Cannot binary-based computer signal switches be set to regulate functions algorithmically, to control logic gates and signals for expressing every kind of systemic, conservation based flux? In respect of a power source, every kind of discrete, continuous, constant, fluxing, directional, alternating, reversing, reverberating, juxtaposing, superimposing, dimensional signal can be represented in binary code. If the power source is self programming in response to its own flux of internal feedback, it may facilitate switches for expressing logical functions for every kind of math and dimension based geometry. It may express yes-no, true-false, go-stop, either-or, and/or, random, series, resistence, alternatiion, flux, expansion, contraction, trade off, transition. An ultimate, self-programming power source may program sub-self-programming power sources. An intelligently aware computer may program sub-perspectives of itself that are confined to experience lower levels of dimensional analysis and awareness. Their programs may be such as to end their facilitations of local consciousness before they can transcend or assimilate to become or merge with separate yet higher perspectives of consciousness.
How is it that we, in our consciousness, sense, record, analyze, and remember "substance" and "information?" What gives abstractions meaning is, ultimately, a character (God?) that we can perhaps intuit, but not measure or confine -- whether or not we profess to have faith in it. What I would call the three faces of God (Consciousness, Substance, and Information) seem to relate (con-substantiate) in ways that no logic or science will ever confine to measured explanation.
It seems some fundament abides that is both causal and/but, in itself, immeasurable. Maybe it applies nothing more than binary code to self program itself. If the ultimate Source does program itself, that seems pretty qualitatively mysterious and godlike. I doubt such a fundamental qualitative can reasonably be expected to be reduced to quantitative control, especially by any mortal.
As to its qualitative character, whether it is caring or indifferent, it would seem to me to entail a more difficult faith to believe it is entirely indifferent than to believe that it is involved in feedback as it continues to self program. It's a mystery. Being a mystery, I would opt for that fundamental orientation towards moral purposefulness that seems most conducive to decent sustenance of civilized freedom and dignity. That seems to consist in Christian values. I agree that any kind of worldview will unavoidably entail a leap of faith.
I have given up on the scholastic-essentialist philosophers. And I don't find the foundational assumptions of analytic philosophers to be much of an improvement for addressing the most important concerns of humanity. They seem too much to subordinate the participatory conscious will of human beings to their ideas of pre-determining or overriding natural laws. I think that way leads to a moral dead end, much the same as alchemy led to a scientific dead end.
I think I see the outline of an alternative. I have not seen a name for it, so I may need to make one up. I guess I would call it CSI Feedback Philosophy. Were I to apply it to think about an implicate order, I would conceptualize the implicate order to be an unfolding beingness that fluxes to express CSI -- consciousness, substance, information. Such a philosophy would recognize that every measurable manifestation of substance must balance to obey a requirement of conservation. But it would also recognize a participatory role for consciousness to reconcile among the possibilities that are availed in potentiality, in order to choose which ones to make part of the manifestations that are rolled into the informational record. The capacity to choose is the key to placing moral responsibility. Without respect for freedom to choose, the arts of civilization seem to reduce to a pig farm.
If God is consciousness, and consciousness is part of the implicate order, then science is helpful, but hubristic scientism is inadequate to explain, entertain or inspire human beings. Or any other form of purpose driven, self aware, intelligence.
How is it that we, in our consciousness, sense, record, analyze, and remember "substance" and "information?" What gives abstractions meaning is, ultimately, a character (God?) that we can perhaps intuit, but not measure or confine -- whether or not we profess to have faith in it. What I would call the three faces of God (Consciousness, Substance, and Information) seem to relate (con-substantiate) in ways that no logic or science will ever confine to measured explanation.
It seems some fundament abides that is both causal and/but, in itself, immeasurable. Maybe it applies nothing more than binary code to self program itself. If the ultimate Source does program itself, that seems pretty qualitatively mysterious and godlike. I doubt such a fundamental qualitative can reasonably be expected to be reduced to quantitative control, especially by any mortal.
As to its qualitative character, whether it is caring or indifferent, it would seem to me to entail a more difficult faith to believe it is entirely indifferent than to believe that it is involved in feedback as it continues to self program. It's a mystery. Being a mystery, I would opt for that fundamental orientation towards moral purposefulness that seems most conducive to decent sustenance of civilized freedom and dignity. That seems to consist in Christian values. I agree that any kind of worldview will unavoidably entail a leap of faith.
I have given up on the scholastic-essentialist philosophers. And I don't find the foundational assumptions of analytic philosophers to be much of an improvement for addressing the most important concerns of humanity. They seem too much to subordinate the participatory conscious will of human beings to their ideas of pre-determining or overriding natural laws. I think that way leads to a moral dead end, much the same as alchemy led to a scientific dead end.
I think I see the outline of an alternative. I have not seen a name for it, so I may need to make one up. I guess I would call it CSI Feedback Philosophy. Were I to apply it to think about an implicate order, I would conceptualize the implicate order to be an unfolding beingness that fluxes to express CSI -- consciousness, substance, information. Such a philosophy would recognize that every measurable manifestation of substance must balance to obey a requirement of conservation. But it would also recognize a participatory role for consciousness to reconcile among the possibilities that are availed in potentiality, in order to choose which ones to make part of the manifestations that are rolled into the informational record. The capacity to choose is the key to placing moral responsibility. Without respect for freedom to choose, the arts of civilization seem to reduce to a pig farm.
If God is consciousness, and consciousness is part of the implicate order, then science is helpful, but hubristic scientism is inadequate to explain, entertain or inspire human beings. Or any other form of purpose driven, self aware, intelligence.