The Mind-No Mind Equivalency Paradox
This has been repeated so often that I actually don't need to say it but I'll do it here anyway just in case not mentioning it might sidetrack the reader. What I'm referring to is how evolution is considered as a game of chance - random mutations being the engine that drives adaptation, a necessity if organisms are to survive in an environment that's mercurial.
For my money, given the fact that the environment is dynamic in terms of factors that affect survival, the best "strategy" for life is precisely what it does with such dexterity - random mutation. Sheer numbers (fielding as many different life forms as possible) is a rather ingenious technique when one's up against a foe that fights no-holds-barred.
Notice the word, "strategy" above vis-à-vis evolution. If anything, it implies that were there a being as intelligent as us behind the "creation" of life, that being (some call it god/creator) would do exactly what evolution does right now.
In other words, and here's where it gets interesting, mindless evolution through random mutation is exactly what a mind which is as intelligent as us would do given the way things were, are, will probably be.
Mind (creator) = Mindless (evolution). The Mind-No Mind Equivalency Paradox
For my money, given the fact that the environment is dynamic in terms of factors that affect survival, the best "strategy" for life is precisely what it does with such dexterity - random mutation. Sheer numbers (fielding as many different life forms as possible) is a rather ingenious technique when one's up against a foe that fights no-holds-barred.
Notice the word, "strategy" above vis-à-vis evolution. If anything, it implies that were there a being as intelligent as us behind the "creation" of life, that being (some call it god/creator) would do exactly what evolution does right now.
In other words, and here's where it gets interesting, mindless evolution through random mutation is exactly what a mind which is as intelligent as us would do given the way things were, are, will probably be.
Mind (creator) = Mindless (evolution). The Mind-No Mind Equivalency Paradox
Comments (147)
That's a nice thought. Have you looked into GAs by chance? They can work when other methods don't.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_algorithm
:ok:
If I understand what you are implying, I must whole-heartedly agree. In my own theory of Creation via Evolution, our world has grown from a tiny fetus (Singularity) to the most complex system in the known universe, by implementing a simple algorithm : Chance + Choice = Progress. Random variations provide novelty from which the most adaptive forms are Naturally Selected to pass on into the next generation. That is indeed the "strategy" of the Genetic Algorithm.
The very fact that the natural world is currently & automatically implementing such a concise algorithm implies the necessary existence of a Strategic Mind to invent the procedure (logical plan of action) and a set of rules (natural laws) that will progress toward a pre-defined ultimate goal (teleology). In light of modern Science, this kind of creation makes a lot more sense than the "let-there-be-light" method of Old Testament Creation. That wishing-makes-it-so method fits the ancient notion of God as a super-human Wizard wielding weird powers. But, the concept of G*D as a Programmer fits our modern understanding of how things get done in the real world.
Lacking a direct divine revelation though, I must admit that I don't know what the implicit ultimate goal of ongoing creation is. But I can recognize the clear pattern of Cause - Effect Intention in the workings of Nature. And it seems to require ever-increasing Complexity & Consciousness. Several years ago, based such observations and inferences, I wrote a little essay to briefly introduce a thesis that I called Intelligent Evolution, to serve as an alternative to the then popular notion of Intelligent Design. The primary difference is that my notion of creation is an on-going billion year process, instead of an instant fait accompli (a done deal). So, I must agree that an intelligent designer wouldn't create a world as imperfect as ours, but might possibly create a world that could mature toward a more perfect state in the future. :cool:
Strategic : relating to the identification of long-term or overall aims and interests and the means of achieving them.
Algorithm : An algorithm is a set of instructions designed to perform a specific task.
Genetic Algorithm :
A genetic algorithm is a search heuristic that is inspired by Charles Darwin's theory of natural evolution. This algorithm reflects the process of natural selection where the fittest individuals are selected for reproduction in order to produce offspring of the next generation.
https://towardsdatascience.com/introduction-to-genetic-algorithms-including-example-code-e396e98d8bf3
Evolutionary Programming :
Special computer algorithms inspired by biological Natural Selection. It is similar to Genetic Programming in that it relies on internal competition between random alternative solutions to weed-out inferior results, and to pass-on superior answers to the next generation of algorithms. By means of such optimizing feedback loops, evolution is able to make progress toward the best possible solution – limited only by local restraints – to the original programmer’s goal or purpose. In Enformationism theory the Prime Programmer is portrayed as a creative deity, who uses bottom-up mechanisms, rather than top-down miracles, to produce a world with both freedom & determinism, order & meaning. ---https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_programming---
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page13.html
Evolutionary (Genetic) Programming :
[i]The program does not specify the final outcome. But it does define a “fitness function”, which sets the criteria for acceptable solutions. With-out those limits, the process could go on indefinitely.
We can see that natural evolution is circling around some future state, like a moth to a light. The ultimate-fitness-point functions like a Strange Attractor to “pull” the present toward that future state.[/i]
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page13.html
Intelligent Evolution : A 21st Century Creation Myth
http://gnomon.enformationism.info/Essays/Intelligent%20Evolution%20Essay_Prego_120106.pdf
Transhumanist Theodicy
Quoting Gnomon
I changed my mind about the Darwinian apothegm, "survival of the fittest". You're in the know about how randomness is what evolution is all about - it's the lifeblood of evolution - and given the unpredictable nature of the environment to which organisms must adapt to, there's an element of chance involved. This means that those who survive major upheavals in the environment aren't actually the fittest life-forms around; it's just that a particular set of traits help them ride out the storm.
To illustrate, sickle cell anemia is a dangerous genetic disroder that makes life painful and short i.e. it definitely isn't a physician's idea of physical fitness but the sickle cell trait is found in unusually high numbers in malaria-stricken regions of Africa where it confers a survival advantage to those who have the sickle cell gene (it makes malaria less lethal). This is a good example of evolution but it also casts doubt on whether evolution is really about survival of the "fittest." I prefer "survival of the luckiest", acknowledging the chance factor.
Quoting Gnomon
:up:
Quoting Gnomon
Well said!
Are you suggesting that humans can do what the bible-god couldn't : create a system that gradually evolves toward a more perfect world? I'm not a card-carrying Transhumanist, but I see evidence that evolution is progressing upward, and that the rate-of-progress accelerated after rational creatures emerged. Of course, the glitch in that rosy scenario is the resistance of irrational creatures to change. :nerd:
Cosmic Progression Graph :
http://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page28.html
Quoting TheMadFool
Yes. The traits that survive are the fittest available for the local conditions at that place & time. The apex dinosaurs had traits that were quite fit for their place & time, but the asteroid impact changed the conditions of the environment, and the rules of the fitness game. So little furry creatures -- and dinosaurs with feathers -- were more fit for the new milieu, than the old dominant species with cold blood and/or scaly skin. Was it just the luck of the draw, that creatures had already evolved with the necessary traits for the next phase of evolution? :chin:
Quoting TheMadFool
That was a reference to the "Power of Absence" mentioned in the Anthropic Principle thread.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/10941/anthropic-principle-meets-consciousness
"Survival of the fittest" applies to species broadly and population groups narrowly, and is never applicable to individuals. Re: eu-social neo-darwinism (i.e. Piotr Kropotkin + E.O. Wilson + Stephen Jay Gould/Richard Dawkins).
An "anthropic principle" is a self-serving, self-flattering cognitive bias that anthropocentrically, and without sufficient warrant, violates the mediocrity principle.
The OP's "paradox" is merely an artifact of inadequate, or false, premises.
Not exactly. God achieves faer aims through humans, us. To cut to the chase, we are the means with which God achieves his ends - we're essentially tools for God with which, if all goes well, god can create paradise/heaven (transhumanism).
Quoting Gnomon
My thoughts exactly. By your logic, the definition of fit/unfit depends on the environment. If the sickle cell trait can be fit at one time in a certain region and unfit at another time, in a different location, fit/unfit are the wrong concepts to use since the same thing (here the sickle cell trait) can be both fit and unfit depending on time and place. This would cause unnecessary confusion. Thus my insistence that evolution should be viewed as "survival of the [s]fittest[/s] luckiest".
Quoting 180 Proof
This is a myth. There are no discernible patterns in genetic mutation i.e. DNA events are random. If so, even if natrual selection is, in a way, a phenotypic pattern brought about by a constant selection pressure as exerted by a stable environment, the genotype phenomena that makes this possible is all chance.
Quoting 180 Proof
All I'm saying is if we believe we have intelligence, as evidenced by our ability to strategize, evolution too must be treated as a product of a mind since it too is a strategy, a good one at that. Either that or insist there's no mind behind evolution and concede the possibility that our minds could be an illusion.
I don't see where the anthropic principle comes into play in my argument. I neither affirmed or denied that consciousness had to emerge in the universe.
This is ignorance. Random events are not repeatable, yet DNA is a discernible pattern of repeatable nucleic events.
Hasty generalization. Cite evidence that evolution "strategizes" (i.e. is purposeful or has goals). Finalism aka "teleology" is demonstrably false and pseudo-scientific (like e.g "Intelligent Design"). And why do you (seemingly) equate "intelligence" with "mind"?
There's no need to "concede" anything, Fool. False dichotomy. Another plausible (highly probable) option is, for instance, "no mind behind evolution" and our minds are products of natural selection (yet transparent to themselves since minds were evolved to adapt to external environments and N O T to the internal environment of brain-CNS) .
References? Somehow I don't believe you.
Quoting 180 Proof
Is random mutation not a good way to handle extremely variable environments if the purpose is to perpetuate life? I'm not making a teleological argument here. All I'm saying is random mutation is a very ingenious gameplan given how unpredictable the environment can be.
Where have you found intelligence without a mind? :chin:
Quoting 180 Proof
I fear you haven't understood me. I'm firmly behind you on the "no mind behind evolution" standpoint. However, imagine yourself as being given a world full of random chance events and then you're asked to come up with a good plan for life, the goal being life has to survive everything chance throws at it. If I were you, I'd design life to randomly mutate at the level of DNA if only because that's the only option I have so that, in essence, I introduce a wide variety of life-forms each with its own set of steengths and weaknesses so that even if not all make it, a few will. Mind (you and I, our intelligence/mind) = No Mind (behind evolution).
Quoting TheMadFool
Big whup. "Somehow" is not grounds for doubting what I've said. "Your "references?"
Beaver dams & beehives. Viruses & neural nets (e.g. AlphaGo Zero). DNA & cellular automata ...
Educate me! What is randomness to you? For me randomness is a state of a system consisting of a set of possibilities in which each is as likely as any other.
Quoting 180 Proof
I don't doubt your erudition and powers of reasoning. It's just that while "to forgive is divine", "to err is human." You are human, no?
Quoting 180 Proof
My question was a genuine inquiry i.e. I, at the moment I asked it I truly believed intelligence without a mind was not possible.
As you correctly pointed out, intelligence sans mind is possible, not only that, it's actual and that takes us back to what I've been trying my best to convey - insofar as intelligence is concerned, one can't tell the difference between mind and no mind. In other words, that evolution displays intelligence, as inferred from the way it deals with the unpredictable nature of the environment (random mutation), could mean either that there's no mind behind it or that its the work of a mind. The latter possibility, by token of your own reasoning, can't be excluded.
The main problem with my thesis of an intentionally created universe is this : why? And why leave us, the apex creatures, in the dark about where & why the world is evolving as it does. Toward what end?
Ancient sages also pondered that question, and came up with a variety of solutions. As you noted, the fatalistic Greeks, among others, concluded that humans are slaves or "tools" of the gods, who do things the gods can't, or won't, do for themselves. So, it was common for those slaves to believe that they were doing "god's work", when they offered sacrifices of food, incense, and sometimes, human blood. They assumed that the gods needed those things, but without physical bodies, had to rely on semi-autonomous humans to do the actual laborious & messy work.
But, today, that notion -- which ruled for thousands of years -- sounds like nonsense to those of us in a post-slavery society. So, another, more modern, theory has emerged. It assumes that G*D, or the gods, are trying to create a perfect race of robots. So, without giving explicit instructions, they nudge and prod their automatons via emotions or brain-probes to create better & better social systems and technologies : the better to serve their Matrix masters. Although I am aware that humans have very limited freewill, I don't like to think of myself as a robot, controlled by some sinister central command.
So, my preferred scenario is similar to Teilhard deChardin's Omega Point theory. It assumes that God is reproducing him/herself. And the ultimate fate of the world is to become godlike ; perhaps, the son of God. Physicist & Cosmologist, Frank Tipler, believes that our illusory material world is actually composed of something like mathematical information (spirit), and concludes, like deChardin, that it is evolving toward a spiritual Singularity, directed by the mathematical laws of Nature. Some Transhumanists are less mathematically or spiritually-inclined, and assume that humans evolved by accident to the role of top ape, and are merely using their superior intellectual tools to create a technological Utopia -- no need for a higher power to intervene -- or to serve.
To be clear, I don't take the Omega Point theory as gospel. It's simply serves as a modern allegory, to update or replace the outdated religious myths of the past. AFAIK, this hopeful narrative is not a revelation from G*D, but merely an imaginary construct of the human mind, as it grapples with the otherwise pointless situation we find ourselves "thrown into", as babes in the wood, a mysterious world without any direct divine supervision : Heideggar's "Thrownness". Myths of the past typically implied that the "truth" was revealed to some wise or pious person long ago. But, I think those prophets merely made-up hortatory stories to suit the times.
However, for those who can believe, they gain a feeling of knowing the meaning of life, and the purpose of the world. That may be a Placebo Effect, but it seems to work quite well. Unfortunately, I have a problem with faith, so my belief is partial and provisional, pending more & better information, from which to fabricate a story that is a closer approximation to the Truth. :cool:
Omega Point :
Teilhard argued that the Omega Point resembles the Christian Logos, . . . ... "if this book is to be properly understood, it must be read not as a work on metaphysics, still less as a sort of theological essay, but purely and simply as a scientific treatise". . . . Teilhard's theory was a personal attempt in creating a new Christianity in which science and theology coexist. . . . When the earth reaches its Omega Point, everything that exists will become one with divinity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omega_Point
Intelligent Evolution : a modern myth
http://gnomon.enformationism.info/Essays/Intelligent%20Evolution%20Essay_Prego_120106.pdf
Stop being so lazy! That's what Google, wiki & SEP are for. Pro tip, Fool: search "random" "chance" "chaos" "natural selection" "intelligence" & "mind" so that you can correct or entirely rewrite your pseudo-whatever OP.
[quote=www.nature.com]Are Mutations Random?
The statement that mutations are random is both profoundly true and profoundly untrue at the same time. The true aspect of this statement stems from the fact that, to the best of our knowledge, the consequences of a mutation have no influence whatsoever on the probability that this mutation will or will not occur. In other words, mutations occur randomly with respect to whether their effects are useful. Thus, beneficial DNA changes do not happen more often simply because an organism could benefit from them. Moreover, even if an organism has acquired a beneficial mutation during its lifetime, the corresponding information will not flow back into the DNA in the organism's germline. This is a fundamental insight that Jean-Baptiste Lamarck got wrong and Charles Darwin got right.
However, the idea that mutations are random can be regarded as untrue if one considers the fact that not all types of mutations occur with equal probability. Rather, some occur more frequently than others because they are favored by low-level biochemical reactions. These reactions are also the main reason why mutations are an inescapable property of any system that is capable of reproduction in the real world. Mutation rates are usually very low, and biological systems go to extraordinary lengths to keep them as low as possible, mostly because many mutational effects are harmful. Nonetheless, mutation rates never reach zero, even despite both low-level protective mechanisms, like DNA repair or proofreading during DNA replication, and high-level mechanisms, like melanin deposition in skin cells to reduce radiation damage. Beyond a certain point, avoiding mutation simply becomes too costly to cells. Thus, mutation will always be present as a powerful force in evolution.[/quote]
Nature
As you can see, there's no recognizable pattern in mutations that are either beneficial/harmful to an organism in the sense beneficial mutations aren't favored over harmful ones - both are equiprobable. Put differently, that aspect of genetic mutation that matters to this discussion (good/bad for the organism) mutations do occur randomly.
That part where the excerpt above refers to nonrandom genetic mutations can be safely ignored as it's basically talking about certain segments of the genome where mutations are more/less frequent. Though such regions in the genome do exist, as pointed out above, whether the mutations in them favor/disfavor the organism is, I'm afraid, random and that's what matters if survival is the main concern, no?
As for the issue of intelligence and mind, you said that the relationship between the two isn't one of necessity - we've successfuly separated the two as in AI (intelligence sans a mind). Evolution is intelligent but, as you so kindly pointed out, that doesn't warrant us to infer a mind at the helm of evolution. FYI, that isn't my aim at all. If there's any conclusion to be drawn from the OP it's that given something (here evolution) displays intelligence, it can't be determined whether there is/there isn't a mind that had a hand in its development. Thus mind - no mind equivalency.
Think about it. Imagine yourself interacting with something hidden from you by a curtain. It seems intelligent. Can you tell, based solely on that information (intelligence), whether what's behind the curtain is a mindless AI or an actual human who has a mind? No, of course not. Hence, mind - no mind equivalence. Put simply, evolution, if only with respect to intelligence, passes the Turing test with flying colors. I rest my case.
Maybe our creator is a die-hard fan of detective novels who wants us to figure it all out on our own. He must've left clues all over the place, not just on earth but throughout the universe, and we have to find them, piece them together and hey, presto!, a coherent story may emerge that'll not only prove God's existence but also give us his location. :joke:
Quoting Gnomon
Sounds ugly! Slavery ain't something one aspires too but oddly, this entire story of the search for some kind of transcendental purpose/meaning, divinely bestowed as it were, is nothing but slave mentality of, quite literally, cosmic proportions. I suppose the fact that religious folks talk of serving God is a big clue in this regard.
Quoting Gnomon
Indeed, if the Omega Point becomes a reality, all that would be missing would be Jesus and if a clever person or a group of highly intelligent people play their cards right, they might just manage to pull off a convincing Jesus impression. Everything would fall into place and Christianity would be, even if fraudulently, vindicated as the one true faith.
Quoting 180 Proof
:smile: Laughing, ok! Laughing all the way to the bank, better!
So who makes the "selection" -- mindless Nature?
A Selection is a voluntary Choice between alternatives, based on a value system. The "no mind behind evolution" assertion seems to imply that the "Selection" is just as random as the mutations. But Darwin used that term with domestic animal breeding in mind. And the breeder had a future goal in mind, which was targeted by his personal value system. So, you will have to come up with a different mechanism than Darwinism, if you want to eliminate the Mind behind the Selection. :smile:
To Select : carefully choose as being the best or most suitable.
PS__Accidental "sifting", as in the orderly arrangement of rocks after a flood, may not appear to be a "selection". Yet, like a fish net, the weave is deliberately sized according to the preferred size of the catch. The rocks & fish vary in size, and are selected or rejected based on their inherent characteristics, but in accordance with the pre-determined criteria.
That is a common short-hand assumption, but it simply ignores the "artificial" in Artificial Intelligence. The artist, whose intelligence is imparted to the program, is the Programmer, who is seldom sans mind. And his intelligence is a product of eons of natural selection going back to the original Programmer of Nature. :smile:
Artificial : made or produced by human beings rather than occurring naturally,
Thanks for alerting me to that. Completely missed it. So, yes, we have mindless AI, at least rudimentary versions of it and let's not forget the chess grandmasters who lost to them, but they were created by humans with minds. :up:
Natural selection.
Quoting TheMadFool
:cry:
:grin:
Quoting TheMadFool
Why is this simple fact about evolution so difficult for some folk?
It's as if, given that the Irish Lottery is decided at random, MadFool were to conclude that the entire institution of the National Lottery must have come about by chance. Web page and all.
Quoting 180 Proof
If evolution isn't inherently random, we must conclude that evolution is teleological. Pray tell, what is the ultimate goal of evolution? Now, don't respond with "the perpetuation of life" because given the unpredictable circumstances in re selection pressure, the best way to do that would be randomness but you explicitly deny that's the case.
Why?
Simple. Imagine you meet an alien from another planet. This alien's behavior isn't random i.e. given a set of possibilities, some are preferred over others in a demonstrably consistent manner. This pattern of preferences will ultimately lead to a specific endpoint and this endpoint is what teleology is all about. If the alien behaves in a random fashion each and every possible endpoint is possible i.e. the alien's teleologically neutral.
Put some dirt in a jar. of water. Shake it. The smaller particles will move to the top, the larger to the bottom.
The particles move in a "...demonstrably consistent manner. This pattern of preferences will ultimately lead to a specific endpoint and this endpoint is what teleology is all about."
On your argument, the particles in the jar have a purpose.
While I hesitate to say that's correct, I'm fairly confident that's not wrong.
Consider for the moment a normal person's behavior. Does a person not have an end in mind and doesn't that end manifest in faer actions as preferences, favoring one course of action over others, and is this not mathematically represented as non-random choices given that more than one exists and are offered.
Compare the above with your dirt in a jar. Assuredly, the behavior of the particles of various sizes, at least with respect to the layers that form, is non-random.
What should we make of this?
Simple. Confining our analysis to only the non-random nature of a person's teleological behavior and the non-random quality of the dirt particles, we can't tell these two apart at all. Are we not then warranted to infer teleology in the dirt particles? After all, both a person and the dirt particles are non-random.
Ok, you go for it. Dirt particles settle in a fluid how they want to.
If that's what you need in order to make your philosophy work, you are too far up the garden path for conversation.
Clearly, you've missed the point. Perhaps an analogy is in order. Imagine the situation where we have two distinct things AB and BC, where A, B, and C are components that make up AB and BC. Now, if I show you AB and BC in their entirety, or if I show you the A and C parts, you will be able to distinguish the two - one is AB and the other is BC. However, this is where it gets interesting, if I show you only the B part, I'm 100% confident that you won't know if it's either AB or BC.
Do the following substitutions:
1. AB = a person with a purpose (you, me, @180 Proof)
2. BC = something that lacks purpose (e.g. dirt in a jar)
3. B = non-random behavior of both AB an BC
Put simply, relying only on non-random behavior, no one can tell whether the system exhibiting such behavior is teleological or not. To think otherwise is a petitio principii if there ever was one. After all, I'm a person and I'm purposeful and my actions are non-random i.e. the link between persons, purpose and non-random behavior is firmly established. Now, when I observe similar non-random processes in nature, I have a very good reason to infer teleology. If you disagree, you'll have to provide at least one instance of non-random behavior absent purpose/teleology which you can't because any such attempt begs the question.
No mistakes at all. You're ignoring my argument for reasons that I can't fathom. If you disagree, here's a challenge for you: name one non-random process that isn't purposeful.
Evolution.
Proof?
https://www.livescience.com/48103-evolution-not-random.html
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13698-evolution-myths-evolution-is-random/
https://www.quantamagazine.org/yeast-study-suggests-genetics-are-random-but-evolution-is-not-20140911/
https://www.khanacademy.org/science/ap-biology/natural-selection/hardy-weinberg-equilibrium/a/hardy-weinberg-mechanisms-of-evolution
Any tertiary biology text will support what I am saying.
These are probably descriptive accounts of evolution but let's get down to the brass tacks, shall we?
1. You, yourself are living proof of teleology being associated with non-random phenomena. In other words, there's conclusive proof that purpose implies the non-random (some outcomes are preferred over others)
2. You claim that evolution is a case of the non-random not associated in any way to purpose. Ergo, it is the case that either evolution itself is the evidence for your claim or that there's some other instance of the non-random bereft of purpose. If it's the former, you're begging the question (assuming the very thing you're supposed to prove) or if it's the latter what might the counterexample that falsifies the link between purpose and the non-random be?
Indeed, Indeed. No wonder you don't wish to address them. I think I've accompanied you far enough up your garden path for this evening. Cheers.
I'm sorry you feel that way. Give me another shot at this, if it's all the same to you.
First, the link between purpose (teleology) and the non-random has been established beyond a shadow of a doubt. You, yourself are proof of that, exhibiting as it were preferences which puts the probability of certain outcomes well above the random 50/50.
Secondly, if you haven't already noticed, the non-random nature of any given phenomenon (here evolution) forces us to entertain the possibility of a teleological factor in them for teleology manifests as non-randomness.
Thirdly, let me concede, if only for the sake of argument, that non-teleological non-randomness is a fact. If so, I present to you the following scenario for your consideration:
Measles (assume teleology) and German measles (assume no teleology)- both display the same symptom, red rash (non-randomness) - and so if I present with a rash to a physician, the physician won't know if I have measles or German measles.
Yes. The selection process is "natural". But how did the criteria for those automatic choices arise in Nature? Darwin saw an analogy between human selection (animal breeding) and the weeding-out process of evolution. In this analogy, personified Nature plays the role of Breeder. But he didn't really mean that the natural Process itself made deliberate choices with a future goal in mind. Instead, his unspoken reference may have been to the Creator, that he was beginning to doubt. He later said that proposing a godless creation was "like confessing to murder"
By that, I assume he meant that he felt guilty for casting doubt on the Ultimate Explanation. And his uncertainty was exacerbated by his failure, admitted in The Origin of Species, to actually explain the origin of Life, which was a necessary precursor to the origin of species. And which seemed to evolve via an innate Logic. Ironically, that Logos is exemplified in the notion of Natural Selection. By another analogy, computer programs do their work in accordance with an "innate logic" (Boolean). And the origin of that syllogistic (rational) order was not a random accident, but was deliberately imparted by a rational & intentional Programmer. That's the "who" I was referring to. Natural evolution is the program, but who was the Programmer? :chin:
Darwin letter :
At last gleams of light have come, & I am almost convinced (quite contrary to opinion I started with) that species are not (it is like confessing a murder) immutable. Heaven forfend me from Lamarck nonsense of a “tendency to progression” “adaptations from the slow willing of animals” &c,— but the conclusions I am led to are not widely different from his,
https://fs.blog/2014/11/charles-darwin-letter-joseph-hooker/
Evolutionary Logic :
[i]These are the basic tenets of evolution by natural selection as defined by Darwin :
-- More individuals are produced each generation than can survive.
-- Phenotypic variation exists among individuals and the variation is heritable.
-- Those individuals with heritable traits better suited to the environment will survive.
-- When reproductive isolation occurs new species will form.[/i]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwinism
Unfortunately, the people you are "reasoning" with do not accept the premise that Evolution is non-random and actually progressive -- moving toward some future state. That, despite scientific evidence against "blind chance" ruling evolution. It's as-if a designing Creator has been replaced with a random Robot. Evolution is cybernetic. But their random "creator" seems to be Blind Fate. :joke:
Evolution is often said to be "blind," because there's no outside force guiding natural selection. But changes in genetic material that occur at the molecular level are not entirely random, a new study suggests
https://www.livescience.com/48103-evolution-not-random.html
The genetic variation that occurs in a population because of mutation is random — but selection acts on that variation in a very non-random way : genetic variants that aid survival and reproduction are much more likely to become common than variants that don't. ... The result is non-random evolutionary change.
https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/misconcep_05
Evolutionary cybernetics :
Then, we need to study the evolution of goal-directedness, i.e. control systems.
http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/EVOLCYB.html
Well, no. You've framed the issue in an absurd way. Just go read some actual biological texts, and try to understand the topic before you expound on it.
It was worth a try. Thanks for the advice though. Good day!
Quoting Gnomon
Too bad. I want to run something by you if you don't mind. First off, @Banno & @180 Proof claim that "evolution is non-random and non-teleological (no purpose/end)" = E. Now, E obviously needs an argument.
There's only one premise that can prove E definitively and that's the statement, "ALL non-random phenomena are non-teleological" = N. The argument would look like this:
Argument A
1. All non-random phenomena are non-teleological [premise]
2. Evolution is a non-random phenomenon [premise]
Ergo,
3. Evolution is non-teleological [conclusion]
Argument A however is unsound for premise 1 is false, the falsifying counterexample being humans who exhibit behavior that's non-random and teleological.
Premise 1 is unavailable (it's false) and that means the only statement that Banno & 180 Proof can use is, "some non-random phenomena are non-teleological" = S. This at least casts doubt on the claim that "all non-random phenomenon, are teleological" = T. The first order of business for Banno & 180 Proof is to prove S = "some non-random phenomena are non-teleological". A quick reference of Aristotelian categorical logic stipulates the following proof:
Argument B
4. All phenomena are non-teleological [premise]
5. Some non-random phenomena are phenomena [premise]
Ergo,
5. Some non-random phenomena are non-teleological = S [conclusion]
Notice, premise "4. All phenomena are non-telelogical" is false because of humans - we're phenomena and teleological. If this isn't obvious, it might help to know that "4. all phenomena are non-teleolgical" is logically equivalent to "no phenomena are teleological." What this means is Banno and 180 Proof can't even cast doubt on the statement, "all non-random phenomena are teleological" which is necessary for the argument below,
Argument C
6. All non-random phenomena are teleological [premise]
7. Evolution is a non-random phenomenon [premise]
Ergo,
8. Evolution is teleological [conclusion]
The main premise in argument C is, "6. All non-random phenomena are teleological" and this premise remains unproven.
To sum it all up, Banno & 180 Proof are wrong in asserting, "3. Evolution is non-teleological" via argument A because it's an unsound argument. Similarly, to claim, "8. Evolution is teleological" is also wrong. In other words, the matter of whether evolution is teleological or not an open and shut case as some might believe :point: Banno & 180 Proof
Time to get to the interesting bit now...
A scientific hypothesis, evolution is one, makes some assumptions and based on them some predictions. If the predictions bear out, the scientific hypothesis in question is said to have been confirmed and if the predictions fail, the hypothesis is falsified.
Now, let's suppose that evolution is teleological is a scientific hypothesis. We now need some observable predictions and that is nothing but non-randomness. Ergo, the following scientific argument,
9. If evolution is teleological then we should observe non-randomness in evolution [hypothesis & prediction]
10. If we observe non-randomness in evolution then the hypothesis that evolution is teleological is confirmed
11. We do observe non-randomness in evolution
Ergo,
12. The hypothesis that evolution is teleological is confirmed.
In essence, taking a legit scientific approach on the issue of teleology and evolution, we can safely say that the hypothesis that evolution is teleological has been confirmed.
:chin:
:roll:
NB: Btw, scientific hypotheses are falsified, not "confirmed". For example, the geocentric model of the solar system makes some accurate predictions of some planetary movements but explains almost nothing of how they came about; the heliocentric model is a better model in every regard – easier to use, more predictive, consistent with better explanations (e.g. gravity) – and continuously tested. The latter is a better scientific model because it survives countlessly more falsifying tests (i.e. experiemental predictions deduced from an observation-based hypothesis) than the former; however, nothing is "confirmed" by this methodological process of elimination.
The status of the heliocentric model, an astronomical hypothesis, is CONFIRMED.
Quoting TheMadFool
Thanks for the kind gesture of resuming the discussion with me. I'm grateful. A few things we need to be clear on before we proceed.
1. All teleological phenomena are things that exhibit non-randomness
Ergo,
2. If evolution is teleological, non-randomness in it should be observable
Now, comes the scientific hypothesis and scientific because an observable prediction is being made. See vide infra,
Propose scientific hypothesis: Evolution is teleological
Prediction: Non-randomness in evolution
Scientific method:
3. Given the hypothesis evolution is teleological, evolution should exhibit non-randomness
4. If evolution exhibits non-randomness then the hypothesis evolution is teleological is confirmed
5. Observations show that evolution exhibits non-randomness [according to you and @Banno]
Ergo,
6. The hypothesis that evolution is teleological is confirmed
Knowing something is teleological doesn't necessarily mean that something's telos is known. Knowing that there's a man in the room doesn't mean I know who that man is. Two different epistemological situations.
Quoting TheMadFool
Non sequitur. Your analogy is fatuous, Fool. Rather: 'knowing a woman just walked down an empty beach means I can know the path she took by backtracking her footprints in the sand.' The epistemic difference between a claim being true and being untrue – search parameters of evidence entailed by predication. So if "evolution" has a telos (A) cite the observational evidence and (B) describe its fulfillment or end-state (à la an Aristotlean "final cause"). Absent that, TMF, you're just talking out of your bunghole and the discussion can't go any further.
Debatable but I'm running with your claim that it is non-random.
Quoting 180 Proof
Irrelevant. All that matters is the claim, yours, that evolution is non-random. Why? Well, non-random behavior is an essential attribute of telos, aim, objective. You, yourself, are living proof of telos - a purposeful being - and pray tell how best to describe your actions? Random/non-random? Non-random of course.
Quoting 180 Proof
Irrelevant. Focus on non-randomness as a feature you claim evolution exhibits/displays.
Quoting 180 Proof
You asked me to state what the purpose (telos) of evolution is but that isn't necessary. My purpose, from the very beginning, was simple and to the point: generate as scientific a hypothesis as possible, make predictions based on it, and find out what that leads to. For your convenience, I repeat my stand on the issue in the form of a scientific hypothesis:
Quoting TheMadFool
Quoting 180 Proof
I did cite the observational evidence. Look at the rough sketch of a scientific hypothesis above which states that evolution is teleological and the evidence is what you've been claiming is a fact viz. that evolution is non-random.
That out of the way, I must emphasize that I don't have to tell you what exactly the purpose (telos) of evolution is. All I need to do is show/demonstrate that has one and it has one if you insist that evolution is non-random. A better analogy than the one I offered comes from everyday life - you know everybody, at least normal people, have a purpose but you may not know what that purpose is.
Quoting 180 Proof
A possibility that grows likelier given that you disagree with me strongly. Nevertheless, I feel I'm on the right track on this issue.
Unfortunately, the teleological interpretation of evolution is far from being scientifically confirmed, and is currently being hotly debated. Just type "teleology" and "evolution" into Google. You will find arguments both pro & con. So, the issue here seems to be not the science or the logic, but the worldview of each participant. Perhaps there is bias both ways. So, I guess, like political and religious debates, we conclude by agreeing to disagree.
Part of the problem for the teleological interpretation is that the "intended" end is unknown. Unless you have a direct revelation from the supposed Intender. But we have the same issue with the Arrow of Time. Except for those who live in static Block Time, it is obvious that the progression of Time has a direction. But what target is that arrow pointing at? Those whose interpretation is based on scriptural evidence can state with confidence that the End of Time will be as described in the Apocalypse of John (revelation). And that horror-show may be what the anti-teleology folks are denying.
In my own speculations about the Telos of Time, I don't claim to know what the ultimate goal is. So, I merely note that the forward & upward progression of evolution seems to be toward more organized complexity, and higher levels of intelligence. And, since 2021 seems to be close to the beginning of a an accelerating upward curve of compounding complexity and self-organization, the current state of the world is still in its infancy. And we have a long way to go, to reach god-hood -- if that Omega Point is actually in the cards. For me, it's just a guess. But self-organization makes more sense of the world to me, than the alternative of compounding Chaos. :cool:
Teleological Explanations in Evolutionary Biology :
Evolutionary biologists use teleological language and teleo-logical explanations ... evolutionary change – the theory of natural selection, . . . . ___Francisco Ayala
https://escholarship.org/content/qt26s4355t/qt26s4355t_noSplash_36f1f3349cb98dcd90ca48a908f2f87b.pdf
Cosmic Progression Graph :
http://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page28.html
Quoting 180 Proof
I don't think TMF is predicting anything specific. He's just interpreting the evidence in a positive direction. If you interpret the obvious signs of Change as non-directional, that's a legitimate conclusion -- from the Mechanistic perspective. But it's not the only way to read the signs.
Unlike scientists, philosophers are not sworn to uphold that short-sighted worldview. Instead, until recent times, most philosophers have followed Aristotle's example : to interpret the world based on First & Final Causes. The Mechanistic view works for pragmatic short-term science, like Chemistry & Biology. But for Astrophysicists & Cosmologists, the order & organization we find under our feet is also found everywhere they look, even back to the beginning of time. So, consideration of First & Final causes is not only legitimate, but mandatory. :nerd:
Evolution -- Teleology or Chance :
https://www.jstor.org/stable/25170904?seq=1
Teleological Evolution :
http://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page25.html
What Fool doesn't understand is "direction" does not imply destination and purpose – end goal – is synonomous with destination in this context. He is evidently profoundly ignorant of chaos theory, stochastics, etc.
Okay. Good luck with all that nonsense and pseudo-science. Non-random =/= purposeful. :roll: :rofl:
I think that about wraps it up for any attention one might play to Fool's posts.
Gnome is citing increasingly obscure and odd papers in an attempt to maintain his position. He's reached a conclusion and is looking for the evidence to back it. It doesn't bode well.
Mea culpa! :grin: I guess there's no point pursuing the matter any further although, in my defense, it has to be said that chaos theory isn't relevant. Chaos theory is about deterministic systems that exhibit randomness. I thought we were talking about non-randomness :point: Quoting 180 Proof
Quoting 180 Proof
:lol: If you don't mind spending a little more of your valuable time, I want to ask you a question which is whether or not the following statement is true/false,
1. If x has a telos then x has to be non-random
?
Exclude from the discussion the paradoxical possibility that the telos is no telos in which case even randomness can be taken to be purposeful. A Taoist take on the issue - seems relevant if one were to claim that evolution has no telos because it's random - but that's another story altogether. It gets complicated really quickly I'm afraid but set this aside for the moment and please answer the question and don't forget to back up your decision with good reasons.
Quoting Gnomon
If 180 Proof comes to the conclusion that the statement 1. If x has a telos then x has to be non-random (above) is true, I'm afraid we're forced to admit that the hypothesis evolution has a telos is, as they say in science, confirmed.
Quoting Gnomon
Unnecessary in opinion. In my humble opinion, to know evolution has a purpose/telos is the first order of business. Finding out what that purpose comes later. Imagine evolution's telos is a gift. There's the information that there's a gift (there's a telos to evolution) and the second piece of information is what that gift is (what evolution's telos is). You can know that there's a gift for you without knowing what that gift is.
Quoting Banno
All scientific theories that are said to have been confirmed commit the fallacy of affirming the consequent. In fact it seems necessary that scientific arguments be framed in such a way that this fallacy is committed for if not they couldn't be falsified and I believe falsfiability is a big deal in science. See vide infra
Falsification of a scientific hypothesis
1. If hypothesis T is true then prediction P must be observed
2. Prediction P is not observed
So,
3. Hypothesis T is false [falsification of hypothesis T; only possible with premise 1 framed as it is]
Confirmation of a scientific hypothesis
1. If hypothesis T is true then prediction P must be observed
2. Prediction P is observed
Ergo,
3. Hypothesis T is confirmed
I don't think so, but it's an interesting question: can you tell by looking at evolution if it's purposeful?
In some cases organisms contribute to their own extinction, only to set up an environment for some other life form in the process.
If there was some purpose, what is its seat? The planet itself?
C'mon man! You know better: Science's Useful Fallacy
There's a Western version and an Eastern version to the answer as I will explain vide infra,
1. Evolution is non-random. Non-randomness is a feature of phenomena that have purpose i.e. if x is purposeful, x will be non-random. Evolution, according to 180 Proof and Banno, is non-random. Affirming the consequent fallacy, yes, but that's how science works and scientists call it confirmation of a hypothesis which in this case is evolution is purposeful (substitute x with evolution). This is the Western version.
2. Evolution is random. Randomness is a "good strategy" I'm told but only under certain circumstances such as when faced with unpredictable, themselves random, challenges. In such cases, and I believe the environment life faces is unpredictable - the dinosaurs were wiped out by a random asteroid - evolution's best telos is to have no telos which is another way of saying, every telos available is game. This makes evolution robust enough to handle any and all contingencies. This is the Eastern Version.
Unfortunately, the teleological interpretation of evolution is far from being scientifically confirmed, and is currently being hotly debated. Just type "teleology" and "evolution" into Google. You will find arguments both pro & con. So, the issue here seems to be not the science or the logic, but the worldview of each participant. Perhaps there is bias both ways. So, I guess, like political and religious debates, we conclude by agreeing to disagree.
Part of the problem for the teleological interpretation is that the "intended" end is unknown. Unless you have a direct revelation from the supposed Intender. But we have the same issue with the Arrow of Time. Except for those who live in static Block Time, it is obvious that the progression of Time has a direction. But what target is that arrow pointing at? Those whose interpretation is based on scriptural evidence can state with confidence that the End of Time will be as described in the Apocalypse of John (revelation). And that horror-show may be what the anti-teleology folks are denying.
In my own speculations about the Telos of Time, I don't claim to know what the ultimate goal is. So, I merely note that the forward & upward progression of evolution seems to be toward more organized complexity, and higher levels of intelligence. And, since 2021 seems to be close to the beginning of a an accelerating upward curve of compounding complexity and self-organization, the current state of the world is still in its infancy. And we have a long way to go, to reach god-hood -- if that Omega Point is actually in the cards. For me, it's just a guess. But self-organization makes more sense of the world to me, than the alternative of compounding Chaos. :cool:
Teleological Explanations in Evolutionary Biology :
Evolutionary biologists use teleological language and teleo-logical explanations ... evolutionary change – the theory of natural selection, . . . . ___Francisco Ayala
https://escholarship.org/content/qt26s4355t/qt26s4355t_noSplash_36f1f3349cb98dcd90ca48a908f2f87b.pdf
Cosmic Progression Graph :
http://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page28.html
Quoting 180 Proof
I don't think TMF is predicting anything specific. He's just interpreting the evidence in a positive direction. If you interpret the obvious signs of Change as non-directional, that's a legitimate conclusion -- from the Mechanistic perspective. But it's not the only way to read the signs.
Unlike scientists, philosophers are not sworn to uphold that short-sighted worldview. Instead, until recent times, most philosophers have followed Aristotle's example : to interpret the world based on First & Final Causes. The Mechanistic view works for pragmatic short-term science, like Chemistry & Biology. But for Astrophysicists & Cosmologists, the order & organization we find under our feet is also found everywhere they look, even back to the beginning of time. So, consideration of First & Final causes is not only legitimate, but mandatory. :nerd:
Evolution -- Teleology or Chance :
https://www.jstor.org/stable/25170904?seq=1
Teleological Evolution :
http://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page25.html
I'm not sure what you mean by that. Could you explain?
If X is non-random, then X possibly has or does not have a telos. Stop affirming the consequent, Fool.
The statement, "If X is non-random, then X has a telos or X doesn't have a telos" [making the logical structure more explicit] is a tautology [the consequent is itself a tautology and is always true and if the consequent of a conditional statement is always true, the entire conditional is true but only as a tautology]. Since your statement, beautifully and lovingly crafted as it may be, is a tautology, its truth is not dependent on any other proposition i.e. it can't be an empirical claim and empirical claims are, whatever else they may be, definitely not tautological - they need to backed up with evidence, strong evidence preferrably.
Coming to my argument, the premise that I used is, "if the hypothesis that X has telos is true then, X will be observed to be non-random"
1. If the hypothesis that X has telos is true then, X will be observed to be non-random
2. X is observed to be non-random
Ergo,
3. The hypothesis that X has telos is [s]true[/s] confirmed
The above argument actually doesn't commit the fallacy of affirming the consequent because, it avoids/refrains from concluding that "the hypothesis that X has telos" is true. Instead it, like all scientists worth their salt, concludes that the antecedent of the conditional - the [scientific] hypothesis in question (here that X has telos) - is only confirmed. A subtlety that I failed to notice until now. Thanks for your valuable help.
:point: Science's Useful Fallacy (Affirming The Consequent)
DON'T SNIFF GLUE, FOOL.
:mask:
I want to, one of these days :smile:
Quoting 180 Proof
You and TMF seem to be talking past each other, as is common on this forum. Your perspective seems to be scientific & reductive, while his is philosophical & holistic. Thus, when you look at the "blooming buzzing confusion" of randomness, you see different things. For example, the Cosmic Background Radiation at first glance appears totally random. Yet, by comparison to an artificially created randomized map, the real pattern of thermal variations was found to be somewhat non-random -- implying that some unknown influence resulted in an organized pattern. Ironically, the large-scale structure of the universe looks surprising similar to the neuronal patterns of the human brain. Coincidence or Causation? Initial Conditions or First Cause? See below :
Here's another illustration of anomalous structure within a random distribution : if a series of coin flips turn-up heads 10 times in a row, it's surprising but not impossible -- seeming to defy the 50/50 odds. Yet, long strings of 1s or 0s occur naturally in chaotic systems on rare occasions. But "it takes, on average, 2046 flips to achieve 10 heads in a row." So, from a close-up (reductive) point-of-view, that departure from the norm is an exception, but not a miracle. However, such a low probability string of heads, could plausibly indicate "purposeful" intention; perhaps, that someone is cheating. In other words, a mind may be interfering with natural randomness by special "selection" skewing the odds. Therefore, from a broader perspective, the possibility of Teleology makes sense. Cheaters & Magicians make fools of those who watch too closely.
I get the impression that TMF views the universe as an Organism, while you see it as a Mechanism. By definition a Mechanism cannot change its own inherent rigid step-by-step procedures. But an Organism can choose to adapt to a changing environment. That's why those of us who take a holistic approach to the world, often see signs of non-randomness that suggest a purposeful direction and goal-directed intention. :nerd:
Structures in the microwave background radiation :
It is commonly taken for granted (with the notable exception of Gurzadyan & Penrose [5]) that the temperature distribution in the CMB is purely statistical being produced by the quantum fluctuations . . . . Therefore, it was very unexpected for us to find significant differences . . . The differences between real and artificial maps were both qualitative and quantitative.
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rspa.2013.0116
Coin Flipping Scam : Note -- Derren Brown is a magician, whose trade is doing what seems impossible.
https://nrich.maths.org/6954/solution
# Which is a map of brain neurons, and which maps the structural pattern of stars? :
https://www.universetoday.com/148966/one-of-these-pictures-is-the-brain-the-other-is-the-universe-can-you-tell-which-is-which/
I'd say my perspective is evidentiary & scientific while, on this topic, TMF's perspective is uninformed & pseudo-philosophical.
Well, actually, I "see the universe" as an unbounded yet finite, hyper-dimensional computational system generating (and consisting of) lower dimensional, entropic-fractal structures & nested sub-systems (i.e. cosmological holism).
I apologize for accusing you of a reductionist worldview. From a brief review of the link, it seems that Cosmological Holism is technically similar, in some ways, to my own worldview of a mathematical information-based universe. But it doesn't translate its technical jargon into a scenario that non-mathematicians could appreciate. Also, it doesn't put its highly abstract notion into a context of older paradigms -- including Scientific Reductionism and Religious Theism. Also, speaking of "pseudo-philosophical", the CH articles tries to incorporate the far-out "calculations" of the String Theory fairly tale. Anyway, I think Cosmological Holism is a step in the right direction, even if it doesn't acknowledge its own implications of a Cosmic Mind to bind independent parts into am interdependent (entangled) system.
If I were you, I'd be a little gentler in my criticism of TMFs notion of a mind-based reality. Wholes and Mathematical Principles do not exist in the material world, but only in minds -- which are themselves holistic functions of physical brains. Even the notion of a Cosmos is a mental concept that only exists as a philosophical category, to explain how all the zillions of material parts add-up to something greater than the computed sum -- just as the Mind is more than a bunch of neurons. Besides, I noticed that your link site is categorized under the heading of "Plato", best known for his Idealistic worldview. :cool:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/physics-holism/
Unfortunately for you, Enformationism is fundamentally & literally Idealistic, and both Physical & Metaphysical. But, it's based on the cutting-edge science of Information. Most people think they are up-to-date on Information Theory, when all they know about it is that it has something to do with computers. In fact, it has something to do with everything. And that's not just the opinion of extravagant & untethered New Agers. The fundamental role of Information was first glimpsed in early Quantum experiments, when extraction of information from a particle in superposition triggered the collapse of the suspended animation, turning virtual Ideality into actual Reality. From there, the many functions of Information have been gradually pieced into a cohesive concept. But it won't become mainstream science until the old guard of committed reductive materialists and "anti-idealists" die off.
There are a few hard-nosed and credentialed scientists & mathematicians & philosophers that are working to establish Information as an orthodox theory for future scientific applications. Information and the Nature of Reality, is the product of serious scientific investigation. Unfortunately or fortunately, depending on your attitude toward Religion, they also apply their understanding of multitasking Information to metaphysical & religious questions that have puzzled philosophers & theologians for centuries. But then, so did Einstein (see below).
The 2019 book by James Glattfelder (see below) -- trained in physics, but worked as a quant in international finance -- pulls all the various threads together into a proposed new paradigm, based on the ubiquity of Information : "Over 300 years ago, the human mind discovered the machine code of reality : mathematics. ... Science appears to have hit a dead end when confronted with the nature of reality and consciousness. In this fascinating and accessible volume, James Glattfelder explores a radical paradigm shift uncovering the ontology of reality".
These pioneers of a new paradigm are no more far-out & extravagant than the Cosmological Holism you seem to favor. The anti-reductive notion of Holism was adopted early by "non-parsimonious" New Agers, but has gradually seeped into mainstream science. Of course, a reasonable degree of skepticism should be applied to any strange new ideas. But, philosophers are well-advised to carry the sword of an open mind behind the shield of skepticism. :cool:
How is information related to energy in physics? :
Energy is the relationship between information regimes.
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/22084/how-is-information-related-to-energy-in-physics
Information -- Consciousness -- Reality : How a new understanding of the universe can help answer age-old questions of existence. ___James Glattfelder
https://library.oapen.org/handle/20.500.12657/23108
Information and the Nature of Reality: From Physics to Metaphysics :
https://philpapers.org/rec/DAVIAT-5
“The religion of the future will be a cosmic religion. It should transcend a personal God and avoid dogmas and theology. Covering both the natural and the spiritual, it should be based on a religious sense arising from the experience of all things, natural and spiritual, as a meaningful unity. Buddhism answers this description.” ? Albert Einstein
Though our thoughts apparently diverge quite radically, Gnomon, we seem to agree that nature is an emergent 'system of transformational structures' and is not itself fundamental. What is fundamental, however, is unknown (or unknowable) and profoundly open to speculation. 'My metaphysics' (speculative framework, so to speak) is mostly apophatic enabled-constrained by a kind of negative ontology wherein 'impossible objects/versions of the world are necessarily eliminated' and, therefore, entails that actuality is constituted (phase space-like) by every possible object/version of the world (e.g. the way chess is a logical space consisting of every possible move and chess-match); thus, speculations on fundamental reality from which nature (and physics) emerges such as Rovelli's intrigue me the most.
Et tu Brute. :lol:
Yes. That seems to be the key difference in our views. But the notion that "Information is physical" would have been ridiculed in the centuries before Claude Shannon, in his search for efficient transmission of knowledge, divested Information of meaning, . The original referent of the term was to non-physical Ideas in the mind. But Shannon wanted empty containers that could carry a wide variety of ideas & knowledge, without having any inherent meaning in themselves. So, following Turing, he boiled the real world down to its simplest elements : all or nothing, (1) or (0) -- ideal abstractions that have no instances in reality . Based on that ideal binary categorization, he turned Turing's imaginary "universal computer" into a physical reality.
Turing's computer only existed as an idea before that. And later, the Church-Turing-Deutsch principle showed that " a universal computing device can simulate every physical process". From that insight, some information theorists, including Tegmark, concluded that the physical universe itself is actually a mathematical simulation. Hence, material reality is ultimately made of mathematical (meta-physical) Information, instead of tiny atoms of physical stuff. Hence, most physicists today have given-up the ancient notion of a physical atomic foundation to the world, and now imagine that matter itself is an emergent quality of invisible information "Fields" : consisting of Potential (unactualized) Energy and Virtual (ideal) Particles.
So, if you'll pardon my presumption, your notion that Reality is "completely physical" -- i.e. "nothing but" physical stuff -- is out of date. Instead of exclusive & reductive, Black & White ; Either/Or, (1) or (0) categories, my own holistic worldview is what I call "BothAnd". It accepts the real physical world as it appears to our physical senses, but it also acknowledges the underlying Ideality of invisible & intangible stuff -- including the abstract concepts that populate the human mind. Therefore, rather than excluding our own Consciousness from our worldview, the BothAnd principle includes Physical & Meta-physical, Real & Ideal, Matter & Mind. :nerd:
Abstract : thought-of apart from concrete realities
Quantum Field Theory (QFT) is the mathematical and conceptual framework for contemporary elementary particle physics
Information is Physical :
"Even if we encode data as bits, the content, representation, and ontology of information appear separate. How then, can information be physical? . . . what link establishes the relationship between the ethereal nature of information and its physicality?"
James Glattfelder, Information-- Consciousness-- Reality
Both/And Principle :
My coinage for the holistic principle of Complementarity, as illustrated in the Yin/Yang symbol. Opposing or contrasting concepts are always part of a greater whole. Conflicts between parts can be reconciled or harmonized by putting them into the context of a whole system.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page10.html
Information :
[i]* Claude Shannon quantified Information not as useful ideas, but as a mathematical ratio between meaningful order (1) and meaningless disorder (0); between knowledge (1) and ignorance (0). So, that meaningful mind-stuff exists in the limbo-land of statistics, producing effects on reality while having no sensory physical properties. We know it exists ideally, only by detecting its effects in the real world.
* For humans, Information has the semantic quality of aboutness , that we interpret as meaning. In computer science though, Information is treated as meaningless, which makes its mathematical value more certain. So, it becomes meaningful only when a sentient Self interprets it as such.
* When spelled with an “I”, Information is a noun, referring to data & things. When spelled with an “E”, Enformation is a verb, referring to energy and processes.[/i]
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page11.html
Cite any post anywhere on this forum where I have claimed or implied that "reality is nothing but physical stuff". Your "presumption" is a strawman, G. :roll:
I was responding to this quote :
My understanding of 'information' is completely physical, and not "ideal" (or platonic) in any significant sense. — 180 Proof
If "information" is "completely physical" what else is there? By eliminating all options that seems to imply "nothing but". So, I merely turned the quote around to say "reality is nothing but". Was that "presumptuous"? Based on my exploration of the role of Information in the world, I have concluded that Reality is both Physical (matter stuff) and Metaphysical (mind stuff). Anyway, you can correct my presumption by denying that reality is "nothing but" physical.
I apologize, if I misinterpreted your statement. I'm really trying to communicate with you, because you seem to be on the verge of understanding the ubiquity of Information. And communication is transmission of information. So, it will help if we understand what Information actually is. Just for the record, my notion of Ideal Information doesn't come from the Bible, or from New Age tracts, or from Plato. It comes primarily from well-known scientists, especially those on the cutting-edge of Quantum Theory
I'm currently reading the book by James Glattfelder, Information-Consciousness-Reality. In the chapter entitled, Information is Physical, he quotes several of those famous scientists. First, he reminds us that, before Shannon, information was considered to be non-physical, or meta-physical, as I call it. "What link establishes the relationship between the ethereal nature of information and it's physicality?" Then, he quotes physicist Rolf Landauer : "Information is not a disembodied abstract entity; it is always tied to a physical representation". But the same could be said of Energy : no-one has ever seen or touched pure Energy, because our senses are only tuned to experience its material forms. But energy is ethereal in its ability to transform from massless light-waves into the Mass (a property known only by reason, not sensation) that we associate with Matter.
In the next section, It From Bit, he quotes physicist John Archibald Wheeler : "The bit is a fundamental particle of a different sort : not just tiny but abstract -- a binary digit . . . it is insubstantial . . . more fundamental than matter itself." He's not contradicting Landauer, just focusing on a different aspect of Information, which is both abstract and concrete. He goes-on to say : "Information gives rise to every it -- every particle, every field of force, even the spacetime continuum itself". That covers just about everything in the physical world ; hence Information is ubiquitous -- it's both abstract Energy and concrete Matter. Then, he concludes : "All things physical are information-theoretic in origin, and this is a participatory universe." That last assertion was quickly adopted by metaphysical-oriented New Agers.
Wheeler doesn't use the term "Ideal" or "Platonic", but that's what he means, when he says : "The notion that the world exists 'out there' independent of the mind is a view which is abandoned." Other physicists have gone even further in expanding on the role of "ethereal" information in the real world. Seth Lloyd says that : "Once you adopt the notion that [concrete] reality and [abstract] information are the same, all quantum paradoxes and puzzles . . . disappear." [my brackets]. The he makes the bold assertion : "the entire universe is computing reality". From that concept I conclude that Evolution is essentially a computer program, which must have a Programmer to establish the rules and the teleology of the computing process. :nerd:
Ethereal : heavenly or celestial
Abstract : detached from physical, or concrete, reality
Ideal : existing only in the imagination
Seth Lloyd : "everything in the universe is made of bits. Not chunks of stuff, but chunks of information."
Note -- both Wheeler and Lloyd make a clear distinction between physical Stuff and metaphysical Information. So, their worldview is not "completely physical", but both Real and Ideal.
Right there I refer to My Understanding and do not make an ontological claim or commit to physical monism. No ontological "eliminating" on my part. "What else is there?" Whatever else there might be is irrelevant when discussing science or nature.
No worries.
:up: John Wheeler & Seth Lloyd.
QFT, energy, information (or communication), 'consciousness' ... are, at minimum, physical whatever else they may be in so far as they are manifest in causal relations with physical processes.
Not exactly. He said that if X is non-random then X possibly has a telos and possibly doesn't have a telos. In other words, ¬R(X) ? ?T(X) ? ?¬T(X).
?T(X) ? ?¬T(X) isn't a tautology because ?T(X) ? ¬?¬T(X).
Quoting TheMadFool
1. If the hypothesis that I am a man is true then I will be observed to be human
2. I am observed to be human
3. Therefore, the hypothesis that I am a man is confirmed
This is affirming the consequent. That P (I am a man) implies Q (I am human) isn't that Q (I am human) implies P (I am man) – women are also human. That P (X has a telos) implies Q (X is non-random) isn't that Q (X is non-random) implies P (X has a telos) – things without a telos might also be non-random.
Your first premise needs to be "If and only if X has a telos then X will be observed to be non-random."
I was responding to this quote :
My understanding of 'information' is completely physical, and not "ideal" (or platonic) in any significant sense. — 180 Proof
If "information" is "completely physical" what else is there? By eliminating all options that seems to imply "nothing but". So, I merely turned the quote around to say "reality is nothing but". Was that "presumptuous"? Based on my exploration of the role of Information in the world, I have concluded that Reality is both Physical (matter stuff) and Metaphysical (mind stuff). Anyway, you can correct my presumption by denying that reality is "nothing but" physical.
I apologize, if I misinterpreted your statement. I'm really trying to communicate with you, because you seem to be on the verge of understanding the ubiquity of Information. And communication is transmission of information. So, it will help if we understand what Information actually is. Just for the record, my notion of Ideal Information doesn't come from the Bible, or from New Age tracts, or from Plato. It comes primarily from well-known scientists, especially those on the cutting-edge of Quantum Theory
I'm currently reading the book by James Glattfelder, Information-Consciousness-Reality. In the chapter entitled, Information is Physical, he quotes several of those famous scientists. First, he reminds us that, before Shannon, information was considered to be non-physical, or meta-physical, as I call it. "What link establishes the relationship between the ethereal nature of information and it's physicality?" Then, he quotes physicist Rolf Landauer : "Information is not a disembodied abstract entity; it is always tied to a physical representation". But the same could be said of Energy : no-one has ever seen or touched pure Energy, because our senses are only tuned to experience its material forms. But energy is ethereal in its ability to transform from massless light-waves into the Mass (a property known only by reason, not sensation) that we associate with Matter.
In the next section, It From Bit, he quotes physicist John Archibald Wheeler : "The bit is a fundamental particle of a different sort : not just tiny but abstract -- a binary digit . . . it is insubstantial . . . more fundamental than matter itself." He's not contradicting Landauer, just focusing on a different aspect of Information, which is both abstract and concrete. He goes-on to say : "Information gives rise to every it -- every particle, every field of force, even the spacetime continuum itself". That covers just about everything in the physical world ; hence Information is ubiquitous -- it's both abstract Energy and concrete Matter. Then, he concludes : "All things physical are information-theoretic in origin, and this is a participatory universe." That last assertion was quickly adopted by metaphysical-oriented New Agers.
Wheeler doesn't use the term "Ideal" or "Platonic", but that's what he means, when he says : "The notion that the world exists 'out there' independent of the mind is a view which is abandoned." Other physicists have gone even further in expanding on the role of "ethereal" information in the real world. Seth Lloyd says that : "Once you adopt the notion that [concrete] reality and [abstract] information are the same, all quantum paradoxes and puzzles . . . disappear." [my brackets]. The he makes the bold assertion : "the entire universe is computing reality". From that concept I conclude that Evolution is essentially a computer program, which must have a Programmer to establish the rules and the teleology of the computing process. :nerd:
Ethereal : heavenly or celestial
Abstract : detached from physical, or concrete, reality
Ideal : existing only in the imagination
Seth Lloyd : "everything in the universe is made of bits. Not chunks of stuff, but chunks of information."
Note -- both Wheeler and Lloyd make a clear distinction between physical Stuff and metaphysical Information. So, their worldview is not "completely physical", but both Real and Ideal.
Yes, but this is not a science or nature forum. Our interests here include what is known via the scientific method, but are not limited to the physical world. In fact, after post-Enlightenment Science came to dominate the exploration of the world, as known by the physical senses, Philosophy was left holding-the-bag of extra-sensory Metaphysics. By "extra-sensory", I don't mean magical powers, but merely the aspects of the world that are known via Reason instead of Sensation. By "Metaphysics" I'm referring to what Kant called "Noumenal" Ideality, as opposed to "Phenomenal" Reality. And shape-shifting Information seems to be the bridge between Noumenal and Phenomenal.
Unfortunately, some people assume that Metaphysics is merely the study of supernatural spooky stuff, like ESP, reincarnation, and communing with the dead. But, it also includes the natural spooky stuff, like action-at-a-distance and quantum leaps. So, I believe that asking "what else is there" is relevant to the purpose of The Philosophy Forum. Ironically, some posters on this forum seem to have Physics Envy, and reject anything that smacks of Meta-Physics. Of course, when delving into the immaterial aspects of Reality, a healthy dose of skepticism is necessary to avoid confusing normal Mental topics with paranormal Spiritual belief systems. Which is why I try to ground my Meta-Physical notions with empirical Physical knowledge, where possible. :nerd:
Both physics and metaphysics are concerned with describing our reality. One could say that both attempt to give an account of what the world is like, but physics is concerned with what it is like according to our experience of reality, whereas metaphysics is concerned with what it is “really” like.
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-physics-and-metaphysics
Note -- "What it's really like" is what Plato called the "Ideal" Realm, known only via Reason.
The phenomenal world is the world we are aware of; this is the world we construct out of the sensations that are present to our consciousness. The noumenal world consists of things we seem compelled to believe in, but which we can never know (because we lack sense-evidence of it).
http://people.wku.edu/jan.garrett/303/kant120.htm
Physics Envy :
The term argues that writing and working practices in these disciplines have overused, confusing jargon and complicated mathematics to seem more 'rigorous' and like mathematics-based subjects like physics.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physics_envy
The Case Against Reality : How Evolution Hid the Truth from Our Eyes
"Do we see the world as it truly is? In The Case Against Reality, pioneering cognitive scientist Donald Hoffman says no? we see what we need in order to survive. Our visual perceptions are not a window onto reality, Hoffman shows us, but instead are interfaces constructed by natural selection."
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/04/the-illusion-of-reality/479559/
Repeating this indicates to me that either you didn't read my previous reply or you can't understand what I wrote.
Sorry about that! When I started to reply yesterday, I found that the previous day's reply was already in the comment box, and the only option was to "post comment" -- resulting in a duplicate post. That has happened before, and I don't know what causes the old comment to be retained as a draft after posting.
Anyway, I acknowledge that you recanted or revised your previous statement that "'information' is completely physical". But, I'm still not convinced that you realize that Information is both Physical and Metaphysical. And that understanding makes a big difference in my philosophical worldview. Glattfelder calls it an Information-theoretic Ontology. That's why I persist in insisting that our mutual Reality is not "completely physical"
That realization is important when addressing the OP assertion of "Mind (creator) = Mindless (evolution). The Mind-No Mind Equivalency Paradox " I hadn't thought of it that way, but the "equivalency" applies to my concept of Intelligent Evolution. Which proposes that the unfolding of our world was fully programmed in the Big Bang to search all possible variations on physical forms in order to find the "fittest" or most perfect form for the programmer's teleological goal. Hence, there is no need for divine intervention with the process. By contrast with Genesis, the world was not "perfect" in the beginning, but is working toward perfection.
Consequently, the common religious concept of a humanoid deity interfering with natural functions is misguided. Instead, I conclude that Max Eherman's Desiderata got it right :
"[i]You are a child of the universe,
no less than the trees and the stars;
you have a right to be here.
And whether or not it is clear to you,
no doubt the universe is unfolding as it should.[/i]"
Hence, no need to worship and sacrifice to unseen deities, in order to placate their whimsy and wrath. Unfortunately, the notion of a Cosmic Coder of the evolutionary program may still be considered : "irrelevant when discussing science or nature". Yet, this thread is not discussing physical Science, but the metaphysical mental aspects of the world. The mind is still a mystery to materialists, who can't put it under a microscope or dissect it with scalpels. That's because the human Mind is not a tangle of jelly-like neurons, but an intangible function of the processing of Information. The physical Brain is merely the container for Information (data) that it processes in a manner similar to a computer.
There is another pertinent equivalency, which some scientists are beginning to take seriously : Mind = Information = Energy. And that radical concept puts conventional notions of Matter, Energy & Mind in a whole new light. Like Information, Energy is invisible & intangible until it is converted into Mass, which our senses interpret as Matter. Most of the scientists studying the Information Ontology of the universe prefer to think of it in terms of invisible intangible Mathematics. Which is simply the geometric ratios & meaningful relationships between physical things that our minds "see" via Reasoning, not by senses. Information is the non-physical structure of meaning in a mind. :nerd:
The mass-energy-information equivalence principle :
https://aip.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.5123794
Function : (math) a relationship or expression involving one or more variables.
Ontologyis studying the structure of the nature of reality or the nature of exists and, epistemology is studying the potentiality of the knowledge of human being. Ontology is about Being that exists as self-contained or independent of human.
https://www.researchgate.net/post/What-is-the-difference-between-Ontology-and-Epistomology
Structure : the arrangement of and relations between the parts or elements of something complex.
Again, what you "acknowledge" is mistaken, a strawman of your own presumption. I've not "recanted or revised" anything, merely corrected you.
Quoting 180 Proof
How do you read a categorical assertion in that, G? :roll:
I understand 'metaphysics' to pertain to concepts (& systematicity) and not how the world must or happens to be. Thus, to my mind, your statement is incoherent. Yeah, one can reflect on the physical in a metaphysical way (e.g. hylomorphism), but there aren't any non-abstract, or factually concrete, 'objects of metaphysics'. And no 'ontological fiat' obtains – that'd be woo-of-the-gaps magical thinking and not philosophy. Simply put, the world within one's field of vision is not "corrected" by one's corrective lenses, which is what metaphysics consists in. Remember: Spinoza was a lens grinder by trade (re: scientific instruments) as well as by vocation (re: speculative immanence) and N O T a conjurer of 'otherworldly, realer-than-real, transcendent, supernaturalia'.
So you still believe that "information is completely physical"? If so, what kind of material is it made of? And what does Consciousness consist of : atoms? If you answer that Information is made of Energy, I might agree with you. Except that "Information" is a broader, more inclusive concept than just Energy. Energy is physical in the sense that it has a causal effect on matter. But Energy is not made of concrete atoms; it's made of abstract potential for change. It's a human-attributed property of natural matter. And, Information is physical in the same sense -- it is the power to enform (to give form to the formless, meaning to the meaningless). My "strawman" consists of information in your posts, as interpreted in terms of my own information-theoretic worldview. I'm just trying to show you that you are hung-up on an outdated interpretation of "metaphysics", and "idealism".
Both Energy and Information are abstract concepts about the physical world. And abstractions are made of Information, not matter. As physicist Seth Lloyd put it : "Everything in the universe is made of bits. Not chunks of stuff, but chunks of information" --- Qualia not Quanta ; Metaphysics not Physics. So, the distinction I'm trying to make here is between physical stuff (tangible & visible) and meta-physical Information (intangible & invisible). That will make sense to you, as soon as you grasp the fact that Metaphysics is not about Magic, but Mind. And the human Mind abstracts ideas from objects & actions, them constructs its abstracted worldview to represent its belief of what's really out there. That's why Carlo Rovelli entitled his book : Reality Is Not What It Seems. To our common sense, reality appears to be "completely physical", but science & philosophy are supposed to be un-common sense, and to see beyond superficial appearances (phenomena).
I'm close to the end of the book, Consciousness-Information-Reality. And the author says, under the heading of An Information Ontology, that "the intangible notion of Information is undeniably a physical manifestation". So, in that sense your notion that "information is physical" is correct, but incomplete. It's much more than that. The C-I-R book is not about the classical view of reality, or even the quantum nature of reality. Instead, it proposes "a radically new ontology of reality". And that cutting-edge paradigm is what I'm trying to introduce you to. No Magic involved, just Metaphysics. :nerd:
What is Energy made of? :
Energy is not made of anything, energy is a term used to describe a trait of matter and non-matter fields. When matter has velocity, for example, it is said to have kinetic energy. There are also various forms of potential energy.
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/14444/what-is-energy-made-of
Meta-physics :
[i]The branch of philosophy that examines the nature of reality, including the relationship between mind and matter, substance and attribute, fact and value.
1. Often dismissed by materialists as idle speculation on topics not amenable to empirical proof.
2. Aristotle divided his treatise on science into two parts. The world as-known-via-the-senses was labeled “physics” - what we call "Science" today. And the world as-known-by-the-mind, by reason, was labeled “metaphysics” - what we now call "Philosophy" . Aristotle's two volumes covered Physics (the concrete stuff of the world) and Meta-physics (abstract ideas about the world).
3. Plato called the unseen world that hides behind the physical façade: “Ideal” as opposed to Real. For him, Ideal “forms” (concepts) were prior-to the Real “substance” (matter).
4. Physics refers to the things we perceive with the eye of the body. Meta-physics refers to the things we conceive with the eye of the mind. Meta-physics includes the properties, and qualities, and functions that make a thing what it is. Matter is just the clay from which a thing is made. Meta-physics is the design (form, purpose); physics is the product (shape, action). The act of creation brings an ideal design into actual existence. The design concept is the “formal” cause of the thing designed.
5. I use a hyphen in the spelling to indicate that I am not talking about Ghosts and Magic, but about Ontology (science of being).[/i]
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page14.html
I can't answer no matter how many times you repeat this strawman. :roll:
That's as silly as asking 'What does music consist of?' 'What does breathing or walking consist of?'
My recent thoughts on "thoughts":
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/537932
:point: However you define metaphysics, G, we are using this concept and speculative practice quite differently. For instance, when you say "X is metaphysical", this amounts to saying X is imaginary to my ears. As I've pointed out, for me, 'metaphysical' pertains to a speculative way of looking at – re/presenting – the physical (vide Spinoza) and N O T an ontological fiat of 'things-in-themselves' (vide Kant).
Metaphysics is "imaginary". That's the whole point. The term pertains to subjective Ideality, which is the worldview that exists in your imagination. Unfortunately, medieval theologians interpreted Aristotle's discussion of the human perspective on Nature in terms of religious Spirituality. That's how the subject matter of Aristotle's second volume became associated with Catholic doctrine. And that made the term anathema (accursed) to post-Enlightenment scientists. So, if you will pardon another "strawman", you seem to retain that prejudice against the realm of (metaphysical) ideas, preferring the safer realm of actual (physical) things. But remember that theoretical physicists, such as Einstein, routinely rely on "a speculative way of looking at things". Yet, it's primarily experimental researchers (chemists, biologists, atom smashers), who following Bacon's method, close their eyes to metaphysical subjectivity, while pretending to be completely physically objective.
However, that classical scientific attitude (Objectivism, Materialism) was undermined by the advent of Quantum Theory. In which reality was discovered to be subjective & "imaginary" to some degree. And which opened the door to a variety of Transcendent theories of reality*1. But that development was foreseen by Kant in his Transcendental Idealism. He wrote his Critique of Pure Reason in response to Hume's radical skepticism toward Berkeley's Idealism. "A more disturbing consequence of Hume's critical analysis was its apparent undermining of empirical science itself, for the latter's logical foundation [induction] was now recognized as unjustifiable". [Tarnas, quoted in I-C-R] Other philosophers also anticipated the subjectivity of reality that became most apparent in the Quantum realm. "Secondary qualities such as color exist only in our minds, and therefore cannot be said to be independently existing real qualities of physical objects". [Locke, quoted in I-C-R] But hard-nosed empiricists rejected that philosophical view of quantum reality with "shut-up and calculate". In other words, shut your mind to transcendental imagination, and focus on manipulating pragmatic numbers.
Ironically, Mathematics -- the language of physics -- is itself "nothing but" Metaphysics. And professional mathematicians (such as Glattfelder) seem to be more open to metaphysical (and transcendental) interpretations of their calculations. As astronomer Neil deGrasse Tyson said, "the more profoundly baffled you have been in your life, the more open your mind becomes to new ideas". Yet, as seekers for truth, not fantasy, we need to be skeptical of the more radical (imaginary) flights of fancy. To avoid imaginary Metaphysics though, you would need to have no intuitive ideas of your own, and to rely on the objective communal view of fellow scientists. PS__ I look forward to seeing the stuffing knocked-out of my strawman, by your denial of its implications. :joke:
*1 Transcendent Theories : (non-empirical)
Inflation ; String ; Multiverse ; Many Worlds : Holographic ; Simulation
Mathematics is Metaphysics :
On the one hand, philosophy of mathematics is concerned with problems that are closely related to central problems of metaphysics and epistemology. . . . mathematics appears to study abstract entities.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/philosophy-mathematics/
Metaphysics As Mathematics :
While metaphysics as science is a dead-end for me, metaphysics as mathematics is ripe for very interesting insights. Instead of asking directly about “our” reality, we should be asking about hypothetical realities.
https://sciencehouse.wordpress.com/2012/01/09/2308/
Is math a metaphysics? :
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/platonism-mathematics/
Kant -- Transcendental Aesthetic :
"From this investigation, it will be found that there are two pure forms of sensuous intuition, as principles of knowledge a priori, namely space space and time . . . . Space is nothing else than the form of all phenomena of the external sense . . . . Time is nothing else than the form of the internal sense . . . these, as phenomena, cannot exist in themselves, but only in us."
Metaphysics is "imaginary". That's the whole point. The term pertains to subjective Ideality, which is the worldview that exists in your imagination. Unfortunately, medieval theologians interpreted Aristotle's discussion of the human perspective on Nature in terms of religious Spirituality. That's how the subject matter of Aristotle's second volume became associated with Catholic doctrine. And that made the term anathema (accursed) to post-Enlightenment scientists. So, if you will pardon another "strawman", you seem to retain that prejudice against the realm of (metaphysical) ideas, preferring the safer realm of actual (physical) things. But remember that theoretical physicists, such as Einstein, routinely rely on "a speculative way of looking at things". Yet, it's primarily experimental researchers (chemists, biologists, atom smashers), who following Bacon's method, close their eyes to metaphysical subjectivity, while pretending to be completely physically objective.
However, that classical scientific attitude (Objectivism, Materialism) was undermined by the advent of Quantum Theory. In which reality was discovered to be subjective & "imaginary" to some degree. And which opened the door to a variety of Transcendent theories of reality*1. But that development was foreseen by Kant in his Transcendental Idealism. He wrote his Critique of Pure Reason in response to Hume's radical skepticism toward Berkeley's Idealism. "A more disturbing consequence of Hume's critical analysis was its apparent undermining of empirical science itself, for the latter's logical foundation [induction] was now recognized as unjustifiable". [Tarnas, quoted in I-C-R] Other philosophers also anticipated the subjectivity of reality that became most apparent in the Quantum realm. "Secondary qualities such as color exist only in our minds, and therefore cannot be said to be independently existing real qualities of physical objects". [Locke, quoted in I-C-R] But hard-nosed empiricists rejected that philosophical view of quantum reality with "shut-up and calculate". In other words, shut your mind to transcendental imagination, and focus on manipulating pragmatic numbers.
Ironically, Mathematics -- the language of physics -- is itself "nothing but" Metaphysics. And professional mathematicians (such as Glattfelder) seem to be more open to metaphysical (and transcendental) interpretations of their calculations. As astronomer Neil deGrasse Tyson said, "the more profoundly baffled you have been in your life, the more open your mind becomes to new ideas". Yet, as seekers for truth, not fantasy, we need to be skeptical of the more radical (imaginary) flights of fancy. To avoid imaginary Metaphysics though, you would need to have no intuitive ideas of your own, and to rely on the objective communal view of fellow scientists. PS__ I look forward to seeing the stuffing knocked-out of my strawman, by your denial of its implications. :joke:
*1 Transcendent Theories : (non-empirical)
Inflation ; String ; Multiverse ; Many Worlds : Holographic ; Simulation
Mathematics is Metaphysics :
On the one hand, philosophy of mathematics is concerned with problems that are closely related to central problems of metaphysics and epistemology. . . . mathematics appears to study abstract entities.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/philosophy-mathematics/
Metaphysics As Mathematics :
While metaphysics as science is a dead-end for me, metaphysics as mathematics is ripe for very interesting insights. Instead of asking directly about “our” reality, we should be asking about hypothetical realities.
https://sciencehouse.wordpress.com/2012/01/09/2308/
Is math a metaphysics? :
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/platonism-mathematics/
Kant -- Transcendental Aesthetic :
"From this investigation, it will be found that there are two pure forms of sensuous intuition, as principles of knowledge a priori, namely space space and time . . . . Space is nothing else than the form of all phenomena of the external sense . . . . Time is nothing else than the form of the internal sense . . . these, as phenomena, cannot exist in themselves, but only in us."
Your reductive attitude toward "thoughts" seems to be similar to that of B.F. Skinner's "radical behaviorism", back in the stone-age of psychology. It was a valid scientific approach to the human mind. But it ignored equally valid psychological & philosophical questions, such as "what are thoughts?" and "what is music?" That's why Behaviorism is "no longer a dominating research program". It failed to consider the subjective & holistic aspects of the mind that are most important to ordinary humans. What are your "thoughts" on that topic? :smile:
PS__is "reductive attitude" another strawman? It's not a personal attack, but a condensed mirror of your argument against studying non-physical features of the world, such as Mind as contrasted with Brain. I was surprised to hear that exclusive notion coming from you, because I had previously gotten the impression that you were more philosophically-inclined (broad-minded instead of narrowly-focused) than that. :cool:
Behaviorism :
Why has the influence of behaviorism declined? The deepest and most complex reason for behaviorism’s decline in influence is its commitment to the thesis that behavior can be explained without reference to non-behavioral and inner mental (cognitive, representational, or interpretative) activity.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/behaviorism/
Well, okay, so when you say "information is physical and metaphysical" you are, in effect, saying that information can be scientifically treated like e.g. temperature without bothering with phenomenological "warmth", that is, as I've said, in a way that is completely physical.
Quoting Gnomon
Apparently you've not read Skinner or don't understand his "behaviorism" as well as you're at a loss for showing me how I get "thoughts" wrong coping-out instead on ad hominem-like editorializing. I suppose digestion is a "reductive attitude" to metabolism too, huh? :sweat: You're shooting at what looks like pigeons again, Gnomon, with shots actually ricocheting off of satellites in orbit when they hit anything at all. :smirk:
No, that's a "strawman", as you like to say. When I describe Information as both physical and metaphysical, I mean exactly that. In its physical forms, Information is the same matter & energy that physicists, chemists, and biologists have been studying for years. Yet, in its metaphysical forms, Information is the ideas & feelings that psychologists and philosophers are still struggling with today. Moreover, understanding the distinction between them is what Chalmers famously called "the hard problem'. Studying matter & energy is "easy" because they are accessible to our physical senses. But Information is only known via the sixth sense of Reason, which "sees" the invisible relationships between both material objects (geometry) and between mental concepts (ratios, meanings).
Christof Koch is probably the most prominent Neuroscientist today. Years ago, with his mentor Francis Crick, he proposed that Consciousness would soon be explained by examining its physical Neural Correlates : like a black body radiating physical phenomenal measurable heat. But they eventually found that Consciousness is more like the metaphysical noumenal feeling of "warmth". So, Koch today, has rejected the materialist approach, and he wrote a book on The Feeling of Life Itself. He even subscribes to a modern scientific version of the ancient notion of Panpsychism. My own worldview is similar to that, but it's not a Dualism, because I think Information is both Material and Mental, both Physical and Metaphysical. So, I wrote a thesis, explaining how I came to that conclusion. Everything I say on this forum comes from that Monistic worldview. :nerd:
PS__In the immortal words of Cool Hand Luke, "What we have here . . . is a failure to communicate." Talk to the Strawman. :wink:
Consciousness: Confessions of a Romantic Reductionist :
What links conscious experience of pain, joy, color, and smell to bioelectrical activity in the brain? How can anything physical give rise to nonphysical, subjective, conscious states?
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B08BT4BWVB/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1
Panpsychism: The Trippy Theory :
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
http://enformationism.info/enformationism.info/
Yeah, in other words, both 'matters of fact' and 'matters of feeling (or speculation)'. The latter has no bearing on the science, however, just as "warmth" has no bearing on explaining temperature.
"Psychologists and philosophers are still struggling" only in so far as their assumptions are category mistakes (like e.g. idealism, which conflates epistemology with (in terms of) ontology).
Nothing against Dr. Koch but a much more insightful, productive and profound neuroscientist and philosopher currently working today is Thomas Metzinger. Others I find more scientifically interesting than Dr. Koch
Quoting 180 Proof
Btw, each in his own way shows that "panpsychism" amounts to a woo-of-the-gaps solution in search of a "hard" pseudo-"problem". :roll:
I suppose that's why some people find Science to be "cold" : it doesn't understand the significance of metaphysical "warmth", as opposed to physical Heat. But this thread is only indirectly about Science anyway ; it's about the philosophical conjecture of a Mind behind Evolution. So, we've gotten way off track. But (strawman warning) I suppose you agree with Daniel Dennett that there is no such thing as Consciousness or Mind -- just neurons creating illusions. :grin:
PS__Hmmmm. What is the physical substance of illusions ; ectoplasm?
Same as the "physical substance" of e.g. perception or memory.
That's exactly my understanding of Consciousness, as the Metaphysical Function of the physical Brain. Minding is what the Brain does. But the "atoms" of Mind are "bits" of Information. A "process" is not a physical "thing" but an inductive inference from observation of Change. For example, a stationary billiard ball begins to move when struck by the cue ball. But we don't actually see any transfer of momentum, we infer it. And the human ability-to-infer-the-unseen (e.g. invisible forces) is (strawman alert) what you call "woo". :grin:
PS__Materialist scientists infer (imagine) that the Strong & Weak Forces are "carried" by invisible particles of some magical stuff they like to call "Energy" -- which is not quantitative matter, but qualitative "ability to cause change". If that ain't Woo, what is? As usual with woo-stuff, we observe the Effects, but not the Cause, which must be imagined. :nerd:
PPS__Enformation is Causation
Causation :
Hume shows that experience does not tell us much. Of two events, A and B, we say that A causes B when the two always occur together, that is, are constantly conjoined. Whenever we find A, we also find B, and we have a certainty that this conjunction will continue to happen. Once we realize that “A must bring about B” is tantamount merely to “Due to their constant conjunction, we are psychologically certain that B will follow A”, then we are left with a very weak notion of necessity. This tenuous grasp on causal efficacy helps give rise to the Problem of Induction–that we are not reasonably justified in making any inductive inference about the world.
https://iep.utm.edu/hume-cau/
I understand your skepticism of much "science of mind", which strays into woo territory. For example, Parapsychologists tend to view the mind (Psi) as-if it's an intangible substance (dark energy??) out there in the Aether. I just read a section of Information-Consciousness-Reality, in which the author concludes from his review of Classical Physics, Psychology, and Quantum Physics, that the "seeds" of consciousness are inherent in the physical world. That is how Panpsychism explains the "hard problem" of how Objective matter & energy can combine to produce a Subjective perspective. The assumption is that it was not a miraculous effect of cosmic-scale statistics, but a natural process like a "seed" becoming a tree. As with DNA, the design-of-a-tree (its Platonic Form) was already encoded in the seed, waiting to be transformed by the process of metabolism from potential to actual.
Similarly, the Brain doesn't make Mind magically out of "whole cloth" (pure fabrication), but processes mundane information (the code), in the form of energy & matter, into the meta-physical function we call Consciousness. The same metaphor applies to the Big Bang, in which a tiny Singularity (the seed) gave birth to an evolving cosmic-scale organism that eventually transformed ordinary energy & matter into the amazing Process that allows humans to know-that-they-know -- to become aware of their material surroundings, as well as of their mental milieu (human culture). Materialist scientists still have no plausible explanation for that emergence, other than the random statistical power of large numbers.
Ironically, the parapsychologists and para-physicists typically base their "woo-of-the-gaps" on that same miraculous ability of Darwinian stochastic mathematics to evolve humans from apes, and trees from slime-mold. Glattfelder quotes skeptical researchers tying to reproduce the "statistically significant" evidence of Psi found by parapsychologists. Although their numbers agreed with the prior Psi research, they concluded that, "due to this data set, we do not believe that humans possess telepathic powers, Further, the approximately 32% correct figure obtained in an enormous number of psi studies remains perplexing". [my emphasis] So believers and non-believers interpreted the same data in different ways.
I also remain skeptical of any statistical studies that result in evidence for super-natural magic. I keep in mind Mark Twain's quip, "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." But my own version of Panpsychism doesn't rely on Las Vegas gambling odds. Instead, it is based on physicist John Wheeler's "information-theoretic paradigm shift", from which he derived the epithet : "IT from BIT". Consequently, I have to keep an open, but agnostic, mind toward the various formulations of the common notion that Mind is inherent in Nature. :cool:
And that similar substance is . . . . ? Materialists have no explanation for real-ideal phenomena, such as Perception. Can a rock perceive? Does matter have memory? If not, where did those handy functions of minds come from? Neurons store electrical energy in chemical form : a transformation. But what transforms those chemicals into salient memories? Could it be . . . . Information???
In my post-materialist worldview, the "substance" of mental phenomena is Information. Which is the meta-physical equivalent to physical Energy in its ability to cause change, not in matter, but in minds. Information is meta-physical (Aristotle, not Acquinas), because it causes change in minds, not matter; in dynamic processes, not in static things. :nerd:
Benedict de Spinoza : Substance
According to Spinoza, everything that exists is either a substance or a mode (E1a1). A substance is something that needs nothing else in order to exist or be conceived. Substances are independent entities both conceptually and ontologically
https://iep.utm.edu/spinoz-m/
Physicalists do. Read some philosophy of mind and especially some good neuroscience.
I read "philosophy of mind" and "neuroscience" all the time. But Physicalist explanations always seem to teeter on the edge of the old Cartesian duality gulf : how do you make the Quantum Leap from Brain to Mind? Sure, Mind is the function of Brain, but there is a qualitative difference between objective neuronal wiring and subjective perception. Does a TV camera know what it is looking at? Can you give me a brief summary of the physical explanation for Perception you are referring to. Maybe I missed it. :smile:
THE NEUROSCIENCE OF PERCEPTION
Neuroscience explains that we do not experience the external world exactly how we perceive it consciously. Sensors in our body sense electromagnetic waves but we perceive colors. . . . So how do we know what reality really is like? Even though we are able to name the things we perceive, we don’t know exactly how such things relate to the external world themselves and we might never know.
https://www.brainlatam.com/blog/the-neuroscience-of-perception-1564?email=mariaraujo@brainsupport.co
PS___I enjoy dialoguing with you, because you don't just close your eyes to concepts that don't "compute" from your personal perspective. A lot of religious and New Age beliefs are not a part of my own Ontology or Epistemology, but I remain open to the possibility that they Perceive the world differently from me. I don't just assume they are ignorant or lying. My information-based worldview opened the door to many exotic possibilities, that I previously dismissed, but that beg to be explored. However, I try to remain grounded in empirical evidence, even while my head is in the clouds of Meta-physics.
PPS___Meta-physics is what we do on this forum. We are not professional empirical scientists here, but amateur theoretical philosophers. Unlike blind & dumb atoms & billiard balls, we exchange meaningful Information instead of impulses of Energy. And that makes all the difference between the Physical world and the Mental realm. :cool:
I can't see how you can still ask this (mysterian) pseudo-question if, as you claim, you're more than superficially acquainted with contemporary neuroscience and relevant topics in the philosophy of mind. Again, mind is what a sufficiently complex brain does.
Sure. But how does it do it? How does a jello-like mass of electrical & chemical wiring convert incoming energy into Perception, and thence into Conception? Do physical computers & robots have a subjective perspective of their world? Do they know that they know? Is that a "mysterian" question, or a valid scientific & philosophical query? A materialistic description of brains provides a simplistic mechanical answer to what the brain does, but it doesn't explain how or why that transition from Objective to Subjective occurs. Several philosophers of mind have argued that animals & machines could perform their survival functions without knowing why they do what they do. Discerning the difference between Brain & Mind is what Chalmers called the "hard question".
Transportation is what wheeled vehicles do -- duh! that's their function -- to move people & things from one place to another. That general simplistic notion does not explain the difference between an oxcart and a Tesla -- pulled by spooky electricity instead of normal muscles. Science is the process by which humans learn how the world works. But some scientists do it empirically -- by manipulating concrete matter -- and others, such as Einstein, do it theoretically -- by manipulating abstract ideas. Your quote above indicates the attitude that is satisfied with oxcarts, and labels the notion of electric cars as mysterious speculation.
You imply that my understanding of Science is superficial. And, it's true that I have no depth in any particular field of scientific endeavor. But my grasp of the current state of knowledge is quite broad, and sufficient to support a personal non-professional philosophical worldview. I am not unaware of the emotional motive behind your tautological "Mind is what Brains do" answer to the "hard question". I too (being presumptive) am a recovering fundamentalist Christian. And I know well the pitfalls of irrational Faith & Spiritualism. That's why I approach all mysteries with a sword of curiosity, and a shield of skepticism. And yet, I have followed the available evidence to a point not far from the worldview I once rejected. But I stop short of making the "quantum leap" of Faith, that all too often lands you in a sticky mire of self-confirming dogma, from which it's hard to escape. :cool:
Martin Garner -- Mysterian :
"I can say this. I believe that the human mind, or even the mind of a cat, is more interesting in its complexity than an entire galaxy if it is devoid of life. I belong to a group of thinkers known as the 'mysterians.' It includes Roger Penrose, Thomas Nagel, John Searle, Noam Chomsky, Colin McGinn, and many others who believe that no computer, of the kind we know how to build, will ever become self-aware and acquire the creative powers of the human mind. I believe there is a deep mystery about how consciousness emerged as brains became more complex, and that neuroscientists are a long long way from understanding how they work."
http://martin-gardner.org/MYSTERIAN.html
Note -- Martin Gardner was an American popular mathematics and popular science writer, with interests also encompassing scientific skepticism, . . .
"He's universally acknowledged as the founding father of the modern skeptical movement, . . ."
? Alan Watts
How the brain functions and outputs "consciousness" is a scientific problem, it seems to me, and not "a valid philosophical query" as it might have once been. Btw, of course, the brain is not a computer (program); still, the very fact of it's complexity does not warrant the "mysterian" belief that the brain is, even in principle, too complex to sufficiently explain itself (or "consciousness"). Remember Aristotle and the vacuum ("horror vacui" :scream: )? And Lord Kelvin's 'end of science' prediction in 1900? :smirk:
Quoting Gnomon
I maybe way off the mark but I've always felt that the difference between the mind (humans) and mindless life (bacteria) is greater ergo, harder to explain than the difference between life (bacteria) and the lifeless (stone). This is what Gnomon is probably referring to by Quantum leap.
Having said that, we've been able to replicate logic, an ability we pride ourselves as possessing, we even go so far as to define ourselves with it, on unmistakably dead matter (computers) while as of yet being unable to create a synthetic cell that can match up to a single bacterium.
I've noticed that a significant number of posters on The Philosophy Forum seem to be embarrassed by Philosophy as a discipline, because it studies things that literally don't matter : ideas & ideals & beliefs. But those unreal things do indeed matter to the majority of humanity, who know nothing of Science or Philosophy. Perhaps the huddled masses don't matter either. Meat puppets have no intrinsic value.
I just came across an internet article, which articulates the crux of those opposing values -- what's important. Some view consciousness as a their personal Self (ghost), while others view it as "just another output" (the Mind is what the Brain does). The latter think of humans as machines (meat robots), while others think of humans as something more than the sum of their parts. It boils down to a Reductive versus Holistic worldview. Ironically, those contrasting views are not Objective observations, but Subjective beliefs about the world in general. For the record, I don't believe in immortal ghosts, but I do believe in self-conscious minds in mortal meat costumes. :cool:
Is it time to give up on consciousness as ‘the ghost in the machine’? :
[i]* As individuals, we feel that we know what consciousness is because we experience it daily. It’s that intimate sense of personal awareness we carry around with us, and the accompanying feeling of ownership and control over our thoughts, emotions and memories.
* But science has not yet reached a consensus on the nature of consciousness – which has important
implications for our belief in free will and our approach to the study of the human mind.
* Beliefs about consciousness can be roughly divided into two camps. There are those who believe
consciousness is like a ghost in the machinery of our brains, meriting special attention and study in its own right. And there are those, like us, who challenge this, pointing out that what we call consciousness is just another output generated backstage by our efficient neural machinery.[/i]
https://theconversation.com/is-it-time-to-give-up-on-consciousness-as-the-ghost-in-the-machine-160688
Yes. But the Enformationism worldview provides a novel vocabulary to explain that vital distinction : the difference that makes a difference to sentient creatures. That theory pictures Evolution as a process of converting simple into complex, and potential into actual. Information (EnFormAction) is the universal Force that causes such progressive change -- from lifeless matter, to living matter, to thinking minds. And that creative Energy exists in both physical and metaphysical forms, just as intangible Energy can be converted into palpable Mass, which we interpret as Matter. :nerd:
They seem to value one another, so I don't see what "intrinsic" has to do with it.
Mutation doesn't drive evolution: it permits evolution. Environmental changes drive evolution. Mutation is the noise, not the parameters or the cost function, in a comparable optimisation problem.
And as for strategies, the imperfection of copying a large amount of data using mindless biological machines with no oversight is the opposite of one. Pre-life physical laws account for this noise, no intent required. What we have evolved instead is strategies for the opposite: the surprisingly high fidelity of RNA copying. If we must infer an intent, surely that was to staunch random mutation? But this too is perfectly explicable in terms of environmental selection pressures.
As a philosophical worldview, regarding our fellow humans as possessing "intrinsic value" is what makes the difference between love & tolerance for our neighbors, and exterminating masses of them in gas ovens, as-if they are vermin to be eradicated. The alternative view is Instrumental value : what can you do for me?
The notion of Moral Law, or Natural Law, is based on "intrinsic value" instead of "instrumental value". Novels and movies about sentient robots usually hinge the drama on that very question : "They're just machines, with no human rights, So we can use them, and dispose of them, as we see fit." For millennia, the inhumane treatment of dark-skinned people and animals was warranted on the assumption that they have no Souls, hence no Intrinsic Value. But for early hunter-gatherers (who were animists), the animals they killed were assumed to have some Intrinsic Value, so their Instrumental Value (food) had to be morally justified -- in some cases by begging forgiveness. Was that just a case of primitive ignorance & superstition, or did they know something about the Balance of Nature that modern people have forgotten? :cool:
Intrinsic value :
The intrinsic value of a human, or any other sentient animal, is value which originates within itself, the value it confers on itself by desiring its own lived experience as an end in itself. ... Because intrinsic value is self-ascribed, all animals have it, unlike instrumental or extrinsic values.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intrinsic_value_(animal_ethics)
Natural Law : a body of unchanging moral principles regarded as a basis for all human conduct.
Animism : the attribution of a soul to plants, inanimate objects, and natural phenomena.
I see your point, though I characterize them as existential stances rather "worldviews", such as in Buber's terms of I-Thou and I-It, respectively, or Levinas' infinity and totality. Yes, "meat-puppets" do take these "alternative" stances towards each other sometimes sequentially, sometimes simultaneously, and yet rarely, I suspect, take either an "intrinsic" or "instrumental" stance exclusively (for which, unless pathological, we "meat-puppets" are too akratic-heteronomous). After all, even violent bigots tend to love their children and misogynists tend to love their grandmas, no?
Haven't followed the thread, only responding to this. But I don't agree. Say I'm a wooly mammoth and I notice the climate is getting cooler. By random chance I would mate with any old mammoth and if the weather gets colder and I mated with a not-so-woolly mammoth, my offspring would be out of luck. But if I'm a smart, planning kind of mammoth, I would mate with the wooliest mammoth I could find so as to give my offspring the best chance of survival in the coming cold snap.
In other words planning beats chance. Right?
Yes. Like those pioneers of queer Quantum theory, serious scientists have been working, since the turn of a new century, on a plausible theory to explain -- without resort to miracles -- how Life arose from non-life, and how Mind emerged from Mindless matter. And the spotlight is now pointing at generic (universal) Information as the "difference maker".
is concerned that the Mysterian approach is a cop-out from continuing to pursue the scientific method across the Forbidden Zone into the realm of Meta-physics. Perhaps the most influential proposal at the moment is the Integrated Information Theory (IIT), which attempts to quantify the basic elements of both Life and Mind. What we call Logic or Reason cannot be accounted for by reductive analysis down to a physical Atom of "mind stuff". But, IIT is a mathematical thesis, and the idealized Axioms of math are as metaphysical as it gets. Yet, they are essential to the progress of modern physical science.
Today, the notion of "Information" has been expanded from its original reference to the ethereal contents of Minds, to the mathematical logic of computers, and even to now being equated with the causal force of Energy. Post-Darwinian Evolution's multi-modal and deductive (principles & laws) logical process, of creating novel things from pre-existing things, is what I call Enformation or EnFormAction. Moreover, it's an Aristotelian Axiomatic theory instead of a Mysterian by-pass, or a religious "Leap of Faith". However, for most of us it's also a "Quantum Leap" across the formerly impenetrable Cartesian Matter/Mind divide. :nerd:
Information :
Knowledge and the ability to know. Technically, it's the ratio of order to disorder, of positive to negative, of knowledge to ignorance. It's measured in degrees of uncertainty. Those ratios are also called "differences". So Gregory Bateson* defined Information as "the difference that makes a difference". The latter distinction refers to "value" or "meaning". Babbage called his prototype computer a "difference engine". Difference is the cause or agent of Change. In Physics it’s called "Thermodynamics" or "Energy". In Sociology it’s called "Conflict".
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page11.html
Axiomatic versus Mysterian explanation :
I propose that the Enformationism thesis may not solve, but at least, point in the direction of a solution to that philosophical and scientific mind-boggler. Moreover, my approach is axiomatic (self evident) instead of mysterian (occult). The primary axiom of my thesis derives from Aristotle’s theory of causation, in which all observed causes & effects in the world can be inferred to follow from an ultimate First Cause.
http://bothandblog7.enformationism.info/page8.html
Sorry to butt-in, but . . . TMF was probably referring to the intelligence behind long-term plans (teleology) instead of short-term utility calculations (more wool good). And the "intelligence" is not in the individual fuzzy elephant, but in the emergent system. Modern scientists are now copying the Chance + Choice model of evolution in order to design complex products that would otherwise take years of trial & error (more wool not so good in a warmer climate). :nerd:
Evolutionary programming :
It was first used by Lawrence J. Fogel in the US in 1960 in order to use simulated evolution as a learning process aiming to generate artificial intelligence.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_programming
Is Enformationism your pet theory? I'm inclined to agree that everything is about information. Why? Take a model toy car for example. We convert it into information - a blueprint consisting of instructions on how to build it, complete with pictures from different angles - and transmit this information from, say, the US to a factory in Malaysia and voila! we have exact replicas, indistinguishable as it were from the original, being churned out by the millions. Information! Living organisms too seem similar - genes serving as information carriers.
On this view though, there's nothing really special about consciousness, is there? We simply need to get matter in the right configuration and out pops on the other side consciousness.
Quoting Kenosha Kid
Don't mind me saying but you seem to be, I myself guilty of the same error, focused on only one aspect of the evolutionary mechanism that's genetics. I suggest we exercise caution before we jump to conclusions.
There are two aspects to genetics:
1. The hi-fi replication complete with error-correction mechanisms during DNA copying
2. The mutability of DNA despite 1 above
The situation is rather complex. If adaptation is necessary for survival, DNA needs to be able to mutate considering how the environment may change unpredictably (2 above) . Yet, once an effective adaptation has been acquired, it must be maintained for the period of time the environment is stable (1 above). In other words, our genetic mechanism must maintain a fine balance between fidelity of DNA and mutability of DNA, The situation is akin to guns: we don't want to use a gun but we need to own one (just in case) :chin:
My posts have been emphasizing 2 above and you've kindly reminded me that's only half the story. Let's then take both together and see what we can make of it? The question is, is owning a gun in the current social climate in the US a good strategy? The answer seems to be "yes"! What does that mean for genetics in re evolution? Is current genetics, as it operates within the setting of long periods of stability punctuated by drastic and random shifts in the environment, a good gameplan? :chin:
Quoting fishfry
"...IF the weather gets colder..." The point is we have to make decisions without knowing all the relevant information. What sort of plan would you recommend?
But we do this every day. Perhaps I didn't understand the point. The claim was that acting randomly was better than trying to intelligently plan. I can't understand that. Nobody would live their life like that.
Quoting TheMadFool
If I think the climate is cooling, I hook up with the wooliest mammoth I can find. Otherwise not. Of course I can't be sure what the future will bring, but we try to make an educated guess and act accordingly. I must be missing something if that's not regarded as obvious.
In fact even in the area of Darwinian evolution, we have practical experience. Farmers breed crops for consumer demand, for shelf life, and so forth. They don't just grow things randomly and hope for the best. Controlled breeding is super important in farming.
The solution would depend on the problem, right?
Thoughtful planning using the best available information, imperfect though it may be, would always be better than acting randomly and hoping for a favorable outcome. I can't fathom your assertion to the contrary. Or if you were paraphrasing the OP, I can't fathom that either.
A simple question: Given what we know and what we don't how would you design evolution? In other words, if you were on the team that designs evolution, what sort of features would make it robust?
I'd delegate that job to an intelligent designer!!!!
You're avoiding the question which means you understood my point!
This is the heart of the matter. Those who deny an intelligent designer must concede that evolution is an intelligent design. Thus, those who deny the existence of a creator deity must concede that intelligent designer present = intelligent designer absent. Hence, the mind, no-mind equivalency paradox. For those who believe in an intelligent designer, there's no issue at all - the "intelligence" displayed by evolution matches perfectly with their belief.
I didn't feel like outlining the case against Darwinian evolution, which I know a little about. Was that your point?
Quoting TheMadFool
Well God could have invented evolution, if that's your point. I've never been one to think that science disproves God. Whatever scientific theory you have, be it multiverse or eternal inflation or big bang or primordial quantum field à la Lawrence Krauss, you could say God did that. What science has done (some say) is to make the nonexistence of God possible. I don't personally get worked up over this issue. I'm a confirmed agnostic and decidedly non-passionate about the issue.
Quoting TheMadFool
Don't have time to enumerate the entire case nor do I remember it all, but look up David Berlinski ("The Devil's Delusion"), Michael Behe, and Stephen Meyer, three names that come to mind. Also see the Wiki article below. As I recall, and again this is just off the top of my head, some of the objections are the sheer unlikeliness of evolution, irreducible complexity (the famous bacterial flagellum), the fact that mutations almost always make things worse, the specificity of the genetic code, the Cambrian explosion, the lack of intermediate fossils, etc. I watched a bunch of these vids a while back. Like I say, not a big interest of mine, I power-watched a whole lot of these for a few days several months ago. Basically I must have watched one, and then Youtube's insane recommendation algorithm kept serving them up till I knew as much as I cared to about the subject, then forgot most of it.
Bottom line is that there is some serious scientific doubt about classical Darwinian evolution. After all Darwin formulated his theory before we even knew about genes, let alone DNA and our modern understanding of biology. One can criticize the theory and look for refinements without going full God squad. On the other hand many of the critics do take the intelligent design or full religious view. I don't see how that helps anything. "God did it" is no answer to anything. It doesn't remove the need for scientific progress. I view God and science as "non-overlapping magisteria." Newton was religious and he was a heck of a scientist. I have no problem with that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-overlapping_magisteria
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objections_to_evolution
What would that look like?
Yes. It's my "pet" Thesis, and the foundation of my personal Worldview, which I am developing into a more complete philosophical theory. According to that thesis, everything is not just "about" information, everything in this world is Information. Information is the "universal substance" postulated by Spinoza, long before computers and Information Theory emerged. But what is Information, you ask? The most intuitive comparison is to causal Energy. Since Einstein equated Energy with Matter & Math (E=MC^2), we can now safely say that all of the Forces & Materials in the world are forms of general purpose Energy, which is a form of generic Information. :nerd:
Information :
Knowledge and the ability to know. Technically, it's the ratio of order to disorder, of positive to negative, of knowledge to ignorance. It's measured in degrees of uncertainty. Those ratios are also called "differences". So Gregory Bateson* defined Information as "the difference that makes a difference". The latter distinction refers to "value" or "meaning". Babbage called his prototype computer a "difference engine". Difference is the cause or agent of Change. In Programming it's 1s & 0s. In Physics it’s called "Thermodynamics" or "Energy". In Sociology it’s called "Conflict".
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page11.html
Enformationism :
A worldview or belief system grounded on the assumption that Information, rather than Matter, is the basic substance of everything in the universe. It is intended to be a 21st century successor to the 19th century paradigm of Materialism. It's also an update for the ancient worldview of Spiritualism, which was an attempt to understand the phenomenon we now call Energy.
http://enformationism.info/enformationism.info/
Design does not presuppose a "designer". And only a designer (i.e. intentional agent) is "intelligent", not designs themselves (which is rank anthropomorphism). Design – any dynamic/evolving/dissipative process – presupposes such fundamentals as broken symmetries (non-random patterns of events) and a far-from-equilibrium entropy-gradient (positive energy densities). See cellular automata, etc.
Btw, I don't "deny intelligent design"; I'd just like to see sufficient evidence that (A) "ID" explains anything – raises questions that it does not simultaneously beg – or (B) falsifies any scientific theories such as (currently formulated) neo-darwinian evolution. Otherwise, Fool, you're just barking at shadows on the woo wall of the proverbial platonic cave.
Sorry to butt-in again . . . . but that is exactly the point of my Enformationism thesis. I didn't set-out to prove or disprove the existence of God. But since meaningful Information (the power to enform) is a product of intentional minds, I concluded that Aristotle's First Cause logically must have been a Mind of some kind. But, I long-ago lost faith in the humanoid deity of the Bible. So, when I refer to that unknown entity I use the ambiguous spelling "G*D", to indicate that it's not the traditional superhuman of most world religions. It's closer to the unconditional and unknowable "Tao" of Lao Tse.
I have no problem with Darwin's theory of Evolution, as a means to explain the Origin of Species. Or of the general Big Bang theory of cosmic creation. But they don't even begin to explain the Origin of Energy or Life or Mind. So, I have proposed a hypothetical process that I call Intelligent Evolution. The "mechanism" of evolution is viewed as something like a program written by a Programmer, and encoded in the Singularity that preceded the Big Bang. Since this scenario is a product of my fallible mind, and not of infallible revelation, I refer to it as just another "Creation Myth" among thousands, but based on the latest scientific understanding of our world. In my blog, I have even addressed the logical question of "why would a god choose to create a world by such a slow and meandering procedure as Natural Evolution, instead of an instant, or seven-day miracle?" :nerd:
Intelligent Evolution : A 21st Century Creation Myth
http://gnomon.enformationism.info/Essays/Intelligent%20Evolution%20Essay_Prego_120106.pdf
Who created the Great Programmer? All creation myths that depend on an 'original intelligence" have a regress problem.
And secondly, as I pointed out, God or the Great Programmer doesn't explain anything. Say God did it. Ok, so what? Does that mean we stop doing science? Of course not. We do science to understand how the world works; or, as Newton would have put it, to better understand the glory of God's creation.
Religion and science are two separate subjects; two non-overlapping magesteria. Religion tells you how to live your life. Science tells you why bowling balls fall down. I just don't see any conflict between them.
And finally, as I can never resist pointing out, a programmatic explanation of the world is terribly restrictive. Programs, or algorithms, are quite limited in what they can do. A program can never solve the Halting problem; whereas God certainly can. Given a Turing machine and a given input, there is absolutely a fact of the matter as to whether that TM halts on that input. No computer program could ever determine the answer; yet the answer exists.
All simulation arguments fail for this reason. There's no reason to believe that the universe is computable. Some people think it is, but there's no proof, nor is it even clear what such a proof would look like. Why should the creator of the universe be constrained by the limitations of algorithms?
Sorry to butt-in again . . . . but that is exactly the point of my Enformationism thesis. I didn't set-out to prove or disprove the existence of God. But since meaningful Information (the power to enform) is a product of intentional minds, I concluded that Aristotle's First Cause logically must have been a Mind of some kind. But, I long-ago lost faith in the humanoid deity of the Bible. So, when I refer to that unknown entity I use the ambiguous spelling "G*D", to indicate that it's not the traditional superhuman of most world religions. It's closer to the unconditional and unknowable "Tao" of Lao Tse.
I have no problem with Darwin's theory of Evolution, as a means to explain the Origin of Species. Or of the general Big Bang theory of cosmic creation. But they don't even begin to explain the Origin of Energy or Life or Mind. So, I have proposed a hypothetical process that I call Intelligent Evolution. The "mechanism" of evolution is viewed as something like a program written by a Programmer, and encoded in the Singularity that preceded the Big Bang. Since this scenario is a product of my fallible mind, and not of infallible revelation, I refer to it as just another "Creation Myth" among thousands, but based on the latest scientific understanding of our world. In my blog, I have even addressed the logical question of "why would a god choose to create a world by such a slow and meandering procedure as Natural Evolution, instead of an instant, or seven-day miracle?" :nerd:
Intelligent Evolution : A 21st Century Creation Myth
http://gnomon.enformationism.info/Essays/Intelligent%20Evolution%20Essay_Prego_120106.pdf
When did you butt out? How did you butt in without butting out? :rofl:
That is a typical short-sighted Materialist response to any notion of Transcendence. It assumes that the Programmer is a player in his own program, and subject to its rules. But the most reasonable solution to the eternal "regress problem" is to assume that the Programmer is self-existent. In my thesis, the "Creator" of our evolving world is not a humanoid deity existing in space-time, but an eternal principle existing in timeless Eternity and spaceless Infinity.
Of course, there are no such unlimited things in our physical world, but we can imagine unreal concepts like "Zero" and "Infinity", which have proven to be quite useful in higher mathematics, such as Calculus. In fact, most mathematicians assume that the axioms of their trade are timeless. And most physicists assume, without evidence, that causal Energy and natural Laws are eternal, and not created in Big Boom explosions. Without causal power, and logical limits, our world would be chaotic.
That's why materialist Multiverse proponents must assume, without evidence, that the Forces and Rules-for-their-application logically pre-exist any functioning world or mini-verse. The Multiverse theory itself takes for granted that there is something which transcends the beginning of our little pocket of space-time. In order for anything to exist in space-time, something must exist necessarily (i.e. not on our local clock).
That's why my thesis takes as a logically necessary Axiom, that the power-to-be (exist) is eternal, or self-existent, and not limited to any particular instance of physical reality. My name for that power-to-exist is BEING. "To be, or not to be", does not apply to the Programmer, who is Being per se. :nerd:
Self existent : existing independently of other beings or causes ; un-conditional ; non-contingent
Necessary Existence : To say that a being necessarily exists is to say that it exists eternally in every logically possible world; such a being is not just, so to speak, indestructible in this world, but indestructible in every logically possible world
BEING :
[i]In my own theorizing there is one universal principle that subsumes all others, including Consciousness : essential Existence. Among those philosophical musings, I refer to the "unit of existence" with the absolute singular term "BEING", as contrasted with the plurality of contingent "beings" and things and properties. By BEING I mean the ultimate “ground of being”, which is simply the power to exist, and the power to create beings.
Note : Real & Ideal are modes of being. BEING, the power to exist, is the source & cause of Reality and Ideality. BEING is eternal, undivided and static, but once divided into Real/Ideal, it becomes our dynamic Reality.[/i]
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page10.html
The post was not addressed to me. So, I butted-in without giving you a chance to respond. For that breach of etiquette, I apologize. :yikes:
No problemo!
[quote=Dr. Lanning's hologram (I Robot)]My responses are limited. [...][/quote]
Well then why can't the world be self-existent without the need for the Great Programmer?
Sorry I'm not qualified to comment on the rest of your post, which clearly you've given a lot of thought to. It just seems to me that if you say the world didn't create itself but it was created by something that created itself, you haven't actually told me anything meaningful.
Quoting Gnomon
I don't necessarily regard myself as a materialist, but I don't find non-material explanations satisfying. Perhaps I am a materialist. Maybe short sighted too. I'm certainly near sighted, but that's a correctible refractive error. Maybe I need some philosophical spectacles.
Quoting Gnomon
A criticism I myself have leveled at the physicists.
Quoting Gnomon
On the contrary, the modern axiomitization of set theory dates to Zermelo in 1908 and revised in 1922. And the categorical foundations are as recent as the 1940's. It's funny that many non-mathematicians believe that mathematicians think their discipline is flawless and eternal; while the mathematicians themselves, at least the small minority who have ever given the matter any thought, don't feel that way at all. Except for the ones who do. But your "most believe" formulation is surely false, since most haven't given the matter a moment's thought.
Quoting Gnomon
I'll take a look, but I must admit most of these kinds of philosophical expositions make my eyes glaze. I think perhaps I am a short-sighted materialist. It's a perfectly sensible position to take in an otherwise inexplicable universe.
Yeah, I agree ... until religion tries to justify "how to live your life" with bs fairytales about angels dropping bowling balls or a rib-woman who fell (over) from eating "forbidden fruit" and then, hammers those nails through human intelligence, excommunicates or burns at the stake anyone who instead prefers what science tells them about bowling balls. Religion just doesn't – cannot afford to (especially since Gutenberg's printing pres) – stay in its ponzi lane.
Quoting Gnomon
Spinoza's pure immanence isn't "materialist". Neither is the rejection of transcendence by Absurdists (e.g. Nietzsche, Zapffe, Camus) or by Schopenhauer "materialist'. I'm curious, Gnomon, how you account for these so-called "short-sighted responses" by non-materialists.
NB: Btw, decades ago I became a "materialist" (classical atomist, then methodological naturalist) because I had already rejected "transcendence" (not the other way around). Go figure.
Before the Big Bang theory became accepted by physicists and cosmologists -- including Einstein -- their unproven assumption was that the physical world had always existed in some form. One theory was the Steady-State or Continuous Creation postulation, in which new energy & matter was constantly emerging to replace that lost to Entropy. But when astronomers proved conclusively that the whole universe was expanding like a balloon, from a single point of space & time, the notion of a sudden creation act was no longer scientifically deniable. Ironically, the best alternative to the Big Bang theory is the various versions of Multiverse theories, which are merely updates to the old Continuous Creation concept. Moreover, just like the creation myth in Genesis, the Multiverse Myth has to be taken on faith, because there is no physical evidence to support it. :nerd:
Continuous Creation :
https://sc663henad.weebly.com/steady-state-theory.html
Cosmic Constant : Einstein -- "my biggest blunder"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_constant
Quoting fishfry
I apologize, if my descriptive, not pejorative, label offended you. Some on this forum prefer the label "Physicalist". But most of us are Materialists in practical matters. We assume that the wooden table in front of us is solid matter. But Quantum Physics asks us to believe that 99% of that table is empty space, and even the atoms of wood are in constant motion. The reason you find Meta-physical explanations un-satisfying is that the evidence is purely subjective. But then, your personal subjective mental image of reality is the only reality you have any direct experience of. Most of the "objective facts" presented by Science -- especially those of Quantum "reality" -- must be taken on faith in the abstruse "knowledge" of the researchers. I've never seen a Quark, have you? :joke:
Quoting fishfry
But still, you prefer their Physical "assumptions" to any Meta-Physical "conjectures", no? Most people are not familiar with the subject matter of Aristotle's second volume, commonly known as The Metaphysics. :cool:
Meta-physics :
[i]The branch of philosophy that examines the nature of reality, including the relationship between mind and matter, substance and attribute, fact and value.
1. Often dismissed by materialists as idle speculation on topics not amenable to empirical proof.
2. Aristotle divided his treatise on science into two parts. The world as-known-via-the-senses was labeled “physics” - what we call "Science" today. And the world as-known-by-the-mind, by reason, was labeled “metaphysics” - what we now call "Philosophy" .
3. Plato called the unseen world that hides behind the physical façade: “Ideal” as opposed to Real. For him, Ideal “forms” (concepts) were prior-to the Real “substance” (matter).
4. Physics refers to the things we perceive with the eye of the body. Meta-physics refers to the things we conceive with the eye of the mind. Meta-physics includes the properties, and qualities, and functions that make a thing what it is. Matter is just the clay from which a thing is made. Meta-physics is the design (form, purpose); physics is the product (shape, action). The act of creation brings an ideal design into actual existence. The design concept is the “formal” cause of the thing designed.
5. I use a hyphen in the spelling to indicate that I am not talking about Ghosts and Magic, but about Ontology (science of being).[/i]
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page14.html
Quoting fishfry
Perhaps, "most assume without question" would suit you better, than "most believe". It's true, that Russell and Whitehead attempted to validate mathematical axioms once & for all. But then their dream of certainty was undermined by Goedel's Incompleteness Theorem, among other Uncertainty principles. Math is supposed to be the bedrock foundation of Science. Yet we now know, but prefer not to accept, that all of our knowledge is conditional. And that includes both Physical and Meta-Physical knowledge.
Quoting fishfry
The Enformationism thesis is non-academic and non-professional. So its "exposition" may not be as dense & dull as a lot of philosophical arguments. It does however, present a lot of terminology coined specifically for a novel non-traditional worldview. that's why it has both an internal Glossary of Terminology, and a more extensive blog-glossary to explain those neologisms in ordinary language. :smile:
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/index.html
I often refer to Spinoza's theory of Universal Substance as a forerunner of my own Enformationism thesis. But, I also note that Spinoza lived long before the Big Bang theory put a damper on early astronomer's unproven assumptions that the physical world is eternal, and self-existent. Now, even "short-sighted materialists" have been forced to postulate the existence of something that transcends our space-time world. Which we now know had a sudden beginning (along with space-time itself) from some prior ghostly Singularity, that either "gave birth to" or "created" our universe, depending on your preference of descriptive terminology. Moreover, as I noted above to the only scientific alternative to "creation from nothing" is the Multiverse conjectures, which are merely updates of the discredited notion of Continuous Creation.
Therefore, I stand by my description of Materialist or Non-transcendental theories to explain the conditional existence of our universe. Which are all dependent on some implicit creative act that preceded the Big Bang. And that includes the Inflation theory -- instantaneous emergence from a transcendent (pre-existent) quantum field -- which seems even more like a magical "voila", than the explosion of a non-dimensional Singularity. :cool:
PS__ I don't waste much time on the writings of Nihilists and "Absurdists", who seem to reject both Science and Philosophy, in their cop-out from a rational approach to understanding the world, in which "they live and breathe and have their being". At least, Mysterians don't ridicule the power of the human mind that raised us from hooting apes to tweeting geeks. :joke:
Absurdism : the belief that human beings exist in a purposeless, chaotic universe.
scientific assumptions :
[i]Nature is orderly, and the laws of nature describe that order. ...
We can know nature. ...
All phenomena have natural causes. ...
Nothing is self evident. ...
Knowledge is derived from acquisition of experience. ...
Knowledge is superior to ignorance.[/i]
Nothing you said was responsive to my point. There is no difference between an eternal universe and an eternal creator that creates a short-lived universe. No philosophical difference. Name-checking various contingent physical theories is irrelevant IMO.
Quoting Gnomon
You have no idea what "most mathematicians" believe. And if R & W are your idea of mathematicians, you are making the same mistake made by many philosophers, which is to imagine that mathematics is what philosophers of math were doing in 1900. Or even 1930. "Most assume without question?" No. Most give the matter no thought at all, not even enough to assume anything without question. You are simply making a statement without evidence and without knowledge of what most mathematicians do. It should be noted that out of all mathematicians, the percentage that have ever given foundational questions the slightest thought must be well less than 1%.
It's an eternal problem on any philosophy forum that discussions of math are invariably about foundational issues; and even then, only foundational issues as they were understood before 1950, say. Before Category theory started taking over algebra, logic, and geometry. But 99% of working mathematicians don't do foundations. Nobody ever talks about group theory here, or differential geometry, or the Riemann hypothesis. If there was more discussion of those topics, this would be a math forum and not a philosophy forum. But at least nobody would accuse differential geometers of making assumptions about Russell and Whitehead.
Quoting Gnomon
Oh not at all. I took it as descriptive and probably accurate. And funny.
Quoting Gnomon
Why would you be asking a short-sighted materialist such a question? :-) Of course there are tables and chairs. And quantum physicists. That the world can contain both is evidence of Walt Whitman's point: "Very well then I contradict myself, (I am large, I contain multitudes.)"
I find metaphysical explanations unsatisfying is because they don't explain anything. Why do bowling balls fall down? God did it. That's unsatisfying. Of course to be fair, Newton's law of gravity was criticized on exactly the same grounds. He could describe gravity, but he could not explain it. In the end science itself tells us what but not why. Maybe God and the quantum field are two names for the same thing.
But science has one big advantage: It makes specific, measurable predictions. That makes science preferable to God as an explanation.
You ask if I think quarks exist. Yes I do. They exist in the sense that we can do experiments that confirm our mathematical theories that posit them. That's what existence ultimately comes down to. We do an experiment, we invent a conceptual and mathematical model that involves an atom or an electron or a quark, we do more experiments that confirm the theory. That's physical existence. And even a carpenter knows that chairs aren't really chairs. You have to cut up a tree and shape the wood into something you call a chair. You don't even need quantum fields to make the point that everyday objects aren't "really" that object, but rather assemblages of more primitive objects.
Apparently, you missed the distinction between a random accidental event as the beginning of our world, and a programmed intentional act of creation. If that makes "no difference" to you, then you are wasting your time with science & philosophy. You'd do better to just "eat, drink, and be merry . . . for tomorrow we die". For me, it's the difference between a meaningless absurd universe, and a world that grows & matures like a living organism.
As for the "short-lived" creation, I must ask, relative to what? Compared to your individual life, the span of the universe is close to infinite. But when compared to a timeless Creator, this experiment in living & thinking is a mere momentary blip in eternity. mentioned the "rejection of transcendence by Absurdists". They must have been appalled by the new science of Quantum Theory, which seemed absurd compared to the intuitive Classical worldview. But those who actually study, and engage with, the Quantum realm are excited by the opportunity to explore "strange new worlds". Instead of retreating into pessimism, they view this opportunity almost like a vacation trip to exotic locales. It allows us to momentarily "transcend" our mundane classical reality, and to experience a "higher" ideality. Does String Theory seem realistic to you? :joke:
Quoting fishfry
I suppose then, that you do have an idea of "what most mathematicians believe". You claim to know that "most give the matter no thought at all". Does that defect make you feel superior to B. Russell and A.N. Whitehead? What do you know that they didn't, a century ago? What novel philosophical insights to reality are revealed in non-linear or differential geometry? Have you found a topological path around the roadblock of the Incompleteness and Uncertainty principles? If not, what's your point? :chin:
Quoting fishfry
Apparently, you think Meta-Physics is a perverse attempt to "explain" the mechanisms of Matter. But Aristotle's purpose in his second volume, was not to explain Physics, but to set out some principles of Logic & Reason, in order to explain the mysterious workings of the human mind. Now 2500 years later, physical science has made great progress in inventing gadgets like Cell Phones and Nuclear Weapons. But the Quantum Leap from objective neurons to subjective consciousness remains a "hard question". Aristotle's Physics is completely out-of-date. But his Meta-Physics is still debated by scientists and philosophers. Science is good at explaining the mundane Mechanisms of things, but not so much for explaining the sublime Meaning of inter-relationships.
You admit that "In the end science itself tells us what but not why". But, if you are not interested in "why" questions, why are you posting on a feckless philosophy forum, instead of discussing Physics and Formulas? :nerd:
Quoting fishfry
If you are only interested in measurable "how" explanations, this is the wrong forum for you. Can science measure Morality? Can it predict the overthrow of US Democracy by a mendacious Autocrat? Can physics explain why people fall for Fascism? Maybe a better understanding of the human mind can help us to understand the "whys" & "wherefores" of this crazy mixed-up world. But then, the simple notion of a Programmer of this Cosmos will not explain all of our questions. But if we can understand better how & why the "Program" works as it does, we may alleviate some of our existential angst. :cool:
PS___I'm currently reading a book by physicist Carlo Rovelli, Helgoland. And he takes a rather metaphysical approach to understanding the apparent absurdities of Quantum Physics. He advocates a different path to explaining its counter-intuitive aspects in terms of "the relational interpretation of quantum theory". And that is exactly the point of the Enformationism thesis. What's philosophically important is not physical objects but the metaphysical relations between them.
When the ad hominems start I always know I'm in the presence of a superior mind. Teach me, oh wise one.
Quoting Gnomon
Finite compared to infinite. Was the Great Programmer always there? How's that any different from a universe that's always there?
Quoting Gnomon
And when someone uses the phrase, "close to infinite," I know I'm in the presence of someone who hasn't given five minutes thought to their own words. Can you name me a finite quantity that is "close to infinite?" A quantity is either infinite or not. The concept of "close to infinite" is incoherent. We often see it used by physicists who likewise have not given the matter sufficient thought.
Quoting Gnomon
Well then you PERFECTLY WELL AGREE with my phrasing of "relatively short-lived." You argue yourself into a huff and finally end up agreeing with exactly what I said.
You are worked up about something I said, and I'm not sure what. I'm on record as one, being agnostic about God; and two, being highly non-passionate about the subject. It's something that registers near zero on my interest and emotion scale. You are the only one worked up about this.
However please do note that the Great Programmer is distinctly more restricted than God, because the GP, if I can call him/her that, is limited to writing algorithms; and as Turing showed us, algorithms can solve a very small subset of the overall collection of problems. All simulation theories are flawed in this way. God can solve the Halting problem but the GP can not.
Quoting Gnomon
I don't know. I don't even feel like I'm in this conversation. Something I said pushed your buttons, and that was not my intention. I only stated my opinions. I don't even have a thesis to argue. I have very little interest in the topic except to explain to simulationists that algorithms are severely limited in what they can do. See Turing 1936, he laid it all out.
Quoting Gnomon
Statistically very few mathematicians work in foundations. A group theorist or topologist generally feels like they are working on group theory or topology. They don't typically tend to reflect much on whether these things are "real." Russell and Whitehead are long gone, and even foundations have advanced far beyond 1900.
Quoting Gnomon
You're gonna blow a gasket, man. Do you understand you're arguing with someone who's not arguing back?
Quoting Gnomon
Ok. What of it, exactly? I've surely never expressed any such sentiments on this site.
Quoting Gnomon
You're going to wear out your smiley button.
Quoting Gnomon
How many times can you do this before your smileys repeat? Pigeonhole principle I think.
Quoting Gnomon
I"m happy for you. Nice chatting with you, all the best. I wish I could have a more interesting conversation with you, but your own passion for ... something or other ... is blinding you to the points I'm making, and upsetting you besides. I hope you can find peace in this life that doesn't involve converting me to a point of view that you're not articulating very well.
ps -- Ok let me see if I can shed a little bit of light. You wrote:
Quoting Gnomon
Now first, I have often made the point myself that science tells us what but not why. I know this, and I've explained it to others many times.
Then you say that I am not interested in the why. If you can find anywhere I've ever said that, please find it and quote it. Because I never did.
I did say that I do not find "God did it" helpful in the least, because it explains nothing. And I find "The Great Programmer did it" even LESS persuasive, because algorithms are severely limited in their problem solving capabilities.
From those opinions of mine, you have extrapolated things I never said, and accused me of all manner of things, such as being in interested in eating, drinking, and being merry. Are you some sort of ascetic? I think you are way off the mark in almost every word you wrote in your most recent post to me.
What did you interpret as an ad hominem? Is "missed the distinction" a personal attack? I'll have to be more careful in stating any disagreement, to avoid cracking your "thin shell". Ooops! There I go again. :joke:
Quoting fishfry
First, according to modern Science, the knowable universe cannot be infinite, since it had a specific origin. Any speculations about an a priori infinite Multiverse are just that : conjectures with no evidence. So my conjecture of a pre-existing Programmer is just as valid as any other. A popular question asked of Astronomers is "what existed prior to the Big Bang?". And their guess is usually "more of the same". Which is not a conclusive answer, but a "turtles all the way down" non-conclusion. Simply "being there" does not explain why the world works as it does, and gives no hint of where it's going.
Second, did our universe write its own program? Do, you think the Chance + Choice evolutionary algorithm was an accident? If not, does the self-existent universe do what it does with an intended goal in mind, or is its evolution totally random? It's the signs of teleology that allow me to infer the necessity for a Programmer. If you're interested, those "signs" are discussed in the Enformationism thesis and in the BothAnd Blog. :nerd:
"Turtles all the way down" is an expression of the problem of infinite regress.
Quoting fishfry
Ouch! Was that remark an ad hominem? "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone". :gasp:
Quoting fishfry
My buttons are hard to push, because my emotions are well-balanced. My intention here is to share opinions. And I enjoy having my ideas challenged. That's what philosophy is all about. But in a text only format, it's all to easy to offend others by challenging their certainty. That's why I use a lot of smilies & emojis : to indicate that I mean no offense. If I step on your toes, it's either because they were in the wrong place at the right time, or because I'm clumsy, but not malicious. :blush:
Quoting fishfry
Yes. You seem to be playing rope-a-dope, by making evasive maneuvers. But I get that a lot, from those who have no answers to hard questions. Besides, I'm not boxing with you, but merely using you as a sparring partner to develop my own skills. As long as you're willing to play the game, I can do this all day. :wink:
Rope-a-dope : a boxing tactic of pretending to be trapped against the ropes, goading an opponent to throw tiring ineffective punches.
Quoting fishfry
See above.
Quoting fishfry
Apparently, you don't understand the purpose of a philosophy forum. It's not intended to reinforce your own beliefs & biases, but to have them tested by others, who don't share your point of view. I don't have any religion to convert you to. And I don't think the Programmer will send you to Hell if you don't believe as I do.
Site Guidelines :[i]Don't start a new discussion unless you are:
a) Genuinely interested in the topic you've begun and are willing to engage those who engage you.[/i]
Quoting fishfry
I could say the same about you. But I won't. I do indeed have a "passion" for my personal worldview, and like to share it with others. That's why I responded to the OP : "In other words, and here's where it gets interesting, mindless evolution through random mutation is exactly what a mind which is as intelligent as us would do given the way things were, are, will probably be." The "intelligent mind" behind the evolutionary algorithm is what I call "The Programmer". But, obviously, you take exception to any suggestion of intelligence in Evolution. Preferring instead to believe that this world is a cosmic accident. Is that true, or another ad hominem? :yum:
Quoting fishfry
Do you have another answer to the "why" of our existence, that explains everything? Or do you prefer the attitude of Nihilism? "It just is, and always has been", explains nothing. How would you describe your personal worldview? If you would be less evasive, and more forthcoming, perhaps I could avoid stepping on your toes. If you are not interested in "why" questions, why are you posting on a Philosophy Forum? Philosophy "explains nothing" about the physical world, but focuses on understanding the meta-physical aspects of the world. :cool:
"The problems that metaphysics attempts to solve are existential, essential, and origin-al. But philosophy covers these and more. . . . We could say: metaphysics ? philosophy, but vice versa is not true." ___ Quora
You typed in a lot of words so you deserve a response. Since (looking ahead) you regard this as friendly sparring, I'll respond in kind. Just up front I need to reiterate two things, to provide some context.
* Regarding the ultimate nature of the world, I have no opinion, no beliefs, and little philosophical interest. That is, I am ignorant and apathetic. I don't know and I don't care. That's why this conversation is puzzling to me. You have strong feelings about this subject, so surely you'd have more fun talking to someone who has equally strong but perhaps different opinions. What's the fun arguing football with someone who doesn't follow football, right? Ok.
* I do have one strong opinion in this regard; which is that whether or not God exists, I'm certain that a Great Programmer doesn't exist. Why? Because the world is not computable. I've mentioned this to you a couple of times and you haven't responded, so perhaps you are not sure what I mean. I'll talk about it more as I go on. That's something I do know a bit about and do have definite and strong opinions about.
Now, what did I regard as an insult? You said I don't belong on a philosophy forum if I don't care much about the ultimate nature of reality. Well "don't care" is a little strong. It's just not one of my top five or ten interests in life. Now when you said I don't belong on this forum because of that, I took it as a personal attack. But of course Hanlon's razor says: Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity. And I believe that's what applies here. Philosophy includes things like ethics, philosophy of math and science, political philosophy, philosophy of art, and so forth. Those are just some of the section headings on this very website. Clearly one can care about some of those topics without having a high interest in metaphysics. So you are just ignorant of philosophy, and imagining that what little philosophy you know is all of philosophy. I should have taken that into account.
Ok I sparred a little by calling you stupid and ignorant, but I must say to you, my heart really isn't in it. I have no idea why you're even talking to me about this stuff, about which you have a high interest and I don't. But I'll soldier on, apparently by your request. I do hope I've made my point that there are many interesting areas of philosophy that do not involve the "why" of the world.
Quoting Gnomon
I'm perfectly well aware of that. That's why I distinguished between God, who is infinite, and the contingent world, which is (most likely) not. And in the end, you completely agree. Yet you seem to be arguing that I've got it wrong. Again, your conversational style leaves me baffled. I say something you're in perfect agreement with and you argue with me strenuously.
Quoting Gnomon
Yes this is perfectly true. I never said otherwise. On the contrary, I was completely agreeing with you. The world is finite, and God, whether existent or not, is certainly infinity. I made that distinction. Which you agree with. And now want to "correct" me on. I don't get it.
But I do need to once again call attention to your technical error. God and the Great Programmer are factually distinct. The Programmer is restricted to implementing that which is computable. And computable things are a tiny subset of all the things there are. Turing made this point in 1936 and it's still well-understood today. Perhaps you are not conversant with this distinction. God can solve the Halting problem. The Great Programmer can not. So your speculation that the world may be the work of a Programmer carries a hidden assumption, one that you do not seem to be conversant with: namely, the claim that the world is computable. I hold the opposite, and THAT is something on which I can argue with passion.
Quoting Gnomon
Not sure what this refers to or what I'm intended to take from it.
Quoting Gnomon
But I am on record as an agnostic. I don't imagine I'm clever enough to know or even make a good guess at the ultimate nature of the world. Of course for religious people, cleverness is not needed, only faith. I haven't got that either. I'm an agnostic. Does that trouble you? If so, why?
Additionally I am not very passionate about my agnosticism. The religious zealot and the professional atheists (Sam Harris et. al.) have passion. Agnostics mostly don't, I imagine. Surely I don't. Again, you think this disqualifies me from philosophy. Not so. I can argue passionately about math or politics. Just not metaphysics.
Quoting Gnomon
Well that's my point. You have a personal metaphysics and a blog. I commend you your discipline, focus, and passion. But then I must be a very disappointing conversational partner. I have no convictions and little interest. Not even a blog.
Quoting Gnomon
Nice deflection. I'll repeat the question I asked you. Can you name a quantity or a thing that is "close to infinite?" I claim the phrase is incoherent. A big number like a million or a billion or a zillionty-zillion is still a finite number. Collections that are bijectively equivalent to a proper subset of themselves are infinite; all others are finite. "Close to infinite" is like a little pregnant. You either are or you aren't. There's no "close to" possible. Would you care to justify or retract your usage of the phrase? All in the interest of intellectually honest sparring, I hope.
Quoting Gnomon
Ahem. "Wouldn't you at least have to have some ideas?" he said half-heartedly. With a straight line like that, my response was practically compulsory. And frankly you haven't expressed any specific ideas other than the one you're clearly wrong about, the Programmer. May I ask you, do you understand my point about the difference between God and the Programmer? It's rather important, because it affects simulation theory and "mind uploading" and other related trendy ideas floating around among the "artificial intelligensia" in somebody's immortal phrase.
Quoting Gnomon
So YOU say. But philosophy of math, philosophy of art, philosophy of science, of literature, of ethics, etc., are not about metaphysics. Are you committing the fallacy of thinking that the only things that matter are the things you know and care about?
Quoting Gnomon
Would it be harder to offend others if you posted pictures? The site allows for the uploading of images, you can do that if you're so inclined. But even here you're wrong, it's easy to offend with pictures. Don't you agree? What are you saying here, it doesn't even make sense.
Quoting Gnomon
I was noting that you always seem to use a different one. At some point you must run out and you'll be forced to repeat. That's a thing in math called the pigeonhole principle.
Quoting Gnomon
Awwww shucks. I take that as a conciliatory gesture. Much appreciated. LOL.
Quoting Gnomon
No not at all. I'm responding to you directly. But I have little interest in metaphysics, and no hard opinions. That must obviously be frustrating to you. I can see that.
Quoting Gnomon
The True Believers and the professional atheists must hate hate hate the agnostics. "Um, I guess I really don't know what is the ultimate nature of the world." What an absolutely terrible thing to say, right?
But you know, you have several times avoided the question I've asked you. Do you understand the distinction between God and the Programmer, and can you justify your believe that the world is programmable? That's actually the only metaphysical topic I have a strong opinion on.
Quoting Gnomon
Well here I am. But seriously, you haven't said much.
Quoting Gnomon
Ah the great Rumble in the Jungle match between Ali and Foreman. Except that Foreman could hit hard. You are just kind of slapping at me. I don't even need to rope-a-dope. I don't see anything to argue with.
Quoting Gnomon
I think we've established that YOU are the one to whom that applies. They call that projection.
Quoting Gnomon
But that's the problem here. It's not only that I don't share your point of view. It's that I can't figure out your point of view; and secondly, I don't have much interest in metaphysics. I truly don't know whether there's a God. I'm pretty sure there can be no Programmer. And, this being the single subtopic on which I have an opinion, I wish you'd engage with it.
Quoting Gnomon
Sending to Hell is not computable. The Programmer couldn't do that even if they existed.
Quoting Gnomon
Ahhhhhhhhh. Enlightenment. I see your problem. I see your problem! You know how when you're puzzled by something you don't understand, and it suddenly all becomes clear? I just had such a moment.
Sit down, take a deep breath, and read carefully:
I am not the OP
Perhaps you think I am, and that's why you're complaining that I don't have a strong interest in the topic. But you see, I am not the OP. Did you make a little mistake here?
It's several pages ago, but I seem to remember that I made some minor, offhand remark to the OP, and you have read into that much more than what was on the page. But I could be wrong, I did not go back to check. I do know that I did not start the thread, hence what you quoted does not apply to me in any way.
Quoting Gnomon
You could not. I have no passion for metaphysics. I am honestly -- I am not joking or being snarky -- I am honestly confused by this conversation. I've been perfectly honest about my beliefs and interests.
Quoting Gnomon
I get that. If you'd state your worldview perhaps I could whip up a little intelligent conversation at my end. After all this I still don't get your point, except to note that you don't seem to understand the limitations of a Programmer, restricted to that which is computable.
Quoting Gnomon
Yes ok. And you understand I am not the OP. I probably didn't read your post. How did we get here?
Quoting Gnomon
Yes and this is a technical error because computability is distinctly limited.
Quoting Gnomon
I'm just floored, man. What have I ever said on this site to give you such an impression?
In fact last week on this site, or maybe a couple of weeks ago, I enumerated the arguments against Darwinian evolution. I named-checked Michael Behe, Stephen Meyer, and David Berlinski. I am familiar with the argument of irreducible complexity. I am all over the miraculous bacterial flagellum. I don't believe or disbelieve in intelligent evolution, but I'm actually more familiar than most people with the arguments for it, and the arguments against classical Darwinian evolution.
What on earth are you talking about? Excuse my French but you are just making shit up. You have decided that I have a certain set of beliefs and you are arguing with me about them, but they are not my beliefs. You're just making all this up.
Quoting Gnomon
It's just another belief of yours about things you think I believe but don't. You know, you are not making any points with me by going off in these directions, attributing to me beliefs I've never expressed.
Quoting Gnomon
No, I have no answer. And I am generally puzzled at those who think they do. I find both the religious believers and the militant professional atheists equally baffling. What makes them so certain? At least the religious types can sometimes invoke their own personal experience of faith. What do the atheists have? Is that a faith-base position too?
I'm agnostic. I don't know. I truly don't know. But as it happens I DO know a bit about the arguments on each side. The arguments interest me. The anti-Darwinists interest me.
Quoting Gnomon
That's not what nihilism is. I'd call that a humble and self-aware recognition that I have no idea what is the ultimate nature of the world. My interests seem to lie in the are of pointing out the logical flaws of those who think they do. The God squad, the atheists, the Simulationists and Uploaders. People who are so very sure about things that nobody can possibly be sure about.
Quoting Gnomon
As it happens there is a name for what I believe. New mysterianism.
I apply this to the mind and to the universe. I think such knowledge is above our pay grade. Like a caterpillar on a leaf on a branch on a tree in a forest. The caterpillar knows night from day, things it likes to eat from things that like to eat it. It knows, deep in its genes, that someday it will ascend to become a beautiful butterfly. It has a metaphysics. But it can't know what we know. Its brain and nervous system are limited by nature. As is ours. The universe is vast, we live on a small rock and crawled out of caves only 100,000 years ago. We don't know the ultimate nature of the world and we cannot know and we will never know.
That is my belief. Thanks for asking.
Quoting Gnomon
I have not been evasive in the least. You just don't like my answers.
Quoting Gnomon
Philosophy of math, philosophy of science, political philosophy, philosophy of art, ethics, philosophy of language ... and those are just some of the topic headings on this site. Will you please stop showing how little you know about philosophy? It's amazing that you'd make such a weak point. You're right, I originally felt personally insulted, but now I realize that you simply have so little understanding of most of philosophy that you just can't help yourself.
Do you take this point? That philosophy encompasses so much more than metaphysics? And that you are confusing your own interests with the totality of everything? Why are you making such an elementary error?
Quoting Gnomon
Then it's an abject failure. Because we can not understand the metaphysical aspects of the world. I'm perpetually baffled by those who think we can, and by those who actually believe that they do. That's ignorance and arrogance wrapped up in a dangerous package.
Quoting Gnomon
Quora? Jeez that's scraping the bottom of the metaphysical barrel. Have you been to Quora lately? But now at last I see that you have agreed with my point. Metaphysics is a proper subset of philosophy. Why, then, should someone with a not-very-strong interest in metaphysics not nevertheless be on a philosophy forum? After all this, you see my point.
If I may ask ... why did you make this elementary rhetorical error? To claim that someone doesn't belong on a philosophy forum if they are uninterested in metaphysics; only to finally agree that metaphysics is only a part of philosophy?
I'll score this round for me. Remember, Ali knocked Foreman senseless. But then again, Foreman went on to successfully market a line of kitchen grilling gadgets. So there's that.
Sigh. I've always believed that each of us has so many keystrokes in our fingers, and this was a mighty load to little effect.
I say again honestly, I have no idea what this is about. Except that you are wrong about the Programmer. If there is a God, and I am agnostic on whether there is or isn't; but if there is, God can not possibly be only a Programmer. Because the world is not computable. In fact the most interesting parts of the world are not computable. Mind, for one. Roger Penrose agrees with me on that.
:up:
Ah, okay, so you can use "why" appropriately to address persons. However "why questions" otherwise addressed to nonpersons (e.g. the universe) or mysteries (e.g. g/G) are based on assumed category mistakes; also, the latter merely beg the questions and the former anthropomorphize the addressee. Philosophy can only describe and conceptualize ideas about experience, personal existence and the world one finds oneself embedded in with other embeds. Speaking for myself, one reason to post on TPF is to point out, in good Pyrrhonian (rodeo clowning) fashion, the promiscuous errors in "thinking" which expect philosophy to provide (free of infinite regresses no less!) answers, solutions or "ultimate explanations".
That's why we don't really have much to talk about. I responded to your original post, because it seemed to have something to do with the OP. But since then, you have indicated that both of us are wasting our time talking past each other. So, thanks for the exercise, but both of us have more important things to do. :cool:
PS__Regarding the implications of a God programming this world, I remain agnostic, since for me it's just a philosophical metaphor to explain why the world works as it does. When we talk about Minds & Consciousness, we have no choice but to discuss Meta-physics in terms of Meta-phors. For the record, I have no personal contact with any supernatural beings.
Actually, as I noted in my last reply to Fishfry, the nonperson (g/G) is a metaphor that philosophers have used for millennia in reference to holistic concepts that are beyond our personal sensory experience, but not beyond the reach of human Reason. The "category mistake" that is common with metaphors is to confuse the part with the whole.
For example, we speak confidently of "The Universe", as-if we know what we are talking about. But no-one on this planet has ever experienced that holistic entity. All we know about The Cosmos is a conceptual model that has been gradually assembled by sages & scientists, from fragments of empirical data. And even those bits of information are limited to our finite cosmic light horizon. Consequently, when we talk about "The Universe", we don't really know what we are talking about. We are just using models and metaphors to convey our subjective ideas & opinions. And that is the sense in which I use the terms "Programmer" and "G*D". :smile:
G*D :
[i]An ambiguous spelling of the common name for a supernatural deity. The Enformationism thesis is based upon an unprovable axiom that our world is an idea in the mind of G*D. This eternal deity is not imagined in a physical human body, but in a meta-physical mathematical form, equivalent to LOGOS. Other names : ALL, BEING, Creator, Enformer, MIND, Nature, Reason, Source, Programmer. The eternal Whole of which all temporal things are a part is not to be feared or worshipped, but appreciated like Nature.
I refer to the logically necessary and philosophically essential First & Final Cause as G*D, rather than merely "X" the Unknown, partly out of respect. That’s because the ancients were not stupid, to interpret what we now call "Energy" as purposeful agencies, but merely shooting in the dark. We now understand the "How" of Nature much better, but not the "Why". That inscrutable agent of Entention is what I mean by G*D.[/i]
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page13.html
Cosmos often simply means "universe". But the word is generally used to suggest an orderly or harmonious universe, as it was originally used by Pythagoras in the 6th century B.C. Thus, a religious mystic may help put us in touch with the cosmos, and so may a physicist.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cosmos
Logos :
In Enformationism, it is the driving force of Evolution, Logos is the cause of all organization, and of all meaningful patterns in the world. It’s not a physical force though, but a metaphysical cause that can only be perceived by Reason, not senses or instruments.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page14.html
Why do you so studiously avoid the only substantive thing on which we disagree and that I have a definite opinion on?
When I talk about Turing's limits on computation, and why God and the Programmer are two distinct things, and that a Great Programmer is distinctly weaker than God, do you know what I'm talking about? It's an important point. You need to understand it for your own work whether you talk to me about it or not. Penrose has made the argument that the mind is not computable, and he's speculated that quantum effects in the physical structures of the brain might be what allows us to transcend the limits of computability. It's very important for you to know about this stuff. You say the implications of "God programming this world," showing that you do not comprehend this subject. When you say God programs the world, you are placing massive restrictions on what God can do. God, by definition omnipotent, is not restricted by computability or programming. I see you don't get this but -- again, for your OWN work -- it's imperative that you do. Not for me, for you.
But again, if you are agnostic, why did something I said get you to respond to me with such ... well, interest, passion, anger, whatever word you like. I said something that triggered you. Why else would you repeatedly say I don't belong on this forum, only in the end to completely agree with everything I said? What was it all about?
Anyway God is not limited by computation, and the sooner you spend an afternoon Googling around about the subject, the sooner your own work will become sharper. As long as you think the world is programmed, you are making a powerful metaphysical assumption without even realizing it. The world might be created by God, the world might be programmed by God, or there might be no God. That is three things, not two. I suspect that you still don't get that.
Nothing you said "got to me", and nothing "triggered my anger". To the contrary, I got the impression that you were offended by my reference to the "G word", or to my use of the term "metaphysical". Personally, I don't care what you believe about Gods or UFOs. And I have no religious Faith to foist on you. I continued sparring with you though, because that's what I do on this forum. I have dialogs with many posters who don't agree with my worldview. But we are usually able to have calm, rational philosophical communication -- up to a point. And those who do get riled-up tend to gag on the notion of Meta-Physics.
So, I must ask why you continue to reply to my posts, even though both of us have said that we have nothing further to talk about. Apparently, something "got under your skin". And I suppose it's because your definition of "Metaphysics" is radically different from my definition of "Meta-Physics". FWIW, I'll give you my definition again, below. :grin: :joke: :cool:
PS__I never said that you "don't belong on this forum". I merely asked why you post on a philosophical forum, when you only want to talk about physical (empirical) evidence. Philosophers are theorists -- they don't do empirical research. Abstract, theoretical entities, such as gods & ghosts & neutrinos & dark matter, are "super-sensual" (i.e. no-one has ever seen or touched a chunk of Dark Matter, because "it's just a theory"). And reasonable people remain "agnostic" about things that seem plausible but can't be verified by personal experience. :smile:
PPS__Dark Matter has measurable effects on the physical world even though it is invisible --- just like the ancient weather "gods" and the "angels" that pushed planets around. They were like "Dark" Agents of change. :joke:
PPPS__ I can go on like this as long as you hold-up your end of the dialog. :halo:
See! -- "no blood, no foul".
What is the difference between Philosophy and Metaphysics? "
. . . . the difference between philosophy and metaphysics is that philosophy is an academic discipline that seeks truth through reasoning rather than empiricism while metaphysics is the study of a supersensual realm or of phenomena which transcend the physical world.
https://wikidiff.com/philosophy/metaphysics
Meta-Physics :
The branch of philosophy that examines the logical nature of reality, including the relationship between Matter & Mind, Substance & Attribute, Fact & Value, and Quanta & Qualia.
1. Often dismissed by materialists as idle speculation on topics not amenable to empirical proof.
2. Aristotle divided his treatise on science into two parts. The world as-known-via-the-senses was labeled “physics” - what we call "Science" today. And the world as-known-by-the-mind, by reason, was labeled “metaphysics” - what we now call "Philosophy" .
3. Plato called the unseen world that hides behind the physical façade: “Ideal” as opposed to Real. For him, Ideal “forms” (concepts) were prior-to the Real “substance” (matter).
4. Physics refers to the things we perceive with the eye of the body. Meta-physics refers to the things we conceive with the eye of the mind. Meta-physics includes the properties, and qualities, and functions that make a thing what it is. Matter is just the clay from which a thing is made. Meta-physics is the design (form, purpose); physics is the product (shape, action). The act of creation brings an ideal design into actual existence. The design concept is the “formal” cause of the thing designed.
5. I use a hyphen in the spelling to indicate that I am not talking about Ghosts and Magic, but about Ontology (science of being).
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page14.html