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.
See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iqJOIQWkfWA&feature=related;
http://www.consciousness.arizona.edu/.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extended_mind:
“The separation between the mind, the body, and the environment is seen as an unprincipled distinction.”
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Chalmers:
“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.
2 comments:
Consciousness Primer:
Re:
Is evolution secondary to tradition?
Is tradition secondary to consciousness of free will?
Is free will associated with feedback between levels of holography and apparent bodies of matter?
Mind Lag Time:
http://www.consciousness.arizona.edu/documents/2008abstractsfinalforJCS.pdf:
“The growing body of neurophysiological research on the question of free will, or the lack thereof, originated with the finding of Libet, et al. that the reported time of decision to make a simple action comes at least 300 ms after the beginning of the readiness potential. The readiness potential is a component of the EEG that precedes an action by 1000 ms or more. Conscious will thus seems a latecomer in the process of choice, not the instigator.”
Feedback:
(Speculation --- )
Suppose one’s holography sequentially pushes one to write a recorded compilation or pattern of signals, or book, perhaps even a book of considerable political, social, or scientific influence.
As such book is read, the mental state of its various readers will be rationalized and changed, and such changed states will become part of the readers’ conditions, or feedback for affecting subsequent combinations of quantum wave collapses, producing further alterations in brain states and associated and emergent behaviors.
Thus, even though each new brain rationalization lags behind its preceding decision, the evaluation of each such rationalization will nevertheless affect the course of subsequent “quantum decisions” within the holographic field that expresses such brain.
That is, the manner in which one’s holography evaluates one’s subjective rationalizations affects the path of one’s consciousness of sensations. That is, one’s wider holography is in communicative negotiation with how one’s brain-body receives, interprets, and rationalizes information.
Each exercise of free will need not be considered as being confined to any particular brain, but is in synchronous respect of a particular, wider holography. The “ghost” is not in the machine; rather, the soul can be considered as being expressed in each particular, extended holography. That is, an expression of soul, or free will, may associate with a body-machine, but is not solely confined to any particular or physical brain-circuitry of any such body.
Each holographic expression of willful consciousness may be considered a perspective of one unifying “Source” of Consciousness (or God).
Whether or how God may choose to experience a holistically reconciling or leveraging perspective of any flux or sum among such perspectives of Consciousness is meta-speculative.
Each perspective of consciousness may be considered as a member of the class of such perspectives.
Excepting in paradox, the sum of such member-perspectives of consciousness need not itself, as a Holism, be a member of their class, nor need it, itself, be conscious.
Yet, intuitively, how could all perspectives of consciousness of choice-making be synchronized in respect of a re-normalized, shared experience of physics, unless, paradoxically, such Holism itself experienced consciousness for synchronizing the renormalizing of all such holographically induced episodes of consciousness of choice-making?
See scienceguy288.wordpress.com:
"... our friend C.S. Lewis “If there was a controlling power outside of the universe, it could not show itself to us as one of the facts in the universe, just as an architect cannot be a wall of the house he designed. He (or she) could only show himself inside ourselves as an influence trying to get us to behave in a certain way, just as we find.”"
****
See http://www.consciousness.arizona.edu/CenterforConsciousnessCenter.Tucson.Arizona.htmPlenary08.htm.
Compare http://www.johnderbyshire.com/Opinions/HumanSciences/scienceofconsciousness.html:
“My inner subjective experiences are part of the natural world; so are the electrochemical processes of my brain. The two are plainly connected somehow, but how?”
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Chalmers:
“He argues that there is an explanatory gap between these two systems, and criticizes physical explanations of mental experience, making him a dualist in an era that some have seen as being dominated by monist views.”
….
“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.”
See http://consc.net/chalmers/.
SEE –
http://consc.net/discussions.html;
http://consc.net/papers/unity.pdf;
http://ase.tufts.edu/cogstud/papers/chalmers.htm;
http://www.stanford.edu/group/dualist/vol4/pdfs/raymore.pdf;
http://lissack.com/hardprob.html;
http://www.iscid.org/pcid/2003/2/3/hasker_non_reductivism.php;
http://disputatio.com/articles/019-3.pdf.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/04/now_is_the_time_to_put_aside_c.html:
Re: “there is nothing more outrageous than the push to get intelligent design (creationism)”
One may just as well say “there is nothing more outrageous than trying to shrink all those who believe conscious intelligence may and should play a role in our evolution into some cramped notion of creationism.”
****
Absent limits, what can be defined? Absent boundaries, how can a country survive? Absent moral limits, how can a culture be sustained? Absent a society’s sharing of “body language” in respect of traditional standards for public politeness and decency, how may it communicate or inculcate anything thought worth preserving?
I hear from “smart” bluebloods, libertarians, libertines, and liberals that concerns for social traditions and mores need to be “progressive,” i.e., “live and let live.” As presently practiced, this “smart tolerance” has become more a prescription for tolerating the demise of an entire civilization. Read here: http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/04/farewell_to_zion_forever.html.
Smart? I don’t think so.
If we want to be “smart” in any sort of designing, teleological way, we should think about what mores should best preserve a civilization that avails human freedom and dignity.
There is no such thing as lawless, valueless, or tradition-less freedom. Stand for nothing, fall to everything. “Progressives” can do that without my help. Real adults need to get teleological about re-educating “progressives” (i.e., laid back, tolerant slackers).
But I would agree that “progressives” have little to offer the rest of us in terms of helping to more intelligently design a better future. Indeed, inasmuch as they denigrate any role for intelligent design in our evolution, one wonders why they bother inputting their consciousness at all.
Post a Comment