Please read carefully
B0ycey wrote:You seriously need to work on presenting your arguments better RT. All I read is thought processes and conclusions.
The 'connected proposition' is a sequence with a well-defined beginning and end; perhaps it is the strong sequentiality that provides the sense of connectedness. As with the syllogism, truth is abstract, based on matching, and the 'system' is informed by containment of the conclusion in the premisses, or in the conjunction of the premisses. All of the features of logical 'connection' and syllogistic reasoning exhibit and use only the properties of visual space: space imagined as a neutral container, space that is static, linear, continuous, and connected.
Humans produce conclusions. The Universe doesn't produce conclusions. RT is a forum image, he's 1/100th of the mask behind the keyboard. The mask behind the keyboard is 1/100th of the human behind the mask. And last, but not least, the human behind the mask is 1/? of consciousness. This thread, as a small scale simulation or demonstration of how consciousness evolves, shows us that thought is always in motion.
Consciousness, like this present moment, is a process from which we can never escape. When the finite mind dies, its ideas may find new vehicles for expression. Language as such is a morphological form of thought, our signs and symbols give material expression to immaterial thoughts. Visually it's true that language has structure, a definitive form, and that's why we believe conclusions exist. But beyond the vanishing point of language, human thought is suspended above materialism, it's boundless and horizon-less and has the ability to impregnate matter.
The mystery schools like to use gender to explain the properties of consciousness. Thought is its father, matter its mother.
Furthermore, if you study philology, you'd understand that grammar (as a function of the Trivium)
is used to interpret the book of nature. What's fascinating however, the book of nature didn't exist before literacy. In nature there are no figures-minus-grounds. In fact, in nature there are no figures at all- only a dynamic environmental mosaic that is discontinuous and diverse. The Greeks abstracted nature as an environment so they could observe and study it as something separate from the human figure. This ground/figure dialectic created logic as we know it. And it's from logic that we garner classical mechanics, which had been (from the time of Euclid to Newton) the dominate form of human awareness. Taxonomy (scientific classification)
and the study of phenomena as working parts of composition is a side-effect of literacy. Visual space ignores the spherical modes of causal connections, and therefore conditions neuropsychological communication to emphasize material reality as a physical all-encompassing field of experience.
Fortunately for humankind, as we dissect various parts of visual space, we begin to understand some of the non-visual systems which underlie physical reality. When I say non-visual systems, I'm saying that we can only observe the visual effects of a non-visual cause. For instance, consider cymatics, I can see the sand form a pattern, but the cause is a non-visual phenomenon. Human thought intuitively projects theoretic models of non-visual information systems, but we lack the technology to extend our sensorium to scientifically observe such systems. Human concepts regarding space and the things in space changed when transformation theory (see Paul Dirac)
probed the so-called fixed
properties of matter. The observation of quantities in motion as related to the qualities of systems, laid the foundation for quantum mechanics. This paradigm shift mathematically gave rise to the observer and observed paradox. We extend our sensibilities into the field of BEING, but the appearance of what we can experience is limited by our field of awareness. Lastly, our field of awareness appears to be impacting the fabric of reality. A strange loop, indeed.
Language, being a technology, always preserves a play or figure/ground relation between experience, and perception and its replay in expression. Must I remind the reader that the mind/matter interface is a bridge for sensation? Interface, of the resonant interval as 'where the action is' in all structures, whether chemical, psychic, or social, involves touch. Science says, if we're unable to touch it, or it is unable to touch us, it must not actually exist. Science can be a cyclops of reasoning, because its methodology dwells in a material cave of experience. Consciousness is the immaterial thing-in-itself we can not touch, because consciousness is the unified field of BEING. Consciousness is like this present moment, we're enfolded it, and we can only observe and investigate its shadow. The shadow of this present moment is the past & future. The shadow of an infinite happening is a finite happening. We're conscioiusness unfolding~ing~ing~ing... ad infinitum.
It is like reading the musings of someone high on drugs and trying to work out what the fuck they are talking about.
Forum image B0ycey is being very disrespectful. If anyone would form an opinion or judgment either out of his own observation, or out of the crowd of authorities, or out of the forms of demonstration (which have now acquired a sanction like that of judicial laws), concerning these speculations of mine, let him not hope that he can do it in passage or by the by; but let him examine the thing thoroughly; let him make some little trial for himself of the way which I describe and lay out; let him familiarize his thoughts with that subtlety of nature to which experience bears witness; let him correct by seasonable patience and due delay the depraved and deep-rooted habits of his mind; and when all this is done and he has begun to be his own master, let him (if he will) use his own judgment.
-Francis Bacon, Preface to the Novum Organon
How you reach any of your verdicts is a complete mystery.
I agree, I'm trying to figure this out too.
The only reason I am responding is because there are some interesting verdicts that you present that I happen to agree with."My lord, the great forum image B0ycey agrees!"
"Yes, an appeal to solipsism... I'm sure. Very well, send him some dick pics. That should please the mind"
"From what angle, my lord?"
"Stop insulting me, any angle will do."
I think the singularity that is life has already happened. And it happens simultaneously. In other words the birth of the universe right down to its destruction has already occurred. And we as conscious minds can only experience the specific time of the the part of the universe that we happen to reside in. For that reason I don't believe light has speed at all. And as it has no mass, exists in all time periods until it interacts with energy. So instead of light moving, I believe spacetime stretches around it giving the illusion it moves. And spacetime stretches at different rates within the universe, which allows the possibility of reality to occur.
You're still thinking in parts, using fragmentary thoughts to explain something that involves simultaneity. Your mind is an interference pattern. Inference from a point of reference.
It is one of the reasons I don't fear death. To the conscious mind I don't think death is even possible. Because as I believe all of time exist simultaneously, consciousness must also exist simultaneously. And when you die you will just experience another part of your reality in another multiuniverse - perhaps from the beginning again.
IF we're to fear anything, we should fear birth. For it's the flow of existence, the rise and fall of things, which ultimately frightens the mind. Death is predictable. But it's here, in this present moment, an infinite potential washes away our BEING. Alas, I'm not afraid of creation.
Perhaps we are infinite minds.
But seriously no, we are arguing a question. A question that has nothing to do with the threads title it seems. What creates the reality we experience. Are visual percepts illusions of lights that are imprints to our consciousness via our senses or are percepts mind creations that are given to us from another mind. We are not discussing the past, present or future. But sure the present has potential. But what is it as you seem to ask the question?
I encourage you to experience sensory deprivation. It will help you get "closer" to these questions.
Well, that begs the question actually. No one is arguing that you can observe something from nothing. We are arguing what it is that creates something. For me we observe only light though the interaction of energy and our senses. But in the night of thick darkness enveloping the earliest antiquity, so remote from ourselves, there shines the eternal and never failing light of a truth beyond all question: that the world of civil society has certainly been made by men, and that its principles are therefore to be found within the modifications of our own human mind. Whoever reflects on this cannot but marvel that the philosophers should have bent all their energies to the study of the world of nature, which, since God made it, He alone knows; and that they should have neglected the study of the world of nations, or civil world, which, since men had made it, men could come to know. This aberration was a consequence of that infirmity of the human mind by which, immersed and buried in the body, it naturally inclines to take notice of bodily things, and finds the effort to attend to itself too laborious; just as the bodily eye sees all objects outside itself but needs a mirror to see itself.
For VS, as he believes percepts are created solely though thought, only a supreme mind is able to create percepts we see - ignoring the evidence that suggests otherwise as to trust the results you observe requires perception. He seems oblivious to his own paradox that as God is a mind, if we as individuals cannot create our own percepts, neither can God initially under the same principle. But whatever.
Sure, but forum image @Victoribus Spolia has a point. A point that supports objective morality too... There's archetypal wisdom, or as Vico pointed out:There must, in the nature of human things be a mental language common to all nations, which uniformly grasps the substance of things feasible in human social life, and expresses it with as many diverse modifications as these same things may have diverse aspects. A proof of this is afforded by proverbs or maxims of vulgar wisdom, in which substantially the same meanings find as many diverse expressions as there are nations ancient and modern.
This common mental language is proper to our science, by whose light linguistic scholars will be enabled to construct a mental vocabulary common to all the various articulate languages living and dead... As far as our small erudition will permit, we shall make use of this vocabulary in all the matters we discuss.
Etymological archetypes support and reflect a common perception.
Sorry, using plain English, what does this even mean? What exactly is "The Message?"
A message is information in formation.
We're systemic projections of a unified field or medium. Consciousness is the medium or unified field, we're content, fruit of this moment, visible characteristics. All observable information systems interconnect... For instance, planet earth is a medium, and everything in it is a message. The milky way is a medium, and everything in it is a message. The universe is a medium, and everything in it is a message. From the smallest system to the largest system, as above so below, everything is passing through media or fields that unify ALL phenomena. Consciousness unifies the human experience.
Consciousness having a human experience