RM AND VO

This is the main board for discussing philosophy - formal, informal and in between.

Re: RM AND VO

Postby James S Saint » Sun Aug 04, 2013 8:47 pm

So it sounds like you are relating the "affecter and affected" with the "valuer and valued";
"Affectance" and "Valuance".

By what means does the valuer acquire a standard for valuing?
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: RM AND VO

Postby Silhouette » Sun Aug 04, 2013 9:27 pm

Jakob wrote:
Silhouette wrote:does reality precede value?

Does it to you?

No.
This is why I was interested to see if FC was deterred by the logical conclusion of such a position - that value isn't real.

Jakob wrote:RM refers from the "human" at absolute near zero level, the 'infinitesimal bit of PtA'.
VO recognizes this bit as equal to a human in the essential property of not being nothing - i.e. immediately transient: resistance.

Precisely.

RM is clearly a culmination of things that JSS considers to be most valuable. Yet he still tries to irrationally proclaim that RM precedes such an origin (that must necessarily be its origin).

This is the same sloppiness upon which scientists attempt to found their field. Not that RM is anything other than an attempt to adjust science through re-definition.

My philosophy originates more fundamentally than both VO and RM, in pre-meaningful experience. Value is merely one aspect of this starting point.
User avatar
Silhouette
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4397
Joined: Tue May 20, 2003 1:27 am
Location: Existence

Re: RM AND VO

Postby James S Saint » Mon Aug 05, 2013 2:40 am

RM:AO explains the logic behind why there is any universe at all, thus why there is any affecter, valuer, or consciousness.

What is VO's explanation?
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: RM AND VO

Postby zinnat » Mon Aug 05, 2013 7:33 am

James S Saint wrote:All observations are probabilistic in nature. One cannot, through observation alone know of anything with certainty.. ever. Logic is required to know with certainty.


But James, where did i refute this?
One has to know all the whats in order to complete the sequence.

James S Saint wrote:My concern earlier was your statement that you begin with observations. That cannot be. Every observation assumes a great many things merely to form the picture that you consider "an observation".


I am not saying that observation does not assume. Of course, it does. That is why logic and reasoning is required to check it by developing an ontology and see where it leads. But, nothing can be initiated without initial observation.

You have been developed JSSRM by now, but, even this could not be done without some observations by you, which you would have taken into accont some years back. And, even now, you still have to confirm physically JSSRM by running it on computer. I do not think that anyone can escape this route. One cannot reason from nothing as there must be something either to agree or to refute.

James S Saint wrote:Thus RM:AO begins with logic, specifically Definitional Logic. Thus RM:AO begins with what has no choice but to be true, although being "true" at that stage is not of necessary concern. The trick is to then ensure that each logic step remains perfect so that where ever the logic leads, the same degree of absolute truth follows


I agree with all this.

James S Saint wrote:Their image exists, not them. What you experience, the affecting, occurs through and after time has passed (again by necessity of "affecting").

You are never affected immediately by any affector. The amount of time that passes between the affector and the affected is what determines what we call "distance". Physical distance is caused by the effort of light to propagate. The act of recording or documenting slows the propagation into a "particle" (something that doesn't change much at all). Once that happens, the particle (the documentation, video recording, what ever) can continue to affect even though the original affector has passed away. The stars that you see might not exist at all anymore. You are being affected by the residual effects, "documented" merely by the time it took for their image to get to you. Their image has been stored in space via propagation, but is dissipating.


Again, i agree with this, except that the image stored in time and space ever dissipates.

That is the difference between our perceptions.

Dissipation is a relative issue and that depends on the state of the observer, not the information itself. Information of the events tends to travel through space-time by the speed of light and crosses the observer, and he notices that for a very short span of moment, but that information never dies, merely moves on. Hypothetically, if an observer would also be able to travel with the speed of light, then that information would never be able to cross him.

This actually happens as that eternal consciousness within us acts as an beyond time independent observer, which records and stores each and every tiny and continuous flow of information within it. That is what we call memory. It is some sort of eternal video recording and files stored within can be replayed anytime in the future. Mind has nothing to do with the memory as it is only the mean to stimulate the consciousness.

If that is not the case, then how can we ever remember any event, because, that event has been passed through us years ago? And, where are all those files of memory stored in the brain?

One cannot replay the event if there is no backup recording. And, no backup recording is ever possible for any such entity, who cannot be complete independently observe events from the space-time.

James S Saint wrote:My point is that the "observation" already has presumed reasoning within it that must be humble to reconsideration. What you think that you see, might not be what you actually see. The cognitive mind can construct an ontology that can be used to verify that the subconscious's natural ontology and reasoning was or wasn't accurate. Many things turn out to be "counter intuitive".


I do not disagree with this as have been already accepted that this is not a perfect method as it relies on trial and error.

James S Saint wrote:That is absolutely impossible. "This universe" and "affectance" are the same thing, merely differing in perspective. Affectance necessarily includes all physical existence, by definition. But Affectance Ontology goes beyond merely the physical universe. RM:AO also includes the "Conceptual Realm" (or mental realm, divine realm, spiritual realm, or whatever names it has been given). There can be nothing real that has been excluded. If a "consciousness" by your definition exists, it is a part of the Affectance. But it implies a complex thing and thus isn't a part of the initial explanation that must begin with the simplest concepts possible.


James, the point is that affectance cannot ever manifest cognitive capacity, because, it merely acts, acts and acts, nothing else. It does not feel or think about its acts and consequences.

We also have difference about this concept of Conceptual realm. I do not agree with your difenition of it as holding it immutable. It is very much changeable and Live as other realm and very much affected my the same affectance, which governs our realm.

This is to say that its residing entities are not merely concepts but very much alive like us. And, that realm exists in a different space-time zone. But, both realms affects and got affected by each other as there is no isolation.

The only thing that is truly immutable, unchangeable or eternal exists, that is consciousness
.

James S Saint wrote:Fixed and not random"???
If you mean that it always obeys the same rules or principles, then you are right. There is no possibility of it ever being other than it is and thus doing what it does. But since the entire universe is formed by what it does, what need is there for it to be different?


James S Saint wrote:Consider that they really are "obeying the rules" and it is merely your misunderstanding of those rules that makes it appear as though they aren't. Again, your observations can trick you because they naturally presume reasoning that has not been verified.

"Random behavior" merely means behavior that you don't know enough about to predict. The word "random" directly infers ones lack of knowledge. The universe itself can never have anything whatsoever actually disobeying exact laws/principles. But to predict behavior requires extreme knowledge of the current state. If total knowledge of the current state down to the most infinitesimal detail is know, the entire future can be exactly predicted without a single flaw. But good luck gaining such knowledge.


I know what you are referring to.

James S Saint wrote:You are presuming that before learning of it. But you cannot prove your supposition, because it happens to not be true.


James, believe me or not, i can do it to some extent even right now. But, the problem is that my circumstances are not allowing me to do so as i cannot turn away face from my responsibilities. But, that time is coming and coming soon.

James S Saint wrote:I am forever struggling with "tool" issues concerning JiB. Progress has become extremely slow. My equipment is very limited. And my brain "ain't what it used to be".


James, i do not think that there is any issue with your brain yet.

I do not know whether you are aware or not, but there is leading scientist in the name of J. Craig Venter, who is exclusively working on Software of life. His perception is somewhat closer RM, though, being a scientist, he does not enter into metaphysics. Yet, i think that he may entertain and recognize your work With JSSRM, especially its software model.

James, i do not think that there is any harm for you to communicate with him. He is famous man and runs its own research organization and not short of different means and resources. Think over it.

I am putting a quote of him here to enable you to have an idea of his perception-

The question was "How can the events in space and time, which take place within the boundaries of a living organism be accounted for by physics and chemistry?

I view that we're now in what I'm calling "The Digital Age of Biology". My teams work on synthesizing genomes based on digital code in the computer, and four bottles of chemicals illustrates the ultimate link between the computer code and the digital code.

I view DNA as an analogue coding molecule, and when we sequence the DNA, we are converting that analogue code into digital code; the 1s and 0s in the computer are very similar to the dots and dashes of Schrodinger's metaphor. I call this process "digitizing biology".

Numerous scientists have drawn the analogy between computers and biology. I take these even further. I describe DNA as the software of life and when we activate a synthetic genome in a recipient cell I describe it as booting up a genome, the same way we talk about booting up a software in a computer.

Now, these proteins have been described as nature's robots. If you think about it for every single task in the cell, every imaginable task as described by Tanford and Reynolds, "there is a unique protein to carry out that task. It's programmed when to go on, when to go off. It does this based on its structure. It doesn't have consciousness; it doesn't have a control from the mind or higher center. Everything a protein does is built into its linear code, derived from the DNA code".

Life is a process of dynamic renewal. We're all shedding about 500 million skin cells every day. That is the dust that accumulates in your home; that's you. You shed your entire outer layer of skin every two to four weeks. You have five times ten to the 11th blood cells that die every day. If you're not constantly synthesizing new cells, you die.

Life is based on DNA software. We're a DNA software system, you change the DNA software, and you change the species. It's a remarkably simple concept, remarkably complex in its execution.

Those of you who are software engineers know that software engineers have debugging software to tell them where the problems are in their code. So we had to develop the biological version of debugging software, which was basically substituting natural pieces of DNA for the synthetic ones so we could find out what was wrong. We found out we could have 10 of the 11 synthetic pieces, and the last piece had to be the native genome DNA to get a living cell. We re-sequenced our synthetic segment and found one letter wrong in an essential gene that made the difference between life and no life. The deletion was in the DNAa gene, which is an essential gene for life. We corrected that error, the one error out of 1.1 million, and we got the first actual synthetic cell from the genome transplants.

All living cells that we know of on this planet are DNA software driven biological machines comprised of hundreds to thousands of protein robots coded for by the DNA software. The protein robots carry out precise biochemical functions developed by billions of years of evolutionary software changes.

Science can go much further now, and there is an exciting paper out of Stanford with a team led by Markus Covert and that included John Glass from my institute using the work on the mycoplasma cell to do the first complete mathematical modeling of a cell. But this is coming out in Cell next week. It's going to be an exciting paper. We can go from the digital code to the genetic code, and now modeling the entire function of the cell in a computer, going the complete digital circle. We are going even further now, by using computer software to design new DNA software to create a new synthetic life.


with love,
sanjay
User avatar
zinnat
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3650
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2012 7:27 pm

Re: RM AND VO

Postby Jakob » Mon Aug 05, 2013 2:11 pm

Silhouette wrote:
Jakob wrote:
Silhouette wrote:does reality precede value?

Does it to you?

No.
This is why I was interested to see if FC was deterred by the logical conclusion of such a position - that value isn't real.

I don't see how you arrive there. FC's position would be that value is subjective, and that subjectivity builds reality by resisting other subjectivities. VO takes objectivity as a collection of subjective perspectives (RM and regular science do the opposite).

So, any value is not objectively real as that value, but it is real in every instance where it determines the action/effect of any particle or entity. So it's real as a, what to call it - as an incentive.

My philosophy originates more fundamentally than both VO and RM, in pre-meaningful experience. Value is merely one aspect of this starting point.

I like the term pre-meaningful experience, but I'm not sure what it means. How can we experience without being aware of it? And is being aware of something different from giving meaning?

I'd like to hear more.
Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7193
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

Re: RM AND VO

Postby Jakob » Mon Aug 05, 2013 2:23 pm

James S Saint wrote:RM:AO explains the logic behind why there is any universe at all, thus why there is any affecter, valuer, or consciousness.

What is VO's explanation?

As I read it, it only asserts that there is such an affecter. You write:

1) Existence ≡ the set of all that is distinct and affects; Affectance

What allows something to affect, to be distinct?
Why are there affecters?

2) Affect ≡ to cause change of state
3) Time ≡ the measure of relative change
4) Potential ≡ the ability to affect given the opportunity to affect
... PtA ≡ "Potential-to-Affect".

This is clear enough.

5) 3D Space ≡ Euclidean space with Cartesian geometry.

I'm not sure what this means.

6) Infinite ≡ boundless, without end.
7) Infinitesimal ≡ infinitely close to zero, "1/infinity".

This is clear enough.

It's only the first assertion that I have issues with. How you build from there seems legitimate to me. But since the first assertion is in question, it's not said that the RM ontology covers any real ground. I believe that it does, but not that it covers everything.

VO explains what is required for there to be an affecter, a resistance, a distinction.
Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7193
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

Re: RM AND VO

Postby James S Saint » Mon Aug 05, 2013 3:18 pm

Jakob wrote:
James S Saint wrote:RM:AO explains the logic behind why there is any universe at all, thus why there is any affecter, valuer, or consciousness.

What is VO's explanation?

As I read it, it only asserts that there is such an affecter. You write:

1) Existence ≡ the set of all that is distinct and affects; Affectance

What allows something to affect, to be distinct?
Why are there affecters?

Did you forget that infinite homogeneity is logically impossible?
..along with the issue that worrying about anything that has no affect at all is irrational.
That is where it got the name "Rational... Metaphysics".

..and "distinct" merely means that there is a difference in their state.

Jakob wrote:it's not said that the RM ontology covers any real ground. I believe that it does, but not that it covers everything.

Find something that it doesn't cover.

Jakob wrote:VO explains what is required for there to be an affecter, a resistance, a distinction.

I haven't seen that explanation. Where did any of those things come from?
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: RM AND VO

Postby James S Saint » Mon Aug 05, 2013 3:49 pm

zinnat13 wrote: But, nothing can be initiated without initial observation.

I disagree.
RM:AO begins with pure logic, no observations at all.

zinnat13 wrote: You have been developed JSSRM by now, but, even this could not be done without some observations by you, which you would have taken into accont some years back. And, even now, you still have to confirm physically JSSRM by running it on computer. I do not think that anyone can escape this route. One cannot reason from nothing as there must be something either to agree or to refute.

I "have to" only because my mind isn't all that perfect. A much brighter person than me could have done all that I have done thousands of years ago without ever opening their eyes and still have known that they were perfectly right. Only a clouded mind has to verify its reasoning.

zinnat13 wrote: Dissipation is a relative issue and that depends on the state of the observer, not the information itself. Information of the events tends to travel through space-time by the speed of light and crosses the observer, and he notices that for a very short span of moment, but that information never dies, merely moves on. Hypothetically, if an observer would also be able to travel with the speed of light, then that information would never be able to cross him.

I have to accept that the "information" does eventually get "lost" in the sense that it becomes so conflated and confused with other information that it is irrecoverable and thus "lost" (referred to as the "Abyss"). I agree that its affect never ends, but the source of the information can no longer be deduced beyond a certain point of mixing with other information. It "dis-integrates".

zinnat13 wrote: Mind has nothing to do with the memory as it is only the mean to stimulate the consciousness[/u].

No mind can exist without memory. Memory is an essential and primary component to any and every mind.
No memory at all = no mind at all.

zinnat13 wrote: And, where are all those files of memory stored in the brain?

In synapse nodes.

zinnat13 wrote: James, the point is that affectance cannot ever manifest cognitive capacity, because, it merely acts, acts and acts, nothing else. It does not feel or think about its acts and consequences.

Again, that is a presumption of yours, and happens to be false.

zinnat13 wrote: We also have difference about this concept of Conceptual realm. I do not agree with your definition of it as holding it immutable. It is very much changeable and Live as other realm and very much affected my the same affectance, which governs our realm.

You cannot disagree with "my definitions". You can only choose a different concept and definition (the same is true in reverse). We can debate which definition is more appropriate, but there is no such thing as an incorrect definition as long as the definition is coherent.

zinnat13 wrote: This is to say that its residing entities are not merely concepts but very much alive like us. And, that realm exists in a different space-time zone. But, both realms affects and got affected by each other as there is no isolation.

There are only 3 options;
1) That which changes (physical; eternal disagreement)
2) That which never changes (conceptual; eternal agreement)
3) The border between 1 and 2, an empty set that both changes and doesn't or neither changes nor doesn't.

zinnat13 wrote: The only thing that is truly immutable, unchangeable or eternal exists, that is consciousness[/u].

If it moves, changes, scratches its ass, or thinks, it is Physical because it is "changing".
That is not to say that it isn't eternal. But it can't be said to be "immutable". Immutable things do not change... at all.

zinnat13 wrote: I do not know whether you are aware or not, but there is leading scientist in the name of J. Craig Venter, who is exclusively working on Software of life. His perception is somewhat closer RM, though, being a scientist, he does not enter into metaphysics. Yet, i think that he may entertain and recognize your work With JSSRM, especially its software model.

James, i do not think that there is any harm for you to communicate with him. He is famous man and runs its own research organization and not short of different means and resources. Think over it.

I am aware of such people and there are similarities, but it would be a very long time before we actually had anything to share.

There are 3 companies;
1) Steel mill
2) Engine manufacturer
3) Automobile manufacturer

I am working on 1 and 3. He is working on 2.
Eventually they must all come together. But that might be a very long time from now.

But thanks for the reference. 8)
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: RM AND VO

Postby Silhouette » Mon Aug 05, 2013 9:31 pm

Jakob wrote:FC's position would be that value is subjective, and that subjectivity builds reality by resisting other subjectivities. VO takes objectivity as a collection of subjective perspectives (RM and regular science do the opposite).

I entirely agree with subjectivity building reality (which is the basis of RM's major fundamental flaw).

That is to say that subjective values build reality. Thus values must be there first in order for reality to exist at all: values precede reality. And if they exist before, and thus without reality, their origin is unreal: values aren't real. They may become incorporated into one's reality later on, but any reality that is attributed to values in this way is in hindsight. Appreciating values as originating before reality, they can be seen as beyond reality.

Jakob wrote:So, any value is not objectively real as that value, but it is real in every instance where it determines the action/effect of any particle or entity. So it's real as a, what to call it - as an incentive

Given the above, values have an effect on reality, yes, but without being real themselves.
That is not to say that they can be unreal and also part of one's reality.

I hope that explains how I arrived there.

Jakob wrote:
Silhouette wrote:My philosophy originates more fundamentally than both VO and RM, in pre-meaningful experience. Value is merely one aspect of this starting point.

I like the term pre-meaningful experience, but I'm not sure what it means. How can we experience without being aware of it? And is being aware of something different from giving meaning?

I'd like to hear more.

It is inspired by becoming, as opposed to "being". Experience is dynamic, not static.

Meaning is created by only two ingredients: experience and association. Well, association is part of experience (just as everything is - shamefully a similar starting point to RM's relationship between existence and affectance - but I take solace in the fact that I was coming up with this long before I even heard of JSS's "Ridiculous Mess"), so that is really just one ingredient - a dynamic one.

Meaning evolves as experience influences one to adjust one's associations between mentally divided and re-connected experience (which is what happens when one constructs one's reality). Associations are thus refined, but from what starting point? In order for meaning to be created, one starts without it, without meaning, but with the meaningless drive to create it - this is pre-meaningful (very similar to, but one step before VO since this drive is at first without value even though it can be incorrectly called a value in hindsight). One continually experiences this process even in the present, through inspiration and understanding: concretely as the seamless progression that is experience (as opposed to the series of static abstract events, which is a theoretical breakdown that does not resemble experience in practice).
User avatar
Silhouette
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4397
Joined: Tue May 20, 2003 1:27 am
Location: Existence

Re: RM AND VO

Postby James S Saint » Mon Aug 05, 2013 10:20 pm

Silhouette wrote:That is to say that subjective values build reality.

Just a brief curiousity;
How are you defining "reality" in your ontology?
..try not to use the word "real" in the definition.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: RM AND VO

Postby Silhouette » Mon Aug 05, 2013 10:40 pm

James S Saint wrote:How are you defining "reality" in your ontology?
..try not to use the word "real" in the definition.

The word "real" comes from the Latin, meaning "thing".
A thing is defined, it has boundaries, unlike the set of every "thing", which cannot be included in its own set. It is itself beyond the set of "real", defined things.

Becoming is the dynamic process by which concrete "everything" is divided up, through abstraction, and reconnected, through association. This experience is the continual creation of one's reality, originating in the pre-real (which is unreal).

Thus reality is only the result of all concrete experience, once it is abstracted into things and associated back together in order to add meaning to them.

There, and I didn't use the word "real" in the definition.
User avatar
Silhouette
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4397
Joined: Tue May 20, 2003 1:27 am
Location: Existence

Re: RM AND VO

Postby James S Saint » Mon Aug 05, 2013 11:06 pm

Silhouette wrote:
James S Saint wrote:How are you defining "reality" in your ontology?
..try not to use the word "real" in the definition.

The word "real" comes from the Latin, meaning "thing".
A thing is defined, it has boundaries, unlike the set of every "thing", which cannot be included in its own set. It is itself beyond the set of "real", defined things.

Becoming is the dynamic process by which concrete "everything" is divided up, through abstraction, and reconnected, through association. This experience is the continual creation of one's reality, originating in the pre-real (which is unreal).

Thus reality is only the result of all concrete experience, once it is abstracted into things and associated back together in order to add meaning to them.

There, and I didn't use the word "real" in the definition.

So you proposed a "your reality" and "my reality"?
.. and I assume no "objective reality"?


Seems that would make attempting to discuss anything a bit pointless.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: RM AND VO

Postby Silhouette » Tue Aug 06, 2013 7:40 pm

James S Saint wrote:So you proposed a "your reality" and "my reality"?
.. and I assume no "objective reality"?

Seems that would make attempting to discuss anything a bit pointless.

Your assumption is correct, though I never said "your reality" and "my reality" would have nothing in common.
This is why language and any communication at all is possible.
But let's not kid ourselves that everyone completely agrees with everyone else - or can, for this very reason.

In terms of communication (which has the same derived root as common), common ground is enough.
Abstraction would be the essential ability here in order to abstract common themes. But even the most abstract languages, created in order to maximise potential for common ground, such as math, are ultimately susceptible to individual interpretation and incorporation into "your" reality or "mine". Consensus does not amount to objectivity.

In order to proclaim this requires no objective truth. Just because it is agreeable to those who have enough in common with me, I am ultimately a subject and not an object. This is my reality, full of abstraction in order to maximise consensus with other. And whilst others may proclaim objective truth in order to attempt even wider and more certain appeal, they too say so just as much as a subject as I. Agreeable subjective truth =/= objective truth.
User avatar
Silhouette
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4397
Joined: Tue May 20, 2003 1:27 am
Location: Existence

Re: RM AND VO

Postby James S Saint » Tue Aug 06, 2013 8:00 pm

Well, you didn't really give a definition for "reality", but you did associated it with "concrete experience".
What exactly is "concrete experience"?

Can different people have different concrete experience concerning the same thing/event?
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: RM AND VO

Postby Silhouette » Tue Aug 06, 2013 11:26 pm

James S Saint wrote:Well, you didn't really give a definition for "reality", but you did associated it with "concrete experience".

That depends on your values.

James S Saint wrote:What exactly is "concrete experience"?

The opposite of abstract experience.

James S Saint wrote:Can different people have different concrete experience concerning the same thing/event?

They must, obviously.
It is not only the different viewpoint that gives a different experience "of the same thing" (so is it the same thing at all?), but obviously the fact that they are different people in many other ways as well, not least relative to other environmental factors other than and including the "thing/event" being focused on.
User avatar
Silhouette
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4397
Joined: Tue May 20, 2003 1:27 am
Location: Existence

Re: RM AND VO

Postby James S Saint » Wed Aug 07, 2013 4:40 am

Silhouette wrote:
James S Saint wrote:What exactly is "concrete experience"?

The opposite of abstract experience.

So any unique experience to an individual is a "concrete experience"? And thus a personal "reality"?

If their perception is skewed for any reason, then what?
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: RM AND VO

Postby Silhouette » Wed Aug 07, 2013 8:09 pm

James S Saint wrote:So any unique experience to an individual is a "concrete experience"? And thus a personal "reality"?

If their perception is skewed for any reason, then what?

Skewed according to what value set?

Everyone's perception is "skewed" relative to everyone else's... measurable in terms of different chemical constitutions, spatial and temporal circumstances etc. There is no "correct" set of sensory faculties and abilities to have, "correct" DNA, "correct" place to be, etc. because there is no necessarily universal goal. All lifeforms do not even *have* to survive, reproduce, exert its power etc. Often deviations from optimising these supposed biological imperatives turn out to benefit even those who *are* out there to survive, reproduce, exert power etc. It actually benefits lifeforms to be experientially distinct from one another, and to vary.

If their perception were not skewed - that is what would be an issue. We would all be the same and may as well be counted as the same lifeform, much more vulnerable to change and variation in our environment - a sure way to get yourself extinct.
User avatar
Silhouette
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4397
Joined: Tue May 20, 2003 1:27 am
Location: Existence

Re: RM AND VO

Postby Jakob » Wed Aug 07, 2013 8:25 pm

What allows something to affect, to be distinct?
Why are there affecters?

Did you forget that infinite homogeneity is logically impossible?

No. I left that out, because I wanted you to bring it back to that point.
It's the most crucial point, and it keeps referring me back to VO, or the post I posted in the Tower at BTL.

What is the logical proof that absolute homogeneity is impossible, besides that it can not be derived from the current state?

..along with the issue that worrying about anything that has no affect at all is irrational.
That is where it got the name "Rational... Metaphysics".

This comes down to your suggestion that "affectance" is ultimately one set, wherein all affectance is interconnected. Thus that no separate realms can exist "alongside" each other, never able to affect each other.

..and "distinct" merely means that there is a difference in their state.

Yes but how are they not merely one blob or void? Why are they different states? I am talking about the infinitesimals of PtA as well as of particles - the particles bit you covered well enough (for me, for now).

Jakob wrote:it's not said that the RM ontology covers any real ground. I believe that it does, but not that it covers everything.

Find something that it doesn't cover.

I'm afraid to go there, as I'll be ridiculed. But I'm saying it anyway - telepathy, to name one thing. I assume you don't believe in it, and I assume RM does not explain it. So that's a bit of a dead end - but VO allows for it very simply by putting values (i.e. "the stuff of relations") to be logically prior to matter (matter can not exist without the stuff of relations) - so values do not have to travel through the medium of matter. Not saying that they don't, just saying that VO allows for the relation to exist without having the density of matter.

Jakob wrote:VO explains what is required for there to be an affecter, a resistance, a distinction.

I haven't seen that explanation. Where did any of those things come from?

It does not say where it comes from - I did not claim that. It says what is required.
What is required is a resistance, however minute - a 'delay of change', thus a "something", a consistency of context.
VO explains how a consistency would have to operate. It has to 'refer to itself in its interactions with its ambient'.
Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7193
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

Re: RM AND VO

Postby Jakob » Wed Aug 07, 2013 8:40 pm

Silhouette wrote:
Jakob wrote:FC's position would be that value is subjective, and that subjectivity builds reality by resisting other subjectivities. VO takes objectivity as a collection of subjective perspectives (RM and regular science do the opposite).

I entirely agree with subjectivity building reality (which is the basis of RM's major fundamental flaw).

That is to say that subjective values build reality. Thus values must be there first in order for reality to exist at all: values precede reality. And if they exist before, and thus without reality, their origin is unreal: values aren't real. They may become incorporated into one's reality later on, but any reality that is attributed to values in this way is in hindsight. Appreciating values as originating before reality, they can be seen as beyond reality.

Or at least prior to all other reality.
I would choose that stance.

Jakob wrote:So, any value is not objectively real as that value, but it is real in every instance where it determines the action/effect of any particle or entity. So it's real as a, what to call it - as an incentive

Given the above, values have an effect on reality, yes, but without being real themselves.
That is not to say that they can be unreal and also part of one's reality.

I hope that explains how I arrived there.

I think so. Especially if you interpret reality as deriving from "res".
But in that case, the first "res" could also be said to be the value.

In any case, VO requires for something to exist prior to values - the valuer.
And this "thing" appears very hard if not impossible to reduce even further.
It seems to me that reality can not be pushed back any deeper than the valuing subject, of whom the values are a function.

I agree that this subject seems to stand outside of reality in a sense - the principle of perspective itself seems to be transcendent to the reality that any perspective engages.

I'm pretty sure this is what all those millions of people's experience with "God" is about - stepping back from the "res" and identifying with that through which the thing-ness is given.

Silhouette wrote:Meaning is created by only two ingredients: experience and association. Well, association is part of experience (just as everything is - shamefully a similar starting point to RM's relationship between existence and affectance - but I take solace in the fact that I was coming up with this long before I even heard of JSS's "Ridiculous Mess"), so that is really just one ingredient - a dynamic one.

Hmm.... so your idea is similar to RM - but you do not value RM at all... it's probably best if I don't probe.

In any case - you bring up the concept Meaning. I don't think we arrived there yet - as meaning requires consciousness.
Does your philosophy pertain only to humans, or also to atoms?

What is the equivalent of experience for an atom?

Meaning evolves as experience influences one to adjust one's associations between mentally divided and re-connected experience (which is what happens when one constructs one's reality). Associations are thus refined, but from what starting point? In order for meaning to be created, one starts without it, without meaning, but with the meaningless drive to create it - this is pre-meaningful (very similar to, but one step before VO since this drive is at first without value even though it can be incorrectly called a value in hindsight). One continually experiences this process even in the present, through inspiration and understanding: concretely as the seamless progression that is experience (as opposed to the series of static abstract events, which is a theoretical breakdown that does not resemble experience in practice).

VO holds that every interaction is dictated by the "self-valuing" of the entity - i.e. the standard into which all ambient must be translated in order to affect the entity at all.

This is why according to VO, not everything has to affect everything. There can, theoretically, be trillions of parallel universes, or "affectance-webs", existing without affecting each other, or only very selectively affecting each other.

This is all the result of questioning that the concept "will to power" (which for our intent and purpose here can be equated to PtA) refers to a homogenous category. I doubt that all existence can be reduced to one interconnected set.
Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7193
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

Re: RM AND VO

Postby James S Saint » Thu Aug 08, 2013 5:37 am

Jakob wrote:
..along with the issue that worrying about anything that has no affect at all is irrational.
That is where it got the name "Rational... Metaphysics".

This comes down to your suggestion that "affectance" is ultimately one set, wherein all affectance is interconnected. Thus that no separate realms can exist "alongside" each other, never able to affect each other.

The definitional requirement is that in order for something to be said to exist, it MUST have affect. But that leaves two categories; non-changing concepts that affect each other and the physical changing that we call "the universe". Those are two realms. They have no affect upon each other, but everything within each affects everything else within its own realm... through definition of concept or through time.

Jakob wrote:
What allows something to affect, to be distinct?
Why are there affecters?

Did you forget that infinite homogeneity is logically impossible?

No. I left that out, because I wanted you to bring it back to that point.
It's the most crucial point, and it keeps referring me back to VO, or the post I posted in the Tower at BTL.

What is the logical proof that absolute homogeneity is impossible, besides that it can not be derived from the current state?

The easy simple minded answer is simply the idea of infinite similarity being something that could never be reached. But there is a much more in depth explanation.

Now this part gets to the really deep, seriously deep, area that no noted philosopher throughout history has gone. If you can carefully grasp this part, you will truly be, in only this one regard, above all famous philosophers; Moses, Aristotle, Buddha, Einstein, Schrodinger, the entire gathering. That is not to say that the other areas they speak of are incorrect, merely that without this one concern, the rest turns into confused noise rather quickly, but never entirely wrong, just confusing.

So first let’s make sure you have one concept clear; “Potential is merely a Situation”.

When I say that every point has a potential, the immediate impression is that the point contains something that I am calling “potential”. And even though it can be thought of that way, that isn’t really what is meant.

A glass sitting at the edge of a table has the potential to fall. But it doesn’t contain anything called a “potential”. Its potential is due merely to its situation, being at that edge and within a gravity field. So it is important to get it straight in your mind that a potential isn’t a “thing”. It is given a measure, called “PtA”, but that is a measure of its relative situation to other similar points. And that is all it is. No two points have the exact same situation and thus cannot have the exact same potential. Let that thought soak in; “Potential is not a thing, but a measure of a situation”. The same is true in physics concerning the electric potential. Electric potential is not a substance at all. It is a situation relative to a surrounding.

So the question becomes, “what is the situation such that no two points can be infinitely identical?” And the first most obvious answer is that by definition no two points are in the same location and thus cannot immediately affect the same surrounding points. Each point has its own surrounding. Individual people are in that same boat. No two people are identical, not merely because of their DNA or experiences, but simply because they are in a different location with a different environment. In political science (RM’s version) such a distributed situation is critical to understand. And that is why a single set of rules to be applied to all people is extremely difficult to derive and also keep those people at their full potential (truly alive, not merely extensions/puppets/drones).

But so what if two points are different in their location? Why can’t all points be so evenly distributed that being in a different location is irrelevant?

This is where it gets interesting, dating back to at least Aristotle.

Aristotle surmised that one could stack tetrahedrons in such a way as to fill all space. He wasn’t quite correct, but why would Aristotle be concerned with such a thing? There has been a great deal of deep study concerning how to “fill space” or “packing space”. It has commercial interest, but more importantly it has metaphysical impact. This is a primary issue that I had to resolve merely to get Jack up and running.

The issue is one of the logistics of potential and resolves that it is logically impossible for space to be at any state defined as anything other than an infinite series of changing. That might be a little hard to grasp; “The universe cannot ever logically be at any state other than a changing state, including the changing of the changing.” The state of changing can’t even be at any state that isn’t itself changing, nor the changing of the changing, of the changing, of the changing… Logic itself forbids it, not experimental data or speculations.

It can be said that the most fundamental cause of all existence is the logic that requires that the universe cannot be what it is and also remain as it is. That is what has been called the “First Principle”, “First Cause”, and “God the Father” (in the English speaking world anyway).

What you have asked is “what is that logic” so realize the height of the question you are asking and the serious contemplation required to exceed what so very, very many before you could never quite grasp, although very close. That question is at the very root of the legitimate parts of both relativity and quantum mechanics. How to relay the explanation is going to be a sizable challenge for me. So have a little tolerance.

So while I try to come up with the words and/or pictures, let those two concepts soak in because this is going to get seriously hairy.

1) “Potential is not a thing, but a measure of a situation involving locations.”
2) “The universe cannot ever logically be at any state other than a changing state, including the changing, of the changing, of the changing,…”
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: RM AND VO

Postby James S Saint » Thu Aug 08, 2013 5:36 pm

Btw, all of this is going to get down to the very root of quantum physics, relativity, and why there is so much confusion in that study. Feynman stated that "we" simply do not understand it, we just know that it works. Well, he was probably right in that they didn't understand it, else they would be saying it differently and causing far less confusion. What they aren't understanding is that they are conflating two different ontologies, mixing apples and oranges, apparently without realizing it. We are going to get into what is actually going on and why the confusion ever came up.

Something I probably should have included in that list of thoughts to contemplate is the fact that what we call distance is determined only by the immediacy of the ability to affect. Something is more near when it is more immediately affected. Although I am talking about the physical reality, even socially people refer to other people being "close" as a measure of how much immediate affect they have upon each other. The universe gets a bit more precise in that regard. Distance "is caused" by the immediacy of affect. And that is how they got into Relativity and length dilation.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: RM AND VO

Postby Silhouette » Thu Aug 08, 2013 6:37 pm

Jakob wrote:the first "res" could also be said to be the value.

Precisely.
But what about before the first "res" (and the first value).
Experience is more fundamental.

Jakob wrote:In any case, VO requires for something to exist prior to values - the valuer.
And this "thing" appears very hard if not impossible to reduce even further.
It seems to me that reality can not be pushed back any deeper than the valuing subject, of whom the values are a function.

A valuer necessarily requires the valued.
The two are connected by definition, with value as the common ground.

I would say that the "valuer" and the "valued" are a result of values first existing, and a preference for this subject/object causal distinction/relative identity.
But value is superceded by experience, which includes lack of value and meaning.
And there is nothing other than experience. Even the concept of not experiencing something is an experience. It doesn't require any subject/object causal distinction in its pre-meaning "state", it just "is", or "is becoming". It is the set of everything else that cannot include itself, and thus transcends bounds and meaning - unlike the "everything else" that comes from it, and is contained within the set of "experience(s)".

Jakob wrote:Hmm.... so your idea is similar to RM - but you do not value RM at all... it's probably best if I don't probe.

RM operates entirely from the contradictory premise that some subject's values are objective values.
As such, any similarities are superficial and moot. Perhaps you might call my idea "Experientialism" as a working title, like a kind of synthesis between Existentialism and Essentialism.

Jakob wrote:In any case - you bring up the concept Meaning. I don't think we arrived there yet - as meaning requires consciousness.

Yes, but consciousness does not require meaning.
Least of all any notion of "objective" meaning (since meaning requires a valuing subject, which objects by definition are not).

Jakob wrote:Does your philosophy pertain only to humans, or also to atoms?

What is the equivalent of experience for an atom?

Atoms et al. are objects of experience, not subjects that experience.

Jakob wrote:There can, theoretically, be trillions of parallel universes, or "affectance-webs", existing without affecting each other, or only very selectively affecting each other.

I am not interested in subjective imaginations that feign objective reality.

Jakob wrote:I doubt that all existence can be reduced to one interconnected set.

Does or does not everything rely on experiential content?
User avatar
Silhouette
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4397
Joined: Tue May 20, 2003 1:27 am
Location: Existence

Re: RM AND VO

Postby zinnat » Thu Aug 08, 2013 8:14 pm

[/quote]RM:AO begins with pure logic, no observations at all.[/quote]

You may say so now, not some 20 years back.

James S Saint wrote:I "have to" only because my mind isn't all that perfect. A much brighter person than me could have done all that I have done thousands of years ago without ever opening their eyes and still have known that they were perfectly right. Only a clouded mind has to verify its reasoning.


Yes. That is what i am referring to.

The problem it that each and every mind is clouded more or less. There is no one there in the history of the whole of mankind, who happens to be bright enough to solve this labyrinth in a single stoke.

We all start from any middle stage then keep it refining by moving back and forth. Though, a very few of us try it. And again, a very few from those few would become able to get real close to A = A.

James S Saint wrote:I have to accept that the "information" does eventually get "lost" in the sense that it becomes so conflated and confused with other information that it is irrecoverable and thus "lost" (referred to as the "Abyss"). I agree that its affect never ends, but the source of the information can no longer be deduced beyond a certain point of mixing with other information. It "dis-integrates".


Yes, actually, we never get the true or pure information of the event, but its blurred version only. And, that blurriness depends on the time/distance travelled by the information to reach us, and the medium also, by which it has been travelled.

zinnat13 wrote:
Mind has nothing to do with the memory as it is only the mean to stimulate the consciousness[/u].


James S Saint wrote:No mind can exist without memory. Memory is an essential and primary component to any and every mind.
No memory at all = no mind at all.


zinnat13 wrote:
And, where are all those files of memory stored in the brain?


James S Saint wrote:In synapse nodes.


That is the problem with JSSRM ( or perhaps JSS, in person) as it does not confirm the observation here.

James, if that huge memory would have been stored in those swollen joints of the neurons, the neuroscientists would have been able to recognize that almost half a century back, as they are not short of means and skills. And, the establishment would have been used this process to convert its citizens into biological robots long ago, because, we are nothing without our memory.

Secondly, the JSSRM does the support the concept or memory.

As it holds that everything is made of affectance, thus, more or less bound to change. But, memory does not change even a fraction. We remember some important events of the life very clearly. In other words, our mind is able to play that file precisely the same way as that happened even 40-50 years ago. This is to say that we go back in time to relive that event.

But, how is it possible, unless and until, there is an entity inside us that is beyond time or eternal?

James S Saint wrote:If it moves, changes, scratches its ass, or thinks, it is Physical because it is "changing".
That is not to say that it isn't eternal. But it can't be said to be "immutable". Immutable things do not change... at all.


James, consciousness is both eternal and immutable too. But, i did not clearly mentioned its anotomy.

firstly, At this stage, consciousness is not in pure form. It is a bit like ore state of the metals, like Bauxite in the case of iron. So, it has to be refined in order to get its pure form.

Secondly, though consciousness is unchangeable, but it does not mean that is stationary as it moves around with mind.

Affectance/Will/TSM is that impurity of the consciousness, which it radiates to becomes pure.

We can also say that consciousness gets attracted towards will/affectance, because, it is its default character. You may call it some sort of metaphysical gravitation. That is why it falls only for one will at a time, which is the strongest one and avoids others.

zinnat13 wrote:
This is to say that its residing entities are not merely concepts but very much alive like us. And, that realm exists in a different space-time zone. But, both realms affects and got affected by each other as there is no isolation.


[quote="James S Saint"]There are only 3 options;
1) That which changes (physical; eternal disagreement)
2) That which never changes (conceptual; eternal agreement)
3) The border between 1 and 2, an empty set that both changes and doesn't or neither changes nor doesn't.

James, i am not sure how you have drawn this conclusion by using JSSRM and you believe which one, but all these options are true and play out in real terms.

The affectance/will has many layers and these layers tend to form different realms, but, this does not happen simultaneously, instead, in order.

1st layer - consciousness + will = mind, space and time (TSM).

This is perhaps your conceptual realm, but it changes as mind tends to change and evolve continuously. And, though, the residing entites stay there for very long time, yet, their stay is not permanent there and they eventually have to come down to lower realms. But remember, that consciousness discards all its affectance in this realm and becomes pure. This discarded affectance/will is what we call mind.

So, from hereon, the further manifestation of the affectance is done by mind, not consciousness. But, by becoming pure and innocent, consciousness loses its control over mind and it (mind) becomes able to drag consciousness along it, because it is still attached with mind through will.

This is a realm of thought and Thought Entities as there is no matter present here.

2nd layer - As mind tends to produce more affectance, its density increases and ultimately forms matter. Yet, this matter is different from our perceived physical matter, though, it is still a matter. We may call it subtle mater. This matter forms elements and body, and again, mind gets attracted towards it, drags consciousness along it, and form a complete physical entity.

This is our divine realm, the realms of Gods, Semi-gods, Deities, Angles and all other different types of spiritual entities. This is the realm of souls but these souls are not eternal but prone to aging and death too.

This is the most populated realm and has many subsets too. All monotheistic and process ontologies/ religions refer to this realm, when they talk about God, except Vedanta, Sufism and some other small schools of Hinduism. The entities of this realm are in direct touch with us. They watch, manage and control us too through circumstances.

3rd layer - As there is no end of affectance, because mind is continuously manifesting it, the denser matter is formed. And that is our Human realm. Those souls get entrapped in one more wrap of matter and a Human is formed. This is the lowest realm.

Entropy peaks here, hence, there is no other option but to go back to un-entropy.

Ultimate realm - This is unique concept of Vedanta and Sufism, though, proess ontologies like Buddhism and Jainism rejects this idea.

This realm is postulaed at parrrell with consciousness, or just a touch below pure consciousness, but above the 1st realm of Thought Entities.

Contrary to Thought Realm, where consciousness loses control over mind and falls down further, here consciousness takes contol over mind. In other words, mind discards all its wills, other than just to exist. In that case, consciousness becomes dominant as it does not have to face any further will. Thus, this perfect combination of consciousness and mind becomes eternal as it moves out of time zone and stays there as that forever. This is to say that, once reached there, it never comes down.

It is a state of almost pure Un-entropy, though not a perfect one. It demands just a hint of entropy or negativity to remain as it is in that state . In other words, it is a form of almost pure consciousness, but just with a hint of will to exist or survive only, not more than that.

That is Enlightenment, thus, it is not to be merely known, but has to be acheived in person.


RM plays its part in constituting all these realms, but one after one. All these realms has different density of affectance, thus, are different time zones. All entities must correspond to their respective Zonal Affectance. As soon as it gets havier, it has to move down to the lower realm.

James, I am not claiming that all this happens precisely as i am suggusting. Having said that, this is not a pure assumption or completely fake either. I personally experienced many things regarding this, especially about the 2nd layer, the Divine Realm. And, i know that happens to be almost the same as i am saying.

But, JSSRM does not seem to be supporting that. Though, it helped me to understand why a little bit of negativity is necessary to survive. Because, this issue puzzled me since long.

And, the credit goes to you.

That is why i am saying that, though RM is perfect, but JSSRM is not.

I am going through your last post addressed to Jacob as it looks interesting.

with love,
sanjay
User avatar
zinnat
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3650
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2012 7:27 pm

Re: RM AND VO

Postby Jakob » Thu Aug 08, 2013 10:47 pm

On top of the page there is something I didn't address yet.

James S Saint wrote:So it sounds like you are relating the "affecter and affected" with the "valuer and valued";
"Affectance" and "Valuance".

By what means does the valuer acquire a standard for valuing?

The valuer is not a valuer if it is not a standard for valuing. I observed that nothing can exist that is not a self-valuing valuer.
All affect has to be related to other affect to be affect.
That means that the affect must also have a relation to itself.
This is self-valuing.

I would not have the first clue how to begin explaining it in scientific terms, other than just following observation. In this sense RM makes perfect sense - it does precisely what VO does not do and can not do - define in objective terms of "causality" in the sense of affectance.

VO comes in its right when particles already exist. We can see that, in affectance's rise out of nothing, a singular tendency has survived: Consistent selection of input and consistent output.

In the form of the atom, this is its anentropic shell and (I guess) its non-collapsed PtA. In the form of an animal, it is its instinct and its powers. In an infinitesimal quantity of PtA, it is its potential to be affected, and its "spirit" as you once called it, it's action. That by which it is known.

RM is fully identifiable. Its definitions pertain to that which is clearly present.
VO addresses what is required to have definitions at all: the fact that there are relations. The fact that PtA is differentiated and yet coherent. It gives no cause for this, it merely deduces the first necessary qualities of something that does affect, exist.
Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7193
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

Re: RM AND VO

Postby Jakob » Thu Aug 08, 2013 11:29 pm

Silhouette wrote:
Jakob wrote:the first "res" could also be said to be the value.

Precisely.
But what about before the first "res" (and the first value).
Experience is more fundamental.

Only in a sentient being. VO moves beyond the solipsism without abandoning perspectivism. In your philosophy, do atoms exist if you die? Do the people who existed in your mind still exist to interpret the world as atoms?

VO compares an atom to a sentient being, by an activity -- in the linguistic sense - a verb that can be attributed to them -- that they both exhibit: selection of external energy in order to sustain a mechanism that performs this selection. I reduced this to valuing, because that which is being selected is called value. Between the selection and the value, there arises a positive. The perspective becomes.

Jakob wrote:In any case, VO requires for something to exist prior to values - the valuer.
And this "thing" appears very hard if not impossible to reduce even further.
It seems to me that reality can not be pushed back any deeper than the valuing subject, of whom the values are a function.

A valuer necessarily requires the valued.
The two are connected by definition, with value as the common ground.

That is a stance comparable to RM (the 'raw stuff' of which valuers are made to feed themselves of, is already present). VO take the opposite option. This can not be explained physically, it rather stands behind physicality -- very literally meta-physical.

I would say that the "valuer" and the "valued" are a result of values first existing, and a preference for this subject/object causal distinction/relative identity.
But value is superceded by experience, which includes lack of value and meaning.
And there is nothing other than experience. Even the concept of not experiencing something is an experience. It doesn't require any subject/object causal distinction in its pre-meaning "state", it just "is", or "is becoming". It is the set of everything else that cannot include itself, and thus transcends bounds and meaning - unlike the "everything else" that comes from it, and is contained within the set of "experience(s)".

Does an experience experience itself? I want to know what "experience" means. Experience always involves resistance. Non-resistance is death, the end of experience.
Experience requires an experiencer like value requires a valuer.
What is the relation between the experience and the experiencer?

Jakob wrote:Hmm.... so your idea is similar to RM - but you do not value RM at all... it's probably best if I don't probe.

RM operates entirely from the contradictory premise that some subject's values are objective values.

It does make claims to objectively existing objects, yes.
VO is more skeptic - in that it only describes that which can exist. If something exists, then it is doing this standard-setting selecting whereby it continues to exist.

As such, any similarities are superficial and moot. Perhaps you might call my idea "Experientialism" as a working title, like a kind of synthesis between Existentialism and Essentialism.


Jakob wrote:In any case - you bring up the concept Meaning. I don't think we arrived there yet - as meaning requires consciousness.

Yes, but consciousness does not require meaning.
Least of all any notion of "objective" meaning (since meaning requires a valuing subject, which objects by definition are not).

Indeed. "Objective meaning" - this literally hurts my brain.

Jakob wrote:Does your philosophy pertain only to humans, or also to atoms?

What is the equivalent of experience for an atom?

Atoms et al. are objects of experience, not subjects that experience.

But they do exist. To us.
What are they? How did they come to be?

Jakob wrote:There can, theoretically, be trillions of parallel universes, or "affectance-webs", existing without affecting each other, or only very selectively affecting each other.

I am not interested in subjective imaginations that feign objective reality.

Who is? It's just extremely unlikely that there is only a single and utterly homogenous standard of causality.

Jakob wrote:I doubt that all existence can be reduced to one interconnected set.

Does or does not everything rely on experiential content?

I don't know. I can't verify either.
Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7193
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

PreviousNext

Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot]