Who or what is a "conatist"? I Googled the term, and got only irrelevant links. Literally interpreted, the word refers to someone with WillPower. Is there a cult of Conatism? :smile:Conatus : a natural tendency, impulse, or striving : conation. used in Spinozism — Gnomon
and by conatists — bongo fury
For me, that Epistemological dichotomy*1 is not so "sure". From the BothAnd perspective, it's not an Either/Or conundrum, but a statistical spectrum. Moreover, as a non-religious Agnostic, the ambiguity is not embarrassing to me. It's just another example of the uncertainty of Reality, which Stoics*2 accept as a fact of life. Philosophically, I assume that there was a First Cause of some kind, to kick-start the Big Bang. Beyond that logical axiom*3, I have no information about the presumed Programmer.↪Gnomon
One thing's for sure, either there is a God or there isn't one. It's quite embarrassing if you ask me. — Agent Smith
I don't think of the Enformer or Programmer or First Cause as the universal Consciousness. All of those labels point to something outside the space-time universe. And I don't know how Consciousness would work without a physical world to be aware of, or without a local Self to serve as a point-of-view.The universe is inside Krishna (you)!
— Agent Smith
This thread should have a warning sign : "twisty Metaphors ahead, not to be taken literally".
Metaphors can't be refuted with empirical evidence, you either get the oblique inference, or you don't. If you do, it's safe to proceed slowly, and you might learn something -- something meta-physical. — Gnomon
Awesome! Krishna is a Hindu god, infact he's the supreme deity in human form; the universe is the universe ( :chin: ). Does anything follow? The universal mind - what is it from a God's eye point of view? — Agent Smith
Apparently Chalmers merely pointed-out an ironic situation -- mind/body disjunction -- that some people accepted as normal (mind physical), and others as impossible or illogical (mind metaphysical). :smile:David Chalmers is a genius; most philosophers are. — Agent Smith
Yes. I was trying to distinguish the inner feeling of Irony (private experience) from projecting that feeling toward others, as in Satire or Sarcasm (public experience). I suppose that Satire (e.g. stand-up comedy) could be considered an objective form of Irony, in that it depends on a common feeling among the audience. Those who don't share the feeling will not find it funny. Especially, if they are the butt of the joke. :joke:You described Irony as directed inwardly. — Gnomon
I see irony as an experience, something mental, not as an objective or physical event. — T Clark
You described Irony as directed inwardly. That internal ironic feeling could be rationalized as simply realizing that things are not as they seem, or as they ought to be ideally. But emotionally, the feeling may be somewhere between Enlightenment and Disappointment. Either a private joke, or a personal farce.The feeling of holding two contradictory ideas in my mind at the same time. Being pulled in two different directions but not being able to choose one over the other to resolve the contradiction. That is the feeling of irony for me. — T Clark
Are those all the facts of the case? If so, what is your verdict? If not, what is the missing piece of evidence? :joke:Your honor, Mr. Brown's fingerprints were all over the house - on the door knob, on the knife, on the faucet, on the TV remote. However, there were two cigarette butts in the ashtray and a glass of half-finished Whiskey on the kitchen table. Neither Mr. Brown nor the deceased who was stabbed 22 times smoked or drank. — Agent Smith
Yes, but in this thread we differ on our humble opinion of The Facts. For example, is it a "fact" that "Correlation does not imply Causation", as Hume concluded? Or is the notion that electrical activity causes thinking an instance of the "correlation causation fallacy"*1. Obviously, physical processes (electrical) must be somehow converted into non-physical (mental) processes. ButEx mea (humble) sententia, let the facts speak for themselves. It can't be denied that when one is (sensu amplissimo) thinking, there's electrical activity in the brain. — Agent Smith
Before attempting to give a "how" answer to such querulous Matter/Mind questions, I would first ask IF the presumed interaction actually occurs. Does the material Brain mechanically produce the phenomena we know as Consciousness. If so, the product should also be physical, and the "how" should be obvious to physicists. If not, then per Descartes' dualism, Consciousness is independent of material substrate --- and the how question is irrelevant, except for philosophers. Or perhaps Mind & Matter are simply different forms of the same shape-shifting Substance : the power to enform.↪180 Proof
I too wonder how the immaterial can interact with the material. What is your response if the theist who believes in souls interacting with bodies shrugs and says "God makes the interaction possible. Somehow."? Is the immaterial interacting with material even logically possible, though? — RogueAI
From the perspective of Enformationism, I would say that the "configuration of matter" is its Logical Structure. Most people interpret the word "structure" in terms of physical objects, such as steel beams or protein tubules. But engineers distinguish their mathematical structures from those physical objects in terms of logic diagrams (vectors of force & direction)*1. The vectors themselves are merely symbols, which are mental Qualia (representations), not actual objects with physical properties. So, in that sense, I would agree that mental concepts result from the logical configuration*2 of their material substrate, as a Holistic system. And that's why the relationship between Matter & Mind remains beyond the scope of Reductive models. :smile:Those concepts don't physically exist except as a configuration of matter generated in consort with our minds, so I agree. I don't find this particularly mysterious. Everything our minds do has some basis in matter, even if this matter is currently beyond scientific models. — Enrique
Reductive Classical Science had no place for mental "beliefs", thoughts or ideas. Instead, scientists focused on the "physical foundations of consciousness", such as neurons. Which left open a question opposite to the oneSince we deal with things based on a buildup of past experiences and our current beliefs are held as mental content and we study this with our minds then our minds should be included. This can be entirely materialistically based with our minds emerging as a special case of physical matter. — Mark Nyquist
Enrique, I think my issue with you is an inability to grasp that brains
have the ability to grasp the non-physical.... — Mark Nyquist
This sounds like another case of differently-defined terminology. Nyquist seems to include concepts known only by Reason -- such as mathematical fields -- in the noumenal category of Non-Physical. Yet, theoretical physicists tend to treat Quantum Fields & Virtual Particles as-if (counterfactual) they are real, even though they cannot be detected by the 5 senses. As long as their abstract (un-real) equations work-out they are satisfied. But laymen could be excused for thinking those undetectable fields are no more real than imaginary ghosts.The "nonphysical" is just a way of experiencing and describing matter in terms of noncorporeal concepts, an evolutionary adaptation that is in reality an illusion. Perhaps you disagree with me about this. — Enrique
In the iconoclastic 1960s, coming from a non-philosophical Modernist background, Postmodern irony just seemed annoying to me. For example, postmodern architecture tended to turn formerly pretentious buildings & monuments into play-toys. In general, Postmodernism seems to be intended to knock the props (logic & science) from under arrogant Modern reasoning, with withering Skepticism : ironically a key tool of the scientific method.I have confessed that I have a fixation on the concept of irony. To me irony is a cheap and easy way, a fix, to exercise the part of my brain that seems to demand philosophical thought. My thoughts on irony extend to its nature as a form of argument, an antagonism, an object of confusion, an element of humor, a threat to objectivity, a method of subjectivism and more. — introbert
It's true that meta-physical ideas do not exist, as far as our physical senses are concerned. But our brains are "configured" to conform with the logical (mathematical) structure of the universe. That's why I view human Reason as the sixth sense. It can "see" (imagine) invisible links (relationships) between things, as in Geometry.I am repeating myself, but the non-physical does not exist. So I do not disagree. What does exist are our brains that have the capacity to deal in the non- physical.
What do you think of the idea that brains can configure physically to represent things that do not physically exist? — Mark Nyquist
Ha! You got me. I'm in over my head as a layman discussing nano & neuro stuff, that's usually reserved for professionals --- except on amateur philosophy forums. Presumably, Enrique has more depth of knowledge in such matters. FWIW, my proposed explanation involves a fundamental element that has no physical scale : Information/Energy.Hey you guys, Enrique and Gnomon, off the top of my head a neuron is something like 10 to the 12th power greater in scale that the atomic level so what mechanism are you talking about other than a vague reference to nanotubes. And why not just the normal functioning of neurons in the classical sense? — Mark Nyquist
My knowledge of Coherence Fields is also superficial (Googled). But in laser light "coherence" basically means "organized or focused" instead of randomized and incoherent. The effect is to turn ordinary harmless light waves into guided missiles of energy. In the terminology of my Information thesis, the light is "enformed" : it is no longer a diffuse acausal field, but a condensed zone of causal "power to enform".I do not claim any special knowledge in the ways of cosmic or itsy-bitsy-teeny-weeny strings lol The concept of a coherence field is based on a fact that continues to be proven by experiment: EM radiation combines with atomic structure to produce fields of coherent energy. — Enrique
That's exactly why I have concluded, along with some professional physicists*1, that Matter is not the fundamental element of reality. Instead, Information*2 (the power to enform) is viewed as the precursor of Energy, which is the precursor of Matter. To indicate the relationship of Information & Energy*3, I call the fundamental Substance (non-physical essence per Aristotle) of the universe : EnFormAction*4.There is something to work out as far as the specific mechanics of materialism producing mental content such as ideas, thought and the components of consciousness. I brought up the subject of ideas because they exist as brain state that should be identified as the physical brain and the emergent mental content. I get into trouble if I call it a contained non-physical but that is a loose discription of the problem. There might be something non-physical involved in consciousness. The work around is to call the contained non-physical...mental content.
The point relating to consciousness is that mental content emerging from the physical brain is a component of consciousness and should be included in any model. — Mark Nyquist
Again, I'm coming from a completely different angle -- Information Theory -- and trying to tread water in the deep end of the Neuroscience pool. But from my cursory review of your presentation of Coherence Field Theory -- maybe I missed it -- but I don't remember a specific mention of Hameroff & Penrose's theory of microtubules, to explain how the Consciousness function could emerge from hot, wet & mindless Matter. Yet it seems to be poking around in a similar neighborhood.Microscopic platinum sensors have been inserted into individual neurons, revealing a crystalline structure located just beneath the axon’s outer membrane, wrapped around a core support framework of microtubules. — Enrique
As I interpret the necessity for imaginary numbers in the wave function equation, it allows a metaphysical (ideal ; mental) concept to be calculated as-if physical. For example, the square root of a negative number makes no sense in physical reality, but in mathematics it is just as logical as the root of a positive number. So it seems that math is an idealization of physical logic. Since the notion of Uncertain Statistics (possible future states) is mental & mathematical instead of natural & physical, it requires some "simplification" (interpretation) from high levels of abstraction (space waves) down to analogies from mundane concrete observation (matter waves). :nerd:Complex numbers and complex analysis, for one thing, simplify wave equations due to Euler's formula:
eiθ=sinθ+icosθ. — jgill
Back when I was first exposed to the notion of light as a wave function, I imagined it as an actual machine gun spray of bullets that only appear to come in waves. But later, I found that quantum theorists insist that the wave is real, and the particles are illusions. :cool:That's true. I grew up with little BBs circling a big BB, which was easy to visualize — jgill
That description sounds like quantum vacuum fluctuations boiling with "excitations". But those manifold "unsettled" states (noise) are merely Potential or Virtual (equilibrated ; offsetting?) until Actualized by some intervention (interference) that unbalances the field. Is that de-stabilizing (directional) interference from an internal or external source? Can the human brain/mind intentionally destabilize itself in order to convert unthought ideas into active concepts and causal choices? Or must the unbalancing energy have to come from outside the system?What I mean is that energy flows from more (relative presence) to less (relative absence) in pursuit of equilibrium, but the combination of vast quantities of such motions unbalances a system to make even the most equilibrated states dynamic, a constant unsettlement.. . .but a system's structural properties make it dynamic in a particular way, introducing intrinsic constraints, hence being and becoming with all the logiclike form that seems to be embodied. — Enrique
How can you accomplish the abolishment of that which doesn't yet exist (void ; emptiness ; absence)? By converting its Potential into Actual? Deacon has some ideas, but they were also nebulous to me. The quote sounds like striving toward a goal (willing) might in some sense effect the achieving of the goal. They say a journey of a thousand miles begins with the first step in the direction of the destination. Does the quote imply some kind of causal power for human will-power? Again, I'm just playfully shooting in the dark here. :cool:The pursuit of abolishing absentia or equivalently a void, which can never be conclusively actualized, applies from atoms in a solution to the goal-driven behaviors of human cognition. — Enrique
I just finished reading Physics and Philosophy, by Werner Heisenberg, and The Philosophy of Physics by Max Planck. And they both noted that some physicists (e.g Einstein) grudgingly accepted the evidence for counterintuitive quantum behavior, yet tried to interpret those apparent paradoxes in terms of Classical Physics (e.g. deterministic causation). But that was a century ago. And the evidence to support the non-classical aspects of reality has forced physics professionals to learn to deal with Reality's unreal undergirding."Legitimate physicists" tend to cling closely to Classical Newtonian Science, and studiously avoid feckless Philosophy, lest they be accused of taboo woo-woo. — Gnomon
Would you find quantum physicists doing that? Clinging to Newtonian ideas? — jgill
I googled "absentia" and found a paper on "absential physics". But it was in a technical journal that I don't have access to. So, I'm still in the dark about the logic of absence/presence.the absentia phenomenon . . . . The only fundamental logic of reality is the abolishment of absentia, — Enrique
Hey, give Enrique a break! He's not reporting on settled science, but exploring the fuzzy fringes of Epistemology. As a modern philosopher though, he's spring-boarding from the current cutting edge of Quantum Physics and Neuroscience. "Legitimate physicists" tend to cling closely to Classical Newtonian Science, and studiously avoid feckless Philosophy, lest they be accused of taboo woo-woo.I see why very few legitimate physicists are on TPF, even though they might be philosophical physicists.
Of course, they have their own forums. — jgill
Physicists do indeed make discrete measurements at sub-atomic levels of reality. But at the sub-quantum levels (superposition) they can't discriminate between "entangled" or "virtual particles" or "fields", which display holistic or analog behavior. This leads me to believe that reality is fundamentally continuous & inter-connected. & synchronized, but our perception requires discrete patterns. Does the collapse of unitary synchronous (block time) Superposition also break the static synchrony, allowing for the perception of discrete asynchronous moments of Time (illusion per Einstein)? Just a rhetorical question, since your statement sounds like just the opposite.Matter is quantized or discrete at a fundamental level, but evinces unity on emergent scales due to synchronization — Enrique
I'm trying to interpret that statement. Does human perception impose its own patterns on the incoming noise of energetic signals, or are the mechanical patterns prior to perception, or both? Is the brain programmed to expect certain logical patterns in Nature? Is Logic simply the organizing principle of nature. Perhaps Logic is the Mechanism of Nature. In that case the "substance" of meaningful Form may be abstract Essence or Qualia or Inter-Relationships.So the substance of perceptual form is material mechanism. — Enrique
To me, Mental Information seems to be a logical meaningful arrangement of Causal Energy. But is the logical pattern inherent in the incoming energy or overlaid as a template by the brain? As the Ken Wharton & Recognition quotes above imply : measurement (importing information into the mind) seems to impose "boundary constraints" on incoming data.I think the substance of mechanism and the concept of information are closely related. — Enrique
My question about a Cosmic Coder or Programmer was intended to distinguish between meaningful logical patterns (signals) in Nature, and meaningless accidental impacts (noise) of random energy. If Nature had no rational Logos to impose order on Chaos, how could novel (progressive) Information (Forms) emerge from mere round & round clockwork Mechanisms?But this does not necessarily preclude a designer who guides the process, though I of course wouldn't claim any privileged knowledge in this respect even as I do have my personal beliefs. — Enrique
Several posters have taken exception to the abstract notion of freely choosing from among equal options : door A, B, or C. One objection is that we don't create the options we are faced with. That's true, but an un-forced situational choice is "free", if it is made with personal needs & preferences in mind. A convict may be given the preferential choice between life in prison (more options ahead) or immediate death (no more options).‘To choose’ implies that a set of options exists *from which one chooses*. — Paul Michael
As usual all of this postulation of possibilities is over my head. But I keep seeing references to "organization", "signal", "steady-state", "modulation", and "density maxima/minima". Such terminology reminds me of the elements of coding, such as Morse Code. To transfer information from one point to another you need a steady-state background "field" upon which to superimpose a pattern of positive & negative signals (maxima/minima). And it's the flow of individual signals that add-up to a dynamic meaningful code that can be translated by reference to a pre-established "organization" : the code key.physically, but this energy flows smoothly through space (though rate transitions are nonlinear), more like a fluid, at the microscale and larger. From this perspective, the concept of an atom is somewhat arbitrary, for electromagnetism is really a bending and morphing of the aether field by the fields of nuclei.
Heat, color, vibrational texture, etc. are an intrinsic signature of perception and energy, from both inside and outside. Awareness is simply an emergent byproduct of this energy field's organization. . . . "It is well-established that neural signaling is modulated by diffusion of ions through channels in a neuron’s membrane, but ion collisions cannot explain some features of signal transmission." . . . "Overall oscillation patterns within one of these minimum phase-locked assemblies may involve a continuum of relativities rather than simply being a steady state, on or off phenomenon, doing double duty in the formation of multiple percepts," . . .In the OP I could get a long ways with a couple basic premises: electromagnetic matter consists of density maxima/minima, " — Enrique
OK. I was just trying to make his statement non-paradoxical. But another way to look at it is that Self-Consciousness is a person thinking about his own thought processes. Actually, everything we know, or think we know, comes from introspection : consciously examining one's own inner model of reality. So, maybe he was cautioning those who are not reasonably skeptical of their own beliefs. Maybe he was practicing the Socratic method.Most his writing does not assume something like a "universal consciousness" as a starting point. He spent most his time asking why people thought they knew something about the matter. — Paine
I suppose that innate Empathy serves for morality in animal behavior. Instinctive positive feelings toward kith & kin helps to explain why most (but not all) predators don't kill & eat their own kind. But that would not suffice for the complex behaviors & cultures of human animals. So, most societies have been forced by transgressions of Empathy (e.g. murder) to construct formal codes of morality. But the basic motivator of moral behavior, even in humans, may be the visceral feeling of Empathy, not the intellectual knowledge of moral laws. Except for psychopaths, most humans do have feelings of empathy & remorse after the motivating passion of the murderous moment has passed. :smile:mistaking empathy for morality. — god must be atheist
I'm not very familiar with Krishnamurti's philosophy, but apparently he is saying that Universal Consciousness can be conscious of the thoughts of individual thinkers. From that pan-psychic whole/part perspective, it's not a paradox.Can thoughts ever be aware of themselves or can only the thinker create thoughts without fully knowing what they are? What is being asked? — TiredThinker
That's OK. We all have our blind spots. Yet, there are plenty of other posters who are not mystified by metaphysics, or flummoxed by feelings. But you're the one that raised a question about that which cannot be expressed in prosaic words. Ironically, this thread fills four pages of effing about the ineffable. Apparently your own negative feelings about "the ineffable" can be expressed in scornful language.You links seem to be in the main, irrelevant.
...using Aristotelian logic. Oddly anachronistic¹. Frankly, your posts do not make much sense. — Banno
Who said anything about "earth wind, fire and water"? I'm not discussing physical Chemistry. Just meta-physical philosophy (ideas ; relationships ; categories). Do you believe that Philosophy should be about the physical world (matter) instead of the intellectual models (mind) of the world? We all look at the world through a framework, a paradigm, of some kind. The Chemistry frame is looking for the mechanics of matter, so that's what it sees. But the Philosophy frame is focused on the ineffable essential structure of those ideal constructs. That's why it's so difficult to express in conventional matter-based words. Some modern philosophers have gone so far into abstract abstruse linguistic analysis that they bury common sense under a pile of BS. Effing about the ineffable.↪Gnomon
Would you be content with a chemist who refused to make use of the atomic theory of matter, insisting instead on dealing only in earth wind, fire and water?
That's how your insistence on applying only Aristotelian essentialism appears. — Banno
Since I am a late-comer to Philosophy, I am not well-versed in modern abstruse & esoteric modes of philosophizing. I prefer the timeless common-sense of the old dinosaurs. So, please allow me my amateur dabbling in the shallow end of the pool : where a dead frog is a carcass, and H2O is a universal solvent, not something to drink. :smile:↪Tom Storm
Part of the impact of his development of formal modal logic was the implications for consideration of essence, especially and interestingly the necessary yet a posteriori connection between two properties, like water being necessarily H₂O.It's difficult stuff, and brings with it its own controversies. But it does allow that a dead frog is a frog, unlike ↪Gnomon's odd, self-defeating metaphysics. — Banno
That may be a problem for you, but not for me. Aristotle may be outdated in Science, but in Philosophy his concise categories are still applicable. Scientific facts may have changed, but the Philosophical problem of effability remains in our time. Scientists confronted with ineffable Qualia and Essences may chose to "shut-up and calculate". But undaunted philosophers continue to eff away with metaphors & analogies. Why else do you think the topic of effability keeps coming up on this forum? :smile:Perhaps, there's your problem. There have been a few developments since then. — Banno
My notion of "essence" (e.g. of frogginess) is based on Aristotle's definition of "substance". Biologists may think of substance as material properties (the frog's physical body), but naturalists & philosophers tend to include such qualities as behavior, to define "frogginess" : definitive features that frogs have in common with each other. So the essence of Frog is more than physiology. It includes instincts & mental factors that differentiate a frog from a lizard. "Properties" are known via the physical senses. But "qualities" are known via rational inference. Pragmatic scientists necessarily focus on effable Properties, But theoretical Philosophers are more concerned with ineffable Qualities. :smile:↪Gnomon
A dead frog is not a frog? That is, not sure about your notion of essence. Nowadays a property is considered essential if and only if it belongs to the individual in question in every possible world.You seem to be using some other notion... — Banno
To me, the monolith represented an artifact, which would only be apparent to rational beings. Presumably, ordinary apes would treat it a useless black rock. But a few began to realize that the monolith was not natural, so someone must have created it. Thus began the ontological quest to understand why anything exists. Which eventually led to the ever-evolving god concept.There has always been a deep debate on the significance of the monolith which appears in the beginning of the movie. — javi2541997
Even when you conscientiously try to stay on the empirical side of Consciousness -- "wish to avoid pseudo-science traps and quantum woo sophistry" -- you are treading on shaky ground. You may be subjected to ad hominem labeling of "quantum woo-woo speculations (e.g. pseudo-scientistic / idealst reductionism", from those who equate Holism & Idealism with New Age Mysticism.But if coherence field theory is accurate, all of this will prove amenable to empiricism, and it's simply a matter of investigating the binding and modulation that occurs among atoms and light. — Enrique
Coherence is an essential quality of any holistic system. Yet, the mysterious integrating "force" that binds isolated parts into a functional system has always seemed ineffable. Is it a measurable physical force, or an immensurable metaphysical influence?When you think about the complexity that must be present in a coherence field of macroscopic emergence it is hard to imagine. — Enrique
Even for voluble verbose philosophers, the concept of Holism seems to be inherently ineffable, in the sense that a complex whole system cannot be understood when "delineated" in terms of its parts, without losing the integrated wholeness. An old high school biology example says that "if you dissect a frog, you lose the interrelating & binding effect of Life, which defines the essence of a frog. A dissected frog is no longer a functioning organism : it's "-ology" without the "bio-". So you learn about organs apart from the organism. Hence, you can't have your frog, and cut it too.Indeed, I've much sympathy with that. The further question might be what it is that they ought be quite about, and that, if anything, is the topic of this thread: delineating, so far as it is possible to do so, what it is that is ineffable. — Banno