I take Time to be nothing but the acknowledgement of before-after wrt states of affairs. Obviously, something insentient can't acknowledge this, but the changes still occur.
Is that you feel for an insentient being this is just not relevant, or that for them, metaphysically, time wouldn't pass? — AmadeusD

Yes. Time is a concept formulated by sentient observers of Change, for whom Difference is the essence of Sentience*1. But presumably, Change continues in the remote backwaters of the universe, where to our knowledge there are no observers. For example, the latest Mars missions have found evidence of physical changes over time, but no little green men to take note of it. For those red rocks lying in an ancient dry river bed, Time is "not relevant". So, as you say, "metaphysically" (relation to Mind) Time stands still*2. :smile:

*1. Perception is knowledge of Change :
Sameness, similarity and difference are basic relationships in human perception and cognition.
https://www.mdpi.com/2079-3200/11/9/172

*2. À la recherche du temps perdu :
The relationship between time and change remains elusive. Giving time priority over change, and imagining time continuing in the absence of events, have unsatisfactory consequences. It is no less unsatisfactory to see time as generated from, or subsisting in, the relations between events, if only because this leaves us with the seeming impossibility of characterising the nature of that relationship without mentioning the word ‘time’. ___Raymond Tallis
https://philosophynow.org/issues/115/Time_and_Change

It's possible time doesnt exist outside the realm of what living things perceive.
In this case, positive causation and entropy are mutually synergistic.
Without positive causation, entropy cannot be observed (ie the arrow of time cannot be experienced). Without entropy, positive causation or the tendency towards order, sumilarly cannot exist — Benj96

I agree that, for insentient matter, there is no concept of Time, just meaningless Change. For a world without thinking & feeling persons, the universe may be as described in Einstein's thought experiment of Block Time. Without memory, there is no Past or Future, just Now, or perhaps nothingness.

We only know that Energy exists by observing both positive and negative changes in matter . . . . some good for us, some bad. Likewise, we only know "Productive" Energy by contrast with "Destructive" Entropy. That's why scientists first described the invisible Agent of Change in terms of Entropy (decline, dissipation, destruction), and only as an afterthought, added a label for positive Change : Negentropy (literally : negation of negativity).

I also agree that Positive Energy (order) and Negative Entropy (disorder) are complementary, perhaps even synergistic {see image below}. Almost every aspect of reality has a "positive" and "negative" aspect, but those labels are meaningful only to sentient beings. So, like Time, they may not exist "outside the realm of . . . living things". Perhaps without the limiting "laws" of physics, and the annihilating brakes of Entropy, the burgeoning evolution of the universe (toward order & organization) could not exist.

In the near-infinite universe, Randomness and Order coexist; uneasily, but fruitfully. Yet, on earth, order reigns supreme. That's why Plato imagined his rational world as a temporal Cosmos separated out of eternal Chaos*1. According to the second law of thermodynamics, order is an exception to the rule of general disorder*2. And yet, here we are : organized matter, thinking rational thoughts about a world born from a creative blast of energy, but ever-since descending back toward the original state of unformed Plasma . . . . except in our little corner of the cosmos, in the realm of "living things". :confused:


*1. Plato's conception of the Cosmos :
Pythagoras was the first, says Plutarch, "who named the compass of the whole a Cosmos, because
of the order which is in it"
https://www.jstor.org/stable/27900668

*2. Entropy vs Enformy :
*** Entropy is a property of the universe, modeled as a thermodynamic system. Energy always flows from Hot (high energy density) to Cold (low density) -- except when it doesn't. On rare occasions, energy lingers in a moderate state that we know as Matter, and sometimes even reveals new qualities and states of material stuff .
*** The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that, in a closed system, Entropy always increases until it reaches equilibrium at a temperature of absolute zero. But some glitch in that system allows stable forms to emerge that can recycle energy in the form of qualities we call Life & Mind. That glitch is what I call Enformy.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html

COMPLEMENTARITY OF POSITIVE & NEGATIVE

When I consider abiogenesis as a "natural" explanation of where life comes from, it seems to me that for some combination of particles to be the recipe for the first lifeform would just be a miraculous occurrence, even if and especially if, one excludes a supernatural explanation. Does anyone have perspective of it or an alternative theory? I am open to a "natural" explanation for life's origin, I'm just not sure an account can be given in natural terms without any miraculous occurrences. — NotAristotle

I do have a philosophical hypothesis of abiognesis (life from non-life), but it's a complex argument, involving quantum Uncertainty, Information theory, Evolution theory, Cosmology, and Entropy. There's nothing supernatural or miraculous about it, except for the same open-ended implication as Big Bang theory : something from nothing.

The postulated creative force is labeled as "meta-physical" in the sense that, like Energy and Entropy, it can only be inferred from its effects, not known by its substance. "Energy" only implies non-directional (neutral) Change, but Entropy*2 (regressive tendency) implies destructive changes. So, what's missing is an explanation for Positive Causation, toward complexity and organization.

Since Energy per se is aimless causation, if the emergence of life from non-life is a sign of anti-entropy (i.e. progress instead of regress), then some explanation for the mono-directional Arrow of Time*3 is needed, philosophically if not scientifically. This thesis merely combines Energy with Information (the positive power to transform). :smile:


*1. Enformy :
In the Enformationism theory, Enformy is a hypothetical, holistic, metaphysical, natural trend or force, that counteracts Entropy & Randomness to produce complexity & progress. [ see post 63 for graph ]
*** I'm not aware of any "supernatural force" in the world. But my Enformationism theory postulates that there is a meta-physical force behind Time's Arrow and the positive progress of evolution. Just as Entropy is sometimes referred to as a "force" causing energy to dissipate (negative effect), Enformy is the antithesis, which causes energy to agglomerate (additive effect).
*** Of course, neither of those phenomena is a physical Force, or a direct Cause, in the usual sense. But the term "force" is applied to such holistic causes as a metaphor drawn from our experience with physics.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html

*2. Entropy counter to arrow of Time :
“ Rise in entropy in all physical systems and the resulting one-way slide of the universe from order to chaos, tending towards what physicists call its ‘heat death’.” ___Paul Davies, physicist
Note --- Planet Earth is the primary example of Negative Entropy in the universe, where Life & Mind have emerged against all odds (second law of thermodynamics). Negentropy is an accepted scientific term, but Enformy is my own philosophical term for positive evolution.

*3. Entropy is one of the few quantities in the physical sciences that require a particular direction for time, sometimes called an arrow of time. As one goes "forward" in time, the second law of thermodynamics says, the entropy of an isolated system can increase, but not decrease. ___Wikipedia

I think there is a valid distinction between knowledge and belief, although I also think that much of what is generally considered to be knowledge might be more accurately classed as belief. — Janus

I think you are correct, because both terms are subject to varying definitions, depending on the context. Philosophically, knowledge is "justified true belief"*1, which is the basis of the scientific method : verification of hypotheses. But William James*2 noted that "many people" seem to assume their beliefs are facts. Physicist David Bohm*3 echoed that insight, along with David Hume's quip about Reason being the slave of the passions.

Yet, Socrates*4, acclaimed for his wisdom, must have had that human propensity --- for equating Feelings & Beliefs with reliable Knowledge --- in mind when he said, with a touch of irony, "I know that I know nothing". Allowing for such rare exceptions to James' rule, perhaps you could tweak Hawkins' truism that "knowledge is only belief", by adding that Wisdom is tried & true Belief. :smile:


*1. The Analysis of Knowledge :
According to this analysis, justified, true belief is necessary and sufficient for knowledge.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/knowledge-analysis/

*2. A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices. ___ William James

*3. “A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices,” ___David Bohm,
"In this light, what many consider ‘thought’ is a superficial play of ideas, a mere shuffling of the mental deck chairs, while the ship of understanding remains firmly anchored in the harbor of prejudice."
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/great-many-people-think-thinking-when-merely-murat-durmus-s6ffe/

*4. Socrates . . . . . doubted his omniscience and famously stated “all I know is that I know nothing”. {for sure} https://www.thecollector.com/all-i-know-is-that-i-know-nothing-socrates/

I'm yet to see an argument that proves the non-reductive thesis - though I probably just haven't read enough. — Malcolm Lett

After centuries of debates on the provenance of Consciousness, I doubt that you will find a slam-dunk argument either way. In most such discussions, the debater tends to end up at his own starting point. Materialism begins from the assumption that Matter is all there is, hence Mind must be a kind of matter. Idealism assumes that Mind is all that exists, so Matter must be a form of Mind. But my non-authoritative hypothesis, as an amateur philosopher, is that both Mind and Matter are forms of primordial Energy/Information (the power to transform). In other words, Consciousness is caused by Causation, not Substance.

What you call "Non-Reductive", I call "Holism" or "Systems Thinking". And your linked thread has a diagram showing a Feedback Loop, which is a major factor in multi-part Systems operation. Self-recursive flows of Information/Energy are the key to novel features & functions of a complex System, that emerge from inter-operation of parts that do not have that never-before-seen characteristic. A common example is Water, an inter-operative system of atomic oxygen & hydrogen, neither of which display the molecular properties of fluidity and wetness. But, working together, those atoms undergo Phase Transitions (transformations) from Gas to Liquid to Solid, due to energy inputs & outputs.

If you are interested in reading more along the lines of non-reductive Holism, I'll suggest two ground-breaking books : A & B below. They will not prove anything empirically, but then Mind is not an empirical topic, it's a philosophical subject. :smile:

Note --- "Emergence" is a dirty word for Reductionist thinkers. They seem to think it means "magic". But it simply refers to physical transformation, such as a new species, with different physical & behavioral features, stemming from the lineage of an older species.

A. Holism and Evolution (1925), by naturalist Jan Smuts, is mostly about how Life (a novel property) emerged from eons of evolutionary transformations of Matter. His technical term "holism" was quickly adopted by New Agers, so a different term, "Systems Theory", was coined by scientists, to avoid the "woo" factor of meditating hippies.
B. I Am a Strange Loop (2007), by Douglas Hofstadter -- cognitive & computer scientist -- is about how feedback loops (self-reference) in a dynamic cyclic structure may eventually produce the novel quality of Self-consciousness. It's a strange, but compelling and multi-disciplinary, exploration of Mind/Matter, by the author of the profound but bizarre Goedel, Escher, Bach. Your own term, "Meta-Management", may be an unintentional reference to a feedback loop.


Embracing Systems Thinking :
A Holistic Approach to Problem Solving
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/embracing-systems-thinking-holistic-approach-problem-solving-brewton/

I Am a Strange Loop :
One of our greatest philosophers and scientists of the mind asks, where does the self come from — and how our selves can exist in the minds of others. Can thought arise out of matter?
https://valsec.barnesandnoble.com/w/i-am-a-strange-loop-douglas-r-hofstadter/1100299015?ean=9780465030798

EVOLUTIONARY EMERGENCE due to sequential trans-form-actions :

In brief, I hold that the content of consciousness is a high-level summary of the general "goings on" within the brain. — Malcolm Lett

Good deal! That's another way of saying what I mean by : "Consciousness*1 is the function of brain activity". In math or physics, a Function*2 is a relationship between Input and Output. But, a relationship is not a material thing, it's a mental inference. Also, according to Hume, correlation is not proof of causation.

So, simply noting the correlation between low-level "goings-on" and high-level awareness-of-what's-happening is still a leap over the Intuitive Gap. The "hard Problem" remains : physically, how do you get from neural Inputs (energy) to mental Outputs (awareness)?

Because of that Causal Gap, some have dismissed Consciousness as a "delusion", in the sense that there is nothing physical in the output. However, as you noted, we could say that we get from IN to OUT by intuition*3, in the sense of metaphysical In-sight or Inner-vision. But that's not a material explanation of the steps between Input and Output.

Intuition is not physical vision --- traceable step by step from outer senses to inner sensations --- but a mysterious metaphysical way of knowing what's "going-on" inside the brain, without EEG or MRI. Unfortunately, that still doesn't suit your preference for a "materialistic theory". Do you have any ideas about how to fill the particular-to-holistic Intuition Gap? What's the "rule" for correlating impersonal sensory inputs to personal meaningful outputs? I'm still working on that ellipsis myself. :smile:

*1. Content of Consciousness :
Consciousness, at its simplest, is awareness of internal and external existence. ___Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Consciousness
Note --- Where is Awareness or Meaning or Cognition in the material substrate? Could those functional features exist, potentially, within the Energy that transforms into Mass : E=MC^2? If so, that would provide a Physical, not Material, agency to explain the high-level manifestation of the power of Intuition to "summarize" (from concrete matter to abstract ideas) what can't otherwise be seen.

*2. Function :
A function (f) consists of a set of inputs, a set of outputs, and a rule for assigning each input to exactly one output.
https://www.utrgv.edu/cstem/utrgv-calculus/functions/definition-of-function/index.htm

*3. Intuition :
Often referred to as “gut feelings,” intuition tends to arise holistically and quickly, without awareness of the underlying mental processing of information. ___Psychology Today
https://www.psychologytoday.com › basics › intuition

I am under the impression cause-and-effect is no longer accepted in much of physics as being the right account for how the world works — tim wood

That's a good point --- if you want to distinguish Physics from Philosophy. Academic (fundamental) physics is only concerned with mathematical correlations*1 . . . . until the time comes that you want to make a Pragmatic prediction based on that correlation, e.g. to produce a stable chemical correlation for a specific application. In that case, it helps to know what causes what.

Academic Philosophy is impractical for controlling the material world. So, the function of Meta-Physics is to organize & control the mental realm of reality --- our beliefs. On this forum, we are not producing commercial or military products, only personal concepts & attitudes. To that end, an understanding of causal correlations is helpful for self-control and social harmony. :smile:


*1. Does causation exist in physics? :
(In fact, in fundamental physics, almost all calculations involve correlation functions). We are thus forced into a surprising conclusion: There is no fundamental notion of causation — only correlations. Thus, our notion of causation must be a macroscopic emergent phenomenon derived from specific types of correlations.
https://towardsdatascience.com/why-causation-is-correlation-a-physicists-perspective-part-1-742696d130e8
Note --- According to David Hume, Causation is a useful belief, not a proven fact of physics.

You are right. The discussions on the subject of First Cause can go forever. As those about the concept of time and a lot more. — Alkis Piskas

That's why I started this spin-off from the depleted First Cause thread. But most respondents, so far, seem to have missed the point of this new thread : to discuss, not the First Cause, but a mid-evolution Effect : the origin of Consciousness in an ever-changing physical world. Perhaps I should have titled the thread : "Origin of Consciousness", but "First Concept" seemed to be more to the point.

Panpsychism*1 & Idealism assume that Consciousness was inherent in the world, from the beginning or from eternity, whichever came first. However, "First Concept" is not about chatty atoms, but about the early signs of self-aware mentation in the only animals we know have language to discuss abstract concepts.

Materialism*2 also assumes that the potential for Consciousness is inherent in the natural world, but not in the form of a supernatural God or Cosmic Mind or sentient Atoms. If so, what was the fundamental form of matter that produced thinking beings?

With these essential problems in mind, I was hoping to stimulate a discussion on how both of those presumptions might explain the eventual evolutionary emergence of abstract conceptualizers, such as posters on TPF could have evolved from nothingness or from eternal matter. For Panpsychism the crux would be the Combination Problem*3. For Materialism, the key issue might be what form proto-consciousness might take in evolution of Consciousness*4.

Do you have any ideas to contribute to a forum of mostly amateur philosophers with varying degrees of scientific background? There may be other sub-categories of Consciousness theories, but they would seem to boil down to primacy : fundamental Mind versus elemental Matter. Thoughts? :smile:


*1. Panpsychism is the idea that consciousness did not evolve to meet some survival need, nor did it emerge when brains became sufficiently complex. Instead it is inherent in matter — all matter.
https://www.discovermagazine.com/mind/panpsychism-the-trippy-theory-that-everything-from-bananas-to-bicycles-are

*2. Materialism is a form of philosophical monism which holds that matter is the fundamental substance in nature, and that all things, including mental states and consciousness, are results of material interactions of material things.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism

*3. Combination Problem :
Nevertheless, panpsychism is subject to a major challenge: the combination problem. This is
roughly the question: how do the experiences of fundamental physical entities such as quarks and photons combine to yield the familiar sort of human conscious experience that we know and love.
https://consc.net/papers/combination.pdf

*4. Can Materialism Explain the Mind? :
Nevertheless, in the eyes of many philosophers of mind, materialism has now reached an insurmountable quandary in the question of consciousness. . . . Physicalist theories that attempt to explain mental states include eliminative materialism, behaviorism, identity theory, and functionalism.
https://renovatio.zaytuna.edu/article/can-materialism-explain-the-mind

My understanding of panpsychism is that consciousness is a fundamental quality of the universe. I am unsure on whether panpsychists believe that consciousness is the ONLY fundamental force of the universe, or if consciousness is fundamental alongside other commonly held fundamental forces, like energy, electromagnetism, etc.. If the second is true, and physical processes such as energy are also fundamental, it seems that the combination problem is trivial: we have observed that physical processes can form complex objects without human intervention, such as trees: if we assume that another quality is fundamental (ignoring consciousness), and this quality is used to make a complex system like a tree, which seems to have fundamental components working together to form a complex system, why can’t the same be true of consciousness? My point is that we have observed other fundamental qualities “working together” to form a complex system, so it is not farfetched to conclude the same of consciousness. — amber

In some circles, Panpsychism has recently become a popular philosophical worldview, due in part to suggestive but questionable interpretations of Quantum Mechanics : observation collapses superposition. Even neuroscientist Christof Koch finds the notion of atomic awareness congenial to his scientific worldview. But computer scientist Bernardo Kastrup prefers a slightly different interpretation of the QM/observer concept*1.

Personally, I go one step deeper than material atoms --- "another quality" --- to locate the "fundamental force" in the world : Information --- the power to transform. I won't go into that hypothesis in this post, but the notion of Information=Energy/Force*2 is also becoming acceptable for scientists studying complex systems of the world, even though the word Information originally referred to the meaningful contents of a human mind. Those holistic properties of a complex system are described as "emergent", because they are only potential until actualized by the interactions (forces?) between individual parts.

To address your question, David Chalmers wondered "how do the experiences of fundamental physical entities such as quarks and photons combine to yield the familiar sort of human conscious experience that we know and love" {my bold}. And my answer is Holism*3 : a combination of separate things may add-up to more than the sum of its parts. In 21st century science, Holism is now labeled Systems Theory. And, in combination with Information Theory, is being used to study Complex Systems*4.

You may be more interested in the Psychological or Philosophical implications of Panpsychism than its Physical properties. But most of our philosophical postulations on this forum are expected to be grounded in hard science. And Holism is beginning to emerge from the shadow of spooky New Age notions, to play a role in the "hard" science of physical complexity*5. Where "an unfathomable combination of parts" display novel physical properties ( and mental qualities? ) as a whole System. :smile:


*1. How Does the Brain Create Mind? :
Kastrup says that “reductionist neuroscientist Christof Koch” has come to believe in a form of Panpsychism : that ”our complex conscious inner life is constituted by an unfathomable combination of the experiential states of myriad particles forming our brain”.
http://bothandblog8.enformationism.info/page16.html

*2. Information is Energy :
Definition of a physically based concept of information
https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-658-40862-6


*3. Holism :
Philosophically, a whole system is a collection of parts (holons) that possesses properties not found in the parts. That something extra is an emergent quality that was latent (unmanifest) in the parts. For example, when atoms of hydrogen & oxygen gases combine in a specific ratio, the molecule has properties of water, such as wetness, that are not found in the gases. A Holon is something that is simultaneously a whole and a part — A system of entangled things that has a function in a hierarchy of systems.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page11.html

*4. Complex Systems Theory :
When a whole is greater than the sum of its parts, it is considered a complex system. Traditional thinking would analyze each individual component, but this method also includes the relationships between all components. This gives us insight into emergent behaviors that wouldn't normally be expected from the parts.
https://now.northropgrumman.com/complex-systems-theory-how-science-solves-social-problems

*5. What is complex systems science? :
But the way in which complex phenomena are hidden, beyond masking by space and time, is through nonlinearity, randomness, collective dynamics, hierarchy, and emergence — a deck of attributes that have proved ill-suited to our intuitive and augmented abilities to grasp and to comprehend.
https://www.santafe.edu/what-is-complex-systems-science

In a number of discussions,I have had dialogue with 180 Proof, in which he argues that I am raising an issue in psychology as opposed to phllosophy. I can see his point but I am not sure that it is that simple, because all psychological models rest on philosophical assumptions. — Jack Cummins

In a later post, you replied to : "what do you expect from me?". As a survivor of many of his Either/Or broadside attacks, I will presume to guess what he wants : for you to take a hard stand on one side or the other of the Mind/Matter or Soul/Body issue. He typically demands "simple" Black & White answers to complex philosophical questions. What he wants from you is true/false syllogistic logic, which requires proven premises.

But, as you implied, Psychology is not Physics ; it is a soft science, where the evidence is mostly human opinions & feelings. Likewise, Philosophy is a soft science, where even "experts" like 180 are swapping personal beliefs ; presumably, in hopes of learning to view a problem from different subjective perspectives. Socratic dialogue*1 ideally begins from the position of "know nothing" rather than know-it-all.

Since most of the "hard" (metaphysical) questions --- that have survived syllogistic reasoning for thousands of years --- are resistant to "simple" factual answers, I think it is prudent to approach them as Socrates did, from a position of self-doubt : my current belief could be wrong. Consequently, I have developed my own personal approach to hard questions that I call The BothAnd Principle*2.

Don't expect 180 to respect such "mealy-mouth" reasoning though. He will hold you to a high standard : his own "true" belief on the question in question. :cool:

Note --- “Hard” sciences include subjects like Physics, Math, and Chemistry, while “soft” sciences include topics like Sociology and Philosophy. The terms hard and soft refer to the "hard" standard of the scientific method.


*1. The Socratic Method says Reich, “is better used to demonstrate complexity, difficulty, and uncertainty than to elicit facts about the world.” The aim of the questioning is to probe the underlying beliefs upon which each participant’s statements, arguments and assumptions are built.
https://tilt.colostate.edu/the-socratic-method/

*2.   The BothAnd Philosophy :
***   Philosophy is the study of ideas & beliefs. Not which are right or wrong – that is the province of Religion and Politics – but which are closer to universal Truth. That unreachable goal can only be approximated by Reason & Consensus, which is the method of Science. In addition to ivory tower theories, applied Philosophy attempts to observe the behavior of wild ideas in their natural habitat.
***   The BothAnd philosophy is primarily Metaphysical, in that it is concerned with Ontology, Epistemology, & Cosmology. Those categories include abstract & general concepts, such as : G*D, existence, causation, Logic, Mathematics, & Forms. Unlike pragmatic scientific "facts" about the physical world, idealistic Metaphysics is a battle-ground of opinions & emotions.
***   The BothAnd principle is one of Balance, Symmetry and Proportion. It eschews the absolutist positions of Idealism vs Realism, in favor of the relative compromises of Pragmatism. The methodology is Holistic (both/and) instead of Reductive (either/or). It espouses the Practical Wisdom of the Greek philosophers, instead of the Perfect Revelations of the Hebrew Priests. The BA principle of practical wisdom requires “skin in the game”*3 to provide real-world feedback, which counter-balances the extremes of Idealism & Realism. That feedback establishes limits to freedom and boundaries to risk-taking. BA is a principle of Character & Virtue, viewed as Phronesis or Pragmatism, instead of Piety or Perfectionism.
***   The BA philosophy is intended to be based on empirical evidence where possible, but to incorporate reasonable speculation were necessary. As my personal philosophy, the basic principle is fleshed-out in the worldview of Enformationism, which goes out of the Real world only insofar as  to establish the universal Ground of Being, and the active principle in Evolution.
*** Phronesis : an Ancient Greek word for a type of wisdom or intelligence. It is more specifically a type of wisdom relevant to practical action, implying both good judgment and excellence of character and habits, or practical virtue.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page10.html

*3. Skin In The Game, by Nassim Nicholas Taleb;  researcher in philosophical, mathematical, and (mostly) practical problems with probability. It investigates the adverse impact of having people act and make decisions without shouldering any downside if things go wrong. Philosophy, unlike War & Politics, allows people to pontificate on forums without consequences.
https://thepowermoves.com/skin-in-the-game/

I am hoping that I am not raising a stale and overtired area of thinking, especially in relation to the mind-body relationship, as well as between idealism and physicalism. — Jack Cummins

I'm afraid that most respondents to "Mind" questions will divide themselves along the lines you mentioned. My personal worldview --- and mindview --- is somewhere in the middle of that Idealism---Realism range, but some critics tend to put me into whichever category best suits their high-minded position and superior/dismissive attitude.

FWIW, I recently wrote a blog post*1 on the unapologetic Idealist, Bernardo Kastrup : link below. His book is compact & concise, as he cogently argues pro-Idealism, but not necessarily anti-realism. I don't consider myself to be in either camp philosophically, but this forum will try to force you to commit to one or the other political position. :smile:


*1. How Does the Brain Create Mind?
In his book, Science Ideated, computer scientist Bernardo Kastrup argues with philosophers about the nature of the Conscious Mind.
http://bothandblog8.enformationism.info/page14.html
Note --- click where indicated by an arrow to see hidden images

If the underlined above are your essential focal points for this conversation, I'm struggling to see why it isn't chiefly a scientific inquiry within evolutionary biology rather than a philosophical inquiry within theory of consciousness.

Are you not examining emergence of mind from matter? Is not this the focus as opposed to examining the structure and functioning of cognition once emergent? — ucarr

I was intentionally a bit vague in my title and OP, in order to avoid putting my pre-conceptions into impressionable minds. But, I did give you a hint. Please feel free to define your notion of First Concept any way you like. I'm assuming that nobody knows for sure, so there are no wrong answers.

This is a philosophy forum, so empirical evidence is not necessary. But relevant scientific data is welcome. You can describe the first-of-its-kind event as you see fit : material, physical, metaphysical, accidental, intentional, magical, etc. :smile:

PS__I Googled "first concept" and mostly got marketing links.

I know that. But it is you who asked for empirical evidence (Re: "Where's the empirical evidence for Infinity?") ! :smile: — Alkis Piskas

I assumed you would know that was a rhetorical question. :cool:

Why, are there real First Causes? What are they? — Alkis Piskas

I'll ignore that off-topic question. :wink:

I said that I don't know what do you mean by "First Concept". But you didn't bother explaining to me, or give me some example. — Alkis Piskas

I didn't define the topical term because I was hoping to avoid putting my preconceptions in your head. Why don't you describe what you would mean by "First Concept"? This is an open forum. Is free speech "torture" for you? :smile:

The first idea in the mind of primitive man would have been the first concept. Impossible to narrow down from there. — jgill

Of course, in the absence of empirical evidence*1, it's scientifically impossible to specify the origin of ideas. But this is a philosophical forum, so I'm looking for informed speculations on how that emergence of sentience might have been possible in a world of evolving material forms & species. And I don't limit concepts to humans : animals may have pre-verbal ideas that they express behaviorally. Or to animals with brains : some brainless flatworms seem to have intentional behavior. No judging in this thread. Give it a free shot. :grin:

*1. Fossilization of brain, or other soft tissue, is possible however, and scientists can infer that the first brain structure appeared at least 521 million years ago, with fossil brain tissue present in sites of exceptional preservation. ____Wikipedia

If you want to continue the never-ending dialog about First Causes, please go back to the
A first cause is logically necessary thread : https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/12098/a-first-cause-is-logically-necessary/p1

The topic of this thread is First Concept --- the original idea in a chain of material transformations --- which for the purposes of the OP, presumably occurred somewhere in the middle of the cosmic chain of causation, . . . . . . or perhaps at some point prior to the First Cause. :wink: ironic smilie

What empirical evidence could there be? Can anyone experience infinity?
It can be only conceived or deduced rationally. — Alkis Piskas

Infinity is not an empirical feature of reality. Like the concept of Zero, it is a sort of imaginary anti-reality. That's why scientists try to weed-out infinities in their calculations. It's also why I chose to eliminate discussions of unreal First Causes in this thread. The topic is First Concept. Do you have any philosophical bon mots to offer on that notion? :nerd:

Is infinity rational? :
If infinity were rational, it could be written in the form a/b, where a and b are integers. But, no matter what a and b are, a/b will always be finite. So, you could say infinity is irrational.
https://mathematics.science.narkive.com/jX1EK8QX/is-infinity-rational#:~:text=If%20infinity%20were%20rational%2C%20it,could%20say%20infinity%20is%20irrational.

But, as I showed, infinity is necessarily involved in the cause and effect chain. You cannot avoid it! — Alkis Piskas

I must have missed that showing. Probably because it is off-topic. But I'll accept that First Cause and Infinity/Eternity are related concepts, where FC defines a finite world of reason, and IE is an undefined imaginary notion beyond reason. :cool:

Infinity again. All roads lead to Infinity! — Alkis Piskas

Which is why forum threads about First Causes (infinity stoppers) inevitably lead to never-ending arguments about unknowable roads to nowhere, "world without end". :wink:

Do you mean that matter can be self-conscious? It is not even established that animals can be.
You really surprised me here, Gnomon! — Alkis Piskas

Now we're getting back to the topic of this thread! The implicit assumption of many posters --- not Gnomon --- is that Mind naturally evolved from Matter in accordance with the known laws of physics. If so, when, where & how did the First Concept emerge? :grin:

Aristotle thought the world was eternal in the past and future. A constant loop. But something kept the whole from falling into its parts or losing all its parts and hence ceasing. Some way the world can be understood rationally, however that is. But why does this imply there was a First reason or a Final reason for the whole? Again the loop. Reality keeps the world alive — Gregory

Yes. Aristotle, with no telescopes, had no reason to imagine a Big Bang beginning of the material world, so he assumed it was eternal. But then, his "substratum" (substance, matter) was known to be changeable & perishable. Hence, he concluded that it was not likely eternal itself, and must have been created from some sub-substratum (fundamental element). Anyway, he went on to postulate an un-caused First Cause to stop the infinite regression of causes.

But this thread is not about First Causes, or Final Effects. It's about the First Concept : the original light bulb in the chain of mindless material evolution. Do you have any ideas about when, where, & how that Initial Inkling emerged from Material Reality? :smile:


Eternal World vs First Cause :
Aristotle asserts that all things must come into existence from an underlying "substratum", which is a sort of essence of being. Then he argues that matter itself (the Aristotelian concept of matter) is the substratum of all things, so it must have either created itself, or been eternal.
https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/2281/how-well-did-aristotle-feel-his-belief-in-the-eternity-of-the-universe-was-estab

Assuming one accepts the law of causality --i.e. every effect has a cause-- trying to find the First Cause is simply a vain effort. The chain of cause and effect is infinite. And trying to find the start of infinity --or anything that infinite-- makes no sense. — Alkis Piskas

The premise that "the chain of Cause & Effect is infinite" is also an ungrounded assumption. Where's the empirical evidence for Infinity? "Vanity of vanities" : to count infinity on an abacus*1.

Anyway, the point of this thread is to avoid infinities, and to trace Cause & Effect only back to the First Concept within space-time. When & where & how did Matter become self-conscious enough to ask about its own origin? This is only a thought experiment, no material evidence required. :smile:


*1. Vanity of vanities, says the Preacher,
vanity of vanities! All is vanity.

What has been is what will be,
and what has been done is what will be done,
and there is nothing new under the sun.

Is there a thing of which it is said,
“See, this is new”?
It has been already
in the ages before us.

There is no remembrance of former things,
nor will there be any remembrance
of later things yet to be
among those who come after.
___Ecclesiastes 1:2-11

What empirical conclusion do you infer from the open-ended question of First Concept? — Gnomon
What do I infer? That lacking a lot of preliminary groundwork, mostly in establishing working definitions - though they be provisional and subject to change, pace Banno! - the question remains a non-sense question. That is, an attempt to make sense where there is no sense to be made. — tim wood

Are you inferring that there is no beginning or end to causation . . . or just to argumentation? On what basis? Did you participate in the First Cause thread referred to in the OP? Did you critique the "working definitions" that were presented there, to allow the postulators to make a change?

Are the causal assumptions of Empirical Science (natural laws) also non-sensical?*1 Are you assuming that a First Cause, at least 14B years before the invention of empirical Science, is an evidence-based, rather than reason-based question? If so, you missed the point of asking non-sensical hypothetical questions.

I agree with your assumption that First Cause is not a viable scientific question. But this is not a scientific forum. In any case, this thread is explicitly not about the First Cause question, but about the questioner. The one who conceives of such "open-ended" queries. :smile:


*1. The Assumptions on Which Causal Inferences Rest :
Statisticians commonly make causal inferences from the results of randomized experiments, but usually question causal inferences from observational studies on the grounds that untestable assumptions are required.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/2346206

*2. Open-ended question :
An open-ended question is a question that cannot be answered with a "yes" or "no" response, or with a static response. Open-ended questions are phrased as a statement which requires a longer answer. They can be compared to closed questions which demand a “yes”/“no” or short answer. ___Wikipedia

Along with any reason for doing foolish philosophy. But one place a fool never sees a fool is in a mirror. I attest to this from my personal experience with mirrors. — tim wood

Who you callin a fool, fool? :joke:

Mirror reversal. That's why the famous philosopher Michael Jackson advised us to "talk to the man in the mirror". :cool:

Man in the Mirror
I'm starting with the man in the mirror
I'm asking him to change his ways
And no message could have been any clearer
If you wanna make the world a better place
Take a look at yourself and then make a change
https://genius.com/Michael-jackson-man-in-the-mirror-lyrics

Question: if the future need not resemble the past, why did you say a first cause needs a final cause. Your post seemed contradictory to me — Gregory

Not I, but the estimable David Hume*1, said that Cause & Effect is based on an unprovable assumption that there is a causal connection between Before & After. It's a non-empirical universal principle, that humans believe-in without hard proof, because past-experience-based-arguments allow philosophers & scientists to make predictions of the future, that would otherwise require prophetic powers. That faith in the reliable & predictable laws of causation is the basis of Aristotle's argument for a necessary First Cause. I'm pretty sure he was not aware of our 21st century notion of logical mathematical Natural Laws, but he seemed confident that Prior & Posterior are causally related. Are you?

However, Thomas Bayes showed that Past & Future are only Probabilistic related. So he devised a method for updating our beliefs with additional evidence*3. I suppose that we could now say that our Natural Laws are only statistically predictable within a margin of error :smile:

*1. Hume's Problem of Induction :
"A key issue concerning the plausibility of scientific arguments, which are inductive arguments (since they generate scientific laws from a limited number of observations) is whether we can prove the Future Will Resemble The Past Principle."
Philosophy Now magazine, feb-mar 2024.

*2. Natural Law :
Aristotle (384–322 bce) held that what was “just by nature” was not always the same as what was “just by law,” that there was a natural justice valid everywhere with the same force and “not existing by people's thinking this or that,” and that appeal could be made to it from positive law. . . . In contrast, the Stoics conceived of an entirely egalitarian law of nature in conformity with the logos (reason) inherent in the human mind.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/natural-law

*3. Bayesian Inference :
Bayesian inference . . . is a method of statistical inference in which Bayes' theorem is used to update the probability for a hypothesis as more evidence or information becomes available.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayesian_inference

↪tim wood
:up: It is the classical drawing empirical conclusions from a priori premises.
Gnomon is asking what title should be affixed to this conversation. — ucarr
:chin: I guess the thread answered its own question? — Lionino

What empirical conclusion do you infer from the open-ended question of First Concept? Your mission, if you choose to accept it, is to provide the empirical evidence to support your personal conclusion to the question of "where did ideas come from?". Did storks drop them down the chimney?

No, the title is still open to suggestions. I could have simply put a question mark in the Title register. But I can change the title if someone comes up with a better one. However, the question of "First Concept" is what I had in mind (a priori) for this discussion, as noted in my reply to Lionino above. Was there a First Idea, or was Ideation always a component of the material world? So many titles, so little time. :smile:

"What could we call it" refers to the first cause? First causes are typically called prime mover or unmoved mover in English. In Greek, it is/was typically called arhí (ἀρχή), meaning beggining, rule, even empire, and discussions about it predate Aristotle. — Lionino

No, "it" refers to the name of this thread. Don't overthink "it".

Aristotle's summation of causation was not presented as the first attempt to make sense of incessant change in the world. It was just an example of a well-reasoned approach to the metaphysical question of why the world just won't stand still. Reality might be easier to deal with if today was just like yesterday, no unexpected events to anticipate. But if there was no change from time to time, how did Philosophy Forum posters come to be? Are philosophical arguments eternal & infinite, as questioned in the OP?

After a long desultory dialog on the ancient First Cause question, I thought it might be fun (philosophically) to turn the reasoning around, and instead of assuming that there must be an original act of causation --- raising the possibility of an act of creation of something from nothing --- let's try to work backwards (timewise) from Now to the time-dated emergence of Sentience in a material world.

However you define physical Causal Evolution, follow the chain of Causation back, not to the absolute beginning of everything, but merely toward a reasonable explanation for the age-old Consciousness conundrum*1. Imagine a day without a thought, then due to some mechanical physical process, a day with an idea emerges. This tactic would avoid any supernatural "First" presumptions, by arbitrarily defining space-time as eternal & infinite. Hence, there would be no First, and no Final Cause, just consecutive differences in being, for no purpose that rational philosophy could reason out, but that empirical science can demonstrate.

Since the earlier FC thread, not the First or Last, had exhausted most arguments in favor of, or opposed to, the notion of a First Cause (creator?), maybe looking for a First Concept (knower) would give us a fresh angle of attack. That's why I entitled this thread "The First Concept", and not the First Act of Causation. If the primitive universe was totally mindless, at what point along the way did conceptual abstractions emerge from concrete reality? On the other hand, if Consciousness was intrinsic to the physical world from the beginning (Panpsychism), why did it take so long (14BY) for sentient beings to emerge?

Was the first Concept born in the brain of an upright ape, or was Awareness inherent in the universe from the beginning of Time (however you define that word)? Discuss amongst yourselves. :smile:


*1. The physical state of conscious conception :
The hard problem of consciousness is the problem of explaining why any physical state is conscious rather than nonconscious.
https://iep.utm.edu/hard-problem-of-conciousness/

It has seemed to me that the effort involves supposing that an(y) artifact of language (e.g., about so-called first causes) has anything to do with physical reality. Recognize that it doesn't and the problem of reconciling irreconcilables evaporates. — tim wood

Along with any reason for doing philosophy. :smile:

a First Cause implies a Final Cause, produced by the operations of an Efficient Cause, working in the medium of a Material Cause — Gnomon
? — Lionino

Aristotle's Four Causes :
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-causality/

Is there no end to dialogs about First Cause? Can these threads become infinite? — Gnomon
Ha ha! Its good to have a sense of humor about this. Always appreciate your contributions Gnomon. — Philosophim

Ho, ho, ho! Apparently, the answer to my rhetorical endless-dialog weary-query is "?". Some philosophical questions, once borne into being, just won't go away. I just found a new thread*1, on the same old timeless subject --- the beginning of beginnings --- asserting that the emergence of cause & effect space-time from Nothing (i.e. no space, no time) is logically impossible. But others take issue with that inductive*2 assumption, which Hume destructed. Some seem to postulate that the idea of "eternity-infinity" is thinkable, therefore logically plausible. So, brandishing our ironic swords, back to the cyclical-beginning we go again, once more, encore!

Since the assumption of incessant causation is of interest to posters on this forum, why not do like the astronomers in the 1950s did : from repeated observations of expanding space, they traced the evidence back to a point of no-further-evidence, leaving the Original Cause of expansion as an open question for feckless philosophers to waste spare-time on. So "once more unto the breach!", let's work backwards from the current observation of expanding-natural-sentience-into-artificial-intelligence, keeping our rational eyes peeled for evidence of the elusive space-time origin of thinking beings, from whatever source. Who wants to go first? :grin:

PS___I'm proposing a new thread with similar implications but different presumptions : a First Cause implies a Final Cause, produced by the operations of an Efficient Cause, working in the medium of a Material Cause. What could we call it? The First Concept? The god-who-shall-not-be-named inquiry?

*1. Creation from nothing is not possible :
This means that {in space-time} time is required for the act of creation. There is no time in nothing therefore the creation from nothing is impossible. {my bracket}
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/14998/creation-from-nothing-is-not-possible

*2. Induction :
"assumes that the future will resemble the past"
Philosophy Magazine, Feb-Mar 2024

We might accept G.M D’Ariano's claim that particles are like "the shadows on the walls of Plato's cave," because universal fields and information have the ontological high ground, and still accept that these incredibly robust stabilities have a real ontic existence. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Plato's cave/shadow analogy distinguished between noumenal Ideality and phenomenal Reality, but some philosophers debate which is really real. Personally, I behave as-if the material reality (cave & shadows) is all around me, even as the mental realm (fire & illumination) is within me. Likewise, thanks to my BothAnd philosophy, I have no problem accepting the scientific evidence for an invisible universal mathematical field of potential (fire) that somehow engenders sub-atomic tangible particles of stuff that aggregate into the "real" milieu (cave) that allows me to "grasp" both things and ideas. :smile:

Correct. The series itself is not a first cause. The answer to the question, "What caused the infinite universe to exist?" is the first cause. Its, "Nothing". So once we reach that point, we've found our first cause. The infinite universe as a whole exists without something else causing it. — Philosophim

This is the old "Something-from-Nothing" argument. Raising the old "Why is there something instead of nothing?" head scratcher.

43 pages and counting. Is there no end to dialogs about First Cause? Can these threads become infinite? We can trace this particular thread back to an Original Post, but the Why Something? question must have pre-existed in human minds all the way back to ancient Greek philosopher's debates on "kinoúmenon"*1. Was that Initial Kinesis a phenomenon (thing) or noumenon (nothing)?

I don't have anything to add to this no-beginning-never-ending debate, except to give it an outlet to a side issue. I recently began reading Bernardo Kastrup's new book : Science Ideated, in which he defends his Analytic Idealism worldview (Panpsychism ; Cosmopsychism) against rival views, especially Materialism, e.g. "The “hard problem of Consciousness : The impossibility of explaining qualities in terms of quantities". Ironically, all these metaphysical conjectures about What Is Real?, ultimately raise the question about How Reality Began.

His cogently argued defense of an abstruse concept motivated me to look into Cosmopsychism, as an answer to Chalmer's challenge to Materialism. Thus inspired, I added a post to my blog. It begins with an enigma at the other end of the causal chain : How Does The Brain Create Mind?*2. But the reasoning about Reason eventually followed the logic of evolution back to the Big Bang. At which point Science is stumped, and Philosophy begins.

The blog post eventually gets back to the foundation of my own personal worldview : "Plato and Aristotle, in wrestling with the same essential questions, postulated several abstract entities : First Cause (creative agency), Logos (mind, reason), Prime Mover (energy, force), Form (design, structure), and Matter (that which receives Form)". So, why not combine all those hypothetical primordial forces into one universal agency of causation : the power to enform?

If these side-track questions are of interest to posters on this First Cause thread, I might be inspired to start a new thread on tracing Causation from First Spark down the evolutionary trail to the emergence of Inquiring Minds, who ask unverifiable open-ended questions ; taking the risk of sounding stupid or clever on a public forum. :smile:



*1. Unmoved Mover :
The unmoved mover (Ancient Greek: ὃ οὐ κινούμενον κινεῖ, romanized: ho ou kinoúmenon kineî, lit. 'that which moves without being moved') or prime mover (Latin: primum movens) is a concept advanced by Aristotle as a primary cause (or first uncaused cause) or "mover" of all the motion in the universe.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unmoved_mover

*2. How Does the Brain Create Mind? :
So, the “hard question” for Science is “how does it work?”. What are those special arrangements of matter that produce the experience of Qualia : e.g. Red or Pain? Can we take our experiences & feelings for granted, but deny their phenomenality ─ their knowable substance? What is the essence of experience? How do we produce imagery & feelings from a mechanical material brain?
http://bothandblog8.enformationism.info/page14.html
Note -- Click where indicated by a pointer arrow to see hidden images.

Probability, not Certainty — Gnomon
So you are now saying Bayesian inference is only probably correct...? — Banno

Apparently, by snarky implication, you are trying to put words in my mouth. Below is my original reply to 's question. Do you have a better method for quantifying the feeling of "certainty" in an uncertain world? Empirical Science may be able to approach absolute Objectivity for physical questions. But it has no answer for moral dilemmas.

Obviously, the harsh answer to the OP is that we humans can never know anything with "100% certainty". But I took his question as a sincere search for something to assuage his feelings of trepidation, ambiguity & anxiety regarding the moral imperfections of the world. Perhaps, something to believe in. Hence the reference to Bayesian belief. Do you have a problem with Bayesian inference as a means to approach true belief for vexing questions? If so, tell it to TS. And quit trolling Gnomon. :joke:

from this thread :
Thank you for your reply "flannel jesus." How would I calculate what percentage of certainty I assign to things such as the objective existence of my body, other humans, non-human organisms, the Earth and the rest of the universe? — Truth Seeker
In the 18th century, Thomas Bayes developed a method for quantifying Certainty : it's called "Statistics". ---Gnomon

A Measurable Morality :
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/14834/a-measurable-morality/p1

[quote="Truth Seeker;888964"]I cry about the fact that there is so much suffering, inequality, injustice, and death in the world. If I could, I would make all living things forever happy - including the dead ones and the never-born ones. I wish I could make all living things all-loving, all-knowing and all-powerful then there would be no suffering, inequality, injustice and death.[/quote]
If you are a sensitive feeling person, I doubt that you will find comfort in Analytic Philosophy. And you are not likely to find the feeling of certainty in a Hegelian dialogue on fundamental questions, that has been going back & forth for ages. But maybe you can reach a resolution with the angst-inducing vagaries of the world in the aloof solace of Stoicism, or the self-reliant meaning of Existentialism, or the introspective mindfulness of Buddhism. :nerd:


Existentialism vs. Absurdism :
As Camus explains, individuals are able to gain a sense of satisfaction in life, in spite of its meaninglessness. Whereas existentialism accepts the possibility that we might create our own meaning through our goals and achievements, the absurdists deny that meaning can be found at the outcome of any rational endeavor.
https://www.culturefrontier.com/existentialism-vs-absurdism/

Thank you for the formula but how does that apply to my problems? — Truth Seeker

It's not a magic incantation. Bayes formula requires that you take the first step, with your best guess. Then you have to do the work of finding new evidence to support or deny your intuitive answer. It's pragmatic, not magic. It's subjective, not science.

Would you be satisfied with a statistical solution to your personal problems? As I said before, if you seek the feeling of certainty, Faith is the answer. Philosophy is not about certainty, but merely diminishing doubt. :smile:


Bayesian inference is a method of statistical inference in which Bayes' theorem is used to update the probability for a hypothesis as more evidence or information becomes available. Fundamentally, Bayesian inference uses prior knowledge, in the form of a prior distribution in order to estimate posterior probabilities. Bayesian inference is an important technique in statistics, and especially in mathematical statistics. Bayesian updating is particularly important in the dynamic analysis of a sequence of data. Bayesian inference has found application in a wide range of activities, including science, engineering, philosophy, medicine, sport, and law. In the philosophy of decision theory, Bayesian inference is closely related to subjective probability, often called "Bayesian probability".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayesian_inference

↪Gnomon
So you are certain of that formula? — Banno

Because it begins with a subjective guess, the calculation will never produce 100% certainty. Here's Bayes' formula in the form of an equation — Gnomon

Probability, not Certainty :
Bayesian inference is a method of statistical inference in which Bayes' theorem is used to update the probability for a hypothesis as more evidence becomes available.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayesian_inference

For an explanation supporting the reality of causation, I'm inclined to cite the second law of conservation: matter and energy are neither created nor destroyed. In conjunction with this, I'm inclined to propose that matter and energy are continually changing form and position via self-organizing dynamical systems across time and space. In a complicated way, causation is about shape-shifting. So, causation tells us our world is thoroughly networked. — ucarr

Your description of Causation sounds similar to my own thesis of Enformationism. It takes the Power to Transform (EnFormAction : energy + form + action) as the fundamental fact of the world. Physicists tend to refer to it as a Universal Quantum Field, from which all kinds of Matter may emerge. Like Energy though, EFA is not a material thing, but a dynamic Potential to cause changes in physical constitution and in metaphysical form : "changing form" ; "shape-shifting".

My unconventional notion of Causal Information can be traced back to quantum physicist J. A. Wheeler's "It from Bit" postulation. It's also indirectly related to Tegmark's Mathematical Universe hypothesis. In my blog posts, I often refer to EnFormAction (power to transform) as a "shape-shifter". And that concept of "changing form" is exemplified in Einstein's E=MC^2 equation of causal Energy with sensible mathematical Mass, which we experience as real tangible Matter.

This unorthodox mash-up of physics & metaphysics is hard to grasp, but once you get-it, that understanding of how the world is "net-worked" by Causation will explain a lot of philosophical mysteries. :smile:

Self Organization :
It is as though, as the universe gradually unfolds from its featureless origin, matter and energy are continually being presented with alternative pathways of development: the passive pathway that leads to simple, static, inert substance, well described by the Newtonian of thermodynamic paradigms, and the active pathway that transcends these paradigms and leads to unpredictable, evolving complexity and variety.
https://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page23.html

The many forms of Information :
But the universal substance of reality might be called an Information Field, analogous to a Quantum field as an immaterial pool of potential.
http://bothandblog4.enformationism.info/page29.html

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.
https://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page23.html

↪Gnomon
Can you show me the calculation, please? — Truth Seeker

The linked article in my post describes the procedure for calculating the statistical probability of a personal belief. Other than objective evidence or blind faith, that may be as close to "certainty" as you can get to logical truth. Because it begins with a subjective guess, the calculation will never produce 100% certainty. Here's Bayes' formula in the form of an equation. :smile:

Thank you for your reply "flannel jesus." How would I calculate what percentage of certainty I assign to things such as the objective existence of my body, other humans, non-human organisms, the Earth and the rest of the universe? — Truth Seeker

In the 18th century, Thomas Bayes developed a method for quantifying Certainty : it's called "Statistics". :smile:

Bayesian probability :
Broadly speaking, there are two interpretations of Bayesian probability. For objectivists, who interpret probability as an extension of logic, probability quantifies the reasonable expectation that everyone (even a "robot") who shares the same knowledge should share in accordance with the rules of Bayesian statistics, which can be justified by Cox's theorem.[3][10] For subjectivists, probability corresponds to a personal belief.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayesian_probability

...as I've learned from Gnomon, causation is believed but not yet proven. — ucarr

I would questionwhat you mean by 'not proven'. Without causation all of science and reason goes out the window. If causation is gone, then I can't say you typed your reply to me. "You" didn't cause it. And that's absurd. — Philosophim

Perhaps Gnomon can elaborate so rules of inference governing formal proofs not yet satisfied by reasoning about causation. — ucarr

Hey, I'm just accepting David Hume's reasoning, about the universality of cause & effect. I'm not an expert in these matters, so you can argue with him.

Today, we associate the word "Energy" with physical changes in the world. Yet it is defined, not as a physical thing, but as an "ability" or "capacity" or "efficacy" or "potential" which are no more empirically provable than "causation". Personally, I take predictable physical determinism for granted, for pragmatic reasons, and make no attempt to prove it, logically or empirically. I assume that's what Hume meant by "certitude". :smile:

David Hume & the Theory of Causation :
Causation describes a cause-and-effect relationship, where one thing causes another to occur. However, Hume argued that causation is not always empirically sound because it cannot be proven because experiences are subjective and flawed.
https://study.com/academy/lesson/the-metaphysics-of-causation-humes-theory.html

David Hume: Causation
Once more, all we can come up with is an experienced constant conjunction. Of the common understanding of causality, Hume points out that we never have an impression of efficacy. Because of this, our notion of causal law seems to be a mere presentiment that the constant conjunction will continue to be constant, some certainty that this mysterious union will persist. Hume argues that we cannot conceive of any other connection between cause and effect, because there simply is no other impression to which our idea may be traced. This certitude is all that remains.
https://iep.utm.edu/hume-causation/

Is it ever possible to actually 'prove' causation? :
You can prove 'causation' with respect to one context and one event but never on a universal canvas of time where you can explain all things at the same time. You will necessarily make some assumptions. So proof of 'causation' will come with that baggage of unexplained assumptions.
https://www.quora.com/Is-it-ever-possible-to-actually-prove-causation

What I presented comes from Deacon. — ucarr

The phrase --- "Do you reject the belief causation resides within dynamical systems of self-organization phase-shifted across ascending levels of organization towards effects?" --- is over my head. So I can't agree or deny. If you say so, I'll assume it makes sense to Deacon. :smile:

Is it correct to say you see causation -- structurally speaking -- as a generalization in parallel with the specific energy-and-change relationship with respect to an invisible agent that causes transformation from one state-of-being to another state-of-being? — ucarr

Again, above my pay grade. But yes, as I understand Causation, the agent of "transformation" is invisible, and is knowable only by inference from observations of state A (before) and state B (after) the physical changes noted. The "invisible agent" is called by various names by scientists : energy, inertia, mass, photon, potential, etc. When a cue ball hits a stack of billiard balls, some unseen something seems to have been transferred from the moving cue ball to the stationary eight ball. We still don't know what-it-is, in material terms, but we do know a lot about what it does, its physical actions & reactions.

In my personal thesis, I follow the implications of cutting-edge physics --- which is also over my head --- to draw philosophical inferences about Causation, Transformation, and Information. The term "information" originally applied only to ideas in a human mind. But now it is being used to describe all kinds of Transformations*1. Physicists tend to think of physical Energy as fundamental, but some philosophers view Information as the primitive of Causation*2. Studies of complex systems, such as biological entities, have been enhanced by treating Information as an analog of Energy*3. So you can call that "invisible agent of transformation" Energy or Causation or Information or Spirit, depending on the context, and your own proclivities. :nerd:


*1. Does Energy = Information? :
Energy is a mysterious force that causes things to move. Energy is not information but it is required to transfer information
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/the-nature-of-energy-a-philosophical-perspective.122587/

*2. What is information? :
Information philosophy extends that study to the communication of information content between material objects, including how it is changed by energetic interactions with the rest of the universe.
https://www.informationphilosopher.com/

*3. Complexity, Entropy & the Physics of Information :
They connect the natural sciences to the science of computation, and they characterize the emergence of classical physics from the quantum realm in the early universe.
https://www.sfipress.org/news/complexity-entropy-and-the-physics-of-information

I'm recalling from memory you citing Hume re: causation. The gist of your point is that causation, in his view, is an inference from observed patterns of apparently connected changes in states of being within the world. His conclusion, as reported by you, states that the concept of causation stands upon empirically-derived impressions of the world. In closing, you said these impressions are generally understood to fall short of a proof of the concept of causation. — ucarr

I would prefer that you quote the assertions you are responding to. I don't remember exactly how I worded the comments on Hume's causation. But I wouldn't say that "the concept of causation stands on empirically-derived impressions". Empirical typically implies recorded & confirmed scientific evidence. But up until Hume's day, the notion of Causation (by some invisible entity) was taken-for-granted by most people, as a reasonable-but-untested inference from sensory observations. Therefore, Hume was philosophically & scientifically critical of that presumption.

The connection between sequential causal events (what we now call Energy) was invisible & intangible. There was no discernible difference between the putative "cause" and the presumed "effect". And 17th century Natural Philosophy had no formal concept of Energy, but the ancient notion of Spirit persisted. So he, not I, said the commonsense belief in Causation --- perhaps as a manifestation of heavenly Spirit acting in the world --- "falls short of" empirical proof. Where Kant spoke of "consult not experience", I'm guessing he was referring to what we now call Empirical Science. :smile:


David Hume & the Theory of Causation :
Hume's theory of causation states that causality is formed from the relationship between two impressions or ideas in the mind. However, because knowledge comes from experiences, assumptions of causality are intrinsically flawed and cannot be proven.
https://study.com/academy/lesson/the-metaphysics-of-causation-humes-theory.html

Kant and Hume on Causality :
And as the first imagination or invention of a particular effect, in all natural operations, is arbitrary, where we consult not experience; so must we also esteem the supposed tye or connexion between the cause and effect, which binds them together, and renders it impossible that any other effect could result from the operation of that cause. . . .
Thus, although Kant does not explicitly mention Hume in Dreams of a Spirit-Seer, the parallels with Hume’s Enquiry are striking indeed
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-hume-causality/

Do you reject the belief causation resides within dynamical systems of self-organization phase-shifted across ascending levels of organization towards effects? — ucarr

Could you rephrase that question in more conventional terms? Or explain your terms in more detail. For the record, I don't deny Causation; but I do think it's a mental inference, not a spiritual force, in the world. Instead, the term Energy now covers physical actions that used to be attributed to Spirits.

If we apply Hegel's idea to philosophy at large, it is not idle talk at all but the necessary ingredient for a dynamic development of ideas. — Pez

Yes, but not just ideas. The point of Hegel's (Plato's) dialectic is that logical & physical contradictions (competing ideas & forces) --- in isolation --- are not just false, but stagnant*1. Yet contradictions, when synthesized by physical stresses or social debate or philosophical dialogue, can be progressive. In fact, some thinkers have concluded that all emergent evolutionary processes are dialectic in method*2.

Physical evolution opposes Positive & Negative forces that push & pull on matter, resulting in adaptive changes in constitution. Likewise, Metaphysical evolution opposes contrary ideas & beliefs, in order to adapt them to new situations*3. Hence, in effect, synthetic Philosophy is metaphysical evolution, winnowing & harmonizing obsolete beliefs, in order to get us Closer to Truth*4. :smile:

*1. Dialectical Evolution of Truth :
Dialectic in Classical philosophy is denoted as a form of discussion that takes place between two entities; it is the logical reasoning and a form of a method through which the introduction of proposition and counter proposition is practised while the main aim of the debate remains the same, that is reaching an objective truth through this course. Much of the prestige and role is deserved by the classical philosophers Socrates and Plato in the evolution of the Dialectic method.
https://unacademy.com/content/upsc/study-material/philosophy/dialectical-method/

*2. Physical & Historical Evolution are Dialectical Processes :
Darwinism is Hegelian dialectics applied to biology — or you might say that Hegelian dialectics is Darwinism applied to history.
https://evolutionnews.org/2020/09/darwinism-as-hegelian-dialectics-applied-to-biology/

*3. Evolution of Truth :
Our understanding of the truth is constantly evolving.
https://evolutionoftruth.com/

*4. 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 more complete whole system.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page10.html

A first cause is self-existent though. I think that's the problem he has. He doesn't like the idea that there was nothing, then something. What I'm trying to show him is that an eternally self-existent thing is no different. There is nothing which explains its being. No limitations on what could have been besides the fact of its existence. — Philosophim

According to the worldview of Materialism, "nothing" is non-sense. And, since the physical world does exist, it must have always existed in some form or other. Also, how or why it came to be is not an empirical question, hence more non-sense. If there is nothing to explain its existence, then it's provenance is a matter of Faith, or Reason.

Ancient Materialism (e.g. Atomism) was a hypothetical solution to a philosophical question. But sensible modern Materialism seems to be primarily an alternative to religious answers to "Why?" questions*1. Apparently, it assumes that philosophy is impotent (decorative) to answer any questions about Reality. Hence Ideal notions, such as "something from nothing", are literally nonsensical, since we cannot sense nothingness. And from the perspective of modern Materialism, non-sensible is non-sensical.

Although you seem to be trying to evade the implication of "spiritual beings", by limiting the discussion to logical reasoning, not religious doctrine, even your First Cause is --- by definition of Materialism --- un-real, and non-sensible, therefore implausible. In Materialism, what is Real, is what is sensible*2.

Ironically, modern science postulates several causal features of reality that are logical inferences instead of sensory observations. For example Energy is the universal cause of all changes in the world, but we never detect the Energy per se, we only infer its logically-necessary existence from after-effects in material objects. Likewise, the notion of electric or quantum Fields is a logical inference from observation of changes in the material world*3. How that universal or local field came to be --- "popped into existence" --- is irrelevant for pragmatic Science : it just is, and it works.

Those invisible and intangible features of Reality, are accepted because they allow us to predict physical behavior. But most of those predictions are logical extrapolations from known rules of Nature. And how do we know those regulations of physical behavior? By rational inference, as expressed in terms of a> philosophical Epistemology, or b> scientific Natural Laws, or c> religious Supernatural beliefs. None of which are empirical observations, but unlike First Cause, some do have practical applications in the Real world.

The First Cause is simply another inference from logical necessity. But is it Real? Of course not. It's Ideal. A belief, not a fact; just like an unexplainable quantum Field --- Scientists like to think it's a fact, "because it works". The Prime Mover only works in the beginning of world-making, not during its mundane operations. Like Plato's world-creating Craftsman, the First Cause does its work, then disappears into the work itself as ongoing Causation : e.g. Energy. :smile:


*1. What is the metaphysical theory of materialism?
In general, the metaphysical theory of materialism entails the denial of the reality of spiritual beings, consciousness and mental or psychic states or processes, as ontologically distinct from, or independent of, material changes or processes.
https://www.rep.routledge.com/articles/thematic/materialism/v-1

*2. Sensible :
a> based on or acting on good judgment and practical ideas or understanding
b> practical and functional rather than decorative.

*3. Is the Quantum Field real? :
For generations, physicists argued whether those quantum fields were actually real, or whether they were simply calculational tools. Nearly a full century later, we're certain that they're real for one unambiguous reason: they carry energy.
Note --- Both QF and Energy are logical inferences, not observations

Provenance :
a> the place of origin or earliest known history of something.
b> the beginning of something's existence; something's origin.