If Jaworsky claims that it is logical to believe that a particle with 0 consciousness can form consciousness, how can he believe that a particle with 0 consciousness + form with 0 consciousness can create consciousness? — Eugen
I'm not familiar with Jaworsky, but on this forum, we have discussed how the ancient notion of Hylomorphism might help to explain some perennial problems in science & philosophy (e.g. consciousness & emergence)*1. Unfortunately, Aristotle's compound of two ontological principles -- matter & form -- also brings together physics & metaphysics. And that's blasphemous to believers in the comprehensive powers of mechanical Materialism --- like the explosive clash of matter & antimatter.
The tangible substance (hyle) is not very controversial, because it's what we all know via the 5 senses. But the metaphysical part is essentially the same as Plato's concept of transcendent Form (idea or design or logical structure), and is only knowable via the sixth sense of Reason (inference). Apparently, not all humans are capable of grasping such imaginary abstractions; hence the incredulity toward anything immaterial. Even though Aristotle seemed to be uncomfortable with the notion of ideal transcendence, his distinction of Form from Matter, implied that the logical structure that the human recognizes (to cognize/conceive = to know) is invisible to the naked eye (to perceive = to see). Reason is like X-ray vision : it reveals the hidden structure within.
In the 20th century, Claude Shannon borrowed an old English term -- Information -- a traditionally transcendent concept (soul insight) referring to abstract knowledge : the act of generating internal representations of external concrete reality in the metaphysical Mind (e.g learning). Ironically, for his engineering purposes, the specific meaning (semantics) of such knowledge was not as important as the general ability to contain & convey (syntax) ideas from one mind to another. Yet, for my own philosophical purposes, I have adopted a definition of "Information" that harks back to Aristotle's distinction between malleable Matter (hyle) and causal Energy (act of changing form ; in-form-action).
Surprisingly, in the 21st century, scientists have re-discovered the identity of physical Energy and mental Information*2. Some people seem to think that Energy is a material substance that flows like water. But physicists are aware that Energy is an imaginary invisible intangible Cause to which we attribute observed changes in material objects. Just as invisible intangible Energy (action) can be transformed into Mass (matter), Mental Information can be transformed into Causal Energy, and vice-versa. Does any of that new science remind you of Aristotle's transformation of transcendent Form into immanent Matter?
*1. Hylomorphism is a philosophical doctrine developed by the Ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle, which conceives every physical entity or being (ousia) as a compound of matter (potency) and immaterial form (act), with the generic form as immanently real within the individual. The word is a 19th-century term formed from the Greek words ὕλη (hyle: "wood, matter") and μορφή (morphē: "form"). Hylomorphic theories of physical entities have been undergoing a revival in contemporary philosophy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hylomorphism
*2. The mass-energy-information equivalence principle :
American Institute of Physics
Landauer’s principle formulated in 1961 states that logical irreversibility implies physical irreversibility and demonstrated that information is physical. Here we formulate a new principle of mass-energy-information equivalence proposing that a bit of information is not just physical, as already demonstrated, but it has a finite and quantifiable mass while it stores information.
https://pubs.aip.org/aip/adv/article/9/ ... -principle
TPF : Hylomorphism -- Mind, Matter
Re: TPF : Hylomorphism -- Mind, Matter
↪Joshs
I don't really understand him. On one hand, he says particles can't form consciousness because they have 0 consciousness, but on the other hand, he thinks that particles with 0 consciousness + form with 0 consciousness can.
I also don't understand his view on emergence. He says holomorphic emergence implies irreducibility, but it seems to me consciousness is reducible to matter + form at the end of the day. — Eugen
If you are interested in an amateur philosophical perspective, my thesis postulates a way to resolve your incomprehension of 0 + 0 = 1. Hint, one of those 0s is infinite. It also explains evolutionary emergence of Life & Mind, by reference to the hylomorphic concept : hint Form is holistic.
I don't really understand him. On one hand, he says particles can't form consciousness because they have 0 consciousness, but on the other hand, he thinks that particles with 0 consciousness + form with 0 consciousness can.
I also don't understand his view on emergence. He says holomorphic emergence implies irreducibility, but it seems to me consciousness is reducible to matter + form at the end of the day. — Eugen
If you are interested in an amateur philosophical perspective, my thesis postulates a way to resolve your incomprehension of 0 + 0 = 1. Hint, one of those 0s is infinite. It also explains evolutionary emergence of Life & Mind, by reference to the hylomorphic concept : hint Form is holistic.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests