There would be no data/input without a mind encoding it for another mind to decode according to a shared language. Now. If that language was encoded in the communicators before they even learned how to communicate (please see “Euthyphro”-type Dilemma of Language Ability and Learning | Ichthus77 ) … then … they are made in the image of the original encoder(s) (what all images trace back to).
Why? The universe and it’s laws exist without a mind. Or?
1 Like
Why the dramatics? The universe follows laws. The universe has data and information.
The universe gave birth to life, to the data and input that exists inside your dna, to you.
And at no point was there a mind involved with the process unless you gonna introduce me to the person. I got a lot of questions for the dude.
Take a wager and ask them, and don’t stop until you get the answer. Start with what they’ve already communicated…because if they haven’t yet, there’s nobody to ask.
Oh im way past that point. I have put my soul up for sale whether its heaven or hell, but nobody was interested.
Helleaven it is.
1 Like
You forgot the fundamental question of why there has to be a fundamental question.
If there is only a triad then the component parts of the triad are also triads and then there is no component parts of the triad that allows it to be a triad as there is no 3 parts that allow it to be a triad as there is only a triad…and triad loses its identity as a triad.
In shorter terms the triad can only be a triad if it is composed of scaling monads, as the triad is composed of three monadic/singular distinctions, thus the triad is simply an extension of the monad and the triad ceases to be fundamental.
You assertion of the triad being foundational does not hold.
But vot about the octad?
This is not going to be a complete answer, but it is where I’m at with something.
See line 64 & 65 and see how 64’s yellow node is triadic (think: triadic category of being) and shown in 65’s triad. This is just one example.
The part circled in red (it’s in the wrong place in the picture; It should be in the row above, which it now is in the actual sheet) says this:
I think perceptual needs to be disambiguated because when you split things up between perceptual and conceptual, and you never refer to the third, and there’s this controversy of immediate experience versus observational experience (being “too late” for an omniscient being), then you really don’t know where to put perceptual, and—“as if” conceptual is “outside” the realm of your experience—but it can also clear the confusion of conflicting beliefs/conclusions/hunches/biases … it’s like a recalibration device.
You’re a cyborg now, Ichthus.
But your handwriting is beautiful.
I think you fail to see the obvious paradox.
If everything is reduced to a triad, and the triad is one distinction, then everything is reduced to one distinction thus is no longer a triad.
There is no fundamental question or set of questions, there is just the act of questioning.
The paradox is that it (the distinction) is a unity—which you cannot have without distinction(s). But it is not a contradiction.
There is a fundamental answer(s) which implies there is a fundamental question(s) (and vice versa). There would be no act of questioning without a questioner… does this imply there would be no act of answering without an answerer? You tell me, process monist (or are you still processing? …or are you the process? … or is there any you at all that can’t even answer that question and your username is always a sock puppet because there is never one you to attribute the user account to? why would a user account outlast you? Very strange….)…..
Cheat sheet from Plato’s Theaetetus’ three axioms rephrased:
- Nothing has BEING unless it subsumes its Act of self-demonstration of Quality.
- Nothing can ACT to self-demonstrate Quality unless Being subsumes change.
- Nothing has QUALITY unless Being self-demonstrates (Acts) by subsuming change.
Well, here goes a lame attempt. The only three questions that matter about anything are:
What is its history?
Why does it matter?
How did it come to your attention?
“The paradox is that it (the distinction) is a unity—which you cannot have without distinction(s). But it is not a contradiction.”
You fail to see the meta-level.
If everything is triadic, and this triad is one by nature of being a triad, you reduce reality to a single principle. By reducing reality to a single principle you have a monism.
The triad is but a relative scale of the monism, is one relative scale, but this one remains as a single process of scaling by which dualism, triads, quads, etc. exist.
By reducing everything to a triad the foundation becomes not the triad but the singular act of reduction.
The questions you pose are acts of reduction by degree of the contexts you apply that limits and localizes the answers.
I like it, but you flipped the last two.
So … why does its history matter more than its future/potential?
You need to know something about it before you can ask why it matters. And if you don’t know why it matters, it doesn’t really matter how it came to your attention.
Its history matters more because you can know nothing about it, including an accurate idea of future or potential, if you don’t know its history.
If it’s a person, you know it has the potential to overcome its history and maximize treating every person as a person.
Who cares about the odds? Miracles wouldn’t be possible if you couldn’t beat them. Who wants to stick with the usual?