Empirical genius

[Sjorssnors]

I like to know more about ‘empirical geniuses’. Especially people who are ‘thinking in pictures’ will interpretate experiences as a reference for understanding new facts. New facts are associated with experiences, and conclusions digest it to the subconscious mind. Observations are being recognized and the conscious mind needs no more confirmation. The perception of observations automatically focuses on ‘unknown signals’. The unknown will integrate to the total vision of the mind by interpretants. The understanding of observations expands, and more and more ‘marks’ appear during time. The marks get an conclusion, and conclusions make it understood (subconscious).

I have an Asperger-syndrome and think in pictures. For me, words are not a matter of course. Experiences, pictures, feelings, plural associations and more, are ingredients for my thoughts, without words, but fully understood. My reading-problem (I have to decode it to my way of thinking, and vice versa when I must communicate) has a negative effect on many tests, but in spite of that answers come to me intuitively. Although I’m slightly autistic and have other methods to come to solutions, I like to discuss this ‘discord of human perception’. ‘Discord’ caused by using more ‘semantics’ or more ‘syntax’ in thoughts and perception.

Some people are really brilliant using syntax by reasoning things out, and some are using more semantics and trust their intuition more. ‘Non-linear thinking’, but on a high level and without interference of specific thoughts.

It is my conviction that a ‘genius by reason’ and an ‘empirical genius’ can solve many questions by putting perspectives together. Don't you agree ?

(Excuse my bad English)

[R. Steven Coyle]

Hello Sjorssnors,

I also think in pictures, and also have a mild form of autism. It's good to meet you. I find that it's due to the high quality of my memory that I have difficulty with expressing myself using language. My mind relies on this frequency of memory, and seems to prefer it over a more analytical method.

Experiences, pictures, feelings, plural associations and more, are ingredients for my thoughts, without words, but fully understood. My reading-problem (I have to decode it to my way of thinking, and vice versa when I must communicate) has a negative effect on many tests, but in spite of that answers come to me intuitively.

I've found that if we were able to have perfect memory recall, we'd all find that we're always precognitive, though in an extremely non-linear fashion. When we're able to synchronize our thought patterns, we can essentially enter into our subconscious mind, the origin of what we experience as the world. Earlier today I was thinking along the same lines as what you have written above; frustrated over my inability to speak with fluency. This can be frustrating because I derive so much more intellectual energy when I can express myself with my standard abstract speech.

When I read, I'm reading with memory in the forefront of my mind, scanning over the words to arrive at 'forms of thought' - resulting in pictures and abstract associations. This is one of the reasons I usually have a clear vision of given situations, like you've mentioned above, gathering cohesive pieces to form a whole.

[Sjorssnors]

Hello R. Steven Coyle, nice to meet you to,

I've found that if we were able to have perfect memory recall, we'd all find that we're always precognitive, though in an extremely non-linear fashion. When we're able to synchronize our thought patterns, we can essentially, mentally and physically, enter into our subconscious mind, the origin of what we experience as the world.

I have thought about that possibility to, and I think that happens if the conscious mind is without of thoughts, so that the subconscious mind can associate without having some kind of influence or effect that is impeding new associations. I think that conscious thoughts need conclusions to convert it to the subconscious totality of memories. Perfection and sincerity is essential for freeing the mind and open the subconscious recognition. Indeed that is a precognitive way of processing information. New input (mostly caused by my synesthesy of image and sound) that is not recognized will get automatically related associations to come to a conclusion to explain it. The associations are always according the vision on everything that I already had. When I can’t explain something, I don’t accept it as a part of my vision.

Earlier today I was thinking along the same lines as what you have written above; frustrated over my inability to speak with fluency. This upsets me because I derive so much more intellectual energy when I can express myself with my standard abstract speech.

I recognize that to. The most upsetting part of that for my is that this ‘clumsy looking talk’ suggests the most people that there is not so much intellect. I talk in summary’s and reduced explanations, while most people focus to substantial marks of their own perspectives, without making associations to accord it to the ‘pre-thoughts of the mind‘.

When I read, I'm reading with memory in the forefront of my mind, scanning over the words to arrive at 'forms of thought' - resulting in pictures and abstract associations. This is one of the reasons I usually have a clear vision of given situations, like you've mentioned above, gathering cohesive pieces to form a whole.

When I read I can even feel that also physically in the forefront of my mind, even when I start reading. I wonder if feelings integrate more in thoughts, it can possibly make next steps in the evolution of mankind ?

[R. Steven Coyle]

I have thought about that possibility to, and I think that happens if the conscious mind is without of thoughts, so that the subconscious mind can associate without having some kind of influence or effect that is impeding new associations. I think that conscious thoughts need conclusions to convert it to the subconscious totality of memories. Perfection and sincerity is essential for freeing the mind and open the subconscious recognition. Indeed that is a precognitive way of processing information. New input (mostly caused by my synesthesy of image and sound) that is not recognized will get automatically related associations to come to a conclusion to explain it. The associations are always according the vision on everything that I already had. When I can’t explain something, I don’t accept it as a part of my vision.

Great analysis.

Are you familiar with Indra's Net?

It's an ancient Hindu formulation. It basically states that the universe is composed of an infinite net, with a diamond at every intersection. Each diamond reflects the entire temporal universe, while still maintaining its own form.

I was thinking that if you substituted every diamond, with each individual mind in the universe, you would arrive at a clearer explanation for the formless nature of reality. Since every mind is essentially dreaming while awake, it's able to reflect its own formless nature in the universe, while at the same time remaining in a separate temporal region of the very same universe. The ultimate paradox.

A dream within the dream.

[suergaz]

Sjorrsnors:

It is my conviction that a ‘genius by reason’ and an ‘empirical genius’ can solve many questions by putting perspectives together. Don't you agree ?

Yes I do.

R:

Are you familiar with Indra's Net?

It's an ancient Hindu formulation. It basically states that the universe is composed of an infinite net, with a diamond at every intersection. Each diamond reflects the entire temporal universe, while still maintaining its own form.

I'm familiar with it, and it's more ancient than hindus!
As I said to carrotblog before she left, what lattices of life do we not find ourselves in? :D

[R. Steven Coyle]

I wish I could've offered a healthy lettuce to carrotblog's lattice.

Even though I know it'll work itself out.

--

Glad to see you don't hold onto the past.

[Blair]

Be aware, Autism and Aspergers are 'labels' to put on people who do not fit society nicely. Thinking and percieving accuratetly is frowned upon. it's threatening to see human existence in abstract form.

Empirical understanding can lead to a genius type of understanding, where all aspects are integrated.

[Sjorssnors]

Great analysis.

Are you familiar with Indra's Net?

It's an ancient Hindu formulation. It basically states that the universe is composed of an infinite net, with a diamond at every intersection. Each diamond reflects the entire temporal universe, while still maintaining its own form.

I was thinking that if you substituted every diamond, with each individual mind in the universe, you would arrive at a clearer explanation for the formless nature of reality. Since every mind is essentially dreaming while awake, it's able to reflect its own formless nature in the universe, while at the same time remaining in a separate temporal region of the very same universe. The ultimate paradox.

A dream within the dream.

I didn’t know that about Indra‘s Net, I will go into that. Indeed it looks a real paradox to me to, especially knowing that all individual minds are different and most humans still don’t see that they must look into those differences to find answers. Trying to exclude nothing and to implicate everything, but with a completely open mind. Clues will appear when marks are recognized. Those marks must not be found by explicit methods but by experiences during the way. Of course than all experiences need new experiences to make it understood (evolution)

Be aware, Autism and Aspergers are 'labels' to put on people who do not fit society nicely. Thinking and perceiving accuratetly is frowned upon. it's threatening to see human existence in abstract form.

Empirical understanding can lead to a genius type of understanding, where all aspects are integrated.

Labels they are. Mostly those labels are put on by people who can’t imagine what it can be. The autism-spectrum has a variety of expressions. Aspergers can manifest at various ways. Einstein was probably also an Asperger and Bob Dylan to. I think it is rather relative, and the geniuses within can only have influence if they can speak and mix their thoughts so that it can be associated and it can come to one perspective. The realization of that take’s time to most people. I think to much time, and that will distract the essential objectives in live.

[R. Steven Coyle]

I didn’t know that about Indra‘s Net, I will go into that. Indeed it looks a real paradox to me to, especially knowing that all individual minds are different and most humans still don’t see that they must look into those differences to find answers. Trying to exclude nothing and to implicate everything, but with a completely open mind. Clues will appear when marks are recognized. Those marks must not be found by explicit methods but by experiences during the way. Of course than all experiences need new experiences to make it understood (evolution)

You've reminded me of Bohr's "Implicate Order."

It's the underlying, theoretical reality that upholds all of existence: The wellspring of the Tao. If each mind is a microcosm unto itself, than each universe will perceive the same phenomena differently; suggesting the paradoxical illusion of separation, and the logical neccesity of an underlying, synthetic reality.

Modern physics dives deeper into reality, but discovers more and more complexity, and ironically, more and more vacuous space; suggesting a misinformed approach. With so many variables, emperical reality is less and less likely to present itself.

I recently did some research on String Theory. String Theorists have a conception called the Calibu-Yao Shape. It's shape strangely suggested the outline of a human brain, with another 11-dimensional rendering strongly implying an abstract conception of the human mind. Since all phenomena are perceived, the idea that String Theory, a "Theory of Everything," would be describing internal space is not so far fetched.

Imagine if physics and cognitive science both were speaking the same language. If stem cells can reproduce virtually any bodily organ, why then couldn't particles assist any other field of science? Letters make up words, words make up sentences, and so forth. If the vocabulary of physics was discovered, then perhaps its essence could be applied across a variety of different disciplines.

[Sjorssnors]

You've reminded me of Bohr's "Implicate Order."

I also implicate things, and I also recognize a ‘discord of perception’ on people.

The one’s who are yousing more ‘semantics’ in their perceptions are more extravert. They interpretate new information by experiences and more ‘intuitively’ they make decisions and conclusions. Using more semantics in thoughts automatically mingles more feelings, and emotion within an extravert character make’s a person more alert. This watchful behavior has a stimulating effect on most people, but ..

The one’s who are yousing more ‘syntax’ in their way of thinking will trust on theoretic statements they once remembered. The perception uses ‘specific marks’ out of the memory to recognize new information. Because of the lesser alertness they are recognized as introvert people. More they behold with definitions and more they think along fixed lines. Being more in conscious state of mind means also that feelings are more obstructed to mix with thoughts. One of the consequences of that is also a theoretic objectivity which puts a sirten distance to the contrary fellowman.

Some illustration : http://img322.imageshack.us/img322/7723 ... ics0fa.gif

Particular the opposite extremes often get in conflict with each other, caused by their totally different perspectives. Between sexes, the female is more semantic and the male more syntactic. Between people, so there are opposites and a third type that is more bilateral in perception. They often are mediating between the opposite types of people, but meanwhile incomprehension remains.

Some illustration : http://img163.imageshack.us/img163/1841 ... cts3nm.png

To start with, I think it is conductive for mankind to recognize each other. A conscious awareness of the different perspectives and methods used by people, will lead unconsciously to recognition and tolerance between people, what is highly necessary. Worldly I think most people are considerably explicit, don’t you think ?

[R. Steven Coyle]

I also implicate things, and I also recognize a ‘discord of perception’ on people.

As you know, if you can implicate things, then you can more easily find the coordinates - the common thread - underlying your reality. Your phrasing has reminded me that the syntax between different languages can also construct unique semantics; leading to a more developed implication.

The one’s who are yousing more ‘semantics’ in their perceptions are more extravert. They interpretate new information by experiences and more ‘intuitively’ they make decisions and conclusions. Using more semantics in thoughts automatically mingles more feelings, and emotion within an extravert character make’s a person more alert. This watchful behavior has a stimulating effect on most people, but ..

Extrovertion is something I'm working on in order to improve my writing. I've recently found that semantics leads one to a more digestible structuring of language, and ultimately towards a better syntax.

This is good material.

--

In semantics, an individual can explore their internal world; using feeling as a moral guide. Within semantics, syntax is found; both implictly complementing one another. Syntax is responsible for the analytic process, uncovering thought within semantic feeling. One could think of syntax as the left brain, with semantics as the right. Science is concerned with syntax; discovering the ordering of things: while philosophy is more concerned with semantics; uncovering the meaning of truth relationships.

[Sjorssnors]

Your phrasing has reminded me that the syntax between different languages can also construct unique semantics; leading to a more developed implication.

Indeed, I think the most languages are yousing more syntax. For example most ‘doctrines’ explicitly are yousing syntax to explain their perspectives. Also most laws are strictly explicit, while semantics should implicate more humanly references. Mostly rules are adjusted to common guidelines with explicit marks in it, so that it is universal to all people.
I think ‘rules and doctrines’ knead more alternatives in it to make it suitable for all people. Less static and more flexible perspectives will gif more satisfaction to everyone, and also to governments.

I've recently found that semantics leads one to a more digestible structuring of language, and ultimately towards a better syntax.

I’ve discovered to that the more one thinks in semantics, the more accurate syntax will appear. It is the underlying comprehension that automatically (intuitively) gifs the matching syntax. For some people it is strange that someone who thinks in pictures can have a great vocabulary. Going from semantics to syntax is easier than vice verse.

In semantics, an individual can explore their internal world; using feeling as a moral guide. Within semantics, syntax is found; both implictly complementing one another. Syntax is responsible for the analytic process, uncovering thought within semantic feeling. One could think of syntax as the left brain, with semantics as the right. Science is concerned with syntax; discovering the ordering of things: while philosophy is more concerned with semantics; uncovering the meaning of truth relationships.

Morality and ethics must always be flexible and continuously guiding people. Within ‘law and order’ no ethics are permitted. Sadly enough humans are especially emotional and have many feelings that lead to surten thoughts and behavior. I think changes can not be made afterwards to implicate it to people and to laws. That has to start with educating people to make feelings and experiences more valuable for live. The sooner one is convinced of that wisdom, the better he will understand his implications in time. The more people will understand it, the better it can be implicated in guidelines and laws.

edit

I see now what you mend about ‘Indra’s Net‘. I understand that if a mind could assimilate all new input directly to all the marks in memory without interference of thoughts, it changes the subconscious mind constantly and in all directions. Open minded is also in all directions. Indra’s net is managing ‘open minds’ and connects them to each other, and is so to say the comparative mind. Also open in all directions and constantly changing to, but most importantly ‘operating as one whole’.

[R. Steven Coyle]

I see now what you mend about ‘Indra’s Net‘. I understand that if a mind could assimilate all new input directly to all the marks in memory without interference of thoughts, it changes the subconscious mind constantly and in all directions. Open minded is also in all directions. Indra’s net is managing ‘open minds’ and connects them to each other, and is so to say the comparative mind. Also open in all directions and constantly changing to, but most importantly ‘operating as one whole’.

Right on.

[Sjorssnors]

An explanation about ‘empirical understanding en recognition’ will always be a summary of experiences, but more of those summaries together can actually make ‘one reality as one whole’. First the ‘big structure’ of it must accord to ‘the big picture’ that must be recognized. The structure of it can only be created on the best possible way one can possibly think of (perfection). So if the big structure shapes in ‘great lines’, the unknown details will eventually be recognized on the way. The reality that is created is constantly changing and always in the most positive way. In the beginning the reality will not completely be understood because many details are not jet fitted in. All new details most always fit into the big whole and no associations must be hold not to associate. So ‘the tree is growing’ and more and more reality shapes himself and empirical leads are giving the clues.

That shape of reality is implicating ‘clue’s’ to make the ‘whole picture’ recognizable:
http://img225.imageshack.us/img225/6637 ... essgu8.png

Implicit clue’s gif explicit details, and as long as clues appear associated details must change. Eventually the complete picture will appaer.

edit

How can one be implicated to the whole ?

The ultimate way to acquire that reality is that everyone most open his mind for al suggestions and signs without shutting things out. Perfection most always implicate imperfection to make the reality of it clear. The universe can only become a reality if the real nature of beings will lead to that. From general perspective only experiences can point at explicit details. Statements follow ‘after’ experiences and that is essential for creating the subconscious clue’s to make a reality clearer about universe with all living and matter within.

edit

I have red de definition of ‘Implicate and Explicate order according to David Bohm’, and am surprised about it’s resemblance with my perspective about how reality looks like. Thanks for that notion and recognition.

Also similar is the moving element within. As it also can be with light, it can go straight and it can go in waves. To project that to physics it is like the emotions in mind. They also go in waves, what is caused by the input and output along the way of time.

Some illustration : http://img20.imageshack.us/img20/9637/p ... ind0xh.png

[bert]

perception is a flowing of impressions,never are they complete or precise but vague and partial,unfinished.perception is built up from a multi-variation of impressions ,giving a rough reflecting idea of the relation of a view.
via constant reorientation and the seeing of particulars of the content we come to a truism or a judgement of the whole.
no one can synthesize the whole into a 'one pictorial.'
expressions via words are timed sequences,and can make better synthesises but never supremely accurate or visually bound and complete.

then,to make a reflex with value there need to be a trained and skilled faculty.

[Sjorssnors]

perception is a flowing of impressions,never are they complete or precise but vague and partial,unfinished.perception is built up from a multi-variation of impressions ,giving a rough reflecting idea of the relation of a view.
via constant reorientation and the seeing of particulars of the content we come to a truism or a judgement of the whole.
no one can synthesize the whole into a 'one pictorial.'
expressions via words are timed sequences,and can make better synthesises but never supremely accurate or visually bound and complete.

Indeed, but at that perspective it is exactly the syntactic way of perception. The more semantic way recognizes observations, so the conscious mind dos not have to have a conscious thought about it. Perception is going in more subconscious ways.

There is a ‘discord of perception’ to recognize on people. Some people are more explicit in there ways of thinking, and some are using more ‘experiences and earlier thoughts’. Associations are related more with memories of moments, and emotions have a bigger part in it. The opposite people are using more linear ways of thinking. They relate statements and surten definitions to explain and illustrate perceptions.

I self am an extreme example of non-linear thinking and recognize thing because of my syndrome I think. Globally most people think in explicit ways, but not all people. A bigger growing part now these days are looking with 'semantic eyes' and recognize perceptions on subconscious ways.

then,to make a reflex with value there need to be a trained and skilled faculty.

A faculty is not strictly necessary for all people. Some are very autodidact en percept new input in their own system of thinking, by using experiences in instead of definitions.

Some illustration (sorry for the language) : http://img140.imageshack.us/img140/6645 ... eidqr6.png

[bert]

Indeed, but at that perspective it is exactly the syntactic way of perception. The more semantic way recognizes observations, so the conscious mind dos not have to have a conscious thought about it. Perception is going in more subconscious ways.

When we filter the semantic mode, by default, we tune out varying degrees of the syntactic: when you fail to recognize feeling, you do a disservice to the ordering (causality) of reality.

yes,I will come to that later.

[bert]

Indeed, but at that perspective it is exactly the syntactic way of perception. The more semantic way recognizes observations, so the conscious mind dos not have to have a conscious thought about it. Perception is going in more subconscious ways.

my approach has some differences.

observations are always partitive,'cause they leave out acts of collecting from the 'content mass' of illusions by 'simulars',perspective,wishing,..
so all ideas become because they come from impressions,and usually its marked by slight sensation without emotion,BUT when derived from experience they are affective,as well emotionally as sensationally.then is there the moment they awaken correspondence with the preceptive.
Empiricism awakes conation.

[Sonata]

What if one knew the theory of everything? Basicly found out the 12 dimensions of linear math and solved every last equation? I mean you knew the projected value of the universe. Couldnt one predict and know everything possible in this universe? Time space matter engegy...etc? Im talking all of the known variables that compose this leniverse?

[bert]

an end :
if I could, I would decipher beauty,for it contains all meanings.

[Sapius]

Hi Steven… and Hello Jorss.

Glad to be back, and find a real piece of a thread, although even this is quite beyond my expressive vocabulary. Bravo! I cannot express the joy I feel at seeing what reality offers in terms of satisfaction to each individual “diamond” and yet remains all illusive, but in my opinion, it is a mistake to think it is illusive in any way, since all that is needed is clear thought backed by a renewed emotional conviction of certainty, which was initially destroyed through understanding its superficial use and application, that opens up an “eye” shattering the illusiveness of reality, making it absolutely clear that there is absolutely nothing that could possibly be NOT reality, and yet, all comparative separated-ness remain, and is reality.

Jorss: I think that happens if the conscious mind is without of thoughts, so that the subconscious mind can associate without having some kind of influence or effect that is impeding new associations.

In my opinion, thoughts it self is consciousness, and what you think as “subconscious mind” does not exist as a “sub” thing, but is a result of one consciously thinking of such a thing. Consciousness is all that there is and is doing all that one can think about, including defining a “sub-conscious-mind”.

Jorss: I think that conscious thoughts need conclusions to convert it to the subconscious totality of memories.

Firstly, it is impossible to have some thing such as “subconscious memory“, unless you are talking about something one forgets and then recalls which seems to point to some kind of sub-conscious memory bank. Memory does not work that way. (Discovery channel). Information of a single picture is stored at different locations as different constituent data according to its informational breakup, only when we recall any thing at all, does all our computational process places it together instantly. Some constituent parts of one picture can be used for several other pictures to form or bring together a totally different picture. Hence, memory stores only the very basic data without wasting any space for actual billions of perceptual direct experiences. A most efficient process yet to be applied to computers. In a computer, each picture file can be stored under one file name, and can be recalled as a full single picture on multiple computers, and yet only one picture is stored on a network server, but it has yet to store the constituent pixels as pixels of different intensity, and recall a picture only by just naming a name. The computer does not have this logic, whereas a human mind is far more complex and can recall any picture without actually storing a complete picture of any particular thing at all.

Secondly, Consciousness is the only totality one is aware of, any thing beyond that does not exist in any given casual condition. If things lie in some sub-conscious realm, then they are just that, and we cannot be aware of them, the moment we recall anything, including the thought of a “sub-conscious-mind”, that becomes an object of consciousness. There is nothing beyond consciousness, and I don’t mean just the human consciousness, that may include any thing that reacts to its environment without any verbal thoughts, and we are limited in actually knowing all that may react since we are necessarily bound within the dimensions that we seem to exist.

Jorss: Perfection and sincerity is essential for freeing the mind and open the subconscious recognition.

I agree to the former, but I would say that that would be essential to free and open up the conscious recognition, which possibly can conceptualize no division in any thing that exists, including a “sub-conscious” mind.

Jorss: The associations are always according the vision on everything that I already had. When I can’t explain something, I don’t accept it as a part of my vision.

All visions do not necessarily demand an explanation, although it is an inbuilt nature of the mind to not accept unless it is logically understood according to ones own capacity of stretching his logic, all one has to do is keep stretching his logic by questioning his vision and the answer will come. Existence is absolutely logical to its core, and there is nothing that cannot be understood about it, all it needs is continued process of causality, certain casually created conditions, and Walla!

Steven: Great analysis.

Indeed it is, I’m not trying to belittle Jorss’s experiences, but I am simply expressing my opinion.

Steven: Are you familiar with Indra's Net?

It's an ancient Hindu formulation. It basically states that the universe is composed of an infinite net, with a diamond at every intersection. Each diamond reflects the entire temporal universe, while still maintaining its own form.

I was thinking that if you substituted every diamond, with each individual mind in the universe, you would arrive at a clearer explanation for the formless nature of reality. Since every mind is essentially dreaming while awake, it's able to reflect its own formless nature in the universe, while at the same time remaining in a separate temporal region of the very same universe. The ultimate paradox.

A dream within the dream.

I’m not familiar with it either, but I get a very clear picture from what you describe, and it is not a paradox at all.

Firstly, even in the above one is trying to verbally express what existence IS, whereas, it is actually beyond words to express a conceptual experience that is actually absolutely very uniquely individualistic, and cannot be explained in its fullness as experienced by an individual.

Even if I attempt to describe, I would say that each point of intersection does not “reflect” the entire temporal universe for that still holds back its own thing-ness, and is an integral speck that makes up an ALIVE temporal NOW. To think in terms of, as in replacing a mind at that intersection and saying that it reflects the entire universe through conceptualization of its own formlessness, creates a sense of pride and feeds a false-ego that “I” and every individual “I”, encompasses entire universe from each individual perspectives, whereas actually each and every jot or a title, or perspectives for that matter, remain as they are with all its innumerable infinity, and all is just IS, and is reality. Not some underlying connecting “net” which we conceptualize since we experience causality.

Secondly, when one says ‘infinite’ net, as a human it is actually almost impossible to think in terms of ‘infinite’, due to the four dimensional nature that our mind is bound to. And if it is indeed infinite, and can be really conceptualized as such, then those infinite intersections cannot actually exist because totality is not a thing because of its sheer infiniteness and cannot be considered to have any constituent “parts” as such. Only things can have parts or casual connectivity, but if you can see it form the perspective of totality, no intersections remain, nor ONE WHOLE BIG THING, hence no paradox as such.

“a dream within a dream” could only lead to regress, for THAT dream could also be born of a dream, ad infinitum, which makes this waking dream the only reality at any given casually created moment.

[Sjorssnors]

What if one knew the theory of everything? Basicly found out the 12 dimensions of linear math and solved every last equation? I mean you knew the projected value of the universe. Couldnt one predict and know everything possible in this universe? Time space matter engegy...etc? Im talking all of the known variables that compose this leniverse?

One can not understand everything by experiences, but all people together do have that capacity. To understand everything all experiences must be clear. Conclusions are essential for it, and new experiences can gif new conclusions.

[bert]

sapius:

Quote:
Jorss: I think that happens if the conscious mind is without of thoughts, so that the subconscious mind can associate without having some kind of influence or effect that is impeding new associations.


In my opinion, thoughts it self is consciousness, and what you think as “subconscious mind” does not exist as a “sub” thing, but is a result of one consciously thinking of such a thing. Consciousness is all that there is and is doing all that one can think about, including defining a “sub-conscious-mind”.

sjorssnors,
you're on the right track

the subconscious can be called the emotional structure.
and you can tap in to the subconsciousness with semantics.

[Sjorssnors]

the subconscious can be called the emotional structure.
and you can tap in to the subconsciousness with semantics.

Indeed, and the way to 'tap' is always intuitively. 'Intuition' can open that 'emotional structure' by always having 'faith' in it and always make improvements (changing’s). The ‘explicit conscious way of thinking’ cannot achieve that, because it holds back intuition.

[Sapius]

Bert: the subconscious can be called the emotional structure.
and you can tap in to the subconsciousness with semantics.

Jorss: Indeed, and the way to 'tap' is always intuitively. 'Intuition' can open that 'emotional structure' by always having 'faith' in it and always make improvements (changing’s). The ‘explicit conscious way of thinking’ cannot achieve that, because it holds back intuition.

I’m a bit confused here.

Aren’t we aware of emotions? Aren’t we aware of intuition?

How can we even define them as such if we are not conscious of them?

Consciousness for me is not just the rational thinking or the result of a verbal logical process, but the very first recognition and the capability of differentiation, (A=A). What you are calling the “sub-conscious” or “intuitiveness” exists for each and every thing that is conscious. Why do I need ‘faith’ in what is obviously known to me as an inherent property of consciousness?

Consciousness encompasses emotions as well as intuitiveness, which is further enhanced through evolution with the capability of verbal defining, logical thought and conceptualization, as in recognizing and verbally conceptualizing emotions and intuitiveness. Which helps us analyze emotions and intuitiveness, and may be consciously make use of them.

If you were not conscious of your emotions or intuitiveness, you wouldn’t be able to think or talk about them in the first place, let alone trying to tap into anything at all. Tapping into emotions through intuitiveness needs an act of consciousness.

Basically, emotions in humans do not exist without attachments to some verbal concept. Think about it, intuitions are all well and good, but think about why you value them over the fact that you have to be conscious of them first.

BTW, It is impossible to consciously empty a conscious mind out of consciousness; however, one can always knock him-self out cold.