In other words, "feel like something" is its own phenomena that must be reckoned with. You never do, so therefore you always avoid the hard problem. You refer to it as the map, and never deal with it head on as this "other thing" which is the actual "feeling like something". WHAT is this "feeling like something". Explain the territory, not the map. In map world, everything is a map. But clearly, first-person "feels like something" experience is not just map but has this "feels like something" (experiential quality). What is this? Not what are its constituents in map world, but what is experience?
What say you? — schopenhauer1
Once you can picture a kinesin binding an ATP to clamp one foot to a track, allostery causing the back foot to hydrolyze its ATP, and then relying on thermal motion to get the back foot to its new position -- wow. The combination of consuming free energy and "capturing"-- putting to use rather than resisting-- energy from what Hoffman calls the "molecular storm" of randomly moving water molecules, it's extraordinary. — Srap Tasmaner
There is relatively little about information in it, — Srap Tasmaner
Google 'pansemiosis bootstrapping' and see what comes up ;-) — Wayfarer
The metaphor of maps and territories of course in reality demands the third thing of "an interpreter" - a further habit of interpretance. The map itself is the physical sign, the symbol, the information that connects the interpreter to the world in terms of the interpreter's own interests.
You will of course immediately jump to the presumption that the interpreter is now the conscious part of the whole equation. You won't see how this is just a continuation of a substance monism that you feel forced to impose on any framing of the issues. — apokrisis
OK, so I understand that you assume two distinct types of constraints, the constraints which act on material potential causing substantial being, and semiotic constraints which act on substantial being. This is what you just told me: — Metaphysician Undercover
No. Our difference dwells in justification for that which physically is. On what do you base your justifications that "everything fluidly emerges"? — javra
Pan-semiosis is then a further speculative metaphysical project where dissipative structure is also understood as a generalised sign relation. — apokrisis
Reason and observation. The usual combo of metaphysical speculation and scientific test. — apokrisis
Can you provide a definition for mind please Wayfarer. — MikeL
You are doing the usual thing of treating it as a static, already fully substantial and realised existence — apokrisis
mind enters the picture right from the start. As soon as there is the vaguest speck of semiotic mechanism in play. — apokrisis
I only have the advantage that my paradigm is thoroughly supported by scientific investigation. — apokrisis
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.