It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


An Ontological Clarification

page: 1

log in


posted on Jul, 30 2017 @ 06:42 PM
Since the mind really is, in fact, an emergent property of biosemiotic processes between human beings and the world around them (implying that mind interpenetrates external structures) what would be the meaning of what could be termed "spiritual entities"?

Omega Point, or Eden?

Lets say one point of the evolutionary dialectic begins in "fear", and the other point is based in love. What does such a thing even mean?

Well, evolutionary speaking, the first cells were structures which discovered how to dissipate external molecules that yielded molecular units for the reconstruction of the cells dynamical structure. The balance between internal reaction-times and movement-in-the-world is such that the organism learns to properly "map" the outside world so that food that is detected will always prompt a path-of-least resistance type movement of the organism to the food. This has been shown to be the case by quantum biology in that the detection of a molecule - such as glucose - is not the molecule itself, but a electromagnetic gradient which "pulls" the organism, as it were, towards the needed substance. How can this connectivity even exist? Andres Wagner, author of Arrival of the Fittest, posits an "internal library" of responses built within an organisms who structure, which contains or IS the memory of its past relations with the world. Wagner's work shows the mathematical impossibility of thinking about the organism - any living structure - as mere cause-effect, as the possibilities of reactions in any molecule-molecule reaction within the organism itself (not even taking account of the organisms knowledge of where to move) are so large as to many times exceed the number of seconds since the Universes explosion into being 14.5 billion years ago.

So first things first: Nature is PROFOUNDLY ORDERED. More than you think - as this world compels such an obnoxious depreciation of the clarity of the reality we life within and through, I want to impress upon the reader that the Earth as a living system is no more magical than the organism as a living system: it is the relations that constitute the living and mentality of living: not the body.

So, how do we conceive of the Earth's "living"? Well, in terms of the cell, it is the autocatalytic closure of the membrane and the proteins which are embedded therein are chemically adapted to respond to nutrients in the external world so that useful information can be "brought in". On the inside itself lie relationships between molecules that are circular so that intrinsic parts of the structure of the cell are regenerated, again and again.

I would claim, as Stuart Kauffman does in Humanity in a Creative Universe (2016), that the capacities of a cell really derive from the kinetic effects of the closure of the cell itself. What this implies is deeply fascinating: the "top", or the kinetic container itself, "feeds back" on the bottom (or the lowest-level particular units) in such a way as to create a "channel" of information processing that becomes canalized again and again, between the organism and the environment.

This, then, is how the Earth could be described as a real living system: the kinetic closure of our planet and the "rebounding" of the "top" of the system against the smallest physical units (the bottom) within the system itself, such that a "channelling" is created between the top and bottom, which is what we see as stones, rivers, trees, animals etc.

We could say, then, that the human beings evolution has been shaped in such a way as to make us "compatible" with the other elements of the Earths life.

Now, how does an organism grow? It first gets a 'sense' of what it needs to be, and what it becomes what it is, it finds a way to overcome the obstacles that prevent its being. This is essentially evolution by adaptation.

Now, lets say that the Asteroid which hit Earth roughly 66 million years ago and killed off all the dinosaurs and nearly all life. Then, 35 million years ago, another major impact killed off the majority of life on Earth.

Is it possible, perhaps, given that 35 million years ago monkeys were well evolved, that the Earth system leveraged the monkeys evolution in such a way as to channel its semiotic processes towards what may be termed the "omega point" i.e. love?

This sounds strange and very different from what we usually think about ourselves, but think about it: the Earth has been nearly destroyed again and again by asteroids, and it possesses a species on it which could, if it can evolve the capacity of mind, develop the technological means to protect the planet, and in doing so, the planet has in effect evolved by adaptation to a menacing threat.

Think about how this perspective modifies how we see our selves, our religions and beliefs - when from the planets perspective, the human being evolved to help protect the planet from being destroyed by asteroids.

If this perspective is true, it is very interesting to note that it was around 75,000 years ago that mount Toba exploded and Ash covered the planet for nearly 5 years.

Homo Sapiens were very well evolved by then, and indeed, having evolved from a consistent background of connection with nature, probably never ever considered the idea of itself as separated from it.

But then nature, its seems, cut the umbilical chord and threw us into a state of disconnection and trauma. By breaking the tie, Humans dissociated, and by dissociating, lost that connection that maintained themselves in connection with one another, which is to say, fundamentally reshaped how we related and made meaning in the world. As bad as this was for us - it may have fit within the planets "rules" - or desire: to build up a defense against asteroids, it needs a creature that can recognize the presence of such a problem. No?

And so began "history", or rather, the Neolithic began 12,000 years ago, and mythological history began around 6,000 years ago. This history which humans take-so-damn seriously, may be nothing more than a means-to-an-end for the planet.

Crazy, eh?

Spiritual Entities

Would be no more than the ontological structures which organize our biodynamism - and that they can be related to or to function as a "counter-point" to our wishing - if it is "given" what it wants (implying a sort of ontological purposiveness) it may grant your wishes.

What this shows, given our cultures penchant for "occultism", is that without knowing the larger-picture, you may be acting in ways or doing things that are violently out of touch with how things work - i.e. that all things self-organize and depend upon real material processes for their existence.
edit on 30-7-2017 by Astrocyte because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 30 2017 @ 07:28 PM
a reply to: Astrocyte
Are you in graduate school?

I ask because I used to write like this when I was getting my masters degree. This type of writing is for a limited audience of academics. Ever notice that only about ten actual people world wide read/subscribe to specific academic journals, and the rest of the subscriptions go to libraries?

If you understand your subject you should be able to communicate it to a non-academic audience. Or do you only want to communicate with the 10 or so people on ATS who are currently engaged in this particular sub-area of inquirey?

You are really making it hard for folk when you use terms like ontology, when that is just a fancy ancient Greek way to say the study of reality, how people perceive reality, and other really cool topics related to being a person. You don't have to know the fancy academic terms to discuss these topics, as many folks discuss them every day, and derive satisfaction from the covetsation.

So, using an autodydacdic apprach, please attempt to reify your conceptual framework into a semantically acceptable form that has a kionon, rather than a phenom affect.

There, I can do it too.

Big deal.

I did think your points were intetesting.

posted on Jul, 30 2017 @ 09:51 PM
Ah the good old days, I forgot how to think, it took me a while to gather your information.

One criticism I have is ontology and cosmology need to be considered together IMO.

What is actual ontology?


What is super position comically and spitrually?


Holographic programs?

Purely anthropic?


Super Strings?

posted on Jul, 30 2017 @ 09:53 PM
a reply to: TacSite18
I agree with your point and coming from a college dropout, I like reading Astrocyte's threads. I like to broaden my vocabulary and be dazzled with fancy words and sometimes highly technical terms which often leads me to other interesting topics while googling their definitions.

It's all good but it's up to Astrolyte to accommodate your suggestion.

posted on Jul, 30 2017 @ 09:56 PM
a reply to: TacSite18

Ontology is a word that describes an area of thought study.

There isn't another single word I know similar in western vernacular.

It's concise and Google able.

posted on Jul, 30 2017 @ 10:50 PM
a reply to: Astrocyte

Now, how does an organism grow? It first gets a 'sense' of what it needs to be, and what it becomes what it is, it finds a way to overcome the obstacles that prevent its being. This is essentially evolution by adaptation

How does anything "get" a "sense"?
How does it "find" a "way"?

What are the evolved mechanics of getting, sensing, motivating, overcoming, and searching?
These terms describe traits of a fully evolved human.

Did the "earth" have these traits in mind when it evolved us? Why go through all that work and time. If it just needed protection form asteroids why couldn't it, if it already have these traits do it herself and find a place in the universe without asteroids?

posted on Jul, 31 2017 @ 06:52 PM

originally posted by: Astrocyte
Since the mind really is, in fact, an emergent property of...

Followed by all sorts of great jargon (deliberately obscure language, usually an attempt to cover ignorance), but it is built on sand!
Would you care to clearly define what you mean by 'the mind', because 'Mind' is not "really", or "in fact", an emergent property of anything!
That is what QM seems to have found, and what mystics have Known for millennia!
All that exists, are perceived properties (in hologramic/mental/make-believe 'form') of the One Universal Mind/Consciousness!

posted on Jul, 31 2017 @ 11:05 PM
a reply to: TacSite18

No, I'm not in graduate school.

Anywho, totally understand and appreciate your criticism.

What do you think I do all day? Read, read and read. This is what scholars do. I write here purely out of boredom/restlessness, usually at the end of the day, and usually to get something off my chest; and when I do, little thought goes into editing or modifying my language so as to accommodate the linguistic capacity of the non-philosophy reading public. If you can't tell: my reading touches on biophysics, ecology, psychology, neuroscience, traumatology, systems biology, semiotics, cognitive science, psychoanalysis, etc. This is not the typical sort of stuff that can be effectively "dumbed- down" without affecting the meaning.

That said, when I write my book, I very much intend on using the word "ontology" as well as "epistemology", and no, its not because I am an egotist who needs others to understand how smart I am, but because these words convey/possess meaning which, if replaced by a swathe of phrases, would feel cumbersome and difficult to read.

Glossaries, on the other hand, are quite useful, and I intend to put one at the back of my book when it is finished. I wouldn't have thought that "ontology" would be an issue-word; but, apparently, it probably is. More difficult or arcane terms like "teleodynamism" "dicisgn" etc, I would've thought this needs clarification, but not ontology.

On the other hand, people really need to better understand how their inner-experience operates, because I myself remember a time when, reading another persons words, found myself growing irritated "not understanding". This was probably 12 or more years ago, but I do now recognize that, internally speaking, the desire "to know" i.e. the purpose of reading, and not understanding (experiencing myself as 'defective') prompted an angry response out of me.

Today, I can go back to the Art of war, for instance, and experience a totally different reaction - because my comprehension level is much higher than it was then. In effect, what has happened psychologically, neurologically, and "ontologically" (or in the nature of reality) is that I have increased the degree of differentiation within my phenomenological (qualia-based) experience, such that I can recognize and parse a great deal more information now than I could have done then.

So, I understand and accept your criticism, but I think it might be asking a big much that you expect me to modify my writing for the average poster here. I can't. I have too much to do - to read. I have a mountain of books I need to read, take notes from, etc.

Lastly: I write to help people. Sometimes, I'm accused - likely as a function of the other persons projecting from a state of insecurity/frustration - that I am trying to "sound smart". While I understand the criticism and recognize the state such a criticism tends to be spoken from, my motivation is simply beyond that. When you see and understand words as devices for binding one mind to another mind, while at the same time providing a semiotic representation of the real sorts of constraints that operate within human beings regulatory dynamics, you tend to be very sincere/honest and make an effort not to come off as a douche to the other person. My concern is real, because the threat to the person, to their lifeworld, is just as real as it is for me.

If you're like this, and you receive such a complaint from another, it makes me realize that a major goal we should be aiming for is self-knowledge, as way too often people get upset, instead of processing/understanding their affects, the meaning of those affects, and so, perhaps, by doing so, approach the questioner in a way that doesn't begin from the lowbrow premise "you're just trying to show off how smart you are",

posted on Jul, 31 2017 @ 11:08 PM
a reply to: Observationalist

So then what do you think a cell is doing, when it moves from point A, to point B, and happens to move towards the place where the glucose is, and not where it isn't?

Ask sensible questions - not ones that most scientists/philosophers don't consider reasonable.

Clearly, and mathematically, all life is "teleodnamic" i.e. animated by purpose. It's functionality, its dissipation of outside energy, is directional - not happenstance. It is entirely semiotic i.e. constrained towards those points that are functionally relevant to surviving.

posted on Jul, 31 2017 @ 11:09 PM
a reply to: namelesss

So you think I am "deliberately" using obscure language? What - to trick you?

It is always astonishes me how apparently "enlightened" people can so mindlessly project from their own states of feeling - and not even recognize the semiotic dynamics underlying their acting.

posted on Aug, 1 2017 @ 09:00 AM
a reply to: Astrocyte

I think I am having trouble what ontological answers. Your's would seem to be biological ontology.

The thing I meant when mixing cosmology is furthering out to what the other end of entanglement and superposition is. Where is that particle going and where did the virtual one come from?

In the quatum world are there laws of physics, like the exchange of electrons with close proximity objects( You and your chair)... is this interaction being recorded and uploaded to the code where the two are becoming evolutionarily related?

The quantum exchanges are strange enough, throw in super position and entanglement and ontology just got very far away.

In your approach it's easier to focus on a smaller portion of mechanics.

What is the quantum structure for evolution for instance. What is happening over time with the exchanges?

How are the exchanges influenced by biology, does thought and observation change reality biological or quantum? Just gets pretty far out fast and the reading more dense.
edit on 1-8-2017 by luthier because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 1 2017 @ 07:54 PM
The problem is that you use so many words to say "because I do things motivated by shame others do to" and "this is me racking my own brain over how it's possible that it's not so!!!"

Give me evidence of what this person did that is so bad, who they were, and why you want to mind bind with some virtual human being (all your theories seem based on coalitions of people that don't exist as I've never seen any evidence of this beyond the fact you love words and language and assuming things or forcing dialog as a type of "play")

You seem to think you have the key to truth or that all have time to interact and their lack thereof isn't a simple function of time. How so? I'm sure you're just a person and you're kind of wasting ur time.
edit on 1-8-2017 by mericks74 because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 1 2017 @ 07:55 PM
You like words and conversing endlessly.. others don't...well hey there...
edit on 1-8-2017 by mericks74 because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 1 2017 @ 08:37 PM
By the way people reacting to you is not some kind of proof of superpower or anything like that via your "you do this I do that, I do this you do that" push-pull nlp type of theory, it's just people on the net..they respond to annoying stimuli..ontological or not who really cares?? You seem a lot inside your head with very little realized outside input. Patterns like yours in speech are not matching to any kind of speech I've ever known and that's not me telling you that I'm hot for u trust me.

edit on 1-8-2017 by mericks74 because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 1 2017 @ 09:07 PM

originally posted by: Astrocyte
a reply to: namelesss

So you think I am "deliberately" using obscure language? What - to trick you?

It is always astonishes me how apparently "enlightened" people can so mindlessly project from their own states of feeling - and not even recognize the semiotic dynamics underlying their acting.

Yes how you do that consistently 100 percent of the time more than any person I believe I've ever known even to the point of multiples is aaalmost astounding..:/
edit on 1-8-2017 by mericks74 because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 5 2017 @ 01:03 AM

originally posted by: Astrocyte
a reply to: namelesss

So you think I am "deliberately" using obscure language? What - to trick you?

It is always astonishes me how apparently "enlightened" people can so mindlessly project from their own states of feeling - and not even recognize the semiotic dynamics underlying their acting.

Once again, do you feel safer behind that wall?
If that is all you have in response, have a nice night.

new topics

top topics


log in