Maybe it means there like 'specific motion or movement of these fundamental particles' the ones that RussellA shares words of, see above (as below)...
Or, maybe "force/s" in that context means 'cause of motion' ? Are we assuming they are in motion of direction ? Of material? material in motion? Energy in motion creating "force"? A concept? A verb? I agree, I suppose that "force" can be philosophically consumed as a concept, but as a definition I can see the verb aspect being relevant...I dont know...materials that transform into a force? Can we call this 'force' a concept, yes for now. However, I think it is more specific than "just a concept"

So, chairs exists and numbers subsist? Is that a common understanding? — Art48


As an ex prof I never thought about it, and I don't recall hearing the expression, but I suppose it could be appropriate. — jgill

who would think about it??? :chin: :razz: :lol: Never thought about it, but supposes it could be "appropriate" ? For what? Common understanding? Like able to be commonly understood? Or actively a common understanding? I think not....Now that you are just now thinking about it, jgill, I would love to hear more! I should not assume that you actually DID think about it, at least not for long...I understand!

The OP is about the ontological status of ideas. It goes on to ask "So, chairs exists and numbers subsist? Is that a common understanding?" — RussellA

Thanks for the response and clarifying your stance further.

The word "three" doesn't make sense alone. What does? That is, what does make sense alone? Is anything alone as a word without action or a place that is to be made sense of? — Kizzy


The point here is the OP was asking about the ontological status of ideas, hence 3 was used for a sample idea to consider. At this stage we are not considering any other objects for its ontological status, but a number which is a typical example of abstract ideas.

What do you know, when I say to you out of the blue "3"? — Corvus

I'd perk up because I like 3. I'd know that you know something and I would say "Three (3) what?," and assume you read or counted or recalled or referenced something that has to do with the number, the concept is meaningless, I only care about the number 3. It is stitched on the back of a few jerseys I have worn with pride! I'd know to ask you about it, I'd know I would be curious.

My apologies, I appreciate the redirection from you both as I did REACT instead of replying plainly with consideration to the OP. I jumped in on a back and forth without much thought at all, I just did it.

Anyways, I have much to say on this topic. I think about thinking thoughts, IDEAS and the Philosophy of Mind are especially of my personal interest! I shall be back when I have more time to think straight. My past thoughts and notes are boring me and I need something fresh! I know I have fresh, but I do not have the will to THINK about my thoughts, yet...Still, I am EXCITED! I am all over the place, right now...835pm 12/18/25 Looking forward to sharing latest and greatest!, Thanks



See my reply below to, (again, reacting to a back and forth), creativesoul whom was responding to frank's comment within the perception thread linked here: ( https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/922694 )
The brain generates experience out of a flood of diverse data. — frank


Data from inside the brain?

Emergence of experience requires more than just a brain. Persistence of experience does as well. Brains are not enough. It takes more than just a brain to smell the cake in the neighbor's oven. It takes more than just a brain to remember that smell. It takes more than just a brain to hallucinate that experience. — creativesoul


What about just the/a "brain" with thinking thoughts?

Part of my initial comment says, "I am considering this: perhaps these ideas are visions in the brain, independent of the individual’s subjective experience. The subjective mind possesses ideas, but not in the same way the brain perceived/s them. Ideas are interpreted differently by the brain in its visions, and these interpretations may or may not align with how a subjective being perceives these visions as ideas in their mind or in their interactions with the environment.

What if thinking thoughts* is just the brain existing/being, rather than the subjective body/mind’s doing?

*the act of thinking-that thinking might be an emergent property of the brain’s activity, rather than an action performed by the subjective mind"

Right, i'm following

3 doesn't make sense on its own, but 3 kings do, 4 apples do as well.
It took me 2 days to read the book. 2 itself is meaningless, but 2 days makes sense. — Corvus

The word "three" doesn't make sense alone. What does? That is, what does make sense alone? Is anything alone as a word without action or a place that is to be made sense of? A concept is what alone? Just that...waiting to be grabbed? Meaningless? There for grabbing, always? There for making meaning? Should we, take it how it is? Use it as it is? Understand it as it is? And also be correct...some times? As it is, is meaningless to whom? One outcome still always exists/did/will. One outcome ought to exist... ? It is not a question of ought, it is, does, will, has already. Two things at once?

The answer: three. That is leaving three alone, and it makes sense to some while maybe not everyone. Like if you didnt know the question, but see that the answer to question five is, three. You would see.....
Q#5 - three or perhaps Question five: 3. Where would three alone exist anyways?

The concept of three, requires other things to be understood like counting, math, geometry, etc not all or one or the other...any one or all. With one, comes all and with three, comes 1 and 2....

Three as a concept, so be it for the hell or heaven of this discussion is of/in the world existing in Mind and/or material, either/or it does not matter for this sake, as they both can be/are counted and considered real or to exist.

I have three ideas,
I have three apples.
Let's repeat those three ideas,
let's juggle those three apples.

Who does it matter to if it does or does not? Who is asking? If the asker is needing an answer of surety, the self holds the answer/s already, JUST not yet aware where to look to find. It is not time, yet. Chance may not exist at all, time may be taken instead of used....enjoy it at the very least :party:


"3"/"Three" doesn't make sense alone, does "third"? Third and three are different how? Numbers are words? Numbers of names, like William Earl the third, William Earl lll, meaning three generations of Willy Earl exist...Generational suffixes make me wonder about: Numbers vs words...order? The concept includes what was taught/learned of order, 3 days and 3 apples are counted in three's but what makes three days and three chairs are of two different kinds.

Concept of time and order, and using language skills to name things with numbers, three chairs...three days. A day is a thing but not like the other thing. A concept vs tangible item, of material.....A concept of mind vs an object of mind, the way we describe them with words and different languages is of intelligent brains using minds to make experiences in life better fit, learning for next time...a lesson in time.

I wonder, if/is the word or concept known of "3"/three, one but not the other? [2] I'm thinking to myself: What are other one worded concepts? three is a concept, one word, aka alone, three chairs alone is not alone, its of three things. Three is never alone, perhaps. Three is a concept, then? Or numbers are what make the concept three possible to clearly count therefore grasp/see/understand?

We can put three rocks in the basket, whether we know what the concept of numbering or without knowing how to count. Knowing that this many things fit in this size basket, call it something other than three, three chairs and three days can be broken down, three is the name of the group, three is the concept of numbers in groups. Forming a concept from one to three, one idea, one chair, two idea, two chair....three!

Me thinking aloud and typing thoughts as it comes: "Space occupying vs material objects vs space occupying in mental/mind as materials that are known to exist, imagined, counted in head, space not required to fill....?"


Three is company!!

The more added to one word, the sense is still never assured out of it. Words alone, numbers alone do make sense but with context, awareness, and a clear view of its place (and YOURS) in/FROM the moving world.

Why you, Art48 or anyone at that, happens to even make sense or "see" three for what it is, as it is, alone...is interesting enough to someone. I am more interested in if what you see is to be verified? When,why if it must? To be labeled, confirmed, or not? Aware or not? True or not? From what exactly, is up in the air yet, reach!!!! stretch!!! almost gotcha!!! From a Right or wrong? Good or bad? EVIL? Yes or no?

We may see only you, seeing me...
outside looking in, an observer makes



12/17/24
801 pm holding off to post...above is raw, first draft/version
1013pm addition [1]
1030pm addition [2]


[1] I came to find Friedrich Nietzsche's, "Genealogy of Morals" of relevance to this comment and without looking. I found a youtube video after typing in the search bar on my ruko tv, "genealogy documentary," as I was looking for family tree types of stories, something about ancient blood lines and going about/ over how family lines have been traced and tracked. THEN a recommended video caught my eye, and I clicked. Found on Eternalised's YT channel, a 10 min video called "Genealogy of Morals | Friedrich Nietzsche" So, I have it playing in the backround as I am re-reading my comment above, not including the new additions 1, 2, the original draft finished at 801pm...and from what I took in and overheard, I intuitively drew connections, ( i am not fully saying I am on board with the work, I am just seeing connecions at this early point in my research ) , from both my comments and the video summary of the essay. I notice that topics of mutual interest resonated between thinkers. The essay touches on, Good bad evil, guilty conscious (bad conscious), morality and suffering as all are topics that I have mentioned in my last few contributions...no need to refer or point out specifics, it's all here and there. :monkey: I just so happened to learn about the essay AFTER these thoughts shared above came and were typed stream of consciousness style. Haven't even read it yet, though, I LOVE to see it



Yes!

We mentally project the colour red onto the world that we are observing. — RussellA

I am still confused about this specific topic or debated ongoing discussion... Colors we project mentally are compatible to what exists in nature it seems, we know or assume others are projecting that color as well...animals, plants included living things adapting to environment and survival instincts have developed with time. Vision is an important sense that humans/animals have. The living beings have built in, wit a purpose and function is to take place using the senses combined with the formation of the body that is adapted to the surroundings, environment or habitat that makes sense....

Combined the brain, body, and senses to the earth, location is relevant and it all can make sense when put together..ex eye sockets, eyeballs, bone shape of face are features we are born with (given we have no complications or disables or deformities) Our bodies assume we ought to see our surroundings, we project color to help us communicate what we see around us to our brains, informing and updating with each glance, each blink...each dream...we dont need color to see and survive, color blind people are navigating life just as fine, but the color is being read or projected in mind, but because the brain has developed to recognize / organize the environment to a point where it comes naturally to see color from wavelengths in this stage of evolution.

The fluid colors we "project" or see using our eyes, vision, and senses proper to the surroundings/material/light in scope of vision, presented before our eyes I thought was because of the range in the cones and rods, our photoreceptors sensitivity to light? The wavelengths we pick up according to external world around us, that we live in and take in (thru all senses available to us) being color coordinated mentally and not actually existing is just hard for me to understand, let alone believe so BLINDLY.

Where did that range come from? How do we know what will help the brain organize using our eye balls and reflexes/instinct/ability and how do we figure, that to see the color is helping the brain organize, what if it is for imprinting better memories from more vivid life experiences? The wavelength as it is shown to us in the world, use light to get to our eyes and our brain just instantly paints the picture live in front of us each time? I think its more of a stored quality, muscle memory if you will...instinct or maybe just a natural intelligence that comes with the brain/body working together in day to day life over time...

What is shown to us (in the world, in our heads) vs as it is? Specific experiences maybe are relevant to occur over/in time? TIME and perceptions....perhaps experience with perception...Awareness of that? AS that topic is still debatable, see thread on perception, the discussion is ongoing from many stances and starts, that was bound to go somewhere. How it crashes and burned is telling, but the end is not NO WHERE. It awaits a fellow traveler.

The direction is not welcoming or to be followed, though. Perhaps a dead end after all. Then, a U-turn is required. A choice. Take the next best exit, go that way....It is a complex area to discuss as both scientific and philosophical understandings about human nature come into play, at times that make nothing easy. Nothing good comes easy...

Easy goes it, life. So it seems. Humans are in it and under the scope....behind them as well...experiments, and observers....What else? A third party we forgot? In nature, plants/animals and with conscious beings in nature, humans-- are two different concepts, or experiences ...though they make sense together. We ought to be compatible.

Now were talkin

C5 - Any metaphysical angst about numbers is unnecessary. — RussellA

Agreed to this point..But wondering, what do numbers have to do with the concept of order? levels or ranks?

The condition is dependent. Time, interest that life revolves around, attention spending efficiency, awareness. In others, in self. How do emotions attach to tangible material things, but the experience being subjective doesnt matter. The objective part is that it is all subjective, biased, or effected by envirment, nature, nurture....but luck, chance, and timing is funny. Love is a funny thing. A funny thing and the humor of it, is of the funny person and laughed at by those with similar humor, aware high, or those who are followers, lost/looking rightfully so, rationally...doing what they ought to be, right where they need to be. THEY have to SEE that first, but to see means choosing to ignore what they know from what they see, is believing what they dont want to see, but blaming the world praying for God or the world to change. Before we ask of such demands of the world, Universe, God, Angels, As above so below, we ought to have answered and confirmed with surety that no change on our end is worth the effort. That option exists, the mind state or frame under the influence of many factors play a role in decision making moments that cant be undone past a certain point.

- Kizzy, on objective and subjective coexisting, pg 3 of 7 of thread posted by Srap Tasmaner, "Degrees of reality" IT (in bold) being a subjective life experience.

I am leaning towards thinking that it is not wise to consider this a paradox. Consider J's comment, how consciousness and certainty may play a role in the identity changing states. I want to note that I do think subjectivity can be viewed objectively. I am aligned with both and here, as my stances are compatible with what they are stating and I'm sure others have and will also agree upon.

A ground ought to exist, for commonality!

Is it stable to build upon? IS the foundation too heavy for the lands? Only the weight we put upon such concepts, that are rather simply answered in time instead of solved at once. The pieces are eventually put together, but guided by? An observer? No, perhaps by the knowings of one, once. A blueprint or template does not exist, we are that. We guide the most high and in our consciousness (subconscious state may be unknown to some, meaning they are not aware of how it involves itself with the identity, character or personality of the person with the experiences had throughout ones life/s journey. but they may be known by others via aware of subconscious and possible effects but its hard to prove)

You do not HAVE TO prove it to self, that is important to remember. Trust the mystery of what comes with the things you do know with certainty or surety...beliefs? faith? And verify accordingly as our minds fill with new intel everyday, updating our opinions via new information. Changing minds deserve that chance to do so, but TIME.....is of the essence, perhaps.

Time. Attachment to the goal, to the purpose you have in this life is done on / with the will of the being, then the soul moves through us, from us, because of us, IS US and LOVES...us? Love and the willingness to accept or give love is displayed via behaviors, from circumstances born into without option. Thank your folks, daily. As above, so below. LOVE holds power, over us under us in front of us. Deserving we all are, deciding that we deserve it is the hard part. Some do not get that chance to change their mind, or do they? Can it really ever be "too late" ?

We refuse to take and give it (it being love) equally, and that is sad to me in itself. Love is for us, proof for the self, that life is more than us. FOR US, FROM WHOM? or WHAT? Life is amazing to experience as a human, a gift. AND for that gift, I thank you.

In every chance I get to be reminded. Another breath, another day. Taking this for granted, is impossible. It can be denied in the face of truth by those faking the surety, fake confidence in themselves, tricking the brain, fooling only the self and others of the same kind, that believe you as the coward you and the weakness in them. To claim righteousness over truth, shame on you. Being right is truth to those and it was always wrong to begin with. You ought to be wrong. Seems obvious to me even if we all were right.

From bad and wrong, the truth is to be revealed. The bad is nothing without the good. And SO, If everything is good, then maybe I just have a great view and I'll happen to continue to enjoy it while I can, while it lasts. Where is it going from there? I dont wonder, I trust the direction...

I would like to wrap up by going back to how @jkop put it,

By experiencing the room and talking to the people, you can have objective knowledge about them and their experiences, regardless of the fact that their experiences, just like yours, have a subjective mode of existing.

From that I reiterate and have brought up in the past, this is an example of my unfocused, fire fueled attention towards bringing objective from the subject-- the interplay between our subjective experiences and the objective knowledge we can derive from them is of interest, my passion really.

Why should one do that which is good? — Hyper

Doing good for self is just as important as doing good for the good, others, etc. Doing it for others, that which is good. What does that mean for the self? What was the sacrifice? What was the reward?

I wonder about those that are pleased with themselves in the act of helping others. They are happy to help, reward to self in it AND they are rewarded from acting, helping another by the reaction they get, the need is something they crave, to be needed...personality attribute, perhaps...not going there (I will though) Rewarded in the act and after in praise. Sometimes gifts or cash if they are lucky or really manipulative.

I think, it's important to note the feeling we get from doing this "good," and is it relevant to consider. How much time was avail. to weigh out the options, THINK, and make decision in how to proceed. What was going on around you? How is the decision instinctual for some and debated by others? That instinct is there for both, the brain is working the mind is silently focused.

How quick was the mind made up before the body catches on? Guilty? Is that a gut feeling, the body reacting to one thing while the will goes or stays where it ought...and does/will/has. SO what is the move? To help or to pass? Is this step verifiable? I think so...

I suggest anything our consciousness registers, from the moon to flights of fancy. But where the purely physical runs up against the purely mental could be a problem worth a thousand pages of philosophical ramblings — jgill

Right?!

I'll go one step further. A deeper question is whether the spectrum of reality is continuous. As Einstein inferred, the moon exists - and our imaginations exist. What is in between? — jgill

I am going to answer your deep question with a simple: no. Is the spectrum of reality continuous, my answer is no. The other option is yes? Maybe in one direction it can be continuous....

In between the moon, and my imagination is me and distance out of my bounds, surviving outside of them is not worth experience what I can staying within them, in the environment I am well adapted to and attached / drawn to being. The space is between. In the space is possibly nothing. The imagination and moon....the moon is seen from a far distance, the imagination is at no distance from the place you are standing, the grounds you rest upon, used to travel from place to place.

The imagination has no place without the mind, that comes from the human being from the powers within using the organs we were born with, to function as a species living in nature. Human nature, the mind is of it. The thinking is of experiences as humans with a mind of your own. The brain, is the hub for the mind. The brain that undergoes damage from a trauma, like an accident or something the cognitive abilities can be lost, needing to recover, retrain, or deal with the loss and change of lifestyle for the remaining time alive.


Perhaps the space between is just that, but perhaps if a "thing" ought to be between it has to do with the transition or power that goes into conscious mind's of a human brain. As far as I am concerned, a soul, spirit, consciousness as an EXPERIENCE is linked to the brain, meaning without the brain the conscious experience of humans would not be...Consciousness is aware of the body and the connection to it? The soul is of consciousness and consciousness is of human nature or human evolution with is of life...which is of, love? Sex? Partners? The perfect match?

What that even requires, is of the aware being, soul included. Feet moving, the body brings the brain along for the ride! Or run...The brain is moving, mind is included, linked to the person, like a ball and chain.....body is moving, imagination is moving, trailing behind...whipping around turns, bumping into things, aware of location and self in the world via mind, dreams, and imaginations, visions, hallucinations, etc

Between is nothing meaning, I am wondering if it is even a "thing" , should it be a thing if it were to be moved, meaning by human aid. Causing the motion by hand or with purpose/intentions to indirectly continously loop, or remain in a cycle. is it that the cycle is stuck, or can that become stabilized in that where it is stuck, as the cycle continues, the stuckness caused the growth and stopped the movement in the natural direction, how to get stuck? If we can claim being in a stuck cycle, are we aware of something else to give us the idea in the first place, if we could be stuck, do we not for sure know where we should be? Stuck in a cycle or stable in a current? Flow.......Like a hobo on the tracks waiting for a train to hop. That train has wheels, engine, and motion...staying on track, set up and built to transport things. Between the imagination and the moon depends on the track or path taken, and the fate awaits.

The timing of the minds thoughts, the act of thinking, and the SPEED of comprehension cognitively, understanding thinking and how much trust the self has in themselves is measured? Sure, why not...but Also, why? Unbothered. Yet, I am still curious to say the least, but not fixed or sure of my stance. I am just sharing what I do know and that is in the form of typed thoughts. Streaming thoughts. It's a style.....catch it if you can. Note it, but it is not but also is always what IT seems. If what it seems is in fact aligned with what IT IS, that is just a way to explain after the fact, using justified actions for self in that moment...it passes judgement with no questions.

Anyways, to jgill's question again, what is in between is not of measured motion, perhaps the speed is timed but it has to do with the instinct or muscle memory we have learned how its being used/functioning, is that reasonable to cognitive skills and performance of such? Usually so, we can tell in the womb nowadays the disabilities of the baby before it is out of the mother and into it's first day of life breathing oxygen. The organs attached is linked to quality of life..genetics are telling, precaution is taken quicker with advanced medicine. Is the medical field as a whole where they need to be at the level they operate and work in? Are people paid what they deserve? Usually not, but we accept or tolerate a rate that meets our basic needs at the minimum, sometimes we lose grip of self in realty and abuse our time by neglecting the self in the present.

We just need to be aware, become it, then decide after you really reflect. By grounding oneself and acting as you will...happens with reason, and as accordingly to benefits us to our line, or boundary we set for self needs. We need and want differently, but it can be based on what we consider to be efficient to maintain lifestyle currently experiencing. The life you lead, the day to day self of character and the alignment with soul is in the consciousness of self. That requires awareness....of the body with the will and the timing of feelings and reflection was used to cause a change or certain outcome? Only one outcome exists...has, will, does, ought, shall and it is what and when it will and was always ought. To be. At it. Life is at it, death has had it, the soul remains and reminds all in a collective consciousness

This person (WE) has/ought to have more trust in ourselves. The power is in our hands, and from our minds of our life experience in motion, space and with the track of time.the change and eventually unchangeable direction or movement maybe power (time constraint) to move thoughts using the required brain, intentions behind it could add to degree of energy or power added / wasted to importance/attention/work required to perform these cognitive skills, mentally, and communicate it / write it down physically in tangible material. But the soul is moving from these pieces of work. Moving is it? Or fluctuations occur and we can feel them in the air. Our senses inform us of things, and our brain tells US what is going on in order to know how to make the next move, as we are moving in time. Day after day, tomorrow is coming, today is there. Time was lost, time is never gone just...What else was gone, besides our selves? Our minds can be lost, but what are the chances they are found? Good as new? Better? Worse?

The condition is dependent. Time, interest that life revolves around, attention spending efficiency, awareness. In others, in self. How do emotions attach to tangible material things, but the experience being subjective doesnt matter. The objective part is that it is all subjective, biased, or effected by envirment, nature, nurture....but luck, chance, and timing is funny. Love is a funny thing. A funny thing and the humor of it, is of the funny person and laughed at by those with similar humor, aware high, or those who are followers, lost/looking rightfully so, rationally...doing what they ought to be, right where they need to be. THEY have to SEE that first, but to see means choosing to ignore what they know from what they see, is believing what they dont want to see, but blaming the world praying for God or the world to change. Before we ask of such demands of the world, Universe, God, Angels, As above so below, we ought to have answered and confirmed with surety that no change on our end is worth the effort. That option exists, the mind state or frame under the influence of many factors play a role in decision making moments that cant be undone past a certain point.

The art we see, music we hear, words we read move us. The way they made us move and feel are two different things and separate from what we think. When we think and move and feel, they happen almost fluidly. The arts are observed. The emotions, are moving created and used differently impacting subjectively, meaning each person is experiencing it differently, how the life path is built and where we are moving towards depends on the light we get from the darkest place we see is based on memory, learned lessons, life experience, time invested, and wisdom gained...Was fate earned, received or delivered. According to time and nature or by observing what we can say is real...What we believe to be true is real. Fake news is real, as that...fake news. It always existed, we made it what it is. We deal with it separately, at a later time and boy is it the occasion....

Moving the imagination, thoughts, ideas, visions, dreams to a piece of work, art depicting experiences, events, emotions, dreams etc. literally as they were (how can we know? who cares? do we need to? sometimes yes, sometimes NO) Art can be an exaggeration and that is style. This is of course opinion based, but it is possible to objective or "grade" Art for the lets say, taste, technique, impact, rubric perhaps? I am far from an artist, but a creative.

Moving thoughts along a track, hmm. Those grounds for thoughts to thrive are different and unfamiliar territory for some. It is the place, to be, not bound to anything in space or time as we know it because we experience what we know in the mind, dream state similar or lifelike to the detailed accounts of that experience. Having two at one time different experiences of one thing.... space time, or travel as a material body WITH thoughts attributed to us. These thoughts are of US, the awareness of the consciousness is a degree to which effects the experience in waves of intensity, impacting mentally, physically, emotionally, spiritually or all in different times, combos, and for reasons that are knowable...ought to be known by the self, which makes the soul AWARE of the body that is experiencing life.

The communication between soul and consciousness is or may be unknowable at the human level, as far as what is beyond us...well, we ought to find out before we die. Or is dying required for the cycle to complete? Birth to Death. The human lifespan, life cycle...death cycle? What is keeping these cycles intact where they may be in space? Evolution? I think evolution emerges from or is caused by the specific species and it's life cycle from start to no end, but how it arrives to one. When the end is near, can we feel it coming?

The path of the cycles. The placement, the power of it. I think only we humans have the pleasure or luck to experience it, life, for what it is....either which way does not matter, because their is/was/will be no other option at the time when it counts. It as in LIFE, counts. It answers the question, whether you like it or not. The ask is what you get, "you have to give to get," I like to say and truly believe. It is that simple, As above so below and you get what you give......the thing is you get what you give is biased towards the being and will of the person...it is not karma, it is like ultimate fate. Unreasonable doubt....

Creative minded people and links to authenticity and individuality is something I am now finding may be interesting to look deeper into...Perhaps, this is how/why you can point them out with the name actually being present. Specific artists known for the style. The way they write, sound, sing, play an instrument is observable and by those who call themselves fans or just those who happen to frequent the work by chance or choice, unbothered...for now. --cvt 11/21/24 1241AM, hold before posting, current version above is pre-draft, T1, og


Great discussion topic! 11/21/24 1035pm cvt

HI ucarr, see below for comment on your arguments on this page. Please, refer me to any past pages or quotes with intel from this or any other discussion on TPF that I may have skipped/missed that are important or worth having me recall in order to proceed forward with this discussion, especially if they satisfy any of my proposed questionings here. Thanks!

What should not be underestimated is the depth of the meaning of the near-intangibility of consciousness (NI=Natural Intelligence).

That the human individual can imagine herself to be anything the imagination can conjure and manipulate means that the position and momentum of the NI-bearing sentient is always hedged against the closure of a finalized system.

This is one of the subtle meanings of (the centrality of) the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

Both position and momentum are essential to system, so their uncertainty, acting as a defense of future creativity via strategic incompleteness, mandates entropy and its function: non-closure of system. — ucarr

I wonder if that entropy might happen regardless? What could that say about "it's" function? How do we know it wasn't always supposed to be a system that's considered a "non-closure" one? Is that meaning, it's an open system? Was it always? Was it built to be? The way you word your thinking here, "the position and momentum of the NI-bearing sentient is always hedged against the closure of a finalized system.," is seemingly saying to me that placement or location of the NI-bearing sentient is what impedes upon the walls on the system, blocking them from closing. Purposefully or by chance? What do attractive connections have to do with anything here? Gravity and relativity? Is it propped open for a reason? Is that reason involving consciousness experiences or events in the human experiences?

I agree position and momentum is of relevance but time is a constraint of this movement...I am thinking: the positioning and momentum vs the place and time, where and how do they cross over, is this of any relevance regarding chance, randomness, accidents, luck? Thinking also about timing, how the speed in any direction of motion is relevant in positioning and controlled? How certain is the speed of humans at our scale, being that humans moving a certain speed is experience-able by other humans and explainable by showing other humans, humans moving at specific speeds (fast or slow) is observable by other humans and can be random or accidental when seemingly uncertain outcomes or changes cause them. Unforeseeable to us in the moment only. Directions change and speed change at the human scale and cause outcomes that are certain though after the fact, I think...it was uncertain perhaps to only them at the time.

The direction is uncertain to us at the human scale but perhaps when or if an observer could zoom/s out looking at human experiences over our start as a species until "now" or present year in time the direction is not necessary predictable to a point where it can be manipulated or reversed*[1] but perhaps just observable enough to see the potential direction based intel? Who knows if that is even worth, work, energy or thought into, just to observe US? I don't think it is that deep however, I DO think human consciousness is special even though reducible to brain functions. What is your take on the mind-body problem? If you have discussed this before in more detail and if any quotes exists' here on TPF, please refer me to where I can read them and reply accordingly.

I agree, the depth of many things especially when one has to consider QM and philosophy is not only underestimated, but often blown off completely or avoided. The reason behind that choosing is not important, I am unbothered as to WHY. I am bothered at the lack of effort or interest to know. After all it is, THE KNOWLEDGE that takes direction and can change our minds, therefore also play a role in causing physical actions.

According to the theory, this earlier event has an immediate instantaneous effect on the evolving state of the universe, and this change has an immediate effect on the propensities for the various possible outcomes of the measurement performed slightly later in the other village. This feature—that there is some sort of objective instantaneous transfer 10 of information—conflicts with the spirit of the theory of relativity. However, this quantum effect is of a subtle kind: it acts neither on material substance, nor on locally conserved energy-momentum, nor on anything else that exists in the classical conception of the physical world that the theory of relativity was originally designed to cover. It acts on a mathematical structure that represents, rather, information and propensities. The theory of relativity was originally formulated within classical physical theory. This is a deterministic theory: the entire history of the universe is completely determined by how things started out. Hence all of history can be conceived to be laid out in a four-dimensional spacetime. The idea of “becoming”, or of the gradual unfolding of reality, has no natural place in this deterministic conception of the universe. Quantum theory is a different kind of theory: it is formulated as an indeterministic theory. Determinism is relaxed in two important ways. First, freedom is granted to each experimenter to choose freely which experiment he will perform, i.e., which aspect of nature he will probe; which question he will put to nature. Then Nature is allowed to pick an outcome of the experiment, i.e., to answer to the question. This answer is partially free: it is subject only to certain statistical requirements. These elements of ‘freedom of choice’, on the part of both the human participant and Nature herself, lead to a picture of a reality that gradually unfolds in response to choices that are not necessarily fixed by the prior physical part of reality alone. The central roles in quantum theory of these discrete choices— the choices of which questions will be put to nature, and which answer nature delivers— makes quantum theory a theory of discrete events, rather than a theory of the continuous evolution of locally conserved matter/energy. The basic building blocks of the new conception of nature are not objective tiny bits of matter, but choices of questions and answers. In view of these deep structural differences there is a question of principle regarding how the stipulation that there can be no faster-than-light transfer of information of any kind should be carried over from the invalid 11 deterministic classical theory to its indeterministic quantum successor. The theoretical advantages of relaxing this condition are great: it provides an immediate resolution all of the causality puzzles that have blocked attempts to understand physical reality, and that have led directly to the Copenhagen renunciation of all such efforts. And it hands to us a new rational theoretical basis for attacking the age-old problem of the connection between mind and brain. In view of these potential advantages one must ask whether it is really beneficial for scientists to renounce for all time the aim of trying to understand the world in which we live, in order to maintain a metaphysical prejudice that arose from a theory that is known to be fundamentally incorrect? — Henry Stapp

"Quantum Theory and the Role of Mind in Nature"(pg 12 of 41)


The direction is of interest, depth though is but a direction...what moves it!!!? How fast or slowly? Hot to cold? It moves? It matters! [what is this "it,"?] How can it move from you to me through online interactions? Connections and conversations are different but both require at least two. It takes two to tango! The connection is real, weak and strong. Time and effort can manipulate or change outcomes that maybe were unforeseen to occur the way they did, but not in general? Randomness? Team effort?

That can be a problem, or debated...common ground may not be found? If found and if stuck always just ASSUMING instead of imagining. Why do that though? Because it takes less work? Easy way or is it laziness? No motivation? These are people too, but why they think things or knowledge ought to be handed to them instead of learning it for self without realizing that CHANCE is robbed from them now being in that environment and state of mind at the same time.

Self knowledge being questioned is interesting. Imagine: No one exists anymore to defend your name, history, life story. Imagine the last person to ever know you, dying. That knowledge they had from your life cycle after completion, birth-death years looked back on by those in future, learning....asking, of interest? Placed perfectly to seem that way? Knowledge eventually fades away with us unless what? Energy conservation or transfer? because of? [insert position, place, time, speed?] ) The building or unfolding is of uncertainty, the idea from the physical collapse or end does not die, continues in a NEW way maybe?

It's all quite interesting...but back to it! Yes, what about conversations, that back and forth between two people online? Like when communication is done by typing/reading words back and forth from a device to another via computer screen? Do these conversations that occur over long distances via iPhone FaceTime, or webcam Skypes or Zoom meetings with devices suitable, camera and wifi differ between from face to face conversation? Is the connection still bound to them, or binding at all even though when distance causes communication to happen over the phone, webcam or device, etc. instead of face to face? What about building the connection from the internet conversation? What does that distance matter when both are tapped in? I wonder now how does/do the particles move differently and effect differently per type of conversation.

Because humans have a waveform state of being, their calculated probability of position and momentum acts as an anchor for their identity. This is a rather scientific-sounding way of talking about the human soul and its necessity.

Topology studies manifolding of geometric spaces across symmetry, with a constant, the invariant point that anchors a geometric space as intelligible. This property of topology applied to anchoring of human as waveform is a scientific-sounding way of talking about the necessity of the human soul. — ucarr

Consider a thinking stream that would stay closed and recited in the privacy of my mind, instead of being recited and put into words via typed language skills communicating thoughts being thunk in action...In mind what is happening, a re-creating a conscious experience or creating thoughts or ideas that aim towards that experience in mind (consciously aware of self in world, identity of self known to what degree? enough to act on what you believe to be your purpose?), in thought with intentions potentially able to or do change in decision making moments. Knowledge being attained that forces a restart, revaluing, a change touching the experience you are to have. Identity and knowledge relationship should be considered at length.



[1](un-take-backable damage is done, undo is not an option, irreversible)
[2]I am not asking these questions for real or needing an answer because it/they are/is obvious to me BUT these words are of immediate [seemingly immediate to me] thoughts coming as they do, for the first time in this order. Perhaps the first time all around thinking these strings of words. Is it? It is my first time thinking these thoughts I'm typing as they come to me? Just me, typing away "stream of consciousness style," and THIS is what came from my head, out of my mind, and into my hands. The hands that are doing the "work" but is not my brain working here too? Who does the heavier lifting, who is having all the fun? My mind, brain or my body? Perhaps my soul just sitting back watching... I am typing the thoughts away, away from the confines of my mind and out into the world for those to read in the form of words on a screen onto this page from the many on the World Wide Web...IT is out but only further from me still attached, it to me! It's out and about for others to see, those with access to it...for me to look back and see the distance and growth. Also to see the things that never seem to fade. This is me though, I am it. Credible, at the very least and true in my words. Until then. :grin: I wouldn't want to be anywhere else right now but typing this to YOU now 617 pm 9/28/24

There is a close and important connection linking will and imagination. When I decide that I will have something in mind come about as material fact, I’m entertaining intentions toward reconfiguring the material world in accordance with an idea.

We can say that the imagination is the quiver containing the arrows of will possessing pointed intentions for remaking the world. So, the bigger the quiver, the bigger the will power of its possessor.

The duet of imagination and will is especially important in situations facing a formidable barrier. In order to muster the will to do something from which we are obstructed, we must rally the imagination towards seeing the way forward to the goal. Per Castañeda, this creative exercise of will is the warrior’s intent. Brujos y brujas intend their visions into reality. It is said the “dreaming body” of the warrior can only become empowered to move with purpose via intent. — ucarr

Wow! A man of knowledge! I am keeping this reference (Carlos Castañeda) in mind moving forward, that is going to be some very interesting reading! Right up my alley...but yes, I agree with how you have used it [reference] here and how you have neatly explained Stapp's point and yours. I am following and so far agree with how you've approached acknowledging the importance of the link and bounds of the will and imagination.

I'm on it already! I will post my complete response as soon as I can.

Good one!!!

The Cult it is tonight!

ucarr, I appreciate the insights as you have couldn't of put it any simpler while at the same time keeping the field of thinking open to those willing to do that while remaining highly intrigued-- I am especially with the direction and body of your thinking as you communicate them.I just wanted to say as a person who engages selectively, I have been reading along since I have joined the forum. Although, it is our first time interacting I am no stranger to your contributions. I think you have many interesting Discussions and offer fun engagement within the thread, consistently acknowledging those that do you. I see and hear you.

Instead of jumping into the replies, I want to say that I was pleased to see you refer to Henry Stapp as I have been reading his work a lot lately as I found it an easy (for me [learning style of importance?]) to get a clearer vision or visualize what was being said and/or going on; as it was introduction or hard open to QM theories/ideas and I am still doing so intentionally to gain deeper knowledge. I found Stapp easy for me to actually begin picking up what was being put down, but not to my surprise I struggle putting the pieces together to see a whole picture where QM and philosophy have a space like Humanities should be in Science. I mentioned him [stapp] twice in the "Perception" thread and referred a few papers of his, here: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/926957

I am going to reply to each of your comments individually in order to how they were received but I just want to mention that you have helped me in a major way today organize some of my old notes into one coherent piece that makes more sense now combined. THANKS! Anyways, when I reply and usually comment, I am to be read as if I am talking. Meaning, I type or express words in my typing just like I talk. How should you know this? Well I just told you. If its easier to understand my style, some compare it to "thinking aloud" or "stream of consciousness" but that's always interesting to learn. Are they telling me what I am? Ha....and yet not a peep on anything deeper from the words, just recognizing a style that is...unintelligible, incoherent, or ill posed perhaps in a certain light. To those I say: Whatever, ignore this/it as you ought to. This is going to help me [ I can tell and you couldn't at this point in my mind its realized and i am typing as if nothing even occurred--in motion, fuel provided, interest, driving towards??? ]

The will I have is evident and that ensures me to continue even when the goal is not entirely clear YET with words...its being built in the mind, with effort and passion too. Power.

Again with this thread, as I followed along I found myself reading the words off the screen in a voice in my mind as I sit silently on the couch. I hear it and follow pretty easily. Does it always stick? No, no. But IN that moment, I like to think I understand where and what you are up/onto with your attention towards certain topics. I can hear the words and build the ideas in my mind, with more than will ...pure interest.

Yes, imagination is important and so it requires effort that deserves perhaps some more credit at times. I think the will in the way you mention it is interesting and to bring it up in the lens of QM consciousness. If the will is not aligned with the MIND and body (+/- (what else along with mind, body should be aligned along with will*1 when regarding it as [what? (insert blank?)] using the mind, (work?) to create something. Ideas birthed, nurtured, and adaptable. SO the potentially becomes something real...as in something real I mean, of non-material ideas in imagination efforts in mind bring those ideas, visions into something actually tangible/material. How? Perhaps it is true, an interactive process between the mind, brain, and conscious awareness that uses past experiences and knowledge attained to aid those new ones that become intelligent by our own design. Brain activity and body input/output relevant? I am not there yet, point is this is my intro to you and I have a lot to say. See me another time on that if interested (design vs designer notes) and I am open to get into it at another time.

BUT if I were to veer towards another aspect of QM, I rather jump to the relevance you are seeing in the 2nd law of thermodynamics here in respect to the place you find it within QM and why/how can it correlate with the works of Henry Stapp. I am interested in these correlations and am following to see where it goes, if not with others in my personal research and ongoing self taught/learning journey. So I will eventually get to that, as I have notes from when I was reading Sadi Carnot's "Reflections on the Motive Power of Heat" and thoughts on entropy, design, etc. I am seeing links NOW that I couldn't of known then, but did that stop me from thinking with intention and efforts in a reckless passion that brought me to put them together today? Sure as hell did not.

So as you can see in this explanation of my process that indeed NOT a soul asked for, I value doing so because of the parallels you and I have regarding interests in or relevance in Henry Stapp and 2nd law of thermodynamics. The fact that those two things caught my attention and was mentioned by you in this thread as it's still unfolding is what originally pulled me to engage here with you directly in this thread. After reading your responses today, it lead me to look into my past notes and I was able to organize and tie together two notes that came to me in different times over the last few years.

It's helpful and valued by me as you reminded me that my procrastination was not a waste of time or energy. That I may be able to be connected for deeper, clearer explanations for me first and then others, is big as that brings of course new perspectives from understanding complexities that QM takes on in explaining the consciousness and mind-body problem but at a relatable, objective level that is not popularly adapted yet by those not familiar with the maths. It is intimidating and that is limiting minds that might offer insights now...
Thanks! [9/20 452pm]


1*
- See here, https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/921737 the exchange and if so, DO note the footnotes as it is where the will is considered deeper [by me and my inquiring mind] in thread "Perception" (pg 3/49) This discussion is the same thread I linked earlier but it was at an earlier time, a different phase of thinking for me but where ideas correlate here now with you and others possibly. That exchange with jkop and I early on is one contribution where I mention imagination, consciousness, and the will. If I go backwards from here I can trace back to that contribution and this is interesting to me because it was before I considered or thought QM might be able to be used to refine a scope of complex understandings of consciousness and the mind-body interactions making a way in the world...for my own self and not sake

(hence, its clear that since Henry Stapp is an influence I leaned towards with interest to learn something new here. And the knowledge brought to my attention aided me in my developing thoughts using the "QM lens and relations to the world" you speak finely of also, with that help I was/am able to credibly speak on what I can bring using an untainted, green and naive pov voice in philosophy. Does that offer anything to academia of philosophical logic, math, and science? Its still being observed nonetheless...

The questioner who does an experiment to get an answer poses the question that activates QM processes towards a final state of the system i.e., an answer. — ucarr

Does the focus or attention of the conscious aware questioner lead to the answer because its/the placement/timing of the question? How much does the answer come from the "knowings" of this questioner, does the answer exist for the questioner to "answer" or is the answer attainable because the placement of the question that activated the QM process come/came from a place or state of interest, attention, or necessity/force?

It is a force to focus attention when pure interest is not present but the will is present in the way one goes about posing the question in an experiment to determine an answer. Is this assuming the answer is attainable? How is the confidence of the questioner observed and relevant [as i think worth considerations] objectively in the time that exists to attain knowledge.

Does wisdom come from the/a experience in time, or how time was experienced ( a moment of time or a clip of time ) and does a moment of time add to the clip of time, meaning an event that occurs in the whole of ones existence, life and death of a person being observed, learned based on what knowledge? The questions that come about a past life cycle include the death of the questioner to be considered? What knowings are used to ask the right questions or wrong ones? Of the self, perhaps. Either way, an answer is either the goal or an answer is not needed meaning reality of circumstances is accepted and justified based on the "knowings" of the subject in mind here detectable in the will present in these moments, events, or states that got "them" to that place...

In this way, the individual can always go forward into the future armed with the panoply of unlimited possibilities.

Strategic Incompleteness (SI) keeps human out of the reach of the calculus. You can’t sum human to a limit because of thoughts, ideas and feelings,

The mass of consciousness is sagaciously hidden from the calculation with strategic absence, so there’s always something that remains beyond the reach of measurement.

This is part of the end game of entropy and thermodynamic resistance to completeness of measurement, which is to say completeness of system.

The impossibility of complete measurement of consciousness goes heads up with the scourge of infinity as the diplomat who sticks his head into the lion’s mouth.

By seeming to be massless, NI uses escape from complete system to also sidestep the ultimate unwieldy mess of infinity.

Incompleteness resembles undecidableness, but the former is creatively future looking, whereas the latter is simply stuck. — ucarr

Hmm....so you say above, Incomplete~>stuck AND undecidableness~> future looking, resemble each other but according to what standards or template? It seems to me, that when those whom experience "future looking" and/or "simply stuck" states they is/are judged or determined by an observer and/or is this or that in the choice or in the event determined internally [making the decision to [blank]? Who determines this outcome, and is that outcome "knowable" or "unknowable" either way?

In the two things happening in the psychological mind (internally) and physical (externally), of particular interest is the timing where the outcome, with chances or possibilities that are no longer take back-able, meaning can't fix or improve upon as the internal is playing out thoughts that don't actually come into existence the way it was thought out, but the intention is traceable in the attention, focus, and the will present in the questions asked where an answer is the goal but the drive was in the question or interest. The chance is taken from/in/when the wrong decision is made but the outcome is seen externally alone while the internal process attached to that either was off to begin with (doesn't add up) or stands correct alongside in the confidence from experience attained in life at current moment.

When not considering the feelings, values, beliefs, and reasons that go along with events in experience, the chance is now transformed into a consequence or burden onto another, some times. Is this escape valid or perhaps it is not free from the bounds it started from, built upon, and left as unanswered. The answer is not for the seeking questioner unless the goal or purpose of the person is observed in the will, or process to exercise the will that is stemming from what? That drive, the questioner asking the questions started the motion and the energy is taken on by another (close to that person) in the form of remembrance of that existence from start to end when not fulfilled or escaped in time of death. The incompleteness is stuck but future looking undecidedability is not always correct in the approach.

What if someone is creatively future looking but stuck in the "thinking thoughts" that make certain decisions appealing or necessary but those that are made are of/from that with little thought in the first place, lack of will or effort or interest in this knowledge? Accepting that the knowledge is unattainable, and that death is not to be feared, to trust in the mystery of the universe still can cause a stuck-ness but not from undecided minds but the unwillingness or willingness to decide lies in their faith for certain outcomes to pan out as they ought to or as they THOUGHT ought to. The decision was made up already in lack of conscious awareness or thought to reflect upon the self and grow with time and experienced events learned from.

The decision was made, unknowingly when occurred, [because the questioner was not experimenting in the question to lead to answers, merely surviving day to day without knowing of the self to build a stance from, no place in the world, no reference, no help], so the undecidedableness is in that ability to do so rationally maybe? Instead of asking the wrong question, one might not ask the questions at all. WHY though? Do they not trust their ability to judge their own actions before they see the light of day outside of the mind? Is that awareness enough to bring the questions to the table that ought to be asked but the chance to ask them is taken in some freak accident or occurrence involving timing, place.

With surety or confidence in choice regardless of the answer is faith or hope detectable or is intuition taking over. No one seems to chose to be stuck or remain stuck, but what if no other options exist and awareness of that fact is upon that subject in questioning. Awareness causes righteous decisions, but of what exactly is the "knowings" that built this awareness to the point of surety. What is opposite of surety? Doubt...self doubt, is incompleteness but undecidedableness is leaving that up for debate or up to chance to learn self knowledge, or is that future looking the faith that backs the answer while the stuckness backs the doubt. Both will be observed to gain intel on the character of that choice, and when is it judged for how much the incompleteness or undeciedableness effects the person and how much they can handle in themselves...? After the fact?

Do the acts show how willing to keep the incompleteness, that without questioning or effort or interest/purpose that focuses attention towards the future is because of the conditions that awareness can stem from, the conditions that cause awareness levels and confidence or hope/faith in self's own decisions are observable...No question, no answer but what if the very question is co-creating an answer in the mind...observed twice, once the possibilities are actualized in reality and once the intention for that outcome was being thought, conceived? Like one outcome exists but it remains incomplete because death is not experienced in a shareable, verifiable way? Even if thought was close to the actual way it played out, it is not confirmed to what level the awareness or knowings were attained or why it matters at an objective level from this subjective experience or event.

You know, I am a sucker for akkordeon. LOUDER!!!!!



Have a great weekend!

I read this as great feedback...you are onto something, Sam26. Now I am curious to why you are refraining from saying what you want? You are right, though. It's wise to refrain at this point [lacking intel, yet], but why are you refraining before you "know" why you are, exactly? That is of interest...

Maybe we have the same beetle, maybe we don't. We must realize it's irrelevant so we remain silent about it. — Hanover

Remaining silent, hiding from light might be wise if you are a liar and have no beetle after all. It's like interacting with a catfish, who is a person using another persons looks, identity, color to portray something they are not. A deception in action, pretending to be a super model, when in reality they are obese and not in the league of where they are trying to play...They didn't think that far, so the deception is real...The ugly chick knows what her type WANTS to see, the person she is fooling also knows what they want. The ugly chick wouldn't even get the time of day if they crossed paths in daylight, maybe in a poorly lit bar after heavy consumption, she gets lucky.

So she thinks, so she knows... Then of course to remain silent in irrelevance as one would anyways, is fine because no one wants to see it. No one wants to hear it. Or them. They are too ugly, words are too sad, and the lives are too painful. Not a single soul needs it. We also don't need to see what is, only what works for us to survive and reproduce. The consequences are colorful and your behavior is telling. It's called a "red flag" for a reason...we want more from things than we ought to think about in silence, in acts that never come to light. The thoughts, ideas, dreams, memories. We want answers before we are fit to handle and when we are willing to accept what those options are, it may be too late to experience again.

How rude of me to think, "Hide all the ugly people, I dont want to look at them." Ha! But how nice of me to be honest with my preferred....taste. Remember, the Lipstick Effect? How colors and visual appeal have deep-rooted significance in human behavior.

Any other use of the word "red", e.g. to describe 620-750 light, or an object that reflects 620-750 light, is irrelevant, because the relevant philosophical question is "do objects like tomatoes, strawberries and radishes really have the distinctive [colour] property that they do appear to have?", and this question is not answered by noting that we use the word "red" in these other ways. — Michael

Ripeness?

Colors are unlike chemicals. — creativesoul


Correct, they are like tastes. They are mental percepts caused by neurological activity, often in response to sensory stimulation. — Michael

My question is: Why are humans such suckers for foliage?

Reds, yellows, oranges, browns. What do we get out of seeing the foliage? Is it a sign for the opportunities to come? Is it the weather we love? Is it the the photo op? Is it the beauty? Is it nature, showing us this beauty? Do we realize that?

The changing colors of leaves in the fall, for example, show their aging life phase. BUT what are animals seeing that we are not equally concerned with, or aware of, as we sip our pumpkin spice chai latte's, living our best lives under the foliage? Posing for "pictures or it never happened" to share this moment with our fans, they will see on our socials how we show off our meals and our acts in the day via Shoutbox or Instagram! It signals to people different messages than what it signals to animals, either way its updating information in our brains...were learning to "know" something more from this experience...both ends.

For animals, the leaves changing colors is a sign for the changing climate and what the next move is. Observing these changes can predict a lot about the family, tree, and the environment.

Another important part that color attributes to in nature is involved in a dynamic process occurring with plants, fruits and veggies and their color changing process. As fruits ripen, the degradation of chlorophyll reveals other pigments that were always present, and additional pigments are produced. This process is signalling ripeness to animals, which in turn aids in seed dispersal. This could show how color changes are not random but serve a purpose seemingly specific to the survival of certain species in nature.

I don't like the taste of browning bananas, I like them while they're green!

Our perception of color is influenced by sensory and neural mechanisms, but the role of color in nature points to an external reality that transcends individual perception. I'm aware that while color seems to have an objective basis in nature, it doesn't fully resolve whether colors exist independently of perceiving minds.

Akkordeon <3

Time can be a very hard thing for people because we only have so much of it — Gregory

Spend it while you live

The thing about Many Worlds is that people wonder, regret, and dream of what "could have been" a lot. Humans want it all, however it is that they get it i guess — Gregory

I wouldn't disagree. BUT, let me ask you. These people doing that, living their day to day lives while stuck in what "could have been" are they aware that maybe two things are happening at once? Scratch that, do you think the awareness of these people to a certain level plays a considerable role? I wonder how a test could be given to someone and those that take the test will either be classified as aware or unaware, and not in a all around type of way just about this specific thing (bad thinking patterns, stuck in day to day life, unfulfilled, not happy)

I look at it almost like multitasking, maybe that's not the word I should use...but I kind of relate to what I can only describe because lack of better words, as "living in my head" as I let things get to my head. Subjectively speaking from my own life experiences as ME, when I am in this mode it seems to effect my performance. I tend to shut down under pressure, I used to cry easily if someone yells too scary and loud, or if I got in trouble at school no matter how stupid, I avoid confrontation, I have insane stage fright, but its not that I couldn't learn to control myself better, its that for some people I think the mind does bring outcomes that are undesired and inconsistently messing with the performances or messing with the way I end up handling a situation. I am still too worried about what people think, but have come a long way. So proud.

Where was I? Ah yes...the damage!

I think some times we can/ought to be able to "undo" or "redo" or "take-back" a decision or act before the damage is fully done or run its course. Sometimes the damage or "outcome" or "result" that comes from the decision, choice, act is not...it's too late. [Now, now, where could it be? where could that take place, a choice that is take back able? where is it still not too late? Hm? Ill give a hint. Think: privacy of your mind] :wink:

Those undesired or unnecessary outcomes stemming from questionable behaviors* or as I like to call them "unnecessary necessities" that bring results within a certain time frame whether it brought quick response results or a lag...that time clip is of interest to me. When the triggered response shows up in the body we can track whether it was instinct, intent, learned skills, reasons, beliefs, desires, maybe life they lead (lifestyle, identity, are you lost or found?) that leads to the an act, choice, decision that caused the damage to the line of no return...

What unit are those outcomes even in and how can we smush it in with time constraints or clips to get anything useful out of all this? Perhaps, it's not worth it.

BUT I still wonder if this is measurable...a limit, maybe? There is a line, i think, that when its crossed, we can't turn back. The damage that was done, consequences are seemingly immediate (to our physical bodies and selves at least).

Freak accidents should be tied into this somehow, with that time is important as it is always somehow constraining when its in decision-making moments and time it takes for that choice to bring the bad outcome, how quick the results play out from when the thought first stemmed in the mind, how much was thought out and how long did it take to act on that thought...and where did that thought come from?

I don't expect you Gregory, or anyone to answer or get into all this here...though I'd love to go back and forth all night. And could.

You had an interesting take on Many Worlds, a bit relaxed for me sure but like I said when I replied to the quote I wouldn't disagree. I joke when I say this but I am jealous of that, a relaxed take. As I am the opposite in character. Intense...

Anyways, as I was relating to these people you speak of stuck in "could have" in a somewhat similar way, I think but not exactly. I just definitely get what it could be like, what it means, how to get out of the stuck pattern of thinking that's keeping us stuck. Its tough and especially considering environments, circumstances, abilities,moods,will? etc...that do play a role into thinking patterns, some times.

These decisions could be linked to lifestyle and social life. Even personality, behavior, patterns, themselves in the individual can effect each other differently. It's not so easy to pin-point, I am realizing but I think doable. I am worried if any of this would be worth it, I could be unbothered if it wasn't...

Its like we constantly have to remind ourselves and work at it with self (in privacy of mind) and I think its important to not be fully recluse. Being alone in this process is quite...melancholic. With support from another that cares about you in a place of knowing that they have your back, no judgement, mutual trust and love. That you can be that back to another, is just as important and the lesson that also needs to be learned. Its the give and take...love and be loved. Is this fairness or balance? I don't know which works better, does it make a note worthy difference? I sharpened my pencils....

I imagine this data hard to capture though as its difficult to link what effects what. As once it comes to the subjective level of each our own lives, experiences, beliefs (if any-religion), circumstances, positions, abilities, etc. it could be tough to test given how inconsistent our skills to get reliable intel, gather it, and determine weights and values. It may be tough to communicate what exactly is going on, from either end...Unless honesty is a verified step that comes after the initial aware or unaware results, that focuses or filters the A or U into new folders for focused results...

Bingo! Yes, thanks for following up to clarify. It is weird isn't it. We got it, though! Good stuff... :strong:

Anyway- the Nobel Prize in Physics for 2022 was awarded to three scientists for proving the world is not locally real. But is this like saying that noumena is not locally real? We know from experience what the classical is and isn't.. It's pretty interesting how this raises ancient questions but dresses them in modern garb (stylish). Between observer-centric theories and, say, pilot wave theory or objective collapse theory, there is John Wheeler's "participatory universe" theory, which states that the substrate of the quantum combined with the nucleus of the consciousness is what creates the world. It's an interaction between "I" and "not I". It's more of a duality becoming a whole rather than a duality of separation, and this is what guarantees we can have knowledge of the world — Gregory

Thanks for sharing some further reading! I have never heard of John Wheeler! Glad you brought him up, he's a good ole Florida boy and I am from the sunshine state myself! I will add this all to my list.....Thanks!!

You know, I have left plenty of breathing room for superposition to work in my thoughts on which theories I am leaning towards supporting with more surety. I have been swaying back and forth for the past two years, I am combining a lot of different ideas to make sense of one...I am hoping in time we will be able to eliminate many silly options, that potentially bog down the systems flow of intel more than we know....

Something about MWI, I just can't get on board with. I never liked it and it just sounds off to me so I haven't bothered entertaining it much. Perhaps, I could do a little peeking and see if anything sticks out that's new. I guess it will have to be done on my end eventually to be sure that its wrong. It doesn't seem solid enough for provable progress to be had from there though, maybe before its time?

I have no agenda so I am easily adaptable at the phase I am in, creating the framework for a bigger discussion. I am open and again, left plenty of room to comfortably account for superposition to work. I feel like we have the parts, we just have to start building the damn thing...with no template but as one.

Probably a reason I never liked MWI was because it goes against, [ I believe Wayfarer mentioned it first in Donald Hoffman thread - (with refer to Bohr/Einstein) ], the Copenhagen interpretation, MWI theories are saying that the wave function never collapses and that every possible outcomes of the quantum event exists in its own separate universe...that is just not working for me, the words alone are not adding up. Something feels off.

I currently lean towards the Von Neumann-Wigner interpretation, also known as "consciousness causes collapse," suggesting that, like I said in the first explanation about non-local and local, that consciousness of the observer plays a critical role in the collapse of the wave function. Not just focusing on the role of the observer in the causing of the wave function collapse, like the original Copenhagen interpretation. That is focused on the probabilistic side of QM and that is not my forte. THAT is evident and what is clearly shown in my Sleeping Beauty Paradox* twist, that probability nor mathematics is my strong suit...weirdly enough, though that I am still seeing connections, as I do mention in the thread from 1+ year ago, the measurable nature of the experiment and did so before learning about the actual concepts from a reputable source working in the field. Fun!!!

But yeah in Stapp's work the influence of Von Neumann's Process 1, is big too. You can read about it in the paper I linked earlier.

*Tired thinker thread OP titled, Cinderella problem* and hypericin posted OP after tiredthinker, called Sleeping Beauty Paradox. I commented because I wanted to show that a thread with this paradox was already started and also included a summary of my twist. See Pg 11/20 of hypericin's thread. I got no response in either thread. Perhaps, reasonably so. I didn't even know what I was talking about....or did i?! Kidding, i know nothing :cool:

Honestly I skipped Penrose and went straight to Stapp, his papers stuck with me, found him randomly from researching Hoffman (thanks to YOUR thread)..Okay, when you think of non-local or locality in QM, picture this: the non-local (stapp) says that the brain, no matter the distance, can affect with a choice a particle instantly and consciousness plays a part in that happening, collapsing of a wave function by observing or deciding... while local characters of QM (penrose) is local, when consciousness is, there is a direct explanation that consciousness comes directly from the QM interactions within the brain, brain cells and microtubules or something. Local doesnt involve particles being connected over long distances, non-local can with, effort and interest of the thinking mind (probing action) its tied to the idea that our minds are co-creators in the quantum world. Sorry if that was sloppy, I am a self taught philosophy enthusiast, I do CAD I know basic maths, science, I am relearning a lot myself in this journey...now its sticking that I am interested, thanks to my passion for learning philosophy. I have been reading about this stuff for a week, but I dont know much about science, biology, anatomy, math (statics I am good with) and QM until recently so take this comment loosely, if I got something wrong..I am not that far off if I am.

For some off reason, this thread is ringing a bell and I feel a connection may exist to better explain this so its easier to picture...maybe look at this attempt I shared, my first time learning what a paradox was. Lol, I am not saying I nailed this problem at all. I didn't even use probability to answer, intuition only. But I am saying, even though I can't explain it now, I am feeling a connection is there for me to make...I'll keep you posted. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/14022/cinderella-problem-anyone-understand-it

No thanks needed, its a pleasure! Though your decency is noted, so you're welcome!

I enjoy the discussions on this forum very much and although I don't always know where they are leading, there seems to be a pattern — Gregory

Me too, I love it all! I'm online reading along quite often :eyes:

So impressed and always learning something. :clap:

Anatman. Does the brain generate consciousness? Yes. Does the brain generate consciousness? No. Both — Gregory

Interesting :up: I just finished researching and reading, Henry P Stapp's work. Might be of interest, I just posted in the Perception thread about this...I saw your comment now, after the fact and was pleased with seeing your refreshing take's throughout this thread.

By titling the thread, "Donald Hoffman," not only should that attract those who KNOW of his works, ideas, and concepts which is beneficial to YOU, looking for with more intel by sharing your own, that helps you. BUT also, the discussion introduces a name to people off the top. A name to remember, a name to research and a thing to read and a chance to change someones mind. A name in the title is going to be leaving an impression on peoples minds, I think.

Applauding this threads entirety and your bold voice, Gregory, as you share thoughts with an unapologetic approach. I enjoy reading the ideas from such forward thinking minds and people, thanks for sharing. The effort of your interest and passion is always going to be a helpful aid!

Phenomenal consciousness is either reducible to or supervenient on brain activity. The only connection between distal objects and brain activity is that distal objects often play a causal role in determining brain activity. This is what the science shows. — Michael

It seems to me that these concepts are not mutually exclusive but rather complementary. Consciousness could indeed be caused by brain activity in a seemingly random and complex way where the brain's development and firings gradually give rise to conscious awareness.

From the early stages of fetal development, when the first synapses form, brain activity begins to spark the flame of consciousness. This process continues as the brain matures, with consciousness developing alongside. Perhaps, it might appear that consciousness supervenes on brain activity, emerging as the brain grows and becomes more complex, it is also reducible to these very brain process.

That makes consciousness both dependent and fully explainable by brain activity, and by the brains activity...I mean thinking thoughts...This unit I am seeing, instead of choosing between reducibility OR supervenience to explain what intel hasn't allowed us to see yet, shows how maybe its both working together instead.

*See Henry P Stapp, an American mathematical physicist, known for his work in quantum mechanics, particularly the development of axiomatic S-matrix theory, the proofs of strong nonlocality properties, and the place of free will in the "orthodox" quantum mechanics of John von Neumann.

“Mind, Matter and Quantum Mechanics” 1993: In this book, Stapp addresses the implications of quantum mechanics for the mind-body problem. He explains how quantum mechanics allows for causally effective conscious thought to be combined with the physical brain. Which aligns with what I mentioned above.

“Mindful Universe: Quantum Mechanics and the Participating Observer” 2007: This book explores how quantum mechanics can radically change our understanding of the connection between mind and brain. Stapp discusses the role of consciousness in the dynamics of quantum mechanics, which could support the view on the interplay between brain activity and consciousness.

Here is a link to one of his papers, if your interest hardens: "Quantum Interactive Dualism: An Alternative to Materialism" Note this paper was published in 2005, between the time his major works we complete its clear his ideas on the interactions between QM and consciousness were evolving and refined over time.

Quote from the abstract in the paper link above, "First, it injects random elements into the dynamics. Second, it allows, and also requires, abrupt probing actions that disrupt the mechanistically described evolution of the physically described systems. These probing actions are called Process 1 interventions by von Neumann. They are psycho-physical events. Neither the content nor the timing of these events is determined either by any known law, or by the afore-mentioned random elements. Orthodox quantum mechanics considers these events to be instigated by choices made by conscious agents. In von Neumann’s formulation of quantum theory each such intervention acts upon the state of the brain of some conscious agent. Thus orthodox von Neumann contemporary physics posits an interactive dualism similar to that of Descartes. But in this quantum version the effects of the conscious choices upon our brains are controlled, in part, by the known basic rules of quantum physics. This theoretically specified mind-brain connection allows many basic psychological and neuropsychological findings associated with the apparent physical effectiveness of our conscious volitional efforts to be explained in a causal and practically useful way."

I like your style!

Room A Thousand Years Wide (Remastered 2016) - Soundgarden

What an epic album! "Badmotorfinger" - Released on: 10/8/1991

:death: :flower:

Nice!

When I think about the colour red I am not thinking about light reflectances; I am thinking about the visual percep — Michael

If you could accurately measure neuron firings in your hand, you could also "share" that pain — Echarmion

No, I don't think it is ever accurately transferred or shared. OR worth attempting as it seems out of spite, revenge, or anger that one would want to share their pain. Make another feel what they experienced, so they KNOW. Sounds like bad news to me...

You can try to make another feel the pain suffered but its up to them to open the flow and let in that experience. Like jkop said, expressed through one person's art, work, testimony, demonstration, tone, behaviors it is, i suppose, a "shared" pain, but it is not replicated accurately. To share the pain, it would require you to KNOW for sure what it takes to inflict that same pain onto another. Pain in different forms that I assume are not experienced quite in the same way.

The initial pain that a person suffered, physical or sentimental both require different methods of "sharing" this pain. We feel the pain, we relate, we sympathize with similar pains from one another, sometimes without intention or on purpose. Sometimes people WANT to feel the pain another person has suffered from. Who am I to judge?

The openness to receiving and allowing the flow (if you will) of the pain, in order to experience this "shared" pain. That requires both parties to trust or at the very least, take the word of another.

Passing pain and passing pens, both of them could bring undesirable outcomes. Passing the wrong pen, passing the wrong pain? As how can you know the person wont react to the pain in a way that is detrimental to their well-being? Is that what we wanted? To hurt people? Real nice.... :roll:

Empathy is the ability to experience what someone else is experiencing. Since someone elses experience is not open to view, we must access it indirectly via languages, verbal, pictorial, interpretation of gestures etc — jkop

jkop, do you think I correctly connected what you shared a few days ago in my response above to Echarmion? To me it seemed, the "shared" pain comment they meant was a physical demonstration or experience. Clearly not in the same circumstances, that may have heightened or lessened the initial pain from the start.

Is this the same as pain, like a heart break? Shared pain is through empathy, indirectly being experienced on different grounds. Is the "message" of the "shared" pain communicated at all? Can the message get across, as it could be "shared" or sent, even though it was not the exact same experience? Can't we get the gist of things? Is that good enough? Obvious to me now. I was re-reading the thread from the beginning and give that credit to jkop, as you mentioned empathy theory earlier to me. Cool!

Hey thanks for letting me know, I can do better next time with less!

I just laughed aloud! :clap: :lol: I was feeling a bit earthy, please pardon my crudeness. Heading over to your thread for a better peek...

So, yes, apparently brains can generate experiences in the vacuum of space. All that is required is the appropriate neural activity, regardless of what causes and maintains it. — Michael

When one has an experience, it is an experience of something. When there is no "something", it's an hallucination. — Banno

Banno, I think I see what you are saying. :grimace: *inserts Lionino's image of the dur dur dur emoji*

When one has an experience [lets say me, when I have an experience], it is an experience of "something" [me and who/what/where/when/how?]. When there is no "something" [no me or no ground for experience building or something to get out of "it" (it being the experience?)] I hallucinate when there is nothing to experience?] What if nothing like this has happened to me before, a freak accident or chance in timing,which allowed outcomes to play out that were not expected or anticipated, and that should be able to be explained for what it is by not the one experiencing the chance happening but from someone explaining it in the future for what it was worth then...[imagine telling your grand-kids about your friend getting struck by lightening in the 90's] It can be explained using lang skills in a future time looking back on the past after its been done. Years have passed and the story is recalled again in the present time, which is ancient history by now.... If we have no expectations or visions or ideas in mind, how can use language to describe/to infer any related experience from memory or recollection of thoughts/ideas? We have to picture these ideas in motion, know how they move not just what they are...what about, what WE are?

What about day-dreaming? Why can't I speak of it?Oh yeah no one is listening. Say this subjective hallucination is explained or described or the person having the hallucinations are observed and as the words are used to talk about what happened in the "daydream" the first time, is it born into the world? Was it being nurtured in the privacy of your mind before you shared the words explaining it? Are the words said with purpose, or are they being stuttered from fear and trembling? Just the sound of the tone, or expression seen on the face, or intensity of the eyes looking towards an objective. How little do we need to express our truth in order to make a mark or lasting IMPRESSION upon others, the world, experience. Are we not making any lasting impression for the self in a separate way, internally? Is this required to reflect on our choices? How did we end up here? Did we lose sight of self and our light or path? Are we being illuminated or doing that for another? Depends.

Should I try and make any sense of this experience had like no other? How would I know it was like no other if I didnt make sense of it one way or another? I have to then ask myself and answer honestly: Are you where you should be? Does it make sense? How far have we gone and how much have we grown? Agreed upon at large, we standardize objectivity, even as it shifts with time and society. It’s a reflection perhaps, not an illusion.

Hmm... So, there's the experience (the perception, qualia), the perceived (the fruit), and whatever is involved in the interaction (including the contact lenses). Could "mental phenomena" and "seeing the colors" be deflated, so they're the same thing? Or, well, for the mental phenomena to occur in this case, we'd first have to see with our eyes, right?

Could we say that the rose and the car have the property of being red since they can elicit/cause that (format of) experience/perception to most onlookers under common circumstances?

The experience/perception isn't "in the" rose, it's part of the onlooker when occurring. And the rose isn't part of (or "in") the onlooker. What "red" are we talking about anyway? :) — jorndoe

This one :point: :flower: the flower and the onlooker are both a part of (or "in") the world, by "being-in-the-world" (see Heidegger, "What is Called Thinking" A Translation of Was Heisst Denken by Fred D. Wieck and J. Glenn Gray) our experience interacting with flowers in our environment through our bodies sensory organs and/or a shared use of language or gestures that was "taken in" during the experience or interaction. By using both our vision and basic language in a shared world with another, we are asserting and verifying, THAT flower over there is the most vibrant red in the whole garden of roses.

To the question, "Could "mental phenomena" and "seeing the colors" be deflated, so they're the same thing?" I say yes, but it's one sided and not the initial intention. I believe they can be MISTAKEN or confused into thinking they are seeing/experiencing "the thing" when really its an illusion that the body is distinguishing in the experience of the mental phenomenon to be the same thing without realizing...but that is not the person deciding they want to deflate the two or an observer hoping that one does deflate the two...sometimes one just does that and its linked to their abilities innate / conditioned to them. I think.

When someone tells you "You have it good," stop for a moment. Think about the deeper meaning behind their statement. Are they being silly, or are we the silly ones? It could be that we both are. And it's possible that personal opinions really come to life in the gray area where joking ends and seriousness begins. Jokes on little lion boy or me?

Hm, lion...nino...What is that, little lion boy? — Kizzy


You had to reduplicate the -n- there to make the joke work. But not too far anyway. — Lionino

Lionino thinks I am trying to make a joke on his accorded behalf. I was simply showing that I was sounding out and using my language skills/my knowing to determine the meaning. A meaning I can recognize or understand since I know what a "lion" is and that "nino" is spanish for boy. I didnt double up the n to make the joke...you are the joke. I was displaying via screen and typed words how I was breaking down your username to learn what I can and verify my understanding before going to you, the source and person that can share further verifying how FAR out I am...

So yeah, if you replied to me with an image of a retarded emoji to be funny I want to know who laughed? Does the laughing echo or is the silence deafening? I'm sure it amused a few...

It only caused this reaction because maybe I also can see myself in the way you might have...Does this truth hurt? Not really, because I have accepted already I am a crazy doof! BUT I am no fool. AND THAT is how I attempt to break down subjectivity, we can get to the bottom of things. If not the bottom, maybe that is important. How close we are to it and if we ought to be there...What colors do you see at rock bottom?Can you go there? What do you know about it? Where are you?

Fair play, lionino rawr!!!
Hm, lion...nino...What is that, little lion boy? Just that HE recognizes some thing? Bravo!

Lionino, takes one to know one...kinda :strong: :rofl:

Where/when did you sniff out/notice the shift, here? What page did the discussion shift? Where did those 50 pages get us you [or anyone willing to comment on this] in said thread?

Oh, no. It is the indirect realism X direct realism discussion all over again. Here we go 50 pages. — Lionino

WE?

The brain generates experience out of a flood of diverse data. — frank


Data from inside the brain?

Emergence of experience requires more than just a brain. Persistence of experience does as well. Brains are not enough. It takes more than just a brain to smell the cake in the neighbor's oven. It takes more than just a brain to remember that smell. It takes more than just a brain to hallucinate that experience. — creativesoul

What about just the/a "brain" with thinking thoughts?

Part of my initial comment says, "I am considering this: perhaps these ideas are visions in the brain, independent of the individual’s subjective experience. The subjective mind possesses ideas, but not in the same way the brain perceived/s them. Ideas are interpreted differently by the brain in its visions, and these interpretations may or may not align with how a subjective being perceives these visions as ideas in their mind or in their interactions with the environment.

What if thinking thoughts* is just the brain existing/being, rather than the subjective body/mind’s doing?

*the act of thinking-that thinking might be an emergent property of the brain’s activity, rather than an action performed by the subjective mind"

The burden would be on you to show that bodily interaction is necessary to consciousness. — frank

The brain generates experience out of a flood of diverse data. — frank

:up: :point:

@Count Timothy von Icarus :eyes:

"The signal exchange between consciousness and body, especially in terms of focus and information flow, is a critical area of study. For instance, while watching a movie, we're immersed in an experience that's both part of our external reality and our internal narrative. This duality of experience and "insperience" raises questions about the potential effects of screen exposure on our emotions. It's clear that sensation influences our emotional state, but the nature of this influence when mediated by screens is complex.

Our research assumes that any sensation created within our consciousness has an impact on our emotional state. However, the structure of sensations experienced through screens differs from those without. Screens induce a partial stimulation, leading to a "defocused" state in other sensory domains, which in turn triggers a subconscious response—an "insperience" that augments the low-dimensional sensation. Conversely, when we're exposed to complete external stimulation, such as being in nature, we receive a multitude of direct signals through our sensory organs, leading to high-dimensional sensations."

I brought this up 2 months ago in TreatId's thread, "Solipsism is a weak interpretation of the underlying observation" @Treatid

The terms "Defocus" and "Insperience" are new to me and my research. They were learned by me from the creator of this video in real time a few years back as I have made connections with them personally and developed a relationship over time because of a mutual interest in philosophy. I immediately was drawn to his work based on how interested and intrigued he was by the work he was putting in at the time into studying and modeling shapes from the works of Stan Tenen*[1], specifically "The Alphabet That Changed the World: How Genesis Preserves a Science of Consciousness in Geometry and Gesture, see here for more on that: Stan Tenen - Hebrew Alphabet - Geometry of Light .

Amongst other projects, one is involving devices with screens using A.I. technology, and Augmented Reality. I found the findings in the video below to be relevant to my work, which is involving 3D modeling and design. BUT THAT is why and where I got these terms. They were used and typed out in quotes above in the proper context but can be seen defined and explained by a German speaking person translating to English here in video on Youtube: A simplified Model for Augmented Sensation: Defocus, Experience and Insperience

*[1] - "STAN TENEN is the Director of Research for the Meru Foundation of Sharon, Mass. With a B.S. in Physics (1963) from Polytechnic Institute of New York University, Mr. Tenen has designed and produced optical and electronic equipment for doctors and surgeons, and holds several patents.

In 1968, while examining the Hebrew text of Genesis, Mr. Tenen noticed what appeared to be a pattern in the arrangement of the letters. This observation, which prompted thirty years of research into the history and tradition of the text, has led to a meaningful understanding of traditional teachings in a modern context. Mr. Tenen has presented his works to scientific and religious scholars throughout the United States and Israel." - from https://www.meru.org/info/TenenShortBio.html

Truly isolated systems don't exist in nature and the brain couldn't maintain conciousness even if it was magically sequestered in its own universe. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Magically sequestered! Ha, I like that! I picture a more vibrant experience for IT...maybe one not so alone, perhaps? What do I know?

My name is Wepeel
Got a box full of your toys
They're fresh out of batteries
But they're still making noise, making noise

the mind could be trained to use ideas or visions from past memories or brain activity patterns? — Kizzy


Our ability to remember and imagine and dream is astonishing. It's fairly easy to imagine what a red pen might look like, or a floroucent pen that glows red in the dark etc. Past memories might help, but with basic language skills one can compose infinitely many descriptions of what a red pen looks like, or might look like, in real or fictional worlds etc.

However, I don't know how to imagine what it might be like to see something invisible, or a pen that is red yet green in the same respect. It's easy to write or say, but not so easy to imagine. — jkop

It is astonishing, I do agree! I could go on and on and on and on about all the potential and power in/of/from our abilities to do many things BUT no.

The ability to recall memory, IMPRESSIONS, dreams, daydreams is yes astonishing, like you said. I think its equally impressive that ability we have (consciously or not) to block or "black-out" memories as well. I find myself throwing out this question from time to time when relevant to the discussion being had: If I am daydreaming while I am driving or lets say daydreaming during a group conference call or daydreaming during a Zoom meeting, could it be considered, multitasking?

Ha! You say, "It's easy to write or say, but not so easy to imagine" I wish it was easier for me write, say, and communicate the words that race through my mind. I cant even catch up or comprehend it for myself half the time... Forget discuss. The fire in the imagination is "communicated" to me in the privacy of my mind. The fire burns and I think getting out what I can is important. If I am wrong, it matters even less. The fire seems to be controlled though in a way. It just stops and its gone. No smoke, no ash. Like it never happened. Just me and my next move to worry about....

I want to continue with my inquiry a bit more if you don't mind,

Are impressions causes to remember? What is relevance, if any, to the speed one is recalling a memory? How much are you actively trying to "think" about a memory you may or may not recall completely...

- "I would've never guessed that?"
- "C'mon! Give me a hint, I will remember!"
- "Do I know it?"
- "Wait, what was that lovely ladies name we met at the mall?
- "Oh no, I forgot her name!
- "Hold on, its on the tip of my tongue."
- "Give me a minute..." *she stops moving and shuts eyes*
- "Let me THINK", *brain is directed and in FOCUS*
- TIME PASSES [choose your own pace]
- "ALICE! It was ALICE!"
- "Damn, I'm good"

Do we use our "words" and basic language OR our "thoughts" and basic language skills to communicate the message to self. How can talking to our self out loud differ from talking to ourselves privately in the our mind? Is the last "Let me THINK" above, the/a trigger that the body needs to feel to start focusing intentionally? Its almost like we are hyping the body up to find the will [1]* to focus for one moment. Or forever? How long it matters for you only, then...


I wonder if we are actually navigating while recalling a memory (that we are SURE we know and will remember)[2]* Also, how fixed are the memories and how strong/how deep are/can the impressions be or vise versa - how weak and how shallow controlling the search for memories. If recalling something learned is it relevant to consider when the knowledge WAS shared (entered the brain via communicated in some form)[3]* and if that has anything to do with how information is retained completely...hearing? perceptions? interests? location? circumstance? complexity of understanding? Is time constraining at all this process of recollection?

Lastly, Is it reasonable to forget after certain amount of time or strain? What about just plain ole bad memory - short or long term, it doesn't matter at the moment. I also tend to mention the term "Forgetfulness". Forgetfulness VS Memory. Is memory a skill? Is forgetting a skill? What was the cause to forget? Is that natural to try and actively forget something?[4]*

I appreciate the thoughtful responses, guidance and patience you expressed in replying even if you didn't mean to be or do that...It's worth saying even if I am wrong. I am glad you were encouraging and welcoming for further discussion on some ideas a bit deeper. It's important I think because for me I can understand how it can be intimidating to contribute in a thread you may not be an expert in or fully up to speed. Its okay to slow it down and set the pace for yourself although I don't blame people for hesitating to contribute...BUT to those people I'd only say this: Doubt your self but not for too long!
Thanks

• [1]*- (if it exists or not- we CAN learn that intel at this state)
• [2]* - [expectation set now- fail or success- personal hurdle?]
• [3]* - (if it is I don't think we as subjective individuals can feel happening--does this count as experiencing it--if this is happening in our brain activity without out bodies feeling the firing of neurons while recalling a memory)
• [4]* - I'm not sure but i think it works with and in time? Did it just happen? Did the person just keep going on with their circumstances of life? I guess it is true that with some time, people and thoughts move on at a pace that may or may not be foreseeable or adjusted? Can we get a better time? eg. like running a 50 yard dash with a faster speed then before