Brain, Behaviour and Extensionalism
kpaulc at [remove]earthlink.net
Thu Apr 8 14:46:19 EST 2004
"patty" <pattyNO at SPAMicyberspace.net> wrote in message
news:vc_cc.211132$_w.1982098 at attbi_s53...
> ken wrote:
> > Hi patty,
> > "patty" <pattyNO at SPAMicyberspace.net> wrote in message
> > news:utYcc.89483$w54.520335 at attbi_s01...
> >>Now let's take an extensional approach to
> >>determine how this word 'Extensionalism' is
> >>actually being used tody. To do that we
> >>can read the following context:
> > I read "Ontological Extensionalism" at
> > 060_WSCR_Glossary&subpage=WSCR_190_Ontological_Extensionalism
> > ~"Recalcitrant language" results from the fact
> > that Truth is not 'atomistic', but Infinitely-gaded.
> > That is, as one 'moves toward' Truth, one sees
> > Truth increasingly, but never, in any way, Com-
> > pletely, unless one sees =all= Truth [unless one
> > becomes Omniscient].
> > Another way of coming at the same thing is that,
> > as one 'moves toward' Truth, Truth becomes in-
> > creasingly-more Uniformly-Integrated, every-
> > thing in-Truth tending toward Uniform-mutual-
> > Reference. That is, as one 'moves toward' Truth,
> > everything in-Truth increasingly cross-references
> > everything else in-Truth - each thing in-Truth in-
> > creasingly 'addresses' all of Truth.
> > 'language' is "recalcitrant' because it 'chops-off'
> > the Gradient, inherent, artificially terming this or
> > that to 'be complete' in and of itself, when, be-
> > cause Truth is Infinitely-graded, this or that is
> > just an 'approximation' of Truth.
> Well i don't know hot to use that word "Truth"
> anymore. It refers to something that not only
> changes at every moment, but is also relative to
> each agent.
Since each person's experience can =only= be
Individually-Unique, what each person can per-
ceive of Truth can also only be Individually-Uni-
Folks try to 'bridge' such individual-uniqueness
in social interaction, during which 'images' of
what one person discerns are, more or less,
'shared', and, to the degree of that, there's,
more or less, groupwise 'moving toward' Truth.
'Course, such is only functional - such actually
'moves toward' Truth - to the degree that any
Individual's experience "ranges widely" with re-
spect to Truth - 'moves' in as many of the ways
that one can 'move' with respect to Truth - as
In doing so, one experiences Truth from many
'different' perspectives, and in the totality of such
experience that ranges-widely with respect to
Truth, there occurs an overall 'mapping', in which
everything within one's experience comes to be
'mapped' with respect to everything else within
one's experience, and, to the degree that such
cross-correlation-'mapping' is, in fact, achieved,
one is able to discern in-Truth, as Truth has shown
itself within one's experience.
> > 'language' does this largely be-cause 'language'
> > remains largely a void with respect to under-
> > standing how and why 'language' is produced
> > within nervous systems, and, importantly, be-
> > cause nervous systems continuously calculate
> > the energy-consumption costs of progress in
> > 'moving toward' Truth, "calling the grapes sour"
> > when it's actually just the nervous system's hav-
> > ing 'decided' that it has 'moved toward' Truth
> > 'sufficiently'. [For those who have AoK, see
> > the discussion of the "volitional diminishing-re-
> > turns decision" in Ap7.]
> > Cheers, patty, ken [k. p. collins]
> hummm ... who's truth are we moving toward ?
I've only addressed Truth with respect to how and
why nervous systems process information via 'blind-
ly'-automated "TD E/I-minimization".
Doing such doesn't 'dictate' anything to anyone.
It just gives folks a 'bottom-line' that sets them Free
to actually 'move toward' Truth, rather than "getting
stuck" in interpersonal "inward spirals" [AoK, Ap8].
If you care to know, patty, virtually everyone is
'pissed-off' at 'me' because I did this stuff.
I watched the Movie =Serendipity= earlier today.
There was a scene in which the friend ["Dean"(?)] of
the male lead ["Jonathan"] said to him, "Remember
the philosopher Picatus[phonetic]? He said, `If you
want to improve, be content to be thought foolish
I tried to look-up "Picatus" ["Pycatus", etc.], but
couldn't find any ref. [Anyone know?] Still the saying
is in-Truth - one has to allow one's self to escape
the 'dictates' of 'the way things are supposed to be'
if one is ever to become anything that hasn't existed
before [to "improve" one's self], and, when one so
"escapes", one tends to appear a 'fool' and/or 'stupid'
to everyone else - so, whether the Philosopher Existed
or not, the saying is in-Truth.
What I've done it to explain how and why it's so, in
terms of nervous system function.
That's all of that which is in-Truth that I was discuss-
[I Enjoyed the Movie, BTW. Placed it right up there
with =Groundhog Day= :-]
Sorry if this reply has been too-Whimsical. Good
Movies tend to leave me that way.
Cheers, patty, ken [k. p. collins]
More information about the Neur-sci