Another way to express the Hard Problem is : "how does physical activity (neural & endocrinological) result in the meta-physical (mental) functions that we label "Ideas" and "Awareness"? — Gnomon
I still see that as the easy problem, as its a very clear approach. Eventually after research, we find that X leads to Y. Its a problem, and I'm not saying its 'easy', its easy in contrast to the hard problem. Its called a hard problem because there's no discernible path or approach towards finding the answer. If you shape a question about consciousness that has a clear path forward to attempt to solve the problem, that is an easy problem. — Philosophim
How does Physics (matter/energy) produce Metaphysical phenomena (mind/intention)? Nobody knows for sure, but there is a name for it. “Emergence” is a philosophical term for mysterious appearances with "no discernible path". Typically, the novel form is a whole system (with new properties & functions) derived from a previous system with different properties : e.g. solid an-isotropic crystalline Ice emerges from liquid isotropic water. In my thesis, I compare Mind-from-Matter emergence to physical Phase Transitions, not to occult Magic.
Emergentism is the belief in emergence, particularly as it involves consciousness and the philosophy of mind. A property of a system is said to be emergent if it is a new outcome of some other properties of the system and their interaction, while it is itself different from them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergentism
Note --- Emergence is typically associated with Holism and Systems Theory. Information is the "difference that makes a difference".
Teleological Evolution
So it seems that our world got to where it is now via a series of identifiable stages due to "quantum fluctuations", "phase changes", "emergences" and "speciations" that collectively we call Evolution. But only the human-scale (macro) transitions seem to follow the normal macro level rules of billiard-ball cause & effect, instead of "spooky action at a distance". On larger & smaller scales those transformations seem to be much less random and more directional, even ententional. We can classify those various emergent phases into three domains : Quantum, Classical, and Cosmic.
https://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page25.html
The easy is the 'how', the hard is the 'why'. — Philosophim
“How” is a scientific question, in search of intermediate physical steps. “Why” is a philosophical question, in search of meaning or purpose. How Mental functions emerged from Material brains is subject to empirical evidence. Hence, relatively easy compared to the Why question. The evolutionary purpose of C is fairly obvious, in that knowing-that-you-know gives you the advantage of flexibility of approaches to a problem. But the Cosmic purpose of C is less obvious, in that mechanical operations, sans awareness, were able to function for 14B years. Why now, does the cosmos manifest a new property : Self-Conscious? We sentient beings appear driven to know where we came from, and where we are going ; on a cosmic scale. The final or ultimate answer to such holistic questions seems to require information about origins & destiny, which has been offered by religions for millennia. For those of us lacking direct access to a Cosmic Mind, mundane philosophy will have to do the best it can.
The mind has three basic functions: thinking, feeling, and wanting. The three functions of the mind — thoughts, feelings and desires — can be guided or directed either by one's native egocentrism or by one's potential rational capacities. Egocentric tendencies function automatically and unconsciously.
https://www.criticalthinking.org/files/ ... anMind.pdf
What we don't do is assume because we cannot answer the details, that there is some unidentified third property that must be responsible for it. That's a "God of the gaps" argument. — Philosophim
Not necessarily. The Enformationism thesis builds upon what we now know, by means of Scientific & Philosophical exploration, and to postulate a rational “third property” : EnFormAction, that has hitherto been called by another name, "Energy". EFA is envisioned as a kind of Proto-Energy (a seed) that can explain, not just material evolution, but the emergence of Mental properties, only after billions of years of “preparing the ground” for planting. The thesis acknowledges the logical question of “where did the Energy & Laws --- that propelled & guided evolution --- come from? Materialists typically take such immaterial necessities for granted. But philosophers tend to question everything, and to speculate beyond current knowledge. Do you think Science has all the answers that we need to know? Are you not curious about “Why” questions? A famous architect, an atheist, when questioned about his meticulous work, once said : “God is in the details”.
The only disagreement I have with you is that I believe we act exactly like physical machines, only more advanced. I do not see anything about humanity that is separate from the universe, but is one of the many expressions of the universe. — Philosophim
I'll grant you that notion of progression in natural evolution. But you seem to think I'm proposing something supernatural, or otherworldly. Supposedly-scientific postulations such as Many Worlds & Multiverses, do indeed go beyond the only world we know anything about. But EFA is merely a new name for a natural function that is well-known, but not well understood : the emergence of novelty from evolutionary mechanisms.
Do you think Darwinian Evolutionary Theory was the final word on how such things as eyes & minds came to exist in a material mechanical world? In recent years, scientists & philosophers have added such notions as Plasticity, Rapid Development, Epigenetics, and Cultural Evolution to Darwin's basic model. The article below illustrates the “gaps” in current biological science. The Modern Synthesis added genetic information to the crude notion of Random Mutation. The Extended Evolutionary Synthesis added such concepts as multilevel selection, transgenerational epigenetic inheritance, niche construction, evolvability, to Darwin's simple-but-powerful notion that biological novelty occurs without divine intervention. However, his evolutionary mechanism did assume that nature is capable of making informed choices (Selection) based on some logical criteria for fitness.
So, my thesis is just carrying-on the tradition of questioning supposedly "settled science". EnFormAction is merely a fresh look at an old scientific term for the physical Change Agency. EFA is not just brute force, but Directional Motivation (energy + information) . Evolution, like a guided-missile, seems to be moving, not randomly, but persistently toward more complexity & integration of sub-systems, with the human mind as the current apex. That direction is provided by the Information encoded in the program of evolution ; similar to what we now know is the key function of biological Genes, that Darwin had no mechanism for.
Do we need a new theory of evolution?
Strange as it sounds, scientists still do not know the answers to some of the most basic questions about how life on Earth evolved.
https://www.theguardian.com/science/202 ... -evolution
Also, my understanding is that this primordial state is also matter and energy. It is a 'thing', and until we can find the state of a thing that exhibits itself differently from matter and/or energy, it fits in one of those two categories. — Philosophim
The Primordial State I referred to is not a scientific fact, but an informed guess. And the current best guess is that the universe started-out with no actual Matter, as we now know it. For example, both quarks & gluons are unobservable hypothetical entities, that are basically definitions without referent. So, I would prefer to call it an “Idea”, not a “Thing”. The postulated plasma had none of the structure* that we identify with Matter. So, cosmologists have proposed semi-magical “mechanisms” (e.g. instantaneous Inflation) to explain how the current clumpy configurations could have formed from such an unorganized state. My third category is merely a combination of Energy and Logic (the missing element of Darwinism). Anyway, I figure that my informed guess is as valid as their speculation into the unknown.
Quarks appear to be true elementary particles; that is, they have no apparent structure and cannot be resolved into something smaller.
https://www.britannica.com/science/quark
Note --- No structure = no matter
In physical cosmology, structure formation is the formation of galaxies, galaxy clusters and larger structures from small early density fluctuations . . . . . In this stage, some mechanism, such as cosmic inflation, was responsible for establishing the initial conditions of the universe: homogeneity, isotropy, and flatness
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structure_formation
Note --- Cosmic Inflation is essentially mathematical magic: "Voila! an instant universe!" Is EFA any less plausible?
TPF : Hard Problem of Consciousness
Re: TPF : Hard Problem of Consciousness
But is what emerged something other than matter and/or energy? To my knowledge, no. If you think it is something other than matter and energy, do we have evidence of it existing apart from our imagination? — Philosophim
The Hard Problem is all about that familiar-yet-mysterious "something other". If you prefer to think that your Mind is a material object, what are its tangible properties : entangled neurons? Can you examine an Idea under a magnifying glass? How much does a Feeling weigh? If your Mind is instead an energetic force, what are its causal effects? Can you move an object with mind-force? If you can't produce those evidences, maybe Consciousness is indeed something other.
However, I'm not introducing something supernatural into the real world. My thesis postulates that the universe began with prototypes of Matter, Energy, and Mind in place. Of course, I can't prove that's true, any more than scientists can prove that a cosmic Bang created a universe from nothing-nowhere. Scientists do have names for some of those hypothetical proto-elements of modern reality : Quarks are unproven theoretical (imaginary) bits of matter with no discernible properties, but strange antithetical attributes : up/down ; top/bottom ; charm/strange. Is your consciousness one or more of those materials? Gluons are also theoretical binding forces with a metaphorical name. But, unlike real forces, Gluons cannot be measured by instruments. Are your Ideas & Feelings constructed of charming Quarks glued together by sticky Gluons? Do you have "evidence" of those elements of matter & energy, apart from the imagination of Quantum theorists studying the squishy quantum foundations of the physical world. Some accept those theories as descriptions of reality, even though the evidence is "locked away"*1 from the prying eyes of Materialists. Have you ever seen or touched a Mind Quark?
My thesis merely proposes a new name for a phenomenon/noumenon that has puzzled scientists and philosophers for ages. It seems obvious that mental qualities supervene (follow ; depend) on material properties, but how? I just flip the script to view Matter & Energy as dependent from a singular aboriginal predecessor, with the Potential for both Matter & Energy. Plato used a variety of labels for his First Cause : Logos, Form, etc. So, you can think of EFA metaphorically as a "seed" with the power to produce both the Logical Structure and the Material Form of Darwin's manifold "forms most beautiful". Is that close enough to philosophical Materialism for you? Or is it too close to philosophical Idealism? I could argue from that other direction, if I had time for such nonsense.
*1. By the mid-1970s, however, 10 years after quarks were first proposed, scientists had compiled a mass of evidence that showed that quarks do exist but are locked within the individual hadrons in such a way that they can never escape as single entities.
https://www.britannica.com/science/suba ... ark-theory
No. My issue is not with speculation. Its with assertion. Maybe we'll find out in the future that consciousness isn't physical. But today? It is. — Philosophim
Sounds like you do have an issue with philosophical and scientific Postulation*2. In Darwin's day, the explanation for the variety of plants & animals was based on the Genesis myth. Do you think he was out of line to "assert" that there was another way to make sense of biology? Do you think Gnomon is asserting falsehoods on a philosophical discussion forum, or is he merely postulating alternative views for discussion? Is Physics the source of all Truth for you?
*2. Postulate : to suggest or accept that a theory or idea is true as a starting point for reasoning or discussion.
So we can see that quarks have mass and have been conclusively measured. So as you can see, there's still no evidence of something in the universe that cannot be confirmed to be matter or energy yet. — Philosophim
Just as Catholics believe in angels based on infallible scripture, modern physicists definitely believe in Quarks based on infallible math. So it doesn't take much indirect evidence*3*4 to confirm their faith. But which are you going to believe : proponents or doubters? Personally, I don't know or care if they are real ; they serve a function for imagining the quantum realm as tiny particles of stuff, like the holy grail of ancient philosophical Atoms.
*3. "Quark masses are fundamental quantities in particle physics, but they cannot be accessed and measured directly in experiments because, with the exception of the top quark, quarks are confined inside composite particles," said Andrea Dainese, who is the ALICE physics coordinator.
https://www.space.com/large-hadron-coll ... easurement
Note --- If you can't measure it, mathematize it.
*4. Are quarks hypothetical particles?
We will never know for sure.
That’s because quarks, by the nature of their interactions with each other through “gluons”, can never get far enough apart to be “observed” directly.
For many years most physicists thought quarks were just a Reductionist gimmick for remembering the rules of SU(3) — a symmetry of elementary particles also known (equally fancifully) as “the eightfold way”. But today the consensus is that they are real particles.
https://www.quora.com/Are-quarks-hypoth ... ticles-Why
Note --- Consensus opinion, not empirical fact.
The Hard Problem is all about that familiar-yet-mysterious "something other". If you prefer to think that your Mind is a material object, what are its tangible properties : entangled neurons? Can you examine an Idea under a magnifying glass? How much does a Feeling weigh? If your Mind is instead an energetic force, what are its causal effects? Can you move an object with mind-force? If you can't produce those evidences, maybe Consciousness is indeed something other.
However, I'm not introducing something supernatural into the real world. My thesis postulates that the universe began with prototypes of Matter, Energy, and Mind in place. Of course, I can't prove that's true, any more than scientists can prove that a cosmic Bang created a universe from nothing-nowhere. Scientists do have names for some of those hypothetical proto-elements of modern reality : Quarks are unproven theoretical (imaginary) bits of matter with no discernible properties, but strange antithetical attributes : up/down ; top/bottom ; charm/strange. Is your consciousness one or more of those materials? Gluons are also theoretical binding forces with a metaphorical name. But, unlike real forces, Gluons cannot be measured by instruments. Are your Ideas & Feelings constructed of charming Quarks glued together by sticky Gluons? Do you have "evidence" of those elements of matter & energy, apart from the imagination of Quantum theorists studying the squishy quantum foundations of the physical world. Some accept those theories as descriptions of reality, even though the evidence is "locked away"*1 from the prying eyes of Materialists. Have you ever seen or touched a Mind Quark?
My thesis merely proposes a new name for a phenomenon/noumenon that has puzzled scientists and philosophers for ages. It seems obvious that mental qualities supervene (follow ; depend) on material properties, but how? I just flip the script to view Matter & Energy as dependent from a singular aboriginal predecessor, with the Potential for both Matter & Energy. Plato used a variety of labels for his First Cause : Logos, Form, etc. So, you can think of EFA metaphorically as a "seed" with the power to produce both the Logical Structure and the Material Form of Darwin's manifold "forms most beautiful". Is that close enough to philosophical Materialism for you? Or is it too close to philosophical Idealism? I could argue from that other direction, if I had time for such nonsense.
*1. By the mid-1970s, however, 10 years after quarks were first proposed, scientists had compiled a mass of evidence that showed that quarks do exist but are locked within the individual hadrons in such a way that they can never escape as single entities.
https://www.britannica.com/science/suba ... ark-theory
No. My issue is not with speculation. Its with assertion. Maybe we'll find out in the future that consciousness isn't physical. But today? It is. — Philosophim
Sounds like you do have an issue with philosophical and scientific Postulation*2. In Darwin's day, the explanation for the variety of plants & animals was based on the Genesis myth. Do you think he was out of line to "assert" that there was another way to make sense of biology? Do you think Gnomon is asserting falsehoods on a philosophical discussion forum, or is he merely postulating alternative views for discussion? Is Physics the source of all Truth for you?
*2. Postulate : to suggest or accept that a theory or idea is true as a starting point for reasoning or discussion.
So we can see that quarks have mass and have been conclusively measured. So as you can see, there's still no evidence of something in the universe that cannot be confirmed to be matter or energy yet. — Philosophim
Just as Catholics believe in angels based on infallible scripture, modern physicists definitely believe in Quarks based on infallible math. So it doesn't take much indirect evidence*3*4 to confirm their faith. But which are you going to believe : proponents or doubters? Personally, I don't know or care if they are real ; they serve a function for imagining the quantum realm as tiny particles of stuff, like the holy grail of ancient philosophical Atoms.
*3. "Quark masses are fundamental quantities in particle physics, but they cannot be accessed and measured directly in experiments because, with the exception of the top quark, quarks are confined inside composite particles," said Andrea Dainese, who is the ALICE physics coordinator.
https://www.space.com/large-hadron-coll ... easurement
Note --- If you can't measure it, mathematize it.
*4. Are quarks hypothetical particles?
We will never know for sure.
That’s because quarks, by the nature of their interactions with each other through “gluons”, can never get far enough apart to be “observed” directly.
For many years most physicists thought quarks were just a Reductionist gimmick for remembering the rules of SU(3) — a symmetry of elementary particles also known (equally fancifully) as “the eightfold way”. But today the consensus is that they are real particles.
https://www.quora.com/Are-quarks-hypoth ... ticles-Why
Note --- Consensus opinion, not empirical fact.
Re: TPF : Hard Problem of Consciousness
You can examine a lit object under a magnifying glass, but you can't examine a sound under a magnifying glass. We're using the wrong tool and looking for the wrong thing. We measure consciousness by behavior. We experience our own consciousness, but no one else's. As such, we cannot measure our own subjective consciousness, nor any other. But we have determined that the brain affects consciousness over multiple scientific discoveries over decades now. Its incontrovertible. — Philosophim
Again, you take my metaphors literally. The point of the question is that immaterial functions cannot be studied by empirical methods. There is no empirical evidence for Ideas ; only behavioral inferences, as you said. In other words, the tool for examining the Mind is the Mind itself. Materialists see the world through the (metaphorical) lens of the Mind, but can't see the Mind itself.
Again, you erroneously imply that I deny the role of Brain in Mind functions. Not so. Mind is merely what the Brain does : its function, its action. The engine (a physical object) of an automobile directly affects the quality of Transportation, its immaterial action. What we call "mind" is the immaterial function of a physical brain. But a brain in a vat, with no connection to the outside world, would have no mental functions. We'll never know if the isolated brain has a self-concept, but I doubt it, because it would have no non-self to contrast with. A primary evolutionary function of Mind is to relate Self to Other (environment).
Note --- I like to use the Aristotelian concept of Metaphysics in place of "immaterial". But that term is now mainly associated with Catholic theology. Yet, five centuries BC, Ari added an appendix to his work on Physics (nature) for a discussion of philosophical Ideas --- over & above physical Things --- immaterial Concepts*1 about nature (Ontology). For Ari, those ideas are not super-natural, but merely immaterial Forms, or in modern terms : Information (EnFormAction). For example, Properties are not material things, but mental attributions.
*1. Aristotle About Ideas :
The Peri ide^on (On Ideas) is the only work in which Aristotle systematically sets out and criticizes arguments for the existence of Platonic forms. . . . . , and why and with what justification he favors an alternative metaphysical scheme. She examines the significance of the Peri ide^on for some central questions about Plato's theory of forms--whether, for example, there are forms corresponding to every property or only to some, and if only to some, then to which ones; whether forms are universals, particulars or both; and whether they are meanings, properties or both.
https://www.amazon.com/Ideas-Aristotles ... 0198235496
Note --- Contra Plato's monistic universal Forms, Aristotle proposed the dualistic notion of HyloMorphism : a combination of Matter and Essence : car engine + transportation, as a team. Different ways of looking at the same thing. The embodied causal force that enforms material objects is the Essence (property, qualia) of the Thing.
The problem with the theories that consciousness is separate from matter and energy, is that there is no evidence from tests. — Philosophim
That's the problem with Materialism, it looks for empirical evidence of something that is immaterial. The only evidence of Mental Functions is philosophical inference. If a pile of rocks suddenly formed a tower of stones, we would have to infer Mental Intention behind the balancing act*2.
No, because Genesis was not known and provable with evidence, it was myth. Beliefs are not the same as what is known at the time. — Philosophim
You may not think Darwin was asserting something unbelievable, but most of his contemporaries did, because they were convinced of a different belief system. You think Gnomon is proposing something unbelievable because it does not align with your materialistic beliefs. Scientific paradigms change, not only due to empirical evidence, but to philosophical perspective. "To biologists, it is puzzling that Kuhn failed to mention the two greatest paradigm shifts in the biological sciences — Darwinism and Mendelism." https://laskerfoundation.org/paradigm-s ... -the-arts/
And this is not a problem. This is the limit of what we can measure today, and we take what is most reasonable from that analysis. — Philosophim
I agree. Yet Reasoning is not empirical, but philosophical. A Paradigm Shift is a change of perspective on the evidence.
PS___ I appreciate your respectful skepticism. It forces me to tighten-up my own reasoning. And to find new ways to describe an emerging new paradigm of Philosophy and Science.
*2. We infer that a carefully balanced stone stack is not natural, but intentional
Stacked_stones.jpg
Again, you take my metaphors literally. The point of the question is that immaterial functions cannot be studied by empirical methods. There is no empirical evidence for Ideas ; only behavioral inferences, as you said. In other words, the tool for examining the Mind is the Mind itself. Materialists see the world through the (metaphorical) lens of the Mind, but can't see the Mind itself.
Again, you erroneously imply that I deny the role of Brain in Mind functions. Not so. Mind is merely what the Brain does : its function, its action. The engine (a physical object) of an automobile directly affects the quality of Transportation, its immaterial action. What we call "mind" is the immaterial function of a physical brain. But a brain in a vat, with no connection to the outside world, would have no mental functions. We'll never know if the isolated brain has a self-concept, but I doubt it, because it would have no non-self to contrast with. A primary evolutionary function of Mind is to relate Self to Other (environment).
Note --- I like to use the Aristotelian concept of Metaphysics in place of "immaterial". But that term is now mainly associated with Catholic theology. Yet, five centuries BC, Ari added an appendix to his work on Physics (nature) for a discussion of philosophical Ideas --- over & above physical Things --- immaterial Concepts*1 about nature (Ontology). For Ari, those ideas are not super-natural, but merely immaterial Forms, or in modern terms : Information (EnFormAction). For example, Properties are not material things, but mental attributions.
*1. Aristotle About Ideas :
The Peri ide^on (On Ideas) is the only work in which Aristotle systematically sets out and criticizes arguments for the existence of Platonic forms. . . . . , and why and with what justification he favors an alternative metaphysical scheme. She examines the significance of the Peri ide^on for some central questions about Plato's theory of forms--whether, for example, there are forms corresponding to every property or only to some, and if only to some, then to which ones; whether forms are universals, particulars or both; and whether they are meanings, properties or both.
https://www.amazon.com/Ideas-Aristotles ... 0198235496
Note --- Contra Plato's monistic universal Forms, Aristotle proposed the dualistic notion of HyloMorphism : a combination of Matter and Essence : car engine + transportation, as a team. Different ways of looking at the same thing. The embodied causal force that enforms material objects is the Essence (property, qualia) of the Thing.
The problem with the theories that consciousness is separate from matter and energy, is that there is no evidence from tests. — Philosophim
That's the problem with Materialism, it looks for empirical evidence of something that is immaterial. The only evidence of Mental Functions is philosophical inference. If a pile of rocks suddenly formed a tower of stones, we would have to infer Mental Intention behind the balancing act*2.
No, because Genesis was not known and provable with evidence, it was myth. Beliefs are not the same as what is known at the time. — Philosophim
You may not think Darwin was asserting something unbelievable, but most of his contemporaries did, because they were convinced of a different belief system. You think Gnomon is proposing something unbelievable because it does not align with your materialistic beliefs. Scientific paradigms change, not only due to empirical evidence, but to philosophical perspective. "To biologists, it is puzzling that Kuhn failed to mention the two greatest paradigm shifts in the biological sciences — Darwinism and Mendelism." https://laskerfoundation.org/paradigm-s ... -the-arts/
And this is not a problem. This is the limit of what we can measure today, and we take what is most reasonable from that analysis. — Philosophim
I agree. Yet Reasoning is not empirical, but philosophical. A Paradigm Shift is a change of perspective on the evidence.
PS___ I appreciate your respectful skepticism. It forces me to tighten-up my own reasoning. And to find new ways to describe an emerging new paradigm of Philosophy and Science.
*2. We infer that a carefully balanced stone stack is not natural, but intentional
Stacked_stones.jpg
Re: TPF : Hard Problem of Consciousness
I have no problem with the metaphysics description and the use of words that do not lean on the physical. My concern is that it should not be forgotten that it is all physical at its core. — Philosophim
That's where you and I agree & disagree. Many years ago, after becoming disillusioned by the fundamentalist religion of my youth, I may have tended toward the opposite worldview. But as I learned more about Reductive science --- took basic courses in all the major divisions of science in college --- I saw the "real" world differently. But I also began to appreciate the philosophical underpinnings of most world religions, especially their Integrated Holistic approach .
My emerging new worldview was influenced mainly by Quantum Physics and Information Theory, which I did not learn in college. Prominent physicist John A. Wheeler's "It from Bit" concept gave me a new way to understand the substance of the world, wherein the core is indeed "physical", but with tangible Matter animated & motivated by causal Energy, and organized by logical Information*1. More recently, quantum physicists began to equate Energy with both Matter and Information. There you have have a combination of Space (corporality) , Time (change), and Form (organization)*2. In Terrence Deacon's triad : Material Morphodynamics (form change) + Energetic Teleodynamics (directional change ; purpose) + Causal Homeodynamics (evolution). So. Enformationism is about all of the above, but not about Religion. Instead, its a novel philosophical & scientific understanding of the immaterial (quarks & qualia) foundations of Reality.
*1.
a> In classical physics and general chemistry, matter is any substance that has mass and takes up space by having volume. ____Wikipedia
b> In physics, energy is a property intrinsic to anything that is able to interact in the universe. ___Wiki
c> Information is an abstract concept that refers to that which has the power to inform. ___Wiki
Note --- You could say that I am a Physicalist (matter + energy), but not a Materialist (matter is all). However, it now seems that shape-shifting Information (EnFormAction) is all.
*2. Experimental test for the mass-energy-information equivalence principle :
A recent conjecture, called the mass-energy-information equivalence principle, proposed that information is equivalent to mass and energy and exists as a separate state of matter.
https://pubs.aip.org/aip/sci/article/20 ... ass-energy
I agree. I've noted several times that it is currently impossible to objectively evaluate someone else's subjective experience. But do note that this problem does not go away even if we remove science. — Philosophim
Objective or empirical evaluation of subjective experience may be an oxymoron. But Subjective theoretical evaluation of subjective Ideas is what Philosophy*2 is all about. No need to "remove" the reasoning of Science, just the requirement for empirical evidence.
*2. Purpose of Philosophy :
The study of philosophy enhances a person's problem-solving capacities. It helps us to analyze concepts, definitions, arguments, and problems. It contributes to our capacity to organize ideas and issues, to deal with questions of value, and to extract what is essential from large quantities of information.
https://www.jmu.edu/philrel/why-study-p ... ophy.shtml
New perspectives should always be brought forward, but they must be tested against the hard rock of existence. — Philosophim
Rock on! New philosophical perspectives on specific material subjects (hard rocks) are indeed tested for empirical evidence. But new paradigms of universal concepts (worldviews) can only be tested for rational consistency, and conformance with ontological coherence.
I really appreciate your viewpoints as well Gnomon! I'm glad you're not taking my points the wrong way. I greatly enjoy chatting with thinkers like yourself, and I think you're setting up your language and approach to science and consciousness that is palatable to someone like myself. — Philosophim
Anthropologist Terrence Deacon's predecessor in the study of humanity, Polymath Gregory Bateson, unlike Shannon, defined "Information" as the Difference (distinction) that makes a Difference (meaning) to the observer*3. Since groundbreaking holistic scientists like Deacon & Bateson are not well known by professionals in the "hard" sciences, their vocabulary, and mine, may not be "palatable" to their Reductive way of thinking. But it should be acceptable to those of us in the "soft" science of Philosophy. The study of Minds does not lend itself to the knife-wielding dissection methods of Material science.
*3. In his 1972 book, Steps to an Ecology of Mind, Bateson developed his idea of a "difference that makes a difference" in his talk to Alfred Korzybski's Institute of General Semantics. The talk was entitled "Form, Substance, and Difference." Form and substance referred to the famous Korzybski maxim "the map is not the territory."
https://www.informationphilosopher.com/ ... s/bateson/
PS___Speaking of "vive la Difference"*4; one way to discuss the difference between philosophical evidence and scientific evidence is to think about the "hard" question of sexual attraction. For example, some men are crass materialists who view females as a loose aggregation of parts : t*ts, *ss, p*ssy, etc. But that analytical approach misses the intangibles of femininity that are so irresistible to those who appreciate the finer non-things of life.
*4. Who first said Vive la difference?
Anatole France is attributed with first declaring the wonderful refrain, “Vive la difference!” with particular reference to the differences between women and men.
↪Wayfarer
That's where you and I agree & disagree. Many years ago, after becoming disillusioned by the fundamentalist religion of my youth, I may have tended toward the opposite worldview. But as I learned more about Reductive science --- took basic courses in all the major divisions of science in college --- I saw the "real" world differently. But I also began to appreciate the philosophical underpinnings of most world religions, especially their Integrated Holistic approach .
My emerging new worldview was influenced mainly by Quantum Physics and Information Theory, which I did not learn in college. Prominent physicist John A. Wheeler's "It from Bit" concept gave me a new way to understand the substance of the world, wherein the core is indeed "physical", but with tangible Matter animated & motivated by causal Energy, and organized by logical Information*1. More recently, quantum physicists began to equate Energy with both Matter and Information. There you have have a combination of Space (corporality) , Time (change), and Form (organization)*2. In Terrence Deacon's triad : Material Morphodynamics (form change) + Energetic Teleodynamics (directional change ; purpose) + Causal Homeodynamics (evolution). So. Enformationism is about all of the above, but not about Religion. Instead, its a novel philosophical & scientific understanding of the immaterial (quarks & qualia) foundations of Reality.
*1.
a> In classical physics and general chemistry, matter is any substance that has mass and takes up space by having volume. ____Wikipedia
b> In physics, energy is a property intrinsic to anything that is able to interact in the universe. ___Wiki
c> Information is an abstract concept that refers to that which has the power to inform. ___Wiki
Note --- You could say that I am a Physicalist (matter + energy), but not a Materialist (matter is all). However, it now seems that shape-shifting Information (EnFormAction) is all.
*2. Experimental test for the mass-energy-information equivalence principle :
A recent conjecture, called the mass-energy-information equivalence principle, proposed that information is equivalent to mass and energy and exists as a separate state of matter.
https://pubs.aip.org/aip/sci/article/20 ... ass-energy
I agree. I've noted several times that it is currently impossible to objectively evaluate someone else's subjective experience. But do note that this problem does not go away even if we remove science. — Philosophim
Objective or empirical evaluation of subjective experience may be an oxymoron. But Subjective theoretical evaluation of subjective Ideas is what Philosophy*2 is all about. No need to "remove" the reasoning of Science, just the requirement for empirical evidence.
*2. Purpose of Philosophy :
The study of philosophy enhances a person's problem-solving capacities. It helps us to analyze concepts, definitions, arguments, and problems. It contributes to our capacity to organize ideas and issues, to deal with questions of value, and to extract what is essential from large quantities of information.
https://www.jmu.edu/philrel/why-study-p ... ophy.shtml
New perspectives should always be brought forward, but they must be tested against the hard rock of existence. — Philosophim
Rock on! New philosophical perspectives on specific material subjects (hard rocks) are indeed tested for empirical evidence. But new paradigms of universal concepts (worldviews) can only be tested for rational consistency, and conformance with ontological coherence.
I really appreciate your viewpoints as well Gnomon! I'm glad you're not taking my points the wrong way. I greatly enjoy chatting with thinkers like yourself, and I think you're setting up your language and approach to science and consciousness that is palatable to someone like myself. — Philosophim
Anthropologist Terrence Deacon's predecessor in the study of humanity, Polymath Gregory Bateson, unlike Shannon, defined "Information" as the Difference (distinction) that makes a Difference (meaning) to the observer*3. Since groundbreaking holistic scientists like Deacon & Bateson are not well known by professionals in the "hard" sciences, their vocabulary, and mine, may not be "palatable" to their Reductive way of thinking. But it should be acceptable to those of us in the "soft" science of Philosophy. The study of Minds does not lend itself to the knife-wielding dissection methods of Material science.
*3. In his 1972 book, Steps to an Ecology of Mind, Bateson developed his idea of a "difference that makes a difference" in his talk to Alfred Korzybski's Institute of General Semantics. The talk was entitled "Form, Substance, and Difference." Form and substance referred to the famous Korzybski maxim "the map is not the territory."
https://www.informationphilosopher.com/ ... s/bateson/
PS___Speaking of "vive la Difference"*4; one way to discuss the difference between philosophical evidence and scientific evidence is to think about the "hard" question of sexual attraction. For example, some men are crass materialists who view females as a loose aggregation of parts : t*ts, *ss, p*ssy, etc. But that analytical approach misses the intangibles of femininity that are so irresistible to those who appreciate the finer non-things of life.
*4. Who first said Vive la difference?
Anatole France is attributed with first declaring the wonderful refrain, “Vive la difference!” with particular reference to the differences between women and men.
↪Wayfarer
Re: TPF : Hard Problem of Consciousness
The problem that I see is if there is no objectivity, then there is no scientific standard. — Philosophim
That's why I get most of my information about the multiple roles of Information from professional scientists --- Paul Davies, Terrence Deacon, Santa Fe Institute --- and not from Twitter or Tik Tok gurus & influencers. Their work is on the periphery of current science, but it reveals signs of an emerging new Paradigm of Science, that I, not they, call Enformationism --- to distinguish from older -isms, such as Materialism, Idealism, or Spiritualism.
My own investigations into Causal Information are not "objective", in the sense that I am not held accountable by specially-trained & narrowly-focused colleagues. Which is why I depend on amateur generalists on TPF to vett my amateur musings. Their philosophical skepticism should help to keep me honest. But it's possible that some of us merely share a bias toward Materialism or Idealism. So, it's up to me to question my own motives.
I feel subjective experiences are honestly best left to psychology. — Philosophim
Unfortunately, most modern Psychological research is still working from a Materialistic worldview*1. So, they may be blind to the evidence of immaterial "forces", such as those that Deacon describes in his books : Morphodynamics, etc. For example Pavlov's salivating dogs were influenced by mental imagery to respond to the sound of a bell as-if it was the sight or smell of tasty food. But he didn't focus on how one form of Information (alarm sound) could transform in the mind into a representation of a different form of Meaning (smell or taste).
Besides, most current experiments on Information Theory focus on quantification, storage, and communication, not on meaning & significance & semiology. So, what little work is being done on Holistic Information is left to Philosophy. By that, I mean scientists & scholars who are not afraid to speculate beyond the current paradigm.
*1. Eliminative materialism :
is a materialist position in the philosophy of mind. . . . . Eliminativism about a class of entities is the view that the class of entities does not exist . . . . Since eliminative materialism arguably claims that future research will fail to find a neuronal basis for various mental phenomena, it may need to wait for science to progress further.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eliminative_materialism
That's why I get most of my information about the multiple roles of Information from professional scientists --- Paul Davies, Terrence Deacon, Santa Fe Institute --- and not from Twitter or Tik Tok gurus & influencers. Their work is on the periphery of current science, but it reveals signs of an emerging new Paradigm of Science, that I, not they, call Enformationism --- to distinguish from older -isms, such as Materialism, Idealism, or Spiritualism.
My own investigations into Causal Information are not "objective", in the sense that I am not held accountable by specially-trained & narrowly-focused colleagues. Which is why I depend on amateur generalists on TPF to vett my amateur musings. Their philosophical skepticism should help to keep me honest. But it's possible that some of us merely share a bias toward Materialism or Idealism. So, it's up to me to question my own motives.
I feel subjective experiences are honestly best left to psychology. — Philosophim
Unfortunately, most modern Psychological research is still working from a Materialistic worldview*1. So, they may be blind to the evidence of immaterial "forces", such as those that Deacon describes in his books : Morphodynamics, etc. For example Pavlov's salivating dogs were influenced by mental imagery to respond to the sound of a bell as-if it was the sight or smell of tasty food. But he didn't focus on how one form of Information (alarm sound) could transform in the mind into a representation of a different form of Meaning (smell or taste).
Besides, most current experiments on Information Theory focus on quantification, storage, and communication, not on meaning & significance & semiology. So, what little work is being done on Holistic Information is left to Philosophy. By that, I mean scientists & scholars who are not afraid to speculate beyond the current paradigm.
*1. Eliminative materialism :
is a materialist position in the philosophy of mind. . . . . Eliminativism about a class of entities is the view that the class of entities does not exist . . . . Since eliminative materialism arguably claims that future research will fail to find a neuronal basis for various mental phenomena, it may need to wait for science to progress further.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eliminative_materialism
Re: TPF : Hard Problem of Consciousness
Deconstructing our intuitions of consciousness
Even if, as you suggest, some waveform of energy is responsible for consciousness, a natural question arises: why does that energy produce consciousness, while some other energy does not produce consciousness? — NotAristotle
In any knowledge that we create, we can always generate new "why" questions that we aren't able to answer, this isn't specific to consciousness. — Skalidris
Maybe we can get closer to plausible answers to such enigmas. Folk wisdom has equated Mind with Energy for centuries, and that notion is often the basis of Magical thinking. However, there is now some scientific evidence to suggest that Consciousness is not a material substance, but an energetic process*1. Yet Energy itself is not made of Matter, but is a primordial-essential-causal form of existence that can transform into Matter (E=MC^2), and Mind. So, the Hard Problem of Consciousness may be related to the equally mysterious nature of Energy itself*1b.
In my Enformationism thesis, I equate both Energy & Mind with an even more general & fundamental process in the world : EnFormAction, which is merely a novel spelling of "Information"*2. We typically associate information (power to enform) with Knowledge, or computer Data, but it's also the causal agent of human culture that can put a man on the moon --- not by magic, but by collective communal Intention (mind power to imagine and to execute a plan of action). Unfortunately, the procedural steps by which Information produces Energy, which produces Consciousness, remains a "how" question for Science, and a "why" question for Philosophy.
*1. Mind Energy :
a> Is the mind made up of energy?
Yes, there would be no conscious experience without the brain, but experience cannot be reduced to the brain's actions. The mind is energy, and it generates energy through thinking, feeling, and choosing. ___Caroline Leaf, Ph.D., Communication Pathologist and Neuroscientist
https://www.mindbodygreen.com/articles/ ... oscientist
b> Consciousness as a Physical Process Caused by the Organization of Energy in the Brain
Recent neuroscientific evidence can be interpreted in a way that suggests consciousness is a product of the organization of energetic activity in the brain. The nature of energy itself, though, remains largely mysterious, and we do not fully understand how it contributes to brain function or consciousness
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10 ... 02091/full
c> Consciousness as a Form of Energy
An electromagnetic field is a type of material reality, and so is consciousness. Alternatively, consciousness is one form of energy, along with kinetic energy or electrical energy. If this hypothesis is true, then consciousness is material after all—though not in the Cartesian sense.
https://academic.oup.com/book/1758/chap ... m=fulltext
*2. What is Information? :
Linguistically and grammatically the word information is a noun but in actuality it is a process and hence is like a verb. . . .
What is the role of information in the propagation of life? What is the relationship of information to energy and entropy? What is the relationship of information to science?
___by Robert K Logan, physicist
↪Philosophim
↪Wayfarer
Even if, as you suggest, some waveform of energy is responsible for consciousness, a natural question arises: why does that energy produce consciousness, while some other energy does not produce consciousness? — NotAristotle
In any knowledge that we create, we can always generate new "why" questions that we aren't able to answer, this isn't specific to consciousness. — Skalidris
Maybe we can get closer to plausible answers to such enigmas. Folk wisdom has equated Mind with Energy for centuries, and that notion is often the basis of Magical thinking. However, there is now some scientific evidence to suggest that Consciousness is not a material substance, but an energetic process*1. Yet Energy itself is not made of Matter, but is a primordial-essential-causal form of existence that can transform into Matter (E=MC^2), and Mind. So, the Hard Problem of Consciousness may be related to the equally mysterious nature of Energy itself*1b.
In my Enformationism thesis, I equate both Energy & Mind with an even more general & fundamental process in the world : EnFormAction, which is merely a novel spelling of "Information"*2. We typically associate information (power to enform) with Knowledge, or computer Data, but it's also the causal agent of human culture that can put a man on the moon --- not by magic, but by collective communal Intention (mind power to imagine and to execute a plan of action). Unfortunately, the procedural steps by which Information produces Energy, which produces Consciousness, remains a "how" question for Science, and a "why" question for Philosophy.
*1. Mind Energy :
a> Is the mind made up of energy?
Yes, there would be no conscious experience without the brain, but experience cannot be reduced to the brain's actions. The mind is energy, and it generates energy through thinking, feeling, and choosing. ___Caroline Leaf, Ph.D., Communication Pathologist and Neuroscientist
https://www.mindbodygreen.com/articles/ ... oscientist
b> Consciousness as a Physical Process Caused by the Organization of Energy in the Brain
Recent neuroscientific evidence can be interpreted in a way that suggests consciousness is a product of the organization of energetic activity in the brain. The nature of energy itself, though, remains largely mysterious, and we do not fully understand how it contributes to brain function or consciousness
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10 ... 02091/full
c> Consciousness as a Form of Energy
An electromagnetic field is a type of material reality, and so is consciousness. Alternatively, consciousness is one form of energy, along with kinetic energy or electrical energy. If this hypothesis is true, then consciousness is material after all—though not in the Cartesian sense.
https://academic.oup.com/book/1758/chap ... m=fulltext
*2. What is Information? :
Linguistically and grammatically the word information is a noun but in actuality it is a process and hence is like a verb. . . .
What is the role of information in the propagation of life? What is the relationship of information to energy and entropy? What is the relationship of information to science?
___by Robert K Logan, physicist
↪Philosophim
↪Wayfarer
Re: TPF : Hard Problem of Consciousness
Deconstructing our intuitions of consciousness
Even if, as you suggest, some waveform of energy is responsible for consciousness, a natural question arises: why does that energy produce consciousness, while some other energy does not produce consciousness? — NotAristotle
That is an astute question : why does a particular physical waveform transform into metaphysical (meaningful) awareness? It's easy to imagine that Consciousness is a process caused by some form of Energy. But what specific form (or waveform) causes Awareness instead of Light or Heat or Motion or Gravity? I don't know the answer to that query, but it seems to be a good direction for scientific investigation. One clue to the puzzle of Personal Experience may be that both Consciousness and Energy are special forms of non-specific Generic Information (the power to change form ; to transform ; energy?). And in human experience, Information is also Meaning, Significance, Relevance to Self.
So, if we picture a waveform of Light (for instance), it may function like Morse Code (max-min instead of dot-dash). For a computer analogy, consider the maximum & minimum intensity to be equivalent to a digital code : On & Off, or light & dark, or Positive & Negative, or 1 & 0. With that metaphor in mind, we can imagine that a ray of light is transmitting a message of some kind. If so, then our visual sensing (receiving) apparatus can interpret the quantitative signal as the qualitative experience of Redness. This presumes that evolution equipped the brain with a table of numerical codes & their nominal/symbolic meanings. The physical-to-mental Interpreter is often imagined as a homunculus, but it might be simply a probabilistic computing*1 device with genetic memory*2 trained by eons of evolutionary events (experience?).
Having established Color as one kind of meaning to a Mind, we can carry the metaphor on to greater levels of information complexity, which the brain mechanism can compute-interpret as qualities of experience and properties of the material world. Hence, our senses are like the receiving end of a morse code transmission, and the mental images or impressions are the self-relevant interpretations of that abstract code. The translation may be merely a physical Phase Transition, whose meaning is Metaphysical knowledge. I'm just riffing on a philosophical theme here, and will leave the science to those more qualified.
*1. Probabilistic Computing :
an emerging discipline integrating probabilistic programming and generative AI into the building blocks of software and hardware, and using computer science concepts to scale up computations involving uncertain knowledge.
https://medium.com/digital-architecture ... fea7d780c9
*2. Genetic memory :
In psychology, genetic memory is a theorized phenomenon in which certain kinds of memories could be inherited, being present at birth in the absence of any associated sensory experience, and that such memories could be incorporated into the genome over long spans of time. ___Wikipedia
LIGHT OSCILLATIONS MAX-MIN = ON-OFF = LIGHT-DARK = 100%-0%
The-voltage-current-light-intensity-and-pressure-waveforms-of-a-copper-wire-explosion.png
main-qimg-29195d05078eba6a867290467f73b325-lq
LIGHT OSCILLATIONS AS CODE
morse-montagne.png
MIND IS THE TRANSLATOR OF WAVEFORM CODES
radio_operator.jpg
↪Philosophim
Re: TPF : Hard Problem of Consciousness
Deconstructing our intuitions of consciousness
The translation may be merely a physical Phase Transition, whose meaning is Metaphysical knowledge. — Gnomon
Direct (naive) realism? Perhaps depending on how we use the words 'code' or 'translation' or 'transition'. In any case it is not the process of seeing that one sees but the objects that emit or reflect visible light. — jkop
No, informed realism*1. I was merely comparing the Hard Problem --- of how the experiential quality of Consciousness could "abruptly" emerge from the physical properties of Energy or Matter --- to a well-known, yet still mysterious, transformation in Physics.
The experience of seeing is indeed a process of translation of light energy into mental imagery. But scientists still can't explain that transformation in physical terms, because Conception is supervenient (metaphysical*2) upon the physics of sense Perception. Yet we can understand it philosophically by analogy to "mysterious" Phase Transitions*3 in physics. The before & after states are well known, but the intermediate steps remain obscure, despite centuries of attempts to construct an empirical explanation.
*1. Naïve realism :
In social psychology, naïve realism is the human tendency to believe that we see the world around us objectively, and that people who disagree with us must be uninformed, irrational, or biased.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Na%C3%AFv ... sychology)
*2. Metaphysical :
Derived from the Greek meta ta physika ("after the things of nature"); referring to an idea, doctrine, or posited reality outside of human sense perception.
https://www.pbs.org/ . . ./gengloss/metaph-body.html
Note --- The "posited reality" is what I call mental Ideality, not supernatural Spirituality.
*3. Mysterious Phase Transition :
Phase transitions, such as ice melting or turning graphite into diamond under intense pressure, are common phenomena. They are abrupt, qualitative changes in the properties of a substance and usually occur when a physical system approaches a specific critical temperature. Many physicists believe that phase transitions happened in the first moments after the Big Bang, when all matter in the universe was an extremely hot and dense plasma. . . . . The physics of these primordial phase transitions go beyond the Standard Model of elementary particles.
https://www.advancedsciencenews.com/foo ... -universe/
The translation may be merely a physical Phase Transition, whose meaning is Metaphysical knowledge. — Gnomon
Direct (naive) realism? Perhaps depending on how we use the words 'code' or 'translation' or 'transition'. In any case it is not the process of seeing that one sees but the objects that emit or reflect visible light. — jkop
No, informed realism*1. I was merely comparing the Hard Problem --- of how the experiential quality of Consciousness could "abruptly" emerge from the physical properties of Energy or Matter --- to a well-known, yet still mysterious, transformation in Physics.
The experience of seeing is indeed a process of translation of light energy into mental imagery. But scientists still can't explain that transformation in physical terms, because Conception is supervenient (metaphysical*2) upon the physics of sense Perception. Yet we can understand it philosophically by analogy to "mysterious" Phase Transitions*3 in physics. The before & after states are well known, but the intermediate steps remain obscure, despite centuries of attempts to construct an empirical explanation.
*1. Naïve realism :
In social psychology, naïve realism is the human tendency to believe that we see the world around us objectively, and that people who disagree with us must be uninformed, irrational, or biased.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Na%C3%AFv ... sychology)
*2. Metaphysical :
Derived from the Greek meta ta physika ("after the things of nature"); referring to an idea, doctrine, or posited reality outside of human sense perception.
https://www.pbs.org/ . . ./gengloss/metaph-body.html
Note --- The "posited reality" is what I call mental Ideality, not supernatural Spirituality.
*3. Mysterious Phase Transition :
Phase transitions, such as ice melting or turning graphite into diamond under intense pressure, are common phenomena. They are abrupt, qualitative changes in the properties of a substance and usually occur when a physical system approaches a specific critical temperature. Many physicists believe that phase transitions happened in the first moments after the Big Bang, when all matter in the universe was an extremely hot and dense plasma. . . . . The physics of these primordial phase transitions go beyond the Standard Model of elementary particles.
https://www.advancedsciencenews.com/foo ... -universe/
Re: TPF : Hard Problem of Consciousness
Deconstructing our intuitions of consciousness
↪Gnomon
Thanks for your comments. I've had somewhat of a shift in perspective the last couple days. I now think the question you cited --why is this energy conscious -- may not be the most productive. It would be like asking, why are coyotes alive, but rocks are not? The fact is, coyotes are alive and rocks are not. So the answer both for consciousness and living organisms, in my opinion, has to do with the biological history to which both belong. On that understanding, we needn't postulate anything extra or in addition to the physical. — NotAristotle
Are you giving-up on philosophy? Are you no longer interested in "why" questions about Purpose? Will biological histories, speculating into cosmic eons past, satisfy your mild curiosity about impractical questions of "Life, the Universe and Everything"? If that is the case, my proposal for a scientific "how" answer, about mechanisms, may produce too much information for you. But, I don't claim to have THE answer, merely a path to a solution for age-old mysteries of living & thinking matter. Do you know of a settled physical answer to those questions?
This thread is about Mind questions, but Life questions are similar. Life & Mind are observed facts, still waiting for a How or Why explanation. The science of Biology has lots of hypothetical scenarios about how living creatures evolved from non-living matter, but no consensus answer to "how/why is a coyote alive, but rocks are not". Various Abiogenesis*1 theories about warm pools have been postulated, but life-in-a-vat experiments have never produced any living matter. Some modern biologists admit that spontaneous generation of life was disproven long ago by Pasteur. So, they propose stories about Exo-biology, wherein life on Earth was seeded by organisms on crashing comets. But the look-over-there ploy doesn't answer either of the Origin (genesis) questions. To date, there is no empirical evidence of Life emerging from non-life*2. So, instead of trying to answer such vexing questions, most biologists & psychologists today simply take Life & Mind for granted : "it is what it is". Is that what you are recommending? Do you think evading those questions is scientifically or philosophically productive?
This thread raises questions about the scientific history and philosophical status of Consciousness. Physics is focused primarily on Energy & Causation, not Life or Mind. Do you expect physicists to answer those questions "without postulating anything extra"? My Energy-based proposal above suggested an approach that might be able to show how it could conceivably be possible to derive Life & Mind from Energy --- if you take Energy as a given. The only "extra" is the concept of an integrated wholistic state, that is currently being studied under the heading of Systems & Complexity Theories. It also points toward a Why answer to the Purpose of Life & Mind in a mechanical-material world. But I won't get into that on this thread.
*1. Abiogenesis :
Charles Darwin once theorized that the origin of life — known as abiogenesis — could have happened as precursor compounds came together in "warm little ponds."
https://www.businessinsider.com/life-or ... in-2017-10
*2. How close is science to achieving artificial abiogenesis in the lab?
Abiogenesis is not a theory. It is a fact that some theory must explain. There was a time when earth had no life, and then a time when there was life. That is a fact disputed by nobody: Something caused life to exist where it had not previously existed. The question that gets so much attention is whether that something must have been supernatural. Typically, “abiogenesis” is the preferred label for any explanation that does not presuppose supernatural causation. There are several under consideration, but none is sufficiently supported to have achieved consensus.
https://www.quora.com/How-close-is-scie ... in-the-lab
↪Gnomon
Thanks for your comments. I've had somewhat of a shift in perspective the last couple days. I now think the question you cited --why is this energy conscious -- may not be the most productive. It would be like asking, why are coyotes alive, but rocks are not? The fact is, coyotes are alive and rocks are not. So the answer both for consciousness and living organisms, in my opinion, has to do with the biological history to which both belong. On that understanding, we needn't postulate anything extra or in addition to the physical. — NotAristotle
Are you giving-up on philosophy? Are you no longer interested in "why" questions about Purpose? Will biological histories, speculating into cosmic eons past, satisfy your mild curiosity about impractical questions of "Life, the Universe and Everything"? If that is the case, my proposal for a scientific "how" answer, about mechanisms, may produce too much information for you. But, I don't claim to have THE answer, merely a path to a solution for age-old mysteries of living & thinking matter. Do you know of a settled physical answer to those questions?
This thread is about Mind questions, but Life questions are similar. Life & Mind are observed facts, still waiting for a How or Why explanation. The science of Biology has lots of hypothetical scenarios about how living creatures evolved from non-living matter, but no consensus answer to "how/why is a coyote alive, but rocks are not". Various Abiogenesis*1 theories about warm pools have been postulated, but life-in-a-vat experiments have never produced any living matter. Some modern biologists admit that spontaneous generation of life was disproven long ago by Pasteur. So, they propose stories about Exo-biology, wherein life on Earth was seeded by organisms on crashing comets. But the look-over-there ploy doesn't answer either of the Origin (genesis) questions. To date, there is no empirical evidence of Life emerging from non-life*2. So, instead of trying to answer such vexing questions, most biologists & psychologists today simply take Life & Mind for granted : "it is what it is". Is that what you are recommending? Do you think evading those questions is scientifically or philosophically productive?
This thread raises questions about the scientific history and philosophical status of Consciousness. Physics is focused primarily on Energy & Causation, not Life or Mind. Do you expect physicists to answer those questions "without postulating anything extra"? My Energy-based proposal above suggested an approach that might be able to show how it could conceivably be possible to derive Life & Mind from Energy --- if you take Energy as a given. The only "extra" is the concept of an integrated wholistic state, that is currently being studied under the heading of Systems & Complexity Theories. It also points toward a Why answer to the Purpose of Life & Mind in a mechanical-material world. But I won't get into that on this thread.
*1. Abiogenesis :
Charles Darwin once theorized that the origin of life — known as abiogenesis — could have happened as precursor compounds came together in "warm little ponds."
https://www.businessinsider.com/life-or ... in-2017-10
*2. How close is science to achieving artificial abiogenesis in the lab?
Abiogenesis is not a theory. It is a fact that some theory must explain. There was a time when earth had no life, and then a time when there was life. That is a fact disputed by nobody: Something caused life to exist where it had not previously existed. The question that gets so much attention is whether that something must have been supernatural. Typically, “abiogenesis” is the preferred label for any explanation that does not presuppose supernatural causation. There are several under consideration, but none is sufficiently supported to have achieved consensus.
https://www.quora.com/How-close-is-scie ... in-the-lab
Re: TPF : Hard Problem of Consciousness
The information is basic. Metaphorically. Because what is transformed is the physical into the mental, no? Or is it the physical into the physical? Energy, mind…what do they have in common? Nothing, and that’s the point – one must transform into the other by means of a unity that is the(i)re.. informational content. Information is meaning, but it is also wave functions. A graph of reality? — NotAristotle
Yes. My Enformationism thesis posits that Information/EnFormAction (EFA -- power to transform) is fundamental ; hence is the precursor of Energy, Matter, and Mind. The thesis is an expansion of physicist John A. Wheeler's visionary & controversial concept of "It from Bit" : material things evolve from elementary information. Since he made that connection, scientists have been finding evidence to expand on Einstein's equation of Energy & Mass to include a role for Information*1. My thesis is merely an amateur conjecture, intended only for the purpose of forum discussions about Physics & Metaphysics. I rely on professional scientists to vett the speculations.
We already accept that Energy can transform into Mass (E=MC^2), which is the mathematical measure of Matter. Scientists have also been stumped by the causal gap between initial & final forms of Physical Phase Transitions*2 (e.g. water to ice). So this thesis postulates that physical & biological Evolution is a series of transformations from the First Cause to EFA to Energy to Matter to Mind to Self-Consciousness. "What is transformed" in each instance is Potential into Actual. Hence, all physical & mental forms in the world can be traced back to a single unitary monistic First Cause (???). Some call that Prime Mover "G*D", but in view of the information function, I call it "The Programmer". Below, I have pasted my own Graphs of Reality*3*4.
*1. A proposed experimental test for the mass-energy-information equivalence principle
A recent conjecture, called the mass-energy-information equivalence principle, proposed that information is equivalent to mass and energy and exists as a separate state of matter. . . .
“The implications of this experimental confirmation are huge, as this would affect all branches of physics, expanding our understanding of the universe, without contradicting or violating any of the existing laws of physics,” said Vopson. ___American Institute of Physics
https://pubs.aip.org/aip/sci/article/20 ... ass-energy
*2. PHASE TRANSITION MYSTERY
phase%20transition%20steps.gif
*3. GRAPH OF EVOLUTION AS POTENTIAL TO ACTUAL
Big%20Bang%20Curve.jpg
*4. GRAPH OF INFORMATION EVOLUTION
Cosmic%20Progression%20Graph.jpg
Yes. My Enformationism thesis posits that Information/EnFormAction (EFA -- power to transform) is fundamental ; hence is the precursor of Energy, Matter, and Mind. The thesis is an expansion of physicist John A. Wheeler's visionary & controversial concept of "It from Bit" : material things evolve from elementary information. Since he made that connection, scientists have been finding evidence to expand on Einstein's equation of Energy & Mass to include a role for Information*1. My thesis is merely an amateur conjecture, intended only for the purpose of forum discussions about Physics & Metaphysics. I rely on professional scientists to vett the speculations.
We already accept that Energy can transform into Mass (E=MC^2), which is the mathematical measure of Matter. Scientists have also been stumped by the causal gap between initial & final forms of Physical Phase Transitions*2 (e.g. water to ice). So this thesis postulates that physical & biological Evolution is a series of transformations from the First Cause to EFA to Energy to Matter to Mind to Self-Consciousness. "What is transformed" in each instance is Potential into Actual. Hence, all physical & mental forms in the world can be traced back to a single unitary monistic First Cause (???). Some call that Prime Mover "G*D", but in view of the information function, I call it "The Programmer". Below, I have pasted my own Graphs of Reality*3*4.
*1. A proposed experimental test for the mass-energy-information equivalence principle
A recent conjecture, called the mass-energy-information equivalence principle, proposed that information is equivalent to mass and energy and exists as a separate state of matter. . . .
“The implications of this experimental confirmation are huge, as this would affect all branches of physics, expanding our understanding of the universe, without contradicting or violating any of the existing laws of physics,” said Vopson. ___American Institute of Physics
https://pubs.aip.org/aip/sci/article/20 ... ass-energy
*2. PHASE TRANSITION MYSTERY
phase%20transition%20steps.gif
*3. GRAPH OF EVOLUTION AS POTENTIAL TO ACTUAL
Big%20Bang%20Curve.jpg
*4. GRAPH OF INFORMATION EVOLUTION
Cosmic%20Progression%20Graph.jpg
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests