Spontaneity

[Reciprocality]

Something is spontaneous if when it happens it does not happen as an inert effect of external processes in their mutual medium. 

First of all I will take it as a given that you understand that spontaneity and non-spontaneity are real separable entities or continuums, that all distinct things or processes in your life is an instant of either of the two concepts.

 

I believe we can exemplify four distinct types of spontaneities:

1. bigbang, though really the universe as a whole "from beginning to end" (spontaneous creation of substance and their diminution via insufficient space, thus the formation of a higher-dimensional space-time continuum via their co-ordered bifurcation)

2. biological emergence (spontaneous creation of action and reaction to stimuli within simultaneity to it via intensive and dispersed sensorial continuums)

3. sufficient similarity/proximity between experience and memory (spontaneous creation of representation of the past upon sufficient similarity to the present, linked to: the item of Wittgenstein's family resemblance, Humes bundle theory, pluralism, empiricism, imprecision, correlation, categorical containment, addition, 1:(insert irrational number), condition for inductive methods)

4. self construction via self-correction (spontaneous instantiation of identities and proportioned spontaneous ideation of identities due to dissociation upon any form of non-instantiation, linked to: Leibniz indiscernibility of identity, monism, epistemic rationalism, proportionality, precision, a given quantity in relation to its identity, correspondence, 1:1, condition for deductive methods)

 

My question in this thread will be whether there exist any spontaneities that does not pertain to these four categories, whether any of them are false or whether some of them are redundant. The non-spontaneous equivalent to each of the four must be instantiated for each of them to be more than mere concepts (for otherwise their spontaneous nature would at best be defined into existence through logic via solutions to the contradictions that happens in their absence, I should then give two hypothetical alternatives the latter of which assumes a minor form of realism via synthetic application of predicates: 1. Kants noumena, 2. sensorial stimulus, 3. absence of sufficient similarity/proximity (sensorial stimulus) and 4. absence of self (sensorial stimulus, possibly sufficient similarity/proximity in the mindstate of a monk). That something can be a spontaneity and a non-spontaneity at the same time (spontaneous biological emergence of sensorial stimulus and non-spontaneous sensorial stimulus, is not a contradiction but a direct and necessary feature of multiplicity of spontaneity-kinds.

 

As an aside: I believe the lower numbers really includes the higher ones, but conceptually the relationship is reversed.

[LastThursday]

I'd argue that 2 and 4 are actually the same thing: that life is matter with an identity (and so has to be self-correcting to maintain that identity).

What is the source of spontaneity? Spontaneity - as you've outlined - has the notion of "something uncaused", as opposed to "something inscrutable". Something uncaused then is pure randomness without reason or prior history and therefore not foreseeable or constructable. But it could actually be something inscrutable: there are reasons and prior causation, but there is no way to get at those.

I'd say point 1 falls into the something uncaused camp. Points 2 and 4 fall into the something inscrutable camp, in other words life (and identity) can be accidentally bootstrapped from other processes - self-correction is actually a loop of information flow, these loops can spontaneously form but are not necessarily mysterious. Information does leak out of and into these loops, so identity is not fixed (a.k.a evolution). Every identity interacts with everything that is not itself, it's never completely isolated.

As for point 3 I'd say the mechanism which creates an impression of the present (moment) is the same which creates memories of the past. The apparent separation of the two is only that of categorisation - memories of the past are in fact still the present moment - the difference is only in quality in some way. You could argue that this mechanism is the source of all spontaneity, and that the whole of reality is actually "something uncaused" every single moment.

Edited May 18 by LastThursday

[Reciprocality]

18 hours ago, LastThursday said:

What is the source of spontaneity? Spontaneity - as you've outlined - has the notion of "something uncaused", as opposed to "something inscrutable". Something uncaused then is pure randomness without reason or prior history and therefore not foreseeable or constructable. But it could actually be something inscrutable: there are reasons and prior causation, but there is no way to get at those.

@LastThursday This is why the definition which involves the medium between the occurrence and its exteriors were used, and this definition is the one which ensures that the concept of spontaneity and its compliment is actually instantiated by real examples, which first becomes a problem in relation to the universe as a whole, are you suggesting that it becomes a problem in relation to any of the other categories? 

 

quote 2: "As for point 3 I'd say the mechanism which creates an impression of the present (moment) is the same which creates memories of the past. a1: The apparent separation of the two is only that of categorisation - memories of the past are in fact still the present moment - the difference is only in quality in some way. a2: You could argue that this mechanism is the source of all spontaneity, and that the whole of reality is actually "something uncaused" every single moment."

a1: When I said that the spontaneity of memories and the non-spontaneity of direct experience (sensory stimuli) are different this did not imply that the mechanism which once created memories of our past and the mechanism which creates an impression of the present moment is different, why did you think so? I am not discussing that topic, whether or not their difference is qualitative or not is irrelevant to whether or not we can affirm or deny the spontaneity of memory upon sufficient similarity to a present experience. Id be happy to discuss your assertion elsewhere on the basis that it has no bearing on my assertion, or on the condition that you can provide a plausible connection.

a2: If it came to you actually arguing a2 above then surely it contradicts what you said bolded in the first quote? I refer to the statement that a spontaneity in general could actually be something inscrutable.

 

quote 3: "Points 2 and 4 fall into the something inscrutable camp, in other words life (and identity) can be accidentally bootstrapped from other processes - self-correction is actually a loop of information flow, these loops can spontaneously form but are not necessarily mysterious."

How is it inscrutable that an agent owing a self-identity is asked to do something that does not correspond to that identity that agent will spontaneously experience dissonance and spontaneously correcting for it that is absent in the complimentary case? 

In the case you were correct that accidental bootstrapped self-correcting mechanisms pertaining to identity did precede and cause their real existence, albeit indeterminately so such that they were inscrutable, why would this be relevant to whether they were medium-relatively spontaneous? 

Edited May 18 by Reciprocality

[Reciprocality]

I should probably provide context why I believe that as opposed to the relation between physical phenomena in their mutual medium such as matter and gravity the relation between a self and an intelligible stimuli in heir mutual medium is spontaneous.

The former (physical) effect is inert and besides the total medium is identical to the sum of all of both (the gravity and the matter).

The latter (phenomenal) is certainly not inert and besides the total medium (phenomenal medium) comprises many more things than the sum of both (many more things than the intelligible perception and the self).

Again, it is true that the physical relations in the former medium correlates and possibly causes the inscrutable relations of the latter (such as that nothing in the composition of words on a page and the meaning we find in them could by themself cause the reaction we have to them), but spontaneity is a concept with an essence that is directly abstracted from real things that are complimentary to other real things, there is no doubt about its application to the things without which we would not even conceive of its meaning, but there is doubt about its application to other kinds of things, such as the universe as a whole.

Also, if we have a comprehensive map of the variables in both mediums there arises contradictions in the identities of the former variables if a different effect occurs than the one which does, while the latter medium is not even subject to the possibility of that contradiction.

Edited May 18 by Reciprocality

[LastThursday]

On 18/05/2024 at 6:37 PM, Reciprocality said:

a2: If it came to you actually arguing a2 above then surely it contradicts what you said bolded in the first quote? I refer to the statement that a spontaneity in general could actually be something inscrutable.

I'm arguing for either/both. I don't in fact know if spontaneity of a particular type is inscrutable or uncaused. Conceivably, given enough information the causes of a spontaneous event could be elicited (scientifically or otherwise). But the nature of spontaneity makes this difficult. In general it is unknowable which it is. The above is just my opinion as to which of your points is which type of spontaneity.

On 18/05/2024 at 7:25 PM, Reciprocality said:

The former (physical) effect is inert and besides the total medium is identical to the sum of all of both (the gravity and the matter).

Except there is no particular reason why gravity is associated with matter. You either treat the system as a unity (as you have or Einstein did), or treat them separately and say that gravity is the spontaneous effect of matter on space itself (even possibly vice versa). Spontaneity here not meaning novelty as much as an effect that tracks the change in matter causing it (i.e. movement etc) in an immediate kind of way. This still doesn't explain why gravity happens, just what happens. Side note: gravitational waves are caused by a lag in this spontaneity - because the effect of spontaneity itself cannot be faster than the speed of light. There is an "active" kind of process happening between matter and gravity.

On 18/05/2024 at 6:37 PM, Reciprocality said:

When I said that the spontaneity of memories and the non-spontaneity of direct experience (sensory stimuli) are different this did not imply that the mechanism which once created memories of our past and the mechanism which creates an impression of the present moment is different, why did you think so?

Because you mention "sufficient similarity/proximity between experience and memory", suggesting that memory and experience are two different things albeit similar. I'm saying that they are the same, and if the essence of the mechanism is to be spontaneous then potentially it could be the source of all spontaneity.

Edited May 19 by LastThursday