BothAndBlog Forum

The materialist/physicalist view is that consciousness can be explained as exclusively a product of biological, chemical, and electrical activity. Consciousness merely is “what the brain does.” People who consider themselves hard-nosed realists often take this view. . . . .
You exist. You are conscious. If you are entirely material, then not so much the worse for you, but so much the better for materialism! Look what matter can do. Clearly, it’s extraordinary. Clearly, I don’t know all matter can do. Let’s call this view “enlightened materialism.” — Art48

I disagree that Consciousness can be satisfactorily explained in purely material terms. Matter can explain Facts, but not Meanings. Yet I don't think of sentient awareness as some supernatural entity like a divinely endowed Soul. Instead, "Consciousness" is the name we give to a mysterious process (function) of complex material organisms (brains). Superficially, the brain may seem like a hydraulic mechanism, but its output, its work, is the production of invisible & intangible concepts (insights, intellect, ingenuity, vision), that would be of no use to creatures with no means to make them personally meaningful. "What matter can do" is to convert ordinary physical Energy into psychic Ideas that can motivate other sentient beings toward cooperative goals ; it transforms physical Nature into metaphysical Culture --- but how?.

Therefore, Mind may be defined simplistically as "what the Brain does" (its function). But that doesn't completely explain what Mind is essentially (ontologically). The Identity Theory, that Brain = Mind, ignores a wide explanatory gap between physical actions and mental processes. Obviously neural activity is correlated with mental ideation, but a tree is not the same thing as a representation of a tree. In the 20th century, Behaviorism was a popular approach to psychology. But it reduced presumed moral agents to philosophical zombies. Hence, ordinary Materialism is missing something fundamental (mental) in the world. Some feature of the whole system that cannot be found in its isolated parts. So yes, conventional Materialism is in need of Enlightenment. We need, not an "exclusive" reduction, but a holistic inclusive induction (part to whole).

However, I don't view acquiescence to the obvious, or ignorance of essence*1 as "enlightening". For example, Isaac Newton mathematically defined what Gravity does, but was mystified by what it is*3. Gravity functions like a material connection between massive objects, except there is no actual medium, no matter, in the gap. So, Einstein re-defined Gravity mathematically as a geometric relationship, a ratio*4. And it's now mostly imagined as a Field of attractive Force. Yet again, the Field is defined mathematically instead of materially. Which leaves open the question of what Gravity is essentially.

As with Mind, the mystery of Gravity is not in its Function, but its Form. Mathematical forms, e.g. Geometry, cannot be detected by the physical senses. Instead, we know of such immaterial "stuff" only by the sixth sense of Reason, which translates physical interrelationships into mental models. And the "stuff" that our Rational (mathematical) sense detects & interprets is multivalent Information*2 in the form of Ideas & Meanings, not Matter*5.

Tegmark's far-out theory of a Mathematical Universe is merely one of many alternatives to the commonsense Material World model. Since math is merely a system of abstract ideas, sans material, you could call the whole Cosmos an Information Reality.*6 So, what is Consciousness? The ability (power ; potential ; capacity ; faculty) to see, in the mind's eye, the invisible mathematical structure of the world. That meaningful/useful faculty has only been imputed to sentient/rational observers, most (if not all) of whom have large complex material brains, producing immaterial internal mathematical models of reality.

PS___My own term for an enlightened update of ancient Materialism is Enformationism*7.


*1. 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. . . . . In Aristotle essence was identified with substance (ousia) or sometimes substantial form.
https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Essence
Note --- A modern alternative to the ancient notion of Ousia (divine essence) may be the broad concept of Information, which has been found in many forms, from Ideas to Energy to Objects*2.

*2. The many forms of Information :
Consciousness only emerges at the later stages of evolution. But the universal substance of reality might be called an Information Field, analogous to a Quantum field as an immaterial pool of potential.
http://bothandblog4.enformationism.info/page29.html

*3. Spooky action at a distance :
It is inconceivable that inanimate Matter should, without the Mediation of something else, which is not material, operate upon, and affect other matter without mutual Contact…That Gravity should be innate, inherent and essential to Matter, so that one body may act upon another at a distance thro' a Vacuum, without the Mediation of any thing else, by and through which their Action and Force may be conveyed from one to another, is to me so great an Absurdity that I believe no Man who has in philosophical Matters a competent Faculty of thinking can ever fall into it. Gravity must be caused by an Agent acting constantly according to certain laws; but whether this Agent be material or immaterial, I have left to the Consideration of my readers. — Isaac Newton, Letters to Bentley, 1692/3
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_at_a_distance

*4. What does gravity consist of? :
To summarize, according to Einstein, gravity is the curving of spacetime by all the objects in it, combined with the "geodesic" (straight) motions of those objects through the spacetime.
https://www.space.com/classical-gravity.html
Note --- Einstein's poetic metaphor of warped space may be philosophical, but not scientific. It imagines empty space as-if it is a material substance, when in fact mathematical space is the absence of matter in between objects.

*5. Information Realism : Mathematical Reality
This abstract notion, called information realism is philosophical in character, but it has been associated with physics from its very inception. Most famously, information realism is a popular philosophical underpinning for digital physics.
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/ob ... y-to-mind/

*6. Information Reality :
The concrete things we perceive may be virtual reality, yet we have no choice but to act as-if it they are actually real. Although it is meta-physical, Information is not super-natural. Instead, it is the essence of Nature.
http://bothandblog4.enformationism.info/page18.html

*7. Enformationism :
A philosophical worldview or belief system grounded on the 20th century discovery that Information, rather than Matter, is the fundamental substance of everything in the universe. It is intended to be the 21st century successor to ancient Materialism. An Update from Bronze Age to Information Age. It's a Theory of Everything that covers, not just matter & energy, but also Life & Mind & Love.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html

THE MATERIAL WORLD IS A MATHEMATICAL MODEL IN YOUR MIND
Plato's Socrates held that the world of Forms is transcendent to our own world (the world of substances) and also is the essential basis of reality.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_forms
61bF4WoZU0L.jpg

To be an atheist, but not a materialist, is completely reasonable
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... ent/837885

Somewhere "a something", which is closer to the highest truths, can be unearthed, studied, understood and applied. — Bret Bernhoft

I too, am an Atheist -- or technically an Agnostic -- but due to my philosophical explorations of "something" like Plato/Aristotle's First Cause/Prime Mover, I am often labelled a woo-monger. As you implied, Atheism & Theism are typically viewed in terms of polar opposites, with no in between. But I find plenty of room in the middle ground for philosophical probing without falling into the trap of Tribal Faith or Sophistic Scientism.

Energy being physical is fairly well established. If you want to get into a more wonky question there is the matter of it information is physical (Landauer's Principle) and there remains some hot debate on that.
But, if information because essential for explaining cause in a way that people do not think is somehow an epistemic artifact, I imagine we'd see widespread acceptance of information as physical (it's already a majority opinion I would think). — Count Timothy von Icarus

This thread seems to have diverged into a debate on Physics (energy, matter) instead of Metaphysics (abstract concepts such as being, knowing, substance, cause, identity, time, and space). But the OP seems to be implying a metaphysical (philosophical) distinction : Theism postulates non-physical (metaphysical) causes, while Materialism denies anything non-physical. Yet even Materialists must accept the existence of causal Energy, even though scientists don't know what it is (ontology) -- only what it does (epistemology)*1.

My position on the OP is somewhere in between mundane Materialism and spooky Theism. And it's based on a "wonky" concept (the role of information in reality) that is fiercely challenged on this forum. It is definitely eccentric, in the sense that it is not aligned with the mainstream Materialism of modern Physics. That's because generic Information as Causation is on the cutting-edge of science, not in the dusty textbooks. For example, In computation, Energy is lost as Entropy only upon erasure of Information*2*3. As you implied : Information is physical in the same sense that Energy is physical.

I won't go into the abstruse details of the Information = Energy equation here. But I will note that, for those to whom Mind is just as real as Brain, the notion that Information = Energy + Relationship = Mind*4 may make sense. Of course, a materialist/chemist will find that assertion absurd. But a Physicalist, who deals mostly with Change (causation) instead of focusing on the inert Material substrate, may be quicker to grasp that invisible intangible Energy is the cause of all changes in Form : i.e. en-form-action. Which opens up a whole new range of possibilities for the sciences of Physics & Computation. And, perhaps novel ways to define Theism & Metaphysics.

*1. Physics of Energy :
Energy is defined as the “ability to do work, which is the ability to exert a force causing displacement of an object.” Despite this confusing definition, its meaning is very simple: energy is just the force that causes things to move. Energy is divided into two types: potential and kinetic.
https://ingeniumcanada.org/scitech/educ ... %20kinetic.
Note --- "Ability" is not a material thing, but merely the immaterial Potential for change. Kinetic energy is the causal process of change in a material substrate. What I call "en-form-action".

*2. INFORMATION IS PHYSICAL : Rolf Landauer,
Earlier centuries gave us clockwork models of the
universe. A similar, but more modern, orientation leads
to the position of Zuse and Fredkin that the universe is a
computer. Without going quite that far, I do suggest that
there is a strong two-way relationship between physics
and information handling
https://www.w2agz.com/Library/Limits%20 ... (1991).pdf

*3. Rolf Landauer . . . . Award in Quantum Computing :
This award recognizes recent outstanding contributions in quantum information science, especially using quantum effects to perform computational and information-management tasks that would be impossible or infeasible by purely classical means.
https://www.aps.org/programs/honors/pri ... bennet.cfm

*4. How is information related to energy in physics? :
Energy is the relationship between information regimes. That is, energy is manifested, at any level, between structures, processes and systems
https://physics.stackexchange.com/quest ... in-physics

I am not sure but I think the big divide between materials and the spiritualist is disagreement about the source of the energy that makes life possible. — Athena

Good Point! For all practical purposes, and within the here & now world, I am essentially an Atheist, but I prefer the more modest & philosophical label Agnostic. Even so, the physicalistic/materialistic Big Bang theory, was formulated with the unprovable assumption (axiom) that Energy & Natural Laws pre-existed the Bang.

So, my philosophical curiosity naturally wonders about the original Source of that all-important creative & animating power. I don't imagine the origin of the world as a biblical Genesis, but Plato/Aristotle's abstract notion of LOGOS & Prime Mover suits me for philosophical purposes. That gives me a point from which to reason about our temporary sojourn in a habitat suitable for matter-transcending living & thinking creatures.

Note --- Energy provided the push, and Laws limit the direction of this guided missile cosmos. And here we are, 14 billion earth-years later, trying to remember the birth moment of this thrill-ride of ups & downs, while plaintively asking WHY? So far, the Logical Laborer remains mum (punny)

Great question. Because that's not what the measurements indicate. Good science shows that these phenomena are part of the material world, but energetic in nature; immaterial.
What's really exciting about all of this, is that the immaterial aspects of this world are present, just waiting to be rediscovered. That is what entices me, as an individual. — Bret Bernhoft

Yes. Materialists, for doctrinal reasons, typically lump Energy into the same ontological category as Matter. Admittedly, Energy is essential to Physics & Chemistry --- and I mean that literally. The common definition of Energy is "ability", but I think "potential" is more accurate : Energy is the potential to cause change in matter. And Potential (not-yet-actual) is by definition, immaterial and unreal --- although its effects on matter are immanent. Energy is indeed a Phenomenon, in the sense of an interpretation of sensory impressions. But the thing being interpreted is itself a Noumenon.

↪180 Proof is offended by the notion of anything transcendent of temporal reality, or Immaterial, in the sense of unreal (or not yet actual). He points to Spinoza as an authority on the immanence of all substance. Yet Baruch imagined God or Nature as eternal. And that was centuries before modern science discovered --- to the surprise of Einstein --- that the material universe had a beginning --- not in time, but of Time. Spinoza's active "Natura naturans" would be what we now call Energy, and passive "natura naturata" would be Matter*1. Hence, assuming the Big Bang theory is as close to an accurate description of a scientific creation act as possible, then Energy would necessarily "transcend" the existence of the material world*2. However, since immaterial Energy is an attribute of Spinoza's Nature/God, it is not super-natural.

*1. Spinoza on Substance :
There are, Spinoza insists, two sides of Nature. First, there is the active, productive aspect of the universe—God and his attributes, from which all else follows. This is what Spinoza, employing the same terms he used in the Short Treatise, calls Natura naturans, “naturing Nature”. Strictly speaking, this is identical with God. The other aspect of the universe is that which is produced and sustained by the active aspect, Natura naturata, “natured Nature”.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/spinoza/
Note --- You could interpret "the productive aspect of the universe" as Energy. And "that which is produced and sustained" as Matter. In that case, Energy is the eternal power of "God/Nature" to produce & sustain the temporal stuff of the universe ("things which are in God").

*2. What is natura naturans and natura naturata for spinoza? :
Before going any further, I wish here to explain, what we should understand by nature viewed as active (natura natarans), and nature viewed as passive (natura naturata). I say to explain, or rather call attention to it, for I think that, from what has been said, it is sufficiently clear, that by nature viewed as active we should understand that which is in itself, and is conceived through itself, or those attributes of substance, which express eternal and infinite essence, in other words (Prop. xiv., Coroll. i., and Prop. xvii., Coroll. ii.) God, in so far as he is considered as a free cause.
By nature viewed as passive I understand all that which follows from the necessity of the nature of God, or of any of the attributes of God, that is, all the modes of the attributes of God, in so far as they are considered as things which are in God, and which without God cannot exist or be conceived.
https://www.reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/ ... urata_for/
Note --- Nature in the modern, non-Spinozan, sense is a "mode" of God. Likewise, Matter is a "mode" of Energy, in the sense of E=MC^2.

Thank you so much! I think our discussions would be much improved the the notions of logos and prime mover. And from there, even the gods were subject to logos. — Athena

Unfortunately, Logos and Prime Mover might be rejected by Materialists*1 as unprovable Transcendent beings or forces. For me that's not a problem, because they are merely hypothetical philosophical conjectures (thought experiments) or Axioms*2, with no need for empirical proof, only logical consistency. And, since they have no "favorite people", they provide no reason for slavish religious worship. They also have no need to "violate" natural laws, since they are essentially the LawMakers.


*1. Materialism :
Materialism is a form of philosophical monism which holds that matter is the fundamental substance in nature, and that all things, including mental states and consciousness, are results of material interactions of material things.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism
Note --- My disagreement with classical mechanical Materialism (Newton) is that Quantum physics has undermined its basic assumption of Atomism. My disagreement with philosophical Materialism is that it ignores or trivializes the immaterial power that allows homo sapiens to post on forums like this. Their rejection of any Transcendent forces, forces them to postulate such unprovable conjectures as infinite Multiverses or Many Worlds, which are themselves transcendent of the only knowable Real world. I don't necessarily disagree with Materialism in its rejection of ancient Spiritualism (ghosts, angels, body-hopping souls, etc).

*2. Is materialism an axiom or a metaphysical belief? :
https://www.quora.com/Is-materialism-an-axiom-or-a-