Science of the Web

[radarmark]

From first philosophy to process philosophy

Okay, given that foundation I am ready to talk about what my first philosophy is. Both Western and Eastern philosophies by in large have one of three basic ontologies (theories of what exists) materialism, the theory that all that exists is matter or energy and idealism the theory that all that exists are ideas or mental events in our mind or consciousness. Historically the third option has been dualism or a combination of materialism and idealism. A second and perhaps more dyad of ontological theories: being and becoming. The theory of being postulates all entities are separate and is usually unchanging in some manner (think of Platonic forms or an unchanging, eternal G!d or our sense of self); the epitome of this theory is Plato’s definition of what was later called ontology as the study of “being as being”. The theory of becoming postulates entities are mutable and inter-related (think of the universe changing over time or the relationship of the wave and particle nature of a photon); the paradigm of this theory is Heraclitus’ statement “everything flows”.
So we have five ontological theories to examine (since there are hundreds of ontological theories, this is just a small fraction) but these five are foundational for my ontological system. Idealism is limited, for we know that regardless of what we think if our brains are cut off from oxygen for 20 minutes all thought (at least thought that is communicate-able) ceases. Materialism is limited, it cannot explain the existence or origin of qualia—direct experiences we perceive in our minds (like red or pain) irreducible to the firing of neurons or other materialistic explanations. Dualism per se has the problem of an unexplained and unexplainable control of the mental over the physical. Existence as a continuum of becomings does not make a lot of sense to us, we cannot “see” the universe expanding (and that expansion accelerating) because the timeline and sightlines are just too long. We cannot “see” a subatomic particle “collapse” from a wave to a particle again because of the timeline and sightline, this time the timeline is short and sightline too small. So we would normally reject it since we never see a television set morphing or the winter sky change (except for clouds). However, existence as being has its own problems—what is the role of change? We say we “can change” or watch the physical changes take place. Philosophically there are some problems with becoming and being impacting the concepts of space and time and concerning the existence of logical and mathematical concepts as well.
Early in the XXth Century an English mathematician and philosopher developed a rather interesting and very powerful basic ontology by marrying dualism, the belief in the reality of mind and matter, with the becoming approach. Alfred North Whitehead called it “the philosophy of organism” but his followers have called it “process philosophy” in tribute to his magnum opus, Process and Reality. Reality of comprised of occasions, actual entities, or experiences both material and mental in nature that change over time. An occasion has a limited duration and a limited geometry; the occasion of a birth is limited to two bodies and the period of passage into the world when the two become separated spatially. Two actual entities can coalesce into a third, unique one; a proton and an anti-proton annihilate in a release of photons. An experience is composed of attributes of both matter and mind; my face-to-face experience of you consists of both your body and mine, but it also consists of my concepts of truth, beauty, and personhood.

 

[salishan]

Radarmark
exquisite creature

oh goodie !
fun stuff ! !

Let me try to begin this on a different tack.

1) Reality exists.

2) The Kosmos is everything that exists physically and mentally (matter, energy, thought, consciousness, and anything else with physical or mental existence).

3) What I define as myself is an on-going series of experiences.

4) In terms of these experiences there are two regions of the Kosmos - myself and that which is not myself.

5) A lot of things I experience in the Kosmos share characteristics with myself ("human beings").

6) One of the things that differentiate human beings (including myself) from the rest of the Kosmos I experience is a mental ability qualitatively different from my other experiences.

7) To be all that I can be, this consciousness compels me to create mental models to make sense of reality.

8) The most general kind of mental models are those about knowledge and wisdom itself, called philosophy.

9) In philosophy, metaphysics or "first philosophy" or "speculative philosophy," modeling the ultimate, most basic, most general principles to explain the nature of reality as such with a methodology of description and dispassionate reasoning and criticism.

10) All other forms of mentality or consciousness or thought are less abstract and (in some sense) dependent upon this first philosophy.

11) This first philosophy should be congruent with one’s sense of life and is "the endeavor to frame a coherent, logical, necessary system of general ideas in terms of which every element of our experience can be interpreted."

i experience , therefore i am
u seem to be empiricizing Descartes
(a different swerve on Subjective theory
an attempt to escape Mind-Body dualism ? )

(to me) how i "behave" in the world
has at least as much to do with
"who i perceive myself (or how others perceive me) to be"
(i am what i do
Pragmatic theory ? )

but even this is binary
my on-the-job Self (very "cordial")
acts-in-the-world very different from
my free-time Self (a "free-spirit")
(some acquaintances of mine are initially shocked
when they meet my other Self for the first time
i could be 2 different persons)

(be that as it may)
Radarmark , u seem to start by prioritizing "experience" &
marginalizing "behavior"

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

which is what Digital Theory (in the visual arts) does

("Digital Theory" is a Seattle-based esthetics
promoted by Reiko Sundahl & Jim Betsy as a pathway
out of the problematical conundrums created by Postmodern Theory)

Digital Theory starts by
asserting that everything is binary
(like information-based technology , but more importantly
like all systems which employ feedback of some kind)

(for instance)
the primordial single-cell afloat in the primordial ocean
has a membrane which separates
the "outer" salty-sea environment from the "inner" saline environment
& this cell already exhibits feedback-devices to help it
(gather the info to) maintain internal equilibrium ("homeostasis")

on elementary terms , the most primeval forms of life exhibit
an (elementary) Subjective "experience" (a "digital" experience)
(matter&energy + feedback)

so while , the neural-networks of the human organism
(brain as a natural extension of the body)
may be far more complex & efficient than this single-cell , (still)
u'r neurophysiology is not essentially different from the internals of this single-cell
u'r nerve-networks being just a feedback-device , like those utilized by the single-cell
(u'r neurophysiology helps u maintain internal equilibrium , as well as
u'r equilibrium vis-à-vis u'r external environment , helps u monitor it)

Radarmark , (to me) it is actually pretty simple
this Subjective theory of u'rs
(throw away the
big terms like "Kosmos" or big systems like "Philosophy"
which just get u into all the problematics of Postmodern Theory)

a) matter&energy
b) membrane => binary
c) no such thing as "Mind" , just
d) "feedback"

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

if i have time (over the Holidays) i will
set down specific comments on each of u'r 11 points

have a merry ...

 

[salishan]

1) Reality exists.

Radarmark
exquisite creature

good place to start

some traditions (rightly or wrongly) question "reality"
or at least a "manifest reality" (i.e.
that the reality in front of u is an illusion) , but to me
this (too) would be a legitimate form of existence , a reality
which is (still) a good starting-point for a conversation

(i might be tempted to back-up one step & say
underlying all reality , underlying all existence
there are no givens , just pursuits
there is only purpose)

the deep problem with
not only u'r "philosophical" approach
but also a traditional "monotheistic" approach
to the problem of "reality"
is

that an abstract version of "reality" is (necessarily)
valued , intellectually or emotionally
(pure "mind" or single "god")

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

this "abstractness" does represent a clear "leap"
(which first appeared during the Axial Age , 2500 years ago)
a breakthru in human consciousness & awareness , away from

the "concrete" manner in which
an ancient agrarian (polytheistic) person
experiences "ideas" & "hopes"

(an ox pulls a plow
what force pulls the Sun across the sky ?
some kind of invisible spirit-Ox ?
& u should remember to daily praise this spirit-Ox
so it will know u appreciate its work , feed its ego
so it will continue to do its job giving u sunlight)

an ancient person experiences reality via metaphors & archetypes
concrete reality is part dream-logic , part schizophrenic-conduct

but philosophy & monotheism change this

they look more intently , more abstractly at the problem of reality
logic becomes propositional (definable , not dream-like)
conduct becomes ethical (one rule , not multiple-choice)

but this breakthru "abstractness"
creates a new problem as the centuries wear on

a person becomes attached to their (pet) "abstractions"
she or he cannot think or feel without reference to these abstractions
every bit of their interpretive "logic" & devotional "conduct"
is mediated thru these abstractions

reality becomes a rarified "abstraction"
an abstraction which is valued

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

"valued" reality is extremely tricky
my friend Stevi tells me
this is the deep flaw of philosophy
(& of monotheism , i might add)

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Radarmark
(to me)
secular-reality is about truth
religious-reality is about meaning

the scientist or historian or journalist
if they allow their self to bring "cultural values" to their endeavor
they no longer pursue truth , but
are trying to make "truth" (reality) conform to their personal ideology
(to betray truth , & substitute a comfortable "delusion")

the mystic or theologian or missionary
if they allow their self to bring their own "instinctual values" to their pursuit
they are no longer reaching for the meaning (of life) , but are
shaping "meaning" (reality) to fit a transpersonalized version of their own ego
(to betray meaning , & replace it with a lethal "sectarian" bias)

to honestly "pursue reality"
(secular or religious) , comes down to
ridding u'r self of cultural & instinctual "values"
(rid u'r thinking & feeling of u'r own "abstractions")

& this is very tricky to do
if u cling to (the 2500 year old values of)
philosophy & monotheism
(though this can be done , with intense devotion)

my preference is to start from scratch , Radarmark
to build a true & meaningful reality
from a (rational) digital perspective , &
from an (intimate) creatural perspective

(no "values" , just purpose)

 

[radarmark]

fun stuff ! !i experience , therefore i am
u seem to be empiricizing Descartes
(a different swerve on Subjective theory
an attempt to escape Mind-Body dualism ? )

(to me) how i "behave" in the world
has at least as much to do with
"who i perceive myself (or how others perceive me) to be"
(i am what i do
Pragmatic theory ? )

The theory I am trying to develop is process (or organism) based. It is a revision of pragmatic theory by Whitehead. By "Experiecnce" I mean moments of actual occasion, which of course behavioral as well as mental.
Because all there is are these moments of actual occasion--all of physicalism and idealism are bogus, based on a false (Cartesian) notion.

but even this is binary
my on-the-job Self (very "cordial")
acts-in-the-world very different from
my free-time Self (a "free-spirit")
(some acquaintances of mine are initially shocked
when they meet my other Self for the first time
i could be 2 different persons)

(be that as it may)
Radarmark , u seem to start by prioritizing "experience" &
marginalizing "behavior"

I just have not gotten there yet. I agree, I do not see or experience a "me", just a temporally and causally linked chain of experiences (or moments of occasion). A little Human here, but it fits with your 2 people.

("Digital Theory" is a Seattle-based esthetics
promoted by Reiko Sundahl & Jim Betsy as a pathway
out of the problematical conundrums created by Postmodern Theory)

Digital Theory starts by
asserting that everything is binary
(like information-based technology , but more importantly
like all systems which employ feedback of some kind)

(for instance)
the primordial single-cell afloat in the primordial ocean
has a membrane which separates
the "outer" salty-sea environment from the "inner" saline environment
& this cell already exhibits feedback-devices to help it
(gather the info to) maintain internal equilibrium ("homeostasis")

on elementary terms , the most primeval forms of life exhibit
an (elementary) Subjective "experience" (a "digital" experience)
(matter&energy + feedback)

Okay. Ultimately this is what my experience is: matter+energy+information+idenation+feedback+creativity

However, the sum is more than the sum of the parts (a systems-theoretical framework). It is this sum that is the basic element, the stuff of which reality is composed.

so while , the neural-networks of the human organism

(brain as a natural extension of the body)
may be far more complex & efficient than this single-cell , (still)
u'r neurophysiology is not essentially different from the internals of this single-cell
u'r nerve-networks being just a feedback-device , like those utilized by the single-cell
(u'r neurophysiology helps u maintain internal equilibrium , as well as
u'r equilibrium vis-à-vis u'r external environment , helps u monitor it)

Radarmark , (to me) it is actually pretty simple
this Subjective theory of u'rs
(throw away the
big terms like "Kosmos" or big systems like "Philosophy"
which just get u into all the problematics of Postmodern Theory)

a) matter&energy
b) membrane => binary
c) no such thing as "Mind" , just
d) "feedback"

It depends of what you mean by "post-modernism". Actually, the term was originally applied to Whitehead's process philosophy at Cambridge and Oxford in the 30s. I do agree with the explicit linking of feedback and mind. But I need to still address the issue of idenation (where ideas and thoughts, especially original and complex ones come from). It is possible (likely, IMHO), that if I strip out "creativity" as a separate experience, the mind = feedback works in toto. But, like Plato, Aristotle and Whitehead I want to leave a placeholder for G!d.

Thanks!

 

[radarmark]

some traditions (rightly or wrongly) question "reality"
or at least a "manifest reality" (i.e.
that the reality in front of u is an illusion) , but to me
this (too) would be a legitimate form of existence , a reality
which is (still) a good starting-point for a conversation

(i might be tempted to back-up one step & say
underlying all reality , underlying all existence
there are no givens , just pursuits
there is only purpose)

the deep problem with
not only u'r "philosophical" approach
but also a traditional "monotheistic" approach
to the problem of "reality"
is

that an abstract version of "reality" is (necessarily)
valued , intellectually or emotionally
(pure "mind" or single "god")

Ah, your analysis is insightful. What I am trying to do (in my own way) is to get back to "reality" as "that which is". Minus the abstractions and values (where are the values and abstractions in an experience... okya we may be influenced by concepts of beauty and love and truth, but those influences can be separated out, or rather bundles up into the experience as secondary processes).

this "abstractness" does represent a clear "leap"
(which first appeared during the Axial Age , 2500 years ago)
a breakthru in human consciousness & awareness , away from

the "concrete" manner in which
an ancient agrarian (polytheistic) person
experiences "ideas" & "hopes"

(an ox pulls a plow
what force pulls the Sun across the sky ?
some kind of invisible spirit-Ox ?
& u should remember to daily praise this spirit-Ox
so it will know u appreciate its work , feed its ego
so it will continue to do its job giving u sunlight)

an ancient person experiences reality via metaphors & archetypes
concrete reality is part dream-logic , part schizophrenic-conduct

but philosophy & monotheism change this

they look more intently , more abstractly at the problem of reality
logic becomes propositional (definable , not dream-like)
conduct becomes ethical (one rule , not multiple-choice)

but this breakthru "abstractness"
creates a new problem as the centuries wear on

a person becomes attached to their (pet) "abstractions"
she or he cannot think or feel without reference to these abstractions
every bit of their interpretive "logic" & devotional "conduct"
is mediated thru these abstractions

reality becomes a rarified "abstraction"
an abstraction which is valued

"valued" reality is extremely tricky
my friend Stevi tells me
this is the deep flaw of philosophy
(& of monotheism , i might add)

Yes. The main problem, as I see it, is for the past 2500 years Western mind (and to some extent Eastern mind) has erred. Call this error the Falicy of Misplaced Concreteness. We have mistaken abstractions (like value or our idenation of G!d) as real, actual occasions. We have assumed the the Kosmos is the Cave, and our ideas of what throw the shadows (which are not part of the sense-datum) are existent.

(to me)
secular-reality is about truth
religious-reality is about meaning

the scientist or historian or journalist
if they allow their self to bring "cultural values" to their endeavor
they no longer pursue truth , but
are trying to make "truth" (reality) conform to their personal ideology
(to betray truth , & substitute a comfortable "delusion")

the mystic or theologian or missionary
if they allow their self to bring their own "instinctual values" to their pursuit
they are no longer reaching for the meaning (of life) , but are
shaping "meaning" (reality) to fit a transpersonalized version of their own ego
(to betray meaning , & replace it with a lethal "sectarian" bias)

to honestly "pursue reality"
(secular or religious) , comes down to
ridding u'r self of cultural & instinctual "values"
(rid u'r thinking & feeling of u'r own "abstractions")

& this is very tricky to do
if u cling to (the 2500 year old values of)
philosophy & monotheism
(though this can be done , with intense devotion)

my preference is to start from scratch , Radarmark
to build a true & meaningful reality
from a (rational) digital perspective , &
from an (intimate) creatural perspective

(no "values" , just purpose)

Secular reality (the realm of physics, including information physics) is just about the truth of experiences (that which is). Spiritual reality (your religious reality, but I have yet to see my way clear to think that relgion covers all aspects, like does theology cover all aspects of thinking about our spiritual experiences?) is about meaning. I also believe that the creatural perspective will ultimately subsume the digital (I am too old to use that term yet).

Again, thank you for your insights!

 

[salishan]

By "EXPERIENCE" I mean moments of actual occasion

Radarmark
exquisite creature

by this phrase , i assume u mean
"something that really happens"
(not just "mind flapping")

David Brooks in his rewarding book The Social Animal , observes
that (to u'r brain) the function of u'r "culture" is similar to
driving on (mental) "autopilot" down a lonesome highway
(this act is subconscious , u don't have to think about what u are doing)

u don't have to build-up reality from scratch , each moment
(u operate upon learned responses to the world , trained into u
learned habits of mind , "mind flapping")

but raw experience is a different bird entirely

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

at this visual-art website where i used to post
there is this guy called Sharpshooter , who
rejects Postmodernism & wants to revive the Modernist ethic

to Sharpshooter , "raw experience" is nonverbal

but mainline Postmodernism sees art as being like "language"
(u see something happening in the world
u'r brain turns that "something" into a symbolic "form"
a word or a concept , some abstract-form
which then allows u to understand what u are seeing)
all experience is viewed as mediated

(to this) Sharpshooter says
bologna !
he points to Caravaggio , then Rembrandt
then to the Parisian modernists (Courbet & Monet & Manet & Degas)
pointing out how these great artists
skip that mediating (that intermediate) step
how they do (in fact) go "nonverbal"
(great art cuts out the middleman)

these artists are not mind-flapping , they are
(instead) going after a raw encounter
as if they are prehending this reality for the first time
experiencing reality directly , unmediated

seeing reality with an unmediated eye

Sharpshooter calls this unmediated feeling
(which he finds in this artwork)
immediacy

immediacy
("a moment of actual occasion" ?)

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

this is why i look at art , Radarmark
this is one major reason why good art is so alive (to me)

it is this art's
immediacy

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

back in the early days of Information Theory
(when scientists like Gregory Bateson are calling this discipline "Cybernetics")
Bateson & others see the human brain as a machine-like "feedback" device

but there are two sides to feedback
one is called "negative feedback" , the other "positive feedback"

negative-feedback is like
when a black-line stands-out against a white-background
this binary-opposition gives the brain "information"

positive-feedback is like
a youTube video which "goes viral" , a contagious repetition
(what Genetic theorists call a "meme" , something which
strikes a powerful cultural chord in people , spreads rapidly until
its trendy novelty wears off)
just so much mind-flapping
(something not anywhere near close to a "personal raw-experience")

why negative-feedback looks so much more real to Bateson
is that it is not just about a "difference" perceived in the environment
but (at some point) some bit of negative-feedback will (for this organism/machine)
point at something novel , prehend a
difference which makes a difference

a simple raw experience , Radarmark

(a contrastive feedback from the environment
an encounter which buzzes with immediacy
a binary situation
a difference-which-makes-a-difference)

"a moment of actual occasion" ?

 

[radarmark]

by this phrase , i assume u mean
"something that really happens"
(not just "mind flapping")

David Brooks in his rewarding book The Social Animal , observes
that (to u'r brain) the function of u'r "culture" is similar to
driving on (mental) "autopilot" down a lonesome highway
(this act is subconscious , u don't have to think about what u are doing)

u don't have to build-up reality from scratch , each moment
(u operate upon learned responses to the world , trained into u
learned habits of mind , "mind flapping")

but raw experience is a different bird entirely

By it I do mean the raw experience (the things that make up the world, IMHO)

rejects Postmodernism & wants to revive the Modernist ethic

to Sharpshooter , "raw experience" is nonverbal

but mainline Postmodernism sees art as being like "language"
(u see something happening in the world
u'r brain turns that "something" into a symbolic "form"
a word or a concept , some abstract-form
which then allows u to understand what u are seeing)
all experience is viewed as mediated

(to this) Sharpshooter says
bologna !
he points to Caravaggio , then Rembrandt
then to the Parisian modernists (Courbet & Monet & Manet & Degas)
pointing out how these great artists
skip that mediating (that intermediate) step
how they do (in fact) go "nonverbal"
(great art cuts out the middleman)

these artists are not mind-flapping , they are
(instead) going after a raw encounter
as if they are prehending this reality for the first time
experiencing reality directly , unmediated

seeing reality with an unmediated eye

Sharpshooter calls this unmediated feeling
(which he finds in this artwork)
immediacy

immediacy
("a moment of actual occasion" ?)
this is why i look at art , Radarmark
this is one major reason why good art is so alive (to me)

it is this art's
immediacy

immediacy = raw experience = moment of actual occasion = prehension. or at least they are as close as mano, citta and vinnana in Pali (they all mean "mind", but the differences are very subtile...mind, mind-stuff, consciousness, but not self-consciousness). i am writing this on the fly and will look at the differences.

back in the early days of Information Theory
(when scientists like Gregory Bateson are calling this discipline "Cybernetics")
Bateson & others see the human brain as a machine-like "feedback" device

but there are two sides to feedback
one is called "negative feedback" , the other "positive feedback"

negative-feedback is like
when a black-line stands-out against a white-background
this binary-opposition gives the brain "information"

positive-feedback is like
a youTube video which "goes viral" , a contagious repetition
(what Genetic theorists call a "meme" , something which
strikes a powerful cultural chord in people , spreads rapidly until
its trendy novelty wears off)
just so much mind-flapping
(something not anywhere near close to a "personal raw-experience")

why negative-feedback looks so much more real to Bateson
is that it is not just about a "difference" perceived in the environment
but (at some point) some bit of negative-feedback will (for this organism/machine)
point at something novel , prehend a
difference which makes a difference

a simple raw experience , Radarmark

(a contrastive feedback from the environment
an encounter which buzzes with immediacy
a binary situation
a difference-which-makes-a-difference)

"a moment of actual occasion" ?

"positive feedback" would be riding the experience, the consciouness acting on the environment (actually not that simple). Like petting a cat or walking out in the woods or calling out any of the ten-thousand names of G!d.. "negative feedback" would be the cat purring, the coyotes staring and defecating, the universe answering. GROK?

All of these terms you are proposing are very close to my "experience" and Whitehead's "actual occasion". Mind-flapping is the farthest from my mind (though I do get caught doing that).

Thank you again!

 

[salishan]

2) The Kosmos is everything that exists physically and mentally (matter, energy, thought, consciousness, and anything else with physical or mental existence).

Radarmark
exquisite creature

"Kosmos" ?
is this the Greek spelling of "Cosmos" ?
("principle of order" which appears to permeate existence ? )
or do u merely mean something-special by it ?

right this minute , i am hearing the steady
drip drip drip
of a faucet i haven't fixed
(a very "orderly" linear process)

Radarmark , is my leaky faucet an example of "conscious" divinity at work ?

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

ancient agrarian (polytheistic) peoples are the first
to make a fetish of the principle of "order"
(a necessity if u are going to make "agriculture" work)

create calendars , so u know when to plant
create writing , to keep records of yields & storage
create civil laws , to regulate property disputes & debts & inheritance
create a religious cosmology , where the Big-god defeats the forces of Disorder

Ea kills Apsu
later Marduk kills Tiamat
Baal defeats Yam
later Yahweh defeats Leviathan et al
(who is it that Zeus defeats before the Titans ? & who Indra defeats ?
always some primordial "ocean"-like chaos , "Disorder" personified)

the ancient idea of "order" , Radarmark
grew up out of the necessity for creating
a stable & annually productive "universe"
with a stable "social order" as well

but the human race has continued to develop
since this ancient era
has developed itself (cognitively & affectively) a couple steps beyond
a stable linear principle of "cosmos" , a "principle of order"

do u really crave a modern (up-to-date) First Principle with
all this ancient baggage ?

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

to me , Chaos Theory provides a more satisfying model
because it is rational in a nonlinear way

each (& every) physical system (including an ecosystem)
needs both "matter" & "energy" in order to function

but if this is all that is at work , here
then the system involved (a linear system) is
either going to become super-stable (ultimately overcome by inertia)
or devolve into something super-random (ultimately overcome by entropy)

u have to invent some form of Metaphysics (an order-giving Mind)
to account for any degree of genuine (inward or outward) evolution

but this is not
all that is at work , here

ecological systems (nonlinear systems)
(whether single cell or human neural networks)
are self-regulating
with feedback-devices & with feedforward-networks

recent scientists
(Andreas Meyer-Lindenberg & Karl Friston & John Beggs & Ed Bullmore & David Liley)
use such terms as "self-organized criticality" & "small-world networks"
to explain how inertia & entropy are overcome

how systems (when viewed as "nonlinear")
remain relatively stable , but not so stable that they cannot adapt to changing circumstances
yet are open to a variety of stimuli , but not so much variety as to cause sensory-overload

Meyer-Lindenberg created a computer simulation of a small-world network with 13 degrees of separation. Each node was represented by an electrical oscillator that approximated a neuron's activity. The results confirmed that the brain has just the right architecture for its activity to sit on the tipping point between order and disorder ...
- New Scientist 29 June 2009 "Disorderly genius : How chaos drives the brain"

much simpler nonlinear systems than the human brain
show evidence of this kind of "phase-shift" state
(creating networks which resist becoming "phase-locked"
no drip drip drip)

this is the mark of "intelligence" within even a simple organic system , but
the human brain is the premier example (on this planet) of this kind of
intelligent anti-design , which (to me) is the driving force of planetary evolution

"intelligence" is nonlinear
& Chaos Theory shows where it comes from

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

"matter" & "energy" , yes
these are real (crucial) , but not decisive

"thought" & "consciousness" , no
they are unreal (Metaphysical) , & functionally delusive ("linear")
(unless u can
redefine these abstractions in nonlinear terms , Radarmark
as feedback-systems or feedforward-networks ?
as "self-organized criticality" or "small-world networks" ? )

though the science (backing this) is very recent , this
(actually) is basic Ecological Theory , which
has been around since the 1960s

what is decisive (here)
are the pair of regulators , the two "feeds"

this , Radarmark
is what is cold hard (definably) real

(rational but not "mental")

 

[salishan]

3) What I define as myself is an on-going series of experiences.

4) In terms of these experiences there are two regions of the Kosmos - myself and that which is not myself.

5) A lot of things I experience in the Kosmos share characteristics with myself ("human beings").

Radarmark
exquisite creature

3) each organism (u'r self included) exists as
a contained (relatively "closed") ecosystem

4) but u'r internal-ecology is surrounded by (& needs)
a larger encompassing ecosystem with which to (existentially) interact

5) u share this larger ecosystem with organisms having an internal-ecology similar to u'r own
competing for & cooperating to attain nutrients , & other forms of information

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

reality is
(the butterfly-total-effect of each and every)
"closed" ecological-system
each discrete systems of which experiences its outer-reality
(inputs bits of the larger ecology , info
"displaced" from the larger ecosystem) via feedback
feedback which yields usable raw-data , regarding
"things" & "events" in its immediate environment
(i.e. yields negative-feedback , "experience")

this usable raw-data (eventually) produces a closed "feedback-loop"
a channel of on-going (useful) data , a stream-of-experience

eventually , in its quest for nutrients & info
some discrete ecosystem (some organism) will become selectively "less closed"
(sites in its membrane will become more permeable)
this ecosystem partners with other (disparate or similar) ecosystems
each of which will specialize its own functioning (for higher net-efficiency)
& a portion of the two (once separate) feedback-loops of each's interior-ecology
will now become shared (become bonded-together) , into a symbiotic network

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

this is how "progression" happens within a discrete ecosystem
1) membrane (any kind of feedback , to define boundaries between inside & outside)
2) negative-feedback (usable info)
3) on-going feedback-loops (experience)
4) partnered experience (symbiotic feedback-loops)

Radarmark , don't give too much credit to "humans"
(for subjectivity & for intersubjectivity)
much of what u are talking about is basic ecology
true for all creature on this (or any) planet

 

[radarmark]

Existence exists.
Existing implies actuality.
Actuality is an actual occasion.
An actual occasion is a cluster of physical, mental, and spiritual attributes located in space and time.
The aggregate of all actual occasions constitutes the Kosmos.
That which is beyond the Kosmos is unknown and unknowable.
This unknown and unknowable manifests itself in every actual occasion.
An actual occasion flows from (at least one) previous actual occasion due to the manifestation of the unknown and unknowable.
The actual occasion is a concrete, real, existing experience or event (which must be witnessed).
The actual occasion is whole within itself, an indecomposable, undeconstuctable entity.
That entity, existing temporally, is not static but changing.
An instant in time or a fixed location has no existence except as an actual occasion of abstraction.
Matter, energy, information have no existence except as an actual occasion of abstraction.
An aggregation of actual occasions must be causally linked.
The cause can be distant (a bifurcated singularity in the past) or local (an immediately temporal actual occasion).
Probability theory is (probably) the best way to model the flow of and the change within actual occasions.
Action is the underlying principle of existence, the action-time, action-length (Planck-time and Planck-length) and their effects (Planck’s constant and the uncertainty principle) are the most basic constraints on actual occasions (and, hence, time, location, mass, energy, and information).


The entire organism of the Kosmos can then be modeled as the meta-ecological nexus. The beyond (the unknown and unknowable) is both transcendent (not part of the Kosmos) and immenant (in every actual occasion). Together as a unity (but still unknown and unknowable) Kosmos and beyond are G!d.

 

[salishan]

Radarmark
exquisite creature

(let me see if i get this)

there's what's known (experience)
there's what's unknown (super-immanent/super-transcendent)
& taken together (known & unknown) , they = Gyd
?

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Kosmos is like the (synergic ?) sum-total of thing-events in existence
Kosmos is like the physical existence of the universe , its "body" ?

then the unknown is a kind of vacuum , which the Kosmos plunges into ?
kind of a meta-existence , a mind ?

(if so , how is this not
Metaphysics warmed-over ? )

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

i get that the "Beyond" is presently "unknown"
but why is it always unknown ?
(i.e. , unknowable) ?

if matter can become energy & energy become matter
in the physical universe
why , in the Kosmos/Beyond nexus
can pieces of Kosmos (actualities) not be "forgotten" (as it were)
& become "unknown" ?
& why can pieces of the Beyond (u'r super-im/transes) , given time & much work
not become "known" ?

is this Kosmos/Beyond too static for that ?

(is there an absolute "conservation of Kosmic actualities & Beyond im/transes" ?
an absolute membrane between them ?)

(is Gyd just that static ? )

 

[radarmark]

Will read and reply by Tuesday, latest (always have to think about what you say and what I think I said). Thanks, Friend!

 

[salishan]

6) One of the things that differentiate human beings (including myself) from the rest of the Kosmos I experience is a mental ability qualitatively different from my other experiences.

7) To be all that I can be, this consciousness compels me to create mental models to make sense of reality.

8) The most general kind of mental models are those about knowledge and wisdom itself, called philosophy.

9) In philosophy, metaphysics or "first philosophy" or "speculative philosophy," modeling the ultimate, most basic, most general principles to explain the nature of reality as such with a methodology of description and dispassionate reasoning and criticism.

10) All other forms of mentality or consciousness or thought are less abstract and (in some sense) dependent upon this first philosophy.

Radarmark
exquisite creature

okay , here's the thing

this all sounds so much like
the drawing-room Enlightenment gentleman
praising "reason" above our "animal faculties"

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

yes , i admire the methodical rigor
of the scientist or journalist or historian

but it is "method" , not "mind" (not modeling)
which i admire

2500ya , "philosophy" is a game-changer
(replaces the old "associative" dream-logic of Temple civilization , with a
rigorously "definitive" propositional-logic , developed by Greek sophists)
but what was a breakthru then is a hindrance now

as Wittgenstein points out
philosophy is snarled in language

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

take the sixth-month old human baby

the family dog potentially recognizes & responds to more words
than does this child (a dog , potentially about 50 words/commands
a chimpanzee maybe 10x this many words/commands)

but the child soon catches up
(& passes dog & chimp) in size of vocabulary

word = command = semantic-unit = abstraction-of-reality ( = mental-model)
(dogs & chimps are smart enough
for their brain to make this leap
from "reality" to "representation"
from "thing" to "sign"
from "perception" to "meta-perception")

the human child will eventually compile a larger vocabulary
become better at making this semantic-leap to "abstraction"

but this child
is far from the only creature on this planet with this ability

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

where the human child becomes unique (upon this planet)
occurs sometime before her or his 2nd birthday

the child "gets" syntax
starts to form complete sentences (complete thoughts)

but even so
the child is stuck (cognitively) in a semantic-universe

- for the next 5 years , the child thinks "magically"
- for the 4 years after that , the youngster thinks "concretely" &
- for the 4 years after that , the youth thinks "abstractly"

(this is a rich development , yes
paralleling the development of human culture
- from hunter-gatherer
- to farmer-herder
- to businessperson-laborer
over the past 40,000+ years , but ... )
this evolution of ideas is entirely "semantic"

(something a super-smart breed of dog or chimp
might be able to accomplish
given a long enough period of time)

this evolution of ideas is not syntactic

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

perception --> meta-perception
"that thing" {finger pointing at it} is a "house" {voice pronouncing carefully}

by age 2 or after
the one key bit of syntax most useful to the learning child
is the "being" verb

one bit of reality is perceived
this item in the world is named
(& this act of naming aids future perception
& on it goes)

the "being" verb is the source of
- magic
- concreteness
- abstractness
the semantic-engine for churning out knowledge
(for churning out "naming")

the being-verb creates the sense that (the illusion that)
there are "beings" in the world
(magical ones or concrete ones or abstract ones)

philosophy wishes to perceive (& to meta-perceive)
"abstract" beings in the world , but
(remember Wittgenstein) philosophy is just language
disguised as reality (& as meta-reality)

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

philosophy (abstract language) traps u in a semantic box
(a "being" box)

a being-verb names a reality which is devoid of context
whereas

reality (itself) = a unit within a context (within a context)

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

this redefines semantic-units
in non-being terms
(in syntactic terms)

a branch of Australian anthropological linguistics calls this
tagmemics

a "word" is viewed not as a complete concept (in-and-of-itself)
but as a contingent entity
(like a charged electric particle looking to attach itself , to anything else)

the "unit" is meaningless without its context
(& this "context" is meaningless without a larger overarching-context)

truth (reality) is context-dependent
(u'r brain's reality is not a rigid system but an entirely fluid one
& is more like "art" or an "ecosystem" than like philosophy
because tagmemics/reality is understood in nonverbal terms , not in linguistic ones)

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

philosophy points backwards , to semantic sources
(& upwards , to the abstractions of the "naming" process
to model-making)

tagmemics points forward , into the complexities of context
(it grows reality by embedding units of reality , deep in a dense soil
building a felt-climate , a fluid-ecology)

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

tagmemics does what philosophy cannot do
it usurps semantics , & puts its units to work toward non-semantic ends

it moves the human brain (finally)
past the limits of dog-commands & chimp-talk

 

[radarmark]

You have given me so much to ponder. But unfortunately work gives me bread and is pressing. I promise to get to you last three posts yet! Thank you, my friend!

 

[radarmark]

Am working on a large continuation of discussion with salishan.

Meanwhile (for those of you that point out I seem "a little out there"), I thought I would give you a little philosophical and scientific background on my (here) unique (but not so unique in some philosophical and scientific circles).

There are historically two HUGE holes in western philosophy, "The Problem of Induction" and "Cartesian Dualism". I would (personally) add "Gödel’s Proof" as a third very, very real and basic philosophical problem.

The problem of induction (the reasoning from individual instances to general principles) was classically defined by Hume (see Problem of induction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) as the impossibility of proving induction without referring to itself. That is classical deductive logic (reasoning from the general to individual instances) cannot be used to justify induction. Fine, we still do it all the time and it works (see "Abduction, Deduction, and Induction" by Dr CH Yu for an introduction to the problem).

Similarly "it seems obvious that the world consists of physical and mental events". This is the crucial claim of Descartes that lead to Cartesian Dualism (see Dualism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) for a brief intro to the subject). The problem is that if reality has a physical and a mental side, how do they interact? You cannot proof the existence of mentality with merely physical means or physicality with merely mental means. For most the result is "scientistic material monism" which explains mental events as epiphenomena (see Wikipedia or Stanford dictionary of philosophy). Which explains away mentality and consciousness. Again, that is nice, but it does not work (see discussions of Chalmer's Hard Problem of Philosophy).

Finally, I would point out that Gödel’s Proof basically destroys "what we know about the world". Why? At it heart it says "using any mathematics higher than arithmetic (using the notions of "successor number", "closure", "addition", "subtraction", and "equals") is a matter of faith". The proof of a formal system of reasoning cannot be consistently provided within that system. The "best notions of math" used in our "best notions of physics" (say string theory, Twistors, Spinors, Ricci calculus) are not complete nor can they be completed (decided) consistently (see "Hilbert's Tenth Problem). Big deal, they work.

You see the connection? "the Problem of Induction" and the problems with dualism are both types of a Gödelian inconsistency--we know they cannot be proved within their own rules (they require metarules).

The solution I have developed and adopted is called "process philosophy" or "the philosophy of organism" by its founder, A.N. Whitehead. Within this approach induction is used (and valid) because like the events it predicts it is limited by what has actually happened so far (which we can know) and what will happen in the future (which is not known in the same way--and quantum physics says in unknowable). Similarly, the physical-mental-(and I would add)spiritual nature of reality is reflected in its most basic "building blocks"--events, actual occasions, entities, or experiences (all of these terms are basically interchangeable).

The Kosmos is not "filled" with physical stuff or mental stuff or spiritual stuff. Rather is is built up of actual events (which are always physical, requiring some type of brain cell or vehicle of prehension) which can be built up of all three aspects. But the event itself possesses temporal and spacial extension... it happens somewhere over some period of time. There is nothing else but experience. Sense datum or a pain during heart attack or the collapse of the wave function is a "naked" event (requiring no additional input). Meditation or reflexion are complex events, built up by manipulating other basis or complex events. But experience is all there is.

'nuff said.

This approach is not something I just dreamed up. Its basis can be found in Heraclitus and Laozi and Gautama as well as Liebnitz, Pierce, Dewey, James, Quine, Routy, Whitehead, Hartshorne, Stapp, and Penrose.

 

[radarmark]

To summarize:

1) if we (conscious beings) only have experiences, then those experiences are all there are (in the Kosmos--experiential reality).

2) if we separate those experiences into physical and mental, lots of logical problems arise (gee, can I experience a sunrise without a consciousness, or love, or being shot?). Not the least of which is the fact that how can mental events influence physical events (I know I mean to write "write", but what is the physical causal link between the mean and the action? If physicality and mentality are separate things that is not possible--in accordance with the laws of physics).

3) induction (reasoning from a bunch of particulars to a general rule) is not logically provable if by logic we mean deductive logic. But this is how we learn to catch a ball, not put our hand into a fire, how to paint, how to love, how to build a nuclear weapon. These things cannot be explained unless induction works.

4) science is the application of induction and experimentation (collecting data) to physical phenomena, empirical things. Science likes to say it is "provable", but is not, it is verifiable, it is possible that a scientific prediction is false. It is "objectively true" that no scientific theory (from mechanics to quantum to relativity to chemistry to biology) is "absolute", there is always room for improvement. Our theories (or models) get better and better with time, but are never the same as that which is theorized about (modeled)... the Kosmos.

5) the best scientists can do is make accurate, falsifiable claims. Scientific truth is then a matter of probabilities (it is very very likely the sun will come up tomorrow, but it is not 100% certain).

6) as with duality (wherein everything is explainable in terms of matter and energy) modern science (relativity and quantum) has to make models and theories based on a point-of-view. That point-of-view can be wrong or can have alternative explanations. The Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum says that nothing is determined, that events are only predictable with probabilities or possibilities. Many-worlds theories say that each possible event actually occurs and the Kosmos splits into alternatives with each event. Neither of these alternatives is strictly falsifiable, therefore strictly scientific--they are meta-physical stances (metaphysics deals with that which is beyond physics). Same with the debate between big-bang theory and cyclic theory (where the Kosmos is eternal, a series of big bangs and big crunches). Same with the debate between mentality as epiphenomena (what I think I am thinking is a result of the goat cheese I ate last night or the random firing of neurons) and as "the hard problem" (the subject of consciousness, its qualias, are not reducible to physicality). The same with the "problem of induction"--the matter of differences is metaphysical, not empirical (or scientific).

7) lots of very important thoughts cannot be "proven true" or are (in some manner) "logically inconsistent". Like calculus or twistor math or string theory or or quantum mechanics or relativity theory or induction. But they work and work well. But formally, logically, using them is (really) as big an act of faith as believing in G!d.

Finally, a lot of very, very smart human beings, from Plato to Whitehead to Goswami to Penrose to LeMaitre to Heller have spent countless hours thinking and writing and debating these very points. It is a conundrum. My metaphysical approach is the (IMHO) best way I can come up with a comprehensive, consistent view of the Kosmos. I could toss out all that baggage and become a devout solipsist (one who believes the Kosmos exists only on her/his own head) or a devout shishya, but that just is not in me.

 

[radarmark]

What "science of the web" refers to is applying these same principles, this same metaphysics to the veil, the web, maya, the illusion which separates one from unity with that which is beyond.

 

[salishan]

11) This first philosophy should be congruent with one’s sense of life and is "the endeavor to frame a coherent, logical, necessary system of general ideas in terms of which every element of our experience can be interpreted."

Radarmark
exquisite creature

it's interesting

up till here (Point 1 thru Point 10)
this has been an impersonal exercise
in describing & defining "subjectivity"
talking about it "in the abstract"

now (Point 11)
u'r First Philosophy takes a personal turn
insisting that (to be true ? ) it must "fit" with u'r everyday life
(must be a "total" fit , or what ?
the "philosophy" is false ? )

the quote is from Whitehead , right ?
well i like Whitehead too (what little of him i've read)
but pal
(we are pals , right ? )
this sounds a little bit like

u are putting the cart before the horse

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

what is lacking from u'r entire disquisition , is
what u'r Freshman-year writing-instructor should have taught u

- example
- example
- example​

not just to "illustrate" u'r arguments
(each of u'r "11 points" would be more comprehensible , that way)

(to me) the place u should begin is , to state
an example from u'r own personal experience

then demonstrate the mechanisms thru which
(u think) this personal experience can (most accurately) be understood

(it's called "grounding u'r argument")

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

"philosophy" (like everything else) evolves
u are never going to nail "truth" on the head , perfectly
(that is the "idealist fallacy")

u have to come up an "approach to truth"
a course of action which feels to u
approximately correct , "going in the right direction"

then , as u run into problems
course-correct u'r heading
(rethink certain approaches
fine-tune u'r theory)

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

but u need to start from some real thing

one
little
(genuinely personal)
experience

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

u need to start by
forgetting every "philosopher" u've read

(that's my opinion , anyway)
if u are going to be "subjective"

be subjective ! !

 

[radarmark]

Re: Science of the Web to Salishan Part First

"Kosmos" ?
is this the Greek spelling of "Cosmos" ?
("principle of order" which appears to permeate existence ? )

Yes, I use it to designate all of reality (physical and informational). Informational designates (in human experience) mental and spiritual entities. Was der Fall ist, die Tatsache, ist das Bestehen von Sachverhalten.

right this minute , i am hearing the steady
drip drip drip
of a faucet i haven't fixed
(a very "orderly" linear process)
Radarmark , is my leaky faucet an example of "conscious" divinity at work ?
ancient agrarian (polytheistic) peoples are the first
to make a fetish of the principle of "order"
(a necessity if u are going to make "agriculture" work)
create calendars , so u know when to plant
create writing , to keep records of yields & storage
create civil laws , to regulate property disputes & debts & inheritance
create a religious cosmology , where the Big-god defeats the forces of Disorder
Ea kills Apsu
later Marduk kills Tiamat
Baal defeats Yam
later Yahweh defeats Leviathan et al
(who is it that Zeus defeats before the Titans ? & who Indra defeats ?
always some primordial "ocean"-like chaos , "Disorder" personified)
the ancient idea of "order" , Radarmark
grew up out of the necessity for creating
a stable & annually productive "universe"
with a stable "social order" as well
but the human race has continued to develop
since this ancient era
has developed itself (cognitively & affectively) a couple steps beyond
a stable linear principle of "cosmos" , a "principle of order"
do u really crave a modern (up-to-date) First Principle with
all this ancient baggage ?

I do not believe that it is either ancient or baggage. That is your baggage coming to the forefront. “Reality” is a synonym, but it has the baggage of being being-centered. I am not a big believer in what that entails (material monism and Platonic worlds). Rather, what I perceive in “Reality” is a set of becomings (much more Heraclitean than Parmenidean—say more complexity-emergence centered than rule-reductionist centered.

to me , Chaos Theory provides a more satisfying model
because it is rational in a nonlinear way
each (& every) physical system (including an ecosystem)
needs both "matter" & "energy" in order to function
but if this is all that is at work , here
then the system involved (a linear system) is
either going to become super-stable (ultimately overcome by inertia)
or devolve into something super-random (ultimately overcome by entropy)
u have to invent some form of Metaphysics (an order-giving Mind)
to account for any degree of genuine (inward or outward) evolution
but this is not
all that is at work , here

I do not quite agree. Complexity and Information physics goes beyond chaos (see Zurek). Chaos theory focuses on initial conditions I focus on continuous conditions that are chaotic or otherwise unknowable (Kolmogorov in both information theory and physics… I really do see the Kosmos as a set of possibilities-probabilities-potentialities which become concrete only through other actual entities).

The metaphysics-first philosophy-speculative philosophy is needed to turn the experience into a relexion on the experience to eke out a value, a meaning, a relationship, an understanding. Why? Because mere reaction is not enough. I react to my bride’s sniping and that strains the relationship… If instead I focus on what she intends (means) I realize she may need a hug or kiss. If I react to the collapse of the wavefunction (a physics thing) I may see nothing beyond it and fall into the multiple-worlds theory trap as an explanation (the easiest thing for a material monist to do)… If instead I focus on the creativity expressed I can see a Bohmian or Stappian solution.

The question is not whether we do metaphysics or not… it is rather do we consciously do them. Do we consciously seek connections or let personal or cultural prejudices rule? Do I look at the concept of G!d as something anyone and everyone can understand or do I impose my cultural bias of “One Truth, One Way, One Path”?

ecological systems (nonlinear systems)
(whether single cell or human neural networks)
are self-regulating
with feedback-devices & with feedforward-networks
recent scientists
(Andreas Meyer-Lindenberg & Karl Friston & John Beggs & Ed Bullmore & David Liley)
use such terms as "self-organized criticality" & "small-world networks"
to explain how inertia & entropy are overcome
how systems (when viewed as "nonlinear")
remain relatively stable , but not so stable that they cannot adapt to changing circumstances
yet are open to a variety of stimuli , but not so much variety as to cause sensory-overload
much simpler nonlinear systems than the human brain
show evidence of this kind of "phase-shift" state
(creating networks which resist becoming "phase-locked"
no drip drip drip)
this is the mark of "intelligence" within even a simple organic system , but
the human brain is the premier example (on this planet) of this kind of
intelligent anti-design , which (to me) is the driving force of planetary evolution
"intelligence" is nonlinear
& Chaos Theory shows where it comes from

100% agreement. It comes from chaos but becomes anti-chaos (or controlled chaos). That is what complexity theory (as I see it) says. It is the becoming not the origin I focus on.

 

[radarmark]

Re: Science of the Web For Salishan Part Second

"matter" & "energy" , yes
these are real (crucial) , but not decisive
"thought" & "consciousness" , no
they are unreal (Metaphysical) , & functionally delusive ("linear")
(unless u can
redefine these abstractions in nonlinear terms , Radarmark
as feedback-systems or feedforward-networks ?
as "self-organized criticality" or "small-world networks" ? )
though the science (backing this) is very recent , this
(actually) is basic Ecological Theory , which
has been around since the 1960s
what is decisive (here)
are the pair of regulators , the two "feeds"
this , Radarmark
is what is cold hard (definably) real
(rational but not "mental")

We disagree here. The rules of chaos and complexity are themselves information. And it is hard to process information (or even hypothesize it) without mentality. This gets to the core of the Chalmers-qualia debate. I can only point to and give examples of myself. My panic attacks (severe post-traumatic stress disorder) are my panic attacks. No matter if you can find the (let’s say) single neuron or network at fault… and you can watch it, that panic attack can never be experienced by anyone else. For instance, if you look at the recent neuroscience analyses of risk (see Elke Weber’s work) they have gotten to the point where they can capture the probability and consequence processes as the activation of specific loci. Ditto with feedback networks (like my panic attacks). fMRIs are wonderful, but the experience “in the mind” of the subject still remains in that mind… the consciousness of the observer cannot (insofar as we know) share that experience.

The abstractions you refer to can and are defined non-linearly by their nature. Experience (whether that of a human being or that of a quark) is complex and non-linear. The simplest example is quantum superposition. Entangled states are not linear. The most complex are human cerebral cortices and their embedded mentality.

each organism (u'r self included) exists as
a contained (relatively "closed") ecosystem
but u'r internal-ecology is surrounded by (& needs)
a larger encompassing ecosystem with which to (existentially) interact
u share this larger ecosystem with organisms having an internal-ecology similar to u'r own
competing for & cooperating to attain nutrients , & other forms of information
reality is
(the butterfly-total-effect of each and every)
"closed" ecological-system
each discrete systems of which experiences its outer-reality
(inputs bits of the larger ecology , info
"displaced" from the larger ecosystem) via feedback
feedback which yields usable raw-data , regarding
"things" & "events" in its immediate environment
(i.e. yields negative-feedback , "experience")
this usable raw-data (eventually) produces a closed "feedback-loop"
a channel of on-going (useful) data , a stream-of-experience
eventually , in its quest for nutrients & info
some discrete ecosystem (some organism) will become selectively "less closed"
(sites in its membrane will become more permeable)
this ecosystem partners with other (disparate or similar) ecosystems
each of which will specialize its own functioning (for higher net-efficiency)
& a portion of the two (once separate) feedback-loops of each's interior-ecology
will now become shared (become bonded-together) , into a symbiotic network")

Yes, in a modeling sense. However I (for one) so not experience the fragmentation you dwell upon. The inputs are experiences, the feedback are experiences, the things are experiences, the events are experiences. Like really good masonry you cannot separate them. I do not experience “raw-data” sitting around for me to use anymore than I experience nutrients. I experience a new thing (a new actuality) but not the thing-in-itself because that is an illusion (did I experience cold contracting my nipples this morning or did I experience sense-of-cold-and-decreased-(or is it increased)-blood-flow?).

I do “systems speak” and I know what you are indicating. But “seeing” the feedback loop ex post facto is not the same as becoming the loop (I ducked when incoming fire was directed at me and never had to process it at all once upon a time laying face down in a rice paddy stinking of human excrement).

this is how "progression" happens within a discrete ecosystem
1) membrane (any kind of feedback , to define boundaries between inside & outside)
2) negative-feedback (usable info)
3) on-going feedback-loops (experience)
4) partnered experience (symbiotic feedback-loops)
Radarmark , don't give too much credit to "humans"
(for subjectivity & for intersubjectivity)
much of what u are talking about is basic ecology
true for all creature on this (or any) planet

deep ecology comes out of process philosophy and complexity theory. The inter-connexions are not separable, that is a too-reductionist tendency. One can model (should model) it as such, but when all the deep diving is over the ecosystem is not separable except in terms of modeling, otherwise it ceases to be an ecosystem. Ditto for humanity or reality.

there's what's known (experience)
there's what's unknown (super-immanent/super-transcendent)
& taken together (known & unknown) , they = Gyd
?
Kosmos is like the (synergic ?) sum-total of thing-events in existence
Kosmos is like the physical existence of the universe , its "body" ?
then the unknown is a kind of vacuum , which the Kosmos plunges into ?
kind of a meta-existence , a mind ?
(if so , how is this not
Metaphysics warmed-over ? )

Experience is not known. It simply is. We can fantasize about future experiences or recall earlier ones. But we can only experience the current one (even if that is a fantasy or recall). The “pop-up” principle (self-reference) rears its ugly head here. What is, experience or actual occasions or concretenesses, are not physical. They are more than matter or energy, they have an informational (mental-spiritual) aspect. A prehensive (basic non-conscious, non-sensory awareness) if not a conscious aspect coming about due to the unknown (could be the “inter-connectedness” addition to the wave equation by Bohm or the mind of G!d of Aurodindo, I just do not know).

It is metaphysics, but I believe in something other than the material, something, by definition beyond physics). Is it a meta-mind (Aurobindo), a holism (Wilber), a quantum superposition (Stapp), a holographic level (Bohm), creativity (Whitehead), life (Bergson), G!d (Kazantzakis)? All and none… it is my experience of “that beyond”, something that is beyond words or syntax or semantics.

i get that the "Beyond" is presently "unknown"
but why is it always unknown ?
(i.e. , unknowable) ?

In the sense used above, yes. It is the same for the basis of mathematics (Godel) and information (Chaitin), for physics (Heisenberg), for science (Feyerabend), for philosophy (Whitehead), and metaphysics (Wittgenstein). Godel’s Theorem says we cannot know the system (expect consistency and completeness from within it (undecidability). Chaitin extended this to all systems. Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle says we cannot know beyond the effects of the principle of action (Planck’s constant and units). Feyerabend shows we cannot know how science works in a scientific manner. Whitehead shows philosophy is an unfinishble quest. And LW (as well as laotzi) shows the uselessness of discussing the experience of the ultimate, “Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.”

Yeah, I know, I talk about all of these all the time. We have actual limits to knowledge (provability), but the possibilities-probabilities-potentialities are my focus.

if matter can become energy & energy become matter
in the physical universe
why , in the Kosmos/Beyond nexus
can pieces of Kosmos (actualities) not be "forgotten" (as it were)
& become "unknown" ?
& why can pieces of the Beyond (u'r super-im/transes) , given time & much work
not become "known" ?
is this Kosmos/Beyond too static for that ?
(is there an absolute "conservation of Kosmic actualities & Beyond im/transes" ?
an absolute membrane between them ?)
(is Gyd just that static ? )

It is not a matter of too static but rather a matter of too dynamic (for me at least). No information is ever lost, but underlies everything that comes after. A particular actual occasion may be lost to, say, a black hole, or be too remote to be remembered en toto. The actual information flows into the next occasion (a black hole or lost memory).

Now can an actual occasion flow into the beyond… yes, that is my experience of the beyond. Can something beyond flow back? Physically this could be what created the universe (whether just once as in Big Bang Theory or an infinite time as in Loop Theory) or what happens with virtual particles or what the Great Souls or Teachers have brought back. This I do not know. I do know I cannot know (and neither can a consciousness existing within the Kosmos).

this all sounds so much like
the drawing-room Enlightenment gentleman
praising "reason" above our "animal faculties"
yes , i admire the methodical rigor
of the scientist or journalist or historian
but it is "method" , not "mind" (not modeling)
which i admire
2500ya , "philosophy" is a game-changer
(replaces the old "associative" dream-logic of Temple civilization , with a
rigorously "definitive" propositional-logic , developed by Greek sophists)
but what was a breakthru then is a hindrance now
as Wittgenstein points out
philosophy is snarled in language

a, but language is snarled in consciousness, so the entire Gordian Knot has to be taken on faith and each of us deal with it as we will (and can). Mathematics and logic no longer rule (they have limits). At those limits (beyond the physical or metaphysics) is where the next big break-through will come from, I believe. Relativity and quantum and information physics are all at that limit now. Most advances (like Greene or Fredkin or Stapp or Finkelstein) are not (by definition) provable, so must be handled by reasoning. Even if that reasoning is partial or fuzzy. Then physics becomes a lot like theology.