TPF : Metaphysical versus Anti-Metaphysical

[Gnomon]

I don't consider metaphysics as "the mental aspects of the world," and I doubt Aristotle did. Admittedly, that opinion is based on what I've read others say Aristotle said, not on a personal reading. — T Clark

Google "aristotle metaphysics topics". Then ask yourself if "Categories"; "Being Qua Being"; Principles"; or "Substance & Essence" are physical things or meta-physical (mental) ideas about the world. I merely adopted "metaphysics" as an inclusive term for the non-physical aspects of the real world that we distinguish from Nature with the name "Culture". For nearly 14 billion years the world was totally physical. But when the human mind emerged from the muck, immaterial memes began to evolve in an artificial simulation of genetic evolution. Do you think that immaterial (imaginary) "mind-stuff" has had any significant impact on the "real" world?

PS___It's not just my unorthodox usage of the term "Metaphysics", that the adherents of Scientism object to, but anything referring to non-physical or emergent aspects of the world. I have tried "Non-Physical", "Menta-Physical", "MInd-stuff", :Memes", "Cultural", "Ideal", "Qualia", and various other alternatives. But they just don't see anything non-physical about Reality. For them Ideas are merely neurological states. That's like saying the Function of an automobile is a steel structure. They also interpret all immaterial or non-physical notions as spooky "super-natural" beliefs, even though I try to avoid that baggage-laden term. Anyway, if you can suggest another way to talk about the perennial Mind/Body and Brain/Mind questions, please let me know.

[Gnomon]

I think also, maybe, we have to learn to let it go sometimes - I think your criticisms of 'scientism' are generally warranted but it is deeply embedded in today's culture, but sometimes we have to resist the urge to try and explain that to everyone, all the time. (Again, speaking from experience.) — Wayfarer

I am by nature a passive person. But as I get older, I get ornerier. I used to let the opposition push me around. But now I am more likely to fight back, not with volume, but with persistence. That's primarily because I believe the universal role of Information in the world, is the future of both Science and Philosophy.

The anti-metaphysicalists tend to argue their position by simply insisting on the final authority of reductive materialistic science, and by shouting-down the holistic non-physical "idiots". I don't have any problem with empirical Science on legitimate physical topics. But I think non-empirical Philosophy is the better way to discuss, not necessarily prove, questions about intangibles, such as the never-ending Origin-of-Life & Body/Mind controversies.

Yes, Enformationism is my retirement hobby. And it is my personal position on almost all philosophical questions. So, I join a handful of leading-edge scientists & philosophers in trying to promote a new paradigm of Science. It's a novel approach to the "hard problem" of Consciousness, which addresses the question of how dumb Matter can produce Mind. In a previous paradigm shift, Information theory & Quantum mechanics both forced-open new doors to our comprehension on Reality. And both have revealed paradoxes underneath our classical and intuitive understanding of the world, that were grudgingly accepted, despite their absurdity. Enformationism is not about Information Technology, but about non-physical Philosophy, the science of Ideas.

Although Quantum Theory is counter-intuitive, its success in controlling Nature has forced us to admit that small-scale physics is weird. And Information Theory has been proven to be effective in opening new channels for communication of ideas. Ironically, its success in Artificial Intelligence, has obscured it's role in Natural Intelligence and in Ideas per se. So, those of us who do grok the universal applications of essential (and causal) Information, are facing a general lack of comprehension, and resistance from the dug-in old guard. Undaunted, we soldier on, as the proponents of a new paradigm must do, in order to advance both Science and Philosophy.

New Paradigm :
1. A new way of thinking or doing things that replaces the old way.
2. A set of beliefs that replaces another set which is believed no longer to apply
3. A new logical framework for understanding a situation
4. Science has a paradigm which remains constant before going through a paradigm shift when current theories can’t explain some phenomenon [e.g. consciousness], and someone proposes a new theory [i.e. universal causal information].

Information and Causality :
Recent advances suggest that the concept of information might hold the key to unravelling the mystery of life's nature and origin. Fresh insights from a broad and authoritative range of articulate and respected experts focus on the transition from matter to life, and hence reconcile the deep conceptual schism between the way we describe physical and biological systems. A unique cross-disciplinary perspective, drawing on expertise from philosophy, biology, chemistry, physics, and cognitive and social sciences, provides a new way to look at the deepest questions of our existence. This book addresses the role of information in life, and how it can make a difference to what we know about the world. __Paul Davies, physicist, et al.
https://www.amazon.com/Matter-Life-Info ... 1107150531

↪T Clark
↪EugeneW

[Gnomon]

All things in formation in the physical world have a potential counterpart in our brain. — EugeneW

Good point! The brain creates a model (analogy or counterpart) of the real world. Unfortunately, some posters seem to confuse the model with the terrain, or the terrain with the model, or the neuron with the idea. In this thread, the terrain is physical Reality & neuronal Brain, while the model is meta-physical Ideality & noumenal Mind.


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/
Note -- the mental image of a real thing has a similar structure, in the sense of analogy or metaphor, but is not identical with the neurons that evoke that mental pattern.

[Gnomon]

Didn't know there was an anti-metaphysics brigade, but it seems inevitable, from a yin-yang point of view that is. . . .
So, science is enemy #1 for metaphysics. — Agent Smith

Oh yes. There's nothing new about the antagonistic split between reductive Reason & holistic Faith. It goes back, at least, to the Protestant Reformation. However, the "enlightenment" intellectual movement, of the 17th & 18th centuries, was not originally anti-metaphysics, but merely anti-dogma. Early church-educated scientists, using evidence & reason, concluded that the official cosmology of the Catholic Church was wrong on specific technical topics. Ironically, the geocentric cosmology of Christian Theologians was inherited from pagan Greeks & Romans (among others). But as soon as that doctrine was formally adopted as revealed Truth, it became incontrovertible dogma.

Certain features of the Earth-centric cosmology, while useful for theological purposes, upon closer inspection, turned-out to be unsuitable for mathematical calculations. But, by definition, doctrinal Faith cannot be wrong. So, what was originally an internal protestant movement -- defying church authority in favor of personal reasoning, and focused on minor scriptural exegesis -- was later expanded to defend against contradictory scientific interpretations. So, it was a three-way split : 1.Sacred Catholic, 2.Pious Protestant, and 3.Secular Science & Philosophy. My own heresy falls into the third slot.

Eventually, freethinking intellectuals turned against, not just scriptural squabbles, but Scholastic Metaphysics in general. A quarantine of material Physics from spiritual Metaphysics gradually became the doctrine of pragmatic Science. Although Physics & Metaphysics had been inter-twined in Philosophy since Aristotle, a divorce became inevitable during the Protestant & Scientific revolutions. So, Metaphysics (the science of ideas), despite its philosophical & intellectual origins, was then deemed not just anti-intellectual ("stupid idiots"), but also anti-science ("faith-based").

Sadly, that Matter/Mind partition of intellectual investigation continues to this day. So, the once esteemed label of "Metaphysics", has come to signify "Anti-Physics" and "Anti-Science". Which is why, even modern mind-researchers who focus on non-physical aspects of reality (e.g. Psychology), are careful to avoid the use of a tainted term in their work. Unfortunately, even Philosophers, who do not claim to do physical science, must also avoid any appearance of dabbling in "irrational" Metaphysics, for fear of being attacked by "the ghost-hunting brigade".

As a philosophical Skeptic myself, I don't mind their justified suspicion of rampant Pseudo-science and re-interpreted Theology. But, the unwarranted Cynicism makes the emergence of a new information-based Paradigm of secular Science difficult. Since Information Science is primarily concerned with topics such as Origin of Life, and Emergence of Consciousness, it begins to trespass across that cease-fire line drawn between Mind & Matter, by such scientists as Steven Jay Gould, which he labeled "non-overlapping magisteria". And those of us, who are interested in non-physical (e.g. mental) phenomena get caught in the crossfire. Keep your head down.


Non-Overlapping Magisteria :
that science and religion each represent different areas of inquiry, fact vs. values, so there is a difference between the "nets" over which they have "a legitimate magisterium, or domain of teaching authority", and the two domains do not overlap
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-overl ... magisteria
Note -- the expanding domain of 21st century Information Theory from computers to minds has over-lapped into the no-go zone, and is being fired-upon by both sides of the powder-keg cease-fire zone.

https://s3.amazonaws.com/lowres.cartoon ... 35_low.jpg

[Gnomon]

Have you ever considered the possibility that there is no such thing as "matter"? . . .
The whole field of "process philosophy", which allows the substance of physical reality to be rendered as mathematical equations, instead of as matter, in a fundamental platonic realism, is derived from the annihilation of "matter". — Metaphysician Undercover

For pragmatic l purposes -- such as walking on solid ground -- I take matter for granted. But for philosophical speculations, I have followed the findings of Quantum & Information sciences, to the conclusion that ultimate reality is in-substantial & immaterial. So, it seems possible that our massy world is constructed of weightless-but-meaningful relationships, such as mathematics & logic. Of course, that possibility is not amenable to empirical investigation. So, like Einstein riding on a light-beam, we must use the telescope of imagination to explore the unseen & intangible foundations of Reality.

Your reference to Process Philosophy is interesting. I've read A.N. Whitehead's book on the topic, but much of it was above my philosophical pay-grade. Can you direct me to a more accessible source of information on the "annihilation of matter" concept?

Mathematical structure :
In mathematics, a structure is a set endowed with some additional features on the set (e.g. an operation, relation, metric, or topology). Often, the additional features are attached or related to the set, so as to provide it with some additional meaning or significance.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_structure

[Gnomon]

reductive Reason — Gnomon
You mean bone-headed, dismissive reason. — L'éléphant

No. I mean scientific reasoning, as used effectively for the dissection of material objects. But when reductive methods are used on Holistic systems it misses the immaterial bonds that hold it together. So, those who insist on "empirical evidence" for philosophical concepts, such as "axioms". "principles", "categories", "substance", "essence", or "systems", may be applying "bone-headed, dismissive reason" to non-empirical problems.

[Gnomon]

Note -- the mental image of a real thing has a similar structure, in the sense of analogy or metaphor, but is not identical with the neurons that evoke that mental pattern. — Gnomon

In my view, it'd be easier to make your point by emphasizing the difference between sentences and neocortexes. . . .
So skeptical cynics are the true enemies of scientific progress? One funeral at a time, right? — lll

No. I'm not talking about conventional grammatical syntax or physical structure. My "point" was referring to "mathematical structure" & "mental meaning". Which are not constructed of matter or social conventions, but of cognitive relationships. (see definition of "Mathematical Structure" in reply to — Metaphysician Undercover above)

Cynics are obstacles to progress for whatever process they deny. But I'm not talking about "scientific progress", such as in Neurology. Instead, I'm referring to "philosophical progress", as in the "hard question" of Consciousness. How does matter become conscious of its environment and of itself?

[Gnomon]

Physicalism was probably not a major intellectual issue for the Greeks & Romans & Jews. Because, except for a few unorthodox philosophers, they typically took Spiritualism for granted. — Gnomon
Not at all. The Stoics, Epicureans and Atomists were materialists. Materialism has always existed as part of philosophy - even in ancient India. — Wayfarer

Yes. That's why I said "physicalism" was not an issue for them. They seemed to assume that Reality was both Material & Spiritual. But they didn't worry about how a spiritual Mind could emerge from a Material substrate. They just assumed that "god did it".

Only when our improving understanding of Matter found no obvious connection between Body & Mind, did Cartesian dualism become a philosophical problem. So, Descartes postulated that the Pineal gland in the brain was the "seat of the soul. But that didn't pan-out.

However, Einstein discovered that intangible Energy & tangible Matter (Mass) are correlated mathematically. And, post-Shannon Information theory has found a logical/mathematical relationship between Energy & Information. Hence, some scientists & philosophers have concluded that Energy, Matter, & Mind are inter-related forms of the same fundamental "substance".

Physics Is Pointing Inexorably to Mind :
So-called “information realism”
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/ob ... y-to-mind/

[Gnomon]

I believe you'll find it hard to make sense of 'cognitive relationships' without dragging in the so-called 'physical' and various semantic conventions. — lll

Yes. I know that all too well. Human languages are derived from commonsense (sensory) experience. That's why we talk about private-subjective-Mental-concepts in terms of analogies to public-objective-Material-things, Much of the ranting on this forum is a result of mistaken terminology, That's also why I spend (waste?) so much verbiage on defining terms, and defining definitions, and linking to other's definitions.

Ironically, even spooky counter-intuitive (not common sense) Quantum Physics is expressed in material metaphors. For example, a Quantum "Field" is an intangible mathematical concept, but scientists describe it in metaphorical as-if language. Note, in the definitions below, that the term "Field" in physics is defined in terms of another material thing : a "Region". Likewise, my Information-based terminology is misconstrued by the "Trolls" (as I teasingly call them) as-if I'm making a scientific claim about a physical Substance*1, instead of a Philosophical hypothesis about the imaginary Realm (or Field, or Region) we call "Consciousness" or "Mind".

That inherent materiality of language makes discussion of immaterial topics confusing. "Mind" is defined below in terms of an indivisible material substance (like a Democratean atom). But another way to define the "subjective Mind" is as a holistic-system-of-brain-&-its-functions, that when divided into parts, no longer functions mentally. Chop off a piece of brain, and it may still have some neuronal activity, but its cognitive mental functions don't work in the absence of the rest of the system. A mind without a body/brain is metaphorically*2 known as a Ghost. We can imagine such a thing, but mustn't take as real.

The early 20th century Quantum scientists had the same difficulty in describing the atoms they were dissecting in the lab. They likened it to "plum pudding", and to "solar system", and to a "cloud". But all "likens" are metaphors compared to something detectable by the physical senses. Yet Mind & Consciousness are detectable only via rational inference. Hence, the "other minds" problem.

Like those pioneers of Quantum Theory, the attempts of paradigm-busting Information Theorists -- to discuss their Holistic Systems theory of fundamental Information -- are often victims of the misinterpretation of misplaced concreteness, due to the materialistic bias of our common language.


*1. Aristotle analyses substance in terms of form and matter. The form is what kind of thing the object is, and the matter is what it is made of.
Note -- "Form" is the immaterial essence, or defining principle of a thing, while "Matter" is the clay from which it is constructed. In-Form-ation is a meaningful (or metaphorical) projection in the theatre-of-the-mind that represents a real (or metaphorical) object in the world outside the body/brain.

*2. A metaphor is a mental representation of a thing or concept. It's an abstract symbol. It may be stated as-if a Fact, but is not to be taken literally. Semiology is the science of abstractions that exist only in Minds. So, it too is plagued with misconceptions, due to the limitations of language.

Is information the only thing that exists? :
Physics suggests information is more fundamental than matter, energy, space and time
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg ... at-exists/

But language too is material! :
Language is infused with materiality and should therefore not be considered as an abstract system that is isolated from socio-material reality.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.10 ... 017-9540-0

Field :
1. an expanse of open or cleared ground, especially a piece of land suitable or used for pasture or tillage.
2. field, in physics, a region in which each point has a physical quantity associated with it

Region :
1. an area or division, especially part of a country or the world having definable characteristics but not always fixed boundaries.

MInd :
1. the element of a person that enables them to be aware of the world and their experiences, to think, and to feel; the faculty of consciousness and thought.

Element :
1. An element is a substance that cannot be separated into simpler substances through chemistry.

What Is an Atom Like? :
Since the atom was discovered, many theories tried to depict what an atom is like. They have likened it to a plum pudding, a small ball, and even a tiny solar system. Perhaps, it is also imagined as a core with a cloud of small and light particles surrounding it.
https://www.thegreatcoursesdaily.com/wh ... atom-like/

A Democratean Metaphor :
https://www.jstor.org/stable/4181641

MIND IS A METAPHOR FOR BRAIN FUNCTION
http://www.andyeklund.com/wp-content/up ... phor_5.gif

[Gnomon]

However, Einstein discovered that intangible Energy & tangible Matter (Mass) are correlated mathematically. — Gnomon
No, you're on the wrong track here. And that's not even supported by the post you provide from Bernardo Kastrup (of whom I'm a keen reader, having just finished his Schopenhauer.) — Wayfarer

I was not referring to Kastrup's article in the excerpt above. It was a top of the head remark.

Does Kastrup think E & M are not correlated mathematically? What does the "=" sign in E=MC^2 mean?