https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... tialism/p5
If our 'self', through brain development, is a combination of 'some things old, some things new', mentally and physically, and consciousness is not a material aspect of that, it seems logical that the immaterial portion of the contributions (that which is 'experienced' through interaction with otherness) would revert to being immaterial when the 'material' is sloughed off. — Mapping the Medium
Thoughts, presented in Enformationism terms, inspired by your comments :
That reasoning is how ancient people constructed the notion of an immortal Soul, as distinct from the mortal body. But, although Consciousness is essential to the Soul/Self, it is not a thing but a process. It's not made of matter or stuff. Instead, Consciousness is a product of Information Processing. Mind is what the brain does.
Although Information can occur in both physical and metaphysical (mental) forms, it is not a material object, but the power to cause change. We are most familiar with that aspect of Information in the form of Energy. In humans, information-processing extracts self-relevant meaning from various changes in the environment. That influx of meaning (significance) is what we call "consciousness". And Self-consciousness is the essence of human nature : your persona.
Since Consciousness is a process, it can start and stop. When Consciousness stops, the Self/Soul dis-organizes, and the body dies. But the energy (EnFormAction) is always conserved. It continues to flow through the world. So, you could say that the Information that formed the Self/Soul re-enters the main stream of EnFormAction (G*D-Mind in action). Like a drop in the ocean, it is no longer a distinct object.
The Form of your Self/Soul is equivalent to the meaningful data in a computer. It's mathematical or personal relationships, not physical stuff. So, just as the geometrical relationship of three dots continues to exist (in potential) after the dots are erased, your personal Form-data may remain in G*D-Mind after its incarnation is deceased. But it lacks the space-time instance that made it a self-referencing Subject in the first place.
After-thoughts : Unfortunately, while the concept of an immaterial Soul is reasonable, most people still think of it in material terms. For example, ghosts are imagined as a person whose body is now transparent ectoplasm instead of red meat. Dead loved-ones are imagined as-if they are still living in another space-time location (heaven or parallel world). Mediums talk to the dead via mental telegraphy instead of sound waves. But such mind-mind communication of information is notoriously imperfect. Although no wires are involved, and distance should not be a problem, mind-readers and mediums seem to struggle with a lot of noise & static & entropy. Which is why Claude Shannon developed his theory of Information. You would think that by eliminating the physical constraints of communication, we wouldn't have to say, "can you hear me now?" So, I remain skeptical about our ability to communicate directly from Consciousness to Consciousness, without a physical substrate to act on the material world.
Information : http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page11.html
G*D-Mind : refers to some sort of universal meta-physical source (mind-field) of Information/Energy/Meaning that we know only by reasoning from our experience with the physical world. Not a localized persona, but a general Cause of all change, including the difference-that-makes-a-difference known as "Information".
Phil Forum : Human Nature : Essentialism
Re: Phil Forum : Human Nature : Essentialism
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... ent/371710
'wise fool' . . . They don't usually start from "no idea at all" as far as I can tell — Siti
I assume you are referring to the programmers of mundane Evolutionary Programming, But, did I say anything about “no idea at all”? In my analogy between Intelligent Evolution and Genetic Design, I indicated that the designer (human or deity) used the heuristic search process, specifically because there was no viable path directly to the goal. In the “evolved antenna” design, the barrier was computing power. So, they established parameters to be met, and let their artificial intelligence computers “stumble” upon the optimum solution by a process of trial & error. Our Programmer was a wise-wizard, in that he started before the beginning. It's called a "program" : a plan of action.
In the Intelligent Evolution theory, I postulate that the Programmer had no entention of creating dumb creatures like Adam & Eve, but merely had the “idea” of creating semi-autonomous intelligent creatures --- little avatars for entertainment. So, S/he simply designed a process that would “stumble” upon an optimum solution --- within the constraints of space & time, and natural laws --- by learning from its own mistakes. The design criteria & parameters are assumed to be working via Natural Selection. So the final goal was specified only in terms of a problem description. And the zig-zag path to that goal was what Hegel called “The Dialectic Process”, as contrasted with the “Didactic Process” of Intelligent Design. The Process is the Product. Playing the game is the point, not the final score. "The play's the thing". ___Shakespeare, Hamlet
Dialectic : a back & forth philosophical argument between Good & Evil. Bottom-up design.
Didactic : an autocratic method of instruction by commandment. Top-down design
what is an elephant with no 'elephant-aboutness'? — Siti
An elephant who doesn't recognize himself in a mirror?
Actually, Aboutness is a property of the observing subject, not the observed object. “Aboutness “is a mental arrow pointing to an object. “Aboutness” is conception, not perception. It's a mental image of something that is not present in space & time. Its essence -- to get back on topic -- is Information in the form of an immaterial Concept --- a not-yet-realized idea, design, or purpose.
Of course, Daniel Dennett redefined "Aboutness" as the “Intentional Stance”, in which the subject imputes goals & beliefs to the object. So, maybe you are confusing my “Ententional Evolution” notion with Dennett's strategy for understanding another agent. In my concept of Intelligent Evolution, the designer did indeed have a “mental image of something not present” and an “entention” to realize it --- make it real : Teleology. I admit to attributing these ideas and ententions to an unreal agent. It's my strategy for understanding an otherwise absurd world --- whether that of Religion or of Science.
but the 'ententionalities' are (I am suggesting) the 'mental poles' of the emerging realities - inseparable from and necessarily coexistent with the 'physical pole' substrates on which they (ententionalities) 'supervene' — Siti
This is where we typically part ways. You assume that all “events” occur in space & time : the existing evolving reality. But, if intent & goal (cause & effect) occupy the same space & time, what's the point? They may of course occupy the same time-line, which may be what you have in mind. But my Ententional Agent is supposed to be outside space-time; which I know does not compute for you. Yet, Eternity and Infinity are common concepts in human discourse, and they are assumed to be non-real, like the so-called Imaginary Numbers & Zero & Infinity of mathematics . Which is true, because they exist only in what I call Ideality : the Mind of G*D. In the MoG, there are no “mental poles” or “physical poles”, because G*D is unitary, holistic, non-dual. But those are just qualities that I attribute to "something that is not present in space-time", due to my Intentional Stance. It's a hypothesis, not a belief system. Did I mention that my G*D is a mathematician and a metaphysician?
Mathematical Metaphysics : Platonism about mathematics (or mathematical platonism) is the metaphysical view that there are abstract mathematical objects whose existence is independent of us and our language, thought, and practices.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/plat ... thematics/
'wise fool' . . . They don't usually start from "no idea at all" as far as I can tell — Siti
I assume you are referring to the programmers of mundane Evolutionary Programming, But, did I say anything about “no idea at all”? In my analogy between Intelligent Evolution and Genetic Design, I indicated that the designer (human or deity) used the heuristic search process, specifically because there was no viable path directly to the goal. In the “evolved antenna” design, the barrier was computing power. So, they established parameters to be met, and let their artificial intelligence computers “stumble” upon the optimum solution by a process of trial & error. Our Programmer was a wise-wizard, in that he started before the beginning. It's called a "program" : a plan of action.
In the Intelligent Evolution theory, I postulate that the Programmer had no entention of creating dumb creatures like Adam & Eve, but merely had the “idea” of creating semi-autonomous intelligent creatures --- little avatars for entertainment. So, S/he simply designed a process that would “stumble” upon an optimum solution --- within the constraints of space & time, and natural laws --- by learning from its own mistakes. The design criteria & parameters are assumed to be working via Natural Selection. So the final goal was specified only in terms of a problem description. And the zig-zag path to that goal was what Hegel called “The Dialectic Process”, as contrasted with the “Didactic Process” of Intelligent Design. The Process is the Product. Playing the game is the point, not the final score. "The play's the thing". ___Shakespeare, Hamlet
Dialectic : a back & forth philosophical argument between Good & Evil. Bottom-up design.
Didactic : an autocratic method of instruction by commandment. Top-down design
what is an elephant with no 'elephant-aboutness'? — Siti
An elephant who doesn't recognize himself in a mirror?
Actually, Aboutness is a property of the observing subject, not the observed object. “Aboutness “is a mental arrow pointing to an object. “Aboutness” is conception, not perception. It's a mental image of something that is not present in space & time. Its essence -- to get back on topic -- is Information in the form of an immaterial Concept --- a not-yet-realized idea, design, or purpose.
Of course, Daniel Dennett redefined "Aboutness" as the “Intentional Stance”, in which the subject imputes goals & beliefs to the object. So, maybe you are confusing my “Ententional Evolution” notion with Dennett's strategy for understanding another agent. In my concept of Intelligent Evolution, the designer did indeed have a “mental image of something not present” and an “entention” to realize it --- make it real : Teleology. I admit to attributing these ideas and ententions to an unreal agent. It's my strategy for understanding an otherwise absurd world --- whether that of Religion or of Science.
but the 'ententionalities' are (I am suggesting) the 'mental poles' of the emerging realities - inseparable from and necessarily coexistent with the 'physical pole' substrates on which they (ententionalities) 'supervene' — Siti
This is where we typically part ways. You assume that all “events” occur in space & time : the existing evolving reality. But, if intent & goal (cause & effect) occupy the same space & time, what's the point? They may of course occupy the same time-line, which may be what you have in mind. But my Ententional Agent is supposed to be outside space-time; which I know does not compute for you. Yet, Eternity and Infinity are common concepts in human discourse, and they are assumed to be non-real, like the so-called Imaginary Numbers & Zero & Infinity of mathematics . Which is true, because they exist only in what I call Ideality : the Mind of G*D. In the MoG, there are no “mental poles” or “physical poles”, because G*D is unitary, holistic, non-dual. But those are just qualities that I attribute to "something that is not present in space-time", due to my Intentional Stance. It's a hypothesis, not a belief system. Did I mention that my G*D is a mathematician and a metaphysician?
Mathematical Metaphysics : Platonism about mathematics (or mathematical platonism) is the metaphysical view that there are abstract mathematical objects whose existence is independent of us and our language, thought, and practices.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/plat ... thematics/
Re: Phil Forum : Human Nature : Essentialism
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... ent/373661
No you didn't, I did. I suggested that the "primordial" IDEA - i.e. the starting point of the "process of creation" - if it were truly unlimited (as in an unlimited 'pool of potentiality') - would be exactly equivalent to "no idea at all". — Siti
Since I don't have any experience with infinity (no beginning, no end), I can only guess what the possibilities are, but by definition they would be unlimited. For example, the Number Line of mathematics is presumed to have no beginning and no end. So, I figured that we had a practical real-world hint about*1 unlimited potential of the values that the human mind has a limited grasp of. Hence, to paraphrase your question, is the Number Line "no number at all", or all possible values? In Philosophy, "Value" is not just sequential position, but significance to a mind. And Mind is the ultimate Ontological problem.
According to many other ontological guesses over the centuries about*1 Infinity, if temporal Mind is possible, Infinite Mind should add-up to Omniscience. Since Materialistic concepts of Reality reach a dead-end at the Big Bang, I decided to explore beyond that scientific bottle-neck to see if I could imagine some plausible explanation for the existence of anything in general, and of our world in particular. Cosmologist's Multiverse theories are attempts to address the Ontological problem of Physics : "How did Matter and Energy get started? They didn't, but have existed forever". In other words, they are "self-existent", just like G*D, and must be taken on faith, as Axioms for theorizing.
However, my thesis attempted to focus on the Ontological problem of Metaphysics : "How did Mind and Qualia come to be?" Materialism simply assumes, without evidence, that there is a missing link between Matter and Mind, which would explain how such non-physical properties could emerge from physical processes. So, my thesis has given a name to that missing link : Information. Which is currently assumed by some cutting-edge credentialed scientists to be the essence of Reality. Claude Shannon's Information Theory applied that ancient metaphysical (mental) term to physics, initiating the Information Age, and opening the door to Artificial Intelligence (assuming they can fill the gap between Matter & Mind). Unfortunately, Natural Intelligence has yet to be explained in physical terms. So, I hope you'll forgive my non-scientific philosophical foray into what I call Meta-Physics.
Information is more fundamental than Energy : https://bigthink.com/philip-perry/the-b ... nformation
Information : http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page11.html
Meta-Physics : http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page14.html
But this is what I don't get - how could it have been known that it was even possible to "stumble upon" any solution - let alone an optimum one — Siti
I feel your puzzlement.
All I can say is that Omniscience and Omnipotence would have a much better chance of Knowing the future than my little space-time mind. If you can entertain the notion of an infinite regression of Multiverses, it shouldn't be too hard to imagine that everything possible has been tried, at least in principle. So that is a deep pool of "statistical significance" to draw upon. But to make it more plausible for my thesis, I assume that a combination of the mental trait of Information (to know) and the physical power of Energy (to enform) is even more likely to predict the outcome of a chain of changes, than zillions of mindless atoms bouncing around like un-aimed billiard balls.
Besides, I have concluded that, by choosing such a heuristic path into the physical future, the Prime Programmer must have a good reason for not going directly from A to Z, by-passing all the trials and errors. In Theodicy, that reason is given as The Freewill Argument.
Freewill Argument : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_free_will
(I have my own deistic version of the FWA)
None of it happens outside of space and time. Is there any compelling reason to assume that any other cause-effect processes are any different? — Siti
How do you know that no cause & effect events happen outside of space-time? Is that an unfounded assumption, or is it based on evidence? Don't you assume that the Big Bang was caused by some event prior to the emergence of our little pocket of space-time?
The Singularity of the Big Bang was defined mathematically as a point at which a given mathematical object is not defined or not "well-behaved", for example infinite or not differentiable (indistinguishable). But scientists were not deterred from speculating about that infinite or holistic state, by imagining that what's out-there is more of the same as what's in-here. The only difference with my speculative undefined state is that it's based on 21st century Information and Quantum Theories, instead of ancient Atomistic and Materialistic assumptions.
Emergent SpaceTime : http://guava.physics.uiuc.edu/~nigel/co ... /gupta.pdf
What is SpaceTime? : https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg ... f-reality/
(in my thesis, Quantum Entanglement is what happens when particles become holistic in eternity-infinity.)
Illusion of Space-Time : for Einstein, space-time is not a thing, but an idea. And for Donald Hoffman, space-time is an "evolutionary illusion".
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg ... ns-legacy/
*1 About : sorry about the use of that taboo term.
PS___Think of my little G*D theory as science-fiction, instead of pseudo-science religion, and it may sound a little more palatable. I don't claim it's true in any ultimate sense, merely useful for inquiring into Ontology.
No you didn't, I did. I suggested that the "primordial" IDEA - i.e. the starting point of the "process of creation" - if it were truly unlimited (as in an unlimited 'pool of potentiality') - would be exactly equivalent to "no idea at all". — Siti
Since I don't have any experience with infinity (no beginning, no end), I can only guess what the possibilities are, but by definition they would be unlimited. For example, the Number Line of mathematics is presumed to have no beginning and no end. So, I figured that we had a practical real-world hint about*1 unlimited potential of the values that the human mind has a limited grasp of. Hence, to paraphrase your question, is the Number Line "no number at all", or all possible values? In Philosophy, "Value" is not just sequential position, but significance to a mind. And Mind is the ultimate Ontological problem.
According to many other ontological guesses over the centuries about*1 Infinity, if temporal Mind is possible, Infinite Mind should add-up to Omniscience. Since Materialistic concepts of Reality reach a dead-end at the Big Bang, I decided to explore beyond that scientific bottle-neck to see if I could imagine some plausible explanation for the existence of anything in general, and of our world in particular. Cosmologist's Multiverse theories are attempts to address the Ontological problem of Physics : "How did Matter and Energy get started? They didn't, but have existed forever". In other words, they are "self-existent", just like G*D, and must be taken on faith, as Axioms for theorizing.
However, my thesis attempted to focus on the Ontological problem of Metaphysics : "How did Mind and Qualia come to be?" Materialism simply assumes, without evidence, that there is a missing link between Matter and Mind, which would explain how such non-physical properties could emerge from physical processes. So, my thesis has given a name to that missing link : Information. Which is currently assumed by some cutting-edge credentialed scientists to be the essence of Reality. Claude Shannon's Information Theory applied that ancient metaphysical (mental) term to physics, initiating the Information Age, and opening the door to Artificial Intelligence (assuming they can fill the gap between Matter & Mind). Unfortunately, Natural Intelligence has yet to be explained in physical terms. So, I hope you'll forgive my non-scientific philosophical foray into what I call Meta-Physics.
Information is more fundamental than Energy : https://bigthink.com/philip-perry/the-b ... nformation
Information : http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page11.html
Meta-Physics : http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page14.html
But this is what I don't get - how could it have been known that it was even possible to "stumble upon" any solution - let alone an optimum one — Siti
I feel your puzzlement.
All I can say is that Omniscience and Omnipotence would have a much better chance of Knowing the future than my little space-time mind. If you can entertain the notion of an infinite regression of Multiverses, it shouldn't be too hard to imagine that everything possible has been tried, at least in principle. So that is a deep pool of "statistical significance" to draw upon. But to make it more plausible for my thesis, I assume that a combination of the mental trait of Information (to know) and the physical power of Energy (to enform) is even more likely to predict the outcome of a chain of changes, than zillions of mindless atoms bouncing around like un-aimed billiard balls.
Besides, I have concluded that, by choosing such a heuristic path into the physical future, the Prime Programmer must have a good reason for not going directly from A to Z, by-passing all the trials and errors. In Theodicy, that reason is given as The Freewill Argument.
Freewill Argument : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_free_will
(I have my own deistic version of the FWA)
None of it happens outside of space and time. Is there any compelling reason to assume that any other cause-effect processes are any different? — Siti
How do you know that no cause & effect events happen outside of space-time? Is that an unfounded assumption, or is it based on evidence? Don't you assume that the Big Bang was caused by some event prior to the emergence of our little pocket of space-time?
The Singularity of the Big Bang was defined mathematically as a point at which a given mathematical object is not defined or not "well-behaved", for example infinite or not differentiable (indistinguishable). But scientists were not deterred from speculating about that infinite or holistic state, by imagining that what's out-there is more of the same as what's in-here. The only difference with my speculative undefined state is that it's based on 21st century Information and Quantum Theories, instead of ancient Atomistic and Materialistic assumptions.
Emergent SpaceTime : http://guava.physics.uiuc.edu/~nigel/co ... /gupta.pdf
What is SpaceTime? : https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg ... f-reality/
(in my thesis, Quantum Entanglement is what happens when particles become holistic in eternity-infinity.)
Illusion of Space-Time : for Einstein, space-time is not a thing, but an idea. And for Donald Hoffman, space-time is an "evolutionary illusion".
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg ... ns-legacy/
*1 About : sorry about the use of that taboo term.
PS___Think of my little G*D theory as science-fiction, instead of pseudo-science religion, and it may sound a little more palatable. I don't claim it's true in any ultimate sense, merely useful for inquiring into Ontology.
Re: Phil Forum : Human Nature : Essentialism
if you are invoking infinity, eternity or unlimited potentiality (or whatever) - there is absolutely no need for an intelligent creator - if you are invoking an intelligent creator, there is no need for infinity, eternity or unlimited potentiality (or whatever). To have both is introduce infinite redundancy. — Siti
Actually, the notions of G*D and Multiverse are both infinitely redundant. But if you accept the physicists' Multiverse theory, you still have no explanation for the Metaphysical Ontological problem : how did Mind arise from Matter? What is it about Matter that causes Ideas, Imagination, and Love? If you don't care about such immaterial ideas, there is no need for a theory of an Infinite Enformer. But I know you love me.
No I don't - personally, I think it is the height of absurdity to suggest that the most significant event could possibly have happened "outside of time" - no time, no change, no change, no ... anything ... tick, tock, tick tock - nothing happens outside of time - how could it? — Siti
Are you talking about Clock Time or Block Time? The latter is Everything Forever. Can you wrap your mind around that? Your incredulity about Eternity is because it is counter-intuitive. But then, Quantum Theory is counter-intuitive. So, what?
Eternalism : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternalis ... y_of_time)
Actually, the notions of G*D and Multiverse are both infinitely redundant. But if you accept the physicists' Multiverse theory, you still have no explanation for the Metaphysical Ontological problem : how did Mind arise from Matter? What is it about Matter that causes Ideas, Imagination, and Love? If you don't care about such immaterial ideas, there is no need for a theory of an Infinite Enformer. But I know you love me.
No I don't - personally, I think it is the height of absurdity to suggest that the most significant event could possibly have happened "outside of time" - no time, no change, no change, no ... anything ... tick, tock, tick tock - nothing happens outside of time - how could it? — Siti
Are you talking about Clock Time or Block Time? The latter is Everything Forever. Can you wrap your mind around that? Your incredulity about Eternity is because it is counter-intuitive. But then, Quantum Theory is counter-intuitive. So, what?
Eternalism : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternalis ... y_of_time)
Re: Phil Forum : Human Nature : Essentialism
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... ent/373661
Actually, I do have an idea - I think "mind" is essentially the relational part of the "process-relational" way the universe seems (to me) to work...you have stuff - and it "minds"...i.e. it relates to other bits of stuff — Siti
Yes. That is why Enformationism attempts to explain why Matter (noun) has the ability to Live (verb) and to Mind (adverb), not in the technical details of "How", but in the philosophical sense of "Why". Information is all about Relationships, including geometrical and meaningful. My broad definition of Mind is that it's what the Brain does, its function. Yet Function is both a mathematical relationship, and a meaningful correlation. And Information is the common denominator, both abstract and personal. But materialistic science has no answer to the how mathematics and thermodynamics in nature give rise to consciousness and meaning in Culture. So, like many others in recent years, I have looked into the ancient notion of Panpsychism, to see if the dual nature of Information can help to explain how and why Darwinian winnowing of random mutations can produce creatures of both directed Energy (life) and purposeful Entention (mind).
Adverb : a word or phrase that modifies or qualifies an adjective, verb, or other adverb or a word group, expressing a relation of place, time, circumstance, manner, cause, degree, etc.
I prefer to call this idea by David Griffin's term "pan-experientialism" - some call it "pan-psychism" but I don't like that term because its too easily associated with new-age nonsense — Siti
I agree. That New Age nonsense, such as the psychic-power of crystals, was also a motivation for my using the term "Information" as opposed to "consciousness" to describe those "occasions of experience". But I also avoid the term "experience" for the same reason : it implies that atoms have a personal perspective. Instead, Information functions more like un-intentional Energy at the lower levels of reality. Only in more highly-evolved forms does Energy become Animation, then Entention & Experience. Information is simply abstract mathematical ratios and relationships, that also function as physical Hot or Cold (density of energy), and have evolved into metaphysical feelings of Hotness or Coldness (occasions of experience).
I have no idea how time might have worked "before" the Big Bang, but I'm pretty convinced that cause still preceded effect. — Siti
I understand why you find the notion of Timelessness and Spacelessness absurd. That's because it's counter-intuitive. We humans live immersed in a sea of time and space, so, like the proverbial fish in the water, we take our environment for granted. But science is continually, opening our eyes to features of reality that were once unimaginable.
For example, in the Bronze Age, people assumed that the stars were simply decorations on the ceiling of the sky , just a short distance above the mountaintops of a flat Earth. So, in the Renaissance, you can understand why the church found Gallileo's notions about planets many earth-diameters away patently absurd. Now, we are told by astronomers that the universe is not just the Earth & Sky, but an inconceivable cosmos of almost infinite magnitude. Likewise, the ancient notion of finite Atoms clustering into all the various forms of the world, is passe. Quantum Theorists now ask us to believe that the micro-cosmos is also almost infinitely endless in the opposite direction from outer space. But, some people accept those absurd beliefs, not because they are intuitive, but because they are the doctrines handed-down by our high-priests of Science. Others reject them because they clash with the dogma of desert-dwelling Bronze Age priests, who spent a lot of time looking at the sky-ceiling just beyond the reach of human hands.
However, some of us now accept those formerly ridiculous notions, because the preponderance of evidence adds together into a cohesive worldview. And recent developments in science --- from Information Theory to Quantum Theory --- are suggesting that the world may be even bigger than the finite limits of Big Bang Theory, and local Physics. Which is why materialists look beyond the former "beginning of finite space-time" to imagine an infinite regression of little bubbles of space-time. But they can only justify that fantasy by assuming as an unprovable axiom, that space-time and matter-energy are eternal. Yet the only scientific evidence we have points to a finite Physics, within a mysterious realm of non-local Metaphysics. So, I have found philosophical evidence that our world is indeed embedded within a greater Reality of Pure Information (the power to enform).
If not, then there is no hope of us making any sense of anything prior to or beyond the universe as we (barely) know it. — Siti
Don't give-up hope. Science is propelled by human Reason, which can imagine things-not-seen, and tie disparate facts into convergent concepts. Just as materialists place their hope for a Theory of Everything on an imaginary random Multiverse or Omniverse. I have staked my hope for a consistent worldview upon an imaginary ententional Enformer. In both cases, it's just a hypothesis, but only the latter directly addresses the human concerns for Meaning and Life and Love. Not Mind from Matter, but Mind from Mind, as cause & effect.
Actually, I do have an idea - I think "mind" is essentially the relational part of the "process-relational" way the universe seems (to me) to work...you have stuff - and it "minds"...i.e. it relates to other bits of stuff — Siti
Yes. That is why Enformationism attempts to explain why Matter (noun) has the ability to Live (verb) and to Mind (adverb), not in the technical details of "How", but in the philosophical sense of "Why". Information is all about Relationships, including geometrical and meaningful. My broad definition of Mind is that it's what the Brain does, its function. Yet Function is both a mathematical relationship, and a meaningful correlation. And Information is the common denominator, both abstract and personal. But materialistic science has no answer to the how mathematics and thermodynamics in nature give rise to consciousness and meaning in Culture. So, like many others in recent years, I have looked into the ancient notion of Panpsychism, to see if the dual nature of Information can help to explain how and why Darwinian winnowing of random mutations can produce creatures of both directed Energy (life) and purposeful Entention (mind).
Adverb : a word or phrase that modifies or qualifies an adjective, verb, or other adverb or a word group, expressing a relation of place, time, circumstance, manner, cause, degree, etc.
I prefer to call this idea by David Griffin's term "pan-experientialism" - some call it "pan-psychism" but I don't like that term because its too easily associated with new-age nonsense — Siti
I agree. That New Age nonsense, such as the psychic-power of crystals, was also a motivation for my using the term "Information" as opposed to "consciousness" to describe those "occasions of experience". But I also avoid the term "experience" for the same reason : it implies that atoms have a personal perspective. Instead, Information functions more like un-intentional Energy at the lower levels of reality. Only in more highly-evolved forms does Energy become Animation, then Entention & Experience. Information is simply abstract mathematical ratios and relationships, that also function as physical Hot or Cold (density of energy), and have evolved into metaphysical feelings of Hotness or Coldness (occasions of experience).
I have no idea how time might have worked "before" the Big Bang, but I'm pretty convinced that cause still preceded effect. — Siti
I understand why you find the notion of Timelessness and Spacelessness absurd. That's because it's counter-intuitive. We humans live immersed in a sea of time and space, so, like the proverbial fish in the water, we take our environment for granted. But science is continually, opening our eyes to features of reality that were once unimaginable.
For example, in the Bronze Age, people assumed that the stars were simply decorations on the ceiling of the sky , just a short distance above the mountaintops of a flat Earth. So, in the Renaissance, you can understand why the church found Gallileo's notions about planets many earth-diameters away patently absurd. Now, we are told by astronomers that the universe is not just the Earth & Sky, but an inconceivable cosmos of almost infinite magnitude. Likewise, the ancient notion of finite Atoms clustering into all the various forms of the world, is passe. Quantum Theorists now ask us to believe that the micro-cosmos is also almost infinitely endless in the opposite direction from outer space. But, some people accept those absurd beliefs, not because they are intuitive, but because they are the doctrines handed-down by our high-priests of Science. Others reject them because they clash with the dogma of desert-dwelling Bronze Age priests, who spent a lot of time looking at the sky-ceiling just beyond the reach of human hands.
However, some of us now accept those formerly ridiculous notions, because the preponderance of evidence adds together into a cohesive worldview. And recent developments in science --- from Information Theory to Quantum Theory --- are suggesting that the world may be even bigger than the finite limits of Big Bang Theory, and local Physics. Which is why materialists look beyond the former "beginning of finite space-time" to imagine an infinite regression of little bubbles of space-time. But they can only justify that fantasy by assuming as an unprovable axiom, that space-time and matter-energy are eternal. Yet the only scientific evidence we have points to a finite Physics, within a mysterious realm of non-local Metaphysics. So, I have found philosophical evidence that our world is indeed embedded within a greater Reality of Pure Information (the power to enform).
If not, then there is no hope of us making any sense of anything prior to or beyond the universe as we (barely) know it. — Siti
Don't give-up hope. Science is propelled by human Reason, which can imagine things-not-seen, and tie disparate facts into convergent concepts. Just as materialists place their hope for a Theory of Everything on an imaginary random Multiverse or Omniverse. I have staked my hope for a consistent worldview upon an imaginary ententional Enformer. In both cases, it's just a hypothesis, but only the latter directly addresses the human concerns for Meaning and Life and Love. Not Mind from Matter, but Mind from Mind, as cause & effect.
Re: Phil Forum : Human Nature : Essentialism
Since we're talking about how organic matter produces mind and plugging our blogs, I've been giving consideration to exactly this subject, and you guys should read my essay The Origins and Evolution of Perception in Organic Matter. I think it could be a good supplement to the discussion. — Enrique
Thanks, I've downloaded a copy of the Medium.com article, and will check it out.
Siti and I seem to have drifted off-topic, as we often do. We've just gone deeper than mere Human Nature to the essence of all Nature. As Siti says, "The essential nature of atoms, consists of the spatial, geometric regularities that distinguish atoms from other stuff - like electrons and elephants..."
For me, that essence is called "Information" (the creative power to enform), and for him it's "experience", which I assume, for an atom, is referring to what-it's-like-to-be enformed as a cog in the inanimate cosmic mechanism . For inorganic matter though, we have no way to empathize with their "spatial, geometric" experience, so it would be totally abstract for us, perhaps expressible only in numbers. At least for organic Bats, we have some basis for imagining what-it-feels-like to experience their world, even if it's still only via human-biased metaphors.
Re: Phil Forum : Human Nature : Essentialism
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... ent/373661
The individual nature of THIS or THAT atom consists of the spatio-temporal relationships that this or that atom 'experiences' (and has 'experienced') with the other stuff around it. — Siti
Again, to use "experience" for spatio-temporal relationships seems to be referring to an unqualified [no qualia] event, with numerical instead of meaningful values. But the term "experience" can denote simply "an inscrutable cause-effect event", or it can refer to the "conscious knowledge of that event".
The mechanical (cause-effect) occurrence is what Materialism considers fundamental, while most humans feel that the significance (cause-effect-meaning) of the event is more essential. Traditionally, that conscious experience was the purview of Spiritualism, and is associated with ghosts. Which is why I prefer to call it Enformationism, which is explanatory for the natural world, but remains neutral toward supernatural explanations, with one exception : EnFormAction is causation, and must either have an eternal First Cause, or an infinite mechanism of causation.
Since we don't normally associate consciousness with cog & wheel mechanisms, a Mind of some kind seems to be a better metaphor. I think of it as a more humanistic worldview.
The individual nature of THIS or THAT atom consists of the spatio-temporal relationships that this or that atom 'experiences' (and has 'experienced') with the other stuff around it. — Siti
Again, to use "experience" for spatio-temporal relationships seems to be referring to an unqualified [no qualia] event, with numerical instead of meaningful values. But the term "experience" can denote simply "an inscrutable cause-effect event", or it can refer to the "conscious knowledge of that event".
The mechanical (cause-effect) occurrence is what Materialism considers fundamental, while most humans feel that the significance (cause-effect-meaning) of the event is more essential. Traditionally, that conscious experience was the purview of Spiritualism, and is associated with ghosts. Which is why I prefer to call it Enformationism, which is explanatory for the natural world, but remains neutral toward supernatural explanations, with one exception : EnFormAction is causation, and must either have an eternal First Cause, or an infinite mechanism of causation.
Since we don't normally associate consciousness with cog & wheel mechanisms, a Mind of some kind seems to be a better metaphor. I think of it as a more humanistic worldview.
Re: Phil Forum : Human Nature : Essentialism
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... ent/373661
Well I did say there considerable gaps to be filled in - qualia clearly arise at somewhat higher levels of complexity - but fundamentally, are they not still relational aspects of our experience of the world? — Siti
Yes. Qualia are relational aspects of reality, but not in an abstract geometric sense. Feelings are relational to a unique being, who experiences energy inputs and outputs just like any material object. But unlike most of the material world, some lumps of matter have a self-image, and an imperative for self-preservation, that causes them to evaluate energy inputs personally, rather than neutrally. As I see it, the common denominator between an atom's "experience" and a man's feelings is generic Information : the power to enform --- to cause change. An atom's internal change, due to energy input, involves shifting electron orbits. but a man's internal change, due to information input, involves a memory of the event (experience), and an evaluation of the significance of the event for the person's future well-being (meaning).
Generic Information is plentipotent in that it can cause different effects in different contexts. The "higher levels of complexity" are what I call "phase changes", which seem to be inherent in the
"program" of EnFormAction. EFA doesn't just hit & run, it makes a meaningful difference.
Infinite regress is hard to get the head around, but an eternal first cause that is (at least before the start of 'causation') timeless and changeless. I find that notion utterly absurd - how can something changeless be a reasonable explanation for the most momentous change imaginable? — Siti
I resolved that no-place-to-turn-around-in-infinity problem, by making a distinction between physical change, and meta-physical change. Physical events clearly occur in space & time. But where do meta-physical events occur? When you change your mind, is it in four dimensions? Donald Hoffman has offered a useful metaphor for this dilemma, but it is a brain-twister. You might even call it "utterly absurd". He makes an analogy between space-time as "appearances", and Ideality as the ultimate eternal reality. IOW, Common Sense reality is an illusion, that evolved to enhance fitness for brainy creatures. Can you wrap your head around that non-sense? Can you grok Kant's Transcendental Idealism?
The Reality Interface : Reality is not what you see. Space-Time is a mental construct
http://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page21.html
Are you sure its humanistic - or unjustifiably anthropocentric? — Siti
It's both. My thesis is humanistic in that it gives preference to the human perspective over the presumably omniscient and impersonal view of Materialism. And it's anthro-centric relative to the non-human majority of Nature. Whether that's justifiable depends on where you place humans in the hierarchy of Natural Evolution --- at the top, in the center, at the bottom, irrelevant? Personally, I place people at the pinnacle (temporarily). But the king of the mountain can always be toppled by the next challenger. Are Dolphins plotting a take-over? ;)
Ideally, Science is supposed to be an objective search for truth. But so is Philosophy. And in Reality, both disciplines are practiced by opinionated human beings. This forum is an example of how debatable most of those "truths" are. Only G*D, as an outside disinterested observer could be absolutely objective about this world. So it seems that, for now, we have to rely on anthropically-biased humans for knowledge of truth about space-time. Until, of course, a superior race of aliens comes along to save us from ourselves.
Is Science 100% Objective? : https://www.quora.com/Is-science-100-objective
PS___Postmodernists were correct that Science is inherently subjective, but their every-man-for-himself alternative was a reaction in the wrong direction.
Well I did say there considerable gaps to be filled in - qualia clearly arise at somewhat higher levels of complexity - but fundamentally, are they not still relational aspects of our experience of the world? — Siti
Yes. Qualia are relational aspects of reality, but not in an abstract geometric sense. Feelings are relational to a unique being, who experiences energy inputs and outputs just like any material object. But unlike most of the material world, some lumps of matter have a self-image, and an imperative for self-preservation, that causes them to evaluate energy inputs personally, rather than neutrally. As I see it, the common denominator between an atom's "experience" and a man's feelings is generic Information : the power to enform --- to cause change. An atom's internal change, due to energy input, involves shifting electron orbits. but a man's internal change, due to information input, involves a memory of the event (experience), and an evaluation of the significance of the event for the person's future well-being (meaning).
Generic Information is plentipotent in that it can cause different effects in different contexts. The "higher levels of complexity" are what I call "phase changes", which seem to be inherent in the
"program" of EnFormAction. EFA doesn't just hit & run, it makes a meaningful difference.
Infinite regress is hard to get the head around, but an eternal first cause that is (at least before the start of 'causation') timeless and changeless. I find that notion utterly absurd - how can something changeless be a reasonable explanation for the most momentous change imaginable? — Siti
I resolved that no-place-to-turn-around-in-infinity problem, by making a distinction between physical change, and meta-physical change. Physical events clearly occur in space & time. But where do meta-physical events occur? When you change your mind, is it in four dimensions? Donald Hoffman has offered a useful metaphor for this dilemma, but it is a brain-twister. You might even call it "utterly absurd". He makes an analogy between space-time as "appearances", and Ideality as the ultimate eternal reality. IOW, Common Sense reality is an illusion, that evolved to enhance fitness for brainy creatures. Can you wrap your head around that non-sense? Can you grok Kant's Transcendental Idealism?
The Reality Interface : Reality is not what you see. Space-Time is a mental construct
http://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page21.html
Are you sure its humanistic - or unjustifiably anthropocentric? — Siti
It's both. My thesis is humanistic in that it gives preference to the human perspective over the presumably omniscient and impersonal view of Materialism. And it's anthro-centric relative to the non-human majority of Nature. Whether that's justifiable depends on where you place humans in the hierarchy of Natural Evolution --- at the top, in the center, at the bottom, irrelevant? Personally, I place people at the pinnacle (temporarily). But the king of the mountain can always be toppled by the next challenger. Are Dolphins plotting a take-over? ;)
Ideally, Science is supposed to be an objective search for truth. But so is Philosophy. And in Reality, both disciplines are practiced by opinionated human beings. This forum is an example of how debatable most of those "truths" are. Only G*D, as an outside disinterested observer could be absolutely objective about this world. So it seems that, for now, we have to rely on anthropically-biased humans for knowledge of truth about space-time. Until, of course, a superior race of aliens comes along to save us from ourselves.
Is Science 100% Objective? : https://www.quora.com/Is-science-100-objective
PS___Postmodernists were correct that Science is inherently subjective, but their every-man-for-himself alternative was a reaction in the wrong direction.
Re: Phil Forum : Human Nature : Essentialism
Since we're talking about how organic matter produces mind and plugging our blogs, I've been giving consideration to exactly this subject, and you guys should read my essay The Origins and Evolution of Perception in Organic Matter. I think it could be a good supplement to the discussion. — Enrique
I have read your article on the Evolution of Perception, and it seems to be heading in the same general direction as my own musings on the Emergence of Consciousness. Apparently, you are much better informed on the technical details of Quantum Physics. My blog post on The EnFormAction Hypothesis has a similar underlying assumption, but makes no attempt to get into technicalities that are way above my pay grade.
The first assertion that caught my eye was "Phenomena of non-locality seem to have causal primacy over three-dimensional forms". This may be referring to what I might call the "transition from holistic unitary Ideality to multi-dimensional Reality". For example, I assume that a Virtual Particle has no detectable location or velocity, because it is no longer an independent part of a multi-part system, but has merged into the Oneness of Ideality : like a drop of water into the ocean. In this analogy, my Ocean is their Vacuum : nothing real, but infinite potential.
Quantum theorists imagine that Virtual particles are constantly & randomly popping into & out of Actual existence in the form of Vacuum Energy. So, when a particle emerges from Virtuality into Actuality, it causes changes to the local system. In that sense, non-locality is more fundamental than locality, because it's the source of all change (EnFormAction) in the dimensional world. IOW, EFA enters Reality from Ideality and causes a succession of changes that scientists attribute to Energy.
Unfortunately, "oneness of ideality" sounds more like New Age guru-jargon than scientific terminology. So, I haven't attempted to develop that notion beyond the stratified phase layers of the blog post. I simply imagine that the local-to-non-local transition is a metaphorical membrane that divides the dimensional Real world from the holistic Ideal world. And only EnFormAction can penetrate that barrier in order to cause physical changes in the world. A quantum scientist would find this notion to be "utterly absurd", so I won't try to make a formal case for my own personal fantasy.
The EnFormAction Hypothesis : http://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page23.html
Step 0 is the membrane between Reality and Ideality.
Ideality : http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page11.html
Virtual Vacuum is Fundamental : https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn ... ctuations/
I have read your article on the Evolution of Perception, and it seems to be heading in the same general direction as my own musings on the Emergence of Consciousness. Apparently, you are much better informed on the technical details of Quantum Physics. My blog post on The EnFormAction Hypothesis has a similar underlying assumption, but makes no attempt to get into technicalities that are way above my pay grade.
The first assertion that caught my eye was "Phenomena of non-locality seem to have causal primacy over three-dimensional forms". This may be referring to what I might call the "transition from holistic unitary Ideality to multi-dimensional Reality". For example, I assume that a Virtual Particle has no detectable location or velocity, because it is no longer an independent part of a multi-part system, but has merged into the Oneness of Ideality : like a drop of water into the ocean. In this analogy, my Ocean is their Vacuum : nothing real, but infinite potential.
Quantum theorists imagine that Virtual particles are constantly & randomly popping into & out of Actual existence in the form of Vacuum Energy. So, when a particle emerges from Virtuality into Actuality, it causes changes to the local system. In that sense, non-locality is more fundamental than locality, because it's the source of all change (EnFormAction) in the dimensional world. IOW, EFA enters Reality from Ideality and causes a succession of changes that scientists attribute to Energy.
Unfortunately, "oneness of ideality" sounds more like New Age guru-jargon than scientific terminology. So, I haven't attempted to develop that notion beyond the stratified phase layers of the blog post. I simply imagine that the local-to-non-local transition is a metaphorical membrane that divides the dimensional Real world from the holistic Ideal world. And only EnFormAction can penetrate that barrier in order to cause physical changes in the world. A quantum scientist would find this notion to be "utterly absurd", so I won't try to make a formal case for my own personal fantasy.
The EnFormAction Hypothesis : http://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page23.html
Step 0 is the membrane between Reality and Ideality.
Ideality : http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page11.html
Virtual Vacuum is Fundamental : https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn ... ctuations/
Re: Phil Forum : Human Nature : Essentialism
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... ent/374099
A mathematically non-negligible disjunct between phases and energies exists of course, but the impression of "solid", "liquid" or "gas" is a construction of consciousness. — Enrique
I'll have to take your word for the first phrase, but the second part about phase transitions being a construction of consciousness is what I'm referring to in the blog post. I think of Phase Transitions in terms of Emergence, which I personally define in terms of the limitations of human perception, rather than magical appearances from nothing.
So it seems to me that matter is fundamentally closer to superposition than spatio-temporal particularity, and an argument could be made for entanglement, coherence and tunneling also, with our cognition performing the act of resolving these non-local phenomena into the locality of organic bodies and atomic theory, — Enrique
Again, the first part is above my pay grade, but the second part about "entanglement" etc, is right down my alley.
Entanglement in Cosmic Mind : The American philosopher Jonathan Schaffer argues that the phenomenon of quantum entanglement is good evidence for holism. Entangled particles behave as a whole, even if they are separated by such large distances that it is impossible for any kind of signal to travel between them." So, the holistic notion of Panpsychism can explain how two or more entangled particles can behave as-if somehow connected across space into a single entity. That “spooky action at a distance” is possible because the particles themselves are not isolated things, but more like the simple ideas that make-up a complex concept. Ideas are not bound by the limitations of space & time.
http://bothandblog.enformationism.info/page52.html
I don't identify the substance of relatively non-local matter with ideations such as Platonic forms beyond agreeing that our structure conceiving is infinitely adaptable to any possible perception if we employ mathematics. — Enrique
The association of Virtual Particles with crossing over into an ideal Platonic realm stems from my original insight : that Information is both Mind & Matter. That notion was developed into the concept of EnFormAction (energy that transforms into matter & mind) in the Enformationism thesis.
Without an understanding of that Cosmological thesis for a foundation, most of my later interpretations of Information will seem absurd to most scientists. Siti is a Chemist, and finds the notion of "crossing over" from Real to Ideal to be unscientific. But, Enformationism is not intended to be a scientific theory. It's merely a novel approach to the perennial philosophical paradoxes of Ontology. You can take all that Ideal stuff as metaphors, which they are by necessity. But I take them seriously as philosophical ways of thinking about the cosmos.
FWIW, here's another quote from the same blog post ---
Virtual is Ideal : A "virtual" particle is defined as " . . . not a particle at all. It refers precisely to a disturbance in a field that is not a particle." And a quantum field is a place that is not in space, but merely a mathematical description of the probability for real particles to appear from nowhere. This sounds a lot like Plato's ideal Forms, that under the right conditions can become real Things. So a virtual particle is essentially the idea of a real particle. Which sounds like a mental concept. But in whose mind?
http://www.bothandblog.enformationism.info/page52.html
A mathematically non-negligible disjunct between phases and energies exists of course, but the impression of "solid", "liquid" or "gas" is a construction of consciousness. — Enrique
I'll have to take your word for the first phrase, but the second part about phase transitions being a construction of consciousness is what I'm referring to in the blog post. I think of Phase Transitions in terms of Emergence, which I personally define in terms of the limitations of human perception, rather than magical appearances from nothing.
So it seems to me that matter is fundamentally closer to superposition than spatio-temporal particularity, and an argument could be made for entanglement, coherence and tunneling also, with our cognition performing the act of resolving these non-local phenomena into the locality of organic bodies and atomic theory, — Enrique
Again, the first part is above my pay grade, but the second part about "entanglement" etc, is right down my alley.
Entanglement in Cosmic Mind : The American philosopher Jonathan Schaffer argues that the phenomenon of quantum entanglement is good evidence for holism. Entangled particles behave as a whole, even if they are separated by such large distances that it is impossible for any kind of signal to travel between them." So, the holistic notion of Panpsychism can explain how two or more entangled particles can behave as-if somehow connected across space into a single entity. That “spooky action at a distance” is possible because the particles themselves are not isolated things, but more like the simple ideas that make-up a complex concept. Ideas are not bound by the limitations of space & time.
http://bothandblog.enformationism.info/page52.html
I don't identify the substance of relatively non-local matter with ideations such as Platonic forms beyond agreeing that our structure conceiving is infinitely adaptable to any possible perception if we employ mathematics. — Enrique
The association of Virtual Particles with crossing over into an ideal Platonic realm stems from my original insight : that Information is both Mind & Matter. That notion was developed into the concept of EnFormAction (energy that transforms into matter & mind) in the Enformationism thesis.
Without an understanding of that Cosmological thesis for a foundation, most of my later interpretations of Information will seem absurd to most scientists. Siti is a Chemist, and finds the notion of "crossing over" from Real to Ideal to be unscientific. But, Enformationism is not intended to be a scientific theory. It's merely a novel approach to the perennial philosophical paradoxes of Ontology. You can take all that Ideal stuff as metaphors, which they are by necessity. But I take them seriously as philosophical ways of thinking about the cosmos.
FWIW, here's another quote from the same blog post ---
Virtual is Ideal : A "virtual" particle is defined as " . . . not a particle at all. It refers precisely to a disturbance in a field that is not a particle." And a quantum field is a place that is not in space, but merely a mathematical description of the probability for real particles to appear from nowhere. This sounds a lot like Plato's ideal Forms, that under the right conditions can become real Things. So a virtual particle is essentially the idea of a real particle. Which sounds like a mental concept. But in whose mind?
http://www.bothandblog.enformationism.info/page52.html
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 56 guests