Ah, so you are a functionalist, then? — Bob Ross

I suppose you mean a Functionalist*1, as opposed to a Behaviorist or Materialist or some other theory of Consciousness. Technically, a Function is the relationship between Inputs (sensory data) and Outputs (reasoning & acting). Mind is a Process which coordinates multiple physical (running) & metaphysical (thinking) Functions, and seems well designed (by evolution) to serve those disparate Purposes.

But, as a layman, I am not well informed about all those alternative theories of Mind. I simply observe that the primary business of the human brain*2, with its cerebral cortex & frontal lobes, seems to be designed to negotiate our complex social & cultural organizations with Reasoning, Learning, and Predicting the behavior of other minds*3. :chin:


*1. "Functionalist" generally refers to an approach that emphasizes the function or purpose of something in relation to the whole, often in the context of social systems, psychology, or design. In sociology, it describes a theoretical perspective that views society as a complex system with interconnected parts, each playing a role in maintaining stability and order. In psychology, it focuses on the mind's adaptive functions and how mental processes help individuals interact with their environment. Additionally, "functionalist" can describe an approach in architecture and design that prioritizes utility and practicality.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functionalism_(philosophy_of_mind)

*2. The primary function of the brain is to act as the central command center for the body, coordinating and regulating all bodily functions. This includes processing sensory information, initiating movement, controlling emotions, and enabling complex cognitive functions like thinking, learning, and memory.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=primary+function+of+brain

*3. The evolution of large human brains is likely due to a combination of factors, including environmental challenges, social complexity, and dietary changes. These factors likely influenced each other, driving the evolution of larger, more complex brains capable of processing more information and supporting advanced cognitive abilities.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=reason+for+big+brain

Functions point to ends; ends point to a form; and a form points to an essence. — Bob Ross

Yes. For example, an engineer designs a machine with a particular Function (end) in mind, and the Form of the machine is organized to serve that end, its Purpose. Yet, the Form of the machine is not the Material it's made of, but the Essential interrelationships of its construction (design). Those inter-acting functions seem to indicate that a human brain was designed (by evolution?) for a different Purpose (function) from that of an Ostrich. The tiny ostrich brain is well suited (designed) for its physical & social habitat : a bunch of long-legged bird-brains.

However, the human brain layout was originally "designed" (by evolution) for an ape's jungle environment. Nevertheless, in only a few generations, it has spawned & adapted to an un-natural cultural habitat --- cars, planes, phones, etc. --- which tend to minimize use of the leg functions, and maximize the brain functions. And yet, the functional flexibility of the human Mind allows a few athletes to run like an ostrich, while others become obese couch potatoes, or nerdy phone swipers. Somehow, evolution seemed to anticipate that, since the 19th century, we homo sapiens would need a body & brain designed for thinking instead of running, and swiping instead of swinging. :joke:

I haven’t found that this thread is pointing in any particular direction, but it has highlighted a key theme: a conversation about what counts as a coherent or useful idea of God. . — Tom Storm

Since you opened the door to alternative concepts of God, I'll mention a chapter in the book --- by James B. Glattfelder (physicist turned quantitative analyst) --- I'm currently reading, subtitled : What a modern-day synthesis of science and philosophy teaches us about the emergence of information, consciousness and meaning. The chapter title is : Don't Be Silly, and the general topic is Consciousness. But a sub-theme is Panpsychism, which seems to the a modern substitute for traditional God-models among some non-religious scientists and philosophers. The author quotes a newspaper headline : "Why can't the world's greatest minds solve the mystery of consciousness?"

I won't go into the specific "sophisticated" arguments, but I'll list a few of the great minds. Arguing on the "pro" side of Panpsychism are David Chalmers, Philip Goff, Galen Strawson, Bernardo Kastrup, and David Bently Hart. On the "con" side, arguing against Panpsychism, are Daniel Dennett, Patricia Churchland, and Peter Vickers. Regarding the debate between Vickers and Kastrup, the author says "both thinkers seem to find it hard to grasp what exactly the other is really saying". So, the key barrier to communication seems to be "systemic and structural cognitive biases" in the form of Realistic vs Idealistic worldviews & belief systems.

In a previous book --- after noting that he has been accused of being motivated by religious beliefs --- Glattfelder says : "I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it". And one aspect of that "world structure" seems to be what some thinkers call Panpsychism : "Panpsychism is a philosophical theory that proposes consciousness is a fundamental and ubiquitous feature of reality". Hence, no need to posit a traditional transcendent God to explain the emergence of metaphysical human consciousness in a physical world, that appears to be 99.99% non-conscious matter. :smile:

Well, no, I think it’s rather more than that. In the end, any debate about God isn’t simply theism versus atheism. It’s about what we hold to be true. Arguments for or against God are really arguments about what counts as a valid claim to truth. And here’s the thing: how can we ground our knowledge at all? — Tom Storm

The OP topic sounds like a reference to intellectual debates between two opposite standpoints : Theism (God is) vs Atheism (no god). Did you intend to make this thread more complex (sophisticated?), by including various shades of opinions on "shin-barking" reality vs Ultimate Reality?. Do you want to change the focus from God to Truth?

Non-philosophers seem to "ground" their knowledge in trusted authorities on the topic : Priests, Theologians, Preachers, etc. But philosophically-inclined thinkers seem to be more trusting of their own personal powers of reason. So, they "ground" their knowledge in formal rational exploration : Epistemology (theories to support beliefs). And that seems to be where the OP is pointing. But such threads typically wander away from the original topic. :smile:

1. What is Aristotle's view of the mind here? Is it a nothingness, a negativity, like Hegel? Is it pure form that is immaterial? — Bob Ross

I'll let Aristotle experts argue about what he means by "pure from all admixture". Maybe he was thinking of Mind/Soul as the Ideal Form (actualizing principle) aspect of HyloMorph, which by analogy, converts amorphous clay into a meaningful or representative sculpture. But the purity specification (unadulterated) sounds like a reference to the 19th century notion of transparent Spiritual Energy (essence ; ectoplasm ; ghost) compared to the opaque Material Body (admixture of many substances).

However, my personal understanding of Mind is as a process (thinking) instead of a thing (physical entity). By that I mean : Mind is the function or purpose of Brain. For example, to coordinate all the various body parts, and to determine its place in space. Again, the material brain has many interacting parts (complexity), but the immaterial Mind, as a singular activity, is no-thing. Perhaps, as A.N. Whitehead suggested, it's a value-creating process. Yet, as in the notion of HyloMorph, Mind & Brain go together like clouds & weather; they are a team. :smile:

Well it is delightful when you consider that atheists have maintained that reason assists us to disbelieve theism, while the presupp says the atheist's reason and its effectiveness is a key proof of God. Many also reach for the evolutionary against naturalism as the next step. I — Tom Storm

I get the irony of both sides of the God Argument claiming human Reason as their agent to prove or disprove the existence of our modern invisible intangible "shy" God, who no longer works major miracles to prove His power to rationalizing skeptics. Since both sides have the same armament, that's why Atheism vs Theism disputation has been a Mexican Standoff for centuries. But in a practical popularity sense, it's still no contest.

However, the average religious believer probably does not know or care about abstruse Scholastic reasoning. Their Faith is in the heart, not the head. And atheistic reasoning against the God postulate probably sounds like nit-picky criticism of what's obvious to them : that the world is under cosmic control, whether you call it Fate or Faith. Their modern miracle is a 2000 year old book of revealed Truth. In the New Testament epistle of James 2:18, "“You and I have faith; I have works. Show me your faith without works, and I shall show you my faith by my works.” The typical believer behaves as-if God is real, and feels no compunction to prove that feeling by erudite reasoning.

Yet, those of us who post on philosophy forums, are aware that Faith without Reason is commonplace among simple-minded credulous people. Hence, the thousands of practical "faiths" throughout the world : from 4000 year old Hinduism to 20 year old Church of the Highlands*1. So, we autodidact wisdom-seekers search for a truish belief system, whose factish contents work-together to structurally support a flimsy over-arching film of Faith. Unfortunately, for some of us, the insubstantial immaterial rational evidence does not add-up to a real God --- only to an imaginary deity in a godless world.

However, for others more technically inclined, empirical Science has concluded that Reality itself, on the foundational quantum level, is only as substantial as the statistical mathematics used to describe it. For example, Quantum Mechanics is explicitly non-mechanical, and the material objects being processed are themselves essentially subjective*2 : believe it or not. Hence, score one for the God team. And the beat goes on . . . . . :joke:


*1. "By 2018, Church of the Highlands was listed as the tenth largest megachurch in the United States, according to CBS News"
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=highlands+church+history

*2.In the realm of quantum mechanics, the notion of objectivity is challenged. Some interpretations suggest that facts in the quantum world can be subjective, meaning that different observers might experience different realities. This arises from the fundamental principles of quantum mechanics, where objects can exist in multiple states simultaneously (superposition) until observed. Upon observation, the superposition collapses, and the object assumes a definite state
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=quantum+objects+subjective

A presuppositionalist would argue that God is the necessary precondition for us to even have a conversation, so in debating God's existence, you're actually proving it. Not convincing to me, but a delightful argument nonetheless. — Tom Storm

Sounds like a long word for Faith prior to Evidence. If you accept that blind faith is a good thing, then you will be hooked into whatever belief system you are currently engaged in. I suppose it's a clever argument for appealing to non-philosophers. But I don't see why you call it "delightful". :smile:

Do you think there is a valid philosophical distinction between Percepts and Concepts, between Physics and Metaphysics? — Gnomon
Yes, they are distinct but related areas that influence and inform each other. — Tom Storm

I was hoping for a more informative response. What is the pertinent difference between those pairs, in view of the "rambling OP", about "cartoon gods" and "mawkish literalism"? :cool:

I have found many observations interesting (not sure what you mean by arguments) like this one which summarises the foundational nature of my OP: — Tom Storm

It seems that the "foundational nature" of your OP shows a preference for medieval Catholic Scholastic rationalistic arguments*1 over modern empirical Atheist vs Theist debates or observations. For example, "Apophatic" arguments for God, may sound erudite, but they only seem reasonable if you accept their premise that God is wholly other (unknowable, ineffable, supernatural) to the real natural world, and its imperfect (fallen) humans. But more critical philosophers may see it as a ruse*2 to trick the gullible into fooling themselves into accepting the Catholic definition of God (e.g. Unity & Trinity). :nerd:

*1. Philosophical Argument vs Faith-based Observations :
In philosophy, an argument is a structured set of statements (premises) intended to support a conclusion. It's not simply a disagreement or a quarrel, but a reasoned attempt to justify a belief or claim. Arguments in philosophy are typically categorized as deductive or inductive, and understanding their structure and validity is crucial for philosophical inquiry
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=philosophical+arguments

*2. Ruse : Use negative abstract reasoning to disqualify positive empirical reasoning.

I looked at a few definitions of “intention” on the web. They fell into two groupings 1) as a near synonym for goal or purpose 2) as a mental state. The first definition is no help, since the presence of a goal or purpose is the question on the table here. The second definition clearly does not include the actions of DNA. — T Clark

The etymology of the word "Intention" seems to imply teleology*1. But a mere "tendency" refers to an apparent direction, e.g. toward future fitness & survival, yet without specifying any motivating purpose or end goal. So, was the eventual emergence of Life & Mind, after 14B years of non-life & mindlessness, A> an accident, or B> an afterthought, or C> sudden change from physical tendency to metaphysical entities, or D> a developmental Purpose realized?

Darwin's mechanism of Evolution (variation + adaptation) was intended to avoid any notion of divine purpose. But his model of Artificial Evolution*2, of plants & animals by human farmers, necessarily involved intentional Selection with a long-range Purpose --- long or short legs ; larger fruit, etc --- and the future goal was pre-imagined in the mind of the Selector.

Darwin's Natural Selection analogy, simply referred to the Selector (chooser ; specifier) as Nature. But any selection or choice is by definition non-random, so some directional intention or "force"*3 is logically necessary, even when not specified. So, the question remains : is Nature intentional & teleological? :smile:

*1. The word "intention" originates from the Latin word intentio, meaning "a stretching out, straining, exertion, effort" or "attention". It evolved from the verb intendere, which meant "to turn one's attention, to stretch out". This ultimately traces back to the Proto-Indo-European root *ten-, meaning "to stretch". In essence, the concept of intention, as we understand it today, involves a mental stretching or aiming of one's thoughts or actions toward a specific goal or purpose.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=intention+etym

*2. Darwin used artificial selection as a key analogy in developing his theory of natural selection. He observed how humans selectively breed plants and animals for desired traits, demonstrating that traits can be modified over generations. This process, where breeders choose which individuals reproduce, served as a model for how nature could also select for advantageous traits, leading to evolutionary change.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=darwin+artificial+selection

*3. Natural selection is not a random process. While the genetic variations that arise through mutation may be random, the process of natural selection itself favors certain traits that enhance survival and reproduction in a given environment, making it a non-random, directional force in evolution
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=natural+selction+not+random

COMICAL ACCIDENT OR INTENTIONAL DIFFERENCE ?

In contrast, more nuanced conceptions of God, such as Paul Tillich’s idea of God as the "Ground of Being" or David Bentley Hart’s articulation of God as Being itself - represent attempts to have this conversation in metaphysical terms rather than anthropomorphic ones. — Tom Storm

In his disdainful reply above, 180proof dismissed metaphysical god concepts as a "distinction without a difference". When I referred to Aristotle's non-anthro-morphic metaphysical concept of First Cause as "Infinite Potential", 180 sneered : "so it's not scienrific. . . . . it's not coherently philosophical". Yet you seem to be open to Metaphysical reasoning.

As usual, 180 argues against idealism & deism with “kick the rock” reasoning : his “no testable predictions” is equivalent to “I refute it thus”*1. Like Sam Johnson, he missed the point of Berkeley's Idealism : not denial of material reality, but acknowledgment of the filter of individual interpretation (conception) of personal perception. Perhaps he thinks the distinction between Perception (pain) and Conception (rock hurts toe) is immaterial, hence meaningless, and unscientific, and "not coherently philosophical".

Do you think there is a valid philosophical distinction between Percepts and Concepts, between Physics and Metaphysics? :smile:

*1. Physical Percepts vs Metaphysical Concepts :
Samuel Johnson famously refuted Bishop Berkeley's philosophical idealism by kicking a stone, declaring "I refute it thus!". This act, meant to demonstrate the existence of material reality, is often seen as a simplistic response to Berkeley's complex philosophical arguments according to Wikipedia. Berkeley's philosophy, known as immaterialism, argued that objects only exist as perceptions in the mind, not as independent material entities. Johnson's action, however, highlighted the perceived solidity of the rock and the pain of kicking it, suggesting that these were undeniable material experiences. 
Critics point out that Berkeley never denied the reality of sensory experiences like pain or the solidity of objects. Berkeley's point was that these perceptions are all that we can know, and there's no need to posit a separate material substance.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=johnson+kick+the+rock
Note --- Obviously, humans do indeed imagine & assume that material objects can cause pain. That makes sense, from a materialistic worldview. Ironically, the cause of pain for Johnson was his own intention & action.

If there is NOT intention, it is still a lot of organized work from different players using encoded information*1 to bring about a specific future. So teleology. — Patterner

Sounds like a computer program, for which the intention*2 is in the mind of the Programmer. But signs of intention can be found in such directional instructions as "if-then". :smile:


*1. Information is :
Claude Shannon quantified Information not as useful ideas, but as a mathematical ratio between meaningful order (1) and meaningless disorder (0); between knowledge (1) and ignorance (0). So, that meaningful mind-stuff exists in the limbo-land of statistics, producing effects on reality while having no sensory physical properties. We know it exists ideally, only by detecting its effects in the real world.
For humans, Information has the semantic quality of aboutness , that we interpret as meaning. In computer science though, Information is treated as meaningless, which makes its mathematical value more certain. It becomes meaningful only when a sentient Self interprets it as such : revealing the intention of the programmer.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page11.html

*2. Intentional Programming : This is a programming paradigm that aims to capture the programmer's true intentions directly in the code, making it more understandable and easier to modify.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=computer+program+intention

↪Gnomon
I’m not saying I understand Hart or Tillich, their work is quite recondite, and in my life, it has little practical use. But it is very interesting and aligns with well-established ways of understanding ideas of God. All I’m hoping to do is 'open up' the subject. — Tom Storm

Does the notion of God as ground of Being have any "practical use" in your world? Does it "open up" a new path for philosophical dialog? What do you find interesting about their theological "work"? Their approach seems to be based on the Ontological Argument*1, that goes back to Anselm's definition of God as self-evident to rational thinkers : if God is Being itself, then disbelief would be denial of Existence..

On the other hand, Sartre defined "being itself" as the material world devoid of consciousness, excluding humans. Which would define the "ground of being" as physical reality apart from any human interest such as Life, Consciousness or Choice. So, Existentialism*2 seems to shut-down the subject of ideal God vs material Reality, not open it up.

Have you found any of the arguments presented in this thread to be "interesting" or "practical"? :smile:



*1. Common arguments for the existence of God include the cosmological argument, the teleological argument, the ontological argument, the moral argument, and the argument from religious experience. These arguments explore different facets of existence, from the origins of the universe to human morality and personal encounters with the divine, to suggest God's existence.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=common+arguments+for+god

*2. In existential philosophy, particularly in the work of Jean-Paul Sartre, "being itself" (or "being-in-itself," en-soi) refers to the mode of existence of inanimate objects and the fundamental, non-conscious reality of all things. It is characterized by a fullness of being, a self-contained and unreflective existence, lacking consciousness, self-awareness, and the capacity for choice or transcendence.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=being+itself

Put simply: Teleological explanation requires a fixed end or final cause. But in a probabilistic system, the future is open at every step. To say that events are happening as a means to reaching some future state C, is nonsensical considering state C isn't even guaranteed. — tom111

Yes. Our world seems to be fundamentally stochastic ; at least on the quantum level. So the pre-set mechanistic A> B> C> type of evolution doesn't fit the evidence. But your Probabilistic process implies a positive direction without specifying the end state. This is how Evolutionary Programming*1 works : to reach, not a pre-specified goal, but an optimum set of properties.

As someone noted, the physical universe out there does not appear Teleological, except in one dark corner of a spiral galaxy. Where intentional creatures have emerged from the mud, and set about modifying their Natural environment to suit their species' needs for both physical (natural) and metaphysical (cultural) habitat.

I'm not sure what to call that process of artificial evolution, but "stochastic teleology"*2 sounds a bit too erratic & accidental. However, A.N. Whitehead labeled his Probabilistic Process as "Open-Ended Teleology"*3. Does that sound like a fit with your Probabilistic Teleology? :smile:

*1. Evolutionary Programming :
Special computer algorithms inspired by biological Natural Selection. It is similar to Genetic Programming in that it relies on internal competition between random alternative solutions to weed-out inferior results, and to pass-on superior answers to the next generation of algorithms. By means of such optimizing feedback loops, evolution is able to make progress toward the best possible solution – limited only by local restraints – to the original programmer’s goal or purpose. In Enformationism theory the Prime Programmer is portrayed as a creative principle (e.g. Logos), who uses bottom-up mechanisms, rather than top-down miracles, to produce a world with both freedom & determinism, order & meaning.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page13.html
Note --- This may be what Leibniz meant by "best possible world" ; that sounded absurd to Voltaire.

*2. Stochastic teleology refers to the idea that goal-directedness (teleology) can arise from systems governed by randomness (stochasticity). It challenges the traditional view that teleology requires a predetermined plan or purpose by suggesting that complex, goal-oriented behavior can emerge from probabilistic processes.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=stochastic+teleology

*3. Open-ended teleology :
Whitehead's teleology is not about a single, predetermined goal. It's a dynamic process where new possibilities are constantly emerging and being realized. This means that while there's a direction towards something (e.g., beauty), it's not a fixed or predetermined path.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=whitehead+teleology

In contrast, more nuanced conceptions of God, such as Paul Tillich’s idea of God as the "Ground of Being" or David Bentley Hart’s articulation of God as Being itself - represent attempts to have this conversation in metaphysical terms rather than anthropomorphic ones. — Tom Storm

Personally, I haven't read any of Tillich or Hart*1, but I have constructed a non-anthro-morphic god-model that may have some features in common with their religion-biased explanation of Being. However, my Ontology*2 is based on 21st century scientific concepts, not on ancient theological reasoning. And it is the G*D of philosophers, not Theologians. Yet, if you can convince people to worship a featureless abstraction (pure Potential), maybe you can start your own religion. :joke:


*1. David Bentley Hart’s articulation of God as Being itself :
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=David+Bentley+Hart%E2%80%99s+articulation+of+God+as+Being+itself+

# the ultimate reality upon which everything contingent depends.
Note --- Since god postulations inherently go beyond knowable temporal Reality, I prefer to "articulate" Ontology in terms of timeless Ideality : the metaphysical soil & substance of Philosophy.

# God as the Source of Existence: Hart argues that finite, contingent things (like the objects in our world) do not possess the cause of their existence within themselves.
Note --- The Big Bang theory implies that the universe had a beginning, hence is not eternal, and must be contingent on some prior State of Being : What Plato called First Cause. Lacking empirical evidence, all we can say about that world-creating impulse is to outline its logically necessary properties and powers.

# Beyond a "Creator God": Hart distances himself from a simplistic view of God as merely a "demiurge" or a maker who tinkers with the universe from the outside. Instead, he emphasizes that God is present in all things as the very act of their existence, the uncaused ground by which finite actuality and potentiality are created and sustained. This Creative Potential necessarily transformed some of its latent energy into the stuff of reality.
Note --- In my Information-based thesis*2, there is a "workman" who "tinkers" with the world from the inside : physicists call that invisible causal entity : Energy. But my label for that Agent of Change is EnFormAction : the power to transform Matter. (Or more properly, abstract Mass, which we perceive as Matter in many forms). Einstein's E=MC^2 equates causal Energy with inertial Mass and the cosmic speed limit of Light. You could even say that Matter-Mass is condensed god-stuff (creative power).

# Being as Actuality Itself: God is not just something actual, but actuality itself.
Note --- Pure Actuality is static & immutable. But I prefer to view our material Reality & conditional Actuality as actualized Potential. Hence, a creator G*D is infinite Potential for change, and the created World is Actualized possibility. Another way to put it is : G*D is both Immanent & Transcendent.
"In philosophical and theological contexts, the concept of God as pure actuality (actus purus) refers to the idea that God is entirely actual and lacks any potentiality or capacity for change."
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=God+is+entirely+actual+and+lacks+any+potentiality+or+capacity+for+change


*2. In information science, an ontology is a structured way to represent knowledge about a specific domain, defining concepts, relationships, and properties to organize and share information effectively. It's like a map of a subject area, showing how different elements connect and relate to each other, making it easier to understand, manage, and use data.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=ontology+%28information+science%29

The universe contains many laws which govern how the universe operates e.g. laws of physics. The question that is puzzling me right now is why are there laws in the first place and why is the universe not lawless instead ? — kindred

In the 17th century, it seemed natural to think of the rational regularities and mathematical principles of the universe as Divine Laws, by analogy with the political & civil laws of royalty-ruled human societies. They imagined animals & savages as lawless, ruled by internal impulse instead of external regulations. But some modern thinkers have posited that nature has just accidentally fallen into regular habits that seem law-like to us law-abiding humans. But that no-reason postulation is just as unverifiable as the divine law notion.

Isaac Newton set the example by defining three laws of motion, plus gravitation & thermodynamics. And our modern science would be stuck in the dark ages without such understanding of a logical structure to the natural order. So, whether you call that structure "laws" or "habits" or "regularities", without such reliable forces & logical limits, the Big Bang would have been a flash-in-the-pan, like 4th of July fireworks. Therefore, regardless of how you imagine the lawmaker, the notion of natural limits on causation & change provides a framework for understanding how & why the world works as it does.

But the natural anarchy notion, applied to the non-human world, would make modern Science a blind groping in the dark. So, like it or not, we rational humans seem to be born into a logically-organized world, not a meaningless maze of unpredictable random change. But any answer to your "why?" question will be contentious due to our differing worldviews (frameworks). :smile:


"Natural anarchy," or the idea that societal order can arise without imposed governance, is a complex concept explored in various anarchist philosophies. It suggests that humans and other living things naturally tend towards cooperation and mutual aid, and that societal structures like government are artificial impositions that disrupt this natural order.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_anarchism

No, it's not faith by my definition. It's a properly basic belief*. It's basic, because it's innate- not derived, and not taught. It's properly basic if the world that produced us would tend to produce this belief, which is the case if we are the product of evolutionary forces. It is rational to maintain belief that has not been epistemologically defeated. The bare possibility that the belief is false does not defeat the belief. — Relativist

Sorry, if my word-choice seemed to put you in an irrational category. Since you used the term "belief", I simply substituted another term, "faith"*1, with the same basic meaning, to give you pause to see a different perspective. Trust in your own senses is intuitive and pragmatic. But philosophy is about the mental models of reality that we artificially construct from incoming sensory data. Our personal worldviews (belief systems) are resistant to "defeat" by epistemological arguments.

I wasn't accusing you of promoting a religious Faith. I too, believe that my physical senses give me reliable information about the material world. But, as an amateur philosopher, I am also interested in the immaterial aspects of reality*2 : Ideas, Feelings, Reason, Self Concept, Mathematical Truths, etc. I also "believe" that humans are the "product of evolutionary forces". But we may differ on the exact nature of those forces. For example, based on cutting-edge science, I equate physical Energy with mental Information. If that notion intrigues or appalls you, I can provide scientific reasons for accepting that equation as a philosophically useful concept (in a separate thread, of course). :smile:


*1. While often used interchangeably, belief and faith have distinct meanings. Belief is an acceptance that something is true, often based on evidence or reasoning. Faith, on the other hand, is a deeper, often more active trust and reliance, often in the face of uncertainty or lack of proof. Essentially, belief can be a mental acceptance, while faith involves action and commitment based on that belief.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=belief+vs+faith

*2. Immaterial aspects of reality refer to things that exist but are not made of physical matter. Examples include thoughts, emotions, concepts like justice or beauty, and even mathematical truths. These aspects are not constrained by physical laws and can be intangible and non-physical.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=immaterial+aspects+of+reality+examples

Watchword? Not sure what you mean by that. — Relativist

Compared to the Determinism of Newtonian physics, the Stochastic (random ; probabilistic ; indeterminate) nature of sub-atomic physics has made Heisenberg's Uncertainty principle a note of caution about making factual assertions of Reality and our interpretations of the world. :nerd:

Quantum philosophical uncertainty refers to the philosophical interpretations and implications of the quantum mechanical uncertainty principle, which states that certain pairs of physical properties, like position and momentum, cannot be known with perfect accuracy simultaneously. This principle, formulated by Werner Heisenberg, has sparked debate about the nature of reality, determinism, and free will.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=quantum+philosophical+uncertainty

I take it as a premise that the external world exists and that we have a functionally accurate perception of it (I justify this as being a a properly basic belief: it's innate, and plausibly a consequence of the evolutionary processes that produced us.This is my epistemic foundation. — Relativist

So, you are aware that your "premise" is a Faith instead of a Fact? Most people, including Scientists, intuitively take for granted that their senses render an accurate model of the external world. But ask them to explain how that material reality-to-mind-model process works, and the story gets murky. Yet, philosophers tend to over-think it, and ask how we could verify (justify) that commonsense Belief as a Positive Fact*1.

From 17th century to 20th century, your Real World certainty (faith) would have been seemed justifiable. But since Quantum Physics undermined the sub-atomic foundation of Newton's Physics, Uncertainty has become the watch-word for scientists. Please notice that this response makes no reference to gods, or scriptures, or feelings . . . . just to the modern scientific worldview. :smile:


*1. The central problem in the epistemology of perception is that of explaining how perception could give us knowledge or justified belief about an external world, about things outside of ourselves. This problem has traditionally been viewed in terms of a skeptical argument that purports to show that such knowledge and justification are impossible.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/perception-episprob/

*2. Quantum epistemology explores the philosophical implications of quantum mechanics, particularly concerning knowledge, reality, and the limits of what can be known. It grapples with the strange and counterintuitive aspects of quantum theory, like superposition and entanglement, and their impact on our understanding of the physical world and how we can know it
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=quantum+epistemology

*3. The shift from Newtonian physics to quantum mechanics brought notable differences in understanding the universe :
# Determinism versus Indeterminism : Newtonian physics proposed a deterministic universe where future behavior could be predicted with certainty if initial conditions were known. Quantum mechanics introduced indeterminism, suggesting that not all outcomes can be predicted with certainty, with particles existing in states of probability.
# Uncertainty Principle : Unlike classical mechanics, where properties like position and momentum could be measured simultaneously with high precision, the Uncertainty Principle in quantum mechanics sets a fundamental limit on how precisely certain pairs of properties can be simultaneously known. Increasing the precision of measuring one property reduces the precision of measuring its paired property.
# Nature of Reality : Classical physics assumed an objective reality independent of observation, whereas quantum mechanics suggests that observation and measurement can influence the properties of a system. Some interpretations propose that properties may not exist until measured.
# The Uncertainty Principle has philosophical implications, challenging the notion of absolute knowledge and predictability and prompting discussions about reality and causality.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=philosophy+newton+certainty+quantum+uncertainty

This post was started prior to the post above, but interrupted.

I chose my words carefully, and am highlighting the fact that the "problem of consciousness" only entails the negative fact: consciousness is not entirely physical. I have repeatedly pointed out that that this negative fact explains nothing. It opens up possibilities, but possibility is cheap. — Relativist

Until you brought it up, I was not familiar with the term "Negative Fact"*1. But the definition below sounds absurd to me. And I don't know anybody who bases a philosophical conclusion on nothing but the Absence*2 of that thing. Maybe their Immaterial Presence explanation*3 just doesn't make sense to your Matter-based Bias. Ideas & Concepts may be absent from Material Reality, but for humans, they are present in Mental Ideality. So, the negative term is useful only for denigrating the very talent that distinguishes humans from animals : reasoning from possibility to probability. That's our way of predicting the future.

To say that "possibility is cheap" disparages the basic assumption of this forum, and of Philosophy in general : that possibility is fertile ground for rational exploration. By the way : you may be familiar only with traditional Dualistic*4 explanations for Consciousness. But my thesis is Monistic. :smile:


*1. In logic and philosophy, the concept of a "negative fact" refers to the possibility of a fact existing due to the absence of something.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=negative+fact+possibility

*2. What Is The Power of Absence?
Terrence Deacon's 2011 book, goes into great detail to create a plausible hypothesis for solving the mystery of how living organisms suddenly emerged on Earth, after billions of years of spatial expansion & material aggregation had managed to build only simple inorganic chemical systems that strictly obeyed the zero-sum 2nd law of Thermodynamics.
https://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page33.html

*3. Some people argue that consciousness is not entirely physical, or that it is not simply reducible to physical processes in the brain. This perspective is often associated with philosophical positions like Dualism, which proposes that the mind and body are separate entities, or with specific arguments like the Knowledge Argument, which suggests that knowing all the physical facts about consciousness doesn't fully capture the subjective experience of it.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=the+negative+fact%3A+consciousness+is+not+entirely+physical.

*4. Dualism; Duality :
Descartes’ Dualism argued that the real world was composed of two “substances” : physical spatial Body and metaphysical non-spatial Soul. But modern Science is based on Materialistic Monism. Now Quantum science has theorized that the foundation of reality is non-spatial non-local fields of potential energy, that seem more like Soul than Body. So the Enformationism worldview is both monistic and dualistic. The single “substance” of our world is metaphysical EnFormAction, which is equivalent to all-pervading fields of energy. But all things we know with our physical senses are bodies, that are atomistic in the sense that they can be added & divided.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page12.html

The negative fact that is the topic is: physicalism does not fully account for the nature of consciousness. — Relativist

OK. But do you have a Positive Fact that "_____ does fully account for the nature of consciousness". A Materialist worldview might fill-in the blank with something like "Atomic Theory", or Aristotle's "hyle", instead of "morph", as Positive Facts. Yet, in what sense are these theories or views Factual? Are they proven or verified, or are the only open-ended Possibilities?

Do you consider yourself to be a Physicalist*1 or Monistic Materialist, with no immaterial subjective thoughts? If so, then you may view Chalmers' "hard problem"*2 as "superfluous and unparsimonious". What kind of matter are those beliefs, views, attitudes made of? Do you have a theory, or mechanism, to account for how Matter became Conscious, after 14B years of random accidents? :smile:


*1. Physicalism, the view that everything is fundamentally physical, struggles to fully explain consciousness because it struggles to account for the subjective, qualitative experience of consciousness, often referred to as qualia or phenomenal consciousness. While physicalism can describe the physical structures and processes of the brain, it doesn't fully explain how these give rise to the subjective feeling of what it's like to see, hear, or feel pain.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=+physicalism+does+not+fully+account+for+the+nature+of+consciousness.

*2. The "hard problem of consciousness" refers to the challenge of explaining how subjective, qualitative experiences ("what it's like" to have a feeling) arise from physical processes in the brain. It contrasts with "easy problems" of consciousness, which are about explaining cognitive functions and behaviors like attention, memory, and language processing. Essentially, the hard problem asks why and how physical processes give rise to subjective, qualitative experiences like feeling pain or seeing the color red.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=hard+problem
Note --- I am aware that I experience the world from a personal perspective. But I can only infer, rationally, that you have a similar awareness of the non-self world. And It's easy to assert that, given eons of time, random roiling of atoms could possibly develop feelings & sensations. But the hard part, the science part, is to describe "how" that happened. And the philosophy part is to explain "why" consciousness might emerge from a evolutionary process that coasted along for 99% of Time with no signs of Consciousness until the last .001%.

If Consciousness was entirely physical*1, there would be no need for Philosophy — Gnomon
That would only be true if we had perfect and complete knowledge of how to reduce everything to fundamental physics, and the capacity to compute human behavior on this basis. — Relativist

So, you agree that incomplete empirical Physics*1 leaves something to be desired, that theoretical Philosophy can explore : perhaps a Theory of Everything? Theories are not about Actualities, but about Possibilities. Yes? :smile:

*1. Yes, physics is generally considered incomplete. Current theories, like the Standard Model, have limitations and don't fully explain phenomena like gravity at the quantum level, dark matter, and dark energy. Furthermore, even with a complete theory of everything, complexity in emergent systems like the human brain would still pose significant challenges
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=is+physics+incomplete

Modern physicalism has no problen dealing with the things you refer to as "not entirely physical". For example, energy is a property that things have. Properties are not objects, per say, but they are aspects of the way physical things are. — Relativist

Yes. But Properties are known by inference, not by observation. And Qualities cannot be dissected into fundamental atoms. Science is based on sensory observation, followed by philosophical Deduction, Induction & Abduction. When scientists study immaterial "aspects" of nature, they are doing philosophy. Yes? :smile:

The negative fact I referred to is "not (entirely) physical." I simply disagree with jumping to any conclusion based solely on this negative fact. Negative facts only entail possibilities - a wealth of them. If you wish to create some hypothetical framework, that's your business, but I won't find it compelling without some justification for giving it some credibility. — Relativist

Bertrand Russell "argued that negative facts are necessary to explain why true negative propositions are true"*2. But you seem to be wary of exploring unverified "possibilities" and hypotheses. Is that because you can't put a statistical Probability under a microscope, to study its structure? Are you fearful of Uncertainty? Were Einstein's ground-breaking theoretical discoveries based on hard facts, or on anomalies that puzzled expert scientists? Was the bending of light by gravity a known fact, or a mere hypothetical possibility? Do you prefer observational Science to theoretical Philosophy, because of the superiority of verified Fact over possible Explanation?

Do you assume, just because my worldview is different from yours, that I am "just making sh*t up". Obviously, you haven't looked at the scientific "justification" --- primarily Quantum Physics & Information Theory --- that I present "for giving it some credibility". I don't quote scripture to account for my unorthodox worldview. I almost exclusively quote credible credentialed scientists. And I give links, so you can satisfy yourself that they should know what they are talking about.

So in my thesis, I "jumped to a conclusion" based, not on "negative facts", but on scientific anomalies, that open the door for philosophical explanation. And my conclusions are always tentative, subject to new evidence. That's why, as an amateur, I post on this forum, dedicated to criticism of speculations & conjectures. :cool:

*2. The existence and nature of negative facts have been debated in philosophy. Some philosophers, like Russell, have argued that negative facts are necessary to explain why true negative propositions are true.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=negative+fact

PS___ You didn't say which "negative fact" I was using as a quicksand ground from which to "jump to a {unwarranted??} conclusion". So, my comments here are generalized. If you want a more warranted reply, you need to specify the unverified Possibility that I leaped from to a Conclusion you don't agree with. In the OP, the conclusion was "God" as the "ultimate reality", and the "grounds" were philosophical arguments, not scientific possibilities.

If the biggest breakthroughs came from focusing on creativity rather than criticizing existing ideas, why is philosophy focused on the latter? — Skalidris

I'm just throwing this out there : maybe the lack of "creativity" is not just in Philosophy, but also in Physics, and in Politics. Are we seeing a general conservative turtle-shell retraction from taking risks. Instead of forging ahead into the unknown territory, we point fingers/guns at the opposition. Is this hyper-critical stand-off & stalemate how revolutions & civil wars begin? If so, maybe this is just the stagnant storm before the creative calm. :cool:

Dissection Over Discourse :
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/16022/two-ways-to-philosophise/p1

Theoretical Physics Has Completely Stagnated Since the 1990s?

I partially agree. I don't think 'form' traditionally refers to some kind of transcendental idealistic 'idea' of a think attributed to it by cognition: it's an integrated actualizing principle of the thing, which is embedded into the thing by a mind. — Bob Ross

I guess that conditional agreement depends on which traditions you refer to. Plato was very clear that he considered his Ideal & Universal Forms (e.g. circularity) to be perfect conceptual principles, transcending imperfect material reality*1. But Aristotle was more like a modern scientist in that he preferred to deal with immanent particular Reality.

Ari does philosophize (theorize) in his distinction between Form (morph) and Matter (hyle). Yet, he probably thought of the formal properties of a particular thing as attributions, metaphorically "embedded into the thing" by a mortal mind*2. Plato might wonder though, if those general classifications (circularity vs squarity) are out there in Nature, or imposed on instances by a form-seeking mind.

Over millennia, the term "Atom" referred to tiny fundamental particles of tangible stuff : bits of Prime Matter? But now, the foundational element of physics is defined as an intangible non-local mathematical universal Field (similar to gravity), with localized measurable sub-fields & forces (e.g. electromagnetism). Like Gravity, these fields are invisible & intangible. So like Energy, we infer that they exist only by observing their formal & causal effects on matter. Do we perceive material objects, or do we observe meaningful patterns (Forms), and infer tangible Matter?

For my own purposes, I would reserve the term "Form" for a transcendent universal sense, and use "Prime Matter" in an immanent specific sense : of how humans categorize the various Kinds (elements) of material objects. Both are useful concepts, but PM more for scientific work, and Form for philosophical explorations. :smile:


*1. In Plato's philosophy, the Theory of Forms posits that the physical world is a mere shadow of a higher realm of perfect, eternal, and unchanging Forms or Ideas. While Plato doesn't explicitly equate God with the Forms, his concept of the Form of the Good is often seen as the ultimate source of reality and the origin of all other Forms, bearing strong resemblance to a divine principle. Some interpretations even place the Forms within the mind of God, suggesting a divine intellect that shapes and understands the universe through these perfect archetypes
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=plato+forms+mind+of+god

*2. Form vs Matter :
There is in any case already a considerable controversy at this basic level about what Aristotle means by matter and form: what precisely they are, how they are related to one another, how Aristotle intends to marshal arguments in support of them, and how best to deal with reasonable objections to their metaphysical consequences.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/form-matter/

E.g., circularity is not a part of a circle; but the atoms that compose the given circle are; and those atoms are comprised of electrons, neutrons, and protons; ... — Bob Ross

Exactly! As a part of speech, in our materialistic language, "circularity" is a noun, a thing, an object. Yet Properties (Qualia) are not actually material things, but ideas about things that are attributed to the matter by a sentient observer. Back to the hylomorph example : the hyle is a piece of wood made of non-wood atoms. Together, the system (splintery wood), and its primary components (cellulose molecules), combine with subordinate particles (carbon, hydrogen, oxygen atoms) to appear to us humans as malleable objects that can be shaped into lumber, or paper, or idols.

In the OP, you posited that "If I am right, then it seems like we can get rid of 'matter' (in Aristotle's sense) and retain form (viz., actuality)." But the mindless philosophy of Materialism would deny that possibility. Because, objectively Reality is the objects of perception, that we know via physical senses. Yet, Ideality is the subjects of conception, that we can't point to out there, but only imagine in the mind. Hence, Form*1 is immaterial, not real, and considered unimportant, and perhaps dispensable.

So, I think you have pointed-out the crux of much argument on this forum. Some of us think, impersonally, that only the useful Hyle is worthy of consideration. While others view reality from a personal human perspective, in which the Form (properties, qualia) is all we know about the thing. :smile:


*1. In philosophical contexts, "form" often refers to the essential nature or defining characteristics of a thing, shaping its identity and properties. It's distinct from the physical matter that makes up an object, and understanding a thing's form is crucial for understanding its behavior and properties
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=the+form+is+the+properties+of+a+thing

I chose my words carefully, and am highlighting the fact that the "problem of consciousness" only entails the negative fact: consciousness is not entirely physical. I have repeatedly pointed out that that this negative fact explains nothing. It opens up possibilities, but possibility is cheap. — Relativist

If Consciousness was entirely physical*1, there would be no need for Philosophy*2. But even scientific Physics is not entirely physical*3, in the sense of tangible, material, or concrete. Newtonian physics was presumed to be about "things" perceived through the senses. Until he was forced by mathematical reasoning to posit a strange invisible force that acts at a distance*4, and can only be detected by it's effects on matter. Ironically, his belief in the biblical God should have prepared him to accept such magical powers.

Centuries later, Einstein re-defined Newton's mathematical Gravity as the abstract geometry of space-time. And Quantum Physics extended the abstraction of the material world with its notions of statistical existence (probabilistic particles), and with mathematical definitions of abstract Fields*3 underlying the material world. Yet, such abstract ideas*5 have eroded our former confidence (uncertainty principle) in the substantial materiality of the natural world.

As I learned about the emerging abstraction of Physics, I began to see that the Causal Forces that act in the material world are more Mental than Material. For example, we now define Energy, not as a material object or substance, but as the Potential, or Ability, or Capacity to cause material change. We measure Energy, not by what it is, but by what it does : its effects, not its substance. I could go on, but these examples should suffice to illustrate that modern Science has encountered aspects of reality that are "not entirely physical", and can only be analyzed mathematically (mentally ; rationally ; theoretically ; philosophically).

Therefore, the need to treat Consciousness, not as a "negative fact", but as more like an invisible Force, or causal Energy, or space-time Field, should come as no surprise. I won't go further in this post. But my thesis & blog treat Consciousness and Life as philosophical subjects, not scientific objects of study. :nerd:


*1. Physical :
relating to things perceived through the senses as opposed to the mind; tangible or concrete.
___ Oxford Dictionary
Meta-Physical : conceived via mental reasoning instead of the physical senses.

*2. The idea that consciousness is not entirely physical, often called non-physicalism or dualism, is a viewpoint that suggests consciousness is separate from or irreducible to physical matter and processes. This perspective is supported by arguments such as the "explanatory gap" (the difficulty in explaining subjective experience from physical descriptions) and the qualia argument (the unique, subjective nature of conscious experience)
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=consciousness+is+not+entirely+physical

*3. In quantum field theory, the quantum field is considered fundamental and not composed of anything physical ; rather, it's the foundation upon which particles and forces emerge. It's often described as an immaterial realm of energy, light, and information, existing as frequency, and giving rise to what we perceive as matter
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=quantum+field+immaterial

*4. Newton's theory of gravity describes a force that acts at a distance, meaning objects exert a gravitational pull on each other without needing to be in contact. This concept, where gravity acts instantaneously across vast distances, troubled Newton himself, as he considered it a philosophical "absurdity". Despite his reservations, his mathematical formulation of gravity accurately predicted planetary motion and other phenomena, leading him to accept it as a working model.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=newton+gravity+action+at+a+distance

*5. What does it mean to be abstract? :
having no reference to material objects or specific examples; not concrete.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/abstract

Yes, but then there isn’t some other substance which can receive potentiality. ‘Matter’ is not a substrate which receives form. The ‘material’ out of which something is created is the already existed stuff (objects) which can be made into a whole (by way of it receiving the form of the whole); so each object is both comprised of form and matter only insofar as its parts are the matter and its form is the actualizing principle of the structure that makes those parts its parts. There is no substrate of ‘matter’. — Bob Ross

Yes. The Substrate (hyle ; wood ; matter) already exists. But the Form (morph) is what converts wood into art. In the image below, notice the hands & mind that impart design (actualizing principle) to the malleable clay. Sans Mind, clay is just mud. :smile:

No. I acknowledge everything you said about the impact of mind on the world, but it's independent of the (meta)physical nature of mind. The world we interact with (through human action and interaction) is best understood through things like social sciences, and not through quantum field theory. This is true even if reductive physicalism is 100% correct. The possibility of mind having some immaterial aspects also doesn't seem to have any bearing - it's still just a different sort of reduction. — Relativist

Quantum Field Theory is just one of the mind-expanding technologies that opens doors for novel philosophical & scientific exploration. Of course, an open door could invite dangerous strangers into your worldview. That's why a skeptical screen helps to filter-out the fake & false, while admitting new possibilities.

Some posters on this forum feel safer with the certainty of 17th century physics, and shy away from 20th century quantum physics*1. Both are "frameworks" for conceiving the real world. Newton's world was solid & stable & factual, safely outside the human mind : a closed door. But the Quantum realm is indeterminate & unpredictable & subject to interpretation. Even spookier is that quantum observations are somewhat dependent on the observer : opening a door of perception*2 into the personal domain of the human mind.

If you define "Mind" as "Brain", you can ignore any uncanny immaterial or metaphysical*4 implications. But, if you define "Mind"*3 as awareness & intellect & experience (feeling), you will be hard-pressed to find any "material aspects" that you can put your finger on. The choice is yours : open door & risk (exploration), or closed door & security (stay at home). :smile:


*1. Newtonian physics and quantum physics are two different frameworks for describing the universe, with Newtonian physics focusing on the motion of macroscopic objects and quantum physics delving into the behavior of matter at the atomic and subatomic level. Newtonian physics is deterministic, meaning that given the initial conditions of a system, its future state can be precisely predicted. Quantum physics, on the other hand, is probabilistic, meaning it can only predict the likelihood of different outcomes.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=quantum+physics+vs+newtonian+physics

*2. The famous quote, "If the doors of perception were cleansed, everything would appear to man as it is, infinite," comes from William Blake's The Marriage of Heaven and Hell. It was later used as the epigraph for Aldous Huxley's book The Doors of Perception, which details his experiences with the drug mescaline.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=doors+of+perception+quote
Note --- The sub-atomic world described by quantum physicists seems more like a psychedelic drug trip than the mundane reality of Newtonian physics. How can we tell what's real, and what's ideal? Remember, all we know about Reality is our images & experiences in the mind. Can we trust our own perceptions?

*3. Define Mind :
the element of a person that enables them to be aware of the world and their experiences, to think, and to feel; the faculty of consciousness and thought.
___Oxford dictionary

*4. Notes on Meta-Physics :
# Physics is the science of material Things & Forces. Things are Objects (nouns) ; Forces are Causes (motivators)
# Metaphysics is the science of immaterial Non-Things such as Ideas, Concepts, Processes, & Universals. Non-things are Agents (subjects), Actions (verbs), or Categories (adverbs, adjectives).
# Selves are meta-physical agents, in the sense that they are more than a collection of physical parts (integrated whole system). They are not Spiritual, in the sense of ghosts without bodies. At death, a Self dissipates even as the parts remain.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page14.html

PS___ I've noticed in several of the posts on this thread, negative assessments of Intuition & Imagination : the very talents that give humans a competitive edge over animals, who are able to see only what is within range of their senses. Eagles can see farther than men ; Dogs can follow scents that are insensible to their masters. But it's the ability to see what's not there, and to predict the future, that make men the masters over less endowed animals.

Of course, Intuition & Imagination & Wishful Thinking can lead us astray. But we do it anyway. Because the intellectual payoff outweighs the risks. And that ability to see over the horizon is what gives Scientists & Philosophers a leg-up on those who (metaphorically) stay safely at home, where food & shelter are guaranteed. And there's no need for discernment, curiosity, or ambition. ;)

However we are limited to what we can know in our world. This can also be extrapolated to some universal truths. But we can’t know the extent to which this knowledge applies to realities beyond our world. It could be a pale, or partial, representation of the reality beyond. As such we can do no more than speculate on what there is. — Punshhh

Yes. That's what exploring philosophers do : use our limited senses to learn what is within our reach, and then reach-out to "speculate" on what might exist outside our little valley, on the other side of the mountain. In other words : to expand our perspective. Universal Truths are not observations, but interpretations. :smile:

Is the Matrix real? — Nemo2124

No. But the Matrix movie serves as a metaphor for the Information Age*1, in which computers do a lot of our thinking for us. A few centuries ago, humans began to off-load some of their memory to mechanical language processors (printing press). Now we are off-loading & up-loading some of our thinking tasks to large-language models (AI).

Both of those technical advances increased the scope & range of our thinking and communicating. But, as far as I can tell, they have changed Reality only in our perception and conception of what's real : "is it real, or is it AI?" A generation ago, audio recording technology resulted in the memorable advertising phrase : "is it real, or is it Memorex?"

The more technical-things expand our reach, the more human Reality stays the same : jello-like brain, in a temporary flesh & blood body. It's our Ideality (worldview) that changes in adaptation to the tech. Did taming Fire change reality, or our power-relation to Reality? :smile:


*1. The Information Age, also known as the Digital Age or Computer Age, is a period characterized by the rapid development and widespread use of information technology, particularly computers and the internet. It represents a shift from traditional industries to an economy centered on information and its manipulation. This era, which began in the mid-20th century, has dramatically changed how people access, share, and utilize information.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=information+age

The question I'm trying to sort out is: what impact does this alleged immateriality of mind have on my overall world view? It doesn't seem to undermine anything, except for the simple (possible) fact that there exists something immaterial. — Relativist

I have used a practical example of Mind Over Matter before : the Panama Canal*1 was a dream of shippers for nearly three centuries before it had any physical "impact" on shipping. Early Spanish maps showed a bird's eye view of how narrow the isthmus is. And the conceptual implications for a shortcut to transport goods & gold --- two days of calm water vs two months around the hazardous Cape Horn --- were obvious, but immaterial, and "deemed impossible".

In practice, it took several failed attempts, and several decades of dreaming, and many human deaths to make that "impossible dream" a Reality. Nature might have eroded the isthmus over millennia, or it might not. But human Culture (and dynamite) did the job, by literally "undermining" Nature, and physically moving mountains. Can you agree that this is an example of the causal power of Mind in the Material world?

Moreover, modern human Culture --- with all its faults & failures --- is an ongoing example of mind-power motivating human potential. In material brains, processing immaterial (functional) minds, collective culture currently dreams of humans flying, like wingless birds with tails on fire, to the Moon and Mars. Are these shiny ships propelled by fire or by fantasy, or both? Do these pragmatic examples of Causal Conceptual Power (practical magic?) have any "impact" on your overall worldview? :smile:


*1. The initial concept for the Panama Canal arose from the desire to create a shortcut between the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, eliminating the long and perilous voyage around South America. This idea, sparked by Vasco Núñez de Balboa's discovery of the Isthmus of Panama, led to early Spanish surveys in the 16th century, but the project was deemed impossible due to the terrain and engineering limitations. Later, the French attempted a sea-level canal in the late 19th century, but faced immense challenges with disease and landslides, ultimately leading to their failure. The American-led effort, which ultimately succeeded, involved a lock-based system to navigate the elevation changes across the isthmus.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=panama+canal+original+concept

But, IMHO, Calleman's unorthodox method came much closer to answering the "why?" questions. Any questions? :smile:
Questions of why and purpose are inaccessible to us because they involve the purposes of who, or what brought the world into being. It might only be possible to understand, or map those purposes from the perspective of that agency (this also applies if the agency is unconscious). We are mere specs of dust in comparison. — Punshhh

Please note that I didn't say he definitively & finally answered the "why?" question of a purpose to the universe. "Questions of why and purpose" are indeed "inaccessible" to empirical science. But this is a theoretical philosophy forum, where such inquiries into Being & Consciousness should be admissible : yes/no?

In a local personal context : have you ever observed the behavior of a person, and asked "why?". Of course, we cannot objectively know another subjective mind, but we can reasonable infer a motive. If so, you were doing philosophy. And you might be able to confirm your suspicion of purpose by asking the oddly behaving "agency". Obviously, we can't interrogate the Causal Agent of our own existence. But we can introspect our inner awareness, and imagine "what it would be like" to have the power & potential to create a world from scratch.

Apparently, your observation of our Universe gives you the impression of blind random purposeless groping in the dark. But Charles Darwin had a grander "view of life"*1, implying that Natural evolution, like Artificial selection of plants & animals, was motivated by a future goal or purpose. And his theory postulated two principle mechanisms : random Mutation & non-random Selection. You have good company in viewing the world as bleak & meaningless : along with Nietzsche, Camus, Sartre, Kierkegaard, and Russian Nihilists. Ironically, the first four made concessions to personal meaning.

However, my impression of our Cosmos --- based in part on Modern Cosmology, Quantum Physics, and Information Theory --- is of a complex self-assembling system, that is motivated by a world-creating impulse (BB) of Cause & Laws. From such a simple yet powerful beginning, awesome complexity & beauty have evolved --- despite unfit mutations subject to de-selection. And that observation of gradual improvement implies, to more sanguine thinkers, some kind of long range Purpose, implemented in an ongoing Process, not in a six day Genesis fait accompli. I could post a list of my "company" of secular thinkers who reached a more positive & progressive understanding. But for brevity, I'll only mention the one I'm most familiar with : A.N. Whitehead*2.

Doesn't the gradual evolution of Life & Consciousness from an instantaneous explosion of space-time --- from whatever came before --- make you curious about the Why of your own life & mind in a material world? :smile:


*1. "There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed [by the Creator*] into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved."
* Darwin added the phrase "by the Creator" from the 1860 second edition onwards, so that the ultimate sentence begins . . . .
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Origin_of_Species

*2. Evolutionary Process and Cosmic Reality :
https://bothandblog8.enformationism.info/page43.html

Thank you for your thoughtful reply, but my question is a bit different. My question, "why take a hypothetical possibility seriously?" was intended to ascertain how you justify believing it as more than a mere possibility. In particular: do you actually believe this to be the case? If so, there must be some justification for the belief. Even if you don't actually believe it, you do seem to give it a level of credibility sufficiently high that you'd bring it up - so you must see something that makes it stand out from the rest. — Relativist

Thanks for the thoughtful re-question.
Due to the multiple lines of evidence from science & philosophy, I do think Causation did not originate in the Big Bang, but was expressed in the bang. No, I don't actually "believe" in this pre-bang Potential, in the sense of religious Faith. But I do think it's highly Probable. Which is the best we can say about events from 14b years ago.

If you are really interested in the lines of evidence, they are described in my 2010 thesis*1 and subsequent blog*2, when I was just beginning to take Philosophy seriously. The key indicators are found in Quantum physics and Information theory. But more recently I've read two books that attempt to discover how & why we humans emerged from an explosion in emptiness, then evolved to our current position at the top of the food chain. If that line of thought is of no interest, I can leave it at that.

But, if you are not afraid to ask "why?" questions that might philosophically transcend Reality, here's two recent samples of such forays into the unknown. Oxford biologist Tim Coulson wrote The Science of Why We Exist (2024) : a history of the universe from the Big Bang to Consciousness. He covered a lot of "how?" mechanics leading up to Life & Consciousness, but he did not actually address the "why?" (purpose) of the title.

On the other hand, Stockholm University biologist Carl John Callemann, phd, wrote The New Theory of Origins (2022) : Explaining Consciousness, the Big Bang, fine-tuning, dark matter, the evolution of Life and human history. In addition to the mechanical material stuff, he did directly address the philosophical "why?" of the origin of Life & Consciousness, by peering into the darkness beyond the BB. The ultimate Purpose remains murky, but it was a good try.

The Coulson book would be amenable to 180proof, in that it remained within the methodology of modern science, and within the bounds of material reality. But the Calleman book was more broadly philosophical, and took some liberties with orthodox science, and ancient myths --- what 180poo-poo would call "woo-woo". But, IMHO, Calleman's unorthodox method came much closer to answering the "why?" questions. Any questions? :smile:


*1. Enformationism : It's not something to believe, but something to think
https://enformationism.info/enformationism.info/

*2. The Enformation Hypothesis
https://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page23.html

the theoretical pre-big-bang First Cause that you would call "supernatural", is in my own speculative worldview, analogous to the Physical Energy and Metaphysical Mind that we experience in the Real world. — Gnomon
Your speculation seems a mere hypothetical possibility. Why take it seriously?
If it is true, how does it impact you? — Relativist

Why take a hypothetical possibility (HP) seriously? Hmmm. There is a hypothetical possibility that US & Iran will soon be engaged in a nuclear war, and Armageddon is immanent. Personally, I don't worry about possibilities that I can't control. But some people get paid to take such prospects seriously, and others do it like touching a sore place.

However, your question sounds like it's coming from a pragmatic scientific perspective. In which case HP is nothing to waste time & effort on. Unless you are Elon Musk, who spends billions of bucks in order to make the hypothetical possibility of earthlings living on Mars an actuality. Is that HP practical or a motivating fantasy?

In any case, impractical philosophers have been taking preternatural possibilities seriously for centuries. But why? What is the payoff? Science is about manipulating the real physical world for animal values of : food, safety, sex, etc. But Philosophy is focused on the immaterial values at the top of the possibility pyramid. {image below} Philosophy is primarily directed inwardly toward cultivation of the human mind. Your pet dog may be dreaming of chasing a hypothetical rabbit, but you may have higher aspirations.

How does a holistic worldview --- including Nature & Culture & all Possibilities --- "impact" me, personally? It doesn't promise personal salvation or superpowers, if that's what you mean. Instead, it allows me to metaphorically "become one with the world". Aristotle, in his Metaphysics, said about Curiosity that "all men by nature desire to know". But only a few adventurous men are motivated to go beyond the known world, into the scary unexplored country beyond the bounds (bourn) of the familiar space-time world : "The undiscovered country from whose bourn no traveler returns". ___William Shakespeare.

The "impact" of such internal experiences is what some call "Spiritual", because it affects the metaphorical Heart, not the material body. How does posting on a philosophy forum impact you? Apparently some get an ego boost from showing Spiritual or Transcendental people the error of their curious ways. Others engage in philosophical speculation, not for material gain, but for spiritual or intellectual development & fulfillment. :smile:

I no longer respond directly to 's sneering Gnomon-directed diatribes on this forum, over the last ten years or so. Therefore, I will address these comments to someone who seems to be more open to two-way philosophical dialogue. I will stipulate here that he may be much more intelligent & informed than me, but that haughty position allows him to make mike-drop supercilious denunciations of what he deems inferior reasoning. I'm sure he's a nice person though, if you agree with his worldview. And I agree with the immanent half of his Weltanshauung. And these analogies are intended to be illustrative, not demeaning.

Re Transcendence :
Dialoging with 180 is like discussing with your dog how & why his bowl is sometimes full, and sometimes empty. Like the dog, 180's highly evolved physical senses can detect the food, but can't reason about inferential questions : “it just is or it ain't”. The communication problem is that 180 has an extensive vocabulary with which to express his disdain for deduction, from circumstantial evidence, how & why an event --- e.g. full bowl or universe --- came to be, if it was not witnessed.

180's prosecutorial technique, in the courtroom of this forum, is to break-down the detective's holistic reasoning & inferences & hunches into isolated facts that don't add-up : “speculation!” ; “inadmissible!” ; “irrelevant!” The human's sense of smell is inferior to that of the dog*1, but his sense of reason*2 is superior ; especially deduction from circumstantial evidence*3. 180's 17th century worldview is based on watertight logic, except in the light of 20th century Relativity*4 and Uncertainty Principle. 180's jury is instructed to focus on the disconnected facts, and ignore the dot-connecting reasoning.

Obviously, or inferentially, 180 is skillfully defending his Matter-Immanent-only worldview by using all the tricks of courtroom drama. In my humble opinion though, on this forum, you should be able to view the evidence from a Philosophical worldview that goes beyond the limits of scientific investigation, but not of logical reasoning. :smile:

PS___ I will now go stick my head in a fox hole, to protect me from the return blast of icy logic.


*1. While dogs demonstrate impressive cognitive abilities, particularly in practical reasoning and inferential reasoning, human reasoning is significantly more complex. Humans excel at abstract thought, integrating diverse knowledge, and engaging in various forms of reasoning like deductive, inductive, and abductive reasoning. Dogs, on the other hand, are more attuned to the present and rely heavily on sensory information and past experiences to solve problems.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=dog+reason+vs+human+reasoning
Note --- I'm not calling 180 a "dog", but merely illustrating the difference between practical Materialistic & theoretical Idealistic reasoning.

*2. "Sense of reason" refers to the capacity for logical thought and sound judgment, enabling individuals to understand, analyze, and make decisions based on evidence and logic. It involves the ability to draw inferences, solve problems, and form conclusions through a process of reasoning.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=sense+of+reason
Note --- Unlike Science, Philosophy seldom has hard evidence to support its conclusions. So they are always debatable. But on a public forum, the dialog should be respectful of a variety of opinions. Are canine examples admissible?

*3.Circumstantial evidence is indirect evidence that suggests a fact in issue but doesn't directly prove it. It requires the fact-finder to draw inferences to connect the evidence to the fact in question. In essence, it's evidence that implies something happened or is true without directly proving it.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=circumstantial+evidence 
Note --- The suggested "fact" in question is a transcendental prior state to the Big Bang. Which opens to door to further reasoning on the ancient God question.

*4. Einstein's theory of relativity, encompassing both special and general relativity, significantly impacted philosophical thought by challenging fundamental assumptions about space, time, gravity, and the nature of reality itself. It questioned classical Newtonian physics' concepts of absolute space and time, introducing the idea of a spacetime continuum where space and time are interwoven and relative to the observer's motion. This shift in perspective influenced philosophical discussions on causality, determinism, and the nature of scientific knowledge.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=einstein+relativity+philosophy
Note --- The Big Bang theory presented us with a hiatus in the spacetime continuum. Must we fill that knowledge-gap with more spacetime, or entertain the possibility of Infinity-Eternity?

Then you misunderstand. "The world" is the entirety of reality, which would include the supernatural, if it exists. — Relativist

That statement depends on how you define "reality". Your comments seem to indicate that your "reality" excludes anything beyond the scope or our physical senses. Which are tuned to detect material substances. But philosophers are tuned into immaterial things like Other Minds. And we can infer that our interlocutors on this forum have rational minds (including AI ???), even though we can't see touch or taste them directly. The super-natural problem is similar : we infer other minds by analogy with our own inner experience. And reasoning is not a physical sense, but what philosophers think of as a meta-physical process of connecting dots. Which raises another question of definition ad infinitum. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Long story short, the theoretical pre-big-bang First Cause that you would call "supernatural", is in my own speculative worldview, analogous to the Physical Energy and Metaphysical Mind that we experience in the Real world. I won't attempt to respond to your other assertions, because they all hinge on the same old dichotomy of worldviews*1, such as Materialism vs Idealism. For what it's worth, my personal worldview is not so black & white exclusive, but includes both Matter & Mind, and both immanent Nature & whatever transcendent force lit the fuse of the Big Bang nature machine. :smile:


*1. A dichotomy of worldviews refers to the tendency to divide perspectives, ideas, or values into two opposing categories. This can manifest in various contexts, such as the classic good vs. evil, or in more nuanced ways like the human/environment dichotomy. Understanding these contrasting viewpoints is crucial for navigating complex issues and fostering better communication and understanding.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=dichotomy+of+worldviews

Cosmology has not concluded our world is dependent on anything. However, cosmologists are working on theory that explains the big bang, in terms of what the prior state was. — Relativist

You sound confident about the independence of our world from any uncaused First Cause. Do you believe that measurable space-time is a continuum extending beyond the initial conditions*1 of the mathematical model known as the Big Bang? Is that confidence (faith?) based on knowledge or presumption?

Speaking of knowledge, what is the "exact nature" of that prior state, and what is the evidence for it? Is our universe "dependent" on a non-local infinite mathematical concept, which is not a "physical reality"*2? Since the Big Bang Singularity is defined as an infinite point where the "laws of nature break down", how could we follow the methods of Science beyond that point? Do you know of a scientific explanation for the "improbable smoothness" and "low entropy" of the initial state*3? Would you agree that the First Law of Thermodynamics implies that the Bang began with an unexplained input of Energy from that mysterious timeless prior state? Can you accept that the Multiverse conjecture is a myth, not a scientific fact?

Would you agree that Cosmologists like Sean Carroll*3, when faced with speculating into a state where laws of nature break down, are doing Philosophy instead of Science? Have those cosmologists solved the "puzzle" of the hypothetical "prior state" with facts that us amateur philosophers don't know, or are they just guessing, and shooting in the dark? :smile:


*1. Before the Big Bang, the prevailing theory suggests a state of initial singularity, a point of extremely high density and temperature. This singularity is not a physical location, but rather a state where all of space and time as we know them were compressed into an infinitely small point. While the Big Bang theory describes the expansion of the universe from this initial state, the exact nature of what existed "before" remains a subject of ongoing scientific exploration and debate.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=big+bang+prior+state

*2. The Big Bang singularity is a mathematical concept representing the state of the universe at the very beginning of time, according to general relativity. It's a point of infinite density and temperature where the known laws of physics, as described by general relativity, break down. It's important to understand that this singularity is a feature of the mathematical model, not necessarily a physical reality.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=big+bang+singularity+mathematical

*3. The universe materialized literally out of nothing, at a tiny but finite size, and expanded thereafter. There were no moments before the moment of smallest size because there was no “before.” Likewise, there was no “creation” of the universe, since that concept implies action in time. . . .
The improbable smoothness of the observable universe, in turn, points toward unusually tidy conditions near the Big Bang. We don’t understand why. But the order and smoothness, known to physicists as a state of low entropy, is a clue. “I strongly believe that the low entropy of the early universe is a puzzle that the wider cosmology community doesn’t take nearly as seriously as they should,” Carroll told me. “Misunderstandings like that offer opportunities for making new breakthroughs.”
___Interview with cosmologist Sean Carroll
https://harpers.org/archive/2016/01/what-came-before-the-big-bang/
Note --- Carroll's notion of creation in time deliberately ignores the traditional creation ex nihilo, since it does not fit with his materialistic worldview. And yet, he slipped-up with the "literally out of nothing" description.

↪180 Proof : If such a God is woo-woo nonsense, then so is Zero & Infinity. — Gnomon
Well, not only doesn't that follow (category error), but all three concepts are mere abstractions; what makes any of them "woo woo nonsense" is attributing causal – physical – properties to any of them like "creator" "mover" ... "programmer". :eyes: — Relativist

180woowoo anachronistically & erroneously confuses my metaphorical programmer G*D, with the religious God of Abraham, Isaac, Joseph & Jesus. Since the Hebrews envisioned their tribal god as a king-like humanoid entity, living above the heavens (Shamayim) imagined as a crystal dome (firmament), yet immanent within the complete world system. {image ⓵} 180 denigrates "mere abstractions" , but some abstractions are more useful than others*1. You may be more open to discussing meta-physical philosophical metaphors than 180 is.

The Judeo-Christian intervening immanent "God" is indeed a different logical & philosophical category from my God of the philosophers : similar to Spinoza's immanent deus sive natura. Except that modern cosmology forces us to deal with the necessity of a transcendent Cause to explain the Big Bang. For example, mathematicians have found the metaphysical transcendent notions of Zero & Infinity useful for their logical explorations. Another logical, but irrational notion is the number PI. It's labeled as "transcendent" because it does not exist on the number line. And it is "irrational" because it cannot be computed as a ratio of other numbers. Does that metaphysical logic sound like "woo woo" to you?

Since secular cosmology has concluded that our world is not self-existent --- as Spinoza assumed --- would you agree that "how & why it came into existence" is a reasonable philosophical question? And any answer we posit will be an unproven conjecture, not a verifiable fact ; an abstract concept, not a material object. The humanoid Hebrew God is indeed a different philosophical category from Zero & Infinity, pure abstract Logical structures. But to me, G*D is also a "mere abstraction", but like Zero a useful concept for inquiring philosophers. Not a tyrant in the sky for us mortals to cower before, but a reasonable answer to the question of world origins.

180's accusation of "attributing causal properties to mere abstractions" missed the point of the Zero & Infinity analogy. As usual, he interprets a metaphor literally. The Causation I "attribute" to the pre-Bang {image ⓶} Source of Cause & Laws (energy & limits) is not a physical property, but merely the burst of Potential that powered the Big Bang from No-Thing to the "endless forms most beautiful"*2 of Darwin's world. Some cosmologists --- ignoring the first & second laws of thermodynamics --- like to imagine that Energy itself is eternal. But only in its timeless Potential state of statistical Probability is causal Energy safe from energy-devouring Entropy.

But even that common scientific term for causal capability is a meta-physical concept of transforming abstract Potential (voltage) into concrete Actual (current). And a cosmological Programmer is one who has the ability to setup a world system with the capability of performing an assigned task, a purpose. Apparently 180 doesn't see any purpose to an evolving world that began with nothing (zero) but Potential (infinity) and has produced inquiring Minds that explore the mystery of Being. :smile:

*1.Yes, the concept of infinity is very useful, particularly in mathematics and physics, despite being an abstract idea. It's used to describe things that are unbounded or limitless, and it helps simplify calculations and model complex phenomena.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=is+infinity+useful

*2. "There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved." ___Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species"



❶ ANACHRONISTIC WORLDVIEWS


❷ BEFORE THE BANG

If the biggest breakthroughs came from focusing on creativity rather than criticizing existing ideas, why is philosophy focused on the latter? — Skalidris

I suppose most of the creativity in western Philosophy occurred in the Golden Age of the Greeks, who basically defined the methods & terminology of the rational pursuit of Wisdom. Since then, philosophers have focused on "dissecting" those original ideas*1, and "criticizing" those that depart from some off-spring orthodoxy : e.g. Scientism. :smile:


*1. The quote "The safest general characterization of the European philosophical tradition is that it consists of a series of footnotes to Plato" is attributed to Alfred North Whitehead. He suggested that much of Western philosophy, in its development and articulation, can be understood as engaging with, responding to, or building upon the ideas presented by Plato.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=footnotes+to+plato+quote

I appreciate your response and that all sounds interesting, but right now I am trying to understand hylomorphism simpliciter (viz., the OG theory). I still haven't been able to wrap my head around what 'matter' is if it does not refer to merely the 'stuff' which are the parts that are conjoined with the form to make up the whole. — Bob Ross

In skimming this thread, I must have missed "the OG theory". And "hylomorphism simpliciter" may be above my pay grade. But I think has clearly & simply presented the traditional philosophical answer to your basic question "what is matter"? And he has even introduced the non-classical Quantum notion of statistical Stuff (pure Form?). Which, absent the hyle, probably would not make sense to Aristotle, but might fit into Plato's world of abstract Forms.

So, I'd like to add that modern physics has a counter-intuitive mathematical definition of Matter, that doesn't make sense to non-mathematicians : the fundamental element of reality is not material (actual) "stuff"*1, but immaterial (statistical) Fields*2. Since those Fields are not something you can see or touch, they are more like Aristotle's Potentia (statistical probability) as distinguished from Actus (real thing).

The total Universal (unified) Field is mathematically defined in terms of an infinite array of dimensionless points, not in space, but of space. Which amounts to nothing, unless those valueless points consist of Potential Energy, that can be actualized, or realized, or excited by some outside force or internal perturbations (conflicts?)*3. Unlike that imaginary Field, some local fields (e.g. electromagnetic) are measurable, hence real & physical & dimensional. But the UF is an Ideal, and may be equivalent to Aristotle's Potentia*4, which may also be the "formless stuff" that combines with enforming (actualizing) Energy to produce tangible Matter : hylo + morph.

It's over my head, but A.N. Whitehead published a Quantum Field Theory*5 of his own, in which the excited "points" of Potential are defined as "Events" or "Occasions". I find it easier to imagine those particular events as actualizations of potential Energy (Causation). Which, depending on ambient conditions, may take on the form of mathematical Mass (graviton?), or tangible Matter (particles). Since I haven't fully digested this theory myself, I'll just mention it in passing, as one more way to imagine the HyloMorph notion.

The bottom line for me is Form (non-physical essence), which is monistic & simplistic in that it has no internal parts, but omnipotential, in that it can transform into both Energy & Matter, and eventually Mind. :nerd:

PS___ Sorry to get so technical & complicated, but I'm still working on a modern scientific equivalent to the ancient notion of HyloMorphism. In my thesis I call it EnFormAction.


*1. Yes, in physics, fields are considered fundamental concepts. They are not just mathematical constructs, but rather represent the underlying reality of how forces and particles interact. In quantum field theory, particles are understood as excitations of these underlying fields.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=physics+field+is+fundamental
Note --- The "excitations" are supposed to be inputs of energy. But where do those pinpricks come from, if the Field is all there is? Stick a pin in a Field, and a bit of Matter pops out.

*2. In the context of quantum field theory (QFT), the term"immaterial" can be misleading. Quantum fields are considered fundamental physical entities, not in the sense of tangible matter, but as the basis for all other physical phenomena. They are not made of anything else, but rather, particles are seen as excitations or disturbances within these fields.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=quantum+field+immaterial
Note --- In my own theory, the Fields are made of Potential, that can transform into Energy or Matter.

*3. In modern physics, particularly within quantum field theory (QFT), matter is fundamentally understood as excitations or manifestations of underlying fields, rather than being comprised of discrete, fundamental particles. These fields are not just mathematical constructs, but are considered the most fundamental aspect of reality, with particles being secondary emergent phenomena.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=physics+matter+is+fundamentally+a+field
Note --- Whence the "excitations"?

*4. In Aristotelian philosophy, "matter" and "potentia" (or potentiality) are closely related concepts. Matter, in this context, refers to the underlying substance that has the potential to take on different forms. Potentia, on the other hand, is the capacity or possibility for something to become actualized. Essentially, matter is the substratum that possesses potential, and potentia is the inherent ability of that matter to change and develop into a specific form. . . . .
Aristotle viewed matter as the fundamental, formless stuff that underlies all physical things.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=potentia+and+matter

*5. Whitehead's philosophy, particularly his concept of "actual occasions" or "events," offers a framework for interpreting quantum field theory. His process philosophy, emphasizing becoming and relationships, aligns with quantum mechanics' focus on processes and interactions, and his ideas about indeterminacy and creativity resonate with quantum phenomena.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=whitehead+quantum+field+theory

But what if what I am seeing is not what is really there, but merely a representation, just like a portrait does not contain the real person? What if seeing is not believing—but merely interpreting? — Kurt

What you are describing sounds like a social contract*1, in which what we both see is real, and what we individually imagine is ideal or unreal (or woo woo). Some of us prefer one or the other, or both Reality & Ideality. For Scientists & Materialists, seeing is believing. But for Philosophers & Spiritualists, imagining may be believable too. Yet, as various philosophers & scientists have noted : seeing is always interpreting*2. :smile:


*1. Shared reality refers to the perception that one's thoughts, feelings, and beliefs are aligned with those of another person or group. It's the sense that you and others experience the world in a similar way, leading to a feeling of connection and validation. This shared understanding can be about anything from trivial matters to fundamental beliefs, and it plays a significant role in social bonding and personal well-being.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=shared+reality

*2. In philosophy, the idea that "seeing is interpreting" suggests that our perception of the world is not a passive reception of raw sensory data, but rather an active process of making sense of that data based on prior knowledge, experiences, and expectations. We don't just see what is physically present; we interpret what we see based on our internal frameworks.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=philosophy+seeing+is+interpreting

I go with the theory that once upon a time, nothing existed. — alleybear

As others have so helpfully pointed out, "nothing" cannot or does not exist. That's why the concept of Zero took so long to catch-on with mathematicians*1. The relevant point here is that No-Thing means no physical existence, hence no usefulness for Science or Mechanics. But the meta-physical concept of Nothingness*2 is useful for philosophical purposes.

Those who challenge your god-concept are imagining the Deity as a physical material substantial entity. In that sense it makes sense to ask "who created your God?" But Aristotle defined his notion of Substance, as not the material thing, but the immaterial Essence or Form of the thing. And Plato defined his Forms*3 as eternal & self-existent. Hence, essential & fundamental, not objective or optional.

So, in the interest of clarity, perhaps you could explain that the God of Philosophers is not an Idol of gold-plated wood or flesh-covered bones, but a meta-physical concept, similar to Infinity (∞), which also does not exist in the real physical world. If such a God is woo-woo nonsense, then so is Zero & Infinity. Unfortunately, an impotent Nothingness could not create a universe from scratch. So you'd have to add the concept of Potential*4, which also does not exist physically, until Actualized. :smile:


*1. Zero: The Biography of a Dangerous Idea :
Even though zero is a fundamental idea for the modern science, initially the notion of a complete absence got a largely negative, sometimes hostile, treatment by the Western world and Greco-Roman philosophy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero:_The_Biography_of_a_Dangerous_Idea

*2. Metaphysical Nothingness :
Since metaphysics is the study of what exists, one might expect metaphysicians to have little to say about the limit case in which nothing exists. . . . .
Let’s begin with a question that Martin Heidegger famously characterized as the most fundamental issue of philosophy. . . . .
1. Why is there something rather than nothing?
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nothingness/

*3. Essential Form :
Plato's theory of Forms posits that the Forms are self-existent and independent of the physical world or individual minds
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=plato+form+self+existent

*4. Potential is Unreal :
The statement "potential does not exist" is a philosophical point, not a scientific one. In physics, potential is a measurable quantity related to stored energy or the ability of a system to do work. In other contexts, potential refers to unrealized abilities or possibilities. While "potential" in the sense of a future reality may not be physically present, the capacity for that future to exist is often acknowledged as real.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=potential+does+not+exist
Note --- A creator God is real & measurable, only if the creation is physical & material. According to Cosmologists, there was a beginning point in Time, when our material universe did not exist. But the Energy & Laws that cause & govern our world, necessarily pre-existed the beginning of physical evolution. That's what Aristotle called First & Final Cause (Ability & Purpose). God is the "capacity" for cosmic creation.
.

Let me tell y'all about my god (who's still around, by the way).

I go with the theory that once upon a time, nothing existed. Then all of a sudden, something came into existence. Whatever entity caused the creation of existence is my god. Since nothing existed, my god had to use itself for materials/energies to create with, so I am literally a part of my god. If you go with the Big Bang theory, a few hundred million years after the universe started, at the end of the hot plasma phase, the first OG atom, hydrogen, was created. Those hydrogen atoms are still in existence since they don't die. Those billions of years old hydrogen atoms are within our bodies today. We are physically linked to our universe's origin. — alleybear

Your "god" sounds a lot like Aristotle's First Cause/Prime Mover, which was a logical necessity, not an emotional source of succor & sanction. In other words, it's the "god of the philosophers", not the God of theologians. Although you mentioned physical evidence, your "entity" is also not a Nature God aiming lightening bolts at evil-doers.

Instead, your Creation Causer sounds more like A.N. Whitehead's PanEnTheistic principle*1, both immanent and transcendent. That's also how I view my own god-model, which I like to describe functionally as a Programmer*2. Since I don't have any reliable direct or prophetic revelations of this philosophical Principle, or any "higher insight" & "participatory knowledge", all I know about this logical necessity is that something like it is logically necessary to understand how we, and our world, evolved from mathematical Big Bang Singularity to biological Nature-as-we-know-it, and to human Culture that is on the verge of becoming interplanetary, and to little ole me & you.

Is any of this interpolation close to your god-model? :smile:


*1. Whitehead's God :
Although he uses a theistic term for the creator of our evolving world, I think his concept of “God” is not religious, but philosophical. Whitehead’s associate Charles Hartshorne⁵ labeled his theology as : PanEnDeism⁶. This deity is not imagined on a throne judging the creation, but everywhere, including in the material world, participating in the on-going process of Creation.
https://bothandblog8.enformationism.info/page46.html

*2. G*D :
An ambiguous spelling of the common name for a supernatural deity. The Enformationism thesis is based upon an unprovable axiom that our world is an idea in the mind of G*D. This eternal deity is not imagined in a physical human body, but in a meta-physical mathematical form, equivalent to LOGOS. Other names : ALL, BEING, Creator, Enformer, MIND, Nature, Reason, Source, Programmer. The eternal Whole of which all temporal things are a part is not to be feared or worshiped, but appreciated like Nature.
I refer to the logically necessary and philosophically essential First & Final Cause as G*D, rather than merely "X" the Unknown, partly out of respect. That’s because the ancients were not stupid, to infer purposeful agencies, but merely shooting in the dark. We now understand the "How" of Nature much better, but not the "Why". That inscrutable agent of Entention is what I mean by G*D.
[ see post 64 ] [ see Programmer God at sidebar ]
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page13.html

But as you so eloquently say, we do find ourselves putting the pieces of our history together in a narrative. This is an inevitable consequence of living a reflective life. This may be a sort of mythologising, a sense-making that to a large extent sits outside critical appraisal, at least by it's author. — Banno

In my youth, I had little exposure to Philosophy outside of Theological argumentation. As a Post-religion adult though, my "reflective life" was mostly Science-based, until the Great Recession and subsequent Retirement gave me time for impractical philosophizing. Triggered by a perplexed comment from a quantum physicist --- "it's all information!" --- I was motivated to create my own personal worldview (mythology), based mostly on key concepts from Quantum Physics and Information Science.

I call that "narrative" a mythology because A> I am not a scientist, and B> my narrative goes beyond the evidence for a something-from-nothing beginning. Both of those limitations left me vulnerable to harsh criticisms by those who revere classical science and abhor transcendent narratives. But I see no reason why theoretical philosophy must be limited by the empirical rules of science. For example, Aristotle, whose writings were mostly based on empirical observations, reasoned from the obvious imperfections & contingencies of Nature that, logically, there must be something like an Ideal Source of creation & causation*1.

Since I have no colleagues to censor my personal myth, I depend on this forum for "outside critical appraisal". Some of that criticism has been bulldozer fault-finding --- showing me where I need to patch the myth --- and some has been holistic & constructive. I am not the hero of my unfinished myth, but it does put my little life into a wider perspective. :smile:


*1. Aristotle's first cause argument, also known as the unmoved mover argument, posits that everything in the universe that undergoes change must have a cause, and that this chain of causes cannot extend infinitely backward. Therefore, there must be a first cause, an "unmoved mover," that initiates all motion and change without itself being moved by anything else. This first cause, according to Aristotle, is God, according to some interpretations.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=aristotle+first+cause+argument
Note --- Logically, the First Cause cannot itself be an effect of a prior cause. So, some view the Big Bang as a Secondary Cause, which leaves open the question of "what caused the Bang?" Of course, nobody knows the answer to that, but like Aristotle, we can reason beyond what is now known, to speculate on the First and Final Cause. Unless, of course, that going-beyond seems critical of someone else's mythical Narrative.