Wittgenstein

*****************

HARRISON BERGERON:

The next big disgusting move by the Establishment will be to declare all advocacy for a color blind society to be hate speech.

Most people are of mixed race. Those that aren't soon will be. The purpose of this SJW crap is not about fairness. It's about prepping people to be farmed.

How about an intelligence privilege? Or privilege factor for skill, talent, beauty, strength, quickness? Yup. Let's collectively handicap Darwin. That'll work. s/

When the law-drooling, pinkie-wagging, wussie-codependent, SJWs get done factoring for "equality and fairness," we will have the most counter-productive, unfair, sub-human, merit-untethered, despotism imaginable. The most perverse SJW/Commie/Jewish/Catholic heaven-on-earth imaginable.

Millennial Socialism is a godforsaken amalgam of fascist people-farming and detestable identity politics. It tries to assign people to favored and disfavored groups based on superficialities like skin color. To the fools that have been "educated" in Millennial Socialism, it is "moral fairness science." They want to rob Americans of their freedom and dignity by promising fake security and fake fairness.

They have been indoctrinated that fairness requires that national borders be opened. But that will only usher in division, disarray, and misery --- to the delight of morally repugnant people farmers in search of cheap and desperate labor. This way lies the worldwide hellhole of human subjugation and enserfment. Eliminate America and you get banana socialism worldwide.

The "science" of millennial identity politics is grounded in denying citizens their individuality, in order to assign them to various group hierarchies of special gov favoritism for redistribution of reparations and "free stuff." Problem is, it has no consistent, workable, or fair formula, and no such formula is even possible, much less grounded in science. However, not a single millennial socialist appears to have sense enough to figure that obvious fact out.

They imagine they are omni-tolerant, yet they do not want to tolerate a securely-bordered representative republic (with a work ethic that could help inspire the world away from excessively sniveling co-dependent free-loading and corrupt people-farming). They seem to want an unraveling of the USA, perhaps even a La Raza Reconquista.

Apparently, they imagine their superior moral scientismists (Nazis?) are going to use due process to apportion reparations to equalize stuff in perpetuity.

Problem is, to try to ground any such scheme in "science" would necessitate measurables. Apparently, everyone should submit their DNA so they can get their gov checks based on historical mistreatment of their ancestors. Problem: What if their ancestors mistreated other tribes? And what about mixed families, where some members may be 30% Nigerian, 10 % Haitian, 5% Scottish, 2% Scandinavian, 10 % Apache, 10 % Sioux, and 33 % undetermined Mexican. Will skin tones be factored, to favor some over others? What about handicaps (physical challenges), hair color, eye color, strength, speed, and IQ? What about foreign claims of colonial mistreatment? Should it matter whether one's ancestors fought for the Blue or the Gray?

What will the hare-brained millennials (educated fools) do if the expert moral scientisimist-handicappers disagree? Should the fairness-equalization be accomplished under a one time assessment, of will it persist as a long series of payments, sort of like human bondage? What if someone was never factually disfavored, but his/her/ze orientation is to identify as having been disfavored?

Perhaps millennials should revisit Kurt Vonnegut, a dead white male who at one time was a favorite of lefties. https://archive.org/stream/HarrisonBergeron/Harrison%20Bergeron_djvu.txt

My gawd! A reasonably smart 10 year old could figure this out, had his brain not been "educated" into mush.

******************

SELF FACTORING INFINITY:

Is there some self-factoring infinity, to factor ordered algorithms out of infinite capacities of chaos? If so, is that self-factoring infinity itself a mere algorithm, a mere chaos, or some innate entanglement of consciousness with the possibilities of mathematical structures? Who can say? All that seems to lead to too much reasoning in a circle, trying to prove assumptions by assuming them. Why not simply begin with direct experience of subjective consciousness?

If God encompasses capacity to express consciousness, to be meaningfully conscious and receptive to feedback, then some aspect of the Godhead can be consciously (subjectively) surprised. If God can be subjectively surprised, then a subjective aspect must permeate and be entangled with all apprehensions of moral right and wrong. Subjective Consciousness must be entangled with every presentation of objectively measurable Substance and Information.

In that light, the Godhead is a source of appreciative feedback and guidance, not a pre-determining or robotic judge of any objective math of moral right and wrong. In that case, we have a feedback system of good faith and good will in respect of which to come to reason together. A Worthy to consult and, in calm meditation and good faith and good will, to seek reason in respect of. Not a precise or robotic instruction manual for the best response to every situation. Not a dead how-to book for objectively measuring poetry.

For a subjective appreciator to expect to quantify objective values for the quality of his experience makes little sense.

https://youtu.be/tpeLSMKNFO4

****************

MUELLER:

Using Mueller's techniques, is there anyone in the world who would be safe from being criminally indicted and convicted? We need better protection from such a police state, especially when it is in the service of sociopathic data-invaders and people-farmers.

We used to have that, in the attorney-client privilege, the reasonable expectation of privacy under the 4th Amendment, the requirement that there be reasonable cause to expect to discover a crime before issuance of a search warrant, and so on. But what we have now is a Witch Hunt under a Star Chamber that is funded or goaded by all the sociopathic forces of Hell.

And for what? Because establishmentarians that thought they had finally bent the republic under their complete dominance were foiled!

Imagine when all online data is made available to AI. Will it find that every human being is a pile of crime, of which the world would be better served by eliminating or at least re-enserfing most of humanity? So this is "progress"? Forward! S/

*****************

PINKER:

Lefties tend to be conditioned to be oblivious to problems in trying to replace ideals of individual responsibility under God and innate good faith and good will with moral science, apparently to be discovered by elite moral scientisimists and then to be forced on the rest of us. Like Nazis, Fascists, and Commies do. You know, for your betterment and progress.

There are problems. One is that science needs measurables. So how do lefty moral scientisimists expect to gather the needed measurables, apart from forcing or tricking everyone to submit to a central bank/depository of dna testing? And using AI to compile a complete record of everyone's online actiivity?

But what will these sociopaths and hare brains do when their expert moral scientisimist-handicappers disagree? Or as top sociopaths vie for power? Will their scientific morality and fairness-equalization be accomplished under a one time assessment, of will it persist as a long series of extractions, like human bondage?

Even though we are not being prepped for the gas chambers, it does seem clear that we are being prepped for open borders, destruction of republics, mass indoctrination, and "the cloud." Pinker is Pollyannish in imagining our "better angels" (moral scientists?) are not pressure cooking us for a blowout that could make the first half of the Twentieth Century look like a picnic.

People-farming race-agitators and divide-and-rule diversity-mongers are not assimilating people to mutual trust, but to mutual enserfment. They are trying to force the entire world to trade the security of mass enserfment under the phony moral scientism of sociopathic oligarchs for the uncertainties of individual freedom and dignity. That may be appropriate for some societies, but not for many Americans. At least, not unless forced upon them by forcing them to accept floods of invading liberty-illiterates. Which is why they are so deranged against the election of DJT.

Pinker sings lullabies for fascists.

**************

CONSCIOUSNESS AND BRAINS: Our brains are not, in themselves, conscious. Rather, they are math circuits with which Consciousness avails expression for various of its perspectives. At higher levels, such perspectives participate in appreciating how the expression of universe is reconciled to unfold.

MATHICALITY: The shape / frame of reference that our Universe presents to appear to any particular Perspective depends on locally experienced gravitational curvature, proximity of the Perspective, and its speed. There is no shape for any physical universe-in-itself that can be objectively drawn. Rather, it can only be expressed in locally appreciated mathicality.

CSI: Substance (S) is that which stores Information (I). I is that which cumulates into Substance. Consciousness (C) is that which experiences what it is like for I to be accumulated into S and for determinations of manifestations of cumulations of I to unfold.


ENTROPIC DISSIPATION INTO DISORDERLINESS AND HEAT LOSS V. EVOLUTION OF COMPLEX SYSTEMS OUT OF CHAOS: What seems to be expanding is the space between galaxies, not galaxies themselves. IAE, it does not appear that Information is lost. Rather, local systems with reliable and regular heat sources (suns) seem to avail complex systems to evolve, to favor those most suited to survive and replicate.

SELF-FACTORING INFINITY: Even if the primary from which all is derived abides as a self-factoring infinity of math-based chaos that expresses variously multiversed systems of algorithms, such a self-factoring, self-actuating infinity is not nothing. Rather, it abides as an existential somethingness. To the extent IT may employ systems of equation-based algorithms, that function as fluxing systems subject to internal feedback and processing of Information, who are we to think it must be dumb or entirely unconscious or devoid of organizational appreciation?

*************

My, what a bitter little personage you are!

ORDER OUT OF CHAOS: Patterns evolve out of chaos, depending on their capacity to survive and reproduce. Do you think of patterns as not beginning to evolve until after the first single celled biological organisms appeared? Do you think they appeared by magic? Did the process of evolution evolve?

CIVILIZING VALUES: Do civilized and organized societies have advantages in developing expertise by dividing tasks and taking territories over from less organized people? To bind a group or people together, does it help for them to assimilate and express shared important values and purposes?

IDEALIZING LEADERS: Do chimps choose the strongest and most brutish for their leaders, or do they choose as their leaders the ones with capacity to make and lead competent friends?

Do chimps have capacity to idealize the qualities they want in a leader they are willing to accept? How do such capacities to idealize what one desires and values evolve? Must not that capacity be something that is selected for by evolution? How is it that our universe is able to select for that capacity?

PREDICTING AND CONTROLLING EVOLUTION AND SCIENCE: Are you able to quantify and evaluate all the factors that go into the mix of evolution, to be able to predict what will unfold in every case?

DO ALGORITHMS EVOLVE OUT OF UNORGANIZED MATH: Do you think our universe of ordered natural relationships was bound to appear out of pure nothingness of unorganized math and infinity? Do you think something or some process, other than pure math, was necessary to put fire into the math, to organize it to express the algorithms that constitute the natural laws that govern our evolving unfoldment?

EX NIHILO: Or do you think we and the natural laws that govern us were bound to bubble up and evolve out of pure nothingness, ex nihilo? Do you think unorganized infinity is bubbling with life and purpose, that makes the appearances of various universes and algorithms inevitable?

METAPHYSICS: Apart from metaphysics, can you explain how infinity could be factored to produce the algorithm that governs our universe? Whatever the ultimate process with which our universe is produced and unfolded, do you imagine that calling it "nothing" is any more an explanation than calling it metaphysical?

****************

EDIT: As to voting majority, if Hillary got a majority, it was because of a long time war by anti-American Dems against border enforcement and pandering to imported and indoctrinated liberty-illiterates and free-stuff mongerers. Thank goodness for the Electoral College!

***********

Millennial Socialism is a godforsaken amalgam of fascist people-farming and detestable identity politics. It tries to assign people to favored and disfavored groups based on superficialities like skin color. To the fools that have been "educated" in Millennial Socialism, it is "moral fairness science." They want to rob Americans of their freedom and dignity by promising fake security and fake fairness.

They have been indoctrinated that fairness requires that national borders be opened. But that will only usher in division, disarray, and misery --- to the delight of morally repugnant people farmers in search of cheap and desperate labor. This way lies the worldwide hellhole of human subjugation and enserfment. Eliminate America and you get banana socialism worldwide.

The "science" of millennial identity politics is grounded in denying citizens their individuality, in order to assign them to various group hierarchies of special gov favoritism for redistribution of "free stuff." Problem is, it has no consistent, workable, or fair formula, and no such formula is even possible, much less grounded in science. However, not a single millennial socialist appears to have sense enough to figure that obvious fact out.

They imagine they are omni-tolerant, yet they do not want to tolerate a securely-bordered representative republic (with a work ethic that could help inspire the world away from excessively sniveling co-dependent free-loading and corrupt people-farming). They seem to want an unraveling of the USA, perhaps even a La Raza Reconquista.

Apparently, they imagine their superior moral scientismists (Nazis?) are going to use due process to apportion reparations to equalize stuff in perpetuity.

Problem is, to try to ground any such scheme in "science" would necessitate measurables. Apparently, everyone should submit their dna so they can get their gov checks based on historical mistreatment of their ancestors. Problem: What if their ancestors mistreated other tribes? And what about mixed families, where some members may be 30% Nigerian, 10 % Haitian, 5% Scottish, 2% Scandinavian, 10 % Apache, 10 % Sioux, and 33 % undetermined Mexican. Will skin tones be factored, to favor some over others? What about handicaps (physical challenges), hair color, eye color, strength, speed, and IQ? What about foreign claims of colonial mistreatment? Should it matter whether one's ancestors fought for the Blue or the Gray? What will the hare-brained millennials (educated fools) do if the expert moral scientisimist-handicappers disagree? Should the fairness-equalization be accomplished under a one time assessment, of will it persist as a long series of payments, sort of like human bondage? What if someone was never factually disfavored, but his/her/ze orientation is to identify as having been disfavored?

Perhaps millennials should revisit Kurt Vonnegut, a dead white male who at one time was a favorite of lefties. https://archive.org/stream/HarrisonBergeron/Harrison%20Bergeron_djvu.txt

My gawd! A reasonably smart 10 year old could figure this out, had his brain not been "educated" into mush.


************

HARRISON BERGERON:

Due process! By keeping border porous and franchising illegal aliens? Good grief. Equal rights?! By expropriating what you did not work for?

I wonder if you are seeking reparations to equalize stuff to yourself, or just as an agent for Native Americans? If as an agent, good. I'm a Native american. I was born here. Moreover, I am told I have 1/32 Indian blood. I am having my dna tested.

This leads me to ask: How are you superior moral scientismists going to use due process to apportion reparations to equalize stuff?

Should everyone submit their dna so they can get their gov checks based on historical mistreatment of their ancestors? What if their ancestors mistreated other native tribes? What about mixed families, where some members may be 30% Nigerian, 10 % Haitian, 5% Scottish, 2% Scandinavian, 10 % Apache, 10 % Sioux, and 33 % undetermined Mexican. Will you factor skin tones, to favor some over others? What about handicaps, hair color, eye color, strength, speed, and IQ? What about foreign claims of colonial mistreatment? Should it matter whether one's ancestors fought for the Blue or the Gray? What will you do if the expert moral scientisimist handicappers disagree?

Should this equalization be a one time assessment, of will it persist as a long series of payments, sort of like human bondage?

You "fair-reparations / equal-rights people" are simultaneously ridiculous, funny, and dangerous to decent society.

Here, you should read this: https://archive.org/stream/HarrisonBergeron/Harrison%20Bergeron_djvu.txt

*************

So, the evolution of dna will be guided by us? IOW, evolution is not entirely apart from effects of conscious efforts and designs?

Will we take consideration of how we should design such changes in dna? In that case, do we get our moral code entirely from natural evolution or also from consciously designed evolution? If we are to consciously design it, do you not find it incoherent to suggest that the evolution of dna and moral codes is entirely due to dumb nature?

And what do you mean be we or us? Do you mean the elite moral scientists among us, or do any others among us get a say? Should we get to order our dna enhancements from a menu?

So, the evolution of dna will be guided by us? IOW, evolution is not entirely apart from effects of conscious efforts and designs?

****************

Sweetie, you are completely lacking in self awareness about your willingness to force your phony moral scientism down other people's throats. There are actually banana republics where that is favored. Maybe you would be happier emigrating to one of those, to spread your love?

While you're busy being omni-tolerant, why don't you want to "tolerate" a securely bordered representative republic, with a work ethic that may inspire the world away from excessively sniveling co-dependent free-loading and corrupt people-farming?

****************

Will we take consideration of how we should design such changes in dna? In that case, do we get our moral code entirely from natural evolution or also from consciously designed evolution? If we are to consciously design it, do you not find it incoherent to suggest that the evolution of dna and moral codes is entirely due to dumb nature?

And what do you mean be we or us? Do you mean the elite moral scientists among us, or do any others among us get a say? Should we get to order our dna enhancements from a menu?

****************

AN END TO ALL THINGS:

I don't know for sure whether you may be one of those determininsts that think everything that unfolds is determined only by objective measurables. I ran across a Wittgenstein-ian that seemed obsessively attached to an idea that "every thing must come to an end." Such people bore me.

There are not any purely objective "things." There are fluxing relationships that are, thanks to the uncertainty principle, not subject to any absolute, complete, or fixed measurement. However, they are often subject to practical measurements within orders of magnitude and significance, which can avail astonishing technologies. The flux of relationships does entail the continuous transmission, reception, and reconciliation of Information.

For example, the speed of light is not fixed as a thing-in-itself, but as a constant relationship to every possible measuring perspective. To whatever the extent needed to preserve that constant, every perspective will have a differently "curved" (or reconciled or renormalized) experience of its space-time frame of reference.

However, when Wittgenstein-ians and such argue among themselves about banalities, such as whether there is an "end to every thing," they bore me. Apart from co-dependent flux of relationships, there are no things-in-themselves, there never has been any such things, and there never will be any such things.

Apart from the flux of math-based RELATIONSHIPS, list for me one measurable thing in itself.

Every relationship that we experience, sense, measure, appreciate, or communicate concerns Information about fluxing relationships (packages of exchanging Information) --- not any "things" in themselves.

Bottom line: When you pin your "explanation" for the unfolding evolution of our universe purely on dumb measurable things, you are pinning it on an illusion.

**************

I tried cases for more than 30 years. I enjoyed a lot of my opponents. Still, I found little that is special about lawyers as a class. I suspect they include among them about the same percentage of weasels and rats as can be found in the general population. Unfortunately, organized systems and tribal networks seem often to favor promotion of the most weaselly and ratty. I think DJT loves the USA. I think Cohen loves himself. Unfortunately, it often takes DJT several attempts to find decent helpers. But then, doesn't that apply to all of us?


***************

Behind much of religion is an idea that there is more to beingness than what can be measured. That there abides a higher basis for appreciating right and wrong, good faith and bad faith, good will and bad will.

Wannabe people-farming fascists that believe they own moral determinations as some kind of new priesthood of "moral scientists" hate that.

In some respects, I like Peterson and Harris. In other respects, Harris especially can be incredibly juvey.

The reason many people have not forsaken higher mindedness, even as they leave organized systems of elitist dogma, may have something to do with having peered into the well of smug despotism and decided they do not like it.

*************

Your incapacity to say anything pertinent that would incline towards preserving the republic against the allied despotism of corrupti and ignoranti is noted. There is nothing so mule headed as a fascist who believes he has the scientific moral truth. Among self assured liberty-illiterates, you are in competition to be Exhibit 1. Congratulations.


***************

FACTORING PROBABILITIES AMONG PERSPECTIVES OF CONSCIOUSNESS:

Bayes’s theorem describes the probability of an event, based on prior knowledge of measurable conditions that might be related to the event. For example, if cancer is related to age, then, using Bayes’ theorem, the measure of a person’s age can be used to more accurately assess the probability that they have cancer, compared to the assessment of the probability of cancer made without knowledge of the person's age. With the Bayesian probability interpretation the theorem expresses how a subjective degree of belief should rationally change to account for availability of measurably related evidence. Bayesian inference is fundamental to Bayesian statistics.

Subjective Consciousness functions as if measurable events of the past should be a guide. This is how "if-then" reasoning proceeds, as it filters to select for the most reliably measurable factors to guide subsequently desired results.  This can help Consciousness more in the "how" to achieve a desired result, but not so much in the "why" to desire a particular result.

The combined effect of various perspectives of Consciousness (subconsciously functioning as if commonly confirmed perceptions concerning the past should be assumed to be a "how to" guide) seems to function towards making such assumption self-fulfillingly consistent.

******************

THINGS AND WITTGENSTEIN:  There are not objective "things."  There are fluxing relationships that are, thanks to the uncertainty principle, not subject to any absolute, complete, or fixed measurement.  However, they are often subject to practical measurements within orders of significance, which often avails astonishing technologies.  The flux of relationships does entail the continuous transmission, reception, and reconciliation of Information.

For example, the speed of light is not fixed as a thing-in-itself, but as a constant relationship to every perspective.  To whatever the extent needed to preserve that constant, every perspective will have a differently "curved" (or reconciled or renormalized) experience of its space-time frame of reference.

When Wittgenstein-ians argue among themselves about banalities, such as whether there is an "end to every thing," they bore me.  Apart from co-dependent flux of relationships, there are no things-in-themselves, there never has been any such things, and there never will be any such things.  Every relationship that we experience, sense, measure, appreciate, or communicate concerns Information about fluxing relationships --- not any "things" in themselves.


***************

EVOLUTION: With regard to the evolution of societies and nations, you seem to have an incoherent appreciation of evolution, i.e., propagation of the most fit to replicate. On one hand, you assume the process is not consciously guided, but on the other you assume some natural truth about how it should be guided.

Meantime, I assume it is ok with you that I direct some of my poorer kin to your house, to invade it in order to equalize your stuff? I am partly Scots-irish. Perhaps I should retain some grudge against the Vikings and Scandinavians? They certainly increased their wealth as a product of colonization or invasion. Btw, for sanctuary cities, do you have some scale to decide which kinds of invaders should be entitled to the most generous amounts of equalizing reparations?

PATRIOTIC ASSIMILATION: When you make such remarks, it leads me to believe you do not really believe in patriotic assimilation. You prefer a hodgepodge. An unraveling of the USA. Perhaps California as three states, or a La Raza Reconquista. See https://www.heritage.org/immigration/report/patriotic-assimilation-indispensable-condition-land-immigrants: "Patriotic assimilation is the bond that allows America to be a nation of immigrants. Without it, America either ceases to be a nation, becoming instead a hodgepodge of groups—or it becomes a nation that can no longer welcome immigrants. It cannot be both a unified nation and a place that welcomes immigrants without patriotic assimilation."

ENEMY WITHIN: This new hodgepodge scientism (or bastardized philosophy) also turns our schools and then our media against the Constitutional Republic. The hatred against founding principles is seen in the divisiveness of Antifa, the calls by Crazy Maxine for impeachment, the Obama regime's fanning of the flames of Ferguson, the open border efforts of Soros, and so on.

SPECIAL TREATMENT FOR SUPERFICIAL GROUPS: From the article cited above: "Special treatment for specific groups by the federal bureaucracy implies betrayal and rejection of the principles espoused by every American leader from Washington through Reagan. This approach has contaminated our schools, preventing them from teaching civic principles and reverence for the nation—including lessons on how those principles have helped leaders repair the nation’s faults. The new approach also threatens the cherished American principle of equal treatment under the law."

LITTLE PEOPLE: Regarding "never been better for ... that can afford...."! Yup. Life is good for Barbara Streisand as she hires the little people to shelter her home from invasion, but invites all of middle class Californians to be laid open to gimmedats.

NATURAL MORAL STANDARD: You assume there is some kind of objective, concrete, true standard for degradation, apart from the consciously subjective appreciation of it. That is where you fall into error. Or, if not, please explain what this objective standard is, how it is scaled, and what it proves. Is there some "natural law" reason for favoring diversity for the sake of diversity, even if it entails increased rates of non-assimilation of patriotic values?

CHERRY PICKED CHARTS: Is your chart below supposed to be some kind of scientific indicator? Does it factor for cities of diverse populations, illegal alien populations, quality of life, Dem mayors, strength of economy, increased surveillance, better technology, changing habits for reporting crime, improved devices for home security, numbers of feces on streets? Do illegal aliens tend to report crime? Is there a projection for what the rates would have been, had there been more assimilation and less illegal invasion?

According to Bureau of Justice Statistics: "Most crimes are not reported to police, and most reported crimes are not solved. In its annual survey, BJS asks victims of crime whether they reported that crime to police. In 2016, only 42% of the violent crime tracked by BJS was reported to police. And in the much more common category of property crime, only about a third (36%) was reported. There are a variety of reasons crime might not be reported, including a feeling that police “would not or could not do anything to help” or that the crime is “a personal issue or too trivial to report,” according to BJS."

************************

PROFOUND ISSUE: At bottom, there is between us a much more profound issue, of which I suspect you have very little appreciation. It relates to the title for the article, Is the Godhead Conscious?

I believe there is absolute truth in the Great Commandment (good faith) and Golden Rule (good will). However, as to specifics for fleshing those rules out, much less so. That is because working out the specifics entails reconciliation among numerous subjective perspectives of Consciousness. We provide the sinews for the Reconciler. I think that reconciliatory process should be voluntary as much as feasible. It should be energized by people coming together voluntarily to participate in forums, such as churches, for inspiring people to reason together in good faith and good will. I think that was key to the American project.

For that, it seems to me that moral scientisimists have little to contribute, but much to poison. I am not sure how deaf, dumb, and blind they seem to be to a key point: To replace godly inspired voluntary good faith and good will among responsible individual citizens with so-called "natural moral science" (as indoctrinated by fake priests of natural moral science) is calculated to put the masses under the authority of corporate fascists, as they regulate impositions against freedom of expression, association, and enterprise.

Too often, what rises to the top among such fascists is not the cream. To replace the Constitutional republic with elitist open borders is to make the world one vast plantation for people farmers to farm the cheapest laborers of the desperate masses. But hey, so long as you're comfortable among people promoting that agenda.


*****************

SCIENTISM:

I am surprised that, for someone so apparently dedicated to science, you seem unfamiliar with the now common term of scientism.

A good primer is here: https://www.philosophybasics.com/branch_scientism.html:

Scientism is the broad-based belief that the assumptions and methods of research of the physical and natural sciences are equally appropriate (or even essential) to all other disciplines, including philosophy, the humanities and the social sciences. It is based on the belief that natural science has authority over all other interpretations of life, and that the methods of natural science form the only proper elements in any philosophical (or other) inquiry.
....

Proponents of Scientism often assert that the boundaries of science could and should be expanded so that something that has not been previously considered as a subject pertinent to science can now be understood as part of science. In its most extreme form, Scientism can be seen as a faith that science has no boundaries, and that in due time all human problems and all aspects of human endeavour will be dealt and solved by science alone
....

It has been argued that Scientism, in the strong sense, is self-annihilating in that it takes the view that only scientific claims are meaningful, which is not itself a scientific claim. Thus, Scientism is either false or meaningless.

Certainly, it requires the almost complete abandonment of any metaphysical or religious discussion, (and arguably also any ethical discussion), on the grounds that these cannot be apprehended by the scientific method, which is very limiting for a supposedy all-encompassing doctrine. Some would say that proponents of Scientism merely avoid actually engaging with many important arguments.

*************************

Since you seem unfamiliar with the concept, you probably have not thought much about tendencies loosed when corrupt or fake elites indoctrinate a citizenry into radical scientism. A society so indoctrinated will be trained to defer to so called scientific experts in every field, including morality, art, and politics. This is what I consider to be very dangerous to any citizenry that values and wants to preserve itself as comprising a representative republic. If you refuse to appreciate that, then I agree, we have very little to discuss.

******************

Does potential for manifestation that is not presently manifested "exist"? If so conceptualized, then perhaps we should imagine the Universe at its simplest as a superposition of presently appreciated manifestation and potentiality of non-presently appreciated manifestation.

I agree that given an infinite number of yes and no answers, 1s and 0s (yin and yang?), such would carry potentiality for simulating an infinite number of realities. Question: Would that implicate an activating and involved Simulator? Would that Simulator retain capacity to intervene (or remain involved) in guiding the unfolding simulation?

The rub: What turns math into a functioning Algorithm? What can use mere math to avail interpretations or appearances of measurable sensations? I do not think science can provide or test for such an answer. I think whatever IT ultimately is, IT is beyond the reach of mortal science, but perhaps not beyond the reach of mortal appreciation.

******************

THEOSOPHY:

Regarding theology or metaphysics: It's not so much that all things end, but that all appearances transition to other phases. Like an unfolding of math translations and interpretations.

My conceptual interpretation:

Substance (S) is that which stores Information (I). I is that which cumulates into S. Consciousness (C) is that which experiences what it is like for I to be accumulated into S and for determinations of manifestations of cumulations of I to unfold.

In that respect, C, S, and I are co-fundaments. But I conceptualize them not as necessarily having an original beginning point, but as always phasing, fluxng, and operating in synchronicity.

Each entails involvement with the other two. All three are innately adapted to the Math (laws of Nature) and the math Activator (God?) that regulates and reconciles them.

But may that Activator be conscious in any worthwhile sense that we can appreciate? For a purpose of inspiring hope or the assimilation of ought from is, it is not necessary that such a case be proven. Only that it be thought internally reasonable and not disproved by free thinkers.


********************

First, I think common sense can often differentiate between what is necessarily in the realm of metaphysics versus testable science. We do not have access to a twin universe with which to conduct double blind experiments.

Second, I thought it was you that indicated the science is settled, that the universe arose from nothing. Do you see the irony in the position you are taking now?

IAE, I do find it worthwhile to conceptualkze how the apparent unfolding of our universe may be derivative of nothing more than math and a math activator. But that is not nothing.

*********

Btw, I am not especially interested in the metaphysics of heaven or salvation. Though I do suspect that consciousness from one perspective or another never ceases. But what is of more interest to me is how to inspire and assimilate ought from is. I do not see science as much help for that. And I do not see decent civilization as having much chance without it.

Moreover, I suspect a lot of wannabe people-farmers have adopted some very demented codes of morality. There have been some "moral science clubs" that I think tend to support elitist despotic rule more so than a decent regard for the freedom and dignity of ordinary citizens. In that regard, I see scientism as often being in the service of, or being deployed for, conniving or even evil purposes. I suspect many Nazis, Fascists, and Communists convinced.themselves they were being good little moral scientists.

For myself, I prefer the New Testament teaching of good faith and good will. I think that had much to do with the general success of the American Project. Notwithstanding snooty pretense.common among Brits.

****************

You are claiming to prove that consciousness is a mere derivative and not a correlative fundament --- but only by assuming it. You have no provable or non-metaphysical model by which to explain how it is that, out of all manifestations possible under a given set of parameters, any particular set happens to become measurable.

Perhaps you are confusing matter-leveraged perspectives of consciousness with the fundamental quality of consciousness. Yes, organization of matter-brain synapses can extend or alter powers of consciousness or enhance IQs. But the quality of conscious experience is not "in" the matter. The conceptualization is not that matter is conscious-as-matter. Rather, the conceptualization is that each sequential manifestation of matter is correlative with an expression or appreciation of consciousness. The matter abides as or with an expression of consciousness, not as a pre-existing pre-condition for consciousness.

You seem to be seduced by scientism, i.e., the belief that the assumptions and methods of research of the physical and natural sciences are equally appropriate (or even essential) to all other disciplines, including philosophy, the humanities and the social sciences.

Descartes imagined a substance-dualist separation of mind and body, each operating independently. As if the mind could function without the body. Nowhere have I invoked such an idea. So, except to confuse the discussion or to feign superior knowledge, why do you bring it up?

I do not say consciousness is beyond self-evident or common sense experience. Only that its fundamental aspect or quality is beyond measurement. I do not conceptualize that mortal consciousness is independent of brain or body, or that body is independent of mortal consciousness. Rather, I conceptualize that mortal consciousness and body are necessary correlates --- even though the fundamental quality of consciousness is beyond scientific measure.

Now, if you believe you have an entirely quantitative way to capture that quality, please feel free to elaborate. Otherwise, I think you may be suffering under a kind of spiritually-blinkered false sense of scientific completeness.

********************

RASPBERRIES:

So you say. As if there were some kind of consensus for those that "truly understand Wittgenstein." Lol.

On the contrary. You are a philosophical philistine.

EDIT: But please do feel free to share, in a sentence, your meaningful understanding / appreciation of life/beingness. So far, you have communicated zilch. So, zilch or 42, whatever.

**************

MEANINGFULNESS:

Well, even using the distance light travels in a vacuum as a reference, how precisely could you actually mark that measurement? As to your question, do you expect there is a true answer --- beyond tautology, truism, triviality, or order of practical significance? Do you imagine there must be such a thing as a thing-in-relational-flux, that can be used to measure and mark precisely the same, even throughout its entanglement with other sequences?

If not, do you imagine the concept of a standard meter must therefore be worthless or meaningless?

Apart from truisms and trivialities, I tend not to seek absolute truths. Rather, I seek practical, useful, and meaningful conceptualizations. I do not expect to prove them, but I do aspire, via a process of feedback, to test and convey some sense of my appreciation of them.

******************

WITTGENSTEIN:

I suspect the people that think they understand Wittgenstein and can wrap him up in a tidy blanket are simply playing language games with themselves. Perhaps you comfort yourself by deluding yourself to believe you understand Wittgenstein, regardless of whether he may have thought he could know or understand himself?

I wonder, do you not believe in a role for conscious assimilation and good faith communication of shared values? While listening together to a kind of music and finding ourselves attracted to it, can we not communicate in words or deeds --- not all at once but over a process of give and take --- an idea of our shared appreciation of it? Are you a philistine, so hostile to cultural values as to find such communications to be devoid of any meaning or truth value? Or perhaps you are a scientisimist, who has never enjoyed any transcendental appreciation of beauty, wonder, or the miracle of beingness? If so, perhaps in your case it would be better for you to pass over in silence that of which you seem to have so little understanding or appreciation.

William James called mystical experiences ineffable, meaning they cannot be expressed in ordinary language. The author of the mystical ancient Chinese text Tao Te Ching wrote, “Those who know do not speak. Those who speak do not know.” Problem is, the author violates the rule even as he states it.

Many people (who perhaps have simply not had any transcendental experiences) think we should avoid or ban all talk of God or metaphysics or metaphors.  Problem is, I doubt we can sensibly speak, let alone sensibly speak about God, without conceptualizing metaphors.

So, do metaphors empower meaningful communications?  Well, heck yes!  See http://www.transpositions.co.uk/on-wittgenstein-metaphor-god-talk-or-how-a-love-for-whisky-can-make-you-a-better-theologian/: "Tasting and talking about what seems ineffable – something like whisky – cultivates the practical mastery of describing the truly ineffable, namely God. This is why introducing neophytes to coffee, wine, whisky or God cannot be done without drinking. People need to connect the metaphors used by “the experts” to the various sensations experienced by our senses. In other words, “they need to taste the metaphors."

In any event, it so happens that I agree with Wittgenstein in numerous ways.

I agree that those who insist that consciousness (or any other subjective mental state) is conceptually unconnected to the external world are mistaken. This is why I say Consciousness cannot abide in the absence of Substance and Information.

I agree that it would make little or no sense to imagine a stone as being conscious. This is why I say the appearance of the stone is an expression of consciousness, but there abides no stone-in-itself, and certainly no stone that is itself conscious.

I agree that there do not abide ultimate "simples" from which language can be constructed. Nor do I believe there abide ultimate thing-in-themself particles with which the universe could be constructed.

I align with Wittgenstein's disdain for scientism, i.e., the belief that the assumptions and methods of research of the physical and natural sciences are equally appropriate (or even essential) to all other disciplines, including philosophy, the humanities and the social sciences. It is based on the belief that natural science has authority over all other interpretations of life, and that the methods of natural science form the only proper elements in any philosophical (or other) inquiry.

Wittgenstein conceptualized that the bewitchments of philosophical problems arise from philosophers' misguided attempts to consider the meaning of words independently of their context. I conceptualize that philosophical problems concerning Reality arise from misguided attempts to consider Consciousness, Substance, and Information independently of their flux and inter-functioning.

Wittgenstein saw language as a multiplicity of language-games within which part-s of language develop and function. I see Reality as a multiplicity of math-games in respect of which perspectives of consciousness part-icipate and inter-function.

******************

Wittgenstein writes, “Not how the world is the mystical, but that it is.” He elaborates: “We feel that even if all possible scientific questions be answered, the problems of life have still not been touched at all. Of course there is then no question left, and just this is the answer. The solution of the problem of life is seen in the vanishing of the problem.” Even when the world has been thoroughly explained by science, Wittgenstein seems to be saying, it hasn’t really been explained at all. The answer to the riddle of life is that there is no answer.


In a “Lecture on Ethics” published after his death in 1951, Wittgenstein described personal experiences with mystical overtones. In one he felt “absolutely safe” and “in the hands of God.” In another he was filled with astonishment at existence and saw “the world as a miracle.”

The higher we soar in contemplation the more limited become our expressions of that which is purely intelligible … We pass not merely into brevity of speech, but even into absolute silence, of thoughts as well as of words… . We mount upwards from below to that which is the highest, and according to the degree of transcendence, our speech is restrained until, the entire ascent being accomplished, we become wholly voiceless, in as much as we are absorbed in Him who is totally ineffable.


Transcendentally spiritual experience, to be appreciated, must be experienced, because it cannot be reduced to logical explanation.

******************************

Before his death, he had said he hoped his Catholic friends would pray for him.


Wittgenstein was said to be interested in Catholicism and sympathetic to it. However, he did not consider himself to be a Catholic, but saw Catholicism more as of a way of life than as a set of beliefs he personally held.