I don't agree with any of that. I can be blindfolded, driven somewhere I've never been, and taken into room in a building I've never even seen in a picture. There could be anything in that room. Something someone made; a plant; a meteorite; a person; anything at all.

Someone I've never heard of could be taken to the same room in the same manner, and they would see the same thing.

The thing was there, and had the characteristics it had, regardless of the other person and/or me seeing it. — Patterner

Regarding what you know, you can't transcend the scope of your consciousness. Everything you describe examples an organized perception of reality known to your personal history and its attendant point of view. Through social interaction, you've experienced verification of what you've perceived by other individuals who've described similar perceptions.

You know that other individuals have perceptual mechanisms that render perceptions similar to yours when they gaze upon similar things.

Do you know there's a realm lying beyond yours and other persons perceptions that's analogous to those perceptions?

I think you need to look at written symbols independently from written words. Then you'll see that there is necessarily "a grammar" behind any writing of symbols. The written symbol may be essentially a memory aid, or something like that, and there is necessarily a rule, as to what the symbol represents. Without that grammar, which tells one how to read the symbol, the symbol would be useless. — Metaphysician Undercover

Consider a symbol whose rule for its interpretation is lost. Though meaningless, the symbol still exists.

Consider a symbol whose rule for its interpretation is known. The rule can be read and understood. The logic supporting the rule can be read and learned. Where in this sequence is something created from nothing?

...if you want to maintain the principle that these parts exist prior to consciousness, then we need to allow intention prior to consciousness, as what creates the parts. Then we have a formal meaning of "consciousness", as what arranges the parts, just like the formal meaning of "grammar", as what arranges the symbols, but we still need "intention" as prior to the parts, creating them, just like we need "rules" as prior to the symbols. — Metaphysician Undercover

Consider that in our dialogue, as dialogue, there is nothing prior to consciousness. Can there be something prior to consciousness? We cannot know the answer to this question because the means of searching out the answer requires a questioning mind, which pre-supposes consciousness. Consciousness can only get beyond itself paradoxically, as in the case of Kant's realm of the noumena: things in themselves unmediated by consciousness. This is the paradox of a conscious conception of what is not consciousness. By playing a mind game wherein I paradoxically assert there is a realm lying beyond consciousness, I paradoxically de-construct consciousness and arrive at the inexpressible, given that expression pre-supposes consciousness. So, getting beyond consciousness paradoxically via a mind game, I de-construct consciousness, and thus the logical implication is that at its most fundamental, consciousness formats reality itself. Of course, within the scope of the mind game of paradoxicality, intentionality is just another stop in the infinite regress of consciously constructed reality.

First, you say there are aspects of reality consciousness can work with. That's consciousness in reactive mode. — ucarr

Working with something is not the reactive mode, it is the creative mode. This is evident from the fact that we can work with completely passive things, moving them around to build something. — Metaphysician Undercover

If creativity means something from nothing, that's the paradox of nothingness being an existing thing. If creativity means re-arranging pre-existent things, that's equating creativity with permutation, a false equivalence. Matter is neither created nor destroyed.

We use the past tense of verbs to describe the past, and future tense to describe the future. — Metaphysician Undercover

Notice how the incompatibility between the two descriptive modes is understood as an incompatibility between two features of reality. — Metaphysician Undercover

Distinct and incompatible are non-equivalent. I shake your right hand with my right hand. Our two hands are distinct across the axis of two semi-circles symmetrical. Our distinct hands example compatibility in a handshake.

the reactive mode cannot apprehend the creative mode except by analyzing the effects of the creative mode. This is what I described as observations through the apparatus. This approach cannot understand the creative mode which built the apparatus, because it always interprets through effects, what have occurred, the past. — Metaphysician Undercover

Reverse engineering has no problem recreating the creation of the apparatus from the opposite direction: final state $→$ initial state.

The will to create, itself, does not require the assumption of a separate independent reality, as it takes absolute freedom as its premise. — Metaphysician Undercover

The will to create pre-supposes a sentient. The existence of a sentient in turn pre-supposes an environment from which the sentient is emergent. In our entropically mediated world, absolute freedom holds no obvious pertinence to the constraints of the evolving thermo-dynamism of far from equilibrium life forms. Feeding the metabolism on a daily basis - a far from equilibrium necessity - bears no resemblance to absolute freedom.

The "being" of consciousness, at the present, demonstrates the continuity between the two, and that the incompatibility is somehow an incorrect representation. — Metaphysician Undercover

The issue here pertains to accessing Kant's noumenal realm of things in themselves, i.e., "being" without encountering the problem of the perceptual distortion you describe. If what you say is something you know, and not merely conjecture, then it must be true that you can do this. Show me that you can.

The reality of the overlap of future and past is what allows for the incompatibility to be resolved. But this idea necessitates a breakdown of "independent reality", which is what "special relativity" accomplishes. Then we are left with the consciousness only, no assumption of "independent reality", and we must start with a primary premise which respects the reality of the consciousness itself, as the will to create. — Metaphysician Undercover

You seem to think that elimination of the noumenal realm delivers us into a unified reality permeated by consciousness. Moreover, you seem to think material reality no less a part of mind than abstract reality.

What do you make of Russell's Paradox as it relates to the origin boundary ontology you equate with omnipresent mind?

Note - The paradox shows that, logically, a set cannot be a sub-set of itself. In order to overthrow "existence precedes essence," you have to produce some logic showing there exists a context wherein a set being a sub-set of itself doesn't entail an uncontainable paradox. It's the uncontainability of the paradox that explodes establishment of an internally consistent origin of existence.

The problem is the reason for a posited material reality independent of mind. It's this originating part of the Big Bang science can't reach.

The independent reality is the past and future... — Metaphysician Undercover

How do you know this about something lying beyond your consciousness?

"the present" is actually a duration of time combining both future and past — Metaphysician Undercover

How is it that future and past don't dissolve when joined together in the present? There can be no direct contact with either, as contact implies the present.

...the incompatibility is evident in the difference between invariant (inertial) mass, and variant (relativistic) mass. — Metaphysician Undercover

I conjecture there's no local frame of reference for either the past or the future; they exist only as abstract concepts. Likewise, I conjecture there's no past mass or future mass. Whatever their causes might be, they render them as present tense phenomena.

Can you show how inertia examples determinism? — ucarr

The inertia perspective, is derived from Newtonian laws of motion, which state as the first law, that a body will continue to move in a regular way, as it has in the past, indefinitely into the future, unless forced to change. — Metaphysician Undercover

Okay. So constant flow animation only gets interrupted with perturbation of momentum.

....we need to create an observational capacity, an apparatus, which is not reliant on mass/inertia principles. In other words we need an apparatus which is entirely created of possibility without matter or mass. — Metaphysician Undercover

Are you assuming the human individual can exist untethered from mass/energy? — ucarr

I'm wondering how a zero-mass apparatus could be built by the positive-mass agency of humans.

if you say there’s a pattern to activity, you’re as good as saying there’s a purpose to activity. — ucarr

A person cannot follow a pattern without having a purpose. This is true even if the purpose of the pattern is simply cycling through the pattern and maintaining its organized form. In this example, purpose means maintaining a sequence of steps holding true to the pattern. There's no way to understand organization outside of purpose. In the absence of organization, there's no possibility of consciousness that recognizes organization and distills from it purpose. Working backwards, the presence of a conscious being implies a universe consistent with life and its stupendous organization. This is not to say there's a humanoid, super-being who designed the universe super-naturally. Thermo-dynamics may have caused life-supporting organization in balance with non-living chaos. Whatever system supports life is a system consistent with life even if it's also consistent, in equal measure, with total chaos. As such, it cannot be characterized as being a system devoid of organization and purpose. We know this because, being part of this system, we see the presence of organization and purpose.

Our sense of "order" is only order in our perspective, but the processes of the universe and reality does not have such a perspective. We are therefor just part of the chaos machine, part of entropy and the entropic processes that happen through time. We take energy, absorb it and consume it, then dissipate it. All according to entropy. — Christoffer

Order in our perspective is order in the perspective of the universe because we are part of the universe.
We're not separate from the universe, and neither is our pattern recognition, logical thinking and purpose.

Humans lived thousands of years before the organic chemistry of the metabolism began to be understood as an organized process. In other words, it was present and operational in the world before there was any human perspective on what goes on inside our bodies. Do the enzymes in our digestive track have a role to play, i.e., a purpose to fulfill? If you're alive and in good health, you cannot doubt this.

No. Nagel's bat would be more of a presence. In the situation you describe, there would be nothing it's like to be that person from that person's pov. That person doesn't have a pov. — Patterner

I agree with what you say. So, where are we now? Well, maybe it's easier to see that in the supposed noumenal world of Kant, existing things dwell in something like superposition because they have no presence, something supplied by consciousness. Therefore, it appears that the human observer's presence vis-à-vis the object observed imparts to it boundaries both measurable and navigable.

Attention, then, imposes measurable material properties upon potential material things. Does this allow us to speculate about measurement being, to some extent, a self-fulfilling prophesy? When you expect something to be there along the lines of certain dimensions measurable, it will be there in such prescribed form? If nothing else, this might help explain flights of fancy become airborne in the dark, optical illusions and hallucinations.

You describe consciousness as reactive here, the other way is to describe consciousness as creative. — Metaphysician Undercover

The two are fundamentally incompatible, because the former assumes a world already made, which is irking the consciousness, while the latter assumes that the consciousness is producing "the world", in its creativity. — Metaphysician Undercover

Then you attempt to describe the consciousness as constructive (creative) within the incompatible premise that the consciousness is reactive. — Metaphysician Undercover

First, you talk about consciousness as something reacting to a reality at least partially independent of it.

Second, you talk about consciousness as something that produces reality from itself.

Third, you talk about the contradiction in characterizing the function of consciousness as a reactive organizing principle that parses the raw material things of existence into a navigable environment.

Speaking in a parallel, I don't believe grammar, an organizing principle that takes words and organizes them into sentences, paragraphs, chapters and books, creates written language. No, grammar organizes written language. The organized sounds of the spoken word get organized into written signs that can be interpreted by a standardized organization, i.e., grammar.

Likewise, as I'm saying, consciousness takes partially independent material objects that, at the quantum level, exist prior to consciousness - itself a construction from parts - and organizes them into navigable environments. So, consciousness is a material phenomenon that provides a function that parallels the syntactical function of grammar.

To deal with this incompatibility, lets assume two distinct aspects of reality, those which the consciousness can work with to create, and those which the consciousness does not have the ability to alter, so that it can only be reactive to these. — Metaphysician Undercover

Your above sentence contains some issues. First, you say there are aspects of reality consciousness can work with. That's consciousness in reactive mode. Didn't you already say consciousness_reactive and consciousness_creative are fundamentally incompatible? Doesn't this imply that consciousness can only be one or the other, with switching between the two modes being impossible?

Second, you say consciousness must be reactive to independently existing things it cannot alter. Doesn't this statement have the same problem as the first one?

We look at the future as having the possibilities to create, and the past as what we do not have the ability to alter. I believe that this is the most productive way to frame that fundamental incompatibility, the past in its reality, is incompatible with the future, in its reality. — Metaphysician Undercover

If I'm not mistaken, there is no continuity between incompatible things. By this reasoning, past and future must be compatible given the natural continuity between them. Clearly, the functional present, when seen relativistically as the future in relation to the past, contains overlap with the past. If there were no compatibility between the two - not to elaborate on the problem of them existing as such only in relationship to each other - it seems to me there could only be an eternal present. An eternal present is hard to make sense of when we entertain the concept of progress.

So all of its "reactions" are already conditioned by its creations, the creations being prior to the reactions, as required for "a reaction". — Metaphysician Undercover

This argument seems to contradict your prior argument: "...the past in its reality, is incompatible with the future, in its reality."

What we have then, with this expression of mass/energy equivalence, E=MC2, is a principle designed to convert "what we do not have the ability to alter", the inertia of mass, into the malleable energy, "possibilities to create". — Metaphysician Undercover

Your above statement contains an issue. Inertia can be overcome, and it is overcome too many times to count. Einstein's equation, by explaining change of momentum through mass/energy equivalence,
establishes the fact that where's there's inertia, there's also energy, and thus past and future, being consistent along the channel of mass/energy equivalence, are not incompatible.

...this supposed mass/energy equivalence is defective It is an attempt at doing what is impossible, taking the determinist principles of inertia, "what we do not have the ability to alter", and expressing it in the free will perspective of "the possibilities to create". — Metaphysician Undercover

I take your above statement to be a logic-based attack upon $E=MC^2$. As I see it, the gist of your argument says: the equation tries to make a claim based on Mode A interpreted in the context of Mode B, but this must be a faulty claim because Mode A and Mode B are incompatible.

Can you show how inertia examples determinism?

...the primary perspective of the human being is intentional, the view toward the future, so this must have priority. — Metaphysician Undercover

...we need to create an observational capacity, an apparatus, which is not reliant on mass/inertia principles. In other words we need an apparatus which is entirely created of possibility without matter or mass. — Metaphysician Undercover

Are you assuming the human individual can exist untethered from mass/energy?

I've always thought consciousness does being. It is the being aspect. — Barkon

Interesting premise. Consider: If medical science could surgically reduce the human brain to the limited power of sustaining only the unconscious nervous system, with no trace of an individual personality and its will remaining, would such a vegetative state of a biological system in human form count as a presence when in the company of conscious humans?

I ask this question because your conceptualization of "being" as an active verb, i.e., how one goes about "doing being" sounds like it's the same conceptualization I have. I think in the case of both conceptualizations, our conscious presence is the active verb that empowers us to go about "doing being." We are doing "being" when we focus our attention on something or someone.

I'm with you, i.e., present, when I pay attention to you. Paying attention is how we do "being."

...there's nothing to support consciousness being "special" if we observe everything from the point of view of reality itself. — Christoffer

Here I take you to mean existence must be perceived logically, not egotistically. With some nuance, I agree with this premise.

The major process of reality is entropy. — Christoffer

My gut reaction, so far, infers the above statement stands as the foremost premise in your post. So, given consciousness being a part of reality, and given your premise "entropy drives reality," then our core question here seems to be: What's the relationship between entropy and consciousness? My spitball conjecture says: Consciousness drives some part of entropy.

...the universe is, by the laws of physics, leaning towards spreading out energy as effective as possible. — Christoffer

Here we come upon a complex issue: the language of the above statement imbues the universe and its laws with teleology. The universe, having a goal, behaves with design towards spreading out energy as effective as possible. Also, the universe, because it prioritizes effectiveness over its opposite, has a value it adheres to. The implication is that the universe is itself conscious.

There's an inclination towards the formation of life, by entropy itself. — Christoffer

Here we have more teleology, but operating on an even grander scale: entropy is biased towards the formation of life - that is to say, entropy has the goal of forming life.

Here's how I define entropy for myself:

entropy - the unidirectional increase of disorder within any dynamical system utilizing energy toward performance of a function. So, entropy is rooted within $InputA → logical/operator → Output B$.

The negation of inherent design within creation is a gnarly problem for sentients. This is so because sentients must perceive patterns in nature in order to live.

If you discern patterns in nature, you cannot deny that nature has purposes, as patterns and purposes are intimately related. In fact, if you say there’s a pattern to activity, you’re as good as saying there’s a purpose to activity. If there’s a logical sequence to activity, a sentient observer can only conclude there’s a goal-oriented progression including a start point, a mid-point and an end point. If you randomize this sequence, and all patterns along with it, the sentient being cannot practice life-sustaining behavior. Working backwards, we see that existence without patterns and purposes would not lead to the emergence of life.

So, teleodynamics - thermo-dynamics at the higher level of entropic systems organizing constraints on natural forces towards a future state of the system - or cognitive design by sentients, is about something not immediately present, but rather something predicted to emerge at a later state of the system.

...the more energy demanding life is, the faster entropy moves. The complexity forming out of this is generally in line with speeding entropy up, and the complexity might seem oddly beautiful to us, but may just be iterative as anything else in nature. — Christoffer

I take you to mean entropy is an essential and iterative process.

Could it be the iteration of entropy and the complexity of mind are joined by the bi-conditional operator? As the iterations of entropy evolve upwardly, the complexity of mind evolves upwardly. From the reverse direction, as the complexity of minds increases, the vertical stacking of re-iteration rises.

Conclusion – there’s no conflict between the entropy-driven evolutionary process and the egotistical mediation of its resultant: sentient beings.

...what we've defined as "matter" is just different levels of energy in different forms. — alleybear

Could one function of our consciousness be to define all the energy fields we come into contact with, whether "matter" or not, into a "navigable environment"? — alleybear

Yes. As described by Einstein's equation: $E=MC^2$ we're navigating our way around a reality populated by the mass/energy binary. Mass is the particle form of energy and energy is the waveform of mass. Under this scheme, consciousness, like your word-processing program, organizes raw data. Instead of organizing letters, punctuation and spaces into words, sentences and paragraphs, it organizes the raw data of the mass/energy binary into massive objects, their dynamic motion and the resulting events into empirical experience.

I conjecture that spacetime in its pure form is infinite flow. The mass/energy binary is the result of the perturbation of flow. So, our mass/energy populated reality is rooted in the interruption of infinite flow and, existentially speaking, the deepest inclination of our reality, and of ourselves, is the natural desire to return to the flow out of which we emerge as a disturbance.

This desire to hark back to the infinite flow is spirituality viewed through the lens of physics.

Schopenhauer's suicidal apotheosis is the desire to liberate the material self, an interruption_perturbation of flow, from its incompleteness. Some force disturbed the surface of the primordial waters, thus causing water droplets to spring upwards into the air. While the water droplets live airborne, traversing space and time, they long to return to the sublime oblivion of the primordial waters.

Under this view, the consciousness of the water droplets - a stand-in for sentient beings such as us - is tragical. It's formatting function of the mass/energy binary is an attempt to return to the primordial waters in piecemeal fashion. The primordial waters, however, are the limit of consciousness and what it constructs. The constructions of consciousness are forever approaching but never arriving at their source.

If your point is simply that my reality appears to be different to the reality of the person who locked me in, so? How is this identifying anything useful about the self? — Tom Storm

If I lock you in a room and then leave the scene, does the apparent boundary line between your location and mine really exist?

Let's assume the apparent boundary line between you and me is illusion. Does that tell us there's a way I can read your mind, and vice versa?

...can you not distinguish the intentions of the perpetrator, who inflicts great pain upon you, from your own intentions for yourself? — ucarr

Please demonstrate with an example - perhaps in dot points - how you see this working. — Tom Storm

• Some agents kidnap and tie you to a chair in an empty warehouse at a deserted mall.

• Tied to one leg of your chair is a bomb on a timer. You've got fifteen minutes to escape before the deadly bomb explodes.

• You're a high-tech wizard, so the thugs don't notice you're wearing contact lenses equipped with micro-chips that allow your brain to control a virtual camera with synched mag-res scanning. Using your thoughts, you telecommunicate with your head of security android always on standby back at your laboratory ninety miles away.

• With ninety seconds to go, you hear a crash through one of the large two-way plate glass windows as Robbie the android flies in, unties you from the chair and flies out of the warehouse with you in his arms.

• Airborne three hundred feet, you feel the windchill as you hear the entire warehouse explode upwards into a great fireball in the twilight skyline over El Segundo.

• Back at your desk in the lab, you write notes on what just happened, conjecturing it was the work of Riegaert, your arch enemy within the high-tech industry.

Question - At any time, as you write up your notes on how Riegaert almost got you - you only decided at the last minute to put in your brand new untested contacts before going out in the morning - do you confuse your intentions during the escape ordeal with the intentions of Riegaert?

I think the empirical experience of inflicted acute pain, physical or emotional, does an effective job of locating the position and boundaries of the self — ucarr

...could the self [be] a part of the 'great mind' or will, as per Schopenhauer or Kastrup? — Tom Storm

Are we all dissociated alters of each other? How would we tell? — Tom Storm

In reference to my quote at top, can you not distinguish the intentions of the perpetrator, who inflicts great pain upon you, from your own intentions for yourself?

...I think it misguided to characterize a philosophical idea as if it were a predefined and absolute product of consciousness. — kudos

Existence is simply a sequence of moments stocked with endless details? The observer, being wise, will not succumb to anxiety about outcomes?

...the Kantian alarm bell of treating Reason as if it were a means to an end. — kudos

The open road holds most promise for the traveler unfettered by definitive dreams?

...there is something we are losing by lumping post-structural thought in with objective machinations operating for themselves... — kudos

No aesthetician worthy of the label settles for enlightenment by auto pilot?

...not everyone wills to reason... — kudos

Sentience holds value independent of its transactions?

...universal reason is not just somewhere distant, but penetrates right down to the core of action. — kudos

Knowing and being always present jointly?

...the... identity of thought and action... is being misunderstood. — kudos

Don't deify the mind?

We simply can't accept the identity whilst maintaining difference, and instinctively make recourse to the belief that they are separate domains with reference to a contingent difference principle. — kudos

We shall break bread together?

Reality boils down to the self/other binary. It is the essential platform supporting all empirical experience and abstract thought. — ucarr

I'm not sure how accurate this is. — Tom Storm

When I think of 'self' - I don't consider this to be one discreet thing or even a knowable thing and I am uncertain what parts of the self are entirely me or not. I wonder if the idea of this/that is more of a convenient shorthand with limitations and gaps. — Tom Storm

I think the empirical experience of inflicted acute pain, physical or emotional, does an effective job of locating the position and boundaries of the self. By this same example, I think it does an effective job of locating the perpetrator outside of the position and boundaries of the self.

I've recently been learning Buddhist transcendence via suicide involves the utter denial of selfhood, with the certification of success entailed in facing down the likes of self-immolation in terms of mind over matter.

As I see them, all of these ideologies grapple with the self/other interweave. Denying it and then transcending it into... non-existence does nothing to break the connection, as non-existence vis-á-vis the living can only be an existential paradox.

I think life is richer when we can identify a difference between the intuition and the imagination. It is easy for image to stand in for sensibility; However, one ends up chasing one’s tail in philosophical thought trying to manage a war of ideas. — kudos

I'm supposing you're finding that my statement suffers from circular reasoning.

It seems a common thing to express disdain for the ‘woke’ culture and gender identity permissiveness through a type of anti-academic universalization, or insert whatever bourgeois premise one wishes to drown in the nihilist riverbed here. — kudos

If I'm reading you correctly, you hold at least some sympathy for "woke" culture. I regard my statement as being reportage, not analysis in support of antithetical judgment.

Regarding your second paragraph, your sentences are full of complex terms and nuanced ideas. I can somewhat discern their meaning individually: first the woke POV, then the conservative POV. As for my perception of the coherence connecting them thematically, I'm having no success. In the third sentence you seem to be prioritizing empirical experience over abstract thought.

In the third paragraph maybe you're assuming the POV of the extreme skepticism of nihilism vis-á-vis the woke/anti-woke binary.

It sounds like what you're asking about is a conception of the self as a part of a larger whole. — kudos

Yes.

With today's youth on the front lines, humanity faces radical changes to identity beliefs and values as science and technology make an ever closer approach to high-verisimilitude simulations of natural humans.

If a cyborg is equipped with AI cognition that can digest the contents of the Library of Congress in one hour or less, then it might not be a surprise to learn such cyborgs can also slip between genders mind, body and soul without effort or qualms.

Given their ease in doing this, they simply wouldn't care about how they present themselves to society, especially when such gender shape-shifting is universal. Switching genders would merely be another item on the list of situationally desirable adaptive behaviors.

The sloughing off of the hard boundary lines of human identity marking formerly sacred spaces such as culture, race and now gender category is due to their partial dissolution already underway. This dissolution is one of the more profound effects evolving in this, our age of do-it-yourself global telecommunications from your bedroom.

Kudos to McLuhan: yes, the medium is the message and the now current medium asks “Where are you now global citizen? Why, you are nowhere, nowhere in particular that is. Nowhere and everywhere. Ha! Ha! Let’s all global party!”

Well, if the gender binary has exploded into a many-colored gender wheel with numerous prongs, then the age of the sexual grayscale is upon us.

These days, those who only came out at night, now populate the broad daylight with their nuanced filigree of intertwined sexual persuasions and gravitations.

Alternative-identity teens can make bold and engage socially with the establishment, as we saw in Barbie. As she enters the real world for the first time, her initial encounter is with a non-binary teen at the local high school. Dialoging with a beauty pageant habitue surely signals a mainstream arrival.

Reality boils down to the self/other binary. It is the essential platform supporting all empirical experience and abstract thought. — ucarr

Well, it's a bit glib. — Wayfarer

Consider: Self/Other binary $→$ the limit of the non-local is consciousness.

Let me try to explain my hypothesis by referencing it for comparison to: photons have minute rest mass and, light speed is a limit.

Premise - As mass is the waveform of matter, consciousness is the waveform of self/other.

The self/other binary, understood to be non-local, suggests itself to our understanding as consciousness emergent from an interweave of interacting gravitational fields.

Premise - Gravitational energy is the inverse of massive energy; whereas the former waveforms position, the latter localizes position.

When Emmanuel Levinas says, “Ethics is First Philosophy,” he describes the mutual warpage of spacetime around the self/other binary as consciousness. My being is warped by your being, and vice versa.

Premise - The gravitationality of consciousness leads to the matter funds thought ←→ thought funds matter puzzle.

Is this puzzle a bi-conditional parallel to “Ethics is First Philosophy?”

No. I did not use "multiple" to define the conjunction operator. — ucarr

You did, you used multiple in the definition. If you only want to used attractor, when you define attractor, you'll still have two use a word similar to multiple, several, and, connect, which all contain the same essence that's fundamental and can't be defined... — Skalidris

...if you can't define/explain "and" with smaller parts it's made of, it creates the circularity, the self reference. — Skalidris

In other words, the "and" operator is an attractor that puts multiple members into one set — ucarr

I need to change my definition as follows:

In other words, the "and" operator is a connector that links multiple things that are to be taken jointly — ucarr

The word changes do not alter the meaning of the definition except to make it a more accurate description: to connect by linking things together.

and (conjunction) -- used to connect things that are to be taken jointly

multiple (adjective) -- having several parts

When you look at the two definitions, why do you think they are one and the same?

3x4 = 12 — ucarr

Multiple isn't the same as multiplying... Just as you said here. — Skalidris

Regarding the equation with the multiplying function, why do you deny that 12 is a multiple of 3 and 4?

...the problem I mentioned is when 5 can't be broken down into smaller units, smaller operations. — Skalidris

It's true prime numbers are limited as to how they're factored, but your argument includes more than the primes.

Bell pepper equals pizza (containing bell peppers) minus all the other elements. — Skalidris

This statement says bell pepper stands alone, or B = B. B $≠$ B + P

...you're saying a fundamental definition cannot be broken down into subordinate parts — ucarr

This is true.

You're saying when the terms of a fundamental definition are not known to someone, synonymous terms of equal meaning known to that person are useful in the effort to communicate the definition to them.

This is true.

So you're saying that the way you defined "and" isn't A = A? — Skalidris

The way I defined "and" does not say "A = A."

You defined it as: "the "and" operator is an attractor that puts multiple members into one set" — Skalidris

Here's the correct translation of my verbal equation to a math equation: Given A, A (two unconnected, identical machine parts), with the entrance of the conjunction operator $∧$ we get
{$A∧A = 2A$}.

A = A is not a multiplicity of A twice; it is one A, itself.

You used multiple to define it but multiple is just a step further from "and" (if you take one element AND another, you have MULTIPLE elements). — Skalidris

No. I did not use "multiple" to define the conjunction operator. I used "attractor" to describe what it does: connect. Perhaps you'll argue that connecting is just the same as multiplying. They're related, but they're not identical. We can prove this by showing how 3+4 = 7, whereas 3x4 = 12.

Also, as you say, “multiple is just a step further from ‘and…’”. Well, one step further is a positive distance from the previous step, so the two positions are different. What this means in our context here is that

…(if you take one element AND another, you have MULTIPLE elements). — Skalidris

Your description shows us that the conjunction operator is a function that renders a connection linking multiple parts. This process that renders connected parts is distinct from the connection it produces. The connection is the result of the process. We know the two things are distinct because parts don’t connect without a process that renders the connection. An example is a truck and the trailer it pulls. The truck and the trailer don’t connect unless there’s a trailer hitch that performs the function of connecting the two.

Suppose "trailer hitch" is defined as "a connector that links truck and trailer." This definition has the same form as "...the "and" operator is an attractor that puts multiple members into one set." I want you to show how both definitions are indistinguishable from the definition of "and."

If A = B but the only meaningful way to define B (or an element within B) is B = A, it's the same as A = A. It's only meaningful in language, if you don't know the word for "and" and that someone tries to explain what that means, they can use words that you know that imply the concept "and", but that doesn't mean they've defined it in a meaningful way. — Skalidris

The underlined part of your quote is incorrect. With A = B, you've set up an equation of the type:
5 = 2+3. This is not A = A, which could be 5 = 5, or 2+3 = 2+3. A and B, as your eye can see, are not identical, as the case with A = A. Stop conflating equivalent with identical.

When you stop conflating equivalent with identical, you’ll see clearly that saying: “He tried to bother me.” differs from saying: “He tried to harass me.” The two verbs are roughly equivalent, but certainly not identical.

But if A is an element of C and that C= B∧A, defining A as C without B isn't meaningful. — Skalidris

If A is an element of C such that C = {A∧B}, then defining A as C is a non-sequitur.

For clarity, consider you have a pizza with mushrooms and bell pepper toppings. This establishes bell pepper as an element of the pizza. Does it make sense to go from there to saying bell pepper equals the pizza?

I now see that your argument denounces my definition as redundant. The issue in our debate is whether my definition is distinct from Webster’s definition of “and.” This is a very different issue from arguing that a definition is neither meaningful or useful. Since you've used these words to make your argument, claiming my definition possesses neither attribute, I've been assuming they accurately express the point of contention. They don't.

Although my definition says nothing not already said, I claim it is still distinct from Webster’s definition of “and.” My definition emphasizes “connect” within the context of set theory.

As I now think you're saying a fundamental definition cannot be redefined usefully because of redundancy, I go along with you most of the way, but not all of the way because of the issue of context. If it’s best to insert 5 into one context, whereas it’s best to insert 2+3 into another context, then that stands as a minor example of usefully spinning a fundamental definition.

If it's circular, if it sends back to itself directly, then you cannot define it in a meaningful way. — Skalidris

In a relationship between a thing and a sign that points to it, we find meaning. At the fight club, guys engage with each other in bare-knuckle fighting for the excitement and satisfaction of it. There's the fight club, the thing itself. There's also the raised fist, the sign that secret fight club members raise to each other when they cross paths on the street. So, the raised fist, the sign, "points" to the fight club. The sign "means" fight club.

Consider that the sign, i.e., the raised fist, is also a thing. Pretend for a minute there is no fight club. There’s only the raised fist. If there’s only the raised fist, we can say the raised fist means the raised fist. If we let A = raised fist, then we can say the raised fist means the raised fist another way: A = A.

A = A is the circularity you’re talking about.

Within the scope of this equation, there’s only A defined in terms of A. This definition is not useful because its journey from start to finish adds nothing to the start point.

Don’t make the mistake of exaggerating the scope of jurisdiction of circularity over meaning.

A thing not usefully meaningful within circularity can be usefully meaningful outside of circularity.

If A = raised fist and B = fight club, then we can say A means B.

In the scope of this equation, A is usefully meaningful.

So, as with the case of A herein, the conjunction logical operator "and" likewise can be defined meaningfully, as I've already shone in an earlier post.

multiple | ˈməltəp(ə)l |
adjective
having or involving several parts, elements, or members
The Apple Dictionary

Have you ever tried following the definitions in a dictionary, looking up each word used in a definition, only to discover it eventually loops back to the same terms? There's no escaping the circularity but you can try if you want to see it for yourself! — Skalidris

If you configure a circle of any size, and you construct it by using the sequence: apple_orange_pear, you can start at any point in the circle and stop at any other point on the circle, and the three parts remain distinct. If you make a complete circle from, say, an apple back to itself, it's not conflated with either the orange or the pear.

...we could explain the "And" logic gate but yet never be able to explain the "And" concept. — Skalidris

Above you say "and" is undefined. "Circular" and "undefined" are two different things. If you cannot define something, you cannot establish it as distinct from other things. In other words, if you cannot say what something is, you also cannot say what it isn't.

In this example here, and in the previous example from 22 days ago, I establish "and" as distinct from other things.

The distinction between processes that we can discover in the object, and processes which we can discover in our minds when we reflect on our thought about the object, is a distinction that we have no right to make here... ~Collingwood, The Nature of Metaphysical Study — Pantagruel

As I understand your Collingwood quote, the formatted configuration of the referent populating our thought is the cognition itself, not the external thing-in-itself. The self of the mind, in this example, is its own cognition, not the thing-in-itself. So perception of the world is a self/other binary. Our knowledge of the thing-in-itself is limited to the formatted configuration of the referent as thing-in-itself, not the objective thing-in-itself.

So far this seems to be consistent with my claim consciousness formats the boundaries of perceived things as a translation of things-in-themselves. We know our empirical experience is unlike the math descriptions of events transpiring within the QM realm.

Our thoughts exemplify what they conceptualize — Pantagruel

Since a concept is a generalization of a thing, i.e., an abstraction from a specific example to a set of examples linked thematically, conceptualization of a thing is an impression of a thematic form. What phenomenon conceptualizes a thing as a thematic form (thought) if not consciousness?

At present, I'm not seeing how:

Our thoughts exemplify what they conceptualize — Pantagruel

is inconsistent with:

...consciousness formats the boundaries of perceived things as a translation of things-in-themselves. — ucarr

Consciousness can be construed as a species-collective property, which at the bare minimum distances (and possibly insulates) it from the individual notion of (ego-)death. — Pantagruel

It's interesting how radically life, with threat of death removed, loses value and therefore meaning. It motivates me a long way towards claiming time is the mathematics of life and death. Again, time, with threat of death removed, loses value and therefore meaning. Same again for information.

Dead information is information without a referent not itself. You are nothing in the absence of that which is not you. Primordial evil is objective otherness. The child in the store sees something it wants and pitches a tantrum on the floor when parent refuses their appeal. Most children grow up and get over the fact there are forces out there not you and what you want. These forces must be reckoned with rationally, or else the stunted individual must be warehoused in lockdown.

When you score a victory against your opposition, it has meaning and value. The circularity of you being you in isolation has no meaning or value.

Math printed in a book signifies inter-relations between signs. All of this circularity goes nowhere until a perishable human opens the book and imparts value and meaning to the signification by being able somehow to make use of it in the struggle to stave off blank nullity.

There is no membership within a coven of votaries that can stave off your very individual burial.

Existence is incomplete on purpose, and therein lives all the drama of life's adventures.

My notion of consciousness, as boundary administrator for the everyday picture of reality, casts it in the role of a mechanism of perceptual organization. In this role it's a type of formatting algorithm for rendering quantum reality in terms of what we call Newtonian physics.

Our thoughts exemplify what they conceptualize. — Pantagruel

My analysis of your above quote has: "thoughts exemplify" = "what they conceptualize." Thoughts model as examples of "what they conceptualize."

Your use of "conceptualize" is critically important.

con-cep-tu-al-ize
kənˈsep(t)SH(əw)əˌlīz
verb [with object]
form a concept or idea of (something): we can more easily conceptualize speed in miles per hour.

You are saying, as I understand you, that thoughts model the structural organization, i.e., the formatting of themselves. The statement pictures a seamless integration of form and content. It invokes Marshall McLuhan’s “the medium is the message.” Context and information are merged.

So, thinking is a structured environment that conveys information via the holism of itself. Thinking conveys information environmentally. This is the groundwork of emergence.

What feeds environmental holism? Quantum entanglement. Quantum entanglement, in turn, strategizes new forms of thought by suggesting what cannot be wholly contained. Consciousness feeds upon this uncontainability of quantum entanglement towards ever-arising new forms modeling permutating boundaries.

QM reality is the entangled environment of environments. Consciousness, feeding on this higher order of environmentalism, spits out ever-arising new forms modeling permutating boundaries.

Yes, regarding thought, the medium is the message. However, even the entangled environment of environments is merely circular without external referents.

There is no self without the other and its otherness. This contradictory relationship of strategic incompleteness is succinctly expressed linguistically through GIT (Gödel’s Incompleteness Theory).

The reconciliation of quantum entanglement rendering, via consciousness, Newtonian physics is the material correlate of GIT.

There will be no reduction to final axioms of any discipline because our reality is life-bearing, and life depends upon the strategic incompleteness supporting the self/other binary.

The self/other binary, being the referent/sign binary, sustains the inside/outside binary making life possible. That no self can complete itself makes life possible as strategic incompleteness. Because living things die, i.e., there is something vital beyond the living organism it cannot wholly access because this vital something is incomplete, living things die.

Death makes life-as-strategic-incompleteness possible. In the absence of death, existing things, having no vital referent beyond themselves, would be complete, circular and devoid of value.

In summation, the presence of life in our world demands objective reality (the otherness lying beyond the self-interest of the self) and impartial truth (the selfish connection to unselfishness). It also demands social intercourse (Our native incompleteness abhors isolation).

We are alive and real only because we can die. Consciousness divorced from death is a childish game. We grow up when we accept the strategic incompleteness of ourselves; it fends off death until the living project extends beyond the individual’s strategies for preserving its incompleteness.

But these values I would say have implications that are nearing "necessity" when one takes into account self-awareness OF EXISTENCE itself. So do the values lead to conclusions, or is it always open-ended? — schopenhauer1

As I'm thinking about it, the values are the conclusions. Consider drinking water and eating food. Of course, the sentient periodically experiences thirst and hunger. In the old days, carnivorous humans had to hunt game before they could eat. Hunting game is hard work. Individuals don't undertake hunting game unless they're sold on eating game to survive as holding status as a necessary value.

Perhaps there's an argument claiming instinct is separate from value. Okay. I'm guessing, however, that instincts light the way to core values. An example of this might be holding family as a core value based on the sexual instinct. Nature entices otherwise itinerant males into becoming family men through their sexual urges.

Does having the capacity for existential self-awareness imply anything further than this fact? — schopenhauer1

It seems to me obvious that self-awareness is the platform supporting the entire edifice of morality. Since it concerns proper behavior in society, morality assumes a basic structure of self and other.

The social contract organizes the relationship between the individual and society considered as one thing, a collective.

Without self-awareness, I don't see how moral principles and codes of professional ethics can even be developed, let alone practiced. Any kind of organized thinking about correct behavior going forward assumes the enduring point of view of an individual. Well, in the absence of self-awareness, individuals disappear.

Values fostered by morals anchor the sense of identity essential to individuality.

You can almost claim self-awareness and values are one and the same because selfhood means holding values. Because abundant energetic activity, thoroughly and precisely executed in persistence over significant time, marshals resources to achieve the far from equilibrium state of a living organism,
the biological process presents as a synonym for values. The process of creating life is exquisitely value-centered. Slight deviations from these precisely calibrated values precludes the appearance of living organisms.

...I advocate antinatalism (no one should have children), and then for those already born, I don't see much way forward. I only have "practical" recommendations like "do not engage with others as it leads to more suffering" — schopenhauer1

I'm wondering if antinatalism is an extreme form of pessimism. If so, then being born and surviving through a normal lifespan means submerging into a deepening negativity. This because maturation is accompanied by an increasing power of the will to design and execute chosen outcomes.

There's a resemblance between antinatalism and original sin; in both systems, life on earth is a slog through the poison blossoms of an unjustifiable sentience. Antinatalism is more extreme in its negative judgment of existence; sentience guided by will presents a journey of suffering but briefly relieved by interjections of joy. Death is the cure for unavoidable calamity, but only if approached by suicide somehow unwilled. In this system, birth resembles original sin. The living are punished unto ruination because they are born. Although this birth is unwilled no less than unwilled death, the former is punished while the latter is rewarded. There is no cosmic sentience authorizing and protecting the sanctity of life.

In the system of theism, the grace of saintly life is freely bestowed, with freedom of choice of the saints included. Curiously, the saints, progeny of the Deity, possess a power unpossessed by their creator: the power to sin.

Antinatalism imposes original sin whereas theism gives saints a choice between sin and sanctity.

Although saints can choose to damn themselves, the deity offers them an escape from damnation and return to sanctity through total allegiance to the savior.

Antinatalists experience salvation through eternal embrace of nihilism.

Why a human individual would choose antinatalism instead of theism is mysterious, unless one believes there is compulsion on the part of some individuals to pair antinatalism with atheism.

Either way, life on earth is rigged for insuperable misery until death. However, the theist, unlike the antinatalist, can triumph over death through belief grounded in a faith lying beyond knowledge.

[Schopenhauer]is referring to the Protestant Christian notion that there is no contingency related to salvation (complete denial of the will to non-being). That is to say, "If I do this, then I salvation will happen". If this was the case, then cause-and-effect would be in effect and that already presupposes the operations of the will. — schopenhauer1

I see that Schopenhauer's vision of salvation requires abstraction from causality.

...salvation-proper would take place by some non-causal capacity of the individual. This has always been there perhaps for some characters, to be realized, but one cannot tie it to a specific causal reason. — schopenhauer1

I'm struggling to see how this isn't another way of saying that, for some individuals -- the elect -- salvation happens through divine grace unwilled.* If this isn't what Schopenhauer envisions, then the logical structure in suggestion is a binary with grace on one side, and the opposite of grace, i.e., willful calculation towards salvation, on the other side.

*An example of grace unwilled would be a saint. Saints are born, not made, right?

The "knowing" would be something akin to a gnosis that one "reaches"... — schopenhauer1

Gnosis, being knowledge of spiritual mysteries, comes to the saint unbidden, doesn't it? I read somewhere in the bible that those pure of heart will see God. A pure heart comes to the saint unbidden, doesn't it?

The secular bent of my mind has me conjecturing the following: Schopenhauer has worked out a plan for abstracting oneself from causality and the willful manipulation thereof. This abstraction to pure isolation sets up a subsequent dissolution of the self into... what?

If dissolution of the self into non-existence is salvation, then the unborn are blessed, and the living are cursed. This doesn't sound right to my ear that's always heard life is holy, not that non-existence is
holy. When a transgressor receives the death penalty for commission of a heinous crime, dissolution into non-existence unbidden is salvation? The life of a saintly buddhist dovetails with the life of an unrepentant blackguard?

Certainly the doctrine of original sin (assertion of the will) and of salvation (denial of the will) is the great truth which constitutes the essence of Christianity, while most of what remains is only the clothing of it, the husk or accessories. — WWR Book 4

Therefore according to this doctrine the deeds of the will are always sinful and imperfect, and can never fully satisfy justice; and, finally, these works can never save us, but faith alone, a faith which itself does not spring from resolution and free will, but from the work of grace, without our co-operation, comes to us as from without. — WWR Book 4

It seems to me that, given the above, Christianity's Gospel cannot be served up to the masses (as we are taught); salvation cannot be be reeled in like a fish on a hook; there is no learning how to fish for salvation, as it comes unbidden to the elect, in accordance with a mysterious divinity. If this is true, then Jesus came to earth to greet those already divinely chosen for the afterlife in heaven.

If it were works, which spring from motives and deliberate intention, that led to salvation, then, however one may turn it, virtue would always be a prudent, methodical, far-seeing egoism. — WWR Book 4

...salvation is only obtained through faith, i.e., through a changed mode of knowing, and this faith can only come through grace, thus as from without. This means that the salvation is one which is quite foreign to our person, and points to a denial and surrender of this person necessary to salvation. — WWR Book 4

I see here that faith is a type of knowing, perhaps divine knowing. In our language, "knowing" is a verb, an action. Is there a divine knowing possible in the form of an existential reality that can be practiced within the natural world?

Luther demands (in his book "De Libertate Christiana") that after the entrance of faith the good works shall proceed from it entirely of themselves, as symptoms, as fruits of it; yet by no means as constituting in themselves a claim to merit, justification, or reward, but taking place quite voluntarily and gratuitously. So we also hold that from the ever-clearer penetration of the principium individuationis proceeds, first, merely free justice, then love, extending to the complete abolition of egoism, and finally resignation or denial of the will. — WWR Book 4

I see here that good works become operational when the faithful cease to obstruct their activation due to exercise of self-serving will.

I think Schopenhauer's version of non-being is almost necessarily accompanied by a physical death because at that point of salvation, how does one go back to "willing" again? Willing is so intertwined with physiological living for Schopenhauer, I cannot see how the final "salvation" can be anything different (like a Buddhist might believe with the Middle Path): — schopenhauer1

What comes to mind as a possible alternative to non-existence is something akin to the virtual body of Jesus on earth.

Yet it seems that the absolute denial of will may reach the point at which the will shall be wanting to take the necessary nourishment for the support of the natural life. This kind of suicide is so far from being the result of the will to live, that such a completely resigned ascetic only ceases to live because he has already altogether ceased to will. No other death than that by starvation is in this case conceivable (unless it were the result of some special superstition)... — Schopenhauer

I wonder if the passage described here might better be characterized by some label other than "suicide." What about the idea of replacing "suicide" with "ascension"? Might Jesus' total surrender of his will to God have been the form of his ascension from the cave?

I've thought of ascension as a type of explosion that creates instead of destroys. In this context it might be the creative explosion of the will. With its explosion, the will merges into the Divinity.

Your Schopenhauer quote says interesting things in the way of clarification: self transcendence -- as I'm getting it at the moment -- entails a journey to a state of mind of total acceptance, which plays as a human possessing the neutrality of a rock, or any other such insentient.

However, there's a big however; the human as a rock, retaining cognition, sees himself attaining to rock neutrality and approves. Goal attained. Job well done. Cognition cannot escape self interest. And self-interest, by definition, precludes transcendence of self.

There is no life in absence of self.

So, at the moment, I'm thinking self transcendence is an ego-stroking mind game. Why else would the saints, if they had really merged into non-existence, leave behind their writings?

That being said, I claim that the best course of action...is to live a life of withdrawal. — schopenhauer1

I hear you saying social engagement is overrated because it causes more problems than it solves. I wonder if human nature might forestall isolation as antidote. I expect that in the situation of protracted solitude, human nature internalizes social engagement. The two-way conversation of social engagement becomes the mock two-way conversation within the mind of the solitary.

If the solitary isolates beyond internal mock social engagement -- assuming that's possible -- I wonder if a strengthening tendency towards hallucination arises. This wonder on my part is funded by the notion life, by its definition, militates against isolation. I base this natural anti-isolationism of life upon the idea consciousness is inherently social. My basis for this claim is the understanding consciousness is rooted within a self/other binary. This binary, I think, presents so essentially that even the self becomes object.

If you think there’s a flaw in Schopenhauer’s or Buddhism’s approach to transcending the self, make the case. — schopenhauer1

I wonder if the flaw might be: "...even the self becomes object." That being the case, there may be no transcendence of the self possible. Also, there might be the issue of a logical puzzle: how can the self transcend itself if it's the self doing the transcending?

If self-transcendence can somehow transcend the logical puzzle of itself, then where does it arrive? Let's suppose it arrives at the position of pure observer: always seeing, never seen.

Isn't that the God position: purely generative, not at all derivative?

A problem attaching to the God position -- at least from the human perspective -- presents as the origin narrative of the God position. We know from Russell's Paradox there's a logical problem with all-inclusive set comprehension, a necessary pre-requisite for the God position.*

If a human somehow arrives at a God-position point of view, isn't it likely human nature will inflate the ego to an extreme exaggeration featuring omniscience, an ultimate resultant of hubris?

*Perhaps Russell's Paradox suggests a reason why the super-nature of God needs the nature of humanity: not even God -- being conscious -- exists free of the self/other binary.

Causal relationships are about transformation, not simulation. — ucarr

I never used the word, "simulation", so this appears to be a straw-man argument. An effect is a representation of its causes, not a simulation of its causes — Harry Hindu

"Represent" has meaning in more than one sense, depending on context. There's the sense of "represent" as "to speak for" in lieu of another. This sense often refers to an elected official who, as a member of congress, represents the voters who put him into office. It would be strange to claim the elected official is an effect of his constituents. There's also the sense of "represent" as "to depict" something. This sense often refers to a picture depicting, for example, a bucolic setting in the countryside. This is the sense that involves simulation.

We've been writing at length about the GUI. It can be a simulation.

With causal relationships, we're concerned with an initial state of a system and how it arrives at a different state of the system at a later time. A → B. If A is the cause and B is the effect, is B a representation of A, or a result of A?

I would like for you to try to explain yourself without using terms like, "internal/external", "material/immaterial" and "objective/subjective". Each time you type a sentence with those terms, try removing them and see if it takes away anything from what you intend to say. If it does, then what is it that is taken away? — Harry Hindu

Let me refer to what I said at the end of the last part that I posted: the physics of a material world, beyond mentally constructed information supports something being at stake: the life of the aware subject experiencing the world. Materialism, with its discrete boundaries, makes real the life and possible death of the subject. It is the vulnerability and possible death of the subject that makes the discrete boundaries of the subject hold essential importance to its existence. These discrete boundaries include: objective/subjective; material/immaterial; before/after; here/there. If you've ever been attacked by an aggressor, or faced an impending collision in a car at high speed, you know the importance of here/there; left/right. In the real world of physics, an inch this way or that marks the difference between life and death. I'm not telling you anything you don't already know.

I am not saying that causality is a physico_material phenomenon. It is just a process, or a relationship, like everything else, and that using terms like physico and material confuses the issue. — Harry Hindu

We both know you're not confused about the difference between someone creating an animation showing you being shot and falling to the ground dead and a flesh and blood killer with a gun pointing at you and squeezing the trigger. If you want to claim both scenarios are just processes, or relationships like all other relationships, and "that using terms like physico and material confuses the issue." no one will try to stop you. Everyone will know you're keeping alive and well because, regardless of what you say in a debate, in your life you never confuse the two types of scenarios.

I know you have your language games configured so that when necessary, you can claim your denial the world is physical does not entail you regarding a memory of your supper last night and your real, physical supper before you today as one and the same. If the world were not physical, there'd be no important difference between the two. The boundaries of the world of physics have meaning beyond information and relationships.

When the lights are out or you close your eyes, and you experience a red stop sign, what are you actually doing - seeing or imagining? — Harry Hindu

In both situations: a) wakeful seeing; b) slumbering seeing the visual cortex processes visible light energy so that it's encoded for memory playback of visible light impressions. By the way, with the argument you're making here, depending as it does on a difference between seeing a stop sign with your eyes open versus dreaming a stop sign with your eyes closed, aren't you making use of your belief in open/closed, a "confusing" and unhelpful binary?

Your problem lies in you trying to explain how material and immaterial things interact, and how an immaterial mind can represent material things. Your assertions imply that the mind is special or separate from the world when we understand that it isn't. The solution isn't in doubling down on dualism. The solution is monism. — Harry Hindu

What evidence do you have proving my dualism?

How does one get at the material nature of the world via a dimensionless, immaterial GUI? — Harry Hindu

By GUI I mean incandescent monitor displaying animated graphics and text streaming from a computer. Since you think GUI dimensionless and immaterial, you can help me better understand by elaborating further details about it.

What does it mean to say that there is a lack of dimensional extension of immaterial things? — Harry Hindu

...why can we look in the dog house and see the dog but not look in the brain and see the mind? — Harry Hindu

In the underlined part of the quote, are you not making the point that the mind, being dimensionless, cannot be seen by the eyes?

You cannot access all of your long-term memories at once but you can recall them from somewhere. From where are they recalled if there is no dimension to the mind? — Harry Hindu

Since you think the mind has dimensional extensions, as do material objects that can be measured in inches, why don't you specify, in inches, the dimensions of the mind?

One could argue that the dimensional aspect of material things is a product of your GUI, in the way the information is structured in your GIU, not of the world. — Harry Hindu

This is one of your important premises; I can't respond to it until you elaborate more details about what you mean by GUI.

This is only vision but I have four other senses that come together with vision in my mind. Where do they all come together in the information structure we call the mind, or the GUI? — Harry Hindu

When you write GUI, are writing a synonym for mind?

I can get at the thoughts in your head by correctly interpreting the causal relationship between the scribbles I see on the screen and the thoughts in your mind. — Harry Hindu

I'm not sure if communication in general always examples causality. Do you think my looking at an apple causes my mental image of the apple?

I would just say that self and environment are themselves relationships and processes. Try pointing to the boundaries of each and see if you can succeed. Everything is a relationship. — Harry Hindu

If you're in a jungle and a tiger starts racing towards you in attack mode, you don't think you could separate the tiger from the environment?

Where is the material stuff you keep talking about if all we can ever point to are relationships? — Harry Hindu

In the USA, 43K deaths per year are due to vehicle collisions.

...you have to bring in what I said about information being a relationship between causes and their effects, and the way you get at the causes is by making more than one observation and using logic. — Harry Hindu

If there's nothing but relationships between systems of information created mentally, with no material physics in existence, and, as you seem to think, causal relationships are instances of communication of information, then what's at stake in the lives of humans? Since there are only systems of information, and we know from experience information can be erased but not killed, what is there for humans to be fearful of; what is there for humans to care about? Only death gives reality and meaning to fear and love and hate. Only physics gives reality to death.

YOU are the one using the terms "internal/external". I'm asking you what YOU mean by those terms. If you are saying that the mind is caused by the brain, then that is not an internal/external relationship. It is a causal relationship. So what do YOU mean by saying that the mind is internal to the brain if you do not mean the same thing as the relationship between the dog and doghouse? — Harry Hindu

Maybe you, like I, can benefit by further examining what you mean by internal/external.

What do you mean by your use of the words, "internal/external"? Are you using them in the same sense that the dog is internal to the dog house? If so, then why can we look in the dog house and see the dog but not look in the brain and see the mind? What if the mind is what the whole brain does, and not what some internal part of the brain does? — Harry Hindu

In your quote directly above, I see that you're thinking through the meaning of internal/external in the same terms I've been using to think of them. You're meeting me halfway by using the doghouse/dog relationship in accordance with the context in which I've been referring to internal/external. Nevertheless, when you oppose my thinking with: "...why can we look in the dog house and see the dog but not look in the brain and see the mind?," you counter-example my claim with the same literal conception of internal/external I've been using. Since you base your counter-narrative upon a counter-example that uses internal/external in the same literal sense I've been using it, this evidences your belief the internal/external binary is real and probative, your preference for avoiding it notwithstanding.

I'm asking you what YOU mean by those terms. If you are saying that the mind is caused by the brain, then that is not an internal/external relationship. It is a causal relationship.

In your above quote you infer the possibility I'm positing "mind is caused by brain." That you infer this possibility suggests that you, like me, consider "mind emerges from brain" consistent with logical possibility and thus perhaps a real phenomenon.

Well, some causal relationships include effects emergent from their causes, as in the case of a viral infection and the symptom of heavy production of mucus by the immune system. So, your argument based upon the distinction between internal/external and cause/effect raises a question about the brain/mind relationship: Does it example mind emergent from brain, or not? If not, then that tells us some causal relations involve emergent properties, some don't. This limits the scope of causal relationships being also emergent relationships; it doesn't refute their possibility wholesale.

If we allowed the computer to take in some input and then use that information as input to a deductive or inductive process, we end up with new information. The question then becomes, does the new information apply to the world (you might ask, "is the information correct or incorrect?")? — Harry Hindu

If the deductive information is a logically correct derivative of the input information about the world, then barring emergence and supervenience, we know from the transitive property that it is also pertinent to the world, since its source is pertinent to the world.

It's just that in the moment of the dream, we misinterpret what we are experiencing and confuse the prediction or imagining with the world... — Harry Hindu

To the extent the dreaming experience is recognizable as waking experience, and thus can be conflated with it, the dreaming experience is not different from the waking experience.

You could even say that an effect is a representation of its causes. A chair is representative of all the processes that went into making it. — Harry Hindu

To the extent that an effect is not a simulation of its cause, it's not a representation of its cause. For an example: a chair is not a simulation of the process that made it. We can propound this argument by claiming the oakwood chair that derives from an oak tree is not the oak tree, nor is it a simulation of it.

Causal relationships are about transformation, not simulation.

You're talking about how the information is structured and presented as your GUI. — Harry Hindu

Here we have to be careful to avoid, or account for, infinite regress, or should it be described as infinite recursion? Picture (whether dreaming or awake) the infinite recursion of the images within two facing mirrors. I'm now sensing you're traveling down this road. In the absence of an objective physico_material object with at least semi-discrete boundaries, the experiencing sentient becomes lost within a realm of endless cognitive echoes. Within this realm, the question: Where am I? becomes the harbinger of an ordeal.

As sentients in bodies, we need the hard boundaries of physico_material objects to anchor us to a definitive position within the otherwise infinitely fluid spacetime.

No cognition without attendant physics.

You are confusing the GUI with what it represents when you use terms like "physical". The world is not physical. It is presented as physical by the way your GUI represents it. — Harry Hindu

You claim "physicality" is a presentation from a representation of the world via GUI. In that case, the presentation is also a representation. So, if: "Talking about how the information is structured and presented as your GUI." is not connected to an independent physical reality of electronic circuits inside the computer, but instead is a representation of a physical world contructed by a GUI, then we have two representations facing each other creating the "images-within-facing-mirrors-infinite recursion effect."

This looks to me like the realm of infinite echoes.

For you to think of anything, you have to create objects of thought and your objects of thought have boundaries that don't exactly line up with the "boundaries" in the world. — Harry Hindu

Since it says there's a discrepancy between thought boundaries and world boundaries, sentence implies that "boundaries" of the world are independent from "boundaries" of thought. This appears to contradict the claim: "The world is not physical."

I think about information as the relationship between cause and effect. Effects carry information about their causes. We are informed about the state of the world by the effect it has on our mind. We might misinterpret some percepts, but over time we can work those out by making more observations and making logical sense of these multiple observations as in the way we solve the mirage problem. — Harry Hindu

Does what you say imply there exists within the world objective states of a system rooting representations thereof within facts? If so, can we designate these objective states of a system as radiant facts transmitted to our understanding via representations? If so, does this radiant transmission of objectivity evidence information as an energetic, mass-to-mass alteration of form across spacetime?

I'm asking if causality is a physico_material phenomenon. This question is important because it spotlights whether spacetime is an active agent of consciousness as a physical phenomenon. Going forward with the presumption it is, we can conjecture that consciousness, the boundary administrator, parses reality via a set of formatting functions that includes causal changes that assemble the timeline. So, time, like space and consciousness, is a physico_material phenomenon.

Consciousness, as the boundary administrator formatting and thereby constructing the timeline of events making up the history of the cosmos, makes a close approach to mind as the fundamental thing in existence.

When we wake up (and thereby make another observation), we interpret the experience as a dream, not as an actual experience of seeing. — Harry Hindu

R.E.M. sleep is the stage of sleep where most dreams happen. This fact makes me resistant to the claim dreaming of a red stop sign is unambiguously distinct from wakefully seeing a stop sign.

So, you're saying we're always interacting with one or more types of information systems, and, speaking generally, this is what the world is like? — ucarr

The mind is part of the world and part of the causal chain that everything else is part of. Apples, chairs, trees, mountains, planets and stars are all information in that they are all effects of prior causes and causes of subsequent effects. Minds are not special in this regard. — Harry Hindu

I think your underlined claims support rather than refute the correctness of the conclusion of my quoted question. That you think the mind is just another information system additionally reenforces the correctness of my conclusion.

What do you mean by your use of the words, "internal/external"? Are you using them in the same sense that the dog is internal to the dog house? — Harry Hindu

Let me make a beginning to my response by asking if dog_doghouse and mind_brain are two duos forming a true parallel. Dog_doghouse is a relationship between two things not connected. No one claims the dog was caused by the doghouse. Mind_brain is a relationship between two things connected. Because some say the mind is caused by the brain, and some say the mind is independent of the brain, there is an issue in debate about which claim is true.

If so, then why can we look in the dog house and see the dog but not look in the brain and see the mind? — Harry Hindu

Tentatively following through on what I say above, the answer is that the two duos are not parallel.

Additional thought – Whether or not the mind is inside of the brain might also be a sticking point in your contextualization of internal/external. If, as some claim, the mind is immaterial, then it is not inside of the brain, nor is it inside of any other material thing.

The lack of dimensional extension of immaterial things is one of the difficulties with connecting them to material things. Following from this, obviously, the claim an immaterial mind is connected to a material brain posits a very hard theory to prove. On the other hand, we know it’s true that “no brain, no mind.” On the surface of things, the theory claiming mind is either: a) identical to brain, or b) emergent from brain presents as much easier to argue.

If immaterial things exist dimensionless, then there’s the strong suggestion inside/outside, being dimensional properties, have no meaning for them. If this is the case, then we have to try to answer the difficult question: Where are they? Can an existing thing exist nowhere?

What if the mind is what the whole brain does, and not what some internal part of the brain does? — Harry Hindu

From neuroscience we know that certain parts of the brain do things made use of by the mind. For example, the visual cortex, which is the part of the cerebral cortex that receives and processes sensory nerve impulses from the eyes, produces memorizable visual images essential to the mind's imaginative activity.

How did the contents of my mind get on your computer screen for you to read? How did the contents of your mind get on my computer screen for me to read? Are the contents of your mind inside my computer? — Harry Hindu

We know our communication depends upon representation that, in turn, gets manipulated by our computers.

Are the four dimensions just mental representations of the relations between objects, causes and their effects? — Harry Hindu

You say:

The contents of working memory is about a specific temporal_spatial location, namely you and your immediate environment. It is a relationship between you and your environment. — Harry Hindu

Your use of the preposition "between" evidences the fact we cannot make sense in thinking or writing about navigating and experiencing our material world without separations across spacetime and, conversely, connections across spacetime. Self and environment and living seem to entail necessary binaries.

I'm getting the impression that dreams, hallucinations and socially verified perceptions are distinct types of working representations. How is it that some of them can be incorrect? — ucarr

Because when we compare them to our actual observations of the world, we find that they are not the case. — Harry Hindu

Haven't you been arguing that "our actual observations of the world," like dreams and hallucinations, are just another type of information system, i.e., just another working representation no more a literal transcription from an objective reality than are dreams and hallucinations?

Haven't you, as evidenced via my paraphrasing of your language above, been implying Kant is correct in asserting there is a noumenal world of things-in-themselves, presumably objective, that's inaccessible to our necessarily representative translations thereof via the senses_the brain_the mind?

Haven't you been using this argument to support the argument denying an inside/outside duality?

Haven't you been implying that a network of information systems is our insuperable environment?

Haven't you, through the above stages of argumentation, been arguing generally that the "map is not the territory," an argument rooted within Kant's noumena?

So whatever you interpreted from what I said, I never implied that the mind is internal and the world external. — Harry Hindu

Are you telling me it's generally true the mind and the world have no internal/external relationship? On the other hand, are you instead telling me the mind and the world have no internal/external relationship within the limited context of our two-person dialogue without generalizing further?

Instead of saying that working memory is an "internal" representation of the world, we say it is a working representation of the world. — Harry Hindu

Does working memory have a temporal_spatial location, or is that irrelevant?

We could say the same thing about dreams. They are a working representation of the world, just an incorrect interpretation, no different than a waking hallucination is an incorrect working representation of the world. — Harry Hindu

If a dream is a working representation of the world, and likewise a waking hallucination is a working representation of the world, why are they in some sense incorrect? In the context of your post overall, I'm getting the impression that dreams, hallucinations and socially verified perceptions are distinct types of working representations. How is it that some of them can be incorrect?

They are a working representation of the world, just an incorrect interpretation, no different than a waking hallucination is an incorrect working representation of the world. It is incorrect because we are incorrectly interpreting the red we experience as being a product of our senses' interaction with the world when they are actually another working model. — Harry Hindu

Are you saying the red we experience is just our interaction with more information labeled as “working model”? If this is so, does it follow that there is no translation from observed physico_material objects (existing independently within an objective world) into information in a form compatible with our brain?

We don't experience seeing when asleep. — Harry Hindu

Are you saying there's no parallel between seeing a red stop sign while driving a car and seeing a red stop sign while dreaming?

The information in a computer is part of the "external" world, so I don't understand what you mean by rocketing "away from the external world into the interior of the mind". — Harry Hindu

As you say in your response here:

Maybe we should talk in terms of experiences only and then assign seeing and imagining to types of experiences... — Harry Hindu

So, you're saying we're always interacting with one or more types of information systems, and, speaking generally, this is what the world is like?

You keep forgetting the first step and that is that any time you talk of... code, you are only talking about how it all appears in your GUI. — Harry Hindu

When I talk of code, I'm accessing the GUI-constructed resultant of my neuronal activity?

The information in the computer is not the information that it received through it's input. It can even recall the processed information stored to process further without any access to the world, meaning that the information it is working with stored information instead of information received via some input. — Harry Hindu

In my attempt to understand what you've written immediately above, here's my paraphrase:

The information in the computer is not the information it received through its input. What's in the computer can recall its stored information for further processing without accessing the world. This means the information within the computer works with its own memory instead of working with information received from an input.

This isn't much different from how we can have a working model of the world and other kinds of working models going on in the form of predictions, imaginings and dreams. — Harry Hindu

So, working representations cover a range of types including: the world, predictions of future worlds, imaginings and dreams?

I would recommend you find some established authors who's published works represent what you think is the best synthesis of these ideas and provide references to them, a practice that you will notice I try to do in many of my posts. (Sorry for being blunt, but you did request feedback.) — Wayfarer

You have given me what I asked for, and I thank you for it. Already my understanding has a sharper focus because of what you've shared with me. I think your advice is good and I'm going to do what you advise.

Let me make a start right now by sharing my best idea about communicating who I am to another person. Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man rocked my world with its insights. Marshall McLuhan lit up my mind with his observations about the evolution of mass media: first there was the spoken word; then there was the printed word; now there's the motion picture; next there might by AI through QM computing. Each medium expands communication across a bigger landscape with its computational coding at a greater removal from DNA-based organics.

I'm not at all a media guru. What I'm getting at is that McLuhan, like me, thinks in terms of big leaps forward through a narrative via intuition-supported insights. His book is full of stunning insights I feel in my gut while being challenged by the overborne continuity of his mind's quantum leaps of understanding.