And then telling me that my description --which I took from a dictionary of Ancient Greek language-- is not correct! — Alkis Piskas

What dictionary, please? And what is the entire entry?

Mine was online: https://www.britannica.com/topic/logos

Logos is a notoriously difficult word. To pass it off as meaning "word" in English, and then arguing from that - why would you do that? But if you're done, then you're done, and in the present context a good thing. Rejoin if you care to; you don't need my permission. But if you're going to use ancient words, try to get their ancient meanings right.

I skimmed. The metaphysical basis of logic, as you say, and Wittgenstein: you know such an idea is an oxymoron in his thinking? — Constance

I'm not much interested in his thinking, I was referring to the quote you posted.

As to the tutorial, I found it a bit elementary. Not wrong, but a bit off the mark. Such discussion of perceptual knowledge relationships begs the question, what is knowledge? — Constance

The relationship of one part to another, is where logical structure begins. This is the beginning of knowledge. Knowledge is related and integrated, and is progressively built upon, such that any subsequent structure ( added understanding ) has to fit existing logical structure, as per constructivism. So, things understood tomorrow have to be understood in terms of today's understanding. So, it is a building onto current understanding.

Well then, the proof is in the pudding. Clarity simpliciter is not the issue here. It is clarity at the sacrifice of substance. The substance I have in mind is the final confrontation of philosophy whereby the world reveals it own inner militation against any thesis that would possess it. The simplicity here is the final simplicity, whereby one acknowledges that all along it is not the pursuit of conceptualization and its endless inventiveness that is sought by philosophy, but value, and here, not the endless valorization of novel amusements, but existential simplicity: the eternal present. Herein lies God. — Constance

Occam's Razor is god?

Remember Wittgenstein in the Tractatus was adamant about stepping beyond what the rules of logic prohibited. — Constance

Wittgenstein proceeded beyond this; as if the Tractatus were his final word. He subsequently showed the limitations of his view in the Tractatus, showing "the nature of logic" in terms of following and going against rules.

And he had much to say about the identification of simples. What is to count as a simple depends on what one is doing. There's a deep tendency for folk to choose this or that to be the ultimate simple - Logos, information, dialectic (@Pop); but any such choice will be relative to this or that activity - that language game.

So answering the question "what was at the beginning..." - the beginning of what? That'll tell us what game we are playing.

And he had much to say about the identification of simples. What is to count as a simple depends on what one is doing. There's a deep tendency for folk to choose this or that to be the ultimate simple - Logos, information, dialectic (@Pop); but any such choice will be relative to this or that activity - that language game.

So answering the question "what was at the beginning..." - the beginning of what? That'll tell us what game we are playing. — Banno

Very impressive Banno. Here begins the world of informational structure. What came first - the thought or the physical structure that enabled it? How are these different? Can one exist without the other?

How do you remember what you can't put into words?

Here begins the world of informational structure. What came first - the thought or the physical structure that enabled it? How are these different? Can one exist without the other? — Pop

How does the way you frame the idea of "informational structure" relate to the language games perspective of Wittgenstein?

There is a way to understand the game that Wit refers to. It is a game of the interaction of forms. The forms can be anything physical. It is not so important what form they take, but it is important that they take form. In the interaction of form, everything evolves.

Information is: the evolutionary interaction of form. This is the game as I see it.

To understand the game you need to understand the principles of constructivism, systems theory, enactivism, and information, in the sense I have defined it. The definition of information thread was supposed to enable an understanding of the game, but nobody is interested. Oh well. :smile:

** It is a bit much to unload here. Banno mentioned me and used Wit's quote, so I couldn't resist. Didnt mean to derail the thread.

What is to count as a simple depends on what one is doing. There's a deep tendency for folk to choose this or that to be the ultimate simple - Logos, information, dialectic ... but any such choice will be relative to this or that activity - that language game.

So answering the question "what was at the beginning..." - the beginning of what? That'll tell us what game we are playing. — Banno

:100:

[/quote]
I don't think you have derailed the thread.
Constance has asked us to consider the matter beyond the terms of adequate explanations for what we have worked out, more or less, to be adequate.

I don't think you have derailed the thread. — Valentinus

Nor do I; but I wonder what you think of @Pop's reply.

I'll admit not seeing much in it at all. Saying "forms can be anything physical" doesn't ring with Wittgenstein's analysis. Saying that it's all interactions of forms doesn't clarify anything. Proscribing a definition of information as "the evolutionary interaction of form" simply looks confused.

That's just not how I sue the word "information".

It looks like Pop missed Wittgenstein's point and wants to impose yet another notion of absolute simple.

So I'm left nonplused. I'd be interested in what others see.

How do you remember what you can't put into words? — frank

My goats run to their barn when I arrive with treats. How do they remember to do that?

I'll admit not seeing much in it at all. Saying "forms can be anything physical" doesn't ring with Wittgenstein's analysis. Saying that it's all interactions of forms doesn't clarify anything. Proscribing a definition of information as "the evolutionary interaction of form" simply looks confused. — Banno

Wit did not have the benefit of any of the theories that I mention. So he could not go deeper than word games.

So answering the question "what was at the beginning..." - the beginning of what? That'll tell us what game we are playing. — Banno

In other words, how you conceive the beginning is the start of your informational structure. You build onto that. If you start with god, then you build on that. If you start with energy, then you build on that.
Regardless of how you start and what you build it will exist in some form. This is what we see across cultures, and through the ages - different forms of understanding.

The universe has to exist in some form, and as a consequence, so do all of it's components. We exist in different forms, as does our understanding. These forms are the things that interact in systems theory, and in this process we are enacted into the world in Enactivism.

This is a paper demonstrating contemporary understanding:
The evolutionary origin of form and function - 2014

Abstract: "The evolution of multicellular organisms with complex forms and functional abilities can be accounted for based on a fundamental tenet underpinned by the second law of thermodynamics, with natural selection acting on the ability of the organism to transduct energy (nutrient) most efficiently from its ecosystem by deploying that form and those functions. The information that gives rise to form and function is dispersed throughout the organism in the constituent cellular phenotypes and derives mainly from the interactions between information bearing proteins. The concept of a gene, beyond a means of specifying the amino acid sequences of the peptides from which the proteins are formed, is both mostly unnecessary and possibly misleading."

Note how they are using information.

Wit did not have the benefit of any of the theories that I mention. So he could not go deeper than word games. — Pop

Seems to me you are just offering yet another game.

It's the overreach that bugs me the most, though. Think I pointed that out before. Taking speculation as gospel, and thinking that it applies to everything.

Seems to me you are just offering yet another game. — Banno

I'm trying to provide you with an overview of how the game works, but yes, this also necessarily becomes another game. Another form of the game.

If you ground your understanding in a science like systems theory, you too will be able to talk about everything. And the idea that everything is information will make sense to you. It is not very difficult to understand in principle.

If you ground your understanding in a science like systems theory, you too will be able to talk about everything. — Pop

As I mentioned before, it has an almost religious fervour. Sure, it explains lots. That's not the same as explaining everything. That's the overreach.

As I mentioned before, it has an almost religious fervour. Sure, it explains lots. That's not the same as explaining everything. That's the overreach. — Banno

Systems theory enables a view of the universe as an evolving articulation of systems. Where everything is informationally created bottom up and articulated laterally also. It literally is an explanation of everything, except the quantum foam. The foam has to move to form, and thereafter everything is an evolution of form - quite literally. Energy particles > elementary particles > atoms > molecules > cellular proteins > cells, organs, Bodies, families, communities, countries, humanity, the biosphere, the solar system, the galaxy, and the universe are all interrelated and interacting systems, evolving together. What they have in common is physical form. This physical form is endlessly variable and open ended, but it is what enables them to interact and evolve. What is interacting is the unique qualities of one system with that of another system. This interaction is information, imo. Information between us serves the same purpose - it allows us to interact and evolve. So, information is the evolutionary interaction of form. Form in this case is the form of one understanding interacting with the form of another understanding. Make sense?

Systems theory enables a view of the universe as an evolving articulation of systems...(and so on) — Pop

Yeah, as I said, so does god.

Have a look a the thread on Confirmable and influential Metaphysics. The position you are taking strikes me as a "Haunted Universe" proposal, as discussed in the article cited.

You are a case. :roll: One guys opinion from 1958 against contemporary science. Go Banno.

Mind AssociationConfirmable and Influential MetaphysicsAuthor(s): J. W. N. WatkinsSource:Mind, New Series, Vol. 67, No. 267 (Jul., 1958)

Can you answer this question? It is a notch deeper than the word game:

What comes first, reality, or the thought that creates it?

...contemporary science... — Pop

That, it ain't.

What you are proposing is not the consensus. Information, complexity - promising areas of research. But again, you want to turn it into something it isn't.

You had better tell that to the professor who wrote the evolutionary origin of form and function above, and those other ones at MIT in the video.

By the way, did you manage to find something that isn't information?

What dictionary, please? — tim wood

https://isideris.gr/?product=mega-lexikon-tis-ellinikis-glossis
https://www.politeianet.gr/books/liddell-henry-sideris-i-mega-lexikon-tis-ellinikis-glossis-exatomo-156949
https://vendora.gr/items/gmnky3/mega-lexiko-tis-ellinikis-glossis-liddell-scott-konstantinidou-4-tomi.html
It is quite expensive, but anyaway, you have to know Greek, and more precisely ancient Greek!

I wouldn't come back to this exchange but I deem it is fair since you brought up a standard reference for your description. :up: Yet, it is a very bad description, because tranlating "logos" as “word,” “reason” or “plan” is only confusing. One should first tanslate the word literally, as it was initially used ("word", "speech"), and then how it has evolved ("reason"). As for the word "plan", well, it's totally irrelevant! (I wonder where did they get that from!)

I believe this is over now. More than enough has been said on this issue.

You had better tell that to the professor... — Pop

They are doing science; you are not.

How do you remember what you can't put into words?
— frank

My goats run to their barn when I arrive with treats. How do they remember to do that? — Hanover

Good question. I'm guessing they mostly run on emotion. Their memory is emotional instead of intellectual.

Good question. I'm guessing they mostly run on emotion. Their memory is emotional instead of intellectual. — frank

Why must you concoct such odd solutions to the question of how goats remember? My dog's behavior (and my cat's and my chickens to some degree) all exhibit behaviors strikingly similar to memory based behavior that I see in those with language.

The idea that when a rainstorm comes my goats run in circles for a covered area, testing each spot for how dry it is, with every new rainstorm a new adventure in searching for cover, is a strange suggestion. It sure looks to me like they run to the barn because they know where the barn is and they know that the barn offers them shelter from the storm. If the roof collapses one day on their head, it'll probably be some time before they go back in, having remembered the time they got bumped on the head.

Why must you concoct such odd solutions to the question of how goats remember? My dog's behavior (and my cat's and my chickens to some degree) all exhibit behaviors strikingly similar to memory based behavior that I see in those with language. — Hanover

But the earth also seems to remember that it's supposed to turn on an axis. Clouds remember that they're supposed to rain in low pressure zones.

We assume goats are doing something extra, that involves some sense of self even if mostly unanalyzed.

Is this what you meant, @Constance ? Is accessing the primordial a matter of tapping into something we share with other animals?

If the roof collapses one day on their head, it'll probably be some time before they go back in, having remembered the time they got bumped on the head. — Hanover

Right, but probably because of becoming afraid of the barn, not from realizing that they should check the barn's structural integrity before entering. That's what I meant by emotional memory.

We assume goats are doing something extra, that involves some sense of self even if mostly unanalyzed. — frank

I assume the inner workings of my mind are the same as yours and to a lesser degree my goat's. I'm not sure why animal minds should be treated as operating on some markedly different way than human minds. It seems you're trying to sustain some language based intelligence philosophy and are willing to bend your observations for that. My dog remembers all sorts of stuff. I see it every day.

. It seems you're trying to sustain some language based intelligence philosophy and are willing to bend your observations for that. — Hanover

So why aren't clouds intelligent? Don't your observations show that they are? They don't dilly dally running in circles when they come to a low pressure zone. They go straight to raining as your goats go to the barn


The intelligence I think they're (the goats) lacking is negation. They would need some kind of symbolism to express "Hanover isn't dangerous."

Without any ability to express it, how could they recognize it?

Instead, I think they just feel joy when they see you. Everything they ”think" is positive. That means it can't be intellectual in the way we are.

The Greek ‘logos’ as presupposed by a beginning has precedence. Yet the ultimate in logos means not just ‘word’ or ‘logic’ - it points to the possibility/impossibility of experiencing the perfect relation or absolute interconnectedness (omniscience). And logos is not alone. — Possibility

But to talk about possibility of impossibility points first to the "'words or logic" that constructs concepts like possibility and impossibility. Perfect relation? What is this if not a language construction? Absolute interconnectedness in the logos? What is this if not a logical interconnectedness? That is, the "saying" is always analytically first.

What else is presupposed by a beginning? Aristotle refers to logos alongside ethos and pathos in terms of one’s capacity or potential to persuade. Except an ultimate notion of ethos is not just about character, but points to the possibility/impossibility of achieving quality, or excellence (omnibenevolence) through distinction. And the ultimate in pathos is not just about feeling or motivation, but points to the possibility/impossibility of tapping into an infinite source of energy (omnipotence). — Possibility

And this tapping into eternity, how does this cash out in analysis? Terms like finitude and infinity are fascinating to me, but it is not as if they are exhausted in the mere utterance, the incidental usage. for the question posed here goes to the structure of time itself. Time, I claim (and I am no more than what I read) is the structure of finitude, and finitude is subsumed by eternity, both, obviously, difficult terms and deserve discussion, but the final discussion to be had on this and any matter looks at the th phenomenological analysis of time. What is time? This is presupposed by talk about beginnings.

It is at the intersection of these possibilities/impossibilities of absolute, infinite perfection, which both limit and are contingent upon each other, that we find a beginning, the origin of ideas and meaning, to potential and value, and from there to events and ‘beginnings’. No relation, however perfect, could even exist without experience: the possibility of energy source differentiated by quality. And no source of energy, however infinite, is even useful without identity: the possibility of distinguishing the quality of proper relations. And finally, there can be no distinction of excellence or quality without the fundamental laws of physics: the possibility of ideal relation in the use of energy. And vice versa. — Possibility

Don't know what you mean by infinite perfection. Not that I have no ideas about such a thing, but what you mean is not clear. At any rate, This intersection: is there just this (leaning Heideggarian) construction? Or is there not something, if you will, behind this in the reductive act of suspending all these possibilities? Once you step into that rarified world where language's grasp on the givenness of things is loosened, and meaning is free from interpretative restraint, is there not some undeniable qualitative change in the perceptual event as such?

What you say about identity is quite right, I think, and this then makes a turn toward agency, for identity is general, definitional, as in the identity of a term, a concept, but agency is all about the actuality of what it is (who it is). Most clearly an issue for ethics.

"In the beginning" there were (are?) vacuum fluctuations. — 180 Proof

Certainly. But it depends on if you are interested in philosophical analysis or scientific. This latter is not at the basic level, for it presupposes phenomenal presentedness.

Anyone wishing to learn a bit more about logos can look here.

https://outils.biblissima.fr/fr/eulexis-web/?lemma=%CE%BB%CE%BF%CE%B3%CE%BF%CF%82&dict=LSJ

or here, appearing to be the same or similar to the above.

https://logeion.uchicago.edu/%CE%BB%CF%8C%CE%B3%CE%BF%CF%82