Some people believe, probably because they are rooted the Western physicalist/naturalist tradition, that science has no metaphysical presuppositions. — Tom Storm

If there's no definitive causal relationship between metaphysics and physics, such that metaphysics is an epiphenomenon of physics, or, perhaps, vice-versa, then argumentation about precedence does not automatically lead to the conclusion metaphysics is the ground of science, a claim the not-physicalists seem to be implying here.

Also, do you really need to have any metaphysical commitments in order to conduct scientific research? Can't you just smash some atoms together and see what happens?

To really grasp the nature of metaphysics and its role in our lives is to realize that , when it comes down to it, science also is nothing but a bunch of folk sharing just-so stories after smoking a crack pipe
— Joshs

When they're explaining their theories, sure. But they're also comparing their just-so stories with each other and providing experiments which support the stories in a way which is very appealing to the critical mind. Do metaphysicians have anything comparable? — coolazice

:up:

Predetermination is not existence. — Metaphysician Undercover

Suppose that non-existence = unspecifiably small volume of unlimited application.

Consider: Predetermination is not existence. The infinitive "to be" gives us an equal sign. The negation gives us existence unspecifiably small in volume of unlimited application.

In the absence of existence, what we have here is an esoteric a priori concept> Predetermination is not existence.

Wikipedia - Process philosophy - also ontology of becoming, or processism is an approach to philosophy that identifies processes, changes, or shifting relationships as the only true elements of the ordinary, everyday real world. It treats other real elements (examples: enduring physical objects, thoughts) as abstractions from, or ontological dependents on, processes. In opposition to the classical view of change as illusory (as argued by Parmenides) or accidental (as argued by Aristotle), process philosophy posits transient occasions of change or becoming as the only fundamental things of the ordinary everyday real world.

Specifically considering - "It treats other real elements (examples: enduring physical objects, thoughts) as abstractions from, or ontological dependents on, processes."

If we take this definition from Wikipedia and link it to Metaphysician Undercover's argument herein presented, then we have a metaphysics as a kind of fluid dynamics.

In this ontological fluid dynamics, however, the process precedes the thing processed. That's predetermination. (Notice how Wikipedia Process philosophy considers “thoughts” real, something Metaphysician Undercover denies with “Predetermination is not existence.”)

It then follows that dynamical processing is an axiomatic ground of evolving things.

From here it follows that existing things pop into existence as decreed by seminal utterance of esoteric Divine Will.

Why is this so? It is so because> Predetermination is not existence.

In short, the ground of reality is (non-existent) language. This claim Venn diagrams with the ontological dualism of Plato (and later of Berkeley).

Process Ontology (per Metaphysician Undercover) says existence is grounded in non-existent, a priori concepts dynamically processing existing things.

Physicalism says existence is grounded in a posteriori concepts derived from practical interaction with existing things. Moreover, physicalism acknowledges that the ground of existence precedes and transcends analysis and therefore that knowledge is a posterior to existence, or, as Sartre proclaimed, “Existence precedes essence.”

I think people often retrofit foundations and presuppositions - to explain things to themselves and others. — Tom Storm

No doubt of this on my part.

I'm arguing that our Rosetta Stone of knowledge, the axiom, gets most directly approached by science, not metaphysics. This I claim because science is hands-on regarding existing things within our empirically experienced, phenomenal world.

And that's why I'm giving a :up: to Raul for

Ok, next time you get sick don't rely on the science of medicine, don't go to hospitals, you can do a lot of metaphysics, something like 1 hour of metaphysics in the morning and another 1 hour in the evening and I'm sure you will recover quickly... well... you could get a huge headache as side effect :-)

Would be funny to show your sentence to Hipocrate... you tell him, look all the progress made by science in medicine is ridiculous, we keep curing and treating people the same way you did 2400 years ago...
Same applies to engineering, physics, astronomy, etc.............. — Raul

There's a tight interweave binding philosophy_science, however, in the world of everyday experience, such as sickness, the difference between philosophy practitioner and medical science practitioner is glaring.

To the extent that we can separate the scientific and the philosophical, which blur into each other in so many ways, — Joshs

This is my central point of reference in our discussion. The interweave of philosophy_science, acting as a control that modulates my range of argumentation, either pro or con WRT oneupmanship science/philosophy, keeps me aimed on the win_win of a good fight raising all boats.

What you’re describing isnt science, it’s scientism, which assumes that science, through its methods, has a privileged access to empirical reality. — Joshs

I get that scientific researchers, like all others, bring personal POVs to their methodologies and findings thereof. Is effective science good science? It tries not to be. Conversely, good philosophy tries to find the good, oftentimes equated with "truth."

You're mid-air on a plane whose engines have died. Soaring over rocky, mountainous terrain devoid of flora, you face a philosopher and a scientist, both also on the nosediving plane. The philosopher says, "On the basis of cerebration, I think this parachute I've constructed will work." The scientist says, "On the basis of repeated, aerodynamic testing, I know this parachute will work." After visually inspecting the two parachutes, you see no apparent similarities of design or function. Due to limited supplies, you can only take one parachute. Will you take a parachute? If so, which one?

Science has no privileged access to empirical reality. What science does have is a principle of direct access to empirical reality. When the savvy philosopher reads up on cutting edge, scientific methodology, s/he accesses the work done by others in service of philosophical ruminations in route to a narration of same. Cerebration. Books. It isn't hands on. It isn't in the field. The philosopher could do these things. In choosing not to do these things, the seeker manifests as philosopher. If the seeker chooses to do these things, the seeker manifests as scientist.

If an empirical researcher in psychology or biology has not assimilated
the most advanced thinking available in philosophy they will simply be reinventing the wheel. This is what most of todays sciences are doing now. They are regurgitating older insights of philosophy using their own specialized vocabulary. — Joshs

By arguing philosophy is the source of which science is a tributary, you deny that philosophy is an epiphenomenon of science. Against this you might argue that philosophers of antiquity, long before emergence of modern science, walked in the shoes of the scientist. This reminds us that ancient academics, before the specialization of modern times, were more broadly inclusive.

In making this denial, you deposit yourself within the camp of ontological dualism. Therein, you stand philosophy alongside the seminal utterances of a supernatural God. In the beginning was the word. And the word mandates our natural world of physical reality. Continuing in this vein, the scientist, acting under the suasion of Logos, the divine word, takes hold of presuppositional essences that decree physical likenesses. These likenesses, as explained by Plato, come to be held within the imperfect hands of human.

Existence precedes essence.
— ucarr

Not really. When a thing comes into existence it must be already predetermined what it will be, or else there would just be randomness, consequently no thing, as a thing has structure. Therefore a thing's essence, (what it will be), must precede its existence, (that it is). — Metaphysician Undercover

Some interesting puzzles of perspective here.

When a thing comes into existence it must be already predetermined what it will be — Metaphysician Undercover

Here you describe a thing coming into existence already predetermined what it will be.... Predetermination of what it will be IS an existence so, coming into existence is voided by this language. Also, how does predetermination of what will be come into existence? Infinite regress. Why? When you try to speak analytically regarding existing things, you plunge into infinite regress. This is why useful analyses begin with axioms.

or else there would just be randomness, consequently no thing, as a thing has structure. — Metaphysician Undercover

As above, "randomness" is an existing thing. Your language indicates this: ...there would just be randomness...

I would argue instead that science was and always will be merely an applied , conventionalized form of philosophical inquiry. — Joshs

I grant that the scope of philosophy encompasses science, thus making the latter conceivable as a sub-division of the former. However, evidence contrary to the independence of scientific philosophy comes in the form of Aristotle's erroneous science postulations, dismissed by scientists more than a thousand years ago. I suspect much of scientific philosophy, without science, would continue in the vein of Aristotle. If not, then such a scientific philosopher, being scientifically valid, by my appraisal, has left the philosophical field and entered into the scientific field. The methodology of science has a baked-in practicality not borne by philosophy.

To claim essence precedes existence is ontological dualism. Matter, energy and phenomena as decreed by seminal utterance evokes the voice of God. Going the opposite way, knowledge becomes an asymptotic accretion, approaching what is. The inexpressibility of what is, Wittgenstein's silence, is how universe should be, an inexpressibly large volume of possibilities rendering all origin stories mythic.

All ideas rest on foundations and pre-suppositions. — Tom Storm

This claim approaches the Rosetta Stone of knowledge: the axiom. Existence precedes essence. I believe Sartre is correct in making this claim because when you get down to the ground of philosophy and science both, random, unsupported assumption as a necessary starting point for acquisition of knowledge is necessary. Neither philosophy nor science has any independence from axiom. Today, as during antiquity, all humanity can say in response to existence-as-existence is "axiom."

A philosophy is to a grammar as a science is to a library. IMO as complementaries, while the latter without the former is unintelligible (or less intelligible than formulating its problems requires), the former without the latter is ineffable (or less effable than clearly expressing it requires). — 180 Proof

As to precedence, is the face-off of philosophy_science really a wash, as your statement implies?

Existence, in the context of your quote directly above, takes form as grammar, the existing thing. You can analyze it, thus making it intelligible, except for the stark fact of its existence, which you have to take for granted, which is the mystery of creation. Thus arises the question: who sources whom? Does intelligibility source itself, with existing things (including itself) popping into existence henceforth? Don't we, like Arthur C. Clarke, know that human approaches monolith (of ancient civilization) with sensory input sans intelligence? No. Existence precedes essence. Our space adventurer didn't get to the planet of the ancient civilization until several millennia later and, even then, was only an animal under observation and preservation within a cage.

To claim essence precedes existence (something you don't do) is ontological dualism. To claim the reverse is ontological mystery.

How would you define ‘fares better’? If you want the next best thing to a crystal ball reveal of the future of the sciences, look to the leading edge of contemporary philosophy. This has always been the case. Philosophy has always taken the lead in sketching out the basis of new developments in the sciences, offer a century ahead of time. — Joshs

I align with Sartre regarding existence preceding essence.

I don't see how such a statement can be true. Aristotle's The Physics preceded Isaac Newton's Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica by nearly two millennia withoit anticipating any of the latter's significant breakthroughs or findings. — 180 Proof

Through science I see that existence, not thought, is the ground of reality.

That scientist and philosopher alike are essential to understanding the world, I grant you.

By fare better I mean that within the interweave of science and philosophy, hands on experimentation and practical vetting count for more than conversation and literature. The two disciplines are each of such complexity and difficulty as to compel specialization in one or the other. Of the two I think science can better stand alone. Banish the scientist from all contact with philosophy and I think the discipline will continue along its merry way without much faltering. As for the reverse, philosophy sans science is like a race car without an engine. No, the bailiwick of science is What is Life? whereas the bailiwick of philosophy is What is good life? When the philosopher correctly foresees the way forward for science such person walks in the shoes of the scientist.

Whereas the sciences concern possible models for experimentally explaining transformations among 'aspects of nature', metaphysics, to my mind, concerns the concept – rational speculation – of 'nature as a whole' that necessarily encompasses the most rigorous findings of the sciences as well as all other human practices and non-human events/processes. Statements in metaphysics are paradigmatic and presuuppositional, not theoretical or propositional; (ontological) interpretations of the latter are only symptomatic – insightful though still speculative – of the former (e.g. MWI, mediocrity principle). — 180 Proof

Good amendments - metaphysics makes no propositions? - I do, however, give science one up from philosophy because axioms are better vetted when subject to practical examination as opposed to vetted when subject to cerebration; real life is more strange than what we can conceive.

I would argue instead that science was and always will be merely an applied , conventionalized form of philosophical inquiry. Any substantial development in scientific understanding of the world relies on a shift in metaphysical presuppositions grounding empirical explanation. The philosophical clarification does come later , it is the precondition for the intelligibility and advance of a science. — Joshs

I agree with much of this. There's a tight interweave between science and philosophy. I do think science without philosophy fares better than the reverse.

:up:

I'm not saying he was a metaphysician, but Nietzsche endures, in part, because he was a good storyteller.

Would it follow that, although we believe we live in a spatially 3D universe (ignoring the ten dimensions of Superstring Theory), the fact that some things appear illogical is evidence that in fact we are living in a spatially 4D universe. — RussellA

That's how I see it. I claim tentatively that when logical narrative runs aground in paradox, said paradox, being a higher-order dimension in collapsed state at a given matrix of expanded dimensions, acts as signpost to a higher order matrix of expanded dimensions.

As Tarski showed, language is semantically closed, so even logic is limited by a self-referentiality. — RussellA

Yes. Language tends to impart analytical truth to it declarations. Origin boundary-ontology, even in the case of God, depends upon analytical truth.

Consciousness eludes definition as it eludes reification.

It is unfortunately common today for mainstream media to put their audience into a certain emotional frame of mind using only those facts that support their point of view. — RussellA

Partisan punditry boils down to money. Spinning narratives that glorify consumers is the stock in trade of the snake oil salesperson. If you plausibly cast buyers in heroic mode, they'll throw their money at you.

Similarly in the philosophical aspect of metaphysical dualistic oppositions, where an hierarchy is established that privileges one thing over another. — RussellA

this assumes A and not A are external to each other. But in reality, this is never possible. — RussellA

Yeah. Dualism overflows with forking oppositions: on/off; yes/no; open/closed etc. The seminal genius of George Boole is indisputable. His Boolean algebra supports the entire IT industry, BUT the Einstein_Bohr debate, in my understanding, has been won by Bohr.

If A is a proposition, can A ever be free of the proposition not A...The truth and meaning of of proposition A "I am in Paris" must include all those propositions not A. — RussellA

This is important.

Quantum mechanics is reality. My guess is that the strangeness of it is due in part to the contortion of its dimensions when it's viewed through the lens of Boolean Logic, which is intrinsically three-dimensional.

Perhaps Quantum mechanics is not strange when viewed through Bohrian Logic.

Speculation - Bohrian Logic inserts into the on/off switch the undecidable, or superposition as follows:

[on]/\[on=off]/\[off].

Bohrian Logic, I'm guessing, is intrinsically four-dimensional. That kicks non-contradiction to the curb.

Quantum computing is here; with this one quantum-leap insertion (superposition) into Bohrian Logic, it's not enough to say quantum computing renders Boolean encryption obsolete.

A four-dimensional universe renders our three-dimensional universe liminal, which is fascinating!

Physicists Leonard Susskind & Gerardus t'Hooft have a notion of our three-dimensional universe as being intrinsically holographic with a real part (material) and a cognitive (imaginary?) part (information).

Well now, suppose our three-dimensional, holographic reality is a boundary to a higher four-dimensional
reality with an inherent logic that transcends spacetime! What does that do to Boolean Logic? Aha! The perplexing strangeness of quantum mechanics.

What I want to do is exactly what you said should be done. Yes, entertaining and engaging. — Athena

One big step towards good teaching is to perform instruction rather than to talk instruction.

The way to perform instruction is to become an actor in the classroom. This is a way of saying the teacher must personalize the lessons she intends to share with students. More often than not, the life of the person teaching, in the here and now, is more interesting than the subject matter to be conveyed. A teacher teaching physics is more interesting with more impact if she's living as a physicist than if she's just reciting details of the laws of physics.

All public speaking is theater and the living person before us speaking is more intrinsically interesting if she be vivid with life and dynamical with grace in action. This compared to stark information leaves no contest. Let me add that vivacity and charm are blanched by ignorance and illogic and thus the actor-as-teacher spews no bogus content.

Logic is intrinsic in the world and logic begins in the space-time of the world. — RussellA

This is what a good teacher makes her students experience and feel directly and naturally. No facts and figures hammered into memory, just a direct experience of life as something dynamic revealing itself moment to moment to those paying attention. Life long learners emerge from such classroom experiences because authentic education is half a step from entertainment.

A successful life is one that maintains child's play from cradle to grave.

The US is in a crisis because of bad reasoning and I am arguing we can use math and grammar to improve the reasoning of the masses. — Athena

If only you were a teacher.

:up:

Under any language (Fortran, French, English), you will need to adhere to a logical based semantics for coherence, but the form can vary among types of languages. That is, logic is not a language, but a component of language, whereas Fortran is a type of language. — Hanover

Do we read symbolic language as we read verbal language? Is a logical narrative, like a verbal narrative, a continuity of signs that must be decoded and understood?

Can one language be a component of another language?

You may be on to something. Let us test it. When I was a child I wanted to fly and I had no idea why that was not possible so I kept jumping off high things hoping to fly. Is that logical thinking? — Athena

How high did you climb before jumping off?

My claim animal instincts are consistent with reason doesn't imply natural preclusion of irrational thinking and behavior.

Recognition of animal reasoning does not promote human devolution.

What did you think when I offered ways of appeasing a god? — Athena

Do you think desire to appease an all-powerful aggressor irrational?

I wish everyone would watch this video. It explains why most of our thinking is not logical but reactionary like an animal perceiving and reacting. — Athena

When you put your hand onto something hot and it burns you, you yank your hand away. Many call this a reflex without conscious thought. I call it high speed, low res processing, or gross thinking. If I throw a rock into a burning fireplace, it doesn't jump out in pain. No processing, thus no logical processing. I say all processing is logical. This is to say cognitive processing is bound up in continuity and acts accordingly. If a bug tries to fly into my eyeball, I jack-knife away in the continuity of action/reaction. All logic is action/reaction; in parallel, all cognitive processing is, likewise, action/reaction. When my reflexes keep me from burning up, or being blinded, these actions make sense, don't they? When a beast is getting cornered and it either attacks or flees, that makes sense doesn't it? Our reflexes aren't always correct? Are they ever irrational?

...I don't think we should take this so far as thinking animals are as logical as humans,... — Athena

I, RusselA, Janus, Alkis Piskas and others don't disagree with you. We never have. None of us claims animal reasoning is equal to human reasoning. We're just saying the divide between animal/human isn't no-reason versus reason. Instead, we're saying the divide is between low-res reason versus high- res reason.

I think our problem is our definition of logic and I wish others were here to discuss what is logic and do animals have logical thinking? — Athena

Interesting question. What I've worked out for myself, so far, is that logic, basically, is continuity parsed. Whole into parts via analysis and, in reverse, parts reconnected according to strict rules of valid continuity back to whole.

Are the instincts of humans and animals logical? I hope so. If I have survival instincts (and I do) I certainly hope they're viable and thus logical. The difference, as I say, lies between low res(olution) cognition i.e., instinct and high res(olution) cognition i.e., rationation.

We humans want to learn logic to better plan for the achievement of our sincere goals, and thus for our happiness and fulfillment.

So, I have no problem with saying that animals have their own kinds of languages; languages of sign, though, not of symbol.All symbols are signs, but not all signs are symbols. — Janus

I agree with this. :up:

I pretty much agree with everything you wrote there except the quoted sentence; "linguistic" means "of the tongue", and I would reserve its use for the symbolic languages which are unique to humans. This defines the traditional area of study of linguistics. — Janus

You're right.

I've been using "language" and "linguistic" to convey "intentional communication capable."

If "language," by definition, means verbal expression (and it does), then, by current vocabulary standards, I've been wrong to claim all of the animal kingdom possesses language.

It's well established that "communication" is the word to be used when referring to transfer of information that's non-verbal.

I'm wondering if language_general can work as a term for the intentional, non-verbal communication of animals whereas language_verbal can work as a term for human communication. Communication would apply to both modes of language; vocabulary, syntax, grammar and linguistics would only apply to verbal language.

I make these suggestions because language, in my thinking, conveys intention (appropriate for all of the animal kingdom) whereas "communication," feeling subject neutral, does so to a lesser degree.

Even if all language is communication of information, it doesn't follow that all communication of information is language. It depends on what you mean by "conscious", but there are many kinds of animal that communicate information without language (language, that is, in the linguistic, symbolic sense). — Janus

I put your closing, parenthetical statement in bold because it places you on my side of the aisle re: the debate. Yes. Communication of information is not language in the sense of verbal language that uses symbolic signs and thus requires abstract thought for decoding. Indeed, as I've never seen an animal reading a book, it's safe to say verbal language is exclusive to humans.

Even if all language is communication of information, it doesn't follow that all communication of information is language. — Janus

This claim is a bit more tough to judge. Let me venture the claim that if communication of information is intentional, as, for example, a growling dog warning a postman away from his yard, then it is language, albeit non-verbal language. If, on the other hand, I'm standing at the base of a hill when, suddenly, a boulder dislodges from its position and rolls down the hill and smashes into the ground near my parked car and I race off in my car, having concluded my previous location was unsafe, then that's an example of communication that's not language because there was no intention motivating its occurence.

If we acknowledge that most behavior is either goal-oriented, or makes some kind of sense, as opposed to being completely random, then I say that all cognitive beings infuse some level of logic into their animation, oftentimes this coupled with intention to signify meaning to other cognitive beings via modulated animation. This is a way of saying being alive and conscious is synonymous with being linguistic.

1) Logic does not need to be introduced. It permeats all things in the human mind. Even before we learn to speak and certainly before learning grammar. — Alkis Piskas

Yes. I agree that the logical operations of the mind enacting goal-oriented behavior begins in toddlers who lack verbal language.

"Introduction," as used in my sentence, refers to a classroom situation wherein students are tasked with bringing a fully conscious mind to learning the reasoning behind the syntax of their native tongue. Learning to speak and write with conscious intention to articulate well-formed sentences, as guided by conscious grammatical manipulation, marks the beginning of conscious logical thought for many, if not all. Aside from prodigies, toddlers don't operate at the cognitive level of verbal expression via conscious intention.

3) Grammar can be used by both speakers and writers, as an automatic process, i.e. without using logic consciously, even if it's structure --because it consists of other elements besides a structure-- is based on logic. — Alkis Piskas

Right. Like many, I've spent much of my life speaking my native tongue by ear, without giving much thought to grammatical manipulation towards best communication.

Now that I'm getting my conscious bearings in the grammar of my native tongue, I see myself paving a path to further study in symbolic logic. I take this to be a general truth for humanity.

And what does that have to do with learning grammar as a path to learning higher-order logic thinking skills? I could be wrong but I think the discussion has confused language with logical thinking. — Athena

At an early point in this conversation - I think before your entrance - some correspondents - now dropped out - attacked my claim that logical thinking does not occur outside of language. From there, the argument went to a possible refutation of my argument via example of animal behavior deemed possible logical thinking outside of language (the crow displacement video). Henceforth, the conversation centered on a debate whether non-humans practice language.

I now have some agreement, I think, to the effect that the entire animal kingdom practices language, logical thought and behavior, whereas humans alone also practice verbal language: spoken and written.

...our schools are not preparing our young to be logical thinkers — Athena

I've been mulling over the question whether logical thinking is taught in the schools. I think I can deduce that some measure of such is being taught because I see no way to teach anything without lessons based in logical thinking. I think it true that lessons in logical thinking need to be much more robust, especially in the primary grades. This would ensure that students immediately set about building a strong foundation for becoming life-long learners in all endeavors.

This has been the goal of formal education since the beginning. That's why primary schools are also known as grammar schools. The problem is not the mission, but the execution of it.

Even if a school caters to low-income students, it can empower such students to success with rigorous grammar lessons because logically thinking students of low income, no less than logically thinking students of high income, can successfully compete in the job market.

Alas, with respect to grammar lessons, mass media entertainments are the enemy.

In summary, both non-human animals and humans communicate using language. Non-human animal language is non-verbal, human language is both non-verbal and verbal. — RussellA

:smile: :up:

If we suppose the opposite, namely, that a human individual sustains damage to the brain's language component, might we suppose such person could still think logically and thus form grammatical utterances in the mind's ear? However, thinking in this way would now be lopped off from the ability to voice aloud these utterances, thus requiring the person to write their communications?
— ucarr

Now you are too focused on language. — Athena

I should have written, "sustains damage to the brain's speech component..."

I think the gist of the argument of RussellA and me (apologies if I misrepresent RussellA) is that language_general has a long run up to language_verbal, which latter requires abstract thinking, such as what you and I are doing when we read and interpret, via abstract thought, the symbolic marks displayed on our computer screens. We're arguing the entire animal kingdom participates in language_general, with various examples given. The crux of our argument is that the boundary line between animal kingdom and humans is not non-language/language but, rather, language_general/language_verbal. Only humans speak, write and read words, which is to say, comprehend abstract symbols that signify specific experiences of the natural world. The animal kingdom does not appear to have the cognitive processing power necessary to navigate symbolic word signifiers abstracted from experiences of the natural world. The animal kingdom is thus non-verbal and non-literate. That's a long way, in our view, from saying the animal kingdom is non-linguistic.

Animals evolved about 750 million years ago, yet human language only began about 30,000 to 100,000 years ago. Was there a magical spark that gave language to humans? It seems more sensible to believe that human language developed from something pre-existing in non-human animals. — RussellA

Since I agree with the above, I think you and I are walking the same path in our journeys through this conversation.

Birds being engineered by evolution sounds remarkably teleological. Were feathers engineered by evolution for flight, or did animals having feathers discover they could fly. — RussellA

With the above, we come to the gnarly question of teleology vis-a-vis natural processes operating on a life-bearing planet.

Now I ask myself whether arguing existence of a foundation for modern, human, verbal language that predates humanity contains some flavor of the teleological POV re: evolution.

I'm gawking at the formidable switch at the center of a highly-charged, long-standing debate:

Explanation of phenomena in terms of the purpose they serve Vs explanation of phenomena in terms of the cause by which they arise

As I gawk, I'm reminded of Goethe's claim that interest lies embedded within the switch between conflicting claims, both of which are true. This is a handy guideline for steering a course towards non-binary thinking, another principal inflamed by debate.

I'm also reminded of a super-gnarly concept of my own: origin boundary ontology. It's an attempt to plot a metaphysical course of action touring the terrain of the chicken/egg question.

Just now, I'm leaping over that bog.

How about this question: If a process is logical, is it necessarily teleological? If logic is motion that's ordered and specific, and thus directional rather than random, how can it not have a purpose? From here we move on to asking, "Are natural processes logical, or random collisions? We know from chemistry that two specific elements combine in specific ways? In this situation, does specificity look like intention and purpose?

Even if two specific elements can be proven to have combined by random chance, as in the case of a highway accident wherein a truck carrying chlorine collides with a truck carrying sodium and the result is a flood of sodium chloride spilling across all four lanes. Since the two elements are highly specific in their chemistry, can the production of sodium chloride by accidental collision be legitimately deemed random?

Does earth evolution example natural logic?

Let's suppose a situation of totally random collisions between elements inhabiting a cosmic gas cloud spanning several galaxies worth of volume. The end result, after eons, produces coalescence into a new star. Since the new star will subsequently produce elements that, dispersing, eventually coalesce into planets orbiting the star, thus forming a solar system that, eventually, produces a life-bearing planet, can we assert the counter-intuitive conclusion that randomness sometimes transitions into logic that, in turn, transitions into life and therefore into purpose?

If you can say it, you can think it. — ucarr

When we do not have a word for our thought we can't think that thought, we can not communicate that thought to ourselves or others. — Athena

:smile: Alright. We're on the same page re: grammar_logic_(intentional) communication.

If we suppose a human individual sustains damage to the brain's logical component, might we suppose such person could still make grammatical utterances? However, speaking this way would now be powered by rote memory without comprehension in the manner of a parrot?

If we suppose the opposite, namely, that a human individual sustains damage to the brain's language component, might we suppose such person could still think logically and thus form grammatical utterances in the mind's ear? However, thinking in this way would now be lopped off from the ability to voice aloud these utterances, thus requiring the person to write their communications?

I pose these two situations in an effort to assess the degree of interweave between grammar_logic_(intentional) communication.

If we're looking at a permanent triad of interlinked co-functions, then it feels reasonable to conclude language permeates the entire animal kingdom.

This conclusion leads us to the following comparison:

Language = (intentional) communication via signifiers

Entire Animal Kingdom -- grammar_logic_(intentional) communication via signifiers

Humanity -- grammar_logic_(intentional) communication via signifiers_abstract_(intentional) communication via abstract signifiers

Humanity alone (apparently) possesses sufficient cerebral processing power to decode abstract signifiers, both spoken and written. Only humans can produce objective recordings of experience that, via abstract signifiers, communicate lengthy, complex narratives (books, movies, etc.).

...the lexical layer, eg found in bees. — RussellA

In this context, does lexical layer refer to a range of movements bees can make?

I can understand human language, etc as a by-product of evolution rather than an evolutionary adaptation, in that whilst feathers evolved for warmth, as a by-product could be used for flight. — RussellA

I'm experiencing a natural impulse to balk at construing by-product-of-evolution as being a broadly inclusive, natural phenomenon. In your example of bird feathers being engineered by evolution for warmth, I think of bird legs. They accommodate walking very poorly. It seems to me birds have but minimal adaptation to life upon the ground. Overall bird design, with its wings, weak legs, lack of arms and beak instead of mouth, suggests a life form engineered by evolution for life in the air. If evolution targeted warmth through wing design for birds, it's strangely indirect and inefficient, as a heavy coat for warmth scarcely needs wing design, a specific, aerodynamic form. However, walking on feeble, unarticulated legs, even with a warm coat, offers little promise of survival on the ground. It seems arse backwards to supply wings for slow, wobbly walking, making flightless birds easy pickings for predators. Evolution appears more on point for supplying wings as a survival mechanism through flight.

Do you understand hyohamous... — Athena

Can you provide a definition of "hyohamous"?

Being a human with cognitive abilities does not necessarily mean thinking conceptionally and only that ability separates humans from the rest of the animals. — Athena

So, in your view, mental manipulation of abstract concepts is the marker distinguishing humans within animal kingdom.

However, brain damage can also prevent us from having the ability to reason, so reasoning is more than having language. — Athena

Are you suggesting, with the above, that negative effect on reasoning can sometimes occur without negative effect on language?

IE, human language is not of a different kind to animal communication, but rather, human language has built on what already pre-existed. — RussellA

:up:

The gist of my argument herein comes down to the following pithy claim:

logic = motion + intent

The scope of this claim is broadly inclusive. It begs the question of how the academic disciplines are inter-related.

Let me address this question.

My arguments have lead me to an all is motion point of view. I know this is a trap baited by the lure of panacea found. Let me protect my ego with a strong dose of skepticism towards ultimate Eureka! moments.

All is NOT motion. I know. I’m digressing, as usual for my mind, a rambling forager. Alright, but just a quick moment for this:

The sciences examine motion existentially; the arts and humanities examine motion qualitatively. In short, the former measures things; the latter munches on those measurements. There. That’s how I address the begged question of how the academic disciplines are inter-related under the rubric of,

logic = motion + intent

So now, if you be cognitive individual, you practice motion + intent. Speaking in the vernacular, we call this finding food, shelter & fire. Following closely upon the tail of the basic three come the secondary three: finding love, family & community. The lotus in the garden of the magic seven is, finally, finding cosmos, which means, colloquially, practicing unselfish love for others.

All cognitive individuals possess language because, as you know, all cognitive beings seek the magic seven listed above and, as you know, none of the above happen outside of language games.

Language and its inherent logic are cerebration of motion, which is intelligence.

Consciousness and its emergent property, intelligence, are the two greatest creations of our universe.

So now, as you might surmise, I speak to the great, cosmic love-in: The Big Bang Animation, an all-inclusive universal narrative. This narrative, the voice of God, operates so broadly inclusively, it easily contains, even if paradoxically, our community of theists_atheists. That’s right. Theism & atheism are sub-divisions of one source, the universal narrative. I digress.

The Big Bang Tango, universal background radiation, headwaters the lines-of-force motion that cognitive individuals are sourced from and bound unto.

Well now, the night is late, the campfire bright and the claim uttered: We are motion!

Chatter, anyone? Some chatter before bedtime?

“We are motion? What is motion?”
“No! E-motion. We are E-motion.”
“Now wait a minute. I think –"

Hello, Athena,

Animals can not know logos because they do not have the complex language as humans have complex languages that can express reasoning. — Athena

Animals do not have gods and neither did early man because a god is a concept, and is not manifested in nature. — Athena

What about pets? Out of the whole animal kingdom, about 150 species can be domesticated for life alongside humans in friendship.

We're told humans have dominion over animals. Maybe pets receive God's presence through humans? When a pet takes instruction from human to do a good deed, or when a pet, on its own initiative, does a good deed, such as save an endangered human, is that not a pet_God connection?

What I'd really like here, I suppose, is to help avoid a descent into pseudo-science. Linguistics, like any other science, has certain principles that ought to be recognized. — Baden

Speculation Vs Scholarship > Your cautionary alert is appropriate and good. Of course we rabble come to public forums to cluck cluck like roosters having a little bit of fun. Maybe more a than a few hot breezes circulating the public houses have prevented more than a few wars, no?

↪ucarr

Maybe try to be a little more focused? My problem has always been what appears to be yours: profundity. You or I might be smart, but it is difficult to write profoundly all the time. I find that I get the best product if I stay down to earth and then expand on what I'm writing.
20 hours ago — ToothyMaw

I agree with this. It's good advice. Plain English is the best approach and I'm working on it.

Anyone who wants to label me profound is welcome to do so, as I consider it high praise. Thank-you.

If, by chance, by profundity you mean obscurity, then yes. That's a profound fault, as it means my attempts at communication are failing fundamentally.

Even so, intuitive leaps are a permanent part of my mental landscape. Even as I work towards plain speaking, I accept this part of myself. Moreover, folks (including me) are always complaining about narratives that aren't simple as pie. As for writing populist philosophy, that's a tall order, but striving for the impossible is an item on my to do list.

The sentence "come here" doesn't contain any preposition, yet signifies a spatio-temporal relation.
— RussellA

Yes, and can form a "complete thought" due to the fact that it fulfils at minimum the necessary requirements of a clause, i. e. it contains a verb and everything necessary for the verb in its syntactical context (its complements). And a clause whether singularly acting as a sentence or doing so in conjunction with other clauses, forms the most important semantic building block of language. Here again, the verb is central, and prepositions peripheral. — Baden

"Come here," being a command, contains the implied subject "you." If we're stretching definitions here, then I say that a better characterization is the claim that the verb "come" is a complement of the implied subject "you," as it makes (an implied) claim about the subject: you are a conscious individual who can obey my command.

The main point, however, is that "come here" is only a complete thought because of both the verb and the subject. Verb_Subject is the building block of grammar, unless you can cite a language that lacks one or both of these.

As to the peripheral status of prepositions, can you cite a language that never signifies spatial and temporal relationships between nouns? RussellA's Chinese quote (somehow) signifies the preposition; I suppose it's implied.

I'm trying to follow along here a little, but I don't understand any of this. What could logic have to do with spacetime, for instance? The OP speculates people are introduced to logic through language, and thus logic and language are irreducible. They then must have developed alongside each other from some proto-language, and for some reason this means that spacetime is the ultimate conjunction between ... ? — ToothyMaw

Yeah. My attempt at reasoning herein lies sprawled across a long block chain of (supposedly) connected ideas. See below where Hallucinogen does an excellent job of compacting the block chain into a short paragraph, with links to articles that elaborate.

The nature of spacetime must ultimately be language, since language is the most general algebraic structure. For something to obey rules it's got to conform to the rules of language otherwise it's unintelligible. In spacetime you've got objects, these correspond to nouns, you've got time, which correspond to verbs and functions and you've got space which is prepositional. There isn't anything in spacetime that isn't describable in language. Notice how all attempts to unify the sciences involve trying to boil them all down to one language within a unified grammar. The thoughts we model reality with must also be continuous with that reality and continuity implies shared structure. In the CTMU this is called the metaformal system and it couples that which you describe the universe with that which structures it.

https://ctmucommunity.org/wiki/Principle_of_Linguistic_Reducibility
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTIv4GiDGOk - language of spacetime
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oXvUyrhAaN8 - reality is a language — Hallucinogen