You mean the formalism, or the entire concept of information as difference/asymmetry (being thus something that is relational and not reducible via straight forward superveniance relations)?

In what way is it it more "anthropomorphic," then something like the inverse square law, Maxwell's equations, etc.?

because I work from an unshakable conclusion that ALL reasoning consists entirely of thought and belief and all thought and belief is existentially dependent upon conscious experience. That could be put a bit stronger:All conscious experience is thought and/or belief.

I was thinking of this. Hegel doesn't deny time or the fact that we aren't actually starting from nothing.



Gotcha. Given the illustrative examples, I assumed "elemental" was something like Empedoclean elements, but per , I appear to be mistaken.

---

On the original topic, just spitballing, say we have two countries that declare war on one another after a diplomatic fallout. Maybe one king stole another's wife, ala the Iliad. The troops and ships are mobilizing but no one has started fighting yet. So the war exists, but not the fighting. Is this a war that does not "consist of" fighting?

But of course, war writ large goes back to earlier species, and it seems individuals fighting is exactly what war "consists of," in the universal sense.

Which makes me ask, is this for only the universal case, or the particulars as well? You can't have an individual apple pie without first having apples, but it seems possible to have war prior to fighting. Maybe this says something about the essence of war.

We can know some things are prior to others. We can know some things consist of others. Etc. Seeking and acquiring some knowledge is a useful endeavor. We need not know everything in order to know some things. — creativesoul

:up:

Let's see what happens when we 'plug in' something a bit more interesting/compelling.. — creativesoul

Gratitude to parents.
Gratitude to teachers.

Bearing in mind that it is impossible to be "one's own person" and not need anyone.

In what way is it it more "anthropomorphic," then something like the inverse square law, Maxwell's equations, etc.? — Count Timothy von Icarus

After a quick look... it seems I've perhaps made a mistake regarding Shannon's Information. For some reason or other, I had the impression that it situated meaning in circumstances where there could be none.

Hegel doesn't deny time or the fact that we aren't actually starting from nothing. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Understood. It makes no sense to me for anyone to insist that we act like it's even possible to set all presuppositions aside. It's not. I do agree that Kant had inherent issues, namely untenability. Hegel seems to have the same fundamental flaw.

I'm interested in how thought and belief emerge. Amongst a number of them, I also reject the subject/object, physical/non-physical, internal/external dichotomies, particularly when it comes to taking proper account of minds(thought and belief). None of those frameworks are capable of taking proper account of that which consists of both, and is thus... neither one or the other. Thought, belief, consciousness, mind, etc... are precisely such things on my view.

1. Temporal ordering and causation. Is the dependence relation you're interested one of logical necessity or one of (physical?) causation? Or maybe the two are two sides of the same coin? I could see the argument that our logical sense emerges from the causal, as a form of abstraction that evolution equipped us with, but you can also see arguments for logic being more essential and "at work," in causation. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Logic, on my view, is an accounting practice. Hence, it is existentially dependent upon something to take account of, as well as a practitioner.  

2. That "elemental" parts are, in ways, more fundemental that wholes. The elemental parts must exist before the wholes, no? — Count Timothy von Icarus

Necessary elemental constituents comprise the complex entity. Here it is worth noting that necessary elemental constituents are themselves entities. Most times, they exist in their entirety prior to becoming a part of the complex entity, but not always.

But might we consider that the whole sometimes seems to precede the distinction of parts. E.g., we needed the universal process, the fields in which "part(icles) subsist" before we can have the elemental parts? Or, the universal relation through which "mass" emerges must pre-exist "massive particles," as the latter are necessarily defined in terms of the former. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Here we must be careful, I think. It's easy to conflate what it takes for us to become aware of something, with what it takes for that something to exist in it's entirety prior to our knowledge of it. I'm also not well versed enough to even offer a well-informed view regarding particle physics or quantum physics.

Which makes me ask, is this for only the universal case, or the particulars as well? You can't have an individual apple pie without first having apples, but it seems possible to have war prior to fighting. Maybe this says something about the essence of war. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Maybe. It may say something about entities which have their elemental consistencies completely and totally determined/established/delineated by us. War is one such thing. If there is war without fighting, then - at that time - that war doesn't include fighting. That war, at that time, does not consist of fighting. However, I do not see that example as an interesting one. You have been touching upon the rightful application of the outline/discipline though. So, thanks for that!

:smile:

Let's see what happens when we 'plug in' something a bit more interesting/compelling..
— creativesoul

Gratitude to parents.
Gratitude to teachers.

Bearing in mind that it is impossible to be "one's own person" and not need anyone. — baker

Could you plug it in? I'm not sure what to do with that! :smile:

Gratitude to parents.
Gratitude to teachers.

Bearing in mind that it is impossible to be "one's own person" and not need anyone. — baker

:up:

Could you plug it in? I'm not sure what to do with that! — creativesoul

If you do not mind, I would like to take part in your interesting exhange.

A's - to be one's own person - formation is existentially dependent upon B - teachers - which both could not exist without C - our parents - because they are the cause of the born ourselves, thus our existence. Nevertheless, I am wondering to what extent B - teachers - and C - parents - are linked. Yet, what is an affirmative premise - let's say p1 - is that A - to be one's own person - is existentially dependent upon B and C.

Gratitude to parents.
Gratitude to teachers.

Bearing in mind that it is impossible to be "one's own person" and not need anyone.
— baker

Could you plug it in? I'm not sure what to do with that! :smile: — creativesoul

First about gratitude:

It's a popular sentiment that children don't owe their parents anything, e.g.


Yet bearing in mind the premises in your OP, it's clear that one couldn't be where one is today were it not for one's parents, and that some akcnowledgement of this debt is in order.
Similar for one's teachers.

Another popular sentiment is to think of oneself as independent, as not having needed anyone in order to succeed, and taking pride in this. Similarly as above with parents and teachers, it's clear that such is not possible, and that a million things need to come together in order for a person to succeed, a million things over which the person has no control.

It's a popular sentiment that children don't owe their parents anything, e.g. — baker

Thanks for the reply.

That assertion/statement/proposition is stated in such a way that most would agree with it... as written.

Many people, from all sorts of completely different socioeconomic circumstances, would share the exact same propositional attitude towards what you wrote despite having completely different and otherwise contradictory belief about why it's acceptable to feel like that. The differences matter.



The attached blurb was penned by a very inconsiderate person. It reeks of overgeneralization. To refuse to help one's own parents simply because they did not successfully prepare themselves - financially - for the later years in life is to punish them for what could be financial mistakes. Some financial mistakes are honestly made.

Some people are on fixed income after being promised that if they participated in the social security program they would have enough money to live comfortably during retirement. Some of those people are not necessarily at fault for having such an unsettling debt to income ratio. The financial cost to live comfortably now is far higher than social security and healthcare are capable of providing.

If the child is more than capable of helping but refuses to do so in lieu of intentionally punishing them - for the sake of punishing them - for the rest of their life, then that is a child who knowingly and deliberately causes unnecessary harm to their own parents. Mean inconsiderate possibly very self-centered person.

I'll not pass universal judgment on every single individual's personal belief(popular sentiment) that they do not owe their parents anything.

There's also quite a range of what exactly is not owed. There are all sorts of different kinds of debt. All debt is owed. "I owe you nothing" means I am not in debt to you. Not all people who believe that they do not owe their parents anything are talking about money. The sentiment underwriting the agreement has emerged as the result of very different individual particular circumstances.

Yet bearing in mind the premises in your OP, it's clear that one couldn't be where one is today were it not for one's parents, and that some akcnowledgement of this debt is in order.
Similar for one's teachers. — baker

That's a bit too strong for my taste. If taken too broadly, parents land in the category of cause along with all other influences in our lives. It doesn't make much sense to have a sense of owing a debt to everyone who changed or influenced our lives. I do agree that that is certainly an apt thing to say about some people.
 
Not all parents teach their own children. Of those who do, not all teaching counts as something we ought aspire towards. Some people are raised by people other than their biological parents. All people live with others during their lifetime. We are most certainly interdependent social creatures, which speaks to the following...

Another popular sentiment is to think of oneself as independent, as not having needed anyone in order to succeed, and taking pride in this. Similarly as above with parents and teachers, it's clear that such is not possible, and that a million things need to come together in order for a person to succeed, a million things over which the person has no control. — baker

American rugged individualism is preached and practiced. Many do not carefully consider that different influences effect/affect each and every one of us. I, for one, consider myself very lucky. I also make concerted attempts at doing things that open up the possibilities.

Not all parents are worthy of holding in high esteem.

Below is taken from another thread. It's an example of application 'in the wild'...

Speculative philosophy can be done in a dark room full of vacuum for sure
— Corvus

The basis upon which the speculation happens cannot happen in a vacuum. — creativesoul

It would be a conceptual vacuum of course. — Corvus

I'm objecting to the very notion. Speculative philosophy requires common language. One cannot acquire common language without conceptions. — creativesoul