home page button conceptual inquiry main page
        evolving conceptuality of humanity
for fruitful comprehension of evolving

gary e. davis
March 2014 / April 6, 2017

Genesis is about ongoing generativity; its nature is self-enhancive (autopoietic, autogenic). [That is a claim—a moment of rhetoric to be made rigorously worth consideration—to be argued: TBA.]

Proffering theories of mind is part of Our cultural evolution that advances in the endeavor, prospecting Our future culturality in our projects of explanation. [TBA]

Representational and reconstructive interest is derivative of Our at-once futural, prospective, and generative interest in advancing the “nature” “of” “mind” through enhancing our capabilities.

Philosophy was always more about the nature of human action than about representation.

The action of conceptual inquiry implies (I think) Our whole endeavor of comprehensively comprehending Our activity, especially after prospects for non-evolving ontological implicature have been dissolved.

Desire for great consilience doesn’t wane for long, thanks to the next generation of aspiring minds, reminding jaded ones of intrinsic appeals.

As a matter of Our “nature,” I venture that We’re ultimately self-designing. Simply saying that seems to be empty rhetoric, but I’m anticipating a large body of others’ research, not my imagination.

Discursive representation and reconstruction would (may someday) explain Our ongoingness, so to speak, as part of Our primordial interest in enabling more generally high flourishing capabilities—drawing Us into explaining that constitutive interest, which seems to be an appeal of constellating generatively.

[The oddness of my syntax, at times—the fourth kind of validity claim that Habermas neglects, after the mid-1970s, because it’s so obvious: cogency—is part of The Issue:
Non-idiosyncratic conceptual prospecting can strain syntacticality.

What do we gain by constraining our sense of what there is to explain?

Is syntax strained because phenomena truly call for that?

Is “true calling” phenomenologically in-credible?

Or do people confuse mediative translation into highly well-ordered presentation for representations of inquirial credibility, thus dismissing reports from the field?—that the field is really a fluid dynamic or hyperspace! We want consilience cheap.]

We are primordially futural beings. Representation/reconstruction is important, thus interesting, because that helps Us advance, by securing intergenerational resourcefulness, critically improving ways of going on, etc.

The genesis to understand (that we are to understand) is Our genesis that is evolving. Our evolving is transforming the nature of learning whose genesis we strive to represent.

That may seem to be only a version of Habermas’s point near the end of “The Language Game of Responsibility...”: to comprehensively comprehend “the genesis of the learning mind itself....The natural genealogy of the mind is a self-referential project; the human mind tries to capture itself in comprehending itself as a product of nature” (42). But his point is retrospective about what is ongoing. My point is prospective, about desire to explain Our intrinsic futurity. We may be learning to evolve the learning that there is to represent, not basically facing a quasi-biological ongoingness that eludes reconstruction because we’re constituted by what, in retrospect, we want to “capture.”

The genesis may be providing for its own self-representability through its evolving self-constitutionality, and that providing (providentiality?) is what is more appealing to inquiry, to my mind. But brief narratives of this kind are self-undermining.

As We become more self-designing, then striving (if not straining) for representation / reconstruction of Our “nature” serves fulfilling designs as well as securing emergent efficacies (which are retrospectively accessible, in principle, presumably).

Discursive inquiry serves designs that are enabling efficacies (through educational enabling that is to be advanced in being prospectively represented).

What is secured through prospective articulation and reconstructive understanding across generations (education, culture, new research enterprises) is no end in itself, rather for the sake of building and broadening capabilities; and for advancing inquiry.

Understanding genesis (striving to—yet, resolving to do It, not just try) is part of Our horizon-drawing generativity.

Our conceptualizing nature, so beyond bionaturality (Habermas’s “weak naturalism”), is what has become of intelligence in nature (as all neural systems have some shared genetics) as what became of “nature,” still evolving in human mentability (prospectively striving to reconstruct itself as mentability “in” a “nature” that’s really Our own).

Such rhetoric, in brief, would be self-undermining, if it’s not really abstracting extensive discursive inquiry.

Yet, begging questions elaborately is good for prospecting inquiry—given that the promissory notes are redeemed! (Status Update: Still alive after all these years, plodding on, flying often enough.)

Everything I’ve floridly rendered above is congruent with Habermas’s in “The Language Game...,” though his caveat might be that capturing Our advancing is more elusive than capturing (representing/reconstructing) a given advance. Indeed, horizons always recede, especially the recursively evinced (pending an Archimedean Point, groundless bootstrapping, cancellation of Heisenberg Uncertainty, and shelving bioethics). Yet, the sojourn of discursive inquiry may be primordially generative.

The long-lived philosophical dream of adequately representing a self-constitutivity now has new vistas of supercomputational bioglyphics drawn into new vistas of biosynthesis.

Neural Darwinism is drawn into cognitive supercomputing. Our nature is evolving through ventures of design and representation.

What there is to explain is evolving greater capability for explanation—specie-al learnability (which is what intelligence basically is: learnability, therefore adaptability).

[I fear you’d dread to see these paragraphs filled with links to others’ work. Trust me?—even though this informal voice lacks the academic assertoricalness that the Very Serious People of academic research inhabit to bolster credibility. Derrida’s death haunts.]

Once upon a time, artificial intelligence researchers sought to model whole-brain mentability, but made real progress when they went after components. Now, they’re making assemblages, also increasing appreciation for the eonic bionaturality of our brain as a kluge of emergent modularities, whatever its meta-multimodular self-governmentality (i.e., general intelligence “organon”).

In any case, We’re rampantly netweaving globally in ways that may be annuling bionatural limits, and we’re nearing prospects for artificial life.

So, what there is to explain is evolving into designed forms that we can better capture (notwithstanding curiosities of ontic implicature in “extended mind” rhetoric).

New kinds of specie-al Projects are evolving new paradigms of explanation.

Noting this is less an expression of optimism about explanability than it’s cause to wonder what it is that We really want to explain, as we’re evidently evolving beyond bionaturality.

I don’t feel that such advents are going to overtake our biocognitive presence. The Kurzweilian Singularity will be avoided, and I don’t mind letting that assertion seem frivolous. (I have my crypto-Gödelian reasons.)

Anyway, who’s the highly creative talent spending time trying to capture talent as such, rather than flying on, thereby maybe also shaping new paradigms of possibility for articulation and inquiry?

We do both as best we can, or else we do neither as well. Call it an intrinsic appeal of bootstrapping; or self-generative flight.



    Be fair. © 2017, g. e. davis