Small percentage" from where? Which "statistics" did you get that from, or are you carefully trying to use such expressions to somehow verify a moot point? — TimeLine

Check any statistics, they're all over the internet. It's very clear that only a small percentage of those who use, or have used marijuana, are actually addicted to the stuff, or will ever become addicted. Yet your claim is that THC is "highly addictive".

Whether a person is "addicted" to marijuana or any other drug or not, continuous and repeated use over a lengthy period of time as highlighted in my post that shows the effects it has on the brain leads to a cycle of continuous use. That may not be an "addiction" in the way that you are attempting to highlight, but it is certainly disorder characterised by compulsive engagement in rewarding stimuli, despite adverse consequences. — TimeLine

Oh, I see your point, continuous usage of something, even though there are some adverse consequences, constitutes a "disorder". I guess I'm addicted to the hammer that I use every day at work, and the adverse consequences of an occasional blister or a sore wrist on a hard day, or a hit to my thumb now and then, means that my usage of the hammer is a disorder.

How do you propose to weigh the very obvious rewards against the very sketchy "adverse consequences"? Why don't you lay out these adverse consequences in plain English rather than just alluding to "addiction"?

"Drug use shows no sign of slowing down at festivals, along with its the deceptive marketing and sale to attendees. It's pretty clear as forms of oblivious consumption remain a plague... "I've seen so many terrible things happen to people at events; people die, people run their bodies and minds, and have years of lasting effects from using these substances... [festival-goers] just aren't aware what's going on most of the time." — TimeLine

Anytime that you get tens of thousands of people together for an event, especially adolescents, there is the possibility of "terrible things". The fact that drug use is associated with some of these "terrible things" is incidental rather than momentous, unless you happen to believe that drug use is itself a terrible thing.

This seems to be your argument, because it is possible that a terrible thing can happen to someone who uses drugs, therefore drug use is a terrible thing. The relationship you make between "drug use" and "terrible things" is completely askew. Just like your claim that just because a very small percentage of those who use marijuana will become addicted, therefore marijuana is highly addictive, you want to say that because terrible things happen to a very small percentage of drug users at festivals, therefore drug use is a terrible thing.

Read my first post. No, I am not talking about addictiveness at all, again, go back and re-read what I have written. — TimeLine

Oh come on Time Line, face reality. Addiction, and the problems involved with addiction, is all you've been talking about. Here's the first line of your first post:

When I was helping a young girl remove herself from a toxic environment that enabled her addiction to drugs to appear normalised... — TimeLine

Every post, all you talk about is the horrors of addiction. Then you had the audacity to claim that marijuana is highly addictive in order that you could categorize marijuana use as an addiction problem:

There are other issues here then medicinal cannabis and I really do not want to discuss the highly addictive chemical THC and cannabis with you. — TimeLine

The fact is that marijuana, THC, is not addictive. Of the millions of people who use it, only a very few can even be said to be addicted, even by people like you who define "addicted" to suit your purpose.

Since when is statistics bullshit? — TimeLine

Yes, statistics are bullshit because they can be produced, and presented so as to support any argued position. For instance, if one out of every ten thousand marijuana users is addicted to it, you will use this statistic to argue that marijuana is addictive. What sense does that make? When a very small percentage of those engaged in an activity become addicted to it, why would you categorize that activity as addictive? That's bullshit, categorizing something according to a property with a low probability of occurrence.

That's why I brought up the issue with LSD and chromosome damage. In those days, the 70's, "the statistics" clearly indicated that LSD caused chromosome damage. But it was all bullshit, just like your addiction talk.

The question is, what can an AI think about the source of its existence? Can it understand that it was created by a creator? — Henri

I suppose that depends on what is programmed into it.

If you want to go on the defence because of your personal connection to it, by all means, but I don't know the real you or what you genuinely do, so stop blabbing about you and start showing me facts. — TimeLine

I can only you give facts when it concerns my own experience. Statistics are bullshit. So it's you who should stop blabbing, and show me some facts based in cold hard experience, rather than bullshit. When I was a kid, it was a well-documented "fact", that LSD causes chromosome damage. You seem to be spouting the same sort of "fact" about the addictiveness of marijuana.

Both idealists and physicalists are saying the same thing but don't seem to realize it - that the mind and body interact, and if they interact they must be of the same substance, the same reality of cause and effect. — Harry Hindu

This is where you seem to be lost. Why do you think that if two things interact they must be of the same substance. Vinegar and baking soda interact, right? How are those two the same substance?

It seems that science doesn't describe objects at all, as there isn't anything object to point to - only interactions, or processes. — Harry Hindu

Have you not heard of fundamental particles? Physicists reduce all processes to a number of fundamental particles, it's called particle physics. It is really not true to say that science doesn't describe objects. Each fundamental particle is a different type of object.

I'm trying to get at WHY you think that your mind isn't part of your body. You simply saying that we disagree doesn't answer my questions or improve my understanding of your position. — Harry Hindu

I studied philosophy for many years. It would be very difficult for me to recount here, under these conditions, why I don't think my mind is part of my body. Generally speaking, I believe in the freedom of the will, and this means that the decisions made by the mind are not caused by the body.

The mind is not the body. It is a process of the body. — Harry Hindu

As I explained before, this doesn't make sense to me. The mind is a thing which thinks and makes decisions. Therefore it is a thing which is active, involved in processes, it is not itself a process. To this objection, you simply said that everything is reducible to processes. Again, I explained why this doesn't make sense, every description of an occurring process describes something which is carrying out the process. So in the case of thinking and making decisions, you can describe this as the body carrying out this process, or as the mind carrying out this process, and these would be two different ways of describing the same process, thinking and making decisions. But what sense would it make to say that the mind is a process of the body, and making decisions is a process of the mind? Why not just say that making decisions is a process of the body? Where does this leave the mind?

If you can't answer questions, MU, then don't bother striking up a philosophical conversation with me. I'll continue this once you have answered my questions. — Harry Hindu

I explained to you why I couldn't answer some of your questions. They did not make sense to me. And you never proceeded to straighten them out. Others I answered, and you just didn't like the answers. Maybe you could describe more clearly what you are asking.

..which is similar to what nominalism says, although it speaks about it in terms of concepts or names - hence, ‘nominalism’ - not necessarily a deficiency. But you are generally coming from a nominalist position in many of your comments. And hey, relax - I’m not accusing you of anything, it’s a philosophical dialogue. — Wayfarer

Well, I don't think it's really a nominalist position which I propose, because I respect the reality of universals.. I just say that it is more accurate to describe them as created by the human mind rather than as having independent existence, being discovered. This is the way that we can account for deficiencies and inaccuracies in our conceptualizations, by allowing that the concepts, though they have real immaterial existence within the immaterial minds of human beings, are creations of those minds.

I do allow for real independent immaterial Forms, but these are the forms of particulars, as described by the Neo-Platonists and Plato in the Timaeus. Therefore I have a duality of forms. Material existence is the medium between the independent Forms of particulars, and the forms of universals, abstractions within the human mind. This corresponds with primary and secondary substance in Aristotle. The important thing, in understanding the nature of reality is to not confuse the relation between the two types of forms and material existence. The relation between the human abstractions and material existence is an inversion of the relationship between the independent Forms and material existence, because one is prior to material existence while the other is posterior to it. I believe that this is a very important principle in understanding the nature of time.

I find that with metaphysical positions, they all have their good points and bad points, so it's not good to simply choose one over the other and support that position, because the other has some opposing principles. It's best to try and understand them all, and find the principles of consistency between them, because there always is principles of consistency.

When inside the car and the car moves, do you not move with the car? A radio is inside the car and can be removed. Does that make the radio not part of the car? Do you even think before typing and submitting a post, or are you simply trying to pull my leg? — Harry Hindu

OK, so when you are inside your car you believe that you are part of your car. I don't, so we have a difference of opinion on that.

Then I don't know what it is that we are disagreeing on here. — Harry Hindu

I know what we are disagreeing about, it's stated right above. You think that because a mind is inside a body it is part of a body. I do not. You don't see a difference between a mind and a body. I do. So we disagree.

When I first engaged you in conversation, it was because I didn't agree with your claim that if the mind and the body are two distinct things, they couldn't interact. Is that why you claim that you a part of your car when you are inside it, because you believe that if you were not part of your car, you wouldn't be able to interact with it?

That's why we need to compare numerous physical activities to produce an accurate clock.

am unable to ascertain the actuality of your situation because I am unaware of all the details, but just as William Styron said, his addiction to alcohol indeed helped him with his creative work and capacity to socialise until he stopped drinking and experienced withdrawal (in the neural networks); his brain no longer had the capacity to communicate as it would have naturally prior to his dependence and as such for several months following experienced profound sense of anxiety and doom that led him to almost-suicide. — TimeLine

I never experienced any such withdrawal. I drank lots, smoked lots of weed, and every once in a while I would quit one or the other for a month or two to see what it was like. I don't remember any withdrawal problem. Eventually my usage lessened. I do have withdrawal problems when I quit coffee though. So if you judge the drug based on the withdrawal, coffee appears to be worse for me than weed or alcohol.

I don't like the psychoactivity, just the positive effects of CBD mostly. I also rarely smoke cannabis. Get too much anxiety. — Posty McPostface

Do you smoke CBD weed? If so, for what ailments, or benefits?

But only for as long as the drug is in effect and this is what leads to addiction and the terrible results that follow. Why else would anyone be compelled to take it? If drugs enhance their lives, it overcomes the anxiety, the depression, the feelings of isolation and emptiness and keeps a person going. So, indeed, I already do realise that there are great benefits, but these benefits are faux, never long-term and leads one down to self-destruction and not self-empowerment. How do you feel about that? I am genuinely interested in your opinion. — TimeLine

I would not be the person I am today without the drug use I experienced when I was younger. Clearly the effects are long term. Also, I would be dissatisfied with myself and unhappy if I didn't belief that those effects were beneficial towards making me the person that I am today. However, some of the short term effects, specifically involving experimentation and over usage, were harmful. So I disagree with you, I think that the long term effects are beneficial, while the short term effects are harmful. This is common to many medical procedures, short term pain for long term gain.

It means that it is part of my body and not yours or anyone else... — Harry Hindu

Being inside a body means to be part of that body? Since when? Does being inside a box mean that you are part of the box? How about a car, or a house, does being inside one of these mean that you are part of it?

Saying that the mind can exist apart from the body is like saying the nervous system can exist apart from the body... — Harry Hindu

Why would you say this? The mind and the nervous system are two distinct things. Unless you have a principle which makes them comparable, your comparison is like comparing apples and oranges. In the case of apples and oranges there is a common principle, they are both fruit. In the case of the mind and the nervous system we could say that they are both properties of life. But this does not make what is true of the nervous system also true of the mind, just like what is true of an apple is not necessarily true of an orange. Clearly your comparison is meaningless.

How does a mind see, hear and feel without eyes, ears and a nervous system? What is the point of having a body if a mind can do these things without one? — Harry Hindu

A mind doesn't do these things without a body. Obviously.

MU, why does it appear that we are inside individual bodies if we aren't? — Harry Hindu

Didn't you read my post? I said:

I would say that most likely we appear to be inside a body because we are. — Metaphysician Undercover

Further, I said that if the mind is inside a body, this does not lead to the conclusion that the mind is part of a body, nor does it lead to the conclusion that the mind is a process of the body.

Here's a question for you HH. What do you think it means "to be inside a body"?

We need to. For example we need to check all rulers/scales to the standard definition of a meter or a foot. In the case of length we don't have to worry because we can ensure regularity (each 1 foot = next 1 foot) satisfactorily. — TheMadFool

This doesn't imply infinite regress though. What it implies is that we can never be absolutely certain about the length of any time period. This is because at the time when we start to measure a time period all previous time periods have gone past, so we cannot directly compare one time period to another, like we can compare the length of two physical objects. We can place one ruler beside another to see if they are the same.

So with time we always have a medium between the two time periods which are being compared, and this medium is a physical activity. When a physical activity proves itself to be very regular compared to other physical activities, we use it as that medium, through which we compare one time period to another.

However, when it comes to time, this can't be done without using another time piece to check the standard being used. In fact I think we do this. All time on a computer is checked against a clock in a server somewhere. — TheMadFool

The special theory of relativity describes the difficulties involved with comparing one physical activity to another. It proposes a resolution which assumes that each moving thing has a passing of time which is proper to it, and different from other moving things. Instead of assuming an independent, and absolute passing of time, the passing of time is dependent on the activity of the object. Each object, depending on its motion has a passing of time inherent to itself. I believe that GPS systems operate on relativity theory so they always need to re-synchronize their clocks, due to our inability to reconcile motions in an absolute way.

Some physicists, like Lee Smolin for example, propose an independent passing of time. This means that the passing of time is something itself real, and independent from the movement of objects. Then he can question whether the passing of time itself is something which remains consistent over a long period of time. But I think that to get any productive results in this line of inquiry, we need an explanation, or a description of what the passing of time is. So this is where speculation is needed.

The standard of time was the average length of a day, with a second being defined as a 86400th of that. I say average length because the day is about a minute longer in December than it is in June. — noAxioms

OK, if I suppose that the standard is the day, I need to define the day empirically. I can't say that it is the time until the sun appears at the same place on the horizon again, because each day the sun is in a slightly different position. I believe this is why TheMadFool says we have to refer to another clock. I think that clock would be the year.

But to know this we would have to rely on another clock, say A, and to check A we need another clock B...ad infinitum. — TheMadFool

I don't think we need to keep going to more clocks ad infinitum, because we can synchronize a number of clocks, and make the necessary adjustments. After a full year, we can follow the sun's positioning on the horizon, and determine what NoAxioms calls "the average length of the day". Then the day is no longer the real standard, the year is, because the average length of the day is determined in relation to the year. Of course there is something called "the precession of the equinoxes", which may incline one to look for an even long period of time to determine the average length of a year. But there is no need to consider an infinite regress, as the time period of each of these standards gets longer and longer, until there is no need to go any further.

The average length of the day is the arbitrary standard. There is nothing against which it needs to be verified. — noAxioms

So the day gets verified by the year. It is the only way that we could produce an "average" length of day. We could go on to produce an average length of the year, but this would mean that we would need to place the year within an even longer cosmological time period. Right now, we just adjust with leap years as determined necessary.

Likewise, if we look to a shorter and shorter time period there would be a similar problem in inverse. The problem of the short time period cannot be so easily resolved though. The shorter the time period, the more difficult it is to find an activity to measure that period, and in theory we could assume a time period shorter than any activity. The problem of the short time period manifests in the uncertainty principle of the Fourier transform. You cannot claim to have certainty about the activity because the time period is too short, and you cannot claim to have certainty about the time period because the activity is too short. It's a conundrum.

Congrats, MU. You win the award for the most pathetic attempt to avoid answering a direct question. What is it with you "philosophers" that like to question the basis of some scientific theory, but then don't question any "philosophical" theory that you hold and then have to perform these mental gymnastics in order to avoid answering the questions. It's quite pathetic to watch what I thought were intelligent people, behave as if they are delusional. — Harry Hindu

As I explained, your questioning was nonsensical. You shifted from the assumption that the mind is part of the body, to the assumption that the mind is a process of the body. And I explained why it was nonsense to speak of the mind as a process. That's why I couldn't answer your question, it really didn't make any sense to me.

This is no different than saying that my body includes the process of digestion. — Harry Hindu

"The body" doesn't include the process of digestion, that is something that the body is doing. It is this type of category mistake which makes discussion with you very difficult. See, in the act of digestion, something which is not part of the body becomes part of the body. Since this process necessarily includes something which is not part of the body, we cannot properly say "the body includes the process of digestion". You continue with your nonsense.

Science itself has shown that there aren't things, but only processes. Every "thing" is just an amalgam of smaller interacting "things", which is itself an amalgam of smaller interacting "things", all the way down. Things are just processes. Everything is a process. — Harry Hindu

As soon as you can explain to me how there could be an activity, or process occurring, without a thing, or things, which are carrying out that activity, then I might take what you say seriously. And by the way, science has shown no such thing. That is a metaphysical principle, which assumes that there are only processes. Science has gone in the opposite direction, attributing everything to fundamental particles. Look at light for example, it is described as photons, things.

Now, are you going to provide an answer that will show why we appear to be inside bodies? — Harry Hindu

What's wrong with being inside a body? I don't see any problem with this. I would say that most likely we appear to be inside a body because we are. Does that answer your question? The problem that I have with what you have said, is that you have proceeded from the assumption "My mind is inside a body", to two distinct and equally invalid conclusions. 1, My mind is part of a body, and 2, my mind is the process of a body.

Another possibility, the more the better. The ancient people made a clock of the moon, the sun, every planet, and the "fixed" constellations. That's what was required to determine the nature of the solar system.

I'd go so far to suggest that 'universals' (functioning together as the field of meaning) are the structure of reality. — t0m

This is where you and I are at opposite ends of the spectrum. I see the structure of reality in particular entities. The human mind understands in terms of universals, but this is the deficiency of the human mind, which makes reality so difficult to it.

I never heard of the Chinese water clock, perhaps it's one possibility.

You do realise that you only hear about these "crises in physics" because physics is right on the doorstep of an answer?

It has a range of candidate theories - any number of them generated by its armies of theoreticians. — apokrisis

Two contradictory statements one after the other. Physics is on the doorstep of the answer. It has a whole range of possible answers.

Of course, the reality is that they're nowhere near an answer, or else they wouldn't have armies of theoreticians going in completely different directions. This evidence, of armies of theoreticians going in completely different directions, indicates that actually they are completely lost.

Nope. We need the single best process that could be used at any time and any place. Radioactive decay would be that. Or some similar "free" quantum process. — apokrisis

So how would you decisively determine that radioactive decay is "the single best process" without comparing it to a number of different clocks. Or is this just a bias that you hold?

The same is the case if the two clocks keep perfect synchrony. It could be that one is being accelerated, and yet also it is faulty to exactly the degree needed to compensate. — apokrisis

That's why we need numerous different types of clocks. Each has its own peculiarities.

Do you remember a time 'before language,' before being immersed in signs? Do you remember being a pure subject without access to the sign? — t0m

How is my memory relevant to this point? Just because I do not remember the time before I learned how to talk doesn't mean that there wasn't a time when I didn't know how to talk. Surely you believe that I existed as a person prior to learning how to talk.

I think that you are confusing my existence as a subject, with my recognition of my existence as a subject. My existence as a subject is necessarily prior to my recognition of such existence, so it doesn't make sense for you to refer to my recognition of my existence as a subject as the starting time of my existence as a subject.

You seem to take the subject as an absolute without understanding the subject as a sign or concept that only gets its content or meaning via its relations to other concepts. — t0m

I don't understand what you're saying here. Perhaps you could explain. As far as I understand, a sign is created, and therefore there must be a subject prior to the existence of the sign, such that it is impossible for the subject to be a sign.

Oh, I know it's sick, but I love it when the shit hits the fan. It makes such a beautiful pattern.

How do we know that? By using, a supposedly accurate, time piece. And how do we know that that's accurate? — TheMadFool

An accurate time piece just utilizes one of the supposed constants. We know that the supposed constants are not absolute, by comparing one to the other, and determining the variances. If we compare numerous constants we can determine which variances are proper to which constants.

The most coherent and well formulated definition of neoliberalism I know comes from the political philosopher Wendy Brown, who refers to it as the "widespread economization of heretofore noneconomic domains, activities, and subjects”, such that it “extends a specific formulation of economic values, practices, and metrics to every dimension of human life.” — StreetlightX

So, it appears we have two distinct ways of quantifying humanity. The way of scientism assumes to be able to reduce human existence to something expressible by the mathematics applied to physical science. And the way of neoliberalism assumes to be able to express all human existence in terms of economic values. I guess the idea that there is such a thing as the quality of life is rather passé.

That is my perspective - of being inside the head of a body. If our minds are not processes of our bodies, then why does it seem that way? Why is it so brute? This isn't a rhetorical question. I expect an answer, MU. Please don't try to wiggle your way out of it. — Harry Hindu

It is you who is wiggling. Last post you said your body "includes my mind", implying that the mind is a part of the body. Now you say that the mind is a process of the body. Which are you claiming? If the former, I cannot agree, as I've already explained. If the latter, then I need an explanation from you as to how something which is referred to with a noun, "the mind", can be said to be a process, an activity. All I see is category error on your part, attempting to make something (the mind) which is understood as a thing engaged in the activity of reasoning, into a process, the activity itself.

Why don't you just come out and say what you are alluding to? You believe that the mind is the brain. I don't believe that at all, because contrary to what you are saying, it doesn't seem to me, to be that way at all. Nor does it seem like the mind is a process of the body, because the mind is the thing which is carrying out this process of reasoning, it does not seem to be the process itself.

Now let's see how we measure time. Time is measured in seconds, its multiples or subdivisions. The second, today, is defined in terms of how long it takes for a specific atom to vibrate some number of times. — TheMadFool

The second is derived from the minute which comes from the hour, and the day. The day refers to the planetary motion. So one rotation of the planetary motion (which is relatively constant) can be divided into seconds. The number of times a specific atom vibrates in one second can be counted, and observed to be consistent as well. So this is deemed as a constant as well. However, the so-called "constants" are not absolutely constant, so this produces the need to make slight adjustments now and then.

This seems problematic (for me) because how do we know the vibrations of the atom used to define a second is regular? To me the only way we can decide this is by using another process or phenomenon we know to be regular but then how do we know that particular process or phenomenon is regular? And so on... — TheMadFool

So we always compare different activities which appear to be temporal constants, the earth's revolution around the sun, the phases of the moon, the rotation of the earth, vibrations of atoms, the movement of light, etc.. From the comparisons of numerous constants, we can determine which are the more reliable constants than others. If one constant proves to have a slight variance in relation to numerous others, we can make adjustments accordingly, model that variance and look for the cause of that variance. By modeling the variance in planetary motions, the heliocentric theory of the solar system was developed and proven. The orbits of the planets were determined by Kepler to be elliptical rather than circular as postulated by Copernicus maintaining consistency with earlier proposals of the heliocentric system, and Aristotle's metaphysics. This was determined and proven through analysis and reference to the variances. These variances were the stumbling block needed to be overcome to prove the heliocentric system.

I'm asking what it means for something to mean something in the first place, apart from the difficulties of communication and interpretation. — t0m

Right, that is what I was addressing, what it means for something to mean something. What I said, is that there are two distinct ways to approach this. One way is "what it means to me". The other way is to assume an author, and from this approach, what it means to mean something is viewed as the intention of the author, or creator of the thing.

Do you see the difference between these two ways? In the first sense, what it means to mean something is that the thing has been interpreted by a subject, as having some value to that subject. In the second sense, what it means to mean something is that the thing has been created by a being with intention.

My point is, that these two ways are very different, and quite distinct. But in many instances people will state what it means to mean something, as an ambiguous conflation of these two, or else by introducing other unnecessary principles. So, for example, as a variance on the first way, some will say that what it means to mean something, is "has been interpreted as having value to us", instead of "has been interpreted as having value to me". This appears to be the most common way that "information" is used, "has been evaluated by us". The problem with this is that it assumes a "common interpretation", proper to "us", when interpretation is inherently subjective. The "common interpretation" implies a value structure which is common to us, when values are inherently subjective.

What I see is two possible resolutions to this issue. We can say that meaning is inherently subjective, what it means to mean something, is to have some value to a subject. Or, we can give objectivity to meaning by saying that what it means to mean something, is to have been created with intention. In this case the thing is assumed to have one objective meaning, which corresponds with, or is, the intent of the author.

I agree that the notion of the pure subject is basic to common sense. But you neglected to address the context in which I made this statement. We meet reality in terms of a language that is social, shared. So I am perhaps mostly 'us' in the way I unveil reality. Language is central here. — t0m

I don't see how you get "I am mostly us" out of this. Yes, it's true that we are influenced by language and other human beings, but we are also influenced by everything else around us, and each person is a unique individual. By your principle, we might just as well say "I am the universe". But you cannot assign priority to the whole, in this way, because you must respect the meaning of "part". Therefore you must say "I am part of us". And by doing this you give logical priority to the individual "I". This logical priority is established because reason proceeds from the more certain toward the lesser certain. And what the term "I" refers to is much more certain than what the term "us" refers to. Therefore "I" is as the premise, and "us" is as the conclusion, when we add the premise that a collection is a whole..

There is a 'primary intuition' of unity. It can't be pointed to in the environment. It's 'there' in the way the environment is interpreted as 'circles within circles.' — t0m

But this is exactly opposite of what I am saying, and that's probably why come to the opposite conclusion, that "I am mostly us", rather than my conclusion that "us is a collection of Is". What you call the "primary intuition of unity" is actually what is pointed to in the environment. We see individual things as individual unities, surrounding us. This is why I called it a primordial "assumption", it is not proper to the active intellect, as inherent within it, it is produced by experience. So it cannot be called an intuition, it must be assumed by the active intellect. And without assuming this principle of individuality, nothing is intelligible.

The 'totality' is the circle we draw around everything. It's a digression, but I contend that this largest circle (the totality) has to be 'brute fact' to the degree that explanations are understood as deductions from postulated necessary relationships between entities. This unity is connected to that unity in particular way. The unity of all these unities can be related to nothing apart from itself, since by definition there is no such thing. — t0m

That there is a totality, a whole, the universe, is produced by a completely different process than the assumption of individuality. It is produced by a process of reason, so it is necessarily posterior to the assumption that there are individuals. Remember, we proceed from the most certain to the less certain, and we are quite certain that there are individual things around us. However, since we conceive of things as individuals, this necessitates a boundary of separation between other things, such that we cannot properly conceive of a boundless thing, infinity. So we posit a boundary which produces the whole, the universe, as an individual thing, attempting to make everything intelligible rather than infinite. But this conceived whole, "the universe" is just some vague notion, produced by our inability to conceive of things other than as individuals, just like "us" is some vague notion of a whole, which is produced by our inability to conceive of things other than as individuals, such that "us" is proposed as some sort of individual, and "the universe" is proposed as some sort of individual.

I think the everyday understanding is that information is "meaning." But what is meaning? And what is the "is" here? I suggest that we approach the irreducible with these questions. — t0m

I think that in the strictest sense, meaning is defined as "what is meant". This implies the intent of the author. In a different sense, we have "what it means to me". This implies interpretation. I believe it is important to keep these two senses separate, and not to equivocate, because the first requires an author, the second does not. So in the second sense, things have meaning to me which I do not believe have an author. Also, in communication there is often a difference between what is meant by the author, and what it means to me, due to difficulties in expressing, and difficulties in interpreting.

There are other ways in which "meaning" is used, which tend to be various different ways of conflating the two above ways, in ambiguity. Principally there is often assumed "what it means to us". Because of the separation between individuals, outlined above, I don't accept these senses as having any philosophical rigour, so I look at them as untenable principles.

The 'pure' individual is an abstraction, just as 'pure' society is an abstraction. — t0m

I do not think that "the individual" is an abstraction. I believe it is a logical principle posited for the sake of intelligibility, i.e.it is necessary to assume individuals in order to understand reality. The unit is the basis for all mathematics, and the subject is the basis for deductive logic. Each of these is an assumed individual. It may not even be correct to call "the individual" an "assumption", because it seems to just inhere within the soul, and is necessarily prior to all intelligibility.

So the "assumption" of the individual, which inheres within the soul, is a fundamental tool to the active intellect which abstracts, and creates abstractions. But I do not think that this tool is an abstraction itself, it must be something inherent within the active intellect. This is evident from the way that we perceive things with sight. We always see individual objects, as if there is a boundary between one object and another. It is inherent within that mode of perception, that we perceive such separations, and without this the world would be unintelligible. Furthermore, it is evident that in all of our senses, what is sensed is differences, but the active intellect, when it produces abstractions, does this by correlating similarities. So an abstraction is based in similarity, while "the individual" is based in difference. I believe that "the individual" is more primordial to the soul than "the abstraction".

This is why philosophers have so much difficulty with identity, and the concept of "same". There is a sense of "same" which is based in similarity, used in abstraction, such that all human beings are the same, as human beings. There is another sense of "same", which is based in difference, it is used to identify the temporal continuity of an object, such that I am the same individual as myself twenty years ago, and this is based in the assumption that I, as an object, am separate, different from everything else.

So, for me, information is relational data. — Galuchat

I haven't yet managed to grasp your distinction between information and data. Here, you imply that information is a certain type of data, and data you describe as variables. What makes a certain type of variable informational? If it is that the variable is relational, isn't this just something which a mind carries out? Anyway, isn't "relation" implied already within the concept of "variable"? So aren't all variables, by their very nature as variables, necessarily relational?

Who's next, Kushner?

It seems to me that today both the right-wing and the left-wing pretty much peddle a neoliberal set of values, including political correctness, identity politics, what's good for the market is good for the people, consumerism, globalisation, sexual promiscuity, etc. — Agustino

I agree with thorongil, I think you would take all the political and moral attitudes which you dislike and class them under the heading of neo-liberalism.

I do like the background you provided. To in-form as the imposition of form is nice. — t0m

if we take this as a principle, we can refer to two distinct ways that forms are imposed in the act of informing. In the one case, we accept intelligible forms into our mind in understanding, and in the other case, we impose intelligible forms onto the material world, in the act of creating.

How do we relate "information" to this? I like to think of information as the act which is either the passive mind receiving the form in understanding, or the matter of the material world receiving the form in creating. This act of informing can be called information. But what is this thing which is called "information", which is supposed to be somehow independent from the act of informing? is it just the form itself, or is it something other than the form?

How is it that I'm not observing the external influences on my body, which includes my mind? When I observe a bee stinging my arm, I feel it in my mind. — Harry Hindu

You premise that your mind is part of your body, so you're just begging the question. I can't answer that question because your premise is not something I'm willing to accept. And I do not agree with your use of "I feel it in my mind". Any time a bee has stung me (many times I might add), I have felt it in the part of my body where it stings me, not in my mind. Do you not recognize a distinction between the conclusion you make with your mind, "a bee is stinging me", and the observations which lead you to that conclusion?

Proposing a third thing that isn't necessary makes things more complicated and goes against Occam's Razor. — Harry Hindu

The third aspect is necessary, because it gets us beyond the common materialist complaint, which you have brought up.

That sounds plausible. I read parts of Plato closely but have utterly neglected other parts. For me that's secondary, I suppose, because something like conceptualism is more plausible to me. — t0m

That was probably the first sense of "inform", where Plato referred to the creation of particular things as matter being informed. Matter is passive, and receives a form. Aristotle produced a similar description of the mind, it receives intelligible objects, as forms. This produced the need for the "passive intellect" to account for the reception of forms. The Neo-Platonists and Christians went even further to say that matter is created in the act of informing.

"Information" properly refers to the act of informing, though we commonly use it as a noun referring to a thing called "information". If "information" refers to the activity of informing, then it really doesn't make sense to speak of information as not being physical, because the passive thing receiving the form will be physical. There are two parts to the act of informing, the immaterial form, and the material thing receiving the form. If "information" is used as a noun, referring to the thing doing the informing, then we are speaking of nothing other than th e forms themselves. And if the forms are assumed to be non-physical, i.e. exist independently from matter, such independent existence needs to be demonstrated logically.

The independent existence of forms is necessitated by Aristotle's cosmological argument, that is the necessary logical demonstration. The consequence of this principle is that not only is matter a passive receiver of forms, but matter is created in the act of information. This accounts for the fact that the living soul creates its own material body.

It is addictive, I see no reason to suppose it would be beneficial, but many reasons to expect that it wouldn't be. — Agustino

OK, I call it becoming tolerant, you call it becoming addicted, two different ways of saying the same thing.

We just found a product that deceives our senses, that our senses weren't prepared to handle. — Agustino

But people quickly become tolerant, then the deception does not continue. Developing ways to overcome deception is good for the human being, is it not?

Impossible, we haven't done it in our history. — Agustino

People are smoking weed right now, today. Something must have caused that desire within people to smoke it. How is this not a product of evolution?

It wasn't an integral part of our environment that we were meant to adjust to over time. — Agustino

It is a self-created part of our environment, cultured, just like milk, beef, and wheat. What distinguishes one of these over the other as beneficial or harmful?

We weren't designed by evolution to be smoking weed, if you believe in evolution that is. — Agustino

How do you know? Maybe the desire to smoke weed was caused by evolution. And, maybe smoking weed causes changes which could become evolutionary.