TPF : Pre-science & scientific mentality

[Gnomon]

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... ntality/p3
Pre-science and scientific mentality

Below is a rough, first-draft which describes two kinds of people.
(I think it's appropriate for this forum.)
Comments? — Art48

The bare chart lacks context. Is this Binary classification intended to be an idealized snapshot of pluralistic reality, or to refer to an historical watershed like the Enlightenment? Does it apply now, or at some future time? Is the division innate or learned? How is it different from any other binary catalogue of human types (e.g. introvert/extrovert)? Are we stuck, or can we change classes? The table could be interpreted as contrasting open-mind Liberals vs closed-mind Conservatives. I assume you will expand on the underlying concept, to put it into a broader philosophical context, such as Universal Theology.

In the 60s, a similar notion became popular, the astrological Age of Aquarius. However, in that model, the Science category would be characterized by knowledge of abstract cosmic influences upon humans. Ironically, like most salvation schemes, this leap from a benighted past would be imposed upon humanity by outside forces, instead of from within, due to learning from experience. Ironically, although "astrological ages are taken to be associated with the precession of the equinoxes . . . . Astrologers do not agree on when the Aquarian age will start or even if it has already started." Apparently, after this cosmic turning-point, there would still be "two kinds of people" : enlightened and benighted ___Wiki

In Christian doctrine, similar either-or categories are "saved" & "unsaved', yet people are given a choice of which class they want to belong to. And they have an outline of how this personal & global paradigm shift will occur, and when, give or take a few millennia. Anyway, I'm just riffing on a theme of binary categories.


The Turning Point : Science, Society, and the Rising Culture is a 1982 book by Fritjof Capra :
Capra outlines and traces the history of science and economics, highlighting flaws in the Cartesian, Newtonian, and reductionist paradigms which have come to light in the context of contemporary empirical understanding of the physical sciences. He writes that these paradigms are now inadequate to guide human behavior and policy with regard to modern technology and ecology, then argues that society needs to develop the concepts and insights of holism and systems theory to solve its complex problems. His argument is clearly and strongly expressed, for a wide readership, presuming no prior knowledge of any branch of the sciences. For physicists the book is an instructive guide to why and how today's new science may affect tomorrow's society.

[Gnomon]

↪GLEN willows
Holists are those who say 2 + 2 = 5. — Agent Smith

Not so. Holists would say that 2 x 2 = 4.
Holism is not mere addition, but multiplication.*1
The whole system emerges from complex interactions of all components.
Holism is not just a just a bunch of things, but an integrated structure of things operating together for a single purpose; a coordinated function.
When a neural network of nodes begins to function in an integrated manner (i.e. purposefully), to process incoming/outgoing energy/information, the system as a whole becomes Animated & Conscious. That's the basic theory of IIT.*2
Any questions?


*1. Holism ; Holon :
Philosophically, a whole system is a collection of parts (holons) that possesses properties not found in the parts. That something extra is an Emergent quality that was latent (unmanifest) in the parts. For example, when atoms of hydrogen & oxygen gases combine in a specific ratio, the molecule has properties of water, such as wetness, that are not found in the gases. A Holon is something that is simultaneously a whole and a part — A system of entangled things that has a function in a hierarchy of systems.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page11.html

*2. Slime Mold (part plant, part animal) is emergent life & mind : single cell without neurons, it becomes animated and intelligent enough to coordinate its syrupy actions to find food. Its gooey innards function together to process information, in order to serve its needs as a multipart organism.
How a single cell slime mold makes smart decisions without a central nervous system
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 121643.htm

[Gnomon]

↪Gnomon
so according to this, would holism consider consciousness an emergent property, as suggested by Chalmers? — GLEN willows

I'm not aware of any official doctrine for Holism*1. It's just a philosophical concept or principle. However, in my own personal worldview, Enformationism, consciousness is indeed an emergent property of matter/energy. Logically though, the Potential for both Life & Mind must be inherent in Nature. Possibly encoded in the original Singularity, from which all things in the world emerged. The creative effects of that Holistic tendency can explain why evolution is progressive and self-organizing, without external inputs.

In the Wiki link below, Jan Smuts calls Holism "a fundamental principle". In my own theory, I coined a new term "Enformy" to identify the role of Causal Information in evolution. Physicists gave it the inappropriate name "negentropy". Both of these are philosophical hypotheses, and the only evidence is logical inference from historical patterns, combined with the expanded theory of Information. Which links Information with Energy (positive change) and Entropy (negative change).


*1. Holism and Evolution :
After identifying the need for reform in the fundamental concepts of matter, life, and mind (chapter 1), Smuts examines the reformed concepts (as of 1926) of space and time (chapter 2), matter (chapter 3), and biology (chapter 4), and concludes that the close approach to each other of the concepts of matter, life, and mind, and the partial overflow of each other's domains, imply that there is a fundamental principle (Holism) of which they are the progressive outcome.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holism_and_Evolution

Enformy :
In the Enformationism theory, Enformy is a hypothetical, holistic, metaphysical, natural trend or force, that counteracts Entropy & Randomness to produce complexity & progress. [ see post 63 for graph ]
1. I'm not aware of any "supernatural force" in the world. But my Enformationism theory postulates that there is a meta-physical force behind Time's Arrow and the positive progress of evolution. Just as Entropy is sometimes referred to as a "force" causing energy to dissipate (negative effect), Enformy is the antithesis, which causes energy to agglomerate (additive effect).
2. Of course, neither of those phenomena is a physical Force, or a direct Cause, in the usual sense. But the term "force" is applied to such holistic causes as a metaphor drawn from our experience with physics.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html

Negentropy is reverse entropy. It means things becoming more in order. By 'order' is meant organisation, structure and function: the opposite of randomness or chaos.
https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negentropy

[Gnomon]

↪Gnomon
This?
http://www.enformationism.info/Enformity/ — GLEN willows

No. That was a secondary website I started, but got side-tracked on the blog.

The Enformationism thesis is here :
http://enformationism.info/enformationism.info/

It describes how I arrived at the conclusion that the fundamental element of reality is Generic Information. Hence, Enformationism is proposed as an update of 19th century Materialism, and ancient Spiritualism. Since Physics is beginning to equate Information (mind stuff) with Energy, and Energy was equated, by Einstein, with Matter (mass), Generic Information is all of the above : Energy, Matter, Mind. To put it into a historical philosophical context :
Information is Generic in the sense of generating all forms from a formless pool of possibility : e.g. the Platonic Forms.

PS___I'm just applying cutting-edge science to my own personal worldview. The only thing I add is a title to tie all the bits & pieces together into a philosophical system.

Is Information Fundamental? :
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/article/i ... ndamental/
Is Information Fundamental? :
https://closertotruth.com/series/inform ... undamental

Where does this theory derive from, it deals with a lot of scientific principles. Can you quote some studies? — GLEN willows

This is not a scientific theory, so It doesn't quote academic or lab studies. It's a personal philosophical thesis, and quotes hundreds of scientist & philosopher opinions on physics and information theory. Because the primary subject (mind stuff) is immaterial, their speculations & conjectures are not verifiable empirically, but can make sense logically.

Information and the Nature of Reality :
From Physics to Metaphysics
ed. by Paul Davies, physicist
https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/in ... 355FBE8C81

[Gnomon]

↪Gnomon
Didn't think so - that one looked pretty trashy and woo woo. — GLEN willows

Yeah. I eventually decided the Enformity*1 concept might be a step too far into the woo-world*2. Not for me, but for those prejudiced against alternatives to Materialism & Determinism. However, I still use the related coinage "Enformy" as an alternative to the scientific term "negentropy". Although Enformationism is a metaphysical philosophical conjecture*3, I try to stay safely on the natural side of the woo-woo wonderland. Unfortunately, hard-core physicalist/materialists view any notion of "an organizing principle"*4 (Enformy, Elan Vital, Holism, Natural Selection) as definitely across the woo-line.

That's because mechanistic science is based on the concept of a random un-directed universe. Hence, it has no plausible explanation for the undeniable self-organizing features of Evolution. Ironically, Darwin's notion of "Natural Selection" was modeled on the artificial Cultural Selection by humans, who intentionally steered genetic evolution toward their own perverse goals, such as dogs with un-naturally short legs or noses. Even more ironic is the concept of option-limiting Natural Laws, with no law-making agency other than Cosmic Accident.

There are plenty of otherwise pragmatic physicists who have come to conclusions similar to Enformy. In fact, famous physicist John A. Wheeler got the ball rolling in an Information-Theoretic direction with his "it from bit"*5. If that's woo, then I must accept that pejorative label. But I prefer to call it "philosophy", which is ascientific, in that it projects our understanding beyond the world of the 5 senses into the realm of Reason, the sixth sense. That may sound New Agey, but with no incense, chanting, gurus, crystal power, etc., it's a pallid excuse for a super-natural spirituality.

*1. What is Enformity? :
It attempts to steer a safe course between the Scylla of Materialistic Science & the Charybdis of Spiritualistic Faith.
☉ It follows the methodology of naturalistic Science as far as possible. But it does not shy away from meta-physical speculations where necessary.
☉ It will take issue with mainstream conventional Science, and with fringey unorthodox Pseudo-science.
☉ It deals with controversial technical scientific and philosophical questions, but from a layman’s perspective.
☉ It uses some edgy New Agey Noetic terminology where necessary, but it’s not intended to promote any associated magical mystical notions.
http://www.enformity.enformationism.inf ... lcome.html

*2. Woo Woo :
(slang, derogatory) A person readily accepting supernatural, paranormal, occult, or pseudoscientific phenomena, or emotion-based beliefs and explanations.
https://www.google.com/search?client=fi ... &q=woo+woo
FWIW, I don't accept any of those beliefs.

*3. Pragmatic Science is clearly better than theoretical Philosophy and mythical Religion for explaining the mundane details of the natural world. But for information about the universe as a whole, scientists put on their philosophical hats, and become Cosmologists. "In fact, for all its virtues, physics tells us precisely nothing about the nature of the physical Universe. . . . The truth is that physics is a tool for prediction." So, science can tell us how the universe works, as a reliable mechanical system. Yet when it tries to fathom the essential nature of reality, it comes up with the weird paradoxes and infinities of the sub-atomic (sub-material) realm of Quantum fields.
http://bothandblog.enformationism.info/page53.html

*4. The Fundamental Organizing Principle of Nature that We have No Word for. :
Niels Bohr, Nobel Laureate in Physics, thought this principle was so important that he wrote it into his family crest: contraria sunt complementa, opposites are complements.
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/fundamen ... ntent-card
Note : the Latin concept is equivalent to the Eastern notion of Yin-Yang, and the digital code of 1/0 .

*5. It From Bit :
It from bit symbolises the idea that every item of the physical world has at bottom — at a very deep bottom, in most instances — an immaterial source and explanation; that what we call reality arises in the last analysis from the posing of yes-no questions and the registering of equipment-evoked responses; in short, that all things physical are information-theoretic in origin and this is a participatory universe.
https://mindmatters.ai/2021/05/it-from- ... and-wrong/

↪Agent Smith

[Gnomon]

two kinds of people. — Art48

Some have taken issue with your labels for the "two kinds" : Science vs Pre-science. Yet, I suspect you had a good reason to word it that way. Perhaps though, it's ultimately about Rational Empirical vs Intuitive Mythical approaches to knowledge. Most ancient religions explained how the world works in terms of metaphorical myths, intended to sound plausible to people without technologies to extend their built-in senses. With few verifiable sources of general information, the myths were accorded some authority by claiming divine revelation, which would be difficult to prove, one way or another.

However, the non-revealed pre-science of Aristotle (observation & inference) was considered authoritative for centuries. Then, the additional requirements for replicability & falsifiability began to weed-out illusory or biased observations and erroneous inferences. The practical results of such empirical methods gained a lot of respect for post-Enlightenment science among the masses*1. But the Intuitive Mythical types still prefer their self-interest human-interest stories to the cold hard impersonal facts of science. So, it seems that many people pick & choose from both belief baskets : Objective Abstract Mechanical Science vs Subjective Metaphorical Personal Religion. Hence, not two types of people, but two types of worldviews, and two kinds of priest-experts : technological vs sociological.

PS___Another pertinent dichotomy might be Science (empirical) vs Science (theoretical). The latter is literally ascientific in the sense of non-empirical. So, you could think of the duality in terms of Science vs Philosophy.

*1. On the Intersection of Science and Religion :
The survey showed that just 16% of Christians in the U.S. say their religious beliefs “often” conflict with science
https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/trend/arch ... d-religion