The complexity of the relationship of mind to WORLD


The basic relationship between the metaworld (mind) and the world of consequence (that which exists outside of mind, called here "WORLD") is, imho, given by Charles S Pierces's semantic triangle

I think of the actual object and even the sign itself as existing outside of a mind ... and a mind having represented them points to the object and is about it ... as in this diagram i have drawn. 

........................................................................................................................................

But it is not that simple !!

I wish to explore some of the sources of this complexity.  Let me sketch some here ...

and so we could represent all of those functions and possibilities within a much more complex diagram than the ones above.   I'm not so very sure i will be doing that, all that i intend to do here is to try to understand the turbulence and dynamics of the flow of metawold and WORLD together.


To be continued ... this is a hard item to articulate ... please bear with me.  

John Sowa touches on some of these complexities in his seminal paper here.






Tags

  1. metaworld
  2. about world
  3. mind
  4. representation
  5. restrain universe

Comments


Mark de LA says

Wikipedia: ...
Semiotics (also called semiotic studies and in the Saussurean tradition called semiology) is the study of meaning-making.
...
As such, it is likely to grow & get very complex without getting any closer to some objective - whatever that might be - incliding the possibility of finding out what's SO or if it is true that:
That which is, IS!

I noticed that you used the term
being in the item. 
Ontology (study of being).  As per BofNK (550 + pages of study on being), PR holds life to have no meaning. See all of Chapter 25 - & in particular 25:1  Meaning Doesn't Mean Anything.
...
 Curious conflict, eh?

...

 

Mark de LA says
seth 2014-05-17 09:51:50 17388
Einai 2014-05-17 09:19:32 17388
I would be curious to see what you do trying to mentograph the red statement in comment above.


[That which is, IS!]


That which is is represented in my diagram by static.  I am starting to just use the capatilized word 'WORLD' to denote it.  Note it has not been interpreted by any being yet.  There is no proposition or representation that we can use to denote it. Peierce in his semiotics just put a picture of a cat there and called it "object".
Taking a picture of it? Attaching a bunch of words? Is a diagram? Why not just look at it, & decomplexify life?


Seth says
Einai 2014-05-17 09:19:32 17388
I would be curious to see what you do trying to mentograph the red statement in comment above.


[That which is, IS!]


That which is is represented in my diagram by static.  I am starting to just use the capatilized word 'WORLD' to denote it.  Note it has not been interpreted by any being yet.  There is no proposition or representation that we can use to denote it. Peierce in his semiotics just put a picture of a cat there and called it "object".

Mark de LA says
It does give one something to talk ABOUT if the words don't work!

Seth says
source: mark
I noticed that you used the term being in the item. 

I have started to use the word "being" to refer to all agents.  Ontologically it is the class of things which have indentity and can function.  In this context we are talking of those beings who can particapate in the process of semiotics ... that is they can associate marks with things and interpert those marks as representing those things. 

Ontology (study of being).  As per BofNK (550 + pages of study on being), PR holds life to have no meaning. See all of Chapter 25 - & in particular 25:1  Meaning Doesn't Mean Anything.
...
 Curious conflict, eh?

... well i think PR's Chapter 25 of BofNK is itself helplessly confused and conflicted and just really some kind of Zen spass ... perhaps just a trick to play at breaking away from mind itself by corrupting its very foundation.   The way he characterized those thoughts himself right before moving on the the next chapter, if i remember correctly, were the most important thing that he could have said about his pile of words there.

Mark de LA says
seth 2014-05-17 11:23:31 17388
source: mark
What is the point of this item? Please see the laws of growth of a pile here.
The laws of rhetoric - primarily Ethos, Pathos & Logos explain incitement & persuasion to change & it takes people taking action for the physical side of that.

... the point of this item is stated, relatively clearly, in the body of the item itself.   You may want to move your efforts at decomposing words to one of your own items ... they are becoming off topic here.

What problem does it solve? What has it solved for you? In this context how has your life improved? As a world outlook what specific things do you understand better than before & what was the shift? (from what to what) .
Other than pontificating, how much has your ego benefited?

Being & agent are different words in other people's worlds. You misuse the word. Who else in semiotics & semantics uses that word that way. Please give reference.


Seth says
source: mark
What is the point of this item? Please see the laws of growth of a pile here.
The laws of rhetoric - primarily Ethos, Pathos & Logos explain incitement & persuasion to change & it takes people taking action for the physical side of that.

... the point of this item is stated, relatively clearly, in the body of the item itself.   You may want to move your efforts at decomposing words to one of your own items ... they are becoming off topic here.


Seth says
source: mark
Yep - just like YOURS is a pile of words..... That which is, IS:  no pile of words or pictures changes this fact - except in your mind.


... well ... er ... many times thought history the communication of well crafted compositions of words have instigated changes in that which was.  That is kind of the point in us using them, is it not? 

Mark de LA says
You can chase the differences between the words agent, be, exist, being etc. here
Your definition seems to munge the word agent into action & ignores the ontological context entirely.  So I would prefer that you never use the word being again unless you are pointing at the right thing, (which can't be pointed at anyway ) .  It is closer to what RS calls spirit!
agent (n.) Look up agent at Dictionary.comlate 15c., "one who acts," from Latin agentem (nominative agens) "effective, powerful," present participle of agere "to set in motion, drive, lead, conduct" (see act (n.)). Meaning "any natural force or substance which produces a phenomenon" is from 1550s. Meaning "deputy, representative" is from 1590s. Sense of "spy, secret agent" is attested by 1916.

Mark de LA says
Does this diagram help anyone use the thingy?
Diagram A & B
From the Wikipedia on MIND. (mental content)
In a way the Wikipedia will evolve in the future as a definitive source of the meaning of words just as in the old days our language & meaning came from sacred texts like the Bible.


Seth says
source: mark
You can chase the differences between the words agent, be, exist, being etc. here
Your definition seems to munge the word agent into action & ignores the ontological context entirely.  So I would prefer that you never use the word being again unless you are pointing at the right thing, (which can't be pointed at anyway ) .  It is closer to what RS calls spirit!
... Actually the definition i am using of the word "agent" is right there in most English dictionaries ... and most of the pertinent literature is using "agent" the very same way as am I.
source: define agent using Google
2.  a person or thing that takes an active role or produces a specified effect.
Linguistically we can point to these things and call them agents just because they take an active role or produce specific effects.   As opposed to those things which do not:  for example a block of silicon isolated from anything else in the universe will not take an active role in any process and will not create any specific effect.  It is inert.  It cannot, as it exists as a block of isolated silicon, affect anything else.  It can only be changed as an object, it cannot act as an agent of change to something else. 

In addition i am saying something that up to now has been unstated and that is:  Whatever you, RS, and PR, etc, refer to as beings they are certainly a subclass of what i refer to as agents.  Now exactly what distinguishes a being from other agents is something that could emerge in the course of honest inquiry.  

Mark de LA says
not the modeling - but the contemplation. modeling is just making another description . like I said if your modeling human behavior or existence you might need a computer larger than you have. I prefer being present to what is there & skipping the model.  The model is no good for dealing with reality.


Seth says
source: mark
What problem does it solve? What has it solved for you? In this context how has your life improved? As a world outlook what specific things do you understand better than before & what was the shift? (from what to what) .
Other than pontificating, how much has your ego benefited?
This item is in pursuit of awareness.  Specifically awareness of the relationship of mind to WORLD.   What does mind do, and how does it do that?  It is an attempt to model mind and its relationship to WORLD within our minds themselves.  That mind is capable of the representing itself within itself is one of its complexities which is the subject of this item. 

There is this assumption that if we can model a thing we will be more aware of it.  Once we can model a process we can perchance see ways to improve the process just by looking at the model.   And, yes, my working with mind models has made me more aware of these mind/WORLD processes.  Sorry i can't yet describe to you a specific awareness or improvement  that i anticipate you would understand.  Except the following might give you a hint ...

Awareness itself, perhaps even undistinguished from consciousness itself, has some peculiar functions.  One of those seems to be a thing gets more important (enlarged) relative to its enviroment to a mind that is more aware of it.  Representing something in mind is the process of becoming more aware of it.  Writing it down in language is one way of representing something in mind.  Therefore writing about something will make it more important.

For example:  You have represented in our common mind here the idea that "i am pontificating" and that "I am benefiting by doing so".  By doing that you have made that pontification and benefit more important than it was before when I was oblivious to it.  Now i actually do not intend that pontification, and a benefit or it, to even exist ... i want those to go away.  So i suggest that you do not mention them again here ... they are  of no importance to me ... i want to be oblivious to them entirely.  So i ask that you do not increase our awareness of them, and therefore their importance, by any further representations in our mind!

Mark de LA says
Too big a pile - extracted from the pile is this goodie
Seth somewhere above: ... There is this assumption that if we can model a thing we will be more aware of it.
... I say that all it does is make you aware, if awareness happens, of your model.  Come out of the model & face the thingy full on -


Mark de LA says
Einai 2014-05-18 12:04:31 17388


seth 2014-05-18 11:25:09
[-snip-]

Awareness itself, perhaps even undistinguished from consciousness itself, has some peculiar functions.  One of those seems to be a thing gets more important (enlarged) relative to its enviroment to a mind that is more aware of it.  Representing something in mind is the process of becoming more aware of it.
[-snip-]
Actually when I contemplated consciousness a la PR I got a distinct feeling that consciousness makes something brighter, using a visual metaphor - I can charge it +/- or not - give it a bisquit or run or not. It gives a faculty of judgement interaction with some part of some distinction. Including your amusement - once pointed out - it is not part of the discussion any more.


Seth says
Einai 2014-05-18 12:08:28 17388
Einai 2014-05-18 12:04:31 17388


seth 2014-05-18 11:25:09
[-snip-]

Awareness itself, perhaps even undistinguished from consciousness itself, has some peculiar functions.  One of those seems to be a thing gets more important (enlarged) relative to its enviroment to a mind that is more aware of it.  Representing something in mind is the process of becoming more aware of it.
[-snip-]
Actually when I contemplated consciousness a la PR I got a distinct feeling that consciousness makes something brighter, using a visual metaphor - I can charge it +/- or not - give it a bisquit or run or not. It gives a faculty of judgement interaction with some part of some distinction. Including your amusement - once pointed out - it is not part of the discussion any more.

then we may well be talking about the same phenomena.  So, by modeling consciousness within our consciousness we make it ... er brighter ... we can become more aware of it.  That would be the intention of this item.

I think there is something very special about this representing thingey that we do.  Without it the tree might fall in the forest, but there would be no apprehension of it falling, so who would care whether it fell or not. 

Seth says
Einai 2014-05-18 11:51:31 17388
seth 2014-05-18 11:32:28 17388
Einai 2014-05-18 11:18:41 17388
seth 2014-05-18 10:29:05 17388
In addition i am saying something that up to now has been unstated and that is:  Whatever you, RS, and PR, etc, refer to as beings they are certainly a subclass of what i refer to as agents.  Now exactly what distinguishes a being from other agents is something that could emerge in the course of honest inquiry.  

NOPE! "They" are not a subclass of anything you mention.


So you must be saying that beings do not take active roles or produce effects.  That they are inert.  Then whatever you are referring to with the word "beings", i do not think i am interested in them at all. 

Are you perhaps not using the word "subclass" in the way it is used in the study of ontology?
Subclass implies there is something outside of "it"  which contains "it" in some context.  Being is like consciousness or existence itself - that which is the mother of it all.
You may insist on your categorization & hence complex confusionism, but you will seem just to babble on this side of the abyss within your walled garden.  Modeling existence in a computer begs the question of which is larger - your computer processing & memory or existence.



Ok, fine, i won't use the word "being" with you anymore ... the way you talk about it, it is not even something that i could usefully think about anymore than i could think about dividing  an equation by infinity and not think about loosing all salient features of the equation.     I'll go back to just the word agent.  I was just trying to pickup the connotation that the functional agent could also be living ... whereas an agent could be almost anything.  I wanted you to know that i was not just talking about computer software or inanimate things ... but i also was talking about real live people and other things that can feel a spirit. 

Incidentally if a thing is a subclass of another thing it does not imply any notion of containing whatsoever.  It just means that { B subclass A} entails { a isa B => a isa A} ... that is all.  It is a logical consequence.  In fact it is the logical relationship on which ontologies are built.


Mark de LA says
seth 2014-05-19 14:41:29 17388
  ... just curious ...  the next time you think that same train of thought, will you think it in the exact same sequence?
 if you do think it in a different sequence, will you consider it different train of thought?
... still arguing ... one identifies a train of thought after it happens .. just as one can identify a sentence of words... is it the same ... maybe, maybe not ... who knows? ... who cares ..?


Seth says
Einai 2014-05-18 23:54:47 17388
not the modeling - but the contemplation. modeling is just making another description . like I said if your modeling human behavior or existence you might need a computer larger than you have. I prefer being present to what is there & skipping the model.  The model is no good for dealing with reality.


well the modeling is kind of the contemplation.  by modeling i am referring to representing the dynamic relationship between mind and WORLD.  it is the representing that i want to emphasize here. 

incidentally i am not talking about contemplating existence itself.  like you say that is a bit much.  i am just talking about representing this one relationship between these two domains that have already been well distinguished.  

that said, most of the interesting changes that are springing from this contemplation are aspects that haven't gotten represented.  creating new representations is hard stuff.  letting them go flitting through my mine is just too easy. 

Seth says
Einai 2014-05-19 09:20:42 17388
A train is a sequence like a relaton, possibly a thoton, not a pile or a stream of consciousness.


.   for me the sequence is not all that important.  what is important is which thoughts show up in the context.  but yes, somtimes the sequence is important as to how it will all get into the mind ... er, if comes in one way it will get rejected ... another it might get accepted.

so then, with that small difference on the importance of sequence, are we not talking about the same thing when we use the term "train of thought" ?

Seth says
source: mark
Try holding a train of thought, each node logically belonging sequentially in the chain without side-tracking, from start to finish & memorize it without words. See also this.
It is easy with the cube. But, you can do something with mnemonics & the memory of the rooms & architecture of your house.


... strange i have been doing that here.  but not by memorizing.  rather by writing the whole train down ... er representing it ... and then reading it back ... reading it back ... reading it back.  me thinks that has the same effect as your "holding a train of thought" by memorizing.  the fun part of doing it by actually representation (writing) is that it can be improved by editing. 




Mark de LA says
Einai 2014-05-19 00:05:37 17388
Einai 2014-05-19 00:01:36 17388
better understand the meaning of the sub prefix in subclass .
I still wonder why you don't talk about this shit on the G+ circles like philosophy of mind or any of the ones with semantics in the name or semiotic models.

(***)


Seth says
Einai 2014-05-19 10:29:14 17388
Yeah, I am complete on The complexity of the relationship of mind to WORLD - hopefully nothing more gets said.





well this complexity is vast ... much more does need to be said.  i find it disconcerting when we seem to must needs play ego games between us instead of grasping the topics at hand.

I wanted to get into magic (note its on my list above) ... much fun complexity to think about there ... but these threads here have been mostly just sorting through our mutual confusion with you guy over there always lurking in the background.

oh well. 

Seth says
Einai 2014-05-19 06:39:10 17388
Einai 2014-05-19 00:05:37 17388
Einai 2014-05-19 00:01:36 17388
better understand the meaning of the sub prefix in subclass .


... er, not really.  That would be a confusing of the meaning of a word with its constituent parts.   That confusion is perhaps a subclass of the old confusing the map for the territory.   The White House is not a white house.   "Subclass" as used in the context of ontology is logically defined and that definition has no implication of spatial containment whatsoever.  The meaning of a word is not best derived from the spelling and history of the word itself ... but rather from instances of its usage.  That is a feature of language ... and it did not get imagined by me ... but i keep trying to get you to accept it ... notwithstanding that you seem to continually refuse.

Mark de LA says
Well, you see there are those who speak your language over there in the links at G+ (see previous comments) - ME? I'm exhausted. I got good results for my train before even getting out of bed & am complete with them & this.


Seth says
  ... just curious ...  the next time you think that same train of thought, will you think it in the exact same sequence?
 if you do think it in a different sequence, will you consider it different train of thought?

Seth says
incidentally what is usually thought of as a stream of consciousness does contain many unrelated thoughts ... i totally agree that is not a train of though.   as i specified above all of the thoughts in a train of though are about exactly the same thing.  i could also specify, and probably should, that all of the thoughts are related to each other and the one topic. 

i think we agree on that, no?

Seth says
Einai 2014-05-19 10:07:50 17388
seth 2014-05-19 10:02:18 17388
Einai 2014-05-19 09:55:01 17388
Einai 2014-05-19 09:53:02 17388
seth 2014-05-19 09:45:52 17388
Einai 2014-05-19 09:20:42 17388
A train is a sequence like a relaton, possibly a thoton, not a pile or a stream of consciousness.


.   for me the sequence is not all that important.  what is important is which thoughts show up in the context.  but yes, somtimes the sequence is important as to how it will all get into the mind ... er, if comes in one way it will get rejected ... another it might get accepted.

so then, with that small difference on the importance of sequence, are we not talking about the same thing when we use the term "train of thought" ?
That you consider it a "small difference" means you relate to a pile.  Order preserves logic and is easier to follow if so.

For example sentences come in sequence. Imagine a sentence with the words all jumbled up.  that sense  make ? fucking


well a network preserves the logic irrespective of how it is traversed by some thought cutting through it.  the important part is which propositions are in the network, not the sequence of acceptance into any particular mind.
... still arguing you are ... when you traverse something you create a sequence

the point is that the sequence of traversals is relatively arbitrary.  all that is important is that all of the nodes and arrows of the network that bear on the topic are included.  and, as said again and again, which sequences will cause dissonance when heard by the audience. 

i actually do think that i have represented my point here adequately ... er, I am complete. 

Seth says
Einai 2014-05-19 08:32:03 17388
seth 2014-05-19 07:57:30 17388
Einai 2014-05-19 07:44:10 17388
seth 2014-05-19 07:26:18 17388
source: mark
Try holding a train of thought, each node logically belonging sequentially in the chain without side-tracking, from start to finish & memorize it without words. See also this.
It is easy with the cube. But, you can do something with mnemonics & the memory of the rooms & architecture of your house.


... strange i have been doing that here.  but not by memorizing.  rather by writing the whole train down ... er representing it ... and then reading it back ... reading it back ... reading it back.  me thinks that has the same effect as your "holding a train of thought" by memorizing.  the fun part of doing it by actually representation (writing) is that it can be improved by editing. 



Really - ? - write one down without a pile of words around it or some diagram that takes more words to explain than the original idea.


huh?   how can you write a train of thought down without using words or other representations?   That doesn't even make and sense.  Please note that the derogative  connotations you are trying to associate with my verbal behavior can not form any part of your answer.
Well, now we have come to the chip - we are both talking about 2 different things when I write the words train of thought.  Once having done a train of thought you can go back & memorize it & validate it as a logical sequence and associate that to something like the cube or your room & express it in an item here without a bunch of words .  The sequence of encounter is a good example. The chip is in the wind NOW.


Well ... hmm ... i don't understand what you are saying here. 

Your  sequence of encounter item is in fact a collection of words.  That item is represented in words. 

When i write or hear the term "train of thought" i think of a collection of thoughts all about the same thing which, if i think is true, would restrain the universe for me in some interesting way.  The sequence of how the thoughts originally occured to me is not necessarily how they get represented.   Me, i represent them in the sequence that i think best for them to occur to my audience, but that is just me.   Me i usually vaguely know how i wish to restrain the WORLD before starting to represent the train  ... but if the train never gets represented, it almost certainly will get lost.  That is kind of my point here ... the representing of the train makes it persist.

But, i am not all that good with memorizing things that are not already represented in my mind ... just not a thing that i can do well ... you probably do it better, if i remember right your memory was always better than mine.  But i can always kind of focus on the thrust of the important part of  where i want a train of thought to go.   Then i just figure it out during the process of representing it.  Once represented, then i can go back and check it ... see if it still rings true to me ... many times i reject it as bullshit ... those are the trains you never see.

I am guessing that when you say "and associate that to something like the cube or your room" that you are talking about some mnemonic stratagem for memorizing ... otherwise i don't know what you mean.  But i don't rely on my memory to form a train of thought, but rather I rely on the actual representations themselves.   Perhaps that is the salient difference between what you are calling "train of thought" and what i am calling "train of thought" ... yours is memorized ... mine is represented in words.  But outside of that they are the same thing, no?  Please tell me directly because i really do not otherwise know. 

Seth says
Einai 2014-05-19 10:00:22 17388
Better example


Well we both know that there are rules for sequencing words in a sentence that, if not followed, would render the sentence meaningless.

But there are no such rules when constructing paragraphs with sentences.   Except, perhaps, in certain formal disciplines.

But, i totally agree that some sequences are better accepted into another's head than others.   For example, if i start a paragraph with a term that insults you, you will almost certainly be thinking of how to defend yourself instead of thinking of what i am saying that is not about you.



See Also

  1. Thought The Objective World vs The Occurring World with 304 viewings related by tag "metaworld".
  2. Thought A plate of grapefruit with 219 viewings related by tag "representation".
  3. Thought About Seth with 206 viewings related by tag "representation".
  4. Thought Tools in my peculair bag ... with 101 viewings related by tag "representation".
  5. Thought Why we represent ... with 85 viewings related by tag "representation".
  6. Thought Are you introducing a non-existant term? with 65 viewings related by tag "representation".
  7. Thought Representation and Representing with 59 viewings related by tag "representation".
  8. Thought Representing something changes my awareness of it with 42 viewings related by tag "representation".
  9. Thought Representation all the way down with 28 viewings related by tag "representation".
  10. Thought about: Representationalism with 23 viewings related by tag "mind".
  11. Thought Connections with 22 viewings related by tag "restrain universe".
  12. Thought [title (20177)] with 22 viewings related by tag "mind".
  13. Thought A big deep mind with 17 viewings related by tag "mind".
  14. Thought All stories obtain with 14 viewings related by tag "metaworld".
  15. Thought Loui Jover: Interesting Art Style .... with 6 viewings related by tag "metaworld".
  16. Thought A drawing of NOWs in my life with 6 viewings related by tag "mind".
  17. Thought Prepositions - Tiny Words with a Big Difference with 5 viewings related by tag "about world".
  18. Thought Awareness, Attention is the function of the Ego with 5 viewings related by tag "representation".
  19. Thought trinity with 3 viewings related by tag "mind".
  20. Thought Waiting for fireworks at Ruston Freedom Celebration with a new "live camera" with 3 viewings related by tag "representation".
  21. Thought Chinese Brush and ink supplies with 3 viewings related by tag "representation".
  22. Thought What is shareable ? with 2 viewings related by tag "mind".
  23. Thought I go with what happens with 2 viewings related by tag "metaworld".
  24. Thought Dualism with 2 viewings related by tag "mind".
  25. Thought We the People ... with 1 viewings related by tag "representation".
  26. Thought Positive words not in our language with 1 viewings related by tag "mind".
  27. Thought Some math musing re philosophy of mind with 1 viewings related by tag "representation".
  28. Thought What consequences ... with 1 viewings related by tag "mind".
  29. Thought Song of the year with 0 viewings related by tag "representation".
  30. Thought New Age Pyramids with 0 viewings related by tag "representation".
  31. Thought Togetherness by AC and Bernie Sanders with 0 viewings related by tag "representation".
  32. Thought mind versus machine discussion with 0 viewings related by tag "mind".
  33. Thought Awareness requires representing with 0 viewings related by tag "mind".
  34. Thought Combining 2 thoughts with 0 viewings related by tag "mind".
  35. Thought The Metaworld VS Direct Experience with 0 viewings related by tag "metaworld".
  36. Thought Why some philosophers say we can?t with 0 viewings related by tag "mind".
  37. Thought Traveling with 0 viewings related by tag "mind".
  38. Thought A dialogue on G+ with 0 viewings related by tag "mind".
  39. Thought representations happen in planes with 0 viewings related by tag "representation".
  40. Thought Everything in my mind is a relationship? with 0 viewings related by tag "mind".
  41. Thought [title (17489)] with 0 viewings related by tag "representation".
  42. Thought [title (19291)] with 0 viewings related by tag "mind".
  43. Thought peculiar to each particular mind with 0 viewings related by tag "mind".
  44. Thought about: my goodreads ... my reading on Kindle shared publically with 0 viewings related by tag "representation".
  45. Thought about: Semantics of Social Media with 0 viewings related by tag "mind".
  46. Thought The brain as a better model for describing the Internet with 0 viewings related by tag "mind".
  47. Thought Direct Consciousness with 0 viewings related by tag "mind".
  48. Thought about: REpresentation - comment 57743 with 0 viewings related by tag "representation".
  49. Thought about: muslim immigrants smash & urinate on virgin mary statue in italy with 0 viewings related by tag "representation".
  50. Thought How using language changes consensus reality with 0 viewings related by tag "mind".