************
The Consciously Appreciative aspect of the Godhead would not know how it may choose at a given time and place to appreciate its then and there context or whether or how to choose among all possible next unfoldings. However, to the extent it keeps itself apart, It may know how a particular Perspective of itself will choose.
What the holistically conscious aspect of the Godhead chooses may be subject to a higher math. That is, what it chooses to express must conform to parameters of a defining math. But it need not subjectively model or know in advance how that math will at any given time and place determine its subjective experience of conscious appreciation. In that sense, the conscious aspect of the Godhead functions as though it enjoys free will in participation with whatever the maths of Substance and Information that co-define it.
Much the same may be said of each limited, mortal Perspective of that Consciousness. An observing person may tend reliably to control and predict the unfolding actions of an unsuspecting other person. However, that reliability will diminish as each person comes in dynamic feedback to factor its expectations regarding its co-acting others. In that sense, each person functions as though he enjoys free will in participation with whatever the maths of Substance and Information that co-define his fellow participants.
*************
INEXTRICABLE EXPRESSION OF CONSCIOUSNESS:
Well, we do "create" conscious entities. By sexual reproduction. Artificial insemination. Genetic engineering. Eventually, by chemical engineering of genetics. Then mechanical engineering. Reverse engineering.
I put "create" in caps, because we do not really create anything. We work with what is already availed with existence, to engineer fluxing applications.
I don't conceptualize or think of our thoughts as sub-atomic particles. I don't think the brain-in-itself is conscious. I don't think there is such a thing as a particular thing-in-itself, much less a brain-in-itself. I think Brain (manifest matter, substance) avails expression of Consciousness, and Consciousness avails expression of Substance.
I think Consciousness, Substance, and Information (CSI) are inextricably intertwined as fluxing expressions, each requiring for its expression some level of entailment or expression of the other two.
As to what is the substrate of CSI? I suspect/conceptualize that the substrate consists of nothing more than Math, being fluxed with a Mathematician. I do not think there exists any "ultimate" particle-in-itself.
I think Consciousness abides as an inextricably expressed fundament, fluxing with Substance and Information. I do not think sub-atomic particles are expressions or perspectives of Consciousness at the human level. Rather, I think Consciousness is expressed at all levels. I do not think any expression of Substance could become measurably manifest in the complete absence of any relationship with Consciousness. Every pattern that receives nutrients and processes them to sustain, expand, or reproduce itself is expressing an entailment of Consciousness at some level.
Every pattern that is availed to measurable unfoldment has to be reconciled within parameters allowed by a Conservation of Matter and Energy. The Mathematician is constrained to Math --- which is why all exchanges of Information and all Evolutionary unfoldments necessitate death, recycling, phase shifting, material trade-offs, and continuous chemical rebalancing.
If no purely scientific principle pre-determines which choice is to be effected among all allowable parameters for choices within a Conserved System, then what is the character/nature of the Determiner/Reconciler/Mathematician? Neither science nor Logic can say. Whatever IT is, It is what It is. Perhaps the best we can do in respect of IT is to apply innate intuition and empathy, in good faith and good will.
***************
Schrodinger's Cat:
By definition, a world of parallel expression of measurable manifestation would become manifestly measurable only if, when, and where it were to become measurable to some level of informational recordation (consciousness) to measure them.
Particulars of people and things do not exist as such, entirely apart from relational perspectives. The unfoldments of such relationships and perspectives are not entirely pre-defined. Rather, they are unfolding. "Your" true unfolding relationship is not with other mortal perspectives, but with the empathetic interests of the Reconciler, by which "you" and "they" may be unfolded and defined in potentially innumerable variations. "You,"in your connections, are legion.
IF Schrodinger's Cat exists in a different state in a different parallel world, it would only be because the Reconciler effects Consciousness with respect to such world. OTOH, if the Reconciler functions only with respect to one world of manifestation, it would seem that all perspectives of Consciousness must therewith be "entangled" -- so that no parallel world of a half dead Cat could manifest.
************
Schrödinger’s Cat:
During my daily shower, I got to contemplating Mark Twain (Did he really say (?), “For every durable piece of nonsense, there is an irrational frame of reference in which it is consistent”)?
Anyway, I looked up some wiki’isms at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measurement_problem and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schrodinger_cat.....
A thought occurs that physicists may be failing to make a serious effort to integrate a role for conscious observers (i.e., “perspectives of consciousness,” or “sensors of collapsed uncertainties”). Perhaps they fail because they imagine no measurable or scientific way to proceed.
But, what if the meaning of “conscious observers” were understood to relate not just to perspectives of intellection, but also to capacities to sense, detect, and effect exclusions among patterns (i.e., that which we merely assume to be marked only by inanimate, “unconscious,” purely physical reactiveness)?
Suppose it is not just material physics that is “entangled,” but perspectives of consciousness (which happen to be entangled in sharing a same algorithm for how they mark their relations)?
Suppose that which we take to be superimposed in a mix of indeterminacy is not potential states of “physical matter,” but potential choices to be synchronized among “perspectives of consciousness”?
If that which holistically synchronizes has capacity to collapse choices based on feedback summed from among particular perspectives, then not every possibility needs to be chosen or made to exist “in some world.”
IOW, the body of Schrodinger’s cat would not be required to exist in innumerable states spread among a multiverse of possibilities. This is because a body of physics has no independent existence apart from signifying for a state of synchronization among perspectives of consciousness.
IOW, insofar as the consciousness of the cat were entangled with the consciousness of its owner, there need be only one combined state, i.e, the owner would either be happy (cat alive and conscious) or sad (cat dead).
************
I don't. I think the Dem base mainly wants free stuff and not to have to think much for themselves. Like perpetual infants, they find it convenient to believe their personal pleasuring is based in "scientific morality." We don't have free enterprise. We have the buying and selling of political influence. I think oligarchs tend to have gotten where they are by seeking to rule cheap laborers and keep them cheap. Kind of like trained dogs, to go fetch and to guard against free enterprising competitors. If they really wanted to be virtuous, they would not conspire to flim flam people or to flood or undermine republics of free thinkers. They would seek to sell their ideas with reason, more so than with agitated, virtue-signaling mobs.
If you really want to be virtuous, you don't need to carry water for morally-insane, flim-flamming, people farmers. Free your mind. You may then discover a better philosophy of moral purposefulness.
***********
To me, it makes more sense to think upon God with respect to empathy rather than love. If love ruled everything, how could God ever part with anything? We can empathize concerning evil or what we want to change or eliminate without loving it.
Consciousness can take different perspectives, yet every perspective is an expression of Consciousness. It is in respect that we are each a perspective of Consciousness that we each have capacity for empathy. To appreciate that, there but for fortune, go I
***********
I for one do not think of God as a Being that "created" the Universe. I don't think about such a Creator, because it implicates an infinite regression that defies the limits of possible logic for mortals.
I think upon God as the Process Reconciler of Perspectives of Consciousness. That Reconciler just is. The perspective of every mortal is necessarily imperfect, if such imperfection is implicated in the status of being mortal.
To the extent transmission (reconciliation) of Information is possible among perspectives of Consciousness, it seems obvious that all such perspectives are in a continuous process of being reconciled. As to my own perspective, such process is self evident.
As to specific powers, purposes, or limiting definitions for such Reconciler, I, as a mortal, cannot say.
Too many people assume God must mean some literal interpretation behind various sacred stories, many of which, to thinking people, were and are obviously meant to be appreciated more as inspiring metaphors than as descriptions of literal, provable, or logical truths. The sacred metaphors can provide a kind of common language for helping to assimilate and appreciate what is sacred, meaningful, or worthwhile.
Avowed atheistic knowitalls can be so unaware, trying to literally disprove what, for many, was never meant to be taken literally, rather than figuratively. They tend to be boorish and boring.
***********
Here we go again, with Empiricists trying to derive (qualitative) ought purely from (quantifiable) is. Good grief!
Existential unfolding and Evolution proceed by way of building on and sacrificing what has gone before. That is how Change works. Otherwise, nothing would be experienced, because experience implicates change.
Many militant or dogmatic Empiricists want to assume it is obvious that everything that is subjective, such as Consciousness, is purely derivative of some kind of Substrate that is purely objective. They then engage in convoluted proofs for what they want to assume, that wind up merely being "proofs" by assumption.
A person that observes what is self-evidently obvious will notice that both subjectivity and objectivity actually unfold together with the unfolding of existentiality. Such a person will tend less to assume that what is subjectively experienceable is purely emergent, derivative, or epiphenomenal from what is measurably objective.
It can be somewhat COMICAL to watch dogmatic Empiricists as they, in effect, try to prove that we ought not believe in the existential validity of oughts. Or that there does not exist any goodness.
There is an important role for empiricism. It consists in seeking to filter aspects of Reality so that we can reliably reproduce practical and technological effects and goals. But that role need not encompass "proving" the ultimate Source, Purpose, Non-purpose, or End for the entire Cosmos. Nor need it encompass circular or silly "proofs" that Moral Purposefulness must either be entirely objective or else non-existent.
Rather, Moral Purposefulness may consist in a process of empathetic feedback for reconciling that which unfolds to the systematic appreciation of the various Perspectives of Consciousness. Such Moral Purposefulness would be Participatory (like Participatory Will), but it would not be entirely objective, nor entirely arbitrary for any mortal Perspective, nor unchanging for all particular applications.
In such respect, Moral Purposefulness would be like the obvious, fluxing, and interconnecting existentiality of qualitative Consciousness, quantitative Substance, and cumulating Information.
***********
To me, it makes more sense to think upon God with respect to empathy rather than love. If love ruled everything, how could God ever part with anything? We can empathize concerning evil or what we want to change or eliminate without loving it.
Consciousness can take different perspectives, yet every perspective is an expression of Consciousness. It is in respect that we are each a perspective of Consciousness that we each have capacity for empathy. To appreciate that, there but for fortune, go I
***********
I for one do not think of God as a Being that "created" the Universe. I don't think about such a Creator, because it implicates an infinite regression that defies the limits of possible logic for mortals.
I think upon God as the Process Reconciler of Perspectives of Consciousness. That Reconciler just is. The perspective of every mortal is necessarily imperfect, if such imperfection is implicated in the status of being mortal.
To the extent transmission (reconciliation) of Information is possible among perspectives of Consciousness, it seems obvious that all such perspectives are in a continuous process of being reconciled. As to my own perspective, such process is self evident.
As to specific powers, purposes, or limiting definitions for such Reconciler, I, as a mortal, cannot say.
Too many people assume God must mean some literal interpretation behind various sacred stories, many of which, to thinking people, were and are obviously meant to be appreciated more as inspiring metaphors than as descriptions of literal, provable, or logical truths. The sacred metaphors can provide a kind of common language for helping to assimilate and appreciate what is sacred, meaningful, or worthwhile.
Avowed atheistic knowitalls can be so unaware, trying to literally disprove what, for many, was never meant to be taken literally, rather than figuratively. They tend to be boorish and boring.
***********
Here we go again, with Empiricists trying to derive (qualitative) ought purely from (quantifiable) is. Good grief!
Existential unfolding and Evolution proceed by way of building on and sacrificing what has gone before. That is how Change works. Otherwise, nothing would be experienced, because experience implicates change.
Many militant or dogmatic Empiricists want to assume it is obvious that everything that is subjective, such as Consciousness, is purely derivative of some kind of Substrate that is purely objective. They then engage in convoluted proofs for what they want to assume, that wind up merely being "proofs" by assumption.
A person that observes what is self-evidently obvious will notice that both subjectivity and objectivity actually unfold together with the unfolding of existentiality. Such a person will tend less to assume that what is subjectively experienceable is purely emergent, derivative, or epiphenomenal from what is measurably objective.
It can be somewhat COMICAL to watch dogmatic Empiricists as they, in effect, try to prove that we ought not believe in the existential validity of oughts. Or that there does not exist any goodness.
There is an important role for empiricism. It consists in seeking to filter aspects of Reality so that we can reliably reproduce practical and technological effects and goals. But that role need not encompass "proving" the ultimate Source, Purpose, Non-purpose, or End for the entire Cosmos. Nor need it encompass circular or silly "proofs" that Moral Purposefulness must either be entirely objective or else non-existent.
Rather, Moral Purposefulness may consist in a process of empathetic feedback for reconciling that which unfolds to the systematic appreciation of the various Perspectives of Consciousness. Such Moral Purposefulness would be Participatory (like Participatory Will), but it would not be entirely objective, nor entirely arbitrary for any mortal Perspective, nor unchanging for all particular applications.
In such respect, Moral Purposefulness would be like the obvious, fluxing, and interconnecting existentiality of qualitative Consciousness, quantitative Substance, and cumulating Information.
No comments:
Post a Comment