Your number 5 reference (just above here) is interesting. Information, the word, seems to have morphed and diverged a huge amount since it's origin.
Common usage now seems to be an abstraction that has no physical basis so I think the original meaning is more true to physicalism. And the ancient philosophers wouldn't have had the word or the current ideas of what information is. I just think it's current usages (the word information) conflict and cause confusion — Mark Nyquist
Yes. That's why I have to provide my own non-dictionary definitions*1, whenever I mention my Information-centric thesis. After the early 20th century, two terms --- "Information: and "Computer" --- radically changed meanings. Before, both referred to flesh & blood humans*2. After, both terms now refer to abstract Data and bloodless Machines.
Terrence Deacon noted that Shannon chose the wrong word to describe the physical nature of his novel notion of Information*3. Unfortunately, the physical term "Entropy" (negation of energy) is misleading. And the more appropriate term "Negentropy" (negation of the negation of Energy) is still confusing. Yet, it relates mental Information with physical energy. And that is the basis of my Enformationism thesis.
However, as Deacon notes below : "information is neither matter nor energy" in a physical sense. Instead, it is an elemental pre-cursor of both, in the philosophical meaning of Creative & Causal Power (Potential ; power to transform Possible into Actual). In a practical evolutionary sense, Information (EnFormAction) is both causal physical Energy and the Matter formed from its creative power : (E=MC^2). But in an Ontological philosophical sense, Information is the meta-physical contents of a Mind. Those who limit Physics to fundamental Materialism cannot grasp the relation between abstract intangible causal potential and concrete tangible actual stuff. They tend to equate natural mental Metaphysics with supernatural spiritual Ghosts.
Note --- Aristotle defined "Potential" as the ultimate source of Actual things. Similar to Plato's notion of Ideal "Form" as the source of all Real Things.
*1. Information :
Knowledge and the ability to know. Technically, it's the ratio of order to disorder, of positive to negative, of knowledge to ignorance. It's measured in degrees of uncertainty. Those ratios are also called "differences". So Gregory Bateson* defined Information as "the difference that makes a difference". The latter distinction refers to "value" or "meaning". Babbage called his prototype computer a "difference engine". Difference is the cause or agent of Change. In Physics it’s called "Thermodynamics" or "Energy". In Sociology it’s called "Conflict".
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page11.html
*2. What did it mean to be a human computer?
Before there were actual computers, they were people. At NASA, women had to do all the math and science calculations for aircraft and space missions. From 1935 to 1942 more women began to work at NACA because many men volunteered to be in the war. The women that worked for NASA were often called "Human Computers".
https://digitalcommons.macalester.edu › amst_humanc...
*3. Terrence Deacon on Information :
Deacon introduces a second triad he calls Shannon-Boltzmann-Darwin (Claude, Ludwig, and Charles). He describes it on his Web site www. teleodynamics.com . I would rearrange the first two stages to match his homeodynamic-morphodynamic-teleodynamic triad. This would put Boltzmann first (matter and energy in motion, but both conserved, merely transformed by morphodynamics). A second Shannon stage then adds information (Deacon sees clearly that information is neither matter nor energy); for example, knowledge in an organism's "mind" about the external constraints that its actions can influence. . . .
Confusingly, John von Neumann suggested that Shannon use the word entropy for his measure of information. Then Leon Brillouin coined the term negentropy to describe far-from-equilibrium conditions in the world epitomized by information.
https://www.informationphilosopher.com/ ... ts/deacon/
TPD : Physicalism
Re: TPD : Physicalism
I always thought Shannon Information was a poor choice of a word. It's a technical specialty that's made a huge impact but isn't good science or philosophy just because of that.
I might sometimes look like I'm defending physicalism or be some how attached to it but I'm not. It just gets us to the point where we do what we do with our brains which really is the interesting part. And not just in philosophy.
Since our brains/minds seem to be capable of believing anything, true or false, having some grounding in the physical basis might keep us from getting off track. — Mark Nyquist
Shannon was an engineer, not a philosopher. So, he was interested in getting measurable physical results (communication data throughput), not in exploring the metaphysical meaning of his term "Information". That's OK though, others have taken-up that task. My interest in Information was piqued by physicist John A. Wheeler's philosophical concept of "it from bit". Together, these two thinkers gave us new insight in the broader significance of mental ideas, by linking those incorporeal "bits" with real-world changes in material things (its). In other words, en-formation is causation. In my thesis, mental Information (useful knowledge) is merely one of many forms of General Causation, that I call EnFormAction.
If you were a working scientist, Physicalism --- nothing non-physical --- would be an appropriate belief system for your profession. But for philosophical thinkers, there is more to the world than just tangible things (materialism). Philosophy is concerned with non-things like Ideas & Opinions & Beliefs, that can't be dissected with a scalpel, and can't be reduced down to Atoms. Physicalism implies that there is only one way to exist : Reality. But, in his essay The Ligatures of Reason*1, ↪Wayfarer discusses the Ideal existence of "universals", such as number, math & logic. Scientists study particular things, but Philosophers study general & holistic concepts. That approach is what came to be known as "Metaphysics". Literally, "in addition to physical Reality" (i.e. Ideality), not necessarily super-natural, or un-real. Unfortunately, Catholic theology tainted that aspect of Philosophy by association with dubious religious dogma.
So yes, as amateur philosophers, we should be held accountable for the "grounds" of our reasoning. But material Science is not the only valid foundation for philosophical interpretations & conclusions. For non-rational animals, the physical facts may be all they know. But, us rational humans share ideas & opinions that can't be accepted at face-value. Instead, philosophers have developed Logical rules and Rational methods for sifting the grain from the chaff. Whereas, Physics uses Reductive & Deductive means to determine reliable facts, Philosophy uses Holistic & Inductive reasoning to learn what is universally true. Unfortunately, some posters on this forum hold the materialistic worldview of Scientism, which dismisses Metaphysical reasoning as groundless. Instead, I have adopted a BothAnd policy of combining bare Facts with logical Reasons.
*1. The Ligatures of Reason : logical, not physical, connections
This insight lead me to ponder what it means to say that number and phenomenal objects exist
in different ways. Until this time, it had never occurred to me that there might be different ways of existing; I had thought that things either exist, or they don’t. . . .
But then, I wondered, in what domain or sense do numbers exist? ‘Where’ are numbers? How can they be real? Perhaps, came the thought, they exist in an intelligible domain, of which cognition is an irreducible part,and so, accessible only by reason.
https://medium.com/@jonathan.shearman/t ... b775d443d1
I might sometimes look like I'm defending physicalism or be some how attached to it but I'm not. It just gets us to the point where we do what we do with our brains which really is the interesting part. And not just in philosophy.
Since our brains/minds seem to be capable of believing anything, true or false, having some grounding in the physical basis might keep us from getting off track. — Mark Nyquist
Shannon was an engineer, not a philosopher. So, he was interested in getting measurable physical results (communication data throughput), not in exploring the metaphysical meaning of his term "Information". That's OK though, others have taken-up that task. My interest in Information was piqued by physicist John A. Wheeler's philosophical concept of "it from bit". Together, these two thinkers gave us new insight in the broader significance of mental ideas, by linking those incorporeal "bits" with real-world changes in material things (its). In other words, en-formation is causation. In my thesis, mental Information (useful knowledge) is merely one of many forms of General Causation, that I call EnFormAction.
If you were a working scientist, Physicalism --- nothing non-physical --- would be an appropriate belief system for your profession. But for philosophical thinkers, there is more to the world than just tangible things (materialism). Philosophy is concerned with non-things like Ideas & Opinions & Beliefs, that can't be dissected with a scalpel, and can't be reduced down to Atoms. Physicalism implies that there is only one way to exist : Reality. But, in his essay The Ligatures of Reason*1, ↪Wayfarer discusses the Ideal existence of "universals", such as number, math & logic. Scientists study particular things, but Philosophers study general & holistic concepts. That approach is what came to be known as "Metaphysics". Literally, "in addition to physical Reality" (i.e. Ideality), not necessarily super-natural, or un-real. Unfortunately, Catholic theology tainted that aspect of Philosophy by association with dubious religious dogma.
So yes, as amateur philosophers, we should be held accountable for the "grounds" of our reasoning. But material Science is not the only valid foundation for philosophical interpretations & conclusions. For non-rational animals, the physical facts may be all they know. But, us rational humans share ideas & opinions that can't be accepted at face-value. Instead, philosophers have developed Logical rules and Rational methods for sifting the grain from the chaff. Whereas, Physics uses Reductive & Deductive means to determine reliable facts, Philosophy uses Holistic & Inductive reasoning to learn what is universally true. Unfortunately, some posters on this forum hold the materialistic worldview of Scientism, which dismisses Metaphysical reasoning as groundless. Instead, I have adopted a BothAnd policy of combining bare Facts with logical Reasons.
*1. The Ligatures of Reason : logical, not physical, connections
This insight lead me to ponder what it means to say that number and phenomenal objects exist
in different ways. Until this time, it had never occurred to me that there might be different ways of existing; I had thought that things either exist, or they don’t. . . .
But then, I wondered, in what domain or sense do numbers exist? ‘Where’ are numbers? How can they be real? Perhaps, came the thought, they exist in an intelligible domain, of which cognition is an irreducible part,and so, accessible only by reason.
https://medium.com/@jonathan.shearman/t ... b775d443d1
Re: TPD : Physicalism
If the worldview of Scientism dismisses metaphysical reasoning as groundless then I'd say that physicalism is groundless, since physicalism is a belief arrived at by metaphysical reasoning.
As such it would be a poor argument for physicalism. — Moliere
Ironically, all universal -isms --- including Materialism, Physicalism, Naturalism, and Idealism --- are beliefs based on Metaphysical induction. And they are groundless, in the sense that universals are not empirically derived. So, their value is only in that they distinguish one philosophical worldview from another.
Hence, Physicalism is differentiated from Materialism in that it implies more than one fundamental element : matter and energy. The essential rock of Scientism is the empirical scientific method, which grounds Physics, but not Philosophy. Idealism is founded on the mushy terrain of Concepts, which distinguishes that belief system from those grounded on Percepts. The non-empirical -isms can only be justified by pure logical reasoning, which Kant identified with Metaphysical Philosophy.
"All our knowledge begins with the senses, proceeds then to the understanding, and ends with reason. There is nothing higher than reason. Thoughts without content are empty, intuitions without concepts are blind." ___ Immanuel Kant, Critique of Pure Reason
As such it would be a poor argument for physicalism. — Moliere
Ironically, all universal -isms --- including Materialism, Physicalism, Naturalism, and Idealism --- are beliefs based on Metaphysical induction. And they are groundless, in the sense that universals are not empirically derived. So, their value is only in that they distinguish one philosophical worldview from another.
Hence, Physicalism is differentiated from Materialism in that it implies more than one fundamental element : matter and energy. The essential rock of Scientism is the empirical scientific method, which grounds Physics, but not Philosophy. Idealism is founded on the mushy terrain of Concepts, which distinguishes that belief system from those grounded on Percepts. The non-empirical -isms can only be justified by pure logical reasoning, which Kant identified with Metaphysical Philosophy.
"All our knowledge begins with the senses, proceeds then to the understanding, and ends with reason. There is nothing higher than reason. Thoughts without content are empty, intuitions without concepts are blind." ___ Immanuel Kant, Critique of Pure Reason
Re: TPD : Physicalism
Hence the flatland of secular culture, dominated by relativism, scepticism and instrumental utility. Reconciling that has been my major interest. — Wayfarer
"Here he comes to save the day!" It's super-mensch to the rescue of dystopian society!
Mensch : a person of integrity and honor.
Perhaps a heroic philosopher?
Super-mensch the Reconciler?
5972466645_87b823d7a8_z.jpg
"Here he comes to save the day!" It's super-mensch to the rescue of dystopian society!
Mensch : a person of integrity and honor.
Perhaps a heroic philosopher?
Super-mensch the Reconciler?
5972466645_87b823d7a8_z.jpg
Re: TPD : Physicalism
Many well-read participants here will read one or two statements from another and be reminded of some historical position or another simply by the appearance of a few key words that have been used in past. — creativesoul
I doubt that many posters on this forum are quite so simple-minded as that. Our personal vocabularies contain categorized beliefs encapsulated in "key words". But the purpose of a discussion forum is for us to open-up those capsules in order to learn about other beliefs, and to add new terminology to better define our own beliefs. A few may assume these threads are legal arguments intended to reveal The Truth as God intended. But mostly, we are satisfied to get a step "Closer to Truth".
Key words, especially "-isms", encapsulate complex belief systems into simple generalizations, that we use to avoid Talmudic verbosity. Yet, they also allow us to quickly see the "key" (salience) to our disagreements. Then, we can explore the implicit meanings behind the symbolic words, looking for areas where our beliefs may overlap or divide. With logical leverage we may be able to open a path to reach some philosophical detente, if not total agreement.
Unfortunately, you seem convinced that you know what my position is. It's a shame that that's the case, because I do not think that you do. — creativesoul
No, I am not convinced of your position on Physicalism, because such a universal concept includes a plethora of unstated assumptions, that we need to work through in order to reach a more specific understanding. For example, Physicalism, Materialism, and Naturalism are related worldviews, that differ in a few details. If none of those terms are close to your position, is there another label that you would accept?
My own worldview does not fit into any of the traditional categories --- such as Realism or Idealism --- so I have coined new words & phrases & labels, intended to suggest a novel way of looking at the world. On this forum, to establish my own position --- without excessive verbiage --- I provide links to expand upon my brief remarks in the post. After only a few interchanges, do you think you "know my position"? Are you open to further communication?
As you implied, the key to your differences with ↪creativesoul is in divergent definitions of "To Be / To Exist" — Gnomon
There, you were spot on. That seems an unbridgeable divide between Way and myself. He insists that consciousness does not exist, and to me... that makes no sense. On my view, everything spoken about exists. It's just a matter of how. Simply put: That which has an effect/affect exists(is real). — creativesoul
I don't know where you got the idea that ↪Wayfarer denies the existence of Consciousness. He does deny that Awareness is a physical object, but I assume you would agree with that. Your definition in terms of causation may be closer than you think to his, and to my own, understanding of both Physical and Metaphysical existence. Check-out Way's essay linked below, for his musings on "to be or to know".
*1. The Ligatures of Reason : logical, not physical, connections
This insight lead me to ponder what it means to say that number and phenomenal objects exist
in different ways. Until this time, it had never occurred to me that there might be different ways of existing; I had thought that things either exist, or they don’t. . . .
But then, I wondered, in what domain or sense do numbers exist? ‘Where’ are numbers? How can they be real? Perhaps, came the thought, they exist in an intelligible domain, of which cognition is an irreducible part,and so, accessible only by reason.
https://medium.com/@jonathan.shearman/t ... b775d443d1
Emergence is what's going on when such knowledge is being formed.
— creativesoul
Yes, the awareness of physical emergence... — Gnomon
Here, you said "yes", but did not understand what you were agreeing to. I was claiming that that bit of knowledge was an emergent entity/thing. That was all I was saying at that time. — creativesoul
I was agreeing to your reference to an action (what's going on) that results in the "knowledge" (awareness ; conceptualization) that something novel has emerged from the transaction. Your emphasis may have been on knowledge as a "thing" (objective or subjective?), but mine was on the emergence as a transformation of one "thing" into another "kind of thing" (subjective Idea).
I define the human Mind as the primary Function of the human Brain. Technically, a "function" is not a thing-in-itself, but a causal relationship between inputs & outputs, as in the information processing of a computer. The biological Brain is a machine, but the psychological Mind is a process, a function : the creation of Meaning — Gnomon
So, we seem to agree that minds are existentially dependent upon brains. — creativesoul
Yes. As I said before, I am not aware of any free-floating minds (ghosts) in the real world. But, I do see the logical necessity for the Potential-to-evolve-Minds in the original "seed" of our contingent universe : popularly known as Big Bang, or Singularity, or God. However, you may not agree with that universalization of Mind Potential --- not as an entity, but as a Creative Cause.
Potential : the power to change statistical Possibility into physical Actuality
I doubt that many posters on this forum are quite so simple-minded as that. Our personal vocabularies contain categorized beliefs encapsulated in "key words". But the purpose of a discussion forum is for us to open-up those capsules in order to learn about other beliefs, and to add new terminology to better define our own beliefs. A few may assume these threads are legal arguments intended to reveal The Truth as God intended. But mostly, we are satisfied to get a step "Closer to Truth".
Key words, especially "-isms", encapsulate complex belief systems into simple generalizations, that we use to avoid Talmudic verbosity. Yet, they also allow us to quickly see the "key" (salience) to our disagreements. Then, we can explore the implicit meanings behind the symbolic words, looking for areas where our beliefs may overlap or divide. With logical leverage we may be able to open a path to reach some philosophical detente, if not total agreement.
Unfortunately, you seem convinced that you know what my position is. It's a shame that that's the case, because I do not think that you do. — creativesoul
No, I am not convinced of your position on Physicalism, because such a universal concept includes a plethora of unstated assumptions, that we need to work through in order to reach a more specific understanding. For example, Physicalism, Materialism, and Naturalism are related worldviews, that differ in a few details. If none of those terms are close to your position, is there another label that you would accept?
My own worldview does not fit into any of the traditional categories --- such as Realism or Idealism --- so I have coined new words & phrases & labels, intended to suggest a novel way of looking at the world. On this forum, to establish my own position --- without excessive verbiage --- I provide links to expand upon my brief remarks in the post. After only a few interchanges, do you think you "know my position"? Are you open to further communication?
As you implied, the key to your differences with ↪creativesoul is in divergent definitions of "To Be / To Exist" — Gnomon
There, you were spot on. That seems an unbridgeable divide between Way and myself. He insists that consciousness does not exist, and to me... that makes no sense. On my view, everything spoken about exists. It's just a matter of how. Simply put: That which has an effect/affect exists(is real). — creativesoul
I don't know where you got the idea that ↪Wayfarer denies the existence of Consciousness. He does deny that Awareness is a physical object, but I assume you would agree with that. Your definition in terms of causation may be closer than you think to his, and to my own, understanding of both Physical and Metaphysical existence. Check-out Way's essay linked below, for his musings on "to be or to know".
*1. The Ligatures of Reason : logical, not physical, connections
This insight lead me to ponder what it means to say that number and phenomenal objects exist
in different ways. Until this time, it had never occurred to me that there might be different ways of existing; I had thought that things either exist, or they don’t. . . .
But then, I wondered, in what domain or sense do numbers exist? ‘Where’ are numbers? How can they be real? Perhaps, came the thought, they exist in an intelligible domain, of which cognition is an irreducible part,and so, accessible only by reason.
https://medium.com/@jonathan.shearman/t ... b775d443d1
Emergence is what's going on when such knowledge is being formed.
— creativesoul
Yes, the awareness of physical emergence... — Gnomon
Here, you said "yes", but did not understand what you were agreeing to. I was claiming that that bit of knowledge was an emergent entity/thing. That was all I was saying at that time. — creativesoul
I was agreeing to your reference to an action (what's going on) that results in the "knowledge" (awareness ; conceptualization) that something novel has emerged from the transaction. Your emphasis may have been on knowledge as a "thing" (objective or subjective?), but mine was on the emergence as a transformation of one "thing" into another "kind of thing" (subjective Idea).
I define the human Mind as the primary Function of the human Brain. Technically, a "function" is not a thing-in-itself, but a causal relationship between inputs & outputs, as in the information processing of a computer. The biological Brain is a machine, but the psychological Mind is a process, a function : the creation of Meaning — Gnomon
So, we seem to agree that minds are existentially dependent upon brains. — creativesoul
Yes. As I said before, I am not aware of any free-floating minds (ghosts) in the real world. But, I do see the logical necessity for the Potential-to-evolve-Minds in the original "seed" of our contingent universe : popularly known as Big Bang, or Singularity, or God. However, you may not agree with that universalization of Mind Potential --- not as an entity, but as a Creative Cause.
Potential : the power to change statistical Possibility into physical Actuality
Re: TPD : Physicalism
I was just reading the Phaedo for a class and it hit me that Plato's argument that the soul cannot be analogous to a harmony is literally the same argument against strong emergence that is still giving physicalists a headache 2,000+ years later. — Count Timothy von Icarus
The Platonic concept of Body/Soul integrity, as a harmonious interaction, is new to me. So I googled it. As an analogy to pleasing musical synchrony*1, such essential consonance is posited by most religious & philosophical traditions : e.g Taoism. But from the perspective of modern Physicalism, such non-mechanical notions may be dismissed as romantic nonsense.
However, while my own personal worldview does not use the obsolete term "Soul" --- in the sense of an independent ghost --- the unity of Body & Mind is implicit. So, I see now that "Person"*2 can be described in terms of Body/Mind harmony, as defined in the 20th century sciences of Holism*3 and Systems theory*4. A System is a collection of independent parts (holons) that work together, in harmony, to form a new unity, with new functions. Hence, the human body/mind is an animated & enminded system that can't be separated into parts without killing the Life and extinguishing the Mind. Since Life & Mind go together like a flock of birds, eliminating one or the other will not result in a philosophical zombie, but in a corpse.
*1. What is Synchrony in music? :
Musical synchrony increases a sense of shared intentionality and decreases the experience of self-other distinction [21,22,23,24], and can relate to a sense of communal identity
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8946180/
*2. Person :
A person is a being who has certain capacities or attributes such as reason, morality, consciousness or self-consciousness,
Note --- That the "Being" --- more than a Thing --- is also a physical body is implicit, but not stated explicitly in the definition.
*3. Holism ; Holon :
Philosophically, a whole system is a collection of parts (holons) that possesses properties not found in the parts. That something extra is an Emergent quality that was latent (unmanifest) in the parts. For example, when atoms of hydrogen & oxygen gases combine in a specific ratio, the molecule has properties of water, such as wetness, that are not found in the gases. A Holon is something that is simultaneously a whole and a part — A system of entangled things that has a function in a hierarchy of systems.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page11.html
*4. What is holistic science? :
Holistic Science is a new and emerging science of systems and wholes, qualities and values. It allows us to look at the social, economic and ecological issues of the 21st Century in a new light. It helps us to come to understandings that go beyond the limits of our current scientific paradigm.
https://www.masterscompare.co.uk/master ... 096/24594/
A HARMONY OF BIRDS
1*Ua59Yw8XZBPSluLfHgE0lQ.gif
The Platonic concept of Body/Soul integrity, as a harmonious interaction, is new to me. So I googled it. As an analogy to pleasing musical synchrony*1, such essential consonance is posited by most religious & philosophical traditions : e.g Taoism. But from the perspective of modern Physicalism, such non-mechanical notions may be dismissed as romantic nonsense.
However, while my own personal worldview does not use the obsolete term "Soul" --- in the sense of an independent ghost --- the unity of Body & Mind is implicit. So, I see now that "Person"*2 can be described in terms of Body/Mind harmony, as defined in the 20th century sciences of Holism*3 and Systems theory*4. A System is a collection of independent parts (holons) that work together, in harmony, to form a new unity, with new functions. Hence, the human body/mind is an animated & enminded system that can't be separated into parts without killing the Life and extinguishing the Mind. Since Life & Mind go together like a flock of birds, eliminating one or the other will not result in a philosophical zombie, but in a corpse.
*1. What is Synchrony in music? :
Musical synchrony increases a sense of shared intentionality and decreases the experience of self-other distinction [21,22,23,24], and can relate to a sense of communal identity
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8946180/
*2. Person :
A person is a being who has certain capacities or attributes such as reason, morality, consciousness or self-consciousness,
Note --- That the "Being" --- more than a Thing --- is also a physical body is implicit, but not stated explicitly in the definition.
*3. Holism ; Holon :
Philosophically, a whole system is a collection of parts (holons) that possesses properties not found in the parts. That something extra is an Emergent quality that was latent (unmanifest) in the parts. For example, when atoms of hydrogen & oxygen gases combine in a specific ratio, the molecule has properties of water, such as wetness, that are not found in the gases. A Holon is something that is simultaneously a whole and a part — A system of entangled things that has a function in a hierarchy of systems.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page11.html
*4. What is holistic science? :
Holistic Science is a new and emerging science of systems and wholes, qualities and values. It allows us to look at the social, economic and ecological issues of the 21st Century in a new light. It helps us to come to understandings that go beyond the limits of our current scientific paradigm.
https://www.masterscompare.co.uk/master ... 096/24594/
A HARMONY OF BIRDS
1*Ua59Yw8XZBPSluLfHgE0lQ.gif
Re: TPD : Physicalism
I do not know what transcending a language construct could possibly mean. — creativesoul
I can't speak for ↪Wayfarer , but I doubt he means to go beyond human limits into the realm of divine omniscience. Instead, perhaps we can "transcend" a common dictionary meaning of a word, simply by looking at its context from a different perspective. Philosophers do that all the time. For example, Nagel transcended the commonsense notion of human-animal differences (ensoulment) by asking us to imagine that we see the world from that animal's perspective. That's how we can "know" the mind of a bat. It's called a subjective "thought experiment" as contrasted with an objective "empirical" experience.
If you reject the subjective/objective dichotomy the hard problem looks very different. — creativesoul
Yes, but. Gods are supposed to be above the subjective/objective limitations of humans. So, for omniscient-objective divine beings there is no "hard problem" of the relationship between body & mind. Therefore, to be completely objective, you would have to "know the mind of god"*1.
Empirical Science aspires to complete objectivity, by "rejecting" personal values & opinions in favor of directly observed & recorded Facts. Unfortunately, it's not that easy. A double-blind experiment would, in theory, reveal the "mind of god" on the problem in question. Yet, in practice, one man's Fact is another man's opinion*2.
Consequently, Empirical Science gets the "easy" questions, that have simple singular factual answers : it is or it ain't. But, it leaves the messy, value-laden questions to argumentative Philosophy : says who?. Hence, science may be the court of last resort for questions of objective Facts, but not for Subjective Meanings.The worldview of Physicalism is not a "hard" physical fact, but a "moot" metaphysical opinion*3. Hence, this thread.
*1.a. A. Einstein :
"I want to know how God created this world. I'm not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts; the rest are just details."
*1.b. S. Hawking :
" If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason—for then we would know the mind of God."
*2. Why science isn’t objective :
We think of science as being an objective account of the world, free from the influence of political and other biases. But things aren’t that simple. Evidence alone doesn’t tell you when you’ve had enough evidence to support a claim, so scientists sometimes have to make judgements that rely on ethical and political values. This realisation shatters our understanding of scientific objectivity as value-free.
https://iai.tv/articles/why-science-isn ... -auid-1846
*3. Metaphysical Physicalism :
In philosophy, physicalism is the metaphysical thesis that "everything is physical", that there is "nothing over and above" the physical, or that everything supervenes on the physical.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physicalism
Note --- Only God would know "everything". Which is why religions turn to their gods, instead of to scientists, for answers to "hard" questions about universal facts & absolute values. Yet, philosophers put their trust in human reasoning to obtain approximate answers to "value" questions.
I can't speak for ↪Wayfarer , but I doubt he means to go beyond human limits into the realm of divine omniscience. Instead, perhaps we can "transcend" a common dictionary meaning of a word, simply by looking at its context from a different perspective. Philosophers do that all the time. For example, Nagel transcended the commonsense notion of human-animal differences (ensoulment) by asking us to imagine that we see the world from that animal's perspective. That's how we can "know" the mind of a bat. It's called a subjective "thought experiment" as contrasted with an objective "empirical" experience.
If you reject the subjective/objective dichotomy the hard problem looks very different. — creativesoul
Yes, but. Gods are supposed to be above the subjective/objective limitations of humans. So, for omniscient-objective divine beings there is no "hard problem" of the relationship between body & mind. Therefore, to be completely objective, you would have to "know the mind of god"*1.
Empirical Science aspires to complete objectivity, by "rejecting" personal values & opinions in favor of directly observed & recorded Facts. Unfortunately, it's not that easy. A double-blind experiment would, in theory, reveal the "mind of god" on the problem in question. Yet, in practice, one man's Fact is another man's opinion*2.
Consequently, Empirical Science gets the "easy" questions, that have simple singular factual answers : it is or it ain't. But, it leaves the messy, value-laden questions to argumentative Philosophy : says who?. Hence, science may be the court of last resort for questions of objective Facts, but not for Subjective Meanings.The worldview of Physicalism is not a "hard" physical fact, but a "moot" metaphysical opinion*3. Hence, this thread.
*1.a. A. Einstein :
"I want to know how God created this world. I'm not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts; the rest are just details."
*1.b. S. Hawking :
" If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason—for then we would know the mind of God."
*2. Why science isn’t objective :
We think of science as being an objective account of the world, free from the influence of political and other biases. But things aren’t that simple. Evidence alone doesn’t tell you when you’ve had enough evidence to support a claim, so scientists sometimes have to make judgements that rely on ethical and political values. This realisation shatters our understanding of scientific objectivity as value-free.
https://iai.tv/articles/why-science-isn ... -auid-1846
*3. Metaphysical Physicalism :
In philosophy, physicalism is the metaphysical thesis that "everything is physical", that there is "nothing over and above" the physical, or that everything supervenes on the physical.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physicalism
Note --- Only God would know "everything". Which is why religions turn to their gods, instead of to scientists, for answers to "hard" questions about universal facts & absolute values. Yet, philosophers put their trust in human reasoning to obtain approximate answers to "value" questions.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 34 guests