The "Spiritual Mechanics" of Truth - Part 1

“The possession of knowledge does not kill the sense of wonder and mystery. There is always more mystery.”
― Anaïs Nin
Post Reply
admin
Site Admin
Posts: 21
Joined: Fri Nov 10, 2017 4:57 pm

The "Spiritual Mechanics" of Truth - Part 1

Post by admin » Tue Feb 27, 2018 5:18 pm

    Written by Anomaly654

    Taken from: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 5&t=193707

    Part One

    Preliminary Framework
    What follows is based on Avicenna’s conception that truth is a quality—a condition of existence—inherent in the essence of things, and is an integral part of each thing’s nature. This could raise the question: What might a truth-endued universe or world look like? I suggest that world would logically look, operate, be experienced as and patterned in just the ways it now exists. For starters it seems to follow that if truth is intrinsic to all things, popular theories of truth—correspondence, pragmatic, social construct, consensus, coherence, etc.—would be relegated to various things truth does. None explain what truth is. The idea of truth as merely a relation in thought would turn out to be a natural component of interaction in the exchange of information between mind and object. Truth, a condition of existence of information, endues everything from minds to rocks to abstract entities. It is, in this view, confirmed in the correspondence relation, not limited to it.

    Two kinds of Truth
    Descriptive/factual and prescriptive/moral. The first is highly empirical, the second only peripherally and intuitively so. Both are dynamic: energy is the value-nature of descriptive inorganics (i.e., matter, via E=Mc2), force will be a term used for the prescriptive dynamic to distinguish it from descriptive energy. Though ontologically distinct in macro reality, both dynamics are micro level expressions of a single kind: value—energy and force—in organics. More accurately: all material entities are fundamentally bundles of energy (inorganics) or an energy-force merger (organics). I use this thought experiment to demonstrate the prescriptive dynamic: Imagine striking with a heavy hammer the following things in this order: 1. rock, 2. plant, 3. insect, 4. kitten, 5 human infant. Reasonably sane persons will feel increasing degrees of repulsion as they move through the list, hopefully unable to complete at least the last item. This suggests the presence of prescriptive force, the power of the true-false dynamic, the main focus of this thread. Some have argued the example just points up a useful evolved cultural response. Arguments like this are not only intuitively weak, but the view proposed here unfold suggests that the motives behind arguments like these are, like most human motives, the product of value interactions.

    True t and False f
    In descriptive reality, like energy-polarities repel and opposites attract. Prescriptive force is the opposite; like attracts (^) or produces union, and opposite repels (¬) and is wholly incompatible.

    All descriptive energy values are immutably true. At base the energy of physical existents only changes form, never value, so mutability is limited to reorganization of energy particles or matter that at base holds its value immutably. This is why mathematics—the language of absolute truth—is so beautiful the more one understands it: the values it speaks or interprets from descriptive existence are expressions of pure, unalterable truth.

    Value exists in one of two grades or denominations: true or false. In the thought experiment above, the increasing discomfort felt [assuming readers free of psychosis] in the notion of striking each successive entity is an example of the effect of falsification in cognition, i.e., in causing damage or even the observation of damage being caused to life-bearing entities is a falsification of the good of health—e.g., removal of some quantity of life, arguably the greatest good. The higher the rate of impairment, the stronger the moral force [revulsion] experienced in perception. Thus, moral force or pressure is cognitively enacted when the t components of an observer encounter situations in which falsification occurs. As noted in another thread, this condition has a secular lookalike in psychology called Cognitive Dissonance, mental discomfort from simultaneously held contradictory beliefs. The t ¬ f relation produces this resistance or dissonance in prescriptive matters.

    Truth and falsity force-values can no more populate the same position than positive and negative energy charges can occupy the same point in matter. But if the value-bearingness of the soul or life force (or whatever one wants to call consciousness) plays a fundamental role in human behavior as these relationships suggest, then the fact that the same person exhibits both good and bad behaviors has to be accounted for. This goal gains clarity in the conversion of macro-level persons to information and performing a reduction of that information to constituent parts. Because each material particle contains multiple informational assets (particularity, properties, relations) there are theoretically many more “parts” of information than there are particles they can be mapped to. I call each “part” of information an iota. Will provide further explanations if requested, but sparsity is prudent for the message board venue. Suffice that individual iotas as sort of the “virtual particles” of existence are, at base (like their material counterparts), force-value components. Energy value [Ve] and force value [Vf] are concurrent kinds of power in a single existence. Each iota of inorganic information contains Ve. Organics = Ve^Vf.

    While some traits, behaviors, attitudes or states of affairs we call good or bad are cognitive in nature in perception of instrumental values, others arise from the possession in persons of some combination of actual true or false values, fragmentally distributed throughout human (and only human) essence. Fragmentation exists because single iotas of the informational essence of persons are falsified; falsity exists fragmentally within a field of [arguably mostly] true information. This would explain how the opposite values of truth and falsity can coexist in particular individuals, and how and why an individual expresses both good and bad thoughts, intentions and acts.

    The model has a number of interesting possibilities. For instance, the t¬f dynamic infers that value interactions are the primary cause of human behavior. It would follow that evolutionary behavioral psychology has much less to say about human behavior than is currently proposed. The force dynamic (what theists might call a spiritual dynamic), if it holds, seems to have weak correlation to evolutionary modification—if behavior is primarily due to the force-value and not energy-value component of humans, then it’s hard to see how evolutionary materialism could have any more than a secondary role in forming moral beliefs and behaviors. If discussion gets that far, an argument can be made that most—maybe all—states of affairs are either directly prescriptively-based or have strong some measure of prescriptive connection. There seems no doubt that the energy component in intellectual “living” information” particulars—in macroscopic terms, the material component in humans—doubtless plays an interactive role with the prescriptive force-value component, though the logistics of the interface remains unsolved. Damage in the material component contributes to normative-ethic-moral causes, but in the role of modification. All things being equal from a physical health standpoint, prescriptive force, though strongly interlaced with its sister value, energy, is the primary formulator of the moral realm.

    But the main reason for this post is to consider other paths a value-suffused reality leads to: normative/moral degradation in society generally and more specifically value’s corollary in the formation of attitudes about prescriptive propositions in persons.

    The alteration of an iota of information from a true to false state, peculiar to humans (or agents) and not other intelligent animals, seems to develop from within intellectual operation, in the exercise of the will, e.g., in the formation of prejudicial (with respect to ultimate truth or perfection) choices.

    Falsification due to choice is not the only architect of moral attitudes, of course. Damage to the ventromedial prefrontal cortex is found to lead to utilitarian moral decision-making, and morality is said to likely be affected by interactions among multiple brain regions, so damage to any of these may play a role in moral evaluation. This is to be expected in a unit in which diverse but conjoined (energy-force) features provide a single informational dynamic. Brain damage is itself a form of falsification when the true (or truth itself) is understood to be the unassailable standard by which the quality, merit, worth or good of the function of an informational system is assessed. Voltage and amperage combine to provide electricity, and energy and force combine to from biological units.

    It’s conceded that the material plays a role in moral processing, but as noted above, for all intents and purposes the primary player in prescriptive judgment is the non-material force-component of humans and will remain the focus here.

    An appeal to the will as the architect of falsity in one’s essence is not a commitment to libertarian autonomy or even necessarily to any high degree of freedom. Though self-inflicted falsification of essence seems intuitively feasible it’s hard to see how a subjective mind could accomplish by any direct means damage to the essence of another. But agents can obviously influence the moral and normative directions others take. Imposition of the will of A on B can coerce a falsity-producing decision in B, so external pressure to conform in its various forms is part of the prescriptive equation, and degrees of culpability seem to properly affix to A’s coercion for B’s prescriptive choices.

    Further, the creation of sociopathic and other anti-social behaviors—undoubtedly products of falsified minds—are known to be caused, at least in part, in childhood by abuse and mistreatment in unloving family conditions. That external factors contribute to essence-falsification certainly must reduce—and in many cases reduce greatly—the culpability of an agent for some measure of his moral choices. The exercise of the will in prescriptive choices or in the building of one’s moral architecture is probably much less free and more bound to external factors than is sometimes given credit.

    Still, the self-falsification feature of agents may more often than not be traced to choices made in reasonably or significantly free states, as in a reasonably uncoerced decision to experiment with drugs, sometimes leading to deeper falsification (addiction, which usually leads to other detrimental behaviors), despite awareness on some level of the dangers involved. The falsification of essence and its apparent effect on cognitive functions leads to further falsification in both material and mental states, invoking deeper falsification in societal and personal relationships and participation in morally questionable and/or deviant subcultures.

    Because truth as the raw “dynamic potential” of existence is itself the standard for suitable and appropriate operation for both energy and energy-force entities, the paradigm above proposes that the correspondence relation, for example, is a t^t affiliation, i.e., accord between the informational structure of a conscious mind and its external surroundings. The energies and forces at play generate this natural affiliation or bond. Some quantity of t in human information in harmony with t in the information of external things generates the t^t union in cognition. This connection doesn’t just provide a bridge between mind and world, truth's natural force of attraction is the blueprint or organizational structure of cognitive processes, religions, biological processes, planets, patterns, philosophies, etc. Truth is the provider of the proper functioning of existence itself. In On Truth (pp. 63-65) Harry Frankfurt points out that humans are rational beings, that we pride ourselves in our rationality and that we could not function rationally at all if we failed to make distinctions between true and false. ”To be rational is fundamentally a matter of being appropriately responsive to reasons…reasons are constituted of facts” Facts, he goes on to say, are verified in experience; we confirm facts that provide reasons by confirming that they are true.

    Conversely, the t ¬ f relation will commonly cause a very mild tension in the apprehension of a descriptive falsehood (New York City is the capital of Florida), but a much more robust resistance in cognition in proportion to the category of organics—as was demonstrated in the thought experiment in the progression from mere (if any) tension in striking the boulder to increase of resistance with respect to progressively higher resistance experienced in each higher form of life. Hence, where energy is king in material matters, force exerts its supremacy in prescriptive matters. Hume’s ought-is distinction stands unscathed.

    It follows that a cumulative fragmental falsification, because of falsity's natural antagonism to truth, would, in intellectual operation, create beliefs, situations and states that can reasonably be characterized as bad, corrupt, off the mark, wrong, defective or any of dozens of terms we use to define imperfection of one sort or another. Actual falsification in essence generates actual effects in cognitive functions which are then (depending on measure of falsification) often expressed in anti-social or self-destructive behaviors. The more egregious and dangerous patterns—sociopathic or psychopathic behaviors—are among the fullest expressions of falsification in human essence and contribute significantly to damage in personal and sociological relationships and affairs.

    admin
    Site Admin
    Posts: 21
    Joined: Fri Nov 10, 2017 4:57 pm

    The "Spiritual Mechanics" of Truth - Part 2

    Post by admin » Tue Feb 27, 2018 5:20 pm

      Written by Anomaly654

      Part Two

      Falsification and Motives

      The natural tension between true and false sets a simple example of the necessity of an external absolute to which non-absolutes have their reference. Truth, in both descriptive and prescriptive realities, is the straightforward and obvious standard. We always strive to get at the truth of things. Popper’s philosophy of scientific falsification is the use of falsity to find truth.

      I see no reasonable arguments that can be sufficiently mounted against the idea that truth itself, in both moral and factual realms, is the single, simple absolute standard toward which all activity should aim.

      That truth is power is easily verifiable. Fill out last year’s tax returns using entirely falsehoods. Name, earnings, dependents—fill in all the blanks with counterfeit information. Try living a day in which you freely substitute falsehoods with truths. Treat red lights as green, resolve that the brick wall you face is made of marshmallows and pound your head against it, pretend the Affordable Care Act works on every level promised and provides the absolute pinnacle of health care to every American; praise its perfection to everyone you meet. Spend your day inserting falsehoods into truths at home, work and in social settings and see how your day goes. One should pretty quickly concede the idea that value—both truth and falsity—as latent force has merit. These forces, sometimes antithetical, sometimes unifying, emerge in the interactions of intellectual agents with value-forces in external existence to shape opinions, affiliations, standards, belief systems—and eventually, societies and cultures. The medical technician examines blood and tissue samples under a microscope to gather health information about a patient. The impropriety of inserting false information into her report on the samples is so obvious that further discussion on the matter is unnecessary. Most of us take truth—the force that provides our primary directional beacon for every aim of life, work, play, relationships, etc.—wholly for granted.

      Cognitive Bias is a sociological term for defects in thinking. Focus here will be on two forms of value-influenced bias, what will be called Cognitive Sedition[CS] and Cognitive Obscurity[CO]. CS is a term for the aforementioned resistance caused by the t¬f relation in mental processing. The force of this mental property is exclusively directed to prescriptive matters. In particular, its cause—the fragmental falsification of human information or essence, affecting cognition—is naturally the corruption of a perfection because the nature of the true is set up by and proceeds from its attributes: unity, suitability, harmony, perfection, accord, good, organization, propriety, etc. with the perfection of life as arguably the greatest good and truth. Conversely, the false is associated naturally with discord, inadequacy, inferiority, dissension, evil, chaos, death, etc. Obviously, these opposites repel. CS plays out in three distinct cognitive reactions:

      A. The t^t union
      B. The t¬f opposition
      C. The f^f union

      Before getting into how these play out in prescriptive matters the CO function needs attention. CO, as name implies, is the quality of indistinctness in the cogitative powers, a cognitive destabilization of the t^t union by the admittance of fragmental falsity into the mind’s informational matrix, impairing its ability to form numerically sufficient t^t[i/] bonds in the patterning of mental content to effect the perfection of reason and knowing. CS and CO are closely related but not identical. While both are caused by the true-false antagonism, CS produces a robust enmity in prescriptive matters while CO is a general distortion of intellectual operation for all matters of deliberation and attention, prescriptive or descriptive.

      Definitions for the three possible value configurations provided above should help demonstrate the role value fragmentation plays in moral motives, accumulation of beliefs and responses to moral propositions. While the function for all three would apply to information ascribed to any material function, the information of intellectual operation as mental content in connection with external actual and propositional information.

      A. The qualitative condition or force between true information states producing attraction to true idea(s), the proper and appropriate function in an exchange or transaction between the information of perceiver and information perceived, with respect to this relation’s ability to produce true meaning.
      B. The qualitative condition or force between true and false information states producing repulsion and resistance to true idea(s), a corrupted transaction between the information of perceiver and information perceived, with respect to this relation’s ability to produce true meaning.
      C. The qualitative condition or force between false information states producing attraction to false idea(s), producing dissonance between the false idea(s) held with respect to this relation’s ability to produce true meaning.

      The above provide interesting outcomes for a variety of topics: motives behind the prescriptive beliefs one holds, the nature of moral beliefs, how the above would factor into reasons internalism and externalism, how this might play out in the identification of moral properties, etc. I find "C" most interesting: one who holds a falsehood then must expend effort gathering true propositions (arguments) to "prove" her false belief. No one uses false propositions to prove a false belief.

      As a theist, the above (assuming theistic belief is fundamentally, if not precisely, true) is interesting because it seems to provide—with some degree of analytical reliability—an explanation for not only the great moral divide throughout the various philosophical frameworks in history, but offers a coherent account for how and why persons accumulate both theistic/moral and anti-theistic/anti-moral beliefs and offers a basis for why they adhere.

      Thoughts?

      User avatar
      Anomaly654
      Posts: 39
      Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2018 6:49 pm
      Location: midwest US

      Re: The "Spiritual Mechanics" of Truth - Part 1

      Post by Anomaly654 » Tue May 08, 2018 1:54 am

      I think I mentioned in an earlier post that this idea of value-driven cause for moral motivation started with the search for a solution to a theological problem. Around 20 years ago I tried self-employment after spending 20+ years working in the trades. Work was initially slow, and I took a winter job sitting in an 8x10 guard shack along the Mississippi River watching a parking lot for work crews installing new turbines in a hydroelectric dam, 6pm to 6am. In other words, I was doing virtually nothing for 12 hours per day, 7 days a week one winter. Decided to educate myself, so started reading Aquinas’ Summa Theologica and Contra Gentiles. Struggled with the archaic language, but in reading Part One Q. 16, a. 1 where Thomas is making the case that truth resides in the intellect but not things, he quotes Avicenna from his Metaphysics: "The truth of each thing is a property of the essence which is immutably attached to it." Bingo. This idea stuck with me, kept bugging me. Played it out in thought to what I felt were its logical conclusions and it grew.

      With this simple idea as a starting point (which led me to disagree with St Thomas on a couple of his ideas about truth—convertible with being, resides only in the intellect) not only did the resolution to the aforementioned theological problem present itself, but corollaries grew naturally from the notion of value mechanics” producing normative-based belief and behavioral patterns generally, some of which are noted above, and for moral motivation more specifically. (Speaking of which, I apologize for the text, it needs considerable cleaning up. Wrote it on the spur of the moment two consecutive evenings before posting at ILP and didn’t proofread very thoroughly.)
      Was encountering considerable flak for my beliefs at the time in my theology board posting [my universalism is unacceptable to the evangelical crowd, within which I spent a good portion of my adult religious life], and came to test the value mechanics hypothesis in a number of these discussions.

      Should note: I’m not saying the ideas are mine. Moving from metaphysical (hypothesis of value-endued information) to theological (Biblical Christianity), virtually all the fundamental ideas presented above are framed in various passages/teachings in the Bible, from both Testaments. Next post I’ll sketch an example of how I think value plays out in moral motivation based on some of the doctrinal discussions I’ve taken part in over the last several years and will try to extrapolate how the principles involved would form the patterns explaining our societal ills.

      User avatar
      Anomaly654
      Posts: 39
      Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2018 6:49 pm
      Location: midwest US

      Re: The "Spiritual Mechanics" of Truth - Part 1

      Post by Anomaly654 » Wed Jul 11, 2018 3:30 pm

      En-De, not sure if you or anyone still drops in. Sorry for the absence...I felt it necessary to take on a project that has consumed me for more than 3 months now, usually 7 days a week. Had to get this done prior to having both knees replaced, which begins in early August. Really appreciate that you see some value in my posts, will soon have my time back and be able to get back to my writing if any interest still exists.

      In the meantime I've been studying the Humean Theory of Motivation in the little spare time I have, which I feel the value mechanics I contend for has the best fit though it plays out in a number of other areas, mostly theological but also metaethical. Will pop in from time to time over next month or so to see if there's any response to see if venue is still here for posting.

      User avatar
      encode_decode
      Posts: 94
      Joined: Sat Dec 02, 2017 12:33 pm

      Re: The "Spiritual Mechanics" of Truth - Part 1

      Post by encode_decode » Tue Jul 17, 2018 4:29 am

      Anomaly654 wrote:
      Wed Jul 11, 2018 3:30 pm
      En-De, not sure if you or anyone still drops in. Sorry for the absence...I felt it necessary to take on a project that has consumed me for more than 3 months now, usually 7 days a week. Had to get this done prior to having both knees replaced, which begins in early August. Really appreciate that you see some value in my posts, will soon have my time back and be able to get back to my writing if any interest still exists.

      In the meantime I've been studying the Humean Theory of Motivation in the little spare time I have, which I feel the value mechanics I contend for has the best fit though it plays out in a number of other areas, mostly theological but also metaethical. Will pop in from time to time over next month or so to see if there's any response to see if venue is still here for posting.
      Good to hear from you again. We still have a few people dropping in - I have noticed it has been a little quiet on most of the forums I visit. On a positive note, I looked for this forum in Google using a few different search terms and the best result I got was on page three of the results up from page 6 previously. It takes time for new things to become recognized.

      I do value your writing very much - I particularly like the angle at which you are coming from. I hope the knee replacements go well and I bet you are looking forward to getting back to writing again. I am revising Humean Theory of Motivation to stay caught up.
      - Mind is an ever changing dimension that is bound to reality, logic and emotion. (2017) -

      User avatar
      Anomaly654
      Posts: 39
      Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2018 6:49 pm
      Location: midwest US

      Re: The "Spiritual Mechanics" of Truth - Part 1

      Post by Anomaly654 » Mon Aug 27, 2018 6:48 pm

      Thought I’d post some recent thoughts as I’m trying to put together a coherent account of how I think value mechanics fit into a theory of agent motivation. Unfortunately due to age and some other factors this has been slow-going. I’m still trying to get a handle on the salient arguments in order to make a halfway intelligent attempt.

      There seem to be a dizzying number of ideas as to how motivation unfolds, lots of variance of opinion on what constitutes desires, reasons (in general), motivating reasons, normative reasons, goals, actions, motivational facts, beliefs, mental states, dispositions and all the various relata involved.

      I recently found a paper I downloaded by Terence Cuneo, “Are Moral Qualities Response-dependent?” (2001) that has grabbed my attention. It explores the thesis that moral properties are a form of secondary quality. I wondered about this years ago after learning the difference between primary/secondary qualities but didn’t have enough knowledge of how the notion of “moral pressure” (the causal effect of value interactions) might tie into normative elements of experience. When I post a hypothesis of value-driven motivation it will likely tie into this thesis of response-dependency.

      Just an aside, been mulling over a simple “informational” formula for [very broadly] a form of dualism that may be substance dualism from a third person perspective, but, from the first person point of view is a sort of property dualism. Very rough idea, assumes two substances, “A” and “B”. In this construct it’s assumed that the primary qualities of a thing are owing to its P component, while secondary qualities are produced by the V of information.

      In the formula P + V = I (particularity + value = Information) where the P of substance “A” is undetectable (non-empirical), the V component of “A” crosses the abstract-to-concrete threshold to form an amalgam with V of substance “B”. This plays out in the thought experiment presented earlier, of striking various inorganic and organic entities with a sledge hammer. The increase of tension and resistance felt in striking objects composed of increasing qualitative and/or quantitative V concentrations of substance “A” would elicit the proportionate increases in tension and resistance felt by agents whose emotional, mental and cognitive functions are suitably truth-bearing. In other words, the rising tension and resistance felt in the thought experiment is an experience of moral pressure whose V exceeds what would reasonably be expected if only the empirical features of substance “B” were at work. The secondary qualities presented by V of substance “B” (color, taste, smell, etc.) are not moral qualities, therefore the presence of another set of qualities (the V of substance “A”) would explain normative and moral senses. It’s put forth here that the secondary qualities of substance “A” inhere in and have the capacity to produce moral qualities within “B” information. This inherent V produce moral facts and cause us to discern moral properties within certain configurations of empirical reality.

      This also seems compatible with the idea that defective (falsified) functions in non-material minds produces falsified behaviors in actions, which of course are performed by material entities in physical circumstances. Thus, degrees of V[“A”] inhere in V[“B”], or in the essence of organic entities, and value, if not substance (particularity), passes back and forth between empirical and non-empirical frameworks. This is obviously an informational interpretation (and reduction) of vitalism.

      Cuneo describes the response-dependent property roughly thus: “…that thing’s instantiation in an object consists in the disposition of that object to give rise to certain kinds of response in certain types of agent in certain types of circumstance.” Indeed, V as a sort of ‘non-contact’ force [power to produce responses in minds] in information might arguably have the capacity to produce secondary, response-dependent moral properties which garner certain kinds of response in certain types of agent in certain types of circumstance.

      User avatar
      Anomaly654
      Posts: 39
      Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2018 6:49 pm
      Location: midwest US

      Re: The "Spiritual Mechanics" of Truth - Part 1

      Post by Anomaly654 » Sun Sep 09, 2018 10:30 pm

      Information and Cognitive Function—Part One of Two

      The following is based on the rough hypothesis that the intermingled energies of P and V, however they may operate in information, play a primary role in value interactions with, and affects upon, cognitive functions. It will be argued here that these interfaces account for value’s role in forming motivation, justification and certain kinds of reasons in human agents.

      But crucial to a value perspective of how ideas assemble into propositions and propositions into beliefs and beliefs into belief systems is that value plays a preludial role in the formation of these features of an agent’s religious, social and political bias. Character, temperament and all the features that contribute to the personalities of human agents are supervised or furnished motivational predisposition by powers imposed on the cognitive processes by the sum of innate value components inherent in the informational interactions of intellects that process and the content they engage.

      It’s already been presented that tt unions are naturally sought in cognition, as for instance in creation of the accord (tt correlation) between the accumulated experience of an agent and her received representations of the material world. But where the t – t function can be seen to apply to the processing of static factual and normative/moral information, falsity in an agent’s information (essence) produce only mild tensions in factual and much stronger resistance in normative and prescriptive matters.


      Normative Reasons

      The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy points out that normative reasons “…derive from the idea that there are norms, principles or codes that prescribe actions: they make it right or wrong to do certain things”, and that normative reasons may be “…moral, prudential, legal, hedonic (relating to pleasure) or of some other kind.” It seems important to note that because normative reasons relate to principles or codes that bear relationships to right or wrong, their strongest relation is their appropriateness to the judgments, thoughts, beliefs and actions of human agents specifically, and more generally to all forms of life. The application of normativity to non-human agents is not being considered here.

      It is assumed here that some but not all normative reasons may be moral reasons, but all moral reasons are normative.

      From the point of view of value interactions, normative reasons are inescapably performed for agent interests, never for purely material reasons. In other words, normative reasons are directed for or against the interests of the agent having these reasons, other agents or for life-bearing entities generally. Inorganic objects have normative status only insofar as they hold instrumental value in attaining to the desires of the holders of normative reasons, as in the use of an object (fire truck) used by agents (firemen) to achieve some normative goal (saving lives). The innate value in what we hold to be “matter” has only an inert "true" status and never attains normative value outside its association with agent interests. If true, this might explain a difficulty in AI's ability to attain a sentient state identical to that of a human or have a “soul” in the sense humans are said to have one. No matter how complex computational software becomes, its value is always inert and necessarily only the sum of its parts, whereas the elusive vitality of organic entities exceeds the material mechanisms they occupy.

      I’d like to explore the subject-object value mechanism and its peculiarities in gaining factual vs. normative vs. prescriptive knowledge in a future post.


      Value Effects for Reasons and Beliefs

      It’s already been posited that correlations, correspondences, etc. are arguably produced in the mind by the cooperative powers in the information of agents and that of the external content they process. The role of value—which is a state of information or condition of existence—is a sort of “ordering from within”. Such participations or unions (or, in the case of the interjection of falsity, dissonance or repulsion) hypothetically provides an organizing principle for the cognitive functions. We use terms like “coherence”, “unity”, “harmony” or “accord” to express the t – t and f – f functions, and “discord”, “antagonism”, “conflict” or “opposition” the t – f arrangement. This notion of truth- or falsity-bearingness as a natural component of existence stands at variance with ideas that truth is merely in things like language, propositions or simply in minds disassociated with any external orientation.
      Value_motivation.jpg
      Value_motivation.jpg (36.93 KiB) Viewed 48 times
      The chart demonstrates a hypothesis of the role innate value plays in normative, especially moral, motivation including the formation of a motivating reason and its supporting reasons. What is not shown is that value, while playing an initiatory role in forming motives, reasons and illusory intentional mental states in an isolated state (as in daydreaming, hallucinating or having nightmares), value’s role is not simply an internal function in agents. The chart assumes a third person view of specifically agent cognitive processes, but dynamic cognition depends on the interactions of bilateral value states, i.e., agent information value (mind) in coalition with value states in external information (representations). Intentionality that fails to seize external representations would, if turned inward for very long, seem only able to produce a mentally unhealthy inner state of being detached from participation with an external reality. For example, hallucinations are illusory perceptions that have no relation to real world stimuli. We seem to know intuitively (and clinically) that healthy, non-illusory mental states require union or contact and verification with external reality.

      Value investment plays out in intellects in two primary modes, Actual (subconscious or unconscious activity) and Explanatory (conscious). I’ll tackle these in order. Note that the term “agent” has been used so far in the broadest sense to indicate “human being”. This definition of agent will continue to apply to the Actual/Unconscious/Non-intentional role of value, but will require a finer definition [forthcoming] for the Explanatory section.

      Actual/Unconscious/Non-intentional

      Actual, non-intentional states are in this hypothesis isolated, first stage reactions in the mind created by value interactions between the information of agent (intellect) and external representations. This initial dynamic produces non-intentional predispositions that form motivational and desire states. Value predispositions are fashioned outside and prior to the interventional affect of the will. This theory resembles Humean desire-based motivation in that the formation of primarily an unfixed, Non-intentional dispositional state—with simultaneous establishment of a “value-charged” motivation and desire framework—precedes rational processing and reasons. I.e., reasons are formed “after the fact” of predisposition. The Actual, Non-intentional framework might be thought of as the “birth” or spark that precedes and “flavors” the rational process. This framework agrees in principle with the late E. Jonathan Lowe’s position that, “…reasons, motives, beliefs, desires, etc. should…not be described as causes of human actions. To do so neglects the will of the agent.” [1] The role value plays in cognition (and on to literally every aspect of an agent’s existence) could be considered a deterministic process if the causative feature of the will was ignored. Actual, non-intentional predisposition leaves no room for libertarian views of the will as the tf function arguably forces an impediment—though not necessarily a decisive impediment, as the ff function does[2]—on an agent’s ability to exercise choice.


      [1] From The Information Philosopher website article on E. Johnathan Lowe. http://www.informationphilosopher.com/s ... hers/lowe/ I can in general agree with Lowe’s doctrine that mental states like reasons, motives, beliefs or desires aren’t causes of human action, but suggest that because value exerts degrees of often strong influence on the formation of non-intentional mental states, to the degrees it affects the will to form intentional states its force is causal.

      [2] Note that “free will” in the context of value appeals strictly to the ability of the will to develop proper (true) choices, to form proper (true) beliefs, etc. with respect to the perfection of truth itself. The standard definition of free will as “The power of making free choices that are unconstrained by external circumstances or by an agency such as fate or divine will” is incoherent in value mechanics (from a Christian point of view) because the primary nature of God is understood to be Truth. It follows that the agent’s choices, reasons, motives, etc. would, to the degree they are truth-bearing [and thus truth-compatible], find appropriate alignment with those of God.
      A corollary of this assumes metaphysical constructs of truth are broadly correct. Thus, constructivist, minimalist, postmodernist and similar theories would be anticipated in a value mechanics analysis as systems naturally produced by the tf and ff functions, e.g., fields of knowledge produced by agents who, by the dictates of falsification in essence (and causally, cognition) are armed with motivational predispositions to stand against and attempt to disprove those fields of study more properly truth-oriented.

      User avatar
      encode_decode
      Posts: 94
      Joined: Sat Dec 02, 2017 12:33 pm

      Re: The "Spiritual Mechanics" of Truth - Part 1

      Post by encode_decode » Tue Oct 09, 2018 7:25 am

      I am thinking of putting a glossary of terms together - this will help me absorb what you are writing more clearly.

      I can have the glossary open in one tab and your writings open in another tab.

      Generally speaking, I can understand what you are saying with good clarity but I would like to logically analyse the semantic structure and be able to reciprocate more solidly with you. I think this is necessary given the technical nature of your writing. Your writing is a whole subject to be explored.

      I hope you do not mind.

      I do this in my field all the time.
      - Mind is an ever changing dimension that is bound to reality, logic and emotion. (2017) -

      User avatar
      Anomaly654
      Posts: 39
      Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2018 6:49 pm
      Location: midwest US

      Re: The "Spiritual Mechanics" of Truth - Part 1

      Post by Anomaly654 » Tue Oct 16, 2018 1:23 am

      encode_decode wrote:
      Tue Oct 09, 2018 7:25 am
      I am thinking of putting a glossary of terms together - this will help me absorb what you are writing more clearly.

      I can have the glossary open in one tab and your writings open in another tab.

      Generally speaking, I can understand what you are saying with good clarity but I would like to logically analyse the semantic structure and be able to reciprocate more solidly with you. I think this is necessary given the technical nature of your writing. Your writing is a whole subject to be explored.

      I hope you do not mind.

      I do this in my field all the time.
      This is not only a good idea, it's something I should have thought of doing long ago. Am half afraid you'll catch me in some inconsistencies because I've caught a few of my own since posting here. One of the harder things I've had to learn is to write with precision and consistency. Having no background in higher learning this has been a long, slow learning process. But yes, by all means, a glossary is a great idea.

      Post Reply