But you changed the investigation I brought up. It's not that acorns will become oak trees, it's that all oak trees were acorns. Why? — Marty

Because this particular potential (among others) was realised by an acorn’s interaction with the world.

I don’t believe the modality of acorns is rationally constrained - at least, not from the top down.

Doesn't work. You said these structure of the parts are dynamically built. So you're going up (relationally), not down (through discrete parts making the whole). — Marty

It does work - you’re just not accustomed to looking at the universe as a dynamically built relational structure. It’s a paradigm shift. The ‘whole’ is the origin - the ‘parts’ are only perceived as discrete in ignorance of this relational ‘whole’. So it’s not so much discrete parts making the whole, but rather the whole increasing awareness, connection and collaboration with itself through dynamic structural relations.

So the modality of acorns is constrained by ignorance - in the dynamic structure of interacting ‘parts’ - of the relational ‘whole’.

You also can't generate any normativity this way — never form a belief which can be in accordance with what a thing is. — Marty

Normativity is just perceived value/potential as a prediction for future interactions based on information from past interactions. Beliefs are not formed according to what a thing IS, but always according to this perceived potential, which is necessarily uncertain and subjective.

define ‘purpose’ is necessarily limited by the relativity of perspective.

Why is it that, despite organisms being a dynamic process, they have at least a relatively fixed process? That is, I can change some of the environmental pressures and the organism remains intact in some ways. What is this regulation or maintenance of its parts if not at least a relative telos? Why does the inner seem preserved? And if there is some level of preservation, does this not at least show a inner-outer distinction to some extent? — Marty

What you call ‘relative telos’, I’m calling perceived potential - the semantic difference is one of perspective. Telos assumes objective knowledge, but it is this ‘objectivity’ that is unknown as such. Your term is as useful as ‘relative truth’ or ‘relative infinity’.

The inner is not ‘preserved’ - it is sustained as a dynamic relational structure. Inner-outer distinction is each system striving to sustain the current structure by ignoring, isolating or excluding new information on the relational whole. This occurs to some extent all the way down to basic atomic structure. In self-aware organisms it manifests as fear, but the process is the same. This is what constrains forms, and it isn’t rational at all.

In my view, all actuality is a result of interactions between potentiality, manifest in one, two, three and four-dimensional relations.

Aristotle recognised that, in our experience, potentiality precedes actuality - until you reach the point of origin. Here, inexplicably, he flips it - purely to avoid the idea of something coming from what Aristotle views as just a passive vessel, as ‘nothing’.

Yet we understand that energy, to which all matter is related, originates in the interaction of potentiality.

But the whole idea of value hierarchy is where the problem lies, because potentiality IS value. The ‘highest thing’ has this perceived potential - regardless of which value system you apply.

For me, there are four things that count as needs:

-Water
-Food
-Shelter
-Medication

...whilst the rest remain as wants. But, here is a question to the reader:

When I have satisfied all my needs, then should my focus shift towards the entertainment of wants? How do you go about satisfying wants if all your needs are met? — Shawn

I think our systemic needs are more basic than this. We don’t need food, shelter and medication as such, but we do need the availability of nutrition as a supply of energy, vitamins and minerals as well as water and resources to regulate energy use and make repairs, in order to sustain the most basic chemical processes of the organism. But if survival is our goal, then even satisfying this list can sustain us only for a time, and simultaneously fail to fully ‘satisfy’ what may be a more fundamental impetus to life. I think this is why we decide to upgrade certain wants to the level of ‘need’: because we don’t really understand what it is that we still need. It’s a guessing game, almost.

Our system isn’t structured to maximise survival, or even dominance. In my view, it’s structured to maximise awareness, connection and collaboration instead. This is evidenced by a demonstrated capacity to access, process and integrate complex information and build elaborate environmental and social structures that can incorporate, imitate and collaborate with everything with which we interact. It’s also evidenced by a demonstrated capacity to prioritise these complex processes above striving to meet even this ‘basic’ list of needs, sometimes to the point of death, without necessarily understanding why.

We live in a society where happiness is valued above all else. Happiness is on everyone's mind: Gotta do this or that to be happy. If you're not happy there's something wrong with you. Sadness is associated with mental illness. Nobody has time for your sadness. "Get over it", "why don't you just be happy?", "oh, stop being so miserable", "don't bring everybody down", etc..

I'm fine with people wanting to be happy, but I don't believe we should suppress our negative feelings. There's a lot to be sad about: the world we live in is far from perfect, misery is a part of life. Let's not turn our back on all misfortune in this world and pretend it doesn't exist.

When I think about all the sad and horrible things in the world, knowing I can't do anything about it except feel sad, I feel a sense of joy. It's hard to explain, but I find pleasure when I know things are truly hopeless. Does anyone else feel the same way? — Wheatley

Happiness is a temporarily introspected positive affect. The notion that it’s even possible to somehow attain this with any permanency is false. And yet the majority of society is built on this false notion and the various illusions that perpetuate it.

There is joy to be found in understanding the truth of our experience, and the transience of joy is part of that truth. Recognising that the pursuit of happiness as a future permanent state (rather than ‘things’ in general) is ‘hopeless’ can open up our awareness to the joy available in each moment as it passes through our experience. Happiness isn’t found in the future or the past, but in each now. So is sadness. We don’t need to expend so much effort to avoid feeling sad when we understand that the next moment has just as much potential for happiness as sadness - we just have to look for it. Sadness enables us to connect to the world with awareness, integrity and patience so much more fully than if we strive only for happiness (and vice versa).

I think we continue to make the mistake of assuming that ‘prior’ to the Big Bang, everything still needs to be explained in relation to spacetime. We’re talking about potential energy and ‘interacting’ fields of quantum potentiality, after all - none of which need pertain to four-dimensional spacetime in order to exist.

My grasp of the physics in all this is not great, I’ll admit. But it seems to me that most of the issues might be resolved by proposing a fifth-dimensional aspect, which manifests an unfolding, observable universe (including spacetime itself) out of relating field potentialities and/or values regardless of spatial or temporal properties.

We commonly reduce potentiality to four, three, two and even one-dimensional information in order to make use of it, but each time we do that we effectively ignore the relativity of that information to all aspects of reality: we’re assuming at least one aspect relates with a zero, identical or constant value instead of a relative variable. And then we forget to take that into account when we apply the concepts back to reality, because the majority of our interaction occurs below conscious awareness of a fifth dimension. That is, we experience ‘reality’ in time, in space, as shape and at distance, but we think of potential or value as something else entirely.

As far as I can see, the ‘multiverse’ has no spatio-temporal properties. What’s more, space and time have only potentially infinite values...

Singing can be a social thing, but it can also be an alone thing. Music is about relationships of sound - so I’d say that singing is more of a relationship thing, whether you do it alone or with others.

I have a tendency to sing alone in my car, or else with others who I know share my appreciation of music and song. I think often when we sing alone, it’s for company or reassurance - more effective (and less crazy) than talking to yourself, anyway.

Lately I’ve been enjoying the challenge of picking out a harmony when I sing along to music. There’s something about a collaboration of voices that raises the spirits and inspires a collaboration of effort and experience - like working or worshipping or concerts or karaoke or those sing-along ABBA and The Sound of Music shows...

Does it require willpower to entertain self-love? — Shawn

You don’t ‘entertain’ self-love. Let me go back a step, and try to meet you where you’re at...

Jesus is said to have claimed that one ought not treat others in a manner that they would not treat themselves. I believe that such a sentiment cannot arise without self-love. Self-love requires one to be consistent and have a high self-esteem. — Shawn

Jesus’ message was to challenge the notion of ‘self-love’ that requires us to devalue what is ‘not-self’ in order to value and realise our own potential in relation to it. What he asks is that we love others with the same value as we love ourselves - that we perceive and realise our potential and value as intertwined with the potential and value of those with whom we interact, rather than isolated or exclusive. There is NO need to be consistent, or to have high self-esteem. Integrity, self-awareness and patience are where it starts. There IS need for courage, too - not so much ‘willpower’.

I doubt that Jesus expected this to be understood during his lifetime - he simply demonstrated the potential.

Just because the probability isn’t high, doesn’t mean the potential isn’t there.

I don't understand.Just because you can change ends, or the potential can change, it doesn't mean that things aren't working dynamically towards ends. And of course acorns are going to become tree unless they are inhibited. This is demonstrated in the case that no oak trees came from elephants, whales, humans, dandelions, etc. There is something that rationally constrains the modality of acorns. Notice all oak tress came from an acorn. Wild! — Marty

Things are working dynamically, but not necessarily towards ends - this remains debatable, particularly when you look closely at what it is that changes. An acorn is going to more readily become food for squirrels or compost than an oak tree - that’s not a failure or inhibition, it’s an alternatively perceived potential or value. Yes, only an acorn can become an oak tree, but becoming an oak tree is not an acorn’s sole purpose, and to perceive it as such is to limit your perception of its potential and value.

The end itself is not changing here: the acorn’s ‘purpose’ is manifest relative to perceived potential or value, and subsequent awareness, connection and collaboration on the part of contributors to the process. Without an opportunity for water to be aware of, connected to and collaborating with this acorn’s potential at a sufficient level, for instance, it will not become an oak tree. Rationality only enters this relationship if I consciously interact with either or both the water and/or the acorn to facilitate their interaction with each other. In this process I am aware of, connected to and collaborating with what I perceive of the relative and interacting potential and value of the acorn, the water and myself. I haven’t changed ‘ends’ here, only realised a certain potential. Who’s to say the acorn cannot become anything except an oak tree?

I don’t believe the modality of acorns is rationally constrained - at least, not from the top down. The structure of an acorn constrains its modality, but not to the extent that it is destined only to become an oak tree. There is potential to an acorn that is yet to be realised - not to become a whale or a dandelion, but in the same way that we eventually realised potential and value in mould and bacteria. We may never realise additional potential in an acorn, whatever it is, but it remains an unknown element to the purpose of an acorn.

So you can talk about ‘purpose’ or telos, but in truth it will always be open-ended, and any attempt to define ‘purpose’ is necessarily limited by the relativity of perspective. That’s okay - as long as you recognise it as such. It isn’t a purpose you’re referring to - it’s perceived potential or value.

Yes, well, this seems like a common theme of yours, about inter-connectivity. Yet, most people feel very lonely and sad being themselves.

How do you explain this feature of the world, that leaves us feeling desolated with our own thoughts? — Shawn

That’s kind of the point. It doesn’t help to try and define ourselves as a separate entity in relation to the world - this is where the loneliness stems from. When I feel the need to draw a conceptual line where my ‘self’ ends and the rest of the world begins, then I am ignoring, isolating and excluding information to achieve this. To try and achieve self-love and loving others with this separate perspective of ourselves leads to uncharitable comparisons, as well as fear, hatred ignorance and oppression - either towards ourselves or towards the world.

The idea is to stop trying to define ourselves as an individual in relation to the world, but rather as a particular manifestation of the potential of an interconnected universe. It doesn’t matter where I end and you begin - in loving you, I am not choosing you instead of myself, but rather choosing to realise the potential of these connections that are as much a part of me as they are of you.

Speaking of Dostoevsky, the "abstract system" that claims to have an exact answer for "everything in this world" is science. What abstract systems that create the illusion of knowledge were you referring to? — David Mo

My apologies, I haven’t read Dostoevsky, so I’m probably out of my depth - just responding to the quote out of context.

Interesting that the ‘systems and abstract deductions’ is what he refers to as science. Science could just as easily be ‘the evidence of his senses’, depending on how you approach it.

Many ideologies create the illusion of knowledge through systems and abstract deductions, including religion, logic and philosophy, as well as science. It is science, of these four, at least, which values the evidence of the senses in a process of checks and balances - although I will concede that many areas of science are somewhat removed from the senses these days. But these other three ‘illusions of knowledge’ inspire a readiness to deny the evidence of the senses in order to justify logic, more so than science.

It’s often when we apply scientific method to them that these systems either fail or transform into a more dynamic search for an answer to ‘how to deal with the world’ without expecting to close the knowledge gap completely. that’s my experience, anyway.

A parable is a story illustrating a moral or spiritual lesson. I imagine the lesson you’re going for is something along the lines of: ‘The relationship of mankind to god is like reaching for a hand and hoping for more than a hand’.

I think the difference between love for oneself radiating outward and egoism or vanity is regarding the ‘self’ as distinct from others, as isolated or exclusive in some way.

Love is an action of realising potential and value.

When we love ourselves, with all our limitations, as interconnected with the world, then this love radiates outward. We can maximise perceived potential and value and transcend our limitations in increasing our awareness, connection and collaboration with the world.

To love the ‘self’ as an individual and exclusive entity in relation to a separate world, however, is to maximise our own potential and value by decreasing our perception of relative potential and value in everything else. Likewise, to love ourselves as an exclusive entity with all our limitations, we limit our love for the world.

It is one thing to defend science and another to believe that science explains everything and that there is no more rationality than science. This is a position that is rarely found among philosophers and is very common among forum scientists. — David Mo

I’m not sure what you’re trying to argue here in relation to what I’ve written. I haven’t said anything about ‘science’ in particular.

"But man has such a predilection for systems and abstract deductions that he is ready to distort the truth intentionally, he is ready to deny the evidence of his senses only to justify his logic."

On what grounds have Dostoyevsky made such a remark? Is there at all any truth in this? — Zeus

Plenty of truth to this. With systems and abstract deductions comes a sense of order and the illusion that we understand exactly how to deal with the world. The evidence of the senses points out our prediction errors: what doesn’t fit, doesn’t make sense in relation to these systems, and subsequently requires attention, energy and effort to adjust how we’ve structured these interrelated systems so far - energy we’ve already allocated elsewhere. This is when we experience pain, humility, loss and lack: what we call suffering. By denying the evidence of our senses, we attempt to avoid this suffering. No sensory evidence, no prediction error, no pain.

I sense a difference between potential, understood as a talent that could be developed and purpose, umderstood as the reason why someone was born. I can't think of someone off the top of my hat but I hear stories of people with the potential to do something but their purpose was something else entirely. Here's one:

In my OP it seems I tried to align potential with purpose which now seems incorrect insofar that they may not point in the same direction. The best that can be said perhaps is that since potential is something that one naturally likes to fulfill and purpose lacks this feature in that you may not like your purpose, it follows that if our potential is our purpose it would be most desirable. — TheMadFool

It’s not so much that they point in different directions. This is a misunderstanding that stems from thinking of purpose at a reduced level of awareness. There is a tendency to think of purpose only in terms of what we believe we can or should accomplish: excluding illogical, irrational, immoral and improbable possibilities - but this isn’t purpose, it’s potential/value.

Our purpose is inclusive of but also extends beyond what we think we are capable of, or what we think we might like. This is why people sometimes demonstrate potential in one area, only to discover a sense of purpose in doing something they never expected. It isn’t that their purpose previously lacked value - they simply lacked awareness of that value.

Sometimes this happens when, say, a star footballer sustains a permanent injury, and is forced to rediscover their potential and value in an alternative, initially undesirable career - one that turns out to be ultimately more rewarding in terms of interrelated potential and value. They may not make the same money or be perceived as a purely physical asset, but rather perceive their value and potential in terms of social, ethical or intellectual capacity and contribution.

Look, if there's conceptual content, if there's dynamic, interrelation, holism, if things are operating towards ends... What the hell is purpose if not that? I'm not presupposing a personal God here. It's like I'm making a pizza with pepperoni, dough, ketchup, and you tell me, "Why are you calling that a pizza!?" — Marty

But ‘things’ are not operating towards ends that can be objectively defined. There is purpose, sure - but what we understand of that purpose is relative to perceived potential. It’s not like a pizza, which is a particular arrangement of potential in pepperoni, dough and ketchup. Purpose refers to every possible way of combining pepperoni, dough and ketchup. Just because the only way you can perceive to combine them is as a pizza, does not make ‘pizza’ into ‘purpose’.

I was reading your post and I can't see what I actually disagree with. So it just leads me to believe you don't really disagree with me. — Marty

Let me clarify: arguments against teleology are not necessarily denying teleology. They do, however, highlight the limitations of employing teleology as an explanation. I have yet to come across another ‘teleological explanation’ that isn’t ignorant of or deliberately excluding causal conditions and/or dimensional aspects.

So, let’s go back to the OP:

How is it that an object, a human, every part of which has purpose, itself as a whole, lacks purpose or, more accurately, if a human has purpose, why hasn't it been discovered? — TheMadFool

Because each of us determines ‘purpose’ relative to perceived potential. We tend to think they are one and the same, but they’re not. So our concept of ‘purpose’ is limited, because we fail to distinguish between purpose and perceived potential, which in my view is a distinction of dimensional aspect.

The hypothetical necessity shows that the potential is going to occur unless there is something that stops it. Are you denying dispositional potentials? — Marty

No - I’m saying that the manifestation of dispositional potential is limited by the interacting perspective. There is more dispositional potential to an object than one can observe/measure. The dispositional potential of an acorn, for instance, is for greater than becoming an oak tree. And it isn’t that the acorn is going to become an oak tree unless there is something that stops it, either. Becoming an oak tree is not necessarily the purpose of an acorn, just as becoming a chicken is not necessarily the purpose of an egg.

So you agree in teleology then?

Interrelation and dynamism is indicative of teleological systems, though. And why can't there be a dynamic system within the entire cosmos? You just take the dynamism to the whole. — Marty

Teleology I have no problem with - it’s the explanations I disagree with, so my approach to it is always one of caution. Interrelation and dynamism is indicative of Darwinian evolutionary theory, for example - but I have serious problems with its interpretation in relation to explanations of purpose. Natural selection need not be explained as ‘survival of the fittest’, and the purpose of life is NOT to maximise survival, dominance and proliferation of the species. These teleological explanations (like most) are ignorant of contributing causal conditions and dimensional aspects of reality that point to a MUCH broader and more relative dispositional potential (and therefore purpose) than our limited perspective assumes.

My view of purpose vs cause is one of BOTH/AND: for me, the impetus underlying the cosmos is both teleological and random, and it is our limited perspective that determines our intentional capacity. What matters to the whole is awareness/ignorance, connection/isolation and collaboration/exclusion.

I see the ultimate purpose AND cause of the cosmos as maximising awareness, connection and collaboration. It is the value attributed to preserving identity which limits this capacity - whether at the level of atoms, molecules, objects, events, organisms, persons, ideologies, etc. In order to change, we must let go of this fear of losing an identity constructed entirely of ongoing relationships whose potential is limited only by ignorance, isolation and exclusion. It is this courage that has inspired the Big Bang, chemical reaction, the origin of life, consciousness, curiosity and love.

I certainly don't see how this is identical to the same type of imposition of a form that an artisan gives to a painting. — Marty

From an outsider’s observation of an artist, it looks like imposition. But the artist would understand that the creative process is the same - that they impart something of themselves into the work.

Ah, okay. Well, when the artisan 'imparts' his concept onto the work of art, the art doesn't take on the inherent form of the artisan. All it does it take on the concept of the artisan. Whereas, in parent-offspring relationships, the form is passed on, inherited. That is, the organism is the cause and effect of the organism — reproduces itself as a species. — Marty

The entire form is not normally passed on, though. The offspring takes on only the concept of the species, just like the art. What is passed on is information regarding the form of the parent, but that information is both incomplete and altered by the interaction of both the parent and the information itself with the environment. Again, you’re ignoring the other causal conditions that contribute to ‘reproduction’. The parent organism only contributes to the cause and effect of its offspring - it does not fully reproduce itself, but rather connects and collaborates - often with an available sexual partner, with the protein and other material available to construct the DNA, and with additional information regarding the potential of the offspring, integrated from their own interactions with the world (For example, there is a particular ‘switch’ in our DNA that the parent switches ‘on’ during prolonged famine conditions, which alters the way their offspring’s metabolism will operate).

So, too, the artisan contributes to the cause and effect of the art, in collaboration with the material, the environment and tools they have available, and the concept of potentiality constructed in their mind from their own interactions with the world.

The difference here is only in the ignorance of contributing causal conditions.

I'm not sure I see the difference. — Marty

That’s interesting, because you did distinguish between extrinsic and intrinsic teleology with this example:

the offspring's inheritance in DNA (it's form) is going to not be imparted but passed on from the parent — Marty

I agree that there is no difference, and therefore no distinction. I just wanted to clear that up before we continued.

I think that's a reasonable concern. However, you don't have to isolate them, actually. You can see how identities (subjects, objects, processes, etc) are relative towards the surrounding context and it's dynamic relationship to others objects (or processes, whatever). I generally think that the inner is described through the outer, and outer defined through the inner. However, that dynamic relationship still manages to build an identity, and what we would consider a relative form of teleology. That's why the teleology can change based on the surrounding contexts. However, changing the surroundings contexts slightly doesn't generally seem to eliminate the dispositional (and teleological) qualities intrinsic to the organism generally — the organism dispositions 'resists' against environmental changes, and preserve its own homeostatic nature. And it can only do this dynamically. So, the metabolic structure of an animal in a harsh environment won't stop functioning. It will stop functioning if you place that animal in space or something. So I'm not an absolutist about natures, or teleology. They are hypothetical necessities generally. But I don't think anyone (including Aristotle) would deny this.

I think if you accept that things function dynamically, you won't believe in discrete causal activity, but start working more top-down. Which, imho, is teleological. — Marty

All teleology IS relative - it comes and goes depending on your perspective of the situation - in particular on your awareness of, connection to and collaboration with dimensional aspects of reality. The more you increase awareness of this inner arrangement to a subject, object or process, and the dynamic relationships that build this identity, the less teleological it appears to be, because everything is interrelated.

Which then brings us to the teleological explanation of ‘top-down’ meaning/purpose. This is where our perspective of intention skips a dimensional aspect again, and suggests that everything and everyone has a specific purpose intended for us, our awareness of which often conflicts with the individual will of the organism. My problem with this perspective is that it ignores the distinction between value/potential and meaning/purpose. The teleology comes from assuming value or perceived potential is equal to the end-goal or purpose.

Teleological explanations don't work this way. Because teleological explanations don't have the premise located in the conclusion like this. That is, the ball having telos to be orientated towards falling down (due to a slope) because it's falling down. Teleological explainations (at least the ones I'm talking about) are dispositional qualities intrinsic to the organisms. — Marty

My point is that teleological explanations necessarily isolate an interaction from the conditions in which it occurs. It sounds ridiculous when you try to identify telos here because to do so, you would need to isolate the action of falling down the slope from the conditions of moving forward on the cue’s impact, or vice versa. The ball curves to the left as it moves forward from the cue’s impact due to a slope in the table.

‘Dispositional’ refers to arrangement, particularly in relation to other things. You can try to isolate these qualities from the relational structures that determine them, but again you’re ignoring the causal conditions in which this particular arrangement occurs in the organism.

They don't "come" from anything. They are constitutive of the object/process/state of things. Perhaps those things come from something else, but that doesn't make them ateleological. — Marty

So, what you’re saying is that it’s ‘teleological’ if you ignore the causal conditions contributing to the object/process/state of things? Isn’t that like saying the billiard ball has a mind of its own?

That would only be true for extrinsic teleology, not intrinsic. — Marty

Extrinsic teleology is imparting a teleology through the intention of an artisan onto an artifact. It's direction is proportional to the concept that's implanted by the artisan. The purpose of a factory and how it functions is derived from the extrinsic concept of a designer.

Intrinsic teleology is one in which the telos is immanent to the organism and it's form. An example might be the offspring's inheritance in DNA (it's form) is going to not be imparted but passed on from the parent. Generally, an organism doesn't have a form of extrinsic teleology that establishes its causal functions derivatively. — Marty

How is ‘passed on’ not the same as ‘imparted’ in relation to DNA information? What’s the difference?

We can’t measure them - we can subjectively relate to possibilities, and perceive the potential manifested from this interaction.
To observe is to look at theevidence in time, the thing or event.
— Possibility
"Subjectively relate to possibilities" sounds like extrasensory perception, or simple imagination. If the "evidence" is invisible --- "But they are not observed, nor do they happen" --- how can we "look" at it, and how could we "perceive potential manifestations"? To me, "potential" is un-manifested. So, again the notion of multi-Dimensional Awareness does not compute for my puny 4-dimensional brain. :brow: — Gnomon

Imagination - yes. Perception is subjective, ‘seeing’ with the mind or understanding. Your mind is not only four-dimensional - if you’re capable of communicating conceptually and imagining pink elephants, then you’re already perceiving potential. There is no actual pink elephant, only a potential one, in your mind and in mine. They’re potentially the same one. But they have no four-dimensional existence. These words I’ve typed here point to (or manifest) the potential existence of a pink elephant by relating two concepts and integrating the difference in potential. Now you have the opportunity to perceive the pink elephant’s potential, too - as ‘minor’ as it is. Of course, you can choose to exclude it as ‘impossible’, or you can allow your mind to relate to the possibilities... in collaboration with, say, a tin of paint...:wink:

So relational structure is how one integrates information from increasing awareness, connection and collaboration at each dimensional level
— Possibility
Sounds like "raising consciousness" by "opening the third eye". Does that kind of dimensional "enlightenment" come from deep mindless meditation, or can it be achieved by mindful reasoning? :nerd: — Gnomon

This is what we do everyday. It’s just a different way of describing it. The reason I use this language is because it enables me to interrelate one through to six dimensional relations without having to switch discourse. I’ve noticed that it can be difficult for someone to follow if they need to keep translating every time they relate on a different dimensional level. We tend to see the first three dimensions simply as ‘space’, for instance, and then relate objects in that space to time as universal ‘spacetime’. What we perceive outside of that is separated as ‘mental’. But from my perspective, it’s important to understand how each dimensional structure of relations manifests reality and also relates to the dimensional levels of awareness, connection and collaboration above and below, so to speak. I think the gaps in our understanding of quantum mechanics, abiogenesis and consciousness illustrate how important these dimensional awareness shifts are in how we understand reality as a whole. I’m trying to articulate a conceptual structure that enables us to bridge those gaps and navigate all six dimensions at once, but to do that we need to be prepared to deconstruct current concepts into an alternative discursive structure. Your approach is to develop new words, but I think it’s the same challenge we’re facing.

I don’t see it as a ‘third eye’ or ‘higher consciousness’ thing - for me, it’s a recognition that interacting mindfully ‘outside the box’ and finding a way to integrate that information into our conceptualisation of ‘reality’ is what drives our understanding of the universe.

I'm not quite sure if I follow how this is an argument against teleology.

You seem to be saying there is an analogy between teleological explanations and efficient causation. But a billiard ball moving because of an external force, exerting momentum onto another ball, doesn't seem to be indicative of what teleology is. It seem as though what teleology is is having a certain goal-orientated action behind what a thing is doing, explicated in virute of a concept (a norm). But that seems to be true of everything for me. — Marty

Both teleological explanations and efficient causation derive from Aristotlean philosophy, which attempts to ‘solve’ the problem of infinite regress with the actual external existence of a ‘first cause’. When you say everything that occurs has a goal-orientated action behind it, this is essentially what you’re proposing: an intention that exists external to the occurrence.

What you’re not addressing, however, is what this intention is and where it comes from. This is where teleological explanations don’t really explain - rather they hide behind the ambiguity of concepts such as ‘goal’ and ‘purpose’ to imply an actual ‘force’.

I think you’re missing the duality of intention in my description of the billiard ball’s movement. Unless you’re aware of, connected to and collaborating with the slope in the table or spin direction, then either of these effects on the ball’s movement across the table is external to your intention in exerting momentum onto the ball. But the effect of the slope in the table isn’t a goal-orientated action, either, but a causal condition of the four-dimensional event that is the ball’s movement across the table. It’s when you’re unaware of the slope that it appears to be either an external force or a goal-orientated action (the ball having a mind of its own). Once you’re aware of it as a three-dimensional relation to the space in which the ball’s movement occurs, you can allow for the slope, so that the effect is no longer external to the occurrence but incorporated into your action.

What I’m trying to get at is that what we think of as an external ‘force’ or a goal-directed action points (in my view) to a dimensional aspect of reality that we haven’t taken into account. Once we’re aware of this dimensional relation and can collaborate with it or allow for it within our actions, it’s no longer teleological - there would be no intention that exists external to the occurrence.

If I don't observe a thing or event, how could I perceive any potential that is relevant to those non-entities? By extrasensory perception, or pure imagination? Are these "six-dimensional structures" what most of us call Ghosts? If they are invisible & intangible & infinitely possible, how could we measure their non-physical dimensions? :brow: — Gnomon

We can’t measure them - we can subjectively relate to possibilities, and perceive the potential manifested from this interaction.

To observe is to look at the evidence in time, the thing or event. To perceive is to understand the value structures and potentiality by which an event is determined and initiated. Much of our education system builds on our capacity to perceive potential without necessarily having personally observed the predicted event. This is how we read music, for instance.

Six-dimensional structures allow us to take this another step further: to create a potential and value-rich experience in our minds that isn’t related to any particular observable event...yet. Most creative processes operate at least partly in this realm, conceiving new potential in the world by relating perceived potential beyond what we already know of infinite possibility.

Excess thought in its most apparent form occurs when someone is suffering a panic attack. Granted the effect is in the body, but the cause is from the thought. Not all excessive thought results in a panic attack, because it depends on the nature of the thought. If the thought is of impending doom, especially if that is linked to ones life in the form of imminent death, then the panic attack occurs. If real physical death is felt to be imminent, then it doesnt occur the same way. So the panic attack occurs when the thought is there, but there is no real physical threat. Of course, there are degrees as in scale, sometimes it might just be anxiety or unease rather than full blown panic attack. Either way the origin is the thought. — Antidote

The problem here is not excess thought, it’s how we perceive prediction error, which is experienced as humility, pain, loss or lack. We generally refer to this as suffering, and we do our best to avoid it.

But prediction error is simply a recognition that how we conceptualise or think of reality doesn’t correspond to our sensory experience of the present moment. It’s a challenge to find the energy, attention and effort to process this new information at the time because the body operates on limited resources, which have already been allocated in advance. Do we hold onto our concepts as they are, or do we adjust them to accomodate this new information?

Anxiety, unease or full-blown panic attack occurs when we don’t recognise the internal negative affect from prediction error as our sensory experience challenging the concepts we use to make these predictions. Interoception of negative internal affect interprets this new sensory information from the present moment as the cause and therefore an imminent physical threat, and prepares the system accordingly. Instead of allocating energy to integrate the new information, the body allocates energy to generate a fight-or-flight response to this ‘offending’ information.

Entity : "a thing with distinct and independent existence."
Phenomenon : "a fact or situation that is observed to exist or happen, especially one whose cause or explanation is in question". — Gnomon

Well, it’s neither of these at this level.

Structure: the arrangement of and relations between the parts or elements of something complex.

I apply the qualifier ‘relational’ to emphasise the distinction from structure as ‘a building or other object constructed from several parts’. These six-dimensional relational structures I’m referring to are not independent from all other relational structures that constitute the universe. But they are not observed, nor do they happen - we perceive potential which points to their possible existence, and we imagine, test and refine our understanding of the possible relations which manifest that potential.

If the "dimensional awareness" is not an "entity", what is it, a phenomenon? I don't know what my "G*D" is. All I know is what it does : enform, create, etc. What does your DA do? :smile: — Gnomon

Dimensional awareness, connection and collaboration manifests as relational structure. Awareness of a three-dimensional aspect manifests as objects, environment, earth, sky, etc. Awareness etc of ‘time’ or a four-dimensional aspect manifests as life, beings, events, death, etc. Awareness etc of value or potential manifests as metaphysical will, phenomenon, morality, gods, knowledge, reason, logic, mathematics, etc. And awareness etc of absolute possibility, a dimensional awareness beyond a maximum and all-inclusive potential, manifests as your ‘G*D’, Brahman, the One, the All, the meaning of everything, the ‘unknowable’, ‘radical otherness’ and other ‘God’ concepts and atheist alternatives at a level beyond value - inclusive of ‘evil’, illogical and irrational ‘impossibility’, etc.

So relational structure is how one integrates information from increasing awareness, connection and collaboration at each dimensional level. Notice that some of these concepts are named in such a way that they encourage a relation of ignorance, isolation and/or exclusion instead.

An excess of thought profits nothing. If thought were the natural outcome or effect, brought on by confusion, then the more you think, the more confused you will get. Does thinking therefore add anything to understanding, or does an absense of thought allow insight to arise? If intuition were the voice of reason, but it were quiter than the overbearing voice of thought, would you ever hear it. A room full of people talking all at once, creates a song, not a conversation.

Does understanding arise as a result of thought, or in the gaps between thoughts. — Antidote

Both. In a way I get what you’re trying to allude to: that thought is not understanding. But it’s not so much the rejection of thinking that allows for insight, but the broadening of the mind to include information beyond thoughts. Buddhist teaching advocates a clearing of the mind in order to gain awareness of the wealth of information available in each moment, and to recognise that the mind does not consist only of thoughts - but in no way does it suggest that thinking adds nothing to understanding.

Thinking enables us to conceptualise reality in relational structures well beyond our sensory experience of the present moment. But it is information from an ever-changing present moment, and with it a humble recognition that these relational structures of ours are limited and prone to prediction error, that enable us to continually improve our understanding.

It is in relating to what lies beyond our thinking - not in reducing our thinking - that promotes understanding. This means increasing awareness, connection and collaboration with what we consider to be ‘unthinkable’: inclusive of improbable, illogical, irrational and immoral possibilities. The information these relations provide is vital to a more accurate understanding of reality.

All thought is information, but not all information is thought.

Come on, "-billi-"! Don't complicate my simple mundane analogy with cubic possi-bili-ties. :grin: — Gnomon

Not complicating, but extending - and spherical possibilities, to be precise :joke:

I was taking the opportunity to illustrate the dimensional awareness that forms the basis of my theory. Gratuitous, I know.

If the "relational structures" that cause the appearance of purpose or programming are beyond the reach of human senses, then we might as well call it by the common name for such entities : God. — Gnomon

Not necessarily, because I’m not referring to an entity as such - and I find that naming it in this way can limit our capacity to approach an understanding of what it is we’re referring to.

So, in my theory, The End is not completely specified, but is open to course changes due to inherent contingencies. And one kind of contingency is human Free Will. — Gnomon

Out of curiosity, what other inherent contingencies do you envisage?

A billiard ball normally transmits the input force to the next ball without any thought or intention. But if a ball suddenly changed course, ignoring the Aim of the shooter, we could assume from its behavior that the ball had developed a mind of its own. Or that it had been programmed to change direction in mid-course. Such things don't "just occur" without some reason, some internal purpose. Purpose and Programming provide internal guidance to a target. — Gnomon

Billiard balls appear to operate only on a two-dimensional plane, but this isn’t the case - they’re three-dimensional objects. You can make a billiard ball appear to change direction mid-course, by interacting with it on a three-dimensional level. We assume the table is perfectly horizontal, so an unknown slope or dip can ‘cause’ the ball to change course. You can also apply vertical spin to the ball, which can make the ball appear to stop in its tracks or continue on a trajectory despite colliding with another ball, for instance.

The point is, if you’re only looking at the movement of billiard balls as two-dimensional, then they will sometimes appear to have a ‘will’ of their own, or ‘internal’ guidance towards some ‘end-goal’ we’re unaware of as an external observer. But it’s more likely interaction with an additional aspect of the ball’s existence - intentional or otherwise. The same thing occurs with four, five and even six-dimensional relations - the more we are aware of, connected to and collaborating with these additional aspects of existence, the less mysterious, more variable and more interactive the apparent purpose or programming.

It seems definitionally all teleology is is end-goal activity, or cyclical activity (the maintenance of some cyclical function). So why is it that the body functions dynamically with all it's parts (or rather processes) to produce things like homeostasis or metabolism? — Marty

The assumption of specific end-goal activity is the argument against teleology. The body produces homeostasis as part of a process that enables us to achieve something more than homeostasis. Just as the cue ball stops in its tracks once it knocks a ball into the pocket - without thought or intention - enabling the billiard player to achieve something more than sinking one ball, so too, the apparent purpose of the body’s processes is limited by their level of awareness.

Teleology describes an apparent purpose or programming, but I think it really just points to relational structures beyond our current level of awareness, connection and collaboration. I believe Gnomon sees it as an open-ended ‘programming’ and posits a deity (which I find unnecessary), whereas my view is more of an inherent meaning in relation to itself. Either way, I think we agree that there is no definable end-goal as such.

:clap:

Is this a model you've come up with to explain free will?

Demonstrating awareness
Demonstrating connection
Demonstrating collaboration — CeleRate

Not quite - I believe that the will is wholly a five-dimensional faculty, which determines and initiates all action according to ignorance/awareness, isolation/connection and exclusion/collaboration. But the freedom of the will is such that we can perceive our potential to determine each conceptual gate’s direction at the point of intention or motivation, express that intention as a demonstration (in potentiality) of each gate’s direction, and also evaluate the alternatives and their predicted outcomes - all prior to initiating the act of choosing.

In my opinion, consciousness does not emerge; it is present at all previous times. I believe that because I cannot imagine its emergence from a state where it previously did not exist. — Daz

In my opinion, too, to some extent - but for different reasons. Still, that doesn’t stop consciousness (as a concept described with words) from being ‘fuzzy’. I dare say most people would struggle to conceptualise atomic interaction as ‘consciousness’, for instance.

The ‘fuzziness’ of a concept refers to the relativity of perceived potential or value. Concepts are irreducible to four-dimensional reality. We approach a definition of ‘chair’ by inserting a range of agreed values into its four-dimensional relations, and then ‘solving for x’, so to speak - where x is the concept ‘chair’. That’s harder to do with consciousness, because we don’t have all the experiential data. Or even most of the data.

We can agree that consciousness exists, yet we can only imagine that it exists all the way down. Or fail to imagine its non-existence, as it were. Ultimate truth or not, what about ‘consciousness’ as a concept isn’t fuzzy?

You could just substitute for God a 'radical otherness' to assure that experience doesn't become captured within a prefigured organizing frame. Even when God is no longer thought as a being or a personality, God as the name for a teleological movement can still end up as a metaphysical totalization of being. Hegel does this with his idea of dialectical becoming, and I suspect that something similar is being offered by Gnomon. — Joshs

I agree with you here - I think this describes roughly where my own theory differs from Gnomon’s. I like the idea of a broader sense of ‘radical otherness’ to get past the notion of Being even as an absolute metaphysical concept. I think we maximise this relation, then, beyond a distinction of ‘self’, let alone ‘humanity’ - which renders the question of human teleology rather narrow.

Our uniquely developed capacity as humans enables us to participate more effectively and efficiently, but I see our ‘purpose’ as no different than any other existence in the universe: to increase awareness, connection and collaboration.

1. Reality is fundamentally flux, and permanency is constructed
2. Reality fundamentally is, and change is an illusion

Of those two postulates, which one is less offensive to you? That is, which one seems fundamentally more plausible and less counterintuitive? I want to know your intuitions.

I find that 2 is easier to believe. 1 seems like a cop-out, as if refusing to really consider the question. But, perhaps I have it backward: maybe the refusal to consider the question springs from having 2 as an intuition, and not the converse. 2 seems more plausible to me because it seems to line up with relativistic physics, and overall woobly-wobbly subjective nature of time that philosophers long before Einstein have suspected for centuries. — Pneumenon

2 is more of a comfort to believe, particularly considering the relativity of time, and the uncertainty it lends to our notion of reality. In my opinion, it is 2 that’s a cop-out, and 1 lines up better with quantum relativity as I understand it (Carlo Rovelli’s ‘The Order of Time’ outlines this quite well). But I think that both raise inevitable questions:

If permanency is constructed, where are we getting the idea from in the first place?

If change is an illusion, what purpose does it serve as such?

If a person does not resist buying scratch tickets when the three conditions you mentioned (awareness of options, connectedness, and willingness to participate) are present, then where is the will? — CeleRate

Focusing on resisting a particular action is not demonstrating awareness, connection or collaboration with the range of alternatives available. Remember that choice is about the act of choosing, the range of alternatives to choose from and the perceived capacity to choose a particular alternative. A will that is free is operating in all three areas with awareness, connection and collaboration.

This is also where self-examination and interoception is important: awareness is not just of the alternatives, but of how we connect personally to them in the moment. Why do I want to buy a scratch ticket right now? Why do I prefer this action now to the other options available? How does it make me feel, and why is this feeling so important to me now? Being honest, critical (without judgement) and deeply interoceptive with our answers (not excuses) will dispel the assumption that our personality consists of intrinsic wants and preferences we’re organically compelled to satisfy.

our Science is just beginning to wrest control of the laws of nature, in order to impose our collective Will on the foundations of reality, and to erect a super-structure of ideality, of human teleology.
— Gnomon

I wonder if the the metaphors of violence, competition and force here are unconscious. Sounds vaguely fascist to me. I think removing the divine shtick and leaving the self-organizing teleology could help fix this. — Joshs

This here is part of the reason we’re not doing such a great job of it. It isn’t about wresting control from the laws of nature or imposing our collective Will, but about working with these laws as the limited Will of all of nature to develop the full potential of the universe - not just of humanity. Understanding how the Will operates at all levels of relational structure in the universe, and where the opportunities exist to increase awareness, connection and collaboration despite the tendency for ignorance, isolation and exclusion, is where ‘our Science’ should be focusing its efforts.

As for your resistance to ‘divine shtick’, I think perhaps this comes from an assumption that the reference here to ‘God’ is a being - I’ve had lengthy discussions with Gnomon about this, and I’m confident that this is not how they conceptualise ‘God’, despite the language. Reading a personality or other anthropic traits into discussions about ‘God’ lead to throwing out the proverbial baby with the bath water. I think a conceptual ‘God’ is a useful reference in discussions of teleology - in many ways it keeps us from assuming that we’ve already figured it all out.

Most concepts described with words are fundamentally fuzzy. (Take chairs. When a chair is manufactured, at point is it in fact a chair? When it finally falls apart, when does it stop being a chair? If I sit on a rock, does that make it a chair? Etc.)

But some things seem to me to be part of ultimate truth, in the sense that they are not fuzzy. — Daz

2) Consciousness, meaning all experiences that are experienced. — Daz

So let me ask: When consciousness emerges, at what point is it in fact consciousness? When does it stop being consciousness? If a computer program can simulate conscious interaction, does that make it consciousness?

But if these are steps that individuals willingly and freely take. For those that feel guilt about hurting people they love and are connected to; for those that are aware of the options; for those that are participatory, willingly collaborating with others. What stops their will from resisting scratch tickets for example? — CeleRate

I’m not sure what you’re asking here.