Anyone is welcome to create an ontology of their own. But such is not a trivial endeavor and requires considerable care in defining elements, relationships, and categories while maintaining coherence, comprehensiveness, and relevance (the three angels of Truth).
Well, if you are going to say “types”, you really need to specify what those types are.
Movement of what? And don’t say “anything” unless you specify what options there actually are. If there is movement, there must be movement OF something. So what else exists besides movement??
So what you are declaring is that in your ontology,
Sentience ≡ Synergy of a need and want toward interaction.
Yes, and movement is relative. There is no absolute frame of rest, every movement is relative as a frame of reference to other such frames. Movement is interesting because it skews space and time, which means that space and time are functions of (relative) movement. So we cannot look at reality as if it were all “one thing” or all existing on the same Objective plane; at least in terms of aspects of time and space and motion, reality is a kind of relative implicit agreement between things where they are similar enough to relate to each other (share something of a common reference frame) and, as I said in another topic yesterday here, being similar in these ways allows them to exchange values in such a way that they interpret (value) the interaction/experience with other things in their own self-terms.
I agree with you, but I define emotions differently. An emotion is a phenomenological construct that becomes eminently existential as what we call “life”: basically what we call emotions are largely stable flows of meaning that have cohered over time and social history into definite channels of input/output patterns that are held structurally in place upon the body’s physiological systems associated to feelings, such as the operation of hormones and neurotransmitters but also things like changes in blood flow in the body, muscles tightening or relaxing, etc.
The body is basically this huge system for feeling itself across its many parts; when we feel anxiety and sense this in the stomach, for example, we are literally feeling the release of hormones like adrenaline affecting the the tightening of muscles in the stomach and also increased warmth from blood flow shifting to the middle torso. There are probably thousands of subtle physiological changes like this that come together into various kinds of groupings to create what we experience as the various emotions ( joy, fear, anxiety, anger, sadness, guilt, etc.)
But the emotion itself isn’t the physical responses in the body nor is the emotion the feeling itself (this feeling is really a sum of many smaller feelings of body changes, as I just noted); no, the emotion is actually the chain of meaning that is reconstituted existentially in the act of encountering certain stimuli or situations that set off the body changes. So emotions are immanently meaningful, existential, and rooted in our individual and collective history of social and meaningful acts and facts. The emotion is literally an active present reconstitution of a “chunk of meaning” from the past. This is why emotions are so significant to philosophy and self-awareness: they contain a ton of information and synthetically blend your consciousness with present and past, and with self and other (social, historical, empathetic awareness).
Nice ideas here, I don’t disagree with how you put this.
What is the essence of sentience? Emotional Energy (or GLUE…I’ll add clever later)<—Keep this as my basis for an ontology that defines sentience?
What is the essence of existence? Movement<—scrap this? Or could this incorporate other ontologies?
Emotional Energy= Intentional Movement towards Experience<—Aether/ether is what I am defining?
“the emotion is actually the chain of meaning that is reconstituted existentially in the act of encountering certain stimuli or situations that set off the body changes. So emotions are immanently meaningful, existential, and rooted in our individual and collective history of social and meaningful acts and facts. The emotion is literally an active present reconstitution of a “chunk of meaning” from the past.”-Wyld<—Why can’t emotion (be a will/desire or a need/want) and be the infinitely active impetus towards infinite intersections/interactions which is what all reality shares
You seem to be referencing scientifically proven bodily functions, but I am trying to keep this in conceptual terms that define sentience
Intentional Movement is creative force.
Experience is intersection or interaction.
Creative Force is the synergy of a need and a want.
“So what you are declaring is that in your ontology,
Sentience ≡ Synergy of a need and want toward interaction.”-JSS
Ding, ding, ding! Bingo! Perhaps it can be reworded to be clearer? (okay, more or less)
Needs vs wants doesn’t represent any kind of meaningful philosophical categorical distinction. A “need” is just something we want (or not) that without which we would happen to stop existing, like food and water. But we still “want” food and water. Wanting is simply desiring, a process of values-attraction and psychological expression. What you are, psychologically and existentially, is going to be expressed through actions as your desires. You can want things you either need or don’t need, and you can need things you either want or don’t want, but there is no absolute categorical difference between needs and wants, as they both come from the same place.
“Needs vs wants doesn’t represent any kind of meaningful philosophical categorical distinction. A “need” is just something we want (or not) that without which we would happen to stop existing, like food and water. But we still “want” food and water. Wanting is simply desiring, a process of values-attraction and psychological expression. What you are, psychologically and existentially, is going to be expressed through actions as your desires. You can want things you either need or don’t need, and you can need things you either want or don’t want, but there is no absolute categorical difference between needs and wants, as they both come from the same place.”-Wyld
The infinitely active impetus for creative force is the synergy of will and ? towards infinite intersections/interactions which is what all reality shares. Treading water sucks when there is no shore in sight. I’m going to keep on this until the perfect words pop into my mind.
What you call the infinitely active impetus for creative force (not a bad name by the way) is an abstraction of the fact that every being is excessive, which means being contains an excess that it cannot self-reconcile. Schopenhauer called this will to life, Nietzsche called it will to power, Hegel thought it was Absolute Spirit that needed to be liberated into pure being by the dialectical method. But what’s really going on is akin to what Fixed Cross has been saying about self-valuing, that every being values itself (what it is) as the ultimate standard of value against which it measures all other things, and beings cannot ever totally or adequately self-measure themselves nor objectify their self-value standard into conscious terms (into explicit action and “will”). Being is self-inexhaustible and self-irreconcilable at the extremes, and always is attempting to achieve reconciliation and exhaustion despite that there are only partial successes to be found there.
Ontologically speaking we can say that there is always an excess to beings, and to Being (to the being of beings). This is, in living things, related to the fact that living bodies are systems of reaction and reflex. This became generic and evolutionary of course, and now being is made by natural selection to be “self-interested” and do things that at least in the past guaranteed a good shot at survival. These behaviors are instinctively wired into the genes and neurology of living things, but only because these living things happen to be derived from a history of other beings who had those properties (since if they lacked them, they would have perished and we would not therefore be derived from them).
The impetus for creative force as you call it, is therefore a kind of synthesis of being ontically (the excess underlying every psycho-dynamic structure) with being at the individual particular level of the kind of evolutionary mandates and sociocultural mandates that hold sway over it. You have “pure being” that is the study of Ontology and then you have “individual being” that is the study of Biology and Epistemology – so I believe the synthesis you’re looking for is between these two kinds of being, which do come together to create individual conscious being, out of which the whole “infinite impetus” thing can be said to manifest.
And from the logical perspective, being is always expanding; this is what accounts for Gravity logically, for instance, as gravity is explained logically and only described mathematically-physically. Because being is always “expanding” and seeking to expand you end up with growth, the natural world, natural selection, all of which is what you’re pointing towards when you say “towards infinite intersections/interactions”. If nature has any “goal” it is simply to expand which means to broaden and deepen its own spheres of valuing and values. This is a reflection of the onto-logical requirement of all being.
“But what’s really going on is akin to what Fixed Cross has been saying about self-valuing, that every being values itself (what it is) as the ultimate standard of value against which it measures all other things, and beings cannot ever totally or adequately self-measure themselves nor objectify their self-value standard into conscious terms (into explicit action and “will”).”-Wyld
Huh? Who states “factually” the part I high-lighted in red? That I must study.
“Being is self-inexhaustible and self-irreconcilable at the extremes, and always is attempting to achieve reconciliation and exhaustion despite that there are only partial successes to be found there.”-Wyld
Confusion descends again?
"The impetus for creative force as you call it, is therefore a kind of synthesis of being ontically (the excess underlying every psycho-dynamic structure) with being at the individual particular level of the kind of evolutionary mandates and sociocultural mandates that hold sway over it. You have “pure being” that is the study of Ontology and then you have “individual being” that is the study of Biology and Epistemology – so I believe the synthesis you’re looking for is between these two kinds of being, which do come together to create individual conscious being, out of which the whole “infinite impetus” thing can be said to manifest.
And from the logical perspective, being is always expanding; this is what accounts for Gravity logically, for instance, as gravity is explained logically and only described mathematically-physically. Because being is always “expanding” and seeking to expand you end up with growth, the natural world, natural selection, all of which is what you’re pointing towards when you say “towards infinite intersections/interactions”. If nature has any “goal” it is simply to expand which means to broaden and deepen its own spheres of valuing and values. This is a reflection of the onto-logical requirement of all being."-Wyld
Actually, will and expansion were the terms I had chosen; I dropped the expansion albeit it makes sense in terms of pure object oriented reality, but I can do better to define creative force. I’m trying to define sentience, not physical reality as an observable.
Actually, nature is not comprised of that which is attempting to expand. At any one moment, being is comprised of that which has thus far defeated entropy, it’s own destruction (hence FC’s “self-valuing” - maintaining itself). That which is, is that which has survived.
The appearance of growth, expansion, and aggression are only the common anti-entropy effort that is temporarily utilized so as to offset the entropy and thus yield survival. Cells divide and multiply so as to surround themselves with a compatible substance, a shelter. Note that every creature stops growing at some point. The only thing in nature that seems to never stop growing is a black-hole, which is assumed to be eventually destroyed via collision with other black holes or perhaps merely instability.
Anentropy is actually the goal of all being (forgiving the extension of the idea of having a goal to inanimate matter). Anentropy is the exact balance between entropy and anti-entropy. All subatomic particles stop growing or shrinking once they achieve anentropy - eternal survival. If due to some event they swell up too large, they shrink back down. If they lose too much, they grow back to their standard. The same is true with the undisturbed human body (or any creature). To the degree possible at the time, the same is true of atoms. Structures more complex than atoms become difficult to offset entropy until life is formed.
Mankind keeps expanding because Man won’t leave Man alone. Disturbance instigates defense and instigated defense resorts to growth. Cultures existed for thousands of years without over populating. Life seeks natural balance, anentropy, not eternal expansion. Like a wound, Man keeps trying to expand because he keeps scratching himself. Thus Man believing in God has never been the actually issue, but rather Man lusting to be God, eternally all powerful … and finally satisfied and left alone.
An ontology is an understanding of reality, not merely sentience.
How do you distinguish sentience from consciousness?
I’ve already scrapped expansion. Anentropy? Stability? I don’t buy it. Let’s say for arguments sake we’re “in” infinity; we’re an eternal part of it’s system. What is it that keeps us going (concepts that keep us going, not physical necessities)? We are entities of process, of processing who need data input (thoughts in an emotional context). When we literally shed our skin, what is left?
“Not movement but being : that is the essence”-S57
Being is redundant. Everything is in that state already whether we can “see/identify” it or not. Perhaps my terms sound traditional in terms of physical associations you are already familiar with, but I’ve defined them differently in the MM ontology.
“Avoid using new age terms like Emotional Energy and Creative Force”-S57
It is perfectly acceptable that every “thing” is in motion. But an ontology needs more than that. You have to explain what “thingness” (aka “being”) is. Sure, it is all in motion, but what the hell is "it’??
Can’t please everybody all the time. 