I think this is a serious oversimplification. Aristotle does not abandon Forms; his hylomorphism is still a form–based ontology—the difference is that Forms are no longer conceived as existing in a separate, self-subsisting realm, but as ontologically prior principles instantiated in matter. Matter, for Aristotle, has no actuality or determinate identity on its own; it exists only as pure potentiality until it receives form. — Wayfarer

Yes, Realism vs Idealism is a dualistic simplification of a multi-faceted complex concept that contains various aspects of both outlooks : what I facetiously call Redealism : the top-down view of a material world populated with imperfect people who create little perfect worlds in their own minds.

Whether that duality is an "over-simplification" depends on personal preference : perfect models vs messy actuality. Deep thinkers have been arguing over absolute truth (philosophy) vs practical usefulness (science) for at least 2500 years.

In the context of this thread, my preference is to over-simplify the philosophical battleground between Plato and Aristotle as a focus on either Transcendence or Immanence. And then, to put each notion into its proper context --- whatever that may be. Both views may be ultimately proven valid or invalid depending on its application : universal or local.

Therefore, my wishy-washy BothAnd*1 position varies, depending on the context of the moment. In this thread, I stand mutably in the moot mushy moderate middle-ground of maybe; where I get shot-at from both sides, by those standing on the firm ground of certainty. :smile:



*1. The BothAnd Philosophy :
Philosophy is the study of ideas & beliefs. Not which are right or wrong – that is the province of Religion and Politics – but which are closer to relevant wisdom. That unreachable goal can only be approximated by Reason & Consensus, which is the method of applied Science and Philosophical dialog. In addition to ivory tower theories, practical Philosophy attempts to observe the behavior of wild ideas in their natural habitat.
   The BothAnd philosophy is primarily Metaphysical, in that it is concerned with Ontology, Epistemology, & Cosmology. Those categories include abstract & general concepts, such as : G*D, existence, causation, Logic, Mathematics, & Forms. Unlike pragmatic scientific "facts" about the physical world, idealistic Metaphysics is a battle-ground of opinions & emotions.
   The BothAnd principle is one of Balance, Symmetry and Proportion. It eschews the absolutist positions of Idealism vs Realism, in favor of the relative compromises of Pragmatism. It espouses the Practical Wisdom of the Greek philosophers, instead of the "Perfect" divine revelations of the Hebrew Priests. The BA principle of practical wisdom requires “skin in the game”* to provide real-world feedback, which counter-balances the extremes of Idealism & Realism. That feedback establishes limits to freedom and boundaries to risk-taking. BA is a principle of Character & Virtue, viewed as Phronesis** or Pragmatism, instead of Piety or Perfectionism.
   The BA philosophy is intended to be based on empirical evidence where possible, but to incorporate reasonable speculation were necessary. As my personal philosophy, the basic principle is fleshed-out in the worldview of Enformationism, which transcends the Real world only insofar as  to establish the universal Ground of Being, and the active principle in Evolution.


* ref : Skin In The Game, by Nassim Nicholas Taleb;  researcher in philosophical, mathematical, and (mostly) practical problems with probability.
** Phronesis : an Ancient Greek word for a type of wisdom or intelligence. It is more specifically a type of wisdom relevant to practical action, implying both good judgement and excellence of character and habits, or practical virtue.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page10.html

↪Wayfarer
:roll: When you stop with the shitty misrepresentations of what I've said I might respond. — Janus

↪Janus
I do endeavour to address your arguments with courtesy, reciprocation would be appreciated. — Wayfarer

Since Janus and Wayfarer seem to be among the most philosophically erudite posters on this forum, such combative dialog conjures an image of Plato and Aristotle duking-it-out in the Academy or Forum. Today, we honor both of those ancient Greeks as Past Masters of the philosophical arts. But back in the day, I suspect they passed some harsh words between them.

Maybe constructive agreement, in the search for truth, has always been elusive & arduous. So we in the midst of the ongoing creative work of wisdom-building notice mainly the piles of debris from "constructive disagreement". Perhaps history will record this thread as a win-win : both Real and Ideal; both Physical and Metaphysical. :smile:


Plato and Aristotle differed significantly in their approach to reality, with Plato emphasizing an ideal, abstract realm of Forms as the ultimate reality, accessed through reason, and Aristotle focusing on the tangible, physical world as the primary reality, understood through empirical observation and the senses. This led Plato to an idealistic philosophy and Aristotle to a more pragmatic, scientific approach.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=plato+vs+aristotle+philosophy

Transcendent! . . . . . . . . . . . . . . No, Immanent!

Mind (consciousness) is not a "separate, non-physical entity" — Gnomon
It would be a different kind of 'physical'. It had to have evolved, with life, for once there was no life and consciousness on Earth, and now there is. — PoeticUniverse

I agree :
# First, Mind (consciousness, thoughts, feelings) is not an entity, but a process.
# Secondly, Mind (power to create imaginary ideas) is not physical, but meta-physical*1. By that I mean : Physics refers to the things we perceive with the eye of the body. Meta-physics refers to the things we conceive with the eye of the mind.
# Thirdly, the "cognitive leap" became apparent in eon-long-lifeless-mindless evolution when signs of learned-social-human-culture emerged from a background of evolved-genetic-animal-instinct : jazz hands :cheer: .
# Fourthly, the Agency*2 we call Mind is always associated with complex living organisms : animated matter, not inanimate rocks. But what is the complexifying & animating force, vital principle, elan vital? What input transforms raw matter, into living bodies, thinking beings, and intentional agents?
# Fifthly, Mind has never been found separate from a physical organism of some kind. I can imagine a disembodied soul (ghost), but for me, it's obviously not real, but ideal. So, obviously, to be a causal & interactive agent in the real world, Mind must be embodied, and a physical manifestation of Mind is Culture.
# Sixthly, Mind is the active processing of meaningful Information*3. And Action in the real world is always associated with some form of Energy. the currency of Mind is Information : EnFormAction.
# Seventhly, we can only discuss mental processes in philosophical or poetic metaphors*4.
# Eighthly, After decades of searching the Cosmos, scientists have never found verifiable signs of life or mind (culture), apart from a single rocky planet, on the cusp of an ordinary galaxy, among two trillion star constellations. Matter & Energy seem to be everywhere, so why is Mind so rare? What is the secret sauce . . .? I have a philosophical hypothesis, and it is mentioned in this post. :nerd:



*1. Metaphysics uses rational, philosophical inquiry to understand reality, while mysticism is based on direct, subjective, and intuitive experiences of reality.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=difference+between+metaphysics+and+mysticism

*2. mind is the capacity for agency—the ability to act, make choices, and exert control over one's actions and life circumstances.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=%22mind%22+is+agency

*3. Information is Physical and Metaphysical :
To explain the “active” element of Information, Peat says “I suggest that Information is the final element in a triad—information is that which gives form to energy”.
https://bothandblog8.enformationism.info/page29.html

*4. What Is Mind?

What is called Mind?
The flow of your thoughts!
The internal dialogue
When we do not talk.

We think and think,
shaping our words
to speak, the process
of thinking is Mind.

The platform in which
the thoughts move
like people move
in a railway station.

Mind is where words
move in whirls before,
it finally make it to
the conversations.

Controlling Mind
is then controlling
your thinking.
Mind is thoughts.

Narayanan Kutty Pozhath

I must have looked up this word at least 10 times. Here's what comes up:
the branch of philosophy that deals with the first principles of things, including abstract concepts such as being, knowing, substance, cause, identity, time, and space. — ProtagoranSocratist

"Metaphysics" may be the most debated concept on this forum. The confusion may stem from the fact that the idea of Nature, as a hierarchical system, can be found in the original source : Aristotle's treatise on Nature (Greek : physis)*1 began with with a review of then-current knowledge about the non-human natural world, describing classes, species & specific instances.

But, as an afterword (Meta-Physis) : principles and causes of change and motion in nature, he added an off-topic addendum to discuss, not specific items of objective Nature per se, but abstract subjective conjectures & generalizations & principles that had been imagined or inferred, not observed, by various philosophers, including Ari, Plato & Socrates. By contrast with the cycles of evolving Nature, Principles were presumed to be eternal and changeless.

Objective facts are seldom controversial, because you can point to an actual exemplar, instead of using abstract words to define what you are talking about. Therefore, I would categorize the main body of Aristotle's Physics as "hard" Science, but the addendum (the Meta) as"soft" Philosophy.

However, the label "Metaphysics"*2 was later associated with a legalistic sub-category of General Philosophy : Theology (god-science). And that ideology is further associated with a sub-category of Religion known as scriptural Monotheism. Unfortunately, it's the dogmatic & legalistic sophistry & casuistry of Theology that have given Aristotle's philosophy of principles a bad name. :cool:


*1. Aristotle's Physis is his foundational text on nature, or "physics," which explores the principles of change, motion, and existence, and is a cornerstone of Western thought. It introduces concepts like potentiality and actuality, the four causes (material, efficient, formal, and final), and argues that all things are in motion, driven by an Unmoved Mover. This work laid the groundwork for many subsequent fields, including biology and psychology, and has influenced scientific and philosophical inquiry for centuries
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=aristotle+physis

*2. Aristotle Physics vs Metaphysics :
Aristotle's physics was the study of nature and change, focusing on the physical world through observation and empirical study. In contrast, his metaphysics (which he called "first philosophy") was the study of being itself and the unchanging, immaterial entities that underlie the physical world, such as God. While physics dealt with the changeable, metaphysics addressed the principles behind things, like "being as such".
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=aristotle+physics+vs+metaphysics

that linguistic communication would be impossible if materialism were true. — Wayfarer
I see no reason to believe that. Perhaps you are working with a redundant model of material as 'mindless substance'. If material in all its forms were nothing but mindless substance, then of course it would follow by mere definition that conscious material is impossible. But that is specifically the "question-begging presumption" I was referring to. — Janus

may be simply implying --- based on absence of {empirical or theoretical} evidence to the contrary --- that massive space-occupying Matter*1 --- what we normally mean by the word --- does not have the "right stuff" [necessary qualities or capabilities or potential] to produce weightless spaceless shapeless Mental Phenomena such as verbal communication of ideas. Yet staunch (anti-spiritual) Materialists*2 insist that Matter must possess the potential for Mind. And I provisionally agree, but it's a "question-begging presumption" --- a philosophical hypothesis --- lacking step-by-step evidence or theory of how mundane lumpish matter became Mindful*3. Without an account of the steps & stages of that fortuitous emergence, it's a circular argument. So, the key question here is : what is the "right stuff" for evolving living & thinking Matter?

I too presume that Mind naturally evolved from non-conscious physical predecessors. But I've never seen any scientific evidence or theory that describe, step-by-step, how that transformation could have happened. Moreover, I don't accept that hypothetical-quark-composed Matter was the "fundamental" element of evolution. Instead, as Einstein concluded, time-causing Energy was the primal force behind space-time & evolution, that eventually shape-shifted into various change-causing agents (Gravity, Nuclear Forces, Thermal Energy, Electromagnetic Fields, etc). So, it seems obvious that whatever Causal Principle (possessing the right stuff) produced the Big Bang beginning and subsequent space-time evolution, could-and-did eventually cause Life & Mind processes to emerge. Unfortunately, details of the necessary critical intermediate stages (non-linear Phase Transitions*4) have not yet been documented.

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 in all its forms. E=MC^2 has no place for matter. Even Mass is a mathematical measurement of resistance to Force, and C is a mathematical constant, not a measurement of a material object. Therefore, I agree with both Wayfarer and his Materialist critics, but with a twist : massless, spaceless Energy is capable of transforming into both Matter and Mind. But Mind (consciousness) is not a "separate, non-physical entity"*2, it's an active meta-physical brain Process, with no mass or inertia. :nerd:


PS___ This is not a "redundant" model of Matter, but a novel cosmic perspective on the evolution of Mind. Do we want to debate whether Causation has the right-stuff to create linguistic (knowable) noumena within a world of material (observable events & properties) phenomena?


*1. What is Matter? :
In physics, matter is any substance that has mass and occupies space (volume). It is the physical material that makes up the universe and can be found in various states, or phases, such as solid, liquid, gas, and plasma. All matter is ultimately composed of elementary particles like quarks and leptons, which form protons, neutrons, and electrons, which in turn form atoms.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=what+is+matter+in+physics

*2. Materialism is a philosophical view that posits that physical matter is the fundamental substance in nature, and that all things, including mental states, can be explained by material interactions. In this view, the mind is not a separate, non-physical entity but rather a product of brain processes, and reality is governed by natural, physical laws. This can also refer to a value system that prioritizes material possessions, but in philosophy, it refers to the belief that the physical world is all that exists.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=materialism+philosophy

*3. Ideonomy: A Science of Ideas :
The foundational insight of ideonomy is that ideas are part of the natural world. Just as humans are part of the natural world, the thoughts and ideas generated by human minds are also natural phenomena. Accordingly, we should expect there to be underlying laws or patterns in ideas, the same way we observe laws that govern other natural phenomena. While most phenomena in our universe are examined through a scientific lens, ideas are often treated as magic. Ideonomy aims to remedy this.
https://gracekind.net/writing/ideonomy/intro/
Note --- This is not an actual physical science, but merely a recent instance of a long history of philosophical proposals to combine the tools of concrete Empiricism with those of abstract Reason, in order to put the observing Mind under the microscope, so to speak. For the near future, any "hard" evidence turned-up may be watered-down with imagination & interpretation, as usual with any novel views of reality, such as Quantum Theory.

*4. Phase transition : The process where a substance abruptly changes from one state of matter to another, like a solid turning into a liquid or a liquid into a gas.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=phase+transition
Note --- The "abrupt" change is also non-analytical, so intermediate steps --- the mechanism --- between states are unknown.

I don't say they "go beyond" but just that they are different domains of inquiry. — Janus

So, you are saying they are parallel domains --- empirical vs speculative --- not one above another? That's OK. I was not implying any heavenly domain for philosophy, but merely that it is not bound by the necessity for material evidence. In that sense, philosophers are free to "go beyond" the physical limits of Science, in order to explore the metaphysical (immaterial) aspects of the Cosmos. :smile:

The brain is not a "blob of matter" so your question is moot. You seem to be thinking in terms of some obsolete paradigm. — Janus

Apparently you took my metaphorical figure-of-speech as a literal physical description of the brain. I am familiar with some cutting-edge theories of mind, that blur the borders between physics & metaphysics, and Idealism & Realism. But most still insist that Consciousness is inherent in Matter, not an add-on.

I agree, except that I reserve the term "Consciousness" for homo sapiens with big complex neural systems. It's a product of long evolution, and only the potential for C was inherent in the emerging world prior to about 300,000 years ago. Therefore, in lieu of conscious atoms, I focus on causal Energy, not inert Matter*1, as one form of the general power-to-transform that drives the process of Evolution. Gravity & Forces are other forms of EnFormAction. Hence, EFA, not dumb Matter, is the precursor of the process of subjective Awareness. Anyway, all discussions of Ideas & Opinions are Moot. But this forum is a Moot Court. :nerd:


*1. The statement that "matter is energy locked into form" is a popular, but oversimplified, way of describing a core concept from Einstein's theory of relativity. A more precise understanding is that matter and energy are two forms of the same fundamental thing, and can be converted into one another, as described by the famous equation \(E=mc^{2}\). This equation shows that mass (a measure of matter) is a form of concentrated energy.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=matter+is+energy+locked+into+form
Note --- That fundamental "thing" is what my philosophical thesis calls EnFormAction. It's a portmanteau coinage, so you won't find that term in a textbook of Physics or Psychology. But it's all natural, no spooky spiritual intervention necessary.

I have no problem with philosophical speculation. It operates in science in the form of abductive reasoning. The point is that it should be underwritten by science, if we are speculating about the nature of things. For ethics and aesthetics it might be a different matter―science may not have much to tell us in those domains.

How things such as matter, mind or consciousness intuitively seem (the province of phenomenology) which is determined by reflection on experience, tells us only about how we, prior to any scientific investigation, might imagine that these things are. That may have its own value in understanding the evolution of human understanding, but it tells us nothing about how the world things really are.

So I was responding to the dogmatic assertion that "linguistic communication would be impossible if materialism were true". I reject that as dogma because it assumes that the material world is purely a "billiard ball" world of mindless atoms in the void.. — Janus

I agree that there are philosophical "domains" that go beyond the self-imposed limits of Objective Physical Science. And philosophers, back to Plato & Aristotle have argued about the value of "empty verbiage" (speculation) versus productive facts*1. Yet. what's the point of a Philosophy Forum, if it has no pragmatic results to show for the expenditure of hot air? If we had the power to communicate directly from mind to mind, there might be no need for "empty verbiage"*2. Instead, we would intuitively know how minds work to produce ideal opinions instead of material facts

I have always been interested in "hard" science", and I took basic college courses in Physics, Chemistry, Biology, etc. But I also took courses in the "soft" science of Psychology. Beyond their mapping of neural coordinates of consciousness though, modern psychology tells us nothing about how a blob of matter can produce sentience & awareness & opinions : how things Ideally are. Such imaginative speculations won't put food on the table, but they may help us deal with the varying tastes & preferences & opinions of those humans sitting around the table. When your child turns-up his nose at cranberry sauce, can you discuss the "facts" with him?

Is there any "value" in understanding how people think (ideally) about how the world really is? How would we gain understanding of Other Minds without "linguistic communication" : ideas expressed in sounds & written words? Humans seldom disagree on established Facts. But they have fought wars over subjective interpretations of so-called Facts*3. Does materialistic Science have any practical value in "how in the world things really are" : RealPolitik*4? In between wars, does ideal persuasion work better than material bombs? :smile:


*1. Philosophy has always had to defend itself against the charge that it is empty verbiage, unscientific speculation. Philosophers themselves are often the harshest and most astute critics of their own enterprise, and none was more coruscating than the Austrian thinker Ludwig Wittgenstein (1889-1951).
https://www.wsj.com/arts-culture/books/ludwig-wittgenstein-review-an-attack-on-the-abstract-8640e564

*2. The statement that "linguistic communication would be impossible if materialism were true" is a philosophical argument, not a settled fact, and is a subject of ongoing debate between materialist and anti-materialist (often dualist or idealist) viewpoints.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=linguistic+communication+would+be+impossible+if+materialism+were+true

*3. Wars are often fought not over objective facts themselves, but over subjective interpretations of events, ideologies, historical narratives, or perceptions of reality. This is a recurring theme throughout history and in modern conflicts.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=fought+wars+over+subjective+interpretations+of+so-called+Facts.

*4. Realpolitik is the approach of conducting diplomatic or political policies based primarily on considerations of given circumstances and factors, rather than strictly following ideological, moral, or ethical premises. In this respect, it shares aspects of its philosophical approach with those of realism and pragmatism.
___Oxford Dictionary
Note --- Did Hitler's war-making end because of diplomatic ideologies, or due to overwhelming guns & bombs of the allies? But how did the leaders of allied nations convince their people that resisting aggression, with blood & guts, was the right thing to do? Perhaps, a combination of empty-but-emotional (ideal) verbiage, and increased production of the (material) machines of war.

PS___ Is Materialism true (factual) or a belief (doctrinal)?
Materialism : the doctrine that nothing exists except matter and its movements and modifications.
___Oxford Dictionary

This is the sense in which the mind “constructs” or “creates” the cosmos: not as an external agent shaping an independent material realm, but as the ongoing process of perception, interpretation, and conceptual synthesis that yields our experience of a coherent, ordered world — which is precisely what kosmos meant. — Wayfarer

Yes. I use the term Universe in reference to the expanding evolving ball of matter & energy that somehow formed a safe haven for us living beings. But the term Cosmos is a more philosophical concept that emphasizes the laws that organized an explosion of Matter into the evolution of Mind.

Philosophically, the Cosmos is not a material object, but a human-mind-constructed concept about the material world we inhabit, and which we find to be mostly understandable by applied Reason (science) : a well-ordered whole system. And as Plato illustrated, philosophers can't just take it for granted, but insist on asking "why?" and "whence?".

Taken together, those curious questions seem to infer & imply a non-human-non-local Mind that designed the process and the system. But this thread asks the question : is that Cosmic Mind currently beaming ideas into our heads, in a mysterious manner that allows us to naively believe that we are thinking for ourselves. I can accept the notion of hands-off creator-programmer-observer, but not one who deceives its creatures, and uses them as mechanical robots. :worry:

↪Gnomon
The point is that neither idealism nor physicalism are, contrary to what their opponents like to suggest, self-refuting. Actually idealism is not usually criticized for being self-refuting, but rather for being explanatorily impotent, implausible or even incoherent in that the only forms of idealism which can serve to explain our everyday experience rely, in order to give an account of how shared experience could be possible, on ideas like God or universal mind or collective mind' ideas which themselves are not able to be satisfactorily conceptually explicated or related to everyday human experience. — Janus

Yes. The difference between modern Philosophy and modern Science lies in their explanatory means & methods : the exploring mind of the Natural Philosopher can go beyond the space-time bounds of the material world, and the self-imposed limits of Scientism. But, when conjectures become dogma and speculations become scripture, an open-mind line has been crossed. Besides, even "space-time" and "fabric of reality" are ideal, not real. :wink:

Note 1 --- Idealism and related philosophies, may be impotent to explain immaterial ideas in material terms. Yet religious beliefs have the power to explain "shared experiences" in terms of feelings. And philosophical conjectures are judged, not on material evidence, or scientific orthodoxy, but on Logical Potency.

Note 2 --- Another poster, who will remain unnamed, rejects Ideal Philosophical theories (e.g. Brahman, Forms, First Cause, Plenum, Mind) in favor of "Real" Scientific terms (e.g. Gravity Fields, Virtual Particles, Vacuum Energy, Neural Network). Even the notion of Aether has been resurrected to label such invisible intangible non-things as Dark Matter & Dark Energy. None of which has any concrete material evidence, only abstract immaterial theories about patterns & relations, not objects*1. Do you think exclusion of philosphical terminology is appropriate on a philosophy forum?


*1. In science, "field" and "virtual" are abstract or mathematical concepts used to describe physical phenomena and interactions, the nature of which blurs traditional lines between "material" and "immaterial"
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=virtual+particles

.

Whatever the material correlate to metaphysical consciousness may be, it isn’t consciousness. And whatever metaphysical conception consciousness may be, it isn’t material. — Mww

The philosophy of consciousness has always circled around a central mystery. But empirical science was supposed to dispel those ancient enigmas with indisputable "hard" evidence. For example, Newtonian physics provided mundane explanations for celestial pattern puzzles that had entranced imaginative naked-eye sky-gazers for millennia. The evidence was direct observation, aided by vision-enhancing technology, and vetted by mathematical logic.

Suddenly, certainty about star-gods! But then, Quantum physics came along and muddied Newton's math with Uncertainty. An article in Oct/Nov 2025 issue of Philosophy Now magazine discusses the ramifications of that scientific set-back to an era when science & superstition were often indistinguishable.

Quantum Physics and Indian Philosophy, by Kumar & Varshney, looks at reality from both perspectives, and sees the same now & then parallels that spawned Fitjof Capra's 1975 book, The Tao of Physics. An important lesson from such unorthodox approaches to Science is that the broader context is important : Holism. After millennia of searching for the fundamental Atom of Reality, physicists were appalled to find that the notion of a hard bottom to the material world was an illusion : Maya.

So scientists turned their attention from bits of matter, to bits of information, and to unbounded timeless universal Fields of Potential*1 . Only to find that ancient cow worshipers got there before them : "Ultimate reality (Brahman) is infinite, eternal, and beyond time, space, or change, has no shape or qualities, and is the source of everything."*2 Where does Consciousness fit into Newton's model of space & time, or to Einstein's remodel of space-time? Does the big C exist in time, and occupy space?

The PN article also notes the "tendency toward romanticization --- when for instance it's claimed that ancient Indian sages anticipated quantum ideas"*2. Likewise, those who speculate on threads like this may be accused of a propensity for Spiritualization. :smile:


*1. Cosmic Field of Potential :
Physicists and cosmologists call this divine source the Unified Field. In a profound sense, Brahman (the Vedantic concept) and the Unified Field of physics appear to be synonymous.
https://www.hinduhumanrights.info/quantum-physics-and-vedic-unified-consciousness/

*2. Quantum Physics & Indian Philosophy :
both disciplines challenge the classical notion of an objective, observer-independent reality, and elevate the role of the observer.
Philosophy Now magazine

The point I would contend is the idea on either side of the debate that their conclusions are "slam dunk". That idea only shows dogmatism, closed-mindedness. — Janus

Good point! Accusations of "dogmatism" and "closed-mindedness" have traditionally been directed toward people of Faith. So, it's ironic that posters on a philosophy forum would display those characteristics in dialogs that can't be proven or dis-proven empirically. For example, Eliminativism requires a closed mind, and Immanentism seems to be based on the dogma of Materialism. Are those "slam dunk" positions signs of faith in the belief system of Scientism? :wink:

I should add a caveat about McGinn. His “mysterian” view is useful in one narrow sense: he at least takes the reality of consciousness seriously, and he recognises that the standard physicalist story hasn’t solved anything. In that respect he’s a welcome counterweight to the eliminativist impulse.

But I think his explanation for the “mystery” goes astray. He says we can’t understand consciousness because humans lack the right conceptual equipment — as if a special metaphysical faculty were required to see how brain processes give rise to experience. — Wayfarer

The problem with Mysterian*1 philosophy is that it gives-up on the ancient philosophical quest : to explore the Hard Questions that are not subject to objective answers. Such speculative exploration*2 can be proven wrong though, when observations contradict the conjectures. Today, we might say that dragon warnings about Mars, are "not even wrong". But there are plenty of other scary features of the red planet, that should give rocket-ship explorers pause : 2015 film, The Martian.

Personally, I think we do have "the right conceptual equipment" for seeking answers to the Hard Problem. Yet our "metaphysical faculty" of Reason & Logic does not produce "Hard" evidence, in the sense of physics & chemistry & neurology. Instead, it's our ability to imagine things that possess no material structure, but only logical structure : patterns & relationships. That's why I continue to explore the relation of Causation to Consciousness. I don't think Consciousness is fundamental, but Causation, and its cousin Information, may be essential to the evolving world.

Awareness of things & events inside and outside the body is not some magical substance, but a temporal process*3 : change over time. It transforms sensory data into mental ideas & feelings. That's why I think our metaphysical faculty is more like causal Energy than inert Matter. Recent scientific studies have noted the fundamental relationship between Physical Energy and Metaphysical Mind*4. Further rational & empirical research may eventually dispel the "Mystery", by identifying the causal steps & phase changes between physical Causation & metaphysical Transformation. :nerd:


*1. Mysterianism is the philosophy that some questions, particularly the hard problem of consciousness, are fundamentally unsolvable by humans due to the inherent limitations of our cognitive abilities. This perspective, most famously associated with Colin McGinn, argues that while consciousness is a natural phenomenon and not supernatural, our brains are not equipped to understand how the physical matter of the brain creates subjective experience. It is not the same as saying we don't know the answer yet, but that we can never know the answer.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=mysterianism+philosophy
Note --- Mysterianism may be a modern form of Spirituality and Taboo, in that it imagines non-overlapping magisteria like Heaven & Earth.

*2. Here Be Dragons : The phrase was thought to be a literal warning from mapmakers to mariners that they should proceed with caution because the area was uncharted and potentially hazardous.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=maps+used+to+say+there+be+dragons+here

*3. A conscious process is a mental operation that a person is aware of and often in control of, involving explicit awareness of thoughts, memories, feelings, and sensations. These are the processes that form a person's subjective experience of being aware of themselves and their surroundings, such as planning or recalling a memory, and are distinct from unconscious processes that occur automatically.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=consciusness+process
Note --- A Process is a series of actions or steps taken in order to achieve a particular end. A.N. Whitehead's process philosophy conjectures that reality is fundamentally a dynamic and creative "becoming" rather than a collection of static "things". The Evolutionary Process seems teleological : directed by intention, not accident. Of course, the Intender may remain a mystery until . . . .

*4. Energy is a form of Information :
No, information and energy are not the same thing, but they are fundamentally linked, and information can be converted into energy.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=information+is+energy

I've been a Dennett antagonist ever since before joining this Forum. I thought the title of his book Consciousness Explained was ridiculously pompous (and indeed, it was widely parodied as 'Consciousness Ignored'. — Wayfarer

Ironically, even some (supposedly) pragmatic scientists are entertaining (seemingly) spiritual explanations for consciousness*1. Such modern theories are more Mathematical (mental) than Material (substantial)*2. Meanwhile, the concept of "higher dimensions"*3 has been adopted by some religious thinkers as a more sciency-sounding term for what the ancients imagined as an out-of-reach celestial "spiritual" realm.

Personally, I have no experience of dimensions beyond those of mundane space-time. Even "moments of creativity or deep thought" feel ordinary to me. And I don't know how we might "measure" them, other than how we measure Time, in increments of environmental cycles relative to physiological rhythms. And yet, String Theorists seem to take un-measureable multiple dimensions for granted, because the mental math can easily go beyond what counts for the material senses.

Strangely, Math is supposed to be a form of Logic, but has discovered numerical values that are beyond Reason : Irrational & Transcendental. Is it a sign that Mind is not physical, but Meta-Physical? We can imagine future Utopias and Paradises, but never actually reach their golden gates. Even so, are ideas & ideals, that have no manifestation in matter, somehow more real than mundane reality? Or simply a way for humans to strain against the restraints of physical laws?

Anyway, it seems that Consciousness, unbounded by physical limitations, remains a mystery in search of a logical, tangible, explanation. Religious interpretations may meekly accept Spirituality as beyond Reason. But epistemological Philosophers tend to hold-out for a rational understanding, instead of incomprehensible and extra-sensory blind faith. Don't promise me a tantalizing heavenly hereafter, make it real, here, now! :halo:


*1. Spiritual Consciousness :
Physicist Michael Pravica has proposed a controversial theory that human consciousness could originate from higher dimensions beyond our physical reality. This theory, rooted in the concept of hyperdimensionality, suggests that during moments of creativity or deep thought, consciousness may transcend the brain to connect with these unseen realms. While this idea is speculative and not widely accepted, it opens up the possibility that consciousness is not purely a product of the brain and could potentially exist beyond the physical world.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=Human+Consciousness+Comes+From+a+Higher+Dimension%2C+Scientist+Claims%E2%80%94Meaning+It+Could+Transcend+the+Physical+World
Note --- Is this scientist explaining Consciousness by imagining invisible & dubious parallel realities?

*2. Higher dimensions are a concept in mathematics and physics that represent directions beyond the three spatial dimensions (length, width, and height) and one time dimension we experience. These additional dimensions can be thought of as more "degrees of freedom" for movement, or as mathematical and theoretical spaces used to describe phenomena. While some theories, like string theory, propose the existence of up to 10 or 11 dimensions, these extra dimensions may be curled up or "compactified" at extremely small scales, making them undetectable.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=higher+dimensions
Note --- Do we actually experience Four Dimensions, or do we merely accept it conventionally?

*3. In a spiritual context, a higher dimension can refer to states of consciousness beyond our everyday, three-dimensional physical experience, characterized by greater awareness, love, and unity. It can also describe a more transcendent, eternal, or "unseen" reality that is beyond linear time and separation. These concepts are often tied to spiritual growth, moving from a focus on the ego and material world to a more enlightened, purposeful existence.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=higher+dimension+meaning+spiritual
Note --- Is this higher realm populated by spirits & gods, or merely by ideal Platonic Forms, whatever that is?

So when we later try to fit consciousness back into that picture, it naturally appears inexplicable. . . . . The framework within which he's considering the problem has already excluded what it is we’re trying to understand. — Wayfarer

I wasn't familiar with the minority philosophical position, that a Theory of Mind should be eliminated*1 from consideration of the human role in reality. I suppose that it's an attempt to remove the "bathwater" of imaginary gods & ghosts --- along with the "baby" of self-knowledge --- from folk philosophy, as unreal & immaterial. Such purging would result in elimination of Philosophy forums, which waste time & words on literal non-sensation.

But that lacuna would leave the world populated only by lumps of animated matter, some of whom walk bi-pedally and support large brains atop a vertical spine, and who create Cultures*2 that go beyond the providence, and instincts, of physical Nature. But, on a Philosophy forum, shouldn't we include the products of Philosophy (ideas, intelligence) in our analysis? That subjective inward focus would leave time & space for the objective stuff of Science to the experts on physics & chemistry websites. :nerd:


*1. Eliminativism is the view that some things, particularly mental states like beliefs and desires, do not exist and are part of a flawed, "folk" theory that a more advanced science (like neuroscience) will replace. It argues that these concepts are so fundamentally incorrect that they are not just reducible to physical processes but must be eliminated entirely, much like how concepts from older theories were discarded. For example, an eliminative materialist would argue that we don't have beliefs or desires, but rather that our current understanding of them is a pre-scientific theory that will be replaced by a more accurate description of brain activity.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=eliminativism

*2. The statement "culture is metaphysical" suggests that culture is not a simple, tangible thing, but a complex system of shared meanings, beliefs, and values that are fundamental to our understanding of reality and human existence. It implies that culture provides the underlying "metaphysics"—the basic principles that shape our worldview—for a society. This view posits that culture isn't just a product of social interaction, but a reality in itself, with its own properties, which can be analyzed philosophically.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=culture+is+metaphysical

All of this still operates entirely within the materialist frame. It searches for an objective correlate—some measurable physical proxy—that can be mapped onto the intentional, semantic, and affective dimensions of experience. — Wayfarer

I suspect that this Ontological & Epistemological dichotomy has plagued philosophers from the time of Plato & Aristotle : Hyle (matter) vs Morph (form). Which is why I focus on the modern understanding of Information (energy + form), as a possible way to bridge the gap in the map. :worry:

Science answers mysteries by using the scientific method to investigate unexplained phenomena, from the ancient mystery of Earth's regular seismic pulse to the modern enigma of dark matter. When faced with the unknown, scientists formulate hypotheses, conduct experiments, and analyze data to develop theories, though some phenomena, like the conditions before the Big Bang, may remain outside of current scientific reach.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=science+answer+to+mysteries
Note --- The mystery of the Hard Problem is not about Phenomena, but Noumena. Yet that Physical/Spiritual distinction is denied by Materialists.

Kant argued that we can only know the phenomenal world, the world as it appears to us through our senses and cognitive faculties. We cannot directly experience noumena, but they are the underlying reality that causes our perceptions of phenomena.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=kant+noumena
Note --- Noumena are not Percieved by physical senses, but Conceived by mental imagination.
Perceive : to become aware of, know, or identify by means of the senses.
Conceive : to form an idea or imagine it in your mind.

Problems are things for which solutions are possible; mysteries are circumstances of which we are a part (McGinn?) — Wayfarer

Thanks for that reference. I suspect that the success of the empirical method, in over-turning time-honored beliefs, has given modern scientists confidence that it can solve any problem or mystery. But McGinn observes that, for philosophical "mysteries", the experiencing Observer is part of the Problem of learning how & why we experience the real concrete world in terms of abstract ideas. :cool:

Problems are challenges to our current knowledge that we can realistically expect to solve through scientific inquiry or logical deduction. They are external to our being and can be overcome.
Mysteries are aspects of reality that are inherently beyond the scope of human cognitive abilities, not just temporarily unsolved. According to McGinn's view, we are inextricably part of the mystery itself (as conscious beings trying to understand consciousness), which is why we can never achieve a complete, objective solution in the same way we solve a "problem"
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=+Problems+are+things+for+which+solutions+are+possible%3B+mysteries+are+circumstances+of+which+we+are+a+part+%28McGinn%3F%29.

"Abstract: In the April 2002 edition of JCS I outlined the conscious electromagnetic information field (cemi field) theory, claiming that consciousness is that component of the brain’s electromagnetic field that is downloaded to motor neurons and is thereby capable of communicating its informational content to the outside world. In this paper I demonstrate that the theory is robust to criticisms" — McFadden

Yes. That sounds like a superficially plausible theory. But Materialists will ask, "where's the physical evidence" of an Information Field, and of "downloading" by the brain? Invisible Electromagnetic fields can seem spooky, hence they are imagined by ghost-hunters to be the substance of spirits : ectoplasm. The readings of their electronic instruments are indeed evidence of electromagnetism, but to interpret that static as the presence of a human soul may not be solid enough to convince a skeptic. Who may interpret the signals as the presence of an electrical mechanism, such as a cell phone, power-line or refrigerator . . . . and of belief prior to evidence.

So for me, the jury is still out on the CEMI Mind Field hypothesis. :chin:


*1. The CEMI (Conscious Electromagnetic Information) theory of consciousness, proposed by Johnjoe McFadden, posits that consciousness is an electromagnetic field generated by the brain's neurons. This theory suggests that neuronal firing creates an electromagnetic field which integrates information from the brain's digital processes, with consciousness arising as a part of this field that can influence subsequent neural activity. According to the theory, non-conscious actions are processed solely within the neuronal network, while conscious, voluntary actions are driven by neurons that receive input from this electromagnetic field.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=cemi+theory+of+consciousness
Note --- Animal brains are known to be electro-chemical organisms. But the Hard Question remains : how do those sparks & spurts transform from measurable Physical events into meaningful metaphysical Mental ideas & feelings. How does a flow of electrons integrate information? What integrating power connects a row of isolated dots into a continuous line? What are the steps & stages of transformation?

PS___ The clue I'm working on is the lab-measured relationship between physical Energy and mental Information?

“brain as an antenna” hypothesis . . . . It was going the rounds in the 1990s. I chatted to quite a few of those pushing versions of it. Like Karl Pribram, Susan Pockett. Johnjoe McFadden, Benjamin Libet, Stuart Hameroff, Jack Tuszynski and others. — apokrisis

I Googled McFadden*1, since I had heard of him, to see how he would explain "how the brain becomes aware". He seems confident that this philosophical & scientific "mystery" has been solved. But, like so many other postulated solutions, his explanation is a tautology, not a mechanism : "consciousness is experience". Yet, Biosemiology basically defines Consciousness as "meaning-making" by manipulating symbols*2b.

From what little I know of Biosemiotics*2a, it seems functionally similar to my own information-based theorizing. And I think it may be on the right track. But I'm not sure it has connected the dots of a physical mechanism of Mind. Instead, the ellipsis of the tautology may be filled-in with metaphysical "hand-waving", as my theory is often criticized. But I don't claim to have solved the Hard Problem. I'm merely proposing a different kind of mechanism. Which is similar to A.N. Whitehead's Process Philosophy*3.

Unfortunately, for a Materialistic forum, his Process fills the gaps in the evolutionary mechanism with an immaterial "Force", which I equate with mundane Energy & Causation (relations, not things). Both of which have been historically interpreted as Spiritual Forces*4. In order to forestall accusations of promoting woo, I try to avoid using spiritualist terminology. But it's not easy, because Modern Science, since Quantum theory, has been struggling with similar spooky concepts : entanglement, superposition, action-at-a-distance, non-locality, contextuality, relativity, and the observer effect. And gaps in Quantum non-Mechanics*5 are often filled with hand-waving notions. So, what's an amateur philosopher to do, when trying to resolve the "mystery" of Mind? :chin:


*1. "Johnjoe McFadden, Professor of Molecular Genetics and Director of the Quantum Biology Doctoral Training Centre at the University of Surrey, said: "How brain matter becomes aware and manages to think is a mystery that has been pondered by philosophers, theologians, mystics and ordinary people for millennia. I believe this mystery has now been solved, and that consciousness is the experience of nerves plugging into the brain's self-generated electromagnetic field to drive what we call 'free will' and our voluntary actions."
https://www.reddit.com/r/badphilosophy/comments/jet93h/johnjoe_mcfadden_genetic_scientist_claims_to_have/

*2a. Biosemiotics explains consciousness as a meaning-making and interpretation process inherent to all living systems, moving beyond a purely brain-centric view. It proposes that consciousness is an emergent property of a non-human organism's unique "sense-making" interface with its environment, shaped by its biology and communication at a cellular level. Rather than a fixed, individual phenomenon, consciousness is seen as decentralized and formed through the dynamic interplay and interpretation of signs from the organism and its environment.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=biosemiology+explain+consciousness
*2b. From a biosemiotic perspective, consciousness is a natural, biological phenomenon rooted in the meaning-making, communication, and interpretation processes of all living systems, not just humans.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=biosemiology+consciousness+is

*3. A.N. Whitehead's process philosophy posits that reality is fundamentally a dynamic, creative process rather than a collection of static substances. It views the universe as a constantly evolving "becoming" and emphasizes concepts like actual entities (the fundamental building blocks of reality) and prehensions (the way these entities interact and relate to each other). This philosophy integrates scientific findings with moral and spiritual intuitions, offering a view of reality as a vast, interdependent web of processes and relationships.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=A.N.+Whitehead%27s+Process+Philosophy

*4. Yes, "energy" is considered a spiritual concept in many traditions, where it's viewed as a vital, invisible force that animates all living things and connects the physical, mental, and spiritual self. Spiritual energy is different from scientific energy; it's often described as a life force (like prana or chi) that can be influenced by thoughts and emotions and is believed to be affected by practices like meditation and mindfulness.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=is+energy+spiritual
Note --- Bergson's Elan Vital is a causal process, not a material substance. Causing Change, not "throwing Chi".

*5. Quantum mechanics is often described as strange or "weird" compared to classical mechanics because its principles, like superposition (existing in multiple states at once) and wave-particle duality (acting as both a wave and a particle), are counter-intuitive at a macroscopic level.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=quantum+not+mechanical

Throwing Chi looks good in anime, but not in realite

If there were such a mechanism pinned down, — AmadeusD
I defend biosemiosis as the mechanism behind life and mind. — apokrisis

Since I am only superficially familiar with the theory of Biosemiosis*1, can you briefly summarize the steps or stages in the evolutionary mechanism of A> Big Bang . . . . . X> Life . . . . Z> Mind? It seems to follow an evolutionary track similar to my own Enformationism thesis. But as far as I can see, neither can connect all the dots. For example, the transformation of Matter into Life, and Biology into Symbols, and Symbols into Consciousness. The only common factor that I see is Energy/Causation. :smile:

*1. Biosemiosis is the study of how life and meaning are interconnected, arguing that meaning-making (semiosis) is an inherent and fundamental feature of all life, not just humans. Biosemiotics connects the biological world to the mental by exploring how organisms use signs to interpret and interact with their environment, suggesting that the mind is not a separate entity but emerges from these complex biological and social relationships. This field considers communication and meaning-making at all levels, from cellular to social, and offers insights into the origins of life and consciousness.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=biosemiosis+life+mind
Note --- Meaning, Symbols, Signs are forms of generic Information, which is ultimately related to causal Energy.

here I take a more radical view: space and time don’t exist at all. Like “observers”, they are convenient labels – bookkeeping devices – but there are no physical entities corresponding to them. Therefore, quantising gravity doesn’t mean quantising space-time, it means quantising the gravitational field (upgrading Einstein’s c-numbers into q-numbers) in the same way that other fields are quantised. — PoeticUniverse

Are these your words, or those of Vedral?

I'm vaguely familiar with Vlatko Vedral from his association with the Santa Fe Institute for the study of Complexity and Systems (Holism). Einstein forced us to accept that space & time are conventional concepts, not physical objects, that we use to convey notions of extension and change. But q-numbers and c-numbers are way over my little layman head. And, since I'm not a mathematician, I don't see them as beautiful or poetic.

So, if you don't mind, I'll continue to think of Space as a ocean that we can swim around in, and Time as-if a road that we can conceptually move forward & backward on. Even Einstein portrayed space-time as the fabled fabric of reality. And I suppose the theory of a universal quantum Field is an attempt to metaphorically express the philosophical notion of an interwoven warp & woof of abstract time & space. Besides, metaphors do exist, in some poetic sense, as ideas in human minds. But we shouldn't take those metaphysical analogies literally, as physical facts.

Such scientific figures of speech are merely updates on Plato's metaphors of Ideal Forms and Aristotle's theory of Reality in terms of Substance & Essence. Likewise, today some of us still imagine the real universe as-if it's a rational (enformed) Cosmos born of an negentropic Chaos*2. So, it's not too far-fetched to imagine our Real Cosmos as the metaphorical offspring of an Ideal (omnipotential) Source*3, beyond space-time, upon which our world depends for all necessities (matter & energy) of Life & Mind. :wink:


*1. Reality Is Not What It Seems : and there is no space or time. Instead, for Vedral, quantum numbers, also known as Q numbers, are the true essence of reality, and it's a much more beautiful and useful way to understand the world.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKCP5k1RTmM&t=13s

*2. Chaos theory is an interdisciplinary area of scientific study and branch of mathematics. It focuses on underlying patterns and deterministic laws of dynamical systems that are highly sensitive to initial conditions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory

*3. " Omnipotential Chaos" describes the idea of the ultimate power of chaos, often found in mythological, fictional, or philosophical contexts, where chaos is not just disorder but a source of all possible potential.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=chaos+omnipotential
Note --- The Multiverse theory may be a 21st century version of Plato's Cosmos from Chaos myth.

If 'mind' is the foundation of reality, he still has a massive job getting the sensation of the physical in. — AmadeusD

Good point! Deriving Physical sensations from Metaphysical fundamentals, seems to be the inverse of the usual philosophical Hard Problem : Mental ideas from Physical substrate ; Ideality from Reality. That's why I put my money on the recent evidence of an Energy/Information interrelationship. Everything in the universe boils down to creative (change-causing) Energy. And tracks back to a logically necessary First Cause.

What we call Energy is not a material object but a causal process. And that process has evolved complex forms of matter such as the human brain*1. But so far, no clear explanation for why complexity of physical interconnections (wiring) could produce metaphysical Meaning and immaterial imagery.

Information is a pattern of dichotomies & oppositions --- black/white, one/many, certainty/uncertainty, etc. Such dual relationships are perceived as comparative ratios : mathematical values that can be written as strings of numbers. For example : the ratio of 3 to 7 is 0.428571428 ; which is not the way we perceive, but how we calculate, rationally.

The Energy/Information*2 relation is similar to the inverse Certainty/Uncertainty ratio of Quantum Physics. And Randomness vs Organization is also the focus of Complexity Science. But how do we convert those physical ratios and mathematical dichotomies into perceptual distinctions, and thence into mental experiences?

These comments may not make sense of the relation between Ideality & Reality (sense & sensation) until put into a larger context*3. Deriving Mind from Cosmos. :nerd:



*1. Yes, the human brain is widely considered to be the most complex object in the known universe due to its intricate network of approximately 86 billion neurons and over 100 trillion connections. This complexity allows for higher-level functions like consciousness, thought, and emotion, which are the basis of human experience, but also makes the brain extremely difficult to fully understand.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=is+the+human+brain+the+most+complex+thing

*2. The "mass-energy-information equivalence principle" suggests that information has a physical mass per bit.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=energy+information+relation
Note --- Einstein equated causal Energy with measurable Mass and ultimately with tangible Matter. But when you add meaningful Information to the equation the result may be Conscious Mind. Hence, a possible path to a solution to the philosophical Hard Problem. It remains for physicists and information scientists to work-out the details.

*3. Active Information :
To explain the “active” element of Information, Peat says “I suggest that Information is the final element in a triad—information is that which gives form to energy”.
https://bothandblog8.enformationism.info/page29.html
Note --- "Form" in this context can be both material Shape and mental Meaning.

Right - so what you're saying is that 'cosmic mind' is analogous to the 'noumenal'. Agree they might be rationally inferred, but as such cannot be empirically validated. — Wayfarer

Yes. If noumenal Mind could be empirically validated, we wouldn't be discussing it on a philosophy forum. But, since the 20th century, scientific validation has become more Mathematical (rational) than Empirical (sensory), more inferential than observational. For example, the scientific theory of an ethereal Quantum Field*2*3 as the fundamental essence of reality has led some thinkers to equate it with a Cosmic Mind*4. The theoretical "points" that define the field are mathematical entities that do not occupy space or exhibit mass. Hence, the foundation (substance??) of our material world is postulated to be immaterial*3 : more like a mental definition than a material object*5.

Since it is contrary to my current understanding, in order to make sense of the Brain-as-receiver-of-cosmic-signals notion featured in Dan Brown's fiction (OP), I've been motivated to venture into such speculative (fictional?) Physics/Philosophy. But I'd still like to see some empirical evidence (pro or con) that the human brain could conceivably be a passive receptacle for meaning, instead of an active generator of ideas. Until then, I'll continue to assume that my thoughts are my own. And that the Cosmos is not an eternal deity (Spinoza), but a temporary physical/mental system born of uncertain parentage. :smile:



*1. Noumenal Science :
The statement "quantum is noumenal" is not a standard scientific or philosophical claim, but a specific idea within certain interpretations of quantum mechanics and philosophy. It suggests that the reality that physics describes (the "phenomenal") is different from the true, underlying reality (the "noumenal"), which is the case in Emmanuel Kant's philosophy. Some physicists propose that "noumenal" descriptions of quantum systems, which are local and complete, are what quantum mechanics is truly about, rather than the observer-dependent phenomena we observe. 
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=quantum+is+noumenal

*2. In Universal Quantum Field theory (QFT),the universe's fundamental building blocks are not particles, but universal quantum fields*3 that permeate all of space and time. Particles like electrons and photons are considered to be excitations or "ripples" in these underlying fields. This framework views fields as the fundamental entities and is the basis for particle physics.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=universal+quantum+field+fundamental
Note --- Most particles, except Photons & Gravitons, possess measurable rest mass. But quantum Fields are supposed to be composed of statistical relationships between dimensionless points.

*3. A universal massless quantum field is a theoretical concept that posits a field permeating the universe with zero mass, with implications for topics like dark energy and dark matter.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=universal+quantum+field+massless

*4. Quantum Field = Cosmic Mind :
The "quantum field - cosmic mind" is a concept from speculative physics and philosophy that suggests the quantum field is a fundamental, universal consciousness connecting all things, including individuals. This idea, which overlaps with spiritual and mystic traditions, posits that our minds are not isolated but are expressions of this larger, non-local field, leading to the conclusion that consciousness is a fundamental property of the universe itself, not just an emergent property of the brain. It's important to note that this is not a universally accepted scientific theory, but rather a group of hypotheses and philosophical interpretations.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=quantum+field+cosmic+mind
Note --- I prefer to say that Information (energy), not Consciousness (mind), is the essence of physical & mental reality.

*5. What is Matter? "
In classical physics and general chemistry, matter is any substance that has mass and takes up space by having volume.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matter

This is why expressions such as “cosmic mind” are inherently misleading when taken to denote some objective existent, as if it were on par with scientific concepts like fields or forces. — Wayfarer

Scientists don't know what Energy & Fields are in substance, but only what they do in causal relationships between material objects. To avoid misleading, when I use the Quantum Field or Universal Gravity as analogies to the Cosmic Mind notion, I try to make clear that these "forces" are not "objective" and observable, but rationally inferrable from observed processes.

For example, Gravity, like all forces, is not a material thing, but a causal relationship between things*1. One theory even postulates that Gravity is negative Energy, i.e. Entropy*2. Yet again, those "forces" are measurable only in terms of inter-relationships, not directly. And relationships are mental, not material.

A recent blog post discussed the notion of Active Information, and noted that "Ironically, the primary methods of highly effective Quantum Physics are based, not on Matter, but Mathematics : Quantum Field Theory (QFT)*3. :smile:



*1. Cosmic energy is the highest form of all kind of life force that is omnipresent, omnipotent, and omniscient- which exists in the earth cosmos, between the galaxies, and in the space. It is this energy that animates life and maintains balance in the entire universe.
https://siddhacosmic.org/profile/
Note --- This interpretation of Vacuum Energy is not my theory, but merely an example of various Cosmic Field/Mind/God theories drawn from scientific models. And it seems similar to the Non-local Consciousness concept in Dan Brown's novel. I'm merely exploring that non-mainstream cosmology in this thread, because it seems implicit in some forms of Idealism.

*2. Entropic gravity is a theory proposing that gravity is not a fundamental force but an emergent, macroscopic force driven by disorder and the tendency of the universe towards greater entropy.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=gravity+is+entropy

*3. Quantum Fields :
“QFT taken seriously in its metaphysical implications seems to give a picture of the world which is at variance with central classical conceptions of particles and fields, and even with some features of Quantum Mechanics.”
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/quantum-field-theory/
Active Information blog post : https://bothandblog8.enformationism.info/page29.html

The Timaeus sort of gets it. The basic idea is that rather imagining the Cosmos as either a sudden creation event or as an eternal existence, it arises as an evolving structure where form is being imposed on a chaos. It all starts from a confused everythingness - so confused in its expression that it amounts to a nothing. It lacks any orderly structure. And then that structure starts to appear. — apokrisis

Timaeus*1 observed that, in the real world, "nothing happens/changes without a cause". So he seems to assume that even the ever-changing Real world must have had an Ideal origin : a hypothetical god/urge/impulse with creative powers. That seems to be the presumption behind most of the world's religions. Except that the God is typically envisioned more like perfect order & absolute power, instead of "confused everythingness".

Most religious/philosophical worldviews have also postulated a logically-necessary First Cause from which space-time was born. Yet, in order to avoid getting into religious debates about which god, I tend to use the abstract-generic term "First Cause", or simply "Causation", without specifying any attributes, such as structure or personality. And First Cause or Prime Mover usually implies a transcendent source of causation.

Unfortunately, my trolling nemesis on this forum is an immanentist*2, who denies any beginning to space-time. Hence, there is no First Cause, or Demiurge or Apeiron*3. So the Real World is an "evolving structure" that has existed forever, cycling but never beginning or ending. Does that sound like a reasonable alternative to the current scientific evidence that space-time suddenly exploded from a mathematical point into a complex cosmos? Does forever causation make the Hard Problem of human consciousness irrelevant?

Heraclitus' Unity of Opposites*4 sounds more like a logical truism than an explanation of our evolving universe. Yet again, it seems to imply that Consciousness exists eternally in opposition to Unconsciousness, whatever that means. And one traditional name for that immortal Mind is "God" or "Brahma", serving as the whole of which our mortal minds are holons.

The topic of this thread --- Cosmos Created Mind --- could be construed as "form being imposed on chaos". Hence, Mind is a natural emergent biological process that originated in the sudden transformation of potential Chaos into actual Cosmos and subsequent evolution. Does that make sense compared to the other theories of Ontology and Epistemology? :nerd:



*1. Timaeus suggests that since nothing "becomes or changes" without cause, then the cause of the universe must be a demiurge or a god, . . . .
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=timaeus

*2. Immanentism : Spinoza's concept of an immanent God is that God is inseparable from nature and exists within the universe, rather than as a transcendent, external creator. For Spinoza, "God or Nature" is the single, all-encompassing substance, and everything in existence, including humans, is a modification or expression of this divine substance. This means God is the active force in the world, not a being that stands outside of it, making the world and God identical and interconnected.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=spinoza+immanent+god
Note --- According to physical science, the "active force" in the real world is Energy. Which causes all change, via impulse & inertia, but does not explain such immaterial processes as Life & Mind.

*3. Apeiron : Anaximander's apeiron is the concept of a boundless, indefinite, and eternal "first principle" from which all things originate and to which they return.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=anaximander+apeiron

*4. Unity of Opposites : Heraclitus's "unity of opposites" is the concept that seemingly contradictory forces are interconnected, mutually dependent, and part of a single, unified whole. This dynamic equilibrium is essential for the cosmos, as tension and strife between opposites like day and night, or hot and cold, create harmony and are the engine of change. According to this view, opposites define each other; a shadow needs light to exist, and a thing becomes warm by first being cold.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=Heraclitus%27s+Unity+of+opposites.+

I’m arguing not for pre-set material conditions but for Platonic strength structural necessity. The argument is that reality can only exist with a certain dichotomous or symmetry-breaking organisation. — apokrisis

Again, I had to Google your abstruse terminology to break it down into more commonsense concepts that an untrained amateur philosopher can relate to. For example, I can imagine "symmetry-breaking" as an event characterized by change from static balance (nothing changes) to dynamic dis-equlibrium (directional change occurs). But then, if you add "spontaneous" to the mix, it describes an event that occurs suddenly & without warning, like a Cosmos-Creating Big Bang with no pre-history. Hence, inexplicable and not accessible to Reason. It must be taken on Faith.

The only way I can make sense of such enigmatic language is to compare it to something I am already familiar with. For example, Plato's notion of Cosmos from Chaos, in which Cosmos is imagined as timeless nothingness, but with simple un-actualized Potential (Ideality) for transforming into complex organized Reality. Perfect symmetry is static balance, and Reality is dynamic dis-equilibrium (things change). Perhaps Chaos is the realm of perfect-eternal-unactualized Forms, from which emergent-space-time-real Things emerge.

Consequently, the precise mathematical initial conditions of the Big Bang were "set" by accident instead of by intention. Hence, there was no Intentional Mind (God), only the infinite Potential of random Chaos (Fate) to explain how our living & thinking world came to exist. Is that what you are saying? :meh:



*1. Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking :
The statement that reality can only exist with a certain dichotomous or symmetry-breaking organization has significant support in both physics and philosophy, where the move from a perfectly symmetric potential state to an asymmetric, ordered state is often seen as essential for the emergence of phenomena and complexity.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=reality+can+only+exist+with+a+certain+dichotomous+or+symmetry-breaking+organisation.

*2. Spontaneous vs Accidental :
Spontaneous events are unplanned and happen out of a natural, often sudden, impulse, while accidental events are unintentional or unintended
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=spontaneous+vs+accidental

*3. Platonic strength structural necessity :
In a Platonic sense, "strength" would be an eternal and unchanging "Form" that exists in a non-physical realm, independent of any particular physical structure. Any real-world, physical structure only partakes in this ideal Form to a limited and imperfect extent.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=Platonic+strength+structural+necessity
.

'Idealism' is not ancient. The term first came into use with Liebniz, Berkeley and Kant. In hindsight, it is possible to describe some elements of Platonism as idealist, but it is not a term that was used in Plato's day. — Wayfarer

I assume that in Plato's day they just called it Philosophy. Perhaps, you are stating the obvious, that modern versions of Platonic Idealism are not ancient. But I was referring to the general belief that A> Reality is fundamentally Mental*1, or B> that the Human mind's model of reality is as close to true reality as we are likely to know*2.

Was your own Mind Created World talking about ancient A or modern B, which is a more recent update of Platonism based on modern science & philosophy, or some combination of the two, which is my BothAnd position? Either way, I'd still lump it under the broad heading of Idealism. Wouldn't you agree? Or do you prefer a less black & white distinction between Mind & Matter? :smile:


*1. Idealism originated in philosopher Plato, who is considered the father of the philosophy. It has roots in Classical antiquity and has evolved through various periods, including the 18th-century German Idealism movement, but its foundation was laid by Plato's idea that "the world of ideas" is the most real and perfect form of reality
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=where+did+idealism+originate

*2. while idealism holds that reality is fundamentally mental or a product of consciousness. Realism emphasizes the importance of empirical observation and the tangible, physical world for knowledge. In contrast, idealism prioritizes ideas, thought, and mental constructs as the basis for reality and knowledge.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=idealism+vs+realism+philosophy

The "mind of God" refers to a single, undivided, and all-encompassing consciousness that is the foundation of reality. — Gnomon
- "undivided" but fragments. — PoeticUniverse

"Undivided-yet-fragmented" may sound like nonsense, unless you are familiar with Kastrup's analogy of psychological Dissociative Identity Disorder (formerly Multiple Personality Disorder)*1. But I would interpret his description of the Cosmic-yet-local mind of God more favorably --- as rational philosophy instead of spooky "woo" --- by using terms like : Holistic, yet composed of Holons*2.

For example, scientists treat Atoms as fundamental units of reality, yet they seem to consist of even more elementary elements such as protons, which are imagined to consist of invisible Quarks*3 : a nested hierarchy of systems within systems. I've never seen a quark, but I accept the hypothesis as a logical inference from "indirect experimental evidence". Does that whole-part notion make any sense to you? Sounds poetic to me. :nerd:

HOLISTIC HIERARCHY
In structure's dance, a grand design,
Where systems within systems intertwine,
A nested view, a deep descent,
Through layers linked, omnipotent.

From simple cell to complex state,
A chain of being, small to great.
The root-bound earth, the tree above,
Each part connected, bound by love.

The universe, a cosmic whole,
Within it galaxies find their goal.
Each galaxy, a star-lit sea,
With solar systems, you and me.

The atom holds the proton's hum,
The quark, the part from which all's come.
A fractal pattern, ever true,
Reflecting order, old and new.

No level stands in solitude,
But fits within its multitude.
A box inside a larger frame,
Hierarchy is the constant game.

So see the order, clear and bright,
From deep below to soaring height,
The nested world, a wonder vast,
In structures built that ever last.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=poem+on+nested+hierarchy


*1.Dissociative Identity Disorder (formerly Multiple Personality Disorder) :
A condition where a person experiences two or more distinct personality states or identities, which may have different names, memories, and ways of interacting with the world.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=psychological+dissociation

*2. "Holistic holons" refers to the concept that reality is made of nested hierarchies of "holons," which are entities that are simultaneously both a whole and a part of a larger whole. This concept, introduced by Arthur Koestler, attempts to reconcile the part-whole dichotomy by viewing every entity as both autonomous in itself and a component of a greater system. A cell, for example, is a holon because it is a whole with its own internal structure and is also a part of an organ, which is part of an organism.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=holistic+holons

*3. While quarks have not been directly observed, their existence is supported by a wealth of indirect experimental evidence, making them a foundational concept in modern physics, not a fabrication.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=quarks+not+real

So right there is something exactly the opposite of your handwaving. We have a triad of constants that are in a pure symmetry breaking relation. A unit 1 story as they are all the fundamental units and may as well be set to 1 as “measured values”. — apokrisis

Sorry. But your notion of a "triad of constants"*1 that add-up to 1, sounds like "handwaving" to me. Not because it's wrong, but because it's over my head, as a layman. Besides, those "fine-tuned" constants*2 are interpreted by some scientists as evidence of an Anthropic Principle*3. Do you agree with that interpretation of pre-set or programmed initial conditions? Do you have a better explanation for the pre-bang existence of mathematical settings that are logically necessary for the emergence of animated matter? :smile:


*1. The triad of constants related in a pure symmetry breaking relation refers to the speed of light (\(c\)), Planck's constant (\(\hbar \)), and the vacuum expectation value of the Higgs field (\(v\))
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=triad+of+constants+that+are+in+a+pure+symmetry+breaking+relation.
Note --- The "vacuum expectation value" is theoretical, not measurable. Do you view unsubstantiated theories as "handwaving"?

*2 Constants in science are fixed numerical values that describe physical quantities and are the same everywhere in the universe. They are either fundamental, like the speed of light (\(c\)), or used in experiments as "control variables" that are kept constant to ensure accurate results.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=constants+in+science
Note --- The Anthropic Principle seems to view your "triad of constants" as "control variables" to guide evolution toward the emergence of intelligent apes.

*3. The anthropic principle is the idea that the universe's fundamental constants have values that are necessary for the existence of life, which is why they appear "fine-tuned" for our existence.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=anthropic+principle+constants

The brain-as-receiver model says nothing about any of that, and instead, posits that the arising of consciousness at all is akin to a television receiving signals for any image whatever. Its reasonable, albeit totally fringe and unsupported. — AmadeusD

Another interpretation of the "Cosmos Created Mind" is Kastrup's Analytical Idealism*1. discussed this alternative in his thread*2. I'm not sure I fully understand K's "reasonable" and diligently documented update of ancient Idealism. Also, in order to maintain a philosophical line of reasoning, and to avoid getting into Religion vs Scientism diatribes, I prefer to use less dogmatic & divisive terms than "God". But Kastrup is bolder, and more self-assured than I am.

I wouldn't expect empirical support for a theoretical philosophical conjecture, that postulates a Cosmic Mind of which our little limited logic-parsers are fragments. But what do you think of his Mind as "foundation of Reality" and Idealism as "ultimate Realism" theory? I must admit that it bears some general similarity to my own Holism/Information/Causation hypothesis*3, which follows the chain of evidence back to the precipice of space-time, and merely points a philosophical finger toward the abyss of ignorance beyond. :chin:


*1. Bernardo Kastrup's Cosmic Mind :
he posits that the brain is not a receiver or filter of consciousness, but rather an image or representation of a universal consciousness that has undergone a dissociative process. In this model, physical reality, including the brain, is an external manifestation or "outside image" of internal mental processes
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=In+Bernardo+Kastrup%27s+view%2C+the+brain+is+not+a+receiver+of+consciousness%2C+but+rather+an+image+of+a+mind%27s+dissociative+process.+

*2. In Bernardo Kastrup's analytic idealism, the "mind of God" refers to a single, undivided, and all-encompassing consciousness that is the foundation of reality. He uses the concept of dissociation, a mental process where a larger mind fragments into smaller, individual minds, to explain how individual consciousnesses like ours arise from this single cosmic mind. This "God's mind" is not impersonal but is, in this view, the ultimate reality, and the world we experience is an externalization of this mind.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/1012470

*3. Creative Mind and Cosmic Order :
The traditional opposing philosophical positions on the Mind vs Matter controversy are Idealism & Realism. But Pinter offers a sort of middle position that is similar in some ways to my own worldview of Enformationism.
https://bothandblog8.enformationism.info/page10.html

Well if you paid more attention to the key Planckscale fact that I mentioned - such as how the Big Bang was both the smallest smallness and the hottest hotness ever - then you might start to see that as the beginning of an explication. — apokrisis

"Planckscale" is not a fact, and not actual, but imaginary & Ideal & hypothetical. Since I'm not a physicist, "planck scale facts" do not compute for me. The "explication"*1 below is a series of analogies to things we can experience & measure, in order to explain a mathematical concept that is impossible to experience or measure. Can you get closer to a meaningful real-world explication?

Planck's Scale is not an actual measurement, but a theoretical limit to measurement. It's like saying Zero plus Infinitesimal. Does that mean anything to you? Can you really imagine an imaginary world where the "laws of physics" do not apply? Is the Planck Scale radius --- encompassing infinite potential for Causation (energy) --- empirical Science or theoretical (mathematical) Philosophy?*3 It's not useful for any real-world applications, but only for philosophical conjectures*4.

For all practical purposes, you might just as well say that the near-infinite universe we now experience originated from nothing --- no atoms or quarks --- but near-infinite Energy. That immeasurable, almost unimaginable, quantity of world-creating Causal Power is literally super-natural. And it is analogous to what I call, philosophically, Infinite Potential*5. :smile:



*1. Visualizing the Planck Length :
An imaginary radius smaller than anything you have ever seen or imagined
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=planck+scale+smallest+and+hottest#fpstate=ive&vld=cid:dc709fba,vid:bjVfL8uNkUk,st:57

*2. Planck Scale :
The Planck scale is a fundamental set of units where the current laws of physics break down, and both quantum mechanics and general relativity are needed to describe phenomena.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=what+is+planck+scale

*3. Math isn't Real :
The statement "math isn't real" is a philosophical debate, but it generally means that while the concepts of math are abstract human inventions, they are an incredibly useful tool for describing and modeling the real, physical world. Things like perfect circles or infinite numbers don't exist in reality, but they are useful concepts for understanding it.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=math+is+not+real

*4. Planck's mathematical God :
Max Planck believed that science and religion both require a belief in God, but that each approaches this belief differently. For religion, God is the foundation and the starting point, while for science, God is the ultimate goal or the "crown" at the end of all reasoning. He saw no fundamental opposition between them, viewing them as complementary forces that both battle against skepticism and superstition.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=planck+god
Note --- Substitute "planckscale" in place of God, and you have a scientific "foundation and starting point" for our evolving Cosmos.

*5. A.N. Whitehead's beginning of an explication of the beginning of evolution :
However, if you think of the evolutionary Process as a computer Program, an appropriate metaphor might represent the system designer as a Programmer. “Alfred North Whitehead's philosophy of God and the mind includes the idea of a timeless mind that contains pure potentialities and a mind that is empathic with the world”. {Google AI Overview}
https://bothandblog8.enformationism.info/page46.html

The fact that it is a standard symptom of schizophrenia ought give pause for thought. — apokrisis

That reason for concern may be why I remain skeptical of the brain-as-receiver postulation. Schizophrenia was interpreted by the ancients as demon possession. If so, then a demon-god might be the transmitter. Or a god with a few screws loose. :wink:

But where did the original Information (natural laws?) come from, that caused a living & thinking Cosmos to explode into existence? — Gnomon
Pfft. That is mysticism and not serious metaphysics. — apokrisis

The question may be Idealistic, but not Mystical. I'm sorry you don't see the key distinction between practical Mysticism (submission) and rational Meta-physics*1 (understanding). Mystics*2 tend to think of their beliefs & behaviors as a pragmatic practice of appeasing the invisible powers-that-be. But philosophers typically think of their beyond-physics musings as attempts to gain control over the immaterial laws & principles of Nature*3. Modern Science is the practical application of empirical knowledge, but Metaphysical Theories explore the remaining pockets of ignorance, especially the mysterious minds of sentient observers : the "Hard Problem".

If there were no human scientists & philosophers, the universe would not have "laws", just consistent physical behaviors (things fall down, but why?). Hence, the inquiring human mind infers from those orderly processes that physical activity is not random or chaotic*3. Instead, there is a limiting Logic to physical processes that reminded some of the early scientists of the Rule of Law that distinguished rational civilized human societies from instinctual dog-eat-dog barbarian & animal societies. Mysticism is the rule of Taboo, while Metaphysics is the rule of Reason.

The Logical Efficacy of human Science depends on the Logical Structure of Nature. The human mind can read that Logic as meaningful Information*4. But, in view of the Second Law of Entropy, a reasonable question is what-or-who enformed the orderly & evolving structure of the world? How did the mathematical Singularity gain the power & order to develop from no-thing to every-thing? The Big Bang was not a destructive explosion, but a constructive creation : from Math to Matter.

Physics is the science of concrete Things --- moved & transformed by abstract forces --- while Meta-physics is the science of abstract Forms (ideas ; essences ; causes). Scientism is a mystical belief system in which inert Matter takes the place of active Gods. Immanentism supports matter-based beliefs by drawing a line of taboo between a priori (before Bang) and a posteriori (after Bang).

A "hard" Atheist might be content to believe that the logical order of the natural system "just is" --- circular reasoning --- without asking philosophical "why" or "how" questions. Such as : the "unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics"*5. Some of the early Greek philosophers even considered the Geometry of Nature as "sacred", while others were more pragmatic and down-to-earth*5. Do you think the universe is eternal & self-existent? Or do you accept the Cosmological evidence indicating that Nature as-we-know-it had a sudden inexplicable beginning? :chin:


*1. Meta-physics :
The branch of philosophy that examines the nature of reality, including the relationship between mind and matter, substance and attribute, fact and value.
a. Often dismissed by materialists as idle speculation on topics not amenable to empirical proof.
b. Aristotle divided his treatise on science into two parts. The world as-known-via-the-senses was labeled “physics” - what we call "Science" today. And the world as-known-by-the-mind, by reason, was later labeled “metaphysics” - what we now call "Philosophy" .
c. Plato called the unseen world that hides behind the physical façade: “Ideal” as opposed to Real. For him, Ideal “forms” (concepts) were prior-to the Real “substance” (matter).
d. Physics refers to the things we perceive with the eye of the body. Meta-physics refers to the things we conceive with the eye of the mind. Meta-physics includes the properties, and qualities, and functions that make a thing what it is. Matter is just the clay from which a thing is made. Meta-physics is the design (form, purpose); physics is the product (shape, action). The act of creation brings an ideal design into actual existence. The design concept is the “formal” cause of the thing designed.
e. I use a hyphen in the spelling to indicate that I am not talking about Ghosts and Magic, but about Ontology (science of being).
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page14.html

*2. Mysticism vs Metaphysics :
Metaphysics uses rational, philosophical inquiry to understand reality's fundamental nature, while mysticism relies on direct, personal, and often spiritual experience to achieve a higher understanding.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=difference+between+metaphysics+and+mysticism

*3. Natural Law vs Chaos :
If the world just happens to be rationally ordered by natural laws, why couldn't it just happen not to be the following day?
https://www.reddit.com/r/philosophy/comments/1aio8d/what_compels_the_universe_to_follow_natural_laws/
Note --- "Laws of nature" are universal, consistent, and factual statements that describe observed patterns in the natural world, such as gravity or thermodynamics.

*4. Logic as Information :
Logic can be understood as the study of information, examining how information is encoded, manipulated, and inferred.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=logic+as+information

*5. Math is Metaphysical :
Mathematical metaphysics is the philosophical position that reality is fundamentally a mathematical structure and that existence is equivalent to being a mathematical object.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=mathematics+metaphysics
Note --- Mathematical "objects" are actually abstract ideas in the mind of a subjective thinker.

↪Gnomon
You've landed on the only speculative element in my earlier response. That speculative comment you latched on to, is mainly my attempt to provide a kind of cosmic rationale for the existence of life, rather than seeing it as a kind of fluke of biochemistry. — Wayfarer

Yes. I found your "speculative element" to be compatible with my own hypothesizing. Your "cosmic rationale" of incipient drive for Life, and 's biosemiology speculation of entropic drive, seem to be similar to my own semi-scientific* philosophical rationale of EnFormAction as a natural evolutionary tendency toward Life & Mind. Since a Tendency (inclination toward an end) can't be seen in a telescope, none of these conjectures has hard scientific evidence. But soft rational inference may provide sufficient reasons for viewing Life & Mind as intentional (willful?) instead of an accidental "fluke".

Several prominent philosophers & scientists have proposed similar cosmic DRIVEs with less scientific backup : Schopenhauer's cosmic WILL*1, Bergson's ELAN VITAL*2, and Spinoza's CONATUS*3. So, your speculative rationale has a long history. But only in recent years has physical science pointed in the same direction, by combining Quantum Fields with Information Causation*4.

I don't know if physical Science will ever accept the logical implications of these speculations, but metaphysical Philosophy should be able to see evidence of Intention in Evolution*5. Of course, Teleology is heresy for Materialists, but may be unavoidable for Idealists . . . . and fodder for further debate. :cool:

* based on current sciences of Quantum Physics & Information Theory

*1. Schopenhauer’s Will as Intention :
EnFormAction is similar to Schop's Cosmic Will, except that it is characterized as Intentional instead of Accidental, and Purposeful instead of Aimless.
https://bothandblog8.enformationism.info/page19.html

*2. Elan Vital :
The concept of élan vital is also similar to Baruch Spinoza's concept of conatus*3 as well as Arthur Schopenhauer's concept of the will-to-live and the Sanskrit āyus or "life principle".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89lan_vital

*3. Conatus :
is a Latin term for an effort, striving, or impulse, but it is most famously used in philosophy, particularly by Spinoza, to mean the innate drive of all things to persevere in their own existence and to enhance themselves. This concept applies to everything from the physical will to live in an organism to the metaphysical tendency of a thing to exist as its true nature
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=conatus+meaning

*4. Active Information :
Quantum physicist David Peat . . . . To explain the “active” element of Information, Peat says “I suggest that Information is the final element in a triad—information is that which gives form to energy”.
https://bothandblog8.enformationism.info/page29.html

*5. Holism and Creative Evolution :
Change is typically imagined as a cause & effect Mechanism, but Bergson seems to view Darwinian evolution as a kind of Teleology or Entelechy.
https://bothandblog8.enformationism.info/page25.html

My tentative answer is that there is, at least, a kind of incipient drive towards conscious existence woven, somehow, into the fabric of the cosmos. And that through its manifest forms of organic existence, horizons of being are disclosed that would otherwise never be realised. — Wayfarer
Well biosemiosis has now turned all this from metaphysical speculation into firm science. What is woven into the initial conditions of the physical world is the incipient inevitability of its Second Law entropic drive running into a form of systemhood that can exploit its own loophole. — apokrisis

's "incipient drive" (nascent power) sounds like another way to describe my own notion of EnFormAction (the power to transform : Energy + Form + Causation). And the "entropic drive" of your nascent science of "biosemiosis"*1 (Decoding Life Signs)*2 may also be relevant to the topic of this thread.

However, identifying the Cosmic Encoder of the program (language) for Life & Mind remains an open question for both science and philosophy. All three proposals are currently "metaphysical speculations" with the potential to coalesce into a new science integrating biology, psychology & cosmology. When we learn to speak the language of Nature, maybe we will come to "know the mind of God"*3.

The Initial Conditions of the Big Bang necessarily included Causal Power (energy) and Limiting Laws (program for directing energy). But the pre-bang source of those necessities is elided (omitted) from most scientific accounts of the origin of our universe. So hypothetical speculations on "what existed before the Bang?" include such unscientific non-empirical notions as eternal/infinite Gods, eternal Inflation, everlasting Multiverses, or unbounded sets of Many Worlds.

Physical science, though, begins after the Planck time-gap of the Big-Bang-beginning itself. At which time the metaphysical Laws of Thermodynamics were already in effect. And everything after that puzzling "low entropy" initial condition is defined as Entropic, where the Energy of the Bang coasts downhill toward a hypothetical Big-Freeze-ending, characterized by the total disorganization of "Cosmic heat death".

Yet somehow --- after a few billion years of deadly entropy --- Order, Organization and Organic-life emerged, despite the "absolute" Second Law of Thermodynamics. Apparently, that Incipient Drive*4, woven into the fabric of matter-energy, was programmed to produce the "manifest forms" that we experience as perceived Reality. But who or what was the programmer of biological & psychological codes that have manifested in animated & intentional matter?

My Information-based concept of EnFormAction, or Enformy (negentropy) may be another term for the hypothetical incipient drive that produced the orderly systems of Life, which communicate and reproduce via the physical & metaphysical processes of Biosemiosis (DNA + code). But where did the original Information (natural laws?) come from, that caused a living & thinking Cosmos to explode into existence? That may be the implicit & annoying "un-scientific" un-proveable Ontological question that provokes the antipathy displayed by some biological entities in their replies to this thread. For the record, my answer is "I don't know". :nerd:


*1. Biosemiosis is the process by which all living organisms interpret and communicate through signs,
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=biosemiosis
Note --- Signs & Symbols are patterns of matter (e.g. on-off, black-white) that convey useful information within a system. But only sentient entities are aware of the meaning of that information.

*2. Organic Information :
Life is a complex phenomenon characterized by a set of universal biological traits, including cellular organization, metabolism, homeostasis, reproduction, growth, adaptation, response to stimuli, and heredity. It is a process that involves organized biological matter with the capacity for self-sustaining processes and evolution. Information, particularly in the form of DNA, plays a crucial role by providing instructions for building and regulating the components of an organism.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=life+information
Note --- Biological Codes are patterns of matter (DNA) that can be interpreted by RNA for information necessary to build & regulate structural & biological functions.

*3. Mind of God :
The phrase "know the mind of God" is often used by physicists like Stephen Hawking to describe the ultimate goal of science : to find a unified, complete, and simple theory that explains all the laws of the universe.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=physicist+to+know+the+mind+of+god
Note --- For the purposes of this thread, Inceptive Cosmos is the source of all energy (cause) and laws (codes) that eventually created a path to Life & Mind.

*4. Active Information :
Quantum physicist David Peat worked with, and was influenced by both Bohm and Roger Penrose, who also postulated some unorthodox theories of physics and metaphysics. I borrowed the name of his article¹ for this blog post. There, he noted that “Towards the end of the 1980s David Bohm introduced the notion of Active Information into his Ontological Interpretation of Quantum Theory”. To explain the “active” element of Information, Peat says “I suggest that Information is the final element in a triad—information is that which gives form to energy”.
https://bothandblog8.enformationism.info/page29.html

Well, I think you'll find my thoughts, such as they are, disappointing. . . .
So I don't think it's appropriate to speak of the cosmos creating mind if it's intended to suggest the cosmos somehow intentionally made mind, or us for that matter. I know of no evidence supporting those claims. . . . . .
Perhaps they were pantheists or panpsychists--I don't particularly care which. I find the general idea of such a cosmos attractive. But I agree that if there is something similar to pneuma {animating principle} it will be established through science, not philosophy. — Ciceronianus

"Disappointing"? Do you think I am emotionally invested in the "science of Noetics"*1? For me it's just an interesting philosophical approach to the Hard Problem of Consciousness : phenomenal experience, or what it's like to be a person. My interest in the elusive topic of Mind is philosophical, not scientific*2. Any "science" of Noetics is limited to the soft science of Psychology, which draws inferences about holistic mental states (e.g. intentions) from particular neural states (electro-chemical activity). But, how do neurons & electrons create meaningful ideas? Noetics postulates that ideas are signals from outside the brain. Personally, I'm skeptical. But the analogy with immaterial radio signals (mathematical waves, not material particles) is suggestive. So, I can't categorically deny the possibility. Hence, this thread.

"Appropriate" relative to what standard? If your philosophy is Materialism, then of course any talk about immaterial stuff like metaphysical Minds & Cosmic signals would be inappropriate. But this is a Philosophy forum, so if discussion of immaterial stuff is banned, then it should be renamed The Physics Forum. Is the "animating principle" of Life & Mind elucidated in an authoritative physics text? Does Physics have a material definition of the Causal Principle of the Cosmos? Materialism seems to treat Mind as immaterial, hence it literally & figuratively doesn't matter. Scientism treats the "Hard Problem" as solved finito, hence the hay is in the barn : cut & dried. Do you agree?

If discussion of Intention on a philosophy forum is inappropriate, then yes I would be disappointed. But what kind of "evidence" do you think is appropriate for the topic of Cosmos Created Mind? The title of this thread was intentionally flipped from 's Mind Created World thread. Which did not imply that your mind created the whole physical world, but left open the possibility that some cosmic intentional (teleological) Mind created the dynamic physical Universe, which in turn created (by evolution) living & thinking creatures. Instead it referred to the common understanding that human mind imagines a metaphysical model of its physical environment that the person treats as-if it's real*2.

If you think the Hard Problem of Mind has been solved by Science, then you may be influenced by the dogma of Scientism, which holds that All Truth is revealed by Physics & Chemistry. But what about Mathematics? I'm currently reading a 1948 memoir by philosopher/mathematician A.N. Whitehead. In a chapter on Axioms of Geometry, he discusses "absolute and relative theories of space", noting that Isaac Newton believed that "space has an existence . . . independent of the bodies {matter} which it contains". Whitehead concluded that "geometry is not a science with a determinate subject matter". Does that mean Math exists only in Minds, hence is not Real?

Then along came Einstein with his Theory of Relativity, indicating that objects are knowable only in relation to other objects, and that "only relative motion is directly measurable". The relevant point being that all we know about the world is subjective ideas in a Mind. Do you think physical science provides us with Absolute Knowledge, so that exploring Metaphysical (mental) aspects of reality is a waste of (immaterial, immeasurable) Time? :chin:


*1. Noetic science is not considered real by mainstream science because its claims, such as telepathy and telekinesis, are not supported by empirical evidence and are classified as pseudoscience by organizations like Quackwatch.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=is+noetics+a+real+science

*2. Cosmos : The mind creates a model of the world by actively constructing a perception of reality based on sensory input, past experiences, and predictions. It doesn't passively receive information but instead interprets and pieces together fragmented data to create a coherent, subjective experience that allows for prediction and survival. This internal model is constantly being updated and is why individuals can have different interpretations of the same events
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=mind+creates+a+model+of+the+world

No, they are not related except they both have a "pan" prefix which refers to "all," "of everything," or "completely." They are completely different things. — T Clark

I assume that you are passionately defending the worldview of Spinoza's philosophical PanTheism from the ancient "New Age" notion of PanPsychism. But they are only antithetical for devout believers. I'm aware that likes to portray Panpsychism as "nonsense" compared to Spinoza's scientific sense. But from an objective perspective, someone not ardently committed to one belief system or the other may not see any incompatibility*1.

I'm not a true believer in either view, but a loosely related "pan-" label, PanEnDeism*2, could be applied to my own non-religious philosophical understanding of how & why the world works as it does : supporting the immaterial processes of Life & Mind. But my thesis uses the more scientific term Information instead of spooky Psyche. :smile:

PS___ I don't know enough about Noetics to pin any of these "-ism" labels on it.


*1. Spinoza's philosophy is both pantheistic and panpsychist because it identifies God with Nature and sees everything in the universe as an aspect of this single substance, including mind and matter. His pantheism is the view that God is identical with the universe ("God, or Nature"). His panpsychism is the view that mind is a fundamental and pervasive feature of reality, such that every physical thing has a mind as one of its attributes.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=spinoza+pantheism+and+panpsychism
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/panpsychism/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panpsychism

*2. Panendeismis a belief system that combines elements of panentheism (God is in the universe) and deism (God does not intervene supernaturally after creation), asserting that God both pervades the universe and transcends it.

↪Gnomon
Thanks for the information. — Ciceronianus

I was hoping you might suggest a hypothetical answer to the topical question : "But how does such an ethereal notion [pneuma ; aether] relate to the title of this thread?" What feature of the Cosmos, as a whole system, could explain the emergence of both Life & Mind (processes) on a minor planet in an ordinary galaxy?

I've been exploring alternatives to ancient Materialist theories (e.g. Pneuma ; Aether) in my blog*1. And the only common factor I've found is phenomenal Causation (energy ; force ; power) directed by noumenal Organization (natural laws), which together I call EnFormAction (the power to transform) or just Information*2. But what is the ultimate source of Cause & Laws of the universe*3? :chin:


*1. Cosmology and Evolution :
Divine Design vs Teleological Evolution vs Scientific Serendipity
https://bothandblog8.enformationism.info/page41.html

*2. Information :
Knowledge and the ability to know. Technically, it's the ratio of order to disorder, of positive to negative, of knowledge to ignorance. It's measured in degrees of uncertainty. Those ratios are also called "differences". So Gregory Bateson* defined Information as "the difference that makes a difference". The latter distinction refers to "value" or "meaning". Babbage called his prototype computer a "difference engine". Difference is the cause or agent of Change. In Physics it’s called "Thermodynamics" or "Energy". In Sociology it’s called "Conflict".
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page11.html

*3. Schopenhauer’s Will as Intention :
Ironically, as a critic of religion, Schop’s “Will” combines phenomenal causation and noumenal representation⁴ into a single concept, similar to the Holy Spirit of the Bible. . . . .
Schopenhauer argued that the flawed world is not rationally organized⁸. But, if so, how could reasoning beings evolve, and how could human Science gain control over the physical realm?
https://bothandblog8.enformationism.info/page19.html

# Factor : a circumstance, fact, or influence that contributes to a result or outcome.

The ancient Stoics were stubborn materialists, but believed in a rarefied form of material, generally called pneuma, which was the generative force of the cosmos. Pneuma was a part of all things, organic and inorganic, but had different grades, one of which formed the rational mind/soul of human beings. — Ciceronianus

Good point! Pneuma (air ; fire) was an ancient materialistic theory that equated invisible Breath (oxygen) with Life, Spirit, Soul & Mind. Today, we know more about the transparent chemical gas that is essential to Life, and ultimately to Mind. But, the modern essence of Life (animation) is Energy, and Oxygen is merely a catalyst*1. Yet, while we know what Energy does (action ; causation), scientists can't say what it is (essence).

The enduring concept of Pneuma as the ethereal essence of dynamic reality ("generative force of the cosmos") is now retreaded in a modern theory of consciousness*2. This evolving terminology is similar to ancient Aether, which was long-ago debunked as a non-scientific spiritual concept, but the name has recently been resurrected in Quantum Field theory*3. So, Pneuma is now portrayed as a vacuum full of immaterial Energy. But how does such an ethereal notion relate to the title of this thread? :smile:


*1. Oxygen as Energy matchmaker :
Most aerobic organisms, including humans, use oxygen to break down food, a process that generates chemical energy in the form of ATP, which is necessary for all life functions.

*2. Quantum consciousness :
Theories, such as Roger Penrose's Orch-OR theory, are seen as modern successors to pneuma, suggesting consciousness is not a mere byproduct of matter but a fundamental aspect of reality itself.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=pneuma+modern+science

*3. Aether as energy field :
In the 21st century, the concept of aether is largely considered obsolete in mainstream physics, having been replaced by quantum field theory and the quantum vacuum.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=21st+century+aether

But that would be leading the conversation back into the realm of the actually scientific. — apokrisis

I didn't intend for this thread, on a philosophy forum, to be a scientific analysis of evidence for "signals from the cosmos". Other than as a Noetic postulate to resolve the Hard Problem of Consciousness, I'm not aware of any scientific evidence of intelligible signals being received and interpreted by the brain, except of course as energetic inputs (light, sound) from the local environment. Instead, I'm asking for philosophical reasoning about the likelihood or possibility of "non-local" inputs of meaningful signals from an intelligent source out there in the Cosmos at large. :chin:

So it is the same old causal debate. Top-down holism vs bottom-up contruction. Two ways of treating consciousness as a reified "thing" – an elemental property of nature. But two opposite ways of framing that fact. — apokrisis

Now, we're getting somewhere! My own --- philosophical, not scientific --- musings, about the hard problem, point toward Causation (natural energy, gravity, forces) as the precursor of Consciousness in biological entities. This is a holistic interpretation instead of a reductive inference from specific observations. If so, then perhaps human awareness is a high-level function of brain processes, not a reified thing or substance like the aether. All natural processes must have some evolutionary fitness function to avoid being weeded-out by natural selection. And all physical processes, including brain functions, require Energy.

Moreover, professional scientists have recently inferred from their observations that change-causing Energy is a special form of generic Information*1. And ideas in the human mind are also forms of meaningful information, yes?. Therefore, practical Science points to a natural relationship between Consciousness & Causation. However, the topic of this thread is about the possibility that some Cosmic Intelligence --- (gods or aliens or overflowing black holes*2) the novel leaves the Source open to interpretation --- is beaming meaningful signals into our brains in order to produce the ideas that we arrogant apes assume are our own creation. :nerd:


*1. The statement "energy is information" is a complex and debated concept, but it reflects the deep relationship between the two: energy is a fundamental aspect of information, as physical information requires energy to be carried, and information can be viewed as a form of energy or a measure of a system's organization. While not a simple equivalence, theories propose that information and energy are intrinsically linked and potentially convertible, as demonstrated in a physical experiment where information was converted into energy. {details in the link}
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=energy+is+information

*2. black hole information paradox, a conflict between quantum mechanics and general relativity. It questions what happens to the information of matter that falls into a black hole, as quantum mechanics dictates that information cannot be destroyed, while Hawking's theory suggested black holes radiate away matter without recovering this information. This paradox arises because a black hole's only observable properties are its mass, electric charge, and angular momentum, which are not enough to reconstruct the original information of what fell in.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=black+hole+information
Note --- Like Energy, perhaps Information cannot be created or destroyed, only transformed. But, no, I don't take the Black Hole Source seriously. Do you?

It is only likely in a block universe of pre-determined events of experience, while in presentism the brain produces the experiential from one's nature and nurture, although still determined as time goes along. The two implementations, or messengers, deliver the same message of being; it's like a music CD versus a live band. — PoeticUniverse

Thanks for making a rational philosophical suggestion, instead of emotional political derision. :razz:

Which do you think is "likely" : A> the pre-recorded Block Universe theory / Eternalism (everything, everywhere, all at once) or B> live event Presentism (one experience at a time)?
In either analogy, does that mean you agree or disagree with the fictional Noetic scientist, that our personal ideas are actually signals from the Cosmos (recorded or live ; local or non-local ; cosmic or proprietary)? Am I wrong to believe that “my Ideas are my own personal creation”? Could you copyright your poems & videos, or list cosmic credits on the label? :smile:

Radio analogy : "The key presumption is that Consciousness is non-local, but Cosmic (Pantheism ; Panpsychism)". ___ From OP
If my personal sense of awareness (receiver) is actually processing a broadcast signal or narrowcast message, what does that imply about the source/transmitter? : (e.g. Theistic Pantheism vs Atheistic Panpsychism) :nerd:

The OP does mention PanTheism, which is a religious form of philosophical PanPsychism. — Gnomon
This is not true. Pantheism and panpsychism are entirely different things. — T Clark

You are just being contrarian & polemic & off-topic. I didn't say they are the same thing, but only that they are related, as a general Form and and a particular Thing are related (hylomorph). Do you understand the relationship between Islam and Monotheism? One is a specific doctrinal religion, while the other is a general doctrine regarding Deity : Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are all philosophically monotheistic, but differ in specific doctrinal beliefs.

The quoted -isms are different in that Pantheism is a religious worldview, while Panpsychism is a philosophical theory. By analogy, Theism is a religious belief, while Deism is a philosophical concept. Can you see the relationship (world creator) and the distinction (miraculous intervention vs natural evolution)?

Now that you have made your us-vs-them political position clear, can we get back on the philosophical topic : "The key presumption {of Noetics} is that Consciousness is non-local, i.e. Cosmic Mind (Panpsychism)".? :cool:


Pantheism is the belief that God is the universe, identifying divinity with all of existence, while panpsychism is the philosophical idea that consciousness is a fundamental property of the universe, present in all matter. Pantheism is a religious concept, often seen as an alternative to traditional theism by rejecting a transcendent, separate God. Panpsychism is more of a metaphysical theory about consciousness itself, though it is often explored in conjunction with pantheistic ideas to consider whether the universe can be a conscious, divine mind.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=pantheism+panpsychism+religion

Pantheism and panpsychism are related but distinct concepts; pantheism is a religious philosophy equating God with the universe, while panpsychism is a philosophical view that consciousness is a fundamental and ubiquitous feature of reality. Panpsychism can be used to support pantheism by suggesting that the universal consciousness is divine.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=pantheism+panpsychism+religion