HI ucarr, see below for comment on your arguments on this page. Please, refer me to any past pages or quotes with intel from this or any other discussion on TPF that I may have skipped/missed that are important or worth having me recall in order to proceed forward with this discussion, especially if they satisfy any of my proposed questionings here. Thanks!

What should not be underestimated is the depth of the meaning of the near-intangibility of consciousness (NI=Natural Intelligence).

That the human individual can imagine herself to be anything the imagination can conjure and manipulate means that the position and momentum of the NI-bearing sentient is always hedged against the closure of a finalized system.

This is one of the subtle meanings of (the centrality of) the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

Both position and momentum are essential to system, so their uncertainty, acting as a defense of future creativity via strategic incompleteness, mandates entropy and its function: non-closure of system. — ucarr

I wonder if that entropy might happen regardless? What could that say about "it's" function? How do we know it wasn't always supposed to be a system that's considered a "non-closure" one? Is that meaning, it's an open system? Was it always? Was it built to be? The way you word your thinking here, "the position and momentum of the NI-bearing sentient is always hedged against the closure of a finalized system.," is seemingly saying to me that placement or location of the NI-bearing sentient is what impedes upon the walls on the system, blocking them from closing. Purposefully or by chance? What do attractive connections have to do with anything here? Gravity and relativity? Is it propped open for a reason? Is that reason involving consciousness experiences or events in the human experiences?

I agree position and momentum is of relevance but time is a constraint of this movement...I am thinking: the positioning and momentum vs the place and time, where and how do they cross over, is this of any relevance regarding chance, randomness, accidents, luck? Thinking also about timing, how the speed in any direction of motion is relevant in positioning and controlled? How certain is the speed of humans at our scale, being that humans moving a certain speed is experience-able by other humans and explainable by showing other humans, humans moving at specific speeds (fast or slow) is observable by other humans and can be random or accidental when seemingly uncertain outcomes or changes cause them. Unforeseeable to us in the moment only. Directions change and speed change at the human scale and cause outcomes that are certain though after the fact, I think...it was uncertain perhaps to only them at the time.

The direction is uncertain to us at the human scale but perhaps when or if an observer could zoom/s out looking at human experiences over our start as a species until "now" or present year in time the direction is not necessary predictable to a point where it can be manipulated or reversed*[1] but perhaps just observable enough to see the potential direction based intel? Who knows if that is even worth, work, energy or thought into, just to observe US? I don't think it is that deep however, I DO think human consciousness is special even though reducible to brain functions. What is your take on the mind-body problem? If you have discussed this before in more detail and if any quotes exists' here on TPF, please refer me to where I can read them and reply accordingly.

I agree, the depth of many things especially when one has to consider QM and philosophy is not only underestimated, but often blown off completely or avoided. The reason behind that choosing is not important, I am unbothered as to WHY. I am bothered at the lack of effort or interest to know. After all it is, THE KNOWLEDGE that takes direction and can change our minds, therefore also play a role in causing physical actions.

According to the theory, this earlier event has an immediate instantaneous effect on the evolving state of the universe, and this change has an immediate effect on the propensities for the various possible outcomes of the measurement performed slightly later in the other village. This feature—that there is some sort of objective instantaneous transfer 10 of information—conflicts with the spirit of the theory of relativity. However, this quantum effect is of a subtle kind: it acts neither on material substance, nor on locally conserved energy-momentum, nor on anything else that exists in the classical conception of the physical world that the theory of relativity was originally designed to cover. It acts on a mathematical structure that represents, rather, information and propensities. The theory of relativity was originally formulated within classical physical theory. This is a deterministic theory: the entire history of the universe is completely determined by how things started out. Hence all of history can be conceived to be laid out in a four-dimensional spacetime. The idea of “becoming”, or of the gradual unfolding of reality, has no natural place in this deterministic conception of the universe. Quantum theory is a different kind of theory: it is formulated as an indeterministic theory. Determinism is relaxed in two important ways. First, freedom is granted to each experimenter to choose freely which experiment he will perform, i.e., which aspect of nature he will probe; which question he will put to nature. Then Nature is allowed to pick an outcome of the experiment, i.e., to answer to the question. This answer is partially free: it is subject only to certain statistical requirements. These elements of ‘freedom of choice’, on the part of both the human participant and Nature herself, lead to a picture of a reality that gradually unfolds in response to choices that are not necessarily fixed by the prior physical part of reality alone. The central roles in quantum theory of these discrete choices— the choices of which questions will be put to nature, and which answer nature delivers— makes quantum theory a theory of discrete events, rather than a theory of the continuous evolution of locally conserved matter/energy. The basic building blocks of the new conception of nature are not objective tiny bits of matter, but choices of questions and answers. In view of these deep structural differences there is a question of principle regarding how the stipulation that there can be no faster-than-light transfer of information of any kind should be carried over from the invalid 11 deterministic classical theory to its indeterministic quantum successor. The theoretical advantages of relaxing this condition are great: it provides an immediate resolution all of the causality puzzles that have blocked attempts to understand physical reality, and that have led directly to the Copenhagen renunciation of all such efforts. And it hands to us a new rational theoretical basis for attacking the age-old problem of the connection between mind and brain. In view of these potential advantages one must ask whether it is really beneficial for scientists to renounce for all time the aim of trying to understand the world in which we live, in order to maintain a metaphysical prejudice that arose from a theory that is known to be fundamentally incorrect? — Henry Stapp

"Quantum Theory and the Role of Mind in Nature"(pg 12 of 41)


The direction is of interest, depth though is but a direction...what moves it!!!? How fast or slowly? Hot to cold? It moves? It matters! [what is this "it,"?] How can it move from you to me through online interactions? Connections and conversations are different but both require at least two. It takes two to tango! The connection is real, weak and strong. Time and effort can manipulate or change outcomes that maybe were unforeseen to occur the way they did, but not in general? Randomness? Team effort?

That can be a problem, or debated...common ground may not be found? If found and if stuck always just ASSUMING instead of imagining. Why do that though? Because it takes less work? Easy way or is it laziness? No motivation? These are people too, but why they think things or knowledge ought to be handed to them instead of learning it for self without realizing that CHANCE is robbed from them now being in that environment and state of mind at the same time.

Self knowledge being questioned is interesting. Imagine: No one exists anymore to defend your name, history, life story. Imagine the last person to ever know you, dying. That knowledge they had from your life cycle after completion, birth-death years looked back on by those in future, learning....asking, of interest? Placed perfectly to seem that way? Knowledge eventually fades away with us unless what? Energy conservation or transfer? because of? [insert position, place, time, speed?] ) The building or unfolding is of uncertainty, the idea from the physical collapse or end does not die, continues in a NEW way maybe?

It's all quite interesting...but back to it! Yes, what about conversations, that back and forth between two people online? Like when communication is done by typing/reading words back and forth from a device to another via computer screen? Do these conversations that occur over long distances via iPhone FaceTime, or webcam Skypes or Zoom meetings with devices suitable, camera and wifi differ between from face to face conversation? Is the connection still bound to them, or binding at all even though when distance causes communication to happen over the phone, webcam or device, etc. instead of face to face? What about building the connection from the internet conversation? What does that distance matter when both are tapped in? I wonder now how does/do the particles move differently and effect differently per type of conversation.

Because humans have a waveform state of being, their calculated probability of position and momentum acts as an anchor for their identity. This is a rather scientific-sounding way of talking about the human soul and its necessity.

Topology studies manifolding of geometric spaces across symmetry, with a constant, the invariant point that anchors a geometric space as intelligible. This property of topology applied to anchoring of human as waveform is a scientific-sounding way of talking about the necessity of the human soul. — ucarr

Consider a thinking stream that would stay closed and recited in the privacy of my mind, instead of being recited and put into words via typed language skills communicating thoughts being thunk in action...In mind what is happening, a re-creating a conscious experience or creating thoughts or ideas that aim towards that experience in mind (consciously aware of self in world, identity of self known to what degree? enough to act on what you believe to be your purpose?), in thought with intentions potentially able to or do change in decision making moments. Knowledge being attained that forces a restart, revaluing, a change touching the experience you are to have. Identity and knowledge relationship should be considered at length.



[1](un-take-backable damage is done, undo is not an option, irreversible)
[2]I am not asking these questions for real or needing an answer because it/they are/is obvious to me BUT these words are of immediate [seemingly immediate to me] thoughts coming as they do, for the first time in this order. Perhaps the first time all around thinking these strings of words. Is it? It is my first time thinking these thoughts I'm typing as they come to me? Just me, typing away "stream of consciousness style," and THIS is what came from my head, out of my mind, and into my hands. The hands that are doing the "work" but is not my brain working here too? Who does the heavier lifting, who is having all the fun? My mind, brain or my body? Perhaps my soul just sitting back watching... I am typing the thoughts away, away from the confines of my mind and out into the world for those to read in the form of words on a screen onto this page from the many on the World Wide Web...IT is out but only further from me still attached, it to me! It's out and about for others to see, those with access to it...for me to look back and see the distance and growth. Also to see the things that never seem to fade. This is me though, I am it. Credible, at the very least and true in my words. Until then. :grin: I wouldn't want to be anywhere else right now but typing this to YOU now 617 pm 9/28/24

There is a close and important connection linking will and imagination. When I decide that I will have something in mind come about as material fact, I’m entertaining intentions toward reconfiguring the material world in accordance with an idea.

We can say that the imagination is the quiver containing the arrows of will possessing pointed intentions for remaking the world. So, the bigger the quiver, the bigger the will power of its possessor.

The duet of imagination and will is especially important in situations facing a formidable barrier. In order to muster the will to do something from which we are obstructed, we must rally the imagination towards seeing the way forward to the goal. Per Castañeda, this creative exercise of will is the warrior’s intent. Brujos y brujas intend their visions into reality. It is said the “dreaming body” of the warrior can only become empowered to move with purpose via intent. — ucarr

Wow! A man of knowledge! I am keeping this reference (Carlos Castañeda) in mind moving forward, that is going to be some very interesting reading! Right up my alley...but yes, I agree with how you have used it [reference] here and how you have neatly explained Stapp's point and yours. I am following and so far agree with how you've approached acknowledging the importance of the link and bounds of the will and imagination.

I'm on it already! I will post my complete response as soon as I can.

Good one!!!

The Cult it is tonight!

ucarr, I appreciate the insights as you have couldn't of put it any simpler while at the same time keeping the field of thinking open to those willing to do that while remaining highly intrigued-- I am especially with the direction and body of your thinking as you communicate them.I just wanted to say as a person who engages selectively, I have been reading along since I have joined the forum. Although, it is our first time interacting I am no stranger to your contributions. I think you have many interesting Discussions and offer fun engagement within the thread, consistently acknowledging those that do you. I see and hear you.

Instead of jumping into the replies, I want to say that I was pleased to see you refer to Henry Stapp as I have been reading his work a lot lately as I found it an easy (for me [learning style of importance?]) to get a clearer vision or visualize what was being said and/or going on; as it was introduction or hard open to QM theories/ideas and I am still doing so intentionally to gain deeper knowledge. I found Stapp easy for me to actually begin picking up what was being put down, but not to my surprise I struggle putting the pieces together to see a whole picture where QM and philosophy have a space like Humanities should be in Science. I mentioned him [stapp] twice in the "Perception" thread and referred a few papers of his, here: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/926957

I am going to reply to each of your comments individually in order to how they were received but I just want to mention that you have helped me in a major way today organize some of my old notes into one coherent piece that makes more sense now combined. THANKS! Anyways, when I reply and usually comment, I am to be read as if I am talking. Meaning, I type or express words in my typing just like I talk. How should you know this? Well I just told you. If its easier to understand my style, some compare it to "thinking aloud" or "stream of consciousness" but that's always interesting to learn. Are they telling me what I am? Ha....and yet not a peep on anything deeper from the words, just recognizing a style that is...unintelligible, incoherent, or ill posed perhaps in a certain light. To those I say: Whatever, ignore this/it as you ought to. This is going to help me [ I can tell and you couldn't at this point in my mind its realized and i am typing as if nothing even occurred--in motion, fuel provided, interest, driving towards??? ]

The will I have is evident and that ensures me to continue even when the goal is not entirely clear YET with words...its being built in the mind, with effort and passion too. Power.

Again with this thread, as I followed along I found myself reading the words off the screen in a voice in my mind as I sit silently on the couch. I hear it and follow pretty easily. Does it always stick? No, no. But IN that moment, I like to think I understand where and what you are up/onto with your attention towards certain topics. I can hear the words and build the ideas in my mind, with more than will ...pure interest.

Yes, imagination is important and so it requires effort that deserves perhaps some more credit at times. I think the will in the way you mention it is interesting and to bring it up in the lens of QM consciousness. If the will is not aligned with the MIND and body (+/- (what else along with mind, body should be aligned along with will*1 when regarding it as [what? (insert blank?)] using the mind, (work?) to create something. Ideas birthed, nurtured, and adaptable. SO the potentially becomes something real...as in something real I mean, of non-material ideas in imagination efforts in mind bring those ideas, visions into something actually tangible/material. How? Perhaps it is true, an interactive process between the mind, brain, and conscious awareness that uses past experiences and knowledge attained to aid those new ones that become intelligent by our own design. Brain activity and body input/output relevant? I am not there yet, point is this is my intro to you and I have a lot to say. See me another time on that if interested (design vs designer notes) and I am open to get into it at another time.

BUT if I were to veer towards another aspect of QM, I rather jump to the relevance you are seeing in the 2nd law of thermodynamics here in respect to the place you find it within QM and why/how can it correlate with the works of Henry Stapp. I am interested in these correlations and am following to see where it goes, if not with others in my personal research and ongoing self taught/learning journey. So I will eventually get to that, as I have notes from when I was reading Sadi Carnot's "Reflections on the Motive Power of Heat" and thoughts on entropy, design, etc. I am seeing links NOW that I couldn't of known then, but did that stop me from thinking with intention and efforts in a reckless passion that brought me to put them together today? Sure as hell did not.

So as you can see in this explanation of my process that indeed NOT a soul asked for, I value doing so because of the parallels you and I have regarding interests in or relevance in Henry Stapp and 2nd law of thermodynamics. The fact that those two things caught my attention and was mentioned by you in this thread as it's still unfolding is what originally pulled me to engage here with you directly in this thread. After reading your responses today, it lead me to look into my past notes and I was able to organize and tie together two notes that came to me in different times over the last few years.

It's helpful and valued by me as you reminded me that my procrastination was not a waste of time or energy. That I may be able to be connected for deeper, clearer explanations for me first and then others, is big as that brings of course new perspectives from understanding complexities that QM takes on in explaining the consciousness and mind-body problem but at a relatable, objective level that is not popularly adapted yet by those not familiar with the maths. It is intimidating and that is limiting minds that might offer insights now...
Thanks! [9/20 452pm]


1*
- See here, https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/921737 the exchange and if so, DO note the footnotes as it is where the will is considered deeper [by me and my inquiring mind] in thread "Perception" (pg 3/49) This discussion is the same thread I linked earlier but it was at an earlier time, a different phase of thinking for me but where ideas correlate here now with you and others possibly. That exchange with jkop and I early on is one contribution where I mention imagination, consciousness, and the will. If I go backwards from here I can trace back to that contribution and this is interesting to me because it was before I considered or thought QM might be able to be used to refine a scope of complex understandings of consciousness and the mind-body interactions making a way in the world...for my own self and not sake

(hence, its clear that since Henry Stapp is an influence I leaned towards with interest to learn something new here. And the knowledge brought to my attention aided me in my developing thoughts using the "QM lens and relations to the world" you speak finely of also, with that help I was/am able to credibly speak on what I can bring using an untainted, green and naive pov voice in philosophy. Does that offer anything to academia of philosophical logic, math, and science? Its still being observed nonetheless...

The questioner who does an experiment to get an answer poses the question that activates QM processes towards a final state of the system i.e., an answer. — ucarr

Does the focus or attention of the conscious aware questioner lead to the answer because its/the placement/timing of the question? How much does the answer come from the "knowings" of this questioner, does the answer exist for the questioner to "answer" or is the answer attainable because the placement of the question that activated the QM process come/came from a place or state of interest, attention, or necessity/force?

It is a force to focus attention when pure interest is not present but the will is present in the way one goes about posing the question in an experiment to determine an answer. Is this assuming the answer is attainable? How is the confidence of the questioner observed and relevant [as i think worth considerations] objectively in the time that exists to attain knowledge.

Does wisdom come from the/a experience in time, or how time was experienced ( a moment of time or a clip of time ) and does a moment of time add to the clip of time, meaning an event that occurs in the whole of ones existence, life and death of a person being observed, learned based on what knowledge? The questions that come about a past life cycle include the death of the questioner to be considered? What knowings are used to ask the right questions or wrong ones? Of the self, perhaps. Either way, an answer is either the goal or an answer is not needed meaning reality of circumstances is accepted and justified based on the "knowings" of the subject in mind here detectable in the will present in these moments, events, or states that got "them" to that place...

In this way, the individual can always go forward into the future armed with the panoply of unlimited possibilities.

Strategic Incompleteness (SI) keeps human out of the reach of the calculus. You can’t sum human to a limit because of thoughts, ideas and feelings,

The mass of consciousness is sagaciously hidden from the calculation with strategic absence, so there’s always something that remains beyond the reach of measurement.

This is part of the end game of entropy and thermodynamic resistance to completeness of measurement, which is to say completeness of system.

The impossibility of complete measurement of consciousness goes heads up with the scourge of infinity as the diplomat who sticks his head into the lion’s mouth.

By seeming to be massless, NI uses escape from complete system to also sidestep the ultimate unwieldy mess of infinity.

Incompleteness resembles undecidableness, but the former is creatively future looking, whereas the latter is simply stuck. — ucarr

Hmm....so you say above, Incomplete~>stuck AND undecidableness~> future looking, resemble each other but according to what standards or template? It seems to me, that when those whom experience "future looking" and/or "simply stuck" states they is/are judged or determined by an observer and/or is this or that in the choice or in the event determined internally [making the decision to [blank]? Who determines this outcome, and is that outcome "knowable" or "unknowable" either way?

In the two things happening in the psychological mind (internally) and physical (externally), of particular interest is the timing where the outcome, with chances or possibilities that are no longer take back-able, meaning can't fix or improve upon as the internal is playing out thoughts that don't actually come into existence the way it was thought out, but the intention is traceable in the attention, focus, and the will present in the questions asked where an answer is the goal but the drive was in the question or interest. The chance is taken from/in/when the wrong decision is made but the outcome is seen externally alone while the internal process attached to that either was off to begin with (doesn't add up) or stands correct alongside in the confidence from experience attained in life at current moment.

When not considering the feelings, values, beliefs, and reasons that go along with events in experience, the chance is now transformed into a consequence or burden onto another, some times. Is this escape valid or perhaps it is not free from the bounds it started from, built upon, and left as unanswered. The answer is not for the seeking questioner unless the goal or purpose of the person is observed in the will, or process to exercise the will that is stemming from what? That drive, the questioner asking the questions started the motion and the energy is taken on by another (close to that person) in the form of remembrance of that existence from start to end when not fulfilled or escaped in time of death. The incompleteness is stuck but future looking undecidedability is not always correct in the approach.

What if someone is creatively future looking but stuck in the "thinking thoughts" that make certain decisions appealing or necessary but those that are made are of/from that with little thought in the first place, lack of will or effort or interest in this knowledge? Accepting that the knowledge is unattainable, and that death is not to be feared, to trust in the mystery of the universe still can cause a stuck-ness but not from undecided minds but the unwillingness or willingness to decide lies in their faith for certain outcomes to pan out as they ought to or as they THOUGHT ought to. The decision was made up already in lack of conscious awareness or thought to reflect upon the self and grow with time and experienced events learned from.

The decision was made, unknowingly when occurred, [because the questioner was not experimenting in the question to lead to answers, merely surviving day to day without knowing of the self to build a stance from, no place in the world, no reference, no help], so the undecidedableness is in that ability to do so rationally maybe? Instead of asking the wrong question, one might not ask the questions at all. WHY though? Do they not trust their ability to judge their own actions before they see the light of day outside of the mind? Is that awareness enough to bring the questions to the table that ought to be asked but the chance to ask them is taken in some freak accident or occurrence involving timing, place.

With surety or confidence in choice regardless of the answer is faith or hope detectable or is intuition taking over. No one seems to chose to be stuck or remain stuck, but what if no other options exist and awareness of that fact is upon that subject in questioning. Awareness causes righteous decisions, but of what exactly is the "knowings" that built this awareness to the point of surety. What is opposite of surety? Doubt...self doubt, is incompleteness but undecidedableness is leaving that up for debate or up to chance to learn self knowledge, or is that future looking the faith that backs the answer while the stuckness backs the doubt. Both will be observed to gain intel on the character of that choice, and when is it judged for how much the incompleteness or undeciedableness effects the person and how much they can handle in themselves...? After the fact?

Do the acts show how willing to keep the incompleteness, that without questioning or effort or interest/purpose that focuses attention towards the future is because of the conditions that awareness can stem from, the conditions that cause awareness levels and confidence or hope/faith in self's own decisions are observable...No question, no answer but what if the very question is co-creating an answer in the mind...observed twice, once the possibilities are actualized in reality and once the intention for that outcome was being thought, conceived? Like one outcome exists but it remains incomplete because death is not experienced in a shareable, verifiable way? Even if thought was close to the actual way it played out, it is not confirmed to what level the awareness or knowings were attained or why it matters at an objective level from this subjective experience or event.

You know, I am a sucker for akkordeon. LOUDER!!!!!



Have a great weekend!

I read this as great feedback...you are onto something, Sam26. Now I am curious to why you are refraining from saying what you want? You are right, though. It's wise to refrain at this point [lacking intel, yet], but why are you refraining before you "know" why you are, exactly? That is of interest...

Maybe we have the same beetle, maybe we don't. We must realize it's irrelevant so we remain silent about it. — Hanover

Remaining silent, hiding from light might be wise if you are a liar and have no beetle after all. It's like interacting with a catfish, who is a person using another persons looks, identity, color to portray something they are not. A deception in action, pretending to be a super model, when in reality they are obese and not in the league of where they are trying to play...They didn't think that far, so the deception is real...The ugly chick knows what her type WANTS to see, the person she is fooling also knows what they want. The ugly chick wouldn't even get the time of day if they crossed paths in daylight, maybe in a poorly lit bar after heavy consumption, she gets lucky.

So she thinks, so she knows... Then of course to remain silent in irrelevance as one would anyways, is fine because no one wants to see it. No one wants to hear it. Or them. They are too ugly, words are too sad, and the lives are too painful. Not a single soul needs it. We also don't need to see what is, only what works for us to survive and reproduce. The consequences are colorful and your behavior is telling. It's called a "red flag" for a reason...we want more from things than we ought to think about in silence, in acts that never come to light. The thoughts, ideas, dreams, memories. We want answers before we are fit to handle and when we are willing to accept what those options are, it may be too late to experience again.

How rude of me to think, "Hide all the ugly people, I dont want to look at them." Ha! But how nice of me to be honest with my preferred....taste. Remember, the Lipstick Effect? How colors and visual appeal have deep-rooted significance in human behavior.

Any other use of the word "red", e.g. to describe 620-750 light, or an object that reflects 620-750 light, is irrelevant, because the relevant philosophical question is "do objects like tomatoes, strawberries and radishes really have the distinctive [colour] property that they do appear to have?", and this question is not answered by noting that we use the word "red" in these other ways. — Michael

Ripeness?

Colors are unlike chemicals. — creativesoul


Correct, they are like tastes. They are mental percepts caused by neurological activity, often in response to sensory stimulation. — Michael

My question is: Why are humans such suckers for foliage?

Reds, yellows, oranges, browns. What do we get out of seeing the foliage? Is it a sign for the opportunities to come? Is it the weather we love? Is it the the photo op? Is it the beauty? Is it nature, showing us this beauty? Do we realize that?

The changing colors of leaves in the fall, for example, show their aging life phase. BUT what are animals seeing that we are not equally concerned with, or aware of, as we sip our pumpkin spice chai latte's, living our best lives under the foliage? Posing for "pictures or it never happened" to share this moment with our fans, they will see on our socials how we show off our meals and our acts in the day via Shoutbox or Instagram! It signals to people different messages than what it signals to animals, either way its updating information in our brains...were learning to "know" something more from this experience...both ends.

For animals, the leaves changing colors is a sign for the changing climate and what the next move is. Observing these changes can predict a lot about the family, tree, and the environment.

Another important part that color attributes to in nature is involved in a dynamic process occurring with plants, fruits and veggies and their color changing process. As fruits ripen, the degradation of chlorophyll reveals other pigments that were always present, and additional pigments are produced. This process is signalling ripeness to animals, which in turn aids in seed dispersal. This could show how color changes are not random but serve a purpose seemingly specific to the survival of certain species in nature.

I don't like the taste of browning bananas, I like them while they're green!

Our perception of color is influenced by sensory and neural mechanisms, but the role of color in nature points to an external reality that transcends individual perception. I'm aware that while color seems to have an objective basis in nature, it doesn't fully resolve whether colors exist independently of perceiving minds.

Akkordeon <3

Time can be a very hard thing for people because we only have so much of it — Gregory

Spend it while you live

The thing about Many Worlds is that people wonder, regret, and dream of what "could have been" a lot. Humans want it all, however it is that they get it i guess — Gregory

I wouldn't disagree. BUT, let me ask you. These people doing that, living their day to day lives while stuck in what "could have been" are they aware that maybe two things are happening at once? Scratch that, do you think the awareness of these people to a certain level plays a considerable role? I wonder how a test could be given to someone and those that take the test will either be classified as aware or unaware, and not in a all around type of way just about this specific thing (bad thinking patterns, stuck in day to day life, unfulfilled, not happy)

I look at it almost like multitasking, maybe that's not the word I should use...but I kind of relate to what I can only describe because lack of better words, as "living in my head" as I let things get to my head. Subjectively speaking from my own life experiences as ME, when I am in this mode it seems to effect my performance. I tend to shut down under pressure, I used to cry easily if someone yells too scary and loud, or if I got in trouble at school no matter how stupid, I avoid confrontation, I have insane stage fright, but its not that I couldn't learn to control myself better, its that for some people I think the mind does bring outcomes that are undesired and inconsistently messing with the performances or messing with the way I end up handling a situation. I am still too worried about what people think, but have come a long way. So proud.

Where was I? Ah yes...the damage!

I think some times we can/ought to be able to "undo" or "redo" or "take-back" a decision or act before the damage is fully done or run its course. Sometimes the damage or "outcome" or "result" that comes from the decision, choice, act is not...it's too late. [Now, now, where could it be? where could that take place, a choice that is take back able? where is it still not too late? Hm? Ill give a hint. Think: privacy of your mind] :wink:

Those undesired or unnecessary outcomes stemming from questionable behaviors* or as I like to call them "unnecessary necessities" that bring results within a certain time frame whether it brought quick response results or a lag...that time clip is of interest to me. When the triggered response shows up in the body we can track whether it was instinct, intent, learned skills, reasons, beliefs, desires, maybe life they lead (lifestyle, identity, are you lost or found?) that leads to the an act, choice, decision that caused the damage to the line of no return...

What unit are those outcomes even in and how can we smush it in with time constraints or clips to get anything useful out of all this? Perhaps, it's not worth it.

BUT I still wonder if this is measurable...a limit, maybe? There is a line, i think, that when its crossed, we can't turn back. The damage that was done, consequences are seemingly immediate (to our physical bodies and selves at least).

Freak accidents should be tied into this somehow, with that time is important as it is always somehow constraining when its in decision-making moments and time it takes for that choice to bring the bad outcome, how quick the results play out from when the thought first stemmed in the mind, how much was thought out and how long did it take to act on that thought...and where did that thought come from?

I don't expect you Gregory, or anyone to answer or get into all this here...though I'd love to go back and forth all night. And could.

You had an interesting take on Many Worlds, a bit relaxed for me sure but like I said when I replied to the quote I wouldn't disagree. I joke when I say this but I am jealous of that, a relaxed take. As I am the opposite in character. Intense...

Anyways, as I was relating to these people you speak of stuck in "could have" in a somewhat similar way, I think but not exactly. I just definitely get what it could be like, what it means, how to get out of the stuck pattern of thinking that's keeping us stuck. Its tough and especially considering environments, circumstances, abilities,moods,will? etc...that do play a role into thinking patterns, some times.

These decisions could be linked to lifestyle and social life. Even personality, behavior, patterns, themselves in the individual can effect each other differently. It's not so easy to pin-point, I am realizing but I think doable. I am worried if any of this would be worth it, I could be unbothered if it wasn't...

Its like we constantly have to remind ourselves and work at it with self (in privacy of mind) and I think its important to not be fully recluse. Being alone in this process is quite...melancholic. With support from another that cares about you in a place of knowing that they have your back, no judgement, mutual trust and love. That you can be that back to another, is just as important and the lesson that also needs to be learned. Its the give and take...love and be loved. Is this fairness or balance? I don't know which works better, does it make a note worthy difference? I sharpened my pencils....

I imagine this data hard to capture though as its difficult to link what effects what. As once it comes to the subjective level of each our own lives, experiences, beliefs (if any-religion), circumstances, positions, abilities, etc. it could be tough to test given how inconsistent our skills to get reliable intel, gather it, and determine weights and values. It may be tough to communicate what exactly is going on, from either end...Unless honesty is a verified step that comes after the initial aware or unaware results, that focuses or filters the A or U into new folders for focused results...

Bingo! Yes, thanks for following up to clarify. It is weird isn't it. We got it, though! Good stuff... :strong:

Anyway- the Nobel Prize in Physics for 2022 was awarded to three scientists for proving the world is not locally real. But is this like saying that noumena is not locally real? We know from experience what the classical is and isn't.. It's pretty interesting how this raises ancient questions but dresses them in modern garb (stylish). Between observer-centric theories and, say, pilot wave theory or objective collapse theory, there is John Wheeler's "participatory universe" theory, which states that the substrate of the quantum combined with the nucleus of the consciousness is what creates the world. It's an interaction between "I" and "not I". It's more of a duality becoming a whole rather than a duality of separation, and this is what guarantees we can have knowledge of the world — Gregory

Thanks for sharing some further reading! I have never heard of John Wheeler! Glad you brought him up, he's a good ole Florida boy and I am from the sunshine state myself! I will add this all to my list.....Thanks!!

You know, I have left plenty of breathing room for superposition to work in my thoughts on which theories I am leaning towards supporting with more surety. I have been swaying back and forth for the past two years, I am combining a lot of different ideas to make sense of one...I am hoping in time we will be able to eliminate many silly options, that potentially bog down the systems flow of intel more than we know....

Something about MWI, I just can't get on board with. I never liked it and it just sounds off to me so I haven't bothered entertaining it much. Perhaps, I could do a little peeking and see if anything sticks out that's new. I guess it will have to be done on my end eventually to be sure that its wrong. It doesn't seem solid enough for provable progress to be had from there though, maybe before its time?

I have no agenda so I am easily adaptable at the phase I am in, creating the framework for a bigger discussion. I am open and again, left plenty of room to comfortably account for superposition to work. I feel like we have the parts, we just have to start building the damn thing...with no template but as one.

Probably a reason I never liked MWI was because it goes against, [ I believe Wayfarer mentioned it first in Donald Hoffman thread - (with refer to Bohr/Einstein) ], the Copenhagen interpretation, MWI theories are saying that the wave function never collapses and that every possible outcomes of the quantum event exists in its own separate universe...that is just not working for me, the words alone are not adding up. Something feels off.

I currently lean towards the Von Neumann-Wigner interpretation, also known as "consciousness causes collapse," suggesting that, like I said in the first explanation about non-local and local, that consciousness of the observer plays a critical role in the collapse of the wave function. Not just focusing on the role of the observer in the causing of the wave function collapse, like the original Copenhagen interpretation. That is focused on the probabilistic side of QM and that is not my forte. THAT is evident and what is clearly shown in my Sleeping Beauty Paradox* twist, that probability nor mathematics is my strong suit...weirdly enough, though that I am still seeing connections, as I do mention in the thread from 1+ year ago, the measurable nature of the experiment and did so before learning about the actual concepts from a reputable source working in the field. Fun!!!

But yeah in Stapp's work the influence of Von Neumann's Process 1, is big too. You can read about it in the paper I linked earlier.

*Tired thinker thread OP titled, Cinderella problem* and hypericin posted OP after tiredthinker, called Sleeping Beauty Paradox. I commented because I wanted to show that a thread with this paradox was already started and also included a summary of my twist. See Pg 11/20 of hypericin's thread. I got no response in either thread. Perhaps, reasonably so. I didn't even know what I was talking about....or did i?! Kidding, i know nothing :cool:

Honestly I skipped Penrose and went straight to Stapp, his papers stuck with me, found him randomly from researching Hoffman (thanks to YOUR thread)..Okay, when you think of non-local or locality in QM, picture this: the non-local (stapp) says that the brain, no matter the distance, can affect with a choice a particle instantly and consciousness plays a part in that happening, collapsing of a wave function by observing or deciding... while local characters of QM (penrose) is local, when consciousness is, there is a direct explanation that consciousness comes directly from the QM interactions within the brain, brain cells and microtubules or something. Local doesnt involve particles being connected over long distances, non-local can with, effort and interest of the thinking mind (probing action) its tied to the idea that our minds are co-creators in the quantum world. Sorry if that was sloppy, I am a self taught philosophy enthusiast, I do CAD I know basic maths, science, I am relearning a lot myself in this journey...now its sticking that I am interested, thanks to my passion for learning philosophy. I have been reading about this stuff for a week, but I dont know much about science, biology, anatomy, math (statics I am good with) and QM until recently so take this comment loosely, if I got something wrong..I am not that far off if I am.

For some off reason, this thread is ringing a bell and I feel a connection may exist to better explain this so its easier to picture...maybe look at this attempt I shared, my first time learning what a paradox was. Lol, I am not saying I nailed this problem at all. I didn't even use probability to answer, intuition only. But I am saying, even though I can't explain it now, I am feeling a connection is there for me to make...I'll keep you posted. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/14022/cinderella-problem-anyone-understand-it

No thanks needed, its a pleasure! Though your decency is noted, so you're welcome!

I enjoy the discussions on this forum very much and although I don't always know where they are leading, there seems to be a pattern — Gregory

Me too, I love it all! I'm online reading along quite often :eyes:

So impressed and always learning something. :clap:

Anatman. Does the brain generate consciousness? Yes. Does the brain generate consciousness? No. Both — Gregory

Interesting :up: I just finished researching and reading, Henry P Stapp's work. Might be of interest, I just posted in the Perception thread about this...I saw your comment now, after the fact and was pleased with seeing your refreshing take's throughout this thread.

By titling the thread, "Donald Hoffman," not only should that attract those who KNOW of his works, ideas, and concepts which is beneficial to YOU, looking for with more intel by sharing your own, that helps you. BUT also, the discussion introduces a name to people off the top. A name to remember, a name to research and a thing to read and a chance to change someones mind. A name in the title is going to be leaving an impression on peoples minds, I think.

Applauding this threads entirety and your bold voice, Gregory, as you share thoughts with an unapologetic approach. I enjoy reading the ideas from such forward thinking minds and people, thanks for sharing. The effort of your interest and passion is always going to be a helpful aid!

Phenomenal consciousness is either reducible to or supervenient on brain activity. The only connection between distal objects and brain activity is that distal objects often play a causal role in determining brain activity. This is what the science shows. — Michael

It seems to me that these concepts are not mutually exclusive but rather complementary. Consciousness could indeed be caused by brain activity in a seemingly random and complex way where the brain's development and firings gradually give rise to conscious awareness.

From the early stages of fetal development, when the first synapses form, brain activity begins to spark the flame of consciousness. This process continues as the brain matures, with consciousness developing alongside. Perhaps, it might appear that consciousness supervenes on brain activity, emerging as the brain grows and becomes more complex, it is also reducible to these very brain process.

That makes consciousness both dependent and fully explainable by brain activity, and by the brains activity...I mean thinking thoughts...This unit I am seeing, instead of choosing between reducibility OR supervenience to explain what intel hasn't allowed us to see yet, shows how maybe its both working together instead.

*See Henry P Stapp, an American mathematical physicist, known for his work in quantum mechanics, particularly the development of axiomatic S-matrix theory, the proofs of strong nonlocality properties, and the place of free will in the "orthodox" quantum mechanics of John von Neumann.

“Mind, Matter and Quantum Mechanics” 1993: In this book, Stapp addresses the implications of quantum mechanics for the mind-body problem. He explains how quantum mechanics allows for causally effective conscious thought to be combined with the physical brain. Which aligns with what I mentioned above.

“Mindful Universe: Quantum Mechanics and the Participating Observer” 2007: This book explores how quantum mechanics can radically change our understanding of the connection between mind and brain. Stapp discusses the role of consciousness in the dynamics of quantum mechanics, which could support the view on the interplay between brain activity and consciousness.

Here is a link to one of his papers, if your interest hardens: "Quantum Interactive Dualism: An Alternative to Materialism" Note this paper was published in 2005, between the time his major works we complete its clear his ideas on the interactions between QM and consciousness were evolving and refined over time.

Quote from the abstract in the paper link above, "First, it injects random elements into the dynamics. Second, it allows, and also requires, abrupt probing actions that disrupt the mechanistically described evolution of the physically described systems. These probing actions are called Process 1 interventions by von Neumann. They are psycho-physical events. Neither the content nor the timing of these events is determined either by any known law, or by the afore-mentioned random elements. Orthodox quantum mechanics considers these events to be instigated by choices made by conscious agents. In von Neumann’s formulation of quantum theory each such intervention acts upon the state of the brain of some conscious agent. Thus orthodox von Neumann contemporary physics posits an interactive dualism similar to that of Descartes. But in this quantum version the effects of the conscious choices upon our brains are controlled, in part, by the known basic rules of quantum physics. This theoretically specified mind-brain connection allows many basic psychological and neuropsychological findings associated with the apparent physical effectiveness of our conscious volitional efforts to be explained in a causal and practically useful way."

I like your style!

Room A Thousand Years Wide (Remastered 2016) - Soundgarden

What an epic album! "Badmotorfinger" - Released on: 10/8/1991

:death: :flower:

Nice!

When I think about the colour red I am not thinking about light reflectances; I am thinking about the visual percep — Michael

If you could accurately measure neuron firings in your hand, you could also "share" that pain — Echarmion

No, I don't think it is ever accurately transferred or shared. OR worth attempting as it seems out of spite, revenge, or anger that one would want to share their pain. Make another feel what they experienced, so they KNOW. Sounds like bad news to me...

You can try to make another feel the pain suffered but its up to them to open the flow and let in that experience. Like jkop said, expressed through one person's art, work, testimony, demonstration, tone, behaviors it is, i suppose, a "shared" pain, but it is not replicated accurately. To share the pain, it would require you to KNOW for sure what it takes to inflict that same pain onto another. Pain in different forms that I assume are not experienced quite in the same way.

The initial pain that a person suffered, physical or sentimental both require different methods of "sharing" this pain. We feel the pain, we relate, we sympathize with similar pains from one another, sometimes without intention or on purpose. Sometimes people WANT to feel the pain another person has suffered from. Who am I to judge?

The openness to receiving and allowing the flow (if you will) of the pain, in order to experience this "shared" pain. That requires both parties to trust or at the very least, take the word of another.

Passing pain and passing pens, both of them could bring undesirable outcomes. Passing the wrong pen, passing the wrong pain? As how can you know the person wont react to the pain in a way that is detrimental to their well-being? Is that what we wanted? To hurt people? Real nice.... :roll:

Empathy is the ability to experience what someone else is experiencing. Since someone elses experience is not open to view, we must access it indirectly via languages, verbal, pictorial, interpretation of gestures etc — jkop

jkop, do you think I correctly connected what you shared a few days ago in my response above to Echarmion? To me it seemed, the "shared" pain comment they meant was a physical demonstration or experience. Clearly not in the same circumstances, that may have heightened or lessened the initial pain from the start.

Is this the same as pain, like a heart break? Shared pain is through empathy, indirectly being experienced on different grounds. Is the "message" of the "shared" pain communicated at all? Can the message get across, as it could be "shared" or sent, even though it was not the exact same experience? Can't we get the gist of things? Is that good enough? Obvious to me now. I was re-reading the thread from the beginning and give that credit to jkop, as you mentioned empathy theory earlier to me. Cool!

Hey thanks for letting me know, I can do better next time with less!

I just laughed aloud! :clap: :lol: I was feeling a bit earthy, please pardon my crudeness. Heading over to your thread for a better peek...

So, yes, apparently brains can generate experiences in the vacuum of space. All that is required is the appropriate neural activity, regardless of what causes and maintains it. — Michael

When one has an experience, it is an experience of something. When there is no "something", it's an hallucination. — Banno

Banno, I think I see what you are saying. :grimace: *inserts Lionino's image of the dur dur dur emoji*

When one has an experience [lets say me, when I have an experience], it is an experience of "something" [me and who/what/where/when/how?]. When there is no "something" [no me or no ground for experience building or something to get out of "it" (it being the experience?)] I hallucinate when there is nothing to experience?] What if nothing like this has happened to me before, a freak accident or chance in timing,which allowed outcomes to play out that were not expected or anticipated, and that should be able to be explained for what it is by not the one experiencing the chance happening but from someone explaining it in the future for what it was worth then...[imagine telling your grand-kids about your friend getting struck by lightening in the 90's] It can be explained using lang skills in a future time looking back on the past after its been done. Years have passed and the story is recalled again in the present time, which is ancient history by now.... If we have no expectations or visions or ideas in mind, how can use language to describe/to infer any related experience from memory or recollection of thoughts/ideas? We have to picture these ideas in motion, know how they move not just what they are...what about, what WE are?

What about day-dreaming? Why can't I speak of it?Oh yeah no one is listening. Say this subjective hallucination is explained or described or the person having the hallucinations are observed and as the words are used to talk about what happened in the "daydream" the first time, is it born into the world? Was it being nurtured in the privacy of your mind before you shared the words explaining it? Are the words said with purpose, or are they being stuttered from fear and trembling? Just the sound of the tone, or expression seen on the face, or intensity of the eyes looking towards an objective. How little do we need to express our truth in order to make a mark or lasting IMPRESSION upon others, the world, experience. Are we not making any lasting impression for the self in a separate way, internally? Is this required to reflect on our choices? How did we end up here? Did we lose sight of self and our light or path? Are we being illuminated or doing that for another? Depends.

Should I try and make any sense of this experience had like no other? How would I know it was like no other if I didnt make sense of it one way or another? I have to then ask myself and answer honestly: Are you where you should be? Does it make sense? How far have we gone and how much have we grown? Agreed upon at large, we standardize objectivity, even as it shifts with time and society. It’s a reflection perhaps, not an illusion.

Hmm... So, there's the experience (the perception, qualia), the perceived (the fruit), and whatever is involved in the interaction (including the contact lenses). Could "mental phenomena" and "seeing the colors" be deflated, so they're the same thing? Or, well, for the mental phenomena to occur in this case, we'd first have to see with our eyes, right?

Could we say that the rose and the car have the property of being red since they can elicit/cause that (format of) experience/perception to most onlookers under common circumstances?

The experience/perception isn't "in the" rose, it's part of the onlooker when occurring. And the rose isn't part of (or "in") the onlooker. What "red" are we talking about anyway? :) — jorndoe

This one :point: :flower: the flower and the onlooker are both a part of (or "in") the world, by "being-in-the-world" (see Heidegger, "What is Called Thinking" A Translation of Was Heisst Denken by Fred D. Wieck and J. Glenn Gray) our experience interacting with flowers in our environment through our bodies sensory organs and/or a shared use of language or gestures that was "taken in" during the experience or interaction. By using both our vision and basic language in a shared world with another, we are asserting and verifying, THAT flower over there is the most vibrant red in the whole garden of roses.

To the question, "Could "mental phenomena" and "seeing the colors" be deflated, so they're the same thing?" I say yes, but it's one sided and not the initial intention. I believe they can be MISTAKEN or confused into thinking they are seeing/experiencing "the thing" when really its an illusion that the body is distinguishing in the experience of the mental phenomenon to be the same thing without realizing...but that is not the person deciding they want to deflate the two or an observer hoping that one does deflate the two...sometimes one just does that and its linked to their abilities innate / conditioned to them. I think.

When someone tells you "You have it good," stop for a moment. Think about the deeper meaning behind their statement. Are they being silly, or are we the silly ones? It could be that we both are. And it's possible that personal opinions really come to life in the gray area where joking ends and seriousness begins. Jokes on little lion boy or me?

Hm, lion...nino...What is that, little lion boy? — Kizzy


You had to reduplicate the -n- there to make the joke work. But not too far anyway. — Lionino

Lionino thinks I am trying to make a joke on his accorded behalf. I was simply showing that I was sounding out and using my language skills/my knowing to determine the meaning. A meaning I can recognize or understand since I know what a "lion" is and that "nino" is spanish for boy. I didnt double up the n to make the joke...you are the joke. I was displaying via screen and typed words how I was breaking down your username to learn what I can and verify my understanding before going to you, the source and person that can share further verifying how FAR out I am...

So yeah, if you replied to me with an image of a retarded emoji to be funny I want to know who laughed? Does the laughing echo or is the silence deafening? I'm sure it amused a few...

It only caused this reaction because maybe I also can see myself in the way you might have...Does this truth hurt? Not really, because I have accepted already I am a crazy doof! BUT I am no fool. AND THAT is how I attempt to break down subjectivity, we can get to the bottom of things. If not the bottom, maybe that is important. How close we are to it and if we ought to be there...What colors do you see at rock bottom?Can you go there? What do you know about it? Where are you?

Fair play, lionino rawr!!!
Hm, lion...nino...What is that, little lion boy? Just that HE recognizes some thing? Bravo!

Lionino, takes one to know one...kinda :strong: :rofl:

Where/when did you sniff out/notice the shift, here? What page did the discussion shift? Where did those 50 pages get us you [or anyone willing to comment on this] in said thread?

Oh, no. It is the indirect realism X direct realism discussion all over again. Here we go 50 pages. — Lionino

WE?

The brain generates experience out of a flood of diverse data. — frank


Data from inside the brain?

Emergence of experience requires more than just a brain. Persistence of experience does as well. Brains are not enough. It takes more than just a brain to smell the cake in the neighbor's oven. It takes more than just a brain to remember that smell. It takes more than just a brain to hallucinate that experience. — creativesoul

What about just the/a "brain" with thinking thoughts?

Part of my initial comment says, "I am considering this: perhaps these ideas are visions in the brain, independent of the individual’s subjective experience. The subjective mind possesses ideas, but not in the same way the brain perceived/s them. Ideas are interpreted differently by the brain in its visions, and these interpretations may or may not align with how a subjective being perceives these visions as ideas in their mind or in their interactions with the environment.

What if thinking thoughts* is just the brain existing/being, rather than the subjective body/mind’s doing?

*the act of thinking-that thinking might be an emergent property of the brain’s activity, rather than an action performed by the subjective mind"

The burden would be on you to show that bodily interaction is necessary to consciousness. — frank

The brain generates experience out of a flood of diverse data. — frank

:up: :point:

@Count Timothy von Icarus :eyes:

"The signal exchange between consciousness and body, especially in terms of focus and information flow, is a critical area of study. For instance, while watching a movie, we're immersed in an experience that's both part of our external reality and our internal narrative. This duality of experience and "insperience" raises questions about the potential effects of screen exposure on our emotions. It's clear that sensation influences our emotional state, but the nature of this influence when mediated by screens is complex.

Our research assumes that any sensation created within our consciousness has an impact on our emotional state. However, the structure of sensations experienced through screens differs from those without. Screens induce a partial stimulation, leading to a "defocused" state in other sensory domains, which in turn triggers a subconscious response—an "insperience" that augments the low-dimensional sensation. Conversely, when we're exposed to complete external stimulation, such as being in nature, we receive a multitude of direct signals through our sensory organs, leading to high-dimensional sensations."

I brought this up 2 months ago in TreatId's thread, "Solipsism is a weak interpretation of the underlying observation" @Treatid

The terms "Defocus" and "Insperience" are new to me and my research. They were learned by me from the creator of this video in real time a few years back as I have made connections with them personally and developed a relationship over time because of a mutual interest in philosophy. I immediately was drawn to his work based on how interested and intrigued he was by the work he was putting in at the time into studying and modeling shapes from the works of Stan Tenen*[1], specifically "The Alphabet That Changed the World: How Genesis Preserves a Science of Consciousness in Geometry and Gesture, see here for more on that: Stan Tenen - Hebrew Alphabet - Geometry of Light .

Amongst other projects, one is involving devices with screens using A.I. technology, and Augmented Reality. I found the findings in the video below to be relevant to my work, which is involving 3D modeling and design. BUT THAT is why and where I got these terms. They were used and typed out in quotes above in the proper context but can be seen defined and explained by a German speaking person translating to English here in video on Youtube: A simplified Model for Augmented Sensation: Defocus, Experience and Insperience

*[1] - "STAN TENEN is the Director of Research for the Meru Foundation of Sharon, Mass. With a B.S. in Physics (1963) from Polytechnic Institute of New York University, Mr. Tenen has designed and produced optical and electronic equipment for doctors and surgeons, and holds several patents.

In 1968, while examining the Hebrew text of Genesis, Mr. Tenen noticed what appeared to be a pattern in the arrangement of the letters. This observation, which prompted thirty years of research into the history and tradition of the text, has led to a meaningful understanding of traditional teachings in a modern context. Mr. Tenen has presented his works to scientific and religious scholars throughout the United States and Israel." - from https://www.meru.org/info/TenenShortBio.html

Truly isolated systems don't exist in nature and the brain couldn't maintain conciousness even if it was magically sequestered in its own universe. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Magically sequestered! Ha, I like that! I picture a more vibrant experience for IT...maybe one not so alone, perhaps? What do I know?

My name is Wepeel
Got a box full of your toys
They're fresh out of batteries
But they're still making noise, making noise

the mind could be trained to use ideas or visions from past memories or brain activity patterns? — Kizzy


Our ability to remember and imagine and dream is astonishing. It's fairly easy to imagine what a red pen might look like, or a floroucent pen that glows red in the dark etc. Past memories might help, but with basic language skills one can compose infinitely many descriptions of what a red pen looks like, or might look like, in real or fictional worlds etc.

However, I don't know how to imagine what it might be like to see something invisible, or a pen that is red yet green in the same respect. It's easy to write or say, but not so easy to imagine. — jkop

It is astonishing, I do agree! I could go on and on and on and on about all the potential and power in/of/from our abilities to do many things BUT no.

The ability to recall memory, IMPRESSIONS, dreams, daydreams is yes astonishing, like you said. I think its equally impressive that ability we have (consciously or not) to block or "black-out" memories as well. I find myself throwing out this question from time to time when relevant to the discussion being had: If I am daydreaming while I am driving or lets say daydreaming during a group conference call or daydreaming during a Zoom meeting, could it be considered, multitasking?

Ha! You say, "It's easy to write or say, but not so easy to imagine" I wish it was easier for me write, say, and communicate the words that race through my mind. I cant even catch up or comprehend it for myself half the time... Forget discuss. The fire in the imagination is "communicated" to me in the privacy of my mind. The fire burns and I think getting out what I can is important. If I am wrong, it matters even less. The fire seems to be controlled though in a way. It just stops and its gone. No smoke, no ash. Like it never happened. Just me and my next move to worry about....

I want to continue with my inquiry a bit more if you don't mind,

Are impressions causes to remember? What is relevance, if any, to the speed one is recalling a memory? How much are you actively trying to "think" about a memory you may or may not recall completely...

- "I would've never guessed that?"
- "C'mon! Give me a hint, I will remember!"
- "Do I know it?"
- "Wait, what was that lovely ladies name we met at the mall?
- "Oh no, I forgot her name!
- "Hold on, its on the tip of my tongue."
- "Give me a minute..." *she stops moving and shuts eyes*
- "Let me THINK", *brain is directed and in FOCUS*
- TIME PASSES [choose your own pace]
- "ALICE! It was ALICE!"
- "Damn, I'm good"

Do we use our "words" and basic language OR our "thoughts" and basic language skills to communicate the message to self. How can talking to our self out loud differ from talking to ourselves privately in the our mind? Is the last "Let me THINK" above, the/a trigger that the body needs to feel to start focusing intentionally? Its almost like we are hyping the body up to find the will [1]* to focus for one moment. Or forever? How long it matters for you only, then...


I wonder if we are actually navigating while recalling a memory (that we are SURE we know and will remember)[2]* Also, how fixed are the memories and how strong/how deep are/can the impressions be or vise versa - how weak and how shallow controlling the search for memories. If recalling something learned is it relevant to consider when the knowledge WAS shared (entered the brain via communicated in some form)[3]* and if that has anything to do with how information is retained completely...hearing? perceptions? interests? location? circumstance? complexity of understanding? Is time constraining at all this process of recollection?

Lastly, Is it reasonable to forget after certain amount of time or strain? What about just plain ole bad memory - short or long term, it doesn't matter at the moment. I also tend to mention the term "Forgetfulness". Forgetfulness VS Memory. Is memory a skill? Is forgetting a skill? What was the cause to forget? Is that natural to try and actively forget something?[4]*

I appreciate the thoughtful responses, guidance and patience you expressed in replying even if you didn't mean to be or do that...It's worth saying even if I am wrong. I am glad you were encouraging and welcoming for further discussion on some ideas a bit deeper. It's important I think because for me I can understand how it can be intimidating to contribute in a thread you may not be an expert in or fully up to speed. Its okay to slow it down and set the pace for yourself although I don't blame people for hesitating to contribute...BUT to those people I'd only say this: Doubt your self but not for too long!
Thanks

• [1]*- (if it exists or not- we CAN learn that intel at this state)
• [2]* - [expectation set now- fail or success- personal hurdle?]
• [3]* - (if it is I don't think we as subjective individuals can feel happening--does this count as experiencing it--if this is happening in our brain activity without out bodies feeling the firing of neurons while recalling a memory)
• [4]* - I'm not sure but i think it works with and in time? Did it just happen? Did the person just keep going on with their circumstances of life? I guess it is true that with some time, people and thoughts move on at a pace that may or may not be foreseeable or adjusted? Can we get a better time? eg. like running a 50 yard dash with a faster speed then before

what if the concept of a “red pen” exists within the realm of every subjective mind’s ideas? — Kizzy


Is a red pen not enough? — jkop

Hi jkop, It seemed to me at first that Banno's reply to mp202020 was worth a deeper dive. I am now finding myself struggling to explain where I was going with my shared contributions. When you put it so simply it's clear I was mistakenly considering how the red is noticed perceptually in the brain when its not actually being seen in person. The red pen must be enough in order to do that! Duh....a swing and a miss for me.

I recall you saying when the color is unseen, the question whether it exists isn't referring to the color perceptions but its considering the conditions in the environment it as a color can emerge from/in/with. Does that mean the brain cant allow colors to emerge from it because no light is there? What if the conditions of the mind could be trained to use ideas or visions from past memories or brain activity patterns? Maybe i'm missing a fundamental understanding and my loosely thrown ideas aren't even realistically possible. Thank you. I think... :smirk:

EDIT:

First, the experience cannot solely be an experience of redness unless it is the seeing of something red, say a patch of red paint. Or else it would be an hallucination. — jkop

I got ya now and see where I went off the rails.

EDIT 2: 119AM 7/30/24

What if we watch the brain activity looking at a painting of a red pen? The painting itself is not a real pen, but it still conveys the idea of “redness” and “pen” to anyone who views it.

Does the color “red” exist outside of the subjective mind that conceptually designates the concept of “red?” — Mp202020



If "red" is just in your mind, when you ask for a red pen, how is it that the person you are asking hands you what you want? — Banno

Exactly Banno! BUT what if the concept of a “red pen” exists within the realm of every subjective mind’s ideas?

I am considering this: perhaps these ideas are visions in the brain, independent of the individual’s subjective experience. The subjective mind possesses ideas, but not in the same way the brain perceived/s them. Ideas are interpreted differently by the brain in its visions, and these interpretations may or may not align with how a subjective being perceives these visions as ideas in their mind or in their interactions with the environment.

What if thinking thoughts* is just the brain existing/being, rather than the subjective body/mind’s doing?

Imagine if two sets of ideas are formed from two different visions - one grounded in reality and first-hand experience in daily life, and the other in the brain’s second-hand experience, experienced for the first time in this life. What if the brain had a first-hand experience before the subject had to live through it? Could it be that the brain was here first and is controlling our intentions?

*the act of thinking-that thinking might be an emergent property of the brain’s activity, rather than an action performed by the subjective mind

Yes! Agreed.

Great post, Count Timothy von Icarus.

This may be bias on my part, but I've had the chance to talk live with quite a few of these people, and every single one has come across as an idiot who just wanted to justify doing whatever they wanted to do. My apologies if I'm a bit harsh, but this idea has always just struck me as being terrible and attracts the worst thinkers to it like bear turds attract flies. — Philosophim

Consider the possibility that biases are not always detrimental to rational decision-making. An individual may be fully aware of their biases and still make sound choices. Learning and growth often stem from recognizing that there might always be a better decision available. Bias becomes significant when we wish to find common ground with others, to influence or be influenced, which ironically negates its purpose.

What if one's self-awareness of bias is coupled with the ability to deceive? If a person can convincingly mask their intentions, does that not call into question the alignment of bias and action? This raises a crucial point I think worthy of deeper discussions: the interactions between bias, intention, and morality.

The Essay's by Michel de Montaigne influenced me and this discussion prompted my thoughts here to ponder the ultimate goal of our pursuits:

Do we chase a universal truth, a single narrative to which all must conform? Or do we celebrate differences of human experience, accepting that our biases, when acknowledged and examined, can lead to a richer, more inclusive understanding of the world?

Montaigne echoes this sentiment through Anaximenes' rhetorical question to Pythagoras, highlighting the usefulness of seeking knowledge when greater threats loom over us. A reflection on the purpose and direction of our intellectual endeavors ought to be explored further...questioned even? Do we trust ourselves and our judgement?

Notes and relevant quotes I took while reading "The Essay's" by Michel de Montaigne:

"Si quid Socrates ant Aristippus contra morem et consuetudinem
fecerunt, idem sibi ne arbitretur licere: magnis enim illi et
divinis bonis hanc licentiam assequebantur."
["If Socrates and Aristippus have committed any act against manners and custom, let him not think that he is allowed to do the same; for it was by great and divine benefits that they obtained this privilege."—Cicero, De Offic., i. 41.]
Let him be instructed not to engage in discourse or dispute but with a champion worthy of him, and, even there, not to make use of all the little subtleties that may seem pat for his purpose, but only such arguments as may best serve him.
-https://toleratedindividuality.files.wordpress.com/2015/11/montaigne_essays.pdf 181-951 (chapter xxv-of the education of children)

Emulation and contempt ???

The pride and arrogance of so many foreign pomps, the inflated majesty of so many courts and grandeurs, accustom and fortify our sight without closing our eyes to behold the lustre of our own; so many trillions of men, buried before us, encourage us not to fear to go seek such good company in the other world: and so of the rest Pythagoras was want to say,—[Cicero, Tusc. Quaes., v. 3.]—that our life resembles the great and populous assembly of the Olympic games, wherein some exercise the body, that they may carry away the glory of the prize: others bring merchandise to sell for profit: there are also some (and those none of the worst sort) who pursue no other advantage than only to look on, and consider how and why everything is done, and to be spectators of the lives of other men, thereby the better to judge of and regulate their own.To examples may fitly be applied all the profitable discourses of philosophy, to which all human actions, as to their best rule, ought to be especially directed: a scholar shall be taught to know—
"Quid fas optare: quid asper
Utile nummus habet: patrix carisque propinquis
Quantum elargiri deceat: quern te Deus esse
Jussit, et humana qua parte locatus es in re;
Quid sumus, et quidnam victuri gignimur."
["Learn what it is right to wish; what is the true use of coined
money; how much it becomes us to give in liberality to our country
and our dear relations; whom and what the Deity commanded thee to
be; and in what part of the human system thou art placed; what we
are ant to what purpose engendered."—Persius, iii. 69]
what it is to know, and what to be ignorant; what ought to be the end and design of study; what
valour, temperance, and justice are; the difference betwixt ambition and avarice, servitude and
subjection, licence and liberty; by what token a man may know true and solid contentment; how far
death, affliction, and disgrace are to be apprehended; "Et quo quemque modo fugiatque feratque laborem." ["And how you may shun or sustain every hardship." —Virgil, AEneid, iii. 459.] by what secret springs we move, and the reason of our various agitations and irresolutions: for, methinks the first doctrine with which one should season his understanding, ought to be that which regulates his manners and his sense; that teaches him to know himself, and how both well to dig and well to live.
Amongst the liberal sciences, let us begin with that which makes us free; not that they do
not all serve in some measure to the instruction and use of life, as all other things in some sort also
do; but let us make choice of that which directly and professedly serves to that end. If we are once
able to restrain the offices of human life within their just and natural limits, we shall find that most of
the sciences in use are of no great use to us, and even in those that are, that there are many very
unnecessary cavities and dilatations which we had better let alone, and, following Socrates' direction,
limit the course of our studies to those things only where is a true and real utility:
"Sapere aude;
Incipe; Qui recte vivendi prorogat horam,
Rusticus exspectat, dum defluat amnis; at ille
Labitur, et labetur in omne volubilis oevum."
["Dare to be wise; begin! he who defers the hour of living well is
like the clown, waiting till the river shall have flowed out: but
the river still flows, and will run on, with constant course, to
ages without end."—Horace, Ep., i. 2.]

'Tis a great foolery to teach our children:
"Quid moveant Pisces, animosaque signa Leonis,
Lotus et Hesperia quid Capricornus aqua,"
["What influence Pisces have, or the sign of angry Leo, or Capricorn, washed by the Hesperian wave."—Propertius, iv. I, 89.] the knowledge of the stars and the motion of the eighth sphere before their own:
["What care I about the Pleiades or the stars of Taurus?"
—Anacreon, Ode, xvii. 10.]
Anaximenes writing to Pythagoras, "To what purpose," said he, "should I trouble myself in searching out the secrets of the stars, having death or slavery continually before my eyes?" for the kings of Persia were at that time preparing to invade his country. Every one ought to say thus, "Being assaulted, as I am by ambition, avarice, temerity, superstition, and having within so many other enemies of life, shall I go ponder over the world's changes?"

"Sic abiit a vita, ut causam moriendi nactum se esse gauderet."
["He quitted life rejoicing that a reason for dying had arisen."
—Cicero, Tusc. Quaes., i. 30.]

Is bias inherently detrimental, clouding our judgement and leading us astray from objectivity? Or is it a necessary filter, a lens through which we navigate all the accesses we have to endless information? Bias can indeed distort reality, leading to misconceptions and prejudice. Yet, it also allows us to embrace our individuality and cultural diversity, fostering a pluralistic society where multiple truths coexist.

The key lies in awareness and balance.

My issue with this is that there is absolutely no requirement to postulate objective goodness to explain these things, and to my mind the ontology of "objective goodness" doesnt even make sense. — Apustimelogist


An objective goodness is a definition of goodness that can be rationally used by everyone despite our own personal subjective viewpoints. Its the difference between, "Rain is heavy cloud precipitation that falls to the ground," versus, "Rain is a feeling of rainness." — Philosophim

:up:

I think the difference between morality and the scientific case is that presumably there is some kind of hidden cause out in the world separate from us which we are trying to make sense of and which bears out empirical data that we can use to evaluate our scientific models. But in the moral case the only data we have is our own opinions based on how people want the world to work. So there isn't really a sense in which there is some separate hidden object which we are right or wrong about. We are the analogous hidden object whose properties are contingent on what opinions we happen to have. Its then not clear to me that someone disagreeing objectively means one person is right and the other wrong. — Apustimelogist

Interaction is not a necessary condition for treating someone as an end. If I give a donation to a charity that works to help people in Gaza or Ukraine, I am treating those people as ends, but it can't be said that I interact with them: I don't even know who they are. — Herg

Nice....

Whatever Kant meant by what he wrote, the emboldened rendering above is what I was aiming for (except that I think all beings capable of pain and/or pleasure should be treated as ends, not just humans: "The question is not, Can they reason nor Can they talk, but, Can they suffer?" ). — Herg

I might still just watch the 20 get hit. Depends how they beg I guess....thats so disturbing that I went there but am I surprised? Cant say I am. Am I enjoying myself? Not pleased to admit my truth but willing to accept the reality of it. — Kizzy

thats what i was saying...kinda. Suffering part, particularly... (minus what was mentioned in your parenthesis-my opinion differs [good thing that is a non-factor) BUT nonetheless, progress is made.

I'm starting to see your point and/or others with similar stances and points (all whom agree, with their own takes though -- alike) from a different ground...or in a new light, whatever works for YOU...I am seeing now, as I wasnt before, why treating people like ends are understood or believed to be acceptable or moral in this case.... Its the interaction and relationship connections...they are clearly different as far as the connection between the two, or what comes from the connections, what emotions are expressed based on this connections...the strength of interactions is tested and more prominently measured, but those values are weighed differently because it is closed off to a stronger connection.

It is clear who is initiating and maintaining interactions more heavily than the other...so we have two different feelings about the interactions, but with no connection it can stay one-sided... While the strength of relationships are literally a balancing act between subjects not just as interactions or ends but as a person/people too. Bad relationships, bad judgements, bad rats of course make things interesting....but its measurable in behavior, observed and verified...love? I guess the stronger the connection the stronger a relationship stands, sustains, and if lucky thrives through any test of time... good stuff!!! The interaction is where the ground is laid, can we see each other or not? Doesnt matter, you will see some thing and some thing will see you.

Always good work from Bob, I have been able to grasp my own thoughts a bit better through your exchange with Herg in here. Thanks for all the work and intel you share consistently, it is appreciated. Many others to be thanked in this from me as well, good stuff all around. Cool.

Wow, what a post! When a magician is revealing the tricks, who is left to be entertained? Who is so easily amused and still coming to see the show?

If we say that everybody has his/her exclusive feeling of being “I”, what we are talking about this way is not anymore the true authentic experience of subjectivity, because, by adopting this way of describing it, what we are considering is what is common to everybody. What is common to everybody is something objective, even when we consider “what is exclusive of everybody”: this is an objectivistic language, that moves our attention away from the exclusivity of my or your personal feeling of now. This means that the only way I have to make an idea of the feeling “I” of other people is by objectifying it, that is entering in a context of ideas that completely betrays the fact that what we are talking about is subjectivity, not objectivity. As a consequence, the only correct, authentic way of thinking about subjectivity is when I try to pay attention to my feeling “I” the moment I am thinking about it. As I said, if I think of my feeling “I” that happened yesterday, that one is an objectified, petrified concept, it is not the real concept of subjectivity that should coincide with the experience felt now by me. The same applies if we say that we are talking about “the feeling “I” here and now”: this expression is just another objectification of the concept because, when we think of it, we think of an abstract idea, similar to the concept of “my feeling I of yesterday”: these expressions do not guarantee that we are paying attention to our present feeling “I” the moment we are thinking about them — Angelo Cannata

Yes!! Glad you continued on here with this important addition...consideration to these details ought to be had even further....I am walking on imaginary eggshells here.

I read Martin Buber's "I and Thou" and shared that intel in the "currently reading" discussion nearly 10 months ago. I find it may suit the liking of maybe perhaps at least one whom is also interested in this discussions contents. In the book, Buber uses the two words, I-it and I-thou, I-It treats the other as an object to be used for one's own purposes. It lacks empathy and reduces the other to a mere thing or instrument. I-Thou is characterized by mutual respect, empathy, and dialogue. It recognizes the unique worth and dignity of the other, fostering genuine connection and shared humanity. Buber writes in Part One, "As experience, the world belongs to the primary word I-it. The primary word I-thou establishes the world of relation." [M.Buber 1923, I and Thou, translated by R.G.S, Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 38 George St, 1937] Link to download ebook here: https://www.maximusveritas.com/?page_id=781

People mistake interactions and relationships for one in the same type of connection or connection piece....

In this situation, wanting to objectify subjectivity, to be able to study it, is like wanting to put a kiss or a hug in a slide to be able to observe it with a microscope — Angelo Cannata

I find this intriguing. I once envisioned a similar scenario: a new couple, where one partner prematurely declares their love. This declaration alters the dynamics of the foundational base that was building the relationship between the two individuals. The more time left for contemplation, I believe, may start to shift the perceptions of the other partner.

Once the foundation has shifted and time has passed, the mind may race, with or without our control, potentially testing the relationship. The test comes when the conversation occurs, where each individual is given the opportunity to express their feelings and reactions to the statement that caused this shift in perspective. The way we express these feelings also contributes to these foundational conditions, either reinforcing or challenging our pre-existing notions.

These feelings update the subject with existing ideas, opinions, and experiences (biases) that brought them to this moment. When we listen to understand the thoughts or opinions of the other, we uncover new reactions and observed qualities. Each individual discovers something in the other that changes how they view each other, for better or worse.

Values, worth, and weight are assigned without specific energy inputs/outputs known. These are massless but carry weight and value on a scale embedded within the individual before conscious awareness. The scale is not measuring weight; it's showing how its weight moves the body. The mass of the body doesn't reveal anything; gravity is a non-factor. The mass of the body and the weight or value we place on objects, things, or words are maintained in the mind. Understanding ourselves aids in understanding all.

Weight and pressure are felt and placed upon us, but they have no mass. Friction, heat, work, energy in mind? Do ideas here in mind hold heat, power, energy, motion, time, or space? I am not sure. My immediate thought is: No, we, the people with the ideas, do!

We assign and misplace values that are subjectively distinct for a reason: to learn our lesson. This subjective nature has nothing to do with the objectivity of the external world or reality as it exists without mind. Uniqueness, randomness, and chaos together happening and creating ideas along the track we know as time. The worth and values, knowingly and unknowingly placed and misplaced, may guide us to a better place to learn from, yet we still know nothing about the "nature" of the Universe from this. How natural is the Universe, really? Earth is home to freaks of nature, but how natural is that, truly?

MUST BE THE MAGIC!! :halo:

Quotes from Buber's "I and Thou":

"Feelings are "entertained" : but love comes to pass. Feelings dwell in man; but man dwells in his love. That is no metaphor, but the actual truth. Love does not cling to the I in such a way as to have the Thou only for its "content," its object; but love is between I and Thou"

"Take knowledge: being is disclosed to the man who is engaged in knowing, as he looks at what is over against him. He will, indeed, have to grasp as an object that which he has seen with the force of presence, he will have to compare it with objects, establish it in its order among classes of objects, describe, and analyse it objectively. Only as IT can it enter the structure of knowledge. But when he saw it, it was not thing among things, no event among events, but exclusively present. Being did not share itself with him in terms of the law that was afterwards elicited from the appearance, but in terms of its very self."

"The primary word I-thou can be spoken only with the whole thing. Concentration and fusion into the whole being can never take the place through my agency, nor can it even take place without me. I become through my relation to the Thou; as I become I, I say Thou. All real living is meeting"

"I can neither experience nor describe the form which meets me, but only body it forth. And yet I behold it, splendid in the radiance of what confronts me, clearer than all the clearness of the world which is experienced. I do not behold it as a thing among the "inner" things nor as an image of my "fancy," but as that which exists in the present. If test is made of its objectivity the form is certainly not "there." Yet what is actually so much present as it is? And the relation in which I stand to it is real, for it affects me, as I affect it."

"Creation reveals, in meeting, its essential nature as form. It does not spill itself into expectant senses, but rises up to meet the grasping senses. That which will eventually play as an accustomed object around the man who is fully developed, must be wooed and won by the developing man in strenuous action. For no thing is a ready-made part of an experience; only in the strength, acting and being acted upon, of what is over against men, is anything made accessible. Like primitive man the child lives between sleep and sleep (a great part of his waking hour is also sleep) in the flash and counter-flash of meeting"

"And just as prayer is not in time but time in prayer, sacrifice not in space but space in sacrifice, and to reverse the relation is to abolish the reality, so with the man to whom I say Thou. I do not meet with him at some time and place or other. I can set him in a particular time and place; I must continually do it: but I set only a he or she, that is an it, no longer my thou.
So long as the heaven of Thou is spread out over me the winds of causality cower at my heels, and the whirlpool of fate stays its course.
I do not experience the man to whom I say Thou. But I take my stand in relation to him, in the sanctity of the primary word. Only when i step out of it do i experience him once more. In the act of experience Thou is far away.
Even if the man to whom I say Thou is not aware of it in the midst of his experience, yet relation may exist. For Thou is more than It realizes. No deception penetrates here; here is the cradle of the Real Life."

As such, I recognise what you are saying as genuine reflections of what you think and believe.

However, I'm not going to do statistical analyses on your stream of consciousness. Partly because no-one has time to do that but mainly because the process of creating structure on the page out of structure in the mind is an essential component of dialogue.

The effort to represent our internal shapes in an external format is part of learning and growing.

Even if no-one reads what we write, we learn from the process of structuring our writing. By examining and considering our thoughts as we express them we can change our ideas even before we engage with other people.

Stream of consciousness can be a useful insight into our own thoughts but as a form of communication with other people it lacks an essential element of self-reflection. — Treatid

Treatid, I wouldnt task my worst enemy with such a job of analyzing my BS...maybe because its a bit revealing but it is indeed a hot flaming mess burrowed yet not letting the void keep anyone stuck. I am fired up in this void, even alone...I light up with any glimpse of acknowledgment, so thanks for that at least.

I dont have to thank you, I know and its not that you have done anything at this point that wasnt anticipated-- its common decency, to me. [who is it I could be thanking and who is it that takes this for only that?]

The progression is slowly but surely still unfolding for me in real time. I simply felt moved by the thread and wanted to share something I thought (in that moment) was connected to previous thoughts I have had years prior when I was first introduced to the video. It is clear that I didnt add anything specific regarding my goals, intentions, or motive regarding your post. I hope sharing my self help streams in this manner isnt too distracting and I applaud the way you were able to expand on more points using the interpretation you got from me...that tells me you are particular maybe detail oriented, patient, and busy... It also tells me you are passionate about your work here and time is critical to get certain things accomplished. Only we can know how to spread ourselves and what that means for positive forward motion certain alignments are required in the body, mind, and the will; that is attached itself somehow now to the goal...if there is a will, there is a way! Basic and ringing true to me still.

ANYWAYS, what YOU happen to see is actually a true (and awfully accurate) understanding and by that ability you harness valuable conversation or exchange. Reciprocity. Thank you for sharing, thinking, communicating, learning, and teaching...The clarity is so important, especially for a delinquent fire rat like myself rattling around the pipes after deep burrowing phase. I appreciate the time you have put in and spent here...and not to mention what it took to get to this point, that work deserves a round as well. Bravo!

P.s. I am not forcing anything by sharing my notes or personal reflections, I do not expect nor intend to add to the work load of others in my attempts at sharing such common yet complex words of expression...I expect people to just get or assume they already know what I do and thats just incredible silly and wrong of me. "not everyone thinks the way you do, kizzy" "you have an answer for everything, kizzy" said in sarcasm to me from my own father. Yet here I go doing that again. I will work on it, I am reminded about the lack luster in such attempts from the readers perspective. I am learning, and will make up time with quality and passionate interest in learning how people learn.

I am happy that you acknowledge (very least besides straight ignoring) what I have been true in, in my efforts to understand myself, others, and even some times ability to notice/recognize patterns that I feel intuitively might be a piece to a puzzle of nothing I know of in the moment...I dont know what I am trying to say yet, but this process I am in obviously needs organized and focused clarity to communicate these ideas into a coherent "thing". But thats the thing....i have no goal on the forum, agenda, I dont know what thing I am even getting at but i just feel like I eventually may. I also am passionate on this path and am driven through a spark of interest....I like like-mindedness and crave deeper understanding in knowledge--human nature at large is under the scope.

This is just one part, of a connected whole. This part can be designed though to not be "the part serving a function or purpose by just playing a role" what if the part is designed to be a whole in itself and what if that part is designed to not just work in a position of a whole, but designed to work in many different wholes as a part. Im thinking like interchanging parts of wholes... Similar yet so familiar that its doable, its good enough, it functions. The consumption, the hand is just that and it needs > wants more guidance and direction, i feel.

I am aware of the loss that comes from my style when it comes to reaching people and communicating properly. But this is a forum and even though proper communication should be had face to face, via zoom call or phone call is even quicker than back and forth commenting here. A lot of over explaining and talking over/straight disregard. Thats not a conversation I would be participating in real life, I would walk away from such a heartless fool. I do not need anything from this place that I cant get in real life...I just sought those who have similar interests as I...philosophical discussion. I am self taught and dont know a lot of the terms in this ever growing tree of branches and branches...the fruits of the labor are becoming evasive to the trees nature...the growth stops and loops back into the same ideas. Forward thinking and limitless design is what I am interested by.

The conversations here seem to pick up and take off with no immediate back and forth at times, I am fine with that...actually kind of prefer it. But a real person to person communication in daily life is no easier and confusion still occurs. I dont get that....unless confusion occurs simple from not caring in the moment whats about to come and expecting different outcomes...self-awareness degree is/are/shall be revealed at.

It seems like just communicating in general is what people want to do, those who just talk to talk, they like the sound of their own voice. Some just need someone to talk to, thats lame but fine...Perhaps, it is true that I just dont care to do that right now...I have people who are more than willing to analyze my BS... I am surrounded by that I can practice with. But I dont need to practice communicating, I need to decide what the hell I want to do. I am burrowed and expressing outwardly here from there for a reason... its clearly possible from your last reply to me alone that people pick and chose what to read and what to ignore. Fair, I do too. That is telling though in itself. What and where we find ourselves over and over again. Back for a reason...back to the drawing board it is! (exciting, but where is square one from here?)

Time is not consuming just constraining and while I agree with that when you said it--but whatever that excuse may be, even though its valid to use time as an excuse, [as it constrains our and limits what is possible to get done in a 24 hr day]...there is always tomorrow, I keep telling myself the professional procrastinator!

Over all, I still think what I was doing can be seen even if not fully reading into every word (ugh the agony that must be for other readers here, wah wahhhh :cry: well, boo hoo! cry all you want, baby...victim mindsets are triggering for me, i digress [barely])

TO BE ABLE TO call out what I am doing, as you have made it apparent that it is doable...is not hard but I think whats more interesting then the fact I got a response, is the fact you have no opinion on my answer to the question (didnt read it, fine but why comment if you read into it enough to come up with a reply telling me what i am and what is going on. I appreciate the guidance you offered, but feel as if I you see what I am and doing almost like one can see a roomba stuck behind or caught behind a door still giving it the best efforts it can to do what its suppose to...clean. I am not cleaning if I am being messy, so i can now see the relation you may have seen and I am laughing while typing this.

Did you think I wanted to be analyzed instead of just responded to? Thats wildly embarrassing for me...I hate that people may think that...but what will i do about it? I at least have something to be organized in the first place, a lot of folks are ... lacking in areas I most certainly can make up for, if allowed that grace in attempting to make the best version shine. I cant shine without this elbow grease....(my hand and back and eyes are strained but the will is strong and mighty, thats a sacrifice I am willing to offer.

If a statistical analysis is what must happen for you or anyone to see, hear, understand, follow me...I better find a trust worthy person to do that and will when the time is right. I dont know how much of that is true nor do I care right now. When i gave my reflection the second time, i was answering a question you asked in another comment in the privacy of my mind and that is what was shown publicly, right in your face and others...a different way of looking at the question, really going there in my mind and typing what comes up as it does. I am reading my reflections over and over again all the time and seeing things I didnt notice when I first typed them...its fantastic and interesting to me. Why? I dont know.

It is what it is...

I will take the attention you have brought to me and use it as a reminder to self-- to ask this question before posting a contribution next time: do I really want to go full kizzy mode on these people? I think when I answer "no" that is because I want to actually communicate with others. I think when I answer "yes" I have something I want to get out of my mind and into reality and dont need to communicate because I am just now articulating it and communicating with myself. The words may be fresh to you, that only means its just as fresh to me...I post my reflections in the comments on topics that I find relevant to my life, current intel and knowledge gathered thus far and implement that to the new ideas presented to me via forum..its all just to see if its possible for me to ground or base my stance upon anything here. I would understand if I overly shared on every post, forcing my personal pages upon faces that asked nothing of me... If I had thousands of comments and unwarranted engagement I could see how that becomes annoying. But i specifically comment and engage upon things for an unknown,yet important enough reason TO ME...i risk sacrificing myself and work and time and character just to make something clearer for myself...that is all I can do right now..the fact that others find these topics important is just fuel..

By only letting me know or others that you can see (not blind) what is going on at the surface of what you read off the screen IS GOOD and progress for me personally...So while I am pleased to get a reply at all, I understand why I dont get them often. I'm fine with that and accept the results i have sown. I have more choices to make now, like I needed another...

I am bothered when I am but free from a will to worry for long. Trust. My changing thoughts surrounding these deeper though provoking, philosophical topics and terms (which I have been not exposed to in my day to day life, I dont have people around me who want to get into things to the depths that I enjoy being aware of and in...I work with old school type engineers who tell me to drop out of school (lol) and I run with the party people, amongst dear family and friends I hold close to heart...but where I come from, people avoid philosophical conversation, i cant ask the questions I want without being a bother it feels like sometimes....In the deep end I float and sink to depths of darkness and uncertainty and while fear is present it feels bearable. Is that why would I stay down there for this long? Even when all the fun is seemingly being had up at the surface???? Well I do surface but thats because I need a breather! Yes, that can be my excuse to also chose to have some fun while breathing.... A chance to see the good from the bad and navigate freely, how can I be anything but grateful?

To wrap it up (didnt think I would go this far replying to you pointing out nothing except the obvious but kindly replying--decent of you) sometimes I just feel moved to share something I see might have an inkling of relevance, and yes like you said the important part in that is what people can learn from doing things this way. I have learned many things from doing this alone in this one place, the philosophy forum. What a time and place!

Enough space taking in this thread for me, excuse me while you scroll on past. I am sorry that I am not sorry for that delay I may have caused...time is of the essence!

But time will mind me because I have paid mind to it... pay it mind, or dont!

Thanks!

If you were to experience something without any precedent you wouldn't be able to convey your experience.

"It was like nothing you have ever seen before." — Treatid

right, its who is holding the value and using the understanding. self is capable of given the current experience of direct reality (external world-the illusion is too clear (if it is an illusion, i think illusions are to be unclear or blurry at best...unreliable [like what you said above, "nothing like ive experienced before"], until one can focus...provoking the brain, thinking a thought is forced upon brain by us... (goal, "why is the illusion scary at first experience and how does awareness of illusion make them any less real or less scary? "why did that illusion stand out, what made it/is intriguing or interesting in perceiving it?"] Maybe because its unfamiliar territory and the brain cant be stopped...the body wants to stop once it realizes it has to break from usual mindless actions and become real...put to the test. revalue, replaying, remembering, recreating...reusing, refuting, realizing...it isnt what it seems, but on purpose..these illlusions arent just in reality as illusions, but when we see something full circle we call our past beliefs illusions but they cant be that if we are calling them that, awareness of an illusion..distinct difference in grasping what was "normal" or real, is altered..not easily adapted, goes back to old way of seeing, illusion was temporary or self induced (drugs, alcohol, lacking sleep, etc) we can blame or point to answers of how, why we saw an "illusion" based on definitions on paper, and plans can be put in place also from paper but when its show time... how is it not avoidable [tricking the brain] from there or prevented [with others, medical assistance or therapy or under doctor supervision or observation, being monitored makes us feel safe here maybe?

What if i wanted "illusions" to distract me and purposefully induced illusions to lose track of what was known of reality...the distance from that place(reality as we know it) to the new place (illusion induced reality as I know it, but i chose to do this...so my beliefs and percepts are off to begin with...delusional idea....But what if you had no choice and experienced NDE from a freak accident that occurred in day to day life (car accident or whatever), thats shocking the body and brain to the core, resetting everything we thought we knew, reality check, aims to not take life for granted or excited to die (because the NDE was to good to resist for long)...It becomes delusional believing the illusion when aware of what is the illusion, the choice -- the fact its a choice, (im not judging, i kind of dig it actually) one might be willing to live by/with/in shows that reconsidering all we know come from quick moments, seemingly that flash before our eyes...

so,the fact that the time may exist for that choice to be made and of the choices some people opt for death via suicide or self destruction...the choice to no longer experience reality as you once did (when physically, change happens because time, growth or aging is inevitable, but maybe the change didnt occur (or change was not clocked or measured because the distance is out of reach) in mindset at a pace that ought to balance self out. Claiming to have had a knowing from a young age (too young if you ask me) that they cant handle the burden of life, chose to follow through with removing the self from its unfair ways (too bad this is not true (bad judgement), because what if fairness can exist but they didnt get to see it through, time was taken and put else where (how much force, direction?)....that type of knowing, I have to admit is an act of strength in itself (that see's self as weak, contradicts the reason for act of suicide considered by me to be an *excuse to act), BUT with courage, and confidence (seemingly) though arguably selfish depending on who you ask... (consequences of others and how they'll deal with their life after death are not the worry of the person who committed suicide and is dead, but becomes of anothers (even though it (they) might have always been a worry for them anyways) UNLESS they (who becomes dead by suicide) was a true believer of solipsism and while in the state/phase that is solips. some authority is using the space in mind, and family/friends who mourn the loss may not be considered worthy enough for after thought at this time, consequences dont matter here (this state or phase)....no family no friends no neighbors, is no one in their picture? solipsism works out for them then and makes this easy i guess and is that alone what justifies and makes them feel better about their choice? I dont know about that... but those are tricks the mind can play as well...tricking self to believing something not actually happening the way others may see,ex. "i dread going to work tomorrow but im going in with a positive mindset otherwise it might be worse than expected in the first place, trick the brain into thinking we are excited for work and will make the best of the day there"

Someone will find the body (or maybe no one is looking) and brain (whats left)... what is left of your mind from the brain which has shut down officially...you are now not even your mind, you are a dead body with nothing to be remembered by except belongings which can then be used to paint a picture or tell a story (true to your life or retold).

Mind when it is shut down is now just a limp impression riddled brain, just of another human body judged for what its NOW worth when uncovered and defined and identified, its not up to us now to determine that...what it was worth at the end of the life...memory is preserved and can be maybe unchanged given the constraints that cause change?

What do i know anyways???

What can i remember forever, but still need to be reminded with every breath and forgotten by the next step...on repeat. What if forgetting is the goal, what is having a "good" memory going to do for me besides remind..what if the memory was placed at a certain distance on purpose? [235 am END]