosmic perspective, there is only one universal "Essence" (substance) in the world. I'm referring to Spinoza's Substance Monism*1, in which everything in the world is a part of a unitary infinite Ultimate Essence : Deus sive Natura (God or Nature). In my own cosmology though, I call that peak of the pyramid : BEING*2. He used Aristotle's concept of "Substance" in the sense of an Essence (uniform Platonic Form) from which all physical & metaphysical forms (particular things) emerge.

I call my personal worldview Enformationism, because modern science has discovered that everything in the world can be reduced down to Information*3, in the sense of the creative power to transform, which we commonly call Energy. To Enform is to transform from undefined Potential into definite Actual things. Get it? : Energy (causation) + Information (program or code) = EnFormAction. Instead of Spinoza's term "God" though, I tend to refer to that Single Source of enforming power as The Programmer or The Enformer.

Therefore, my philosophical Ontology is Monistic, but for the practical purposes of Science, it's convenient to think in terms of tangible Matter/Physics/Quanta (the modes of Being), and to leave the intangibles Mind/Essence/Qualia for impractical Philosophy to wrestle with. You can call that compromise : Dualism within Monism (i.e. Parts within the Whole). :smile:


*1. Substance Monism :
According to Spinoza, everything that exists is either a substance or a mode. A substance is something that needs nothing else in order to exist or be conceived. Substances are independent entities both conceptually and ontologically. A mode or property is something that needs a substance in order to exist, and cannot exist without a substance. . . . .
The most distinctive aspect of Spinoza’s system is his substance monism; that is, his claim that one infinite substance—God or Nature—is the only substance that exists.
https://iep.utm.edu/spinoz-m/

*2. BEING :
In my own theorizing there is one universal principle that subsumes all others, including Consciousness : essential Existence. Among those philosophical musings, I refer to the "unit of existence" with the absolute singular term "BEING" as contrasted with the plurality of contingent "beings" and things and properties. By BEING I mean the ultimate “ground of being”, which is simply the power to exist, and the power to create beings.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page10.html

*3. Information is :
*** Claude Shannon quantified Information not as useful ideas, but as a mathematical ratio between meaningful order (1) and meaningless disorder (0); between knowledge (1) and ignorance (0). So, that meaningful mind-stuff exists in the limbo-land of statistics, producing effects on reality while having no sensory physical properties. We know it exists ideally, only by detecting its effects in the real world. Physical Energy is the form of causal Information we are most familiar with.
*** For humans, Information has the semantic quality of aboutness , that we interpret as meaning. In computer science though, Information is treated as meaningless, which makes its mathematical value more certain. It becomes meaningful only when a sentient Self interprets it as such.
*** When spelled with an “I”, Information is a noun, referring to data & things. When spelled with an “E”, Enformation is a verb, referring to energy and processes.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page11.html

Symbolic systems are among the oldest inventions of nature. Evolution could never have gotten off the ground without the molecular genetic system, which is a paradigm example of a symbolic scheme. The double helix is a symbolic structure, essentially an extended proposition, which contains the description of an organism’s entire body plan. — Pinter, Charles. Mind and the Cosmic Order (p. 150). Springer International Publishing. Kindle Edition.
He doesn't really develop the idea, but it converges well with biosemiotics. — Wayfarer

Yes, but as Pinter himself says on page 148 : "a symbol is a placeholder". So, we need to avoid confusing the material Symbol (reference ; pointer) with the meaning symbolized (referent). Some BS researchers seem to equate the brain terrain with the mind map. Semiotics is relevant to my own philosophical notion of Enformationism ; but as a science, it tends to equate Mind with Matter, and biological code (cypher) with the chemical carrier. :smile:

Is semiotics bullshit? :
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/7tSrFR54hT2FwXto8/is-semiotics-bullshit

THE SIGN IS NOT THE MEANING

Only I would resist the idea of meaning being immaterial. I'm sympathetic to view that kind of deflate the status of meaning as a thing. — Apustimelogist

Why resist the idea of "meaning" as an idea (ideal) instead of an object (real) --- an abstract symbol rather than the concrete thing symbolized? If Meaning was a material object we would be able to see & touch it. AFAIK, there is no Meaning apart from a conscious observer. Likewise, Consciousness is not a thing, but a process of constructing meanings relevant to the observer.

From my perspective, Meaning is the output (product) of mental processing (computation) , not in the sensory input (raw data), or the material cogs & conduits of a mechanical Brain. That's why immaterial meanings must be transformed back into material forms (data, spoken language, typographic words) in order to convey the immaterial meaning from one mind to another. Matter is the vehicle not the content of Meaning.

However, Materialists are still searching for the hiding place of ideas & feelings in the the gray matter and white matter of the brain. What they find though is simply electrical/chemical activity that is correlated with meaningful images & ideas. But, the researchers still must infer the metaphysical meaning that corresponds to the physical activity. They can't see or touch it, but must imagine the meaning associated with physical behavior. They show images of localized brain activity, must must provide labels to convey the meaning.

As the OP implied, Meaning is Noumenal (map), and not reducible to Phenomena (terrain). So, Meaning is not a Thing, but a mental representation of a thing : a symbol, analogy, metaphor. That perspective doesn't "deflate" the status of Meaning, it elevates meaning from mere "isness" to "meaningful" & "significant" to Me. :smile:

The point I try to make is that if experiences are representations of things in the outside world then maybe they can never be reduced to brains. Yes, you can say - "well I have experiences and that is that" - but a physicalist could just say that his experiences are his brain. You would tell him he is wrong because experiences don't reduce to brains but if this irreducibility is something a physicalist expects or is consistent with physicalism then the argument wouldn't work. — Apustimelogist

I'm currently reading a book by Mathematician Charles Pinter, subtitled "How the Mind Creates the Features & Structure of All Things". And it's the creative aspect of the brain processing which produces mental experiences that are completely different from the physical source. I won't go into the details here, but basically the brain converts incoming isolated bits of information (e.g. photons) into integrated packets of meaning (e.g feelings, experiences, sensations) that are relevant only to the observer, and not inherent in the source.

Pinter uses the 20th century psychology Gestalt Theory of Peception to make his case. A Gestalt is simply a holistic collection of parts with a meaning that is not in the parts --- hence the experience or sensation cannot be reduced to the physical properties of the incoming photons or electrons that originated in an external object. In other words, the Representation (Map ; concept) is not the same as the Object (Terrain ; thing). The mental map excludes a lot of the physical properties, and artistically adds some interconnections & re-arrangements that are relevant only to the Perciever. The Whole is more than the sum of its parts.

The takeaway from this understanding of Perception as Interpretation, implies that the translated*1 subjective meaning (Qualia) cannot be reduced to the properties of the object (Quanta). Experiences are meaningful (significant) to the Subject, but meanings are metaphysical/immaterial, not physical/material. There's definitely a correlation between physics & metaphysics, but the creative causation (translation) by the brain produces novelty (a system, instead of merely reproducing the original. The brain is a machine for making meanings, but meaning is not the ding an sich. :smile:

*1. Translation often adds personal significance & feelings of the translator to the literal words of the author. The human brain is born with compartmentalized categories, which are later filled with personal experiences & feelings & prejudices. The image below is an example of the brain adding its own expectations to the incoming data. There is no triangle in the image.


THE TRIANGLE IS NOT OUT THERE, but added by the brain as a new meaning that is inferred, not seen

In a society where govenments try to tell you what is true and raise you into believing what you believe, in a world that is ever more dividing, when we're looking at news or whatever is going on around us, how do we know what to believe in? — Hailey

A paternalistic or maternalistic government may influence some people to believe certain Tory/Whig*1 political positions, as opposed to those of the disloyal opposition. But more often it's a charismatic leader, like Hitler, who preaches a Big Lie*2 as "our truth", which is intentionally distinguished from the beliefs of despised Others (them). For example, Donald Trump convinced a surprising number of his adoring followers (fans -- fanatics) that the science-supported COVID vaccine was ineffective, and besides, the virus itself was a liberal hoax. Based on their trust in Der Fuhrer, some even ingested bleach or ivermectin (horse dewormer). The current issue of Skeptical Inquirer magazine (Vol 47, issue3) mentions the vaccine & mask beliefs, among many others, under the title : "Who Believes Unsubstantiated Claims?".

That magazine is devoted to the question you asked. Although its position on a variety of issues is primarily characterized as Science vs Pseudoscience, its philosophical approach is simply independent thinking as opposed to going along with a crowd. All too many of us, are dependent believers, who look to someone else to sanction (approve) their beliefs. Not just any "alter ego", but someone in a position of authority in their personal Clique (in-crowd, fellowship, club). Religions and political parties are major players in the dissemination of acceptable beliefs for members of a particular faith society. That social group may be a mainstream religion, or an underdog religion, or a racial category, or economic interest class, or merely a self-interest group, such as the followers of internet conspiracy theorists like Q-Anon. To be an independent believer though, usually requires the courage & self-confidence to go-it-alone.

Apparently, most of those Tribal or Herd believers are uncertain of their own ability to discern the truth in a crazy mixed-up world. So, they place their trust in someone who seems, or claims, to have their personal or tribal interest*4 at heart. Unfortunately, that oft-misplaced trust in substitute parental figures may result in childishly unsophisticated black-white beliefs, and Us-vs-Them antagonisms. So, if the OP indicates a lack of confidence in personal fact-finding ability, then there are two options : A> find someone else with the confidence you lack (teacher, master, con-man), or B> take responsibility to educate yourself in the science of knowing : Philosophy.

In these days of Alternative Facts*3, though, even philosophical loners need all the help they can get. But there is no easy way to distinguish gullible ego-stroking Alt-truths*4 from skeptical superego discernment. So, the first, and hardest, step on the road to Wisdom, may be to off-set your own limitations, pump-up your courage, and gird-up your loins for the long & winding road toward the ideal of pure mountaintop Truth. "What is Truth?" That depends on how you, or your clique, defines the foundation of Belief. :smile:

PS__Another long-running magazine, funded by subscriptions not advertising, is SKEPTIC. Besides giving many examples of what not to believe, these publications teach readers both scientific facts and philosophical methods for "choosing what to believe".

*1. Whig vs Tory :
Whig and Tory, members of two opposing political parties or factions in England, particularly during the 18th century. https://www.britannica.com/topic/Whig-Party-England
Simplistically : Whigs = pro-aristocracy ; Lords ; top-down government --- Tory = anti-monarchy ; Commoners ; bottom-up government.
21st century America : Whig = Republicans, religious & political conservatives ; Tory = Democrats, religious & political liberals

*2. Big Lie :
A “big lie” is an extreme distortion of the truth, used for the purpose of spreading propaganda. It is often somewhat outrageous.
In theory, people will more easily believe a big lie than a smaller one, because most people assume that there is evidence to support any statement of great magnitude.
The term was coined by Adolph Hitler in his autobiography, Mein Kampf.
https://politicaldictionary.com/words/big-lie/

*3. Alternative Facts :
"Alternative facts" was a phrase used by U.S. Counselor to the President, Kellyanne Conway, during a Meet the Press interview on January 22, 2017, in which she defended White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer's false statement about the attendance numbers of Donald Trump's inauguration as President of the United States. When pressed during the interview with Chuck Todd to explain why Spicer would "utter a provable falsehood", Conway stated that Spicer was giving "alternative facts". Todd responded, "Look, alternative facts are not facts. They're falsehoods."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_facts

*4. Tribal Trust :
Referring to affiliation (hence trust & loyalty) with a group; interrelated by genetics, or politics, or religion, or simply self-interest.

Just about everybody agrees that the mental supervenes on the physical, which means that the only way for a mental state to change is for something physical to change. Disagreements arise regarding the form of necessity here. — frank

As a philosophical Iayman, I don't often use the technical jargon "supervene" (to come after) in brain/mind discussions. Instead, I merely note that Mind (latin : mens, to think ; anim, life ; spirit) is the function (operation ; performance) of Brain. Hence, Mind is simply what a Brain does. In mathematics, a function is an input/output relationship : this follows logically from that. Thus sensory inputs, processed in the Brain, result in the Mental product that we call Ideas & Meanings.

Today, we would more likely say that both Life & Mind are the results of processed "Energy" inputs, instead of Spiritual influences. For example, a lifeless rock might seem to be momentarily animated when it is acted upon by gravity or impetus. But animation (self-moving) & mentation (mind function) requires a much more complex structure (logical path), such as a neural network, to channel energy inputs into computations that convert raw causation into conception.

For a Change of Mind though, there is no need for the physical structure of the Brain to change. That's because its labyrinthine convoluted construction inherently allows for feedback loops that result in the self-reflexive interactions that we call "awareness" or "consciousness". Those higher brain "functions" add the internal self-image to the inputs of incoming information, thus putting the self into a larger context : a self-other interrelationship.

The causal Necessity for Physical matter to produce Mental thoughts may be due to the information processing that we know as "computation" or "calculation", which are merely variations on logical operations such as "And, Or, Not" or "Add, Subtract, Divide". By such material means, the logical structure of the universe is expressed in the reasoning of brains. Cosmic Logic is simply how the world works, and brains are merely local processors of Energy in the form of meaningful information. :smile:

The question of divine hiddenness has long been a subject of debate in the philosophy of religion. In this post, I will present an argument in support of the idea that divine hiddenness serves a valuable purpose by allowing humans to exercise their free will and engage in meaningful moral growth. — gevgala

In the context of Christianity, Divine Hiddenness doesn't make sense. God is recorded in the Bible as directly intervening in human affairs, and even walking among men. Moreover, evidence for modern divine apparitions is entirely hearsay, no videos posted on YouTube. However, from a Cosmological perspective, a Creation (Big Bang) without a Creator, also doesn't make sense. So, the "hiddenness" of a creator for the creation is a valid point of philosophical curiosity, regardless of its religious implications.

That's why I prefer to look at the world as-if it's a mathematical computer program/simulation, as postulated by Tegmark, Bostrom, et al*1. In SimWorld games for example, the appearance of the all-powerful Programmer inside the game might be viewed as dictatorial, in the sense of a god-complex. Especially, if the point of the game is to allow as much freedom as feasible for the avatars to develop in creative directions. Simulation games are exercises in creativity, and moral rules are necessity to eliminate corruption that would muck-up the works. In the real world, those rules are not engraved in stone, but must be inferred from experience with actions & consequences.

I'm not asserting that the Cosmos is actually a simulation game; it's just an analogy. If the world functions like a computer program though, then we can plausibly assume that there must be a Prime Programmer to create the algorithms that mathematically define the task to be computed. And we can ignore the astronomical odds against such a complex & constructive system arising by pure Accident (acausal) --- complete with malleable Matter, causal Energy, & directional Laws. So conjectures about a logically necessary First Cause are philosophically legitimate.

Regarding the necessity of Free Choice for "moral growth", I must agree. In Christian theology though, Morality has two different definitions : Man-to-Man or Man-to-God relationships. "Do unto others" is a practical moral guideline, but "do unto God" is impractical if God is missing, and nonsensical if God is absent. So, the only "doing" that would matter to an ego-centric but disembodied Creator is an act of Faith. Therefore, I prefer to assume that the First Cause was not an emotion-driven anthro-morphic Creator, but more like a purpose-motivated Rational Principle, such as Plato's Logos*2. The Programmer's presence in the program is in the structural organization (the algorithms), not in the objects produced within the system.

PS___I'm posting these comments, not to convince anyone, but merely for the exercise of postulating an alternative explanation for the paradox of a world with goal-oriented creatures, but without an intentional creator. Morality seems to require a Superego to overrule the immoral motives of Ego & Id. And Cosmic evolution requires inherent laws to limit de-constructive or counter-productive interactions. Nature has freedom within limits.


*1. Cosmos as Simulation :
This leads to the extraordinary possibility that our entire Universe might in fact be a computer simulation. The idea is not that new. In 1989, the legendary physicist, John Archibald Wheeler, suggested that the Universe is fundamentally mathematical and it can be seen as emerging from information.
https://www.sciencealert.com/expert-proposes-a-method-for-telling-if-we-all-live-in-a-computer-program

*2. Logos :
In Enformationism, it is the driving force of Evolution, Logos is the cause of all organization, and of all meaningful patterns in the world. It’s not a physical force though, but a metaphysical (perhaps mathematical) cause that can only be perceived by Reason, not senses or instruments.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page14.html
Note -- Logical Intention is not emotional, but purely rational. So, the presumptive Programmer would be something like the logic-driven alien, Mr. Spock of Star Trek fame; except without the irrational human element. A Superego without Ego or Id.

Because unlike objective phenomena, consciousness is both the subject doing the investigating and the object of investigation. — Wayfarer

Taken literally, that subject = object notion sounds like a figment looking at its own concept, as illustrated in Escher's hand-drawing-hand image. However, Idealism & Panpsychism seem to assume that the subject is immersed in a non-local ideal world (e.g. God's world model), and who interprets the contents of his personal consciousness as-if they are non-self objects existing locally even when the subject is not looking. Hence, Berkeley's "quad" explanation that what we "see" is figments of God's imagination, that for all practical (scientific) purposes are real & objective.

My post above suggests a slightly different way to interpret the "collapse of wave function" in a way that does not seem quite so magical & counter-intuitive. In place of "collapse" it substitutes "pattern recognition". If you are looking for a particle of matter, you are more likely to interpret randomized or statistical data as a particular object of some kind. But it's not magic --- subject creates its own object --- merely the Potential/Actual transition that Aristotle defined 2500 years ago, as feature of our ability to transform incoming Perception (raw data) into internal Conception (meaningful information). That subject/object dualism-within-monism is what I call the BothAnd Principle*1.

In my proposed interpretation, Ari's Potential is what we now call Statistical. And Statistical existence could be defined as Ideal (like all mathematical objects) or as not-yet-real (like all statistical possibilities). Hence, a 50% possibility would be half real & half ideal. Perhaps it also means that God's idea of a particle is 100% Ideal, and our incomplete human perception of the waveform is only partially particular (but real enough for mathematical manipulation). Does any of that actual nonsense make potential sense? :smile:

PS___Like all matter/mind discussions, our matter-based words can be interpreted literally (realistically) or metaphorically (ideally), leading to confusion of intention.

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

POTENTIAL-STATISTICAL WAVE-FUNCTION before & after observation

Not that I am at all an advocate for "consciousness causes collapse," but sometimes exploring theories you don't like tells you important things about the ones you do like. In any event, in comparison to infinite parallel universes and infinite copies of ourselves, it doesn't seem that wild. If the Fine Tuning Problem is bad enough to make people embrace multiple worlds, maybe consciousness causes collapse is due for a resurgence? — Count Timothy von Icarus

I don't doubt that a scientific observation of quantum superposition results in a change of some kind. But the notion that a single mind's act of perception, can cause a physical change in a material object in the real world, not only sounds like Magic, but also faces the Solipsism paradox.

So I would propose that we look at the "collapse" as a mental change in a single mind, in the Ideal realm. By that I mean the Potential for a particle was "out there" all along. But the observer, in his own mind, by an act of recognition, can cause a particular Form (the particle's physical properties) to suddenly appear within a random background. In other words, the statistical Potential was Actualized, in a manner similar to Pattern Perception*1.

A good example of unrecognized Potential is order-within-randomness optical puzzles, such as the spotty scene below*2. What you see depends in part on what you expect to see. But once a meaningful pattern has been recognized within a random pattern, it calls to mind a concept that was already existing in your memory. So, if you are looking for a particular familiar pattern, it will be easier to see. If I tell you to look for the "?", your mind will overlay a template of instances of "?" that you already know. I gave you a hint above.

So, if the scientist is looking for a localized particle of matter, a pattern matching his mental preconception might suddenly appear from within a background of fuzzy superposition : an act of recognition (to know again). This possible explanation for the "collapse" conundrum just occurred to me. So, it bears further consideration. Is it plausible that quantum "collapse" is merely a change of mind : a shifted perspective to see what was already there? :smile:

PS___The Strong Anthropic Principle is alternative explanation for the Fine Tuning observation.


*1. Pattern recognition :
Recognizing patterns allows us to predict and expect what is coming. The process of pattern recognition involves matching the information received with the information already stored in the brain. Making the connection between memories and information perceived is a step of pattern recognition called identification.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pattern_recognition_(psychology)


*2. ONCE YOU SEE IT, YOU CAN'T UNSEE IT

I’ve noticed ‘Laws of Form’ but when I tried reading it, found it quite daunting. Maybe we should start a discussion group on it. — Quixodian

I'm not a logician, mathematician, or electrical engineer, but I am somewhat informed on the philosophical concept of Form. Especially as it applies to essential or causal Information --- To Enform : the act of creating recognizable forms : designs ; patterns ; configurations ; structures ; categories. Generic Information begins in the physical world as mathematical ratios (data points ; proportions, 1:2 or 1/2) in a starry sky of uncountable multiplicity. Hence, we begin by clumping cosmic complexity into symbolic zodiac signs relating to local significance. In an observing mind, that raw numerical data can be processed into meaningful relationships (ideas ; words). Or, in a mechanical computer, those ratios are analyzed reductively into either/or (all or nothing) numerical codes of digital logic : 100%true vs 0%true. This is probably the most elemental form of categorization, ignoring all degrees of complexity or uncertainty.

The Wikipedia article on Brown's book, Laws of Form, notes a primary requirement for the human ability to know (grasp intellectually) any Form in the world, first "draw a distinction"*1. Rather than sketching an arbitrary encirclement, this precondition seems to assume that the categorizing mind is trying to "carve nature at its logical joints". First a particular "form" (thing) must be selected (differentiated) from the universal background (the incomprehensible multiplex) of manifold Forms (holons) adding-up to a complete system (universe ; all-encompassing category). A holon (e.g. steak) is a digestible bit or byte from a larger Whole Form (e.g. cow), a comprehensible fragment. Human Logic requires a rational (ratio-carving) knife & fork for its comestibles. But, is the world indeed inherently logical in its organization, or do we have to use the axe-murderer approach : whack, whack?

Semiotician Gregory Bateson defined Information as "the difference that makes a difference"; referring to personally significant meaning in the subjective mind. Plato's theory of Forms defined them, not as phenomenal objects, but as noumenal categories of thought : "timeless, absolute, unchangeable ideas". Aristotle went on to classify human thoughts into distinguishable categories*2. More recently, modern neuroscientists have attempted to discover how the human brain filters incoming sensations into recognizable "classes of things"*3 (e.g. dog vs cat ; apple vs orange). Each of those categorical Forms is a meaningful distinction for the purposes of a hungry human mind.

Brown's book is over my head, but the notion of logical categories seems to be necessary for understanding how the human mind works as it does. And that need for pre-classification may provide some hint as to why we tend to overlay the real world with an innate template, in order to begin to understand its complexity of organization. First, we draw a circle around a small part of the whole system. Then, with manageable pieces, we can add them up into broader categories, or divide them into smaller parts, right on down to the sub-atomic scale, where our inborn intuitive categories begin to fall apart, becoming counter-intuitive. Hence, the weird notion of Virtual Particles. Is there a natural limit on our ability to encapsulate? Or can we go on imagining novel Forms forever? :smile:


*1. Laws of Form :
"The first command : Draw a distinction"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_Form
Note --- In mathematics the distinctly-defined categories, of things that logically go together, are called “Sets”. However, so-called “set theory paradoxes” are not necessarily logical contradictions, but merely counter-intuitive. Does that mean the human mind can imagine sets or categories that don't fit into the brain's own preformed pairings?

*2. Aristotle’s Categories :
Hence, he does not think that there is one single highest kind. Instead, he thinks that there are ten: (1) substance; (2) quantity; (3) quality; (4) relatives; (5) somewhere; (6) sometime; (7) being in a position; (8) having; (9) acting; and (10) being acted upon
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-categories/
Note --- Perhaps the "single highest kind" of category is the universe itself.

*3. Category Learning in the Brain :
The ability to group items and events into functional categories is a fundamental characteristic of sophisticated thought. . . . . Categories represent our knowledge of groupings and patterns that are not explicit in the bottom-up sensory inputs.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3709834/
Note --- Our incoming sensations are typically randomized by repeated interactions & reflections (e.g echoes). So the brain/mind must sift out the grain from the chaff. Hence, evolution seems to have winnowed the winning organisms down to a few with the "right stuff" for correctly categorizing the fruits & threats of the game of life. Those inputs may include novel Forms that our ancestors have never encountered before in eons of evolution. So how can we make implicit Logical patterns explicit enough for categorical assimilation?

I think where it seems wrong to me is that it presumes that because causation only pertains to the phenomenal sphere, then it says nothing about ‘the world in itself or its meaning’. I think that’s an unreasonable inference. But I’m interested in what others have to say about it. — Quixodian

From my Information-based perspective, I think your intuition is correct. There is a connection between phenomena (world) and noumena (mind). However, the meaningful "connection" is not a phenomenal object, but a noumenal relationship : a logical link. It's a relationship between "world in itself" and meaning in the observer.

As Hume noted*1, Causation is an inference, not an observation ; a conception, not a perception. What we observe is changes in material objects from T1 to T2. But the causal force we call Energy is invisible & intangible, hence unobservable. We attribute the power of causation to some imperceptible enforming Force at T1 to explain the perceived Effect at T2. A phenomenal event is a physical transformation from state A to state B. As in physical Phase Transitions (e.g. liquid water to solid ice), the before & after states are are observable, but the intermediate cause that connects them is only inferrable. And Logic is the ability to imagine plausible interrelationships between things & events.

For a zombie, Causation may "only pertain to the phenomenal sphere". But for rational beings Causation is significant to the observer, not just for what happened to an object, but for what could happen to the subject*2. That a physical change has occurred in the non-me world is meaningful to me because I am an integral part & participant in that objective world.

Phenomenal Change is what we interpret as Noumenal Causation*3. Change is physical & material, but Causation is metaphysical & mental. Perhaps the notion of causation says as much about the the subject as the object. Without change in the world, to which we accredit causation, there would be no meaning in the mind. :smile:

*1. Causation as conjunction of states :
Causation is a relation between objects that we employ in our reasoning in order to yield less than demonstrative knowledge of the world beyond our immediate impressions.
https://iep.utm.edu/hume-causation/

*2. Objective Data vs Subjective Information :
Data is a collection of facts, while information puts those facts into context. While data is raw and unorganized, information is organized. Data points are individual and sometimes unrelated. Information maps out that data to provide a big-picture view of how it all fits together.
https://bloomfire.com/blog/data-vs-information/
Note --- Context includes observed and observer

*3. EnFormAction :
The novel concept of Enformation is also a synthesis of both Energy and Information. So I invented a new portmanteu word to more precisely encapsulate that two-in-one meaning : “EnFormAction”. In this case though, the neologism contains three parts : “En” for Energy, “Form” for Shape or Structure or Design, and “Action” for Change or Causation. But Energy & Causation are basically the same thing. And the “En-” prefix is typically used to indicate that which causes a thing to be in whatever state or form or condition is referred to.
https://bothandblog2.enformationism.info/page29.html

It seems to me like this question often produces three types of responses:
1. Logic is a set of formal systems; it is defined by the formalism.
2(a). Logic is a description of the ways we make good inferences and determine truth, or at least approximate truth pragmatically.
2.(b). Logic is a general description of the features or laws of thought. (This is more general than 2(a).
3. Logic is a principle at work in the world, its overall order. Stoic Logos, although perhaps disenchanted. — Count Timothy von Icarus

My abbreviated answer to "what is Logic" might be : Mathematics with Words. Note the connection of Greek Logos with the notion of Words as encapsulated ideas about the world and how it works. The values of Math are expressed in abstract numbers (quantity), while the values of Logic are expressed in terms of statistical probabilities (oughts).

Mathematics is the formalism of the physical structure (interconnections) and natural laws (relationships) of the material world. Just as mathematical Physics allows humans to predict the outcome of physical processes, mental Logic allows us to infer (educated guess) a future state of human metaphysical processes, such as Politics. Unfortunately, as with the order-within-chaos of weather patterns, human freewill makes even logical forecasts (e.g. inferences by think tanks) of political outcomes dicey. :smile:

Look what matter can do. Clearly, it’s extraordinary. — Art48

By itself, Matter can do nothing. It's merely the inert stuff that Energy acts on. In my post above, I said that "Materialism is missing something fundamental"*1. Actually that missing essence is immaterial Energy (Ergos), which the ancient Greek Atomist/Materialists knew only as a mythical spiritual worker*2, and that modern Materialists typically take for granted. That's because we can see & touch matter, but energy is invisible & intangible. We only know it by its after-effects. Energy is physical only in the sense that it causes the transformations of matter that Physicists are interested in.

Besides, in the last century, Einstein proved mathematically that "hard massy" Atoms are merely a stable form of "wispy massless" photons (force carriers), which gain mass as they slow down. So, it seems that immaterial dynamic Energy is more fundamental to reality than the immobile static Matter that our senses tell us is real. Matter gets pushed around by Energy, and it's the Change of form or position that our senses detect.

So, I will propose that it's the Causal Force that is "extraordinary", and Mundane Matter that is ordinary. However, the natural power to cause physical Change can be found in many different forms*3. And perhaps the most important form to humans is Information, which is the essence of Mind. Consequently, your enthusiasm for malleable matter seems to be misplaced. Instead, an Enlightened Materialism would acknowledge the ubiquitous role of the immaterial change agent we now know as Information*4. In its mental forms, energy exists as Ideas & Imagination, which are the causal forces of human Culture. Realization of Information, as the incognito essence of reality, might usher in a new Age of Enlightenment. :smile:

*1. Materialism :
materialism, also called physicalism, in philosophy, the view that all facts (including facts about the human mind and will and the course of human history) are causally dependent upon physical processes, or even reducible to them.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/materialism-philosophy
Note --- In fact, physical processes and mental functions are "causally dependent" on the motive force we call "Energy". The lumps of mass are acted upon, not actors in world events. Ancient Phusis was focused on sensible matter, but modern Physics is all about the stuff we only know via the eye of the mind : Reason.

*2. Mechanism :
Mechanical materialism is the theory that the world consists entirely of hard, massy material objects
https://www.britannica.com/topic/materialism-philosophy
Note --- A mechanism transmits something from one pinion to another. But what is that passes between them? Not matter obviously, but the power to cause material Change.

*3. Forms of Energy :
Energy exists in many different forms. Examples of these are: light energy, heat energy, mechanical energy, gravitational energy, electrical energy, sound energy, chemical energy, nuclear or atomic energy and so on.
https://vikaspedia.in/energy/energy-basics/forms-of-energy
Note --- To that list of energetic Forms I would add a recent discovery of Quantum Physics : Information (the power to cause change of form)

*4. Information is Energy :
Just as the principle of conservation of energy is essential to understanding energy, the principle of conservation of information leads to a deeper understanding of information.
Information is strongly related to entropy, always in motion, cannot disappear, and is independent of subjects.
https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-658-40862-6

The materialist/physicalist view is that consciousness can be explained as exclusively a product of biological, chemical, and electrical activity. Consciousness merely is “what the brain does.” People who consider themselves hard-nosed realists often take this view. . . . .
You exist. You are conscious. If you are entirely material, then not so much the worse for you, but so much the better for materialism! Look what matter can do. Clearly, it’s extraordinary. Clearly, I don’t know all matter can do. Let’s call this view “enlightened materialism.” — Art48

I disagree that Consciousness can be satisfactorily explained in purely material terms. Matter can explain Facts, but not Meanings. Yet I don't think of sentient awareness as some supernatural entity like a divinely endowed Soul. Instead, "Consciousness" is the name we give to a mysterious process (function) of complex material organisms (brains). Superficially, the brain may seem like a hydraulic mechanism, but its output, its work, is the production of invisible & intangible concepts (insights, intellect, ingenuity, vision), that would be of no use to creatures with no means to make them personally meaningful. "What matter can do" is to convert ordinary physical Energy into psychic Ideas that can motivate other sentient beings toward cooperative goals ; it transforms physical Nature into metaphysical Culture --- but how?.

Therefore, Mind may be defined simplistically as "what the Brain does" (its function). But that doesn't completely explain what Mind is essentially (ontologically). The Identity Theory, that Brain = Mind, ignores a wide explanatory gap between physical actions and mental processes. Obviously neural activity is correlated with mental ideation, but a tree is not the same thing as a representation of a tree. In the 20th century, Behaviorism was a popular approach to psychology. But it reduced presumed moral agents to philosophical zombies. Hence, ordinary Materialism is missing something fundamental (mental) in the world. Some feature of the whole system that cannot be found in its isolated parts. So yes, conventional Materialism is in need of Enlightenment. We need, not an "exclusive" reduction, but a holistic inclusive induction (part to whole).

However, I don't view acquiescence to the obvious, or ignorance of essence*1 as "enlightening". For example, Isaac Newton mathematically defined what Gravity does, but was mystified by what it is*3. Gravity functions like a material connection between massive objects, except there is no actual medium, no matter, in the gap. So, Einstein re-defined Gravity mathematically as a geometric relationship, a ratio*4. And it's now mostly imagined as a Field of attractive Force. Yet again, the Field is defined mathematically instead of materially. Which leaves open the question of what Gravity is essentially.

As with Mind, the mystery of Gravity is not in its Function, but its Form. Mathematical forms, e.g. Geometry, cannot be detected by the physical senses. Instead, we know of such immaterial "stuff" only by the sixth sense of Reason, which translates physical interrelationships into mental models. And the "stuff" that our Rational (mathematical) sense detects & interprets is multivalent Information*2 in the form of Ideas & Meanings, not Matter*5.

Tegmark's far-out theory of a Mathematical Universe is merely one of many alternatives to the commonsense Material World model. Since math is merely a system of abstract ideas, sans material, you could call the whole Cosmos an Information Reality.*6 So, what is Consciousness? The ability (power ; potential ; capacity ; faculty) to see, in the mind's eye, the invisible mathematical structure of the world. That meaningful/useful faculty has only been imputed to sentient/rational observers, most (if not all) of whom have large complex material brains, producing immaterial internal mathematical models of reality. :smile:

PS___My own term for an enlightened update of ancient Materialism is Enformationism*7.


*1. Essence :
In philosophy, essence is the attribute (or set of attributes) that makes a thing be what it fundamentally is. It is often called the “nature” of a thing. . . . . In Aristotle essence was identified with substance (ousia) or sometimes substantial form.
https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Essence
Note --- A modern alternative to the ancient notion of Ousia (divine essence) may be the broad concept of Information, which has been found in many forms, from Ideas to Energy to Objects*2.

*2. The many forms of Information :
Consciousness only emerges at the later stages of evolution. But the universal substance of reality might be called an Information Field, analogous to a Quantum field as an immaterial pool of potential.
http://bothandblog4.enformationism.info/page29.html

*3. Spooky action at a distance :
It is inconceivable that inanimate Matter should, without the Mediation of something else, which is not material, operate upon, and affect other matter without mutual Contact…That Gravity should be innate, inherent and essential to Matter, so that one body may act upon another at a distance thro' a Vacuum, without the Mediation of any thing else, by and through which their Action and Force may be conveyed from one to another, is to me so great an Absurdity that I believe no Man who has in philosophical Matters a competent Faculty of thinking can ever fall into it. Gravity must be caused by an Agent acting constantly according to certain laws; but whether this Agent be material or immaterial, I have left to the Consideration of my readers. — Isaac Newton, Letters to Bentley, 1692/3
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_at_a_distance

*4. What does gravity consist of? :
To summarize, according to Einstein, gravity is the curving of spacetime by all the objects in it, combined with the "geodesic" (straight) motions of those objects through the spacetime.
https://www.space.com/classical-gravity.html
Note --- Einstein's poetic metaphor of warped space may be philosophical, but not scientific. It imagines empty space as-if it is a material substance, when in fact mathematical space is the absence of matter in between objects.

*5. Information Realism : Mathematical Reality
This abstract notion, called information realism is philosophical in character, but it has been associated with physics from its very inception. Most famously, information realism is a popular philosophical underpinning for digital physics.
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/physics-is-pointing-inexorably-to-mind/

*6. Information Reality :
The concrete things we perceive may be virtual reality, yet we have no choice but to act as-if it they are actually real. Although it is meta-physical, Information is not super-natural. Instead, it is the essence of Nature.
http://bothandblog4.enformationism.info/page18.html

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

THE MATERIAL WORLD IS A MATHEMATICAL MODEL IN YOUR MIND
Plato's Socrates held that the world of Forms is transcendent to our own world (the world of substances) and also is the essential basis of reality.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_forms

Has the economic anarchy of capitalism produced the current status quo of 2/3rds of the world living below the poverty line? — an-salad

I'm neither a political Capitalist nor a political Socialist. Instead, I'm apolitical, and I happen to live in a regulated mixed economy, where my status is far above the world poverty line. My retirement Uber gig is "platform capitalism", where the workers are free to come & go, but their income remains near the bottom of the U.S. economic pyramid (not counting the unemployed)*1. At the same time, I benefit from socialist medicine (VA) because I gave four years of my life defending my less-than-perfect country. Although my income is near the bottom of the US scale, I don't consider myself impoverished, compared to the rest of the world --- much of which doesn't benefit from the political stability and moderation of a mixed economy*2.

I questioned the assertion that "2/3rds of the world living below the poverty line". So, I Googled "poverty line" and found a variety of estimates based on such criteria as "global data set on basic commodity prices to provide first estimates of global extreme poverty in the long run using a 'cost of basic needs' approach"*3. Proponents of Capitalism like to boast of the millions of people "raised out of historical poverty". As illustrated in the chart below *5. But, do you trust the data and criteria of Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington, DC.?

A major factor in world poverty seems to be, not so much Capitalism vs Socialism, as the political stability of the government. Capitalism flourishes with minimal regulation, but benefits mostly those near the top of the pyramid, and tends toward Oligarchism. Socialism depends on top-down suppression of the acquisitive motives of human nature, but tends toward Totalitarianism. Yet, a blend of both approaches seems to moderate the worst of each system, while allowing enough sociopolitical freedom to avoid the poverty rates of Ancient Rome for example*4. I'm just trying to put the current world economy into a broader perspective --- not either/or but BothAnd. Marx's philosophy may have had more impact on poverty than his politics. :smile:

*1. Gig employment vs poverty :
Thirty-two percent of drivers in the study reported falling into a “debt trap;” given the costs of an Uber lease, car insurance and Uber's 25 percent commission and booking fees, some drivers net less than $5 an hour. Half of drivers live at or below the federal poverty level.
https://today.advancement.georgetown.edu/georgetown-magazine/2020/is-uber-taking-its-drivers-for-a-ride/
Note --- My part-time gig income averages around high minimum wage : $25/hr

*2. Mixed Economy :
A mixed economic system is a system that combines aspects of both capitalism and socialism. A mixed economic system protects private property and allows a level of economic freedom in the use of capital, but also allows for governments to interfere in economic activities in order to achieve social aims.
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/mixed-economic-system.asp

*3. Global extreme poverty: Present and past since 1820 :
Based on our methodology, the global poverty rate fell below 70% in 1873, and below 60% by 1897; after that, it takes much longer to drop below 50% by 1955, then much less time to drop below 40% by 1977.
https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/sites/e20f2f1a-en/index.html?itemId=/content/component/e20f2f1a-en

*4. Ancient Poverty :
Their society may have consisted of a handful of wealthy individuals which made up 0.6% of the population, an army that made up 0.4% of the population, and the poor masses that made up 99% of the populace.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_ancient_Rome

*5. HISTORY OF WORLD POVERTY SINCE 1800
Marx's critique of unregulated Capitalism published in 1867.
https://cepr.shorthandstories.com/history-poverty/

I recommend a recent (2014) book, Schopenhauer’s Compass, Urs App. — Quixodian

Thanks, but I'm a lazy amateur philosophical hobbyist. So I'm not likely to read the recommended book. I'd prefer to hear your well-informed & succinct opinion on the question of Schopenhauer's substitution of "Will" in place of "Soul". Was he rejecting supernatural Christian doctrine, regarding the essence of humanity, in favor of Buddhist notions*1 of a godless-mindless-worldly-physical-natural Life Force? I don't really care about Schop's opinion {pace }, except as it fits into the panoply of philosophical conjectures on the Subjective Awareness of why we strive to live. Are we living for something higher than just another day in the mundane life of Me?

The article I referenced above was entitled : "Schopenhauer and Buddhism: soulless continuity". Another article, entitled "Arthur Schopenhauer: a herald of the World Soul"*2 seems to imply that his "will-to-live"*3 was an impersonal natural force, comparable to Plato's Anima Mundi, and Bergson's Elan Vital, and Spinoza's Conatus. All of which are similar, in some features, to my own concept of Enformy & EnFormAction*4. Which is based primarily on Quantum & Information Science instead of religious or philosophical traditions. A late evolutionary expression of the information aspect of that natural force is what we now know as Mind & Intellect.

Yet, Nature/Cosmos is now known to have a questionable creatio ex nihilo, for which philosophers & cosmologists are still seeking a plausible First Cause. For example, was the Big Bang just an explosion of Preternatural Power without precedent and without meaning? Is the Will to Live, just the meaningless momentum from that initial outburst of causation? What was the primal Will Power, the original ding an sich? :smile:

PS__Is Schop postulating that Life is the fundamental force of the world, and that Mind is merely an accidental result of "blind striving"? If "life only comes from life" (per Pasteur), then does Mind only come from Mind?


*1. Buddhism in a Nutshell :
Buddhism denies the existence of an unchanging or eternal soul created by a God or emanating from a Divine Essence (Paramatma).
https://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/buddhism/nshell09.htm

*2. Herald of the World Soul :
Schopenhauer overcame Kantian skepticism by reinterpreting both Subject and the “Thing-in-Itself”. For him, Both actually form yet another, “missing” Attribute of the Spinozian Substance, Which becomes Its Natura Naturans. The resulting Arche, in contrast to Mind or Body, is Life proper, Which in antiquity had been featured as the “World Soul” and Which in the philosophy of Modern Times was more commonly known as “World Will”. Unlike Schelling, Schopenhauer did not shrink from his discovery and did not return to the Christian God. Instead, he seized on this precarious Arche and termed It more concisely and definitely, as “Will-to-Live”.
https://alexei800.wordpress.com/2014/11/16/schopenhauer-world-soul/
Note --- Arche : Archē, or 'principle', is an ancient Greek philosophical term. Building on earlier uses, Aristotle established it as a technical term with a number of related meanings, including 'originating source', 'cause', 'principle of knowledge' and 'basic entity'.
https://www.rep.routledge.com/articles/thematic/arche/v-1

*3. Schopenhauer as Stoic :
Within Schopenhauer’s vision of the world as Will, there is no God to be comprehended, and the world is conceived of as being inherently meaningless.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/schopenhauer/

*4. Enformy :
In the Enformationism theory, Enformy is a hypothetical, holistic, metaphysical, natural trend or force, that counteracts Entropy & Randomness to produce complexity & progress --- including the evolutionary emergence of Life & Mind.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html

Not a machine no, a creature of nature - not his exact words, but that's what he means. He appears to have something quite similar to evolution in mind and discusses some interesting ideas associated with such concepts. — Manuel

I got the idea that Schop thought of humans as mechanisms from the Wiki & JSTOR articles*1, which said he denied the existence of a Soul (immaterial essence, animating principle, spirit), perhaps due to the religious baggage attached to the notion of immortal spirits. But the most general meaning of "Soul" has been the rational powers that distinguish god-like humans from mere mechanical animals. Did I get the wrong impression of Schop's contrast of Will vs Soul?

The article also uses the term "possessed" to describe the activity of Will within a human. Is that not similar to the notion of Spirit possession? :smile:

*1. Soul vs Will :
Arthur Schopenhauer did not believe in soul. However, he explained that every living thing is possessed by a will.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5406/janimalethics.8.1.0012

I think he would have some issues with the term "information", as it comes loaded with many ideas that are quite the opposite of his elaboration of "will". The will is a blind striving, with no goal in mind. While there are several elaborations of "information" theory that are clear that information is meant in a technical sense, it becomes very slippery very quickly. — Manuel

"Blind striving" sounds very much like the common notion of physical Energy/Force. But, as the driving impetus behind Evolution, that cosmic Will-Power seems to have some direction (e.g. toward complexity & organization against impossible odds); especially here on Earth. That may be one reason some scientists are beginning to view physical Energy as a specific form of generic (multi-form) Information*2.

The original referent of the term "Information" was the immaterial contents of a Mind : Ideas, Facts, Intentions. Some of those enformed concepts seem to be the motivators & shapers of human goals. For example, the idea of a canal across the mountain ridge of Panama was so rationally & emotionally powerful, for economic & socio-cultural reasons, that it motivated the expenditure of decades of Time, and millions of money investments to overcome impossible odds*3. In a very real sense, Information (ideas) was transformed into Energy to "strive" for very focused goals. You might say that the idea of a short canal across forbidding mountains was the ding an sich (ideal referent) of the man-made watercourse we have today. Is the visionary concept of a future state merely a poetic metaphor, or also a causal force? :smile:


*2. Information transformed into Energy to do work :
Physicists in Japan have shown experimentally that a particle can be made to do work simply by receiving information, rather than energy.
https://physicsworld.com/a/information-converted-to-energy/

*3. Man behind the Panama Canal :
French engineer Bunau-Varilla energetically promoted a canal in Panama.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippe_Bunau-Varilla
Note --- Was he "possessed" by "blind striving" Will, or by a goal-oriented idea/emotion/will.?

It's important to keep in mind that for Schopenhauer, the will as thing in itself is the closest approximation to the thing in itself. . . . . what could this REFERENT be?? — Manuel

I've never read any of Schopenhauer's works, but my superficial understanding of his notion of Universal Will, sounds similar to a scientist's concept of causal Energy. He seemed to replace the personal Soul with an impersonal Drive or Motivation to work for life & survival. In other words, a human being is merely a robotic machine programmed (by evolution?) to do whatever is necessary to propagate its core program (seed) into the future --- to what end? But if invisible intangible abstract Energy is the universal ding-an-sich, it must also take on the causal, material & mental forms that we observe in the world.

That notion is similar to the 21st century concept of Information*1 as the ubiquitous shape-shifting "substance" that exists in the various forms of Energy & Matter & Mind*2. Hence, the evolutionary offspring of the Prime Mover (power to create & animate Forms) is the essence of all things in the world. In that case, our perceptions of mind, matter & energy may be the "approximations" (representations) that Schop was referring to. Could universal generic Information be the referent of Will? Does that make sense to someone more familiar with his publications? :smile:


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

*2. Mind as Energy :
The mind is viewed as energies of relationships, with no beginning and no end, that give rise to consciousness in an observer processing change or information from the universe.
https://researchoutreach.org/articles/mind-as-energy/

I'm not sure "complexity" has to equal "amazing". We love to pat ourselves on the back, don't we? — schopenhauer1

Actually, I was patting Nature (or nature's god) on the back. Ourselves may not yet be ready for prime time*1. "Amazing" is an expression of value judgement, based on personal values. And personally, I am impressed by the glacially slow natural methods of world creation, as compared to the instantaneous creation by fiat of the Bible. What's amazing is not just complexity, but the quality of the intricate & balanced organization of the cosmic organism that emerged from the chaos of an omnidirectional Big Bang beginning.

Nature's enigmatic "values" --- or criteria for computation (replication) --- seem to be the fuzzy logic of Fitness Functions, rather than the mythical magical logic of instant perfection (paradise), followed by degradation by its own internal intelligent agents. On the other hand, computer scientists have recognized that natural evolution functions like a computer program which works toward some ultimate output. Some even describe its creative process as "amazing"*2, and have begun to emulate its counter-intuitive ingenious methods.

Cosmologist Max Tegmark has based his Mathematical World theory on the notion of natural evolution as a goal-directed program*3. Likewise, in place of traditional god-as-magician myths of 7-day creation, I think of the First Cause as an intentional Programmer, who selects criteria and sets algorithms, and then leaves the computer world alone to do its work of creation via evolution. Let's hope "ourselves" don't screw it all up with our artificial un-natural meddling.

This novel way of thinking about the ups & downs (goods vs evils ; fit vs unfit) of the gradually emerging world-system is just the reverse of Genesis. In the Hebrew myth, the world started in a perfect state, but then was corrupted by wrong choices made by the upright creatures chosen as robotic caretakers of Paradise. Evil entered the world when those zombie-like proto-humans surprisingly gained the independent power of FreeWill, due to the intervention of an evil god. And the rest, as they say, is history, red in tooth & claw : the savage conflict of competition for goods.

Now that upstart homo sapiens are beginning to meddle with the well-honed program of Nature, we learn the hard way that it ain't as easy as it seems to reach perfection --- a man-made Utopia remains an elusive dream. For example, medical science can artificially increase health & lifespan for a few, but at the expense of allowing "unfit" humans to replicate. What effect that will have on future generations remains to be seen. On a much faster time-scale, antibiotics have saved some lives, but the rules of natural evolution have quickly produced antibiotic-resistant bacteria. Meanwhile, the successes of technological evolution have inspired some to aspire to a Utopia of fleshless Artificial Intelligences, with natural humans left behind in the dust.

So no, I was not patting wise apes on the back, for their attempts to create heaven on Earth. The "amazing complexity" created by heuristic natural processes requires a delicate balance of good vs evil in order to maintain its progression toward a "better" world. But who is qualified to judge its betterness, us still-evolving apes or the original Programmer? When humanity learns how to define "Good", then ourselves may become the little gods of a real paradise. :smile:



*1. Humanity's Awesome, Terrifying Takeover of Evolution :
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/02/opinion/ezra-klein-podcast-walter-isaacson.html
Note --- This article expresses some trepidation regarding the outcome of human-engineered linear evolution as compared to Nature's meandering methods. However, computer scientists have adopted the heuristic (trial & error) procedures of natural evolution in order to "design" solutions to problems that cannot be easily formulated into numerical values. In place of human selection of criteria it emulates the wisdom of natural selection.

*2. Amazing Evolution :
Amazing Evolution shines a light on this incredible process, from the beginnings of life around 3.8 billion years ago, to the millions of different species alive today, including the moon-walking, talking apes with super-powerful brains–human beings!
https://www.lindentreebooks.com/amazing-evolution.html

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

First, this was a hypothetical "If there was a god". I am not sure "Gaia" as a standin for simply "Nature" counts. So that is a bit moving the target to an insentient non-intentional, phenomeon. — schopenhauer1

Sorry! I was just riffing on the God/Nature notion. :yikes:

Also the assumption that a utopian universe would be somehow itself "inauthentic" is also a bias to the situation we have now. I see two utopias really: — schopenhauer1

As I see it, both of those Utopias were anticipated by the late Jewish/ early Christian notions of Heaven. But why would God make the hopeful future Heaven contingent on winning a piety competition in the here & now Earth? Apparently, the current occupants of Heaven are the Angels, who function more like immaterial email clients for God than as freewill agents, who must constantly battle their material bodies for moral control. Which "world" is "inauthentic" (tantalizing illusion) : the tangible material terran abode, or the invisible immaterial angelic realm? Do your "two utopias" play each other in football? :nerd:

Which then brings us back to the original question of what if god's morality is simply alien to ours? — schopenhauer1

I tried to address, in a blog post, that poor excuse for an argument in The Book of Job, that whatever God does is true & good, despite what fallible humans might feel about their plight*1. From that perspective, God is the moral native, and humans are the aliens.

*1. God's Inscrutable Plan : blog excerpt
A popular excuse for the Problem of Evil ─ that the world is unfolding according to God’s Plan, which is beyond human understanding ─ is merely a diversion, advising us to "suck it up" and accept the bad with the good, while hoping for a better deal in the next life*. Ironically, the old "mysterious ways" theory belies divine benevolence, implying that what’s good or bad for me is irrelevant to God. The faithful must accept the fact that they are pawns in the Lord’s chess match with Satan. The hidden meaning of the "my ways are not your ways" Plan is explained most clearly in Calvinism : The Creator intended for only a few “elect” humans to go to heaven; and the majority, including innocent babies, are destined to suffer & die & then burn in Hell for eternity. What kind of divine plan is that? . . . .
https://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page26.html

If you had the ability to create a universe without suffering, but you created it with suffering instead because "You want to see how the game works out", I would count that as immoral. — schopenhauer1

Some thinkers resolved that dilemma by dividing responsibility : Old Testament = Jehovah vs Satan ; Gnosticism = Sophia vs Demiurge. But that evades any satisfying ultimate buck-stopper. So, my initial tentative conclusion to that cosmic moral quandary was to assume that the First Cause of our temporary universe was not a moral agent, but more like an amoral Principle of Change (Prime Mover ; Cosmic Causal Energy?). However, since I cannot ignore the physical signs, revealed by Science, of an evolutionary tendency toward the gradual emergence of material complexity & mental sentience & moral ethics, I still have to assume that the Big-Bang-act-of-creation had some purpose behind it (LOGOS)*2. And maybe Humanity collectively can contribute to the improvement of the Game of Life. Therefore, lacking any direct revelation from the Prime Actor, I must admit that I have no idea what that end-game goal might be. Some have guessed that G*D is gestating little limited gods in He/r image. But why? Does G*D have a motherly instinct? All I can say right now, is that it's an open question --- ripe for philosophical exploration. :smile:

PS___My BothAnd philosophy advises us puzzling humans to just suck it up, and accept the good with the bad. But at the same time, still work toward a more moral Utopian culture on Earth. Ain't that what Morality is all about?

*2. God's Inscrutable Plan : Part Two
. . . . . But what if the sages of the past wove their fictional narratives from the wrong assumptions? Idealistic Priests imagined that a perfect deity could only create a perfect world. Ironically, with paradise at the beginning, the story could only develop downward into decay and decadence. Hence, cynical playwrights caricatured the gods as self-absorbed and indifferent to human suffering. To them, humans were pawns in a heavenly Game of Thrones. On the other hand, modern science has replaced the stagnant cycles of Greek Fate with a history of progress from Chaos to Cosmos in a logical series of steps. Current models of Evolution have constructed a plausible sequence of advancements from extreme simplicity to the amazing organic complexity we see today in our scopes and neighborhoods.
https://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page26.html

But supposing there was a god, can we all agree that this world is sufficiently evil enough to account for an evil god? — schopenhauer1

I don't know of any objective measurement of the good/evil ratio of the whole universe. On the whole, it seems that our local planet is the only part of the cosmic system with any claim to moral accounts. And, those reports of Good vs Evil are entirely subjective & personal. Except, of course, for the broadcast news of the world, which tends to paint a bleak picture of suffering humanity and blighted ecosystem. From the moralizing media we get a concentrated dose of downers.

So my question to you (generic "you") is this : do you --- locally & personally & subjectively --- find the world to be more Evil than Good? By that I mean, is your personal experience of the world mostly Pleasant or mostly Unpleasant, or on average, Tolerable? In this question, I'm discounting the News Media, which mainly reports on the Bad Stuff : "if it bleeds, it leads"*1. And I'm also ignoring all of the 99.9% of the universe that seems AFAIK to be insentient, hence amoral. In that case, is our (1/10 of 1%) feeling-part-of-the-whole, mostly bad or mostly good, or on average, good-enough to make life worth living?

Your answer to that question, may shed some light on your general view of the moral status of the planet Earth, and by extension to the non-Earth universe. The reason I make the whole/part distinction is to determine if Nature herself is Evil, or if the personal feelings of a few humans make it seem so *2. If the life of a mosquito is abruptly snuffed-out by the hand of an unfeeling human, is that a moral tragedy?

If the Universe (Nature) is mostly malevolent, then the Culpable Cause of this ongoing disaster could be construed as morally Evil. But, if Nature is mostly benign, and conducive to sentient human flourishing, then "Mother Nature" could be construed as sufficiently Good for a general moral gold-star. If Gaia is the "god" referred to in the OP, should we view Her as Good, or Evil, or Neutral?

If Nature is morally neutral though, then who do we have to blame for all the adverse aspects of life in this merciless world, "red in tooth & claw"? Who makes all the free-will moral choices in this vale of tears anyway? Do the smiles of a satiated baby offset any of the bloody stuff? How do all such tiny little local Goods add-up in the total scheme of things in an unfinished work of creation : goodish or badish?

The bottom line of the Moral Accounting seems to rest on the question of Agency & Moral Choice. If individual moral agents are free to act selfishly or altruistically, then where should the blame be placed : on the creator of Free Choice or on the Choosers? Is "God" the author of confusion, or of order? Is FreeWill*3 a defect in a world system? Would a cosmos of automatons, be sufficiently Good Enough to warrant a gold star for the designer of a perfectly balanced system of insentient mechanisms?

On the other hand, if know-nothing Nature-as-we-know-it is nothing more than an interlude in an eternal series of physical accidents, who are we to blame for the misfortunes that will-free human puppets call Evil? Is the god-postulate merely a hypothetical scapegoat for our individual measures (feelings) of Good vs Evil? Do robots have feelings, or gods? . . . . . Just asking. :smile:


*1. News Bias :
Basically, if there’s violence, conflict or death involved, it gets top billing. Nowhere is this more true than in television news, which coined the expression, “If it bleeds, it leads.”
https://newsliteracymatters.com/2019/11/11/q-what-does-if-it-bleeds-it-leads-mean/

*2. Hamlet's Dungeon :
"Why, then, ’tis none to you, for there is nothing either good or bad but thinking makes it so. To me, it is a prison". -----Shakespeare, Hamlet
Note --- The phrase means that one's subjective perspective is locally & personally biased.

*3. FreeWill : The ability (or illusion) to make moral choices. Assuming that human animals are not totally determined by the laws of physics (hot vs cold), but also by metaphysical laws of morality (good vs evil).

"I'm afraid that explaining the existence of the world is quite beyond my capacity." — Quixodian

Speaking of persistence in the form of general "existence" --- in the context of Phenomena and Noumena --- I just read the chapter In Search of Reality in Charles Pinter's Mind & Cosmic Order. On the topic of Facts, he says "our words cannot refer to things in the world, because those things don't really exist in the world. They only exist when they have been individuated, separated out, and noted in mind". (Internal Realism : word to world mapping) --- Gnomon

As I continued to read the Facts and Information chapter, I began to see how Pinter was using the term "exist" in his idealistic worldview. First, he makes the same differentiation as I do, between Shannon's use of "information" --- defining the physical carrier instead of the metaphysical content of a message --- and the traditional meaning of the word as "informative" (meaningful) content. He says "wherever there is some variation or modulation of a physical medium, there is potential information". {my bold} Then he further distinguishes the physical carrier (e.g. energy pulses) from the metaphysical content (meaning). "We shall regard information as a non-material 'something' "

Pinter goes on to define "Form" (the root of information) in terms of Structure : "aspects of an object that are accessible only to observers able to see in Gestalts". That is, to separate the meaningful Pattern from the noisy foggy background. Next comes the introduction of substance/property dualism : "every fact consists of two separate pieces of reality". One piece is A> the general material-world background --- including the not yet discerned Object --- and B> the specific logical structure (Form) that the observer interprets as meaningful to the Self.

Further down, he notes that things "outside the view of any sentient observer are latent and unrealized. They become actualized when living observers individuate them by assigning features and structure to them, and perceiving them as wholes". {my bold} I would prefer to substitute "conceiving" as the interpretation of parts into wholes (Gestalt images). "Objects do not exist outside the purview of minds" That is not a universal Ontology, but a personal meaning of Being.

Next, he makes the assertion that I found counter-intuitive : "If this [gestalt] information is absent from the universe, then the object does not exist" {my bracket} It does not exist for the viewer until defined (from meaningless background) by an act of conception. The brain perceives raw data, which the mind conceives into personally meaningful Gestalts (words). "To put it another way, the information which brings an object or fact out of the background in which it is immersed . . ."

As I understand his view of contingent "existence", clumps of matter (e.g. stars) only exist as a noisy meaningless background, but the concept of a star (Gestalt object) comes into existence when an observing sentient Mind defines it as a particular thing. An object may have potential Form when unobserved, but it only takes on actual formal Meaning in the mind of a Subject.

"Prior to the existence of conscious awareness, there were physical processes, but they were virtual [potential] and not actual because they were not impressed on any aware observer". Of course, that statement of fact is true only if you ignore the contribution of Berkeley's universal Observer. But that outside awareness may be the only way to "explain the existence of the world", as defined against the background of nothingness. :smile:


A Precis of Enformationism :
"This is a powerful and far-reaching proposal. What it claims is that all of reality is divided into two very different branches. There is the purely material aspect of reality which encompasses matter and energy playing by the rules of physics. In addition, there is information --- or rather knowledge --- which is immaterial . . . ." ----Pinter, Mind and the Cosmic Order
Note 1 --- BothAnd dualism = material & immaterial exist, but in different forms : substance + property
Note 2 --- Monistic Existence = both Physical and Metaphysical = universal Ontology
Note 3 --- The non-traditional vocabulary & counter-intuitive nature of this BothAnd worldview makes it difficult to convey without lots of parenthetical diversions.

DO YOU PERCEIVE A CAMOUFLAGE BACKGROUND OR CONCEIVE A "DAZZLE" OF ZEBRAS ?

I'd say my view is built from several pieces that work together all at the same time.
Like my Klein bottle icon. Or like a donut and a donut hole. Or the right and left hand. My argument for this is empirical, semantic, and holist. But it's in the OP, so I'll stop there. — plaque flag

Sorry, that view-splaining was as clear as a donut hole, and as straightforward as a klein-bottle. You had me at "holist", but it's the other bits that don't fit --- into my unsophisticated semantic receptacle. I guess, for now, I'll just have to muddle along with the naive Wiki definition of Direct Realism.

PS__As I mentioned before, it would help me to hear your response to the alternative views of Direct Realism linked in my previous post.

I'm sure we discussed this article before Quantum mysteries dissolve if possibilities are realities -'“This new ontological picture requires that we expand our concept of ‘what is real’ to include an extraspatiotemporal domain of quantum possibility”. Notes that Heisenberg (Platonist that he was) endorses the Aristotelian concept of potentia. — Quixodian

Yes, that article seems to agree with my assessment of the Quantum quandaries, that make the basement of physical reality appear to be a dungeon of dragons. On the other hand, "including “potential” things on the list of “real” things can avoid the counterintuitive conundrums that quantum physics poses". Ironically, it expands our conventional materialistic notion of Reality into the realm of Platonic Ideality. Potential "things" --- hidden in statistical superposition --- are technically not-yet-manifest in our sensory reality. They must be coaxed to actualize (realize) by a technological act of mind.

That's why pragmatic scientists were appalled to "see" real particles appearing as-if out of nowhere (statistical probability) after an intervention by their mind-probes into the holistic systems of material atoms, that were previously assumed to be indivisible. Even singular photons are seen to split into multiple manifestations upon passing through a bottleneck slit. But, if we can be content to assume that the Potential for the multiple photons already existed in the potential of immaterial Energy, the mystifying magic is revealed to be merely a trick of the mind.

I think you may have a 'naive' view of phenomenological direct realism. I went out of my way to spare you the confusion. — plaque flag

I apologize for my dumminess! My naive notion of "direct realism" is limited to the Wiki summary. Since I have no formal training in the abstruse enigmas of academic philosophy, your clarification must have sailed right over my little pointy head. Can you read me into your more sophisticated view, without getting into technicalities that will only confuse me further. I sense that our worldviews are not far apart, but perhaps on the other side of the mountain. :smile:

PS__It may help to penetrate my opaque skull, for you to reply directly to some of the alternative views I linked to in the post.

In my opinion, the hard problem is made harder (pointlessly harder) by the confusions of dualism. I will perhaps please the Spiritual crowd by agreeing with them that the subject is absolutely crucial. I reject scientific realism understood as the dead pure object existing utterly apart from an embodied subject. — plaque flag

I happen to agree with that assessment, except to point-out that scientistic Materialism is a metaphysical monism. Hence, Brain & Mind are not two different substances, but simply a singular machine with the function of interpreting Reality in a way that behooves a temporary material creature in a sometimes hostile world. For the purposes of a life-preserving mechanism, the subjective Self is the "crucial" fact of Reality. That's one way of resolving the "confusion of dualism".

I also agree that scientifically dis-entangling the embodied Self from the Cosmic System (observer from environment) is a mindless-soulless worldview. That's why I prefer to re-integrate Matter & Mind, Part & Whole in a monism that might "please the Spiritual crowd" --- except that it has no need for the accretion of myths about the ultimate absolute Reality that hypothetically encompasses our local relative reality. I won't go into the details of that proximate Dualism within ultimate Monism in this post. It's a complex & controversial explanation for the apparent materiality of the world in which we are myopically entangled. And has been roundly rejected by the Scientism crowd. :smile:

I'm definitely more interested in what we think and ought to think. As a phenomenological direct realist (a phrase I may have made up), I don't believe in a world of appearances and yet some other world of realities. . . . Indirect realists [ dualists ] are pretty much doomed to misunderstand the project, thinking it focuses on appearances rather than realities. Actually it focuses on how realities are given. — plaque flag

"I see", said the blind philosopher. So, as a "naive realist" you disagree with Aristotle, Descartes, & Kant that we can't believe our perceiving eyes, because they deceive us with subjective beliefs about the non-self "other" (unreal or ideal) world that our senses purport to inform us of?*1 Hence, your worldview is direct & monistic with no filters?*2 No need for philosophical doubt about percepts? And no need for notions of Ideal Forms underlying the Facts. Do we still need the gods, though, to bestow upon us The Given?*3

That probably would have been my own worldview in earlier days, before I belatedly began to think scientifically & philosophically. Have I been deceived by those anti-religious thinkers into denying the "facts" reported to me by my personal senses? Or, have I been deceived by eons of evolution, to interpret reality in terms of meanings that have proven to be favorable for the continuation of biological species over many lifetimes?*4 If I can't believe my own senses, or my own mind, or the dons of science, what hope is there for me to cope with the slings & arrows of non-self-serving Reality? :cool:

PS__Did I mis-interpret your opinion of the way "we ought to think" : I.e. naively instead of skeptically?


*1. Arguments against direct realism :
This argument was "first offered in a more or less fully explicit form in Berkeley . . .
One concern with indirect realism is that if simple data flow and information processing is assumed then something in the brain must be interpreting incoming data. This something is often described as a homunculus, although the term homunculus is also used to imply an entity that creates a continual regress, and this need not be implied.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_and_indirect_realism
Note -- That invisible interloping "interpreter" -- coming between the mind and reality -- may also be the culprit that makes the Problem of Consciousness "hard". Perhaps its that devious interpreter who pulls a curtain between Self & Non-Self; denying our holistic "entanglement" in the Cosmic System of Reality.

*2. Faith Filters :
Your beliefs, both good and bad, create your entire perception of how you see and experience the world.
https://limbicperformancesystem.com/beliefs-as-filters/

*3. Save the Appearances :
known for his attack on the “myth of the given”.
But you start from a kind of cognitive freebie: what’s ‘given’ to you in experience.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/sellars/
Note -- With no formal training in philosophy, I've never read any of Sellars' work either. So my knowledge of his opinions is "indirect", mostly from Wikipedia. Anyway, the notion of "the given" sounds like inborn prejudices of the human brain, designed by evolution to do some of our thinking for us, in the form of prepackaged beliefs & kneejerk reactions.

*4. Evolution's benevolent deception :
The interface theory of perception is the idea that our perceptual experiences don't necessarily map onto what exists in the reality of itself.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_D._Hoffman

Perhaps philosophy's essence is its tenacious investigation of the subject's contribution to experience and how this contribution affects what we ought to believe. — plaque flag

I suppose you are talking about how we feel about the world of appearances*1, in which we are entangled & embodied, as opposed to what we believe about its ultimate objective cosmic reality. In other words, Phenomenology vs Ontology. For example, "how do you feel about God" versus "do you believe that God is really out there?"

One could ask a true-believer, what does it feel like to know God or Jesus, despite their lack of phenomenal properties, i.e. direct experience? What the subject "contributes", brings to the table, is prior experiences & beliefs. All together, those embodied meanings form our belief system. But what makes the belief feel real? How do we derive feelings of trust & hope from indirect experiences?

I have only superficial knowledge of Phenomenology --- never read any Husserl, etc --- but I am philosophically interested in how subjective Consciousness emerged from the evolution of the objective insensible material world. We typically believe our own senses, yet some beliefs are not based on sensory information, but on cultural concepts. So, how do we transform cultural phenomena (words ; semiology??) into personal ideas & beliefs, such as "salvation"? :smile:



*1. Nagel's query about "what is it like to be bat" : the subjective feeling of being a sound-seeing flying mammal? For us primarily visual mammals --- like all consciousness questions --- that un-experienced experience is hard to imagine, and even harder to explain in words. The bat is "entangled" in the same physical world, but experiences different subjective sensations, due to unique features of its embodiment.