apokrisis

Can this dualist account for the causal basis of the apparent interaction between mind and world in physicalist fashion?

I'm sure you will launch into an explanation at any minute. X-)

Yep. I am defining physicalism as opposed to the transcendental/supernatural. So I am claiming immanence and naturalism. How do those terms then cash ...

Great. So you are talking about people like yourself who would call themselves something, but then who aren't able to define why they would call thems...

But physicalists can be both reductionist and holist. I would say I am resolutely physicalist in rejecting any transcendental or supernatural causes o...

So you said holism vs reductionism doesn't necessarily have a rigorous definition. I supplied my rigorous definition (one that I have to say is common...

Thanks for illustrating my point about how a reductionist would want to conceive the causal story.

Mine would be story about cranes rather than sky hooks because I am saying that the constraints would have to arise immanently from the world they als...

So reductionists have changed the definition of reductionism since Bacon so famously defined it? Perhaps you can explain what has changed?

Why would I be under the impression that I was describing some common definition rather than providing the rigorous one? Again, if you have a complain...

If you have a quarrel with my rigorous definition, take it up with my rigorous definition. Maybe you meet all your "holists" down at the yoga retreat....

Most people haven't looked into the issue rigorously so they would share your lack of rigorous insight.

Reductionism aims to reduce all causality to material and efficient cause - ie: bottom-up constructive cause. The story of substantial parts in contin...

They certainly all suffer the same issue of severing causality and so creating disconnected realms. But strong emergentism and non-reductive physicali...

You offered to make sense of your post.

Might be a reach, but sure, give it a go.

This is the advantage of a pansemiotic physicalism. The meaning of symbols cannot be read off the physics of marks. The realm of sign or code is opaqu...

Idiotic. THAT particular is A particular, but THE particular is A generality. It's basic grammar - the dichtotomy of the definite and indefinite artic...

Dissolved? Seriously, WTF?

Strewth. What's so difficult about seeing that "general" and "particular" are both names for generalities?

Give me strength... A dichotomy opposes generality against generality. So it is not about the other thing which is the hierarchical division between t...

Yeah. So why do I/semiosis call it a "sign"? In what way is that ignoring observers rather than invoking them? Really? Or do you just mean that it doe...

Amazing, clocks and rulers measure space and time and yet only take up some interval of space or time. One would almost think that signs of things wer...

It was neuroscience/philosophy of mind that led me to biosemiosis as the best ontic model. So it is the empirical support that convinces me. It explai...

I missed this. You're wrong because the Peircean system is a hypothesis set up counterfactually. If it fails to accord with nature, then nature will m...

Poor SX. Not waving but drowning.

Yes. And....? (I mean if that's how we design a clock, then what else do we expect?) But I said that the requirement for separation is the cause of sp...

The Peircean or systems view is that possible difference becomes actual difference as it is regularised by constraining habit. The further category of...

Well we can count the changes, can't we? Or is "sequence" a notion alien to you? And the reason we can count changes is because they are locked into a...

Plato was a dualist. Deleuze wanted to collapse his dialectical distinctions to be a univocal monist. Peirce was a triadicist who argued instead for a...

Or instead, emergence IS time, time being what we call a sequence of change or development. Well I would want a model of thermal or thick time that is...

Biggest laugh of the day. But whatever keeps your spirits up sunshine. :)

I think you've stop trying. Talk of similarity and difference could be extended to the level of the genus "Cosmos". But here we are talking just of th...

OK. So Deleuze's key party trick is to invert Plato - replace identity as sameness with identity as difference. How trivial. My constraints-based appr...

It means that the derived function is less constrained in adding a further dimension. And yes, it would be fair to dichotomise that in terms of qualit...

Although reading Smith's essay and seeing your OP is basically a crib of that, Smith also relies on dichotomies to define the singular. Traditionally ...

To get back to the question you failed to address, your accusation to me was that I am unable to think the singular. What you meant by that has not be...

Getting it off your chest yet? :D Of course I would employ the same analytic tools on every question. It is what everyone does - they just call it bei...

I'm not exactly sure but this certainly sounds the same as what I'm saying. :) You may focus more on Geist or spirit - which I say is treating mindful...

Personally I am much more on the idealist side than that. We can't ground belief in ontology at all. We can only truly know our own "ontic commitments...

If you think that a modelling relation is circular - and that active cybernetic relation is a problem - then fine. I'm not explaining it yet again. Gr...

But dichotomies are justified logically. They are crisply defined as an operator or symmetry-breaking relation in being mutually exclusive and jointly...

Yep. So as I said. A limit is defined "directly in distinction" - dichotomously - with the immanently realisable or actually possible. Becoming ends i...

So we can imagine what is not. We can be ready to act in every way that is "realistic" to something that could physically exist. The reason we can do ...

So you added this further idiocy. Explicit in my description of limits is that they don't "actually exist". Limits are what actuality can approach - w...

Its like the way you rail against my talk about constraints-based causality and top-down hierarchical order and yet preach to me about Bateson's cyber...

But Evens was your cite. You brought up the maths of limit functions. So maybe you don't understand math, maybe you don't read your cites, or maybe yo...

Did I say that generals were terms or complementary limits on being? Terms are a term you introduced. You might be thinking epistemically of concept f...

What a surprise. It makes the very case you so strenuously want to deny! It points out that dy/dx is a reciprocal relation. It is entire to itself bec...

But what I actually say is the predicate relation - as the "thing" that exists between "two other things" - is, as holism recognises, a relation betwe...