Describe how immaterial energy connects with the material things it changes. For example, explain how, when lightning strikes a person and kills them, the lightning transforms into a material thing.

:smirk: :up:

Consider the aggregates of atoms in the material things populating the daily world of human experience. Are they also aspects of void?

Yes.

If materialism is a belief that even mind is matter, then it is an addlepated belief. — Corvus

Okay, this is a start. What’s your next move?

If materialism is a belief that even mind is matter, then it is an addlepated belief.
— Corvus

Okay, this is a start. What’s your next move? — ucarr

Materialism is a view that everything is made up of matter. If they say, even mind is made up of matter, then it is an incorrect view, because there are clear evidences that it is not.

But if they say, mind is not made of matter, then it is a pointless view. Because, of course it is not. In that case, they would be saying only matter is made up of matter, which is a tautology.

Therefore it is either an incorrect view or a tautology.

…if they say, mind is not made of matter, then it is a pointless view. Because, of course it is not. In that case, they would be saying only matter is made up of matter, which is a tautology.

If they say, even mind is made up of matter, then it is an incorrect view, because there are clear evidences that it is not.

Therefore it is either an incorrect view, or a tautology. — Corvus

…if they say, matter is not made of mind, then it is a pointless view. Because, of course it is not. In that case, they would be saying only mind is made up of mind, which is a tautology.

If they say, even matter is made up of mind, then it is an incorrect view, because there are clear evidences that it is not.

Therefore it is either an incorrect view, or a tautology. — ucarr

Does anyone think these dueling bookends, who end in stalemate, make a sound argument for the equal truth of each bookend? Goethe said something about the best arguments being those with both sides speaking truth.

Materialism has the easier task because it’s monist. It doesn’t have to address the cosmic transition point: the structural handshake transitioning immaterial into material, or the reverse.

Immaterialism, being dualist, carries the burden of illuminating the handshake whereby things immaterial have causal force upon things material.

What about the inflection point when non-life quantum leaps into life, a supposed, abiogenetic, spontaneous phenomenon? Might that be, albeit irrationally, the structure of the transition?

Isn’t the gist of immaterialism that spirit acts as the catalytic go-between linking the two cosmic states?

If so, then the gist of the immaterialism argument might be that non-life is immaterial as spirit until spirit transitions into material. That would be a proposition describing the structure of the inflection point.

However, conversely, spirit as non-life bespeaks noumenal materiality, not vital immateriality.

The Conflict: Immaterialism can’t accept reductive materialism as the mechanical catalyst into life and materialism can’t accept idealist immaterialism as the spiritual catalyst into life.

What’re we gonna do ‘bout this barnburner?”

“Hey! Somebody needs to articulate the structure of the cosmic inflection point transitioning non-life into life, for it might be a clue to resolution of the mind/body problem.”

You misunderstand me (re: Spinoza's substance / being) by confusing "void" (that's metaphysical, not just "physical") with what I wrote about "spacetime" (i.e. a physical structure analogous to "an infinite mode of the extension attribute ...") — 180 Proof

In saying void is both physical and meta-physical, are you saying it has a higher-order dimension lying beyond the scope of the physical in the form of the physicality of the physical, which is to say, an abstract, generalized attribute approached only a priori?

If so, consider that any common material thing populating everyday human experience possesses, like void, a higher-order, abstract and generalized attribute as, for example in the case of a hammer, utility, also presumably only approached a priori.

How is void, in its higher-order, meta-physical dimension, categorically distinct from hammer?

Materialism has the easier task because it’s monist. It doesn’t have to address the cosmic transition point: the structural handshake transitioning immaterial into material, or the reverse. — ucarr

That doesn't prove that materialism is correct. It is a poor logic (again :roll: ). It would be like saying eating loads of McDonald hamburgers everyday and watching TV all day for the rest of your life is easy, therefore good for your health.

What’re we gonna do ‘bout this barnburner?” — ucarr

Is it not time to commit the old materialism to flames? It has been around since the ancient Greek era even prior to Plato. It is has not progressed even an inch from where it was, since the time of Demorcritus.

Materialism has the easier task because it’s monist. — ucarr

It would be like saying, one legged man runs faster because he has to move only one leg instead of two when running. Nonsense.

Do you think mind holds causal force over material things? Is so, can you articulate the structure of the handshake linking immaterial to material? If not, can you justify your belief mind is immaterial?

If you say mind operates in domains clearly not material, such as: abstractions, generalizations of tokens to types and computation, then materialism, via absential materialism, offers an explanation how these supposed immaterial phenomena are really higher-order, emergent properties still grounded in lower-order, dynamical processes that are physical.

Can you counter this argument with one that debunks Deacon’s teleodynamics of the ententional, a category that includes: sentience, meaning and purpose.

Describe how immaterial energy connects with the material things it changes. For example, explain how, when lightning strikes a person and kills them, the lightning transforms into a material thing. — ucarr

Energy works by Potential-to-Actual transformation, as in E=MC^2. For example, Invisible causal Photons (lightning) convert into mathematical Mass, which our senses experience as tangible Matter*1. For scientists, such transformations are described in terms of Phase Transition, where the intervening steps (mechanisms) are unknown. On the quantum scale, there is a transformation that is ironically labeled : Magic*2. :nerd:


*1. Energy Transfers and Transformations :
Energy cannot be created or destroyed, but it can be transferred and transformed. There are a number of different ways energy can be changed, such as when potential energy becomes kinetic energy or when one object moves another object.
https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/energy-transfers-and-transformations/

*2. Phase transition in Magic :
Magic is a property of quantum states that enables universal fault-tolerant quantum computing using simple sets of gate operations. Understanding the mechanisms by which magic is created or destroyed is, therefore, a crucial step towards efficient and practical fault-tolerant computation.
https://arxiv.org/abs/2304.10481



PS___ I just found a graphic illustration of intersecting & interacting gravitational fields. It's a model of the far future collision of Milky Way and Andromeda galaxies. Both parts are gravitationally transformed after passing through each other. But due to the vast empty space (absence) between lumps of matter (e.g. stars & planets) there is very little material contact. How does this physical model compare to your philosophical notion of Absential Materialism?

Is the following narrative something you can accept?

Higher Teleodynamics of Mind - Incomplete Mind, Terrence W. Deacon

The locus of self-perspective is a circular dynamic, where ends and means, observing and observed, are incessantly transformed from one to the other. Individuation and agency are intrinsic features of the teleodynamics that brains have evolved to generate, because of the dynamical closure, constraint generation, and self-maintenance that defines teleodynamics. However, the neurologically mediated self exhibits a higher-order form of teleodynamics than is found at any other level of life. This is because the teleodynamics of brain functions that evolved to guide animals’ locomotion and their capacity to physically modify their environments inevitably must model itself. The self-referential convolution of teleodynamics is the source of a special emergent form of self that not only continually creates its self-similarity and continuity, but also does so with respect to its alternative virtual forms.

Thus autonomy and agency, and their implicit teleology, and even the locus of subjectivity, can be given a concrete account. Paradoxically, however, by filling in the physical dynamics of this account, we end up with a non-material conception of organism and neurological self, and by extension, of subjective self as well: a self that is embodied by dynamical constraints. But constraints are the present signature of what is absent. So, surprisingly, this view of self shows it to be as non-material as Descartes might have imagined, and yet as physical, extended, and relevant to the causal scheme of things as is the hole at the hub of a wheel.

Energy works by Potential-to-Actual transformation, as in E=MC^2. For example, Invisible causal Photons (lightning) convert into mathematical Mass, which our senses experience as tangible Matter*1. — Gnomon

We don’t experience mass by seeing matter.

We experience mass as momentum, the tendency of material objects to either remain at rest or remain in motion.

*1. Energy Transfers and Transformations :
Energy cannot be created or destroyed, but it can be transferred and transformed. There are a number of different ways energy can be changed, such as when potential energy becomes kinetic energy or when one object moves another object. — Gnomon

All of the above: energy, mass and matter are material_physical. Your job, as immaterialist, involves showing the structure of the immaterial making causal contact with the material.

because there are clear evidences that it is not — Corvus

What evidence is that?

It seems a rather convoluted rationalisation to me. As I said, I find Deacon's writing and persona congenial, but I don't share his requirement to appeal to an audience with generally naturalistic inclinations.

materialism, via absential materialism, offers an explanation how these supposed immaterial phenomena are really higher-order, emergent properties still grounded in lower-order, dynamical processes that are physical. — ucarr

I don't know if Deacon himself would concur with your appeals to materialism or the term 'absential materialism' which as I noted, does not appear in his book, as I already pointed out in an earlier post. Deacon is proposing a way of thinking about nature that is very different from previous forms of materialism - is it still materialism?

There's also a meta-philosophical question. The emphasis on materialism always strikes me as the preoccupation of scientists and engineers, wanting to find out how things work. Well, we have terrific scientists and engineers, of that there is no doubt, and many things that work brilliantly, but philosophy in my view is existential, it is concerned with questions of meaning. Deacon says:

More serious, however, is the way this [i.e. exclusion of purpose, meaning, value] has divided the natural sciences from the human sciences, and both from the humanities. In the process, it has also alienated the world of scientific knowledge from the world of human experience and values. If the most fundamental features of human experience are considered somehow illusory and irrelevant to the physical goings-on of the world, then we, along with our aspirations and values, are effectively rendered unreal as well. No wonder the all-pervasive success of the sciences in the last century has been paralleled by a rebirth of fundamentalist faith and a deep distrust of the secular determination of human values.

I don't know if your interpretation of Deacon does justice to that element of his work. It seems to me you're intent on using it to defend the very kind of reductionism that he is seeking to ameliorate. (Although I will acknowledge that this thread has made me want to source a copy of the book and read more of it, so thanks for that!)

Do you think mind holds causal force over material things? Is so, can you articulate the structure of the handshake linking immaterial to material? If not, can you justify your belief mind is immaterial? — ucarr

Mind causes matter to change, move and work. A simple evidence? I am typing this text with my hands caused by my mind. If my mind didn't cause the hands to type, then this text would have not been typed at all.

Mind is immaterial substance. Although I know it is in me, and works for me in being conscious and perceive, think, feel, intuit and imagine etc, I cannot see it, touch it, or measure it. The mind has no physical or material existence, but it works for all the actions of humans as they please or want their bodies to perform or act according to their wills.

If you say mind operates in domains clearly not material, such as: abstractions, generalizations of tokens to types and computation, then materialism, via absential materialism, offers an explanation how these supposed immaterial phenomena are really higher-order, emergent properties still grounded in lower-order, dynamical processes that are physical. — ucarr

Mind works with in abstract domains such as abstractions, generalisations of tokens to types and computation as well as with the body it is residing in for all the movements and works it tells the body to carry out as it wants. The clue is in the operations and communications between mind and body. Without mind, body becomes matter with no sign of life, sentience and consciousness. Without body, the mind evaporates. Where the mind goes to is still a mystery. But one thing clear is that, mind is not body itself, and mind is not material.

Can you counter this argument with one that debunks Deacon’s teleodynamics of the ententional, a category that includes: sentience, meaning and purpose. — ucarr

I am not familiar with the idea you tells, but I quickly scanned the internet search of the term. It sounds like teleodynamics of the ententional sounds like a type of evolutionary theory. I am not sure if evolutionary theory has strong grounds for its claims. It seems to have some interesting points but also many vague parts in the theory too. Anyhow, my standpoint for it is that matter alone, and evolution theory alone seem to have some problems in explaining fully on the mind / body problems.

because there are clear evidences that it is not
— Corvus

What evidence is that? — Lionino

:cool:

Mind causes matter to change, move and work. A simple evidence? I am typing this text with my hands caused by my mind. If my mind didn't cause the hands to type, then this text would have not been typed at all.

Mind is immaterial substance. Although I know it is in me, and works for me in being conscious and perceive, think, feel, intuit and imagine etc, I cannot see it, touch it, or measure it. The mind has no physical or material existence, but it works for all the actions of humans as they please or want their bodies to perform or act according to their wills. — Corvus

Mind causes matter to change, move and work. A simple evidence? I am typing this text with my hands caused by my mind. If my mind didn't cause the hands to type, then this text would have not been typed at all. — Corvus

That does not imply that mind is not matter. On the contrary, the fact that it is able to interact with matter points towards the fact that it is also of the same substance.

In saying void is both physical and meta-physical... — ucarr

I've not said this, just pushed back on your reductive implication which is contrary to the Democritean-Epicurean concept of void (or Spinoza's concept of substance): a metaphysical concept (i.e. an ontological presupposition of an empirical/observational supposition) for which there is a physical analogue or correlate (re: vacuum); I'm not "saying" the atomists' void is a "higher-order" anything (that somehow transcends the physical).

All of the above: energy, mass and matter are material_physical. Your job, as immaterialist, involves showing the structure of the immaterial making causal contact with the material. — ucarr

:up: :up:

Mind is immaterial substance. — Corvus

How do you/we know this? How does the "immaterial" interact with materiality, as "mind" apparently does, without violating material-physical laws of conversation?

That does not imply that mind is not matter. On the contrary, the fact that it is able to interact with matter points towards the fact that it is also of the same substance. — Lionino

Interesting point. Why do you think mind is same substance as matter?

Mind is immaterial substance.
— Corvus
How do you/we know this? How does the "immaterial" interact with materiality, as "mind" apparently does, without violating material-physical laws of conversation? — 180 Proof

That is what they call the "hard point", which has many explanations. If mind is matter, then where is it? What shape, size and weight is your mind?

A specific characteristic of mental acts, which do not have an analogy in material objects or states, is intentionality or 'aboutness'. Intentionality refers to the property of mental states or representations that they are about or directed towards something external to themselves. In other words, intentional mental states have meaning and refer to objects, concepts, or events in the world.

Materialism, as a theory of mind, posits that all mental phenomena can ultimately be explained in terms of physical processes in the brain.But this faces a challenge in explaining intentionality. Purely physical processes do not inherently possess meaning or reference, and so can't account for the intentional nature of mental acts.

the puzzle intentionality poses for materialism can be summarized this way: Brain processes, like ink marks, sound waves, the motion of water molecules, electrical current, and any other physical phenomenon you can think of, seem clearly devoid of any inherent meaning. By themselves they are simply meaningless patterns of electrochemical activity. Yet our thoughts do have inherent meaning – that’s how they are able to impart it to otherwise meaningless ink marks, sound waves, etc. In that case, though, it seems that our thoughts cannot possibly be identified with any physical processes in the brain. In short: Thoughts and the like possess inherent meaning or intentionality; brain processes, like ink marks, sound waves, and the like, are utterly devoid of any inherent meaning or intentionality; so thoughts and the like cannot possibly be identified with brain processes. — Edward Feser

Mind is a process or activity like respiration or digestion and not a static thing. Mind-ing is what sufficiently complex brains (which are material-physical systems) do. To ask "where is mind?" is nonsensical like asking "where is breathing?" or "where is walking?"

But you have not answered my questions, Corvus.

Mind is immaterial substance.
— Corvus

How do you/we know this? How does the "immaterial" interact with materiality, as "mind" apparently does, without violating material-physical laws of conversation? — 180 Proof

I'll wait ... :chin:

Interesting point. Why do you think mind is same substance as matter? — Corvus

I don't hold that position positively, I am just pointing out the interaction problem that arises with any dualistic philosophy.
This problem in fact arises with ANY non-physicalist philosophy, including matemathical platonism, or any kind of platonism.

Purely physical processes do not inherently possess meaning or reference, and so can't account for the intentional nature of mental acts. — Wayfarer

Of course it can, when I program that a = 2, a always references 2, and if I command a*2 it gives me 4.

That the brain is able to invoke a meaning, a concept, from a symbol is trivial. In a deterministic universe, the symbol is the cause for the thought of the concept.

Mind is a process or activity like respiration or digestion and not a static thing. Mind-ing is what sufficiently complex brains (which are material-physical systems) do. To ask "where is mind?" is nonsensical like asking "where is breathing?" or "where is walking?" — 180 Proof

Yeah, but if you could remember, that question was only possible to be thrown at you because you claimed that mind is matter. If you claimed that mind is not matter, I could not possibly have asked that awkward question. So your claim has invited the question you see?

How do you/we know this? How does the "immaterial" interact with materiality, as "mind" apparently does, without violating material-physical laws of conversation?
— 180 Proof
I'll wait ... :chin: — 180 Proof

Yeup, this can be a long topic on its own. If you can come up with a totally conclusive answers to this, then you would be nominated to the Noble prize reckon. :D

I don't hold that position positively, I am just pointing out the interaction problem that arises with any dualistic philosophy.
This problem in fact arises with ANY non-physicalist philosophy, including matemathical platonism, or any kind of platonism. — Lionino

For present, I reckon the dualist theory seems to be more plausible than materialism.

So, surprisingly, this view of self shows it to be as non-material as Descartes might have imagined, and yet as physical, extended, and relevant to the causal scheme of things as is the hole at the hub of a wheel. — ucarr

Makes sense to me. But, like a Phase Transition, the intermediate physical stages between material and non-material are not apparent to me. Sounds like Magic : presto change-o! Except of course, if "Absence" is defined as a metaphysical Potentiality Principle (Form) --- inherent in all physical things --- as proposed by Aristotle to explain why things are what they are, and behave as they do. :smile:

The self-referential convolution of teleodynamics is the source of a special emergent form of self that not only continually creates its self-similarity and continuity, but also does so with respect to its alternative virtual forms. — ucarr

Yes. Physical Self-reference (structural or logical loops or "tangled hierarchy") does seem to be a necessary precursor to Self-Consciousness. But is it sufficient? Perhaps, it's a Strange Loop*1 as postulated in Douglas Hofstadter's Gödel, Escher, Bach : "I am a strange loop". "And yet when I say "strange loop", I have something else in mind — a less concrete, more elusive notion. What I mean by "strange loop" is — here goes a first stab, anyway — not a physical circuit but an abstract loop". :nerd:

*1. Strange loop :
A strange loop is a cyclic structure that goes through several levels in a hierarchical system.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strange_loop
Note --- The "strangeness" of a strange loop comes from our way of perceiving ; as in quantum physics.
.
PS___ I just noticed that Roger Penrose's Orch Or hypothesis, has a role for gravitational attraction*2 (spooky action at a distance). The technical stuff is way over my head. And microtubules may be merely a metaphor for resonance chambers causing oscillation. But, does his notion fit into your Absential Materialism? The strangeness & spookiness qualities seem to be inherent in the quantum foundation of reality.

*2. Can Roger Penrose Explain Consciousness Through Physics? :
Penrose’s theory proposes that each gravity-induced collapse causes a little blip of proto-consciousness : micro-events that get organized by biological structures called microtubules inside our brains into full-bodied awareness. A conscious observer doesn’t cause wave function collapse. A conscious observer is caused by wave function collapse
https://mindmatters.ai/2023/10/can-roger-penrose-explain-consciousness-through-physics/
Note --- Proto-consciousness is what I call EnFormAction : the causal form of Information. EFA is not a Thing, but the potential to cause change in things. Perhaps spooky Gravity is a form of meta-physical EFA.

That the brain is able to invoke a meaning, a concept, from a symbol is trivial. In a deterministic universe, the symbol is the cause for the thought of the concept. — Lionino

Where the term 'cause' carries a completely different meaning to physical causation.....

That is very much connected to the thesis of the book this thread is about, Terrence Deacon's Incomplete Nature.

Where the term 'cause' carries a completely different meaning to physical causation..... — Wayfarer

I am talking about neurological causation exactly. Fuzzy chemicals in the brain producing other chemicals in the brain.
The ink that shows 'elephant' reflects light to my eyes, causing nervous impulses. Due to pattern-recognition, those nervous impulses cause my brain to generate the impulses that generate the image of an elephant.
I don't see anything lacking with this chain of reactions.