Ala carte ideas do not exist

I don't know why this only just now popped into my mind, but thanks to LA Paul, when visiting LA gave me the idea (by presenting an excellently reasoned rejection of the least reasonable version of this idea, which prompted me to formulate a more reasonable position in opposition) of functionalist phenomenology. Or a phenomenological functionalism (I forget which felt better at the time— I do think there is a difference, I just forget which one I had originally cross my mind).

Phenomological functionalism : functionalist about computation in as much as the computation is assumed to encompass all information available to the phenomenal feedback-loop.

Thus when I type this with my eyes closed. I am writing down some aspect of myself that would otherwise be lost due to the lack of a feedback loop.

Similarly when I draw in the dark. As in the attached photo.


The photo was an example of rapid decision making with minimal feedback since the camera's light was only on for the duration of focusing (since the evf of my phone was too underpowered to represent more that that the paper was generally oriented Ina certain way at a certain time)

On the other hand a functionalist phenomenology would be the ceiling condition (where the other is a minimal/floor condition). Ie you are only able to experience those experiences which are differential, in several senses.

In the first place, you will treat everything that is exactly the same in terms of your experience with it, as being exactly the same. If two things hypothetically are different but do not have any differences in your causal effects, then every one phenomenon of your phenomena either is a causal effect or it is not. If it is not then in a certain sense it is not a phenomenon of this world, by definition. If it is, then it is merely a matter of figuring out how to get feedback loop to work properly in order to be able to capture some content of the phenomenon in question.

Furthermore, it must be differential in that over time it must be comprehensible. That is if some process is completely random it is as if you have a single sample from a dimension, you know that something is there but you have no idea how to recount it with respect to other dimensions. To comprehend something is to bring some multidimensional subset of data in a mutual accounting of some kind. Otherwise to say that you are you is nonsensical, since there is no you to be comprehended in its totality or even relatively by yourself or anyone else .

To put it another way when considering the calculus of ideas all shifts must be able to be measured(perhaps as a process that evolves dramatically in leaps and bounds(like my ability to recognize that I've made an error when typing on my iPad with my eyes closed

Lauren Harris helped me realize that to be liberal or progressive is to say not only do you know how to make the world a better place, but that you know better than other people as well.

To be a conservative is similar (thus why liberal may be the more appropriate title for both of these systems), but you assume you know better for others on the basis of the status quo.

Regardless popping the stack.

Without looking back I think I was talking about the calculus of ideas and the derivative of a thought stream. To map the derivative of a river would be nearly impossible given the underlying thermodynamics, hydrodynamics etc, but we can probably trace its edges, incl. gentle curves, jagged angles, rapids, tunnels and waterfalls. Why not expect the same for rivers made of information rather than Water.

We experience thinking, Xor we are philosophical zombies. Ok. So then why not measure thinking.

Well that's what I'm trying to do.

And continuation is established by jumping between devices, apps both to process the text in and to not do so, as I currently am doing.

Purer difference detection is measured when I am able to sense that my fingers have struck errantly on the iPad without opening my eyes (I can't do this on an iPhone).