This is very confused. Physicalists believe that all that exists is the fundamental entities disclosed by physics, whatever they turn out to be - it used to be ‘atoms’ but atoms themselves are now rather spooky kinds of things. — Wayfarer

I don't think so, as most (if not all) physicalists are realists, so there things that physics hasn't currently disclosed, that are real, and "physical", just not explained by any scientific theory at the moment. And physicists know that their current theories could be wrong, but would that make their new theories about "non-physical" things, or "physical" things? If not, then what is it about "non-physical" stuff that scientists will never be able to explain? Why can scientists explain "physical" stuff, but not a certain stuff (the "non-physical") if they both interact with each other? Why can we measure the effects of "physical" on "physical" events, but not measure the "non-physical" by it's effect on the "physical", and vice versa?

But ‘idealists’ may not be saying that the mind is a kind of fundamental substance in the sense that materialists use the world. Their argument might not be about what the world is ‘made of’ at all, but be based on the argument that everything we know, we know by way of the mind - including material or physical objects. — Wayfarer

I don't get that last part. Are you saying that idealist believe that the world, and what we know are the same thing? So, knowledge isn't about anything, but is anything? Isn't that solipsism? If not, what's the difference?

But in any case, the two broad types of philosophers don’t agree at all, in fact they generally define themselves in opposition to their opponents. — Wayfarer

But why?! That is the point I'm trying to make! They seem to me to be arguing over nothing.

To me the problem is in what we ask of distinctions like physical and non-physical. We have vague but functional idea of the meaning of this distinction. But the tendency is to push it too far, ask too much of it. My heartbreak is 'non-physical,' at least compared to the kitchen cabinet door that I don't want to hit my head on. Whatever the hell 'meaning' is is non-physical compared to the ink on the page of the book. But it's not clear what the various -isms are really up to when they feature this or that concept or pair of concepts as a sort of safely static entity on which to build some dry picture of reality. — ff0

Isn't a "heartbreak" physical? Why do we call it a "heartbreak" if not for the feeling in the chest we get when we contemplate a negative event? Is a "heartbreak" a feeling that you get as a result of some state of your body (it occurs after some state of your body and the feeling is a representation of some state of your body), or is the feeling and the state of your body the same thing that occurs in the same space and at the same moment?

Isn't (most of) the meaning of the words on this forum the writer's ideas and intent to convey them? Isn't that causation?

I think Physicalists generally believe everything is matter and motion or describable ultimately by the standard model/ particle physics. They are not necessarily epistemic reductionists as in psychological events always reduce to biological vocab (pain = c-fiber firing), but they (including system-scientists) generally agree that there is ontological reduction. Sean Carroll's blog is probably the best example of this,

Idealists argue that everything is ultimately composed of ideas. This is a vastly different ontological commitment. For example, ideas might act on each other from the top down. The stuff you find in Hegel is very different from the stuff you will find in Dennett/Dawkins/Krauss. — JupiterJess

I think this is kind of what I'm trying to get at - this ontological reduction to one "substance". What do we mean by the word, "substance"? It seems to me that we should define that word, to then go on an understand what it is the two camps are trying to make a distinction of, if any.

Are ideas physical or non-physical, and why? Do ideas have "substance"?

What does it mean for ideas to act on each other from the "top down"? Does it mean that there are large ideas, like a galaxy, that can act on it's constituent ideas, like stars, gases, and planets? To "act on each other" implies causation where there doesn't seem to be a top (cause?) down (effects?), rather a present (cause) and future (effect), or a past (cause) and present (effect). What kind of ideas are these ones at the "top", and where and when are they in relation to those that are "down"?

More than half of any organism's weight is water.

What is the point of philosophy? — Oliver Purvis

To ask questions, just as it is the point of science to answer them. There are many "philosophers" that simply don't like the answers science provides. And yes, that is their argument they make (I don't like that answer, or that answer makes me feel less important, or less meaningful that what I delude myself into believing, etc.) against many of the answers science provides. As a result, they keep looking to philosophy to solve the questions, when philosophy hasn't solved anything as it creates the problems science has to solve, (or not solve in the case of those improper questions that are often asked in philosophy) or look to religion when religion has been trying to answer questions for thousands of years, most of which science has overturned.

I think you misunderstand the situation. You don't see the masts, you don't see the ship. What you see is the flag. The flag is the only physical thing here. In this instance of occurrence, the number of masts, and the ship, is non-physical. The fact is, that the person hoisting the flag may not even have seen any ship nor any masts, so this aspect is clearly non-physical. In this particular physical occurrence, which is the occurrence of the flag, it is quite clear that the masts and ship are non-physical. If you haven't yet, in 67 pages of this thread, capacitated yourself with the ability to understand this, then maybe you should give it up. — Metaphysician Undercover

No, it is obviously you who is misunderstanding. Is a ship with three masts a physical thing or no? The fact that you say it isn't shows that it is you that doesn't understand what they are talking about. If the person putting up the flags never saw a ship, then why are they putting up flags? What is the cause, if not seeing a three-masted ship on the horizon? To explain this, all you can ever talk about is causal influences - why the man is putting up flags, and why he's putting them up in that particular pattern. The answers to those questions lie in causation. It's that simple.

Why do you insistently claim that information is both physical and non-physical, when in reality you haven't apprehended the non-physical aspect? — Metaphysician Undercover

Because you have yet to give a concise definition of what it means to be "non-physical", and what the distinction you are making between physical and non-physical is.

I very explicitly explained how information/meaning is not the same as cause/effect. Cause/effect implies a direct, necessary relation between two things. Information/meaning implies a system of interpretation as a medium between the two. Therefore there is no necessary relationship between the two, the relationship is contingent on interpretation The two, cause/effect, and information/meaning are clearly not the same at all, and your claim is nonsense. — Metaphysician Undercover

And I have told you till I'm blue in the face that information/meaning can be independent of minds. There is information everywhere, it's just that we tend to ignore a great deal of it. Information doesn't need a non-physical counterpart to exist. It merely needs causation, or for an effect to represent some series of causes.

What the hell are you talking about? What is the case, is that we can interpret correctly, as intended by the author of the sign, or incorrectly in a way not intended. What determines this is whether the person interpreting utilizes the appropriate system of interpretation. How does the fact that a person misunderstands, due to hallucination or any other reason, tell you anything specific or informative about the state of the person's body? What kind of nonsense principles are you appealing to? — Metaphysician Undercover

So, when a person is hallucinating, that doesn't indicate that they are on drugs, or that they are mentally unstable? Does one hallucinate before or after taking drugs? If one hallucinates after taking drugs, then isn't the hallucinations the effect of the drugs, and therefore refers to the drugs in the system, and can provide information about the kinds of drugs they took? You're performing these mental gymnastics in an attempt to hold your feeble arguments together, and all it does is make your position less clear and make you appear as if you don't know what it is you are talking about. This is what happens every time I engage you.

So we cannot look at a signal, and interpret its meaning, by referring to its cause, as you seem to think, that is a dead end method. It leads nowhere. It is a dead end, because all we will see is that a human being created the signal. We cannot see the human being's intent so we cannot know what the human being meant with that signal. Looking for the cause of the signal cannot give us an answer to what is meant by the signal, it's a dead end. We will see that the human being meant something, and so there is a "cause" of the signal, but we'll have no idea of how to determine what the human being meant. Therefore this is useless in determining meaning. The only approach we have, toward interpretation is to determine the proper system of interpretation, and this will allow us to interpret the meaning. — Metaphysician Undercover

This is so stupid. We get at each other's intent every time we read each other's words, as the words are an effect of your ideas and your intent to convey them. Misunderstanding your words is misunderstanding your idea and your means of conveying it, which is the cause of me reading your words. If you had no idea, or no intent to convey them, I wouldn't be reading your words. This is so simple and obvious, the fact that you aren't getting it is shows that you are either obtuse, or simply like to argue for the sake of arguing.

That's pretty straight forward. Generally, things sensed and understood through the laws of physical are physical, and those which aren't are non-physical. In the context of this thread, we are talking about information, so there is the physical signal which is sensed, and the non-physical, what is meant to be signified. In the example of the op there is a flag as the physical signal, and the non-physical idea represented is the number of masts on a ship. There is necessarily a system of interpretation which relates the two. — Metaphysician Undercover

But the number of masts on a ship is a physical thing. You see the masts and can feel them. So you have failed to show what exactly is non-physical. Try again.

In all cases of information we need a clear distinction between non-physical (what is signified), and physical (signal) or else the system of interpretation cannot be properly applied and the signal may not be properly interpreted. The interpretation will be corrupt. This is the case in hallucination, there is not a clear distinction between what is physically real, and what is non-physical, the interpretation. All cases of misinterpretation are cases of not properly distinguishing between what is proper to the physical aspect, and what is proper to the non-physical. — Metaphysician Undercover

Did you not read what I wrote. I said that what is signified and what is the signal is what is the effect and what is the cause, and it doesn't matter whether or no one is physical or not, as we could be talking about all physical causes and effects in which case both the signified and the signal are both physical. The fact that you are hallucinating is a effect of some state of your body. Your hallucinating informs me that you are on drugs, mentally unstable, etc. If I have to explain this again, I'm done.

This doesn't make sense. The fact that something could be all physical, or all non-physical is clear evidence of why we need to be able to distinguish between the physical and non-physical in order to produce an accurate interpretation. If something were completely physical, yet you apprehended a non-physical meaning behind it, this would be delusion. If something were completely non-physical, all in your mind, and you thought that it had a physical presence, this would be hallucination. — Metaphysician Undercover

Of course it makes sense. It's evidence that we don't need those terms, not that we need to make a distinction - a distinction that you still have yet to make clear.

I have no idea what you are talking about in those last few sentences. Again, information/meaning is the relationship between cause and effect. It doesn't matter if there is some mind that is part of the causal chain. There is still meaning/information in causal relationships, of which a mind could be part, but isn't necessary for there to be information/meaning.

Do you think misinterpretation, delusion, and hallucination, are arbitrary matters? — Metaphysician Undercover

I think they are effects of causes. Does not the fact that one is misinterpreting, deluding, or hallucinating inform you of some state of their body? Doesn't one's misinterpreting, deluding, and hallucinating have some causal effect on the world?

That information is a relationship between cause and effect, is what is insignificant. It is insignificant, because in order to determine what is meant (cause), from the physical signal (effect), it is required to know the system for interpretation. So the fact that one is the cause, and the other is the effect is completely irrelevant to the matter at hand, when there exists information, because the matter is to interpret, and knowing that one is cause and the other effect as a fact, does nothing to help us interpret. It's like looking at a physical thing, and saying I know for a fact that this physical object is a sign, while having absolutely no idea how to interpret it. Without having any idea of how to interpret it, how would you know for a fact, that it is a sign? — Metaphysician Undercover

What exactly are you interpreting? What does it mean to interpret? Doesn't it mean that information/meaning is there in all causal relationships that you are trying to get at accurately? To misinterpret something is what it means for there to be a true causal relationship that you didn't get at accurately, right? It means that there is a causal relationship independent of your mind that you either get at (interpret) or don't (misinterpret).

Perhaps we say that things are immaterial or intangible simply because we cannot see, hear, touch, smell or taste them. The idea that something is non-physical might mean something quite different; for example that it cannot be understood in terms of physics, even in principle. Is the notion that something is not materials the same as the idea that it is not physical? — Janus

If the immaterial, or non-physical things aren't accessible by the senses, then how is it that we even know about anything non-physical? Our knowledge itself is composed of sensory impressions. Anything we know is something we can see, touch, smell, hear or taste. Even words and numbers are colored shapes, or sounds. We then go about attributing abstract concepts to these visual and auditory symbols, which are also in the form of other visuals, sounds, etc. So it seems that if the non-physical is inaccessible by the senses, then it is similar to saying that the non-physical doesn't exist.

Deleted.

It seems to me that I have answered the question of "Is information physical?". It is physical and non-physical, with concrete and abstract thinking being both effects and causes of other effects. It then becomes an arbitrary matter of what part of the chain any group of people are discussing.

So if there is no further argument against information being the relationship between causes and their effects, and the only arguments are simply about the kinds of information (the kinds of causal relationships, like between concrete and abstract thinking with the different causal relationships each one has, or between the "physical" and "non-physical" and the different causal relationships each one has), then I think we are done here.

If you'd like to continue the discussions on concrete vs. abstract thinking and physical vs. non-physical you can start a new thread on those topics.

What question are you talking about? I am only objecting to your claim that it is not useful to distinguish between physical and non-physical. — Metaphysician Undercover

1. What exactly is the distinction you are trying to make when using the terms, "non-physical" and "physical"? What exactly does it mean for something to be "non-physical" as opposed to "physical".

2. Can you provide a specific example or two of when it would be useful to make a distinction between "non-physical" and "physical" when talking about cause and effect and information flow?

If, as you say, information is both physical and non-physical, then it would be useful for us to determine which aspects are physical and which are non-physical, in order to understand the nature of information.

So consider this. We have identified an object, and we have named it, "information". We agree that it is both physical and non-physical, but we still don't have a firm agreement or understanding concerning the nature of this thing. Do you not think that it would be productive to proceed toward analyzing how we distinguish between physical and non-physical within that thing, in order to get an understanding of the nature of that thing? For example, suppose we have identified and object which is both blue and not-blue. Do you not think that it would be productive to analyze how we distinguish between the blue and the not-blue of that object in order to understand the nature of that object.

In other words, if we agree that an object has contrary properties, my claim is that it is useful to determine the way that we distinguish between those contrary properties within that object, in order to understand the object. By the law of non-contradiction, we only allow that the same object has contrary properties at different times. That is why I used a temporal explanation in my last post. — Metaphysician Undercover

No, it wouldn't be useful because there could be instances where the cause and effect sequence we are talking about is all "physical", or all "non-physical".

Ok, I agree that in some examples, the physical precedes the non-physical. Perhaps you agree with me though, that the way to approach this issue is through temporality, because that is the only way to accept that contrary properties are attributed to the same object. My argument was in the case of this one specific type of object, which we have identified as "information", the non-physical property precedes the physical because the physical is a representation of the non-physical. — Metaphysician Undercover

No. The effect (whatever effect we are talking about) is a representation of it's prior causes. It has nothing to do with whether or not some cause, or some effect is "physical" or not. All effects carry information about their prior causes. All effects are representations of their causes.

Your mind is a representation of some state of your body, as the state of your body influences your mind, just as your mind has the power to influence the world. Any state of the mind relays information about some state of your body because of the causal relationship between them.

I still don't see how it is useful to make that distinction when talking about information flow and cause and effect. We are simply talking about the contents of some mind being the effect of some prior cause, or cause of some effect.

Humans aren't the only rational animal. It seems that every animal behaves in certain ways as a result of it's perception of it's environment. Making a distinction whether the perception is concrete or abstract isn't useful here. We're simply talking about information - what it is and how it flows.

Yes, so the ship arrival details were transmitted via a causal process that resulted in those details being entered into a log book. We agree about that.

Do you also agree that the humans involved in transmitting that message were thinking abstractly in order to understand the message and relay it on? — Andrew M

I already agreed to that and even explained what abstract thought was in relation to getting at information (the causal relationships between causes and their effects). Thinking abstractly is an effect of prior causes and a cause of subsequent effects (both "physical" and "non-physical").

The difference between humans and other animals is simply the degree in which we can delve into the causal relationships of nature. A smell informs an animal of some state of affairs in their environment. We are talking about a causal relationship between the smell (the effect) and the cause of the smell (a predator). For most animals, this is as far as they go. There is no trying to get at why the predator is chasing them, or what hunger is, or natural selection, or the Big Bang, etc.,.

Humans can go further as a result of the realization that their experience is an effect of the world and that the world, and it's things, continue to exist beyond their experiences of them. This is typically called Object Permanence. This happens usually within a year of being born. We go from thinking that our experience is the world, to thinking that our experience is of a world that is there even when we aren't experiencing it. We go from being solipsists to being realists. We go from thinking concretely to abstractly, which then increases exponentially as when we learn language.

This seems logical because for a solipsist, there would be no such thing as an abstract thought, not even to the degree animals have it in understanding that smells and sounds aren't just real themselves, but refer to other real things that aren't smells and sounds. For a solipsist, there would be no such thing as causal relationships, or information.

Of course it's useful to make such a distinction, just like it's useful to distinguish between cause and effect. Following your stated principle, it would be pointless to distinguish between cause and effect, because this is an interaction and there is no point distinguishing between the two parts of an interaction. But we make those distinctions in order to understand.

So if information has both a physical and a non-physical part, it is important to distinguish between these, just like its important to distinguish cause from effect in a causal relation. I would argue that since the physical part of information is always a representation of the non-physical part, the non-physical part is necessarily prior in time to the physical part. — Metaphysician Undercover

Wrong. Depending on what we are talking about, the cause can be "physical" and the effect "non-physical", or vice versa. Or it is even possible that they both be "physical" or both be "non-physical". Again you evade the questions we need answered in order to make any sense of what you are saying.

What exactly IS the distinction being made anyway, and why? If I have said that information is both "physical" and "non-physical", then what use is there to make a distinction between them? If you're wanting to simply make a distinction between different kinds, or forms, of information, then you aren't making an argument against anything I have said, as it is all still information.

"Non-physical" does not always precede the "physical". The idea of your mother does not precede her material existence. If it did, you have a great deal more explaining to do - like how it is that you are even here - an effect of physical causes like sex and birth.

That's true, but I'm not just referring to seeing the flags and that they're being waved (which, as you say, also involves a flow of information). Seeing the flags waving is presumably automatic and instinctual for humans and animals alike.

I'm instead referring to the higher-level information that is being communicated via the flag waving, namely, the ship arrival details.

Now that information is in the world as well. But to interpret and understand it requires the ability to think abstractly, it is not just an automatic sensory process. — Andrew M

You, like Wayfarer, are simply trying to move the goal-posts. I'm talking about information flow and causation. You are simply talking about different degrees, or levels, of causation and information flow.

You agreed that seeing flags is a form of information flow. This just means that the flags, the light and your sensory system are the causes of your experience of seeing flags. Seeing flags provides information about those things - the flags, light and your sensory system.

All you are saying is that there is another cause, a deeper cause, or a cause that is prior to those things. What you are saying is that some human put those flags up because they were caused by the information that some ship will arrive at port at a certain time. Some ship arriving at port at a certain time was the first cause of this sequence. That influenced some human to put a particular pattern of flags up (his education of which flags to put up are also part of this causal sequence), which then caused the experience of seeing those flags up in some one else, who then interprets the information by getting at the causal influences of what it is they are seeing. All we are doing is talking about causation and how information flows from the first cause to the final effect we are talking about at any given moment.

Stimulus and response are different to language and abstraction. — Wayfarer

Stimulus and response and language and abstraction are simply different forms of information flow. You're simply talking about different levels of causation/information flow. You haven't made an argument against anything I have said.

It has been said that ‘intelligence is the ability to make distinctions’. There are some fundamental distinctions you’re failing to grasp here, although it is habitual nowadays to ignore the distinction between h. Sapiens and other animals (which is ‘sapience’, the Latin equivalent of ‘sophia’, which is wisdom, which is what philosophy is named for.) — Wayfarer

I grasp the distinction you are making, it's just that it doesn't go against anything I have said. You and Andrew M are simply talking about different levels of causation. You are simply saying that humans can get at the deeper causal influences of what it is that they are experiencing at any moment. Humans just get at more information than other animals because we can get at the deeper causes - all the way back to the Big Bang.

I have said numerous times that this distinction is unnecessary as the "physical" and "non-physical" still interact and are causally influenced by each other. — Harry Hindu

As I've told you already, the fact that two things interact is not reason to deny that there is a useful distinction to be made between those two things. If you want to claim that the distinction between physical and non-physical is unnecessary, you need a much better argument than that. — Metaphysician Undercover

Isn't that my point - that it ISN'T useful to make such a distinction when talking about causation and information flow?

What exactly IS the distinction being made anyway, and why? If I have said that information is both "physical" and "non-physical", then what use is there to make a distinction between them? If you're wanting to simply make a distinction between different kinds, or forms, of information, then you aren't making an argument against anything I have said, as it is all still information.

What is the rawest form of an idea? How should one go about translating it into language? — Perdidi Corpus

Wouldn't it be what those ideas are composed of - sounds, shapes, colors, smells, etc.? After all, words are simply colored shapes and sounds.

Again - the representation is physical, but ideas are a different matter. Notice that in physics, computer science, and many other fields, new symbols, codes and languages have been invented specifically to communicate ideas that have been discovered. At the time those insights are first glimpsed, quite often they emerge in quite incommunicable ways, or even ways that can't be articulated, and then first they have to be described, and then communicated. That is what it takes to translate them into physical representations. What does that, is the human intelligence, the mind. I am saying it is the unique ability of the mind to discern meaning - likeness and unlikeness, greater than, less than, equal to - and central to that, is the ability to recognise universals. — Wayfarer

So what if the representation is "physical"?! Ideas can be representations too. You are still caught up in this false dichotomy of "physical" vs. "non-physical". I have said numerous times that this distinction is unnecessary as the "physical" and "non-physical" still interact and are causally influenced by each other. By this same token, information is both "physical" and "non-physical" as information is the relationship between cause and effect (which I have said numerous times as well).

The ability to discern meaning is not unique to the human mind. Do not other animals discern the meaning of what they are smelling - is it predator, food, a female in heat, or the scent markings of a competing male?

Seeing flags being waved is necessary but not sufficient to know what information is being conveyed. It also requires the ability to think abstractly. — Andrew M

How did you even know that flags are being waved if a flow of information (that flags are being waved) didn't happen? It seems to me that you thinking abstractly isn't necessary for information flow. You simply need to have eyes and brain to process sensory information.

It did require using physical means to convey it. There is no other way. — Andrew M

Thank you.

Rather, I suppose they would have all views. I can't imagine how that's possible. — praxis

Well, yeah - a view from everywhere. I don't know how that would possible either, just a like a view from nowhere. So it seems to me that to talk about view from nowhere and from everywhere is complete nonsense. All that makes sense is a view from somewhere at some moment. A view of emptiness is a still a view from somewhere, as I'm not viewing emptiness at the same time you are. In other words, you are simply looking somewhere that I'm not, from somewhere that I am not.

I think it's much more complex than what you may be suggesting here. Whatever it is that makes a person more or less prone to existential anxiety may have little to do with their self-confidence or emotional intellegence. — praxis

Genes and upbringing, then?

I don't think that an image being mental demonstrates that the image is non-physical. — Samuel Lacrampe


Great! Well if you have a mental image which is physical, please mail it to me, I'd like to see it. — Wayfarer

If you can only convey the mental imagery in your head to others by converting it into a physical format, like the screen with letters on it that you see before you, for others to then receive, then doesn't that show that information is physical? How do you get the information in your head to others, and before anyone reads your post does your post contain information?

I believe views are also subjective because they’re predisposed to particular objectives. Thought and it’s concepts are goal oriented. A view from nowhere has no purpose. — praxis

I think you mean that one needs to detach their emotional investments from what they experience. That would be a more objective outlook if one could attain such a thing.

Views have a purpose and that is to provide knowledge of how things are at the moment. If one already knows how things are in all places and at all times, then one wouldn't need a view at all, would they?

To reiterate, the point of this experience is essentialy to relieve existential anxiety. Though I’ve only achieved a very shallow experience of it to date, I believe it works as promised. I imagine there are many people, perhaps you for instance, who are not in need of this relief. — praxis

Why do you think that there are people that need it and those that don't? What is the difference in those people? What is the difference in those being offended by being called names, and those that aren't? I think you will find the answer to both questions to be the same.

What are "particulars"? Would that be similar to saying that nature is made up of "information"? — Harry Hindu — Harry Hindu

Not quite. Particulars are individual things that exist (e.g., an apple, Harry Hindu, a chair). This is contrasted with universals which are common to many particulars (e.g, red things, humans, things with four legs).

Information is a universal. A relevant definition in the context of this thread would be, "What is conveyed or represented by a particular arrangement or sequence of things" (Oxford dictionary). — Andrew M

Doesn't "what is represented or conveyed by a particular arrangement or sequence of things" relate to the cause of "what is represented or conveyed by a particular arrangement or sequence of things"?

What is represented or conveyed by the particular arrangement of dark scribbles on a black screen that I'm looking at now when reading your post? Isn't it your ideas in your head, and your intent to communicate them?

Doesn't the red color of the apple convey or represent it's state, as the apple could be black which represents another state (ripe vs rotten)?

Doesn't the red color of the apple not only convey or represent the state of the apple, but also the state of the light and the state of your visual sensory system? Did Aristotle understand how vision works?

Part of Wayfarer's argument, I think, is that information isn't the sort of thing you can bump into or detect with your senses. Therefore it shouldn't be considered to be part of the material world. Since information is not an illusion and also not reducible to material, it would seem to imply there is an immaterial (Platonic) realm of ideas or forms.

Aristotle would instead say that information is in the particulars (e.g., the flags being waved or the ship log book) and, as a consequence of being intelligent creatures, humans can perceive the information, or form, that is there. This is no different in principle from perceiving that the flag is red or that the ship log book has a rectangular shape, which are also formal aspects of those particulars.

For Aristotle nature is an inseparable unity of matter and form. Whereas for Plato, matter and form (or ideas) constitute separate and distinct natures. — Andrew M

If information isn't the sort of thing you can "bump into, or detect with your senses", then how is that you know anything about the world at all? How is it that the text on this screen got there in the first place for me, or Wayfarer, to read it? How did it go from being an idea in your head, to text on a screen, to the conveying of your ideas to Wayfarer and me? How did your ideas get from your head to ours without using something "physical" to convey it?

Why are the flags being waved? Why is there a log book? The answers are all related to causation. If your information is still there in the log book after everyone living creature is dead, does the log book still contain information?

Sure, fine, but there's a difference between conceptual understanding and experience. Meditation or other forms of manipulating awareness are designed to experience this lack of separation and transcend our own worldview or interest, and view the world from a vantage point that is, in Thomas Nagel's words, "nowhere in particular." — praxis

I experience not being separate by simply eating and breathing - consuming things that are not me so that I may continue being me.

I don't understand what a view from nowhere means. It seems like a contradiction as a view is always from somewhere which is why it is subjective in the first place. Views are subjective because they only contain a certain amount of information about the world as opposed to all of it (which would be an objective view, or a view from everywhere). A more objective view (a view from everywhere) is what I try to attain in my thinking.

Yes, which was Aristotle's naturalist view as opposed to Plato's dualist view (realm of matter plus realm of forms). — Andrew M

Then the theory of natural selection proves that Aristotle was right as opposed to Plato?

But it is also important to note that Aristotle's position was not that nature is equivalent to matter (which is just to reject one horn of Plato's dualism) but, instead, that nature is hylomorphic. That is, what exists are particulars and they are an inseparable unity of matter and form. — Andrew M

What are "particulars"? Would that be similar to saying that nature is made up of "information"?

Well, I do see everything as interconnected. I mean our own bodies wouldn't exist if not for food and air - both of which exist "separate" from our bodies, but then I don't need meditation, or some fancy use of language, to be aware of, or understand that. It's just something that I know, and isn't temporary, but is integrated into my entire worldview.

Obviously knowledge has progressed immensely since the time of the ancient Greeks. Yet philosophical disputes remain. Those disputes often find their origin in the fundamental differences between the views of Plato and Aristotle. In particular, whether ideas have a reality apart from the natural world or whether they are grounded in the natural world. In general terms, this is the problem of universals. — Andrew M

Interesting. If ideas are apart from the natural world, would that place them into the "artificial" or the "supernatural" category?

Obviously knowledge has progressed immensely since the time of the ancient Greeks. Yet philosophical disputes remain. Those disputes often find their origin in the fundamental differences between the views of Plato and Aristotle. In particular, whether ideas have a reality apart from the natural world or whether they are grounded in the natural world. In general terms, this is the problem of universals. — Andrew M

The theory of natural selection, which Aristotle and Plato didn't know about when making their explanations, brings human beings and their ideas fully into the natural world. It seems quite obvious that, if humans are products of the natural world and their ideas are influenced by and in turn influence the natural world, then they are part of the natural world.

The whole idea that humans are apart from the natural world is based on the preliminary explanations of the world and our place in it where we didn't have access to the scientific knowledge we have today. Humans are inherently self-centered and believed they were specially created by a god. They believed in being a separate creation, apart from nature. They believed in souls, which is really just the hard problem of consciousness. All this forms the basis of this original contention between religion and science - between idealism and realism. The division isn't necessary anymore thanks the the theory of natural selection. It brings us all together into one reality - the natural one.

Lower animals don't have these concepts to transcend. Obviously, we can't eliminate these concepts, but we may be able to loosen their grip on us, and in so doing relieve the anxiety they may produce. — praxis

So it sounds like it's merely a way of deluding ourselves into forgetting ourselves for a time. What you seem to be calling transcending, I call deluding. Delusions are a means of alleviating stress associated with ideas that produce anxiety. They cover up reality with fancy ideas that make one feel good, but aren't objectively true. I really don't understand what it means to transcend our self, or our idea of self. It's just another form of religion, which itself is just another kind of delusion to make us feel better about our existence, but isn't necessarily true, or the way things really are.

Animals seem to avoid death well enough. In fact, they normally strike a good balance with their environment, whereas we tend over manipulate our environment, to the point of the extinction of countless species, and perhaps our own in the near future.

To be clear, I was talking about a temporary meditative state. This isn't a condition that can be maintained in day to day life, assuming that were even desirable. Being mindful is something that could be practiced in normal life. — praxis

Animals seem to avoid death, but death is not something that they are aware of to avoid. They are simply engaging in the instinctive behavior of flight when they are aware of a predator.

Other animals have devastated their environments too. Other animals have become extinct, long before humans arrived on the scene, at the hands of newly introduced predators or diseases into their environments. You need to acquire the context of natural selection over the eons to see that humans are really no different from other animals in this respect.

Being mindful is the same as being aware. What is it that you want to be aware of - truths or delusions?

Why do we keep quoting philosophers from 1000s of years ago, when it is likely that they wouldn't say the same things today given the knowledge we have today.

Name-calling isn't an argument against anything I said. The fact that you resort to name-calling just shows that you don't have an argument. Thanks.

Granted the language is a bit grandiose, but what it signifies is merely a subduing of the neural activity associated with the self-concept, or rather a particular brain state where a sense of self has diminished or is altogether absent.

It seems the negative side of developing a self-concept, and other concepts such as life, death, the future, etc., is that it tends to breed existential anxiety. Subduing the sense of self tends to relieve this anxiety, and may also facilitate other beneficial psychological and social developments. — praxis

What it seems like you're saying is that we need to think like lower animals which have no concept of their own death, or their future. How is thinking like lower animals transcendent?

The fact that we know we can die is knowledge that enables us to avoid death. It is the basis of all our medical knowledge in understanding how our bodies work and their relationship with the rest of the world. What you seem to be arguing is that we should try to attain a state of ignorance instead of knowledge.

How do you think that relates to Hume’s criticism of inductive reasoning? — Wayfarer

I've never seen a problem with inductive reasoning. Just as we have to account for and explain a different effect occurring than what we predicted will happen based on previous experience (why did the sun rise in the west today?), we also need to account for and explain why it was the case for so long prior to this new effect (why did the sun rise in the east for so long prior to today?).

Different effects are the result of different causes. The fact that something different happened than has always happened before simply means that there was a different causal relationship being made. The cause of the sun rising in the west today probably indicates that the sun and/or the earth changed it's movement. If the sun disappeared and didn't rise at all, then that would be the result of a completely different cause (it was sucked into a black hole).

Karl Popper says that science doesn't even use induction. Science is always looking to criticize existing knowledge. You can only arrive at the right answer after making all possible mistakes.

It depends on how you define the concept of object. You can define it any way you want. It depends on your needs. Sometimes, we define it to include the coordinates; sometimes, we define it to exclude the coordinates. When we say that two balls are equal, more likely than being wrong, we are defining the concept of ball to exclude the coordinates that someone else would include in the definition of the concept of ball. You can stretch concepts any way you like. You can stretch the concept of ball to include not only the coordinates that you want to include in the concept but also portions of the environment that surrounds objects under your consideration such as for example other objects of the same kind (so that instead of speaking of single balls we are now talking about pairs of balls.) By stretching the definition of concepts, you can prove anything you want.

An object is nothing but a portion of reality. If you want to have a meaningful conversation, then parties must focus their attention on the same portion of reality. This is why definitions are important. We want to make sure we are talking about the same portion of reality. — Magnus Anderson

Perfect. So the object's coordinates in space-time can be just as important or even more important than it's other properties depending on the arbitrary usefulness of some person at some moment.

How can you even say that two balls are the same (by your definition) when not every stitch in the ball will be the same. Also, this ball is mine, and that one is yours. Each ball has a different history and future.

Using Wayfarer's example of cars, not every car of the same model is the same either. This car will break down at 100,000 miles, while that one will break down at 120,000 miles.

Even the balls and cars histories aren't the same. They probably weren't produced at the same time (have the same birth date), or produced in the same factory, or by the same robots or people. I would challenge you to find any two objects that are 100% the same. And don't go whining that I'm going to deep. 100% means 100%. Can any two objects ever be 100% the same?

Everyone who has continued this thread for so long should be embarrassed. I already showed long ago that information is related to causation. Information is the relationship between cause and effect. Effects carry information about their cause. The fact that no one has yet agreed or come to any conclusion other than this, is embarrassing. Just because you ignored my questions and points doesn't make it any less so.

Causal relationships exist between both - as the mental is affected by the physical and vice versa. Information is both "physical" and "mental", as a causal relationships exists between both. This itself should show that there should be no distinction between either the physical or mental. Dualism is pointless.

I'm not over-thinking it. Are an object's coordinates in space-time a property of the object, or no? Is the object's position in space-time just as important to know as its size and color, yes or no?

We don't need to keep definitions if they don't work. I can think of a lot of words that are poorly defined and inconsistent with what we know. Just look at my "Artificial vs. Natural vs. Supernatural" thread.

When you take a look at two different portions of reality and see that there is no difference between their contents then we say that these two portions of reality are the same. — Magnus Anderson

This seems to be a contradiction. You are saying that they occupy two different portions of reality, therefore they can't be the same.

For any two things to be the same (sharing 100% of all properties and attributes) then doesn't that mean that for any two things to be the same they'd have to occupy the same space at the same time? Wouldn't that be impossible?

In my experience, being aware is not the same thing as being aware of being aware. — T Clark

That wasn't my question. I wanted to know the difference between experiencing awareness and being aware of your experience.

And, how can you know that you are aware without being aware that you are aware? How do you know that you are aware? Your awareness (or your mental processes) are the focus of your awareness at the moment. What you are aware of at any moment is what your awareness if focused on in the moment, which could be your mother, music, or your mental processes.

What kind of knowledge do you acquire from experience as opposed to awareness?