We disagree on how we ‘carve nature’, it seems. I see categories as how we agree to divide the world in social reality. They are constructions of perception by prediction. — Possibility
Yes. I prefer to carve Nature at its joints (i.e. inherent logical categories). But you seem to think there is no inherent logic to Nature, so all categories are arbitrary and imaginary. If that is the case, then Science is impossible, and we'd have to rely on a Shaman to interpret the world for us.
I'm not familiar with the phrase : "constructions of perception by prediction".
While I recognise there is a ‘natural’ structure of relations between what we think of as social and physical reality, I don’t think it’s inherently definable. I certainly don’t see it as a ‘joint’. We wilfully categorise and classify the world as it suits us. This is how we relate to the world. — Possibility
The "natural’ structure of relations" is what I call the "Logic" of Nature. And it's what scientists are trying to determine and to exploit for human purposes. The "logic" I refer to is the patterns, structures, and laws (pure logic = mathematics) that we observe in the natural world. Human reasoning (logic) is a poor approximation of the natural order, but we seem to have inherited a disposition to recognize systematic order when we see it. It's true that rational Science is influenced by human emotions and ego-drives to "willfully categorize". That's why the Scientific Method includes checks & balances to cancel-out individual egos & wills. But the only other option I'm aware of is direct communication with God or Nature (visions, intuitions or revelations), which is the method religious authorities have claimed to use for millennia to classify the world as it suited them into hierarchies of angels & demons, supernatural powers & occult forces. Is this how you relate to the world?
Nature is Understandable : Science presumes that the things and events in the universe occur in consistent patterns that are comprehensible through careful, systematic study. Scientists believe that through the use of the intellect, and with the aid of instruments that extend the senses, people can discover patterns in all of nature. . . . But they tend to agree about the principles of logical reasoning that connect evidence and assumptions with conclusions. Scientists do not work only with data and well-developed theories. Often, they have only tentative hypotheses about the way things may be.
http://www.project2061.org/publications ... /chap1.htm
You seem to be looking for the ‘correct’ question, but what I’m looking for is the pattern relation that enables us to predict an answer given the question. — Possibility
What's the difference? For me, the "correct" answer is one that leads to pragmatic applications. Without supernatural help, we'll never obtain perfect answers.
Pragmatic Science : The pragmatic position, by my definition, views science as one of our best tools for figuring out our place in the world and our world’s place in the universe. To the extent that truths can be uncovered, science is one of our most effective methods for finding them. But it’s not the only one. Logic is another, as is philosophical inquiry and the humanities, among others.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/daviddisal ... 1f14ea777b
I don’t think it’s inherently definable. — Possibility
I just read an article, in an anthology of The Evolving Idea of Complexity, that seems pertinent to our different views of scientific/philosophical definition. Complexity Theory is an offshoot of Systems Theory, which is an attempt to apply scientific methods to whole systems (holism), rather than just the parts (reductionism). Unfortunately, Complexity is a metaphysical feeling about natural systems, not a physical object. So, it can only be defined in terms of metaphors that relate to sensory knowledge.
John Casti began his article with an anecdote about defining "complexity". One scientist asserted cynically that "complexity is what you don't understand". To which his colleague replied, "you don't understand complexity". For much of the last 30 years, Complexity has been a theoretical (philosophical) science. But Casti then noted the absurdity of trying to make a Science, "without benefit of anything even beginning to resemble a definition". He referred to those early stages of academic complexity studies derisively as "wrapped up in language vague enough to warm the heart of any continental philosopher". [ I take that to be a reference to Postmodernism ]. Anyway, he sums up, " the problem is that an integral part of transforming complexity . . . into a science involves making that which is fuzzy precise".
It's the fuzziness of your assertions about multiple dimensions that makes it difficult for me to relate the concept to my limited knowledge of how the world works. In theory, I should be able to find a place for those extra "dimensions" in my Enformationism thesis. But to me, your evasive, oblique, and yes "fuzzy" references sound more like religious beliefs (defined by authorities, not by laymen), than scientific concepts.
However, you and I both are cognizant of the limitations of scientific Reductionism. Which is also the flaw that Casti critiques in his article, "in which any reductionist approach of this sort irretrievably destroys the very nature of the problem". [ dissect the frog to see what makes it a frog ] So, Casti argues that "the missing ingredient is the explicit recognition that system complexity is a subjective, not an objective, property of an isolated system" To which, I suspect that you can agree. Nevertheless, Casti is determined to find a way to define Complexity scientifically and as precisely as possible, in order to avoid, "opening up all sorts of depressing debates and semantic confusions of the kind that permeate the arts and humanities". [ has he been lurking on our thread? ] :joke:
Phil forum : Off-topic -- The Fifth Dimension
Re: Theory of Information
The logic we believe to be ‘inherent’ in Nature is constructed and defined within a human perspective. — Possibility
That assertion may point to a key difference in our worldviews. Your quote makes it seem that Reality is a figment of my individual imagination (solipsistic idealism). Yet, scientists assume that there is a physical world out there for our senses to perceive (Realism). My view is a bit of both. I think our Reality is a figment of G*D's imagination (e.g. Berkeley's Idealism). But our bodies are also creatures of G*D mind. So we are endowed with physical senses that can detect the objects of G*D's imagination (Logos). Human "objectivity" is a form of collective imagination via communication of subjective intuition (i.e. Science).
That dualism may sound awkward, but it's basically the same Model Dependent Realism theory that cognitive psychologist Donald Hoffman presents in his book The Case Against Reality. He calls the "objects of our perception "icons" that represent a deeper "reality" of pure information. In my BothAnd philosophy, it's not a matter of either "Reality" or "Ideality", it's both at the same time. Ideality consists of raw EnFormAction (creative information), while what we call objective Reality is a sort of communal delusion --- i.e. we all see more or less the same illusion. "A rose is still a rose . . ."
Interface Reality : He uses the modern metaphor of computers that we “interface” (interact) with, as-if the symbolic Icons on the display screen are the actual things we want to act upon.
http://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page21.html
We're straying a bit from the sub-topic of how the Fifth & Sixth Dimensions fit into the Enformationism worldview. Since I don't understand how those dimensions are relevant to me personally, I'm still waiting for some direct answers to the questions I've been asking in this thread. For now, I'm assuming those extra dimensions have something to do with Intuition, as opposed to the traditional four we know via intuitive classification of sensory experiences, and then rationalize into formal definitions of Space & Time. You seem to focus on the subjective feelings rather than the objective reasons. With that notion in mind, I'm quoting some excerpts from the Complexity book I referred to before.
This from Seth Lloyd on how to make computers intuitive : "For non-linear systems, control requires intuition. . . . For the algorithm to model the system successfully, it must be an adaptive algorithm : to acquire intuition, it must learn." Hence, his approach to the mysteries of complexity involves both "algorithmic and probabilistic information." What we now call "complexity" seems to be what the ancients called "mystery", and associated with spirits & gods on higher planes of existence. Lloyd doesn't use mystical methods to delve into fuzzy ambiguity & unpredictable uncertainty. Instead, he uses the mostly linear rational techniques of mathematics and computer processing of information. As computers evolve though, he will use entangled Quantum processing to deal with non-linear problems, that currently only humans can grasp by intuition. Meanwhile humans have one last shred of dignity that computers can't do better.
If Intuition is based on mundane learning and adaptation, then perhaps humans also acquire their intuition from ordinary experience with how the world works, rather than from occult sources in higher dimensions. Presumably, intuition matures along with all other aspects of human personality. What we call "intuition" is simply the millions of minute details the brain has stored for future retrieval. Just like the recall of names though, it works best on automatic. When we consciously try to recover such information, we often draw a blank. Which is why sleep or meditation allow the brain to process that loosely-categorized deeply-engrammed information.
Logos : the divine reason implicit in the cosmos, ordering it and giving it form and meaning
Engram : a hypothetical permanent change in the brain accounting for the existence of memory; a memory trace.
Law & Disorder :
1. Reason -- Rule-based linear processes
2. Intuition -- Random non-linear complexity
Intuition learns from the errors of experience, and exceptions to the usual rules.
That assertion may point to a key difference in our worldviews. Your quote makes it seem that Reality is a figment of my individual imagination (solipsistic idealism). Yet, scientists assume that there is a physical world out there for our senses to perceive (Realism). My view is a bit of both. I think our Reality is a figment of G*D's imagination (e.g. Berkeley's Idealism). But our bodies are also creatures of G*D mind. So we are endowed with physical senses that can detect the objects of G*D's imagination (Logos). Human "objectivity" is a form of collective imagination via communication of subjective intuition (i.e. Science).
That dualism may sound awkward, but it's basically the same Model Dependent Realism theory that cognitive psychologist Donald Hoffman presents in his book The Case Against Reality. He calls the "objects of our perception "icons" that represent a deeper "reality" of pure information. In my BothAnd philosophy, it's not a matter of either "Reality" or "Ideality", it's both at the same time. Ideality consists of raw EnFormAction (creative information), while what we call objective Reality is a sort of communal delusion --- i.e. we all see more or less the same illusion. "A rose is still a rose . . ."
Interface Reality : He uses the modern metaphor of computers that we “interface” (interact) with, as-if the symbolic Icons on the display screen are the actual things we want to act upon.
http://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page21.html
We're straying a bit from the sub-topic of how the Fifth & Sixth Dimensions fit into the Enformationism worldview. Since I don't understand how those dimensions are relevant to me personally, I'm still waiting for some direct answers to the questions I've been asking in this thread. For now, I'm assuming those extra dimensions have something to do with Intuition, as opposed to the traditional four we know via intuitive classification of sensory experiences, and then rationalize into formal definitions of Space & Time. You seem to focus on the subjective feelings rather than the objective reasons. With that notion in mind, I'm quoting some excerpts from the Complexity book I referred to before.
This from Seth Lloyd on how to make computers intuitive : "For non-linear systems, control requires intuition. . . . For the algorithm to model the system successfully, it must be an adaptive algorithm : to acquire intuition, it must learn." Hence, his approach to the mysteries of complexity involves both "algorithmic and probabilistic information." What we now call "complexity" seems to be what the ancients called "mystery", and associated with spirits & gods on higher planes of existence. Lloyd doesn't use mystical methods to delve into fuzzy ambiguity & unpredictable uncertainty. Instead, he uses the mostly linear rational techniques of mathematics and computer processing of information. As computers evolve though, he will use entangled Quantum processing to deal with non-linear problems, that currently only humans can grasp by intuition. Meanwhile humans have one last shred of dignity that computers can't do better.
If Intuition is based on mundane learning and adaptation, then perhaps humans also acquire their intuition from ordinary experience with how the world works, rather than from occult sources in higher dimensions. Presumably, intuition matures along with all other aspects of human personality. What we call "intuition" is simply the millions of minute details the brain has stored for future retrieval. Just like the recall of names though, it works best on automatic. When we consciously try to recover such information, we often draw a blank. Which is why sleep or meditation allow the brain to process that loosely-categorized deeply-engrammed information.
Logos : the divine reason implicit in the cosmos, ordering it and giving it form and meaning
Engram : a hypothetical permanent change in the brain accounting for the existence of memory; a memory trace.
Law & Disorder :
1. Reason -- Rule-based linear processes
2. Intuition -- Random non-linear complexity
Intuition learns from the errors of experience, and exceptions to the usual rules.
Re: Theory of Information
. . . relative imagination . . . constructed intersubjective conceptual system . . . beyond which is the infinite possibility/impossibility that I assume you refer to as G*D. — Possibility
Relative Imagination : personal subjective knowledge structured into concepts (words) for communication with other subjective perspectives???
Constructed intersubjective conceptual system : Is that what we humans call "Objective Reality" --- constructed by convention from many points of view ???
In my thesis, "G*D" is both infinite Possibility (great beyond) and finite Actuality (mundane world), in the sense of PanEnDeism. The Real world was created from god-stuff, Infinite Potential, via a process of EnFormAction (creative energy). Hence, everything in our world (matter, energy, mind) is an emergent form of universal EnFormAction. That's why I say, "all is Information" (the power to enform and the forms themselves).
PanEnDeism : belief in a god who is both panentheistic and deistic, e.g. a god who contains all of the universe, but who nevertheless transcends or has some existence separate from the universe, who does interact, but does not necessarily intervene in the universe, and that a personal relationship can be achieved with it, in as much as a person can have a relationship with his/her own rational thoughts.
https://www.yourdictionary.com/panendeism
god-stuff : Spinoza's Universal Substance
https://www.iep.utm.edu/spinoz-m/
So there is no pre-ordained structure or Logos to be ‘discovered’ . . .
we’re continually drawing from the same source of infinite possibility/impossibility in both ignorantly subjective and intersubjective ways. — Possibility
Yes & no. G*D (Logos & Chaos) is all-Information-all-the-time (power to be, to enform, to create) . But I make a distinction between actual Space-Time Information, and potential non-dimensional (Enfernity : eternity + infinity) Enformation. Our space-time is structured by the limits-on-possibility we call Natural Laws & Constants & Mathematical Logic. But the spaceless-timeless state that our world emerged from, in the Big Bang, is what I call "Chaos", in the Platonic sense. Therefore, our Reality is "pre-ordained" (programmed) and structured (sensible). But Ideality extends beyond space-time into un-defined omni-potential infinite possibilities, that I call "Chaos" or "G*D" : "the source of infinite possibility", where nothing is impossible.
Pre-ordained Structure : Reality is not an instantaneous creation, but the gradual evolution of a creative program, which unfolds in space & time.
Chaos : random unformed unlimited Potential (the power to be) that I call "BEING".
This ‘random (indeterminate), non-linear (multi-dimensional) complexity’ refers to a five-dimensional (ie. atemporal) structure. There’s no occult source — Possibility
How can this "five-dimensional structure" be structured, if it is spaceless, timeless & indeterminate? Sounds like a logical structure that has not yet been actualized (i.e. Logos). "Random, indeterminate, non-linear " sounds similar to what I call "Chaos" (unstructured potential, Plato's Forms), except that it has no measurable dimensions or structured complexity. The real-world structure is constructed from random Chaos by the combination of Logos (Reason) and Intention (EnFormAction). Perhaps it's the imprint of that timeless logical structure (mathematical patterns) that we perceive via Intuition rather than by sensory perception?
By contrast with Exoteric (physically sensible) natural sciences, most Occult (esoteric, magical) theories would identify their Hidden Source of Information with the timeless super-natural realm of Spirit. But, in my thesis, we have no access to any information that is "out of this world". I, personally, have no spiritual insights into cosmic mysteries. All I have is mundane Intuition, which draws from Information stored in the physical brain (subconscious memory of past experience). [ Note: see next post ]
But while intuition as a five-dimensional information system is not yet replicable or predictable, it is understandable to some extent . . . human interoceptive networks map and share information in five-dimensions all day, every day — Possibility
Humans mentally map incoming information into the three conventional dimensions of space-time. This logical structure seems to be innate. But, AFAIK, I don't personally map other kinds of information into other dimensions. If you could define those extra-sensory dimensions in some common-sense terms or metaphors, I might discover that I've been tapping into a higher or deeper resource "every day". Apparently, Intuition senses non-conscious information in the brain. But is that info actually contained in a non-physical non-space-time dimension???
not yet replicable or predictable : in other words, Theoretical?
Interoception : the sense of the internal state of the body. This can be both conscious and non-conscious
Kant : Space is not something objective and real, nor a substance, nor an accident, nor a relation; instead, it is subjective and ideal, and originates from the mind’s nature in accord with a stable law as a scheme, as it were, for coordinating everything sensed externally.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-spacetime/
Relative Imagination : personal subjective knowledge structured into concepts (words) for communication with other subjective perspectives???
Constructed intersubjective conceptual system : Is that what we humans call "Objective Reality" --- constructed by convention from many points of view ???
In my thesis, "G*D" is both infinite Possibility (great beyond) and finite Actuality (mundane world), in the sense of PanEnDeism. The Real world was created from god-stuff, Infinite Potential, via a process of EnFormAction (creative energy). Hence, everything in our world (matter, energy, mind) is an emergent form of universal EnFormAction. That's why I say, "all is Information" (the power to enform and the forms themselves).
PanEnDeism : belief in a god who is both panentheistic and deistic, e.g. a god who contains all of the universe, but who nevertheless transcends or has some existence separate from the universe, who does interact, but does not necessarily intervene in the universe, and that a personal relationship can be achieved with it, in as much as a person can have a relationship with his/her own rational thoughts.
https://www.yourdictionary.com/panendeism
god-stuff : Spinoza's Universal Substance
https://www.iep.utm.edu/spinoz-m/
So there is no pre-ordained structure or Logos to be ‘discovered’ . . .
we’re continually drawing from the same source of infinite possibility/impossibility in both ignorantly subjective and intersubjective ways. — Possibility
Yes & no. G*D (Logos & Chaos) is all-Information-all-the-time (power to be, to enform, to create) . But I make a distinction between actual Space-Time Information, and potential non-dimensional (Enfernity : eternity + infinity) Enformation. Our space-time is structured by the limits-on-possibility we call Natural Laws & Constants & Mathematical Logic. But the spaceless-timeless state that our world emerged from, in the Big Bang, is what I call "Chaos", in the Platonic sense. Therefore, our Reality is "pre-ordained" (programmed) and structured (sensible). But Ideality extends beyond space-time into un-defined omni-potential infinite possibilities, that I call "Chaos" or "G*D" : "the source of infinite possibility", where nothing is impossible.
Pre-ordained Structure : Reality is not an instantaneous creation, but the gradual evolution of a creative program, which unfolds in space & time.
Chaos : random unformed unlimited Potential (the power to be) that I call "BEING".
This ‘random (indeterminate), non-linear (multi-dimensional) complexity’ refers to a five-dimensional (ie. atemporal) structure. There’s no occult source — Possibility
How can this "five-dimensional structure" be structured, if it is spaceless, timeless & indeterminate? Sounds like a logical structure that has not yet been actualized (i.e. Logos). "Random, indeterminate, non-linear " sounds similar to what I call "Chaos" (unstructured potential, Plato's Forms), except that it has no measurable dimensions or structured complexity. The real-world structure is constructed from random Chaos by the combination of Logos (Reason) and Intention (EnFormAction). Perhaps it's the imprint of that timeless logical structure (mathematical patterns) that we perceive via Intuition rather than by sensory perception?
By contrast with Exoteric (physically sensible) natural sciences, most Occult (esoteric, magical) theories would identify their Hidden Source of Information with the timeless super-natural realm of Spirit. But, in my thesis, we have no access to any information that is "out of this world". I, personally, have no spiritual insights into cosmic mysteries. All I have is mundane Intuition, which draws from Information stored in the physical brain (subconscious memory of past experience). [ Note: see next post ]
But while intuition as a five-dimensional information system is not yet replicable or predictable, it is understandable to some extent . . . human interoceptive networks map and share information in five-dimensions all day, every day — Possibility
Humans mentally map incoming information into the three conventional dimensions of space-time. This logical structure seems to be innate. But, AFAIK, I don't personally map other kinds of information into other dimensions. If you could define those extra-sensory dimensions in some common-sense terms or metaphors, I might discover that I've been tapping into a higher or deeper resource "every day". Apparently, Intuition senses non-conscious information in the brain. But is that info actually contained in a non-physical non-space-time dimension???
not yet replicable or predictable : in other words, Theoretical?
Interoception : the sense of the internal state of the body. This can be both conscious and non-conscious
Kant : Space is not something objective and real, nor a substance, nor an accident, nor a relation; instead, it is subjective and ideal, and originates from the mind’s nature in accord with a stable law as a scheme, as it were, for coordinating everything sensed externally.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-spacetime/
Re: Theory of Information
How we interact with the ‘physical world out there’ is necessarily informed by the potential in our conceptual systems (including our shared social reality) which is informed in turn by our perspective of this infinite possibility (including our shared meaning). We refer to it as ‘individual imagination’, but it’s more that we’re continually drawing from the same source of infinite possibility/impossibility in both ignorantly subjective and intersubjective ways. The idea is that we gradually refine and restructure this necessarily reductive process in ways that broaden and improve the accuracy of our awareness, connection and collaboration with all reality: physical, social, imaginative or otherwise. — Possibility
This meta-personal imagination reminds me of Bernardo Kastrup's notion of "The Other" and "Mind At Large" in his book, More Than Allegory. After reminding the reader repeatedly that his metaphors are not real & true, in the ordinary sense, he relates some experiences in non-social reality within his own mind. While working for a secretive multi-national foundation, he took psychoactive drugs (the "recipe") and wore a cap to stimulate his brain with electromagnetic patterns. [Note : I used a similar cap several years ago (without drugs), but had no notable experiences]
During his "trips" he had an internal two-way dialogue with an amorphous entity anonymously labeled "The Other". This entity communicated in the form of images, which sounds similar to imaginative poetic Intuition. It was difficult to translate those images into words for the book. He didn't use the term, but "The Other" reminded me of Freud's "Super-Ego", an abstract top-down conscience. I won't go into any more detail here. I just wanted to see if any of his ideas are similar to how you imagine the extra dimensions. I haven't finished the Kindle book yet, so I don't know what to think about it.
Quotes from the book :
"The deeply obfuscated but knowledgeable complex of my own mind that, at the same time, was also entirely alien to my ego". [The Other, Mind At Large]
"Clearly, my experience was mental and, as such, not concretely and palpably real".
"Perhaps the Recipe has just brought me to a parallel universe of some kind." [Fifth Dimension???]
"The transcendent 'space' where the dialogues with the Other unfolded . . ." [Fifth Dimension???]
"Mind-at-large is pure subjectivity"
"the human ego spans but the top layers [dimensions???} of differentiation [conscious awareness]".
"By letting go of your ordinary attention in just the right way [meditation, drugs, technology???] you can indeed reduce the obfuscation of these deeper layers."
PS___I'm enjoying our dialogue in "social reality". although I'm still mystified by some of the references to non-social reality (Ideality?). It's stretching my old stiff arthritic mind into new dimensions. But I have to take an aspirin after each exercise in mind expansion.
This meta-personal imagination reminds me of Bernardo Kastrup's notion of "The Other" and "Mind At Large" in his book, More Than Allegory. After reminding the reader repeatedly that his metaphors are not real & true, in the ordinary sense, he relates some experiences in non-social reality within his own mind. While working for a secretive multi-national foundation, he took psychoactive drugs (the "recipe") and wore a cap to stimulate his brain with electromagnetic patterns. [Note : I used a similar cap several years ago (without drugs), but had no notable experiences]
During his "trips" he had an internal two-way dialogue with an amorphous entity anonymously labeled "The Other". This entity communicated in the form of images, which sounds similar to imaginative poetic Intuition. It was difficult to translate those images into words for the book. He didn't use the term, but "The Other" reminded me of Freud's "Super-Ego", an abstract top-down conscience. I won't go into any more detail here. I just wanted to see if any of his ideas are similar to how you imagine the extra dimensions. I haven't finished the Kindle book yet, so I don't know what to think about it.
Quotes from the book :
"The deeply obfuscated but knowledgeable complex of my own mind that, at the same time, was also entirely alien to my ego". [The Other, Mind At Large]
"Clearly, my experience was mental and, as such, not concretely and palpably real".
"Perhaps the Recipe has just brought me to a parallel universe of some kind." [Fifth Dimension???]
"The transcendent 'space' where the dialogues with the Other unfolded . . ." [Fifth Dimension???]
"Mind-at-large is pure subjectivity"
"the human ego spans but the top layers [dimensions???} of differentiation [conscious awareness]".
"By letting go of your ordinary attention in just the right way [meditation, drugs, technology???] you can indeed reduce the obfuscation of these deeper layers."
PS___I'm enjoying our dialogue in "social reality". although I'm still mystified by some of the references to non-social reality (Ideality?). It's stretching my old stiff arthritic mind into new dimensions. But I have to take an aspirin after each exercise in mind expansion.
Re: Theory of Information
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... ent/434459
What Would the Framework of a Materialistic Explanation of Consciousness Even Look Like?
Since we've known that brains produce consciousness for a long time now, shouldn't we be closer to an actual explanation? — RogueAI
This may not count as an actual explanation, but I have a hypothesis based on physics, but also including a role for metaphysics (non-physical Information). Without an understanding of the Enformationism thesis though --- that Mind & Matter are both emergent forms of Generic Information --- this brief synopsis may sound like speculative non-sense. Yet, it's a combination of sensable Realism & knowable Idealism, of Physics & Metaphysics.
I begin with the assumption that Matter, Energy, & Mind are emergent forms of a universal fundamental creative "power to enform". If you find that hard to believe, I have lots of supporting evidence & arguments. In the original Singularity, that cosmic Potential was generic, not specific (no instances), and not physical (no real stuff). But after the Big Bang, infinite Potential was transformed into finite Actuality (the stuff of reality). Over time, that proto-energy gradually caused new forms to emerge in what scientists call "phase transitions". Energy, in the amorphous state of Plasma, evolved (condensed) into a field or fog of free particles (ions), then into the various forms of matter that we know today. Those phase changes are merely new forms of the same underlying Potential for creation of novelty.
So, I propose that the metaphysical phenomenon we call "Life" was also a phase transition from complex interactions of energy & matter. Once that cosmic novelty was established in one insignificant corner of the universe, it eventually transformed again into what we call "Mind" or "Consciousness". Hence, Mind is merely an emergent form of Energy. It's what eventually came to be known as "Information" (mind stuff), in the form of metaphysical concepts (ideas) generated by physical brains. In this process of successive phase changes, no new "stuff" was added, such as a Soul, because the Potential for Mind was already included in the Program we call The Singularity. If any of that makes sense, I can get much deeper into the hypothesis.
Five (or 8) phases of Matter : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_matter
The EnFormAction Hypothesis : http://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page23.html
Note : click note 2. Emergent Phases
Emergence of Mind : http://bothandblog2.enformationism.info/page70.html
EnFormAction : http://bothandblog2.enformationism.info/page29.html
What Would the Framework of a Materialistic Explanation of Consciousness Even Look Like?
Since we've known that brains produce consciousness for a long time now, shouldn't we be closer to an actual explanation? — RogueAI
This may not count as an actual explanation, but I have a hypothesis based on physics, but also including a role for metaphysics (non-physical Information). Without an understanding of the Enformationism thesis though --- that Mind & Matter are both emergent forms of Generic Information --- this brief synopsis may sound like speculative non-sense. Yet, it's a combination of sensable Realism & knowable Idealism, of Physics & Metaphysics.
I begin with the assumption that Matter, Energy, & Mind are emergent forms of a universal fundamental creative "power to enform". If you find that hard to believe, I have lots of supporting evidence & arguments. In the original Singularity, that cosmic Potential was generic, not specific (no instances), and not physical (no real stuff). But after the Big Bang, infinite Potential was transformed into finite Actuality (the stuff of reality). Over time, that proto-energy gradually caused new forms to emerge in what scientists call "phase transitions". Energy, in the amorphous state of Plasma, evolved (condensed) into a field or fog of free particles (ions), then into the various forms of matter that we know today. Those phase changes are merely new forms of the same underlying Potential for creation of novelty.
So, I propose that the metaphysical phenomenon we call "Life" was also a phase transition from complex interactions of energy & matter. Once that cosmic novelty was established in one insignificant corner of the universe, it eventually transformed again into what we call "Mind" or "Consciousness". Hence, Mind is merely an emergent form of Energy. It's what eventually came to be known as "Information" (mind stuff), in the form of metaphysical concepts (ideas) generated by physical brains. In this process of successive phase changes, no new "stuff" was added, such as a Soul, because the Potential for Mind was already included in the Program we call The Singularity. If any of that makes sense, I can get much deeper into the hypothesis.
Five (or 8) phases of Matter : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_matter
The EnFormAction Hypothesis : http://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page23.html
Note : click note 2. Emergent Phases
Emergence of Mind : http://bothandblog2.enformationism.info/page70.html
EnFormAction : http://bothandblog2.enformationism.info/page29.html
Re: Theory of Information
I might be an idealist, but it's more informative to say I'm a panpsychist. — bert1
My worldview is also related to ancient Idealism and Panpsychism, but I try to express those valid concepts in more modern terminology. That's because they retain a lot of historical baggage, which doesn't hold-up in light of modern science. Here's a note from my blog.
Panpsychism :
In popular usage, this term is taken to mean that even stones and atoms are conscious in the same sense that humans are. But that’s nonsense. In my theory it only means that the potential for emergent consciousness is included in the energy & information that constitutes those elementary Objects. The elementary mind-stuff eventually adds-up to self-consciousness in holistic Selves.
https://qz.com/1184574/the-idea-that-ev ... edibility/
My worldview is also related to ancient Idealism and Panpsychism, but I try to express those valid concepts in more modern terminology. That's because they retain a lot of historical baggage, which doesn't hold-up in light of modern science. Here's a note from my blog.
Panpsychism :
In popular usage, this term is taken to mean that even stones and atoms are conscious in the same sense that humans are. But that’s nonsense. In my theory it only means that the potential for emergent consciousness is included in the energy & information that constitutes those elementary Objects. The elementary mind-stuff eventually adds-up to self-consciousness in holistic Selves.
https://qz.com/1184574/the-idea-that-ev ... edibility/
Re: Theory of Information
I part company with you there Gnomon. I think everything is conscious in exactly the same way, according one sense of the word. — bert1
That is what I call the "New Age" notion of Consciousness, which seems to equate with Spiritualism and with magical powers (e.g healing). It's essentially a religious belief system with myths about the spiritual powers of stones, that would formerly be attributed to conscious agents (shaman) in ancient religions. They sometimes adopt technical sounding terminology, like "energy", to make their myths sound scientific. I have a pretty crystal on a shelf, but I don't try to communicate with it.
My own unconventional worldview is intended to stay closer to a pragmatic scientific understanding. Which is why I prefer to use the more technical term "Information" (power to enform, to give meaning) instead of emotion-laden "consciousness" (power to know, awareness). I sometimes concede that stones --- metaphorically, not literally --- "know" their environment by exchanging energy, but that's a far cry from the kind of knowledge that humans gain by exchanging Information. So, I have to spend a lot of time trying to differentiate my own notion of Panpyschism --- which I call Enformationism --- from the New Age notion of Universal Consciousness. It's a philosophical, not religious, attitude toward the world we know & love.
Alternative Theory of Reality : http://www.bothandblog.enformationism.info/page9.html
Universal Mind : http://www.bothandblog.enformationism.info/page12.html
Panspiritualism : http://bothandblog5.enformationism.info/page32.html
That is what I call the "New Age" notion of Consciousness, which seems to equate with Spiritualism and with magical powers (e.g healing). It's essentially a religious belief system with myths about the spiritual powers of stones, that would formerly be attributed to conscious agents (shaman) in ancient religions. They sometimes adopt technical sounding terminology, like "energy", to make their myths sound scientific. I have a pretty crystal on a shelf, but I don't try to communicate with it.
My own unconventional worldview is intended to stay closer to a pragmatic scientific understanding. Which is why I prefer to use the more technical term "Information" (power to enform, to give meaning) instead of emotion-laden "consciousness" (power to know, awareness). I sometimes concede that stones --- metaphorically, not literally --- "know" their environment by exchanging energy, but that's a far cry from the kind of knowledge that humans gain by exchanging Information. So, I have to spend a lot of time trying to differentiate my own notion of Panpyschism --- which I call Enformationism --- from the New Age notion of Universal Consciousness. It's a philosophical, not religious, attitude toward the world we know & love.
Alternative Theory of Reality : http://www.bothandblog.enformationism.info/page9.html
Universal Mind : http://www.bothandblog.enformationism.info/page12.html
Panspiritualism : http://bothandblog5.enformationism.info/page32.html
Re: Theory of Information
I can anticipate that your objection to this is that science is locked into a materialistic paradigm and thus is incapable of performing any such inquiries. If this is the case, then it is up to you and your fellow panpsychists to lead them in a new direction. — EricH
That is exactly the point of my Enformationism thesis and the BothAnd philosophy. Panpsychism probably evolved from the ancient "superstition" of Animism. The shamen & sages, who tried to explain mysterious signs of Causation in the material world, used their own personal experience of Intentional Action (agency) as a metaphor for whatever was causing inanimate things to move and change (spirits, gods).
Eventually, in the 19th century, scientists coined the impersonal term "Energy" (work; capacity for activity) to explain such abstract physical causation. Now though, in the 21st century, we have become familiar with a new usage of traditional "Information" (mind contents) to describe the even more abstract concept of Shannon Data in terms of pure mathematics. Yet, few us us are aware that Quantum Theory has applied the same word to describe natural forms of Energy, as in E = MC^2 (see below).
So, I have merely taken the term for "Mind Stuff" and "Causal Force" literally, to say that Matter, Energy & MInd are all forms of basic Information. It's that fundamental stuff (ultimately : Mathematics, Numbers or Logic) that I propose as a modern version of Panpsychism (all mind) : Enformationism means All Information. The original Singularity is envisioned as pure mathematics (algorithm, program), which evolved into generic Energy, then into Matter, and finally into Life & Mind. In which case, atoms & rocks exchange energy (numerical values; ratios), but not ideas (personal values; reasons). Consciousness is a late emergence on the cosmic scene in the form of animals with agency, and humans with moral agency. This proposed paradigm combines ancient mental models of Physics (Materialism) and Metaphysics (Spiritualism) into a comprehensive 21st century worldview.
Animism :
1. the attribution of a soul to plants, inanimate objects, and natural phenomena.
2. the belief in a supernatural power that organizes and animates the material universe.
Energy - Information Equivalence : https://aip.scitation.org/doi/full/10.1063/1.5123794
Information = Energy : https://physicsworld.com/a/information- ... to-energy/
What Are Numbers? : https://science.howstuffworks.com/math- ... /math1.htm
Information :
Knowledge and the ability to know. Technically, it's the ratio of order to disorder, of positive to negative, of knowledge to ignorance. It's measured in degrees of uncertainty. Those ratios are also called "differences". So Gregory Bateson* defined Information as "the difference that makes a difference". The latter distinction refers to "value" or "meaning". Babbage called his prototype computer a "difference engine". Difference is the cause or agent of Change. In Physics it’s called "Thermodynamics" or "Energy". In Sociology it’s called "Conflict".
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page11.html
Consciousness :
Literally : to know with. To be aware of the world subjectively (self-knowledge) and objectively (other knowing). Humans know Quanta via physical senses & analysis, and Qualia via meta-physical reasoning & synthesis. In the Enformationism thesis, Consciousness is viewed as an emergent form of basic mathematical Information.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page12.html
That is exactly the point of my Enformationism thesis and the BothAnd philosophy. Panpsychism probably evolved from the ancient "superstition" of Animism. The shamen & sages, who tried to explain mysterious signs of Causation in the material world, used their own personal experience of Intentional Action (agency) as a metaphor for whatever was causing inanimate things to move and change (spirits, gods).
Eventually, in the 19th century, scientists coined the impersonal term "Energy" (work; capacity for activity) to explain such abstract physical causation. Now though, in the 21st century, we have become familiar with a new usage of traditional "Information" (mind contents) to describe the even more abstract concept of Shannon Data in terms of pure mathematics. Yet, few us us are aware that Quantum Theory has applied the same word to describe natural forms of Energy, as in E = MC^2 (see below).
So, I have merely taken the term for "Mind Stuff" and "Causal Force" literally, to say that Matter, Energy & MInd are all forms of basic Information. It's that fundamental stuff (ultimately : Mathematics, Numbers or Logic) that I propose as a modern version of Panpsychism (all mind) : Enformationism means All Information. The original Singularity is envisioned as pure mathematics (algorithm, program), which evolved into generic Energy, then into Matter, and finally into Life & Mind. In which case, atoms & rocks exchange energy (numerical values; ratios), but not ideas (personal values; reasons). Consciousness is a late emergence on the cosmic scene in the form of animals with agency, and humans with moral agency. This proposed paradigm combines ancient mental models of Physics (Materialism) and Metaphysics (Spiritualism) into a comprehensive 21st century worldview.
Animism :
1. the attribution of a soul to plants, inanimate objects, and natural phenomena.
2. the belief in a supernatural power that organizes and animates the material universe.
Energy - Information Equivalence : https://aip.scitation.org/doi/full/10.1063/1.5123794
Information = Energy : https://physicsworld.com/a/information- ... to-energy/
What Are Numbers? : https://science.howstuffworks.com/math- ... /math1.htm
Information :
Knowledge and the ability to know. Technically, it's the ratio of order to disorder, of positive to negative, of knowledge to ignorance. It's measured in degrees of uncertainty. Those ratios are also called "differences". So Gregory Bateson* defined Information as "the difference that makes a difference". The latter distinction refers to "value" or "meaning". Babbage called his prototype computer a "difference engine". Difference is the cause or agent of Change. In Physics it’s called "Thermodynamics" or "Energy". In Sociology it’s called "Conflict".
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page11.html
Consciousness :
Literally : to know with. To be aware of the world subjectively (self-knowledge) and objectively (other knowing). Humans know Quanta via physical senses & analysis, and Qualia via meta-physical reasoning & synthesis. In the Enformationism thesis, Consciousness is viewed as an emergent form of basic mathematical Information.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page12.html
Re: Theory of Information
I call it the 'dictionary' notion of consciousness. — bert1
Conscious Crystals : It's the dictionary definition of human consciousness that is metaphorically attributed to non-human and inanimate objects. We seem to enjoy our metaphors, without regard for facts, such as cartoons with talking animals. Sponge Bob is obviously conscious and sentient.
I think the ancient metaphors of Animism were good guesses in pre-scientific times, but we now have a better understanding of how the world works, and how unique Consciousness is to living things, and Self-consciousness to reasoning things.
Conscious Crystals : It's the dictionary definition of human consciousness that is metaphorically attributed to non-human and inanimate objects. We seem to enjoy our metaphors, without regard for facts, such as cartoons with talking animals. Sponge Bob is obviously conscious and sentient.
I think the ancient metaphors of Animism were good guesses in pre-scientific times, but we now have a better understanding of how the world works, and how unique Consciousness is to living things, and Self-consciousness to reasoning things.
Re: Theory of Information
Cool! I'm clearly out of date. What are the latest findings on which things are conscious? — bert1
Descartes expressed his opinion that only humans are conscious, while animals only appeared to be sentient. But modern science has discovered signs of consciousness in almost all animate (self-moving) organisms. Unfortunately, we still have no way to detect consciousness directly, so we rely on inference from behavior. Even primitive bacteria seem to interact with their environment as-if they are sentient beings. But, since inanimate objects have no observable self-propelled behavior, they are presumed to be non-conscious. Therefore, it appears that Life is a necessary precursor to Mind.
I don't know why some Panpsychists believe that crystals are conscious. I suspect their beliefs are based on the common ancient notion of universal "Psychic Energy", such as Western Spirit, Chinese Chi (Qi), and Hindu Prana. Those are pre-scientific hypotheses to explain the mysteries of Life & Mind & Animation & Causation. Ironically, some modern proponents of "Vital Energy" claim that Chi is a form of electromagnetic energy, but sadly it is not detectable with EM instruments --- even though ghost hunters claim to find spurious signals on their EM devices.
Consequently, my Enformationism thesis assumes that Sentience is not a fixed property of the universe, but instead an emergent evolutionary process. My guess is that It began as something like a mathematical algorithm (information) in the pre-big-bang Singularity, and has gradually complexified over the eons into Energy, Matter, Life & MInd. If so, then we can assume that Self-Consciousness, as found in humans, is the current pinnacle of Evolution. Who knows what comes next --- artificial consciousness? Of course, this is a philosophical hypothesis, not a proven scientific theory.
Animal Consciousness : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_consciousness
Bacteria Consciousness : https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29254105/
Psychic (Vital) Energy : Qi is a pseudoscientific, unverified concept, which has never been directly observed, and is unrelated to the concept of energy used in science (vital energy itself being an abandoned scientific notion).
Chi : https://universalenergyarts.com/chi/
Descartes expressed his opinion that only humans are conscious, while animals only appeared to be sentient. But modern science has discovered signs of consciousness in almost all animate (self-moving) organisms. Unfortunately, we still have no way to detect consciousness directly, so we rely on inference from behavior. Even primitive bacteria seem to interact with their environment as-if they are sentient beings. But, since inanimate objects have no observable self-propelled behavior, they are presumed to be non-conscious. Therefore, it appears that Life is a necessary precursor to Mind.
I don't know why some Panpsychists believe that crystals are conscious. I suspect their beliefs are based on the common ancient notion of universal "Psychic Energy", such as Western Spirit, Chinese Chi (Qi), and Hindu Prana. Those are pre-scientific hypotheses to explain the mysteries of Life & Mind & Animation & Causation. Ironically, some modern proponents of "Vital Energy" claim that Chi is a form of electromagnetic energy, but sadly it is not detectable with EM instruments --- even though ghost hunters claim to find spurious signals on their EM devices.
Consequently, my Enformationism thesis assumes that Sentience is not a fixed property of the universe, but instead an emergent evolutionary process. My guess is that It began as something like a mathematical algorithm (information) in the pre-big-bang Singularity, and has gradually complexified over the eons into Energy, Matter, Life & MInd. If so, then we can assume that Self-Consciousness, as found in humans, is the current pinnacle of Evolution. Who knows what comes next --- artificial consciousness? Of course, this is a philosophical hypothesis, not a proven scientific theory.
Animal Consciousness : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_consciousness
Bacteria Consciousness : https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29254105/
Psychic (Vital) Energy : Qi is a pseudoscientific, unverified concept, which has never been directly observed, and is unrelated to the concept of energy used in science (vital energy itself being an abandoned scientific notion).
Chi : https://universalenergyarts.com/chi/
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests