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

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

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

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

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

Ripeness?

Colors are unlike chemicals. — creativesoul


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Akkordeon <3

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

Spend it while you live

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So impressed and always learning something. :clap:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I like your style!

Room A Thousand Years Wide (Remastered 2016) - Soundgarden

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

:death: :flower:

Nice!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WE?

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


Data from inside the brain?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

:up: :point:

@Count Timothy von Icarus :eyes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

what if the concept of a “red pen” exists within the realm of every subjective mind’s ideas? — Kizzy


Is a red pen not enough? — jkop

Hi jkop, It seemed to me at first that Banno's reply to mp202020 was worth a deeper dive. I am now finding myself struggling to explain where I was going with my shared contributions. When you put it so simply it's clear I was mistakenly considering how the red is noticed perceptually in the brain when its not actually being seen in person. The red pen must be enough in order to do that! Duh....a swing and a miss for me.

I recall you saying when the color is unseen, the question whether it exists isn't referring to the color perceptions but its considering the conditions in the environment it as a color can emerge from/in/with. Does that mean the brain cant allow colors to emerge from it because no light is there? What if the conditions of the mind could be trained to use ideas or visions from past memories or brain activity patterns? Maybe i'm missing a fundamental understanding and my loosely thrown ideas aren't even realistically possible. Thank you. I think... :smirk:

EDIT:

First, the experience cannot solely be an experience of redness unless it is the seeing of something red, say a patch of red paint. Or else it would be an hallucination. — jkop

I got ya now and see where I went off the rails.

EDIT 2: 119AM 7/30/24

What if we watch the brain activity looking at a painting of a red pen? The painting itself is not a real pen, but it still conveys the idea of “redness” and “pen” to anyone who views it.

Does the color “red” exist outside of the subjective mind that conceptually designates the concept of “red?” — Mp202020



If "red" is just in your mind, when you ask for a red pen, how is it that the person you are asking hands you what you want? — Banno

Exactly Banno! BUT what if the concept of a “red pen” exists within the realm of every subjective mind’s ideas?

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?

Imagine if two sets of ideas are formed from two different visions - one grounded in reality and first-hand experience in daily life, and the other in the brain’s second-hand experience, experienced for the first time in this life. What if the brain had a first-hand experience before the subject had to live through it? Could it be that the brain was here first and is controlling our intentions?

*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

Yes! Agreed.

Great post, Count Timothy von Icarus.

This may be bias on my part, but I've had the chance to talk live with quite a few of these people, and every single one has come across as an idiot who just wanted to justify doing whatever they wanted to do. My apologies if I'm a bit harsh, but this idea has always just struck me as being terrible and attracts the worst thinkers to it like bear turds attract flies. — Philosophim

Consider the possibility that biases are not always detrimental to rational decision-making. An individual may be fully aware of their biases and still make sound choices. Learning and growth often stem from recognizing that there might always be a better decision available. Bias becomes significant when we wish to find common ground with others, to influence or be influenced, which ironically negates its purpose.

What if one's self-awareness of bias is coupled with the ability to deceive? If a person can convincingly mask their intentions, does that not call into question the alignment of bias and action? This raises a crucial point I think worthy of deeper discussions: the interactions between bias, intention, and morality.

The Essay's by Michel de Montaigne influenced me and this discussion prompted my thoughts here to ponder the ultimate goal of our pursuits:

Do we chase a universal truth, a single narrative to which all must conform? Or do we celebrate differences of human experience, accepting that our biases, when acknowledged and examined, can lead to a richer, more inclusive understanding of the world?

Montaigne echoes this sentiment through Anaximenes' rhetorical question to Pythagoras, highlighting the usefulness of seeking knowledge when greater threats loom over us. A reflection on the purpose and direction of our intellectual endeavors ought to be explored further...questioned even? Do we trust ourselves and our judgement?

Notes and relevant quotes I took while reading "The Essay's" by Michel de Montaigne:

"Si quid Socrates ant Aristippus contra morem et consuetudinem
fecerunt, idem sibi ne arbitretur licere: magnis enim illi et
divinis bonis hanc licentiam assequebantur."
["If Socrates and Aristippus have committed any act against manners and custom, let him not think that he is allowed to do the same; for it was by great and divine benefits that they obtained this privilege."—Cicero, De Offic., i. 41.]
Let him be instructed not to engage in discourse or dispute but with a champion worthy of him, and, even there, not to make use of all the little subtleties that may seem pat for his purpose, but only such arguments as may best serve him.
-https://toleratedindividuality.files.wordpress.com/2015/11/montaigne_essays.pdf 181-951 (chapter xxv-of the education of children)

Emulation and contempt ???

The pride and arrogance of so many foreign pomps, the inflated majesty of so many courts and grandeurs, accustom and fortify our sight without closing our eyes to behold the lustre of our own; so many trillions of men, buried before us, encourage us not to fear to go seek such good company in the other world: and so of the rest Pythagoras was want to say,—[Cicero, Tusc. Quaes., v. 3.]—that our life resembles the great and populous assembly of the Olympic games, wherein some exercise the body, that they may carry away the glory of the prize: others bring merchandise to sell for profit: there are also some (and those none of the worst sort) who pursue no other advantage than only to look on, and consider how and why everything is done, and to be spectators of the lives of other men, thereby the better to judge of and regulate their own.To examples may fitly be applied all the profitable discourses of philosophy, to which all human actions, as to their best rule, ought to be especially directed: a scholar shall be taught to know—
"Quid fas optare: quid asper
Utile nummus habet: patrix carisque propinquis
Quantum elargiri deceat: quern te Deus esse
Jussit, et humana qua parte locatus es in re;
Quid sumus, et quidnam victuri gignimur."
["Learn what it is right to wish; what is the true use of coined
money; how much it becomes us to give in liberality to our country
and our dear relations; whom and what the Deity commanded thee to
be; and in what part of the human system thou art placed; what we
are ant to what purpose engendered."—Persius, iii. 69]
what it is to know, and what to be ignorant; what ought to be the end and design of study; what
valour, temperance, and justice are; the difference betwixt ambition and avarice, servitude and
subjection, licence and liberty; by what token a man may know true and solid contentment; how far
death, affliction, and disgrace are to be apprehended; "Et quo quemque modo fugiatque feratque laborem." ["And how you may shun or sustain every hardship." —Virgil, AEneid, iii. 459.] by what secret springs we move, and the reason of our various agitations and irresolutions: for, methinks the first doctrine with which one should season his understanding, ought to be that which regulates his manners and his sense; that teaches him to know himself, and how both well to dig and well to live.
Amongst the liberal sciences, let us begin with that which makes us free; not that they do
not all serve in some measure to the instruction and use of life, as all other things in some sort also
do; but let us make choice of that which directly and professedly serves to that end. If we are once
able to restrain the offices of human life within their just and natural limits, we shall find that most of
the sciences in use are of no great use to us, and even in those that are, that there are many very
unnecessary cavities and dilatations which we had better let alone, and, following Socrates' direction,
limit the course of our studies to those things only where is a true and real utility:
"Sapere aude;
Incipe; Qui recte vivendi prorogat horam,
Rusticus exspectat, dum defluat amnis; at ille
Labitur, et labetur in omne volubilis oevum."
["Dare to be wise; begin! he who defers the hour of living well is
like the clown, waiting till the river shall have flowed out: but
the river still flows, and will run on, with constant course, to
ages without end."—Horace, Ep., i. 2.]

'Tis a great foolery to teach our children:
"Quid moveant Pisces, animosaque signa Leonis,
Lotus et Hesperia quid Capricornus aqua,"
["What influence Pisces have, or the sign of angry Leo, or Capricorn, washed by the Hesperian wave."—Propertius, iv. I, 89.] the knowledge of the stars and the motion of the eighth sphere before their own:
["What care I about the Pleiades or the stars of Taurus?"
—Anacreon, Ode, xvii. 10.]
Anaximenes writing to Pythagoras, "To what purpose," said he, "should I trouble myself in searching out the secrets of the stars, having death or slavery continually before my eyes?" for the kings of Persia were at that time preparing to invade his country. Every one ought to say thus, "Being assaulted, as I am by ambition, avarice, temerity, superstition, and having within so many other enemies of life, shall I go ponder over the world's changes?"

"Sic abiit a vita, ut causam moriendi nactum se esse gauderet."
["He quitted life rejoicing that a reason for dying had arisen."
—Cicero, Tusc. Quaes., i. 30.]

Is bias inherently detrimental, clouding our judgement and leading us astray from objectivity? Or is it a necessary filter, a lens through which we navigate all the accesses we have to endless information? Bias can indeed distort reality, leading to misconceptions and prejudice. Yet, it also allows us to embrace our individuality and cultural diversity, fostering a pluralistic society where multiple truths coexist.

The key lies in awareness and balance.

My issue with this is that there is absolutely no requirement to postulate objective goodness to explain these things, and to my mind the ontology of "objective goodness" doesnt even make sense. — Apustimelogist


An objective goodness is a definition of goodness that can be rationally used by everyone despite our own personal subjective viewpoints. Its the difference between, "Rain is heavy cloud precipitation that falls to the ground," versus, "Rain is a feeling of rainness." — Philosophim

:up:

I think the difference between morality and the scientific case is that presumably there is some kind of hidden cause out in the world separate from us which we are trying to make sense of and which bears out empirical data that we can use to evaluate our scientific models. But in the moral case the only data we have is our own opinions based on how people want the world to work. So there isn't really a sense in which there is some separate hidden object which we are right or wrong about. We are the analogous hidden object whose properties are contingent on what opinions we happen to have. Its then not clear to me that someone disagreeing objectively means one person is right and the other wrong. — Apustimelogist

Interaction is not a necessary condition for treating someone as an end. If I give a donation to a charity that works to help people in Gaza or Ukraine, I am treating those people as ends, but it can't be said that I interact with them: I don't even know who they are. — Herg

Nice....

Whatever Kant meant by what he wrote, the emboldened rendering above is what I was aiming for (except that I think all beings capable of pain and/or pleasure should be treated as ends, not just humans: "The question is not, Can they reason nor Can they talk, but, Can they suffer?" ). — Herg

I might still just watch the 20 get hit. Depends how they beg I guess....thats so disturbing that I went there but am I surprised? Cant say I am. Am I enjoying myself? Not pleased to admit my truth but willing to accept the reality of it. — Kizzy

thats what i was saying...kinda. Suffering part, particularly... (minus what was mentioned in your parenthesis-my opinion differs [good thing that is a non-factor) BUT nonetheless, progress is made.

I'm starting to see your point and/or others with similar stances and points (all whom agree, with their own takes though -- alike) from a different ground...or in a new light, whatever works for YOU...I am seeing now, as I wasnt before, why treating people like ends are understood or believed to be acceptable or moral in this case.... Its the interaction and relationship connections...they are clearly different as far as the connection between the two, or what comes from the connections, what emotions are expressed based on this connections...the strength of interactions is tested and more prominently measured, but those values are weighed differently because it is closed off to a stronger connection.

It is clear who is initiating and maintaining interactions more heavily than the other...so we have two different feelings about the interactions, but with no connection it can stay one-sided... While the strength of relationships are literally a balancing act between subjects not just as interactions or ends but as a person/people too. Bad relationships, bad judgements, bad rats of course make things interesting....but its measurable in behavior, observed and verified...love? I guess the stronger the connection the stronger a relationship stands, sustains, and if lucky thrives through any test of time... good stuff!!! The interaction is where the ground is laid, can we see each other or not? Doesnt matter, you will see some thing and some thing will see you.

Always good work from Bob, I have been able to grasp my own thoughts a bit better through your exchange with Herg in here. Thanks for all the work and intel you share consistently, it is appreciated. Many others to be thanked in this from me as well, good stuff all around. Cool.

Wow, what a post! When a magician is revealing the tricks, who is left to be entertained? Who is so easily amused and still coming to see the show?

If we say that everybody has his/her exclusive feeling of being “I”, what we are talking about this way is not anymore the true authentic experience of subjectivity, because, by adopting this way of describing it, what we are considering is what is common to everybody. What is common to everybody is something objective, even when we consider “what is exclusive of everybody”: this is an objectivistic language, that moves our attention away from the exclusivity of my or your personal feeling of now. This means that the only way I have to make an idea of the feeling “I” of other people is by objectifying it, that is entering in a context of ideas that completely betrays the fact that what we are talking about is subjectivity, not objectivity. As a consequence, the only correct, authentic way of thinking about subjectivity is when I try to pay attention to my feeling “I” the moment I am thinking about it. As I said, if I think of my feeling “I” that happened yesterday, that one is an objectified, petrified concept, it is not the real concept of subjectivity that should coincide with the experience felt now by me. The same applies if we say that we are talking about “the feeling “I” here and now”: this expression is just another objectification of the concept because, when we think of it, we think of an abstract idea, similar to the concept of “my feeling I of yesterday”: these expressions do not guarantee that we are paying attention to our present feeling “I” the moment we are thinking about them — Angelo Cannata

Yes!! Glad you continued on here with this important addition...consideration to these details ought to be had even further....I am walking on imaginary eggshells here.

I read Martin Buber's "I and Thou" and shared that intel in the "currently reading" discussion nearly 10 months ago. I find it may suit the liking of maybe perhaps at least one whom is also interested in this discussions contents. In the book, Buber uses the two words, I-it and I-thou, I-It treats the other as an object to be used for one's own purposes. It lacks empathy and reduces the other to a mere thing or instrument. I-Thou is characterized by mutual respect, empathy, and dialogue. It recognizes the unique worth and dignity of the other, fostering genuine connection and shared humanity. Buber writes in Part One, "As experience, the world belongs to the primary word I-it. The primary word I-thou establishes the world of relation." [M.Buber 1923, I and Thou, translated by R.G.S, Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 38 George St, 1937] Link to download ebook here: https://www.maximusveritas.com/?page_id=781

People mistake interactions and relationships for one in the same type of connection or connection piece....

In this situation, wanting to objectify subjectivity, to be able to study it, is like wanting to put a kiss or a hug in a slide to be able to observe it with a microscope — Angelo Cannata

I find this intriguing. I once envisioned a similar scenario: a new couple, where one partner prematurely declares their love. This declaration alters the dynamics of the foundational base that was building the relationship between the two individuals. The more time left for contemplation, I believe, may start to shift the perceptions of the other partner.

Once the foundation has shifted and time has passed, the mind may race, with or without our control, potentially testing the relationship. The test comes when the conversation occurs, where each individual is given the opportunity to express their feelings and reactions to the statement that caused this shift in perspective. The way we express these feelings also contributes to these foundational conditions, either reinforcing or challenging our pre-existing notions.

These feelings update the subject with existing ideas, opinions, and experiences (biases) that brought them to this moment. When we listen to understand the thoughts or opinions of the other, we uncover new reactions and observed qualities. Each individual discovers something in the other that changes how they view each other, for better or worse.

Values, worth, and weight are assigned without specific energy inputs/outputs known. These are massless but carry weight and value on a scale embedded within the individual before conscious awareness. The scale is not measuring weight; it's showing how its weight moves the body. The mass of the body doesn't reveal anything; gravity is a non-factor. The mass of the body and the weight or value we place on objects, things, or words are maintained in the mind. Understanding ourselves aids in understanding all.

Weight and pressure are felt and placed upon us, but they have no mass. Friction, heat, work, energy in mind? Do ideas here in mind hold heat, power, energy, motion, time, or space? I am not sure. My immediate thought is: No, we, the people with the ideas, do!

We assign and misplace values that are subjectively distinct for a reason: to learn our lesson. This subjective nature has nothing to do with the objectivity of the external world or reality as it exists without mind. Uniqueness, randomness, and chaos together happening and creating ideas along the track we know as time. The worth and values, knowingly and unknowingly placed and misplaced, may guide us to a better place to learn from, yet we still know nothing about the "nature" of the Universe from this. How natural is the Universe, really? Earth is home to freaks of nature, but how natural is that, truly?

MUST BE THE MAGIC!! :halo:

Quotes from Buber's "I and Thou":

"Feelings are "entertained" : but love comes to pass. Feelings dwell in man; but man dwells in his love. That is no metaphor, but the actual truth. Love does not cling to the I in such a way as to have the Thou only for its "content," its object; but love is between I and Thou"

"Take knowledge: being is disclosed to the man who is engaged in knowing, as he looks at what is over against him. He will, indeed, have to grasp as an object that which he has seen with the force of presence, he will have to compare it with objects, establish it in its order among classes of objects, describe, and analyse it objectively. Only as IT can it enter the structure of knowledge. But when he saw it, it was not thing among things, no event among events, but exclusively present. Being did not share itself with him in terms of the law that was afterwards elicited from the appearance, but in terms of its very self."

"The primary word I-thou can be spoken only with the whole thing. Concentration and fusion into the whole being can never take the place through my agency, nor can it even take place without me. I become through my relation to the Thou; as I become I, I say Thou. All real living is meeting"

"I can neither experience nor describe the form which meets me, but only body it forth. And yet I behold it, splendid in the radiance of what confronts me, clearer than all the clearness of the world which is experienced. I do not behold it as a thing among the "inner" things nor as an image of my "fancy," but as that which exists in the present. If test is made of its objectivity the form is certainly not "there." Yet what is actually so much present as it is? And the relation in which I stand to it is real, for it affects me, as I affect it."

"Creation reveals, in meeting, its essential nature as form. It does not spill itself into expectant senses, but rises up to meet the grasping senses. That which will eventually play as an accustomed object around the man who is fully developed, must be wooed and won by the developing man in strenuous action. For no thing is a ready-made part of an experience; only in the strength, acting and being acted upon, of what is over against men, is anything made accessible. Like primitive man the child lives between sleep and sleep (a great part of his waking hour is also sleep) in the flash and counter-flash of meeting"

"And just as prayer is not in time but time in prayer, sacrifice not in space but space in sacrifice, and to reverse the relation is to abolish the reality, so with the man to whom I say Thou. I do not meet with him at some time and place or other. I can set him in a particular time and place; I must continually do it: but I set only a he or she, that is an it, no longer my thou.
So long as the heaven of Thou is spread out over me the winds of causality cower at my heels, and the whirlpool of fate stays its course.
I do not experience the man to whom I say Thou. But I take my stand in relation to him, in the sanctity of the primary word. Only when i step out of it do i experience him once more. In the act of experience Thou is far away.
Even if the man to whom I say Thou is not aware of it in the midst of his experience, yet relation may exist. For Thou is more than It realizes. No deception penetrates here; here is the cradle of the Real Life."

As such, I recognise what you are saying as genuine reflections of what you think and believe.

However, I'm not going to do statistical analyses on your stream of consciousness. Partly because no-one has time to do that but mainly because the process of creating structure on the page out of structure in the mind is an essential component of dialogue.

The effort to represent our internal shapes in an external format is part of learning and growing.

Even if no-one reads what we write, we learn from the process of structuring our writing. By examining and considering our thoughts as we express them we can change our ideas even before we engage with other people.

Stream of consciousness can be a useful insight into our own thoughts but as a form of communication with other people it lacks an essential element of self-reflection. — Treatid

Treatid, I wouldnt task my worst enemy with such a job of analyzing my BS...maybe because its a bit revealing but it is indeed a hot flaming mess burrowed yet not letting the void keep anyone stuck. I am fired up in this void, even alone...I light up with any glimpse of acknowledgment, so thanks for that at least.

I dont have to thank you, I know and its not that you have done anything at this point that wasnt anticipated-- its common decency, to me. [who is it I could be thanking and who is it that takes this for only that?]

The progression is slowly but surely still unfolding for me in real time. I simply felt moved by the thread and wanted to share something I thought (in that moment) was connected to previous thoughts I have had years prior when I was first introduced to the video. It is clear that I didnt add anything specific regarding my goals, intentions, or motive regarding your post. I hope sharing my self help streams in this manner isnt too distracting and I applaud the way you were able to expand on more points using the interpretation you got from me...that tells me you are particular maybe detail oriented, patient, and busy... It also tells me you are passionate about your work here and time is critical to get certain things accomplished. Only we can know how to spread ourselves and what that means for positive forward motion certain alignments are required in the body, mind, and the will; that is attached itself somehow now to the goal...if there is a will, there is a way! Basic and ringing true to me still.

ANYWAYS, what YOU happen to see is actually a true (and awfully accurate) understanding and by that ability you harness valuable conversation or exchange. Reciprocity. Thank you for sharing, thinking, communicating, learning, and teaching...The clarity is so important, especially for a delinquent fire rat like myself rattling around the pipes after deep burrowing phase. I appreciate the time you have put in and spent here...and not to mention what it took to get to this point, that work deserves a round as well. Bravo!

P.s. I am not forcing anything by sharing my notes or personal reflections, I do not expect nor intend to add to the work load of others in my attempts at sharing such common yet complex words of expression...I expect people to just get or assume they already know what I do and thats just incredible silly and wrong of me. "not everyone thinks the way you do, kizzy" "you have an answer for everything, kizzy" said in sarcasm to me from my own father. Yet here I go doing that again. I will work on it, I am reminded about the lack luster in such attempts from the readers perspective. I am learning, and will make up time with quality and passionate interest in learning how people learn.

I am happy that you acknowledge (very least besides straight ignoring) what I have been true in, in my efforts to understand myself, others, and even some times ability to notice/recognize patterns that I feel intuitively might be a piece to a puzzle of nothing I know of in the moment...I dont know what I am trying to say yet, but this process I am in obviously needs organized and focused clarity to communicate these ideas into a coherent "thing". But thats the thing....i have no goal on the forum, agenda, I dont know what thing I am even getting at but i just feel like I eventually may. I also am passionate on this path and am driven through a spark of interest....I like like-mindedness and crave deeper understanding in knowledge--human nature at large is under the scope.

This is just one part, of a connected whole. This part can be designed though to not be "the part serving a function or purpose by just playing a role" what if the part is designed to be a whole in itself and what if that part is designed to not just work in a position of a whole, but designed to work in many different wholes as a part. Im thinking like interchanging parts of wholes... Similar yet so familiar that its doable, its good enough, it functions. The consumption, the hand is just that and it needs > wants more guidance and direction, i feel.

I am aware of the loss that comes from my style when it comes to reaching people and communicating properly. But this is a forum and even though proper communication should be had face to face, via zoom call or phone call is even quicker than back and forth commenting here. A lot of over explaining and talking over/straight disregard. Thats not a conversation I would be participating in real life, I would walk away from such a heartless fool. I do not need anything from this place that I cant get in real life...I just sought those who have similar interests as I...philosophical discussion. I am self taught and dont know a lot of the terms in this ever growing tree of branches and branches...the fruits of the labor are becoming evasive to the trees nature...the growth stops and loops back into the same ideas. Forward thinking and limitless design is what I am interested by.

The conversations here seem to pick up and take off with no immediate back and forth at times, I am fine with that...actually kind of prefer it. But a real person to person communication in daily life is no easier and confusion still occurs. I dont get that....unless confusion occurs simple from not caring in the moment whats about to come and expecting different outcomes...self-awareness degree is/are/shall be revealed at.

It seems like just communicating in general is what people want to do, those who just talk to talk, they like the sound of their own voice. Some just need someone to talk to, thats lame but fine...Perhaps, it is true that I just dont care to do that right now...I have people who are more than willing to analyze my BS... I am surrounded by that I can practice with. But I dont need to practice communicating, I need to decide what the hell I want to do. I am burrowed and expressing outwardly here from there for a reason... its clearly possible from your last reply to me alone that people pick and chose what to read and what to ignore. Fair, I do too. That is telling though in itself. What and where we find ourselves over and over again. Back for a reason...back to the drawing board it is! (exciting, but where is square one from here?)

Time is not consuming just constraining and while I agree with that when you said it--but whatever that excuse may be, even though its valid to use time as an excuse, [as it constrains our and limits what is possible to get done in a 24 hr day]...there is always tomorrow, I keep telling myself the professional procrastinator!

Over all, I still think what I was doing can be seen even if not fully reading into every word (ugh the agony that must be for other readers here, wah wahhhh :cry: well, boo hoo! cry all you want, baby...victim mindsets are triggering for me, i digress [barely])

TO BE ABLE TO call out what I am doing, as you have made it apparent that it is doable...is not hard but I think whats more interesting then the fact I got a response, is the fact you have no opinion on my answer to the question (didnt read it, fine but why comment if you read into it enough to come up with a reply telling me what i am and what is going on. I appreciate the guidance you offered, but feel as if I you see what I am and doing almost like one can see a roomba stuck behind or caught behind a door still giving it the best efforts it can to do what its suppose to...clean. I am not cleaning if I am being messy, so i can now see the relation you may have seen and I am laughing while typing this.

Did you think I wanted to be analyzed instead of just responded to? Thats wildly embarrassing for me...I hate that people may think that...but what will i do about it? I at least have something to be organized in the first place, a lot of folks are ... lacking in areas I most certainly can make up for, if allowed that grace in attempting to make the best version shine. I cant shine without this elbow grease....(my hand and back and eyes are strained but the will is strong and mighty, thats a sacrifice I am willing to offer.

If a statistical analysis is what must happen for you or anyone to see, hear, understand, follow me...I better find a trust worthy person to do that and will when the time is right. I dont know how much of that is true nor do I care right now. When i gave my reflection the second time, i was answering a question you asked in another comment in the privacy of my mind and that is what was shown publicly, right in your face and others...a different way of looking at the question, really going there in my mind and typing what comes up as it does. I am reading my reflections over and over again all the time and seeing things I didnt notice when I first typed them...its fantastic and interesting to me. Why? I dont know.

It is what it is...

I will take the attention you have brought to me and use it as a reminder to self-- to ask this question before posting a contribution next time: do I really want to go full kizzy mode on these people? I think when I answer "no" that is because I want to actually communicate with others. I think when I answer "yes" I have something I want to get out of my mind and into reality and dont need to communicate because I am just now articulating it and communicating with myself. The words may be fresh to you, that only means its just as fresh to me...I post my reflections in the comments on topics that I find relevant to my life, current intel and knowledge gathered thus far and implement that to the new ideas presented to me via forum..its all just to see if its possible for me to ground or base my stance upon anything here. I would understand if I overly shared on every post, forcing my personal pages upon faces that asked nothing of me... If I had thousands of comments and unwarranted engagement I could see how that becomes annoying. But i specifically comment and engage upon things for an unknown,yet important enough reason TO ME...i risk sacrificing myself and work and time and character just to make something clearer for myself...that is all I can do right now..the fact that others find these topics important is just fuel..

By only letting me know or others that you can see (not blind) what is going on at the surface of what you read off the screen IS GOOD and progress for me personally...So while I am pleased to get a reply at all, I understand why I dont get them often. I'm fine with that and accept the results i have sown. I have more choices to make now, like I needed another...

I am bothered when I am but free from a will to worry for long. Trust. My changing thoughts surrounding these deeper though provoking, philosophical topics and terms (which I have been not exposed to in my day to day life, I dont have people around me who want to get into things to the depths that I enjoy being aware of and in...I work with old school type engineers who tell me to drop out of school (lol) and I run with the party people, amongst dear family and friends I hold close to heart...but where I come from, people avoid philosophical conversation, i cant ask the questions I want without being a bother it feels like sometimes....In the deep end I float and sink to depths of darkness and uncertainty and while fear is present it feels bearable. Is that why would I stay down there for this long? Even when all the fun is seemingly being had up at the surface???? Well I do surface but thats because I need a breather! Yes, that can be my excuse to also chose to have some fun while breathing.... A chance to see the good from the bad and navigate freely, how can I be anything but grateful?

To wrap it up (didnt think I would go this far replying to you pointing out nothing except the obvious but kindly replying--decent of you) sometimes I just feel moved to share something I see might have an inkling of relevance, and yes like you said the important part in that is what people can learn from doing things this way. I have learned many things from doing this alone in this one place, the philosophy forum. What a time and place!

Enough space taking in this thread for me, excuse me while you scroll on past. I am sorry that I am not sorry for that delay I may have caused...time is of the essence!

But time will mind me because I have paid mind to it... pay it mind, or dont!

Thanks!

If you were to experience something without any precedent you wouldn't be able to convey your experience.

"It was like nothing you have ever seen before." — Treatid

right, its who is holding the value and using the understanding. self is capable of given the current experience of direct reality (external world-the illusion is too clear (if it is an illusion, i think illusions are to be unclear or blurry at best...unreliable [like what you said above, "nothing like ive experienced before"], until one can focus...provoking the brain, thinking a thought is forced upon brain by us... (goal, "why is the illusion scary at first experience and how does awareness of illusion make them any less real or less scary? "why did that illusion stand out, what made it/is intriguing or interesting in perceiving it?"] Maybe because its unfamiliar territory and the brain cant be stopped...the body wants to stop once it realizes it has to break from usual mindless actions and become real...put to the test. revalue, replaying, remembering, recreating...reusing, refuting, realizing...it isnt what it seems, but on purpose..these illlusions arent just in reality as illusions, but when we see something full circle we call our past beliefs illusions but they cant be that if we are calling them that, awareness of an illusion..distinct difference in grasping what was "normal" or real, is altered..not easily adapted, goes back to old way of seeing, illusion was temporary or self induced (drugs, alcohol, lacking sleep, etc) we can blame or point to answers of how, why we saw an "illusion" based on definitions on paper, and plans can be put in place also from paper but when its show time... how is it not avoidable [tricking the brain] from there or prevented [with others, medical assistance or therapy or under doctor supervision or observation, being monitored makes us feel safe here maybe?

What if i wanted "illusions" to distract me and purposefully induced illusions to lose track of what was known of reality...the distance from that place(reality as we know it) to the new place (illusion induced reality as I know it, but i chose to do this...so my beliefs and percepts are off to begin with...delusional idea....But what if you had no choice and experienced NDE from a freak accident that occurred in day to day life (car accident or whatever), thats shocking the body and brain to the core, resetting everything we thought we knew, reality check, aims to not take life for granted or excited to die (because the NDE was to good to resist for long)...It becomes delusional believing the illusion when aware of what is the illusion, the choice -- the fact its a choice, (im not judging, i kind of dig it actually) one might be willing to live by/with/in shows that reconsidering all we know come from quick moments, seemingly that flash before our eyes...

so,the fact that the time may exist for that choice to be made and of the choices some people opt for death via suicide or self destruction...the choice to no longer experience reality as you once did (when physically, change happens because time, growth or aging is inevitable, but maybe the change didnt occur (or change was not clocked or measured because the distance is out of reach) in mindset at a pace that ought to balance self out. Claiming to have had a knowing from a young age (too young if you ask me) that they cant handle the burden of life, chose to follow through with removing the self from its unfair ways (too bad this is not true (bad judgement), because what if fairness can exist but they didnt get to see it through, time was taken and put else where (how much force, direction?)....that type of knowing, I have to admit is an act of strength in itself (that see's self as weak, contradicts the reason for act of suicide considered by me to be an *excuse to act), BUT with courage, and confidence (seemingly) though arguably selfish depending on who you ask... (consequences of others and how they'll deal with their life after death are not the worry of the person who committed suicide and is dead, but becomes of anothers (even though it (they) might have always been a worry for them anyways) UNLESS they (who becomes dead by suicide) was a true believer of solipsism and while in the state/phase that is solips. some authority is using the space in mind, and family/friends who mourn the loss may not be considered worthy enough for after thought at this time, consequences dont matter here (this state or phase)....no family no friends no neighbors, is no one in their picture? solipsism works out for them then and makes this easy i guess and is that alone what justifies and makes them feel better about their choice? I dont know about that... but those are tricks the mind can play as well...tricking self to believing something not actually happening the way others may see,ex. "i dread going to work tomorrow but im going in with a positive mindset otherwise it might be worse than expected in the first place, trick the brain into thinking we are excited for work and will make the best of the day there"

Someone will find the body (or maybe no one is looking) and brain (whats left)... what is left of your mind from the brain which has shut down officially...you are now not even your mind, you are a dead body with nothing to be remembered by except belongings which can then be used to paint a picture or tell a story (true to your life or retold).

Mind when it is shut down is now just a limp impression riddled brain, just of another human body judged for what its NOW worth when uncovered and defined and identified, its not up to us now to determine that...what it was worth at the end of the life...memory is preserved and can be maybe unchanged given the constraints that cause change?

What do i know anyways???

What can i remember forever, but still need to be reminded with every breath and forgotten by the next step...on repeat. What if forgetting is the goal, what is having a "good" memory going to do for me besides remind..what if the memory was placed at a certain distance on purpose? [235 am END]

While the belief in an objective reality distinct from our subjective perceptions is widespread - it is a belief without evidence. — Treatid

Evidence based belief sounds weak to me...like its reasonable behavior of a sheep or a follower. I don't question faith unless I have to...

Belief without evidence is valid enough for you question or call out but when is it good enough to accept? Are you aware of the boundary or line that seems to exist for you (disregard others at this point, and do that [answer boundary question] with honesty FOR best results) to make that call of judgement? DO you trust your judgement? Like when will the evidence be good enough for you to accept? If one just has to present and prove to YOU, maybe it is actually more doable than you imagine...thats never been my intention, I will explain why I shared the video later...I am just rolling with the imagination and your interpretation for now because this is fun. What I am saying here is fresh off the mind, what I will explain later I have had time to stew on.... I have many thoughts and lean typically defending solipsism because I feel its wrongfully understood, I agree with your stance on a few things here in the post....upon of course having my own, which i have shared with a few...I will get to that at a later time, as I am in the process of major organization of gathered notes and ideas from the past few years, its hard and a lot of work...

Evidence based belief just sounds off to me. Evidence cant be the base to build belief from...

What if the evidence is real and exists but just hasnt been put together or even noticed/seen yet through the right lens that has the ability (that doesnt exist yet) that can see the big picture for what it actually is outside of us, because we are in it now (thats why we cant know, yet)

Challenge Time

If you can describe a static object you will have shown that I'm wrong and that I don't know what I'm talking about.

The two main arguments I'm going to fall back on will be:

A. You haven't actually described anything. "Objects are not relationships" is not a description of an Object.

B. What you have actually described is relationships. My default position is that if you manage to describe something it must have actually been a (set of) relationsips in the first place.

This is, of course, a blatant attempt to get you to engage with the ideas of what language is capable of and what it isn't capable of.

Can you describe something that has no similarities to any of your previous experiences? — Treatid

Hm not sure - because no base but a solid library exists...

How can I if it is happening in the time that has yet to come, and in the time that I will not be able to compare to previous experiences but only know what it actually was that was happening now? Ha!

I am with you though I think, a picture of the final version cant exist because it isnt real yet....i dont reject solipsism at all by the way, I lean in certain directions...I blame the wind!

Confirmed from/in my personal notes (few years old, subject to change and some has):

"CANT MENTION BASE WITHOUT KNOWLEDGE ON SURFACE ITS BASED UPON, IS IT FIXED, LINKED, CONSTRAINED? IS THE BASE "FIXED" NOT NECESSARILY THE SURFACE OR FOUNDATION? OR IS THE BASE THE FOUNDATION AND YOU ARE FORGETTING IMPORTANT MAYBE NOT IMPORTANT BUT RELEVANT DETAILS THAT EFFECT OVERALL USE OR PURPOSE OF FUNCTION-ABILITY AS A DESIGN IN ACTION....IS IT A DESIGN ANY MORE OR A VISION AGAIN? WAS THE DESIGN THE EVIDENCE? AND THE PRODUCT, AS IS, NOT WHAT IT CAN BECOME, THE VISION TURNED INTO MATTER....DESIGNERS ARE INTELLIGENT AND ALSO MOST FIT TO PRODUCE, TRAIN, TEACH OTHERS HOW TO BRAINSTORM AND DRAFT DESIGNS AT BASIC TO EXPERT LEVELS...PROBLEMS ARE THE BUILDING PART, CHEAP MATERIALS OR PAYOUTS/RATES FOR WORKERS, BAD QUALITY, BAD PRODUCT, BAD DESIGNER.....GOOD VISION? LACK OF INTELLIGIBLE INFO TO PROCEED DESIGNING FROM A BASELESS IDEA, BUT NOT USELEESS MAYBE VERY USEFUL OR OF USE, JUST WITH THE RIGHT QUALIFIED HELP OF TRAINED EXPERIENCED CREDIBLE PROFESSIONALS OR EXPERTS IN FIELD SPECIFIC TO DESIGN TECHNIQUES/ PROCESS AS A WHOLEEEE NOT JUST THE DRAFTED PLANS OR SKETCHES FROM FIRST VISION...BELIEVE IN THE VISION, THROUGH A GOOD LENS TO CONTRIBUTE TO THE DESIGN...INTELLIGENT DESIGN EXISTS BC THE DESIGNERS HAVE THE INTEL AKA KNOWLEDGE TO SHOW, AND EXPERIENCE ACHIEVEMENTS ESTABLISHED BIZZ OR NAME MADE OF ONES SELF...HAPPY CUSTOMERS/COWORKERS/PARTNERS....REFERENCE, REVIEWS, PROOF....WHATS THE GOAL FROM THE VISION VICE VERSA"

More notes in the same document (from the same day)

"PHILOSOPHY FORUM 4/11/23 425 AM****additions 9/12/23 530 pm

-instead of unlikely becoming likely or making the unlikely, likely....its a mechanism that makes the unlikely, possible or real (instead of likely, its actually happening...when did the process begin? Does that moment matter? Maybe not, everything that needs to does..when its supposed to...and " it "happens at the same time to our human realities, the pace at which we actually understand the full truth for what it was worth and how much energy was given and received and recycled and wasted before it was grasped as "something else" from OG, but its "final state" --what is the final version of anything minus time as a constraint...(family legacy, heir, estate, buisness passed down--despite if it happens to be in the right hands from the wrong people, the wrong hands of the only people, (which seems right to the two in relation (son and father or grandfather to only grandchild, parents dead or not in the will for person reasons) [not important atm]) or [ IN IMAGINATION SEEING THE VISION THRU AND THRU....151PM 4/11/23]
OR in the wrong hands from the right people to the right person who was influenced by the wrong hands, and vice versa all circumstances or scenerios....CAN THE FINAL VERSION ALSO BE THE FIRST VERSION OR AS TIME CONTINUES THE VERSION IS UPDATED WITH THE STANDARDS OR UNDERSTANDING OF STANDARDS BY PEOPLE IN A SOCIETY? Like...the change that may occur, to get to the "final version" is that just simplifying as much as possible to get to its "first version" state, and how relevant is time as speed of successful use of an object??? (something performing is function because its working properly by your hand aiding in its cause to an end (of function and object made to do that work) is in action...one act using your body (like motor memory, riding a bike, operating the fork lift at work bc you do it everyday for a prolonged time-good experience and confidently acting, while still deciding on a way to maneuver to a safe or comfortable "enough" "landing place" -- a break point, a breather, walk away and come back after working on something for too long alone with no feelings of accomplishing "useful or up to standard results, satisfactory to your likeness of work output despite actually putting in NEW EFFORT OR TACTICS OR ROUTES TO GET TO THAT "GOAL" which is more a task, required by obligation or contract or work or school to proceed or receive acknowledgment in career or as a relevant source of truth .....as a matter NOT OF FACT, BUT as the matter in fact of a truth, with and within self, moving with and inside the world as we know it, as we think we know it, what others think they know and what you think you know others think and other facts of these truths....
lets just say for eg....[a breather after stressful presentation...the anxiety leading up to an event and the relief point when its done and went either better or worse but not as expected....a surprise and reminder to not doubt too long]
....and the purpose intended to serve (goal, intent) is both Cause and Effect..."

END OF NOTES [Shared]

EDIT:

TAKE TWO 6/17 135AM

Can you describe something that has no similarities to any of your previous experiences? — Treatid

Maybe death? How about a near death experience, describing what is happening when a person thinks or actually thinks and IS dying but lives to share the experience...That to me, seems like foreign territory- meaning not a place I can speak from....dying is like nothing that I have experienced before. (unless of course, i have--unless i have my own NDE or actually die how can these descriptions or personal accounts amount to anything except maybe perhaps at best, hope for another?

Yeah yeah, I cant describe it personally but people still attempt to and documented attempts help credibility not evidence only in the similarity of others that also experienced near death...Of course until i die, i can only these take stories for what they are (again, i am not questioning faith based belief PERIOD and that doesnt mean I wont straight up reject the accounts, I can enjoy a good story and go along for the sake of fun and nothing else....

Assuming they are really describing it as it happened in reality(how they describe it will be telling and the basis of my judgement, should i believe this person or not-why (reasons to doubt may exist and at times be the right option to act on, instead of giving the benefit of the doubt (which still isnt believing in them, but allowing or entertaining the idea for sake of what? (insert-blank) [amusement? how cruel lol]) and thats IF I decide to believe them beyond all doubt...the option still occurs to me, time presents where I could chose to immediately ignore claims/descriptions, based on my trusted judgement alone not because my belief system is opposing theirs (i cant know their system at large yet at this point of a judgement call- required to proceed in any reality (solipsistic state or not, objective or not)

I dont have interest in these accounts of NDE, as of now nor have I done any research into these accounts...I was just thinking about the question a bit more before I am on to the next....

Some people might find comfort in hearing these NDE experiences while others will and can remain skeptical (both reasonably fine by me...im sure and unbothered by both happening at once) I am not losing sleep over this, I have been sleeping on it...

Yeah again, you don't actually believe this. Here's the thing. Emotionally? I hardly care about anyone. I could kill, steal, and lie to people and it wouldn't impact me negatively. Also, I don't feel any particular joy or triumph from committing evil to another person either. Meaning, I have every right to believe that there is no objective morality and that nothing matters, but I don't. Why? Because emotions are guides, but they are not ultimately why we should make rational decisions — Philosophim

nice :strong:

Since the complex parameters always matters in real situations, I'd much rather try and find a method of thinking that can incorporate variables and speed up decision making — Christoffer

hmm, interesting



also an interesting take...

Now, I don't mean to say that all people of these cultures act and value the exact same, and these are simply observations I myself and those around me have noticed, one must admit that there are different "objective" moralities around the world. I would instead argue for a sort of cultural morality, wherein the morals of a person are shaped by their culture mainly, rather than being completely innate. — Frog

interesting...you are onto something but although I have an opposing overall take (I believe an objective reality) I think what you bring up is and has been before worthy of mention.

That it is important to consider the range of affect each person has - the reach of their impact, based on their birth-death places, families origin and where their parents parents settled to where they currently are located, geographical range of impact of individual. I believe a person can live out a fulfilling life without being actually effected whatsoever by another persons life, because paths wont/dont cross and they were never made to cross from the start because of TIME amongst other things [in some cases-(distance in geolocations )]

Reading your words while brain is ringing a bell...Memory from another thread on TPF...maybe a few threads but I know it definitely was brought up a few times because I agree with you that it may be worth considering location, positions, paths, range, scope, kinda like a carbon footprint but more details from this traced / followed specific path and see it to be important to consider for a further deeper understanding of the nature of human and its conscious mind....

While I think I agree with the point you bring up and acknowledge the matters relevance...I want to sayI think while its true nurture vs nature plays a role, I think its important to keep in mind when considering moralities It gets a bit tricky especially when you begin to categorize the standards of morality and hold the specific (bounded) group you to those standards (beliefs) that can be then used and compared from group to another group (improper judgement may happen and that is immoral at this wrong time right place situation perhaps) but these same individuals can represent the group as each subject is complex and of a unique make up--its possible to mask intentions within groups and may use the religion, culture, association, community, society, as an excuse to act a certain way --whether they believe it is the "right" thing to do or not, the choice is made to practice life the way you present in day to day experiences and behavior is observable and ought to be verified by a source that can vouch for their being, who knows them best, who do they live with, who do they see everyday, who is the neighbors, who do they work with, who are the parents?

its telling....and quickly a story can be and is painted. In a world with an objective reality we hold up subjective experiences that show the complex subjects human nature and especially links can be made between people who can relate culturally within a similar realm of reality of another culture or group both experience reality in a similar manner, its relatable enough for results or patterns to be spotted (transcends more than just geolocation similarities)

Shared experiences from appeal to emotions triggered from a sensation and caused by an outside force (from your body mind being self) into your senses communicated from body to mind, emotional state is revealed and usual behaviors parallel with how subject is displaying emotional states...behaving is the display of emotions in action, the control of them differs but is that linked to the source of it from the individual?


See below for quote i felt like including from the long read of a contribution i shared to the thread "A Case for Moral Subjectivism" that i believe is saying something along the similar lines you mention. I think what you are trying to explain by saying "objective moralities exists for different people and cultures" I underline where I directly mention my views explained above.

"The chance doesnt exist, that my life will not interact or be known to many or anoher person whom is far far away from me and my world, that is my realm of reality and theirs is theirs but we both can live objectively without even knowing that we are moving together without bounds, doing our part, living our lives is doing our part and losing our lives is also our part, life and death, starts are ends...but we are unbothered by eachother because we dont know what about the existence of another, its impossible to know....I always think about stuff like that, that someone exists out there that cannot be bothered by me, even with all the authority I have.

Free will? Or free from a will to worry? That is a choice, i think...What do I know? I know that we can get to the bottom of things, but where we chose to go wont tell us anything about a real ETA because we dont have a GPS that takes us, we dont have an address to type into one! We dont even have the means to get there...but we dont stop...we keep moving, not just in time WITH IT..."

AND another time I can reference the point being repeated, of the same one you made here:

See https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/898453 for thread where old old pal Chet called my comment a "word salad" and fairly so. After questioning my way of articulating "relevant realms of reality" [fair of him to doubt and reasonable as well to question] but i can see how i could be more clear because of how this was mistakenly read, he sensed something was off but he decided to assume his assumption was correct and ran with it... wrong on my part, makes it (his doing) justified on his end.
--- its like, how i assumed your use of "different objective moralities" was a bit off, Chet thought my idea of "relevant realms of reality" was wrong too and he thought I was implying that more than one reality exists...I was not saying that, [it was wrong on his part, not in general but in his assumption-which can/is excusable after further clarifying resulting from continued reciprocated discussion its made right from a wrong (my poor communication of complex ideas(give me a break)]
--- BUT STILL we can see in his reply that Chet and I both agree on some ideas surrounding an objective morality existing and its in that we understand that reality is just one thing.

I look at it like: Objective Reality exists but it has just not been attained yet at this time regardless if not known [though knowable] to some it may exists in the future from our subjective parts as one objective whole for what its worth at end. (we cant know because human lifespan is not long enough to see the long term results to come from acts taken today in motion)[thats why seems impossible or pointless of trying to understand, time constraining learning and there is not more than one objective reality like you seem to see it (how i understood you, correct me if I am wrong)]

Belief does not have to exist in the purpose on intentions, but the purpose of the individual with intentions linked to beliefs can be traced to a foreseeable outcome but that outcome itself is both cause and effect...the causality is also not grounding enough to be a base alone, perhaps it is when intentions are properly judged and considered along with the causality in a relevant realm of reality. — Kizzy

This is getting to be word salad to me, I admit.

Reality is only one thing, and it is relevant. There are no other relevant realms. Imagination and all of its devices and objects are WITHIN reality, not, as most poor thinkers might think, outside of it.
Belief DOES have to exist in any choice, any act, any purpose. Either that or the definition of belief is wrong/not-what-I-mean-by-belief.

The outcome IS NOT EVER the cause and effect. That is because there is error in the choice. The objective nature of a consequence leave it surprisingly unrelated to the belief or intent. Your statements here are part of consequentialism, a deadly lie.

The cause is a belief, only and always. The belief is partly in error, always. But the belief side is informed by the ideal of perfection, sensed erroneously, but still sensed. Over time this process narrows towards perfection and that again is evolution. But the sensors and the choosers other inputs to choice, other beliefs, all causal, are all flawed and by degrees. They fail to care enough, to be aware enough, to be in harmony enough (beauty), and in being accurate enough. That is not a complete list of the virtues. It is only a set of examples. So the consequential outcomes IS NOT as predicted. If it is as predicted the prediction itself was flawed. It (the prediction) was too vague, too undemanding, too wrong. — Chet Hawkins

"


This just serves as confirmation. I agree with a pieces of what you mention in the original quote that I used. The quote holds a piece of your comment, that moved me to reply because i believe too that it brings up relevant questions surrounding cultural standards held in a community and of course it deserves more attention and deeper considerations worth acknowledging to see root of intentions and surety of self within group based on roles/life you lead.

Consider this intel gathered from video attached below:

Assuming a sensation always affects our emotional state. What is the difference between influence of emotional states created from exposure to direct sensations (reality) or illusion of it (indirect augmented sensations)?

we assume a SENSATION ALWAYS affects our EMOTIONAL STATE....when we create a sensation *(see- "A simplified Model for Augmented Sensation: Defocus, Experience and Insperience") in our consciousness it has affect on emotional state, and now exposed to devices with screens and making experience without screens....we can see 2 sensations of 2 different structures.

BOTH situations from pov of our conscious are seemingly like SENSATIONS, BUT CLEARLY HAVE DIFFERENT STRUCTURE WITH DIFF UNDERLYING PROCESS for creation of sensations involving ONLY external for high sense & external and internal sources for illusion of high sense....CONFUSION between experiences occur because the illusion of high dimensional sensation is created. Could be dangerous -- this implies different states of emotion, from knowing or not knowing about the process. (creation of augmented sensations- the illusion is the source of emotions from indirect external stimuli happening in the mind as the body is defocusing during this low dim sense created from just partial stimuli while direct external sources (outside world) full stimulation of senses occur (eyes ears nose taste touch) naturally as high dim senses are created through experiences faced in day to day life)

A simplified Model for Augmented Sesations: Defocus, Experience, and Insperience

Even if one assumes it is moral to literally murder someone in order to save others, why would there be an onus on the bystander to get involved in this type of business?

If one argues the bystander is morally obligated to get involved, then I suppose whoever argues this has a massive to-do list, and the question is why they are wasting their time on this forum when they're supposed to be getting involved!

All of us are after all bystanders in countless numbers of situations which are just begging for a hero. — Tzeentch

Woah, I missed this. I agree here, now. Right on! You said it best and so simply put! I, personally applaud and admire when people articulate a point without using SO many words..My words did though allow me to found my ideas, in the moment. I figured out my grounding, for myself in the moment the only way I know how. All the many words (too many, i can admit) that I have shared, even though you can get to and did get to the a similar point that I did, just before me and with far less words/space taken up...I wouldnt of gotten myself to this place where I can acknowledge THAT and THIS in you (then) and in me (now). I wouldnt have been able to comprehend this, the point of your comment before learning what I eventually did from my long winded comments in this thread. Now looking back, I am pleased to see that I am not too far off in left field... Similarities in what you said in a single comment exist in what I said but it took me 6 comments total, including a few exchanges with Fire Ologist, to figure it out. This only reassures confidence in the stance I have built up on a ground that I have always trusted to begin with. But now I can accept and ought to trust the process itself, equally! Cool! I appreciate all efforts that go into the contributions! Thanks!

I still have to consent to one among this other in order to act and MAKE the choice — Fire Ologist

Hm, interesting...

But you are consenting to the rules by participating in this "problem" that is constrained by limits placed on participants by the initiator. So, if you chose to participate, you still are free to make decisions without forcing anything except rules that are required for the problem to exist at all. While inside the problem, your options are of 2 choices (1 or 5 human deaths) kill or watch- but since the rules have been made up and laid out for others to decide, those still in the problem after knowing rules are consenting to participate? Am i missing something else? I feel like if you are in this problem, you cant use consent as an excuse to get out of making a decision but you can get out of this hypo. freely, right?

I mentioned earlier when I responded to your question with another," What if the chooser is the force?" ---What comes from the force that this person caused from their decision? Whats the power of different impacts? Does the impact of the force after choice / act play out and the outcomes of the event are final depend on anything? Does it depend on a person to get involved with something that was already in motion to occur.

Would you agree that, one might experience this scenario with courage, like you said before and one might also experience, as I imagined, out of fear. I am thinking further, to be brave here (courage) sems to be an attribute of the individual whom must have enough strength (or thinks they do) to overcome and focus in a situation. More strength then the fear based person in the same position..
---Can they or do they reason after they decide and without valuing life at all, just a natural reaction or instinct? Are they self aware enough to make the decision while already weighing the consequence of causing the death of 1 person? They are willing to do what they can, whether it is dealing with the families and friends grieving the loss of loved ones, how are they planning on dealing with problems to come, like being blamed or accused of doing the wrong thing by those who are in NO PLACE TO JUDGE...HOW are they able to begin dealing with life after this type of tragic experience and their role in it.

Imagine the courageous one that pulls the lever killing the single person, while saving the 5 others. Do they have character and respect that aligns with that attribute? Do they show signs physically, emotionally, mentally of how this impacted their lifes? Or how strength was acclimated leading up to this event? They should align, and make sense in order to be valid in justification here. Do they express how hard it was for them to chose one vs the other 5 and DOES anyone believe this killer? OR do they see this person as a hero?

Perhaps, how much they seem to accept their part in this SHOWS how much they thought about it, its possible to measure how much they premeditated an outcome...

THEY BOTH, the courageous hero (act) and the shocked bystander (omission) HAVE TO BE PREPARED to deal with their own mind and the consequences they brought to self moving on from the occurrence. Do they have to revalue their values, ethics, beliefs, standards, etc? Do they each deal with the consequences accordingly to how they thought they would right after decision? How do they stand in their choices? We can judge that eventually. The degree of self awareness present in the act and after using info from the past to confirm can and will be brought to light.

Some might say this is a high stress, emergency, panic inducing event, where the power of authority, while in reasonable position to take action, but to be able to recognize what is going on and decide to take charge I might argue involves more complexities within the human mind and our capabilities using it...that type of attribute linked to courage or bravery might be personality based even, how could we determine that or otherwise? (another topic, another time)


Also, like @Captain Homicide originally brought up from the start, "For those who would let the five people die by not pulling the lever to kill one person is there a minimum number of people on the track that would make you choose to kill the one person? 50? 100? 1,000? 10,000?" Capt is on to something with this, i think because people CAN change their minds. Before, during and after the act of choosing---Intentions can change in decision making moments and be repurposed...trust is built and broken here and we will see this happening before judgement should occur, those judging wrongly will be also eventually held accountable and it forces almost naturally with or without authority, people to wake up and look in the mirror.

TIME thinking about what I should do, includes weighing out some sort of consequence or outcomes and still leans in favor of being the hero and saving the 5, sacrificing another life. Does it not force the decider to LOOK at the life and value it against the group of 5? How is the decider valuing and placing worth on/in life itself, on themselves and on others? How is the decision affecting them? What if there is a case of regretting the choice immediately after. What if after time, you disagree with that choice?

The reaction to the scene may cause the act of thinking about what is going on, what can i do, am I capable of dealing with the consequence of taking a life with responsibility or more capable of dealing with the trauma of witnessing and being blamed for the death of 5. I have to live with my decision from this event...and the action of the body after decision was made up in mind is swiftly if not happening/occurring together.
--Mind and body are in agreement and taking action together but separate to make a whole outcome by using force of authority to intervene or force of authority to allow time to continue as it was already in motion.

The force is especially significant in the chooser that is in no place to make these types of decisions...BUT there can be times where, they happen to be in the right place to use that authority...by not using that authority (it still exists), or deciding to watch (not use authority) and instead of involve self further, i can see how in some cases that is the best move and vice versa other times its the wrong move. It depends.

Is it worth considering after the fact, the explanation that came from the person justifying authority that claim they believe they were doing and did "what they believe is right" by pulling lever killing a person just because they could? I feel like, that would mean that they see/saw and hold true their values and how they place it and they considered themselves in this situation before acting but after they already decided. Mind to motion...I said in my first comment, think mind over matter. Perhaps, they may be misplacing value and worth even though doing the right thing is justified to them? I think because time still needs to be considered before judgement. I said that already too, right from the jump...read my first comment...Glad I am ending with this, its full circle for me now and I didnt know that was going to happen until here in this closing sentence. Just look and see, I said it before and I am saying it again. TIME is determining the measure of how long they (person with choice) had to reason...justifications can be predictable or foreseen from around here.

Sorry I am struggling hard with quoting right now lol trying to fix by editing but feel i am jumping around.

what if i dont feel forced, just scared? — Kizzy


That’s why I think it would take courage to do the truly moral thing on the trolley and not participate at all. I guess fear is a kind of force that might also diminish the ability to consent and therefore the ability to commit a moral act. — Fire Ologist

Very nice, I like this!

what if i dont feel forced, just scared?

Maybe I did over simplify. Well, I see there is a choice between 1 and 5, “I can save or kill five or one” and in that sense am not forced. And after giving me the instructions about the pulling the lever or not, no one forced anything further to happen, the rest is up to me. And that’s where the trolly case starts.

But isn’t there still a third element in any situation like the trolly vital to the conversation? There is also my willing participation in the choice and its effect enacted (as with the one person being hit by the trolley). The choosing act, about which we say “I am responsible.” And it is in that willingness, that consent, that we find something vital to ethics, but greatly diminished in the trolley case.

The trolly has clarified for me that, my consent, and my choice are two different pieces; I can choose to kill the five or kill the 1, and we can debate goodness among those choices, but to do either, to act, to kill 5 for instance, I must consent to the choice as I act. That consent, can only be freely given. Home of radical freedom. Maybe?

Only in a world of willing consent, (better, a world of many willing consenting ones), can there emerge an ethics. Not just a world of choices and options like one and five.

Now we look for freedom in this, freedom versus forcing a choice (by controlling the options) or forcing your consent (by commanding participation). — Fire Ologist

I posted my comment before I saw this addition, you touched on some things I was getting at. You bring up the responsibility and willingness in participation, thats important. I agree with your contributions, I underlined your quote above that I didnt think about really before. Great point.

Little confused here, "I must consent to the choice as I act. That consent, can only be freely given. Home of radical freedom. Maybe?" if you care to, could you expand any more on this? what do you mean when you say that consent can only be freely given? Consent is the voluntary agreement or approval of what is done or proposed by another...I dont think consenting or approving the choice is necessary BUT IF ONE HAS TO BE MADE, (extremeness in this manner make the problem not realistic (to me),BUT I find this problem can be wildly interesting)

Decision making moments: TIME factoring is worth acknowledging...quick thinking- what/how fast comes the reasoning after the act?, how is the acceptanceor responsibility held accountable or acknowledged for being that? With the self? Or with a witness? (think of people who could be / would want to be observing) (observing and gathering intel without your awareness)
like you said responsibility but also to be valid i think credibility, and justifications need to be observed for further judgments (comparing to what? required?) and), or enough time to decide with reason A CHOICE is taking ACTION comes in these particular decision making moments.


"Now we look for freedom in this, freedom versus forcing a choice (by controlling the options) or forcing your consent (by commanding participation" freedom vs choice - now were talking! Ill be back, just wanted to get this out now.

EDIT: I read and saw you clarified "consent" further here, No need to get into it from my comment. Leaving comment as is.

The trolley example has to judge what the person is consenting to in their act — Fire Ologist

:up: