A VFT would have no sentience, but would have consciousness. — AmadeusD
Well, how can it perceive flies? — Alkis Piskas
The Venus Fly Trap is a brainless living organism, so it seems to "sense" the intrusive fly via a mechanism similar in principle to a Mouse Trap. I'm not aware of any evidence that it forms a mental image of a potential juicy meal prior to springing the trap. It doesn't seem to be able to distinguish a nutritious fly from a dry leaf.
However, a fly is a sentient creature with a simple brain and constrained lifestyle, so its behavior is mostly automatic, with little need to imagine alternative scenarios. But a mouse, with a much more complex brain & behavior, does seem to be able to think & plan to some degree, and to learn from experience.
Yet, where do you draw the line between mechanical Sentience and imaginative Consciousness? My answer is that human-like Consciousness is a late-blooming emergence from 14B years of gradual evolution. It's an upward-trending continuum of information processing.
Fly Brain :
We therefore mapped the synaptic-resolution connectome of an entire insect brain (Drosophila larva) with rich behavior, including learning, value computation, and action selection, comprising 3016 neurons and 548,000 synapses
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.add9330
1-s2.0-S1567539409000668-gr2.jpg
mouse_helmet_scaled.jpg
↪AmadeusD
23 hours ago
TPF : Hard Problem of Consciousness
Re: TPF : Hard Problem of Consciousness
I suggest we try to illustrate a kind of flow chart of the interweave of matter_mind through use of Deacon's triumvirate: thermodynamics, morphodynamics, teleodynamics. Each of the transition phases needs to show an emergent property dependent yet functionally autonomous from its antecedant. Visualizing connection coupled with autonomy is what I expect to be the hard part. — ucarr
I have a blog post that presents a sort of Mind/Matter evolution "flow chart" in the form of an emergent phase ladder*1. But it was not specifically based on Deacon's terminology. However, my multiple phases could conceivably be translated into Deacon's three powers : Thermodynamics (Causation), Morphodynamics (Change), and Teleodynamics (Control)*2. Each step in the ladder is associated with a few "emergent properties" or systems.
My single universal Dynamic (power of transformation) is EnFormAction, which combines Energy, Form-change, and Design (intention, purpose, constraint) into a single natural Force. Deacon's 3-in-1 nested chart is displayed below.
*1. Teleological Evolution :
So it seems that our world got to where it is now via a series of identifiable stages due to "quantum fluctuations", "phase changes", "emergences" and "speciations" that collectively we call Evolution. But only the human-scale (macro) transitions seem to follow the classical physics rules of billiard-ball cause & effect, instead of quantum-level "spooky action at a distance". On larger & smaller scales those transformations seem to be much less random and more directional, even intentional. We can classify those various emergent phases into three domains : Quantum, Classical, and Cosmic.
https://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page23.html
*2. A teleodynamic system consists of coupling two morphodynamic systems such that the self undermining quality of each is constrained by the other. Each system prevents the other from dissipating all of the energy available, and so long term organizational stability is obtained.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incomplete_Nature
From you I get the suggestion mind is the ground of matter. — ucarr
I'm not sure what you mean by "ground" in this context. Something like "ground of being" (G*D)? Or maybe fundamental cause (Prime Mover). Or perhaps, essential Substance, such as Spinoza's deus sive natura. One way to express the Mind/Matter relationship is to say that "Cosmic Mind is the ground of Matter", along with everything else. That is to say that the Potential-for-Mind must have existed prior to the Big Bang that sparked physical, biological, and mental evolution.
From a cosmological perspective, Matter emerged near the beginning of the universe's expansion, then eventually, Mind emerged from a "ground" of animated matter (Life) only after eons of matter/energy cycles*1. In my thesis though, the ultimate "ground" (fundamental substance) is what I call EnFormAction, which is conceptually an amalgam of Energy+Matter+Mind : causation + instantiation + control. All of which are programmed into the algorithm of Creative Evolution
Therefore, my most general term for all phases of Mind emergence is "Information" (EnFormAction). However, one phase of the evolutionary process could be called "Protoconsciousness", as discussed in a previous post.
400px-Homomorphoteleo.jpg
I have a blog post that presents a sort of Mind/Matter evolution "flow chart" in the form of an emergent phase ladder*1. But it was not specifically based on Deacon's terminology. However, my multiple phases could conceivably be translated into Deacon's three powers : Thermodynamics (Causation), Morphodynamics (Change), and Teleodynamics (Control)*2. Each step in the ladder is associated with a few "emergent properties" or systems.
My single universal Dynamic (power of transformation) is EnFormAction, which combines Energy, Form-change, and Design (intention, purpose, constraint) into a single natural Force. Deacon's 3-in-1 nested chart is displayed below.
*1. Teleological Evolution :
So it seems that our world got to where it is now via a series of identifiable stages due to "quantum fluctuations", "phase changes", "emergences" and "speciations" that collectively we call Evolution. But only the human-scale (macro) transitions seem to follow the classical physics rules of billiard-ball cause & effect, instead of quantum-level "spooky action at a distance". On larger & smaller scales those transformations seem to be much less random and more directional, even intentional. We can classify those various emergent phases into three domains : Quantum, Classical, and Cosmic.
https://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page23.html
*2. A teleodynamic system consists of coupling two morphodynamic systems such that the self undermining quality of each is constrained by the other. Each system prevents the other from dissipating all of the energy available, and so long term organizational stability is obtained.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incomplete_Nature
From you I get the suggestion mind is the ground of matter. — ucarr
I'm not sure what you mean by "ground" in this context. Something like "ground of being" (G*D)? Or maybe fundamental cause (Prime Mover). Or perhaps, essential Substance, such as Spinoza's deus sive natura. One way to express the Mind/Matter relationship is to say that "Cosmic Mind is the ground of Matter", along with everything else. That is to say that the Potential-for-Mind must have existed prior to the Big Bang that sparked physical, biological, and mental evolution.
From a cosmological perspective, Matter emerged near the beginning of the universe's expansion, then eventually, Mind emerged from a "ground" of animated matter (Life) only after eons of matter/energy cycles*1. In my thesis though, the ultimate "ground" (fundamental substance) is what I call EnFormAction, which is conceptually an amalgam of Energy+Matter+Mind : causation + instantiation + control. All of which are programmed into the algorithm of Creative Evolution
Therefore, my most general term for all phases of Mind emergence is "Information" (EnFormAction). However, one phase of the evolutionary process could be called "Protoconsciousness", as discussed in a previous post.
400px-Homomorphoteleo.jpg
Re: TPF : Hard Problem of Consciousness
Quite interesting. This contributes a lot to the lack of knowledge I have about the kind of senses plants have and how do they work, which I was talking about to AmadeusD a little while ago.
I assume, of course, that these "senses" differ a lot among plants. — Alkis Piskas
Fundamentally. plant "senses" work the same way as human senses : electrical & chemical data are routed to & from the exterior and interior. Each "message" stimulates some functional response. However, human neurology is far more complex, so the "meaning" of those messages is more subtle & personal, yet generalizable to other contexts.
Certainly. As for "thinking", I guess you used the word in a figurative way or you referred to it as a very raw, primitive kind of "thinking". Because at the level of a mouse, even for Pavlov's dog, such a "thinking" is quite a mechanistic and rather physical process. — Alkis Piskas
Yes, but even human thinking is basically mechanical & emotional. It's the ability to form dispassionate immaterial concepts (images, representations) and self-reference that makes human thought more meaningful, with more leverage over self and environment. And it's the ability to compare & contrast unreal abstract ideas, that makes Rational thought possible.
I assume, of course, that these "senses" differ a lot among plants. — Alkis Piskas
Fundamentally. plant "senses" work the same way as human senses : electrical & chemical data are routed to & from the exterior and interior. Each "message" stimulates some functional response. However, human neurology is far more complex, so the "meaning" of those messages is more subtle & personal, yet generalizable to other contexts.
Certainly. As for "thinking", I guess you used the word in a figurative way or you referred to it as a very raw, primitive kind of "thinking". Because at the level of a mouse, even for Pavlov's dog, such a "thinking" is quite a mechanistic and rather physical process. — Alkis Piskas
Yes, but even human thinking is basically mechanical & emotional. It's the ability to form dispassionate immaterial concepts (images, representations) and self-reference that makes human thought more meaningful, with more leverage over self and environment. And it's the ability to compare & contrast unreal abstract ideas, that makes Rational thought possible.
Re: TPF : Hard Problem of Consciousness
Fundamentally. plant "senses" work the same way as human senses : electrical & chemical data are routed to & from the exterior and interior. — Gnomon
What do you mean by "from the exterior and interior"? Example? — Alkis Piskas
I mean, from the perspective of the sensing organism : interior = self ; exterior = other or environment
It can be "mechanical" as you say, but certainly not "basically", except in special mental cases.
It cannot be said to be "emotional". It itself can produce emotion, both "positive" (e.g. joy, pleasure) and "negative" (e.g. anger, grief). — Alkis Piskas
The evolution of conscious thinking seems to be built upon a foundation of sub-conscious feeling.
Does thinking or emotion come first?
In the primary case, in the standard situation, feelings come first. Thoughts are ways of dealing with feelings – ways of, as it were, thinking our way out of feelings – ways of finding solutions that meets the needs that lie behind the feelings. The feelings come first in both a hierarchical and a chronological sense
https://www.futurelearn.com/info/blog/t ... difference
Meybe you are contradicting yourself by saying now "dispassionate", whereas previously you said "emotional" ... Anyway, it is true that thinking produces mental images. In fact, thoughts themselves are mental images.
But images are not "concepts". And concepts are always immaterial. (There are no immaterial abtract ideas.) — Alkis Piskas
Human thought seems to be an evolutionary extension of animal "passions", but in it's ultimate form as Reason, is able to rise above base passions. As the ancient Stoics taught, the ability to think dispassionately is the primary advantage of humans over animals. We are simply animals who have "learned" to control & focus our inner motivations.
Most pre-verbal human concepts are imaginary & holistic, so must be analyzed into conventional expressions before exported in spoken or written words. The mental images are abstract in the sense of lacking material substance.
The Dispassionate Life :
Epicurus can respond that on his understanding of ‘dispassionate,’ the natural sensitivity of the human being is still fully operational. It’s just that the Epicurean has a correct understanding of the world and realizes that there is no reason be disturbed by it.
https://modernstoicism.com/the-dispassi ... et-graver/
the partial and holistic effects in mental imagery generation :
Mental imagery generation is essential in the retrieval and storage of knowledge. Previous studies have indicated that the holistic properties of mental imagery generation can be evaluated more easily than the partial properties.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2997403/
What does being abstract mean?
Abstract is from a Latin word meaning "pulled away, detached," and the basic idea is of something detached from physical, or concrete, reality. It is frequently used of ideas, meaning that they don't have a clear applicability to real life,
https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/abstract
What do you mean by "from the exterior and interior"? Example? — Alkis Piskas
I mean, from the perspective of the sensing organism : interior = self ; exterior = other or environment
It can be "mechanical" as you say, but certainly not "basically", except in special mental cases.
It cannot be said to be "emotional". It itself can produce emotion, both "positive" (e.g. joy, pleasure) and "negative" (e.g. anger, grief). — Alkis Piskas
The evolution of conscious thinking seems to be built upon a foundation of sub-conscious feeling.
Does thinking or emotion come first?
In the primary case, in the standard situation, feelings come first. Thoughts are ways of dealing with feelings – ways of, as it were, thinking our way out of feelings – ways of finding solutions that meets the needs that lie behind the feelings. The feelings come first in both a hierarchical and a chronological sense
https://www.futurelearn.com/info/blog/t ... difference
Meybe you are contradicting yourself by saying now "dispassionate", whereas previously you said "emotional" ... Anyway, it is true that thinking produces mental images. In fact, thoughts themselves are mental images.
But images are not "concepts". And concepts are always immaterial. (There are no immaterial abtract ideas.) — Alkis Piskas
Human thought seems to be an evolutionary extension of animal "passions", but in it's ultimate form as Reason, is able to rise above base passions. As the ancient Stoics taught, the ability to think dispassionately is the primary advantage of humans over animals. We are simply animals who have "learned" to control & focus our inner motivations.
Most pre-verbal human concepts are imaginary & holistic, so must be analyzed into conventional expressions before exported in spoken or written words. The mental images are abstract in the sense of lacking material substance.
The Dispassionate Life :
Epicurus can respond that on his understanding of ‘dispassionate,’ the natural sensitivity of the human being is still fully operational. It’s just that the Epicurean has a correct understanding of the world and realizes that there is no reason be disturbed by it.
https://modernstoicism.com/the-dispassi ... et-graver/
the partial and holistic effects in mental imagery generation :
Mental imagery generation is essential in the retrieval and storage of knowledge. Previous studies have indicated that the holistic properties of mental imagery generation can be evaluated more easily than the partial properties.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2997403/
What does being abstract mean?
Abstract is from a Latin word meaning "pulled away, detached," and the basic idea is of something detached from physical, or concrete, reality. It is frequently used of ideas, meaning that they don't have a clear applicability to real life,
https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/abstract
Re: TPF : Hard Problem of Consciousness
Fragment 1: Cosmic Mind is an uncreated eternal? — ucarr
Yes. I used the term metaphorically to indicate what Plato called Logos. I'm not referring to the Bible-god. It's an abstract concept, that we rationally infer from the teleonomy of evolution, but have no way of verifying empirically.
Logos :
The Greek philosopher Heraclitus appears to be the first to have used the word logos to refer to a rational divine intelligence, which today is sometimes referred to in scientific discourse as the "mind of God."
https://www.pbs.org/faithandreason/theo ... -body.html
Fragment 2: If matter emerged from Cosmic Mind, what is the bridge linking the non-physical with the physical? — ucarr
In my personal amateur thesis, the "bridge" is Generic Information (EnFormAction) : the power to create novel configurations of actualized Potential. Quantum physicist John A. Wheeler expressed the notion as "It from Bit", where It = material object, and Bit = immaterial Information (EFA). This is similar to Einstein's E=MC^2, where C (cosmic constant) is an irrational number that is now identified with Dark Energy : the expansive "force" inflating the universe.
Cosmological constant The simplest explanation for dark energy is that it is an intrinsic, fundamental energy of space.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy
Fragment 3: If EnFormAction makes three posits: energy = causation; form = instantiation; action = control, then these three phenomena appear to be coequal, uncreated eternals. If that's the case, how is it that Cosmic Mind is the ground of Matter, since matter_energy is coequal with Mind, per EnFormAction? — ucarr
Ha! The way you expressed that tripartite definition of EFA, sounds like the Christian Trinity : three different roles of eternal unitary deity, working in the multiform space-time world . But my notion of EFA is more like a computer program with three sub-routines that work together toward a final solution to the Programmer's question. Unfortunately, I don't know what that question was, but it seems to require the emergence of Intelligence and Self-Consciousness. Yet I suppose you could say that EFA (cosmic mind in action) is the "Ground" of Being, including both Mind & Matter.
I wouldn't say that "matter_energy is coequal with {Cosmic} Mind" though. In the space-time world, matter & energy & mind are different forms of Generic Information, but subordinate to the eternal un-manifest Form/Logos. Since the existence & characteristics of an eternal entity (not deity) are beyond the scope of space-time reasoning, my metaphors should be taken with a grain of skeptical salt.
PS___ For those more inclined toward Materialism/Physicalism, the Cosmic Potential/Mind could be expressed metaphorically as an Eternal Multiverse, wherein Energy & Entropy are eternally recycling. To be clear, in my metaphor, EFA works only within the physical constraints of the only entropy-increasing world that we know via our senses, but understand via our reasoning & imagination.
Yes. I used the term metaphorically to indicate what Plato called Logos. I'm not referring to the Bible-god. It's an abstract concept, that we rationally infer from the teleonomy of evolution, but have no way of verifying empirically.
Logos :
The Greek philosopher Heraclitus appears to be the first to have used the word logos to refer to a rational divine intelligence, which today is sometimes referred to in scientific discourse as the "mind of God."
https://www.pbs.org/faithandreason/theo ... -body.html
Fragment 2: If matter emerged from Cosmic Mind, what is the bridge linking the non-physical with the physical? — ucarr
In my personal amateur thesis, the "bridge" is Generic Information (EnFormAction) : the power to create novel configurations of actualized Potential. Quantum physicist John A. Wheeler expressed the notion as "It from Bit", where It = material object, and Bit = immaterial Information (EFA). This is similar to Einstein's E=MC^2, where C (cosmic constant) is an irrational number that is now identified with Dark Energy : the expansive "force" inflating the universe.
Cosmological constant The simplest explanation for dark energy is that it is an intrinsic, fundamental energy of space.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy
Fragment 3: If EnFormAction makes three posits: energy = causation; form = instantiation; action = control, then these three phenomena appear to be coequal, uncreated eternals. If that's the case, how is it that Cosmic Mind is the ground of Matter, since matter_energy is coequal with Mind, per EnFormAction? — ucarr
Ha! The way you expressed that tripartite definition of EFA, sounds like the Christian Trinity : three different roles of eternal unitary deity, working in the multiform space-time world . But my notion of EFA is more like a computer program with three sub-routines that work together toward a final solution to the Programmer's question. Unfortunately, I don't know what that question was, but it seems to require the emergence of Intelligence and Self-Consciousness. Yet I suppose you could say that EFA (cosmic mind in action) is the "Ground" of Being, including both Mind & Matter.
I wouldn't say that "matter_energy is coequal with {Cosmic} Mind" though. In the space-time world, matter & energy & mind are different forms of Generic Information, but subordinate to the eternal un-manifest Form/Logos. Since the existence & characteristics of an eternal entity (not deity) are beyond the scope of space-time reasoning, my metaphors should be taken with a grain of skeptical salt.
PS___ For those more inclined toward Materialism/Physicalism, the Cosmic Potential/Mind could be expressed metaphorically as an Eternal Multiverse, wherein Energy & Entropy are eternally recycling. To be clear, in my metaphor, EFA works only within the physical constraints of the only entropy-increasing world that we know via our senses, but understand via our reasoning & imagination.
Re: TPF : Hard Problem of Consciousness
My conclusion allows me to claim that when you say:
EFA works only within the physical constraints of the only entropy-increasing world that we know via our senses, but understand via our reasoning & imagination. — Gnomon
You're referring to a realm of mind_matter monism. The mind/body problem is a problem due to a category error in physics_philosophy (mind_matter are two parallel categories). — ucarr
I think you are picking up on the perplexing problem, with online philosophical dialogs, of using common conventional language, which is inherently materialistic/quantitative, to discuss immaterial/qualitative concepts, such as Consciousness.
In my thesis, Mind & Matter are "parallel" in the sense that they are both descendant forms of Generic Information (EFA) that exist side-by-side in the real/ideal world. But they are separate categories, in that Mind is an an emergent quality separated from the Matter-only state by billions of years of evolution. So, qualitatively Mind & Matter are completely different kinds of thing/entity : metaphysical vs physical. Likewise, Ideas exist in the "Real" world, but are qualitatively different. Ironically, Materialists define "Ideal" as un-real ; denying the reality of their own immaterial concepts.
It's hard to make such philosophical distinctions, due to the basic materialism of the language : e.g. "thing" typically designates a material object, whereas "entity" is a more philosophical term. The materialism embedded in our common language only becomes a problem when we try to convey ideas that are not objective things : e.g. Consciousness.
Thing vs Entity :
An entity is something that exists as itself. It does not need to be of material existence. In particular, abstractions and legal fictions are usually regarded as entities. In general, there is also no presumption that an entity is animate, or present.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entity
Mind/Body Problem :
Philosophers and scientists have long debated the relationship between a physical body and its non-physical properties, such as Life & Mind. Cartesian Dualism resolved the problem temporarily by separating the religious implications of metaphysics (Soul) from the scientific study of physics (Body). But now scientists are beginning to study the mind with their precise instruments, and have found no line of demarcation. So, they see no need for the hypothesis of a spiritual Soul added to the body by God. However, Enformationism resolves the problem by a return to Monism, except that the fundamental substance is meta-physical (causation) Information instead of physical (consequence) Matter.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind%E2%80%93body_problem
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page15.html
'Cause and Effect' : Hume''s view that the relation of cause and effect supplies the basis for our factual beliefs. Observation leads us to believe in connections between physical objects and events. The power and force of these connections are not observable, only the changes in spatio-temporal relations.
https://academic.oup.com/book/400/chapt ... m=fulltext
Note --- EnFormAction is a power or force that has both physical/material & metaphysical/immaterial effects/consequences.
EFA works only within the physical constraints of the only entropy-increasing world that we know via our senses, but understand via our reasoning & imagination. — Gnomon
You're referring to a realm of mind_matter monism. The mind/body problem is a problem due to a category error in physics_philosophy (mind_matter are two parallel categories). — ucarr
I think you are picking up on the perplexing problem, with online philosophical dialogs, of using common conventional language, which is inherently materialistic/quantitative, to discuss immaterial/qualitative concepts, such as Consciousness.
In my thesis, Mind & Matter are "parallel" in the sense that they are both descendant forms of Generic Information (EFA) that exist side-by-side in the real/ideal world. But they are separate categories, in that Mind is an an emergent quality separated from the Matter-only state by billions of years of evolution. So, qualitatively Mind & Matter are completely different kinds of thing/entity : metaphysical vs physical. Likewise, Ideas exist in the "Real" world, but are qualitatively different. Ironically, Materialists define "Ideal" as un-real ; denying the reality of their own immaterial concepts.
It's hard to make such philosophical distinctions, due to the basic materialism of the language : e.g. "thing" typically designates a material object, whereas "entity" is a more philosophical term. The materialism embedded in our common language only becomes a problem when we try to convey ideas that are not objective things : e.g. Consciousness.
Thing vs Entity :
An entity is something that exists as itself. It does not need to be of material existence. In particular, abstractions and legal fictions are usually regarded as entities. In general, there is also no presumption that an entity is animate, or present.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entity
Mind/Body Problem :
Philosophers and scientists have long debated the relationship between a physical body and its non-physical properties, such as Life & Mind. Cartesian Dualism resolved the problem temporarily by separating the religious implications of metaphysics (Soul) from the scientific study of physics (Body). But now scientists are beginning to study the mind with their precise instruments, and have found no line of demarcation. So, they see no need for the hypothesis of a spiritual Soul added to the body by God. However, Enformationism resolves the problem by a return to Monism, except that the fundamental substance is meta-physical (causation) Information instead of physical (consequence) Matter.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind%E2%80%93body_problem
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page15.html
'Cause and Effect' : Hume''s view that the relation of cause and effect supplies the basis for our factual beliefs. Observation leads us to believe in connections between physical objects and events. The power and force of these connections are not observable, only the changes in spatio-temporal relations.
https://academic.oup.com/book/400/chapt ... m=fulltext
Note --- EnFormAction is a power or force that has both physical/material & metaphysical/immaterial effects/consequences.
Re: TPF : Hard Problem of Consciousness
In a nutshell: because correlation doesn’t explain consciousness. — Art48
I just received my copy of Bernardo (BK) Kastrup's 2020 book, Science Ideated. He doesn't discuss the "Hard Problem" directly, but the subject matter seems to be pertinent to this thread. So, I'll mention a few first-glance quotes & comments here.
A. BK approaches the Science vs Philosophy controversy from a position of Analytic Idealism*1. "AI" (pardon the unintentional sentient-computer implication) sounds like a succinct description of Modern (post-17th century) philosophy : forced --- by the successes of physical science --- to focus primarily on the metaphysical aspects of Nature : e.g. Ideas ; Self-Consciousness. It accepts the material facts provided by modern physics, but interprets (analyzes) the data as it applies to the immaterial functions (conceptualization ; semiotics) of the human brain.
B. BK says that modern Science "began attributing fundamental reality only to quantities". Then, "we began cluelessly replacing reality with its description, the territory with the map." And notes that "we now face the so-called "hard problem of consciousness" : the impossibility of explaining qualities in terms of quantities." So, he concludes that we "managed to lose touch with reality altogether". Note --- "Reality" as a whole system, including both Mind & Matter.
C> He defines Analytic Idealism as "the notion that reality . . . . is fundamentally qualitative." Thus denying the basic principle of Materialism. Idealism views the world through the lens of subjective Consciousness, while Materialism views it through the lens of objective Technology. Note --- Qualia : the internal and subjective component of sense perceptions, arising from stimulation of the senses by phenomena. Hence, Reality converted to Ideality via physical senses, and metaphysical symbol synthesis.
D> BK says that "Panpsychism ulitmately implies universal consciousness". But then he dismisses that theory as "a halfway compromise between materialism and idealism". Instead, BK seems to favor full-on Idealism, devoid of the contamination of Physicalism. Paradoxically, it's difficult to even talk about metaphysical topics without getting entangled with the physicality embedded in common languages.
Comments :
We humans are only able to communicate the Qualia of our sensory Experience by asking : "do you see what I see?". The response must be translated from private Ideas into public Words, by following the rules of conventional language. Yet, that's where the Hard Problem begins. Our public language is necessarily built upon the material foundation of our common human sensory apparatus, that we share with apes. Even apes, such as Koko, seem to be able to communicate in sign language, which can only express abstract concepts in concrete gestures. Yet, the implication that ape sentience is comparable to human consciousness has been criticized*2.
The Science-based metaphysics of Materialism is supposed to be dealing directly with physical Reality. But, since the subject "matter" is immaterial, BK says their arguments are based on hypothetical conjectures (maps), not empirical (territory) observations. So, their boo-hiss criticism of Consciousness queries on this forum, is a case of the pot calling the kettle a "woo-monger". Consciousness is inherently subjective, hence not objectifiable under a microscope.
My own theory of Consciousness has a "defect" similar to Panpsychism : jumbling Matter together with Mind. That's because the fundamental element of our real world is neither a physical thing, nor a metaphysical entity, but the not-yet-real Potential for both. Terrence Deacon calls it "constitutive absence", but I call it "causal information" (EnFormAction). Materialism & Spiritualism typically view Mind & Brain as incompatible opposites. But the BothAnd principle*3 allows us to see both sides of reality, where Mind & Matter are parts of a greater whole system : the enminded universe.
I may have more to say about Science Ideated later, after I finish the book. This is just a taste, to give us some ideas to argue about in a thread on Consciousness in a material world.
*1. Analytic Idealism in a Nutshell :
While being a realist, naturalist, rationalist, and even reductionist view, Analytic Idealism flips our culture-bound intuitions on their head, revealing that only through understanding our own inner nature can we understand the nature of the world.
https://www.collectiveinkbooks.com/iff- ... m-nutshell
*2. Koko the Impostor :
The apes taught sign language didn't understand what they were doing. They were merely "aping" their caretakers.
https://bigthink.com/life/ape-sign-language/
*3. Both/And Principle :
My coinage for the holistic principle of Complementarity, as illustrated in the Yin/Yang symbol. . . . Conceptually, the BothAnd principle is similar to Einstein's theory of Relativity, in that what you see ─ what’s true for you ─ depends on your perspective, and your frame of reference; for example, subjective or objective, religious or scientific, reductive or holistic, pragmatic or romantic, conservative or liberal, earthbound or cosmic. Ultimate or absolute reality (ideality) doesn't change, but your conception of reality does.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page10.html
↪Mark Nyquist
↪Alkis Piskas
↪ucarr
I just received my copy of Bernardo (BK) Kastrup's 2020 book, Science Ideated. He doesn't discuss the "Hard Problem" directly, but the subject matter seems to be pertinent to this thread. So, I'll mention a few first-glance quotes & comments here.
A. BK approaches the Science vs Philosophy controversy from a position of Analytic Idealism*1. "AI" (pardon the unintentional sentient-computer implication) sounds like a succinct description of Modern (post-17th century) philosophy : forced --- by the successes of physical science --- to focus primarily on the metaphysical aspects of Nature : e.g. Ideas ; Self-Consciousness. It accepts the material facts provided by modern physics, but interprets (analyzes) the data as it applies to the immaterial functions (conceptualization ; semiotics) of the human brain.
B. BK says that modern Science "began attributing fundamental reality only to quantities". Then, "we began cluelessly replacing reality with its description, the territory with the map." And notes that "we now face the so-called "hard problem of consciousness" : the impossibility of explaining qualities in terms of quantities." So, he concludes that we "managed to lose touch with reality altogether". Note --- "Reality" as a whole system, including both Mind & Matter.
C> He defines Analytic Idealism as "the notion that reality . . . . is fundamentally qualitative." Thus denying the basic principle of Materialism. Idealism views the world through the lens of subjective Consciousness, while Materialism views it through the lens of objective Technology. Note --- Qualia : the internal and subjective component of sense perceptions, arising from stimulation of the senses by phenomena. Hence, Reality converted to Ideality via physical senses, and metaphysical symbol synthesis.
D> BK says that "Panpsychism ulitmately implies universal consciousness". But then he dismisses that theory as "a halfway compromise between materialism and idealism". Instead, BK seems to favor full-on Idealism, devoid of the contamination of Physicalism. Paradoxically, it's difficult to even talk about metaphysical topics without getting entangled with the physicality embedded in common languages.
Comments :
We humans are only able to communicate the Qualia of our sensory Experience by asking : "do you see what I see?". The response must be translated from private Ideas into public Words, by following the rules of conventional language. Yet, that's where the Hard Problem begins. Our public language is necessarily built upon the material foundation of our common human sensory apparatus, that we share with apes. Even apes, such as Koko, seem to be able to communicate in sign language, which can only express abstract concepts in concrete gestures. Yet, the implication that ape sentience is comparable to human consciousness has been criticized*2.
The Science-based metaphysics of Materialism is supposed to be dealing directly with physical Reality. But, since the subject "matter" is immaterial, BK says their arguments are based on hypothetical conjectures (maps), not empirical (territory) observations. So, their boo-hiss criticism of Consciousness queries on this forum, is a case of the pot calling the kettle a "woo-monger". Consciousness is inherently subjective, hence not objectifiable under a microscope.
My own theory of Consciousness has a "defect" similar to Panpsychism : jumbling Matter together with Mind. That's because the fundamental element of our real world is neither a physical thing, nor a metaphysical entity, but the not-yet-real Potential for both. Terrence Deacon calls it "constitutive absence", but I call it "causal information" (EnFormAction). Materialism & Spiritualism typically view Mind & Brain as incompatible opposites. But the BothAnd principle*3 allows us to see both sides of reality, where Mind & Matter are parts of a greater whole system : the enminded universe.
I may have more to say about Science Ideated later, after I finish the book. This is just a taste, to give us some ideas to argue about in a thread on Consciousness in a material world.
*1. Analytic Idealism in a Nutshell :
While being a realist, naturalist, rationalist, and even reductionist view, Analytic Idealism flips our culture-bound intuitions on their head, revealing that only through understanding our own inner nature can we understand the nature of the world.
https://www.collectiveinkbooks.com/iff- ... m-nutshell
*2. Koko the Impostor :
The apes taught sign language didn't understand what they were doing. They were merely "aping" their caretakers.
https://bigthink.com/life/ape-sign-language/
*3. Both/And Principle :
My coinage for the holistic principle of Complementarity, as illustrated in the Yin/Yang symbol. . . . Conceptually, the BothAnd principle is similar to Einstein's theory of Relativity, in that what you see ─ what’s true for you ─ depends on your perspective, and your frame of reference; for example, subjective or objective, religious or scientific, reductive or holistic, pragmatic or romantic, conservative or liberal, earthbound or cosmic. Ultimate or absolute reality (ideality) doesn't change, but your conception of reality does.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page10.html
↪Mark Nyquist
↪Alkis Piskas
↪ucarr
Re: TPF : Hard Problem of Consciousness
Since thought, the supposed immaterial medium of your metaphysical abstractions, manifests and functions as a physical activity of our physical brains, and spacetime, the medium through which empirical experience funds our thoughts, likewise is physical, you must, as many others before you have not, explain how things immaterial shape and control things material. — ucarr
Mind/body questions are at the root of the Enformationism thesis. If you accept quantum physicist J. A. Wheeler's "It from Bit" conjecture, then Mental Information (Ideas) can in theory exert control over Material things. I could get into the Mind over Matter question deeply, but that would require a separate thread. Yet I doubt that it would be persuasive to a hard-core materialist. And to be clear, I am not talking about Magic.
Some scientists regard Mind-stuff (what I call "information") as more fundamental than Matter-stuff. For now, here's a quote from a neuroscientist*1, who seems to lean toward Panpsychism, which is not my personal position. Meanwhile, I'll look through my extensive body of work to see if I have directly addressed your question in past philosophical musings, as a side topic. However, I doubt that there is any slam-dunk science on the question*2.
PS___See my next post for a philosophical postulation.
*1. Mind over Matter :
"Now the materialists say that conscious experience has no effect on matter. Therefore it can’t influence behavior. Therefore it can’t increase survival or ‘thrival’ of the organism. Therefore conscious experience confers no evolutionary advantage, according to narrow materialists!
Which means what? Consciousness can’t have evolved. Conscious experience must have come into being by the most extraordinary accident ever!!! But this ‘miraculous accident’ explanation is a complete contradiction to the whole methodological thrust of materialism!"
___Nicholas Rosseinsky, Neuroscientist
https://bothandblog.enformationism.info/page27.html
*2. A quantum case of mind over matter?
New research proposes a way to test whether quantum entanglement is affected by consciousness.
https://insidetheperimeter.ca/a-quantum ... er-matter/
Mind/body questions are at the root of the Enformationism thesis. If you accept quantum physicist J. A. Wheeler's "It from Bit" conjecture, then Mental Information (Ideas) can in theory exert control over Material things. I could get into the Mind over Matter question deeply, but that would require a separate thread. Yet I doubt that it would be persuasive to a hard-core materialist. And to be clear, I am not talking about Magic.
Some scientists regard Mind-stuff (what I call "information") as more fundamental than Matter-stuff. For now, here's a quote from a neuroscientist*1, who seems to lean toward Panpsychism, which is not my personal position. Meanwhile, I'll look through my extensive body of work to see if I have directly addressed your question in past philosophical musings, as a side topic. However, I doubt that there is any slam-dunk science on the question*2.
PS___See my next post for a philosophical postulation.
*1. Mind over Matter :
"Now the materialists say that conscious experience has no effect on matter. Therefore it can’t influence behavior. Therefore it can’t increase survival or ‘thrival’ of the organism. Therefore conscious experience confers no evolutionary advantage, according to narrow materialists!
Which means what? Consciousness can’t have evolved. Conscious experience must have come into being by the most extraordinary accident ever!!! But this ‘miraculous accident’ explanation is a complete contradiction to the whole methodological thrust of materialism!"
___Nicholas Rosseinsky, Neuroscientist
https://bothandblog.enformationism.info/page27.html
*2. A quantum case of mind over matter?
New research proposes a way to test whether quantum entanglement is affected by consciousness.
https://insidetheperimeter.ca/a-quantum ... er-matter/
Re: TPF : Hard Problem of Consciousness
Since thought, the supposed immaterial medium of your metaphysical abstractions, manifests and functions as a physical activity of our physical brains, and spacetime, the medium through which empirical experience funds our thoughts, likewise is physical, you must, as many others before you have not, explain how things immaterial shape and control things material. — ucarr
Are you expecting a Scientific, or Philosophical, explanation on this forum? In addition to "spooky action at a distance", Quantum Physics raised unsettling metaphysical Mind over Matter questions with its observation that a scientific Measurement seems to reduce the Uncertainty of an entangled system, somehow causing it to "collapse", or manifest, from an undifferentiated non-local holistic state into a single physical particle of matter*1. Scientific "explanations" for phenomena that don't conform to Classical Physics are typically of the metaphysical philosophical type.
Of course, that Copenhagen Interpretation is still debatable, but the before/after states are about as empirical as it gets on the quantum scale of physics. It's the in-between state (the causal factor) that remains a philosophical conjecture after all these years. But then, mundane-but-instantaneous Phase Transitions, such as water-to-ice, are not yet explicable in terms of step-by-step physical processes. The lack of a slam-dunk physical explanation does not stop us from intentionally manipulating the mysterious Phase Change phenomenon in our technology*3.
One example of Mind over Matter that I have used in the past is to point-out a common feature of modern civilization : abstract ideas implemented in the concrete world. For example, in the early oughties, Elon Musk had some far-out concepts : a> provide transportation to Mars, and b> transform automobiles from gas-guzzlers to electron-zappers. They said it couldn't be done, but only a few decades later we have both Space-X and Tesla. Without his immaterial Ideas and non-thermodynamic Will-power, those things would not have happened naturally. So, there must have been some other kind of Causal Force, working behind the scenes to make it happen. In my thesis, I call it "Causal Information".
Admittedly, this is not a scientific explanation. But then, materialistic Science has no better way to describe how physical rocket ships and electric cars could become manifestations of something as aethereal as a felt need, that Terrence Deacon called "Absential Causality" or "Constitutive Absence"*4. Do you agree that such "ententional phenomena" would never evolve in the absence of human minds?
*1. Does Consciousness Cause Quantum Collapse?
What causal effects does consciousness have on physical matter?
https://philosophynow.org/issues/121/Do ... m_Collapse
*2. The Copenhagen interpretation postulates the spontaneous reduction of only one final observer. The experiment should be described from this observer's perspective. The reduction, like the velocity of the system, depends on the choice of the final observation system.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/ma ... rpretation
Note --- Is it the Observer's mental measure or the instrument's physical intervention that "causes" the change of state?
*3. Air Conditioning :
Phase Change Technology utilizes the Latent Heat of Vaporization of a working fluid to absorb thermal energy during the evaporator cycle and release this energy during the condenser cycle.
https://norenthermal.com/resources/phas ... y/?lang=en
Note --- Latent ˈ: existing in hidden or dormant form.
*4.a Absential : The paradoxical intrinsic property of existing with respect to something missing, separate, and possibly nonexistent. Although this property is irrelevant when it comes to inanimate things,it is a defining property of life and mind; elsewhere (Deacon 2005) described as a constitutive absence.
*4.b Constitutive absence : A particular and precise missing something that is a critical defining attribute of 'ententional' phenomena, such as functions, thoughts, adaptations, purposes, and subjective experiences.
https://absence.github.io/3-explanation ... ntial.html
Note --- Deacon spells his neologism for purposeful behavior, ententional with an "E"
Are you expecting a Scientific, or Philosophical, explanation on this forum? In addition to "spooky action at a distance", Quantum Physics raised unsettling metaphysical Mind over Matter questions with its observation that a scientific Measurement seems to reduce the Uncertainty of an entangled system, somehow causing it to "collapse", or manifest, from an undifferentiated non-local holistic state into a single physical particle of matter*1. Scientific "explanations" for phenomena that don't conform to Classical Physics are typically of the metaphysical philosophical type.
Of course, that Copenhagen Interpretation is still debatable, but the before/after states are about as empirical as it gets on the quantum scale of physics. It's the in-between state (the causal factor) that remains a philosophical conjecture after all these years. But then, mundane-but-instantaneous Phase Transitions, such as water-to-ice, are not yet explicable in terms of step-by-step physical processes. The lack of a slam-dunk physical explanation does not stop us from intentionally manipulating the mysterious Phase Change phenomenon in our technology*3.
One example of Mind over Matter that I have used in the past is to point-out a common feature of modern civilization : abstract ideas implemented in the concrete world. For example, in the early oughties, Elon Musk had some far-out concepts : a> provide transportation to Mars, and b> transform automobiles from gas-guzzlers to electron-zappers. They said it couldn't be done, but only a few decades later we have both Space-X and Tesla. Without his immaterial Ideas and non-thermodynamic Will-power, those things would not have happened naturally. So, there must have been some other kind of Causal Force, working behind the scenes to make it happen. In my thesis, I call it "Causal Information".
Admittedly, this is not a scientific explanation. But then, materialistic Science has no better way to describe how physical rocket ships and electric cars could become manifestations of something as aethereal as a felt need, that Terrence Deacon called "Absential Causality" or "Constitutive Absence"*4. Do you agree that such "ententional phenomena" would never evolve in the absence of human minds?
*1. Does Consciousness Cause Quantum Collapse?
What causal effects does consciousness have on physical matter?
https://philosophynow.org/issues/121/Do ... m_Collapse
*2. The Copenhagen interpretation postulates the spontaneous reduction of only one final observer. The experiment should be described from this observer's perspective. The reduction, like the velocity of the system, depends on the choice of the final observation system.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/ma ... rpretation
Note --- Is it the Observer's mental measure or the instrument's physical intervention that "causes" the change of state?
*3. Air Conditioning :
Phase Change Technology utilizes the Latent Heat of Vaporization of a working fluid to absorb thermal energy during the evaporator cycle and release this energy during the condenser cycle.
https://norenthermal.com/resources/phas ... y/?lang=en
Note --- Latent ˈ: existing in hidden or dormant form.
*4.a Absential : The paradoxical intrinsic property of existing with respect to something missing, separate, and possibly nonexistent. Although this property is irrelevant when it comes to inanimate things,it is a defining property of life and mind; elsewhere (Deacon 2005) described as a constitutive absence.
*4.b Constitutive absence : A particular and precise missing something that is a critical defining attribute of 'ententional' phenomena, such as functions, thoughts, adaptations, purposes, and subjective experiences.
https://absence.github.io/3-explanation ... ntial.html
Note --- Deacon spells his neologism for purposeful behavior, ententional with an "E"
Re: TPF : Hard Problem of Consciousness
What does a non-physical entity emerge from? When you say mind emerges from matter, you imply mind is a component of matter and thus mind, like matter, is material. (See example directly below) — ucarr
The only non-physical entities I'm aware of are Mental Phenomena (e.g. ideas), which I place into the philosophical category of Meta-physical. My use of that term is based on Aristotle's discussion of Nature*1 --- as a whole system of matter & mind. He describes metaphysics in terms of Causes. And in my thesis, EnFormAction (EFA) is the Causal agency of the universe (energy + laws), with the ability to transform one Form (relationship pattern) into another. So it is the origin of both Matter and Mind. But I did not intend to imply that Mind is a "component" of Matter.
From our perspective, looking backward at Evolution, from Bang to Now, Mind does appear to be emergent from Matter. But, if you look closely at the beginning, as described by Big Bang theory, there was no Matter in the modern sense, but something more akin to a Quantum state. Moreover, the initial Singularity, preceding the physical Bang*2, is a hypothetical mathematical concept, which is undefined due to infinities. For my thesis, I interpret that not-yet-real state (infinite Potential) as functioning like a computer program, with an evolutionary algorithm (instructions for development), and with the information processing power (creative Energy) to compute a universe from raw data. But first, the Singularity has to create a physical computer to run the evolutionary program. You can think of it in terms of instantaneous Inflation*2 (something from nothing-but-potential), if you prefer that to a magical Voila! ("here it is").
Since I imagine Evolution as-if a computer is processing Information (encoded data) according to natural (mathematical) laws*3, it creates "candidate solutions" to partial problems in sequence, for selection conforming to functional criteria. The early (hot & dense) universe was the raw (quantum) material for further development into Atoms & Molecules ; the first real matter. Each subsequent phase of emergence produces novel forms, never before seen in the world : e.g. stars create new forms of matter. such as iron. After further processing, a non-physical Function emerges : Life -- animated matter ; single cells. Next, those organisms develop another novelty : Brains -- material central processors of information ; control systems. And eventually, those Brains produced a new function : Mind -- with awareness of relationship of Self to Environment.
So, that's an abbreviated summary of how I see Mind emerging from Matter, which emerged from Math (abstract information). As I get time, I may address some of your other mis-understandings.
*1. What did Aristotle argue in his metaphysics?
He argues that the study of being qua being, or First Philosophy, is superior to all the other theoretical sciences because it is concerned with the ultimate causes of all reality, not just the secondary causes of a part of reality.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics_(Aristotle)
*2. Cosmic Inflation :
The Big Bang wasn't the beginning, after all. Instead, that honor goes to cosmic inflation, and everyone should understand why.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswith ... 5c4c044153
*3. Evolutionary computation :
In evolutionary computation, an initial set of candidate solutions is generated and iteratively updated
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_computation
The only non-physical entities I'm aware of are Mental Phenomena (e.g. ideas), which I place into the philosophical category of Meta-physical. My use of that term is based on Aristotle's discussion of Nature*1 --- as a whole system of matter & mind. He describes metaphysics in terms of Causes. And in my thesis, EnFormAction (EFA) is the Causal agency of the universe (energy + laws), with the ability to transform one Form (relationship pattern) into another. So it is the origin of both Matter and Mind. But I did not intend to imply that Mind is a "component" of Matter.
From our perspective, looking backward at Evolution, from Bang to Now, Mind does appear to be emergent from Matter. But, if you look closely at the beginning, as described by Big Bang theory, there was no Matter in the modern sense, but something more akin to a Quantum state. Moreover, the initial Singularity, preceding the physical Bang*2, is a hypothetical mathematical concept, which is undefined due to infinities. For my thesis, I interpret that not-yet-real state (infinite Potential) as functioning like a computer program, with an evolutionary algorithm (instructions for development), and with the information processing power (creative Energy) to compute a universe from raw data. But first, the Singularity has to create a physical computer to run the evolutionary program. You can think of it in terms of instantaneous Inflation*2 (something from nothing-but-potential), if you prefer that to a magical Voila! ("here it is").
Since I imagine Evolution as-if a computer is processing Information (encoded data) according to natural (mathematical) laws*3, it creates "candidate solutions" to partial problems in sequence, for selection conforming to functional criteria. The early (hot & dense) universe was the raw (quantum) material for further development into Atoms & Molecules ; the first real matter. Each subsequent phase of emergence produces novel forms, never before seen in the world : e.g. stars create new forms of matter. such as iron. After further processing, a non-physical Function emerges : Life -- animated matter ; single cells. Next, those organisms develop another novelty : Brains -- material central processors of information ; control systems. And eventually, those Brains produced a new function : Mind -- with awareness of relationship of Self to Environment.
So, that's an abbreviated summary of how I see Mind emerging from Matter, which emerged from Math (abstract information). As I get time, I may address some of your other mis-understandings.
*1. What did Aristotle argue in his metaphysics?
He argues that the study of being qua being, or First Philosophy, is superior to all the other theoretical sciences because it is concerned with the ultimate causes of all reality, not just the secondary causes of a part of reality.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics_(Aristotle)
*2. Cosmic Inflation :
The Big Bang wasn't the beginning, after all. Instead, that honor goes to cosmic inflation, and everyone should understand why.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswith ... 5c4c044153
*3. Evolutionary computation :
In evolutionary computation, an initial set of candidate solutions is generated and iteratively updated
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_computation
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests