↪Gnomon
The article you mention is by Marcello Barbieri - in my reading of biosemiotics, solely due to Apokrisis (to give credit where it's due) I've learned that Barbieri resigned as editor of the journal Biosemiotics, because he felt that it had become too philosophical and influenced by Peirce. He has initiated what he considers a new approach which he calls 'code biology', that, he says, is more concentrated on the science, less on the philosophy (I think Apokrisis would probably disagree but I'll leave that to him). There's a useful intro to his approach here What is information? (different from your own use of the term). He also wrote a history of the subject that I found useful - like, who's who in the zoo. — Wayfarer

Thanks for that information. :joke:

Barbieri's interest in Information is for its role in Biology. Whereas my focus is on its multifunction roles in Ontology, Epistemology, Physics & Psychology*1. But the article does provide some useful info on how specific applications of the General Information concept can be perceived as A> "too philosophical" or B> "too scientific", depending on the interests of the observer.

Apparently, prefers to err in the direction of B. Which may explain his disdain for my more A approach. He'll probably disagree with that explanatory dichotomy, though. That's because he & I seem to make the "epistemic cut" in different places : current state vs original state, or matter vs mind, or code vs cause. But that's OK. Narrowly-focused Biosemiology is probably closer to becoming a hard science, than my own wide-angle philosophical musings. :smile:

*1. Information : What is it?
Originally, the word “information” referred to the meaningful software contents of a mind, which were assumed to be only loosely shaped by the physical container : the hardware brain. But in the 20th century, the focus of Information theory has been on its material form as changes in copper wires & silicon circuits & neural networks. Now, Terrence Deacon’s book about the Causal Power of Absence requires another reinterpretation of the role of Information in the world. He quotes philosopher John Collier, “The great tragedy of formal information theory [Shannon] is that its very expressive power is gained through abstraction away from the very thing that it has been designed to describe.” Claude Shannon’s Information is functional, but not meaningful. So now, Deacon turns the spotlight on the message rather than the medium.
http://bothandblog4.enformationism.info/page26.html

I haven't noticed this. I've mostly noticed discussions about epistemology and metaphysics mostly. We seem to keep coming back to what it is we can say about knowledge/truth/reality and how we can know it. In the end most discussions or arguments hinge upon these matters as the fundamental building blocks for anything else we may go on to say about morality, science, the transcendent. — Tom Storm

A wise insight! :up:

Unfortunately, some of us posters --- for the purpose of winning arguments --- sub-divide our ontological fundamental blocks of knowing & thinking into socially-determined (political or religious) fundamental beliefs. Which opens a trap door for endless mis-understanding. :sad:

The epistemic cut is simply that between knower and known, organism and environment and symbol v what is symbolised. — Wayfarer

Thanks. Your post clarified that -- to me -- unfamiliar concept : how to divide Monistic (holistic) Ontology into a Dualistic (reductive) Worldview : philosophy into science.

You may also be able to help me understand why is applying the notion of physically encoded Biosemiotics to mentally aware Consciousness. He seems to believe that it is a hard science, instead of a soft philosophy*1. We now know that the phenomenon of biological Life is dependent on biological codes, mostly in the form of DNA. But DNA itself is merely a stringy chemical. The code/symbol part is an idea in a human mind. So how could a code or symbol have any physical effect on the emergence of Life & Mind, in a universe of Physics & Chemistry, long before Biology & Psychology?

My interest in Biosemiotics is limited to its possible relationship to my own philosophical notion of Enformationism. A code is an abstract form of Information (SOS = . . . - - - . . . ), that when socially conventionalized, can convey meaning to a mind. But, how a notional code can have the physical effect of animating raw matter into biology, seems to be equivalent to Chalmer's "hard problem" of how raw matter can be enlightened into psychology (awareness). Am I missing something here? The mystery is in the transformation (transubstantiation?) of Material Substance into ethereal Life & Mind : both not tangible things but tenuous processes. That enigma is the motivation for my theory of metamorphizing Encoded Energy (EnFormAction).

Claude Shannon introduced the notion that meaningful Information results from the expenditure of causal Energy into voided Entropy. So, I'm trying to somehow fit the physical notion of Life Codes (Biosemiotics) into the metaphysical concept of Mind Codes (Information). The two should be connected, but the Body/Mind transition point seems to be related to the location of the Epistemic Cut. :smile:


*1. Biosemiotics is the idea that life is based on semiosis, i.e., on signs and codes. This idea has been strongly suggested by the discovery of the genetic code, but so far it has made little impact in the scientific world and is largely regarded as a philosophy rather than a science.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18365164/

What are your thoughts on the idea that most discussion for the second category are by and large unproductive by their very nature vs the first category? — Spencer Thurgood

I agree that much of the posting on metaphysical topics soon devolves into polarized Polemics instead of dispassionate Philosophy. The arguments may not convince anyone, but they do tend to offer challenges to personal presumptions. Such exercise may contribute to knowing thyself. :smile:

What he's calling 'an epistemic problem' is actually the metaphysical problem of appearance ('world image') and reality ('what we call the real world'). So I don't see that as 'resolving' the idealist-realist distinction. — Wayfarer

Thanks for stepping-in there. Your explanation makes more sense to me than the "epistemic cut" notion. For someone with no formal training in Philosophy or Biosemiotics, such jargon is way over my pointy little head. :smile:

Do you have any evidence for Chalmers being a neurologist? — wonderer1

Sorry. Perhaps I mis-spoke. What do you call a "neural scientist" if not a "neurologist"? A "neuroscientist"? I didn't mean to imply that he is an MD. Apparently, he's merely a Ph.D. :smile:

David Chalmers :
He is a professor of philosophy and neural science at New York University, as well as co-director of NYU's Center for Mind, Brain and Consciousness
https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › David_Chalmers

I won’t be much help, and this because I so far find this very quoted affirmation to be nonsensical. Bio-semiotics is the semiotics of life – it addresses the meaning transference of lifeforms and all this entails. To apply biosemiotics to a former cosmos devoid of life from which life emerged will either necessitate a panpsychistic cosmos by default or, else, again, it will make no sense: — javra

I agree that Biosemiotics is a theory of living things, not thinking things. So, I don't understand why sarcastically replied that "You did a splendid job of misrepresenting what biosemiosis claims". His alternate explanation is way over my head : "Simply put, semiotics resolves the antique dilemma of realism vs idealism by inserting the epistemic cut of the “sign” between the world and its interpretation".

The notion of an "epistemic cut" is not included in my everyday vocabulary. And I am not educated in Postmodern linguistic analysis, so the quote below*1 just sounds like gobbledygook to me. I asked apo to dumb it down for us un-indoctrinated dummies, but he seems to think it's beneath his dignity to stoop that low. Terrence Deacon's use of semiotics*2 seems to be limited to the recent biological phases of evolution, not to a "primeval epistemic cut". And I find his language much easier for a layman to grasp. Is the "epistemic cut" a case of circular reasoning, or of cutting Nature at imaginary joints? :smile:




*1. The Physics of Symbols: Bridging the Epistemic Cut :
Evolution requires the genotype-phenotype distinction, a primeval epistemic cut that separates energy-degenerate, rate-independent genetic symbols from the rate-dependent dynamics of construction that they control. This symbol-matter or subject-object distinction occurs at all higher levels where symbols are related to a referent by an arbitrary code.
https://casci.binghamton.edu/publications/pattee/pattee.html

*2. How Molecules Became Signs :
These molecules are not the source of biological information but are instead semiotic artifacts onto which dynamical functional constraints have been progressively offloaded during the course of evolution. ___Terrence Deacon
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12304-021-09453-9

Yes. Exactly. Science needs materialism to work. Are there aspects of life where a materialist view is not helpful? — T Clark

Yes. Materialism is not helpful for dealing with the philosophy of mind*1. That's why David Chalmers, a professional Neurologist, calls the metaphysics of Mind : "the hard problem". The philosophy of Panpsychism is all about aboutness*2. :smile:


*1. Materialism in the philosophy of mind :
Materialism – which, for almost all purposes, is the same as physicalism – is the theory that everything that exists is material. Natural science shows that most things are intelligible in material terms, but mind presents problems in at least two ways. The first is consciousness, as found in the ‘raw feel’ of subjective experience. The second is the intentionality of thought, which is the property of being about something beyond itself; ‘aboutness’ seems not to be a physical relation in the ordinary sense.
https://www.rep.routledge.com/articles/thematic/materialism-in-the-philosophy-of-mind/v-1

*2. Incomplete Nature: How Mind Emerged from Matter is a 2011 book by biological anthropologist Terrence Deacon. The book covers topics in biosemiotics, philosophy of mind, and the origins of life. Broadly, the book seeks to naturalistically explain "aboutness", that is, concepts like intentionality, meaning, normativity, purpose, and function; which Deacon groups together and labels as ententional phenomena.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incomplete_Nature

If that's true, they are metaphysics - ways of looking at the world. The question to ask is whether or not they are useful ways. — T Clark

Yes. But useful for what purpose?

The materialists on this forum appear to be only interested in physical scientific uses : e.g. can we build artificial intelligence into computers? However, the panpsychists seem to be focused on metaphysical philosophical purposes : e.g. can we understand the relationship between the real world of physics and the ideal world of metaphysics?

For the purposes of this forum, do you prefer impersonal mechanistic objectives, or personal meaningful motives? Is that a fair question? Some posters are clear about their preferences. But you seem to be somewhat ambivalent about siding with Science or Philosophy or Both. Perhaps that's a sign of an open mind? And I applaud the open-door policy. At least it leaves the door ajar for exchanges of views : "ways of looking at the world" :smile:

Each one of these primitive mind endowed (and, hence, awareness endowed) cells is constituted of organic molecules – some of which which have been empirically evidenced to exhibit at least some QM properties. — javra

You seem to be more familiar with Biology than with Quantum Physics*1. If so, you may be able to enlighten me about Biosemiotics (BS). Which has been proposed as an alternative to Panpsychism (PP) as a mechanism for the emergence of Mind from Matter. doesn't seem to be willing to engage with an infidel (unbeliever in Materialism) to explain some of the technical jargon he uses in his posts. My interest in BS is simply that the semiotic (symbolic) aspects of the BS theory may be related to the Information Theory that I am better aquainted with. But some of the language sounds like Postmodern linguistic analysis*2 that is opaque to my simple mind. Does BS tell us anything new & important about Biology in general, or about the symbol manipulating Mind?

Although It's clear to me that the Potential for Mental Phenomena (sensation ; psychology ; awareness ; knowledge, etc) must have been inherent in Nature from the beginning, my understanding of Information Theory tells me that the "primitive mind" wouldn't necessarily be Conscious or Aware. Instead, it could have begun as nothing more sophisticated than exchanges of Energy, which are meaningless abstract interrelationships. Yet the human brain seems to be capable of processing & integrating perceived-information-structures/patterns into personally relevant meanings. Those private subjective meanings are what I would call "awareness". Anyway, that's the hypothesis I'm working on. :smile:


*1. Quantum biology at the cellular level :
Quantum biology is emerging as a new field at the intersection between fundamental physics and biology, promising novel insights into the nature and origin of biological order.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23470561/

*2. Postmodernist Writing :
I think most Postmodernist writing can be classified into these categories: ... Much of analytic philosophy is so abstruse and hermetically sealed that it too becomes an exercise in obscurantism. Where the style of thought diminishes content.
http://socialdemocracy21stcentury.blogspot.com/2015/02/nonsense-and-postmodernist-writing.html

You cut and paste all this stuff you don’t understand. That is why you can’t follow an informed discussion about it. — apokrisis

Sorry to have bothered you with dumb questions about an esoteric topic. I guess Biosemiotics is not for the uninformed general public. Are you reserving that secret information for only the cognoscenti? :joke:

↪Gnomon
You questions were incoherent:smile: . — apokrisis

Apo, I could say the same about the quote from your post. But I didn't want to be crass. :joke:

I was simply asking for clarification of unfamiliar jargon and technical idioms. Is that so hard? :smile:

Together those processes make up the mind. Is it real? Yes. Is it physical - good question. What kind of a thing is it? I'm not sure, but I do believe it is a manifestation of physical, biological, neurological processes. — T Clark

I didn't think you were an expert on the philosophy of monistic Panpsychism; neither am I. But you seem to have a negative opinion of it. Others on this forum openly label such immaterial notions as "woo". It is obviously contrary to the fundamental axiom*1 of monistic Materialism. And it may seem contradict another basic assumption of Naturalism : "nothing supernatural"*2. Both of those positions are presumptions, not conclusions from the empirical scientific method.

Ironically, some supporters of the Ppsyche idea are professional scientists (see my post above). Yet they will admit it's not an objective empirical observation, but a merely philosophical conjecture*3 from personal experience with the immaterial (i.e. mathematical) non-classical non-mechanical sub-atomic nature of the foundations of Reality. So, that raises the question : Is the Universal Mind Conjecture a plausible/tenable/rational philosophical (not scientific) inference/hunch/hypothesis (e.g. from quantum evidence) to explain the emergence of mental phenomena late in the evolution of material phenomena. If so, why or why not? I have an ulterior, but not nefarious, motive for soliciting your unbiased opinion.

My understanding of the traditional & modern Universal Mind theories is also superficial. As they used to say, "all I know is what I read in the papers"(e.g. Wiki). I'm not a member of any group of believers. But, as I understand it, the Cosmic Mind concept assumes that the quality of Consciousness (summarized as Mind) is prior to quantitative Matter. Hence, the material objects we know via the 5 senses, are manifestations of some loosely-defined mind-like power inherent in the universe. Some may think of that universal power as an eternal consciousness (e.g. Brahma). But others may be content to think of it as simply an impersonal primordial Principle of some kind : Logos. All cosmic conjectures are, of course, non-empirical, hence objectively unprovable.

Are you familiar with 21st century Information Theory? My own Information-centric view is similar to Ppsyche in some ways, except that the ultimate Principle (EnFormAction/Directed Energy) is not defined as a conscious Mind, but more like an evolutionary computer program. It's also limited to our best understanding of foundational sub-atomic Physics, plus observed evidence of astronomical evolution, and interpreted in terms of Information Theory. No reference to traditional or biblical or shamanic sources.

So, Enformationism is intended to be more specific in its definitions, and attempts to adhere more closely to current scientific knowledge. It also avoids putting words in the mouth of the Unknown God/Principle (e.g. thou shalt/shalt not). Instead, the "book of nature" (e.g. Laws of Physics) is the only Word (Logos) of the hypothetical Programmer. I know, it's a bit much to grok. But, does that kind of conjecture sound any more plausible/tenable, to you, than traditional Panpsychism? Yes, no, maybe? :smile:

*1. Is materialism an axiom or a metaphysical belief?
On this understanding, materialism is a metaphysical belief. It is unclear, however, whether we can consider it an axiom
https://www.quora.com/Is-materialism-an-axiom-or-a-metaphysical-belief

*2. Naturalism Is Not an Axiom of the Sciences but a Conclusion of Them :
the sciences have de facto conceded ontological naturalism: supernaturalist belief systems simply aren’t tenable anymore
https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/16193

*3. Philosophical Conjecture :
In scientific philosophy, Karl Popper pioneered the use of the term "conjecture" to indicate a statement which is presumed to be real, true, or genuine, mostly based on inconclusive grounds, in contrast with a hypothesis (hence theory, axiom, principle), which is a testable statement based on accepted grounds.
https://psychology.fandom.com/wiki/Conjecture

The less woo understanding of this Bayesianism is that the human measurer can construct the mechanical constraints on a prepared quantum system so as to decohere it to the degree it answers to a classical counterfactual description. — apokrisis

The quoted sentence above, sounds pretty technical (abstruse). Can you deconstruct it for someone not familiar with Biosemiotic jargon? Does it deny that the observer of a quantum experiment can influence, but not control, its outcome? Is Biosemiotics derived from a metaphysical Materialism worldview? Hence, avoiding the "woo" label, signifying non-sense? Do you think that Wheeler meant to imply a mind-over-matter form of magic?

Are you implying that Wheeler's Participatory Realism is more woo than Biosemiotics? Does PR sound like "anti-realism" to you? What does Biosemiosis mean for a human "construct" like Participatory Realism? The meaning of that phrase is simple enough : biological humans play a role in the construction of their own personal mental model of reality. And Bayesianism is about private subjective first-person beliefs (models), not about ding an sich reality. Third-person objective models of reality (science facts) are based on a consensus drawn from among various first person models (opinions). But it's still a mental map, not the physical terrain. :smile:


On Participatory Realism :
These views have lately been termed "participatory realism" to emphasize that rather than relinquishing the idea of reality (as they are often accused of), they are saying that reality is more than any third-person perspective can capture. Thus, far from instances of instrumentalism or antirealism, these views of quantum theory should be regarded as attempts to make a deep statement about the nature of reality. This paper explicates the idea for the case of QBism. As well, it highlights the influence of John Wheeler's "law without law" on QBism's formulation.
https://arxiv.org/abs/1601.04360

Instrumentalism is thus the view that scientific theories should be thought of primarily as tools for solving practical problems rather than as meaningful descriptions of the natural world.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/instrumentalism

Anti-Realism : in philosophy, a belief that is opposed to realism (= the belief that objects continue to exist even when no one is there to see them):
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/anti-realism

This goes out to those who are not irreducibly fixated on the unquestionable reality of their own particular worldview, whatever it might be (if any). — javra

Coincidentally, I just came across a YouTube video, by Sabine Hossenfelder, on the topic of "why the universe is not locally real". After a quick Google, I found that it's a hot topic right now, because of the recent Nobel winners. Quantum physics should give those who are "irreducibly fixated" pause to question their assumptions about their own local Reality. To quote an old TV ad : "Is it real, or is it Memorex?" :smile:

Why No Portals?
Universe is not locally real
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpkgPJo_z6Y

The Universe Is Not Locally Real, and the Physics Nobel Prize Winners Proved It
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-universe-is-not-locally-real-and-the-physics-nobel-prize-winners-proved-it/

Then: Properly speaking, would you interpret panpsychism thus understood to be an ontological monism or an ontological, non-Cartesian dualism? — javra

Depends on how you look at it. :joke:

Empirical science ignored the mental aspects of reality for centuries, because it was associated with Souls, Spirits, and Ghosts. But now, quantum scientists are forced to deal with the effects of observation on the foundations of reality. I'm not aware of any results of that new insight that could be called "practical magic".

Except, of course, for the ability to transform immaterial information into physical matter & energy*1. But the science of "virtual reality" certainly gives philosophers something to think about. Quantum Bayesianism is one way of looking at how personal beliefs & expectations can affect the models of Reality that we construct. For theoretical philosophy though, I see many possibilities for making sense of a non-classical non-mechanical world, where ideas are either a dime a dozen, or the substance of human culture.

For me, the Statistical Holism of quantum entanglement is not a sign of divine perversion (e.g. trickster god). But it does put ancient holistic models into a new light. Seems like it could be interpreted as Ontological Monism. But from another angle, we've intuited for millennia that reality is a mind/body Substance Dualism of some sort. Personally, I have interpreted this New Science in terms of Quantum & Information theories : evolutionary EnFormAction*2 and ontological Enformationism*3. :smile:



1. Elemental Information Hypothesis :
Several philosophers and scientists have concluded from implications of Quantum Theory, Information Theory, and Computer Simulations that mathematical-mental Information is the elemental substance of reality underlying the Space-Time-Matter-Energy we observe on the macro level of human perception and in classical physics.
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/article/is-information-fundamental/
https://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page23.html
Note -- "Physicists in Japan have shown experimentally that a particle can be made to do work simply by receiving information, rather than energy".
https://physicsworld.com/a/information-converted-to-energy/

*2. The EnFormAction Hypothesis :
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. Darwinian Evolution is going nowhere, but EnFormAction is going out-there.
https://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page23.html

*3. What is Information? :
The Enformationism thesis and the BothAnd Blog are based on a multi-level understanding of the phenomenon known as “Information”. Unfortunately, most people have only a vague or general concept of what the term means scientifically and philosophically. So, in answer to a request for a general definition, as it “pertains to inorganic (physical), organic (biological), and semantic types of information”, I have defined “Information” in the context of various real-world instances of ubiquitous enforming power.
https://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page16.html

Seems to me you, or the author you're discussing, is trying a bit of flashy rhetorical footwork by misrepresenting the ideas of people you disagree with. — T Clark

You seem to be a level-headed fellow. So, I was concerned that you interpreted my brief sketches of three competing worldviews as "mis-representing" the ideas of those who hold such views. It was not intended as a put-down, but as a way to distinguish the philosophically pertinent differences between them. If you are willing, I'd like to hear your own compare & contrast between monistic Materialism and monistic Panpsychism. For example, here's what I said in the post above :

"Apparently, monistic Materialism solves the origin problem by denying that it is a problem : consciousness is not real, but ideal : a figment of imagination, so it literally does not matter. Dualism just accepts that we tend to think of Mind & Matter as two completely different things, and never the twain shall meet : hyle + morph = real matter + ideal form. Monistic Panpsychism assumes that Matter is an illusion generated by the inherent mental processes of nature (a priori Cosmic Consciousness), hence matter does not matter."

You admitted to being a Materialist, depending on circumstances ; and I admitted to being a Materialist, for all practical purposes. But I suspect that you assumed I was prejudiced in favor of spooky Panexperientialism. So, I confessed that I am not a panpsychist in any formal sense. And I don't believe that grains of sand are conscious. Besides, I have never been a hippie or Hindu, and I don't personally know anyone who admits openly to being a Panpsychist, except for a few scientists & philosophers whose books I have read. Yet, ancient Cosmic Mind theories do seem to be prescient of modern non-mechanical post-classical physics.

To clarify where I'm coming from, I'll note that I have been steered away from conventional Materialism by the elementary physics of 20th century Quantum Theory. The QT pioneers were shocked to discover that the fundamental indivisible Atom they were seeking seemed to fracture into a menagerie of sub-atomic particles. Eventually, even the evanescent sub-sub-particles (e.g. Quarks) soon dissolved into nothing more substantial than uncertain statistical equations*1. So, the mathematical physicists began to describe their new Reality in terms of a Quantum Field of "virtual particles", that only become real when observed by experimenters*2. That's not magic, it's physics.

Any effect of the observer's mind upon material reality was, of course, quite controversial for those steeped in classical mechanical physics. But, after a century of debate, the flame-wars have calmed-down. So, QFT now seems to be almost mainstream*3. Today, some quantum physicists and mathematicians (noted in post above) openly admit to some form of Panpsychism worldview. However, my personal view has little to do with that ancient Cosmic Mind concept. Instead, it's a combination of Quantum & Information theories, as advocated by physicist Paul Davies, and the Santa Fe Institute for the study of complexity, for example.

I just started reading a book, by mathematical physicist Charles Pinter. And the subtitle says : "How the Mind creates the features & structure of all things, and why this Insight transforms Physics". It mentions Quantum Bayesianism*4, which I was only vaguely familiar with. Perhaps, a glance at the excerpt below will give you an idea of the 21st century notion that Mind is fundamental to reality, not an incidental side-effect of random evolution. I mention all of this abstruse & esoteric stuff, just to let you know that I'm not an anti-science nut-case spouting hippie non-sense. :smile:


*1. A quark is a type of elementary particle and a fundamental constituent of matter. Quarks ... which means they are fermions according to the spin–statistics theorem.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quark

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

*3. Quantum field theory,a framework for explaining how subatomic particles behave, ... Mathematician Seeks to Bring Quantum Field Theory into Mainstream Math
https://bfl.cns.utexas.edu › news › mathematician-seeks-t...

*4. Quantum Bayesianism :
In physics and the philosophy of physics, quantum Bayesianism is a collection of related approaches to the interpretation of quantum mechanics, of which the most prominent is QBism (pronounced "cubism"). QBism is an interpretation that takes an agent's actions and experiences as the central concerns of the theory. QBism deals with common questions in the interpretation of quantum theory about the nature of wavefunction superposition, quantum measurement, and entanglement. According to QBism, many, but not all, aspects of the quantum formalism are subjective in nature. For example, in this interpretation, a quantum state is not an element of reality—instead it represents the degrees of belief an agent has about the possible outcomes of measurements. For this reason, some philosophers of science have deemed QBism a form of anti-realism. The originators of the interpretation disagree with this characterization, proposing instead that the theory more properly aligns with a kind of realism they call "participatory realism", wherein reality consists of more than can be captured by any putative third-person account of it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_Bayesianism
Note --- QBism expands upon the notion of "participatory realism", that quantum physicist John A. Wheeler postulated back in the '60s. From the perspective of Materialism, it may sound like anti-realism.

You might consider me a materialist, depending on the time of day and the weather. I'm certainly not a dualist or a panpsychist. There is nothing in materialism that requires belief that the mind is not real. I certainly believe it is and I believe it matters. Seems to me you, or the author you're discussing, is trying a bit of flashy rhetorical footwork by misrepresenting the ideas of people you disagree with. — T Clark

I'm not trying to misrepresent anyone's beliefs. Just to be descriptive of a pertinent contrasting interpretation of the Materialistic belief system*1, in a thread on the topic of the ontological status of Mind. Besides, some of the matter-first Materialists on this forum do mis-represent the beliefs of mind-first Panpsychists as primitive, superstitious, and gullible. But they are just trying to show the superiority of their own modern & scientific worldview over ancient spooky-woo. This, despite some scientific evidence to support a mind-first view.

Personally, I'm not a Panpsychist, in any formal sense. So, I don't have a dog in the race between true believers on both sides. As I've stated before : for all practical purposes, I am a Materialist; but for philosophical reasons, I am an Idealist. So, I agree with you : ideas matter, but not literally. :smile:

*1. Does eliminative materialism regard consciousness as an illusion? :
There is a relatively new position in philosophy of mind called illusionism.
https://www.quora.com/Does-eliminative-materialism-regard-consciousness-as-an-illusion

Eliminative materialism (or eliminativism) is the radical claim that our ordinary, common-sense understanding of the mind is deeply wrong and that some or all of the mental states posited by common-sense do not actually exist.
https://plato.stanford.edu/Archives/Win2005/entries/materialism-eliminative/

In what conceivable way is panpsychism not a reclothing (i.e., re-branding or re-veiling) of the quite ancient and, back then, basically ubiquitous notion of animism?

In other words, what can possibly be rationally different between panpsychism and animism as metaphysical understandings of reality? — javra

Materialists will dismiss both Panpsychism and Animism as primitive religious superstitions. But the 21st century quantum physicists (see my post above), who openly admit to accepting Universal Mind as a valid philosophical interpretation of their empirical work, cannot be described as "primitive" or "superstitious". Yet, more conventional scientists will still interpret the evidence in terms of their matter-is-fundamental Naturalistic worldview*1. And that's OK, for scientific purposes. Yet, for philosophical purposes, that view has an explanatory gap at the inception of Matter itself.

I do think of the ancient writings about universal Mind as prescient-but-primitive guesses about how mental phenomena could emerge from material substrates. Quantum Physics is not as definitive about such enigmatic questions, but it does point in the same direction : Mental Potential is intrinsic in the universe, but emerges in stages ; as postulated several thousand years ago in Hindu philosophy*2.

Likewise, instead of presuming that essential Potential was fully-formed into Consciousness at the beginning, some 21st century thinkers interpret that power-to-evolve-both-matter-&-minds in terms of both Evolutionary Theory and Information Theory*3. The same essential "stuff" animates Matter and informs Brains. From that non-mainstream perspective, the potential to change Possibility to Actuality, Inanimate to Animate, and Neurons to Awareness, is closer to our modern notion of causal Energy, than to fully-evolved homo sapiens Consciousness. :smile:

To Inform : implies the imparting of knowledge https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/inform
Note --- Knowledge presumes Consciousness

*1. Why Panpsychism Is Probably Wrong :
Perhaps phenomenal properties, or ‘proto-phenomenal’ precursors of them, are the fundamental intrinsic properties of matter we’re looking for, and each subatomic particle is a tiny conscious subject. This solves the hard problem: brain and consciousness emerge together when billions of basic particles are assembled in the right way.
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/09/panpsychism-is-wrong/500774/

*2. Hindu Mind Evolves :
In this theory, mind is an emergent entity, but this emergence requires the presence of the Self. The mind may be viewed to be constituted by five basic components: manas, ahamkara, citta, buddhi and atman, which cannot be reduced to gross elements. Manas is the lower mind which collects sense impressions.
https://swarajyamag.com/culture/understanding-the-vedic-model-of-the-mind

*3. Is energy a form of information? :
Information is a distinct form of energy, just as electricity, magnetism, steam, nuclear, or solar radiation are also alternate forms of energy. To illustrate this, consider that information behaves similarly to other energy types. Many physicists agree that information is conserved, especially at the quantum level.
https://jumpthespark.com/2017/02/06/information-is-energy/
Note --- Information is like Energy in its Cause & Effect functions : to convert incoming photons into mental images, and mental images into language.

Over at Vox Future Perfect. — Srap Tasmaner

One Amazon review of Goff's book, boils it down to a competition between theories for the origin of consciousness in a material world : "The book identifies three possible explanations for consciousness: dualism, materialism, and panpsychism".

Apparently, monistic Materialism solves the origin problem by denying that it is a problem : consciousness is not real, but ideal : a figment of imagination, so it literally does not matter. Dualism just accepts that we tend to think of Mind & Matter as two completely different things, and never the twain shall meet : hyle + morph = real matter + ideal form. Monistic Panpsychism assumes that Matter is an illusion generated by the inherent mental processes of nature (a priori Cosmic Consciousness), hence matter does not matter.

Global Workspace Theory is merely a Cartesian Theater metaphor that does not attempt to answer the Origin question. Integrated Information Theory assumes that Consciousness is a summary (integral) product of fundamental mathematical essence : number. Again, these alternative definitions of Consciousness presume that some kind of mind essence "just is", with no further elaboration on its original source.

Pragmatic here & now science has no need for hypotheses about ultimate origins. But over the millennia, theoretical philosophy has produced a proliferation of possible ontologies. Which include the three noted above, plus one more that was once the leading candidate, but is no longer considered a viable option : intelligent intentional creation by divine fiat. Hence it was omitted from the "round-up". Ironically, due mostly to the quandaries of quantum science, the ancient notion of fundamental/essential Mind*1 seems to be making a comeback to fill the gaps in those other theories. :smile:


*1. Panpsychism :
Though it sounds like something that sprang fully formed from the psychedelic culture, panpsychism has been around for a very long time. Philosophers and mathematicians Bertrand Russell and Alfred North Whitehead, physicists Arthur Eddington, Ernst Schrödinger, and Max Planck, and psychologist William James are just a few thinkers who supported some form of panpsychism. The idea lost traction in the late 20th century, but recently, philosophers and scientists such as David Chalmers, Bernardo Kastrup, Christof Koch, and Philip Goff have revived the idea, making strong claims for some form of panpsychism.
https://www.discovermagazine.com/mind/panpsychism-the-trippy-theory-that-everything-from-bananas-to-bicycles-are

"The argument from reason challenges the proposition that everything that exists, and in particular thought and reason, can be explained solely in terms of natural or physical processes".___OP

My own approach is more oriented around 'history of ideas' and understanding how ideas influence cultural dynamics and entrenched attitudes, leavened somewhat with my engagement with Buddhist praxis — Wayfarer

My knowledge of the 'history of ideas', and of Hindu/Buddhist philosophy --- not to mention "praxis" --- may be superficial compared to yours. And my knowledge of Western Philosophy --- especially of the modern era --- is superficial to that of . So, I don't pretend to compete in those arenas. But my "expertise" --- relatively speaking --- is in the 21st century sciences of Quantum Physics (QP) and Information Theory (IT).

The pioneers of QP, baffled by the variance of their experiments from classical/mechanical Newtonian Physics, turned to Hindu & Buddhist vocabularies --- not the religions --- to express the Holistic & Immaterial (mental) aspects of sub-atomic reality. John A. Wheeler even went so far as to combine QP and IT in his famous "It from Bit" postulation. Then, he went on to propose the Participatory Anthropic Principle*1, which implied that the observer's mind could have real effects upon the material world --- at least on the sub-atomic scale. He eventually toyed with the idea of a Weak Anthropic Principle, and even a Strong Anthropic Principle*2.

Obviously, such spooky-woo notions (per 180) are anathema to a believer in hard Materialism, in which the Mind is a minor side-effect of Brain functions, with no magical powers over the material world. Being a practicing scientist, not a philosopher, Wheeler didn't expand his Information/Matter/Mind theory to its ultimate conclusion. So others took-up the gauntlet for him. And their Information-centric (not matter-centric) reasoning led to the conclusion that the human mind must be a descendant of a Prime Mind of some kind : a Logos or Enformer/Programmer.

Both the woke Buddha and itty-bitty Wheeler, being pragmatic practitioners in their own fields, astutely avoided making the philosophical inference of an ultimate Mind, who planted the enforming seed that eventually sprouted in homo sapiens (rational ape). Yet, since I am an amateur philosopher, with no peer review to revile my unorthodox ideas for conformance to established orthodoxy*3, I feel free to take the "it from bit" seed to its logical ontological conclusion.

However, since I have no interest in founding a popular religion, I'm content to use the ancient vocabulary of Plato (Logos) and a neologism of my own devising (EnFormAction) to express my personal opinions on an opinion-sharing forum. As for Plato, my Logos/Enformer is no Satan or Savior, just Order-Organization-Reason in a growing-maturing-complexifying material world --- where the only Nirvana is a refuge of your own imagination. :smile:



*1. "A participatory anthropic principle (PAP) was proposed by the American physicist John Archibald Wheeler. He suggested that if one takes the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics seriously, one may conclude that, because no phenomenon can be said to exist until it is observed,"
https://www.britannica.com/science/participatory-anthropic-principle
Note : This strange statement by a physicist, echoes Berkeley's Idealist assertion : "Berkeley's immaterialism argues that "esse est percipi (aut percipere)", which in English is to be is to be perceived (or to perceive). ___Wiki

*2. "THE STRONG ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE The ultimate form of anthropic reasoning is to assert that the coincidences we have remarked on are more than that: that the universe must be such as to admit the production of intelligent life at some time. This idea is known as the strong anthropic principle."
https://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Peacock/Peacock3_5.html
Note -- Weak Principle = Intelligence from Coincidence. Strong Principle = Intelligence from Intelligence.

*3. On this forum, 180 proof has appointed himself as the un-official inquisitor of Scientism/Naturalism/Materialism orthodoxy. And what vexes his know-it-all-neurons most is the mutual ideas : a> that there is some immaterial force in the world (energy/information) and b> that it originated in some preter-natural Intelligence. He need not worry though. The Enformationism philosophy, with a single adherent, is just a personal opinion (like that of Gallileo), based on eye-opening observations of the squishy (non-mechanical) foundations of the material world.
No, 180, I'm not equating my little QP/IT notion with Gallileo's church-threatening revelations. Perhaps Information-centric physicists, Wheeler & Paul Davies, though, will find a similar place in the future history of science & philosophy. All I can say, as an amateur with no credentials, is that the all-purpose role of Information in the world makes sense of many philosophical & scientific enigmas for me : such as the emergence of intentional Reasoning in a world of dumb Matter & dynamic Energy.

*4. "By the time of Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle, logos was the term established to describe the faculty of human reason and the knowledge men had of the known world and of other humans. Plato allowed his characters to engage in the conceit of describing logos as a living being in some of his dialogues."
https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Logos

But your use of the metaphors of information and information processing introduce many difficulties from a philosophical point of view. My own approach is more oriented around 'history of ideas' and understanding how ideas influence cultural dynamics and entrenched attitudes, leavened somewhat with my engagement with Buddhist praxis — Wayfarer

I am aware that you and I are coming from completely different backgrounds : mine in the sciences, yours in history & literature. But, surprisingly, we have come to similar conclusions about some of the most controversial topics discussed on this forum. Hence, though wearing different uniforms, we are forced to stand back-to-back, fending-off the forces of encircling orthodox Scientism.

For example : "The argument from reason challenges the proposition that everything that exists, and in particular thought and reason, can be explained solely in terms of natural or physical processes". Personally, I don't interpret the existence of abstract Thought & logical Reason as evidence of a "supernatural" act of intervention, in the traditional sense of many world religions. Instead, I attribute the ubiquitous role of mathematical/material Information in the world to a mysterious preter-natural source, similar to the abstract principles that Plato & Aristotle called First Cause or Logos or Prime Mover. Except for that hypothetical Ontological beginning, everything else in the world is a natural result of evolutionary programming. No superstitions necessary, it's just coding.

Since I have no divine revelation or Buddhist insights, I have no basis for making more specific conjectures about the postulated metaphorical Enformer or Programmer : it's just a theory, like the Big Bang. Hence, it does not prescribe any unique shoulds & oughts & thou shalts. From the perspective of doctrinaire Naturalists though, that pre-natural + natural postulation leaves me suspended between mythical or superstitious religions, and empirical pragmatic sciences. My worldview is completely natural & mundane, up to the point where physical Nature began in an astronomically-unlikely bang in the dark. Beyond that, anything I, or anyone else, might say is a shot in the dark. :smile:

Tropes and universals can be described in mathematical, computable terms. — Count Timothy von Icarus
By rational agents - human beings - augmented with intentionally-designed artefacts - computers and calculators. Were those rational abilities absent, there would be no apprehension of tropes or universals. I know it's already been suggested that crows can count, but try explaining the concept of prime to them. — Wayfarer

Again, we have here an instance of looking at one side (the apparent side) of the whole world. Since scientists have concluded, from available evidence, that big-brained homo sapiens emerged on a minor planet on the margin of an ordinary spiral galaxy, only after 14 billion earth-years of gradual development. If so, did "tropes & universals" exist in the natural world for all those eons of evolution, or are they a result of "artificial" reasoning? What about "mathematics"?*1 Is that a natural thing, or an unnatural product of human reasoning? If the universe was "computing" the inputs & outputs of Nature since the system was suddenly turned-on in a Big Bang of matter/energy interaction, who/what encoded the program of evolution? Was it a sapient counting crow? (just kidding)

A materialistic worldview intentionally avoids dealing with the elephant in the world : the human mind, the rational observer --- those annoying unnatural pests who lit-up the world with artificial light. Perhaps, as you once noted, that evasion may be due to exaggerated "fear of organized religion", or of abstract reason. in a post above, responded to my question : "Is human intelligence merely an accidental pattern of a hypothetical "universal cellular automaton"?", with : "Define 'human intelligence' ". Of course, he was not really interested in my opinion on the subject ; just looking for another opportunity to demonstrate the superiority of his mountaintop-Illuminati intellect, unburdened by the superstitions of such spooky concepts as immaterial (functional) Minds & Intelligences --- presumably including gods & ghosts & angels. Judging by superficial appearances, a doctrinaire Materialist might not see any meaningful difference between a counting crow and a computing scientist.

The implicit assumption of monistic Materialism is that anything the human mind imagines --- that can't be counted --- does not matter. And that countless category includes the distinction between Brains & Minds, or Seeing & Knowing. If he placed a coin on a table and asked me if it was heads or tails, he would ridicule my holistic BothAnd answer, because you can't see the downside of the coin ; so it doesn't count, even though you know that it is there, by reasoning from prior experience. Sure, reasoning can lead to erroneous conclusions, but so can discounting what is not directly apparent to the 5 senses. Likewise, discounting the value of human reasoning, just because it a natural outcome of mundane evolution --- instead of a divine miracle --- can lead to a one-sided worldview. A belief system that ignores ideas, reasons, and other abstractions as immaterial*2. :smile:

PS___Yes, " universals can be described in mathematical, computable terms" because, like any other man-made language, computer code can represent abstractions with symbols*3.

*1. What is Mathematics? :
the abstract science of number, quantity, and space.
__Oxford

*2. What are Abstractions? :
the quality of dealing with ideas rather than events
___Oxford

*3. What is a Symbol? :
something visible that by association or convention represents something else that is invisible.
https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/symbol

From his reply : "I'm not convinced (it does not seem to me to follow), however, 'that if physical events-regularities are computable (which they are), then physical reality must be a "computer" executing a nonphysical program (and, in your case, Gnomon, that's written by a "nonphysical programmer")' – at best, this hasty generalization is too unparsimonious and the pseudo-speculative equivalent of (neo-Aristotlean / neo-Thomistic / neo-Hegelian) "intelligent design". — Gnomon

Again, I'll reply to you, because dialoging with 180 is like talking to a snarky wall. He says that, in his superior wisdom, he is convinced that physical events are indeed computable --- as Wolfram, Tegmark, etc claim --- but he is "not convinced . . . that physical reality must be a computer executing a nonphysical program". His incredulity toward anything "nonphysical" is built-in to the dogma of Materialism, and non-physical Intelligence is taboo. But many mathematicians, such as Wolfram & Tegmark are platonist in their view of the ontological status of mathematics/logic*1. That's mainly because math & logic are about systematic interrelationships (meanings), not isolated things (atoms in void). Likewise, a computer program is not a material object, but an imagined sequence/system of events, mathematically encoded into a complex Algorithm (a conceptual procedure, not a physical thing).

So, a real computer --- perhaps including the universe --- is a physical/material machine designed by a Designer to process some mathematical software encoded by a Programmer, with some eventual end in mind. The input-to-output procedure is typically aimed at future knowledge of something not otherwise knowable --- otherwise, why bother to do the math? If that statement is true of the PC running non-physical software on your desktop, why is it a "hasty generalization" to conclude that the evolving universe also requires some kind to mind to explain the origin of both the hardware computer and the software code? Apparently, for 180, there is no such thing as software : it's all hardware, all the way down*3.

180's Materialistic worldview seems to be based on pragmatic scientific Reduction, instead of theoretical philosophical Generalization*2. But reduction to what? The ancient Atom of Materialism has proved elusive & uncertain to the quantum scientists, who now mostly think of Reality as a Mathematical Field of some kind. Which is why Tegmark wrote his book : Our Mathematical Universe, My Quest for the Ultimate Nature of Reality. Yet, for him, the universe itself seems to be the ultimate Atom of reality. So he doesn't bother to make the next logical step, from computer (logical) universe to a universal (rational)] Programmer. Ironically, due to the inherent randomness of cosmic evolution, the fate of the universe is unpredictable. Unlike the instant creation of Genesis, even the Programmer of gradual evolution could not know the final outcome, except by running the Program to its conclusion*4. :smile:


*1. Is math non physical? :
Math is not physical (composed of matter/energy), though all physical things seem to conform to it.
https://www.askphilosophers.org/question/24527

*2. Philosophical Generalization :
A generalization is a form of abstraction whereby common properties of specific instances are formulated as general concepts or claims. Generalizations posit the existence of a domain or set of elements, as well as one or more common characteristics shared by those elements (thus creating a conceptual model).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generalization

*3. Software :
Software of a computer is actually a collection of data or some type of instructions that dictates the computer how to perform some work. From this definition it is quite evident that software is a completely massless collection of instructions. So, it can't be the physical part of a computer.
https://www.quora.com/Are-all-the-physical-parts-of-a-computer-called-software
Note --- The computer is a material hardstuff (hyle), but the software is immaterial mindstuff (morph, form)

*4. " Ultimately, it would be fair to say the Universe itself is chaotic and therefore unpredictable."
https://www.sciencefocus.com/science/chaos-theory-why-the-universe-is-a-massive-unpredictable-mess/

— Wayfarer

sarcastically & superciliously ridiculed your & my spooky immaterial opinions in this thread about general Reason instead of particular Things. Specifically, he poo-poos my information-based posts postulating something like a data-processing-universe theory.

From his reply : "I'm not convinced (it does not seem to me to follow), however, 'that if physical events-regularities are computable (which they are), then physical reality must be a "computer" executing a nonphysical program (and, in your case, Gnomon, that's written by a "nonphysical programmer")' – at best, this hasty generalization is too unparsimonious and the pseudo-speculative equivalent of (neo-Aristotlean / neo-Thomistic / neo-Hegelian) "intelligent design". Apparently he connects my personal theory with those of several famous mathematicians & physicists. So, it looks like I'm in good company. FWIW, since I avoid engaging in put-down polemics, here's my response indirectly addressed to 180 :

My only knowledge of Ed Fredkin came in Robert Wright's 1988 book : Three Scientists And Their Gods, Looking For Meaning in an Age of Information. Wright said, "He posits not only laws but a law enforcement agency : a computer. Somewhere out there, he believes, is a machinelike thing that actually keeps our our individual bits of space abiding by the rule of the universal cellular automaton, With this belief Fredkin crosses the line between physics and metaphysics".

Wright later asks, "where is this computer that Fredkin keeps talking about". Fellow physicist and Information theorist, Rolf Landauer noted the flaw in Fredkin's theory, infinite regress : "It's turtles all the way down". Wright goes on to ask, "if matter is made of information, what is the information made of?" Apparently Fredkin's god-like cosmic computer is just an ontological metaphor, and not subject to ultimate empirical evidence. Likewise, my own hypothetical god-like Enformer is just an immaterial metaphor, and not amenable to materialistic challenges. It simply provides a way to think about the kind of Ultimate Origin questions that Plato & Aristotle answered with the metaphor of a First Cause. Sure the container of the metaphor is a material brain, but what is the substance of an abstract metaphor?

Would you (180) also accuse Fredkin, a certified genius, of "hasty generalization" and "unparsimonious and the pseudo-speculative equivalent of (neo-Aristotlean / neo-Thomistic / neo-Hegelian) intelligent design"? Is his "law enforcement agent" a god-of-the-gaps posit to cover our ignorance of ultimate answers? Is his "computer" a self-programmed natural intelligence, or an artificial intelligence created by an even more intelligent Programmer? Is human intelligence merely an accidental pattern of a hypothetical "universal cellular automaton"? Perhaps, it just doesn't matter, literally. :smile:

PS__180's Materialistic worldview seems to force him to assume that the information & ideas encoded into a computer program are made of some kind of exotic matter. He doesn't understand that the matter is a container for information, not the ideas per se.

I think the sharp edge of occams razor can be put to this and as you said reduce it to simply a product of a simpler form of interaction without adding new components or variables (like dark energy) to explain away the misunderstanding. — Benj96

Precisely! Scientists may be on a wild-goose chase as they look for some heretofore unknown particles (equivalent to photons) in order to explain the acceleration of the expansion of the universe. Looking at cosmic change in terms of Energy/Time/Causation might avoid such inane questions as "what is the universe expanding into?", with no need to postulate mythical multiverses. :smile:

For me time and space are linked in that at lightspeed neither "exist" in any substantial way. — Benj96

Yes. Space-Time is not an objective thing, but a subjective interpretation of perception of measurable Matter & causal Energy. It's how we think of Being & Change. :nerd:
.

Yes! This makes sense thank you :)

It's quite amazing that energy has this ability to de-potentialise/become "substantial/substantiated" as matter going at a sub maximal speed. And be converted back to the speed of light again. But in essence it's quantity never changes. Just it's quality - what it's doing. The work of action or being acted upon in relative respect. — Benj96

I'm surprised that unconventional statement made sense to you. From the mundane perspective of Materialism, Energy is imagined to be merely a transient property of elemental matter, and envisioned as a flowing substance of some kind. But from a cosmic viewpoint, Energy seems to be almost magical. Which may be why its role is down-played in the belief system of secular Naturalism.

Since I have been looking at Energy as a form of Universal Information (power to enform/transform)*1, I have discovered many other form/patterns that I never expected. For example, even Time may be a manifestation of multi-morphing Energy. Human societies have called the cause of Causation by many names, such as "Spiritual power" or "transmogrification". However, for my own philosophical purposes, I prefer to look at the power to cause change from the perspective of modern Information theory, since it sounds more secular & scientific, and less threatening.

What you called "the ability to de-potentialize" is what Aristotle defined as the power to Actualize. From Plato's Idealistic perspective, he might think of Energy as "the propensity to Realize" : to convert Ideal possibilities into Real things. Since Energy is understood as the cause of Motion (change in location) it makes sense to define Lightspeed (the speed limit of the world) in terms of Energy. But my comments above were off the top of my head, so not yet fully developed.

Regarding "Quantity" and "Quality", I would say that potential Energy is a subjective Qualia until it transforms/actualizes into objective quantifiable Mass/Matter. That's why my worldview is based on Enformationism instead of Materialism : matter is not fundamental, but contingent on the causal power of Energy/EnFormAction*2. :smile:


*1. Information as Energy :
The literal equivalence of physical energy and mental information is still a fringe notion among scientists. But it has many credentialed champions, including Paul Davies, editor of the book noted above. Energy = Information.
http://blog-glossary/energy.

*2. EnFormAction : the action of transforming
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.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html

And this begs the question, if it never changes, then did it always exist as such? What can change or influence or act upon the unchanged? Nothing right? — Benj96

Wrong! :joke:

Energy is such an unchanging Cause of change. According to the second law of thermodynamics, the total Energy (causal force) content of the universe is fixed, but as it causes physical changes, it can transform into Entropy (negative energy) and back again into Potential : the thermodynamic cycle. From a philosophical perspective, Energy itself is not a physical thing, but it is the metaphysical Potential for change*1 : hence total Energy is unchanged, even as it acts upon (influences) the changeable matter of the universe. Potential energy is the universal static power of position, which metaphorically flows (kinetic) through material objects causing changes in form along the way.

Those form changes are from order to disorder and vice-versa. The degree of order in a material object is measured in terms of structure (en-formed), while the degree of disorder is measured in terms of Entropy (dis-informed). In sum, the total quantity of Energy remains unchanged, even as it Changes (transforms) the material of the universe.

I know this way of thinking about Energy & Change is unconventional. And I'm currently playing with the equally unorthodox notion that Time is simply a measure of physical change due to the actions of Energy*2. One consequence of that way of thinking is to conclude that the expansion of the universe is not due to some mysterious Dark Energy, but merely to the increasing dimension of Time : also a thermodynamic cycle. BTW, Light is simply how we perceive Energy as it transforms into Time (change) at a constant rate (universally, not locally). If you're not too dazed & confused by this nonsense, I can expand on these novel views of the unchanging Cause of Change. :smile:


*1. WHAT IS ENERGY?
It’s not a particular thing, but a transferable (hence not intrinsic or inherent) property, ability, quality, that is quantifiable only in its effects.
“In physics, energy is the quantitative property that is transferred to a body or to a physical system.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy

*2. Time is Progressive Change :
“Our primary conscious experience is one of the ‘progression’ of time; ... Entropy is change and therefore a function of time.”
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/what-causes-time-to-progress.147073/

I don't know what others had in mind, but I was responding just to your posting of the Einstein quote. There are those who think the metaphysicalist imagination should be unfettered by science, by physicalism, and I don't think Einstein was one of them. That is all my response was concerned with. — Janus

Yes. But is not one of "those" preferring "unfettered" imagination. The negative reactions to Wayfarer's OP seem to be falsely accusing him of making unsubstantiated scientific (physical) assertions, while ignoring his explicit framing of the topic in terms of philosophical (metaphysical) concepts. He was not arguing against Evolution or Biology, but against the axiomatic (unprovable) metaphysical beliefs of Materialism*1. :smile:

PS___I quoted pragmatist Thomas Dewey above : " if the materialist begins with the assumption that mind and the molar forms of matter are constructed ultimately from molecular blocks of matter, he must end "with the conclusion that the ultimate form of matter has dualistic 'mind' and 'matter' properties . . . . If a materialist were to say that this double-sided substance is what he means by matter, we could only reply that he is playing with words--that it is just as much mind as it is matter." The problem is that doctrinaire Materialists seem to omit Mind (the observer) from their metaphysical assumptions. However, Aristotle spoke of just such a mind/body dualism in his concept of Hylomorphism : matter + mind (nous ; form) = natural bodies. So the Monism of Materialism is missing an essential ingredient to explain the emergence of abstract thought (i.e. Reason) from physical evolution. :nerd:


*1. Materialism as a belief system :

Materialism asserts that everything is or can be explained in relation to matter.
https://philosophynow.org/issues/42/What_is_Materialism

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

Materialism holds that the only thing that can be truly proven to exist is matter. Thus, according to Materialism, all things are composed of material and all phenomena are the result of material interactions, with no accounting of spirit or consciousness.
https://www.philosophybasics.com/branch_materialism.html

It's a class and category thing. The first premise claims that rational and biological are classes, and a given phenomenon can be in one or the other but never both. The response (beginning with Anscombe) has most often been that rational and biological are categories, and there's no reason at all something can't be both. (Calling these both 'dualisms' obscures the distinction.) — Srap Tasmaner

I agree that philosophers, for the sake of argument, often make such compartmentalized distinctions, regarding controversial topics. From a general philosophical perspective, "Reason" and "Biology" and "Psychology" are in separate classes (type or kind or categories of being) with completely different physical and semantic characteristics. Yet, from the standpoint of a monistic Materialistic belief system, they are merely convenient categories for discussion, but ultimately all features & phenomena of the world are presumed to be subject to the rationally-inferred laws (regularities) of Physics.

Then, there is a monistic Meta-Physical*1 perspective, in which Matter is limited by the restrictions of physical laws, but Mental phenomena are free from such strictures. Which is why the human mind is able to believe and to tell lies. In that case, Reason is only subject to the Laws of Logic, which are essentially the same as Mathematics. :nerd:

*1. Meta-Physical : anything not perceivable via the physical senses, but conceivable by the mental faculties --- intangible, abstract

This is why I have tried to force y'all to be more specific. If you say, here's something evolution can't do, what do you mean by that? Are you in the trenches of biology, offering an alternative theory? Evidently not. Are you challenging science's approach to knowledge production? No one will say so. If you're saying that here's something that by definition evolution can't do, then you're playing semantic games and the rest of us can ignore you. — Srap Tasmaner

Specificity is a necessity for philosophical discussions, because each of us comes to the argument with a personal belief system (set of prejudices). That's why a primary rule of dialog is : first, define your terms. And that's why Wayfarer specified that his terminology is not limited to definitions classified under the heading of Materialism*2. He may not have been as specific about which alternative dictionary (or philosophical tradition) he draws his meanings from. But, I'm sure he will give you that information, if you ask him.

Regarding the evolution of Reason, I can't speak for Way. Our worldviews seem to be similar, but his philosophical background is quite different from mine. And he might disagree with some of my unconventional ideas & terminology. For myself though, I will specify that, for all practical purposes, I am a materialist, "living in a material world" (pace Madonna). And for scientific purposes, I assume that the modern synthesis of Evolutionary theory is generally correct. Anything that currently exists in the world, is something that Evolution could do, and did. And that includes things/ideas that are not made of massive matter, but of meaningful information.

So, for my personal philosophical purposes, I have developed my own "alternative" theory, which does not exclude Mental phenomena from consideration*4. My private personal theory of evolution includes insights from Quantum & Information sciences, that were not known to Darwin. And it specifically attempts to explain how the immaterial class of Mind could evolve over eons of time from the initial conditions & laws & causes in place at the beginning of space-time. This alternative theory is intended to help explain how Evolution did somehow produce immaterial Minds, only after 14 billion years of physical/material interactions , not accidentally, but guided by the inherent Laws of Nature. :smile:

PS___Regarding "semantic games", when posters on a philosophy forum do not share, or attempt to understand, the worldviews (belief system & its assumptions) of their fellows, a dialog soon devolves into a "semantic game". So, lets make an effort to see the topic from someone else's perspective.


*2. Wayfarer from OP :
In order to clearly frame the argument from reason, it is necessary to understand what it is opposed to. This is usually said to be ‘naturalism’, but I will instead propose that its target is better named physicalism or materialism.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/14418/the-argument-from-reason/p1
Note --- He didn't say he was opposed to the Nature or the scientific method, only to certain belief systems that claim the absolute authority of Scientism.

*3. The Mind-Evolution Problem :
The Difficulty of Fitting Consciousness in an Evolutionary Framework
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01537/full

*4. Evolution of Mind :
But then the conscious mind constitutes a special dilemma, since this modern picture was produced precisely by excluding all mental properties from physical nature.
https://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-illusionist

Personally, I don't read ↪Wayfarer's modest proposals as "challenging science" or arguing for "exclusivity" of philosophical reasoning versus scientific reasoning. — Gnomon
Did you read the OP? — Srap Tasmaner

Yes. But perhaps I read it with different preconceptions.

I understood him to be questioning the metaphysical assumptions of doctrinal Materialism, not the empirical methods of practical Science. As pragmatist/naturalist John Dewey noted, modern Materialism pretends to be Monistic, but as an explanation for the emergence of mental phenomena from a material substrate, logically it must assume Dualistic origins : similar to Aristotle's theory of Hylomorphism. :smile:

PS__The "foundational assumption" he was "challenging" is that of philosophical Materialism, not of pragmatic Science. So, his "alternative theory" was philosophical, not scientific.


THE METAPHYSICAL ASSUMPTIONS OF MATERIALISM :
In his first published article, "The Meta-physical Assumptions of Materialism" (written in 1881), Dewey found the doctrine "which declares that matter and its forces adequately account for all phenomena -- those of the material world, commonly so called, and those of life, mind, and society" -- to be lacking both in clarity and logical consistency. Of the several destructive conclusions which he discovered to be implicit in monistic materialism one was to be of particular importance for his later naturalism: if the materialist begins with the assumption that mind and the molar forms of matter are constructed ultimately from molecular blocks of matter, he must end "with the conclusion that the ultimate form of matter has dualistic 'mind' and 'matter' properties . . . . If a materialist were to say that this double-sided substance is what he means by matter, we could only reply that he is playing with words--that it is just as much mind as it is matter.
http://home.uchicago.edu/~rjr6/articles/Dewey.pdf

John Dewey :
John Dewey was a leading proponent of the American school of thought known as pragmatism, a view that rejected the dualistic epistemology and metaphysics of modern philosophy in favor of a naturalistic approach that viewed knowledge as arising from an active adaptation of the human organism to its environment.
https://iep.utm.edu/john-dewey/

Hylomorphism, (from Greek hylē, “matter”; morphē, “form”), in philosophy, metaphysical view according to which every natural body consists of two intrinsic principles, one potential, namely, primary matter, and one actual, namely, substantial form.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/hylomorphism

↪Gnomon
I don't think Einstein was thinking about imagination as a faculty standing free from science, but rather in its service. — Janus

Of course! I posted the quote only because Wayfarer's "revelations" were being implicitly compared to divine revelations, in the service of religion instead of science. I just wanted to remind forum posters that informed imagination is not a no-no on a philosophy forum.

Both philosophical and scientific theories are imaginary conjectures (speculations), not empirical observations. As Einstein noted, imagination points the way to future knowledge. And, as the OP implied : our current knowledge of the human Mind --- as contrasted with the Brain --- is quite sketchy, and based mostly on guessing. Moreover, the provenance and role of Reason (rational imagination) is suspect in some quarters, perhaps due to its being subject to the whims of Emotion. So, I think Way was being accused of being driven by passionate Emotion, instead of dispassionate Reason. I beg to differ. :smile:

David Hume on Reason :
"Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions, and can never pretend to any other office than to serve and obey them."
https://sites.pitt.edu/~mthompso/readings/hume.influencing.pdf

↪Joshs
I don't really understand him. On one hand, he says particles can't form consciousness because they have 0 consciousness, but on the other hand, he thinks that particles with 0 consciousness + form with 0 consciousness can.
I also don't understand his view on emergence. He says holomorphic emergence implies irreducibility, but it seems to me consciousness is reducible to matter + form at the end of the day. — Eugen

If you are interested in an amateur philosophical perspective, my thesis postulates a way to resolve your incomprehension of 0 + 0 = 1. Hint, one of those 0s is infinite. It also explains evolutionary emergence of Life & Mind, by reference to the hylomorphic concept : hint Form is holistic. :smile:

If Jaworsky claims that it is logical to believe that a particle with 0 consciousness can form consciousness, how can he believe that a particle with 0 consciousness + form with 0 consciousness can create consciousness? — Eugen

I'm not familiar with Jaworsky, but on this forum, we have discussed how the ancient notion of hylomorphism might help to explain some perennial problems in science & philosophy (e.g. consciousness & emergence)*1. Unfortunately, Aristotle's compound of two ontological principles -- matter & form -- also brings together physics & metaphysics. And that's blasphemous to believers in the comprehensive powers of mechanical Materialism --- like the explosive clash of matter & antimatter.

The tangible substance (hyle) is not very controversial, because it's what we all know via the 5 senses. But the metaphysical part is essentially the same as Plato's concept of transcendent Form (idea or design or logical structure), and is only knowable via the sixth sense of Reason (inference). Apparently, not all humans are capable of grasping such imaginary abstractions; hence the incredulity toward anything immaterial. Even though Aristotle seemed to be uncomfortable with the notion of ideal transcendence, his distinction of Form from Matter, implied that the logical structure that the human recognizes (to cognize/conceive = to know) is invisible to the naked eye (to perceive = to see). Reason is like X-ray vision : it reveals the hidden structure within.

In the 20th century, Claude Shannon borrowed an old English term -- Information -- a traditionally transcendent concept (soul insight) referring to abstract knowledge : the act of generating internal representations of external concrete reality in the metaphysical Mind (e.g learning). Ironically, for his engineering purposes, the specific meaning (semantics) of such knowledge was not as important as the general ability to contain & convey (syntax) ideas from one mind to another. Yet, for my own philosophical purposes, I have adopted a definition of "Information" that harks back to Aristotle's distinction between malleable Matter (hyle) and causal Energy (act of changing form ; in-form-action).

Surprisingly, in the 21st century, scientists have re-discovered the identity of physical Energy and mental Information*2. Some people seem to think that Energy is a material substance that flows like water. But physicists are aware that Energy is an imaginary invisible intangible Cause to which we attribute observed changes in material objects. Just as invisible intangible Energy (action) can be transformed into Mass (matter), Mental Information can be transformed into Causal Energy, and vice-versa. Does any of that new science remind you of Aristotle's transformation of transcendent Form into immanent Matter? :smile:


*1. Hylomorphism is a philosophical doctrine developed by the Ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle, which conceives every physical entity or being (ousia) as a compound of matter (potency) and immaterial form (act), with the generic form as immanently real within the individual. The word is a 19th-century term formed from the Greek words ὕλη (hyle: "wood, matter") and μορφή (morphē: "form"). Hylomorphic theories of physical entities have been undergoing a revival in contemporary philosophy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hylomorphism

*2. The mass-energy-information equivalence principle :
American Institute of Physics
Landauer’s principle formulated in 1961 states that logical irreversibility implies physical irreversibility and demonstrated that information is physical. Here we formulate a new principle of mass-energy-information equivalence proposing that a bit of information is not just physical, as already demonstrated, but it has a finite and quantifiable mass while it stores information.
https://pubs.aip.org/aip/adv/article/9/9/095206/1076232/The-mass-energy-information-equivalence-principle

Yes, yes, we all know there is another framework. What you need to argue for is exclusivity. . . .
As I understand it, you are not proposing an alternative scientific theory, and imagine your quest as challenging a foundational assumption of science. . . .
Your choice then is (1) present your view as a genuine scientific hypothesis; (2) challenge the methodology of science. Mostly theists opt for door number 2, and defend revelation as knowledge producing. . . . .
There is one last alternative, which is not to challenge science but to live alongside it, — Srap Tasmaner

Personally, I don't read 's modest proposals as "challenging science" or arguing for "exclusivity" of philosophical reasoning versus scientific reasoning. Like me, he seems to be content with the pragmatic scientific "revelations" of the material world. But, at the same time, he is keenly aware that the human mind is still a black box*1 for those who seek a material explanation for Mental phenomena, such as Reasoning. That's why he is not proposing "an alternative scientific theory", or "challenging a foundational assumption", but instead, exploring some ancient & modern philosophical theories --- perhaps parallel to the materialistic presumptions, rather than diametrically opposed. Black vs White oppositions are typical of politics, but when philosophy gets into politics, what you get is Sophistry.

Your insistence on a "genuine scientific hypothesis" may reveal an implicit attitude of exclusivity : "Philosophy has nothing important to say about the 'hard problem', so only a scientific hypothesis can be taken seriously". It's true that philosophical theorizing is unlikely to reveal the physical "seat of consciousness". Yet a quick overview of current scientific hypotheses reveals that the imaginary "seat" seems to be all over the place, mostly in the head*2. Each team points to a different "grid" or region of the brain. But, are these localized conjectures any more authoritative than the generalized speculations of philosophers? For example, Chalmers is asking general "why" queries (relationships), instead of specific "what" questions (neurons)*3. FYI : David Chalmers is a professor of philosophy and neural science at New York University,

This is a philosophy forum. So why would you require an amateur philosopher to provide a "genuine scientific hypothesis", when the professional scientists, after years of research, are still arguing among themselves? Why should we force Philosophy to "challenge" Science, when they are so successful in working side-by-side*4? For example, Einstein was not an empirical scientist, but a mathematical seeker after a priori or necessary truths of nature. He postulated hypotheses based primarily on imagination*5, and then waited for the empiricists to provide the hard evidence to support what he already knew to be true : teamwork. Perhaps Wayfarer is already opting for your "last alternative". :smile:

PS___I interpret Wayfarer's "revelations" to be those of Imagination, rather than of divine Inspiration. He has already explained that he is not a theist, as you seem to imply.


*1. What does the mind is a black box mean? :
To behaviorists, the mind is a “black box.” In science and engineering, the term black box refers to any complex device for which we know the inputs and outputs, but not the inner workings.
https://www.td.org/insights/why-the-brain-is-still-a-black-box-and-what-to-do-about-it

*2. Seat of Consciousness :

"The brainstem is the seat of human consciousness"
https://medium.com/@philipodegard/the-seat-of-human-consciousness-6dbce3bfa6de

" At least two regions of the brain decide what we perceive"
https://neurosciencenews.com/neuroscience-consciousness-brain-regions-1362/

"It found that consciousness may emerge from a grid-like interconnection of neurons at the back of the head. . . . The reigning theory is just a first win. The opposing team—which thinks consciousness stems from the executive frontal parts of the brain—is ready to fight back with a new test design."
https://singularityhub.com/2023/06/27/where-does-consciousness-originate-two-leading-theories-go-head-to-head/

*3. Physics vs Experience :
The hard problem of consciousness (Chalmers 1995) is the problem of explaining the relationship between physical phenomena, such as brain processes, and experience (i.e., phenomenal consciousness, or mental states/events with phenomenal qualities or qualia).
http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Hard_problem_of_consciousness

*4. Empirical vs Theoretical Science :
Science is about empirical knowledge; philosophy is often about that but is also about a priori knowledge (if it exists). Science is about contingent facts or truths; philosophy is often about that but is also about necessary truths (if they exist).
https://1000wordphilosophy.com/2018/02/13/philosophy-and-its-contrast-with-science/

*5. PHILOSOPHY IS APPLIED IMAGINATION
To imagine is to represent without aiming at things as they actually, presently, and subjectively are. One can use imagination to represent possibilities other than the actual, to represent times other than the present, and to represent perspectives other than one’s own. Unlike perceiving and believing, imagining something does not require one to consider that something to be the case. Unlike desiring or anticipating, imagining something does not require one to wish or expect that something to be the case.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/imagination/

The model I'm trying to flesh out posits mind or consciousness as being a latent attribute or dimension of reality, which manifests when and wherever the appropriate physical conditions exist (apparently a rare occurrence) through the processes we know as evolutionary biology. This implies that the mind is not the outcome of that process, but at the source of it - but not as a creator Deity, more like Schopenhauer's Will. It is also not to say that ‘everything is conscious’ in the pantheistic sense, or that sub-atomic particles have some primitive form of experience. I see that as an attempt to rescue materialism by the injection of mind-stuff. — Wayfarer

Sounds very similar to my own personal project. Which I began a few years ago, after a quantum physicist remarked on what he saw on the quantum level of reality : "it's all information". That observation seemed to confirm John A. Wheeler's 1989 "It from Bit" conjecture. His Participatory Anthropic Universe sounds a lot like Panpsychism, plus the notion that human consciousness was somehow intended from the beginning of evolution. But being a scientist, he wouldn't be expected to make a religious doctrine of what he saw as a mere fact of Nature.

I'm not as familiar with philosophical literature as you are, so I Googled Schopenhauer's "Will and Representation (Idea)", and it looks to be generally compatible with my Enformationism worldview --- which I am also still "trying to flesh out". With no formal training in Philosophy, I began from the conjunction of two modern sciences -- Quantum & Information -- instead of from ancient philosophical & religious conjectures. However, I did find Plato's functional notion of First Cause to be a plausible way to express the un-knowable Source of the "Will" that is being expressed in gradual physical evolution. Early in the development of my thesis, I wrote an essay*1 to summarize my understanding of how intentional evolution might work, while avoiding the doctrinal prejudices of Intelligent Design. My primitive understanding has evolved since then, mainly due to feedback from this forum. Since I have no direct revelation from the First Cause, I can only guess at He/r characteristics & intentions, if any.

My personal worldview has a lot in common with ancient theories of Pantheism, but I would prefer to call it PanEnDeism*2, to avoid any dogmatic theistic implications. Also, I take issue with descriptions of primitive entities as "experiential". To me, that term seems to imply that sub-atomic particles consciously interact with their environment. Instead, I think of causal EnFormAction --- similar to Shop's "Will", but more like a goal-directed computer program --- as a primitive form of intentional Causation/Energy that took 14 billion years to evolve into Living & Thinking creatures, and most recently into Self-Conscious beings. This is not a Genesis account, but merely an educated guess. Why the wheelspinning of eons before the advent of philosophical cosmologists? I suppose it has something to do with FreeWill within an otherwise deterministic system of willful causation : matter + energy + laws.

I describe my thesis as a scientific/philosophical update of ancient Atomism/Materialism and Monism/Spiritualism, with new insights from Quantum & Information theories. Unfortunately, 180 scorns it as merely a sci-fi rehash of outdated mind/body Dualism/Spiritualism. :smile:

Note --- My guess is that Self-Consciousness "manifests" when the Cosmic Program of Evolution reaches the minimum necessary complexity for feedback loops of information.
"Feedback occurs when outputs of a system are routed back as inputs as part of a chain of cause-and-effect that forms a circuit or loop. The system can then be said to feed back into itself." ___Wikipedia


*1. Intelligent Evolution :
If the physical universe is not eternal, then the various speculative “multi-verse” and “many worlds” theories cannot explain the brute fact of our temporal existence. Instead, we must devise a theory
that accounts for the finite beginning and formless end envisioned by the cosmological experts.
https://gnomon.enformationism.info/Essays/Intelligent%20Evolution%20Essay_Prego_120106.pdf

*2. PanEnDeism :
Panendeism is a non-religious ontological position that explores the interrelationship between G*D (The Cosmic Mind) and the known attributes of the universe. Combining aspects of Panentheism and Deism, Panendeism proposes an idea of G*D that both embodies the universe and is transcendent of its observable physical properties.
https://panendeism.org/faq-and-questions/
1. Note : PED is distinguished from general Deism, by its more specific notion of the G*D/Creation relationship; and from PanDeism by its understanding of G*D as preter-natural creator rather than the emergent soul of Nature. Enformationism is a Panendeistic worldview.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page16.html

(And as to whether 'abstractions are causal', that is another question altogether. But the formative role of mathematical physics in science at least points in that direction.) — Wayfarer

As usual, we are treading in swampy terrain here, with pockets of philosophical quicksand all around. So, this post is likely to get your feet wet & squishy. will enjoy ROFLing and eye-rolling in bemused incredulity ; keeping his feet dry, by studiously avoiding the sodden speculations of theoretical Philosophy, in favor of the "hard" facts of empirical Science. Please pardon my excursion beyond the solid ground of objective Matter into the mucky bog of subjective Mind*1, on the leaky platform of a philosophy forum. :cool:

The vocabulary of dogmatic Materialism seems to exclude that which is behind the eyeballs*7 (ideal, abstract, private, subjective Representations/Meanings), and defines as "real" only that which lies on the objective (public) side of the lens, and labels the majority vote as Reality. Yet Kant --- echoing Plato --- noted that the observer actually knows only the internal ideal representation --- along with any personal biases --- not the external reality, or the ultimate ding an sich. But Materialists are not Kantians. So they naively believe that their abstract subjective image is the concrete objective thing; real enough for practical purposes.

On the other hand, some idealist Mathematicians (e.g. Tegmark) tend to think of their immaterial mental abstractions as somehow more real than the material embodiment of an essential logical structure of interrelationships. Tegmark's Mathworld is theoretical, while Dennett's Naturalistic world is empirical. Are you an Either/Or thinker? Do you define "Truth" as solely Real or only Ideal? For little ole me it's both : look to objective Reality for pragmatic (concrete) purposes, and to subjective Ideality for theoretical (abstract) reasons*4. Taken together, we may be able to get Closer To Truth.

Whereas Chemistry is mostly concerned with Matter (real malleable stuff), Physics is mainly focused on Energy (spooky invisible action)*3 . Hence, 21st century physicists no longer assume that reality is composed of hard material atoms. Instead, they imagine that the world is fundamentally an invisible Field of mathematical relationships (space-time nodes and meaningful links between them). In what sense is an abstract mathematical quantum field of Potential Energy Real*5? Quantum scientists find evidence that an invisible intangible nonlocal "cloud" of statistical possibilities can have tangible local actual effects*6. Is that real enough for your practical or theoretical purposes? :smile:


*1. Rejections of Idealism, often accuse Idealists of denying objective Reality, then metaphysically affirm the opposite. But that is an example of simplistic black vs white thinking, which defeats the purpose of Philosophy : to question assumptions, while avoiding dogmatism. I can't speak for Wayfarer, but the definitions in footnote *2 do not define my more complex integrated worldview, which is intended to combine the Objective (concrete) view of empirical science with the Subjective (abstract)*5 perspective of mind-probing philosophy, into a single holistic worldview. If you must label such a view, try inclusive portmanteau words like Re-dealism or I-realism, but please avoid the exclusive facile oppositions of Realism versus Idealism. :chin:


2. Within modern philosophy there are sometimes taken to be two fundamental conceptions of idealism :
a. something mental (the mind, spirit, reason, will) is the ultimate foundation of all reality, or even exhaustive of reality, and
b. although the existence of something independent of the mind is conceded, everything that we can know about this mind-independent “reality” is held to be so permeated by the creative, formative, or constructive activities of the mind (of some kind or other) that all claims to knowledge must be considered, in some sense, to be a form of self-knowledge.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/idealism/

*3. Is energy real or a concept? :
What is energy? Energy is one of the most basic concepts in physics, but also one of the hardest to define.
https://cosmosmagazine.com/science/physics/what-is-energy/
Note --- Is "ability" a real thing? Is "work" a physical object? Is "causation" an observation or an inference?

*4. What is reality? :
“Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn’t go away.”
___Philip K. Dick
"Ideality is that which, when you stop reasoning, goes away."
___Gnomon

*5. What is the philosophy of abstract thought?
Abstract thinking is the ability to understand concepts that are real, such as freedom or vulnerability, but which are not directly tied to concrete physical objects and experiences. Abstract thinking is the ability to absorb information from our senses and make connections to the wider world.
https://www.healthline.com/health/abstract-thinking

*6. Does quantum physics disprove causality?
No, quantum physics does not disprove causality. On the contrary, our best working quantum theory to date, quantum field theory, quite properly respects causality both on the macroscopic and on the microscopic level.
https://www.quora.com/Does-quantum-physics-disprove-causality


*7 PHYSICAL OPTICS plus METAPHYSICAL INTERPRETATION (meaning)
See the little raindrop, full of images, in the head? Is it the pineal gland or the soul? How do you know?

There are cases where fear and pre-mourning may not happen, don't you think? — Ludwig V

Yes, but those rare cases seem to be the exception rather than the rule. In my personal case, I take a Stoic attitude toward the cessation of Self : "don't worry about things that you can't control". But then, I suppose some people act as-if they believe they can ward-off death with prayers, or with accumulated positive Karma. :smile:


What did Marcus Aurelius say about death?
“The longest-lived and those who will die soonest lose the same thing. The present is all that they can give up, since that is all you have, and what you do not have, you cannot lose.”

Of course you will assume that information is physical ... — Wayfarer
For the *Quantum Woo Crew* ...

The Closer to Truth video asks "Is Information Fundamental?". And Seth Lloyd thinks it is. But, here's what The Information Philosopher says about that question :
"Seth Lloyd is quite correct that information ("bits") is physical ("its"). However, unlike things, which are concrete and material. Information is abstract and immaterial." *1 So, Information is "physical" in the same sense that Energy is physical & real : both are intangible causes that are detectable only in their effects*2. Abstractions are imaginary representations in minds.

Philosophically, you could say that the Atom of Energy is a Bit of Information. Otherwise, Energy has no measurable/quantifiable properties in itself, but only in its effects on Matter : Change, Causation. Therefore, Energy/Information is indeed "physical" and "real" in that it has effects on Material objects, even though it is not a material object/thing itself*4.

Energy is the Potential for change in Matter (e.g. motion). Information is the Potential for change in Minds (e.g. knowledge). Both are essential to knowable Reality, even though neither is a Material object. Instead, Matter is a tangible form of intangible Energy/Information : E=MC^2. Energy/Information is devoid of properties such as Mass & Velocity, but it is instead the Cause of such measurable properties*5. Energy is a Qualia (causation), but its effect/consequence is a Quanta (measurable difference).

180 seems to think that Energy/Information is "woo" simply because it it invisible & intangible, like a ghost. But most physicists believe that Energy is real, even though they have never seen a real particle of Potential (the ding an sich). Like a poltergeist, Energy/Information is knowable only when it causes a book to spontaneously fall off a shelf. To which we physicalists respond : "it was just Gravity", but what then, is gravity made of : graves, weights, heaviness?. :smile:


*1. Seth Lloyd : https://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/scientists/lloyd/

*2. Is energy real?From a physics perspective, is there actually energy? If it's not a thing, what is it, and how do we know it really exists?

It’s a very good question. Speaking as a physics teacher, too few students ask it, too few instructors answer it, and too few textbooks define the word “energy” (although all textbooks use this word a lot). Everybody just assumes we all know what “energy” means, but we don’t know. Furthermore, energy is the most fundamental physical concept of all, because the universe is made of quantized fields that are themselves made of energy. So everybody needs to know what “energy” means.

The problem appears to stem from the great physicist Richard Feynman, who seems to have thought energy was undefinable. He was wrong, but his thinking was very influential because he was, after all, Feynman.

Energy is a very specific entity. It is not a “thing.” It is, instead, a property of things. Let’s start with some definitions: A collection of physical objects is called a “physical system” or simply a “system”. When we say a system “has energy,” we mean that it has the capacity to do work. So, what does it mean to ”do work?” When you do work, you exert forces in order to alter the positions or velocities of objects. That is, work is the ability to change things by exerting forces to move objects around. Of course, all this can be defined and measured quantitively (which I won’t do here). The units are joules, or calories, or BTUs, or electron-volts. Thus, when we say that a ball flying through the air has “10 joules of energy,” we mean its speed gives it the ability to do 10 joules of work on some other system. This type of energy (energy due to motion) is called “kinetic energy.”

The bottom line: Yes, energy is quite real. It is the ability*3 to do work.
https://www.quora.com/Does-mental-energy-actually-exist-as-a-real-type-of-energy-or-is-it-just-another-meaning-for-brain-chemicals

*3. Ability : the physical or mental power or skill needed to do something.
Synonym : Potential : not yet real.
Potential generally refers to a currently unrealized ability. ___Wiki

*4. Why information is energy?
Energy is the relationship between information regimes. That is, energy is manifested, at any level, between structures, processes and systems of information in all of its forms, and all entities in this universe is composed of information.
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/22084/how-is-information-related-to-energy-in-physics
Note --- A "relationship" is a mathematical Ratio or Proportion between related things or ideas.

*5. Physicalism typically involves a methodological commitment to the view that, whatever the final, accurate description of reality looks like, it will be set out in terms of physical entities:things with properties like mass and velocity.
https://iai.tv/articles/reality-is-not-revealed-by-quantum-mechanics-auid-2512
Note --- That "commitment" is a metaphysical belief based on a priori assumptions.

↪Gnomon
I'd really appreciate it if you deleted that inane graphic. — Wayfarer

Does it remind you of someone you know? :smile: