On Oct 15, 10:59 am, John Mikes <jami...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear Craig,
>
> where did you take it from that *"WILL"* does exist indeed?

Technically I think that will could be said to 'insist' rather than
exist, and as such a subjective experiential phenomenon, it is nothing
like a discrete object or mechanism. What insists is a point of view
attached to the sense conditions of it's world which participates in
focusing attention and taking action.

> We experience a
> *decision* - sometimes with the 'urge(?)' to fulfill
> it, based on comparing partially conscious circumstances (anticipatory
> included) and getting into some 'evaluation'(?) of what
> seems to be advantageous and what not (strictly within our (conscious) image
> of the present state we are in).

Exactly. I think of this as a sensorimotive circuit. "It's cold, I
should wear a jacket" -> puts on a jacket = circuit opens with the
sense input "it's cold", motive circuit opens with "I should (close
the circuit in such and such a way)" and the motive circuit is closed
with the act of putting on the jacket, which kicks it back to the
sense circuit..."now I'm too warm..." or closes the sense circuit
"perfect - not cold anymore". All of this is prelinguistic though.
This is going on in the womb, and it goes on in cells, molecules and
atoms too, albeit in an ever more more mathematical and deterministic
way (unless it's completely relativistic and it's just our frame of
reference that makes it seem deterministic when we can't identify
things subjectively - but that gets more into a Horton Hears A Who
catastrophe)

> A more stringent question is the equation (not mathematical, mind you) of
> such idea with electromagnetism.
> No matter how many neurons are involved in a cooperation, *NONE* of them is
> assigned a *TOPICAL *(plus details) relation,
> (like blue mAmps or green mAmps for bodily feelings, or emotional ones etc).
> We experience those 'bland' PHYSICAL
> data and *WE ASSIGN* topical meanings to them. As we see fit. At will <G>.
> Now: *FIT* it is into the topical story (history?) we think within and so
> the physical measurement gets translated into meaning
> *by us* - i.e. by our present thinking. Which has no assignable connection
> to the wider relations formatting it. At least we did
> not know about such as of yesterday. Physics is a consequential extract and
> cannot explain the original foundations.
> Do you have a vocabulary between physical readings and topical meanings?

I'm having a little trouble understanding but it sounds like we are
talking nature nurture, Sapir Whorf kind of questions here. With
subjective phenomena it's all very ambiguous. In language and
semiotics there are so many theories about different kinds of
representation (topical meanings?) which relate signifiers to
referents. Onomatopoeia would be an example of a topical meaning which
is compelled by sensory, gestural primitives rather than willful
assignment. Other kinds of symbols suggest themselves out of second
order logic and reasoning common to homo sapiens.

We do willfully make up words and names also of course, which would be
idiopathic unless we have some kind of etymology behind it. Notice
that the most direct symbols are more universal and grounded in
timeless experience, while the most topical are more proprietary and
grounded in specific temporal experiences - ie adolescent neologism as
ingroup pack bonding. Physics is a consequential extract to us, but I
think the physics of body, or the experiences behind the physics,
biochemistry, and physio-zoology that we embody personally do inhere
unconsciously, defining our perceptions and experience. We cannot
explain the foundations of physics, but those foundations are already
explained through the very fabric of our ontology. Was that in the
right neighborhood?

Craig

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Reply via email to