[Fis] Idealism and Materialism

[John Collier]

Loet, I have no disagreement with this. at least in the detailed summary 
you give. In fact I would argue that the notion of information as used 
in physics is empirically based just as it is in the cognitive sciences. 
Our problem is to find what underlies both.

My mention of the Scholastics was to Pierce's version, not the common 
interpretation due to a dep misunderstanding about what they were up to. 
I recommend a serous study of Peirce on te issues of meaning and 
metaphysics. He wa deeply indebted to their work iin logic.

Of course there may be no common ground, but the our project is 
hopeless. Other things you have said on this group lead me to think it 
is not a dead end of confused notions. In that case we are wasting our time.

John


On 2017/11/05 7:58 PM, Loet Leydesdorff wrote:
> Dear Krassimir and colleagues,
>
> The Scientific Revolution of the 17th century was precisely about the 
> differentiation between scholarly discourse and scholastic disputatio. 
> A belief system is an attribute of agents and/or of a community. The 
> sciences, however, develop also as systems of rationalized 
> expectations. These are based on communications as units of analysis 
> and not agents (communicators). This is Luhmann's point, isn't it?
>
> Of course, individual scientists can be religious and groups like 
> Jesuits can do science. At the level of (institutional) agency or 
> organizations, one has both options. However, the communication 
> dynamics is very different. In religious communication, there is an 
> original (e.g., the Bible) which is copied. Textbooks are updated; 
> error is removed, while error was added by transcriptions by monks. 
> The origins of the invention of the printing press are relevant here: 
> Galilei could not publish the Discorsi in Italy, but it could be 
> published by Louis Elsevier in Leiden!
>
> In science studies, we have learned to distinguish between social and 
> intellectual organization. While at the level of social organization, 
> scientific and religious structures are comparable, the intellectual 
> organization is very different. For example, the notion of "truth" is 
> preliminary in science, while it is sacrosanct in religious 
> philosophy. Thus, we can elaborate the functional differentiation 
> between these two codes of communication. Scientific discourse is 
> validated using criteria that are coded in communication; religious 
> disputatio is about a given truth.
>
> Best,
> Loet
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Loet Leydesdorff
>
> Professor emeritus, University of Amsterdam
> Amsterdam School of Communication Research (ASCoR)
>
> loet at leydesdorff.net <mailto:loet at leydesdorff.net>; 
> http://www.leydesdorff.net/
> Associate Faculty, SPRU, <http://www.sussex.ac.uk/spru/>University of 
> Sussex;
>
> Guest Professor Zhejiang Univ. <http://www.zju.edu.cn/english/>, 
> Hangzhou; Visiting Professor, ISTIC, 
> <http://www.istic.ac.cn/Eng/brief_en.html>Beijing;
>
> Visiting Fellow, Birkbeck <http://www.bbk.ac.uk/>, University of London;
>
> http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYAAAAJ&hl=en
>
>
> ------ Original Message ------
> From: "John Collier" <ag659 at ncf.ca <mailto:ag659 at ncf.ca>>
> To: fis at listas.unizar.es <mailto:fis at listas.unizar.es>
> Sent: 11/5/2017 4:28:31 PM
> Subject: Re: [Fis] Idealism and Materialism
>
>> Krassimir,
>>
>> What, if like me, you see materialism and idealism as both incorrect, 
>> and adopt something like Russell's neutral monism. I mention this 
>> because I believe information to be neutral between material and 
>> ideal. It is a false dichotomy on my view
>>
>> I disagree that information cannot be given by concrete examples. 
>> There are examples in both physics and of course in cognition that 
>> are used in both consistent and I think compatible ways.
>>
>> I would go so far as to say that the division has been a sad one for 
>> sound philosophy, and that in some respects we should start over 
>> again from Aristotle (to whom the division did not seem to even 
>> occur, in line with general Greek thinking) and the later Scholasticism.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> John
>>
>>
>> On 2017/11/05 3:07 PM, Krassimir Markov wrote:
>>> Dear Bruno and FIS Colleagues,
>>>
>>> Thank you very much for your useful remarks!
>>>
>>> This week I was ill and couldn’t work.
>>> Hope, the next week will be better for work.
>>>
>>> Now I want only to paraphrase my post about Idealism and Materialism:
>>>
>>> The first is founded on believing that the Intelligent Creation exists.
>>>
>>> The second is founded on believing that the Intelligent Creation does not
>>> exist.
>>>
>>> Both are kinds of religions because they could not prove their foundations
>>> by experiments and real examples.
>>>
>>> The scientific approach does not believe in anything in advance. The
>>> primary concepts have to be illustrated by series of real examples. After
>>> that the secondary concepts have to be defined and all propositions have
>>> to be proved.
>>>
>>> Are the mathematicians materialists or idealists?
>>> Of course neither the first nor the second!
>>>
>>> Mathematics is an example of the scientific approach.
>>>
>>> Informatics lacks of well established primary concepts.
>>> The concept of information couldn’t be primary because it couldn’t be
>>> illustrated directly by real examples.
>>>
>>> We need other primary concepts which will permit us to define information
>>> and to prove all consequences.
>>>
>>> Friendly greetings
>>> Krassimir
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Bruno Marchal
>>> Sent: Sunday, November 05, 2017 12:30 PM
>>> To: Foundation of Information Science
>>> Subject: Re: [Fis] About 10 Principles
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Dear Krassimir,
>>>
>>>
>>> On 31 Oct 2017, at 15:07, Krassimir Markov wrote:
>>>
>>>> Dear FIS Colleagues,
>>>>
>>>> Many years ago, in 2011, I had written a special remark about
>>>> scientific
>>>> and non-scientific approaches to try to understand the world around.
>>>> The
>>>> letter of Logan Streondj returns this theme as actual today.
>>>>
>>>> The interrelations between scientific and non-scientific creating and
>>>> perceiving the data and models as well the proper attitude to the
>>>> world
>>>> cultural heritage is one of the main problems to be investigated. The
>>>> world common data bases make possible to exchange data of any kind.
>>>> Some
>>>> data could not be proved easy, some are assumed as "clear". What is
>>>> the
>>>> proper attitude to the ocean of the data we create and perceive? In
>>>> addition, now we have a new phenomenon – artificially created data.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The Modern Societies
>>>> --------------------
>>>> Every group of Infoses, people in particular, forms a society if
>>>> there is
>>>> an agreement for communication interactions. An important element of
>>>> this
>>>> agreement is the availability of a common data base.
>>>> We should not picture the data base like a number of drives with a
>>>> certain
>>>> data recorded, although it is the way it has been since the
>>>> beginning – it
>>>> was recorded on clay plates, papyrus, paper, etc. The ability for
>>>> digital
>>>> storage of the data lays the beginnings of the genesis of the “modern
>>>> societies”. It is obvious that, there are as many societies as many
>>>> different data bases exist, and a single Infos could belong to more
>>>> than
>>>> one society.
>>> OK.
>>>
>>>
>>>> The difference between the beliefs and the science
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------
>>>> Every belief is a totality of models, which are assumed and followed.
>>>> Where is the difference between the belief and the science, which is
>>>> also
>>>> a combination of models to be followed?
>>>> The answer is in the way we perceive these models and the attitude
>>>> to them.
>>>> There are two approaches – a hard and an easy one.
>>>> The easy one is wonderfully described by the motto of the medieval
>>>> theologian Anselm of Canterbury, lately canonized as St. Anselm
>>>> (1033-1109): "Credo, ut intelligam!" (I believe in order to understand
>>>> [St.Anselm]). One has to believe in the model, to understand and
>>>> follow
>>>> it. This is the religious approach – every subjective notion can
>>>> turn into
>>>> a commonly accepted model or dogma, as long as there is someone to
>>>> believe
>>>> in it and follow it implicitly.
>>>> The “difficult” approach is described with the phrase "Intelligo, ut
>>>> credam !" (I understand in order to believe), used by the German
>>>> reformer
>>>> Thomas Muentzer (~1490-1525) [Muentzer]. You have to understand the
>>>> model
>>>> and only after then to trust it if possible. This is the scientific
>>>> approach – every science builds models – hypothesizes, which are
>>>> repeatedly tested before assumed to be true. The scientific approach
>>>> includes a permanent revaluation and improvement of the existing
>>>> models
>>>> according to the permanently changing environment.
>>>> In every society, building and exchanging of models are basic
>>>> activities.
>>>> Whether they are perceived with the “easy” or the “difficult”
>>>> approach is
>>>> a question only of the circumstances, executors and users.
>>>> Keeping in mind the limited abilities of the human brain, we can
>>>> presume
>>>> that the “easy” approach would probably dominate. Just a small part
>>>> of the
>>>> humanity would be able to build and understand the “difficult”
>>>> scientific
>>>> models. The users will not have the strength to test the models for
>>>> themselves so the only option left would be to “believe in order to
>>>> understand”.
>>>> The role and the importance of particular beliefs in a certain
>>>> society are
>>>> determined by the influence of the people ready to doubt the religious
>>>> models, on the others who easily and “blindly” follow the dogmas. Let
>>>> remark that in the scientific world the “easy approach” is everyday
>>>> practice. We all believe that the scientific works represent proved
>>>> facts
>>>> (maybe by authors). However, who knows? We trust in authorities.
>>>>
>>>> Sometimes we have to doubt!
>>>>
>>>> That is why the background to modern science is in the wisdom of St.
>>>> Augustin (354-430):  "Intelligo ut credam, credo ut intelligam!" [St.
>>>> Agustin], i.e. it is in the harmony and dialectical unity of the
>>>> scientific and beliefs’ approaches [K.Markov, 2008].
>>> Very nice, although in my approach, I identify "science" and belief,
>>> in a first axiomatic approximation. later, new axioms can be added to
>>> introduce the nuances, when needed (and such nuances does exist, and
>>> eventually are imposed by the working hypothesis (mechanism).
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Materialism or Idealism
>>>> -----------------------
>>>> Very important theme, raised from letter of Logan Streondj, is about
>>>> Idealism and Materialism.
>>>> Let note that both are religious approaches but not scientific.
>>> I agree. But if we decide to do metaphysics or theology with the
>>> scientific method, we can put the metaphysics in the hypothesis, and
>>> search for criteria of verification.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> The first,
>>>> Idealism, is based on belief about existence of God, Free Information
>>>> without material base, Intelligent Creation of the World,
>>>> Information Cube
>>>> which is transferred from one body to another, and etc. The second,
>>>> Materialism, is based on the opposite belief - all phenomena pointed
>>>> above
>>>> do not exist. But both interconnect their reasoning to these
>>>> phenomena.
>>>>
>>>> The scientific approach is absolutely different. Scientists do not
>>>> assume
>>>> anything in advance and try to make reasoning based only on
>>>> repeatable and
>>>> controlled experiments.
>>>>
>>>> I hope, the FIS List is a scientific forum and all posts nave to be
>>>> based
>>>> on repeatable and controlled experiments!
>>> I agree with this partially. Metaphysics/theology *can* be done with
>>> the scientific method. When we do that, the evidence are for Mechanism
>>> and against Materialism.
>>> Is it idealism? Well, all there is are numbers, and it is not a
>>> problem to consider them as idea or programs, as this happens by
>>> itself through the additive and multiplicative relations between the
>>> numbers. This explains also where the information comes from, in the
>>> form of first person histories-selection. There are no evidence for
>>> Aristotle primary matter, which seems to have been a fertile
>>> simplifying assumption only. But there are evidences for the many
>>> histories in arithmetic (indeed those evidences are theorems), and for
>>> the predicted statistics on those histories (the many-world aspect of
>>> quantum mechanics without reduction).
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> About 10 principles of Informatics
>>>> ----------------------------------
>>>> Dear Pedro,
>>>> I highly appreciate your proposition of principles!
>>>>
>>>> I have no remarks about principles 6-10.
>>>> But the principles 1-5 are not clear for me.
>>>> My interpretation is given below marked by letter M (M1, M2, etc.).
>>>> These of Pedro are marked by letter P (P1, P2, etc.).
>>>>
>>>> In my practice these principles had been used many times to solve and
>>>> explain practical problems.
>>>> The primary concept I used is the concept of “entity” – there are many
>>>> examples of real entities.
>>>> Entities interact permanently and after each interaction some internal
>>>> changes in the entities may appear.
>>>> Such changes are called “reflections”. In Computer science the
>>>> corresponded concept is “Data”.
>>>> Further reasoning is given below:
>>>>
>>>> P1. Information is information, neither matter nor energy.
>>>>
>>>> M1. Information is a class of reflections in material entities. Not
>>>> every
>>>> reflection is information. Only subjectively comprehended
>>>> reflections are
>>>> information.
>>> But here you seem to assume primary material entities? I agree that
>>> human's information relies heavily on material entities. Just to
>>> communicate with you, I am using a physical computer. But physicalness
>>> is an internal phenomelogical view, relying on the statistics on all
>>> computations already emulated in the "block-mindscape" constituted by
>>> arithmetic. Matter exists in the digital machine or number's
>>> phenomenology (as a consequence of the Mechanist theory, which is my
>>> field of expertise: I do not claim it to be true, I claim it to be
>>> testable, and plausible given what we know today).
>>>
>>> The universal numbers (the universal machine run in arithmetic)
>>> reflect each others already.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> P2. Information is comprehended into structures, patterns, messages,
>>>> or
>>>> flows.
>>>>
>>>> M2. Reflections may be comprehended as structures, patterns, messages,
>>>> flows, etc.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> P3. Information can be recognized, can be measured, and can be
>>>> processed
>>>> (either computationally or non-computationally).
>>>>
>>>> M3. Reflections can be recognized, can be measured, and can be
>>>> processed
>>>> (either computationally or non-computationally).
>>> Yes. OK. In fact machine's reflection is only very partially capable
>>> of being measured, and machines' reflexion is only partially
>>> justfiable. For example, we recover consciousness by the proposition
>>> of the type "true, not doubtable, not rationally justifiable, not
>>> expressible, yet individually knowable". That gives an equation with a
>>> non empty set of solutions for a large class of universal machine
>>> (those with enough rich introspection abilities).
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> P4. Information flows are essential organizers of life's self-
>>>> production
>>>> processes--anticipating, shaping, and mixing up with the accompanying
>>>> energy flows.
>>>>
>>>> M4. Reflection flows are essential organizers of life's self-
>>>> production
>>>> processes--anticipating, shaping, and mixing up with the accompanying
>>>> energy flows.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> P5. Communication/information exchanges among adaptive life-cycles
>>>> underlie the complexity of biological organizations at all scales.
>>> Same in arithmetic, when you plunge "meta-arithmetic" in arithmetic,
>>> following the method of Gödel.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> M5. Communication is based on special kind of reflections created by
>>>> one
>>>> entity and reflected by a second one. This way, the reflections
>>>> comprehended as information by the first entity may be secondary
>>>> (transitively) reflected by the second one. Such exchanges among
>>>> adaptive
>>>> life-cycles underlie the complexity of biological organizations at all
>>>> scales.
>>> OK. I think we agree on many things, except your curious invocation of
>>> matter which is slightly ambiguous on its primary-or-not character.
>>>
>>> I would not equate information with reflection though, but there are
>>> important relationship between meaningful (true or possibly true)
>>> information and reflection.
>>>
>>> Material or physical information exists, but is of a very different
>>> nature than mental and number-theoretical, or logical information. The
>>> first one arises from limits defined from the machine's perspective,
>>> when emulated by infinitely many computations in arithmetic. It is
>>> that material aspect of machines handling of information which makes
>>> the Digital Mechanist (alias computationalism) testable in the
>>> empirical domain.
>>>
>>> Of course we get closer to Plato and Neoplatonism (the monist Plato of
>>> the Parmenides; not so much the one of the Timeaeus) than to
>>> Aristotle's materialism. Eventually the physical science are reduced
>>> to elementary arithmetic, but here I mean "intensional arithmetic",
>>> where a number can be a code for a digital machine. Note that
>>> intensional arithmetic is isomorphic to a part of extensional
>>> arithmetic. Each universal number can be used to construct the
>>> isomorphism, like Gödel already did in 1931.
>>>
>>> Kind regards,
>>>
>>> Bruno
>>>
>>>
>>>> Krassimir
>>>>
>>>> Bibliography
>>>> [St.Anselm]http://webspace.ship.edu/cgboer/middleages.html  ,
>>>> http://maritain.nd.edu/jmc/etext/hop30.htm
>>>> [Muentzer]http://www.thomas-muentzer.de/,
>>>> [St.Agustín]http://www.conoze.com/doc.php?doc=157
>>>> [K.Markov, 2008] K. Markov, S. Poryazov, K. Ivanova, I. Mitov, V.
>>>> Markova. Culture Aspects of Inforaction. International Journal
>>>> INFORMATION
>>>> TECHNOLOGIES & KNOWLEDGE, Volume 2, 2008, Number 4, pp. 335-342.
>>>> http://www.foibg.com/ijitk/ijitk-vol02/ijitk02-4-p06.pdf
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Fis mailing list
>>>> Fis at listas.unizar.es
>>>> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
>>> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Fis mailing list
>>> Fis at listas.unizar.es
>>> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Fis mailing list
>>> Fis at listas.unizar.es
>>> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
>>
>> -- 
>> John Collier
>> Emeritus Professor and Senior Research Associate
>> Philosophy, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban
>> Collier web page <http://web.ncf.ca/collier>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Fis mailing list
> Fis at listas.unizar.es
> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis

-- 
John Collier
Emeritus Professor and Senior Research Associate
Philosophy, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban
Collier web page <http://web.ncf.ca/collier>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listas.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/attachments/20171105/140e1cce/attachment.html>