META FEEDBACK AND INDISTINGUISHABILITY FROM HOLISTIC CONSCIOUSNESS:
Review http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/633. I'm not confident how far logic and empiricism can take us on many of these topics. Actually, I hope logic and empiricism will eventually convince most of us that it makes more sense to model our existence as if consciousness (whatever it is) were on a par with (whatever it is that accounts for) physics. IMO, whatever "truthiness" we reliably glean from physics will not much help us in pursuing moral meaningfulness. And whatever "truthiness" we glean from spiritual beliefs about the character of consciousness will not much help us in pursuing technological improvements.
A problem with many of the approaches that try to "prove" consciousness in only secondary to (or epiphenomenal of?) physics: they tend merely to assume that many thought-to-be fundamental parameters of original design are not responsive to change or expansion via internal feedback.
IOW, they do not pause to consider whether there may be a kind of self-regulating, feedback-homoeostasis that is in some respects INDISTINGUISHABLE from holistic consciousness.
IOW, they apply blinders of bivalent logic, and fail to consider trivalent logic, i.e.: possibilities and choices relating to subjective assessments or probabilities for states of becoming or not becoming, as opposed merely to states of present being or not being.
IOW, the foundational laws may be holistically morphogenetic, to the point of "being sympathetic to" preserving and rewarding those forms, expressions, and communications of allied will that are most empathetic with meaningful fulfillment (i.e., “pursuit of happiness”). IOW, evolution, like gravity, may have both universal and local applications.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Regarding benign, oligopolistic collectivism:
I suspect the Gates-Buffet initiative for organizing half of all billionaires’ wealth in order to “redistribute charity.” I suspect “redistribute charity” is Newspeak for coordinating resources for the new oligarchical world order, to further spread, consolidate, and centralize tentacles for control, to reach into every last detail of every last human being’s life. If oligopolists of the world truly were charitable, if they truly had a decent philosophy, the number one priority should be de-centralizing control in order to redistribute power to the lowest levels at which it can reasonably and freely be exercised.
But I very much doubt you will see anything of the like. Which means our only chance is to take control for ourselves. How? By declaring the motives and methods of the coagulating nest of oligarchical elites to be what they are: tyrannical and treasonous to America and to human freedom and dignity. On that basis, the wealth of centralizing elites should not be redistributed, but judicially smashed. For in smashing it, their power to centralize and aggrandize control and destroy liberty could be proportionately reduced, so that our freedom would be proportionately increased.
I do not say smash the wealth of all the wealthy. I am saying punish the wealthy who seek to establish Big Brother centralized control, to the diminishment of human liberty. But do not punish the wealthy who seek to spread human freedom and dignity. Or, if the wealth of even abusers must be redistributed, then use it to put meaning back into the Tenth Amendment, to redistribute power to states and to lower level communities, to enhance defense of borders, to improve infrastructure for transportation and communication, and to improve health research. Do not facilitate for wealth to be used to increase organizational power among nations bent on replacing all freedom with centralization of control over the collective.
I can still dream.
Post a Comment