What came first...

Philosophy Forums Psychology and Mind
41

1.Because it doesen’t matter one way or another. So it dies matter to You, if You mind it, but by minding it , it does matter to You(if I do it)

But I don’t mind either if I mind it or not( do it or not~whatever i am doing)>>>>> but I don’t mind doing it or not>>>>>but if I don’t mind not doing it, as well>>>>>You shouldn’t mind if I am not doing it or doing it~because You only mind what I M doing and You can not be certain I am doing it: there for You can not mind what I am not necessarily doing; .You can but You’d look pretty silly minding that what I am not doing.[You can mind why I am not doing it, though]

2.something may not matter (that You mind) but since I don’t mind if I am doing it or not, it may not matter if I do it or not.

3.i am only lying to myself if I mind something which I only mind when I am doing it; but in case I am not doing it , I can’t mind it, since I can only mind something which I am doing.

42

The referee (Ec’s cat Charlie) declares me the winner of whatever just happened. He also gives you side eye and says to definitely not trust you. He’s pretty sure you won’t mind one way or the other.

43

77 says:

“The referee (Ec’s cat Charlie) declares me the winner of whatever just happened. He also gives you side eye and says to definitely not trust you. He’s pretty sure you won’t mind one way or the other”

Meno say:

"OK, and I will not contest Ec’s cat. However I will contest Your trust issue , for the cat is one removed from Ec.

There is a problem between the supposed articulation of the cat’s report of an image reporting preceeding or concurrent with that image, that doesen’t exist with Ec.

In order to compare the two supposed images, as the signify some evolved patterns of consistency, those emitted signals which both Ec and his cat can succeed to form many signals to indicate they have some understanding that their images don’t denote an imaginary (mindless) matter, a designation of understanding can not develop from the imaginary to conform to the signal…

The numbers of signals can be divided to as many particular signs as necessary to relegate to an analog language, as not to loose a significant number that could limit understanding by working against the laws that could conform to that significance.

Insignificance on a binary level could not be picked up on the analog signaling system, and may mess with the coding system.

Such system may rely on a kind of relay system to make up for lost , insignificant signals. Such system would need a backup method to make up for lost signals.

That would entail the third variance that could develop a kind of multi variance, like a differential gear in mechanics, so that proper channel can fit the ratios that each one is working at.

The image can be raised from pure imagination, when a plan or a diagram can not work, through such intermediary differential, and the signals could pass through in an analog(analytic) to the binary level.

If such a coding device could be used then used action the word that signify no mind, or the purely abstracted signal out of imagination? Would translate into one that could start to signal one that is both a mental sign and a non-signal, or jinsignificant one.

That would create the effect that such device could predicate a probable outcome, whether to mind or not the signal as to being significant (+1) or insignificant (0) , creating a situation where both an absence and a presence of a sign could code into awareness(mind)

Is it too early to jump into the question of what came first, at this point?

The behavior of this coding type of function or the very description by analysis of the mind thT codes as either accepting or rejecting the signals on basis of a continuous mimimal/maximal recognition , minding and not minding at various intervals, or/and changing the function so that the minimal/maximal recognition can change it to a completely minded signal, by using both the presences and the lapses of signals.

In the analog system the non signals would translate into a binary one, where both would serve indiscriminately as a minded rather then a mindless system

This has cybernetic applications , as relate to certain continua which string psychometric signals together, as in certain knotty situation which have come to be tested on the weirdest ironic allusions.

Can only entrance exam at this stage with no guarantees of advanced standing, however past indications on ‘menoic’ levels appear as the presence of the analytic proverbial cat’s communicative image should have been picked up by Ec’s imagination without loosing a beat.

44

Word.

45

OK

46

In the beginning.

47

But now.?.

48

always alpha & omega

Why can’t Wittgenstein be studied in phenomenology? Doesn’t he talk about the word/concept in the mind/Mind?

49

He didn’t talk about it.

The 0 is more similar to O, the sound of Ohm against the letter. Beethoven deaf, write by imagining the 9th symphony.

Can the imagination give fuel to an image?

Can images drive the imagination to go underground and appear as night?

What comes before what

Can leibnitz imagine harmonics and calculate the atomic fission?

Did atomists dream it up?

and do the idea of having a limit, as now ranking about those ideas have anything we can express ?

Is Ec’s cat still conscious or is he asleep? Dreaming of another, better cat heaven without dogs?

50

but google Wittgenstein & phenomenology

& philosophy of mind

he’s relevant

51

Regarding Ec’s cat… every moment is not alive/dead. Every moment is creative/complete (all alive). We don’t create it ourselves, or collectively, but in partnership with the alpha/omega. There is no sleeping… the completeness is the rest. It’s all alive/creative/conscious… on the “other side” …don’t go that way … NOT recommended …

I know. Too late.

Never again.

52

Never
2 late
Never say Never
4 ever = for ever after
after all
that’s said
and done
It’s sad to say
It’s ever gone

53

If God wants something on the inside (holiest of holies), it will be real/actual on the outside, too. Proverbs 27:5.

Nothing is private to him. His cards have always already been on the table. For those who have eyes to see.

Mic drop^3.

54

.

55

that’s why I like Don Richardson’s “eternity in their hearts.” The truth is transcultural, but error always tries to sneak in with it & rob the joy. (Why? Tell me why.) That book helps sift truth from error.

56

WFT is “it”?

In arguments about about coming first - it is always the eggs.
Recognising intent in the rest of the universe always comes before intentional demonstration of that intent, since information concerning threats area given out unintentionally, but the ability to recognise threats has massive selective advantage. Thus it is hugely more likely that the ability to read the world about you has to predate that ability to communicate.

Let’s say a single celled organism (SCO) needs to find food by detecting a chemical in the water. Any mutation that causes the SCO to follow the chemical trail will have a massive advantage over those who just happen upon the food. Thus the ability to read a sign is founded.
SCO s have no reason to advertise their presence, since they do not mate, so stealth is a more important quality that communicating.
It’s always the egg.

57

I suppose the question here is why make a noise.
Rabbits never make a sound above the sub-audible, until they are predated.
Reptiles do not cry out in pain as far as I know.
I could be wrong but anything lower that a bird or mammal does not cry out, yet they do have means of communication, some of it amazing, such as chirruping insects, croaking frogs, clacking fish, and butterfly displays.
So communication is not a development from crying out in pain, but predates it.

58

In lingusitics, especially language acquisition and language development research (language history research), there is no doubt that first there must be the ability for the production of speech sounds, so the sounds are the first. The linguists also call the sounds “phones” to distinguish them from the “phonemes”, which play a role when sounds can be determined as what phonemes are: smallest segmentable phonetic units abstracted from the sound stream of speech with potential meaning-distinguishing function. – In the development and acquisition of language, therefore, this first precondition must be given.

The second thing that comes into play is the “morph”. It is the smallest meaning-bearing phonetic segment of an utterance, which is not yet classified as representative of a “morpheme”. A morpheme is an abstract (theory-related) unit. It is represented phonetically-phonologically (see above) by a morph as the smallest meaning-bearing but not yet classified phonetic segment. (Note: We still have not arrived at the word!).

Only now do we get to the word. The word is already a more complex entity than those from the field of phonetics and phonology and the field of morphology and graphology. Decisive was first the potential meaning-distinguishing function (see above: 1st paragraph) and then the smallest meaning-bearing phonetic segment of an utterance (see above: 2nd paragraph). Now this carrying of meaning becomes more and more complex (see next paragraph).

The next level is the sentence. About the sentence, many still know from school what it means. In linguistics, since 1957 and especially since 1965, Noam Chomsky and his theory of syntax have gained acceptance. I will not go into this in detail now, because that would mean that I would have to present an entire basic study in linguistics now.

What is relatively new, but on the other hand not really new, is text linguistics. Roughly speaking, the text can be understood as an extended, enlarged sentence. After all, when one encounters language for the first time, one does not want to produce only one sound (see 1st paragraph), nor to understand it in combination with others only morphologically (see 2nd paragraph), nor necessarily as only one word (see 3rd paragraph), and perhaps not even as only one sentence (see 4th paragraph); but one wants to say a whole text, to say something about the world, without having to limit oneself to one sentence, one word, one morph(em) and one phon(em). And this starts very early. You can observe this in children (I did it often during my studies and also privately with my children).

59

Relevant: ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.p … 4&start=25

Also want to share stuff from cog text. But no time for now.

Thanks.

60

Here’s a question.

Say technology makes mind melding possible, so that you can be together in the same thought-space while retaining your self. Who has the right to say they were there first? Everyone is first in their own head, but if “their own head” is 2+ heads, there are as many firsts, even though one is probably older (and one Original), and one, both/all, or none of the above/below (except Original) may have consented to the meld. So whose house, whose rules? Revert to Golden!