Monday, August 23, 2021

Transcendental Signifier Argument

The argument

1. Any rational, coherent, and meaningful view of the universe must of necessity presuppose organizing principles (Ops)

2. OP's summed up in TS

3. Modern Thought rejects TS outright or takes out all aspects of mind.

4. Therefore, Modern thought fails to provide a rational, coherent, and meaningful view of the universe.

5. minds organize and communicate meaning

6. Therefore universal mind, offers the best understanding of TS

7. Concept of God unites TS with universal mind therefore offers best explanation for a view that is Rational, Coherent, and Meaningful (RCM).

1-3

Randal Rauser's Interview of me On this argument new

(1) Any rational, coherent, and meaningful view of the universe must of necessity presuppose organizing principles (Ops)

OP 's make sense of the universe and explain hierarchies of conceptualization: effects need causes, conclusions are mandated by premises, meaning in language is organized by rules of grammar. (RCM (rational, coherent, and meaningful) = Hierarchical order).This premise is rooted directly in observation, a coherent view of the universe requires OPs, and observation. That a rational and coherent view requires a principle that organizes reality according to some aspect of logic or math should be obvious. That's really no different than saying to really understand things we need a logical coherent view. At this point the skeptic might assume that the argument is a design argument or that it is saying that “laws imply a law giver.” Jerome E. Bickenbach and Jackqueline M. Davis tell us that the argument “laws require a law giver” is the fallacy of equivocation.

[1] Right they are, since scientists don't mean the term “laws” in the sense that early modern scientists such as Newton and Boyle meant it. They really meant a divine command that the universe must behave in a certain way. The term “law” is a hold-over from a former age. “The laws of physics, and other scientifically discovered laws of nature are principles formulated by scientists (not prescribed by lawmakers) in order to describe regularities and patterns observed in the natural world...while there may be a God this is not shown by taking the existence of laws of nature as evidence.”

[2] Whether or not physical laws are evidence of God remains to be seen, but this argument is neither design nor laws imply a law-giver. First, it's not a design argument to the extent that the inference is not drawn from design per se. Design works through either fitness, function, or the resemblance to things we know are designed. Since it does turn upon order there is overlap with design, especially the latter kind (resemblance to known design). Yet the point of inference is not taken from resemblance to known design but to the all pervasive nature of necessary to contingent order

, Secondly, the argument is not based upon the assumption laws imply a law giver. That idea assumes that physical laws are a simple list of rules mandated by a God. That concept of God is based upon the Suzerain model. The argument does not assume a set of rules but a more organic relation. The point of inference does not turn upon a set but upon one central, simple, and elegant idea that frames and grounds the metaphysical hierarchy in a single all-encumpasing first principle. Since I don't assume that scientists speak of “laws of physics” in the same way we speak of “laws of traffic” or The U.S, Code Annotated, or Black's Law Dictionary, then there is no fallacy of equivocation. How I connect physical “law” to a prescriptive sense without reducing description to prescription will be dealt with in chapter four.

Above I point to grammar as an example of a TS. The skeptic might argue that grammar is just cultural, that would be wrong. First of all it doesn't have to be innate to be an example. If language is just cultural constructs ideas might still be formed in their function from logical necessity (not the actual signifiers themselves but the concepts to which they point). An example would be the logical rule A cannot be non A. That is not arbitrary, but self evident. A thing cannot be other than itself. Thus the logical law marks the fact as a road map marks geography, but like a map the two might not always line up. In that case, if grammar is a purely cultural construct, its still an example of hierarchical conceptualization. Secondly, there is a lot of good evidence that generative grammar is genetic. Children of one month old can distinguish between different phonemes in a language, such as “b” and “p.” Researchers know this by reaction of the infant to the sound. A phoneme is a unit of sound in a word. Two such studies are one by Kuhl and one by Scott, et al.

[3] More on this in a subsequent chapter.

Western thought has always assumed Organizing principles that are summed up in a single first principle (an ἀρχή) which grounds any sort of meaning: the logos or the transcendental signified (TS). When I have made this argument skeptics have argued that there is nothing in science called an “organizing principle.” One opponent in particular who was a physicist was particularly exercised about my use of this term. While there is no formal term such that scientists speak of the “organizing principles” along side laws of physics or Newtonian laws, they speak of organizing principles all the time. A google search resulted in 320,000,000 results.[4] On every page of this search we see articles by cell biologists, cancer researchers, environmental biologists. Mathematicians, physicists, and so on. Yes there are also articles by crack pots, new age mystics, people with all kinds of ideas. There is even a book by a physicist who argues that the scientific thinking of the poet and dramatist Johann Wolfgang Goethe is valid in modern terms of quantum theory. He talked about organizing principles.[5] An Article in Nature entitled “Organizing principles” discusses a famous experiment in developmental biology: in 1924 carried out by Hilde Mangold, a Ph.D. student in the laboratory of Hans Spemann in Freiburg. “It provided the first unambiguous evidence that cell and tissue fate can be determined by signals received from other cells…This experiment therefore demonstrated the existence of an organizer that instructs both neuralization and dorsalization, and showed that cells can adopt their developmental fate according to their position when instructed by other cells.”[6]vi

M.J. Bissell et. al. Discuss malignancy in breast cancer. “A considerable body of evidence now shows that cell-cell and cell-extracellular matrix (ECM) interactions are essential organizing principles that help define the nature of the tissue context, and play a crucial role in regulating homeostasis and tissue specificity.”[7] All objects in nature are connected to other objects. This can be demonstrated easily enough, as William Graham makes clear in discussing “Natures Organizing Principles.”[8] He turns to ecosystems as an example. Fish in a school work by individually possessed set of common principles such that they act in unison without a leader. These are not evidences of God they are not a design argument. They merely serve to bring home the point there are organizing principles about. I know this general informal use of the term does not mean that the Ops I want to talk about exist. But it is clear there are plenty of structures that organize and guide the way things turn out we do not have an understanding of what organizes the OP. Yet modern science still seeks a logos or a TS that would bind them all together and unite them in one over arching principle.

Sources

[1] Jerome E. Bickenbach and Jackqueline M. Davis, Good Reasons for Better Arguments: An Introduction To The Sills and Values of Critical Thinking. Calgary: Broadview Press, 1996, 189.

[2]Ibid.

[3]Patricia Kuhl, “Early Language Acquisition: Cacking the Speech Code.” Nature reviews

Neuroscience 5, (Nov. 2004) 831-843, doi:10.1038/nrn1533. Institute for Learning and Brain Sciences and the Department of Speech and Hearing Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington 98195, USA. Email: pkkuhl@u.washington.edu See also: Sophie K Scott et al, “Categorical speech representation in human superior temporal gyrus. Is Categorical perception a fundamental property of speech perception?" Nature Neuroscience,(2010). 13: 1428-1432.

[4]Google search, organizing principles in nature,https://www.google.com/#q=organizing+principles+in+nature accessed 5/3/16

[5]Henri Bortoft, Wholeness of Nature of The Universe: Goethe’s Way Toward a Science of Conscious Participation in nature. Herdon VA:Lindisfarne Books originally published by Steiner Books,1971, 1985, re worked version 1992, 69. Henri Bortoft, (1938 – 29 December 2012) received undergraduate degree at university of Hull then did Postgraduate research at Beirbeck college. He studiedQuantum Physics with David Bohm.

[6]Barbara Marte, “Milstone 1: Organizing Principles,” Nature.Org (july 1,2004) doi:10.1038/nrn1449 URL: http://www.nature.com/milestones/development/milestones/full/milestone1.html accessed 6/3/16 Marte is senior editor Nature.

[7]viiM.J. Bissell, D.C Radisky, and A. Rizki, “The Organizing Principle:Microenvironmental Influences In The Normal amd Malignant Breast.” Pub Med, NCB, Dec;70(9-10): 2002, 537-46. on line resource URL: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12492495 accessed 6:3/16 [8]viiiWilliam Graham, “Natures Organization Principles,” Nature’s Tangled Web: The Art, Soul, and Science of a Connected Nature. Oct. 30, 2012, Online resource.http://www.freshvista.com/2012/natures-organizing-principles/ accessed 6/3/16.

27 comments:

Cuttlebones said...

OK.SO
1. Any rational, coherent, and meaningful view of the universe must of necessity presuppose organizing principles (Ops)

2. OP's summed up in TS

Is a 'meaningful view' necessary for the existence of the Universe or just our mental model of the Universe?
If it is only our mental model of the Universe then TS is only the top level OP. How does that support the reality of a God/Universal mind.
Am I missing something? I always find this one difficult to get my head around.

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

OK.SO
1. Any rational, coherent, and meaningful view of the universe must of necessity presuppose organizing principles (Ops)

2. OP's summed up in TS

Is a 'meaningful view' necessary for the existence of the Universe or just our mental model of the Universe?

sure as hell is. That is if you want a scientifically understandable universe then you must accept rationality. I you accept rationality then you must have a rational universe.

If it is only our mental model of the Universe then TS is only the top level OP. How does that support the reality of a God/Universal mind.
Am I missing something? I always find this one difficult to get my head around.

Yes you are missing the argument--5. minds organize and communicate meaning

6. Therefore universal mind, offers the best understanding of TS
:

im-skeptical said...

6. Therefore universal mind, offers the best understanding of TS
- You jump from the idea of minds organizing and communicating meaning to something called a universal mind. Nothing in the argument leads us to that concept. Nothing in your supporting discussion mentions this universal mind. It's a conclusion that has no basis. Philosophers would call statement 6 a non sequitur.

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

Blogger im-skeptical said...
6. Therefore universal mind, offers the best understanding of TS
- You jump from the idea of minds organizing and communicating meaning to something called a universal mind. Nothing in the argument leads us to that concept. Nothing in your supporting discussion mentions this universal mind. It's a conclusion that has no basis. Philosophers would call statement 6 a non sequitur.

follow the logic through the steps in order. It does give the reasons.It is a valid inference:

a minds always do x

without minds x is flawed

therefore we can assume when x is not flaked a mind is involed.

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

that should say when X is not flawed

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

5. minds organize and communicate meaning

6. Therefore universal mind, offers the best understanding of TS

7. Concept of God unites TS with universal mind therefore offers best explanation for a view that is Rational, Coherent, and Meaningful (RCM).

no 5 demonstrates the link to mind in general. 6 introduces universal mind as the best understanding that's the reason for it. 7 explained how it works.

im-skeptical said...

Statement 6 is a conclusion. Yet no logical basis has been provided for making that conclusion. It is human minds that have understanding. It is human minds that conceive organizing principles. And that is illustrated in all your supporting documents.

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

IASStatement 6 is a conclusion. Yet no logical basis has been provided for making that conclusion.

I just showed you the basis

IASIt is human minds that have understanding. It is human minds that conceive organizing principles. And that is illustrated in all your supporting documents.


Human minds do science. I am willing to bet you accept science as objective fact about the universe in spite of science being don by human minds


10:13 AM

im-skeptical said...

Merriam Webster definition of 'therefore':
a : for that reason : consequently
b : because of that
c : on that ground

When you use the word 'therefore', you are making a conclusion that is based on what has already been said. But you said nothing (before that) that would serve as a logical premise to the conclusion that "universal mind, offers the best understanding of TS". Your argument didn't say anything about different kinds of minds offering better or worse understanding of TS, nor anything at all about what a universal mind is or what kind of understanding it is capable of. You merely made an assertion that it's the best.

Cuttlebones said...

We come up with OPs based upon our perception of the Universe. The Universe isn't constructed based upon our OPs. The universe doesn't care how we slice and dice it mentally in order to make sense of it.

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

Cuttlebones said...
We come up with OPs based upon our perception of the Universe. The Universe isn't constructed based upon our OPs. The universe doesn't care how we slice and dice it mentally in order to make sense of it.

7:37 PM


right but that has no effect upon my argument

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

Merriam Webster definition of 'therefore':
a : for that reason : consequently
b : because of that
c : on that ground

When you use the word 'therefore', you are making a conclusion that is based on what has already been said. But you said nothing (before that) that would serve as a logical premise to the conclusion that "universal mind, offers the best understanding of TS". Your argument didn't say anything about different kinds of minds offering better or worse understanding of TS, nor anything at all about what a universal mind is or what kind of understanding it is capable of. You merely made an assertion that it's the best.


the best that argument can be is knit picking. It is really BS becase my wording is valid.

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

When you use the word 'therefore', you are making a conclusion that is based on what has already been said. But you said nothing (before that) that would serve as a logical premise to the conclusion that "universal mind, offers the best understanding of TS".



1. Any rational, coherent, and meaningful view of the universe must of necessity presuppose organizing principles (Ops)

2. OP's summed up in TS

3. Modern Thought rejects TS outright or takes out all aspects of mind.

4. Therefore, Modern thought fails to provide a rational, coherent, and meaningful view of the universe.

5. minds organize and communicate meaning
(logical premise)

6. Therefore universal mind, offers the best understanding of TS

7. Concept of God unites TS with universal mind therefore offers best explanation for a view that is Rational, Coherent, and Meaningful (RCM)

im-skeptical said...

5. minds organize and communicate meaning
- Nothing about universalmind mentioned here. The minds we know about are human minds.

6. Therefore universal mind, offers the best understanding of TS
- non sequitur.

Cuttlebones said...

The universe doesn't care how we slice and dice it mentally in order to make sense of it.

right but that has no effect upon my argument

How does it not? If OPs and TS are just human mental constructs what is the point of your argument?

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

the universe is the creation of a larger mind'deep structures of being put us in touch with that mind.

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

5. minds organize and communicate meaning
- Nothing about universalmind mentioned here. The minds we know about are human minds.

Obviously am argument based upon analogy.

6. Therefore universal mind, offers the best understanding of TS
- non sequitur.

the conclusion of the argument stupid try to lean how log8c works.

Cuttlebones said...


the universe is the creation of a larger mind'deep structures of being put us in touch with that mind.


Ops and TS do nothing, as far as I can see, to point to the reality of a universal mind.

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

ignorant ine you are obfuscating, Tryng to muddle the brilliant arguemnt by ficussung on triva, it doesnlt matter if both spuruces quote that, you have failed to disprove a singke point in my argument,

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

m-skeptical said...
Merriam Webster definition of 'therefore':
a : for that reason : consequently
b : because of that
c : on that ground

When you use the word 'therefore', you are making a conclusion that is based on what has already been said. But you said nothing (before that) that would serve as a logical premise to the conclusion that "universal mind, offers the best understanding of TS".

yes fikkiw the steos it sure does

Your argument didn't say anything about different kinds of minds offering better or worse understanding of TS, nor anything at all about what a universal mind is or what kind of understanding it is capable of. You merely made an assertion that it's the best.

i ARGUE FOR unuversal mind si different minds are subsumed

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

the universe is the creation of a larger mind'deep structures of being put us in touch with that mind.

Ops and TS do nothing, as far as I can see, to point to the reality of a universal mind.


the argument:


1. Any rational, coherent, and meaningful view of the universe must of necessity presuppose organizing principles (Ops)

2. OP's summed up in TS

3. Modern Thought rejects TS outright or takes out all aspects of mind.

4. Therefore, Modern thought fails to provide a rational, coherent, and meaningful view of the universe.

5. minds organize and communicate meaning

6. Therefore universal mind, offers the best understanding of TS

7. Concept of God unites TS with universal mind therefore offers best explanation for a view that is Rational, Coherent, and Meaningful (RCM).


so I argue for an analogy between what we know minds do and hwat has been done to make the ubiverse,

Organizing principles make the universe organizes, what organuznug them?

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

the universe is the creation of a larger mind'deep structures of being put us in touch with that mind.

Ops and TS do nothing, as far as I can see, to point to the reality of a universal mind.


You do not wish to see. Organizing prlncipals are everywhere, we all knpw this. Math, laws of nature, loigc, the unlverse is ordered by principles of order. obvioius,

the argument:


1. Any rational, coherent, and meaningful view of the universe must of necessity presuppose organizing principles (Ops)

2. OP's summed up in TS

3. Modern Thought rejects TS outright or takes out all aspects of mind.

4. Therefore, Modern thought fails to provide a rational, coherent, and meaningful view of the universe.

5. minds organize and communicate meaning

6. Therefore universal mind, offers the best understanding of TS

7. Concept of God unites TS with universal mind therefore offers best explanation for a view that is Rational, Coherent, and Meaningful (RCM).


so I argue for an analogy between what we know minds do and hwat has been done to make the ubiverse,

Organizing principles make the universe organized, what organizes the principles?

11:45 PM Delete

Cuttlebones said...

Our pattern seeking Brains see Organizing principals everywhere.
Any 'Organizing' I see as just a product of the interaction of natural forces.
Now you can ask why those natural forces have the values they have but I don't see the need for a universal mind. And I don't think that OPs and TS add anything significant that particular argument.

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

Our pattern seeking Brains see Organizing principals everywhere.
Any 'Organizing' I see as just a product of the interaction of natural forces.

what organized the natural forces? You are denying the obvious to rebel against God, You assume if we seek patterns they must not be there obviously some are,

Now you can ask why those natural forces have the values they have but I don't see the need for a universal mind. And I don't think that OPs and TS add anything significant that particular argument.

with no universal mined you cant explain how the ops got organized nor do you even really know for sure they exist,

Cuttlebones said...

what organized the natural forces? You are denying the obvious to rebel against God, You assume if we seek patterns they must not be there obviously some are,

Do you mean what set the natural forces as they are? I don't know. I don't see that they point to a Universal mind tough. An extra-universal mind maybe.
What would I get out of rebelling against something intangible?
Pattern seeking is a way of our minds isolating 'useful' information from an ocean of sensory input. Are they there or do our minds just create them? Just as we look at the stars and see a bear or a hunter.


with no universal mind you cant explain how the ops got organized nor do you even really know for sure they exist,


Our minds organised them. Take physics. One century we parse everything with one OP the next another. We don't know if they exist. We only know if they are useful.

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

Me: what organized the natural forces? You are denying the obvious to rebel against God, You assume if we seek patterns they must not be there obviously some are,

CB: Do you mean what set the natural forces as they are? I don't know. I don't see that they point to a Universal mind tough. An extra-universal mind maybe.

Me: extra universal is universal, I means universal mind that encompasses all of reality.

What would I get out of rebelling against something intangible?
Pattern seeking is a way of our minds isolating 'useful' information from an ocean of sensory input. Are they there or do our minds just create them? Just as we look at the stars and see a bear or a hunter.


Me:with no universal mind you cant explain how the ops got organized nor do you even really know for sure they exist,

CB:Our minds organised them. Take physics. One century we parse everything with one OP the next another. We don't know if they exist. We only know if they are useful.

Me: that does not mean the laws of physcs are not really there.

12:53 AM