What is your definition of the definer? or that which defines…?
my definition is that, the world is a load of maths, principles, patterns and their utility in the third person [how laws are used e.g. fire up a rocket and newton’s third law occurs]. A calculator or computer is no different to the surroundings they are sat in, even if that was in space. Nature is doing the maths to produce the machine at any location ~ it has to build the observable world and from all given perspectives.
The question becomes, is there something else in us, life and in nature that’s making utility thereof, a thing which actually makes the definitions, the definer or defining thing?
As I see it, that is exactly what life is, we have seen [on other peoples threads here] recent papers noting that consciousness plays a fundamental role in evolution. Basically living conscious beings don’t want to get their face eaten off by things with teeth designed specifically to do that. We know that consciously we do maths and to define thoughts is to define the thing making utility of principles, patterns etc which is the definer.
We have a universe built upon foundations and principles which preceded it, and those principles also require something to generate them, but they don’t have nature [/existence/universe] such to be the thing generating anything.
Conclusion;
There has to be that which is the definer, prior to anything else. All mind/thought in nature has the same universal fundament, the property of being that which defines…?
A definition is merely an explanation of what a word is intended to mean for sake of communication. A definer is merely someone who gives explanation to words and their associated concepts.
and when such things are occurring in nature, aside from in humans? how about principles, something has to define them? then there is thought, we can ask if and how it is affecting. your words seem to suggest that thought is non affecting, in that they are no more than info exchanging. yet is that all consciousness is? if so why aren’t rocks conscious?
Consciousness is the ability to or property of remote recognition. It is an active process because things are always changing. The continuum of consciousness is the continual updating of remote recognition. And yes, that is all consciousness is.
it does it in its expressions, hence if you paint a picture of it, it is art. A flower explains what it is giving [pollen] in its design, trees get info from fungi by giving them sugars. That’s a distraction from the point; something has to be defining the things, like the principles which define things in nature/universe. naturally all of this exists aside from humans and our minds.
We are agreed then. One caveat, info is also affecting, ~ communicating is a two way thing.
To the? …there needs to be an observer there for any of that to be experienced, and that’s one of many ways the perception is being fed info. Consciousness is surely the observing of a thing, which in turn is the defining thing. its a single signal.
I have returned to this site out of boredom. I have realized that this site will strengthen the diligence of my critical thinking. Nonetheless, I do not expect any serious replies and would especially stay away from condoning the emotional to any of my statements.
Your definition is disgustingly bias towards the purely synthetic world. A calculator or computer serves a specific purpose before it exists which cannot be considered similar to the laws and principles which are intuited through consciousness. In order to coherently argue this kind of perspective, we should understand the epistemological dualism that has to do with knowing that there is unknown things. An unknown realm can constitute the ongoing process of refining and perfecting the already existing principles of all things we have logically conjured. The unknown realm can also be known as the existence of all things without the existence of consciousness/an oberserver/mankind (this last connotation is important in understanding our perspective of being only human, not just only consciousness or a walking set of natural rules). Once we can grasp this type of epistemological dualism where known things (that which can be comprehended and dictated by empirical principles) and unknown things (that which is forever absent of - or not yet situated with principles - man’s consciousness) coincide within being, we can start to ask questions about the definer and observer.
Consciousness undoubtedly plays a role in evolution. Whatever that means. You can easily go about defining the “what” of the object of consciousness, but we have only scratched the surface of the “how”. The exact methods of intuiting any principle or value or meaning on a subatomic level within the big bad brain nerve which is consciousness, has not yet been thoroughly researched enough. Through the specificity and scientific developments in the fields of neuroscience, psychology, linguistics and philosophy, we can look into ourselves to find further answers which will produce intellectual revelation (e.g. Plato, Descartes, Kant). If we can establish a foundational basis for empirically exploiting the inner reaches of our human mind, we can better understand everything around us. So yes, we ‘know’ (whatever that means) what the brain accomplishes but we have little knowledge of how it all happens; and the most haunting question of all which may never be answered - why this happens.
Of course there must be a definer to be a definition. There were no laws or principles which preceded existence; perhaps this is where I am most confused. How could laws and principles ever preceded it? There would need to be a reliable explanation to this idea for me to accept it as an assertion I would want to consider. I have a few questions to bring some more discussion to this thread (hopefully).
Who or what is a definer?
Is there a transcendence, amalgamation or divergence between the subject-object relation to mathematical principles and natural laws?
What can be defined?
Does definition, principle or law become before or after existence?
Well now, everything is just “fine”.
I’m going to take away from that as it is. how it appears to be, and show it in its really “true” form. I’m going to pull it apart piece by piece and show its true nature and what that means.
Where it was once “fine” and had such “finesse”, I shall refine it or define it. I shall bring it to its very beginning until I’ve reached its very end. lol
I love playing with words.
^^ lol arc, I don’t know what any of that meant tho.
We cannot yet make machines and devices as complex as nature, and every part of nature is akin to a machine. Even the clouds move and change shape as if by a million invisible propellers, a sun is an astonishingly vast atomic reactor, and the earth is an electro-magnetism generating device.
Indeed, and why does it mean THIS [observer]. Can we really accept that something can be arrived at, without reality itself having something of that things nature to begin with? I know it seams logical to make that assumption based upon biology, but all of its atoms had to also be arrived at as did everything in the universe. I think its more unreasonable to assume there can be something from nothing [which must be happening in each change of a given thing into another], than all things are derivative and hence contain something of that within them.
How can you have a behaviour or otherwise an instance of existence, without the principles which denote that? Let us say we begin with a philosophical void or empty space, you put an object in it and move it, then newtons law comes into effect, swing it and centrifugal forces occur, keep doing it and momentum happens etc. for that particle/object to behave like that, you must first have the thing that tells them how to act. Everything is information and info requires instruction, no?
Hi there.
Re-read what I wrote up there. I actually thought it was pretty clear, from my way of thinking.
I am the definer by my words above and this is for me the best way in which to define something. One has to get down to the nitty gritty.
Or is a definer simply one who defines by repeating the sentence?!
The meditator next wonders which perception of the nature of the wax is more perfect—that
which he knew from his sensory perceptions of it with the imagination or that which resulted when he
examined it closely by “tak[ing] the clothes off, as it were, and consider[ing] it naked” (AT VII.32; CSM
II.22). He concludes that this closer examination is a more perfect perception of the nature of the wax.
Hi there.