The "Total Information" Argument for Neutral Monism

In philosophy neutral monism refers to the view that both matter and mind are derived from some third "neutral" substance: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutral_monism

I subscribe to this view and identify this "neutral stuff" with information or perhaps more accurately "Platonic stuff." One of my primary arguments is for it is a three-step argument I refer to as the "Total Information" argument:


Step 1:

Take any object or substance be it matter mind or anything else you wish to develop your metaphysics on. Ask the question is this substance a construct of information?

If yes: The argument terminates and the substance is made of information.
If no: Then the argument proceeds to Step 2

Step 2:

Ask all possible questions of the substance and receive all possible answers thus retrieving the totality of information describing the object. Now ask the question is the totality of information describing the object the same as the object?

If yes: The argument terminates and the substance is made of information.
If no: The argument proceeds to Step 3

Step 3:

Ask the question does this non-informational substance exist?

If yes: then you have just derived more information from the substance than the totality of information describing the object. But this is a contradiction as you can not derive more information than the totality of information. Thus this branch of the argument leads to a contradiction and we are forced to accept as true the only remaining possibility:
If no: The argument terminates and the substance is made of information.

Category:

Science & Technology

Tags:

• Neutral Monism
• David Chalmers
• Ontology
• Materialism
• Elimitive Materialism
• Platonic Monism
• Philosophy of Mind
• Substance Dualism
• Mentalism
• Plato
• Platonic forms
• Metaphysics
• Mind
• Matter
• Consciousness
• Informationalism
• Bertrand Russell
• Daniel Dennett
• Dual-aspect theory
• Anamolous Monism
• Ernst Mach

[CeltoSaxonKnight]

“Ask all possible questions of the substance (or object I take it) and receive all possible answers”

Ok.

“Now ask the question is the totality of information describing the object the same as the object?”

Why? I've just asked all possible questions about the object haven't I? By now I should already know the metaphysic of the object! Conceivably that metaphysic wouldn't involve objects being made of information... So there would be no ineluctable contradiction.

[JohananRaatz]

@CeltoSaxonKnight "just asked all possible questions about the object haven't I?"

No, you're asking a metaphysical question about the information describing the object. But I was meaning all physical information of the object itself (it's color, size, composition etc. etc. etc.)

[JohananRaatz]

@CeltoSaxonKnight "which is conceivably not the totality of ALL necessary information about the object!"

Well that's the problem -it is and it isn't.

"I'll have to leave it there I'm afraid, you're convinced by this argument - I'm not."

Well fair enough. ;)

[CeltoSaxonKnight]

2) - which is conceivably not the totality of ALL necessary information about the object!

I'll have to leave it there I'm afraid, you're convinced by this argument - I'm not. If you manage to get lots of credible philosophers excited about it, I'll probably come back and have another go. But for now thanks for the exchange.

[CeltoSaxonKnight]

@JohananRaatz

1) I really don't understand the logic by which: “does this non-informational substance exist?” is tantamount to: "Is there an answer beyond the sum of information that we have derived in the pile to the right?". They are different questions.

Anyway in either case I can answer yes happily because the resultant information relates to the metaphysic of the object, whereas (as per your first reply) the pile 'to the right' relates merely to its physical description

[JohananRaatz]

@CeltoSaxonKnight Well no, the question is tantamount to asking "Is there an answer beyond the sum of information that we have derived in the pile to the right?" If there is no answer then we are consistent. If there is an answer (corresponding to the existence of "naked matter" minus its informational content of all possible answers) then we get a contradiction.

What this is really doing is exploiting a sort of matter/info dualism -which leads to problems just like with mind/matter dualism.

[CeltoSaxonKnight]

2) Anyway that aside, why does only answering yes to the question in step 3 add to the total information about the item? Are you really suggesting questions with no for answers don't result in more information?

For example “Is this object heavy?” “No.” You don't have more information?

Of course you do. Step three always results in a contradiction.

[CeltoSaxonKnight]

@JohananRaatz

1) So I ask all questions pertaining to the physical properties of the object, thereby obtaining a complete physical description. Then I ask is this “the same as the object?”

Answer is no, so... “does this non-informational substance exist?”

Which is “a metaphysical question” so will only render metaphysical information. Nothing is added to the totally of physical information therefore.

[Dhorpatan]

@wenaolong

Geez man. Did you leave enough comments?