Well, How Did I Get Here( David Byrne of Taling Heads ) Not whjy am I who I am i.e. why do I and the Universe exist, rather, how is it that I came to be here at this time, in this format and what are the relationships/interrelationships between myself and the Universe that embaces me. Aniticipaton-- :shake: = initiating circumstances for my existence Present--- in the womb pondering the conquering of Universe Recall--- the good ole days when nutrients were pumped into me via my navel physical/energy cannot be created ergo to-go-with-the-flow is an eternal given, and the basis of early Indonesian/Asian religions of acceptance. Fuller states that, when humans learned to sail into the wind by tacking left then right then left again, was the initial settings for going against God/Universe, going against the flow of the wind. However, humans can never not flow with the arrow > of > time with its resultant evolutionary events/phenomena. Simple-to-complex is an evolutionary process. Complex-to-simple is an evolutionary process. INvolution leads to and OUTvolution and gravity and/or other attractive forces, then INvolute again as the eternal cycling flow of IN's, OUT's via aROUNDing of overlapping, geodesic, trajectory sets of vectorial tubes/rings/tori. imho My hopes are to find some static if not also dynamic maps to help express the cosmic accounting system of Universe, in as simple as way as possibel, in order to have the most access to the greatest number of human visual or touch cognitions within the context of mind/intelligence access abilities. The 2D triangle is the minimal enclosure that distingusihes/differrentiates and inside from outside concept. The perfect circle is maximum, convex( positive ), geodesic abstraction of a triangular, 2D enclosure The 3D tetrahedron is the minimal enclosure that distiguishes/differrentiates an inside from and outside. The perfect sphere is the maximum, convex( positive ), set of geodesic abstractions of a tetrahedral, 3D enclosure. Etc.......envisions some relatively, easy-to-grasp minimal( bottom ) and maximal( top ) limits that help keep us from going off into irrational infinities that are irrelevant to the flowing arrow-of-time ergo evolution. There exist cosmic limits ergo limited possibilities, and it is those we need only concern ourselves with in the objective info harvesting, sorting/winnowing and discoveries. Then subjectively we may then attempt to apply those discovers in ways that please us and benifit the greatest number of humans if not also the Universe, in some way The better we understand our deterministic Universe, the better we may make predetermined predictions or prognostications of where we are headed. Fuller gives the example/analogy of a bow and arrow, wherein the further we pull back the string the further we project the arrow i.e. the further we go back in history and see the evolutionary events that led to 'how we came to be this way', the further we able to project where we are headed in our evolutionary future. r6
Well, again, if by "true nature of the world" [this centuries-long fixation of the rationalist tradition] you are referring to a non-immediate product yielded over time by inference and/or methodological procedures [philosophy, science]... Then there is no "color" in those alternative versions of "out there" to be correct or incorrect about, anyway. I was referring to the qualitative experience of color, or the everyday fact of commonsense objects of extrospection having such properties. Not the label "green" being assigned to a 510 nanometer wavelength of EM radiation, so as to identify or signify it with an everyday word. The former was what earlier humans were first acquainted with, and thus the latter is the one that would be guilty of any "plagiarizing" of their color names, or employing another, potentially confusing, use for them. IOW, what I meant was what I said: Color is part of our immediate objective world [that is "objective" as in interpersonal observations, etc] -- which involves realism about empirical phenomena (including their apparent corporeal, spatial, or material nature). But color as quality rather than quantity [measurement, etc] is not often found in the objective world of drawn-out, reflective thought (which involves realism about theories / conceptions / doctrines). The latter noted for turning around to mock that first realm we live in as mere intuition or folk assumption (naive realism). Even the flow of time is dismissed as being the case in the alternative "out there" modeled by applicable areas of theoretical physics, and by "eternalism" philosophies long before that. Our experiential perception of a world is essentially discarded for an intellectual "perception" of a world, adopting the latter's standard for "real" (a torturous historical path of curves and intersections winding back to even before Plato's theory of forms). Audible / visual content which is intersubjectively available (not private hallucination) is immediate knowledge. It is "given" without having to infer its presence and convert it to description, without requiring "proof" via reason / argument, and so forth. Or is at least "immediate" compared to the latter, which unfolds lengthily toward its goals over time, and may splinter into multiple competing interpretations / hypotheses in the course of that. Thus what the born deaf or blind person receives from a full sensory-equipped person is a kind of sterilized ectype of the original -- seeing / hearing as filtered through reasoning and a communication system of signs rather than the original empirical character of just seeing / hearing. Accordingly that sensory-challenged person fails to grasp "what it is like" to see/hear since common language doesn't capture it and the quantitative affairs of a particular research discipline may not deal in it or will just ignore the "what it's like" country as coined by Thomas Nagal. (And why not -- the experience of Chalmers' hard problem makes no causal contribution in natural explanations, is often considered epiphenomenally impotent, when not disbelieved / dropped altogether by an occasional scientist proponent of eliminative materialism or some brand of phenomenal nihilism). Returning to the first two sentences above: This does not, however, mean that audible / visual and other sensory manifestations provide complete identification, purpose and the like as immediate knowledge. It's primarily immediate knowledge that something is "there", present, exhibited as image, sound, odor, feel, etc. For instance, some direct realists may contend that the function of a chair is apparent without needing to recruit reflective thought and memory -- that its meaning or whatever -- is "external" rather than the internal product of the workings of conscious agents perceiving it. Which is a baffling claim. A non-linguistic and non-reasoning goat will just as much deem the chair an object to defecate upon as an object for sitting / lying upon, or apply no meaning / purpose to it whatsoever. The goat being chosen because the environment the chair resides in (as well as the chair) would lack even the goat's level of understanding / potential interest. The "third class" (to temporarily run with that expression) which Kant was referring to might sound like the neutral element of neutral monism to contemporary "ears" (that is, wherein mental / matter reduce to a principle or generic substance that is neither). But Kant leaves this transcendent "territory" of things in themselves, which he was actually referring to, knowable only in the negative sense, not the positive. It is what is left after space, time, quantity, quality, relation, modality, etc, have been stripped agnostically away: When all the global rules that experience conforms to (via the faculties of Kant's proto-functionalist account of mind) have been stripped away. Really not much unlike what happens to our presentations of material objects when the consciousness generating processes of the brain shut down: They disappear, as well as the personal thoughts. This does not mean that the received noumenal influences that were being represented likewise ceased to become available, though [i.e., Kantians, Machian pan-phenomenalists, and assorted empiricist sympathizers weren't advocating solipsism; mind wasn't even fundamental for those descended from David Hume -- ideas and phenomenal properties were liberated from or made independent of mind, so that mind itself was only an organized, systematized bundle of such qualitative properties]. And the naturalist approach to explanation is preserved as a co-parallel POV in Kant's critical idealism, just as it was with a few other epistemological or transcendent metaphysical schemes descended from certain ancient Greeks. Including Berkeley's immaterialism (something which Abrahamic and perhaps even some Hindu creationists seem to be unable to grasp as an alternative to erroneously grounding their supernatural origins and causations in the natural domain of our extrospective environment). One difference from those other philosophers, though, is that Kant rejected the realm of pure intelligible things and the later realm of minds as deserving classification as "real" or some "true world"; or that past philosophers' "proofs" and positive-sounding assertions about it should be regarded as undoubtable truths. Because our competing speculative concepts remained empty when aimed at that territory; the a priori forms of Understanding only had content from sensible intuitions to work upon when it came to supplying veridical-aiding evidence; Plato's supposed intellectual version of intuition was submitted by Kant to actually be unavailable to humans. Kant: The dictum of all genuine idealists from the Eleatic school to Bishop Berkeley, is contained in this formula: "All cognition through the senses and experience is nothing but sheer illusion, and only, in the ideas of the pure understanding and reason there is truth." The principle that throughout dominates and determines my Idealism, is on the contrary: "All cognition of things merely from pure understanding or pure reason is nothing but sheer illusion, and only in experience is there truth." Thus there are three potential "out theres" or so-called external realms to distinguish from each other: The one of extrospection (empirical / phenomenal realism, sometimes mocked as naive realism); the one of theoretical naturalism (scientific realism, internal ontology); the one of transcendent metaphysics (we might call it noumenal realism, but the epistemological pessimism of Kant / Hume forbids taking speculations or precise, positive claims about it seriously; though Kant permits it to a degree in his practical philosophy).
