↪Gnomon
But with deference to Deacon, he is certainly no lumpen materialist. He holds up Francis Crick’s neural materialism as an example of same. I am suspicious of the claim of the necessity of a ‘neural substrate’, that an idea is only real if it is instantiated in a physical brain, but I’m still considering Deacon’s book. — Wayfarer
Good! Deacon is one a handful of practicing scientists who are not afraid to think outside the Reductionist box about Holistic concepts. Although he skirts the taboo line between empirical Science and theoretical Philosophy, he provides tasty fodder for philosophical rumination. For empirical purposes, Absence is non-nutritious. But for theoretical models, it is filling.
TPF : Absential Causation
Re: TPF : Absential Causation
Since you agree concepts do not exist independent of the minds contemplating them, I now know we agree on something important to both of us. My use of “exist” simply means “dwell in a real state of being” public, measurable and repeatable. — ucarr
By your empirical definition of "exist", Abstract concepts do not exist. That's because they are in an ideal state : private, knowable, and fleeting. So, they do not come under the purview of empirical Science. Yet, in a different meaning of "exist", abstractions (metaphors) are the substance of Philosophy.
then I ask you to name the extra-mental, supposed loci for your concepts. — ucarr
Everything we say about ideas is metaphorical. That's because abstractions are bereft of material substance, leaving only the logical skeleton of an idea. So, we manipulate such non-things rationally, not empirically. If you can't accept that distinction, you shouldn't attempt to do philosophy, and stick to physics.
Here's a metaphorical account of "out there", with Big Bang physics as an exemplar : In the 20th century, using astronomical data gained from observation of stars (matter/energy) --- currently billions of light years in the past --- cosmologists traced their formation back to a hypothetical origin point. That point of no-yesterday faded away into abstract mathematical infinities. But the logical implication of a Before-the-Bang was so compelling that some cosmologists couldn't resist asking non-empirical philosophical questions about what was "out there" in the Big Before. Yet, the absence of empirical space-time coordinates eliminates a particular locus as the "where" of the symbolic Place-for-Ideas.
Lacking empirical evidence, there were only two logical answers to the Big Absence : a> infinite regress of familiar stuff (multiverse)*1 or b> some unknown self-existent creative power (EnFormAction?)*2. But their cosmological models indicated that the physics of the Bang was unlike anything we know today, but can only imagine : not lumps of matter, but a plasma field of imaginary (non empirical) sub-atomic elements (quarks & gluons). So, these questions remain : a> where did those invisible entities come from, or b> do they "exist" eternally? And the scientific response is that we don't know. But that absence of facts doesn't stop us philosophers from seeking an honest answer, like homeless-hobo Diogenes and his lamp of logic.
*1. Why the Multiverse is a “God-of-the-gaps” theory :
the Multiverse is in no way falsifiable, and the arguments in its support are nearly identical to the arguments for God.
https://bigthink.com/13-8/multiverse-religion/
*2. Enformationism :
As a novel philosophical paradigm, the thesis of Enformationism is intended to be an update to the obsolete 19th century paradigm of Materialism. Since the recent advent of Quantum Physics, the materiality of reality has been watered down. Now we know that matter is a form of energy, and that energy is a form of Information.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html
The above quotes show the extreme difference between your work and Newton’s. Newton’s mathematical abstractions notwithstanding, his corpus of work in physics has many useful applications to the everyday world of life in general. — ucarr
Yes, but my eccentric worldview accepts Newton's physics as applicable to the tangible stuff of the macro world. However, quantum physics undermined the determinism of his logic,and the certainty of his mathematics on the fuzzy foundations of reality. Both theories may be true in their respective realms, but there is an "extreme difference" in their philosophical interpretation. While quantum theory is "useful" for cell phones & computers*3, it is also applicable to 21st century philosophy*4.
*3. Quantum Usefulness :
Applications of quantum mechanics include explaining phenomena found in nature as well as developing technologies that rely upon quantum effects, like integrated circuits and lasers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Applicati ... _mechanics
*4. Quantum Philosophy :
One of the world’s leading quantum physicists, Omnès reviews the history and recent development of mathematics, logic, and the physical sciences to show that current work in quantum theory offers new answers to questions that have puzzled philosophers for centuries: Is the world ultimately intelligible? Are all events caused? Do objects have definitive locations?
https://press.princeton.edu/books/paper ... philosophy
You continue to blockade and avoid the hard work of rigorous scientific scholarship and practice by artificially partitioning philosophy from the sciences. Legitimate philosophy doesn’t hold itself aloof from science. — ucarr
Why do you hold me accountable for the "hard work" of scientific scholarship? I'm not a science scholar, so why should I do that kind of "hard work"? You may be doing Science on a philosophy forum, but I'm not. Responding to your critical reviews is hard enough for me. I do however link to science sites for those who want to see the results of the professionals' hard work. And to see that some science scholars, such as Deacon, are not "hard" Newtonian materialists. Scientific paradigms come & go. Which paradigm do you subscribe to?*5
2500 years ago, there was no distinction between Physics and Metaphysics. But around the 17th century Science began to separate itself from its non-empirical roots. So, I would turn your accusation around, to say that modern Science, with its technical tools, "holds itself aloof" from Philosophy. Meanwhile, philosophers plod along with their ancient tools of Logic & Reason. But, I don't claim to be a physicist ; do you claim to be a philosopher? Which is superior to the other, and in what field of comparison? Please don't hold me accountable for outdated Classical physics. But you can expect me to take modern Quantum physics seriously.
*5. Scientific Paradigms :
A paradigm shift—or paradigm change—happens when scientific activity and experimentation begins to contradict premises that experts previously considered unshakable. As a result, a new and different paradigm replaces the dominant paradigm of its day.
https://www.masterclass.com/articles/pa ... -explained
By your empirical definition of "exist", Abstract concepts do not exist. That's because they are in an ideal state : private, knowable, and fleeting. So, they do not come under the purview of empirical Science. Yet, in a different meaning of "exist", abstractions (metaphors) are the substance of Philosophy.
then I ask you to name the extra-mental, supposed loci for your concepts. — ucarr
Everything we say about ideas is metaphorical. That's because abstractions are bereft of material substance, leaving only the logical skeleton of an idea. So, we manipulate such non-things rationally, not empirically. If you can't accept that distinction, you shouldn't attempt to do philosophy, and stick to physics.
Here's a metaphorical account of "out there", with Big Bang physics as an exemplar : In the 20th century, using astronomical data gained from observation of stars (matter/energy) --- currently billions of light years in the past --- cosmologists traced their formation back to a hypothetical origin point. That point of no-yesterday faded away into abstract mathematical infinities. But the logical implication of a Before-the-Bang was so compelling that some cosmologists couldn't resist asking non-empirical philosophical questions about what was "out there" in the Big Before. Yet, the absence of empirical space-time coordinates eliminates a particular locus as the "where" of the symbolic Place-for-Ideas.
Lacking empirical evidence, there were only two logical answers to the Big Absence : a> infinite regress of familiar stuff (multiverse)*1 or b> some unknown self-existent creative power (EnFormAction?)*2. But their cosmological models indicated that the physics of the Bang was unlike anything we know today, but can only imagine : not lumps of matter, but a plasma field of imaginary (non empirical) sub-atomic elements (quarks & gluons). So, these questions remain : a> where did those invisible entities come from, or b> do they "exist" eternally? And the scientific response is that we don't know. But that absence of facts doesn't stop us philosophers from seeking an honest answer, like homeless-hobo Diogenes and his lamp of logic.
*1. Why the Multiverse is a “God-of-the-gaps” theory :
the Multiverse is in no way falsifiable, and the arguments in its support are nearly identical to the arguments for God.
https://bigthink.com/13-8/multiverse-religion/
*2. Enformationism :
As a novel philosophical paradigm, the thesis of Enformationism is intended to be an update to the obsolete 19th century paradigm of Materialism. Since the recent advent of Quantum Physics, the materiality of reality has been watered down. Now we know that matter is a form of energy, and that energy is a form of Information.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html
The above quotes show the extreme difference between your work and Newton’s. Newton’s mathematical abstractions notwithstanding, his corpus of work in physics has many useful applications to the everyday world of life in general. — ucarr
Yes, but my eccentric worldview accepts Newton's physics as applicable to the tangible stuff of the macro world. However, quantum physics undermined the determinism of his logic,and the certainty of his mathematics on the fuzzy foundations of reality. Both theories may be true in their respective realms, but there is an "extreme difference" in their philosophical interpretation. While quantum theory is "useful" for cell phones & computers*3, it is also applicable to 21st century philosophy*4.
*3. Quantum Usefulness :
Applications of quantum mechanics include explaining phenomena found in nature as well as developing technologies that rely upon quantum effects, like integrated circuits and lasers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Applicati ... _mechanics
*4. Quantum Philosophy :
One of the world’s leading quantum physicists, Omnès reviews the history and recent development of mathematics, logic, and the physical sciences to show that current work in quantum theory offers new answers to questions that have puzzled philosophers for centuries: Is the world ultimately intelligible? Are all events caused? Do objects have definitive locations?
https://press.princeton.edu/books/paper ... philosophy
You continue to blockade and avoid the hard work of rigorous scientific scholarship and practice by artificially partitioning philosophy from the sciences. Legitimate philosophy doesn’t hold itself aloof from science. — ucarr
Why do you hold me accountable for the "hard work" of scientific scholarship? I'm not a science scholar, so why should I do that kind of "hard work"? You may be doing Science on a philosophy forum, but I'm not. Responding to your critical reviews is hard enough for me. I do however link to science sites for those who want to see the results of the professionals' hard work. And to see that some science scholars, such as Deacon, are not "hard" Newtonian materialists. Scientific paradigms come & go. Which paradigm do you subscribe to?*5
2500 years ago, there was no distinction between Physics and Metaphysics. But around the 17th century Science began to separate itself from its non-empirical roots. So, I would turn your accusation around, to say that modern Science, with its technical tools, "holds itself aloof" from Philosophy. Meanwhile, philosophers plod along with their ancient tools of Logic & Reason. But, I don't claim to be a physicist ; do you claim to be a philosopher? Which is superior to the other, and in what field of comparison? Please don't hold me accountable for outdated Classical physics. But you can expect me to take modern Quantum physics seriously.
*5. Scientific Paradigms :
A paradigm shift—or paradigm change—happens when scientific activity and experimentation begins to contradict premises that experts previously considered unshakable. As a result, a new and different paradigm replaces the dominant paradigm of its day.
https://www.masterclass.com/articles/pa ... -explained
Re: TPF : Absential Causation
Since you agree concepts do not exist independent of the minds contemplating them, I now know we agree on something important to both of us. — ucarr
When I first posted on this thread, I assumed that we had something in common, besides accepting the dependence of mental functions on material mechanisms. Perhaps, a philosophical role for Deacon's immaterial/potential "Absence" to soften the Hard Problems of physical Science. So, I interpreted "Absential Materialism" as an attempt to reconcile the obsolete Certain physics of Newton with the Uncertain modern physics of Heisenberg. But, your criticisms seem to be defending that 300 year old mechanical/scientific paradigm against the philosophical implications of the 21st century model of random/statistical physics, where particles are only potential*1 (absent) until "observed", and the quantum state is non-local.
Materialism is the easiest metaphysical position to defend. Johnson physically responded to Berkeley's immaterialism : “I refute it thus”, and kicked a stone*2a. On the other hand, Idealism can only be defended with metaphors and rational arguments, but no appeals to the authority of empirical Science. That's because Ideas (per se) are materially Absent, and cannot be explained by any traditional physical mechanism. Emergent functions from material processes cannot be observed empirically, but must be inferred theoretically.
So, I assumed that the OP was postulating some emergent input/output relationship between Matter (etym. “mother”) and Absence (nothingness). Or perhaps, by presenting some novel philosophical insight into the relationship between Philosophy (ideas) and Science (objects). But so far the coinage seems to be simply an apparent paradox, of interest only to fans of Deacon's radical notion of Causal Absence as an explanation for "how mind emerged from matter".
For the record, my interpretation of the "power of Absence" does not imply the "non-existence of matter"*2b, but merely the potential to cause Life & Mind to emerge, via evolutionary processes, from dead mindless matter. Since Newtonian physics can't explain how mind emerged from matter, why not view Deacon's "Absence" as a clue to such mysterious instances of Emergentism*3, that Johnson found "absurd"*2c. Functionalism*4 is a philosophical inference, not a scientific observation.
*1. Quantum potential :
quantum potential is an energy term that is required for local energy–momentum conservation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_potential
*2. I refute it thus! :
a> The name "appeal to the stone" originates from an argument between Dr. Samuel Johnson and James Boswell over George Berkeley's theory of subjective idealism (known previously as "immaterialism"). Subjective idealism states that reality is dependent on a person's perceptions of the world and that material objects are intertwined with one's perceptions of these material objects.
b> After we came out of the church, we stood talking for some time together of Bishop Berkeley's ingenious sophistry to prove the non-existence of matter, and that every thing in the universe is merely ideal. I observed, that though we are satisfied his doctrine is not true, it is impossible to refute it. I never shall forget the alacrity with which Johnson answered, striking his foot with mighty force against a large stone, till he rebounded from it, "I refute it thus."
— James Boswell, The Life of Samuel Johnson
c> Johnson's intent, apparently, was to imply that it was absurd of Berkeley to call such a stone "immaterial," when in fact Johnson could kick it with his foot.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_the_stone
Note --- Berkeley's Immaterialism was similar to Kant's ding an sich, and did not mean that you could kick a rock without physical consequences.
*3. Emergentism is the belief in emergence, particularly as it involves consciousness and the philosophy of mind. A property of a system is said to be emergent if it is a new outcome of some other properties of the system and their interaction, while it is itself different from them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergentism
*4. Functionalism :
Functionalism in the philosophy of mind is the doctrine that what makes something a mental state of a particular type does not depend on its internal constitution, but rather on the way it functions, or the role it plays, in the system of which it is a part.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/functionalism/
Note --- "internal constitution" = matter. "System" = Holism, another term used by Deacon, that is relevant to Absence and Potential.
fc1cea9d-2930-4724-b35c-91e968a32048f6a25a6fb8fa59c726_g4.jpg
When I first posted on this thread, I assumed that we had something in common, besides accepting the dependence of mental functions on material mechanisms. Perhaps, a philosophical role for Deacon's immaterial/potential "Absence" to soften the Hard Problems of physical Science. So, I interpreted "Absential Materialism" as an attempt to reconcile the obsolete Certain physics of Newton with the Uncertain modern physics of Heisenberg. But, your criticisms seem to be defending that 300 year old mechanical/scientific paradigm against the philosophical implications of the 21st century model of random/statistical physics, where particles are only potential*1 (absent) until "observed", and the quantum state is non-local.
Materialism is the easiest metaphysical position to defend. Johnson physically responded to Berkeley's immaterialism : “I refute it thus”, and kicked a stone*2a. On the other hand, Idealism can only be defended with metaphors and rational arguments, but no appeals to the authority of empirical Science. That's because Ideas (per se) are materially Absent, and cannot be explained by any traditional physical mechanism. Emergent functions from material processes cannot be observed empirically, but must be inferred theoretically.
So, I assumed that the OP was postulating some emergent input/output relationship between Matter (etym. “mother”) and Absence (nothingness). Or perhaps, by presenting some novel philosophical insight into the relationship between Philosophy (ideas) and Science (objects). But so far the coinage seems to be simply an apparent paradox, of interest only to fans of Deacon's radical notion of Causal Absence as an explanation for "how mind emerged from matter".
For the record, my interpretation of the "power of Absence" does not imply the "non-existence of matter"*2b, but merely the potential to cause Life & Mind to emerge, via evolutionary processes, from dead mindless matter. Since Newtonian physics can't explain how mind emerged from matter, why not view Deacon's "Absence" as a clue to such mysterious instances of Emergentism*3, that Johnson found "absurd"*2c. Functionalism*4 is a philosophical inference, not a scientific observation.
*1. Quantum potential :
quantum potential is an energy term that is required for local energy–momentum conservation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_potential
*2. I refute it thus! :
a> The name "appeal to the stone" originates from an argument between Dr. Samuel Johnson and James Boswell over George Berkeley's theory of subjective idealism (known previously as "immaterialism"). Subjective idealism states that reality is dependent on a person's perceptions of the world and that material objects are intertwined with one's perceptions of these material objects.
b> After we came out of the church, we stood talking for some time together of Bishop Berkeley's ingenious sophistry to prove the non-existence of matter, and that every thing in the universe is merely ideal. I observed, that though we are satisfied his doctrine is not true, it is impossible to refute it. I never shall forget the alacrity with which Johnson answered, striking his foot with mighty force against a large stone, till he rebounded from it, "I refute it thus."
— James Boswell, The Life of Samuel Johnson
c> Johnson's intent, apparently, was to imply that it was absurd of Berkeley to call such a stone "immaterial," when in fact Johnson could kick it with his foot.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_the_stone
Note --- Berkeley's Immaterialism was similar to Kant's ding an sich, and did not mean that you could kick a rock without physical consequences.
*3. Emergentism is the belief in emergence, particularly as it involves consciousness and the philosophy of mind. A property of a system is said to be emergent if it is a new outcome of some other properties of the system and their interaction, while it is itself different from them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergentism
*4. Functionalism :
Functionalism in the philosophy of mind is the doctrine that what makes something a mental state of a particular type does not depend on its internal constitution, but rather on the way it functions, or the role it plays, in the system of which it is a part.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/functionalism/
Note --- "internal constitution" = matter. "System" = Holism, another term used by Deacon, that is relevant to Absence and Potential.
fc1cea9d-2930-4724-b35c-91e968a32048f6a25a6fb8fa59c726_g4.jpg
Re: TPF : Absential Causation
Interesting JSTOR review of Deacon from a process-theology oriented academic:
Is Terrence Deacon's Metaphysics of Incompleteness Still Incomplete? (free but requires registration.)
I'm going to call it a day with Deacon, I have other fish to fry. — Wayfarer
I'm sorry you're not as impressed with Deacon as I am. Perhaps you need to skip forward to the Epilogue --- after the chapter on Consciousness --- where he says : "In the natural sciences there appears to be no place for right/wrong, meaningful/meaninglessness, beauty/ugliness, good/evil, love/hate, and so forth". Hence, the need for philosophy to explore those subjective territories. He also proposes : "rethinking the frame of natural sciences in a way that has the metaphysical sophistication to integrate the realm of absential phenomena as we experience them." I have been hoping that he would publish a sequel to Incomplete Nature, that would focus more on the philosophical applications than the scientific evidence. That might be more your cup o' tea. But so far, nothing has been forthcoming.
Is Terrence Deacon's Metaphysics of Incompleteness Still Incomplete? (free but requires registration.)
I'm going to call it a day with Deacon, I have other fish to fry. — Wayfarer
I'm sorry you're not as impressed with Deacon as I am. Perhaps you need to skip forward to the Epilogue --- after the chapter on Consciousness --- where he says : "In the natural sciences there appears to be no place for right/wrong, meaningful/meaninglessness, beauty/ugliness, good/evil, love/hate, and so forth". Hence, the need for philosophy to explore those subjective territories. He also proposes : "rethinking the frame of natural sciences in a way that has the metaphysical sophistication to integrate the realm of absential phenomena as we experience them." I have been hoping that he would publish a sequel to Incomplete Nature, that would focus more on the philosophical applications than the scientific evidence. That might be more your cup o' tea. But so far, nothing has been forthcoming.
Re: TPF : Absential Causation
Mental functions are dependent on material things because they too are material things, albeit absentially. . . . .
Let me make a distinction between materially absent and materially absential. The difference is parallel to the difference between 2 - x versus 2i = 0 + 2i. In verbal grammar this is the difference between something simply distanced, as in the first example versus something distanced-yet-complexly-connected, as in the second example. — ucarr
As is the case with many disagreements on this forum, some key words are used with unconventional, or abstrusely technical, meanings. So they need to be carefully defined in terms that can be understood intuitively, from personal Experience : the feeling of personal affectation. For example, I can understand the general idea of the math symbol for an imaginary number "i" in your example. That's because I too experience imagination. But, as a non mathematician, I don't experience the combination of real & unreal quantities, for the same reason that I have no experience of Infinity.
Likewise, I can read your definition : "distanced-yet-complexly-connected" as a possible-but-not-obvious-relationship. But it doesn't mean anything to me intuitively. It does however, suggest a relationship similar to "Potential vs Actual", where a Potential thing is "distanced" from reality, but is statistically "connected" to a Probability definition in the realm of Possibility. That imaginary "realm" is not Real, but Ideal, since it has no material instances, only abstract imagery. It's not a Thing, but the ideal concept of a presumably possible Thing. In your terminology, the imaginary object is literally "materially absential" : the quality of lacking a material instance. Or in Deacon's vocabulary : "Constitutive Absence".
Deacon describes his notion of "Absence" in ideal, not material, terms. It's something we know by reasoning not by observation. Hence, the idea of a particular Absent thing, such as a future state of a material object, is literally Immaterial and Ideal. So, describing something as "absent" merely means missing from its expected place. But "absential" describes a quality as-if it was a quantity ; non-existence as-if it was existence. In that case, it's a hypothetical Difference that makes no meaningful Difference. Except perhaps in the sense that Deacon described "Aboutness" or "Entention" as a "non-material property of minds" (index) :
Your distinction between "materially absent" is equivalent to the numerical quantity Zero : as in "no specified material object there". But "materially absential" is similar to the conceptual quality of Nothingness : as in "nothing of any kind there". Except that the ironic meaning of that combination of words is an oxymoron, like "deafening silence". Therefore, a more useful definition of "materially absential", for me, would be merely "Potential" : conceptually possible but not yet materially actual; or "Latent" : possessing a quality that could become a quantity.
In terms of my own Information-based worldview, your "distanced-yet-complexly-connected" could be translated into "No real or actual or material form, but having the potential to become a real thing, by means of the power of EnFormAction".
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
https://absence.github.io/3-explanation ... ntial.html
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.
Ententional : an adjective that applies to the class of objects and phenomena that refer to or are in some other way "about" something not present.
Potential : having or showing the capacity to become or develop into something in the future.
Latent : existing in hidden or dormant form
EnFormAction :
Ententional Causation. A proposed metaphysical law of the universe that causes random interactions between forces and particles to produce novel & stable arrangements of matter & energy. The term is derived from Wheeler's "it from bit" equation of matter & information. Which is similar to Einstein's E=MC^2 equation of Energy and Matter/Mass.
How is information related to energy in physics? :
Energy is the relationship between information regimes. That is, energy is manifested, at any level, between structures, processes and systems of information in all of its forms, and all entities in this universe is composed of information.
https://physics.stackexchange.com/quest ... in-physics
Let me make a distinction between materially absent and materially absential. The difference is parallel to the difference between 2 - x versus 2i = 0 + 2i. In verbal grammar this is the difference between something simply distanced, as in the first example versus something distanced-yet-complexly-connected, as in the second example. — ucarr
As is the case with many disagreements on this forum, some key words are used with unconventional, or abstrusely technical, meanings. So they need to be carefully defined in terms that can be understood intuitively, from personal Experience : the feeling of personal affectation. For example, I can understand the general idea of the math symbol for an imaginary number "i" in your example. That's because I too experience imagination. But, as a non mathematician, I don't experience the combination of real & unreal quantities, for the same reason that I have no experience of Infinity.
Likewise, I can read your definition : "distanced-yet-complexly-connected" as a possible-but-not-obvious-relationship. But it doesn't mean anything to me intuitively. It does however, suggest a relationship similar to "Potential vs Actual", where a Potential thing is "distanced" from reality, but is statistically "connected" to a Probability definition in the realm of Possibility. That imaginary "realm" is not Real, but Ideal, since it has no material instances, only abstract imagery. It's not a Thing, but the ideal concept of a presumably possible Thing. In your terminology, the imaginary object is literally "materially absential" : the quality of lacking a material instance. Or in Deacon's vocabulary : "Constitutive Absence".
Deacon describes his notion of "Absence" in ideal, not material, terms. It's something we know by reasoning not by observation. Hence, the idea of a particular Absent thing, such as a future state of a material object, is literally Immaterial and Ideal. So, describing something as "absent" merely means missing from its expected place. But "absential" describes a quality as-if it was a quantity ; non-existence as-if it was existence. In that case, it's a hypothetical Difference that makes no meaningful Difference. Except perhaps in the sense that Deacon described "Aboutness" or "Entention" as a "non-material property of minds" (index) :
Your distinction between "materially absent" is equivalent to the numerical quantity Zero : as in "no specified material object there". But "materially absential" is similar to the conceptual quality of Nothingness : as in "nothing of any kind there". Except that the ironic meaning of that combination of words is an oxymoron, like "deafening silence". Therefore, a more useful definition of "materially absential", for me, would be merely "Potential" : conceptually possible but not yet materially actual; or "Latent" : possessing a quality that could become a quantity.
In terms of my own Information-based worldview, your "distanced-yet-complexly-connected" could be translated into "No real or actual or material form, but having the potential to become a real thing, by means of the power of EnFormAction".
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
https://absence.github.io/3-explanation ... ntial.html
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.
Ententional : an adjective that applies to the class of objects and phenomena that refer to or are in some other way "about" something not present.
Potential : having or showing the capacity to become or develop into something in the future.
Latent : existing in hidden or dormant form
EnFormAction :
Ententional Causation. A proposed metaphysical law of the universe that causes random interactions between forces and particles to produce novel & stable arrangements of matter & energy. The term is derived from Wheeler's "it from bit" equation of matter & information. Which is similar to Einstein's E=MC^2 equation of Energy and Matter/Mass.
How is information related to energy in physics? :
Energy is the relationship between information regimes. That is, energy is manifested, at any level, between structures, processes and systems of information in all of its forms, and all entities in this universe is composed of information.
https://physics.stackexchange.com/quest ... in-physics
Re: TPF : Absential Causation
Mental functions are dependent on material things because they too are material things, albeit absentially. — ucarr
Because Deacon's notion of Absence is relevant to my own information-based philosophical worldview, I'm still trying to make sense of your materialistic understanding of "Absence" (noun) & "Absential" (adjective). In the worldview of Materialism : all things we observe in nature are by definition "material". But, to be a complete philosophical concept, that definition should explain both objects observed by the senses, and changes in those objects over time (functions) due to energetic inputs & outputs, and relationships between objects that are not seen, but inferred. In what meaningful sense are Abstract Nouns*1, such as Absence, Function, and Causation, referring to material things, and not to ideas about things or processes? Of course, mental abstractions are dependent on a material Brain, but scientifically, their referents have no objective material substance, only subjective meaning. It's the material stuff that is Absent or Absential.
In psychology, Mind is a function of brains. In math, physics, and biology, a Function is a causal concept (input causes output), but not a material object. So, a more appropriate statement would say that "mental functions are dependent on the process of causation in material things". Hence, the Function is not a "material thing", but an ongoing process of change in a material object, more like Energy. For example, in biology, Life is a function of Causation in a material substrate. As noted in the Quora opinion below*2, Abstractions are "products of physical reality". But those Absential products are not made of Presential matter. So, my question is not about the walnut-shaped Vessel, but about the contents we call Mind : the "Substance" or "Essence" of subjective Ideas, as defined by Aristotle*3.
With that clarification, I can provisionally agree with the first part of your assertion above : "mental functions are dependent on material things" ; but not with the second part : "because they {mental functions} too are material things, albeit absentially". How can something "absential" be material? Isn't Presence an essential element of the definition of "material". Deacon's "absence" seems to be a commonsense reference to the philosophical concept of "potential". Aristotle, in his discussion of Motion, Causality, & Physiology, contrasted present material Actual with absent immaterial Potential. From that perspective, Absence (no-thing) or Absential (quality of nothingness) is the opposite of material Presence. So, how can you conclude that something Absential is also Material? What kind of matter is nothingness made of? In other words, what is the Substance of Absence? Instead of "material thing" do you mean "a philosophically meaningful concept"?
I'm gradually coming to realize that Materialism is an unprovable metaphysical Axiom (presumption), not an empirical scientific Theory (inference from facts). It's more of an attitude or belief than a fact. So, I guess I can't expect such beliefs to make sense in an objective manner. Regarding a scientific or philosophical explanation of Consciousness --- including awareness of abstractions like Absence --- Terrence Deacon said "Materialism, the view that there are only material things and their interactions in the world, seems impotent here" {my emphasis}. He also referred to “the antimaterialist claim” that “like meanings & purposes, consciousness may not be something there in any typical sense of being materially or energetically embodied, and yet may still be materially causally relevant” p7 .{my bold} Your concept of Absential Materialism may be related to the notion of “materially relevant”.
*1. Abstract nouns :
We have four categories when it comes to nouns: 1.Person 2.Place 3.Animal 4.Thing. Everything in the above list can be labelled as "things". Things that are visible to the eyes. Whereas, abstract nouns contain feelings, like happiness,sadness, which can't be seen. https://www.quora.com/What-nouns-arent- ... -to-things
*2. How can scientific materialism explain the existence of abstract non-material entities? : You need to unwind your definition of Materialism to match what materialists (or physicalists) really believe, which is "matter is primary, and mind or spirit or ideas are secondary, the product of matter acting upon matter." That doesn't mean that we don't believe that mind or ideas don't exist, but they are a product of our physical reality. https://www.quora.com/How-can-scientific-materi ... l-entities
Note --- My position is that Abstractions are indeed “a product of physical reality”, but they have no material Substance.
*3. What according to Aristotle is the essence of a thing? :
In Aristotle essence was identified with substance (ousia) or sometimes substantial form. The essence is what makes the thing be what it is. The essence of a thing or substance is able to be known and so defined accordingly. It is through the definition that we come to know essences.
https://brainly.ph/question/25605568
*3. Substance, in the history of Western philosophy, a thing whose existence is independent of that of all other things, or a thing from which or out of which other things are made or in which other things inhere. . . . Benedict de Spinoza . . . . there was only one substance, which constitutes the whole of reality.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/substance-philosophy
Note --- a better term for Spinoza's all-encompassing "substance" may be non-local Essence.
Because Deacon's notion of Absence is relevant to my own information-based philosophical worldview, I'm still trying to make sense of your materialistic understanding of "Absence" (noun) & "Absential" (adjective). In the worldview of Materialism : all things we observe in nature are by definition "material". But, to be a complete philosophical concept, that definition should explain both objects observed by the senses, and changes in those objects over time (functions) due to energetic inputs & outputs, and relationships between objects that are not seen, but inferred. In what meaningful sense are Abstract Nouns*1, such as Absence, Function, and Causation, referring to material things, and not to ideas about things or processes? Of course, mental abstractions are dependent on a material Brain, but scientifically, their referents have no objective material substance, only subjective meaning. It's the material stuff that is Absent or Absential.
In psychology, Mind is a function of brains. In math, physics, and biology, a Function is a causal concept (input causes output), but not a material object. So, a more appropriate statement would say that "mental functions are dependent on the process of causation in material things". Hence, the Function is not a "material thing", but an ongoing process of change in a material object, more like Energy. For example, in biology, Life is a function of Causation in a material substrate. As noted in the Quora opinion below*2, Abstractions are "products of physical reality". But those Absential products are not made of Presential matter. So, my question is not about the walnut-shaped Vessel, but about the contents we call Mind : the "Substance" or "Essence" of subjective Ideas, as defined by Aristotle*3.
With that clarification, I can provisionally agree with the first part of your assertion above : "mental functions are dependent on material things" ; but not with the second part : "because they {mental functions} too are material things, albeit absentially". How can something "absential" be material? Isn't Presence an essential element of the definition of "material". Deacon's "absence" seems to be a commonsense reference to the philosophical concept of "potential". Aristotle, in his discussion of Motion, Causality, & Physiology, contrasted present material Actual with absent immaterial Potential. From that perspective, Absence (no-thing) or Absential (quality of nothingness) is the opposite of material Presence. So, how can you conclude that something Absential is also Material? What kind of matter is nothingness made of? In other words, what is the Substance of Absence? Instead of "material thing" do you mean "a philosophically meaningful concept"?
I'm gradually coming to realize that Materialism is an unprovable metaphysical Axiom (presumption), not an empirical scientific Theory (inference from facts). It's more of an attitude or belief than a fact. So, I guess I can't expect such beliefs to make sense in an objective manner. Regarding a scientific or philosophical explanation of Consciousness --- including awareness of abstractions like Absence --- Terrence Deacon said "Materialism, the view that there are only material things and their interactions in the world, seems impotent here" {my emphasis}. He also referred to “the antimaterialist claim” that “like meanings & purposes, consciousness may not be something there in any typical sense of being materially or energetically embodied, and yet may still be materially causally relevant” p7 .{my bold} Your concept of Absential Materialism may be related to the notion of “materially relevant”.
*1. Abstract nouns :
We have four categories when it comes to nouns: 1.Person 2.Place 3.Animal 4.Thing. Everything in the above list can be labelled as "things". Things that are visible to the eyes. Whereas, abstract nouns contain feelings, like happiness,sadness, which can't be seen. https://www.quora.com/What-nouns-arent- ... -to-things
*2. How can scientific materialism explain the existence of abstract non-material entities? : You need to unwind your definition of Materialism to match what materialists (or physicalists) really believe, which is "matter is primary, and mind or spirit or ideas are secondary, the product of matter acting upon matter." That doesn't mean that we don't believe that mind or ideas don't exist, but they are a product of our physical reality. https://www.quora.com/How-can-scientific-materi ... l-entities
Note --- My position is that Abstractions are indeed “a product of physical reality”, but they have no material Substance.
*3. What according to Aristotle is the essence of a thing? :
In Aristotle essence was identified with substance (ousia) or sometimes substantial form. The essence is what makes the thing be what it is. The essence of a thing or substance is able to be known and so defined accordingly. It is through the definition that we come to know essences.
https://brainly.ph/question/25605568
*3. Substance, in the history of Western philosophy, a thing whose existence is independent of that of all other things, or a thing from which or out of which other things are made or in which other things inhere. . . . Benedict de Spinoza . . . . there was only one substance, which constitutes the whole of reality.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/substance-philosophy
Note --- a better term for Spinoza's all-encompassing "substance" may be non-local Essence.
Re: TPF : Absential Causation
then the physical products of these nested processes of higher-order dynamics are absentially tied to these absent contraints because without them, these products wouldn't exist — ucarr
I would interpret your use of "absentially tied" as referring to a Cause & Effect relationship. For example, in the Photoelectric Effect, incoming invisible inferred Photons are the cause of the observed effect (Electrons) flowing as energy in a material substrate. This is a physical transformation, but the photons, while moving at lightspeed are massless, and electrons are both non-local and massless while "flowing". Therefore, in their ghostly Cause & Effect forms they have no material attributes ; hence Absent as far as our matter-detecting senses are concerned.
Only at rest can they be legitimately called "particles of matter". But "rest" is not a normal state for a Photon*1. So, in its normal invisible & massless state, does it qualify as materially Absent"? This how I interpret Deacon's "Causal" or "Constitutive" Absence : immaterial cause produces material effects. "Causal Absence" is what I call the Potential to become Actual. One "Constraint" in an electrical system is Voltage, which is not a thing but an inherent limitation of the system as a whole.
*1. Is it possible for a photon to be at rest? :
No, a photon in vacuum is required by its very nature to move at the speed of light c.
https://www.quora.com/Is-it-possible-fo ... be-at-rest
If end-oriented constraints compel self-organizing reciprocal processes, with constraint bottom-up and supervenience top-down, then the physical products of these nested processes of higher-order dynamics are absentially tied to these absent contraints because without them, these products wouldn't exist. Physically compelled strategic constrainsts via design constructs the bridge linking physical dynamics with physical things. This blockchain of interwoven dynamical causes examples absence, i.e., non-physicality causally linked to physicality. — ucarr
You seem to be saying something close to my own understanding, but using terminology that I'm not familiar with. My knowledge of "blockchain" is limited to an abstract money-market concept of a "distributed database" in which the "chain" is not a physical thing, but a software network of mental trust interrelationships. So, those "interwoven dynamical causes" seem to be Absent in the same sense as immaterial ideas (promises), that can have material effects (buying power) on the real world.
For example, we can think of New York City as a cultural machine for shared economic progress. The material infrastructure --- skyscrapers, roads, etc.--- and immaterial Constraints --- laws, contracts, etc --- are bound together by the mental ententions of millions of entrepreneurs. Is that anything like what you mean by "blockchain"? Without the immaterial "design constraints" of the blockchain system the "products" (imaginary cryptocurrency) wouldn't exist.
Non-material Culture :
Culture is the beliefs, behaviors, practices, norms, values, history, characteristics, knowledge, and artifacts of a social group. Culture includes language, religion, cuisine, social habits, music, and arts. These elements combine to create the culture of the social group and impact how members of the group think, act, and acquire possessions as a shared way of living.
https://study.com/academy/lesson/what-i ... lture.html
I would interpret your use of "absentially tied" as referring to a Cause & Effect relationship. For example, in the Photoelectric Effect, incoming invisible inferred Photons are the cause of the observed effect (Electrons) flowing as energy in a material substrate. This is a physical transformation, but the photons, while moving at lightspeed are massless, and electrons are both non-local and massless while "flowing". Therefore, in their ghostly Cause & Effect forms they have no material attributes ; hence Absent as far as our matter-detecting senses are concerned.
Only at rest can they be legitimately called "particles of matter". But "rest" is not a normal state for a Photon*1. So, in its normal invisible & massless state, does it qualify as materially Absent"? This how I interpret Deacon's "Causal" or "Constitutive" Absence : immaterial cause produces material effects. "Causal Absence" is what I call the Potential to become Actual. One "Constraint" in an electrical system is Voltage, which is not a thing but an inherent limitation of the system as a whole.
*1. Is it possible for a photon to be at rest? :
No, a photon in vacuum is required by its very nature to move at the speed of light c.
https://www.quora.com/Is-it-possible-fo ... be-at-rest
If end-oriented constraints compel self-organizing reciprocal processes, with constraint bottom-up and supervenience top-down, then the physical products of these nested processes of higher-order dynamics are absentially tied to these absent contraints because without them, these products wouldn't exist. Physically compelled strategic constrainsts via design constructs the bridge linking physical dynamics with physical things. This blockchain of interwoven dynamical causes examples absence, i.e., non-physicality causally linked to physicality. — ucarr
You seem to be saying something close to my own understanding, but using terminology that I'm not familiar with. My knowledge of "blockchain" is limited to an abstract money-market concept of a "distributed database" in which the "chain" is not a physical thing, but a software network of mental trust interrelationships. So, those "interwoven dynamical causes" seem to be Absent in the same sense as immaterial ideas (promises), that can have material effects (buying power) on the real world.
For example, we can think of New York City as a cultural machine for shared economic progress. The material infrastructure --- skyscrapers, roads, etc.--- and immaterial Constraints --- laws, contracts, etc --- are bound together by the mental ententions of millions of entrepreneurs. Is that anything like what you mean by "blockchain"? Without the immaterial "design constraints" of the blockchain system the "products" (imaginary cryptocurrency) wouldn't exist.
Non-material Culture :
Culture is the beliefs, behaviors, practices, norms, values, history, characteristics, knowledge, and artifacts of a social group. Culture includes language, religion, cuisine, social habits, music, and arts. These elements combine to create the culture of the social group and impact how members of the group think, act, and acquire possessions as a shared way of living.
https://study.com/academy/lesson/what-i ... lture.html
Re: TPF : Absential Causation
Furthermore, the observing mind-brain-body is physically entangled with the object of its observation — ucarr
Yes, but the Mind can be philosophically & categorically dis-entangled from the body-brain. That's why I prefer to avoid getting tangled-up in materialistic physics, on a forum designed for discussion of meta-physics. The object of a physical experiment is a material Object, external to the Brain, but the object of mental "observation" is a Subject, internal to the Mind. The "Hard Problem" of consciousness is only made more complicated by including the entangled neurons in the definition of Mind. Unfortunately, the philosophy of Materialism does not allow us to make such categorical distinctions.
Metaphysics might include the study of the nature of the human mind, the definition and meaning of existence, or the nature of space, time, and/or causality. The origin of philosophy, beginning with the Pre-Socratics, was metaphysical in nature.
https://www.pbs.org/faithandreason/geng ... -body.html
Yes, but the Mind can be philosophically & categorically dis-entangled from the body-brain. That's why I prefer to avoid getting tangled-up in materialistic physics, on a forum designed for discussion of meta-physics. The object of a physical experiment is a material Object, external to the Brain, but the object of mental "observation" is a Subject, internal to the Mind. The "Hard Problem" of consciousness is only made more complicated by including the entangled neurons in the definition of Mind. Unfortunately, the philosophy of Materialism does not allow us to make such categorical distinctions.
Metaphysics might include the study of the nature of the human mind, the definition and meaning of existence, or the nature of space, time, and/or causality. The origin of philosophy, beginning with the Pre-Socratics, was metaphysical in nature.
https://www.pbs.org/faithandreason/geng ... -body.html
Re: TPF : Absential Causation
If end-oriented constraints compel self-organizing reciprocal processes, with constraint bottom-up and supervenience top-down, then the physical products of these nested processes of higher-order dynamics are absentially tied to these absent contraints because without them, these products wouldn't exist. Physically compelled strategic constrainsts via design constructs the bridge linking physical dynamics with physical things. This blockchain of interwoven dynamical causes examples absence, i.e., non-physicality causally linked to physicality.
This seeming break between mind and body is in reality absential materialism. Below is Deacon's blockchain of nested dynamical systems bi-directionally linked across space and time: — ucarr
A lot of your technical terminology is not in my personal word-stock, or in Deacon's glossary ; making communication difficult. Please give me a functional definition (what it does) and a real-world example (what it is) of the following terminology : a> "end oriented constraints" ; b> "absentially tied" ; c> "Physically compelled strategic constrainsts via design" ; d> "blockchain of nested dynamical systems". An explanation in terms of (what it is not) may also be acceptable, since Deacon often begins with a negative definition for some of his counterintuitive concepts.
Also, a more detailed discussion of "seeming break between mind and body is . . . ." would be helpful. Descartes expressed his understanding of those distinctive categories in terms of dual substances : one material and the other experiential. But your Absential Materialism seems to imply that Matter & Mind are "bi-directionally linked" by some mysterious force or power "across space and time". I have my own ideas about what that interactive Link might be. But I'd like to hear your description, in terminology that I might be familiar with. But remember, I have no formal training in Philosophy, so my vocabulary is limited to a few commonly used words.
The Deactionary :
Deacon loves his neologisms and his redefinitions of existing terms.
https://axispraxis.wordpress.com/2020/0 ... te-nature/
Absential : a state of things not yet realized
https://absence.github.io/3-explanation ... ntial.html
Potential : the power to actualize a possibility ; to transform Absential into Real. (gnomon)
This seeming break between mind and body is in reality absential materialism. Below is Deacon's blockchain of nested dynamical systems bi-directionally linked across space and time: — ucarr
A lot of your technical terminology is not in my personal word-stock, or in Deacon's glossary ; making communication difficult. Please give me a functional definition (what it does) and a real-world example (what it is) of the following terminology : a> "end oriented constraints" ; b> "absentially tied" ; c> "Physically compelled strategic constrainsts via design" ; d> "blockchain of nested dynamical systems". An explanation in terms of (what it is not) may also be acceptable, since Deacon often begins with a negative definition for some of his counterintuitive concepts.
Also, a more detailed discussion of "seeming break between mind and body is . . . ." would be helpful. Descartes expressed his understanding of those distinctive categories in terms of dual substances : one material and the other experiential. But your Absential Materialism seems to imply that Matter & Mind are "bi-directionally linked" by some mysterious force or power "across space and time". I have my own ideas about what that interactive Link might be. But I'd like to hear your description, in terminology that I might be familiar with. But remember, I have no formal training in Philosophy, so my vocabulary is limited to a few commonly used words.
The Deactionary :
Deacon loves his neologisms and his redefinitions of existing terms.
https://axispraxis.wordpress.com/2020/0 ... te-nature/
Absential : a state of things not yet realized
https://absence.github.io/3-explanation ... ntial.html
Potential : the power to actualize a possibility ; to transform Absential into Real. (gnomon)
Re: TPF : Absential Causation
In a functional relationship, there's an operator that transforms input into output. . . . .
Still furthermore, the medium propagating the object/observer relationship is material-physical spacetime. . . . .
Absential materialism, possessing both properties of waves and of particles, presents itself as a knot of complexity fostering the-glass-is-half-full-half-empty debates. — ucarr
Do you have a scientific name for this transforming "operator", other than mundane Energy? You say that this mysterious "medium" is a space-time phenomenon. How is it detected, and is there a conventional name for the propagator of this Body/Mind or Object/Observer relationship? You say that Absential Materialism possesses the properties of both Waves and Particles as in Wave-Particle Duality.
Therefore, AM is a Wavicle*1 --- yes? Hence, a combination*2 of a non-local (but entangled) Force or Field, and simultaneously a local (disentangled) Particle? That counter-intuitive notion does not work in classical Newtonian physics, but is accepted as as "the central mystery of quantum mechanics"*3, and described by you as "a knot of complexity" --- perhaps a Gordian's Knot, that can't be disentangled by mechanical physics, but may be resolved by a philosophical compromise?*4ab
*1. Wavicle : an entity having characteristic properties of both waves and particles.
*2. BothAnd :
The BothAnd Principle of Complementarity is a corollary to the thesis of Enformationism, in that it is a mashup of both Materialism and Idealism, of both Science and Religion, of both Empirical and Theoretical methods. The novel concept of Enformation is also a synthesis of both Energy and Information.
https://bothandblog2.enformationism.info/page29.html
*3. the central mystery of quantum mechanics :
I don't actually find quantum mechanics to be much more mysterious than classical mechanics is. It is counterintuitive and very surprising, yes, but it is actually a resolution of a mystery, which was: how do particles on atomic scales behave?
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-centr ... -mechanics
Note --- Wavicles behave like a child : sometimes proper, but sometimes mis-behaving.
*4a. EnFormAction :
Ententional Causation. A proposed metaphysical law of the universe that causes random interactions between forces and particles to produce novel & stable arrangements (forms) of matter & energy.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html
Note --- this hypothetical precursor of Matter & Energy & Mind could be described as a Mind/Matter "link", or "medium", or "propagator", or "knot of complexity".
*4b. Raw En-Form-Action has few, if any, definable perceivable qualities. By itself, mental Information is colorless, odorless, formless, and imaginary. Unlike colorless, odorless, and formless water though, EnFormAction gives physical form to whatever is defined by it.
https://bothandblog2.enformationism.info/page29.html
Still furthermore, the medium propagating the object/observer relationship is material-physical spacetime. . . . .
Absential materialism, possessing both properties of waves and of particles, presents itself as a knot of complexity fostering the-glass-is-half-full-half-empty debates. — ucarr
Do you have a scientific name for this transforming "operator", other than mundane Energy? You say that this mysterious "medium" is a space-time phenomenon. How is it detected, and is there a conventional name for the propagator of this Body/Mind or Object/Observer relationship? You say that Absential Materialism possesses the properties of both Waves and Particles as in Wave-Particle Duality.
Therefore, AM is a Wavicle*1 --- yes? Hence, a combination*2 of a non-local (but entangled) Force or Field, and simultaneously a local (disentangled) Particle? That counter-intuitive notion does not work in classical Newtonian physics, but is accepted as as "the central mystery of quantum mechanics"*3, and described by you as "a knot of complexity" --- perhaps a Gordian's Knot, that can't be disentangled by mechanical physics, but may be resolved by a philosophical compromise?*4ab
*1. Wavicle : an entity having characteristic properties of both waves and particles.
*2. BothAnd :
The BothAnd Principle of Complementarity is a corollary to the thesis of Enformationism, in that it is a mashup of both Materialism and Idealism, of both Science and Religion, of both Empirical and Theoretical methods. The novel concept of Enformation is also a synthesis of both Energy and Information.
https://bothandblog2.enformationism.info/page29.html
*3. the central mystery of quantum mechanics :
I don't actually find quantum mechanics to be much more mysterious than classical mechanics is. It is counterintuitive and very surprising, yes, but it is actually a resolution of a mystery, which was: how do particles on atomic scales behave?
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-centr ... -mechanics
Note --- Wavicles behave like a child : sometimes proper, but sometimes mis-behaving.
*4a. EnFormAction :
Ententional Causation. A proposed metaphysical law of the universe that causes random interactions between forces and particles to produce novel & stable arrangements (forms) of matter & energy.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html
Note --- this hypothetical precursor of Matter & Energy & Mind could be described as a Mind/Matter "link", or "medium", or "propagator", or "knot of complexity".
*4b. Raw En-Form-Action has few, if any, definable perceivable qualities. By itself, mental Information is colorless, odorless, formless, and imaginary. Unlike colorless, odorless, and formless water though, EnFormAction gives physical form to whatever is defined by it.
https://bothandblog2.enformationism.info/page29.html
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 34 guests