the counterintuitive phenomenon of "blindsight", in which patients behave as-if they see something, but report that they were not consciously aware of the object — Gnomon
Maybe you missed the link posted by "wonderer1" ... — 180 Proof

Thanks for the link. https://aeon.co/essays/how-blindsight-answers-the-hard-problem-of-consciousness

The article is interesting, and it may offer some insight as to why the Consciousness problem is "hard". The notes below are for my personal record, and may interpret the article's implications differently from yours.

The article refers to Blindsight as a "dissociation" (disconnection) between physical Perception (biological processing of energetic inputs) and metaphysical Sensation*1 (conception ; awareness) {my italics added}. And that seems to be where easy physics (empirical evidence) hands-off the baton of significance (semiotics) to hard meta-physics (non-physical ; mental ; rational ; ideal). Apparently the neural sensory networks are still working, but the transition from physical Properties to metaphysical Qualia doesn't happen*2.

Of course, my interpretation, in terms of metaphysics, may not agree with your understanding of the "phenomenon" which lacks the noumenon (perceived, but not conceived). The author suddenly realized that "Perhaps the real puzzle is not so much the absence of sensation in blindsight as its presence in normal sight?" That's the "Hard Problem" of Consciousness.

The article describes a primitive visual system that evolved prior to warm-blooded mammals, in which the cortex may represent a social context for the incoming sensations. Presumably, social animals --- perhaps including some warm-blooded dinosaurs, and their feathered descendants)*4 --- are self-conscious in addition to basic sub-conscious. The author says "I call these expressive responses that evaluate the input ‘sentition’."*5 The evaluation must be in terms of Personal Relevance. Non-social animals may not need to view themselves as "persons" to discriminate between Self and Society.

The author refers to Integrated Information Theory (IIT), which seems to assume that some high-level functions of brain processing supervene --- as a holistic synergy --- on the chemical & electrical activities of the neural net*6. As I interpret that insight, Perception is physical*7, but Conception is metaphysical*8. i.e. Holistic. System functions are different from Component functions. Some Bits of Neural data are useless & valueless (irrelevant) until organized into a holistic system of Self + Other. It puts the data into a comprehensive, more inclusive, context.

Like a cell-phone Selfie, the broad-scope perspective puts Me into the picture. Neuron sensations (data) are impersonal ; Mind feelings (qualia) are personal. Evolutionary survival is enhanced by the ability to see the Self in a broader milieu, as a member of a social group : a community*9. Feeling is a personally relevant evaluation of incoming sensations. This ability to re-present physical as personal is the root of consciousness. :smile:



Excerpts from An evolutionary approach to consciousness can resolve the ‘hard problem’ – with radical implications for animal sentience, by Nicholas Humphrey

*1. "Sensation, let’s be clear, has a different function from perception. Both are forms of mental representation : ideas generated by the brain. But they represent – they are about
– very different kinds of things. . . . It’s as if, in having sensations, we’re both registering the objective fact of stimulation and expressing our personal bodily opinion about it."
Note --- In blindsight, the objective data is being processed, but the subjective meaning is missing. Terrence Deacon defines "aboutness" as a reference to something missing, "incompleteness", a lack that needs to be filled.

*2. "The answer is for the responses to become internalised or ‘privatised’. . . . . In this way, sentition evolves to be a virtual form of bodily expression – yet still an activity that can be read to provide a mental representation of the stimulation that elicits it."
Note --- Virtual = not real ; ideal. Representation = copy, not original

*3. "In attempting to answer these questions, we’re up against the so-called ‘hard problem of consciousness’: how a physical brain could underwrite the extra-physical properties of phenomenal experience."
Note --- What he calls "extra physical" I'm calling Meta-physical, in the sense that Ideas are not Real.

*4. My daddy used to say that "chickens wake-up in a new world every day". Maybe their primitive neural systems don't register meaning in the same way as hound dogs.

*5. "To discover ‘what’s happening to me’, the animal has only to monitor ‘what I’m doing about it’. And it can do this by the simple trick of creating a copy of the command signals for the responses – an ‘efference copy’ that can be read in reverse to recreate the meaning of the stimulation."
Note --- Efference copy is a feedback loop, that adds Me to data : supervenience.

*6. "it {consciousness) involves the brain generating something like an internal text, that it interprets as being about phenomenal properties."
Note --- Terrence Deacon " . . . variously defines Reference as "aboutness" or "re-presentation," the semiotic or semantic relation between a sign-vehicle and its object." https://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/scientists/deacon/

*7. "Sensation, let’s be clear, has a different function from perception. Both are forms of mental representation : ideas generated by the brain. But they represent – they are about – very different kinds of things. Perception – which is still partly intact in blindsight – is about ‘what’s happening out there in the external world’: the apple is red; the rock is hard; the bird is singing. By contrast, sensation is more personal, it’s about ‘what’s happening to me and how I as a subject evaluate it’
Note --- In this case, "sensation" is the visceral Feeling of What Happens to yours truly.

*8. "ask yourself: what would be missing from your life if you lacked phenomenal consciousness?"
Note --- You would lack a sense of Self and self-control and ownership, which is essential for humans in complex societies.

*9. "What about man-made machines?"
Note --- Sentient machines could possibly emerge as they become dependent on social groups to outsource the satisfaction of some of their personal needs.

The Meta-management Theory of Consciousness uses the computational metaphor of cognition to provide an explanation for access consciousness, and by doing so explains some aspects of the phenomenology of consciousness. For example, it provides explanations for:

1) intentionality of consciousness - why consciousness "looks through" to first-order perceptions etc.
2) causality - that consciousness is "post-causal" - having no causal power over the event to which we are conscious, but having direct causal effect on subsequent events.
3) limited access - why we only have conscious experience associated with certain aspects of brain processing. — Malcolm Lett

I'm not competent to critique your theory, much less to "roast" it. So, I'll just mention a few other attempts at computer analogies to human sentience.

The April issue of Scientific American magazine has an article by George Musser entitled A Truly Intelligent Machine. He notes that "researchers are modeling AI on human brains". And one of their tools is modularity : mimicking the brain's organization into "expert" modules, such as language and spatio-visual, which normally function independently, but sometimes merge their outputs into the general flow of cognition. He says, "one provocative hypothesis is that consciousness is the common ground". This is a reference to Global Workspace Theory (GWT) in which specialty modules, e.g. math & language, work together to produce the meta-effect that we experience as Consciousness. Although he doesn't use the fraught term, this sounds like Holism or Systems Theory.

Musser asks, in reference to GWT computers, "could they inadvertently create sentient beings with feelings and motivations?" Then, he quotes the GWT inventor, "conscious computing is a hypothesis without a shred of evidence". In GWT, the function of Meta-management might be to integrate various channels of information into a singular perspective. When those internal sub-streams of cognition are focused on solving an external problem, we call it "Intention". And when they motivate the body to act with purpose to make real-world changes, we may call it "Causality". Some robots, with command-line Intentions and grasping hands, seem to have the autonomous power to cause changes in the world. But the ultimate goal of their actions can be traced back to a human programmer.

In 1985, computer theorist Marvin Minsky wrote The Society of Mind, postulating a collection of "components that are themselves mindless" that might work together to produce a Meta-manager (my term) that would function like human Consciousness. In his theory, their modular inputs & outputs would merge into a Stream of Consciousness (my term). Yet one book review noted that : "You have to understand that, for Minsky, explaining intelligence is meaningless if you cannot show a line of cookie crumbs leading from the 'intelligent' behavior to a set of un-intelligent processes that created it. Clearly, if you cannot do that, you have made a circular argument." {my italics}

In computer engineer/philosopher Bernardo Kastrup's 2020 book, Science Ideated, he distinguishes between "consciousness and meta-consciousness". Presumably, basic sentience is what we typically label as "sub-consciousness". He then notes that meta-C is a re-representation of subconscious elements that are directed by Awareness toward a particular question or problem. He also discusses the counterintuitive phenomenon of "blindsight", in which patients behave as-if they see something, but report that they were not consciously aware of the object. This "limited access" may indicate that a> subconscious Cognition and b> conscious Awareness are instances of a> isolated functions of particular neural modules, and b> integrated functions of the Mind/Brain system as a whole. :nerd:

The relationship of logical necessity and physical causation is a deep topic and one of interest to me. . . . .
I think where it shows up is in Wigner's unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics in the natural sciences. — Wayfarer

I have come to think of human-constructed Mathematics as our synthetic imitation of the natural Logic of the universe. By that I mean, chemistry/physics is an expression of fundamental Logic in the substance of Matter (functional organization) and the action of Energy ("physical causation"). Another way to put it is that "all Math is Geometry", where we can extend the geo-centric label to include all causal & formal inter-relationships in the entire Cosmos.

If so, then the "effectiveness" of Math, in scientific endeavors, is an indication that we humans have correctly interpreted the Logic of the universe --- "constraining affordances" --- as natural laws and mathematical ratios. Hence, our artificial "designs" (e.g. computers) are workable as information processors, even though they may not yet be literally "semantic engines" (apologies to ChatGPT). :smile:


The Logic of Information: A Theory of Philosophy as Conceptual Design
by Luciano Floridi
This is a book on the logic of design and hence on how we make, transform, refine, and improve the objects of our knowledge. The starting point is that reality provides the data, to be understood as constraining affordances, and we transform them into information, like semantic engines.
https://academic.oup.com/book/27824

Randomness & Information : inverse logical/mathematical relationship
In a statistical mechanics book, it is stated that "randomness and information are essentially the same thing," which results from the fact that a random process requires high information. . . . .
But, later it says that entropy and information are inversely related since disorder decreases with knowledge. But, this does not make sense to me. I always thought that entropy and randomness in a system were the same thing.
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/447465/understanding-entropy-information-and-randomness
Entropy & randomness are directly related; but randomness & semantics (meaning ; useful information) are inversely related.

I'm reading his Demon in the Machine at the moment, and I've been reading Deacon. But I'm still dubious that 'information' has fundamental explanatory power - because it's not a metaphysical simple. The term 'information' is polysemic - it has many meanings, depending on its context. — Wayfarer

Your ambiguity (uncertainty) about Deacon's novel notion of Information as Absence is understandable, because Shannon defined his kind of Information*1 as the presence of detectable data. The essence of his statistical definition is the Probability ratio of 0% (nothing) to 100% (something) : 0/1 or 1/0, and everything in between. So, information is like a quantum particle in that a Bit exists only as a Possibility until measured (understood). Moreover, several quantum theorists concluded that Probability (not yet real) was converted into Certainty by the evaluation of an inquiring mind. That sounds magical & mystical, but the scientists' intentions were pragmatic*2.

Deacon saw what others missed in the statistical nature of Information : Probability is nothing until Actualized somehow. But that nothingness (absence) is the metaphysical power behind all Change (causation) in the world. He referred to that invisible power as "Constitutive Absence"*3, which is the capability (force + control) to construct something from scratch. The most familiar causal power in science is labeled "Energy", and defined as the ability to do useful work. Yet the substance of that power is left undefined, because it is not a material object, but more like a metaphysical force, which is knowable only after it has done its work and moved on.

In my personal information-based thesis, I merged several of those polysemantic applications of "Information" into a single "metaphysical simple"*4 : the power to transform. Which I labeled EnFormAction to make it signify Energy + Form + Action. I'm sure that Deacon has never heard of that term, and he may not think of his Constitutive Absence as a metaphysical concept. But I think it can be used to narrow down the various meanings of Information to something like a philosophical Atom, brimming with potential causal power. :smile:


*1. What is Shannon information? :
Although the use of the word ‘information’, with different meanings, can be traced back to
antique and medieval texts (see Adriaans 2013), it is only in the 20th century that the term begins
to acquire the present-day sense. Nevertheless, the pervasiveness of the notion of information
both in our everyday life and in our scientific practice does not imply the agreement about the
content of the concept. As Luciano Floridi (2010, 2011) stresses, it is a polysemantic concept associated with different phenomena, such as communication, knowledge, reference, meaning,
truth, etc.
https://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/10911/1/What_is_Shannon_Information.pdf

*2. Information, What is It? :
Deacon addresses many of those self-referencing feedback-loop mind-bogglers in his book. But perhaps the most fundamental enigma is the ultimate “nature” of Information itself. The original usage of the term was primarily Functional, as the content of memory & meaning. Then Shannon turned his attention to the Physical aspects of data transmission. Now, Deacon has returned to the most puzzling aspect of mental function : Intentions & Actions. For example : a> how one person’s mind can convey meaning & intentions to another mind; b> how a subjective intention (Will) can result in physical changes to the objective world? How can invisible intangible immaterial (absent) ideas cause physical things to move & transform. Occultists have imagined Mind as a kind of mystical energy or life-force (Chi; psychokinesis) that can be directed outward into the world, like a laser beam, to affect people and objects. But Deacon is not interested in such fictional fantasies. Instead, he tries to walk a fine line between pragmatics & magic, or physics & metaphysics.
http://bothandblog4.enformationism.info/page26.html {click here}
Note --- Jesus told his disciples that Faith can move mountains. But his brother James explained "“Show me your faith without the works, and I will show you my faith by my works.” Today, if you want to move a mountain, it helps to make use of dynamite and earth-moving equipment : pragmatic faith.


*3. Constitutive : having the power to establish or give organized existence to something.
___Oxford Languages

*4. Metaphysical Simple : an immaterial atom ; a non-physical element ; the fundamental constituent of a complex structure

It occurs to me that maybe you could say that Deacon is trying to establish the linkage between physical and logical causation. Ran it by ChatGPT, it says that it's feasible. — Wayfarer

I had to Google "logical causation". What I found was not very enlightening*1.

Apparently, Logical Causation is what Hume said was "unprovable"*2, perhaps in the sense that a logical relationship (this ergo that) is not as objectively true as an empirical (this always follows that) demonstration. Logic can imply causation in an ideal (subjective) sense, but only physics can prove it in a real (objective) sense.

Of course, even physical "proof" is derived from limited examples. So any generalization of the proven "fact" is a logical extrapolation (subjective) from Few to All, that may or may not be true in ultimate reality. I suppose It comes down to the definitional difference between Ideal (what ought to be) and Real (what is) causation. How is linking the two realms (subjective logic and objective science) "feasible"? Isn't that where skeptics confidently challenge presumably rational conclusions with "show me the evidence"?

Do you think Deacon's "constitutive absence"*3 is the missing link between Logical truth and Empirical fact*4 regarding Abiogenesis? I'm afraid that proving a definite connection is above my pay grade, as an untrained amateur philosopher. What is ChatGPT's philosophical qualification? :grin:

*1. What is the difference between logical implication and physical causality? :
Logical implication refers to the relationship between two statements where the truth of one statement guarantees the truth of the other. Physical causality, on the other hand, refers to the relationship between events where one event is the direct cause of another event.
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/logical-implication-vs-physical-causality.1015629/

*2. Hume Causation :
Hume saw causation as a relationship between two impressions or ideas in the mind. He argued that because causation is defined by experience, any cause-and-effect relationship could be incorrect because thoughts are subjective and therefore causality cannot be proven.
https://study.com/academy/lesson/the-metaphysics-of-causation-humes-theory.html

*3. Causation by Constitutive Absence :
According to Deacon, the defining property of every living or psychic system is that its causes are conspicuously absent from the system
https://footnotes2plato.com/2012/05/23/reading-incomplete-nature-by-terrence-deacon/

*4. Causal and Constitutive explanation :
It is quite natural to explain differences or changes in causal capacities by referring to an absence of certain components or to their malfunction. . . . .
most philosophers of explanation recognize that there is an important class of non-causal explanations, although it has received much less attention. These explanations are conventionally called constitutive explanations
file:///C:/Users/johne/Downloads/Causal_and_constitutive_explanation_comp.pdf

↪Gnomon
Thank you. I shall persist with Deacon, I petered out in his polemical section contra ID, although I'm more drawn to Kastrup's analytical idealism. — Wayfarer

FWIW, I just came across the excerpt below from a reply to you on the Absential Materialism thread.

"In a marginal note of Incomplete Nature, I summarized the book as "a naturalized account for Life, Mind, Soul, Sentience, & Consciousness". But, as a practicing scientist, he seems to carefully avoid crossing the taboo line between Physics vs Metaphysics, Realism vs Idealism, and Science vs Philosophy. So, I also noted, "In order to establish the plausibility of absence-based (Metaphysical) causation, Deacon has to weed out unwarranted assumptions of Physicalism and Materialism". This straddling strategy and ontological balancing act led me to add : "The deistic inferences I'm drawing from Deacon's evidence & reasoning are precisely the one's he's trying to avoid".

I give him some slack though, because Deacon is a scientist whose specialties --- Anthropology, Biosemiotics & Neuroscience --- straddle the dividing line between Science & Philosophy and Classical & Quantum worldviews. My own Enformationism worldview also tiptoes along the same borderline . . . .

And the associated philosophical attitude of BothAnd --- neither Realism nor Idealism, but Both --- places me on the same moot margin as Deacon."

Thank you. I shall persist with Deacon, I petered out in his polemical section contra ID, although I'm more drawn to Kastrup's analytical idealism. — Wayfarer

I doubt that Deacon is a fan of Idealism, whether Analytical or Metaphysical. He's a traditional academic scientist who, following the evidence, has strayed across the taboo line between Hard Science and Soft Philosophy. Unfortunately, he hasn't published much since his 2011 book, except a few videos.

I'm still reading Kastrup's Analytical Idealism, so I'll reserve any pro or con comments for a while. My first impression, regarding The Idea of the World was that it mostly aligned with my own worldview. But it also went beyond my grasp in some areas. His defense against hardline materialistic attacks are very persuasive in most cases. :smile:

All knowledge requires belief.
— ENOAH
That's true, but the OP asks if knowledge is merely belief. Apparently, it's implying that the difference between knowing and believing is empirical verification or rational justification. And so, we argue about shades of truth. :smile: — Gnomon
I question whether all knowledge does require belief. I know how to ride a bike, plane a board, paint a picture, write a poem, play the piano and so on, and I don't see how any of that requires belief. — Janus

The examples you give are not abstract True/False beliefs, but internal mental states (memories ; representations) that we rely on to make our way in the real world. Do those representations depend on a reliable understanding (belief) of how the world works? I suppose that depends on how broadly you define "knowledge" and "belief". As I said, we philosophers argue about nit-picky shades of meaning. :smile:


To Know : to understand what something or someone truly is.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/know%20something

Did Shannon ever write or say anything about 'mental information'? And have you read the origin of how Shannon came to start using the term 'entropy' in relation to information, on the prompting of Von Neumann, who was a peer, and who said one of the advantages of using the term is because he would always win in arguments if he used it, because 'nobody knows what it means'? — Wayfarer

No, Shannon was not concerned with the metaphysical aspects of Information. He was focused on physically communicated Data, not metaphysically (semiotics, metaphors, analogies) communicated Meaning. In my post I used the "mental" term to distinguish Metaphysical from Physical forms of information. In my Enformationism thesis, I refer to Generic Information (universal power to transform) as a "Shapeshifter", taking-on many physical and metaphysical forms in the world. That notion is based, in part, on Einstein's E=MC^2 formula. In my view, Causal Energy is merely one of many forms of Generic Information (EnFormAction).

Yes, I'm aware of the "entropy" backstory. That abstruse term may be responsible for the common mis-understanding that Information is essentially random. It is instead, the Order within Chaos ; the Surprise within Randomness ; the Relevant bits within the mass of Irrelevant bytes. :smile:


von Neumann Versus Shannon Entropy :What is the difference between entropy and Shannon entropy? :
The intuition for entropy is that it is the average number of bits required to represent or transmit an event drawn from the probability distribution for the random variable. … the Shannon entropy of a distribution is the expected amount of information in an event drawn from that distribution.
https://machinelearningmastery.com/what-is-information-entropy/

The greatest degree of information is found in the most random or irrational sequences.
I find this strange and counter intuitive. — Benj96

That common mis-understanding of Information theory is indeed counterintuitive, because we know from experience that randomness is the antithesis of meaning-bearing Information. But Shannon was not claiming that random sequences are inherently meaningful. Instead, he compared mental Information to physical Entropy. And noted that it is "surprising" to find meaningful information in random patterns*1. That eye-opening distinction of meaning from background noise is what semiotician & cyberneticist Bateson called "the difference that makes a difference"*2. . The first "difference" is the Surprise, and the second is the Meaning.

According to the second law of thermodynamics, all order ultimately decays into disorder. And yet, here we stand on a tiny exception to that rule in the vast universe : the pocket of organization we call home. As far as we know, this is the only instance of Life & Mind in the universe. Ironically, some thinkers miss the exceptional nature of Information, and are still looking for communications from little green men, or the advanced race of San-Ti, out there in the near infinite crucible of random accidents. Information is not accidental. :nerd:

*1. Information is the surprising exception to common randomness :
The core idea of information theory is that the "informational value" of a communicated message depends on the degree to which the content of the message is surprising.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_(information_theory)

*2. Information as a difference :
We propose a difference theory of information that extends Gregory Bateson’s definition that information is any difference that makes a difference.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/0960085X.2019.1581441

CAN YOU SEE THE DIFFERENCE ?
Surprising Signal within Meaningless Noise

Note --- Are you familiar with Deacon's Incomplete Nature? — Gnomon
Me? I love the book. At least the half I've gotten through. — Patterner

Stick with it. Incompleteness in reading leaves an ignorance Absence. Taken as a philosophical worldview, Deacon's theory of Creative Absence is a paradigm changer. :wink:

From the little I know of Complexity and Self-organization, I think it's plausible. I don't know enough specifics to defend the theory, though. And I don't think there's one specific abiogenesis theory that's considered more likely than others? Other than various creation stories, I don't know of other types of theories. — Patterner

Yes. There have been several scientific & philosophical attempts to explain the emergence of Life from non-life*1. But so far, none has hit a home-run, and all leave some unexplained gaps, such as the emergence of Mind from mindless Matter. I have my own personal Information-based Genesis hypothesis, which is more general & philosophical than just Biogenesis. But it lacks the mythical poetry of an anthro-morphic deity speaking the world into existence, and animating dead clay. So, it's not likely to serve as the basis for a popular religion. :smile:

*1. Origin of Life, Theories of :
There are many facets to the problem of understanding life’s origin and equally many ways to address it. The origin of life can be viewed from a variety of different standpoints: information theory (Yockey, 2005), RNA replication (Eigen and Schuster, 1977), meteorite impacts (Brack, 2009), physics (Smith and Morowitz, 2016), specific chemical synthesis (Powner et al., 2009), geo- chemistry (Martin and Russell, 2003), or entropy (Russell et al., 2013), to name a few.
http://www.esalq.usp.br/lepse/imgs/conteudo_thumb/Origin-of-Life--Theories-of.pdf

LET THERE BE BIOLOGY

I’ve said this before, but I’ll try again - there’s no such thing as ‘generic information’. Information is always specific. — Wayfarer

It's true that Shannon's Information (data) is always specific, since it is used for communication engineering purposes. But Terrence Deacon is "redefining information"*1 by postulating a triad of Information types : Shannon, Boltzmann, & Darwin. You can think of them as Pragmatic Engineering, Thermodynamic, & Biological functions. However, I use the term "Generic Information" to mean something like the source (generator) of all Forms (everything physical & biological & mental) in the world.

Hence, my Generic Information is fundamental, in the sense of John A. Wheeler's "It from Bit" hypothesis*2, based on Quantum Uncertainty (coin flip). When applied to biological Natural Selection, the semi-random Bit-flip is a gamble that decides the direction of Evolution. But it's a "choice" with a physical memory : material forms. And the material record indicates that the "coin" may be weighted with a tendency toward Complexity & Consciousness. :nerd:


*1. Redefining Information :
Beginning from the base established by Claude Shannon, which otherwise ignores
issues of content, reference, and evaluation, this two part essay explores its
relationship to two other higher-order theories that are also explicitly based on an
analysis of absence: Boltzmann’s theory of thermodynamic entropy (in Part 1)
and Darwin’s theory of natural selection (in Part 2). ___Terrence Deacon
https://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/scientists/deacon/Deacon_Redefining_II.pdf

*2. It from Bit Koan :
Wheeler has condensed these ideas into a phrase that resembles a Zen koan: “the it from bit.” In one of his free-form essays, Wheeler unpacks the phrase as follows: “...every it--every particle, every field of force, even the spacetime continuum itself--derives its function, its meaning, its very existence entirely--even if in some contexts indirectly--from the apparatus-elicited answers to yes-or-no questions, binary choices, bits.” ___John Horgan
https://johnhorgan.org/cross-check/physicist-john-wheeler-and-the-it-from-bit

I read Kastrup’s essay as directly challenging the kind of ‘information realism’ that you seem to be advocating. — Wayfarer

I had never heard the term Information Realism before reading Science Ideated. Kastrup does indeed challenge Tegmark's Mathematical Universe hypothesis. But that's only a small part of what I'm "advocating". I can see that Mathematics is the Logic of reality. But EnFormAction is also postulated as the creative Causal Force of reality.

Kastrup's alternative worldview is Analytical Idealism, which may also be a small part of my more inclusive worldview of Enformationism. As Floridi says, Information can be viewed both analytically and metaphysically. So, while I can accept each of those partial theories of Information, I am not personally advocating any but my own little amateur Theory of Everything. :grin:


*3. Philosophy of Information :
PI may be approached in two ways, one analytical and the other metaphysical. The chapter ends with the suggestion that PI might be considered a new kind of first philosophy. ___Luciano Floridi
https://academic.oup.com/book/32518/chapter-abstract/270223494?redirectedFrom=fulltext

Gnever mind. I should have gnown better than to engage with gnarcissistic gnonsense. — wonderer1
Gnow gnow. — Patterner

I'm not sure what ticked off, but I suspect he doesn't appreciate my references to fundamental Information, and other sub-physical notions that might have something to do with the emergence of Life from abiotic Matter. Apparently he can't make sense of my immaterial "gnon-sense". But, if Abiogenesis was a sensible thing, you'd think it would already be accepted as a physical fact, instead of a philosophical theory.

I do use some concepts from Quantum Physics that are literally non-sense. For example, the hypothetical Quantum Field is not something you could perceive with your 5 physical senses. Although undetectable by senses or instruments, physicists assume that their imaginary mathematical grid must be real, because they have no better idea for the source of physical Energy (e.g. vacuum energy). I do postulate that Life is a form of Energy, which is a local form of universal Enformation (power to transform).

In a related topic, I just read about the novel notion of Information Realism in Bernardo Kastrup's Science Ideated. He attributes that worldview to mathematical physicist Max Tegmark, who claimed "matter is done away with and only information itself is taken to be ultimately real". The term "Information Realism" is also connected to Yale philosopher of Information Luciano Floridi. Who admitted that "information remains an elusive concept", hence it can easily be dismissed by materialists as "non-sense".

Since philosophers manipulate Concepts instead of Matter, most of their speculations are literally non-sense, and can only make "sense" via rational inference instead of physical perception. Do you think the explanation for Abiogenesis will necessarily conform to the current dominant scientific worldview of Materialism? :nerd:


Information Realism? :
Physicists love to play the philosopher, and when they do the result is often nonsense. A recent example is the so-called information realism of physicist Max Tegmark. Here is the gist of it:

. . . according to information realists, matter arises from information processing, not the other way around. Even mind—psyche, soul—is supposedly a derivative phenomenon of purely abstract information manipulation.

When I read this, I said to myself, "I will have no trouble blowing this nonsense out of the water." Reading on, however, I noted that the author of the Scientific American piece, Bernardo Kastrup, did exactly that.
https://maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/maverick_philosopher/2020/02/information-realism.html
Note --- Ironically, Kastrup's alternative to Information Realism is Analytical Idealism. Which the Maverick Philosopher might also characterize as "nonsense". But the Information Philosopher might beg to differ :

The Information Philosopher has established that quantum mechanics and thermodynamics play a central role in the creation of all things. This finding has enormous implications for philosophy and metaphysics.
https://www.informationphilosopher.com/introduction/

Terrence Deacon on Abiogenesis :
The major transition from the nonliving to the living - the problem of abiogenesis, and the introduction of telos in the universe - happens in Deacon's third level.
https://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/scientists/deacon/
Note --- Are you familiar with Deacon's Incomplete Nature?

All knowledge requires belief. — ENOAH

That's true, but the OP asks if knowledge is merely belief. Apparently, it's implying that the difference between knowing and believing is empirical verification or rational justification. And so, we argue about shades of truth. :smile:

Knowing Facts :
knowledge requires belief
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epistemology/

Gnever mind. I should have gnown better than to engage with gnarcissistic gnonsense. — wonderer1

Speaking of literal non-sense. How do you define Time, apart from metaphysical Measurement by a Mind?

Time has no physical properties to measure.
https://www.nist.gov/how-do-you-measure-it/how-do-you-measure-second

Yes, but, "could" is counterfactual. Are you aware of instances of Life & Mind anywhere except on the third rock from the sun? :wink: — Gnomon
I'm only saying there is a source of energy that can account for the energy that would be needed to decrease the entropy, if that's what happened. — Patterner

Yes, but what is the source of organic Biogenesis (Negentropy ; Enformy) on all the other "rocks" in the system?

Pure Energy alone is neither positive (+) nor negative (-), neither constructive nor destructive --- just the Potential for directionless desultory Change. Entropy is how science defines dissipative change. So, we need a new positive term (Enformy?) to designate beneficial, organic, accumulative, directional, or determined changes : the power to transform Old to New, Past to Future, Dead to Life : opposite to the entropic Arrow of Time. :wink:


Negentropy is used to explain the presence of “order” within living beings and their tendency to oppose the chaos and disorganization that governs physical systems.
https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation?paperid=99336

Desultory : lacking a plan, purpose

Entropic :a thermodynamic quantity representing the unavailability of a system's thermal energy for conversion into mechanical work, often interpreted as the degree of disorder or randomness in the system.

Organic : having systematic coordination of parts : organized. an organic whole

Do you think that no radioactive isotopes that were in the rock at the time of the rock's fomation have decayed? — wonderer1

Unobserved Change is not Time. I think you missed the point of the "red rock" example. The dry river bed is evidence of physical Change in the environment over eons of Time. But, even internal sub-atomic changes would be irrelevant to an insentient rock, presumably lacking both the cognitive power of Interoception, and the ability to measure differences. Time is a measurement. :joke:


Interoception — your brain's representation of sensations from your own body
https://www.psychologicalscience.org/observer/interoception-how-we-understand-our-bodys-inner-sensations

Note --- Planet Earth is the primary example of Negative Entropy in the universe, where Life & Mind have emerged against all odds (second law of thermodynamics). — Gnomon
I would suggest the system is the solar system, not just the Earth. The energy from the sun could have powered the increase in order. — Patterner

Yes, but, "could" is counterfactual. Are you aware of instances of Life & Mind anywhere except on the third rock from the sun? :wink:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

COMPLEMENTARITY OF POSITIVE & NEGATIVE

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

EVOLUTIONARY EMERGENCE due to sequential trans-form-actions :

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

Who you callin a fool, fool? :joke:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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