Quetzalcoatl:
This is food for thought.
[b]Not if the info, in the fullness of the internal mental sphere of God, is isomorphic (an identical twin or clone). My theory of the mind of Christ as he died on the cross (Weird Christianity #4) is isomorphic to the flawed mind of every human being in the course of human existence (past, present, and future). Thus, hypothetically, your incorrect understanding of delivered info (as it were) would be primarily (in the first place) occurring in the mind of the crucified Christ before your hypothetical experience of “misunderstanding” in the future.
Absent this, if Berkeley (and I) are right and we do exist in the mind of God and receive our information from him, then it is necessary to understand the nature of info in terms of its existence, and whether or not that existence is eternal or magically finite (does the info exist forever in some form, is it reduced to some ultimate fundamental “bytes” or psychic particles, or does it magically pop into and out of existence?)
Even if there is different info evolving every time a new experience is born, unless this info magically pops into existence from a previous nonexistence, it is born from something that pre-existed, and one must take into account the nature of its content. If it is related to the info that manifest as someone’s (ours or God’s) experience beforehand, then it is safe to say that the new info, despite its difference, is a child of the previous info. [/b]
[b]In an ‘absolute’ sense, this would mean that the totality of reality (as we are imagining it here, regardless of what it is truly like despite what we imagine or believe it to be) is split then, between God and man (truth and falsity), and these exist in separate worlds separate and distinct (one could say that the first distills into the other, but the quality of the other is such that it is always distorted and never truly reflects the information of the first as the first knows or maintains the information).
This could be an eternal situation, or it could be a temporary situation in which the second (the world of Man) evolves or transforms through some natural mechanism into the First, such that falsity evolves eventually into Truth. Indeed, this is what I maintain. But I hold that Man and God, Falsity and Truth, do not exist in separate mental Realms, but that the constition of God that does not and cannot contain false information is merely one aspect of the Total God, that is, the conscious aspect of that fundamental person. The unconscious aspect, then, is the False (or Different) aspect of that being, in terms of that beings unconscious creation of examples of what its True state is not. This may be a matter, ultimately, of the goings-on of the mental material making up the complete mental space, which happens to be the totality of this person.[/b]
[b]We have to remember, in this, that info is itself nothing but experience. And that info exists in the form of experience (and experience doesn’t exist unless and until it is experienced). Everything that is not the infinite (following your description) would experience only what it is like to be themselves and the types of things they currently experience at a particular point in time. This is basically it when it comes to non-infinite persons. The infinite, on the other hand, would contain the finite (as opposed to being external to or separate from the finite) as well as everything else that is never experienced by finite persons (whatever that may be). So that which is ‘non-understandable’ from the finite perspective may be so because it simply is not experienced, nor cannot be due to its quality (whatever that may be).
That which is ‘false’ according to this understanding is simply ‘different in content’. In Pantheopsychism that which is ‘false’ is simply that which is ‘different’ in terms of being the opposite of that which is True about the conscious (as opposed to the unconsicous) mind of God.
The god-matrix, then, may safely exist within, rather than outside, god the absolute, as god the absolute, by its instinctual definition, should encompass even falsity, with falsity and truth separated by types of mind that only experience certain things which, in the interest of how info exists in the first place, pre-exists in the form of the psychic material comprising the absolute.[/b]
[b]But new informations (to us new experiences, as we use experience in order to imagine what ‘information’ is like in the first place, and use experience in order to conceive of the concept of ‘information’ and what it is like in the first place), unless they magically come into existence from a previous nonexistence (in which case new informations are not derived from that which already existed before they appeared), are derived from the substance making up ‘old’ information, in terms of that information existing before and during the interaction of the particles a Planck-second before the new information existed.
Puppetry can be redefined as “isomorphism” (identical twin-ism), and we really can’t assign, because we don’t like it, an ‘impossibility’ to the notion of puppetry. It may be that things are in such a way that this is the only thing that is accomplished or can be accomplished, in terms of how things are made to exist, or how they happen to come into existence. ‘Self-animation’ may actually be an illusion hiding actual manipulation by external forces, as the ‘self’ does not exist in a vacuum and is constantly a product of the external existence in which it is derives and entrenched.[/b]
I perused the topic posted. You guys are pretty esoteric and “out there” on that front. But I, in my humble and ‘non-expert’ way, am forced to turn my gaze toward the very beings coming up with such stuff, and find myself fixated upon the basic substance of which these beings are made. And it seems that we are, and these amazing concepts are, ultimately composed of nothing but experience, as we do nothing but experience, and we can say nothing of non-experience because it is not an aspect of our being in the first place. Thus code words such as ‘information’ etc. must refer only to experience or the mental, if we can trace the nature of the external world and the ‘absolute’ or the ‘infinite’ to the nature of ourselves. If we cannot, then we cannot rationally claim what it is in lieu of being the same thing we are, because one would attempt to use what one is to describe that which one is not. As Adolf Grunbaum states:
At this point, the argument is sometimes abandoned in favor of claiming that creation out of nothing [or ‘information’ or anything described or proposed to be something other than or something not composed of subjective experience] “passes all understanding” and that scientific theories of cosmogony leave much to be desired in the way of providing answers to well-conceived questions. To this I say: If the creation hypothesis is indeed beyond human understanding, then it cannot even be meaningfully taken on faith without evidence, and it becomes completely hopeless to try to give a causal argument for it. After all, if the hypothesis itself is beyond human understanding, then even the person who is willing to believe it on faith admits that he or she does not know what is to be believed. Our human species may well be limited by intrinsic intellectual horizons of some sort, just as theoretical physics, for example, cannot be understood by dogs. Yet the fact remains that one can meaningfully believe only a claim whose content one understands, even if one is willing to believe without evidence on sheer faith. If the belief-content is incomprehensible, what is it that is being believed?
Therefore, if creation out of nothing (ex nihilo) is beyond human understanding, then the hypothesis that it occurred cannot explain anything. Even less can it then be required to fill explanatory gaps that exist in scientific theories of cosmogony. Indeed, it seems to me that if something literally passes all understanding, then nothing at all can be said or thought about it by humans. As Wittgenstein said: Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent. Dogs, for example, do not bark about relativity theory. Thus, any supposed hypothesis that literally passes all understanding is simply meaningless to us, and it certainly should not inspire a feeling of awe. To stand in awe before an admittedly incomprehensible hypothesis is to exhibit a totally misplaced sense of intellectual humility! It is useless to reply to this conclusion by saying that the creation hypothesis may be intelligible to “higher beings” than ourselves, if there are such. After all, it is being offered to us as a causal explanation!
-Adolf Grunbaum
[b]As the now-deceased character Shane (Jon Berthal) from the AMC series The Walking Dead would say: “Nah, man.”
Or at least…not necessarily.
The un-experienced machine need not exist in the first place. Nor is it absolutely necessary that our experience of oneself (or each, if done in the same room) making a machine magically possess a power to create a third, un-experienced machine. Why? Because the contiguity must be explained by derivation (i.e. the third un-experienced machine must somehow play a direct role in the existence of the two experienced machines from two different perspectives). Without this simple derivation (or “equation of derivation” as mentioned in the main article above), the third machine, if it exists, happens to exist by random chance outside the minds of the two individuals and has absolutely nothing to do with the fortuitious formation of the experience of the machine (in terms of the shape, form, and experienced substance of the machine) within the two individuals.
And unless we’re talking a heretofore unknown or inconceivable form of backwards (or a new type of forward) causation here, our experience (form one’s unique perspective) of the machine in our personal experience is usually the end result of some collocational machinization in the external world: but I forget, this is a thought-experiment.
Nevertheless, the pertinent theory is that the third chair, if it exists, must somehow cause the existence of the two individual’s experience of creating the machine, as it must form by reason of a zombie (philosophical rather than “horror movie” type) version of the two individuals making the chair in the external world. But we must be clear on what’s at stake here: the individuals and the machines as they appear in the individuals’ distinct experience are composed (at least) of subjective experience. Russellian inference of the substance of the third, non-experienced machine (as stated in the article above) must rationally indicate that the substance making up this third, external chair must also be composed of subjective experience (and subjective experience is inseparable from a subject of experience), or the two individuals’ experience of the machine is derived by the external machine (and vise versa!) by magic.[/b]
[b]Bloody good point (seemingly) with the third-party ‘non-experiencing experiencer’ there. In Phenomenalism, this would pose a good problem for Idealism. The Idealist, however could respond to this by stating that the third party experiencer is simply an aspect of the experiencer, and has no ‘outside’ existence on its own independent of all experiencers. Thus it is, ultimately, a vivid phantasm of the experiencer, created of the experiencer’s own subjective substance and accompanied by a (ultimately false) belief that it has objective existence (in some form) beyond the experiencer. Reality, then, may only be composed entirely of persons (regardless of whether or not these persons exist within a larger, surrounding Person) surrounded by a larger “mist” of potential psychic substance (instantiating its own bizarre form of internal experience) and that ‘objects’ (machines, chairs, cars, Playboy magazines, etc.) are extensions of the person (supplied by the outer “mist”) and are not independent entities capable of existence separate from the existence of the “mist” or the individual.
Or something like that.[/b]
No, thank YOU, Q.
Jay.