If consciousness were only byproduct of interacting charge exchanges between synapses within a receiver brain or cell organism, then such byproduct would already be determined BEFORE the time of each such charge exchange. In that case, each subsequent exchange of charge would be determined by the receiver state of the system or organism, from each next preceding state. The quality of consciousness (and any unfolding meaning or consistency thereof) would be mere acausal byproduct (so the notion goes). If true, it would seem that each brain (or complex stimulus-response system) should be experiencing "choices" before its mind is even aware of it. Actually, that may well be the case.
However, if that is probably the case, what would be the deeper indication begged by that? Is not the deeper indication this: that whatever it is that accounts for consciousness does not abide solely in disparate individuals? Must not consciousness as we experience it abide as a result of an interacting feedback communication between a holistic field and the particulars and perspectives that condense from it in order to occupy folds within space-time? Must not consciousness be a fundament of reality?
In that case, an holistic quality of consciousness would NOT be mere acausal byproduct. Rather, it would simply precede a local perspective's apprehension of it. And once the local perspective did apprehend, that would be fed back to the holistic perspective. And so on. Always in the "Now."
As to any consistent quality of meaning that unfolds in respect of such constant and continuous feedback between the whole of consciousness and its parts, why should that be the case ... unless the field itself somehow meaningfully invests a "care" to communicate, however immeasurably, among the various perspectives of it?
If the choice for what to make manifest among possible parameters (of the fuzz that precedes choices) is made before particles even organize to manifest the choice, then the physical manifestation of each choice would seem to be mere byproduct for storing measurable information about sequences of choices that had already been made. Whatever actually "causes" each choice would seem to be of a different and immeasureable character (conscious will) than of mere measureable matter.
Insofar as physical matter that is measurable, such would seem merely to provide means for feeding back information regarding decisions already made at a meta level, i.e., at a level of immeasurable consciousness. That level is still physical in that it entails a physical field of consciousness with scattered condensate of perspectives. However, it is a physical field of consciousness, which cannot measure its own emotive consciousness, except indirectly insofar as it makes manifest (in the kind of matter that is measurable) a means for storing empirical and sequential Information.
But, how is it that perspectives of consciousness that are beyond measurable matter can become aware of, make choices about, and exert influence to cause charge differentials between synapses within a receiver brain or cell to interact? Must the mechanism have something to do with a capacity of a field of conscious will and empathy to "lens" with a field of gravity (space-time geometry)? Must that lensing interaction have some immeasureable influence on effecting choices within parameters of feedback along the path for our universe's unfolding of informational storage mechanisms, which only consciousness interprets as physical quanta, matter, energy, electricity, and magnetism?
Well, I cannot measure or quantify the "meta how." But I can adduce that it abides.
Saturday, August 28, 2010
Obysmalism Must Go
From AT:
Re: "As we look around the world at the countries that practice Islam as a state religion, it is almost incomprehensible that the left should defend Islam so fervently."
Well, the Left's Prime Directive is to put the collective under the rule of collectivizers. Sharia Law is nothing if not collectivist. So what's not to understand?
To help give Leftist Obysmalism the bum's rush, the following may help:
1) Preserve America's territorial and corporate borders.
2) Resist enabling or allowing government to be invested in or bought as a commodity. Instead, help and rely on charity to spread wealth.
3) Educate those who desire opportunity to express individual initiative and creativity (middle class), so their insights can help reinforce and educate the lowest common denominator among those who are blinkered, dumb, addicts, pushers, and pimps.
4) Educate how the wealthy often seek to hoodwink the lower class in order to eliminate the middle class so that the masses can never again have a say.
5) Educate how wealthy elitists often masquerade as Robin Hood, as if to redistribute to the poor, while they really use the poor as props, to stand on while claiming to know best.
6) Spread the truth about Islam, Marxism, Diversity Divisionism, Unprincipled Multi-Principalism, and Obysmalism: They are fronts for Collectivizers.
7) Understand that a higher field of consciousness does exist, and that it contends against spiritual pathologies (evil), which also exist.
8) Understand that you cannot be a moral agent to the extent you leave your salvation up to government or believe and behave as if government should be your mediator to Higher Consciousness. Obysmalism must go!
Re: "As we look around the world at the countries that practice Islam as a state religion, it is almost incomprehensible that the left should defend Islam so fervently."
Well, the Left's Prime Directive is to put the collective under the rule of collectivizers. Sharia Law is nothing if not collectivist. So what's not to understand?
To help give Leftist Obysmalism the bum's rush, the following may help:
1) Preserve America's territorial and corporate borders.
2) Resist enabling or allowing government to be invested in or bought as a commodity. Instead, help and rely on charity to spread wealth.
3) Educate those who desire opportunity to express individual initiative and creativity (middle class), so their insights can help reinforce and educate the lowest common denominator among those who are blinkered, dumb, addicts, pushers, and pimps.
4) Educate how the wealthy often seek to hoodwink the lower class in order to eliminate the middle class so that the masses can never again have a say.
5) Educate how wealthy elitists often masquerade as Robin Hood, as if to redistribute to the poor, while they really use the poor as props, to stand on while claiming to know best.
6) Spread the truth about Islam, Marxism, Diversity Divisionism, Unprincipled Multi-Principalism, and Obysmalism: They are fronts for Collectivizers.
7) Understand that a higher field of consciousness does exist, and that it contends against spiritual pathologies (evil), which also exist.
8) Understand that you cannot be a moral agent to the extent you leave your salvation up to government or believe and behave as if government should be your mediator to Higher Consciousness. Obysmalism must go!
Varieties of Collectivism: Elitism, Marxism, Islamism
Varieties of Collectivism: Elitism, Marxism, Islamism --
We must restore honor to speak both intelligently and from the heart. Not with mindless rancor, but with principled and heartfelt comprehension. We must not allow P.C. to banish speaking from the heart, to allow speech only from the machine, or few will believe us. If we do not even say we care, who will believe we care about higher consciousness, i.e., higher empathy? Among Leftists who believe only in the model of the machine, the winding down clock of the universe, or the indifferent and despotic notion of Islam, why should they not simply retire to feed their glands within their machine, while ridiculing respect for any notion of anything higher?
Among machine-minded, Leftist Islamlovers who believe only in an indifferent Nature or a despotic God, why should they allow anyone to communicate any idea or invention that demonstrates individual insight, initiative, creativity, freedom, or dignity? If the Koran prescribes and circumscribes the perfect, complete, and final word, why should any expression -- in word or deed -- be allowed unless it is first pronounced and pre-blessed under the Koran? If the collective is the prime directive, then, once the collective is completely confined and regulated to the nines, why should any consciousness on earth be allowed further to persist? Why be conscious?
Governmental Collectivism -- whether sponsored as Elitism, Marxism, or Islamism -- is inherently a cult for those who aspire to rule or be ruled, under stupor or suicide. If you value life, freedom, creativity, receptivity to higher consciousness, then you must resist Leftist Collectivists at all costs.
We must restore honor to speak both intelligently and from the heart. Not with mindless rancor, but with principled and heartfelt comprehension. We must not allow P.C. to banish speaking from the heart, to allow speech only from the machine, or few will believe us. If we do not even say we care, who will believe we care about higher consciousness, i.e., higher empathy? Among Leftists who believe only in the model of the machine, the winding down clock of the universe, or the indifferent and despotic notion of Islam, why should they not simply retire to feed their glands within their machine, while ridiculing respect for any notion of anything higher?
Among machine-minded, Leftist Islamlovers who believe only in an indifferent Nature or a despotic God, why should they allow anyone to communicate any idea or invention that demonstrates individual insight, initiative, creativity, freedom, or dignity? If the Koran prescribes and circumscribes the perfect, complete, and final word, why should any expression -- in word or deed -- be allowed unless it is first pronounced and pre-blessed under the Koran? If the collective is the prime directive, then, once the collective is completely confined and regulated to the nines, why should any consciousness on earth be allowed further to persist? Why be conscious?
Governmental Collectivism -- whether sponsored as Elitism, Marxism, or Islamism -- is inherently a cult for those who aspire to rule or be ruled, under stupor or suicide. If you value life, freedom, creativity, receptivity to higher consciousness, then you must resist Leftist Collectivists at all costs.
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
Trivalent Modeling
THREE MODELS OF EMPIRICAL AND MORAL REALITY:
1) Model 1 – CLASSICAL CAUSAL DETERMINACY: For an event to be conceptualized as having been determined by a particular instrumentality, to that extent, is to rule out randomness.
2) Model 2 – QUANTUM CAUSAL INDETERMINACY: For an event to be conceptualized as having been random, to that extent, is to conceptualize that any particular instrumentality is indeterminate beyond general statistical analysis.
3) Model 3 (Free Will) – UNIFICATION OF DETERMINACY AND RANDOMNESS: For an event to be conceptualized as having been byproduct of wilful choices among a group of actors is for such event both: to be determined in association with interplay of wills among such group; and (2) to be indeterminate as to which, if any, actor’s wilfulness was dominant or sufficient in itself.
THOUGHTS ABOUT UNIFICATION:
BIVALENT LAW OF NON-CONTRADICTION (where consciousness is presumed to be merely artifactual): Models 1 and 2, in themselves, cannot unify the continuity of gravity within the space-time field with discrete leaps within the quantum state of particulars. Notwithstanding fairy notions of “gravitons,” the mathematical, logical law of non-contradiction excludes complete, simultaneous unification of a general theory of certain determinacy with a general theory of uncertain indeterminacy. There may be a feedback flux idea, for a empathetic kind of alternating or vibrating between perspectives of holistic continuosity and perspectives of discrete particulars. However, by definition, that would not yield simultaneous unification from either kind of perspective, in itself.
FOLLY: So, absent respect for conscious free will, is it not folly to try to unify causal determinacy with causal randomness? Is that not akin to occupying one’s mind with whether God is so omnipotent as to be able to fashion a rock which He would be unable to move? (And to think atheistic scientists often make fun of biblical fundies!)
ADD MEANING WITH NO LOSS IN SCIENCE: So, if the goal is complete unifying certainty and predictive value for all fields and states, then neither an approach under Model 1 nor Model 2 can suffice. For that concern, neither can Model 3 suffice. However, Model 3, by definition, does not undertake any such goal. Rather, Model 3's “unification” is at cost of giving up quests for ultimate empirical certainty in exchange for enhancing regard for conscious choice and empathy. Model 3, while recognizing the absurdity of trying to unify Models 1 and 2 in themselves (i.e. without incorporating conscious will as a reconciling aspect under a kind of logical trivalence), does not surrender any degree of empirical certainty that is achievable either from a perspective of Model 1 or 2.
STATE OF BECOMING: Model 3 is not limited to bivalence between “state of is” and “state of is not.” It incorporates regard for a trivalent state, i.e.: “fuzzy state of is or is not becoming” (depending on flux of competition and cooperation among disparate perspectives of conscious free will). That is, Model 3 substitutes a concept of one universe of one field of conscious will interacting with one field of gravity for a concept of a preposterous number of splits of universes and worlds. That is, Model 3 accepts a notion of spiritual free will (you can sense your conscious will, after all!) as being superior to a notion of dumb, disparate, and unseen universes.
DEATH CULTS: In throwing cold water on the goal of explicating a completely predictive and objective model of the unfolding of our universe, Model 3 begs a question: Why should any conscious will desire that its will should be reduced to being merely artifactual of an entirely predictable unfolding? Why should anyone not envious of zombiehood wish to constrain his future to scientifically availed, preset planning and complete predictability? To invest one’s essence in such a goal would seem akin to wishing to surrender one’s will, perhaps even to snuff out one’s body or to sacrifice oneself as a suicide bomber in order to precipitate mass submission to Borgdom. How could one undertake such a sacrifice of will, unless one were already near spiritual death?
FREE WILL IMPLICATES MEANING, I.E., INVESTMENT OF EMOTION AND COMMUNICATION OF EMPATHY: Model 3 addresses roles at levels both of holistic groups and particular individuals, as well as aspects of both determinacy and randomness. Model 3 conceptualizes that a holistic field of consciousness facilitates condensation of particular Perspectives of Will, which entail investments of emotion and communication of empathy. The field of gravity (folds sensed and lensed in space-time geometry) may be conceptualized as facilitating means for collapsing, storing, inflating, and communicating measurable counterparts to investments of empathy for the information and logos of physics.
In other words, Model 3 conceptualizes that a holistic field of consciousness (free will) lenses to interact with a gravitational field (physics, which is constrained by space-time geometry to obey mathematical parameters). The byproduct interpreted from such interaction is condensate of a universe of (1) particular perspectives of consciousness and (2) contemporaneous, collapsing particle-aspects within space-time ... for such perspectives to sense and manipulate to communicate and build upon interests and feedback among themselves.
1) Model 1 – CLASSICAL CAUSAL DETERMINACY: For an event to be conceptualized as having been determined by a particular instrumentality, to that extent, is to rule out randomness.
2) Model 2 – QUANTUM CAUSAL INDETERMINACY: For an event to be conceptualized as having been random, to that extent, is to conceptualize that any particular instrumentality is indeterminate beyond general statistical analysis.
3) Model 3 (Free Will) – UNIFICATION OF DETERMINACY AND RANDOMNESS: For an event to be conceptualized as having been byproduct of wilful choices among a group of actors is for such event both: to be determined in association with interplay of wills among such group; and (2) to be indeterminate as to which, if any, actor’s wilfulness was dominant or sufficient in itself.
THOUGHTS ABOUT UNIFICATION:
BIVALENT LAW OF NON-CONTRADICTION (where consciousness is presumed to be merely artifactual): Models 1 and 2, in themselves, cannot unify the continuity of gravity within the space-time field with discrete leaps within the quantum state of particulars. Notwithstanding fairy notions of “gravitons,” the mathematical, logical law of non-contradiction excludes complete, simultaneous unification of a general theory of certain determinacy with a general theory of uncertain indeterminacy. There may be a feedback flux idea, for a empathetic kind of alternating or vibrating between perspectives of holistic continuosity and perspectives of discrete particulars. However, by definition, that would not yield simultaneous unification from either kind of perspective, in itself.
FOLLY: So, absent respect for conscious free will, is it not folly to try to unify causal determinacy with causal randomness? Is that not akin to occupying one’s mind with whether God is so omnipotent as to be able to fashion a rock which He would be unable to move? (And to think atheistic scientists often make fun of biblical fundies!)
ADD MEANING WITH NO LOSS IN SCIENCE: So, if the goal is complete unifying certainty and predictive value for all fields and states, then neither an approach under Model 1 nor Model 2 can suffice. For that concern, neither can Model 3 suffice. However, Model 3, by definition, does not undertake any such goal. Rather, Model 3's “unification” is at cost of giving up quests for ultimate empirical certainty in exchange for enhancing regard for conscious choice and empathy. Model 3, while recognizing the absurdity of trying to unify Models 1 and 2 in themselves (i.e. without incorporating conscious will as a reconciling aspect under a kind of logical trivalence), does not surrender any degree of empirical certainty that is achievable either from a perspective of Model 1 or 2.
STATE OF BECOMING: Model 3 is not limited to bivalence between “state of is” and “state of is not.” It incorporates regard for a trivalent state, i.e.: “fuzzy state of is or is not becoming” (depending on flux of competition and cooperation among disparate perspectives of conscious free will). That is, Model 3 substitutes a concept of one universe of one field of conscious will interacting with one field of gravity for a concept of a preposterous number of splits of universes and worlds. That is, Model 3 accepts a notion of spiritual free will (you can sense your conscious will, after all!) as being superior to a notion of dumb, disparate, and unseen universes.
DEATH CULTS: In throwing cold water on the goal of explicating a completely predictive and objective model of the unfolding of our universe, Model 3 begs a question: Why should any conscious will desire that its will should be reduced to being merely artifactual of an entirely predictable unfolding? Why should anyone not envious of zombiehood wish to constrain his future to scientifically availed, preset planning and complete predictability? To invest one’s essence in such a goal would seem akin to wishing to surrender one’s will, perhaps even to snuff out one’s body or to sacrifice oneself as a suicide bomber in order to precipitate mass submission to Borgdom. How could one undertake such a sacrifice of will, unless one were already near spiritual death?
FREE WILL IMPLICATES MEANING, I.E., INVESTMENT OF EMOTION AND COMMUNICATION OF EMPATHY: Model 3 addresses roles at levels both of holistic groups and particular individuals, as well as aspects of both determinacy and randomness. Model 3 conceptualizes that a holistic field of consciousness facilitates condensation of particular Perspectives of Will, which entail investments of emotion and communication of empathy. The field of gravity (folds sensed and lensed in space-time geometry) may be conceptualized as facilitating means for collapsing, storing, inflating, and communicating measurable counterparts to investments of empathy for the information and logos of physics.
In other words, Model 3 conceptualizes that a holistic field of consciousness (free will) lenses to interact with a gravitational field (physics, which is constrained by space-time geometry to obey mathematical parameters). The byproduct interpreted from such interaction is condensate of a universe of (1) particular perspectives of consciousness and (2) contemporaneous, collapsing particle-aspects within space-time ... for such perspectives to sense and manipulate to communicate and build upon interests and feedback among themselves.
Saturday, August 21, 2010
Theory of Gravity
I just got Ed Klingman's book, Gene Man's World. As I read it, I will be pondering aspects of his hypothesis regarding gravity and considering whether the following could be postulated, less for empirical testing than for making consistent and coherent sense.
What leaps out (!) is his insight that will is first and foremost the will to defy gravity. The question begged is: Unless conscious will is somehow "physical" (even if only at an immeasurable level), how can it interact to redirect any thing that is physical?
I am trying to bridge this gap by building on the concept of lensing -- defying or redirecting without affecting measurable limits. In that, I begin with baggage and postulate:
Gravity:
To make manifest a universe, gravity, wherever it is expressed, must there be lensed through local perspectives of consciousness. Local expressions of consciousness express Will (or capacity to lens, focus, resist, or redirect gravity), with no measurable change in the general potency of the cumulation of gravity before or after each such lensing. Each level of accumulation of gravity, regardless of how arbitrarily selected for measure, simultaneously implicates a coordinate level of lensing by local expressions of consciousness.
Consciousness cannot manifest universe without simultaneously undertaking to effect choices about the lensing of gravity. While universe abides, there is no choice but to make choices. To feign to fail to make a choice is itself a choice, i.e., a choice to invest in experiencing such results as will unfold in respect of surrender to other perspectives that happen to share the frame of reference. To feign not to choose is to choose to experience results of one's not choosing.
The universe cannot run on autopilot. Various perspectives of Conscious Will -- in sequences of feedback -- may surrender dominance, but all will necessarily, to some extent, remain intimately invested. So long as we abide, we lack capacity to blot out all caring for the cares of others -- regardless of whether such caring is expressed in positive or negative empathy (i.e., spiritual reinforcement or interference, sometimes called love, admiration, practiced indifference, envy, jealousy, and hate).
Gravity is that aspect which mediates feedback and communication among our perspectives of consciousness. Our consciousness lenses gravity and can measure lensed effects of gravity, as if they were apart from consciousness, without altering net energy of gravity. It is in how we cumulate in giving expression to our wills that signs of our interactions with gravity are objectified in how we communicate about that which we take to be our physics.
The physical existence of quarks (and all that can be built with them) is contemporaneously derivative of (or associated with) local perspectives of consciousness in their cumulative lensing of gravity.
All lensing that carries any capacity for being communicated depends upon a shared investment in a common system of mathematical parameters for defining and limiting that which Will can lens with gravity.
Quarks are apparent and mathematically measurable (at least statistically) byproducts (or byassociations) of cumulations of local lensings of gravity. They avail means of reference for local perspectives of consciousness to communicate regarding their vestments in local reality, both motively (intuitively and empathetically) and measurably (empirically).
Something like the notion of a Higgs Boson would seem to consist in a mathematical constant (as opposed to a physical particle) that limits our universe in respect of that which is cumulatively (massively?) measured and lensed, directly or indirectly, by such perspectives of consciousness as happen to have been invested to respect such constant.
We do not enjoy separate consciousness, free will, and separate bodies, except as separate perspectives of one conscious will. It is a meta trick of the feedback and lensing of imagination that God experiences our perspectives as if they were separate.
What leaps out (!) is his insight that will is first and foremost the will to defy gravity. The question begged is: Unless conscious will is somehow "physical" (even if only at an immeasurable level), how can it interact to redirect any thing that is physical?
I am trying to bridge this gap by building on the concept of lensing -- defying or redirecting without affecting measurable limits. In that, I begin with baggage and postulate:
Gravity:
To make manifest a universe, gravity, wherever it is expressed, must there be lensed through local perspectives of consciousness. Local expressions of consciousness express Will (or capacity to lens, focus, resist, or redirect gravity), with no measurable change in the general potency of the cumulation of gravity before or after each such lensing. Each level of accumulation of gravity, regardless of how arbitrarily selected for measure, simultaneously implicates a coordinate level of lensing by local expressions of consciousness.
Consciousness cannot manifest universe without simultaneously undertaking to effect choices about the lensing of gravity. While universe abides, there is no choice but to make choices. To feign to fail to make a choice is itself a choice, i.e., a choice to invest in experiencing such results as will unfold in respect of surrender to other perspectives that happen to share the frame of reference. To feign not to choose is to choose to experience results of one's not choosing.
The universe cannot run on autopilot. Various perspectives of Conscious Will -- in sequences of feedback -- may surrender dominance, but all will necessarily, to some extent, remain intimately invested. So long as we abide, we lack capacity to blot out all caring for the cares of others -- regardless of whether such caring is expressed in positive or negative empathy (i.e., spiritual reinforcement or interference, sometimes called love, admiration, practiced indifference, envy, jealousy, and hate).
Gravity is that aspect which mediates feedback and communication among our perspectives of consciousness. Our consciousness lenses gravity and can measure lensed effects of gravity, as if they were apart from consciousness, without altering net energy of gravity. It is in how we cumulate in giving expression to our wills that signs of our interactions with gravity are objectified in how we communicate about that which we take to be our physics.
The physical existence of quarks (and all that can be built with them) is contemporaneously derivative of (or associated with) local perspectives of consciousness in their cumulative lensing of gravity.
All lensing that carries any capacity for being communicated depends upon a shared investment in a common system of mathematical parameters for defining and limiting that which Will can lens with gravity.
Quarks are apparent and mathematically measurable (at least statistically) byproducts (or byassociations) of cumulations of local lensings of gravity. They avail means of reference for local perspectives of consciousness to communicate regarding their vestments in local reality, both motively (intuitively and empathetically) and measurably (empirically).
Something like the notion of a Higgs Boson would seem to consist in a mathematical constant (as opposed to a physical particle) that limits our universe in respect of that which is cumulatively (massively?) measured and lensed, directly or indirectly, by such perspectives of consciousness as happen to have been invested to respect such constant.
We do not enjoy separate consciousness, free will, and separate bodies, except as separate perspectives of one conscious will. It is a meta trick of the feedback and lensing of imagination that God experiences our perspectives as if they were separate.
Friday, August 20, 2010
The Unprincipled Left
How many journalists are independent, versus wannabees? How many are more like adolescent fans of Hollywoodites? People who like ducklines soon become adept at duckspeak: they don't know where they want to go; they just know they want to move up in the line. Principles? They don't need no stinking principles!
*****
To be consistent, the Left believes consciousness is only an artifact, that it is entirely derivative of random evolution from dumb matter, and therefore that consciousness has no real causal effect that is not entirely explicable under a proper theory of physics. IOW, your consciousness has no means by which itself to enter into any kind of causal relationship with physical phenomena, so "you" are only epi-phenomenal. Your consciousness is mere byproduct, and your mindless body would be here all the same, zombielike, regardless of whether or not you in any way felt or exhibited any consciousness, empathy, caring, or investment of identity. Of course, many among Leftist zombies will deny that. But then, meaningful consistency is not of much concern in Leftist philosophy anyway. I suppose, if ignorance is strength, then inconsistency is meaningful, and 2 plus 2 is 5. So long as you do not believe in any basis for meaningful consistency, then you cannot be inconsistent (?), so a Leftist need never worry of being a hypocrite.
Thus(?), there is no logical difficulty in a Leftist's joining with other collectivizing harvesters of mental freedom. After all, one zombie's as good (?) as another.
Compare http://www.allaboutphilosophy.org/cs-lewis-quotes.htm: "Atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning. . ." – Mere Christianity
*****
To be consistent, the Left believes consciousness is only an artifact, that it is entirely derivative of random evolution from dumb matter, and therefore that consciousness has no real causal effect that is not entirely explicable under a proper theory of physics. IOW, your consciousness has no means by which itself to enter into any kind of causal relationship with physical phenomena, so "you" are only epi-phenomenal. Your consciousness is mere byproduct, and your mindless body would be here all the same, zombielike, regardless of whether or not you in any way felt or exhibited any consciousness, empathy, caring, or investment of identity. Of course, many among Leftist zombies will deny that. But then, meaningful consistency is not of much concern in Leftist philosophy anyway. I suppose, if ignorance is strength, then inconsistency is meaningful, and 2 plus 2 is 5. So long as you do not believe in any basis for meaningful consistency, then you cannot be inconsistent (?), so a Leftist need never worry of being a hypocrite.
Thus(?), there is no logical difficulty in a Leftist's joining with other collectivizing harvesters of mental freedom. After all, one zombie's as good (?) as another.
Compare http://www.allaboutphilosophy.org/cs-lewis-quotes.htm: "Atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning. . ." – Mere Christianity
Thursday, August 19, 2010
The Ultimate Territory
The Ultimate Territory:
I just got the book, “Gene Man’s World.” I cheated and went directly to the back. (I like to skim first, then re-read in detail.) As I read it, I will bring some “baggage,” as follows:
To my lay apprehension, Whitehead expressed an idea that may (?) be consistent with the following: Each whole represents or expresses more, in respect of possibilities, than any particular (random or chosen) division of itself into whatever parts that may be re-sum’d. And, the “ultimate whole” may represent more than that. Set logic does not seem to lend itself to a complete and accurate adding or measuring of the potential of the “actual territory” of a whole (as opposed merely to a numerical value).
(May the whole, “within IT’s privileged self,” constitute a “set of one,” i.e., a set of IT’s own holistic perspectives of an informational series of mathematically sequenced events, which are objectified and represented as meta mathematical sequences in IT’s Memory, which influence IT’s choices in the eternal present? Does all empathy, emotiveness, and meaningfulness abide in eternal feedback among and between particular and holistic perspectives of consciousness?)
One may conceptualize that “consciousness” is the ultimate, superior territory of reality, and that consciousness may implicate holistic aspects as well as particular (“perspectivistic?”) aspects. Working from a particular perspective of “the territory” (i.e., consciousness), what may a perspective of consciousness reason about the character or quality of a postulated whole of consciousness? Alternatively stated, may there be a privileged aspect of the whole, which encompasses appreciation of my perspective, which also appreciates a holistic view which is qualitatively apart from mine? Does IT enjoy a super position that capacitates IT to appreciate a level of math that is superior to, and beyond, the logic and math that are availed to mere mortals? If so, in respect of IT’s qualitative difference, may IT facilitate feedback and communication among sub-perspectives in obedience to parameters and functions of math, which function upon ITSELF as the territory?
In other words, is there an aspect about “the territory” that is metaphysical to our perspectives, but “physical” or direct to IT’s? Are we allowed to precisely measure fluxing perspectives about the territory, but not the territory ITSELF? Note: Insofar as we share a same fluxing perspective (or universe), we may agree upon fundamentally shared and measured values of our physics – even though such values would not measure or confine the real territory (i.e., the holistic aspect of consciousness). Still, for the mortal purposes we share, our measurements would be “objective” (measurable and testable) – even though the territory from which they are ultimately derivative is not measurable in ITSELF.
CONSIDER: Even though the ultimate territory is not measurable, may we demonstrate with the math that we do have capacity to use: (1) the necessary existentiality (reality) of “the territory”; (2) its aspect for being beyond our physical measure; and (3) the reasonableness of an intuitive and empathetic approach in respect of IT?
To my intuition (or belief system?), as mortal perspectives of consciousness interact, what unfolds to their experience is expressed and objectified as their physics. But such physics would not exist but for the mathematical feedback and synchronization that is availed through the territory of a “higher holistic Consciousness.”
I just got the book, “Gene Man’s World.” I cheated and went directly to the back. (I like to skim first, then re-read in detail.) As I read it, I will bring some “baggage,” as follows:
To my lay apprehension, Whitehead expressed an idea that may (?) be consistent with the following: Each whole represents or expresses more, in respect of possibilities, than any particular (random or chosen) division of itself into whatever parts that may be re-sum’d. And, the “ultimate whole” may represent more than that. Set logic does not seem to lend itself to a complete and accurate adding or measuring of the potential of the “actual territory” of a whole (as opposed merely to a numerical value).
(May the whole, “within IT’s privileged self,” constitute a “set of one,” i.e., a set of IT’s own holistic perspectives of an informational series of mathematically sequenced events, which are objectified and represented as meta mathematical sequences in IT’s Memory, which influence IT’s choices in the eternal present? Does all empathy, emotiveness, and meaningfulness abide in eternal feedback among and between particular and holistic perspectives of consciousness?)
One may conceptualize that “consciousness” is the ultimate, superior territory of reality, and that consciousness may implicate holistic aspects as well as particular (“perspectivistic?”) aspects. Working from a particular perspective of “the territory” (i.e., consciousness), what may a perspective of consciousness reason about the character or quality of a postulated whole of consciousness? Alternatively stated, may there be a privileged aspect of the whole, which encompasses appreciation of my perspective, which also appreciates a holistic view which is qualitatively apart from mine? Does IT enjoy a super position that capacitates IT to appreciate a level of math that is superior to, and beyond, the logic and math that are availed to mere mortals? If so, in respect of IT’s qualitative difference, may IT facilitate feedback and communication among sub-perspectives in obedience to parameters and functions of math, which function upon ITSELF as the territory?
In other words, is there an aspect about “the territory” that is metaphysical to our perspectives, but “physical” or direct to IT’s? Are we allowed to precisely measure fluxing perspectives about the territory, but not the territory ITSELF? Note: Insofar as we share a same fluxing perspective (or universe), we may agree upon fundamentally shared and measured values of our physics – even though such values would not measure or confine the real territory (i.e., the holistic aspect of consciousness). Still, for the mortal purposes we share, our measurements would be “objective” (measurable and testable) – even though the territory from which they are ultimately derivative is not measurable in ITSELF.
CONSIDER: Even though the ultimate territory is not measurable, may we demonstrate with the math that we do have capacity to use: (1) the necessary existentiality (reality) of “the territory”; (2) its aspect for being beyond our physical measure; and (3) the reasonableness of an intuitive and empathetic approach in respect of IT?
To my intuition (or belief system?), as mortal perspectives of consciousness interact, what unfolds to their experience is expressed and objectified as their physics. But such physics would not exist but for the mathematical feedback and synchronization that is availed through the territory of a “higher holistic Consciousness.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
