phenomenology might almost be called a new, a twentieth century, Cartesianism.
This grounding Husserl rejected. — Joshs
Is there some bosonic force creating this order?
This would be the thing doing the thinking? - Integrating the information to various forms. — Pop
That would be you. — Possibility
The physics stuff is beyond me (and most of us because of the math) — Mark Nyquist
The wavefunction contains only information about the chances where to find a particle. — Prishon
I don't see much rejection of the key thing that interests me here - a rejection of the primacy being given to a homuncular self, the first person point of view, the ego that grounds the rationalising after all preconceptions have been stripped away.
This is the fatal flaw - the one Peircean semiotics fixes. By focusing on the primacy of the modelling relation, both the self and its world become a co-construction. The two emergent poles of the one dialectical process. — apokrisis
Maybe phenomenology is rescuing itself by a new stress on enactivism or embodiment. But that seems to be just the incorporation of biosemiosis so far. It doesn't appear to involve the socially constructed aspect of mind and selfhood - our enactive embodiment in a shaping cultural environment.
That is the PoMo-Romanticism having its effect. The driving idea there is to reject global constraints on local freedoms. To be shaped is read as being anti-self, rather than the source of selfhood in the first place. — apokrisis
So you are not yet convincing me that phenomenology is anything more than a passing curiosity in the history of ideas. — apokrisis
Enactivism itself is of course a crucial corrective to Cartesian representationalism. But Peirce already founds everything in that kind of pragmatic embodiment. — apokrisis
Energy must exist, but can not without information, so it is a tricky question. Largely physics has been blind to this, and only lately has it become a consideration. — Pop
I didn't need politeness, only careful engagement with the linked wiki page, and the definitions used there. — bongo fury
So it is great to have Kenosha Kid, and @Prishon to fill in the blanks. — Pop
I think it is largely an issue of paradigm politics. A definition of information, in this day and age, should be out there, but the one we found, which is explanatory, changes its normal meaning, and understanding as a result. Information is almost the same as interaction, in fact — Pop
And Prishon certainly is, don't elevate the guy to an authority. — Kenosha Kid
After having now read a number of papers discussing Peircean semiotics in the context of a range of approaches within philosophy and psychology here are my tentative thoughts: — Joshs
The second school is the pragmatism of Dewey, James and Mead, which , while sympathetic to Peirce’s approach , avoids the strict logic of his code-based semiotics in favor of an intersubjectively mediated empiricism. — Joshs
Their notion of semiotics is not code or logic based but instead compatible with Wittgenstein’s language games as forms of
life. They reject the concept of language as ‘meaning’ , of truth as propositional belief, and critique empiricism and the myth of the given. — Joshs
Enactivism is generally thought as shorthand for 4E: enactive, embodied, embedded , extended and affective. The system is not simply embodied in its biology, it is equally embedded in its physical-social environment and extended into that ecology via tools outside the strictly determined end of the body
that are nonetheless part of its functioning. — Joshs
As I mentioned before, there is almost no debate these days within phenomenological-pomo-enactivist circles as to whether being shaped is the source of selfhood. The only debate is over whether to jettison the notion of the subject entirely in favor of a social system with no independently identifiable parts, or keep some minimal remnant of the old idea of subject. I don’t think you appreciate how much more radically interpersonally based some of these approaches are compared with Peirce’s quaint-by-comparison code-based model of the social. — Joshs
The question is whether the path of change today is leading the vanguard of psychological and philosophical thinking closer to Peirce or further away from him. — Joshs
Those in many branches of the social sciences choosing to bypass Peirce’s semiotic form of pragmatism feel that a pragmatics is severely constrained when it is grounded in rationalistist logic and a notion of truth as a ‘real’ which is progressively attainable. — Joshs
I think you are getting close! Energy, at least forms of it, needs interaction to have a form. A circle form will "evaporate" if no interactions are considered. Its a pitty you havent studied quantum fields. A free field (without a gauge field to INTERACT with,is a weird thing... To say the least... :smile: — Prishon
The definition of information in this sense is: information enables the interaction of form. or Information = evolutionary interaction [/unquote]
That definition is getting close to what I call EnFormAction, which is the causal & organizing agent of Evolution. That creative force is what was called "the Will of God" in the Bible, or "Logos", by Plato, or "First Cause" & "Prime Mover" by Aristotle, or "Natural Law" by Deists. Like the "Energy" of modern Science, it is known, inferred, only by its effects in the real world. And yes. EFA both causes all interactions, and directs them toward some ultimate destination.
Of course, since motivating & organizing "Cosmic Destiny" is randomized by Entropy (disorganization), each information processing (or integrating) agent in the world has some degree of Free Will (Choice within Chance). Unfortunately, that freedom from Destiny also allows for the physical & emotional suffering of those agents. Why? Maybe it's a test, similar to that argued by Jewish & Christian & Islamic theologians. But, I doubt that it's a test of long-suffering loyalty to the inferred-but-unseen deity, as assumed by those apologists for the Problem of Evil. That would be plain perverse. :smile:
EnFormAction :
Ententional Causation. A proposed metaphysical law of the universe that causes random interactions between forces and particles to produce novel & stable arrangements of matter & energy. It’s the creative force (aka : Divine Will) of the axiomatic eternal deity that, for unknown reasons, programmed a Singularity to suddenly burst into our reality from an infinite source of possibility. AKA : The creative power of Evolution; the power to enform; Logos; Change.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Will_of_God
EnFormAction :
* Metaphorically, it's the Will-power of G*D, which is the First Cause of everything in creation. Aquinas called the Omnipotence of God the "Primary Cause", so EFA is the general cause of everything in the world. Energy, Matter, Gravity, Life, Mind are secondary creative causes, each with limited application.
* All are also forms of Information, the "difference that makes a difference". It works by directing causation from negative to positive, cold to hot, ignorance to knowledge. That's the basis of mathematical ratios (Greek "Logos", Latin "Ratio" = reason). A : B :: C : D. By interpreting those ratios we get meaning and reasons.
* The concept of a river of causation running through the world in various streams has been interpreted in materialistic terms as Momentum, Impetus, Force, Energy, etc, and in spiritualistic idioms as Will, Love, Conatus, and so forth. EnFormAction is all of those.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html
I think I underdtand this. All present forms have their origin at the big bang (about which I have some pretty non convential thoughts as well as about the stuff thats in it; the reason for many bans on physics forums). So the initial state had to be slightly nonrandom. The hand of God(s)?That creative force is what was called "the Will of God"
Please remember this is the internet. For all you know, I'm just frantically Googling my way through my own bullshit. And Prishon certainly is, don't elevate the guy to an authority. — Kenosha Kid
so classical information theory does treat information stored in a system well, it's just within a context of transmission. — Kenosha Kid
Ultimately, information storage is physical configuration of state, therefore the physical configuration of a system has information irrespective of whether it was intended or transmitted. That physical state is (theoretically) completely encoded in the wavefunction (all of the information about that system), hence one can have a purely informational basis for physics. — Kenosha Kid
Or, at heart, you and me are the same, just different information :smile: — Pop
The hand of God. The Anthropic principle. The basis of self organization. Natural Law. The forces we feel at our center all seem to be linked? Different words for the same stuff maybe? — Pop
It is necessary that a method should be found by which our beliefs may be determined by nothing human, but by some external permanency - something upon which our thinking has no effect. — C S Peirce
The hand of God. The Anthropic principle. The basis of self organization. Natural Law. The forces we feel at our center all seem to be linked? Different words for the same stuff maybe? — Pop
Everything that manifests itself does so in relation to something — Possibility
Logic is commonly defined as a proper or reasonable way of thinking about something. But what is logic — Possibility
QM determines that energy is fundamental, — Possibility
QM determines that energy is fundamental — Possibility
In fact a bee equals a people...So in fact all men are equal but differently formed inormation structures? To put it in a highly abstract way — Prishon
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.