We speak of the solar system.
We {you} cannot agree on what, exactly, is a system.
We {?} make the absurd postulate that one planet could be removed from the solar system.
This could tell us whether the solar system is in fact a system. — Pieter R van Wyk

Perhaps, to retain an air of mystery, you have avoided defining the key term in your thread*1. But you seem to have in mind a simplistic concept of a system : like the game Jenga, where players try to avoid removing the essential part of a stack of static wooden blocks. That's a simple gravitation system.

The solar system though is a complex and dynamic system of bodies moving in space, within a larger system of galaxies. It's not likely to fall apart if one planet was destroyed by an extra-solar asteroid. Who has ever made such an "absurd postulate"? Various theories have attempted to explain the asteroid belt as the debris from a collision that "removed one planet from the system". But nobody postulated that the Sol-dominated system itself would fall apart and fly off into space. There is a mysterious organizing force that holds the system together.

One problem with the solar system example is "where do you draw the line" : the boundary between planetary system and inter-stellar space? The other issue is "what makes a bunch of blobs arrayed around a medium yellow star into a system worthy of a name"? Why not include all the rest of the Milky Way galaxy in your system? What is the "function" of our local system that makes it unique for Earth-bound observers? Could it be that the "purpose" of a planet in the habitable zone is to provide a habitat for humans? If not Earth, perhaps an extra-solar planetoid could serve the purpose. In modern evolutionary theory, the solar system as-a-whole functions as a life-friendly gravitational system, allowing biological stuff to emerge.

Systems are like logical Sets*2 : there are sets within sets within sets : a nested set hierarchy. But the set is simply a definition . . . created by a human mind. So you can include as many elements (parts) as you like. If you remove one keystone element, that set may vanish and become a member of a larger set.

So, you are correct that there is no such thing as a System. It's just an idea, not an object : a definition, not a ding an sich ; an organization, not a mess.. :smile:

*1. Philosophical Systems :
To determine what is part of a system, you must first define its purpose and boundaries, and then identify the interacting elements, interconnections, and the system's environment that together produce a unified whole. The process involves a self-determined definition of the system's scope, focusing on the parts essential for fulfilling its function rather than the entire universe of possibilities.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=how+to+determine+what+is+a+part+of+a+system

*2. Logical Sets :
In logic and mathematics, a set is a well-defined collection of distinct objects (called elements or members) that are thought of as a whole. Set logic refers to the use of logical operations within set theory, where basic logical connectives like "and" correspond to set operations such as intersection, while the study of sets itself is a foundational branch of mathematics for precise definitions.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=set+logic+definition

IS THIS AN ORGANIZED SYSTEM OR A DISORGANIZED CHAOS?
What is the purpose of stacked rocks?

the primary Cause for physical science is Energy. — Gnomon
That doesn’t make sense to me.All there is is energy. Matter is energy. It’s changes in energy that need a causal description. — T Clark

OK, how would you describe "changes in energy", while avoiding the notion of Causation? Einstein noted that Energy can be mathematically transformed into Mass/Matter (E=MC^2). But what is the Cause of that form-change? Is it just random fluctuations of Quantum Fields? Hence acausal? Or is it scientists just playing around : smashing atoms with a Cyclotron, to see what pops out?

If "all there is is energy", then what causes the hypothetical universal Quantum Field to fluctuate, to change, to evolve? Why not just be? If "energy is all there is", does that mean the god-like power to cause positive (non-random) change (evolution) is eternal, existing prior to the Big Bang? Could that eternal field of Energy be forever creating new worlds, as in the Multiverse hypothesis?

Scientists don't seem to know the details of how the Energy transformations*1 occur. But energy transformations are essential to the concept of Causation*2 in physical change. In this thread though, I'm talking about Causation as a philosophical concept. If you want to explore that, we can get into it. But I warn you, it involves Metaphysics. If you don't like the AI summaries below, just click on the link and you can go to the human-authored sources of information. :smile:


*1. Energy Transformation :
Through all of these transformation chains, the potential energy stored at the time of the Big Bang is later released by intermediate events, sometimes being stored in several different ways for long periods between releases, as more active energy. All of these events involve the conversion of one kind of energy into others, including heat.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_transformation
Note --- Potential Energy has no physical properties, because it's an ideal concept, not a real thing.

*2. Energy causation :
describes how one event causes another by the transfer or transformation of energy, where the initial energy is the source of the effect.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=energy+causation
Note --- If you trace the transformations of energy back far enough, you will bump into the "Initial Energy" that Aristotle called "First Cause".

*3. The Metaphysics of Causation :
Metaphysical causality concerns the fundamental nature of the causal relationship itself, investigating what causes and effects are, what the causal relation is, and how it works, rather than simply identifying cause-and-effect pairs. It explores different ways of understanding this link, such as through regularities between events, counterfactual dependence (if not for the cause, the effect wouldn't occur), causal powers, mechanisms, or interventions. Philosophers also distinguish between metaphysical causation, where the connection doesn't rely on natural laws, and nomological causation, where it does.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=the+metaphysics+of+causation
Note --- Causation is a relationship, not an object. Nomological Causation is a philosophical notion, not a physical thing. Nomological : "principles, such as laws of nature, that are neither logically necessary nor theoretically explicable, but are simply taken as true." ___Oxford Dictionary

My conclusion - identifying one element as the cause of another depends on where you look. — T Clark

Yes. intermediate causes*4 are arbitrary & subjective. That's why Aristotle coined the term First Cause, which is a logical necessity, like the final number on the number line, not a physical object. The Big Bang is one kind of First Cause, but it didn't put to rest philosophical conjectures about prior causes. Divine Creation is another kind of Cause. So, Causation is a useful concept for Science and Philosophy, but as you noted, it is unavoidable, metaphysical, and non-empirical. So, we can debate til the cows come home. :joke:


*4. What is the Ultimate Cause? :
The idea that "energy is causal" can be understood in two primary ways: as a philosophical concept suggesting causation is the flow or transfer of energy, and in a more practical sense where energy consumption has a measurable causal impact on economic growth and other systems, though the direction and nature of this causality can be complex and context-dependent.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=energy+is+causal
Note --- Exchanges of Energy are merely intermediate causes. So, in order to understand Causation philosophically, you need to go back to the origin of the causal chain of events*5. Unfortunately, the Big Bang begs the question of where the Causal Force & Natural Laws --- that explain the subsequent evolution of the world, from simplicity to complexity --- originated.

*5. An ultimate cause is a deep, underlying reason or a historical, evolutionary factor that explains why something exists or occurs, answering the "why" question in terms of its adaptive significance and long-term origins.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=ultimate+cause+definition

Argh! My last word was a mistake. I meant to say:
Are you saying actual information is information that is being processed? If it is not being processed, it is potential information? — Patterner

Yes. For example, if a message-in-a-bottle is sent but never read, the information remains potential, not actual. This works just like Energy. If a bullet is fired, but never hits its target, the Kinetic energy is "stored" in the form of Momentum. So the energy remains in limbo as Potential, in the sense that it is never Actualized as impact transfer of energy to a target. Of course, this is an imperfect analogy, since a bullet in motion almost always hits some object to which it transfers its inertial energy, causing material change . . . . except perhaps in outer space. :wink:

So information that had to be created (as opposed to the information in a book) is never even interpreted. — Patterner

Like the bullet in outer space, un-interpreted Information remains in its Potential state, in the form of "raw data". You can think of data as meaningless mathematical information, until someone interprets the code into human meaning. :smile:

PS___ Energy can be temporarily stored in matter, like a battery, as Potential Energy. In which case, you could say that the Energy/Information exists as a "Substance". More properly though, as ratios between positive & negative ions.


"Uninterpreted" Information is raw data or primary source material that has not yet been analyzed, explained, or given meaning; it remains in its original, unaltered form before any analysis, commentary, or added understanding has been applied. Examples include eyewitness testimony, original documents like letters and manuscripts, raw research data, and direct quotes before a researcher or person explains them
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=information+uninterpreted

As I've often said here, "causality" is a metaphysical concept, by which I mean it represents a point of view, a perspective, not a fact. — T Clark

Yes. That's why we debate various kinds of Causes on this forum. For example, the primary Cause for physical science is Energy. Which can be defined tautologically (it is what it does), but can't be defined physically or materially (what it's made of). A Cause is some invisible force that has a knowable Effect.

So, the OP is true : Cause is not a thing in itself ; It's a relationship between before & after some physical or metaphysical (mental) change. Causation is doing, not being. It's a verb, not a noun. :smile:

↪Gnomon
Are you saying actual information is information that is being processed? If it is not being processed, it is potential energy? — Patterner

Something like that. When Shannon produced his definition of Information as computer Data, I assume he had no idea that his novel equation of Information and math (1s & 0s ; relations ; ratios) or Information and Entropy (active ; passive) would eventually lead scientists to view Energy from a similar perspective. They are not the same thing*1, but different forms of a more fundamental causal force that I call EnFormAction*2.

So, I would rephrase to say, when information of a system is not being actively processed, its form or state is Potential instead of Actual. For example, there is lots of information in your brain, that you are not currently aware of or thinking of. But it's available to activate, when needed. How it's stored is not completely understood.

I see a lot of Philosophical Potential in this novel notion of Information. But some on this forum think I'm talking about ghosts & spirits & spooky stuff. This new concept of Information is not a material substance (hyle ; wood), but more like Aristotle's essential substance (morph ; form ; pattern). :smile:


*1. No, energy and information are not the same thing, though they are deeply connected. Information requires energy to be stored in a physical system, and the process of changing information requires energy and increases entropy, according to the Landauer limit. While information cannot exist without energy to form a physical medium, energy itself can exist without any information.
Energy is Physical, Information is Abstract:
Energy is a physical quantity that represents the capacity to do work. Information, on the other hand, is an abstract concept representing data or concepts transmitted through a medium.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=energy+and+information
Note --- Energy is still the power to cause physical change. But information is the power to cause metaphysical change : to convey ideas from one mind to another.


*2. Active Information, Meaning & Form :
Information is Physical and Metaphysical
"Elevate information to the level of a new physical concept, one that can be placed alongside Matter and Energy" . . . .
Peat says “I suggest that Information is the final element in a triad—information is that which gives form to energy”.

*3.Information is stored in the brain by changing and strengthening connections, or synapses, between neurons.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=information+in+brain+how+stored
Note --- Information is essentially patterns of relationships (interconnections) between loci

Ironically, that swampy quicksand logic allows people of Faith to claim that their metaphysical "reasons" & divine revelations are just as valid as a scientist's physical-empirical Facts & Faxioms. — Gnomon
I don't see how the kinds of issues I'm talking about have anything to do with religion. — T Clark

Please note that, in the last paragraph, I referred to metaphysical*1 (-isms), that are not necessarily religions. For example, on this forum, we often find contentious arguments about metaphysical beliefs, such as Realism vs Idealism, Materialism vs Spiritualism, or Scientism vs Philosophy.

Those are what I facetiously call "Faith communities" because their worldviews are based on non-empirical Axioms. As Hume noted, specific Evidence & formal Logic may support the general (universal) conclusions, but do not prove them. The degree of Faith may be measured in terms of Bayesian Belief*2. :smile:


*1. Yes, materialism is a metaphysical theory because it makes a fundamental claim about the nature of reality: that everything that exists is ultimately physical
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=materialism+is+metaphysical

*2. Bayesian belief refers to the degree of certainty about the truth of a proposition, treated as a probability that is updated by new evidence using Bayes' Theorem.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=bayesian+belief

Information in a dead organism has been transformed into Entropy (dissipated Energy). — Gnomon
Doesn't the fact that people have sequenced Neanderthal DNA, among other groups, say it is still information? — Patterner

Oh yes. Just like fossilized bones, ancient DNA can provide clues to modern forms. But the cavemen are still dead and dissipated. Whatever information remains is in the fossilized patterns of preserved tissues. For example, paleontologists can estimate the size & shape of an absent Neander brain, by measuring the empty skull. As I said before, Information, like languages, comes in many forms. But the meaning must be interpreted by a living functioning brain. :smile:

PS___ In Neander DNA, the actual information is long gone, but some potential information remains. Like information in a book, the source of enforming (author) is absent, but those who can read the inert squiggles are able to extract meaning from patterns of non-living ink on paper.
For example, a AAA battery on a shelf has Potential for electrical current, but until a circuit is provided there is no Actual current. However, a scientist could analyze the chemistry of the battery, and estimate how much voltage is possible for future use. And that is useful information, despite being only Potential.

I acnowledge that the word 'created' might be a poor choice of words in the context. — Wayfarer

Was that controversial key-word a Freudian slip, or intentional challenge, to keep this thread going in circles for 70 pages? :wink:

Reality vs Ideality : Divine Creation vs Human Construct vs Cosmic Accident

As I've often said here, "causality" is a metaphysical concept, by which I mean it represents a point of view, a perspective, not a fact. As R.G. Collingwood might say, the Principle of Sufficient Reason - everything must have a reason or a cause - is an absolute presupposition, not a proposition. — T Clark

Yes. For philosophers "causality" is a metaphysical notion, whereas for physicists it's a practical principle, to aid in understanding how & why things happen. Traditionally, human Logic assumes, as an unproven axiom*1, that every action or event had a prior causal influence, and that causal action in the universe is an unbroken chain (conjunction) of physical cause/effect events. Except of course, for those who believe in metaphysical causes, such as divine intervention or random accidents (disjunction).

The title of this tread seems to imply that our common logical assumption of Causation is unscientific & non-empirical, as argued by Hume's dissection of Induction, Reduction, and Deduction. Which leaves open-to-negation such logical postulates as Universal Causation, and First Cause. Hence, the never-ending inconclusive threads on this forum. Where we heap up individual facts or beliefs, and try to make sense of them by means of the reasoning that Hume & Collingwood undermined with skeptical analysis. Ironically, that swampy quicksand logic allows people of Faith to claim that their metaphysical "reasons" & divine revelations are just as valid as a scientist's physical-empirical Facts & Faxioms.

So, where does that leave us public reasoners on a non-empirical (metaphysical) philosophical forum? Are the conjunctions in our reasoning so weak that none of our arguments will hang-together under the universal solvent of skepticism? Are our fundamental (self-evident) axioms only valid within a single isolated-but-united Faith community (-isms)? :cool:

*1. Logical Axioms :
Yes, axioms can be considered a type of presupposition, as they are foundational statements accepted as true without proof to serve as the starting point for reasoning within a specific system. While all axioms function as presuppositions, a key distinction is that an axiom is a presupposition that is considered self-evident or unquestionable within its context, whereas not all presuppositions are necessarily self-evident or accepted without controversy.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=are+axioms+presuppositions

Yes, it's always Information, but it comes in different Forms. — Gnomon
What is the form of there information in the DNA of a dead organism? What is the form of there information in a book that is sitting in a box in the basement? — Patterner

Those are good questions, in that they indicate ignorance of what Information is, essentially*1. Which could be a learning opportunity. Prior to Shannon, the definition of Information referred to "knowledge" (meaning ; facts) in a mind. Information is always a reference to some thing or event : Aboutness*2.

But since the 20th century that term has acquired much broader significance for Philosophy and Science. For example, astrobiologist Caleb Scharf's 2021 book is entitled The Ascent of Information. He asks "whether information itself may be the fundamental currency of the universe". And he coined the term "dataome" (from genome) : "the dataome is all of the non-genetic data we carry externally and internally". A related term is : "extended mind".

Besides the meaning-in-a-mind kind of Information, we now use the term Data in certain contexts. Scharf says "in that sense data corresponds to pieces of information. But real information is that data organized and assembled, and structured to provide meaning and context". And that's what Minds do. I'll cut to the meat here, and reveal that conscious mental Information is a recent innovation of evolution. Prior to the advent of Life & Mind, the power to transform was mainly what we now call Energy.

With that piece of information in mind, I'll answer your questions : A> Information in a dead organism has been transformed into Entropy (dissipated Energy). B> Information in a book is equivalent to Potential energy in a battery. It requires a conscious mind to complete the circuit of Meaning. Plato's transcendent Forms, are manifested in the immanent world as various Forms of Energy. And human Consciousness is one of those innumerable Patterns (forms) of In-Form-Action. :smile:


*1. Information is an abstract concept that refers to something which has the power to inform.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information
Note --- The term "power" has taken on a new significance since Information has recently been associated with causal Energy. A broader sense of Information is "the power to transform", to cause change, in both matter and mind.

*2. In philosophy, aboutness refers to the feature of mental states, linguistic expressions, or other meaningful items to be on, of, or concerning some subject matter, event, or state of affairs. This property, often used interchangeably with intentionality, is fundamental to distinguishing the mental from the physical and is a core concept in the philosophy of mind and language.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=aboutness+meaning+in+philosophy

PS___ Just as Energy is found in various forms --- chemical, electrical, kinetic, potential, etc --- Information is manifested in many forms : books, databases, conceptual, procedural, etc.

I don't understand what you're saying. Particularly "the verbal Information". I don't know if you're answering my question. Is the order of the bases in the DNA of a dead body, or written in a book that is sitting in a box in the basement, information?

I think it's always information. I don't think it only becomes information when it is being processed, or being interpreted by a mind. — Patterner

Yes, it's always Information, but it comes in different Forms. Just as Energy manifests as Chemical, Electrical, Kinetic, Thermal, Potential, etc. The form of "Information" most familiar before Shannon was metaphysical Meaning in a Mind. But, he stripped away the meaning, leaving only abstract 1s & 0s, that can be mechanically represented by electric valences (+/-).

By calling it a "Verb"*1, I was making a distinction between Shannon's Noun Information (data) and Whitehead's Process Information. Most people are only familiar with Shannon's engineering definition, equating meaningless Information with Entropy. But in the subsequent century, meaningful Information has been equated with Energy (negentropy).

This is cutting-edge information, that is not generally known, except among specialists, such as the Complexity scientists at Santa Fe Institute. But it's the key to my philosophical Enformationism thesis. :nerd:

PS___ Oooops! The footnotes are back. :wink:

*1. 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.
# 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

*2. Alfred North Whitehead did not develop a distinct field called "information theory" as it is understood today, but his philosophy of organism, with its emphasis on process, prehension, and interrelationship, can be understood as an alternative model for understanding information. He viewed reality as dynamic processes rather than static objects and proposed that information gains meaning through subjective experience and context, particularly through the recursive process of prehension, or feeling the past into the present occasion. This fundamentally differs from current information theory, which often focuses on discrete bits of data.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=a.n.+whitehead+information+theory

*3. Information is Energy :
An objective, dynamic and physically justified concept of information is elaborated starting from Shannon's concept of entropy and applied to information technology, artificial intelligence (consciousness) and thermodynamics. The justification of an information conservation theorem acquires practical significance in information technology, especially as it moves into the quantum realm (photonics/quantum computing).
https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-658-40862-6

First of all, I suspect you are a hacker, because I have never seen Gnomon post without footnotes. :rofl: — Patterner

Ha! I'm not that clever with computer technology, but I can copy & paste. :nerd:

I think I disagree. I believe DNA is information. — Patterner

DNA is chemistry, and it is inert until it is read & implemented by a biological system. The information is encoded in the patterns of interrelationships.

Yes, it's like a tree falling in a forest : it doesn't make a protein unless there's RNA to read it, and ATP to power the change, and amino acids as raw material. So, the verbal Information (EnFormAction) of DNA is not static chemicals, but the active process of reading & implementing the code. :smile:

PS___ Look ma, no footnotes. :joke:

Thus, AI is incapable to understand my work. I am still hoping to find an "astute reader", capable of abstract thought and who subscribe to Leonardo da Vinci's dictum, "Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using his intelligence; he is just using memory." — Pieter R van Wyk

Is anyone on this forum capable of understanding your work? Have you found an "astute reader" elsewhere? If so, how do they answer your challenge : "what is a system?" Has anyone found a "fatal error" in your reasoning?

I don't consider Google's AI Overview to be an authority, but it is a good sifting filter for combing through complex verbiage, abstruse terminology, and esoteric discourse, in order to provide a capsule summary for non-experts. And it provides links to human-authored sources, where abstruse abstractions may be defined in common language.

Your cryptic descriptions in this thread seem to convey what your non-system is not, but leaves undefined (nebulous) what it is. Apparently, whatever-it-is is not General Systems Theory, as defined by Bertalanffy, to distinguish Holism from Reductionism, and to broaden science's focus on isolated parts & sub-systems.

This thread has devolved to a sideline debate on whether "rocks have beliefs". Could you give us a dumbed-down hint, for us non-astute readers, of your ingenious definition of a System, to get us back on track? :smile:


*1. General Systems Theory :
Systems theory is an interdisciplinary field of study that views the world as a complex network of interconnected and interdependent parts, where the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. It emphasizes how these components interact and influence each other within a larger system, providing a holistic perspective that contrasts with reductionist approaches. Originating in biology with figures like Ludwig von Bertalanffy, it has been applied to diverse fields such as psychology, sociology, ecology, and engineering to understand and address complex problems.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=general+systems+theory

*2. How can you determine what is part of a system?
first define the system's purpose and boundary, then identify its interrelated components (elements, interconnections, function) that, when working together, produce a whole greater than the sum of its parts. An essential component is one whose removal prevents the system from achieving its goals.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=how+to+determine+what+is+a+part+of+a+system
Note --- If the universe/cosmos is a System, what component is essential to its purpose? If the system has no function or purpose, is it actually a System? Is that your point?

Further still: information is not transmitted. Since there is nothing contained anywhere that passes from an interpreted to an interpreter, and since what we have are transcription effects (i.e. con-formation in-formation) there is no entity, no substance called information. — JuanZu

True. Information is a verb, not a noun, a process, not an object. It's what I like to call EnFormAction : the power to transform from Potential to Actual. Shannon's abstract Data has potential, but no actual meaning, until it is interpreted by a Mind. :smile:

My purpose is clearly stated in my question, nothing more, nothing less. And, it would seem, I got me an answer. — Pieter R van Wyk

Yes, on the face of it, describing reality with a single system does seem to be far fetched, perhaps even absurd. But then, this would depend on one's understanding of reality - an ambiguous notion it would seem - as well as one's understanding of a system - which is exactly the question contemplated by this discussion - also, it would seem, an ambiguous notion. — Pieter R van Wyk

To describe cosmic reality with a "single system" might require omniscience. But that hasn't stopped ambitious philosophers from trying*1, including yours truly. I get the impression that System Building is offensive --- arrogant, absurd, ambiguous --- to those for whom everything is relative, or for whom the universe is random instead of systematic & logical.

Most major religions have diagnosed a broken System, and offer some approach to repairing the break. Many are faith-based, with solutions only available to blindfolded believers. Others are methodical, such as Buddhism, offering a psychological technology for mind control. But even the Buddha admitted that ego-snuffing Enlightenment is a rare achievement. And resurrection & reincarnation merely postpone a final solution to some indefinite future heaven or nirvana. Some religions & philosophies blame the victims for their suffering, due to inherent weaknesses of human nature. In that case, the broken System is blamed on physicality instead of spirituality, the duality of Soul & Body.

Apparently, the answer you were searching for is that Philosophy does not have an answer to "What is a System". Seems you prefer to avoid Systems Thinking in favor of Categorical Philosophy*2, such as Kant's Imperative, or your own "Logic of Existence"*3. Is your theory a complete system, a moral law, or just another "ambiguous notion"? Is the answer "that there is no logical answer" : that Faith is the only answer? :smile:


*1. Philosophical system building is the creation of a comprehensive and coherent worldview that provides answers to major philosophical questions about reality, knowledge, morality, and existence. This approach involves connecting diverse ideas into a unified structure, drawing inspiration from figures like Plato, Aristotle, Hegel, and Whitehead. Systems philosophy also represents a modern philosophical approach that applies systems concepts to construct worldviews, emphasizing interconnectedness and emergent properties.

*2. "Categorical philosophy" most commonly refers to Immanuel Kant's concept of the categorical imperative, a universal moral law stating that one should act only according to principles that could rationally be willed as a universal law for everyone, and always treat humanity as an end in itself, never merely as a means to an end. This means that moral actions are binding absolutely, regardless of personal desires or goals, making them universal and obligatory for all rational beings
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=categorical+philosophy

*3. "How I Understand Things: The Logic of Existence"is a book that questions traditional philosophical and logical frameworks to explore how we perceive and understand existence, challenging the notion that logic can fully capture the nature of being. The work critiques classic systems like rationalism and phenomenology, arguing that their separation of mind and body, or their overemphasis on conceptualization, fails to grasp the pervasive reality of existence itself. Instead, it proposes that existence is signified by the verb "to be" within a judgment, rather than residing in the subject or predicate, and invites readers to re-examine their perceptions of knowledge and reality.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=How+I+Understand+Things.+The+Logic+of+Existence
Note --- Heidegger's system, Dasein, is interwoven instead of isolated.

Does philosophy have a definition of a system? The second question, ... or better, a general systems theory; seemed to be a bit premature for philosophy. — Pieter R van Wyk

Apparently, you didn't get a definition that suited your purposes. Perhaps, you should specify a philosophical problem or application to which you want to apply Systems Thinking*1*2. For me, Jan Smuts' definition of Holism in Evolution*3 can also be applied to various philosophical questions. :smile:

PS___ You quoted Gnomon to say that a System has "properties". But it might be more accurate, for philosophical purposes, to say that an Integrated Whole System has non-physical Qualities, such as Life and Mind.


*1. Systems thinking is a holistic approach to problem-solving that views issues as part of a larger, interconnected system, focusing on relationships, feedback loops, and patterns rather than isolated components.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=systems+thinking

*2. The philosophy of systems thinking is a holistic approach that views phenomena as interconnected systems, moving beyond isolated problems to understand underlying structures, feedback loops, and long-term, systemic consequences. It emphasizes the whole being greater than the sum of its parts and is rooted in biology, cybernetics, and ecology, aiming to create more effective, adaptive, and sustainable solutions by considering the entire web of relationships within a complex situation.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=philosophy+of+systems+thinking

*3. Holism :
Unfortunately, Holism is still controversial in Philosophy. That is primarily due to the practical and commercial success of reductive methods in the physical sciences. Methodological Reductionism attempts to understand a composite system by breaking it down into its component parts. And that approach works well for mechanical devices, but not so well for living things.
https://bothandblog8.enformationism.info/page33.html

I began reading Dan Brown's new novel. — Gnomon
Wow! You're on the ball; it only came out about a week ago. Has much about consciousness coming in from the outside. — PoeticUniverse

I don't have to believe in animated-clay Golems or Paranormal Activity, or Parapsychology, in order to enjoy Dan Brown's fiction. I read fiction, in part, not to escape from reality, but merely to vicariously experience experiences that are different from our mundane existence. So, if I saw a clay-monster on the street, I'd assume it was a Comic-Con costume.

Likewise, I don't have to believe in Consciousness as signals from outside the skull in order to consider the philosophical implications of such a state of affairs. The Bible, that I was raised to believe was the word of God, has stories of people receiving divine messages from Angels, Demons, and Deities. But I now consider those stories to be fictional, not actual.

Therefore, while I have given some thought to the notion of brains functioning as radio receivers of messages from God, or from a sentient cosmos ; all I can say at this point is that I remain skeptical. However, I am working on an alternative explanation for the Hard Problem, based on non-fiction Energy & Information*1. For now, I do not accept the currently popular theory of Panpsychism, but I have my own theory of Enformationism, that some might consider equally fringey. :wink:


*1. How Does the Brain Create Mind? :
The Mind is an imaginary model of brain functions
Kastrup’s alternative to ancient Materialism & Panpsychism is similar to the equally antiquated worldview of Idealism¹⁹. His updated version of the all-is-mind concept is labeled Analytic Idealism, which some have renamed Cosmopsychism.
https://bothandblog8.enformationism.info/page14.html

(See Dan Brown’s new book,
‘The Secret of Secrets’
For a similar investigation) — PoeticUniverse

I was reaching the end & epilogue of Glattfelder's book on Postmodern Paranormal Phenomena, when I began reading Dan Brown's new novel. To my surprise, he introduced the Golem of Prague, based on Jewish folktales, as a central character. And a major theme of the book seems to be Paranormal ESP, as investigated by a Noetic scientist. The real-world Institute for Noetic Sciences was founded by former astronaut Edgar Mitchell, to study Parapsychology, among other "fringe theories".

In his 2017 book, Origins, Brown also dealt with topics on the "fringe" between Philosophy and Science. The Futurist Ed Kirsch made a "discovery" that was said to challenge both Science and Religion : "If there is a divine force behind this universe, it is laughing hysterically at the religions we've created in an attempt to define it". But maybe that "force" would be sympathetic with the childish efforts of its own god-emulating upright-apes --- "poems being writ" --- to make sense our ever-changing world of contrasts & contradictions : of Angels & Demons.

Although some aspects of Kirsch's (Brown's) philosophy may not agree with my own Information-centric worldview, I found it generally compatible. For example, Robert Langdon was asked if he believed in God. He replied : " . . . . for me, the question of God lies in understanding the difference between codes and patterns. . . . . Codes, by definition, must carry information. They must do more than simply form a pattern --- codes must transmit data and convey meaning." :smile:


PS___ Regarding ultimate Origins, a sign on Langdon's Harvard classroom says :
"In my classroom, T > 0
For all inquiries where T = 0,
please visit the Religion Department."

If it's not likely that there's a separate realm of ideas. Or that the idea is exactly the same as the physical matter from which it arises. Then what is it's nature? — Jack2848

If a "separate realm" is a physical place in space, then of course that's not where Ideas abide. But our materialistic minds find it easier to imagine subjective objects of thought as-if they are material entities in space. For example, Plato describes Ideas as Patterns, which some may interpret as patterns of neuron connections in the brain : neural correlates of consciousness. Which raises the question about those interconnected nerve fibers : how do they know?

Anyway, I think the key to the Nature of Ideas is to view them as Abstractions from Concrete Reality, not in Reality. To abstract is to pull-out. But we're talking about extracting personal Meaning or Significance from arrangements of impersonal Matter. Instead, it may be helpful to think of the Patterns of information, that we call "Ideas", in terms of mathematical Relationships (ratios). But meaningful relationships are always About some real or ideal object of attention or intention.

Therefore, the nature of an Idea can be defined in terms of Patterns, Relationships, Abstractions, Aboutness*1, and so on. None of which exists as material objects in the Real world. So, an Idea is the opposite of a Real thing ; sort of like a mirror image. Our language is inherently materialistic though, so attempts to describe immaterial Abstractions, are necessarily negative : what it's not. :smile:


*1. Aboutness :
In philosophy, aboutness refers to the feature of mental states, linguistic expressions, or other meaningful items to be on, of, or concerning some subject matter, event, or state of affairs. This property, often used interchangeably with intentionality, is fundamental to distinguishing the mental from the physical and is a core concept in the philosophy of mind and language.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=aboutness+meaning+in+philosophy

But the most significant aspect was the awakening to the indescribable beauty of life itself, plants and trees seeming to possess a kind of luminous aliveness and perfection, and the sense that this sense of heightened awareness was reality itself. — Wayfarer

I get the impression that, compared to the "beauties" of the hallucinogenic*1 Psychedelic version of "reality itself", Glattfelder finds the sober view of human social Reality to be depressing. In the Epilogue to The Sapient Cosmos, he adds a "gloomy summary of the status quo". There, he lists a litany of what's wrong with the modern world ; not so much the natural world, but the un-natural un-spiritual environment created by the materialistic mind of technological humans.

He seems to weep for the loss of innocence of the babes in paradise (Genesis), after reaching the age of reason. As usual, that fall from grace is blamed on the serpent of Science, the "most cunning of all beasts". The snake-eyes of objectivity have given us wise apes mastery over the garden of nature, which we have raped & pillaged to gratify our own material desires.

Glattfelder seems to believe that humanity was better-off before science penetrated the "mystical veil" of reality. Before forces & energies replaced spirits & gods. Back when we were helpless animals kneeling before the mysterious powers of the non-self world. Back when we had to bend the knee to Nature, and to Nature's God.

His Syncretic Idealism seems to lean more toward Ontological Idealism (reality itself is mental) than to Epistemological Idealism (all knowledge is mental). But, although I find Idealism to be a good counterpoint to crass Realism, I've never been that romantically idealistic : more Pragmatic than Utopian. I was hopeful that the book would describe a sensible philosophy of Idealism to counter the crass Realism of Scientism. But if it requires dissociative drugs to open that door, I may have to remain benighted in Plato's cave for a while longer. :cool:


*1. Hallucinogenic drugs can cause hallucinations, which are sensations and images that seem real but aren't. People may hear, feel or see things that aren't really there. Some psychedelic drugs cause people to feel out of control or disconnected from their bodies and environment.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=on+and+off+psychedelic+drugs


LICK THE TOXIC TOAD TO FREE YOUR MIND
from its prison in mundane reality

As for the paranormal, I’m an open-minded sceptic. — Wayfarer

Me too! Glattfelder has a favorite term to describe the ambiguities & uncertainties of paranormal phenomena : Postmodern*1. He expresses some skepticism toward attempts to prove divine MIND by means of psychedelics and statistics*2. But he remains convinced that subjective Syncretic Idealism will soon be proven to be just as real, if not more, than the objective Reality of empirical Science*3*4.

Toward the end of the book, he quotes "philosophical entertainer" Alan Watts : "God also likes to play hide & seek, but because there is nothing outside God, it has no one but itself to play with."*5
I get the impression that Paranormal Research illuminates the dark corners of Consciousness with black light (statistical uncertainty), revealing formerly invisible things by re-emission of Bayesian belief. :smile:



*1. Trickster God? :
"In another display of postmodern mischief, reality appears to be teasing us by yet again hiding its true nature in a fog of inconclusiveness." {page 558}
Note --- After quoting a skeptical publication on telepathy, Glattfelder says "in this context, it is very hard to assess any claim for or against psi.

*2. "Yet again, psychedelics appear as a panacea for unorthodox knowledge access." {page 560}

*3. "It should be noted that the critics of syncretic idealism can only be taken seriously if they themselves have proficiency in modulating sentience."*4 {page 563}
Note --- Since he doesn't have much to say about Meditation, I suppose he means "modulating" brain functions by artificial means such as psychedelic drugs. Some paranormal researchers have indeed placed their bets on mind-soul-manifesting hallucinogenic substances (entheogens), to reveal the divinity hidden within the human entity.

*4. The phrase "modulating sentience" refers to the concept of influencing or altering the capacity to have subjective experiences, feelings, and sensations. This is a theoretical and speculative topic at the intersection of neuroscience, philosophy, and artificial intelligence (AI). While the total modulation of a biological organism's sentience remains beyond current capabilities, certain processes can alter the experience of consciousness.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=modulating+sentience

*5. "Quantum hide and seek" refers to both a metaphor for the elusive and uncertain behavior of quantum particles and a scientific concept used in steganography and quantum computing to hide information. Researchers use analogies of hide-and-seek to describe the nature of quantum systems, where particles can be in multiple places at once (superposition) until observed. /i]
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=quantum+hide+and+seek

Shanon's equations and the work following do not equate energy and information. — Banno

Shannon's work also does not equate Information with Meaning. He was a pragmatic engineer, not a philosopher or physicist. :smile:

More "veneer" for you to dig through.
Post-Shannon Information Theory
extends Claude Shannon's foundational work by addressing complex communication scenarios and information types that go beyond the classical framework. It focuses on goals like message identification, efficient use of shared resources such as common randomness, and the transmission of gestalt information. New theories are needed to understand information in diverse forms, including biological, social, and embodied contexts, which Shannon's theory was not designed to capture.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=post+shannon+information+theory

So your post was just made-up stuff. Ok. — Banno

Yes. Made-up by professional scientists, per the (obviously un-read) links in previous post. The technical details equating Information & Energy are over my head. But the general concept makes philosophical sense, in view of the Hard Problem of Consciousness : the otherwise unexplained emergence of Animation & Awareness. Perhaps, in a cosmos full of causal events, some natural force somehow transformed Energy & Matter into Life & Mind. Do you have a better theory for the advent of homo sapiens from eons of Thermodynamics? :joke:


Information as a basic property of the universe :
The second reason is that physicists invented accounting devices such as potential energy and entropy to explain the apparent disappearance of energy yet maintain the law of the conservation of energy. The proposed theory would consider that what is conserved is the sum of information and energy. The mathematical relationship between information and entropy is provided by the equation: I = (Io)e-S/k while the conversion of energy into information involves the relationship: 1 J/degree K = 10(23) bits (approximately) Acceptance of the theory would require paradigm shifts in a number of interrelated areas.
____T. Stonier, biotechnology, https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Thomas-Stonier-2
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8734520/
Note --- Physicists typically don't concern themselves with Life & Mind. Exception : Erwin Schrödinger's What is Life?

Nor does science equate information with energy. Bits are not joules. — Banno

My equation of Information with Energy was philosophical, not physical. Of course, meaningful Information is not measured in abstract joules. But energy is manifested in various ways : thermal, nuclear, chemical, sound, electricity, gravitation, kinetic, and potential. What they all have in common is ratios & inter-relationships*1.

Besides, Shannon defined Information in terms of Entropy, which is the inverse of Energy. But Energy is just one of many forms of what I call Generic (causal) Information : the power to Transform. Form = structure ; configuration. To Enform = bring together parts or combine to create (something). Hence, causal. Bits of Energy = quanta. Bits of Information = 1 or 0. Per OP, Most notable Events are physical transformations that are informational to conscious observers.

The intrinsic relationship between Energy and Information is not commonly known. But that emerging knowledge is on the leading edge of Physical science and Information science. And the latter is typically of more interest to Philosophy. A 2023 German science textbook*2 makes the relationship explicit. So, cutting edge Science does equate Information with Energy. Yet again, my interest in the Information/Energy relationship is not scientific (joules), but philosophical (intention)*3. :smile:


*1. How is information related to energy in physics?
Energy is the relationship between information regimes. That is, energy is manifested, at any level, between structures, processes and systems of information in all of its forms, and all entities in this universe is composed of information.
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/22084/how-is-information-related-to-energy-in-physics

*2. Information is Energy :
An objective, dynamic and physically justified concept of information is elaborated starting from Shannon's concept of entropy and applied to information technology, artificial intelligence (consciousness) and thermodynamics.
https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-658-40862-6

*3. Active Information, Meaning & Form :
Information is Physical and Metaphysical
https://bothandblog8.enformationism.info/page29.html

While I wouldn’t ever advocate the consumption of illegal substances I have no doubt that this particular class of substances do indeed open the doors of perception (insights which are of course impossible to communicate or even really remember on a conscious level). — Wayfarer

If or when "recreational" Marijuana becomes legal in my area, I may give it a try, just to see what I'm missing. Most of the other "street drugs" seem to do more harm than good. So, I'm not inclined to open those particular doors. My naive question is this : do the psycho-drugs actually or metaphorically open your perception to exotic realities or to warped hallucinations?

Glattfelder lists a wide variety of psychic experiences that are "real" to psychonauts : Synchronicity, ESP, Telepathy, Telekinesis, Clairvoyance, Mediumship, Presentiment, Psychic abilities, etc, that he deems worthy of scientific investigation. To explain their marginalization, he accuses scientists of have closed minds ; instead of having good reasons to avoid wasting time on subjective, non-empirical beliefs. And yet, in the last century, academically-trained Paranormal scientists & ghost-hunters have attempted to use empirical methods to study most of those “realities”, but their results have been generally un-reproducible*1, and have led to no practical uses, other than spooky entertainment*2. Therefore, like religious beliefs, such phantom “realities” seem to be a matter of faith, rather than science*3.

He says, "Although the boundaries of physical reality remain solid most of the time, there is not a priori reason radical modulations of sentience should not be able to puncture them momentarily". Does that assertion fit your understanding of the Mind Created World? He goes on to say, "this --- presumably, the fleeting temporariness of glimpses into other worlds --- would explain the difficulty in measuring and replicating such subtle and delicate effects accessible to the human mind only in moments of extreme modes of sentience." Besides, most of the plant-derived drugs may be natural, but their natural function is to kill or deter pests. So, using them to open doors to parallel worlds is un-natural. Can meditation open psychedelic doors?

He goes on to say, "this --- presumably, the fleeting temporariness of glimpses into other worlds --- would explain the difficulty in measuring and replicating such subtle and delicate effects accessible to the human mind only in moments of extreme modes of sentience." Quantum experiments are also fleeting and subject to biased interpretation, but they are reproducible and mathematical. On the other hand, most of the plant-derived psycho-drugs may be natural, but their natural function is to kill or deter pests. So, using insecticides and neuro-toxins to open doors to parallel worlds is literally un-natural. Is Buddhist meditation a safer option for timid psychonauts?

Apparently, the necessity for "radical modulations" --- that may lead to compulsive behavior and addiction, not to mention liver & heart disease & poisoning deaths --- makes other-worldly psycho-adventures just as dangerous as jungle & mountain explorations in mundane reality. Historically, ethyl alcohol (a mild neurotoxin) has been the most common & popular Affect Modulator. But it also modulates unacceptable social behaviors, that provoked wise King Solomon to denounce : "Wine is a mocker, strong drink is raging: and whosoever is deceived thereby is not wise" Proverbs 20:1. Since I am not, by nature, an adventurer, I leave exploits in other-worlds to highly-motivated others. From the sentient safety of my armchair, I know the “secret knowledge” of Amazon Indians --- e.g. ethnobotany --- only by second-hand National Geographic reports. :nerd:


*1. No, paranormal activity has not been scientifically proven;it is considered a pseudoscience by most scientists and academics because there is no conclusive empirical evidence to support its existence. Many experiences attributed to the paranormal have scientific explanations, such as psychological factors (like pareidolia or sleep paralysis), environmental factors (like infrasound or electromagnetic fields), or even misinterpretations of mundane phenomena.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=history+of+paranormal+research
Note --- "no conclusive evidence" is not for lack of trying. After centuries of optimistic efforts, Paranormal research is not mainstream, not necessarily due to prejudice, but to lack of corroboration and practical applications.

*2. Paranormal research originated in the 19th century with the spiritualism movement and the founding of the Society for Psychical Research (SPR) in 1882 to scientifically investigate spirits.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=history+of+paranormal+research

*3. “The day science begins to study non-physical phenomena, it will make more progress in one decade than in all the previous centuries of its existence.” ____ Nikola Tesla,
https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/139502-the-day-science-begins-to-study-non-physical-phenomena-it-will
Note --- Maybe Elon Musk will invest some of his Tesla profits into Mental, instead of Martial (Mars), exploration of other worlds.

The aim of this essay is to make the case for a type of philosophical idealism, which posits mind as foundational to the nature of existence. Idealism is usually distinguished from physicalism — the view that the physical is fundamental — and the related philosophical naturalism, the view that only natural laws and forces, as depicted in the natural sciences, account for the universe. — Wayfarer

I'm still reading the voluminous 2025 book by James Glattfelder : The Sapient Cosmos, What a modern-day synthesis of science and philosophy teaches us about the emergence of information, consciousness, and meaning. It's an encyclopedia of current concepts of the Idealistic worldview. The book has chapters on cutting-edge science, such as Relativity, Quantum physics, Information theory, and Complexity science. But it also has chapters on Buddhism, Shamanic traditions, and Psychedelic adventures. So, the label for his worldview is Syncretic Idealism, which some interpret as "scientific spirituality"*1.
Syncretic : a combination, or mish-mash, of various schools of thought.

My personal background is mainly in the scientific aspects of the Mind Created World. But yours is much deeper in traditional Philosophy, including Buddhist insights on mind. So, the Shamanic & Psychedelic explorations in the mental world are exotic territory for me. Glattfelder calls those who experiment with mind-altering drugs : "Psychonauts". And he seems convinced that they are directly experiencing parallel realms of reality (Ideality???). He also thinks Near-Death experiences are previews of the afterlife. But those ideas about Idealism are hard for me to accept.

Today, I just read a quote from Richard Tarnas, historian and astrologer, that sounded reminiscent of your Mind-Created World : "The mind is not the passive reflector of an external world and its intrinsic order, but is active and creative in the process of perception and cognition. Reality is in some sense constructed by the mind, not simply perceived by it, and many such constructions are possible, none necessarily sovereign."

To me, that statement makes sense, insofar as Cognition is a construct, and Worldviews are personal models of reality. But the notion of opening The Doors of Perception*2 to alternate realities, that can be explored by "poisoning" the brain with serotonin agonists, that stimulate "non-ordinary mental states", and that skeptics call "hallucinations", does not compute.

In my profession as an architect, we built imaginary models of potential or possible buildings that do not exist yet in the real world. Although you may imagine yourself walking thru the atrium, the model is not intended to be interpreted as a hyper-real structure that you can inhabit with your disembodied Self/Soul.

Personally, my worldview is both Realistic (physical senses) and Idealistic (mental images)*3. But I'd like to hear from you, as the resident expert on traditional Idealism, what you think of Syncretic Idealism, as a synthesis of Science and Spirituality. Have you ever explored alternate Realities with a mind "cleansed" by entheogens? :smile:



*1. Syncretic idealism is a term used to explain the concept of scientific spirituality.
https://www.instagram.com/reel/DNukwNH0htX/

*2. Aldous Huxley :
Huxley used the phrase to describe his experiences with psychedelic drugs, which he felt temporarily "cleansed the doors of perception," allowing for a greater awareness of the world and human consciousness
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=doors+of+perception+quote

*3. Both/And Principle :
My coinage for the holistic principle of Complementarity, as illustrated in the Yin/Yang symbol. Opposing or contrasting concepts are always part of a greater whole. Conflicts between parts can be reconciled or harmonized by putting them into the context of a whole system.
# The Enformationism worldview entails the principles of Complementarity, Reciprocity & Holism, which are necessary to offset the negative effects of Fragmentation, Isolation & Reductionism. Analysis into parts is necessary for knowledge of the mechanics of the world, but synthesis of those parts into a whole system is required for the wisdom to integrate the self into the larger system. In a philosophical sense, all opposites in this world (e.g. space/time, good/evil) are ultimately reconciled in Enfernity (eternity & infinity).
# 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.
# 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

The mental event/experience has no physical properties, so it cannot be detected nor affect reality. We, however, observe a fascinating relationship between mental events and the part of reality that we form them in; for example, I can type my thoughts. You cannot possibly explain this within physicalism or any form of monism, since you need two substances at least, the experiencer and the object of experience, to explain the experience. — MoK

Sounds like you are talking about Language as Materialized Thought*1. Meta-physical*2 ideas in an intellectual mind can be Realized by exporting Ideal thoughts into the Real world by means of physical sound waves (speech), or material ink on paper (writing), or digitized data (electronic signals). And the recipient (experiencer) can interpret those coded messages back into meta-physical Meanings, by means of physical-to-mental decoding events in the brain.

Hence, the communication process necessarily requires "two substances" : both Matter (object) & Mind (subject) ; concrete Physical & abstract Metaphysical. The Message has intermediate material effects, but the final effect (meaning) is Ideal, not Real. However, my thesis explains the whole cosmic system of Matter/Mind, Physical/Metaphysical, Real/Ideal, in terms of a hypothetical ultimate Monism : EnFormAction*3, the power to transform Potential to Ideal to Real, and vice versa. :smile:


*1. The phrase "language materialized thought" refers to the complex philosophical and linguistic concept that language is the physical manifestation of abstract thought. It is the process by which internal ideas, emotions, and concepts are given an external, tangible form, such as speech or writing, that can be perceived and shared by others.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=language+materialized+thought

*2. Meta-physical : theoretical, theoretic, abstract, conceptual, mental, spiritual, intellectual : i.e. non-physical.

*3. EnFormAction : similar to Schopenhauer's Will (power, force, energy) and Representation (mental experience, idea, Form, law, rule) combined into the directed causation process we call cosmic Evolution : one rule to rule them all. It's a Substance only in the sense of an Essence.

It seems, then, that before something is observed, everything exists—but only as possibility (superposition). 
We live in a vast field of potential outcomes that only become definite once we observe them — Jan

Philosophical Metaphors & Analogies :
Berkeley solved the observer problem by reference to an omniscient onlooker, who sees everything everywhere all the time. Hence, from the omnipotential superposition of all possible states (infinite Possibilities) --- the statistical state of Potential --- God selects what is Actual & Real, . But that is not an empirical scientific space-time model of reality. It's magic!

For us non-omnipotent observers, everything appears to be Real & Definite on the macro scale. But when scientists intrude on the micro-scale of quantum phenomena, everything turns to mush. The observers expect to see material Particles, but instead they see a fog of Superposition. And yet, the Act of observation seems to condense the fog into discrete drops*1. The mental Act seems to have physical impact.

How the probing mind could have physical effects is the Observation Problem. Schrodinger's equation (wavefunction) calculates the statistical probabilities of quantum particle paths. During superposition, the probability is near infinite (indefinite). After probing particles*2 are shot into the fog though, the probability collapses (condenses) from undefined to 100% (definite). But was it the energetic impact of the probing particle, or the extracted knowledge of position & velocity that "shocks the fog" into raindrops of reality?

Before & After states are not physical things, but mathematical concepts. In any case, the curiosity (desire) to know that "fog veiled" information seems be the proximate Cause of the transformation from Potential to Actual. No curiosity, no probe, no collapse. So, which is it : mind or matter that dispelled the statistical fog? I doubt that Idealists & Realists will ever agree on the relation between Ideal Consciousness and Real Events. :smile:


*1. "Fog shock condensation" refers to the formation of visible fog or a condensation cloud resulting from rapid pressure and temperature changes in a gas or liquid, often caused by a shock wave, and is a phenomenon seen in high-speed flight and other extreme conditions where super-saturated vapor cools and condenses into liquid droplets.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=fog+shock+condensation

*2. A "quantum observation probe"is a specialized tool or technique used to gather information about a quantum system. Unlike classical probes, which can measure a system without affecting its properties, a quantum probe must contend with the fundamental quantum observer effect, where the act of measurement inevitably disturbs the system being observed. Researchers are developing methods to minimize this disturbance and enable new applications in quantum technology.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=quantum+observation+probe

I think it is the problem of the model, namely, physicalism, which is a monist model. You have this strange phenomenon, so-called the experience, that you cannot explain its existence. You also cannot explain how the experience can be causally efficacious, as well, given the fact that the experience is a mental event and the physical substances are causally closed. — MoK

Yes. In the worldviews of Materialism and Physicalism, subjective experience is indeed "strange" because scientists can't track an experience (feeling, sensation, image) back to its source via physical cause & effect evidence. A particular sensation (ouch!) seems to just emerge unbidden in the midst of the "flow" of energy from one material substrate to another. There is an inexplicable break in the causal chain, which Chalmers called the "Hard Problem" for empirical science.

The chain of causation transfers electro-chemical Energy from material object (neuron) to material object (synapse) until, suddenly & inexplicably, a new effect occurs that is neither electrical nor chemical, but personal. That novel effect is "strange" because it is subjective or holistic or systemic or metaphysical instead of objective or analytic or particular or physical. It's personal & subjective because no one else can feel what you feel. Or what a bat experiences.

Materialism and Physicalism are monistic*1 models in the sense that they deny any Substance other than Matter or Energy. My worldview is also a monism in that it postulates a single substance that is responsible for all physical and mental effects in the world. But in order to actualize, the monistic Singular Substance (Plato's abstract Form) must transform into Dual intermediate concrete sub-forms : Energy & Matter.

For example, Aristotle defined Substance (hylomorph) as a duality of "Matter" (pure potentiality) and "Form" (actuality). Obviously, his concept of Matter is different from the modern usage in that it is not-yet-real, it is un-formed (amorphous). And his Form (Intent) is the enformer (actualizer) of Potential. Only when ideal Potential is realized by some Cause does it become the real stuff we now call Matter. Ari's Matter is like malleable clay : formless until molded by the design intent of a sculptor. Hence, the Actualizer*2 of the sculpture is an idea (intention, image) in the mind of a man.

The Physicalist model is "causally closed" to immaterial substances like Ideas, Concepts, and Intentions. An Idealist model is open to the existence of non-empirical essences that transform into material substances. Bats are real, but nobody knows the inner essence of batness. :smile:



*1. Monism is the philosophical view that everything is ultimately a single kind of substance or reality, while physicalism is a specific type of monism that asserts this single reality is physical. In essence, a physicalist believes that all existing phenomena, including mental states, can be explained in terms of physical processes and matter, making the physical the only fundamental substance in the universe.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=monism+physicalism

*2. AMORPHOUS CLAY PRIOR TO ACTUALIZATION
by input of mental intention and manual energy

The physical substance cannot even cause a change in itself. I have a thread on this topic here. Therefore, the Mind sustains the physical substance (I have a thread on what the Mind is here).
By the way, I am wondering how such a thing as a physical substance that has no control over its movement at all, given the first argument in the first thread above, could be the cause of something that is intelligent, something that can freely decide, etc. what you call the mind. This is a bad model to work on since it has tons of problems and anomalies on the first side. Just accept the substance dualism at least, and you can describe how the physical substance moves. — MoK

I think you misunderstood my usage of the term "substance"*1. I was not talking about malleable Matter, but about Causal Energy. For modern scientists, Energy is defined as "ability" or "capability", but Aristotle called it "Potential", as contrasted with Actual, which is the form of frozen Energy we know as Matter (E=MC^2). Energy is physical only in the sense that it is the Dynamic (Causal) Force for the science of Physics. The "control" is provided by Natural Laws (principles ; regulations).

In my thesis, I suppose that Aristotle's Potential (power , ability , possibility), which I call EnFormAction*2 (power to transform), is not only the Causal Source of tangible Matter (hylomorph), but also of intangible Mind (intellect, nous, reason). I arrived at that conclusion from the scientific equation of Energy and Information*3. That equivalence is not yet established as a scientific fact, but it serves as a reasonable assumption for philosophical conjectures. The Triad of Energy-Matter-Information may sound strange, but I use it as an illustration of a difficult concept in my Information-centric thesis.

Exactly how the holistic complex of Energy + Matter + Information produces the effect in a material brain that we call "Intellect" or "Intelligence" or "consciousness" has not been completely worked out. But I think of Thinking & Reasoning as meta-physical processes, similar to the physical processes caused by inputs of Energy.

Although the scientists noted in the link below envisioned a triple-set, Descartes viewed the mind/body relationship as a duality of res extensa (matter) and res cogitans (thought). However, I imagine that our local duality or triality are merely manifestations of an ultimate universal Monism : EnFormAction : the power & program of the Big Bang Singularity, that provided the Cause & Laws of evolution, from which has emerged thinking & reasoning lumps of mobile matter that we now call philosophers & scientists. Note --- the ResearchGate image calls that triple aspect Monism : "Universal Substance".

Therefore, although we may not be on the same page, we seem to be on adjacent pages, regarding the question of how Consciousness could emerge in a Material world. :smile:

PS___ I guess my analysis of Consciousness is more scientific than Hegelian. :wink:


*1. In Aristotle's philosophy, a substance is the primary kind of being, an individual thing composed of matter (pure potentiality) and form (actuality). Potentiality is a thing's capacity to become something else, while actuality is the realization of that capacity. Every substance has the potentiality to develop its inherent capacities and achieve its specific purpose or telos, thus actualizing its form.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=aristotle+potential+and+substance
Note --- Information, like Energy, is physical only in the sense that it produces physical effects in matter.

*2. EnFormAction :
That neologism is an analysis and re-synthesis of the common word for the latent power of mental contents : “Information”. “En” stands for energy, the physical power to cause change; “Form” refers to Platonic Ideals (potential) that become real (actual); “Action” is the meta-physical power of transformation, as exemplified in the amazing metamorphoses of physics, whereby one kind of thing becomes a new kind of thing, with novel properties. In the Enformationism worldview, EnFormAction is eternal creative potential in action : it's how creation-via-evolution works.
https://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page23.html

*3. Is information energy or matter? :
The fundamental triad of energy/matter/information |
The concept of information as a physical element has been put forth by various researchers (Landauer, 1996;Stonier, 1990;Vopson, 2019;Wheeler, 1989). It is now considered as fundamental as well as matter and energy in the universe (Meijer, 2013; Stonier, 1996).
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/The-fundamental-triad-of-energy-matter-information_fig1_275017053
Note --- ResearchGate image below. I don't agree with all of these labels. It's just an imaginary illustration of how Information relates to Energy and Matter.


THE hypothetical FUNDAMENTAL TRIAD
https://www.researchgate.net/about

Some say that Consciousness is not produced mechanically, but magically. — Gnomon
Who says that? — Patterner

Daniel Dennett, for one*1.

*1. The idea that "consciousness is magic" can refer to different concepts: some see consciousness as a literal, wondrous phenomenon that imbues the world with meaning and feeling, while others, like philosopher Daniel Dennett, use the metaphor of magic to describe how the brain creates an illusion of a unified, rich inner experience from complex, non-magical processes.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=consciousness+is+magic

Sentient awareness refers to the capacity of a living being to feel, perceive, and be conscious of its surroundings and experiences, often implying an ability to suffer or experience pleasure, and is distinct from mere behavioral responsiveness or simulated intelligence. It involves an "inner experience" or subjective reality, which may be distinguished from "self-awareness" (knowing one is aware) or "sapience" (wisdom) — Gnomon
Isn't "inner experience" or "subjective reality" usually the definition of consciousness? — Patterner

Yes. But some alternative terms for Consciousness are : awareness, attention, mindfulness, knowledge, cognition, mind, observation, etc.

My point is that C is not a thing, but a process ; not a material substance, but a Function of a complex organism. Your cell phone is a complex mechanism, it processes a lot of information, and it performs several useful functions. But at the moment, it's AI functions have not reached the status of Personhood.
So, it is not Sentient or Aware of what it's doing. It's simply a mechanism.

One requirement for Sentient Awareness seems to be, not just complexity, but an integrated system of information processing, as postulated by Tononi's Integrated Information Theory*2. IIT is intended to be the kernel for a scientific theory, but at the moment, it's a philosophical conjecture. But I think it's pointing in the right direction.

Consciousness seems to require A> material complexity (entanglement ; feedback loops), B> systematic integration (Holism), and C> inherent Potential (power, ability, capacity) for "higher functions" such as Life & Mind. So, simple objects like Atoms or single cell organisms may have the Potential (Panpsychism), but they lack sufficient Complexity or Systematic Integration for awareness & intelligence. Hence, not Conscious, in the human sense. :smile:


*2. Integrated Information Theory (IIT) is a scientific framework proposing that consciousness is a fundamental property of physical systems with the capacity to integrate information; it quantifies this capacity using a measure called Phi (Φ).
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=integrated+information+theory

Consciousness, to me, is the ability of the mind, namely, the ability to experience, and it cannot be an emergent thing. . . . .
]The mind, to me, is an irreducible substance with the ability to experience, freely decide, and cause. The mind is not by byproduct of physical processes in the brain. — MoK

Yes. I agree that there is a fundamental "substance", in the Aristotelian sense, that eventually produced the Consciousness that we Sapiens take for granted. And Panpsychism is based on the assumption that Mind is fundamental to the Cosmos. But, I think that implies a much too broad definition of "the ability to experience". For me, Consciousness is not a "thing", but a process, a function.

Modern Cosmology portrays a universe with no sign of Life or Mind for over 10 billion years of evolution. Only in the last few billion years, has Life emerged as single cells with crude senses for finding food. Billions of years later, the entities we call animals, evolved along with more sophisticated sensory apparatus, that eventually became controlled by brains. However, it's only in the last few thousand years that animals with big brains emerged with sufficient complexity to produce the talent that we humans experience as Self-Consciousness. We know what it's like to be human, but "what it's like to be a bat" is still a mystery. We can't see or touch the substance of Consciousness, we can only infer it's existence by means of the very subject of our investigation : the mental tool of Reason.

Based on current developments in science (complexity, information, etc), I have concluded that Consciousness is an emergent phenomenon & noumenon. Hence the "ability to experience" was absent from the Big Bang event, and from the expanding universe for about 90% of the evolutionary period to date. The human era, with Consciousness as-we-know-it-and-experience-it, it has existed for only about 2% of Cosmic time.

But the Big Bang was powered by Energy (causation) and Information (natural laws) from the beginning of space-time. And my name for that original Substance (form + matter) is what I call EnFormAction*1. A term I coined to contrast with Shannon's negative definition of Information in terms of dissipating Entropy. EFA is equivalent to what Schrodinger coined, in his book What is Life?, as Negentropy : positive causation. In my thesis, EFA is the fundamental substance, from which Life & Mind evolved, and Emerged.

So, Consciousness may have been present at the beginning, in the form of Potential. But that creative power only fulfilled its promise after eons of "physical processes". Perhaps, not a "byproduct", but definitely a long-delayed Effect of cosmic Causation. :smile:


*1. The EnFormAction Hypothesis :
That neologism is an analysis and re-synthesis of the common word for the latent power of mental contents : “Information”. “En” stands for energy, the physical power to cause change; “Form” refers to Platonic Ideals that become real; “Action” is the meta-physical power of transformation, as exemplified in the amazing metamorphoses of physics, whereby one kind of thing becomes a new kind of thing, with novel properties. In the Enformationism worldview, EnFormAction is eternal creative potential in action : it's how creation-via-evolution works.
https://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page23.html
Note --- The evolutionary unfolding of that original Potential may be what some call Panpsychism : EFA (Energy & Form) is everywhere forever.

Mental phenomena, to me, are divided into strong and weak emergence as well. The example of weak emergence is perception, and the example of strong emergence is creating an idea. — MoK

Yes, creative Ideas are considered to be emergent*1 in that they present a novel or unique perspective on an old problem that, presumably, no one has thought of before. But the emergence of Consciousness in a material world is more challenging to empirical scientists because Sentient Awareness*2 is not an empirical Property, but a philosophical Quality, that includes the power to generate mental images & ideas. We can't trace a lineage of cause & effect leading up to an entity that not only senses its environment (like a plant), but knows that it knows. That self-knowledge is limited to "higher" animals. And, as far as we know, only homo sapiens is able to both imagine abstract ideas, and to communicate them in language.

However, I was taking a different approach to the notion of Emergence, by bringing in the Aristotelian concept of Potential and the modern science of Complexity. Routine physical Cause & Effect*3 is an example of Weak Emergence : the emergent Effect is simply the final state in a chain of causation. For example, the amazing collective patterns created on the fly by thousands of birds, seemingly acting as a single organism. In principle, scientists could trace the complex interactions from single bird to "murmuration" {image below}, but in practice it would be very difficult to collect & analyze the data.

Moreover, Strong Emergence implies that some unpredictable novel property is manifested, not just in localized group behavior, but in the specialized talent of a single species for abstracting ideas (imaginary information) from concrete reality. Emergence of novelty from complexity seems to be inherent in the evolutionary process. But modern science has only recently developed mathematical techniques & computer programs for analyzing & understanding non-linear systems, that defy traditional reductionist methods.

Some say that Consciousness is not produced mechanically, but magically. I suspect that Mind only seems like Magic, due to our inability to comprehend functions & effects that arise from the most complex structure in the universe : the human brain. Personally, I think a key to understanding the Consciousness Effect will be found in the equation of Information (meaning) and Energy (causation) along with the notion of Potential (latent causal power). And that's the topic of my thesis*4. :nerd:


*1. Yes, new and complex ideas are often considered emergent, meaning they arise from the interaction of simpler parts or processes in a system and possess novel qualities that are not inherent in those individual components. This concept applies to creativity, where ideas can surface from actions, experiences, and contexts, transforming from unarticulated "know-how" into conceptual "know-what". Emergence also refers to phenomena that arise from complex systems, such as consciousness from the brain, which cannot be fully understood by examining its simpler constituents alone.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=are+ideas+emergent

*2. Sentient awareness refers to the capacity of a living being to feel, perceive, and be conscious of its surroundings and experiences, often implying an ability to suffer or experience pleasure, and is distinct from mere behavioral responsiveness or simulated intelligence. It involves an "inner experience" or subjective reality, which may be distinguished from "self-awareness" (knowing one is aware) or "sapience" (wisdom)
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=sentient+awareness

*3. Cause and effect emergence refers to phenomena where macro-level patterns and behaviors arise from the interactions of many micro-level components, leading to outcomes that are qualitatively novel and cannot be predicted by examining the components in isolation. While simple cause-and-effect relationships involve one event directly preceding and influencing another, emergent cause-and-effect involves collective interactions creating new, unexpected patterns. This concept is explored in causal emergence theory, which uses mathematical frameworks from information theory and network science to study these complex relationships in systems like the brain, ant colonies, and starling murmurations.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=cause+and+effect+emergence

*4. Mind/Body Problem :
Philosophers and scientists have long debated the relationship between a physical body and its non-physical properties, such as Life & Mind. Cartesian Dualism resolved the problem temporarily by separating the religious implications of metaphysics (Soul) from the scientific study of physics (Body). But now scientists are beginning to study the mind with their precise instruments, and have found no line of demarcation. So, they see no need for the hypothesis of a spiritual Soul added to the body by God. However, Enformationism resolves the problem by a return to Monism, except that the fundamental substance is meta-physical Information instead of physical Matter.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind%E2%80%93body_problem
Note --- Life & Mind are emergent, not miraculous

STARLINGS SCULPTING A SELF-IMAGE

Granting these assumptions means that there is a function that describes the property of the system. The only avalaible properties are the properties of parts though. Therefore, the property of such a system is a function of the properties of the parts. Therefore, we are not dealing with strong emergence in the case of consciousness. — MoK

This argument works from the perspective of Physics. But, in Aristotle's Meta-Physics, he introduces the non-physical notions of Potentiality & Actuality*1, Form & Matter, Essence & Substance. Hence, the Function of a System is non-physical, even though the parts are material items. It's a mathematical input/output relationship that you can't see, but can infer as purpose or meaning.

Function*2 is what a system does : the output or usefulness or purpose of the process. And the collective Function of a zillion neurons (Mind) is an Emergent property of the aggregated (integrated) parts, in the sense that the separate parts do not possess the Property of Consciousness. An example of physical-to-metaphysical Emergence is Abiogenesis : the otherwise inexplicable process we call "Life" displayed by interactive amalgamations of inert material bits : a complex System.

So, one explanation for the eventual Emergence of Life & Mind from a mass of protoplasm --- water, ions, amino acids, and monosaccarides --- is that those simpler material components possessed un-actualized Potential*3 that became Actual Life & Mind processes when combined into a complex organization. And one kind of Potential Actualizer is the physical-but-immaterial activity we call "Energy"*4. Therefore, the material components of a system are activated by inputs of a Causal Force, which by itself is neither Mental nor Vital.

The emergence of Life & Mind only after billions of years of evolution implies that it takes many rolls of the dice to hit upon the right combination to open the vault of Biology and Psychology*5. And no combination of parts would do the trick, if the Potential was not there all along. :smile:



*1. For Aristotle, a substance is a thing's essential nature, understood through the interplay of potentiality (its capacity to become something else) and actuality (what it currently is). Each substance consists of both potentiality (its matter) and actuality (its form).
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-metaphysics/

*2. Function is what a system does, especially its purpose within an environment, while emergence is the process by which novel properties or behaviors arise in a system from the interactions of its parts, properties that cannot be predicted or understood from the parts in isolation. Essentially, emergence describes how a system achieves a function through its integrated components, creating a whole with new characteristics that are more than the sum of its parts, such as the coordinated movement of a car (function) emerging from the interactions of its engine, wheels, and other components.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=function+and+emergence

*3. Potential : latent (hidden) properties or qualities that are capable of emerging when combined into an organized (enformed) system.
Note --- One way to understand Potential is : the combination that unlocks Actual.

*4.Yes, in a fundamental physics sense, energy can be considered immaterial or non-material because it does not have mass and does not take up space, unlike matter. Energy is better understood as an abstract property or quantity associated with matter and systems, representing the ability to do work or bring about change, rather than a tangible substance itself.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=energy+is+immaterial

*5. The probability of life arising from non-life, a process called abiogenesis, is incredibly low when considered as a random event, with estimates of probabilities for complex molecules like proteins ranging from 1 in 10^40,000 to 1 in 10^251, and higher for a whole cell.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=probability+of+life+from+non-life

You've misread your own reference. sure, mēns (“mind”) is from PIE *men- (“to think”), but mensūra (“to measure”) is form from PIE *meh₁- (“to measure”).
Measure dervives from Meh, not Mens. — Banno

I didn't misread the reference, I just focused on the parts that were pertinent to my post :
Mensura = to measure ; Mens- = mind*1*2
A yardstick can provide a comparison, but only a Mind can measure the meaning : to interpret.

Hence, In the quantum context, I infer that "to measure" is to extract information (meaning) into a Mind (observer). Which sheds light on the Quantum Measurement Problem, regarding the cause of the "collapse" of holistic entanglement into particular particles. A machine can obtain mathematical (probability) information about an experiment. But only the conscious experimenter can interpret its Meaning. Collapse (disintegration) happens when energy is extracted by the machine. like a cue ball hitting the neatly-stacked billiard balls. But the Event is only known when the bits of energy/information are interpreted into meaning.

Since scientists are now equating Information with Energy*3, I imagine (philosophical conjecture) that what is extracted from an entangled (interactive) system is a quantum of potential Energy (photon or gluon), which may serve as a keystone, holding the system together. By contrast, Entropy pulls the plug on a system to break it down into isolated parts. Shannon noted that Information is negatively measured in terms of meaningless Entropy*4.

Probability & Potential are not a real things ; they are ideas that are meaningful only to conscious minds. Only when they become Actual does a meaningful Event happen. Consciousness & Events go together like things that are similar. :smile:


*1. The English phrase "to measure" ultimately derives from the Latin verb metiri ("to measure"), which comes from the Proto-Indo-European root me- ("to measure"). The word entered English via the Old French verb mesurer, which was derived from the Latin noun mensura ("a measurement"), the past participle of metiri.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=%22to+measure%22+etymology

*2. In Latin, "mens" refers to "mind," "intellect," or "plan," as seen in the legal term mens rea (guilty mind) and the English words "mental" or "dementia". It is a feminine noun belonging to the third declension, with the genitive form mentis.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=latin+%22mens-%22

*3. Is information matter or energy? :
A theory is proposed which considers information to be a basic property of the universe the way matter and energy are. Operationally--just as energy is defined in terms of its capacity to perform work--so is information defined in terms of its capacity to organize a system.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8734520/

*4.In information theory, entropy (H) is a measure of the average uncertainty or randomness associated with a random variable or process. It quantifies the expected amount of information needed to describe the outcome of a random event, with higher entropy indicating greater uncertainty and more information required to specify the outcome. The unit of entropy is the bit, and it is calculated as the weighted average of the information content of each possible outcome, where the information content of an outcome is inversely related to its probability.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=information+and+entropy

Clocks don’t measure time; we do. This is why Bergson believed that clock time presupposes lived time. — Wayfarer

Someone raised the question above : "what is a measurement?" The English word "measure" comes from Latin "mensura', and mensura derives from the root "mens-" meaning Mind*1. So, one sense of measurement is "to extract information into a mind". To "take the measure of something" is to convert the perceived object into a mental representation of the object : an idea or concept. Hence, metaphorically, some physical properties of the object are replicated in meta-physical (mental) images (ideas). Therefore, a particle of matter can impact another particle, but only a Mind can measure the meaning of that collision in terms of values & properties. A yardstick cannot measure anything in the absence of an interpreting mind.

The Quantum Measurement Problem*2 seems to be similar to Bergson's Clock. Mechanisms move one tick at a time, but humans measure Time as duration : the space between ticks. Hence, for 10 billion solar years, the expanding universe ticked along, with no one to measure that change in terms of duration (Time) or expansion (space) or importance (events). Do animals have a mental concept of Time, over & above the circadian rhythms of their bodies? Humans seem to feel time as flowing, but measure it in discrete increments : ticks of a mechanical clock or sub-atomic quanta. So, time is not a physical thing, but merely an on-going process of observed events that we experience as continuous, but measure as quantified. :smile:


*1. The measuring mind : The Latin word for "mind" is mens, not "mensura". "Mensura" is a separate Latin word meaning "measure".
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=latin+word+for+%22mind%22+mensura

*2. The quantum measurement problem is a foundational question in quantum mechanics concerning the apparent contradiction between a quantum system's deterministic evolution (as described by the Schrödinger equation) and the probabilistic "collapse" of its state into a single outcome upon measurement.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=quantum+measurement+problem

*3. Time is widely understood as a continuous flow of existence and events, progressing irreversibly from past to future, and is a fundamental aspect of reality as described by both physics and philosophy. While a continuous and divisible flow is the dominant view, particularly in how we experience it, the nature of time at the most fundamental, quantum level is still an area of debate, with some physicists suggesting a discrete model might be necessary to fully reconcile quantum mechanics with general relativity.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=Is+Time+a+series+of+isolated+events%2C+or+a+continuous+flow+of+change%3F

Idealism has a great deal of difficulty avoiding solipsism. — Banno
At least your version of it does. — Wayfarer

Solipsism is self-centered. Each observer of the environment is a Self (knowing mind), and has a self-centered perspective. But, for scientific purposes, we compare our selfish worldviews in order to average-out the differences, and to discover the most common description or interpretation of the thing observed : Objective instead of Subjective*4.

In the Embarassing Graph article linked above, "The embarrassing thing is that we don’t have agreement". Even so, the most "popular" interpretation of spooky Quantum Physics is the one that is most like Magic : Probabilistic Copenhagen (42%) : events happen that can't be explained in classical deterministic mechanical terms. Second most popular is mind-centered Information-Theoretical (24%). And farther down the list is belief-centered Quantum-Bayesianism (6%). So, most scientists seem to agree that something funny*5 (non-mechanical) is going on, that can seem magical or mundane, depending on the observer's worldview .

A scientist's sensory perceptions and machine data are empirical, but their measurements and interpretations are theory-laden. That's why we can argue in opposite directions from the same evidence. Likewise, physical events are real & empirical, but conscious ideas about those events are ideal & hypothetical (speculative). :nerd:


*4. Scientific objectivity is the principle that scientific claims, methods, and results should be free from personal biases, value judgments, community bias, and personal interests, aiming to accurately reflect the facts of the world. It involves focusing on evidence and proven facts, minimizing irrational emotions, and striving for neutrality and accuracy in research. While an ideal, achieving perfect objectivity is challenging, as scientists are influenced by their perspectives, culture, and the broader scientific community.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=scientific+objectivity

*5. The "magic" in the Copenhagen Interpretation refers to the seemingly inexplicable process of wave function collapse, where a quantum system's indeterminate probabilities resolve into a single, definite outcome upon measurement. Critics, including Schrödinger, found this abrupt, probabilistic change, which lacks a clear physical mechanism, to be "magical" and a weakness of the interpretation. For them, it introduces randomness and a lack of determinism that is contrary to classical physics, forcing an acceptance of an unanalyzable cause for the wave function's collapse.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=copenhagen+interpretation+magic

C.G. Jung once said that the world only exists when you consciously perceive it. In that theory, only what I see truly exists — Jan

Jung seems to be saying that I personally create the reality I see. But I don't consciously or intentionally create my environment, I just passively (instinctively) accept it as a given, and interpret the incoming bits of energy as information signals from a non-self Reality. So, Epistemological Idealism doesn't make sense to me. The other varieties of Idealism : Subjective ; Objective ; Absolute ; Constitutive ; and Transcendental ; appear to be grasping at straws.

Only the Transcendental makes some Ontological sense --- in view of the Big Bang theory --- but then we have the problem of postulating an imaginary out-of-this-world Source of the incoming Information (Ideas) we interpret as Real. I don't flatly reject the God hypothesis, even though I have no personal experience to confirm it. Therefore, as an amateur philosopher, while I entertain the hypothetical notion of Idealism, for practical purposes I assume that there is a real material world out there, which is not a creation of my feeble imagination. :smile:

Wow, that is delicious. I have a big problem with binary thinking. I did not know that holistic thinking is being practiced by some scientists. That makes me hopeful. — Athena

Modern Holistic thinking began in the 20th century along with Quantum physics : entanglement is holistic. But most scientists avoid the term "holism" due to its association with New Age "nuts". Other related terms are Cybernetics (control & communication in complex systems) ; General Systems Theory (interrelated parts that work together as a whole) ; Complexity Theory (systems that are too complicated to understand by analysis into parts) ; Emergence (novel features of whole systems that are not found in the parts) ; Synthesis (combining isolated elements into interrelated systems) ; Synergy (energetic interaction to produce an effect that is more than the sum of parts).

You might be interested in the book that introduced that New-Agey term : Holism and Evolution*1. As the title implies, it was focused mainly on evolutionary mysteries, such as how Life & Mind emerged from the muck of a nascent planet. It inspired Hippies & meditators of the 1960s with hope for a new Age of Aquarius. The holistic god-concept of New-Agers was an impersonal, cosmic life force or consciousness that is one with the universe. Disclaimer : despite some accusations, I am not now, and never have been a New Age hippie.

Another book that is more focused on Consciousness & god-concepts is The Sapient Cosmos by James B. Glattfelder : a thick encyclopedic book "that synthesizes modern science and philosophy to explore the emergence of information, consciousness, and meaning in the universe". It's intended for intelligent laymen, but includes a lot of technical stuff that you may not be interested in. However, it has chapters on "woo-woo" Shamanic traditions and Psychedelic cultures, that may be more appealing to you.

I, personally, have no experience with mind-altering substances, or out-of-body experiences. So my interest was more in the Holistic philosophical worldview, summarized as Syncretic Idealism : "a novel philosophical proposition that merges various idealist philosophies with insights from information theory and physics, while also integrating concepts from other belief systems like shamanism to create a unified, non-isolating worldview about the nature of reality, consciousness, and existence". :smile:


*1. Holism and Evolution :
Unfortunately, Holism is still controversial in Philosophy. That is primarily due to the practical and commercial success of reductive methods in the physical sciences. Methodological Reductionism attempts to understand a composite system by breaking it down into its component parts. And that approach works well for mechanical devices, but not so well for living things. . . . .
https://bothandblog8.enformationism.info/page33.html

However, I am not sure that the energy from the moment of the Big Bang is not also a unifying energy evolving into self-consciousness. — Athena

That double negative indicates non-dogmatic uncertainty and moderate skepticism. I too, am uncertain about The Hard Problem of Consciousness, because the (yes/no) empirical & reductionist scientific method is inadequate to the task of objectively observing the subjective (self-conscious) observer. Yet some scientists & philosophers are using holistic (both/and) methods to make sense of the simplicity in complexity, and the order in chaos*1*2. They hope to shed light on the mystery of how Life & Mind emerged from the random roilings of matter.

I too have developed a philosophical theory, based primarily on Information Science (Complexity, Systems, Holism, etc). It postulates that the "unifying energy" of evolution is a combination of Information (direction) and Causation (Energy) : like a guided missile instead of an aimless bomb. It's not Deterministic (absolute certainty), but Probabilistic (optional). The theory has little to do with proving the existence of God. But it does point toward the the necessity of a First Cause/Prime Mover/Programmer of some kind to light the fuse of the Big Bang bomb. :smile:


*1. From Matter to Life: Information and Causality is a 2017 edited collection of essays by experts in various fields, including physics, biology, chemistry, and philosophy, exploring the role of information in the transition from non-living matter to life.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=from+matter+to+life

*2. Information and the Nature of Reality :From Physics to Metaphysics is an edited collection of essays by scientists, philosophers, and theologians, published by Cambridge University Press in 2010 and reissued as a Canto Classic in 2014. Edited by Paul Davies and Niels Henrik Gregersen, the book explores the growing importance of information as a fundamental concept in understanding the universe, moving beyond traditional views of mass and energy.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=information+and+the+nature+of+reality

*3. The EnFormAction Hypothesis :
Postulates that immaterial logico-mathematical "Information" (in both noun & verb forms) is more fundamental to our reality than the elements of classical philosophy and the matter & energy of modern Materialism.
https://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page23.html

I just wish to add that I am raising the debate over some analysis of the debate between theism and atheism. However, I do see it in the context of the wide range of philosophy perspectives historically and geographically. In this respect, I am raising the area between theism/ atheism, but also other possibilities, including pantheism and the various constructions of reality which may be developed. — Jack Cummins

If pressed, I don't label myself as Theist or Atheist, but as Deist*1. That's because I am uncertain & ambivalent about God, but convinced that some transcendent creative power is necessary to make sense of our contingent world. Deism is not a religion, but a philosophical position*1. Regarding who or what created the Cosmos, all I know is that empirical cosmological knowledge only goes back to the black box known as the Big Bang Singularity. Any information prior to the beginning of space-time is pure speculation, based on hypothetical reasoning, not empirical observation. If you don't care about such perennial philosophical questions as First Cause & Prime Mover though, then peace be unto you.

I am not a Pantheist or Panpsychist, but I do postulate an alternative Pan-power : Energy, or as I like to call it : EnFormAction*2. In that view, the creative power to transform is universal, and responsible for all developments since the initial Bang. Whitehead's Process philosophy*3 also presumes some kind of universal directional causal power to explain complexifying evolution sparked by the Bang. But he didn't call it Panpsychism ; others added that label. In the quote below, "matter and experience" may be similar to Aristotle's Hylomorph (matter + form).

Since Matter is subject to the degradation of Entropy though, it cannot be eternal, but Form is an abstract mental/mathematical concept that is not subject to thermodynamics. So, the power to create and transform matter may be the transcendent force that is necessary to explain the Big Bang. What would you call the Source of that Cosmic Causation? And in what sense could it exist prior to the emergence of space-time? :smile:


*1. Deism is the philosophical belief in a creator God who established the universe and its natural laws but does not intervene in its ongoing affairs, particularly human events. Deists rely on human reason and the observation of nature, rather than divine revelation or religious scriptures, to understand the divine. This belief system, prominent during the Enlightenment, views God as a supreme architect or "divine clockmaker" who created the world and then left it to operate on its own.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=deism+philosophical+position+on+god

*2. EnFormAction :
Metaphorically, it's the Will-power of G*D, which is the First Cause of everything in creation. Aquinas called the Omnipotence of God the "Primary Cause", so EFA is the general cause of everything in the world. Energy, Matter, Gravity, Life, Mind are secondary creative causes, each with limited application.
# All are also forms of Information, the "difference that makes a difference". It works by directing causation from negative to positive, cold to hot, ignorance to knowledge. That's the basis of mathematical ratios (Greek "Logos", Latin "Ratio" = reason). A : B :: C : D. By interpreting those ratios we get meaning and reasons.
# The concept of a river of causation running through the world in various streams has been interpreted in materialistic terms as Momentum, Impetus, Force, Energy, etc, and in spiritualistic idioms as Will, Love, Conatus, and so forth. EnFormAction is all of those.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html
Note --- EFA is similar to Schopenhauer's Will to survive (biological evolution), and to Nietzche's Will to power (physical Energy), and to Bergson's Vital Energy (self organization). Matter is made of Energy, but what is Energy made of????

*3. Alfred North Whitehead developed a form of process panpsychism, a philosophy suggesting that all reality is composed of fundamental "actual occasions" with both mental and physical aspects, rather than inert material objects. This process-relational view holds that everything, from quanta to galaxies, has a "subjective" or experiential "inside" and an objective, physical "outside". He didn't use the term "panpsychism" himself but argued for a system where matter and experience are equally fundamental, with matter as the objective pole and mind as the subjective pole of these underlying actual entities.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=alfred+north+whitehead+panpsychism
Note --- Whitehead's term "experience" may be misleading. I think it's more like Wheeler's "bit" of Information.