Meta-Physical versus Anti-Metaphysical
Meta-Physical versus Anti-Metaphysical Agendas
I've recently experienced counter-productive dialogues with posters who seem to have an anti-metaphysics agenda. When a thread discussion begins to touch on non-physical topics, such as Mental Models and Subjective Qualia, they will insist on hard empirical evidence before they will even talk about such non-things. The implicit assumption seems to be that Physics is the final authority on the Real World*1. And anything non-physical is un-real, hence un-important. This animus against mental noumena is probably not a case of philosophical Solipsism, but may be a symptom of the dogmatic belief system known as Scientism*2, or its philosophical counterpart Positivism*3. It regards objective Science*4 as the sole source of Truth about Reality, and all else as subjective opinions, or worse, as religious doctrine to be accepted on Faith.
Defenders of the Scientism "faith" are quick to question the intelligence, education, & motives of those who dare to openly discuss such taboo topics as Metaphysics & Mental States, without giving due obeisance to the canon scriptures of "Science", envisioned as a centralized authoritative institution. For them. Metaphysics*5 is defined as "Idealism" or "irrational religious doctrine", and "non-physical" is labelled as "literal non-sense". That true/false hostility to intangibles is probably due to the intrinsic monistic Materialism of modern science. On a Science forum such an exclusive attitude might be appropriate. But, on a Philosophy forum what else can we talk about, except the non-physical, intangible, non-specific, universal, abstract, concepts that Aristotle addressed in the treatise now known as The Metaphysics? His Physics is clearly out-dated, but his MetaPhysics is still discussed and debated 25 centuries later.
It may be reasonable to view Mother Nature as the final authority on Reality. And the current paradigm of physical Science is our best model of Nature, to date. But, few scientists would be so arrogant as to deny that there are aspects of the real world that are not amenable to empirical evidence. Historically, Enlightenment Science challenged the authority of Mother Church on physical facts, but has since made little progress on non-physical questions, such as those addressed by the so-called "soft" sciences of Psychology, Sociology, & Political Science. Those non-empirical fields study, not material physical Nature, but mental human Culture, and are essentially forms of Philosophy with statistical models, and inherent margins of error.
Critical analysis of truth claims is the primary tool of Philosophy. But due to the subjectivity of its subject-matter, such critiques are necessarily subject to negotiation between opposing views. So, a respectful zero-sum, win-win strategy is obligatory, in order to avoid unproductive Us-vs-Them flame wars. Differences of opinion can be constructive, if both sides are treated as equals, and not unfairly denigrated as mentally deficient, or scientifically unorthodox. But, if the absolute Truth is reserved for one side, a dialogue can turn into cyber-bullying. Especially, if one party is less-than-certain about his position.
A typical attitude of antagonistic posters is this : "Since ‘metaphysical’ realities have no discernible impact on anything whatsoever, it’s completely unimportant whether they ‘exist’ or not. " (Quora) So a pertinent question for this forum is why do we waste so much verbiage on "inconsequential" topics? Along with "God", "Metaphysics" has been triumphantly pronounced dead, for centuries. But unlike un-dead zombies, questions about non-physical aspects of the world continue to seek-out tasty brains & tender minds. Utilitarian Science has no practical use for abstract concepts, except for such embarrassing notions as Virtual Particles and nonphysical non-dimensional quantities, like ratios and constants.
My practical question for this thread, is why do Anti-Metaphysics Trolls, waste their valuable on-line time, trying to defeat something that they assume to be already dead, and although perhaps a ghostly nuisance, cannot by their definition, make any difference in the Real world? Metaphysical speculators are merely harmless drudges . . . No? :cool:
NUMBERED NOTES :
*1. Probably few posters on this forum would seriously doubt that the Scientific Method is the best source of useful information on the mechanical processes of the physical world. No Flat-Earthers here. However, those methods have not proven to be very effective in discovering how & why the human brain creates imaginary models (beliefs) of its physical & cultural environment. Such mental models are obviously useful for the evolutionary mandate of survival in a dog-eat-dog world. But only homo sapiens has developed the ability to communicate their subjective models to fellow humans, via conventional conceptual language. However, the limitations of verbal communication of subjective feelings eventually made non-empirical philosophical methods of analysis necessary. Philosophy is concerned, not with physical Mechanics, but with Metaphysical Logic.
*2. Scientism : As a form of dogma: "In essence, scientism sees science as the absolute and only justifiable access to the truth." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism
*3. Positivism : a philosophical system that holds that every rationally justifiable assertion can be scientifically verified or is capable of logical or mathematical proof, and that therefore rejects metaphysics and theism. ___Oxford Dictionary
*4. Scientific objectivity is a property of various aspects of science. It expresses the idea that scientific claims, methods, results—and scientists themselves—are not, or should not be, influenced by particular perspectives, value judgments, community bias or personal interests, to name a few relevant factors. Objectivity is often considered to be an ideal for scientific inquiry, a good reason for valuing scientific knowledge, and the basis of the authority of science in society. . . . The ideal of objectivity has been criticized repeatedly in philosophy of science, questioning both its desirability and its attainability.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-objectivity/
*5. Personally, I define "Metaphysics" as the kind of topics discussed by Aristotle in the second volume of his treatise on Nature. It was not concerned with tangible physical objects, but with inangible abstract subjects, such as generalities and universals. He didn't give it a special name, but that volume later came to be labelled by Catholic Scholastics as " the meta-physics", meaning simply "after the physics volume". Unfortunately, that name came to be understood as referring to super-natural or religious subjects.
*6. Non-Physical Phenomena :
"The day science begins to study non-physical phenomena, it will make more progress in one decade than in all the previous centuries of its existence."
? Nikola Tesla
FORUM TROLLS LURK UNDER THREAD TOPICS, NOT UNDER BRIDGES
I've recently experienced counter-productive dialogues with posters who seem to have an anti-metaphysics agenda. When a thread discussion begins to touch on non-physical topics, such as Mental Models and Subjective Qualia, they will insist on hard empirical evidence before they will even talk about such non-things. The implicit assumption seems to be that Physics is the final authority on the Real World*1. And anything non-physical is un-real, hence un-important. This animus against mental noumena is probably not a case of philosophical Solipsism, but may be a symptom of the dogmatic belief system known as Scientism*2, or its philosophical counterpart Positivism*3. It regards objective Science*4 as the sole source of Truth about Reality, and all else as subjective opinions, or worse, as religious doctrine to be accepted on Faith.
Defenders of the Scientism "faith" are quick to question the intelligence, education, & motives of those who dare to openly discuss such taboo topics as Metaphysics & Mental States, without giving due obeisance to the canon scriptures of "Science", envisioned as a centralized authoritative institution. For them. Metaphysics*5 is defined as "Idealism" or "irrational religious doctrine", and "non-physical" is labelled as "literal non-sense". That true/false hostility to intangibles is probably due to the intrinsic monistic Materialism of modern science. On a Science forum such an exclusive attitude might be appropriate. But, on a Philosophy forum what else can we talk about, except the non-physical, intangible, non-specific, universal, abstract, concepts that Aristotle addressed in the treatise now known as The Metaphysics? His Physics is clearly out-dated, but his MetaPhysics is still discussed and debated 25 centuries later.
It may be reasonable to view Mother Nature as the final authority on Reality. And the current paradigm of physical Science is our best model of Nature, to date. But, few scientists would be so arrogant as to deny that there are aspects of the real world that are not amenable to empirical evidence. Historically, Enlightenment Science challenged the authority of Mother Church on physical facts, but has since made little progress on non-physical questions, such as those addressed by the so-called "soft" sciences of Psychology, Sociology, & Political Science. Those non-empirical fields study, not material physical Nature, but mental human Culture, and are essentially forms of Philosophy with statistical models, and inherent margins of error.
Critical analysis of truth claims is the primary tool of Philosophy. But due to the subjectivity of its subject-matter, such critiques are necessarily subject to negotiation between opposing views. So, a respectful zero-sum, win-win strategy is obligatory, in order to avoid unproductive Us-vs-Them flame wars. Differences of opinion can be constructive, if both sides are treated as equals, and not unfairly denigrated as mentally deficient, or scientifically unorthodox. But, if the absolute Truth is reserved for one side, a dialogue can turn into cyber-bullying. Especially, if one party is less-than-certain about his position.
A typical attitude of antagonistic posters is this : "Since ‘metaphysical’ realities have no discernible impact on anything whatsoever, it’s completely unimportant whether they ‘exist’ or not. " (Quora) So a pertinent question for this forum is why do we waste so much verbiage on "inconsequential" topics? Along with "God", "Metaphysics" has been triumphantly pronounced dead, for centuries. But unlike un-dead zombies, questions about non-physical aspects of the world continue to seek-out tasty brains & tender minds. Utilitarian Science has no practical use for abstract concepts, except for such embarrassing notions as Virtual Particles and nonphysical non-dimensional quantities, like ratios and constants.
My practical question for this thread, is why do Anti-Metaphysics Trolls, waste their valuable on-line time, trying to defeat something that they assume to be already dead, and although perhaps a ghostly nuisance, cannot by their definition, make any difference in the Real world? Metaphysical speculators are merely harmless drudges . . . No? :cool:
NUMBERED NOTES :
*1. Probably few posters on this forum would seriously doubt that the Scientific Method is the best source of useful information on the mechanical processes of the physical world. No Flat-Earthers here. However, those methods have not proven to be very effective in discovering how & why the human brain creates imaginary models (beliefs) of its physical & cultural environment. Such mental models are obviously useful for the evolutionary mandate of survival in a dog-eat-dog world. But only homo sapiens has developed the ability to communicate their subjective models to fellow humans, via conventional conceptual language. However, the limitations of verbal communication of subjective feelings eventually made non-empirical philosophical methods of analysis necessary. Philosophy is concerned, not with physical Mechanics, but with Metaphysical Logic.
*2. Scientism : As a form of dogma: "In essence, scientism sees science as the absolute and only justifiable access to the truth." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism
*3. Positivism : a philosophical system that holds that every rationally justifiable assertion can be scientifically verified or is capable of logical or mathematical proof, and that therefore rejects metaphysics and theism. ___Oxford Dictionary
*4. Scientific objectivity is a property of various aspects of science. It expresses the idea that scientific claims, methods, results—and scientists themselves—are not, or should not be, influenced by particular perspectives, value judgments, community bias or personal interests, to name a few relevant factors. Objectivity is often considered to be an ideal for scientific inquiry, a good reason for valuing scientific knowledge, and the basis of the authority of science in society. . . . The ideal of objectivity has been criticized repeatedly in philosophy of science, questioning both its desirability and its attainability.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-objectivity/
*5. Personally, I define "Metaphysics" as the kind of topics discussed by Aristotle in the second volume of his treatise on Nature. It was not concerned with tangible physical objects, but with inangible abstract subjects, such as generalities and universals. He didn't give it a special name, but that volume later came to be labelled by Catholic Scholastics as " the meta-physics", meaning simply "after the physics volume". Unfortunately, that name came to be understood as referring to super-natural or religious subjects.
*6. Non-Physical Phenomena :
"The day science begins to study non-physical phenomena, it will make more progress in one decade than in all the previous centuries of its existence."
? Nikola Tesla
FORUM TROLLS LURK UNDER THREAD TOPICS, NOT UNDER BRIDGES
Comments (189)
I'm thinking cause they're choleric -- easily irritated. So, your posts are doing their job just fine.
The emotional satisfaction of certainty at times leads us all astray.
"He was starving in some great mystery, like a man who is sure what is true."
Leonard Cohen
"Metaphysical speculation" that proposes suppositions and/or interpretions which are inconsistent with, or contrary to, facts of the matter tend to mystify (i.e. beg questions) much more so than they explicate (i.e. raise unbegged, probative questions). 'Speculation itself' isn't objectionable; however, conceptual nonsense (i.e. just making any "what if"-shit up) pawned-off as "speculation' is vacuous sophistry, and one function of philosophizing is to exorcise sophistries – including, especially, one's own. Read Plato's early "Socratic" dialogues, Gnomon. Read Lucretius & Sextus Empiricus. Read Hume. Read Peirce & Dewey. Read Rosset & Meillassoux. :fire:
Sophistry:
"Subtly deceptive reasoning or argumentation."
Isn't physics subtly deceptive? It assigns objective existence to weird things like Calabi-Yau manifolds, superstring landscapes, mass-energy equivalence, flux tubes, degenerate vacua and vacuum expectation values, virtual particles, good and bad ghost particles, Goldstone bosons being eaten by massless vector particles, AdS/CFT correspondence and related emergence of gravity, Norton domes, local gauge invariance, adiabatìc cooling, flavored and colored particles, non-local entanglement, collapse of the wavefunction, loop gravity, soft hair horizons, not to speak of mathematical stuff made up and accompanying them. They would be considered off-line, deviating, mentally derailed, or having a psychotic episode in a society that doesn't value what they value. They would be given a warm and dry place, shelter, and something to eat, practicing daily therapy to get back to their senses before returning to society.
Quoting 180 Proof
[quote=Richard Lewontin; https://www.nybooks.com/articles/1997/01/09/billions-and-billions-of-demons/)]Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.[/quote]
The jealous God dies hard.
I think the contradictory nature of this statement is at the heart of the problem. The importance, or "un-importance" of a subject is determined relative to its good, or purpose. The good of a thing, as what is desired, wanted, or needed, is a state not yet existent. Things not yet existent are non-physical, as mere possibility.
Therefore, to say that the non-physical is un-important is blatantly contradictory, because importance and unimportance are definitively non-physical. So if real and un-real are determined by importance, as your statement would suggest, it is necessary to class the non-physical as real, because importance and unimportance are non-physical.
Quoting Gnomon
Hypocritical activity is often the direct result of contradictory beliefs, like the one expressed above. Despite the fact that the "Anti-Metaphysics Trolls" insist that metaphysics is unimportant and dead, they are still driven by the same non-physical sense of importance, to practice metaphysics. In other words they see some purpose to what you see as wasting time. Asserting and insisting that X is the case, does not make it so, especially if my actions serve as a demonstration that X is not the case.
So - you’re trolling the trolls?
If Carl Sagan used "God" instead of "science" in his talks, he would be a master missionary. Which he is.
Perhaps you project, sir. There are approximately 450 to 500 million nonbelievers worldwide, including both positive and negative atheists, or roughly 7 per cent of the global population. The 'black tide' is very much still in, as always.
Genuine speculation is less annoying and perhaps less common than hawking the next flavor of informagical kool-aid.
I'm generally sympathetic to non-scientific ways of seeing the world and criticize scientific rigidity, but I don't find the Lewontin quote very convincing.
Quoting Richard Lewontin
For me, the main power of science is the absurdity of some of its constructs. That's the point, if it was all common sense, we wouldn't need science at all. Well... maybe.
Quoting Richard Lewontin
That is a great straw man argument. I'm going to keep it around in case I ever need a good example.
Hey!! How do you get quotes that have a direct link to a source outside the forum? I've never noticed that before.
1. My time is not valuable. My on-line time is worth even less. Wrong assumption.
2. We, Anti-Metaphysics Trolls, don't want to defeat something that's dead. We want to stop the proliferation of other people believing that something dead is something alive.
3. Thoughts can make a difference in the world. Stupid thoughts increase the stupidity level all over the land. I don't like to see that.
You asked a question and I answered your question. That's all. Run with it.
Ha! My questions above are not intended to mock the trolls, but to open a two-way dialog on, what I take to be the purpose of Philosophy : to study Human Culture in all its manifestations. The "soft" sciences scrutinize narrow segments of Humanity, but Philosophy can take a more holistic, and interdisciplinary, perspective. That encyclopedic worldview includes the physical phenomena of the world, but leaves the narrowly-focused investigations to specialists.
As I see it, Philosophy is for Generalists. By contrast, the Trolls don't trust speculative generalizations or intuitive exploration. I understand their wariness, but I don't think censorship of artistic imagination is called for. I don't have to adopt the specific beliefs of Spiritualism, for instance, in order to appreciate its significance to humanity's exploration of the world. I'm merely trying to remove the stain of sectarian Theology from the study of eclectic Metaphysics. :smile:
"Today, science-minded people understand that the dead do not speak to us, . . . . Nonetheless, we can still appreciate the beauty produced by artists who hold these beliefs."
___psychologist Stuart Vyse, Skeptical Inquirer vol46, issue2
PS___The science-defending Trolls erroneously assume that, if I take some metaphysical speculations seriously, I must have gone over to the "dark side" of Anti-Science. In the 1950s, commie-hunter Joe McCarthy savagely attacked, atomic scientist Robert Oppenheimer, because, in his youth, he had been attracted to the Utopian dream of Communism. However, Oppie later realized that the dream had become a nightmare in practice. So he publicly apologized, saying, "most of what I believed then now seems complete nonsense". But his persecutor believed that "once a commie, always a commie", or at best a "fellow traveler". Likewise, the anti-metaphyics Trolls, seem to believe that any dabbling in non-science is a sin, to be punished & expurgated, lest it contaminate the purity of Physics. So, I'm merely resisting the dogma-defending Inquisition. :cool:
And what would that be?
Hi 3, I don't know you, and you don't know anything about me. Yet, since I use taboo terms, like "metaphysics" & "holism", apparently you have jumped to the conclusion that I'm some kind of religious wacko-nut. So FYI, I profess no religion, practice no rituals, and don't believe in magic. So, you can count me among the rising ranks of "non-believers". But I remain an open-minded Agnostic, not a "negative" Atheist. You could say that, philosophically, I'm a William James "melioristic skeptic". Pleased to meet you! :smile:
:clap: :100:
Quoting Gnomon
Me too. :up:
NB: I worship via lifelong study the almighty Pandeus. :wink:
Well, I can only speculate about a psychological answer to your question, not per se a metaphysical one. My prof. on psychology of law taught me that when you talk to someone and you ask 'why' three times shortly after each other, you will incur their irritation. The reason for that is that you have reached the level of presuppositions and assumptions which most just accept as 'clear' and for which they cannot give any further account. In my view metaphysics does just that, it interrogates what you consider the basic structures of reality. They become hard to articulate and therefore cause irritation when you force someone to.
:fire: Thus, all the question-begging woo-of-the-gaps sophistry called to account (not "trolled").
Metaphysics discussions are always contentious. The word "metaphysics" means many things to many people. As you've noted, there are many who mistake it for religion or the occult and dismiss it out of hand. On the other hand, metaphysics is at the heart of how I understand our, people's, relationship with the world.
This confusing mix is made even more complicated by your idiosyncratic understanding of what metaphysics; or as you put it, meta-physics; is. Even I, who am sympathetic to discussions of the subject, find your approach difficult to defend.
Took me years to work that out! Here’s a hint: select an instance and click QUOTE and you will see how it’s done.
That Richard Lewontin quote was from a review of Carl Sagan’s last book, Demon Haunted World. It’s not a polemical argument but an example of a way of thinking.
Here's what I got:
[ quote="Richard Lewontin;https://www.nybooks.com/articles/1997/01/09/billions-and-billions-of-demons/)"]Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.[/quote]
Note - I put a space between [ and q at the beginning so our webpage wouldn't interpret the quote symbols.
Do I have to put in the person and link by hand?
I’m generally sympathetic to your motives, although I have to say, critical of your methods. I’m on the same side of the ledger as yourself - critical of ‘scientism’ which I see as one of the predominant (and pernicious) influences in today’s culture, hence on this forum also, but I try to articulate my criticism in a (shall we say) rather less idiosyncratic style.
And also, there are those against whom it is not worth having the argument. In my view, that kind of hardcore commitment to ‘scientific truth’ often mirrors the kind of fundamentalism that it purports to criticise. (Hence my remark about ‘the jealous God dies hard’.)
Richard Dawkins is a stellar example - he goes around picking arguments with boneheaded flat earthers which he takes as ‘evidence’ for his anti-religious jihad. Peter Higgs (of Higgs Boson fame), said ‘what Dawkins does too often is to concentrate his attack on fundamentalists. But there are many believers who are just not fundamentalists. Fundamentalism is another problem. I mean, Dawkins in a way is almost a fundamentalist himself, of another kind." My first forum experience was the Dawkins forum, it was hysterically anti-religious. Lot of water under the bridge since then, and Dawkins doesn’t have many sympathisers here (although I’m always dismayed by the way people leap to the defence of his sidekick Dennett whom I believe sullies the good name of philosophy.]
My advice would be, don’t invest too much energy in it. Understand the issues, do the analysis, but don’t worry about trying to win over the opposite side - know when to fold ‘em, as the song says.
Yes - note the semi-colon. It’s (quote=Sourcename; url including https). That will put (sourcename) under your quote hyperlinked to the source.
Thanks. I'll try it next time I quote something from an outside source.
Sure. I think the two positions, the metaphysician who fills the gaps and the one that cleans the debris out again, belong together since Plato's dialogues. I consider metaphysics to be part of the human condition. Immediately when we claim that there is something unknowable or illusory, as Parmenides did, we desire to know it. I consider the mind to be dialogical.
Yes. That's why I refer to that anti-heretical attitude as Scientism. It's an absolute Either/Or, Win/Lose, Self/Other, My-way-or-the-highway worldview. It violates Aristotle's definition of Virtue in terms of Moderation. "The Art of Balance in an Age of Extremes”. Authoritarian Trolls have been trying to stop the proliferation of diverse views for millennia*1. For example Fascism & Communism are opposing views on how best to govern a populace of "stupid" people. Likewise, orthodox Scientism (love of dogma) is an opposing force to heterodox Philosophy (love of wisdom), competing for the minds of smart people.
Fortunately, many of the smartest scientists are brave enough to forgo the impenetrable shield of Scientism. They may not accept specific metaphysical beliefs, but they are broad-minded enough to accept that the scientific method does not apply to non-physical reality. In exchanges with Scientism defenders, I sometimes refer to Einstein as a Philosopher*2, and they interpret that as an aspersion on his scientific credentials. Which suggests to me that Scientism deprecates the philosophical methods worked-out by the ancient Greeks, in part as an alternative to religious dogma.
My intent in this thread is not to convert adherents of bi-valent (true/false) Scientism to multi-valent Philosophy, but merely to keep the doors of dialog open, so we don't resolve our differences with the Nuclear Option, or burning-at-the-stake, to totally annihilate the heresies of Metaphysics. :cool:
*1. "stop the proliferation" : The Catholic Society for Propagation of Faith, was established to "stop the proliferation" of unorthodox Protestant beliefs.
Aristotle considered moderation a moral virtue and Plato, in “The Republic”, described moderation as the harmony between reason, spirit, and desire.
https://www.headspace.com/articles/moderation-considered-virtue
The main difference between science and scientism is that science is the study of nature and behaviour of natural things and knowledge obtained through them while scientism is the view that only science can render truth about the world and reality.
https://pediaa.com/what-is-the-difference-between-science-and-scientism/
Einstein's own philosophy of science is an original synthesis of elements drawn from sources as diverse as neo-Kantianism, conventionalism, and logical empiricism, its distinctive feature being its novel blending of realism with a holist, underdeterminationist form of conventionalism.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/einstein-philscience/
[i]Philosophers do not aim to discover the laws of nature. That’s a job for scientists. . . . .The philosopher’s aim is not to help scientists do their job. Instead, the philosopher’s aim is to better understand the job that scientists are doing.[/b]
https://aeon.co/essays/natural-laws-cant-be-broken-but-can-they-be-defined?utm_source=pocket-newtab
In logic, the semantic principle (or law) of bivalence states that every declarative sentence expressing a proposition (of a theory under inspection) has exactly one truth value, either true or false. A logic satisfying this principle is called a two-valued logic or bivalent logic.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_bivalence
*2. When Einstein imagined himself riding on a light beam, he was doing a philosophical thought experiment, instead of a scientific empirical dissection. Philosophers analyze ideas, while Scientists dissect objects.
Einstein's Fallacy of Non-Physical Yet Physical Space
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/321080710_Einstein%27s_Fallacy_of_Non-Physical_Yet_Physical_Space
Nobody said Metaphysics is easy. What Anti-Metaphysicians object to is not rational Philosophy, but irrational Faith. Unfortunately, they don't see the distinction. All the more reason to keep chipping away at the "irritation". Besides, the Trolls are not forced to engage in Metaphysical dialogs. They are like Quixotic Crusaders looking for windmill dragons to slay. :joke:
Just filing this away.
My idiosyncratic definition of "metaphysics" was established by Aristotle. But the Antis "conventional" definition was established by Catholic Theologians. I'm merely trying to dissociate Metaphysics (the mental aspects of the world) from that prejudice. I've tried various alternative terms, but the Antis see through the subterfuge, and attack their conventional foe, instead of my unconventional redefinition. It's based on Quantum & Information Theories that are also contentious. Se la vie. :smile:
That's dogmatism, not scientism. Scientism says 'only the results of experimentally verified theories and formal theorems "count as knowledge" and all else are merely unwarranted beliefs.' Dogmatism says 'my way or the highway – orthodoxy / orthopraxy – whether "my way" is scientistic or idealistic' ... in other words, dogma which is an artifact of a religious (i.e. idolatrous) mindset. Your "BothAnd Enformationism", for instance, is dogmatic (a pseudo-scientistic "Meta-physics"), Gnomon, and thus, you defensively project your own intellectual failings on your justifiably skeptical critics (e.g. the OP) just like Wayfarer, schopenhauer1, Bartricks & other conspicuous incorribles do. But hey, I – "180 Proof, drunk on his own hooch" – am just a dialectical rodeo-clown, so what do I know, right? :sweat:
You're quite clear in your message.
Let me put it this way:
"The road to world peace is paved with everyone wearing their underwear on the outside, and everyone also getting a complete sex-change operation with someone else of the originally opposite sex."
You don't believe this? You are closed-minded. You think this is stupid? You are violating Aristotle's definition of Virtue in terms of moderation. YOU MUST BELIEVE EVERYTHING YOU SEE OR HEAR, EVEN THINGS THAT CONTRADICT EACH OTHER, OTHERWISE YOU ARE A PIECE OF SHIT DEVOTED TO SCIENTISM.
Please understand: You are free to believe what you believe in. I am free to believe in what I believe in. One of the things I believe in is that it is easier to believe and accept one's own beliefs than to start on a long and arduous path of a study of science.
In fact, it is the ease of belief that makes people accept New Age stuff, religious beliefs and Tarot card readings and Astrological predictions. Because they are all pre-ambled with "You don't have to understand it, and nobody knows why, but the process works." Whereas science is something the scientism followers INSIST you must understand to believe it.
My belief is that stupidity is easier spread and accepted than knowledge, and insisting on giving stupid theories a fair chance for acceptance is even stupider than the theories themselves.
I don't consider metaphysics as "the mental aspects of the world," and I doubt Aristotle did. Admittedly, that opinion is based on what I've read others say Aristotle said, not on a personal reading.
:100: × :100: :up:
Exactly! Especially weird stupìdity like the MWI in quantum mechanics, accepted by some Nobel Prizers.
Stupid!
Is that why you wrote :100: x :100: ?
The only reason I call the MWI stupid is because I understand it! And it shows you don't or can't. :rofl:
I got into a mud-slinging duel by challenging some user on the forum to not use abbreviations that are less widely accepted and understood than WTF and LOL.
I don't know what MWI stand for. Care to type out the words the initials stand for? I won't look it up on Wiki. It is not my responsibility to make me understand what you said. You said this because you wanted to communicate something to me; so make it please so that I can understand it. Write out please the words that are initialized in the abbreviation MTI.
It means the many worlds interpretation. I brought it on for 180booze especially... I knew he would react.
Yeah, I remember. CMB...
All due respect, and at risk of opening a can of worms, how is that any different from positivism?
Quoting god must be atheist
Greetings. I do not think you are nutty, sir. A bit knotty perhaps. The 'informagical' barb was lobbed not at old time religion but at a more sophisticated mutterphysics that abandons the more embarrassing superstitions to 'sniff clue.'
Quoting Gnomon
Hopefully we're all 'open-minded skeptics' here. Those who come off as 'negative' atheists are perhaps just more stringent or prefer a more angular style. 'Agnostic' is a fish of a handshake for my mummy.
Is it not wise to abandon the muck of a dialogue made mostly obsolete precisely by and within that 'wary' dialogue? The 'soak' puppet battle of 'mound' and 'mutter' (or 'mine' and 'mother') is behind us now, or behind those of us who continued with that dialogue until it caught its own tale.
Such 'Materialism' looks like a bogyman to me. A few are still gettable who'll put on the cape and horns for a laugh or in a fit of sentimental nostalgia, but methinks those days are otherwise behind us (though certainly they hound us). The 'math' (or the 'mop') is not the territory. Atoms are no more 'Real' than apples. Or (returning to 'semantic pragmatism') it snot worth the wind to say so. We need knot wiggle the wand.
Don't forget the forging of and the foraging for such claims. Consider your own claim above.
Contrast whatever it is with the false epistemological modesty of a camouflaged evangelist who 'nose wets' at the End and not the And of inquiry.
We have to have something to kvetch about. Otherwise, what’s the point?
Tanquam ex ungue leonem ? 'The goes was mud of words.' Hamlet's paw was poisoned through the ere (promise creamed.)
Critics of the game are still players, no? It's the game of getting beyond mirror games. The future isn't what it youth to be.
I loooove to onanonanate! Thinking about MWI... It turns me on!
Beautiful word, friend. You squeezed 'anon' in there, which makes 'beating the gross off with a stink' even creakier. There's also an 'on and on I' hiding in there. Well done.
Thanks fellow member. He asked for it... So I answered. He indeed goes onanon!
To be frank and fair, I've enjoyed posts by both of you, so the misunderstanding seems unfortunate and is hopefully temporary.
But I couldn't help laughing at
Quoting EugeneW
Reading your posts, you got a way with words! Great!
Thanks! Old Wet-gun-sign talked about a philosophy made of jokes, and I think word play can just maybe show wet cannot be sad.
Sure, but it sometimes leads to nice postings... Straight from the hurt!
Ha. To be sure, conflict has its germs.
Sounds a new light shining light into some pretty serious darkness showing itself here sometimes. Keep it shining!
I very much appreciate the kind and encouraging words. Till necks time, friend.
Righdijo! Necks time!
(NB: Broadly, I'm a pragmatist (re: meaning, inquiry-research & truth) and a naturalist (re: explanation, description, interpretation / evaluation) in the service of an absurdist (i.e. neither "idealist" nor "nihilist") project.)
thanks!
Ah! Wet-gun-sign! Only now I see! :wink:
Like Lack A. Toss told Fire A. Bent: Nut Anni Thing, ghost!
This is fun!
YEA!!!!
I understand your confusion. My Enformationism worldview is indeed idiosyncratic. It doesn't fit neatly into traditional philosophical niches of Physics or Metaphysics. Instead, it conceptually bridges the philosophical gap between scientific Materialism and religious Spiritualism.
The ubiquitous role of Information seems to be an emergent idea that is ahead of its time. That's partly due to the dominant-but-narrow definition of "Information" as presented by Shannon. But it's an idea being explored by a handful of scientists & philosophers on the cutting-edge of human understanding. Of course, I'm just a minor player in the emerging new paradigm of information-based reality. But everything I say on this forum is grounded in the notion that shape-shifting (causal & substantial) Information is the essence of both Matter and Mind.
You seem to find my "approach difficult to defend". How would you characterize that approach ? Does it seem confrontational, or adversarial? That's ironic, because all my life I've been a mild-mannered Caspar Milquetoast character, who kept his mouth shut when others were debating. But, now in my sunset years, I have gained more confidence in my own opinions; especially since I developed my own personal philosophical/scientific worldview. That mask of confidence might come across as aggressive or ego-centric. But, my Ukrainian defense is mostly a reflection of the aggressive attacks I get from those opposed to whatever-it-is they imagine I'm postulating. On a religious forum, I would expect a similar negative response.
Another weak aspect of my "approach" is that I have no formal training in Philosophical methods of argumentation. So my lack of sophisticated technique results in a crude seat-of-the-pants approach to the give & take of dialog. Consequently, I may seem like a bull-in-a-china-shop. But, my motivation is merely to advance an inclusive perspective that could eventually change the world's worldview toward a more moderate position, somewhere between the ideological poles that currently divide us. Yet, since moderation is often mistaken for weakness, a firm stand is necessary to avoid being blown-away by the Trolls on both sides. :cool:
idiosyncratic : distinctive. peculiar, quirky
Philosophical : relating or devoted to the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence.
You are not the only one critical of my methods. (see reply to TClark above). I seem to have inadvertently stumbled into a hornet's nest, getting stung from both sides of the Physical-vs-Meta divide. How would you characterize my methods, and what would you recommend to refine them? :smile:
PS___If nothing else comes from this thread, we will at least learn to avoid those posters with tender toes that get stepped-on by Metaphysical dancers. Ouch! :gasp:
The article is a scientific analysis of just one among many paradoxes that arose from Einstein's revolutionary classical-paradigm-challenging worldview. But my interest is more philosophical and focused on the emergent Information-centric understanding of reality. I may write a blog post on this topic when I get time. :smile:
PS___I don't consider Albert's redefinition of Space to be a "Fallacy". but merely an apparent Paradox. that is hard to reconcile with our inherited & intuitive worldviews.
I didn't say your position is confusing, I said it is difficult to defend.
Quoting Gnomon
There is nothing wrong with the way you express your thoughts. You are generally civil and even-tempered. "Difficult to defend" just means I'm not convinced.
Quoting Gnomon
Again, no - we're all, or mostly all, amateurs here. I have no problems with the way you present your discussions. As I said, I'm just not convinced. I don't find focusing on information a useful approach, at least not the way you do it.
Quoting Gnomon
I don't see a lot of trolling in the responses to your posts. Your ideas just get the typical dismissal that all mystical/spiritual ideas do here. People here can be arrogant jerks. Welcome to the forum.
I understand that my BothAnd-ism worldview doesn't fit neatly into a traditional Scientism Either/Or pigeonhole, or even the traditional philosophical niches of Ethics, Epistemology and Metaphysics. Yet, I'm not so much trying to defend my "idiosyncratic" personal philosophy, as to defend a besieged moderate position in a polarized world. In this thread, the poles seem to be Physics vs Metaphysics. When I naively started posting on TPF, I assumed that Metaphysical topics would not be controversial. But I soon found that, in the binary worldview of anti-metaphysical "Trolls", Meta-Physics is interpreted as traitorous "anti-science".
Ironically, my unorthodox thesis originated from a seemingly paradoxical comment by a Quantum physicist, to the effect that : "on the quantum scale there's nothing but abstract Information". With that in mind, I studied Information & Systems theories, and concluded that mental Information is just as "physical" as immaterial Energy. By that I mean, it's not material -- there's no tangible substance to it -- but it has measurable effects on matter. So, in that sense, Information is the kind of Qualia that Aristotle discussed in his Metaphysics, and that Spinoza called the "universal substance" of the world.
Therefore, my middle-of-the-road position may be sympathetic with some mind-based Eastern philosophies (not religions), but it is still compatible with (post-Quantum) Western matter-based science. Unfortunately, from the polarized perspective of Scientism, "East is East and West is West", period. So, I'm fighting an uphill battle to change that binary & exclusive attitude. :smile:
[i]Oh, East is East, and West is West, and never the twain shall meet,
Till Earth and Sky stand presently at God's great Judgment Seat;
But there is neither East nor West, Border, nor Breed, nor Birth,
When two strong men stand face to face, though they come from the ends of the earth![/i]
___ Rudyard Kipling
Philosophers often use the term ‘qualia’ (singular ‘quale’) to refer to the introspectively accessible, phenomenal aspects of our mental lives. In this broad sense of the term, it is difficult to deny that there are qualia. Disagreement typically centers on which mental states have qualia, whether qualia are intrinsic qualities of their bearers, and how qualia relate to the physical world both inside and outside the head. The status of qualia is hotly debated in philosophy largely because it is central to a proper understanding of the nature of consciousness. Qualia are at the very heart of the mind-body problem.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qualia/
Information :
[i]* Claude Shannon quantified Information not as useful ideas, but as a mathematical ratio between meaningful order (1) and meaningless disorder (0); between know-ledge (1) and ignorance (0). So, that meaningful mind-stuff exists in the limbo-land of statistics, producing effects on reality while having no sensory physical properties. We know it exists ideally, only by detecting its effects in the real world.
* For humans, Information has the semantic quality of aboutness , that we interpret as meaning. In computer science though, Information is treated as meaningless, which makes its mathematical value more certain. It becomes meaningful only when a sentient Self interprets it as such.
* When spelled with an “I”, Information is a noun, referring to data & things. When spelled with an “E”, Enformation is a verb, referring to energy and processes.[/i]
BothAnd Blog Glossary
BothAnd-ism :
[i]An inclusive philosophical perspective that values both Subjective and Objective information; both Feelings and Facts; both Mysteries and Matters-of-fact; both Animal and Human nature.
* It’s a cosmo-centric view-point rather than an ego-centric, or tribal, or national, or creed-centered standpoint.[/i]
In the arguments you have provided, you are defending one particular position that you characterize as moderate. If I say that I don't find your argument convincing, that doesn't mean I reject the idea of moderation.
Quoting Gnomon
No, not really. You are fighting an uphill battle to defend one particular view. One that I, and some others on the forum, don't find convincing.
Google "aristotle metaphysics topics". Then ask yourself if "Categories"; "Being Qua Being"; Principles"; or "Substance & Essence" are physical things or meta-physical (mental) ideas about the world. I merely adopted "metaphysics" as an inclusive term for the non-physical aspects of the real world that we distinguish from Nature with the name "Culture". For nearly 14 billion years the world was totally physical. But when the human mind emerged from the muck, immaterial memes began to evolve in an artificial simulation of genetic evolution. Do you think that immaterial (imaginary) "mind-stuff" has had any significant impact on the "real" world? :smile:
PS___It's not just my unorthodox usage of the term "Metaphysics", that the adherents of Scientism object to, but anything referring to non-physical or emergent aspects of the world. I have tried "Non-Physical", "Menta-Physical", "MInd-stuff", :Memes", "Cultural", "Ideal", "Qualia", and various other alternatives. But they just don't see anything non-physical about Reality. For them, Ideas are merely neurological states. That's like saying the Function of an automobile is a steel structure. They also interpret all immaterial or non-physical notions as spooky "super-natural" beliefs, even though I try to avoid that baggage-laden term. Anyway, if you can suggest another way to talk about the perennial Mind/Body and Brain/Mind questions, please let me know. :meh:
:up:
On the plus side, I note that you're making an effort to relate your idea of metaphysics to Aristotle's. Also on the plus side, you go to a lot of trouble to try and included definitions, references, glossary entries and links. You try and define your terms. And I think you're a good sport, considering how much flak you get. I spent a little while perusing your blog, I can see you've put in a lot of thought and work. So I think overall your approach is commendable in many ways - I've warmed to it over time.
I've explained some of my criticisms in previous posts - that yours is rather a pop-philosophical approach to a set of pretty thorny and difficult topics - particularly the key concept of 'enformationism'.
But on the other hand, since you started these last two topics, I'm more in agreement than disagreement overall. The only thing I would caution you is - get some other interests as well. This kind of quest can become all-consuming. (I speak from experience. :roll: )
I think also, maybe, we have to learn to let it go sometimes - I think your criticisms of 'scientism' are generally warranted but it is deeply embedded in today's culture, but sometimes we have to resist the urge to try and explain that to everyone, all the time. (Again, speaking from experience.)
Yes, slur. Lag a toe shed to fire ah bend knot over thong goose.
Quoting EugeneW
Agreed.
But where are such rascals hiding ? Will anyone here defend that claim? It's so loopy to see nothing 'non-physical' in reality that misunderstanding is far more likely than your straw man with a vacuum tube for as hole.
You might come off as ego-centric, but what ambitiously creative philosopher is not? You might come off as accidentally aggressive by harping on the Scientism scarecrow. Just because a person uses a term like 'woo woo' (which is a symmetrically pejorative mirror-image of 'scientism') doesn't mean that they aren't another 'moderate' who nevertheless finds fault with your brew. It's as if you view the 'motherphysical' spectrum as a unidimensional continuum, with yourself at the proper origin, golden and harmonized, misunderstood on both sides for pitiably partial minds, irrationally allergic to either science or religion.
But what if this vision of the situation is itself a 'superstition' or self-flatteringly oversimplified map of the territory? Is it possible to be criticized not from the liquid left or rigid right but from another dimension entirely (for instance, along a semantic vector?)
Who was that fool officer who goddess chews dunk in the mud ? Or was it a bottle-bested beetle ?
Shall we tank away his budge? (We did muck a mash of thinks.)
Information just means in formation. A volume of space may contain a Bekenstein entropy, but this number doesn't show how the matter inside it is in form. Black holes are not bold with three hairs only. There is more than just mass, angular momentum and charge. A black hole made of peanuts is different from a strawberry hole.
Likewise for our brain. Our brain can resonate with all physical structures in the world. It doesn't compute on zeroes and ones like a computer does. A constellation of ones and zeroes in a computer is not comparable to constellations of ion currents on the neural network. A constellation of zeroes and ones in a computer refers to other structures. It's us assigning meaning to these patterns. A random sequence of zeroes and ones on a memory chip weighs a tiny weeny bit less than an ordered sequence of them. The random structure can be compared to a hot gass, while the most ordered state (say all ones, or 101010...) can be compared to a zero temperature solid. The interesting combinations, containing intermediate information and mass, lay between these extremes. But they can only get meaning if we assign it to them. Contrary to patterns of currents running on the brain, which have intrinsic meaning. That's an important difference with computers, together with the difference how currents flow. In a computer this happens by externally applying a voltage, while the current pulses in the brain run rather autonomously, following paths of least resistance (a pulse will easier run on a neuron path with strengthened synaptic connections). In the brain, there is no program pushing the pulses around.
What am I saying? I say that the physical and metaphysical are mutually dependent.
:up:
Quoting EugeneW
Perhaps, but I don't think so. I find it more parsimonious and persuasive to hold that (for me, at least) 'metaphysics' consists in the speculative negation, or elimination, of non-physical (e.g. super-natural) predicates from the concept (and epistemic interpretations) of the physical (i.e. nature). A negative ontology – generalization of/from old-time negative theology – which by implication culminates in (modal) actualism and something like (N. Goodman's epistemic) irrealism; or, in other words, speculatively using (aspects of) the territory for conceptual mapmaking of the territory wherein the physical functions as an independent variable..
Yes, I agree this is a good thing about @Gnomon's posts. I should have mentioned it.
There are many here who will defend the claim that ideas are merely neurological states.
That's just an idea, another neurological process running around. Their definition of an idea seems to harbor envy for people with real ideas. It's like the memes of Dawkins. He made them selfish and in control of human behavior because he has no better memes himself. To come up with a meme about memes is a very sneaky and sleazy procedure. Same for ideas.
I am by nature a passive person. But as I get older, I get ornerier. I used to let the opposition push me around. But now I am more likely to fight back, not with volume, but with persistence. That's primarily because I believe the universal role of Information in the world, is the future of both Science and Philosophy.
The anti-metaphysicalists tend to argue their position by simply insisting on the final authority of reductive materialistic science, and by shouting-down the holistic non-physical "idiots". I don't have any problem with empirical Science on legitimate physical topics. But I think non-empirical Philosophy is the better way to discuss, not necessarily prove, questions about intangibles, such as the never-ending Origin-of-Life & Body/Mind controversies.
Yes, Enformationism is my retirement hobby. And it is my personal position on almost all philosophical questions. So, I join a handful of leading-edge scientists & philosophers in trying to promote a new paradigm of Science. It's a novel approach to the "hard problem" of Consciousness, which addresses the question of how dumb Matter can produce Mind. In a previous paradigm shift, Information theory & Quantum mechanics both forced-open new doors to our comprehension on Reality. And both have revealed paradoxes underneath our classical and intuitive understanding of the world, that were grudgingly accepted, despite their absurdity. Enformationism is not about Information Technology, but about non-physical Philosophy, the science of Ideas.
Although Quantum Theory is counter-intuitive, its success in controlling Nature has forced us to admit that small-scale physics is weird. And Information Theory has been proven to be effective in opening new channels for communication of ideas. Ironically, its success in Artificial Intelligence, has obscured it's role in Natural Intelligence and in Ideas per se. So, those of us who do grok the universal applications of essential (and causal) Information, are facing a general lack of comprehension, and resistance from the dug-in old guard. Undaunted, we soldier on, as the proponents of a new paradigm must do, in order to advance both Science and Philosophy. :nerd:
New Paradigm :
[i]1. A new way of thinking or doing things that replaces the old way.
2. A set of beliefs that replaces another set which is believed no longer to apply
3. A new logical framework for understanding a situation
4. Science has a paradigm which remains constant before going through a paradigm shift when current theories can’t explain some phenomenon [e.g. consciousness], and someone proposes a new theory [i.e. universal causal information].[/i]
Information and Causality :
Recent advances suggest that the concept of information might hold the key to unravelling the mystery of life's nature and origin. Fresh insights from a broad and authoritative range of articulate and respected experts focus on the transition from matter to life, and hence reconcile the deep conceptual schism between the way we describe physical and biological systems. A unique cross-disciplinary perspective, drawing on expertise from philosophy, biology, chemistry, physics, and cognitive and social sciences, provides a new way to look at the deepest questions of our existence. This book addresses the role of information in life, and how it can make a difference to what we know about the world. __Paul Davies, physicist, et al.
https://www.amazon.com/Matter-Life-Information-Causality/dp/1107150531
Agreed. :smile:
For the purposes of objective scientists, that claim may be acceptable. But philosophers are more interested in the subjective meaningful aspect of Ideas. For example, neurologists, back in the 60s, discovered that touching a probe to a specific area of a conscious brain could elicit a "complex but specific" idea (image or feeling) of Jennifer Anniston or Grandmother. As far as the brain-surgeon was concerned, that single neuron evoked a single idea. But it was never that simple.
Exciting a single neuron triggers a cascade of signals that propagate throughout the brain & body, seeking out other neurons that have been associated with that cell in the past. Related ideas may include the cedar scent of grandma's house, or her smiling eyes, or the sound of her voice, or a Christmas present. What I'm saying is that "neuron states" are holistic & multivalent --- and so are concepts & feelings. Consequently, the connection between stimulus & response is not so simple.
That's because a multivalent mental image is not a one-to-one correspondence to a single neuron. So, the simplistic Mind/Brain Identity theory, while serviceable for neurosurgeons, does not answer philosophical questions about the ontology of Mind, its functional relationship to the body, and the epistemology of Meaning. It's also not very helpful for inferring how another person feels about a particular objective situation. However, the emerging field of Integrated Information Theory is beginning to piece-together the reductive sub-components of Consciousness into a holistic understanding of Mind in its comprehensive context, including physical & functional aspects. :nerd:
The grandmother cell, sometimes called the "Jennifer Anniston neuron", is a hypothetical neuron that represents a complex but specific concept or object. It activates when a person "sees, hears, or otherwise sensibly discriminates" a specific entity, such as their grandmother.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grandmother_cell
Excitatory neurotransmitters cause the signal to propagate - more action potentials are triggered.
https://www.khanacademy.org/test-prep/mcat/organ-systems/neuron-membrane-potentials/a/neuron-action-potentials-the-creation-of-a-brain-signal
The identity theory of mind holds that states and processes of the mind are identical to states and processes of the brain.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mind-identity/
Integrated Information Theory :
Initially proposed by Giulio Tononi in 2004, it claims that consciousness is related to a certain kind of information, the realization of which requires physical, not merely functional, integration,
https://iep.utm.edu/integrated-information-theory-of-consciousness/
I don't want to get into this again. You and I've beaten it back and forth enough. I was responding to @lll and all I said was that there are many people who believe that ideas are merely neurological states, e.g. our late lamented friend @Garrett Travers.
I was not criticizing you, but the "claim" that you were noting. Sorry, if that was not obvious. :yikes:
Good point! The brain creates a model (analogy or counterpart) of the real world. Unfortunately, some posters seem to confuse the model with the terrain, or the terrain with the model, or the neuron with the idea. In this thread, the terrain is physical Reality & neuronal Brain, while the model is meta-physical Ideality & noumenal Mind. :smile:
This quote comes from Alfred Korzybski, father of general semantics: “A map is not the territory it represents, but if correct, it has a similar structure to the territory, which accounts for its usefulness”. To sum up, our perception of reality is not reality itself but our own version of it, or our own “map”.
http://intercultural-learning.eu/Portfolio-Item/the-map-is-not-the-territory/
Note -- the mental image of a real thing has a similar structure, in the sense of analogy or metaphor, but is not identical with the neurons that evoke that mental pattern.
Righdijo! Look at a dreaming person. There are patterns of storms and atomic bomb explosions, or strange memories of sunlit streets running around on their neuron network, but the dream is something entirely different.
I understood that.
OK, perhaps. But will one of them speak up?
Perhaps you are being unfair to Dawkins. The selfishness of genes is just an anthropomorphic trope for self-replicating pieces of code that don't care if they persist or not.
The meme theory is foggy and speculative in comparison. 'Be fruitful and reproduce' seems like a successful meme. This idea might cause its 'hosts' to reproduce and teach the idea to their children. It's not clear how useful the meme theory could be.
So, science is enemy #1 for metaphysics. Metaphysics, its domain, is empirically empty; what it studies is not observable, the clearest proof of that being the strain of logic employed viz. (exclusively) deduction and not induction.
True to its purpose, metaphysics investigates the necessity/possibility of scientific paradigms; it isn't just content with a description of nature like science, it strives to discover the rationale, the logic, the formal cause of reality as it were and mayhaps that'll become our springboard for uncovering reality's final cause (telos), then on to God, the creator.
Too, metaphysics isn't clear about what existence means, yet science claims only the physical exists. That's like someone who doesn't know what blue means and claiming the sky is blue. :chin:
Furthermore, for science has as a fundamental premise change, that it is real and happens. Metaphysics isn't so sure (vide Parmenideans). Here too, a joke at our own expense: How can someone who's unsure whether souls are real or not go on to measuring and doing calculations on souls?
Then space and time, metaphysical points of interest that are taken for granted in science. There are, last I checked, (mathematical) paradoxes that are veritable logic bombs, ready to detonate randomly in crowded places, threatening the very conceptual foundations of spacetime (vide Zeno of Elea).
Science is ahead of metaphysics, but it cheats in a manner of speaking for it begins its run midway and not at the starting line where metaphysics is. If science continues in this rather ignoble manner, it might regret taking such a rash decision.
Then why don't call them altruistic?
If memory serves, Dawkins almost used a title like that. The 'altruism' of the individual gene-carrying organism (the greenbeards) is the 'selfishness' of the gene (the one that encodes greenbeardedness). It's possible that 'selfish' was chosen as more titillating.
Popular myth. Properly speaking, it’s indifferent to the subject. It’s up to metaphysics to accommodate the empirical discoveries of science, which it ough not to have trouble doing.
:ok: Science does use Occam's broom though, the issues that don't suit their cause are conveniently swept under the rug or is it that they bury their heads in the sand?
Hi. The bolded part doesn't seem quite right to me. Perhaps the 'physical' is too readily equated with that which we can be scientific or objective or unbiased about. Is the frequency of various words used on Twitter something physical ? Perhaps one can emphasize the mechanics of storage and transmission, but it's more intuitive and convenient to think of them as tokens that can be uncontroversially counted. It's also easy to make predictions that can be uncontroversially evaluated afterwords for their accuracy or lack thereof. When you say 'science claims...,' you seem to be making 'science' into a metaphysician.
If he loves the truth so much, he should have called them altruistic. These little wookers exist for our use only. They come in handy to conduct evofruction.
I can tell you this: no amount of arguing for the existence of the nonphysical is going to persuade science to change its mind on what can exist (only the physical - matter & energy). You're just begging the question I'm afraid.
That still doesn't sound right. I do find it plausible that many working scientists consider their biological or sociological work to be in principle but not in fact reducible to the dance of 'mattergy,' but some scientists are religious and must therefore have a larger ontology, however articulated or not.
It's also not clear that a 'bottom layer' is necessary for a scientific worldview. I can imagine several being used alternately, each an imperfect map that may complement the others. I can imagine a first-rate sociologist who never bothers with a bottom layer and knows nothing of physics or chemistry. The Church-Turing thesis comes to mind. In some contexts, the 'grain' of the medium in or through which a pattern appears might just be a distraction best ignored. For instance, we rather seamlessly switch between written and spoken language. Linguistic studies that also don't distinguish seem quite plausible to me (and might also include sign language, and so and and so and.)
My thirty peaches of sliver are on there being no gods or afterlife, if that chunk of context helps.
Deep question. William of Ockham was one of the first and most influential of the nominalists. Nominalists were those who dispute the reality of universals; nowadays we can barely understand what that debate was about. But anyway, his objection to the proliferation of entities was part of his criticism of the (scholastic) realists (those who believed universals were real). It’s an arcane dispute, although one which I find very interesting.
Anyway, more to the point - there’s a good Wikipedia entry on the ‘Conflict Thesis’ - on the supposed conflict between religion and science. I’ll leave you to peruse that, but also note that ‘the conflict thesis’ is to all intents assumed to be true by the Dawkins of this world - you know, backward, Bronze-age dogmatic superstition v cutting edge, up-to-date, scientific reason.
But a nice counter-example to that, is the figure of Georges Lemaître, the Belgian Catholic priest who first formulated the Big Bang theory of cosmology (although of course he didn’t call it that, his original paper was on the ‘primeval atom’, it got that name from a dismissive remark by Fred Hoyle, who never accepted it.) Lemaître was a brilliant scientist, but also a devout Catholic. But get this. His theory was at first universally resisted on the grounds that it sounded too much like creation ex nihilo (more or less Hoyle’s objection to it, but there were many others who felt the same.) In fact it sounded so much like it that in the 1960’s the Pope began to say that science had ‘discovered’ the proof of divine creation. Lemaître was acutely embarrassed by this - whilst he was a devout Catholic, he firmly believed in what Gould described as the ‘non-overlapping magesteria’ of religion on science. He prevailed upon the Pope’s science advisor to gently suggest to His Holiness that he not proclaim this idea, which the Pope respectfully observed thereafter. (And you won’t find too many Catholics, I’d wager, who would basically tell the Pope to shuddup already.)
So this idea that science ‘proves’ or ‘shows’ anything about religious mythological accounts is really the product of a great misunderstanding - to be fair, on both sides of the divide. But Aquinas himself always insisted that there could be no real conflict, and I think that understanding ought to prevail.
To me he makes a pretty good chase that, among odor thinks maybe, we are moist row boats or dank blow pots or draping what chew chew drains.
I like 'wookers.'
Lemaître faced opposition even from scientists like Fred Hoyle, that should've been a big hint as to the utility of Lemaître's discovery in putting Christian belief on a firm footing.
It seems The Big Bang Theory had no takers on either side of the conflict (science vs. religion). For a moment there (coupla years perhaps) it fell between two stools.
Later...science gave its nod of approval to Lemaître's astounding discovery, and the Pope should've immediately grabbed the opportunity to reconcile at least astronomy with Christianity, religion generally speaking. That ship hasn't sailed (yet). What are the Popes waiting for? They must have bigger fish to fry like pro-choicers in the US or something.
Returning to the OP's concerns vis-à-vis anti-metaphysics, Occam seems to have been pro-science or anti-metaphysics; Occam's rule (do not multiply entities beyond necessity) is quite popular among scientists I hear.
You gut an attractive means to xpress, my friend! Makes one read twice at least: "moist row boats or dank blow pots or draping what chew chew drains" Like I said, a most welcome light in dark philosophical times! For that already your comments are attractive to read! Regardless if I agree or not. And you have only started...
Thank a grin, my friend. I know we don't see high to high on Dawkins, but that doesn't need to mess up a fun conversation. It'd actually be less fun if we agreed on everything.
Areed! Disagreement is like an ideal pencil sharpener.
Because he felt that the science should stand on its own two feet. I think it's an important principle to understand. A scientific thesis has to have empirical evidence, whereas the idea of divine creation could never be subject to that. The 'big bang' theory might suggest that, but it can never be empirically proven. It's outside the bounds of empiricism for reasons that ought to be obvious.
There's a passage from Augustine that's often quoted in this context. I confess to not having read the entire work, or really much of Augustine's writing at all, but this quote stands on its own, I think:
[quote=St Augustine]Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience.
Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men.
If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.[/quote]
How much creationist nonsense would be cut off at the knees by this passage?
Quoting Agent Smith
Science is the hypothetical-deductive empirical child (re: how transformations of states-of-affairs happen / can be caused to happen) of metaphysics' conceptual speculations (re: how things in general necessarily hang together in the most general sense); this is why Aristotle's writings are titled tà metà tà physikà biblía "the books after the books on physics" (i.e. categorical – ontological – criteria / interpretations of his Physika). There is no opposition; science and metaphysics are first-order "apples" and second-order "fruit", respectively. Speculations about other-than-nature (e.g. supernaturalia, impossible / merely possible worlds), however, are vacuous, even anti-science & pseudo-philosophical. To paraphrase Witty: they try to say things that, at most, cannot be said; such "meta-physics" are nonsense.
What can we speculate about without talking nonsense? To my mind, only ways of interpreting nature – mapmaking maps of the territory – without using "supernatural" (i.e. ontologically transcendent / impossible world) predicates. Science is, of course, only one way of interpreting nature which, though not without its problems and limitations, is the most probative, effective, reliable interpretive tool of nature we natural beings have developed so far.
And "beyond" science? Non-sciences such as poetry, music, politics, love, religion, fashion, cinema, community ... Or do we mean "beyond nature"? Isn't that the holy grail of metaphysics? Re: "life after life", "beyond space and time", "before the beginning" "disembodied consciousness" etc. :eyes: :monkey:
[quote=TLP, prop. 7]Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss man schweigen.[/quote]
Where language, a natural endowment, fails, Witty suggests, ineffable realities, if they are realities, can only be shown and not said with sense. Talking about what one cannot talk about with sense exhibits the same lack of integrity as claiming that one knows to be the case what one cannot know to be the case. Basically, metaphysics consists in conceptual speculations to the exclusion (as much as conceivable ~ Aristotle) of occult babytalk, glossolalia or mystagogy. Since Thales et al, 'Logos (ethos) striving like Sisyphus against his philosopher's stone to overcome Mythos (pathos)' is how I read the Greek tradition (pace Freddy).
:death: :flower:
Well put.
Quoting 180 Proof
What do you make of the notion that cognition is largely analogical? Here you have Logos striving like Sisyphus against a Mythos which includes that very Sisyphus. Is the transcendence of metaflora and fairytails an impossible point at infinity? I think (?) you agree that even mathematics is embodied and metaphorical.
Yes indeed, friend.
Even a non-Christian? Is that knowledge meant for Christians only?
Quoting 180 Proof
Like MWI, Calabi-Yau manifolds, supersymmetric strings, torsion tensors, and other supernatural nonsense?
Quoting 180 Proof
Rhetorical propaganda. You can do better 180booze. I have seen signs of intelligence in your words before, though scarcely.
Quoting 180 Proof
On the contrary. We have to speak out.
I think this is why careful, disciplined meta-cognition is indispensable for sound reasoning.
I wouldn't be a Spinozist (immanentist) if I thought otherwise. This is why I allude to Sisyphus' 'endless task'...
Yes, I very much agree with Lakoff & Johnson et al on this point.
Okay, lil D-Ker, be careful not to drown out here in the deep end ... :sweat:
Now that's a great question in our beloved tradition. The sound already makes my head turn and ears direct! I wonder what's the answer.
I thought so too; metaphysics and science are just different stages of philosophy/science depending on where one starts.
Quoting 180 Proof
Indeed, if one considers the fact that metaphysical theories/concepts have to be created/invented from scratch with no readily available reference points that can be used to grasp the import of these theories/concepts, it is a veritable private language (incomprehensible to you and to others both). Nonsense!
Quoting 180 Proof
Yup, William of Occam (Novacula Occami: Pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate); :kiss: (keep it simple, stupid). Why complexify? Shouldn't we simplify?
Whatever it is that you're selling, I'm buying. :up:
Quoting 180 Proof
:lol: :up:
Of course. But it's the less probative, effectively effective, reliable, and most destructive, disruptive, and misleading vìew of nature we have developed so far, assigning way too much sex-appeal to white-coated representatives of the scientific church and their grey-suited, freshly-tied, programmed talking representatives in power positions, while over evaluating the IQ.
I'll lil will always be there to save your ass from going down under. There is always hope. Even for you, 180booze.
Quoting 180 Proof
S^_x#@a@Af@!!Gnarf#÷÷=/%dwart%^^%^!!!!
I falsified Witty Genestone! How bout that?
Welcome to the club.
Quoting Gnomon
Have you ever considered the possibility that there is no such thing as "matter"? This is where Berkeley guided us, and Berkeley has been far more influential to modern physics then most people would imagine. The whole field of "process philosophy", which allows the substance of physical reality to be rendered as mathematical equations, instead of as matter, in a fundamental platonic realism, is derived from the annihilation of "matter".
The reason why we can annihilate matter in this way, is that it is simply an idea, it's conceptual. The concept was proposed as a stand in, to represent the aspect of reality which appeared as unintelligible to us, this was temporal continuity. So if we decide that there is nothing real, nothing physical which comprises temporal continuity in the universe, (as in the moon does not exist if no one is looking at it) then we decide that there is no such thing as matter, and we throw the concept out the window, matter is effectively annihilated.
The problem though, is that temporal continuity, though it is fundamentally unintelligible to us, has vast support through empirical evidence. So when we annihilate matter, as process philosophy does, we are left with a huge hole in our understanding of empirical evidence. This is why Whitehead turned to God, and some rather strange conceptual notions, to support the relationship between one moment in time (a foundational event), and the next. You'll also see that Peirce runs into a similar problem in supporting the reality of infinitesimals, when the empirically observed continuum, is assumed to be composed of infinitesimals.
So the issue is that "matter" is a faulty concept as Berkeley demonstrated. As such, our understanding of reality might be better off if we reject it altogether. However, "matter" was very significant, because it represented a very real part of the universe, but one which we did not understand, so we just gave it that name to represent it. If we reject the concept outright, then that vast part of reality which we do not understand, bites us very hard, because it produces a huge whole in our models. Physicists apply all sorts of complex mathematical equations to disguise this hole, and hide it from us. But metaphysicians have no problem to point out the hole. So the physicalists tend to be very defensive toward the metaphysicians for pointing to these failings of physics, being in denial.
There's an entire thread about this currently active:
Quoting Deleted User
Although I did not pay close attention to this thread, I did notice that you participated in it.
Also, I guess you might put me in as "one of them." As I see it, the mechanisms that produce mental phenomena are purely biological/neurological. That's not the same as saying that mental processes are nothing but biological/neurological phenomena. There are metaphysical and scientific reasons to recognize that mental processes are different from biological processes. This is discussed in another recent thread:
Quoting T Clark
Oh yes. There's nothing new about the antagonistic split between reductive Reason & holistic Faith. It goes back, at least, to the Protestant Reformation. However, the "enlightenment" intellectual movement, of the 17th & 18th centuries, was not originally anti-metaphysics, but merely anti-dogma. Early church-educated scientists, using evidence & reason, concluded that the official cosmology of the Catholic Church was wrong on specific technical topics. Ironically, the geocentric cosmology of Christian Theologians was inherited from pagan Greeks & Romans (among others). But as soon as that doctrine was formally adopted as revealed Truth, it became incontrovertible dogma.
Certain features of the Earth-centric cosmology, while useful for theological purposes, upon closer inspection, turned-out to be unsuitable for mathematical calculations. But, by definition, doctrinal Faith cannot be wrong. So, what was originally an internal protestant movement -- defying church authority in favor of personal reasoning, and focused on minor scriptural exegesis -- was later expanded to defend against contradictory scientific interpretations. So, it was a three-way split : 1.Sacred Catholic, 2.Pious Protestant, and 3.Secular Science & Philosophy. My own heresy falls into the third slot.
Eventually, freethinking intellectuals turned against, not just scriptural squabbles, but Scholastic Metaphysics in general. A quarantine of material Physics from spiritual Metaphysics gradually became the doctrine of pragmatic Science. Although Physics & Metaphysics had been inter-twined in Philosophy since Aristotle, a divorce became inevitable during the Protestant & Scientific revolutions. So, Metaphysics (the science of ideas), despite its philosophical & intellectual origins, was then deemed not just anti-intellectual ("stupid idiots"), but also anti-science ("faith-based").
Sadly, that Matter/Mind partition of intellectual investigation continues to this day. So, the once esteemed label of "Metaphysics", has come to signify "Anti-Physics" and "Anti-Science". Which is why, even modern mind-researchers who focus on non-physical aspects of reality (e.g. Psychology), are careful to avoid the use of a tainted term in their work. Unfortunately, even Philosophers, who do not claim to do physical science, must also avoid any appearance of dabbling in "irrational" Metaphysics, for fear of being attacked by "the ghost-hunting brigade".
As a philosophical Skeptic myself, I don't mind their justified suspicion of rampant Pseudo-science and re-interpreted Theology. But, the unwarranted Cynicism makes the emergence of a new information-based Paradigm of secular Science difficult. Since Information Science is primarily concerned with topics such as Origin of Life, and Emergence of Consciousness, it begins to trespass across that cease-fire line drawn between Mind & Matter, by such scientists as Steven Jay Gould, which he labeled "non-overlapping magisteria". And those of us, who are interested in non-physical (e.g. mental) phenomena get caught in the crossfire. Keep your head down. :cool:
Non-Overlapping Magisteria :
that science and religion each represent different areas of inquiry, fact vs. values, so there is a difference between the "nets" over which they have "a legitimate magisterium, or domain of teaching authority", and the two domains do not overlap
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-overlapping_magisteria
Note -- the expanding domain of 21st century Information Theory from computers to minds has over-lapped into the no-go zone, and is being fired-upon by both sides of the powder-keg cease-fire zone.
You mean bone-headed, dismissive reason.
Quoting T Clark
That's my leaning. Of course I expect the science to keep advancing.
Quoting T Clark
Precisely. Add also practical reasons.
I agree: simplicity is good. But why? Seems that economy is involved. One might mention esthetics, but perhaps this boils down to economics. A practical animal needs tools that offer bang for the buck. Consider also the brain size of a tiger. It's probably tuned pretty well.
Feyerabendian fire, friend. I'm not so much to the left on this issue, but I can understand the concern. Specialization is troubling, and no one can see it whole, the vast machine we've built.
My current position is no. Even the bone machine of math is a pile of analogies. It seems that we can only incorporate the new mostly in terms of the old.
source
Agreed. The worst cages are perhaps those with invisible bars.
Quoting 180 Proof
Thanks for the clarification. Endless indeed. And it seems that we must fight fire with fire, replacing obsolete metaphors with those which have not quite yet become so.
Good question. The next would be whether "mind" should be taken for granted.
On one side noumena or ur-stuff. On another side qualia or languageless thought. Problematic poles of an otherwise practical continuum.
Well, I've never considered the possibility that there no such thing as "facts".
A 'mental image' is problematically private. The usual grammar suggests that anyone's only 'seen' their own. The absurdity of taking such 'images' and 'qualia' as foundational, when pointed out, is usually misunderstood as a denial of their existence as opposed to their suitability for the role foisted upon them (grounding meaning and/or functioning as a primordial Dreamgoo from which an 'intersubjective' world is constructed.)
In my view, it'd be easier to make your point by emphasizing the difference between sentences and neocortexes.
So skeptical cynics are the true enemies of scientific progress? One funeral at a time, right?
Off the top of my head...
1. There's only so much that our brains can handle.
2. The map can't be an exact replica of the territory.
Economics, I'd say. (I don't just money, but practical constraints and tradeoffs.)
Quoting Agent Smith
Because it'd be useless, right? It'd be just as easy to stare at the world. The point is oversimplification. Abstraction is subtractive, it seems to me. Ignore the right things, right?
Unless the map is the territory.
Yes, economy, I must agree.
Quoting lll
Not useless, but (too) complex/complicated/unwieldy.
Quoting lll
I wonder if that's what we should be doing.
Quoting lll
Do you have an instance of oversimplification?
Quoting lll
Nice! Reductive would be a better word, but subtractive is good enough (for government work).
Quoting lll
:clap: Bravo!
How so?
If the territory itself is the map then the map is an exact replica of the territory.
and yet:
Quoting 180 Proof
Surely if your project were really absurd, then every purported "fact" could be called into question. :chin:
Ocean in a teacup.
I have to contemplate that one!
Suppose I bought a map of Ocean in a Teacup. I plan a trip to cross that ocean by boat. How stupid I feel upon arriving at Teacup. My boat doesn't fit.
Mind must be taken for granted, if you're going to do any philosophy. Otherwise you incapacitate your ability to do philosophy. This is why logic must be given priority over the sense information derived from empirical observation, because we know that the senses can mislead us. That's what Plato showed us, and the example of geocentric cosmology referred to by Gnomon above, is a very good one.
Quoting 180 Proof
Why not? That would be a good starting point for a healthy skepticism. You ought to try it, because if you do, this will demonstrate to you how deceptively the word "fact" is often used by the sophists around us. Apply good old fashioned Platonic dialectics, and see if you can determine what it means to be a "fact". Is it a "fact" because you say it is? Is it a "fact" because I say it is? Is it a "fact" because we agree that it is? Is a "fact" something independent? If the latter, how is this compatible with the idea that the world is continually changing, and time is relative? If "facts" are independent, then each "fact" must have an infinite number of possible correct interpretations, depending one one's spatial-temporal perspective. Then what good is the assumption of "facts"?
Quoting 180 Proof
For pragmatic l purposes -- such as walking on solid ground -- I take matter for granted. But for philosophical speculations, I have followed the findings of Quantum & Information sciences, to the conclusion that ultimate reality is in-substantial & immaterial. So, it seems possible that our massy world is constructed of weightless-but-meaningful relationships, such as mathematics & logic. Of course, that possibility is not amenable to empirical investigation. So, like Einstein riding on a light-beam, we must use the telescope of imagination to explore the unseen & intangible foundations of Reality.
Your reference to Process Philosophy is interesting. I've read A.N. Whitehead's book on the topic, but much of it was above my philosophical pay-grade. Can you direct me to a more accessible source of information on the "annihilation of matter" concept? :smile:
Mathematical structure :
In mathematics, a structure is a set endowed with some additional features on the set (e.g. an operation, relation, metric, or topology). Often, the additional features are attached or related to the set, so as to provide it with some additional meaning or significance.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_structure
No. I mean scientific reasoning, as used effectively for the dissection of material objects. But when reductive methods are used on Holistic systems it misses the immaterial bonds that hold it together. So, those who insist on "empirical evidence" for philosophical concepts, such as "axioms". "principles", "categories", "substance", "essence", or "systems", may be applying "bone-headed, dismissive reason" to non-empirical problems. :smile:
Quoting lll
No. I'm not talking about conventional grammatical syntax or physical structure. My "point" was referring to "mathematical structure" & "mental meaning". Which are not constructed of matter or social conventions, but of cognitive relationships. (see definition of "Mathematical Structure" in reply to — Metaphysician Undercover above)
Cynics are obstacles to progress for whatever process they deny. But I'm not talking about "scientific progress", such as in Neurology. Instead, I'm referring to "philosophical progress", as in the "hard question" of Consciousness. How does matter become conscious of its environment and of itself? :smile:
I believe you'll find it hard to make sense of 'cognitive relationships' without dragging in the so-called 'physical' and various semantic conventions. For instance, qualia are ghosts who only exist in terms of the sheets we wrap them in. The 'mental' is like the hole in the donut of that which is public. Toothaches are tokens.
That's a bag biggy question, friend. 'Conscious' and 'matter' are 'draping what' (dropping went, drooping wait) with ambiguity. In social animals like ourselves we have conventions assigning a unique ghost or soul to each body. We inherit this way of talking about ourselves, presumably because it's an efficient way to coordinate those semantically-networked bodies. Most philosophers just take for granted the existence of a singular subject and an attendant [s]droolism[/s] dualism.
Still, I'll speculate an answer. The nervous systems of animals encode/enact useful maps of their territory. In humans this mapping is largely an orgy of analogy (note that 'map' is itself a metaphor, as is 'metaphor,' albeit undead these daze.)
It could be that taking 'mind' for granted is the end of philosophy and not its beginning. If you make this or that concept sacred, you're just scribbling a creed for a cult.
Perhaps 'logic' is largely a ghost story. I don't deny that our reasoning has a structure. I also do not imply that anything goes. I just mean that 'logic' can play the role of the magic word that's supposed to point to some immaterial Faculty. Often enough it suffices to look at grammar as a set of loose conventions, many of which are made as rigid as possible by philosophers and taken as eternal laws of thought and not just the way we tend to do things for the moment or the century.
If you stare at the world and recognize an interesting pattern, you'll be map making? I think we gather here to make maps, meta-maps ,meta-meta-maps,...
Thanks, but that meta-map is more treasure from the chunk yard, so I can't claim it.
I see you take the unreasonable approach 180. The rational human being says "only where there are compelling grounds am I certain". In other words, compelling grounds are what removes skepticism, not what induces it.
Quoting Gnomon
But the point is that you do not need to take matter for granted to be walking on solid ground. You just need to walk, and not think about what the ground is made of. And, it could turn out that the substance of the ground is something completely different from what is described by the concept "matter", just like it turned out that the earth orbits the sun instead of the ancient idea that the sun was going around the earth.
Quoting Gnomon
The problem with this is that you are lacking substance here. Meaningful relations between weightless things does not magically create a "massy world". Substance is what gives mass its inertia, its resistance to change, the ability to support you when you walk. So for example, if the ground was composed of meaningful relations of weightless things, we need to know why these relations are resistant to change. It is this resistance to change which produces the appearance of weight, and the massy world. But telling me that this is the result of meaningful relations doesn't tell me anything, unless you can say why some relations are more resistant to change than others. Does this mean that some are more meaningful than others? Why are some relations more meaningful than others?
Quoting Gnomon
Have you seen Berkeley's "Three Dialogues between Hylas and Philonous"?
Quoting lll
It's not a matter of making any particular concept sacred, it's just a matter of recognizing that any philosophizing you are doing is done through your mind. You might call it something other than "mind" if you like, but it's still the same thing by a different name.
Quoting lll
That's always a possibility, but logic has already proven itself, so it's very unlikely. That's why the example of the demise of geocentric cosmology is so powerful. It demonstrates the power of logic to overthrow the assumed reality given to us through sensation. Empirical observation will mislead us immensely until we use proper logic to overturn the faulty empirical principles.
I see you are ignorant of Pyrrho, Sextus Empiricus, Hume, Peirce, Dewey & Wittgenstein ... Have a good one, MU. :smirk:
It matters tho if one switches from 'mind' to 'language,' especially if one is supposed to be engaged upon a super-seance of that aforesaid mind. Nothing blinds as reliably and effectively as the so-called obvious.
Mind is logically prior to language. So such a "switch" is a move in the wrong direction. and will only mislead you, as 180 Proof is obviously mislead into thinking that certainty is prior to skepticism. Language is a product of minds, just like certainty is a product of skepticism, and any attempt to reverse this logical order, is a mistake. This is why semiosis, which reduces fundamental biological processes to a form of language, results in panpsychism.
Yes. I know that all too well. Human languages are derived from commonsense (sensory) experience. That's why we talk about private-subjective-Mental-concepts in terms of analogies to public-objective-Material-things, Much of the ranting on this forum is a result of mistaken terminology, That's also why I spend (waste?) so much verbiage on defining terms, and defining definitions, and linking to other's definitions.
Ironically, even spooky counter-intuitive (not common sense) Quantum Physics is expressed in material metaphors. For example, a Quantum "Field" is an intangible mathematical concept, but scientists describe it in metaphorical as-if language. Note, in the definitions below, that the term "Field" in physics is defined in terms of another material thing : a "Region". Likewise, my Information-based terminology is misconstrued by the "Trolls" (as I teasingly call them) as-if I'm making a scientific claim about a physical Substance*1, instead of a Philosophical hypothesis about the imaginary Realm (or Field, or Region) we call "Consciousness" or "Mind".
That inherent materiality of language makes discussion of immaterial topics confusing. "Mind" is defined below in terms of an indivisible material substance (like a Democratean atom). But another way to define the "subjective Mind" is as a holistic-system-of-brain-&-its-functions, that when divided into parts, no longer functions mentally. Chop off a piece of brain, and it may still have some neuronal activity, but its cognitive mental functions don't work in the absence of the rest of the system. A mind without a body/brain is metaphorically*2 known as a Ghost. We can imagine such a thing, but mustn't take as real.
The early 20th century Quantum scientists had the same difficulty in describing the atoms they were dissecting in the lab. They likened it to "plum pudding", and to "solar system", and to a "cloud". But all "likens" are metaphors compared to something detectable by the physical senses. Yet Mind & Consciousness are detectable only via rational inference. Hence, the "other minds" problem.
Like those pioneers of Quantum Theory, the attempts of paradigm-busting Information Theorists -- to discuss their Holistic Systems theory of fundamental Information -- are often victims of the misinterpretation of misplaced concreteness, due to the materialistic bias of our common language. :nerd:
*1. Aristotle analyses substance in terms of form and matter. The form is what kind of thing the object is, and the matter is what it is made of.
Note -- "Form" is the immaterial essence, or defining principle of a thing, while "Matter" is the clay from which it is constructed. In-Form-ation is a meaningful (or metaphorical) projection in the theatre-of-the-mind that represents a real (or metaphorical) object in the world outside the body/brain.
*2. A metaphor is a mental representation of a thing or concept. It's an abstract symbol. It may be stated as-if a Fact, but is not to be taken literally. Semiology is the science of abstractions that exist only in Minds. So, it too is plagued with misconceptions, due to the limitations of language.
Is information the only thing that exists? :
Physics suggests information is more fundamental than matter, energy, space and time
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg23431191-500-inside-knowledge-is-information-the-only-thing-that-exists/
But language too is material! :
Language is infused with materiality and should therefore not be considered as an abstract system that is isolated from socio-material reality.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11097-017-9540-0
Field :
[i]1. an expanse of open or cleared ground, especially a piece of land suitable or used for pasture or tillage.
2. field, in physics, a region in which each point has a physical quantity associated with it[/i]
Region :
1. an area or division, especially part of a country or the world having definable characteristics but not always fixed boundaries.
MInd :
1. the element of a person that enables them to be aware of the world and their experiences, to think, and to feel; the faculty of consciousness and thought.
Element :
1. An element is a substance that cannot be separated into simpler substances through chemistry.
What Is an Atom Like? :
Since the atom was discovered, many theories tried to depict what an atom is like. They have likened it to a plum pudding, a small ball, and even a tiny solar system. Perhaps, it is also imagined as a core with a cloud of small and light particles surrounding it.
https://www.thegreatcoursesdaily.com/what-is-an-atom-like/
A Democratean Metaphor :
https://www.jstor.org/stable/4181641
MIND IS A METAPHOR FOR BRAIN FUNCTION
This is the 'substance abuse' of mutterphysics I mentioned previously (we are too easily imprisoned by our own grammar.) Why indivisible and how material? Why do human beings have only one mind each ? Have we fished out mindnuggets from their abandoned snailskulls and do we always find exactly one?
Quoting Gnomon
We start to agree at this point, but we need even more context, for we must include language. For this we need a tribe that coordinates struggle in the real world through semantic conventions. I suggest that mentalistic language developed as part of this system of conventions (along with physicalistic language.) We use 'fictional' or conventional entities like 'thoughts' and 'feelings' and 'qualia' to predict and control that part of our environment which consists of us. We distribute goods and duties, affix praise and blame, mete out justice, and wage war with their help. In short, we can think of the 'mental / physical' distinction as a convention and acknowledge that we never have known and probably never can know exactly what we are talking about when coughing up these magic words.
Well, I'm in good company with other thinkers such as the author of On Certainty. :fire:
I'll follow you down this path. It's maps all the way down. 'No finite thing has genuine being,' because the bubbles of our pragmatic babble are systematically interdependent. One notices that every stab at something 'behind' appearance depends on still-actually-mentalistic items (for instance, electrons are calculus scribbles on black boards). So matter is really just mutter which is obviously Mind, right?
Quoting Gnomon
But (consider thou the beetle in the box) the same realization is available in this direction, where all the talk of secret interior recesses is shown dependent on that which is 'public' or social. The ghost is a hole in the donut. The life of signs is enmeshed in the worldly. No matter, never mind. Our maps are as 'material' as they are 'mental.' We have equivalence classes of strings of tokens whose differences do not make a (practical) difference in this or that context. From this we should not infer an informagical kernel and an 'immaterial' ghost or faculty that grazes upon it. Or, if we insist on such speculation, we can remember that it's an invention and not a discovery.
Yes, Wittgenstein can be very misleading. He ought to be discussed in the thread on sophistry.
Read the thread on hinge propositions. There I argued that Wittgenstein is fundamentally wrong on this issue. That he is wrong on this issue ought not surprise anyone, given his attitude toward metaphysics. Those who are not inclined toward making the effort to understand metaphysics tend to try and dismiss metaphysics with faulty principles.
How do you think that the present situation of human beings with knowledge, evolved from the prior situation of beings without knowledge, if uncertainty is not prior to certainty?
That kind of comment, like Gloria's famous knife, cuts both ways.
Those who are not inclined toward making the effort to understand criticisms of traditional metaphysics tend to try and dismiss criticisms of traditional metaphysics with faulty principles.
[quote=Witt]
What makes a subject difficult to understand — if it is significant, important — is not that some special instruction about abstruse things is necessary to understand it. Rather it is the contrast between the understanding of the subject and what most people want to see. Because of this the very things that are most obvious can become the most difficult to understand. What has to be overcome is not difficulty of the intellect but of the will.
...
Work on philosophy -- like work in architecture in many respects -- is really more work on oneself. On one's own conception. On how one sees things. (And what one expects of them.)
[/quote]
Let's not forget the intense mentalistic bias of forum philosophers who won't/can't ingest any criticisms thereof, attached for the usual reasons to go stories.
This is actually untrue. Those who are well educated in traditional metaphysics have very little, if any problem understanding such criticisms, and tend to address them adequately, with sound metaphysical principles. But those not educated in traditional metaphysics, being unwilling to make the effort, do not have such an understanding, and tend to dismiss traditional metaphysics with faulty principles. Therefore the knife really just cuts one way. What is the case generally, is that what makes a subject difficult to understand is that special instruction about abstruse things is necessary to understand it. This is no different from mathematics, physics, chemistry, or biology for example.
Quoting 180 Proof
And my point is that this is manifestly untrue. "Doubt" is an uncertainty, and as such it is fundamentally different from belief, which is a form of certainty. The mental state of being uncertain does not require grounds, and it especially does not require "compelling grounds" as you stated earlier. Compelling grounds is what produces certainty, and certainty is fundamentally distinct from uncertainty.
Quoting 180 Proof
Again, this is fundamentally incorrect. There is no need to posit alternatives in order to be uncertain of the status quo. In reality, the "status quo" needs to be justified. It is fundamentally illogical to accept "the status quo" simply on the basis of authority. This is why so many people reject religion, because we are often asked to accept the principles on faith without being offered any justification of those principles.
Quoting 180 Proof
And this is also incorrect. There is very good grounds to doubt everything which can be doubted. Any principle which has not been adequately justified may prove to be unacceptable if doubted. And, since we cannot know prior to doubting them, which ones are unacceptable, we must doubt everything which can be doubted, in order to determine which ones are unacceptable. Even if it turns out to be only a sparse few principles, out of a vast lot, we cannot know which ones until we doubt them all.
Quoting 180 Proof
Finally, I think that this is obviously false as well. We do begin uncertain, as little babies. Schooling teaches us how to become certain. It is true though that a grown adult is usually certain in some respects and uncertain in others. Retaining an open mind (uncertainty) in the face of an education system which attempts to rid us of this, is something which requires significant philosophical training. But the fact that most adults are certain in some respects and uncertain in others, does not negate the fact that we begin as uncertain.
So traditional metaphysics is comparable with physics, biology, and mathematics ? Why not mention astrology, phrenology, and numerology ? Why not theology, an especially obvious choice? Could not the theologian insist on the same point? 'There is a proof of God, but people don't have the patience to grok it. I swear! '
Good questions! But difficult to answer, due to the material bias of language. So, we resort to debatable analogies between metaphysical Concepts & physical Objects.
Aristotle made a distinction between two kinds of "substance". : 1. Primary Substance -- Being qua Being, or 2. Secondary Substances -- species & genera (i.e. specific instances of Being). As I interpret those categories, Primary Substance is Essence (massless potential), but Secondary Substance is Matter (massy existence). The earthy "ground" I take for granted is Secondary & sensory, hence no mystery. But, the "substance" that "miraculously" gives mass to matter is Primary & abstract. Actually, Mass is merely a different form of Energy : energy transforms into mass, which is the property of matter that is mysteriously attracted to other masses via gravity (L. heaviness).
In my thesis terminology, Primary Substance is the Power to Enform, to give form to the formless. In Einstein's equation, that mysterious ability to create Mass from the massless is "magical" Energy. And according to current Information theories, Energy (potential) is merely one form of generic Information -- the same non-stuff that creates Meaning in a brain. So, shape-shifting Information does seem to be magical -- but it's also material, and that's what brings massless ideas back down to earth.
Relations that are "resistant to change" are eternal & infinite, like Primary Substance : the essence of Being. Meaningful Relations are mental analogies. Physical Relations are thermodynamic ratios.
"More meaningful" in this context can be understood as higher Valence. In a thermodynamic ratio, the relative valences are expressed in higher & lower abstract numbers representing degrees of energy content (hot/cold). But, in mental evaluations, numerator & denominator are evaluated in terms of significance to Self (good/bad).
Any more questions? :smile:
Ratio :the quantitative relation between two amounts showing the number of times one value contains or is contained within the other.
Valence : the combining power of an element ; a value that adds-up
The mass-energy-information equivalence principle :
https://aip.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.5123794
Is information equivalent to energy? :
The bit of information is equivalent to a quantum of minimum energy
https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1401/1401.6052.pdf
Yes, sure why not? These are all fields of study along with physics, mathematics, biology and metaphysics, requiring effort and learning of principles. And, I would expect the ones who made the effort to study them to have a better understanding, and be more capable of discussing those principles. Do you have difficulty with this?
Quoting Gnomon
I understand primary and secondary substance in a way slightly different from you. Maybe I'll get to that tomorrow.
I can't pretend to take astrology or numerology seriously, yet I have no doubt there are those who are stuffed with knowledge of these things. Others may have memorized the Book of Mormon or the later scribbles of L. Ron Hubbard about Xemu.
I enter philosophical conversations with the prejudice that the human tendency toward self-flattering delusions is well known. The philosophical project is (so runs my dream) climbing out of such muck as much as possible.
Apparently, MU, I'm just not as 'smart' or 'full of gnosis' as you. :sparkle: :yawn:
And:
Quoting 180 Proof
While I'm at it, I'll add this:
Quoting lll
Primary substance, as defined by Aristotle is the individual, the particular, such as the individual man, or individual horse. Secondary substance is the species such as "man" or "horse". Since the category of "primary substance" consists of particular items, we cannot say that these are massless potentials. Each object has a form unique to itself, as well as its matter. This is the basis for Aristotle's law of identity, and his hylomorphism. What provides the "substance" to the particular, has been debated. Some would argue that it is the matter of the object, some would argue that it is the form, which constitutes the substance. I would argue that "primary substance" requires both. But if "form" is argued as prior, and responsible for the identity of the particular, this leaves matter as unnecessary (demonstrated by Berkeley), which is consistent with the true to the definition of matter, as potential, and this means that primary substance, as particular individuals, is not necessary, particulars are contingent.
So I think that you conflate the categories here. Matter is defined as potential, and matter is what is said commonly, to have mass. However, when we assign a property to "matter", we are assigning a form to it, properties are formal. So this is the first mistake which a physicist, (Newton for example) might make, to assign mass directly to matter as a necessary property. This negates the true definition of matter as pure potential by restricting that potential to the characteristics of mass, saying that all matter must have this specific formal attribute, mass.
If we say that all individual particulars have matter, and all matter has mass, then we lose the capacity to speak of massless potential in the form of primary substance. Primary substance is necessarily a combination of matter and form, so when we say that matter necessarily has mass, we lose the capacity to speak of massless matter, and therefore we lose the capacity to speak of massless primary substance as well because primary substance must have matter. And since matter represents the potential of primary substance, we can have no primary substance in the case of massless potential. Massless potential cannot have matter and therefore cannot be primary substance
So physicists fall back on secondary substance, a specified form, to speak of massless individuals, particles. However, then these particles escape Aristotle's law of identity, not being identified as matter and form (having no matter, because the true potential of matter has been lost by assigning matter the property of mass); consequently these particles can only be understood as generic forms (secondary substance), and cannot be given the status of true identifiable individuals (primary substance).
Quoting Gnomon
I don't think this is really consistent with Aristotle's "primary substance", because under Aristotle's definitions, primary substance is an individual object, and an object is a unity of matter and form. However, if we assign the identity of the particular, to the formal aspect, as I described above, then the form of the particular is necessarily prior to its material existence, as what determines the particular's existence as the unique individual which it is. This enables the concept of independent Forms. But the union between matter and form must remain a mystery because "matter", by definition refers to the aspect of the particular which is unintelligible to us. If we assign a property to matter, like "mass", in the attempt to bring matter into the realm of intelligibility, then we defeat the purpose of the concept, to refer to the unintelligible aspect of reality, and we delude ourselves by thinking that the unintelligible has become intelligible.
Quoting Gnomon
This is not realistic. As we know, an object is resistant to change only until the necessary force required to change it, is applied to it. So we cannot represent "resistant to change" as eternal and infinite, that would be a mistake. Each object has its own temporal duration, as a property of its own internal resistance to change, and external forces applied to it, and never do we find an eternal and infinite object. This is what is meant when we talk about objects as being contingent, they are generated and corrupted.
Your perception is accurate, even though your aim is off. This forum does have two strategic factions : mental emphasis vs physical emphasis. The pro-Metaphysics posters are talking about human Culture, while the anti-Metaphysics posters are focused on non-human Nature. The "pros" typically have no problem with Natural Science, but as appropriate on a Philosophy forum, they are more interested in Cultural phenomena (e.g. beliefs & practices). So, they necessarily have a "mentalistic bias". Culture is the specifically human aspect of the natural world.
Human culture is difficult to study by means of the reductive scientific method. That's why Psychology and Sociology essentially gave-up on trying to emulate Hard Science, and remain mostly philosophical & holistic in their methods (i.e. induction & argument ; systems instead of parts), and standards of evidence (e.g. logical coherence instead of physical replication). Philosophical theories are also non-falsifiable in that there are no mental "Black Swans" to refute a hypothesis. Testing of Philosophical theories is logical instead of physical. Unfortunately, you can lead a person to Truth, but you can't make him believe it.
Therefore, Philosophy can be characterized as "non-science", but not as "pseudo-science". Because it does not pretend to be producing empirical evidence for physical theories. It's merely trying to produce reasonable models of intangible human concepts. So, the standards of evidence for Philosophy are different from those of Science. That's why your "criticisms thereof" are not "ingested". They may be food-for-physical-belly, but not nourishment-for-metaphysical-thought. Your error is what Popper called the "Demarcation Problem". Hence, you are shooting at pseudo-science, and hitting thin air. :cool:
What Is the Difference Between Hard and Soft Science? :
In general, the soft sciences deal with intangibles and relate to the study of human and animal behaviors, interactions, thoughts, and feelings.
https://www.thoughtco.com/hard-vs-soft-science-3975989
Human Culture vs Nature :
Culture can be defined as all the ways of life including arts, beliefs and institutions of a population that are passed down from generation to generation. Culture has been called "the way of life for an entire society." As such, it includes codes of manners, dress, language, religion, rituals, art.
https://sphweb.bumc.bu.edu/otlt/mph-modules/PH/CulturalAwareness/CulturalAwareness2.html
Popper's Falsifiability Theory :
[i]* Karl Popper believed that scientific knowledge is provisional – the best we can do at the moment.
* Popper is known for his attempt to refute the classical positivist account of the scientific method, by replacing induction with the falsification principle.
* The Falsification Principle, proposed by Karl Popper, is a way of demarcating science from non-science. It suggests that for a theory to be considered scientific it must be able to be tested and conceivably proven false.
* For example, the hypothesis that "all swans are white," can be falsified by observing a black swan.[/i]
Demarcation Problem :
For Popper the central problem in the philosophy of science is that of demarcation, i.e., of distinguishing between science and what he terms “non-science” (e.g., logic, metaphysics, psychoanalysis, and Adler's individual psychology).
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/popper/
Induction vs Deduction :
[i]Induction is a specific form of reasoning in which the premises of an argument support a conclusion, but do not ensure it. . . .
Deduction is a form of reasoning whereby the premises of the argument guarantee the conclusion. [/i]
https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Induction_(philosophy)
Note -- Philosophy does not speak of physical Reality, but of mental Ideality.
It's as if you can visualize only one dialectical opponent, whose lance is ever the accusation that what you're doing isn't science. To this rude rider your offer your rote retort.
And as Brentano/Husserl points out "mental ideality" is intentional, that is, always about non-mental reality (i.e. consciousness of what transcends consciousness); otherwise, exclusive concern with "mental ideality" lacks substantive (i.e. non-arbitrary) content and spirals into masturbatory solipsism. You're conception of philosophy, sir, is insufficiently rigorous and ahistorical, more akin to "New Age" fantasy (i.e. pseudo-scientific magical thinking) than not. Yeah, philosophy isn't science, but philosophers speculatively interpret scientific findings (as well as pre/non-scientific experiences) about ineliminable realities – selecting & connecting the dots without filling in the blanks with woo – rather than just pleasuring themselves with mere "ideality". :eyes:
Speaking for myself, I've criticized your not attempting to do philosophy here on a site dedicated to making such attempts and dialectically discussing them. Criticism has engendered from you only defensive sophistry and incorrigibly doubling-down on woo. For all of your sincere and speculative exertions, Gnomon, your profound misunderstanding of philosophy is gleefully conspicuous and tediously dogmatic. :yawn:
I can't claim to be an Aristotle scholar, but I got my definition from a philosophical dictionary. In the definition below, I don't concern myself with the confusing "qualifications". Instead, I interpret the distinction in a way that makes sense for my Enformationism thesis. The term "substance" today is usually defined as the material from which a thing is constructed : as a sculpture from marble or clay. But, in my thesis, I'm more interested in the mental or metaphysical concept (Platonic Form or Essence) of which the sculpture is an imitation. So I typically use "substance" to mean Real Matter, and "essence" to mean Ideal Mind. See below. :smile:
PS__Likewise, Information has "qualifications" that can be confusing if not carefully defined. In essence it is Ideal & Universal, but in particular, it can become Causal Energy, or Material Object. I didn't just make this up. It's where Information Theory has developed : that shape-shifting Information is the essence of reality : matter, energy & mind.
How does Aristotle define substance? :
Aristotle defines substance as ultimate reality, in that substance does not belong to any other category of being, and in that substance is the category of being on which every other category of being is based. Aristotle also describes substance as an underlying reality, or as the substratum of all existing things.
https://www.angelfire.com/md2/timewarp/firstphilosophy.html
7. Substance and Essence :
One might have thought that this question had already been answered in the Categories. There we were given, as examples of primary substances, an individual man or horse, . . . ?.3 begins with a list of four possible candidates for being the substance of something: essence, universal, genus, and subject. . . . Aristotle’s preliminary answer (?.4) to the question “What is substance?” is that substance is essence, but there are important qualifications.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-metaphysics/
Essence :
In philosophy, essence is the attribute (or set of attributes) that makes a thing be what it fundamentally is. It is often called the “nature” of a thing such that it possesses certain necessary, metaphysical characteristics or properties in contrast with merely accidental or contingent ones.
https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Essence
The notion of noble Lincoln is the essence (primary substance) of which the marble is the material (secondary substance) :
THE SHAPE IS NOT THE FORM
Yes. Well put. Some want the hole in the donut without the dough.
Essence is "substance" in the secondary sense, notice "universal", "genus", "subject". That is how secondary substance is defined. In the primary sense, substance is defined as the individual.
Does the dove flap its winks in a vacuum? Is there not already mutter in those public mounds? Is there not always still some mound in our mutter or some mutter in our mounds? A moundless mutterialist like me might suspect that the mound/mutter distinction is no more mound than mutter. What is an analogy? What is a 'map' ? What is 'structure' ? Each master word is explained in terms of still others, yet the blurry go round gets us from eh to be.
This is another example of the philosophical problem with our materialistic (matter-based) language. Aristotle defined "substance" from two different perspectives (the "qualifications" I mentioned before). When he was trying to distinguish his pragmatic philosophy from Plato's idealistic ideology, he took matter as the primary. But when he was trying to define his notion of "hylomorphism", he had to distinguish the Actual material (hyle=stuff) from the Potential design (morph=pattern). Hence you have a which-came-first dilemma : the mental idea or the material actualization of the design?
Since I'm an Architect, I tend to think that the mental image (imaginary structure) is prior to the physical building (material structure), hence primary. And morph/form is what I mean by Aristotelian "substance" as the immaterial essence of a thing. I realize Ari's ambiguous reference is potentially confusing. My Enformationism worldview is plagued by many similar dual-meaning words : such as physical "Shape" vs mental "Form". Do you know of another philosopher who found a non-ambiguous term to distinguish between Substance and Essence? :brow:
hylomorphism, (from Greek hyl?, “matter”; morph?, “form”), in philosophy, metaphysical view according to which every natural body consists of two intrinsic principles, one potential, namely, primary matter, and one actual, namely, substantial form. It was the central doctrine of Aristotle's philosophy of nature.
Two kinds of Structure :
[i]1. mathematical structure is an imaginary (idealized) pattern of relationships (links) without the nodes.
2. physical structure is the actual nodes arranged into a pattern resembling the mental design.[/i]
Which came first, the left hand or the right hand ? the East or the West ? the head or the body ?
I think you have things a little backward here. Substance in the primary sense, is the most basic, common, and truest sense of the word. This is what Aristotle says at the beginning of "Categories" Ch 5.
[quote=Aristotle Categories 2a 10-15]"Substance in the truest and primary and most definite sense of the word, is that which is neither predicable of a subject nor present in a subject; for instance the individual man or horse. But in a secondary sense those things are called substances within which, as species, the primary substances are included; also those which, as genera, include the species. For instance, the individual man is included in the species 'man', and the general to which the species belongs is 'animal'; these therefore --- that is to say, the species 'man', and the genus 'animal' --- are termed secondary substances.[/quote]
Now, when we turn to his "Physics" we see that the primary substances. particulars, necessarily consist of both matter and form. The form of the particular (primary substance) is very different from the form of the of the species or genera (secondary substance), the primary "form" includes accidentals which are unique to the individual, and the secondary "form" is an abstraction, a formula or essence.
Under the principles outlined in his physics, the "form" of the particular individual is what accounts for its actual existence, what it actually is, and the matter accounts for the potential for change, the fact that it could be other than it is. Therefore, contrary to what you say the actual existence of a thing is attributed to its form, while potential is assigned to the matter.
Quoting Gnomon
This "which came first" dilemma is resolved in Aristotle's "Metaphysics". He poses the problem of why is a thing what it is, rather than something else. Why is it the very unique and particular individual which it is, and not something other than this. He refers to his "law of identity", that a thing is necessarily the same as itself, and it cannot be other than itself. And, since when a thing comes into being (becomes, or is generated), it is necessarily an ordered whole rather than parts randomly scattered without order, it is necessary that the form of the individual is prior in time to the material existence of the individual.
He supports this conclusion that form is prior to matter, in the absolute sense, with his so-called cosmological argument. It is impossible that potential is prior to actual because this would mean a time when there was only potential, and nothing actual. But potential cannot actualize itself, as any potential needs an actuality to actualize it. Therefore if there ever was a time with pure, absolute potential (what some call "prime matter"), there would always be pure absolute potential because it could never actualize itself. What we observe is actuality, therefore pure absolute potential is impossible. And, we must conclude that form, as actual, is prior to matter as potential in the absolute sense.
Notice that this leads to a duality of "form". There is "form" in the sense of secondary substance, formula, which is the species, or genera, and there is also "form" in the sense of primary substance, which is the form of the particular. The two are distinct because the form of secondary substance is an abstraction which is universal, an essence, and this does not include the accidentals. In the primary sense, "form" is a particular and unique individual, including accidentals. This "form", in the sense of primary substance is necessarily prior to the material object to account for the truth of the law of identity. So "form" in the sense of primary substance may exist independently of that substance, but we cannot assign "substance" to that sense of "form", because "substance" requires the duality of matter and form.