Hi Alberto G. Corona 

Leibniz, being an Idealist, took the monads and ideas to be real, 
the physical world to be phenomenol, but not an illusion.
You could still stub your toe.  


[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
12/9/2012 
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen

----- Receiving the following content ----- 
From: Alberto G. Corona 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-12-08, 10:04:04
Subject: Re: The two wrong paths of modern cognitive science







2012/12/8 Stephen P. King <stephe...@charter.net>

On 12/7/2012 6:01 PM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:

Fantastic links, specially the latter. I?l read it. 


This is my standpoint now:


First is necessary to define existence. ?y standpoint is that what exists ?s 
what the mind assumes that exist (because it is relevant) .


Dear Alberto,

?? But this makes existence subservient on the ability of a mind to apprehend 
what might exist. This is requires an explanation of how that could occur! How 
can a mind cause something to exist? I see this as conflating the notion of 
existence with the notion of definiteness of properties. 

?? In my philosophy, I take existence as ontological primitive and completely 
divorsed of innate properties; it replaces 'substance' as the neutral 'bearer 
of of properties'. Existence is eternal, it cannot be created or destroyed. 
Properties are that which the mind selects as actual from the possible. If we 
demand that an entity's existence requires a priori properties, then I would 
stipulate that all possible properties are implied by bare existence. 



Dear Stephen:
?
...Here you express a belief that is coherent with my notion of existence. Mine 
is historically called Realism, that is, what the mind aprehend is the reality 
because apart from that, there is no other reality that we can access. Phisical 
reality is part of this mind created reality. Your idea of existence is also an 
instance


? take an operational approach from outside, and I said that the ontological 
concepts are the ones in each individual mind shares with others. Outside of 
that I can not imagine other notion of existence apart from mathematical 
existence. Do men exist? This is because we have a hardwired category for men. 
Do cars exists? yes because we have a hardwired categories for man-made things, 
?ast things, dangerous things and so on that are used to construct the category 
of car.


Mathematical existence may be also a necessary consequence of the existence of 
the mind.


? don? fall into relativism, since the hard and soft architecture of the human 
mind are the same in all men, and so the categorizations. ?here are universal 
categories because there are universal feelings, worries and problems. that 
humans have and we deal with them in similar ways. If not, there would be no 
translation possible between languages, and the Arabs would not like 
south-american soap-operas, as the relativist culturalists used to believe.


?n this case, the process is what make the category. ?hat something is a 
substance means that there are patterns in the processes that have a 
recognizable structure recognized as substantial. A processis composed of 
patterns, these patterns are categories or substances. 



?? Yes, Process defines categories. Substances, in my thinking, are collections 
of similar bundles of properties.
?



That is unavoidable, because the mind has no infinite power neither the brain 
has a infinite?uantity?f connections, therefore it has to reuse functional 
components, some of?hich?re ?ard wired. ?etaphors are a sign of 
this?e-usability: ? can kill an insect, but a bacteria can kill me, ? can 
"kill" a program...


?? I disagree. The mind has infinite power but is contained such that it can 
only have extensions that are consistent with precedent. No 'new idea' or 
thought can be in logical conflict with previously held truths! Remember, a 
mind is not a fixed 'thing'!


So a mind is not consistent with or is the efect-cause of ?he activity of the 
brain? how a limited computer like the brain can have infinite power?. At least 
it is quite slow for some tasks, if we compare with an ordinary calculator. So 
some limitation apply to the mind, at least in the time parameter....




In al these processes, the pattern is the same: something that existed before 
does not exit now because an active subject has acted to kill it. ?he category 
of killing has certain properties: it ?s nor reflexive, has a relation of order 
etc. ? 



?? Not in my thinking. Some new properties become known to be the case, thus a 
mind can evolve by gaining new knowledge. Existence is completely passive. 



Sure, you can make subcategories. But for sure when you and a Yanomamo think 
about the concept of "killing" for sure that both of you are thinking about 
exactly the same concept and could compose phrases in which both of you will 
agree.


I can philosophize about the notion of killing, abstracted from the concrete 
situation . In the same way I can think about love, or reason, or any other 
category because they can applied to different processes but have certain 
patterns and properties that make them different one from the other and thus 
they are substantial. ? can relate one category with other in the abstract, 
like for example: if you kill something, you don? love it.


?? I try to not base my philosophical mussing on reasonings that are so 
emotionally charged. You are in the area of etheics here, not ontology, IMHO.


The phrase is only an example. we theorize about abstract categories and talk 
everyday about these things with friends (even the positivists materialists) . 
?o reduce serious thinking only to materialistic-positivist-mathematicist 
concepts is like a group of ?oologists living in a zoo ?hat no one care of, but 
everyone, every morning go out to study the skyline of the city. This has 
disastrous consequences, because we do not accept giants which, upon the 
shoulders of them we can build a philosophy for living and acting socially!!!. 
This alone explains the existence of a wild emotionalism in an age of supposed 
rationalism.




The categories may look ambiguous because they may be applied to very different 
processes for the sake of reusability and computational efficiency, (so they 
have subcategories) but in essence they can be rigorously defined in terms of 
category theory.


?? But this makes categorization a field that the mind of an individual has a 
tyrannical rule over. I see categories as democratic, they are collections of 
mutual agreement and consent between entities, not captives to be commanded.


this is ?motionally charged and contradict your previous statement ;)?




The mere fact that I say I "killed the browser" without any conscious thinking 
and the fact that you understand it?mmediately?ithout further concern means 
that categories are in the human mind, and therefore, configure the reality 
that we perceive.


?? Umm, you might be bringing in ideas from semiotics and considering the 
problem of the signified. Please watch this: 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XdP_dtBvtQo (I presume that you can understand 
Spanish)



ok?




To say that these abstract things do not ?xist is the nominalist-positivist- 
materialist standpoint that I see deeply flawed in philosophical, mathematical, 
computational, experiential and even materialistic and moral terms. 



?? I am weaving together ideas from both nominalism and universalism to 
overcome problems within each one (taken individually).






2012/12/7 Stephen P. King <stephe...@charter.net>

On 12/7/2012 9:02 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:

"There are no "substances", there are only processes"



In terms of category theory,?his is like? 


"there are no categor?s, there are only arrows!"


Dear Alberto,

?? Indeed! Have you studied a bit of N-Category theory? Any "object" is 
constructed from arrows of another level. What I am claiming is that all of the 
properties that we define "substances" as can be shown to be merely invariances 
in some collection of transformations. In other words, there are no primitive 
substances, there are only processes. Please read this article on the concept 
of Substance in philosophy to see the ideas that I am considering: 
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/substance/ 
?? The discussion of "substantivalism" in physics is particularly interesting 
as seen here: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/spacetime-holearg/ 











2012/12/7 Stephen P. King <stephe...@charter.net>

On 12/7/2012 7:04 AM, Roger Clough wrote:

Hi Stephen,
?
I think that's just more?aterialist wishful thinking, because mind and body
are completely different substances, no matter what your philosophy or
science,?nd cannot interact. The failure to solve the "hard problem" 
shows that.
?
?
[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
12/7/2012 
Dear Roger,

?? There are no "substances", there are only processes. 







-- 
Onward!

Stephen
-- 
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.






-- 
Alberto.

-- 
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.

-- 
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