Is the referenced the same as the intelligent?
Can consciousness perceive itself or does it perceive that which it possesses?
Either question is addressing the scenario of the dragon that bites its own tail.
So what is the nature of consciousness that may not be able to directly perceive itself?
If consciousness can’t perceive itself, it suggest that the self is one with perception. But the error of this is that the perceived can be the perceiver, and so difference is simultaneously symmetry.
It’s what I’ve said before: the universe is the error of contrast being uniformity.
I think it suggests that whatever object is being apprehended by consciousness cannot be consciousness itself (a taste bud cannot taste its own nature).
Consciousness creates objects. And objects are made for purposes.
What if the purpose is to annihilate another consciousness? Surely then the object being referenced isn’t intelligent?
I would conclude that consciousness perceives objects and the objects themselves are created by previous causes.
What about the link between intelligence and the referenced?
I think they arise and decay simultaneously in a codependent relationship.
The most common thread is that there is a direct relationship between reference and intelligence.
To reference requires knowledge (two), and intelligence can mean to not react: a direct relationship between knowledge as a creator and no reaction. In other words, a link between no reaction and no knowledge.
What would you think of this?
Agree with it, a non reactive knowledge tends to negate the referential intelligence, because, the reference becomes non reactive and not creative. Therefore, intelligence can be referenced to be reactive, or reactive for intelligence to be referential.
Is it a violation, if the non reactive intelligence gets referenced as such? I’m interpreting intelligence as not possible of anti (it only has one meaning). And so intelligence isn’t subject to changing states.
By subject to changing states, I mean not that the changing states are a separate force from intelligence, trying to influence its own meaning, but that intelligence isn’t capable of change period.
Intelligence is as it has always been, meaning the practical issue of a life form wanting to become intelligent, because to do so violates the very condition of intelligence (it was never something to become).
What is referentiality, relative to intelligence?
Referentiality is really a secondary process, reactivity is primary. It only seemed as such because the linkage, as You put it, is for reactivity for the most part, self inferential. That is the perfect irony, inference or differentiation is a secondary process as far as the history of cognitive science is said to understand it, because it is a way of looking back, a backward glance by processes of eliminating various significant stages. So it is unspderstood as a secondary process. No one really knows, what primary inference is, so regarding primary referential identification, it is argued backwards. But things argued backwards are inchoate,and unexact. This is why referential ideas are problematic.
To me, it’s appears that you are adding complexity where complexity is not necessary.
Thank you. I can get the gist of what you mean; the clash of meaning and the knowledge of meaning will always mean no resolution. Inference is inherently division, and so the hope of knowing original cause or identity is pointless.
Inference is inherently divisional requires inference to understand it.
This is perhaps the problem of conflation; it’s impossible to know one without betraying the meaning of the other.
Some inferences can result in compounding-conflation and a subsequent betrayal whereas other inferences can result in simplicity and truth.