Which is First?

Alf · August 17, 2017, 8:06pm

I was only talking about the fact that we know nearly nothing about the ILP member “Faust”. Who really knows more than this about “Faust”; username, avatar, numbers of posts, registration date, post content, pm-content?

Leyla · August 17, 2017, 9:08pm

As for him, the term is “delusional overestimation” of himself, alternating with “persecution mania” (don’t know, which is first)

James_S_Saint · August 17, 2017, 9:11pm

I can tell you that Faust and FC are very, very different people.

Xunzian · August 18, 2017, 7:24am

I’m not really sure what the initial “seed” is, does it matter? Substance and function is an iterative and mutually reinforcing process and we’re right in the middle of it. When you’re having a drink, what is first? The liquid you are drinking? The vessel containing what you are drinking? The hands that pick up what you are drinking? The eyes that see it so you can pick it up? The nose that smells it and the mouth that tastes it? The body that needs it? The totality of these things together?

Does it matter? A chopped off hand in the desert isn’t picking up a drink. Liquid can exist qua liquid without need of being drank. Etc.

What’s most important? Well, what question are you asking? Ontology and epistemology are complimentary in that way.

If I could contrast a few of the philosophers that I find relevant:

Xiong Shili:

The word principle (li) originally has the meaning of order or pattern. But we should not say, as Sung and Ming Neo-Confucianists said, that it is order within material force (qi). Many of them considered material force to be a real thing and consequently considered principle to be merely order within material force. According to this, principle itself is an empty form and material force alone is real. […] Here I do not want to criticize them [the Sung and Ming Neo-Confucianists] too much. I merely want to explain my idea of principle and material force. I believe they cannot be sharply divided into two pieces. The word “principle” is a general term for both substance and function, whereas “material force” refers only to function. When the meaning of the word “material force” was explained above, it was already made quite clear that material force is the function.

[…]

Substance also means the source of all transformations, the foundation of all things and the converging point of all principles. It should be called true principle or concrete principle. It can also be called ultimate principle. Spoken from the point of view of function, in the wonderful functioning of opening and closing, all characters and phenomena seem functioning of closing and opening, all characters and phenomena seem to be manifest. Here phenomena follow a certain order, easily pervasive without any obstruction. It is also called principle, for phenomena and principle are identical, that is, phenomena are principle. Principle in the first instance refers to substance. It is the one source, which actually involves all manifestations. Principle in the second instance derives its name from function. It is the many manifestations which returns to the one source. Although principle may be said to be two, essentially, it is neither one nor two. As meanings as substance and function differ it is not one. But since it is at the same time substance and function it is not two.

Feng Youlan:

Chu Hsi regards principle as that by which actual things necessarily are what they are and the specific principle according to which they should be. Our idea of principle is the same. As square thing must follow the principle of the square before it can be square, and it must completely follow the principle of the square before it can be perfectly square. Whether a square thing is perfectly square depends on whether or not it follows the principle of the square completely. According to this reasoning, the principle of the square is the standard of all square things; it is the specific principle according to which they should be.

[…]

In our system we can still say that “the principle is one but its manifestations are many.” But when we say so, the principle we are talking about is still the principle when we discuss it as such. Let us first take the example of things in a certain class. The things in this class all follow one principle. However, although they all follow the same principle, they each have their own individuality. From the point of view of things of this class being related within the class, we can say that their principle is one but its manifestations are many. As we said before, the principle of a class implies the principle of a general class, all specific classes within the general class can also be stated in terms that the principle is one but its manifestations are many . . .

Both philosophers from their respective sections in Wing-Tsit Chan’s “A Source Book in Chinese Philosophy.”
Next, I think that a bit from Tu Weiming is necessary:

Tu Weiming:

We have already suggested that man’s structure of being and man’s process of becoming are two complimentary points of view. Indeed, if I interpret Yangming’s perception correctly, they actually represent two inseparable dimensions of human reality. Therefore, we must recognize that man is both a given structure and an indeterminate process. To say that I am a given structure is not to deny the freedom of choice, for I alone can make the inner decision to become what I ought to be. And such a decision necessarily transforms the restrictive ties of my given structure into a set of instrumentaria for self-realization. To say that I am an indeterminate process is not to undermine my inner identity. No matter how I choose to act, I do so in the context of being a meaningful entity. Therefore, a measure of freedom is an integral part of the given structure, and a sense of identity is an integral part of the indeterminate process. Although the structure is given for the sake of self-realization, it must undergo a process of transformation. By the same token, the indeterminate process constantly assumes a temporal structure because of self-identity. Consequently, man’s being what he is must be sought in his becoming what he ought to be, and vice versa.

–Subjective and Ontological Reality – An Interpretation of Wang Yang-ming’s Mode of Thinking.

So the task here is how to synthesize these separate concepts. When Tu talks about a “given structure” we can say that it is the function of the thing a la Xiong Shili; whereas the indeterminate process of transformation is the “substance” Xiong Shili spoke of. We can see that these things are linked and, to a certain degree, inseparable. But the principle that serves as the source for the thing in question is poorly defined in this case, which is why Feng Youlan’s more developed concept of how the principle can be one but its manifestations are many is in order.

So, at this point we have substance and function giving rise to each other which would be circular if time weren’t taken into account: any given function is the result of its substance and substance is the result of its function. However, if this process is not viewed as a static process but rather a temporal one, a helix is formed stretching across time. This entire process is what I think of as “principle”.

Fixed_Cross · August 18, 2017, 3:52pm

The liquid we are drinking is first. We are made of that liquid. Or thirst is a function of us already being that liquid.

These two are indeed impossible to separate. Ive written on this in some depth as the first steps to explicating value ontology.
beforethelight.forumotion.com/t1-ontology

But logic and ethics are not included in that same dynamic. They form a different aggregate together.
They are, as I see it, prior to it the pair of “what might knowledge be” (epistemology) is and “what might be known” (ontology).
Epistemology and ontology are both radically complex, demand much to be established beforehand.
Phenomenology is even more complex, as it requires these two as well as the stream of observations that is to be modelled into the two -
that all relies on logic, which relies on the choice of adhering to logic, which is a selection of a standard, which is ethics.

If I could contrast a few of the philosophers that I find relevant:

Xiong Shili:

The word principle (li) originally has the meaning of order or pattern. But we should not say, as Sung and Ming Neo-Confucianists said, that it is order within material force (qi). Many of them considered material force to be a real thing and consequently considered principle to be merely order within material force. According to this, principle itself is an empty form and material force alone is real. […] Here I do not want to criticize them [the Sung and Ming Neo-Confucianists] too much. I merely want to explain my idea of principle and material force. I believe they cannot be sharply divided into two pieces. The word “principle” is a general term for both substance and function, whereas “material force” refers only to function. When the meaning of the word “material force” was explained above, it was already made quite clear that material force is the function.

[…]

Substance also means the source of all transformations, the foundation of all things and the converging point of all principles. It should be called true principle or concrete principle. It can also be called ultimate principle. Spoken from the point of view of function, in the wonderful functioning of opening and closing, all characters and phenomena seem functioning of closing and opening, all characters and phenomena seem to be manifest. Here phenomena follow a certain order, easily pervasive without any obstruction. It is also called principle, for phenomena and principle are identical, that is, phenomena are principle. Principle in the first instance refers to substance. It is the one source, which actually involves all manifestations. Principle in the second instance derives its name from function. It is the many manifestations which returns to the one source. Although principle may be said to be two, essentially, it is neither one nor two. As meanings as substance and function differ it is not one. But since it is at the same time substance and function it is not two.

Thanks for posting.
Indeed it is impossible to discern principle from the substance it brings about -
the Principe is the acting consistency (in the sense of being-consistent), the substance is the passive consistency (as being accumulation of a consistent type)
in physics, we have the principle of gravitation which can not be separated from the principle of mass, and yet they are different things.

Feng Youlan:

Chu Hsi regards principle as that by which actual things necessarily are what they are and the specific principle according to which they should be. Our idea of principle is the same. As square thing must follow the principle of the square before it can be square, and it must completely follow the principle of the square before it can be perfectly square. Whether a square thing is perfectly square depends on whether or not it follows the principle of the square completely. According to this reasoning, the principle of the square is the standard of all square things; it is the specific principle according to which they should be.

[…]

In our system we can still say that “the principle is one but its manifestations are many.” But when we say so, the principle we are talking about is still the principle when we discuss it as such. Let us first take the example of things in a certain class. The things in this class all follow one principle. However, although they all follow the same principle, they each have their own individuality. From the point of view of things of this class being related within the class, we can say that their principle is one but its manifestations are many. As we said before, the principle of a class implies the principle of a general class, all specific classes within the general class can also be stated in terms that the principle is one but its manifestations are many . . .

I don’t like how this guy taks about principle, he links it to class, category. I don’t think that is ultimately very accurate.
I prefer the notion of principles that give rise to phenomena, as the Chinese philosophers that I do know (all of them through martial arts) tend to work by.

Both philosophers from their respective sections in Wing-Tsit Chan’s “A Source Book in Chinese Philosophy.”
Next, I think that a bit from Tu Weiming is necessary:

Tu Weiming:

We have already suggested that man’s structure of being and man’s process of becoming are two complimentary points of view. Indeed, if I interpret Yangming’s perception correctly, they actually represent two inseparable dimensions of human reality. Therefore, we must recognize that man is both a given structure and an indeterminate process. To say that I am a given structure is not to deny the freedom of choice, for I alone can make the inner decision to become what I ought to be. And such a decision necessarily transforms the restrictive ties of my given structure into a set of instrumentaria for self-realization. To say that I am an indeterminate process is not to undermine my inner identity. No matter how I choose to act, I do so in the context of being a meaningful entity. Therefore, a measure of freedom is an integral part of the given structure, and a sense of identity is an integral part of the indeterminate process. Although the structure is given for the sake of self-realization, it must undergo a process of transformation. By the same token, the indeterminate process constantly assumes a temporal structure because of self-identity. Consequently, man’s being what he is must be sought in his becoming what he ought to be, and vice versa.

–Subjective and Ontological Reality – An Interpretation of Wang Yang-ming’s Mode of Thinking.

A qualifier: a structure is itself the result of a process.
A structure is thus a segment of a larger process, which itself is processed within that larger process;

Might we say that structure is a framework for specific type of process?

“The World In Its Totality” if such a phrase isn’t nonsensical, is simply process - there is no definitive structure to it
Structures emerge in the generality of process, to be processed further -
into what, though?

Processing toward what?
What is the ground of the “should” in Weimings thought?

So the task here is how to synthesize these separate concepts. When Tu talks about a “given structure” we can say that it is the function of the thing a la Xiong Shili; whereas the indeterminate process of transformation is the “substance” Xiong Shili spoke of. We can see that these things are linked and, to a certain degree, inseparable. But the principle that serves as the source for the thing in question is poorly defined in this case, which is why Feng Youlan’s more developed concept of how the principle can be one but its manifestations are many is in order.

So, at this point we have substance and function giving rise to each other which would be circular if time weren’t taken into account: any given function is the result of its substance and substance is the result of its function. However, if this process is not viewed as a static process but rather a temporal one, a helix is formed stretching across time. This entire process is what I think of as “principle”.

Right. I tend to move in a similar way, where I observe the qualities of a principle to refer both to the ground-condition of a process, as well as to the nature of its total manifestation.

But this leaves us with a superstition - namely, that because we can discern large systems, we are entitled to think holistically - as if we would be able to conceive of a true totality with such accuracy as to ascribe a principle to it in the same way as we ascribe it to something like a square, the principle and the substance of which are formulated equally,as a form with four equal corners - Platos preferred ontological approach -
to use the term principle only for those things that are equal in substance and principle; basically, geometry.

But consider this, as a thought experiment, so see how this system is cleft:
Consider the principle of difference as giving rise to symmetry.

Serendipper · August 19, 2017, 8:46am

If nomenclature is the only objection, I can live with that.

Perception doesn’t require consciousness. In fact, consciousness can impede perception

Fixed_Cross · August 19, 2017, 1:40pm

On the money, Serendipper.

I call that basic perception valuing.
As I call less basic (conscious) perception.

And you are right that the latter is less accurate.

James_S_Saint · August 19, 2017, 8:37pm

It IS merely the word:

Sensing and interpreting those senses is required in order to call it “perception”.

No big deal, just find the right word.

Fixed_Cross · August 20, 2017, 1:53am

No. Technically the hierarchy is perception, apperception, interpretation.
Consciousness, in these terms, is attributed to apperception and interpretation, not to perception.

For example, a flower perceives the sun.

Fixed_Cross · August 20, 2017, 1:56am

Thing is, unconscious things only perceive what is of relevance to their structural integrity- what is of value (+/-) to them.
Thats one way of seeing how valuing is prior to even perception, let alone consciousness.

James_S_Saint · August 20, 2017, 1:58am

Do you have to update your education in English?

NO. “Perception” is NOT anything a flower can do any more than it can have an opinion of who should be the next US President. Flowers have no senses nor any capacity of interpreting what they sense. They merely react to direct affect.

Learn English if you are going to try to communicate in it.

Serendipper · August 20, 2017, 2:00am

Thanks!

Yes, perception has different interpretations, including having insight into difficult situations which requires robust cognitive machinery. I was counting on someone to have the higher form in order to perceive the lower form I meant to convey

Perhaps you could assist? I struggled for the right word and was aware of the proper definitions of perception, but still regarded it as embodying the idea I was trying to communicate and therefore couldn’t resist its gravity. Unfortunately, I’m not the wordsmith I wish I were.

“Recognition” implies a template for comparison, so I couldn’t use that.
“Sensing” seemed too much like a nervous system, so that didn’t capture it either.
“Detection” almost implies intent to find which is too cognitive.

I am at a loss. What is the word for one charge being aware of another charge? Maybe the example is too simplistic. As the most fundamental lifeform, the first order of business is to form structures to perceive the environment and that is somehow accomplished without a nervous system, so it seems we’re back to the atoms because natural reactions are all there is.

James_S_Saint · August 20, 2017, 2:04am

Yes, all of that is true. The word that I would use is simply “reaction”. The word “reaction” doesn’t directly imply any conscious intent, yet does imply a response to being affected. When any, literally “any”, entity is affected, it “reacts”. And that includes even light photons, EMR of every sort, subatomic particles, literally every declared physical “entity” (Newton’s 3rd law). And that reaction is what FC wants to call “valuing”.

Serendipper · August 20, 2017, 2:22am

How does a sunflower follow the sun?

How does a flower know which way to grow without some perception of gravity?

How does a seed know when it’s warm enough to sprout?

I think I can see what you’re possibly thinking if I picture a ball flying through the air and how it gets from one Planck slice to another is just how the universe unfolds and therefore the ball isn’t perceiving anything just like the flower is reacting along it’s natural path in a mindless way, but then we have to realize that we are the same and there is no such thing as perception… only the process of unfolding natural occurrences.

It almost seems like you’re heading to the conclusion that there are no things or events. Because if a flower follows the sun due natural dumb processes, then I don’t see myself as being much different and the universe is just one big event… the universe is the atom… the indivisible whole… and we are just as much a part of the dumb process as the flower.

Maybe just for the sake of argument we could pretend there are lines in the sand and say the flower somehow perceives the sun then acts accordingly even though we know in the back of our minds that perception itself is just an illusion and construct of imagination. Otherwise, I think, there wouldn’t be anything to talk about.

What do you think?

Serendipper · August 20, 2017, 2:26am

Well, if it will makes everyone happy, I’m down with it.

Earlier today, I reacted to a deer through the kitchen window.

James_S_Saint · August 20, 2017, 2:36am

The chemical-mechanical reaction on one side of the plant are different than on the other side - due to the Sunshine. That inherently causes the flower to bend toward the Sun. There is no “awareness of the Sun” other than one side getting warmer and more light while the other side did not. The flower mechanically (due to chemical responses) bends toward the Sunshine. It did not have to be the actual Sun. Anything with the right amount of the right type of light will (and often does) create the same response. And that exact same response can be created from scratch with man-made photo-sensitive cells. There is no magic to it, and no consciousness involved. Plants are complex mechanisms. That is all they are.

Merely by a complex bio-mechanical reaction, evolved to be what you currently see. Science certainly is not wrong about EVERYthing.

Magnus_Anderson · August 20, 2017, 3:51am

Perhaps the mistake you are making is the assumption that the universe works, or must work, according to rules. In other words, that the universe is one giant pattern – an eternally repeating sequence of events. This means that there must be a “why?” behind every event. But what if there isn’t?

How does thinking work? Do we start with an unproven premise and then seek evidence for it or do we start with what is evident (our observations) and then make conclusions (which is to say assumptions) based on it?

We are attracted to patterns. Does that mean everything is a pattern?
We are attracted to patterns because patterns allow us to predict the future.
We don’t like their absence because that makes it difficult for us to predict the future.

Life, and everything within the universe, can go on without the ability to predict.
Intelligence is just a tool that allows us to predict the future so that we can better prepare for it.

Intelligence is useful only to the extent that it works with what is real, which is to say, with our observations.
Its goal is to recognize patterns within the observed – if there are any.
It becomes degenerate when it starts substituting what is real (observations) with what isn’t (imaginations) in order to create the appearance of patterns so that we can pretend that we can predict the future and prepare for it in order to avoid negative consequences.
Then it becomes merely about comfort.

It’s difficult to define the concept of perception in terms of information philosophy.
It’s easier to define the concept of reaction.
Reaction is a word denoting any event that appears regularly after some other event.
For example, light bulb emitting light is a reaction to a light switch being pressed.
Perception is a form of reaction, that is true, but it is a specific type of reaction, which means that not every reaction is a form of perception, that is sufficiently complex to make it difficult for us to describe it in exact terms.

Serendipper · August 20, 2017, 4:02am

Right… it’s a dumb mechanical process. So what about the last bit of my post? How are we any different? Isn’t then perception an illusion? I don’t think we can have our cake and eat it too because if the flower has no perception, then perception doesn’t exist and it’s just a construct of our imagination. That is, unless you see yourself as distinct from the universe as an outside observer, but I’m not guessing that you do.

If you are constrained by this universe and do not exist on the outside, then you are just another “bio-mechanical” process chugging along and therefore there is no perception; only reaction. There is no philosophy; just bio-processes heading along their determined paths. Everything we experience is an illusion somehow generated by the determinate process.

But, I’m not sure I could agree with determinism because randomness does exist.

It took a while, but hidden variable theory was eventually disproved by John Bell, who showed that there are lots of experiments that cannot have unmeasured results. Thus the results cannot be determined ahead of time, so there are no hidden variables, and the results are truly random. That is, if it is physically and mathematically impossible to predict the results, then the results are truly, fundamentally random. askamathematician.com/2009/1 … andomness/

Therefore, not everything is a determined process that could be rewound and replayed with the same outcome. If we start the big bang over with the same initial conditions, we will get a different result. If we start it over and over sufficient times, we may get an approach to a central limit so that one outcome is more likely than another, but that is far from being determined.

IMO, I think being alive entails some degree of randomness and inherent unpredictability. So although the flower is following its bio-mechanical processes to track the sun, it isn’t quite so mechanical as to be determined and perfectly predictable… and that is what we call life. And that means computers, as we understand them to be as of now which are nothing more than an array of switches, will never be alive no matter how powerful they become. They will never be conscious. So if computers aren’t conscious because they are perfectly predictable, then we have to wonder what the antithesis is to that. Is all life conscious??? So it would seem.

What would be the point of existence if everything could be known? If determinism is true and we’re just flowing along a stream through time, how could we be aware of it? And if we are, then why is a flower not? Determinism has always been unsettling to me.

That’s one heck of a tangent, but it was fun. Talk to you guys tomorrow!

James_S_Saint · August 20, 2017, 5:30am

The difference is not merely the degree of complexity involved, but specifically how that complexity allows a mammal to reconstruct an internal image of the outside environment (much like a person inside a van watching the outside through cameras). The mammal’s “perception” (his camera’s image) is not 100% accurate, but it is close enough for him to function. The flower has no such bio-mechanism at all. The flower cannot form an internal image of the Sun such as to think to itself, “there it is”. Bio-mechanical mechanisms with the capacity to “remotely recognize” objects, are what people have always called “conscious” (aware of the objects surrounding them). That is the difference. A flower could never tell that a bee was buzzing near until the bee actually landed on the flower. And even then, the flower has no comprehension of what a bee is or looks like. The flower merely gives what is taken and takes what is given until it can do so no longer.

That is the difference.

Randomness in the sense of unpredictability, is merely a measure of awareness and information. To the flower, all is random, totally unpredictable.

Magnus_Anderson · August 20, 2017, 5:34am

Randomness is absence of pattern. You can be extremely aware and still see no patterns (because there are none.)