Universal Mind/Consciousness?
My consciousness is all that I really know exists. Everything that I experience as existing, I experience in my consciousness. This may sound like a New Age slogan, but thats irrelevant to anyone who doesnt judge based on labels. Slogan or not, its true.
Solipsism is the philosophical view that only my consciousness exists; that everything else exists in my consciousness. So, trees and clouds and other people really dont exist. Only my consciousness exists. Its as if the entire universe is a dream, and Im the dreamer.
A criticism of solipsism is that other people and an exterior world really do seem to exist. People seem to have a will of their own, and sometime do what I wish they wouldnt. It rains regardless of if I want rain or not. The nature of the world makes believing solipsism difficult.
A solipsist might respond that the people and exterior world are parts of forgotten parts of his/her consciousness. Just as when we dream, we might really think we are talking to our deceased Uncle Pete. Nonetheless, the foundation of our dreamed Uncle Pete is really our own consciousness unrecognized. So, the solipsist might continue to insist the people and world really exist only in his/her consciousness.
The solipsists response notwithstanding, solipsism seems an unlikely idea. But if turn things around, thing change.
How to turn it around?
1) Solipsism says the universe exists in me. Lets suppose I exist in the universe. Seems obvious and reasonable.
2) Solipsism says my mind creates other people. Lets suppose some sort of universal mind creates me and everyone else. The idea is that a tiny bit of universal consciousness splits off and becomes me. I forget Im a tiny part of universal consciousness and take myself to be a person, independently existing and free to choose. In effect, I am the Uncle Pete in the solipsists dream, thinking that I exist as an independent person when in reality Im merely a figment of the solipsists consciousness.
This view solves some problems.
First, it solves the problem of evil. The good and evil Uncle Pete do in my dream are of no consequence. When I awake, they vanish as does Uncle Pete. This is a solution but not a very satisfying one. It says life on Earth is of no consequence. The good and evil we do are mere nothings which vanish when we awaken. An answer is to say that good and evil matter here in this reality. Pain hurts now, even if later we awaken and see it as unreal. Good and evil are as real (or as unreal) as the world we live in. So, while we are here we should behave according. When in Rome . . .
Second, it solves the problems of what happens after death. Nothing. We simply cease to be. But this is not as frightening as it sounds because we awaken to our real self: universal consciousness, which may well be eternal. Not a bad trade: Uncle Pete, subject to suffering, disease, and death, for universal consciousness.
Third, it provides a unifying explanation of existence: all existence is universal mind/consciousness, in effect, dreaming the reality we experience and are a part of.
But whence the universal mind/consciousness? Is it eternal? How did it originate? What is its nature? If thats what we really are, then we must be capable of answering the questions.
Solipsism is the philosophical view that only my consciousness exists; that everything else exists in my consciousness. So, trees and clouds and other people really dont exist. Only my consciousness exists. Its as if the entire universe is a dream, and Im the dreamer.
A criticism of solipsism is that other people and an exterior world really do seem to exist. People seem to have a will of their own, and sometime do what I wish they wouldnt. It rains regardless of if I want rain or not. The nature of the world makes believing solipsism difficult.
A solipsist might respond that the people and exterior world are parts of forgotten parts of his/her consciousness. Just as when we dream, we might really think we are talking to our deceased Uncle Pete. Nonetheless, the foundation of our dreamed Uncle Pete is really our own consciousness unrecognized. So, the solipsist might continue to insist the people and world really exist only in his/her consciousness.
The solipsists response notwithstanding, solipsism seems an unlikely idea. But if turn things around, thing change.
How to turn it around?
1) Solipsism says the universe exists in me. Lets suppose I exist in the universe. Seems obvious and reasonable.
2) Solipsism says my mind creates other people. Lets suppose some sort of universal mind creates me and everyone else. The idea is that a tiny bit of universal consciousness splits off and becomes me. I forget Im a tiny part of universal consciousness and take myself to be a person, independently existing and free to choose. In effect, I am the Uncle Pete in the solipsists dream, thinking that I exist as an independent person when in reality Im merely a figment of the solipsists consciousness.
This view solves some problems.
First, it solves the problem of evil. The good and evil Uncle Pete do in my dream are of no consequence. When I awake, they vanish as does Uncle Pete. This is a solution but not a very satisfying one. It says life on Earth is of no consequence. The good and evil we do are mere nothings which vanish when we awaken. An answer is to say that good and evil matter here in this reality. Pain hurts now, even if later we awaken and see it as unreal. Good and evil are as real (or as unreal) as the world we live in. So, while we are here we should behave according. When in Rome . . .
Second, it solves the problems of what happens after death. Nothing. We simply cease to be. But this is not as frightening as it sounds because we awaken to our real self: universal consciousness, which may well be eternal. Not a bad trade: Uncle Pete, subject to suffering, disease, and death, for universal consciousness.
Third, it provides a unifying explanation of existence: all existence is universal mind/consciousness, in effect, dreaming the reality we experience and are a part of.
But whence the universal mind/consciousness? Is it eternal? How did it originate? What is its nature? If thats what we really are, then we must be capable of answering the questions.
Comments (106)
Why?
Quoting Wayfarer
Quoting Wayfarer
This is not true.
Even if it's the case, despite it's conceptual incoherence, "solipsism" doesn't makes any non-trivial difference to existing day to day.
The universe is inside Krishna (you)!
Solipsism can be refuted if you can prove the existence of other minds, but I'm afraid no one can do that! Even if "other people" behave in ways that displease you, indicating perhaps that they're distinct mental entities, there's a solipsistic alternative, to wit that you don't control the illusion your mind generates (people in your dreams seem to act as if they have independent thoughts and motives à la "other minds").
This thread should have a warning sign : "twisty Metaphors ahead, not to be taken literally".
Metaphors can't be refuted with empirical evidence, you either get the oblique inference, or you don't. If you do, it's safe to proceed slowly, and you might learn something -- something meta-physical. :smile: .
Dance of the seven veils? :smile:
I should drop everything right now and go to a strip club.
Nuda Veritas? Must ask her to be more oblique! Can't have a naked goddess on the premises. The men would go crazy! :snicker:
YES! If only Descartes had had the wit to understand this... but he lacked the intellectual honesty.
Good question 180 Proof. I wonder what the reply will be like.
Awesome! Krishna is a Hindu god, infact he's the supreme deity in human form; the universe is the universe ( :chin: ). Does anything follow? The universal mind - what is it from a God's eye point of view?
This doesn't follow from the rest of your reasoning. You could make an argument that solipsism solves the problems you say it does, such as the problem of evil.
But from solipsism to "universal mind", there is no connection. You are postulating something independent of you in this specific case.
And if you allow a "universal mind", you'll need to allow much more.
Do you think this universal mind is self-aware and has intent?
Why did it need to break parts of itself off to create something limited as you or I?
Sentients who do not know that our origin is a universal mind and was not given any coherent instruction when we were born as to what our purpose is while we are here, other than the info we are given from or the experiences we have, with other humans.
You can be terminated through, what seems to be a meaningless random happenstance. Why? If we come from something as omnipresent as a universal mind.
Why did it create gradations of intelligence and sentience?
Did it make the dinosaurs? if so, why?
Why did it need two human parents to create you? Or were they and your birth just simulated?
Do you believe that the universe terminates after you die?
Time/change had no meaning to you before you were born and wont after you die, so from your reference frame the universe ends when you die. Yet that reference frame has limited meaning for anyone who is still alive after you die.
Solipsism is nonsense and there is no currently existing universal mind imo. Maybe many millions of years from now, all intelligent life in the universe can 'network' or act as a universal collective which may be something akin to a universal mind. So, that's the only posit I would twitch an eyebrow towards, an emergent, universal, collective intellect, which can also act as individuals.
I don't think of the Enformer or Programmer or First Cause as the universal Consciousness. All of those labels point to something outside the space-time universe. And I don't know how Consciousness would work without a physical world to be aware of, or without a local Self to serve as a point-of-view.
However, if the a priori Cause (EnFormAction)*1 is also the substance of reality (Matter, Energy, Mind are all forms of Generic Information), then perhaps eternal Brahma has a zillion viewpoints*2. He/r worldview is also your perspective, and that of every conscious mind that ever existed. But that's a mind-boggling feat of imagination, so I try not to think about it too much. Philosophers who try to imagine what Eternity & Infinity are like*3, may become multi-schizophrenic. :grin:
*1. EnFormAction :
[i]Metaphorically, it's the Will-power of G*D, which is the First Cause of everything in creation. Aquinas called the Omnipotence of God the "Primary Cause", so EFA is the general cause of everything in the world. Energy, Matter, Gravity, Life, Mind are secondary creative causes, each with limited application.
All are also forms of Information, the "difference that makes a difference". It works by directing causation from negative to positive, cold to hot, ignorance to knowledge. That's the basis of mathematical ratios (Greek "Logos", Latin "Ratio" = reason). A : B :: C : D. By interpreting those ratios we get meaning and reasons.
The concept of a river of causation running through the world in various streams has been interpreted in materialistic terms as Momentum, Impetus, Force, Energy, etc, and in spiritualistic idioms as Will, Love, Conatus*4, and so forth. EnFormAction is all of those.[/i]
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html
*2. Imagine the Architect of the Matrix, sitting in a room surrounded by a zillion TV screens.
*3. What is it like to be a bat, or a timeless non-local deity?
*4. Conatus : a natural tendency, impulse, or striving : conation. used in Spinozism with reference to the inclination of a thing to persist in its own being.
and by conatists
(Sorry)
For me, that Epistemological dichotomy*1 is not so "sure". From the BothAnd perspective, it's not an Either/Or conundrum, but a statistical spectrum. Moreover, as a non-religious Agnostic, the ambiguity is not embarrassing to me. It's just another example of the uncertainty of Reality, which Stoics*2 accept as a fact of life. Philosophically, I assume that there was a First Cause of some kind, to kick-start the Big Bang. Beyond that logical axiom*3, I have no information about the presumed Programmer.
Whereof one has no idea, one must not speak*4. But philosophers are free to make-up words to express ineffable*5 concepts : e.g. "Enformer". Besides, physicists & cosmologists are not embarrassed to assume the unproveable existence of Many Worlds and Multiverses*6, to explain how something could arise from something outside of space-time as we know it. Are you sure about Many Worlds and Multiple Agent Smiths? :smile:
*1. Epistemology :
Some have also attempted to offer significant revisions to our notion of belief, including eliminativists about belief who argue that there is no phenomenon in the natural world which corresponds to our folk psychological concept of belief (Paul Churchland) and formal epistemologists who aim to replace our bivalent notion of belief ("either I have a belief or I don't have a belief") with the more permissive, probabilistic notion of credence ("there is an entire spectrum of degrees of belief, not a simple dichotomy between belief and non-belief")
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology
*2. Embrace the Uncertainty :
Which is why [Stoic] Seneca reminds us: The whole future lies in uncertainty: live immediately.
https://dailystoic.com/embrace-the-uncertainty/
*3. Axiom : In mathematics or logic, an axiom is an unprovable rule or first principle accepted as true because it is self-evident or particularly useful.
*4. "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent. What we cannot speak about we must pass over in silence". ___Wittgenstein
*5. Ineffable : Silvia Jonas sets out to articulate 'a common ground for any account of the metaphysics of ineffability'. She defines the ineffable as a nonlinguistic item which it is in principle impossible to express in conceptual terms or to communicate to others by the use of language. She is particularly interested in the uses of the term 'ineffable' in religious, aesthetic, and philosophical contexts, where it seems to mark something of special importance or significance
https://ndpr.nd.edu/reviews/ineffability-and-its-metaphysics-the-unspeakable-in-art-religion-and-philosophy/
Note -- ideas about non-physical notions (metaphysics) are inherently "ineffable" in conventional matter-based words. For example, "matter" could refer to a physical object, or to a mental evaluation ("it doesn't matter" : has no physical manifestation, but may have emotional significance)
*5.Like the multiverse, true infinity is a mathematical construct. Mathematician extraordinaire David Hilbert (18621943) said it succinctly: the infinite is nowhere to be found in reality. It neither exists in nature nor provides a legitimate basis for rational thought
https://mindmatters.ai/2021/10/why-just-anything-cant-happen-given-an-infinite-sum-of-universes/
Who or what is a "conatist"? I Googled the term, and got only irrelevant links. Literally interpreted, the word refers to someone with WillPower. Is there a cult of Conatism? :smile:
I was attempting a pun (hence the apology). Con artist. But I see now it doesn't work on the word pronounced properly.
Enformationism, an interesting take on religion & science.
Does the OP mean panpsychism when he talks of universal consciousness or is he referring to some kind of emergent egregore(-like) mind? A hive mind perhaps? What does Enformationism have to say about such entities? Is there a slot for them in your theory?
Apart from the issue of double standards, there's the problem of how Gnomon has to reconcile his rather interesting theory with atheism - his BothAnd is selective, could be called cherry-picking but I wouldn't for the simple reason that he's thought this through i.e. @Gnomon's Enformationism isn't a wild guess/random thought (he cites a lot of big names in philosophy).
As for @Gnomon's Enformationism, it's, at the end of the day, a half-theism and half-atheism if there's such a concept afloat in the ideaverse. In line, of course, with his BothAnd synthetic idea-tool.
Does the term exist exist? I have never held exist in my hand (imagined or otherwise).
Basically, start by exploring what exactly/vaguely you mean by exist before stating what does and does not exist. You will find anything you think up necessarily exists in some way. What you cannot think of does not exist but referring to some non-existing item makes it exist as a non-item too.
The issue is in the use of language (or rather than misuse).
All of these things exist. "HOW" they exist is the key discernment. How they exist pertains to how everything (existents) may be connected to one another.
Language is not perfect logic. Therefore, a "pinch of salt" must be taken, some leap of faith that is, based on purely good intention, patience, tolerance and due consideration, (the virtues) to abolish contradictions between semi-truths and the "whole truth".
Which must be out there. The whole truth must exist as if it didn't there would be nothing in existence that confers consistency, stability and permanence/constancy to the system.
If whole truth did not exist and was merely a collection of lies and deceit, then nothing could be a fraction/partiality of absolute truth, everything would be a lie, and fall into total disarray and impossibility to apply meaning, rational, logic or anything of the sort.
Because we exist, true nothingness, cannot exist. As for something to exist it negates "non-existent absolutism". If pure nothing really did exist it would be something (an existent).
So all we have is "potential to exist" and "existence", but certainly not "nothingness".
I saw the possible pun, but I thought you might know of some new philosophical concept. "Conatus" was an old word, but new to me, not long ago. Yet the notion of a positive tendency in Nature fit with my emerging worldview. Some see Evolution as a pointless random walk, but I see signs of intention & direction in its increasing physical complexity, and the emergence of consciousness from a Big Bang beginning. Hence the applicability of "Conatus" to the OP. :smile:
It's a way of begging the question, that is, continuously pushing further back, or deferring, an answer e.g. "origin of universe?" god. "origin of god?" the godhead. "origin of the godhead?" ... An epistemic regress that does not explain anything. Rather "there is no origin" brute fact is far less problematic epistemically.
Ok 180 Proof. You're making so much sense here that in my personal dictionary, 180 Proof is a synonym for sense. See you around mon ami!
I suppose an Egregore-like emergent entity from collective thoughts could be one answer to the OP. Hive Mind might be another form of collective consciousness. But that doesn't seem to be what Art is grasping for. Collective consciousness would be an emergent Awareness from integration of all lesser minds of the world. Instead, he seems to be thinking more in terms of Panpsychism, as the general potential from which individual minds arise, and as a contrasting concept to isolated apathetic Solipsism floating in the void.
Enformationism has little to say about intermediate forms of consciousness on a continuum between G*D & Man. Instead, the thesis focuses on the only kind of mind we humans know directly : "I think, therefore I am". But it accepts, without direct evidence, the existence of Other Minds, both Human and Animal. However, it also speculates on the OP questions : origin, nature, etc. Lacking any empirical evidence though, the thesis uses abstract terms, such as "Logos", when referring to the ultimate rational intellect, and "Programmer" in reference to the intentional direction (conatus) of the Evolutionary Program. :smile:
PS___Plato assumed that his mind, as a descendant from progenitor LOGOS, should be able to rationally probe its Origins (eternal) & Nature (order/organization).
"But whence the universal mind/consciousness? Is it eternal? How did it originate? What is its nature? If thats what we really are, then we must be capable of answering the questions." ___Art, from OP
"Universal consciousness is a metaphysical concept suggesting an underlying essence of all being and becoming in the universe." https://www.longdom.org/open-access/proof-of-universal-consciousness-with-the-direction-of-energy-flow-63888.html
Note -- "Proof of Universal Consciousness with the Direction of Energy Flow" could be construed as Conatus.
Egregore is an occult concept representing a non-physical entity that arises from the collective thoughts of a distinct group of people. ___Wikipedia
EEYORE AS EMERGENT ENTITY (note; no pictures of Egregore as emergent Mind)
"Infinite Regress" is inherent in all scientific postulations (Multiverse ; Many Worlds) that go beyond Post-Big-Bang-Space-Time. On the other end of the space-time scale from Cosmology, Quantum Theory is riddled with logic-stopping infinities, that must be "re-normalised" in order to make sense to the human mind. So, is using a double-standard for Science & Philosophy.
Enformationism is not an attempt to reconcile Theism & Atheism. It makes no theological claims, pro or con. But its BothAnd position on G*D questions is similar to the non-religious philosophical worldview of Deism. More specifically, it is a form of PanEnDeism, not PanPsychism, as 180 seems to misinterpret.
"Gnomon's crypto-idealist pseudo-scientism aka "Meta-Physics" is inconsistent with atheism" FWIW, Enformationism is both Realist and Idealist. It reconciles how a Real world can have non-physical Ideas : both are forms of Generic Information. Apparently, 180's anti-idealism Reality does not include any Ideas. So his own posts are literally meaningless non-sense. :smile:
PS__I could facetiously retort that 180 is a crypto-fascist, but I don't know anything about his politics. Yet, even though he knows nothing about Gnomon's philosophy, he feels entitled to use polemical ad hominems instead of rational arguments to refute his own mis-perceptions.
PPS __ This post is not directed at 180proof, because ideas just bounce off his physical head, but AgentSmith seems to absorb information presented in the form of metaphysical ideas, not spit-wads. :joke:
Renormalization is distinct from regularization, another technique to control infinities by assuming the existence of new unknown physics at new scales.
renormalization, the procedure in quantum field theory by which divergent parts of a calculation, leading to nonsensical infinite results, are absorbed by redefinition into a few measurable quantities, so yielding finite answers.
https://www.britannica.com/science/renormalization
Note -- One way to re-normalize quantum infinities is to divide by the square-root of minus one. Which results in Imaginary numbers.
The square root of minus one ?(?1) is the "unit" Imaginary Number, the equivalent of 1 for Real Numbers. In mathematics the symbol for ?(?1) is i for imaginary.
https://www.mathsisfun.com/numbers/imaginary-numbers.html
Metaphysics is the branch of philosophy that studies the fundamental nature of reality, the first principles of being, identity and change, space and time, causality, necessity, and possibility. ___Wikipedia
Note-- The topic of this thread is Meta-physical (ideas about ideas). Science studies the phenomenal (physical) nature of Reality, while Philosophy studies the noumenal (mental) nature of Nature. Again, 180 dismisses the existence of Mind in the Real world. So his Physicalism is essentially mindless.
Metaphysics :
Physical objects are real. Or at least most people think that they are real. Ideas are real. Relationships (taller than, older than) are real. They are all real but they are not real in the same way
https://www.qcc.cuny.edu/socialsciences/ppecorino/intro_text/Chapter%204%20Metaphysics/OVERVIEW.htm
Your incomprehension exceeds even your otten poor reasoning, G. Neither "multiverse" nor "many worlds" are "scientific postulations". :sweat: Again, sir, your "Enformationism", etc purports to explain what it does not explain pseudo-science masquerading as speculation that's mere sophistry.
Intriguing ideas mate! I'm not sure how they tie up though. For the moment though, in me humble opinion, I do see a blurry picture forming - you need to now bring it into focus or not, the choice being yours entirely.
I was watching/listening (to) this video (vide infra) on how philosophy & science (QM specifically) inform each other.
The universal mind is quite the idea. It's right up yer alley. Wayfarer would've loved to discuss it from his unique Buddhist perspective.
Thanks for the short 'n' sweet Britannica article on renormalization. I have a thread that could use it (The Largest Number We Will Ever Need)
No. You need to bring it into focus. These TPF posts on disparate topics are inherently fragmented. But the Enformationism thesis begins at the beginning of the Energy+Matter+Mind equation and moves toward a novel information-theoretic worldview. The BothAnd Blog articles continue to explore specific applications of the basic concept : Generic Information is the fundamental substance of the universe. Links to opinions of Information-oriented scientists & philosophers add more detail to the emerging Information-based scientific paradigm. So, the choice is yours, to explore beyond my layman's opinions, expressed in bits & bytes of information. :smile:
PS__ You can choose to take "s jibes seriously or not. To throw you off the scent he makes a bold assertion : "Neither "multiverse" nor "many worlds" are "scientific postulations". I assume he's aware that both of those philosophical conjectures were conjured-up by theoretical physicists to explain infinities or dead-ends in their mathematical theories. Admittedly, those hypothetical solutions to quantum & cosmological conundrums were adopted more often by imaginative sci-fi writers, than by pragmatic scientists. Being unfalsifiable, they are actually philosophical speculations, even when proposed by baffled scientists. But they were intended to be mathematically-supported interpretations of enigmatic physical evidence. :nerd:
The bizarre logic of the many-worlds theory :
[i]***At the beginning of Something Deeply Hidden, Sean Carroll cites the tale of the fox and the grapes from Aesops Fables. A hungry fox tries to reach a bunch of grapes dangling from a vine. Finding them beyond his grasp, but refusing to admit failure, the fox declares the grapes to be inedible and turns away. That, Carroll declares, encapsulates how physicists treat the wacky implications of quantum mechanics.
***Carroll wants that to stop. The fox can reach the grapes, he argues, with the many-worlds theory. Originated by US physicist Hugh Everett in the late 1950s, this envisions our Universe as just one of numerous parallel worlds that branch off from each other, nanosecond by nanosecond, without intersecting or communicating. (The many-worlds theory differs from the concept of the multiverse, which pictures many self-contained universes in different regions of space-time.)[/i]
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-02602-8
Multiverse :
[i]***In Dublin in 1952, Erwin Schrödinger gave a lecture in which he jocularly warned his audience that what he was about to say might "seem lunatic". He said that when his equations seemed to describe several different histories, these were "not alternatives, but all really happen simultaneously". This sort of duality is called "superposition".
***Some physicists say the multiverse is not a legitimate topic of scientific inquiry. Concerns have been raised about whether attempts to exempt the multiverse from experimental verification could erode public confidence in science and ultimately damage the study of fundamental physics. Some have argued that the multiverse is a philosophical notion rather than a scientific hypothesis because it cannot be empirically falsified. The ability to disprove a theory by means of scientific experiment is a critical criterion of the accepted scientific method.[9] Paul Steinhardt has famously argued that no experiment can rule out a theory if the theory provides for all possible outcomes.
***Modern proponents of one or more of the multiverse hypotheses include Don Page, Brian Greene, Max Tegmark, Alan Guth, Andrei Linde, Michio Kaku, David Deutsch, Leonard Susskind, Alexander Vilenkin, Yasunori Nomura, Raj Pathria, Laura Mersini-Houghton, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Sean Carroll and Stephen Hawking.`[/i]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse
What did Einstein say about multiverse?
The concept of the multiverse stems from the big bang theory Albert Einstein's once controversial, but now widely accepted, idea that the universe instantaneously expanded from a tiny point called a singularity.
Note -- Some scientists realized that the only logical option to a singular Creation Event (implying a Creator), was to imagine that a Multiverse has always existed, with intrinsic Energy, Laws & Matter. In a series of "big bounces" this eternal source of being repeatedly recreates itself in the form of an infinite regression of creation events. The Multiverse theory basically replaces a traditional eternal spiritual Creator with an eternal material process of temporal change.
SELF-EXISTENT GODLESS MULTIVERSES vs UNITARY ETERNAL CREATOR
Quoting Gnomon
You do yourself no favors with vague nonsense like this :sparkle:
Except that I try not to think of the Enformer in terms of a "Universal Mind", but as the universal power to enform. I have my reasons for making that distinction : we have no information about personal characteristics of the eternal enforming Force beyond the bounds of space-time. The mind behind that power is occult (hidden by necessity or by intention). So imagining the Enformer as a metaphorical humanoid Mind is presumptive. But if you prefer a more personal Mind, instead of an impersonal Power to Enform, more power to you. I'm open-minded. :smile:
Creator in Buddhism :
Buddhism is a religion that does not include the belief in a creator deity, or any eternal divine personal being.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creator_in_Buddhism
Leading neuroscientists and Buddhists agree: Consciousness is everywhere :
New theories in neuroscience suggest consciousness is an intrinsic property of everything, just like gravity. That development opens a world of opportunity for collaboration between Buddhists and neuroscientists.
https://www.lionsroar.com/christof-koch-unites-buddhist-neuroscience-universal-nature-mind/
Note -- I make a technical distinction between human Consciousness and Generic Information. EnFormAction is the power of Causation (similar to physical Energy), and human Consciousness (Mind) is one effect of that cause. The ultimate source of that power may have mind-like properties, but I don't presume to know for sure. Yet we can know that Information (Energy+Matter+Mind) is an intrinsic property of everything in the real & ideal worlds*1. :smile:
*1. To see how informational realism dissolves the mind-body problem, we need first to be clear on what informational realism is and why it is credible. Informational realism is not simply the view that information is real. We live in an information age, so who doesnt think that information is real? Rather, informational realism asserts that the ability to exchange information is the defining feature of reality, of what it means, at the most fundamental level, for any entity to be real.
https://mindmatters.ai/2021/07/how-informational-realism-subverts-materialism/
Cosmopsychism vs Enformationism :
Nature as a conscious Agent
http://www.bothandblog.enformationism.info/page53.html
Which is why the sentence begins "Let's suppose".
Universal mind is (just) a hypothesis - it doesn't seem to be backed up by evidence and truth is it doesn't even mention it in passing or as footnote or a side note. Universal mind id simply a perspective, a way of looking at something. In that regard it resembles your Enformationism.
Wayfarer is into mind stuff and he made some pretty interesting remarks on the topic which I would like to tie up with Enformationism by asking "what is En(in)formation without a (universal) mind?"
@Gnomon's Enformationism is, sensu lato, a hypothesis - what it could be - but it doesn't seem to be a testable one, like scientific hypohtheses are. I guess it comes with the territory (metaphysics). Do your objections revolve around this particular aspect of Gnomon's Enformationism or is there more to them?
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/746676 (2 mo. ago)
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/705408 (6 mo. ago)
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/397690 (3 yrs ago)
But if you do suppose that, then solipsism collapses. You can only suppose that you are the only thing in existence, and the question would be how long would you render your existence tenable, right *now*, an hour, you whole life?
So, you need some kind of modification to allow the supposition to be postulated at all.
However BothAnd, a key tool in Gnomon's Enformationism, suggests prima facie defiance of logic.
How very fascinating! Yep, Gnomon frequently mentions Yin-Yang and to be fair he isn't exactly positing contradictions as true/real/vital. What he's found is some kind of an overlap in magisteria (religion & science) - we are all, it can't be denied, trying to solve the equation primum movens = ?.
True people like yourself have come to realize or believe (guessing) that the equation above is gibberish/nonsense, but some like Gnomon and myself still see meaning in it. Metaphysics is 90% speculation to my reckoning.
Regarding the multiverse, you seem to know as much as I do - all said at done it's a(n) (untestable) hypothesis. Form-wise it's indistinguishable from an invisble pink dragon floating above your head, but content-wise it's unique and the math backs it up.
As for the "primum movens", I think Democritus had dispensed with that idea by assuming 'motion is a fundamental property of atoms (i.e. they cannot not move / vibrate)' even before Aristotle had fetishized it. Also, Heraclitus had conceived of motion (i.e. 'flux') as fundamental just as Laozi had in the Daodejing. Motion is energy, no? Non-energetic energy (i.e. "primem movens") makes no more sense than cause of causality ("first cause").
A philosophical (metaphysical) thesis is inherently "untestable" by physical experiments. But it must be amenable to Reason. However, most of the scientific evidence underlying the thesis has resulted from both physical (empirical) and mathematical (logical) testing. The equivalence of Energy and Information is a scientific conclusion from evidence*1, not a philosophical conjecture from phantasy. Most of my post links are to scientific publications*2, and none are to magical or religious beliefs. So, don't take 's disparaging assertion as authoritative evidence that the thesis is "illogical". Think for yourself*3.
180's classical "sound" logic is two-valued*4, and dismisses all values between the extremes of True vs False. So, I conclude that 180's antipathy toward the Enformationism thesis is based on his ignorance, or distrust, of Quantum Physics with its non-classical logic. Quantum physics requires Boolean algebra in order to make sense of the Fuzzy Logic of quantum Uncertainty. To 180, BothAnd reasoning is sacrilegious, and "defiance of logic". But to Gnomon, it is practical secular reasoning for Metaphysical questions such as Mind/Matter and Quantum Fuzziness*5. So, if non-mechanical quantum physics makes you uncomfortable, you can hide under the security blanket of mechanical Classical physics. If 180 doesn't grasp the meaning of quantum physics and information theory, he can dismiss them as "sour grapes". :joke:
*1. Information & Energy equivalence :
In 2019, physicist Melvin Vopson of the University of Portsmouth proposed that information is equivalent to mass and energy, existing as a separate state of matter, a conjecture known as the mass-energy-information equivalence principle.
https://www.zmescience.com/science/news-science/information-energy-mass-equivalence/
Note -- Information & Energy are not the same thing, but different forms of the same metaphysical substance : EnFormAction (power to change form)
*2. Information and Energy As Independent Forms of Bookkeeping
Energy and information are related but independent, so the dynamical restrictions for one cannot be derived from those for the other. From this perspective, we also suggest the possibility that the foundation of the second law may be linked to the finite capacity of nature to store information about its own state.
https://arxiv.org/ftp/cond-mat/papers/0501/0501014.pdf
Note -- Shannon defined his novel concept of "Information" mathematically (syntax), instead of semantically (meaning). He borrowed the notion of Information entropy from the physics of Energy. But the original meaning of "information" remains semantic. So Information is BothAnd (syntax & semantic), not Either/Or. N'est pas?
*3. "Think for yourself, or others will think for you without thinking of you."
___Henry David Thoreau
*4. Two Value Logic :
Classically, a logic is two-valued if every proposition (without free variables) is either true or false and none is both; that is, the logic is consistent and every proposition is decidable. Being two-valued logic is a key feature of classical logic; any logic that is not two-valued is ipso facto nonclassical.
https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/two-valued+logic
Note -- True/False logic assumes complete information & arrogant certainty. Yet, in cases of incomplete information & fuzzy uncertainty (e.g. Quantum Physics & Mental Phenomena), a more modest form of reasoning is advisable.
*5. BothAnd thinking :
Quantum thinking is the ability of the mind to view a problem from all sides.
https://interestingengineering.com/culture/decoding-quantum-thinking-what-it-feels-like-to-think-free
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/761003.
What is @Agent Smith to think, who is much more sympathetic to your ideas than I am, when at every turn, Gnomon, you fail to defend those ideas to my (and other member's) challenges? Your tiresome ad hominem that I have an "anti-metaphysical bias" discredits you as I long ago proposed my own speculative alternative to classical / analytical (i.e. kataphatic) metaphysics in this old thread
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/629398 ... yet your pathetic crutch of "anti-metaphysical bias" remains because you ignore my actually stated position and other honest attempts to critically engage you on the level of 'pure speculation'. You completely lack credibility, Gnomon. A warranted observation and not an ad hominem. :shade:
True, 180 Proof, that Gnomon's idea of Enformationism is speculative - that's part of the territory (metaphysics). Also true that BothAnd is rather uncomfortably close to saying (p & ~p). However, 180 Proof, you seem to give some credence to Taoist thought; Enformationism appears to be a derivative of this ancient Chinese philosophy. If Toaism makes sense at some level, so too should Enformationism, at least the BothAnd part of it in me humble opinion.
That said, 180 Proof may have very specific issues with the Enformationism, homed in on what some call fatal flaws.
Well, if photons and matter waves, surely there's a duality that isn't complementary, rather they're annihilatory (MAD) and although Gnomon's BothAnd is more of the former, it easily accommodates the latter.
Just to be clear, for the record, I never really grasped duality (looks like deep down I'm an advaita)
:grin: I don't know. As I said I'm not sure I understand duality. Can ya help? What's duality?
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/dualism/
I just came across a purported Shakespeare quote that epitomizes 's belittling "arguments" toward forum posts that don't fit his own fossilized philosophy. Ironically, the same quote could be reflected back at the belittler. :joke:
"I would challenge you to a battle of wits, but I see you are unarmed." ___Anon E. Mous
Yes. Modern physics has discovered both complementary partnerships, as in wave/particle duality. But it also has evidence for contradictory interactions, as in Particles vs Antiparticles. But, on a cosmic scale, this universe seems to be a non-dual holistic system, in that particular positives & negatives interact dynamically, but also collectively cancel-out to Zero or Neutral values : Thesis -- Antithesis -- Synthesis. :smile:
PS__That complementary holistic notion ain't "sympathetic magic", it's cosmic physics.
This resembles a summary of philosopher Bernado Kastrup's idea of analytic idealism where all people are dissociated alters of mind at large (cosmic consciousness). The nature of this great mind is similar to Schopenhauer's notion of Will - it is instinctive, blind and striving, it is not metacognitive. In this view the entire world of physicality is the product or mind at large - the physical is simply what consciousness looks like when seen from a particular perspective. Kasturp argues that human beings might be attempts by mind at large to be metacognitive. Each alter is a separate expression of stand alone consciousnesses, behaving independently of the others while it briefly exists.
Berkeley's God (mind at large) is metacognitive, whereas Schopenhauer's Will is not and afaik is not thought of as "mind" or even as being cognitive at all, so Kastrup's notion looks like it resembles neither. If "mind at large" is not cognitive, how could it "attempt" anything purposive like creating humans beings in order to become metacognitive? Sounds like Kuhscheiße to me.
Could be. Kastrup describes his mind-at-large as a blind, striving and not metacognitive - this does resemble Will. He himself says Schopenhauer did most of the work for him.
The big problem raised (and I think we've talked this through before) is how reality is held together by this 'great mind' in what does resemble Berkeley - the overarching consciousness which ensures we all experience the same reality. You might even say by this that great mind plays the role of foundational guarantor - so beloved of the apologists. Are we essentially looking at an account of theism renovated using Plato and the world of Quantum speculations?
:up:
Quoting Janus
Jawohl.
Oh right, I haven't actually read any Kastrup; but then that seems wrong because a "blind striving" would not seem to qualify as a mind or as being cognitive. Animals (at least some of the :higher" ones) are generally considered to have minds, to be cognitive and to be purposive, so it seems that a "blind striving" would be more like an amoeba than an animal.
Quoting Tom Storm
Could a "blind striving" ever fulfill such a role? Kastrup's philosophy sounds like it's plagued with inconsistency from what I've seen (which admittedly is very little).
Quoting 180 Proof
Es klingt so, als ob Kastrup zum Aufräumen der Fahrerlager gemacht werden sollte.
I think he sets it out fairly well and with clarity. But I think it needs more than my brief, clumsy summary to gain a clear view of it. Idealism seems to be one of those subjects people may be sympathetic towards in theory, but when it comes to specific versions it may seem less compelling or convincing.
Janus, of course, will answer for himself; as far as I'm concerned, to the degree an expression of 'idealism' is the result of conflating epistemology (maps) & ontology (territory) I think it is incoherent.
That is the crux of the Realism vs Idealism controversy. Our common language is inherently concrete-based (realistic) because our mutual experience is of the (external ; objective) Real world. We only know of other people's mental models from their metaphorical expressions. Only the individual knows what's going on in their own psyche. So the Mind Doctor is working blind.
The physical sciences, such as Physics & Chemistry, can describe their observations in terms of visual & tangible physical properties. But the meta-physical sciences, such as Psychology & History, must communicate their "observations" in terms of analogies to physical behaviors. But analogies & metaphors are subject to contrary subjective interpretations. That's why Psychology & Philosophy are not considered to be hard (concrete) sciences. They are sciences of invisible intangible minds, not quivering jello-brains.
For example, B.F. Skinner assumed that he could put the philosophical Psychology of Freud on a more scientific basis, by ignoring occult mental processes, and focusing on overt physical behavior. IOW, treating humans like non-verbal animals. Consequently, Psychology soon developed in Psychiatry, using drugs & surgery to modify behavior, without much concern for "what it's like" for the patient. Likewise, science-emulating Philosophy tends to treat verbal persons like dumb animals
Today, self-help Pop-Psychology attempts to allow the person to heal their own mind via non-physical interventions such as Meditation. Its methods & language have lapsed back into ancient Western & Eastern forms of mind-centered Philosophy. Yet, there is at least one intermediate mainstream approach that successfully combines both mental & physical treatments : Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy. It's a kind of guided self-help process that allows the anxious or depressed patient to "heal thyself". Its technical vocabulary is necessarily analogous to physical treatments, but also metaphorical enough to be understandable by non-professionals. It allows us to "model the mind . . . along the lines of how we understand our own". Maybe we need to develop a Cognitive-Behavioral Philosophy. :smile:
Science! Yep, that's how it works, but no scientific hypothesis is true is it? Does that mean anything? What they are is not false until, of course, proven to be so.
The MWI is unfalsifiable, I know that's true for reasons laid down for lay audiences like myself.
That an observer allegedly causes the collapse of a wave function is too unfalsifiable? Seems like it, it is.
These are all (known) knowns of course and I'm grateful to you for joggin' my memory.
We're at this stage in a tight spot, scientifically speaking, oui monsieur?
I've listened to some Kastrup videos and I think you're right. It's also similar to non-dual Vedanta.
Also, I'd say taking consciousness as foundational and the world as derivative is similar to Descartes certainty about inner sensations (I think therefore I am) while admitting the world he perceived might be caused by some evil demon.
https://philpapers.org/archive/KASAOS.pdf
I doubt that Consciousness per se is responsible for the QM "collapse". Instead, I would say that extraction of Information from superposed (holistic) waveforms cause the statistical state (probability ; potential) to collapse (like a pricked balloon) into particular states (actual photons). That's the basis of John A. Wheeler's "It from Bit" postulate. His idea is sometimes misinterpreted as "mind over matter", because of the confusion between Human Consciousness and Generic Information (i.e. EnFormAction ; the essence of Energy).
"Consciousness" is associated with a particular person, and brain. But Information (EnFormAction) is the general causal process of the world. In my thesis, EnFormAction (the teleological program of Nature) was the driving force of evolution for billions of years --- before Human consciousness emerged in the last million years or so. Therefore, during the pre-human era, waveforms were caused to collapse by energy (information) exchanges when waves intersected & interacted to produce the peaks our senses interpret as particles of matter or energy.
Information (EnFormAction) was entirely physical until evolution complexified the interactions of energy & matter into brains that could process general information into personal meaning (measurement of the environment). Ut Sensum? :smile:
Information exchange vs Conscious measurement :
The claim that an observer is needed to collapse the wave function has injected a severely anthropomorphic element into quantum theory, suggesting that nothing happens in the universe except when physicists are making measurements. An extreme example is Hugh Everetts Many Worlds theory, which says that the universe splits into two nearly identical universes whenever a measurement is made.
https://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/experiments/wave-function_collapse/
Note -- the measurement occurs only when the new pattern is interpreted by a mind. Yet physics works in the absence of minds.
NON-CONSCIOUS SLITS CAUSE CONTINUOUS WAVES TO BECOME PARTICULAR
Quoting Agent Smith
First, it's not offered as a testable model but an interpretation that simplifies the model. Second, David Deutsch, a founder of quantum computing, et al argue that the interference patterns of a single photon in the double slit experiment exhibits the wavefunction of that photon (i.e. that it follows many paths (worlds / histories / worldlines) simultanously and that a measurenent 'selects' one of those paths without "collapsing" them all into one). Lastly, he speculates how the MWI might be falsifiable eventually using human-level AGI instantiated on a quantum computer (i.e. the AGI would either (A) collapse the wavefunction of a photon or (B) observe (experience) its many histories in superposition). Check out this short video featuring David Deutsch:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=kNAR74SWOho
NB: Consider what is said about the relationship of information to physics @Gnomon et al get this backwards like typical (transcendental) idealists who conceive of "disembodied mind" as prior to embodiment (as a phenomenal illusion / construct of "mind" (or in Gnomon's terms "teleological generic information" :sweat:)).
Quoting Agent Smith
More than that, the Copenhagen interpretation (of the 1920s-30s) isn't needed because it doesn't explain quantum phenomena so much as it attempts, in effect (not necessarily by design) to reify the Neo-Kantian 'epistemology-determines-ontology' paradigm that dominated much of philosophical, scientific and cultural life in Mitteleuropa from the late 19th to the mid-20th centuries.
Your theory doesn't require minds then - information is self-sufficient and yet ...
Did you read Gnomon's latest post (right above yours)?
I sympathize with your view. In the simplest sense, brains are specific combinations of matter.
:up:
I tend to think that idealism and religion are generally seen as being more closely allied than religion and materialism; I'm not sure the latter are easily made compatible. Then when you think about the general human search for meaning and the common idea that without religion, ethics and morality are without ground, then idealism as a philosophical position begins to look like it is inevitably bound to idealism in the more ordinary sense; that is idealism seems to be inevitably idealistic (as opposed to realistic).
So, if idealism is an idealistically imagined ontology that reflects our aspirations, rather than a more realistic ontology that aligns with our actual ordinary, everyday embodied material experience, then I suppose you could say idealism is incoherent in that it doesn't cohere with that ordinary experience.
On the other hand we have the ordinary experience of freedom and moral responsibility that, on the face of it at least, seems more in accord with idealism than it does with materialism. Just as we have the common notion of idealism as consisting in a concern with universal values, we have the ordinary notion of materialism as being a negation of values other than that of personal possession and material assets.
But then, is idealism better seen as being opposed to materialism or to realism, or perhaps to naturalism? All these isms take different forms and interact conceptually in different ways accordingly, so it seems to be a complex picture taking shape, which seems fitting since this "debate" in all its forms is pretty much the story of western philosophy from its beginnings to now.
Quoting Gnomon
As I said above, apart from the experience of the "external, objective" world there is also the experience of freedom and moral responsibility, and although we don't directly experience what goes on in other minds, similarly we don't directly experience an external world either, although we do have plenty of experience that provides individual evidence that something exists outside of our skins, just as we have plenty of experience that provides evidence for the existence of other people..
Indeed.
Thanks for that nicely worded overview.
That's not what I said, or intended. Instead, Generic Information (programmed causation) was responsible for gradual emergence of Minds -- among many other things -- from eons of information processing. For billions of years, Nature got along fine without Minds -- or Universal Consciousness. But natural EnFormAction (energy + direction) laid groundwork for the eventual emergence of rational Minds. Those mammalian minds later evolved self-conscious homo sapiens Minds, that only recently began to take over the creative function of Evolution via Culture.
With that in mind, I would re-word your statement to say that "self-sufficient" Information (EnFormAction) worked automatically for eons (no need for miracles), to construct a world and local environment suitable for warm-blooded vertebrate creatures to proliferate, and to evolve complex brains on top of their up-right spines. Those information-processing brains then evolved cooperative Culture (combined minds) to expand the reach of subjective Information via communication to all sentient creatures on Earth.
What I was implying is that evolutionary EnFormAction functions automatically (self-controlled) like a computer program, with creative feedback loops, to process initial general Information (Forms) into novel & unique forms as outputs. That's an imaginative metaphor, as an attempt to make sense of a world that makes sense to rational minds. The universe is much more "self-sufficient" than any current computer though. For example, it has produced interim outputs (organisms ) that are self-organizing. Does any of that make sense, not as a scientific conclusion, but as a philosophical metaphor? :smile:
Intitial Program Data :
In mathematics and particularly in dynamic systems, an initial condition, in some contexts called a seed value,[1]:?pp. 160? is a value of an evolving variable at some point in time designated as the initial time (typically denoted t = 0).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Initial_condition
Note -- Metaphorically, the Singularity was the program for evolution, and Generic Information was the "seed" containing coded directions (like DNA) and selection criteria for eventual development of Conscious Minds. Unfortunately, the implicit Programmer is beyond the scope of Science, but not out of reach for philosophical conjecture.
Can you see the analogy? Evolution works like a computer, using natural selection to filter out wrong answers to the original question. Today, human programmed computers use artificial selection (programmer's intentions) to weed-out a range of variables, down to a precious few that meet the programmer's criteria. :nerd:
"To him who looks upon the world rationally, the world in its turn presents a rational aspect."
___Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel
Ok. It makes sense alright and I have a feeling you'll find many takers with regard to self-organization. It also seems to square, quite perfectly, with your Enformy which is G*D (you should learn some Latin, quidquid Latine dictum sit altum videtur). Good job!
Just a quibble : "Enformy" is a technical scientific concept, equal & opposite to "Entropy" -- not a miracle-working deity. The term is not intended to sound profound, but to be an accurate assessment of how evolution progresses -- via self-organization -- despite the digressive laws of Thermodynamics. :smile:
Enformy : neo-Latin, for Pro (forward) Gressus (to move)
I assume you're referring to Kant's ding an sich noumenon*1, which presumably exists "independent of representation and observation". Yet "Universal Mind/Consciousness" as an abstract idea, lacks phenomenal experience. So Realists tend to dismiss such unverifiable ideas, asserting that their phenomenal existence (as brain states)*2 is the only reality. Anything else suffers from the major limitation of Idealism : subjectivity. Which can be dismissed as "imaginary", or "mere opinion", or even "woo-woo" -- if it clashes with the Realist's noumenal worldview.
I just discovered the notion of "Phenomenal Experience"*3 as an argument in favor of Consciousness as a real thing. But I doubt that a Realist would be convinced. They might admit that the human Mind has a general function : processing ideas (representations of experience), while insisting that the mechanism generating that useful function is the material brain. Hence the "function" does not exist "independent of observation". Materialism reserves "experience" for the five physical senses of the body*4. Whereas Functionalism*5 seems to be a half-step toward Idealism.
The hard distinction between Realism & Idealism seems to imply that "my sensory experience counts as real" but your subjective experience counts only as hearsay. As a defense against manipulations via Faith, such skepticism might be necessary, in order to screen for truth. But openness to the experiences of others results in social cooperation, even in the profession we call Science. But the soft distinction typical of the profession of Philosophy makes a forum for sharing personal, non-empirical, opinions possible. I can import some of your ideas into my own worldview, as long as they pass the Plausible (logical, but not necessarily factual) test. From my perspective, "Universal Mind" may sound reasonable, depending on prior assumptions -- which may or may not be acceptable. :smile:
PS__Personally, I can't make a black vs white distinction between Real & Ideal or Mind & Matter. As you seem to imply, what we know as real is a subjective feeling about the representation of an observation.
*1. Ding An Sich :
In Kantian philosophy, the thing-in-itself (German: Ding an sich) is the status of objects as they are, independent of representation and observation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thing-in-itself
*2. But what is a brain state, other than a temporary pattern of interrelationships? Its function is in motivated behavior based on belief in a the represented idea.
*3. Phenomenal experiencemight act as a mental currency of sorts, which not only endows conscious mental states with intrinsic value but also makes it possible for conscious agents to compare vastly different experiences in a common subject-centred spacea feature that readily explains the fact that consciousness is unified.
https://academic.oup.com/nc/article/2022/1/niac007/6573727
*4. . . . .Omitting the sixth sense of Reason, which ties separate sensory inputs into meaningful, non-physical, patterns of relationships.
*5. In philosophy of mind, functionalism is the thesis that mental states are constituted solely by their functional role, which means, their causal relations with other mental states, sensory inputs and behavioral outputs. Functionalism developed largely as an alternative to the identity theory of mind and behaviorism. ___Wikipedia
Quoting Gnomon
I wasn't referring to Kantian ideas. I intended to point out that we don't experience an external world, meaning that we don't experience anything that we know to be a mind-independent external world, even if an inference to a mind-independent external world might seem most plausible.
I don't think realists generally think that our existence consists merely in brain states; that would be just one part of our existence. Brain states, insofar as they are observable, are phenomena just like anything else. Also, I don't know what you mean by "realist's noumenal worldview".
Quoting Gnomon
I don't see it that way; even though we don't experience others' sensory experience, emotions, somatic awareness and whatever else constitutes human experience, we have no reason to suppose that others' experiences are any less real than our own, since they report their experiences, or that they have experiences, just as we do.
Quoting Gnomon
I'm not sure what you mean here. To my way of thinking functionalism just says that mind is a real function of the brain, which is again a kind of realism, if not strict eliminative physicalism.
OK. But that description sounds Kantian to me. Scientists & Philosophers may be aware that their observations are subjective, even when they are presented as objective : "most physicists agree that . . . . is a fact". Yet, non-philosophers, who haven't given it much thought, might not "know" that their experience is not of direct reality, but of the external world as mediated via an internal "frame" of prior beliefs. Kant seemed to be saying that, although we might infer an objective "mind-independent external world", our internal working model of that world is actually a subjective construct. Hence, we like to think we are seeing reality, when in fact we are imagining an artificial (man-made) model of reality. :cool:
Quoting Janus
Sorry, I was obliquely referring to the realist's imaginary model of the world, which may be intuitively accepted as the true objective reality. That's how we navigate through the world, using our mental maps as proxies for the actual terrain. But on a philosophical forum we soon discover that my noumenal worldview (my map) may be rejected by others with different maps of true reality : e.g. Idealism vs Materialism. :nerd:
Quoting Janus
Off the top of my pointy head, I was trying to say that a Function*1 is not a material thing, but an inference about a Causal Process*2 : not Real, but Ideal. The Brain is a real tangible object, but the Mind is an ideal imaginary subject. We know the Mind by rational inference, not by sensory observation. Hence Functionalism treats the idea of Mind as-if a Real thing.
The notion of "Phenomenal Experience" (mental currency) was new to me. But it makes sense that when we discuss the idea of a brain function (not what it is, but what it does) we must translate our perceptions of behavior into a conventional metaphorical language that serves as a representation of a concept that is not an objective thing, but a subjective inference : an idea. :smile:
*1. Function : an inferred causal relationship between an input and output
*2. Causation : Hume saw causation as a relationship between two impressions or ideas in the mind.
Regarding the OP, I'd like to re-word that statement. I take Causal Information as foundational and Mental Consciousness as derivative. Generic Information (the power to enform, to create) may or may not be conscious, but since mental consciousness did in fact emerge from eons of physical change, the potential for awareness must have been inherent in the First Cause -- or Initial Conditions, if you prefer. Causation is definitely directional, and possibly intentional, but I don't know what those intentions are. I can only guess about why the "demon" wanted to cause Descartes to believe a lie.
I'm just beginning to read a new book by astronomer Caleb Sharf : The Ascent of Information. Although he is a professional scientist, he writes like a philosopher, trying to see the big picture, instead of the microscopic view of Reductionism. In the first chapter, he says that "a number of thinkers . . . have asked whether information itself may be the fundamental currency of the universe". Currency is a medium of exchange, so Information is portrayed as the medium of Change (the essence of Energy) circulating within the world system.
Sharf goes on to note that physicist John A. Wheeler "explored the notion that the ultimate nature of physical reality is inextricably linked to observation and experimental interrogation" That may sound odd, but a lot of Quantum Physics is weird. Referring to quantum collapse of superposition, due to experimentation, he goes on to say that "the very act of observation or interaction is what causes their properties to snap into focus. In other words, this is a participatory universe of yes/no information, in which, as Wheeler put it, we get 'it from bit' " The implication is that the experimenter's setup is like a binary yes-or-no question : is a particle there or not? And the answer is to produce a local particle from a continuous wave-form : Voila!.
The notion of a "Participatory Universe" reminds me of the concept of Universal Mind/Consciousness. Yet in Wheeler's model, it's the human experimenter who consciously participates in the processes of physics by formulating a yes/no (1/0) question mathematically. Which leaves open the bigger question : is the universe conscious of our probing, or just a machine grinding out evolutionary products? In quantum experiments, the human operates the machine to output an answer. But is the response conscious or automatic? What do you think? :chin:
Neither. :roll:
"The output ... response" is physical.
Another rhetorical question; you have no interest, Gnomon, in what anyone else, especially who differs with you, thinks.
I read Kant more as saying that what we experience is a human reality. I think he was aware that the notion of 'things as they are in themselves', although we are logically driven to think it, is really an impossible thought,
Our sensory experience is not imaginary, and since it shows us a comprehensive invariance and consistency between senses and between individual percipients, the inference to, and collective representation of, an external world of identifiable entities seems most natural and plausible.
The point to keep in mind, in my view, is that we don't actually experience, moment to moment, such a world, but it is rather "there" as a kind of constant and inescapable background presumption.
Quoting Gnomon
I don't see it that way; I think our "maps" of an external world are pretty much the same. The metaphysical debates reflect more attenuated concerns about what might underly, and be the "ultimate foundation" of our phenomenal experiences and common representation of an actual, external
in the sense of external to our bodies) world.
(Quoting Gnomon
The idea of the mind as a subject can easily be, and naturally pre-reflectively commonly is, reified as a mental substance, something thought to be not merely imaginary, but real in some "other way" than physical objects are thought to be real. The problem is that we cannot adequately model such an "other way".
I don't see functionailsm as being "the idea of Mind as-if a Real thing" but the idea of mind(ing) as a real process, attribute or function of a real thing (the body). (Of course we can refer to a process, attribute or function as a "thing", but I am sticking here for the sake of clarity to the conception that treats "thing" as denoting a tangible object of the senses).
:100:
Yes, vivid personal subjective realities. My experience is my reality. But, it's just one of many experienced "realities", because your experience may be different. For those born blind, their "reality" lacks the visual evidence of light-reflecting matter. So they may substitute imaginary representations of things, completely different. However, if they compare their partial subjective realities*1, they may be able to compile a comprehensive representation (objective reality), that more closely resembles the "reality" that sighted people experience. Kant's distinction was not between individual subjective reality, and collective objective reality -- that had already been made by previous generations of philosophers. Instead, he distinguished those mental models (maps) from ultimate Reality beyond*2 human experience.
In order to approximate "true" reality (ding an sich), we would have to compare our varying worldviews, looking for areas of overlap. Yet for scientific purposes, we have to ignore areas influenced primarily by personal emotional commitments and conventional belief systems. But even then, we are not guaranteed to reach the core reality. For example, not long ago scientists thought they had catalogued all forms of Energy & Matter. But now they have different opinions on the substance of Dark Matter & Dark Energy, constituting most of cosmic reality. :smile:
*1. Subjective Reality :
Knowledge of objective reality is gained by the five senses of sight, hearing, touch, taste, smell. 2. Subjective reality is the inner world of the mind. The world of emotions and feelings.
https://corporatecoachgroup.com/blog/the-difference-between-objective-and-subjective-reality
*2. I don't mean supernatural, but comprehensive, global, universal view of Nature, which we can only imagine, based on what we experience via our limited senses.
BLIND MEN EXPERIENCING REALITY
THE BLIND MEN AND THE ELEPHANT.
A HINDOO FABLE.
[i]I.
IT was six men of Indostan
To learning much inclined,
Who went to see the Elephant
(Though all of them were blind),
That each by observation
Might satisfy his mind.
II.
The First approached the Elephant,
And happening to fall
Against his broad and sturdy side,
At once began to bawl:
"God bless me!but the Elephant
Is very like a wall!"
III.
The Second, feeling of the tusk,
Cried: "Ho!what have we here
So very round and smooth and sharp?
To me 't is mighty clear
This wonder of an Elephant
Is very like a spear!"
IV.
The Third approached the animal,
And happening to take
The squirming trunk within his hands,
Thus boldly up and spake:
"I see," quoth he, "the Elephant
Is very like a snake!"
V.
The Fourth reached out his eager hand,
And felt about the knee.
"What most this wondrous beast is like
Is mighty plain," quoth he;
"'T is clear enough the Elephant
Is very like a tree!"
VI.
The Fifth, who chanced to touch the ear,
Said: "E'en the blindest man
Can tell what this resembles most;
Deny the fact who can,
This marvel of an Elephant
Is very like a fan!"
VII.
The Sixth no sooner had begun
About the beast to grope,
Than, seizing on the swinging tail
That fell within his scope,
"I see," quoth he, "the Elephant
Is very like a rope!"
VIII.
And so these men of Indostan
Disputed loud and long,
Each in his own opinion
Exceeding stiff and strong,
Though each was partly in the right,
And all were in the wrong!
MORAL.
So, oft in theologic wars
The disputants, I ween,
Rail on in utter ignorance
Of what each other mean,
And prate about an Elephant
Not one of them has seen![/i]
The unseen ding an sich : the whole system of many parts
Our experiences may be different, but if they have nothing in common then they would not qualify as experiences of reality, even though they might qualify as real experiences. We actually don't perceive reality at all, we conceive it.
Quoting Gnomon
This is not Kant, though; according to him we cannot approximate to the noumenal. We can only say how things seem in our experience, and if our experiences align, then we have empirical reality. Empirical reality is reality for us according to Kant. So, logically we can then ask "what about reality in itself or beyond the "for us"?", and Kant's answer is that we can have no idea of what that could be.
Isn't that the "reality beyond the 'for us'" the limit or horizon of our reasoning, namely that reality necessarily encompasses its conception such that the notion that 'conception encompasses reality' entails self-contradiction? In the Kantian sense, empirical knowledge (phenomenon) proximately approaches but asymptotically cannot reach the horizon/reality (i.e. noumenon). In other words, aren't we (embodied reasoners) just an aspect of the whole which cannot transcend thereby 'totalize' the whole (re: mereological self-consistency)? Inhabitants of the territory who cannot make a map (out of aspects of the territory) informationally identical to, let alone 'greater than', the territory itself? Well, isn't that a coherent "idea of reality in itself" (i.e. the territory > maps-of-the territory), of what makes "reality for us" (i.e. map-making/using) possible? I suppose I could be confusing myself with 'transcendental illusions' ... :chin:
What is conscious is different from what it is conscious about - or what creates is different from its creation - meaning there is more than one thing.
That all makes sense to me. I don't think Kant denied that there is a reality in itself (i.e. something that would be in the absence of human life). Kant interpretation among dedicated scholars is notoriously controversial, and I am no Kant scholar. so I could be off the mark. (It seems the closest we have to Kant scholar on this forum is @Mww).
In any case, according to my limited understanding I think Kant would not deny that we experience noumena, in the sense that we are affected by it/them, and are part of it/ them in that they give rise to our being and perceptions, which we in turn model as "things", "bodies", "objects" or sounds or smells and so on, And those empirical objects cannot be known exhaustively, but I think it is controversial as to whether Kant thought of those objects as things-in- themselves, but if he did it would make sense to me, and would ratify the distinction between things-in-themselves and noumena, the latter being what we can attain no conception of.
So, I agree with what you seem to be saying: that the "territory" is the unknowable (because it cannot be encompassed) reality in itself. This stuff is seemingly impossible to talk about without some incoherence pr aporia, so I think it's fair to say that we all "confuse ourselves (to varying degrees) with transcendental illusions". .
Btw, I'm not actually interested in what Kant thought about reality (noumenon) because his phenomenon-noumemon distinction seems to me one of Kant's own "transcendental illusions" (re: an inconsistency of his schema).
Yes. That's what I was implying with the map vs terrain examples. But, to gain leverage in philosophical arguments, some people act as-if their personal map is the true model of reality. And, some claim that an abstraction -- sometimes labelled "settled science" -- is the final authority on Truth. Ideally, "settled science" would serve as a compendium of what all observer's models should "have in common". Yet philosophical debates tend to focus on unsettled marginal science : e.g. the meaning of quantum paradoxes, such as the Many Worlds interpretation. :smile:
Mapterritory relation :
The mapterritory relation is the relationship between an object and a representation of that object,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Map%E2%80%93territory_relation
Map/Territory Fallacy :
The map is not the territory is a phrase coined by the Polish-American philosopher and engineer Alfred Korzybski. He used it to convey the fact that people often confuse models of reality with reality itself. According to Korzybski, models stand to represent things, but they are not identical to those things.
https://www.the-possible.com/the-map-is-not-the-territory/
Quoting Janus
That aspirational assertion is merely my opinion, not attributed to Kant. Even though we cannot directly know the ding an sich, we can -- via the observational methods of Science, and the reasoning of Philosophy -- construct models of ultimate reality that "approximate" the true ding. On this forum we argue about whose model is Closer To Truth, which is the pragmatic goal of Philosophy. Even Kant seemed motivated to get as close as possible to Transcendental Idealism. :cool:
PS__Was the TI term a case of sour grapes?
The meaning of SOUR GRAPES is disparagement of something that has proven unattainable.
Kant vs Scientific Rationalism :
Science deals with what we can perceive (empiric knowledge = empiric truth), not with the Ding-an-Sich. We don't have access to it, and reaching it is not the goal of science, it is impossible.
https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/84710/kant-vs-scientific-rationalism-do-we-need-the-ding-an-sich
I can relate to that; there is a kind of tension in Kant, since he rejects the possibility of doing metaphysics (as traditionally conceived) via pure reason, while advocating practical reasons for believing in God, Freedom and Immortality. There may be inherent problems of inconsistency and incoherence in his philosophy which would explain why there is (apparently) controversy among Kant scholars as to just what he thought about some issues.
Quoting Gnomon
OK, but I don't believe we can construct models of ultimate reality, we can only construct models of how things appear to us, The very idea of ultimate reality is verging on being, if it is not actually, incoherent, in my view.
Even if our models were "approximating" to ultimate reality, how would we ever know, and how can we even know what it would mean for a perspectival model to approximate to a reality that is defined, as ultimate or absolute, as being beyond all perspective and context?
I don't agree with you that we are arguing, on this forum, about whose model is "Closer To Truth"; the way I see it we are arguing for how things seems to each of us, from our own perspectives. That is why so much talking past one another goes on. I don't purport to argue for transcendent truth, but aim to get a clear picture of just what our (human) situation consists in; and that is why I advocate phenomenology, because I think it's the closest we've come to a good methodology for that purpose.
Kant said that we cannot help trying to do metaphysics (do metaphysics in the sense of trying to get to empirically transcendent truth by means of reason), His project, as I understand it, was concerned with showing that to be impossible. So he acknowledges that we cannot help trying to do it, but wants us to realize it is impossible. This realization will not eradicate the urge to do it, but should help keep it in check.
Gautama Buddha realized the same things 2600 years ago.
:up:
Perhaps. But don't you think each poster on a philosophy forum is trying to get as close as possible to ultimate truth : Ontology & Epistemology? Don't we tend to judge other opinions by how close they are to our personal model of true (ultimate) Reality --- even though we are aware that our models are merely approximations of The Truth? Science may be content with pragmatic understanding, but Philosophy aspires to ultimate Ideal Truth. Kant merely advised philosophical humility, in view of human limitations. Our ultimate sky-castles are constructed from mundane proximates.
Some models of ultimate Reality -- belief systems (-isms) -- include Meta-Physics (beyond Phenomena) while some exclude Noumena from consideration. Ironically, some posters seem to think they should be limited to pragmatic space-time (i.e. scientific) questions on a Philosophical forum. But, as you noted, even Kant couldn't help asking Ultimate Questions about the roots of Reality that lie beyond mundane Phenomenal experience via the senses. And the only way to such theoretical speculative knowledge is via rational inference from both personal experience and the shared experience of hypothetical conjectures. ad astra per aspera. :smile:
From the OP :
But whence the universal mind/consciousness? Is it eternal? How did it originate? What is its nature? If thats what we really are, then we must be capable of answering the questions.
Note 1 : Isn't it ironic that Kant proposed both Transcendental Idealism and ding an sich, while believing in God (rational theology)? Regarding transcendent Truth, God only knows; but philosophers & cosmologists strive to "know the mind of god" (Hawking).
Note 2 : One answer to to OP might be : "Who cares? We'll never know. Besides, anything Noumenal or Transcendent has nothing to do with our Phenomenal Physical lives". But it's typical of Philosophers that they care about things that are not immanent phenomenal physical objects : e.g. beliefs, possibilities, cosmologies, worldviews, etc.
Einstein's Quest :
In 1925, Einstein went on a walk with a young student named Esther Salaman. As they wandered, he shared his core guiding intellectual principle: "I want to know how God created this world. I'm not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts; the rest are just details."
https://www.livescience.com/65628-theory-of-everything-millennia-away.html
thing-in-itself :
philosophy of Immanuel Kant, the thing-in-itself (das Ding an sich) as opposed to what Kant called the phenomenonthe thing as it appears to an observer. Though the noumenal holds the contents of the intelligible world, Kant claimed that mans speculative reason can only know phenomena and can never penetrate to
https://www.britannica.com/topic/thing-in-itself
Closer to Truth :
Asking Ultimate Questions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closer_to_Truth