• Enrique
    337
    Panpsychism, while an interesting thought experiment, does not seem to account for the fact that many phenomena are materialistic or physical enough to have no resemblance with the qualities we typically attribute to consciousness, such as experience and motive.

    Panprotopsychism, by contrast, does not require matter to be intrinsically conscious, only that it be comprised of features equaling consciousness when combined.

    If certain kinds of quantum entanglement between particles such as electrons, more aptly described as wavicles, have superposed properties with likeness to the visible light spectrum when arranged amongst molecules and additional corpuscles, mechanisms of superposition may be the basic material unit of qualitative experience. These qualia, as fragments of psychical imagery and feeling, may flit in and out of existence rapidly within the most inorganic conditions, so that components of perception exist on a fundamental level while commonly not giving rise to experience and motive. But when these superpositions are held in prolonged orientations amongst brain matter and in nature generally, consciousness of carbon-based, human and alternative richness can emerge.

    So do we have a possible mechanism for qualitative experience and technical definition of qualia: superposition amongst entangled wavicles? Is this a valid foundation for hypothesizing that panprotopsychism resolves the hard problem of consciousness, the long-standing debate about mind/body duality, and perhaps may lay the groundwork for a scientific alliance between materialism and spiritualism?
  • Gnomon
    1.2k
    Panprotopsychism, by contrast, does not require matter to be intrinsically conscious, only that it be comprised of features equaling consciousness when combined.Enrique
    Yes. I don't use that particular term in my Enformationism thesis, but it's the same basic idea. The "fundamental entity" of my theory is Generic Information, which I also call EnFormAction. It's based on the revelations of Quantum science that the ultimate "particles" of reality are actually cloud-like Fields of mathematical potential. And that Potential is not a material object, but the information (e.g. DNA) necessary to construct a particle. This is similar to Plato's notion of potential Forms that serve as recipes, or definitions, or blueprints of possible things. Information alone is not "intrinsically conscious", but it has the potential to cause Consciousness to emerge from evolutionary processes. :smile:

    Panprotopsychism : the doctrine that the fundamental entities described in abstract and structural terms by our physical theories possess unknown underlying natures that, while not mental themselves,
    https://philarchive.org/archive/WISPPA-4v1

    Aristotle describes potentiality and actuality, or potency and action, as one of several distinctions between things that exist or do not exist. In a sense, a thing that exists potentially does not exist, but the potential does exist.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potentiality_and_actuality


    Is this a valid foundation for hypothesizing that panprotopsychism resolves the hard problem of consciousness,Enrique
    Yes, I have reached that conclusion regarding the Enformationism thesis. But of course, I prefer my own custom terminology. And there are others out there who are proposing that the "seed" or "essence" or "potential" of Consciousness is a universal quality of the physical universe. I call that cosmic potential EnFormAction : the power to enform -- to create. :nerd:


    Panqualia :
    * The author, Dr. Sam Coleman, proposes a different kind of stuff (essence) that is “neither mental nor physical in itself, but which possesses properties capable of generating both the mental and the physical.” The “one fundamental stuff” he's referring to is Consciousness, but for technical purposes I think that the scientific term “Information” fits the description better.
    * As Claude Shannon discovered in mid-20th century, Information is not just ideas in human minds, it is also the substance of physical objects; it's both physical and mental. Coleman also offers a novel term to replace Panpsychism : Panqualityism. He admits that name is a merely a placeholder for unspecified “neutral properties” (potentials) that are able to emerge into reality as either physical or metaphysical, depending on the context.
    * Yet again, Information already has this monist/dualist BothAnd property, which could explain how metaphysical minds emerge from the functioning of material brains. It might also suggest how a physical universe could emerge from a mathematical Singularity consisting of nothing but the design information for constructing a universe from scratch : a program for creation.

    http://www.bothandblog.enformationism.info/page14.html
  • Enrique
    337


    Looks like no one is pursuing my entangled superposition theory, but though I'm changing the subject, if anyone still wants to ponder that, backtrack and go for it!

    Since Gnomon and I agreed in principle so quickly, maybe for fun we can categorize the precise ways in which agreement happens. What core facets does modeling an intersection between the conscious mind and physical body entail? This is my extemporaneous view.

    Modeling implies causality in space, a mode of thinking recently well-represented by Roger Penrose, who was one of the first to postulate the relationship between quantum reality and consciousness. These thinkers come up with dimensional imagery that structurally integrates observations.

    Modeling implies causality in time, a mode of thinking fostered by Charles Darwin, Karl Marx and Friedrich Nietzsche, who theorized temporality in the natural, sociopolitical and memetic spheres respectively. This evolutionary paradigm explains phenomena in terms of the way that, regardless of causal distribution within dimensional substrates, some must occur irreversibly first in a sequence, such as with hereditary descent, pioneering technologies and institutions, or seminal concepts and worldviews.

    Modeling implies mathematical description, a mode of thinking represented by Claude Shannon's information theory. From this basic perspective, everything that exists can be described with some collection of quantitative expressions, which map onto causality in space and time such that deducing correlations is more intuitive. Quantified processing is greatly assisted by algorithms, but we have to be somewhat cautious that computation remains our tool rather than enslaving humanity.

    Modeling implies verbal description, a mode of thinking represented by effective communicators such as Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and most professors, who can initiate or demolish movements with a mere keyboard.

    And last but not least, modeling implies introspection, a mode of thinking represented by spirituality and soul-searching of all types, holding a prominent place as the desiderata of feeling, religious inspiration, meditative states and free association. This allows humans to experience and comprehend in ways that are presently beyond the mechanistic domain, informing intuitions which transcend rationality. It consists in many of the phenomena that have most eluded Western theoretical frameworks and which panpsychism and panprotopsychism want to make inroads into.

    These are complementary aspects of our mind/body picture of the world and will probably all be key in formulating every future model.

    As for the total substance of existence, provided it is intelligible, I think it may manifest features from all categories because these are the parameters of current human cognition. I'd claim that form is one piece of a multifaceted puzzle, not fundamental, but to the extent that substance is conceived by human minds as we know them, the information processing of form will be key.

    I'd be interested to read you theorize the interface between EnFormAction, form and introspection.
  • Gnomon
    1.2k
    What core facets does modeling an intersection between the conscious mind and physical body entail?Enrique
    Maybe the unpronounceable polysyllabic term "Panprotopsychism" scared-off some posters. :joke:

    Apparently, you find that intersection in various forms of Causality : in "space" (physical relationships), "time" (sequential relationships), "mathematics" (abstract ratios), "verbs (words, ideas)", "introspection (subjective thought), and "models" (imagination). But, the common denominator of those loosely-related concepts is that all are subjective mental forms, not objective physical things. Which is exactly where I see the intersection between a physical Brain and a meta-physical Mind in my model of causality in the real and ideal worlds. The metaphysical Mind is merely the function (purpose) of the physical Brain.

    My Enformationism worldview is built upon the observation that ordinary mental Information --- made popular by Shannon in mathematical form --- is the Universal Substance of world. Another genius had already equated invisible Energy with tangible Matter. And other scientists in the 20th century found that (1) mental Information can be converted into (2) causal Energy, which can be converted into (3) substantial Matter, and vice versa. So, I put 1, 2, and 3 together to conclude that the common denominator of that trio is meta-physical (mental) Information. In other words, Information is everything and everything is a form of Information.

    That general notion could be interpreted as Panpsychism, meaning "All is Mind". And "All" is another term for God. But Panpsychism has been erroneously interpreted as "all is consciousness". Yet my thesis limits Consciousness to the recent emergence of Self-conscious beings, and of course to the All, from which all things emerged. But "Pan-proto-psychism" could more accurately interpreted as a primitive or original form of Mind, instead of the intermediate forms that we find in Energy, Matter, and Life. In that case, the "hard problem" of Consciousness can be answered by simply assuming that the Potential for human consciousness was already encoded in the Big Bang Singularity (or Creation Event). But, I hasten to add that I don't imagine the Creator as a humanoid being with a creature's limited and flawed consciousness. I doubt that we could ever "know the mind of G*D". :nerd:


    Universal Substance : The most distinctive aspect of Spinoza's system is his substance monism; that is, his claim that one infinite substance—God or Nature—is the only substance that exists.

    Information :
    Knowledge and the ability to know. Technically, it's the ratio of order to disorder, of positive to negative, of knowledge to ignorance. It's measured in degrees of uncertainty. Those ratios are also called "differences". So Gregory Bateson* defined Information as "the difference that makes a difference". The latter distinction refers to "value" or "meaning". Babbage called his prototype computer a "difference engine". Difference is the cause or agent of Change. In Physics it’s called "Thermodynamics" or "Energy". In Sociology it’s called "Conflict".
    http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page11.html

    The mass-energy-information equivalence principle :
    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/335673226_The_mass-energy-information_equivalence_principle

    Plato's Forms : The theory of Forms or theory of Ideas is a philosophical theory, concept, or world-view, attributed to Plato, that the physical world is not as real or true as timeless, absolute, unchangeable ideas.
    Note -- Capitalized "Form" is eternal, infinite & general Potential for the actual specific Things we know in Reality. Un-capitalized, "form" is the ordinary Actual stuff we know via our senses. "Form" is known only by the sixth sense of Reason.
  • Enrique
    337


    So you think the parameters of final causality which are present while form is given to the world intrinsically arise as a product of mind, in essence psychical? Is the essence itself psychical, or only guided at a fundamental level by some kind of psychical entity? Trying to know the mind of God lol I find it hard to accept that the world is essentially amenable to rationality or Formed. Seems to me that even a sixth sense of Reason or whatever it might be is ultimately a cognition, not of necessity with access to fundamental principles.

    What is your information exactly? Can you even broach the subject of what this basic information or Enformation consists of in terms of a causality between palpable substances? Could we observe it by instrumentation or experiment, as a new form of mass or energy perhaps?

    What do you mean by saying that the metaphysical mind is the function or purpose of the physical brain? Does a universal mind create the brain, during which new mind stuff generated in association with the brain merges with it somehow?
  • Gnomon
    1.2k
    So you think the parameters of final causality which are present while form is given to the world intrinsically arise as a product of mind, in essence psychical?Enrique
    Yes. But I try to avoid religious or anthro-morphic preconceptions about the Psyche behind creative Causation (Evolution). That's why I prefer to use the more general term "Information" in place of "spirits". "ghosts", "souls", or even "consciousness". The First Cause Enformer necessarily has some characteristics of human consciousness, such as Intention, but from our narrow perspective inside the world-system, It's a metaphysical (immaterial) abstraction unbounded by space-time & natural laws. So, the hypothetical "Creator" may be beyond the reach of our real-world imagination. In that case, all we can do is make metaphorical & mythical allusions. Therefore, I don't know the "parameters of final causality" --- all I know is the spatial & temporal effects of that Cosmic Causation. Anything beyond that is an inference from evidence. :cool:

    Creation Stories thread : https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/484299

    What is your information exactly?Enrique
    The most complete, step by step, explanation of my understanding of Causal Information is in the Enformationism thesis. That exposition uses the Matrix movie, instead of ancient notions of Panpsychism, to illustrate the universal role of information in creating our world, both in Reality (Nature) and in Ideality (worldview). Unfortunately, few forum posters are interested enough to actually read it. So all they know of the thesis is a few isolated comments in specific contexts.

    The word "Information" originally described the meaningful contents of human minds : ideas, thoughts, concepts, feelings. But Shannon divested the term of specific meanings in favor of general utility for technological communication & computing by means of reductive Bits, instead of whole Concepts. Then, more recently, physicists have equated mental Information with causal Energy and physical Matter. So, in general, Information is the power to Enform (to give visual shape or tangible substance or meaningful content to) the things & concepts we know in the real world. It's a Holistic concept that is difficult to grasp for those indoctrinated with modern Reductionism. :nerd:

    The mass-energy-information equivalence principle :
    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/335673226_The_mass-energy-information_equivalence_principle

    Enformationism :
    As a scientific paradigm, the thesis of Enformationism is intended to be an update to the obsolete 19th century paradigm of Materialism. Since the recent advent of Quantum Physics, the materiality of reality has been watered down. Now we know that Matter is a form of energy, and that Energy is a form of Information (en-form-action).
    As a religious philosophy, the creative power of Enformationism is envisioned as a more realistic version of the antiquated religious notions of Spiritualism. Since our world had a beginning, it's hard to deny the concept of creation. So, an infinite deity is proposed to serve as both the energetic Enformer and the malleable substance (Spinoza) of the enformed world.

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

    Enformationism Thesis : http://enformationism.info/enformationism.info/

    What do you mean by saying that the metaphysical mind is the function or purpose of the physical brain?Enrique
    The brain is an information processor, and its purpose or function is to extract meaningful information from the environment, and to use it for the interests of the body. From a design perspective, Consciousness is the intended reason for having a centralized brain rather than isolated sensors. From an anti-design worldview, Consciousness is a fortunate accidental product of a random tangle of neurons.

    Function : 1. an activity or purpose natural to or intended for a person or thing.
  • Enrique
    337
    Since our world had a beginning, it's hard to deny the concept of creationGnomon

    How do you know an absolute beginning exists? Why couldn't substance be inanimately eternal, with all psychical phenomena an emergent property and no fundamental creation necessary?

    (I should say that I'm not trying to be irreligious, because if you've experienced God this makes Him no less awe-inspiring, but seems to me we shouldn't base belief in God on fallacious ideas, so that's what motivates my challenge.)
  • Gnomon
    1.2k
    How do you know an absolute beginning exists? Why couldn't substance be inanimately eternal, with all psychical phenomena an emergent property and no fundamental creation necessary?Enrique
    I wasn't there at the beginning, so I don't know from personal experience that our world suddenly began to exist about 14 billion years ago. But the best guess of modern science is that the physical universe -- the only one we have any experience with -- is not eternal, but emerged from an unknown background in a creation event that is usually referred to as the "Big Bang". What existed before that is anybody's guess. But whatever the time-before-time was, it was not a part of our current space-time world.

    Of course, some ancient sages, and a few modern thinkers, postulated that the universe cycles eternally. But they had no actual evidence for that assumption. The best evidence we have in the modern world is summed-up in the Big Bang Theory (BBT), which ends, not with a bang, but a Big Freeze. Since I have seen no good reason to think otherwise, my worldview is generally based on the BBT. But you are entitled to your own opinion.

    If you think of "Substance" as Matter, the BBT implies that its existence is temporary, because it emerged, along with Space, from an initial Singularity. But if, by "Substance", you mean Aristotle's notion of Immaterial Essence, then it could indeed be eternal. In my thesis, Matter is inherently temporal, but Essence (Form ; Information) is timeless. According to Aristotle's theory of hylemorphism, the matter we are familiar with is a combination of ideal Form (morph ; essence) and real Matter (hyle ; stuff) What we perceive with our physical senses is Matter. But what we conceive with our reason is Form.

    Anyway, for the purposes of my personal worldview, I do assume that the world had a Beginning (creation), and hence a First Cause (creator). If you have more "absolute" knowledge, I'd be interested to hear about it. :smile:

    (I should say that I'm not trying to be irreligious, because if you've experienced God this makes Him no less awe-inspiring, but seems to me we shouldn't base belief in God on fallacious ideas, so that's what motivates my challenge.)Enrique
    Personally, I'm not religious, but I am philosophical. And, unlike most people, I have a well-thought-out thesis to backup my personal belief system. So, based on a detailed & documented chain of reasoning, I do think that our world necessarily had an outside Cause of some sort. However, I've had had no personal "experience" of divinity. Hence, I am not "awe-inspired", and have no motivation to worship the abstract hypothetical First Cause of my worldview.

    I certainly am not interested in any "fallacious ideas" about "God". So, I try to make sure that my worldview is based on plausible information. Since the world has entertained thousands of ideas about gods, some of which may be contradictory or fallacious, I tend to be skeptical of most of them. So, if you want to "challenge" my god-model, you'll have to engage in a philosophical dialog, and not a battle of Faiths. And on this forum, I put my theories out-there to be challenged. :cool:
  • Enrique
    337
    Personally, I'm not religious, but I am philosophical. And, unlike most people, I have a well-thought-out thesis to backup my personal belief system. So, based on a detailed & documented chain of reasoning, I do think that our world necessarily had an outside Cause of some sort. However, I've had no personal "experience" of divinity. Hence, I am not "awe-inspired", and have no motivation to worship the abstract hypothetical First Cause of my worldview.Gnomon

    You seem to accept some form of panpsychism and consider God the creator, meaning I presume that He is an extremely powerful entity while permeating everything that exists. I have my own experiences and reasons, but don't want to get ultraspiritual and start analyzing this or that doctrine-laden idea unless you're into that. Anyways, it might be interesting to make some specifications as to what this panpsychism actually consists in. In what sense do you regard God as preternatural or observable? A first cause could be anything, but you call it God, so it can't be a complete mystery. You must think of the natural world as to some degree having an intrinsic motivational force with palpable effects, and this implies that it is possible to engage in a factual description, though maybe not permissible?

    I realize the discourse for this topic can incline towards the bizarre, but I'm nonetheless curious to find out where you're coming from if you can describe it further. I've had preternatural experiences myself that could be fulfilling for me to consider in light of your point of view. You probably know much more than me about concepts of God and gods in an academic sense, while my ideas of God come from a more personal source, not academic at all.
  • Gnomon
    1.2k
    You seem to accept some form of panpsychism and consider God the creator, meaning I presume that He is an extremely powerful entity while permeating everything that exists.Enrique
    Yes. I have been forced, by the philosophical implications of modern science, to accept "some form of Panpsychism", and the necessity for a creation act, which entails some form of Creator. However, I prefer to avoid that ancient term for Universal Consciousness, because I think Consciousness is only a late development from universal Information (basically mathematical relationships). So, my worldview is similar to Spinoza's, in that Information is the "universal substance", and that "God" is both immanent (the substance of the temporal world) and transcendent, because a Creator/Programmer must exist prior to the time-bound Creation/Program, perhaps eternally. Hence, since anything timeless & spaceless is unbounded, the Creator should be, by definition, Omnipotent (all-powerful).

    So, your assessment of my acceptance is pretty close. However, I don't see any signs that "G*D" interferes or intervenes (punishments or miracles) in the natural unfolding of evolution. So there is no sense in worshiping or fearing my Creator/Maker. A common, but commonly misunderstood, label for that worldview is Deism. Which is not a religion, but a philosophical worldview. :smile:

    Deist :
    Deism can be described as a rational, science-based worldview with pragmatic reasons for believing in a non-traditional non-anthro-morphic deity, rather than a faith-based belief system relying on the imaginative official myths of a minor ancient culture. So a Deist does not live by faith, but by reason. However, on topics where science is still uncertain (see Qualia), Deists feel free to use their reasoning powers to develop plausible beliefs that lie outside the current paradigm.
    http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page12.html

    I have my own experiences and reasons, but don't want to get ultraspiritual and start analyzing this or that doctrine-laden idea unless you're into that.Enrique
    Since I have had no abnormal or unnatural experiences of G*D, I am "spiritual" only in the sense that I have a philosophical interest in Metaphysics, and in understanding the roots of "spiritual" feelings in other people. And no, since I was raised on dogma and book-chapter-verse arguments, I have no interest in circular doctrinal analysis. :halo:

    what this panpsychism actually consists in. In what sense do you regard God as preternatural or observable?Enrique
    I have written many words on these topics in my thesis and blog. So, I can refer you to them, if you are interested in a non-traditional, and unconventional worldview. G*D is indeed preternatural, in the sense that the First Cause of Nature, must exist outside the chain of natural causation, like a pool-shooter. :chin:

    A first cause could be anything, but you call it God, so it can't be a complete mystery.Enrique
    The First Cause of our particular chain-of-events cannot be just anything. Instead, it must necessarily possess some characteristics that are expressed in the lawful & energetic Creation. So, while I don't have any direct personal knowledge of the Prime Cause, I can make logical inferences to dispel the mystery. We can know the Artist only by experiencing the Art. :cool:

    an intrinsic motivational force with palpable effectsEnrique
    Yes. In my thesis, based in-part on Information Theory, the "intrinsic force" of creative Evolution is what I call EnFormAction (the power to create novel forms). But, we can only know about that "force" by examining its "effects" in the real world. For example, the Big Bang is a sarcastic label for the initial creative act, which gave birth to the embryo that has become our adolescent universe. Scientists came to that conclusion by tracing cosmic events (effects) back to a point where space-time loses its meaning. :nerd:

    I've had preternatural experiences myself that could be fulfilling for me to consider in light of your point of view.Enrique
    No. I have never had any "preternatural experiences" of my own. So, you have an advantage over my second-hand observations. But I have seen people who believed they were having supernatural experiences (such as speaking in tongues), yet to my eyes they were just play-acting (pretending). Of course, my opinion would make no difference to them, because it's a matter of subjective Faith & Feeling, not objective Study & Observation.So, I am not inclined to read-in preternatural interpretations of strange experiences. Instead, I use the insights of Science to enform my interpretations of natural phenomena, including mysterious mental anomalies like Schizophrenia. In my worldview, anything unnatural or preternatural would be an affront to the creator of Nature. :naughty:

    So, does that sound like a foundation for a profitable exchange of ideas? :grin:
  • Enrique
    337
    I have been forced, by the philosophical implications of modern science, to accept "some form of Panpsychism", and the necessity for a creation act, which entails some form of Creator.Gnomon

    I'll get all wild and crazy because I can't resist lol A lot more phenomena exist than the materialistic paradigm in science has explained, but if you give physical knowledge a panprotopsychist dimension along the lines of my theory in the OP, this might change. For instance:

    Auras: fields of additive superposition amongst entangled matter that extend beyond the body, a supraphysiological qualia.

    Meaningful dreams and visions: inducement of qualia in the mind via panpsychical mechanisms, with panpsychism being an emergent property of panprotopsychism.

    Synchronicity: nonlocal perturbation of panprotopsychical coherence fields.

    Spirits: qualitatively experiencing beings that can be sentient, composed of substances transcending the sense-perceptual spectrum, but which typically perturb it.

    God: an extremely powerful sentient spirit with massive form-giving force.

    Spells: a cognitive/behavioral act of perturbing panprotopsychical fields.

    And this is only scratching the surface, it of course gets more preternatural than that. Science might be able to assimilate this preternaturality as an expansion of our present mechanistic framework, describing it in terms of physics, chemistry, biology and psychology, if the quantumlike foundations of qualia and nonlocal causality are rationalized with theoretical modeling and rendered observable using technological instrumentation. What do you think?
  • Pfhorrest
    3.9k
    the best guess of modern science is that the physical universe -- the only one we have any experience with -- is not eternal, but emerged from an unknown background in a creation event that is usually referred to as the "Big Bang".Gnomon

    Scientists are usually careful not to claim that there's definitely nothing before the Big Bang, and the cutting edge theory of eternal inflation holds that the universe as a whole is, at the very least, much older (and MUCH bigger) than the part of it that stems from the Big Bang, quite plausibly eternal and infinite (though they're careful not to claim for sure that it's that either), with Big Bangs constantly happening all across space and time, each one being nothing more than a spontaneous local slow-down of the otherwise always-rapidly-inflating total universe.

    PBS SpaceTime has a couple of great videos on it, including this one:

  • Gnomon
    1.2k
    Science might be able to assimilate this preternaturality as an expansion of our present mechanistic framework, describing it in terms of physics, chemistry, biology and psychology, if the quantumlike foundations of qualia and nonlocal causality are rationalized with theoretical modeling and rendered observable using technological instrumentation. What do you think?Enrique
    Yes. Just like UFO sightings, there are alternative natural explanations for all of the "preternatural" items on your list : Auras, Visions, Synchronicity, Spirits, God, Spells. These are all subjective, mental & imaginary phenomena, not objective, physical or actual. So the most reasonable explanation refers to inherent liabilities of the human mind : e.g. to jump to weird conclusions based on prior beliefs & assumptions. [see Hedonic Psychology below]

    But, so far, mainstream Science has not "assimilated" any of those metaphysical phenomena. Although, I am not a hard materialist, and try to keep an open mind about Paranormal events and entities, I have always come-up empty on the Preternatural Experience scale. By that I mean, I have no direct personal experience with any of those. So, for me, it's all hearsay evidence. Christians would reply that you have to "want to believe". Apparently, I lack sufficient Will to Believe the unbelievable (i.e. questionable assertions).

    However, my Enformationism thesis, and BothAnd philosophy, allows me to be more sympathetic toward believers in spiritual phenomena than most Materialists. That's because I have a novel understanding of how immaterial Information (EnFormAction) works in the real world. Raw Information is invisible & intangible, just like Spirits & Souls, yet it also has causal effects upon material reality, just like invisible intangible Energy. Consequently, I have my own alternative interpretation of those Preternatural appearances. So, my worldview is neither Spiritual nor Material, but a consilient combination of both. I too, have "rationalized with theoretical modeling". But my model is not at all spooky ; merely mundane & realistic. No faith required. :smile:

    Hedonic Psychology : That research eventually yielded heuristics, or rules of thumb, that have now become wellknown shorthand expressions forspecific flaws in our intuitive thinking.
    https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2017/04/20/kahneman-tversky-invisible-mind-manipulators/
    https://science.sciencemag.org/content/185/4157/1124

    Science and Spirituality :
    * I respectfully disagree with the subtitle of Mr. Taylor’s book. What we now know as the scientific method was originally called Natural Philosophy. And its methods were primarily theoretical, hence difficult to disprove in cases where theories disagreed.
    * Modern science has been so fruitful partly because it focused on empirical evidence. Any disputes can be resolved pragmatically by demonstrating which theory works in practice. That’s how Einstein’s concept of gravity was proven by observations of light deflected by mass.
    * The success of empirical Science left theoretical Philosophy with little to do but speculate on mushy metaphysics. But now the cutting edge of Physics and Chemistry, and even Cosmology is slicing into metaphysical mush on the quantum level of reality. Yet technology continues to advance without any tincture of spirituality.
    * So, I think it’s actually the philosophical profession that needs to evolve from its empirical envy, and take the lead in interpreting the conceptual enigmas that practical science will never touch. That’s why Philosophy needs to take Spirituality seriously, in order to make sense of the immaterial aspects of the world.

    http://bothandblog5.enformationism.info/page32.html
  • Gnomon
    1.2k
    Scientists are usually careful not to claim that there's definitely nothing before the Big Bang, and the cutting edge theory of eternal inflation holds that the universe as a whole is, at the very least, much older (and MUCH bigger) than the part of it that stems from the Big Bang, quite plausibly eternal and infinite (though they're careful not to claim for sure that it's that either), with Big Bangs constantly happening all across space and time, each one being nothing more than a spontaneous local slow-down of the otherwise always-rapidly-inflating total universe.Pfhorrest
    Yes. Most scientists avoid speculating on what preceded the Big Bang. And with good reason : that would go beyond the self-imposed limitations of the scientific method to empirical and falisfiable evidence. But that doesn't stop a few from making bold conjectures on the time-before-Time. I like to keep up on the latest imaginative leaps in Cosmology. But there are two basic necessities that they can't dispense with : Causal Energy and Limiting Laws. So that's what my thesis proposes in the concept of EnFormAction : the "eternal & infinite" creative power to enform (to give form to the formless). Together, these qualities can logically apply to an eternal & enigmatic intentional world-Creator, at least as well as to an unbounded & mysterious accidental world-Inflator.

    One of the most persistent efforts to avoid the creative implications of the Big Bang event is the various theories of Inflation. But that is still a debatable philosophical hypothesis to this day. And Hawking's "no boundary" solution inadvertently sounded like a description of an Eternal & Infinite Deity : "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End". (Revelation 21:6) So, it seems that my theory of an eternal source of Power (energy) and Information (laws) is just as reasonable as those other non-scientific creation myths. Of course, I'm not qualified to critique the math or physics of the Inflationists. Which is why I don't pretend to give any details about how the creation event unfolded -- except to insist that it must involve the Power to Enform, which I call EnFormAction, and which physicists call "Energy" & "Natural Laws". :nerd:


    Is The Inflationary Universe A Scientific Theory? Not Anymore : “Inflationary cosmology, as we currently understand it, cannot be evaluated using the scientific method.”
    ___Sabine Hossenfelder, theoretical physicist
    https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/09/28/is-the-inflationary-universe-a-scientific-theory-not-anymore/?sh=c143cb8b45e2

    Physicists Debate Hawking’s Idea That the Universe Had No Beginning : " What was the source of the minuscule patch that allegedly ballooned into our cosmos, and of the potential energy that inflated it? . . . . He proposed that there’s no end, or beginning, at all."
    https://www.quantamagazine.org/physicists-debate-hawkings-idea-that-the-universe-had-no-beginning-20190606/

    EnFormAction :
    Ententional Causation. A proposed metaphysical law of the universe that causes random interactions between forces and particles to produce novel & stable arrangements of matter & energy. It’s the creative force (aka : Divine Will) of the axiomatic eternal deity that, for unknown reasons, programmed a Singularity to suddenly burst into our reality from an infinite source of possibility.
    AKA : The creative power of Evolution; the power to enform; Logos; Change.

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


    Miraculous Inflation vs Mysterious No Boundary First Cause
    No-boundary-Graphic-v5-897x1720.jpg
  • Enrique
    337
    But, so far, mainstream Science has not "assimilated" any of those metaphysical phenomena...my worldview is neither Spiritual nor Material, but a consilient combination of both.Gnomon

    Its interesting you brought in the hedonic psychology angle, because most such pleasure/pain theorists incline to assert that experiences of the preternatural phenomena I mentioned are delusions, induced by pleasurable autostimulation within the nervous system. This makes a convenient companion to the reductionist physicalism that approaches an explanation of most phenomena, certainly including hedonic pleasure and pain, as produced by properties describable according to the standard atomic model, with the preternatural entirely excluded from consideration.

    I gather that your Enformation thesis wants to translate the preternatural into an idiosyncratic conceptual framework that is compatible with both materialism and a sort of Platonic mathematical philosophy which I admit not fully grasping.

    My angle wants to synthesize quantum physics with biochemistry and neuroscience to aim for a model of the mind/body interface that is based on wavicle mechanics, hopefully including within its scope preternatural phenomena such as nonlocal effects.

    Your philosophy seems to be based around deriving a holistic language and structure encompassing all of existence, including the preternaturally quantumlike. My tinkering is motivated towards construction of hypotheses that are verifiable by experiment, platforming progression to theory and technology that can observe the preternaturally quantumlike as palpably and precisely as we observed chemical reactions in a 20th century lab. But regardless of what ultimately turns out to be possible and where knowledge goes, I think we can agree that for most phenomena, the assumption they are "delusions" to reject must be discarded in favor of an effort to arrive at "better explanations", and this is what will allow the next age of scientific humanism to happen, in my opinion as an alternative to spiritual collapse, dystopia, ecological disasters, and the catastrophe of failing to competently incorporate AI.

    It seems to me that in my conversations with you and additional posters at this site, the "better explanations" challenge itself has been met. We solved the mind/body problem, explained the compatibility of spiritualism with materialism, and though we disagree on minor conceptual details, everyone knows what everyone is saying in its essentials and agrees with everyone once exposed to the ideas, though we still argue for the hell of it.

    Why does this seem to make such minimal impact? Is the "inaccurate viewpoint as delusion" perspective so integral to modernity that we don't even note real progress, instinctively acting as if knowledge is some sort of arbitrarily held personal property rather than practical truth we have a collective responsibility to advance? Are changes happening I don't know about, or are we so stagnated in the hedonic materialist paradigm that serious commitment to anything outside the mainstream is condemned? The consciousness theory currently being developed is beyond standard reductionism, more of a panpsychism-styled paradigm, but is anyone taking it seriously?
  • Gnomon
    1.2k
    Its interesting you brought in the hedonic psychology angle, because most such pleasure/pain theorists incline to assert that experiences of the preternatural phenomena I mentioned are delusions, induced by pleasurable autostimulation within the nervous system.Enrique
    Yes. That is the typical dismissive attitude of materialists, and it is accurate up to a point. But my own interpretation of such psychological phenomena as prostrating Worship (motivated by fear of god) and Glossolalia (motivated by felt need to communicate with god), are real human behaviors that should be understood, not simply ridiculed. I don't personally feel those hedonic urges, but I want to relate to those who do. Yet it's a tricky politically-correct juggling act, like referring to handicapped people as "differently-abled" in order to avoid being offensive. :gasp:

    I gather that your Enformation thesis wants to translate the preternatural into an idiosyncratic conceptual framework that is compatible with both materialism and a sort of Platonic mathematical philosophy which I admit not fully grasping.Enrique
    Yes. The Enformationism thesis is an idiosyncratic personal worldview derived in part from a> Information Theory and partly from b> Quantum Theory. Since Shannon's terminology has sublimated the original meaning of "Information", and the QT is still shrouded in mystery, any discussion of them will have to be somewhat "peculiar" in order to dispel common "erroneous" interpretations of those subjects. It's a radical re-interpretation of Reality. That's why the quirky & complex concepts are hard to "grasp" from brief posts on a forum. It would be best understood by beginning at the beginning : the Enformationism Thesis itself. :joke:

    Your philosophy seems to be based around deriving a holistic language and structure encompassing all of existence, including the preternaturally quantumlike.Enrique
    Yes. Enformationism is necessarily Holistic, which results in some departure from typical Reductive interpretations of physical and metaphysical phenomena. It was not my original intention to bring "preternatural" topics into the thesis, but I was forced by the subject matter to accede to the general notion of divinity, which I ambiguously label "G*D". All of existence, in my worldview, includes any pre-existing Causes that might explain the controversial theory of a Big Bang beginning, as opposed to an Eternal physical world. Moreover, the world described by Quantum Theory is inherently metaphysical and preternatural. But I don't interpret those spooky implications in terms of ancient mythology, except as metaphors and anecdotes. :naughty:

    It seems to me that in my conversations with you and additional posters at this site, the "better explanations" challenge itself has been met.Enrique
    The problem with most of those "better explanations" is that they tend to introduce Metaphysical concepts as evidence. But such Preternatural notions are outside the purview of empirical Science. And many posters on this forum are still trying to force Metaphysical Philosophy into the Physical Science mold. But my worldview still maintains a pertinent distinction between Pragmatic Science and Theoretical Philosophy. Philosophers can go where Scientists fear to tread. We need to learn from Science how the Real World works, but we can still explore the possibilities of the Ideal World. Unfortunately, one aspect of Reality is that too many people can't distinguish what's real and what's imaginary. Thats' why magic & gambling, for example, are so popular with the Hedonic crowd. :starstruck:

    We solved the mind/body problem, explained the compatibility of spiritualism with materialism,Enrique
    Unfortunately, "We" are still a minority in modern philosophy, which has two main divisions : Empirical Analytics of Modernism, and Intuitive Deconstruction of Postmodernism. Neither of which will accept the other's solutions to metaphysical problems. My philosophy is neither of those, but contains elements of both. My philosophy is neither New Age, nor Archaic, but a synthesis of old & new ideas. :brow:

    The consciousness theory currently being developed is beyond standard reductionism, more of a panpsychism-styled paradigm, but is anyone taking it seriously?Enrique
    Panpsychism is taken seriously by some scientists, but they are currently a minority. And, even though my own (All is Mind) worldview has some commonalities with Universal Consciousness theories, I differ on the details. So we still have much to work-out. :cool:

    Postmodernism : Feyerabend held that modern science is no more justified than witchcraft, and has denounced the "tyranny" of "abstract concepts such as 'truth', 'reality', or 'objectivity', which narrow people's vision and ways of being in the world".
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postmodern_philosophy
  • Enrique
    337
    But my own interpretation of such psychological phenomena as prostrating Worship (motivated by fear of god) and Glossolalia (motivated by felt need to communicate with god), are real human behaviors that should be understood, not simply ridiculed. I don't personally feel those hedonic urges, but I want to relate to those who do.Gnomon

    It's funny that science describes the desire to communicate with God using what almost seems like a medical term, as if a syndrome. And its strange how some religiosity talks about the "fear of the Lord" and some that "God is love", etc. etc., so contradictory and anthrocentric, as if God revolves around the foibles of human nature. You can tell that the stuff is in large measure humans confabulating myths and rationalizations for aesthetic purposes or in support of authority structures.

    But I know from personal experience that once in awhile God reveals himself directly to humans: the wind starts whipping around, sometimes with lightning, and a voice speaks that is uncanny and powerful enough to inspire millennia of monument-building.

    In my humble opinion, God is not a deistic watchmaker letting stuff run entirely on its own, nor a supernatural entity, but a part of nature, and every force God exerts has a natural explanation regardless of how rare or miraculous, so spirituality is intrinsically compatible with scientific theory. I don't consider it necessary for human beings to prostrate themselves before God unless they have a good reason to do so or it helps them somehow, and we seem to have acquired the habit of explaining much of what God does using models of the supposedly inanimate, but when God fully reveals Himself, ideological hubris becomes meaningless.

    I think a panprotopsychist facet within quantum physics and neuroscience may enable research to deeply explain consciousness as a natural phenomenon, but that is far from implying God isn't influencing it, so the so-called preternatural is perhaps an enigmatic aspect of nature.

    modern philosophy, which has two main divisions : Empirical Analytics of Modernism, and Intuitive Deconstruction of Postmodernism. Neither of which will accept the other's solutions to metaphysical problems.Gnomon

    I think empirical analytics and intuitive deconstruction are easy to synthesize: it is simply a matter of intellectual respect for the most plausible order in fact-gathering, a causal accuracy in narrative. The historical literature I've read recently does an impeccable job of rationalizing event sequences on many fronts, so I think any methodological clash between modernism and postmodernism has been resolved by a new genre of analytical historicity that is emerging, but ethical and cultural concerns still loom large, basically the issue of who gets to access the books and for what purposes.

    Regard for the implication of memes in power relations has been drawn from a literary movement of cultural criticism into the literature itself as a latent tension. Its fascinating to see the messy war of values going on within all this pristine factual prose, amounting to dissonance between the tone of various authors who are all employing essentially the same expository template, and even sometimes within a single book.

    Seems to me that what some philosophers might call true postmodernism as opposed to ultramodernism is a movement that is struggling mightily to conceptualize humanity in an increasingly mechanistic and authoritarian world.

    Enformationism is necessarily Holistic, which results in some departure from typical Reductive interpretations of physical and metaphysical phenomena.Gnomon

    I've read so much incisive critique of metaphysics that I don't really view the field as having more than historical significance. For me, structural modeling is all epistemology, philosophy of mind, logic and science. If math or anything else is called metaphysical, that seems superfluous to me. Counterarguments welcome!
  • Gnomon
    1.2k
    It's funny that science describes the desire to communicate with God using what almost seems like a medical term, as if a syndrome. . . . . You can tell that the stuff is in large measure humans confabulating myths and rationalizations for aesthetic purposes or in support of authority structures..Enrique
    Actually, the term "Glossolalia" is not a technical or dismissive scientific label. It is instead a Latin translation of the Greek phrase for "speaking in tongues". What's really funny-odd is that so few Christians today show signs of biblical Holy Spirit possession.

    It's not just a Christian practice though, but an ecstatic behavior of various pre-scientific pagan & shamanic tribes. Yet, even those are few & far between -- almost like snake-handlers. In the early Christian era, the ability to miraculously speak in foreign tongues would have been an advantage for spreading the gospel throughout the Roman Empire.

    Ironically, in today's multi-cultural societies, that multi-lingual "gift" would still be useful. But modern Charismatics no longer claim to speak practical worldly languages. Luckily, since Angelic or Prayer language has not been documented, no one can prove that they are not communicating with God. Even non-christian African & Asian shamans make no pretense of speaking a knowable language.

    Do you think their ecstatic displays are literally expressions of "desire to communicate with God", or perhaps to impress their fellow communicants with their personal holiness? How could you tell the difference, scientifically or otherwise, between Angel tongue and dysarthria syndrome, or just plain babbling? How can an objective observer distinguish "Myths and Rationalizations" from sincere-but-private divine channels of communication? Let's just say, I remain skeptical that any communication is going-on, even though I don't necessarily doubt their subjective beliefs. :chin:

    Shaman speaks in tongues A Universal Language :
    https://youtu.be/_kr-UM25ssQ

    But I know from personal experience that once in awhile God reveals himself directly to humans: the wind starts whipping around, sometimes with lightning, and a voice speaks that is uncanny and powerful enough to inspire millennia of monument-building.Enrique
    I too have heard God's "revelation" in thunder & lightening. But since I don't understand that divine language, it's literally "uncanny" : mysterious & ineffable or incredible & preternatural. So, I'm like ancient people who simply knew enough to run & hide, to avoid being "speared" by an angry weather/war god, like Yahweh, Baal, and Horus. What's the name of your Storm God? :pray:

    Weather God : weather god, also frequently known as a storm god, is a deity in mythology associated with weather phenomena such as thunder, lightning, rain, wind, storms, tornados, and hurricanes.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weather_god

    so I think any methodological clash between modernism and postmodernism has been resolved by a new genre of analytical historicity that is emerging,Enrique
    I haven't heard of that new synthesis of worldviews. Does it have a common name yet? :brow:

    true postmodernism as opposed to ultramodernismEnrique
    Is that ultra-post-modernism also a religious or philosophical worldview? :scream:

    Ultramodernism : "A primitive futurist scream for change . . . A movement seeking to provide an alternative to societies retrospective tendanices, especially in the fields of popular culture (art, music, fashion)"
    https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Ultramodernism

    I've read so much incisive critique of metaphysics that I don't really view the field as having more than historical significance.Enrique
    That's why I have offered my own up-dated definition of "Meta-Physics", that seems to be more in-line with the original intent of Aristotle. :cool:

    Meta-physics :
    The branch of philosophy that examines the nature of reality, including the relationship between mind and matter, substance and attribute, fact and value.
    1. Often dismissed by materialists as idle speculation on topics not amenable to empirical proof.
    2. Aristotle divided his treatise on science into two parts. The world as-known-via-the-senses was labeled “physics” - what we call "Science" today. And the world as-known-by-the-mind, by reason, was labeled “metaphysics” - what we now call "Philosophy" .
    3. Plato called the unseen world that hides behind the physical façade: “Ideal” as opposed to Real. For him, Ideal “forms” (concepts)
    were prior-to the Real “substance” (matter).
    4. 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. Meta-physics includes the properties, and qualities, and functions that make a thing what it is. Matter is just the clay from which a thing is made. Meta-physics is the design (form, purpose); physics is the product (shape, action). The act of creation brings an ideal design into actual existence. The design concept is the “formal” cause of the thing designed.
    5. I use a hyphen in the spelling to indicate that I am not talking about Ghosts and Magic, but about Ontology (science of being).

    http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page14.html
  • Enrique
    337
    How could you tell the difference, scientifically or otherwise, between Angel tongue and dysarthria syndrome, or just plain babbling? How can an objective observer distinguish "Myths and Rationalizations" from sincere-but-private divine channels of communication?Gnomon

    LOL I certainly have the vision quest end of the spectrum going on at the moment, my dreams are off the chain lately.

    What's the name of your Storm God?Gnomon

    He hasn't said his name to me, but told folks "He has served me well" and that I'm an "incarnation". He gives the county quite a shock once in awhile.

    I haven't heard of that new synthesis of worldviews. Does it have a common name yet?Gnomon

    I don't believe the genre has a distinct name, but a good representative of the style I have in mind is Reading the Rocks: How Victorian Geologists Discovered the Secret of Life. Its about how the juggernaut of evolutionary science started with a few aristocrats poking around the English countryside in suits and dresses using a few picks and shovels. Amazing true story and an easy read with a coherent, accessible message. I think books like this could actually build a utopia if they were available for everyone to casually enjoy and discuss.

    Ultramodernism : "A primitive futurist scream for change . . . A movement seeking to provide an alternative to societies retrospective tendanices, especially in the fields of popular culture (art, music, fashion)"Gnomon

    I drew my use from the urbane John Deely, mentioned in the article you linked to, rather than the urban dictionary.
  • Gnomon
    1.2k
    LOL I certainly have the vision quest end of the spectrum going on at the moment, my dreams are off the chain lately.Enrique
    Do you interpret your dreams as a> meaningless garbled memories, or b> suggestive intuitions, or c> prophetic visions, or d> semiological memories of Alien probes? Are you actually on a Vision Quest, searching for guidance from the Great Beyond? Are you enhancing your dreams with hallucinogenic substances? Have you recently had an emotional Peak or Valley? :chin:
    (sorry, I couldn't find a smilie-icon of Freud holding his pipe)

    He hasn't said his name to me, but told folks "He has served me well" and that I'm an "incarnation"Enrique
    Oh, another message from "he who shall remain nameless"?
    Are you an incarnation of some famous or infamous character? Or a re-incarnation of a famous person, such as Jesus? What have you been smoking lately? :joke:

    I don't believe the genre has a distinct name, but a good representative of the style I have in mind is Reading the Rocks: How Victorian Geologists Discovered the Secret of Life.Enrique
    Interesting! And what is The Big Secret of Life? From what I've heard, it begins with : "First, arrange to be born . . . ."
    Or is it marked Confidential, and only revealed to initiates who profess loyalty & faith? :zip:

    I think books like this could actually build a utopia if they were available for everyone to casually enjoy and discuss.Enrique
    Warning! Victorian era Utopias typically didn't end well for their starry-eyed dreamers. Even though some of them casually enjoyed some relaxing herbal smoke. :gasp:

    I drew my use from the urbane John Deely, mentioned in the article you linked to, rather than the urban dictionary.Enrique
    Ah! Another sneaky semiotician, alluding to abstruse signs & symbols that can be interpreted in many obscure, but urbane, ways.
    By the way, speaking of "ways" . . . what does all this weirdness have to do with the topic of this thread : Panprotopsychism (all-before-mind-ism)? :cool:

    Freudian Slippers :
    Freud.jpg

    Panpsychoprotoplasm :
    protoplasm.jpg
  • Manuel
    70
    I mean yes, you can argue what the OP says. But why signal out consciousness only? I mean, we would also have pancarbonism, panwaterism or even panironism or anything else in nature. From what we can make out so far, given the available evidence, there is much more iron and carbon in the universe, than there are creatures with consciousness.

    Another option to consider, and I'm actually not joking when I say this, could be something like PanAllism, which can be taken to mean, that all the stuff we see in the world, are tendencies and configurations of the physical. So everything , in principle, could be reduced to the "bottom stuff' of the universe. It just so happens that for consciousness to arise, one needs some rather specific parameters that allow for life to emerge, and evolve to such a state in which consciousness could become self-aware, and articulated as such by the creatures who have this property.

    But we just don't find these properties at the very bottom of nature, in fields or strings or whatever there may be.

    But as has likely been mentioned in discussions of this type, this isn't an experiment that is liable to scientific research, and would have to be considered metaphysics, which I have nothing against, In fact, it's a fascinating topic. But the problem is, one has to recognize the limits of scientific enquiry, which certainly exist.

    The most realistic thing, is to think that emergence makes sense, even so called "strong emergence". I've heard many people and scientists say that this is akin to "believing in magic". Fine, if this is magic, then I believe it to be the case. I prefer to call it what it is, a total mystery for human beings.
  • Enrique
    337
    Do you interpret your dreams...Gnomon

    Truth is stranger than fiction and so perhaps is this conversation, but philosophy doesn't have to conform. I couldn't resist bringing a bit of spiritualism and talk of miracles to the panprotopsychism thread because I think the paradigm will verify some traditionally religious ideas, plus its entertaining to talk about the paranormal.

    I never had a large spate of profound dreams until a couple years ago, but these are like movies, intricate plots with camera angles and complex dialogue. The problem is I fail to remember many details unless I write it down immediately upon waking, and I don't have an analyst like Carl Jung to help me make sense of the intricately symbolic imagery and verbiage, so I don't bother, though nonetheless get some insight from it.

    In the Western world we tend to carelessly dismiss our dreams and don't usually form vivid memories of them, but what I learned while reading Carl Jung's writings a few years ago is that if you start to pay closer attention to your dreams for weeks, they get much more meaningful, as if the unconscious begins trying to impinge upon the conscious mind and guide your perspective on life and the world. Might explain why earlier humans placed such great weight upon dreams: they were tapping into them more deeply with long-term, less distracted contemplation (not necessarily good or safe in all cases, I should caution). Mine were getting vivid while reading his literature until I woke up with my body disturbingly numb for a few minutes after falling from a great height in my dream, like I had received a strong electric shock. I'm guessing some spiritual force was deflecting me, wasn't the appropriate moment. Make of it what you wish.

    And what is The Big Secret of Life?Gnomon

    The book I mentioned is about spontaneous organizing, how citizens created an important scientific field from scratch by sheer perseverance. Its great exemplification of collaboration transcending personality quirks, and that might be a secret of life.

    But as has likely been mentioned in discussions of this type, this isn't an experiment that is liable to scientific research, and would have to be considered metaphysics, which I have nothing against, In fact, it's a fascinating topic. But the problem is, one has to recognize the limits of scientific enquiry, which certainly exist.Manuel

    If certain kinds of quantum entanglement between particles such as electrons, more aptly described as wavicles, have superposed properties with likeness to the visible light spectrum when arranged amongst molecules and additional corpuscles, mechanisms of superposition may be the basic material unit of qualitative experience. These qualia, as fragments of psychical imagery and feeling, may flit in and out of existence rapidly within the most inorganic conditions, so that components of perception exist on a fundamental level while commonly not giving rise to experience and motive. But when these superpositions are held in prolonged orientations amongst brain matter and in nature generally, consciousness of carbon-based, human and alternative richness can emerge.

    So do we have a possible mechanism for qualitative experience and technical definition of qualia: superposition amongst entangled wavicles? Is this a valid foundation for hypothesizing that panprotopsychism resolves the hard problem of consciousness, the long-standing debate about mind/body duality, and perhaps may lay the groundwork for a scientific alliance between materialism and spiritualism?
    Enrique

    This is a scientifically testable hypothesis, not metaphysical at all.
  • Manuel
    70

    We have problems determining if certain animals are conscious, and in the case of animals, we actually have much more data to look into, behavior, environment-specific tests, and so on. We can't show that dogs or dolphins are conscious, all we have are inferences that suggest it's likely that they are conscious. If you ask me in normal life, "are dogs conscious?", I certainly wouldn't deny it, it's obvious that they are. Some may speak of mirror-tests as proof of mental activity and self-awareness in animals, but these are problematic to interpret. But I don't know how you could set up such an experiment, that could scientifically show that something is conscious.

    We don't even know how to establish if other people are conscious, we just assume they are. It's a good and necessary assumption, but we have no proof. I think we can only establish that one is directly acquainted with one's consciousness, but not that of others.

    In short, I don't know how someone can set up a test to show if "wavicles" have experience. How could you possibly do that, if we can't do it for other people?
  • Enrique
    337


    Something is conscious if it involves the physical processes of consciousness. We know that brains are a condition of consciousness or animacy in thousands upon thousands of species: most simplistically, without a working brain, inanimate. Earth organisms with nervous systems but lacking brains have a distantly related and simpler consciousness by many metrics.

    My hypothesis is that the qualitative portion of consciousness, as opposed to matter's thermodynamic properties, is also extremely basic to matter's structure, additive superpositions amongst entangled wavicles that amount to qualia. If these qualia prove to be the basic building blocks of consciousness' qualitative dimension in brains and nervous systems, then bacteria might have a modicum of perception and feeling in some sense without self-awareness, not simply a computational array of mechanisms, and the presence of consciousness in matter that varies greatly from carbon-based forms can be explained.
  • Manuel
    70

    That's quite hard to work out. You say, for example that "bacteria might have a modicum of perception and feeling in some sense without self-awareness".

    How can there be a perception, if there's no thing doing the perception? I'd think that a necessary condition of perception would be a thing having a perception. If there' no modicum of self-awareness, there can't be a perception. No perception without a perceiver. Otherwise, one would imagine that a perception "goes" right through, whatever thing is supposed to be having it.

    I agree that physical stuff is capable of consciousness. But I don't think that the rather strange (to us) properties of basic physical stuff tells us how consciousness is possible. I mean, one also has to consider the topic of memory. If there is no modicum of memory, can we say something is conscious? In short, interesting hypothesis, but I don't know how to proceed with it at all, given the problems mentioned, and others.
  • Gnomon
    1.2k
    I couldn't resist bringing a bit of spiritualism and talk of miracles to the panprotopsychism thread because I think the paradigm will verify some traditionally religious ideas, plus its entertaining to talk about the paranormal.Enrique
    That's what I was afraid of. So, couldn't resist some tongue-in-cheek repartee, in an effort to get us back on track with a philosophical appraisal of a topic that has long been shrouded in Occult Mysteries and Spiritualistic Fantasies. Some of those "traditional religious ideas" of Eastern & Western mysticism have been reinterpreted in terms of modern Science, resulting in a melange that is neither truly traditional, nor really scientific.

    Although the terms "Panpsychism" and "Panprotopsychism" taken literally, agree with my Enformationism thesis, that all-is-mind, they are typically interpreted as entertaining enigmas. Yet, if you substitute the modern notion of mundane "Information" as Energy & Data, in place of the ancient concept of "Psyche" (Mind), as Soul or Spirit, you get a completely different worldview. The natural phenomena that pre-scientific thinkers labeled as paranormal or supernatural "Spirit" or "Soul" can now be interpreted in terms of normal & natural "Energy" and "Information". And that's what my thesis is all about : the essential element of Mind & Matter is mundane Information, which evolved into Consciousness only in the last few million years of our 14 billion year journey, and into Self-Consciousness in the last few thousand years.

    However, that "radical" thesis does not ridicule or denigrate those early thinkers. For example, the geocentric Ptolemaic cosmology is no longer useful for the work of modern Astronomers, but we may still acknowledge that it was a work of genius, considering the limitations of ancient technology. Likewise, Panpsychism has a "long and venerable history in philosophical traditions of both East and West," But, today, in the light of Information Theory and Quantum Theory, what once seemed paranormal can now be viewed as natural & normal. But that's only possible if we give-up some of the "traditionally religious ideas", and unconventional New Age notions, in favor of a plausible re-interpretation of both the ancient paranormal & modern mechanical models of Mind and Qualia .

    The Enformationism Thesis is not a doctrinal religious apologia, nor a technical scientific exposition, but a hypothetical philosophical presentation of a new way of looking at the "Mind-Body" problem and the "Hard Problem" of Consciousness. It is an attempt "to give a satisfactory account of the emergence of human and animal consciousness". Enformationism, "strange as it may sound on first hearing, promises a satisfying account of the human mind within a unified conception of nature". Yet, not in the form of Pan-spiritualism or Pan-materialism, but in the form of Pan-informationism.

    Ironically, many posters on this forum interpret my neither-fish-nor-fowl terminology as confirmation of their own magical New Age beliefs, or as a denial of empirical reductive Science. In fact, it falls somewhere in-between those polarized extremes. :smile:

    Panpsychism : And whilst physicalism offers a simple and unified vision of the world, this is arguably at the cost of being unable to give a satisfactory account of the emergence of human and animal consciousness. Panpsychism, strange as it may sound on first hearing, promises a satisfying account of the human mind within a unified conception of nature.
    https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/panpsychism/

    neither fish nor fowl : (idiomatic) Something or someone which is not easily categorized; something or someone that does not rightly belong or fit well in a given group or situation.
  • bert1
    610
    Ironically, many posters on this forum interpret my neither-fish-nor-fowl terminology as confirmation of their own magical New Age beliefs, or as a denial of empirical reductive Science.Gnomon

    Do they really?
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.