It comes when the time is right. I feel it could be sooner than later. I want to wait a little bit longer, to see what may happen before Entry 001. There is still potential in the air that could change it's direction or focus. I want to exhaust it before the start. The first entry is important, I believe and sets the path on its way.

In the meantime, I will ask: Would you consider yourself a patient person, overall javi? How have you occupied your time the past few weeks, here? Any thoughts on the latest threads? I have been busy since my last comment. But I do see a few newer threads that are interesting. I have just recently bookmarked: "Mechanism versus teleology in a probabilistic universe" and "The Question of Causation". Do you know what thread you last bookmarked? Or what thread do you have a recent draft saved for?

I see that you only have one discussion post, but lots of comments since you've joined 10 years ago. That is telling in itself. — Kizzy


What does it tell you? — Sir2u

That you are wise, first of all. That you enjoy using this space for what it is, you are compassionate and understanding. You attempt to understand others by relating to those who show interest in the same topics of philosophy as you. You don't have an apparent agenda or focus. You engage when you feel moved or have something to say about something specific in an ongoing discussion.

That makes sense to me as to why you aren't creating discussions, that you still engage in a positive manner by keeping your English functioning. You don't need to create a discussion because you have nothing to say. You have everything to say. You do it well. Might I add, you do a great job communicating your words here, clear enough to be understood for someone who mostly speaks Spanish/spanglish in their day to day life.

Your words. My words. The words. Words, though that exist and are known to us but in order to use what we know of these words. Words that we learned over time, words we know, words we take. We take words and articulate them as they come to us from thoughts, from dreams, literature, all our lived experiences, words go into the mind -- words come out from your mind, to typed text formatted in paragraphs to be displayed as a comment but now with MEANING. Words, thoughts, ideas are one thing...but words, thoughts, ideas to be articulated, become words, thoughts, ideas to be understood-- with that, the potential for new ideas become endless based on the meaning taken with and from the words in use.

So by noticing your activity, especially since you said that you mostly speak Spanish/spanglish in your day to day life, I can tell you are self aware, smart, and interested in staying sharp/learning. I like that about you. I like that quality in others, generally.

You were one of the first users I had an interaction with, see thread linked below, Forced beliefs? You acknowledged me and gave me a glimmer of hope. Reassurance that what I shared has potential value here. You didn't have to mention "That my ideas could have made a reasonable thread," but you did. You understood at least something in that initial reply where I quoted you and aggressively interjected the ongoing discussion.

You knew there was something I was getting at, but you set a boundary. I assume, you have a well adjusted, healthy mind. (Sorry to hear about your vision, though) You felt attacked and didn't want to engage with that. You were absolutely right for telling me I was lost. You even accepted my apology, which was indeed most earnest. It was my fault nothing came from that comment, but I still stand by every word I typed in that rant. I think the execution was valid given my not-so-clearly-put-point, but it was more in the way I interjected and called you out specifically that was unnecessary on my end. I understand why it seemed like an attack. I really didn't mean to come for you, I wanted answers. I failed to get them.

Til now!

↪Kizzy
You have picked just one of the things I said and rambled on without making any sense at all. I have no idea what most of your writing actually is supposed to mean or how it is related to the OP.
The rest appears to be saying that because I picked an example about a politician I am not fit to post an answer to. If I had mentioned people that disregard climate change instead of trump, would you have judged me differently?
By the way, I am neither American nor political in any way. So the comment in no way represents my way of thinking.

Your ideas could have made a reasonable thread, but when you start attacking people that reply you are lost.
Bye. — Sir2u

I do apologize, you are right I do appear to be attacking you — Kizzy


Accepted — Sir2u

I DO have ideas or thoughts worth sharing, I do have something reasonable to say, I will find relevance in those ideas I choose/have chosen to work out here on TPF. Three years ago, I started doing so privately, at this time was the beginning of TPF FILES...I comment here when I feel moved. I interject my thoughts and they are to be bounced around til they fall flat. When they do. IF they do... But what I did know, despite my will and passion, was that I needed a push of reassurance and some direction. Thanks to you, I got that and felt confident enough (or audacious enough) to continue as a member, commenting where I have the words that mean something.

It just took/takes someone else to see, what we feel in our words. To see yourself in another, is everything. Thankful 4 you, Sir2u, for sharing that piece of you, always.

Many of us came here as refugees after being thrown into the ether when our old home was invaded and closed down to us. We did not, as others have pointed out, have to send emails.
But I am glad they started that system, fewer bothersome people and less work for those poor torment souls that work so hard as moderators. — Sir2u

Hey Sir2u, thanks for commenting. If you dont mind, I have follow up questions below. I appreciate you sharing what you have already but what can you expand on from the quote above? You can answer one or all of the questions I have for you, in whichever manner you'd like. OR you could ignore them and me fully, if you rather.

However, I am interested in hearing more from you based on the overall time you've spent here (and there) and from what you said initially, I think there is more to it and YOU. So, I look forward to your response, as I find it may be relevant to the way this discussion will be unfolding.

What was the old home like? Thrown into the ether? What do you mean? Who is "we" and who is "they"? What happened to the others that weren't refugees but active on the old home? How did it come to be decided (for you) to come here instead? Do you remember why you were drawn to the old place to start with? How did you discover it and why was it called "home" to you? Do you think it was worth picking back up here after it was closed down for those same or similar reasons? What do you get from here, that you didn't get from the old home? Vice versa....what do you miss about the old home, that you do not get here?

IS this still considered a "home" for you? Are you seeking connections or comfort from discussing topics with like-minded people? Or something else? Like a family or support? How have you changed in 10 years and does that/those change/s reflect similarly to your engagement here? If so, how has it (your engagement here) different from the way you did before? What have you learned about yourself and does that have to do with how you define "home,"? What is "home" to you, really? And why do you think, you stuck to that feeling of being "home" before?

I see that you only have one discussion post, but lots of comments since you've joined 10 years ago. That is telling in itself.

What is/was the first post that moved you to comment, if you can remember or recall? What topic/s caused you to share your first comment? What does it tell you about you from your latest
interests and most recent contributions? What hasn't changed?

Thank you,
Kizzy

Who da fuck is that? — RogueAI


AI with too much makeup. — jgill

Lmao! I will fix that. The changes made to that first post/list will be called out, dated, and clearly acknowledged separately within that post if/when any significant edits, or additional info is added. I am going to make sure I didn't miss or screw up any others, while I am at it. If I did, those changes will be made all at once, along with your corrected username. Thanks for calling that out.

Personally, I think maybe you've gone off the deep end. — Metaphysician Undercover

Cannonball! Just keep on, thinking.... :brow:

Have you got nothing better to do with your life?
Hmmm, I guess that could be asked of any of us who hang around here. — Metaphysician Undercover

I see you couldn't refrain from getting a little jab in, there! OUCH!

Does my activity here, that you thought of so shallowly, really come off to you as ever consuming my life? As if you would know anything of it...Although, I am glad you thought "(hmmm)" about it and mentioned that, that is true for the usual daily posters. I think the same thing some times... BUT that aint me?! I am going out dancing tonight!

BUT it was NICE to hear from ya MU...
Your concern has been kindly archived: FILE 404-Insight Not Found

Ha! This is going to be fun!

Nice! This is like playing Cluedo. Is there a further clue to consider? — javi2541997

Yes! The game didn't even begin yet. Keep an eye out for Entry 001.

Lets play nice! (Yeah, I am talking to you MU :razz: )

But with philosophy, you do, because most people aren't a good judge of your work: they simply don't know enough. And while in art, one person can achieve works on their own, in philosophy it can grow a lot more if more people work on it. It's usually what comes after one's work that's the real deal. — Skalidris

Interesting take here, I applaud your stance. Seems firm enough for me!

I always wondered about art in terms of judging, grading, valuing. "How can you tell me this is not a masterpiece?," and also I think of how art teachers can create a rubric of expectations, a standard, in order to give a grade but when you compared Picasso and philosophers alike, it reminded me of these thoughts I had before....time is relevant here but for what? "grasping" what you call, "the real deal,"?

Like it takes time to understand the "beauty" in art or "genius" in philosophies? This understanding comes to certain people at certain times though, I believe some would be able to spot a gem on sight, knowing that something is going to gain momentum or popularity, not yet but often too late.[too late for what? I dont know. I think timing is interesting]

Im interested in those/ the moment...its like when we say "she was ahead of her time," what if people have to say "he was way ahead of his time" because it is proof, in and of its self, making the statement, "she/he was so ahead," because of how slow people are going to be at understanding....as if he/she knew, no one was going to catch on right way or could....but that it would defy the doubts and resistance once put upon it. But I do still wonder, if when people discover people and their works, art or philosophy, [OR BOTH], "before their own time," if the gap is of any significance. Its like admitting how slow/fast it took to travel from then to now. What if we are stuck before our time? What if he was just ahead of YOUR TIME, every time?

Bravo! :strong: :eyes: :starstruck:

First, not all of us sent an email to Jamal to join TPF. I joined this site in 2021, and by that time, you didn't need an 'invitation' to join. You just create a user and then sign up. The invitation guideline came after, I guess, one year later. So, there are a large number of users who never sent an email to Jamal. This has led to recent users, I guess. — javi2541997

I wondered this, as the entry passage to the forum has even changed since my initial email. I remember we used to be able to refer a few people a month or something like that. Hm, I will have to edit my main question a tad but I think I will, thanks to your reply, be able to redirect the initial post towards opening the discussion to those from new levels. The times, or levels, or versions of TPF method of entry or order of ops is something I didn't consider, at first.

The timeline of the place itself.... any users with an account made in 2021 and earlier, have an entry point...BUT it was a different process, not any less important than those who needed an invite, coming from our own search or yearning... Some were referred and some sought to get the invite on their own by emailing Jamal...that doesnt mean that those with similar desires to be apart of this group are any less interesting (to me)

I feel pleased that I appear in your famous files or notes. Now, I am also a bit scared. I only hope that you haven't targeted me for unknown reasons, or you are planning to threaten me because you have sensitive information about me. No, I don't think so. You are not that kind of person. But I am not going to lie: I feel now a bit intrigued. What might Kizzy have about me? — javi2541997

No, no. I tried to make it clear this is not an attack or targeted move by any means. This was created in a positive light. I have no intentions of any foul play towards any potential future users who reply or from/ in the name drop. I am pretty spooky, so that tracks! Please, don't worry! I can tell you what it is, what I have about you from what I have gathered from you!

But first, I think and find the mention of John Locke to be of relevance, especially considering you, your mind state, and status in that time, 2021 I suppose, when and where you emerged onto the scene.

In this topic John Locke answered this is a perfect empirical experiment so he put the following sentence:
What you are trying to say is that complex terms like colours are not innate because we can teach children to misunderstand mixing them. I guess this is the same example of fearness. You can feel the fear because previously someone taught you what is darkness, witches, demons, etc... — javi2541997

Oh and the fact that "fear" is mentioned in Lockes response you shared, tickled me, as I mentioned "fear and loathing in las vegas" in my post....perhaps a reach. Fair. But it still got a giggle out of me.

Either way, this only tells me more about what it is, I have of you. I, too, still to this day get confused with talks of redness, colors, eyes, the brain, human nature, the world we see with the senses perfectly built into our bodies to serve a purpose or do a job.... and what we were taught/how we learn or absorb.... Thank you for sharing, my friend. A great start. I appreciate you!

No fear! Talk soon.

Javi, I will say, the note I have is kind of recent...and in it mentions user, that I have left off the list, karl stone. I did not add his name to THE INTEL because the note was not from a direct quote of his, but yours! He deserves this honorable mention, though, for sure!

Demonstrating that consciousness defines both the meaning and flow of time. If time were truly a dimension, it should remain constant regardless of the presence or absence of consciousness, with no dependency on awareness. Some argue that this is a subjective experience, but that assumption is incorrect. If time were purely subjective, the same individual wouldn’t be able to exist in two different states simultaneously, each with its own distinct perception of time passing. This reinforces the idea that time is a byproduct of consciousness, emerging only when consciousness is present and vanishing entirely in its absence. — ArtM

What do you mean when you say, "with no dependency on awareness.," above?

I'd still argue that adding the mode "possibly" does not violate the law of excluded middle (LEM). LEM says "either P or not P, and no third option". Granted, we can have "possibly P" or "possibly not P". But this is different than "P" or "not P" because "P" and "not P" are saying different things, where as "possibly P" and "possibly not P" are saying the same thing in different ways. E.g., the statements "there will possibly be a sea battle tomorrow" and "there will possibly not be a sea battle tomorrow" have the same meaning. — A Christian Philosophy

Both statements are either true or false. — A Christian Philosophy

Both statements,regardless of the outcome, tell us what? The statement ought to explain itself, if the outcome t or f [which for it requires the question to be asked-the measurement is occurring] means nothing...What we can get out of the t or f result except more intel? More input, updating our knowledge using what we know now from experience or memory in order to organize thoughts in our mind*. Our beliefs, intuition, and faith in statements alone mean nothing but in statements to be true....we ought to give everything, even our word. What is a statement without connection to who it matters to and how so? It's connection to truth?

This extra level of info comes from the statement/s which as is should be informative enough alone in them, in how such statements provides the sufficient reason to believe but with t or f outcome we may use that intel to confirm or link a source to the time and state / condition / credibility of it while making statements and how they figure such statement is relevant to anything besides their knowings.

We know the tense of statement and its truth value, but what of that needed/ought to be questioned? Judgement call, do you trust your judgement? Or is it whom is making the statements, sentences, themselves ought to be what is questioned, despite what it is the statements are made about. Statements that are said aimlessly, for open ended answers vs said to be determined one or the other, a definite answer out of options? how many possibilities exist for this multiple choice and were they specifically chosen on purpose? We can boil it down to two, t or f? "IF" instead of "either, or" changes everything. If needing to prove a statement by disproving another, including "if" or "when" with the true or false outcome, if true...this (when true, this), if false...that (when false, that), therefore means, this and that are neither t or f, but t and f is because this and that. The answer is reached for, we make statements as a tool in uncertainty to predict future potentials and in that use, shows that they doubt the very judgement they have made,ought to be making and are lacking faith in that very judgement. [to a certain degree/s.]

Patterns to be noticed in this from t or f result are bound to the type of character or of the source/person making statements. Now, do they know they are being measured aka questioned? Indirectly measuring & the secret awareness of this is of personal interest, entertaining past ideas now...thankful for the reminder.

*I began thinking about this here, continuing an existing thought from before-- how brain organizes thoughts vs how we as people are at organizing or being organized in general as opposed to being scatter brained, clutter prone, messy, etc. Some are better than others at organization, at multiple levels. Work, home, balancing the two in your personal space. Room, car, desk-- is it clean or messy? Do you task yourself with organizing to avoid the real work? Is it a waste of time organizing the space of someone who is scattered brained as it wont last a week being organized? Is this a form of procrastination? I am curious at how I may be able to link procrastinating to organization to learning styles to the brain

Is it relevant to consider when "our voice of reason" enters into this dynamic?

Right on! I am following and have very similar thoughts/notes on this take myself:

They are better known as concepts or ideas. The future event decided by choice, exists as an idea in someone's mind. — Metaphysician Undercover

You are asking how to solve the problem of infinite regress. Infinite regress is avoided if we posit that the first cause has inherent existence. In which case, the reason or explanation for the existence of the first cause is an internal one (type 3): The statement "the first cause which has inherent existence exists" is a tautology and is therefore necessarily true.And no prior cause is needed to fulfill the PSR. — A Christian Philosophy

I agree that no prior cause is needed to fulfill the PSR and PSR is able to defend intelligent design this way by avoiding (infinite regress) those whom question the cause of the creator as needing to be or as being created.

If a creator was born and their ideas came at a later time [of life on earth,humanity,and the balance of it in mother nature] it was not about who, what, why, when, how they were created but how the ideas came to be...To question the creator at all, we are assuming they exist to begin with right? So I see why the claim you make regarding Inherent existence is relevant here. Otherwise, bringing up the infinite regress aspect of design vs designer arguments as an acceptable position is assuming the existence exists in the first place..or is questioning how the existence was created apart of it's inherent nature?

Is this questioning, the same or similar to what was previously mentioned in the thread as "the will to know" by Metaphysician Undercover in response to Banno's comment expressing their displeasure in the attempts others made to support the principle, ID, or god thus far....?

Despite you, ↪Metaphysician Undercover and ↪A Christian Philosophy best attempts there's precious little here supporting sufficient reason as a principle, intelligent design or god. — Banno


I'm not really interested in the intelligent design aspect, and I really don't understand the claimed relation.

However, sufficient reason, as a principle, supports the will to know, as I explained, and is therefore a very a valuable principle. — Metaphysician Undercover

What is to be created at the moment of conception is to be after birth and ought to be at death. After death though is different, as in order to be THAT it ought to be confirmed as such. Who is in place to judge? [ This place is important, to judge from--I CAN EXPLAIN LATER ITS NOT NECESSARY NOW] To be dead, is impossible but not after verification of what it was to be alive as that. We can verify the life and what is gathered from credible sources. From this, what is accepted by the seeker, is now the knowledge that can be used for further guidance into the mystery or unknown as our intelligence is updated as one maneuvers through life one day at a time...

Look in the mirror....watch and learn. As the being is actively creating a cause, again. Then, in a moment of realization that is fleeting and fleeing towards another moment, to become what it always was to be....full of ideas, thought-like, intelligent...of an unnecessary necessity.

The point I was making is that there is a gap in understanding between the two. If we assume that you, as the person going to work, is the efficient cause of you creating the desired end, making money, the gap in understanding is the question of how your desire to make money causes you to get out of bed and go to work. In all cases of final cause, there is this gap of understanding, of how the final cause (a desire for something), causes the physical activity which is the efficient cause designed to produce the end. — Metaphysician Undercover

A breakdown of the quote above from my understanding of it (my response in brackets) and for further clarity:
MU-of how the final cause (a desire for something), causes the physical activity which is the efficient cause designed to produce the end
[designed to produce the end, created and caused from desires, intentions, expectations, of the aware being, of the consciousness co-creating the human experience in/with/from/of time and another.]
MU-of how your desire to make money, causes you to get out of bed and go to work
[ I think the final cause, if linked to desire can be known by acknowledging intentions and allowing verification process of them to unfold naturally...a desire for something (to know ones purpose) is driving (causing) the activity in the physical to occur, which also causes other interactions unknown at the moment a decision was made and acted upon] (randomness exists here perhaps...randomness can exist with or without assuming free will is true as it is linked to time, place,and/or state in decision making moments-- random, timing constraints, chance, accidents, coincidence, patterns, probability?)

I wonder now, if the moment of/in/with/from time measured is (in itself) creating a constraint linking the mental decision and physical activity? Relevant, how??? (time between moment (thought) to moment (activity) from the mind to reality. What does it look like? IS this the vision? Memory? Impressions. Forgetting on purpose?

HOW a final cause, causes the act -which is the cause designed , prior to the act, [in thought, mind, before cause is unfolding in reality*] before it was caused accordingly [to what?**] to our desires being tickled, it was a mere thought....thoughts create action from what?Baseless ideas or the grounding of them in reality? The chance for them to become grounded from the caused design that was created, caused prior to the act.

We create from the act that was caused prior to it, from a desire or final cause that offers nature an active experience in/of motion towards an end designed, NOT prior to the "act of thinking"*** - still a physical activity, id argue - as a result, in the thought of acting on these reactions, feelings, emotions, reality plays out with the chance to ground self (as a functioning design) and give (create) purpose (drive, causing desires, goals, ends) in the way you move thru day to day tasks/survival needs.

*SEE QUANTUM ZENO EFFECT and compare notes linking concepts of "feeling/being stuck" or "in your head" to an act or event from thinking thoughts. I could use MU's backdoor reference here perhaps???
**INTENTIONS that KNOW the nature of
***if this act is of focus, attention driving force or the brain being a brain...both physical activities. If its necessarily true of the latter, the effort required and awareness is measured - outcomes that form the future possibilities from intel gathered - using knowledge to update or effect how we act from that point onward...

The two important aspects of reality which are placed in this category are future events which require a choice or decision, and matter itself, which provides the capacity for change, by being the real existence of potential at the present. — Metaphysician Undercover

Could you provide a specific example of future event not following the rules?
Using Aristotle's sea battle example: Either there will be a sea battle tomorrow or not. Today, it is possible that there will be a sea battle tomorrow or not. And thus, it is not impossible that there will be a sea battle tomorrow or not. To me, all three propositions obey the fundamental rules.


I read up on Peirce's triadic system a bit, and I don't see how it allows violation of the fundamental laws of logic. If it's not too much to ask, could you explain how it does?


final cause will need to be allowed to reenter through the back door — Metaphysician Undercover****

For sure - I believe in final causes. As per reason type 2 described in the OP, a thing that exists by design is designed with a purpose, i.e., it has a final cause. — A Christian Philosophy

Interesting.....I am thinking now more about this**** re-entry mentioned regarding "final cause"

Well, it's beyond the scope of this thread, but if I remember correctly, firstness is the realm of real possibility, potential, where the law of excluded middle is not applicable, as demonstrated in your example of "possible" above. Secondness is the realm of actual occurrence where the law of identity and the other laws of logic are all applicable. Thirdness is the realm of generality, universals, which unites the first and second, but this is only done through violation of the law of non-contradiction. — Metaphysician Undercover

I am with Metaphysician Undercover when they say, "future events which require a choice or decision, and matter itself, which provides the capacity for change, by being the real existence of potential at the present." and my contribution/s at large do reflect that.

Beyond the scope of this thread or not, It's clear to me as I re-read this draft of words once thought, now expressed and typed out because it is not just here where I have felt and seen these words. WE'VE been here and there before. Do know, I am always pleased to revisit and move onward to the next thread...for this moment alone is worth another lap.

It seems like I am consistently coming in through the back door just to make an Irish exit out the front.

Reveal ONLY to SEE one of my personal notes from the past on similar topics relevant to points made in this thread by multiple people, as I am only sharing them for credibility purposes. The note is for me to reflect upon, to see my thoughts that were real before, compared to how they exist in me today 4/29/25 838pm. and again at 935pm, as I re-read this another time before I post.
Contents were always subject to change as I do with/in/as time does. BUT what is more interesting [to me] is to see what does not....

Perhaps we might even be able to imagine animal experiences to some degree, although this seems like it would be far less accurate. — Count Timothy von Icarus

We can and we shall at least try...if necessary. For what though? We ought to do it for ourselves. Imagine you as an animal, even. That could be fun. I am obviously a rat on fire....but we can attempt to understand, engage actively and from that is a breathing point, a base to launch from when we get that chance to do it AGAIN to others. We can Imagine the experience...accuracy tbd. Verifiable? I think so.

"Judgement" and "opinion" make sense to me. I am not sure about "preference" or "desire." I can certainly know my own desires, but I wouldn't equate desiring something with knowing it. It seems that knowing should come prior to desiring, for how could we desire what we do not know ("know" in the broadest sense, including sense knowledge). — Count Timothy von Icarus

You seem certain enough, that you could know your desires but I wonder NOW if you ought to at all....Doubting from the start? No reason to believe...yet. I am not questioning this "faith" you have in your knowings of self desires. I am wondering why you think these knowings would come after desiring? Of course knowing precedes desire, it proceeds your birth, therefore your desires. Was it ever truly about the desire? Or was it the mind scrambling to rewrite reality into something digestible?

I'd answer the "How" question literally. I asked myself in the privacy of my mind that same question, with genuine curiosity. [because I want to know how my mind thinks about the question and other things that come with that aka this ]

How will the mind help prepare a digestible enough answer to poorly spew out here Kizzy? I feel I ought to do. How could we desire what we do not know? By thinking about thoughts. By using our brain with body in harmony, as a unit. As one, of it. Becoming what was ought to be from the beginning, and experiencing it. Once or twice???

We have the power! Day by day. Nighty, night. As above, so below. Is it in the chance?

Knowing self to fullest possible point means intentions are knowable, by measuring or weighing the value, time, and power of thought behind them. Is it relevant to understand what happens if or when intention bypasses itself? How is for later.

Say intentions are bypassed in itself, when what is imagined, thought in privacy of mind, perceived internally in mental space aka mind collides with what actually plays out in reality? Now if/when these intentions with no goals, no action, is just suspended potential, when does it become meaningful? When is the impression made into reality. By shaping our perceptions (knowing intentions, or knowing self "enough" - self knowledge that is used to make a difference in the way the world may be seen by offering the chance for another to see how it is, by observing...you and the way you and I see the world is influenced, though differently, from the intentions we allowed to take shape. Or is the thoughts of intentions, self before decision or actions while just a body is sitting, waiting even whirling around to be distorted into something we can defend? What was always going to happen? Is the brain just being and the act of thinking the same thing? Or is focus required, a goal, a purpose. Function and expectations are linked to morality and truth. As well as, illusions of intentions or when the need for justification reshapes truth and morality,

"Deception of Certainty" — Kizzy

The ideas that can be thought about with the goal being an unknown desire, potential desires are to be unknown, they are to be found when the time is right. :halo: Or wrong? :fire: Left? :point: Weast!? :chin:

:eyes: This way, Patrick :sparkle:
:up: :starstruck:

So to understand THE potential [you have] with effort, focus, and or attention to what we do day to day, in our environment, given the current status/state/place in reality. Mentally, physically, literally, and not. Use your imagination!!! Do you know how to do that? Think for yourself? before we "know" fully for ourselves, but attain it by being able to account for self enough to be able to and see it in another.

If the mind has or holds ideas that cannot be justified using your words or language skill/communication source and connections through explanations or demonstrations YET, but they still shape our experiences then perhaps knowledge is not simply "justified true belief" but also a truth established through action, recognition, and relational understanding. I'm wondering more: HOW is knowledge shaped, transmitted, and affirmed?


Glad you asked, Outlander!*

Would you have any objection if your use of the word "belief" in this context were to be substituted with, say: "opinion", "judgement", "desire", "preference", or "goal". Do you find any of these substitutes more or less fitting or some even outright more accurate or completely incompatible? If so, why? — Outlander

yes means substitution is applicable, no means I object the substitution and use of other words in place of the use of the word "belief" (in context to this discussion):
1.belief~opinion > no
2.belief~judgement > maybe>if yes must be verifiable, if no then you have a belief in self to make the judgement to not sub the word for belief, knowledge by comparison, justified in confidence or surety of answer yes or no
3.belief~desire > yes
4.belief~preference > no
5.believe~goal > yes

1.Bias (irrelevant, aka who cares?),4. (see 1. opinion) I think we should disclude "preference" as it can effectively be grouped with the scope of 1. opinion.
2.,3.,5. knowable, knowings, knowledge...knowing 2,3,5 is possible, but not always attained as its up to you and the choices foreseen in/with/from time.
*All substitutes you mention can be attributes of character with such held "belief/s" - bias is knowable but irrelevant for substitution--no need necessary. If such the need for the word replacement, I wonder why is this important for further clarification? I might [I am, beginning to actually already started to question the need for such word substitution in regards to a tailored liking, or end goal requiring such a use for another..Or is the reason to make belief as an excuse to act? Judgement no matter what beliefs are held will verify credibility of subject with specified or belief/s, need references, think: who could vouch for you?

Is it possible thatIntentions with power of knowledge shape perception, allows perceptions to shape reality, and reality loops into belief. - main focus for me and a topic worth a grand discussion to be had, YET!

With man's insatiable need to make nature conform to his needs and even wants, what are your opinions about our current relationship with nature? Is it becoming better or worse? — Shawn

Mans NEED to make nature CONFORM (is funny) to HIS needs....So needy! Is that just making nature aware of mans NEEDS? Ha! To those thinking nature may conform or does, I ask: what about evolution? does conforming in this context consider that, how the environment, our reality, life, is linked to life sustaining? Is that really any ones WANT or NEED though? I guess I just answered myself. That is a deeper want or need, that nature is not conforming to but ALIGNING with perhaps? Yeah I dont see how evolution can be considered conforming to our wants or needs....So maybe it is not ours but A want or A need? Hm....I am intrigued.

The relationship, if we ought to call it that [ I lean away from that option ] is not good, bad, better, or worse, because then we would have to compare to WHAT? If we WANT anything out of nature, to be conforming to US is almost like forgetting how life works. Forgetting on purpose is interesting...creating bad thinking patterns though, i wonder... [probably]

How does your life work? We can hope nature aligns with our wants or needs, but to have expectations that get let down over and over because of this repeated behavior is out of error, instead we must accept our actualities and ground self into reality. Life is give and take, nature is not aware of how it (mans wants or needs when given or refused) effects human nature...we are simply the ones bothered, at all different levels, subjective to objective scales.....Nature is not bothered and if it was I wouldnt be asking that here NOW....I'd know. The relationship between nature currently and man is respected, I think. It ought to be, but what do I know I am a woman.....But nature.

It's power is to be respected, beauty awed over, and gifts of life ought to be received with grateful arms wide open....some people don't have arms. Some armless people are happier than fully able people, that is measurable. Or observable at least, in nature in character, the behavior. The sources...judged rightfully. Hope so? How much do you really HOPE?

The truth is not knowing, but being. And what is being without knowing? Human [as] Nature. — ENOAH

Freaks of nature! :joke:

:eyes: :strong: I'm following you a bit here now...My thoughts are being thought about now...Got me thinking! It's interesting to me breaking down these words for their uses, meanings, content, (a min or max value is knowable here, i think) - human nature vs reality vs natural vs nature..."our nature" human nature, earths nature....life is of nature? natural? meaning what? not tainted by any artificial substitutes, unaltered, natural state, meant to be? KNOWING you are BEING that? Yes...Awareness? Levels of it relevance? Experience of it? (accuracy or credibility to be verified as experiences arent always explained as they actually occurred, tolerance is loose here [leave slack room maybe]
ANYWAYS, I am enjoying the discussion. Just wanted to acknowledge you, ENOAH as you often have a unique pov that I find easy to follow and relate to/with. I just thought I'd share a bit, a train couldn't of stopped me.

For the mind to enact such a dismissal, would be a false, not real way of dealing with the influence of the desire. — Metaphysician Undercover

Does it not require effort to enact in this false manner? It is the intent of a person for example to mask their true intentions and Intentions, being falsely acted upon deal with influences of many things, not just of the desire. Life hits in many directions people differently, what influences them is key to a knowable purpose....
Perhaps: INTENTIONS: KNOWING YOUR WHOLE SELF AND ITS CAPABILITIES TO LIVE
therefore purpose can be knowable, but to the degree one knows self?

But then the conscious mind would have no option but to follow the desire, recognizing that the desire is directed toward the true object, and this would rob the mind's capacity for choice — Metaphysician Undercover

Or rob the conscious mind of the CHANCE for choice? The mind works of that capacity... The mind is not choosing, the mind is in the thought and present at the right place at the right time as the being has to make the choice, real. Making the choice become real, the choice in mind is not for the mind to make, but for the choice in mind to make sense for the being to act on that choice, that choice was decided before the body can move fast enough...before awareness of the self as a whole but the will is caught eventually, aligning with the way the body and mind in harmony makes one feel in uncertain times, in acceptance...the soul being touched, comforted. Hmmmmm...I NOW wonder on, how are emotions different or affected when they come from an internal source (via memory?) as a mental experienced vs emotions from external stimuli (reflex, experiences, impressions?)

I think we might be approaching this concept from slightly different angles. What I have been meaning when referring to 'the goal,' I am meaning "goal" as in to something bigger than just an end or outcome--I am talking about the overarching PURPOSE that serves as a guide. Purpose that GUIDES a person in life [in my earlier words, desire as the driving "F" is equal or comparable to: "purpose that guides"

But why do you say "the truth of the matter is that the desire is going to (drive or lead?) us towards the goal no matter what"? — Metaphysician Undercover

When I say ^^^, I am thinking of it like this: one's purpose in life and the specific goals they set may not align perfectly. Sometimes they intersect and sometimes not, that is both okay.

The desire is linked to that purpose or "goal" no matter what justifications we can come up with, intentions change and purposes can be repurposed as we are updating our minds and beliefs, learning as we go on day to day. When we talk about justification, I think its worth consideration how each ACTION aligns with this larger purpose rather than focusing on the immediate goal or outcome that requires explanations/demos.

The thinking that leads towards actions may show how much thought went into the justification, and movement towards both immediate goals and overall purpose will be highlighted in the character of the subject....The dynamic between the mind and desire ensures that actions are not just reactions to momentary desires but also aligned with our deeper aspirations...whether we know them or not.

That's why I was saying "the goal" can be unknown or falsely understood to be the goal, because either way.. knowing or not knowing the goal or your purpose does not matter, the desire is driving and the purpose is guiding either way. Purpose is known by another without the one knowing, or before one knows. Purpose is knowable. Sometimes one does know the purpose and focuses on showcasing it to the fullest, for the better or for the worse. Some times its for the best to live through the worst first? I think this transcends personal opinion at some point towards the real good.

I believe that proper "justification" requires demonstration to another. However, we do use "justification" to refer when a person justifies something to oneself. There is definitely ambiguity here. We could call one a "subjective" justification and the other "objective" justification, but this produces ambiguity in our use of "objective", which could be a problem in epistemology We would now have a proper sense of "objective", meaning of the object, and a sense of "objective" which refers to properties of subjects, like "objective knowledge". The latter is better known as "intersubective", or something like that, and needs to be distinguished from the proper sense of "objective", referring to a proper object. — Metaphysician Undercover

Justification happens when it’s proper or not, those making excuses to act like reasons to make belief and those who will justify their actions and beliefs and reason because of their blind faith. It is the passion behind the justification, the intentions are brought from the shadows and in plain sight, in mind now as well...out of sight out of mind...the demonstration might be an act, it might be thought out before the actions took place in order to fulfill a specific outcome.

How attached are they to the justification and how do they stand in that, on their grounds when judgement is necessary? Are they confident in their stance? Are they defensive for no good reason? Are they suspiciously well rehearsed and informed for someone who maybe wouldnt naturally be in the same position? Are they eager to demonstrate their proper justification? Are they willing to put their credibility and character/reputation on the line? Surety and doubt can be observed in these moments of human experiences via sensations, feelings, emotions. Communicating their feelings, body language is observable for intel. THAT requires verification from a credible source, someone who can vouch for them, the character. For example consider a childhood friend, guardian, sibling, cousin, any family/inlaws, neighbor, coworker, online buddy, pen pal, WHATever the relation between subject in particular and a reference they'd trust the word of. If someone can speak for you, in their subjective opinion of you is a sliver of truth. A source for self towards a knowing, shared knowledge of self....experiencing it...

When true driving desires are guided by purpose and observations are happening/noted, aka awareness is tuning in and subject is paying attention now, mind is actively focusing on specific patterns, clues and sometimes does not actually help the person as the outcome occurs of uncertainty and eventually when looking back, it may make sense looking at the situation after the fact, learning from an experience, avoiding hurdles once faced with uncertainty, the fear based subject becomes aware of that, the fear is not demolished but managed using a new perspective, the mind is powerful and can be put to work this way...with will and genuine desire, the brain mind body manifests them with confidence, a knowing, the vision...Baseless ideas, into intelligent design. A tangible object, its you....why are you are where you are in life, right now???....Self reflecting, if ability to efficiently do this is hindering, the pace at which awareness becomes heightened...if it does at all, may be bound to the individual based on possibilities/capabilities of them/their mind and will...

Expectations perhaps reveal truth to the weight we put into certain outcomes, especially the choices we make when they happen as planned or a sudden freak accident changes the way it was supposed to play out...going with the flow vs stuck in the plans, disappointed in self, bad cycle of thinking negatively and influencing how we set out on the path, the will and the goal leans towards its virtue, the fate.....if the negative overrides the will to stop it, cant handle the mind thinking thoughts and circumstances of outcomes, the story will have a bad ending....karma is not it, but its like a give and a get...

Back to your belief stated above where you say that its required for a justification to be that when its "properly" shown to another via demonstration, does this mean a template can be used in the future for similar demonstrations? Then it would be more difficult when giving fair judgements as they are overlooked and clocked as "proper" based on a requirement for justification to be granted.....And for those who need a demonstration, a slower breakdown of whatever it is being used as a demo for a “proper justification” perhaps were not the right person to ask in the first place. Easy to convince some more than others....

To be properly picked to judge, or confirm the justification based on this requirement is tricky....unless this requirement makes it so anyone can judge, with some standard of such is to be referred to in demonstrations from the past. How it is demonstrated is interesting....objectively demonstrating according to the standard, its taking the intersubjective self and relating it so another can get the gist... Some may not need demonstration to know things....they assume, wrongly. Sometimes they assume and end up correct...but what happens when the same people see the same demonstration over and over? Expectations lead to objectification of nonsense.....bias, personal opinion. What is to be in this required act another can understand, what does it take to demonstrate a justification? Heart? Guts? Skill? Intel?

ALSO say I was to properly justify myself...I am to demonstrate what ,exactly? Explain myself? Refuse to explain myself? Fight for justice in silence and let nature work it out? Is that faith, hope, or belief in their self? Their reasons to believe? Their will to fight for what is right? Are they right to be wrong? Some times, yes. Their will to accept their fate, be judged correctly and accountable from there. Then what...Yay, you passed the required justification demo. Now what? It makes who look better? It teaches who what lesson?

A lesson learned is that, a random chance to get to learn is everything. Updated knowings, aligning with what? Purpose...Nothing in mind? That's a personal problem....How can you be sure the object is not in the mind, that the goal is not updating us subconsciously there sometimes? What is in the subconscious mind i believe may not be fully known/able. So the goal or object you speak of, even if it was in the subjects mind (you say no?) It can be there, but since it is in the subconscious, still the mind...the object is hidden from anyone fully grasping anyways...if it were not in the mind, then where? How did it get there? It transformed....Perhaps in glimmers, glimpses, a blur, a flicker is all it takes anyways to...wake up and smell the rose. Remember the time!

Therefore the true location of "the object" remains obscured. — Metaphysician Undercover

Very well then...

Mirror of magic on the wall, who is the fairest one of all?

Vs.
Pearl Jam
1 / 15
Go

Consciousness, in its role as boundary administrator, acts like a juggler suspending in air three juggling pins: time, space, spacetime. — ucarr

Is consciousness only reactive? — ucarr

Wow, I love this. What an interesting question! Has me thinking...


What does consciousness do? My immediate answer I draw attention towards privately in my mind as I am thinking these thoughts sitting on my back porch, in front of a screen, staring into the back yard my focus is all mental....my back hurts and my eyes strained but my thinking thoughts have now consumed me in this moment, as i lose track of time in this position, I still have my self but the attention is drawn to certain words in particular...

My simple answer to the question [see thread title] is: "participates"

I believe consciousness is nothing without humans...it has limiting control, power or perhaps none at all when with and without the heart, mind, and soul of the human it is attached to. We move day to day living our lives, caused by the time passing [according to MU's "force" causing motion=time passing], chances to be took, we can change our minds as updated intel comes in, and we have choices, and options. We made it through another day, ahhhh I can relax in that for a slightttttt moment then remember another one awaits, [off topic slightly now im wondering now about the sun and the moon.... day time vs night time, motion or caused it but in motion themselves displaying light vs dark without a number or clock, just life to see, and live in it, nature aka earth--ill get back to this another time, i ought to at least...trust i will but don't hold your breath] :death:

:eyes: :monkey: :naughty: :halo:

As I was trying to say--- we make these choices, decisions for whatever reason[not important now] but whatever that reason is, IS NOW known to our consciousness, which I think may participate with us during these life experiences or events, moments. Its learning, becoming itself? We become conscious perhaps not from unconscious states but with awareness of it.

It is NOT always there or present with us for just those times. It may come and go, not emerging but dipping in and out as it ought to, with pleasure of us to be in such presence. If it's along with us both growing, evolving, learning, reminding, does that mean its of the living???? Has lived? Alive? :flower:

It seems to be emerging, we can use that term if you will/must... but I dont think that's good enough....it seems to be but maybe its actually just growing with us, our beings. When we were born it began its journey too, we both start out small [it is not there yet to us because our baby brain is not aware yet but it was there just not present as it was gaining its power through us? thats why it seems to emerge from no where but what if its there from our start just finding its way to get there, through our minds, to our awareness) We then grow old (it grows too...wisdom and in size/power), I'd like to think...but humans die, does that mean for my ideas here to make sense that so does consciousness? Is it alive? Or linked to it..."it" being a living being....which circles back to my first line of the paragraph above....."I believe consciousness is nothing without humans...it has limiting control, power or perhaps none at all when with and without the heart, mind, and soul of the human it is attached to."

I don't particularly care for the term "supervenience," but I do think consciousness matures with human experiences over one's life not emerges from no where... Awareness, on the other hand, varies for each person—it's the random component in this equation. We're like future word problems, solvable by others before we even realize it.

How well do you know yourself, how little do you trust yourself? Can you notice? Can you spot your habits and how does this affect ones self image or worth? How poor or well do you PARTAKE in self loving actions? When you do, or plan to, are you just going through the motions or are you mindful, do you believe yourself when you say you really mean it, you know when you really mean something..Do you say what you really mean, do you think about it? What is the difference? Perhaps the mindfulness/attention/focus while doing it.

I guess thats like intentionality....but they matter. They meaning, "intentions". They matter when they can be character based...but for me its hard not to bring up time talk....Timing is wild to me. Does chance, luck, freak accidents have any value to account for...this would be interesting to determine or give slack for its unknown potential? Of what? Anyways, intentions are interesting and how they link to behavior...and the will. I think both behaviors and will is/are known/knowable by the consciousness...that is intel, that is reflected and/or displayed back for us to use...or ignore. You will do what was going to happen. Trust it. Trust consciousness, listen to it. It is nothing without you....a beautiful character.

I believe consciousness participates in human experiences at a personal level. That is my answer to the question of, what it DOES but what WILL it do? What CAN it do? Another story....
It gestures, to the lengths it ought of the power from the person. The person with the power to not USE the consciousness but become acquainted with it. See yourself in another.

I think, generally speaking, we use "intention" to refer to actions motivated by a conscious goal, and we use "desire" to refer to feelings which motivate actions. This is the most common form of "intention" as used in philosophy of mind, and social sciences, which frame intention as a property of human consciousness and reason. In this case, strict adherence to definitions implies that an intentional act would require thought out reasons, and a conscious goal. This puts "the object" of intention, the goal, into the domain of knowledge, what the person knows (though it is essentially subjective knowledge). On the other hand, since a desire derives directly through emotions and feelings, it can incline, and produce an activity, where "the object" of the act, the goal is completely unknown This is the case when we are "overcome by passion". The act is based in emotion, hate, anger, lust, etc., and the object, or goal of that act may not be adequately known. In other words, the act is produced without consciously considering what the end will be. — Metaphysician Undercover

So in relation to traditional understanding of intention, this makes "intention" completely unintelligible because we need to understand an intentional act as an act without an object or goal, rather than as an act with a goal, and the goal is what makes the act intelligible. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes I am with this.

You said, "The point is that justification for the act is produced from an understanding of the relationship between the act and the end (as means to end)." I agree, but is that understanding from the individual or another? That understanding is of interest because it can be two sided....what does it take to do that? To understand? For self to? For all to?

I am thinking about now, again: what if the goal is to justify? For instance, we can behave or act accordingly using a self-set belief with reason (or not, see religion) to not motivate but JUSTIFY the intentions/actions of them (of passion, what if a person wants to appear more passionate then they really are?) Can we FAKE our beliefs or only justify the reasons we have them and why we do the things we do. We don't believe it ourselves, sometimes. We can not hold up the act forever, unless it was held and forgotten. Voided?

We dont believe ourselves, that is uncertainty. We need to accept the unknown with trust, I said that before. BUT at other times, it happens and is knowing you are right where you are supposed to be in that moment of time, conscious reassuring to self. A feeling becomes a knowing of surety when it is felt within us...we KNOW and no one can know THIS feeling like we do...some will swear they KNOW what you mean. How can they? Do you have to believe them? When would you? When it's nothing but love. Those intentions that are masked while the truth of the matter is that the desire is going to (drive or lead?) us towards the goal no matter what...only one outcome exists for every moment that passes...too quick to ever fully get a hold, however a quick glimpse of that is all we really only NEED. It's in the life lead of a conscious being in harmony with their nature...and in nature?

Their character, emotions, and behavior. If we are observing human nature at large can it be said that intention is linked to moral standards? Goal might just be unintelligible to them because they are actively too deep "in it" and may not be able to get a view for what it truly was meant to do. What if the goal was met all along without them realizing? Gone too soon? What if people have a "goal" so they think but it actually was another one?

What if intention can be justified as the morality in the acts itself, could the desire and therefore the goal be knowable or NOW known? To self or others? In what order....time of overlap, time until that happens? The chance, perhaps...Do we get robbed of time or did the chance even exist?

Here I go with time talk again, lol! Stopping myself...I will get to the other thread to carry on with that....

BUT I want to continue, with what we now know about the goal. What goal is linked towards the "belief" or intentions, being motivated actions other than one you came up with in the moment? How long one "thinks" about it, is knowable, not exactly but to a point where we can verify or judge fairly....

So, where I think, the intentions can be changed in any moment, it is the desire that is the realest thing towards knowing any truth of any reasonable matter because it is that which is the drive behind the light from the darkness and back into the dark...Watching from a far, th surfacing and then diving to the depths, IT comes out to lurk just when it thinks/believes NO one is watching....BOOM, spotted. Did they see you see it? That may matter...that brings a choice to them now, to deny or account for them being seen. Its a risk they were HOW willing to take? Risky business! To do: Acknowledge or try to run away?Should we acknowledge but then lie? Hm..so many options. Only so many, so little time. Or is there more? Either way, we GET to make the choice (when it comes) and it is important how we reflect and move on from them. Always moving....

Those choices decided upon (how fast matters...do we make them quickly or do we have time to spend thinking or planning, did we or did we not use our time wisely? Was time limiting or constraining us to make this choice in a sudden event, our reaction time or instinct is not a choice necessarily, I think choices requiring thinking consciously. So that makes sense why you said in the first paragraph of your last reply, that conscious goals motivate actions we call intentions.

But what if consciousness updates our being with a goal through the intentions that change in decision making moments, because of whatever reason? What if being conscious of the goal, or what we think is the goal changes the DIRECTION not the desire but how we move in life to get through the next day? I think its important before we or anyone implies their judgement that it's necessary to verify the credibility of the people judging and the objective nature of what comes from a judgement. A group or person may be wrong in their judgement without a standard way of verification that the judgement is necessary in the first place..

When you are correct in the way your judgement was stated, and it is verified that you were right on what was called upon to be judged, meaning, it is what you claimed it was, then as a source with power to convince others of what the truth is, a source shows interest and by serving your word as the proof, a/the judge needs to clearly show how much thought went into what became the better judgement and sometimes an explanation is NOT needed, can that be justification in itself? r)

This is why we need to look at the end from the other direction, not as the known object which inspires the act, and justifies the act, but as the unknown object which the act will produce. This forces the need to judge the object, end, goal, itself, rather than simply judging the means in relation to the end. The end, being opinion, is simply manipulated to support enjoyment of the activity, the means. Essentially, this is habit. The activity is what is enjoyed, and whatever is produce from that activity is rationalized as the desired end. — Metaphysician Undercover

Exactly!

I'm going to stop here, and keep the discussion of time to the other thread, which is more suited to that with the question of what does consciousness do, as a temporal question of activity. This thread asks about ideas, which are more like static things, involving objects, goals, while the other thread is about activities. Of course there is a lot of overlap, but I think it's best to make some sort of division. Maybe you can copy some of the questions from here over to there, if you want me to address them. — Metaphysician Undercover

That is fine. But you did ask me a direct question regarding time in this thread. What if I never read the other thread and only answered the question? We would still be here talking about time regardless... My comment is still relevant to the topic though, I appreciate the reminder! We do not have to go FAR into time here now, that is why I said to ucarr I am jumping over to his thread. TO DO that, that being -- get into it! I was warmly welcomed!

I will say maybe you did not follow up on my answer to your original question because of my formatting and style, that is on me then. It is properly known that my writing style can be not easy to follow, but only for those willing. Some are not willing to even read at all. Good. You should have to try and understand not just follow lines of words. They are not for everyone. Good.

So, I apologize if this is the case. I can focus if I must....

Ha! I just keep going. Can I say perhaps I have no goal? Or should I say my goal is different and it is not required to communicate myself clearly but just to be and be here with ,thoughts...I don't need anyone to get me all the time. It makes it special when they do...but yeah, it is easy to miss the point(s) in my communications but I can assure they exist if I am here commenting. Even if the point is ACTUALLY for me when I re-read my stuff. What was my original one then? LOL, it's wild. Or I am...

How or where should we proceed from your question to me: What could be the cause of motion other than the passing of time? Time passing is what causes things to move. Is "force" the passing of time?

Good stuff, the quotes below are of my particular interest and I quoted them as I read the thread...Sitting now looking at them, I am fascinated in this thinking. The thinking thoughts are now typed words that are giving me ideas [right now even holding me accountable to them]....

As you touch on some real interesting points. See parts that I have underlined/bolded from your comments for the specifics that caught my attention:

When thebelief 'satisfies our desire', as the means to the end, then we are not inspired to doubt the means because the result, end, is insured as that satisfaction. So long as the desire itself, the end, is never doubted, and the means are observed to be successful, then doubt is only relative to the efficiency of the means. Now means are empirically justifiable, as we demonstrate that action A produces the desired end Z. Then various ways of producing Z can be compared, A, B, C, analyzed, and the resulting "settlement", which method best produces Z, can obtain to a level higher than mere opinion.

However, such justified settlementsrely on taking the end for granted.**** It is only relative to the assumption that the end Z is what is truly desired, that the means are in this way justified. Doubting the end itself puts us squarely into the field of opinion, unless the end itself can be justified as the means to a further end. In traditional moral philosophy there is a distinction made between the real good, and the apparent good. The apparent good is nothing but personal opinion, but the real good is assumed to somehow transcend personal opinion. — Metaphysician Undercover

Personal opinions are both bad and good, though no? Bias is opinion based, some outspoken far from the silence of their own wonderings within the mind...when bias or opinion based beliefs, reasons, or claims is used as an excuse to not continue towards finding that real good...lack of acceptance or awareness or willingness to see self and others. See the self in others. When our personal opinions are preventing US (together) from reaching higher levels or desires (which are, personal) then the real problem is in the excuse to NOT act towards higher levels because for some it is not easy tolerating others opinions and these tolerances are at different limits. They are valid, even when reasonable doubt arises. We doubt our selves and others, but how do you know I never doubted from the start? Does that chance exist to prove some one or our selves wrong? Right? Transcending personal opinion requires lessons to be learned, a settlement is justified in itself at that decision making moment. Maybe they never knew what they truly desired and are scared that they already foresee the truth, and it's not good.

Wooo! :sweat: That was a lot, I wont be offended if we skip all that but note I did touch on similar ideas before, see thread, "Why be moral?" from Michael in 2015**, I commented *over a year ago:

"Can you have or hold morals that may not ever be seen in action? perhaps morals are justification itself.
what if, intentions are a/the gateway to potentially lead to one participating in questionable behavior and ,by justifying ONLY planned actions as they play the role as "the excuse to act". despite the outcome that was bound to occur...no matter what, for better or worse.
***an excuse to act = tricking the brain into planning a justified NOT BELIEF, but idea with reason TO MAKE BELIEF through others perceptions without the true action explained aloud, despite the facts of matter being known or knowable, only interally between self and mind, know the true reason/s for hiding a "truth" thanks to privacy within us and our wants needs goals desires that we allow permit tolerate accept and all its opposites and vice versas equally considered and accounted for....the space for thought is and is found when and in using the brain silently within the minds limits, which the self can control as boundaries contrstraints etc for what it really is thats happening..e.g. daydreaming, multitasking, texting and in a meeting on zoom, other examples exist

*reason=goal or desire? i think they exists with and without a belief system but im looking at linking goals or desires to ones purpose in life, the one that exists despite knowing it. Though knowable. Morals are justification itself.

you can have intention without a goal, i say yes..but can you without a desire? i say no..for now at least. Your intent though doesnt need its own purpose, because it doesnt mean you act on it according to how you imagined you would act...Once the act occurs, your purpose could be repurposed successfully... but how much it was planned, thought of or out vs imagined or believed .[ex. my intention was/is to have fun tonight-8.20.23 522pm]] AND without parameters or constraints OR GOALS, intentions can change in decision making moments through that experience of choosing to act/acting on those intentions and how what you imagined vs what reality played out was very different

Intentions show that the individual has thought.
What happens when you bypass your intentions? COULD INTENSIONS COULD BE THE BRAIN TRICKING ITS SELF OR BODY? WHETHER WE ACT ON THEM OR NOT..PLANNED OR RANDOM, COMPLETE ATTEMPT AND FAIL, OR SUCCESS OF WHAT FROM ACTION IS JUSTIFIED? IS IT STILL WITHOUT ACTION? " — Kizzy

I also underlined parts from the following contributions you made that talk about justification in itself:

" And it is clear that nothing out of the sphere of our knowledge can be our object, for nothing which does not affect the mind can be the motive for mental effort."

This statement inverts the real, or true, relation between the being with knowledge and the object of that being, which is its goal or end. Knowledge, as justified opinion, explained above, is always justified as the means to the end. But the end which justifies the knowledge is simply assumed as an opinion, and this places "our object", which is the goal that motivates us, as outside of knowledge itself, as unjustified opinion. This is what Plato demonstrated in "The Republic", "the good" must be apprehended as outside of knowledge,"

PAUSE [[[[ Can "our object" be like an excuse to act and justification in itself might be settled upon when verified for credibility. Our "goals" might be not realistic or never close to being reached, but they can be justifications for some (wrongly) to act on this mirage they have yet to see themselves in...what makes a bad ending from a "good" movie? Potential? Expectations? When something starts good and ends badly, where is that line? From G to B? When is the moment? Is the point of no return foreseeable? It ought to be. I know it is. But trust in the mystery of the Universe and a little faith go a long way. To be understood by another as a lesson learned in time, perhaps? ]]]]

(quote continues), So the statement incorrectly asserts that the motivating object, the end, or the good, cannot be outside "the sphere of our knowledge". A proper analysis indicates that only the means to the end can be justified as knowledge, while the object itself, the end or good, must be apprehended as outside the sphere of knowledge. Therefore moral traditionalists characterize the apparent good as opinion, and the real good as understood only by God. This places "our object" as firmly outside "the sphere of our knowledge". — Metaphysician Undercover

Can we break this down more? I am confused at the way you put into text the inverse statement and how it was incorrectly asserted that the motivating "object" cannot be outside the sphere of knowledge. Are you saying the justification ITSELF is justified knowledge Understood by GOD, how does one understand such things? Seeing? Learning? Observing? Living? Watching? I think it's more of a KNOWING. A knowing and a faith that goes beyond questioning, doubts, and opinions. Beyond good or bad, into.....the light!

Or, maybe "force/s" in that context means 'cause of motion' ? — Kizzy


What could be the cause of motion other than the passing of time? Time passing is what causes things to move. Is "force" the passing of time? — Metaphysician Undercover

Seeing time pass may cause another thing to move a different way.....can one be forced out of the present moment? Can one be or USE force/d to stay in it?


Yes sure...that is one force. I think many forces happen in and with TIME. The "force" I write of here and agree with you it is from the passing of time, but not just a force alone plays a role in the space held as the passing of time is actively happening. THE awareness of Two things at once? It is perhaps a/the result of what is behind the events or experiences that are had/to be...Interested in entertaining retrocausal ideas, kind of...Time works in motion and it is OF it, a deeper look of my thinking below:

"5/9/23 1212pm

Of what.....is the "drive" mentioned above? [[ "a drive is needed and with it,...."]]]

Of human interest perhaps? How much does "interest" drive humans

Force OF motion vs Force IN motion = is just time in daily activities, as time goes on in a day, how are you linked to the time, how is time used/seen/acknowledged/important to humans actions TODAY...not any day, not on a Tuesday, TODAY...plans, relations, work, health (body and mind), money, circumstances, environment, what is expected vs what is possible vs what does human want to do and why.....

-F of M = Time available to act in the day, before tomorrow begins, and is no longer yesterday...Time forcing the measuring of movements, planning around time....not the actions being forced to motion, the action is ... a person planning BECAUSE OF TIME AVAILABLE TODAY....
Plans are of motion, a force [[ see Intend ]]
Acting on the plans, a force [[see Intent ]]
Timing, a point where a force occurs
Time, not a force alone but only when measured by Humans

-F in M = The actual actions a human takes on within the span of available time in a day and how well they are living and the current status of living situation is immersed in the appropriate environment...are you where you should be?? Time spent acting on the plans, whether timing is on track or not (not constrained by time, in the moment instead of on the clock

"a drive" = of interests of human-intention

drive+forceIN(M)+forceOF(M)=

forceIN(M)+forceOF(M)+human+nature=f......?

(human intention) + (a drive) + (Force of M) = "an excuse to act"

"an excuse to act" + forceIN(M) = accidents occur that are unnecessary
be IN motion and also OF motion?"

-from my notes, highly flawed and updated since...but relevant to showcase my stance perhaps not more clear, but evidently....


I suppose I do agree with answering the question, yes... but I think there is more to just this specific "force", being the cause of movement because of the passing of time...but our lives revolve around the clock, why? Is that force more powerful than our will to stop following time as we know it? We lose track of time...we pay consequences. What does my/your/our life revolve around besides the clock? We don't all flow with it, but we are all in it together...until we're not. Gone but not forgotten? Until we are....gone and forgotten. Then we wait, til the time comes and they remember us, again! Pure chance? Time/time avail. for that chance to occur? The spot, spotted! At last.


This might be a good place[time?] for me to jump from this thread to THAT thread :point: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/15544/what-does-consciousness-do/latest/comment

I have been following the back and forth with MU, it seems relevant to mention that from reading the other thread discussion currently being had encouraged me to respond HERE now. Although, I think the excerpt blurb I shared about forces, time in and of motion may align with the whereabouts of that discussion, as I can further explain when I arrive over there. For now, may it be lost in a final cause already....leaves it only to be found!

In the model I described, the present does not become the future, nor does the present become the past. The present is outside of time, and time consists of future and past. The future becomes the past, as time passes, and the present is a perspective from which this is observed. Also final cause acts from this perspective, as a cause from outside of time, which intervenes in the events which are occurring as time passes. — Metaphysician Undercover

- 11 days ago, pg 3 of 3, "What Does Consciousness Do?"

Don't burn the day!

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

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


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

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

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

Thanks for the response and clarifying your stance further.

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


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

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

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

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

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



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


Data from inside the brain?

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


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

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

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

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

Right, i'm following

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


Three is company!!

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

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

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



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


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



Yes!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Now were talkin

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

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

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

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

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

A ground ought to exist, for commonality!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why should one do that which is good? — Hyper

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

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

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

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

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

Right?!

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

Good one!!!

The Cult it is tonight!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



Have a great weekend!

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ripeness?

Colors are unlike chemicals. — creativesoul


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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