017-Representation making is a causal force
Representation making is a kind of force. It is causal.
There is nothing in the physical forces that will produce representations. Representation making itself produces changes to objects in the physical world. Representation making itself changes how forces interact via objects. These changes, the representation making, are arbitrary. When representation making is not arbitrary, we see it as non-arbitrary because of an interaction with physical forces or because of a representational context. (note that physical forces themselves are representations, the are ideas we use to describe the changes that happen.) But representation making is, in fact, an arbitrary causal starting point.
For instance, human flight (aeronautics) took human beings millennia to achieve. Why wasn't human flight achieved thousands of years earlier? Because the representations that human beings were using were inadequate. Human beings cannot fly like birds, and the representations that were used to conceptualize flight were all bird oriented concepts.
The bird related representations were inadequate to achieve flight up until the Wright Brothers used different representations. We assume that the physical constraints, the physical world, required certain kinds of representations to create human flight. That aeronautic representations were necessary to achieve human flight. This implies that the Wright Brothers ideas and inventions (representations) were non-arbitrary. That the Wright brothers ideas for flight MUST have been causally selected to produce human flight. This idea, of non-arbitrary, causally driven ideation, is misleading.
Failed representations are failures representationally, not failures causally. Thus bird flight ideas fail, are considered failures, not because of causation, but because of categorization. Failure is a category of ideas. Errors are contextually erroneous. The dissatisfaction with an outcome, to label an outcome a failure, and then to produce more representations that lead to success or failure is representation-making where the outcomes are judged against some value, against some other representation.
The Wright Brothers chose to pursue certain kinds of representation making to achieve a representational goal. Human flight. Could they have instead chosen to pursue flight in dreams versus with flight with bicycle parts? Yes, they could. Was their choice making a result of physical forces? Or was it self-referentially influenced and caused by representation making itself?
The Wright Bros choices were self-referential representation making. The idea of human flight is what drove the Wright Brothers to pursue their vision. That existing methods were failures according to the success models the Wright Bros. used was the spur to their own ideation to look at alternative representational possibilities for flight.
Up until the Wright Brothers, human flight was as fictional as unicorns. After the Wright Bros, human flight, like birds, was as still as fictional as unicorns.
"I wish" is a kind of representation making. It is different than physical representation making (like building a plane). Wishes do not create physical; they are wishes. Wishing is one kind of representation making. We should expect that different kinds of representation making are going to be structured in different kinds of categories. Wishing and aeronautical engineering are different kinds of representation making.
When we wish, or when we act in physical ways with our bodies, we perceive the I, the self, as the representation maker (I;representation maker). The I is not the maker. Representation is always occurring. The "I" is a representation that representation making interacts with. Many of our representations are structured in relation to an I. OUR representation-making actions, OUR wishes are representations that we represent as produced by the self.
Wishes are strongly related to I. Aeronautical engineering is less structured to I and more structured to physical problems, to physical representations of the enviornment. The kinds of representations made by wishing will force certain kinds of change and action. And the kinds of representation involved in aeronautical engineering will force other kinds of changes and action. Different contents of representation-making belong to different categories of representation-making.
The Wright brothers forced the creation of human flight by making representations. The Wright brothers made different representations until some representational condition was met (flight). The Wright Brothers, because of their representation making, flew. Physical forces are used to produce flight. But the process from idea to actual flight was an expression, a manifestation of representation making. The outcome of flight was not the outcome of physical forces, it wass the outcome of representation making.
Representation making is a causal force. This is testable.
Right now, make up some representation, anything. Pretend you are a dog. Now, out loud, start barking. Run around on all fours like a dog.
What caused the particular actions of your body to act like a dog? Or a cat, if you chose a cat, or a monkey, or a dragon, or a lion. What caused the electrical signals in your brain to move your muscles, and make noises, and move about? Undoubtably it was representations that produced, that caused the behavior.
Or consider all the advancements in chemistry. What caused all those "new" chemical reactions?
What causes increased CO2 release in the atmosphere? You driving your car around. What causes you to drive your car around? Representations and representation making.
It's impossible to make a logical connection from a starting point of a physical or material universe that causes brain functions that then leads, causally, to the atomic explosion on earth on July 16, 1945 in the New Mexico desert. Let alone all the subsequent atomic testing in Nevada. The only way to describe human motivated action in the world is that human beings are GENERATING representations. That process of representation making manifests physical changes. The first atomic explosion was a representation created by the Manhattan Project scientists. They made it happen. Making is representation making. Representation making is a causal force.
Representation making can be intentional and unintentional... that is, the idea of intention is something different than the act of representation making.
Through representation we create physical events and processes. Through representation making we can explain physical events and how physical processes work. Through representation making we can explain how non-physical processes work. Through representation making we can describe representation making.
We cannot describe representation making and the non-physical, such as ideas, from a physical starting point (unless that starting point is also representational). We cannot describe physical experience in non-physical ways because the non-physical explicitly leaves out what physical experience actually is ( eg, the physics itself and qualia). It is only by treating both categories of experience(physical and non-phsysical) as arising from representation that we can produce descriptions of both the physical and non-physical. Representation itself is the ground of the physical and the non-physical.
Making representations we can affect and act and cause changes in the physical Universe. We can also produce non-physical events, objects, and changes. It is only in a representational context that both these processes are co-existant. Representations and representation making is a feature of the Universe. Representation making is a causal force.
Representation making can also be an inhibitor force. Non-action, non-violence, passive resistance, are explicitly representational. In the face of physical actions, a peaceful protests remains unmoved and continually pressures a political organization to change. How, in a physical sense, can a passive protest create political pressure? Obviously, it cannot.
Representation gives us all possible kinds of physical responses. We can respond, or we can ignore, or we can passively resist. Human beings, indeed any kind of creature that engages in representations, responds not to the physical world, but to their representations of the physical world.
If representations did not dominate action, then how do we explain the variety of human responses to events? How do we explain the variety of human responses to stories? How would you describe the physical power of a story, and how would you describe the range and even contradictory responses two physically similar human beings will have to a bunch of sounds, or images, or little marks on paper?
You cannot describe human action, and thus all the physical events humans produce by referring only to the physical world. The direction of action, of change, of force is in the other direction, the direction of representation. A story can be a source of change and action. A story cannot be causative in the physical sense, but a story can produce a change of representation making in a person, and that representation making is causative.