The key presumption is that Consciousness is non-local, but Cosmic (Pantheism ; Panpsychism). — Gnomon
Could you please explain how and why this is the case? Does it make sense? — Corvus

No. It doesn't make sense to me. That's why I posted the reference to Noetics (study of sentience & intellect) in the OP. I was hoping that someone else could explain how they know that the Cosmic Mind is transmitting thoughts into human brains. So far, no-one has commented on the Noetic angle, but merely continue the ancient & everlasting Idealism vs Realism arguments that make-up the bulk of diametrically opposed TPF threads. Panpsychism*3 is not exactly the same as Noetics, but quite a few serious secular scientists have publicly stated that they accept it as an axiom for cracking the Hard Problem of Consciousness. My personal Noetic nut-cracker is EnFormAction*4. :smile:


*1. From OP --- Background : I recently finished Dan Brown's new novel, Secret of Secrets, and enjoyed the intellectual thrill ride completely. Spoiler Alert! : If you are not familiar with the book, I'll reveal the "secret" hidden in plain insight : human consciousness, and its alter ego The Mind, is not generated by the brain, but is instead a signal from out there somewhere*2b. If so, what are the special "Noetic faculties" of the human animal*3? Are these spiritual signals the distinguishing factor of homo sapiens?
Note --- The notion of the human brain receiving broadcasts from the universal Mind is merely a fictional device used by Brown to serve as the spooky "secret" in his novel. But Noetics is a real philosophical position postulated by real people. But, as I said in the OP : " I find it difficult to accept that my thoughts & feelings are signals from some central transmitter, like the robotic clone army of Star Wars."

*2. Noetics and idealism are related philosophical concepts concerning the nature of reality and knowledge, with idealism being a metaphysical stance and noetics a branch of philosophy focused on the mind and intellect. Noetics is often explored within an idealist framework.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=noetics+vs+idealism

*3. Scientists and philosophers are increasingly exploring panpsychism, the idea that consciousness is fundamental to the universe, not just complex brains, to solve the "hard problem" of consciousness, though it faces challenges like the "combination problem" (how micro-consciousness forms macro-consciousness) and lacks direct experimental proof, with some physicists and neuroscientists supporting it as a valid scientific avenue for integrating mind into matter, while others remain skeptical, calling for concrete physics.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=scientists+and+panpsychism

*4. "Enformaction" isn't a standard English word but appears in philosophical discussions (especially on The Philosophy Forum) to describe the concept of information as potential or the power to change form, linking energy, form, and action in a metaphysical sense, suggesting information is the underlying "structure" or "ideal" behind physical reality. It's used to explore how abstract data (like ideas or memories) can manifest physically (on paper, hard drives) and vice versa, emphasizing that the physical carrier (paper, disk) matters less than the information itself.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=enformaction
Note --- This is an AI version of my concept of EnFormAction, not in my own words.

Energy is an accounting number, its conservation suggesting some deeper structure. — PoeticUniverse

Yes. I suppose it's accounting for physical changes that would otherwise seem like magic. Give it a mundane name, and it sounds more technical, and seems less spooky. In my thesis, I call that "deeper structure" EnFormAction*1. Scientists & philosophers have for many years attempted to account for the otherwise inexplicable evolutionary emergence of Life (animated matter) and Mind (thinking matter) with a variety of hypothetical postulations : ancient Greek vitalism, Eastern Chi or Prana, Bergson's elan vital, Schopenhauer's will-to-live, and more recently Whitehead's Process philosophy (evolutionary change over time).

But all of these motivating & transforming forces seem similar, in causal effect, to the modern notion of physical Energy (power, ability, potential, capability), in various invisible intangible forms : gravity, photons, vacuum energy, virtual particles, etc. So, I lump them all together into the concept of EnFormAction*2. Note the Cosmic Mind interpretation below that may be relevant to the OP. What makes the world go round : energy or conatus? :smile:


*1. The concept of a river of causation running through the world in various streams has been interpreted in materialistic terms as Momentum, Impetus, Force, Energy, etc, and in spiritualistic idioms as Will, Love, Conatus, and so forth. EnFormAction is all of those.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html

*2. EnFormAction :
As a supplement to the mainstream materialistic (scientific) theory of Causation, EnFormAction is intended to be an evocative label for a well-known, but somewhat mysterious, feature of physics : the Emergent process of Phase Change (or state transitions) from one kind (stable form) of matter to another. These sequential emanations take the structural pattern of a logical hierarchy : from solids, to liquids, to gases, and thence to plasma, or vice-versa. But they don't follow the usual rules of direct contact causation.
Expand that notion to a Cosmological perspective, and we can identify a more general classification of stratified phase-like emergences : from Physics (energy), to Chemistry (atoms), to Biology (life), to Psychology (minds), to Sociology (global minds). Current theories attribute this undeniable stairstep progession to random accidents, sorted by “natural selection” (a code word for “evaluations” of fitness for the next phase) that in retrospect appear to be teleological, tending toward more cooperation of inter-relationships and entanglements between parts on the same level of emergence. Some AI enthusiasts even envision the ultimate evolution of a Cosmic Mind, informed by all lower level phases.
https://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page23.html

# Some people said that energy doesn't exist physically and it is not fundamental, but it is a relationship between other fundamental things.
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/484707/does-energy-exist-or-is-it-just-a-relationship-between-other-fundamental-things

↪Paine
↪Gnomon
↪Esse Quam Videri
(I have to briefly sign back in - shhhh - to mention an article I've found interesting, about how Heisenberg re-purposed Aristotle's 'potentia' in respect to quantum physics Quantum mysteries dissolve if possibilities are realities:

In the... paper, three scientists argue that including “potential” things on the list of “real” things can avoid the counterintuitive conundrums that quantum physics poses. — Wayfarer

Yes. In modern physics, Energy is considered a real thing even though it's knowable only in its effects, not in its material substance. Energy as potential is an Aristotelian "substance" only in the sense of an invisible essence that is capable of transforming into the tangible substance we know as Matter.

Ari's notion of two-phase substance (potential & actual) has always been confusing from a materialist perspective. In my own thesis, I combined potential Energy & Information into the coinage EnFormAction : the power to transform potential Form (design, essence, information) into actual Shapes (structure, matter, hylomorph) and vice versa. Which is what Einstein's equation spells out : (E = MC^2). :smile:


Energy, in the form of Light, is not a local thing, but a dynamic "disturbance" propagating through the universal quantum Field of mathematical points. What we experience locally as Mass (matter) is proportional to the speed of light, which slows-down to form particles of rest-mass-matter. Unfortunately, our matter-based language makes it difficult to express such immaterial (knowable but unsensable) essences & transformations in words. :nerd:

Your depiction of Actual and Potential reverses their roles given in Aristotle's writing:

"But our view explains the facts quite reasonably for the actuality of each thing is naturally inherent in its potentiality, that is in its own proper matter. From all this it is clear that the soul is a kind of actuality or notion of that which has the capacity of having a soul" — Paine

I'll have to admit that Aristotle's definition of a Soul is not clear to me. But it reminds me of similar definitions of Energy as the capacity or ability or potential for work (i.e. material change). In that case, the capacity is not the same as the actuality. It seems more like the potential for actualization, to become realized. So perhaps his Soul is more like our modern notion of Energy : both potential (abstract) and actual (embodied). Embodied Energy is transformed into Matter [E=MC^2, where E is just a number or value, and M is the property (inertia) that makes matter seem actual & real to us]. Anyway, I'm not an Aristotle scholar, so I won't press the issue. :cool:


The statement "soul is a kind of actuality" comes from Aristotle's philosophy, specifically his work On the Soul (De Anima), where he defines the soul as the "first actuality (entelecheia) of a natural body that has life potentially". This means the soul isn't just a potential (what a body could be) but the very realization or form that makes a body actually living, like the knowledge a person has even when sleeping, making it the principle that brings matter into a living organism.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=soul+is+a+kind+of+actuality+

what is the relationship between World-at-large & local Brain & personal Mind? — Gnomon

Most of the posts on this thread seem to be various philosophical opinions favoring either traditional Idealism (transcendentalism) or Realism (immanentism). But I just came across a book in my library that offers a scientific version of the Cosmic Mind concept. Music publisher, Howard Bloom's 2000 book, Global Brain, presents his postulation of "collective information processing"*1*2*3 on a universal scale. Which is relevant to my own amateur philosophical thesis of Enformationism. Bloom is also the author of The God Problem : How a Godless Cosmos Creates.

Obviously, Global Brain is a speculative hypothesis, and there is no more empirical evidence for a GB than for a Transcendent Deity. In the Prologue, Bloom says, "we living beings have been modules of something current evolutionary theory fails to see". He goes on to postulate that "we are parts of a greater mind constantly testing fresh hypotheses". Do these statements sound more like religion than science? Note --- the use of "brain" instead of "mind" may be an attempt to avoid spiritual connotations.

Has anyone else read the book? How do you think it relates to the theme of this thread? Is there a Cosmic Mind, and are human minds the offspring of that mysterious progenitor? Is human culture on Earth just one element of a top-down Universal Intelligence? Or are human agents, inadvertently and unwittingly, in the process of creating a Cosmic Mind --- or a Singularity --- from the ground-up, so to speak? :smile:


*1. The concept of a "global brain" relates to the theory that humanity, together with its technological agents and communication networks like the Internet, is evolving into a single, interconnected, information-processing system, which functions as the nervous system for a social superorganism
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=global+brain+study+group+superorganismic+intelligence

*2. Global Brain : The Evolution of Mass Mind from the Big Bang to the 21st Century by Howard Bloom argues that life on Earth is a single, evolving "global brain," a complex adaptive system where individuals are part of a larger social learning machine, from bacteria to humans. The book traces this evolution from the Big Bang, showing how groups (like bacterial colonies, insect swarms, and human societies) have always functioned as collective intelligences, using mechanisms like conformity and diversity to test ideas and adapt, with the internet being the latest phase of this process.
Group Selection :
Bloom posits that evolution isn't just about individual genes, but about groups competing and learning from each other, with successful group traits being passed on.
Social Learning Machine :
He proposes that all life forms, from microbes to humans, are part of a massive, interconnected system for processing information and learning.
Mechanisms of the Global Brain :
The system relies on elements like "conformity enforcers" (to maintain stability) and "diversity generators" (to innovate), which are seen in everything from bacterial colonies to human cultures.
Historical Examples :
The book uses examples like marching lobsters, bee colonies, and ancient Sparta to illustrate how different species have engaged in collective problem-solving and social learning.
The Internet as a New Phase :
The World Wide Web is presented as the most recent and powerful stage in the evolution of this global brain.
Key Takeaway
The book challenges traditional Darwinian views by suggesting that the purpose of life is not just individual reproduction, but the exploration and survival of the "mass mind" through group-level experimentation and competition.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=howard+bloom+global+brain

*3. A global brain emergent structure is the concept that the interconnected internet, social media, and AI form a planetary-scale, self-organizing information system, analogous to a biological brain, where collective human and machine intelligence arises from countless interactions, creating higher-level cognition for problem-solving, though decentralized and without a single controller, much like neurons forming a brain. This emergent intelligence processes information globally, similar to how neural networks function, allowing for complex, large-scale tasks beyond individual capacity.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=global+brain+emergent+structure

The passage is no starting point for the distinction between immanence and transcendence in the theological sense because nothing is possible if it is not "natural." Aristotle questions the freedom of the "Craftsman" in the Timaeus. A topic that leads to the third paragraph:

412a16. Since it is indeed a body of such a kind (for it is one having life), the soul will not be body; for the body is not something predicated of a subject, but exists rather as subject and matter. The soul must then, be substance qua form of a natural body which has life potentially. Substance is actuality. The soul, therefore, will be the actuality of a body of this kind. — ibid. 412a16 — Paine

Aristotle distinguished between Soul & Body, just as he made a distinction between abstract Form & concrete Matter. The quote doesn't say this specifically, but I interpret the Soul (ousia, essence, form -- subject?, person?) as Transcendent & Potential, and Body (matter, flesh, substance) as Immanent & Actual.

So when Potential is Actualized --- e.g. sperm & egg quicken to become one person --- Soul & Body are united into a living-thinking Hylomorph. Theologians later interpreted the Soul as existing eternally and supernaturally, so at death the Soul separates from the natural concrete material body, and returns to its supernatural abstract potential form. Hence, the imaginative notion of a disembodied ghost lurking in some intermediate realm between Nature and Super-nature.

But, going back to the OP, where does the human Mind & Person come into play? Does the transcendent Soul think like a mind? If so, what does it think about? What is it like to be a disembodied Mind? Does the non-personal Cosmic Potential (Nature) somehow create the actual embodied Mind by joining Form & Flesh (abstract essence & concrete substance) into a natural person? :chin:

I just find that Hume's sceptical account of everyday causality, very true in itself, doesn't really take into account the advances of modern science, say like theoretical physics. — hwyl

Perhaps Hume somehow anticipated the discovery of Quantum Causation*1, which is statistical & uncertain & non-local instead of actual & deterministic & particular. From a local close-up position, we see only single pairs of cause & effect elements. Yet, from a few causal experiences, we can generalize and infer that this current causal event is an effect of a prior cause, and an unbroken chain of causes extending back into infinity. For example, scientists concluded from snapshots of the current expanding astronomical state, we can trace cause & effect back 14 billion Earth-years to a hypothetical physical First Cause : the Big Bang.

Therefore, from a cosmic perspective (imaginary of course) we can "see" long chains of cause & effect, or possible teleological trends in transformation. So, by combining a few direct observations with creative conceptualization, we derive the common and scientific notion of energetic-transfer causation.

Hume's skeptical & reductionist & purposeless view disallows optimistic & holistic interpretations of world processes*2. But from a more open-minded perspective*3, the Cosmos seems to show signs of Progression & Teleology*4. :nerd:


*1. Quantum Causality : Bell's Theorem shows that conditions of "local causality" in experiments involving quantum entanglement result in non-classical correlations predicted by quantum mechanics. Despite these subtleties, causality remains an important and valid concept in physical theories.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=quantum+causality

*2. David Hume's view on causality argues that we don't perceive a necessary connection between cause and effect, only a "constant conjunction" of events (Event A always followed by Event B). This repeated experience creates a mental habit or expectation, leading us to believe in a necessary power or link, but this isn't a logically certain or empirically observable feature of the world; it's a psychological projection, making causality a matter of custom, not reason or direct perception, a core tenet of his empiricism.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=hume+causality

*3. Kant agrees with Hume that neither the relation of cause and effect nor the idea of necessary connection is given in our sensory perceptions; both, in an important sense, are contributed by our mind. For Kant, however, the concepts of both causality and necessity arise from precisely the operations of our understanding—and, indeed, they arise entirely a priori as pure concepts or categories of the understanding.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-hume-causality/
Note --- Correlation does not prove Causation. But it does seem "necessary" to our normal "operations of understanding". An event that does not seem necessary feels like magic.

*4. Whitehead's process teleology : posits that the universe isn't moving toward a fixed goal but is inherently driven towards the production and intensification of beauty, understood as the harmonious contrast of diverse experiences, lured by a divine "primordial nature" that presents possibilities for richer, more complex unifications. This teleology is open and creative, meaning purpose emerges from each moment (actual occasion) making decisions about possibilities (eternal objects) to form new experiences, leading to an evolving, never-finished cosmos where beauty, novelty, and value are intrinsic aims, not just human constructs
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=whitehead+process+teleology

WHAT IS THE CAUSE OF APPARENT COSMIC EXPANSION?

How else do we know "what is true"? — Gnomon
Notice that in the context of science, this is usually limited to a specific question or subject matter, but can also then be expanded to include general theories and hypotheses. Philosophical questions are much more open-ended and often not nearly so specific. That is the subject of another thread, The Predicament of Modernity. — Wayfarer

Apparently, disagrees with your definition of Philosophical questioning. He seems to picture himself as a Socratic gadfly, arguing against the Sophists, whose fallacious logic and situational rhetoric was goal-oriented instead of truth-seeking. In my early reading about Philosophy, Socrates was portrayed (by Catholic theologians?) as the good-guy, separating True from False, and the Sophists*1 were bad-guys, preaching relativity & subjectivity. Yet, unlike 180's sneering & disparaging & humiliating trolling-technique, Socrates' philosophical method*3 was dialectical & didactic & persuasive.

Now, I'm beginning to see that the Sophists' "practical wisdom" may have been anticipating the subjective relativity*2 of Einstein. Today, the notion of absolute Truth is relegated to revealed religions, while pragmatic Science makes-do with Bayesian truths. My own "open-ended" BothAnd philosophy is holistic & complementary & inclusive, instead of a dogmatic Either/Or belief system, which is reductive, binary, & exclusive.

I guess the Predicament of Modernity is highlighted by the Classical (deterministic) vs Quantum (probabilistic) revolution in worldviews. Transcendent truths are inherently subjective conjectures, not objective observations. So, how does 180 know what is objective capital-T-truth*4, while I have to get by with my little subjective perspective? :cool:


*1. The Sophists were ancient Greek thinkers who emphasized relativism, believing truth, knowledge, and morality are subjective and depend on human perspective, famously stated by Protagoras' maxim, "Man is the measure of all things". They taught rhetoric as a vital skill for success in politics, focusing on practical wisdom and the power of persuasive speech (logos) to shape reality, often contrasting with Socrates' search for universal, objective truths. Key beliefs included skepticism, conventionalism (laws are human-made), and humanism, seeing humans and their needs at the center of philosophy, not divine mandates.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=sophists

*2. Einstein's Relativity fundamentally changed philosophy by showing space and time aren't absolute but relative to an observer (Special Relativity) and that gravity is the curvature of spacetime (General Relativity), challenging concepts of universal "now" and introducing a geometric view of the cosmos, influencing epistemology, metaphysics (reality of space/time), and even religion through his idea of a "cosmic religion" based on nature's order.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=einstein+relativity+philosophy

*3. The Socratic Method is a teaching and discussion technique named after Socrates, using persistent, probing questions to guide individuals toward deeper understanding, uncovering assumptions, identifying contradictions, and fostering critical thinking rather than simply giving answers. It's a dialectical process of dialogue, discovery, and self-examination, moving from what a person knows to complex truths by systematically challenging ideas through carefully planned questions, aiming for clearer, more consistent thought
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=socratic+method

*4. "Capital T Truth" (or Big T Truth) refers to universal, absolute, objective reality or fundamental principles beyond personal belief, contrasting with "little t truths," which are subjective, contextual, or individual perspectives/facts (e.g., "my truth"). Think of it as the ultimate, overarching reality versus specific, smaller truths or experiences, often used in philosophy and religion to discuss transcendent concepts like Beauty, Good, or Truth itself, as opposed to mere factual statements
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=capital+t+truth

You're presuming that "real world" human reasoning is somehow beyond duplicating. I don't see any problems at all, because any specific issue you might bring up could be dealt in the design- either in software or hardware. — Relativist

Ha! I don't do a lot of "presuming" about such technical questions, because that is peripheral to my amateur philosophy hobby. But I'm currently reading a book by Federico Faggin*1, who is a credentialed expert in computer-related technology. And he details a variety of "problems" and "specific issues" that could limit software & hardware design from reaching the goal of duplicating human reasoning.

Faggin seems to be an Idealist, who believes that Consciousness is fundamental, and the human Mind is irreducible to physical processes. Personally, I have a slightly different view of the foundations of human thought. But hey! What do I know? I'm just an untrained amateur philosopher, and he is an experienced computer guru. :smile:


*1. Irreducible : Consciousness, Life, Computers, and Human Nature is a 2024 book by Federico Faggin, the inventor of the microprocessor, that argues consciousness is a fundamental quantum phenomenon, not an emergent property of complex computation, challenging the idea that humans are just biological machines.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=irreducible+book

Fuzzy logic and paraconsistent logic ARE algorithmic- it's feasible to program these. The programmming could keep it predictable (a given input will necessarily produce the same output), or randomness could be introduced. — Relativist

Of course fuzzy logic is algorithmic to some degree or it wouldn't be programmable for digital computers. But it's much more flexible & adaptable to the non-algorithmic real world than sharp line-item programming. Perhaps it was attempt to simulate human-style Bayesian logic*1 (degrees of truth) by introducing uncertainty & probability into an otherwise deterministic & predictable program.

Footnote*2 indicates that just fuzzing the algorithms was not enough to make computers think like humans. AI and ChatBots are getting closer to that dumbing-down goal by introducing human-like if-then rules. But self-awareness seems to require something a bit beyond just fuzzing the focus : a generalized contextual worldview and an embodied subject. :smile:

*1. "Non-algorithmic fuzzy logic"generally refers to the conceptual foundation of fuzzy logic (dealing with degrees of truth and human-like reasoning), distinct from the specific algorithms or hardware implementations that make it work in computer systems.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=non-algorithmic+fuzzy+logic

*2. Fuzzy logic was an overhyped 90s phenomenon that was largely based on the belief that one could design a control system without an understanding of control theory and somehow it would magically turn out better. That reality never materialized. . . . .
fuzzy logic is itself a mathematical concept born out of fuzzy sets and probability. It's basically just a tool to describe imprecise or incomplete information when working in a discrete system.
https://www.reddit.com/r/engineering/comments/pwht4f/whatever_happened_to_fuzzy_logic/

Now I hold that plants are conscious, just not like us. But they are alive and present and conscious in a more meditative state than us, because they don’t have a brain. . . . .
Describing and recording data about something and transferring that data to us. But just in a different way, a way that includes conscious behaviour, but which the tree is entirely unconscious of, rather like the way the AI is entirely unconscious of what it is doing. — Punshhh

That's an interesting way to look at the consciousness conundrum. Living organic plants could not survive if they didn't sense their environment, and interact with it in a manner controlled by self-interest. The Consciousness definition below includes a social factor (with) that might help to distinguish human-style awareness from plant & amoeba sensitivity to internal needs and external goods. As social beings, we need to be aware of what our fellows are aware of. :smile:


*1. The word consciousness comes from Latin conscientia, meaning "shared knowledge," combining con- (with) and scire (to know), initially implying joint awareness or a shared secret. It evolved in English in the 17th century, first meaning "internal knowledge," then expanding to "awareness of one's own mind" (1670s) and later "awareness of anything" (1740s). The term has roots in the Latin conscius (knowing with) and its Greek predecessor syneidesis, highlighting a core idea of knowing alongside or within oneself.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=consciousness+etymology

There's also the matter of temperament. Some are temperamentally drawn to religious ideas, others are temperamentally averse to them. — Wayfarer

Yes. As an anti-social introvert, I am not temperamentally attracted to emotional social religions. I suppose dull rational internet philosophy is my religion substitute. :nerd:

can True/False computers replace Maybe/Maybe-Not human philosophers?* — Gnomon
Fuzzy logic and paraconsistent logic address this, at least to a degree. — Relativist

Yes. Non-algorithmic Fuzzy Logic*1 is an attempt to make digital computers think more like humans. And it may be necessary for Chat Bots to deal with imprecise human dialog. Yet it reduces the primary advantage of computers : precision & predictability.

Microprocessor inventor, Federico Faggin says : "There is an unbridgeable gap between artificial and human intelligence, which is characterized by comprehension : a non-algorithmic property of consciousness that is often underestimated and inaccessible to computers"

I suspect that, if developers want to create a more realistic humanoid companion robot, they will have make them out of non-algorithmic flesh & blood instead of silicon semiconductors. But we may then have to deal with loveable ditzy dames, instead of stolid Mr. Spock robots.. :wink:


*1. Fuzzy logic's main advantages include its ability to handle imprecise, vague, or uncertain information (like human language), mimicking human reasoning for more natural decisions, and its robust, cost-effective nature, allowing simple sensors and easy performance tuning for complex control systems in areas like appliances, automotive, and AI. It provides smooth, gradual control and can model complex, non-linear systems without needing exact mathematical models
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=fuzzy+logic+advantages

I'm not interested in being drawn into comments about debates with 180proof. From time to time I may respond to his comments directed at me. — Wayfarer

Me too. Apparently, because my BothAnd philosophy is so offensive to his Either/Or worldview, he seldom engages me in philosophical dialog. So normally, I ignore his trolling taunts & gibes, unless he happens to raise a question pertinent to the current topic.

In this thread, I think his two-value logic is not appropriate. So, I tried to explain to myself why philosophy does not deal in yes-no questions. I only include his reply-name because, in years past, he objected to my talking behind his back, without naming him. I don't know why he wastes time actually reading my posts on topics that seem to viscerally upset him. :smile:

Meaning requires a Me. A digital computer has no self-concept to serve as the Subject to interpret incoming data relative to Self-interest. Does AI know itself? — Gnomon
I tossed this to Claude. Read on if you wish. — Wayfarer

I have no experience with AI, other than Google Search. But I suspect that the human programmers of Chat-Bots necessarily include a self-reference algorithm in the basic code. But whether that kind of reflection constitutes self-awareness, I have to agree with Claude : "I'm genuinely uncertain whether I have experiences with the qualitative character that humans do, or whether there's "something it's like" to be me processing these words". :smile:


A self-referential algorithm is a computational process that can inspect, modify, or interact with its own structure, data, or operation, often creating a feedback loop where the algorithm's behavior influences its future state or even its own code.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=self+referential+algorithm

Another difficult subject. Suffice to say, I think it's the understanding, taken as obvious by a lot of our contemporaries, that science is the arbiter of what is truly the case. But scientific method embodies certain characteristic attitudes and procedures which are problematic in a philosophical context. — Wayfarer

How else do we know "what is true"? asserts that Formal or Mathematical Logic is the arbiter of true/false questions. And algorithmic computers are known as the masters of math. But philosophy is supposed to be a search for Wisdom, while religion is presumed to provide absolute divinely-revealed Truth. Some disparagingly call philosophy "the study of questions without answers". Yet ancient Philosophy has spawned empirical Science as a tool to provide pertinent facts (not truths) to guide us in our exploration of a puzzling world.

A Scientific American Nov25 article is entitled "Can AI outdo mathematicians?" The article author, professor of mathematics at Johns Hopkins, warned : " Although so-called reasoning models are prompted to break problems down into pieces [analysis] and explain their 'thinking' step-by-step [logic], the output is as likely to produce an argument that sounds logical but isn't as to constitute a genuine proof". She concludes by noting : "in life, there is a lot of uncertainty".

A related question may be : can True/False computers replace Maybe/Maybe-Not human philosophers?*1 In a formal (ideal) world, digital and large-language computers may outperform human reasoning. But that's precisely because the machines omit & avoid the complexities & contradictions ("shades of color" & nuances of meaning) characteristic of informal human thinking about real world inter-subjective situations. 1/0 and true/false deliberately "exclude the middle" of uncertainties & infinities that plague imperfect analog humans.

As Wayfarer repeatedly notes : Logical Math, Reductive Science, and Digital Computers have no self-perspective to put the world into a meaningful dynamic context relative to personal questioners. Hence, their absolute either-or, black-vs-white, ideal-world outputs cannot account for real-world problems & questions of fallible-but-goal-oriented humans. Computers supply yes/no answers, but they don't ask philosophical questions*2. Socrates asked a lot of questions, and aspired to ideal Truth, but admitted in intellectual humility that he knew nothing for certain.

Consequently, in my humble opinion, bivalent (two-value) reasoning has no place on an informal forum like this, where we ask not-what-is-true-or-false, but what-is-meaningful in a specific situation. Is this a Science & Technology Forum or a Philosophy forum? :nerd:



*1. What is the difference between mathematical reasoning and philosophical reasoning?
I think the big difference between mathematics and philosophy is that mathematics tends to start from something like a formal system, and see how much can be proven within it. Philosophy approaches the question of "what formal systems are right?" If a formal system proves something non-intuitive, Philosophers will immediately start studying the axioms of the formal system to see if they may be missing something. Philosophers admit more shades of "color" into their arguments than mathematicians can.
https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/21304/what-is-the-difference-between-mathematical-reasoning-and-philosophical-reasoning

*2. Computers can simulate asking and answering philosophical questions by processing vast amounts of text and mimicking philosophical discourse, but whether they can truly ask original, conscious philosophical questions is a major debate, largely hinging on consciousness, understanding (semantics vs. syntax), and the nature of ideas, with most experts currently saying no, as current AI manipulates symbols without genuine comprehension or subjective experience (qualia).
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=can+computers+ask+philosophical+questions

The "logical fallacy" of a two-value (right/wrong) posturing is ... — Gnomon
False. Bivalence, or law of the excluded middle, is an axiom of classical logic (indispensable for determining many formal and informal fallacies) as well as Boolean logic (the basis of computational and information sciences). — 180 Proof

↪180 Proof
It's one of those ideas that kind of straddles philosophy and science, that we can say.
Depending on how you look at it :rofl: — Wayfarer

In Faggin's chapter on The Nature of Machines, he makes a distinction between deterministic (true/false) digital computers, and freewill analog (maybe/probability) meat brains*1. Apparently, 180 prefers cold, hard binary (true/false) computing to warm-blooded holistic human thinking*2.

Ironically, Binary Logic is Idealistic, in the sense of presuming mechanical perfection*3*4. But human Logic is Realistic, in the sense that living organisms are imperfect, yet adaptable to contingencies in the evolving real world. Binary computers are bound by their programming, and require "interrupts" to call for human help when the program encounters unexpected obstacles.

As you noted, human nature seems to straddle both sides of the imaginary True/False, Either/Or omniscience of the gods & robots, and the realistic Maybe/Truish, Both/And knowing of human animals. 180's god-like view is absolute & indisputable, but Wayfarer's mundane view depends on your personal perspective and is philosophically moot. :cool:


*1. Federico Faggin : "Note that the only recognition required of the hardware is to reliably distinguish the state "0" from the state "1". This recognition does not produce any meaning."
"The operation of the computer, however, is extremely fragile, because it would take just one wrong bit to turn a machine that seems intelligent and deliberate into a completely useless box of metal, plastic, and silicon."
"Within a deterministic machine there is no free will"
Note --- Meaning requires a Me. A digital computer has no self-concept to serve as the Subject to interpret incoming data relative to Self-interest. Does AI know itself?

*2. Boolean Logic versus Human Reasoning :
The opposite of binary thinking (black-and-white, either/or) involves embracing complexity through Spectrum Thinking, Non-Binary Thinking, or Grey Thinking, focusing on nuances, gradations, and multiple possibilities rather than rigid categories like good/bad or right/wrong. It's about recognizing the "both/and," finding common ground, exploring the space between extremes, and seeing the interconnectedness of ideas, allowing for more flexible, nuanced solutions.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=binary+antonym

*3. "Mechanical perfection" refers to the ideal, flawless operation of a machine, free from errors, wear, or friction, though it's often a theoretical concept;
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=mechanical+perfection

*4. Superiority Complex : A person who thinks they're perfect might be called a perfectionist, an elitist, or a narcissist, often displaying traits like setting unrealistic standards, being hypercritical, demanding flawlessness, and struggling with criticism, sometimes masking deep-seated insecurity or a superiority complex where they feel inherently better than others.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=person+who+thinks+he%27s+perfect

Except that a lucky guess modeled the quantum fields as harmonic oscillators by performing a Fourier transform on all sorts of waves to be as sinusoidal, and, lo, the quantum model of rungs of quanta falling out matched the reality of experiments and made for quantum field theory to be the most successful in the history of science. — PoeticUniverse

The material & practical success of quantum science is undeniable : atom bombs, cell phones, etc. But what about the immaterial theoretical foundation of that pragmatic progress? Is quantum theory & philosophy compatible with your own worldview?*1

Faggin interprets quantum indeterminism in terms of philosophical Idealism. And he dismisses deterministic Realism as an illusion. He makes a rational reasonable case for his All One philosophy, but for me it still requires a heaping helping of emotional Faith to accept, as a metaphysical Fact, that The One uses the physical world as a way to "know itself and self-actualize". That sounds like an old theological rationalization for why omnipotent/omniscient/eternal/infinite Jehovah created a space-time world and populated it with imperfect & temporary worshipful beings*2. :smile:


*1. I guess it comes down to what are you going to believe, your own senses, or the mystical myths of science-priests? Who do you trust, your own eyes, or the tea-leaf readings of atom-smashing scientists? When I see the world with my built-in ocular instruments, I see a continuous reality, not a discrete digital quantum ideality. So, is quantum science, and it's implicit transcendent belief system, a perversion of the world as it really is? ___Gnomon post above

*2. The idea that "God knows self by means of humans" is a philosophical or theological concept not directly stated in mainstream religious texts but explored in various interpretations of divine self-knowledge and human purpose.
Mainstream Christian theology generally holds that God is a self-existent, omniscient being who understands Himself through Himself, independent of His creation.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=god+knows+self+by+means+of+humans

*3. Rhetorical Question :How are invisible "harmonic oscillators" different from a heavenly choir of angels continually singing praises to God? The quantum vibrations (on-off, +/-) somehow manifest as a tangible physical world, and the celestial vibrating voices support the ego of God, who in turn continually creates a reality for humans down below.

An Essay on Man
" by Alexander Pope
"Know then thyself, presume not God to scan;
The proper study of mankind is Man."

"You cannot think the Thinker of thinking. You cannot understand the Understander of understanding. That is Ātman." ___Upanishad — Wayfarer

The title of this thread was intentionally chosen to evoke some relationship between the Universe, as a whole system, and human consciousness as a part (and maybe participant) in that system. In Federico Faggin's book Irreducible, he tends to use Plotinus' notion of The One (ultimate source of reality) instead of the Platonic notion of Cosmos (the universe conceived as a beautiful, harmonious, and well-ordered system). But some people prefer the religious term “God” in their discussions of Ontology (what we can know about our existence). The question here is about the ultimate source of human Being, and specifically the self-conscious Mind that is supposed to be our primary distinction from biological plants & sentient animals. Faggin defines The One as “the totality of what exists”, and makes the questionable assertion that “One wants to know Itself and self-actualize”.

Ancient people didn't understand some frightening features of Nature : how can it be blue sky one day and dark & stormy the next? Thunderstorms, volcanoes, and earthquakes are just a few of the scary deviations from the warm & cozy character of Mother Nature (Cosmos personified). So, they must have imagined that there is some invisible deeper or higher level of SuperNature, which some pictured as humanoid gods above the clouds. Faggin is a modern scientist though, with a much more detailed understanding of how Nature works, including the invisible realm of Quantum physics.

Now even a sober secular scientist has come to believe in unseen aspects of the world, that our physical senses are not innately tuned to detect. Yet, he knows about the hidden Quantum dimension of total Reality only by mathematical reasoning, supported by mystifying experiments. Instead of postulating anthro-morphic gods though, he uses more abstract, operational, and relational terminology. He also refers to our commonsense knowledge of the world as “the illusory model of reality created by our senses”*1. Quantum scientists now describe the mysteries of the unseen reality by less anthro-morphic, but oddly weird language. Instead of super-human gods, he refers to the Ideality behind Reality as “Fields”. But it's still spooky, and probably offensive to philosophical Realists.

Like Einstein, is a Realist, and seems to be spooked by any idealistic reference to super-nature or deeper-reality or transcendent realms or quantum infinity, that are insensible to our physical senses. So, he lashes-out at those infidels, who dare to speak of a non-classical model of reality. Isaac Newton was realistic, except for his assumption of a personal God in his eternal immeasurable heaven, somewhere above our 3-dimensional physical world. Einstein's secular notion of God was more like an impersonal Cosmos, as described by Spinoza in 1677. And in 1935, Einstein published a paper (EPR paradox) arguing that quantum physics was “incomplete” because it violated the “locality principle”, implying that our finite reality was actually infinite. Despite Einstein's skepticism, Faggin reports that the Bell “experiment and all subsequent ones have shown that quantum physics is correct and that Einstein's objections were not valid".

Nevertheless, I have to take Faggin's interpretations as hearsay, because I have no personal experience of such immaterial non-things as mathematical Fields, and Holistic entanglement of statistical particles. So, I can understand why 180proof would be freaked-out by such ghostly non-sense. I guess it comes down to what are you going to believe, your own senses, or the mystical myths of science-priests? Who do you trust, your own eyes, or the tea-leaf readings of atom-smashing scientists? When I see the world with my built-in ocular instruments, I see a continuous reality, not a discrete quantum ideality. So, is quantum science, and it's implicit transcendent belief system, a perversion of the world as it really is?

180's Either/Or worldview, like Spinoza's 17th century unified monistic system, and like Newton's 17th century mechanical deterministic divine system, is pure & perfect. So 21st century scientists and metaphysicians, like you and me, seem to be shitting on his pristine porcelain. For years, I thought he was just a disgruntled troll. But now I see that there is a logical philosophical viewpoint underlying his Good versus Evil worldview, unsullied by the uncertainties, indeterminism, unpredictability and general fuzziness of Quantum philosophy. By contrast, my world seems to be imperfect, incomplete, and still evolving toward some unknowable future state, that may or may not include flawed flesh & blood humans like me. If we can't believe our personal concrete senses, can we rely on abstract reasoning to reveal the true nature of the world around us? :chin:


*1. Late Lament
song by Moody Blues
. . . . . . .
But we decide which is right
And which is an illusion

He regarded the 'complementarity principle' as the most important philosophical discovery of his life. — Wayfarer

Ironically, would troll Neils Bohr as a wishy-washy woo-purveyor, if he had the audacity to post his on this forum. I just realized the significance of the alcohol-purity screenname : A> it may symbolize the ideal of a trump-like "perfect" worldview : Black vs White & True vs False & Immanent vs Transcendent*1 with no watered-down adulterants. Or B> it dumbs-down philosophical complexities to Either/Or dualities that a simple mind can handle.

The "logical fallacy" of a two-value (right/wrong) posturing is the arrogant presumption of absolute knowledge. Which often causes imbalance & disharmony among imperfect humans. I suppose 180's "ideal" of perfect omniscience is admirable in a way, but it's not Plato's way.

For the rest of the story : Rutherford-Bohr's original classical planetary model of an atom was later invalidated by Heisenberg's statistical Uncertainty Principle. But, as you noted, Bohr --- with intellectual modesty --- later came to accept the Yin-and-Yang Complementary Principle illustrated in the Taoism symbol. Note, I also use that Holistic image as a bullet in my blog posts.

For most philosophers and scientists, the search-for-truth is motivated by the lack of omniscience. But 180, on his pure-white perch above us mortals, can despise any signs of ignorance and intellectual modesty. :joke:




*1. "Either/or black vs white" refers to the logical fallacy of a false dilemma (or false dichotomy), where only two extreme options (black or white, good or bad, for or against) are presented, ignoring the vast spectrum of possibilities, nuances, and "shades of gray" that actually exist, often used to oversimplify complex issues or force a choice. It's a way of thinking that reduces complex realities to simple, opposing choices, hindering deeper understanding and compromise.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=either+or+black+vs+white&zx=1765662725371&no_sw_cr=1

*2. In philosophy, the search for truth is the fundamental, ongoing quest to understand reality, knowledge, and existence, using reason, logic, and critical inquiry to answer big questions, even without definitive answers, with various methods like correspondence, coherence, and pragmatism offering different paths to what is real or useful. It's seen as a core activity, even if philosophers often debate what truth is, with some defining it as what works (Pragmatism), what matches reality (Correspondence), or a coherent system of ideas.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=philosophy+search+for+truth

*3. The Yin Yang principle is a foundational concept in Chinese philosophy describing the belief that opposing forces are interconnected, complementary, and interdependent. Represented by the Taijitu symbol, yin (the dark, passive, feminine force) and yang (the light, active, masculine force) are not static but are in a dynamic, ever-changing balance, where each contains a seed of the other. The principle emphasizes that harmony is achieved through the balance of these two forces, not through extremes.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=yin+yang+principle


COMPLEMENTARY YIN-YANG PRINCIPLE OF HOLISM

As regards Faggin - I sense that the One resonates with the One of Plotinus' philosophy. He has taken ideas from a variety of sources, and also developed his own using metaphors from quantum physics and computing. But still see him as rather idiosyncratic. He's not going to get noticed much in the 'consciousness studies' ecosystem for that reason. — Wayfarer

Faggin is indeed idiosyncratic compared to eclectic New-Age-type religious philosophy. But his empirical & rational approach may be acceptable to some strands of Consciousness Studies*1. So far, his book is mostly about a scientific worldview, not a religious belief system. The word "god" does not appear in his glossary, but the term "panpsychism" does. Consequently, I get the impression that his worldview is Philosophical & Scientific, not Religious ; intellectual & practical, not emotional.

His chapter 2 is about The Nature of Quantum Reality, and his "creator" is abstract & impersonal. Speaking of universal quantum fields, he says : "These fields have space & time in common and are the fundamental entities that, interacting with each other, create everything that exists physically". The fields themselves may be construed as Metaphysical, but it remains to be seen if Faggin views them as created by some higher power, or are self-existent : i.e. god-like.

In discussing quantum particles, he describes them, not as Lucretius' tiny hard balls of stuff, but as foggy "clouds" of mathematical probability. To me, that sounds more like Platonic Ideality (shadows in the cave) than Aristotle's Physics. Personally, for all pragmatic purposes, I act as-if my world-model is Aristotelian (practical) Reality, but for theoretical exploration I can also imagine a Platonic metaphysical Ideality. Not Either/Or, but BothAnd.

As I read chapter 2, a thought occurred to me : Classical Newtonian physics was compatible with the Bible God, who creates a world, like a wind-up toy, and sets it on a straight & narrow path in a specific direction. But non-linear & probabilistic Quantum physics is more like the erratic & random ancient religions based on natural cycles. Their polytheistic gods (e.g. Olympian) were not all-powerful, and argued amongst themselves. Which left their worshipers grappling with mysteries beyond comprehension, wandering guided only by faith. On the other hand, non-religious Philosophy can deal with Quantum Mysticism, not by Faith, but by Reason. :nerd:

*1. Consciousness Studies is an interdisciplinary field exploring the nature of subjective experience, blending neuroscience, philosophy, psychology, physics, and more, to understand how the brain creates self-awareness and reality, focusing on identifying neural correlates, developing theories like Global Workspace Theory or Integrated Information Theory, and investigating altered states like meditation, aiming to bridge the gap between physical brain processes and phenomenal experience.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=consciousness+studies

So since then philosophy has tended to adopt either materialism (matter is everything), idealism (mind is everything) or dualism (it is both), across a range of forms. — Wayfarer

I think that your essay is attempting to fashion a theory out of these ingredients. — Wayfarer

Perhaps. I explore various philosophical positions, but I don't label myself as Idealist or Materialist or Mystic. . . . . nor Immanentist nor Transcendentalist, . . . maybe a Causalist? My emerging & evolving amateur non-dual holistic philosophy is what I call BothAnd*1. Which is anathema to those of dogmatic Either/Or beliefs, such as . Your expressed views though are usually broad & flexible, yet rigorous & informed enough, to be amenable to my own dilettante dabblings.

I don't adhere to any religious or mystical beliefs, but I try to be open to plausible ideas circulating within the human orbit. Admittedly, my autodidactic personal philosophy/cosmology*3 is much more influenced by the diverse posits of Quantum theorists*3 than of Academic philosophers, ancient or modern. :cool:


*1. Both/And Principle :
My coinage for the holistic principle of Complementarity, as illustrated in the Yin/Yang symbol. Opposing or contrasting concepts are always part of a greater whole. Conflicts between parts can be reconciled or harmonized by putting them into the context of a whole system.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page10.html

*2. Enformationism :
A philosophical worldview or belief system grounded on the 20th century discovery that Information, rather than Matter, is the fundamental substance of everything in the universe. It is intended to be the 21st century successor to ancient Materialism. An Update from Bronze Age to Information Age. It's a Theory of Everything that covers, not just matter & energy, but also Life & Mind & Love.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html

*3. Quantum Philosophy :
Understanding and Interpreting Contemporary Science by Roland Omnès is a book that bridges quantum physics and philosophy, arguing that modern quantum mechanics, particularly the "consistent-histories" approach, provides a new foundation for understanding knowledge, causality, and reality, reconciling them with common sense.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=quantum+philosophy

I suppose Faggin's notion of Seity is another attempt to define Cosmic Consciousness in scientific and non-anthropomorphic terms. — Gnomon
Wait until you read it. I don’t think that term is used anywhere in the book. (I’d love to see a discussion between Faggin and Glattenfelder. They’re both kinds of ‘techno mystics’.) — Wayfarer

If, by "that term' you mean "cosmic consciousness" you may be correct. I just used that New-Agey Mystical term in place of his more cryptic concept of The One. But he does use the more specific term Seity*1 throughout the book. He postulates, in great detail, how he imagines that Quantum Physics adds up to self-conscious & causal Cosmic Mind. Although he avoids ascribing human-like personality to The One, it still sounds like a 21st century God ; whose oblique revelation is inscribed in quantum uncertainty . . . . perhaps, to keep us biological agents guessing about divine intentions.

I don't think of myself as a Mystic, but my philosophical exploration is currently reconnoitering the margins of Quantum Mysticism. And I see a lot of parallels with ancient Greek & Oriental philosophies, although the technical terminology may seem idiosyncratic (out of place) to those with more traditional philosophical backgrounds. Faggin does quote the Vedas.

My "Right Stuff" blog post*2 was written before I got Faggin's book. But it begins by quoting the Epicurean poet Lucretius, whose Atomism may have been the ancestor of modern Quantum physics --- materialism minus the mysticism. Ironically, the modern Atom is not a hard little ball, but a locus of incorporeal mathematical information, that Faggin multiplies and adds-up to a woo-woo Cosmic Mind : The One or The Universe (one whole)*3. :smile:



*1. Seity : "a quantum entity with three irreducible and indivisible fundamental properties : consciousness, agency, and identity. The elementary seities, which I have called consciousness units, emanate directly from One." ___ Irreducible book glossary

*2. Right Stuff for Consciousness :
“If matter, in all its forms, were nothing but mindless substance, then of course it would follow by mere definition that conscious material is impossible. But that is specifically the "question-begging presumption" I was referring to.” ___Janus
https://bothandblog9.enformationism.info/page10.html

*3. "One is a Whole, both in potentiality and in actuality, irreducibly dynamic and holistic."
___ from Introduction to Irreducible


PS___ I just came across this quote in an article on the philosopher Friedrich Schelling, of whom I know nothing :
“idealism is the soul of philosophy; realism is its body only both together can constitute a living whole”.
# Then this from Google Search, which sounds a bit like Faggin's One.
Is the notion of Ungrund, a form of Idealism or Mysticism or 180proof's :sparkle:? :
Schelling's Ungrund (German for "non-ground" or "groundless ground") is a profound concept in his later philosophy, representing the mysterious, irrational abyss or primal darkness that underlies all existence, even God, a "nothing" from which being and all oppositions emerge, serving as the source of freedom, creativity, and the possibility of new realities, distinguishing his thought from Hegel's rational idealism by positing a pre-rational, chaotic potential before any self-conscious Spirit. It's a fundamental, ungroundable basis, a "ground of all grounds," essential for explaining how something new, evil, or individual can arise from the absolute.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=Schelling+and+his+Ungrund.

Not peculiar - I think Federico Faggin is highly intelligent and genuine. I did tackle that book - actually I think I have the Kindle edition, but I couldn't really follow the argument. He introduces a term, seity, ' a seity is defined as a self-conscious entity that can act with free will.' However not necessarily a conscious being. ...'A seity is a field in a pure state existing in a vaster reality than the physical world that contains the body. A seity exists even without a physical body.'

I couldn't really get my head around it. — Wayfarer

I suppose Faggin's notion of Seity is another attempt to define Cosmic Consciousness in scientific and non-anthropomorphic terms. It's his technical description of a fundamental unit of consciousness, and may be similar to A.N. Whitehead's "occasions of experience", which I found hard to grok. Personally, I prefer a holistic concept of Cosmos : the totality of existence, including matter & mind. I'll leave the atoms of consciousness to others.

Ironically, when he describes Seity as a Field, it begins to sound like a scientistic version of religious Spirit. Fields in physics (e.g. electromagnetic & quantum fields) are real in their effects, but immaterial in substance. On the other hand, I'm exploring the use of Energy (causation) in a similar manner. But exactly how the universal Power to Transform can result in sentient Matter, is the question being begged in my theory.

He refers to Max Planck's Quantum of Action as a fundamental constant. Yet it's not a thing in itself, but more like a Field of Potential that can only be defined mathematically & functionally. So I'd label Faggin's "Seity" as Quantum Field Spirituality, which may not align with your more traditional philosophical understanding of the Mind/Matter relationship.

Anyway, Faggin seems to imagine the Conscious Cosmos in terms of Potential, whereas the material world is Actual. And that is close to my own emerging understanding of the origin of Mind in a physical world. Somehow, in a not-yet-understood manner, the self-conscious Cosmos has created a world of little selfish minds with ideas of their own. But unlike the mythical & literary Jehovah, CC leaves it up to us to "know the mind of God". :nerd:

PS___ The "vaster reality" seems to be what several Mind/Matter theorists (e.g. Noetic Science & Ideonomy) call "higher dimensions". Some even claim to have experienced those ideal or spiritual dimensions.

oh yeah, I know Faggin. I read (actually, listened to) his autobiography, Silicon. I’ve looked at Irreducible a few times but I have mixed feelings about it, I think his approach is a bit too idiosyncratic. — Wayfarer

By "idiosyncratic", do you mean peculiar or individualistic? For an autobiography, I would think individualistic would be a good thing. I've only read the introduction, but so far it seems to be a fairly typical expression of the Consciousness is Fundamental worldview, as imagined or experienced by a quantum scientist. Kastrup seems to find him to be a fellow-traveler on the slender Idealism branch of modern science. Incidentally, Faggin defines The One as "the totality of all that exists" but refrains from using religious terms like "God".

I know your time is limited, but I would appreciate a quick review of the blog post on The Right Stuff to Evolve Consciousness*2 (it's only two pages). It presumes that human-like Consciousness is not fundamental to physics or metaphysics, but a late development from eons of physical evolution : i.e. an emergent property. So, it may be closer to Janus' worldview ; although I think causal Energy is more fundamental than tangible Matter, which is also emergent.

However, it assumes that some mysterious precursor to sentient awareness in physical bodies existed at the beginning of space-time evolution, and is the irreducible necessity to explain how & why you & I now consciously experience Seity*3. Would you call that prerequisite The One or The Form or Cosmic Mind or something else?

I'm hoping that Janus will also chip-in his opinions on the blog post, so I can compare two eloquent defenders of philosophical positions in the great dialog/debate on the role & nature of Mind in the real & ideal world. :nerd:



*1. Irreducible :
The book "argues consciousness is a fundamental, quantum phenomenon, not an emergent property of matter, proposing an idealist model where the physical world is a symbolic representation of a deeper, conscious reality".
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=irreducible+book

*2. Right Stuff : Spirit or Causation?
“In essence, the Big Bang transformed a highly energetic, almost featureless state into the structured, information-rich cosmos we observe today, with energy providing the fuel and quantum randomness providing the initial blueprint.” ___Google search
Note ---
How could Chaotic “randomness” create the “blueprint” for an orderly & organized Cosmos with a logical structure of natural Laws? Randomness does imply freedom for exploration of possibilities. But only purposeful, systematic, and intentional design can impart systematic order upon Chaos.
https://bothandblog9.enformationism.info/page10.html

*3. [u]Seity[/u] means the quality of being uniquely oneself, selfhood, or individuality, referring to something peculiar or particular to a specific person or thing, derived from the Latin word "se" (oneself). It signifies that unique essence or identity that sets something apart, often used in philosophical or spiritual contexts to describe the fundamental, unique reality of a person or even the divine.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=seity+meaning

↪Gnomon
Yes. And don't forget, we are stardust, we are golden, we are billion year old carbon. And we got to get ourselves back to the garden. — Wayfarer

Ha! I was in the Navy --- killing the little yellow man, figuratively not literally --- while the US was going through that New Age of Aquarius, when "love will steer the stars".

I'd be interested to get your reaction to the Right Stuff for Consciousness post*1 that I linked in my reply above. It was a response to Janus' reply to Wayfarer in this thread. If not "stardust", what then was the "mindless substance" that became "conscious material"? Although the post is trying to be Realistic, any discussion of Consciousness is necessarily going to skirt the line between Realism and Idealism. What is the question being begged by Philosophers on one hand, and Scientists on the other?

I have just begun to read a new book by Federico Faggin --- quantum physicist and microprocessor inventor --- IRREDUCIBLE, Consciousness, Life, Computers, and Human Nature*2. Although he began as a pragmatic computer engineer, he had a mid-life Mystical (not-religious) experience --- a spiritual awakening --- that turned him to the Light Side of Idealism. I personally have never had such an "ineffable unitive experience", so his encounter with The One is hearsay for me. But I'm currently exploring various views of the Science-Philosophy Hard Problem.

Faggin asserts that "consciousness is a quantum phenomenon" and the fundamental "substance" of the world. My blog post is a slightly different view of that mindful substance ; and I reserve the term "consciousness" as an evolved phenomenon/noumenon instead of the fundamental substance. But he boldly goes way beyond my timid postulations to affirm that "everything is made of love". Does that sound New Agey to you? Does the notion of a Love Substance fit your philosophy of Idealism? :cool:



*1. Right Stuff to Evolve Consciousness
“If matter, in all its forms, were nothing but mindless substance, then of course it would follow by mere definition that conscious material is impossible. But that is specifically the "question-begging presumption" I was referring to.” ___Janus
https://bothandblog9.enformationism.info/page10.html

*2. "Federico Faggin is probably the most well-rounded idealist alive. He embodies the near-perfect combination of hard-nosed, scientifically informed thought with direct introspective insights into the primacy of consciousness." ___ Bernardo Kastrup

↪Wayfarer
Well, we see things very differently. — Janus

Janus & Wayfarer do tend to view the Mind-Matter problem of Philosophy-Science somewhat differently. So I learn different-but-valuable perspectives from each of you. As I graphically indicated in a previous post, Wayfarer seems to view the world through a Platonic lens, while Janus prefers the Aristotelian view. But I think a complete worldview would include elements of both.

Earlier in this thread, Janus' realistic reply*1 to Wayfarer's idealistic take on the Hard Problem rang a bell for me. So, I added a new post*2 to my blog on the topic of a Cosmos Evolved Mind. It's not intended to take sides in the debate, but to look at Both Sides Now*3. :grin:


*1. The question begging presumption :
“If matter, in all its forms, were nothing but mindless substance, then of course it would follow by mere definition that conscious material is impossible. But that is specifically the "question-begging presumption" I was referring to.” ___Janus

*2. Right Stuff to Evolve Consciousness :
The intending, observing & knowing Mind itself is the “question-begging presumption” that needs to be explained, in order to understand how subjective Mind could evolve from objective Matter.
https://bothandblog9.enformationism.info/page10.html
Note --- Perhaps Quantum randomness & probability may be the "arational" element in the evolution of sentient & logical beings from a burst of cosmic energy. Post 147 is just one of many on the Consciousness conundrum that has bugged philosophers for ages. The second page gets more directly to the point of this forum reply.

*3. BOTH SIDES NOW
. . . . . . . . .
I've looked at life Mind from both sides now
From win and lose and still somehow
It's life's illusions I recall
I really don't know life at all
It's life's illusions that I recall
I really don't know life
I really don't know life at all

Songwriter : Joni Mitchell

I think this is a serious oversimplification. Aristotle does not abandon Forms; his hylomorphism is still a form–based ontology—the difference is that Forms are no longer conceived as existing in a separate, self-subsisting realm, but as ontologically prior principles instantiated in matter. Matter, for Aristotle, has no actuality or determinate identity on its own; it exists only as pure potentiality until it receives form. — Wayfarer

Yes, Realism vs Idealism is a dualistic simplification of a multi-faceted complex concept that contains various aspects of both outlooks : what I facetiously call Redealism : the top-down view of a material world populated with imperfect people who create little perfect worlds in their own minds.

Whether that duality is an "over-simplification" depends on personal preference : perfect models vs messy actuality. Deep thinkers have been arguing over absolute truth (philosophy) vs practical usefulness (science) for at least 2500 years.

In the context of this thread, my preference is to over-simplify the philosophical battleground between Plato and Aristotle as a focus on either Transcendence or Immanence. And then, to put each notion into its proper context --- whatever that may be. Both views may be ultimately proven valid or invalid depending on its application : universal or local.

Therefore, my wishy-washy BothAnd*1 position varies, depending on the context of the moment. In this thread, I stand mutably in the moot mushy moderate middle-ground of maybe; where I get shot-at from both sides, by those standing on the firm ground of certainty. :smile:



*1. The BothAnd Philosophy :
Philosophy is the study of ideas & beliefs. Not which are right or wrong – that is the province of Religion and Politics – but which are closer to relevant wisdom. That unreachable goal can only be approximated by Reason & Consensus, which is the method of applied Science and Philosophical dialog. In addition to ivory tower theories, practical Philosophy attempts to observe the behavior of wild ideas in their natural habitat.
   The BothAnd philosophy is primarily Metaphysical, in that it is concerned with Ontology, Epistemology, & Cosmology. Those categories include abstract & general concepts, such as : G*D, existence, causation, Logic, Mathematics, & Forms. Unlike pragmatic scientific "facts" about the physical world, idealistic Metaphysics is a battle-ground of opinions & emotions.
   The BothAnd principle is one of Balance, Symmetry and Proportion. It eschews the absolutist positions of Idealism vs Realism, in favor of the relative compromises of Pragmatism. It espouses the Practical Wisdom of the Greek philosophers, instead of the "Perfect" divine revelations of the Hebrew Priests. The BA principle of practical wisdom requires “skin in the game”* to provide real-world feedback, which counter-balances the extremes of Idealism & Realism. That feedback establishes limits to freedom and boundaries to risk-taking. BA is a principle of Character & Virtue, viewed as Phronesis** or Pragmatism, instead of Piety or Perfectionism.
   The BA philosophy is intended to be based on empirical evidence where possible, but to incorporate reasonable speculation were necessary. As my personal philosophy, the basic principle is fleshed-out in the worldview of Enformationism, which transcends the Real world only insofar as  to establish the universal Ground of Being, and the active principle in Evolution.


* ref : Skin In The Game, by Nassim Nicholas Taleb;  researcher in philosophical, mathematical, and (mostly) practical problems with probability.
** Phronesis : an Ancient Greek word for a type of wisdom or intelligence. It is more specifically a type of wisdom relevant to practical action, implying both good judgement and excellence of character and habits, or practical virtue.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page10.html

↪Wayfarer
:roll: When you stop with the shitty misrepresentations of what I've said I might respond. — Janus

↪Janus
I do endeavour to address your arguments with courtesy, reciprocation would be appreciated. — Wayfarer

Since Janus and Wayfarer seem to be among the most philosophically erudite posters on this forum, such combative dialog conjures an image of Plato and Aristotle duking-it-out in the Academy or Forum. Today, we honor both of those ancient Greeks as Past Masters of the philosophical arts. But back in the day, I suspect they passed some harsh words between them.

Maybe constructive agreement, in the search for truth, has always been elusive & arduous. So we in the midst of the ongoing creative work of wisdom-building notice mainly the piles of debris from "constructive disagreement". Perhaps history will record this thread as a win-win : both Real and Ideal; both Physical and Metaphysical. :smile:


Plato and Aristotle differed significantly in their approach to reality, with Plato emphasizing an ideal, abstract realm of Forms as the ultimate reality, accessed through reason, and Aristotle focusing on the tangible, physical world as the primary reality, understood through empirical observation and the senses. This led Plato to an idealistic philosophy and Aristotle to a more pragmatic, scientific approach.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=plato+vs+aristotle+philosophy

Transcendent! . . . . . . . . . . . . . . No, Immanent!

Mind (consciousness) is not a "separate, non-physical entity" — Gnomon
It would be a different kind of 'physical'. It had to have evolved, with life, for once there was no life and consciousness on Earth, and now there is. — PoeticUniverse

I agree :
# First, Mind (consciousness, thoughts, feelings) is not an entity, but a process.
# Secondly, Mind (power to create imaginary ideas) is not physical, but meta-physical*1. By that I mean : Physics refers to the things we perceive with the eye of the body. Meta-physics refers to the things we conceive with the eye of the mind.
# Thirdly, the "cognitive leap" became apparent in eon-long-lifeless-mindless evolution when signs of learned-social-human-culture emerged from a background of evolved-genetic-animal-instinct : jazz hands :cheer: .
# Fourthly, the Agency*2 we call Mind is always associated with complex living organisms : animated matter, not inanimate rocks. But what is the complexifying & animating force, vital principle, elan vital? What input transforms raw matter, into living bodies, thinking beings, and intentional agents?
# Fifthly, Mind has never been found separate from a physical organism of some kind. I can imagine a disembodied soul (ghost), but for me, it's obviously not real, but ideal. So, obviously, to be a causal & interactive agent in the real world, Mind must be embodied, and a physical manifestation of Mind is Culture.
# Sixthly, Mind is the active processing of meaningful Information*3. And Action in the real world is always associated with some form of Energy. the currency of Mind is Information : EnFormAction.
# Seventhly, we can only discuss mental processes in philosophical or poetic metaphors*4.
# Eighthly, After decades of searching the Cosmos, scientists have never found verifiable signs of life or mind (culture), apart from a single rocky planet, on the cusp of an ordinary galaxy, among two trillion star constellations. Matter & Energy seem to be everywhere, so why is Mind so rare? What is the secret sauce . . .? I have a philosophical hypothesis, and it is mentioned in this post. :nerd:



*1. Metaphysics uses rational, philosophical inquiry to understand reality, while mysticism is based on direct, subjective, and intuitive experiences of reality.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=difference+between+metaphysics+and+mysticism

*2. mind is the capacity for agency—the ability to act, make choices, and exert control over one's actions and life circumstances.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=%22mind%22+is+agency

*3. Information is Physical and Metaphysical :
To explain the “active” element of Information, Peat says “I suggest that Information is the final element in a triad—information is that which gives form to energy”.
https://bothandblog8.enformationism.info/page29.html

*4. What Is Mind?

What is called Mind?
The flow of your thoughts!
The internal dialogue
When we do not talk.

We think and think,
shaping our words
to speak, the process
of thinking is Mind.

The platform in which
the thoughts move
like people move
in a railway station.

Mind is where words
move in whirls before,
it finally make it to
the conversations.

Controlling Mind
is then controlling
your thinking.
Mind is thoughts.

Narayanan Kutty Pozhath

I must have looked up this word at least 10 times. Here's what comes up:
the branch of philosophy that deals with the first principles of things, including abstract concepts such as being, knowing, substance, cause, identity, time, and space. — ProtagoranSocratist

"Metaphysics" may be the most debated concept on this forum. The confusion may stem from the fact that the idea of Nature, as a hierarchical system, can be found in the original source : Aristotle's treatise on Nature (Greek : physis)*1 began with with a review of then-current knowledge about the non-human natural world, describing classes, species & specific instances.

But, as an afterword (Meta-Physis) : principles and causes of change and motion in nature, he added an off-topic addendum to discuss, not specific items of objective Nature per se, but abstract subjective conjectures & generalizations & principles that had been imagined or inferred, not observed, by various philosophers, including Ari, Plato & Socrates. By contrast with the cycles of evolving Nature, Principles were presumed to be eternal and changeless.

Objective facts are seldom controversial, because you can point to an actual exemplar, instead of using abstract words to define what you are talking about. Therefore, I would categorize the main body of Aristotle's Physics as "hard" Science, but the addendum (the Meta) as"soft" Philosophy.

However, the label "Metaphysics"*2 was later associated with a legalistic sub-category of General Philosophy : Theology (god-science). And that ideology is further associated with a sub-category of Religion known as scriptural Monotheism. Unfortunately, it's the dogmatic & legalistic sophistry & casuistry of Theology that have given Aristotle's philosophy of principles a bad name. :cool:


*1. Aristotle's Physis is his foundational text on nature, or "physics," which explores the principles of change, motion, and existence, and is a cornerstone of Western thought. It introduces concepts like potentiality and actuality, the four causes (material, efficient, formal, and final), and argues that all things are in motion, driven by an Unmoved Mover. This work laid the groundwork for many subsequent fields, including biology and psychology, and has influenced scientific and philosophical inquiry for centuries
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=aristotle+physis

*2. Aristotle Physics vs Metaphysics :
Aristotle's physics was the study of nature and change, focusing on the physical world through observation and empirical study. In contrast, his metaphysics (which he called "first philosophy") was the study of being itself and the unchanging, immaterial entities that underlie the physical world, such as God. While physics dealt with the changeable, metaphysics addressed the principles behind things, like "being as such".
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=aristotle+physics+vs+metaphysics

that linguistic communication would be impossible if materialism were true. — Wayfarer
I see no reason to believe that. Perhaps you are working with a redundant model of material as 'mindless substance'. If material in all its forms were nothing but mindless substance, then of course it would follow by mere definition that conscious material is impossible. But that is specifically the "question-begging presumption" I was referring to. — Janus

may be simply implying --- based on absence of {empirical or theoretical} evidence to the contrary --- that massive space-occupying Matter*1 --- what we normally mean by the word --- does not have the "right stuff" [necessary qualities or capabilities or potential] to produce weightless spaceless shapeless Mental Phenomena such as verbal communication of ideas. Yet staunch (anti-spiritual) Materialists*2 insist that Matter must possess the potential for Mind. And I provisionally agree, but it's a "question-begging presumption" --- a philosophical hypothesis --- lacking step-by-step evidence or theory of how mundane lumpish matter became Mindful*3. Without an account of the steps & stages of that fortuitous emergence, it's a circular argument. So, the key question here is : what is the "right stuff" for evolving living & thinking Matter?

I too presume that Mind naturally evolved from non-conscious physical predecessors. But I've never seen any scientific evidence or theory that describe, step-by-step, how that transformation could have happened. Moreover, I don't accept that hypothetical-quark-composed Matter was the "fundamental" element of evolution. Instead, as Einstein concluded, time-causing Energy was the primal force behind space-time & evolution, that eventually shape-shifted into various change-causing agents (Gravity, Nuclear Forces, Thermal Energy, Electromagnetic Fields, etc). So, it seems obvious that whatever Causal Principle (possessing the right stuff) produced the Big Bang beginning and subsequent space-time evolution, could-and-did eventually cause Life & Mind processes to emerge. Unfortunately, details of the necessary critical intermediate stages (non-linear Phase Transitions*4) have not yet been documented.

So I'm guessing that the non-sentient precursor of Mental Processes (e.g. linguistic) was more likely the non-spatial, massless stuff of Causation : Energy in all its forms. E=MC^2 has no place for matter. Even Mass is a mathematical measurement of resistance to Force, and C is a mathematical constant, not a measurement of a material object. Therefore, I agree with both Wayfarer and his Materialist critics, but with a twist : massless, spaceless Energy is capable of transforming into both Matter and Mind. But Mind (consciousness) is not a "separate, non-physical entity"*2, it's an active meta-physical brain Process, with no mass or inertia. :nerd:


PS___ This is not a "redundant" model of Matter, but a novel cosmic perspective on the evolution of Mind. Do we want to debate whether Causation has the right-stuff to create linguistic (knowable) noumena within a world of material (observable events & properties) phenomena?


*1. What is Matter? :
In physics, matter is any substance that has mass and occupies space (volume). It is the physical material that makes up the universe and can be found in various states, or phases, such as solid, liquid, gas, and plasma. All matter is ultimately composed of elementary particles like quarks and leptons, which form protons, neutrons, and electrons, which in turn form atoms.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=what+is+matter+in+physics

*2. Materialism is a philosophical view that posits that physical matter is the fundamental substance in nature, and that all things, including mental states, can be explained by material interactions. In this view, the mind is not a separate, non-physical entity but rather a product of brain processes, and reality is governed by natural, physical laws. This can also refer to a value system that prioritizes material possessions, but in philosophy, it refers to the belief that the physical world is all that exists.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=materialism+philosophy

*3. Ideonomy: A Science of Ideas :
The foundational insight of ideonomy is that ideas are part of the natural world. Just as humans are part of the natural world, the thoughts and ideas generated by human minds are also natural phenomena. Accordingly, we should expect there to be underlying laws or patterns in ideas, the same way we observe laws that govern other natural phenomena. While most phenomena in our universe are examined through a scientific lens, ideas are often treated as magic. Ideonomy aims to remedy this.
https://gracekind.net/writing/ideonomy/intro/
Note --- This is not an actual physical science, but merely a recent instance of a long history of philosophical proposals to combine the tools of concrete Empiricism with those of abstract Reason, in order to put the observing Mind under the microscope, so to speak. For the near future, any "hard" evidence turned-up may be watered-down with imagination & interpretation, as usual with any novel views of reality, such as Quantum Theory.

*4. Phase transition : The process where a substance abruptly changes from one state of matter to another, like a solid turning into a liquid or a liquid into a gas.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=phase+transition
Note --- The "abrupt" change is also non-analytical, so intermediate steps --- the mechanism --- between states are unknown.

I don't say they "go beyond" but just that they are different domains of inquiry. — Janus

So, you are saying they are parallel domains --- empirical vs speculative --- not one above another? That's OK. I was not implying any heavenly domain for philosophy, but merely that it is not bound by the necessity for material evidence. In that sense, philosophers are free to "go beyond" the physical limits of Science, in order to explore the metaphysical (immaterial) aspects of the Cosmos. :smile:

The brain is not a "blob of matter" so your question is moot. You seem to be thinking in terms of some obsolete paradigm. — Janus

Apparently you took my metaphorical figure-of-speech as a literal physical description of the brain. I am familiar with some cutting-edge theories of mind, that blur the borders between physics & metaphysics, and Idealism & Realism. But most still insist that Consciousness is inherent in Matter, not an add-on.

I agree, except that I reserve the term "Consciousness" for homo sapiens with big complex neural systems. It's a product of long evolution, and only the potential for C was inherent in the emerging world prior to about 300,000 years ago. Therefore, in lieu of conscious atoms, I focus on causal Energy, not inert Matter*1, as one form of the general power-to-transform that drives the process of Evolution. Gravity & Forces are other forms of EnFormAction. Hence, EFA, not dumb Matter, is the precursor of the process of subjective Awareness. Anyway, all discussions of Ideas & Opinions are Moot. But this forum is a Moot Court. :nerd:


*1. The statement that "matter is energy locked into form" is a popular, but oversimplified, way of describing a core concept from Einstein's theory of relativity. A more precise understanding is that matter and energy are two forms of the same fundamental thing, and can be converted into one another, as described by the famous equation \(E=mc^{2}\). This equation shows that mass (a measure of matter) is a form of concentrated energy.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=matter+is+energy+locked+into+form
Note --- That fundamental "thing" is what my philosophical thesis calls EnFormAction. It's a portmanteau coinage, so you won't find that term in a textbook of Physics or Psychology. But it's all natural, no spooky spiritual intervention necessary.

I have no problem with philosophical speculation. It operates in science in the form of abductive reasoning. The point is that it should be underwritten by science, if we are speculating about the nature of things. For ethics and aesthetics it might be a different matter―science may not have much to tell us in those domains.

How things such as matter, mind or consciousness intuitively seem (the province of phenomenology) which is determined by reflection on experience, tells us only about how we, prior to any scientific investigation, might imagine that these things are. That may have its own value in understanding the evolution of human understanding, but it tells us nothing about how the world things really are.

So I was responding to the dogmatic assertion that "linguistic communication would be impossible if materialism were true". I reject that as dogma because it assumes that the material world is purely a "billiard ball" world of mindless atoms in the void.. — Janus

I agree that there are philosophical "domains" that go beyond the self-imposed limits of Objective Physical Science. And philosophers, back to Plato & Aristotle have argued about the value of "empty verbiage" (speculation) versus productive facts*1. Yet. what's the point of a Philosophy Forum, if it has no pragmatic results to show for the expenditure of hot air? If we had the power to communicate directly from mind to mind, there might be no need for "empty verbiage"*2. Instead, we would intuitively know how minds work to produce ideal opinions instead of material facts

I have always been interested in "hard" science", and I took basic college courses in Physics, Chemistry, Biology, etc. But I also took courses in the "soft" science of Psychology. Beyond their mapping of neural coordinates of consciousness though, modern psychology tells us nothing about how a blob of matter can produce sentience & awareness & opinions : how things Ideally are. Such imaginative speculations won't put food on the table, but they may help us deal with the varying tastes & preferences & opinions of those humans sitting around the table. When your child turns-up his nose at cranberry sauce, can you discuss the "facts" with him?

Is there any "value" in understanding how people think (ideally) about how the world really is? How would we gain understanding of Other Minds without "linguistic communication" : ideas expressed in sounds & written words? Humans seldom disagree on established Facts. But they have fought wars over subjective interpretations of so-called Facts*3. Does materialistic Science have any practical value in "how in the world things really are" : RealPolitik*4? In between wars, does ideal persuasion work better than material bombs? :smile:


*1. Philosophy has always had to defend itself against the charge that it is empty verbiage, unscientific speculation. Philosophers themselves are often the harshest and most astute critics of their own enterprise, and none was more coruscating than the Austrian thinker Ludwig Wittgenstein (1889-1951).
https://www.wsj.com/arts-culture/books/ludwig-wittgenstein-review-an-attack-on-the-abstract-8640e564

*2. The statement that "linguistic communication would be impossible if materialism were true" is a philosophical argument, not a settled fact, and is a subject of ongoing debate between materialist and anti-materialist (often dualist or idealist) viewpoints.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=linguistic+communication+would+be+impossible+if+materialism+were+true

*3. Wars are often fought not over objective facts themselves, but over subjective interpretations of events, ideologies, historical narratives, or perceptions of reality. This is a recurring theme throughout history and in modern conflicts.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=fought+wars+over+subjective+interpretations+of+so-called+Facts.

*4. Realpolitik is the approach of conducting diplomatic or political policies based primarily on considerations of given circumstances and factors, rather than strictly following ideological, moral, or ethical premises. In this respect, it shares aspects of its philosophical approach with those of realism and pragmatism.
___Oxford Dictionary
Note --- Did Hitler's war-making end because of diplomatic ideologies, or due to overwhelming guns & bombs of the allies? But how did the leaders of allied nations convince their people that resisting aggression, with blood & guts, was the right thing to do? Perhaps, a combination of empty-but-emotional (ideal) verbiage, and increased production of the (material) machines of war.

PS___ Is Materialism true (factual) or a belief (doctrinal)?
Materialism : the doctrine that nothing exists except matter and its movements and modifications.
___Oxford Dictionary

This is the sense in which the mind “constructs” or “creates” the cosmos: not as an external agent shaping an independent material realm, but as the ongoing process of perception, interpretation, and conceptual synthesis that yields our experience of a coherent, ordered world — which is precisely what kosmos meant. — Wayfarer

Yes. I use the term Universe in reference to the expanding evolving ball of matter & energy that somehow formed a safe haven for us living beings. But the term Cosmos is a more philosophical concept that emphasizes the laws that organized an explosion of Matter into the evolution of Mind.

Philosophically, the Cosmos is not a material object, but a human-mind-constructed concept about the material world we inhabit, and which we find to be mostly understandable by applied Reason (science) : a well-ordered whole system. And as Plato illustrated, philosophers can't just take it for granted, but insist on asking "why?" and "whence?".

Taken together, those curious questions seem to infer & imply a non-human-non-local Mind that designed the process and the system. But this thread asks the question : is that Cosmic Mind currently beaming ideas into our heads, in a mysterious manner that allows us to naively believe that we are thinking for ourselves. I can accept the notion of hands-off creator-programmer-observer, but not one who deceives its creatures, and uses them as mechanical robots. :worry:

↪Gnomon
The point is that neither idealism nor physicalism are, contrary to what their opponents like to suggest, self-refuting. Actually idealism is not usually criticized for being self-refuting, but rather for being explanatorily impotent, implausible or even incoherent in that the only forms of idealism which can serve to explain our everyday experience rely, in order to give an account of how shared experience could be possible, on ideas like God or universal mind or collective mind' ideas which themselves are not able to be satisfactorily conceptually explicated or related to everyday human experience. — Janus

Yes. The difference between modern Philosophy and modern Science lies in their explanatory means & methods : the exploring mind of the Natural Philosopher can go beyond the space-time bounds of the material world, and the self-imposed limits of Scientism. But, when conjectures become dogma and speculations become scripture, an open-mind line has been crossed. Besides, even "space-time" and "fabric of reality" are ideal, not real. :wink:

Note 1 --- Idealism and related philosophies, may be impotent to explain immaterial ideas in material terms. Yet religious beliefs have the power to explain "shared experiences" in terms of feelings. And philosophical conjectures are judged, not on material evidence, or scientific orthodoxy, but on Logical Potency.

Note 2 --- Another poster, who will remain unnamed, rejects Ideal Philosophical theories (e.g. Brahman, Forms, First Cause, Plenum, Mind) in favor of "Real" Scientific terms (e.g. Gravity Fields, Virtual Particles, Vacuum Energy, Neural Network). Even the notion of Aether has been resurrected to label such invisible intangible non-things as Dark Matter & Dark Energy. None of which has any concrete material evidence, only abstract immaterial theories about patterns & relations, not objects*1. Do you think exclusion of philosphical terminology is appropriate on a philosophy forum?


*1. In science, "field" and "virtual" are abstract or mathematical concepts used to describe physical phenomena and interactions, the nature of which blurs traditional lines between "material" and "immaterial"
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=virtual+particles

.

Whatever the material correlate to metaphysical consciousness may be, it isn’t consciousness. And whatever metaphysical conception consciousness may be, it isn’t material. — Mww

The philosophy of consciousness has always circled around a central mystery. But empirical science was supposed to dispel those ancient enigmas with indisputable "hard" evidence. For example, Newtonian physics provided mundane explanations for celestial pattern puzzles that had entranced imaginative naked-eye sky-gazers for millennia. The evidence was direct observation, aided by vision-enhancing technology, and vetted by mathematical logic.

Suddenly, certainty about star-gods! But then, Quantum physics came along and muddied Newton's math with Uncertainty. An article in Oct/Nov 2025 issue of Philosophy Now magazine discusses the ramifications of that scientific set-back to an era when science & superstition were often indistinguishable.

Quantum Physics and Indian Philosophy, by Kumar & Varshney, looks at reality from both perspectives, and sees the same now & then parallels that spawned Fitjof Capra's 1975 book, The Tao of Physics. An important lesson from such unorthodox approaches to Science is that the broader context is important : Holism. After millennia of searching for the fundamental Atom of Reality, physicists were appalled to find that the notion of a hard bottom to the material world was an illusion : Maya.

So scientists turned their attention from bits of matter, to bits of information, and to unbounded timeless universal Fields of Potential*1 . Only to find that ancient cow worshipers got there before them : "Ultimate reality (Brahman) is infinite, eternal, and beyond time, space, or change, has no shape or qualities, and is the source of everything."*2 Where does Consciousness fit into Newton's model of space & time, or to Einstein's remodel of space-time? Does the big C exist in time, and occupy space?

The PN article also notes the "tendency toward romanticization --- when for instance it's claimed that ancient Indian sages anticipated quantum ideas"*2. Likewise, those who speculate on threads like this may be accused of a propensity for Spiritualization. :smile:


*1. Cosmic Field of Potential :
Physicists and cosmologists call this divine source the Unified Field. In a profound sense, Brahman (the Vedantic concept) and the Unified Field of physics appear to be synonymous.
https://www.hinduhumanrights.info/quantum-physics-and-vedic-unified-consciousness/

*2. Quantum Physics & Indian Philosophy :
both disciplines challenge the classical notion of an objective, observer-independent reality, and elevate the role of the observer.
Philosophy Now magazine

The point I would contend is the idea on either side of the debate that their conclusions are "slam dunk". That idea only shows dogmatism, closed-mindedness. — Janus

Good point! Accusations of "dogmatism" and "closed-mindedness" have traditionally been directed toward people of Faith. So, it's ironic that posters on a philosophy forum would display those characteristics in dialogs that can't be proven or dis-proven empirically. For example, Eliminativism requires a closed mind, and Immanentism seems to be based on the dogma of Materialism. Are those "slam dunk" positions signs of faith in the belief system of Scientism? :wink:

I should add a caveat about McGinn. His “mysterian” view is useful in one narrow sense: he at least takes the reality of consciousness seriously, and he recognises that the standard physicalist story hasn’t solved anything. In that respect he’s a welcome counterweight to the eliminativist impulse.

But I think his explanation for the “mystery” goes astray. He says we can’t understand consciousness because humans lack the right conceptual equipment — as if a special metaphysical faculty were required to see how brain processes give rise to experience. — Wayfarer

The problem with Mysterian*1 philosophy is that it gives-up on the ancient philosophical quest : to explore the Hard Questions that are not subject to objective answers. Such speculative exploration*2 can be proven wrong though, when observations contradict the conjectures. Today, we might say that dragon warnings about Mars, are "not even wrong". But there are plenty of other scary features of the red planet, that should give rocket-ship explorers pause : 2015 film, The Martian.

Personally, I think we do have "the right conceptual equipment" for seeking answers to the Hard Problem. Yet our "metaphysical faculty" of Reason & Logic does not produce "Hard" evidence, in the sense of physics & chemistry & neurology. Instead, it's our ability to imagine things that possess no material structure, but only logical structure : patterns & relationships. That's why I continue to explore the relation of Causation to Consciousness. I don't think Consciousness is fundamental, but Causation, and its cousin Information, may be essential to the evolving world.

Awareness of things & events inside and outside the body is not some magical substance, but a temporal process*3 : change over time. It transforms sensory data into mental ideas & feelings. That's why I think our metaphysical faculty is more like causal Energy than inert Matter. Recent scientific studies have noted the fundamental relationship between Physical Energy and Metaphysical Mind*4. Further rational & empirical research may eventually dispel the "Mystery", by identifying the causal steps & phase changes between physical Causation & metaphysical Transformation. :nerd:


*1. Mysterianism is the philosophy that some questions, particularly the hard problem of consciousness, are fundamentally unsolvable by humans due to the inherent limitations of our cognitive abilities. This perspective, most famously associated with Colin McGinn, argues that while consciousness is a natural phenomenon and not supernatural, our brains are not equipped to understand how the physical matter of the brain creates subjective experience. It is not the same as saying we don't know the answer yet, but that we can never know the answer.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=mysterianism+philosophy
Note --- Mysterianism may be a modern form of Spirituality and Taboo, in that it imagines non-overlapping magisteria like Heaven & Earth.

*2. Here Be Dragons : The phrase was thought to be a literal warning from mapmakers to mariners that they should proceed with caution because the area was uncharted and potentially hazardous.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=maps+used+to+say+there+be+dragons+here

*3. A conscious process is a mental operation that a person is aware of and often in control of, involving explicit awareness of thoughts, memories, feelings, and sensations. These are the processes that form a person's subjective experience of being aware of themselves and their surroundings, such as planning or recalling a memory, and are distinct from unconscious processes that occur automatically.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=consciusness+process
Note --- A Process is a series of actions or steps taken in order to achieve a particular end. A.N. Whitehead's process philosophy conjectures that reality is fundamentally a dynamic and creative "becoming" rather than a collection of static "things". The Evolutionary Process seems teleological : directed by intention, not accident. Of course, the Intender may remain a mystery until . . . .

*4. Energy is a form of Information :
No, information and energy are not the same thing, but they are fundamentally linked, and information can be converted into energy.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=information+is+energy

I've been a Dennett antagonist ever since before joining this Forum. I thought the title of his book Consciousness Explained was ridiculously pompous (and indeed, it was widely parodied as 'Consciousness Ignored'. — Wayfarer

Ironically, even some (supposedly) pragmatic scientists are entertaining (seemingly) spiritual explanations for consciousness*1. Such modern theories are more Mathematical (mental) than Material (substantial)*2. Meanwhile, the concept of "higher dimensions"*3 has been adopted by some religious thinkers as a more sciency-sounding term for what the ancients imagined as an out-of-reach celestial "spiritual" realm.

Personally, I have no experience of dimensions beyond those of mundane space-time. Even "moments of creativity or deep thought" feel ordinary to me. And I don't know how we might "measure" them, other than how we measure Time, in increments of environmental cycles relative to physiological rhythms. And yet, String Theorists seem to take un-measureable multiple dimensions for granted, because the mental math can easily go beyond what counts for the material senses.

Strangely, Math is supposed to be a form of Logic, but has discovered numerical values that are beyond Reason : Irrational & Transcendental. Is it a sign that Mind is not physical, but Meta-Physical? We can imagine future Utopias and Paradises, but never actually reach their golden gates. Even so, are ideas & ideals, that have no manifestation in matter, somehow more real than mundane reality? Or simply a way for humans to strain against the restraints of physical laws?

Anyway, it seems that Consciousness, unbounded by physical limitations, remains a mystery in search of a logical, tangible, explanation. Religious interpretations may meekly accept Spirituality as beyond Reason. But epistemological Philosophers tend to hold-out for a rational understanding, instead of incomprehensible and extra-sensory blind faith. Don't promise me a tantalizing heavenly hereafter, make it real, here, now! :halo:


*1. Spiritual Consciousness :
Physicist Michael Pravica has proposed a controversial theory that human consciousness could originate from higher dimensions beyond our physical reality. This theory, rooted in the concept of hyperdimensionality, suggests that during moments of creativity or deep thought, consciousness may transcend the brain to connect with these unseen realms. While this idea is speculative and not widely accepted, it opens up the possibility that consciousness is not purely a product of the brain and could potentially exist beyond the physical world.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=Human+Consciousness+Comes+From+a+Higher+Dimension%2C+Scientist+Claims%E2%80%94Meaning+It+Could+Transcend+the+Physical+World
Note --- Is this scientist explaining Consciousness by imagining invisible & dubious parallel realities?

*2. Higher dimensions are a concept in mathematics and physics that represent directions beyond the three spatial dimensions (length, width, and height) and one time dimension we experience. These additional dimensions can be thought of as more "degrees of freedom" for movement, or as mathematical and theoretical spaces used to describe phenomena. While some theories, like string theory, propose the existence of up to 10 or 11 dimensions, these extra dimensions may be curled up or "compactified" at extremely small scales, making them undetectable.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=higher+dimensions
Note --- Do we actually experience Four Dimensions, or do we merely accept it conventionally?

*3. In a spiritual context, a higher dimension can refer to states of consciousness beyond our everyday, three-dimensional physical experience, characterized by greater awareness, love, and unity. It can also describe a more transcendent, eternal, or "unseen" reality that is beyond linear time and separation. These concepts are often tied to spiritual growth, moving from a focus on the ego and material world to a more enlightened, purposeful existence.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=higher+dimension+meaning+spiritual
Note --- Is this higher realm populated by spirits & gods, or merely by ideal Platonic Forms, whatever that is?