|
|
Post by laughter on Jul 26, 2022 6:58:20 GMT -5
And I should acknowledge that reefs did go that extra mile in engaging about the animate/inanimate dichotomy. Everything is alive. Brass hasp day, you know.  But on the flip side, figology is not wrong in the truthiness doctrine, either. There is no existential truth in anything that appears to you. ZD has contemplated and once expressed - to my recollection in paraphrase - that one can realize what one is, and/or, one can realize what one is not. Abandoning any concern over the risk of sounding like a condescending asshole, I'd opine that much of the turbulence in these dialogs is a clash of varying flavors and degrees of those two different realizations and the informings of mind that followed. Yes, I wrote "varying degree of realization", you see, in this regard, I am more ZD that even ZD ... 🎯 Yeah but the Japanese girls were funner to watch than this fat dude. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jul 26, 2022 6:59:13 GMT -5
So "I don't know" doesn't always mean "I don't know"? Well, ok, I kinda' see where ur goin' and I will resist the urge to mess wit' ya'. It's just that 'I don't know' conveys a position. Ah...here's a good way of saying it....it expresses a 'confidence' of sorts. 'I don't know' can actually be expressed with supreme confidence. It can be yelled from the rooftops. What I'm trying to express is a total absence of confidence. Zero. Knowingless not-knowing as opposed to not-knowing. Roger that. (over and out) |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jul 26, 2022 6:59:45 GMT -5
It's just that 'I don't know' conveys a position. Ah...here's a good way of saying it....it expresses a 'confidence' of sorts. 'I don't know' can actually be expressed with supreme confidence. It can be yelled from the rooftops. What I'm trying to express is a total absence of confidence. Zero. Knowingless not-knowing as opposed to not-knowing. Roger that. (over and out)hehe perfect |
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Jul 26, 2022 7:00:53 GMT -5
Yeah, but that's a cop-out, the same way that saying "self-inquiry is misconceived" is a cop-out. That's Jed's analysis btw. The reason it's a thing is because the question has the potential to bring the mind out to the limit where the potential to realize the futility of intellect is enhanced. Mostly people just spin on it, instead. The honest answer, from the personal perspective, is not-knowing. Nah. I would consider that a problematic form of not-knowing. I do see the value in bringing mind to the limit, but it actually has to go TO that limit. I really don't think that that is that point. For me, the limit is 'I don't know'. It's not ' I know that I don't know', it's not ' I know that I know nothing'. The limit I see is one of bamboozlement lol. And that's the limit because the rational mind has nothing to land on, no way to position itself...it's a potential doorway for a different kind of deeper knowing, 'the irrational'. The offer of what could be termed transrational could help subsume and objectively compare any previouosly assumed dualistic interpretations of rational and irrational. It might promote backing up and getting a slightly larger view of WIBIGO, however slightly. The 'don't know' is relative, but the 'last step back' is a doozy.  |
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Jul 26, 2022 7:03:15 GMT -5
I just don't see it like that. I mean if that question has been clearly seen to be misconceived then how could it. I guess you mean it's intrinsic to the query, and so therefore must still be happening unconsciously or suchlike. But I just don't see it like that. I'm not one to chuck the bathwater out with the baby. I'm considering it all in terms of suchness. You're asking a question about the nature of reality, but your sense of identity and reality are complimentary. It might seem like the scientist is asking a limited and narrow objective question about a physical phenomenon, but by the assumption of objectivity he's actually engaged in an act of self-inquiry. I'm pointing here, but there's a flip-side to this, a relative material shadow, in the form of all the various "observer paradox" that arise in science. With the "QO" being the end-game. Best to stick with the tree in the forest and commonsense. Mind will do nothing but confuse itself. Oneness of the sloppysalivistic 🥨 |
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Jul 26, 2022 7:06:29 GMT -5
Yeah but the Japanese girls were funner to watch that this fat dude. I cannot argue with such transcendental logic. Impeccably airtight. I bow. 😋 |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jul 26, 2022 7:07:06 GMT -5
This is not musing, it's actual. Did we invent radio waves? No, the phenomenon already-existed, we invented the means to make radio waves (an antenna-transmitter) and receive them, a radio tuner. We I was a kid all we had was "air" TV and 3 channel, ABC, NBC, CBS. Those transmission waves are still transmitted in cities, not everyone can afford cable and high speed internet. You can still buy "rabbit ears", Best Buy, Amazon, and can still tune into the TV "air" broadcast that flows through your house constantly. Good point. Well I'd go one further, and say at that stage the tree and forest themsleves are merely 'vibratory'. Moreover, the universal at large. Perhaps we could say locality is particular in nature and non-locality is wave-function like. But I'm struggling to reconcile 'interference' with my musing though. I mean, you actually get two different patterns depending on whether or not the event is witnessed directly, right. Ultimately 'event' is problematic. It's not really my strong area. Maybe laffy will come along and help us out. Yes, this is how I see it (laughter will disagree). The universe is Bohm's Explicate Order, the unseen part of the iceberg is Bohm's Implicate Order. The Implicate Order is the quantum field/zero point field/superposition. The universe is stable locality FAIAP. I accept that the seen universe has-been stable for about 13.8 billion years. Relativity deals with the seen world, QM with the unseen (generally speaking). In the double slit experiment, we are switching from the ordinary world to the quantum world. But it's not all about consciousness observing. It's merely about making a measurement. QM is very odd in that it deals with probability. It has to deal with probability because in superposition (not-looking in the double slit) the quantum ~phenomenon~ IS everywhere all at once. It's like a fly in a futbol stadium, the quantum fly is everywhere at once. All QM can do is make it's best guess where we will be able to catch the fly, in a net so to speak. This is what probability is. When we are not-looking, the fly is everywhere. When we catch the fly (look, in the double slit) we collapse the wave function and have the fly in a net, we get a bullet pattern. It's all in a very real sense a ~mechanistic~ process, it doesn't really involve consciousness. It's just a matter of look, or not-look. If you want to know why there is a stable universe, look at quantum computing. The problem in quantum computing is keeping the Q-bits in superposition. You basically have to keep them from *touching* any part of the, any classical part of the computer. Why? because when the Q-bit touches any part of the seen universe, it collapses the wave function, before we are ready to, before we have an answer to our question. IOW, the ordinary state in the ordinary universe, is collapse the wave function. In an ordinary computer, any one bit is either 1 or 0, on or off essentially. In a quantum computer a Q-bit is 1 and 0 simultaneously. A quantum bit, is both "on and off" simultaneously. Richard Feynmann figured this out, basically invented quantum computing, the theory. (That's my best recollection, I think he was the first). OK, now what is the why-quantum computing is so difficult? I went into this a little because it in an on-going debate between sdp and laughter. If you want to understand all this better, investigate decoherence. Decoherence is why we have a stable Explicate Order universe. When the quantum world 'touches' the classical-big world of stuff, it decoheres, it *joins* the Explicate universe. Looking, in the double slit experiment, is like taking a photo-finish photograph in the Kentucky Derby. Not-looking, we don't know who won the race (if it's too close). Now, it is very mysterious why either looking or not-looking changes everything. But I think the answer will turn out to be, simple. We are somehow just not forming the question correctly, yet. |
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Jul 26, 2022 7:08:24 GMT -5
This is not musing, it's actual. Did we invent radio waves? No, the phenomenon already-existed, we invented the means to make radio waves (an antenna-transmitter) and receive them, a radio tuner. We I was a kid all we had was "air" TV and 3 channel, ABC, NBC, CBS. Those transmission waves are still transmitted in cities, not everyone can afford cable and high speed internet. You can still buy "rabbit ears", Best Buy, Amazon, and can still tune into the TV "air" broadcast that flows through your house constantly. When a tree falls in the forest, it doesn't make a sound, it sets up vibrations in the air. The vibrations are just vibrations in the atmosphere, until they are received by an ear. New example, If a tree falls in outer space does it make a sound? No. It can't even make sound vibrations, no air. You're just playing with the definition of " sound". How do you define sound but as "vibrations in the air"? The question still comes down to "what hears the sound?". Stop thinking about it. -...of silence- |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jul 26, 2022 7:08:35 GMT -5
Nah. I would consider that a problematic form of not-knowing. I do see the value in bringing mind to the limit, but it actually has to go TO that limit. I really don't think that that is that point. For me, the limit is 'I don't know'. It's not ' I know that I don't know', it's not ' I know that I know nothing'. The limit I see is one of bamboozlement lol. And that's the limit because the rational mind has nothing to land on, no way to position itself...it's a potential doorway for a different kind of deeper knowing, 'the irrational'. Well, are you saying that there's a difference between "I don't know" and "I can never know"? It's possible to arrive at the understanding that the question of the tree in the forest is unknowable, in relative terms, by intellect alone. It's just commonsense, if noone is there to hear it, there's noone to tell you, one way or another. But, mind will spin. It's what minds do. Wigner's Friend. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jul 26, 2022 7:08:44 GMT -5
Nah. I would consider that a problematic form of not-knowing. I do see the value in bringing mind to the limit, but it actually has to go TO that limit. I really don't think that that is that point. For me, the limit is 'I don't know'. It's not ' I know that I don't know', it's not ' I know that I know nothing'. The limit I see is one of bamboozlement lol. And that's the limit because the rational mind has nothing to land on, no way to position itself...it's a potential doorway for a different kind of deeper knowing, 'the irrational'. The offer of what could be termed transrational could help subsume and objectively compare any previouosly assumed dualistic interpretations of rational and irrational. It might promote backing up and getting a slightly larger view of WIBIGO, however slightly. The 'don't know' is relative, but the 'last step back' is a doozy. Yes, for me, the total absence of confidence, the absence of a position for mind to take....was just a doorway (or maybe a 'gate' to use more spiritual terminology). The 'last step back' was the magic bit (magic, but also ordinary). It wasn't a case for me of this happening just once. It was repeated over and over again (not really by 'choice'). I don't know, maybe my apparent brain had to adjust over time. Maybe apparent neural pathways had to change. I had a ton of attachments to release. Just speculating. In a sense, I still go back and forward through that doorway, I just don't really notice it anymore, it's sort of blurred into one. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 26, 2022 7:09:04 GMT -5
it's legitimate to refer to "my" consciousness when undifferentiated awareness becomes associated with individuated consciousness as I. It might be legitimate to refer to 'my consciousness' even in the absence of that associated. The problem of 'my consciousness' is when it is considered to be an isolated and separate consciousness. I often use awareness and consciousness interchangeably but in this instance awareness is universal but consciousness is particular to the individual. Personal consciousness as Ego/I is when awareness becomes individuated and focussed as the personal. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jul 26, 2022 7:10:52 GMT -5
It might be legitimate to refer to 'my consciousness' even in the absence of that associated. The problem of 'my consciousness' is when it is considered to be an isolated and separate consciousness. I often use awareness and consciousness interchangeably but in this instance awareness is universal but consciousness is particular to the individual. Personal consciousness as Ego/I is when awareness becomes individuated and focussed as the personal. okay, noted. Makes sense. So then would it reasonable to put 'consciousness' into the appearance category as it pertains to the individual? |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jul 26, 2022 7:14:14 GMT -5
Good point. Well I'd go one further, and say at that stage the tree and forest themsleves are merely 'vibratory'. Moreover, the universal at large. Perhaps we could say locality is particular in nature and non-locality is wave-function like. But I'm struggling to reconcile 'interference' with my musing though. I mean, you actually get two different patterns depending on whether or not the event is witnessed directly, right. Ultimately 'event' is problematic. It's not really my strong area. Maybe laffy will come along and help us out. Yes, this is how I see it (laughter will disagree). The universe is Bohm's Explicate Order, the unseen part of the iceberg is Bohm's Implicate Order. The Implicate Order is the quantum field/zero point field/superposition. The universe is stable locality FAIAP. I accept that the seen universe has-been stable for about 13.8 billion years. Relativity deals with the seen world, QM with the unseen (generally speaking). In the double slit experiment, we are switching from the ordinary world to the quantum world. But it's not all about consciousness observing. It's merely about making a measurement. QM is very odd in that it deals with probability. It has to deal with probability because in superposition (not-looking in the double slit) the quantum ~phenomenon~ IS everywhere all at once. It's like a fly in a futbol stadium, the quantum fly is everywhere at once. All QM can do is make it's best guess where we will be able to catch the fly, in a net so to speak. This is what probability is. When we are not-looking, the fly is everywhere. When we catch the fly (look, in the double slit) we collapse the wave function and have the fly in a net, we get a bullet pattern. It's all in a very real sense a ~mechanistic~ process, it doesn't really involve consciousness. It's just a matter of look, or not-look. If you want to know why there is a stable universe, look at quantum computing. The problem in quantum computing is keeping the Q-bits in superposition. You basically have to keep them from *touching* any part of the, any classical part of the computer. Why? because when the Q-bit touches any part of the seen universe, it collapses the wave function, before we are ready to, before we have an answer to our question. IOW, the ordinary state in the ordinary universe, is collapse the wave function. In an ordinary computer, any one bit is either 1 or 0, on or off essentially. In a quantum computer a Q-bit is 1 and 0 simultaneously. A quantum bit, is both "on and off" simultaneously. Richard Feynmann figured this out, basically invented quantum computing, the theory. (That's my best recollection, I think he was the first). OK, now what is the why-quantum computing is so difficult? I went into this a little because it in an on-going debate between sdp and laughter. If you want to understand all this better, investigate decoherence. Decoherence is why we have a stable Explicate Order universe. When the quantum world 'touches' the classical-big world of stuff, it decoheres, it *joins* the Explicate universe. Looking, in the double slit experiment, is like taking a photo-finish photograph in the Kentucky Derby. Not-looking, we don't know who won the race (if it's too close). Now, it is very mysterious why either looking or not-looking changes everything. But I think the answer will turn out to be, simple. We are somehow just not forming the question correctly, yet. Been telling you for years now that Bohm's theory is premised on hidden variables and was put to rest by the test of Bell's theorem. This is one of those rare instances where the creation of new questions by answering an old one actually can facilitate the pausing of the endless mind spin. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 26, 2022 7:15:50 GMT -5
I often use awareness and consciousness interchangeably but in this instance awareness is universal but consciousness is particular to the individual. Personal consciousness as Ego/I is when awareness becomes individuated and focussed as the personal. okay, noted. Makes sense. So then would it reasonable to put 'consciousness' into the appearance category as it pertains to the individual? I would not call consciousness an appearance. It's as if the sun is awareness and the reflected light from the moon is consciousness and the reflection of the moon in the lake is the object which is an appearance and which has become illuminated by the illumination the moon has borrowed from the sun. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jul 26, 2022 7:16:07 GMT -5
Well, are you saying that there's a difference between "I don't know" and "I can never know"? It's possible to arrive at the understanding that the question of the tree in the forest is unknowable, in relative terms, by intellect alone. It's just commonsense, if noone is there to hear it, there's noone to tell you, one way or another. But, mind will spin. It's what minds do. Wigner's Friend. Just another version of Schrodinger's cat, and it all contains the subtle assumption that there's something special about human consciousness. I understand the validity of the thought experiment as expressed in the mathematics of the wave function, but the mind spin is metaphysical, not physics. Also inapplicable to tree/forest in that there is no original observer. |
|
