Lets say that there is information about a cup with oatmeal in it, that info is either shared or not shared.
1. We have a world unshared, all informations are your informations, that assumedly you created with magic.
1b. We have a world unshared, all informations are derived ~ discovered, so there is an outer world. At this point irrespective of weather or not that world is physical.
2. There is a shared world be it a dream, informational and/or physical etc. the cup with oatmeal in is shared, the other experiencers out there experience a different view of that same thing from their positional perspective.
There is a single information about something [here we have removed the rest of existence], then there is you the experiencer. Is that experiencer the same as the piece of information? You can experience the information but you wouldn’t say the info is exactly the same as either the experiencer itself, or the info as experienced.
So we have two distinct things which share their reality.
Now surely we can add all informations in the same manner, and now we have an informational world + an experiencer.
Lets add another experiencer. His subjective experience of the same piece of information is different to yours, he sees the cup and contents differently.
So now we have two experiential informations, two experiencers and one piece of information.
As soon as experiencer 2 informs experiencer 1 about his perspective based information, a difference is noted between 1’s and 2’s experience. There are now 2 informations and two perspectives.
Point is that neither 1 nor 2 are the authors of those informations. The addition of I info + 1 more experiencer to the single experiencer has already created something of a world of info.
Or are we to assume that there is a world of information already?
If so then we already have a world, we just need to add other qualities which relate to info, experience, colour, feelings, particles?
So far everything kinda comes out of thin air, something happens and we then have info or consciousness, perhaps the physical originates in the non-physical in the same manner.
Something has to determine difference! What’s to differentiate between one set of informations and qualia, and another set of them, or one info and another info ~ how do we even arrive at cardinality without creating the edges of things. So there becomes a need for that edge and somehow it is arrived at, we know that because reality isn’t one thing only.
It seems to me that physicality [even if we see it as holographic] is the very vehicle of cardinality, its what makes edges in the world.
Quality + qualia = world
when it comes to 'something determining difference' and 'something providing information' (that informs or creates the shape of that which is perceived), it may ultimately come down to whether or not that information existing in the external world itself creates so-called perception of the information. Why should a chair in the external world, regardless of what it is made of, create an experiencer's perception of a 'chair'?
Thus it is, then, in this dynamic, that information in the external world is not in danger: it does not depend upon the existence of the experiencer and the experiencer's perception of "something" that it takes to be the external world chair in the form of its perception of it. But the dichotomy, my friend, has been cast in the ability of the external world-information to happily exist in the absence of experiencers and relative perceptions(!)
There is no rational or logical ontological, causal, or material relation between experience and non-experience, so it is odd to say that they do or must reflect each other, or that we can 'perceive' that which essentially is not perception or experience at all.
The external chair certainly does not personally create the perceptual chair, as the perceptual chair(s) come in different points of view.
UNLESS the one gives of its own substance to produce the second.
My first ontology on the matter is that; ‘there are informations about everything’.
the experiencer is in a void if it cannot know info about itself and other things.
In a non-physical world there may ONLY be informations about the chair, rather than there being a chair itself!
Do we already know all informations such that as they pass through our minds it is as if on a carousel?
Or is the information carousel in god mind, and we experiencers get to see different parts of it at a time?
Rather than a dichotomy, information communicates, you don’t have info without there being a relationship between things. If there were only experiencer 1 [you] and 2 [someone else] the info would be the intimate relationship those entities would instantly be in ~ there would be nothing else to stop them knowing about each other, and knowing is fundamental to the experiencer.
That info is then ‘world info‘, it is not entirely your experience or the others. Equally you are the object to its subject and vice versa. The info about that has grown from a simple recognition ~ the basic element of knowing, to an already more complex set of informations concerning the relationships between you both, and that’s with only two experiencers a short amount of time and knowing.
2 simple entities interacting = a mass of information.
Well perception contains observation and knowing/recognition, informational though is within the context of the experiencer and its perception, but info has to arrive there, it has to join the party somehow. It could be that the mind creates info but we have already seen that other informations occur during the process of knowing and not of the single or combined minds. Said info has formed or is a relationship between other entities or indeed other informations.
If it’s a third party to our two given experiencers [of which there are actually 7 billions on earth], there is a triangle of informations and perspectives/perceptions. The two experiencers would naturally perceive the chair from their different angles of perspective, yet the chair is both of those objectively and neither of them subjectively.
phenomenal_graffiti wrote: UNLESS the one gives of its own substance to produce the second.
I’d say that’s exactly what occurs and in all cases. There is no DISTINCT. …things, informations or experiencers. no duality per se.
Btw it [existence] may not be physical as such, more holographic. I don’t believe there is a way to conceive the reality map with physical objects occurring as such [as distinct].
I hold that this is possible in principle, but in practice, my Pantheopsychism insists that there is a basic informational world that pre-exists before the experiencer and what it experiences in the form of the autonomous psychical "carosel" of the mind of God. So in a sense, I hold your view that 'there are informations about everything' in this theological sense
"... the information carousel in god mind, and we experiencers get to see different parts of it at a time."
anything we say definitely exists can only be known to definitely exist if we experience them. Anything else is fiction.
I hold that there is indeed an existential dichotomy between the external world and the experiencer and its experiences in terms of the manifest. We are, in a sense, a moving carosel of changing experience: one moment I'm here, the next I'm over there (because I jumped in my car and drove to the other side of town). The external world, however, remains what it is regardless of what's going on within my closed system or deprivation tank of "now" experience. Therein lies the 'duality', in terms of the difference between myself and what lies 'outside'.
And you're right. There would be no way to concieve of reality with physical objects, as physical objects simply are not mental or experiential at all. Experience of such objects, in the form of our experiencing them in the form of imagination of what they would be like, would not be what they are like, as we use experience to imagine that which is not experience at all.
Ok, so is that the complete set of information? Nothing is changed ever?
If say god or anyone and anything else delivered info into my internal mental sphere, but I didn’t understand it correctly, then I told you or god said info, would that not be different info?
Perhaps the complete set of informations contains all correct and all false info. God would not create nor contain false info, though he would know false info as he is wise.
I would have to think that at least the false information set is external to gods constitution? Perhaps that all informations are relatively false as compared to gods informations.
Imagine that if everything contains or has info about itself, then the infinite would have a different set, one completely non-understandable from the finite perspective. That also the finite would be false in comparison!
So now the god-matrix would be necessity be placed outside of god the absolute.
I would also thing that if god made two particles and sent them on their way, then when the two particles interact new informations would occur. Same kinda thing to us not being puppets ~ god would not create a puppet universe because it would be futile and unwise. You cannot have life unless you have enough plasticity in an object in order to make it self animate [= life][not puppetry].
See also here;
The difference between AI and consciousness is ‘plasticity’!
Also see here for how I see information in levels and cycles…
The information sandwich;
Thought experiment; the unintended experience;
If you and I each make a machine, one which we know definitely exists in our experience, then those two machines make a third? We don’t experience the third machine but we know our machines can and did make that in our experience. Surely the un-experienced machine exists as much as those in our experience? …especially if later it came into our experience at some point, or we bumped into it.
As with my thought experiment above, one thing begets another, your experience touches others even if indirectly. You experience an idea in your mind [1. which also exists on the god carousel] which connects to other/and all experiential parties [also ‘1‘], then between you and the next experiencer is the necessary third party experiencer [also ‘I’] which is a non-experiencer! ~ an object being experienced.
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.
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.
We have to remember, in this, that info is itself nothing but experience.
“Therefore, if creation out of nothing (ex nihilo) is beyond human understanding, then the hypothesis that it occurred cannot explain anything”.
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).
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.
Geeze, I thought abstract idealism died in the 1970s! Neither scientists nor mystics buy that anymore.
Nietzsche did in Hegel--remember? Russell changed his mind several times.
I'm Spinozan simply because his beliefs include what is, not speculation on what could or couldn't be in some imagined absolutist world-view.
We live in a world of experienced processes, with evolving consciousness.
I had thought that information always exists, otherwise history has no record of itself and hence doesn’t exist et al? …how can history not have existed.
What I now think is that there is no such thing as information alone, that there is something we can think of as info as if like an entity or something ~ as you say like bytes. What is a piece of information?
For me if you take any two things - lets take two items of experiential thought, a single information doesn’t mean anything, it is not until it relates to something else e.g. another piece of info, that it makes any sense or even exists.
Indeed information probably only arises as part of a relationship between two or more things, and when there is a communication either in that or between that and another set of informational relationships. This is how language and concepts are strung together, even in the physical world.
So now your god-matrix is doing something! The whole experiential thing is live.
Phenomenal graffiti wrote: 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.
It could be that, and/or that could be within every process. When we learn about a thing we go through a set of thought processes until we arrive at a resolution on a given matter. We could say that there are the resolved and unresolved sets, though perhaps the unresolved sets are not information ~ they are unmade or being formed and they don’t become info until made. That describes thought as I see it, most of what we think doesn’t become ‘full’ until resolved, no?
Phenomenal graffiti wrote: We have to remember, in this, that info is itself nothing but experience.
I don’t know, that’s a massive debate in and of itself. I think things outside of experiencers may contain info as noted early in my thought experiment. Data is one such kind of info. Hmm I suppose in theory god can be experiencing informations that we are not, but you’d still arrive at a third party between him and us by the same logic.
However, I would say that ‘communication’ is universal, in us informations communicating are thought, and that we experience. Does that mean communications are always experienced? For me there is a level of pure thought where the experiencer is pure mind and without communication, info etc. this is what gives us the ability to be detached, and I assume means we are speaking about different worlds or different universals.
For me a ‘god-matrix’ comes in layers, the world or the matrix itself is its body, as like our bodies are to us.
It all seems to come down to weather or not the ‘god-matrix’ is or contains the ‘information carousel’ [and indeed we its puppets], or weather or not it is a set of instructions which loosely define things - like a guiding hand, such that we exist in a living organic, plastic free universe. For me it’s the latter most definitely.
Infinity is a kind of nothing, it has no thingness or parts. Yet it would have both information about itself and also its relationships with universe and us. The singularity [universe] could collapse into ‘nothing’ and re-emerge ~ or indeed originally emerge, from that instruction set.
PG wrote: 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).
There are two know derivations and two unknown derivations, one cannot experience the unknown. Same applies in terms of what is being experienced, one does not experience the other except from ones original perspective. If the machine makes another machine, would that exist even though it would not be experienced et al?
Now imagine that we the experiencers come after the machines in the material world!
Well I imagined all the machines and any thereafter in my mind, so I suppose the very same thing could occur idealistically.
I had not expected to consider an extra experiencer in my mind or the other experiencers mind. Perhaps though, experiencers are equivalent to perception from a given perspective, and we can take one such perceiver and view ourselves ad infinitum.
This leaves us here…
There are perceptions, observations and experiencers, all are probably variations of the one kind of thing. ‘When they look upon themselves there are no others, when they don’t there are only others’.
It seems that beyond perspectives there are ‘others’? there are non-mental objects and informations out there ~ other things
phenomenal_graffiti wrote:Even if they don't buy into the notion that the external world is purely mental (experiential) in nature, they must, or should, buy into the fact that reality as it actually occurs (as it is experienced to occur) nevertheless consists of nothing but experience, as existence is experienced as a particular person and the current experiences of that person. Nothing else can be known to exist independent of being experienced by a particular person (all other forms of "knowledge", are actually make-believe or magical thinking). From here, one can induce Idealism, as nothing other than experience or experience-material can rationally explain the existence of experience.
'Communication' for me, is ultimately just collocation, or jigsaw-puzzle-ism
'Communication' aside from this is pretty imaginative
But yes, the nature of our experience is, I believe, nothing but the result of collocation or relationship between two separate things.
My point about the 'false' becoming 'true', however, refers to man becoming a psychological reflection of God as opposed to our current state, in which we (most of the time) are a reflection of the opposite of the moral and existential nature of God. However, this moral evolution is, in a sense, a "learning about a thing until we arrive at a resolution".
We are composed entirely of experience (or we experience the existence of nothing save our personal experience), thus one can induce that reality must be composed entirely of experience, and this easily explains why we are made up exclusively of subjective experience such that we experience nothing but personal experience.
Once again, I must take this at face value as a logical possibility and refrain from denying it outright. But honestly, it is your imagination of what's going on or what exists 'outside'. Same thing with my view of God and Pantheopsychism. These, following Kant's lament, are ultimately matters of faith (no shame nor harm in that 'neither.)
I hope this isn't the case. But one can't help but to wonder how deep the rabbit hole goes, in the supposition of sub-dimensional mind or "people living within people".
If there is nothing to experience, we don't experience it. I don't experience a cat on my lap at the moment, for example, or a glass of beer at my desk. This implies that something is experienced; usually, the experiences we have are of something.
It seems you're saying that "only experience can cause experience" is the only rational way of looking at it, that everything else is magical. That nothing can create or be created by that which it is not. If that's what you're saying, it's not the case at all.
FilmSnob wrote:Dude, could you post a link to chapter one?
I can't find that shit.
phenomenal_graffiti wrote:the very notion that something can be created by that which it is substantially and essentially is not is a magical concept, because the supposed creator (the external model or even a process in the brain itself) is creating something whose substance previously did not exist before it is 'created'.
The point being, there is no actual relationship, save random chance, between the external model and the percept (visual perception 'of' the external model) that supposedly mimics it, precisely because the external model does not give of its very substance to form the percept.
We, however, are composed entirely of experience, and the nature of our reality is such that everything that is known to exist (that is, that which is known to exist because it has been sensorially experienced) is known to exist precisely because it is experienced, and it appears only as someone's experience of it.
Only_Humean wrote:I don't follow how "act of experiencing" can be a substance. You have a verb/process, and a noun. It seems to be a category error.
PG wrote: 'Communication' for me, is ultimately just collocation, or jigsaw-puzzle-ism
'Communication' aside from this is pretty imaginative
But yes, the nature of our experience is, I believe, nothing but the result of collocation or relationship between two separate things.
Hmm well the communication in our imagination isn’t simply collocation, is it? If it were I don’t know how the mind would know what’s being communicated. Collocation arises in the patterns in the world which do act kinda like jigsaw-ism, computers probably communicate like this.
Info in the mind occurs in the fluid exchange of communications, derived of the mind and brains plasticity.
Somehow we have to get from info carrying signals in the brain, to an ability for the mind to recognise that collocative info ~ as mental information! The latter being very different to the former, such that we should probably have different terms for them both.
It could be that the mind simply matches the pattern or shape of the info derived of the signals delivered by the senses, then it finds some manner of ‘match’ for that in mental-informational terms. However this delivers the same problem as we ever get in making two disparate things correlate, when, if they are different, how can they relate ~ communicate!?
There must be something in each of the two different kinds of information which forms the match. Indeed if my ontology is correct; ‘everything has or contains information about itself’, then information of the second or mental kind [hang on I’ll get back to that] exists as concerns information of the first kind [patterns, shapes, DNA etc]. …I say of the ‘second kind’ because I have already [and I think you agree] noted that mental info is not purely pattern like.
Now we may go on to state that this ‘mental information’ is [my interjection: apparitionally the same?] the same as information that’s ‘out there’, or we wouldn’t be able to say what’s out there. Yet the info which is out there is assumedly not mental information [even in the god matrix, for reasons stated before], so I’ll go all out and state that;
‘Information is a non-mental thing’.
PG wrote: My point about the 'false' becoming 'true', however, refers to man becoming a psychological reflection of God as opposed to our current state, in which we (most of the time) are a reflection of the opposite of the moral and existential nature of God. However, this moral evolution is, in a sense, a "learning about a thing until we arrive at a resolution".
There will be advancement imho, but if god has a purpose designed into us or otherwise, that to me amounts to puppet strings, which renders it pointless - if I may. Perhaps all he needs to do is set the conditions and intelligent beings will naturally rise to that. A final resolution may be an ability to understand things extremely well, though I’d expect there will always be new challenges and things to learn ~ even if we all become geniuses or whathaveyou.
PG wrote: Once again, I must take this at face value as a logical possibility and refrain from denying it outright. But honestly, it is your imagination of what's going on or what exists 'outside'. Same thing with my view of God and Pantheopsychism. These, following Kant's lament, are ultimately matters of faith (no shame nor harm in that 'neither.)
This is the part that I feel philosophy needs to get beyond; the imagination is informed. We don’t make up the world without knowledge of it, though that knowledge could come from the god-matrix in your theory. It is not faith, it is being informed either by god or as a function of the world and us.
The machine made by the machine made by us, could be in the experience of god as we and all things would be, it depends if there is only experience as you say. The problem is that we have to place everything else into that one thing [experience], I don’t see how we can do that, there would be no un-experienced things in reality?
If I experience a thing and god experiences that thing when it goes out of my experiential sphere, there must be a point when our experience is shared, part of the same entity. Or, there would be a point of non-experience.
PG wrote: I hope this isn't the case. But one can't help but to wonder how deep the rabbit hole goes, in the supposition of sub-dimensional mind or "people living within people".
Or experiencers [us] within the experiencer [god] ~ that sounds a bit better eh!
Moreno wrote:Only_Humean wrote:I don't follow how "act of experiencing" can be a substance. You have a verb/process, and a noun. It seems to be a category error.
This seems like an appeal to common sense (as it is embedded in language). Perhaps we made some ontological booboos when we set up language OR when we started taking language as describing ontology rather than some ad hoc thing that elicited certain processes.
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Ultimate Philosophy 1001