Janus

That's fair enough; I wasn't actually criticising those who are participating in this thread, just expressing my surprise that the OP could be thought...

I guess it's just not relevant to my area of interest in philosophy. I still don't believe you were really offended, though. :grin:

You seem to have made a much better fist of it than I ever could! :smile:

I'll admit I probably would not understand the philosophical significance of probability distributions even if I had read the relevant posts. I would ...

Why? :rofl:

Seems to me you're talkin' tiger shit, buddy! :joke:

It's truly remarkable that a question which is of no philosophical significance or interest could generate so many responses on a philosophy forum!

I have already said that we have no model for any interaction between the mental and the physical. If these are considered to be different substances ...

I don't see why neutral monists would need to be self-proclaimed Scottists. The only one who I can think of who might be ( although this is really a q...

Are you playing the sophist now? Clearly i have been referring to the two purportedly fundamental substances of dualism. I haven't said there is an in...

What point are you trying to make? I asked why the universe as a whole could not be considered to be uncaused.

I forgot to address this. The idea is not that processes within the universe, but the universe as a whole might be self-caused. Why would it be any st...

The problem is we have no way of understanding how transcendent being could interact with immanent being; we simply have no model for that at all. By ...

I agree with everything you have written there, but just one comment: Neutral monism need not refer to "stuff", but may simply refer to the most gener...

The world's smallest mind should be able to find it somewhere nearby in the world's smallest world... :joke:

You know what? I can't be bothered any more. I have no investment in Whitehead's philosophy, or Peirce's philosophy and semiosis for that matter, beyo...

Information is a difference that makes a difference. Making a difference is producing a change. In the broadest understanding of experience it just is...

We know what we mean when we says things like "The cliff experienced the erosive force of the wind and rain" , or "the electron experiences the attrac...

Nothing you have said explains how the problem of interaction is purportedly dispelled. Yes, but the way you talk about it is in tendentious terms tha...

What is experience if not information; and conversely what is information if not some kind of experience? Information in-forms entities, that is chang...

Thanks, I'll check that other Shaviro book out. Yes, both Peirce and Whitehead are difficult, but I think it's true of most of the greats. Luckily we ...

By "subjective awareness" do you intend to posit something radically separate from the physical? What if the objective and subjective accounts of huma...

I agree with what you say here. A while ago I read Shaviro's Without Criteria and I found it quite illuminating. I have also been slowly working my wa...

I see this, just logically, as being one possibility, the other being a transcendent agent. So, I must choose which seems more in accordance with my e...

That's like saying "When one human experiences another, what is the maths involved? How does your gay talk about experiencing change a damn thing abou...

Relevance to QM?

And semiosis does?

That seems right, but the same would apply to Peirce's sign relation: the idea of just one sign relation going on at a time is just an abstract or ide...

If all physical processes are counted as being semiotic activities, then yes. In fact they are not described at all, but merely defined as what is. Al...

That blog emphasizes the purportedly "dipolar" nature of Whitehead's metaphysics compared with the triadic nature of Peirce's. But there is a long his...

You seem to be descending into dualistic thinking here. For Whitehead the sum of the experiences (the interpretations) just is the world; there is not...

Experience is defined by Whitehead as any event or process. The point for Whitehead's metaphysics is that the fundamental entities are not substances ...

You're mischaracterizing Whitehead again; consciousness is not even of much significance in his system. For Whitehead only the tiniest fraction of wha...

Perhaps not, but then the question of theodicy is one of the greatest importance in philosophy of (at least Abrahamic) religion, and the story of Abra...

Not so, the story of Abraham is central to Kierkegaard's philosophy. Also all the questions in the OP are ethical questions of existential import to a...

Here is the passage in question: Why do we need "an agent which acts as the cause of the organism" as opposed to the physical conditions that give ris...

Would there not be some common outward manifestations of the "inner' experience of identifying oneself with some particular notion of gender identity?

Evolution is not a monolithic theory, though. The three principles you cited are the bases of the theory, no doubt. But, as I already touched upon the...

I already know what commitments eliminative materialism consists in. My point has been that EM does not exhaust the possibilities concerning what can ...

What it is to play golf as an experience is not something you share with others, but an experience you have in kind with other golfers. You cannot kno...

I have long thought the "what it is to be like" is kind of wrongheaded. Nagel says there is something it is like to be a bat. I would say there is not...

That would be one kind of physicalism: the "eliminative" kind.

I think it depends on whether your understanding of the physical is mechanistic or organistic. You seem to be thinking exclusively in terms of efficie...

OK, you are assuming God, which is fair enough, but you don't actually have an argument for that assumption. You'll just say something like "It seems ...

So, there is no infinite being apart from our concepts of it or there is infinite being, but it is not natural? Sorry, I have no idea what you are tal...

:smile: Yes, I think it's right to say that, according to process metaphysics, no unchanging substance exists "in the present moment" or indeed at all...

This would only hold true on an arguably superseded account of biological evolution that does not allow for any influence from the environmental to th...

Both these assertions depend upon the assumption that there is no infinite being. Do you have an argument to support that assumption? Do you have an a...

I'm not taking any view, though, at least in the context of this discussion; I'm saying that all consistent metaphysical sysyems have their different ...

Do you have an argument to support this bald assertion? So, are you, or are you not, claiming that there is no semiosis apart from the human? It's not...