Where does meaning come from?

Although I agree with this reductionism is not a universally accepted methodology with regard to understanding our place in the universe
Since many prefer alternative means of understanding and therefore do not see exclusively scientific explanations as entirely satisfactory

surreptitious75

I see there are benefits to both subjectivity and objectivity independently and together - I see there are problems being too semantically bound to language and/or logic especially in the onset - while I agree that distinctions should be maintained, I also believe that anyone who is able to keep those distinctions maintained is free enough to experiment in the onset to use intuition along with less semantically bound terms to see what may have been missed previously through the use of anal retentive systems.

I do see what you are saying - really I do - I also think that depending on what one is trying to achieve and what one is trying to understand and the freedom we have to move things around in that attempt to achieve and understand the topic in question then the word subjective can be extended to cover new ground. We are after all a part of the reality that we are trying to study in this case. I see science has become hamstrung in its attempt to provide all the answers and I wonder what may have caused that.

I keep bringing science into this because that is what I sense intuitively that is making every attempt to taint philosophy.

Whether you see what I am talking about or not is not the end of the world so to speak - I say everything is up for interpretation - I say everything is up for expression. I also think it is very important to maintain convention - convention allows us to understand each other sensibly and some things in this thread have diverted from convention - I do know however that I am not the only one diverting from convention - of the top of my head, I count four.

At the moment, I am not really sure else how to explain what is in my mind.

surreptitious75

I appreciate your posts - I appreciate your posts because you are explaining things from your perspective and I see that you put effort into maintaining a rational level of thought - that is easy for me to respect - we may not agree on everything but I do respect what you have to say.

Well, I cannot argue with you here. I will say that as long as any methodology is kept in it’s place then all is well - that includes any methodology that I use, even the mixed up ones. My intent here is not to confuse anyone but I am not entirely sure how I can avoid that. The best thing that I can see is everyone is still using their own brain around here and that is something I always like to see and as I said to WendyDarling:

Never forget to stay anchored to your position for as long as is necessary - I hope this helps.
This as a matter of course is something I personally do not do when I am engaged in deep analysis - that much should be evident from a great number of my posts and most people just let me go with it - still I have not forgotten what is conventional and I do return to what convention I see fit at the end of the day. There are a few things in life that I still have a hard time accepting i.e. the justified use of particle accelerators, the real value of the genome project and taking the right or wrong path when it comes to strong artificial intelligence.

Given that these were only ever meant to be random thoughts - I do hope they are beneficial thoughts.

:smiley:

I think this is wrong because it can lead to dogmatism and defending ones position at all costs. A position should only be held for as long as it can be reasonably
defended. Once that is no longer the case then it must either be modified or abandoned completely. Furthermore dogmatism might lead to some other position
being defended at all costs and so it is best to avoid it altogether. The right mental attitude is therefore as important as the positions themselves if not more so

Hmm . . . you are correct . . . I will get back to you on that :sunglasses:

There are benefits to both objectivity and subjectivity but I myself favour the former because it is more rigorous so less susceptible to human bias
For I am more interested in seeing physical reality as it is or as close to that as possible than simply having an interpretation that is pleasing to me

Science is a methodology that explains the property and behaviour of observable phenomena. This is its one function. It is therefore not supposed to provide all the answers. It is nowadays regarded as a separate discipline from philosophy even though it is actually a branch of philosophy. But it cannot taint it because science is not interested in anything philosophy has to say. Scientists may not have a very high opinion of philosophy but that is an entirely separate issue. They are human so will have their own biases the same as everyone else. Science itself however is immune from any such bias

As long as there is productive discourse that is all that matters for it is the only way progress can be made
For this reason I prefer conversation mode to argument mode which can lead to little or no progress at all

Anomaly654

You will get things from my angle when conversing with me and will notice an honest interest from me in what you have to say. I am going to proceed in an insouciant manner with this post and come back to a more careful answer soon.

It seems that you understand what I mean by points - I will analyse what you have written a couple of times to be sure. A little while ago now, I started thinking deeply about how James’ philosophy affects my own work. I was immediately surprised by your first comment in this thread and once I read one or two more of your posts, I had to know more about your work. I will read back over what I have written and digest more of what you have written.

I have personally been at the existence and reality thing for twenty years now - most of which, I put work into the early years, but since meeting James I have wound back up and am happily absorbing much of what he has to say and now with your addition I feel like I am back in my element. Full on philosophy is something I am new to but I have been working on my own philosophy for more than twenty years. That covers a minuscule portion of my background and on to what you are saying in the first sentence about the being of some connection between thing and attribute.

There is indeed a connection between thing and attribute and your reasoning coming back to thing and attribute both being present to thought makes sense. The information notion is very interesting to me given that I work on philosophy of mind and information is obviously pertinent there. Concreta and abstracta is present in the work I have been doing with James this year and forever present in my ongoing work involving mind. I also make a distinction in my own work that mind and brain are in fact very different things and not by a more conventional route.

Mind obviously has an interface to brain but brain does not understand the language of mind and mind does not understand the language of brain. There is a special layer between the two that abstracts away the burden to mind of brain and vice versa. This layer exists between the mind and brain - it is the interface - hardware programmed with firmware so to speak - from here the mind is able to do its own thing and brain is able to do its own thing. While you are thinking (which is an active process of engagement between mind and brain) the brain is able to maintain a subconscious - this subconscious is temporal memory based.

What is being produced is a constant stream of data that is optimized each time you sleep << that is the way I see it at least.

Neurons as it turns out work along the same principle as the PtA’s that I mentioned before in that they are constantly “firing” under different “loads”. Each neuron being treated as a “thing” can have multiple attributes kind of like how a singular aircraft has when flying as opposed to resting on the ground(neurons do have resting states too). Each one of these attributes can be treated under the PtA umbrella. It is not a giant leap to see how your iota’s fit into the way I describe things. In fact I use the letter “i” in my own work to mean inception translated as PtA in James’ work - an i is a point - a point of inception - a point where something starts and yet continues at the same time - the start is the new state and the continue is that this point is forever a part of what is around it, just that at no two consecutive instances will a point remain the same - we are talking at an infinitesimal scale here.

It has been interesting for me on more than one occasion - I remember reading how microtubules are affected on quantum scales and thought how this could actually be explained with the work that James has more or less completed. To expand I will quote microtubules from a site:

The thing to note is the connection between a mental event and a matter event. A combined information event. I am yet to explore this further for some sort of verification but importantly it keeps my imagination busy on the topic of i.

Backing up to your first post and part of it’s content:

It is apparent from microtubule data that this is true - speaking of starting points . . .
. . . inception points . . . there is a continuation taking place at each one of those points . . .

Now to leave my more insouciant discourse behind, I feel the need to read back over what you have posted to get my bearings again.

:smiley:

I totally agree surreptitious75

And what I posted is the culmination of almost 25 years of trying to find a metaphysical solution to a theological problem. The reductionist method of information is the solution for that problem, but I’ve come to be fascinated with philosophy and metaphysics along the way. I’m a rank amateur and understand if you find it prudent to distance yourself from my abstract rambling to pursue more practical avenues. I enjoy our discussion and will continue to mine treasure here. Glad I found this place.

Anomaly654

I am hoping I have not given off the incorrect signal - I actually enjoy our interaction very much.

I had a feeling you have been at this for a while and I am glad for our interaction - it is always great to come across another person with such commitment - I have nothing against the reductionist method, and I think it is the perfect method for what we are talking about - I just like to exercise caution with any method that I am not missing something along the way, hence my previous comments. I will not be distancing myself from your abstract rambling and I hope that you do not distance yourself from mine. These threads are a part of my practical avenues. I too have found great enjoyment in our discussion and will happily continue to - I too am glad you found this place.

Be aware that there might be some cultural differences in the way we use more general language, I have already experienced this issue at ILP.

Not at all, lol, just a knee-jerk reaction from posting my stuff on other sites, probably. Material in last post is usually where everyone begins to politely ignore and I become the elephant in the room.

Shouldn’t be a worry here my friend, I don’t think deeply enough to take the reduction into truly philosophical realms. One thing I’ve learned pretty abruptly is that in things philosophical my pen quickly outdistances my intellectual abilities, but I do appreciate being told by intelligent folk where it goes wrong so I can reassess.

Anomaly654

I can nearly guarantee you that I am going to rub someone the wrong way at least once a week around here :smiley: but there is always the smile.

The material in your last post is what inspires me…probably the most. You might find that those other people are remarkably stupid even if they don’t seem it.

Well it seems to me that you have put quite a bit of deep thought into what you have been doing - deep thought need not be intense thought in a short period - one can descend into the depths over a longer period of time.

When I said that I would read your post a couple more times it is because I find it important enough to.

surreptitious75

Each persons mind is a little different and each person deals with their work and ways differently to the way they conduct their lives too. I do not use an automotive manual to guide my life and therefore I am able to return to my life after using such a manual to perform maintenance on an automobile.

I said to you:

I will say that as long as any methodology is kept in its place then all is well - that includes any methodology that I use even the mixed up ones. My intent here
is not to confuse anyone but I am not entirely sure how I can avoid that. The best thing that I can see is everyone is still using their own brain around here and
that is something I always like to see and as I said to WendyDarling:

Never forget to stay anchored to your position for as long as is necessary - I hope this helps
To which you responded:

I agree as I said before - my words would have been different but meant the same. I think it is reasonable to say that “as long as it can be reasonably defended” is the same as “as long as is necessary” in a particular context. The context I would give is that of if you do not quite understand the opposing argument that is correct then perhaps it would be necessary to stand by your own position until you do. Of course this is dependent on the person being able to shift positions when the correct position becomes apparent - best summed up by what you said at the end there; The right mental attitude is therefore as important as the positions themselves if not more so.

Since of the four aspects of reality mentioned earlier—force/energy, value, matter, information—the matter-energy connection is well known and uncontroversial, you have me wondering how/where information and value fit into the picture in terms of abstractive layering. Matter and energy are observable and the most empirical phenomenon, though to think about existence as energy is obviously abstract and material existence is the norm. This seems to place matter in the lowest category of abstractive layering. Force-energy’s acceptance by the status quo as a legitimate rendering of existence seems to place it in the 2nd layer.

Information and value remain. Though both are abstractions, it seems easier to infer instances of value (at least of descriptive value) in phenomenal reality than it does information. In this regard information seems more aligned with meaning in that both appear to share a certain “isness” feature of reality. Both also have something in common with pornography and truth—we know what they are when we see them but they’re difficult to define.

I tend to focus on information and work outward to the others, not that information does, or should, occupy a certain place, just that information and value are most interesting to me. The concept you present of truth states as having both permanence and non-permanence is an integral part of my worldview.

Value imo breaks down to [or exhibits itself as] two kinds, descriptive-prescriptive. It’s further divided in information in one of two denominations or grades, true and false. Degrees or quantities of value are, in descriptive matters, just mathematical configurations because value [truth] inherent in descriptive reality is absolute. The notion of falsity has no meaning in a purely descriptive world—“no ought from is” seems to persist throughout the material. But from the perspective of perception, falsity exists in two primary considerations (I think this finds association with your permanence in the midst of the absolute):
a. First, a sub-category of prescriptive value—truth-value associated with intellectual operation-which is actually falsifiable; [in naturalistic terms, intellectual consciousness; in theology the soul].
b. Second, attributed or derivative falsification in the mutability of inorganic entities as an aspect of the perceived instrumental value within a given mutation.

For example, a house designed to provide comfort, shelter and a variety of conveniences can be said to be “wholly true” when it meets these needs fully. Over time as the material elements of the house change—settling of the foundation, breakdown of mechanical and electrical systems, deterioration of roofing and external covering materials, etc.—from the perspective of the instrumental value of the house, it’s “falsified” to an uninhabitable state. Thus, attributed falsification is a quality that stands in reference to an ultimate truth-state in human judgment, and that ultimate truth state references an absolute truth-state—the absolute truth state of the constituent micro components of the house and of all matter. The unchanging descriptive truth-values of the micro or atomic/subatomic level constituents of the house remain unaffected; mutation on this level is merely a redistributive process and has no correlation to falsity, i.e., there is no “good” available to the truth of inorganics, although aesthetic goodness can be conceptualized from various material arrangements. Matter’s value is purely technical and practical. I find interesting the relationship between value and external design in the analogy of the house. This association seems to recur (can be interpreted to occur) throughout the varied configurations of material existence.

Another example is the life of a piece of fruit. The assorted truth-values inherent in the components of each atom are always unalterably true, even while the macro entities they occupy undergo modification. The atoms that constitute an unpicked apple all retain the microscopic exactness of their respective t-values while the apple they occupy undergoes change from sprout to maturity to ripening and senescence and decomposition. In the decay process there may be exchanges of components on the subatomic level in the associated chemical processes, but this is redistribution, not change in value states of those components.

In both cases instrumental value–the described goods made available in house design and perceived goods [taste, nutrition, etc.] in the apple which become falsified (decay, while natural, no longer provides goods to an agent)–is in perception.

Is this anything like what you mean about permanence not being what we think it is or am I off?

Anomaly654

What we are talking about is quite fresh to me - I really appreciate having conversation like this to challenge my brain into novel bubbles of thought and yet we are discussing something with wide range - this is good. With such wide ranging implications and hints at even more, I need you to forgive me if I do seem to veer on the topics at hand - you are free and may bring me back in line with our conversation as needed - I am happy for that to happen.

Truth states conform with reality, that much we can say - I will get my bearings here in a moment. Each truth state is a consequence of the previous truth state and affects the next truth state to be. Permanent truth states can be regarded as laws and exist in the divine realm and at times are the same as physically true states - I hope I am making sense here. What does seem to be permanent is change - how can that be?

We like to think of permanence as that which is the state or quality of lasting or remaining unchanged indefinitely. So I am saying that change is what remains unchanged indefinitely - a semantic problem at least - however if you can somehow follow what I am saying here you will see that change is indefinite.

Perhaps it is better to say that a law does not change but truth does - but what would that entail? Surely an infinity of laws to cover all of the truth states, so as you can see truth is a very real problem but then so is law - how we choose to deal with this is what I believe is important and in an ever increasingly complex(seemingly) life, it would seem that we are destined to use heuristic tools until we - maybe ever - find more precise tools to play catch up with reality.

I would have to say that information and value float around on top of the matter-energy connection somehow and that is me putting it rather poorly. I do believe that information is empirical at times and thus is an indication of the existence of empirical degrees. I also think the concept of energy has more value in the grand scheme of things than that which we currently give it. Somewhere down there at the nanoscopic level and beyond must be a connection between energy and information.

Perhaps I am already lending some insight to the problem . . .

With any luck I am still speaking the language of the discussion. I think you are on to something here with “instances” and my suggestion is that they are still impossible to measure perfectly but descriptive value need not be perfect anyway. I have to agree that information is aligned with meaning but I will say I sense some issue with value not being a part of meaning - not that you were saying that necessarily and so it seems as you have put it knowing does become hard to define.

I would recommend that you maintain your focus as there are plenty who focus from differing frames of reference. I am certain that information does actually occupy a certain place and that information does have spatial displacement somehow but this might not be imperative to your focus - I am glad to hear that truth states have both permanence and non-permanence as an integration of your worldview - the way you maintain your conception of the world is I believe valuable.

It is going to take me a while longer to digest what else you have written - it is very stimulating. I find synergy with what you said, “mutation on this level is merely a redistributive process and has no correlation to falsity”, you have shown me some deeper insight into the idea of abstractive layering through this statement.

I love the house analogy . . .

I agree entirely with what you have said here providing it is being maintained as a view point because I still think we can go below the atomic state to a particle state and below the particle state to the PtA states - a story for another day. By the way, I really like your analogies.

Nailed it!

I am getting great value out of our conversation Anomaly654. I also think that when conversing at such a level - mutation on this level is merely a redistributive process and has no correlation to falsity - is something to keep in mind - it may sound a little warped - hopefully you detect my meaning.

:smiley:

Been thinking about PtA and its place in information En-De. Just briefly, trying to piece together some things, it seems to me PtA is has potential (pun intended) to explain one reason I use the “iota” as a reduction of information. Since you provided the concept I want to be sure I’m not abusing your sense of the term. In my thinking iotas form abstract point-locales. Point locales can either be spatially or abstractly located. “Location” appears to me to be in raw form a specificity, so location of an abstract object is limited to a specific meaning that stands outside spacetime, while spatial point-locales have both specificity and temporal behaviors in space. For a meaning to sustain in conceptualization seems to me to require the ‘that-what’ structure, and point-locales provide thatness.

How a thing can have a PtA lets me shift the view from information to force-energy fairly smoothly. I like this concept. It seems the PtA estimation of abstract things lies in their capacity to inform perception, and this capacity seems to require some sort of dynamic or force. I use the expression “force-energy” because force seems more generic and applicable to non-spatial reality while energy is more grounded as a function in time and space. Both can be used interchangeably, of course. My point is, each iota of information might contain as its value, one PtA for each component—thus, each iota would possess exactly 2 PtA, one for each component value (V) and particularity (P). Building from the reduction outward, I’ll assume arbitrarily that the simplest piece of matter—the quark I think—contains 10 PtA of P and 10 of V at its spatial point-locale. Potential in “potential to affect” is from this viewpoint a quantity of force or energy.

Is this understanding of PtAs as the force—either/both potential or/and actual—possible in your understanding and use of the term? Your suggesting that a PtA state is “below” or less than a particle state appears to place PtA in some other domain than I’m picturing. Also, is PtA a term your invention, a term you’ve used in copyrighted material or can I use it too? And thanks for your responses btw. I usually operate in a vacuum which can create stagnation…your contributions are welcome and stimulating, great stuff.

Anomaly654

Just to clarify a bit better than I have, PtA is not a thing or entity, but rather a measure of a situation at a point. PtA, Potential-to-Affect, refers to a physical situation, an arrangement of substance, not the substance itself.

I hope you don’t mind me taking you a layer deeper into this conceptual realm of PtA and I also want to introduce a new term: affectance. As PtA changes, it describes the physical substance called “affectance”. And PtA is always undergoing changes, being affected as it affects. Affectance is the changing of the PtA situation. Affectance is the changing whereas PtA is the arrangement of the changing that is itself being changed.

One way to think about this is . . .
. . . PtA being analogous to an electric field and . . .
. . . affectance being analogous to an electromagnetic wave . . .
. . . an electric field is merely a situation, not a substance . . .
. . . an electromagnetic wave is an electric field that is changing.

This sounds very reasonable to me. I really like your concept of iotas. The way you have explained it is quite understandable when I concentrate my focus on what you have written. As a side note, James and I also have a time unit related to universal maximum speed/s.

This tells me that we are nearly on the same wavelength - I must say that I am fairly excited when I read things like this. Your suggested mathematics here is indicative of the concept I am trying to convey which tells me that we are edging our way to an understanding of what each other is saying.

It seems you have it right - PtA is representative so it is kind of abstract itself. PtA states are infinitesimal and we have a way around that for measurement purposes. PtA is not a term that I invented - James I believe invented it. I would imagine as long as the term is being used correctly that James would not have a problem with it being used but I can not speak for him. You are welcome for the responses but I have to say that I am really enjoying this conversation myself.

I have been known to add ambiguity to a situation - my apologies if I have done that on this occasion - from where I am sitting however we are understanding each other. One thing I have noticed is that “things” seem to repeat themselves on scales from one scale to another so I imagine that the general idea/concept of PtA/Affectance can also work from ‘below the microscopic’ to ‘above the macroscopic’ scales and not just an infinitesimal scale.

If you don’t mind a short interjection:

An “iota” is a particle of information. PtA has no particulate form, but Affectance, made from the changing and propagating PtA, does have a particle form:

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l6-_6__9ZvY[/youtube]

And particles are formed from non-particulate substance due to the following principle which applies to all forms of existence; physical, social, psychological, economic (as is being discussed in another thread), and information

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JypDrw4CHhw[/youtube]

And an iota particle, a mental construct, is formed of PHT, Perception of Hope and Threat or “inferred relevance”. PHT is the mental form of PtA and the Potential for Action for conscious beings.

And also, it is accurate Principles and Facts that are eternal (“Conceptual Realm”), never changing. Anything physical is always undergoing alterations (“Physical Realm”). Or “Divine and Mortal Realms”, if you prefer Plato’s version.

And encode seems to be doing great so far. :sunglasses: