a thoughtful web.
Good ideas and conversation. No ads, no tracking.   Login or Take a Tour!
comment by alpha0
alpha0  ·  4657 days ago  ·  link  ·    ·  parent  ·  post: Do the inner workings of nature change with time?
Whether cause and effect is entangled with cognition or whether it is more primary is interesting to note but here we just want to focus on cognition. Movement is another interesting phenomena, but let's first focus on getting a glimpse of what is "real". Cognition. To determine the nature of change and movement in terms of cognition is the possibility that is posed. Perhaps we can quickly dispose of the notion or likely be frustrated by the conflation of our role as both subjects and observers of the same "reality".

I simply assert the act of partitioning is the most fundamental cognitive action. [Related: is one a prime or composite ..] You mentioned "patterns" and I am simply saying "let's build one". Flip it and look at it another way (tool centric): I propose having a semantic cleaver in our tool-kit as being of primary importance to taking cognitive action.





mk  ·  4657 days ago  ·  link  ·  
Ok, I believe I can follow. So we are talking about symbolism as the seed of cognitive action? Symbolism, the building of patterns, is cognition?
alpha0  ·  4657 days ago  ·  link  ·  
A substrate of some kind is assumed. The insistence here is on disentangling from (the terminological) bias of (the perceived) materiality, but it is nearly impossible to avoid semantic quicksand. "Symbolism" can be folded into a nice (less hand wavy) category: reality as a text that is read by a reader. This is of course a biased view but it is a viable starting point. (It is pretty much the basis of "Western" meta-physics and religions.)
mk  ·  4648 days ago  ·  link  ·  
    A substrate of some kind is assumed.

But is it? This is something that I simply have to question. In fact, if I have any religion whatsoever, it's probably my refusal to concede that it works that way, :) -that there is anything that is not bootstrapped. I think that instead of defining existence, we should simply see if we can define context, and then the boundaries of context. It's my gut feeling that in the nature of these boundaries, we have answers to our question.

    reality as a text that is read by a reader.

This is also the seed of the many worlds interpretation, IMO. But, not simply just that. Although I dislike the 'many worlds' interpretation, I don't disagree with the motivation behind it. I guess this might be why (off the cuff here):

Cognition is a context. Instead of delineating between the pattern and the perceived, maybe there is more fruit to be found looking at the nature of that context as it relates to others. What are the boundaries of a cognitive scenario? Rather than define it from within, maybe we can define it from without.

In that sense, yes cognition is a reflection. But, if we are to compare it to other reflections that we don't consider to be cognitive scenarios, we'd find that the cognitive reflection is always incomplete. Maybe cognition isn't something remarkably greater than, but something remarkably less than. Maybe cognition is the gift of imperfect reflection? And what is gained by that imperfection, is space that must be filled. And what is it filled with? -The only thing available, other imperfect reflections. This is something that feels unique and free to me.