What is the ultimate expression of everythingness?
In material form a human being is pretty mush the ultimate form inho, it could have four arms like shiva, but that would be cumbersome and use up more brain resources. Equally the brain could be bigger, but that to would also be cumbersome, because it is better to have shorter connections.
However if we were to go way out into the realms of the imagination and into an idealised realm of being, what then would be the ultimate expression? Beyond the material maybe shiva’s arms would be fully utilised, and a mind unlimited by the restraints of the physical brain.
Going further, maybe we wouldn’t need any instrumentation, more arms to do things and more brain to think things. A fullest of expression would be the ability to do anything with the mind, think a world and it would appear, probably most of us would think of something similar to what we have, which differences like no disease or death, so what do we fill our world with?
One thing is worlds, another thing is beings, given no restraints what kind of beings could we become, would god or gods be any different?
What then is the blend of ultimate world and ultimate mind?
all ideas welcome and scrutinised, moreover what does this idea tell us about reality, if for example it has that very nature [whatever it is] within it.
So above “ultimate form” is defined as that (specifically categorized form… a “human being”) which is best at (or the extreme, or final–“ultimate” is a pretty ambiguous word–point/being of)… what exactly? Consciously manipulating the environment (to survive long enough to procreate…)?
ultimate expression of what? personal "woah"ness?
A mind unlimited by the restraints of a physical brain? Well, sorta contradicts a key defining factor of “mind”… but okay… some subjective experience (which itself isn’t physical, isn’t a form) which, not being limited to physical reactions, comes about/changes from some other (not physical) causes…
…penises and vaginas?
sigh, I dunno (how to answer such a question)…
I know what I want (to appear/happen/experience) is a result of a bunch of neurons firing… with a lot of them being part of habituated networks of varying strength (or, when it comes to a resulting subjective experience/“interpretation”, “contextual(izing) dominance”), which were strengthened by past combinations of firings involving other “dominating roots” in the eventual construct of a worldview. I know certain networks will suddenly “interact” with others, which (in terms of a resulting overall subjective experience) can become very “attracted/attached”… perhaps (as a self-indulgent poetic expression:) slowly distancing or even abruptly separating from what becomes just a past fling (though they were once so intertwined they were like a single reality/being/point of view).
So, given all my experiences and wants and “reality” are dependent on all this, how can I say what “I” (as if my “I” translates to a “mind” that “I” am not and never was) would want to fill the world with?
I think a better title for this thread would be “What kind of world (as fantastic as you’d like) would you like to live in?”, or something like that… I mean there isn’t really anything more to the OP (that calls for a sensible, applicable response) than that…
Well… (and I can only answer this according to the human experiences dependent on and limited to a brain)
we deem certain experiences “bad”, whether actually due to physical pain or just associating some present concept with “bad” (-associated concepts),
so “ultimate” (assuming we want to avoid “bad”) world and “ultimate” mind go together (are inseparable when it comes to the mind’s experience of it);
a world with minimal physical dangers, and a mind that isn’t going to get all bent out of shape because it’s trying to avoid subjective experiences (as concepts) that (don’t actually endanger physical well-being/avoidance of pain, but) are only “bad” (and causing discomfort) because the mind labels them as such.
I have to explain what a human being is? All I meant was hands and brain = best stuff to have etc.
For example rudy rucker [german mathematician] writes about an ‘infiniscape‘, where the mind that can perceive infinity is infinite. From such ideas one may postulate an everythingness in a similar manner perhaps.
For materialist it would, I don’t see how mind is otherwise limited once outside of the brain [death and imagination perhaps].
Well, if you wish to ‘believe’ that, then cannot the subjective mind conceive of an everythingness expressed, after all there is only so many shapes and forms one can make, along with mental archetypes and ideas.
A sensible person would see notions of gods as expressions of a greater intellect/mind, is that so difficult for your neuron matrix to work out?
Ok mr ‘I think I am really clever, so I’ll put others down’ person, when I asked what such ideas can eventually tell us about reality, did it not cross your mind that I was speaking of the reality map? In other words reality probably is the ultimate expression of everythingness, how can it be less? Perhaps you’re a lesser cartographer? Though childishness aside I think you could probably come up with some interesting ideas if you got off your high horse!
Haha, well I have been thinking something along the lines of infinity as empty and yet filled with an everythingness, so it kinda made sense.
Because all ‘things’ would be their unmanifest version, kinda like if you made everything invisible, not just in terms of visuals but in every manner [cant touch, hear, or percieve etc.].
A piece of music with an infinite number of every instrument imaginable, playing a billion discordant melodies.
Attempting to appreciate the piece as a totality would, necessarily, obscure hearing any particular instrument, let alone a tone or note, rendering our conceptualisation of it an explosive, rainbow grey. To attempt to focus on any one part will allow tantalising, exciting glimpses of old tunes half remember before they become submerged again in the tumult, only to be replaced by something else snatching at your attention, desperate to hold your gaze, to play for you.
Then, suddenly, it stops. Really it only lasted an instant. Maybe it left you behind? Now you wonder if you ever heard anything at all…
High horse? Just because I criticized your OP doesn’t mean I think I am somehow above illusion-based thinking. I am actually a pretty humble person, and sometimes overly critical of myself, though I can understand how you could interpret otherwise from my post.
According to your ideas of sensibility, at least.
But words (“mind” here) are meant to refer to something, no? Are there any “minds” that we know of that haven’t resulted from a brain?
I understand your idea… that there is some conscious subjective experience independent from matter; you are calling the subjective experience the mind, and asking what a subjective experience may decide to create if it (not being dependent on material cause and effect) could will whatever it wanted. I was making the point that that’s a silly way to think of and use the word “mind” (as something independent of a brain), and that the OP poses a silly question because it (as it was posed) has no relevance, and there is no possible logical answer to it (unless, as I mentioned, the question was simply “what kind of world would you like to live in?”).
Nope, I didn’t put a question mark over the human being part. I was asking why the human is the “ultimate”/“best”. By what (absolute) ideal/goal/etc. is it deemed ultimate?
Well sure, a mind perceives an idea it calls “infinity”, and that mind is that experience (of perceiving it at that moment), so you can say it is, at that moment (that deeming) “infinite”…
Of course, that’s not what you’re talking about… but I am trying to make a point.
What I wrote was just a kind of “Well, I have explained why I think ‘mind’ isn’t the best word to use, but okay I will reword the idea you brought up to show I follow you (even though I don’t see any good reason to think it is so, or possible)”.
I see that most people see notions of gods this way… but I don’t think it’s sensible. I see them as subjective concepts that are deemed somehow “greater” (and existing independent from the mind/experience of the concept) because they are associated with certain actions/situations/objects/etc. that a group of other people agree exist (which they symbolize with words).
Hey, when you post as many OPs like you do, again and again, I think you could use some “extra” criticism… this is a philosophy forum, it’s not a “trippy ideas resulting from a combination of messy abstractions” forum. By making these OPs on this forum I assume you are attempting philosophy, and you ought to know how sloppy it is.
I don’t recall you suddenly shifting gears and asking how the ideas can be practically applied to “reality”
(as if the title and everything else was simply an elaborate hypothetical devised for the purpose of a final “of course this is just a fantasy to not be taken seriously, but it does shed light on the situations we find ourselves in today…”)
… you were asking what an ideal reality would be, after setting the context of a limitless creator. So no, it didn’t cross my mind that the OP had any relevance to the world we all live in… do you actually think this now?
I have no idea how to make sense of that question…
I’m not sure… but I think it’s necessary to point out that, while lounging on a bed of clouds can offer a pretty view of many, many different things, being so far from the ground makes you lose the ability to see a lot of fine details necessary to distinguish them. Yet… I am guessing you’d still insist that if one went high enough one could experience “everything”?
Well sure, I probably could come up with a bunch of “interesting” “ideas”, but this is a philosophy forum, not a forum for the purpose of “presenting” (as a potential “interesting idea”) some novel definitions/associations of words so that readers will (hopefully) get a dopamine rush in their frontal lobes.
In terms of the subjective experience of concepts… a mental state resulting from “hey” (and/or abstract") words that are closely associated with and key defining aspects of many other words
having been redefined in light of other words also redefined, which then result in a chain reaction of a priori “epiphanies” as working memory functions in the context of the initial “interesting idea”, and thus “affirms” all the following “truths” because, der, they are the “mental products” resulting from the blueprint/materials/etc. of the original “interesting idea”.
I don’t want to get too personal, but if you take what I’m saying seriously
(rather than merely an attempt to put you down to make myself feel better–which I don’t deny could be a factor, resulting from underlying potentials, in why I decided to reply in the first, and my tone from time to time)
you may benefit from it.
When one thinks about very abstract words (that depend on a lot of other symbols to get meaning, rather than more directly referring to something concrete, like that which we call a “canine”) there is an increased potential for a new outlook on other abstractions, as many things can be associated with those abstractions, and if any of those things have been altered since last considering that abstract, then that abstract can be altered, altering more and more.
The frontal lobes of the brain are the center of language, attention and the executive function (or working memory… a certain focus/context that leads to relating/relevant thoughts).
The neurotransmitter dopamine has a role in attention, learning, motivation, mood and reward, and is (as an analogy) like the fuel that runs the “focus-engine” (the prefrontal cortex). There is a correlation between low dopamine in the prefrontax cortex and ADD (inability to stay on task).
When you are totally absorbed in a series of “interesting” ideas, it’s because there’s a lot of dopamine functioning the language center (and you are experiencing that as seeing word after word in a new light) and memory (as certain ideas activate other associated/connected concepts), and you’re totally attentive and locked in (focused) on the arising cognitions, and you also feel very motivated and are in a good mood; your “reward” center is being activated, which strengthens and maintains your attention to that situation.
So… keep in mind that a string of intense “revelations”, which seem and feel so true and so right, result from A) their being deemed “true” according to the very context that caused/defined their presentation and B) emotional reward (symbolically deemed as "right"ness).
Also, keep in mind that marijuana increases dopamine.
Even if you don’t smoke weed much, or at all, it’s pretty obvious to me you’re, in a sense, addicted to that dopamine rush, which itself isn’t really bad (dopamine is a necessary neurotransmitter for one’s well-being), but I think the problem is that your ego is tied to it; you really want to convince yourself these “epiphanies” are somehow valid realizations about reality because thinking that way builds a strong defense against ideas that threaten your ego.
Maybe you think I’m totally out of line… you certainly didn’t ask for these comments. But I think you should think about it.
well I have been thinking something along the lines of infinity as empty and yet filled with an everythingness, so it kinda made sense.