https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... ent/364217
So, the point is, the questions around 'essentialism' and whether or not there is something which is essentially human, are themes which figure in both conservative and radical analyses of late modernity. — Wayfarer
Yes. The ancient Greek philosophers observed that humans were superior in some way to animals, but obviously not in physical attributes. Since all autonomous creatures were presumed to be animated by Spirit, they concluded that metaphysical Soul (Reason) was the defining characteristic of humanity. In the pre-scientific era, that "fact" was probably not even debatable. But today, closer scientific observations, from a Darwinian perspective, have revealed that animals (e. g. chimps & porpoises) are capable of reasoning that is much closer to human capacities. Hence, the gap has been narrowed; which has raised some ethical questions that were not taken seriously in the past.
For those who value science and progress, that blurring of the distinction between human and animal essences may seem inevitable and progressive. But for those who value tradition and religion more highly, the notion that souless animals are on the same developmental continuum with ensouled humans, is absurd and sacrilegious. Therefore, one side emphasizes the similarities, while the other argues for the differences. And both have "facts" to support their case. So it seems that hierarchical Conservative values require human superiority and domination, while holistic Liberal values require a more egalitarian relationship, as found in the worldview of vegetarians. Yet moderate philosophical values may acknowledge that there is truth in both views, and attempt to apply their facts judiciously.
Apparently, the same polarized opinions are found in moral judgments of fellow humans. Some find it reasonable to label fellow humans as sub-human (Jews, Blacks, Queers, Gypsies, etc), while others are appalled at such self-serving hubris. The challenge for my own values is to acknowledge the meaningful differences in people, while respecting the significant similarities. That's what I call the BothAnd principle.
BothAnd Principle : http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page10.html
Phil Forum : Human Nature : Essentialism
Re: Phil Forum : Human Nature : Essentialism
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussions
I'm going to gadfly you regarding the notion of "normative natural laws". — Enrique
Following the Socratic method I assume.
I can't think of a single supposed "natural" principle that isn't anthropic, essentially perceptual. — Enrique
You may have misinterpreted my use of "normative". What I had in mind is that in Evolution, natural laws are limitations (norms) on the freedom of randomness. Those laws provide criteria for Natural Selection to choose from the options thrown up by mutations. And mutations that go outside the norms will be judged unfit. If a mutant mouse is physically too large for its mouse-scale niche it will be deselected in the next round of reproduction. But, over time, descendants of slightly larger than normal mice might eventually be fit for the Capybara niche. The principles that lead to humans and Capybras are the same. Only the environmental niches are different. There are "anthropic" niches and "rodent" niches.
The environment is a physical limit, while laws are metaphysical norms. For example, evolutionary programmers allowed their program to design an antenna for a specific communication niche. The "environment" was an unusual kind of radiation pattern. And the metaphysical "norm" (program parameters) was established by programmers as a narrow range of fitness scores that would be acceptable for their intended purpose. Ultimately, the parameters (laws) were "anthropic" in the sense that they were selected to suit human needs. But the final physical shape of the antenna was not predictable by the programmers. Only the anthropic metaphysical function was predetermined; the weird shape was formed to fit its designated niche.
But perhaps you think that natural laws evolved accidentally. In which case they are simply 'habits" of evolution. Yet if so, our universe seems to be addicted to those mathematical norms.
Norms do not determine the course of evolutionary transition; they are a symptom of arbitrarily stifled evolution as the product of forces exacted on organisms by their conditions. The only parameters to evolution are imposed by environment, and the concept of a "natural law" can become one of those parameters. — Enrique
Perhaps you are talking about human imposed norms, which are limited in power. But Natural norms are so "stifling" that they were called "laws" to reflect the absolute life-or-death power of human kings. So, Natural Norms do indeed determine the course of evolutionary change, but only to the extent that Natural Selection enforces them. But who is the law-maker, and whose standards are normative?
Capybara Niche : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capybara
Ecological Niche : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_niche
Evolved Antenna Design : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolved_antenna
Normative : human laws are artificial norms, while laws of Nature are natural norms
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normative
Habits of Nature : https://www.sheldrake.org/research/most ... ike-habits
I'm going to gadfly you regarding the notion of "normative natural laws". — Enrique
Following the Socratic method I assume.
I can't think of a single supposed "natural" principle that isn't anthropic, essentially perceptual. — Enrique
You may have misinterpreted my use of "normative". What I had in mind is that in Evolution, natural laws are limitations (norms) on the freedom of randomness. Those laws provide criteria for Natural Selection to choose from the options thrown up by mutations. And mutations that go outside the norms will be judged unfit. If a mutant mouse is physically too large for its mouse-scale niche it will be deselected in the next round of reproduction. But, over time, descendants of slightly larger than normal mice might eventually be fit for the Capybara niche. The principles that lead to humans and Capybras are the same. Only the environmental niches are different. There are "anthropic" niches and "rodent" niches.
The environment is a physical limit, while laws are metaphysical norms. For example, evolutionary programmers allowed their program to design an antenna for a specific communication niche. The "environment" was an unusual kind of radiation pattern. And the metaphysical "norm" (program parameters) was established by programmers as a narrow range of fitness scores that would be acceptable for their intended purpose. Ultimately, the parameters (laws) were "anthropic" in the sense that they were selected to suit human needs. But the final physical shape of the antenna was not predictable by the programmers. Only the anthropic metaphysical function was predetermined; the weird shape was formed to fit its designated niche.
But perhaps you think that natural laws evolved accidentally. In which case they are simply 'habits" of evolution. Yet if so, our universe seems to be addicted to those mathematical norms.
Norms do not determine the course of evolutionary transition; they are a symptom of arbitrarily stifled evolution as the product of forces exacted on organisms by their conditions. The only parameters to evolution are imposed by environment, and the concept of a "natural law" can become one of those parameters. — Enrique
Perhaps you are talking about human imposed norms, which are limited in power. But Natural norms are so "stifling" that they were called "laws" to reflect the absolute life-or-death power of human kings. So, Natural Norms do indeed determine the course of evolutionary change, but only to the extent that Natural Selection enforces them. But who is the law-maker, and whose standards are normative?
Capybara Niche : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capybara
Ecological Niche : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_niche
Evolved Antenna Design : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolved_antenna
Normative : human laws are artificial norms, while laws of Nature are natural norms
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normative
Habits of Nature : https://www.sheldrake.org/research/most ... ike-habits
Re: Phil Forum : Human Nature : Essentialism
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... sentialism
[i] I am struggling to see how you can have both of these:[/i] — Siti
Don't overthink it. The intended goal may be general, but the final outcome will be specific. That's the case in any learning endeavor. You begin with a desire or intention to learn something new, but you can't say exactly what that will be. For example, deity A might create Adam in his own image, in which case the result will be predictable : a Mini Me. But deity B might create a creative process just to see what will happen if the evolutionary "mechanism" has an element of freedom (chaos; randomness) built into it. In that case the final state will be unpredictable, and deity B will ultimately learn something new.
Perhaps you are assuming that both deity A and B are omniscient. But an omnipotent deity can create a system with uncertainty (freedom) as a major factor. That would be like creating a stone that even the most powerful deity can't lift. Yet it's not a paradox, or a logical contradiction, if the limitation is ententional (necessary for the venture). Of course, the uncertainty would only be temporary. When the time-limited experiment has run its course, deity B will know the answer, and will have learned something in the process (dynamic omniscience).
But I don't see how these could ever be separated from one another...an "elephant" with no "elephant-about-ness" — Siti
That example misses the point of "aboutness". The term refers not to Self but to Other. Elephant A can have an idea (representation) about elephant B, or even about a future state of elephant A (other point in time). Likewise, Intentionality is inherently about something that is not here & now. It is a motivation toward something desired but not yet possessed. For example, eternal deity B wants to know how a hypothetical space-time process will turn-out, but the only way to know for sure is to run the experiment.
Aboutness : Are representations of the world part of the world they represent?
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/intentionality/
Entention, it seems to me must, of necessity, emerge together with the emerging reality — Siti
No. Entention (aim, purpose, motivation) must come before Conclusion (Completion; Resolution; Realization). If intent and goal coexist, then there's no need to move toward the target. In humans, the best intentions often fail to be realized.
I want to say that what we normally conceive of as abstractions (ideas "drawn out" of reality) are really "entractions" ("pulled in" to reality from a genuinely infinite array of non-existing unrealities — Siti
What you describe is exactly how I imagine Creation Ex Nihilo. Your "array of non-existing unrealities" sounds like what I call primordial Chaos. Eternity/Infinity is equivalent to Omnipotential. Without space-time limits all things are possible. But if an abstract Platonic Form is "entracted" from potential to actual it becomes real. It is converted from "non-existing unrealities" (Platonic Ideals) to existing realities (physical things).
Chaos : In ancient Greek creation myths Chaos was the void state preceding the creation of the universe or cosmos. It literally means "emptiness", but can also refer to a random undefined unformed state that was changed into the orderly law-defined enformed Cosmos. In modern Cosmology, Chaos can represent the eternal/infinite state from which the Big Bang created space/time. In that sense of infinite Potential, it is an attribute of G*D, whose power of EnFormAction converts possibilities (Platonic Forms) into actualities (physical things).
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page12.html
I cannot imagine the primordial "IDEA" having been anything other than "no idea at all" - or rather - "every possible idea no matter how ridiculously improbable" — Siti
Again, that describes eternal Chaos, but not the ententional IDEA of space-time reality. It seems that your basic problem with my Enformationism worldview is the necessity for Transcendence, for something prior-to space-time reality. You can't imagine an infinite dimension space. But that may be due to your commitment to the worldview of physical Science. Yet, even pragmatic Science is baffled by paradoxes at the extremes of physical reality.
For example, when a sub-atomic particle makes a quantum leap into super-position, it can't be found here or there --- it can't be defined in space-time measures. So where is it? Likewise, when matter is sucked into a Black Hole, it is presumed to be converted back into energy, and then into pure information. But scientists still debate where that information goes. Some posit that it disappears down the funnel into an alternate reality. But, besides being un-grounded speculation, that notion contradicts the Law of Thermodynamics, which asserts that energy (information) cannot be created or destroyed within a closed system. It implies that our system has sprung a leak. A logical, but not physical, solution to these paradoxes is that the disappearing matter transcends space-time by returning to infinity-eternity (non-locality) from whence it originally came. "Ridiculously impossible"! Perhaps, but that's true of all paradoxes.
Escape from a black hole : https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... lack-hole/
[i] I am struggling to see how you can have both of these:[/i] — Siti
Don't overthink it. The intended goal may be general, but the final outcome will be specific. That's the case in any learning endeavor. You begin with a desire or intention to learn something new, but you can't say exactly what that will be. For example, deity A might create Adam in his own image, in which case the result will be predictable : a Mini Me. But deity B might create a creative process just to see what will happen if the evolutionary "mechanism" has an element of freedom (chaos; randomness) built into it. In that case the final state will be unpredictable, and deity B will ultimately learn something new.
Perhaps you are assuming that both deity A and B are omniscient. But an omnipotent deity can create a system with uncertainty (freedom) as a major factor. That would be like creating a stone that even the most powerful deity can't lift. Yet it's not a paradox, or a logical contradiction, if the limitation is ententional (necessary for the venture). Of course, the uncertainty would only be temporary. When the time-limited experiment has run its course, deity B will know the answer, and will have learned something in the process (dynamic omniscience).
But I don't see how these could ever be separated from one another...an "elephant" with no "elephant-about-ness" — Siti
That example misses the point of "aboutness". The term refers not to Self but to Other. Elephant A can have an idea (representation) about elephant B, or even about a future state of elephant A (other point in time). Likewise, Intentionality is inherently about something that is not here & now. It is a motivation toward something desired but not yet possessed. For example, eternal deity B wants to know how a hypothetical space-time process will turn-out, but the only way to know for sure is to run the experiment.
Aboutness : Are representations of the world part of the world they represent?
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/intentionality/
Entention, it seems to me must, of necessity, emerge together with the emerging reality — Siti
No. Entention (aim, purpose, motivation) must come before Conclusion (Completion; Resolution; Realization). If intent and goal coexist, then there's no need to move toward the target. In humans, the best intentions often fail to be realized.
I want to say that what we normally conceive of as abstractions (ideas "drawn out" of reality) are really "entractions" ("pulled in" to reality from a genuinely infinite array of non-existing unrealities — Siti
What you describe is exactly how I imagine Creation Ex Nihilo. Your "array of non-existing unrealities" sounds like what I call primordial Chaos. Eternity/Infinity is equivalent to Omnipotential. Without space-time limits all things are possible. But if an abstract Platonic Form is "entracted" from potential to actual it becomes real. It is converted from "non-existing unrealities" (Platonic Ideals) to existing realities (physical things).
Chaos : In ancient Greek creation myths Chaos was the void state preceding the creation of the universe or cosmos. It literally means "emptiness", but can also refer to a random undefined unformed state that was changed into the orderly law-defined enformed Cosmos. In modern Cosmology, Chaos can represent the eternal/infinite state from which the Big Bang created space/time. In that sense of infinite Potential, it is an attribute of G*D, whose power of EnFormAction converts possibilities (Platonic Forms) into actualities (physical things).
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page12.html
I cannot imagine the primordial "IDEA" having been anything other than "no idea at all" - or rather - "every possible idea no matter how ridiculously improbable" — Siti
Again, that describes eternal Chaos, but not the ententional IDEA of space-time reality. It seems that your basic problem with my Enformationism worldview is the necessity for Transcendence, for something prior-to space-time reality. You can't imagine an infinite dimension space. But that may be due to your commitment to the worldview of physical Science. Yet, even pragmatic Science is baffled by paradoxes at the extremes of physical reality.
For example, when a sub-atomic particle makes a quantum leap into super-position, it can't be found here or there --- it can't be defined in space-time measures. So where is it? Likewise, when matter is sucked into a Black Hole, it is presumed to be converted back into energy, and then into pure information. But scientists still debate where that information goes. Some posit that it disappears down the funnel into an alternate reality. But, besides being un-grounded speculation, that notion contradicts the Law of Thermodynamics, which asserts that energy (information) cannot be created or destroyed within a closed system. It implies that our system has sprung a leak. A logical, but not physical, solution to these paradoxes is that the disappearing matter transcends space-time by returning to infinity-eternity (non-locality) from whence it originally came. "Ridiculously impossible"! Perhaps, but that's true of all paradoxes.
Escape from a black hole : https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... lack-hole/
Re: Phil Forum : Human Nature : Essentialism
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... ent/365237
There are plenty of examples. — Wayfarer
Please give me a reference to one of those examples. I'm not concerned with the religious implications; just the philosophical reasoning.
That would roughly correspond to the Doctrine of the Fall, then. — Wayfarer
Actually, I view the limits to human reasoning as a feature, not a design defect, or a malfunction. The experiment in space-time & uncertainty would be pointless if humans were eternal omniscient gods.
Tell it to your dog :razz: — Wayfarer
People communicate with their dogs via behavior not language. But the reasoning behind the behavior is basically the same. If the dog food is kept in a cabinet, and the dog sniffs around and scratches, then it ain't hard to read the canine mind.
There are plenty of examples. — Wayfarer
Please give me a reference to one of those examples. I'm not concerned with the religious implications; just the philosophical reasoning.
That would roughly correspond to the Doctrine of the Fall, then. — Wayfarer
Actually, I view the limits to human reasoning as a feature, not a design defect, or a malfunction. The experiment in space-time & uncertainty would be pointless if humans were eternal omniscient gods.
Tell it to your dog :razz: — Wayfarer
People communicate with their dogs via behavior not language. But the reasoning behind the behavior is basically the same. If the dog food is kept in a cabinet, and the dog sniffs around and scratches, then it ain't hard to read the canine mind.
Re: Phil Forum : Human Nature : Essentialism
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... ent/365237
I don't think we can consider natural phenomena "normative principles", but rather accidents of local conditions — Enrique
So you're saying that the regularities of Nature, that Science depends on, are not universal laws, but merely conditional habits? I suspect that position is derived from rejection of the concept of a lawmaker. The difference between a "law" and a "habit" is that laws are imposed from above, while habits are accidental due to local conditions. "Norms" are imposed values rather than free choices. That's why the early scientists labeled their observed consistencies in physics with a term that implied a moral right/wrong distinction mandated by an absolute ruler. "Habits" are regular tendencies that have no moral justification. So a habitual world would be amoral, with no clear good or bad, no right or wrong. In that case, every man (or particle of matter) is a law unto himself.
Normative Law : In law, as an academic discipline, the term "normative" is used to describe the way something ought to be done according to a value position.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normative
But radical skepticism is refutable because all the life forms on this planet are related and adapted to a relatively similar environment. Metaphysical principles do not obtain, but we're still all in this together. — Enrique
If "principles do not obtain" in Nature, it's because there is no "prince", no ultimate authority. So cultural laws are the only rules that do obtain. That is the Atheist/Humanist position. And it's also half of my own BothAnd position. The other side of my consilient morality is the understanding that Natural Laws (not habits) were ruling the world for eons before humans came along. The eventual emergence of Life and Mind are due, either to the harmonious organizing principles of Nature, or to the erratic accidents of randomness. I view Natural Selection as an imposed set of values on physical evolution, and Cultural Selection is the application of human values to meta-physical evolution.
BothAnd Principle : http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page10.html
Meta-physical : mental phenomena as contrasted to physical
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page14.html
Rationality creates values — Enrique
Yes. If Evolution was dependent on randomness alone, there would be no values, and no progress, no reason. But the addition of Natural Selection (choices based on fitness criteria) converts random change to directional change. I view that as a sign of Rationality in the evolutionary process. So Evolution is characterized by both Freedom and Fate; both Law and Autonomy.
Selection : adj. -- chosen in preference to another or others; selected. choice; of special value or excellence. careful or fastidious in selecting; discriminating. carefully or fastidiously chosen; exclusive
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/select
Should add that I doubt this is really in contradiction to your basic view, merely a clarification. — Enrique
Your post is in agreement with half of my view, but this post is a clarification of the other half. Specifically, my worldview is deistic, in that the world is being created via evolution, but without divine intervention in the process.
I don't think we can consider natural phenomena "normative principles", but rather accidents of local conditions — Enrique
So you're saying that the regularities of Nature, that Science depends on, are not universal laws, but merely conditional habits? I suspect that position is derived from rejection of the concept of a lawmaker. The difference between a "law" and a "habit" is that laws are imposed from above, while habits are accidental due to local conditions. "Norms" are imposed values rather than free choices. That's why the early scientists labeled their observed consistencies in physics with a term that implied a moral right/wrong distinction mandated by an absolute ruler. "Habits" are regular tendencies that have no moral justification. So a habitual world would be amoral, with no clear good or bad, no right or wrong. In that case, every man (or particle of matter) is a law unto himself.
Normative Law : In law, as an academic discipline, the term "normative" is used to describe the way something ought to be done according to a value position.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normative
But radical skepticism is refutable because all the life forms on this planet are related and adapted to a relatively similar environment. Metaphysical principles do not obtain, but we're still all in this together. — Enrique
If "principles do not obtain" in Nature, it's because there is no "prince", no ultimate authority. So cultural laws are the only rules that do obtain. That is the Atheist/Humanist position. And it's also half of my own BothAnd position. The other side of my consilient morality is the understanding that Natural Laws (not habits) were ruling the world for eons before humans came along. The eventual emergence of Life and Mind are due, either to the harmonious organizing principles of Nature, or to the erratic accidents of randomness. I view Natural Selection as an imposed set of values on physical evolution, and Cultural Selection is the application of human values to meta-physical evolution.
BothAnd Principle : http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page10.html
Meta-physical : mental phenomena as contrasted to physical
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page14.html
Rationality creates values — Enrique
Yes. If Evolution was dependent on randomness alone, there would be no values, and no progress, no reason. But the addition of Natural Selection (choices based on fitness criteria) converts random change to directional change. I view that as a sign of Rationality in the evolutionary process. So Evolution is characterized by both Freedom and Fate; both Law and Autonomy.
Selection : adj. -- chosen in preference to another or others; selected. choice; of special value or excellence. careful or fastidious in selecting; discriminating. carefully or fastidiously chosen; exclusive
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/select
Should add that I doubt this is really in contradiction to your basic view, merely a clarification. — Enrique
Your post is in agreement with half of my view, but this post is a clarification of the other half. Specifically, my worldview is deistic, in that the world is being created via evolution, but without divine intervention in the process.
Re: Phil Forum : Human Nature : Essentialism
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... ent/365237
I think the most famous example is Aristotle’s passage on the active intellect. It is as the article notes, a debated passage, but contains many aspects of Aristotle’s hylomorphic (matter-form) dualism - for which read this brief blog post. — Wayfarer
I knew that Aristotle had some vague concept of a Soul, but was not aware of the term "active intellect" or "agent intellect". I can see that these terms could be referring to some human essence, which distinguishes us from animals, but may not imply an immortal soul in the Christian sense.
"EVERYTHING in the cosmic universe is composed of matter and form." ___Aquinas
Aquinas more specifically equates the essence of human nature with the immortal Soul. But I go a step further, to assert that even matter is a form of Plato's timeless Forms, So I could say that everything in the universe is composed of "Information", which I define as the creative power to Enform, (aka EnFormAction).
EnFormAction : As the holistic expression of the human Self (Soul), it is the essence or pattern that defines you as a person
Note : If you find this definition hard to imagine, just remember how the Star Trek Transporter read the information (data describing a person's mind & body) into a pattern of bits that could be transmitted to another location.
I think the most famous example is Aristotle’s passage on the active intellect. It is as the article notes, a debated passage, but contains many aspects of Aristotle’s hylomorphic (matter-form) dualism - for which read this brief blog post. — Wayfarer
I knew that Aristotle had some vague concept of a Soul, but was not aware of the term "active intellect" or "agent intellect". I can see that these terms could be referring to some human essence, which distinguishes us from animals, but may not imply an immortal soul in the Christian sense.
"EVERYTHING in the cosmic universe is composed of matter and form." ___Aquinas
Aquinas more specifically equates the essence of human nature with the immortal Soul. But I go a step further, to assert that even matter is a form of Plato's timeless Forms, So I could say that everything in the universe is composed of "Information", which I define as the creative power to Enform, (aka EnFormAction).
EnFormAction : As the holistic expression of the human Self (Soul), it is the essence or pattern that defines you as a person
Note : If you find this definition hard to imagine, just remember how the Star Trek Transporter read the information (data describing a person's mind & body) into a pattern of bits that could be transmitted to another location.
Re: Phil Forum : Human Nature : Essentialism
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... ent/365237
I'm not an atheist, I think all beings have a spiritual nature, but I'm also a critical thinker, and all public accounting for this spirituality has thus far been at its best respectably inadequate to explain the reality, and at its worst employed as malicious deception, in science, philosophy and elsewhere. — Enrique
That's also why I am a Deist. All religions of the world are based on philosophical attempts to explain both the regularities and the vagaries of Nature, of Reality. Typically, pre-scientific societies took the predictable aspects of nature for granted. But the unpredictable or disorderly behaviors of nature were attributed to magical beings (gods, principalities), who as haughty nobles of the imaginary spiritual realm, were easily offended by insignificant inferior humans who were disrespectful of their power and position.
Unfortunately, their notion of spirituality was tainted by fear of those invisible magicians, who could, for no apparent reason, punish humans who were insufficiently slavish and sycophantic. So, while they expressed their common spirituality toward equals as morality, toward their betters they prostrated their unworthy selves in worship, just as they would suck-up to their human kings who were above the law of morality. Their attempts to explain natural processes in terms of magical spirituality made allowances for divine deception (maya) and for priests who felt licensed to use magic tricks of their own to keep the masses in a state of fearful awe. That is the tradition of authoritarian religion that Deists rejected, as they turned to human science instead of divine revelation for understanding of mundane reality, including its spiritual aspects that I call "Metaphysics" to contrast with mundane Physics.
Metaphysics : http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page14.html
My opinion is that we should in general incline towards basing culture on human agreement by way of reasoned collaboration rather than dictatorial authority. — Enrique
That is also the inclination of Deism, which is not a religion, but a philosophical attitude toward spirituality (metaphysics), which was ignored by materialistic scientists.
I think scientific skepticism is the foundation for furthering human quality of life by way of strategic theoretical and technological progress, — Enrique
Yes. Skepticism is necessary for any philosopher who wants to avoid being deceived by the smoke & mirrors of religions. And Science is the best method we have developed for understanding physical reality. But it has never been able to replace Religion as the source of information on metaphysical reality.
regard your philosophy as a cool thought experiment, — Enrique
My Enformationism thesis is, as you say, a thought experiment intended to inform my personal worldview as a replacement for the religion of my youth. It attempts to avoid the magical obfuscation of occult mythology, and instead find a more accessible understanding of how the world works on both physical and metaphysical levels. Unfortunately, it is counter-intuitive for both materialistic scientists and religious mystics. So, I have found that philosophers are more amenable to metaphysics, and more likely to grasp the common ground of Enformation as the universal "substance" of the real world, that bridges the gap between Mind & Matter, Soul & Body, Religion & Science.
Enformation : 1. 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.
2. the Enformationism thesis . . . says that mental Information is the new fundamental principle of science, and the key to a new/old way of thinking about reality.
http://bothandblog5.enformationism.info/page36.html
I'm not an atheist, I think all beings have a spiritual nature, but I'm also a critical thinker, and all public accounting for this spirituality has thus far been at its best respectably inadequate to explain the reality, and at its worst employed as malicious deception, in science, philosophy and elsewhere. — Enrique
That's also why I am a Deist. All religions of the world are based on philosophical attempts to explain both the regularities and the vagaries of Nature, of Reality. Typically, pre-scientific societies took the predictable aspects of nature for granted. But the unpredictable or disorderly behaviors of nature were attributed to magical beings (gods, principalities), who as haughty nobles of the imaginary spiritual realm, were easily offended by insignificant inferior humans who were disrespectful of their power and position.
Unfortunately, their notion of spirituality was tainted by fear of those invisible magicians, who could, for no apparent reason, punish humans who were insufficiently slavish and sycophantic. So, while they expressed their common spirituality toward equals as morality, toward their betters they prostrated their unworthy selves in worship, just as they would suck-up to their human kings who were above the law of morality. Their attempts to explain natural processes in terms of magical spirituality made allowances for divine deception (maya) and for priests who felt licensed to use magic tricks of their own to keep the masses in a state of fearful awe. That is the tradition of authoritarian religion that Deists rejected, as they turned to human science instead of divine revelation for understanding of mundane reality, including its spiritual aspects that I call "Metaphysics" to contrast with mundane Physics.
Metaphysics : http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page14.html
My opinion is that we should in general incline towards basing culture on human agreement by way of reasoned collaboration rather than dictatorial authority. — Enrique
That is also the inclination of Deism, which is not a religion, but a philosophical attitude toward spirituality (metaphysics), which was ignored by materialistic scientists.
I think scientific skepticism is the foundation for furthering human quality of life by way of strategic theoretical and technological progress, — Enrique
Yes. Skepticism is necessary for any philosopher who wants to avoid being deceived by the smoke & mirrors of religions. And Science is the best method we have developed for understanding physical reality. But it has never been able to replace Religion as the source of information on metaphysical reality.
regard your philosophy as a cool thought experiment, — Enrique
My Enformationism thesis is, as you say, a thought experiment intended to inform my personal worldview as a replacement for the religion of my youth. It attempts to avoid the magical obfuscation of occult mythology, and instead find a more accessible understanding of how the world works on both physical and metaphysical levels. Unfortunately, it is counter-intuitive for both materialistic scientists and religious mystics. So, I have found that philosophers are more amenable to metaphysics, and more likely to grasp the common ground of Enformation as the universal "substance" of the real world, that bridges the gap between Mind & Matter, Soul & Body, Religion & Science.
Enformation : 1. 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.
2. the Enformationism thesis . . . says that mental Information is the new fundamental principle of science, and the key to a new/old way of thinking about reality.
http://bothandblog5.enformationism.info/page36.html
Re: Phil Forum : Human Nature : Essentialism
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... ent/365237
I don’t think you comprehend hylomorphic dualism — Wayfarer
Aristotle asserted that physical objects are compounds of Matter and Form. My understanding is that he was making a distinction between the physical properties that our senses detect, and the metaphysical properties (the design pattern) that are known via our extra sense of Reason. That kind of dualistic either/or analysis is amenable to my BothAnd philosophy. But the BA principle is ultimately monistic, because it unites space-time Physics and Metaphysics into a single eternal principle : the creative power to enform, to create --- which I call EnFormAction.
So, my worldview agrees with Aristotle that what we perceive with the physical senses is Matter, and what we conceive with metaphysical Reason is Form (information; essence). Matter is the unique substance of individual things, but Form is the common substance of all things (EnFormAction). This is similar to Einstein's equation of tangible Matter (stuff) with intangible Energy (causation).
So, when I said, "even matter is a form of Plato's timeless Forms", I was agreeing with Aristotle's hylomorphic analysis, while adding my own synthesis of space-time Dualism into eternal-infinite Monism.
Hylomorphism : A thing’s form is its definition or essence—what it is to be a human being, for example.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/form-matter/
Forms : Platonic Forms are Archetypes : the original pattern or model of which all things of the same type are representations or copies. Eternal metaphysical Forms are distinguished from temporal physical Things. These perfect models are like imaginary designs from which real Things can be built.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page13.html
EnFormAction : Metaphorically, it's the Will-power of G*D, which is the First Cause of everything in creation. Aquinas called the Omnipotence of God the "Primary Cause", so EFA is the general cause of every-thing in the world. Energy, Matter, Gravity, Life, Mind are secondary creative causes, each with limited application.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html
BothAnd Principle : The Enformationism worldview entails the principles of Complementarity, Reciprocity & Holism, which are necessary to offset the negative effects of Fragmentation, Isolation & Reductionism. Analysis into parts is necessary for knowledge of the mechanics of the world, but synthesis of those parts into a whole system is required for the wisdom to integrate the self into the larger system. In a philosophical sense, all opposites in this world (e.g. space/time, good/evil) are ultimately reconciled in Enfernity (eternity & infinity).
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page10.html
I don’t think you comprehend hylomorphic dualism — Wayfarer
Aristotle asserted that physical objects are compounds of Matter and Form. My understanding is that he was making a distinction between the physical properties that our senses detect, and the metaphysical properties (the design pattern) that are known via our extra sense of Reason. That kind of dualistic either/or analysis is amenable to my BothAnd philosophy. But the BA principle is ultimately monistic, because it unites space-time Physics and Metaphysics into a single eternal principle : the creative power to enform, to create --- which I call EnFormAction.
So, my worldview agrees with Aristotle that what we perceive with the physical senses is Matter, and what we conceive with metaphysical Reason is Form (information; essence). Matter is the unique substance of individual things, but Form is the common substance of all things (EnFormAction). This is similar to Einstein's equation of tangible Matter (stuff) with intangible Energy (causation).
So, when I said, "even matter is a form of Plato's timeless Forms", I was agreeing with Aristotle's hylomorphic analysis, while adding my own synthesis of space-time Dualism into eternal-infinite Monism.
Hylomorphism : A thing’s form is its definition or essence—what it is to be a human being, for example.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/form-matter/
Forms : Platonic Forms are Archetypes : the original pattern or model of which all things of the same type are representations or copies. Eternal metaphysical Forms are distinguished from temporal physical Things. These perfect models are like imaginary designs from which real Things can be built.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page13.html
EnFormAction : Metaphorically, it's the Will-power of G*D, which is the First Cause of everything in creation. Aquinas called the Omnipotence of God the "Primary Cause", so EFA is the general cause of every-thing in the world. Energy, Matter, Gravity, Life, Mind are secondary creative causes, each with limited application.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html
BothAnd Principle : The Enformationism worldview entails the principles of Complementarity, Reciprocity & Holism, which are necessary to offset the negative effects of Fragmentation, Isolation & Reductionism. Analysis into parts is necessary for knowledge of the mechanics of the world, but synthesis of those parts into a whole system is required for the wisdom to integrate the self into the larger system. In a philosophical sense, all opposites in this world (e.g. space/time, good/evil) are ultimately reconciled in Enfernity (eternity & infinity).
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page10.html
Re: Phil Forum : Human Nature : Essentialism
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... ent/365237
I am not in the habit of discussing human nature with spiritualists, but I suppose that if you believe that human nature exists, you can describe a series of natural or spiritual laws that apply to human beings. Can you give an example? Even if it's from Aristotle. — David Mo
I'm not a Spiritualist in the sense you intend. Instead, I am an Enformationist, in the sense that reality is not haunted by spooky spirits, but caused & motivated by the natural power to enform (commonly known as energy). From my perspective, the "natural or spiritual laws that apply to human beings" are all various forms of Information, which is the fundamental force & substance of the universe.
Information = Energy = Matter : One of the more radical theories suggests that information is the most basic element of the cosmos.
https://bigthink.com/philip-perry/the-b ... nformation
Information : Knowledge and the ability to know. Technically, it's the ratio of order to disorder, of positive to negative, of knowledge to ignorance. It's measured in degrees of uncertainty. Those ratios are also called "differences". So Gregory Bateson* defined Information as "the difference that makes a difference". The latter distinction refers to "value" or "meaning". Babbage called his prototype computer a "difference engine". Difference is the cause or agent of Change. In Physics it’s called "Thermodynamics" or "Energy". In Sociology it’s called "Conflict".
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page11.html
I am not in the habit of discussing human nature with spiritualists, but I suppose that if you believe that human nature exists, you can describe a series of natural or spiritual laws that apply to human beings. Can you give an example? Even if it's from Aristotle. — David Mo
I'm not a Spiritualist in the sense you intend. Instead, I am an Enformationist, in the sense that reality is not haunted by spooky spirits, but caused & motivated by the natural power to enform (commonly known as energy). From my perspective, the "natural or spiritual laws that apply to human beings" are all various forms of Information, which is the fundamental force & substance of the universe.
Information = Energy = Matter : One of the more radical theories suggests that information is the most basic element of the cosmos.
https://bigthink.com/philip-perry/the-b ... nformation
Information : Knowledge and the ability to know. Technically, it's the ratio of order to disorder, of positive to negative, of knowledge to ignorance. It's measured in degrees of uncertainty. Those ratios are also called "differences". So Gregory Bateson* defined Information as "the difference that makes a difference". The latter distinction refers to "value" or "meaning". Babbage called his prototype computer a "difference engine". Difference is the cause or agent of Change. In Physics it’s called "Thermodynamics" or "Energy". In Sociology it’s called "Conflict".
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page11.html
Re: Phil Forum : Human Nature : Essentialism
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... tialism/p3
What can be said to one who is all-knowing? — Wayfarer
Actually, Google is all-knowing. What would you like to know?
What would you like to say? I'm listening.
What can be said to one who is all-knowing? — Wayfarer
Actually, Google is all-knowing. What would you like to know?
What would you like to say? I'm listening.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 34 guests