BothAndBlog Forum

The irreducibility of phenomenal experiences does not refute physicalism.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... icalism/p1

So the central argument against physicalism is the irreducibility of consciousness experiences to physical facts about our brains. ___Apustimelogist

The point I try to make is that if experiences are representations of things in the outside world then maybe they can never be reduced to brains. Yes, you can say - "well I have experiences and that is that" - but a physicalist could just say that his experiences are his brain. You would tell him he is wrong because experiences don't reduce to brains but if this irreducibility is something a physicalist expects or is consistent with physicalism then the argument wouldn't work. — Apustimelogist

I'm currently reading a book by Mathematician Charles Pinter, subtitled "How the Mind Creates the Features & Structure of All Things". And it's the creative aspect of the brain processing which produces mental experiences that are completely different from the physical source. I won't go into the details here, but basically the brain converts incoming isolated bits of information (e.g. photons) into integrated packets of meaning (e.g feelings, experiences, sensations) that are relevant only to the observer, and not inherent in the source.

Pinter uses the 20th century psychology Gestalt Theory of Perception to make his case. A Gestalt is simply a holistic collection of parts with a meaning that is not in the parts --- hence the experience or sensation cannot be reduced to the physical properties of the incoming photons or electrons that originated in an external object. In other words, the Representation (Map ; concept) is not the same as the Object (Terrain ; thing). The mental map excludes a lot of the physical properties, and artistically adds some interconnections & re-arrangements that are relevant only to the Perciever. The Whole is more than the sum of its parts.

The takeaway from this understanding of Perception as Interpretation, implies that the translated*1 subjective meaning (Qualia) cannot be reduced to the properties of the object (Quanta). Experiences are meaningful (significant) to the Subject, but meanings are metaphysical/immaterial, not physical/material. There's definitely a correlation between physics & metaphysics, but the creative causation (translation) by the brain produces novelty (a system), instead of merely reproducing the original. The brain is a machine for making meanings, but meaning is not the ding an sich.


*1. Translation often adds personal significance & feelings of the translator to the literal words of the author. The human brain is born with compartmentalized categories, which are later filled with personal experiences & feelings & prejudices. The image below is an example of the brain adding its own expectations to the incoming data. There is no triangle in the image.


THE TRIANGLE IS NOT OUT THERE, but added by the brain as a new meaning that is inferred, not seen
Gestalt-laws-ensure-that-the-viewer-perceives-a-white-triangle-despite-no-such-figure.png

Only I would resist the idea of meaning being immaterial. I'm sympathetic to view that kind of deflate the status of meaning as a thing. — Apustimelogist

Why resist the idea of "meaning" as an idea (ideal) instead of an object (real) --- an abstract symbol rather than the concrete thing symbolized? If Meaning was a material object we would be able to see & touch it. AFAIK, there is no Meaning apart from a conscious observer. Likewise, Consciousness is not a thing, but a process of constructing meanings relevant to the observer.

From my perspective, Meaning is the output (product) of mental processing (computation) , not in the sensory input (raw data), or the material cogs & conduits of a mechanical Brain. That's why immaterial meanings must be transformed back into material forms (data, spoken language, typographic words) in order to convey the immaterial meaning from one mind to another. Matter is the vehicle not the content of Meaning.

However, Materialists are still searching for the hiding place of ideas & feelings in the the gray matter and white matter of the brain. What they find though is simply electrical/chemical activity that is correlated with meaningful images & ideas. But, the researchers still must infer the metaphysical meaning that corresponds to the physical activity. They can't see or touch it, but must imagine the meaning associated with physical behavior. They show images of localized brain activity, but must provide labels to convey the meaning.

As the OP implied, Meaning is Noumenal (map), and not reducible to Phenomena (terrain). So, Meaning is not a Thing, but a mental representation of a thing : a symbol, analogy, metaphor. That perspective doesn't "deflate" the status of Meaning, it elevates meaning from mere "isness" to "meaningful" & "significant" to Me.


fnbot-14-00060-g001.jpg

Symbolic systems are among the oldest inventions of nature. Evolution could never have gotten off the ground without the molecular genetic system, which is a paradigm example of a symbolic scheme. The double helix is a symbolic structure, essentially an extended proposition, which contains the description of an organism’s entire body plan. — Pinter, Charles. Mind and the Cosmic Order (p. 150). Springer International Publishing. Kindle Edition.
He doesn't really develop the idea, but it converges well with biosemiotics. — Wayfarer

Yes, but as Pinter himself says on page 148 : "a symbol is a placeholder". So, we need to avoid confusing the material Symbol (reference ; pointer) with the meaning symbolized (referent). Some BS researchers seem to equate the brain terrain with the mind map. Semiotics is relevant to my own philosophical notion of Enformationism ; but as a science, it tends to equate Mind with Matter, and biological code (cypher) with the chemical carrier.

Is semiotics bullshit? :
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/7tSrFR5 ... s-bullshit

THE SIGN IS NOT THE MEANING
images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSOtbzMhsK6RgMD0zhM6gtu14F1rkpO5LgNFkv9VaxgLgMPn_f_TOqJyyCW8z1-LE8MOGY&usqp=CAU

I think what should be abandoned is the metaphysical assumption of some kind of dualism where over here sits physical things and over there sits mental things and they are totally separable. In that regard, the idea that matter generates consciousness is based on a faulty assumption. — Apustimelogist

I don't think Dualism is a "faulty assumption" for dealing with complex reality (Epistemology). But I can agree with your implicit criticism of the common "metaphysical assumption" of a Matter/Mind partition, imagined as the ultimate & final fact of reality (Ontology). That binary perspective is prevalent because it's just commonsense to view a material object (Brain) and its metaphysical function (Mind) as two separate classes of things. Those discrete conceptual categories are also where Science (matter ; mode) and Philosophy (mind ; essence) divide and conquer.

However, in my own personal Ontology, and from a Cosmic perspective, there is only one universal "Essence" (substance) in the world. I'm referring to Spinoza's Substance Monism*1, in which everything in the world is a part of a unitary infinite Ultimate Essence : Deus sive Natura (God or Nature). In my own cosmology though, I call that peak of the pyramid : BEING*2. He used Aristotle's concept of "Substance" in the sense of an Essence (uniform Platonic Form) from which all physical & metaphysical forms (particular things) emerge.

I call my personal worldview Enformationism, because modern science has discovered that everything in the world can be reduced down to Information*3, in the sense of the creative power to transform, which we commonly call Energy. To Enform is to transform from undefined Potential into definite Actual things. Get it? : Energy (causation) + Information (program or code) = EnFormAction. Instead of Spinoza's term "God" though, I tend to refer to that Single Source of enforming power as The Programmer or The Enformer.

Therefore, my philosophical Ontology is Monistic, but for the practical purposes of Science, it's convenient to think in terms of tangible Matter/Physics/Quanta (the modes of Being), and to leave the intangibles Mind/Essence/Qualia for impractical Philosophy to wrestle with. You can call that compromise : Dualism within Monism (i.e. Parts within the Whole).


*1. Substance Monism :
According to Spinoza, everything that exists is either a substance or a mode. A substance is something that needs nothing else in order to exist or be conceived. Substances are independent entities both conceptually and ontologically. A mode or property is something that needs a substance in order to exist, and cannot exist without a substance. . . . .
The most distinctive aspect of Spinoza’s system is his substance monism; that is, his claim that one infinite substance—God or Nature—is the only substance that exists.
https://iep.utm.edu/spinoz-m/

*2. BEING :
In my own theorizing there is one universal principle that subsumes all others, including Consciousness : essential Existence. Among those philosophical musings, I refer to the "unit of existence" with the absolute singular term "BEING" as contrasted with the plurality of contingent "beings" and things and properties. By BEING I mean the ultimate “ground of being”, which is simply the power to exist, and the power to create beings.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page10.html

*3. Information is :
*** Claude Shannon quantified Information not as useful ideas, but as a mathematical ratio between meaningful order (1) and meaningless disorder (0); between knowledge (1) and ignorance (0). So, that meaningful mind-stuff exists in the limbo-land of statistics, producing effects on reality while having no sensory physical properties. We know it exists ideally, only by detecting its effects in the real world. Physical Energy is the form of causal Information we are most familiar with.
*** 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.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page11.html

Intriguing! I have at times thought about conceptualizing reality in terms of information. I think I have quite a way to go before I can consider myself to have a precise well-thought out kind of manifesto about what I actually believe about reality or how I should view it. Still have to think out a lot of kinks. — Apustimelogist

I began to "conceptualize reality in terms of information" about 15 years ago, when a quantum physicist --- studying the material foundation of reality --- exclaimed that he had just realized "it's all information!". His, oh-by-the-way exclamation led me back to John A. Wheeler's 1989 "it from bit" postulation*1. What he meant by that cryptic quip is : every-thing (its ; material stuff) in the world can be reduced down to binary information (bits ; mind stuff). That equation of mind & matter would not go down well with committed Materialists though, because it opened the door to such spooky ideas as "mind over matter" (magic).

I don't see any reliable evidence of spooky magical powers in the world --- other than deception by distraction, by manipulating information --- but it is evident that the human mind has gained almost magical*2 control over the natural world by the application of Mind Power (the power of ideas)*3 in completely mundane sense. An idea begins as a bit of information in a mind (noumena), then is expressed in the material form of sounds & text (seeds), which then is trans-planted into other minds (memes), and eventually is transformed into action (energy), and finally into physical form (phenomena).

One way to "conceptualize reality" in terms of Information is to think about how the Big Bang created material & mental reality from nothing more than a Singularity (program code). The EnFormAction hypothesis*4 is my own "manifesto". It's an extrapolation from E=MC^2 ; to Causal Information ; to Teleological Evolution ; to the current state of reality that is changing faster than we can comprehend it. The Webb telescope is now allowing us to look back in time, to gain information about the beginning of Time itself. From top to bottom, reality is all about the creative power to enform*5 ; to transform reality into ideality.


*1. John Archibald Wheeler Postulates "It from Bit" :
"It from bit symbolizes the idea that every item of the physical world has at bottom — at a very deep bottom, in most instances — an immaterial source and explanation
https://historyofinformation.com/detail.php?id=5041

*2. Almost Magical :
Compared to natural processes prior to the emergence of the human Mind, and thence the formalization of information.
https://gnomon.enformationism.info/Imag ... 0Graph.jpg

*3. The Power of Ideas :
"Nothing is more powerful than an idea whose time has come." ___Victor Hugo, on Political Revolution
Note : Vlad Putin's motivating idea (irresistible force) of a re-unified Russian Empire has encountered a countervailing idea (immovable object) in the sovereign nation of Ukraine.

"Right now it's only a notion, but I think I can get the money to make it into a concept, and later turn it into an idea". ___Woody Allen

"Ideas are easy. Implementation is hard". ___Guy Kawasaki
Note : Information is easy to find, but hard to implement into novel forms.

*4. The EnFormAction Hypothesis :
Therefore, as a hypothesis, I accepted the axiom of a First Cause as a reasonable premise, and began to follow the dots through history. And since this new creation myth is grounded on our modern understanding of pluripotential Information, I use a lot of computer-related analogies and terms. Clearly, the Cosmos was not created as a perfect fait accompli, but as an ongoing process working toward consummation.
https://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page23.html

*5. What is Information? :
So, in answer to a request for a general definition, as it “pertains to inorganic (physical), organic (biological), and semantic types of information”, I have defined “Information” in the context of various real-world instances of ubiquitous enforming power.
https://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page16.html

"Information is neither matter nor energy, although it needs matter to be embodied and energy to be communicated" ___The Information Philosopher

“Information and causation are one and the same thing”
___Giulio Tononi , Phi

Cool stuff, but I think it goes too far. Enthusiasm for the subject doesn't pull the rabbit out of the hat, unfortunately. That is to say abstraction already needs the observer. Abstraction isn't the observer. If it is, then that has to be explained, and like "illusion" or "integration", it all becomes hidden dualisms of begging the question. — schopenhauer1

I think the point of the quote is that Abstraction is a function of the Observer's data-filtering belief-forming system. Hence, not so much a Dualism but merely different aspects of the same process : interpreting incoming sensory information. Reality is complicated, but perception automatically simplifies our sensory signals into parcels (e.g. Gestalts), in part by omitting unnecessary data*1; before it appears into consciousness. Observing is Interpreting.

This subtraction of unnecessary irrelevant data, and integration of relevant data into Concepts, is related to Don Hoffman's Theory of Perception*2. The Observer is separated (at arm's length) from the environment by his own built-in data-compression algorithms. The brain's programs (procedures) & memories (beliefs) are designed, not for absolute Truth, but for pragmatic Facts. Thus, the stripped-down mental model of reality is good enough to enhance the survival of living organisms.

The Abstract model (a belief) is an Idealized (unrealistic) & Integrated (holistic) representation of Reality, not a glimpse of Heaven or ding an sich. It's a Dualism only in the sense that a Map is not the Terrain. However, the question remains : how does a neural map become conscious knowledge? I have a monistic/holistic hypothesis, but it may not appeal to those committed to reductive methods for answering philosophical questions.

PS__ I just read two articles about Creative Emergence*3*4, in which novel structures (e.g. conscious Brain/Mind systems) emerge from the convoluted interactions of subatomic particles & forces. Maybe Perception/Conception is an example of subtractive Divergence, on top of additive Emergence. But that might require a new thread.


*1. Data compression is a reduction in the number of bits needed to represent data. Compressing data can save storage capacity, speed up file transfer and decrease costs for storage hardware and network bandwidth.
https://www.techtarget.com/searchstorag ... ompression

*2. Conscious Perception :
. . . . our perception of the world is not accurate. In reality, it is a simplified representation and projection of something more complex that our brains have created for us. He argues that our perceptions are optimized for survival and reproductive success (so-called fitness functions) rather than for providing an accurate depiction of reality.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbesbusi ... ff0ca52318

*3. Did physicists get the idea of “fundamental” wrong? :
there’s a difference between phenomena that are fundamental — like the motions and interactions of the indivisible, elementary quanta that compose our Universe — and phenomena that are emergent, arising solely from the interactions of large numbers of fundamental particles under a specific set of conditions.
https://bigthink.com/starts-with-a-bang ... tal-wrong/

*4. Novelty is Emergent :
How does the new come about? This is the fundamental question of creativity
https://emergentfutureslab.com/blog/sys ... e-creative

I actually think I more or less agree with a fair amount you talk about in the last two posts you make about information and the "arms-length" separation of observer, though maybe I would describe it in different language. I definitely do have a different perspective but there is definitely stuff I agree on, I think. — Apustimelogist

I understand that my discussions of the Mind vs Matter question may be difficult to follow, in part because I have no formal training in Philosophy, and partly because most of my knowledge of Information is derived from Quantum Physics instead of Shannon's mathematical theory of communication. Another hurdle in communicating my ideas about a Monistic theory of Mind/Matter is that I have been forced, by the complexity of the content, to coin neologisms (new language) that bundle contrasting concepts into single words : e.g. EnFormAction and Enformy.

The bottom line though, is that both physical Matter (phenomena) and metaphysical Mind (noumena) are derivatives from the pre-Big Bang essential causal Power to Enform (to create and to transform), that we now know scientifically as Energy. But, from my information-centric perspective, I call it EnFormAction or Enformy*1. Of course, religious-minded folks call it "God", or "Will of God". Philosophically, this notion is related to Plato's concept of an ideal realm of FORM, which is similar to Kant's hidden reality of ding an sich. It's also similar to Spinoza's & Aristotle's definition of essential Single Substance*2 as the First Cause of the Cosmos.

That hypothetical eternal pool of Potential is unitary (monistic), but everything Actual in the real world is pluralistic*3, beginning with a dualistic distinction between This & That; before & after, Self & Other. Dualism is exemplified in the first stage of cell division, when one thing becomes two, and two further divides into the variety of parts of a holistic organism*4. The human Observer sees the Cosmos as a Part trying to understand the Whole*5.


*1. Enformy :
In the Enformationism theory, Enformy is a hypothetical, holistic, metaphysical, natural trend or force, that counteracts Entropy & Randomness to produce complexity & progress. [ see post 63 for graph ]
1. I'm not aware of any "supernatural force" in the world. But my Enformationism theory postulates that there is a meta-physical force behind Time's Arrow and the positive progress of evolution. Just as Entropy is sometimes referred to as a "force" causing energy to dissipate (negative effect), Enformy is the antithesis, which causes energy to agglomerate (additive effect).
2. Of course, neither of those phenomena is a physical Force, or a direct Cause, in the usual sense. But the term "force" is applied to such holistic causes as a metaphor drawn from our experience with physics.
3. "Entropy" and "Enformy" are scientific/technical terms that are equivalent to the religious/moralistic terms "Evil" and "Good". So, while those forces are completely natural, the ultimate source of the power behind them may be supernatural, in the sense that the First Cause logically existed before the Big Bang.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html

*2. Aristotle’s “Substance" :
In one sense, substances are the fundamental subjects; in another sense, a substance is the “cause of being” of a substance in the first sense. A substance in the second sense is the essence (the “what it is to be”), the form (morphê or eidos), of a substance in the first sense.
https://faculty.washington.edu/smcohen/ ... ceNote.pdf

*3. What is the philosophy of the one and many? :
The problem of finding the one thing that lies behind all things in the universe is called the problem of the one and the many. Basically stated, the problem of the one and the many begins from the assumption that the universe is one thing. Because it is one thing, there must be one, unifying aspect behind everything.
https://www.faculty.umb.edu/gary_zabel/ ... NEMANY.HTM

*4. Cell Division Duality within Unity :
Out of Unity comes Plurality. But the potential for multiplication is inherent in the One.
Mitosis.png

*5. Physics vs Philosophy :
Reductionism vs Holism ; Part vs Whole ; Mechanism vs System
flammarion_engraving_custom-741e49ab7cc68a364f290fd15634c3c1f2ee30e5.jpg

Thus information can process with no "what it's likeness" to it. It is just behavior all the way down. And wherever there is "what it's likeness" happening, "what" then is that as opposed to the other behavior that was going on? Then you are back to a dualism of some sort of mental space that pops out of physical space which is basically the question all over again. — schopenhauer1

That's an interesting way to phrase the "hard problem" of "what it's likeness". A computer can mechanically process information without bothering with mentally processing the mathematical data into personal (self relevant) meanings. Brainy Animals seem to be able to compute likeness (analogies) to some degree (gestures, behaviors), but not to the point of intentionally communicating meanings from mind to mind in the concise packages of intention we call "words".

Likewise, the whole universe can be imagined as a computer*1 : mechanically processing mathematical information into the physics that scientists study. But, until homo sapiens eventually became Self-Conscious, there was no "what it's likeness" as postulated by Nagel. "Likeness" is the ability to make analogies & metaphors to represent experienced reality in abstract concepts. Animals seem to know what they are doing, but are not able to articulately enform other minds with that personal knowledge. The abstractions we call "words" require analytical abilities that allow precise control of conveyed meaning --- including more than just blunt emotions (danger!), but sharp reasons (look behind you, there's a monkey eagle!).

So, the "hard problem" of Consciousness --- to know that you know, and to let someone else know --- is only a problem for humans, who strongly desire to communicate subjective ideas & feelings to other minds*2, in a manner that is not too vague (gestures), and can be objectively tested (philosophy). After a football game, the on-the-field reporter points a microphone at the winning athlete, and asks "what is it like?". An animal answer would be, "it feels good, you know". No, I don't know! I don't have endorphins stimulating my body. Hence, the Hard Problem.

PS___For humans, the dualism of Consciousness is Self vs Other, not necessarily Natural vs Supernatural, as typically argued.


*1. Universe is a Computer :
This leads to the extraordinary possibility that our entire Universe might in fact be a computer simulation. The idea is not that new. In 1989, the legendary physicist, John Archibald Wheeler, suggested that the Universe is fundamentally mathematical and it can be seen as emerging from information.
https://www.sciencealert.com/expert-pro ... er-program


*2. problem of other minds, in philosophy, the problem of justifying the commonsensical belief that others besides oneself possess minds and are capable of thinking or feeling somewhat as one does oneself.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/problem-of-other-minds