Form: Question

MORE ON ADAM AND CURT’S DISCUSSION ON METAPHYSICS. (QUESTIONS FOR METAPHYSICISTS)

—“…substance…”—

Your [Adam] approach is extremely useful in demarcation of legal decidability. It is the physical equivalent of the decidability provided by potential interest and demonstrated interest. So as you taught me recently Aristotle is an exceptional framework for cognition at human scale, and while we may know post human scale both micro and macro, that only assists us in removing falsehood and error from decisions at human scale. We are only capable of acting at human scale and cooperating at human scale…. So Aristotle really did learn about the universe from writing the athenian constitution….

—“…underlies…”–

Operationalize that term and …

—“Real Metaphysics – How we ought to think. If you are actually thinking, then you are so constrained that you cannot help but think such and such, which we call “metaphysics”. This there is a form of necessity that is neither logical nor physical, but which underlies both.”—

I don’t know what metaphysics means – other than ‘Aristotle’s failed attempt to operationalize the brain’.

So ‘fitting’ is simply error. And any talk of “metaphysics’ is fitting. We can instead ask, given his ignorance, what categories of phenomenon was he seeking to explain?

He could not explain the function of the brain, and the relationship between that lower function, and the means of calculation and communication we call language. (serial, continuous, recursive, disambiguation, resulting in sufficiency for a contract for meaning.)

I know the following.

1 – the natural world exists (reality) and persists independent of our thought and action, and follows simple deterministic rules from which complexity arises, including the complexity of near chaos due to the hierarchy of possible operations and near-infinite scale. I know this because I am unwilling to act contrary to that condition in any manner that would test that condition; and I observe this in everyone else; Beyond that is meaningless because only action determines outcomes.

2 – to be able to act in this world and capture calories we have evolved a great deal of memory with which to convert high information density experience into fragmentary (distributed fractional memory) but reconstructable experiences, of lower information density.

3 – to be able to plan a sequence of actions we have evolved categories of constant contingent relations in memory by the addition of more layers of memory.

4 – to be able to communicate we evolved language to communicate stories in serial, continuous, recursive, disambiguation until a contract for meaning has been achieved.)

5 – this language required rules of continuous disambiguation, and so we evolved the natural grammar.

6 – once we had the grammar we could engage in reason, calculation, and eventually computation.

7 – increases in opportunity for exploitation of the natura world (and the human) cause increase scope of communication. T

8 – the greater the correspondence with reality, and the greater the scope, and the more consistent the relations in those categories and grammar, the greater the ability to act to seize calories by which to insulate the mind, emotions, and body from stress and cellular damage (wear and tear).

9 – at some point a competitive advantage in non-correspondence evolved (frauds and deceits) in order for those lacking agency to compete with those possessing agency.

10- this ‘resistance movement’ creates many fictions (non correspondences) to improve political resistance in opposition to economic and military agency

Ergo my only interest is not in the correspondence per se but in the use of non-correspondence for the purpose of parasitism and predation.