I think generally the above is analysis through modeling, but the general tone reflects what I was tempted to write responsibly, but much overtly in line with general opinions of my method of muddling up arguments.
Then again, I was compelled to add it, since the analysis above is really a peeling back from and through language qua consciousness as defined by Artemis, and left unqualified by Silhouette.
But I’ll add the narrative anyway, not as an exhibition of anything, but rather, a showing of following with the intent of getting on board, from and through non deconstructed level of meaning and value.:
Here I quote myself :
"Perceiving is the substata of understanding and knowing , derived from patterning and rearranging forms of experience, leads toward understanding knowledge. The cogito ergo sum could not have ever begun without mirroring,
primarily self mirroring .
Therefore 'cogito ergo sum" must have always been 'sum est percipii". How come it took 500 years to find this missing link?
For the man in the middle , the compatibility can only begin with the most outer layers’ synthesis, the most general patent outlines , and venture into and toward the quantum composition of spatially determined time.
The very earliest contention between seemingly opposite logical systems, preceeds, (Parmenedies / Heraclitus).
through the three conversions starting from ancient materialism, modern differentiation (Descartes-Leibnitz) and post modern phenomenology ( Husserl)
Where we are at now is beyond that, a re integration of and through all these temporal signifiers through various holographic quantum energy systems,
If such are based on constant processes of replication , then a substratum, must have effects of variable" formal and contextual degrees of differentiation of energy systems.
Implying variable energy systems cutting off at critical points which are perceived as more or less determinant , and systematically lower giving rise to perceptions of absolute freedom of will, or lack of".
Now what started me thinking the above , is this from Siluette-
“So whilst the ontological and epistemological ideals and absolutes reside in “that which is modelled”, the models themselves are the reals and relatives - and this is where Determinism come…”
(The difficulty I am having is very slight but still the idea of abstracting from which is modeled to the ideals and relatives lead to the heart of derivation , of abstraction and derivation. At different levels of modeling such correlation of ideas indicate less and not more residual content), and does reaffirm the very general parenthesis between language as knowledge and language as understanding.)
I find this argument rest in a word ‘reside in’ , contentious for definitional reasons, the ideals , models, absolutes, relatives reals, appear patently more prone toward less structurally complex, - leading to projective assumptions of positivism in language, ( in Artemis view, more in line with a deterministic interpretation , then his conscious/subconscious understanding) - [ I think there is no needless emphasis , when 'rests there ’ implies a setting up of the basic contradiction of the kind preset by Heraclitus and Parmenedies, and gives more slant toward less complex dynamics toward the implications toward relative value, here. Such is the stuff contradiction is made of, and can indicate a mild form of the circularity that was inherent with dualism. In its mild form, redundancy can mitigate complexity, at least informally interpreted as here I am attempting.
Meaning: within these informal , relative values , one may get lost within the model, the object, that determines the transcendental utility within which the argument implies; the differential ability of the model, either as appearance or understanding. Such will lead to the contradiction between understanding and knowledge.
The peeling away from more to lessening levels of complexity, may not determine anything else but a show of preferential bias of arguing from and through logical contingency than necessity, giving an impression of allowing more value for meaning per-se, and as such, the formally determined sequence of the effects , that modeling has more open , cognitive, rather then ‘less conscious’ mind-neural activities.
For these work antagonistically, by mirroring as modeling, rather then modeling on previous cognative constructs.
As a parting shot. such reductive view, becomes more necessary as the mentioned neural links become prevy to more.mechanistic effects on consciousness, replacing sub conscious distinctions. Whereas, on that level , there appears more uncertainty and diffusion and interpenetrability between them.