apokrisis

I didn't say he resolves them. I said they sink without trace in his ambiguity. Hegel at least saw it as a hierarchical spiral where each level of syn...

Peirce says initial free spontaneity becomes regulated by globally developed habits of constraint. That is a very general systems science statement. W...

That is the usual vague reply on Whitehead. His system is a system that successfully absorbs all categorical differences ... which would be why I cons...

And why can't that be denied? Only because you won't spell out how exactly Whitehead goes beyond Peirce in your estimation. I think every supporter of...

I just don't see any important similarities. So I would welcome you explaining what they might be. Every time I try to delve into Whitehead, it just s...

So what follows from it merely being "heightened"? Where does that leave us? The contradiction still has to be answered. Or are you conceding that it ...

Oh please. If you can make any sense of Whitehead and how he goes "well beyond", here is your perfect chance to lay that wisdom out.

Well, Australasia. I've had good mates from both Ashburton and Warrnambool. You wouldn't know the difference. Does that seem enough of an answer to yo...

OK. And what do you conclude from knowing that it was only the drugs causing that state of mind?

Unreadable bunk.

A bogan. It’s a local speciality.

A sensible paper that. :up:

But it should be clear I am not actually agreeing with your definition of cognition. Whatever you think it might be. Or of affect. I simply say it is ...

As a meta-theory of theories, ain't that kind of vague? Or is even a unifying meta-theory a dangerous thing to have? There should be as many meta-theo...

Do you have a different theory about theories? You are welcome to explain. Do you see it as a defect that I should in fact start from the phenomenolog...

Or finally you understood something that was always being said? (Though I doubt that you see this as a dismissal of "qualia". You are still going to c...

Sure. There is plenty of perceptual stuff that we don't notice until we learn how to pay attention to it. And it is my psychological claim that learni...

Again, any claim of direct knowledge admits that there is a distinction to be made with indirect knowledge. So you are talking about a noumenal knowle...

No. The stress is on "effectively". And a logic of vagueness is based on the suspension of the principle of non-contradiction. It is rather the point ...

My point is that to take "experience" as "primordial" is already to frame it as the noumenal thing-in-itself. It is already going beyond expererience ...

Always a devastating answer. Shows you take the big questions seriously.

Bollocks. It says more about the history of intellectual advance and the very nature of pragmatic inquiry. Let's not kid ourselves. We might well choo...

Starting with nothing is incoherent as nothing can come from nothing. But starting with everything is coherent as at least then you only need to limit...

But "experiences" is an empty, question-begging, sort of term. Sure, everything that is individuated can then react or relate. We can measure that in ...

It's kind of off-putting when you keep talking about propper names. But as a Peircean, I do indeed find Fregeanism the over-simplified version. Eg: ht...

So it could just as easily be you who is "Harry Hindu" here. Sounds legit.

Think what you like. I'll wait until you define the difference. From a neuroscience point of view, what most folk really mean by conscious experience ...

That's just you still imposing your dualistic framing on any words that pass your eyes. A modelled selfhood would be an illusion to you because you - ...

Wrong question. If nothing has yet been prevented from being the case, then what isn't the case? A fluctuation is just a way to talk about the barest ...

The answer is obvious. Complex brains do complex modelling. When I use my eyes, I create a model of a world from some pattern of illumination falling ...

To ask which bit of the sign relation is the “conscious bit” is to miss the point. Consciousness, as a biological phenomenon, is a result of a brain m...

So you accept modelling would reasonably feel like something. My job is done.

Alternatively, change could be fundamental and somethingness is what we get when unbounded fluctuation is stably bounded. How does a star exist when i...

But no need to exaggerate the mysteries. How could a living, running, intentional model of the world - a model which includes a model of “ourself” - f...

Not seeing your slippery slope to panpsychism. Only seeing that you don’t get pansemiosis.

Yeah. Just look at everything made impossible in just the past 50 years. Chaos theory. Complexity theory. Fractals. Dissipative structure theory. The ...

You don’t understand Peircean triadicism. Secondness is the particular. So it arises from firstness as brute reaction and then becomes a repeatable ac...

OK. Blame that on the scholastic rewrite if you like. But once culture, language and technology came along, could it have ended differently? That was ...

But you show no signs of being up to date on that science. @"Read Parfit" gave you excellent reading suggestions from a researcher in the front line. ...

And which bit of this creating and interpreting of genetic information can’t be explained by physicalism? You say logically there must be something be...

Sure. We can grant noesis as an advanced skill of a suitably trained human mind. We can have such a well developed concept of the abstract that we can...

You missed some vital punctuation. It should be: The name "Harry Hindu" refers to my mental image of “you”. And really, even your “my” should be in qu...

But what we see is a world divided into its structural necessities and its material accidents. And is the world actually divided, or instead hylomorph...

Nope. Semiotics does reimagine the fundamentally simple as being pansemiotic and thus as much mind-like as matter-like in some good sense. But conscio...

So “disaster” is claimed merely for dramatic effect. Thank goodness for Pythagoreanism. It reveals the true epistemic nature of modelling. We could be...

Your question isn’t clear. But perhaps you mean that what we signify by “consciousness” is a really complex lived relation with the world. I’ve given ...

The separation of the observer from the whatever by the semiotic formation of an umwelt. So “we” are the point of view shrugging our shoulders about t...

If this is so, why do 99% of humans really suck at maths in this fashion? :razz: Either they lack a rational soul or in fact it takes considerable tra...

You mean, like the information of a genome? Physical configurations encode constraints and thus tendencies generally. So finality, as globalised or co...

The signs sums up what matters to us about our relation with it. So beyond that begins all we don’t need to care about. It becomes the possible differ...