I am saying, manifestation is consciousness. — boagie

If, as I believe, you're making mind & matter coequals, you're expressing, in your own words, something closely akin to the main thrust of my argument here. Plato prioritizes mind; Sartre prioritizes matter; boagie & ucarr posit them as coequals.

I'm wondering if the coequal position is some kind of monism.

Problem -- Even if we assert manifestation creates itself from out of nothingness, we're still positing nothingness as a pre-existing type of design. In turn, this throws us into a regressive series that looks to be infinite. Liberating the concept from this regression might require thinking beyond three dimensions, a task monstrously difficult.

I do understand your point, however, the use of the term design is unfortunate here. There is no reason to assume intellectual intent, things may behave in a myriad of ways appropriate to their natures, which there context dictates.. Here the nature of the whole determines the environment which is itself a constitutionally complete entity. It is not this or that, it is in totality an endless process, process ------manifestation, process. Rather then regression, a closed system emploding in on itself?

the use of the term design is unfortunate — boagie

There is no reason to assume intellectual intent — boagie

things may behave in a myriad of ways appropriate to their natures, which there context dictates.. — boagie

You present a powerful argument. I must proceed carefully, lest I mis-communicate.

I think I'm seeing a rigorous avoidance of theism on your part. Instead of theism, I think you articulate something like a mechanical process of evolution devoid of the sentience presumably commingled with teleology.

I think my use of design, in your view, carries the baggage of sentience presumably commingled with teleology. If this is so, then I have inadvertently maneuvered us into the familiar Intelligent Design Vs. Evolution debate. This has not been my intention. Also, I have not consciously been propounding theism.

I wish to use design in a way that does not invoke the Intelligent Design Vs. Evolution debate.

Let us suppose, for now, the main tenet of my plan to use design without invoking a deity declares that a mechanical process such as evolution, albeit devoid of the sentience presumably commingled with teleology, nevertheless exemplifies design.

My reason for pressing on with a postulation of non-sentient design is my intention to cogitate upon origins, which is the hard problem of ontology.

Let me assert that non-sentient design is exemplified in the automatic logic of a specifically-configured aggregation of potentialities.

Let me try to unpack this horrid abstraction. Consider a chemical reaction. When hydrogen atoms mix with oxygen atoms and form water, this interaction exemplifies automatic logic. Clearly, you would refer to this chemical interaction as process and, also, as manifestation.

Here the nature of the whole determines the environment which is itself a constitutionally complete entity. It is not this or that, it is in totality an endless process, process ------manifestation, process. Rather then regression, a closed system emploding in on itself? — boagie

With the above you seek to maneuver out of infinite regress by employing the notion of a self-sustaining system that embodies a bounded infinity.

I don't suppose anyone is satisfied with a pre-supposed, self-sustaining, bounded infinity that axiomatically stretches across eternity. By this reasoning, the scientist-philosopher sees no more than that seen by a child looking up at the starry sky.

Let it be noted herein that axioms are one of the gnarly problems of set theory.

Godel has given us a heady clue: no first order math can justify, internally, every true statement it generates. Are bounded infinities self-sufficient?

You are correct about the avoidance of gods. Particularly, one involving an anthropomorphic identity. I otherwise would like to think, successful or not, within the paradigm of an organism rather then the clockwork metaphor of the past. Teleology no, that again is a little anthropomorphic.Your desire to use the said term design does necessarily infer the mechanical approach. In the past indeed, organisms were said to be machines, but the new paradigm is an attempt to leave that concept behind, it can no longer serve us going forward.

Specific aggregations just means there are more possibilities in chaos, in the unmanifested than in what is manifest. Perhaps I am being a little hardline, perhaps it is best to keep all the possible tools at hand. The machine metapor might serve yet, after all, everything that is, is natural, and something we must try to understand backward. The god metaphor by definition is not, not occupying time and space, there for not part of the natural world.

You'll have to excuse me sometimes I think I am just blowing smoke. If one is thinking in terms of general systems theory, all systems are open systems if they are to survive very long, whether that applies to the universe is anyones guess, what would be outside a closed universe, infinitely of nothingness? You are obviously more well read than I, but I'll try to hang in there and see if I can follow your speculations. Interesting!!!

I... like to think... within the paradigm of an organism rather then the clockwork metaphor of the past. — boagie

For our discussion, I can use organics in place of mechanics. In either case, I'm referring to organized movement of interlocking parts. With the former, it's organized movement of a human fabrication. With the latter, it's organized movement of a natural creation.

With your examination thus far, you've assisted me in my arrival at the notion of non-sentient design. I will try to support this notion with some type of argument because I see its importance to my perception of nature.

At present, I conceptualize design as an automatic process of nature that includes both logical organization and purpose. (Perhaps you can help me see whether this perceptual inclination of mine keeps me tethered to the metaphysical commitment known as theism.)

My key stratagem is to make an argument for logical organization and purpose as inherent and fundamental properties of natural processes of creation, even in the absence of sentience. (Is the uncoupling of inherent, logical organization and purpose from sentience already an established point-of-view of some scientists and philosophers?)

The first expression of natural creation that comes to mind is chemistry. If I can think of earth's history as including an early period pre-dating life forms, then I can argue that natural creation on earth, even in the absence of sentience, proceeded with logical organization rather than with randomness. A key particular of non-sentient logical organization figures to be the distillation of organic chemistry out of a welter of other chemistries. With its appearance, subsequent development of carbon-based life forms indicates not only inclination toward logical organization, but also toward upwardly evolving logical organization.

What about inherent, natural purpose for chemistry?

Is purpose inherent in upward logical organization? Well, let's consider a given level of chemical organization. I will make a proposition declaring that for a given level of chemical organization, said organization has momentum -- has a tendency, if you will -- toward one particular direction of development over and above other possible directions of development. That tendency, I declare, is toward upwardly evolving logical organization.

I think I can make this declaration because the concept of evolution is a popular theory for explaining transition from primitive earth to modern, human-centered earth. Since the concept of evolution holds, as its foundational purpose, explanation of upwardly evolving life forms as based upon upwardly evolving logical organization, then, via reverse reasoning, I can assert an inherent tendency towards evolving life forms existing in its nascent state all the way back to the pre-life period of multi-faceted chemistries.

Embedded within this proposition is a hugely important turning point; evolution from nascent earth to modern, human-centered earth must include a transition from rational automation to reasoning-by-choice.

Lying at the center of this foundational transition is the emergence of sentience. This emergence of sentience marks the birth of reflexive purpose, or will (Entailed along with the birth of will is the birth of morals). Via reverse reasoning, I can assert an inherent tendency towards sentience_purpose_will existing in their nascent state all the way back to the pre-life period of multi-faceted chemistries.

Conclusion - Darwin's theory of evolution can be characterized as a theory of upwardly evolving natural design.

Ucarr,

First, the conclusion, Darwin's theory of evolution is neither upwardly or downwardly evolving design. Evolution is plastic, in the sense that, it is not set to any direction or goal, if it were it would not be able to adapt to an ever-changing world. It is error and/or mutation which governs evolutionary development. This is so much the case that error and/or mutation is about 99.9 percent fatal to the organism essentially spelling death. So, error, mutation, natural selection by the environment and death are evolution's main elements. Evolution is biology linked to both earth and the cosmos, and apparently according to science, nothing is separate from anything else. Life in the here and now is ever linked to the precondition of the earth while it changes incrementally leading all forms of life in its wake.

You seem to be inferring the existence of free will, more and more the scientific evidence points to free will as a highly functional delusion. This plays hell with the concept of sin as well as the legal system. As it turns out, free will seems nothing more than a manifestation of self-centered ego. Perhaps this realization will lead humanity into greater compassion and a greater humanity.

If one could know the ultimate context, read the cosmos and that of the earth in its place in the cosmos one I think would have a proper starting point. This not being possible, the mere realization of context defines might be of great service. Ucarr, sorry for the long delay, life has a way of interrupting one's intentions.