I didn't say it's an improvement. Just that it's more aware. — Patterner
There may be things we are not aware of that other creatures are. — Patterner
Whose awareness is greater: the monarch butterfly's, — Patterner
At what point did our ancestors not have the capacity for wisdom and understanding the true nature of reality? At what point did they have the capacity, but simply hadn't yet thought of it? — Patterner
Math may have beginning because we noticed repeatable patterns in material objects. But math is not a material object. The mathematical writings in book or on computer screens are material things, but they are not math. They are how we share mathematical ideas. — Patterner
...the mind is never an object of perception... — Wayfarer
...it is 'the unknown knower' to draw on a phrase expressed in Indian philosophy. — Wayfarer
It is never appears to us as object, but as us, as the subject. — Wayfarer
this essay (Nature of Number) takes for granted the division of mind (‘in here’) and world (‘out there’) as being, to all intents, separate realities. And that itself is a metaphysical construction!
— ucarr
Nowhere do I say that - that is your interpretive paradigm. — Wayfarer
Ultimately, what we call “reality” is so deeply suffused with mind- and language-dependent structures that it is altogether impossible to make a neat distinction between those parts of our beliefs that reflect the world “in itself” and those parts of our beliefs that simply express “our conceptual contribution.” The very idea that our cognition should be nothing but a re-presentation of something mind-independent consequently has to be abandoned.
Try to do anything cognitive without special and temporal extension and you’ll soon discover you cannot. — ucarr
...the mind is never an object of perception... — Wayfarer
what kind of existence do they [numbers] have? Mathematical platonists say that numbers are real independently of whether anyone perceives them or not, 'in the same sense', said Frege, 'just as a planet, even before anyone saw it, was in interaction with other planets'. But although they're independent of any particular mind, they can only be grasped by a mind. So they are 'intelligible objects', bearing in mind that 'object' is used in a metaphorical sense of 'the object of thought'. That is the sense in which there is an 'intelligible realm' that doesn't exist on the level of sensory perception (per Plato's analogy of the divided line) but is real in a noetic or intellectual sense. — Wayfarer
You asked these questions:Whose awareness is greater: the monarch butterfly's,
— Patterner
The assumption would be that ours is. If by awareness we mean metacognition - which is generally the starting point from these sorts of discussions. — Tom Storm
Have you just answered them?Is the modern mind an improvement on the pre-modern? How would you measure improvement? More reason, more science, less superstition, less religion? — Tom Storm
Are you perhaps getting your bearings twisted within the hall of mirrors? If the mind appears to us, then it's the object of our perception, is it not? — ucarr
I do acknowledge it. Pinter says:Is it because commentary would necessitate your acknowledgement doing cognition is not physical, — ucarr
In fact, what we regard as the physical world is “physical” to us precisely in the sense that it acts in opposition to our will and constrains our actions. The aspect of the universe that resists our push and demands muscular effort on our part is what we consider to be “physical”. On the other hand, since sensation and thought don’t require overcoming any physical resistance, we consider them to be outside of material reality. It is shown in the final chapter that this is an illusory dichotomy, and any complete account of the universe must allow for the existence of a nonmaterial component which accounts for its unity and complexity. — Pinter, Charles. Mind and the Cosmic Order: How the Mind Creates the Features & Structure of All Things, and Why this Insight Transforms Physics (p. 6). Springer International Publishing. Kindle Edition
Is it not the case the main reason you claim non-binary ideation for yourself is because you do, in fact, believe the phenomenal universe is a derivation and sub-set of immaterial mind? — ucarr
Joshu began the study of Zen when he was sixty years old and continued until he was eighty, when he realized Zen.
He taught from the age of eighty until he was one hundred and twenty.
A student once asked him: "If I haven't anything in my mind, what shall I do?"
Joshu replied: "Throw it out."
"But if I haven't anything, how can I throw it out?" continued the questioner.
"Well," said Joshu, "then carry it out."
Yes, but it has nothing to do with New Age or Eastern religions. As a scientific concept, Holism is now called Systems Theory. Reductionism is appropriate (not erroneous) for scientific applications, such as chemistry, which depends on knowing how single elements affect combinations. For example, carbon typically contributes energetic bonds to compounds, such as coal and carbohydrates. But flammable hydrogen & oxygen combine to produce fire-quenching water H2O. Hence, its holistic properties are different from those of the elements.Holism is one of your main themes?
What are some specific ways materialism reasons erroneously when arriving at its reductionism? — ucarr
No. I know nothing about Lund, beyond the words of the quote. I found that definition on Google, to provide you with an "expert" opinion on "theoretical philosophy", since you seemed to be unaware of the concept. My "distinction" between "theoretical" math and "practical" science is that math deals with abstract (mental) concepts, while science works on concrete (material) objects. For that reason, Math is more like philosophy than chemistry. :nerd:Since you cite this quote from Lund University, I assume it speaks for you. Is it your understanding principles, by definition, are theoretical and therefore subject to revision? . . . . I'm not sure I buy your distinction . . . — ucarr
I don't understand your characterization of "multi-mode" vs "unitary". I call EnFormAction a "shapeshifter", because like physical energy, it can transform into a variety of manifestations. The most famous example is Einstein's E=MC^2 equation of invisible Energy and tangible Matter and a non-dimensional number. They are different expressions of the same essential substance.What’s important for Enformaction is that it not distort the degree to which its multi-mode holism differs from my unary physical holism. The difference is small, not large. The former parallels material/undefined/immaterial whereas the latter subsumes these three categories. — ucarr
It seems to be a physical circumstance were non-physicals can exist in an identifiable physical form. If non-physicals are showing up you should observe they always can be mapped to a physical brain in location and time. — Mark Nyquist
If non-physicals are showing up you should observe they always can be mapped to a physical brain in location and time. — Mark Nyquist
I apologize. I was merely looking for an alternative to "Pessimistic". And the colloquial usage of Cynical seemed to imply a generally gloomy outlook. The ancient Cynics were merely dispassionate. I didn't mean to label you as a fault-finding person. Merely one who can't smell the flowers among the thorns. :joke:I'm not sure about that, but I do know that people use philosophy in this way. I wonder why you have introduced cynicism when nothing I have written is cynical. — Tom Storm
Your post seemed to imply that the world was going to hell in a handbasket. So, I thought I'd cheer you up with some more positive news --- on an evolutionary scale --- not breaking news of the latest broken bones & spirits. I don't classify myself as either Pessimistic or Optimistic, but more like a Peptomist. I see the bad stuff peripherally, but I prefer to focus on the good stuff. And I "see" evidence of long-term progress in the world on a cosmic scale, that gives me hope that there is light at the end of the tunnel. :wink:Why did you drop this question into your response? When did evolution come up? When did progress come up? Are you on a kind of automatic pilot of pedagogical didacticism? — Tom Storm
Immaterial (abstract) entities (essences), such as Consciousness, only "show-up" when a rational Mind infers*1 an invisible immaterial Function associated with a complex material object (brain). You can't "see" the function with your eyes, only with your rational faculty. The mind-function of a brain exists only as a mental representation of an invisible immaterial process of transforming incoming data (grist for the mill) into meaningful outputs (baked bread).If non-physicals are showing up you should observe they always can be mapped to a physical brain in location and time. — Mark Nyquist
...the mind is never an object of perception... — Wayfarer
It is never appears to us as object, but as us, as the subject. — Wayfarer
We can speak of the mind as object in a metaphorical sense, i.e. 'as an object of enquiry', but it is not an object of perception in the sense that objects are. There is no thing called 'mind'. I can think about my thinking, but the act of thought is not itself an object, for the stated reason, that a hand cannot grasp itself. And 'grasping' here is a pretty exact analogy - the mind 'grasps' ideas in an analogously similar way a hand grasps an object but ideas are not physical. — Wayfarer
Try to do anything cognitive without spatial and temporal extension and you’ll soon discover you cannot.
— ucarr
I see you make no comment on this statement. Is it because commentary would necessitate your acknowledgementnotdoing cognition is physical? Such acknowledgement lands you squarely within mind/body dualism — ucarr
I sense in your analysis the inability to conceive of an 'immaterial thing or substance'. But note here I'm not claiming there is any such thing. The 'nonmaterial component' Pinter refers to is not something that exists objectively, rather it is in the operation of observing mind - which we ourselves can never be outside of, or apart from. — Wayfarer
If observing mind holds a concept of objects and, moreover, holds capacity to perceive particular objects conceptually, and if, as you imply, there are no extant immaterial objects that can be perceived conceptually, then you negate, by implication, the objective world of immaterial objects as perceived by observing mind. — ucarr
Your mind knows objectivity, so it also knows conceptually the objects that populate categorical objectivity. — ucarr
you position yourself as a Binary Existence Idealist: there is the phenomenal world of objects and, in a parallel world, there is the pure subjectivity of mind. — ucarr
You claim we can never be outside of our subject-only mind — ucarr
Plainly not. Mathematics, semiotics, many other elements of the mind, are not physical in nature. Cognition draws on all manner of influences and inputs, literal, symbolic, mythological, and many other factors. I think you're grasping at straws, because the denial of the primacy of the physical opens up too many difficult metaphysical questions, in a culture which has proclaimed that metaphysics is dead. We want it to be dead.I want you to respond to the specifics of my argument: cognition by the observing mind, which is tied to the physical processing of the brain, is both literal and physical. — ucarr
I don't understand your characterization of "multi-mode" vs "unitary". I call EnFormAction a "shapeshifter", because like physical energy, it can transform into a variety of manifestations. The most famous example is Einstein's E=MC^2 equation of invisible Energy and tangible Matter and a non-dimensional number. They are different expressions of the same essential substance. — Gnomon
But my thesis goes even further to postulate that several "modes" or phases of unitary EFA are : Energy, Matter, and Mind. I also apply that notion of transformation to the common-but-mysterious physical Phase Transitions, such as plasma-water-steam-ice. In terms of Deacon's triad, EFA serves the causal functions of Thermodynamic, Morpheodynamic, and Teleonomic. — Gnomon
With no background in academic philosophy, I have little depth in the Dualism debate, so I'm just reaching here, not "grasping". My self-acquired quantum physics & information-based worldview seems to require an Idealist foundation ; yet my mundane activities require a Realist belief system. As I have expressed it before : "for all practical (scientific) purposes, I am a Materialist, but for theoretical (philosophical) considerations I am a Mentalist". So, I'm a hybrid animal : an innocent mind in a cartesian demon's lair, so to speak.Notice that the realist objection to this argument is invariably along the lines that 'the world must exist anyway, regardless of any observing mind'. But say that this statement always includes an implicit perspective even while conceiving of a world in the absence of an observer. Without a perspective or scale, nothing meaningful can be said or thought about what exists. — Wayfarer
I hope that my philosophy is compatible with Kant's 'copernican revolution', which is that 'things conform to thoughts, thoughts don't conform to things' — Wayfarer
It is precisely that conception of the world as separate from the self that I am calling into question. The subjective and objective are, as it were, co-arising and mutually conditioning - there is no self without world, and no world without self. — Wayfarer
Notice that the realist objection to this argument is invariably along the lines that 'the world must exist anyway, regardless of any observing mind'. But say that this statement always includes an implicit perspective even while conceiving of a world in the absence of an observer. Without a perspective or scale, nothing meaningful can be said or thought about what exists. — Wayfarer
Yes, both are numbers quantifying qualities (properties). Properties (attributes) are rationally inferrable, but not sensibly visible. Why do you ask? :nerd:Question - Are not both mass and the speed of light invisible? — ucarr
I was not familiar with the term "unary", and I still don't how it is different from "Unitary" or "Holism". Unitary may describe a unique system of parts that together can be considered a single Form (morpho). Holism is similar, but focused more on the internal interrelationships that allow the parts to function together as a unit (teleo).My notion of unary physicalism, like your EnFormAction, encompasses the four phase states you name and furthermore, I currently speculate it also encompasses mind and consciousness via absential materialism, a label that I use to name Deacon's hierarchy of dynamisms: thermo, morpho and teleo. — ucarr
Please remember that I have no formal training in academic Philosophy. So please tell me how you distinguish between "scientific method" and "ontic grammar". Is the latter unscientific speculation? If so, how does it differ from philosophical speculation or scientific hypothesis? :wink:Might it be correct to say your theory encompasses a system that, going forward from antiquity, encompasses both scientific method and ontic grammar. — ucarr
Question - Are not both mass and the speed of light invisible? — ucarr
Yes, both are numbers quantifying qualities (properties). Properties (attributes) are rationally inferrable, but not sensibly visible. Why do you ask? :nerd: — Gnomon
I call EnFormAction a "shapeshifter", because like physical energy, it can transform into a variety of manifestations. The most famous example is Einstein's E=MC^2 equation of invisible Energy and tangible Matter and a non-dimensional number. — Gnomon
I was not familiar with the term "unary", and I still don't how it is different from "Unitary" or "Holism". — Gnomon
Please remember that I have no formal training in academic Philosophy. — Gnomon
I have never thought about this topic to any degree. Now that I am, I think I disagree. I don’t think the things being counted have an attribute called "number."I've been saying math started when humans caught onto patterns based on numbers of physical things. Fingers, being a permanent and handy instance of countable things, launched human understanding of number. Two fingers look different from five fingers. Hah! Now we've started the process. Why do two fingers look different from five fingers? Is it not because fingers, and the like, possess an inherent attribute that can be labeled "number?" Different numbers of the same things look different because things possess the attribute called "number." When their number differs, they, as a group, differ. Indeed, if your piggy bank suddenly becomes possessed of fewer gold coins than yesterday, you become emotionally charged up by the numerical attribute of things. — ucarr
We evolved, and exist, in this universe, with its consistent principles. Meaning they are within us. I think counting is our recognition of these attributes, these consistent principles, of the universe. It makes sense that we recognize the principles of our own existence when we see them outside of ourselves. It wouldn't make sense if we were surprised every time we added 2 and 2, and came up with 4. — Patterner
The universe is consistent. Laws of physics, mathematics, and whatever else, are the same everywhere...If they were not, we would have chaos, and I doubt life would have arisen at all. — Patterner
We evolved, and exist, in this universe, with its consistent principles. Meaning they are within us. I think counting is our recognition of these attributes, these consistent principles, of the universe. It makes sense that we recognize the principles of our own existence when we see them outside of ourselves. — Patterner
Do you believe a brain confined to a vat will eventually start counting? — ucarr
Certainly not. I don't believe a human could come to any intelligence or consciousness under those circumstances. I believe sensory input is essential. — Patterner
No. I did not, and do not, declare the order is designed.You go on to declare that life wouldn't be possible without the designed and pervasive order of the universe as its ground. — ucarr
Yes. The order pre-existed the life that arose within it.You present a picture of naturally ordered life arising from pre-existing order. — ucarr
Again, I did not, and do not, acknowledge design.You acknowledge designed order is imbibed into human genome from the forces and materials from which it has arisen. — ucarr
No, I did not, and do not, describe cosmic mind.This is your description of cosmic mind meeting human mind. — ucarr
I think humans noticed an attribute of the universe's order. This attribute existed before any being able to notice did so. So no, we didn't invent it. We noticed it, and named it. Then we worked to understand it better. Then we expanded the field of study in ways that we never noticed - indeed, could not possibly notice - by observing objects.You don't believe numbers are a human invention: — ucarr
But it seems, from my limited musings on the topic, that the attribute we named is of the universe's order, not of objects. But, serious question, does it ever make a difference? — Patterner
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.