↪Wayfarer
Do you really want to argue that Aristotle knew about DNA? — Janus
↪Wayfarer
Well of course they were a kind of precursor, since as I already said above, Aristotle thought the form of the oak to be immanent within the acorn, and not to be ordained by God or immaterial forms or whatever. — Janus
Yes. Information is multi-faceted. It is universal, but emergent, and expressed in many different ways : ideas, data, genes, rocks, quantum bits, etc.--- even as Time/Change. If you want to blow your "information repository" (mind), check out the article*1 below by Sarah Walker, of the Santa Fe Institute for the study of Complexity. Her novel theory says that evanescent Time has a physical size, depending on the amount of information contained. It's OK to be incredulous --- I was, am --- but when you think about it, it makes sense, that Time is something a sentient observer can sense --- not by sniffing, but by reasoning.↪Gnomon
it seems that you are giving information multiple definitions for different things. Mind, Shannon, genetic, quantum.
You discount the most useful functions of brains if you rule out the ability to process non-physicals. — Mark Nyquist
But, he captured the basic idea metaphorically, by using the philosophical concept of "Form". In his Hylomorph theory he made a pertinent distinction between physical Matter and metaphysical*1 Form. — Gnomon
Pi for example is a non-physical... It does not physically exist. A ratio of circle circumference to diameter. Basic math, and it's a manipulations of brain states like this that are what information is about. Compare that to DNA molecules that are physically fixed and obviously they are not the same thing. — Mark Nyquist
But, he captured the basic idea metaphorically, by using the philosophical concept of "Form". In his Hylomorph theory he made a pertinent distinction between physical Matter and metaphysical*1 Form. — Gnomon
Unless they turn out to be fallacious. Ideas have consequences. — Wayfarer
The concept of information refers to a formalist (i.e. computational) description of systematic transformations (i.e. entropy), the necessary and sufficient conditions of which are its instantiation in physical processes. — 180 Proof
Thoughts?
I think monism can handle that but it is worth a closer look or you will end up arguing for Dualism — Mark Nyquist
When I said that I don't buy the idea that the form of the oak in the acorn comes from somewhere else I wasn't referring to previous oaks; in fact, I explicitly said so. — Janus
I think some formulation of Aristotelian matter-form dualism might be quite in keeping with anything that science turns up. — Wayfarer
It's not an infinite regress of fixed forms, but rather an evolution of forms. — Janus
As long as it's a dynamic, nonreductive monism, I'm cool with it. :up:You can choose to accept pluralism, like William James and simply marvel at the multifaceted aspects of the world - this is valuable and instructive especially in terms of aesthetic appreciation. But it won't get you far, it seems to me to stop the search for underlying principles — Manuel
If the material forms are evolving, then how do the "immaterial forms" evolve prior to them in order to give rise to the former's evolution, and why would there not be the same problem of infinite regress with the latter (assuming for the sake of the argument that the idea of "immaterial forms" makes sense)? — Janus
I understand that, from a Monistic Materialist/Physicalist perspective, matter is the sole substance in the world. But, some physicists, especially quantum physicists, have concluded that non-physical Information is more fundamental than any material substance*1. That's why they now call the basis of reality a spacious massless mathematical "field" instead of a minature massive particle. I'm not a physicist, so I'll let you argue with the scientists about those counter-intuitive conclusions.I already acknowledged that Aristotle's hylomorphism was prescient, so I don't know what point you think I missed. I do disagree with "metaphysical form"; the very idea seems meaningless to me; all forms are physical as far as I know.
I don't see any fundamental difference between mental and physical, so, nothing you've said there convinces me that mental information is not supervenient on physical processes. — Janus
Why didn't he just specify a single "physical entity"? — Gnomon
Good point! The general or universal Principles that Plato & Aristotle referred to are not physical objects, or even one primary object among many. Instead, a Principle is an assumption or axiom serving as a premise for explaining Complexity *1 *2. Obviously, those assumed principles are not empirical physical objects, but theoretical meta-physical*3 concepts. They are the presumed Wholes that overly Plurality like a blanket.Why not monism? What we seek is to try and understand how everything fits together, what is it about the world that allows so much variety, if the base constituents are simple, as they seem to be?
You can choose to accept pluralism, like William James and simply marvel at the multifaceted aspects of the world - this is valuable and instructive especially in terms of aesthetic appreciation. But it won't get you far, it seems to me to stop the search for underlying principles.
And who knows, the actual monism that exists in the world may be quite different from the idea we commonly get from monism in intuiting only a single thing, like a metaphysical big bang type substance. It could be very different from such notions. — Manuel
According to Aristotle biological beings are a single physical entity. There are no separate forms and hyle floating around waiting to be combined. There is not one without the other, substantiated in living physical entities, that is, substances. — Fooloso4
If there mist be a first cause, which is by no means established. I see no reason why it could not be a material cause. — Janus
Either way, there is no guarantee that reality must operate in accordance with human reasoning. — Janus
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.