Causality does not imply infinite regression. Within a system of forces, expulsion and attraction balance each other out. What is within a system is contained within the system, it has its start and finish within the system. it cannot infinitely progress or infinitely regress beyond the system it arose in. Science and philosophy are limited to the system, an ultimate cause is not within their province, all they have to understand is the system. Maybe then the topic of an ultimate cause would be pertinent.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Jan 06, 2022 5:21 amThe principle from the colored statement is;owl of Minerva wrote: ↑Wed Jan 05, 2022 10:04 pm You see intelligence as dependent on function rather than function depending on intelligence.
The non-human depends on the logos and logoi of the Greeks as does humans.
AI depends on human intelligence for its existence. The worldwide web is connected as it imitates nature.
X depend on Y,
which imply causality.
The problem is such causality lead to an infinite regression and there is no way one will be able to know exactly what is the ultimate Y, in this case your ultimate 'logos'.
Thus that leads to a never-ending-story which is unrealistic.
As I had stated Philosophical Realism [PR] is unrealistic.Kant may be right in questioning the existence of the moon, if per QM no event happens without an observer.
Philosophical realism is an understanding that what we believe or know now is just an approximation of reality. The existence or non- existence of the moon is dependent on the accuracy and fullness of understanding being improved. The perspective of philosophical realists in no way contradicts that assessment. It is an endorsement of it.
With PR there is always a reality-gap between what is known-approximately and reality.
As such this is a never-ending-story which is unrealistic.
In the case of the anti-Philosophical Realism [Kantian] what is really-real is what is emergent, cognized, realized and then known within the individual[s]. This is Empirical Realism as opposed to Empirical Idealism of PR.
In this case there is no reality-Gap since no external reality to be approximated is speculated.
Btw have you read Rorty's [.. i mentioned previously]
Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosoph ... _of_Nature
This is about Philosophical Realism's mere mirroring of nature [in parallel] and never realizing it as real.
It is similar to the problems faced by the parallel Corresponding Theory to Truth.
Philosophical realism is not unrealistic. There is a reality gap only until abstract thought and ideas; what is mentally empirical is correlated with what is sensory empirical and consensus is found between them. Idealism and realism are not incompatible or mutually exclusive. Science knows about resonance but not what it is. There has to be a screen: space, and a substance: elements, for the mind, thought and ideas to resonate with. Otherwise we do not have a world.
There is ‘as above so below’ and ‘as within so without.’ If external reality is the equivalent of the moon’s reflection in a lake, it must mirror something. Otherwise it would not be a reflection.