hermescience Vs evolution

…more from the living form of hermes. :smiley:

hermescience Vs evolution

i couldn’t find a better term so hermescience will have to do. here i wish to present a theory concerning an inner layer of meaning to evolution both ordinary and universal. we have discussed how all things from the atomic to macroscopic features of reality, are infact sets of communicative interactions between energies.

{1} here i wish to discuss the idea that evolution is actually communications between things, yes it may be ‘read’ on a chemicular level as it currently is in evolution theory, but also that such things maybe or always are resultant of communications between living entities…

{2} the staff of eternity; …further that those communications arise from universal consciousness [not necessarily mental consciousness], both of individual creatures,{3} and on to an infinite version.

{4} the universality. betwixt the individualised beings [consciousness] or centralising conscious force, and the infinite communicator, would be a universality ~ a ‘soup’of meaning, infinite potentiality, omniscience, relativistic events, consciousness and entity [physicality].

in short then; everything talks to each other!

one way in which they do this is through universal balance, but we must not loose hold of the main function which naturalises the whole thing, that things just talk to each other, the rest follows from that!

the three parts of the universal balance.

  1. the amorphic staff i.e. the beam, universally the centre or epicentre of all things and of the balance. has no properties of its own other that as used comparatively.
  2. the pans of cadience, taken from the meaning in the ‘staff of Caduceus’; of where things placed in the pans are balanced on the scales. represents polarity and exchange.
  3. the ‘hermescient’ element. taken from the meaning involved in Hermes the Greek god of communications. this element of balance is that which communicates, as between the other elements of the balance.

there are only three elements to everything in the universe and eternity! / |
none of them may be qualified individually only in comparison with one another and the forms thereof. there is 1. information, 2. that which mediates this, and 3. that which concentrates or collects this into one place. e.g. mass and physical presence of a thing would fall into this [the third] category.

discuss

Discuss? And speculate wildly :smiley:

I’m quite interested in this ‘communicative interaction’ I once read The Cosmic Serpent, maybe you are familar with it, if not I think you’d enjoy it, anyway it speaks of some kind of communication happening between the individual (consciousness?) and their own DNA, this is under the influence of tropical hallucinogenics which are sometimes too swiftly dismissed but what is interesting is that the people who use the Ayahuasca claim that is while under the influence that certain knowledge of the environment is communicated to them i.e. the plants talk to them. I believe it is from one of these societies in which western medicine learnt (stole) how to create an anesthetic (I’m not sure exactly) which the particular tribe used to paralyze monkeys without killing them or poisoning them…or something like that.

Could you provide some links to these communication ideas of evolutionary theory you mentioned?

i have heard people mention the book but i don’t read much [at all really]. i would think that hallucinogens if used properly could help us link to the more universal nature of consciousness alluded to here.

my reasoning would be that consciousness is a shared resource and that having an infinite base all things possess it in some way ~ or something which becomes consciousness when in the presence of a living being at least.

the main thing is in its universality, which is why i chose to allude to three elemental things which are nothing in and of themsleves. our minds have a centralising feature or a concentrating of the central element, as do plants and even germs. when we are not focused on something it becomes subconscious, then when we do it is as if the consciousness ‘listens’ ~ herein lies the interactive element.

i cannot provide any links as it is just stuff i am thinking about, i don’t know if there are similar ideas apart from the so called and heavily criticised dna internet [david icke i think].

Hey quetz,

Interesting topic.

As you surmised from the materialism thread, we do share a lot of our views in common. I’ll tell you in what way I agree that all is communication:

I believe that all existing things can be reduced to mental experiences, which in turn can be reduced to meaning. I believe meaning is the ‘atom’ of the universe. Meaning is dynamic. It gives way to further meaning. It morphs, it flows, it builds on itself. Take, for example, a visual experience - say a sun set. At base, this experience is information. Nature is communicating to you. She tells you, through your sense of sight, that the sun is setting over there. But this information doesn’t stop there. You carry it further. You start thinking of how beautiful the sun set is, how colorful, how serene. You might start thinking how much more lovely it would be if you had a glass of lemonade to go with it. You might start to reminisce over past sun sets similar to the one you see now. All these thoughts, all these experiences, are differently morphed forms of the initial experience of seeing the sun set. They are all meaningful, and their meanings stem from the meaning nature initially communcated to you. You take what nature gives you and perpetuate the communication process within yourself - to different parts of your mind so to speak.

However, meaning is not the only way to understand experiences or mind. Whatever the meaning in a particular experience, it “projects” itself. This is a term I’ve customized to mean the reifying of the meaning within our experiences. That is, for example, the sight of the sun set is not only information communicated to you by nature, it is the actual sun set itself. That is, nature not only tells you the sun is setting but it shows it to you directly. More accurately, according to my theory, nature creates the sunset for you by means of communicating or describing it to you. So when I say an experience is projected, I mean it becomes the thing experienced. The perception and the perceived are one.

Mind, in my theory, is a sort of universal, or ‘godly’, language. It is a perfect language with which everything that is spoken becomes true. The entire universe, in my view, can be reduced to this language. The universe is essential a dialogue with itself - pure information which is self-aware of its own meaning - and is about the meaning of existence. It defines its own meaning in such a way that it becomes self-reified in the process.

Anyway, maybe I can ask you a few questions about your view:

What’s the difference between universal consciousness and mental consciousness?

Also, I take it you feel the three elements of the universe (communication, communicants, and the communication medium - am I right?) are necessary and distinct. Why do you feel this way? Also, what is the medium? I my view, all three of these are one - the communication projects and becomes the communicant, and it also serves as its own medium.

hi gib

please read right through before replying, i think i only got you right towards the end there. :slight_smile:

indeed, for a long time i have believed in universalism, where everything is sets of principles interacting with or working on energy. …but can we go even deeper, is meaning a translation of relationships? for example; we could say that balance and all its meanings are resultant of energies polarising, or indeed consciousness interacting. our thoughts don’t become words until they have formed a resultant nature that can be clarified into meaning, their composite meanings arise from complex relationships in the mind and brain.

in our meditations does not thought simply flow, then meaning attaches itself to it hmm that is it forms into meaning along the way. in the philosophies of time thread we can see further how even the most fundamental aspects of existence are built from relationships. reality is philosophy and that is the nature of infinity being expressed.

interesting ~ if i get you right; if we were stood viewing the horizon on the oceans edge, which golden reflection of the sun upon the waters is the correct one, there would be one for each of us. hence not only is there a subjective experience donating that we see two reflections, there is light/reality to that experience. if a thousand of us stood along the shore, and we could view it through all eyes at once, the entire ocean would appear to be golden. so is the light so strong. so reality changes itself relatively according to our observations, also to our perceptions as well e.g. optical illusions, hallucinations.

i don’t quite get how that all works as i still believe there is an objective reality, one can only conclude that we don’t ‘see’ reality we only hallucinate it according to the info provided. the light we see is not light, photons stop at the back of the eye and become info, the graphics card in the brain then turns that into sight. or does it? i am beginning to think that there is something there, the light we see is there although it is not physical light. just as the mind then our actual reality is non physical, the brain and body only serving to give us info to correlate the world around us.

which then is reality, the mind its light [together = imagination] and perception, or the reality it sees. i would turn science on its head and suggest that it is physical reality which is secondary. this sounds pretty much like what you have been suggesting albeit in a different language perhaps.

that has blown me away, i will have to digest it somewhat, its kinda like an infinite genie. so it is all a process of making itself real, the imagination first [or mind if you like] then clarification via interactions.

i think i will add the two versions together; we then get the oil on water theory i proposed, than add the universal language of yours, but equally! i don’t think we can put one before the other as they are both eternals, hence it is incorrect to consider such things in terms of beginnings and endings, first and last, just mixed.

i think i alluded to this in the op, i would thing there is centralised consciousness [us] and decentralised consciousness, then all possible variants in between. so ‘god’ is a perfect anarchist [decentralised] and we are like tiny whirlpools on life’s lake. universal consciousness would be the entire thing, the lake if you like.

no i agree they are not distinct, this is why i was trying to draw an image of three things that didn’t exist, a kind of ‘yin, yang, yong’ - if you will. as you say, one party relies on the other and their positions are interchangeable. so the communicator can be the medium or the information etc.

good stuff there mate!

Yes, but this doesn’t entail that there was no meaning to begin with. Thought only transforms meaning, as does mind in general. Meaning is the ubiquitous constant in the flux.

You’ll have to elaborate on what you mean by ‘balance’ and ‘energies polarising’ - not sure I follow.

Everyone’s perspective would be correct for them. The logical limits of my philosophy leads to me to conclude that there is no such thing as something being correct ipso facto - there is only correctness ‘for someone’. You might consider this to mean that we each live in our own subjective universe, and the greater universe that binds us together is simply the network of such universes itself.

I too believe in an ‘outer’ objective reality, but it’s what it consists of that is unorthodox (it’s also questionable what ‘objective’ means in this context). If you’ll grant me that the inner subjective reality consists of experiences based on meaning being communicated to and within us, and that these experiences project themselves and become real things, then I propose that the rest of the universe (the outer objective reality) is just an extension of the inner subjective one - full with the same contents - meaningful experiences being inter-communicated and projecting themselves to become real things. The boundary that marks the end of the ‘outer’ universe and the beginning of the ‘inner’ universe is just the point at which we gain ‘epistemic awareness’ of these experiences (that is, a certain subset of experiences). That term - epistemic awareness - means to convey the particular experience of knowledge (as opposed to vision, or emotion, or pain, or pleasure, etc.). There’s nothing special about it that stands out from other experiences except that it allows us to know about our other experiences (such as vision, emotion, pain, pleasure, etc.) but not all. Those experiences which we are not epistemically aware of constitute the ‘other’ - those parts of the universe that are not ‘us’. Nonetheless, it is all interconnected by way of communication.

Yes, in a sense, but the order (imagination first, then clarification) is not temporal - the former is logically prior to the latter - the mental is the basis for the real. The whole universe, at any one point in time, is both mental and real at once. The reality of the universe at that point is the basis for the mental proceedings that follow in the next moment and also the reality of those proceedings.

Ah, and what would this decentralised consciousness be aware of - or experience?

Indeed.

hello gib

indeed, there is infinity and eternity thats it, meaning is eternal and as you say in constant flux. perhaps infinity is the hub of that flux, but also meaning is the hub of infinity too.

from the sub-atomic to the atomic [all composed of + and - energy centres], micrscopic to the macroscopic all energy forms are built from polarisation of said energy. gravity works by it, electricity, even principles e.g. for every force there is an equal and opposite.

we have logical limits! :astonished: :smiley: i agree but i would go beyond empiricism and see it all more elastic, objects are built of info as are subjects ~ in two differing ways. as we see with relativity and our own sight, those lines can be and are often crossed. there is only one universal entity so all things are correct in one sense but some info is false subjectively. equally some quantum phenomenon may be seen as equally false yet physically real [but don’t ask me to go into that more lols].

yes and no; meaning is objective, there is no subjective only correctly and incorrectly transferred info, but even the falsehood is real it just has limited effect. i see it as a kind of protection system so that reality ‘tends’ to display only corrected info. note; we may be meaning the same thing in essence.

what is that vision without its schism? i agree but is there an inner and outer? again i think that is where you are going.

info in the form of an idea instead of info from a physical source, yes? like; “she is wearing red knickers” as opposed to seeing that she has. in a sense then this is false info when exponed ~ even though the info is correct, but treu when e.g. seen.

indeed it is. i actually see things as if i have no skull every thought and idea belong to an initially blank sea lit; infinity, from which they can have an effect elsewhere or wherever relevant. if one can think of a new idea, it will soon find its way into the universality ~ the well of inspiration, then you will find others moving upon the same wave. some are on waves way ahead of others, and some waves derive from none.

amazing, yes i completely agree. my first musing is what indeed is the first imagination ~ that began the big bang. here we only have one source and it is one that guides every atom in the universe, and the laws they are bound by. it doesn’t stop or start and physical existence is its subconsciousness! [literally]
maybe imagination, mind or thought are not entirely correct for this, it is something that is both mind and matter?

‘all-aware’. my first thought are that we may be it i.e. we are the experiencer. but second to that we imagine such things in our centralising manner as that is how our minds work. an ‘experience’ to us is something focused upon, even the terms focus, concentrate and experience denote a centralising manner of a thing. so god would un-experience and have non-focus and infinite concentration [can you imagine that!], this is why we do not detect him directly in our everyday world, or why we cannot form a scientific understanding of him. how can one empirically expound what a decentralised infinite ‘being’ is like? it is literally impossible yet he would be the greater reality of all. this is why i think philosophy can go beyond science and i don’t think that is un‘reason’able.

i think we can imagine this also like the wind, it can be still or it can blow, it may even vortex. perhaps then if it is gods will he can make himself present to us, maybe this is what visions are.

a symbol of universality of mine

an impression of the orb realms

great stuff again mate! :slight_smile:

Hey quetz, nice pics

Ah, makes sense. Everything neutralizes or “balances” out on the whole.

Can you give me an example of what you mean by “false subjectively”? Do you mean false because someone believes it’s false?

It is?

Well, let’s figure that out. By ‘subjectivity’ I mean dependent on one’s manner of experiencing things. By ‘objectivity’ I mean independent of…

Since I believe nothing exists except by being experienced (think Berkeley) I believe everything is primarily subjective… but that’s not to say things can’t be objective in a secondary sense. Things like logic and mathematics are objective, but not because they are independent of human thought, but because human thought can’t change them. Also because we all seem to think the same way about them. But make no mistake - this doesn’t strip them of their subjective - that is, mental - basis. To put this another way, subjectivity and objectivity are not opposites for me. Objectivity is a subset of the universe of subjectivity.

No. At the end of the day, there is no ‘inner’ or ‘outer’. Those are spatial terms. Still, they’re useful. By ‘inner’, I mean a part of us. By ‘outer’, I mean a part of the other (whatever is not us). Still, there must be some way of accounting for the apparent schism if all is to be one. I believe the schism comes about from knowledge. We can only be epistemically aware of certain kinds of experiences - namely, those experiences capable of morphing into knowledge. All that we experience consciously, we know we experience - we know because it becomes knowledge. But there are many other experiences, all “hangin 'round” the ones we know, but they do not morph into knowledge. They constitute the rest of the universe, which, it would seem, the universe intends not to communicate to us.

You have the general idea, but I’m not sure why you would call it “false info”. Perhaps my question above (about what you mean by ‘false subjectively’) will answer that.

I’m not sure… but that paper of mine - the one you started reading (about God) - has a few interesting things to say about it. It involves scale as a 5th dimension, and an Einsteinian curvy scaletime (as opposed to spacetime). What if scale and time curved towards each other to meet at the point of the Big Bang?

My personal view is that all matter is mind (it’s sensation) but not all mind is matter. I doubt there was any matter in the early stages of the universe. However, I think pretty much all mind can be represented by matter, and we can certainly use material representations to model the origins of the universe in our mind.

hi gib

yes kind of… if i lie to someone, i send correct info in real terms although the subject matter is false. we see the same epistemically, where a description is just something we made up to describe a thing. on the other hand, its meaning in our minds represents that object and we accept it as true and then see the object ~ when we see something for the first time dialogue has to commence in the mind to make something of it.
so we have subjective truth; actual or verified info
or false subjectivity; either misrepresenting a thing, vague or unverified.

i just prefer not to think in those terms it just serves to confuse a far simpler reality imho.

as a quantum particle is made up of relationships and inherent in that is info both correlating and potential information, then yes. if not then nothing has meaning i,e, if there is no info then we are back to the oil on water theory, where nothing has any meaning. meaning then is simply something we put upon a thing, but is not there ~ not even in terms of potentiality. i don’t think we can say that do you? i would have to go with info/meaning X form as two parts of the same thing. this can then be expounded on the more holistic subjective/objective level that goes on in our minds.

By ‘subjectivity’ I mean dependent on one’s manner of experiencing things. By ‘objectivity’ I mean independent of…

ones perception is an objective force in the world too, we observe something and it changes. perception is linked to focus, both involved in the act of observing.

oh i see, to us maybe. we are coming from opposite angles then, i think everything exists even the light in our imagination. if it is there it exists, there is not ‘something’ that doesn’t exist surely?

i see what you mean even though i view math as subjective, that is because it is a false representation of the real.

see here; the infinite proportions of god
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=165922

i agree but in the opposite. is it not easier to see things in terms of real and not real rather than the objective/subjective, in other words there isn’t anything not real but some realities are ‘false’ in terms of info only [ok so in return misinformation can affect the real].

i agree about the need for spatial terms. is not that knowledge secondary, we feel a womans leg then it is formed in the mind and our ideas of what that means are attributed. however that feeling will have something of its own. imagine this in evolutionary terms, much of primary evolutions are done chemically, this side of it is more oil on water ~ an objective blending of forms. much of our thoughts are produced by processes built up chemically [some would argue all are], and as resultant of physical interactions. i doubt if there is much subjectivity in in the way germs work for example. we are the same as germs but our complexity means we have to interpret what we see or hear.

good point, all-time must have scale, it cannot just be kinda sat there. scale would give it position ~ a place. i would say that scale must extend to infinity and hence is omni-local, so localised scale to the universe [all-scale] then onto everything within it. if i remember rightly the 5th dimension is usually momentum [another kind of relationship again] but yes scale would be a dimension of some number.

unless mind was there before matter. as i see the mind, it is both itself and relative to matter ~ the brain. my mind seams to be always there, then is is also connected to the brain and thus has thoughts, the one and the multiple. the latter concept would run through all levels of existence and is surely the fundamentals of universality itself.

btw i had a look at your art too, very nice ~ lots of skulls and such like. kinda celtic as i see it.

thanks for another great post! half a dozen different ideas to deal with in there.

I see what you mean. Someone who lies to you sends you true information (that he is speaking to you) but also false information (that the lie is true). I agree, but I would put it in slightly different terms. I would say the lie is false for the liar (because he knows it’s a lie) but could be true for the listener (if he believes it). I don’t believe it makes sense to say whether the lie was true or false in “actuality” - it always depends on subjugation to belief/disbelief.

No, but we can’t lose sight of the fact that meaning can only exist if it is “taken in” by consciousness - that is, it must be thought or understood (or more generally felt). If the objectivity of meaning implies that it is there independently of my mind, then I agree that it is indeed objective, but I don’t think we can say that it exists independently of Mind in general, and in that sense it’s subjective. I believe the latter is primary, for it is the basis, and the only basis, on which there can be meaning, but that’s not to say it isn’t mixed up with objectivity in the sense you offered. I would add, however, that the objectivity of meaning’s existence not only implies independence from my mind, but that my mind can objectively “frame” it - that is, that I have to know about it in some way. In other words, I think the term ‘objectivity’ describes knowledge more than it does existence.

Yes, to us - but it’s always to someone (or something). We perceive the world. Thus, we build around us an inner perceptual world. But the outer world just consists of other perceptual worlds - that’s all there is (in my view).

‘False’ meaning poor representations, right? That may be true, but then I’m lead to ask ‘For whom is it false?’ - certainly not the one who believes in the representation. For him, the representation constitutes a part of his reality. For him, it is true. What about for the thing represented? It couldn’t be false for that unless the thing represented apprehended the belief and thereby knew it to be false.

But I understand the dilemma here: there has to be a sense in which the representation “matches” the represented. I agree. But I don’t put this in terms of truth or falsehood. I put it in terms of the robustness or fragility of truth or falsehood. Take a child who believes in Santa Clause for example. I would say that solely in virtue of his belief, Santa Clause is real for the child. But I would also say of this belief and its truth that it is fragile. It is vulnerable to being torn down. It wouldn’t be hard to image why. For example, if the child was ever taken to the North Pole and shown that there was no Santa Clause, then his belief would go from true to false. Also, more realistically, if the child was told that Santa was really his parents (especially if this is confirmed by his parents), that too would convert the belief from true to false.

In fact, it would convert his entire reality into a different one, with a whole other time line (but I can digress into that elsewhere).

Yes, we do have to interpret what we experience on a more sensory level, but the kind of epistemic awareness I was getting at is knowledge of the simple elements that make up our sensations. For example, I see red, and I know I see red. I feel pain, I know I’m in pain. I feel angry, I know I’m angry (not sensory, but this works for emotions too). This requires minimal interpretation and seems to happen quite automatically. My point was that it is this process that allows us to know about certain experiences (redness, pain, anger, etc.), and that it could be said that we experience all experiences everywhere in the universe, but we don’t know it (however, saying this brings into question what this ‘we’ is, but that’s another digression).

Thanks. I like hearing other people impressions. That’s sort of their purpose - to give off impressions other than my own.

hi gib, sorry i didn’t reply earlier, my pc was driving me mad yesterday.

you are right, and also, in the case of optical illusions the falseness is due to our inept equipment.

by what is it passed from one to another [consciousness], what physical construct holds subjective information! [or any info for that matter, don’t we have to say that info is inherent in all things. equally so how does potentiality work or the relationships between objects and laws? if we can qualify information as exterior to the mind, it opens up all sorts of questions about the nature of existence. as we can say for sure that info exists in our minds, and that it has a real effect, then even without the former kind of info, we can say that it exist! so it becomes like mind, perhaps it exists only as resultant of existent things [us][which i would question], but once it exists it is a non physical quality that exists! if then we can say that non physical qualities are real [where ‘all realities are equally real’], then we can say that reality is greater than physical existence, ergo the universe is. where does this take us?

so we share a hallucination ~ in a sense. this is similar to various ‘matrix’ theories, the way i go around it is by building a reality from the base up, and i normally end up with a universe of some kind. long story but we describe the philosophical space and we end up with a particular reality, whatever we describe [correct or not] first and foremost whatever is there is real. so a reality of some kind is there weather or not we interpret that reality. we may be perceiving a tree but it could be a lion! as all the way through evolution we are confronted with realities [a small animal may think the world is completely different to how we see it], then it makes sense that we are the result of many such confrontations [zillions of them], so we can have a good idea of how reality as ‘met’ is! there may be more, much more to it, but can there be less?

hmm yes. so the falshood is only in the exchange of info, once we believe it, it is real ~ at least if we act upon it, otherwise it remains as info in the rather vague and abstract manner that info exists in the world.

‘all realities are abstract, except at most in their apparency. when their appearance is shown, it too becomes the abstract’. [quetz]

‘we may note and emphasise the universality of the quality; ‘abstract’! reality takes it to its furthest extremes, to the point where if we look at it, it goes elsewhere and we are looking in the wrong place’ [quetz]

a colour-blind person would get different readings for red, but i get the point e.g. we cannot get different readings for ‘i’ ‘you’, if we read what that is we are taking our perception to a secondary stance ~ outside of the ‘i’ as primary, the root. so even if all our senses were made false, at least some base ideas remain.

a most interesting digression! let us start by saying we are centralised/localised, if we could decentralise then re-localise, we could directly experience any given thing at the point of re-centralisation. however, in the decentralised state we could not focus nor perceive as these are centralised natures of mind. having said that i do think there are other kinds of connections, perhaps a decentralised perception is of all, but would it not be of anything in particular?

for me that was at the end of a line, celtic = mounds of skeletons, heads on sticks etc, then the more modern rock album covers with similar themes, then art of a similar kind. hence a general theme of some kind to which the celtic thing first arose etc etc.

another most enlightening post, thanks!

I don’t believe meaning (or experience) needs a physical vessal to carry it. I think physical vessals need it! Mind, I contend, is not just the basis for all that exists, it is ‘basis’ (yes, as though basis were a ‘stuff’). Matter is contingent. Mind is necessary. Matter is reducible. Mind is irreducible. Matter can be hidden. Mind can’t. Matter exists in reality. Mind is the window into reality. Matter needs a reason. Mind is reason. etc. etc. etc. Mind is the perfect thing to serve as the fundamental ‘stuff’ of existence.

I gather from what you say next that you’re on to this (or something like it):

Into the beyond :laughing: :laughing:

I don’t think so. Some might think so. They might say there is less than what is ‘met’ because some things are illusory. But these so-called illusions are also creations. We create them (sometimes advertently, sometimes not. Sometimes we have no choice). They become a part of reality (ours and the ultimate one).

I don’t know. I think if decentralization were possible, we couldn’t bring our epistemic awareness with us - we wouldn’t be able to know what we were experiencing (although we would indeed be experiencing something). And then coming back to a localised state, would we retain any memory? I don’t see how we could if we couldn’t ‘know’ anything in the decentralised state.

Yes, indeed. Do you have a website for your views?

hi gib

i quite agree, that is how i think of it, it may be empty yet it is completely full ~ or empty because it is completely full. irreducible yes. matter and all forms of existences [and meaning?] are abstract expressions of mind, even infinity is a dimension over and above that inner most base of all things.

so we are vortexes in the waters, centralisations of mind, what would god be? …perhaps the infinite version of all things as a single whole. hmm

haha, indeed. how about you exist in the vastness, so you exist in the world… i.e. imagine an infinite plane as like a canvas with everything painted upon it. the central rule is that ‘infinity is unlimited’ as the mind is too ~ of course, so it tries to be everything. yet it all has to exist respective to each other, so everything that can exist does, like a vastly expanded all-time.

so you exist in this infinite space, then when your portion of time comes up i.e. you are born, then you exist in time. beyond this all things exist in universal time, perhaps this is the eternal version of what we are, the thing is not to think of this in terms of start/end, or is/is not.

this is the eternal question concerning reincarnation, buddhists believe in ‘rebirth’ rather than re-incarnation for the very reason you explained. however hindu’s believe in the ‘akashic’ which is like a fabric of eternity, within which [or part of it] is infinite memory. if we imagine that as time rolls forwards and events occur, then our memories go into the relative parts of the brain, yet all info of all things go into the akashic memory ~ perhaps as a single process. so after death there is a moment in transferring when you know nothing, then as you link back with the eternal version, you know everything.

again we come back to the infinite canvas and ask the question, does info arise from nothing or is it already ‘there’? would not an infinite intellect know everything!

i am afraid not, i was going to make one, but they change so all the time, equally i don’t believe in anything, most ideas hang in-between extremes and i wouldn’t want to make them concrete as i think we loose something in that [see sig]. i also believe that ones ideas melt into the whole as if we write books that absolutely everybody reads, we only need to speak to one other person and we speak to the whole. hence i have a rather easy going hippy approach to it all, but i am glad others like yourself do not ~ it is all part of the equation however we mix it up.

thanks! :slight_smile:

The waters.

Dude, it’s scary - I know exactly what you’re talking about. That almost epitomizes my theory.

Right - when one vortex dissipates and another appears later on, is it sensible to say they have any connection to each other?

It would experience everything, but some experiences by their very nature defy being known. It would certain know all that could be known - but even then, there would be more.

Knowledge is not the highest form of consciousness.

That’s actually very sage. I think the wisest thing one can do is not to attach oneself to one’s beliefs. I, unfortunately, learnt that too late. It would be nice to be able to let go of my own beliefs.

hi gib, sorry for late reply i just been very busy and pc had a virus blah blah, but better late than never eh! :slight_smile:

i agree, but that could also be nirvana in buddhism, the tao in taoism or the original self in most very ancient belief systems. as far as abrahamic religions go, i don’t think they would accept it, god has to be ‘over there somewhere’ rather than in amongst us y’know.

:smiley: i shall have to read more of it.

right, but if that is the case then by what is it rebirth? i would only see birthings from the eternal waters, the connection would only be in that. if there is nothing to connect two vortexes, then there is no transferral. i still think there is some part of us [inc info] in eternity, so we may re-find ourselves…

Cartesian duality; this is how i understand it… let us say we wired up the brain so that we controlled all of its incoming info, we then give it only a sphere in a box but all it could perceive was inside the box [as if you were viewing from an internal wall of said box]. our entire world would simply be the contents of that box, if we then instantly disconnected the brain from it, then zap we see the normal world again.

is it so far fetched to say that the normal world is itself a box!

absolutely! perhaps we could go as far as saying knowledge cannot tell us what a given thing actually is, only by experiencing it along with intuition etc can we truly understand things. i would understand a god that created the world purely for this reason, as you say, he could know everything and know nothing with that.

thank you! you will eventually, although i can see it would be difficult as they are on a high plateaux ~ it is far more difficult to let go of beliefs when they are out of most peoples reach.

cheers :slight_smile:

quetz

I would say not. Would you say your view concerns the contents of the box or the box itself? My view concerns the latter. I sometimes like to compare it to a theist and atheist quarrelling over the contents of the box - whether it contains God or not - whereas my view is about the box itself - not what we find in reality, but what reality is - better yet, what we mean when we utter the word ‘reality’.

i agree yes, my anaology though was not to reality itself but to our conscious position in it. it is like we die and we are taken out of the box ~ that is where i am comming from, so the question then is what state is outside of the box.

reality is an interesting one; define ‘it’, we cannot as it is infinitely tangental, the very nature of the abstract belongs to this field! if we are not talking about the abstract then we are as you say, not talking about the contents of the box.

again then where does that leave us ~ what is reality itself/the box? i am inclined to go with the buddhist understanding of it, or at least build from that. it is a most important aspect of many debates [e.g. materialism and consciousness thread] that there is a fundamental reality, one that is not an ‘it’ thence all ‘it’s’ are the contents but not the truth of the box. this would i feel apply to science to, as mass is empty we are lead to the same basic essentiality of the primal reality and abstract reality.

what would you call the primary reality? it is not infinity, yet it possesses it [infinity is a dimension of the contents], equally it is not the transient as this is abstract from the fundamental reality.

Hi quetz,

It’s so good to hear from someone like you - who doesn’t go out of his way on principle to destroy every comment I make. Mad Man P seems committed to that in the materialism thread and it takes the joy out of philosophy for me. Not that I abhor debate, but I expect a fair degree of ‘sportsmanship’ (for lack of a better word) from my competitors. Thanks for not being so obstinate.

I would say outside reality - or into a different reality. But this all depends on whether we really are talking about different things. I say the box anaolgy applies to reality itself, whereas you say it applies to our conscious position in it - and I’m left asking whether there really is a difference. After all, as I said in a previous post, I’m redefining the word ‘reality’, and I’m redefining to mean (not in so many words) our conscious position in it. I mean, what else could we really mean by the word ‘reality’? Know what I mean?

I don’t quite understand this. I would think that in order to talk about the box, we have to get fairly abstract, wouldn’t we?

Yes, I would say too abstract for what we’re talking about. I mean, who can get at what reality actually is is essence? But I agree that the Buddhists have it right - at least, they have it closest. I think I’ve arrived at the Buddhist insight from a different path, but essentially what I’ve arrived at that seems to resonate with Buddhism is that if one should dispense with all one’s abstract and dissociated beliefs and preconceptions, and instead focus on the here-and-now- - that is, on what one is experience NOW, on what is GOING ON now - one is the closer to reality than one will ever be. What this tells me is that reality is none other than our raw primal experiences - the heat of the Sun, the wetness of water, the sharpness of a knife (and the pain that comes with cutting oneself with it), the coldness of snow, the sweetness of ripe fruit, the redness of a plump cherry, etc., etc., etc., - and this instills a sense of back-to-basics, of a return to “home” so to speak, a reminder of how our abstractions and our theories lead us astray from this.

Well, apart from what I’ve already said, I would say reality is that which I can extrapolate from what I experience in the here-and-now (although this naturally brings me back into an abstract/theoretical frame of mind - but that’s OK :wink:). I believe the “primary reality”, as you call it, is just the infinit extent of all possible experience. If we can reduce all that we experience - the heat of the Sun, the wetness of water, etc. - to experiences, to mental ‘objects’ so to speak, then we can extrapolate it all to the sum total of all possible experiences… even those which we, as humans, can’t experience. For example, the bee can experience colors within and above the ultraviolet spectrum - that is, colors beyond violet - which we humans are incapable of. Reality, in its totality, is the sum of all possible experiences.

As for ‘infinity’ and ‘transience’ - well, it is these and it isn’t at the same time. It is infinit in the sense that there are an infinitude of qualities (e.i. experiences) that can, in principle, be had, and they all take part in the makeup of the universe. But no one of these qualities is in itself infinite. The color red, for example, is not infinit - it’s just red. Same with transience. No one experience is transient to itself, but we can say that certain experience - namely, those which we aren’t experiencing - are transient to our subjective reality (i.e. the reality we experience) - but this also makes transience a relative term. That is, a thing is only transient to one whose reality does not consist of that thing.

Is any of this making sense, or am I babbling to myself :slight_smile:.

hi gib

ha, no problem mate, :slight_smile: i hate it when people do that too ~ i am glad i am not highly educated in this field as it allows me to enjoy a more anarchistic philosophising. whats in a label anyway, they are just boxes to confine the mind to sets rather than free-flowing thought. madman p has yet to answer my latest post & i will keep on and never give in. i will keep asking him for more detail until he describes himself into a corner - so to say. in a sense i think we know so much about the brain that the non material becomes very apparent the deeper we describe the physicality.

indeed, in your position you are right, i just like to visualise the box and contents as abstract and part of the transient world. i think this is where i am going wrong though, i keep going back to the buddhist pov where there is a ‘greater’ reality outside of the box. perhaps this is where we are also going wrong in understanding the relationship of mind body and ‘spirit’. as matter is empty and consciousness and mind are empty, what is too separate them?_!

we can look at the brain and material reality and describe almost all of our aspects except that base. people like mmp say the brain does this n that as if there is nothing else going on, a psychologist will say many of our natures go back to childhood, but perhaps we should say; it is all a circle, the brain reacts to its environment and that includes ‘you’ the mind/consciousness! when we are children [and babies/feotus’s] the brain builds up its matrix’s in response everything it is given and that includes ‘who-you-are’. i would visualise this ‘you’ as the composite of previous incarnations, just as the universe is born of nothing [in a sense] but has all the characteristics and potential to become what it is.

where we go wrong is to break everything into pieces and look at the parts then say this is what we are, the very process of doing so takes us away from the simpler natural truths, ones that like awareness are self descriptive, any secondary description is thence moot. sure we have to have science and modern materialistic philosophy, but they don’t override the inner truths of what reality is.

sorry its my poetic manner of saying things that is confusing [and ‘it’ is my integer of philosophy]. yes the abstract is the contents of the box. i was alluding to the nature of the meaning ‘abstract’, as i see it, it is infinitely tangental i.e. you describe a thing, then you find that you have to define something else to describe that thing, we are then taken on a merry-go-round where we keep having to describe the next thing to properly define the first. in other words the abstract is itself abstract ~ if that makes any sense.

sure, the buddhist view can though, produce a duality between the reality you rightly say is undefinable and the reality that is definable or ‘there’. i am going to stick with my infiniverse theory as it is all inclusive, like the mind-body duality doesn’t really exist, neither does the material-immaterial duality exist. apart from that i am with the buddhists.

an interesting thing about ‘now’ is that nothing except perhaps our consciousness [specifically the aware pert of it] exists in it! all of material existence exists historically, as it only becomes physical as it is formed ~ fractionally after ‘now’. just an idea at the moment, but i am thinking that relativity can move into this area at the very least, let alone QM.

it appears we are on a parallel path! that is what i was alluding to earlier about the ‘you’ and natural realities. who knows, in a sense plato may have been somewhere near correct with his ‘forms’ and that reality can be seen as personal and natural just as much as mechanistic [atomic etc].

interesting! i would normally go with primary reality being nothing but the now and its infinite awareness. however i agree with your supposition of totality [even if it can never achieve this completely], as infinity would be both the empty now-ness and the said totality.

i am blown away again! we may also say perhaps that transience is only perceived reality and it is the perception or observation that makes things appear to be transient. oh dear does that mean relativity and QM are flawed!

…and yes you are making so much sense! =D>

Hmm… that’s an interesting way to think of it.

Well, I wish you luck - but to be honest, I think MMP’s got the same tricks up his sleave. He doesn’t strike me as the type to give up at all. As soon as you think you have him in your grips, he slips out like a fish. You can back him into a corner, but I think he’ll just scurry between your legs and find a position he recently took up and you thought you destroyed. He seems to do that with me.

And I think he’s abandonned that thread (for now).

You know, that strikes a cord with me. The second brainscience course I took at Uni (Perception & Sensation) kinda openned my eyes to the relation between mind and brain - and my thoughts on the matter were very much like what you just said: it seemed obvious from our current knowledge in brainscience what the key relation was between the brain and the mind, and it wasn’t materialism (not for me at least) - it eventually became the theory my website is all about.

Hmm… don’t know about that last part, but the stuff you said before that - about a ‘transient’ world outside the box and how abstract this all becomes - reminds me of what I wrote in one of my papers at my website.

There’s a couple sections. One describes the ‘chamber model’ (like a ‘box’ model):

mm-theory.com/reality/reality.htm (click on The Chamber Metaphor at the top).

and another section deals with the ‘infinite regress’ problem as I call it (where your sudden realization that you’ve stepped outside the box leads to a sudden realization that this outside-the-box-realm is actually part of the ‘real’ box that’s really just an extension of your own mind (i.e. the abstract nature of this realm indicates that it’s just your own thoughts) - and thus you have yet to really transend your own mind - leading to the infinite regress of greater and greater boxes, of course):

mm-theory.com/reality/reality.htm (click on The Infinite Regress Problem at the top).

I think I follow.

Yes - I agree completely… though that doesn’t invalidate the process of breaking things into their parts - it just makes it unnecessary.

So people like us think. Materialists would, of course, call that flat out wrong (but what do they know, right? :wink:).

Meaning what - that your whole philosophy is based on a poetic manner of speaking?

I think it does - you mean ‘tangental’ as in ‘on-a-tangent’ as opposed to tangible (which basically means ‘physical’), right?

Again, it reminds me of my treatise on the problem of the infinite regress:

mm-theory.com/reality/reality.htm (click on The Infinite Regress Problem at the top).

Sure - that’s natural of the human mind - it seeks an external independent objective reality. The key to understanding this, however, is (like the section The Infinite Regress Problem of my website points out) that this is not a problem with the logic of a Buddhist or idealist or subjectivist theory (or as I like to call them: Dependent Models of Reality - meaning dependent on conscious experience), but a problem with our dissatisfaction with these ‘dependent-models-of-reality’. The human mind craves an independent model - it wants to have contact with the ‘other’. This is not to say there is no ‘other’ but that our attachment to the other is not a logical truth - it’s just that - an attachment. It can be argued - rationally - that the box is all there is for us - but it can also be argued that we can make of the box whatever we want - and that includes theories of reality that make sense to us (such as Buddhism, idealism, subjectivism, or whatever tickles your fancy) - since these theories don’t suffer any logical flaws (they suffer ‘intellectual-satisfaction’ flaws instead), there’s no reason to abandon them on logical grounds.

hmm… interesting thoughts. You say that our conscious perceptions in the ‘now’ become material historically - that’s interesting - and kinda obscure - what do you mean?

As for relativity and QM - I’ve got niches for these in my theory that work nicely - but I don’t know if they figure into my worldview in the same way they do yours. Relativity in particular fits only in the most generic sense - that is relativism as a philosophy of perception - that is relativism in the moral/metaphysical sense (has very little to do with Einsteinian relativism or physics in general - that stuff I’m still trying to figure out how it ought ot be interpreted in the light of my theory).

As for QM - I’ve come up with my own interpretations - a couple of them, actually:

mm-theory.com/detandfw/detandfw.htm (go to Quantum Theory).

mm-theory.com/god/god.htm (go to Infinite Complexity).

Sorry - didn’t get that. Can you re-word that?

Yes - the ‘infinite awareness’ is simply a paraphrase of my ‘sum-of-all-possible-experience’. As for the ‘now’ - I wouldn’t say as much - I would say, rather, that reality must consist of all past and future states. It couldn’t be complete otherwise.

I say it already has - we just don’t know it (recall what I said about the limits of ‘knowledge’).

Well, now I’m a bit confused. Why do you say the infinite is ‘empty’?

Do you mean that ‘transience’ is only a human term and can only be understood within the context of human perception and observation?

I don’t see how.

Good stuff then!