- Joined
- Aug 19, 2006
- Messages
- 2,265
- Reaction score
- 332
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
"Top Down Or Bottom Up? Which Is More Intuitive?"
A computer chip has a collection of parts, individually none function as a processor of logic. Moreover, without specific physical assimilations, cognition as sophisticated selection does not exist.
The "bottom up" paradigm allows an omnipresent (infinte miniscule parts) as an eternal fundamental basis for structure and design that facilitates the mechanical, methodical account of cause and effect and intelligible order, but does so without consciousness. Moreover consciousness is derived through specific physical assimilations and their integrated sophistication.
The classic idea of creation begins with emanation from and eternal onmiscient, omnipotent, omnipresent or, what could be termed a "top down" paradigm.
A genetic character of an eternal is that it must be and become and that which is exists emulates that property.
By the anthropic principle, since sophistication of being for facility to become exists, one may attempt to convince itself that since cognition exists in the physical, then the eternal basis must therefore have cognition. Yet, without specific physical assimilations, cognition as sophisticated selection does not exist.
Under the presumption of philosophical naturalism. In a "top down" paradigm, a physical provision would need to exist apriori making consciousness possible amidst infinite disjoint, unassimilated parts presumed by the "bottom up" paradigm.
Thus is the "bottom up" or "top down" paradigm more intuitive?
A computer chip has a collection of parts, individually none function as a processor of logic. Moreover, without specific physical assimilations, cognition as sophisticated selection does not exist.
The "bottom up" paradigm allows an omnipresent (infinte miniscule parts) as an eternal fundamental basis for structure and design that facilitates the mechanical, methodical account of cause and effect and intelligible order, but does so without consciousness. Moreover consciousness is derived through specific physical assimilations and their integrated sophistication.
The classic idea of creation begins with emanation from and eternal onmiscient, omnipotent, omnipresent or, what could be termed a "top down" paradigm.
A genetic character of an eternal is that it must be and become and that which is exists emulates that property.
By the anthropic principle, since sophistication of being for facility to become exists, one may attempt to convince itself that since cognition exists in the physical, then the eternal basis must therefore have cognition. Yet, without specific physical assimilations, cognition as sophisticated selection does not exist.
Under the presumption of philosophical naturalism. In a "top down" paradigm, a physical provision would need to exist apriori making consciousness possible amidst infinite disjoint, unassimilated parts presumed by the "bottom up" paradigm.
Thus is the "bottom up" or "top down" paradigm more intuitive?