TPF : Non-Physical Reality

[Gnomon]

I'm sure there may be many interesting implications from these works. I'm just wondering if they make any difference to how we live our lives on a day to day basis (which seems, to me, to involve reality). — Ciceronianus

Unless you are a professor of Consciousness Studies, you are not likely to put food on the table by understanding Non-physical Reality. But, if you are an amateur philosopher, like me, that deeper understanding of reality, may make a difference in how you perceive & conceive the puzzling world around you. That, in turn could make you a better person (wisdom & virtue) in your day-to-day dealings with other people. Besides, it might give you fodder for contentious TPF topics. Do, you have something more important to do with your time on Earth? If so, why are you wasting it on feckless Philosophy?

[Gnomon]

Truly holistic theories are adaptive to all new objectively verified phenomena, like science, and philosophy. — Garrett Travers

Do you really require objective verification for all of your beliefs? Most people get their technical knowledge second & third hand. So, they must trust their sources. I am not a practicing scientist, so my understanding of abstruse topics, such as we discuss here, is verified only by comparing one expert opinion to another. That's why I read widely. And I actively look for opinions that are different from my own : this forum, for example. That's how you learn. But there are not enough minutes in eternity to "verify" all sources, or for critical analysis of every "fact". So, I suspect that like most folks, even you remember mostly those "facts" that seem to agree with your prior beliefs, as vetted by the Availabilty Heurstic.

The Influence of Prior Beliefs on Scientific Judgments of Evidence Quality
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 7883710447.

Availabilty Heurstic :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Availability_heuristic

This knowledge-of-the-gaps is so instinctive for humans that we hardly notice when we cross the line between empirical evidence and theoretical speculation. — Gnomon
Man's greatest murder, and I will not fucking stand for it for another day in my life. I will ridicule and rationally destroy it of the face of the earth with pleasure for the rest of my days. — Garrett Travers

Whoa! That sounds like Antihumanism or Transhumanism or even Antinatalism. Which means you won't rest until the scourge of irrational caveman intuition is eradicated from the planet. It must be frustrating to share the world with imperfect people who are not as logical as Mr. Spock, or as computational as Commander Data, or as intolerant as GT. My condolences. :sad:
PS___It's a good thing we are not in the same room. My occasional lapses into instinct might get me exterminated.

Read above what I have posted to you here again, and come back and read this statement of yours: "a map, not the territory." You sure it isn't..... both? Or, more than both? — Garrett Travers

Hey, you're not arguing with me. that's a quote from Alfred Korzybski. His point was that your mental model of the world is a figment of your imagination, not a miniature clone of reality. And he would probably agree with Don Hoffman, that your model of Reality is an "illusion". Or with Carlo Rovelli, that Reality is "not what it seems". However, they are not denying the existence of both mental Maps and material Territories in the same world, but in different forms. Each has its place in the grand scheme of things . . . and non-things.

Map vs Territory :
This quote comes from Alfred Korzybski, father of general semantics: “A map is not the territory it represents, but if correct, it has a similar structure to the territory, which accounts for its usefulness”. To sum up, our perception of reality is not reality itself but our own version of it, or our own “map”.
http://intercultural-learning.eu/Portfo ... territory/

[Gnomon]

In my view, it is interesting that the primary cause for this total rejection of the non-physical is well, non-physical. — IP060903

Sad, but true. Philosophy has become polarized around political positions, usually hinging on the definition of "admissible evidence". See the thread below for more on that angle.

Political worldviews are non-physical, hence not amenable to scientific methods. That's why, after all these years of ascendant physical science, we are still forced to debate Meta-physical questions, for which there are no final answers . And even that ancient term for philosophical analysis is politically fraught. Yet, I reserve "Physics" for Natural questions, and "Meta-Physics" (i.e. Philosophy) for Cultural questions, that arise from the human condition as animals with self-pondering brains.

Are there thoughts?
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... e-thoughts

[Gnomon]

NON-PHYSICAL REALITY

Are there any non-physical aspects of reality that are proper topics of calm collegial philosophical dialog? Can such ideas be discussed without eye-rolling, name-calling, mud-slinging, ideological labeling, and anathematizing? Is philosophical dialog even doable in the current climate of polarized Us vs Them & Orthodox vs Heretical posturing? Has modern Philosophy become "politics by other means"? — Gnomon

Well. It looks like my question has been answered . . . . in the negative. Empirical Science versus Theoretical Philosophy is non-negotiable . . . for the emotional extremists among us. It's just as polarized & politicized as Western society in general.

Fortunately though, warfare in non-physical cyber-space doesn't have physical fatalities, just metaphysical casualties. So, our bloody-but-unbowed souls will survive this thread to fight again on another controversial topic. Can I at least have the last word? :joke:

https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/hitch ... s_song.jpg

[Gnomon]

Sure. Even setting aside ontological disputes, physicalism vs idealism vs dualism, you have the whole question of modality. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I'm not up to speed on modal theories. Are Realism & Idealism merely different modes of thinking, or modes of being? Aristotle seemed to view Potential & Actual as different modes of being. But hard-core Materialists might dismiss "Potential" & "Possible" as meaning "un-Real" and "non-Existent", hence not worth thinking about, even by feckless Philosophers. Can you expand on the application of modality to the question of Non-Physical Reality?

PS__For example, a button-pushing comeback above says :
"No, it implies you lack the capacity to accurately describe what you are attempting to, which would imply that you're talking about something."
This seems to be asserting that scientific communication should be limited to proper nouns referring to real things. That might eliminate a lot of mis-understanding caused by the casual use of metaphors, analogies, and allusions in vernacular language. But it would also forestall any discussion of Invisible or Non-Physical aspects of perceived & conceived Reality. For example, Einstein's paradigm-challenging theories were presented in two forms : Mathematics and Metaphors. How does Modal theory account for poetic Metaphors in place of prosaic Facts?

On the Problem and Promise of Metaphor Use in Science and Science Communication :
The language of science is largely metaphorical. Scientists rely on metaphor and analogy to make sense of scientific phenomena and communicate their findings to each other and to the public. Yet, despite their utility, metaphors can also constrain scientific reasoning, contribute to public misunderstandings, and, at times, inadvertently reinforce stereotypes and messages that undermine the goals of inclusive science.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5969428/

What does modality mean in research?
Modality means that there is reference to actualization of a situation in a world that is not represented as being the factual world.
https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... f_modality

↪Wayfarer

[Gnomon]

A Question for Physicalists
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... ent/661695


What would a physicalist explanation of mind look like? — Agent Smith

Since you referred to "Causation" several times, I'll propose a causal explanation for the Brain Function we know as "Mind" or "Consciousness". According to the definitions below, Causation is not a physical object or substance, but an external force acting on something, whether Matter or Mind. That "influence" is a causal relationship, and in Physics is usually called "Energy". Yet, energy per se is not a material object with physical properties, hence is known only by its effects on matter. So, it can't be distinguished from "Spirit" or "Ghost", except by noting who uses those terms. Spiritualists speak of "spiritual energy", while Materialists avoid any implications of an intentional Cause.

In world events, we observe both Natural and Cultural causes. The former are assumed to be mechanical, while the latter are implicitly mental. For example, the Russian invasion of Ukraine is obviously not a natural phenomenon. So we assume that some human mind imagined that future event, and set-up a series of intermediate causes & effects that were directed toward the result of Ukraine being re-absorbed into a resurrected Soviet Union, or Russian empire (i.e. intended to Make Russia Great Again, MRGA). In other words, the power-of-an-idea, imagining an ideal future state, was the initiating Cause of the invasion.*1

Likewise, Brain & Mind can be construed as Natural & Cultural sources of Causation. The primary distinction between those sources is local direct mechanical transmission of energy versus non-local (end-directed) communication of the power-of-an-idea. So, natural processes are Deontological (obeying natural laws), while cultural developments are Teleological ( obeying political or mental influences). The primary difference between "mechanical transmission" and "mental communication" is that the operator of the "machine" is included in the communication system. In philosophy, we label that initial force as the "First Cause" of a subsequent chain of causation.

Which raises the philosophical question, which is phenomenal (fundamental) and which epi-phenomenal (incidental) : the original Cause or the intermediate Effect? This could be interpreted as a "physical explanation" of the role of mind in the world, in that the mechanical system is completely physical, yet the Cause of the process is external to the machine. So, which more essential, the Teleological Intention, or the Local Mechanism -- the intentional ghost or the perfunctory machine -- the Programmer or the Program?


Causality is influence by which one event, process, state, or object contributes to the production of another event, process, state, or object where the cause is partly responsible for the effect, and the effect is partly dependent on the cause. ___Wikipedia
Note -- "Influence" is a graphic metaphor of something fluid flowing-in from outside, instead of internally generated.

Causation : the relationship between cause and effect; causality.
Note : "Relationship" is a mathematical metaphor indicating some invisible connection between two or more points or objects.

Epiphenomenalism is the view that mental events are caused by physical events in the brain, but have no effects upon any physical events.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epiphenomenalism/
Note -- did the mind of Putin have any effect on his physical tanks & planes?

What is relationship between nature and culture? :
Nature provides the setting in which cultural processes, activities and belief systems develop, all of which feed back to shape biodiversity. There are four key bridges linking Nature with culture: beliefs and worldviews; livelihoods and practices; knowledge bases; and norms and institutions.
https://www.resurgence.org/magazine/art ... lture.html
Note -- Materialist Science studies Nature, while Mentalist Philosophy studies Culture

*1. Some might give a technical label to that invisible energy : "Psychic Power". But on this forum, we'll do well to avoid such baggage-laden nomenclature, as a red-herring.

WHO'S RESPONSIBLE : MIND or MACHINE ?
http://gnomon.enformationism.info/Image ... Button.PNG

[Gnomon]

When I talk about mind, I talk about thoughts, emotions, knowledge, imagination, perception.... Just because I can pinpoint the locations in the brain that light up when I do those things, that doesn't mean they're the same thing. — T Clark

As I understand your point, you are drawing a distinction between a scientific model and a philosophical representation. Modern Science is methodologically Physicalist, and studies material Quanta (neurons). But Philosophy is methodologically Mentalist, and examines immaterial Qualia (e.g. Ideas). As far as Science is concerned, Mind is merely the function of the Brain. No argument there.

However, Philosophers are more interested in the intangibles of Qualia questions : not what Mind consists of (physical structure), but what it does (mental functions). A Biologist will describe what the Brain looks like physically (mechanism), while a Philosopher is more interested in what Mind feels like experientially (thoughts, emotions). So, the Mind/Brain identity presumption may be appropriate for a Science forum, but not for a Philosophy forum. Hence, as far as Philosophy is concerned, they're not the same thing. Therefore, the fallacy here is to equate Mechanism with Meaning.

The Mind/Brain Identity Theory :
It has commonly been thought that the identity theory has been superseded by a theory called ‘functionalism’.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mind-identity/

[Gnomon]

Yes, and the problem here is, that's an anti-philosophical cop-out for disregarding the science that has been established, that people employ here almost every single time I bring this u on this website. — Garrett Travers

You've made it clear that you interpret non-empirical philosophical interests as "anti-science". But some of us on this forum don't agree with that assessment. For me, Physics is the science of the Actual & even Probable, but Philosophy is the science the Possible. Scientists have been seeking an explanation of Consciousness for many years. But, due to the inherent limitations of their matter-based methods, they are no closer to understanding the transformation of matter into mind. Except that Claude Shannon's use of a mental term "information" --- to describe a new way to communicate ideas, beyond gestures, vocalizations, and writing --- opened-up a new direction in Science. Ironically, what is now labeled "Information Science" is based mostly on its material carriers, instead of its energetic power of transformation.

My personal understanding of the Qualia question is based on 21st century science, but is not limited to its atom-splitting methods. Instead, I take a Holistic or Systems approach. From that perspective, Mind is a recent innovation of evolution, in which novel forms emerged as Phase Transitions from lower to higher levels of complexity : mathematical singularity, energetic plasma, sub-atomic particles, atoms, molecules, material objects, stars, galaxies, planets, plants, animals, minds. You may not agree, but I perceive an upward arc of complexification in that sequence of events. Building on the scientific notion of Phase Transitions, I have produced a Philosophical model of evolution, which is summarized below. This is not presented as a scientific model. But it is definitely not anti-science. There is no magic involved, unless you think of Holistic Emergence and Phase Transitions as magic.

Science as we know it can’t explain consciousness – but a revolution is coming :
We have made a great deal of progress in understanding brain activity, and how it contributes to human behaviour. But what no one has so far managed to explain is how all of this results in feelings, emotions and experiences. ___Phillip Goff
https://theconversation.com/science-as- ... ing-126143

Emergence :
In philosophy, systems theory, science, and art, emergence occurs when an entity is observed to have properties its parts do not have on their own,
___Wiki

Emergence of Mind :
Each phase of cosmic emergence creates a new holistic system with unique properties. But the Cosmos is a nested system of systems that interpenetrate and interact to some degree. The Quantum Field is a world unto itself with weird phenomena, such as entanglement, not found in the classical real world. The Physical Phase has only mechanical properties, but from it emerged the Organic Phase with mental qualities.
BothAnd Blog


Phase Changes of Evolution :
0. Omega Point :
Who knows?
9. Reiterate
Ongoing Emergences
8. Artificial Forms :
Machines, Computers
8. Metaphysical Forms
Reasoning & Designing
7. Organic Forms :
Life, Minds, Societies
6. Physical Forms :
Stars, Galaxies, Planets
5. Matter :
Primitive Particles
4. Energy :
Unformed Plasma
3. Quantum Field :
Statistical Possibilities
2. Big Bang :
Start the computation
Set initial conditions
1. Singularity :
Design, Codes, Laws

Emergence, Phase Transitions and Quantum Leaps :
* The unprecedented appearance of Life & Mind from a 13.8 billion year process of inorganic physics and chemistry was impossible for scientists to account for in their materialistic worldview. But even before those non-physical features arose, there were similar puzzling gaps in development. Everyone is familar with the strange behavior of water, which changes form significantly, depending on its energy state : solid, liquid, gas, or plasma. The fact of Phase Change is undeniable ─ you can feel snow melt on your tongue ─ but explaining the mechanics of how it happened in terms of known physical laws proved impossible.
* So, in the early 20th century a few philosopher-scientists began to develop a theory of Emergence. The primary defining characteristic of emergent states of matter was that the properties of “higher” phases were impossible to predict from those of the lower phases. It was as-if matter on a macro scale made a quantum leap from one energy state to another, just like electrons jumping from orbit to orbit around an atom without passing through any of the intermediate possible states : like going from 5 to 10 without passing through 6-7-8-9. In a deterministic materialistic worldview, this just does not compute.
* Meanwhile the problem of mechanically unpredictable behavior was causing problems in other macro scale material phenomena. For example, within the random interactions of Chaotic Systems, stable form patterns, feedback loops, and fractal self-similarities appear out of nowhere as-if self-organized. These novel states of matter can be traced back to initial conditions, but again the intermediate steps are blurred by randomness. So, the novelty and discontinuity of those observed stable states seemed to emerge from nowhere.
* From Quantum Leaps to Phase Changes to Chaotic Structures, Nature seems to hide some of its magic behind the smokescreen of Randomness. Which is why scientists working on the fuzzy fringes of their specialty ─ like Einstein and Quantum Theorists ─ are forced to think like artists or poets by leaping from Rigid Reasoning to Fluid Imagination without being able to explain the steps from problem to intuition. Because such leaps of Logic cannot be justified by tracing new ideas directly back to their source, they lend them-selves to cynical manipulations of credulity, which is anathema to the scientific method, but not necessarily to non-empirical philosophical methods.
* In any case, the unprecedented emergence of Life, Mind, and Self-Consciousness from a purely physical process may not be such a mystery, if the reality of Metaphysics can be taken seriously. We all know that mental processes follow different rules from those of Physics, with only a foundation of mathematical logic in common. Which is why EnFormAction theory posits a new kind of causality, involving un-scientific notions of Holism (versus Reductionism), Emergence (versus Determinism), and Teleology (versus Random Accidents). Those philosophical terms are attempts to explain the mysteries of physical transformations without resorting to smoke & mirrors. They are all subsumed under the concept of EnFormAction, which bears an uncanny resemblance to ancient pre-scientific notions of Divine Will, and Elan Vital. The difference that makes a difference, is that EFA does not need to hide behind artifacts of faith. It should be completely open to critical questioning and rational testing, even as it requires some tolerance for flights of fancy and leaps of Logic, to inject some freedom into the strait & narrow path of hard science. At the moment, it’s not Science, but Philosophy
BothAnd Blog, post 60

[Gnomon]

The fact of Phase Change is undeniable ─ you can feel snow melt on your tongue ─ but explaining the mechanics of how it happened in terms of known physical laws proved impossible. — Gnomon
That is no proof that it's impossible. Non-equilibrium thermodynamics is still in infancy shoes. — EugeneW

FWIW, I meant it's impossible for reductive science. Non-reductive Systems Theory may be on the verge of an understanding of the nanoscale intermediate steps in a phase transition. In the link below, they conclude that different levels of organization play by different rules (parameters). That is the whole point of Holism. On the quantum scale, scientists have found that a particle can, under certain conditions, relocate on the other side of a solid barrier without passing through the space between. That may be a form of phase transition, and might be related to the holism of Entanglement. Stay tuned.


Phase transitions occur when order parameters change as a function of another parameter of the system, such as temperature. An order parameter is a measure of the degree of order across the boundaries in a phase transition system.
https://content.csbs.utah.edu/~butner/s ... Intro.html

How Ghostly Quantum Particles Fly Through Barriers :
At the subatomic level, particles can fly through seemingly impassable barriers like ghosts. Particles can pass through solid objects not because they're very small (though they are), but because the rules of physics are different at the quantum level.
https://www.livescience.com/65043-tunne ... icles.html

[Gnomon]

No, unless when we're talking about what kind of pie to have, we want to talk about the hypanthium, endocarp, and mesocarp of the pome. — T Clark

Sorry! I thought you might agree with my non-reductive holistic perspective on the topic, I didn't realize you were talking about fruit pies.

See my reply to EugeneW above, for clarification of my Holistic approach. Do you equate Holism with Magic? I don't.

Saying that mental phenomena are fully explained by neurological phenomena is the old reductionist "nothing but" argument. — T Clark

Yes! I agree holistically.