The global constraints shape the local degrees of freedom — apokrisis
In crude but familiar psychological terms, general concepts shape our particular impressions while those particular impressions in turn build up habits of conception. — apokrisis
They have the quality of being experienced by an experiencer. — schopenhauer1
Ah, up pops your "experiencer". Because of course if you have experiences, then an experiencer is there already just waiting for his Cartesian theatre to roll. It's "logical" says the simple-minded "cause an effect" reductionist. — apokrisis
So far I've seen plenty of experiencers in your model, but they are hidden. — schopenhauer1
All of these are kind of like place holders for "and experience happens"... — schopenhauer1
. I'm trying to get you to think in verbs — apokrisis
How DNA came about, what caused it to exist, is what is at issue. — Wayfarer
For you its all reified nouns. I'm trying to get you to think in verbs. But I can see that ain't happening. — apokrisis
Yep. Anaximander confused the heck out of folk as the only recorded scrap of his actual words talked about cosmic justice vs injustice. Heraclitus likewise talked about this unity of opposites - flux and logos. — apokrisis
The main difference here then is you want to add some further twist - another metaphysical dimension to your analysis. And that is based on the opposition of good and bad, or some such deontic distinction.
So my position would be deontically neutral. Neither competition nor co-operation would be inherently either good or bad. — apokrisis
According to you, accepting that there is inner experiential qualities of (at least certain) processes is somehow antithetical to your theory. — schopenhauer1
To me – and no doubt the arguments will persist on this – you seem to reify epistemological vagueness into a sub-stantial Apeirion and then proceed to make conclusions with use of this Apeiron as a premise. — javra
Your system explains awareness thermodynamically; my system starts off with awareness as ontic, brute, fact. — javra
If there is awareness, then there must be equally also its "other" - however that is then correctly conceived. — apokrisis
Your system explains awareness thermodynamically; — javra
Nevertheless, what you seem to be missing from the terminology of Ein Sof (and related terms from other cultures) is the very plausible (at the very least, quite fitting to all works in which it is mentioned) metaphysical interpretation of the intended referent being that of awareness sans awareness-of. — javra
Talk about the Apeiron will thus always have to carry an air of substantiality. But the Apeiron is then formally the vague limit to substantiality. It is the boundary to reality, not itself a further state of reality. That is the subtle further bit of the story. — apokrisis
And emergence, from the random symmetry-breaking of pure, infinitely vague potential, is not an intelligent answer. — Metaphysician Undercover
If intelligiblity is what arises, then the foundational limit to that developmental trajectory is "the unintelligible". — apokrisis
Pure random unintelligible infinite potential cannot give rise to intelligible constraint, because this would mean that it negates itself. — Metaphysician Undercover
Can pure, absolute randomness suddenly become ordered? The order must come from somewhere. — Metaphysician Undercover
Not missing, but explicitly rejecting. — apokrisis
Although I'm certainly also sympathetic to the idea that all differences disappear as we work our way back to vagueness.
So we are both arguing from opposite sides of the fence. In the end I am speaking in a physicalist register, you (I assume) an idealist register. But I agree also that "in the end", experience is what is epistemically primary (for us). — apokrisis
Err, yeah. That was the point. The self-negation of unintelligibility (the constraint on chaos) is what Peirce's "growth of universal reasonableness" is all about. — apokrisis
Back to efficient causes, hey? — apokrisis
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.