Tremendous. Very, very cool. That four-fold structure is very important: because the two views are contrastive and precisely inverse you’re correct: there are four ways they can still ‘talk to each other’ in a 2x2 matrix
For a blog post Joseph, you’ve definitely gone the extra mile! Let’s go deeper regarding your analogy between us and this computer game snake. Just as it can’t get back to its code, I don’t think we can in the end either. Regardless of any of my figuring, I might just be the product of Descartes’ “evil demon”. But there is a big difference between me and this snake. I happen to be a value driven mind that can control the snake, though it otherwise presumably has no mind. So let’s try to exploit this apparent difference.
One of your metaphysical options was “material”. More modern would be the term “physical”, though I don’t think even that’s explicitly descriptive enough. I like “causal”, and with a “systemic” modifier to differentiate this from something that a god might affect. I presume that I exist under a world of perfect systemic causality, since this is the only option where science is not rendered obsolete (by gods or any other supernatural dynamics). Furthermore I, as a value based entity that experiences its existence, must then be a product of worldly causal dynamics.
Science suggests that mind is brain based. So given this scaffolding, what are the causal dynamics by which brain creates mind? The most popular position in academia today is that brain creates mind by means of the proper coding alone. In my post #3 I argue that this violates systemic causality — code can only exist as such by informing something causally appropriate. So what might my brain’s code be informing that is causally appropriate to reside as me? In my post #4 I argue that the only option with sufficient bandwidth and dynamism, is the electromagnetic field produced by synchronously firing neurons. Here brain may be considered a non-conscious computer, and mind would be a value driven computer which loops back as EMF that affects the brain. And why did brain evolve to create this value driven computer that is each of us? More open circumstances (perhaps during the Cambrian) may have required far greater autonomy.
I think you are making sort of an error here, if I get the point.
I have a story in my head. I can realize this story as a novel, a play, a videogame, or a movie. There is no ultimate reality to the structure I use to create the story, and you are right that I can be pragmatic to choose the structure I need.
But this isn't "ultimate reality" because I create the story. A creator transcends the thing he creates. The ultimate reality in this case is the will of the creator, and you would have to view things from the perspective of a character in the story to see how pluralism may not work here or to postulate an ultimate reality.
The fact that you can choose between structures means you are an entity superior to those structures, and they aren't ultimate reality, you are. But there can be an ultimate reality you are subject to in that "character" sense, like say a physics equation explaining terminal velocity. There isn't choice here but discovery.
I don't really have the background to argue about metaphyics in a character/creator sense, but if pragmatic I would think in the end it can't be metaphysics because you are the meta, if you get my drift.
I do recognise that there are differences between different representations or instantiations of the same structure, like I made my choices in making the game based on the differences relative to myself. And even to say that the different objects identified with the projective plane are equivalent, we have to recognise that they are equivalent topologically, while different in other ways.
I wouldn't say that a creator's intentions are the ultimate reality of a thing. Often our creations have elements that surprise us, or that can have new or better meanings and uses for others, and I think these are just as valid as what the creator intended. That act of reinterpretation and repurposing is the source of so much creativity, even in nature.
"What is real is the structure, and that structure can be represented, expressed, and conceptualised in endless different ways for different purposes."
What is objectively real is the structure, but the relata of that structure in terms of conscious experience are untranscendably real phenomenal primitives that are private to each subject. https://substack.com/@twc3/p-185123199
Tremendous. Very, very cool. That four-fold structure is very important: because the two views are contrastive and precisely inverse you’re correct: there are four ways they can still ‘talk to each other’ in a 2x2 matrix
My further thoughts here: https://fourfoldphilosopher.substack.com/p/are-experiences-actual-or-potential?r=4bks72&utm_medium=ios
For a blog post Joseph, you’ve definitely gone the extra mile! Let’s go deeper regarding your analogy between us and this computer game snake. Just as it can’t get back to its code, I don’t think we can in the end either. Regardless of any of my figuring, I might just be the product of Descartes’ “evil demon”. But there is a big difference between me and this snake. I happen to be a value driven mind that can control the snake, though it otherwise presumably has no mind. So let’s try to exploit this apparent difference.
One of your metaphysical options was “material”. More modern would be the term “physical”, though I don’t think even that’s explicitly descriptive enough. I like “causal”, and with a “systemic” modifier to differentiate this from something that a god might affect. I presume that I exist under a world of perfect systemic causality, since this is the only option where science is not rendered obsolete (by gods or any other supernatural dynamics). Furthermore I, as a value based entity that experiences its existence, must then be a product of worldly causal dynamics.
Science suggests that mind is brain based. So given this scaffolding, what are the causal dynamics by which brain creates mind? The most popular position in academia today is that brain creates mind by means of the proper coding alone. In my post #3 I argue that this violates systemic causality — code can only exist as such by informing something causally appropriate. So what might my brain’s code be informing that is causally appropriate to reside as me? In my post #4 I argue that the only option with sufficient bandwidth and dynamism, is the electromagnetic field produced by synchronously firing neurons. Here brain may be considered a non-conscious computer, and mind would be a value driven computer which loops back as EMF that affects the brain. And why did brain evolve to create this value driven computer that is each of us? More open circumstances (perhaps during the Cambrian) may have required far greater autonomy.
I think you are making sort of an error here, if I get the point.
I have a story in my head. I can realize this story as a novel, a play, a videogame, or a movie. There is no ultimate reality to the structure I use to create the story, and you are right that I can be pragmatic to choose the structure I need.
But this isn't "ultimate reality" because I create the story. A creator transcends the thing he creates. The ultimate reality in this case is the will of the creator, and you would have to view things from the perspective of a character in the story to see how pluralism may not work here or to postulate an ultimate reality.
The fact that you can choose between structures means you are an entity superior to those structures, and they aren't ultimate reality, you are. But there can be an ultimate reality you are subject to in that "character" sense, like say a physics equation explaining terminal velocity. There isn't choice here but discovery.
I don't really have the background to argue about metaphyics in a character/creator sense, but if pragmatic I would think in the end it can't be metaphysics because you are the meta, if you get my drift.
Good post.
I do recognise that there are differences between different representations or instantiations of the same structure, like I made my choices in making the game based on the differences relative to myself. And even to say that the different objects identified with the projective plane are equivalent, we have to recognise that they are equivalent topologically, while different in other ways.
I wouldn't say that a creator's intentions are the ultimate reality of a thing. Often our creations have elements that surprise us, or that can have new or better meanings and uses for others, and I think these are just as valid as what the creator intended. That act of reinterpretation and repurposing is the source of so much creativity, even in nature.
Outstanding, Joseph!!
Thank you!
goated as hell!
Thank you!
This is so gnarly (in a good way!!) — 🤟🤟
It reminds me of the wave mode in ‘Geometry Dash’ - that one only splits in two though & the paths are different so it is ‘more about timing’
I will be playing more at work today if we are not busy lol shh don’t tell my boss I think he’s on here🫣
Thank you!
Feel free to comment your high scores! Mine is 130
"What is real is the structure, and that structure can be represented, expressed, and conceptualised in endless different ways for different purposes."
What is objectively real is the structure, but the relata of that structure in terms of conscious experience are untranscendably real phenomenal primitives that are private to each subject. https://substack.com/@twc3/p-185123199