Ever wake up mad at someone you know, even though you know it's ridiculous? — Patterner

I had a wife wake up and think that I should apologize for what 'I' did in a dream that she had. :roll:

Chicks. Am I right?

Yes the idea exists. But it is not Real. It was a fleeting manifestation of a construction out of Signifiers, pointers at the moon, not the moon. — ENOAH

You are drawing a distinction between the moon, and the word “moon”.

I’m saying you don’t get the moon in the first place for you to construct “moon” without essence becoming.

There is no priority. Any distinction anywhere, at any time, in the sky between the moon the sky, in your post between “idea exists” and “it is not real” - any distinction carries the essence of the things trying to be distinguished.

This means if there were no distinctions, we could not speak or have ideas, AND we could not see the moon. It doesn’t mean if all is becoming, as the moon decays, there are no distinctions.

I think the issue is that ideas don’t seem to have matter, so there is an ability to think of them as not real. I don’t know the full mechanics of idea-ing, but then I don’t know the full mechanics of gravity holding the moon round. So I just treat the phenomena be it of “matter” or otherwise.

Seems like I experience changing becoming.

Seems like changing becoming is only there for experience in distinctions I see changing and becoming. These distinctions are as present in the becoming as the becoming changes distinct things.

There is no priority between essence and becoming. To become is to come from some thing and then become some thing else. To be a thing is to be a thing that passes away and is not a thing.

Thing and becoming.

In every sentence you will write.

They have and there are several ways to interpret that section.

But the main point is that when we try to "catch" the self in real time, we never quite do so. We mention the "I", but one has a very strong intuition that the self goes significantly beyond that word.

I’m saying you don’t get the moon in the first place for you to construct “moon” without essence becoming. — Fire Ologist

Dreams are real experiences. — Patterner

Yes there is a Real moon and Dreams are real experiences. But both are, for Humans, displaced by our construction (about?) of them.

Watching a movie is real. Believing the movie is real is the illusion.

Anyway, clearly there are items in my thinking about the self being an illusion which need to be worked out. And who knows, I may come out on the other side much closer to where you are.

No. Read my exchange with bert1 again.

Nevermind.

Chicks. Am I right? — Patterner

Are you a chick? Or is it just barely awake human brains?

I'm seldom more than barely awake. I would like to blame it on apnea, but that's probably a bit dishonest.

Okay, so then what is "consciousness"?
— 180 Proof The capacity to feel. — bert1

Yes! And to sense, image-make, and act; And the always present [aware-ing of said feeling, image-ing and acting.

I agree.

Is consciousness the capacity to feel? Do we not need to be feeling to be conscious? What I mean is, if we're not feeling, are we conscious?

Also, if we have the capacity to feel, is it possible to not be feeling?

When I'm under general anesthesia, I don't have the capacity to feel, and I am not conscious. (I've heard of those who do not lose the capacity to feel. They only lose the capacity to move in any way, and remain conscious throughout the surgery. :gasp:)

I have a quote below from Feeling & Knowing: Making Minds Conscious, by Antonio Damasio. In short;
-"neither plants nor bacteria appear to have minds or consciousness"
-Bacteria and plants "respond to numerous anesthetics by suspending their life activities and turning to a sort of hibernation where their ability to sense disappears."
-He proposes anesthetics don't target the mind. They target the senses, and "minds are no longer possible once sensing is blocked."

As we discuss the mindless and non-conscious nature of sensing, we should introduce and reflect on an intriguing fact: bacteria as well as plants respond to numerous anesthetics by suspending their life activities and turning to a sort of hibernation where their ability to sense disappears. These facts were first established by no less a figure than the French biologist Claude Bernard in the late nineteenth century. Imagine the astonishment of Claude Bernard when he discovered that the early, inhalable anesthetics of his day would quiet plants down to a slumber.

The fact is especially noteworthy because, as we have just noted, neither plants nor bacteria appear to have minds or consciousness, the “functions” that, to this day, most everyone, commoner or scientist, associates with the action of anesthetics. You undergo anesthesia before surgery so that the loss of “consciousness” lets the surgeon work in peace and saves you from suffering. Well, I propose that what anesthetics cause—thanks to a perturbation of ion channels in the bilayer properties of cell membranes—is a radical and basic disruption of the sensing functions we have just described. Anesthetics do not target minds specifically—minds are no longer possible once sensing is blocked. And anesthetics do not target consciousness either, because, as we will propose, consciousness is a particular state of mind and it cannot occur in the absence of mind. — Antonio Damasio

Could that be correct? I would think that, if I lost all sensory input, I could still think about things I'd sensed in the past. Or do math in my head. Maybe anesthetics work different on us than they do on bacteria and plants.

Yes there is a Real moon and Dreams are real experiences. But both are, for Humans, displaced by our construction (about?) of them. — ENOAH

Not sure how you mean this. The moon exists outside of our heads. But our experience of it is a construction of it inside of our heads.

If that's what you mean, then I don't see how the same can be said about dreams. Our dreams may contain reconstructions of images of things we saw when we were awake. Even things we never saw may be conglomerates of things we did see. And we may construct things based on things we hear in the waking world as we are sleeping. But the dream is not displaced. It is unique (recurring dreams aside), and some people and places are, afaicat, also unique. In what way is it displaced?

Could that be correct? I would think that, if I lost all sensory input, I could still think about things I'd sensed in the past. Or do math in my head. Maybe anesthetics work different on us than they do on bacteria and plants. — Patterner

Maybe Damasio is more referring to "sensing" on a cellular level? The general attenuation of neurons' ability to sense, and pass on outputs that are based on their inputs is something I would expect to attenuate consciousness. In any case you've piqued my curiosity about getting a more up to date understanding of anesthesia.

:up:

I hope you enjoy the volleying.

I say speaking is construction, becoming. It travels lightly through Time and vanishes instantly. Where is it "there"? When is it ever being? — ENOAH

I agree speaking is constructing, and I agree it travels lightly and vanishes.

I agree. I see these in my experience too.

But something is constructed, and then that same construction vanishes. I see these in addition to the above.

“Where is it there? Where is it ever being?” It is there in the flesh of the words being themselves now constructed by our bodies for physical travel and in we who use those words to affect the physical world (as in bring myself physical apples without moving my physical feet through lightly traveled ideas or essences). They only work when real distinctions are made, are constructed.

Because--and I sincerely hope this isn't depressing--difference, distinction, and your admirable desperation to square things off against it, are also "illusions" based only in the evolved mechanism "difference", necessary for speech to flourish, a this and a that. The Self illusion is a branch of that in the evolution of Mind: a Me and a You. — ENOAH

Are you saying there are no real distinctions? There were no real distinctions before we humans invented “difference”?

Because if you distinguish anything, ever, drawing a line between any two things, then on either side of that line you must have two different essences, or at least on either side of the line there is one essential difference.

You can’t experience this from that without something essentially this and so not essentially that, and something essentially that and so not essentially this.

So if there are real distinctions, why assume our constructed ideas drawing out such distinctions are ONLY illusion?

But I say you just believe the idea came from somewhere. That exactly is the illusion. It came from your mind! Yes the idea exists. But it is not Real. — ENOAH

“Yes the idea exists.” Agree.
“But it is not real.” Disagree.

I don’t place priority on where something came from. Chemicals came from atoms, proteins from chemicals, plants and animals from proteins, feathers from lightweight flying animals, roars from lions, and ideas from human beings. As you say, “the idea exists” just like the protein and the roar.

Why say something is not real just because it is only traded in among humans? No human trades in breathing water, but that doesn’t mean breathing water isn’t real. There is the shark. No bird trades in words and ideas, but again, there is the human - these many things move together in the becoming.

in your minds development, Apple, 4, store, go, son, buy, me, etc. we're input, and over time processed, reprocessed, used to construct, reconstruct, and so on, thousands of times. — ENOAH

As many instances of essence as there are the undoing of essence in becoming.

So when you crave apples, that real feeling — ENOAH

I am beginning to wonder if we should have defined “real” as distinct from “exist”.

But I’ll continue assuming the “real” to you is a mind independent thing, and “exists” applies to those real things, plus our ideas in mind such as “self” and “illusion” are costing in a mind.

The “apple” or “self” in my mind, I call an idea.
You call these illusion. But some thing exists here, so I don’t see the need to call it illusion.

Could this be because you think ideas must refer to a real thing in the world or else these ideas are mere illusions, and since no idea can BE the thing it purports to refer to, all idea-ing is illusion making?

I see the apple-essence-idea transfer-to-son process worked in the real world of bodies only. Fleeting idea apple, wherever and however it came from, became real apple in hand. The mental part that has no body, the idea, need not be called illusion just because it is only something for a mind and from a mind, because it functioned through my son’s mind. My idea. In my head. Set loose in my son. Came back to me as an actual, real apple. So my “idea” apple, like the real apple in hand, is not an illusion.

that we are built that way — ENOAH

This is precisely my point. We are built to build essences shared in words. So words and essences are built into reality like a burrow or the moon or an apple, they are just built by only us and are useful to only us. But they have flesh, skin in the same game as the rest of the becoming.

The Self, is becoming, The Body is being. — ENOAH

This seems to be the heart (the essence?) of what you are saying, or the bumper sticker version of a longer explanation.

I still think we are standing next to each other looking at the same thing, but I would say the opposite about it. I would say the self is held fast and fixed, like something being, but it is held fast by the body that is becoming. The body is in constant flux, becoming older, growing thinner or fatter, like all bodies, becoming. But as we human bodies can spit out ideas, these ideas only function when they lock down real distinctions into words to quickly package them in sentences for others to employ in a conversation about the real or in a trip to the store. Our words insert temporary permanence where we see temporary distinctions in the world. The insertion is real. When it functions as through my son, it is demonstrably real.

That which you call a squirrel is real, so are you and your senses. But yes, while those ideas,(that it is a squirrel, that it is "real", that you sense it,) exist, they are not Real, not thing in itself; they are outside Fictions superimposed as if from above upon the thing in itself. They are representations — ENOAH

If you want to call ideas superimposed and not a thing, but from above the thing, you’ve already isolated the idea as distinct, as different. Once it is distinct, it is! It is made. It is real. So you should be arguing not that ideas exist as illusions, but that ideas don’t exist at all.

I take it now that you are kind of a push-me pull-you of openness. You are open to the idea that ideas are real or let's say at least impactful. But you are not open to the idea that all the seeds of awareness (any level of awareness) are present in all things since the dawn of time as a law of nature. Is that correct?
— Chet Hawkins
That is not correct. We could not be conscious if the possibility of consciousness was not present in all things, and from the beginning. We are, after all, made of the same particles everything else is made of. My guess is that all particles have the mental property of proto-consciousness, in addition to the physical properties like mass and charge. I think proto-consciousness is simple experience, which, when matter is arranged in certain ways, combines to form consciousness. — Patterner

Awesome! My first guess was not wrong then. I am ... relieved.

But that doesn't mean a rock or tree knows what can normally be done with cards, and is surprised when someone skilled at sleight of hand does something that makes it look like a card is floating in the air without any means of support, reforms after being torn into tiny pieces, or passes through a solid wall. They do not know such things, do not have the sensory apparatus to perceive things visually (necessary for visual illusions), and I'm not aware of any reason to believe they have the intellectual capacity to experience such illusions even if they did have eyes. Dogs have eyes, but they don't seem impressed by David Copperfield or Penn & Teller. — Patterner

Ah, I understand now. This is would say, the way you think of it, is wrong.

In others words the one DOES lead to the other, and you think it does not. There is the disconnect. Of course what we are both really discussing at this point is something akin to matter of degree.

For example there are things that make noises that dogs give that side head turn to, but otherwise as you mention they cannot relate to them. However, the seed is there and the reaction is non-zero even to the higher states and aims embedded in the pattern.

Further, my dogs, border collies, are beyond other dogs by such a distance that they will totally freak humans out, some humans. It is hilarious to me that to notice this about border collies is a filtering trait for the awareness of humans in EXACTLY THE SAME WAY that that action which provokes the strange and aware response in border collies is amid dogs.

So, you are not properly allowed to suggest the awareness is zero. And that is where our difference of opinions lies here to me.

It also underscores the central question of this thread. That is to say, knowledge is only belief. Final knowledge is beyond even the awareness of what to do with the card trick. It includes everything about how the cards were made, what time of year it is in which the trick was shown, the life history of the magician in question, and perhaps more importantly the objective nature of the question, 'Should that trick have been shown at that time, in that way'. To know all these things objectively is required by me to 'know'. Otherwise we are only discussing something as relatively unimpressive as ever-increasing awareness. Yet and still that has great value if its PROPER position is understood and adhered to. We do not 'win' the final game by pretending to 'know'. The practical short-cut is compelling and ... wrong.

But awareness and increasing amounts of it are wise as goals. They are generally correct and generally in evidence. There is a faith in this, that the tree 'gets it' on some level and is learning to 'get it' more. I refuse to disallow that truth in my wording and in what I say directly. If the universe is alive and all seeds of awareness are there, it DOES behoove us to act that way.

Not sure how you mean this. The moon exists outside of our heads. But our experience of it is a construction of it inside of our heads.

If that's what you mean, then I don't see how the same can be said about dreams. Our dreams may contain reconstructions of images of things we saw when we were awake. Even things we never saw may be conglomerates of things we did see. And we may construct things based on things we hear in the waking world as we are sleeping. But the dream is not displaced. It is unique (recurring dreams aside), and some people and places are, afaicat, also unique. In what way is it displaced? — Patterner

Think of a human animal on a hypothetical date before language took off (sorry, I won't be specific about those details. Bear with me, if my attempt falls apart for lack of details so be it). And since Language had yet to evolve to a certain point, so too Mind--that uniquely human "form" which consciousness took--had yet to develop.

When that hypothetical human animal looks at the moon, they see it with their organic senses untainted. The real moon exists, and they see that. Whatever it is. And moreover Whatever it is is irrelevant because there is no Language with which to construct what it is. So it remains the moon, Whatever it is.

Once Mind and its constructions evolved/emerged, for Humans you cannot look with your sense of vision and see what it is. Whatever it is. Instead you look at the moon and see what that Signifier triggers as signified. For e.g. you see astronauts, gravity, tides, werewolves, cheese, etc. Not specifically, but I am hoping I've painted the picture.

For one animal looking at the moon, they cannot see the moon as it really is--Whatever that is--they see the Signifiers which have displaced the moon. That is the "illusion." It's not that our life, our actions, drives, feelings, and tge world around is which we are fully equipped for sensing, is not real; rather, our experiences of those things are constructed displacements to which we are (almost) ineluctably attuned/attached.

Our dreams — Patterner

Sorry, forgot "dreams." That seems trickier on the surface because dreams are already illusions. Yes you are correct that they exist, take place, have effect, but even convention readily accepts, "that wasn't real; just a dream." But that's not addressing your query. But dreams can be treated in the same way as the moon. Whatever dreams were before we emerged Mind, that's what they really are. Like the moon, they are still what they have always been, whatever that us, but we cannot be perceive them through our constructions. Hence the illusion.

Finally, back to the self. The prehistoric human animal was what it was individually, I can suggest a bonding, mating, animal with sophisticated image-ing, memory, etc. and aware-ing those always. But the self we idolize, with a history, in Narrative form, goals, interests, intentions, and a free and selfish will tobcarry those out, is functional as hell, but is a construction. An "illusion," as such.

But as we human bodies can spit out ideas, these ideas only function when they lock down real distinctions into words to quickly package them in sentences for others to employ in a conversation about the real or in a trip to the store. — Fire Ologist

Perhaps this describes the way it seems for you, but frequently I communicate things via pictures rather than words, and there are many things I can accomplish without words. I'm guessing this is 'poetry' on your part?

In others words the one DOES lead to the other, and you think it does not. — Chet Hawkins

I do not think it does not. It is, indeed, a matter of degree. A spectrum. Your dogs are a good example. Even different breeds of dog, though all are the same species, able to mate and produce fertile offspring, can vary noticably in their degree of awareness.

But the area of the spectrum a tree is on does not come with the capacity to be amazed by card tricks. That is not suggesting their awareness is zero. It is suggesting a matter of degree in a specific area. If your dogs are far beyond other dogs, is it not possible that other dogs are likewise far beyond trees? Le Guin mentions "the wisdom in a tree's root." A phrase I am very fond of. With regard to a tree's life, and needs, and being, a tree's root is certainly far wiser than we are. But we are far wiser than trees are in other ways.

In others words the one DOES lead to the other, and you think it does not.
— Chet Hawkins
I do not think it does not. It is, indeed, a matter of degree. A spectrum. Your dogs are a good example. Even different breeds of dog, though all are the same species, able to mate and produce fertile offspring, can vary noticably in their degree of awareness.

But the area of the spectrum a tree is on does not come with the capacity to be amazed by card tricks. That is not suggesting their awareness is zero. It is suggesting a matter of degree in a specific area. If your dogs are far beyond other dogs, is it not possible that other dogs are likewise far beyond trees? Le Guin mentions "the wisdom in a tree's root." A phrase I am very fond of. With regard to a tree's life, and needs, and being, a tree's root is certainly far wiser than we are. But we are far wiser than trees are in other ways. — Patterner

Excellent. I think we can agree to agree then. What an unusual situation! Yay!

It is there in the flesh of the words being themselves now constructed by our bodies for physical travel and in we who use those words to affect the physical world — Fire Ologist

Ok, and I'm not being flippant, then David Copperfield is there. Anyone who enjoys reading Dickens can relay how Copperfield has affected them. But I say, Copperfield exists, has a functional effect on nature, but it is an illusion, a re-presentation at best. But not present. Not there. And same for the self and all of human Mind and History.

Are you saying there are no real distinctions? There were no real distinctions before we humans invented “difference”? — Fire Ologist

I am saying, first and foremost, I don't know. No one knows. For all I know something related to "difference" is an actual and real constituent of Nature and Reality. I'm also not saying I know what Nature/Reality is. No one does. Why? Note the word "know". Like difference, it too is an evolved mechanism of Mind.

I'm saying, I currently believe prehistoric humans and other intelligent animals use drives, memory, conditioning, etc. to "distinguish" shit from food. But "difference," the necessity of a this and that, a not this but that, a this and a not this; these are functional within the churning out of experience in Narrative form. The Fiction Mind writes. Like too is the Subject, I, the Self. "Illusion".

It is a qualified monism. The Body (all of Nature, geological, biological, astronomical) is real. Mind exists, functions and effects. But it is not Real. Hence qualified. If it must be labeled.

So if there are real distinctions, why assume our constructed ideas drawing out such distinctions are ONLY illusion? — Fire Ologist

I understand your struggle. And I feel badly. I may very well be completely wrong. In fact, by these very hypotheses I'm playing with, I am wrong. But to answer you. The distinctions you draw, the meaning they construct, the very requirement for meaning, for distinctions, is the Great Fiction within which you (we) are struggling. So, of course you wonder how the hell difference is not Real.

Does it help to reiterate, within the "illusion" (I don't like that word--trying sheepishly to stay true to the OP), difference is "real," it is "perceivable" it is functional as neither language nor mind would have evolved tge way they did had mechanisms of "grammar" like difference not evolved.

I don’t place priority on where something came from. — Fire Ologist

Fair. And I am not meaning to "deride" mind/self because they are not Real. But they are not. Forgive the analogy, but the tree which made the paper is real. The paper is an artifact. The reality of the tree still exists in the paper, and it's not going anywhere. But the "paper" idea is special to our Fictional world. Now all the more so for the plot of the novel written on the paper.

The human is real and every species sees us for what we are, the tree, in the book analogy. No creature, not even a dog or chimp, thinks Fire is a well dressed man. Just sees an organism.

Now you'll say, we naturally developed the tools to go further than a Chimp. And I say yes, and those tools and everything they construct is a Fictional

The “apple” or “self” in my mind, I call an idea.
You call these illusion. But some thing exists here, so I don’t see the need to call it illusion. — Fire Ologist

The apple is real and it exists. The human construction "apple" and every form of that construction which instantly bubbles up to the surface when you speak that word--fruit, edible, red, green, apple a day, America, Steve Jobs--Exit, but they are empty nothings, passersby; only their effect upon you as an organism, places you under the illusion that for F's sake, they must be real.

Could this be because you think ideas must refer to a real thing in the world or else these ideas are mere illusions — Fire Ologist

No

The Self, is becoming, The Body is being.
— ENOAH

This seems to be the heart (the essence?) — Fire Ologist

Yes

I still think we are standing next to each other looking at the same thing, but I would say the opposite about it. — Fire Ologist

I sense the same. I sense that in a loose interpretation we agree that we are perceiving "the world" uniquely as humans. But whereas you respect how becoming is that special way Being comes to be for humans--therefore it is part and parcel of one reality; I am insisting on relegating becoming to emptiness, and designating being alone as the domain of truth. ... (?)

And yet, in spite of our differences, I feel a comraderie of interest.

So you should be arguing not that ideas exist as illusions, but that ideas don’t exist at all. — Fire Ologist

Hmm. Interesting. If this is a point of logic, or a necessity in word meaning, I would immediately defer to you. However, let me reiterate that for me, ideas exist, evident inter alia in their functional effect, but they are fleeting empty structures of signifiers. Not Real "in and of themselves(?)"

I’m trying to talk about signification, with the launching pad of the signifier “self”.

Images and poetry can signify so I’m not sure of what I’m saying about signification is much different than how poetry can function.

If we are saying that “self” signifies nothing, that self is an illusion, we’ve got ourselves cornered into the issue of whether anything can be signified, or what is signification.

But not present. Not there. And same for the self and all of human Mind and History. — ENOAH

Ok, so no distinction whatsoever between Abe Lincoln and Mary Poppins and “me” and “you.”
I’ll go with it for now.


About distinctions existing independently of the mind:

I don't know. No one knows. For all I know something related to "difference" is an actual and real constituent of Nature and Reality. — ENOAH

My response is simply a question, where did you come up with the distinction between “for all I know” and “real constituent of reality”?

You are pointing at objective distinctions to make your point. Your point happens to be that there may not be distinctions. But you distinguished whatever the hell people do for “an actual” and “reality”. Oh, and you said “constituent.” A constituent implies multiple parts, multiple distinct parts.

You are contradicting your point by speaking about it.

I just say, give in to the essence. It’s just as there as the existence.

humans and other intelligent animals use drives, memory, conditioning, etc. to "distinguish" shit from food. But "difference," the necessity of a this and that, a not this but that, a this and a not this; these are functional within the churning out of experience in Narrative form. — ENOAH

Why would you assert that. You can distinguish shit from food. You need to. That is because there are real distinctions. But you can distinguish shit from food with ideas just as well. Because ideas reflect distinctions too. “Self” isn’t the same fiction as “shit” or “dragon” - distinction is real regardless of minds. Minds can use them to construct functioning ideas. Otherwise we can’t speak.

Maybe you are saying we are not really speaking. Maybe you have no idea what I am saying.

Forgive the analogy, but the tree which made the paper is real. The paper is an artifact. The reality of the tree still exists in the paper, and it's not going anywhere. But the "paper" idea is special to our Fictional world. Now all the more so for the plot of the novel written on the paper. — ENOAH

Analogies are great. But to show the illusion forming out of a tree through artifact, that doesn’t work, because the tree formed out of dirt and air and sun that were taken and consumed, just like the paper was taken from the tree being consumed. There are no distinctions you can make between artifacts and natural processes. “Artifact” is serving as a gift from god for you to make your fiction of a novel on paper. What’s an artifact? And why would an artifact cause there to be line between illusion and the “real” tree?

Now you'll say, we naturally developed the tools to go further than a Chimp. And I say yes, and those tools and everything they construct is a Fictional — ENOAH

I see why you’d think I would say that, but honestly, I am not giving any status to ideas whatsoever. Chimps make poop. Birds make eggs. People make ideas. Volcanoes make lava. Chimps make sacrifices. Birds fly. People make poop.

I am simply saying each of these are distinct and real. Including the ideas. The fact that ideas come only from humans is like guano comes only from bats - that doesn’t matter to me here. Just the fact that ideas exists in the real world. No status or hierarchy. No reification. Just here we are with our ideas bouncing off of each other, one of us trying to not see them, the other trying to see how not to see them.

I am insisting on relegating becoming to emptiness, and designating being alone as the domain of truth. ... (?) — ENOAH

I can’t touch this one. Not sure what you mean here. Being is the domain of truth. Becoming is the domain of fiction/illusion then? I don’t see how you could ever speak of “truth” - wouldn’t that be a fiction? But then wouldn’t it be relegated to emptiness, in which case it is not being? But now being is the domain of truth and of empty illusion.
I don’t see why you would introduce “truth” here.

ideas exist, evident inter alia in their functional effect, but they are fleeting empty structures of signifiers. Not Real "in and of themselves(?)" — ENOAH

I just don’t see, at all, why an empty structure would have any functional effect. At least not a repeatable one, but here we go again…

You said both that “ideas exist” and that they have a “functional effect” but then you say they are “empty”. Makes no sense to me. You have used “empty structures” to signify something of “ideas” and this has brought the effect in me the question, why the hell are you saying that, especially when this is just your idea.

You are contradicting yourself by speaking at all. Or there is something real of ideas. Either one. Can’t be both.

This is maybe the first time I’ve seen a paradox I don’t know if I like.
Becoming spoken as being is not being and so not spoken, but then I just said it…makes no sense.

Ok, so no distinction whatsoever between Abe Lincoln and Mary Poppins and “me” and “you.”
I’ll go with it for now. — Fire Ologist

Again, mega-distinctions within the Narratives of history. But just as you might like at two unfamiliar dogs quickly and note no distinctions, ultimately no distinctions which we can speak of.

My response is simply a question, where did you come up with the distinction between “for all I know” and “real constituent of reality”? — Fire Ologist

It rolled off the tongue because of countless prior combinations of related structures of these empty codes and their mechanics or dynamics having arrived at that manifestation as fit for the surface.

Your point happens to be that there may not be distinctions. But you distinguished whatever the hell people do for “an actual” and “reality”. Oh, and you said “constituent.” A constituent implies multiple parts, multiple distinct parts. — Fire Ologist

The dysfunction--futility--of the hypothesis being explored here is that in so hypothesizing and so exploring, it is already "part of the 'illusion'" All of your critiques directly above are perfectly reasonable and legitimate--if I was purporting to be "being" while speaking. But while speaking, I have already ignored being and displaced it with becoming.

The whole Truth is you cannot escape tge "illusion" in becoming, each effort is the illusion. You can only do so by ignoring becoming and attuning to being; that is, your organic aware-ing and not your ego-self. But this applies to everyone of us, even the most reasonable or profound utterance is made using fiction, and ultimately is
Fiction.

You are contradicting your point by speaking about it. — Fire Ologist

See above. Yes but if what you say is only true because "my" point is true then that contradiction is the closest to the truth that our constructions can take us. All others efforts at truth are even further movements away from the truth (I fully accept you may not get what I mean from tgat previous koan-sounding convulsion. Sorry. Not your fault. Mine.)

Why would you assert that. You can distinguish shit from food. You need to. That is because there are real distinctions. But you can distinguish shit from food with ideas just as well. — Fire Ologist

Yes to the first part, the "you need to". That's why I asserted that. The distinctions "apparent" in nature are only apparent as such. Maybe science can bring us closer to how I naturally avoid eating shit, and other apparent "differences."

And double yes to part two, distinguish with ideas. I'm saying that part is--going far deeper and way back--a constructed evolved process of dancing code.

“Self” isn’t the same fiction as “shit” or “dragon” - distinction is real regardless of minds. — Fire Ologist

Ok, look. Yes maybe dragon shit and self are distinct in reality. What I'm saying is, 1. We don't "know" Reality because "know" is also constructed. (Just read a long thread on is knowing belief etc.). 2. The way they are distinct for us is not necessarily how they really are, if they are. So the way they are distinct for us is an "illusion"

ENOAH

Analogies are great. But — Fire Ologist

Acknowledged

but honestly, I am not giving any status to ideas whatsoever. Chimps make poop. Birds make eggs. — Fire Ologist

Fair point! You're asking why aren't ideas natural byproducts of the organism, for e.g.? Why give ideas special status?

Your points are excellent. If I wasn't tiring, naturally impatient and lazy; if I wasn't already ashamed (not self deprecating, justifiably) for occupying too much of your time and space in this thread. . . I'll say, recognizing fully it merits more explanation, the "Signifiers" or code are empty. They aren't organic secretions even (yes secretions may be involved). They are representations, vague and fleeting "pictures" stored in memory (yes those are real) functioning in such a way tgat experiences are written out of them. Those are illusions. Sorry. Tired.

You said both that “ideas exist” and that they have a “functional effect” but then you say they are “empty”. Makes no sense to me. You have used “empty structures” to signify something of “ideas” and this has brought the effect in me the question, why the hell are you saying that, especially when this is just your idea. — Fire Ologist

You are right to be frustrated here. I need to be more careful with my language. I have already addressed the "paradox" of my speaking of truth, or even speaking at all. As to the use of"structures" and "empty" recklessly, I will rethink and I have no doubt that it will come up again.

It is possible I have gotten a glimpse of your position. The human without language is good. But don't you think every human without language associated the moon with things? One might look at the moon and think of a wolf that attacked one night. Another might think of a sexual encounter that took place in a field one night. Another might think of owls hooting. On and on. Making associations might be a defining characteristic of humanity. Perhaps a living thing that doesn't make associations is, by definition, not human. Once there were living things that could make associations, they started developing language. Which further shaped the mind, which lead to the ability to make more obscure associations... I don't know the first thing about early humans or the birth and evolution of language. I'm just throwing ideas out there.

Excellent. I think we can agree to agree then. What an unusual situation! Yay! — Chet Hawkins

It seems like cause for concern... Lol

don't you think every human without language associated the moon with things? One might look at the moon and think of a wolf that attacked one night. — Patterner

Yes. And I wnt get into a prolonged explanation but you're describing the real and organic roots of the so called illusion. Before Language the thinking you're describing would have to be like, eyes see moon, stored image of wolf autonomously surfaces in memory. It's organic function, to trigger a response, hide at night.

For humans this process of images autonomously arising to the surface triggering Body to respond evolved to a complexity with difference, grammar, the Subject vs the object, eventually the incessant surfacing of the Subject I to serve the Narrative form triggering autonomous feelings ultimately leading to the identity of that picture "I" with the always real organic being. The body. A complex dynamic of autonomously surfacing images we take to be real, illusion.

I don't know the first thing about early humans or the birth and evolution of language. I'm just throwing ideas out there. — Patterner

Warning. Either do I. And as for throwing things out there. That's all I do. Sometimes I get things in return. Thank you

The whole Truth is… — ENOAH

According everything else you are saying, no it’s not.

Are we right?

The way they are distinct for us is not necessarily how they really are, if they are. — ENOAH

The way a bowl of shit is distinct for us or a bowl of food? When I concoct a fictional “shit” can I use that to signify a distinct bowl of delicious food?

“……really are….”

You’re telling stories again..

I need to be more careful with my language. I have already addressed the "paradox" of my speaking of truth, or even speaking at all. — ENOAH

I have to say. This is consistent.

You shouldn’t admit the consistency because it would lean towards being something, but I’ll admit it for you, since I think I can see a small part of you yourself.

If words are weak attempts at signifying only, and by signifying, divorced from any truth they might wish to signify, then there is no point in speaking.

The paradox of speaking at all. I love that. That is the issue. I don’t agree that you have to side with becoming over being when standing at this paradox.

When standing at a paradox, both opposites must be real and can’t be real, so what side is there to choose, but both together?

I hate to say it but according to your view, there is no point to speaking at all.

Did I say “say it”?

Pun despairingly intended. In fact, wait a second, I can’t say it, because words always say “….emptiness…” in every breath and sound.

But alas I said it anyway, because the way I see it, we have both actually spoken, conveyed meaning here, not only because of my mind constructing it, but also because of the words here on screen, because of Enoah’s words, distinct from my words, and because of Enoah’s mind constructing it.

Lot’s of different essences in the stew of being becoming being becoming.

You might be missing out. And missing out on your actual self. I don’t have to say it. You keep saying “truth” to make your point about no truth, because as you “know”, there is no knowing.

And I should be tired myself.

Have a good evening.