Let's try to see where we agree or disagree on the Intuition vs Reason debate. Which of the following definitions would characterize your understanding : "Reasoning is rational thinking using logic, while Intuition is unconscious, A> a paranormal gift, B> a magical awareness not accessible for normal humans, or C> a connectivity to an all knowing esoteric field." Or does your Fifth Dimension theory provide another option? — Gnomon
Of course. That's the distinction between Subjective knowing (I feel angry) and Objective knowledge (I sense an increase of adrenaline). It's the mystery of Consciousness that I can't know directly what's in your mind. Which is why rational humans, and not intuitive animals, have developed methods for objectifying their thoughts in conventional words and concepts. Some animals, such as ants, communicate their feelings about factual information (e.g. a source of food) via chemicals. Dolphins communicate their emotional states, and some factual information, via squeaks and body language. Do you suppose they have a deeper (or higher) understanding of the world than the founders of religions (holistic, oceanic oneness) , or empirical scientists (reductive, particular details), who communicate their feelings and facts via language and mathematics? Can we humans have the best of both worlds, higher and deeper? — Gnomon
Some neuro-biologists like to think they can trace all mental activity back to neuronal functions. But a few neuroscientists, such as Christof Koch, are beginning to take a more holistic approach to understanding the mysteries of Consciousness. The physical functions of brains are not fully understood, but the correlations between measurable brain activity and felt mental concepts are undeniable. So, it behooves us find the link (or common denominator) between brain and mind. In my thesis, that common measure (both physical and metaphysical) is universal Information.
The Feeling of Consciousness : Koch notes that, “much ink has been spilled over arguments that quantum mechanics is the secret to consciousness”. However, after years of research, he saw “no need to invoke exotic physics to understand consciousness”.
Note : the names of metaphysical Feelings are metaphors based on physical sensations, such as touch, vision, smell. — Gnomon
When the potential is infinite, our investigation is not aimed at objective truth, which is absolute, but probability. You have the potential to become the king of France, but it’s extremely improbable; a chance of one in a trillion or whatever. A measure of probability is the only scientific goal when attempting to predict the future or looking to understand the meaning of the potentials we observe. When rolling a die there’s a sixth of a chance to get a six, but what does that mean in terms of truth? It means that the die is cubed, and one side has six dots. Since it’s completely symmetrical, none of the sides is physically favored. That’s the whole truth.
The oil prices have been low this year. That fact in isolation favors low prices next year. That’s the actuality that has a truth value. — Congau
When we say that a potential is limited, we mean that something has inside itself the possibility to reach this far but not farther.
“His potential as a footballer is limited.” He may get to play for a decent team, but he’ll never play in the premier league; the probability for that to happen is considered to be zero.
The potential for what I can write in the next sentence is unlimited, although a certain content is definitely favored.
Potentiality is only relevant to truth when referring to actuality. — Congau
Should maybe the disgression about Gnomon's philosophy be split into its own thread since some people are still coming to this thread to talk about the original question too?
@StreetlightX I think you've helped with things like this before? — Pfhorrest
Intuition gives us a quick overview of possible outcomes --- like watching a movie in fast forward --- from which we select what seems to be the best path to a desirable future state. Therefore, we "direct our attention" to that optimum path, and ignore the ones that seem to be less profitable. However, in some cases, the situation is so complex that Intuition is a poor guide to action. So, we slow down the movie and examine it frame-by-frame, by Reasoning, to see if we missed any important details that may affect the overall meaning of the movie.
Most human behavior is more or less successfully guided by Intuition, but our innate ability to judge probabilities (statistics) is poor. We tend to be more confident of our intuitions than is warranted. That's why modern scientists rely on computers to fact check their original estimates. Unfortunately, while computers are good at predicting Effects, they are poor at anticipating Affects (how it will make me feel). So, the method of Bayesian Statistics was developed to take advantage of human intuition for subjective affective evaluations.
Intuitive statistics were not derived from our understanding of quantum randomness, but of our self-correcting procedures to improve first guesses with more information. However, Rational computer statistics could, in theory, make use of wavefunction calculations to sharpen their ability to predict future states. I'm just riffing here. So this little diversion may have missed the point of the quote above. And I still don't know what it has to do with "five dimensional reality". :joke: — Gnomon
Is it the "dimension" of Intuition? Do intuitive people, such as artists, have access to a source of information that is hidden from more rational folks? Do they "measure" that alternate "reality" in terms of feelings instead of math or logic? — Gnomon
I'm sorry if my thick skull frustrates you, but I still have no idea what you are talking about. Can you translate the quote above into words a non-specialist can understand? The technical terms bolded are not in my everyday vocabulary. Although I can look up the individual definitions, the whole sentence still doesn't mean much to me (me no Grok).
Are you saying that Quantum Uncertainty is "the fifth dimensional aspect of reality"? If so, what difference does that make to me? Is it the "dimension" of Intuition? Do intuitive people, such as artists, have access to a source of information that is hidden from more rational folks? Do they "measure" that alternate "reality" in terms of feelings instead of math or logic? :chin: — Gnomon
At the beginning of this thread, I took the posts of Possibility seriously, assuming that the invisible transcendent dimensions referred to, would eventually be related back to the visible mundane world of physical senses, and the "obfuscated mind". But eventually, I began to wonder if I was being punked. Whenever, I requested specific information, all I got was assurances that the vaguely defined Higher Dimensions actually exist in some sense. But I remain none the wiser for all my efforts to understand what the mysterious Referent of "Higher Dimensions" might be. Is that failure due to my bad faith or to that of the proponents of invisible parallel worlds? — Gnomon
I admit that there is another sense in which everything is predetermined and thereby theoretically predictable. If everything is reduced to quantum mechanics, the quantity of moving molecules is finite and constitutes an extremely complicated version of rolling billiard balls. In that case, there would be no difference between what is potential and what will be actual; there would be no potentiality that wouldn’t eventually turn into actuality. The nasturtium seed wouldn’t have the potential of becoming a nasturtium if it was destined to be destroyed before it reached that stage. That would eliminate the distinction between actual and potential, and between past and future in a truth condition.
(If we assumed some sort of religious determinism, that would also do the same trick.)
However, within our physical world of objects with shape and form and a diversity of kinds of events all truths can be theoretically known (although in practice we can’t know anything). If it’s possible to know that I’m now typing (which it isn’t) it is also possible to know the content of any hidden seed. If it exists as a category of our perception (in our physical world), it exists independently of the mind but can theoretically be brought into the mind. — Congau
No, I’m not talking about what is just not practically possible to know about because of our human limitations. A superman or an extremely powerful computer couldn’t know it either. It’s not practically possible to know everything within an enormous pool of facts, but as long as the pool is finite, it’s theoretically possible. It’s not theoretically possible to know the future because the possible combinations of interacting facts are literally infinite. (Because they are infinite they are not objectively existent.) — Congau
A potential that exists inside a thing is objective and knowable, but for that potential to develop into a future existence, combinations of factors must be realized, and those possible combinations are not present anywhere now. A can connect to B, but it can also connect to C. The seed (A) can connect to optimal conditions (B) or to my destroying it (C). B or C are not present in the seed, or anywhere in the world for that matter. — Congau
Who says anyone needs to observe it? The potential is inside the seed whether a scientist studies it or not, just like the unobserved falling tree makes a noise. — Congau
Yes, in other words we only we only register a tiny fraction of the potential information we casually encounter. We see it, but we don’t notice it or don’t make sense of it. We see the seed, but not all the data it could convey — Congau
This seed is a potential nasturtium. It refers to something that exists inside the object now and is not really a prediction about the future. I am about to destroy this seed, so I know for sure that it will never become a nasturtium, but still, it is a potential nasturtium. — Congau
By “perception” I meant simple sense-perception or “what the body senses”. (I should have said that instead.) Our bodily senses inform us about the past only and provided we can trust our them, they give us the truth. We are still likely to be mistaken, though, since we make faulty judgments, drawing conclusions from a combination of sensual inputs. — Congau
In theory we can have knowledge about what actually exists. If our bodily senses don’t deceive us and we follow a valid deductive procedure we will grasp the truth (without really knowing that we know, of course). But about the future it is not even possible to have knowledge even in theory because our bodily senses can never register all signals that might be relevant./quote]
What exists materially is in a constant temporal flux, and it isn’t possible to register all relevant information at any one time in order to even theoretically grasp the truth of the moment before it changes again. What we colloquially refer to as ‘actually’ existing is inclusive of potential information relevant to predicting the truth of the moment in which we would act. In other words, it’s subjective, which might be fine in other discussions, but we have deliberately put aside certainty here in order to discuss objective truth, and so, for consistency of language and to avoid confusion, we should also attempt to frame an understanding of actuality in this objective context, independent of our limited capacity.
What we can not have knowledge about even theoretically, can not be the truth. It may be true that this is a seed, true that it is a nasturtium seed, true that it is a potential nasturtium, but neither true nor false that it will become a nasturtium. — Congau
but if it’s your attempt to come across as knowledgeable on the subject of dimensions, then I’ll just applaud you and be done with it.
So, is this a kiss-off? — Gnomon
Our perception is based purely on actual information, what is there at the moment of perception. I see a rock and think it is an elephant, but still my visual perception is based on information that is actually there, that greyish thing. — Congau
Our action and words are a different matter. They are in addition based on our judgment and implications of our judgment of what we perceive. We start putting meaning into the object of perception the moment we have perceived it. (It may happen at the same time, but conceptually it’s a sequence). You see someone catching a ball, conclude that your team has won the game and then rejoice realizing what is in it for you (potential). Sure, all of that is included in what you take away from that simple event that would be a simple ball catching for another person, but even for you, what you have actually perceived is just the catching. — Congau
Everything we do is directed at the future, (if only the next moment in time) and everything we say is anticipating a response, but everything we have ever perceived belongs to the past. — Congau
A potential x is something that may become an x in the future but is not an x now. Potential information is something that may become information in the future but is not information now.
Whatever is, is actual. Information about a potential, is actual. — Congau
Plastic exists independently whereas a bottle is dependent on the human mind to exist, but not on any specific mind. Anyone I asked above the age of three would probably identify this thing as a bottle, so that is also an objective truth. I thought this distinction might be relevant to your scheme, but maybe it isn’t. — Congau
Even though I see what you mean when you say that the dog may use the bottle as a piece of information indicating it will soon be taken for a walk, and you call this information potential truth, I don’t think it’s necessary (or even right) to separate potentiality from actuality in a question of truth. Potentiality exists as actuality. In a seed, the plant it might become, the potential of becoming a nasturtium, is now actually present in that seed. The information is actual, and a biologist could ascertain that under a microscope. The bottle on my desk is actually there, and that is the actual truth that the dog uses to make its inference. Your “potential truth” may or may not become an actual truth, so it is not the truth now, which means that it’s not the truth at all. On the other hand, potentiality existing as actuality, is now the truth, that is truth proper. Potentiality is certainly important, and we are always on the lookout for potentiality in things in order to predict the future, but the truth that we see is in what is actual. — Congau
If I am so arrogant & ignorant, why do you care what my opinion of your Multidimensional Reality might be? From your early posts I began to entertain the possibility that you may know something that would add more "dimensions" to my personal worldview, and to my understanding of reality. But I'm still waiting for that revelation. With my references to abstruse scientific theories, I may have given the impression that I am a part of that exotic academic world. I'm merely an onlooker, not a participant. — Gnomon
Your Multidimensional Theory is not the only one I've investigated, and then "excluded" from my personal worldview because they are not relevant to my interests. Even if there are 11 spatial dimensions in String Theory, what difference does it make to me, here locked into the 4D reality of my physical senses? I am aware that many people believe in invisible dimensions that only the elect are aware of. For example, Muslims are told that there is a seventh heaven, which is a realm of intense happiness and bliss, that only the faithful will ever experience. If so, it behooves me to accept God's Final Prophet and bow to his revelation. I'm not sure what the dimensional number is, but potential Islamic Martyrs are assured that there is an invisible Paradise, with 72 beautiful virgins to please every adolescent male sexual fantasy. But, those extra dimensions have no relevance to my non-Islamic belief system. And I'm no longer a hormone intoxicated teenager. — Gnomon
I googled "Quantum Potentiality", and found a few returns, mostly referring to some of Heisenberg's mathematical musings about the significance of superposition. But I'm not able to follow his math. Another site may be closer to what you are talking about on EscadelicNet. It seems to deal with some of the same scientific & philosophical topics that I link to in the Enformationism thesis. And it also uses the Matrix movie as a metaphor for the Mind/Body paradox. As I get time, I'll look around the site. But at first glance, it seems to require much more formal training in quantum theory and higher math than I bring to the table. I'm not qualified to critique the criticisms of the Standard Theory, much less the theory of the Syntellect Hypothesis. :cool: — Gnomon
Time directionality is not necessary for genes to make a cat. Just probability of all being lumped together as one particular individual. — Benj96
Sorry, I'm neither a string theorist, nor a mathematician, nor an academic philosopher --- nor an esoteric Theosophist. So deconstructing, or meta-analysing, exotic metaphors is not my thing. I'm not motivated to seek a "deeper understanding" of invisible un-imaginable dimensions of hyperspace or astral planes. I guess I'll have to stick to mundane metaphors that I actually know something about, and that relate to the real sensible world. — Gnomon
I did read Carlo Rovelli's book, but just skimmed over any references to dimensions that are meaningless to me. I'm also familiar with Rob Bryanton's Imagining the Tenth Dimension website and book. But it's all Greek to me. I'm still waiting for you to dumb it down for me. Is that something you can do? Or are you content to just belittle my intelligence? :cool: — Gnomon
I have a plastic bottle on my desk. I think that is objectively true since I believe most people would identify it as such. The fact that it is made of plastic or some plastic-like material is the most basic (actual?) information. Even a dog would recognize the characteristic of this material, perhaps without putting much meaning into it beyond that. For the dog it is what it is, so to speak, a lump of plastic. For us it is also a bottle, that is a cultural artifice, but there is nothing about the object itself that makes it such a thing. An alien wouldn’t see a bottle, but maybe it would remind him of some object known in his world. Would this “bottle” then have the potential of being something else, of having another meaning? — Congau
That sounds similar to the way I conceive of Energy (EnFormAction), which is the potential for creating and destroying structure. For example, physicists metaphorize light energy as a spray of photons, like a machine gun. Yet, the Light we see is just a fraction of the whole spectrum of energy throughout the universe. Universal Energy is, not a material thing, but a metaphysical oscillation between max & minimum potential. Expressed in 1s and 0s, it's a creation code. That concept is hard to describe & to grasp, and is far outside my field of competence. But it's a consequence of my metaphorical understanding of what Energy and Information actually consist of : mathematical (mental) relationships.
Anyway, I imagine Energy as an alternation between Enfernity (unbounded potential -- infinite possibilities), and Nothingness (zero potential). In the graph below, positive creative potential is at the peak of the wave, and negative destructive potential is at the trough of the wave. But the neutral baseline down the center is Zero potential. As the wave oscillates, it creates space, and as it advances from peak to peak, it creates time. Thus, plenipotential metaphysical Energy (creative potential) constructs the physical space-time reality that we experience via our senses.
Ironically, the potential (power) of Energy consists of Information in the form of mathematical ratios (1/0; 1 : 2; this compared to that). "Relational structures" that can be expressed as percentages of the Whole. The best book on this topic, that I'm familiar with, is Into the Cool : Energy Flow, Thermodynamics, and Life, by Eric Schneider and Dorian Sagan. But I'm not interested so much in the physics of Energy, as in the Metaphysics : the Qualia. Even there I'm dabbling in ideas that are above my pay grade. And my understanding is still incomplete. But it gives some meaningful foundational structure to my Enformationism worldview. :nerd: — Gnomon
For me, I can believe it to be objective truth only if it appears filled with possibility.
And again, why is that? Why isn’t any utterly useless information about something existing just as true as something heavily pregnant with significance? There aren’t any degrees of truth; something is either true or not true. Either A or not A.
I’m not saying that you are not onto something important, though. Of course, you don’t bother to argue for the truth of some ridiculous detail that wouldn’t expand our knowledge of the universe anyway. — Congau
In our discussion I have made sure to call it “objective truth” to avoid any doubt about where I stand on the issue: Truth is always objective. For me, therefore the qualifier “objective” is redundant, but that’s not the case for you, is it? By ”objective” I think you mean something like ‘that which can be included in our common understanding of reality’ or at least ‘that which can be included in my systematic understanding of the relationship between things’. Scattered details, though true, you don’t call objective if they remain isolated. Am I right? — Congau
This definition wouldn’t neatly fit in with the dictionary definition, as we have already suggested. Then why don’t you instead try to find another word for the idea you’re trying to get across to avoid confusion? — Congau
Our conception of objects are based on two elements: perception and judgment. The judgment we both call subjective, but you want to call individual perception objective since other individuals would have perceived exactly the same if they had had the exact same background experience. My only candidate for objectivity, on the other hand, is what might be called the thing in itself - independent of an observer, but that leaves it open what to do with perception as opposed to judgment. Well, the two can’t really be separated and even two individuals imagined to have lived the exact same life would judge their experiences differently. You may be imagining an observer stripped of subjective judgments, something like a machine, a camera or a robot, or a human being as a mere thought experiment. The moment a person left out his judgment (if that were possible) he would see the world “objectively” in your sense of the term, even though that vision would still be unique to him and could not be copied by anyone else. Is that so? — Congau
I'm afraid I don't know what kind of "structure" you are looking for : something material & physical instead of mental & metaphysical? Please give me an example of a structural definition of the metaphors of "quantum fields" and "information fields". Actually, there are no things in the field, only structural relationships. — Gnomon
Metaphors deny distinctions between things: problems often arise from taking structural metaphors too literally. Because unexamined metaphors lead us to assume the identity of unidentical things, conflicts arise which can only be resolved by understanding the metaphor (which requires its recognition as such), which means reconstructing the analogy on which it is based. Teachers will often cease to use terms metaphorically, or be conscious of the distinction when their concept is an expanded one, but this will not mirror the situation in most of their students’ minds. — David Pimm, ‘Metaphor and Analogy in Mathematics’
This is not your mistake since you believe in objective truth, but your notion of truth is somehow multiple, depending on the infinite number of different angles from which we can be hit by potential information and create our vision of reality. Is it objective just because anyone in the same position would have reached the same conclusion? — Congau
One can be certain that there is a cup in the cupboard without any further consideration whatsoever regarding the possibility of being mistaken or another's perspective(belief). One can be certain that that was true when spoken/considered by looking. — creativesoul
This is confused, and unnecessarily so. My typing is an event, an occurrence. That's what's happened and/or is happening. The report thereof is what was/is true. Of that much I can be absolutely certain, and very well ought be.
Personally I reject the objective/subjective dichotomy, but for far different reasons than are being discussed here.
We can be absolutely certain about what sorts of things can be true and what makes them so. That is the basic point of our disagreement. — creativesoul
Always adding another perspective and including different points of view will not automatically increase objectivity. — Congau
However, this objectivity is not the same as objective truth. It may very well be that one subjective opinion is the objective truth, unknown to everyone including the person holding this opinion. In fact, every time I argue for something, I think that is the objective truth (that’s why I bother to argue) and I think it’s the same for you and anyone else (unless they argue just for sports like sophists). — Congau
The ultimate objective truth would not be expressed in an objective and detached way. — Congau
It is true that I am currently typing on my computer keyboard. I can be absolutely certain that true. — creativesoul
So, the primary premiss is false. — creativesoul
We cannot be certain about everything. It quite simply does not necessarily follow that we ought not be certain about anything. — creativesoul
I would think that neuroscience - if it shows anything - would show that we do both. — creativesoul
You get input from somewhere, a real elephant, a picture, a story or from some other untraceable memory and mix it with your energy or however you would like to express it, it doesn’t really matter. I don’t really have a problem with this (apart from some of your confusing word choices like “potential information” but I guess we have already more or less cleared that up.) — Congau
It belongs to the future in the sense that I am receiving information right now, then I process it and create a new state of reality. There is a time aspect of input > processing > output, even when it happens very fast. There exists an objective state of the world that is unalterable because it has already occurred, for example the world as it was on May 12, 2020 at 7pm GMT. That includes my own mental state at that point in time. Whatever I can make of it and use to change the state of the world, will occur after this point, that is in the future. — Congau
The subjective part of our interpretation of the world is not really found in our perceptive organs, which would be equivalent to a camera (a machine) reproducing an image. Let’s imagine we all had the same eyesight and there was no color blindness and other confusing idiosyncrasies. We would get the same imprint on our retina, but that wouldn’t make our impression any less subjective. follow later Subjectivity follows when the actual interpretation happens (I’m looking at a rock, no, wait, it’s an elephant!). The mind as an interpreting entity is not yet active at the first visual impression, so there’s no reason to talk about subjectivity. Similarly, subjectivity is not really about our looking at objects from different perspectives and angles. If it were, all it would take would be for you to step into the spot where I’m currently standing, and you would see the world from my perspective. But you would still interpret this same visual impression differently, and that is subjectivity in the proper sense. Therefore the analogy with photography doesn’t capture the concept of subjectivity. — Congau
Fruitful discussions are not about reaching an agreement. It’s about achieving more clarity about one’s position, whether or not it is moved, while learning about other possible views. — Congau
It doesn’t come into existence from nothing. The point is that the thought, as it comes into being, doesn’t affect its source. (Sure, it may result in action which may later affect the material world, but that belongs to the future.) — Congau
A particular camera is designed to absorb light in one specific way and render colors according to one method. Two photographs taken by the same camera will truthfully copy two instances of reality according to the same standard. A human looking at two objects may interpret one of them correctly and the other incorrectly even according to his own standard. — Congau
In philosophy the certainty of a definition is of utmost importance and many a philosophical discussion fails because the substance of the matter slips away, and the opponents keep talking about different things. In daily life exact definitions are of much less importance as we generally know what the other person is talking about and if we don’t, the consequences are usually rather small.
What is the difference between a shoe and a boot, for example? How high around the ankle does the shoe need to be to become a boot? No one knows exactly, and it usually doesn’t matter, but if you run a shoe store, you may want to decide on an artificial distinction to conveniently classify your merchandise.
Similarly in philosophy, you may argue that the colloquial definition of “objective” is not watertight, but in that case you’ll have to decide on one that is, and then why not choose the dictionary definition as it is more likely to be recognized by the person you are talking to. As it now is, I have no way of knowing what you really mean by “objective” since you have admitted that you are working with an open-ended definition which as such cannot be clear even to yourself. — Congau
I can’t speak for concrescence, but prehension and epochal make perfect sense to me without having heard them before, just based on their roots. — Pfhorrest
In that case it’s just not possible to communicate your thoughts to others. We are dependent on a common definition to be able to communicate. However, it’s not our definition because it is written down in a dictionary, but the other way around. Dictionaries only reflect our shared understanding of a word. — Congau
No, that’s not what I mean. I’m just saying that a thought is one addition to reality. Reality consists of stones, houses, nail polish, thoughts etc.
“I am now thinking about x.” That immediately adds one item to reality, this thought of mine, but it does nothing to x.
“I’m thinking about an elephant.” The elephant is not affected.
“I’m thinking about a unicorn.” The unicorn didn’t come into existence, even though my thought did. — Congau
A photograph is objective. It makes a copy of exactly how the object looks from a particular angle (including the degree of light/darkness and haze). It doesn’t make any interpretations, what it “sees” is what a human would have seen if we had been able to leave our biased impressions aside.
A photograph (or a human replica) makes no claim to be saying anything about the human experience. An objective understanding of the, or rather a, human experience would be the same as telepathy. — Congau
Given that we can never be absolutely certain of what is true...
That's not a given. There is all sorts of stuff that we can be certain is true. The term "absolutely" doesn't add anything here either. Drop it altogether.
Are you certain that what you say is true... that we cannot be certain that anything is true? — creativesoul
This link says that, "Cross-Dimensional Awareness is an ability that senses and can often travel between parallel universes (alternate universes) or other planes of existence". That sounds like the New Age notion of the Astral Planes, which is completely ignored by the Enformationism thesis. It also seems popular with video gamers, as fodder for their imagination. But I have no personal experience with either the multiple dimensions String Theory, or the Higher Planes of mystical religions. How do you become aware of those Parallel Universes : by meditation, drugs, gnostic revelation? Even string theorists admit that their 10 or 11 dimensions may exist only as mathematical abstractions, that humans have no direct experience of, and have no empirical evidence. So, they are accused of Mysticism, by more pragmatic scientists.
https://evolutionactivated.fandom.com/wiki/Cross_Dimensional_Awareness — Gnomon
There may be holes in the thesis, but I am still in the process of filling them, in part by getting critiques on this forum. See if the link below will fill your "hole" with understanding of how those conflicting worldviews can be reconciled, via the concept of Monism/Holism, as opposed to the dualistic view of Descartes. See the Materialism link below, for my consilience between those antagonistic old domains.
You seem to be responding to the very narrowly focused posts on this forum. I have repeatedly provided links to my own reasoning, and that of other philosophers & scientists. Ironically there seem to be more scientists than philosophers thinking along the same lines of the ubiquity of Information. i]Enformationism[/i] is not a typical academic thesis paper, written on an obscure arcane topic. It is, instead, a scientific and philosophical and religious Theory of Everything. History will decide which new paradigm will replace the ancient notions of Materialism (atoms & void) and Spiritualsm (body & soul), which were, in their day, theories of everything. — Gnomon
A lot of our disagreement, as is often the case in philosophical debate, is actually about linguistics and how to define terms.
Of course I agree that we use input from the world to draw conclusions about it and make conjectures about what the future might look like. This perpetual human interaction creates individual and collective understanding and does constitute a reality of its own. Cultural and intersubjective beliefs are existing entities (and as such objective in my understanding of the term) but I don’t understand why you insist on calling such ideas objective. When the dictionary clearly states that “objective” means “not dependent on the mind” why is it necessary to push that dictionary definition? Couldn’t you get your point across by using other words? In the beginning of our discussion I was pleased to learn that you acknowledged the existence of objective truth, but then I realized that your understanding of “objective” was different from mine. Isn’t a debate about mere words really an unnecessary confusion (although a very common one)? — Congau
Any object can be viewed from an infinite number of perspectives, which would make an infinite number of objective truths and that is rather a characteristic of what is subjective. Why not call it subjective then? — Congau
Pain is an unpleasant sensation or thought evoked by certain noxious physical or mental stimuli. In general, such stimuli evoke a relieve-avoid-prevent response from the subject.
Biologically, pain plays an important role in our welfare and survival. Homeostasis refers to the biochemical equilibrium necessary for life to sustain itself. All living things are in homeostasis so long as it is alive and well. Injury, physical, chemical, etc. threatens this equilibrium and can cause death.
Pain is a detector of sorts that alerts living things of potentially life-threatening stimuli. This pain detecting mechanism is wired to responses that aim to relieve/avoid/prevent pain; ultimately saving the organism from grievous injury and death. We could, in a way, say that pain is necessary for survival.
To make my point clearer consider people who can't feel pain e.g. diabetics with neuropathy and Leprosy patients. Their inability to feel pain (due to nerve damage) makes them highly susceptible to severe injuries, ultimately resulting in disfigurement and death. So, pain plays a critical role in survival.
Given the above is true what can we say about suffering? Suffering seems to be a higher-order pain since it includes mental anguish too. However, consider the causes of mental anguish from failing in exams to losing in love - they're all critical aspects of social survival. We can literally see the similarity between physical and mental pain at a very fundamental level - SURVIVAL, either as an individual or as a member of society.
Therefore, suffering is necessary to the wellbeing of individuals alone and as members of a society.
What kind of ramifications would this realization have?
For one, we can do away with pessimistic philosophies that have, well, misunderstood the whole point of suffering. They think suffering shouldn't exist, implying that it is unnecessary, which I've shown is actually necessary for survival.
Also this view of suffering solves the problem of evil vis-a-vis god. — TheMadFool
I’m only superficially familiar with with Whitehead. What neologisms did he coin? — Pfhorrest