so the reality of the objects absolutely must be different. — Mww

That's why I make a pragmatic distinction between Reality (sensory) and Ideality (mental).

Unfortunately for the Realists, what we take for real objects is actually ideas in the mind that serve as symbols referring to a hidden "ultimate reality". That's the conclusion of Donald Hoffman, which he explains in an analogy between the Mind and a computer screen. What we interact with on our computer display is Icons, that are merely intermediate symbols of the "hidden" physical and mathematical functions inside.

We accept the simple abstract pixelated icon as-if it is the complex concrete mechanism inside the black box computer. And that acceptance is a useful belief for our non-technical purposes. What we see is 2D pixels, constructed by 4D computer processes, to represent some aspect of reality outside the box. Hence, Hoffman asserts : "we see the theories we believe". You and I act as-if our senses are reporting reality, when actually all they see is the symbols. In other words, we see reality in the form of as-if ideas, not as-is matter & energy.

Donald Hoffman TED talk : https://youtu.be/oYp5XuGYqqY

The Case Against Reality : https://www.quantamagazine.org/the-evolutionary-argument-against-reality-20160421/

Is that like Schopenhauer's Metaphysical Will in all of nature?

Actually it is an emerging scientific methodology. I don't think it is meant to have any philosophical aspects. That being said, I don't see any reason why it couldn't be consistent with any number of interesting philosophies. I will admit it has been over a decade since I read "The world as will and representation" so I wouldn't be up to offering a very cogent attempt.

In other words, we see reality in the form of as-if ideas, not as-is matter & energy. — Gnomon

I see some logic in that, insofar as we do not mentally operate in the same terms we prescribe to our composite elements as the means for them to physically operate. I suppose science will eventually describe our mental machinations in terms of C, N/m/s, or other physical designator, but I refuse to relinquish my humanity for it. But....I’m too old already, so....good luck to the rest of ya!!! (Grin)
——————-

so the reality of the objects absolutely must be different.
— Mww
That's why I make a pragmatic distinction between Reality (sensory) and Ideality (mental). — Gnomon

As well we all should. Neither is complete in itself.

Thanks ...but I must have missed something, it doesn't explain how consciousness came from matter ? — 3017amen

I suspect that the confusion comes from using the word "consciousness" as-if it's an object or substance. Instead, Consciousness is a process of transformation (awareness) from objects to meanings.

As suggested by Zelebg, consciousness is in the "bricks", the basic components of material reality. But only in the metaphorical sense of using a single step in place of a whole process. As I like to describe that process, everything in the world begins as a form of Information : the clay that composes the bricks, from which our reality is constructed. Eventually, the human mind interprets (consciousness) the coded information (matter) that our senses detect into the kind of decoded information that is meaningful for us (knowledge). For example, dots & dashes of Morse code are physical carriers of information that are meaningless, until interpreted. Information is in the code; the bricks are bits & bytes; Consciousness is the interpretation.

The process of converting being to knowing : 1. Information (potential) is the cause of change (difference). 2. Information (energy) is enformed into matter (bricks), 3. which are constructed into objects (house), 4. which can then be deconstructed into meaning (consciousness). Meaning is not the house itself, but the significance (what difference it makes) of the object to the observer. So what began as impersonal Information, eventually becomes transformed into personal value.

Now, that should be clear as Mississippi mud. :cool:

Synecdoche : a figure of speech in which a term for a part of something refers to the whole of something or vice versa

Well, I suppose one could interpret that as a form of Metaphysical Will in nature. Perhaps much like the swarming effect from emergent properties. The ant colonies, the birds, and other biological creatures (lower life forms) know a priori viz a genetic code where to go and what to do to sustain their existence, as well as plant life, etc. etc...

Unfortunately, it still leaves us with the all of the existential questions about the nature of such existence; the why's of higher consciousness, the metaphysical features of consciousness itself, so on and so forth.....

True, it doesn't give us the why. Maybe there is no why other than the one we create?

As suggested by Zelebg, consciousness is in the "bricks", the basic components of material reality.

Yes, but that doesn't necessarily mean panpsychism. It's also compatible with emergentism and even dualism in some way. I'm not sure if it even excludes any theory at all, so it doesn't mean much as an explanation.

As I like to describe that process, everything in the world begins as a form of Information : the clay that composes the bricks, from which our reality is constructed.

In the beginning was the Word,
and the Word was with God,
and the Word was God . . .
The Word became flesh
and made his dwelling among us.

That's why I make a pragmatic distinction between Reality (sensory) and Ideality (mental).

There is no reason to call mental reality "ideality". English dictionary already suggests pretty meaningful distinction: actual/material/real vs virtual/mental/abstract.

Sure from an ethical standpoint ( how to live a purposeful happy life ) volitional existence would provide for some answers. Meaning the partially blank canvas we inherit from childbirth can be filled with much knowledge and experience as we navigate through life.

And as pointed out, the how's of conscious existence can be inferred from the various emergent property metaphors (including the esoteric's of a Metaphysical Will as a driving force). But the why's of self-awareness I think, presents an even more nebulous type of challenge in that there is less information to extrapolate from.

We accept the simple abstract pixelated icon as-if it is the complex concrete mechanism inside the black box computer. And that acceptance is a useful belief for our non-technical purposes. What we see is 2D pixels, constructed by 4D computer processes, to represent some aspect of reality outside the box. Hence, Hoffmane asserts : "we see the theories we believe". You and I act as-if our senses are reporting reality, when actually all they see is the symbols. In other words, we see reality in the form of as-if ideas, not as-is matter & energy.

We do have limited resolution due to biological size scale structure of the sensory input. We also do not perceive directly even these low resolution signals due to subsequent signal processing, but only some form of composition bundled together with predictions or expectations based on earlier input, memory and the current state of mind.

However, none of it means outside reality is not what we perceive it is, only means our perception is blurred, both spatially and temporally. But if you could sense every tiny vibration, or quality of each atom in every molecule, and see all of the electro-magnetic spectrum, then perhaps you would be staring into the pure chaos and things would only make less, not more sense. So limits are not necessarily a bad thing, they can help put things into a context or bring them under a certain perspective.

We have microscopes and telescopes to artificially increase our resolution, and what we see on macro and micro scale is structurally/geometrically consistent with what we perceive through our biological resolution, more or less. This gives us confidence that reality is objectively real and indeed like what we think it is, as much as it matters to us at least. Therefore, any other proposition about reality can hardly be any less speculative than that.

Well, I suppose one could interpret that as a form of Metaphysical Will in nature. — 3017amen

Yes. In my thesis, I refer to the "force" or "intention" behind progressive evolution as EnFormAction, which is similar in effect to the various notions of World Will, proposed by philosophers, and of God's Will as proposed by theologians.

Unfortunately, it still leaves us with the all of the existential questions about the nature of such existence; the why's of higher consciousness, the metaphysical features of consciousness itself, so on and so forth..... — 3017amen

We may be getting closer to answering some of those existential puzzlers. But the answers will typically be in the form of metaphors based on our incomplete perceptions of reality. I'm currently reading Cognitive Scientist Donald Hoffman's book, The Case Against Reality. It proposes an evolutionary explanation for the emergence of Consciousness, and concludes that we perceive just enough of ultimate reality (symbolic objects) to negotiate the exigencies of the world (survival). That's because ultimate reality is more like Quantum than Classical physics, and would make survival decisions too complex & ambiguous for creatures with limited intelligence. [that's my brief summary of Hoffman's much deeper and broader analysis]

What is EnFormAction? : http://bothandblog2.enformationism.info/page29.html

Yes, but that doesn't necessarily mean panpsychism. It's also compatible with emergentism and even dualism in some way. I'm not sure if it even excludes any theory at all, so it doesn't mean much as an explanation. — Zelebg

I agree. That's why my thesis proposes a Programmer / Enformer / Creator outside of space-time. Panpsychism explains the intelligible order in the universe as an intrinsic (uncaused) property of space-time. But the actual First Cause of organization in the world must exist beyond the perceptual boundaries of space-time.

Einstein upset our intuitive understanding of space-time by saying that it is not absolute, but relative to the observer. Donald Hoffman refers to space-time as our "interface" (computer screen) between observer and ultimate reality : "we will find that the distinction we make . . . is an artifact of limitations of our space-time interface, not an insight into the nature of reality".

Donald Hoffman : The Case Against Reality, Why Evolution Hid The Truth From Our Eyes

There is no reason to call mental reality "ideality". English dictionary already suggests pretty meaningful distinction: actual/material/real vs virtual/mental/abstract. — Zelebg

I had my own reasons for coining the neologism "Ideality". Partly to serve as a contrast to the noun "Reality". And partly to make a distinction between belief in Realism versus Idealism. It also entails a distinction between Physics (actual/material/real) and Metaphysics (virtual/mental/abstract).

Ideality :
In Plato’s theory of Forms, he argues that non-physical forms (or ideas) represent the most accurate or perfect reality. Those Forms are not physical things, but merely definitions or recipes of possible things. What we call Reality consists of a few actualized potentials drawn from a realm of infinite possibilities.
1. Materialists deny the existence of such immaterial ideals, but recent developments in Quantum theory have forced them to accept the concept of “virtual” particles in a mathematical “field”, that are not real, but only potential, until their unreal state is collapsed into reality by a measurement or observation. To measure is to extract meaning into a mind. [Measure, from L. Mensura, to know; from mens-, mind]
2. Some modern idealists find that scenario to be intriguingly similar to Plato’s notion that ideal Forms can be realized, i.e. meaning extracted, by knowing minds. For the purposes of this blog, “Ideality” refers to an infinite pool of potential (equivalent to a quantum field), of which physical Reality is a small part.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page11.html

But if you could sense every tiny vibration, or quality of each atom in every molecule, and see all of the electro-magnetic spectrum, then perhaps you would be staring into the pure chaos and things would only make less, not more sense. So limits are not necessarily a bad thing, they can help put things into a context or bring them under a certain perspective. — Zelebg

That's exactly why Evolution, according to Hoffman, has hid the "chaos" of ultimate reality from the eyes of humans with limited intelligence. That partial perception is sufficient for survival in an imperfect world, where fitness requires only enough "truth" to stay one step ahead of competitors.

Absolute "Truth" is concealed behind the curtain of intuitive classical Physics. Yet, highly-evolved humans have recently learned how to peek behind the curtain into the counter-intuitive realm of Quantum Physics. There, they are baffled by Virtual Particles and impossible Entanglements. But they continue doing science with the partial understanding of incomplete Standard Models..

This gives us confidence that reality is objectively real and indeed like what we think it is, as much as it matters to us at least. — Zelebg

Yes. In our human-scale macro world, we may be confident that reality is "like what we think it is". But Quantum Theory has revealed that the solid desk I perceive is "really" mostly open space, that our physical fingers would pass right through, if not repelled by strange forces in the space between protons and electrons. So, our pragmatic confidence is due to theoretical ignorance.



Richard Feynman : “I think I can safely say that nobody really understands quantum mechanics"

Physicist Sean Carroll : "What’s surprising is that physicists seem to be O.K. with not understanding the most important theory they have".

Anway, let's focus this discussion to something more useful or concrete, some basics. As we concluded over the last few pages there are only two possible modes of existence we know of, actual and virtual. Thus the nature of subjective experience, aka qualia, can either be physical or abstract phenomena.

Physical or actual includes both basic phenomena like magnetism or gravity, and also emergent phenomena like atoms, molecules, planets, stars, liquidity, acidity...

Abstract or virtual phenomena includes concepts like words, language, Batman, unicorn, algorithm, number, angle… It is important to note that being abstract or virtual does not mean immaterial per se, it only means it is not directly physical, but instead it exists in the relations between chunks of matter, like angle exist wherever two lines meet.

If it’s not clear what I mean by "abstract/virtual" imagine Pacman arcade machine. You can see Pacman exists on the screen, and that’s sort of directly physical since it maps Pacman form (information about Pacman) into the matter as Pacman form. Now turn off the monitor, you can still hear the sounds and Pacman still exists somewhere in there, but not as Pacman in its physical or actual form, but as spatio-temporal dynamics and interaction between electrons and electronic components of the machine.

Now, if we can agree with all the above, then the question is what do you think ‘subjective experience’ or qualia is, physical or virtual phenomena? Why do you think so, and why do you think it’s not the other way around?

I'm pretty sure all emergent properties are equally real, including subjective ones.

As we concluded over the last few pages there are only two possible modes of existence we know of, actual and virtual. Thus the nature of subjective experience, aka qualia, can either be physical or abstract phenomena. — Zelebg

Firstly, physicality is itself an abstraction. Secondly, immediate experience (be it of pain/pleasure or of empirical givens) is itself not an abstraction but, instead, that from which abstractions result.

If abstractions are virtual and immediate experiences are actual, then the following doesn't contextualize the issue properly:

Now, if we can agree with all the above, then the question is what do you think ‘subjective experience’ or qualia is, physical or virtual phenomena? — Zelebg

qualia, can either be physical or abstract phenomena. — Zelebg

Qualia, (as Dennett described it) is basically non-physical/Metaphysical abstract phenomenon.

There is really nothing else it could be... . The common examples include any type of human sentience, love, will, intuition, and so on.

Consider mathematical abstracts which are non-physical/metaphysical languages. Yet at the same time they are imbedded into the physical world. Similarly, love for example, is an abstract feature/language of consciousness, and it is also embedded in the physical world through manifestation of human aesthetics'.

So, if I look at a roof truss, I know that one way to describe it is multiplying rise over run to get the roof pitch. When I look at a woman, I know there is [potentially] an abstract feeling of love somewhere in my consciousness.

Underlying the physical, there exists abstract metaphysical properties and phenomena, yes?.

I'm pretty sure all emergent properties are equally real, including subjective ones.

If by "real" you mean something that matters, that can be a cause for some consequence. Then yes, liquidity and acidity are real, and so are words, languages, Batman, numbers and algorithms. Not in the same way though, virtual objects do not exist in the same way as physical.

But that’s not the question, the question is whether qualia is physical phenomena like magnetism or liquidity, or is virtual phenomena like algorithm or Pacman?

Like an extension of the whole universals and particulars distinction. To the extent that universals are themselves emergent properties of a self-organizing system, I would stand by my statement. Again, you can't compare quarks to hunger, but both are equally real. Comparability isn't an ontological test.

. To the extent that universals are themselves emergent properties of a self-organizing system, — Pantagruel

Universals are not a result. What ‘emerges’ if anything is the capacity to comprehend universals. But they don’t come into existence purely by dint of being comprehended.

Again, you can't compare quarks to hunger, but both are equally real.

I am not comparing anything. I sad the question is whether qualia is physical phenomena like magnetism or liquidity, or is virtual phenomena like algorithm or Pacman.

I also explained what is physical and what is virtual phenomena. What exactly do you have a problem with? What statement of mine are you even responding to?

"virtual objects"

Universals are not a result. What ‘emerges’ if anything is the capacity to comprehend universals. But they don’t come into existence purely by dint of being comprehende — Wayfarer

This is true. Universals qua consciously comprehended entities is the more accurate description. I stand corrected.

Firstly, physicality is itself an abstraction.

That is irrelevant if you understand the distinction between the things I labeled “physical/actual” vs things I labeled “abstract/virtual”.

Those are two distinct categories of existence as I described, and you may label them as you wish or think about them whatever you want, but as long as we agree the distinction exists, then the question still stands whether qualia belongs in one or the other category.

the things I labeled “physical/actual” vs things I labeled “abstract/virtual”. — Zelebg

Where do ‘natural laws’ fit into that scheme?

Physical or actual includes both basic phenomena like magnetism or gravity, and also emergent phenomena like atoms, molecules, planets, stars, liquidity, acidity...

I explained everything the first time around, see several posts above.

Qualia, (as Dennett described it) is basically non-physical/Metaphysical abstract phenomenon.

There is really nothing else it could be... . The common examples include any type of human sentience, love, will, intuition, and so on.

I defined precisely what I meant by the words I used, just in case, and it should be pretty clear exactly what distinction I wanted to make and which two categories I wish to define. You understood my words in some other context, for some reason, so your reply is not relevant to the questions and points I made. I don’t even see any disagreement, you’re simply talking about something else.

Look, theories which assert consciousness arises from computation make the claim qualia is abstract or virtual phenomena like angle or Pacman. On the other hand, theories like panpsychism make the claim qualia is physical or actual phenomena like magnetism or acidity. The defining difference is that for an artificial sentience in the first case qualia could be simulated, while in the second case it would have to be physically emulated. Ok?

Thus the nature of subjective experience, aka qualia, can either be physical or abstract phenomena. — Zelebg

In what sense can Qualia be physical? Is "redness" a force or a material object? That question is the crux of the mind-body debate. Physicalists try to define Qualia as-if they are real things apart from conscious minds. But that presumption is what makes the problem "hard".

Just as Minds are correlated with Brains, and Qualia with Objects, correlation does not prove causation. As Hume noted, even though not physically connected, proximity in space-time merely implies a connection for an intuitive cause-imputing mind. As you noted in the quote below, Qualia are relations between things, not things in themselves. As an abstract concept, the correlation "1 : 2" is meaningful even in the absence of physical objects. That's why Algebra works.

Qualia : The status of qualia is hotly debated in philosophy largely because it is central to a proper understanding of the nature of consciousness. Qualia are at the very heart of the mind-body problem.

Correlation : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder : "Beauty is no quality in things themselves : it exists merely in the mind which contemplates them ; and each mind perceives a different beauty."
___David Hume

It is important to note that being abstract or virtual does not mean immaterial per se, it only means it is not directly physical, but instead it exists in the relations between chunks of matter, like angle exist wherever two lines meet. — Zelebg

If abstract concepts in mind are material, what kind of matter are they made of : atoms of consciousness? In my thesis they are made of Information (i.e. mental relationships). I suppose you could call bits & bytes "atoms of information". :wink:

What does "not directly physical" mean? Is that a reference to Virtual Reality? If its existence is uncertain, in what sense is it real? In The Matrix, did Neo begin in the Real world, or in the Virtual simulated world? The bald kid answered that question, "there is no spoon". That's why Neo was able to dodge bullets : they were not real. [the movie is a metaphor of the Mind/Body problem ]

Virtual Particle : In physics, a virtual particle is a transient quantum fluctuation that exhibits some of the characteristics of an ordinary particle, while having its existence limited by the uncertainty principle. [actually VP exhibit no characteristics (properties, qualities) until observed (measured).]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particle

Virtual = simulation = imitation = illusion = deception