TPF : Argument from Reason -- Metaphysics

[Gnomon]

The model I'm trying to flesh out posits mind or consciousness as being a latent attribute or dimension of reality, which manifests when and wherever the appropriate physical conditions exist (apparently a rare occurrence) through the processes we know as evolutionary biology. This implies that the mind is not the outcome of that process, but at the source of it - but not as a creator Deity, more like Schopenhauer's Will. It is also not to say that ‘everything is conscious’ in the pantheistic sense, or that sub-atomic particles have some primitive form of experience. I see that as an attempt to rescue materialism by the injection of mind-stuff. — Wayfarer

Sounds very similar to my own personal project. Which I began a few years ago, after a quantum physicist remarked on what he saw on the quantum level of reality : "it's all information". That observation seemed to confirm John A. Wheeler's 1989 "It from Bit" conjecture. His Participatory Anthropic Universe sounds a lot like Panpsychism, plus the notion that human consciousness was somehow intended from the beginning of evolution. But being a scientist, he wouldn't be expected to make a religious doctrine of what he saw as a mere fact of Nature.

I'm not as familiar with philosophical literature as you are, so I Googled Schopenhauer's "Will and Representation (Idea)", and it looks to be generally compatible with my Enformationism worldview --- which I am also still "trying to flesh out". With no formal training in Philosophy, I began from the conjunction of two modern sciences -- Quantum & Information -- instead of from ancient philosophical & religious conjectures. However, I did find Plato's functional notion of First Cause to be a plausible way to express the un-knowable Source of the "Will" that is being expressed in gradual physical evolution. Early in the development of my thesis, I wrote an essay*1 to summarize my understanding of how intentional evolution might work, while avoiding the doctrinal prejudices of Intelligent Design. My primitive understanding has evolved since then, mainly due to feedback from this forum. Since I have no direct revelation from the First Cause, I can only guess at He/r characteristics & intentions, if any.

My personal worldview has a lot in common with ancient theories of Pantheism, but I would prefer to call it PanEnDeism*2, to avoid any dogmatic theistic implications. Also, I take issue with descriptions of primitive entities as "experiential". To me, that term seems to imply that sub-atomic particles consciously interact with their environment. Instead, I think of causal EnFormAction --- similar to Shop's "Will", but more like a goal-directed computer program --- as a primitive form of intentional Causation/Energy that took 14 billion years to evolve into Living & Thinking creatures, and most recently into Self-Conscious beings. This is not a Genesis account, but merely an educated guess. Why the wheelspinning of eons before the advent of philosophical cosmologists? I suppose it has something to do with FreeWill within an otherwise deterministic system of willful causation : matter + energy + laws.

I describe my thesis as a scientific/philosophical update of ancient Atomism/Materialism and Monism/Spiritualism, with new insights from Quantum & Information theories. Unfortunately, 180 scorns it as merely a sci-fi rehash of outdated mind/body Dualism/Spiritualism.

Note --- My guess is that Self-Consciousness "manifests" when the Cosmic Program of Evolution reaches the minimum necessary complexity for feedback loops of information.
"Feedback occurs when outputs of a system are routed back as inputs as part of a chain of cause-and-effect that forms a circuit or loop. The system can then be said to feed back into itself." ___Wikipedia


*1. Intelligent Evolution :
If the physical universe is not eternal, then the various speculative “multi-verse” and “many worlds” theories cannot explain the brute fact of our temporal existence. Instead, we must devise a theory
that accounts for the finite beginning and formless end envisioned by the cosmological experts.
https://gnomon.enformationism.info/Essa ... 120106.pdf

*2. PanEnDeism :
Panendeism is a non-religious ontological position that explores the interrelationship between G*D (The Cosmic Mind) and the known attributes of the universe. Combining aspects of Panentheism and Deism, Panendeism proposes an idea of G*D that both embodies the universe and is transcendent of its observable physical properties.
https://panendeism.org/faq-and-questions/
1. Note : PED is distinguished from general Deism, by its more specific notion of the G*D/Creation relationship; and from PanDeism by its understanding of G*D as preter-natural creator rather than the emergent soul of Nature. Enformationism is a Panendeistic worldview.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page16.html

[Gnomon]

Yes, yes, we all know there is another framework. What you need to argue for is exclusivity. . . .
As I understand it, you are not proposing an alternative scientific theory, and imagine your quest as challenging a foundational assumption of science. . . .
Your choice then is (1) present your view as a genuine scientific hypothesis; (2) challenge the methodology of science. Mostly theists opt for door number 2, and defend revelation as knowledge producing. . . . .
There is one last alternative, which is not to challenge science but to live alongside it, — Srap Tasmaner

Personally, I don't read ↪Wayfarer's modest proposals as "challenging science" or arguing for "exclusivity" of philosophical reasoning versus scientific reasoning. Like me, he seems to be content with the pragmatic scientific "revelations" of the material world. But, at the same time, he is keenly aware that the human mind is still a black box*1 for those who seek a material explanation for Mental phenomena, such as Reasoning. That's why he is not proposing "an alternative scientific theory", or "challenging a foundational assumption", but instead, exploring some ancient & modern philosophical theories --- perhaps parallel to the materialistic presumptions, rather than diametrically opposed. Black vs White oppositions are typical of politics, but when philosophy gets into politics, what you get is Sophistry.

Your insistence on a "genuine scientific hypothesis" may reveal an implicit attitude of exclusivity : "Philosophy has nothing important to say about the 'hard problem', so only a scientific hypothesis can be taken seriously". It's true that philosophical theorizing is unlikely to reveal the physical "seat of consciousness". Yet a quick overview of current scientific hypotheses reveals that the imaginary "seat" seems to be all over the place, mostly in the head*2. Each team points to a different "grid" or region of the brain. But, are these localized conjectures any more authoritative than the generalized speculations of philosophers? For example, Chalmers is asking general "why" queries (relationships), instead of specific "what" questions (neurons)*3. FYI : David Chalmers is a professor of philosophy and neural science at New York University,

This is a philosophy forum. So why would you require an amateur philosopher to provide a "genuine scientific hypothesis", when the professional scientists, after years of research, are still arguing among themselves? Why should we force Philosophy to "challenge" Science, when they are so successful in working side-by-side*4? For example, Einstein was not an empirical scientist, but a mathematical seeker after a priori or necessary truths of nature. He postulated hypotheses based primarily on imagination*5, and then waited for the empiricists to provide the hard evidence to support what he already knew to be true : teamwork. Perhaps Wayfarer is already opting for your "last alternative".

PS___I interpret Wayfarer's "revelations" to be those of Imagination, rather than of divine Inspiration. He has already explained that he is not a theist, as you seem to imply.


*1. What does the mind is a black box mean? :
To behaviorists, the mind is a “black box.” In science and engineering, the term black box refers to any complex device for which we know the inputs and outputs, but not the inner workings.
https://www.td.org/insights/why-the-bra ... o-about-it

*2. Seat of Consciousness :

"The brainstem is the seat of human consciousness"
https://medium.com/@philipodegard/the-s ... bce3bfa6de

" At least two regions of the brain decide what we perceive"
https://neurosciencenews.com/neuroscien ... ions-1362/

"It found that consciousness may emerge from a grid-like interconnection of neurons at the back of the head. . . . The reigning theory is just a first win. The opposing team—which thinks consciousness stems from the executive frontal parts of the brain—is ready to fight back with a new test design."
https://singularityhub.com/2023/06/27/w ... d-to-head/

*3. Physics vs Experience :
The hard problem of consciousness (Chalmers 1995) is the problem of explaining the relationship between physical phenomena, such as brain processes, and experience (i.e., phenomenal consciousness, or mental states/events with phenomenal qualities or qualia).
http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Har ... sciousness

*4. Empirical vs Theoretical Science :
Science is about empirical knowledge; philosophy is often about that but is also about a priori knowledge (if it exists). Science is about contingent facts or truths; philosophy is often about that but is also about necessary truths (if they exist).
https://1000wordphilosophy.com/2018/02/ ... h-science/

*5. PHILOSOPHY IS APPLIED IMAGINATION
To imagine is to represent without aiming at things as they actually, presently, and subjectively are. One can use imagination to represent possibilities other than the actual, to represent times other than the present, and to represent perspectives other than one’s own. Unlike perceiving and believing, imagining something does not require one to consider that something to be the case. Unlike desiring or anticipating, imagining something does not require one to wish or expect that something to be the case.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/imagination/

quote-the-power-of-imagination-is-the-ultimate-creative-power-no-doubt-about-that-while-knowledge-albert-einstein-86-42-07.jpg

[Gnomon]

↪Gnomon
I don't think Einstein was thinking about imagination as a faculty standing free from science, but rather in its service. — Janus

Of course! I posted the quote only because Wayfarer's "revelations" were being implicitly compared to divine revelations, in the service of religion instead of science. I just wanted to remind forum posters that informed imagination is not a no-no on a philosophy forum.

Both philosophical and scientific theories are imaginary conjectures (speculations), not empirical observations. As Einstein noted, imagination points the way to future knowledge. And, as the OP implied : our current knowledge of the human Mind --- as contrasted with the Brain --- is quite sketchy, and based mostly on guessing. Moreover, the provenance and role of Reason (rational imagination) is suspect in some quarters, perhaps due to its being subject to the whims of Emotion. So, I think Way was being accused of being driven by passionate Emotion, instead of dispassionate Reason. I beg to differ.

David Hume on Reason :
"Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions, and can never pretend to any other office than to serve and obey them."
https://sites.pitt.edu/~mthompso/readin ... encing.pdf

[Gnomon]

Personally, I don't read ↪Wayfarer's modest proposals as "challenging science" or arguing for "exclusivity" of philosophical reasoning versus scientific reasoning. — Gnomon
Did you read the OP? — Srap Tasmaner


Yes. But perhaps I read it with different preconceptions.

I understood him to be questioning the metaphysical assumptions of doctrinal Materialism, not the empirical methods of practical Science. As pragmatist/naturalist John Dewey noted, modern Materialism pretends to be Monistic, but as an explanation for the emergence of mental phenomena from a material substrate, logically it must assume Dualistic origins : similar to Aristotle's theory of Hylomorphism.

PS__The "foundational assumption" he was "challenging" is that of philosophical Materialism, not of pragmatic Science. So, his "alternative theory" was philosophical, not scientific.


THE METAPHYSICAL ASSUMPTIONS OF MATERIALISM :
In his first published article, "The Meta-physical Assumptions of Materialism" (written in 1881), Dewey found the doctrine "which declares that matter and its forces adequately account for all phenomena -- those of the material world, commonly so called, and those of life, mind, and society" -- to be lacking both in clarity and logical consistency. Of the several destructive conclusions which he discovered to be implicit in monistic materialism one was to be of particular importance for his later naturalism: if the materialist begins with the assumption that mind and the molar forms of matter are constructed ultimately from molecular blocks of matter, he must end "with the conclusion that the ultimate form of matter has dualistic 'mind' and 'matter' properties . . . . If a materialist were to say that this double-sided substance is what he means by matter, we could only reply that he is playing with words--that it is just as much mind as it is matter.
http://home.uchicago.edu/~rjr6/articles/Dewey.pdf

John Dewey :
John Dewey was a leading proponent of the American school of thought known as pragmatism, a view that rejected the dualistic epistemology and metaphysics of modern philosophy in favor of a naturalistic approach that viewed knowledge as arising from an active adaptation of the human organism to its environment.
https://iep.utm.edu/john-dewey/

Hylomorphism, (from Greek hylē, “matter”; morphē, “form”), in philosophy, metaphysical view according to which every natural body consists of two intrinsic principles, one potential, namely, primary matter, and one actual, namely, substantial form.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/hylomorphism

↪Wayfarer

[Gnomon]

It's a class and category thing. The first premise claims that rational and biological are classes, and a given phenomenon can be in one or the other but never both. The response (beginning with Anscombe) has most often been that rational and biological are categories, and there's no reason at all something can't be both. (Calling these both 'dualisms' obscures the distinction.) — Srap Tasmaner

I agree that philosophers, for the sake of argument, often make such compartmentalized distinctions, regarding controversial topics. From a general philosophical perspective, "Reason" and "Biology" and "Psychology" are in separate classes (type or kind or categories of being) with completely different physical and semantic characteristics. Yet, from the standpoint of a monistic Materialistic belief system, they are merely convenient categories for discussion, but ultimately all features & phenomena of the world are presumed to be subject to the rationally-inferred laws (regularities) of Physics.

Then, there is a monistic Meta-Physical*1 perspective, in which Matter is limited by the restrictions of physical laws, but Mental phenomena are free from such strictures. Which is why the human mind is able to believe and to tell lies. In that case, Reason is only subject to the Laws of Logic, which are essentially the same as Mathematics.

*1. Meta-Physical : anything not perceivable via the physical senses, but conceivable by the mental faculties --- intangible, abstract


This is why I have tried to force y'all to be more specific. If you say, here's something evolution can't do, what do you mean by that? Are you in the trenches of biology, offering an alternative theory? Evidently not. Are you challenging science's approach to knowledge production? No one will say so. If you're saying that here's something that by definition evolution can't do, then you're playing semantic games and the rest of us can ignore you. — Srap Tasmaner

Specificity is a necessity for philosophical discussions, because each of us comes to the argument with a personal belief system (set of prejudices). That's why a primary rule of dialog is : first, define your terms. And that's why Wayfarer specified that his terminology is not limited to definitions classified under the heading of Materialism*2. He may not have been as specific about which alternative dictionary (or philosophical tradition) he draws his meanings from. But, I'm sure he will give you that information, if you ask him.

Regarding the evolution of Reason, I can't speak for Way. Our worldviews seem to be similar, but his philosophical background is quite different from mine. And he might disagree with some of my unconventional ideas & terminology. For myself though, I will specify that, for all practical purposes, I am a materialist, "living in a material world" (pace Madonna). And for scientific purposes, I assume that the modern synthesis of Evolutionary theory is generally correct. Anything that currently exists in the world, is something that Evolution could do, and did. And that includes things/ideas that are not made of massive matter, but of meaningful information.

So, for my personal philosophical purposes, I have developed my own "alternative" theory, which does not exclude Mental phenomena from consideration*4. My private personal theory of evolution includes insights from Quantum & Information sciences, that were not known to Darwin. And it specifically attempts to explain how the immaterial class of Mind could evolve over eons of time from the initial conditions & laws & causes in place at the beginning of space-time. This alternative theory is intended to help explain how Evolution did somehow produce immaterial Minds, only after 14 billion years of physical/material interactions , not accidentally, but guided by the inherent Laws of Nature.

PS___Regarding "semantic games", when posters on a philosophy forum do not share, or attempt to understand, the worldviews (belief system & its assumptions) of their fellows, a dialog soon devolves into a "semantic game". So, lets make an effort to see the topic from someone else's perspective.


*2. Wayfarer from OP :
In order to clearly frame the argument from reason, it is necessary to understand what it is opposed to. This is usually said to be ‘naturalism’, but I will instead propose that its target is better named physicalism or materialism.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... -reason/p1
Note --- He didn't say he was opposed to the Nature or the scientific method, only to certain belief systems that claim the absolute authority of Scientism.

*3. The Mind-Evolution Problem :
The Difficulty of Fitting Consciousness in an Evolutionary Framework
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10 ... 01537/full

*4. Evolution of Mind :
But then the conscious mind constitutes a special dilemma, since this modern picture was produced precisely by excluding all mental properties from physical nature.
https://www.thenewatlantis.com/publicat ... llusionist

↪Wayfarer

[Gnomon]

I don't know what others had in mind, but I was responding just to your posting of the Einstein quote. There are those who think the metaphysicalist imagination should be unfettered by science, by physicalism, and I don't think Einstein was one of them. That is all my response was concerned with. — Janus

Yes. But ↪Wayfarer is not one of "those" preferring "unfettered" imagination. The negative reactions to Wayfarer's OP seem to be falsely accusing him of making unsubstantiated scientific (physical) assertions, while ignoring his explicit framing of the topic in terms of philosophical (metaphysical) concepts. He was not arguing against Evolution or Biology, but against the axiomatic (unprovable) metaphysical beliefs of Materialism*1.

PS___I quoted pragmatist Thomas Dewey above : " if the materialist begins with the assumption that mind and the molar forms of matter are constructed ultimately from molecular blocks of matter, he must end "with the conclusion that the ultimate form of matter has dualistic 'mind' and 'matter' properties . . . . If a materialist were to say that this double-sided substance is what he means by matter, we could only reply that he is playing with words--that it is just as much mind as it is matter." The problem is that doctrinaire Materialists seem to omit Mind (the observer) from their metaphysical assumptions. However, Aristotle spoke of just such a mind/body dualism in his concept of Hylomorphism : matter + mind (nous ; form) = natural bodies. So the Monism of Materialism is missing an essential ingredient to explain the emergence of abstract thought (i.e. Reason) from physical evolution.


*1. Materialism as a belief system :

Materialism asserts that everything is or can be explained in relation to matter.
https://philosophynow.org/issues/42/What_is_Materialism

Materialism is a form of philosophical monism which holds that matter is the fundamental substance in nature, and that all things, including mental states and consciousness, are results of material interactions of material things.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism

Materialism holds that the only thing that can be truly proven to exist is matter. Thus, according to Materialism, all things are composed of material and all phenomena are the result of material interactions, with no accounting of spirit or consciousness.
https://www.philosophybasics.com/branch ... alism.html

[Gnomon]

— Wayfarer

↪180 Proof sarcastically & superciliously ridiculed your & my spooky immaterial opinions in this thread about general Reason instead of particular Things. Specifically, he poo-poos my information-based posts postulating something like a data-processing-universe theory.

From his reply : "I'm not convinced (it does not seem to me to follow), however, 'that if physical events-regularities are computable (which they are), then physical reality must be a "computer" executing a nonphysical program (and, in your case, Gnomon, that's written by a "nonphysical programmer")' – at best, this hasty generalization is too unparsimonious and the pseudo-speculative equivalent of (neo-Aristotlean / neo-Thomistic / neo-Hegelian) "intelligent design". Apparently he connects my personal theory with those of several famous mathematicians & physicists. So, it looks like I'm in good company. FWIW, since I avoid engaging in put-down polemics, here's my response indirectly addressed to 180 :

My only knowledge of Ed Fredkin came in Robert Wright's 1988 book : Three Scientists And Their Gods, Looking For Meaning in an Age of Information. Wright said, "He posits not only laws but a law enforcement agency : a computer. Somewhere out there, he believes, is a machinelike thing that actually keeps our our individual bits of space abiding by the rule of the universal cellular automaton, With this belief Fredkin crosses the line between physics and metaphysics".

Wright later asks, "where is this computer that Fredkin keeps talking about". Fellow physicist and Information theorist, Rolf Landauer noted the flaw in Fredkin's theory, infinite regress : "It's turtles all the way down". Wright goes on to ask, "if matter is made of information, what is the information made of?" Apparently Fredkin's god-like cosmic computer is just an ontological metaphor, and not subject to ultimate empirical evidence. Likewise, my own hypothetical god-like Enformer is just an immaterial metaphor, and not amenable to materialistic challenges. It simply provides a way to think about the kind of Ultimate Origin questions that Plato & Aristotle answered with the metaphor of a First Cause. Sure the container of the metaphor is a material brain, but what is the substance of an abstract metaphor?

Would you (180) also accuse Fredkin, a certified genius, of "hasty generalization" and "unparsimonious and the pseudo-speculative equivalent of (neo-Aristotlean / neo-Thomistic / neo-Hegelian) intelligent design"? Is his "law enforcement agent" a god-of-the-gaps posit to cover our ignorance of ultimate answers? Is his "computer" a self-programmed natural intelligence, or an artificial intelligence created by an even more intelligent Programmer? Is human intelligence merely an accidental pattern of a hypothetical "universal cellular automaton"? Perhaps, it just doesn't matter, literally.

PS__180's Materialistic worldview seems to force him to assume that the information & ideas encoded into a computer program are made of some kind of exotic matter. He doesn't understand that the matter is a container for information, not the ideas per se.

[Gnomon]

↪180 Proof

From his reply : "I'm not convinced (it does not seem to me to follow), however, 'that if physical events-regularities are computable (which they are), then physical reality must be a "computer" executing a nonphysical program (and, in your case, Gnomon, that's written by a "nonphysical programmer")' – at best, this hasty generalization is too unparsimonious and the pseudo-speculative equivalent of (neo-Aristotlean / neo-Thomistic / neo-Hegelian) "intelligent design". — Gnomon


↪Wayfarer
Again, I'll reply to you, because dialoging with 180 is like talking to a snarky wall. He says that, in his superior wisdom, he is convinced that physical events are indeed computable --- as Wolfram, Tegmark, etc claim --- but he is "not convinced . . . that physical reality must be a computer executing a nonphysical program". His incredulity toward anything "nonphysical" is built-in to the dogma of Materialism, and non-physical Intelligence is taboo. But many mathematicians, such as Wolfram & Tegmark are platonist in their view of the ontological status of mathematics/logic*1. That's mainly because math & logic are about systematic interrelationships (meanings), not isolated things (atoms in void). Likewise, a computer program is not a material object, but an imagined sequence/system of events, mathematically encoded into a complex Algorithm (a conceptual procedure, not a physical thing).

So, a real computer --- perhaps including the universe --- is a physical/material machine designed by a Designer to process some mathematical software encoded by a Programmer, with some eventual end in mind. The input-to-output procedure is typically aimed at future knowledge of something not otherwise knowable --- otherwise, why bother to do the math? If that statement is true of the PC running non-physical software on your desktop, why is it a "hasty generalization" to conclude that the evolving universe also requires some kind to mind to explain the origin of both the hardware computer and the software code? Apparently, for 180, there is no such thing as software : it's all hardware, all the way down*3.

180's Materialistic worldview seems to be based on pragmatic scientific Reduction, instead of theoretical philosophical Generalization*2. But reduction to what? The ancient Atom of Materialism has proved elusive & uncertain to the quantum scientists, who now mostly think of Reality as a Mathematical Field of some kind. Which is why Tegmark wrote his book : Our Mathematical Universe, My Quest for the Ultimate Nature of Reality. Yet, for him, the universe itself seems to be the ultimate Atom of reality. So he doesn't bother to make the next logical step, from computer (logical) universe to a universal (rational)] Programmer. Ironically, due to the inherent randomness of cosmic evolution, the fate of the universe is unpredictable. Unlike the instant creation of Genesis, even the Programmer of gradual evolution could not know the final outcome, except by running the Program to its conclusion*4.


*1. Is math non physical? :
Math is not physical (composed of matter/energy), though all physical things seem to conform to it.
https://www.askphilosophers.org/question/24527

*2. Philosophical Generalization :
A generalization is a form of abstraction whereby common properties of specific instances are formulated as general concepts or claims. Generalizations posit the existence of a domain or set of elements, as well as one or more common characteristics shared by those elements (thus creating a conceptual model).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generalization

*3. Software :
Software of a computer is actually a collection of data or some type of instructions that dictates the computer how to perform some work. From this definition it is quite evident that software is a completely massless collection of instructions. So, it can't be the physical part of a computer.
https://www.quora.com/Are-all-the-physi ... d-software
Note --- The computer is a material hardstuff (hyle), but the software is immaterial mindstuff (morph, form)

*4. " Ultimately, it would be fair to say the Universe itself is chaotic and therefore unpredictable."
https://www.sciencefocus.com/science/ch ... able-mess/

[Gnomon]

Tropes and universals can be described in mathematical, computable terms. — Count Timothy von Icarus
By rational agents - human beings - augmented with intentionally-designed artefacts - computers and calculators. Were those rational abilities absent, there would be no apprehension of tropes or universals. I know it's already been suggested that crows can count, but try explaining the concept of prime to them. — Wayfarer

Again, we have here an instance of looking at one side (the apparent side) of the whole world. Since scientists have concluded, from available evidence, that big-brained homo sapiens emerged on a minor planet on the margin of an ordinary spiral galaxy, only after 14 billion earth-years of gradual development. If so, did "tropes & universals" exist in the natural world for all those eons of evolution, or are they a result of "artificial" reasoning? What about "mathematics"?*1 Is that a natural thing, or an unnatural product of human reasoning? If the universe was "computing" the inputs & outputs of Nature since the system was suddenly turned-on in a Big Bang of matter/energy interaction, who/what encoded the program of evolution? Was it a sapient counting crow? (just kidding)

A materialistic worldview intentionally avoids dealing with the elephant in the world : the human mind, the rational observer --- those annoying unnatural pests who lit-up the world with artificial light. Perhaps, as you once noted, that evasion may be due to exaggerated "fear of organized religion", or of abstract reason. ↪180 Proof in a post above, responded to my question : "Is human intelligence merely an accidental pattern of a hypothetical "universal cellular automaton"?", with : "Define 'human intelligence' ". Of course, he was not really interested in my opinion on the subject ; just looking for another opportunity to demonstrate the superiority of his mountaintop-Illuminati intellect, unburdened by the superstitions of such spooky concepts as immaterial (functional) Minds & Intelligences --- presumably including gods & ghosts & angels. Judging by superficial appearances, a doctrinaire Materialist might not see any meaningful difference between a counting crow and a computing scientist.

The implicit assumption of monistic Materialism is that anything the human mind imagines --- that can't be counted --- does not matter. And that countless category includes the distinction between Brains & Minds, or Seeing & Knowing. If he placed a coin on a table and asked me if it was heads or tails, he would ridicule my holistic BothAnd answer, because you can't see the downside of the coin ; so it doesn't count, even though you know that it is there, by reasoning from prior experience. Sure, reasoning can lead to erroneous conclusions, but so can discounting what is not directly apparent to the 5 senses. Likewise, discounting the value of human reasoning, just because it a natural outcome of mundane evolution --- instead of a divine miracle --- can lead to a one-sided worldview. A belief system that ignores ideas, reasons, and other abstractions as immaterial*2.

PS___Yes, " universals can be described in mathematical, computable terms" because, like any other man-made language, computer code can represent abstractions with symbols*3.

*1. What is Mathematics? :
the abstract science of number, quantity, and space.
__Oxford

*2. What are Abstractions? :
the quality of dealing with ideas rather than events
___Oxford

*3. What is a Symbol? :
something visible that by association or convention represents something else that is invisible.
https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/symbol

[Gnomon]

But your use of the metaphors of information and information processing introduce many difficulties from a philosophical point of view. My own approach is more oriented around 'history of ideas' and understanding how ideas influence cultural dynamics and entrenched attitudes, leavened somewhat with my engagement with Buddhist praxis — Wayfarer

I am aware that you and I are coming from completely different backgrounds : mine in the sciences, yours in history & literature. But, surprisingly, we have come to similar conclusions about some of the most controversial topics discussed on this forum. Hence, though wearing different uniforms, we are forced to stand back-to-back, fending-off the forces of encircling orthodox Scientism.

For example : "The argument from reason challenges the proposition that everything that exists, and in particular thought and reason, can be explained solely in terms of natural or physical processes". Personally, I don't interpret the existence of abstract Thought & logical Reason as evidence of a "supernatural" act of intervention, in the traditional sense of many world religions. Instead, I attribute the ubiquitous role of mathematical/material Information in the world to a mysterious preter-natural source, similar to the abstract principles that Plato & Aristotle called First Cause or Logos or Prime Mover. Except for that hypothetical Ontological beginning, everything else in the world is a natural result of evolutionary programming. No superstitions necessary, it's just coding.

Since I have no divine revelation or Buddhist insights, I have no basis for making more specific conjectures about the postulated metaphorical Enformer or Programmer : it's just a theory, like the Big Bang. Hence, it does not prescribe any unique shoulds & oughts & thou shalts. From the perspective of doctrinaire Naturalists though, that pre-natural + natural postulation leaves me suspended between mythical or superstitious religions, and empirical pragmatic sciences. My worldview is completely natural & mundane, up to the point where physical Nature began in an astronomically-unlikely bang in the dark. Beyond that, anything I, or anyone else, might say is a shot in the dark.