What makes us human? …philosophy? [pondering etc.]
Some would say that some animals [monkeys, dogs] are a little human, walruses can out perform some humans with logic puzzles [or so the man said], but the thing for me is that; humans want to know why! Animals do logic because it gets them food, they don’t ask why when food is presented, they probably don’t ask anything about the world or why they are here. Perhaps briefly the elephant morns the death of another, it may attack loins eating another elephant while it still lives. They most likely have no way to cognate death, suffering, the stars at night, and don’t bother with anything that isn’t to do with survival.
So being human is simply a matter of intellect? Yet why does more intellect promote wonder? If an artificial intelligence were made, equal to or greater than ours, would it think about philosophical questions if we didn’t put them to it? Would an animal with abnormal brain size start pondering ~ or simply use that brain to be better at what it does. Even if it leaned to talk would it ever ask deep questions?
There is a lot of things which make us human. The things that machines can’t do,animals can’t do but humans can.
The list is long:
1.Humans can laugh and cry, machines and animals can’t. Have anyone seen an animal cry? Yes they whine, but that’s not considered crying.
2.Humans can laugh. Animals cannot, and machines either.
3.Humans can build things like skyscrapers and Gothic cathedrals. Birds can build nests, it’s true and spiders webs, and bees honey combs, but these habitats, are very basic in their design, material, and integrity. Robots can build things, but first, they have to be built themselves. The self replicating robot is coming, so in this respect the difference will eventually wear thin.
4.Humans can speak. Dolphins have a language, it’s pointed out, and most animals communicate through sounds, but the sounds don’t express meaningful ideas, animals can only convey basic feelings: such as anger, fear, mating instincts. Machines will evolve eventually capable of sound replication, and already inroads have been made in voice recognition and response.
Humans can think. Animals’ thought patterns correspond to the level of their thought patterns which relate to their behavior. Animals can seize up a situation, and act accordingly, but they are unable to set a correspondence with the sounds they are emitting, except basic sounds such as grunting, whining,hissing, barking, howling, and such. There is correspondence but the correspondence is of a gross intent: to imbue another animal with fear, or invite the other animal to procreate. Computers are beginning the very early stages of what is considered thinking, but the machine thoughts are as of yet very analytically based, where the correspondence between one thing and another thing is very literal. The thing ness of something in machines stays on the level of linkage by recognition. The machine learns to recognize two linked things, and work up to a maximum linkage capacity through this recognition. The machine can not jump above beyond it’s circuitry of programmed recognition. It has not been developed yet of being able to learn without a programmer.
Human’s can dance, do sports, paint, write poems and sonnets, can create science, envision ideas such as religion,politics, can make advanced tools, can teach their children previously learned ideas, can cook, can keep time, travel into outer space, develop aspirations and works of art. All of which are not within the domain of either animals or machines.
And yes, humans can do philosophy, to try to think about their situation, their evolution, and their relationship with other members of their species can set of programs of behavior, build institutions of learning, and develop a system of vocations to perpetuate their species.
For me this is the main thing; being able to stand back and take a subjective look at a situation and the world even.
Though naturally an animal with a frontal cortex would after a while evolve to do such things. Their main limit is perhaps their form, but some animals have similar-ish hands to us.
we are animals made to be human.
On another level…
What makes us human?
a given bag of questions
Does nothing make us human?
= we do all the things animals cannot and in philosophy we tend to end up empty handed. ~ quite funny in a way.
Amorphos : Do we really end up empty handed? Could we? Yes? Should we? No! Seek and you will find.
Whatever situation or event the subjective finds itself, there is always an exit into another(and I don’t mean necessary aa real one, since there really are no “real” situations, only relative ones.
The exit is missed if the situation appears closed. In any event, the situation is always open to other interpretations into a new subjective interpretation.
I kind of agree, but what do you think we find and whom?
Something in life, maybe after?
does the seeking end?
Indeed, and especially if we can somewhat see what’s likely ahead. Aren’t some situations non-subjective? Or there’s nothing you can do about them.
I actually see ones path to be like a map, we are all going from place to place and some just end up in not the right place, or indeed the right place. Strangely it is as if some people are guided and without knowing always miss the wrong roads. Hmm I was trying to say something in all that,…
I think that when an animal or a machine [lets say it has artificial neurons and so is conscious like us] reaches a philosophical level, it is as if they move into another reality whilst still sharing the same world with nature. Or even that that level is awaiting anything that comes its way.
So now being human is an abstract, something outside of us makes us human.
I think the seeking is a never ending process. We think there is an end to it, but look, with a backward glance, we don't see the end? Forward, either. Einstein said space time is curved. So if we took a fast enough space ship, we could be going in a straight line, and never reach the end, because it curves probably just like the earth, people think it was flat. There is no absolute straight. But space time curve is different I feel. When you approach the edges, it stretches, because of the fabric changes. Time slows down, and if you were ever to get real near the edge, space/time would stretch into infinity. What application does a concept like this have with situations and events?
Every event has it’s horizon. Like you amorphous. I don’t really know you, really know you. Where my knowledge X stops, is where my discernment of you stops being specific enough, to not be able to identify you. I could visualize amorphous such and such, maybe I could see a picture of you, or construct an image, and try to integrate that with how you think.
My horizon of you is blocked by my lack of visualization of you + the lack of knowledge I have of you within the contexts of your living arrangements. Since the way we live our life is how we arrange it.
So every situation has a limiting horizon.(Nothiwithstanding the fact that you really live far away from where I live.
What does one find if we actually successfully cross over situationally? Situations are also like levels. We live in an age of cubicles. A typical office may be divided into cubicles, working spaces, oddly resembling a bee hive. The separation insures our spatial subjectivity. Space defines us. Space affords subjectivity. The more we are crammed together, the less spatial subjectivity we can hold unto.
Situations cannot even be defined in terms of subjective or objective. We work in cubicles, but we know, at the same time, that the cubicles are just subdivisions of a larger enclosure. Our separation is not real. Subjectivity was real, but it’s becoming blurred from the virtual. It is a manufactured subjectivity. For instance, the wealthy can afford more space. They buy their subjectivity. A long time ago this was not realized because there was lots of open spaces. A city over 100,000 was considered enormous in antiquity. The world population was a very small part of what it is today.
Where are we going with our cognitive map, what’s ahead in this life or the next? Is there a next life?
That is your most difficult question. First of all, I don’t believe in differentiating into qualities. I noticed you have a dialogue on duality with another fellow.
Let me just say that I think, all duality are cognitive constructs, they are likely of the same map, but they change because of perspective and illusion.
This situation we are enclosed,is not even an enclosure… We perceive it as such, but it can’t enclose us because we are not even in it. It is our situation, but it’s open. We surround ourselves with closure. It is not there. Our death is an event horizon, which we cannot possibly reach because it is a mix of what we see, with what we think. We can never know what is at the end, because we have never been there.The same with the beginning. We can never begin because it never ended. There are no gaps between situations, and my gut level feeling is, we are not going to find anything when we get there, or wherever, because this here, and that there, are virtual realities. In fact one of the sad things about philosophy,is, that this bubble of a predictable, well defined universe was burst. Our science did it, and it was much more pleasant to live in a predictable world with closed boundaries, predictable events, and foreseeable situations.
I think that it’s a blessing not everyone is a scientist,b or a philosopher, and 99% of the population goes around like business was like usual. May they never know how the real world is, and they will not take comfort in the fact, that all you have to do to get informed of coming attractions is to have people read Bishop Berkeley.
In fact when Bishop Berkeley was asked why he though that the world was immaterial, one of his smartaleck students asked him, that if he thought so, well why doesn’t he go through the wall.
I think this reality is it, and we don’t notice the event changes, because they are infinitesimally small to notice. We pass from one event into another, and we fail to notice,that it is not even the same person who passed through , before he passed. We are not who thin we are. This kind of complexity is unnoticeable in the vastness of a very simple minded universe. It seems like, the universe affords us only as much awareness, as we’re able to deal with.
Well not always, but generally.
Thats an interesting point and I agree, retrospectively there are no ends and beginnings fade into the mist of time.
I dont see things as negatively as it may appear by the way, its just that the negatives ask the questions.
To me notions like this point to something other than what we observe of it, relativity and our retrospective perspective both pertain to something more succinct and metaphysical. There is a reason why there is relativity and all things, and when we get into that idea, even though we can never describe what that is, we tend to always be pointing in the same direction ~ dont you think?
That acorn of knowledge which cannot [?] be discovered, seems to pop up everywhere the deeper one looks. It is that part of us that is the human, and in that nothing other truly says what we are but we know we are it even if by mere experience.
You could know everything about me and me myself, but that could be transplanted [or the brain of it at least could potentially] into another vehicle. Perhaps it is more that we are that same experienced human as spoken of above, illusive, impossible to locate metaphysically or in any other manner, then it is that being which has probably the same wy to learn about others and the world. Sometimes we can know someone more in a moment than if we spend years with them. Is it the experienceing being which knows another experienceing being, and in my view this is somewhat relative to the degree it knows itself.
I see what you mean about situations and distances, then them being somewhat smilar. A kind of personal relativity if there is such a universality of meaning behind relativity. For me the universe twists and bends as do observations and perspectives, because of ‘something’. The universe cannot fill infinity physically and so it has to bend or fade into it somehow, everything in it then takes on the same peculiarity. Every particle relates to every other and we get an equivalent quantam wierdness to the macro. We as people can be more distant whilst standing next to one another than a seemingly vague chracter in a book/film, or a celebrity.
What can I say but agree with you; reality doesnt move in straght lines, nor form in absolute concretions of form.
As I see it our cognition moves with the way of reality thus described, it to doesnt move in straight lines and pertains to quantum and macro wierdness ~ simply because it is part of it. Reality is reality, whatever is behind it all and makes it non-comfomist [let us say] for me is ultimately universal. …if universal is a suitible subtle, dextrous and amorphic expression of meaning here.
I think we kind of agreed there lol
Your ideas here are most interesting, I shall need to get used to them a while to understand it properly. I think there is both cardinality [closure or closedness I assume you meant?] and the lack of it [emptiness, infinity], and both these things exist as like all other duality and non-duality, in the same space. We are both closed off and totally free ~ in the mental sence. Death and any terminal point in a cardinality are in some sence an illusion, or a perception of an ending that once visited is not there, once observed moves.
I would next ask if the ‘human being’ is something which can move beyond its vehicle/state/situation. That, as we have both said, the latter does not define the former, then I would make the assumption that ‘being’ is not limited by them and thus can move beyond their situation.
I have speculated [on the other conversation you spoke of] what the next situation would be, from my ebservations and thoughts on the matter. Essentually informationless. …but that doesnt mean the human being is no longer so, everything we can describe about it remains as it is but without physical information i.e. the physical universe.
So now we should probably ask questions concerning that non-physical reality ~ that is at least equally real to the universe. Before I jump there i’d like to add that I think the two realities are the one we share, or a shared reality in our perspective and to the non-experienced ‘world’. This for me is fundamental to what it is to be human!
Would Bishop Berkeley approve
So are you saying that there is no continuance of being [one person goes through an infinitesimally small get so to speak]?
I have a bit of a problem with the cardinalities of the infinitesimal and some notions of infinities, so far we have been talking about the lack of straghtlinedness, of solidarity, that things change when you observe them and according to perspective [both mental and actual]. For me reality and the universe can be flipped between its layers, and in a moment the human being is in another reality of which there can be infinite. Being and reality is ultimately one whilst at once being multiple ~ I don’t think we would find the point of any of us do you? [we too don’t have edges].
So far for time’s incessant demands I can only make a general comment which I promise will follow up, that what you call solidarity may be a mix with solidity, in the contexts of straight and edges and linear concepts.
If so, solidity or solidarity implies another dimension, and can we go into that more fully? Solidarity distinguishes the subjective, linear, predictable world, the quantum jump is post Newtonian, a philosophical equivalent would be Kierkegaard’s existential leap of faith. To escape the limited situations we find ourselves, I am more comfortable as a form of ontological inquiry, then from analyzing the meanings of such ideas, as representative of the age. Leaps go beyond contextual descriptions, they dare to challenge our limited understanding of what is really going on when we talk of what it takes to be human. In a sense it’s beyond description
Aristotle believed man unique business, his idion ergon, is to reason. But other animals can do that too, right? Therefore should we be more explicit?
Language and the ability for grammar. Language is what we excell at, and thanks to this we are able to express vividly what our reasons are.
Animals can think. Recall Sultan, a chimp that Kohler studied. Kohler was a gestalt (german for pattern) psychologist. Sultan was able to ponder how to get a banana that was outside his cage, by connecting two poles together. Even the lowly catpillar can craw across hundred leaves until it finds the one right for its diet. I’ve even seen an elephant and chimp paint before. Tolman was the man who studied cognitive maps. It was proved that there is a mental life, contra behaviorism. It actually makes behaviorism understable. However, there are no other animals that can grasp the subtlies of language the way we humans use it. No, these other animals excell at other things. The bird, in general, is given to fly. The fish is given to swim. Humans are given to language. It helps us further our understanding and express our knowledge.
What do my fellow philosophers think of language being, in general, the thing we excell at the most?
Language is merely one of the aberrant skills that arise from the ability to maintain (remember) a chain of reasoning. In other words, to conceptualize a wider range of imagined details (as opposed to visually presented details). In computer terms, it is associated with “accumulator memory” and “resident memory” as these are what is used to assemble a wider and more complete picture from which logistics can be easy abstracted.
Other animals can do that same thing but merely with far less “on board RAM” and thus the depth of the “thinking” is minimized.
One of the many fruits of having such greater accumulator memory is language wherein many sounds can be examined for patterns that are then reduced into conceptual meanings and strung together into more complex messages. The typical non-homosapian cannot remember a long chain of grunting sounds that might have been distinguishable in detail and sequence. It can only remember enough at a time to discern the general direction of a message and any very overt changes.
Another effect that such memory retention brings is the ability to make complex plans wherein there are many steps that lead to a final goal. The homosapian can imagine grasping a stick, sliding it over to a corner where he expects something interesting to happen. So can many other animals. But what the other animals can’t do very well is remember at that same time and before anything occurs, that by the stick being in that location an otherwise mundane event will occur that leads to yet another innocuous event that will prepare a situation wherein the animal gains access to the key to his cell (for example). The chain of events is too long and too dubious.
Animals can be trained with vigor to think of each otherwise mundane task as something significant to obtain in itself such that the end result is achieved. The talent of the homosapian is that is takes far less vigorous training for the same task and the degree of “mundane” is enhanced by the ability to “see” the association between that task and the resultant situation. All of which has nothing to do with spoken or written language, but rather the language of concepts within the mind and the need for accumulator memory in order to grasp the larger picture of events or the situation.
People become notably more animal like simply by limiting the chemicals involved in their memory retention, especially associated with “temporary memory” wherein such activity as planing longer chains of events takes place. Even emotional reactions are sharply affected by reducing that memory as it takes away the mind’s ability to balance emotive reactions before acting upon them. It used to be called “retardation”, the retarding, slowing of the mind so that others could be faster in responding, learn quicker, and see a larger picture from which to assess the best response.
Obe
I have struggled with solidity, I am not a physicist of course but it seams to simply be particles getting caught up in one another [values magnetism forces etc.], and yet one would assume solidity to be more than that.
Everywhere we look we seem to arrive at that level beyond description – perhaps, or at least beyond current ways of thinking about things.
Stephen Pedersen
Hi,
I think animals can reason and do logic, though I have no idea how they do that without language. One would assume that nature does everything without language, or at least the language we use! one has to ask; how can our alien language describe anything about nature.
Language and philosophical thinking is what we excel at most, perhaps we even assess one another by the degree we can fathom thing ~ or how ‘intelligent’ we are.
Amorphos: will try to respond to the comment addressed to me, first, and then without excluding your respondent's opinion, who I hope doesn't mind.
On solidity am trying to think to be in agreement with you, and I will bring in an example o the level of cosmology and not elemental particles.(Besides I think limits are being reached in a unified concept covering both)
An idea has emerged based on physics, and I am not aa physicist either, that at the event horizon of a black hole, called the Swartzhild horizon, a funny thing happens. Matter does not get sucked in beyond the horizon, but is emitted and reconstituted.
This is fairly knew, and in contrast to previously held views. The solidity you describing,seems to be reconstituted after a breakdown due to the extreme forces near the event horizon. If this is what is happening, then solidity has structural integrity to overcome it’s breakdown. This seems to imply the notion of an ever receding horizon, where the limits can not possibly be overcome, and at the point of the limit, there is no limit, statistical or otherwise.
This is a theoretical concept that has gained interest, but I would favor it because, this would lay a ground for existence as a phenomenon.
On the feral humans, I too agree. It is highly likely that logic is not only a quantifiable derivative, but qualified on the bases of aggregate/matrix composition.
Let me explain from how it appears. An animal can not quantify, it can not count, or differentiate groups of things on basis of a numerical value.
But, an animal quickly learns in the context of spatial arrangement, how to form binary affect/effective maps of which direction to go to avoid danger, to get food, etc. Very much like studies done on rats, in mazes, with reward/punishment apparatus.
The actual mazes, will correspond to the cognitive maps, with the difference being, where the animal can modify the internal maze, in terms of direction away from the source of punishment, and toward the direction of the reward. This is learning, and th type of thinking entails a correspondence of spatial/maze like internal maps with the binary logic of this/that ; yes/no ; good/bad type of logically internal system.
interesting theory, have you heard of the holographic theory? It suggests that the universe is projected from an information background ~ like a hologram, possibly a similar thing.
Yet don’t we still have the problem of physicality and solidity? Assumedly prior to the universe reality is or has some degree of ‘realness’ or solidity, equally at base there must be something that makes things real and gives matter substance [even where matter is ‘empty’]. Our reality has many things that have no such solidity e.g. conceptual thought, meaning, visualisation, colour and experience [though probably backed up by info/particles].
Given the quantum weirdness and relativity of things, I would suggest there to be a fundamental and universal foundation = reality. Whatever that term means, we can imagine a base more than zero and less than 1, in that complete 0 would have no solidity whatsoever, and an absolute value [here represented by ‘1’] is impossible to arrive at or find anywhere [everything is partial].
This is the same thing as what makes us feel and be real on all levels [bodily, the experiencer etc], as it is for all things. Once we have such a base then particles can gain solidity by merging and becoming atoms, chemicals and macroscopic ‘bonds’.
So where there is no limit infinity is reached, [as infinity has no limits] and assumedly a zero-like/non-absolute value is arrived at? That sounds like a good way to get from universe to infinity, and for me all the strangeness about the universe is because reality cannot be physical in the absolute/solid sense, it can only be partial and transient; there is nothing complete, the whole thing I assume balances out by never reaching wholeness, inferring a vast elasticity. [and when we consider that an effect on any particle affects the value of every particle in the universe to a minute degree, and that all are composed of polarised energy [names don’t mean they are not all essentially the same], we can see part of this elasticity in action.
Is a phenomenon partial or entire? When we view it as partial the world becomes a different place, one where we only get partial physicality and alongside that, reals which have no physical solidity. Our human experience doesn’t have to disclude everything non-physical, as there is ultimately no difference between mental quale, ideas and physical reals.
A mathematician on TV showed a problem for some chaps to work out, to cut a long story short; the humans worked out the distances to retrieve an object and arrive at a destination from point a, a dog done it without any working out at all. It seems there is; what the brain can do as a machine, and what a human can do with the machine, an animal learns very little apart from what is already built into the machine ~ at least compared to animals.
Amorphous: the stretching or elasticity is probably apparent, as there are continuous shifts between what we call reality and perception, are actually layers of inter playing perceptual fields. The solidity of things have only appearance.
There are no things apart from their perceptive fields, and ultimately, I believe, the principle of logos relating to conception intelligence, rules apprehension. Whether this be an effect of a primordial organizing principle, a pre-required sturctual basis of the universe itself as a need to be apprehended, are probably two ways of seeing the same thing.
Be, in order to manifest, has to evolve, so that it can manifest itself (to itself, singularly through universality). The logos of inputting an intelligence into this process, which can form a basis as you describe, from which correspondence can be ascertained through hologram effects, is a neat thought, but I am inclined to believe that perception has a unifying quality about it, where apparent parts are brought to bear relatively, like a tapestry, in a continuously evolving relational process.
The near limits of one part are somehow related to that of another, in a continual mix of relative awareness.
The elasticity you talk about, I think, is not so much a real elasticity, but an effect of changes in qualitative space/time. As the limits of the parts are reached, the fabric, if you can call it that, changes , or thins out, with much more space between objects. The range, they talk of as a unified principle between the very small and the very big, have never been but a whole. It is probably only an apparent duality, and probability to certainty is another continuum, where perceptions change to convictions.
So it never ends because infinity seems to stretch as limits are approached, and as you point out, the horizon itself disappears, after, probably passing through a critical phase. At this point, the parts themselves dis appear and a new limitless whole emerges, into other parts.
You don’t need to be a rocket scientist to understand this process, it can be deduced by leaning on a gut level feeling acquired by the notions of the special theories of relativity. It is at once disturbing to think on terms of eternity and infinity as a result of evolutionary aims of interpretation,( but in fact it is becoming obvious), as it is comforting. This duality of feeling/perception, reinforces intelligence into it’s proper correlative place in a new or let’s say, re-affirmed significance. Intelligence transforms th process as willful, the will becoming the center point of this unifying process. The will of unification of intelligence, where intelligence has this ability to bring together the parts by abstraction, of relevant aspects, can be interpreted as the process of eternal signification.
Post modern philosophy, by the use of signs, signals and significations, is a reduced way to comprehend the formation of how abstraction of ideas take place, and fills substantially into Descartes’ doubt.
Thought has been de constructed, because, no sufficient reasons could be held to advance the notion of a limited ideas of logos. The limitations were inherent in the ideas of limits. This was the Newtonian world. The world of Einstein, sees no such limits, hence the logos is not limited, nor is it limitless, since you need an idea of a limit to envision an idea of the limitless. Limit itself looses it’s significance.
The idea of limit in this sense, looses it’s meaning. There remains only process. So once we reach certain limits, conception, abstraction ceases, and there remains pure process. We can call this mind, or energy, it doesn’t matter because it’s the same thing.
This is what Hindu philosophy calls Atman, and it is embodied with incredible intelligence.
Amorphos, the above is very much in line with what you are saying, it just tries to add the idea of the shift in the very meaning systems which are entailed in the physical processess you are desribing. I tried to incorporate as many of your ideas as I could.
Interesting ~ so how are we viewing ‘perceptual fields’ here? Perhaps as like how forces work; The Standard Model predicts that exchanged particles called gauge bosons are the fundamental means by which forces are emitted and absorbed, so perception is working somewhat like a force in the brain, sharing [emitting and absorbing] and exchanging information?
Isnt it reasonable to also assume other levels of perception; let us consider the above to be the ‘physical’ application of perceptions where there is a higher level concerning the consciousness/experiencer and mental quale, language, poetry, art, concepts, ideas and other features of the ‘human’ experience.
If i may just go on a slight tangent i was considering earlier; we are mainly just animals but with the power of reflection [subjectivity] and the language to define that. So should we consider ‘nature’ [as it is the main part of us] to be equally or somewhat spiritual? It makes me wonder what animals and indeed humans would ‘do’ in an otherworld/heaven. I am tempted to think that nature and humans are expressions of divinity or reality [where divinity would be the inner most circle [Caugant [divine infinite] in druidry]], and that there probably is no heaven as such ~ unless we consider that divine and fundamental basis of reality [or pure reality] to be it!
Hmm yes, as if our subjective perception is made personal in a similar sense to how we can look inwards at ourselves. Its like an eye that can duplicate then turn inwards to see itself. 'seeing is quite an interesting thing here ~ in the personal and universal.
We could say that we have…
an information layer [existence]. It relates in the particular and relative/subjective, and the universal and infinite.
I think we are seeing the same here in our own way, the tapestry is more than 3D and finds all quaters, it communicates and shares universally and beyond that all words fall into emtiness ~ or an otherwise indefineable space [because it is not limited to meaning].
Hmm awareness; figuratively speaking, split it in two and only one part can be aware. In otherwords some things are and some not aware. The question then asks to which part goes awareness. Logically as it is not a physical thing, i would assume it goes to the infinite, but as above that is fundamentally beyond communications ~ which occur as things diverge and become expressed. …a silence of thought which has all thing within it, just as reality must.
Agreed about the elasticity, it was just a label. In the expression of reality it is real, but not in itself ~ we only have half reals.
Indeed, its as if existence is a knot tied in the infinite and thats why it has no edges. I still have trouble understanding that in real terms though, e.g. If there were only 5 solar systems, one would expect there to be an edge, that one could look at the night sky and one part would be without stars, but i guess that why the universe is so vast! However, i am still left feeling that it has all been left in ambiguity. …maybe the universe is something akin to a black whole? That would explain the lack of edges and the cyclicity of universe life-cycles.
Interesting point, i had kinda left intelligence out of the process so as to see it in a ‘nature is what nature does’ light. It all could be self organising of course, there is after all nothing else that would make sense but for the universe to be like it is. …but there we have the word = sense! It makes sense! For that to be true, for there to be any kind of answer to what the universe and reality is, it has to be making sence. There is no reason why there should be a universe or some acid-trip of a reality, or indeed chaos or nothing et al, but that there is and it can be understood intellectually, means it has intelligence.
Information can be looked at in two ways, from one side we can read it as it is in its own right, from the other that it is relating things ~ all things. Reasonably one would assume there need be an ‘agent’ to theis exchange? Then as we look through all the layers the collective of that become an intellect just as it does in us, …?
as you say “Thought has been de-constructed, because, no sufficient reasons could be held to advance the notion of a limited ideas of logos. The limitations were inherent in the ideas of limits”, this is what happens when we limit our method of understanding only to one perspective of information and a metaphoric one at that.
I see your point, but does energy exist i.e. At the same level of ultimate reality we are speaking of? Does it not get manifest in the expression and in the particular? Ultimately and in every particular, if we look deep enough; E = 0.
I have equally conceived of mind in a similar sense. Must there not thence be ‘something else’ to become them and all other things [reality itself]? Remembering that that must have those things within its oneness ultimately. Maybe energy is mind and they are reality, but when we got differing parties acting upon one another [mind + energy + information + intellect] and requiring a medium [much as we have been speaking of], it suggest something far more vast and let us say ‘physically incomprehensible’ = the nature of reality itself!
Frankly i think humans would work it all out with ease if not for that.
I remember something of this notion from when i studied tibetan buddhism. From what i can tell, we have brahma and brahman, the personal and impersonal natures of God, then the atman is within the latter ~ the intellect of God?
Thank you very much sir! I try to do the same. A debate imho is not an argument in the emotional sense, but an exchange of ideas even if contradicting in parts and in order to advance ones vision of a thing.
[we too don’t have edges].