|
Post by enigma on Apr 10, 2014 11:45:14 GMT -5
Hey, mind your manners! Better yet, mind your P's and Q's. (What the heck is that all about?) Peas and Quackers? Pawns and Queens? Potholes and Quicksand? Politeness and Quibbles? (Haven't got a clue! But this is more fun than googling it.) Well, I couldn't help meself, and yer right, making stuff up is more fun. Boring nonsense from WikkiDude! It's all about beer. "Another origin comes from English pubs and taverns of the seventeenth century. Bartenders would keep a watch on the alcohol consumption of the patrons; keeping an eye on the pints and quarts that were consumed. As a reminder to the patrons, the bartender would recommend they "mind their Ps and Qs".[2] This may also have been a reminder to bartenders not to confuse the two units, written as "p" and "q" on the tally slate.[1]"
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Apr 10, 2014 11:49:38 GMT -5
Peas and Quackers? Pawns and Queens? Potholes and Quicksand? Politeness and Quibbles? (Haven't got a clue! But this is more fun than googling it.) Being involved in edumacation, I was told that it referred to teaching children that were learning to write to be aware of how 'p' and 'q' appeared so similar that it might cause confusion, especially when they are not paying attention. <ahem> We can see parallels of communication happening here all the time. Ironicalmente, it has to do with an unlearning! You should add that to Wacky Wikki list of possible explanations.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 10, 2014 11:54:38 GMT -5
I was just thinking about this today, its seems every new insight science acquires not only points towards consciousness being primary but disproves other theory's and explanations... I say the form that science takes (Newtonian, Relativity, Quantum) is reflective of the evolution of human consciousness as a whole, since science is fundamentally an act of creation rather than discovery. If that notion is accepted, then we can see that, not only is science dancing very close to the flame, but perhaps religion and philosophy are also heading in the same direction, like moving up the corners of a pyramid toward the same apex, such that the three of them must inevitably meet at that place, which is consciousness itself. In this scenario, that meeting would destroy all three paradigms, and coincide with the awakening of human consciousness. By creation do you mean creation of knowledge?
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Apr 10, 2014 12:02:03 GMT -5
Being involved in edumacation, I was told that it referred to teaching children that were learning to write to be aware of how 'p' and 'q' appeared so similar that it might cause confusion, especially when they are not paying attention. <ahem> We can see parallels of communication happening here all the time. Ironicalmente, it has to do with an unlearning! Pay Attention!! Always good advice, but how does that have to do with an unlearning? Hehe, yea I guess in this case the willingness/desire to undue/objectify the structure and thoughts has to be there first, eh? Maybe that only comes after rather tumultous event when it is noticed that "something ain't quite right" and the search for what is wrong begins. But, if we're more interested in the feel-goodies and fears associated with daydreaming and propping up personhood, it might be hard to find willingness/desire. It also seems that for something "not quite right" to be consistently attended to, there would to be a feedback loop of some sort. Only then can the value of the space/silence/No-thing that occurs with realizations be noticed. Perhaps this is what makes seeking a dualistic enterprise, and then <poof> from which there is no turning back (though, if playing around in the dream, often forgotten). In a way, that is what I sense as the value of "teaching" as it occurs on this message board. Interestingly, the belief in a separate self seems to be the last domino to fall, which appears to be indicative of the deeper beliefs associated with personal identity held in the structure (i.e., of the edifice)/momentum (i.e., of thought)of identification with mind/body. Who would want to unlearn that? Hehe, freaks. Even if you wanted to, it is very easy, "meaningful" and morally justifiable to get side-tracked with so many shiny things available in the mindscape. About then, the ps and qs start to get mixed up and a <thwack> might be in order! hehe
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Apr 10, 2014 12:53:30 GMT -5
Being involved in edumacation, I was told that it referred to teaching children that were learning to write to be aware of how 'p' and 'q' appeared so similar that it might cause confusion, especially when they are not paying attention. <ahem> We can see parallels of communication happening here all the time. Ironicalmente, it has to do with an unlearning! You should add that to Wacky Wikki list of possible explanations. Yer right. The pints and quarts is a more enjoyable story. These days it is usually said by mothers to children before they go out, so I wonder if it evolved to more of a wife to husband thing back then, before he went to the pub. hehe Goes to show you how boring some of the people in education can be. And why not bs and ds for the same reason anyway?
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Apr 10, 2014 18:24:11 GMT -5
I say the form that science takes (Newtonian, Relativity, Quantum) is reflective of the evolution of human consciousness as a whole, since science is fundamentally an act of creation rather than discovery. If that notion is accepted, then we can see that, not only is science dancing very close to the flame, but perhaps religion and philosophy are also heading in the same direction, like moving up the corners of a pyramid toward the same apex, such that the three of them must inevitably meet at that place, which is consciousness itself. In this scenario, that meeting would destroy all three paradigms, and coincide with the awakening of human consciousness. By creation do you mean creation of knowledge? Knowledge, and the physical principles to which that knowledge applies. 20 years ago, I read an answer by Emanuel that led to this realization. It went something like this: Question: How far out does the universe go? Answer: As far as your longest telescope.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Apr 10, 2014 18:51:21 GMT -5
You should add that to Wacky Wikki list of possible explanations. Yer right. The pints and quarts is a more enjoyable story. These days it is usually said by mothers to children before they go out, so I wonder if it evolved to more of a wife to husband thing back then, before he went to the pub. hehe Goes to show you how boring some of the people in education can be. And why not bs and ds for the same reason anyway? Yeah, it coulb also de that the ebumucation fielb co-opted the English pud saying. In any case, the warning was toabally wasteb on me growing up cuz I had no ibea. Hehe.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Apr 11, 2014 8:56:42 GMT -5
... the evolution toward an "awakening human consciousness" strikes me as a potential andrewbat signal .. Andy thinks we're all going to ascend to the 5th dimension on golden chariots or whatever, but at the core of that story is a natural evolution of consciousness. Well, if you're talking about evolution, you're talking about change, and change is all about appearances. I know that your position is that consciousness is primary, and I take that to mean that you see consciousness as cause, and physicality as effect. My position is rather that what we can tell about what those appearances are appearing to from them is only inference, and so in terms of evolution, it doesn't matter which you name as primary. In terms of the appearance of change there are two vectors of change over time. There is the natural tendency toward physical disorder, in that entropy is always increasing. Within that, there is this encoding of the environment over time onto structures (DNA) which leads to increasing order. It took billions of years for that encoding to develop, in turn, the capability to encode information using media and processes independent from those that resulted in humanity: now we encode not just the environment but our reflections on the environment, and the media that we do that encoding on is eventually going to surpass the sophistication of DNA. It's an idea that can certainly form the basis for some interesting speculation.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 11, 2014 12:54:17 GMT -5
By creation do you mean creation of knowledge? Knowledge, and the physical principles to which that knowledge applies. 20 years ago, I read an answer by Emanuel that led to this realization. It went something like this: Question: How far out does the universe go? Answer: As far as your longest telescope. Not very far. African cosmology and others talk about the origin of the universe being a single word. I see science as mainly the creation of vocabulary.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Apr 11, 2014 19:58:05 GMT -5
Andy thinks we're all going to ascend to the 5th dimension on golden chariots or whatever, but at the core of that story is a natural evolution of consciousness. Well, if you're talking about evolution, you're talking about change, and change is all about appearances. I know that your position is that consciousness is primary, and I take that to mean that you see consciousness as cause, and physicality as effect. My position is rather that what we can tell about what those appearances are appearing to from them is only inference, and so in terms of evolution, it doesn't matter which you name as primary. So you figure what could be happening is that appearances are causing consciousness? If you're referring to AI, I disagree based on the cause/effect scenario you know I'm down with. Consciousness will always be the missing ingredient in AI, unless of course it begins with something alive. As for increasing and decreasing order, it's no different in principle than the rising and setting of the sun. It's inherent in a world driven by the movement of change.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Apr 11, 2014 20:04:11 GMT -5
Knowledge, and the physical principles to which that knowledge applies. 20 years ago, I read an answer by Emanuel that led to this realization. It went something like this: Question: How far out does the universe go? Answer: As far as your longest telescope. Not very far. It means, as far as you can see, implying that perception and creation are the same. Yeah, like, 'in the beginning was the word'. I don't give words, as such, quite that much power.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Apr 11, 2014 22:11:46 GMT -5
Well, if you're talking about evolution, you're talking about change, and change is all about appearances. I know that your position is that consciousness is primary, and I take that to mean that you see consciousness as cause, and physicality as effect. My position is rather that what we can tell about what those appearances are appearing to from them is only inference, and so in terms of evolution, it doesn't matter which you name as primary. So you figure what could be happening is that appearances are causing consciousness? If you're referring to AI, I disagree based on the cause/effect scenario you know I'm down with. Consciousness will always be the missing ingredient in AI, unless of course it begins with something alive. As for increasing and decreasing order, it's no different in principle than the rising and setting of the sun. It's inherent in a world driven by the movement of change. Not a speculation as to what comes first, but an assertion that the idea of consciousness itself is only inference. In terms of the idea of evolution, it seems to me problematic to formulate a theory based on the principle of consciousness because of the limited use of the scientific method as applied to the principle. So the description of the 2nd movement -- that you've called life -- as ordered and apparently within the 1st movement, is an attempt to describe evolution without reference to consciousness. As you say, the two movements are inherent in any attempt to describe experience, but even referring to life moves back toward the same type of inference that leads to expressing the model for evolution in terms of consciousness. Instead, the description is given in terms of order, information and time. That description can naturally lead to the speculation that you followed with on the question of whether software can ever be considered "alive", and while that's perhaps an interesting question in and of itself, it's a narrow, special case of speculating where the process of evolution is leading. For example -- and this is all dredged from a very deep bunny hole -- there is the question of the role of media such as books, broadcast, the internet and all other manner of encoded information on the apparent process of a person coming to the realization about the nature of personhood.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Apr 11, 2014 22:18:39 GMT -5
It means, as far as you can see, implying that perception and creation are the same. Yeah, like, 'in the beginning was the word'. I don't give words, as such, quite that much power. ... oh believe me! Yes you do! ... there's a different way to read that last sentence -- I found our first debate on the question of free will to have been quite the powerful experience.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Apr 12, 2014 0:04:15 GMT -5
So you figure what could be happening is that appearances are causing consciousness? If you're referring to AI, I disagree based on the cause/effect scenario you know I'm down with. Consciousness will always be the missing ingredient in AI, unless of course it begins with something alive. As for increasing and decreasing order, it's no different in principle than the rising and setting of the sun. It's inherent in a world driven by the movement of change. Not a speculation as to what comes first, but an assertion that the idea of consciousness itself is only inference. Would you say it's clear that you are conscious? I didn't mean to put forward a theory. As such, I don't expect to publish in the science journals any time soon. I meant to talk about something I'm 'seeing', for which I have no evidence and no credibility. Okay forget about life. I'm saying experience is movement, and the movement from order to disorder and back to order is basically like any other movement and doesn't require any explanation or special terminology. I'd say no information ever caused a realization. As with all experiences, the finding of information is part of the creative expression of a story about someone realizing. How the story actually plays out is irrelevant to the realization, which in a sense has already happened. There are a million stories in the big city. This is one of them.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Apr 12, 2014 0:08:26 GMT -5
It means, as far as you can see, implying that perception and creation are the same. Yeah, like, 'in the beginning was the word'. I don't give words, as such, quite that much power. ... oh believe me! Yes you do! ... there's a different way to read that last sentence -- I found our first debate on the question of free will to have been quite the powerful experience. But interestingly, it had nothing at all to do with what I said, and everything to do with what you were ready to hear. Am I in too deep now?
|
|