apokrisis

You have to look at it the other way around. Chaos is so much “somethingness” that it is effectively a nothingness. Just an unstructured torrent of po...

Agreed. But what is also key is that the map of the territory is one that is a map of the territory with oneself in it as well. So it isn’t a map with...

So Kuhn was wrong about paradigms? Whatever. (Do you see how you just employed the data processing paradigm that Bayesian mechanics replaces to try to...

:up: Well said. As a model of neurophysiology, it goes back to the first efforts at mind science in the 1800s. What is new is to cash out the story as...

The theory here is sort of like that. You need to destroy surprise in order to be surprised. You have to create a baseline where the world is made as ...

But Friston is creating a mathematically general theory of the modelling relation that distinguishes all bios from all a-bios. He is giving neuroscien...

Not really. Finding your lost keys might be a pleasing surprise. A sudden increase in your world certainty. Spotting the lurking tiger is something di...

Nice of you to say so, but it was a hurried reply to a confused OP. I can do better. :smile: First, it is obvious that to be able to predict the world...

Chosen by who? Are you saying the particles - as the matter - got to choose their SU(3) interaction as their structure of relations, rather than the p...

So when it comes to the Standard Model of particle physics, the group symmetry doesn’t limit the material possibilities? Sounds legit.

Friston states where the flaw in this lies... The whole "darkened room" angle only has legs for the naive realist. Bayesian mechanics is about the pra...

Well the structure is what shapes the material stuff that it needs. Thus it is a closed and self organising view of nature. The Standard Model of part...

Most people never get it. :grin: Yep. Emergence is generally employed as a hand-waving patch for the failure of materialism/reductionism. You get a cl...

A naive realist might say that. A structural realist adopts a more sophisticated ontology. You are free to imagine whatever you want. I simply ask for...

You are arguing against someone else. I’m a structuralist, not a materialist.

This is where you get to explain just how the processes could fail to be accompanied by a conscious experience. You don’t just get to assert it as a f...

You need to study the thermodynamics of dissipative structures that are enclosed by a Markov blanket - that have an epistemic cut or a modelling relat...

Or more importantly, the “materialist” might in fact be a semiotician and systems thinker. And they might actually have a theory. What have you got to...

This is bullshit. I posted Friston’s presentation. If you can’t muster the energy to consider what the world’s premier thinker on the subject has to s...

I posted the Friston video to show that neuroscience can now claim to show that “modelling” is a physically generic fact of reality. It is not some ar...

Huh? Did you not understand the part of my post where I argued from the position of a structuralist, as opposed to a substantialist, ontology? It is t...

You are doubting something before you have even understood what you claim to doubt. So until you can supply some grounds to substantiate your doubt….

Do you understand the Bayesian/semiotic approach to modelling well enough to justify such a doubt? If not, your proclaimed doubt is “happening in the ...

There are better options. Maybe it is structure that is fundamental and not properties. Properties may be better thought of as emergent features of sy...

But who supports a definition of metaphysics as the study of the supernatural? And when metaempirical is used as a term, it is about the wider epistem...

Be huffy. But as Callender notes, it is not about what is or isn’t observed. The metaphysics grounds what even counts as the right kind of measurement...

This is ridiculous. Here is what a competent philosopher says as something just taken for granted….

Damn. :razz:

These are always “just models” that need to prove themselves pragmatically. And I’ve said that reductionism and holism themselves are reciprocal point...

That would be true if they make a positive and open minded argument for it. No problem there.

If this is to be argument by definition, then I’m happy with the usual position that metaphysics is an inquiry into the nature and causes of being, Th...

it’s not about different interpretations of the same facts. It is about the axiomatic basis by which some observation could constitute “a fact”. So th...

Did you understand your own point. Seems not.

It is one thing when the needle moves. It is another thing when a guy in a white coat told you it was going to move exactly like that for exactly this...

They certainly ought to constrain what would be considered credible. Like after Darwin, you might quarrel about how humans arose from apes. But no lon...

Sigh. How is your case furthered by citing all these physicists taking different metaphysical positions?

Did you have an example in mind?

This is just you boundary policing. Next you will be saying that Atomism played no part in the Scientific Revolution.

Bivalence is a reduction to two options. That sets up the further reduction to just the one monistic choice - as the other becomes the not-true. This ...

Yeah, nah. :smile: Physics practices its own winning brand of metaphysical world-modelling. It gets on with what it believes works. Philosophy of scie...

:lol:

Both. Metaphysics is in general the application of reason or rationality to the understanding of nature. Logic, or logics, are its tool. Then physics ...

So … not yes? :smile:

So God exists. There is no God. We must take these statements as both true, and both requiring their own justification, rather than being a single cou...

To be true or false as a particular claim requires meeting the test of being a statement to which both the principle of noncontradiction and the law o...

Personally, I don't bother reading Kant or even Hegel with any diligence. They are good thinkers, but really just historical stepping stones towards P...

Yep. And my argument is against the notion of "stuff" itself. Stuff is just the actuality of in-formed substantial being - as Aristotle said, in his h...

This come back to a claim that everything is one kind of stuff, one kind of substance. Peirce is arguing everything comes back to the one kind of proc...

I was puzzled by the angle you are taking here. But a check of your bio and a quick skim of your P&M monism thesis hopefully explains. Some like to se...

He never set it out in a book or even completely finished figuring it out. The Peircean triad simply informs all his thought as the structure that gui...