What is metaphysics? Yet again.
For a minute, let’s discuss what I want metaphysics to be, but which it probably isn’t. At least not entirely – I want it to be the set of rules, assumptions we agree on to allow discussion, reason, to proceed, e.g. there is a knowable external, objective reality; truth represents a correspondence between external reality and some representation of it; it’s turtles all the way down; the Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao. Ha! — T Clark
There are few things in life that are exactly what we want them to be. So Philosophers, unlike Scientists, tend to adapt the Self to the Situation (Ethics), instead of changing the world to better suit the human body (Physics).
It would be nice if we could all agree on a "set of rules" for discussing metaphysical questions. That would at least put philosophy on a stable foundation, like the "show-me" empiricism of Science. And Francis Bacon probably devised his Method of Inference with that in mind. But, to date, the best we've been able to do is to quantify the uncertainty of our educated guesses. Since practical physical science deals with real things, at least we can add to the statistical certainty of our inferences by repeating experiments, in order to weed-out exceptions to the general rule. But theoretical Metaphysical Science deals with Ideal concepts that merely represent crude approximations of reality (*1 icons).
Unfortunately, Post-Enlightenment Science staked a claim on all empirically verifiable questions (just the facts, no feelings *2), and left-over for Philosophy only the perennial probability questions that have more-or-less-likely answers. Science greedily hoarded all the objective facts under its purview, and let naive philosophers argue endlessly about subjective opinions. Hence, feckless philosophers can only hope to get Closer-To-Truth, by following Aristotle's logical rules for Induction.
However, some Philosophers, Theologians, and a few Scientists don't even agree that there is a "knowable external reality" for our concepts to correspond to. In that case, there's no benefit to logical argument. So only power rules. And Ecclesiastical Courts of Inquisition take the place of experimentation for ruling out error. So the only humane alternative is to have Democratic Courts of Inquiry like The Philosophy Forum, limited only by Logic and respect for civilized discourse.
That said, we are still faced with agreeing on a definition of whatever it is we are disagreeing about. Which is even more difficult, if we can't even agree on what divisive topics fall under the umbrella of Metaphysics. Some dismiss the very idea of non-physics as non-sense, and refuse to even engage in dialog. And others dismiss physics as illusions of greedy minds. So, that's why I went back to Aristotle, to discover what topics he excluded from his book of Physics, and which he included in the second volume "After-Physics". The substance of volume II later became known to Medieval Christians as the "Meta-Physics", and to Enlightenment Scientists as "non-stuff" and "non-sense".
In Volume I, he defined what today we would call the Elements (Matter) and the Principles (Laws) of Physics, illustrated with specific instances. Then, in the Meta-Physics, he turned to the various ideas that humans have postulated, to explain the mysteries of the Real World. Those ideas are not themselves found in Reality, but in human imagination. Hence, we call them "Ideal". And even pragmatic Aristotle adopted Plato's notion of Ideal "Forms" (ideal patterns for real things) in his explanations. And that non-physical concept is also at the core of my own worldview, based on the Reality and Ideality of what we now call "In-form-ation".
Meta-physics :
The branch of philosophy that examines the nature of reality, including the relationship between mind and matter, substance and attribute, fact and value.
1. Often dismissed by materialists as idle speculation on topics not amenable to empirical proof.
2. Aristotle divided his treatise on science into two parts. The world as-known-via-the-senses was labeled “physics” - what we call "Science" today. And the world as-known-by-the-mind, by reason, was labeled “metaphysics” - what we now call "Philosophy" .
3. Plato called the unseen world that hides behind the physical façade: “Ideal” as opposed to Real. For him, Ideal “forms” (concepts) were prior-to the Real “substance” (matter).
4. Physics refers to the things we perceive with the eye of the body. Meta-physics refers to the things we conceive with the eye of the mind. Meta-physics includes the properties, and qualities, and functions that make a thing what it is. Matter is just the clay from which a thing is made. Meta-physics is the design (form, purpose); physics is the product (shape, action). The act of creation brings an ideal design into actual existence. The design concept is the “formal” cause of the thing designed.
5. I use a hyphen in the spelling to indicate that I am not talking about Ghosts and Magic, but about Ontology (science of being).
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page14.html
PS___That definition of the disputatious term implies that Philosophers have no business arguing by the rules of Physics, instead of the applicable rules of Reason.
*1 Do We See Icons or Reality? :
https://social-epistemology.com/2019/12 ... an-martin/
*2 Facts vs Opinions :
In the 1950's TV police drama, Dragnet, dour detective Joe Friday --- whenever a witness began to stray from observations to insert personal impressions --- would shush them with "just the facts ma'am".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragnet_(1951_TV_series)
TPF : Metaphysics Again
Re: TPF : Metaphysics Again
What is metaphysics? Yet again.
There is an objective reality independent of human thought.
Alternatively, existence is inseparable from human interaction.
Physical laws that apply now have always applied and will always apply everywhere.
There is no absolute point of view or scale.
The universe has a living essence, a personality, which some people call God. — T Clark
Those are examples of ideas & opinions, which are by definition : Meta-Physical. But are they "rules" or "laws" governing subjective reality? That's what I thought you meant.
There is an objective reality independent of human thought.
Alternatively, existence is inseparable from human interaction.
Physical laws that apply now have always applied and will always apply everywhere.
There is no absolute point of view or scale.
The universe has a living essence, a personality, which some people call God. — T Clark
Those are examples of ideas & opinions, which are by definition : Meta-Physical. But are they "rules" or "laws" governing subjective reality? That's what I thought you meant.
Re: TPF : Metaphysics Again
Ideas and opinions are not "by definition" metaphysical. — T Clark
Of course, ideas & opinions have a physical substrate, but the neurons themselves are meaningless. So, my comment was directed at the subjective meaning, not the objective container. If ideas were physical, mind-reading might be as simple as an MRI readout, or drinking a brain cocktail. Therefore, by my definition (see below), Ideas are literally non-physical. Brain is an information processor, but Mind is the meaningful output.
PS__I just read an article about Arc proteins in the human brain, which are descendants of ancient viruses, and are essential for retention of long-term memories, even though the physical proteins are destroyed after a short "life-cycle". Somehow the memories are passed along to the next generation of Arc protein. Just as viruses are not alive, technically, these lumps of protoplasm are not ideas or memories --- but merely temporary containers for bits of information.
https://getpocket.com/explore/item/all- ... ket-newtab
Substrate : an underlying substance or layer. That which supports something.
Meta-physics :
The branch of philosophy that examines the nature of reality, including the relationship between mind and matter, substance and attribute, fact and value.
1. Often dismissed by materialists as idle speculation on topics not amenable to empirical proof.
2. Aristotle divided his treatise on science into two parts. The world as-known-via-the-senses was labeled “physics” - what we call "Science" today. And the world as-known-by-the-mind, by reason, was labeled “metaphysics” - what we now call "Philosophy" .
3. Plato called the unseen world that hides behind the physical façade: “Ideal” as opposed to Real. For him, Ideal “forms” (concepts) were prior-to the Real “substance” (matter).
4. Physics refers to the things we perceive with the eye of the body. Meta-physics refers to the things we conceive with the eye of the mind. Meta-physics includes the properties, and qualities, and functions that make a thing what it is. Matter is just the clay from which a thing is made. Meta-physics is the design (form, purpose); physics is the product (shape, action). The act of creation brings an ideal design into actual existence. The design concept is the “formal” cause of the thing designed.
5. I use a hyphen in the spelling to indicate that I am not talking about Ghosts and Magic, but about Ontology (science of being).
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page14.html
IS THIS WHAT A MEMORY LOOKS LIKE ?
https://virtuul.com/news/how-viruses-ma ... man-brain/
https://i2y5h4d3.stackpathcdn.com/wp-co ... 1280-1.jpg
Of course, ideas & opinions have a physical substrate, but the neurons themselves are meaningless. So, my comment was directed at the subjective meaning, not the objective container. If ideas were physical, mind-reading might be as simple as an MRI readout, or drinking a brain cocktail. Therefore, by my definition (see below), Ideas are literally non-physical. Brain is an information processor, but Mind is the meaningful output.
PS__I just read an article about Arc proteins in the human brain, which are descendants of ancient viruses, and are essential for retention of long-term memories, even though the physical proteins are destroyed after a short "life-cycle". Somehow the memories are passed along to the next generation of Arc protein. Just as viruses are not alive, technically, these lumps of protoplasm are not ideas or memories --- but merely temporary containers for bits of information.
https://getpocket.com/explore/item/all- ... ket-newtab
Substrate : an underlying substance or layer. That which supports something.
Meta-physics :
The branch of philosophy that examines the nature of reality, including the relationship between mind and matter, substance and attribute, fact and value.
1. Often dismissed by materialists as idle speculation on topics not amenable to empirical proof.
2. Aristotle divided his treatise on science into two parts. The world as-known-via-the-senses was labeled “physics” - what we call "Science" today. And the world as-known-by-the-mind, by reason, was labeled “metaphysics” - what we now call "Philosophy" .
3. Plato called the unseen world that hides behind the physical façade: “Ideal” as opposed to Real. For him, Ideal “forms” (concepts) were prior-to the Real “substance” (matter).
4. Physics refers to the things we perceive with the eye of the body. Meta-physics refers to the things we conceive with the eye of the mind. Meta-physics includes the properties, and qualities, and functions that make a thing what it is. Matter is just the clay from which a thing is made. Meta-physics is the design (form, purpose); physics is the product (shape, action). The act of creation brings an ideal design into actual existence. The design concept is the “formal” cause of the thing designed.
5. I use a hyphen in the spelling to indicate that I am not talking about Ghosts and Magic, but about Ontology (science of being).
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page14.html
IS THIS WHAT A MEMORY LOOKS LIKE ?
https://virtuul.com/news/how-viruses-ma ... man-brain/
https://i2y5h4d3.stackpathcdn.com/wp-co ... 1280-1.jpg
Re: TPF : Metaphysics Again
I don't believe your understanding that all mental phenomena are considered metaphysical is consistent with any generally accepted definition of the word. — T Clark
I agree. That's why I went back (meta-), beyond medieval theologians, to see what Aristotle was talking about in his second volume. The first volume, Physics, was about physical things (Quanta ; Science), but the second volume, "Metaphysics", was about non-physical concepts (Qualia ; Philosophy), such as abstractions, wisdom, ideas, meanings, attitudes, relationships, primary causes, etc . . .
Yes, I know Aristotle didn't use that term, but when spelled with a hyphen, "Meta-Physics" denotes the practical distinction between material Science and mental Philosophy : that which is beyond the scope of physical examination, but is amenable to rational scrutiny. So, that's how I derived a unique non-dictionary definition of "Meta-Physics" for my Enformationism thesis
What is metaphysics according to Aristotle? "
Summary Metaphysics. What is known to us as metaphysics is what Aristotle called "first philosophy." Metaphysics involves a study of the universal principles of being, the abstract qualities of existence itself.
https://www.sparknotes.com/biography/ar ... /section7/
I agree. That's why I went back (meta-), beyond medieval theologians, to see what Aristotle was talking about in his second volume. The first volume, Physics, was about physical things (Quanta ; Science), but the second volume, "Metaphysics", was about non-physical concepts (Qualia ; Philosophy), such as abstractions, wisdom, ideas, meanings, attitudes, relationships, primary causes, etc . . .
Yes, I know Aristotle didn't use that term, but when spelled with a hyphen, "Meta-Physics" denotes the practical distinction between material Science and mental Philosophy : that which is beyond the scope of physical examination, but is amenable to rational scrutiny. So, that's how I derived a unique non-dictionary definition of "Meta-Physics" for my Enformationism thesis
What is metaphysics according to Aristotle? "
Summary Metaphysics. What is known to us as metaphysics is what Aristotle called "first philosophy." Metaphysics involves a study of the universal principles of being, the abstract qualities of existence itself.
https://www.sparknotes.com/biography/ar ... /section7/
Re: TPF : Metaphysics Again
I think you and I have taken this as far as we can for now. — T Clark
I'm sorry that you are frustrated by the lack of progress on this perennial philosophical stalemate. But, this topic is labeled "what is metaphysics. yet again". So, I think it's essential that we at least agree on a clear distinction between "Physics" and "Metaphysics". Otherwise, we'll never find any common ground for a rational discussion. And "physical" versus "mental" seems to be the closest to a black & white dichotomy. Of course, in philosophy, the setup is seldom that simple. But, if we can begin there, perhaps we can chip away at any other obstacles to mutual understanding.
I just read an article in Philosophy Now magazine, reviewing a book about four "linguistic" philosophers, including Wittgenstein and Heidegger. The reviewer said that they had one thing in common : "the belief that mistaken assumptions about language are the wellsprings of error in philosophy". And I think most dictionary definitions of the term "Metaphysics" mainly reflect medieval Christian theologian usage of that word --- not Aristotle's original intention for his "first philosophy". That's why I contend that most dictionaries simply repeat those "mistaken assumptions" derived from blending Greek philosophy with Christian theology.
The article goes on to quote Heidegger : "we cannot he argues, reduce philosophy's biggest question, 'Why is there something rather than nothing?" to any system of knowledge, because it is a question that informs every such question". Note the word "informs". Does it refer to a physical phase change. or to a non-physical transfer of Meaning rather than Matter? That is the distinction underlying my personal definition of "Meta-Physics". Although I like the hyphenated term, for it's symmetrical metaphorical implications, I also sometimes substitute "Non-Physics" in order to avoid the theological baggage of "metaphysics". Do you accept that there are non-physical aspects of the world? If not, this thread will be at an impasse.
I harp on the not-physical implications of "Meta-Physics" in order to distinguish a Philosophical concept from a Scientific topic. Empirical Scientists don't usually concern themselves with abstract concepts, such as Being and Ontology. But posters on this forum often try to place "metaphysics" under the umbrella of physical science, in order to avoid its spiritual implications. Which is why I point-out the second dictionary definition : "abstract theory with no basis in reality." ___Oxford. Can we simply agree that "abstractions" are not Real, but Ideal --- existing only in abstract Minds instead of concrete Brains?
Abstract and concrete :
In metaphysics, the distinction between abstract and concrete refers to a divide between two types of entities. Many philosophers hold that this difference has fundamental metaphysical significance.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstract_and_concrete
https://lah.elearningontario.ca/CMS/pub ... mbnail.jpg
I'm sorry that you are frustrated by the lack of progress on this perennial philosophical stalemate. But, this topic is labeled "what is metaphysics. yet again". So, I think it's essential that we at least agree on a clear distinction between "Physics" and "Metaphysics". Otherwise, we'll never find any common ground for a rational discussion. And "physical" versus "mental" seems to be the closest to a black & white dichotomy. Of course, in philosophy, the setup is seldom that simple. But, if we can begin there, perhaps we can chip away at any other obstacles to mutual understanding.
I just read an article in Philosophy Now magazine, reviewing a book about four "linguistic" philosophers, including Wittgenstein and Heidegger. The reviewer said that they had one thing in common : "the belief that mistaken assumptions about language are the wellsprings of error in philosophy". And I think most dictionary definitions of the term "Metaphysics" mainly reflect medieval Christian theologian usage of that word --- not Aristotle's original intention for his "first philosophy". That's why I contend that most dictionaries simply repeat those "mistaken assumptions" derived from blending Greek philosophy with Christian theology.
The article goes on to quote Heidegger : "we cannot he argues, reduce philosophy's biggest question, 'Why is there something rather than nothing?" to any system of knowledge, because it is a question that informs every such question". Note the word "informs". Does it refer to a physical phase change. or to a non-physical transfer of Meaning rather than Matter? That is the distinction underlying my personal definition of "Meta-Physics". Although I like the hyphenated term, for it's symmetrical metaphorical implications, I also sometimes substitute "Non-Physics" in order to avoid the theological baggage of "metaphysics". Do you accept that there are non-physical aspects of the world? If not, this thread will be at an impasse.
I harp on the not-physical implications of "Meta-Physics" in order to distinguish a Philosophical concept from a Scientific topic. Empirical Scientists don't usually concern themselves with abstract concepts, such as Being and Ontology. But posters on this forum often try to place "metaphysics" under the umbrella of physical science, in order to avoid its spiritual implications. Which is why I point-out the second dictionary definition : "abstract theory with no basis in reality." ___Oxford. Can we simply agree that "abstractions" are not Real, but Ideal --- existing only in abstract Minds instead of concrete Brains?
Abstract and concrete :
In metaphysics, the distinction between abstract and concrete refers to a divide between two types of entities. Many philosophers hold that this difference has fundamental metaphysical significance.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstract_and_concrete
https://lah.elearningontario.ca/CMS/pub ... mbnail.jpg
Re: TPF : Metaphysics Again
I'm not frustrated, I just think your understanding and use of the word "metaphysics" is too different from mine for us to have a fruitful discussion now. — T Clark
Yes. But such misunderstandings are the fodder for Philosophy. Only in Politics would it lead to retreat or attack.
That's why I suggested that we switch to some alternative words, such as "non-physical". Does a distinction between Physical and Non-physical compute in your Reality? Or do you lump Qualities and Properties together under the heading of Physical? Are such notions Natural or Supernatural (or Artificial) ; are they Real or Ideal, or what? What synonyms of Metaphysical would you prefer?
PS___See the post by Nickolasgaspar above
Yes. But such misunderstandings are the fodder for Philosophy. Only in Politics would it lead to retreat or attack.
That's why I suggested that we switch to some alternative words, such as "non-physical". Does a distinction between Physical and Non-physical compute in your Reality? Or do you lump Qualities and Properties together under the heading of Physical? Are such notions Natural or Supernatural (or Artificial) ; are they Real or Ideal, or what? What synonyms of Metaphysical would you prefer?
PS___See the post by Nickolasgaspar above
Re: TPF : Metaphysics Again
No it doesn't mean "outside physics".
That would be the term "υπερφυσικός" or supernatural (beyond nature). — Nickolasgaspar
On this forum, I've been struggling to separate "Metaphysics" from its "Supernatural" heritage in Western Religion. That's why I have suggested going back beyond (meta-) Christian Theology to see what non-religious Aristotle was actually talking about. As you noted, it certainly wasn't about anything supernatural or spooky, but about making a philosophical distinction between Qualia & Quanta, between Potential & Actual, and betwixt Cause & Effect. Unfortunately, to this day we still portray Mind metaphorically as a Brain, which leads some to think that only Matter matters for thinking.
His metaphysical category could be interpreted as "more comprehensive" or even "transcendent", in the sense that he thought of Philosophy as going "beyond" the Space-Time & Thermodynamic boundary of Physics into the realm of Mind & Ideas, that are only limited by Logical laws. Thus, adding Philosophical science to Physical science. Aristotle even tried to fit Plato's ideal Forms into physical Shapes, by insisting that Forms do not exist independently of Things.
And that is equivalent to the notion -- common among Information scientists -- that what we now call "Information", is physical, in the sense of embodied ideas. But, in my holistic view, Information is both Physical (effect) and Meta-Physical (cause). That's a delicate distinction, but it could clear-up millennia of misunderstanding in Philosophy and Science.
Meta- :
Original Greek meaning — Meta (from the Greek μετά, meta, meaning "after" or "beyond") is a prefix meaning "more comprehensive" or "transcending."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meta
Potential :
Aristotle describes potentiality and actuality, or potency and action, as one of several distinctions between things that exist or do not exist. In a sense, a thing that exists potentially does not exist, but the potential does exist. .
Note -- even physical science finds the meta-physical notion of not-yet-real Potential to be useful in the Real world. For example, the Voltage of a battery is nothing-but Static Potential, until it is actualized into Active Amperage. We can't see or touch meta-physical Potential with our senses, but we can imagine it with our minds.
MIND and/or MATTER?
EITHER / OR divisive (reductive)
BOTH - AND comprehensive (holistic)
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.inf ... add_06.png
That would be the term "υπερφυσικός" or supernatural (beyond nature). — Nickolasgaspar
On this forum, I've been struggling to separate "Metaphysics" from its "Supernatural" heritage in Western Religion. That's why I have suggested going back beyond (meta-) Christian Theology to see what non-religious Aristotle was actually talking about. As you noted, it certainly wasn't about anything supernatural or spooky, but about making a philosophical distinction between Qualia & Quanta, between Potential & Actual, and betwixt Cause & Effect. Unfortunately, to this day we still portray Mind metaphorically as a Brain, which leads some to think that only Matter matters for thinking.
His metaphysical category could be interpreted as "more comprehensive" or even "transcendent", in the sense that he thought of Philosophy as going "beyond" the Space-Time & Thermodynamic boundary of Physics into the realm of Mind & Ideas, that are only limited by Logical laws. Thus, adding Philosophical science to Physical science. Aristotle even tried to fit Plato's ideal Forms into physical Shapes, by insisting that Forms do not exist independently of Things.
And that is equivalent to the notion -- common among Information scientists -- that what we now call "Information", is physical, in the sense of embodied ideas. But, in my holistic view, Information is both Physical (effect) and Meta-Physical (cause). That's a delicate distinction, but it could clear-up millennia of misunderstanding in Philosophy and Science.
Meta- :
Original Greek meaning — Meta (from the Greek μετά, meta, meaning "after" or "beyond") is a prefix meaning "more comprehensive" or "transcending."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meta
Potential :
Aristotle describes potentiality and actuality, or potency and action, as one of several distinctions between things that exist or do not exist. In a sense, a thing that exists potentially does not exist, but the potential does exist. .
Note -- even physical science finds the meta-physical notion of not-yet-real Potential to be useful in the Real world. For example, the Voltage of a battery is nothing-but Static Potential, until it is actualized into Active Amperage. We can't see or touch meta-physical Potential with our senses, but we can imagine it with our minds.
MIND and/or MATTER?
EITHER / OR divisive (reductive)
BOTH - AND comprehensive (holistic)
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.inf ... add_06.png
Re: TPF : Metaphysics Again
I don't think there is any way to find agreement between our two positions. — T Clark
So, there's no such thing as Meta-Physical? Hence no need for philosophical terms like Qualia and Quanta? If so, why do we keep trying to split Nature into two different philosophical categories? Are philosophers just frustrated scientists, trying to make their wordy theories seem applicable to the real world? Why then is Dualism so attractive to most non-philosophers?
PS__my worldview is ultimately Monistic, not Dualistic. If we could agree on that Unity, all disagreements would disappear.
PPS__ I apologize for not just going away quietly, but I think this topic is essential. Plus, I really get into this unreal stuff.
So, there's no such thing as Meta-Physical? Hence no need for philosophical terms like Qualia and Quanta? If so, why do we keep trying to split Nature into two different philosophical categories? Are philosophers just frustrated scientists, trying to make their wordy theories seem applicable to the real world? Why then is Dualism so attractive to most non-philosophers?
PS__my worldview is ultimately Monistic, not Dualistic. If we could agree on that Unity, all disagreements would disappear.
PPS__ I apologize for not just going away quietly, but I think this topic is essential. Plus, I really get into this unreal stuff.
Re: TPF : Metaphysics Again
-Correct The first word refers to claims that are beyond our current knowledge and the second refers to claims that are Above nature. — Nickolasgaspar
That's a practical way to think of Meta-Physics : as conjectures beyond current knowledge. And those projections from past evidence into unknown territory is how we discover new information. But to project into unknowable realms is risky. Whatever we find may or may not be true, and we'll never know. Yet, some are willing to take that chance, and even to accept attractive-but-ify ideas on faith.
Well metaphysics is ANY claim that makes hypotheses beyond our current knowledge. — Nickolasgaspar
Yes. Whenever an empirical scientist proposes a hypothesis, he's doing Meta-physics. And that's the domain of Philosophy. However, it's necessary to push the bounds of knowledge, in order to make progress. But then, it's the job of Science to confirm those reasonable probability estimates.
-Well that is not metaphysics for Neuroscience. The Mind is what the brain produces. — Nickolasgaspar
Mind is indeed the function of Brain. But what is the Ontological status of Mind? Empirical neuroscience has no answer for the "Hard Problem" of Consciousness : Brains are subject to physical laws, but what are the limits of Minds? It seems that, in imagination, anything goes. In dreams, I can fly. But how can matter imagine anything?
-Today we identify such "transcendent" type of metaphysics as pseudo philosophy when our new data do not offer evidence for such hypotheses. — Nickolasgaspar
All Meta-Physics is "transcendent" in the sense of going-beyond known physics. If our hypotheses don't explore unknown territory, they are merely mundane applied knowledge. As long as our conjectures extend an unbroken logical chain, we can look for the evidence later.
PHilosophical science already exists in Science. — Nickolasgaspar
Yes, but the Enlightenment Renaissance of Greek philosophy, left Metaphysics behind because of its association with Scholastic Theology. But today, the era of Information and Quantum and Big Bang Theories have undermined the outdated Materialistic Atomic theory, and Self-existent World assumptions. The result is that the cutting edge of science is mostly groping around in the meta-physical territory of mathematical fields and multi-dimensional strings of ????
The philosophical endeavor that tries to understand and glue new data, old epistemology or philosophy with new philosophical frameworks through reasoning is labeled Metaphysics. — Nickolasgaspar
Yes. That's the difference between empirical Science (physics) and theoretical Science (philosophy). 20th century Empirical scientists were often disdainful of feckless philosophy, because instead of physical evidence it relies on metaphysical reasoning. Yet in the 21st century, physical evidence in the quantum and cosmic realms is harder to come by.
-I don't find such ideas useful because we humans have shown that we are really bad in our ontology. Great examples are Alchemists wasting resources for ages to chemically produce valuable metals, — Nickolasgaspar
The distinction between Potential & Actual has become essential to science again. For example, 20th century Quantum "particles" and now labeled "wave functions" and "virtual particles". A virtual particle is not Actual, but merely Potential until some perturbation causes the metaphorical collapse of the wave function.
-It isn't a metaphysical notion from the moment it is observed and can be quantified in everyday phenomena. Stored energy is the potential to produce work...so its nothing metaphysical about it. i.e. As a cyclist I understand the potential energy I gather when climbing a hill. — Nickolasgaspar
In my vocabulary, Voltage (Potential) is Meta-physical because it is not Actual or measurable. Voltage is merely a promise of Amperage.
That's a practical way to think of Meta-Physics : as conjectures beyond current knowledge. And those projections from past evidence into unknown territory is how we discover new information. But to project into unknowable realms is risky. Whatever we find may or may not be true, and we'll never know. Yet, some are willing to take that chance, and even to accept attractive-but-ify ideas on faith.
Well metaphysics is ANY claim that makes hypotheses beyond our current knowledge. — Nickolasgaspar
Yes. Whenever an empirical scientist proposes a hypothesis, he's doing Meta-physics. And that's the domain of Philosophy. However, it's necessary to push the bounds of knowledge, in order to make progress. But then, it's the job of Science to confirm those reasonable probability estimates.
-Well that is not metaphysics for Neuroscience. The Mind is what the brain produces. — Nickolasgaspar
Mind is indeed the function of Brain. But what is the Ontological status of Mind? Empirical neuroscience has no answer for the "Hard Problem" of Consciousness : Brains are subject to physical laws, but what are the limits of Minds? It seems that, in imagination, anything goes. In dreams, I can fly. But how can matter imagine anything?
-Today we identify such "transcendent" type of metaphysics as pseudo philosophy when our new data do not offer evidence for such hypotheses. — Nickolasgaspar
All Meta-Physics is "transcendent" in the sense of going-beyond known physics. If our hypotheses don't explore unknown territory, they are merely mundane applied knowledge. As long as our conjectures extend an unbroken logical chain, we can look for the evidence later.
PHilosophical science already exists in Science. — Nickolasgaspar
Yes, but the Enlightenment Renaissance of Greek philosophy, left Metaphysics behind because of its association with Scholastic Theology. But today, the era of Information and Quantum and Big Bang Theories have undermined the outdated Materialistic Atomic theory, and Self-existent World assumptions. The result is that the cutting edge of science is mostly groping around in the meta-physical territory of mathematical fields and multi-dimensional strings of ????
The philosophical endeavor that tries to understand and glue new data, old epistemology or philosophy with new philosophical frameworks through reasoning is labeled Metaphysics. — Nickolasgaspar
Yes. That's the difference between empirical Science (physics) and theoretical Science (philosophy). 20th century Empirical scientists were often disdainful of feckless philosophy, because instead of physical evidence it relies on metaphysical reasoning. Yet in the 21st century, physical evidence in the quantum and cosmic realms is harder to come by.
-I don't find such ideas useful because we humans have shown that we are really bad in our ontology. Great examples are Alchemists wasting resources for ages to chemically produce valuable metals, — Nickolasgaspar
The distinction between Potential & Actual has become essential to science again. For example, 20th century Quantum "particles" and now labeled "wave functions" and "virtual particles". A virtual particle is not Actual, but merely Potential until some perturbation causes the metaphorical collapse of the wave function.
-It isn't a metaphysical notion from the moment it is observed and can be quantified in everyday phenomena. Stored energy is the potential to produce work...so its nothing metaphysical about it. i.e. As a cyclist I understand the potential energy I gather when climbing a hill. — Nickolasgaspar
In my vocabulary, Voltage (Potential) is Meta-physical because it is not Actual or measurable. Voltage is merely a promise of Amperage.
Re: TPF : Metaphysics Again
-"Mind is indeed the function of Brain. But what is the Ontological status of Mind?"
Similar ontology is shared by all biological properties i.e. digestion, mitosis, photosynthesis,homeostasis etc. — Nickolasgaspar
I distinguish between physical properties (measurable) and ontological essence (rational). Integrated Information Theory is an attempt to measure mental qualities in terms of Phi. But Phi only measures the degree of integration of a system (an analogue of wholeness), but not Mind or Consciousness directly. And, just as a physical circuit is necessary to convert Voltage into Amperage, information feedback loops are essential to Minds. Some IIT advocates have proposed a Consciousness Meter, but implementing that idea is beyond current capabilities. It's not as easy to measure a subjective quality, as an objective property.
Digestion is comparable to Thinking only in the sense that both refer to holistic system functions instead of particular physical parts. However, Digestion produces measurable physical effects, while Thinking produces invisible images in the Cartesian Theater we call a Mind. Like all metaphors, the CT is not real, but ideal ; not physical, but meta-physical. If mental images & thoughts were physical, we wouldn't need metaphors to communicate them.
-Of course! because Science in general doesn't deal with "Why" teleological questions. . . . The real question is How the brain achieves the production of mind — Nickolasgaspar
Yes. Mapping physical causal paths, may give you a picture of How, but not the Why of the final output. The complexity & chaos (randomness) of brain systems tend to blur the map near the fringes "where be dragons". Ideas in a Mind are teleological in the sense that they point toward something that is not an actual thing, not present, not yet real. Terrence Deacon calls that meta-physical function “aboutness”.
-Yes we can imagine anything. Those imaginative thoughts are the product of previous facts about reality being put together in a different way while ignoring empirical limitations and logic — Nickolasgaspar
That is indeed the model that most Consciousness researches are working with. But "empirical limitations" and logical loops tend to frustrate their attempts to force Minds to fit the model. Somehow, Mind is able to by-pass physical limitations (e.g. Lucid Dreaming), but not Logic in the universal sense. Contrary to the old wive's tale, if my flying dream-self crashes, I won't wake up dead. (I've tried it) You might say that Mind-Logic “transcends” Physical-Logic. Which also touches on the question of subjective FreeWill versus objective Determinism.
That is nothing special in my opinion. Our brain allows those mental models to arise, but those brains need to be exposed to stimuli from early age. Without empirical input a mind is unable to be shaped and produce anything. — Nickolasgaspar
True. But irrelevant to the philosophical problem of Meta-Physics. And I have answered that question in my personal worldview of Enformationism. The “problem” derives from an outdated Dualistic concept of Matter & Mind. But the emerging concept of Information is Monistic, in that the single power-to-enform comes in two forms : Physical (Matter) and Meta-Physical (Mind). I won't go into how I arrived at that conclusion in this post, but it's laid-out in my website. Information is a shape-shifter, which can transform from Energy into Matter into Mind. That may sound like non-sense in a Physicalist belief system, but not from a Fundamental-Information perspective. This recent book presents a physicist's “Information Theoretic Ontology” :
Information-Consciousness-Reality :
http://bothandblog7.enformationism.info/page18.html
Enformationism website : http://enformationism.info/enformationism.info/
" But how can matter imagine anything?""
-What do you mean? . . . .. Its the function and structure of the system made from matter that can produce those properties, — Nickolasgaspar
It's easy to say that Imagination is just the output of a mechanical process. But not so easy to prove it. No machine we have constructed, including super-computers, has imagined anything like E=MC^2. Even their poetry is derivative and imitative. That's because a Whole is defined as more-than the sum of its parts. So the question remains, what is that "more than", the quality of wholeness, integrity, identity, unity? It's the difference between Data and Meaning.
So, Imagination is more-than just chemicals or neurons. Instead, it's the function of a whole System. Function is teleological and purposeful. It has the quality of Aboutness.
Function : 1. an activity or purpose natural to or intended for a person or thing.
-Sure, I was referring to transcendent metaphysics, where the claims ignore and are in direct conflict with established epistemology. Here is where the logical chain snaps. — Nickolasgaspar
Yes. But even sober scientists can't resist speculating beyond established knowledge. As in Multiverse theories, the best they can do is to extend established knowledge into the future, beyond the scope of empirical confirmation. And it's well established that projecting the current state into the future soon "snaps" the logical chain by turning it into randomized mush.
-I don't know what it means for Metaphysics to be left behind. — Nickolasgaspar
Rejection of Theology is why Post-Enlightenment Era scientists abandoned all attempts to gain useful knowledge via meta-physical means. But, 21st century science has become more & more meta-physical as the old models of reality crumble under the gravity of Quantum weirdness, and the BB beginning of reality put a space-time limit on Nature. Even our units of Quanta are now more mathematical than physical : Fields instead of Atoms ; Virtual instead of Real particles.
Since when Descriptive Formulations of Science (based on Methodological Naturalism) has become "materialistic"? — Nickolasgaspar
Since the fundamental bits of Matter (atoms) were ground into the mathematical mush of Wave Functions. The original basis of Atomism was philosophical instead of empirical. And the foundations of modern physics are beginning to sound more philosophical than empirical. Scientists still use concrete metaphors to illustrate quantum abstractions. And their assumptions about Nature remain under the influence of common-sense Materialism.
“Eliminative materialists go further than Descartes on this point, since they challenge the existence of various mental states that Descartes took for granted.”
demonize our current frameworks by calling them "materialistic", — Nickolasgaspar
Would you prefer to call our modern epistemology “Physicalism” or “Naturalism”? Materialism is not demonic, it's just outdated in an era of Relativity and Quantum Theory (which only appears quantized after continuous Waves “decompose” into Particles). Nature has become less mechanical & methodical and more spontaneous & statistical in this post-classical era. The post-enlightenment Mechanical “framework” is gradually giving way to a more Organic model. So, I don't “demonize” the older frameworks. Instead, I just categorize some of them as “misplaced Materialism”, which is similar to “misplaced Concreteness” (reification of abstractions).
Scientists (without any distinction) are still disdainful of feckless philosophy for the same reasons. — Nickolasgaspar
My point about a distinction between Empirical Science and Theoretical Science is that the cutting edge of science today (e.g. String Theory) is completely theoretical (mathematical), and not subject to being “verified empirically”. Hence, it is indistinguishable from feckless philosophy.
-So what do you suggest? — Nickolasgaspar
I suggest that we update our mental models of Nature and Reality to include their Non-Physical aspects. And post-Shannon Information Theory is one way to do that.
I am not sure about your point in this distinction you are making. Can you elaborate? — Nickolasgaspar
The old Atomic & Materialistic models left no place for sub-atomic (quarks) and statistical aspects of Reality. Until recently, empirical Science dealt only with here & now Actuality. But, now they are forced to use statistical methods to model Reality. Potential, like Probability & Possibility, refers to that which is not here & now. Instead of empirical observations, they must use gambling odds. The once-firm foundations of Reality were imagined as Absolute & Actual, but now they are viewed as Relative & Potential. Fortunately, post-Shannon Information Theory can deal with both sides of the Natural coin.
Again I don't get your argument.....that which is not quantifiable for you is "metaphysical". And how do you use the word potential? — Nickolasgaspar
Yes. Qualia are not quantifiable. And Statistical is only Potentially Real. So, I use “potential” according to Aristotle's usage : “a thing that exists potentially does not exist, but the potential [statistical probability] does exist.” [my bracket] So, Potential existence is equivalent to Plato's Ideal Forms. The “properties” of real things (e.g. red of an apple) exist only in the minds of observers. And I call that Mind-stuff “meta-physical” instead of “physical”.
PS__Obviously, I have a philosophical axe-to-grind. But, since it's based on a new paradigm and somewhat counter-intuitive (like Quantum Theory and Block Time) it can't be summarized in one post.
What is Information? :
The Power to Enform
http://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page16.html
PPS__ I have enjoyed the mental exercise (despite the meta-physical sweat) of responding to your stimulating questions.
Similar ontology is shared by all biological properties i.e. digestion, mitosis, photosynthesis,homeostasis etc. — Nickolasgaspar
I distinguish between physical properties (measurable) and ontological essence (rational). Integrated Information Theory is an attempt to measure mental qualities in terms of Phi. But Phi only measures the degree of integration of a system (an analogue of wholeness), but not Mind or Consciousness directly. And, just as a physical circuit is necessary to convert Voltage into Amperage, information feedback loops are essential to Minds. Some IIT advocates have proposed a Consciousness Meter, but implementing that idea is beyond current capabilities. It's not as easy to measure a subjective quality, as an objective property.
Digestion is comparable to Thinking only in the sense that both refer to holistic system functions instead of particular physical parts. However, Digestion produces measurable physical effects, while Thinking produces invisible images in the Cartesian Theater we call a Mind. Like all metaphors, the CT is not real, but ideal ; not physical, but meta-physical. If mental images & thoughts were physical, we wouldn't need metaphors to communicate them.
-Of course! because Science in general doesn't deal with "Why" teleological questions. . . . The real question is How the brain achieves the production of mind — Nickolasgaspar
Yes. Mapping physical causal paths, may give you a picture of How, but not the Why of the final output. The complexity & chaos (randomness) of brain systems tend to blur the map near the fringes "where be dragons". Ideas in a Mind are teleological in the sense that they point toward something that is not an actual thing, not present, not yet real. Terrence Deacon calls that meta-physical function “aboutness”.
-Yes we can imagine anything. Those imaginative thoughts are the product of previous facts about reality being put together in a different way while ignoring empirical limitations and logic — Nickolasgaspar
That is indeed the model that most Consciousness researches are working with. But "empirical limitations" and logical loops tend to frustrate their attempts to force Minds to fit the model. Somehow, Mind is able to by-pass physical limitations (e.g. Lucid Dreaming), but not Logic in the universal sense. Contrary to the old wive's tale, if my flying dream-self crashes, I won't wake up dead. (I've tried it) You might say that Mind-Logic “transcends” Physical-Logic. Which also touches on the question of subjective FreeWill versus objective Determinism.
That is nothing special in my opinion. Our brain allows those mental models to arise, but those brains need to be exposed to stimuli from early age. Without empirical input a mind is unable to be shaped and produce anything. — Nickolasgaspar
True. But irrelevant to the philosophical problem of Meta-Physics. And I have answered that question in my personal worldview of Enformationism. The “problem” derives from an outdated Dualistic concept of Matter & Mind. But the emerging concept of Information is Monistic, in that the single power-to-enform comes in two forms : Physical (Matter) and Meta-Physical (Mind). I won't go into how I arrived at that conclusion in this post, but it's laid-out in my website. Information is a shape-shifter, which can transform from Energy into Matter into Mind. That may sound like non-sense in a Physicalist belief system, but not from a Fundamental-Information perspective. This recent book presents a physicist's “Information Theoretic Ontology” :
Information-Consciousness-Reality :
http://bothandblog7.enformationism.info/page18.html
Enformationism website : http://enformationism.info/enformationism.info/
" But how can matter imagine anything?""
-What do you mean? . . . .. Its the function and structure of the system made from matter that can produce those properties, — Nickolasgaspar
It's easy to say that Imagination is just the output of a mechanical process. But not so easy to prove it. No machine we have constructed, including super-computers, has imagined anything like E=MC^2. Even their poetry is derivative and imitative. That's because a Whole is defined as more-than the sum of its parts. So the question remains, what is that "more than", the quality of wholeness, integrity, identity, unity? It's the difference between Data and Meaning.
So, Imagination is more-than just chemicals or neurons. Instead, it's the function of a whole System. Function is teleological and purposeful. It has the quality of Aboutness.
Function : 1. an activity or purpose natural to or intended for a person or thing.
-Sure, I was referring to transcendent metaphysics, where the claims ignore and are in direct conflict with established epistemology. Here is where the logical chain snaps. — Nickolasgaspar
Yes. But even sober scientists can't resist speculating beyond established knowledge. As in Multiverse theories, the best they can do is to extend established knowledge into the future, beyond the scope of empirical confirmation. And it's well established that projecting the current state into the future soon "snaps" the logical chain by turning it into randomized mush.
-I don't know what it means for Metaphysics to be left behind. — Nickolasgaspar
Rejection of Theology is why Post-Enlightenment Era scientists abandoned all attempts to gain useful knowledge via meta-physical means. But, 21st century science has become more & more meta-physical as the old models of reality crumble under the gravity of Quantum weirdness, and the BB beginning of reality put a space-time limit on Nature. Even our units of Quanta are now more mathematical than physical : Fields instead of Atoms ; Virtual instead of Real particles.
Since when Descriptive Formulations of Science (based on Methodological Naturalism) has become "materialistic"? — Nickolasgaspar
Since the fundamental bits of Matter (atoms) were ground into the mathematical mush of Wave Functions. The original basis of Atomism was philosophical instead of empirical. And the foundations of modern physics are beginning to sound more philosophical than empirical. Scientists still use concrete metaphors to illustrate quantum abstractions. And their assumptions about Nature remain under the influence of common-sense Materialism.
“Eliminative materialists go further than Descartes on this point, since they challenge the existence of various mental states that Descartes took for granted.”
demonize our current frameworks by calling them "materialistic", — Nickolasgaspar
Would you prefer to call our modern epistemology “Physicalism” or “Naturalism”? Materialism is not demonic, it's just outdated in an era of Relativity and Quantum Theory (which only appears quantized after continuous Waves “decompose” into Particles). Nature has become less mechanical & methodical and more spontaneous & statistical in this post-classical era. The post-enlightenment Mechanical “framework” is gradually giving way to a more Organic model. So, I don't “demonize” the older frameworks. Instead, I just categorize some of them as “misplaced Materialism”, which is similar to “misplaced Concreteness” (reification of abstractions).
Scientists (without any distinction) are still disdainful of feckless philosophy for the same reasons. — Nickolasgaspar
My point about a distinction between Empirical Science and Theoretical Science is that the cutting edge of science today (e.g. String Theory) is completely theoretical (mathematical), and not subject to being “verified empirically”. Hence, it is indistinguishable from feckless philosophy.
-So what do you suggest? — Nickolasgaspar
I suggest that we update our mental models of Nature and Reality to include their Non-Physical aspects. And post-Shannon Information Theory is one way to do that.
I am not sure about your point in this distinction you are making. Can you elaborate? — Nickolasgaspar
The old Atomic & Materialistic models left no place for sub-atomic (quarks) and statistical aspects of Reality. Until recently, empirical Science dealt only with here & now Actuality. But, now they are forced to use statistical methods to model Reality. Potential, like Probability & Possibility, refers to that which is not here & now. Instead of empirical observations, they must use gambling odds. The once-firm foundations of Reality were imagined as Absolute & Actual, but now they are viewed as Relative & Potential. Fortunately, post-Shannon Information Theory can deal with both sides of the Natural coin.
Again I don't get your argument.....that which is not quantifiable for you is "metaphysical". And how do you use the word potential? — Nickolasgaspar
Yes. Qualia are not quantifiable. And Statistical is only Potentially Real. So, I use “potential” according to Aristotle's usage : “a thing that exists potentially does not exist, but the potential [statistical probability] does exist.” [my bracket] So, Potential existence is equivalent to Plato's Ideal Forms. The “properties” of real things (e.g. red of an apple) exist only in the minds of observers. And I call that Mind-stuff “meta-physical” instead of “physical”.
PS__Obviously, I have a philosophical axe-to-grind. But, since it's based on a new paradigm and somewhat counter-intuitive (like Quantum Theory and Block Time) it can't be summarized in one post.
What is Information? :
The Power to Enform
http://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page16.html
PPS__ I have enjoyed the mental exercise (despite the meta-physical sweat) of responding to your stimulating questions.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests