The Mind

Odd is not exactly a standard metric but more complex does not mean necessarily higher but more. I think consciousness can be described in conscious units or units of consciousness. A bacterium for example might represent a single unit, the life of a single cell. We contain an aggregation of conscious units representing many points of reference and therefor more complex interactions and in our particular organism are blessed with an abundance of a particular type of cell.

A sponge would be an example of a life form that doesn't overtly appear to move except during spawning. It's movement is it's biological growth or construction by whose very design food is secured in harmony with the ambient environment.

I agree the delineation between living and non-living may not be clear but that is accounted for by the fact that we are an aggregate of cellular systems which incorporate into a single organism and those distinct cellular systems have differing energy requirements so to speak. In a dead person there still chemical/biological activity but these are not coordinated/incorporated through the exchange of nervous system.

What is Berkley thought and is there only one conscious mind?
I don't suggest a supreme consciousness, I just find the statement, "I would be aware of my thoughts", somehow curious as though awareness and thought were dissociated.

Intent is the psyches analogue of gravity.

I don't mean it to be.

By choreographed I mean matter displays these three qualities, absorptivity, reflectivity, and polarity or direction of spin and it is the play of these three elements in differing proportion that account for interactions. In mental terms our lives proportions are determined by what we accept, what we reject, and our level of enthusiasm toward either accord.

As far as sharing thoughts senses are useless without the sense to make sense of them. In sharing a thought it is not the vibration patterns that communicate the thought but the sympathetic vibration of common substance. As tikoo put it, there seems to be a common ethos. Knowledge is, being shared.

 

So to be honest, at this point, I am really uncertain about many of the claims you are making. I am not exactly clear what many of these phrases mean. I also don't really know what exactly the justification for some of these would look like. My guess is that we are talking orthogonally to each other. There seems to be much metaphysical baggage in some of these claims that is taken from a process much different than the wholly modern analytical philosophy of mind approach that I am coming from. Much of it seems to be quite postmodern, which is a completely different set of view points and underlying assumptions that I have just never really found all that convincing.

 

the uncertainty is contextual since the context of mind
has motion . we are dreamy .

hmm ... had a dream related to this mind string . it's not easily
describable as a story , yet it ended with a statement .

" You have Divided Memory ."

funny , and too odd . so i consulted the oracle which replied
divided memory is good and natural .

oh , ya now i recall some thing . in the dream i was fussing and
tinkering with the balance and alignment of a two part device .
it was quite long , with one part above a similar one below .

 

Thank you for the chat.

Phrases like metaphysical baggage, wholly modern analytical philosophy of mind, and quite postmodern don't ring a bell for me either. Probably tastes like strawberries.

 

I agree the delineation between living and non-living may not be clear but that is accounted for by the fact that we are an aggregate of cellular systems which incorporate into a single organism and those distinct cellular systems have differing energy requirements so to speak. In a dead person there still chemical/biological activity but these are not coordinated/incorporated through the exchange of nervous system.

In conjunction with this statement I read about a device developed to keep a human liver alive and functioning while waiting for transplant. An organ supported entirely outside of the body and theoretically would continue to function as long as you ventilated it. I don't know if it would starve after a time though.

 

The honorable Philosopher, John Locke, related that the judicious Isaac Newton explained the appearance of colors such as magenta, or at least blue, or red, or such things in his "incomparable book" as the motions of invisible minute particles, which creates the effect of redness or blueness. Locke went on to explain that what has shape or color, must be something solid and extended, and this something he called, 'substance.'

But there is now a new and more honorable Philosopher that has graced the land of his Royal Highness (England). His name is George Berkeley, and he has wrestled with and attacked the problem of Locke's substance, which Locke himself has admitted that this substance is "something we know not what." Berkeley has declared, "esse est percipi" (to be is to be perceived). He has forthwit argued that size, shape, and motion, "...abstracted from all other qualities are inconceivable." And all that is we can only know because we perceive it. Therefore color exists because it is perceived. A thing is nothing more than the percieved sum of its qualities---therefore, to be is to be percieved.

We do not perceive such phantasmic things as minute particles in motion, therefore we cannot have empiricial proof of such things, and cannot argue to their existence. Substance has no meaning. Only what can be percieved does, and only in so far as it is perceived.

Finally, thanks to this most prestigious George Berkeley this problem of color and mind has been solved.


(.........Oh wait, what year is this. Has Einstein been born yet?)

 

A very good way to put it :sunny:

 

Couldn't have said it better myself, brother Wolf. Perception is a powerful force indeed.

 

To add... perception is so seemingly vapid, we struggle to ascertain if any two people even see the same colour in the same way... I would suggest we do not

 

Perception cannot exist without humanity to percieve. Yet we are all different eyes with the same mind looking at the same things. Why do we see things differently? Perhaps it is not because our perceptions are different but because we are all looking at different parts of the same things.

 

Looking at a different angle through a prism and looping back through a mirror

I hope mine is shiny

 

heres an interesting theory I read today from a friend of mine in A:A...

 

That sounds like nonsense.
His final line about a Grand Unified Theory just exemplifies his ignorance.
Gravity is the force that prevents a GUT being fully realized and defined.

 

Hey man dont be so negative, welcome different perspectives, you dont have to completely agree with anything lol it was merely a cool mental visualization. Gravity isnt just found on the physical planes. there are many other forms of gravity such as spiritual, or attraction.
Makes me think of God as the source having infinite gravity of spirit. for all beings in the universe are curious and attracted to it.

 

Yeah, but it helps a bit if you have an understanding of REAL science first, then you can sort the bullshit better.

You can come up with as many "cool mental visualizations" as you want, problem is you seem to accept them as scientific fact over established science.
I say this relative to your overall approach to science and spirituality.

Having grand ideas and fanciful visualizations is fine, but at some point you have to get back to what is real and verifiable, especially if you want to convey that to another person.

Like I say, logic and critical reasoning are two things that seem to often be woefully lacking at Hip Forums.

 

I understand where your coming from. I love science and would love to learn more about physics and whatnot. What do you think is the most crucial field.?
I did say theory, and not fact. I dont simply believe everything I read . Even though science has been wrong now and then and new experiments will extinct other methods of thinking. Sometimes science has even had to catch up to some spiritual research/psychic pioneers.

 

I think it is really ok to speculate without logic and critical reasoning at times but when I see people wanting to present them as facts (here we go again, hopefully not: look up a dictionary if necessary ) then the other person pointing out that it's not logical or factual is not being negative at all. Perhaps if the dubious things in this thread were presented as merely cool mental visualisations indeed there would be no noxious gas rolling his eyes here at all

 

This is in the philosophy thread and not the science one...
metaphysics is a field of philosophy , whats a science viewpoint on metaphysics?

 

I agree the subform you post in can make a difference in how you bring or argumentize a viewpoint but still presenting fun visualisations as the truth or facts just because that person finds that idea the most attractive is asking to be criticized (on a public forum certainly) Just pointing out the obvious

 

I SAID theory!! OMG theory! an idea! conceptualized!
it was only meant for discussion and other theories..
there was a couple good ones in the thread he posted this, but its now dead.