Hereandnow wrote: ↑February 7th, 2018, 8:13 pm"Physically exist as determined their ability to interact with others?" Are you saying that physicality is something determined by interactions with others?
No, I said as determined by their ability to interact with other
things. This is just a materialist view. Atoms exist because they bounce off other atoms, more or less. If there is something that doesn't interact with any of the matter that we know about, then there is no way for us to know it exists, and it doesn't matter anyway (pun not intended).
Patterns which are real, but not in the physical sense: they are real but not physical. But you say physicality is something determined by interaction with others. So, these patterns which are real, are not social constructs, per above?
A social construct is an abstraction, so, a pattern.
A bit confused, but I take it that you think reality is problematic, ineffable and alien to analysis, and you should just say this rather than give definitions.
But I think reality is quite effable. [Doing quick look up of "effable": able to be described with words ... yup] Neither is it problematic nor alien to analysis.
Here is the issue, if you care to consider: We are here in the world, and the world is not, in its full analysis, eternally FOR something else, which is what functionlism tells us, that is, as a function to produce, to bring about, to foster.
Depends on what you mean by "the world". By the world, I mean whatever exists (see above). So I agree that the world is not FOR something else. However, under certain circumstances, including the circumstances that gave rise to life, FORness can emerge in subsets of the world.
The world we live in is valuative, and in it experience is value, it is that which functions are about.
If by "the world we live in" you mean "the sum of our thoughts and experiences", as opposed to the world that exists out there as per above, then I would agree. But what you are talking about, I think, is necessarily from the perspective of one of those functional subsets of the world just mentioned. From the perspective of one of those subsets, everything is about value and function. Thus, from that perspective, everything is functional, thus functionalism.
Does not functionalism reduce experience to forward looking-ness, rather than that which is at hand?
Actually, not quite. Purpose is an explanation of how the system came to be. The functions of the system were developed for that purpose. But once the system exists, the purpose is irrelevant. The purpose could be gone, but the functions continue on. Also, things can be re-purposed.
It is the presence at hand that is Reality, I would argue.
I agree, but only from the perspective of an (emergent) functional system.
*