Collecting everything that could be true is only one half of the thought process. The other half is about throwing everything away that is not.
-
-
Replying to @Plinz @CateTiernan
I think that is what I am doing - throwing away untrue assumptions linking sensation to 'minds' and 'self' because they don't survive Occam's Razor. I think Descartes didn't go far enough. Thinking does not prove "I am", but it does prove 'thought (sense-making sensation) "is"'.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @S33light @CateTiernan
Descartes makes incredible sense if his ideas are not read as ontological but phenomenological descriptions. Our mind does indeed represent res extensa (a physics engine full of moving stuff in an all-encompassing 3space) and res cogitans (other mental content) in different ways.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Plinz @CateTiernan
I agree. In his terms, the split between Res Ext and Res Cog exists only in Res Cog. In my terms, the split exists in a deeper monism of 'Res Aesthetica'. The monism isnt truly 'neutral' IMO, because it is aesthetic (metaphenomenological), not physical or logical (anesthetic).
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @S33light @CateTiernan
You start from a phenomenological dualism, go to a representational monism, and try to somehow jump to an ontological dualism (for which you don't have evidence after explaining phen.) that is then merged again in a substrate monism, where "aesthetic" is defined in vaguest terms?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Plinz @CateTiernan
I think that I'm starting from a meta-ontological meta-monism, and seeing dualism as just one (important) aesthetic configuration. I think any absolute primitive is necessarily vague but I can show it to be more defensible than 'being', 'information', 'energy', etc
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @S33light @CateTiernan
What exactly do you mean by "show"? You can make a proof? That means that you are using a computational language? But you will be more defensible than the idea of information?
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Plinz @CateTiernan
I might be able to get to a meta proof of the incompleteness of computational proof. I would start by seeing quantum uncertainty, entropy, and incompleteness as aspects of universal overfitting. Nature uses these buffers to cheat and blur the seams of realism (I have observed).
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @S33light @CateTiernan
This is too fanciful for me! You are not reasoning, you are quite freely associating?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Plinz @CateTiernan
It's ok if it is too fanciful for you, but I think not for nature. Nature transcends reason. Entropies are insensitivities that hide the grand paradoxes and preserve a 'law of conservation of mystery' locally. The bricks of reality are mortared together with art.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
I don't think that your mind, the concept of nature has the same referent as in mine. I have no doubt that your fluid approach works for you. But did you notice that our consistent command of nature (like semi conductor physics) implies that nature conforms to tight tolerances?
-
-
Replying to @Plinz @CateTiernan
Yes, IMO nature is a spectrum of aesthetic modes. Some ranges of that spectrum provide our sub-spectrum with conformity to tight tolerances (tangibility, visibility, math & logic thinking) that tightly map to each other. Those modes alone can't build the whole spectrum though.
0 replies 0 retweets 1 likeThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.