The "self" under materialism
So I don't post on here often, but I like to occasionally post on here to log my thoughts and hear responses from others. I am myself a materialist (in the sense that I believe the material world is primary and that our subjective experiences arise directly from the physical) and have been trying to reconcile the idea of the "self", with a materialist worldview. The self, as I see it, is the "fundamental essence" of who we are; this sense of "I" we are all likely familiar with.
Under conventional, religious dualism, generally, a human can be divided into two distinct parts; material and immaterial. The immaterial represents the "soul", or the "self", which is the fundamental essence of what a human is. No matter what happens to the material (body), the immaterial core essence remains. This means you are the same person you were 5 minutes, 5 months, and 5 years ago, as this immaterial part of you remains.
Materially, we can define a "self" based on one of two quantities; the actual matter that makes up a thing, or simply just the arrangement of matter.
On the surface level, if we have a "self" in the materialist worldview, we inevitably run into the "Ship of Theseus" problem. If you take a body, and slowly replace its atoms one by one with others, at what point do we say this is a "different" person? Whatever answer we draw up here, whether we say it's a different person at 10%, 50%, or 100%, is arbitrary. Of course, this replacement process goes on within nature as well.
We can make a similar argument if we neglect matter replacement entirely, and focus purely on matter rearrangement. If we decide we want to slowly re-arrange an individual into an entirely different organism, at what point can they no longer be considered the same "self"?
Both matter replacement and rearrangement occur in nature and prevent us from safely defining any solid, constant, material thing that we can call a "self".
Just envision it this way; take a person, replace all of the atoms of their body with other particles, shift the state of all of these particles by an arbitrary degree, and what has remained constant? This is what nature fundamentally does over time. Unless we draw up some arbitrary percentage (eg 30% of the matter has to be in the same state for it to be the "same person"), we must conclude that the self is not solidly grounded in the material world, and thus it doesn't exist.
So why is it, when I look back at photos of myself from 5 years ago, I feel like the same person? There has been much matter replacement and rearrangement since then, so materially I have very little in common with this being. This is likely due to the fact that you have inherited memories from this person, due to causal similarities in brain structure, corresponding to said memories. However, you are in no way "materially" the same self. The "self" has no solid foundation in the material world, it is simply an idea created by minds to justify a feeling of continuity.
What we are (in the materialist view) are simply piles of carbon, using past memories and experiences to compile a constant "self" that simply doesn't exist; a human being is empty of essence.
Upon thorough examination, the idea of a "self" is as arbitrary as the idea of a "chair", or any other object. In a purely material world, concepts like these simply don't exist.
Under conventional, religious dualism, generally, a human can be divided into two distinct parts; material and immaterial. The immaterial represents the "soul", or the "self", which is the fundamental essence of what a human is. No matter what happens to the material (body), the immaterial core essence remains. This means you are the same person you were 5 minutes, 5 months, and 5 years ago, as this immaterial part of you remains.
Materially, we can define a "self" based on one of two quantities; the actual matter that makes up a thing, or simply just the arrangement of matter.
On the surface level, if we have a "self" in the materialist worldview, we inevitably run into the "Ship of Theseus" problem. If you take a body, and slowly replace its atoms one by one with others, at what point do we say this is a "different" person? Whatever answer we draw up here, whether we say it's a different person at 10%, 50%, or 100%, is arbitrary. Of course, this replacement process goes on within nature as well.
We can make a similar argument if we neglect matter replacement entirely, and focus purely on matter rearrangement. If we decide we want to slowly re-arrange an individual into an entirely different organism, at what point can they no longer be considered the same "self"?
Both matter replacement and rearrangement occur in nature and prevent us from safely defining any solid, constant, material thing that we can call a "self".
Just envision it this way; take a person, replace all of the atoms of their body with other particles, shift the state of all of these particles by an arbitrary degree, and what has remained constant? This is what nature fundamentally does over time. Unless we draw up some arbitrary percentage (eg 30% of the matter has to be in the same state for it to be the "same person"), we must conclude that the self is not solidly grounded in the material world, and thus it doesn't exist.
So why is it, when I look back at photos of myself from 5 years ago, I feel like the same person? There has been much matter replacement and rearrangement since then, so materially I have very little in common with this being. This is likely due to the fact that you have inherited memories from this person, due to causal similarities in brain structure, corresponding to said memories. However, you are in no way "materially" the same self. The "self" has no solid foundation in the material world, it is simply an idea created by minds to justify a feeling of continuity.
What we are (in the materialist view) are simply piles of carbon, using past memories and experiences to compile a constant "self" that simply doesn't exist; a human being is empty of essence.
Upon thorough examination, the idea of a "self" is as arbitrary as the idea of a "chair", or any other object. In a purely material world, concepts like these simply don't exist.
Comments (69)
Yes, and I don't see any deeper issue.
Quoting tom111
Well, why is it that when you look back at photos of your ship from 5 years ago, you feel like it's the same ship?
Quoting tom111
And likewise you have memories of the earlier ship.
Quoting tom111
Or living flesh, why not? Does a materialist have to be exclusively a physical chemist?
Quoting tom111
Agreed, if self is soul. But why can't it be the animal?
Quoting tom111
Agreed.
Quoting tom111
Wobbly, sure, with no solid foundation. But not entirely arbitrary, surely? You have the vehicle's service history?
Quoting tom111
Again, of course they do, at a coarser level of description.
Both are easily demonstrated invalid, as you do in your post.
Keep in mind that less than 1/10000th of your atoms are original, and less than 1% of your original atoms are in you. This is heavily dependent on when you define your original state.
Think of a candle flame. Is it the same flame as it was 3 seconds ago? We normally say yes, despite all its atoms being different from one moment to the next.
Well, if I take my dad's ashes and water and recreate a living dog out of it somehow, not many would say the dog is my dad. We're all composed of material from past and present beings, people and otherwise.
There's another thread going on about this. I said that despite everybody knowing sort of instinctively what makes me the same person as I was 5 minutes ago, each attempt to formally define how this works doesn't stand up to scrutiny. I can pretty much take apart any definition, especially one from a physicalist that doesn't posit some unassailable immaterial name-tag magic.
Arguably so, yes. Doesn't mean I don't think I existed yesterday, or so says one part of me. The rational part of me is agreeing with you. I have different parts with different beliefs. So do you.
As you say, it's a sense, a feeling. Such things are useful. Doesn't mean the feeling is truth. Useful and true are very different things.
You say at the outset that you are a materialist. But then you say that you think the self has nothing answering to it on the materialist view.
But you exist, yes? So there is at least one self: you. And you can be more sure that you exist than you can be that materialism is true. I mean, it'd be bonkers to conclude that you don't exist because the favourite theory of a non-existent person delivers that verdict, would it not?
So, why are you a materialist? Surely you should abandon your materialism until such time as you are satisfied that your own existence is consistent with it!
A different perspective is that I am consciousness, which is aware of sensations of various types: physical sensations, emotions, and thoughts. My ego is a thought or complex of thoughts which I believe to be the experiencer. Actually, the experiencer, the self, is awareness, consciousness, in which various sensations ebb and flow. I experience only sensations. A material object is an idea which I apply to certain bundles of sensations.
Or just not believe in materialism.
Quoting RogueAI
Or consider anomalous monism instead.
If you think of "Self" as a representation -- a self-image or mental model, not a ding an sich -- Its relation to material reality may become clearer. We can assume that all sentient creatures have some kind of self-image. But that intuitively constructed image is inward looking, not an external observation. The Self may begin simply as proprioception due to feedback to the brain about location of body parts. But for self-conscious beings, that abstract representation may become more complex, including comparisons to other beings. So, your self-image is similar to an avatar in a digital world, that you can manipulate intentionally. Yet, like a digital avatar or mirror image, the inner Self is not a physical object. Instead of a physical Being, it's a meta-physical Meaning. And Meanings don't exist in a purely physical world*1. Hence, our reality is both Physical and Metaphysical.
As 180proof noted, Anomalous Monism*2 views mental phenomena as Real but not Physical. Your Self is arbitrary in that it is to some degree under your rational control : a creation of your own mind. It's real in the anomalous sense that it is an exception to the rule, that most things are physical. And it's monistic in that it does exist in the same universe that all sentient beings share. So, the key to understanding the Ontological status of a Self-Image*3 is to accept that Reality consists of both Matter & Mind, both Physics & Metaphysics, both Things & Ideas-about-things. :smile:
*1. Purely Physical World :
The universe prior to emergence of self-conscious brains was also mindless & pre-metaphysical
*2. Anomalous Monism is a theory about the scientific status of psychology, the physical status of mental events, and the relation between these issues developed by Donald Davidson. It claims that psychology cannot be a science like basic physics, in that it cannot in principle yield exceptionless laws for predicting or explaining human thoughts and actions (mental anomalism). It also holds that thoughts and actions must be physical (monism, or token-identity). Thus, according to Anomalous Monism, psychology cannot be reduced to physics, but must nonetheless share a physical ontology.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/anomalous-monism/
*3. What is Self-Image in Psychology? How Do We Improve it? :
[i]Self-image and self-concept are strongly associated, but theyre not quite the same thing. . . .
Similarly, self-image has a lot to do with self-esteem. . . . Identity is also a closely related concept but is also a larger and more comprehensive one than self-image.[/i]
Note -- Proprioception is not arbitrary. But Self-Image (visual) & Self-Esteem (emotional) & Self-Identity (social) are partly conscious constructs. Hence, some choice (conscious or sub-conscious) is involved.
Well, you're not a chair, because chairs are not intentional agents, and don't go around writing posts on philosophy forums. And a 'purely material world' such as what you posit, would have no intentional agents in it, so there would be no-one around to pose the question, or care about it.
Note the Ship of Theseus, 'a thought experiment about whether an object that has had all of its original components replaced remains the same object. According to legend, Theseus, the mythical Greek founder-king of Athens, had rescued the children of Athens from King Minos after slaying the minotaur and then escaped on a ship to Delos. Every year, the Athenians commemorated this legend by taking the ship on a pilgrimage to Delos to honor Apollo. The question was raised by ancient philosophers: After several centuries of maintenance, if every part of the Ship of Theseus had been replaced, one at a time, was it still the same ship?'
My answer to that is that it is the same ship, because it fulfils the same purpose, has the same form, and belongs to the same person. However, again, intentionality remains central.
As for the identity of human subjects, the question of the nature of the Self is really the same question as the question of the nature of the Universe, although in our materialistic age this will be far from obvious. However,
I always thought the materialist ought to take a stand, here. For so long philosophers and people in general have reduced the self to near nothing: to a soul, an essence, an element, a homunculus, an organ, a narrativea reductionism of the worst typeand the value of the rest has diminished in proportion. But weighing these species of selves on any scale will invariably reveal it to be little or nothing at all. Perhaps the proliferation of these kinds of stories has led to your own disillusion.
The ever-changing nature of the human being ought not to dissuade one from applying "selfhood" to it. Selves grow, change, and eventually fall apart; that much is obvious. But that it occupies the same unique time and place throughout its entire existence accounts for something. That it has a boundary that separates itself from the rest of the universe accounts for something. That we can point to it, observe it, and measure it from the moment it becomes its own until the moment it settles into dust, accounts for something, too. The "material", so much as that word means anything, is the sine qua non of the self, and consequently, what philosophers of self have routinely discarded. At any rate, from the beginning of the self until the end of it, the materialist has much more to work with when it comes to selfhood, and thus are better equipped to rescue the self from misuse.
You don't believe me? Say to yourself "I am really sexy" and notice how your body reacts. Is your body giving you an "Oh, Yeah I am hot!" or a cynical "You are too fat or too old to be sexy." Want to invest $5000 in a hot new stock? What does your gut say about that? :chin:
My question is, without our material bodies, what can we experience? If we do not experience ourselves, reacting to other beings, can we have a sense of self? We do not just think who we are, we feel who we are in relation to others. How we feel about ourselves and our lives may have very little to do with our thinking. We may even realize our thoughts based on our feelings are not rational.
If we do perhaps experience amnesia the people who think they know us will tell us who we are and who is important to who we are and not important to who we are. If we look like a male and chose to look like a female, surely there will be people to tell us about who we are. If our skin is dark, the White people in the neighborhood may wonder what we are doing there. Or if we are a Whitey in the wrong neighborhood someone will tell us we should not be there. Our sense of self is a little complex and some of us avoid our families because their opinion of who we are may not be to our liking. Who we are, depends to some degree, on those who are judging us.
Ephemeral self-continuity, n o t static self-"identity" (i.e. Neurath's Boat contra Descartes Cogito). "Self does not exist" as a material / physical thing.
I don't label myself (my personal Self) as Materialist. But I also don't define Me as Spiritualist. Ironically, one definition of Spirit is "the essence of a thing". So, your definition of The Self could be construed as a spiritual concept; which may trigger the trolls. Therefore, due to the contentious religious baggage of "spirit", I have adopted the modern notion of "Information" to describe the essence of all things. Unfortunately, the trolls can sniff-out the implicit spiritual (essential) connotations.
From that Information-centric perspective, your Self is merely the Information (pattern ; arrangement ; structure ; relationships) that defines your Material (physical) & Mental (phenomenal) form. Unfortunately, you can't see a pattern with your eyes, but you can infer it with your reason, by detecting invisible inter-relationships. (see image below) :smile:
Spiritual Essence (psychology) :
And now we come to the Spiritthe Essence that animates the mind and body.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/counseling-keys/202009/how-our-spiritual-essence-can-heal-us
What is Information Pattern? :
An information pattern is a structure of information units like e.g. a vector or matrix of numbers, a stream of video frames, or a distribution of probabilities.
https://www.igi-global.com/dictionary/information-pattern/14438
Is Information Fundamental for a Scientific Theory of Consciousness? :
Re : physicist John A. Wheeler's "It from Bit" interpretation of Quantum & Information theories.
"In his proposed conception of the world, information is truly fundamental and is comprised of dual aspectscorresponding to the physical and the phenomenal features of the world."
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-981-10-5777-9_21
Information philosophy is a dualist philosophy, both materialist and idealist. It It is a correspondence theory, explaining how immaterial ideas represent material objects.
https://www.informationphilosopher.com/
Note -- in my thesis, that Both-And relationship adds-up to Monism : one essence, many manifestations.
Quoting tom111
The "arrangement of matter" is its Form. And Matter is merely a "form" of Energy that our senses can detect (E=MC^2). So, I have concluded that Energy is transformed into Matter, via a process that I have labeled as EnFormAction, in order to suggest its relationship to Information-in-General (the generic ability to enform ; to create forms/patterns ; to cause change ; to carry meaning ). Energy is all around us, but invisible to human senses, until it takes on a measurable Material form : Mass/Matter/Substance. With that scientific knowledge in mind, your notion that the human Self is "just the arrangement of matter" makes sense.
The philosophical problem arises when we consider that the essence of Matter is invisible & intangible in its massless form (e.g. photons) Which raises the old Matter vs Spirit controversy. Since causal Energy can transform from immaterial Potential to material Actual, and back again, you can avoid the Ship of Theseus problem. Nature is not replace physical parts of a thing, it is merely changing the essential Form (arrangement) that makes a thing what it is. Even says that "Self does not exist" as a material / physical thing". So, the Ontological question is this : in what sense does the Self/Soul exist? :nerd:
Quoting tom111
That conceptual Dualism can be resolved into Monism, if we understand Body & Self as merely different aspects (instances ; expressions ; manifestations) of the EnFormAction process. For example, as an individual Photon is zooming through the cosmos, that building block of matter is invisible & massless. But when it energizes the visual purple chemicals in the eye, that photon is transformed into matter, and then back into energy (neural pulses). :smile:
Light is invisible because light does not emit light. To see something this something needs to emit, or reflect light
https://www.quora.com/Why-is-light-invisible
Note -- Photons are Potential Energy & Potential Matter. Only after transformation into Actual matter can they absorb & reflect light. This may sound counter-intuitive, but it's simply Quantum queerness.
The blocks represent physical things, or parts of things. But the arrows represent inferred functional (or meaningful) inter-relations. So, the Pattern per se is a mental construct.
Quoting Gnomon
Given that "essence" denotes that which non-impermanently makes something what is and not something else (to paraphase Plato/Aristotle(?)), why isn't there a "law of the conservation of information" like complementary to or entailed by the conservation of mass-energy law, for instance? Why isn't "information" (i.e. "pattern", as you say, Gnomon) conserved in physics?
:roll:
Models + data = information (i.e. conjectures tested by deductions of experimental predictions); e.g. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computational_physics
To tell you the truth, a Google search on conservation of energy was negative although there was something in The black hole information paradox (Susskind, Hawking et all).
All I can say is
1. Information is substrate (matter) independent. "I'm sorry" can be written on a rock, copied onto paper, memorized, copied onto a text/word file, the possibilities are infinite. In a sense information uses physical stuff (matter & energy) for encoding purposes.
2. If I write a message, say "Forgive me", onto a paper and then toss it into a fire, the message is lost ... forever. I see no way the information can be retrieved from the ashes (a trope in many mystery novels)
Btw, I K.I.S.S. to avoid the fundamental physics topic of black hole entropy, which you mention, for @Gnomon's sake.
Saw your relations diagram. Reminds of the seven bridges of Königsberg problem (status: solved, courtesy Leonhard Euler)
Also do read my reply to 180 Proof. Your fromulation of the self as a pattern reminds me of video game character classes like the ones you see in the Diablo series.
Assassin
1. Life 30
2. Agility 60
3. Strength 40
4. Defense 35
5. Mana: 70
Skill tree: Traps, illusions, poison, archery, daggers
:cool:
So if the self is a pattern (of information), when I read Aristotle's books, I'm in conversation, albeit one-way only, with him. But wait, his response to my questions can be inferred from his various positions on relevant issues? We can, in a sense, reconstruct Aristotle's mind from his corpus even though only partially - a half/quarter/third Aristotle. :cool:
Yes master?! :chin: :grin:
Gracias mi amigo.
That information is not conserved may be the good & bad news nonphysicalists are waiting for. Energy & matter, both, are conserved and if information is not, that can mean only one thing - information is nonphysical.
Yeah, but if information isn't conserved and if matter & energy (physical) are then ...
Are you perhaps conflating the medium for the message?
Interesting read (the excerpt). Last I checked, (digital) computers are essentially analog i.e. current is continuous quantity, can assume any value whatsoever. It's just that in computers electrical current occurs in a range, say 1mV to 2mV. Then computers are instructed to treat 1 mV - 1.5 mV as 0 and 1.5 mV - 2 mV as 1 and just like that we get digital from analog.
DNA is the medium (paper), the message (information is in the sequence of nucleotides)
I don't see this as an issue but more of what it SHOULD be like. Why makes you think there is an unchanging part of us (like a soul) in the first place?
Quoting tom111
Add them to your ontology then if their non-existence bothers you. Check hylomorphism.
What kind of assassin has as much agility as defense??
I was not all there. :smile:
I'm going to go about this by asking you follow up questions based on what you wrote. Because sometimes questions provide just as much insight/novelty/curiosity as an answer.
Quoting tom111
What do we mean by "same" here, is the self only what components you're made of? Or is also qualified by behaviour, awareness and knowledge. Am I the same as I was when I was 2 drinking a warm bottle of milk and playing with blocks? Or has growing up changed me - my behaviour, dreams, beliefs/views, skills etc.
Quoting tom111
If we suppose that different organisms have a different requirement for atoms of various elements, is it possible to use the same profile of components that makes a human to make another organism? For example if you wanted to convert me to a tree by rearranging my matter, would I need less nitrogen and more manganese than would ever be required for the composition of a human? Would there be left overs, or missing elements?
Quoting tom111
Could it be the continuity of memory - of place and time, that provides the adequate context to feel "the same" - as in to identify with past states of self. What would happen to our sense of self if we had not ability to remember the past?
Quoting tom111
Does a chair have a sense of self? And could we ever prove it using only human sense of self for measure?
In a purely materialist view, the sense of self is arbitrary and a product of material arrangement and processes but means that matter has an intrinsic property of being able to be aware/perceive itself in specific arrangements
OR
Self is innate, and doesn't depend on material arrangement. Which means we would have little reason thay consciousness is a fundamental universal.
Both cases are very interesting and profound indeed.
Material cannot be fully inanimate in either case as we are proof. Because either it is animate inherently, or something called self gives it animation.
's question is treating "Information" as-if it is nothing-but Physical. Yet, in the sense of "essence of all things" Information is both physical and metaphysical. Consequently, in its physical forms (e.g. energy/matter) Information must obey physical laws, but in its metaphysical forms (e.g. mind/ideas) information must obey logical laws. However, when physicists talk about conservation laws, they are referring to energy in the conventional scientific sense, not to its unconventional philosophical sense of EnFormAction -- which I assume they have never heard of. This forum has an exclusive on that outré notion.
I am currently reading a book by astrophysicist Caleb Scharf, The Ascent of Information. In the first chapter he says, "a number of thinkers over the years have asked whether information itself may be the fundamental currency of the universe -- superseding our comparatively parochial ideas of what makes biology, and chemistry, or even physics tick". His term "fundamental currency" is what I referred to as "the essence of all things". Since 180proof is still thinking in terms of "parochial ideas" (having a limited or narrow outlook or scope), he does not agree with those innovative thinkers.
Scharf has coined the neologism "Dataome"*1 (compare to Genome) to encapsulate his own outré concept of Universal Information. Raw "data" is appropriate for Claude Shannon's narrow definition of Information. But, from the Enformationism perspective, Data is a basic form of Information that doesn't have any inherent significance or purpose or meaning -- it's unprocessed information. That's why Scharf goes on to say that "real information is that data organized and assembled and structured to provide meaning and context". Likewise, the ideal mental construct of "Self" -- pointing to a specific body -- is a metaphysical meaningful structure that exists upon a physical substrate, but is not itself physical. It exists in the same sense that the concept of "Universe" does, pointing to a physical expanse of matter.
Universal Information is more comprehensive in scope than mere Data. Which is why I coined the term Enformationism to encapsulate the universal & essential role of the cosmic Causal-power-to-enform (to organize into physical or meaningful structures or patterns). Therefore, in a physical format an enformed structure must comply with the conservation law. But in a metaphysical form, the applicable law is Logic (rules & tests of sound reasoning). Which may also be conservative, but not in the same sense. :smile:
*1. Dataome : the class of all forms of information, from abstract data to meaningful ideas to material objects.
Note 1 -- Scharf compares his coinage to "Noosphere" (universal scope of mind), coined in the 1920s by paleontologist Pierre Teilhard deChardin and geologist Vladimir Vernadsky to encompass their notion of an emerging stage of evolutionary development, due to the expanding role of non-physical Consciousness in the physical world. Physicist John A. Wheeler introduced a similar novel notion (It from Bit) around 1989, to encapsulate his concept of an information-based world.
Note 2 -- Noosphere is a no-no for Materialists, who don't "see" how a metaphysical Mind could exist apart from its substantial substrate. Yet, it does exist, as an abstract idea (e.g. prescient Purpose), in the same sense that a future-oriented Function exists for any physical machine. No original intentional metaphysical Purpose >>> no Cause >>> no Machine >>> no Function >>> no physical Output >>> no satisfied Objective. :cool:
My conception of how info underpins everything is that it's a prerequisite to, well, everything. Before, as I recall telling you, I create a universe, I need info on how to (re DNA). This idea could be extrapolated to everything is information, dissolving the boundary between information and dinge, between medium and message (did you watch the Denzel Washington movie The Book of Eli? Eli is the Biblia Sacra).
Just the other day I was musing over the universe as an übercomputer and wondering how many flops it takes to run this shitshow :grin: - from me picking my nose to that Uranium atom that just decayed to galactic and intergalactic interactions. That's a mind-boggling amount of calculations this übercomputer has to perform every single instant.
This occupies the field of biosemiotics, which we've all been introduced to here through the contributions of @apokrisis, hence my quote from Marcello Barbieri, one of the leading theorists in that field.
But I don't believe it is meaningful to speak of 'information' as if it is the fundamental substrate or foundation of all that exists. It is not a metaphysical primitive - the word itself is polysemic, i.e. has many different meanings depending on its context and the subject under discussion. One of the biosemiotic theorists I was reading earlier this week associates the emergence of intelligence exclusively with the presence of life and mind.
And I regret to say that I invariably find your 'enformationism' mere hand-waving.
Yes, and then . . . the beat goes on. I don't know how you would physically determine if non-physical forms of Information are conserved. But since, in my thesis, Generic Information can be transformed into Energy, and Energy into Matter, then Matter into Entropy, which can be stored in Black Holes like a deep freeze, it seems that Information cycles without ceasing. Presumably. the original Information (the program code) of the Big Bang Singularity has been recycled for 14 billion years, without any loss of information from within the closed system. Some theorists even speculate that Black Hole information can be recycled; hypothetically *1. Is that conservative enough for you?
defines "non-physical" as "not causally related". But some scientists have concluded that Information transfer is a causal relationship*2. Unfortunately, non-physical information transfer (memes to minds) are not measurable in a physical sense *3. So the definition is moot. :smile:
*1. Information Recycling :
The "black hole information paradox" refers to the fact that information cannot be destroyed in the universe, and yet when a black hole eventually evaporates, whatever information was gobbled up by this cosmic vacuum cleaner should have long since vanished. The new study proposes that the paradox could be resolved by nature's ultimate cheat code: wormholes, or passages through space-time.
https://www.livescience.com/black-hole-paradox-solution
*2. Information causality is a physical principle suggested in 2009 . . . . The principle assumes classical communication: if quantum bits were allowed to be transmitted the information gain could be higher as demonstrated in the quantum superdense coding protocol [this is debatable as superdense coding requires sending as many qubits - including auxiliary channels - as there are classical bits to transfer]. The principle is respected by all correlations accessible with quantum physics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_causality
Note -- "information gain" is a net change, caused by input of information.
*3. Information causality as a physical principle :
Information causality may therefore help to distinguish physical theories from non-physical ones.
https://www.proquest.com/docview/204560784
Note -- Only physical properties are measurable in quantitative terms. Non-physical qualities are knowable only by conscious minds.Do you have any memes in your mind? How much do those massless objects weigh? How many degrees of uncertainty can your mind contain?
Information : (my definition)
Knowledge and the ability to know. Technically, it's the ratio of order to disorder, of positive to negative, of knowledge to ignorance. It's measured in degrees of uncertainty. Those ratios are also called "differences". So Gregory Bateson* defined Information as "the difference that makes a difference". The latter distinction refers to "value" or "meaning". Babbage called his prototype computer a "difference engine". Difference is the cause or agent of Change. In Physics its called "Thermodynamics" or "Energy". In Sociology its called "Conflict".
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page11.html
As a proposed comprehensive belief-system, an -ism, my personal philosophy should be approached with skepticism. But also with an open mind toward novel philosophical models. It has implications for both scientific paradigms and religious beliefs. It doesn't directly contradict the prevailing Materialism of science & philosophy, but it does propose a new way of understanding the physical world, that doesn't ignore the emerging role of non-physical Mind/Culture, and causal Information.
Do you disagree with the statements of the professional scientists quoted in my posts? Or do you merely disagree with my amateur interpretation of their collective opinions? Since I have no professional or academic qualifications, I have to rely on their expertise to ground my philosophical system-building. So you should feel free to critique my reasoning, as a few have done on this forum over the last few years. Like Quantum Theory, it's hard to wrap your mind around the idea of Information as the foundation of both Reality and Ideality.
Enformationism is not a scientific theory, and should not be judged by scientific criteria. And even the quoted scientists are not presenting settled-science, but merely their own personal opinions.
You might better understand their "meaning" if you would read their own words. That's why I provide internet links and book titles. Can you provide a specific instance of "hand-waving"? Even hand waving is a form of Information transfer. :smile:
Enformationism :
***[i]This website is a place to explore the meaning and ramifications of a new philosophical 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 its 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.[/i]
http://enformationism.info/enformationism.info/page2%20Welcome.html
Notice that they're all artefacts. Inorganic matter is not 'informational' in that sense.
Quoting Agent Smith
The general thrust of molecular biology is that DNA encodes and transmits information. Biosemiosis says that it is, therefore, different in kind from inorganic matter, as that passage indicates.
I generally like your attitude and admire your enthusiasm, but I think there's a gap in your account. I think there has to be some sense in which 'Mind' is fundamental or foundational - not simply as the product of interactions of matter-energy and form.
I've read a bit about this idea of the foundational role of information - for example Paul Davies' book on it, and I have James Gleick's The Information - but I think there's some sort of fallacy of equivocation associated with such theses. Put simply, what is behind genetic information, what is its cause? Is biological information somehow spontaneously generated by inorganic matter? You know there is a theistic Argument from Biological Information. I'm not sure I accept it, but I think I'd sooner accept it than the idea that some kind of amorphous 'information' is 'behind everything'.
None of which is actually relevant to the question in the thread, other than to say that it is possible to conceive of 'the self' as the identity of a process rather than as an immutable or unchangeable entity - just as the Buddha does. The Buddha declined to answer the question 'does the self exist' with either yes or no, because the aim is to understand how the process of dependent origination gives rise to the sense of self, which is the central teaching of Buddhism.
I thought at @Gnomon was using information/enformation as a kind of secular analogue for essence.
Quoting Wayfarer
That fits in with my tentative models for self.
Well, kind of, but I question the accordance of this usage with the classical meaning. My understanding is that 'essence' boils down essentially to 'is-ness' - what makes a particular what it is. That was derived originally from Plato's 'eidos' (idea or form), usually understood as mediated by Aristotle's 'immanent realism' (i.e. that forms are real only when they are instantiated in particulars).
There has been a re-evaluation of Aristotle in modern biological thinking, because his 'form-matter' dualism is actually highly adaptible (unlike Aristotelian physics, for instance). I've read some discussion of whether Aristotle's ideas of telos (and entelechy) actually anticipated the idea of DNA. But that can be discussed through the perspectives of (for instance) biology and biosemiotics. I'm finding the introduction of 'information theory' a bit tendentious.
Quoting Wayfarer
Would you consider this a useful refinement of Plato's idea of instantiation? Does Aristotle still propose a realm of forms?
DNA is not an "artefact"
Information (i.e. pattern) is not conserved as a fundamental law in physics because information (i.e. pattern) consists in differences-signals, not identity-noise. Information begins with symmetry-breaking (i.e. increasing net entropy); patterns are asymmetries bound by (apparent, or partial) symmetries. Thus, information is emergent and not fundamental, even though everything is informational (i.e. signal-to-noise ratios, entropic / dissipative).
To the extent things are "enformed", as @Gnomon says, those things are "enformed", or transformed made more informational (i.e. complex), by agents (e.g. humans) which are informational. 'Lit candles lighting other candles' the mass (re: wick-stuff & wax), and energy (re: light & heat) are conserved but not the candle sticks (i.e. patterns, structures) because they are emergent and not fundamental. It's we, for example, that "enform" (i.e. add (e.g. "copy & paste") information) because we are informational having emerged far enough along the cosmological entropy-gradient after (from) the fundamental symmetry-breaking of the planck era (re: quantum uncertainty).
"Enformationism", like most other flavors of idealism / platonism, gets the relation of cause and effect backwards: "enformy" is (logically, if not physically) an effect of information, which is emergent signals from the noise (e.g. "big bang" ... white hole, quantum tunneling, etc) of acausal symmetry-breaking, and not the cause itself. If, however, "The Enformer" is synonymous with acausal symmetry-breaking (as "the uncaused cause" :roll:), then, okay, except that this is a completely physical concept and not in any explicable way "non-physical" (i.e. "Meta-physical") because, paraphrasing Laplace, there is no need for that speculation it's a distinction without a logical or epistemic difference. :eyes:
Now there's a great thread topic, but we'd need input from some of the more experienced readers in that subject. (AFAIK, Aristotle rejects the 'realm of forms', but I think it's far from clear what was meant by that in the first place, or what precisely is being rejected.)
Quoting 180 Proof
That rather begs the question, does it not? :naughty: The point about the informational structure of DNA is that it is unique to living forms and the question of the origin of life is still open.
Merci beaucoup for that interesting remark.
Wonderful!
1. Information is an emergent property
2. Enformy is an effect and not a cause
I have a feeling we're talking past each other. @Gnomon's idea of information is not the one you're using. As s/he said, his information is outré (unconventional) which to me reads nonscientific.
Gracias 180 Proof for the reply.
:grin:
I understand. I was especially moved by how science, as demonstrated by you in your last post to me, can so effortlessly and so heartlessly reduce to rubble painstakingly put together philosophies. I'm in awe, but to be fair there's dissent among the ranks mon ami - some scientists, probably those mystically-minded, are proposing novel ideas and models (@Gnomon cites big and small names) who, by his account, see eye to eye with him. That should mean something - a few scientific domains are still open to metaphysical interpretations like our friend Gnomon's. It's as unfortunate as is unsurprising that Gnomon has bet his money on quantum physics - the shadowy realm of science where cats are both dead and alive. It's an easy target as far as I can tell for mystic cum metaphysicans; all the more reason for scientists to get their act together and fast.
Au revoir.
Adios.
:up: On target mon ami. It's quite odd that a few of these scientists write so badly, leaving the door wide open for misinterpretations of all and sundry kinds. I'll leave Gnomon to come up with an appropriate response.
COMPUTER ALGORITHM (Information as the arche)
Chicken & Egg Problem vis-à-vis mind-information
To build mind, one needs information on how to build a mind.
To gather information on how to build a mind one needs mind.
I was surprised my your description of my "enthusiastic" presentation of Enformationism as "mere handwaving" (empty gestures)*1. My intention is more like Teaching or Preaching, which often involve emphatic use of the hands to emphasize a point. Understandably, preaching is typically not well-received on this forum, and is often shouted-down*2. But, a certain amount of Teaching is necessary, because most members of this forum are only vaguely familiar with Shannon's use of the term "Information" in the context of Entropy (i.e. dis-information). As Dr. Frankenstein's fire-fearing creature might say : "Entropy bad!" So, Information itself has been pegged with a negative connotation as something to be avoided. Ironically, in Shannon's sense of "uncertainty" and "surprise", "more entropy means more information".
By contrast to the engineering usage, my philosophical application of Information Theory is focused on its positive aspects (Energy/Enformy as contrasted to Entropy/Deform). In the book by astrophysicist Caleb Scharf, The Ascent of Information, he recounts a story of how Shannon came to connect disrupted messages on noisy phone lines with thermodynamic Entropy (all the ways it could go wrong). John von Neumann suggested that abstruse technical term, and added that "since most people didn't understand what entropy really was, he would always have the advantage in an argument". Unfortunately, for my philosophical purposes that mis-understanding is a disadvantage. Thus, the necessity for teaching -- and yes, for gesturing -- in order to put Information into a more positive light.
Even a century after Shannon's engineering insight, businesses still invite speakers to teach their employees about how easy it is for things to go wrong with their enterprises. And some philosophers view Evolution, not as a creative process, but as a one-way trip to Entropy Hell. So, I have an uphill battle to present a more optimistic side of the thermodynamic equation. The main element of Information that Shannon's "purposefully austere mathematical evaluation" omitted was Meaning. Enformationism, though, is intended to fill that gaping gap with Life & Mind & Meaning*3. :smile:
*1. Hand Waving :
the use of gestures and insubstantial language meant to impress or convince.
*2. Preaching : I suspect that it's my evangelical approach to Enformationism as a worldview is what offends the most. Ironically, his worldview seems to be pretty close to my own in many ways. But, he seems to think I'm an annoying born-again "Enformationist" (cringe) preaching the gospel of G*D.
*3. Enformationism :
A philosophical worldview or belief system grounded on the 20th century discovery that Information, rather than Matter, is the fundamental substance of everything in the universe. It is intended to be the 21st century successor to ancient Materialism. An Update from Bronze Age to Information Age. It's a Theory of Everything that covers, not just matter & energy, but also Life & Mind & Love.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html
For the record, by "non-scientific" I mean philosophical and meta-physical. But seems to equate modern Philosophy with classical (non-quantum) Physics. :smile:
Yes. Gnomon typically quotes the quantum physicists who were both pioneers of the New Physics, and somewhat open to non-classical (mystical) concepts. Yet Schrodinger's metaphorical cat is not both dead and alive ; its state, for a standby observer, is merely undetermined (statistically somewhere between 0 & 100%). Apparently knows more about Quantum Theory than those Nobel prize winners. His "shadows" have sharp edges. Hence, he labels Gnomon's use of their fuzzy philosophical metaphors as "poorly reasoned". :smile:
Gnomon has tried to update & adapt those ancient "classical" notions of Essence, Idea, Form, with new insights from modern Information Theory and Quantum Theory. Unfortunately, just as Newton's classical physics is now passé, Plato's and Aristotle's "classical" meanings (e.g. two-value Logic) are still applicable in their original context, but -- due to the intervening 2500 years of scientific progress -- must be re-interpreted to suit the fuzzy (multi-valued) logic of Quantum Queerness. No disrespect to the classical thinkers is intended. :smile:
Passé : no longer fashionable; out of date.
Fuzzy Logic : Both quantum logic and fuzzy logic describe uncertainty
Note -- Aristotle's Universal or General Logic had sharply defined borders & edges. Which is useful for general purposes. But becomes uncertain in specified contexts at the foundations of Reality.
I have a feeling superposition means something more than uncertainty. Is it that simple? If I think there's a 50% chance that it'll rain, I don't usually don't go around saying it's both raining (the cat is alive) and not raining (the cat is dead).
I didn't make-up the notion that Information is the fundamental element of the world*1. So, I have linked to many different articles, written by professional scientists, who make that assertion as a hypothesis, based on the association of Information with Energy & Entropy. As the precursor of Matter (E=MC^2), intangible Energy could be construed as the physical primitive, from which all material objects are derived*2. This is not a classical physics concept, but an emerging consensus among mathematical scientists who tend to define Energy & Information in statistical terms. Neither is real in itself, but have the power to create real things from nothing-but statistical relationships, such as hot/cold.
However, for philosophical purposes, you have a valid point. Information, as used by those physical scientists, is not a "metaphysical primitive"*3 or even a physical object. Instead, it's the creative process of enforming : giving form to the formless; meaning to the meaningless. That's why I propose that a more fundamental expression of Information is the Universal Causal Force that I call EnFormAction*4 : a contraction of "the energetic act of enforming". I also coined a neologism, Enformy, to convey the notion of [ Energy + Law ], to represent the creative power of Evolution.
Current cosmology has not agreed on any more parsimonious explanation for the Big Bang than a mathematical Singularity, which created everything from nothing-but mathematical information. By contrast, Multiverses and Many Worlds are guilty of multiplying assumptions. So, I accept the Singularity as a hypothetical physical/metaphysical Primitive. But the creative power comes from the most basic ratio of all -- 1 : 0 (all or nothing). Working forward from that Prime Cause, I have developed my Enformationism thesis : that primordial Information (creative power) is more essential than mundane Matter or ever-changing Energy/Entropy. :smile:
*1. The basis of the universe may not be energy or matter but information :
https://bigthink.com/surprising-science/the-basis-of-the-universe-may-not-be-energy-or-matter-but-information/
*2. Yet, Energy itself is undone by Enformy. So, it's the structural Form component that stabilizes material things long enough to evolve into Darwin's "endless forms most beautiful"*6.
*3. Philosophical Primitive :
In mathematics, logic, philosophy, and formal systems, a primitive notion is a concept that is not defined in terms of previously-defined concepts. It is often motivated informally, usually by an appeal to intuition and everyday experience.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primitive_notion
*4. EnFormAction :
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. Its 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.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html
Note -- You can interpret "divine will" anyway you wish. It's just a metaphor.
*5. to Enform : [i]verb. to form; to fashion · Etymology: [F. enformer].
One synonym is "to create"[/i]
*6. Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly follows. There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.
? Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species
Not -- Back to the topic of this thread : the self-aware Self may be the most wonderful of all those endless forms.
I understand and just a suggestion, if the aim is to bring science and religion under one roof, you must pay heed to objections/criticisms/opposition from scientifically-minded folk like @180 Proof. I'm rather surprised that you're getting neither a yea nor a nay from the religiously-minded.
The philosophical question is What creates?
In my TPF posts, I am not trying to appeal to religious believers, but to philosophical reasoners. I abandoned my own religion many years ago. And I don't try to convert my still-religious siblings to my personal worldview. They may think that I'm going to Hell for my unbelief, but I don't believe in Hell, so I'm not worried about their afterlife. Most religiously-minded people have little-to-no interest in the unsentimental abstractions of Philosophy, that have no regard for people's feelings.
I'm also not trying to bring Science & Religion "under one roof". Instead, I agree with Steven Jay Gould that they are "non-overlapping magisteria". As Galileo put it : "The Bible shows the way to go to heaven, not the way the heavens go". Religion has more in common with Politics than with Science. Religion & Politics are programs to control human behavior, while Science is a method for controlling Nature. However, Gnomon may be aiming to bring Science & Philosophy back under one roof. :smile:
My philosophical answer to that question is the Natural analog Program we call Evolution. As to Who the creator might be, all I can do is use metaphors. Religious thinkers use the analogy of a human Father who wants to replicate in order to create a loving & obedient family. Science prefers to use less anthro-morphic metaphors, such as Nature or Probability to represent the self-organizing process of inter-acting bits of Space & Time. Gnomon analogously thinks of the creative "What" as a computer Programmer : the Enformer. But the motive for creating a gradually evolving organism of Matter & Mind is beyond me. Unfortunately, I have no revelation from the Great What to tell me the Big Why. :smile:
To Evolve synonyms : develop ; progress ; advance ; mature ; etc.
Quoting tom111
In the first quoted paragraph, you write about subjective experience with language that assumes it is an existing (therefore real) thing.
In the second quoted paragraph, you write about "self" as an existing thing, an idea. You also write about thorough examination of "self" (through a materialist lens), concluding it's a concept that doesn't exist. This statement is complicated logically because you name a concept whose existence you subsequently deny. You also label an attribute of "self" as "essence," declaring human being lacks it. Again, in naming something you subsequently deny, you paradoxically posit its existence.
In the third quoted paragraph, you resolve the paradox of material body/immaterial "self" by denying existence of the latter.
Do you understand yourself to be a material body exclusively?
In your rejection of immaterial self, do you reject those personal memories of yourself mentioned above?
Do you understand your "self" to be a material body?
That you don't conclusively understand your "self" to be a material body is suggested to me when you write,
Quoting tom111
Do you understand your "self" to be a physical epiphenomenon of your material body?
Quoting tom111
Here I see your effort to decide upon the physicality/non-physicality of the "self" unresolved.
Have you studied meta-physics? Do you have a response to it?
It may be presumptuous of me, but I have interpreted the ancient usage by Plato & Aristotle -- of the ancient word for "Form"*1 -- in terms of modern Information & Quantum Theory. Most physicists have concluded that the ultimate Essence or Substance of our evolving world is the change agent we know as "Energy"*2. But a few intrepid scientists have postulated that even Energy is a form of Generic Information. Hence, the notion that massless Information (idea ; design ; form) is the essence of Reality.
Plato postulated a variety of non-physical things & states (Chaos ; Logos) from which the physical world of the senses emerged. But Aristotle, probably assuming that the material world is itself eternal, dismissed the necessity for such out-of-this-world Universals*3. Hence, he located his Forms in material objects*4. Depending on your perspective & purpose, both of these views could be correct.
However, the Enformationism thesis accepts the current scientific model of a world with a sudden inexplicable beginning of Something from Nothing (no material things). For Gnomon's purposes that "nothing" is immaterial Potential*5 : the unactualized ability to create change. So the spooky notion of an Ideal realm of Forms (statistical possibilities) makes sense, in view of what we now know about Collapse of statistical Superposition into physical particles of stuff. :smile:
*1. Form : The Ancient Greek term ???? ????? (theia ousia; divine essence) was translated in Latin as essentia or substantia, and hence in English as essence or substance.
*2. Energy is a form of Information :
Energy is the relationship between information regimes. That is, energy is manifested, at any level, between structures, processes and systems of information in all of its forms, and all entities in this universe is composed of information.
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/22084/how-is-information-related-to-energy-in-physics
*3. Plato vs Aristotle Form :
Plato believed that concepts had a universal form, an ideal form, which leads to his idealistic philosophy. Aristotle believed that universal forms were not necessarily attached to each object or concept, and that each instance of an object or a concept had to be analyzed on its own.
https://www.diffen.com/difference/Aristotle_vs_Plato
*4. Hylomorphism :
Aristotle famously contends that every physical object is a compound of matter and form. This doctrine has been dubbed hylomorphism, a portmanteau of the Greek words for matter (hulê) and form (eidos or morphê).
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/form-matter/
Note -- Ironically, although Ari dismissed Plato's ghostly realm of Ideas, his definition of a physical object combined both Matter (hyle) and Idea (eidos). The analogy of a physical house would say that it is composed of Matter (bricks & lumber), but also that it would not exist apart from Mind (Intention & Design).
*5. Potential :
In philosophy, potential and potentiality refer to the capacity, power, ability, or chance for something to happen or occur.
https://www.gotquestions.org/actuality-potentiality.html
:up: Superb!
Like you've said countless times - your philosophy, despite borrowing some ideas from religion, doesn't offer salvation or succor from grief/anxiety; of course contained within it are some ideas that might just come in handy towards those ends. Nevertheless, they're secondary to the primary aim which is to generate the mother of all models, one that encompasses both philosophy and science.
Bonam fortunam (broken Latin for good luck).
In my reply to 's comment about "hand-waving, I noted that seems to think that my enthusiastic presentation of Enformationism is a form of evangelism for some kind of religious belief system. Until then, I had never thought of my posts on this forum as evangelistic. But now I see that there may be some truth in that put-down portrayal. First, I was raised in an evangelistic religion, but eventually lost my enthusiasm for its blind-faith biblical beliefs. Also, although I came of age in the 1960s, I was never involved in any Oriental or New Age religions*1. I did however experiment with meditation for a while, but found that rational philosophizing was more my style.
However, Enformationism is indeed a belief system, in the same sense as Materialism. For me though, it merely serves as the foundation for a Philosophical BothAnd worldview. And I do think the world would be a better place if people exchanged their ancient Spiritualism & Materialism beliefs for a more up-to-date understanding of how & why the world works as it does. So, I hope my fellow posters can forgive me for a bit of "hand-waving" from time to time. :smile:
Introduction to the BothAnd Blog :
World history has again reached a dangerous tipping-point, precariously poised over the abyss of Armageddon. However, from a historical perspective, its also showing some potential for a new unified worldview, and the possibility of a more orderly & peaceful future. From a philosophical point-of-view, I think the current Mexican stand-off in politics & religion results from a few extremists on left & right imposing their adamant Either/Or worldviews upon the more moderate masses, with the effect of almost eliminating the middle ground of peace & harmony. So, my proposed solution to the polarization problem is to adopt a moderate & inclusive Both/And attitude toward the world and its vicissitudes. In this initial blog I will define the concept of BothAnd. Then in subsequent issues, I'll discuss a variety of related topics, Some may be adapted from posts on internet forums, and some may be direct responses to comments on previous articles. Be warned : these articles are not twitter feeds, and some are very long, complex, cross-referenced, footnoted, and full of technical terminology. The ecumenical compromising attitude of these blogs will elicit angry responses from unforgiving extremist black & white hardliners, but may appeal to those of more modest & humble dispositions, who are not expecting the ultimate Truth, and will accept a few feeble attempts to get closer to mundane truths about the big questions of God, The Universe, and Everything.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page2.html
*1. Ironically, I spent a good chunk of the '60s in Vietnam, "killing the little yellow man". Just kidding. I never personally killed anybody. :joke:
:up:
Technology controls nature whereas science explains nature. No doubt, the latter is the force-multiplier of the former.
This move is a regressive turn to pre-modernism akin to (e.g.) scholasticism or neo-platonism or (late) stoicism, etc. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/772323
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/772379
All religions are based on some kind of philosophical worldview. And most include a dualistic Manichean assessment of world history as a struggle between Good vs Evil. However, even a dispassionate monistic philosophy like Enformationism could be interpreted as a binary religious model. That's because Natural Evolution is described as maintaining a tenuous balance between constructive Enformy*1 and destructive Entropy*2.
My own Fundamentalist bible-based religion warned us of dueling gods. In 2 Corinthians 4:4, the "god of this world" -- Satan : opposed to the God of Heaven -- used "fake news", among other tactics, to deceive the elect, and to win them over to the Hell-bound masses. On this forum seems to interpret Entropy as the "lord of this world", who is winning the battle between Good & Evil. Despite that thermodynamic Mexican Standoff*3 though, the Christian Bible asserts that the God of Heaven is still the sovereign of the material world, even though super-power Satan is pounding us like Russia devastating the sovereign state of Ukraine.
My own interpretation of Enformed history is not based on divine revelation. Yet I remain somewhat optimistic that the self-organizing natural force of Enformy will prevail over disorganizing Entropy in the end (Omega Point). But, I don't expect to be around to celebrate that victory. So, the "salvation" of this world may not benefit me personally.
What do you think? Are we all going to Entropy Hell in a hand-basket, or are we holding-on by our fingernails like the Ukranians? Or are we enjoying the Stoic life of ups & downs without worrying about the ultimate destiny of the world? In any case, Evolution has been walking the tight-rope for 14 billion years, without falling into the Entropic Abyss of thermodynamic Armageddon. :smile:
*1. Enformy :
In the Enformationism theory, Enformy is a hypothetical, holistic, metaphysical, natural trend or force, that counteracts Entropy & Randomness to produce complexity & progress.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html
*2. Entropy : lack of order or predictability; gradual decline into disorder.
*3. A Mexican standoff is a confrontation in which no strategy exists that allows any party to achieve victory.