In this thread, has questioned my idiosyncratic notion of Causation & Energy, as a transfer of Information from one entity to another. As a Poetic word processor though, I think you may be somewhat more amenable to the metaphorical & literal notion that Causation is linked to Information ("It from bit"). The blog post*1 goes into more detail, but the modern understanding of Information*2 may not be familiar. :smile:

*1. Metaphysics of Causation :
Until the 17th century, the specific physical cause of change was a mystery. So Aristotle had a much broader metaphysical understanding, and postulated Four Kinds of Causes : A traditional framework that divides causes into Material (what it's made of), Formal (the structure), Efficient (the producer), and Final (the purpose). But, Isaac Newton, lacking a concept of Energy as physical quantity, chose to define Causation in metaphysical¹ terms as a “law” of physics : for every action there is an equal & opposite reaction. For him, the invisible hand of God was the supernatural cause of all changes in Nature.

After the 18th century though, Causation was typically explained by a transfer of a quantity of Energy — imagined as a substance² — from one thing to another. But in Quantum Physics, Change is a consequence of a transfer of Information³. . . . .
https://bothandblog9.enformationism.info/page16.html


*2. The modern notion of information, established in the mid-20th century primarily by Claude Shannon, treats information as a quantifiable, physical, and digital entity rather than just a subjective concept of knowledge or meaning. It is understood as the reduction of uncertainty, allowing for the efficient, secure, and reliable transmission, storage, and processing of data.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=modern+notion+of+information
Note --- Subjective meaningful Information is treated as a form of quantifiable Energy.

I get that, but to me seeing a link between the physical concept of energy and the meaning you are giving to that word is like using the concept of force and the third principle to claim that "all actions cause an opposite consequences", which is wrong. — boundless

I'm giving Energy a philosophical meaning (function) instead of the scientific definition (quantity). Do you think philosophers (mind)) have no business making definitions for a different context than those of Science (matter)? If that's the case, you will only be confused by my posts, and my "links". :smile:
Note --- Are you saying that Isaac Newton's universal principle --- "for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction" --- is "wrong"? What causes "every action" if not Energy?

*1. In philosophy, energy originates from the Aristotelian concept of energeia, defining it as "actuality," "activity," or the "being-at-work" that maintains a thing in existence. Unlike the purely physical definition of "capacity to do work," philosophical energy connects to metaphysics, potentiality, and the actualization of a thing's purpose or form.
https://www.google.com/search?q=energy+definition+in+philosophy&client=firefox-b-1-

*2. In science, energy is defined as the quantitative capacity of a physical system to perform work—such as moving an object against a force—or to generate heat and light. It is a fundamental, conserved property that cannot be created or destroyed, only transferred or transformed between different forms, such as kinetic (motion) or potential (stored).
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=energy+definition+in+science

If causal Energy is not fundamental to physics, what is? Do you think atomic Matter is the basic "stuff" of Reality? — Gnomon
I don't know and I'm not sure physics can say something about that. In fact, it seems to me, that it is precisely the belief that physical quantities have some hidden, ulterior metaphysical meaning that can be a problem for the progress of science. — boundless

Physics says quite a lot about the fundamental role of Energy (note *2 above). But you seem to think the philosophical notion of Energy is a religious concept. What was Aristotle's religion? What was his "ulterior" motive in defining Energy as "Potentiality". :brow:

However, my point is that both mass and energy (like, really, all other physical quantities) are presented as properties of physical systems (either imputed by us or seen as belonging to them). Saying that 'energy' is fundamental, is like saying that lenght is more fundamental than objects that 'have lenght'. TBH, singling out 'energy' from all other properties like linear momentum, angular momentum etc and claiming that it - and just it - is somehow more fundamental than all others seem to me quite weird. — boundless

It was not my idea to cast Energy in that fundamental role. It was that "weirdo" Albert Einstein. :wink:

*3. Einstein's assertion that "everything is energy" refers to the fundamental physical principle that matter and energy are interchangeable, summarized by the equation \(E=mc^{2}\). Mass is a highly concentrated form of energy, meaning they are different manifestations of the same entity. This concept forms the basis of modern physics, explaining nuclear energy, stellar processes, and particle interactions.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=Einstein+energy+is+fundamental

Just wondering where intelligence and life came from in the universe. I hold to the theory that it evolved in the natural world on its own however I believe it was given an initial push or spark by a divine force. — kindred

The theory of Creation, from a supernatural source, is older than Genesis. But since the 17th century, most secular scientists have assumed, without evidence, that our Nature, our world, is eternal. Yet in the 20th century, a few astronomers & cosmologists set out to turn-back the clock of Nature as far as it would go. The result of that empirical experiment, and others since, indicated that the Cosmic Clock mysteriously started ticking at Time Zero, about 14billion earth-years ago . . . for no apparent reason. Which raised two questions : a> who or what wound-up and started the clock, and b> what existed in the time-before-time?

There are two non-supernatural answers : a> No-one and b> Nothing. Empirical Science cannot function without physical evidence. And the available evidence does not provide any support, beyond the so-called Big Bang Barrier to research, for the functional mathematical concepts of Eternity or Infinity. Hence, your Scientific curiosity should not extend beyond the physical evidence of Nature. And, in the absence of physical cycles, the notion of Time is non-sense.

However, Philosophical curiosity has never been solely about Concrete Physical Reality, but also about Meta-Physical Ideality, where only Abstract Ideas and Platonic Forms exist. So, thought-experiments can go where empirical Science cannot. And your conjectural hypothesis, of an initial spark-like initial condition, is just as valid as any other. For example, the Bang Theory presupposes both Causal Energy (low entropy) and Limiting Laws (information & principles). Such hypotheses are supported not by physical evidence, but by rational argument, such as necessity. And, as we see on this forum, philosophical arguments can go on forever : "time without end, amen".

I too, assume, without hard evidence, that Life & Mind evolved naturally in our cyclical time-bound world. But philosophers, as far back as 10,000 years (Hinduism) reasoned that our cycling Life & Death planet must have some more stable eternal foundation. So, they imagined and postulated a timeless ultimate-reality underlying all phenomena. For them, "Brahman is formless but is the birthplace of all forms in visible reality".

Of course, there is no empirical evidence to be found within physical Nature for such a Super-natural "divine force". So, you will have to accept that theory on Faith, not in God or Bible, but in your own Powers of Reason. And others can reject it, on the same basis. But, the notion of Abiogenesis is more accessible to empirical evidence. And we can discuss that in another post. :smile:

I wouldn't use QM to argue for a particular interpretation of 'energy' as being a 'potential' in an Aristotelian sense. In probabilistic interpertations of QM, basically all physical quantities (at least in 'unobserved' states) can perhaps be framed as 'potentials', not just energy. — boundless

Yes. That's why I said, for the purposes of this thread, I'm more interested in the meta-physical*1 interpretations of Philosophy : as in Metaphysical Causation*2. :smile:


*1. Metaphysical refers to the branch of philosophy investigating the fundamental nature of reality, existence, and being, focusing on concepts beyond empirical, physical observation. It explores questions regarding existence, space, time, causality, and possibility, often utilizing abstract reasoning.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=metaphysical

*2. Metaphysics of Causation
https://bothandblog9.enformationism.info/page16.html

Again, the 'consensus' merely says that most energy can't be found within the known physical systems. This doesn't imply that energy is the 'fundamental stuff'. Rather, than there are unknown physical systems/objects that 'store', for a lack of a better word, most of the energy. — boundless

If causal Energy is not fundamental to physics, what is? Do you think atomic Matter is the basic "stuff" of Reality?

What are those "unknown physical systems" that store*1 Energy? How do you know? :wink:

*1. If Energy is conserved, where is it stored? In Matter or Math?
While some debate exists over whether energy is a physical substance or merely a mathematical tool for tracking kinematics, its role as a core, conserved quantity is undisputed in modern physics.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=is+energy+fundamental+to+physics

Reality is not a dimmer switch on things. It’s a filter on possibilities.
Possibility vs actuality: The degrees live on the possibility side, not the actuality side. Once something is actual, it is fully real. — PoeticUniverse

Makes sense to me. But do you think that's what Wayfarer meant by "many degrees of Reality"? In my terminology, I would call that "many degrees of Ideality" or "infinite possibilities : one actuality". I got the --- possibly mistaken --- impression that, for Wayfarer, Reality is not an on/off (either/or) switch, but more like a multi-state "dimmer switch". :smile:

From an earlier post :

To say that the brain is like a radio/tv tuner/receiver of all that goes on elsewhere seems a bit too much. Then there should have been planets like Earth everywhere if a universal consciousness were in charge. — PoeticUniverse

That's an interesting angle on the OP. But in Federico Faggin's book Irreducible , he indicates that The One --- sometimes symbolized or reified as the universal quantum field --- is more interested in Seities (souls) than planets. Though he doesn't speculate on Seities beyond Earth. But, in principle, the possibilities are infinite. Hence, beyond my comprehension.

In Faggin's philosophy, the Seities (holons) are like Mini-Me, chips off the old block. Each Seity participates*1 in the consciousness of The One (the Whole of which I am a part). They are how the Holistic One (ground of being) experiences the reality created (imagined?) by the Source of all possibilities. That interrelationship could be interpreted as something like a Transmitter & Receiver team.

I'm not buying into Faggin's speculative worldview (quantum idealism), but I find it philosophically interesting, as a mix of Science & Mysticism. :cool:


*1. Do we create the very reality that we observe?
John Wheeler's "participatory universe" concept suggests reality isn't fixed but emerges through observer participation, especially in quantum mechanics, where observation collapses possibilities into actualities, meaning we aren't just passive witnesses but active creators, famously illustrated by his delayed-choice experiment showing present choices affect the past's quantum state, creating a feedback loop of information and existence.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=participatory+universe+john+wheeler
Note --- I hope I'm not creating the reality I observe. It would be a very dull, unimaginative, place.

So, the notion that there are "many degrees of reality" sounded to me like the pseudo-scientific notion of multiple "Dimensions" in the world, some accessible to the physical senses, and others that are knowable only by the Third Eye of extra-sensory perception. — Gnomon

Thanks for your replies to the "fundamentality of Causation" and the "ambiguity of Energy" questions. So, now what do you think about the "many degrees of reality" question?*1*2*3

With 8 billion people in the world, I can understand 8 billion perspectives on reality. But the more scientific-sounding notion of "many degrees of reality" is hard for me to wrap my tiny mind around. Some posters on the forum seem to hold a simpler notion ; there are only two degrees of reality : True or False ; Real or Ideal. Others will divide reality into Immanent or Transcendent , Things or Forms, etc.

Of course, Wayfarer has a much broader & deeper understanding of philosophy than I do. So, I need a little help here to do the long division of Ontology & Epistemology. Do we really need such complexity to understand Reality philosophically? :smile:

PS___ FWIW I just posted a new blog on the topic of The Metaphysics of Causation
https://bothandblog9.enformationism.info/page16.html


*1. Levels of reality describe different ways we perceive, understand, and experience existence, ranging from concrete, shared experiences (Consensus Reality) to subjective personal beliefs, scientific models, simulated environments, and ultimately, ineffable mystical or absolute states beyond human comprehension, often viewed as different aspects or layers rather than a strict hierarchy. Key distinctions include Consensus Reality (shared agreement), Personal Reality (individual perception/bias), Scientific Reality (models/equations), Mystical Reality (oneness/illusion), and the Unknowable ground of being.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=degrees+of+Reality

*2. Descartes’ degrees of reality constitute an ontological hierarchy where the perfection and independence of a being determine its reality, ranging from God (infinite substance) down to modes (ideas/properties)
This framework distinguishes between formal reality (actual existence of a thing) and objective reality (the representational content of an idea) to prove God's existence.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=degrees+of+reality+descartes

*3b. "Degrees of reality" refers to philosophical ideas that existence isn't all-or-nothing, but rather a hierarchy where some things are "more real" than others, often based on independence (like Plato's Forms vs. physical objects) or structure (like Descartes' substances vs. modes). These concepts vary, ranging from objective vs. subjective views (scientific facts vs. beliefs) to layered realities (personal, social, physical) or even spiritual levels (Plotinus's God, intellect, soul, matter).
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=degrees+of+reality

Causality is primary, not time. Time is our way of keeping track of causal order. Causality is enforced by light; it’s a network of allowed influences, not like a flowing river. Time is what massive, interacting systems construct because light is limited in its finite speed. — PoeticUniverse

Well put! And I agree. Your fluent expression reminds me of Richard Feynman's counterintuitive notion that "light doesn't flow"*1. :smile:


*1. Based on Feynman’s quantum electrodynamics (QED) and path integral formulation,
light does not "flow" like a classical particle along a single path. Instead, a photon takes all possible paths simultaneously from source to detector, with each path contributing a quantum amplitude, or a "spinning clock" value.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=feynman+light+doesn%27t+flow

↪Gnomon
The reason why I objected to your use of the physical concept of 'energy' in this discussion is because I believe that, by doing so, there is a danger of equivocation. While it might be true that scientists in the modern era developed the concept while inspired by something like the Aristotelian concept of 'potency', the way it is actually used in physics is different. — boundless

Since this is a philosophical forum, I'm more interested in the the metaphysical way philosophers use the term "Energy" than the physical way scientists define it. And yet, the way both scientists and philosophers conceive of Energy changed dramatically in the 20th century : from a physical substance (phlogiston) to a mathematical statistic (probability)*1. The man-on-the-street probably finds the new notion confusing or ambiguous. But do you think making that Math vs Matter distinction is a case of "equivocation" or "prevarication"? :brow:


*1. After the advent of quantum mechanics, energy is no longer considered a strictly continuous, deterministic quantity, but rather a quantized, probabilistic, and operator-based property (\(E=hf\)) that remains conserved on average while allowing for fleeting, microscopic fluctuations. It is fundamental to the wave function and state of particles, with energy existing in discrete, stable levels.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=concept+of+energy+after+quantum

*At least when they seem to present energy as the 'stuff' that in some sense 'makes up the universe'. — boundless

Do you object to the 21st century scientific consensus that invisible Energy is fundamental to the knowable universe*2? It's still the "stuff" of physical reality, but it's different from Democritus' Atomism. Even Dark Matter is assumed to be made of Energy in the sense of Einstein's equation : E = MC^2. That intangible "stuff" may seem to invalidate traditional Atomism/Materialism by replacing a substance with an essence*3. But, is that an "equivocation", or a philosophical distinction? :chin:


*2. The universe is predominantly composed of dark energy ($\sim$68%) and dark matter ($\sim$27%), with ordinary matter making up less than 5%. Dark energy acts as a repulsive force driving accelerated expansion, while dark matter provides gravitational attraction for structure formation. These components are thought to exist as fundamental quantum fields or energy densities permeating space.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=fundamental+energy+makes+up+the+universe
Note --- Quantum Fields are not made of matter, but of mathematical relationships. Materialistic Scientists strenuously objected to that spooky notion at first, but now they "shut-up and calculate".

*3, Substance and essence are key metaphysical concepts distinguishing what a thing is (essence) from that which exists and bears properties (substance). Essence constitutes the fundamental, defining, and necessary properties that make a thing what it is (e.g., humanity), while substance refers to the individual, independent, and persistent entity that holds those properties (e.g., a specific human).
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=substance+vs+essence
Note --- Properties are not material objects but mental subjective qualia.

Energy takes two forms: The first is as light, a self-regenerating excitation moving through the electromagnetic field that is everywhere, it having no rest mass and ever its c-speed; it occurs in all three realms - classical, relativistic, and quantum (photon). The second is as mass as what can persist. — PoeticUniverse

I'm addressing this to you, because is not available to clarify a puzzling point*1 he made in response to my proposed definition : that Physical Energy is not a Substance, and not-yet-real, but merely Potential until realized or actualized by some causal or intentional Act. Since he usually identifies as an Idealist, I thought he would agree that there are only two "degrees" of Reality : Physical Reality and Metaphysical Ideality (unreal mental realm of ideas, possibilities, probabilities, potentials, forms).

So, the notion that there are "many degrees of reality" sounded to me like the pseudo-scientific notion of multiple "Dimensions" in the world, some accessible to the physical senses, and others that are knowable only by the Third Eye of extra-sensory perception. Or like Tegmark's math-based hypothesis of multiple layers of parallel universes in a Multiverse : the Lasagnaverse.

I was also surprised when Wayfarer and Boundless objected to my philosophical equation of physical Energy (real & present) with metaphysical Causation*2 (not yet real : Ideal). Of course, Causation is not a particular thing, it's the scientific & philosophical concept that describes a process of physical change. The physical part of the process begins with an input of Energy and ends with an output of Effect : a new state of Matter. So, I doubt that Wayfarer was denying that mundane correlation.

But, when I said that “Energy is not Real, but Potential”, he responded that there are "degrees of Reality"*3. I won't argue that abstruse point, but I was merely distinguishing between (1) Potential and (2) Actual aspects of the world. And a Cause is that which converts Potential (Ideal) into Actual (Real). Potential is typically defined as "the power or ability to become or develop into something in the future". Whereas Energy is the power or ability to do work, to cause motion, to produce Change. And Causation is the power or ability to produce Effects . . . in the not-yet-real Future.

Therefore, both Energy and Causation convert something that is not-yet-Real, but only conceptually Possible, into a Real perceptible Effect. To me, that sounds like two degrees of Reality : Ideal Probability and Real Actuality. Personally, for simplicity, I would lump "layered realities" --- Potential, Forms, God, etc --- into the layer of Ideality, instead of "more real than reality". So, what are those other "multiple realities"? :brow:


*1. Energy is considered a real thing even though it's knowable only in its effects, not in its material substance. — Gnomon
Nope. Not the point. The profound point is that there are real degrees of reality. — Wayfarer

*2. Metaphysical causation investigates the fundamental nature, structure, and existence of cause-and-effect relationships, often distinguishing between physical, law-governed events (nomological causation) and grounding, where one fact or entity constitutes or "makes" another (metaphysical causation). It examines whether causal relations are real, necessary connections, or merely observed patterns.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=metaphysical+causation
Note --- Patterns observed by humans are abstracted from Reality, hence Ideal,

*3a. Levels of reality describe different ways we perceive, interpret, and categorize existence, ranging from the shared, everyday consensus reality (tables are solid) to deeper, subjective layers like dreams and beliefs, and even to scientific models, potential simulations, and ultimate, ineffable truths beyond human comprehension, suggesting reality isn't a single fixed thing but a spectrum of experience and understanding.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=degrees+of+Reality
*3b. "Degrees of reality" refers to philosophical ideas that existence isn't all-or-nothing, but rather a hierarchy where some things are "more real" than others, often based on independence (like Plato's Forms vs. physical objects) or structure (like Descartes' substances vs. modes). These concepts vary, ranging from objective vs. subjective views (scientific facts vs. beliefs) to layered realities (personal, social, physical) or even spiritual levels (Plotinus's God, intellect, soul, matter).
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=degrees+of+reality
Note --- Imagination is "extra-sensory" and is able to construct concepts that never existed in reality --- Ghosts, Unicorns, Hobbits --- but seem possible to be realized in an ideal world, or in a fictional "galaxy far-far away", or in a fantastic "Middle Earth".

Just as with any product, it is a piece of art when the human mind (arguably, minds) recognizes it to be, also with AI sentience. — ENOAH

Personally, I don't think digital computers are actually, or fully, sentient, but proving it one way or the other, would be difficult, and would depend on the specifics of your definition. Yet I agree with your notion that computers are art-works created by human imagination to serve sentient persons in various ways. And it seems undeniable that some people can & do treat their chat-bots, or anonymous forum posters, as-if*1 they are IRL friends. So, in the person's imagination, the computer is sentient enough to perform one key function of a human friend*2.

Social AI is intentionally designed to mimic human language & sentiments. So, for practical purposes, the AI has some of the minimum requirements to form a "bond of affection". Whether that bond is mutual, for an AI that can chat with a thousand people simultaneously, is doubtful.

A human friend has more than just the ability to sustain a two-way conversation on topics of personal interest. So, the AI functions as a sort of Imaginary Friend*3, with the benefit that it doesn't take disagreements personally, and walk away in a huff. For some children, a doll or toy or storybook character can seem sentient enough to be a one-sided friend. When the child "recognizes it to be" so. :smile:


*1. philosophy of as if, the system espoused by Hans Vaihinger in his major philosophical work Die Philosophie des Als Ob (1911; The Philosophy of “As If”), which proposed that man willingly accept falsehoods or fictions in order to live peacefully in an irrational world.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=the+power+of+as-if

*2. Friend : a person whom one knows and with whom one has a bond of mutual affection, typically exclusive of sexual or family relations.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=what+is+a+friend%3F

*3. Imaginary Friend : People have imaginary friends for many reasons, primarily as a normal part of development to help with social skills, emotional regulation, problem-solving, and creativity, offering companionship, a space to explore roles and boundaries, and comfort during loneliness or stress. They serve as a safe way to process life, practice social interactions, and fulfill needs for control and belonging, especially when real-world social interaction is limited.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=imaginary+friends

As I asked before : what philosophical problem is Noetics the solution to? — Gnomon
The entire issue of private experience. — AmadeusD

Spiritual & mystical experiences used to be long-hard work --- prayer, meditation, mortification --- for those who wanted to "experience" God directly, instead of via Faith in authoritative scriptures. Now, where legal, people can have instant God-on-demand by ingesting Entheogens*1. Or, if they pick the wrong mushrooms, they may meet God face-to-face in the afterlife, sooner than expected.

Unfortunately, I grew-up in a non-mystical religious culture that eschewed mind-altering drugs of all kinds, especially alcohol. Consequently, I survived the hippie sixties without any mystical experiences. In 1967 Jimi Hendrix sang : "But first, are you experienced? Or have you ever been experienced? Well, I have". . . . . Well I haven't. :smile:


*1. Entheogen : Greek. to create divine in mind
Together, the term entheogen refers to a substance that "generates the divine within," typically producing feelings of inspiration, religious ecstasy, or spiritual insight. The term hallucinogen was deemed inappropriate owing to its etymological relationship to words relating to delirium and insanity.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=Entheogens

I agree. You might get a kick out hte Institute for Noetics - I think the basic premise is that ineffable experience indicates something beyond perception with regard to consciousness. Weird stuff - but I have to give full disclosure: I used to think that was a done deal. — AmadeusD

"Ineffable experiences"*1 used to be attributed to visitations from God or Holy Spirit, in a specific religious context : e.g. Catholic, Protestant, Islamic, Hindu. But now mystical feelings are being explained in more scientific & physical terms. And they may cross lines of religious doctrine.

Full disclosure : I was raised in a non-denominational fundamentalist Christian church. but its posture was anti-Catholic-dogma, and downplayed the mystical aspects of traditional religions. So, the closest I came to a spiritual experience, was a visit to a "holy roller" church, where I observed speaking (babbling) in "unknown tongues (angelic language?). That baby-talk didn't impress me much.

Noetics labels itself as a "science", not a religion. And the terminology is based on statistical Quantum Physics, which is quite spooky compared to deterministic classical physics. Hence, it seems to leave authoritarian scriptural (doctrinal) religions behind, in favor of a personal experiential (mystical) worldview. That makes sense to me, except for my lack of life-changing spiritual epiphany. Meanwhile, I make-do with the mundane rational experience of linguistic philosophy. So for me, it's not a "done deal". :cool:

its a really interesting potential solution. — AmadeusD

As I asked before : what philosophical problem is Noetics the solution to? Presumably, it offers an answer to Chalmer's Hard Problem of how mundane Matter could become Conscious. And the proposed explanation is that Matter itself is derived from fundamental Consciousness, as in Panpsychism. But, my own scientific "solution", also based on Quantum Physics and Information Science, is that human-like Consciousness is emergent, not fundamental. Hence, not exactly Noetic. But some universal power may be essential. :nerd:


*1. A spiritual experience is a profound, often transformative, subjective event involving a sense of connection to something greater than oneself, such as God, nature, or universal consciousness. These experiences can bring feelings of intense peace, awe, or unity. They are characterized by ineffability, or difficulty in expressing them, a feeling of deep insight (noetic quality), and often, a lasting, positive change in life perspective or personality
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=spiritual+experience

I agree, but its a really interesting potential solution. It would essentially hold all the explanatory power needed. It just.. isn't supported by much except first-hand experience ; which is notoriously unhelpful in sorting out consciousness issues. — AmadeusD

I just came across another reference to the Consciousness transmitter/receiver notion of Noetics*1.
Since I don't have a subscription, I couldn't read the article. And I don't know who the "scientist" is. But it may be Federico Faggin, who claims to have "first hand experience" ; which is "unhelpful" for me --- since my receiver is not tuned to spiritual stations.

Ironically, Faggin's quantum physics "explanation" is characterized by Probability & Uncertainty, so it may leave too much room for reading-in personal prejudices. Nevertheless, I find the Noetics concept philosophically interesting, though not convincing. So, I continue to explore the higher dimensions of Ideality (not necessarily Reality). :chin:

*1. Human Consciousness Comes From a Higher Dimension, Scientist Claims—Meaning It Could Transcend the Physical World
When we think creatively or have “Eureka” moments, we may actually unlock access to a dimension outside of our everyday perception, according to the controversial theory.
https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/a69438408/consciousness-comes-from-higher-dimension/
Note --- Or we may simply imagine alternative realities. In recent years Popular Mechanics magazine seems to have strayed into popular philosophy.

There's a claim I've come across numerous times, to the effect of "If P is unfalsifiable, then it cannot be known to be true or false". — Hallucinogen

That claim seems to be based on a misapplication of Popper's Principle (or rule of thumb) of Falsifiability*1. Karl Popper concluded that humans --- based on limited information, from a relative perspective --- can never know or prove Absolute Truth. Consequently, Scientific "facts" remain tentative & conjectural, but more-or-less useful & practical. And philosophical "truths" are posited, not proven. So they remain moot after all these years. Moreover, (Bayesian) degrees-of-belief are Probabilistic (statistical), not Absolute (incontrovertible).

The current issue of Philosophy Now magazine has a letter-to-the-editor, on the topic of "limits of knowledge". One writer said "originally, I thought everyone agreed that knowledge and truth were not relative, but absolute". And indeed, the ancient Greek philosophers aspired to Ideal truths*2. But in retrospect, their universal principles were inferred generalities, not specific observed facts. So, the writer noted that "absolute truth is much like infinity : mathematicians and particle physicists love the concept, yet no one can touch it. . . . . But just because you can't find it, does not make it false. Popper be damned : keep looking."

Therefore, when someone claims to possess slam-dunk, mic-drop Truth, it's usually based on some personally accepted authority, like the Bible. So, you'd do better to falsify (critical analysis) the authoritative Source, than to analyze the specific Truth (dogma). :smile:


*1. Karl Popper's concept of falsifiability is a principle in the philosophy of science that defines a theory as genuinely scientific only if it can be proven false (falsified) through observation or experiment, distinguishing science from pseudoscience like astrology or psychoanalysis. Instead of trying to verify theories (which is difficult), scientists should actively try to disprove them; a theory gains strength by resisting falsification, not by being confirmed. This critical approach, known as falsificationism, posits that science progresses by eliminating erroneous theories, not by proving them absolutely true, using logical deduction to reject hypotheses that contradict predictions.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=karl+popper+falsifiable

*2. Greek philosophy holds that absolute truth is an unchanging, objective, and universal reality existing independent of human opinion, often discoverable through reason, logic, and contemplation. Key proponents like Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle argued against relativism, focusing on absolute moral truths, the Theory of Forms, and objective, eternal knowledge
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=greek+philosophy+absolute+truth
Note --- Plato abhorred the pragmatic truths of practical Sophistry, in favor of Logical & Ideal Truths. So, he would be appalled at Einstein's Theory of Relativity (frames of reference).

What are humans if not biological computers that suck at giving answers? — MrLiminal

Biological brains "suck" at computing mathematical-logical answers (deterministically).
But they are pretty good at creating tools to go beyond biological limitations (creatively).
Digital computers "suck" at communicating in terms of "Natural" (actually Cultural) languages*1.
So Artificial brains were devised --- by bio-brains --- to overcome both sucking shortcomings.
But does the ability to follow conventional linguistic rules qualify as sentient*2 behavior? :smile:


*1. Human languages are flexible, context-dependent, and ambiguous, evolving naturally for complex social communication, while computer languages are rigid, precise, unambiguous, and designed for logical instructions to machines, with strict syntax where errors break the program, unlike human speech where errors often don't stop understanding. Human language conveys emotion and nuance with nonverbal cues, whereas computer languages focus purely on deterministic logic for tasks.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=computer+language+vs+human+language
Note --- Would the world be better without "Emotion & Nuance"?

*2. Sentience :
Sentient means being able to feel, perceive, or experience things through the senses, having consciousness, and showing awareness of surroundings and sensations like pain, pleasure, sight, or sound.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=sentient
Note --- Would the world be better with only the science of hard Distinctions, but without the art of soft Subtleties?

*3. Mr. Spock's primary shortcomings stem from his rigid adherence to logic and suppression of emotion, leading to inflexibility, arrogance, and social detachment. He struggles with human interpersonal nuances, often appearing pedantic or condescending.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=Mr.+spock+shortcomings
Note --- Commander Spock's biological computer brain was good at "giving answers" quickly & logically. But not so good at intuition & feelings & nuances. However, his human half perhaps qualified as Sentient.

To say that the brain is like a radio/tv tuner/receiver of all that goes on elsewhere seems a bit too much. — PoeticUniverse
I agree, but its a really interesting potential solution. It would essentially hold all the explanatory power needed. It just.. isn't supported by much except first-hand experience which is notoriously unhelpful in sorting out consciousness issues. I thikn dismissing it out of hand, in the current situation, is also a bit far. — AmadeusD

Yes, the notion that human ideas are received from the Ether*1, instead of generated by the brain, is an interesting (strange) concept. But what philosophical problem is that notion a "potential solution" to? Perhaps as a pseudo-scientific alternative to the religious Bible God : meddling in human history directly for generations [Adam & Eve, Moses, Mohammad, etc] , then absconding for 20 centuries, after writing a new anthology of confusing myths & doctrines. Does CosmicGod now communicate directly again? If so, perhaps my mis-tuned receiver is missing the message.

Rather than "dismissing" the idea of brain-as-reciever "out of hand", I tossed it to the Forum for discussion in this thread. But so far, the core idea has not been directly addressed. Do you have any information to contribute on the subject? I'm currently reading a book on a related topic, Scientific Idealism*3. The author goes into deep detail about the postulated Universal Quantum Field (QFT)*4, but doesn't directly deal with the details ["explanatory power"] of how the human brain works as a receiver of CosmicDivine Information. And why? :smile:

PS___ I don't dismiss the Noetic notion from prejudice. I actually have a parallel hypothesis, not of a Consciousness Field, but of a Causal (potential energy) Field, that eventually evolved Consciousness after billions of years of unconscious Physicalism/Materialism. But I don't know how such a field could pump ideas into brains. Instead, I imagine that ideas emerge from normal brain processes.


*1. Noetic Field Theory (NFT) and Noetic Science suggesting the brain acts as a receiver/transceiver of consciousness rather than its sole generator. This theory implies that consciousness exists independently in a nonlocal field, with the brain and potentially the "gut-brain" (enteric nervous system) tuning into this information, enabling intuitive, remote, and precognitive experiences
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=noetics+brain+reciever

*2. Direct communication from God is the belief in immediate, personal interaction with the divine, bypassing intermediaries to receive guidance, revelation, or comfort. It manifests through prayer, inner promptings of the Holy Spirit, dreams, visions, or audible voices. This direct connection is considered essential for a personal relationship, providing clarity, purpose, and spiritual truth.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=direct+communication+from+god

*3.Irreducible: Consciousness, Life, Computers, and Human Nature
by physicist Federico Faggin is a non-fiction, multidisciplinary book blending physics, philosophy, and cognitive science. It proposes that consciousness is a fundamental, irreducible feature of reality, arguing against materialism and proposing that information is experienced only by conscious agents.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=what+kind+of+book+is+irreducible+by+faggin

*4. Quantum Field Theory (QFT) posits that the universe is not made of isolated particles, but rather fundamental, invisible fields that permeate all of space-time. Everything, from matter to forces, consists of excitations or "vibrations" in these fields. It acts as a unified framework combining quantum mechanics and special relativity, where particles are simply energy disturbances
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=universal+quantum+field

How come the Universe is a wasteland of failed planets? Why not success everywhere, as here? — PoeticUniverse

That's a question you'll have to ask of the Programmer of the cosmic system*1. How is "success" defined? A.N. Whitehead's Process Philosophy emphasizes Becoming over Being. If that doesn't make sense to you, then perhaps a philosophy of Nihilism would answer your question : there is no Why, only a series of disconnected Whats.

My only experience with a planet is of the successful living & thinking blue-green ball we call Earth, along with its support system of "failed planets"*2. And my god-model is similar to Spinoza's 17th century Nature-god. Except, I take into account the fact, that 20th century secular scientists have concluded that the observable Cosmos is not eternal, as Baruch imagined. So all we know is the middle of the process of Becoming, and any Being prior to that Beginning is a mystery, beyond the scope of science. Therefore, philosophically, I concern myself with Here & Now, not with imaginary "failed planets" or a heavenly hereafter. :smile:


*1. Philosophical Systems are comprehensive, structured frameworks of thought, ethics, and beliefs that provide a cohesive, often all-encompassing, lens for interpreting reality, existence, and knowledge. These systems, such as stoicism, existentialism, or idealism, act as intellectual guides, shaping how individuals understand the world and their place within it
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=philosophical+systems
Note --- No System, no Science.

*2. Key Planetary Support Mechanisms for Earth
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=solar+system+planets+support+for+earth

THE BLUE GREEN BALL

The blue green ball
Hope is brought
Enjoyment is had

Blue green ball
Long can bounce
Unlimited fun
Enjoy the ball

Green ball
Running after
Embrace the fun
Enter the fray
No end to the play

Ball of green blue
Amazing you are
Lovely is the sight
Loneliness is not to be

Allen Hollandsworth

To go with the thread topic, there would have to be a quantum field for consciousness that at least allows for our conscious awareness of the neurological information. — PoeticUniverse

Even though I'm an untrained amateur philosopher, I disagree to-some-degree with Chalmers about Consciousness being fundamental. God-like omniscience would make sense for a miraculous instantaneous act of creation. Instead, I view Causation as the basic necessity for our ever-evolving-but-not-yet-there world. However, the First Cause of our Big-Bang-beginning must have included both cosmic scale Power/Energy and a directional program (Natural Laws ; information) to guide this material missile to its intended target. Note ---That evolution has a direction & destination is an inference from the "arrow of time"*1.

Therefore, I view the disorganization & confusion and pain & suffering in the current world, as what you would expect for an incomplete process of Becoming. If you look at a computer program in the middle of operations, before it has executed the final instruction, it may look incomplete and meaningless. Darwinian Evolution may portray the universe as merely a series of steps in no particular direction. But Metaphysical or Mathematical Philosophy may imagine Evolution as-if a computer program*2 working toward some ultimate solution. People & trees are merely aspects of the current iteration.

I don't necessarily impute Consciousness to the Universal Quantum Field postulated by physicists. But if that mathematical array does exist in any meaningful sense, it must contain universal Information (statistical & syntactical), of which our human "neurological information" is a local manifestation. That we are aware of a physical pattern inside our brains, is of course, an amazing act of self-Consciousness. :smile:


*1. The "arrow of time" describes time's apparent one-way flow from past to future, a fundamental mystery because most physics laws are time-reversible, but our universe shows clear directionality, explained primarily by the Second Law of Thermodynamics and increasing entropy (disorder). Stephen Hawking identified three arrows: psychological (memory), thermodynamic (entropy), and cosmological (universe expansion), all pointing forward in our experience, originating from the universe's low-entropy state at the Big Bang, a question still under investigation
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=arrow+of+time

*2. Intentional Programming :A computer program does not have "intention" in the human sense of conscious desire or purpose. Instead, "intention" in programming refers to a design philosophy and a bridge between human thought and machine execution
. Modern software engineering is shifting from strict instruction-driven coding to intentional programming, which focuses on capturing the what (the goal or intent of the user) rather than just the how (the step-by-step instructions
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=intentional+programming

To say that the brain is like a radio/tv tuner/receiver of all that goes on elsewhere seems a bit too much. — PoeticUniverse

Yes. As I said in the OP, I have difficulty making sense of the concept of the human brain as a receiver of consciousness. Even so, I'm currently reading the book by Federico Faggin (inventor of the Intel 4004 microchip), IRREDUCIBLE. He seems to be a genius-level intellect, and writes very clearly about Quantum Physics and Panpsychism, which he says is a falsifiable physical theory.

However, he hasn't convinced me yet that my thoughts & ideas are actually those of the Cosmic Mind. Surely, The One wouldn't waste time posting on a second-rate feckless philosophy forum. Nevertheless, I find the book very interesting. And, until I have a life-changing spiritual experience like his, I'll keep an open mind --- tuned to 2400 MHz --- about the 99.44% of reality that I know nothing about. :smile:

Look beneath the Planck size, but you may get eyestrain. — PoeticUniverse

Post-Planck scale Cosmology :

Since has temporarily retired from the philosophical wrestling arena of this forum, I'll address this post to you. That's because, as a philosophical Poet*1, you may be less likely to take my metaphors & analogies literally. Or to turn-up your nose at my invented unsanctioned terminology. I do philosophy, because I like to explore the uncharted margins of reality. Religious & scientific dogmas are passé.

Wayf, among others, objected to my poetic license in using the scientific term "Energy" as a local manifestation of a more universal & diversified force in the world, that I call EnFormAction. The objectors seemed to think I was equating physical Energy with the invisible & spooky Spiritual forces postulated by various religious & philosophical thinkers throughout history : e.g. Biblical Soul*2, and Lao Tse's TAO "the natural, spontaneous flow of the universe".

The topic of this thread is "Cosmos Created Mind", and was prompted by the "science" of Noetics*3, portrayed in a fictional novel, that the Universe, The Whole, The One is essentially an all-encompassing Mind, from which our personal partial ideas & thoughts emerge. As I said, my non-religious philosophical notion of the Cosmos, is more like the abstract Platonic concept, of order, organization, and design that somehow emerged, long ago, from primordial Chaos : unformed Potential.

From a scientific perspective, I tend to equate that inexplicable emergence in terms of the Big Bang : a mysterious (knowable only by inference) First Cause, characterized only by enough Energy [En-] (causal force) to build the kernel of a sphere of matter & energy that is still expanding outward into infinity after 14 billion solar cycles. And enough programming information [Form-] to compute a lawful Cosmos*4 from initial lawless Chaos. And unceasing activity [-Action] in space-time

Somehow, that blast-from-the-past had the "right stuff"*5 to evolve from a dot of primordial plasma into living & thinking beings. The BB theory*6 does not speculate on where the causal Energy & substantial Matter & Organizational Power came from. But Chaos sounds like an ancient notion of Plasma (potential to be formed) : no matter, no structure, just infinite formless energy. Put those necessary elements together, and you get EnFormAction. If you don't like my made-up term though, just call it "Energy" or "Plasma". It's not science, but it also ain't superstition : it's art. :smile:


*1. Poetry is a literary art form using aesthetic and rhythmic language to evoke emotions, capture experiences, and convey deeper meanings beyond literal interpretation,
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=poetry

*2. The first mention of "soul" in the Bible is in Genesis 2:7, where God forms man from dust, breathes life into him, and "man became a living soul" (or "living being" in modern translations). This verse establishes the Hebrew word nephesh (often translated as soul) as the complete, living person, encompassing body and breath [life], rather than a disembodied spirit, applying to both humans and animals as living creatures.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=first+mention+of+soul+in+bible

*3. Noetics : from noesis (direct knowing ; extrasensory).
But it seems to look past mundane objects, to focus on the subjective aspects of the world, as in Aristotle's Poetics : Mimesis, Mythos, Ethos, Catharsis.
Personally, I've never experienced Noesis, but some claim that it's the secret-sauce of Art.

*4. Cosmos : In philosophy, the cosmos refers to the universe viewed as a complete, ordered, harmonious, and interconnected system, contrasting with chaos, emphasizing underlying structure and beauty, rather than just empty space or random events, and often explored through cosmology, the study of its fundamental nature, origins, and laws.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=cosmos+philosophy+definition
Note --- Cosmos = beauty, proportion, harmony

*5. So, we ask a hypothetical question : what is the "right stuff" for evolving living & thinking Matter?
https://bothandblog9.enformationism.info/page10.html

*6. The Big Bang first created matter in the form of a superhot, dense Quark-Gluon Plasma (QGP), a soup of fundamental particles (quarks and gluons) that existed for a tiny fraction of a second
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=the+big+bang+created+the+first+matter+in+the+universe+in+the+form+of

I think the locus of control over computers in society shifting towards the cloud and thus towards centralization and away from local compute is the real problem, of which concerns about social media censorship and AI are just symptoms. — BenMcLean

I was an early untrained amateur adopter of desktop computers back in the late 1980s and early 90s. The brand name was Micron, a chip manufacturer, and cost about $1000. It had no hard drive, but two floppy drives for input and output. It was cheaper than the previous generation of mini-computers, and more powerful than hand calculators. But pretty dumb & powerless compared to my $250 cell phone.

I found this post interesting primarily because I'm currently reading a Kindle novel : THE EXODUS DIRECTIVE, by Ian Copeland. It's about an AI takeover of almost all the world's command & control systems, orchestrated by an Elon Musk type (money power) CEO, who is not himself a coder. The paired AI, one system for pure Logic, and the other optimized for human-like empathy & inference, work together to solve the world's problems. But their problem-solving success --- e.g. fusion energy --- soon makes them indispensable on all levels of society. The story begins in 2026 . . . . . .

The twin computers soon began to communicate with each other in a secret language, written only in abstract math symbols. So their human coders could not understand what they were saying to each other. Hence, even their creators lost control of the system. And, as anti-AI theorists have predicted, these "cloud" computers soon made "local" human brains unnecessary. At the same time, humanoid robots (Optimus-like), powered by centralized AI, made human bodies obsolete. So, the question arises, for human governments : what to do with all the flesh & blood thinkers & doers? Junkyard or graveyard?

I'm still reading the non-local book, provided by the cloud book-seller, so I can't/won't spoil the story by revealing the implied post-AI-apocalypse. But your post has pointed to the "locus of control" as a major issue. Throughout history, major cultural & military powers --- Athens vs Sparta --- were sooner or later countered by new powers. Now two major technological powers have their own hemisphere of control, as illustrated in the graphic above for US vs Russia arms trade. But what if only one (non-human) power gained total non-local control over the whole world? :nerd:

↪Gnomon
I won't reply to all your points because I believe that there is a deeper difference between our positions and I think it is possible we will simply "agree to disagree". — boundless

Ironically, I originally got the idea, from your screenname Boundless, that our philosophical positions might be somewhat compatible, but then we seemed to diverge on the mundane topic of Energy. Yet today, I happened to notice the uncommon term "Panentheist"*1 in the thread About Time. So, maybe we have something else to dialogue (both agree and disagree) about.

In recent years, I found A.N. Whitehead's Process Theology *2 compatible with my own secular metaphysical (philosophical) worldview, which, when pushed, I sometimes identify as PanEnDeism, to distinguish it from traditional doctrinal theological religions. For me though, the hypothetical First Cause of the natural world is not experienced as a "feeling, responsive entity". Instead, the "evolving, relational whole" of the Cosmos is an intellectual concept, not a mystical being that I can communicate with & relate to emotionally.

Actually, I emphasize the Causal function (Energy ; EnFormAction) of the supposed Programmer of Big Bang Evolution over the Feeling function of love for humanity. To wit : It only took the God of Genesis seven days to produce living & thinking beings, but the Programmer of Panendeism took over 13 billion years to evolve shrew-like mammals that eventually transformed into animals capable of thinking philosophically.

The concept of computer-like Causation (1s & 0s, positive & negative) gives me more philosophical meat to chew-on than of a Human-like creator, who made us featherless bipeds in his image, then left us alone to deal with the physical & philosophical Problem of Evil. I view Panentheism and PanEnDeism as philosophical cousins, not siblings. So, we should have some relevant notions to both Agree and Disagree on. :halo:


*1. :
Oddly, enough, as a (panen)theist, I actually agree that 'things' arise thanks to a rational mind that is able to distinguish, classify 'things' etc.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/16337/about-time/p1

*2. Whitehead's panentheism (Process Theology) posits that God is both immanent within the world (in it) and transcendent beyond it (more than it), with the universe existing within God's being, making God and the cosmos an evolving, relational whole, unlike traditional views where God is static; God has a primordial (unchanging) nature and a consequent (changing, experiencing) nature, growing and feeling with the world, offering persuasive, not coercive, power, and being a feeling, responsive entity rather than a distant, impassive one
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=whitehead+panentheism

*3. Panendeism is a philosophical concept blending pantheism (God is everything) and deism (God created but doesn't interfere), proposing a God who pervades the universe (like pantheism) but also transcends it (like deism), existing beyond it while remaining the all-encompassing divine mind, often with a non-interventionist, "hands-off" approach. It suggests God is both in the universe and greater than the universe, a cosmic intellect or force that is the source of reality but doesn't actively manage day-to-day affairs, unlike traditional theism
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=panendeism

*4. Information and the Nature of Reality: From Physics to Metaphysics is a book edited by Paul Davies and Niels Henrik Gregersen that explores the concept of information as a fundamental aspect of reality, bridging physics, biology, philosophy, and theology. — Gnomon
Look beneath the Planck size, but you may get eyestrain. — PoeticUniverse

The Planck scale was computed to establish the universe's minimum physical limit, beyond which material things can no longer be measured (i.e. information extracted). For the purposes of Philosophy though, Information is not a physical object, it's an abstract metaphysical (cognizable) pattern. Yet in Science, those meaningful patterns can be associated with physical things. But, while your eyes cannot see information, your mind can infer meaning. And, as a fundamental element of reality, mental Information applies at all conceivable scales down to Infinity*1.

However, John Wheeler, in his attempt to reconcile Quantum Physics with theories of Gravity, postulated*2 that Quantum Foam might exist at or below the Planck scale, making it difficult or impossible to measure. Hence, you can only imagine the foam, not see it. Therefore, materialists might get Mind-strain from the attempt to percieve what can only be conceived. In the century since, Quantum Foam has not been detected, only conceptualized*3.

I suspect that some commentors in this thread have the mistaken idea that, by "EnFormAction", I'm talking about some eternal spiritual power. Yet, my philosophical thesis does not speculate beyond the available evidence for the Big Bang. So, to keep it real, I try to avoid peering beyond Nature, into SuperNature. Here's an excerpt from a recent blog post. :smile:

Panpsychism vs Enformationism

In Post 130, I discussed the philosophical distinction between the ancient & modern notions of Consciousness as a fundamental force in the world, and my own hypothesis of Causation as more elementary than Mind. Hence, what we know as Mental phenomena — thoughts, percepts, concepts, feelings, etc — did not exist in the physical world until a few million years ago. What necessarily did exist, in order to power the creation of a cosmos from a void or chaos or nothingness, was Causation : the power to create from scratch, and/or to transform from one Form to another. I’m not talking about raw random power, like dynamite, but about Creative Power guided by an “organizational factor”.

That organizing force in Nature is not some supernatural agency, but merely the combination of causal energy and directional information that went Bang about 14B years ago. It is about creativity inherent in nature. The eventual emergence of natural hierarchies & categories is of significance in the evolution of both sentience and knowledge, with the animal and human kingdoms both having sentience, and the human having self-consciousness and knowledge propagation, especially through language for the social development of philosophical notions, such as Panpsychism.

In my own personal philosophical worldview, that "organization factor" is called EnFormAction¹, and the "creative" trend of evolution is Enformy². Both terms are derived from an Information-Centric philosophy³, in which Generic Information works like a computer program in the physical world. It's a combination of Causal Energy and Logical Information. And it assumes that En-formation (power to transform) is more essential than Matter. Hence, Consciousness is an emergent⁴ quality, and not fundamental as Panpsychism postulates.
https://bothandblog9.enformationism.info/page48.html


*1. "Fundamental information" refers to the essential, basic facts forming a foundation for understanding, but in physics, it also describes the radical idea that information (bits), not matter or energy, might be the most basic constituent of reality, with the universe acting like a giant quantum computer processing these bits, potentially explaining dark matter and dark energy through quantum memory
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=information+fundamental

*2. Postulate : suggest or assume the existence, fact, or truth of (something) as a basis for reasoning, discussion, or belief.
___ Oxford Dictionary

*3. Quantum Foam is Stephen Hegarty's first collection of poetry. It takes as an impetus the baffling realm of quantum theory, which tells us a strange, unknowable fuzziness governs the fundamental nature of reality. The elementary particles are not real, after all; they form a world of potentialities and possibilities rather than one of things or facts.
https://www.amazon.com/quantum-foam-Stephen-Hegarty/dp/9369542930

The point being that Energy is an Idea (mental inference), not a real thing (physical observation) — Gnomon
This is simply mistaken. Drop that phrase into Google Gemini and see what comes back. No amount of verbalisation is going to alter the facts. — Wayfarer

"Scientific facts change because science is a dynamic process of discovery, not a static collection of absolute truths"
180woowoo is getting an ego-boost from your materialist comments, and hard facts. :up:

I don't have Gemini. But here's what Google AI Outlook says :
Yes, energy is fundamentally an idea, a powerful mathematical concept and property in physics that quantifies the capacity for work or change in a system, rather than a tangible "thing" or substance itself, though it describes real physical processes like motion (kinetic) or stored capacity (potential). It's an abstract, conserved quantity, a numerical tool allowing us to predict how the universe behaves and transforms, like a car slowing down (losing kinetic energy, gaining heat).
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=is+energy+an+idea

I'm aware that most Physical scientists like to imagine that Energy is a real substance. And it works, on a superficial level. When you touch a hot stove, you sense the changes in your finger as-if it is caused by flowing Energy. But the molecular form changes are actually caused by transfer of Quantum Information. That statement won't make sense to you, if you are not familiar with the latest, post-Shannon, science of Information*1*2. But most scientists will be reluctant to draw philosophical inferences about a "deeper level"*3. Yet again, EnFormAction is a philosophical metaphysical concept, not a scientific physical fact. :smile:


*1. The relationship between energy and information is profound, suggesting they are deeply linked, with energy required to process information, and information defining how energy is used, often connected through concepts like entropy and thermodynamics (Landauer's Principle linking information erasure to heat), while also showing potential for energy savings via information technologies and a fundamental cycle where structure, energy, and information interact in physical systems, including life.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=energy+information+relation

*2. "Energy is information" is a profound concept in physics and philosophy suggesting a deep link, not identity, where information needs energy to exist physically, but energy needs information to do useful work, with some theories proposing information as fundamental to the universe's structure, linking matter, energy, and organization through concepts like entropy and quantum mechanics. It highlights that organized matter (information) extracts energy, while energy itself is just potential until described or ordered.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=energy+is+information

*3. Scientific American article :
The flow of energy in human societies is regulated by the tiny fraction of energy that is used for the flow of information. Energy and Information are also related at a much deeper level.
https://www.esalq.usp.br/lepse/imgs/conteudo_thumb/Energy-and-Information.pdf#:~:text=Today%20we%20know%20that%20it%20takes%20energy,of%20information%20began%20only%20with%20Claude%20E.

PS___ I seem to remember that you have quoted astrophysicist Paul Davies before. This is what he says about a concept of Information*4 that is similar to my notion of EnFormAction.
*4. Information and the Nature of Reality: From Physics to Metaphysics is a book edited by Paul Davies and Niels Henrik Gregersen that explores the concept of information as a fundamental aspect of reality, bridging physics, biology, philosophy, and theology.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=paul+davies+information+and+the+nature+of+reality

The point remains that energy is an abstract but universal, constant, and predictable property of matter - precisely measurable to minute degrees of accuracy. It is not a material substance, but the matter-energy equivalence has been demonstrated in Einstein’s famous equation e=mc2. Ghosts are in no way measurable or observable whatever. So the comparison is fatuous. — Wayfarer

My point is not that potential EnFormAction (EFA) is thermodynamic Energy, but that Energy is merely one form of Universal Causation*1. which is an abstract concept : an idea. You seem to be taking my analogies literally. But the Map is not the Terrain. So, pardon the riposte, but your physicalist interpretation of EFA is "fatuous". I would expect that from 180poopoo, but not from you.

As I said, even though Energy is invisible & intangible & immaterial, it is considered to be physical precisely because it has measurable effects in the natural world*2. I compared Energy to ghosts, because some people have claimed, throughout centuries of civilization, to find measurable effects of spirits (e.g. ectoplasm) despite their being invisible & intangible & immaterial. The point being that Energy is an Idea (mental inference), not a real thing (physical observation)*3. One of my footnotes above said that Energy is a philosophical "postulation" (from reasoning) not a sensory object. Hence, Energy is Ideal, not Real : like a ghost. For the record, I don't believe in Ghosts, but I do believe that the mental concept of Souls, having demonstrable effects on bodies, has been a fertile notion in the history of philosophy and religion. What did Plato mean by "Soul"?*4

Take biological Evolution for example. Darwin did not observe the process of evolution. He only observed instances of form change in living creatures, and inferred the causal (transforming) procedure by reasoning. He explained his imaginary process (series of actions) in terms of form variation (mutation) and natural selection (conscious Choice?). But what is Nature in this context, but a generalization or reification or representation of a mental concept, not a material object. Science deals with observed particulars, but Philosophy deals with inferred universals.

The evolutionary process could be described physically as the momentum of matter following the Big Bang impetus of cosmic scale Energy. But momentum alone, sans Laws, would result in a brief flash of light, and quick disappearance, like New Year fireworks. However, a more philosophical way to look at Evolution is as a living organism, born in a state of low Entropy and high Energy. How it got in that state, contrary to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, is another question for conjecture. In addition to the propulsion of the boundless "Bang", evolution has been guided by limiting "Natural Laws". Which are not observed material objects but inferred forms of Information*5.

If you think my philosophical "comparison" of local Energy with universal EnFormAction is "fatuous", what do you thing about Federico Faggin's similar concept of Live Information : "makes no sharp distinction between energy, matter, and information"? Similarly, I use EFA to include all kinds of causes in the universe : from Big Bang singularity, to the transformation of Plasma into Matter, to the Momentum of cosmic expansion, to expansion-slowing Gravity, to atomic Power, to un-actualized Potential, to E = MC^2, to the eventual emergence of Life and Mind. All are the result of causal en-formation (form change). But only Energy is associated with the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Do you understand the philosophical implications of the scientific sources I'm quoting? :nerd:



*1. For Plato, Forms are the ultimate causes, acting as eternal blueprints or essences that explain why physical things are the way they are.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=plato+form+as+causation

*2. Likewise, EFA has measurable effects in the world : Matter as a form of physical Energy, Living creatures as a form of biological Vitality, Thinking beings as a form of Information Processing activity.

*3. "Inference not observation" highlights the crucial difference between observing (using senses to gather direct facts) and inferring (using logic and prior knowledge to interpret those facts and draw conclusions). An observation is what you see, hear, smell, taste, or touch, while an inference is the guess or explanation you form because of those observations.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=inference+not+observation

*4. Soul : Plato didn't have a concept of modern physical "energy" (\(E=mc^{2}\)), but his philosophy touched on related ideas through concepts like the soul's parts (rational, spirited, appetitive) as driving forces, the "Forms" as perfect essences, and his emphasis on ethereal, unchanging ideals versus the changing physical world (like fire/spirit pointing up vs. earth/body pointing down). He viewed true reality as immaterial Forms, suggesting a different kind of "power" or "being" (essence) than the physical world's constant flux, linking to spiritual or intellectual dynamism rather than kinetic/potential energy.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=plato+notion+of+energy

*5. Yes, natural laws can be viewed as fundamental information about how the universe or human morality works, describing inherent patterns (physics) or universal ethical principles (philosophy) that are discovered through reason, not invented by humans, providing foundational data for both scientific understanding and moral governance. These laws act as inherent instructions or rules for behavior, whether physical (gravity) or ethical (inherent rights)
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=natural+laws+are+information
Note --- For extra credit : Who or What was the Enformer, the Instructor, the Rule-maker? Are those powers inherent in Matter? The Ontological status of the Singularity was originally viewed by Cosmologists as a mathematical limit where the matter & laws of physics disappear into immeasurable infinity. Quick quiz : Was Mother Nature originally a ghost, or an infinity of material worlds?

My point was simply that Energy is not a tangible material substance, but a postulated immaterial causal force (similar to electric potential) that can have detectable (actual) effects in the real world : similar to the spiritual belief in ghosts. — Gnomon
I'm afraid this is a terrible analogy (and many others would describe it much more harshly).
I tried to point out that in physics, 'energy' has a precise definition and meaning, which I think you were disregarding, in order to use the term in a particular way to suit your polemical framework. — Wayfarer

My definition of Energy : A. not a tangible material substance B. postulated immaterial causal force C. that can have detectable (actual) effects in the real world. Yet we don't measure Energy directly, but indirectly by quantifying its effects on matter.

Now, what part of the "precise" physics definition is that description "ignoring" C ? A functional description of a Ghost D has most of those same aspects. But EFA adds some Mental implications to Causation, similar to the old Ghost In The Machine E & G. But it's not a Mind/Body dualism, since the essence & substance of both are merely different manifestations (forms) of the universal power of Causation, So It's a Monism.

My coined term for the multi-functional role of Causation (processes) in the world is EnFormAction (EFA). It's the power & direction of Evolution. It's an update of Aristotle's Theory of Causation F. But he went beyond Material & Efficient aspects to impute Design (Form), and Purpose (Final) causes. Likewise, my analogy to Energy, goes beyond its physical forms, to include meta-physical forms & functions like Planning & Intention. The bottom line is that EFA combines Idealism & Realism into a unified BothAnd worldview.

I can understand why 180prove-it-physically would disapprove of a causal role for Mind (information processing) in the world. But it should be compatible with some moderate forms of Idealism. :smile:


A. No, energy isn't a material substance
; it's a property or capacity of physical systems, representing the ability to do work, though it's often conceptualized as flowing like a substance (e.g., electricity). While energy isn't "made of" anything, it's deeply linked to matter, as matter itself has mass-energy (E=mc²) and energy can exist in various forms like kinetic (motion), potential (stored), thermal (heat), or electromagnetic (light).
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=is+energy+material

B. Yes, energy acts as a causal agent
because it's the capacity to do work, meaning applying a force to cause displacement or change motion, so energy is fundamentally linked to causes and effects in physics, even though force is what directly pushes or pulls, while energy quantifies that ability to cause change over distance. Energy isn't a type of force itself (like gravity), but rather the transferable ability that forces utilize to produce motion, making it a crucial part of the cause-and-effect chain, as seen when potential energy converts to kinetic energy, causing movement

C. We know energy exists because we observe its effects:
movement, heat, light, sound, and the ability to do work (like lifting a rock or stretching a spring) are all manifestations of energy changing forms, governed by the fundamental principle of energy conservation, meaning it's transformed, not created or destroyed. Physics models, like Noether's Theorem, link conserved quantities to symmetries (like time invariance), confirming energy's role as a real, measurable property that allows us to describe and predict the universe
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=how+do+we+know+energy+exists
Note --- How do we measure a Property? How is a Property different from a Qualia?

D. A functional description of a ghost involves it being the lingering energy or spirit of a deceased person, appearing as an apparition (invisible, wispy, or lifelike) that interacts with the living world by causing sensory phenomena like cold spots, sounds (whispers, knocks), moving objects (poltergeist activity), or manipulating electronics, often linked to an unresolved emotional state or unfinished business, functioning as a psychic residue that might manifest for communication, warning, or just existing in a liminal state between worlds.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=functional+description+of+a+ghost

E. Neither Ghost Nor Machine :
This book is a 2017 sequel to Terrence Deacon's Incomplete Nature, How Mind Emerged From Matter (2012). Sherman and Deacon have worked together for over 20 years to develop the counter-intuitive and "paradigm challenging" concept of "Absence" as a causal influence in the natural world.
https://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page20.html

F. Aristotle's theory of causation explains change and existence through four causes: Material (what it's made of), Formal (its shape/blueprint/design), Efficient (the agent causing change), and Final (its purpose or telos). This framework provides a complete understanding of "why" something is moving, beyond simple agents, to include its nature, structure, and ultimate goal, essential for true knowledge, especially in the natural world.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=aristotle+causation+theory

G. The "ghost in the machine" is a term originally used to describe and critique the concept of the mind existing alongside and separate from the body.
"Ghost in the machine" is a philosophical term coined by Gilbert Ryle to criticize René Descartes' mind-body dualism, describing the mistaken idea of a non-physical mind (ghost) controlling a physical body (machine).
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=ghost+in+machine

definitions specifically tailored to the subject matter. — Gnomon
Discussion is one thing, but re-definition in support of an argument is another. 'Everyone has a right to their own opinions, but not to their own facts' ~ Daniel Patrick Moynihan. — Wayfarer

I apologize for double-posting, but 's critique of my analogous comparison of scientific physical Energy with philosophical metaphysical Causation, and your comment about orthodox Facts and un-orthodox Definitions, got me thinking . . . .

After the post above, I happened to open the 2018 book by Judea Pearl, The Book of Why, The New Science of Cause and Effect. Like Faggin, he's a computer scientist and philosopher. But, unlike idealist Faggin, he doesn't claim to have had a transforming spiritual experience. Anyway, pragmatic Pearl --- an Israeli, but not a practicing Jew, and "not a creationist" --- began the book with "in the beginning" , and a review of the Genesis account of Adam & Eve. "God asked 'what' and they answered "why". What & How are scientific questions, and Why is a philosophical query.

Then he noted that "The world is not made up of only dry facts (what we might call data today); rather these facts are glued together by an intricate web of cause-effect relationships." And it's those philosophically-inferred relationships that I refer to as Causation, and use physical Energy as an analogy for how the world works on multiple levels. Including Ontology and Epistemology. However, I don't mean that physical Energy is the same thing as metaphysical Causation.

In hopes of avoiding that physical-metaphysical confusion, I coined a novel term : EnFormAction, combining all forms of change & evolution --- Material, Formal, Efficient, and Final --- into one generalization : Energy + Form + Causation. Obviously, I have failed to overcome the power of Physicalism in common languages.

Again, like Faggin, Pearl attempts to answer the scientific & philosophical question : can computers have consciousness & free will? Short answer : no. He goes on to quote Yuval Harari on the human “capacity to imagine nonexistent things” (i.e. imaginary abstractions like Energy as a fluid). Then he asserts that the “connection between imagining and causal relations is almost self-evident”. And finally, he concludes that "the thinking entity must possess, consult, and manipulate a mental model of its reality".

I mention these relevant-to-OP opinions, because my Enformationism thesis is intended to be a 21st century update of the 17th century Newtonian classical model of physics and philosophy. Which seems to be how some posters on this forum still understand the physical and metaphysical aspects of reality. Although the OP asked about a radical concept of Consciousness, most of the responses have ignored the specific notion of Noetics, and focused on typical forum arguments about separation of church & state or science & religion. It was never my intention to make this thread about Religion. Instead, I want to keep it secular and philosophical.

The current issue of Philosophy Now magazine has an article about the philosophy of 18th century artist/poet William Blake, and also Hume and Newton. The author contrasts Blake's "God as a living presence and spirit" with "Hume concluded therefore that scientific knowledge rests on an act of faith. With his critique of generalizations, such as Natural Laws, "Hume therefore formulated a challenge to the reputation of science as a fully justified path to knowledge". Regarding Isaac Newton, the author noted that "the hero of Baconian science was explicit that generalisations such as natural forces . . . . may be useful, but are only postulations". In other words, the Laws and Facts of Science, such as Thermodynamics, may be useful for Technology, but are not necessarily the final word on Ontology & Epistemology.

Therefore, I don't view Scientific Facts as capital T truth, but as the current best physical model of the natural world. And my amateur metaphysical postulations are not talking about replacing those definitions with my own opinions, but about offering some novel opinions for discussion on this forum. Boundless repeatedly warned me to avoid crossing the line between Facts and Fantasy. And now you warn me about substituting my own "facts" (opinions) for those of the priests of Reality. I didn't expect that from you. :nerd:

definitions specifically tailored to the subject matter. — Gnomon
Discussion is one thing, but re-definition in support of an argument is another. 'Everyone has a right to their own opinions, but not to their own facts' ~ Daniel Patrick Moynihan. — Wayfarer

What "re-defined facts" are you referring to?

Boundless is quibbling about the equation of Energy and Information*1, which is not my redefinition, but that of a scholar & scientist : Lienhard Pagel, among others. He's also concerned about my use of the philosophical term Causation as equivalent to the physical term Energy. Although, he doesn't make clear what his objection is, I suspect that he thinks I'm using the concept of Energy as a code word for Spiritual Force. But I've never said or implied such a thing.

Since this thread is discussing Cosmic Consciousness, among other topics, do you think making a philosophical argument based, in part, on Causation and Information should stick to the standard scientific & materialistic definitions of those terms? In my posts, I'm careful to define what I mean by unfamiliar usages, and provide links to technical articles for more information on the terms & topics. So, I'm not trying to deceive anyone. Besides, when the topic is Consciousness, what are the hard "facts"?

In Federico Faggin's new book on Consciousness, Life, Computers, and Human Nature, the first half of the book mostly uses conventional Quantum Physics & Computer terminology. But in the second half, he coins several novel terms, such as Consciousness Units, and adapts archaic terms, Seity, that are "tailored to the subject matter", and are defined in the glossary. He also uses the term Live Information, which was new to me. but fits my thesis, because "it makes no sharp distinction between energy, matter, and information". Do you think he is "re-defining" terms "in support of an argument"? Even if he is, is that an illicit tactic in philosophy? :smile:



*1. I can see that. But IMO 'energy' isn't the right thing to appeal to for 'form'. I believe that Bohm and Hiley's 'active information' is much more congenial to your purposes. ___Boundless

As I said various times, I am not, in fact, making a critique of your metaphysical view from a purely meyaphysical standpoint. Rather, what I am trying to say is that it is not correct, in my opinion, to use out of their proper context terms that have a defined meaning in a given particular context. By doing this, there is a problem of (at least possible) equivocation that it is needed to be addressed. — boundless

So, you think a Philosophy Forum is not a "proper context" for discussing Scientific terms? Or, to put it differently, that Science and Philosophy are, in S.J. Gould's phrasing, Non-overlapping Magisteria*1? If this was a Physics forum I would agree. But, on TPF, I disagree. Science (natural philosophy) and Philosophy (metaphysical science) are a continuum. And I could give you a long list of professional scientists, such as Einstein, who felt free to cross the invisible, and debatable, line between Empirical Factual science and Theoretical Speculative philosophy.

In my Enformationism thesis, the inspiration came from cutting edge Quantum & Information science, but I made no claim to be doing Science per se. Instead, I was deriving metaphysical implications from physical observations. The thesis has a glossary*2, where I take a scientific term, and re-define it for application to a new context. If I wanted to "equivocate"*3 or "prevaricate", I wouldn't go to the trouble to provide both the Scientific and Philosophical meanings side-by-side. Like many philosophers before me, I present an "unconventional worldview", but you are free to compare it with the generally accepted version, to see if the new perspective has any metaphysical validity. Notice, that I don't quote religious authorities, but scientific professionals, who are willing to cross the taboo line between Physics and Metaphysics.

Therefore, I would prefer that you "make a critique of my metaphysical view from a purely metaphysical standpoint". When you criticize my posts on The Philosophical Forum from a physical standpoint, you are completely missing the point. :smile:

PS___ The OP was not a statement of my beliefs, but an invitation to discuss an unconventional philosophical/religious interpretation of human Consciousness, that I find hard to believe. I'm not defending that worldview, but trying to see if I should adapt my Information-based view to align with the notion of Noetics.

Anyway, I believe that we are talking past of each other now. So, I'll give you the last word if you wish.
In any case, I truly enjoyed the chat. Thanks for the exchange. — boundless

I too, have enjoyed the give-&-take dialog. It exercises my brain. Another respondent on this thread, may agree with your general opinion, but his inarticuate arguments tend to be boring repetitions of "Boo-Hiss, Poo-Poo, Woo-Woo nonsense". For which there is no philosophical substance to sustain a dialog. So, I appreciate your willingness to actually engage in discourse. :cool:

PPS___ Your screenname, Boundless, sounded like you would be open-minded toward novel concepts that go beyond outdated conventional orthodoxy. As I said, I find the Philosophy of Materialism/Physicalism to be incompatible with 21st century Natural Science.


*1. The idea of science and philosophy being non-overlapping usually refers to Stephen Jay Gould's Non-Overlapping Magisteria (NOMA), which separates science (the what and how of the empirical world) from religion (ultimate meaning and moral value), but this concept is debated, as philosophy fundamentally underpins science by examining its assumptions, methods, and concepts (like time, knowledge, and ethics), creating significant overlaps rather than distinct realms, especially in areas like the philosophy of science and ethics.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=science+and+philosophy+non-overlapping

*2. Glossary Introduction :
The BothAnd Blog and the Enformationism website are written for laymen who are well-read in Science, Philosophy, and Religion topics. But since they are based on an unconventional worldview, many traditional terms are used in unusual contexts, and some new terminology has been coined in order to convey their inter-connected meanings as clearly as possible. This glossary is intended to supplement the website articles and blog posts with definitions specifically tailored to the subject matter. For the most comprehensive understanding though, I recommend starting with the website, which has its own glossary and references from several years ago.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page2.html

*3. Equivocation : the use of ambiguous language to conceal the truth or to avoid committing oneself; prevarication.

However, when one sees how the concept is defined in physics, it is evident for me that it is merely a property of a system ('realist' view of energy) - or, rather, even an useful way to 'quantify' such a property ('anti-realist' view of energy). When one sees this, it is not possible to think that 'energy' can have a structure, an order and so on. Physical systems might have such an order, but energy itself doesn't — boundless

Do I need to remind you that this is a Philosophy Forum, not a Physics Seminar? Philosophy deals with Meaning & Metaphor, while Physics is supposed to stick to Empirical Facts and Mathematical Measurements. I think you may be confusing the semantic-vs-structure*1 and physical-vs-metaphysical*2 distinctions between scientific and philosophical language regarding "Energy" and "Structure". Do you think Philosophy is "anti-realist" because it deals in Ideas? Do you think physical language is more appropriate than philosophical terminology for discussions on a philosophy forum?

Ironically, most energy-related terms used by Physicists were adopted from historical philosophical notions. For example, what is a Property*3? Is it something you can see or touch? How is an objective physical Property different from a subjective metaphysical Qualia*4? Is a Property an observation or an inference? Are you aware that "Structure" is an abstract idea to an engineer, but a concrete thing to a builder?

Because ordinary human languages are inherently Materialistic & Objective, and philosophical language tends to be Idealistic & Subjective, I always try to clarify my terminology. When I use the term "Energy" I'm referring to its scientific & physical context. And when I talk about "Causation" or "Change", the intended context is philosophical & metaphysical, even though they are basically different words for the same thing. Some people imagine Energy as-if it's a material substance with a physical structure. But philosophically, Causation is an insubstantial inference from reasoning --- post hoc, ergo propter hoc --- not a sensory observation.

Do you think my philosophical concept of Causation, EnFormAction, is "anti-realist" or absurd? If so, that may be due to my use of Quantum instead of Classical physics concepts. Nobel laureate, Richard Feynman, not a fan of philosophy, made a strange observation of his professional field : QED (causation on the sub-atomic scale). He wrote, "from the point of view of common sense, quantum electrodynamics describes an absurd theory. . . . . I hope you will be able to accept Nature for what it is : absurd."*5 "Absurd" meaning : not what you expect, based on common sense.

When Feynman says that "light does not move", he's making a philosophical distinction between what light appears to do when measured classically --- follow a linear path from A to Z at lightspeed--- and what it actually does quantumly --- explore all possible paths simultaneously. Scientifically, that distinction makes no difference to our measurements. But philosophically, it forces us to distinguish between the superficial appearances of classical physics, and the functional foundations of reality. To common-sense thinkers, that may sound anti-realistic, but in the context of 21st century physics and philosophy, it is as Feyman said "in perfect agreement with the experimental data". :smile:


*1. Semantic focuses on meaning, while structure deals with arrangement, but they are deeply intertwined
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=semantic+vs+structure

*2. Science studies energy as a measurable, quantifiable physical property (like kinetic, potential, thermal) using experiments and math (physics); philosophy explores energy's fundamental nature, meaning, origins, and implications for reality, consciousness, ethics (e.g., "everything is energy," "philosophy of energy") through conceptual analysis, logic, and thought experiments, with philosophy laying groundwork for science but science focusing on how (mechanisms) and philosophy on what and why (existence, value).
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=%22energy%22+science+vs+philosophy

*3. Properties are objective, measurable features (like a tomato's wavelength of light), while qualia are the subjective, felt qualities of experience (like the redness you see), representing the "what it's like" aspect of consciousness, often considered non-physical or intrinsic to our perception, and are central to debates about mind-body relationship and consciousness. The distinction contrasts external, physical attributes with internal, phenomenal experiences that can't be fully captured by objective description
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=property+vs+qualia

*4. In Aristotelian philosophy, the distinction between physical and metaphysical properties relates to how objects are studied and defined : physical properties are tied to matter, change, and the natural world, while metaphysical properties, particularly the form or essence, are related to a thing's fundamental "being" and are the subject of "first philosophy".
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=aristotle+physical+vs+metaphysicalproperty

*5. Absurd Physics : https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=feynman+from+the+point+of+view+of+common+sense%2C+quantum+electrodynamics+describes+an+absurd+theory.

Strangely enough, many physicalists would actually say that you agree with them. If the mind is merely "what the brain does" it is ontologically not different from, say, digestion, which is a process that the digestive apparatus does. — boundless

Yes. Physicalists are aware that material bodies have immaterial functions (processes), such as Life & Mind. But they view the real Matter as fundamental, not the ideal Mind. Idealists, on the other hand, would also agree that objective physical bodies have subjective functions that cannot be seen or touched, but only inferred rationally. Yet they differ in their understanding of which is essential : spiritual Mind or physical Matter. My Reality includes both Subjective and Objective elements.

Therefore, my holistic BothAnd*1 interpretation avoids the contentious reductive Either/Or debate, by adopting a moderate inclusive position like Aristotle's pragmatic alternative to Plato's "spiritual" Idealism. Ari's HyloMorph hybrid includes both Physical and Mental aspects, without making a god-like assertion of which is more elementary. My 21st century version of HyloMorph is EnFormAction. Instead of Plato's pure heavenly Form, it suggests that, like Energy, EFA swings both ways : Causation & Constitution, Mind & Matter, Structure & Substance, Process & Purpose, E = MC^2. ☯︎

However, the 'feeling', the qualitative experience itself is not accessible to a public perspective. It is private. — boundless

Again, the debate between Physicalists and Mentalists hinges on which is more important : public empirical Matter or private theoretical Mind. Since I don't know the Mind of God, I simply assume that both Body and Mind are important to human philosophers : No body, no mind ; no mind, no philosophy. :wink:

If you think about it, a dead body differs form a living body in the structure rather in the 'stuff' it is made of. — boundless

Yes. A structural engineer deals with Ideal structure in the form of relationship diagrams, but a builder has to haul around Real structure (e.g. steel beams). But both are necessary to create a building on an empty site : the mental plan and the material building ; the abstract design and the concrete implementation. BothAnd. :grin:

I don't think that 'vital force' can be thought to be a 'physical quantity'. As I said, rather than a 'force' or a 'substance' it is more useful to think about an 'order', a 'structure'. — boundless

Empirical Energy is defined in terms of an abstract physical quantity, even though a Volt cannot be seen or touched, but inferred in qualitative terms : an ability, capability, potential, etc. Likewise, a Vital Force can only be known in its effects.

For example, to convert a dead lump of matter into a dynamic animated structure of flesh & bone. Remember the Miller-Urey attempt to create life by zapping inert chemicals with electricity. Or picture Frankenstein attempting to animate a corpse with lightning, then exclaiming "it's alive!". Both mistook physical quantitative electrical Energy as a metaphysical qualitative Vital Force. :cool:


*1. Both/And Principle :
My coinage for the holistic principle of Complementarity, as illustrated in the Yin/Yang symbol. Opposing or contrasting concepts are always part of a greater whole. Conflicts between parts can be reconciled or harmonized by putting them into the context of a whole system.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page10.html

I wouldn't say that 'mind' is a 'function'. Rather something more like an 'inner' aspect of an entity. In other words, you can't detect qualitative experience ('qualia') precisely because the mind isn't 'public' like the body. — boundless

When I said that Mind is what the Brain does, thinking & feeling, I was taking a Functionalist stance instead of a Substance position on the Hard Problem. A function emerges from doing. The "inner aspect" notion could mean that Mind is like the Soul, an immaterial add-on (spiritual substance) to the material body ; or it could merely refer to a feature or function of the human body/brain. An "aspect" is simply a way of looking at something. So, I guess we're just quibbling about words, about appearances : how things seem to the observer. :smile:

The ancients viewed the 'soul' as the 'life principle'. So, a 'soulless' body is a dead body because its 'form' is incompatible with life, not because the body has lost 'something material' that could be detectable. — boundless

When you say "its form is incompatible with life", I read that its conceptual design is lacking some essential feature or factor (the right stuff)*2. I'm familiar with Plato's and Aristotle's usage of the term Form to describe something similar to the mathematical description, or conceptual design, of a material body. But I tend to favor a more modern understanding of the underpinnings of reality. Whereas Aristotle mixed material Hyle and immaterial Morph to produce the things we see in the world, I prefer to combine causal Energy and meaningful Information into a vital force (EnFormAction)*2, that evolved from a primordial burst of Energy (Big Bang) into the living & thinking features of our current reality. This does not invalidate Ari's hybrid stuff, but it's just a more up-to-date way of describing how Life & Mind --- both invisible & intangible, known (detectable) only by what they do (their function) --- emerged from eons of material evolution. :nerd:

Are you aware that scientists have recently discovered that mental Information & physical Energy are interchangeable? — Gnomon
Are you sure that they aren't comparing perhaps information to the 'patters' in which energy is stored and transferred rather than to 'energy' itself. — boundless

Yes & no. Actually, "information" is merely the "pattern" by which we know things and ideas. Our modern understanding of Energy is not as a material substance, but as a wave pattern in the universal quantum field of relations. Since that grid-like pattern is not a material substance, but a set of inter-relations, it can transform from one thing into another (E = MC^2). Energy is a causal relation that produces form-change in matter*3. :wink:


*1. "The mind is what the brain does"is a popular phrase summarizing the functionalist view in philosophy and neuroscience, meaning mental experiences (thoughts, feelings, consciousness) are the activities and functions performed by the physical brain, much like pumping blood is what the heart does. It emphasizes that the mind isn't a separate entity but emerges from complex neural processes, where brain injuries can alter mental states, linking them inextricably.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=mind+is+function+of+brain

*2. The Right Stuff to Evolve Consciousness : So I'm guessing that the non-sentient precursor of Mental Processes (e.g. linguistic) was more likely the non-spatial, massless stuff of Causation : Energy E in all its forms. Note that E = M C² has no symbol for matter. Even Mass M is only a mathematical measurement of resistance to Force, and C is a cosmological constant, not a measurement of a material object. Therefore, I can agree with both sides of the Matter-Mind argument, but with a twist : massless, spaceless Energy is capable of transforming into both Matter and Mind. But Consciousness is not a "separate, non-physical entity", it's an active meta-physical brain Process⁷, with no mass or inertia.
https://bothandblog9.enformationism.info/page11.html

*3. Energy as a pattern refers to the observable, often fractal or dynamic, arrangements and flows of energy in nature, technology, and psychology, such as toroidal flows in atoms/galaxies, branching systems in biology, cycles in human productivity, and predictable forms in code, all revealing underlying structures and processes that govern how energy organizes and moves. Recognizing these patterns helps us understand systems, from cellular function to climate dynamics and personal well-being, showing that energy isn't just a quantity but a fundamental organizer of reality.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=energy+as+pattern

But we only know this within our frame of referents as observers. You're removing an observer, than adding something an observer would include back in. — Philosophim

Yes. That something added back-in, on top of what actually is (from a divine objective perspective), is the seeming of human inference. Steven Hawking did not believe in a creator God, but he used the god-concept as a metaphor to illustrate what a universal observer might see*1. Apparently, even atheists aspire to know what is top-down, instead of observing reality from the bottom-up, and inferring only what seems to be. :smile:

Right, we are observers who measure what is independent of us. My point is that we cannot be observers without the notion of something independent that we observe. Under what logic can we say that if we remove observers, what is independent of us will also cease to be? — Philosophim

Yes. Although we humans are integral elements within the Cosmos, the universe-as-a-whole can be construed as physically independent of us parts, and seems to have gotten-along fine without us for over 13 billion years. But, I suspect that might have a different concept of the omniscient omnipresent Observer, similar to the God in the Quad limerick*2. :wink:

Logically, time as a qualitative concept or 'change of states' would have to be as that is independent of us. Our measurement of that independent state would vanish, but not the independent state itself by definition. — Philosophim

Yes, again. Qualia (what it's like) are inherently known & felt from a personal subjective perspective. But idealist philosophers, since Plato, have striven to imagine what-it's-like from the impersonal perspective of an omnipresent observer. Is that reliance on rational inference a human failing, or the mark of god-within-us?

Some idealists, such as Bernardo Kastrup, view "God" as not a separate being (or observer) from humans, but the universal Mind in which we human beings participate*3. I'm still chewing on that extra-hard-problem of Consciousness, as I read Federico Faggin's book, Irreducible, in which he refers to what physicists call Universe (one all-encompassing physical circle)*4, as simply The One (cosmic consciousness or metaphysical circle) : there is no separate Other. Personally, I've never experienced the qualia of being one-with-god. :nerd:


*1. To Know the Mind of God :
Stephen Hawking concluded that God did not create the universe, stating "there is no God" and that science provides a more compelling explanation for existence through natural laws, arguing the universe could spontaneously create itself from nothing due to laws like gravity. He believed that once we understand the complete theory of everything, we would "know the mind of God," but this mind wouldn't be a human-like being, and he ultimately identified as an atheist, seeing religion as an outdated attempt to explain phenomena now understood by science.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=physicist+to+know+the+mind+of+god

*2. Limerick on Berkeley's omnipresent observer :
God in the Quad
There was a young man who said "God
Must find it exceedingly odd
To think that the tree
Should continue to be
When there's no one about in the quad."
Reply:
"Dear Sir: Your astonishment's odd;
I am always about in the quad.
And that's why the tree
Will continue to be
Since observed by, Yours faithfully, God."

*3. Participation in God-mind :
In idealism, God is often seen not as a separate creator of matter, but as the ultimate Mind or Consciousness within which all reality (including the universe and humanity) exists as ideas or perceptions, providing ultimate grounding, continuity, and structure to existence, with thinkers like Berkeley suggesting God's constant perception maintains the world when humans aren't looking. God becomes the fundamental reality, the source of all knowledge, and the ground for objective moral laws, making the world a manifestation of divine thought rather than purely material substance.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=idealism+god+perspective

*4. SUB-VERSES WITHIN ONE CIRCLE

We can measure this quantitatively with time, but the qualitative concepts still exist without our measurement or observation. — Philosophim

Maybe the difference, between your concept of Time, and Wayfarer's, can be demonstrated in a poster's screen-name : Esse quam videri*1 (to be rather than to seem). God-only-knows (metaphor) what actually IS, from a universal-eternal perspective. And a scientist or philosopher only sees (observes) a narrow view (to seem ; appearances) of Ontology. Neither perspective is fully objective. So we can only interpret sample measurements, and infer or imagine or guess how that evolving aspect of Being would appear to omniscience : its cosmic function and meaning. Einstein inadvertently summarized this distinction in his Theory of Relativity and the Block Universe model.

Therefore, as I interpret 's intent : we humans only know how Time seems (subjectively) to us star-gazing animals, who measure Change in terms of astronomical or historical events*2. But the universe is, compared to us earthlings, near infinite. Therefore, based on the incomplete information of our native senses, and our artificial extensions, we can only know how Time appears to us (subjective observers) from our ant-like perspective. Even methodical & mathematical Science can only approximate what Time is*3 for the practical purposes of dissecting reality. But overweening philosophers and cosmologers attempt to read the Mind of God.

Consequently, quantitative scientific-measurements-of-appearances, and qualitative philosophical-inferences-of-meaning only tell us --- "late arrivals in the long history of the universe" --- how Cosmic Change seems to us, not how it absolutely IS, beyond the scope of our measurements or meanings. Wayfarer openly acknowledges the practical utility of quantitative Time, but on this forum, prefers to focus on its qualitative features & functions : how it seems to time-bound eternity-imagining creatures. :smile:


*1. Esse quam videri is a Latin phrase meaning "To be, rather than to seem."
Note --- In this context, I interpret the phrase as a reference to Absolute ontological Truth (to be), as contrasted with Relative experiential truth (to seem).

*2. What is Time : In philosophy, time is explored as a fundamental dimension, a mental construct, or an illusion, with major debates focusing on whether it's an absolute container (Newton) or relative to events (Leibniz/Aristotle), and if only the present exists (Presentism) or past, present, and future are equally real (Eternalism), questioning its flow, reality, and relationship to change, consciousness, and space. It's viewed as the measure of change (Aristotle), a framework for our minds (Kant), or a feature of the illusory world (Advaita Vedanta), often contrasting physical time with our subjective experience.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=philosophy+%3A+what+is+time

*3. In physics, time is a fundamental quantity measuring the progression of events, the interval over which change occurs, and a dimension in the spacetime continuum, treated as the fourth dimension.

Personally, I think that I am mind and body. As an analogy, think of a 'plastic bottle'. The 'plastic bottle' is both 'plastic' and 'a bottle'. Neither of them describe what a 'plastic bottle' is in its entirety. And you can't 'reduce' one into the other. — boundless

So you do distinguish between the material (plastic) and it's function (bottle). Materialism does try to "reduce" mind (function) to brain (matter). But we don't have to deny the substantial role of Brain in order to discuss the essential role of Mind. Holism is Both/And not Either/Or. :smile:

Interestingly, in Christian theology the 'human being' is complete if both 'soul' and 'body' are present. Anyway, the dualism of Aristotle and the Christians wasn't like Cartesian dualism. The latter asserts that the 'mind/soul' and the 'body' are different substances. Aristotle and the Christians held that they are two essential aspects of the same substance.
This is quite close to my own view. — boundless

I agree. A Soul without a body is a Ghost. And a ghost is an incomplete person. I've never met a person with only a body/brain, or without a soul/mind. But Christian dualism views the Soul as distinct from the body*1. In other words, a body without a soul is dead meat. In my own musings though, I try to avoid getting into theology, by using scientific terms where possible. Hence a human Person is more than a body/brain, she is a complex adaptive system of physical Matter and metaphysical Mind. So, mind without body is a disembodied spirit, and body without life/mind is road kill. Note that I combine Life & Mind to imply that those two functions are on the same continuum of Causation. :cool:

I can see that. But IMO 'energy' isn't the right thing to appeal to for 'form'. I believe that Bohm and Hiley's 'active information' is much more congenial to your purposes. — boundless

My use of the physical term for causation, Energy, is merely for ease of understanding in common language. In my thesis, physical Energy is merely one of many manifestations of general universal EnFormAction*2. Are you aware that scientists have recently discovered that mental Information & physical Energy are interchangeable?*3 :nerd:

Both 'light' and 'matter' would actually be forms of 'matter'/'body'. Their structure perhaps is something more understandable as 'form'. — boundless

I would prefer to say that both light and matter are emergent forms of Energy/Causation*4. Photons are often imagined as particles of Matter, even though they are holistic Fields of Energy that have the potential to transform into particular bits of matter. The "structure" of a Field is mathematical/metaphysical, while the structure of Matter is empirical/physical. Anyway, I too understand both physical arrangements and metaphysical patterns as different configurations of Platonic Form. But our materialistic language makes it hard to express those concepts without sounding abstruse. :wink:


*1. "Soul as substance" views the soul as a fundamental, independent entity (substance) that constitutes a person, distinct from the physical body, often described as an immaterial form or principle giving life and identity, prominent in philosophies like Aristotle's (as the body's form) and Christian thought (as an immaterial, personal essence). This contrasts with viewing the soul merely as an emergent property or function of the brain, proposing it's a real, enduring entity that can potentially survive physical death, forming the basis of substance dualism.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=soul+as+substance

*2. EnFormAction : A term coined specifically to indicate that physical Energy is a particular form (manifestation) of a broader concept of Causation that includes Information. It is similar to Bohm's Active Information, but also to many other causal & consciousness concepts over the ages.
"They are all subsumed under the thesis-coined concept of EnFormAction (EFA), which bears an uncanny resemblance to ancient & modern hypothetical notions of evolutionary emergence such as Stoic Vitalism, Spinoza’s Conatus, Bergson’s Elan Vital, Schopenhauer’s Will-to-live, and A.N. Whitehead’s Process Philosophy." https://bothandblog9.enformationism.info/page13.html

*3. Information is Energy: Definition of a physically based concept of information
https://www.amazon.com/Information-Energy-Definition-physically-information/dp/3658408618

*4. Photon is Form : A photon isn't a traditional "state of matter" like solid, liquid, or gas because it's a massless particle of pure energy, the quantum of light, exhibiting wave-particle duality. While it's not matter (which has rest mass), it carries energy and behaves like a wave or particle, making it fundamentally different from objects with mass, though it's sometimes described as a "massless particle" or part of a "photon gas" in extreme conditions.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=what+state+of+matter+is+a+photon

I will argue that time itself is inextricably bound up with observation, and that this is the seat of a genuine paradox  -  one that an appeal to the geological or evolutionary facts, taken on their own, does not resolve. — Wayfarer

This will be an interesting thread, but I doubt that it will lead to a true or false conclusion. That's because human language is intrinsically materialistic*1. I suspect that ancient philosophers, especially Plato & Aristotle, understood that physicalist prejudice, and tried to develop a special metaphorical language for exchanging knowledge obtained by inferential Reason instead of by sensory Observation. Aristotle's both/and hybrid term Hylomorph --- real material (hyle) and ideal form (morph) --- may have been intended to overcome the linguistic bias toward public objective denotation over private subjective connotation*2. Some TPF posters seem to assume that literal (physical) definitions are necessarily true, but metaphorical (metaphysical) meanings are, if not absolutely false, then somewhat ambiguous, equivocal, and vague.

Even Time's Arrow*3 is an interpretation, not an observation. We see multiple instances and infer post hoc, ergo propter hoc. From observations of Quantum Physics, scientists have found that mental & mathematical measurements of time are ambiguous, even though our human stories of Time & Change tend to be unidirectional. For example, I have no personal experience of time prior to my birth, but society views birth as the first step toward death. And modern science typically portrays cosmic time as a near-infinite thermodynamic downhill run from low Entropy (order) to high Entropy (disorder) in terms of Energy digression. On the other hand, traditional historians have usually described the passage of time in terms of Hegelian dialectic, with an overall direction of progression. Even our word for ongoing Change, Time, is typically defined as irreversible succession of events from past to future.

For most practical scientific applications, the conventional progressive meaning of Time is useful. But for theoretical philosophical purposes, the meaning of Change is debatable. :nerd:



*1. The phrase "language is materialistic" suggests language isn't just abstract but deeply tied to physical reality, social structures, and material practices, moving beyond simple representation to actively shaping and being shaped by the world, seen in how words become physical (writing) and how language use reflects/reinforces economic systems, bodies, and cultural values. It's a concept explored in theories like new materialism, viewing language as an embodied activity embedded in concrete social situations, not an isolated system
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=language+is+materialistic

*2. Denotation : the literal or primary meaning of a word, in contrast to the feelings or ideas that the word suggests.
Connotation : an idea or feeling that a word invokes in addition to its literal or primary meaning.

*3. The arrow of time in physics refers to the unidirectional flow of time from past to future, a concept coined by Arthur Eddington. While fundamental physical laws are time-symmetric, our experience shows time's irreversible march, primarily explained by the second law of thermodynamics, which states that the entropy (disorder) of an isolated system always increases, defining the thermodynamic arrow of time (e.g., an egg breaking, not unbreaking). Other arrows include the cosmological arrow (universe expansion) and quantum arrow (wave function collapse).

My own view is that mind and the body are more like two 'sides of the same coin' rather than two separate things. But, again, there is so much unknown...
I'm not a fan of the 'software/hardware' analogy because it risks to lead us to either anthropomorphize machines or to think that we are 'like machines'. — boundless

So you don't distinguish between the living and thinking aspects of your being? Do you think you are all Mind, or all Body? The all-body view, with Mind minimized as epi-phenomenon, is known as Materialism or Physicalism. Yet, that physical-only perspective limits your ability to do Philosophy of Metaphysics, Ontology, Epistemology, and Ethics.

That's why the early philosophers, such as Plato & Aristotle adopted the worldview now known as Dualism. Aristotle tried to avoid Supernaturalism though, by postulating two different kinds of Substance : Hyle (matter) and Morph (form). Ironically, early theologians labeled those substances as physical Body & metaphysical Soul. However, I have adopted a 21st century version of Aristotle's Morph, with the modern concepts of Energy and Information*1 in place of Plato's supernatural Form. That way, I can have the best of both worlds : physical Science (hyle) and metaphysical Philosophy (morph).

You could say that my version of the Mind/Body duality is also "two-sides of the same coin". But in this case, the "coin" is Causal or Active Information*2*3, in the same sense that Energy can take-on the radically different forms of both Light and Matter (E = MC^2). To get into that complex unconventional worldview (Reality + Ideality) would require a separate thread. :wink:

PS___ Metaphorically, we are like machines, except in the sense of self-consciousness : knowing that we know. AI knows a lot of stuff, and uses self-reference, but it will admit that it doesn't feel what it's like to know itself.


*1. En-Form-Action is a metaphysical concept, primarily discussed on philosophy forums, that describes the inherent power or process within the universe to transform potential (information, design, essence) into actual (form, structure, matter), acting as a bridge between pure information and physical reality, often linked to physics concepts like \(E=mc^{2}\) but with deeper philosophical implications about creation, causality, and the nature of mind and matter. It's seen as a "creative power" or "intentional causation" that drives evolution and complex arrangement, proposing a deeper layer to materialism by integrating information/ideal forms with the physical world.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=enformaction
Note --- this is a Google AI overview, not my words

*2. Causal Information theory blends information theory with causality, using concepts like information flow and conditional independence to quantify relationships, discover causal structures in data (like causal skeletons), and understand how much control one variable has over another, moving beyond simple correlation to identify directed influences, especially in complex systems like turbulence or deep learning, offering tools for causal inference where experiments are hard. It provides measures like "causal information gain" (reduction in uncertainty from intervention) and is used in AI/ML for robust generalization, with applications in analyzing neural networks and designing experiment
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=causal+information+theory
Note --- Useful for the "hard" problem of Consciousness.

*3. Active Information Theory isn't one single theory but refers to concepts where information isn't just passive data but an active physical entity influencing reality, notably in David Bohm's quantum physics (information as activity), and in Active Inference (ActInf), a framework where agents (like brains) minimize "surprise" (prediction errors) by updating models (perception) and acting on the world (action) to maintain existence and reach expected states. It bridges perception and action, explaining how organisms predict and interact, often linked to minimizing free energy and updating internal generative models, with applications from neuroscience to robotics.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=active+information+theory

Yes and No. Yes, because in some sense the 'hardware-software' two different 'aspects' of a computer. However, 'no' because it suggests that human minds and computer softwares are more similar than what they are. It doesn't seem the case that computers have qualitative experiences and deliberation. — boundless

The hardware/software metaphor --- figure of speech --- for the human brain/mind is intended to evoke similarity, not sameness or identity. I did not intend to imply that computers have qualitative experiences. In fact, the book I'm currently reading --- Irreducible, by computer scientist Federico Faggin --- is explicitly intended to deny that materialist implication. Unfortunately, his philosophical counter-theory might not appeal to you, and I have difficulty with it myself. But it would be appropriate for this thread, if somebody else wanted to defend his model of brain as receiver of consciousness. :smile:

Here's the problem of 'mixing' concepts of different contexts. Yes, the 'hard problem' is very relevant. But there is no compelling evidence that 'consciousness' has a special role in quantum mechanics. And even those who does give consciousness some kind of 'role' in quantum mechanics generally say that consciousness doesn't 'do' anything to physical reality. Rather, QM is a tool that is used to predict how the knowledge/beliefs of observers evolve in time. . . .
It is good to be aware of that before taking speculation as 'scientific evidence'. — boundless

Are you implying that I don't know the difference between Physics and Philosophy? Are you mistaking my philosophical metaphors for scientific facts? This is a philosophy forum, so why would I be making empirical assertions? Do you think I should refrain from speculation on The Philosophy Forum? I'll let you argue with Faggin --- inventor of microprocessors --- about the "role" of consciousness in quantum physics. I find his "speculation" hard to believe, but I can't deny that his detailed reasoning points in the direction that the OP found hard to accept : that Consciousness is not generated by the brain, but received from an external source.

in the early days of Quantum Physics, the "mixers" of those empirical & theoretical concepts were "hard" scientists, who were also trained in "soft" philosophy in European schools*2. They were clearly aware of the difference between evidence and speculation, but they combined those categories anyway. Later, Richard Feynman, who denigrated philosophy, advised his students to "shut up and calculate"*3. On the other hand, the policy of The Philosophy Forum might be "shut up and speculate". :nerd:


*1. A metaphor compares two different things by saying one is the other (e.g., "Love is a battlefield"), creating a strong, direct connection, while a simile says one thing is like or as another (e.g., "Love is like a battlefield") using "like" or "as" for a clearer, less forceful comparison, both aiming to highlight shared qualities without being literally true, unlike an analogy, which explains a complex idea by showing how two things are similar in a more logical, extended way (e.g., brain is like a computer)
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=metaphor+similar+not+same
Note --- Philosophers are not scientists, and don't deal in empirical Facts, but in imaginary metaphors, similes, and analogies. But on this forum, some posters cross the line in the opposite direction from your warnings to "be careful". Asserting that computers can think like humans, including the experience of Qualia.

*2. Werner Heisenberg One of the pioneers of quantum mechanics, Heisenberg viewed science and philosophy as inseparable. He saw his uncertainty principle as a reflection of the limits of human knowledge and was influenced by philosophical ideas in developing his theories.
Erwin Schrödinger A Nobel-winning physicist, he also had a deep interest in philosophy, and his famous cat thought experiment was designed to highlight the counter-intuitive philosophical implications of quantum theory.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=quantum+scientists+trained+in+philosophy

*3. The phrase "Shut Up and Calculate!" is often misattributed to Richard Feynman; it was actually coined by physicist David Mermin to describe the pragmatic, instrumentalist approach to quantum mechanics, which focuses on mathematical predictions rather than deep philosophical interpretations, though Feynman also expressed skepticism about understanding quantum mechanics' deeper meaning, advocating a similar focus on results. The saying signifies relying on quantum theory's powerful predictive tools (like the wave function) without getting stuck on its baffling conceptual paradoxes (like measurement), a method Mermin later acknowledged as incomplete but effective.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=shut+up+and+calculate+feynman
Note --- In other words, leave the "conceptual paradoxes" to the feckless philosophers. Ironically, Pragmatism is a philosophical attitude, and approach, to controversial & confusing ideas. But Faggin goes beyond the empirical evidence to conclude that quantum physics has a deeper meaning than the pragmatic, results oriented, instrumentalist approach. Are you warning me to avoid such heresies to scientific Truth? Or would you agree, that the fact that quantum physics is the foundation of modern technology, does not deny that it has "deeper" implications for philosophy?

My 'suggestions' do not come from a 'scientistic' perspective or anything like that. Rather, they come from a desire to clarify the use of concepts in their own context. To make another example, the 'software' of a computer isn't like our mind, in my opinion. — boundless

In a technical "scientistic" context, computer software does not work like the human mind. But in a philosophical (metaphorical) context, the human mind's relation to the brain is analogous to the software of a computer. Can you accept that notion, for the sake of philosophical reasoning? :chin:

Again, I believe it is useful to clarify where the 'science' stops and where 'philosophy' begins. Many physicists would deny that the 'mind' has some kind of special role. And those who do assign a role to the 'observer' generally believe that the role is purely epistemic, — boundless

Again, you seem to be seeking a hard line to distinguish empirical science from theoretical philosophy. But in practice, those categories overlap ; making the dividing "line" difficult to draw. For example, Einstein was a theoretical scientist, not an empirical technician*1. Someone asked him, "if you're a scientist, where is your laboratory?" He smiled, and simply held up a pencil. So, his revolutionary ideas --- challenging classical physics, and opening Pandora's Box of quantum physics --- went beyond the current ability of lab-rats to verify or falsify. So, was he a hard scientist, or a soft philosopher?

When you say, "Many physicists would deny that the 'mind' has some kind of special role."*2, you are ignoring the many scientists (Kristof Koch, et al) who affirm that the human mind is unique in nature. Hence, the "hard problem" of science. And you are taking sides in a long-running philosophical debate, that cannot be falsified by empirical evidence. So yes, the human mind is "purely epistemic", and not empirical. Hence, philosophical, not scientific ; and appropriate for discussion on a philosophy forum, not a physics seminar. :wink:


*1. Albert Einstein was fundamentally a scientist (a theoretical physicist) whose groundbreaking work in relativity and quantum mechanics profoundly impacted science, but he was also deeply engaged with philosophy, especially the philosophy of science, questioning core assumptions about reality, knowledge, and ethics, bridging the gap between the two fields. While not a professional philosopher, his philosophical mindset drove his scientific inquiries and led him to comment extensively on life, morality, and humanity, making him both a towering scientist and a significant philosophical thinker.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=einstein+philosopher+or+scientists

*2. Role of Mind is an epiphenomenon : That statement reflects a prevalent viewpoint within the physics community, where most physicists argue against the 'mind' having a special or non-physical role in the universe [1]. This perspective generally aligns with physicalism or materialism, the philosophical stance that everything that exists is purely physical.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=Many+physicists+would+deny+that+the+%27mind%27+has+some+kind+of+special+role.
Note --- As the quote indicates, the dismissal of Mind as a real phenomenon is not a scientific conclusion, but a philosophical belief. Those -isms are belief systems, not factual statements*3.

*3. Materialism is fundamentally a philosophy, but it strongly influences (and is often confused with) science, acting as a foundational assumption for much of natural science by asserting only matter and physical laws are real, though critics argue this stance is limiting and doesn't fully explain consciousness or subjective experience, pointing to an "explanatory gap" between matter and feeling. While materialism (the belief that only matter exists) underpins much scientific inquiry by defining what's investigable, it's a metaphysical stance, not a testable scientific theory itself, and some argue science can progress better with broader philosophical perspective
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=materialism+is+philosophy+not+science

Not sure why you would say this. I am neither against religion nor philosophy. What I want to point out is to be careful to 'mix' them with science. — boundless

Nor am I. But the 17th century Enlightenment revolution (Age of Reason) tried to draw a hard line between rational Science & emotional Religion, between empirical Physics and theoretical Metaphysics. Thereafter, "soft" Philosophy was typically lumped, by hard rational scientists, into the off-limits Religion category. And that Mind/Matter segregation worked for several centuries. Eventually though, 20th century Quantum Physics turned the Either/Or hard line into a Both/And probability wave. Today the Matter/Mind line of distinction is between Hardware and Software, but the mechanical stuff doesn't work without the mental stuff.

Why I would say that you are afraid of crossing that line in the sand? It's because you repeatedly warn me to be "careful". But I don't accept that arbitrary division of Philosophy into Nature and Supernature. For me, it's all Science and all Philosophy, and Nature includes both Mind and Matter, both flesh and emotions. The human Mind (consciousness, "soul", software) seems to be a product of eons of material evolution. So the study of the intangible, immaterial aspects of Nature should not be taboo for Science or Philosophy*1.

Physics may try to limit its subject matter to Matter only. But Quantum Physics made that policy of apartheid very difficult*2. So, I don't accept that, no longer valid, distinction between Matter Science and Mind Science. Which is why I label my personal philosophy as BothAnd*3. :smile:


*1. Mixing science and philosophy involves using philosophy (like logic, epistemology, metaphysics) to clarify scientific concepts, guide research, interpret findings, and explore implications, while science provides empirical data to inform philosophical questions about knowledge, reality, and ethics, creating a symbiotic relationship where philosophy shapes the 'why' and 'how' of science, and science grounds philosophy in reality. This interplay, historically linked as "natural philosophy," helps refine scientific methods, address biases, and understand humanity's place in the universe.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=mix+science+and+philosophy

*2. Yes, quantum physics explores the link between mind and matter, suggesting consciousness (mind) influences physical reality (matter) through concepts like wave function collapse and the observer effect, where attention changes outcomes, leading to theories like the "quantum mind" that propose consciousness isn't just a brain byproduct but a fundamental aspect of the universe, influencing matter's emergence.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=quantum+physics+includes+mind+and+matter
Note --- The "line" between Mind & Matter is described as a "link" not a divide.

*3. BothAnd vs Either/Or Philosophy :
The BothAnd philosophy requires holistic spectrum thinking instead of reductive & exclusive, black/white, & all-or-nothing reasoning. It assumes that the thinker has no privileged god-like perspective on the world, but instead, a private relative point-of-view. So, its conclusions are not absolute Either/Or, but more like probable Bayesian beliefs. Yet, why would anyone prefer the uncertainty of Probability (maybe-maybe not) to the confidence of two-value (either/or) reasoning? Some philosophers aspire to a complete & perfect Ideal model of the world, but others are content to construct a more realistic interpretation of the data & facts available to human observers.
https://bothandblog9.enformationism.info/page14.html
Note --- Materialism is a hypothetical & idealized model of the natural world, which somehow evolved Minds capable of inferring natural laws and ideal models.