Mind-Matter Paradox!
The debate over whether mind is physical or not is as old as the hills. Despite the fact that almost everyone in this day and age subscribes to some variation on physicalism pockets of resistance continue to exist, especially in religion. Some philosophers are closet-nonphysicalist afraid as it were to "come out" lest they be ridiculed, tarred and feathered. Despite nonphysicalism being in the minority, that not everybody is fully convinced that matter & energy (physicalism) is all there's to the universe suggests there are holes big enough in the physicalist's argument to slip in doubt/uncertainty. Where there's smoke, there's fire.
What's the situation we have on our hands?
Either physicalism is true or nonphysicalism is true!
The mind is the epicenter of this roughly 2 thousand year old debate.
If physicalism is true, how amazing is it that the mind (physical) can contemplate on that which it is not - the nonphysical?! The mind is clearly uncertain as to whether it's physical or not?
If nonphysicalism is true, it boggles my mind that the mind (nonphysical) so skilfully comprehends the physical - all of science (the poster child of physicalism) is done by that which's between the ears with experimentation only as tests of ideas.
To make the long story short, either it's the case that a physical mind is thinking of the nonphysical (irony) or that a nonphysical mind understands the physical (double irony).
The Mind-Matter Paradox!
What's the situation we have on our hands?
Either physicalism is true or nonphysicalism is true!
The mind is the epicenter of this roughly 2 thousand year old debate.
If physicalism is true, how amazing is it that the mind (physical) can contemplate on that which it is not - the nonphysical?! The mind is clearly uncertain as to whether it's physical or not?
If nonphysicalism is true, it boggles my mind that the mind (nonphysical) so skilfully comprehends the physical - all of science (the poster child of physicalism) is done by that which's between the ears with experimentation only as tests of ideas.
To make the long story short, either it's the case that a physical mind is thinking of the nonphysical (irony) or that a nonphysical mind understands the physical (double irony).
The Mind-Matter Paradox!
Comments (129)
[However] the Cartesian concept of body was refuted by seventeenth-century physics, particularly in the work of Isaac Newton, which laid the foundations for modern science. Newton demonstrated that the motions of the heavenly bodies could not be explained by the principles of Descartes’s contact mechanics, so that the Cartesian concept of body must be abandoned*...
There is no longer any definite conception of body. Rather, the material world is whatever we discover it to be, with whatever properties it must be assumed to have for the purposes of explanatory theory. Any intelligible theory that offers genuine explanations and that can be assimilated to the core notions of physics becomes part of the theory of the material world, part of our account of body. If we have such a theory in some domain, we seek to assimilate it to the core notions of physics, perhaps modifying these notions as we carry out this enterprise.
The mind-body problem can therefore not even be formulated. The problem cannot be solved, because there is no clear way to state it. Unless someone proposes a definite concept of 'body', we cannot ask whether some phenomena exceed its bounds. [/quote]
*This is because Cartesian philosophy had no conception which could be mapped against gravity.
Also, Hempel's Dilemma:
[quote=Wikipedia; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hempel%27s_dilemma] Physicalism...is the claim that the entire world may be described and explained using the laws of nature, in other words, that all phenomena are natural phenomena. This leaves open the question of what is 'natural', but one common understanding of the claim is that everything in the world is ultimately explicable in the terms of physics. This is known as reductive physicalism. However, this type of physicalism in its turn leaves open the question of what we are to consider as the proper terms of physics. There seem to be two options here, and these options form the horns of Hempel's dilemma, because neither seems satisfactory.
On the one hand, we may define the physical as whatever is currently explained by our best physical theories, e.g., quantum mechanics, general relativity. Though many would find this definition unsatisfactory, some would accept that we have at least a general understanding of the physical based on these theories, and can use them to assess what is physical and what is not. And therein lies the rub, as a worked-out explanation of mentality currently lies outside the scope of such theories.
On the other hand, if we say that some future, "ideal" physics is what is meant, then the claim is rather empty, for we have no idea of what this means. The "ideal" physics may even come to define what we think of as mental as part of the physical world. In effect, physicalism by this second account becomes the circular claim that all phenomena are explicable in terms of physics because physics properly defined is whatever explains all phenomena.[/quote]
No one thinks that all there is, is matter.
Physicalism is a methodological position, that physical explanations ought not involve things spiritual or intensional.
Nevertheless philosophical conclusions are often drawn from such methodological premisses.
It has no problem with the non-real (gods and goblins, souls and supermen, karma and... I can only think of K9, the robot dog from Doctor Who) so the non-physical isn't a stretch. Key is representations. The brain is good at representations, primarily for encoding information about real, physical things but inevitably about non-real, potentially non-physical things (errors, dreams). Add onto that human language, the ability to manipulate symbols that can stand for anything, real or non-real, physical or non-physical, and it doesn't seem _that_ amazing that the brain can comprehend the soul or whatnot. I mean, it _is_ amazing, but the sorts of amazing that are par for the course for the brain.
Quoting TheMadFool
:roll: Only formulations such as yours, Fool, introduce the apparent paradox. For instance (once again), is digesting non-physical? breathing non-physical? walking non-physical? If not, then on what grounds do you 'assume' minding (e.g. intending, choosing, imagining, emoting, experiencing, remembering-recalling, etc) is non-physical? (And by 'non-physical' I mean, using the term as a catch-all, im-material, non/un/super-natural, super-sensible, etc.) The so-called "explanatory gaps", btw, only implies (exposes) current limits of human understanding and knowledge, but nothing more. Show me a 'mind without matter', Fool, and I'll concede that there is a chicken-n-egg paradox with respect to matter-with/without-mind. :smirk:
Quoting Janus
:clap:
It’s not - it’s as old as Descartes’ publication of Method - around 1633 from memory. The medieval would never have conceived the question in those terms.
Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't Innatism, see Plato's Meno, just another way of saying the mind is nonphysical? Implicit, I agree, but that was probably left as an exercise for future philosophers like all good teachers do.
Easy to say in hindsight. Plato would never have conceived it in those terms though. I’ve been reading an article on Ancient Greek mathematics - we automatically interpret those kinds of ideas in light of our own knowledge of mathematics, which is completely alien to them. That doesn’t make them wrong, or us right, but when it comes to such fundamental topics as these, it’s really important to understand that.
I have been reading Pierre Hadot, Philosophy as a Way of Life. ‘Physics’, in the context of the Stoics, has an utterly different meaning to ‘physics’ as the modern world understands it. (I haven’t got time to go and look it up again right now.)
The point I was making in that comment about Descartes was the uniquely modern way of looking at the issue in terms of the stark dualism of ‘mind and body’. Thomas Nagel put it like this:
[quote=Thomas Nagel, Mind and Cosmos, Pp 35-36] The modern mind-body problem arose out of the scientific revolution of the seventeenth century, as a direct result of the concept of objective physical reality that drove that revolution. Galileo and Descartes made the crucial conceptual division by proposing that physical science should provide a mathematically precise quantitative description of an external reality extended in space and time, a description limited to spatiotemporal primary qualities such as shape, size, and motion, and to laws governing the relations among them.
Subjective appearances, on the other hand -- how this physical world appears to human perception -- were assigned to the mind, and the secondary qualities like color, sound, and smell were to be analyzed relationally, in terms of the power of physical things, acting on the senses, to produce those appearances in the minds of observers. It was essential to leave out or subtract subjective appearances and the human mind -- as well as human intentions and purposes -- from the physical world in order to permit this powerful but austere spatiotemporal conception of objective physical reality to develop. [/quote]
Many of the arguments on this forum about the subject have this assumed background.
Quoting Kasperanza
:ok:
You've missed the point. I don't claim that anything is nonphysical. I'm just struck by the irony of the unequivocal fact that, if physicalism is true, something physical (the mind) is trying to connect as it were with that which it is not, the nonphysical. See Wonder Woman meeting a man for the first time:
timestamp@2:46
I'm getting the same feeling as Wonder Woman!
The same applies if nonphysicalism were true. A nonphysical thing (the mind) seems to be the master key to understanding the physical world!
:up: We could be both! Neither?! :chin:
:up: The thing about science, from the little that I know of it, is that it's basically about finding the right mathematical model that fits/explains the observational data. Look how observations of gravity match the mathematical construct known as Minkowski space-time. Maths features in the top 10 list of abstract entities which are, from what I hear, uncontroversially nonphysical.
Sorry, I find audiovisuals pack more punch than plain words on a computer screen.
No I haven't and yeah you have. Don'tl lie, Fool; in the very same paragraph you claim
:roll: In my previous post I say how use the term "non-physical".Tell me what you mean by it in the quote here or your OP.
:up: Hence the correlation with 'positivism' - 'a philosophical system recognizing only that which can be scientifically verified or which is capable of logical or mathematical proof, and therefore rejecting metaphysics and theism.' Corresponds with the majority of posters on this forum.
I thought logical positivism was more about empirical verifiability than the hypotheses/theories themselves. The former - empirical verifiability - is what physicalism is about but the latter - hypotheses/theories - are be abstract mathematical objects, distinctly nonphysical any way you look at it.
The mind, which lies at the heart of the physicalism-nonphysicalism controversy, seems to be playing both sides in a manner of speaking. You do know that a lot of physical entities like many particles were, a long time before they were empirically verified, predicted by the mathematics of hypotheses/theories in physics. The mind seems to be telling us "it's all up here" (finger to temple) and at other times, it ignores this plain and simple truth that every scientist knows by heart and simply refuses to budge an inch on its physicalist beliefs.
Cognitive dissonance? Likely, I bet!
[quote=William Shakespeare]Confusion now hath made his masterpiece.[/quote]
So, how does empirical verifiability work?
Quoting TheMadFool
By finding ‘what fits’.
Suppose, I claim, God exists! Empirical verification of my claim would include sensory & instrumental data that match the claim.
Quoting Wayfarer
Yes, we look for a match between a mathematics-based hypothesis and empirical data. All this reminds me of adventure movies where a medallion is broken into two halves and at some point the two halves are brought together to form the whole and something magical happens. In the case of science, one piece of the medallion is nonphysical (mathematical models) and the other piece is physical (empirical observation). That's what I'm trying to get across!
I agree that if one starts with the premise that the physical is different in kind to the nonphysical, then one will conclude that the physical is different in kind to the nonphysical.
Similarly, if one starts with the premise that water is different in kind to ice, then one will conclude that water is different in kind to ice.
However, water and ice are two aspects of the same thing.
Therefore, perhaps the key to understanding the physical and nonphysical is perhaps to treat them as two aspects of the same thing.
If mind-matter are two aspects of the same thing, then there is no paradox.
Yes you're right. Mind-matter are two aspects of the universe but my concerns are specific to mind - is it physical (matter/energy) or is it nonphysical?
Yeah good luck with that. Invite me to the award ceremony.
That would be an extremely easy hypothesis to falsify.
Paraphrasing Dan Barker (Atheist, Musician), "if someone had proved God exists, fae should've won a Nobel Prize."
What exactly do you mean by "physical" and "non-physical"?
As already pointed out by others, these terms mean very little...
I'm employing the standard definitions as they appear in the relevqnt wikipedia pages ( :sweat: ).
The physical world is quantized, ideal mathematical concepts are imaginary exclusions of quantization, equivalent to a unicorn or a leprechaun for pure thought. They are not a nonphysical substance, but rather fictions that prove extremely functional because they optimize precision.
Mind posting them?
You are assuming that the physical and nonphysical are of different kinds, leading to a paradox.
However, if one assumed that the physical and nonphysical are two aspects of the same thing, there would be no paradox. For example, spatial and temporal relationships cannot fully be explained as being either purely physical or purely nonphysical.
Both hypotheses, i) that a physical mind is different in kind to a nonphysical mind and ii)
that a physical mind and a nonphysical mind are two aspects of the same thing, would be difficult to prove.
Yet hypothesis ii) has the advantage that it does not involve a paradox.
TMF! Nice post.
Why can't both be true?
You’ve used “different aspects of the same thing” several times, but without exposition of what the same thing would be. Is it spatial/temporal relations? But then, of what are they aspects?
By definition in physics, and general logical inference in metaphysics, it seems unlikely for physical and non-physical conditions to have a condition in common, which would tend to solve the paradox if such should be the case, but perhaps at the expense of necessarily creating another.
Just wondering if you had something in mind......
It's not my position but I'm merely toeing the official lines as it were. By the way, we're talking about the mind only and it can't be both physical and nonphysical, right? That would be a contradiction!
Hahaha! How'd you guess :joke:
Yes of course TMF, towing the official lines is good as a starting point, but we're continental/post modernist's :yikes:
Maybe that's yet another Kantian thing that's beyond pure reason! Or perhaps we should throw SK and Existentialism in there too!
You can't see the fool ishness of this? If physicalism is true, there is nothing that is nonphysical.
Another basic mistake, of the sort that make up most of your posts.
I beg to differ with your over-simplified religion-versus-science characterization of this perennial Mind-Matter "debate". For those who are not interested in metaphysical philosophy, discussions about Mind/Body distinctions may indeed be "tedious" --- probably because it questions their basic assumptions (or prejudices) about the world. But for many professional Quantum physicists, who are not concerned about "religious faith", the Mind-Matter Paradox is of vital interest. Wouldn't you agree that reveals a third category of far-from-foolish "people", who are vitally interested in the metaphysical aspects of Reality?
For example, I'm currently reading the latest book by atheist physicist Carlo Rovelli, HELGOLAND, in which he discusses the fundamental elements of reality, From the beginning, he makes it clear that the matter we see & touch is not fundamental. Instead, it's the conceptual functions of the "mind" that do the conscious seeing and touching. More specifically, he calls those elementary, presumably "out-there", realities : "relationships" or "relative information" or "meaning". And he also notes that, what we call "relationships", are mental attributions of non-physical connections between physical things. Yet, he insists that his position is not a Cartesian dichotomy of spiritual Mind in a physical Body. Instead, he says it unites those phenomena into a single Reality.
In one chapter, Rovelli recounts debates among mostly atheist-materialist leaders of the Russian communist revolution. Ironically, they accuse each other of "unjustified metaphysical assumptions". That's just one of many instances where the philosophical term "metaphysics" is used in a non-religious sense. Moreover, it seems that a keen interest in Meta-Physics is the primary distinction between an empirical Scientist, and a theoretical Philosopher. Yet, in their "physics envy", many philosophers today are forced to disguise their "metaphysical assumptions" with alternative terminology. However, metaphysics by any other name would smell as sweet, because sweetness is in the mind, not the body. :smile:
Embracing the relational nature of existence :
The success of Seven Brief Lessons on Physics and The Order of Time has made theoretical physicist Carlo Rovelli a household name. In his new book, Helgoland, Rovelli offers to the general public his interpretation of quantum mechanics, arguing that it solves the theory’s paradoxes by so profoundly redefining our notion of reality that it erases the ineffable mind-body dichotomy. . . . . Simply put, Rovelli argues—correctly, I believe—that we must abandon our belief in a cosmos populated by objects moving through space and time.
https://blogs.sciencemag.org/books/2021/06/08/helgoland/
Relational quantum mechanics :
The physical content of the theory has not to do with objects themselves, but the relations between them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relational_quantum_mechanics
Note -- relations are not material objects, but mental or mathematical evaluations. Some may think of math ratios as "physical", but only in the sense that they are usually associated with physical objects. But not always. Sometimes relationships are between immaterial abstractions, between mental ideas apart from physical things.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relational_quantum_mechanics
:up:
[quote=FT Review of 'Helgoland'; https://www.ft.com/content/ab87a2b7-c007-479c-9be2-4d470e424bea] The richest prescientific articulation of the alternative worldview came in the second century BCE writings of the Indian Mahayana Buddhist thinker Nagarjuna. His doctrine of sunyata, or emptiness, says that nothing exists entire unto itself but only in relation to other things. This was not quantum theory avant la lettre, but Rovelli argues that Nagarjuna’s Middle Way provides the right framework for understanding “a reality made up of relations rather than objects".
So it’s not true that quantum theory requires us to accept the absurdity that the properties of objects change depending on whether they are observed or not. Rather, the properties of an object always depends on what it is interacting with. Think of how a vibration of air can be invisible to one ear and an intolerable screech to another. Hence it’s not that looking at reality has a special power to alter it but that “any interaction between two physical objects can be seen as an observation”.
Quantum entanglement is similarly explained. The moment a third party — in this case, the observer — enters the picture, it’s not that the picture changes but that we’re looking at a different picture.
[/quote]
(Although I would add that pictures naturally imply observers.)
Quoting Gnomon
Logic is the relationship between ideas, pure and simple. Of course all the physicalists will then say that such ideas are 'in' or 'correlated with' neural events, but you have to be able to use logic to understand what a 'neural event' is. ;-)
Reality certainly appears to have a spiritual and material aspect.
Quoting Enrique
To both of the above two esteemed forum members:
Physicalism: Everything is matter & energy
Nonphysicalism: Physicalism is false (some things are not just matter and energy)
Quoting Banno
I'm not saying the nonphysical exists. My bad, poor choice words - "connect". What I really mean to say is how something physical (mind) can even conceive of the the nonphysical. The mind is even confused about what it is (physical/nonphysical) - that's the very essence of the physicalism/nonphysicalism debate.
Let me spell it out for you:
Physicalism is true. Check.
1. A physical thing (mind) can conceive of the nonphysical (what it is not). Marvel of marvels!
2. A physical thing (mind) is unsure about whether it's physical or nonphysical. Will wonders never cease!
Quoting Banno
Hey! :sad:
Quoting 3017amen
I had to start somewhere! Too, the paradox that I speak of encompasses both physicalism & nonphysicalism. If the former is true then we have, I just discovered, a physical object (mind) uncertain of its own physicality and if the latter is true, a nonphysical object (mind) is in two minds about its nonphysicality. Isn't that odd? That's the paradox! How can one kind of thing conflate itself with another kind of thing? Unless...as you suggested, it's both (physical & nonphysical). Hmmm. :chin: That's a contradiction iff I speak of the mind as a whole but it could be part physical, part nonphysical. Hence explaining the confusion! Mind weighing in on this? Thanks!
There's nothing here.
:lol: You need to see a shrink!
So it all hinges on the definition of 'matter and energy'. And no one knows what matter is, exactly... so we haven't made much progress.
Like, is Beethoven's 5th symphony composed of matter and energy? And how many grams does the number 5 weight?
[I]And now here is my secret, a very simple secret; it is only with the heart that one sees rightly, what is essential is invisible to the eye.[/i]
-- the fox in The Little Prince
The debate is tedious precisely because of unwarranted assumptions about the nature of mind and matter, of the metal and physical. So, I at least, find it tedious because I don't make assumptions like that, but treat 'mind' and 'matter' or 'mental' and 'physical' as being simply terms we use to identify different aspects of human experience.
I don't have any vested interest, and I believe those who do are usually either religious apologists; people seeking empirical or epistemological justification for religious belief, or on the other side, atheists or haters of religion who seek empirical or epistemological justification for rejection of religious belief.
Matter is anything that has mass and volume.
So what is the weight of the number 5, then? Or the letter A?
:up:
Mr. Black was a very important man. In fact that was a meiosis - Mr. Black was not just a very important man, he was the most important man, not just on earth, not just in the solar system, not just in the galaxy or the local cluster or the universe but in the entire infinity of the multiverse.
He was the key to unlocking the secrets of the multiverse. Mr. Black was the cosmic library as it were - all knowledge, past, present, and future were locked up inside his, oddly, tiny head. We had to get our hands on what he knew. It was the key to the survival of all life across the multiverse - we would find cures for diseases, ways of stopping wars, methods to grass tasty, you know the whole enchilada.
Mr. Black was a shrewd fellow. He realized long long ago that what he knew would change the entire multiverse - transform it into an eternal paradise inhabited by beings perfect in every sense of the word. Thus, realizing his own cosmic significance and how fragile a physical body is, he wisely downloaded his knowledge onto a flash drive and decided to hand it over to the Guardians Of The Multiverse.
The Guardians kept their word and arrived at the designated time the next day. No words were exchanged, Mr. Black simply stuck his hand out through the half-open door, the flash drive between his index finger and thumb. The Guardians took the flash drive, Mr. Black heard a collective sigh of relief, and off the Guardians went, disappearing into the fog.
Back at the HQ, the Guardians immediately went to work. Before they did anything, they had to make sure, the data was not corrupted. "You can't be too careful you know", said one. "Failure isn't an option" said another. They very carefully inserted the flash drive into a flash drive slot and after the customary virus scan, they clicked on the right icon. There was a single document - they clicked on it. The initial excitement and joy they felt for being the first people other than Mr. Black to set eyes on the secrets of the multiverse instantly gave way to dismay, confusion, and disappointment. What was on the screen was complete gibberish - they'd never seen any of the symbols let alone make out a word or sentence.
Commotion ensued and while everyone was shouting at each other - "did you drop the flash drive?" "is there a virus?" and so on - one of the Guardians offered a more plausible alternative, "maybe it's code! Mr. Black must've forgotten about it. we need to get the key." Suddenly, the noise was replaced by pin drop silence.
The next day. The Guardians were slowly but steadily walking along the winding path along the mountain's sides, the path that would take them...to...Mr. Black!
In saying that the physical brain and nonphysical mind are two aspects of the same "thing", what is my understanding of this "thing" ?
Mysterianism
As Colin McGinn said, consciousness is "a mystery that human intelligence will never unravel". Mysterianism is the philosophical position proposing that the hard problem of consciousness cannot be resolved by present human understanding, though may be comprehensible with future advances of science and technology. For example, our understanding of the deeper problems of reality may be no more than that of a horse being explained the allegories within Hemingway's The Old Man and the Sea, an understanding beyond the innate mental abilities of the animal, no matter how detailed or patient any explanation would be.
IE, A true understanding of the "thing" is, and will always be, beyond my ability.
Imagining the unimaginable
If the "thing" is beyond my human capacity to understand, then why do I believe it exists in the first place. We understand in the same way that language allows us the discuss other unimaginable things, such as time, space, causation, ghosts, gods, unicorns, the big bang, infinity, etc. However, this is not the language of the early Wittgenstein being a logical correspondence between language and the world, but rather language as metaphor. As Nietzsche wrote “We believe that when we speak of trees, colours, snows, and flowers, we have knowledge of the things themselves, and yet we possess only metaphors of things which in no way correspond to the original entities.”
IE, we can imagine the unimaginable through language, but not literally, only metaphorically.
Physicalism and nonphysicalism as two aspects of the same thing
There are many examples where one concept can be expressed as a combination of physical and nonphysical experiences. For example, i) aesthetics - needing both a physical form and nonphysical content, where, as Kant said, judgments of beauty are sensory, emotional and intellectual all at once.
ii) emotions - as Antonio Damasio, neurologist said "an organism can possess feelings only when it can create a representation of the body's functions and the related changes that occur in the brain"
iii) mathematics - both discovered and invented, and in the words of Mario Livio, "Indeed, I posit that humans invent the mathematical concepts—numbers, shapes, sets, lines, and so on—by abstracting them from the world around them. They then go on to discover the complex connections among the concepts that they had invented; these are the so-called theorems of mathematics" - iv) being - as expressed in the hylomorphism of Aristotle, where being is a compound of matter and form, necessitating both the physical and the nonphysical, v) language - the later Wittgenstein writing in Philosophical Investigations that the meaning of a word is its use in language, where meaning occurs in a nonphyiscal mind and use occurs in a physical world.
IE, there are many examples where the physical and nonphysical have something in common.
Panqualityism
My feeling is that panqualityism, a view promoted by Sam Coleman, is the most reasonable theory to explain the connection between the physical brain and the nonphysical mind. Panqualityism can be seen as a kind of middle way between panpsychism and physicalism. Whereas the physicalist thinks that we can give an entirely reductive account of consciousness, the panpsychist thinks that consciousness is fundamental, and the panqualityist thinks that that the qualitative aspect of consciousness is fundamental, whilst holding a reductive view of subjectivity.
It is argued that sentience on Earth developed as early as the Cambrian period with the Cephalopods 541 to 485 million years ago. It seems reasonable to assume that consciousness is a property of sentience, and is a function of the complexity of the particular sentient being. There is a choice of belief, either i) there was a day when consciousness didn't exist and the next day it did, or ii) consciousness has always existed though to a lesser degree. Both possibilities are mysterious, though I find possibility ii) the more reasonable. Going further back in time there is another choice, either i) panpsychism, where atoms are conscious or ii) panqualityism, where atoms are not conscious but in certain combinations are able to give rise to consciousness. Again, both possibilities are mysterious, though I find possibility ii) the more reasonable.
IE, given the choice of many mysteries, I find the idea of panqualityism the least mysterious
Conclusion
In summary, the "thing" that has the two aspects of physical brain and nonphysical mind
may best be understood by the theory of panqualityism. However, this can only ever be a metaphorical understanding rather than a literal understanding.
TMF!
Are you saying that self-awareness, in itself, represents a non-physical quality (qualia) that is essential for physical consciousness as we understand it?
Quoting TheMadFool
Yes, I don't think we can escape both the need for the physical and non-physical. In considering many truth's that are apperceived through the senses via quality (qualia) and quantity (materialism), a philosophical analogy could be subjectivism and objectivism as being the requirement(s) for any apperception of a thing to take place at all. In other words, typically you need a subject (you) and an object (thing) to make sense out of something you see, feel, experience and so on. And subjects can be non-physical where objects are usually physical. I guess you could say the radio needs sound waves for it to be felt or perceived by a sentient being.
Though this may seem obvious, with respect to conflation, it's worth mentioning that the conscious and subconscious mind continue to operate together in a logically impossible, explanatory way. I think the word that you use (conflate) works for that description of the mind, where the conscious and subconscious are the two minds that act as one mind. Of course, the driving while daydreaming, crashing and dying scenario rears its head there. And so we simply can't logically explain whether it was exclusively the conscious or subconscious mind that was driving the car. They seemingly were both driving. Metaphorically, I think they can only be described as a 'mottled color of red'.
Those are some quick bullet points on conflating things, as they relate to the mind and matter. I think many can agree that there exists abstract structures in the physical world that go beyond what the definitions of physicalism allows for (mathematics itself, the Will, qualia, etc..). But I am sensing you are trying to get at another point, so please provide more input if possible... .
All I'm willing to say is, it's rather odd that the mind has set up a criteria for telling the difference between physical and nonphysical, has applied it with great success I might add but...the catch is...it doesn't seem to be able to determine whether it itself is physical or not!
That's like a person who can tell the difference between a man and a woman but failing to identify his own sex! Perhaps, just perhaps, as you suggested, this person is both!
Yes there are very good arguments, especially from physicalist quarters but that there are some who think differently (nonphysicalists) and those who can't make up their minds, is a clear sign that the physicality of the mind isn't an open and shut case.
Okay, I think I got it. Kind of reminiscent of certain metaphysical questions concerning the nature of our reality. Meaning, we got here, and we are aware of our self-awareness, but we don't know how we got here in the first place (the meaning of an evolved molecular primordial soup) nor how self-awareness itself evolved or developed over time. It's as if self-awareness just arrived on the scene somehow. Biologically, it seems that short of instinct, evolution and emergence, self-awareness just is.
Similarly, with respect to abstractness in nature and how the mind perceives those things, as physicist Paul Davies writes " For reasons of biological selection we can scarcely guess, our brains have evolved to recognize and focus on those aspects of nature that display mathematical patterns."
So when you say our minds have 'set up a criteria for telling the difference' I would argue they are also set up for something that is counterintuitive to Darwinism. They are set up to perceive abstract structures in nature. But the irony is we don't need knowledge about the abstract laws of gravity to survive in the jungle. Nor do we need love to survive, or do we?
Anyway, sorry to digress again....
It's true that Mind and Matter are merely different aspects of one reality, just as heads & tails are different aspects (views) of a single coin. But, as a philosophical question, what's the problem with discussing what makes them different? For example, how and why are they distinct from each other? If you prefer not to distinguish between them, does that mean you think it's dangerous to "look into the gaping abyss" of Metaphysics? What are you afraid of, that makes you proud to avoid metaphysical "assumptions" like "Mind is not the same thing as Matter"? Should Science avoid discerning what makes one part of a whole different from another?
Do you "assume" that there is no difference between res extensa and res cogitans, because to open that Pandora's Box would put you on the slippery slope to religious heresy against the authority of Science? Some "woke" people today think it's dangerous to scrutinize any genetic distinctions between races, because such, presumably biased, knowledge would inevitably lead to acts of racism. Should scientists be barred from investigating how racial "differences" cause some humans to react differently to the same medications? Is that a step in the right direction, or an emotional over-reaction to the long history of man's inhumanity to man? Should philosophers be barred from examining what makes conscious matter different from non-conscious matter? Are such questions a matter of indifference to you? :cool:
Distinction (philosophy) :
Distinction, the fundamental philosophical abstraction, involves the recognition of difference
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distinction_(philosophy)
Res extensa :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Res_extensa
Quoting Banno
:smile:
LOL, tell Banno, there is a there there :razz:
:up: :100:
:up: G'day!
Ok. Thanks.
You might do well to consider the quality of your companions.
Is static electricity part of the car door?
Good point!. I haven't ever come across a philosophical argument to conclude that Logic is physical. Of course, logical thinking is always "correlated" with human bodies. But what is it about those bodies, and gnarly neural networks, that "sees" invisible relationships? Capital Murder is always correlated with human bodies --- but what is it about those bodies that causes the death of another body? "Your honor, my perverted Logic made me do it! Maybe you can fix it with a logic lobotomy." :joke:
Quantum Physics inadvertently placed the Observer back into the empirical equation, which was originally intended to omit the subjective prejudices of ordinary humans, that always led to differences of opinion. Ironically, the Copenhagen Interpretation was similar to the Council of Nicaea, as a means to distinguish mere differences-of-opinion from blatant heresies.
In their quest for perfect objectivity in empirical science, humans have created non-sentient machines that do all of the empirical observing, except extracting meaningful information from the observed relationships. And I've never heard of one telescope arguing with another piece of technical equipment about the significance of the observation. Any philosophical differences in Science are always correlated with physical Bodies, but only those with metaphysical Minds.
Rovelli seems to imply that the post-enlightenment notion of the Objective Observer, was a case of humans pretending to view the world from God's "privileged" perspective outside of the universe. But Quantum Theory knocked the legs out from that presumption : a human observer is an integral part of the system being observed. That's why Rovelli repeats his assertion that observation of a physical event involves three parties : two interacting physical entities and one observing mental entity to make the logical connection between Cause & Effect. :nerd:
Relational quantum mechanics :
The proponents of the relational interpretation argue that this approach resolves some of the traditional interpretational difficulties with quantum mechanics. By giving up our preconception of a global privileged state, issues around the measurement problem and local realism are resolved.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relational_quantum_mechanics
Copenhagen interpretation :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_interpretation
Council of Nicaea :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea
And just for funsies . . . . :
Physical Logic :
In R.D. Sorkin's framework for logic in physics a clear separation is made between the collection of unasserted propositions about the physical world and the affirmation or denial of these propositions by the physical world.
https://arxiv.org/abs/1201.6266
Logical implies a higher view than the physical. :wink:
https://www.pcmag.com/encyclopedia/term/logical-vs-physical
Quoting Janus
Do those different labels have the same meaning to you? If not, how are those different aspects of human experience correlated? :smile:
Do you see the white triangle with your mental imagination or with your physical eye? Is the meaning of the word "see" the same in either case?
Why? Because...
[quote=Sam Harris]Religious moderation gives cover to religious fundamentalism[/quote]
Doesn't putting the pressure on religious moderates like 3017amen and others probably amount to terrorism?
[quote=Wikipedia]Terrorism is, in the broadest sense, the use of intentional violence to achieve political aims. It is used in this regard primarily to refer to violence during peacetime or in the context of war against non-combatants (mostly civilians and neutral military personnel)[/quote]
That's what I call the Green Goblin maneuver - hurting Mary Jane (Peter Parker's "better" half) to hurt Peter Parker (Spiderman). A :up: for strategy but A :down: for ethics.
Information propagates over a substrate. Is Rovelli saying it propagates over something else?
It's not clear to me what point you are trying to make.
I haven't said that mind is the same thing as matter. Horses are not the same things as trees, and so on; but what point do you really want to make?
Quoting Gnomon
You don't believe in res extensa and res cogitans if you are, as you have avowed, not a metaphysical substance dualist. I follow Spinoza in thinking that the ideas of extensa and cogitans merely represent two perspectives on things.
It's not "heresy against science" because science has nothing to say on this.
Quoting Gnomon
You are being alarmist: I haven't spoken about barring anyone from anything, but just saying how I think about these issues. I wonder why you are acting in such a defensive way. I have noticed on these forums that those who are most entranced by these, what I see as incoherent, polemics, seem to have dogs in the race; and they seem to think that the issues around idealism versus materialism are of real metaphysical and/ or religious import, and this thinking seems to stem from either their attachment to, or rejection of, religious thinking.
Personally I think it's fine to be religious or not, it's a personal matter of choice, but I really don't see anything worthy of arguing about. The arguments on both sides are just dumb, based on reification from both sides and just go around the same boring circles ad nauseum. The arguments on both sides, in my opinion, are so poor they are not worth the effort to criticize; it's the arguing itself that warrants criticism.
Quoting Gnomon
I see both the white and black triangles on the screen. Both triangles have portions of their boundaries missing. Beyond that I don't know what you are asking, or what you think you are trying to prove.
Wittgenstein
1) In Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, he proposed that in order for a picture to represent a certain fact it must, in some way, possess the same logical structure as the fact.
2) Such that a picture of a square and the fact of a square are different in some ways but have the same logical structure.
3) As we cannot judge that the picture and the fact have the same logical structure without a prior knowledge of the concept of a square, and as the concept of a square requires both rationalism and empiricism, then a posteriori empiricism is inherent in any judgement about logical structure.
4) As physicalism is inherent in any knowledge about a posteriori empiricism, physicalism is inherent in the logic underpinning Wittgenstein's logical structure.
IE, physicalism was an inherent part of Wittgenstein's logic.
Quantum Logic
The idea that the principles of classical logic may be revised on empirical grounds has foundations in the works of Quine and Reichenbach.
Hilary Putnam in his 1968 Is Logic Empirical ? discussed the idea that the properties of logic may, or should, be empirically determined. In particular, whether empirical facts about quantum phenomena may provide grounds for revising classical logic as a consistent logical rendering of reality. He argued that all the reasons usually given for the absolutely a priori status of classical logic applied equally well to the principles of classical Euclidean geometry.
IE, if logic is empirical, then it is physical.
Technically, we can’t, because they aren’t there. Reason constructs them for us, probably just so we don’t waste time trying to figure out what the picture might represent if the oddball stuff wasn’t consolidated into something residing in intuition already.
Classic transcendental illusion: reason informs us a priori that a triangle is and can only be a very particular enclosed space, then turns right around and informs us a posteriori of an unenclosed space which we immediately intuit as a triangle. I mean, even the three little black pointy configurations aren’t enclosed sufficiently to form a triangle.
Not only that, but notice that we don’t intuit those things that look like cheese wheels with a wedge taken out, as fully formed circles. Yet we intuit an undefined empty space as a fully formed triangle.
AARRRRGGGGGG!!!!!!
He was not discussing how the information propagates. Just that "two's an interaction, three's an observation". :joke:
If you are asking about a fluid physical substrate for information to "wave" in, that is a question that puzzled the early pioneers of the wave nature of light energy. Some proposed that empty space contained an ethereal substance called "ether" or "aether". But, today most scientists evade that resemblance to a Spiritual substance by merely saying that light "behaves" like a wave, even though there may be no fluid substance to wave in. That also avoids having to reconcile its particle-like form, per Newton, with its wave-form, in two-slit experiments.
For my philosophical purposes though, I think that energy is not literally waving, but merely metaphorically. It's not a continuous analog wave, but a series of rapid digital quantum on/off (or actual/potential) winks that appear to the observer as a sine wave of ups & downs. For example, you could plot a Morse code signal in terms of a sine wave of maximum/minimum power instead of long/short duration. For me, this hypothesis fits with the notion that Information/Energy is ultimately weightless, frictionless, undetectable mathematical relationships -- not little bullets of stuff, or "perturbations" in a material fabric or field. So, it's actually a meta-physical (mental) substrate. The mind of the observer connects the dots. :nerd:
Ether Theory :
The ether was assumed to be weightless, transparent, frictionless, undetectable chemically or physically, and literally permeating all matter and space.
https://www.britannica.com/science/ether-theoretical-substance
Discrete dots plotted as a continuous curve :
Gravity is not a force so a gravity wave is ripples in spacetime
That drives the point home very well.
Neither triangle is an actual triangle. They both require an observer to give them the label "triangle", particularly the white triangle, since it isn't even made of line segments and is defined by its relation to the other objects.
This is a problem for materialists who believe in the possibility of simulated consciousness. If the existence of the white triangle is dependent on an observer, then simulated consciousness is also going to be dependent on an observer- flipping little electric switches on and off in a certain way isn't sufficient to simulate consciousness. You would need an observer to assign a meaningful label to whatever pattern of switching operations is (supposedly) conscious, just as we need an observer to interpret the relationships between the objects in the image Gnomon posted and determine the empty spaces form a white triangle. And what's true of switching operations is true of neural activity: without an observer to give meaning to what the neurons are doing, it's just meaningless arrangements of matter interacting and moving around. Obviously, there's no little observers in our brain, so the brain alone is not a sufficient condition for consciousness.
The brain is consciousness because you are a body. It is true we don't know exactly what a brain is and how much we construct reality, but neurology is the best science to understand the substance of consciousness. How could something "incorporeal" understand matter? If you set of consciousness as a realm above and beyond matter than you are denying the existence of the brain and dissociating somewhere else and calling this a realm beyond matter. How can anyone know what is beyond matter or that matter can't be conscious? Consciousness is the soul and it is dependent on neurons but it can read between the lines with images, poetry, and philosophy
I don't think this works. Information is perturbations of a field. Without these perturbations a field would be flat , no information would exist, so nothing would exist.
Nikola Tesla said: "If you want to understand the universe look to frequency and vibration ". It is frequencies and vibrations that our senses are attuned to. From these perturbations we infer a world. What occurs is we integrate these perturbations in order to infer a world. The perturbations remain perturbations until they are integrated and stored as physical structure ( memorized ), as per neuroplasticity.
The mystery is what specifically integrates the information, given that the integration of the information is subconscious, and the answer seems to be that the information integrates itself. Given that information integrates itself everywhere else, why should it not in mind?
The information is self organizing, due to the fine tuning of the universe. That is what we see at the most fundamental level ( assuming energy and information are fundamental ). One Wavicle interacts with another wavicle, their information modulates to a third wavicle - their information ( frequency and amplitude ) integrates and is memorized in the structure ( information ) of the third Wavicle. This is consciousness at the very beginning, and this fundamental self organizing dynamic, being fundamental, is the basis for everything subsequent to it - is present in everything subsequent to it. Hence we see something of the sort playing out in neuroplasticity.
My point would be clearer to you, if you could see that Mind & Body appear different to the observer, even though they ultimately consist of the same "stuff". In my thesis, that fundamental "substance" is Information. Which is manifested in two basic forms : Matter & Mind. If that assertion does not make sense to you, I can refer you to my thesis and blog for more information. It will give support references and arguments for some of my “unwarranted assumptions”.
Quoting Janus
In your post you said that you “treat 'mind' and 'matter' or 'mental' and 'physical' as being simply terms we use to identify different aspects of human experience.” Which is true, but trite. And that evasive answer seems to dismiss the OP as a petty quarrel about semantics - shemantics. So, my point was that the "paradox" is actually a true/false difference of interpretation about Physics (Body) and Meta-physics (Mind). And that debate has exercised scientists and philosophers for at least 2500 years.
Quoting Janus
And I agree. But some people seem to believe that one of those perspectives is, not only wrong, but wrong-headed, and suitable only for religious fanatics. In this special case, I am a substance dualist, but ultimately an essence monist : everything in this world is one form or another of Generic Information.
Generic Information :
5. Information is the divine Promethean power of transformation. Information is Generic in the sense of generating all forms from a formless pool of possibility : the Platonic Forms.
http://bothandblog2.enformationism.info/page29.html
Quoting Janus
Au contraire! Lots of scientists have shed much ink on this very subject. And many scientists, and physicalist philosophers heatedly deny that there is any such thing as immaterial Minds and metaphysical Consciousness. They are just names for imaginary fairly tales.
Quoting Janus
I'm not criticizing you personally. But others on this forum are not as laissez faire as you. And you are dismissing as unimportant, an idea that has divided humanity into warring camps : Scientific versus Religious. I don't intend to be offensive, but it's hard to make subtle points in brief posts without making sharp distinctions. Also, I don't think of it as a "defensive" posture, but as a "positive" attitude. I'm reacting to your expression of disgust (distaste?) toward the contentious Mind/Body "paradox", which has engaged philosophers and scientist for millennia : "This is a tedious, even incoherent, debate." I'm trying to describe a vitally interesting and philosophically coherent argument in favor of a unified understanding of Mind & Body.
Quoting Janus
It's OK with me that you are OK with the various religious and scientific belief systems. My belief system is not religious, and not a matter of faith. But some people are not so open-minded. The arguments on both sides may be dumb, but some pretty smart people have come close to shedding blood over it. For me, the Mind/Body paradox is the crux of my personal philosophical (not religious) worldview. If the arguments are so poor, here's our chance to raise the level of discourse. Besides, what else do we have to do on a philosophy forum? :wink:
Yes. Logic and Physics are "correlated" in Carlo Rovelli's terms. But the relation is between physical instances and metaphysical generalities.
Quoting RussellA
If Logic was empirical, you could put it under a microscope. But David Hume noted that inductive reasoning -- from specific instances to general principles (laws) -- is not justified, except as a rule of thumb. Logical inferences don't occur in nature, but in human minds. We "see" those connections in imagination, not in fact. :smile:
Quoting Mww
I'd say it is more the capacity for pattern recognition that makes us see the triangles than it is reason. I wonder how much of the boundary would need to be missing and how minimal the cues would need to be in order for us to fail to recognize the triangle shape?
Quoting Mww
I think that's because there are not multiple points that define and locate a boundary.
That's my understanding, yes. They are figuratively waving, but in fact "blinking". That last part is my own interpretation. Does that notion make sense? The graphic image in my post illustrates that discrete points of data are combined by the mind into a smooth analog curve. Besides, some scientists have concluded that even space-time is granular (quantized). Do you disagree? I can work with the wave/particle notion either way. :grin:
Is space-time smooth or chunky? :
In order for the math of general relativity to work, this fabric of space-time has to be absolutely smooth at the tiniest of scales. No matter how far you zoom in, space-time will always be as wrinkle-free as a recently ironed shirt.
https://www.space.com/space-time-smooth-chunky-quantum-gravity.html
Is Spacetime quantized ? :
Today, while it is generally accepted that spacetime is quantized, there is disagreement as to how quantization manifests itself . ...
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0370269318303447
Not really. The distinction you make here makes no actual difference because frequencies of "blinking" are mathematically – not "figuratively" – synonomous with wave patterns.
Would you agree that an observer is a necessary condition for the existence of the white triangle? That is to say, in a universe where there are no minds, there are no "white triangles"?
You're aware that the notion of a field is an imaginary mathematical construct, right? It's used like a matrix to organize abstractions into something resembling concrete reality. The field is physical only in the sense that it is a tool for mathematical physicists. They can't smash a field in a cyclotron. It's actually a metaphor, but they treat it as-if it's a real thing.
Do you disagree that Information is "weightless, frictionless, undetectable mathematical relationships"? If not, do you imagine those "perturbations" as literal waves in a fluid medium? :chin:
If the quantum field is not composed of "particles", what is the field made of?
https://www.quora.com/If-the-quantum-field-is-not-composed-of-particles-what-is-the-field-made-of
Quoting Pop
In the case illustrated in my post, the integration of discrete bits of information into a smooth curve is done in the mind of the observer. I'm not sure what you mean by "information integrates itself". That does sound mysterious. Please explain. :smile:
I don't agree that mind consists of any "stuff" I see mind as an activity of the living human body, just as running, walking, sitting, digestion and so on, are. Those activities do not consist of any "stuff", and I think likewise of mind.
Quoting Gnomon
Yes, and on account of that it's well past its 'use by' date.Quoting Gnomon
Scientists having something to say is not the same as science having something to say on the matter.
Quoting Gnomon
If no unequivocal empirical evidence for your belief system or it is not logically necessary, then it is a matter of faith if you actually believe in it, or it may be a matter of conjecture if you merely hold it provisionally. On the other hand if a conjecture, or hypothesis is not susceptible of empirical verification /falsification, even in principle, as is the case with metaphysical speculations, then it is either a matter of faith or else simply something you entertain for amusement or poetic purposes.
OK. What is mathematics made of? Is it a collection of discrete (quantum particles), or universal fluid substance of some kind? Or is mathematics a human construct of imagination to represent the invisible relationships in nature? Do you think a dog would see a geometric triangle in an array of three unconnected dots? If the dog "sees" invisible lines between things, he may have a rudimentary grasp of geometry.
The distinction I was making is between the actual dots (objects) and the imaginary links (subjective). The white triangle illusion in the post above is an illustration of how human minds (dog minds??) fill-in the absences between things. Mathematical relationships (ratios) are imaginary (figurative, metaphorical) connections, not real (physical, material) bridges between objects. A mathematical "structure" (geometry) is not synonymous with a physical structure (steel beams) :cool:
"When an image is incomplete, your brain fills in the gaps by figuring out the most likely interpretation."
https://www.amnh.org/explore/ology/brain/optical-illusions-and-how-they-work/filling-in
In the absence of a definite foundation of reality, we are constrained to conceptualize the foundation in a workable manner. A field symbolizes reality according to quantum field theory. If we are to discuss matters at this level we have to agree on a theoretical basis, we can use quantum field theory, string theory, or wave theory. Which would you like? It will be metaphorical regardless.
You are using an idealist argument - I love it! :razz:
Quoting Gnomon
Information is sensed by us as energetic frequency and vibration ( sight and sound ), particles ( smell, taste ), and force fields ( matter ). And bodily perturbations.
Quoting Gnomon
I thought I did explain. But I forgot you are a dualist, so it wouldn't make much of an impression on you, I'm sure.
For a dualist, information exists as patterns of energy / matter everywhere else except in mind! :chin:
That's not what I asked. In a universe of no minds, would there be any white triangles? Not "observations of white triangles". Just "white triangles".
Independent of any observer, the physical world is logical. For example, i) rocks exist - ii) a particular rock is a rock - iii) therefore, a particular rock exists.
When we observe the physical world, we observe that the physical world is logical. Therefore, the logic of the physical world is verifiable by observation.
"Is logic empirical ?" is asking whether there a logic in the physical world that can be verified by observation.
Therefore, as the logic of the physical world is verifiable by observation, "logic is empirical".
Agreed, in principle, but I don’t think pattern recognition is enough; we still have to do something with the patterns over and above recognizing them.
Yes. But I also use Realist arguments where appropriate. However, it's the Idealist notions that tend to inflame some posters on this forum. I coined a term to describe my BothAnd philosophy : I'm a Redealist. I don't have to deny physical Reality in order to "see" meta-physical Ideality, the invisible world of interrelationships, that we know as Ideas or Meaning. Depending on what you are looking for, you will see and experience either the immaterial ideal world of Relationships. Or you can see the real world of Objects. It's a matter of perspective, as in Einstein's principle of Relativity. But some people seem to be blind (intentionally ?) to the reality of Relationships. And that is the whole point of Carlo Rovelli's latest book, HELGOLAND. The traditional belief of Science was that scientists can stand outside the Real world, and see it as it really is. But Kant shot-down that notion, long before Quantum Theory undermined the material foundation of Reality. Rovelli says, "the external point of view is a point of view that does not exist".
Rovelli goes on to say, while discussing the meaning of Information, that "this condition [subjectivity], which is perhaps a problem for naive materialism, is beautifully satisfied if we rethink matter as interaction and correlations". [my bracket] In my experience, the primary argument against Ideal concepts is based on the authoritative belief system (dogma) of Naive Materialism. That prejudice is understandable though, because we are all materialists, when we tend to the needs of the body. But the tip of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs is "Self-Actualization", which has nothing to do with the physical body, but focuses on the meta-physical Self, which is merely an idea in the mind. Naive Materialism tends to view the mental aspects of the world as merely various functions of Matter.
My "Idealist" perspective turns that primacy around, to view Matter as merely one form of meta-physical Information. Rovelli emphasizes that Real/Ideal distinction by listing some of the obviously immaterial forms of mentality : "The mental world has different aspects --- meaning, intentionality, values, objectives, ends, emotions, aesthetic and moral senses, mathematical intuition, perception, creativity, consciousness . . . ." When Plato imagined a separate realm of Ideal Forms, those immaterial qualities are what he had in mind. Of course, that ideal realm is not really separate, just metaphorically on a different plane, so to speak. And it's metaphorical language, comparing ideal concepts with real objects, that annoy Naive Materialists. They will, of course, deny that label. But, you can label me a Redealist. :cool:
Naive Materialism :
According to the naïve realist, the objects of perception are not merely representations of external objects, but are in fact those external objects ... ___Wiki
Ideality :
[i]* In Plato’s theory of Forms, he argues that non-physical forms (or ideas) represent the most accurate or perfect reality. Those Forms are not physical things, but merely definitions or recipes of possible things. What we call Reality consists of a few actualized potentials drawn from a realm of infinite possibilities.
1. Materialists deny the existence of such immaterial ideals, but recent developments in Quantum theory have forced them to accept the concept of “virtual” particles in a mathematical “field”, that are not real, but only potential, until their unreal state is collapsed into reality by a measurement or observation. To measure is to extract meaning into a mind. [Measure, from L. Mensura, to know; from mens-, mind]
2. Some modern idealists find that scenario to be intriguingly similar to Plato’s notion that ideal Forms can be realized, i.e. meaning extracted, by knowing minds. For the purposes of this blog, “Ideality” refers to an infinite pool of potential (metaphorically equivalent to a quantum field), of which physical Reality is a small part. [/i]
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page11.html
If you explained the meaning of "information integrates itself", I missed it. Would you run it by me again?
Actually, I am both a Dualist and a Monist, just as I am both a Realist and an Idealist. That's how I unify a universe of many parts into a single whole system. But I don't understand how Holism could explain how a bit or byte of Information could "integrate itself". That seems to attribute some self-control to abstract Information/Energy -- as-if a bit of information is a self-conscious entity. I sometimes describe EnFormAction, metaphorically, as-if it works like the Holy Spirit of God, "moving on the face of the waters". But, it's not intended to be taken literally or physically or religiously.
As a world system, Information (EnFormAction) is already integrated, but when Generic Information takes on the form of Matter or Energy, it necessarily dis-integrates. Maybe what you meant to say was that Information is inherently unified in its holistic form. But the Integrated Information Theory, postulates that the real entities, that we perceive around us, must somehow become re-integrated. I'm not sure how the mathematical manipulations would actually achieve that goal. But we do it instinctively all the time when we change our perspective from subjective to objective, and vice-versa. So, information is constantly changing form, from holistic Potential, to particular Actual, and back again. In the human brain/mind, information is converted from neuro-chemical processes into the idea processing that we call "thinking". But the information doesn't re-integrate itself, because it requires intention on the part of the thinker. Anyway, this seems to be minor semantic distinction for me. But, I could be missing something important. :joke:
EnFormAction :
Ententional Causation. A proposed metaphysical law of the universe that causes random interactions between forces and particles to produce novel & stable arrangements of matter & energy. It’s the creative force (aka : Divine Will) of the axiomatic eternal deity that, for unknown reasons, programmed a Singularity to suddenly burst into our reality from an infinite source of possibility. AKA : The creative power of Evolution; the power to enform; Logos; Change.\
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html
PS__I do see signs of Intentionality in the process of Thermodynamics and Evolution. And I propose a hypothetical deity to provide the teleological direction to the system as a whole. But taken literally, that could imply hard determinism. So, my metaphorical deity is assumed to give the world a push in a particular direction, then leave it alone to find its own path through almost infinite possibilities to a destination that is determined only in outline. Sadly, all of that hypothetical nonsense sounds like mere philosophical quibbling. So, I don't make a religion of it. :cool:
:up:
Quoting Gnomon
Fair enough. Your understanding seems to have evolved since last we spoke, and so has mine.
Quoting Gnomon
Information always exists over a substrate. It is the perturbations of a substrate that create information.
Hence fundamentally we get - Enformation - energy and its information ( perturbations). The finest grain of energy is a wavicle, it is energy that contains information of its frequency and amplitude, charge, polarity, etc. When it interacts with another wavicle its frequency and amplitude, etc ( its information ) modulates to a third Wavicle. The information of the first and second Wavicle is integrated ( and memorized ) to the form of the third Wavicle. Information has been integrated and memorized in the structure of the resultant third Wavicle. This sketch contains all the necessary elements of consciousness: Information has been integrated and memorized, and a self has evolved interrelationally, the self being the totality of information contained by the wavicle.
As I apply this model to neuroplasticity, it seems to fit. It is the most fundamental relationship possible, using the most fundamental elements, so it is the building block of everything subsequent to it - it is the basis of everything, so is contained in everything. It shows how consciousness as information integration, and self organization is fundamental. Note, the information integrates on its own long before "mind" has evolved. I would be interested in counter arguments?
That the information integrates is due to the fine tuning of the universe (EnFormAction) . Its laws combined, cause self organization - a state of information integration that is equal to what we understand as consciousness. If a big bang is a disintegration, the opposite of a big bang will be integration. So, following a big bang period ( disintegration period ), one would expect an integration period .
OK. But it's the physics that's empirical, not the logical inferences. Logic is not a physical object, it's a mental process of making meaningful connections between otherwise meaningless events. The distinction is between the physical event and the metaphysical observation. People tend to see only the object in front of them, and ignore the seer (with knowledge and prejudices) behind their eyes. Simply seeing the obvious is not scientific observation. Classical Physics allowed scientists to ignore the observing mind. But, Quantum Theory requires scientists to include the Observer in the observation. :smile:
My philosophical understanding has been rapidly evolving since the core concept of the Enformationism Thesis occurred to me about 12 years ago. I continue to develop that kernel in my blog, and on this forum. Having my solipsistic ideas challenged is key to making philosophical progress in the complex world beyond the Self. :smile:
Quoting Pop
Unfortunately, that assertion seems to be based on assumptions that I am not privy to. I can vaguely imagine that each wave-front is altered (form changed) by its interaction with another wave. Thereby retaining a "memory" of the event, long after it happened. Is that even close to your understanding of wavicle "memory"? :chin:
Quoting Pop
I interpret that assertion as saying that Consciousness is a process of "connecting the dots", or categorizing independent external factors into holistic meaning, to the observer. :nerd:
Quoting Pop
That sounds like what Teilhard deChardin called the Omega Point. I just started reading the 1987 book by astronomer John Barrow and mathematical physicist Frank Tipler : The Anthropic Cosmological Principle. Both of those "visionary" scientists reached somewhat religious or mystical conclusions about the destiny of the universe. But they are usually ridiculed by scientists and philosophers who still hold the Copernican Principle dear. :cool:
The Omega Point is a supposed future when everything in the universe spirals toward a final point of unification.
Copernican Principle :
In physical cosmology, the Copernican principle states that humans, on the Earth or in the Solar System, are not privileged observers of the universe.
Note -- this is usually interpreted to mean that the universe is not Anthropic -- that there is nothing special about humanity, and the universe is not teleological.
1 Information and energy are fundamental
2. If information and energy are fundamental, then everything is made of information and energy.
3. If everything is made of energy and information, then so is consciousness.
Assuming information and energy is fundamental, then the most fundamental particle is a wavicle of sorts. It possesses energy and information in the form of frequency and amplitude. This wavicle interacts with another wavicle, and in the interaction the frequency and amplitude ( information ) of the two wavicles modulate to form a third wavicle. This third wavicle in its form of frequency and amplitude symbolizes the interaction of the first two wavicles. The third wavicle is a symbol of the interaction of the two first wavicles. The information of the first two wavicles has been integrated and symbolized ( memorized as a symbol ) in the form of the third wavicle.
Information has been integrated to a symbol.
This is what consciousness does, it integrates information to a symbol.
Consciousness integrates specifically this sort of information – information in the form of energetic frequency and vibration. Frequency and vibration in the form of light and sound hits the edge of a self. The self itself is fundamentally frequency and vibration, so two wavicles of sorts interact and modulate. The sensed frequency and vibrations are symbolized - pattern recognition style, where each pattern has its own symbol. The symbols are related and a big picture is created, similar to the pixels of a computer screen, only in 3D.
The fundamental wavicle interaction has the quality of consciousness – it integrates information to a symbol – there is no need for a consciousness to emerge, the information integrating function is already present. In time, It just evolves in complexity, by integrating more and more information.
Traditionally it is understood that mind is the facility that integrates information, but it may be more accurate to state that mind is the arena that facilitates the self organization of information. Neuroplasticity would support this view in that new brain structure is built to accommodate new thinking (new information). In neuroplasticity, new information takes the lead role, which brain structure tries to subsequently accommodate. New thinking entails new neuronal connections / brain structure.
This leads to a view that information self organizes in mind, just as it does everywhere else.
Any thoughts?
Logic as a study of valid rules of inference
Logic is the systematic study of valid rules of inference, in that there are particular relations that lead to the acceptance of one proposition (conclusion) on the basis of a set of other propositions (premises).
For example, taking the modus ponens as an example, the rational rule of inference "if X happens, then Y will happen" ii) "X happens" iii) "therefore, Y happens" is valid because the empirical rule of inference i) "if X happens, then Y will happen" ii) "X happens" iii) "therefore, Y doesn't happen" is never observed.
As the validity of the rational rule of inference is determined by a correspondence with an empirical rule of inference, rules of inference must empirically exist in the world.
Logic as a relationship of an object
Whether logical truths entail the existence of any entities, or whether logical truth is independent of what exists is debated.
If logical truths hold no matter what the representation is about, then they hold in any domain, including empty domains. And if that is true, then logical truths cannot imply that anything exists.
But, on the other hand, if logical truths hold in any domain, then any domain has to contain the logical objects. Thus for logical objects there can be no empty domain.
Logic is not neutral with respect to what exists, and logic is not independent of what exists. Logic is not an object but a relationship of the object. If logic is a relationship of an object, then logic cannot exist outside the existence of objects.
For example, the following logical truths would not exist in a domain empty of objects:
i) If object A is larger than object B, object B is smaller than object A
ii) If object A exists, then it is not the case that object A doesn't exist.
iii) If object A is to the left of object B, then object B is to the right of object A.
iv) If object A is the same as object B, then object B is the same as object A.
v) Object A is the same as object A
vi) etc
IE, "logic" can mean either the study of the valid rules of inference, which exist empirically, or a relationship of objects, which also exist empirically.
As with mathematics, logic is an invention that corresponds with what has been discovered
My understanding may be a little different, in that I would say that every thing and every process in the world is a form of Generic EnFormAction (the power to cause change of form). One form is Matter. which is what we know as physical Objects. Energy is another form, but it's a process of change, not a static object. And Consciousness is also not a stable thing, but an ongoing process of interpreting incoming Information (energy) into Subjective Meaning. So, consciousness is more like Energy than Matter. But it's hard to say what an ongoing process is "made of". You could say that C consists of a stream of Ideas or symbols or meanings. But that's a metaphor analogous to flowing water, which is actually made-of both Matter (H20), and energy (momentum). Maybe C is like a water-wheel mill that uses flowing energy to convert raw material (grain) into edible (meaningful) flour. :joke:
Quoting Pop
I think I vaguely grasp what you're saying. But to me, "symbolize" is a metaphor for what goes-on in a conscious mind, not in abstract space. Are you implying that the wavicle "memory" and "symbols" are in G*D's mind?
A symbol is a subjective idea (metaphor, analogy) that represents an external object or someone else's idea. For example, the NAZI swastika originally symbolized divinity & spirituality, or just good luck. But it was adopted by the NAZIs to symbolize the dynamic "spirit" of the German folk. So, like beauty, a symbol is in the conscious mind's eye of the beholder. :heart:
Quoting Pop
Yes. C converts objective coded energy (out there) into subjective Meaning-to-Self (in here). In its coded form, the energy is meaningless. So, I guess you mean by "integrates", that C "interprets" patterns into meanings or symbols. :chin:
Quoting Pop
Yes but, I would interpret "self-organization" as an action that is automatic, and inherent in the coded information, and requires no interpretation by the recipient. Something like a self-extracting ZIP file. But for me, it takes two to "integrate" or interpret many possible meanings into a singular relevance to the recipient's Self. So, I would say that incoming information (usually in the form of energy) is meaningless and non-symbolic, until it is process in a prepared mind with the code-key (reason) to extracting the potential information. Of course, the meaning of the incoming data was known to the sender (G*D??), but not to the receiver, until the mind "faciitates" the decoding process with a "code key" (Logic) that is known to both parties in the communication. :nerd:
Mass is energy, and that's generally considered a material property.
Quoting Gnomon
Surely not! The meaning of the symbol depends on the system that interprets it, be it a mind or a computer. But the symbol itself is a physically encoded, abstract configuration. This sentence is full of symbols physically encoded in memory and in signals.
Unless you are thinking of the redundancy of symbol types over tokens, in which case, yes, these are categories and therefore somewhat subjective.
But even then, it clearly doesn't represent anything intrinsically. Identical symbols in two languages represent different things, for instance.
Quoting Gnomon
Yes that is what I mean. In human consciousness, frequencies and vibrations are translated to anthropocentric symbols, such as colour and sound. A symbol needs only to represent something - there are no other rules. The symbiology is understood intrinsically by a mind as representing something.
In the case of the wavicles, Information of the two wavicles is integrated to the resultant wavicle. The resultant wavicle in its structure memorizes and symbolizes their interaction. This is what Human consciousness does - it senses frequencies and vibrations ( wavicles ) as sight and sound and symbolizes and memorizes them structurally ( neuroplasticity ).. Hopefully you can see that this wavicular interaction is similar to, and perhaps is still, the foundation of consciousness? If so, then you might see how information is self organizing.
Is this due to G*D? I understand it as the laws of the universe ( including the ones we haven't discovered yet ) combining to cause Self organization, in an intrinsic way - Teleology, no externals necessary.
Quoting Gnomon
It depends on where the teleology resides. The teleology may reside in every "Self", where everything is an evolving "self" organizing system. Or the teleology is something that just exists everywhere, and then your interpretation would be valid - but there would be no need for consciousness, as everything is externally caused. But if everything is caused to self organize, then an intrinsic consciousness is necessary, in order to intrinsically navigate the information, and form an intrinsic "self" in the process. :cool: Which do you think it is? :smile:
Where does logic come from? In logic, can we put the information together as we would like to, or are we constrained to put it together the way that it fits - like a jigsaw puzzle?
Consciousness, of course, is not logical. It only needs to be functional, and this is another fascinating aspect of it, in that there is so much room for fantasy. And this fantastic aspect of it would seem to be beneficial for survival, perhaps crucial for survival.
I am in general agreement with your assessment of Logic. But the quoted statement reminded me of the weird notion of Quantum Fields and Virtual Particles. The field itself is defined mathematically (logically) as a grid or matrix of dimensionless points (i.e. no extension, no measurable contents). And the Virtual Particles that theoretically occupy those points can be described as Potential-not-actual particles. Therefore, as a "logical object", a Virtual Particle seems to be an Empty Domain that could potentially be filled with substance.
Of course, most physicists prefer the positive-sounding term "virtual" to the negative implications of "not actual". In any case, the theoretical mathematicians don't really care that those "point" domains are mostly empty, until randomly-and-without-provocation, those vacant domains are filled with measurable particles of matter. It's only in an averaged statistical sense that the field is real. So, it seems that the human mind can "see" logical relationships between imaginary "objects". In that case, Virtual Particles could be described, philosophically, as Metaphysical instead of Physical. But that's a no-no in Physics. :smile:
Do Virtual Particles Really Exist? :
The effects of the quantum vacuum are real; the virtual particle visualization is useful, but the particles themselves are not real.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2021/05/07/ask-ethan-do-virtual-particles-really-exist/
Virtual reality (VR)is a simulated experience that can be similar to or completely different from the real world.
Mass is indeed a property of matter. But, in that stable form it is no longer the same as dynamic Energy. I like to think of Matter as a condensed form of slowed-down Energy. For example, as the frequency of light energy slows down, it's vibrations are less energetic. So at some point, light energy is transformed, as-if by magic, into a sluggish material form. That's how plants make potential-energy-rich, but low-frequency, sugar molecules from sunlight. Technically, Mass per se is not Energy. But it is mathematically equal to the frequency of the energy multiplied by the speed of propagation of light (E=MC^2). :smile:
mass–energy equivalence :
the energy E is measured in Joules, the mass m is measured in kilograms, and the speed of light is measured in meters per second.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass%E2%80%93energy_equivalence
I think your "law of the universe" may be similar to my notion of EnFormAction. I didn't define it in terms of Self-Organization, but I suppose that's one way to look at it. Since the hypothetical Enformer is out of the picture, physical changes appear to be self-caused. That may be what Sheldrake had in mind for his notion of Morphic Resonance. But, I remain skeptical about his inference that "paranormal" events, such as mental telepathy are attributable to the Morphic Field. :smile:
EnFormAction :
Ententional Causation. A proposed metaphysical law of the universe that causes random interactions between forces and particles to produce novel & stable arrangements of matter & energy. It’s the creative force (aka : Divine Will) of the axiomatic eternal deity that, for unknown reasons, programmed a Singularity to suddenly burst into our reality from an infinite source of possibility. AKA : The creative power of Evolution; the power to enform; Logos; Change.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html
Morphic Resonance :
Morphic resonance is a process whereby self-organising systems inherit a memory from previous similar systems.
https://www.sheldrake.org/research/morphic-resonance
Quoting Pop
I think the automatically evolving (self-organizing) processes of Nature imply that Organized Intention, rather than Disorderly Randomness, is at work. That's why I describe Evolution as functioning like a computer program, which seems intent on reaching some ultimate solution to an open question -- hopefully, the answer will be more enlightening than "42". But the original teleological Intention was in the mind of the postulated Programmer, and was eventually expressed in the emergence of creatures capable of their own self-control (cybernetics) and self-directed Intentions.
However, I refrain from applying the notion of self-consciousness to the lifeless & mindless elements (particles) of Physics. Instead, the "intrinsic consciousness" was in the Enformer, who achieves He/r goals by means of EnFormAction (a combination of causal Energy and cybernetic Information). Hence, Nature is a goal-directed cybernetic organism (a holistic system), imbued with self-directed consciousness by its Intentional Designer. But, I have to be careful not to say such outrageous things out-loud on this forum. :cool:
Principia Cybernetica :
Philosophies traditionally start with an ontology or metaphysics: a theory of being in itself, of the essence of things, of the fundamental principles of existence and reality. In a traditional systemic philosophy, "organization" might be seen as the fundamental principle of being, rather than God, matter, or the laws of nature. However this still begs the question of where this organization comes from. In a constructive systemic philosophy, on the other hand, the essence is the process through which this organization is created.
http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/METAPHI.html
Note -- but who or what organized the process of Evolution???
If you had a definition of consciousness then you may be able to make a coherent case for such a proposition, by examining whether the definition "only" fits humanity.
I have a definition of consciousness that fits humanity very well - "information integration for the purpose of self organization". As I analyze this definition, I find it fits everything. As I apply it to a conceptual fundamental substance ( wavicle ), I find all the essential elements of human consciousness present. And I find this fundamental mechanism of converting wave information to a structural symbology is still present in human consciousness ( neuroplasticity ). Being the fundamental interaction, it would be the basis of everything, and so present in everything, including human consciousness.
There seem to be many measurable physical effects that seem to point to the existence of virtual particles, but "virtual particles" are not the only possible explanation of these measurable effects.
Possibility one - the idea of a dimensionless point particle may simply be a way to explain why interactions are localised at dimensionless points, in that there are not particles but fields, and it these fields that interact at these dimensionless points.
A dimensionless particle is a problematic thing if one wants to give it properties such as mass or charge, in that the mass and charge of a particle will then have to be infinite. The same problem as a singularity at the centre of a black hole, where the laws of physics cease to exist as we know them.
Possibility two - one must distinguish between the mathematical formulation of a quantum field and how the quantum field is interpreted. A "virtual particle" may be a mathematical formulation but only a metaphorical interpretation. Such as Schrödinger's cat, The Uncertainty Principle, Evolution by natural selection, Black Holes, The Butterfly Effect, etc.
IE, the true nature of a "virtual particle" is unknown
Quoting Gnomon
"See" may be used two ways.
i) The human mind can empirically observe using scientific instruments measurable physical effects of "virtual particles", but cannot directly observe the "virtual particles" themselves, regardless of what a "virtual particle" is.
ii) The human mind can imagine the cause of these measurable physical effects as metaphorical "virtual particles"
IE, the human mind can imagine the relationship between imaginary objects, but cannot observe the relationship between imaginary objects.
In conclusion, as the true nature of "virtual particles" is unknown, one cannot argue that that this is an example where an object may exist in a empty domain
I would argue that logic is empirical, as logic cannot exist in an empty domain.
Reason one - the human mind is incapable of thinking about logic in an empty domain
The human mind cannot imagine a logical truth independent of something represented by the logical truth, regardless of whether one assumes Idealism or Realism.
For example, the human mind can only imagine the logical truth - If object A is the same as object B, then object B is the same as object A - by representing objects A and B.
IE, the human mind is only able to think about logic through empirical observation of objects about which logical truth may be applied.
Reason two - logic corresponds to the world
There is no instance where a logical truth doesn't correspond with the world.
For example, is has never been observed that object A is not the the same as object A.
Possibility one is that the fact that logic as a study of valid rules of inference corresponds with logic discovered in the world is coincidence.
Possibility two is that the logic invented in the rational mind and the logic empirically discovered in the outside world are two aspects of a common logic existent in nature.
IE, ignoring coincidence as an answer, logic is empirical because logic is an intrinsic part of nature.
Yes. Your definition is broad enough to include almost anything that "processes" information, including a rock that absorbs radiant light energy, which it then "integrates" into its structure as thermal heat energy, which it then radiates back into the environment. Since I define Energy as a form of Generic Information (EnFormAction), the rock is "aware" of that incoming data only briefly. Whether that constitutes self-organization though is debatable. The rock may be changed by that interaction (thermal expansion), but the effects of such a minor change in structure might take eons to make a discernible difference. So I would reserve the term "information integration" for a more dramatic change, such as what happens when an animal "integrates" food into its structure and metabolism. That subliminal integration is essential for self-organization, but is it sufficient for meaningful Consciousness?
A dictionary definition of Consciousness is "the state of being awake and aware of one's surroundings." But it's hard enough to detect minimal consciousness in a comatose human, let alone a stone. Christof Koch laments the lack of a "consciousness meter" for that purpose. And elementary particles are even more remote from our concept of "awake" and "aware" than a rock. So, I prefer a narrower application of the term., that is more meaningful to the human mind, and to the human perspective. I'm not really concerned with what an atom thinks or feels, as it is dis-integrated in an atom smasher. However, I am interested in the advanced form of Information, that can be described as "Self-consciousness" --- knowing that you know. :grin:
Christof Koch -- What is Consciousness :
Consciousness is everything you experience. It is the tune stuck in your head, the sweetness of chocolate mousse, the throbbing pain of a toothache, the fierce love for your child and the bitter knowledge that eventually all feelings will end.
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-05097-x
Note -- he sounds like a homo sapiens chauvinist.
I think the distinction you're after is potential energy, which it has by virtue of its position in spacetime, and its mechanical energy, such as momentum and spin.
Yes. Like Dark Matter, Virtual Particles are imaginary objects created from logical reasoning to explain otherwise puzzling empirical observations. And I don't doubt that they are useful constructs for the purposes of science. But I'm also aware that ancient people imagined invisible human-like agents to explain the otherwise inexplicable manifestations of invisible energy. For example, lightening reminded them of spears from heaven, so they assumed that someone was throwing them at specific targets, such as humans who offended the gods.
That general theory of disembodied Spirits was useful to pre-scientific thinkers for thousands of years. But we no longer need to imagine those natural effects as caused by human-like intentions, because Nature seems to be operating on auto-pilot. Hopefully, the need for ghostly objects will also no longer be necessary for future science. My money is on the causal (energy) and substantial (matter) effects of Generic Information (EnFormAction) in the natural world :nerd:
Or predict future empirical observations, such as the decay chains of the Higgs boson involving W bosons (which are virtual particles).
- anything that integrates information. - which is everything, in the process of creating a self. This is the main game in a self organizing universe.
Quoting Gnomon
It is the beginning of of what evolves into human consciousness. Our universe is an information integrating universe. Consciousness evolves with this fact as its basis ( strong anthropic principle ). It would mean that what integrates the information in organic consciousness is something that also exists outside the system, integrating information everywhere.
Quoting Gnomon
I am also interested in knowing why I know, so I try to understand its origins, and evolution within the big picture, in the broadest possible way.
Quoting Gnomon
He is a panpsychic: "Koch has come around to the view that all forms of life — from apes, dogs and dolphins all the way down to microbes — possess a modicum of consciousness.This concept, known as panpsychism, has transformed Koch’s life. “I’ve turned into a complete vegetarian,” he said. “That is one of the implications [of the view] that consciousness is more widespread than we assume.”
https://www.geekwire.com/2019/dogs-conscious-computers-brain-scientist-christof-koch-takes-deep-questions/
I agree that metaphor is a critical part of understanding.
Quoting Gnomon
I can imagine the metaphor of the path of a particular rock in an avalanche.
I see neither intentionality nor teleology, as the rock has insufficient information as to where it will land up at the moment the avalanche is initiated.
The chances of the rock landing on one pre-determined spot is one in billions, however, the chance of the rock landing somewhere is one in one.
As the rock moves along its path through time and space, interactions between forces and particles, energy and matter, are not random but determined by the laws of nature.
During its path, any change in position of the rock is caused by the instantaneous interaction of energy and matter.
As the rock changes position, the information within the avalanche that the rock is a part of changes.
The final position of the rock is not pre-determined by either its start position or its final position but is determined by the integration of the set of particular situations it passes through along its path.
Given the same initial conditions and the same conditions along its path, there is not an infinite number of possible destinations but only one possible destination.
I perhaps understand that EnFormAction is about energy acting on a form causing an action.
But as regards Information Integration, the rock has to end up somewhere. In a sense its final resting position cannot be said to be due to "disorderly randomness", as its final resting position has been "organised" by the deterministic laws of nature. However, I don't understand the mechanism for teleological "intention".
I agree with last two assertions. But I think you are using the term "empirical" to mean "real", rather than "verifiable" or "testable". In definitions, "empirical" is usually contrasted with "theoretical" or "logical". Logic is indeed an inherent (real) aspect of Nature. But it is associated with metaphysical relationships, rather than with physical, empirically verifiable, objects. So Logic is more like a mental Theory about Reality, than a material Thing in the real world. :smile:
Empirical : based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic ___Oxford Dictionary
Yes. Virtual particles are theoretical objects that are used to make logical, not yet factual, predictions. Both the particles, and the prophesied future are imaginary until actualized in the real world. :smile:
Predictions :
While a causal hypothesis is a proposed explanation, a prediction is the expected result of a test that is derived, by deduction, from a hypothesis (or theory). The expected result is a logical consequence of assuming that the hypothesis (or theory) being tested is correct.
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1057150.pdf
Exactly! According to Einstein, the potential energy of a rock (uranium for example) can be converted into actual energy by deconstructing (disintegrating) its atoms. :nerd:
Aristotle describes potentiality and actuality, or potency and action, as one of several distinctions between things that exist or do not exist. In a sense, a thing that exists potentially does not exist, but the potential does exist.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potentiality_and_actuality
They're used to make empirical predictions. How much more factual do you want?
Quoting Gnomon
Well then why pick on virtual particles? That's all of science. If you can't predict something with it, it ain't science.
Quoting Gnomon
Look up falsification instead. One assumes the theory is wrong. You cannot confirm a theory, only disprove it empirically.
Quoting Gnomon
Potential energy is still energy. You can weigh it, for instance. Again, the distinction is potential and mechanical, not potential and actual. The latter is your ideosyncratic terminology.
I respect Koch's authority in neuroscience, but I disagree with his philosophical interpretation of the universality of Consciousness**. That's because I reserve the "C" term for the only psyche we know directly : self-consciousness. All other forms of information processing are hypothetical. Panpsychism has the "virtue" of minimizing the importance of humanity. And a bit of humility in science & philosophy is necessary to avoid over-generalizing ideas (abstractions) beyond their proper scope. On the other hand, I assume there is a hierarchy of Consciousness, with atoms at the bottom of the pyramid, and humanity at the peak -- but with more evolution to come. :cool:
** For me, Consciousness is a highly-evolved form of Generic Information (EnFormAction). In my thesis, Information (the power to enform, to cause change of form) is universal. Its best known form is ubiquitous causal Energy, which Physics views as the most essential aspect of our world : no energy, no matter, no minds, no consciousness.
Note -- Panpsychism, as a belief system, should lead, not only to Vegetarianism, but to Inedia, or Breathairianism. One example of such extreme views is the Jain religion in India, where people believe that humans could be reincarnated as insects, so they cover their faces in order to avoid inhaling gnats.
A generalization is a form of abstraction whereby common properties of specific instances are formulated as general concepts or claims.
___Wiki
Overgeneralize :
draw a conclusion or make a statement about (something) that is more general than is justified by the available evidence.
___Oxford
Nothing exists unless there is someone or something to think about it.
Even insects THINK, hey there is a bird, if I don't run, oops too late!
Algae, bad environment, gotta move, oops too late!
Clouds, too much (moisture,pressure), gotta move over there, oops rain.
Science or any subject can not exist without logic or reasoning!
Dreams and hallucinations are the only things that we believe without doubting.
We seek vague consensus in our reality, for there is no complete consensus on anything.
Logic is empirical
A field of study must study something. Ornithology studies birds, aesthetics studies aesthetics, psychology studies the mind, physics studies physics. Similarly, logic studies logic.
As with the word "aesthetics", the word "logic" has two distinct meanings. First as a verb, a doing word, "to study". Second as a noun, the thing that is studied.
Logic (as a verb) is the study of the logical relationships between propositions, leading to the acceptance of one proposition (the conclusion) on the basis of a set of other propositions (premises). A proposition is a combination of nouns and verbs that is either true or false, such as "all elephants are grey".
The truth or falsity of a proposition is determined by the T-sentence, such that
"all elephants are grey" is true iff all elephants are grey. The T-sentence sets out the equivalence between the word and the world. Therefore the propositions that logic (as a verb) studies have an equivalence through the T-sentence to facts in the world.
When looking at the world, we directly observe logic (as a noun) in the world. For example, we observe a particular rock as a single thing, something that is itself and not something else. We observe the same characteristic in other things, a bird, a tree, etc. IE, we directly observe the idea that x = x. This idea is an fact in the world discovered empirically.
1) As logic (as a verb) studies relationships of propositions, and as propositions have an equivalence with facts in the world, therefore, logic (as a verb) studies facts in the world.
2) As logic (as a verb) studies logic (as a noun), therefore, logic (as a noun) are facts in the world.
3) As facts in the world are empirically discovered, logic (as a noun) is empirically discovered.
In conclusion, i) logic (as a verb) is the study of something and logic (as a noun) is that which is being studied ii) logic (as a noun) is empirically discovered . In answer to Hilary Putnam's question in 1968, "Is logic empirical ?", the answer is yes.
Teleology is an inference from observation of tendencies in natural patterns. If you watch a landslide, the only "intention" (tendency) you will see is that of gravity. Which dictates that an object with no means of self-movement will be caused to move by the outside force of gravitational "attraction". In this isolated case, we don't say that gravity is an "intentional" agent, but it is a "causal" agent. However, if you add-up all the uni-directional patterns in physics, you may notice that the current state (pattern) of causal change points back to what cosmologists call a "Singularity", where the causal lines disappear into the black-hole (metaphor) of Infinity.
Since everything that happened after the Big Bang -- including the emergence of flesh & blood intentional agents -- was fore-ordained (programmed) in that dimensionless point (no extension, only intention) , it would be reasonable to look for an intentional agent (outside force) to do the programming of the "mechanism" (evolution). The only other reasonable conclusion would be that a random confluence of atoms, accidentally caused a functioning world -- complete with life & mind & intentional agents -- to appear, as-if from nowhere. That's what you call a "Cosmic Coincidence" or a "miracle". So, which is more reasonable : coincidence or intention, to explain the progressive patterns of Nature? :smile:
Teleology and the intentions of supernatural agents :
These results are consistent with an intention-based theory of teleology, and help to reconcile the finding of a positive relationship between teleological endorsement and belief in supernatural agents, with the those of an enduring teleological bias.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32155580/
Note 1 -- by the same reasoning, you could conclude that those who do not endorse the notion of super-natural agents, are those with an enduring anti-teleological bias. So, it comes down to a matter of opinion, not fact. In my case, I am open to the notion of pre-big-bang agency, but it's not an article of faith. Is a consistent tendency in a specific direction (arrow of time) a sign of random coincidence, or goal-directed intention?
Note 2 -- a fireworks explosion has no inherent ordering mechanism (laws). So it's a self-destructive flash. But cosmic evolution shows evidence of on-going self-organization. So it's an enduring constructive evolution toward some unknown (to us) ultimate state.
Tracing current cosmological pattern back to its origin :
Those hypothetical dimensionless mathematical points do allow predictions that can be empirically tested. But the "objects" themselves are Theoretical, not Empirical ; Possible, not Factual. That's all I'm saying. I have no problem with hypothesis or conjecture per se. :cool:
Quoting Kenosha Kid
Yes. Potential Energy is Virtual Energy. And unhatched eggs are virtual chickens. :joke:
OK. You have made your semantic point. But my semantic point is that "Probability" is Virtual, not Actual ; Potential, not Real ; Future, not Here & Now. :smile:
In conclusion, theoretical probability is based on the assumption that outcomes have an equal chance of occurring while empirical probability is based on the observations of an experiment. There are two other types of probabilities and these are axiomatic probability and subjective probability.
https://medium.com/@emmabudu/the-difference-between-empirical-and-theoretical-probability-d42938aa8b7
Probability tells us how often some event will happen after many repeated trials. This topic covers theoretical, experimental, compound probability, permutations,? ...
https://www.khanacademy.org/math/statistics-probability/probability-library