2 Principles to question Q,S and R

Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.
n2xn
Posts: 7
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2012 9:24 pm

Re: 2 Principles to question Q,S and R

Post by n2xn »

Yet, math cannot exist without an awareness to observe it.

Math can provide a lot of interesting insights into the nature of things, but it cannot give us any truths regarding more profound things like the nature of existence itself. It may be a brilliant tool for the empirical, but is quite limited in deep philosophy.
We disagree at the very core. I see mathematics as the root of all things, including philosophy, I don't even understand how anything else has any possible meaning. Perhaps you mean in the most traditional sense. I do love knowledge, experience, and sharing. but to think their mediums are anything untranslatable? I think not.

I do understand why you call math abstract. It is easier to see the flashlight as a flashlight and not layer after layer of numbers, but it is both. Whether they are found in a rememberance(so to speak) or in the actual world.

What is deeper philosophy, that makes it impenetrable to math? I suppose an easier question would be, what do you think the root of awareness is?

More specifically and direct to your point; Awareness is inescapably number. (Monadologie, Gottfried Leibniz) The conscious(and the unconscious), the animal, the crystal, water, carbon, light, darkness, all of it, have underlying awareness which is founded firstly as a function (if x:if y; then z). New interactions demand new responses so Secondly, they are all then shaped out of the eternal laws of the universal state of affairs, which I would call a confirming element. Simply, "first" awareness is reprogrammable by nature. Finally, this underlying awareness reaches a point where it decides its own programming mechanisms(at least in the temporary) As for what happens after an awareness (dies) or leaves its (container), I do not know, but death happens literally and symbolically. The core of the conscious is a self-defining symbol which consumes other symbols, both in whole and part, that it uses to transform itself. Each follow will to power very carefully.

I am not sure what the symbol at completion would look like, but there are many images of its transformations. But directly, I would say we are at the (zone) where light has reflected back upon itself and is stretching and pulling itself apart. (Hence, will to power as a universal "empirical" truth, is only a tool to produce something with power, to further dissect light so it is not pure truth, but a cross-section of it. Just like other observable truths.)

I don't know, this is far from a thorough breakdown, but I am interested to hear of a structured philosophy without numbers at its core. But for me, deeper philosophy invokes irrevocably a complete understanding of numbers.
User avatar
chikoka
Posts: 439
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2007 7:16 pm
Location: Zimbabwe

Re: 2 Principles to question Q,S and R

Post by chikoka »

bluerap wrote:It's true that realizing the true nature of awareness doesn't negate the experience of awareness. But it does enhance the accuracy of one's perspective of reality.
Wow blue, something that doesn't exist can have an experience?
User avatar
Russell Parr
Posts: 854
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 10:44 am

Re: 2 Principles to question Q,S and R

Post by Russell Parr »

chikoka wrote:
bluerap wrote:It's true that realizing the true nature of awareness doesn't negate the experience of awareness. But it does enhance the accuracy of one's perspective of reality.
Wow blue, something that doesn't exist can have an experience?
My statement seems paradoxical, I know, but it has profound meaning once you understand the context that is rests upon. Another way to put it, although somewhat meager, is "a robot that does not have a conscious can still be programmed to consider itself conscious." Obviously a robot doesn't have the reasoning ability we humans have, but that's simply because it's less complex.

Have you read David's Wisdom of the Infinite? I recommend it if you're serious about wanting to at least see where QSR are coming from on this matter. It "fills in the gaps" much better than I could on a discussion forum. The subject of inherent existence is pretty essential in all this.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: 2 Principles to question Q,S and R

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:Hi Chikoka,

Do you know about the swampman thought experiment? One idea would be that the history of connections and interactions in the causal sense gives way to meanings and mind in general. Which leads to the question what happens if this history or state would be suddenly replicated. Or if that is even a meaningful activity when the amount of history or causal chain to supply would outweigh the initial purpose, and a whole universe needs to be supplied?
It seems you might be already familiar with it. But it's interesting how it related to your statement "I mean if substituting a zombie or a consciousness in *the same human* makes no difference to the behavior (or anything else in the universe) then they are the same".

The weird notion contained in the swampman idea (or the "perfect instantaneous clone") is that such a creature would function at first exactly like its original but would not be able to "access" common meanings and its communication would not be meaningful to others. It would become a true enigma!

The background to this idea, and it's a very important idea to at least consider, is that meaning is not contained in our brain and nerve-endings. Not in the totality of the cells of our body and electrical pulses either. If it's anywhere it would be in the connection to the total causal process. But swampman, because of the way he is defined or created, stands outside this causality. Just like the P-zombie, "superconsciousness", or God as creator of the All. And as such the idea not only becomes meaningless but the imagined being or mode would have no way to interact meaningfully for anyone else or be understood by others. Like insights written down during an intense acid trip.

Meaning = connection. But adding connections alone does not create meaning. At all.
User avatar
chikoka
Posts: 439
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2007 7:16 pm
Location: Zimbabwe

Re: 2 Principles to question Q,S and R

Post by chikoka »

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:
Diebert van Rhijn wrote:Hi Chikoka,

Do you know about the swampman thought experiment? One idea would be that the history of connections and interactions in the causal sense gives way to meanings and mind in general. Which leads to the question what happens if this history or state would be suddenly replicated. Or if that is even a meaningful activity when the amount of history or causal chain to supply would outweigh the initial purpose, and a whole universe needs to be supplied?
It seems you might be already familiar with it. But it's interesting how it related to your statement "I mean if substituting a zombie or a consciousness in *the same human* makes no difference to the behavior (or anything else in the universe) then they are the same".

The weird notion contained in the swampman idea (or the "perfect instantaneous clone") is that such a creature would function at first exactly like its original but would not be able to "access" common meanings and its communication would not be meaningful to others. It would become a true enigma!

The background to this idea, and it's a very important idea to at least consider, is that meaning is not contained in our brain and nerve-endings. Not in the totality of the cells of our body and electrical pulses either. If it's anywhere it would be in the connection to the total causal process. But swampman, because of the way he is defined or created, stands outside this causality. Just like the P-zombie, "superconsciousness", or God as creator of the All. And as such the idea not only becomes meaningless but the imagined being or mode would have no way to interact meaningfully for anyone else or be understood by others. Like insights written down during an intense acid trip.

Meaning = connection. But adding connections alone does not create meaning. At all.
Yes i am familiar with the swampman idea but I'm having a hard time trying to figure out what you are saying. Why should the swampman function differently from the original?he has all the memory and functionality of the original.
Bobo
Posts: 517
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 1:35 pm

Re: 2 Principles to question Q,S and R

Post by Bobo »

Think that you are in the swamp and the swampman appears in front of you.
Either it knows that it is not you. Or it thinks that it is you, and you is it.

You could say:
- Oh, what a wondrous and unfortunate happening this is, to be able to witness abiogenesis and at the same time now this creature doesn't know what it is, but, poor creature, by the principle of suffient reason you cannot be me.

To which the thing would respond:
- It seems that you are confused monstruous thing, and not me, but rejoice, using the ontological principle of the identity of the indiscernibles we can settle this matter in no time...
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: 2 Principles to question Q,S and R

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

chikoka wrote:Why should the swampman function differently from the original?he has all the memory and functionality of the original.
One way to understand this experiment is the notion that meaning is here externalized, not just "in the head". It's the result of the totality of states of memory and organs combined with the totality of past states of the environment but also combined with the exact positional relation between those. The cloned creature misses 1/3rd of this triangle. Unless one claims the clone to be actually identical to the original in terms of identity (A=A). Perhaps one could also say meaning is part and parcel of the brain-environment complex.

The original story as told in Wikipedia suggests that nobody would notice the simulacrum. This I wonder though. I believe in this case communication and functioning of the swampman would deteriorate fairly quickly. A tiny offset on all levels of the processing of meaning would create immense deviations as time progresses.
Locked