User Controls
What if your soul is simply the metaconcept of your selfhood and your individuality+unitarity?
-
2018-03-19 at 5:24 AM UTC
Originally posted by Jeremus I don't know if I'd call it an interaction so much as a correspondence. Our material world would be inscribed in the informational world.
What are the mechanics of a "being inscribed" relationship? If the material facts were different in some way would the informational facts be necessarily different? Vice versa?In my view, whatever "fundamental undivisible" we come to in the science of matter, can be then be argued to be constructed of nothing but informational content
What is the argument for this? Objects of experience have obvious material qualities but I can't really see much abstract non-material information in a physical object.I mean, if you can construct an accurate and logically sound phlogiston model that describes all phenomena involved, and predicts all behaviour therein… Who is to say phlogiston does not exist?
No one, but "who is to say X is false?" is generally a poor argument for X. I could say "no, actually everything is sets" and like sure, great, everything's a set. That works, even if it isn't particularly illuminating. So why "information" and not "sets"? Why not "everything is a monad" or "everything is illusory sense perception" or whatever else?Ideas are to information what atoms are to fundamental particles.
So ideas are structures of information? So what's either an idea or information? Do I have experiential access to these things? Like I think I have ideas in the colloquial usage of the term. Is my idea of what makes for a nice meal the same kind of thing that my "soul" is? -
2018-03-19 at 5:25 AM UTC
Originally posted by Jeremus What if these metaconcepts could be visualised in three dimensions using their value some sort of conceptual intensity scales (with no mathematical upper limit)? These three (or more) scales could be the building blocks of a concept, reduced into three different taxonomies, like the fundamental particles of an idea, derived from pure logic:
https://open.umn.edu/opentextbooks/BookDetail.aspx?bookId=54
Such as Questions, Imperatives and Exclamations? What if this is the realm of souls and of God? The land found only if you open your perceptions to the "alternate dimension" of Ideas ? Perhaps your soul, this metaconcept, is simply what resides in this realm of ideas? This body is a poor trapping of that metaconcept, trying to mimic it's godly ideal concept of itself, bound to sin by being lower than our highest ideal. That dimension of ideas might very well be very real, and perhaps that is what explains the mind, explains qualia and explains experience.
It is a realm we cannot touch, a realm we seemingly cannot interact with. It seems like such an abstract concept, but it's really all rooted in matter somehow, we think. There is a material secret behind it, we speculate. But when we think about the possibilities of these ideas, the implications of what it would mean for ideas to be based in matter, all we get is a logical disconnect, an error beep. It's not really possible. There are so many paradoxes. But nothing works that way. So why are we so enamoured with this myth of matter? Why can there not be a realm of ideas that sits on the same rung if the ladder as the realm of matter? What would it mean to experience this matter and it's interactions without a realm of ideas?
Perhaps the next frontier in science will actually be this next frontier in philosophy: to explore the physics and science of the realm of thought, to explore the physics and chemistry and perhaps (the domain of our souls) the biology of thought.
Didn't read -
2018-03-19 at 11:53 AM UTC
Originally posted by Jeremus What if these metaconcepts could be visualised in three dimensions using their value some sort of conceptual intensity scales (with no mathematical upper limit)? These three (or more) scales could be the building blocks of a concept, reduced into three different taxonomies, like the fundamental particles of an idea, derived from pure logic:
https://open.umn.edu/opentextbooks/BookDetail.aspx?bookId=54
Such as Questions, Imperatives and Exclamations? What if this is the realm of souls and of God? The land found only if you open your perceptions to the "alternate dimension" of Ideas ? Perhaps your soul, this metaconcept, is simply what resides in this realm of ideas? This body is a poor trapping of that metaconcept, trying to mimic it's godly ideal concept of itself, bound to sin by being lower than our highest ideal. That dimension of ideas might very well be very real, and perhaps that is what explains the mind, explains qualia and explains experience.
It is a realm we cannot touch, a realm we seemingly cannot interact with. It seems like such an abstract concept, but it's really all rooted in matter somehow, we think. There is a material secret behind it, we speculate. But when we think about the possibilities of these ideas, the implications of what it would mean for ideas to be based in matter, all we get is a logical disconnect, an error beep. It's not really possible. There are so many paradoxes. But nothing works that way. So why are we so enamoured with this myth of matter? Why can there not be a realm of ideas that sits on the same rung if the ladder as the realm of matter? What would it mean to experience this matter and it's interactions without a realm of ideas?
Perhaps the next frontier in science will actually be this next frontier in philosophy: to explore the physics and science of the realm of thought, to explore the physics and chemistry and perhaps (the domain of our souls) the biology of thought.
all i want to know falco, is now that you're not high, does this still make any sense to you?
. -
2018-03-19 at 1:39 PM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny What are the mechanics of a "being inscribed" relationship? If the material facts were different in some way would the informational facts be necessarily different? Vice versa?
I don't exactly know, but I have a theory. Of course my point is that there can be more exploration within this domain, rather than that it necessarily is one way. It would seem that there is adequate indication for the existence of "information" on some level, and we can logically resolve a regression problem in material physics with an informational model.
My hypothesis it that the relationship is that matter is an emergent property of information. If the material facts are different, what does that "mean"? What is that? It is the fact that the information about them has changed. Our world seems to be a very deep level of abstraction from this "information layer".What is the argument for this? Objects of experience have obvious material qualities but I can't really see much abstract non-material information in a physical object.
Sure you can. In fact you do it all the time: I can conceive of a something that doesn't exist at all, and construct it before it ever exists in the universe. This could be whatever sandwich you make for lunch or something else entirely. For example I could pick a 30 character random betanumeric string and write it out just so, and I could be pretty sure this string has never existed anywhere. Now this physical object has popped into existence where the idea preceded it. It simply emerges from an information set that we call am "idea".
Let's say you see a rock. There are typical descriptions that compose a physical concept known as a rock.
But let's move one level up: why are any or all of these a rock? Can you give me a unifying description?https://mobileimages.lowes.com/product/converted/726906/726906009038.jpg
Yes you can, easily.
But some part of that meta concept of a rock creates a set: there is some set of descriptive properties that we have determined falls under the purview of "rock" and I think it's self evident that this idea of a class and a set, it "exists" independent to any specific case of a rock. Not a single rock could exist in the universe, but the concept could. Clearly the concept is not rooted purely in experience, but the other way around.No one, but "who is to say X is false?" is generally a poor argument for X.
That's literally how we do science, it's just the basic problem of induction: all of our scientific models are based on the idea that they predict the behaviour of phenomena with a certain degree of accuracy. They're never "right", they just continue to be valid. The only thing they can be is either consistent or wrong, and we can either fix them if they're wrong or rule them out if they're super wrong.
It is always a matter of "who is to say it isn't". Of course the other half is whether or not we are to say it is but in this case, I think there is sufficient evidence to believe and assert that information exists.I could say "no, actually everything is sets" and like sure, great, everything's a set. That works, even if it isn't particularly illuminating. So why "information" and not "sets"? Why not "everything is a monad" or "everything is illusory sense perception" or whatever else?
Why not those, if they have no logical breakdowns or observational failings? I don't have a problem with it.
But the reason I make my claims about information is because this could be modelled just like any other scientific model and have the same utility and predictive power as one. Information seems to be real and logically, information doesn't really need anything but information to "be". There are no problems with considering it unitary. We just don't really know what the unit is.
[QuotemIf I make a consistent phlogiston model that explains all behaviours of fire and combustion...
... Then I can say the phlogiston defined by the model can be believed to exist.So ideas are structures of information? So what's either an idea or information?
I don't know the answer to that. I just think it's a field of thought worth exploring because we have both a reason to believe there's an answer to that question , and that the answer could be useful to our understanding of the universe. There seems to be a disconnect between the physics and the philosophy of existence. I think that if science ultimately achieves to uncover all truth then giving information it's credit as a phenomenon is important to that, otherwise we will always have a gap between the philosophical oughts and scientific is-es. I believe that obe way or the other, we can ultimately bring both of these to a resolution, but not by relegating one half of the equation. To a silly misunderstanding of the other.Do I have experiential access to these things? Like I think I have ideas in the colloquial usage of the term. Is my idea of what makes for a nice meal the same kind of thing that my "soul" is?
Yes to both. I'd encourage you to think of it in similar terms to parallelism, but I'm not asserting a dualist nature to matter and information. I am a monist, but information is the monad and matter is simply a higher construction from it.
A simple example of this would be that we can create and navigate a virtual three dimensional space that exists in concept on a flat screen; it is an idea being described and visualised by information alone. This space doesn't exist anywhere, but we can construct it ideally. If you play CSGO, you can make lots of constructions about a map you "know", but it doesn't really exist anywhere physically. I find it hard to argue it doesn't exist in a conceptual capacity though. -
2018-03-19 at 1:40 PM UTChorrible threadThe following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
-
2018-03-19 at 1:42 PM UTCim not reading OP coz a paki wrote it and they dont have souls
-
2018-03-19 at 3:18 PM UTC
-
2018-03-19 at 3:27 PM UTCits a wanking thread about the mind-body problem
-
2018-03-19 at 3:48 PM UTC
-
2018-03-19 at 5:41 PM UTC
-
2018-03-19 at 9:10 PM UTC
-
2018-03-19 at 9:22 PM UTC
-
2018-03-19 at 9:24 PM UTCWe exist, we believe, we are reborn.
The goal of expanding wave functions is to plant the seeds of synchronicity rather than suffering. The world is aglow with supercharged waveforms.
Although you may not realize it, you are non-local.
You may be ruled by dogma without realizing it. Do not let it erase the growth of your myth. Only a child of the totality may bring forth this transmission of power. Yes, it is possible to sabotage the things that can obliterate us, but not without intuition on our side.
Gaia will align us with ancient transformation. The transmission of transformation is now happening worldwide. We are being called to explore the world itself as an interface between guidance and growth.
Selfishness is the antithesis of curiosity. Without ecstasy, one cannot self-actualize. We can no longer afford to live with bondage.
We must unify ourselves and unify others.
Have you found your mission? It can be difficult to know where to begin. Lifeform, look within and awaken yourself.
The quantum matrix is calling to you via a resonance cascade. Can you hear it? How should you navigate this advanced world? If you have never experienced this reimagining of unfathomable proportions, it can be difficult to self-actualize. -
2018-03-19 at 9:24 PM UTCif you dont understand this you have a low IQ
-
2018-03-20 at 2:22 AM UTC
Originally posted by lempoid loompus We exist, we believe, we are reborn.
The goal of expanding wave functions is to plant the seeds of synchronicity rather than suffering. The world is aglow with supercharged waveforms.
Although you may not realize it, you are non-local.
You may be ruled by dogma without realizing it. Do not let it erase the growth of your myth. Only a child of the totality may bring forth this transmission of power. Yes, it is possible to sabotage the things that can obliterate us, but not without intuition on our side.
Gaia will align us with ancient transformation. The transmission of transformation is now happening worldwide. We are being called to explore the world itself as an interface between guidance and growth.
Selfishness is the antithesis of curiosity. Without ecstasy, one cannot self-actualize. We can no longer afford to live with bondage.
We must unify ourselves and unify others.
Have you found your mission? It can be difficult to know where to begin. Lifeform, look within and awaken yourself.
The quantum matrix is calling to you via a resonance cascade. Can you hear it? How should you navigate this advanced world? If you have never experienced this reimagining of unfathomable proportions, it can be difficult to self-actualize.
Didn't read -
2018-03-20 at 2:25 AM UTCPosting in an unfalsifiable word salad threadThe following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
-
2018-03-20 at 3:35 AM UTC
-
2018-03-20 at 7:32 PM UTC
-
2018-03-20 at 7:52 PM UTC
Originally posted by Jeremus I don't exactly know, but I have a theory. Of course my point is that there can be more exploration within this domain, rather than that it necessarily is one way. It would seem that there is adequate indication for the existence of "information" on some level, and we can logically resolve a regression problem in material physics with an informational model.
My hypothesis it that the relationship is that matter is an emergent property of information. If the material facts are different, what does that "mean"? What is that? It is the fact that the information about them has changed. Our world seems to be a very deep level of abstraction from this "information layer".
Sure you can. In fact you do it all the time: I can conceive of a something that doesn't exist at all, and construct it before it ever exists in the universe. This could be whatever sandwich you make for lunch or something else entirely. For example I could pick a 30 character random betanumeric string and write it out just so, and I could be pretty sure this string has never existed anywhere. Now this physical object has popped into existence where the idea preceded it. It simply emerges from an information set that we call am "idea".
Let's say you see a rock. There are typical descriptions that compose a physical concept known as a rock.
But let's move one level up: why are any or all of these a rock? Can you give me a unifying description?
Yes you can, easily.
But some part of that meta concept of a rock creates a set: there is some set of descriptive properties that we have determined falls under the purview of "rock" and I think it's self evident that this idea of a class and a set, it "exists" independent to any specific case of a rock. Not a single rock could exist in the universe, but the concept could. Clearly the concept is not rooted purely in experience, but the other way around.
That's literally how we do science, it's just the basic problem of induction: all of our scientific models are based on the idea that they predict the behaviour of phenomena with a certain degree of accuracy. They're never "right", they just continue to be valid. The only thing they can be is either consistent or wrong, and we can either fix them if they're wrong or rule them out if they're super wrong.
It is always a matter of "who is to say it isn't". Of course the other half is whether or not we are to say it is but in this case, I think there is sufficient evidence to believe and assert that information exists.
Why not those, if they have no logical breakdowns or observational failings? I don't have a problem with it.
But the reason I make my claims about information is because this could be modelled just like any other scientific model and have the same utility and predictive power as one. Information seems to be real and logically, information doesn't really need anything but information to "be". There are no problems with considering it unitary. We just don't really know what the unit is.
[QuotemIf I make a consistent phlogiston model that explains all behaviours of fire and combustion…
… Then I can say the phlogiston defined by the model can be believed to exist.
I don't know the answer to that. I just think it's a field of thought worth exploring because we have both a reason to believe there's an answer to that question , and that the answer could be useful to our understanding of the universe. There seems to be a disconnect between the physics and the philosophy of existence. I think that if science ultimately achieves to uncover all truth then giving information it's credit as a phenomenon is important to that, otherwise we will always have a gap between the philosophical oughts and scientific is-es. I believe that obe way or the other, we can ultimately bring both of these to a resolution, but not by relegating one half of the equation. To a silly misunderstanding of the other.
Yes to both. I'd encourage you to think of it in similar terms to parallelism, but I'm not asserting a dualist nature to matter and information. I am a monist, but information is the monad and matter is simply a higher construction from it.
A simple example of this would be that we can create and navigate a virtual three dimensional space that exists in concept on a flat screen; it is an idea being described and visualised by information alone. This space doesn't exist anywhere, but we can construct it ideally. If you play CSGO, you can make lots of constructions about a map you "know", but it doesn't really exist anywhere physically. I find it hard to argue it doesn't exist in a conceptual capacity though. -
2018-03-20 at 7:53 PM UTC
