Interesting point of view. Personally, I see no signs of intentionality or teleology. My impression is that those who believe they see it, are basing it on a retrospective analysis of the chain of events that resulted in our existence. Such an analysis shows that our existence is grossly improbable.
Why should that matter? Improbable things are bound to occur in a vast, old universe.

What do you mean by "the contingency of ontology"? It seems to me that the fundamental ground of existence is metaphysically necessary (whatever it is), and the only contingency in the world is quantum indeterminacy. — Relativist

Ontology is the philosophical & metaphysical science of Being, the Why of Existence. If that question does not interest you, then you do you, and I'll do me. Obviously, Roger Penrose's interest has been piqued by the improbability of our existence. So, he has taken the time to put a number on that near impossibility. If the calculated odds of 10^10^100 to 1 do not sound like a miracle to you, then you may be impervious to philosophical curiosity.

When Richard Feynman became frustrated with quantum physicists dabbling in philosophy, he quoted Mermin : "shut up and calculate". Unsurprisingly, Penrose, a mathematical physicist, did just that. And he concluded, not from a "retrospective analysis", but from analysis of gravitational singularities --- such as the Big Bang --- that our actually existing Cosmos is extremely contingent : an unpredictable Chance event, or a miracle?.

Then he, perhaps jokingly, referred to the Cause of that "grossly improbable" existence as the work of a Cosmic Censor. That reminds me of Darwin's hypothetical Selector who censored (to weed out) the unfit random possibilities put forth by the Evolutionary mechanism, allowing only the fittest to go on to the next stage. You can choose your own analogy for an ontological censor. Most people call it "God". I call it Primordial Cause.

Yes, improbable things do happen in our ancient world. Yesterday, my alma mater's pitiful football team beat the odds to defeat a team supposedly bound for the national playoffs. Yet Penrose's odds do not apply to our space-time world, but to a hypothetical time before time. If such fortuitous events don't matter to you, that's OK with me. Just don't tell me that I shouldn't speculate or conjecture about the original ontological event on a Philosophy Forum. :smile:

PS___ I may address the Intentionality question in another post.

Cosmic censorship hypothesis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_censorship_hypothesis

Thus, no explanatory advantage comes from positing a designer. The odds that there would be a designer who wanted the universe to turn out that way is the same as the odds that chance would produce it. — Clearbury

Actually, that is a key difference between my notion of a cosmic designer and Stephen Meyer's. His creator is the God of Genesis. Mine is not. I have no revelation about what the designer wanted, but I do see signs of intention in such features of the world as Fine Tuning of the original Singularity state. So, lacking any specific information about the designing/programming entity, I simply call it the Cause of our Cosmos.

"Design" is a philosophical inference from data (such as fine tuning) not an observed fact of Physics. Even "Fine-Tuning" is an inference, and "fine" relative to what? So you can feel free to draw your own conclusions from the sparse available evidence. My inference from the contingency of Ontology is that the finite world is not self-existent. Hence, some pre-existing Cause is a logical deduction.

Which is why cosmologists have imagined a variety of non-God alternative Cosmic Causes (e.g. Multiverse ; Many Worlds) for which there is no physical evidence, but only metaphysical inferences. Long story short : I don't think the Cause of the Big Bang "wanted the universe to turn out that way". Instead, the initial conditions of the universe --- like the computer settings of Evolutionary Algorithms*1 --- were intended to be loosely bound and open to a variety of outcomes.

In other words : Free Will (maybe Schopenhauer's Will). So, the intention of the Programmer was to allow the universe to find its own state path through a limited set of possibilities. Hence, homo sapiens was just one instance of a googleplex of possibilities, not the apple of god's eye. :nerd:

*1. An evolutionary algorithm is an evolutionary AI-based computer application that solves problems by employing processes that mimic the behaviors of living things. As such, it uses mechanisms that are typically associated with biological evolution, such as reproduction, mutation and recombination.
https://www.cognizant.com/us/en/glossary/evolutionary-algorithm

Well, now the odds that there would be a designer who wanted the universe to turn out the way it actually did, is 1 in 10 trillion. And that is the same probability that it would just turn out that way by chance. (And again, it does not matter what the odds are, the odds are the same either way). — Clearbury

You seem to interpret the probabilities to be in favor of random chance. But Roger Penrose --- Nobel laureate and certified mathematical genius --- reached a different conclusion. His Cosmic Censorship Hypothesis*2 used the notion of a negative "Censor" (a suppressor of something) instead of a positive "Designer" (creator of something) to characterize the "unimaginably precise fine tuning of the initial conditions of the universe". He showed that there were 10^10^101 possible configurations of mass-energy, but only one actual arrangement (the singularity/seed) that cosmologists have inferred to be the origin of space-time and everything we now experience.

So, "the number that Penrose calculated -- 1 in 10^10^123 -- provided a quantitative measure of the unimaginably precise fine tuning of the initial conditions of the universe". Does that sound like a dumb accident to you, or an intelligent intentional censorship of zillions of possibilities to allow the design of a cosmic system with only a single pattern of 26 cosmic & physical constants? :smile:


*2. According to Roger Penrose's theories, the possible entropy values for the universe at its initial state are considered to be extremely low, bordering on a state of near-perfect order, which is a key component of his "Cosmic Censorship Hypothesis" and the idea of a "low-entropy initial condition" for the universe. ___Google AI overview

You're inviting scorn quoting Discovery Institute entries on this site, most people won't even look at them. I'm wary of them also, even though I agree with ID proponents about the philosophical shortcomings of naturalism and I do look at that site from time to time. I've read the reviews of Signature in the Cell and I don't think it's all bullshit. It's more that I find their reading of the Bible more problematic than the science. — Wayfarer

Oh, yes, scathing scorn is the default philosophical argument for faithful Naturalist/Materialists. And they don't seem to be aware of the deficiencies of their own alternative explanations. You seem to be unafraid to go against the grain of this forum. Why do you even bother? As long as their slings & arrows are made of information & ideas instead of mass & matter, I will survive.

I knew going in that I would get knee-jerk responses to Intelligent Design arguments. But the Discovery Institute is careful to present arguments that could make sense, not just to true-believers, but also to those with some extensive knowledge of modern science. And Meyer's book is exemplary in its appeal to reason instead of faith. There is no "reading of the Bible" in the book. And there is no "come to Jesus" chapter. It's just a thorough presentation of atheist arguments in favor of a random Chance world, along with counter-arguments to refute them.

Atheist Physicist Leonard Susskind --- A Chorus of Big Bangs ---is quoted saying "without any explanation of nature's fine tunings we will be hard pressed to answer the the ID (intelligent design) critics." So, Stephen Meyer has provided a comprehensive summary of the questions to be answered. He also gives several scientists an opportunity to respond, so you can see both sides of the design controversy, presented rationally and without rancor.

I have never bothered to read the various Intelligent Design books, in part because I was raised to believe in the designer they are defending. Now I'm looking for evidence of a different kind of designer : one who designs with intelligent Information instead of thus-saith-the-lord. Causal Information (e.g. physical energy) is the kind of creative Intelligence that my non-religious science-based worldview is grounded upon. So, on that point, I am in agreement with Susskind*1. :smile:



*1. Leonard Susskind said Information is indestructible. What kind of information does he mean?
Information is key in the universe. The universe needs to constantly "compute what the present must be like".
https://www.quora.com/Leonard-Susskind-said-Information-is-indestructible-What-kind-of-information-does-he-mean

I think there is another, quite independent, way of undermining the argument from fine-tuning. — Clearbury

We only have evidence for one Big Bang and a single Singularity. So, are you placing your Faith in an imaginary chance-driven infinite series of bangs (Multiverse) to try-out all those alternative settings? Sounds like a new twist on a medieval Scholastic theory for the same old eternal creator deity, except presumed to be blind, deaf & dumb (e.g. Tychism) instead of cosmically intelligent.

Another enthusiastically postulated alternative explanation to avoid the implications of deliberate (non-chance) tuning of Big Bang settings was the 26 dimensional String Theory, which blossomed into dozens of weird variations, none with any supporting physical evidence. Would you believe that String Theory was motivated, not by scientific inquiry, but by the discomfort of scientists with the design implications of Big Bang fine-tuning? ST was supposed to fix the "flatness problem". Yet, as Meyer said in the book : "both the homogeneity and the flatness problems are only considered problems by those who regarded the existence of fine tuning a problem".

Today, String Theory has been abandoned by most physicists because it was leading them down the rabbit hole. Beside, some of its essential predictions (supersymmetry) have failed to materialize over 20 years. So, the fine-tuning evidence remains a problem for those who prefer an accidental universe. Has your alternative produced any plausible evidence, besides elaborate estimates of cosmic odds? :smile:

The Greek goddess Tyche is the goddess of chance, fortune, and fate. ___Google AI overview

The "flatness problem" in the Big Bang theory refers to the observation that our universe appears to be very close to perfectly flat, which would require incredibly precise initial conditions in the early universe, making it seem like a strange coincidence that the density of matter was just right to achieve this flatness; essentially, if the density had been slightly higher or lower, the universe would be significantly curved instead of flat today. ___Google AI overview

String theory is a complex theory that has been the subject of much debate and skepticism. While it has passed many mathematical and theoretical tests, it has not yet been proven to be the fundamental theory of nature. Some say that string theory has been superseded by other theories, while others say that the theory has been extended but not progressed much in understanding the physical world. ___Google AI overview

It's a pretty carefully put-together OP, but on an unpopular topic. — Wayfarer

The OP was intended to be a book review blog post, for an almost non-existent audience. But at the last minute, I thought, hey why not stir-up some controversy on the Philosophy Forum? At least I get more feedback that way. Unfortunately, most of the feedback is of the Ad Hominem and Straw Man type, as I expected. Consequently, I haven't learned much so far. :smile:

PS___Although I don't agree with Meyer's religion, I find his scientific summaries to be very well done.

Frankly, I can't help what I beleive. I have read enough to know something of what's out there and I was for many years connected to the Theosophical Society in Melbourne, so it's not like I sit with Dawkins.

For me, philosophy is not so much a search for truth or reality but a search for models and ideas that I can justify. Sure it's fraught. But so are most other approaches. — Tom Storm

Sure you can. Adjusting your own beliefs is a primary goal of philosophy. The alternative is Blind Faith in an adopted model devised by others. My goal is to construct a belief model of my own. It's similar to some others, but also different.

In college I looked into Theosophy. Like Masonic philosophy, I can see the appeal of the general worldview. But I don't have any experience of Mysticism, so I can't relate to the ecstatic communion with God.

Dawkins has been described as an "angry atheist", but I found him open-minded enough to admit that Deism was not contrary to Science. :smile:

This sounds defensive. — Tom Storm

My mashup of 180 and T.Storm comments was indeed defensive. He aggressively and dismissivley attacks my posts with implications that my personal ideas are merely parroted religious doctrines. Since I no longer dialog with him, I sometimes get in a Parthian shot in a post to someone else. I apologize if the arrow came too close for comfort. :yikes:

PARTHIAN SHOT

Hmm, the borrowed quote is not quite right. Slumber is fine - do you know how difficult it is to get a good sleep? Dogmatic - no. I have no inflexible commitments to any particular account of reality as explained. — Tom Storm

Sorry! I was not calling you "dogmatic", only hinting that your chosen philosophical perspective might be missing something that is right under your naturalist nose, so to speak. I appreciate the moderation of your posts. Some other methodological Naturalists are so dogmatic that I don't waste my time dialoging with them. :smile:

I don't think I know any materialists. I would avoid the word materialists and swap it with naturalists, as most would now describe themselves - materialism being understood as too reductive. I would probably consider myself a methodological naturalist but not a metaphysical naturalist. I have not ruled out idealism, for instance. — Tom Storm

Sure you do. You just don't like to rudely call a spade a spade. Do you see the deficiencies of metaphysical Materialism (Energy is physical but immaterial), that are glossed-over in sensable
Naturalism?

From a biased perspective of Methodological Naturalism, any super-naturalism would be invisible and unthinkable. Does the supernatural Multiverse hypothesis make any sense from your perspective? Does Plato's Idealism expand your perspective to include General Principles that are known only via rational inference instead of sensory perception? :smile:


Energy is considered a physical quantity that describes the ability to do work, but it is not a material substance; meaning it cannot be physically touched or seen, unlike matter, and is only observed through its effects on objects or systems. ___Google AI overview

As I’ve often said, belief in gods—or in any supernatural guiding principle—is more like a preference, akin to sexuality. — Tom Storm

For philosophers, such as Plato & Kant, General Principles are inferences, not preferences. Whether they are "guiding" may be more like a gender preference. For Gnomon, they are like Laws of Nature : known only by inference from observing the behavior of the dynamic world. :smile:

However, do you agree 'there is a naturalist (or anti/non-supernaruralist) worldview' of the few in contrast to 'the supernaturalist (or anti/non-naturalist) worldview of the many'? — 180 Proof
Yes, I think that's fair. I dislike The Atheist Worldview because it belongs to those ignorant talking points of Muslim and Christian apologists who have to turn the discourse into a team sport. — Tom Storm

Do you agree with 180's slur that anyone who discusses the nature of Nature on a philosophy forum is a "New Age nut", or perhaps a "Muslim and Christian apologist". Is that an Ad Hominem or a Red Herring or some other fallacy, used to avoid grappling with difficult questions? Are Ontology & Cosmology disallowed in your philosophy? Both attempt to view Nature from the outside. :smile:


Cosmology is the study of the universe's nature, including its origin, development, structure, history, and future.. Google AI overview

In philosophy, a "privileged viewpoint" refers to a perspective or standpoint that is considered to provide a more accurate or complete understanding of a situation due to the unique position or experience of the person holding that view, often implying that this perspective is superior to others due to their specific access to knowledge or insights not readily available to others; this concept is closely tied to "epistemic privilege" where someone has privileged access to certain knowledge, like their own thoughts, through introspection. Google AI overview
Note --- Both Muslims and Christians claim to have access to a "privileged viewpoint" on questions of Epistemology and Ontology. Gnomon does not make such a claim.

But for me as a non-scientist, non-philosopher, I do not have the luxury to speculate about the nature of reality. I leave that to the people with qualifications and stratospheric IQ's. My own preference is that the nature of reality is mostly unimportant and has no bearing on how I conduct my life. — Tom Storm

OK. I apologize for disturbing your "dogmatic slumber". :smile:

“I freely confess: it was the objection of David Hume that first, many years ago, interrupted my dogmatic slumber,” says Kant in the Preface to the Prolegomena

A monkey randomly hitting the keys of a typewriter will eventually produce something resembling all the works of Shakespeare.
These points were made by Hume, but I don't see that anything in the opening post challenges them. — Clearbury

The imaginary random monkey Bard seems to be an article of faith for some believers in providential Chance. Meyer's book does address the mathematical implausibility of the typing monkey myth. The OP does address Hume's argument, by noting the modern scientific facts that he was ignorant of. :smile:


Typing monkey would be unable to produce 'Hamlet' within the lifetime of the universe, study finds
https://phys.org/news/2024-10-monkey-unable-hamlet-lifetime-universe.html

Richard Dawkins’s Weasel Program Is Bad in Ways You Never Dreamed
The program “evolves” a string of gibberish letters into a line from Hamlet: “Methinks it is like a weasel.”
https://evolutionnews.org/2016/09/dawkinss_weasel/

Just as you insist on putting atheists into fanatic scientism boxes? ( :wink: that's just a quip) — Tom Storm

A quip from the hip! :joke:
No, I don't put Atheists into "fanatic scientism boxes". That would be Materialists, who imagine that they have a special relationship with Science. I have another empty box, with no label, for Atheists. My box is also empty, and labeled "Agnostic but Inquisitive". :smile:

PS___ Do you know any Atheists or Materialists, who would like to discuss the philosophical ideas in the OP, instead of just putting them in a pigeonhole that can be easily dismissed as bird-sh*t?

Yet, the Atheist worldview seems to focus mainly on Entropy, which promises to de-evolve inevitably toward cold dark heat death. — Gnomon
There is no atheist worldview. This is a talking point from William Lane Craig. — Tom Storm

I assume you are saying that there is no specific Atheist dogma. Likewise, there is no single Theist creed. But I was thinking about a general attitude toward the world, that varies between Theism on one end and Atheism on the other. My personal view is somewhere in the middle. As far as my Christian relatives are concerned, I qualify as a hell-bound Atheist and unrepentant unbeliever. :wink:

Atheist Worldview :
Atheism is a label that describes a person's answer to the question of whether or not they believe in a god, but it doesn't define their worldview. Atheists typically believe that the existence of a god is unlikely and that there is no good reason to believe in one. However, an atheist's worldview can vary widely, and they can hold a variety of beliefs and values. ___Google AI overview
Note --- Based on my philosophical research over many years, I have concluded that the existence of something like a First Cause/Creator is not only "likely", but also logically necessary. And Meyer's book gives some philosophical & scientific reasons for reaching that deduction from available evidence. I assume that W. L. Craig has come to a similar conclusion, but he's also a "Christian apologist", I am not. Also, due to my dabbling in Deism, the Atheists on this forum probably would not accept me into the cool-guy club. :cool:

I'm more interested in the emotional need such cosmology satisfies. It seems to me that some people need answers to certain quesions, others don't. I often wonder why that is.
Does the argument from contingency interest you too? — Tom Storm

Sounds like you are trying to put me in a fervent religious nut box. But I am by nature and by nurture a Stoic dispassionate person. So, I don't have any visceral "need" for a slam-dunk cosmology or authoritative assurances of answers to vexing questions. My intellectual rejection of the biblical basis of my childhood religion was not accompanied by strong emotions. And yet, I had been told by my religious authorities that eternal Hell was the destination for unbelievers. So, it took a while to get over that uncertainty about my eternal destiny. But I no longer worry about such mythical maybes. Do you have some "emotional need" that motivates you to post on a philosophy forum? Apparently, I do have some intellectual need to ask philosophical questions. Do you? :nerd:

"Argument from contingency" ? No, I've never given that Scholastic reasoning much thought. But the scientific Big Bang theory portrays our space-time world as Contingent (e.g. not eternal): hence without a plausible First Cause, the Cosmos is open-ended and un-defined. Is that OK for you? Apparently, some scientists are bothered by that discrepancy, so they make up just-so stories about 26-dimensional String Worlds, Multiverses, Parallel Universes, and Many Worlds, none of which is scientifically falsifiable. Hence, no more valid than any God postulate. :smile:

The “Argument from Contingency” examines how every being must be either necessary or contingent. Since not every being can be contingent, it follow that there must be a necessary being upon which all things depend. This being is God.
https://www.qcc.cuny.edu/socialSciences/ppecorino/INTRO_TEXT/Chapter%203%20Religion/Cosmological.htm

I have even developed a science-based personal worldview that qualifies as an "-ism" (philosophical system). — Gnomon
Why have you found it important to do this? — Tom Storm

I explain the whys & wherefores in great detail in the Enformationism thesis and blog. As the name implies, it is based on the expanding role of Information in 21st century science, and has nothing to do with religious beliefs. Yet, the Materialist worldview seems to focus mainly on Entropy, which promises to de-evolve inevitably toward cold dark heat death. That negative attitude is contrary to the positive outlook of some religions, which are viewed as mawkishly optimistic, and needs to be suppressed by any means necessary.

However, my philosophical perspective centers on Energy (negentropy ; EnFormAction) as the causal & organizing force behind the progressive stages of evolution that modern science has discovered since the Big Bang creation event. The basic facts are well established, but the interpretation of those data points remains to be worked-out, not by pragmatic scientists, but by theoretical philosophers.

Why is it important? Ask Plato and Aristotle why they produced non-religious theories that have influenced the world for 1500 years. Like them, I remain Agnostic about the pre-bang source of Natural Laws (Logos) and of cosmic causation (First Cause). I don't expect salvation from the Entropic Reaper. But I have nothing better to do with my retirement time than to dabble in Ontological & Epistemological philosophy. :smile:

Enformationism :

This website is a place to explore the meaning and ramifications of a new philosophical and scientific hypothesis that I have chosen to call Enformationism. The term spelled with an "I" had already been used elsewhere in various contexts and meanings, so I looked for an alternative name. Since the new scientific term Enformy was already in use, with a meaning similar to what I had in mind, I simply chose to change the spelling of my proposed coinage.

This informal thesis does not present any new scientific evidence, or novel philosophical analysis. It merely suggests a new perspective on an old enigma : what is reality? The so-called “Information Age” that began in the 20th century, has now come of age in the 21st century. So I have turned to the cutting-edge Information Sciences in an attempt to formulate my own personal answer to the perennial puzzles of Ontology, the science of Existence.

I am neither a scientist, nor a philosopher, so the arguments herein carry no more authority or expertise than those of anyone else with an interest in such impractical musings. This is intended to be an open-ended thread, because it’s a relatively new and unproven concept, and because the ideas presented here are merely a superficial snapshot of what promises to be a whole new way of understanding the world : philosophically, scientifically, and religiously.
https://enformationism.info/enformationism.info/page2%20Welcome.html

It often feels to me that these kinds of arguments come from former devout Muslim or Christians who in the deconstruction of their faith need to salvage some notions of teleological purpose, but frame them in a scientific language to, perhaps, feel less embarrassed about the conclusion. — Tom Storm

The Intelligent Design movement did originate as a response to the aggressive New Atheists in the late 20th century. And their ID arguments were directed mainly at believers who might be swayed by the authority of well-known scientists. But in the intervening years, think-tank organizations such as the Discovery Institute have recruited practicing scientists who can reconcile scientific "facts" with their religious beliefs. Stephen Meyer is one of those experts, and he is not in the least "embarassed" by his controversial conclusions.

Consequently, they can go toe-to-toe and fact-to-fact with the New Atheists, without resorting to "thus saith the lord" assertions. So, I was impressed by Meyers' scientific acumen and his ability to construct plausible philosophical arguments from known scientific facts. However, he makes no attempt to convince the reader of any particular religious creed. Besides, I long ago concluded that the Christian Bible, which was the sole authority for my childhood religion, is not the revealed Word of God, but the tribal myths of priests. So, while I respect the book for its literary importance, I don't accept its jurisdiction in matters of scientific or historical fact.

Nevertheless, I have independently reached the conclusion that the universe, as depicted by a broad array of scientific facts, shows signs of Teleological Evolution (e.g Anthropic principle). But I doubt that the Mind behind the design is the kind of God-king depicted in the Judeo-Christian scriptures. So, while I practice no religion, and remain Agnostic about the implicit designer/programmer, for my philosophical purposes I take Teleology seriously. I have even developed a science-based personal worldview that qualifies as an "-ism" (philosophical system).

My personal "-ism" has been repeatedly attacked by the trolls on this forum, apparently because they feel the need to "salvage" their own "devout" Atheistic metaphysical beliefs. Hence, they typically resort to Ad Hominem and Straw Man arguments instead of scientific or philosophical reasoning. Yet, I posted this thread with the hope that such a hot topic can be discussed calmly and reasonably and philosophically. This assumes that few of us are experts in Physics or Biology or Cosmology. So, we need to remain humble enough to avoid haughty or supercilious attitudes.

Therefore, the topic to be addressed is not Christianity or Islam or Jehovah or Allah, but the notion of trial & error Evolutionary Creation of the current cosmos over eons from law-like Initial Conditions as discovered by Astronomers, not Astrologers. It's a modern concept that was unknown to the writers of ancient scriptures. But 1500 years ago, Greek philosophers postulated the necessity for philosophical principles, such as Logos or First Cause, long prior to our modern notions of Initial Conditions or Big Bang beginning. Can we treat this hot topic, not as a hot potato, but as a legitimate philosophical conundrum? :smile:

So, is it the case that it is just the ultra-wealthy and elite supporting their own candidates? What are your thoughts on the matter of the medium being dominated by conservatives more-so than democrats, and what does this actually mean about having their talking-points heard more than one or the other? — Shawn

Historically, politics has been reserved by and for the rich & powerful, leaving the masses (hoi polloi) to meekly accept whatever policies are decided at the top. Athens had a brief experiment with Democracy, but only for a minority group of nobles & landowners. Even when the unwashed masses were excluded, Plato was skeptical & sarcastic of such a political mechanism : "Democracy... is a charming form of government, full of variety and disorder; and dispensing a sort of equality to equals and unequals alike". But he later came to view popular rule as inherently "corrupt and unjust"*1 ; hence his imaginary ideal leader was a Philosopher King. Unfortunately, such rational, ethical, and egalitarian leaders have proven to be rare among the opposing interest groups of human politics.

Modern Democracy has been experimenting with allowing the unruly & irrational & gullible mobs of the masses to have a vote in state policy. But even where universal education is established, the majority of self-interested voters have proven to be no more rational & philosophical than the ego-centric minority of ambitious oligarchs. And both groups are easily swayed by clever con-men, who learn what the various vested interests want to hear, and feed their heart's desires back to them in the form of simplistic myths (MAGA), and by making controversial & ambiguous statements that the mass media feel compelled to cover. He dominates unpaid media exposure by playing to their bias toward covering fears and faith. :smile:


*1. What did Plato say about democracy?
At the death of Socrates, Plato concluded that democracy was a corrupt and unjust form of government. He left Athens and traveled for a few years before returning in 387 B.C. to establish a school of philosophy.
https://teachdemocracy.org/online-lessons/bill-of-rights-in-action/bria-19-4-c

↪Gnomon
I read Federico Faggin's 'Silicon' last year, and have started his 'Irreducible'. This last one is difficult material and there's a lot about it I don't understand, but there are some elements beginning to crystallise. — Wayfarer

Since you have already started, maybe I should leave it to you to digest the book into its fundamental elements, and then post your understanding on the forum, for those of us less erudite.

Ancient Atomism postulated that everything in the world can be reduced down to a fundamental/elemental particle of matter. Yet modern Quantum Theory assumed that everything could be reduced down to an irreducible mathematical measurement (quantum)*1 : e.g. a bit of energy (photon)*2. But Planck attempted to define mathematically the smallest "irreducible" units on the quantum scale*3. The quote below says that the lowest limit of measurement is mental not material.

So it shouldn't be surprising that scientists have not been able to "touch bottom" in the ocean of matter. Eventually, they temporarily gave up on the search for an irreducible particle of matter, and instead postulated the Quantum Field as the fundamental element of reality --- so they could "shut up and calculate". Ironically, that "field" is a mathematical construct, not a material object, and the dimensionless "points" are imaginary locations in space, with no material extension --- nothing physical to measure; only metaphysical math.

Since the Irreducible "Atom" of physics turns out to be Immaterial, it's understandable that such ghostly concepts are difficult to understand, and to translate into our materialistic language*4. :smile:


*1. What is a Quantum? :
In physics, a quantum is the minimum amount of any physical entity involved in an interaction. Quantum is a discrete quantity of energy proportional in magnitude to the frequency of the radiation it represents. ___Wikipedia

*2. Photons are light quanta that do not have mass or a size because they are neither a wave nor a particle, but both. However, the size of a photon perpendicular to its velocity is constant and is expected to be as small as 10−20 meters. {Meters??? 65 feet!}
___Google AI overview

*3. Is there anything smaller than the Planck scale? :
It is not impossible for anything to be smaller than the Planck length. It is impossible for the laws of physics as we understand them today to describe anything smaller than the Planck length. That is a limit of our ignorance, not a limit of the Universe.
https://www.quora.com/Is-there-anything-smaller-than-a-Planck-length-1

*4. Irreducible Mind :
Current mainstream opinion in psychology, neuroscience, and philosophy of mind holds that all aspects of human mind and consciousness are generated by physical processes occurring in brains. Views of this sort have dominated recent scholarly publication. The present volume, however, demonstrates empirically that this reductive materialism is not only incomplete but false. The authors systematically marshal evidence for a variety of psychological phenomena that are extremely difficult, and in some cases clearly impossible, to account for in conventional physicalist terms.
___Amazon Books

Folllowing this and his awakening, he rejected scientific materialism as an inadequate foundation for exploring and understanding the nature of consciousness, which has significance for both AI and the relationship of the quantum and classical physical domains. In the new book he takes the next step and attempts to articulate a fully-formed idealist philosophy of quantum and classical physics, consciousness, computers and meaning - technically known as the whole enchilada. — Wayfarer

I've never had anything close to an "awakening" or "mystical experience", but like Faggin, I did have a sudden insight --- upon reading a quantum physicist's unexpected conclusion, while trying to make sense of enigmatic sub-atomic reality --- into the Life & Mind problem of modern physical science and metaphysical philosophy. Speaking of aethereal Photons and other Leptons, he concluded, "it's all information". To which I might add : "all the way down". Or as you said : "the whole {holistic} enchilada".

After further investigation, my subsequent thesis, Enformationism, is a mashup of Materialism and Idealism, based on Einstein's equation of Matter & Energy, and later conclusions of physicists that Energy is a physical form of Causal Information : what I call Entention. Physicists can't say what Energy is in material terms, but only what it does : Cause change (action) in the material world. For sentient humans, Information is whatever causes a change in their mental state : e.g. Knowledge.

Although Isaac Newton assumed that God was the ultimate cause of all change, his Classical Physics was generally compatible with a materialistic worldview. But Quantum Physics introduced some concepts, such as Fields and Entanglement, that don't fit the materialist model. Nevertheless, I try to avoid the trap of Quantum Mysticism, by assuming that both Materialism and Idealism are true, in their appropriate contexts. That's what I call my BothAnd philosophy. Why can't I have it both ways? :smile:


"Driven to understand consciousness, Faggin realized that “if we hypothesized that consciousness and free will are irreducible properties of nature, the scientific vision and narrative of reality would radically change and legitimize a profound spirituality, with unexpected consequences for both science and spirituality.”
____Amazon review of Irreducible
In my own thesis, all matter & mind in the world reduces down to causal EnFormAction (power to cause changes in form), as the precursor to physical Energy and to mental Information (meaning). Ultimately, fundamental EFA might be related to what we call Free Will or Schopenhauer's Will as the causal force in the world. My motivation for the thesis was mainly scientific and philosophical, but I suppose you could also call it "spirituality" by contrast with monistic materiality.

Mostly? :yikes: — Wayfarer

Ha! You caught my tongue-in-cheek implication that the Cosmos might consist of something other than, or in addition to, Matter & Energy. I think both are forms of Causal Information : EnFormAction. :joke:

As far as panpsychism is concerned - please have a read of the post I entered in the Quantum Classical thread about Federico Faggin. I'm just dipping my toe in those particular waters, but it's a very different conception of panpsychism, based on the conjecture that consciousness is a quantum field state, not an attribute of what we understand as matter. Perhaps the universe is part of the fabric of consciousness. — Wayfarer

Panpsychism*1 [panP] seems to be a popular --- among theoretical scientists --- post-relativity and post-quantum alternative to traditional simplistic Materialism. The ancient form of [panP] may have been a primitive philosophical attempt to understand Animation (Vital Energy), and the inexplicable behavior of iron & magnets*2. But this modern resurrection of an outdated worldview seems to be a response to such anomalies as the Observer Effect in quantum experiments*3.

My own update is what I call Enformationism*4, which you might say, jumbles together concepts of Panpsychism (all mind) with PanDeism (all god), and with modern Information Field theory (all ratio/logic/relationship). A significant portion of my amateur philosophical/science thesis is based on the universality & ubiquity of the hypothetical (immaterial) Quantum Field, which seems to be nothing but mathematical ratios (logic) and relationships (meaning). Would it be worth my while to read the Faggin book? :nerd:



*1. What is the panpsychism theory?
Panpsychism is the view that all things have a mind or a mind-like quality.
https://iep.utm.edu/panpsych/

*2. Yes, panpsychism is an ancient philosophical concept that originated with pre-Socratic thinkers. It's the idea that all things have a mind or mind-like quality, and that the mind is a fundamental aspect of existence. . . . . Panpsychism was a key part of the cosmology that led to the development of philosophy.
___Google AI overview

*3. Quantum panpsychism is a theory that combines panpsychism with quantum mechanics to explain consciousness and reality.
___Google AI overview

*4. Quantum Surreality :
So if your curiosity gets the better of you, and you start to follow the rabbit down the hole to Wonderland, be prepared to develop your own defenses against the perplexity of paradox. Because, as Alice observed, "it just keeps getting curiouser and curiouser". Quantum Theory began as a serious scientific investigation into physical reality. But it opened Pandora's box, for religious and philosophical crackpots, when word got out that sub-atomic physics was essentially the same thing as metaphysics. This thesis will attempt to substantiate that controversial assertion, but not necessarily the imaginative inferences drawn from it.
https://enformationism.info/enformationism.info/page7.html

Philosophically, the key term is 'prior to'. There is temporal priority, coming first in a sequence of events. But then, there's also ontological priority, of what is more fundamental as matter of principle. — Wayfarer

Our Cosmos, at least since the Big Bang, appears to consist mostly of Matter & Energy : Temporal Priority. But some of that gravitationally-influential matter/energy now seems to be missing in action : Dark Energy & Dark Matter. And the BB theory has no explanation for the original source from which the matter/energy emerged into space-time : Ontological Priority. So, which came first : the Ontological Chicken or the Epistemological Egg? :wink:

"Some scientists and philosophers believe that consciousness is a fundamental aspect of reality, and that the mind is a fundamental quality of the universe."
___Google AI overview

Is Consciousness Part of the Fabric of the Universe?
A theory called panpsychism proposes that consciousness is a fundamental aspect of reality . . . .
The concept proposes that consciousness is a fundamental aspect of reality, like mass or electrical charge.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-consciousness-part-of-the-fabric-of-the-universe1/

If it was either of the options you gave, it would be part of the Mind element. Now what I call the reputational self is internal and is about how you see yourself, and how you perceive (ie estimate, hypothesize) that others see you. I think those two things are closely linked and can be confused or conflated by the reputational self. And I mean everyone's reputational self, not just Trump's. The reputational self serves a function analogous to the public relations department of a large organization. Its job is to represent 'this brain and this body' to others. And we can all start to believe our own publicity. — GrahamJ

Some years ago, I worked with a woman who had a shapeless obese body, but a pretty face. She would take selfies that carefully excluded the body. I suppose the cropped pictures agreed with her "representational self".

Trump's political appearances seem to use a similar strategy to tobacco companies, promoting the myth instead of the reality. His "genius" is not in business, but in persona public relations. So, the voting public elected a presidential persona. :smile:


A persona is a public image of someone's personality, or the social role they adopt. It can also refer to a strategic mask of identity that someone uses in public.
___Google AI overview

The New York Times Confirms Trump Is a Genius :
contrasting the Trump myth with the reality embedded in the tax returns. . . . .
— Trump is a phony, who really is not that great at business after all. . . . .
“Trump’s image is a sham”
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/09/29/the-new-york-times-confirms-trump-is-a-genius-422837

Trump Company public relations reputation :
The Trump Organization, the company led by former President Trump and his family, finished last in an Axios Harris survey of brand reputations for the second year in a row.
https://thehill.com/business/4016738-trump-organization-finishes-last-in-brand-reputation-survey-for-second-straight-year/

Three stages of self - Damasio — Gnomon
Thanks for the link. Note that the figure you provided is not Damasio's, it's one of the other figures from the linked article. — T Clark

Sorry. Under the heading of "Three stages of self - Damasio" I picked the one that looked most like a diagram instead of text-based tables. :yikes:

Diagram : Structure of the self. — Gnomon
That is a diagram of something else, but it is good to see reputation being mentioned. (I might say more later.) — GrahamJ

Here's a Diagram of the Self as proposed by Damasio --- also from ResearchGate. It's much more complex than the previous image, but may be more like what you had in mind. Click or Double-click the image to enlarge.

Did you look at the You Tube video? How do you think the Body Transfer Illusion is related to the Self Concept?

How would you interpret the Reputation element of the diagram? Does it refer to how a person sees himself, or to how the person thinks others see himself? This might be relevant to President Trump. :smile:

Three stages of self - Damasio
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Three-stages-of-self-Damasio-17_fig3_282489228

It would be nice to have some kind of diagram where Damasio's and Seth's ideas appeared fairly close together, because they are of the same general type, — GrahamJ

FWIW, this simple diagram is from Research Gate*1, and not directly related to Damasio or Seth. It does show Mind & Body as separate categories (boxes) within the general concept of subjective Self.

The Self-Concept is an object of internally-directed conscious attention, not an external material object as represented subjectively by the brain. To represent Introspection you can rotate the externally oriented "I" Arrow to point toward either Mind or Body.

Everything within the dashed circle is imaginary. Ironically, the material body can be seen as external to the self, or vice-versa, as in the Body Transfer Illusion*2. I suppose the Conscious Observer is the mysterious Me*3 in the middle. :nerd:


Diagram : Structure of the self.

*1. ResearchGate is a European commercial social networking site for scientists and researchers to share papers, ask and answer questions, and find collaborators.
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Shanyang-Zhao/publication/278066526/figure/fig1/AS:391771524747264@1470417018018/Structure-of-the-self.png

*2. Body Transfer Illusion :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_transfer_illusion
You Tube : https://youtu.be/sxwn1w7MJvk?si=tsKNydlCLjFNkRXt

*3. Self/Soul :
The brain can create the image of a fictional person (the Self) to represent its own perspective in dealings with other things and persons.
This imaginary Me is a low-resolution construct abstracted from the complex web of inter-relationships that actually form the human body, brain, mind, DNA, and social networks in the context of a vast universe.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page18.html

As rationality increases through iterated game-theoretic strategies, then a desire to dominate the market landscape forces companies to cooperate and form syndicalist tendencies.
Would you agree with this? — Shawn

No. But I haven't make a study of economics beyond 101 courses in college. Nevertheless, as a philosophical by-stander and on-looker in the "game" here are a few thoughts.

Egalitarian Game Theory*1 is a nice neat mathematical concept, but it gets muddled in the real world, where con-men (T***p) take advantage of other people's self-interest by selling them a fantasy. Game Theory seems to be a new name for Adam Smith's "Invisible Hand"*2. And in practice, takes the form of Trickle Down Economics*3, where the oceanic winners are the Oligarchs and the lone-drop losers are the Workers. Rationality may increase, due to mathematical/computer tools, but Emotionally, the poor keep getting poorer*4, or struggle to stay ahead of the rising cost of "gettin' by". I assume that Game Theory was not supposed to turn-out this way. So what went wrong? :cool:

*1. "Egalitarian game theory is a solution concept in cooperative game theory that aims to distribute payoffs equally among players."
___Google AI overview

*2. "The invisible hand is a metaphor in economics that describes how the self-interest of individuals can lead to positive outcomes for the economy as a whole. The term was coined by Scottish economist and moral philosopher Adam Smith."
___Google AI overview

*3. "Trickle-down economics is the concept that government economic policies that disproportionately favor the upper tier of the economic spectrum (wealthy individuals and large corporations) eventually benefit the economy as a whole."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickle-down_economics

*4. Winners & Losers in the economic game :

"Something from nothing" at the start of the universe is problem inherent in our understanding of linear time, whether you agree with Berkelean idealism or not. Theists often cite it as proof of god, because it seems impossible and attributing the impossible to god makes sense to them. But while they're wrong about it proving god, you can't use it to disprove god either. The universe's beginning simply doesn't make sense to our normal way of thinking, we can only conclude that it doesn't work like the rest of time, not whether there could or couldn't be a god involved. — Paul

The Big Bang hypothesis didn't "make sense" to atheistic naturalists, back in the early 20th century. For example, Einstein included a dimensionless "cosmological constant"*1 in his theory of relativity, specifically to force the numbers to describe the static eternal universe, that he believed was necessary. He later abandoned that attempt to make the numbers "make sense", after Hubble provided evidence that the universe was not static, but expanding, and not eternal, but temporal. Also, the origin of that expansion has been calculated as a dimensionless-spaceless-timeless-matterless Singularity, from which space-time-matter-energy suddenly appeared . . . . much to the surprise and chagrin of those who assumed the universe was eternal & self-existent & godless.

Since, then several scientists & philosophers have searched for some other Ontological Necessity*2 that is not traditionally theistic. Yet, our materialistic "normal way of thinking" may not be able to "make sense" of anything (being or entity) immaterial & preternatural. So, the non-empirical (mythical) notions of eternal Multiverse and infinite Many Worlds have been postulated as explanations of our temporal & spatial existence, that make more sense than the equally non-empirical Theistic theories of traditional religions. Unfortunately, they "make sense" only if you accept metaphysical Materialism & Naturalism as the axiom of your belief system. But they are just as un-provable as any god-hypothesis. :smile:


*1. The "Einstein cosmological constant" refers to a term added by Albert Einstein to his theory of general relativity, represented by the Greek letter "lambda" (Λ), which was initially introduced to force a static universe model by counteracting gravity with a repulsive force, but later considered by Einstein as his "biggest blunder" when evidence emerged showing the universe is expanding.
___Google AI overview

*2. Ontological Necessity :
René Descartes also defended a similar argument in the 17th century. Descartes compared the ontological argument to a geometric demonstration, arguing that necessary existence is as obvious as the fact that a triangle has angles that equal two right angles.
___Google AI overview

No, I think this is mistaken. I believe we are living in an age of syndicalism. — Shawn

I assume Syndicalism is what you think should be happening. I agree with that sentiment. But I see no evidence that it is actually happening in the US. Some American companies refer to their employees as "associates", implying that they have a stake in the profits. But, I doubt that the employees are actually unionized, or have ownership, in any practical sense.

Back in the 1950s, my father was a blue-collar union man in a steel mill. So he made decent wages and livable benefits, compared to non-union jobs. But such unionized labor has since vanished, as factories in the US have closed and gone to non-union semi-socialist China.

I've long thought that the antagonistic employer/worker relationship in unionized companies was unhealthy. So, some form of worker ownership would be preferable. A few white-collar companies seem to provide some financial stake in the company, but not many blue-collar jobs, as far as I can see.

My own state has absorbed many formerly unionized assembly-line jobs from Detroit, to staff the non-union auto factories. Big fast-growing companies, like Amazon, hire lots of local people, specifically because they are not unionized. And most attempts to unionize typically fail. So, no, I don't see any trend toward Syndicalization in the US. Is it happening in other countries? :smile:


Syndicalism : a movement for transferring the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution to workers' unions.
___Oxford dictionary

Anyway, I believe that cooperation leads to better results, and with the bloated concern with rational self-interest and egotism and deterrence, we are living in a fearful and less efficient state than possible. — Shawn

Is that statement of belief a reaction to the sad state of American politics, in which top-down competitive Capitalism is winning the "game" against bottom-up Cooperative Socialism? The 18th century revolution against Monarchy allowed a few decades of Republican rule by the common people. But now it seems that the republic itself is being ruled by egotistical Oligarchs --- with their trickle-down economics --- and may be trending back towards a Monarchy, with one Oligarch to rule them all. The few decades of cooperative democracy seems to be a mere blip on the age-old historical chart of world economy, no? :smile:

First Law of Economics :
“The rich get richer and the poor get poorer” is a well-known aphorism that describes the tendency of the wealthy to accumulate more wealth and economic success over time, while the poor fall behind. It can also be used to describe the widening gap in income between the rich and the poor.
___Google AI overview

Aristotle, Plato, Lao Tzu, and Epicurus were "mainly story-telling & myth-making?" — T Clark

I did not mean that characterization to be derogatory, but merely descriptive. As I said above, I have no formal education in Philosophy, and my background is more in Science. So, the layman's opinion you are questioning covers several thousand years of philosophizing. It's just my general impression of a gradual trend from mytho-poetic Hindu, Chinese, Pre-Socratic-Greek and Hebrew wisdom literature, to modern analytical & science-based philosophizing. Nietzsche may be a throwback to the mythopoetic style in his Also Sprach Zarathustra.

Does the Lao Tse excerpt below sound more like ancient mythical poetry or like modern analytical philosophy to you? I could say that Plato & Aristotle were transitional, but the change from Classical to Modern took 2000 years, with a side-track into doctrinal Theology. Do you see the trend in Writing Styles I was referring to? :smile:

What was Lao Tzu's philosophy? :
He advocated a deep, connective empathy between people as the means to peace and harmony and claimed that such empathy was possible through recognition of the cosmic force of the Tao which had created all things, bound all things, moved all things, and finally loosed all things back into their original state.
https://www.worldhistory.org/Lao-Tzu/

Tao te Ching
The Way - cannot be told.
The Name - cannot be named.
The nameless is the Way of Heaven and Earth.
The named is Matrix of the Myriad Creatures.
Eliminate desire to find the Way.
Embrace desire to know the Creature.
The two are identical,
But differ in name as they arise.
Identical they are called mysterious,
Mystery on mystery,
The gate of many secrets.
https://www.poetryintranslation.com/PITBR/Chinese/TaoTeChing.php#anchor_Toc42848702

it's all "apologetics" for one worldview or another. :smile:

@Gnomon. And this is the point I want to explore. Is there a relation between writing style and worldview/Apologetics?

To elucidate,,,,,politicians when they don't believe what they are saying, overtalk,obfuscate and divert from obvious truths. Is anybody brave enough to say this of Hegel and Kant etc al??? — Swanty

Sorry, I'm not qualified to offer an opinion. I have no formal training in philosophy, and I've never read any Kant or Hegel, except in Wikipedia and popular books. There are others on the forum who might chime in. :smile:

PS___ I did try to read Foucault years ago. But his run-on sentences, some a hundred words long, left me wondering "what . . . . ?".

So what is your opinion,are dialectical or enycopediac philosophers suspect,and guilty of Apologetics? — Swanty

Ancient philosophy was mainly story-telling & myth-making : what we now call Religion. But modern philosophy --- since the Enlightenment's rational-turn --- has become an amalgamation of abstract reasoning (logic) and metaphorical story-telling (meaning). You can take your pick of various writing styles on this forum. But it's all "apologetics" for one worldview or another. :smile:

I don't know if the absence of there being anything to perceive would be necessarily a hindrance for God, although there are tropes that the reason anything exists at all, was because He experienced a sense of incompleteness without there being something other than Him to contemplate. — Wayfarer

If G*D is sentient, in a manner similar to human perception, then a feeling of incompleteness might be imputed. But, if G*D/Nature is purely rational, Spock-like, then emotions & feelings may not be included in its super-natural constitution. These are big "ifs" though, and we will never have enough evidence to allow a conclusive "then".

However, why would an eternal boundless necessary Being create just one fleeting instance of temporal existence? For example, a modern non-theistic conjecture beyond the scope of real-world evidence is the Multiverse hypothesis. A random roiling of matter/energy that accidentally produces a self-sustaining world every few uber-zillion Earth-years. In that case, there is no "why?"

Yet, if we can equate an eternal world-creating ALL with traditional notions of Deity, then perhaps G*D occupies and amuses He/rself with the hobby of creating temporary universes with various physical settings in anticipation of learning how each 'verse will work out. That would give God something to Perceive, to Contemplate, and to have something like parental feelings for. Hence, not a "Mind Alone". You could guess that G*D passes the timelessness, before & after space-time, with unlimited Creativity*1.

Is that speculative scenario any less plausible than any other conjectures into the unknown? It presumes that the Creator-mind must have at least the Potential for every Actual feature of He/r creations. :smile:


*1. Creativity : the use of the imagination or original ideas, especially in the production of an artistic work. ___Oxford dictionary

↪I like sushi
Well, according to Wikipedia, authority on all knowledge :D --
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristotle — Moliere

FWIW here's what artificial intelligence says :

"Aristotle was influenced by the Eleusinian Mysteries, a secret religious festival that took place in ancient Greece and was central to the development of much of Western civilization"
___Google AI overview

I think a lot of interest in the Dunning Kruger effect comes from pride. A lot of people think, "Ha ha, stupid people are so stupid that they don't know how stupid they are." I would think that if you were actually smart and you realized how dumb other people were, then you'd feel sad, because it would severely limit all your interactions with them. Or, in the case of a malicious smart person, I suppose he could feel greed, because he would realize that he has the opportunity to manipulate the stupid people. In this case, he might laugh at the stupid people, but he'd probably keep his laughter to himself, or else the people would be harder to manipulate. — Brendan Golledge

One troll on the TPF forum likes to uses "Dunning-Kruger" as a code word to call his interlocutor "stupid" without using a forum-forbidden word. He thinks he's clever for sneaking in an ad hominem instead of actually making a philosophical counter argument. Have you experienced that illicit usage of a technical term? Is that why you started this thread? :smile:

Do you think such a mystical worldview is not characteristic of Aristotle's more mundane view? — Gnomon
Possibly. I am curious if anyone knows of any evidence. — I like sushi

I get the impression that you would prefer to find evidence that Aristotle was not a mystic. Is that because you think of him as the original empirical scientist? :smile:


Is Aristotle the father of science?
Aristotle was considered to be the father of modern science because he was the father of the scientific method. He was the pioneer of the development of the scientific method, which is the hallmark of the modern science. Aristotle was the first to conduct empirical studies, which is what modern science is based on.
https://homework.study.com/explanation/why-is-aristotle-considered-the-father-of-modern-science.html

Is the forum biased toward metaphysical Materialism by its common language? — Gnomon

Philosophy Now magazine (Oct-Nov 2024) has an article somewhat related to the Metaphorical Language problem in technical philosophical discussions : Naturalized Metaphysics, as contrasted with Classical Metaphysics, which I take to refer primarily to 5th century BC Greek philosophy. The author presents his distinction in terms of Left vs Right Brain functions. Since Plato & Aristotle had no modern technology to provide empirical facts, most of their assertions tend to be drawn from a broad holistic attention (right) instead of the narrow analytical focus (left) of modern science. :smile:

Quotes from the article :
"Take language, for example. It can be used in a more precise and technical manner . . . or it can be used in a more ambiguous, metaphorical, and open way."

".. . abstract uses of language make sense to us only within the more general context of metaphorical language that links abstract concepts to the peculiarities of our bodies and their environments."

Speaking of brain hemispheres : "The right is, generally speaking, the hemisphere that evolved to understand . . . . The left hemisphere is more a sort of servant, useful for specific tasks, but unable to comprehend the whole."
Note --- Hume opined that "“Reason is, and ought only to be, the slave of the passions”

Do you have any evidence to suggest that Aristotle went through the Eleusinian Mystery ceremonies? — I like sushi

Participants in the rites were supposed to be rewarded with some form of eternal life or reincarnation. Do you think such a mystical worldview is not characteristic of Aristotle's more mundane view? As the note below indicates, Ari had an ambiguous attitude toward such spiritualistic beliefs. For him, the Soul was not a separate thing that could animate several bodies, or walk around as a ghost. As I understand, his "Soul" was more like our modern notion of "Life" : an activity, not a thing. :smile:


Aristotle did not believe in the reincarnation of the soul, but he did believe in the immortality of the soul. Aristotle's theory of the soul was that the soul was a capacity, not a substance, and that it animated the body, allowing a person to be alive and to perform activities. He believed that the soul did not exist independently of the body, and that a person was more closely identified with their body than their soul.
___Google AI overview

Economics can only be called a science with the fundamental underlying feature of game theory, explaining it. . . . . why economics is in a dismal state — Shawn

My economics text in college was The New World of Economics by Mckenzie & Tullock. They didn't define Economics explicitly in terms of Game Theory, but it was based on the "new work" in the 1960-70s, including Public Choice Theory.

My marginal note in the book was : "When the numbers (values) are removed from the mathematically derived diagrams, what is left is a pure logic diagram {e.g. Normal or Bell curve} showing abstract relationships. From this we can derive general principles which can be applied to specific cases and the numbers plugged back in."

Ironically --- considering the state of 2024 American politics --- the authors concluded, in the chapter on presidential elections, that "In a two-party system, the intelligent politician attempts to find the middle of the distribution". But, in the years since the book was written, politics and economics seems to have strayed from that rationale of moderation, toward more extreme positions.

Today, Liberals & Conservatives don't pander to middling moderates, but to true believers in those polar opposite worldviews. This has pushed both politics, and economics in general, toward "take no prisoners" & "winner take all" policies. One side will invest in "dirty" but doable Fracking, to the exclusion of "clean" power, while the other will push technologies that are not ready for prime time. Fortunately, the US has enough inertia & momentum to do both, despite the divided politics.

Economics was originally called the "dismal science" because of the no-win conclusions of Malthusian bottom-line production predictions. But today, the gloomy outlook may be more due to the top-down political pressures, which may overwork the goose-that-lays-the-golden-eggs, or strangle her with regulations. :sad:


The Dismal Science :
In a series of papers, Martin Weitzman has proposed a Dismal Theorem. The general idea is that, under limited conditions concerning the structure of uncertainty and preferences, society has an indefinitely large expected loss from high-consequence, low-probability events.
https://cowles.yale.edu/node/144793

DISMAL BELL CURVE

This essay proposes the Evolutionary Coping Mechanism Theory, suggesting that intelligent species create religion and science as adaptive responses to existential threats and uncertainties. — ContextThinker

A somewhat different perspective might postulate that truly "Intelligent species" cope with evolutionary pressures by finding practical solutions, not by "making sh*t up" as one poster put it. From the beginning of complex societies, Religion was been intertwined with Politics and Science. For example, the Pagan Nature Gods were typically metaphorical attempts to understand the vagaries of weather & climate & human interactions. They were early "theories" of how the world works. And "adaptive responses", if you will.

Since Nature seemed to be pretty well organized, a king-like god was proposed to mandate the laws of nature that make things work smoothly and predictably. For thousands of years, in most cultures, their religion has provided a pragmatic basis for political and technological problems . . . not perfect, but workable. Also, the human subjects of tyrannical kings probably feared their flesh & blood rulers more than the imaginary deities. Relatively primitive people built artificial mountains (pyramids), not by the magic powers of priests (or aliens), but by learning how gravity works.

Around 500BC though, the Greeks began to express Nature's regularities as more abstract and less anthro-morphic principles : Logos instead of Zeus, First Cause instead of Fates. These principles appealed more to Reason than to Emotion. Our modern Science has continued that trend away from anthro-metaphors toward pure abstractions like intangible Energy, which is said to transform magically into Matter. In fact the current fundamental reality, replacing Atomism, is the notion of a purely mathematical Quantum Field. That imaginary expanse is a metaphorical reference to a field of wheat with a stalk of grain at each point.

So, we continue to refine our labels and metaphors to enhance our artificial power over the natural powers-that-be. Admittedly, some of our scientific metaphors, such as Aether --- which served as an early account of what we now call the Electrical Field --- simply exchange one metaphor for another. Even our modern democratic/oligarchic Politics has a prominent role for a god-like ruler who promises to Make Reality Great Again. Pragmatic voters will choose the propaganda image that seems to provide practical benefits (answers to prayers, such as keeping demonic immigrants at bay), in the here & now, not in some remote life-after-life. If that "adaptation" doesn't work, we can try again in four years. :smile: