Physical idealism

[The Grand Nudger]

  Clearly, the DNA has ideas

Imma stop you right there........

Unrelated to the above, but....that thing about numbers of toes - it's actually fascinating..more going on than dna. Ever wondered why we see alot of even limbed (and digited) creatures, as opposed to odd? 8 legs, 6 legs, 4 legs, 2 legs. 10 digits, 8, 6. DNA might "say" -build toes-...but it doesn't actually have to specify a particular number and it will still arrive at a pattern which we would, likely, interpret to be significant. As to the OP, I think it's easy to agree. DNA doesn't tell you whether or not a particular human body has a scar on it's face, for example, and so, like the legs and toes above...DNA might tell us something, but there are obviously other constraints and metrics to which we'd have to refer to give us a complete representation (or explanation) of any particular human body. How that leads in to idealism (of any kind) I'm not sure. In the case of legs and toes it leads in to yet another slew of materialist propositions - the manner in which division is accomplished by living cells, bilateralism, environmental and structural requirements...

[Neo-Scholastic]

"...it will still arrive at a pattern..." Seems that no matter what you believe you still cannot escape from using language that references final and formal ends.

[The Grand Nudger]

Just stating a fact Chad, not too worried about your ends or how you choose to interpret my language. The trend towards bilateralism (for example) is a force that applies itself on dna...not a force that dna exerts. So, if dna didn't say
"Make 2 legs" and instead simply said "Make legs"

- you would see 2 legs, 4 legs, 6 legs. Do you disagree with that, or that we would interpret that as a pattern, that we would see significance there? Do you disagree that -this- explanation of the number of limbs or digits we have - regardless of what that number is, is rooted necessarily in materialist propositons regardless of whether or not DNA provides a complete representation of a human body?

[bennyboy]

  Clearly, the DNA has ideas

Imma stop you right there........

Unrelated to the above, but....that thing about numbers of toes - it's actually fascinating..more going on than dna.  Ever wondered why we see alot of even limbed (and digited) creatures, as opposed to odd?  8 legs, 6 legs, 4 legs, 2 legs.  10 digits, 8, 6.  DNA might "say" -build toes-...but it doesn't actually have to specify a particular number and it will still arrive at a pattern which we would, likely, interpret to be significant.  As to the OP, I think it's easy to agree.  DNA doesn't tell you whether or not a particular human body has a scar on it's face, for example, and so, like the legs and toes above...DNA might tell us something, but there are obviously other constraints and metrics to which we'd have to refer to give us a complete representation (or explanation) of any particular human body.  How that leads in to idealism (of any kind) I'm not sure.  In the case of legs and toes it leads in to yet another slew of materialist propositions - the manner in which division is accomplished by living cells, bilateralism, environmental and structural requirements...

It's a different kind of idealism than I've talked about in the past.  In this post, I'm talking about ideas as formative principles, without reference to any conscious entity.

tbh I'm not even arguing against materialism, except to say this: that formal principles clearly precede materialism, and that the way that matter in a chaotic system organizes itself is better seen as an expression of those principles, than to say that the organization is a happenstance of material properties.  Whatever it is that caused matter to have its particular properties must also be said to be the fundamental idea on which evolution, for example, is founded.

Yes, I know that sounds like an appeal to Deism, but I'm not necessarily saying that ideas imply consciousness or intent.

[The Grand Nudger]

formal principles clearly precede materialism,

I could only say that I'd stop you right here...again, lol. My concerns with your previous versions of idealism never had much to do with conscious entitities, and your expressing in this those things I was objecting to in those. Meh, it would be old ground between us. It doesn't matter to me whether you sound like you're appealing to deism, or even if you were. It only matters to me that you follow the word "clearly" - at the very start- with things that aren't at all clear in an effort to deny things that..if not entirely clear, are at least a hell of alot better evidenced and demonstrated.

Do you have any particular disagreement about limbs and digits..do you disagree that the other things we might turn to for a complete accounting or representation of a human body, particularly in the example -you- brought up.... are just as material as dna? If the only place that idealism comes into it is to agree with materialism in every explanation and particular and then simply -claim- the credit for all of that upon itself as being "under it"...I don't have the oomph in me to discuss such a non-statement, a phantom position- a long running stolen concept.

Let me put this another way, in your estimation....is the explanation for the number of fingers we have accounted for by genetic inheritance, bilateralism, and cellular division..or is all of that shit bunk...and the real reason we have five fingers is that there's an "idea of a hand" -said "idea" not at all being dependent upon or related to consciousness....somehow....and ofc not dependent upon dna, bilateralism, and cellular division?

[bennyboy]

formal principles clearly precede materialism,

I could only say that I'd stop you right here...again, lol.  My concerns with your previous versions of idealism never had much to do with conscious entitities, and your expressing in this those things I was objecting to in those.  Meh, it would be old ground between us.  It doesn't matter to me whether you sound like you're appealing to deism, or even if you were.  It only matters to me that you follow the word "clearly" - at the very start-  with things that aren't at all clear in an effort to deny things that..if not entirely clear, are at least a hell of alot better evidenced and demonstrated.

I'd say it's clear, because the organization of things cannot be without a framework in which they can be organized. If you believe in the Big Bang, then clearly the rules by which form would eventually come from chaos were already set. So fundamental principles --> fundamental ideas --> classes of things.

Do you have any particular disagreement about limbs and digits..do you disagree that the other things we might turn to for a complete accounting or representation of a human body, particularly in the example -you- brought up.... are just as material as dna?  If the only place that idealism comes into it is to agree with materialism in every explanation and particular and then simply -claim- the credit for all of that upon itself as being "under it"...I don't have the oomph in me to discuss such a non-statement, a phantom position- a long running stolen concept.

Absolutely, I'd agree that ideas about living bodies must require a material medium for their expression. As for our long-running arguments, I've already said I'm not talking about that kind of idealism, and this thread should be taken separate from that.

The point I'm making in this thread is that the forms of things are more foundational to reality than the media by which they are expressed. You could, for example, have many bio-chemical evolutionary paths, possibly not even involving DNA, to things like fins and scales. However, in an environment in which there is chaos with enough coherence to make persistence of patterns statistically possible, a liquid-water world is going to end up with those same features-- that is, the features themselves drive the evolution, not the specific mechanism of DNA.

Let me put this another way, in your estimation....is the explanation for the number of fingers we have accounted for by genetic inheritance, bilateralism, and cellular division..or is all of that shit bunk...and the real reason we have five fingers is that there's an "idea of a hand" -said "idea" not at all being dependent upon or related to consciousness....somehow....and ofc not dependent upon dna, bilateralism, and cellular division?

As I said, I'm not disputing any of the material mechanisms, or that of DNA. My argument is about which is an expression of the other. The genetic code of humans is as much a record of past statistical moments as it is a code for a future organism. However, the statistical moments necessarily preceded the genetic code, and are therefore the real cause of "hand" and everything else, and the DNA should be thought of as the carrier-- much as a Windows disk is not the creator of Windows, though if you put the disk into your computer, Windows will usually come to be.

[The Grand Nudger]

I'd say it's clear, because the organization of things cannot be without a framework in which they can be organized.   If you believe in the Big Bang, then clearly the rules by which form would eventually come from chaos were already set.  So fundamental principles --> fundamental ideas --> classes of things.

I'm not sure what the word belief is doing there in reference to the big bang, nor do I see why the things you listed follow from a belief or acceptance of the big bang.

Absolutely, I'd agree that ideas about living bodies must require a material medium for their expression.  As for our long-running arguments, I've already said I'm not talking about that kind of idealism, and this thread should be taken separate from that.

Meh, then we don't agree, and you don't accept the explanations we have for the number of digits we have on our limbs, which is more than just dna but still just a collection of materialist propositions- but it's difficult to see why.

The point I'm making in this thread is that the forms of things are more foundational to reality than the media by which they are expressed.  You could, for example, have many bio-chemical evolutionary paths, possibly not even involving DNA, to things like fins and scales.  However, in an environment in which there is chaos with enough coherence to make persistence of patterns statistically possible, a liquid-water world is going to end up with those same features-- that is, the features themselves drive the evolution, not the specific mechanism of DNA.

Liquid water is a material substance (as are bio-chemical pathways, fins...and scales).  Here again the material is being referenced, not an idea or immaterial principle.

As I said, I'm not disputing any of the material mechanisms, or that of DNA.  My argument is about which is an expression of the other.  The genetic code of humans is as much a record of past statistical moments as it is a code for a future organism.  However, the statistical moments necessarily preceded the genetic code, and are therefore the real cause of "hand" and everything else, and the DNA should be thought of as the carrier-- much as a Windows disk is not the creator of Windows, though if you put the disk into your computer, Windows will usually come to be.

You are -absolutely- disputing the mechanisms we currently point to when you talk about features driving evolution rather than environment and genetics.  In any case, genetic code, like water above, is a material substance..so I don't see where idealism comes in except after materialism is done doing all the explaining. DNA -is- thought of as a carrier of information..of material interactions and histories. Just as before, it's senseless to point to necessarily materialistic propositions and then dispute the material, or claim that they somehow affirm the immaterial. Stolen....concepts. Good luck figuring something out about idealism or a world in which the material is an expression of an idea by pointing to an endless litany of material interactions and substances.

[Mudhammam]

My concern is whether or not it is meaningful to speak of "principles" or "ideas" as subsisting "out there" in some Platonic heaven; perhaps these are no more related to the external world than the color red, and are only useful to minds in categorizing their experiences, which, more or less result from phenomenon that, although can be described by principles or ideas, cannot actually be said to exist by what are terms of reflection and ratiocination in conjunction with sensation.

[bennyboy]

I'm not sure what the word belief is doing there in reference to the big bang, nor do I see why the things you listed follow from a belief or acceptance of the big bang.

The idea is to separate an eternal universe, in which you can never really say the chicken comes before the egg, to establish a beginning. If there's a beginning, then none of the structures (like DNA) existed, but the formative principles allowing for DNA did.

Meh, then we don't agree, and you don't accept the explanations we have for the number of digits we have on our limbs, which is more than just dna but still just a collection of materialist propositions- but it's difficult to see why.

In this case an explanation is an idea about causality. Does DNA cause a human to exist? Yes, kind of, but ultimately, it's just part of an organic process. Does evolution itself even exist, or is it just a description of a state in which chaotic systems lead to un-chaotic structures?

My take on it is that given a sufficiently "pure" chaotic environment, there's a kind of determinism. Lurking behind all that grey goo is the inevitability that certain forms will eventually arise. Clearly, there's no such thing as a fish in that context, but it seems to me that fish are inevitable-- maybe not in the sense of Earth-bound species with specific DNA, but in the sense that where there is a planet of a particular gravity, chemical makeup, etc. something which is propelled by fins, and which takes in nutrients through a mouth and expresses it through an anus, is inevitable-- because that's how life in water works.

[quote]
Liquid water is a material substance (as are bio-chemical pathways, fins...and scales).  Here again the material is being referenced, not an idea or immaterial principle.

I'm talking about physical idealism, which is the relationship of material and supervenient forms, with certain templates or formative factors being called "ideas." So I'm fine with what you just said.

You are -absolutely- disputing the mechanisms we currently point to when you talk about features driving evolution rather than environment and genetics.  In any case, genetic code, like water above, is a material substance..so I don't see where idealism comes in except after materialism is done doing all the explaining.  DNA -is- thought of as a carrier of information..of material interactions and histories.  Just as before, it's senseless to point to necessarily materialistic propositions and then dispute the material, or claim that they somehow affirm the immaterial.   Stolen....concepts.  Good luck figuring something out about idealism or a world in which the material is an expression of an idea by pointing to an endless litany of material interactions and substances.

You aren't arguing against my ideas. Either I haven't exlained them clearly enough yet, or you are weighed down with assumptions from our previous conversations.
The "material interactions and histories" are what I've called "statistical moments."

And please stop saying "stolen concepts" all the time. Let's just assume that whatever I say, about anything at all, you'll drop those words in there somewhere, and get down to talking about what I've actually said than whatever it is you are arguing about.

[bennyboy]

My concern is whether or not it is meaningful to speak of "principles" or "ideas" as subsisting "out there" in some Platonic heaven; perhaps these are no more related to the external world than the color red, and are only useful to minds in categorizing their experiences, which, more or less result from phenomenon that, although can be described by principles or ideas, cannot actually be said to exist by what are terms of reflection and ratiocination in  conjunction with sensation.

What can be said to exist?  Certainly, anything which can be placed in both time and space can be said to exist-- it exists in the context of the framework of space and time.  Certainly space and time can also be said to exist: they are the framework that allow the things to exist.

Does evolution exist?  No, it doesn't, in a simple material sense.  It's a description of a set of principles, which while not being locatable, certainly represent very real observable phenomena.  In fact, evolution has never "happened."  No object has evolved into another object.  So implicitly, even scientists take the IDEA of a species-- what features of the species overall seem to represent, and show how that IDEA is modified through the passage of time in subsequent organisms.

However, I'd argue that intrinsic to the Earth's environment-- fluids of certain temperatures, certain compositions, etc. there are hidden real physical ideas-- the inevitable tendency of certain forms in a chaotic system to resolve themselves to other forms-- and that simple material "existence" doesn't really matter.