“it’s not what you say is true, but how you go about deciding what you said is true, is true. that’s the mark of the science.”
Positing thay very issue…
Is philosophy.
Meaning and signification?
BUT!
Signification is simply the superior Latin equivalent to meaning. Give an Englard a Latin word and they think they’re fucking Sherlock Holmes.
Hahaha
Promethean: “words don’t mean anything, its just what they mean that means anything.”
ok boomer.
Prometh: You want to go into the superficial niceties of who came up with what idea first? Are you going to make a point that way? How many members of the Vienna circle have you read? Because I grit my teeth and read all of them, despite my visceral repulsion. Though as I have said continually throughout this thread: that revulsion is a sign of potential growth, which you should accept and embrace- and even from these fools, there are useful concepts I gained, just as there were tools I stole from Marx, who I also personally revile. At bottom- and nothing you said is in any way a mark against it: the tractatus is a form of positivist epistemology, which Wittgenstein turned his back on.
Like I said, you keep implying you’ve got something for me and then it’s one excuse after another; first was nah I’m too busy watching Fast and Furious, then it was nah what’s more important is that you’re a hermetic recluse with a drug problem; now it is words have no meaning man so why argue you. Language games are created as specialized systems of dialogue between people participating in that game under accepted rules: this “fantastic nonsense” of Western metaphysics is just such a game, and it has a very elaborate system of rules that various people have accepted and participate in, though I am sorry that you’ve found it too difficult to learn. But it wouldn’t be very pertinent for a checkers player to flip the board over a game of chess while proclaiming it was nonsense- though many have done similar things. And far more relevant than Wittgenstein is the entire field of semiotics and Piercian triads, generative anthropology’s linguistics, etc. but what is the point with you?
And psychoanalysis begs to differ- regarding the “ruin” of transcendental German idealism, which is actually doing better than ever.
If all you want to talk about are things you can physically touch or see, or assign a neural correlate to: then yeah, we have little to talk about.
“SUM over COGITANS”
Fuck.
ck
Lol I never even considered convincing you of anything. It is what very liberatingly frees one to fully and accurately expose one’s theories. That there is no risk of convincing your interlocutor of them.
Bah, humbug.
But listen. That is why agreement is the true goal between philosophers. Because it is never reached, it is always found.
And the risk in reading monk literature is that one looses the will to do war for a second.
I gotta.
Find someone to fuck with.
Parodites: Yeah I had a great time man. You’re a great writer with an astounding vocab, btw.
p.s. metaphysics begins and ends with Spinoza and Kant. The whole gamut was run, the only real metaphysical questions were properly posed and answered, and philosophy has been over since.
Omfg no.
Spinoza?!
Spinoza is the fusion of philosophy.
For outside listeners, I mean fusion the ill-begotten musical genray.
“p.s. metaphysics begins and ends with Spinoza and Kant. The whole gamut was run, the only real metaphysical questions were properly posed and answered, and philosophy has been over since.”
No u
This all then begs the question… has this always been so, or is this a recent adaptive-reaction to an increased constantly-changing world, that we are now biologically-obligated to adapt to, or die? of which this, there is evidence of… seemingly healthy humans being found dead, with no detectable cause or symptoms.
I have taken into account others’ posts and refutations to some of your points, in my reply.
I thought metaphysics beings after physics.
No technically metaphysics means above physics, beyond physics, also understood as to include all of physics and give it its place. Though “understood” might be a wrong word here. Interpreted.
But I thought metaphysics begins after the book on physics.
Ah, well consider me informed.
Still very much charmed by Fractal Darwinism. Excellent concept, does the job.
Like I wrote in another thread: Erm. Yeah.
Erm yesh. Erm. Go fuck yourself.
Erm suck my uncircumsized white cock. Erm.
Erm you don’t know shit.
Erm get on my level.
Erm get on my cock.
Erm snort a packet of Arby’s sauce off my ten pack abs.
Erm measure my dick.
Erm crush up one of my percocet.
Erm poor me a shot.
Erm poor me a dick.
wAIT QGG
WHAR
WHAT
Remember when I got called insane here for proposing that we conceive of biological organisms as dynamical systems influenced by non-equilibrium attractors, such that the evolutionary process becomes,- instead of a single mechanism of random mutation and adaptation building an organism from the bottom up,- a multitude of different mechanisms operating on disparate levels of bottom-up, that is, lower, and top-down, higher-organizational structure, such that a telescoping effect whereby microscopic perturbations in the critical non-equilibrium state at the lower level actually fractalize and modify the equilibrium-state of structures at higher macroscopic levels of organization, which in turn back-propagate to lower-levels again in a feedback loop,- a feedback loop or ‘nonlinear-dynamical system’ we should properly name, “evolution”? In essence: different selective mechanisms operate on different levels of organization- from nonliving matter to the most complex living beings, like humans,- and these mechanisms sometimes reach a gestalt, such that a synchrony between different mechanisms at different levels of organization actually produces NEW genetic material spontaneously, namely as a conformation of the equilibrium and non-equilibrium states; this new material represents what they call a SOC attractor in physics, paired to a dynamical system as a critical point leading to a transitional phase. I called this idea fractal Darwinism, this explanation of how new genetic material is created, as opposed to Darwinian evolution, in which there is no creation- only random mutation and adaptation. Anyway, I found articles exploring just this idea recently, so I guess I wasn’t so insane. Read the abstract for this one, for example (I found many exploring this idea) : pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18353531/ I further elaborated that I believe the emergence of living from non-living matter as well as things like the human larynx and the doubling of the human brain size, can only be explained by fractal Darwinism. I don’t understand why people have such difficulty with new ideas. Wut, u mean DaRWiN DiDnT KnOw EveRYtHInG? BuT IM le ReDDiT atHEisT
I quote like 20 different papers in here echoing what I said, so why don’t you go fuck yourself.
Such a multidimensional axis refers to a reinterpretation of the basic idea of a certain alternative
evolutionary theory, that is, the nomos. It is a curious thing, that every branch of the sciences as
well as the humanities- and even the arts- have experienced several paradigm-shifts, moving up
from the 1800’s to present day, save for evolutionary theory and applied biology. A few minor
components have been added, certainly- e.g. symbiotic arrangements, epigenetics and the like,-
but certainly no paradigm shift. Even historically conceived, biology has tended to lag behind the
other sciences. It took several thousand years just to begin the laborious task of taxonomy, to
realize the basic design of the phylogenetic tree and finally, the principle of natural selection. Yet
the ancient Greeks (who computed, accurately, the distance of the sun with a stick) did possess a
notion of the Hierarchy of Being, and that certain lifeforms “belonged” with other life-forms,- a
‘belonging’ or familiarity they called the nomos: it seems that here, as elsewhere, patience,- but
not hesitancy,- is rewarded by knowledge. Conceiving of the evolutionary process as a kind of
nonlinear dynamics,- as so many heteromachinic blocks of codons in febrile transition across
different scales of temporal-spatial organization in antiisomorphic drift,- stratic implexions
responsible for there being preserved fragments of fish, insect, even vegetal DNA in that of
mammals,- the notion of fractalization becomes quite important (if we should avoid the
theoretical regression to molarity and intensive populations, to quantifiable tabulations of
coincidence and territory, or mere horizontal-diffuse multiplicites like those which so fascinated
the Deleuzians) as we follow the greater implication of such a perspective,-- namely that
different selective principles (besides the common ‘random mutation-adaptation’ mechanism)
operate at different levels of organization within the evolutionary hierarchy, all the way up from
the level of the inorganic and abiogenic to the bacterial, to the mammalian, etc. so that these
principles occasionally reach a gestalt and harmonize between the nomogenetic and tychogenetic
dynamics, and that in a creative way,- actually crossing the apparently unbridgeable rift between
unliving matter and organic life while generating, through the nomos, a novel genetic structure as
an emergent phenomenon consequent to their synchrony- just as a fractal generates new forms
through the interplay of stochastic processes or ‘chance’ and idiographically mapped ‘laws’, that
is, the restrictions placed on dynamic expansion toward any non-equilibrium state on the part of
the system in question. When we examine the biological record on this planet we do not find a
linear or asymptotic progression but an exponential, fractalizing one. In fact, the most typical
examples of Darwinian evolution are only 500 million years old, meaning the eukaryotic cell.
The oxygenation crisis and over-saturation of free radicals in the early atmosphere not only
began to poison the earlier forms of life, but to corrupt the far more permeable (less shielded
from the environment) haploid genetic structures of the prokaryotic organisms and archaean
bacterioids, as well as disturb the horizontally diffuse transfer-protocols that ruled the
evolutionary process at the time so that a new intracellular, diplonuclear, and centralized model
of vertical exchange based on non-volatile genomic memory and top-down cellular ROM,-
consisting of double-stranded DNA protected (by successfully absorbed components from earlier
lifeforms) at the nucleus of the eukaryotic cell by fully engulfed symbiotes like our ancestral
mitochondria,- had to be quickly developed. This was the first ‘tightening of the spiral’ or
‘telescoping’ of the evolutionary process because DNA, as the new genomic memory,- less
susceptible to corruption by free oxygen or radiation,- (and in the case of corruption usually
simply de-activating itself in apoptosis and in so doing, preventing any accumulation of mutated
DNA) led to the introduction of a new layer in the organizational hierarchy, ie. diploid mitotic
protocols and ultimately sexual reproduction, due to the fact that the new cell, in order to
replicate the necessary symbiotic assemblages it uses to protect its impermeable nucleic genetic
memory, cannot rely on simple binary fission like bacteria would use. It is in this way, that the
nomos acts like the critical-point or SOC attractor of non-linear dynamical systems whose
macroscopic behavior, observed for example in phase transition,- besides demonstrating
temporal-spatial scale invariance, that is, fractalization- allows for a telescoping of microscopic
effects that in turn back-propagate and influence lower-level organizational structures. ‘Natural
selection’ would indicate simply, this very feedback and telescoping between multiple levels of
organizational structure, by which the lower-level organizational mechanisms characterized by
random mutation and evolutionary pruning through competition, ecological territorialization and
survival, act upon a nomos by increasing or decreasing the critical threshold of any given
biological (be it a specific body, a whole species, different organs within an animal, etc.) or
ecological system,- or most importantly, any mixture of the two biological and physical
(non-living) systems.
In short, different selection principles (besides the commonly understood random
mutation-adaptation mechanism) operate at different levels of organization within the
evolutionary hierarchy, and sometimes these principles reach a non-linear criticality, that is, a
gestalt, and synchronize between multiple levels as a dynamical system, creating an emergent
phenomenon or ‘nomos’ that, due to resonance and fractal-like phenomenon projected across
disparate organizational levels, (The metaphorical fractal: one sees it in the fact that, for
example, while a pesticide might work for a span of time, the intended target species will
suddenly modify their behavior, as if they somehow grasped the fact that it is poisonous, that is,-
as though they were communicating somehow among themselves, even across seas or other
impossible distances, to the extent that companies manufacturing these pesticides must
continually change out the flavor profiles used for the bait in their products. Or take the near
spontaneous doubling of the size of the human brain, the emergence of language suddenly as a
fully-formed operational structure, which involved the digitization of the larynx and the
production of a quite novel anatomical structure that could not have been pieced together in the
gradual mutations accumulated by the process of mutation and adaptation alone, ie. our vocal
cords,- capable as they are of breaking down the analogue signals of the proto-hominid
vocalizations into digital sequences of phonemes,-- or, for that matter, the emergence of Man in
general from some more archaic protohominid stock. Consider also the ‘crystallization’ of the
first true cells from a soup of organelle like sub-cellular replicants, thereby transformed from
individual microbacteria into the endosymbiotes we still carry with us today as part of our basic
cellular structure, that is, our mitochondria.) causes an immediate and radical transformation
across a whole spectrum of life, producing novel genetic material through this telescoping effect,
(as opposed to purely mutation-adaptation) and drastically evolving entire species over night in
geological terms, for which the standard Darwinist view of random mutations slowly changing
life-forms from the bottom up in a process of adaptation to the environment seems wanting.
Moreover, the nomos allows the process of evolution to cross incredible gaps,- both within the
constitutive elements of an animal and the different organizational levels present within the
greater environment,- and to generate novel structures, accounting for the interplay between
organism and environment in a nuanced co-development through which the dynamic of
possibility making way for evolution and evolution making way for possibility gradually
tightens, leading to the emergence of human intelligence, which of course asserted primacy over
the environment for the first time.
An organism generates constraints on itself,- as attested to by the readily observed coincidence
of certain phenotypes in convergent evolutionary trajectories regardless of environmental
variations,- (a ‘familiarity’ of certain organisms the Greeks would have named a ‘nomos’) *
restraints inexplicable by any merely ‘tychogenetic’ or environmental pressure on speciation;
internally produced constraints that, when telescoped between lower and higher organizational
levels, engender new SOC attractors decidedly positioned outside the regime of
natural-selection, and that by influencing the criticality of the greater system of which such
organisms are a part,- a greater system whose critical threshold is, in a word, either increased or
decreased by the presence of the new attractors. Programmatically, we must train ourselves to
conceive of biological organisms as dynamical systems influenced by these non-equilibrium
attractors, such that the evolutionary process becomes,- instead of a single mechanism of random
mutation and adaptation building an organism from the bottom up,- a multitude of different
mechanisms operating on disparate levels of bottom-up, that is, lower, and top-down,
higher-organizational structure, such that a telescoping effect whereby microscopic perturbations
in the critical non-equilibrium state at the lower level actually fractalize and modify the
equilibrium-state of structures at higher macroscopic levels of organization, which in turn
back-propagate to lower-levels again in a feedback loop,- a feedback loop or
‘nonlinear-dynamical system’ we should properly name, “evolution”, whose periodic gestalt and
synchrony, framed between different mechanisms at disparate levels of organization, actually
produces new genetic material spontaneously, namely as a conformation of equilibrium and
non-equilibrium states.
- The evolutionary nomos recalls Pattee’s “internal epistemic stance”, [Note Umerez: Howard Pattee’s Theoretical Biology–a Radical
Epistemological Stance to approach Life, Evolution and Complexity.] intended to ground a new, more complete understanding of what life and
the evolutionary process actually are, or the “tacit knowledge” implied by the “code-duality” of organic life-systems, which carry a latent
“macromolecular structure and shape (e.g., molecular complementarity)”, that is, a “semiotic mode” whose sign-signified duality is expressed
between “organismic architecture and communication” ie. “the semiotic interactions of the body.”, [Note J. Hoffmeyer, Code-duality and the
Epistemic Cut: “It is observed that even the dynamic mode in living systems is always a semiotic mode although index and analog coded rather
than symbolic and digitally coded. The analog-coded messages corresponds to a kind of tacit knowledge hidden in macromolecular structure and
shape (e.g., molecular complementarity), and in organismic architecture and communication, that is, in the semiotic interactions of the body.”, as
well as Life and Reference: “It is claimed that the origin of referential processes is tied to the flow of historical singularities. The function of
analog and digital codes in evolutionary systems is discussed.”] or furthermore, the self-interpretation of genetic information at the level of the
cell, (This “self-interpreting” or “self-referencing” component at the heart of Pattee’s thinking, by which the agency or, in our terms, the ‘nomos’
of an organism expresses itself independently from any macroscale evolutionary process, through a conversion of latent analog information,
carrying a ‘tacit knowledge’ or internal selective-principle separated at the microscale, into active digitally reproduced information susceptible to
the external selective-principles of the macroscale evolutionary or ‘Darwinian’ process, ie. genes, of course implies a revitalization of the Kantian
formulation of the organic life-system as a system which “intrinsically resists objectification”, namely by way of a philosophical consideration of
this ‘tacit knowledge’, for it is within such knowledge that the ‘conditions of possibility’ of the subject and object of the semiotic chain are
intrinsically linked, necessitating a transcendental analysis of the conditions of knowability within which the evolutionary process is sublimed by
a nomos, that is, a symbolic domain within which the self-identity of that intrinsic emergence of a selective-principle might be reproduced
conceptually. Note V. Vijver, “Philosophy of Biology: Outline of a Transcendental Project.”) whereby the evolutionary process re-grounds itself
in accordance to the semantic closure principle, isolating one “constraint” or evolutionary-selective principle from another, transferring the ‘tacit
knowledge’ from one semantic level to a higher one in a self-stabilizing process we might associate with the emergence of speciation from
maromolecular cellular assemblies, within which the tacit knowledge necessary for the replication of life was stored in more primitive eras. As to
this last comparison, note Etxeberria and Moreno, in “From Complexity to Simplicity: Nature and Symbols.” This conceptualization of species
of course departs from the “Laplacian causal structure” inherited by biology,- as represented by the metaphor of DNA being software and
organisms being hardware,- which transfers the agency of organisms to the replication of their genetic information, as noted in "Dead Metaphors
that Negate the Agency of Organisms,’ Soto and Sonneschein.