Sunday, March 29, 2009

Involved Deity vs. Relaxed Theity

My philosophy may be considered one of “Consciousness Monism,” in that I conceptualize our physics as being a conventional illusion for marking communications among otherwise non-physical perspectives of consciousness. That is, I think Physics may be more consistently and coherently modeled as being derivative of communications among perspectives of Consciousness than is the case when Physics is modeled as being coequal with, or superior to, Consciousness.

Still, I yield to a kind of Dualism, in that I conceptualize that (1) (mortal) consciousness is expressed from more than one perspective, and (2) perspectives that are in communication associate their signifying markers in respect of a shared system of algorithmic parameters, thus availing quantifiable communications (i.e., derivative appearances and experiences of “physicality”).

I believe our experience of universe is balanced (closed) in respect of a shared, controlling algorithm, but that our possible sequences, loops, choices, and states of mind in respect of such algorithm may well be infinite (unclosed). Example: Even were one precluded by one’s universe or master from writing any numbers apart from whole numbers from 1 to 10, the number of sequences and patterns through which one could loop such numbers would still be infinite --- so long as one were not constrained to avoid repetitions.

Coin of (spiritual) Choice vs. (scientific) Chance ---
Emergent Leveraging of choices in respect of lower level randomness:

Perhaps, “God” may manage or resonate various parameter-levels of delegated degrees of freedom for synchronizing perspectives of consciousness. Perhaps, absent interest or assistance from its next higher level, parameters circumscribe each lower level so that it will avail less of, or a different kind of, freedom than is availed to its next higher level, and so on (“turtles all the way down”). Perhaps, each level functions in respect of an interconnecting, infinitely expanding spheroid of mathematical representation that is based on repeating patterns of one basic algorithm.

At most primitive levels, “Consciousness” may associate in respect of not much more than capacity for imaged representations of fundamental particles to “sense” in respect of each one’s excluding of all others from occupying its precise loci within a space-time as is then and there being represented in respect of Consciousness’ solving of algorithmic functions.

At most primitive levels, interactions among such mutual “sensings” and exclusions of such particle-representations may be synchronized and regulated in respect of a function for generating random collisions based on generating random numbers. Perhaps, higher levels of consciousness may not necessarily take much interest in such random expressions of primitive reaction or sensation, unless such random generations may be organized, directed, and leveraged to higher level functions and purposes.

For consciousness tied to any perspective bound to any one level, such perspective may, if self-conscious, view itself (“solve towards its existential algorithm”) as having degrees of freedom, while perspectives from other levels may subsume all activity in respect of such perspective as being completely random. That is, whether an event or choice is viewed as random versus willed, or in respect of inanimateness versus consciousness, may depend on level or point of analysis or reference.

Choice versus chance may depend on purpose and method of analysis, i.e., it may depend on which side of the coin of existence is being analyzed.

Thus, each higher level of consciousness may become somewhat removed from perceiving or empathizing with lower level expressions of free will. So, must Holistic God be enslaved to see through our eyes, or to care about that for which we care? May this depend to some extent upon whether we are conscious of selfhood or, perhaps, respectful of that which God happens to find interesting? What is God’s capacity to feel and reconcile empathy, and is such capacity somehow leveraged or delegated, mathematically? Is there a “Turing God”?

It may be enough that God has resonated means (aka, “Holy Ghost”) for us to come together in respect of God, to foster and leverage our own inter-empathies. Such coming together strengthens the empathetic effects of our focusing empathies and prayers, perhaps even affecting or altering our evolving traditions and paths in relation to the existentially defining algorithm with which each of us relates. Perhaps, each perspective of consciousness is already empowered, especially by joining forces, to focus and increase will-to-power in respect of nature’s defining algorithm (“ask and it shall be given”).

Perhaps, our consciousness is fulfilled in particular resonances, while God’s is fulfilled in holistic, synchronizing resonance. By limiting the algorithm with which God chooses to interact, our choices and actions cannot possibly occur except in respect of a higher synchronicity. Apart from Demi-urging resonance, God need not constantly exert higher conscious attention to synchronize all events. Rather, God’s interaction may consist simply in not availing choices outside parameters of layers and levels of a naturally synchronizing algorithm.

God’s “interaction” may consist in “a resonating not availing,” sort of like an “involved Deity,” or a “relaxed Theity.” The purpose of our efforts and choices may be to comfort God’s resonance. Each of our perspectives may be a holographic interpretation of consciousness of holistically resonating God. Through our holographic eyes, holistic God may dream a resonance.

In that resonance, each of us may feel fulfilled. Ommmmm.

Saturday, March 28, 2009

Wind Talking

Wind Talking:

If God functions as or with a holism next encompassing the functional algorithm with which is presented to our particular experiences through our assigned resonances that which we interpret as our universe, by the fundamental logic of such relationship, we have no particular means by which to circumscribe such holism.

However, the logic of this relationship does not require that God must not sense, interact with, or care about our perspectives of Consciousness. Nor does it require that we cannot relate to God --- not with particularly demonstrable empiricism or direct perception of the entirety of the holism --- but with intuitive consciousness of empathetic feedback within a mathematically unfolding flux. Thus, the particular and finite relate to the unbounded potential.

One may data store or become programmed to look up or access mathematical formulas for working and dealing with particular materials for limited purposes to significant levels of accuracy. Thereby, in effect, one may say, “My, what a good boy am I, I must now know better than most that it is probable that no sort of higher consciousness rules earth as a moral guide for human consciousness.” To which I may say, “When you conceit to tell the Turing Machine in the mirror what a really good boy you are, to Whom are you really talking?” That’s all.


“The separation between the mind, the body, and the environment is seen as an unprincipled distinction.”

“Chalmers has elsewhere said that he is agnostic on the issue of panpsychism, but that it is not nearly as indefensible an idea as some think.”

Beyond mortal logic, for our completion, I intuit there exists one immaterial “Thing” (Source-God) whose function and purpose is to avail conscious expression of various perspectives of algorithmically balanced holographic systems (such as human beings) by solving in respect of parameter-permitted sequences of mathematically-valued fields (wholes) versus particles (parts).

Thus are availed translations, experiences, and opportunities for: Yin and yang, rationalization and rationality, paradoxes and logic, classes and members, infinities and resolution, degrees and kinds, noise and music, fuzziness and clarity, feedback and negotiation, deceit and truth, despair and meaningfulness, anomie and inspiration, indifference and passion, evil and good, chaos and form, collective and individual, revolution and tradition.

Whether knowingly or unknowingly, the role of each particular perspective is to balance the algorithmic system in relation to which it resonates. The role of the holistically encompassing Source is to synchronize and normalize the perspectives. Wisdom consists in each seeking in empathy to appreciate the role of each other.

The void is everything, not nothing; the balance is alive, not dead. Ommmmm.