REGARDING FUZZ:
Why and how is it that our existence permits us to build fuzzy-based new technologies on top of fuzzy-based new technologies? Is it because we, ourselves, solely by our inventive choices, are adding or changing the potential direction of Reality? Or is it because “God,” through us, is constantly and continuously relating and intervening in the unfolding feedback of Reality?
Intuitively, does it not seem that:
(1) There must be a holistic, meta clarity that necessarily supports our fuzzy operations and perceptions, whose Source consciously defines, synchronizes, and guides our unfolding choices, which IT limits to IT’s specifications, parameters, prods, designs, purposes, and teleology?
(2) In relation to the web of perceptions which is sponsored throughout by the Consciousness of such Source, IT’s holistic synchronizing of choices tends to coordinate gradual shifts in the phasing of parameters that are availed to our particular perspectives.
(3) Such phase shifts often occur in ways that lag behind our practical measure, kin, appreciation, or conscious feedback.
RESULT: Over space-time, changes are availed in potential directions for our tinkering, technology, and teleology. That is, the Source’s interactive choices about that which we are allowed to develop always affect the directions and limits for that which we are, in next sequence, allowed to develop. That is, our future technologies are to some extent affected by that which happens to comprise that which we experience as our past choices. But the choices which we experience, fuzzily, may well be apprehended by the Source, sans the fuzz. IOW, God has no need for us to clearly understand God’s teleology.
We have no choice but to pass through various quantities and qualities of fuzz. Insofar as we believe we can and should turn all fuzz into perfect clarity, it becomes easy for us to imagine that the perfect should be the enemy of the good. But that is a path to despair, madness, or suicide. The better task before us relates to how to make peace within fuzz, in order to pursue fulfillment within it. “Fuzz ‘r us.”
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
In death, all particular perspectives of consciousness must eventually become collateral damage from the unfolding purposes of the field of consciousness. Our material world is not the best of all possible; we are only its gardeners, always pursuing communion, and perhaps eventual merger, with a happier state of being.
My Blog List
Blog Archive
-
▼
2010
(171)
-
▼
June
(42)
- Religious Literalism and Fundamentalism
- Missing Budget
- Charitable Foundations Run By Elites
- Purpose and Pursuit of Fulfillment
- In Whom Do We Trust?
- Obama's Base
- Hedge Fund Cons
- Whore Media
- Transcendent Moral Order
- Afghanistan
- The Little Girl Who Wanted to Replace God
- Little Girl Minority Cultures
- Religious Mind Rot
- False Liberty and Stimulation by Sirens
- Education of a Progressive
- Party Discipline
- Elites, Agenda 21, and NWO
- Greedy Science v. Social Wisdom and Meta Intuition
- Center Cannot Hold
- Libertarian Smears
- Gangster Government vs. Middle Class
- Gay Marriage
- Jews and Minority Cultures
- Restoring Checks and Balances
- Progress in Immateriality
- Pseudoscience
- Sissification of Military
- Open Borders
- Has Hubble made God small?
- Has America already been overthrown?
- The Race Card
- Responsible Empathy
- Multi Culti Rot
- Stoners
- Elites as cover for tyranny
- Consciousness as source of fuzz
- Fuzz
- Resetting Checks and Balances
- Double-Think
- Femimen
- Socialism is a one word contradiction
- Sacrifices of Progressives
-
▼
June
(42)
10 comments:
G. Man said,
Re: "The particles are independent of perception and/or representation of them. So I disagree with your contention that there is no smallest particle-in-itself."
Well, the distinction I wished to make may be a minor one. I agree with you about the reality we share for the situation of our universe. What I am suggesting is that the universe-as-it-has-potential-to-relate-to-us need not forever be as it is. But that is a meta point that I do not necessarily consider to be very important, in most respects. For our universe, our scientific quest is to explain in mathematical terms how it operates. So I appreciate experimental work for explaining particles that is directed for that purpose. There may well be a unifying approach that we can derive in mathematics, based on particulate analysis.
Even so, I am not sure that every kind of "particle" (collapsed expression of a field?) is well suited to mathematical or statistical predictions. I will read further to review your thoughts, if any, about collapsed perspectives under the field of consciousness.
OK, this is meaty: "Recall also that I define consciousness as awareness plus volition (free will), so these are the 'aspects' of the field. The interaction of the field with the physical universe are described by the field and force equations, The 'character' of the field is unique, just as the character of the gravity field is unique, and the electromagnetic field. The equations govern only the interactions of the field with mass. 'Free will' and awareness, per se, are inherently beyond deterministic equations. "
As Gagdad Bob would say, I raccoon that!
Compare: “The particles are independent of perception and/or representation of them.” And: “Recall also that I define consciousness as awareness plus volition (free will), so these are the 'aspects' of the field.”
Well, you seem to be saying: The particles do not require consciousness in order to exist, but that, regardless, consciousness (at some level) does exist with such particles, contemporaneously. You may be ambiguous about whether the contemporaneity is “required.” (?)
****
Re: “Your 10:04 remarks refer to a "particle of consciousness." I don't use that term because it carries false connotations.”
Understood. I myself have preferred “perspective of consciousness.” Although collapse of a field seems commonly associated with appearance of a “particle,” I appreciate your reluctance to contribute to confusion and will respect it.
Re: “… my theory is the polar opposite of scientific reductionism, which, as I understand it posits that consciousness can be reduced to arrangements of matter.”
“From a particle perspective, free will plays the role in this theory that 'randomness' plays in quantum theory. Random behavior is behavior for 'no reason at all'. Freely willed behavior is by reason of awareness. Both are probabilistic at the particle level. Quantum theory thus does not change, only its interpretation changes.”
Indeed! Regardless that the science and math do not relate social implications, the understanding intuits implications -- general though they may be.
Re: As for the current 'artificial life' hoopla, I do not consider creating DNA and inserting this into a cell or bacterium to be 'creating life'. If one started from scratch and ended up with a cell or bacterium that would be impressive.”
Yes, that would be an impressive kind of genesis. But I don’t see that it would discredit your take regarding a field of consciousness.
Re: "I do believe that the consciousness field has different implications for morality than the reductionist religion, but implication is not specification."
I agree. The "implications" are not precise enough to justify elites in specifying or prescribing detailed and permanent rules about how all others should behave. By my lights, general guidance is implicated, especially for elites: walk humbly in empathetic respect of the ("god given") dignity of others; avoid unnecessary squabbles about semantics; and try to appreciate contexts for the positions of others.
If some such general guidance were taught, or even if only its implications were taught, then I suspect reasoned pursuit of harmony and fulfillment would be enhanced. By my lights, the general political implications would support governance that reasonably nurtures individual freedom of expression and enterprise. That would be a representative republic that is sustained by a system of checks and balances and an informed citizenry.
Problem is, "my lights" may not work well for societies whose traditions and institutions make them ill suited. Flooding our borders with immigrants from such societies will necessarily force a re-leveling --- one that is not especially calculated to be to the liking of anyone.
Regardless, the "implications" for any well proven theory would have to be absorbed or at least considered by the main religious and spiritual traditions and parables.
G. Man,
Re: “The first fields (gravity and electromagnetic) are unquestionably physical, while quantum fields are mysterious and their physicality may be questioned.”
I grasp this, but with a (minor?) quibble. Insofar as such fields exist, I assume they entail a counterpart “particle feature”? So then, in each case with which we relate, to sense or imagine a field and it particle-counterpart, we imagine a “smallest particulate representation.” This implicates a concern: that the “relational representation” of the particle would hardly convey meaning, absent consciousness that (at some level) relates to the representation. But for an implicated “field of consciousness,” how could any other field (or its particle counterpart) “exist,” in any meaningful sense?
I suspect each representation of a “smallest particle” to the human form depends on preset meta limits, that can be leveraged to the experience of, or representation to, the human form. In relation to us, anything smaller would be unpredictable fuzz. Suppose the human form, as a vehicle for the expression of consciousness, were to phase or morph (in some parallel state of being?) into something that humans (as we now know them) could no longer relate to or even perceive: In such event, it would become nonsensical to suggest that each such new form may be able to relate to “even smaller” particles. After all, there would be no means by which to frame the comparison for such a case.
IOW, there may be “smallest RELATIONAL particles.” But I doubt there is any smallest particle-in-itself. IOW, size (and space and time?) may not only be relative, but also relational: to consciousness.
Gene Man, I see you seem to be considering a field of consciousness as either “condensate” of, or necessarily coordinate with, fields of gravity and electromagnetism. I have no quibble with this, except that I suspect it should not make a difference if the fields of gravity and electromagnetism were considered as condensate of the field of consciousness. (I wonder if it may make sense to consider each perspective of consciousness as a sort of “point” within the field?)
NOTE: I consider that science (“physics”) is important and that it carries mathematical features and discernible laws. I also suspect that those fields that are coordinate with scientific and mathematical representation are interpenetrated with another field (of consciousness), which is NOT, apart from its relation with physical markers (as they are sensed), so bound. This is the realm for possible free will. As to definable parameters for that, I suspect that bleeds quickly into a non-useful realm of metaphysics.
NOTE about despair, madness, and suicide: My intent (clumsy) was to muse about the effect of fanaticism of any quality – scientific or religious. I consider pursuit of reason and self expression to be worthwhile, regardless of the intractability of perfection.
NOTE: Because of the interpenetration of consciousness and free will, determining the genesis for that which is best for humanity -- in terms of economics, politics, and morality -- is NOT a matter to be entrusted to scientists or elites merely because they happen to be better at math, self deceit, or pretense. IMHO.
A vain attempt to reduce the "particle of consciousness" to controllable scientific reductionism may account for the failure of scientific models to facilitate that limited extent of preciseness which is possible. As Dirty Harry would say, "A man's got to know his limitations."
Re: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science_and_environment/10132762.stm: What if you could create life or intelligent machines from inanimate matter? Would that disprove that consciousness is interpenetrating? NO! You would not have “created consciousness.” You would only have reorganized, leveraged, or refocused existing expressions or byproducts of consciousness. Indeed, your having "designed" to do so would illustrate the inadequacy of the Darwinian notion of evolution of the “most fit” (whatever that means) to reproduce.
From A.T. -- Gene Man said:
The field you are asking about is also physical, and was first proposed by Maxwell, investigated by Einstein, and recently measured by Tajmar. This field interacts with matter, which may be considered the 'condensate' of the field. When this matter is organized into neural networks (the brain) the result is a local, thinking, entity, self-aware and self-sustaining. If the awareness and volition are associated with consciousness, and the 'logic' is associated with the brain's logical machinery, the whole picture fits together flawlessly.
The problem is that this field flies in the face of over a century of conceiving of "consciousness as artifact" and over a half century of "mass as derived from Higgs". That's why it WILL be significant if the Higgs (the God Particle) is not found to exist.
But brief comments that go against two consensus ideas are not very convincing, since the necessary ideas require numerous examples before they 'make sense' to the newbie. This is why I reference the books.
It is relatively easy to show how particles and cells 'derive from' the new theory. It is far more difficult to explain despair, madness, suicide, etc, and such that you mention in your last comment. I believe that your statements are generally correct, but difficult to establish as 'true'. Your labeling of the consciousness field as "the Source" is consistent with my above comments.
There may be a “smallest particle” that can be experienced or represented to our human form, no matter how leveraged, so long as our form remains human. In relation to us, such would be an “ultimate particle,” beyond which there would be unpredictable fuzz. Were we to phase or metamorphose into something that humans as we now know them could no longer relate to or even perceive, would it not be nonsense to suggest that such new form may be able to relate to “even smaller” particles? After all, there would be no means by which to frame the comparison in any such a case. So, there may be a smallest relational particle. But that is not quite the same as to say that there may be a smallest particle in itself.
There may be a “smallest particle” that can be experienced or represented to our human form, no matter how leveraged, so long as our form remains human. In relation to us, such would be an “ultimate particle,” beyond which there would be unpredictable fuzz. Were we to phase or metamorphose into something that humans as we now know them could no longer relate to or even perceive, would it not be nonsense to suggest that such new form may be able to relate to “even smaller” particles? After all, there would be no means by which to frame the comparison in any such a case. So, there may be a smallest relational particle. But that is not quite the same as to say that there may be a smallest particle in itself.
Gene Man,
Re: " If consciousness "is the most fundamental thing" then atoms and cells are essentially 'artifacts', derived from the more fundamental physical entity."
About the genesis of this: I suspect some folks presume that if there are not really any atoms, then the alternative is to imagine that everything is derivative of a completely non-physical ghost. Thinking it non-physical, they presume it does not exist. If so, they are overlooking something. In respect of the Source itself, it may well be of a "physical essence." But that essence may be of a quality which we can intuit, implicate, fuzzily model, and measure in respect of our models. If so, the measurements will always break down and lose sense when they reach the fuzzy limits of the models. And the models will not precisely represent the essential reality, but only ways for us to tinker with it. I suspect there is "free will," but I suspect it is a free will that is channeled from the Source through each perspective of it (us). Behind the fuzz, there is a clarity, but we, being incomplete and imperfect perspectives of the whole, relate to it only within whatever parameters are allowed to our particular context. Beyond that, fuzz.
Intuitively, inferentially, does it not seem that:
(1) There must be a holistic, meta clarity that necessarily supports our fuzzy operations and perceptions, whose Source consciously defines, synchronizes, and guides our unfolding choices, which IT limits to IT’s specifications, parameters, prods, designs, purposes, and teleology?
(2) In relation to the web of perceptions which is sponsored throughout by the Consciousness of such Source, IT’s holistic synchronizing of choices tends to coordinate gradual shifts in the phasing of parameters that are availed to our particular perspectives.
(3) Such phase shifts often occur in ways that lag behind our practical measure, kin, appreciation, or conscious feedback.
We have no choice but to perceive ourselves as passing through various quantities and qualities of fuzz. Insofar as we believe we can and should turn all fuzz into perfect clarity, it becomes easy for us to imagine that the perfect should be the enemy of the good. But that may be a path to despair, madness, or suicide. The better task before us would seem to relate to how to make peace within our perceptions of fuzz, in order to pursue fulfillment within it. IOW, “fuzz ‘r us” --- even as to our "Genesis Machines."
Two nearly magical concerns about “Genesis” dazzle me: (1) Why does there seem no end to the ever more amazing things we become able to generate with technology? (2) Why does every explanation seem to need a loose, inexplicable, and fuzzy bow, to tie it up? That is, why does every clarification of “fuzz” seem to push the “fuzz” further along the rainbow?
REGARDING FUZZ: Why and how is it that our existence permits us to build fuzzy-based new technologies on top of fuzzy-based new technologies? Is it because we, ourselves, solely by our inventive choices, are adding to or changing the potential direction of Reality? Or is it because “God,” through us, is constantly and continuously relating and intervening in the unfolding feedback of Reality?
I suspect the Source’s interactive “choices” about that which we are allowed to develop always affect the directions and limits for that which we, in next sequence, are allowed to develop.
That is, our future technologies are to some extent affected by that which happens to comprise that which we experience as our past choices.
Thus, the Author of our experiences permits us to build fuzzy-based new technologies on top of fuzzy-based new technologies. But the choices which we experience, fuzzily, may well be apprehended by the Source, sans the fuzz. IOW, I doubt God has need for us ever to clearly understand God’s teleology.
Post a Comment