In order to halt and reverse these trends it will require a coordinated global effort between nation states. — Punshhh

Some Utopian sci-fi stories envision such a global, or solar-system-wide, or multi-galaxy foundation based on some form of representative or direct democracy, so that the numerical power of the lower classes (98%) can balance the economic power of the upper classes (2%).

However, coordination between government "blocks" seems to depend more on the invisible-hand*1 of self-interest economic trade (market forces), than on rational political agreements. On the other hand, there is another invisible hand at play : Natural Forces. So, as natural disasters impinge on the flow of money, I suspect that international political changes will be grudgingly instituted by Oligarchs, whose fiefdoms are bleeding cash. :smile:


*1. What Is the Invisible Hand in Economics?
The "invisible hand" is a metaphor describing how, in a free market economy, individual self-interest can lead to positive outcomes for society as a whole. It suggests that individuals, acting in their own best interest, unintentionally promote the public good through their economic activities.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=invisible+hand+economics




INVISIBLE HAND OF NATURAL FORCES

If such a potentiality is not to be found in the parts of these systems, then the alternative I can think of is that it is to be found in the order of the 'cosmos'. In this case, the emergence of life is a potentiality enfolded in the regularities of the whole universe which remains implicit until the right conditions are met.

I don't think that assigning a property to the 'whole' - indeed, the whole universe - is something alien to physics. In fact, the conservation laws can be thought as being properties of 'isolated systems', rather than a (weakly) emergent features of their parts.

Of course, I have no idea of how such a 'potentiality' could be 'expressed' in a theory. — boundless

The electro-magnetic Potential of an AA battery is "found" in the order (organization ; structure : chemistry) of the metals & bases within. But scientists can't see or measure that statistical possibility (property) in situ, yet they can measure the Current flowing in a complete (whole) circuit, of which the battery is the power source. From that voltage measurement, they infer the latent prior potential. As you implied, the Potential is in the whole system, not the parts.

A human person is said to have Potential if she has the necessary qualities (intelligence, training, motivation) that can be put together for success in her future life trajectory. The Potential (power to succeed) is not in the parts, but emerges from the interaction of those elements. Cultural success emerges from applied human Potential. Similarly, the holistic process we call "Life" emerges from a convergence of natural laws & causal energy & material substrates that, working together, motivate inorganic matter to grow, reproduce, and continue to succeed in staving off entropy. Likewise, a Cosmos has Potential if it exhibits creative qualities (Causation), and an inclination toward some future state (arrow of time).

Cosmic Potential*1 was expressed in theory by Plato (Forms ; world soul ; demiurge : necessity). None of which would be accepted by modern scientists, to explain the gradual & eventual emergence of a habitable planet from an ancient ex nihilo explosion of omnidirectional Energy, and its limiting Laws. So, I have posited a thesis of Cosmic Potential (EnFormAction*2) that combines Thermodynamics with Information Theory to explain, philosophically, how & why questioning beings have emerged from a universe of 27% Dark Matter, 68% Dark Energy, plus a remainder of 5% ordinary matter that we can detect with our senses and our sensors. :nerd:


*1. In Plato's cosmology, the "cosmic potentiality" refers to the underlying, non-physical principles that shape and govern the universe. It's not a tangible, measurable entity, but rather a set of ideal forms and mathematical relationships that provide the blueprint for the physical world.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=plato+cosmic+potential

*2. EnFormAction :
Ententional Causation. A proposed metaphysical law of the universe that causes random interactions between forces and particles to produce novel & stable arrangements of matter & energy. It’s the creative force (aka : Schopenhauer's Will) of an axiomatic eternal First Cause that, for unknown reasons, programmed a Singularity to suddenly burst into our reality from an infinite source of possibility. AKA : The creative power of Evolution; the power to enform; Logos; Change.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html
Note --- Scientists call that causal Will by various names, such as Energy, Power, Force, Vitality. They can't say what it is (what it's made of), they merely infer its abstract existence from its effects on matter.
Note2 --- I also call that implicit "source of possibility" an eternal Pool of Potential. But Potential alone, without Intelligence & Intention could not impart Purpose to the Actual Cosmos.

But the question of what all this is for? That’s not a scientific question. It’s a philosophical, moral, or spiritual one. And it’s exactly the kind of question that the language of telos is trying to keep alive — not in a dogmatic sense, but in the sense that human beings and living systems don’t just happen, they mean. — Wayfarer

Seems to prefer the "how?" questions of Physical Science to the "why?" questions of Meta-Physical Philosophy. Ironically, some "how?" thinkers will admit that our evolving world presents the "appearance of purpose"*1, even as they dismiss that "appearance" as an illusion, or delusion.

Physicist Stephen Hawking wrote a book*2 intended to debunk the appearance of design based on evidence for an evolutionary mechanism programmed only by Natural Laws, requiring no programmer. But he seems to have assumed that the rules & limitations that guide the machine to perform its function, simply self-exist in a manner similar to the ancient notion of spontaneous generation of life. Which ignores the common law that "nothing comes from nothing".

Apparently, "why?" questions are taboo for believers in Scientism, because they may open the door for all sorts of spiritual creeds and mystical beliefs. Yet, secular philosophers have no problem separating their Meta-Physical notions (program ; design) from their Physical understanding of how the world works (self-organized mechanism). To tabooers, Teleology seems to be a slippery slope down to a slavish Hell of faith-blinded religious pietism, with mindless zombies bowing & praying to their dictatorial sky-lord. Personally, I no-longer feel the gravity of that un-founded fear. :smile:


*1. The whole point of modern evolutionary theory is that it explains the appearance of purpose (or telos, if you prefer) emerging from a purposeless process. There is nothing within evolution that indicates the existence of telos.
thttps://www.quora.com/Is-there-any-purp ... -evolution
Note --- Nothing in the step-by-step mechanism points to its purpose or ultimate function. Goals & Functions are holistic, not particularistic. Intention is an inference, not an observation. Meaning is mental, not physical.

*2. Stephen Hawking's Book – The Grand Design attempts to disprove the existence of God using Science and Mathematical models. In this book, it is claimed that the Universe is a result of the Laws of Physics alone, and God is not needed to explain how it began.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=the+grand+design
Book Review : At best this book attempts to explain from a Physicist’s perspective, yet it fails to do so at so many other different levels. Thus it is incomplete and conjecture at best. Something as elegant, sophisticated, complex, and aesthetically beautiful, and massive in scale as large as the universe could not have materialized just spontaneously on its own.
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/stephen-hawkings-book-grand-design-review-farzan-j-chishti

I wonder if the whole global system is just on auto-pilot with no one really "running" any of it. — frank

My worldview imagines that the world is on "auto-pilot", and that internal control-system, Natural Law, seems to be functioning properly to keep the cosmos on course. But of course, any journey has its ups & downs, its cross-winds, and barriers to progress. So the historical track of progress is not a straight line, but a sinuous path full of twists & turns. Even the biblical Creation account, with God at the controls, at first looked like the story began at the destination : a perfect Paradise. But then, along came the snake to knock God's ship off course. And the rest is, as they say, history : full of diversions and course corrections.

If you look closely at a specific historical era, it may seem chaotic and directionless. But if you zoom-out, and take a Hegelian Dialectic*1 perspective, you might notice that positives & negatives tend to balance-out over time. A historical thesis can be portrayed as a physical vector composed of both political force and philosophical direction. Then along comes a new vector to knock the ship off-track. So, the historical path will look like a meandering trail, except the average {historical direction below} is always pointed at the intended destination.

Physically, the throttle & steering of the world's autopilot is what we know as the First & Second & Third laws of Thermodynamics*2 : Energy vs Entropy & Equilibrium. The third law keeps the others from going to extremes. For example, extreme Energy would recreate the Hot Big Bang, and extreme Entropy would result in a Big Freeze. But a balance between them keeps the universe, especially the temperate planet Earth, on course to whatever destination the Bang was aimed at.

Closer to home, human culture has always had its Tyrants and Philosopher Kings, its Oligarchs and its Democratic leaders. For example, Rome began with war-lords at the helm, but eventually became a stable Republic, which later was ruled by Tyrants & Emperors, and eventually invaded by ransacking barbarians. But the Roman civilization, as a political entity, lasted for over a thousand years. And Roman culture continues in Europe to this day.

Our Cosmos has been cruising along for 14B earth-years, and finally reached the Promised Land of a habitable planet, whence Politics eventually emerged from Physics. Where we go from here remains to be seen by whatever observers are paying attention. :smile:


*1. The Hegelian dialectic is a philosophical concept describing a process of change and development through the interaction of opposing ideas. It involves a thesis, an antithesis, and a synthesis. The synthesis then becomes a new thesis, and the process repeats, driving progress and understanding
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=hegelian+dialectic

*2. The three laws of thermodynamics are: 1) the law of conservation of energy, stating that energy cannot be created or destroyed, only transformed; 2) the law of entropy increase, stating that the entropy of an isolated system always increases over time; and 3) the law of entropy at absolute zero, stating that the entropy of a perfect crystal approaches zero as the temperature approaches absolute zero.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=first+law+of+thermodynamics

WE SEEM TO BE ENTERING THE PHASE OF DEMAGOGY
Let's hope the chaotic stage of Ochlocracy doesn't come to pass

So yes things tend to oligarchy, the question to me seems what kind of oligarchy. The king and nobility in a feudal system usually still had some responsibility to their subjects, because they were ultimately still dependent on them for their power. The current oligarchs have no such issues, they can be parasitic to a place and community and just pick up and relocate to somewhere else when things go south. — ChatteringMonkey

That is the problem with our current socio-economic system : money & power have become separated from political responsibility. The Oligarchs only have responsibility to their share-holders. But those who also hold the majority of shares can do as they please, with little limitation on their inclination. Fortunately, most of the "garchs" seem to be somewhat restrained by personal virtue and by public opinion. But their occasional ostentatious displays of over-weening wealth, such as a $50million wedding, may come to seem business-as-usual. :smile:

Indeed -- and I think Nagel goes into this as well -- it's precisely the pointlessness of the repetitive biological drives you cite, that causes many people to question the whole idea of purpose or meaning. It looks absurd, — J

Imagine that you could look inside a computer, to observe the micron-scale transistors blinking on & off, processing billions of bits of meaningless 1s & 0s. The close-up view would look no more purposeful than an icecap that melts from a mountaintop, into a series of streams that meander across the landscape, motivated only by gravity*4, guided by contingency, and eventually merging with the sea at gravitational equilibrium. Aristotle would say that the water seeks its proper place --- perhaps like an elephant, impelled by some mysterious purpose, journeying to the mythical graveyard.

The seeking-the-sea analogy may sound absurd, unless you back-off and look at it from a cosmic perspective. For example, the computer is motivated by bits of electricity (efficient cause) and guided by computer logic (formal cause). But the purpose behind the process is the Intention*3 of the Programmer (first cause). And the output (final cause) may not be known until the computation runs its course.

Likewise, when you look at biological Evolution*1 from close-up, it may seem pointless. But, from a cosmic perspective, when you compare the Big Bang scenario to the blue-green world we ambitious upright apes have civilized, the system has changed over time, dramatically. Hence, the cosmos presents the "appearance"*1 of a positive, teleological Purpose. Unfortunately, it is still processing (incomplete & imperfect), and may not have reached its final form. So we can't see the End, or the beginning. Hence, the "telos" is implicit, but unknown. :nerd:



Excerpts from a Quora Forum question : Is evolution a random process without any direction or purpose? If so, what is the significance of evolution? https://www.quora.com/Is-there-any-purpose-or-direction-to-evolution

*1. The whole point of modern evolutionary theory is that it explains the appearance of purpose (or telos, if you prefer) emerging from a purposeless process. There is nothing within evolution that indicates the existence of telos.
Note --- Darwin didn't attempt to explain the intention or goal of the evolutionary mechanism. It just endlessly cranks out widgets for no reason. But his example of artificial Selection by human farmers, to "improve" their plants & animals, necessarily required some vision of a future goal, and intentional motivation to manipulate natural systems to serve human needs & desires

*2. The key is whether purpose requires intent. If purpose requires a pursuit of a goal or telos, then intent would be required. This form of intent is subjective and presumes a host, such as an intelligent agent. Hence, evolution can have no purpose, scientifically speaking.
Note --- For pragmatic Science, teleology is taboo. But Philosophically speaking, why not entertain a theory of teleology, if no more complete explanation is available? The arrow of time is pointing at what & where?

*3. Evolution is a process... processes don't have aims in themselves... although they may be set up to purposely get a given result by an intelligent thing, or have intelligent things as parts in the process.
Note --- A digital computer has no philosophical goals. It simply computes until the computation ends. But a program has an intended function : the purpose.The "intelligence" is in the programmer, not the program. Likewise, teleology is in the First Cause, not in the mechanism.

*4. your premise is not right. Evolution has no goal. Evolution is just an observable fact. Like gravity. Gravity has no goal, it just has effects i.e. attraction. Evolution has no goal. But it has effects. The effect of the evolution, as we know, is the passing of the genome. This effect demonstrates itself in the species as heritable traits.
Note --- Every Effect has a Cause. This quote considers only the Material and Efficient causes. But ignores the First (intention) and Final causes (goal). Teleology assumes that an on-going process has all four causes.

*5. Everything looks designed. The difference is in the choice of the engine driving it. Evolution says it’s random mutation and natural selection exclusively. Others say that those evolutionary processes were directed by a designer, presumably God. The science is the same, the appearance of design is the same. The difference is how it was done - randomly or directed. That is, belief in God or not.
Note --- The impression of design is an inference in the mind of the observer, who has experienced intentional creativity in human culture. Darwin could avoid the implications of divine Selection, by assuming the world was eternal, and that gradual evolution was going nowhere fast. But today, the journey from formless Bang to a civilized planet presents the "appearance" of design & direction. But who or what is selecting for fitness, and filtering-out unfit forms. Can we call that Natural Design, and leave the "who" as an open question?

My position is that the phrase "consciously experience" is like "visually see". But my guess is you don't mean it that way. I would guess you mean something like knowingly, intellectually, or mindfully experience. Which, of course, humans do. But because we have mental abilities to be conscious of, not because those abilities are consciousness. — Patterner

Yes. My information-theoretic thesis says that human Consciousness is just one of many forms of Energy-transfer and Information-sharing. Atoms are known to send & receive Energy, which causes changes in their physical systems. For example, an electron absorbs energy from a photon, and then jumps to the next higher orbit. That physical change (transformation) is a Bit of Information.

On the macro level of reality, the emergence of Consciousness in an animal brain may result from billions of such lower-level information exchanges. But the phenomenon of Sentient & Self Awareness has novel holistic*3 qualities that don't apply on the sub-atomic scale. Emergence theory reveals that complex systems can exhibit properties and behaviors that are not detectable in their individual components. One atom may not be aware of anything, but a zillion atoms in a human brain may exhibit the subjective qualitative experience of Knowing and Knowing that you know*1.

And one of those mental novelties is the ability to reflect inwardly: to know your own "mental abilities". Some Materialistic scientists seem to be unable to see (metaphorically), by reflection, the observer (Self) in an experimental system. Consciousness is not an elemental thing, but an emergent process : a function of brain activity. Hence, while Consciousness may be emergent, Causation (energy ; EnFormAction) is fundamental*2. :nerd:


*1. Human consciousness refers to the subjective awareness of our own thoughts, feelings, sensations, and surroundings, essentially the state of being aware of our existence and the world around us. It's a complex and multifaceted phenomenon that encompasses various aspects, from basic wakefulness and sensory perception to more intricate cognitive processes like self-awareness and the ability to reflect on our own mental states. While there isn't a universally agreed-upon definition, consciousness is generally understood as a dynamic process rather than a static entity.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=human+consciousness

*2. EnFormAction : Literally, the act of enforming --- to fashion, to create, to cause.
# Metaphorically, the Will of G*D flowing through the world to cause evolutionary change in a teleological direction.
# Immaterial Information is almost always defined in terms of its physical context or material container. (e.g. mathematical DNA code in chemical form)
# Raw En-Form-Action has few, if any, definable perceivable qualities. By itself, Information is colorless, odorless, and formless. Unlike colorless, odorless, and formless water though, Information gives physical form to whatever is defined by it.
# Like DNA, Information shapes things via internal rather than external constraints. Like the Laws of Physics, Information is the motivating & constraining force of physical reality. Like Energy, Information is the universal active agent of the cosmos. Like Spinoza's God, Information appears to be the single substance of the whole World.
# Information is the divine Promethean power of transformation. Information is Generic in the sense of generating all forms from a formless pool of possibility : the Platonic Forms.
https://bothandblog2.enformationism.info/page29.html
Note --- "G*D" is a functional concept, not a religious belief.

*3. Holism ; Holon :
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

↪Gnomon
yes, he’s hit the nail on the head. That is what’s going on and capitalism, as in free market capitalism has turned toxic. — Punshhh

In the OP, the economic math revealed invisible structures within the complexities of the world economic systems : One example is Ownership Networks : “Here the nodes can be corporations, governments, foundations, or physical persons”. He says this kind of analysis “reveals architectures of power invisible to any other type of examination. . . . . this economic power is much more unequally distributed than income or wealth. . . . . This highly-skewed distribution of power has economy-wide implications related to anti-competitiveness, tax avoidance, the role of offshore financial centers, and systemic risk.” Hence "free market capitalism" has devolved into private markets for Oligarchs, and off-the-books black markets for wealthy criminals. :sad:

Hmm. Are you assuming that the modern state has always existed? That there was always a single "government" attached to "nations" in a single "hierarchy"? — Leontiskos

No. I'm making broad philosophical/metaphorical associations, and using modern terminology to describe ancient hierarchical organizations. The point is that, what we now call Oligarchy has always existed in some form. :wink:

It was probably much more a case of various loci of power and federation. "The government" could never have been reified in the past. — Leontiskos

Yes. The modern notion of a law-bound government would not apply to most ancient societies. It was mostly rule-of-men instead of rule-of-law. But the OP is intended to imply that the modern break-down of lawful governments is allowing strong-men (oligarch) to rule their little fiefdoms. :smile:

In this too I see a modern notion of the centralization of money. Without modern nation states there simply is no centralization of money. — Leontiskos

Yes. The fiefs (tariffs, taxes) in pre-modern societies were mainly in the form of goods & services. Everything else was bartered : a pig for a dozen chickens. And gold or silver money was mostly limited to exchanges at the top, between Lords & Kings. Yet, again, the point of the OP is that modern Oligarchs seem to have a metaphorical license to print money*1. :cool:


*1. License to print money : In the context of an oligarchy, this idiom takes on a darker connotation. An oligarchy is a system of government where a small group of wealthy and powerful individuals or families hold control. These individuals, often referred to as oligarchs, can leverage their economic power to influence political decisions and shape policies that benefit their own interests, rather than the needs of the broader population.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=oligarch+license+to+print+money

I think the question is whether any of the regimes you speak about are properly called democracies, or ever were. — Leontiskos

Yes. I was using the term "democracy" loosely. That's why I referred to Communism as "an extreme form of representative Democracy" where the party symbolizes the populace. Most of the modern political systems have been attempts to work around the negative aspects of the ancient pyramidal social organization that came to be known as "Feudalism". That name refers to the fiefs or fees that vassals pay to their lords higher in the hierarchy. In some cases, all the political power was concentrated at the top : Absolute Dictators & Despots*1. But that never lasted long. So, some sort of spread-the-power compromise was always necessary to form a stable government.

The French & American "democratic" revolutions were not caused by popular uprisings among the serfs & slaves, or by upper level Land-Lords*2, but mostly by the emerging class of urban intellectuals & bourgeoisie who resented the capricious whims of Trump-like dictators. Personality-cult autocrats are typically tolerated by the upper hierarchy, and even sometimes beloved by the bottom levels, who were isolated from the king's erratic behavior. While his nation was being pummeled by a power-mad despot across the channel, Churchill quipped that "democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time".

Modern European Democracies have enjoyed several generations of relative peace, as the industrial revolution has shifted some of the economic goods down the hierarchy to the common people. But the Oligarchy seems to be reversing that trend. And the technical revolution of the computer age, now seems to be replacing the serfs with servers, and common people with automatons*3. But that's another topic for a different thread. :cool:




*1. Edward Gibbon suggested that the increasing use of Oriental-style despotism by the Roman emperors was a major factor in the fall of the Roman Empire . . . .[9]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Despotism

*2. Thomas Jefferson was an exception, being a philosophical Landlord & slave-owner in a rural agricultural setting.

*3. Those who control Things will be controlled by those who control People, and everybody will be controlled by those who control Money.
The phrase "He who controls the things will be controlled by those who control people's money" suggests that true power lies not just in controlling physical resources or means of production (the "things"), but in controlling the financial system that enables their acquisition and distribution. This idea implies that those who control the flow of money have the ultimate ability to influence and potentially control those who control the "things"
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=quote+%3A+who+controls+thing+will+be+controlled+by+those+who+control+people++money

↪Gnomon
but why ideas can not have physical properties. Are not physical properties just laws, I think mental creativity can follow those laws. — Danileo

I can see why you might think that. But Properties*1 are not Laws. Laws are limitations on change. And they are known only by rational inference from observation of Processes. But Properties are qualities of material objects that are known by our physical senses. You can't see Newton's first law of Motion, but you can see the color of the object that is moving. And, yes, "mental creativity can follow the laws", by imagination, not observation. :cool:


*1. Physical properties are characteristics of a substance that can be observed or measured without changing its chemical identity. These properties include color, density, hardness, melting point, boiling point, and electrical conductivity. Essentially, they are the qualities you can note using your senses or measure without transforming the substance into something entirely new
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=physical+properties

You mentioned that logic inference*2 was non-physical and I am unsure about that claim. I think that a pure inference is not achieved to know. — Danileo

You seem to be influenced by the outdated belief system of Materialism, in which there is nothing non-physical. That common-sense worldview was a reaction to the Spiritualism of the Catholic Church, back in the 17th century. And it guided the explorations of Science, until the 20th century, when some basic assumptions of science were challenged by Quantum Physics. I won't go into that paradigm shift*3 here. But you can follow-up on that new worldview if you are interested in the philosophy of science. :nerd:

*2. Inference is not a physical entity; it is a cognitive process of drawing conclusions based on evidence and reasoning. It's a mental act, not a tangible object or substance.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=inference+is+not+physical

*3. In the 20th century, science experienced several paradigm shifts, fundamentally altering how scientists understood the world. Key examples include the development of quantum mechanics, the theory of relativity, and the emergence of plate tectonics, each overturning established viewpoints and opening new avenues of research, according to Thomas Kuhn's theory*4.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=science+paradigm+shift+20th+century

*4. Thomas Kuhn's theory, primarily presented in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, describes the evolution of scientific knowledge as a series of paradigm shifts, rather than a linear progression of accumulated facts.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=thomas+kuhn+theory

How then, do you define Consciousness? — Gnomon
Consciousness is subjective experience. That's all. Everything experiences it's own existence. — Patterner

For my philosophical purposes, I further define Consciousness as human subjective experience. That's the only type of awareness we forum posters have experienced first hand. I am skeptical that "everything", including atoms, consciously experience their existence. In any case, I don't presume to know what it's like to be a bat. :wink:

Very few posters on this forum are aware that physicists can now transform data (information) into energy and vice-versa. — Gnomon
I certainly was not. I'll look at your link. Sounds like an amazing topic. — Patterner

The concept of Information originally referred to the contents of a human mind*1. Later, Einstein equated invisible intangible Energy with abstract mathematical Mass, which we experience concretely as Matter. Then, Shannon defined his Information in terms of Uncertainty, and blamed it on Entropy, which is the opposite of causal Energy. Now, physicists and information researchers are doing experiments that convert Information to Energy and vice-versa*2.

Exploring the philosophical implications of the Energy/Life/Mind interrelationships has become my retirement hobby*3. It's a complex and counter-intuitive topic. So my interpretation of an Information Theoretic worldview*4 annoys those who view Matter as fundamental. Moreover, I consider Cosmic Information (EnFormAction) to be more fundamental than causal Energy and emergent Sapiens Consciousness. :nerd:



*1. Information/Mind relationship :
Information plays a crucial role in the mind, influencing perception, memory, thought, and behavior. The mind can be seen as an information processor, taking in sensory input, filtering and processing it, and using it to guide actions. Working memory, a key aspect of cognition, allows us to hold and manipulate information to solve problems and plan.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=information+relation+to+mind

*2. This is just a taste of the Energy/Information relationship :
Information can be converted into energy, though it's not a simple direct conversion like converting mass to energy via E=mc². Instead, it involves manipulating systems to extract usable energy based on information about their state. This concept is related to the thought experiment known as "Maxwell's demon" and is experimentally demonstrated by harnessing information about a particle's motion to guide its movement and extract energy.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=information+to+energy+conversion

*3. Information is :
# Claude Shannon quantified Information not as useful ideas, but as a mathematical ratio between meaningful order (1) and meaningless disorder (0); between knowledge (1) and ignorance (0). So, that meaningful mind-stuff exists in the limbo-land of statistics, producing effects on reality while having no sensory physical properties. We know it exists ideally, only by detecting its effects in the real world.
# 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

*4. An information-theoretic worldview is a perspective that interprets the world, especially physical phenomena like quantum mechanics, through the lens of information. It suggests that the fundamental nature of reality can be understood by examining how information is processed, stored, and transmitted. This approach often involves using concepts from information theory, such as entropy and mutual information, to analyze and model physical systems
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=information+theoretic+worldview

↪Gnomon
I will like to know why logic distinctions are non-physical. If you don't want to go off-topic, you can direct message me. — Danileo

I assume you are talking about the difference between a material Brain (noun) and its mental Functions (verb). Actions have consequences, but no physical properties. Objects have physical properties, but Ideas about*1 objects have qualia.

The brain is a gelatinous object with physical & chemical properties, that can be directly observed. The invisible Mind's properties*2, or functions or qualities, must be inferred indirectly from observation of whole-body behavior. You know your own Mind by using its functions. But you only know your neighbor's Mind by rational inference. The logical distinction*3 is between Objective & Subjective knowledge.

Ironically, when someone tries to picture a Mind or a Thought, they typically envision the brain. For vague non-philosophical purposes, that's OK. But philosophers need to be more precise. For example, a physicist can interpret Aristotle's writings on Meta-physics*4 to mean merely "after" the volume on Physics. But a philosopher would notice the "logical distinctions" between the first volume (Scientist's observations of Nature) and its sequel (philosopher's ideas & opinions about Nature) . :smile:


*1. In philosophy, aboutness (or intentionality) refers to the characteristic of mental states and linguistic expressions to be directed towards, or to represent, something beyond themselves. It's the idea that thoughts, beliefs, and utterances are "about" or "of" something. This concept is central to understanding the relationship between the mind and the world, and it's a key topic in philosophy of mind, philosophy of language, and logic
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=aboutness+meaning+in+philosophy

*2. The mind exhibits several key properties, including subjectivity, consciousness, intentionality, and agency.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=properties+of+mind

*3. Logical distinctions refer to differences that are made through reasoning and thought, rather than being inherent differences in the things themselves.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=logical+distinctions

*4. In ancient Greek, "meta" (μετά) primarily means "after," "behind," or "beyond". It can also signify "with," "among," or "in the midst of". In modern usage, particularly in English, "meta" often implies a more comprehensive, self-referential, or higher-level perspective on something
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=greek+meta+meaning

↪Gnomon
when you say *6 is the cause of metaphysical mind, why distinction is metaphysical ? — Danileo

The "distinction" is between the physical Brain and its meta-physical function : Minding is what a Brain does. When I refer to Mind as "Meta-Physical" --- note the hyphen --- I'm using the term in its literal sense of non-physical.

The blog post, https://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page17.html , has a link to a glossary entry entitled : What is Meta-Physics? https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page14.html , which also links to a Philosophy Forum thread, https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/352174

The definition below*1 includes Consciousness among the topics & concepts that lie "beyond the physical realm". However for the Materialists on this forum, the term "metaphysical" is often construed as religious or mystical or unscientific woo-woo. The study of Meta-physics is indeed un-scientific, in that the Philosophical exploration goes beyond the empirical limits of physical Science.

As to the Cause of Mind --- or Causality in general --- that is another complex & unconventional topic in the Thesis and Blog. I've mentioned it several times in this thread. But a detailed explication could cause the thread to go off-topic. :smile:


*1. Metaphysics is a branch of philosophy that explores fundamental questions about reality, existence, and being. It delves into concepts beyond the physical realm, such as the nature of time, space, consciousness, and causality. It seeks to understand the underlying principles and structures that govern the universe and our experience of it.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=what+is+metaphysical

A brief précis - 'Hans Jonas's The Phenomenon of Life offers a philosophical biology that bridges existentialism and phenomenology, arguing that life's fundamental characteristics are discernible in the very structure of living beings, not just in human consciousness. Jonas proposes a continuity between the organic and the mental, suggesting that the capacity for perception and freedom of action, culminating in human thought and morality, are prefigured in simpler forms of life.' That is very much the theme of the OP. — Wayfarer

My own Enformationism thesis, coming from a different background --- quantum physics & information theory --- reaches a similar conclusion : that there is a continuity from physical structure to metaphysical forms of animation & sentience.

This Cosmic Process of gradual transformation is a history of phase transitions. And the common factor of post-neo-Darwinian evolution is the causal power-to-transform (e.g. Energy). In the 21st century, scientists were surprised to learn that the creative & vital force is a basic form of Shannon's Entropy vs Negentropy definition of Information ; formerly only known as a mental phenomenon.

Therefore, the autonomy of Life, and the reflective stage of Mind, are merely intermediate phases in the continuing evolution of our Cosmos, from pure Big Bang Energy through manifold & maniform evolutionary phase changes to the emergence of living Matter, and eventually of thinking Minds. Each new phase of Physics, has "prefigured" a later phase of Metaphysics. :smile:

Emergent Evolution :
EnFormAction theory takes a leap of imagination, to envision a more holistic interpretation of the evidence, both empirical and philosophical. Contrary to the Neo-Darwinian theory of Evolution, EFA implies a distinct direction for causation, toward the top rung in the hierarchy of Emergence, as denoted by the arrow of Time. Pure Randomness would just go around in circles. But selection (Entention) works like the ratchet in a clock-work to hold the latest cycle at a useful, and ultimately meaningful, stable state : a Phase Transition, or a step on the ladder of Being.
https://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page23.html

I agree that that is absurd. But I do not equate consciousness with sapience or sentience. I can say atoms are conscious without meaning they are sapient or sentient. — Patterner

How then, do you define Consciousness? Sentience*1 applies to most living creatures, but Consciousness*2, in the sense of self-awareness, seems limited only to humans and a few of the most highly evolved animals.

Therefore, I'm guessing that your notion of fundamental Consciousness may be similar to my own post-Shannon concept of Information --- the essence of Consciousness --- as fundamental. I avoid using the more general C word, because of its "absurd" implications. Yet Information*4 is fundamental in the same way that Mathematics*5 is. And it is Causal in the form of Negentropy : Energy.

Very few posters on this forum are aware that physicists can now transform data (information) into energy and vice-versa. Based on that cutting edge science, I have concluded that Cosmic Information*6 is the Cause of physical Energy and metaphysical Mind. As the power to transform, it is also the essence of everything in the world, both Matter and Mind. It's a difficult concept to conceive, but it explains many of the mysteries of physics & metaphysics. :nerd:


*1. Sentience is the ability to experience feelings and sensations. It may not necessarily imply higher cognitive functions such as awareness, reasoning, . . .
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentience

*2. Consciousness : the state of being awake and aware of one's surroundings. {and one's self}
___ Oxford dictionary

*3. Consciousness :
Literally : to know with. To be aware of the world subjectively (self-knowledge) and objectively (other knowing). Humans know Quanta via physical senses & analysis, and Qualia via meta-physical reasoning & synthesis. In the Enformationism thesis, Consciousness is viewed as an emergent form of basic mathematical Information.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page12.html

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

*5. Is Mathematics Fundamental? :
Yes, mathematics is often considered fundamental due to its role in logic, reasoning, and understanding the world around us.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=is+mathematics+fundamental

*6. What is Information ? :
The power to transform, to create, to cause change, to make logical distinctions, the essence of awareness. . . . .
http://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page16.html

It seems most people think consciousness is emergent . . . . .
explore the idea that consciousness is fundamental.: — Patterner

I agree with the intent, but interpret the words differently. Based in part on scientific Quantum & Information theories, I have come to believe that Consciousness is indeed emergent from Evolutionary processes. So, I reserve that generally-applied term for specific instances of human self awareness & intelligence, in order to avoid the absurdity of referring to atoms as sapient or sentient. However, contrary to Materialism, the stuff we see & touch is also emergent.

Therefore, what is Fundamental is Causation*1 : the power to transform (e.g. hylemorph). The causal force is similar to Plato's universal Form, and Aristotle's instantiation as Morph, but in modern scientific terms is essentially Energy. Which Einstein claimed could transform from invisible Potential (photons) into mathematical Mass (inertia), and thence into the objects we experience as Matter (actual stuff).

If we extend that idea to the last few million years of evolutionary emergence, we will need to somehow explain how immaterial Mind emerged from dumb Matter. One possible explanation is that the Potential was in there from the Big Bang beginning as general universal Causation : First Cause. :smile:


*1. Emergence, Phase Transitions, and Quantum Leaps :
EnFormAction theory takes a leap of imagination, to envision a more holistic interpretation of the evidence, both empirical and philosophical. Contrary to the Neo-Darwinian theory of Evolution, EFA implies a distinct direction for causation, toward the top rung in the hierarchy of Emergence, as denoted by the arrow of Time. Pure Randomness would just go around in circles. But selection (Entention) works like the ratchet in a clock-work to hold the latest cycle at a useful, and ultimately meaningful, stable state : a Phase Transition, or a step on the ladder of Being. Aimless Darwinian Evolution is going nowhere, but EnFormAction (directional causation) is going out-there into the unexplored future. . . . . . .
https://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page23.html

acknowledged that one’s self is god, as, as you say the living cosmos is the manifestation of god. So one plays a game with oneself, reaffirming that one does know god, because one is god, so how could one not know it? — Punshhh

In the Judeo-Christian-Muslim traditions, God is wholly other*1 (Holy), so to equate oneself with God would be blasphemy. Therefore, Christian Mystics have always been viewed as outside the mainstream of Catholic doctrine. And, those who strive to remain on good terms with enforcers of orthodoxy, could never imagine themselves as a manifestation of God (Atman or son of God), or would hide it if they had such experiences.

Since my childhood religion was anti-catholic, I was never in the mainstream of monotheism, so didn't have to worry about being a heretic. Besides, I've never experienced the indwelling presence of God. Consequently, my philosophical notion of the human Soul/Self*3 as an instance of G*D substance (more like causal Energy than ghostly Spirit) is merely an intellectual knowing, with little or no emotional feeling. :nerd:


*1. "Wholly other" is a theological term, most notably used by Karl Barth, to describe God's radical transcendence and difference from all created things. It emphasizes God's complete otherness, beyond human comprehension and experience. This concept aims to safeguard God's transcendence against pantheistic views that might equate God with the universe or human experience.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=wholey+other

*2. Several Christian mystics have faced accusations of blasphemy, often stemming from their unique spiritual experiences and interpretations of Christian doctrine. Meister Eckhart, a 14th-century German mystic, was investigated for heresy, though he was never formally declared a heretic,
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=christian+mystics+accused+of+blasphemy

*3. Self/Soul :
The brain can create the image of a fictional person (the Self) to represent its own perspective in dealings with other things and persons.
# This imaginary Me is a low-resolution construct abstracted from the complex web of inter-relationships that actually form the human body, brain, mind, DNA, and social networks in the context of a vast universe.
# In the Enformationism worldview, only G*D could know yourself objectively in complete detail as the mathematical definition of You. That Algorithmic/Logical formula is equivalent to your Self/Soul.
# Because of the fanciful & magical connotations of the traditional definition for "Soul" (e.g. ghosts), Enformationism prefers the more practical term "Self".
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page18.html

Even the most rudimentary organisms behave as if directed toward ends: seeking nutrients, avoiding harm, maintaining internal equilibrium. Nothing in the inorganic realm displays these (or any!) behaviours. This kind of directedness—what might be called biological intentionality—is not yet consciously purposeful, but it is not mechanical either. It reflects the organism’s orientation toward a world that matters to it in some way. — Wayfarer

Kudos for clearly & concisely summarizing a vexing question of modern philosophy. Ancient people, with their worldview limited by the range of human senses, unaided by technology, seemed to assume that their observable Cosmos*1 behaves as-if purposeful, in a sense comparable to human motives. "As-If" is a metaphorical interpretation, not an empirical observation.

Inspired by your essay, I briefly scannned a Quora Forum*2 thread on the question of "purpose or direction" to our universe. Modern science tells us that our world has progressed from a dimensionless mathematical Singularity, to a burgeoning Cosmos of Matter, Life & Mind. Yet the majority of responses answered emphatically "no!".

However, even some of the "no god, no purpose, no telos" answers qualified their position by admitting that Evolution gives the "appearance of purpose". Yet, they seem to put more weight on Darwin's random mutations, and fail to ask "who?" or "how?" or "why?" Nature selects (choose, pick-out) the few fittest (orderly) products from among a (complex) cacophony of unfit failures. Empirical Science can provide a mechanical "how", but deliberately ignores the philosophical question of Final Cause : aims & ends & motives.

As you implied, the nay-sayers seem to be looking through the wrong end of the telescope. :smile:


*1. The cosmos is an alternative name for the universe or its nature or order. Usage of the word cosmos implies viewing the universe as a complex and orderly system or entity. ___Wikipedia


*2. The whole point of modern evolutionary theory is that it explains the appearance of purpose (or telos, if you prefer) emerging from a purposeless process. There is nothing within evolution that indicates the existence of telos. . . . .
The key is whether purpose requires intent. If purpose requires a pursuit of a goal or telos, then intent would be required. This form of intent is subjective and presumes a host, such as an intelligent agent. Hence, evolution can have no purpose, scientifically speaking.
https://www.quora.com/Is-there-any-purpose-or-direction-to-evolution

I have no issue with Enformationism. It sounds like a useful theory and compatible with my way of seeing things. G*D being the crux of the issue, is unknown and unknowable*.
While I have an apophatic approach, I also leave wide open what a creator would entail, free from any preconceived ideas. — Punshhh

Since my First Cause, Prime Mover, G*D is imagined as both transcendent and immanent, the only rmanifestation of G*D is the living Cosmos itself. Hence, empirical Science & theoretical Philosophy are our primary means of reading the revelation. Of course, those who "experience" G*D may prefer their holistic direct & personal knowledge over the piecemeal inferences & conjectures of the rational sciences. Unfortunately, I seem to be innately god-blind compared to the emotional & mystical sciences.

I can understand why some frustrated philosophers might turn to negative inferences when positive observations seem futile. For example, the Hindu notion of Brahman*1 is also unknowable by our mundane senses. But they seem to view the god/man relationship as a continuity, with the human soul as a "chip off the old block"*2, so to speak. And that metaphor may also apply to my own notion of a transcendent Mind who has transformed, for unknown reasons, abstract Potential into concrete Actual : our physical world. :smile:


*1. In Hindu philosophy, Brahman is often described as unknowable in the sense that it transcends human comprehension and cannot be fully grasped by the mind or described through language. While Brahman is considered the ultimate reality and the source of all existence, it is not an object that can be perceived or defined. . . .
The Upanishads use the phrase "neti neti" (not this, not this) to describe Brahman, emphasizing that it can only be understood by negating what it is not.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=brahman+unknowable

*2. "Chip off the old block" is an idiom used to describe someone who closely resembles their parent, either in character or appearance.

Some mystical experiences are like the drugged state, such as the experience of a higher being, or presence (fitting the preferred, spiritual teaching). Or a feeling of being outside of the body, or feelings of peace, silence, or visioning profound knowledge, or experiences. — Punshhh

Partly due to my austere non-mystical fundamentalist Christian religious up-bringing, and partly due to my rational pragmatic personality, I have never had any spiritual experiences, and I've never been drunk or high. Even my attempts at meditation were empty of special or sublime content. I also have no drugs to "expand" my mind, or social group or guru to "guide" my development.

However, my rational, science-based, philosophical explorations point to the possibility of some impersonal, non-miraculous, god-like power in the universe, similar to some forms of Idealism. This is not a personal experience, but merely an abstract statistical concept. So, much of this talk about "profound" experiences is outside of my first-hand range of knowledge.

Therefore, while I'm open to discussing "spiritual" notions, it's essentially a foreign language to me. I engage in philosophical threads like this, not from religious or spiritual motivations, but merely from intellectual curiosity. Hence, my personal philosophical worldview, Enformationism, seems alien to both materialists and spiritualists. And elicits mostly shrugs of incomprehension, or of ad hominem abuse on this forum. :cool:



Enformationism :
As a scientific paradigm, the thesis of Enformationism is intended to be an update to the obsolete 19th century paradigm of Materialism. Since the recent advent of Quantum Physics, the materiality of reality has been watered down. Now we know that matter is a form of energy, and that energy is a form of Information.
As a religious philosophy, the creative power of Enformationism is envisioned as a more realistic version of the antiquated religious notions of Spiritualism. Since our world had a beginning, it's hard to deny the concept of creation. So, an infinite deity is proposed to serve as both the energetic Enformer and the malleable substance of the enformed world.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html

If God is totally ineffable, why would we waste time debating on this effing forum?
The ineffable God* can be known, understood and experienced by being it, in mysticism. Just not directly, It is done by it being witnessed, known through the experience of it and one becomes it, through the mystical practice. None of these means relies on intellectual, thought, or understanding, but rather a direct knowing, or knowledge of it. — Punshhh

I am aware of how Mysticism is supposed to work. But I am not a mystic, by religious training, or by natural inclination, and I've never taken Psychedelic drugs, or Entheogens. So, I am not qualified to discuss mystical experiences on this forum.

I am however, able to imagine things that are not material objects, such as abstract concepts, laws of logic, mathematical principles, moral values, and a hypothetical transcendental First Cause of our contingent reality. But, even for theoretical philosophical purposes, I prefer to stay safely on the side of common sensory experience, instead of unusual extra-sensory percepts, whether directly or indirectly known.

I find that almost all Western languages are based on concrete experiences, so discussing knowledge & notions that are "more real" than physical reality tend to bog-down quickly. And I have been accused of propagating woo-woo nonsense when I attempt to discuss the possibility of a transcendent god-like entity that I have never experienced in any way, shape, or form.

Have you ever engaged in an Ayahuasca retreat, where many people can have similar experiences, and then discuss their Jaguar exploits in the spirit world with others who will understand what you are talking about? :smile:

I think you'll find that the God of mystics doesn't conform to such a stereotype at all, which, for many, is precisely the attraction. Take the God of Thomas Merton, a 20th century Catholic mystic: his God defies categorization and theology and is more a presence to be encountered in silence than a figure to be obeyed or even defined. — Tom Storm

Yes. I'm aware that Mysticism has always been on the periphery of official Catholicism. But if mystics want to remain on good terms with officialdom, they must at least pay lip service to stereotyped Catholic doctrine & creeds.

All I know of mysticism comes not from personal ecstatic experiences, but from reading Evelyn Underhill's Mysticism (1911) from cover to cover. She seems to view mysticism as a practical form of philosophy, instead of a religion in itself. From that perspective, it seems closer to Tantric Buddhism than to Catholicism.

Mystics through the centuries have felt that they could communicate directly to God or Jesus or Saints without going through the political authority of the pope. So, their free-thinking & behaving sometimes got them in trouble with the church hierarchy*1. Protestant mystics, such as Pentecostals & Charismatics are already divorced from the Pope, and some may consider themselves non-creedal. But as Christians, they still have some basic (sterotyped) beliefs that form the core of their religious practice. Since I am neither Catholic nor Mystic, my view of those beliefs & practices is Objective instead of Subjective. :smile:


*1. Individualist Mystics vs collective Church :
Mystics, individuals who seek a direct, personal experience of the divine, have often faced opposition and persecution from established religious institutions, including the Christian Church. This tension arises because mystics' direct access to God can be seen as a challenge to the authority and hierarchical structures of the Church.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=mystics+oppressed+by+church

If God is totally ineffable, why would we waste time debating on this effing forum? — Gnomon
That's the standard question posed by critics (ususally materialists) of this account: at the very least, a dignified Wittgensteinian silence, is often recommended. The ineffable is, of course, to those who believe, experienced through mystical insight and contemplation, so it's not something readily put into words. But there's plenty of respectable literature on the subject. — Tom Storm

Yes. That may be why you seldom find Mystics posting on philosophy forums. Of course, a few mystics --- e.g. Meister Eckhart --- have attempted to translate their sublime experiences into mundane words. Unfortunately, as I have often noted on this forum, the English language is essentially Materialistic. So, the translations from abstract to concrete (metaphors, parables) are subject to variable interpretations. Ironically, some of my own posts that touch on immaterial or transcendent concepts are treated with sarcasm as mystical woo-woo. So, I can sympathize with mystics, even though I can't empathize with their sublime experiences. :cool:

But in asking the question about more philosophical accounts of God, I guess I was primarily asking if this is fundamentally a matter of contrasting theistic personalism with apophatic theology/mysticism? — Tom Storm

I wasn't familiar with those technical terms, so I Googled Theistic Personalism*1. And that is definitely not anything like my own god-model, which is not Classic Theism, but more like Modern Deism : World Creator whose only miracle is the creation itself. Also, Apophatic Theology*2 seems most like abstruse medieval Scholasticism, which is of little interest to me. If God is totally ineffable, why would we waste time debating on this effing forum? One critique of such esoteric argumentation proposed a controversial but nonsensical question about nano-scale fairy-like angels*3. Both Theism and Mysticism view their God as a ghostly sovereign-in-the-sky commanding blind faith and obedient submission to the mysterious will & wishes of an invisible potentate, who loves you unconditionally. But that ain't for me.

On the other hand, my interest in God-models is more pragmatic & scientific, and similar to the causal & functional forces of Plato & Aristotle. For example, Big Bang cosmology and Quantum mechanics raised philosophical questions about Cosmic Origins and Mind/Matter relations. The classical Greeks postulated non-humanoid forces labelled as First Cause and Prime Mover. They also theorized, in metaphorical terms, on the relationship between Soul/Mind and Body/Matter (hyle/morph). So, their god-models were more philosophical & hypothetical than fearsome sky-lords to be worshiped in fear & trembling.

Apparently, those non-theological god-models are not what you were asking about in the OP. FWIW though, my own scientifically-sophisticated G*D-model has it's own technical term : PanEnDeism*4. :halo:



*1. Classical theism and theistic personalism are two distinct views on the nature of God, with theistic personalism emphasizing God's personal attributes and classical theism focusing on God's transcendence and aseity. Classical theism portrays God as the ultimate reality, the uncaused cause, and the source of all being, while theistic personalism views God as a person, albeit one with infinite perfections.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=theistic+personalism

*2. Apophatic theology, also known as negative theology, is a way of understanding and approaching God by emphasizing what God is not, rather than what God is. It's closely linked to mysticism, particularly in Christian traditions, and stems from the belief that God's essence is ultimately unknowable and ineffable, exceeding human comprehension and language.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=apophatic+theology%2Fmysticism

*3. How many angels could dance on the head of a pin : The phrase was originally used in a theological context by 17th-century Protestants to mock medieval scholastics such as Duns Scotus and Thomas Aquinas. Whether medieval scholastics really discussed the topic is, however, a matter of debate. The suggestion is possibly an early modern invention that was intended to discredit scholastic philosophy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_many_angels_can_dance_on_the_head_of_a_pin%3F

*4.Panendeism, a relatively new theological term, combines aspects of pantheism and deism. It proposes that God is both immanent within the universe (like pantheism) and transcendent beyond it (like deism), but that God also becomes the universe itself while remaining greater than it. Essentially, it suggests that the universe is a part, but not the whole, of God.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=Panendeism%2C+a+relatively+new+term%2C

Sure, but I’m not asking for explanations of the world or reality. I’m asking how people defend and describe more philosophical accounts of God. — Tom Storm

From the OP reference to Classical Theism*1, I assumed that you wanted to revisit Catholic Scholasticism from the 12th to 16th centuries CE --- before pragmatic Science began to encroach on church authority for "explanations of the world or reality". But, as a non-catholic, I have little knowledge or interest in those biblical theological accounts of God. Hence, I focused on more relevant modern explanations of the metaphysical ground of physical reality.

However, there was another "classical" era of non-biblical God-philosophy, when the Greek philosophers --- 5th to 6th centuries BCE --- argued in favor of functional & non-anthro-morphic notions of deity. And most modern accounts of God/Reality/Mind --- Idealism, Panpsychism, etc. --- are merely ancient notions, up-dated to include scientific support for metaphysical god/mind concepts.

But modern defenses of the God-postulate can't compete against materialistic scientific concepts of reality by using only "sophisticated" idealistic "philosophical accounts". Today, even religious defenders feel it's necessary to address the Post-Quantum worldview in order to seem knowledgeable & believable. Otherwise, even pre-Newton idealistic God arguments appear to be just more "mystical or esoteric woo"*2.

I'm sorry to have wasted your time with my own more up-to-date interests. :smile:


*1. Excerpt from OP :
"I'm interested in conversations about more sophisticated and philosophical accounts of theism. I suppose this might take us back to classical theism, as opposed to a more contemporary theological personalism."
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/15883/more-sophisticated-philosophical-accounts-of-god/p1

*2. But surely, today, idealism seems like a bit of a silly idea. Considering that we understand the material basis of reality, proposing an ontological relevance for consciousness appears like mystical or esoteric woo and certainly not a serious concept to entertain. Moreover, we suspect that the brain creates consciousness. Remarkably, however, idealism is experiencing a renaissance in science and philosophy. How can this be possible? ___ James B Glattfelder
https://medium.com/@jnode/idealism-a-consciousness-only-view-of-reality-c062fcd05091

Ah, so you are a functionalist, then? — Bob Ross

I suppose you mean a Functionalist*1, as opposed to a Behaviorist or Materialist or some other theory of Consciousness. Technically, a Function is the relationship between Inputs (sensory data) and Outputs (reasoning & acting). Mind is a Process which coordinates multiple physical (running) & metaphysical (thinking) Functions, and seems well designed (by evolution) to serve those disparate Purposes.

But, as a layman, I am not well informed about all those alternative theories of Mind. I simply observe that the primary business of the human brain*2, with its cerebral cortex & frontal lobes, seems to be designed to negotiate our complex social & cultural organizations with Reasoning, Learning, and Predicting the behavior of other minds*3. :chin:


*1. "Functionalist" generally refers to an approach that emphasizes the function or purpose of something in relation to the whole, often in the context of social systems, psychology, or design. In sociology, it describes a theoretical perspective that views society as a complex system with interconnected parts, each playing a role in maintaining stability and order. In psychology, it focuses on the mind's adaptive functions and how mental processes help individuals interact with their environment. Additionally, "functionalist" can describe an approach in architecture and design that prioritizes utility and practicality.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functionalism_(philosophy_of_mind)

*2. The primary function of the brain is to act as the central command center for the body, coordinating and regulating all bodily functions. This includes processing sensory information, initiating movement, controlling emotions, and enabling complex cognitive functions like thinking, learning, and memory.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=primary+function+of+brain

*3. The evolution of large human brains is likely due to a combination of factors, including environmental challenges, social complexity, and dietary changes. These factors likely influenced each other, driving the evolution of larger, more complex brains capable of processing more information and supporting advanced cognitive abilities.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=reason+for+big+brain

Functions point to ends; ends point to a form; and a form points to an essence. — Bob Ross

Yes. For example, an engineer designs a machine with a particular Function (end) in mind, and the Form of the machine is organized to serve that end, its Purpose. Yet, the Form of the machine is not the Material it's made of, but the Essential interrelationships of its construction (design). Those inter-acting functions seem to indicate that a human brain was designed (by evolution?) for a different Purpose (function) from that of an Ostrich. The tiny ostrich brain is well suited (designed) for its physical & social habitat : a bunch of long-legged bird-brains.

However, the human brain layout was originally "designed" (by evolution) for an ape's jungle environment. Nevertheless, in only a few generations, it has spawned & adapted to an un-natural cultural habitat --- cars, planes, phones, etc. --- which tend to minimize use of the leg functions, and maximize the brain functions. And yet, the functional flexibility of the human Mind allows a few athletes to run like an ostrich, while others become obese couch potatoes, or nerdy phone swipers. Somehow, evolution seemed to anticipate that, since the 19th century, we homo sapiens would need a body & brain designed for thinking instead of running, and swiping instead of swinging. :joke:

I haven’t found that this thread is pointing in any particular direction, but it has highlighted a key theme: a conversation about what counts as a coherent or useful idea of God. . — Tom Storm

Since you opened the door to alternative concepts of God, I'll mention a chapter in the book --- by James B. Glattfelder (physicist turned quantitative analyst) --- I'm currently reading, subtitled : What a modern-day synthesis of science and philosophy teaches us about the emergence of information, consciousness and meaning. The chapter title is : Don't Be Silly, and the general topic is Consciousness. But a sub-theme is Panpsychism, which seems to the a modern substitute for traditional God-models among some non-religious scientists and philosophers. The author quotes a newspaper headline : "Why can't the world's greatest minds solve the mystery of consciousness?"

I won't go into the specific "sophisticated" arguments, but I'll list a few of the great minds. Arguing on the "pro" side of Panpsychism are David Chalmers, Philip Goff, Galen Strawson, Bernardo Kastrup, and David Bently Hart. On the "con" side, arguing against Panpsychism, are Daniel Dennett, Patricia Churchland, and Peter Vickers. Regarding the debate between Vickers and Kastrup, the author says "both thinkers seem to find it hard to grasp what exactly the other is really saying". So, the key barrier to communication seems to be "systemic and structural cognitive biases" in the form of Realistic vs Idealistic worldviews & belief systems.

In a previous book --- after noting that he has been accused of being motivated by religious beliefs --- Glattfelder says : "I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it". And one aspect of that "world structure" seems to be what some thinkers call Panpsychism : "Panpsychism is a philosophical theory that proposes consciousness is a fundamental and ubiquitous feature of reality". Hence, no need to posit a traditional transcendent God to explain the emergence of metaphysical human consciousness in a physical world, that appears to be 99.99% non-conscious matter. :smile:

Well, no, I think it’s rather more than that. In the end, any debate about God isn’t simply theism versus atheism. It’s about what we hold to be true. Arguments for or against God are really arguments about what counts as a valid claim to truth. And here’s the thing: how can we ground our knowledge at all? — Tom Storm

The OP topic sounds like a reference to intellectual debates between two opposite standpoints : Theism (God is) vs Atheism (no god). Did you intend to make this thread more complex (sophisticated?), by including various shades of opinions on "shin-barking" reality vs Ultimate Reality?. Do you want to change the focus from God to Truth?

Non-philosophers seem to "ground" their knowledge in trusted authorities on the topic : Priests, Theologians, Preachers, etc. But philosophically-inclined thinkers seem to be more trusting of their own personal powers of reason. So, they "ground" their knowledge in formal rational exploration : Epistemology (theories to support beliefs). And that seems to be where the OP is pointing. But such threads typically wander away from the original topic. :smile:

1. What is Aristotle's view of the mind here? Is it a nothingness, a negativity, like Hegel? Is it pure form that is immaterial? — Bob Ross

I'll let Aristotle experts argue about what he means by "pure from all admixture". Maybe he was thinking of Mind/Soul as the Ideal Form (actualizing principle) aspect of HyloMorph, which by analogy, converts amorphous clay into a meaningful or representative sculpture. But the purity specification (unadulterated) sounds like a reference to the 19th century notion of transparent Spiritual Energy (essence ; ectoplasm ; ghost) compared to the opaque Material Body (admixture of many substances).

However, my personal understanding of Mind is as a process (thinking) instead of a thing (physical entity). By that I mean : Mind is the function or purpose of Brain. For example, to coordinate all the various body parts, and to determine its place in space. Again, the material brain has many interacting parts (complexity), but the immaterial Mind, as a singular activity, is no-thing. Perhaps, as A.N. Whitehead suggested, it's a value-creating process. Yet, as in the notion of HyloMorph, Mind & Brain go together like clouds & weather; they are a team. :smile:

Well it is delightful when you consider that atheists have maintained that reason assists us to disbelieve theism, while the presupp says the atheist's reason and its effectiveness is a key proof of God. Many also reach for the evolutionary against naturalism as the next step. I — Tom Storm

I get the irony of both sides of the God Argument claiming human Reason as their agent to prove or disprove the existence of our modern invisible intangible "shy" God, who no longer works major miracles to prove His power to rationalizing skeptics. Since both sides have the same armament, that's why Atheism vs Theism disputation has been a Mexican Standoff for centuries. But in a practical popularity sense, it's still no contest.

However, the average religious believer probably does not know or care about abstruse Scholastic reasoning. Their Faith is in the heart, not the head. And atheistic reasoning against the God postulate probably sounds like nit-picky criticism of what's obvious to them : that the world is under cosmic control, whether you call it Fate or Faith. Their modern miracle is a 2000 year old book of revealed Truth. In the New Testament epistle of James 2:18, "“You and I have faith; I have works. Show me your faith without works, and I shall show you my faith by my works.” The typical believer behaves as-if God is real, and feels no compunction to prove that feeling by erudite reasoning.

Yet, those of us who post on philosophy forums, are aware that Faith without Reason is commonplace among simple-minded credulous people. Hence, the thousands of practical "faiths" throughout the world : from 4000 year old Hinduism to 20 year old Church of the Highlands*1. So, we autodidact wisdom-seekers search for a truish belief system, whose factish contents work-together to structurally support a flimsy over-arching film of Faith. Unfortunately, for some of us, the insubstantial immaterial rational evidence does not add-up to a real God --- only to an imaginary deity in a godless world.

However, for others more technically inclined, empirical Science has concluded that Reality itself, on the foundational quantum level, is only as substantial as the statistical mathematics used to describe it. For example, Quantum Mechanics is explicitly non-mechanical, and the material objects being processed are themselves essentially subjective*2 : believe it or not. Hence, score one for the God team. And the beat goes on . . . . . :joke:


*1. "By 2018, Church of the Highlands was listed as the tenth largest megachurch in the United States, according to CBS News"
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=highlands+church+history

*2.In the realm of quantum mechanics, the notion of objectivity is challenged. Some interpretations suggest that facts in the quantum world can be subjective, meaning that different observers might experience different realities. This arises from the fundamental principles of quantum mechanics, where objects can exist in multiple states simultaneously (superposition) until observed. Upon observation, the superposition collapses, and the object assumes a definite state
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=quantum+objects+subjective

A presuppositionalist would argue that God is the necessary precondition for us to even have a conversation, so in debating God's existence, you're actually proving it. Not convincing to me, but a delightful argument nonetheless. — Tom Storm

Sounds like a long word for Faith prior to Evidence. If you accept that blind faith is a good thing, then you will be hooked into whatever belief system you are currently engaged in. I suppose it's a clever argument for appealing to non-philosophers. But I don't see why you call it "delightful". :smile:

Do you think there is a valid philosophical distinction between Percepts and Concepts, between Physics and Metaphysics? — Gnomon
Yes, they are distinct but related areas that influence and inform each other. — Tom Storm

I was hoping for a more informative response. What is the pertinent difference between those pairs, in view of the "rambling OP", about "cartoon gods" and "mawkish literalism"? :cool:

I have found many observations interesting (not sure what you mean by arguments) like this one which summarises the foundational nature of my OP: — Tom Storm

It seems that the "foundational nature" of your OP shows a preference for medieval Catholic Scholastic rationalistic arguments*1 over modern empirical Atheist vs Theist debates or observations. For example, "Apophatic" arguments for God, may sound erudite, but they only seem reasonable if you accept their premise that God is wholly other (unknowable, ineffable, supernatural) to the real natural world, and its imperfect (fallen) humans. But more critical philosophers may see it as a ruse*2 to trick the gullible into fooling themselves into accepting the Catholic definition of God (e.g. Unity & Trinity). :nerd:

*1. Philosophical Argument vs Faith-based Observations :
In philosophy, an argument is a structured set of statements (premises) intended to support a conclusion. It's not simply a disagreement or a quarrel, but a reasoned attempt to justify a belief or claim. Arguments in philosophy are typically categorized as deductive or inductive, and understanding their structure and validity is crucial for philosophical inquiry
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=philosophical+arguments

*2. Ruse : Use negative abstract reasoning to disqualify positive empirical reasoning.

I looked at a few definitions of “intention” on the web. They fell into two groupings 1) as a near synonym for goal or purpose 2) as a mental state. The first definition is no help, since the presence of a goal or purpose is the question on the table here. The second definition clearly does not include the actions of DNA. — T Clark

The etymology of the word "Intention" seems to imply teleology*1. But a mere "tendency" refers to an apparent direction, e.g. toward future fitness & survival, yet without specifying any motivating purpose or end goal. So, was the eventual emergence of Life & Mind, after 14B years of non-life & mindlessness, A> an accident, or B> an afterthought, or C> sudden change from physical tendency to metaphysical entities, or D> a developmental Purpose realized?

Darwin's mechanism of Evolution (variation + adaptation) was intended to avoid any notion of divine purpose. But his model of Artificial Evolution*2, of plants & animals by human farmers, necessarily involved intentional Selection with a long-range Purpose --- long or short legs ; larger fruit, etc --- and the future goal was pre-imagined in the mind of the Selector.

Darwin's Natural Selection analogy, simply referred to the Selector (chooser ; specifier) as Nature. But any selection or choice is by definition non-random, so some directional intention or "force"*3 is logically necessary, even when not specified. So, the question remains : is Nature intentional & teleological? :smile:

*1. The word "intention" originates from the Latin word intentio, meaning "a stretching out, straining, exertion, effort" or "attention". It evolved from the verb intendere, which meant "to turn one's attention, to stretch out". This ultimately traces back to the Proto-Indo-European root *ten-, meaning "to stretch". In essence, the concept of intention, as we understand it today, involves a mental stretching or aiming of one's thoughts or actions toward a specific goal or purpose.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=intention+etym

*2. Darwin used artificial selection as a key analogy in developing his theory of natural selection. He observed how humans selectively breed plants and animals for desired traits, demonstrating that traits can be modified over generations. This process, where breeders choose which individuals reproduce, served as a model for how nature could also select for advantageous traits, leading to evolutionary change.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=darwin+artificial+selection

*3. Natural selection is not a random process. While the genetic variations that arise through mutation may be random, the process of natural selection itself favors certain traits that enhance survival and reproduction in a given environment, making it a non-random, directional force in evolution
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=natural+selction+not+random

COMICAL ACCIDENT OR INTENTIONAL DIFFERENCE ?

In contrast, more nuanced conceptions of God, such as Paul Tillich’s idea of God as the "Ground of Being" or David Bentley Hart’s articulation of God as Being itself - represent attempts to have this conversation in metaphysical terms rather than anthropomorphic ones. — Tom Storm

In his disdainful reply above, 180proof dismissed metaphysical god concepts as a "distinction without a difference". When I referred to Aristotle's non-anthro-morphic metaphysical concept of First Cause as "Infinite Potential", 180 sneered : "so it's not scienrific. . . . . it's not coherently philosophical". Yet you seem to be open to Metaphysical reasoning.

As usual, 180 argues against idealism & deism with “kick the rock” reasoning : his “no testable predictions” is equivalent to “I refute it thus”*1. Like Sam Johnson, he missed the point of Berkeley's Idealism : not denial of material reality, but acknowledgment of the filter of individual interpretation (conception) of personal perception. Perhaps he thinks the distinction between Perception (pain) and Conception (rock hurts toe) is immaterial, hence meaningless, and unscientific, and "not coherently philosophical".

Do you think there is a valid philosophical distinction between Percepts and Concepts, between Physics and Metaphysics? :smile:

*1. Physical Percepts vs Metaphysical Concepts :
Samuel Johnson famously refuted Bishop Berkeley's philosophical idealism by kicking a stone, declaring "I refute it thus!". This act, meant to demonstrate the existence of material reality, is often seen as a simplistic response to Berkeley's complex philosophical arguments according to Wikipedia. Berkeley's philosophy, known as immaterialism, argued that objects only exist as perceptions in the mind, not as independent material entities. Johnson's action, however, highlighted the perceived solidity of the rock and the pain of kicking it, suggesting that these were undeniable material experiences. 
Critics point out that Berkeley never denied the reality of sensory experiences like pain or the solidity of objects. Berkeley's point was that these perceptions are all that we can know, and there's no need to posit a separate material substance.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=johnson+kick+the+rock
Note --- Obviously, humans do indeed imagine & assume that material objects can cause pain. That makes sense, from a materialistic worldview. Ironically, the cause of pain for Johnson was his own intention & action.

If there is NOT intention, it is still a lot of organized work from different players using encoded information*1 to bring about a specific future. So teleology. — Patterner

Sounds like a computer program, for which the intention*2 is in the mind of the Programmer. But signs of intention can be found in such directional instructions as "if-then". :smile:


*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 : revealing the intention of the programmer.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page11.html

*2. Intentional Programming : This is a programming paradigm that aims to capture the programmer's true intentions directly in the code, making it more understandable and easier to modify.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=computer+program+intention

↪Gnomon
I’m not saying I understand Hart or Tillich, their work is quite recondite, and in my life, it has little practical use. But it is very interesting and aligns with well-established ways of understanding ideas of God. All I’m hoping to do is 'open up' the subject. — Tom Storm

Does the notion of God as ground of Being have any "practical use" in your world? Does it "open up" a new path for philosophical dialog? What do you find interesting about their theological "work"? Their approach seems to be based on the Ontological Argument*1, that goes back to Anselm's definition of God as self-evident to rational thinkers : if God is Being itself, then disbelief would be denial of Existence..

On the other hand, Sartre defined "being itself" as the material world devoid of consciousness, excluding humans. Which would define the "ground of being" as physical reality apart from any human interest such as Life, Consciousness or Choice. So, Existentialism*2 seems to shut-down the subject of ideal God vs material Reality, not open it up.

Have you found any of the arguments presented in this thread to be "interesting" or "practical"? :smile:



*1. Common arguments for the existence of God include the cosmological argument, the teleological argument, the ontological argument, the moral argument, and the argument from religious experience. These arguments explore different facets of existence, from the origins of the universe to human morality and personal encounters with the divine, to suggest God's existence.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=common+arguments+for+god

*2. In existential philosophy, particularly in the work of Jean-Paul Sartre, "being itself" (or "being-in-itself," en-soi) refers to the mode of existence of inanimate objects and the fundamental, non-conscious reality of all things. It is characterized by a fullness of being, a self-contained and unreflective existence, lacking consciousness, self-awareness, and the capacity for choice or transcendence.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=being+itself

Put simply: Teleological explanation requires a fixed end or final cause. But in a probabilistic system, the future is open at every step. To say that events are happening as a means to reaching some future state C, is nonsensical considering state C isn't even guaranteed. — tom111

Yes. Our world seems to be fundamentally stochastic ; at least on the quantum level. So the pre-set mechanistic A> B> C> type of evolution doesn't fit the evidence. But your Probabilistic process implies a positive direction without specifying the end state. This is how Evolutionary Programming*1 works : to reach, not a pre-specified goal, but an optimum set of properties.

As someone noted, the physical universe out there does not appear Teleological, except in one dark corner of a spiral galaxy. Where intentional creatures have emerged from the mud, and set about modifying their Natural environment to suit their species' needs for both physical (natural) and metaphysical (cultural) habitat.

I'm not sure what to call that process of artificial evolution, but "stochastic teleology"*2 sounds a bit too erratic & accidental. However, A.N. Whitehead labeled his Probabilistic Process as "Open-Ended Teleology"*3. Does that sound like a fit with your Probabilistic Teleology? :smile:

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

*2. Stochastic teleology refers to the idea that goal-directedness (teleology) can arise from systems governed by randomness (stochasticity). It challenges the traditional view that teleology requires a predetermined plan or purpose by suggesting that complex, goal-oriented behavior can emerge from probabilistic processes.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=stochastic+teleology

*3. Open-ended teleology :
Whitehead's teleology is not about a single, predetermined goal. It's a dynamic process where new possibilities are constantly emerging and being realized. This means that while there's a direction towards something (e.g., beauty), it's not a fixed or predetermined path.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=whitehead+teleology

In contrast, more nuanced conceptions of God, such as Paul Tillich’s idea of God as the "Ground of Being" or David Bentley Hart’s articulation of God as Being itself - represent attempts to have this conversation in metaphysical terms rather than anthropomorphic ones. — Tom Storm

Personally, I haven't read any of Tillich or Hart*1, but I have constructed a non-anthro-morphic god-model that may have some features in common with their religion-biased explanation of Being. However, my Ontology*2 is based on 21st century scientific concepts, not on ancient theological reasoning. And it is the G*D of philosophers, not Theologians. Yet, if you can convince people to worship a featureless abstraction (pure Potential), maybe you can start your own religion. :joke:


*1. David Bentley Hart’s articulation of God as Being itself :
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=David+Bentley+Hart%E2%80%99s+articulation+of+God+as+Being+itself+

# the ultimate reality upon which everything contingent depends.
Note --- Since god postulations inherently go beyond knowable temporal Reality, I prefer to "articulate" Ontology in terms of timeless Ideality : the metaphysical soil & substance of Philosophy.

# God as the Source of Existence: Hart argues that finite, contingent things (like the objects in our world) do not possess the cause of their existence within themselves.
Note --- The Big Bang theory implies that the universe had a beginning, hence is not eternal, and must be contingent on some prior State of Being : What Plato called First Cause. Lacking empirical evidence, all we can say about that world-creating impulse is to outline its logically necessary properties and powers.

# Beyond a "Creator God": Hart distances himself from a simplistic view of God as merely a "demiurge" or a maker who tinkers with the universe from the outside. Instead, he emphasizes that God is present in all things as the very act of their existence, the uncaused ground by which finite actuality and potentiality are created and sustained. This Creative Potential necessarily transformed some of its latent energy into the stuff of reality.
Note --- In my Information-based thesis*2, there is a "workman" who "tinkers" with the world from the inside : physicists call that invisible causal entity : Energy. But my label for that Agent of Change is EnFormAction : the power to transform Matter. (Or more properly, abstract Mass, which we perceive as Matter in many forms). Einstein's E=MC^2 equates causal Energy with inertial Mass and the cosmic speed limit of Light. You could even say that Matter-Mass is condensed god-stuff (creative power).

# Being as Actuality Itself: God is not just something actual, but actuality itself.
Note --- Pure Actuality is static & immutable. But I prefer to view our material Reality & conditional Actuality as actualized Potential. Hence, a creator G*D is infinite Potential for change, and the created World is Actualized possibility. Another way to put it is : G*D is both Immanent & Transcendent.
"In philosophical and theological contexts, the concept of God as pure actuality (actus purus) refers to the idea that God is entirely actual and lacks any potentiality or capacity for change."
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=God+is+entirely+actual+and+lacks+any+potentiality+or+capacity+for+change


*2. In information science, an ontology is a structured way to represent knowledge about a specific domain, defining concepts, relationships, and properties to organize and share information effectively. It's like a map of a subject area, showing how different elements connect and relate to each other, making it easier to understand, manage, and use data.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=ontology+%28information+science%29

The universe contains many laws which govern how the universe operates e.g. laws of physics. The question that is puzzling me right now is why are there laws in the first place and why is the universe not lawless instead ? — kindred

In the 17th century, it seemed natural to think of the rational regularities and mathematical principles of the universe as Divine Laws, by analogy with the political & civil laws of royalty-ruled human societies. They imagined animals & savages as lawless, ruled by internal impulse instead of external regulations. But some modern thinkers have posited that nature has just accidentally fallen into regular habits that seem law-like to us law-abiding humans. But that no-reason postulation is just as unverifiable as the divine law notion.

Isaac Newton set the example by defining three laws of motion, plus gravitation & thermodynamics. And our modern science would be stuck in the dark ages without such understanding of a logical structure to the natural order. So, whether you call that structure "laws" or "habits" or "regularities", without such reliable forces & logical limits, the Big Bang would have been a flash-in-the-pan, like 4th of July fireworks. Therefore, regardless of how you imagine the lawmaker, the notion of natural limits on causation & change provides a framework for understanding how & why the world works as it does.

But the natural anarchy notion, applied to the non-human world, would make modern Science a blind groping in the dark. So, like it or not, we rational humans seem to be born into a logically-organized world, not a meaningless maze of unpredictable random change. But any answer to your "why?" question will be contentious due to our differing worldviews (frameworks). :smile:


"Natural anarchy," or the idea that societal order can arise without imposed governance, is a complex concept explored in various anarchist philosophies. It suggests that humans and other living things naturally tend towards cooperation and mutual aid, and that societal structures like government are artificial impositions that disrupt this natural order.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_anarchism

No, it's not faith by my definition. It's a properly basic belief*. It's basic, because it's innate- not derived, and not taught. It's properly basic if the world that produced us would tend to produce this belief, which is the case if we are the product of evolutionary forces. It is rational to maintain belief that has not been epistemologically defeated. The bare possibility that the belief is false does not defeat the belief. — Relativist

Sorry, if my word-choice seemed to put you in an irrational category. Since you used the term "belief", I simply substituted another term, "faith"*1, with the same basic meaning, to give you pause to see a different perspective. Trust in your own senses is intuitive and pragmatic. But philosophy is about the mental models of reality that we artificially construct from incoming sensory data. Our personal worldviews (belief systems) are resistant to "defeat" by epistemological arguments.

I wasn't accusing you of promoting a religious Faith. I too, believe that my physical senses give me reliable information about the material world. But, as an amateur philosopher, I am also interested in the immaterial aspects of reality*2 : Ideas, Feelings, Reason, Self Concept, Mathematical Truths, etc. I also "believe" that humans are the "product of evolutionary forces". But we may differ on the exact nature of those forces. For example, based on cutting-edge science, I equate physical Energy with mental Information. If that notion intrigues or appalls you, I can provide scientific reasons for accepting that equation as a philosophically useful concept (in a separate thread, of course). :smile:


*1. While often used interchangeably, belief and faith have distinct meanings. Belief is an acceptance that something is true, often based on evidence or reasoning. Faith, on the other hand, is a deeper, often more active trust and reliance, often in the face of uncertainty or lack of proof. Essentially, belief can be a mental acceptance, while faith involves action and commitment based on that belief.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=belief+vs+faith

*2. Immaterial aspects of reality refer to things that exist but are not made of physical matter. Examples include thoughts, emotions, concepts like justice or beauty, and even mathematical truths. These aspects are not constrained by physical laws and can be intangible and non-physical.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=immaterial+aspects+of+reality+examples

Watchword? Not sure what you mean by that. — Relativist

Compared to the Determinism of Newtonian physics, the Stochastic (random ; probabilistic ; indeterminate) nature of sub-atomic physics has made Heisenberg's Uncertainty principle a note of caution about making factual assertions of Reality and our interpretations of the world. :nerd:

Quantum philosophical uncertainty refers to the philosophical interpretations and implications of the quantum mechanical uncertainty principle, which states that certain pairs of physical properties, like position and momentum, cannot be known with perfect accuracy simultaneously. This principle, formulated by Werner Heisenberg, has sparked debate about the nature of reality, determinism, and free will.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=quantum+philosophical+uncertainty

I take it as a premise that the external world exists and that we have a functionally accurate perception of it (I justify this as being a a properly basic belief: it's innate, and plausibly a consequence of the evolutionary processes that produced us.This is my epistemic foundation. — Relativist

So, you are aware that your "premise" is a Faith instead of a Fact? Most people, including Scientists, intuitively take for granted that their senses render an accurate model of the external world. But ask them to explain how that material reality-to-mind-model process works, and the story gets murky. Yet, philosophers tend to over-think it, and ask how we could verify (justify) that commonsense Belief as a Positive Fact*1.

From 17th century to 20th century, your Real World certainty (faith) would have been seemed justifiable. But since Quantum Physics undermined the sub-atomic foundation of Newton's Physics, Uncertainty has become the watch-word for scientists. Please notice that this response makes no reference to gods, or scriptures, or feelings . . . . just to the modern scientific worldview. :smile:


*1. The central problem in the epistemology of perception is that of explaining how perception could give us knowledge or justified belief about an external world, about things outside of ourselves. This problem has traditionally been viewed in terms of a skeptical argument that purports to show that such knowledge and justification are impossible.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/perception-episprob/

*2. Quantum epistemology explores the philosophical implications of quantum mechanics, particularly concerning knowledge, reality, and the limits of what can be known. It grapples with the strange and counterintuitive aspects of quantum theory, like superposition and entanglement, and their impact on our understanding of the physical world and how we can know it
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=quantum+epistemology

*3. The shift from Newtonian physics to quantum mechanics brought notable differences in understanding the universe :
# Determinism versus Indeterminism : Newtonian physics proposed a deterministic universe where future behavior could be predicted with certainty if initial conditions were known. Quantum mechanics introduced indeterminism, suggesting that not all outcomes can be predicted with certainty, with particles existing in states of probability.
# Uncertainty Principle : Unlike classical mechanics, where properties like position and momentum could be measured simultaneously with high precision, the Uncertainty Principle in quantum mechanics sets a fundamental limit on how precisely certain pairs of properties can be simultaneously known. Increasing the precision of measuring one property reduces the precision of measuring its paired property.
# Nature of Reality : Classical physics assumed an objective reality independent of observation, whereas quantum mechanics suggests that observation and measurement can influence the properties of a system. Some interpretations propose that properties may not exist until measured.
# The Uncertainty Principle has philosophical implications, challenging the notion of absolute knowledge and predictability and prompting discussions about reality and causality.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=philosophy+newton+certainty+quantum+uncertainty