apokrisis

How is an OP on the architectonic structure of theories not an epistemological question? The surprise might be that there is a single general answer h...

Lists don’t really cut it if what you are reaching for is an account of a functional architecture. You need to understand the structure of the flow. A...

But isn't evolution a balancing of the competitive and the co-operative? That's what ecology says. Peirce's religious excesses are what they are. To b...

But it is only the differences that we would experience or measure. And "entropy" talk is about imputing the mechanism. Time has a thermodynamic arrow...

What distinguishes architectonics is that it is speaking to the unity of this view taking. And it is an anti-nominalist, and hence systematic, meta-th...

The point of architectonics would be to get to the root of what "knowing" could even be. What would be its natural, and hence inescapable, organisatio...

Sorry, I don’t think I follow. Entropy is a measure of where some system X might be on a spectrum between maximal order and maximal disorder - if we a...

Just popped back to check an old post. Nice to see a few metaphysics threads going. :)

Hi Javra. As Shannon made clear, these would be physically complementary perspectives. The information and the dynamics. But also, that fact gets conf...

What you are drawing attention to is that “disorder” is a relative claim. The question becomes “disordered in relation to what kind of expectation, me...

The other ontic choice is to motor past dualism to arrive at the irreducible triadic complexity of a developmental or process view of "existence". You...

Try http://rpdata.caltech.edu/publications/Phillips2006.pdf Phillips, R., & Quake, S. (2006). The Biological Frontier of Physics Physics Today 59 http...

But you called naturalism vague and irrational without good justification. And as a theist, you have yet to show that you are willing to deal with the...

This is a passive/substantive notion of "mind". And it might fit a dyadic Saussurian notion of semiotics. But I prefer a triadic Peircean approach tha...

A theist would say that. But scientific naturalism accepts the empirical evidence that life and mind evolved and so there are good grounds to expect n...

That is why the semiotic approach would be that of a triadic relation. The marks serve to mediate between the meanings and the world. So the word “cha...

Alternatively, information and matter make a pretty sound modern naturalism. What can be dubbed the pan-semiotic approach. Where we make a huge ontolo...

To the emergent macroproperties.

No. It reaches an equilibrium state where the continuing dynamic change ceases to make a general difference. You would still call yourself actually yo...

You said “constantly”, not me.

Hence the wisdom of collective rationality as epistemic best practice. If we agree how to measure something, then we can lift ourselves out of our ind...

So as to close the loop of reason and stop the endless torrent of bullshit that otherwise tends to flow.

What about those of us who believe that it being so subjective is the reason why the freedoms of the imagination must be regulated by the discipline o...

The debate here is really whether substance is primary or emergent. I am saying monism doesn't work, and neither does dualism. The simplest possible w...

Yes. Dualism arises out of materialism by treating the mind as another kind of substance or stuff. Consciousness would be a property of that substanti...

But I told you. Until we get to the bottom of how little you have learnt on the issue over these past 45 years, where could one even start?

Lets not run before we can walk, eh.

Did you want me to move your fingers for you as you type "hylomorphism" into Google? :razz: You are the one posturing with your claims of 45 years of ...

So in those 45 years, did you ever actually bone up on basic Aristotelian metaphysics? Seems not.

What I posted. Substantial being can't be just matter, or just form. And yet the folk position is that matter just IS substance and form ISN'T substan...

Yep. Your position is that you back two contradictory positions without apparently realising it.

Hence hylomorphism. Sure. The thing is - the bit that actually interests me - is that we can talk very clearly about the formal aspect of substantial ...

Correct. Again correct. So the problem remains that you don't see the contradiction between the two statements. Substantial being can't be just matter...

Sure. If we redefine matter as idea, I guess problem solved? What are you talking about?

Easy. You show that "bottle" is an idea that can be imposed on other materials, like plastic or metal. And you can show that "glass" is what you are l...

I can't make sense of this.

Too much Too true. That is the problem. You are content with the usual folk metaphysics. So if matter can never lack form, then ontically, what is mat...

I don't think you are really thinking about what you are saying. If it is "just glass" then how is it "a bottle"? You can separate the formal and mate...

A naive realist.

But I asked if you could supply your own. Interesting that you won't. This is an example of the confusion I was hoping you would clarify. Is it true t...

So then, if matter isn't about a microscopic vs macroscopic distinction, how are you defining matter exactly? So can the macroscopic stuff "comprise" ...

You said they were not matter, implying matter was something else beyond particles and objects. I was trying to unearth the folk notions that you are ...

If the particles aren't matter, and the combination of particles are not matter, then what is matter? I'll answer. The usual folk notion is that matte...

Again, to me, this is just cogsci types talking past the social psychology. If you think that the brain is divided into a rational part and an emotion...

I agree with @"unenlightened". Schizophrenia makes more sense at this general level of impairment. A self~world distinction is more basic than the sel...

I can’t follow what you are agreeing or disagreeing with. But one of the points I am emphasising is that it is this very distinction - the one between...

Yawn.

Which I never said. So get it right. I said there are differences that make a difference distinguished from differences that don’t. So in gestalt fash...

Are we now talking about the natural as opposed to the artificial or the supernatural? And if you are conceiving of some fundamental unity, how does t...

Sure. We pay attention to the differences that matter and are indifferent to those that don’t. Thanks for confirming this applies to any level of acts...