I really disagree with this. There is no reason to translate feelings into facts. Facts are never neutral. As I've said, you can't reach the truth without human values. As I alluded to in the OP, there is only one world. — T Clark

Then we will have to agree to disagree. In my opinion, the function of Philosophy, as opposed to Religion, is to find some objective worldview that all reasonable people can agree on. Religion is inherently subjective and biased, and its power comes from appealing to feelings.

I'm not clear - is this what you believe or what you think I believe? Either way, I have no argument with the thought. — T Clark

That was a quote that seemed to answer the implicit intent behind the topical question. I agree with the quote as stated, but it omits the pragmatic reason for Philosophy's attempt to discover absolute Truth in order to mediate between the relative truths of human feelings. The TV series Closer to Truth was an example of a scientist trying to find common ground between personal opinions and objective facts. Rational philosophy will never reach absolute Truth (God's values), but by canceling-out conflicting human values, we may get closer to a general truth that we can all live with.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closer_to_Truth

Well, ok, but there was definitely a whiff of the rationalist condescension people use toward spiritual or religious ideas in your response. — T Clark

There's condescension on both sides. If you Google "knowing and feeling" you will quickly notice that it's a popular topic among Christians, who are annoyed that scientists arrogantly assume that the knowledge of Reason (fact ) is superior to the knowing of Faith (feeling). So they feel encouraged by a quote from Francois Lelord : "knowing and feeling are two diferent things, and feeling is what counts." That assertion simply turns the Reason/Emotion equation upside down to "prove" that Faith (in the word of God) should take precedence over Fact (word of Man, Science). Some scientists feel that religious Faith and rational Facts are mutually incompatible, and propose to resolve the conflict by assigning each approach to Non-Overlapping Magisteria (NOMA). Many defenders of Revelation over Reason, believe that, although different ways of knowing, they are compatible as long as Faith has the last word, and reigns supreme. So who is condescending to whom?

I think that Human animals are motivated primarily by subjective feelings and intuition. But they also have the ability to look at the world objectively and rationally from the perspective of the Other. That allows us to settle differences of opinion by exchanging views rather than by exchanging blows (fighting). Which way of knowing dominates depends on the context. Muslims and Christians put their faith in different Revelations. So, they have a strong inclination to fight over who's right. Or to simply condescend to those who cannot accept their version of The Truth. I am a compatiblist, but I can critique both sides.

Feeling is much more personal and persuasive (and real) than abstract knowledge. But by translating passionate Feelings into impartial neutral Facts, humans can try to find some common ground between opposing beliefs. And that is the function of Philosophy : to reconcile objective empirical Facts with subjective biased feelings.


My reality versus your reality :
"The difference between knowing something to be true, and feeling like something is true is that feeling like something is true allows you to actually experience what your mind knows. When you feel like something is true, then that principle can genuinely operate in your life. When you feel like something is true, it becomes a reality for you."
https://letyourselflearn.com/2013/08/05/the-difference-between-knowing-the-truth-and-feeling-the-truth/


PS__My reference to Evolution was to the general Darwinian principle of adaptation to context, not to the later genetic interpretations. The simplistic "one gene, one trait" notion was a popular meme, but was quickly abandoned by scientists.

I'm not sure if you are proposing it, but I am extremely skeptical of evolutionary biology or sociobiology. Looking for correlates between specific genes and specific behaviors seems wrongheaded to me. — T Clark

No. I was not referring to any genetic determinism interpretation of evolution. I was just noting that "emotions" and "feelings" are internal motivators that urge you to keep doing the fitness maximizing stuff, and to quit doing the stuff that is not in the interest of your "selfish genes" (it's just a metaphor). But humans are able to overrule those urges when necessary, as in bravery despite the fight or flight feelings of fear.

People's belief systems (BoK) may also encourage them (via a feeling of certainty) to ignore adaptive behavior for the real world in order to adapt themselves to a future ideal world. The question is "how do you know which is more important, the here-&-now, or the utopia-to-come? One way to answer that question is to compare various belief systems and to weed out the bits of "knowledge" that are mutually contradictory.

The "oversimplistic" closing remark was intended to cut through the BS surrounding feelings; not to be a complete overview of empirical knowledge versus "spiritual understandings". :smile:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reward_system

the most important justification does not come from testing propositions in comparison to observations. It comes from holding up an idea to the BoK and seeing if it fits. — T Clark

Years ago, I had an extended snail-mail correspondence on the general topic of religious belief. When asked how she knew her scriptures were true, she would reply with some variation on "it just feels right", or "it has the ring of truth". Her body of knowledge was in accordance with her "experience" as a lifelong conservative protestant Christian. But it did not "fit" with the BoK of other sects of religion.

In evolutionary terms, the positive feeling associated with knowledge and truth is "adaptive". It is a reward for being on the right track toward your goals (survival, reproduction, love, etc). Unfortunately, that feeling of certainty may sometimes reward maladaptive behavior --- as in the dilemma of fanatical faith in one scripture versus another. Which is the true guide to salvation : obedience to Allah, or love for Jesus? Both sides on this question feel confident that they are on the correct course toward their heavenly reward (survival of the fittest). But at least one of them must be wrong --- and maybe both.

So a reliable (adaptive) body of knowledge must have some validation beyond the subjective intuitive (dopamine) feeling of fitness. That's why scientists are supposed to test all proposed new facts with a skeptical challenge. So they can see if the new knowledge corresponds to (fits) the real (objective) world, or just their personal BoK. Religions tend to give preference to the "tried & true" facts engraved long ago in their immutable tablets of stone. But Science has learned that bodies of knowledge quickly become outdated, as new facts (observations) come to light, that don't fit into the old paradigm.

The BoK of Faith is immutable. The BoK of Skepticism is adaptable to changing conditions. Which is the better resource for truth depends on whether the world is evolving or static.

A body of knowledge has a feeling to it. — T Clark

I suspect the feeling of knowing may be the internal sensation associated with the certainty of belief. Absolute positive certainty is blind faith. But most ordinary beliefs are not that strong, and are subject to skepticism, and open to correction. In Tallis' terms, when your belief is strong, you don't just know "what", but you know "that", which is more precise and assured.

T
I'm currently reading LOGOS, by physician/philosopher Raymond Tallis, in which he explores "the mystery of how we make sense of the world". He is trying to go beyond physical empirical-based theories, into the realm of personal experience that is metaphysical. He notes that Knowledge is not isolated particular facts, but must be "networked" into a "web of beliefs" (your "body of knowledge"). The non-empirical mystery of knowledge is how we go from direct perception of real things & events, to the feeling of knowing that is sometimes described as "aboutness". His primary concern is with "making knowledge visible", like a sensation. He says, "at the heart of the difference [known vs knower] is explicitness". Which he calls "Thatter" as opposed to Matter.

The book is fairly technical, but if you persevere, you might see Knowledge (Logos versus Mythos) from a different perspective. It's probably not exactly what you are talking about, but it should be worth looking into.

Gnomon

What definition(s) of metaphysics do you find the most useful and meaningful? — Pattern-chaser

The Greek word "physics" simply referred to Nature, Aristotle's book by that name was essentially an encyclopedia of then current knowledge about the natural (physical, material) world. But in his second volume, he discussed ideas pertaining primarily to human nature, such as our tendency to wonder about abstractions like "being, existence" and "knowledge". Such psychological (intellectual, noetic) concerns have emerged in the natural world in only one species of animals. They have nothing to do with normal physical and evolutionary interests, such as food & sex. So, Aristotle discussed them in a separate book, that later came to be numerically labeled "Metaphysics" (Volume 2 of Physics). But due to the subject matter of the text, that word eventually came to be applied to mysteries in general, with the connotation of "super-natural".

Personally, I think of Metaphysics as an integral, but emergent, aspect of Nature, So, here is an excerpt from my blog glossary definition of Meta-Physics :

a> Physics is the science of material Things & Forces. Things are Objects (nouns)

b> Metaphysics is the science of immaterial Non-Things such as Ideas, Concepts, Processes, & Universals. Non-things are Agents (subjects), Actions (verbs), or Categories (adverbs, adjectives).

http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page14.html

I’ve noticed that our understanding of potential energy, consciousness, information and relationships are able to connect now in ways we perhaps haven’t been open to previously, thanks to quantum theory. — Possibility

In my previous response I provided a link to the glossary entry for "EnFormAction". Unfortunately, the links to further discussion were broken. So, I have now fixed it.

I am intrigued by the relationship between your screename, and the modern concept of Information as statistical Potential , Probability , or Possibility.

Information is Possibility : "A measure of uncertainly and information for possibility theory is introduced in this paper The measure is called the U-uncertainty or, alternatively, the U-information." https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/03081078208960799

In Post 33 : "Information is Generic in the sense of generating all forms from a formless pool of possibility : the Platonic Forms." http://bothandblog2.enformationism.info/page29.html

In Post 60 : "From the universal Quantum Field of statistical possibilities, "virtual particles" or "wavicles" mysteriously appear from nowhere as almost real particles of matter, such as Bosons & Leptons." http://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page23.html

‘Possibility’ is what’s fundamental, — PoeticUniverse

I’m the All and the One, present-Omni, — PoeticUniverse

These poems express some ideas that I address (prosaically) in my blog. If you don't mind, I may use them in a future post.

I don’t think the Enformer, G*d, is necessary to define separately — Possibility

Separately from what? That neologism, like most of the others, is a play on the concept of Information as the universal cause in the world. My G*D concept is similar to Spinoza's PanTheism, but goes beyond the space-time world into Enfernity (eternity/infinity). The name for that all-encompassing non-materialist theology is PanEnDeism. Other functional descriptions of G*D are "ALL", "BEING", etc. In other words, not a humanoid king, but the unlimited power of creation. I don't know anything about G*D, other than the logical necessity for everything in this world to come from something outside this finite-temporary universe.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page16.html

suggest you take a more detailed look at entropy and its relevance to information — Possibility

Take a look at the glossary entry for "Enformy", which is my name for what scientists call "neg-entropy". Since Entropy is negative from the human perspective, I think of Enformy as a positive creative force.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html

exploring multi-dimensional relations — Possibility

Mathematical ratios are not simply two-dimensional. They can be multi-dimensional, as in the 3D ratios of space, and the 4D ratios of space-time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrated_information_theory

Personally, I refer to this as potentiality: — Possibility

Yes, BEING is infinite potential. But it would take Intention to make something Actual. I assume that G*D is intentional, but I don't know how that would work in the absence of space-time. Maybe G*D must always be embodied in a physical universe. Hey, I'm just guessing here. :wink:

Some of your own neologisms gave me a chuckle — Possibility

I'm glad you saw the humor in my little wordplay. I'm serious about the project, but I don't take myself too seriously. :smile:


PS__Enformationism is not a religious doctrine. It's intended to be a philosophical precursor to a scientific worldview.

Alfred North Whitehead’s . . . if you can follow his neologisms. . — Possibility

I found it difficult to follow ANW's neologisms. That's why I have a glossary for my own made-up terms, such as Enformationism as a 21st century update to Materialism.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html

Here’s an interesting discussion. — Possibility

I read a book by Tam Hunt, the interviewer : Eco Ego Eros. He discusses ANW among other Information related topics. These new ideas are making Idealism seems plausible again, after centuries of dominance by Materialism. In keeping with my BothAnd principle though, I think our world is both Ideal and Real, both immaterial and material, but Information is at the root of everything. The bottom line for me is that it's all made of Enformation, in the form of Math, Energy, Ideas, and Matter. Yet, even more basic is BEING : the power to be, and to become.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page10.html

I think the relationships between the concepts of potentiality, potential energy, energy and matter are key to understanding what everything is made of in relation to what we experience of reality. — Possibility

I have put all those phenomena together in a concept I call EnFormAction.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html

And when we recognise that these tangible objects are basically relations between energy events, and that we are basically an interrelated system of relations between energy events, then the idea that any effect can come from a relation between relations between relations between energy events isn’t so ridiculous after all... — Possibility

In my personal worldview thesis, I have concluded that everything in reality, both matter and mind, is made of various forms of shape-shifting Information. And ultimately all information boils down to relationships. In abstract mathematics, we call those interrelations "Ratios". Energy/Matter is what we call "physical" and Mind/Math is called "metaphysical", but it's all on the same continuum, from Ideal to Real. This notion may sound like spooky Panpsychism, but it's actually derived from scientific Quantum Theory. And elemental Information is not necessarily conscious, though human self-consciousness is presumed to be a product of Information processing.

I'd be interested to know where you got the idea that "these tangible objects are basically relations between energy events", I may want to use it in my further exploration of the Enformationism thesis.

Enformationism : http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html

Given the profound meaning of the word λόγος in ancient Greek philosophy, and given the influence this philosophy may have had on early Christianity, how does one substantiate the translation of the word λόγος as 'the Word', and as referring to Christ? — Tzeentch

For the Greeks, the Logos was an impersonal principle equivalent to universal Spirit or Mind, or even a god in the sense of omniscience, but not part of the polytheistic pantheon. Apparently, John saw a way to apply a common Greek concept to the transpersonal deity known as the Christ. I'm guessing that the ambiguity of that cross-cultural terminology was an attempt to avoid the Jewish horror at the notion of their monotheistic Yaweh having a human/divine hybrid son.

Here's my adaptation of the ancient Logos to my own idealist worldview :
http://bothandblog2.enformationism.info/page35.html

My interpretation of Logos as something like a quantum field may be similar to this one :
https://turingchurch.net/code-name-jesus-from-impersonal-logos-to-your-personal-god-61d9fa1b69e8

Tim

I'm eccentric all right, but I hope not fanatical.

What I meant by that cryptic phrase was that Magic is an attempt to circumvent the laws of nature. But, in reality, all magic works by hoodwinking the observer, not by the exercise of supernatural powers. :wink:

In his book The Idea of the World — leo

LEO

Kastrup's book is one of several recent attempts to reconcile Science and Religion. To do so, he had to bridge the gap between Realism and Idealism. Following Berkeley's arguments, he uses Quantum Theory and Information theory to show that Reality is just a Theory. Unfortunately for his ultimate religious goal, it also means that God is just a Theory. As a Deist, that conclusion is not a problem for me. So I have recently added a series of blog posts to discuss his astute ideas about Idealism *1. The blog is an extrapolation from my personal philosophical worldview : Enformationism *2.

Here's a few comments on your observations :

1. Descartes doubted the reality of everything around him, but the one thing he could not dispense with was the mind doing the doubting. Physical scientists simply take their minds for granted, and study the non-mind world as reality. But social scientists, and quantum physicists, have found that disregarding the observing mind can lead to mis-perceptions.
2. Physicists originally assumed that “solid massy particles” (Atomism) were the fundamental reality. But Quantum Theory has dispelled that ancient notion. The foundation of reality is now viewed as fuzzy mathematical probabilities. So, how does immaterial mind emerge from such insubstantial stuff? I have a theory on that. *3
3. For pragmatic scientific or mundane purposes, we take the material world to be the substance of reality. But for theoretical philosophical motives, we may explore the possibility that the mental realm is the true essence of all phenomena. So, I think we'd be wise to use both concepts, Realism and Idealism, where they are appropriate.
3a. Actually, the immaterial mind emerges from the material body. That only makes sense if you understand that the body is made of mind-stuff. *4
3b. Kastrup's notion of many alters in a single mind is good analogy, but not a good explanation for how it works in the universe.
3c. Magical mind-over-matter doesn't work, because Nature has laws that govern both Mind and Matter.
3d. Even Libet admitted that his experiment didn't disprove the agency of mind. (Blog post 87)

*1 Blog Post 88 : Reality is Just a Theory http://bothandblog5.enformationism.info/page15.html
Blog Post 89 : Reality is Ideality http://bothandblog5.enformationism.info/page17.html

*2 BothAnd Blog : http://bothandblog5.enformationism.info/page6.html

*3 Mind from Matter – http://www.bothandblog.enformationism.info/page26.html

*4 Matter from Mind – http://www.bothandblog.enformationism.info/page53.html