Here considering things from the metaphysical perspective, where we live in an informational universe >first<, and objects/physicality is secondary to that.
a rock has only the information about what it is where it is situated etc, etc.
a human being continually communicates in some manner thus is on-going.
If communication is on-going it can create communion.
A baby is born and a communion is achieved via the on-going informational relationships.
The connection between the mind i.e. the internal realm of reality [where physics is the external reality ~ like a funeral – we see only the external and think that’s all there is], and body is informational and tactile/emotional.
That’s how we the living thinking being exists in the world!
So; does communication = communion? Is the question here.
Informations communicating are equivalent to communion ~ a correlation and connection [joining/merging/interacting] between entities.
What evidence is there for the claim that information (understood as something non-physical) precedes physicality? That seems like a painfully colossal assumption on the basis of which to ask a question (i.e., the question of your thread). It’s almost like asking: “so, if we consider reality to be the dream of Zeus, and if we consider all objects to correlate with agitations in his sleep, then is causality just body movement?” There’s a pretty huge if there, one better asked after before pursuing the ostensible question of inquiry.
Whatever the word ‘physicality’ is referring to is actually empirical data. The meaning of the words (and the words to elaborate what it means) come out of experience. we posit a world/universe based on information
By ‘universe’ do you mean it as in regards to the matter and energy existing in space, whether known to human beings or not; or ‘universe’ as activity associated with human experience?
I tend to suggest that the Word physical has no meaning. It has just come to mean whatever we decide is real regardless of its qualities. Though in context I was saying that experiencing is primary and from that we posit ‘things’ and ‘processes’ and attribute qualities to them, but experience is something we can be more sure of than our conclusions about the experienced, which scientists tend to call physical - despite the enormous expansion of what something can be like and still be called physical. I thought about adding to this that when I read about what scientists consider matter to actually be like, the connotations of ‘physical’ seem not to fit anything very well, including chairs and stones.
ontological…
Physicality is ‘limited’, therefore reality is greater than it ~ being infinite. ‘Greater than’ here also refers to ‘time’, as well as the physical side of reality [non-mental universe]. Hence infinite time would be prior to and after anything else whatsoever.
if information primarily is not physical, then it can be put into the same sack imho.
Ok so it all relies upon its own reasoning here, but I have to assume that reality is infinite or it always leads to contradiction!?
one thread leads to another, etc.
All kinds of informational [data, meaning, symbolic representation] language then.
We need to be asking if objects require information don’t we?!!! see also below [large]…
The former. The latter is mental, and not necessarily the same as the universe.
I agree. [size=150]So what do we have then!!![/size]
If you want to be on the scientific, objective end, you could say ‘x, y, and Z have been verified/detected and are considered real’. ‘B has not been detected/verified.’
This makes less of a claim about what somethign must be to be real.
Then outside of science you could say ‘experienced’ or even the horrible ‘experiencable’.
If ‘physical’ has no meaning, then it would be difficult or unfeasible for your experiencing structure to co-exist with it. How can anybody say anything about a state of meaninglessness? We have necessarily to use words. Can we use words without indulging in abstract concepts? Most likely. Yet there is no such thing as non-verbal conceptualizations. And as Moreno points out we do directly experience life and its movements. So the predicament we’re in is the attempt to use the mental sphere as a means to be freed from the limitations of mentality itself. The expectation that the mental can somehow capture and directly experience the physical is a separate state of affairs. It runs parallel to the actual state of meaninglessness that we find ourselves wandering around in.
No, that only applies if there is such a thing as ‘physical’. Here there are only different kinds of ‘realness’, and what we name physical is one part of that. It doesn’t mean that the things we refer to as ‘physical’ don’t exist, or aren’t physical, it simply means that everything is a reality of some kind.
Hence the duality that the naming of real as or equals the ‘physical’, doesn’t exist. There is only different realities.
The mind, qualia, concepts [cannot be shapes and thus not physical] etc, are not physical but are real, they and what we term the physical exist in a shared reality, where one is not less real that another.
Its simply the proper way to think of realness ~ unless we can indeed say that some things are more real than others, in which case mind etc could be less real, or worse, could be considered - as they are today, as not real.
The brain is singularly incapable of creating the knowledge about mind and qualia. So, for the brain, it needs something contained in its knowledge/memory, for it to access in order to communicate with others about such nonphysical intangibles. Whatever it is that is given to the brain is not of the person that comes into being when knowledge is utilized from in the brain. That given knowledge does not belong to the person and until that outside knowledge is acquired from a source or agency ouside of it, there is no such thing as mind or qualia … and if so, not a part of reality for that person. Hence, there is a dependence on something else for there to be the ability to know certain things and to experience their reality.
For most things yes I agree, but that doesn’t mean all things derive from ‘physical’ attributes. Just by the redefining occurring here, the classification; ‘physical’ is a non-absolute, hence anything outside of that definition [physical] must phase into it where relevant [like one colour of the rainbow into another] e.g. where there are photonic frequencies associated with the qualia ‘red’, then the respective qualia must be phasing into those frequencies.
For that not to be so, we have to state that the physical is absolute and that there is nothing outside of it in any manner whatsoever. That there is no colour red occurring, where if so, we have to ask if our vision of redness is a reality ~ when surely it is there in some manner.
What goes on in the physical body with the organs and their specific functions has a programming already innate. The ‘intelligence’ of the body that operates autonomously does so to sustain the life of the organism. The activity of the brain/mind is akin to the activity of a computer and generates a different kind of intelligence not related to that of the way the intelligence of the body operates. Nature is controlling the life. You are superimposing over the natural functioning of the life your computer-like intellectual knowledge and ideas of how the life operates. Iow, if you are asked, ‘What is nature of the reality as experienced in the mind?’, you would search your memory bank (like a computer would) and the result of the search (thinking: equivalent to how a computer searches) would result in your answer. If there was no knowledge about the question your response would be, ‘Not found.’ In that sense there is a ton of difference between the ‘intelligence’ of the physical life and the intelligence developed in your intellect, because the body’s functioning goes on extraordinarily apart from the intellect and how much or how little it knows.
Thought is dead – has no life. All it can do is talk about the life but never be equal to its nature nor capture it.
