One ought take care not to portray the senses as a diode, passing information in one direction only. There is feedback here, and hence complexity. Complexity occurs when small variations in the initial conditions are fed back into the system to be magnified and become great influences on the later conditions.
One sees, reaches out, touches, holds, puts down. One is not situated passively, doomed only to absorb information.
Better to think of oneself as embedded in the world.
One does not sit inside one's body, looking at mere phenomena and reacting to them. One is not separate from one's sensations and acts - far from it. One's sensations and acts are constitutive of what one is.
One does not build meaning inside one's head and then transmit it. Building meaning is part of the complex interaction one has with the world. Hence language is not mere communication. It is an integral part of the self-referential complexity that creates oneself, the other, and the various things in our world.
This looping is not simple; it is strange. It traverses from level to level, between syntax, semantics, and pragmatics unexcused. It provides the illusion of free will. It is not limited to the self, nor the mind, nor the body, nor the various items that together make up the physical world. — Banno
I want to see true premises, and valid logic, to support your claim that agency in DNA replication is unwarranted, not arbitrary definitions to support a faulty assumption. — Metaphysician Undercover
As a process, correlation is not dependent on thought/belief, language or self-awareness. It only requires the capacity to integrate information, and so it can occur at every level of awareness, to varying degrees. This, I think, is where we differ. That being said, it is a key component in the more complex and multi-dimensional process by which humans attribute and construct meaning.
Correlation is the building block of the universe - without it, all we have is potential. — Possibility
You've a habit of calling premisses assumptions. — creativesoul
You've take a strong stance against anything and everything I've offered. Hand waving. That's all you've done — creativesoul
You want others to think/believe and/or agree with you that inanimate matter - rocks nonetheless - have agency. — creativesoul
Agency requires thought/belief. Inanimate matter has none. — creativesoul
There are reducing agents, oxidizing agents, catalysts are agents, etc.. And "agency" is the act of an agent. — Metaphysician Undercover
Yeah we certainly disagree here. You're neglecting the difference between relationships, of which not all require thought/belief, and drawing correlations between different things... which are thought/belief. — creativesoul
One is establishing a relationship between two events.. — Possibility
...and the other is being aware of the relationship established as an event/entity, in relation to other relationships. — Possibility
Calling it ‘thought/belief’ only distinguishes it from the same process at a lower level of awareness. — Possibility
You win, Meta. You win. The Ajax(a household cleaning agent) that I clean my toilet with has agency. The cleaning is the agency. Perfectly reasonable talk in this context. Fer fuck's sake. — creativesoul
Because the answer to philosophical issues is often found in language. — Banno
The point being, if you propose that there is a special sort of thing, called "agency", which only beings with complex thought/belief have, i.e. that complex thought/belief is required for "agency", then you need to describe what "agency" refers to, in order to distinguish this special type of "agency" from the type of agency that things like household cleaning agents have. — Metaphysician Undercover
In a very broad sense, agency is virtually everywhere. Whenever entities enter into causal relationships, they can be said to act on each other and interact with each other, bringing about changes in each other. In this very broad sense, it is possible to identify agents and agency, and patients and patiency, virtually everywhere.[1] Usually, though, the term ‘agency’ is used in a much narrower sense to denote the performance of intentional actions. This way of thinking about agency has a long history in philosophy and it can be traced back to Hume and Aristotle, among other historical figures. — Stanford
What is the goal of DNA replication, and who's goal is it? — creativesoul
And there you have it... exactly as I initially charged. Talk of information at the level of DNA presupposes agency where none is warranted. — creativesoul
The idea of making a mistake also presupposes agency/intention. — creativesoul
In addition, the only way that you can know that a mistake has not been made is if you know both, the intended outcome and the actual. So, that doesn't help your case either. — creativesoul
Language, on the other hand, builds or constructs or sets up information... — Banno
Clearly, agency is warranted, as there is purposeful action, and you've regressed back to your gratuitous assertions. — Metaphysician Undercover
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.