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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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




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

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

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


COMPLEMENTARY YIN-YANG PRINCIPLE OF HOLISM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

Songwriter : Joni Mitchell

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

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

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

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

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



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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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



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

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

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

*4. What Is Mind?

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

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

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

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

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

Narayanan Kutty Pozhath

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

.

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

So when we later try to fit consciousness back into that picture, it naturally appears inexplicable. . . . . The framework within which he's considering the problem has already excluded what it is we’re trying to understand. — Wayfarer

I wasn't familiar with the minority philosophical position, that a Theory of Mind should be eliminated*1 from consideration of the human role in reality. I suppose that it's an attempt to remove the "bathwater" of imaginary gods & ghosts --- along with the "baby" of self-knowledge --- from folk philosophy, as unreal & immaterial. Such purging would result in elimination of Philosophy forums, which waste time & words on literal non-sensation.

But that lacuna would leave the world populated only by lumps of animated matter, some of whom walk bi-pedally and support large brains atop a vertical spine, and who create Cultures*2 that go beyond the providence, and instincts, of physical Nature. But, on a Philosophy forum, shouldn't we include the products of Philosophy (ideas, intelligence) in our analysis? That subjective inward focus would leave time & space for the objective stuff of Science to the experts on physics & chemistry websites. :nerd:


*1. Eliminativism is the view that some things, particularly mental states like beliefs and desires, do not exist and are part of a flawed, "folk" theory that a more advanced science (like neuroscience) will replace. It argues that these concepts are so fundamentally incorrect that they are not just reducible to physical processes but must be eliminated entirely, much like how concepts from older theories were discarded. For example, an eliminative materialist would argue that we don't have beliefs or desires, but rather that our current understanding of them is a pre-scientific theory that will be replaced by a more accurate description of brain activity.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=eliminativism

*2. The statement "culture is metaphysical" suggests that culture is not a simple, tangible thing, but a complex system of shared meanings, beliefs, and values that are fundamental to our understanding of reality and human existence. It implies that culture provides the underlying "metaphysics"—the basic principles that shape our worldview—for a society. This view posits that culture isn't just a product of social interaction, but a reality in itself, with its own properties, which can be analyzed philosophically.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=culture+is+metaphysical

All of this still operates entirely within the materialist frame. It searches for an objective correlate—some measurable physical proxy—that can be mapped onto the intentional, semantic, and affective dimensions of experience. — Wayfarer

I suspect that this Ontological & Epistemological dichotomy has plagued philosophers from the time of Plato & Aristotle : Hyle (matter) vs Morph (form). Which is why I focus on the modern understanding of Information (energy + form), as a possible way to bridge the gap in the map. :worry:

Science answers mysteries by using the scientific method to investigate unexplained phenomena, from the ancient mystery of Earth's regular seismic pulse to the modern enigma of dark matter. When faced with the unknown, scientists formulate hypotheses, conduct experiments, and analyze data to develop theories, though some phenomena, like the conditions before the Big Bang, may remain outside of current scientific reach.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=science+answer+to+mysteries
Note --- The mystery of the Hard Problem is not about Phenomena, but Noumena. Yet that Physical/Spiritual distinction is denied by Materialists.

Kant argued that we can only know the phenomenal world, the world as it appears to us through our senses and cognitive faculties. We cannot directly experience noumena, but they are the underlying reality that causes our perceptions of phenomena.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=kant+noumena
Note --- Noumena are not Percieved by physical senses, but Conceived by mental imagination.
Perceive : to become aware of, know, or identify by means of the senses.
Conceive : to form an idea or imagine it in your mind.

Problems are things for which solutions are possible; mysteries are circumstances of which we are a part (McGinn?) — Wayfarer

Thanks for that reference. I suspect that the success of the empirical method, in over-turning time-honored beliefs, has given modern scientists confidence that it can solve any problem or mystery. But McGinn observes that, for philosophical "mysteries", the experiencing Observer is part of the Problem of learning how & why we experience the real concrete world in terms of abstract ideas. :cool:

Problems are challenges to our current knowledge that we can realistically expect to solve through scientific inquiry or logical deduction. They are external to our being and can be overcome.
Mysteries are aspects of reality that are inherently beyond the scope of human cognitive abilities, not just temporarily unsolved. According to McGinn's view, we are inextricably part of the mystery itself (as conscious beings trying to understand consciousness), which is why we can never achieve a complete, objective solution in the same way we solve a "problem"
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=+Problems+are+things+for+which+solutions+are+possible%3B+mysteries+are+circumstances+of+which+we+are+a+part+%28McGinn%3F%29.

"Abstract: In the April 2002 edition of JCS I outlined the conscious electromagnetic information field (cemi field) theory, claiming that consciousness is that component of the brain’s electromagnetic field that is downloaded to motor neurons and is thereby capable of communicating its informational content to the outside world. In this paper I demonstrate that the theory is robust to criticisms" — McFadden

Yes. That sounds like a superficially plausible theory. But Materialists will ask, "where's the physical evidence" of an Information Field, and of "downloading" by the brain? Invisible Electromagnetic fields can seem spooky, hence they are imagined by ghost-hunters to be the substance of spirits : ectoplasm. The readings of their electronic instruments are indeed evidence of electromagnetism, but to interpret that static as the presence of a human soul may not be solid enough to convince a skeptic. Who may interpret the signals as the presence of an electrical mechanism, such as a cell phone, power-line or refrigerator . . . . and of belief prior to evidence.

So for me, the jury is still out on the CEMI Mind Field hypothesis. :chin:


*1. The CEMI (Conscious Electromagnetic Information) theory of consciousness, proposed by Johnjoe McFadden, posits that consciousness is an electromagnetic field generated by the brain's neurons. This theory suggests that neuronal firing creates an electromagnetic field which integrates information from the brain's digital processes, with consciousness arising as a part of this field that can influence subsequent neural activity. According to the theory, non-conscious actions are processed solely within the neuronal network, while conscious, voluntary actions are driven by neurons that receive input from this electromagnetic field.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=cemi+theory+of+consciousness
Note --- Animal brains are known to be electro-chemical organisms. But the Hard Question remains : how do those sparks & spurts transform from measurable Physical events into meaningful metaphysical Mental ideas & feelings. How does a flow of electrons integrate information? What integrating power connects a row of isolated dots into a continuous line? What are the steps & stages of transformation?

PS___ The clue I'm working on is the lab-measured relationship between physical Energy and mental Information?

“brain as an antenna” hypothesis . . . . It was going the rounds in the 1990s. I chatted to quite a few of those pushing versions of it. Like Karl Pribram, Susan Pockett. Johnjoe McFadden, Benjamin Libet, Stuart Hameroff, Jack Tuszynski and others. — apokrisis

I Googled McFadden*1, since I had heard of him, to see how he would explain "how the brain becomes aware". He seems confident that this philosophical & scientific "mystery" has been solved. But, like so many other postulated solutions, his explanation is a tautology, not a mechanism : "consciousness is experience". Yet, Biosemiology basically defines Consciousness as "meaning-making" by manipulating symbols*2b.

From what little I know of Biosemiotics*2a, it seems functionally similar to my own information-based theorizing. And I think it may be on the right track. But I'm not sure it has connected the dots of a physical mechanism of Mind. Instead, the ellipsis of the tautology may be filled-in with metaphysical "hand-waving", as my theory is often criticized. But I don't claim to have solved the Hard Problem. I'm merely proposing a different kind of mechanism. Which is similar to A.N. Whitehead's Process Philosophy*3.

Unfortunately, for a Materialistic forum, his Process fills the gaps in the evolutionary mechanism with an immaterial "Force", which I equate with mundane Energy & Causation (relations, not things). Both of which have been historically interpreted as Spiritual Forces*4. In order to forestall accusations of promoting woo, I try to avoid using spiritualist terminology. But it's not easy, because Modern Science, since Quantum theory, has been struggling with similar spooky concepts : entanglement, superposition, action-at-a-distance, non-locality, contextuality, relativity, and the observer effect. And gaps in Quantum non-Mechanics*5 are often filled with hand-waving notions. So, what's an amateur philosopher to do, when trying to resolve the "mystery" of Mind? :chin:


*1. "Johnjoe McFadden, Professor of Molecular Genetics and Director of the Quantum Biology Doctoral Training Centre at the University of Surrey, said: "How brain matter becomes aware and manages to think is a mystery that has been pondered by philosophers, theologians, mystics and ordinary people for millennia. I believe this mystery has now been solved, and that consciousness is the experience of nerves plugging into the brain's self-generated electromagnetic field to drive what we call 'free will' and our voluntary actions."
https://www.reddit.com/r/badphilosophy/comments/jet93h/johnjoe_mcfadden_genetic_scientist_claims_to_have/

*2a. Biosemiotics explains consciousness as a meaning-making and interpretation process inherent to all living systems, moving beyond a purely brain-centric view. It proposes that consciousness is an emergent property of a non-human organism's unique "sense-making" interface with its environment, shaped by its biology and communication at a cellular level. Rather than a fixed, individual phenomenon, consciousness is seen as decentralized and formed through the dynamic interplay and interpretation of signs from the organism and its environment.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=biosemiology+explain+consciousness
*2b. From a biosemiotic perspective, consciousness is a natural, biological phenomenon rooted in the meaning-making, communication, and interpretation processes of all living systems, not just humans.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=biosemiology+consciousness+is

*3. A.N. Whitehead's process philosophy posits that reality is fundamentally a dynamic, creative process rather than a collection of static substances. It views the universe as a constantly evolving "becoming" and emphasizes concepts like actual entities (the fundamental building blocks of reality) and prehensions (the way these entities interact and relate to each other). This philosophy integrates scientific findings with moral and spiritual intuitions, offering a view of reality as a vast, interdependent web of processes and relationships.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=A.N.+Whitehead%27s+Process+Philosophy

*4. Yes, "energy" is considered a spiritual concept in many traditions, where it's viewed as a vital, invisible force that animates all living things and connects the physical, mental, and spiritual self. Spiritual energy is different from scientific energy; it's often described as a life force (like prana or chi) that can be influenced by thoughts and emotions and is believed to be affected by practices like meditation and mindfulness.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=is+energy+spiritual
Note --- Bergson's Elan Vital is a causal process, not a material substance. Causing Change, not "throwing Chi".

*5. Quantum mechanics is often described as strange or "weird" compared to classical mechanics because its principles, like superposition (existing in multiple states at once) and wave-particle duality (acting as both a wave and a particle), are counter-intuitive at a macroscopic level.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=quantum+not+mechanical

Throwing Chi looks good in anime, but not in realite

If there were such a mechanism pinned down, — AmadeusD
I defend biosemiosis as the mechanism behind life and mind. — apokrisis

Since I am only superficially familiar with the theory of Biosemiosis*1, can you briefly summarize the steps or stages in the evolutionary mechanism of A> Big Bang . . . . . X> Life . . . . Z> Mind? It seems to follow an evolutionary track similar to my own Enformationism thesis. But as far as I can see, neither can connect all the dots. For example, the transformation of Matter into Life, and Biology into Symbols, and Symbols into Consciousness. The only common factor that I see is Energy/Causation. :smile:

*1. Biosemiosis is the study of how life and meaning are interconnected, arguing that meaning-making (semiosis) is an inherent and fundamental feature of all life, not just humans. Biosemiotics connects the biological world to the mental by exploring how organisms use signs to interpret and interact with their environment, suggesting that the mind is not a separate entity but emerges from these complex biological and social relationships. This field considers communication and meaning-making at all levels, from cellular to social, and offers insights into the origins of life and consciousness.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=biosemiosis+life+mind
Note --- Meaning, Symbols, Signs are forms of generic Information, which is ultimately related to causal Energy.

here I take a more radical view: space and time don’t exist at all. Like “observers”, they are convenient labels – bookkeeping devices – but there are no physical entities corresponding to them. Therefore, quantising gravity doesn’t mean quantising space-time, it means quantising the gravitational field (upgrading Einstein’s c-numbers into q-numbers) in the same way that other fields are quantised. — PoeticUniverse

Are these your words, or those of Vedral?

I'm vaguely familiar with Vlatko Vedral from his association with the Santa Fe Institute for the study of Complexity and Systems (Holism). Einstein forced us to accept that space & time are conventional concepts, not physical objects, that we use to convey notions of extension and change. But q-numbers and c-numbers are way over my little layman head. And, since I'm not a mathematician, I don't see them as beautiful or poetic.

So, if you don't mind, I'll continue to think of Space as a ocean that we can swim around in, and Time as-if a road that we can conceptually move forward & backward on. Even Einstein portrayed space-time as the fabled fabric of reality. And I suppose the theory of a universal quantum Field is an attempt to metaphorically express the philosophical notion of an interwoven warp & woof of abstract time & space. Besides, metaphors do exist, in some poetic sense, as ideas in human minds. But we shouldn't take those metaphysical analogies literally, as physical facts.

Such scientific figures of speech are merely updates on Plato's metaphors of Ideal Forms and Aristotle's theory of Reality in terms of Substance & Essence. Likewise, today some of us still imagine the real universe as-if it's a rational (enformed) Cosmos born of an negentropic Chaos*2. So, it's not too far-fetched to imagine our Real Cosmos as the metaphorical offspring of an Ideal (omnipotential) Source*3, beyond space-time, upon which our world depends for all necessities (matter & energy) of Life & Mind. :wink:


*1. Reality Is Not What It Seems : and there is no space or time. Instead, for Vedral, quantum numbers, also known as Q numbers, are the true essence of reality, and it's a much more beautiful and useful way to understand the world.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKCP5k1RTmM&t=13s

*2. Chaos theory is an interdisciplinary area of scientific study and branch of mathematics. It focuses on underlying patterns and deterministic laws of dynamical systems that are highly sensitive to initial conditions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory

*3. " Omnipotential Chaos" describes the idea of the ultimate power of chaos, often found in mythological, fictional, or philosophical contexts, where chaos is not just disorder but a source of all possible potential.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=chaos+omnipotential
Note --- The Multiverse theory may be a 21st century version of Plato's Cosmos from Chaos myth.

If 'mind' is the foundation of reality, he still has a massive job getting the sensation of the physical in. — AmadeusD

Good point! Deriving Physical sensations from Metaphysical fundamentals, seems to be the inverse of the usual philosophical Hard Problem : Mental ideas from Physical substrate ; Ideality from Reality. That's why I put my money on the recent evidence of an Energy/Information interrelationship. Everything in the universe boils down to creative (change-causing) Energy. And tracks back to a logically necessary First Cause.

What we call Energy is not a material object but a causal process. And that process has evolved complex forms of matter such as the human brain*1. But so far, no clear explanation for why complexity of physical interconnections (wiring) could produce metaphysical Meaning and immaterial imagery.

Information is a pattern of dichotomies & oppositions --- black/white, one/many, certainty/uncertainty, etc. Such dual relationships are perceived as comparative ratios : mathematical values that can be written as strings of numbers. For example : the ratio of 3 to 7 is 0.428571428 ; which is not the way we perceive, but how we calculate, rationally.

The Energy/Information*2 relation is similar to the inverse Certainty/Uncertainty ratio of Quantum Physics. And Randomness vs Organization is also the focus of Complexity Science. But how do we convert those physical ratios and mathematical dichotomies into perceptual distinctions, and thence into mental experiences?

These comments may not make sense of the relation between Ideality & Reality (sense & sensation) until put into a larger context*3. Deriving Mind from Cosmos. :nerd:



*1. Yes, the human brain is widely considered to be the most complex object in the known universe due to its intricate network of approximately 86 billion neurons and over 100 trillion connections. This complexity allows for higher-level functions like consciousness, thought, and emotion, which are the basis of human experience, but also makes the brain extremely difficult to fully understand.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=is+the+human+brain+the+most+complex+thing

*2. The "mass-energy-information equivalence principle" suggests that information has a physical mass per bit.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=energy+information+relation
Note --- Einstein equated causal Energy with measurable Mass and ultimately with tangible Matter. But when you add meaningful Information to the equation the result may be Conscious Mind. Hence, a possible path to a solution to the philosophical Hard Problem. It remains for physicists and information scientists to work-out the details.

*3. Active Information :
To explain the “active” element of Information, Peat says “I suggest that Information is the final element in a triad—information is that which gives form to energy”.
https://bothandblog8.enformationism.info/page29.html
Note --- "Form" in this context can be both material Shape and mental Meaning.

Right - so what you're saying is that 'cosmic mind' is analogous to the 'noumenal'. Agree they might be rationally inferred, but as such cannot be empirically validated. — Wayfarer

Yes. If noumenal Mind could be empirically validated, we wouldn't be discussing it on a philosophy forum. But, since the 20th century, scientific validation has become more Mathematical (rational) than Empirical (sensory), more inferential than observational. For example, the scientific theory of an ethereal Quantum Field*2*3 as the fundamental essence of reality has led some thinkers to equate it with a Cosmic Mind*4. The theoretical "points" that define the field are mathematical entities that do not occupy space or exhibit mass. Hence, the foundation (substance??) of our material world is postulated to be immaterial*3 : more like a mental definition than a material object*5.

Since it is contrary to my current understanding, in order to make sense of the Brain-as-receiver-of-cosmic-signals notion featured in Dan Brown's fiction (OP), I've been motivated to venture into such speculative (fictional?) Physics/Philosophy. But I'd still like to see some empirical evidence (pro or con) that the human brain could conceivably be a passive receptacle for meaning, instead of an active generator of ideas. Until then, I'll continue to assume that my thoughts are my own. And that the Cosmos is not an eternal deity (Spinoza), but a temporary physical/mental system born of uncertain parentage. :smile:



*1. Noumenal Science :
The statement "quantum is noumenal" is not a standard scientific or philosophical claim, but a specific idea within certain interpretations of quantum mechanics and philosophy. It suggests that the reality that physics describes (the "phenomenal") is different from the true, underlying reality (the "noumenal"), which is the case in Emmanuel Kant's philosophy. Some physicists propose that "noumenal" descriptions of quantum systems, which are local and complete, are what quantum mechanics is truly about, rather than the observer-dependent phenomena we observe. 
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=quantum+is+noumenal

*2. In Universal Quantum Field theory (QFT),the universe's fundamental building blocks are not particles, but universal quantum fields*3 that permeate all of space and time. Particles like electrons and photons are considered to be excitations or "ripples" in these underlying fields. This framework views fields as the fundamental entities and is the basis for particle physics.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=universal+quantum+field+fundamental
Note --- Most particles, except Photons & Gravitons, possess measurable rest mass. But quantum Fields are supposed to be composed of statistical relationships between dimensionless points.

*3. A universal massless quantum field is a theoretical concept that posits a field permeating the universe with zero mass, with implications for topics like dark energy and dark matter.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=universal+quantum+field+massless

*4. Quantum Field = Cosmic Mind :
The "quantum field - cosmic mind" is a concept from speculative physics and philosophy that suggests the quantum field is a fundamental, universal consciousness connecting all things, including individuals. This idea, which overlaps with spiritual and mystic traditions, posits that our minds are not isolated but are expressions of this larger, non-local field, leading to the conclusion that consciousness is a fundamental property of the universe itself, not just an emergent property of the brain. It's important to note that this is not a universally accepted scientific theory, but rather a group of hypotheses and philosophical interpretations.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=quantum+field+cosmic+mind
Note --- I prefer to say that Information (energy), not Consciousness (mind), is the essence of physical & mental reality.

*5. What is Matter? "
In classical physics and general chemistry, matter is any substance that has mass and takes up space by having volume.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matter

This is why expressions such as “cosmic mind” are inherently misleading when taken to denote some objective existent, as if it were on par with scientific concepts like fields or forces. — Wayfarer

Scientists don't know what Energy & Fields are in substance, but only what they do in causal relationships between material objects. To avoid misleading, when I use the Quantum Field or Universal Gravity as analogies to the Cosmic Mind notion, I try to make clear that these "forces" are not "objective" and observable, but rationally inferrable from observed processes.

For example, Gravity, like all forces, is not a material thing, but a causal relationship between things*1. One theory even postulates that Gravity is negative Energy, i.e. Entropy*2. Yet again, those "forces" are measurable only in terms of inter-relationships, not directly. And relationships are mental, not material.

A recent blog post discussed the notion of Active Information, and noted that "Ironically, the primary methods of highly effective Quantum Physics are based, not on Matter, but Mathematics : Quantum Field Theory (QFT)*3. :smile:



*1. Cosmic energy is the highest form of all kind of life force that is omnipresent, omnipotent, and omniscient- which exists in the earth cosmos, between the galaxies, and in the space. It is this energy that animates life and maintains balance in the entire universe.
https://siddhacosmic.org/profile/
Note --- This interpretation of Vacuum Energy is not my theory, but merely an example of various Cosmic Field/Mind/God theories drawn from scientific models. And it seems similar to the Non-local Consciousness concept in Dan Brown's novel. I'm merely exploring that non-mainstream cosmology in this thread, because it seems implicit in some forms of Idealism.

*2. Entropic gravity is a theory proposing that gravity is not a fundamental force but an emergent, macroscopic force driven by disorder and the tendency of the universe towards greater entropy.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=gravity+is+entropy

*3. Quantum Fields :
“QFT taken seriously in its metaphysical implications seems to give a picture of the world which is at variance with central classical conceptions of particles and fields, and even with some features of Quantum Mechanics.”
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/quantum-field-theory/
Active Information blog post : https://bothandblog8.enformationism.info/page29.html

The Timaeus sort of gets it. The basic idea is that rather imagining the Cosmos as either a sudden creation event or as an eternal existence, it arises as an evolving structure where form is being imposed on a chaos. It all starts from a confused everythingness - so confused in its expression that it amounts to a nothing. It lacks any orderly structure. And then that structure starts to appear. — apokrisis

Timaeus*1 observed that, in the real world, "nothing happens/changes without a cause". So he seems to assume that even the ever-changing Real world must have had an Ideal origin : a hypothetical god/urge/impulse with creative powers. That seems to be the presumption behind most of the world's religions. Except that the God is typically envisioned more like perfect order & absolute power, instead of "confused everythingness".

Most religious/philosophical worldviews have also postulated a logically-necessary First Cause from which space-time was born. Yet, in order to avoid getting into religious debates about which god, I tend to use the abstract-generic term "First Cause", or simply "Causation", without specifying any attributes, such as structure or personality. And First Cause or Prime Mover usually implies a transcendent source of causation.

Unfortunately, my trolling nemesis on this forum is an immanentist*2, who denies any beginning to space-time. Hence, there is no First Cause, or Demiurge or Apeiron*3. So the Real World is an "evolving structure" that has existed forever, cycling but never beginning or ending. Does that sound like a reasonable alternative to the current scientific evidence that space-time suddenly exploded from a mathematical point into a complex cosmos? Does forever causation make the Hard Problem of human consciousness irrelevant?

Heraclitus' Unity of Opposites*4 sounds more like a logical truism than an explanation of our evolving universe. Yet again, it seems to imply that Consciousness exists eternally in opposition to Unconsciousness, whatever that means. And one traditional name for that immortal Mind is "God" or "Brahma", serving as the whole of which our mortal minds are holons.

The topic of this thread --- Cosmos Created Mind --- could be construed as "form being imposed on chaos". Hence, Mind is a natural emergent biological process that originated in the sudden transformation of potential Chaos into actual Cosmos and subsequent evolution. Does that make sense compared to the other theories of Ontology and Epistemology? :nerd:



*1. Timaeus suggests that since nothing "becomes or changes" without cause, then the cause of the universe must be a demiurge or a god, . . . .
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=timaeus

*2. Immanentism : Spinoza's concept of an immanent God is that God is inseparable from nature and exists within the universe, rather than as a transcendent, external creator. For Spinoza, "God or Nature" is the single, all-encompassing substance, and everything in existence, including humans, is a modification or expression of this divine substance. This means God is the active force in the world, not a being that stands outside of it, making the world and God identical and interconnected.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=spinoza+immanent+god
Note --- According to physical science, the "active force" in the real world is Energy. Which causes all change, via impulse & inertia, but does not explain such immaterial processes as Life & Mind.

*3. Apeiron : Anaximander's apeiron is the concept of a boundless, indefinite, and eternal "first principle" from which all things originate and to which they return.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=anaximander+apeiron

*4. Unity of Opposites : Heraclitus's "unity of opposites" is the concept that seemingly contradictory forces are interconnected, mutually dependent, and part of a single, unified whole. This dynamic equilibrium is essential for the cosmos, as tension and strife between opposites like day and night, or hot and cold, create harmony and are the engine of change. According to this view, opposites define each other; a shadow needs light to exist, and a thing becomes warm by first being cold.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=Heraclitus%27s+Unity+of+opposites.+

I’m arguing not for pre-set material conditions but for Platonic strength structural necessity. The argument is that reality can only exist with a certain dichotomous or symmetry-breaking organisation. — apokrisis

Again, I had to Google your abstruse terminology to break it down into more commonsense concepts that an untrained amateur philosopher can relate to. For example, I can imagine "symmetry-breaking" as an event characterized by change from static balance (nothing changes) to dynamic dis-equlibrium (directional change occurs). But then, if you add "spontaneous" to the mix, it describes an event that occurs suddenly & without warning, like a Cosmos-Creating Big Bang with no pre-history. Hence, inexplicable and not accessible to Reason. It must be taken on Faith.

The only way I can make sense of such enigmatic language is to compare it to something I am already familiar with. For example, Plato's notion of Cosmos from Chaos, in which Cosmos is imagined as timeless nothingness, but with simple un-actualized Potential (Ideality) for transforming into complex organized Reality. Perfect symmetry is static balance, and Reality is dynamic dis-equilibrium (things change). Perhaps Chaos is the realm of perfect-eternal-unactualized Forms, from which emergent-space-time-real Things emerge.

Consequently, the precise mathematical initial conditions of the Big Bang were "set" by accident instead of by intention. Hence, there was no Intentional Mind (God), only the infinite Potential of random Chaos (Fate) to explain how our living & thinking world came to exist. Is that what you are saying? :meh:



*1. Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking :
The statement that reality can only exist with a certain dichotomous or symmetry-breaking organization has significant support in both physics and philosophy, where the move from a perfectly symmetric potential state to an asymmetric, ordered state is often seen as essential for the emergence of phenomena and complexity.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=reality+can+only+exist+with+a+certain+dichotomous+or+symmetry-breaking+organisation.

*2. Spontaneous vs Accidental :
Spontaneous events are unplanned and happen out of a natural, often sudden, impulse, while accidental events are unintentional or unintended
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=spontaneous+vs+accidental

*3. Platonic strength structural necessity :
In a Platonic sense, "strength" would be an eternal and unchanging "Form" that exists in a non-physical realm, independent of any particular physical structure. Any real-world, physical structure only partakes in this ideal Form to a limited and imperfect extent.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=Platonic+strength+structural+necessity
.

'Idealism' is not ancient. The term first came into use with Liebniz, Berkeley and Kant. In hindsight, it is possible to describe some elements of Platonism as idealist, but it is not a term that was used in Plato's day. — Wayfarer

I assume that in Plato's day they just called it Philosophy. Perhaps, you are stating the obvious, that modern versions of Platonic Idealism are not ancient. But I was referring to the general belief that A> Reality is fundamentally Mental*1, or B> that the Human mind's model of reality is as close to true reality as we are likely to know*2.

Was your own Mind Created World talking about ancient A or modern B, which is a more recent update of Platonism based on modern science & philosophy, or some combination of the two, which is my BothAnd position? Either way, I'd still lump it under the broad heading of Idealism. Wouldn't you agree? Or do you prefer a less black & white distinction between Mind & Matter? :smile:


*1. Idealism originated in philosopher Plato, who is considered the father of the philosophy. It has roots in Classical antiquity and has evolved through various periods, including the 18th-century German Idealism movement, but its foundation was laid by Plato's idea that "the world of ideas" is the most real and perfect form of reality
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=where+did+idealism+originate

*2. while idealism holds that reality is fundamentally mental or a product of consciousness. Realism emphasizes the importance of empirical observation and the tangible, physical world for knowledge. In contrast, idealism prioritizes ideas, thought, and mental constructs as the basis for reality and knowledge.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=idealism+vs+realism+philosophy