Yeah, anti-supernatural naturalism has to be embedded in a metaphysics that founds it. A generalized naturalism, for which the supernatural is not coherent, can be presented as a description of human thinking. — Hoo

My position agrees fundamentally with Kojeve when he says: "Taken separately, the Subject and the Object are abstractions that have neither “objective reality” (Wirklichkeit) nor “empirical existence” (Dasein)."

But the difference is that I would say that the idea of the supernatural only arises within a naturalism lacking in sufficient generality. It is reductionist materialism - the claim that the real is just "observable matter" - which begets its equivalently strong "other" in the subjectivism and mentalism of the claim that there is then also the reality of the "immaterial observer".

So that was the point of Peircean pragmatism - to include observers in nature in a fully "material" fashion.

And now this new more fully generalised naturalism creates a foundational or ontological level distinction between matter and sign, or matter and symbol, instead of matter and mind.

It also fixes up a few basic problems in being at base an interactive perspective - a process philosophy - where matter and sign can be in causal interaction in unmysterious fashion. So you no longer have the dualism of matter and (epiphenomenal) mind, but an explicit way the two sides connect.

And even the "immaterial" aspect of sign is self-explained. The possibility of a symbol arises as material dimensionality gets maximally constrained. When the number of dimensions for action is shrunk towards the zero dimensions of a point, then a mark or sign is born - the mark or sign, the bare difference, that can now freely stand for anything. As a bit of information, it is no longer (or as little as possible) part of the material world, and so free to act as a part of a play of symbols.

So through semiosis - as a fully general naturalism - you lose "the mental" or "the observer" as a particular kind of realm standing in disjunction to "the material" or "the observables". And folk find it really hard to give up trying to explain the "other" to the material in terms of (equally substantial) notions of mentality, or experience, or dasein, or whatever.

But replacing mental substance/res cogitans/thinking and feeling stuff with a more abstract dualism - one of matter and sign - is what it would mean to actually start explaining the particularity of the observing human mind in cosmically generalised fashion.

So yes, there is still the third thing out of which either matter~mind, or matter~sign, must logically emerge - Hegel's geist or Peirce's firstness, maybe even Heidegger's dasein. But this primal ground can't be a form of pan-psychic proto-mind in standard idealist fashion. For matter and sign to be the sharp contrast that emerges, the primal ground has to be also talked about as itself a third kind of abstract.

In talking of geist, firstness, dasein, apeiron, vagueness, ungrund, ein soft, or whatever, we are trying to speak of the unspeakable - which is tricky, yet also do-able, in being now the "other" to the othered. The equally-abstractly described origin of the dialectic distinction.

When the number of dimensions for action is shrunk towards the zero dimensions of a point, then a mark or sign is born - the mark or sign, the bare difference, that can now freely stand for anything. — Apokrisis

Where in the world can that happen? What are instances of that?

Where in the world can that happen? What are instances of that? — Wayfarer

I wrote that PF post about the nanoscale convergence zone where this has just been discovered to be the case for biology.

But take again another example I have mentioned to you many times. Speaking words is an action that lacks material constraints. It is physical action shrunk to have zero physical dimension because the same expelled breath could be used to mention "the universe" or "that cat".

Articulating a word has some cost of course. But hardly any cost for an able-bodied human. And importantly, what cost there is is always the same. So its physical dimensionality is zeroed. A word takes up space and energy in the world, yet the world is exerting no constraint on what just got said. And that is the new possibility - existence's hidden dimension - which is the source of "mindfulness" in the world. Now ideas and memories can form in another place, take shape in ways that then seek to regulate the world.

But the difference is that I would say that the idea of the supernatural only arises within a naturalism lacking in sufficient generality. It is reductionist materialism - the claim that the real is just "observable matter" - which begets its equivalently strong "other" in the subjectivism and mentalism of the claim that there is then also the reality of the "immaterial observer". — apokrisis

I agree. Our most general image of nature-life is not the scientific image. That's just a piece of it. All of our talk in the interior is part of our model, and the scientific image can only be constructed and fathomed in a larger context. At the same time, reducing the totality to relationships between measurements, for instance, is extremely useful. It's just bad when it plays as "truest" image.

As a bit of information, it is no longer (or as little as possible) part of the material world, and so free to act as a part of a play of symbols. — apokrisis

Yes indeed. There is a Platonic-enough realm under a different law. We live in a "vortext" of signs and signs' other (feeling-sensation?---but this is already a trespass).

But replacing mental substance/res cogitans/thinking and feeling stuff with a more abstract dualism - one of matter and sign - is what it would mean to actually start explaining the particularity of the observing human mind in cosmically generalised fashion. — apokrisis

I personally can't see how we get out of the system of signs. We can use signs to create a generalized science of the relationships between signs, certainly. The non-sign matter threatens to be an empty negation like the thing-in-itself --though admittedly there's some common sense grounding it nevertheless.)

For matter and sign to be the sharp contrast that emerges, the primal ground has to be also talked about as itself a third kind of abstract. — apokrisis

I agree. If we are pursuing the emergent distinction seriously, we can't favor either of the children. So maybe "matter" for you is just the signs we use in physical science? Or how is it approached?

I agree. If we are pursuing the emergent distinction seriously, we can't favor either of the children. So maybe "matter" for you is just the signs we use in physical science? Or how is it approached? — Hoo

I guess this is where semiosis becomes close to idealism in that the "material world" feels like that which we can know the least. We only have the play of our own signs, never direct access to the thing-in-itself.

And we see this in science. We only have our representations in terms of theories and measurements. The structure or form of things is there in our formal descriptions, but the materiality is imputed largely as an act of imagination. We talk about force and action because we can see a structure of change in our models. But then the one thing we don't actually see in any real sense is this force, this action. They are off-stage and their existence only appealed to on logical grounds.

We only have the play of our own signs, never direct access to the thing-in-itself.

And we see this in science. We only have our representations in terms of theories and measurements. The structure or form of things is there in our formal descriptions, but the materiality is imputed largely as an act of imagination. — apokrisis

There's a notion of the real as "that which resists." We can bump into things in the dark. Of course if we never interacted with a thing (it never opposed our will), it might as well not be real. There's something like primitive science that we learn as children. Push some things they will move. If somethings getting bigger and bigger and louder and louder, it's coming to get you, or you're coming to get it. We fear and desire these its only to the degree that they "exceed" the sign or are "actually there." We can contemplate things in their absence. Then imagine gluing this idea back on to the "resistance"-in-itself. It's hard to let go of tactile thinking. To pass through solid objects like the Kool-aid man. That would be "magic." That would excite an animal who loves straight lines to the goal.

Anyway, it seems that sophisticated science (science proper) depends on this bodily, sensual "child" or "animal" science. The sense of the self, the correspondence theory of truth, the LEM, the PSR. All of this is hard to shake, though the farther reaches of abstract thought temporarily escape them. Maybe, too, it was as simple as curve fitting. Screw intuition. Fit a curve and extrapolate. Perhaps these escapes are most effectively "captured" for general use exactly by sign systems that boldly leave intuition behind (SR, GR, QM), which then are used for the machines that convince us on the "child science" or ur-science level. We also have this sort of conversation which allows us to steer our thinking at the highest level, forge the criteria for our criteria.

There's a notion of the real as "that which resists." — Hoo

That is certainly right. It is the way we sort out the self from the world in terms of the actions we can freely take vs the reality which is their constraint. And this is how the image of the real manifests - either for ordinary biological consciousness, or for our "scientific" image resulting from theory and measurement. The epistemic method is fundamentally the same, even though one is neurally encoded, the other linguistic and socially evolved.

There's something like primitive science that we learn as children. Push some things they will move. If somethings getting bigger and bigger and louder and louder, it's coming to get you, or you're coming to get it. — Hoo

Yes. The biology has the same logic, the same method. So science just takes what already works and makes it explicit or self-conscious. We can know the method and appreciate why it works - and why it is also in the end "just an image that is manifested", not "the thing in itself".

Anyway, it seems that sophisticated science (science proper) depends on this bodily, sensual "child" or "animal" science. — Hoo

If we didn't exist biologically, there wouldn't be any science happening.

And yet there is also something about science/metaphysics/maths being able to leave the realm of concrete intuitions behind. If we stay anchored in the sensuous - believing things like colour is "real" - then that becomes a hindrance to real abstract thought. Part of becoming a theoretician of any kind is being able to let go of intuitions once some useful-feeling start has been made - the abductive leap - as from there we have to get into the formality of deducing consequences and inductively bolstering hypotheses. The models and the measurements must be allowed to take over.

All of this is hard to shake, though the farther reaches of abstract thought temporarily escape them. Maybe, too, it was as simple as curve fitting. Screw intuition. Fit a curve and extrapolate. Perhaps these escapes are most effectively "captured" for general use exactly by sign systems that boldly leave intuition behind (SR, GR, QM), which then are used for the machines that convince us on the "child science" or ur-science level. — Hoo

I agree. But with QM in particular, that now really challenges intuition.

Now of course we should still want to have an intuitive interpretation of QM, so as to make some further abductive leap towards an even greater level of generality in theory (and measurement). But also, QM works to so many decimal places that there is not a lot of use in querying it on some prior intuitive basis (like mechanical determinism and localism). If you start wasting people's time like that, they are in their right to tell you to shut up and calculate.

Anyway, it seems that sophisticated science (science proper) depends on this bodily, sensual "child" or "animal" science. — Hoo

That's what's called 'empiricism'. A fundamental principle is that whatever is to be considered as a datum must be able to be observed by the senses (as distinct from inferred by intuition). That extends far beyond what is directly perceivable by the unaided senses, but always must reference some visible or other sensory data (i.e. tracks in the bubble chamber etc).

It does however rule out a great deal of what has been considered valid knowledge by pre-modern philosophy.

Of course, empiricism. We can obtain consensus about this manifest image or LCD of human experience. We can measure the application of knowledge claims at least and therefore measure knowledge claims indirectly. Religion doesn't have the cleanest hands and we've all seen wishful thinking. And yet the books in the Bible are treasure. So it's a question of positioning both the traditions of religion and science appropriately on a personal level.
Anyway, there's a good starter criterion for non-empirical knowledge. "Wisdom maketh a man's face to shine." It's hard to see the unhappy man as wise or knowing. Naturally we can only smash words together on an anonymous forum, so we can't apply that here. We really don't know the flesh-and-blood beings who manifest here as streams of text. But in life we judge personalities as a whole, not only the person by their words but their words by the person.

There's a term that is encountered in comparative religion and philosophy, which is that of the 'sapiential traditions'. Sapience originally meant 'wisdom' but it is a hard idea to pin down in our scientific age (notwithstanding that we are supposed to be h. sapiens, although I do wonder if the title ought not to be changed to h. faber.)

Scroll down to the heading 'Welcome to a fuller reality' in this review.

That is certainly right. It is the way we sort out the self from the world in terms of the actions we can freely take vs the reality which is their constraint — apokrisis

Very nice way to put it. Fichte comes to mind.

In Fichte's view consciousness of the self depends upon resistance or a check by something that is understood as not part of the self yet is not immediately ascribable to a particular sensory perception. — Wiki

Also Nietzsche's will-to-power could be read as the desire to enlarge of sphere of freedom.

And yet there is also something about science/metaphysics/maths being able to leave the realm of concrete intuitions behind. If we stay anchored in the sensuous - believing things like colour is "real" - then that becomes a hindrance to real abstract thought. Part of becoming a theoretician of any kind is being able to let go of intuitions once some useful-feeling start has been made - the abductive leap - as from there we have to get into the formality of deducing consequences and inductively bolstering hypotheses. The models and the measurements must be allowed to take over. — apokrisis

I totally agree. We clearly don't want to be bound by 'ur-science.' But we can't even support our own heads on our baby necks at first. We learn to walk, learn the names of things, learn a deep belief in selves. Our sophisticated theories can indeed double back against their intuitive, ur-science foundations. To mix space with time is of course an immense violation. Wave/particle duality and raw chance are two more. But yes the models and measurements must take over. And counter-intuitive 'radical' imagination becomes valuable indeed. I'm hardly an expert, but I can see that much.

Now of course we should still want to have an intuitive interpretation of QM, so as to make some further abductive leap towards an even greater level of generality in theory (and measurement). — apokrisis

This makes sense to me, which is why I think metaphor/analogy is so important. I experience it everywhere in math. The sincere formalist would have a hard time finding a proof.