Essay Submission Proposal. Title: What if Self-reference is the name of the game?

[Awwware Iconomen]

Proposal for an Essay Submission:

Title: What if Self-reference is the name of the game?

Blurb:

Among the idealists philosophers there is an increasing tendency to see reality as expression of a higher level language. Not only based on the idea of information as ultimate root medium for the expression of structure and function, but also on the implied notion that for information to be meaningful at all there must be consciousness to interpret it. In this essay I will give an overview of a number of contemporary mind=reality theories, which consider reality as the product of a cognitive self-processing language. I will discuss the strong similarities between Langan’s Cognitive Theoretic Model of the Universe (CTMU), Irwin’s Code Theoretic Axiom (CTA), Kaufman’s Unified Reality Theory (URT), Tsang’s Brain Fractal Theory (BFT) and Deli’s Science of Consciousness (SoC). I will also discuss the idiosyncrasies which makes each of these theories unique. Aspects as neural networks, fractals, category theory and the Yoneda Lemma and their implication for sentience, self-reference and self-processing will be discussed. Finally, I’ll try to suggest how these different complementary frameworks can be integrated in order to evolve towards a Theory of Everything, which provides a sound metaphysical basis for physics without the usual paradoxes that arise from self-reference.

[Mark Tetzner]

I would love to read this essay for sure.

[benjayk]

I have a hard time understanding how a language could give rise to reality.
Almost per definition, a language is a means of expressing something beyond language, usually something within reality.
Otherwise you just have empty symbols referencing other empty symbols.

I think the idea that language could give rise to reality mostly illustrates how there is a tendency in our society to mistake map and territory.
I'm doubtful of many spiritual concepts, but the idea that we are often too stuck in our heads seems rather clear to me.
Seems to me theories like that are a consequence of being stuck in theory.

Not to discourage you, just something to contemplate.

[Mark Tetzner]

But read the parts expecially underneath the cover for MTA about „super language“ and thought and word being something similar.

https://www.scienceandnonduality.com/the-idealist-symbolism-of-the-christmas-archetype/

[Awwware Iconomen]

In this unorthodox approach maps become territories of their own. It resolves paradoxes and infinite regress by the principle of self-causation and self-configuration. If scientists start to agree that the deepest level of existence is not energy but information, this presupposes that there is consciousness to interpret the meaning of the information as well. The authors I mention resolve this issue by considering the source of the most primitive phenomena to be a kind of code that is sentient and can regenerate itself. To explain this in detail in terms of category theory in this reply is perhaps a bit too much of an effort. I promise I won't dissapoint you if you vote in favour of this essay.

[Cosmin Visan]

I would like to read your essay, but given the widespread misunderstandings of what self-reference is, I am afraid I will see the same misunderstandings. For a true understanding of self-reference, checkout out my paper "The Self-Referential Aspect of Consciousness" that can be found on my philpapers profile: https://philpapers.org/profile/683334

The main point is that given that consciousness is all there is, you need to treat all entities from their own point of view. If you talk about X as if it is outside consciousness, you are already wrong and any subsequent analysis will be incorrect. For example, even if you talk about Mathematics as if it is an independent-of-consciousness entity, you are already wrong, so your analysis will completely miss the point. The same about self-reference: if you don't realize that self-reference is the nature of consciousness, then any treatment of self-reference will be again false. Is basically the old-age confusion between epistemology and ontology. People keep confusing again and again and again these 2 things. They keep seeing unicorns and keep talking about them as if they really exist. This is the biggest problem in all the history of human thought. And it can only be avoided by recognizing that consciousness is all there is. But truly recognize this! And all that this implies. So, if the self-reference that you talk about is not the "I am" self-reference, then all your analysis is false.

[Awwware Iconomen]

Since I will be discussing the work of Langan, Irwin, Kaufman etc. I will be bound to use their definitions. But I can mention your work to disambiguate the issue. The title is more an eye-catcher/ advertisement based on an article of Langan himself rather than that I'd be aiming to give an expose of self-referentiality in the philosophical sense. If this is your problem, maybe it's best to change the title. The thesis is about how structure and function emerge from consciousness metalinguistically operating on itself at the root level of existence.

[Cosmin Visan]

Language is a high-level phenomenon. Consciousness still sees red even though it doesn't name it. So structure and function still appear without any language.

[iconomen]

So you vote no. 1 vote for, 1 against.

Verzonden vanaf mijn Samsung Galaxy-smartphone.

-------- Oorspronkelijk bericht --------

Van: 'Cosmin Visan' via Metaphysical Speculations <metaphysical...@googlegroups.com>

Datum: 11-03-18 23:26 (GMT+01:00)

Aan: Metaphysical Speculations <metaphysical...@googlegroups.com>

Onderwerp: [Metaphysical Speculations] Re: Essay Submission Proposal. Title:  What if Self-reference is the name of the game?

Language is a high-level phenomenon. Consciousness still sees red even though it doesn't name it. So structure and function still appear without any language.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "Metaphysical Speculations" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/metaphysical-speculations/jKyaf6c_9Lo/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to metaphysical-specu...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/metaphysical-speculations/d0d5dbbe-7810-4b6e-8150-465cd2fff611%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[benjayk]

I don't think votes are needed anymore, Bernardo decides whether essay gets published, and you decide whether you want to write it.
As I said, I don't want to discourage you. I don't think those kind of theories are viable, but writing about it puts it under scrutiny, which can certainly yield insights of some kind.

My suggestions for the essay would be the illuminate how these kind of theories can avoid the problem of "meaningless data"  and the problem having a fundamental dualism (consciousness vs the information it interprets).

[Scott Roberts]

I'm interested, as the only one of these I'd heard of is Langan's, and didn't understand it very well. A couple of comments on the comments:

- I agree with Cosmin that it is self-awareness that is the basis of development of structure, though it seems to me to encompass the concept of self-reference. Which doesn't mean that work of this sort is meaningless, just that there will always be the problem of including awareness in the theory, in that it has its formless aspect. Nevertheless, theories about primal forms generating complex forms have their place.

- I do think that a metalinguistic approach is valid. Even if there are no names 'red' or 'color' for the experience of perceiving red, there is nevertheless a structure of colors. Whether one wants to call that structure a language is a debatable question. I tend to think it is, as I regard all sense perception as the expression of conscious agents. Language is forms referring to forms, and it could be that colors refer to emotions, or something like that.

[Awwware Iconomen]

Thank you all for your valuable replies. If votes are not needed anymore, I guess I'll have to wait for Bernardo's green light. I will try to address the points you have evoked. Please note that the theories I am going to review are neither my theories nor am I a supporter of these theories! In the discussions above I found myself defending principles, which I have attacked myself in online fora. In fact, besides from the flaws you have indicated, I think there are more logical flaws in it. That could be a valuable addition to the essay as well; to criticise how these theories appear to lack a certain inner consistency. Perhaps it will provoke a reaction from these authors. All the better! A serious dialogue could help them refine their theories and perhaps make them toss away what is not valuable and keep what is valuable. At least certain aspects of their theories when applied in artificial intelligence have a potential of providing a sort of "game of life" in which complexity can be generated from simple rules. So even if their theories would turn out to be nowhere near a ToE, I certainly still see some value in it. Perhaps that's the appeal that these theories have imho.

Kind regards,

Antonin

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "Metaphysical Speculations" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/metaphysical-speculations/jKyaf6c_9Lo/unsubscribe.

To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to metaphysical-speculations+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/metaphysical-speculations/4940f1a9-e132-4909-ad10-db423abd74cc%40googlegroups.com.

[Cosmin Visan]

Again, the same old-age confusion between epistemology and ontology. "Complexity" is a concept that only exists for a consciousness. There is no complexity outside consciousness. Even if there is something outside consciousness (which there isn't, but let's just assume), that thing is neither simple nor complex. Is just what it is. Complexity is only a measure of the structure of qualia. Only qualia can have simpler or more complex structures.

And bonus: There can be no AI. Intelligence is only natural. So again, the same old-age confusion between epistemology and ontology.

[Bernardo]

Some mixed feelings here, though I am curious to hear what you have to say. Some early feedback:

Among the idealists philosophers there is an increasing tendency to see reality as expression of a higher level language.

Amongst the idealists I know, I've never heard this (Chris Langan isn't a philosopher and isn't taken seriously). I sympathize with the intuition that language plays a big role in defining the world we perceive, but the bridge from this to an ontology is extraordinarily complicated. No academic philosopher I know to be working on idealism today brings in language at a fundamental ontic level, but only an epistemic one.

 

Not only based on the idea of information as ultimate root medium for the expression of structure and function

According to idealism, mind/consciousness is fundamental, not information. The idea that information is fundamental is not idealism, but related to ontic pancomputationalism, or digital physics. Personally, I think this idea to be entirely incoherent, a mere language game, as I argue in a paper to be published in the July issue of Constructivist Foundations.

Overall, I'd be careful about bringing in all kinds of ideas into a conceptual orgy. It may be dazzling but runs the risk of being incoherent and lacking clarity. That said, I'm curious about how you plan to give an overview of these disparate ideas.

Cheers, B.

[Cosmin Visan]

Well, of course. I only took "language" in the limited every-day usage meaning. But of course that everything can be viewed as language. And this is what I'm arguing about in my paper "Is Qualia Meaning or Understanding?", where I argue that qualia feel the way they do because of the semantic content that they have, and I argue there that red looks red because it has the semantic content of "important" and yellow looks yellow because it has the semantic content of "souce of light". So all qualia are forms of language. So if we take this most general meaning of "language", then indeed we get a hierarchy of meanings, like you say where the "normal" language refers to colors for example, colors refer to emotions and so on. In this case it would be interesting to know if the referring goes on indefinitely or if it stops somewhere, like how I say that red refers to "important" and "important" is an irreducible platonic entity.

[Awwware Iconomen]

Thank you for your valuable feedback Bernardo. 

I will address your concerns pointwise:

Amongst the idealists I know, I've never heard this (Chris Langan isn't a philosopher and isn't taken seriously). I sympathize with the intuition that language plays a big role in defining the world we perceive, but the bridge from this to an ontology is extraordinarily complicated. No academic philosopher I know to be working on idealism today brings in language at a fundamental ontic level, but only an epistemic one.

 

Indeed, most of these authors are outsiders from academia (although Tsang, Kaufman and Deli do have a Ph.D.), so I will tone down and use a more cautious language. E.g. "In the last decades some idealist-type ideas have been suggested by oustiders, which perhaps merit our consideration." As regards your concern about the ontic vs. epistemic, This is probably the crux of the unusual paradoxical argument. It will indeed require quite a "Gestalt-switch" to dare to allow ourselves to explore this type of concept, but if we don't we risk to miss out on issue which might help us further in computer science or might help us otherwise to be able to refer such ideas with more authority to the kingdom of fables. As I haven't written the article yet, I am not sure myself how I am going to tackle it, but I find Tsang's ideas highly conducive for adaptation to a concrete self-monitoring protocol. Perhaps this is the worthwhile contribution of such an article. A proposal for an artificial mimic of consciousness.

According to idealism, mind/consciousness is fundamental, not information. The idea that information is fundamental is not idealism, but related to ontic pancomputationalism, or digital physics. Personally, I think this idea to be entirely incoherent, a mere language game, as I argue in a paper to be published in the July issue of Constructivist Foundations.

 

This is perhaps the odd unorthodox twist in these theories: That it is not an either..or concept, but a both..and concept: They see mind/consciousness as self-processing information: a kind of sentient energy that can provide its own code by generating form and then process that form further into further processable code. I propose to be a neutral reporter, not to a judge or advocate against or in favour of these theories.

Overall, I'd be careful about bringing in all kinds of ideas into a conceptual orgy. It may be dazzling but runs the risk of being incoherent and lacking clarity. 

 

I understand your fear; I haven't integrated all the puzzle parts yet myself, but I do somehow intuit that the elements I want to touch upon will be essential to yield a coherent picture. The writing itself will reveal, whether such a fit can be obtained or whether I will have to leave out parts.

That said, I'm curious about how you plan to give an overview of these disparate ideas.

 

I'll try to summarise for each of the authors indicated, what what unites their ideas and what makes each individual idea unique. Then I'll try to argue which idiosyncrasies can be united with the common part and which can't because it would entail contradiction. I will weigh this "set of theories" against more common viable theories and suggest what we can still distill of value from it, if it can't be extended to the ontic level. It is probably here that I will argue its potential applications in computer science.

We can always strip the article of non-essential content afterwards. For the moment, I think it is the best that I do not leave out details, which I consider crucial. But I have no problem in reducing the content afterwards based on your further comments.

Let me know if I should go forward with this via this forum or whether I should simply publish it on my own blogs (in which case I will apply a less rigorous standard and may end up in the "dazzling orgy" you refer to).

Kind regards,

Antonin

 

On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 11:25 AM, 'Cosmin Visan' via Metaphysical Speculations <metaphysical...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

Well, of course. I only took "language" in the limited every-day usage meaning. But of course that everything can be viewed as language. And this is what I'm arguing about in my paper "Is Qualia Meaning or Understanding?", where I argue that qualia feel the way they do because of the semantic content that they have, and I argue there that red looks red because it has the semantic content of "important" and yellow looks yellow because it has the semantic content of "souce of light". So all qualia are forms of language. So if we take this most general meaning of "language", then indeed we get a hierarchy of meanings, like you say where the "normal" language refer to colors for example, colors refer to emotions and so on. In this case it would be interesting if the referring goes on indefinitely or it stops somewhere, like how I say what red refers to "important" and "important" is an irreducible platonic entity.

On Monday, 12 March 2018 11:00:04 UTC+2, Scott Roberts wrote:

- I do think that a metalinguistic approach is valid. Even if there are no names 'red' or 'color' for the experience of perceiving red, there is nevertheless a structure of colors. Whether one wants to call that structure a language is a debatable question. I tend to think it is, as I regard all sense perception as the expression of conscious agents. Language is forms referring to forms, and it could be that colors refer to emotions, or something like that.

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "Metaphysical Speculations" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/metaphysical-speculations/jKyaf6c_9Lo/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to metaphysical-speculations+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/metaphysical-speculations/087c3e88-d854-4b80-9ab5-b5fe6606d576%40googlegroups.com.

[Dana Lomas]

I can only say that I'd be curious to read an actual essay, whether or not it gets published in BK's blog.

[Awwware Iconomen]

The essence of what I am going to describe is that I have found a peculiar pattern in the articles of the authors I mentioned, namely that they try to transcend the dichotomy of ontic and epistemic at the root level of reality. One of them calls this "infocognition". You could try to picture this in a surrealist way as a living book which is writing itself. That such a reasoning is probably not valid, is another debate. What is of value here is that there are indeed functional fractal processes in nature, which subject themselves to their own operations: Certain types of RNA processing qualify indeed as such a process. An Ouroboros, a snake that bites its own tail: The RNA molecule autocatalyses its own transformation in a tail-biting way. So is this idea totally crazy, or does it contain elements which are worthwhile exploring? Even if the validity is not at teh claimed root level, the application to self-modifying algorithms springs to mind immediately. So rather than not allowing it as a dogmatic Jesuit in the Inquisition, we should perhaps be open-minded and consider that even by reasoning from the absurd, we can somtimes arrive at valid logical conclusions. Reductio ad absurdum, if you wish to call it that way.

On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 11:00 AM, 'Cosmin Visan' via Metaphysical Speculations <metaphysical...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

Again, the same old-age confusion between epistemology and ontology. "Complexity" is a concept that only exists for a consciousness. There is no complexity outside consciousness. Even if there is something outside consciousness (which there isn't, but let's just assume), that thing is neither simple or complex. Is just what it is. Complexity is only a measure of the structure of qualia. Only qualia can have simpler or more complex structures.

And bonus: There can be no AI. Intelligence is only natural. So again, the same old-age confusion between epistemology and ontology.

On Monday, 12 March 2018 11:52:43 UTC+2, Awwware Iconomen wrote:

At least certain aspects of their theories when applied in artificial intelligence have a potential of providing a sort of "game of life" in which complexity can be generated from simple rules.

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "Metaphysical Speculations" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/metaphysical-speculations/jKyaf6c_9Lo/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to metaphysical-speculations+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/metaphysical-speculations/7a21979b-4e0b-4dcb-ae0b-4bc1cb20a48f%40googlegroups.com.

[Awwware Iconomen]

The previous comment I sent was directed to Cosmin. I'd like to remind him also that the title of this forum is "Metaphysical Speculations". If we can't speculate here, where can we? Of course it's up to Bernardo to set the rules for speculation, but I presume that when it comes to speculation the only standard can be that the concept must be logically sound and physically possible. But even there, I think we should be allowed to let our minds wander through the realms of surrealism and absurdism in order to be able to find out what are the limits of the logically sound and physically possible to return us to the save haven of the knowable. I get the feeling, Cosmin, that you want to turn this down because it does not a priori fit into existing paradigms or traditional definitions. Guess what, paradigms are there to be overthrown; barriers and definitions to be dismantled, if we can transcend our limitations therewith.

On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 1:45 PM, Awwware Iconomen <icon...@gmail.com> wrote:

The essence of what I am going to describe is that I have found a peculiar pattern in the articles of the authors I mentioned, namely that they try to transcend the dichotomy of ontic and epistemic at the root level of reality. One of them calls this "infocognition". You could try to picture this in a surrealist way as a living book which is writing itself. That such a reasoning is probably not valid, is another debate. What is of value here is that there are indeed functional fractal processes in nature, which subject themselves to their own operations: Certain types of RNA processing qualify indeed as such a process. An Ouroboros, a snake that bites its own tail: The RNA molecule autocatalyses its own transformation in a tail-biting way. So is this idea totally crazy, or does it contain elements which are worthwhile exploring? Even if the validity is not at teh claimed root level, the application to self-modifying algorithms springs to mind immediately. So rather than not allowing it as a dogmatic Jesuit in the Inquisition, we should perhaps be open-minded and consider that even by reasoning from the absurd, we can somtimes arrive at valid logical conclusions. Reductio ad absurdum, if you wish to call it that way.

On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 11:00 AM, 'Cosmin Visan' via Metaphysical Speculations <metaphysical-speculations@googlegroups.com> wrote:

Again, the same old-age confusion between epistemology and ontology. "Complexity" is a concept that only exists for a consciousness. There is no complexity outside consciousness. Even if there is something outside consciousness (which there isn't, but let's just assume), that thing is neither simple or complex. Is just what it is. Complexity is only a measure of the structure of qualia. Only qualia can have simpler or more complex structures.

And bonus: There can be no AI. Intelligence is only natural. So again, the same old-age confusion between epistemology and ontology.

On Monday, 12 March 2018 11:52:43 UTC+2, Awwware Iconomen wrote:

At least certain aspects of their theories when applied in artificial intelligence have a potential of providing a sort of "game of life" in which complexity can be generated from simple rules.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "Metaphysical Speculations" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/metaphysical-speculations/jKyaf6c_9Lo/unsubscribe.

To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to metaphysical-speculations+unsubsc...@googlegroups.com.

[Cosmin Visan]

Of course speculations are very good. But imagine you are in a dream in which you see unicorns that travel on rainbows. And then you start to speculate about the nature of rainbows and how are the unicorns able to travel on rainbows. It's a speculation, but do you really want to do that? Or should you better acknowledge the nature of the dream and start analyze its ontological subjective structure: the dream is made out of objects, the objects are made out of colors, etc.? The second solution is the right one because you are really doing ontology and not epistemology.

[Awwware Iconomen]

Just finished reading your paper on self-reference. Fascinating. Could it be that Langan's recursive self-processing is the mechanism you are looking for of self-reference selecting the essences that need to brought into form? Btw many analogies between your and his work, although I think he is working from a further level of phenomenology as you call it.

[Bernardo]

Let me know if I should go forward with this via this forum or whether I should simply publish it on my own blogs (in which case I will apply a less rigorous standard and may end up in the "dazzling orgy" you refer to).

I, for one, would be happy to see a first draft discussed here. Cheers, B.

[Awwware Iconomen]

Great! In the making.

Greetz,

Antonin

On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 11:09 AM, Bernardo <bernardo...@hotmail.com> wrote:

Let me know if I should go forward with this via this forum or whether I should simply publish it on my own blogs (in which case I will apply a less rigorous standard and may end up in the "dazzling orgy" you refer to).

I, for one, would be happy to see a first draft discussed here. Cheers, B.

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "Metaphysical Speculations" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/metaphysical-speculations/jKyaf6c_9Lo/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to metaphysical-speculations+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/metaphysical-speculations/f0d6f635-df21-488d-9fc2-a229517caa11%40googlegroups.com.

[Dana Lomas]

Incidentally, I've noticed that Wai H. Tsang hasn't uploaded any recent updates to his theory on his YT channel since the publication of his book, which I'm presuming you've read. I did consider buying it at one time, but it seemed a bit pricey, and eventually settled upon these excerpted passages, if anyone else is interested. In any case, I'm intrigued by his theory, and his affinity for the "mystical roots of science", which he gets into in the latter part of this interview, and likewise I'm looking forward to your take on it.

[Awwware Iconomen]

I liked it very much, Dana. here's my review: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/2059632573

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "Metaphysical Speculations" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/metaphysical-speculations/jKyaf6c_9Lo/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to metaphysical-speculations+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/metaphysical-speculations/c0f10ece-7c45-480f-bd8a-31c940bb5e11%40googlegroups.com.

[Dana Lomas]

Well, I may yet get around to buying it, though I'm perhaps more curious about Tsang's other more autobiographical book Quest, which goes into the mystical visionary origins of his theory, and appeals more to my own mystical inclinations, inspired by these excerpts about his take on mythology and idealism. Also, just discovered this other interview with him, which may be of interest here.

[Mark Tetzner]

Yummy, this quest-book. Not a single review. I will check it out.

[Awwware Iconomen]

Hello Bernardo,

Please find enclosed as attachment my first draft of the article, the title of whcih I have rebaptised as "

"When the map becomes the territory. Recursive Self Modification: A Universal language of Ontogenesis?"

I am afraid this version is indeed a dazzling orgy of multiple concepts, but there is a red line which connects them all. I am not unwilling to drastically reduce the length of this article and stick to that what is essential for the argument, if that's what you prefer. However, at this stage I prefer to provide you with the complete picture of what I had in mind, because I value your opinion and anticipate that your comments on those parts you'd like to remove can give me further ideas for spin-off articles.

Enjoy the read,

Kind regards,

Antonin

On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 5:01 PM, Mark Tetzner <marki...@gmail.com> wrote:

Yummy, this quest-book. Not a single review. I will check it out.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "Metaphysical Speculations" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/metaphysical-speculations/jKyaf6c_9Lo/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to metaphysical-speculations+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/metaphysical-speculations/7ce6526b-c7ce-4357-9226-d41e54c7befe%40googlegroups.com.

[Awwware Iconomen]

The title should be

"When the map becomes the territory. Recursive Self Modification: A Universal language of Ontogenesis of Reality?"

(With which I mean to imply that one can consider reality as one all-encompassing organism).

On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 10:55 AM, Awwware Iconomen <icon...@gmail.com> wrote:

Hello Bernardo,

Please find enclosed as attachment my first draft of the article, the title of whcih I have rebaptised as "

"When the map becomes the territory. Recursive Self Modification: A Universal language of Ontogenesis?"

I am afraid this version is indeed a dazzling orgy of multiple concepts, but there is a red line which connects them all. I am not unwilling to drastically reduce the length of this article and stick to that what is essential for the argument, if that's what you prefer. However, at this stage I prefer to provide you with the complete picture of what I had in mind, because I value your opinion and anticipate that your comments on those parts you'd like to remove can give me further ideas for spin-off articles.

Enjoy the read,

Kind regards,

Antonin

On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 5:01 PM, Mark Tetzner <marki...@gmail.com> wrote:

Yummy, this quest-book. Not a single review. I will check it out.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "Metaphysical Speculations" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/metaphysical-speculations/jKyaf6c_9Lo/unsubscribe.

To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to metaphysical-speculations+unsubsc...@googlegroups.com.

[Dana Lomas]

I surely enjoyed reading the article, finding it well-written, entertaining, and a reasonably accurate interpretive synopsis of the various theories discussed -- which seem to me to be contemporary elaborations of the notion of Platonic Ideas as the basis of phenomena, now extrapolated into perpetually evolving, self-replicating/modifying, language-like codes. However, it all still seems somehow dependent upon an apparent subject/object dissociation of consciousness, which none of these theories, in my view, really addresses ... or perhaps they do, but I'm just not grasping how an idea could be aware of another idea.

[Cosmin Visan]

Thanks. :) I will look into Langan's ideas and see what he says.

[Awwware Iconomen]

 none of these theories, in my view, really addresses ... or perhaps they do, but I'm just not grasping how an idea could be aware of another idea.

For this I refer you to Cosmin Vasin's excellent "Self-Referential Aspect of Consciousness" , which I consider makes it crystal clear. In my article I proposed that the Self-modifying recursive code is just a higher level of phenomenology thereof, so that this aspect is inherited by higher levels of consciousness.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "Metaphysical Speculations" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/metaphysical-speculations/jKyaf6c_9Lo/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to metaphysical-speculations+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/metaphysical-speculations/92cf67a4-657c-46f5-82c9-3d11ffdacb8c%40googlegroups.com.

[Scott Roberts]

Some comments:

"Not energy, but information is considered to be at the root of reality."

This makes no sense, since energy is necessary for any information transfer, so energy must be at least as fundamental as information. Should it be "Not matter..."?

As this is intended for Bernardo's site, I wonder if the opening warnings about sounding preposterous and bonkers are needed. Instead you might just state that you assume your readers are idealists, or are at least somewhat familiar with BK's arguments for idealism. Basically, one can be arguing for idealism, or one can be addressing problems one has if one assumes idealism (in particular the problem of how alters form). I see these authors' work as relevant to the latter.

I am bothered by making the connections to physics. The ways the TOE question is discussed sets my crackpot-detector off. Short of a complete mathematicization of the self-modification process, from which one can derive both Schrödinger's Equation and General Relativity, one is just arm-waving. (This is not to say that trying to do this is a bad idea, just that one should be quiet about it until one has worked it all out.)  In short, I would leave ties to physics out of it. Just my opinion.

[Bernardo]

Hi Antonin,

I've read it and it is well written. There are a couple of passages that contradict my own positions too much, but they could be adapted to avoid this contradiction without loss to your storyline.

The main problem for me, however, is that there are too many ideas mashed together in it, without anywhere near sufficient clarity for the average reader. If I may be arrogant enough to consider myself above average, even I couldn't follow several passages. There are lots of words but I was unable to connect them in a coherent argument. I don't think this is your fault: the theories you are attempting to summarize are themselves convoluted and conceptually unclear. There is a sense in which their goal seems to be a kind of intellectual art, somewhat psychedelic, and the whole thing seems to be done for the sake of some kind of conceptual orgasm driven by complication. I may be wrong but this is how it comes across to me.

The problem is that what I've been trying to do for years now is precisely the opposite: to undo the conceptual knot; to bring clarity and simplicity to metaphysical discussions. As such, these theories represent precisely what I am trying to counter and I don't feel I should give them a platform.

So I won't publish this, despite it being well-written and your clearly having some grasp of what you are talking about. Since you said you had an option to publish in your own site, I trust you haven't wasted effort, so I feel less guilty.

I count on your understanding here.

Cheers, Bernardo.

[Awwware Iconomen]

Dear Bernardo,

Thank you for your worthwhile comments. I completely understand your position of undoing the conceptual knot; to bring clarity and simplicity to metaphysical discussions. 

I must admit that I don't understand the theories I describe entirely, except for the notion of the self-modifying recursive algorithm, which does make sense to me in biotech and computer science. 

These theories indeed reek of crackpottery despite there being perhaps this one interesting notion.

I don't feel that I have wasted my time here, because the comments of you and the other contributors were really worthwhile to shape my story.

Thank you (and the other contributors) for your valuable comments much appreciated.

Next time I'll come with a concept to bring clarity instead of confusion.

Kind regards,

Antonin

On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 12:02 PM, Bernardo <bernardo...@hotmail.com> wrote:

Hi Antonin,

I've read it and it is well written. There are a couple of passages that contradict my own positions too much, but they could be adapted to avoid this contradiction without loss to your storyline.

The main problem for me, however, is that there are too many ideas mashed together in it, without anywhere near sufficient clarity for the average reader. If I may be arrogant enough to consider myself above average, even I couldn't follow several passages. There are lots of words but I was enable to connect them in a coherent argument. I don't think this is your fault: the theories you are attempting to summarize are themselves convoluted and conceptually unclear. There is a sense in which their goal seems to be a kind of intellectual art, somewhat psychedelic, and the whole thing seems to be done for the sake of some kind of conceptual orgasm driven by complication. I may be wrong but this is how it comes across to me.

The problem is that what I've been trying to do for years now is precisely the opposite: to undo the conceptual knot; to bring clarity and simplicity to metaphysical discussions. As such, these theories represent precisely what I am trying to counter and I don't feel I should give them a platform.

So I won't publish this, despite it being well-written and your clearly having some grasp of what you are talking about. Since you said you had an option to publish in your own site, I trust you haven't wasted effort, so I feel less guilty.

I count on your understanding here.

Cheers, Bernardo.

On Wednesday, March 14, 2018 at 10:55:58 AM UTC+1, Awwware Iconomen wrote:

Hello Bernardo,

Please find enclosed as attachment my first draft of the article, the title of whcih I have rebaptised as "

"When the map becomes the territory. Recursive Self Modification: A Universal language of Ontogenesis?"

I am afraid this version is indeed a dazzling orgy of multiple concepts, but there is a red line which connects them all. I am not unwilling to drastically reduce the length of this article and stick to that what is essential for the argument, if that's what you prefer. However, at this stage I prefer to provide you with the complete picture of what I had in mind, because I value your opinion and anticipate that your comments on those parts you'd like to remove can give me further ideas for spin-off articles.

Enjoy the read,

Kind regards,

Antonin

On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 5:01 PM, Mark Tetzner <marki...@gmail.com> wrote:

Yummy, this quest-book. Not a single review. I will check it out.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "Metaphysical Speculations" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/metaphysical-speculations/jKyaf6c_9Lo/unsubscribe.

To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to metaphysical-speculations+unsubsc...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/metaphysical-speculations/7ce6526b-c7ce-4357-9226-d41e54c7befe%40googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "Metaphysical Speculations" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/metaphysical-speculations/jKyaf6c_9Lo/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to metaphysical-speculations+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/metaphysical-speculations/8acedbf6-f52a-43e7-98ed-2f2f45a4c7ad%40googlegroups.com.