I have even developed a science-based personal worldview that qualifies as an "-ism" (philosophical system). — Gnomon
Why have you found it important to do this? — Tom Storm

I explain the whys & wherefores in great detail in the Enformationism thesis and blog. As the name implies, it is based on the expanding role of Information in 21st century science, and has nothing to do with religious beliefs. Yet, the Materialist worldview seems to focus mainly on Entropy, which promises to de-evolve inevitably toward cold dark heat death. That negative attitude is contrary to the positive outlook of some religions, which are viewed as mawkishly optimistic, and needs to be suppressed by any means necessary.

However, my philosophical perspective centers on Energy (negentropy ; EnFormAction) as the causal & organizing force behind the progressive stages of evolution that modern science has discovered since the Big Bang creation event. The basic facts are well established, but the interpretation of those data points remains to be worked-out, not by pragmatic scientists, but by theoretical philosophers.

Why is it important? Ask Plato and Aristotle why they produced non-religious theories that have influenced the world for 1500 years. Like them, I remain Agnostic about the pre-bang source of Natural Laws (Logos) and of cosmic causation (First Cause). I don't expect salvation from the Entropic Reaper. But I have nothing better to do with my retirement time than to dabble in Ontological & Epistemological philosophy. :smile:

Enformationism :

This website is a place to explore the meaning and ramifications of a new philosophical and scientific hypothesis that I have chosen to call Enformationism. The term spelled with an "I" had already been used elsewhere in various contexts and meanings, so I looked for an alternative name. Since the new scientific term Enformy was already in use, with a meaning similar to what I had in mind, I simply chose to change the spelling of my proposed coinage.

This informal thesis does not present any new scientific evidence, or novel philosophical analysis. It merely suggests a new perspective on an old enigma : what is reality? The so-called “Information Age” that began in the 20th century, has now come of age in the 21st century. So I have turned to the cutting-edge Information Sciences in an attempt to formulate my own personal answer to the perennial puzzles of Ontology, the science of Existence.

I am neither a scientist, nor a philosopher, so the arguments herein carry no more authority or expertise than those of anyone else with an interest in such impractical musings. This is intended to be an open-ended thread, because it’s a relatively new and unproven concept, and because the ideas presented here are merely a superficial snapshot of what promises to be a whole new way of understanding the world : philosophically, scientifically, and religiously.
https://enformationism.info/enformationism.info/page2%20Welcome.html

It often feels to me that these kinds of arguments come from former devout Muslim or Christians who in the deconstruction of their faith need to salvage some notions of teleological purpose, but frame them in a scientific language to, perhaps, feel less embarrassed about the conclusion. — Tom Storm

The Intelligent Design movement did originate as a response to the aggressive New Atheists in the late 20th century. And their ID arguments were directed mainly at believers who might be swayed by the authority of well-known scientists. But in the intervening years, think-tank organizations such as the Discovery Institute have recruited practicing scientists who can reconcile scientific "facts" with their religious beliefs. Stephen Meyer is one of those experts, and he is not in the least "embarassed" by his controversial conclusions.

Consequently, they can go toe-to-toe and fact-to-fact with the New Atheists, without resorting to "thus saith the lord" assertions. So, I was impressed by Meyers' scientific acumen and his ability to construct plausible philosophical arguments from known scientific facts. However, he makes no attempt to convince the reader of any particular religious creed. Besides, I long ago concluded that the Christian Bible, which was the sole authority for my childhood religion, is not the revealed Word of God, but the tribal myths of priests. So, while I respect the book for its literary importance, I don't accept its jurisdiction in matters of scientific or historical fact.

Nevertheless, I have independently reached the conclusion that the universe, as depicted by a broad array of scientific facts, shows signs of Teleological Evolution (e.g Anthropic principle). But I doubt that the Mind behind the design is the kind of God-king depicted in the Judeo-Christian scriptures. So, while I practice no religion, and remain Agnostic about the implicit designer/programmer, for my philosophical purposes I take Teleology seriously. I have even developed a science-based personal worldview that qualifies as an "-ism" (philosophical system).

My personal "-ism" has been repeatedly attacked by the trolls on this forum, apparently because they feel the need to "salvage" their own "devout" Atheistic metaphysical beliefs. Hence, they typically resort to Ad Hominem and Straw Man arguments instead of scientific or philosophical reasoning. Yet, I posted this thread with the hope that such a hot topic can be discussed calmly and reasonably and philosophically. This assumes that few of us are experts in Physics or Biology or Cosmology. So, we need to remain humble enough to avoid haughty or supercilious attitudes.

Therefore, the topic to be addressed is not Christianity or Islam or Jehovah or Allah, but the notion of trial & error Evolutionary Creation of the current cosmos over eons from law-like Initial Conditions as discovered by Astronomers, not Astrologers. It's a modern concept that was unknown to the writers of ancient scriptures. But 1500 years ago, Greek philosophers postulated the necessity for philosophical principles, such as Logos or First Cause, long prior to our modern notions of Initial Conditions or Big Bang beginning. Can we treat this hot topic, not as a hot potato, but as a legitimate philosophical conundrum? :smile:

So, is it the case that it is just the ultra-wealthy and elite supporting their own candidates? What are your thoughts on the matter of the medium being dominated by conservatives more-so than democrats, and what does this actually mean about having their talking-points heard more than one or the other? — Shawn

Historically, politics has been reserved by and for the rich & powerful, leaving the masses (hoi polloi) to meekly accept whatever policies are decided at the top. Athens had a brief experiment with Democracy, but only for a minority group of nobles & landowners. Even when the unwashed masses were excluded, Plato was skeptical & sarcastic of such a political mechanism : "Democracy... is a charming form of government, full of variety and disorder; and dispensing a sort of equality to equals and unequals alike". But he later came to view popular rule as inherently "corrupt and unjust"*1 ; hence his imaginary ideal leader was a Philosopher King. Unfortunately, such rational, ethical, and egalitarian leaders have proven to be rare among the opposing interest groups of human politics.

Modern Democracy has been experimenting with allowing the unruly & irrational & gullible mobs of the masses to have a vote in state policy. But even where universal education is established, the majority of self-interested voters have proven to be no more rational & philosophical than the ego-centric minority of ambitious oligarchs. And both groups are easily swayed by clever con-men, who learn what the various vested interests want to hear, and feed their heart's desires back to them in the form of simplistic myths (MAGA), and by making controversial & ambiguous statements that the mass media feel compelled to cover. He dominates unpaid media exposure by playing to their bias toward covering fears and faith. :smile:


*1. What did Plato say about democracy?
At the death of Socrates, Plato concluded that democracy was a corrupt and unjust form of government. He left Athens and traveled for a few years before returning in 387 B.C. to establish a school of philosophy.
https://teachdemocracy.org/online-lessons/bill-of-rights-in-action/bria-19-4-c

↪Gnomon
I read Federico Faggin's 'Silicon' last year, and have started his 'Irreducible'. This last one is difficult material and there's a lot about it I don't understand, but there are some elements beginning to crystallise. — Wayfarer

Since you have already started, maybe I should leave it to you to digest the book into its fundamental elements, and then post your understanding on the forum, for those of us less erudite.

Ancient Atomism postulated that everything in the world can be reduced down to a fundamental/elemental particle of matter. Yet modern Quantum Theory assumed that everything could be reduced down to an irreducible mathematical measurement (quantum)*1 : e.g. a bit of energy (photon)*2. But Planck attempted to define mathematically the smallest "irreducible" units on the quantum scale*3. The quote below says that the lowest limit of measurement is mental not material.

So it shouldn't be surprising that scientists have not been able to "touch bottom" in the ocean of matter. Eventually, they temporarily gave up on the search for an irreducible particle of matter, and instead postulated the Quantum Field as the fundamental element of reality --- so they could "shut up and calculate". Ironically, that "field" is a mathematical construct, not a material object, and the dimensionless "points" are imaginary locations in space, with no material extension --- nothing physical to measure; only metaphysical math.

Since the Irreducible "Atom" of physics turns out to be Immaterial, it's understandable that such ghostly concepts are difficult to understand, and to translate into our materialistic language*4. :smile:


*1. What is a Quantum? :
In physics, a quantum is the minimum amount of any physical entity involved in an interaction. Quantum is a discrete quantity of energy proportional in magnitude to the frequency of the radiation it represents. ___Wikipedia

*2. Photons are light quanta that do not have mass or a size because they are neither a wave nor a particle, but both. However, the size of a photon perpendicular to its velocity is constant and is expected to be as small as 10−20 meters. {Meters??? 65 feet!}
___Google AI overview

*3. Is there anything smaller than the Planck scale? :
It is not impossible for anything to be smaller than the Planck length. It is impossible for the laws of physics as we understand them today to describe anything smaller than the Planck length. That is a limit of our ignorance, not a limit of the Universe.
https://www.quora.com/Is-there-anything-smaller-than-a-Planck-length-1

*4. Irreducible Mind :
Current mainstream opinion in psychology, neuroscience, and philosophy of mind holds that all aspects of human mind and consciousness are generated by physical processes occurring in brains. Views of this sort have dominated recent scholarly publication. The present volume, however, demonstrates empirically that this reductive materialism is not only incomplete but false. The authors systematically marshal evidence for a variety of psychological phenomena that are extremely difficult, and in some cases clearly impossible, to account for in conventional physicalist terms.
___Amazon Books

Folllowing this and his awakening, he rejected scientific materialism as an inadequate foundation for exploring and understanding the nature of consciousness, which has significance for both AI and the relationship of the quantum and classical physical domains. In the new book he takes the next step and attempts to articulate a fully-formed idealist philosophy of quantum and classical physics, consciousness, computers and meaning - technically known as the whole enchilada. — Wayfarer

I've never had anything close to an "awakening" or "mystical experience", but like Faggin, I did have a sudden insight --- upon reading a quantum physicist's unexpected conclusion, while trying to make sense of enigmatic sub-atomic reality --- into the Life & Mind problem of modern physical science and metaphysical philosophy. Speaking of aethereal Photons and other Leptons, he concluded, "it's all information". To which I might add : "all the way down". Or as you said : "the whole {holistic} enchilada".

After further investigation, my subsequent thesis, Enformationism, is a mashup of Materialism and Idealism, based on Einstein's equation of Matter & Energy, and later conclusions of physicists that Energy is a physical form of Causal Information : what I call Entention. Physicists can't say what Energy is in material terms, but only what it does : Cause change (action) in the material world. For sentient humans, Information is whatever causes a change in their mental state : e.g. Knowledge.

Although Isaac Newton assumed that God was the ultimate cause of all change, his Classical Physics was generally compatible with a materialistic worldview. But Quantum Physics introduced some concepts, such as Fields and Entanglement, that don't fit the materialist model. Nevertheless, I try to avoid the trap of Quantum Mysticism, by assuming that both Materialism and Idealism are true, in their appropriate contexts. That's what I call my BothAnd philosophy. Why can't I have it both ways? :smile:


"Driven to understand consciousness, Faggin realized that “if we hypothesized that consciousness and free will are irreducible properties of nature, the scientific vision and narrative of reality would radically change and legitimize a profound spirituality, with unexpected consequences for both science and spirituality.”
____Amazon review of Irreducible
In my own thesis, all matter & mind in the world reduces down to causal EnFormAction (power to cause changes in form), as the precursor to physical Energy and to mental Information (meaning). Ultimately, fundamental EFA might be related to what we call Free Will or Schopenhauer's Will as the causal force in the world. My motivation for the thesis was mainly scientific and philosophical, but I suppose you could also call it "spirituality" by contrast with monistic materiality.

Mostly? :yikes: — Wayfarer

Ha! You caught my tongue-in-cheek implication that the Cosmos might consist of something other than, or in addition to, Matter & Energy. I think both are forms of Causal Information : EnFormAction. :joke:

As far as panpsychism is concerned - please have a read of the post I entered in the Quantum Classical thread about Federico Faggin. I'm just dipping my toe in those particular waters, but it's a very different conception of panpsychism, based on the conjecture that consciousness is a quantum field state, not an attribute of what we understand as matter. Perhaps the universe is part of the fabric of consciousness. — Wayfarer

Panpsychism*1 [panP] seems to be a popular --- among theoretical scientists --- post-relativity and post-quantum alternative to traditional simplistic Materialism. The ancient form of [panP] may have been a primitive philosophical attempt to understand Animation (Vital Energy), and the inexplicable behavior of iron & magnets*2. But this modern resurrection of an outdated worldview seems to be a response to such anomalies as the Observer Effect in quantum experiments*3.

My own update is what I call Enformationism*4, which you might say, jumbles together concepts of Panpsychism (all mind) with PanDeism (all god), and with modern Information Field theory (all ratio/logic/relationship). A significant portion of my amateur philosophical/science thesis is based on the universality & ubiquity of the hypothetical (immaterial) Quantum Field, which seems to be nothing but mathematical ratios (logic) and relationships (meaning). Would it be worth my while to read the Faggin book? :nerd:



*1. What is the panpsychism theory?
Panpsychism is the view that all things have a mind or a mind-like quality.
https://iep.utm.edu/panpsych/

*2. Yes, panpsychism is an ancient philosophical concept that originated with pre-Socratic thinkers. It's the idea that all things have a mind or mind-like quality, and that the mind is a fundamental aspect of existence. . . . . Panpsychism was a key part of the cosmology that led to the development of philosophy.
___Google AI overview

*3. Quantum panpsychism is a theory that combines panpsychism with quantum mechanics to explain consciousness and reality.
___Google AI overview

*4. Quantum Surreality :
So if your curiosity gets the better of you, and you start to follow the rabbit down the hole to Wonderland, be prepared to develop your own defenses against the perplexity of paradox. Because, as Alice observed, "it just keeps getting curiouser and curiouser". Quantum Theory began as a serious scientific investigation into physical reality. But it opened Pandora's box, for religious and philosophical crackpots, when word got out that sub-atomic physics was essentially the same thing as metaphysics. This thesis will attempt to substantiate that controversial assertion, but not necessarily the imaginative inferences drawn from it.
https://enformationism.info/enformationism.info/page7.html

Philosophically, the key term is 'prior to'. There is temporal priority, coming first in a sequence of events. But then, there's also ontological priority, of what is more fundamental as matter of principle. — Wayfarer

Our Cosmos, at least since the Big Bang, appears to consist mostly of Matter & Energy : Temporal Priority. But some of that gravitationally-influential matter/energy now seems to be missing in action : Dark Energy & Dark Matter. And the BB theory has no explanation for the original source from which the matter/energy emerged into space-time : Ontological Priority. So, which came first : the Ontological Chicken or the Epistemological Egg? :wink:

"Some scientists and philosophers believe that consciousness is a fundamental aspect of reality, and that the mind is a fundamental quality of the universe."
___Google AI overview

Is Consciousness Part of the Fabric of the Universe?
A theory called panpsychism proposes that consciousness is a fundamental aspect of reality . . . .
The concept proposes that consciousness is a fundamental aspect of reality, like mass or electrical charge.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-consciousness-part-of-the-fabric-of-the-universe1/

If it was either of the options you gave, it would be part of the Mind element. Now what I call the reputational self is internal and is about how you see yourself, and how you perceive (ie estimate, hypothesize) that others see you. I think those two things are closely linked and can be confused or conflated by the reputational self. And I mean everyone's reputational self, not just Trump's. The reputational self serves a function analogous to the public relations department of a large organization. Its job is to represent 'this brain and this body' to others. And we can all start to believe our own publicity. — GrahamJ

Some years ago, I worked with a woman who had a shapeless obese body, but a pretty face. She would take selfies that carefully excluded the body. I suppose the cropped pictures agreed with her "representational self".

Trump's political appearances seem to use a similar strategy to tobacco companies, promoting the myth instead of the reality. His "genius" is not in business, but in persona public relations. So, the voting public elected a presidential persona. :smile:


A persona is a public image of someone's personality, or the social role they adopt. It can also refer to a strategic mask of identity that someone uses in public.
___Google AI overview

The New York Times Confirms Trump Is a Genius :
contrasting the Trump myth with the reality embedded in the tax returns. . . . .
— Trump is a phony, who really is not that great at business after all. . . . .
“Trump’s image is a sham”
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/09/29/the-new-york-times-confirms-trump-is-a-genius-422837

Trump Company public relations reputation :
The Trump Organization, the company led by former President Trump and his family, finished last in an Axios Harris survey of brand reputations for the second year in a row.
https://thehill.com/business/4016738-trump-organization-finishes-last-in-brand-reputation-survey-for-second-straight-year/

Three stages of self - Damasio — Gnomon
Thanks for the link. Note that the figure you provided is not Damasio's, it's one of the other figures from the linked article. — T Clark

Sorry. Under the heading of "Three stages of self - Damasio" I picked the one that looked most like a diagram instead of text-based tables. :yikes:

Diagram : Structure of the self. — Gnomon
That is a diagram of something else, but it is good to see reputation being mentioned. (I might say more later.) — GrahamJ

Here's a Diagram of the Self as proposed by Damasio --- also from ResearchGate. It's much more complex than the previous image, but may be more like what you had in mind. Click or Double-click the image to enlarge.

Did you look at the You Tube video? How do you think the Body Transfer Illusion is related to the Self Concept?

How would you interpret the Reputation element of the diagram? Does it refer to how a person sees himself, or to how the person thinks others see himself? This might be relevant to President Trump. :smile:

Three stages of self - Damasio
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Three-stages-of-self-Damasio-17_fig3_282489228

It would be nice to have some kind of diagram where Damasio's and Seth's ideas appeared fairly close together, because they are of the same general type, — GrahamJ

FWIW, this simple diagram is from Research Gate*1, and not directly related to Damasio or Seth. It does show Mind & Body as separate categories (boxes) within the general concept of subjective Self.

The Self-Concept is an object of internally-directed conscious attention, not an external material object as represented subjectively by the brain. To represent Introspection you can rotate the externally oriented "I" Arrow to point toward either Mind or Body.

Everything within the dashed circle is imaginary. Ironically, the material body can be seen as external to the self, or vice-versa, as in the Body Transfer Illusion*2. I suppose the Conscious Observer is the mysterious Me*3 in the middle. :nerd:


Diagram : Structure of the self.

*1. ResearchGate is a European commercial social networking site for scientists and researchers to share papers, ask and answer questions, and find collaborators.
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Shanyang-Zhao/publication/278066526/figure/fig1/AS:391771524747264@1470417018018/Structure-of-the-self.png

*2. Body Transfer Illusion :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_transfer_illusion
You Tube : https://youtu.be/sxwn1w7MJvk?si=tsKNydlCLjFNkRXt

*3. Self/Soul :
The brain can create the image of a fictional person (the Self) to represent its own perspective in dealings with other things and persons.
This imaginary Me is a low-resolution construct abstracted from the complex web of inter-relationships that actually form the human body, brain, mind, DNA, and social networks in the context of a vast universe.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page18.html

As rationality increases through iterated game-theoretic strategies, then a desire to dominate the market landscape forces companies to cooperate and form syndicalist tendencies.
Would you agree with this? — Shawn

No. But I haven't make a study of economics beyond 101 courses in college. Nevertheless, as a philosophical by-stander and on-looker in the "game" here are a few thoughts.

Egalitarian Game Theory*1 is a nice neat mathematical concept, but it gets muddled in the real world, where con-men (T***p) take advantage of other people's self-interest by selling them a fantasy. Game Theory seems to be a new name for Adam Smith's "Invisible Hand"*2. And in practice, takes the form of Trickle Down Economics*3, where the oceanic winners are the Oligarchs and the lone-drop losers are the Workers. Rationality may increase, due to mathematical/computer tools, but Emotionally, the poor keep getting poorer*4, or struggle to stay ahead of the rising cost of "gettin' by". I assume that Game Theory was not supposed to turn-out this way. So what went wrong? :cool:

*1. "Egalitarian game theory is a solution concept in cooperative game theory that aims to distribute payoffs equally among players."
___Google AI overview

*2. "The invisible hand is a metaphor in economics that describes how the self-interest of individuals can lead to positive outcomes for the economy as a whole. The term was coined by Scottish economist and moral philosopher Adam Smith."
___Google AI overview

*3. "Trickle-down economics is the concept that government economic policies that disproportionately favor the upper tier of the economic spectrum (wealthy individuals and large corporations) eventually benefit the economy as a whole."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickle-down_economics

*4. Winners & Losers in the economic game :

"Something from nothing" at the start of the universe is problem inherent in our understanding of linear time, whether you agree with Berkelean idealism or not. Theists often cite it as proof of god, because it seems impossible and attributing the impossible to god makes sense to them. But while they're wrong about it proving god, you can't use it to disprove god either. The universe's beginning simply doesn't make sense to our normal way of thinking, we can only conclude that it doesn't work like the rest of time, not whether there could or couldn't be a god involved. — Paul

The Big Bang hypothesis didn't "make sense" to atheistic naturalists, back in the early 20th century. For example, Einstein included a dimensionless "cosmological constant"*1 in his theory of relativity, specifically to force the numbers to describe the static eternal universe, that he believed was necessary. He later abandoned that attempt to make the numbers "make sense", after Hubble provided evidence that the universe was not static, but expanding, and not eternal, but temporal. Also, the origin of that expansion has been calculated as a dimensionless-spaceless-timeless-matterless Singularity, from which space-time-matter-energy suddenly appeared . . . . much to the surprise and chagrin of those who assumed the universe was eternal & self-existent & godless.

Since, then several scientists & philosophers have searched for some other Ontological Necessity*2 that is not traditionally theistic. Yet, our materialistic "normal way of thinking" may not be able to "make sense" of anything (being or entity) immaterial & preternatural. So, the non-empirical (mythical) notions of eternal Multiverse and infinite Many Worlds have been postulated as explanations of our temporal & spatial existence, that make more sense than the equally non-empirical Theistic theories of traditional religions. Unfortunately, they "make sense" only if you accept metaphysical Materialism & Naturalism as the axiom of your belief system. But they are just as un-provable as any god-hypothesis. :smile:


*1. The "Einstein cosmological constant" refers to a term added by Albert Einstein to his theory of general relativity, represented by the Greek letter "lambda" (Λ), which was initially introduced to force a static universe model by counteracting gravity with a repulsive force, but later considered by Einstein as his "biggest blunder" when evidence emerged showing the universe is expanding.
___Google AI overview

*2. Ontological Necessity :
René Descartes also defended a similar argument in the 17th century. Descartes compared the ontological argument to a geometric demonstration, arguing that necessary existence is as obvious as the fact that a triangle has angles that equal two right angles.
___Google AI overview

No, I think this is mistaken. I believe we are living in an age of syndicalism. — Shawn

I assume Syndicalism is what you think should be happening. I agree with that sentiment. But I see no evidence that it is actually happening in the US. Some American companies refer to their employees as "associates", implying that they have a stake in the profits. But, I doubt that the employees are actually unionized, or have ownership, in any practical sense.

Back in the 1950s, my father was a blue-collar union man in a steel mill. So he made decent wages and livable benefits, compared to non-union jobs. But such unionized labor has since vanished, as factories in the US have closed and gone to non-union semi-socialist China.

I've long thought that the antagonistic employer/worker relationship in unionized companies was unhealthy. So, some form of worker ownership would be preferable. A few white-collar companies seem to provide some financial stake in the company, but not many blue-collar jobs, as far as I can see.

My own state has absorbed many formerly unionized assembly-line jobs from Detroit, to staff the non-union auto factories. Big fast-growing companies, like Amazon, hire lots of local people, specifically because they are not unionized. And most attempts to unionize typically fail. So, no, I don't see any trend toward Syndicalization in the US. Is it happening in other countries? :smile:


Syndicalism : a movement for transferring the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution to workers' unions.
___Oxford dictionary

Anyway, I believe that cooperation leads to better results, and with the bloated concern with rational self-interest and egotism and deterrence, we are living in a fearful and less efficient state than possible. — Shawn

Is that statement of belief a reaction to the sad state of American politics, in which top-down competitive Capitalism is winning the "game" against bottom-up Cooperative Socialism? The 18th century revolution against Monarchy allowed a few decades of Republican rule by the common people. But now it seems that the republic itself is being ruled by egotistical Oligarchs --- with their trickle-down economics --- and may be trending back towards a Monarchy, with one Oligarch to rule them all. The few decades of cooperative democracy seems to be a mere blip on the age-old historical chart of world economy, no? :smile:

First Law of Economics :
“The rich get richer and the poor get poorer” is a well-known aphorism that describes the tendency of the wealthy to accumulate more wealth and economic success over time, while the poor fall behind. It can also be used to describe the widening gap in income between the rich and the poor.
___Google AI overview

Aristotle, Plato, Lao Tzu, and Epicurus were "mainly story-telling & myth-making?" — T Clark

I did not mean that characterization to be derogatory, but merely descriptive. As I said above, I have no formal education in Philosophy, and my background is more in Science. So, the layman's opinion you are questioning covers several thousand years of philosophizing. It's just my general impression of a gradual trend from mytho-poetic Hindu, Chinese, Pre-Socratic-Greek and Hebrew wisdom literature, to modern analytical & science-based philosophizing. Nietzsche may be a throwback to the mythopoetic style in his Also Sprach Zarathustra.

Does the Lao Tse excerpt below sound more like ancient mythical poetry or like modern analytical philosophy to you? I could say that Plato & Aristotle were transitional, but the change from Classical to Modern took 2000 years, with a side-track into doctrinal Theology. Do you see the trend in Writing Styles I was referring to? :smile:

What was Lao Tzu's philosophy? :
He advocated a deep, connective empathy between people as the means to peace and harmony and claimed that such empathy was possible through recognition of the cosmic force of the Tao which had created all things, bound all things, moved all things, and finally loosed all things back into their original state.
https://www.worldhistory.org/Lao-Tzu/

Tao te Ching
The Way - cannot be told.
The Name - cannot be named.
The nameless is the Way of Heaven and Earth.
The named is Matrix of the Myriad Creatures.
Eliminate desire to find the Way.
Embrace desire to know the Creature.
The two are identical,
But differ in name as they arise.
Identical they are called mysterious,
Mystery on mystery,
The gate of many secrets.
https://www.poetryintranslation.com/PITBR/Chinese/TaoTeChing.php#anchor_Toc42848702

it's all "apologetics" for one worldview or another. :smile:

@Gnomon. And this is the point I want to explore. Is there a relation between writing style and worldview/Apologetics?

To elucidate,,,,,politicians when they don't believe what they are saying, overtalk,obfuscate and divert from obvious truths. Is anybody brave enough to say this of Hegel and Kant etc al??? — Swanty

Sorry, I'm not qualified to offer an opinion. I have no formal training in philosophy, and I've never read any Kant or Hegel, except in Wikipedia and popular books. There are others on the forum who might chime in. :smile:

PS___ I did try to read Foucault years ago. But his run-on sentences, some a hundred words long, left me wondering "what . . . . ?".

So what is your opinion,are dialectical or enycopediac philosophers suspect,and guilty of Apologetics? — Swanty

Ancient philosophy was mainly story-telling & myth-making : what we now call Religion. But modern philosophy --- since the Enlightenment's rational-turn --- has become an amalgamation of abstract reasoning (logic) and metaphorical story-telling (meaning). You can take your pick of various writing styles on this forum. But it's all "apologetics" for one worldview or another. :smile:

I don't know if the absence of there being anything to perceive would be necessarily a hindrance for God, although there are tropes that the reason anything exists at all, was because He experienced a sense of incompleteness without there being something other than Him to contemplate. — Wayfarer

If G*D is sentient, in a manner similar to human perception, then a feeling of incompleteness might be imputed. But, if G*D/Nature is purely rational, Spock-like, then emotions & feelings may not be included in its super-natural constitution. These are big "ifs" though, and we will never have enough evidence to allow a conclusive "then".

However, why would an eternal boundless necessary Being create just one fleeting instance of temporal existence? For example, a modern non-theistic conjecture beyond the scope of real-world evidence is the Multiverse hypothesis. A random roiling of matter/energy that accidentally produces a self-sustaining world every few uber-zillion Earth-years. In that case, there is no "why?"

Yet, if we can equate an eternal world-creating ALL with traditional notions of Deity, then perhaps G*D occupies and amuses He/rself with the hobby of creating temporary universes with various physical settings in anticipation of learning how each 'verse will work out. That would give God something to Perceive, to Contemplate, and to have something like parental feelings for. Hence, not a "Mind Alone". You could guess that G*D passes the timelessness, before & after space-time, with unlimited Creativity*1.

Is that speculative scenario any less plausible than any other conjectures into the unknown? It presumes that the Creator-mind must have at least the Potential for every Actual feature of He/r creations. :smile:


*1. Creativity : the use of the imagination or original ideas, especially in the production of an artistic work. ___Oxford dictionary

↪I like sushi
Well, according to Wikipedia, authority on all knowledge :D --
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristotle — Moliere

FWIW here's what artificial intelligence says :

"Aristotle was influenced by the Eleusinian Mysteries, a secret religious festival that took place in ancient Greece and was central to the development of much of Western civilization"
___Google AI overview

I think a lot of interest in the Dunning Kruger effect comes from pride. A lot of people think, "Ha ha, stupid people are so stupid that they don't know how stupid they are." I would think that if you were actually smart and you realized how dumb other people were, then you'd feel sad, because it would severely limit all your interactions with them. Or, in the case of a malicious smart person, I suppose he could feel greed, because he would realize that he has the opportunity to manipulate the stupid people. In this case, he might laugh at the stupid people, but he'd probably keep his laughter to himself, or else the people would be harder to manipulate. — Brendan Golledge

One troll on the TPF forum likes to uses "Dunning-Kruger" as a code word to call his interlocutor "stupid" without using a forum-forbidden word. He thinks he's clever for sneaking in an ad hominem instead of actually making a philosophical counter argument. Have you experienced that illicit usage of a technical term? Is that why you started this thread? :smile:

Do you think such a mystical worldview is not characteristic of Aristotle's more mundane view? — Gnomon
Possibly. I am curious if anyone knows of any evidence. — I like sushi

I get the impression that you would prefer to find evidence that Aristotle was not a mystic. Is that because you think of him as the original empirical scientist? :smile:


Is Aristotle the father of science?
Aristotle was considered to be the father of modern science because he was the father of the scientific method. He was the pioneer of the development of the scientific method, which is the hallmark of the modern science. Aristotle was the first to conduct empirical studies, which is what modern science is based on.
https://homework.study.com/explanation/why-is-aristotle-considered-the-father-of-modern-science.html

Is the forum biased toward metaphysical Materialism by its common language? — Gnomon

Philosophy Now magazine (Oct-Nov 2024) has an article somewhat related to the Metaphorical Language problem in technical philosophical discussions : Naturalized Metaphysics, as contrasted with Classical Metaphysics, which I take to refer primarily to 5th century BC Greek philosophy. The author presents his distinction in terms of Left vs Right Brain functions. Since Plato & Aristotle had no modern technology to provide empirical facts, most of their assertions tend to be drawn from a broad holistic attention (right) instead of the narrow analytical focus (left) of modern science. :smile:

Quotes from the article :
"Take language, for example. It can be used in a more precise and technical manner . . . or it can be used in a more ambiguous, metaphorical, and open way."

".. . abstract uses of language make sense to us only within the more general context of metaphorical language that links abstract concepts to the peculiarities of our bodies and their environments."

Speaking of brain hemispheres : "The right is, generally speaking, the hemisphere that evolved to understand . . . . The left hemisphere is more a sort of servant, useful for specific tasks, but unable to comprehend the whole."
Note --- Hume opined that "“Reason is, and ought only to be, the slave of the passions”

Do you have any evidence to suggest that Aristotle went through the Eleusinian Mystery ceremonies? — I like sushi

Participants in the rites were supposed to be rewarded with some form of eternal life or reincarnation. Do you think such a mystical worldview is not characteristic of Aristotle's more mundane view? As the note below indicates, Ari had an ambiguous attitude toward such spiritualistic beliefs. For him, the Soul was not a separate thing that could animate several bodies, or walk around as a ghost. As I understand, his "Soul" was more like our modern notion of "Life" : an activity, not a thing. :smile:


Aristotle did not believe in the reincarnation of the soul, but he did believe in the immortality of the soul. Aristotle's theory of the soul was that the soul was a capacity, not a substance, and that it animated the body, allowing a person to be alive and to perform activities. He believed that the soul did not exist independently of the body, and that a person was more closely identified with their body than their soul.
___Google AI overview

Economics can only be called a science with the fundamental underlying feature of game theory, explaining it. . . . . why economics is in a dismal state — Shawn

My economics text in college was The New World of Economics by Mckenzie & Tullock. They didn't define Economics explicitly in terms of Game Theory, but it was based on the "new work" in the 1960-70s, including Public Choice Theory.

My marginal note in the book was : "When the numbers (values) are removed from the mathematically derived diagrams, what is left is a pure logic diagram {e.g. Normal or Bell curve} showing abstract relationships. From this we can derive general principles which can be applied to specific cases and the numbers plugged back in."

Ironically --- considering the state of 2024 American politics --- the authors concluded, in the chapter on presidential elections, that "In a two-party system, the intelligent politician attempts to find the middle of the distribution". But, in the years since the book was written, politics and economics seems to have strayed from that rationale of moderation, toward more extreme positions.

Today, Liberals & Conservatives don't pander to middling moderates, but to true believers in those polar opposite worldviews. This has pushed both politics, and economics in general, toward "take no prisoners" & "winner take all" policies. One side will invest in "dirty" but doable Fracking, to the exclusion of "clean" power, while the other will push technologies that are not ready for prime time. Fortunately, the US has enough inertia & momentum to do both, despite the divided politics.

Economics was originally called the "dismal science" because of the no-win conclusions of Malthusian bottom-line production predictions. But today, the gloomy outlook may be more due to the top-down political pressures, which may overwork the goose-that-lays-the-golden-eggs, or strangle her with regulations. :sad:


The Dismal Science :
In a series of papers, Martin Weitzman has proposed a Dismal Theorem. The general idea is that, under limited conditions concerning the structure of uncertainty and preferences, society has an indefinitely large expected loss from high-consequence, low-probability events.
https://cowles.yale.edu/node/144793

DISMAL BELL CURVE

This essay proposes the Evolutionary Coping Mechanism Theory, suggesting that intelligent species create religion and science as adaptive responses to existential threats and uncertainties. — ContextThinker

A somewhat different perspective might postulate that truly "Intelligent species" cope with evolutionary pressures by finding practical solutions, not by "making sh*t up" as one poster put it. From the beginning of complex societies, Religion was been intertwined with Politics and Science. For example, the Pagan Nature Gods were typically metaphorical attempts to understand the vagaries of weather & climate & human interactions. They were early "theories" of how the world works. And "adaptive responses", if you will.

Since Nature seemed to be pretty well organized, a king-like god was proposed to mandate the laws of nature that make things work smoothly and predictably. For thousands of years, in most cultures, their religion has provided a pragmatic basis for political and technological problems . . . not perfect, but workable. Also, the human subjects of tyrannical kings probably feared their flesh & blood rulers more than the imaginary deities. Relatively primitive people built artificial mountains (pyramids), not by the magic powers of priests (or aliens), but by learning how gravity works.

Around 500BC though, the Greeks began to express Nature's regularities as more abstract and less anthro-morphic principles : Logos instead of Zeus, First Cause instead of Fates. These principles appealed more to Reason than to Emotion. Our modern Science has continued that trend away from anthro-metaphors toward pure abstractions like intangible Energy, which is said to transform magically into Matter. In fact the current fundamental reality, replacing Atomism, is the notion of a purely mathematical Quantum Field. That imaginary expanse is a metaphorical reference to a field of wheat with a stalk of grain at each point.

So, we continue to refine our labels and metaphors to enhance our artificial power over the natural powers-that-be. Admittedly, some of our scientific metaphors, such as Aether --- which served as an early account of what we now call the Electrical Field --- simply exchange one metaphor for another. Even our modern democratic/oligarchic Politics has a prominent role for a god-like ruler who promises to Make Reality Great Again. Pragmatic voters will choose the propaganda image that seems to provide practical benefits (answers to prayers, such as keeping demonic immigrants at bay), in the here & now, not in some remote life-after-life. If that "adaptation" doesn't work, we can try again in four years. :smile:

"Hence, interpretation of meaning is the purview of Philosophy, not Science." — Gnomon

It's a philosophical question which most philosophers are not equipped to even begin to answer. Understanding what the mathematical concepts mean at root takes quite a lot of effort and study, and I fear most philosophers want to give their philosophical take on quantum physics without having done the prerequisite work of actually understanding the physics.
It's a philosophical question that I don't trust philosophers to answer. — flannel jesus

Who, then, do you trust to answer "philosophical questions" of meaning? Feynman gave-up on trying to understand quantum reality in non-mathematical terms : "shut-up and calculate". Yet, unlike most American scientists, the European pioneers of quantum physics were trained in both Science and Philosophy*1.

So, many philosophers today yield to the published opinions of the pioneers on the interpretation of quantum math into human meaning. Unfortunately, we Ordinary Language amateurs have to accept some ambiguity of understanding. Does Schrodinger's equation*2 mean anything to you? Fortunately, there are a few philosophically inclined physicists today, such as Paul Davies, that we can trust to interpret the math into words that forum posters can understand.

Materialistic philosophers typically have trust issues on metaphysical questions. So perhaps they shouldn't get involved in philosophy forum discussions of Quantum Physics, which is inherently immaterial and metaphysical*3. It's true that most philosophers, especially forum amateurs, are not equipped to answer . . . . in mathematical terms. Fortunately few do. So what's your point? :smile:


*1. Heisenberg later stated that "My mind was formed by studying philosophy, Plato and that sort of thing" and that "Modern physics has definitely decided in favor of Plato. In fact the smallest units of matter are not physical objects in the ordinary sense; they are forms, ideas which can be expressed unambiguously only in mathematical language".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Werner_Heisenberg
Note --- Is his "prerequisite work" good enough for you?
The interpretations of Ordinary Language philosophers may be somewhat less ambiguous than those of laymen; but they are always debatable, especially on internet forums.

*2. Schrödinger's equation in mathematical symbols is written as: "Hψ = iħ ∂ψ/∂t"
Note --- Does that foreign expression mean anything to you? Would you like a translation into English?

*3. Quantum physics can be considered metaphysical in a few ways:
# Quantum physics can force a rethinking of metaphysics :
The radical nature of quantum physics can lead to a rethinking of metaphysics. For example, quantum physics can imply that the world is fundamentally indeterministic, or that causes aren't always local to their effects.
# Quantum physics can reveal new metaphysical possibilities :
Quantum physics can reveal new metaphysical possibilities that pure rational reflection can't. For example, quantum mechanics can reveal that things can be fuzzy at the quantum level, or that space-time can be curved.
# Quantum entanglement has metaphysical consequences :
Quantum entanglement has been thought to have deep metaphysical consequences. For example, it has been claimed to show that Humean supervenience is false.
___Google AI overview

Quantum physics observes what appears to be a statistical "glitch in the matrix" — Gnomon

Did scientists "catch god with his pants down", or are they too far from the measured "forest" (quantum field) to clearly see the statistical "trees" (fluid/solid wavicles)? Unlike yes/no mathematics, probabilistic Statistics must be interpreted in a specific context, and from a personal perspective. Hence, interpretation of meaning is the purview of Philosophy, not Science. :smile:


"Statistics topics are often discussed in math classes or taught within a math department. However, statistics arguably is not a branch of mathematics. It is a mathematical science, built upon the mathematical discipline of probability. . . . . Statistics is not meaningful without context though mathematics generally is."
https://www.usu.edu/math/schneit/StatsStuff/Home/isStatsMath.html

"A philosophical interpretation is the assignment of meanings to various concepts, symbols, or objects under consideration."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretation_(philosophy)

"Does probability measure the real, physical, tendency of something to occur, or is it a measure of how strongly one believes it will occur, or does it draw on both these elements?" ___Wikipedia
Note --- Probability is not deterministic computation, but stochastic guessing. Not true/false, but 50/50.

According to John Fernee QM is entirely deterministic (Schrödinger's Wave Equation). Cause and effect. It's in measurement that things seem non-traditional. — jgill

Yes. The calculation is intentionally deterministic, but when scientists observe (measure) what actually happens, it doesn't make sense*1. Measurement is an attempt to make observations consistent with our expectations. Schrodinger's half-dead Cat is an illustration of the problem of how to interpret the results of calculations that don't conform to our deterministic prejudices.

Newtonian mechanics presumed a divinely-designed deterministic world. But Quantum physics observes what appears to be a statistical "glitch in the matrix". So the question arises : is that exception to the deterministic rules due to the vagaries of Nature, or to deficiencies in the Observer, or to whims of the Designer/Programmer? Schrodinger inferred that the "deficiency"*2 was in the Materialistic/Deterministic presumptions of their scientific methods. :smile:


*1."In quantum mechanics, the Schrödinger equation, which describes the continuous time evolution of a system's wave function, is deterministic. However, the relationship between a system's wave function and the observable properties of the system appears to be non-deterministic."
___Google AI overview

*2. "I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is deficient. It gives a lot of factual information, puts all our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity."
___Erwin Schrodinger

↪Gnomon
No, no, no. It's not nearly so complicated, there's no need for all this complicated verbiage. Science studies objects and objective facts - how big is it, where is it, how fast is it moving, how does it interact, what causes it, etc. This it does for everything from the sub-atomic to cosmic scales. But as consciousness does not appear as an object, it is not included in that analysis as a matter of principle. Let's not loose sight of the forest for the trees. — Wayfarer

Are you saying that scientists should simply leave the Mind/Body problem to impractical philosophers? I suspect that pragmatic scientists and Buddhists, with no metaphysical axe to grind, would agree with you : "shut-up and calculate"*1. Yet, metaphysical monistic Materialists also simplify the "problem" by insisting that Mind is nothing but Matter doing what comes naturally*2. So, they resolve the "problem" by telling Idealistic philosophers to butt-out.

The OP concluded that the circularity of the Science vs Philosophy battle makes the problem insoluble*3. If it's as simple as you imply, why can't we drive a stake into the heart of the Hard Problem? Maybe the eternal recurrence of this topic is due to the Materialism vs Idealism divide within philosophy. My unorthodox BothAnd philosophical worldview simplifies the problem by assuming a monistic substance (Information) that can exist as both Matter and Mind. Problem solved! :wink:

*1. The Hard Problem of Consciousness is only hard within the context of materialism.
https://www.reddit.com/r/consciousness/comments/169rqih/hard_problem_of_consciousness_is_not_hard/

*2. Some argue that the hard problem of consciousness is not actually hard, and that it can be solved through further analysis of the brain and behavior:
___Google AI overview

*3. Excerpt from the OP :
"Let's first assume that the hard problem of consciousness is not the lack of scientific knowledge in that domain but the paradox it creates when thinking of consciousness as an object in the world. Any materialistic theories about it is followed by this question "why are these materialistic phenomena accompanied by experience?". And any materialistic attempt to answer that question also ends up being followed by the same question, creating a circularity that seems impossible to escape."
____Skalidris

The whole 'hard problem' arises from regarding consciousness as an object, which it is not, while science itself is based on objective facts. It's not complicated, but it's hard to see. — Wayfarer

Presumably, Science studies reality "as-is", while Philosophy studies the world "as-if"*1. That's why scientists observe the Brain, but philosophers imagine the Mind. Consciousness is not a material object, but our Minds can picture the state or qualia or function of Knowingness*2 as-if it is an object-of-interest in a hypothetical context.

What makes the scientific study of a metaphysical concept "hard" is the tendency to analyze the Function*3 of the brain as-if it's the material product of a mechanism instead of the immaterial purpose of that system. Metaphysical disputes are "impossible to solve" analytically, they can only be resolved holistically --- by placing the parts into a universal context. Not by substance dualism, but by essence monism.

If we can't agree on the Nature*4 of the Cosmic context --- Materialism vs Idealism or Physical vs Metaphysical --- we will continue to disagree on the possibility of an emergent Mind-function. Ideas are "hard to see". Hence, factionally "impossible to solve". :smile:

*1. “As if” thinking concerns the ability to think in some imagined context other than the reality that is presented in front.
https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007/978-3-319-98390-5_5-1
Note --- As-Is thinking looks at actual things. As-If thinking looks at possible states.
"A possible world is a complete and consistent way the world is or could have been. Possible worlds are widely used as a formal device in logic, philosophy, and linguistics in order to provide a semantics for intensional and modal logic." ___Wikipedia

*2. What is another word for knowingness?
synonyms: awareness, cognisance, cognizance, consciousness.
https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/knowingness
Note --- The suffix "-ness" means "state, condition, or quality"

*3. A "function" refers to the specific purpose or role something or someone has, essentially describing what something does or is designed to do;
___Google AI overview

*4. "The nature of" is an expression that refers to the basic character or quality of something."
___Google AI overview

"Grab your right hand with your right hand and report back." — Wayfarer

IMPOSSIBLE IDEA : AS-IF not as-is

I have a few questions about Spinoza’s substance monism, which I’m quite new to. Am I right in saying this is the (broad) outline of his argument: — tom111

I have no formal training in philosophy, so most of your questions are over my head. But, since your post has elicited only one response, I might as well give it a shot. One shot (question) at a time please.

Substance Monism*1 is an implicit philosophical assumption of my personal worldview, that I call Enformationism. Ironically, Spinoza called that ultimate essence "God", but deliberately avoided aligning his definition with Jewish or Christian theology. So, a more modern name for that all-pervading substance*2 might be "Nature" or "Matter". However, his notion of Nature is infinite & eternal, so in that sense is not compatible with our post-big-bang material-temporal (space-time) science-revealed world.

My 21st century name for Spinoza's "Substance" is Information*3 (or EnFormAction)*4, which is the precursor of Physical Energy, which is more fundamental than Matter. Any answers I might give will be based on this un-orthodox philosophical foundation. Any questions? :smile:


*1. Substance monism is the idea that only one substance exists, and Benedict de Spinoza (1632—1677) argued that God or Nature is that one substance. Spinoza's argument for substance monism is based on the following premises: Every substance has at least one attribute, Two substances cannot share the same nature or attribute, God has all possible attributes, and God exists.
___Google AI overview

*2. According to Aristotle, substance and essence are the same, and the essence of a substance is what causes it to exist.
___Google AI overview

*3. What is Information ?
The power to enform, to create, to cause change, the essence of awareness. . . . .
http://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page16.html

*4. EnFormAction : the act of giving form to the formless
Ententional Causation. A proposed metaphysical law of the universe that causes random interactions between forces and particles to produce novel & stable arrangements of matter & energy. It’s the creative force (aka : Divine Will) of the axiomatic eternal deity that, for unknown reasons, programmed a Singularity to suddenly burst into our reality from an infinite source of possibility. AKA : The creative power of Evolution; the power to enform; Logos; Change.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html

How does saying that potential is not-yet-real differ from saying it doesn't exist? In your example, it seems that you are simply saying that potential is simply the current state of an electric battery before being connected to a system to supply it with energy. Some batteries are never connected to a system so it would be incorrect to say that they have the potential to do anything. It is our ignorance of what the future holds for the battery that makes us think of "potentials" and "possibilities" when, in a deterministic universe, there is no such thing except within our minds. — Harry Hindu

Our discussions about Consciousness have branched off into questions about "Potential" : what is it? In the quote*1 below, the postulated pre-existent "nothingness" consists of noumenal (ideal) Causal Laws*2 whose effects are what we call "real". Those pre-big-bang Laws & Energy may be what Aristotle postulated as Potential, and what Schopenhauer called WILL*3. :smile:

*1. SOMETHING FROM NOTHING?
"In the very beginning there was a void–– a curious form of vacuum –– a nothingness containing no space, no time, no matter, no light, no sound. Yet the laws of nature were in place, and this curious vacuum held potential."
—- Leon Lederman, The God Particle
"Leon Max Lederman was an American experimental physicist who received the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1988" ___Wikipedia
Note --- I just came across this quote in my Enformationism thesis, that may shed some light . . . . . or may cast a shadow. Is it Science or spooky nonsense?

*2. A causal law is a law of nature that describes the relationship between two distinct events or features of a system, with one event or feature causing the other. Causal laws are a key part of scientific theories and are often used in philosophical analyses of science.
___Google AI overview
Note --- Regulating Laws + Working Energy = Causation

*3. "Schopenhauer's postulated noumenal world is quite different: reality in itself, independent of our sense perceptions, is a single undifferentiated entity that we can know about. He called this entity the Will. Schopenhauer's Will was something new, and very strange."
https://philosophynow.org/issues/114/Arthur_Schopenhauer_1788-1860
Note 1 --- Does that "strange" Cosmic Will sound like the Potential for change (including Natural Laws) that causes new things to emerge into Reality, and defines the forms they take? Is Will/Potential the source/cause of "reality itself"?
Note 2 --- In my thesis, Potential is the source of all Causation, the mother of Energy, and the origin of all Change. One of its noumenal babies is the power-to-know that we call Consciousness. Potential "exists" only as a philosophical concept, not as a physical thing or force. Only the effects (the offspring) of Potential exist in the real material world. Philosophers know of its logical necessity only via inference, not observation.

How does saying that potential is not-yet-real differ from saying it doesn't exist? . . . . there is no such thing except within our minds — Harry Hindu

Potential exists only in our minds. Potential is Ideal, not Real. Potential is knowledge in a mind, not a material substance or physical force. Not-yet-real is also an idea in a mind, consisting of knowledge of a possible future state given specified conditions*1.

Some posters may think that I am talking about some spooky spiritual force when I refer to "Potential". There seems to be a lot of confusion about what Aristotle was talking about, when he made a distinction between Potential and Actual. It's discussed in detail in Aristotle's Metaphysics. Today, we refer to not-yet-real statistical possibility as Potential*2. :smile:

*1. What are actuality and potentiality? :
As used in discussions of philosophy, potential and actual refer to “what might be” and “what is.”
https://www.gotquestions.org/actuality-potentiality.html

*2. Statistical potential
Statistical potentials or knowledge-based potentials are scoring functions derived from an analysis of known protein structures in the Protein Data Bank
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_potential

Our difference centers on whether or not a potential current embodied within a charged battery is physical whereas a potential current embodied within the mind's memory is abstract. In both cases the potential is tied to something physical: a) the charged battery and its difference of potential; b) the mind's memory and the difference of potential it represents abstractly. — ucarr

For my philosophical purposes, I'm more interested in abstract Cosmic Potential than in concrete battery potential. A physical form of cosmic potential is Energy, in all its aspects*1 . But the universe has enormous abstract potential that is not-yet-actual. One example is the hypothetical Vacuum Energy. Potential energy is just knowledge of a possible future state.

All of those potentials are not real or actual until activated by some inter-connection. Even vacuum energy, presumably everywhere all around us, must be only Potential until actualized. Otherwise, the universe would burn itself up. The only non-physical forms of energy are the abstract concepts in a mind, such as Cosmic Potential Energy*2, or the knowledge that a AA battery will not shock you (i.e. only potential), unless you complete a circuit between poles, actualizing the Potential. :smile:


*1. Types of Energy :
"There are ten types of energy: chemical energy, mechanical energy, nuclear energy, gravitational energy, light energy, radiant energy, sound energy, motion energy, thermal energy, and electrical energy. In general, the first four on the list are potential energy and the last six are considered forms of kinetic energy."
https://study.com/academy/lesson/energy-definition-types.html
Note --- This list doesn't mention all the various physical Forces that are probably specific forms of general energy. The ultimate source of all those applications of causation is what I would call Cosmic Potential, or in my thesis : EnFormAction.

*2. Abstract Cosmic Potential :
Similar to Schopenhauer's World as Will. On the cosmic scale, it's Potential until actualized in specific instances of Causation. All generalizations are mental concepts, not material objects. Philosophy deals with generalizations. Science with specifics.
In Schopenhauer's philosophy, "will" is considered a fundamental, blind, and unconscious energy that permeates all of reality, acting as the driving force behind everything from the growth of a plant to human desires, essentially representing the core essence of existence beyond our perception of the world as a collection of objects; it is not a conscious choice but a primal, underlying force to strive and perpetuate life.
___Google AI overview

Difference of potential is rooted in the extant charge of the concentrated particles. It is real. . . .
There is a basic difference between having an idea about current flow and having a charged battery ready to deliver current flow. — ucarr

Yes. The battery poles are certainly Real. but until they are connected into a circuit, the electric current is only Potential.
Difference is a mental concept : Ideal not-yet Real.
Potential is not a real thing, but an ideal concept that points to a future state.
Difference and Potential are found only in Conscious Minds, not in the material world. :smile:

I think the idea of potential is just that - an idea and not some inherent property of reality. Ideas like randomness, probability, possibility and potential are all ideas that stem from our ignorance. — Harry Hindu

Yes. Potential is not-yet Real. Science and philosophy are tools for dispelling our ignorance. :smile:

Potential :
Unrealized or unmanifest creative power. For example the Voltage of an electric battery is its potential for future current flow measured in Amps. Potential is inert until actualized by some trigger.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page16.html

Potential Innovation :
# The notion of an immaterial goal-seeking principle that motivates the behavior of both animate and inanimate entities has been entertained by thinkers through the ages. Aristotle coined the term Entelechy to represent a fundamental internal ambition to be more than it is. It explains a variety of transformations in Physics and Metaphysics, where mechanistic accounts are unknown.
# Modern Science also lapses into metaphysics with terms that imply goal-directed action. The “power” of an electric battery to cause machines to work is called “Potential”, because the actual work remains in the future. Likewise quantum fields harbor Virtual Particles that are not yet real, pending the intentional poke of a mind.
# Other technical but spooky terms for immaterial potential are Soul, Elan Vital, Will, etc. They produce seemingly ententional behavior without any overt evidence of physical energy exchange. In place of energy, we can only detect exchanges of Information.
# The dynamics of transformation and innovation are due to what I call EnFormAction : the teleological force of cosmic “Will”, imagined metaphorically as stored-up creative power as in an electric battery. That potential is released only when a circuit is completed by making a real connection between two poles.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page16.html

Entelechy : the realization of potential.
Oxford Languages

No. Does "the power to enform" seem paradoxical to you? — Gnomon
Yes. — ucarr

Please explain. :smile:

I thought maybe your holistic combination of substance, form and dynamics creates an environment wherein parts are simultaneously discrete and gestalt. — ucarr

Yes. Parts are also Holons. :smile:

A holon is something that is simultaneously a whole in and of itself, as well as a part of a larger whole. In this way, a holon can be considered a subsystem within a larger hierarchical system. ___Wiki

The whole landscape of evolution is a branching web of boundaries both combining and separating. — ucarr

Yes. Evolution combines old parts into new complex-integrated-systems (gestalts : holons) by drawing different boundaries and combining old elements into novel Sets. The "power to enform" is the ability to draw boundaries forming different sets of components with new properties and functions. That's also what we call "design" or "programming". :smile:

So, for sentients, meaning is always personal? — ucarr

Yes. What else could it be?

Is paradox a synonym for enformaction? — ucarr

No. Does "the power to enform" seem paradoxical to you?

Premise -These questions make an approach to distilling what consciousness does objectively: it resolves paradoxes. — ucarr

That may be the evolutionary adaptive function that led to conscious awareness of Self & Other, which are often at odds.

Note --- My answers are derived from my personal thesis of Enformationism. I'll have to pass on your other questions, since they are outside my limited knowledge of science and philosophy. :smile:

So, in the case of an information field flanked by energy fields, we have a grouping of three energy fields, a two-plus-one with info being one type of energy and the flanks being another type of energy? — ucarr

No. All Energy Fields are also Information Fields. Its all information all the time. EnFormAction is singular and monistic. According to my thesis, it's the source of all physical fields. :smile:

WHAT IS ENERGY?
It’s not a particular thing, but a transferable (hence not intrinsic or inherent) property, ability, quality, that is quantifiable only in its effects.
“In physics, energy is the quantitative property that is transferred to a body or to a physical system.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy