Yes. That's why I try not to present my notion of "G*D", without some preliminary throat-clearing, to dispel the Judeo-Christian notion of a humanoid heavenly tyrant and magical Intelligent Design (ID). Unfortunately, my alternative of Intelligent Evolution (IE) is not easy to distinguish from ID, for those who have a limited preconception of how a deity "must" create. Oh well, the creator cat is out of the bag now. :joke:then the mind in question is God, of course. This is very much associated with the intelligent design movement and has very little presence on this forum (and I certainly wouldn't want to be involved in introducing it to this forum, but it should at least be acknowledged — Wayfarer
So, when the material form decays and dissipates, the conceptual Form vanishes? That would make our concept of categories of things-with-something-in-common, meaningless. Does a real Cat participate in the Ideal Form of cats-in-general? What is the material "thing" cats have in common? What kind of information is it made of? :cool:Information enables the interaction of form. It doesn't go anywhere ( does not become immaterial ) — Pop
Yes. Materialists liked Shannon's statistical definition of "Information", because it allowed us to think in terms of Mechanical Machines instead of Conscious Minds. Machines are real, but Minds are just the abstract notion of an immaterial information processor. To attempt to answer "what is information?" without reference to the pre-Shannon implication of the term is short-sighted. As some recent contrarians have insisted : meaning is in minds, but not in computers. :nerd:First Form of Information — Gnomon
Gnomon calls it First Form of Information so I'm not the only one thinking about it. — Mark Nyquist
dialectics is the universal logic, the universal rational process, which produces any well-formed construct.
Kant fell down with his antimonies. Hegel got things a little wrong because he lacked a concept of vagueness. That is why I say Peirce worked it out best with his triadic systems perspective. — apokrisis
But then because synchronic structure is itself opposed to diachronic process, we also have the other ur-dichotomy of the vague~crisp - the extension to dialectical reasoning made explicit in the triadic logic of Peirce.
Peirce was always trying to connect these two dichotomies in the one world description, which is why you wind up with his super-dichotomy of tychism~synechism. The local is pure chance or pure spontaneity, so also as vague and unformed as it gets. The global is continuity and universalised habit or law, so as crisp and definite as its gets.
Thus the content that results from dialectical inquiry is that which in the end can't be done away with. Peirce makes sense to me in his reduction of existence to these two complementary ur-dichotomies - the local~global and the vague~crisp, or the dichotomies of structure and of development. — apokrisis
The local is pure chance or pure spontaneity, so also as vague and unformed as it gets. The global is continuity and universalised habit or law, so as crisp and definite as its gets.
Thus the content that results from dialectical inquiry is that which in the end can't be done away with. — apokrisis
My point was that Kelly's approach was constrained by the certitudes of 1950's US intelligentsia - the tropes of rationality and self-actualisation. He saw his impoverished Kansas farmers as needing training in how to become rational and self-actualising in a way that was a society's generally stated goal. — apokrisis
Not something I've heard said, — Kenosha Kid
but I guess any microstate is a unique collection of information. — Kenosha Kid
14mOptions — bongo fury
Shannon's information theory defines information as any message that reduces uncertainty from a given set of possibilities to ONE.
Will/should skeptics be offended/pleased that all of them together amount to 0 bits? — TheMadFool
What Kant, Hegel and Peirce had in common was their grounding of Being in divinity. — Joshs
Can one embrace the triadic model and discard the theology without doing violence to Peirce’s intent? — Joshs
A number of your colleagues in pan semiotics are quite sympathetic to theological writers — Joshs
And so we may regard the disagreements as not about the facts but as due to differences in the conventions-adopted in organizing or describing the space. What, then, is the neutral fact or thing described in these different terms? — Goodman
Kelly was opposed to rationalism, which is why he insisted his approach was not a cognitive psychology. Kelly was a renegade who attacked the core presuppositions of rationalism. — Joshs
Self-actualization as a buzzword made its way into American psychology in the 1950’s due to the indirect influence of European trends such as existentialism, American pragmatism, phenomenology and Gestalt psychology. These tropes were not embraced by mainstream intellectual culture until many years later.
In the 1950’s only a handful of American psychologists and philosophers adopted them. The mainstream endorsed S-R positivism and the new discipline of cognitive science, a rationalist offshoot of 19th century idealism. — Joshs
Simply stating that ‘quantum foam somehow develops form’ is a leap of faith you’re expecting us to take with regards to your theory — Possibility
The Order of Time’ is a good starting point, because it explains why it makes sense todescribe reality as consisting of interrelated events, not objects. — Possibility
I said that form can appear to develop through spontaneous change, depending on your intentional embodiment as observer — Possibility
At first glance, they appear to contradict each other. Is it ‘open-ended’ or not? — Possibility
Things do not have to ‘have form’ to interact, — Possibility
This notion of self-organisation is your personal focus. You could just as easily say no interaction, no universe. Or no change, no universe. — Possibility
This notion of self-organisation is your personal focus. You could just as easily say no interaction, no universe. Or no change, no universe. — Possibility
Do you mean that if I don't feel anything, I am emotionless, I can't experience anything and/or be conscious (aware) of anything? Do you really believe this? — Alkis Piskas
Put it this way, is there any information-talk in physics that can't be (shouldn't be) replaced perfectly well with entropy-talk? — bongo fury
Even great thinkers reflect their social era. Doesn't that prove my point about the social construction of even the most independently minded individuals? — apokrisis
Can one embrace the triadic model and discard the theology without doing violence to Peirce’s intent?
— Joshs
Yep. Logic is logic. You haven't been able to pick holes in account of that logic and so now you chose to play the man rather than the ball. — apokrisis
Kelly was opposed to rationalism, which is why he insisted his approach was not a cognitive psychology. Kelly was a renegade who attacked the core presuppositions of rationalism.
— Joshs
Err. OK. So he was constructing himself as an anti-rational renegade ... yet now is recognised as just a rationalist positive psychology type responding early to the spirit of his age? — apokrisis
Self-actualisation and humanist approaches took off in the US because there was already the deeply engrained notion of the US being the land of the self-made man. But by the 1950s, corporations and unions dominated the society. People were suddenly rich, secure and leisured, yet still constrained by class and traditional values. So very ready to discover themselves and construct their own personal realities. — apokrisis
Behaviourism was popular among those who liked the idea of mind control. It was hardly central to popular culture. Cognivitism started out naturalistic and ecological - as with Neisser - but became over-run by computer science and the metaphysics of information. — apokrisis
I'm not really buying your social history here. If you are determined to make Kelly the base of your argument against pragmatic positivism or social constructionism, that seems a poor choice. — apokrisis
pendulum — apokrisis
But that idea exists nowhere except in my Mind, which has no "where" in terms of Cartesian coordinates. So whose Mind is the imaginer or designer of Platonic Forms? :smile: — Gnomon
Matter inside a volume (not having the configuration of a black hole state yet, can be nicely ordered and whirl around in formation. Not too much information and not too little being there. — Prishon
No, their theologies were well ahead of their time. To the great bulk of the nonacademic culture that surrounded them , their ideas were generations ahead. — Joshs
I thought logic was a cultural creation like the rest of philosophy. Isnt that the view of writers like Lakoff and Johnson, who view logic as embodied activity? I’ve read 5 or 6 different interpretations of Peirce’s triadic model and they all differ. You don’t think the variability in how people interpret ‘firstness’ has any bearing on the use od the logic? I think how much the application of his logic will differ from user to user depends on what they want to do with it. The more abstract and complex the aspect of the world one looks at , the greater difference interpretation will make. If you don’t see God in Peirce’a triad, you’re not looking closely enough. — Joshs
As with any thinker , ther are different Kelly camps. I happen to agree with those who align Kelly with pragmatism , phenomenology and constructivism. — Joshs
The counterculture didn’t emerge as a substantial force until after Kelly’s death in 1967. — Joshs
Claiming that America of the mid 1950’s was ready for what Kelly offered stands in direct contrast to the reality of a profoundly hidebound academic and mainstream culture. — Joshs
I think the typical situation for original thinkers is that their closet competition is a tiny handful of writers. Beyond that immediate sphere of influence lies a larger circle of maybe a few thousand thinkers who are regurgitating the previous generation’s cutting edge thinking. Beyond that is a much larger circle of non-academic educated culture which represents the best of an even older generation. And beyond that is an uneducated pluraity that still identify with even more ancient ways of thinking. So as far as the wider culture influencing the work of an original thinker, I think as we move out from the small inner circle in every wider approaches , the numbers of individuals grows, and the influence becomes more and more indirect. — Joshs
No not faith. Just take a look around yourself and understand all this was once quantum foam. — Pop
The Order of Time’ is a good starting point, because it explains why it makes sense todescribe reality as consisting of interrelated events, not objects.
— Possibility
Please reread my previous post to you, and point out where I am not describing this. — Pop
I said that form can appear to develop through spontaneous change, depending on your intentional embodiment as observer
— Possibility
This was Apo's defence with the epistemic cut. Please yourself, but understand that your subjectivity is not ungrounded, but grounded entirely in information, in the sense I am describing it. — Pop
Right! So something without form - without any characteristics or perturbation or properties can interact? — Pop
This notion of self-organisation is your personal focus. You could just as easily say no interaction, no universe. Or no change, no universe.
— Possibility
You totally misunderstand. It is all evolution, not arbitrary change. A primer in systems theory would fix this.
Self organization is what makes systems organize. Everything is a self organizing system in systems theory. Please catch up on it and we can speak again. — Pop
What you need to understand is that your interaction model does not include you, but is relative to you: — Possibility
I have been processing some of the references offered here, and the article ‘What is information?’ from Christophe Adami caught my attention - in particular a Venn diagram showing information as ‘what you don’t know (entropy) minus what remains to be known given what you know’. — Possibility
No, It takes a** third person perspective and first person perspective into account and I can see the abyss at its end. Hence my conclusion with the anthropic principle doing the thinking.
This is a forum. I try to simplify and reduce things to a minimum of wordage. I cannot do what Joshs and Apo do, it would take me all day. Misunderstanding results from this, but I cannot see a way around it. — Pop
I have been processing some of the references offered here, and the article ‘What is information?’ from Christophe Adami caught my attention - in particular a Venn diagram showing information as ‘what you don’t know (entropy) minus what remains to be known given what you know’.
— Possibility
What you don't know- that's a strange way to define a set. Ok, it's an unknown set.
What remains to be known given what you know- that's even worse! How did this get published? It's junk. — Mark Nyquist
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.