BothAndBlog Forum

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... because/p1

Subjective experience of consciousness, or qualia, seems to be completely out of reach to be explained by any kind of motion, mechanics, or dynamics. — Zelebg

The problem of Consciousness is "hard" only for those who think in materialistic terms of "motion, mechanics, or dynamics". If instead, we think of Causation, Relationships, and Systems, we can trace the evolution of Qualia back to its origins in the Big Bang -- not in the sense of a physical explosion, but of metaphysical Creation. Consciousness is indeed "amenable to scientific study". But not to materialistic study.

Ironically, the physical account of the Big Bang sounds like an act of magic : "Poof, a universe from nothing!" But it's what the magician does before the "Voila!" that makes all the difference. "Vive la difference!" What I'm talking about is immaterial Information/Enformation/Causation.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... because/p2

God did it! What a satisfying answer, let us pretend that explains everything about us and our world, so we are only left to explain it all over again for the gods and their worlds. Why make the problem worse for no reason at all? — Zelebg

Do you prefer the Magic Bang answer? Is that satisfying to you? Apparently, it's not for many astronomers, who postulate a hypothetical Multiverse as a "turtles all the way down" alternative to the mathematical creation event. How is that better than a One Big Turtle solution? Does an infinity of invisible universes satisfy your curiosity about an origin theory that most scientists at first rejected as a religious explanation?.

My thesis does not try to explain G*D, but merely takes the First Cause hypothesis as a reasonable axiom. After that assumption, it's all a process of Enformation (applied mathematics). My reason for pursuing that hypothesis is because all materialistic explanations ignore Qualia, which is of more significance to living humans than dead Matter and aimless Energy.

At least my hypothetical "G*D" creates via gradual evolution and physics, not by instantly inflating space faster than the speed of light. And the attribution of Enformation and Entention to the First Cause explains the existence of Mind & Consciousness much better than mindless Materialism. Besides, which is a faith-based explanation : "Imaginary God did it!", or "Imaginary Multiverse did it!" Which is "lunatic fringe" : a Mother-verse, or Eternal Mind? *1


*1 " a dynamic evolving space that once had some sort of childhood --- and perhaps some sort of birth about 14 billion years ago."
"Inflation is like a great magic show --- my gut reaction is : this can't possibly obey the laws of physics!"
"Q. What caused our Big Bang?
A. There's no explanation --- the equations simply assume it happened.
Q. How could an infinite space get created in a finite time?
A. There's no explanation --- the equations simply assume that as soon as there was any space at all, it was infinite in size."
"where multiverses have gone from having lunatic fringe status to being discussed openly at physics conferences. . ."
Max Tegmark, physicist, cosmologist
Our Mathematical Universe : My Quest For the Ultimate Nature of Reality

Note: Tegmark's Mathematical Universe is equivalent to my Enformationism, except that I use G*D as a First Cause metaphor instead of a "Level 4 Multiverse".

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... because/p2

It absolutely does address the hard problem of consciousness. The solution is called "biperspectivism". It as quite neat. — Pantagruel

I'm familiar with Laszlo , but not with that abstruse theory. However, the term sounds like Cartesian Dualism to me. His solution was "neat", in that it got the church off his back, by arbitrarily defining Non-Overlapping Magisteria. And materialistic Science has flourished for centuries since cutting itself off from Philosophy and Metaphysics. But since the Quantum revolution in Science, the overlap between Mind & Matter has become ever harder to ignore. Anyway, I'll check it out, because the notion of Complementarity is essential to my own abstruse thesis.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... because/p3

Your thesis explains nothing, it postulates another question as an answer. And questions are not answers, you know? — Zelebg

No. My thesis takes a stand, and like math, reasons answers from axioms. The Multiverse theory is likewise a non-answer, but it allows physicists to continue thinking in materialistic terms. Which led them to the Big Bang conundrum in the first place.

The multiverse thesis explains nothing; it just kicks the ball further down the road. At least my approach allows me to think outside the box of classical cause & effect physics, and to apply the implications of quantum queerness to Big Questions.

I think it springs from naturally emergentist assumptions. Namely that the universe started out unconscious, and then, as a result of non-conscious stuff doing things, consciousness arises. — bert1

Unfortunately, some people interpret Emergence Theory as a technical-sounding term for Magic. But it's not a perceptual gap, obscured by smoke & mirrors & black capes. Instead, Emergence is simply a conceptual phenomenon.

In my thesis, the universe began as non-conscious creative Energy, or as I call it, EnFormAction : the power to enform. Then via a long gradual process of Phase Transformations (emergences) raw Information (mathematics) was developed into the complex chemistry of Life (animation), and thence into the compounded complexities of Mind (intention). The Potential for Consciousness was there all along, but only at the tipping-point was it actualized, or crystallized, into the power to know. The link below is a brief overview of Evolution via EnFormAction. No magic; just continual incremental changes.


Emergence : a continuous process that appears to be sudden only because the mind reaches a tipping-point of understanding between an old meaning and a new meaning, causing a phase-change from one logical category to another.

The EnFormAction Hypothesis : http://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page23.html

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... ent/355308

You keep making empty statements. How does that have anything to do with this thread and what I said in the opening post? — Zelebg

The statements you refer to are empty (meaningless) to you, because you don't understand the unconventional worldview that the assertions are derived from. That's why I provide links for those who are interested enough to investigate a novel way of looking at the world.

In the OP, you stated, as-if a matter of fact, that "At the bottom of it all is just plain mechanics, . . ." My replies have denied that assertion, and offered an alternative to the Mechanical worldview of Classical Materialism. I suppose you think the opposite of Materialism is Spiritualism. But my BothAnd philosophy accepts both the Materialism (Quanta) of Science, and the Spiritualism (Qualia) of Religion, while noting that they each exclude or ignore the other side of reality. When you can see the world as a whole, the Hard Problem of Consciousness vanishes as an illusion.


PS__Unfortunately, my worldview has some features in common with New Age philosophy. Which is why I spend of lot of verbiage to distance myself from the NA merging of science and magic. Whatever seems like supernatural magic is actually either obfuscation or natural phase changes.

Note : Richard Feynman quipped "If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics." I believe that's because Quantum Mechanics is not mechanical at all, it's emergent. Physicist Carlo Rovelli labeled his new book Reality Is Not What It Seems. . . . from the conventional classical scientific perspective.

BothAnd Principle : http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page10.html

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... because/p6

It's a pseudo-materialist solution, in my view. It says there must be some extra, magical ingredient in everything which is 'consciousness' in some latent or implicit form, which then manifests in living beings in particular. — Wayfarer

Panpsychism, which assumes that every particle in the cosmos is Conscious, does make it sound like there is some "magical ingredient" in addition to the material substance. That's why my thesis avoids using the misleading terms "psyche" and "consciousness". Not because they are inherently wrong, but they can be misinterpreted as implying that particles are conscious in the same way humans are. But atoms mechanically absorb & emit energy, and change physically, without forming any abstract images (imagination). Instead, I propose a view that could be called Pan-Informationism.

In the 21st century, we are familiar with computers that process mathematical (immaterial) information, but are not perceived as conscious, though some can fake it (Chinese Room thought experiment). So, "Information" per se, does not necessarily imply Qualia : the "what it's like" of conscious conception. Ironically, the original meaning of "Information" referred to the metaphysical quality of Knowledge (awareness). But, we now know that it can also refer to physical states and mechanical processes of matter/energy (electrical logic gates in computers).

So, I take that dual definition of "Information" literally, and infer that Qualia only emerged from Quanta after 14 billion years, not by magic, but by evolution. The potential for awareness was inherent in Energy (EnFormAction) from the beginning. And Emergence is not an act of magic, but of evolution (turning the page to reveal something that was there all along). Thus, your assessment is correct that " 'consciousness' in some latent or implicit form, which then manifests in living beings in particular." But the imputation of "magic" is unnecessary, because Emergence of new properties is a function of Whole Systems, that is completely natural, but immaterial. By that I mean, qualitative properties exist only in subjective Consciousness, not in objective Matter. Hence, all Magic is subjective.


Emergence : emergence occurs when an entity is observed to have properties its parts do not have on their own. These properties or behaviors emerge only when the parts interact in a wider whole.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence

Emergence : Emergence is a continuous process that appears to be sudden only because the mind reaches a tipping-point of understanding between an old meaning and a new meaning, causing a phase-change from one logical category to another.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html

Qualia : the internal and subjective component of sense perceptions, arising from stimulation of the senses by phenomena.

Dualistic Information : The act of enforming (energy) and the product (material form). Both verb and noun.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... ent/355764

Why can't all these emergences happen in the dark? Why is consciousness a necessary consequence of all this? — bert1

Emergence is in the mind of the beholder. So no Mind, no illusion of sudden change. A magician could try to make his assistant disappear without using a cape, but then the trap door that's usually hidden in the dark would be apparent, and nobody would be fooled. Emergence only seems like magic, because the audience is figuratively "in the dark".

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... ent/355764

Particles are conscious in exactly the same way humans are. — bert1

How do you know this? I can only infer that other humans are conscious because they behave the same way as I do in similar situations. Do particles behave like humans? Do they show signs of fear as a strange energetic particle approaches? Do they love their entangled partners? Is your little toe conscious in "exactly the same way" as you are?

Consciousness is an evolutionary advantage for living creatures, but how would it be adaptive for atoms and billiard balls? My worldview makes a functional distinction between raw Information and highly evolved Consciousness.

But there is no such information encoded in the vast majority of matter and energy found throughout the cosmos. — Wayfarer

According to the Wiki definition below, mathematics is not a physical thing, but simply "knowledge", "number", "structure", "geometry". All of these are forms of generic Information. So wherever you find mathematical "structures" you have Information.

My first insight into the essential role of information in the living and non-living world came from a surprising assertion by a quantum physicist years ago : "a quantum particle is nothing but Information". By that he meant, all we can observe is mathematical "position and velocity", but not at the same time (uncertainty). All other properties are inferred from that basic Information. My own definition of multi-function Information is also linked below.

Mathematics : (from Greek μάθημα máthēma, "knowledge, study, learning") includes the study of such topics as quantity (number theory), structure (algebra), space (geometry), and change (mathematical analysis). ...

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. . . .
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page11.html