The Orchid relies upon deception in order to mate with other orchids. — Vaskane

Does it then imply Nietzsche's idea was that a living agent cannot overcome / transcend its biological foundation i.e. DNA, inherent characters, features, natures and destinies within its physical and biological build of body, no matter what the mental makeups might be?

In this perspective, freedom for each individual agent in the society or nature wouldn't be possible. Would it be kind of a determinism? What does Nietzsche say about freedom and determinism?

Why would any of that occur? I mean, sure, if one was to travel to 1990, they'd find me there, but without 2024 memories, but why would the teleporter leave you in a different state when it by definition doesn't? — noAxioms

If time is some physical entity running itself somewhere in the universe, and if there were different timelines running in different physical spaces, then perhaps you could get into the space via the teleport or whatever bending spacetime and what have you, maybe then you could say your  mind and body of 2024 can travel to whatever year you choose without losing the memory, thoughts or consciousness.

But if time is just a mental concept for measuring the intervals between the start and end of changes of the objects in the physical world, then the whole topic would be just a fiction.  Even if you accept whatever premises for time travel hypothetically and keep speculating what you would do in the past or future in time travel, you still have to accept the most foundational universal law, that all minds and bodies are subject to change through time. 

Under the law that even God cannot intervene, your mind will be that of the people who lived in the world of whatever year you travel to, and you body as well.  Perhaps your body will need a few deaths, resurrections and new births to reach the time you are supposed to travel to if it is a few hundred years away from the present moment.

You remind me of the fate of Icarus, whose wax wings melted during his flight towards the sun, sending him to his death below. I shall approach the sun in the cave. No, I shall not find the sun. Who can find the sun without finding death first? Instead, I shall chase the sun with my torches, pretending to be the sun I can never find." — ucarr

It seems to be the case that at this stage, your incumbent job is to define what mind is. What does mind mean to you? Please define.

The particle is lumped onto various headings of 'exotic matter' (including various virtual particles), and exotic matter is seemingly a hard requirement for time travel. — noAxioms

I didn't mention 'exact matter'. Perhaps you misread 'exotic'. One can simply google 'exotic matter' for a more specific list. — noAxioms

Yep, got the description for "exotic matter", but you still need to explain why and how exotic matter is required for time travel. How does it supposed to work?

I didn't mention 'exact matter'. Perhaps you misread 'exotic'. One can simply google 'exotic matter' for a more specific list. — noAxioms

Yes, it must have been my mistyping. I try not to google too much if I can help it. The underlying implication for asking the question was not just the meaning of the concept, but also your explanation on how it works with time travel.

So does it not prove that the whole story is just a fiction itself?
Not really. CTCs are allowed, and might actually exist at quantum scales. Their existence is not inherrently contradictory. To open one at a classical scale probably leads to necessary contradictions, and since all the time travel stories are classical, I'd have to actually answer that such stories are necessarily fiction. — noAxioms

Not saying they are not allowed, but trying to focus more on the possibility of the travel before what one can do in the past or future when arrived there.

One can scan a person down to the biochemical level: the location of every cell and connection, the chemical makeup of all fluids everywhere. That's still a classical measurement. It's trying to scan down to the atomic level where things get impossible. — noAxioms

But there are loads of the other aspects that you must think of such as the mental contents = memories, thoughts and the consciousness of the past, such as if you travelled to 1761, would you still contain the present mind, or would the content of your mind be wiped out, and replaced by the 1761 mind, or would it become total blank due to the travel?

Shouldn't how one could change the past events follow after fictitious successful time travel has been achieved, rather than before the travel? Have you achieved fictitious time travel into the past or future in actuality?
— Corvus
I cannot parse this. How does something follow something that is fictitious? — noAxioms

Fictitiously.

Not saying time travel is total baloney, but I am interested in how it might be possible, as well as what you could do in the past or future when you arrived there.

As to the Deacon, again, you aren't really familiar with the work so it isn't fair of you to form conclusions about it. Teleonomy doesn't prove panpsychism, but it could certainly be viewed to be congruent with such an hypothesis. — Pantagruel

I do admit I am not familiar with Deacon. I only did read synopsis of his theory. But still I don't recall the synopsis mentioning anything about God. Does Deacon's Incomplete Nature also define what God is?

All I did was provide some evidential bases for my perspective. — Pantagruel

I stated that human consciousness displays an evident spectrum both phylogenetically and ontogenetically. This is a statement of fact, entrenched in both developmental psychology and evolutionary biology and archaeology. So yes, it is a scientific fact. My hypothesis is congruent with known scientific facts. It is not itself a scientific fact. — Pantagruel

It appears to be not enough detail of the evidence for the claims, hence was asking for more details.

No. Simply put, Spinoza argues that nature (i.e. infinite & eternal (i.e. completely immanent) substance) excludes the existence of a 'transcendent, supernatural person' (e.g. the God of Abraham, the OOO-deity of theology, etc). Thus for most Spinozists, nature itself counts as strong evidence against all forms of theism (& deism (except maybe pandeism)). — 180 Proof

Does it mean then, Spinoza was an atheist? Perhaps would it be the reason why he had been excommunicated from his religious authorities?

In that case, what is Spinoza's definition of God or reason for non-existing God? How does he explain the physical world we live in, souls and the meaning of human life?

Well, you can start with human consciousness, which clearly evolves both phylogenetically and ontogenetically. — Pantagruel

This sounds more scientific theory than philosophical or metaphysical statements. If it is a science theory, what supporting evidence does the claim have?

Which therefore also links unproblematically (for me) with consciousness in other species. If you research the nature of consciousness in the natural world, you can read examples of how primitive colony organisms exhibit purposive behaviours (in The Global Brain, by Howard Bloom, for example). — Pantagruel

But could it not also be viewed as biological survival instinctive behaviours which has nothing to do with human intelligence, reasoning and thoughts?

Indeed, you can even pursue the concept to the limits of the animate-inanimate boundary and discover how natural systems can be seen as instantiating teleonomic properties (Incomplete Nature, by Deacon). The spectrum of organic consciousness alone is sufficient warrant however. — Pantagruel

How can you or Deacon prove the instantiation of the teleonomic properties of the nature is related to human consciousness? And indeed how human consciousness is related to God, if God is something that you cannot define, but something that have to presume or deduce from the natural world? It sounds like a serious circular reasoning going on in your explanations.

The Orchid does mind truth. — Vaskane

The Orchid is synonymous with "Woman" in Nietzsche's eyes. "Woman" isn't the same as woman/women. — Vaskane

In fact, could you elaborate on these statements with more details, viz. in what sense the orchid does mind truths, and the orchid is synonymous with "Woman" rather than woman/women? Thanks.

I see. Thank you for your clarification. It sounded like the natural world is your God. I recall some folks saying that. Could it be Spinoza?

Anyhow, still there seem to be some problems for deducing a vast spectrum of consciousness from the natural world. Because some folks like Heidegger would say the natural world is a myth, and humans are alienated from the world. We really don't know the world. If the world is related to consciousness then it should provide good knowledge of the universe. Does it?

Do you have argument for the natural world provides us a vast spectrum of consciousness? In what sense and evidence?

Who says it is a god's role to intercede or interfere with the unfolding of events? That's a presupposition. A hurricane is just a weather feature that is endemic to the ecological health of our planet. I certainly don't assume that human preoccupations are necessarily universal values. — Pantagruel

The question was forwarded to you because you claimed that the natural world is ample evidence for your God.

For me, "god" is an heuristic that I see no reason to forgo. The natural world provides ample, ample evidence of a huge spectrum of consciousnesses correlative with a spectrum of teleologies. — Pantagruel

If the natural world is ample evidence of God, then how do you explain the mindless, irrational and unpredictable natural disasters such as earthquakes, hurricanes and floods which cause destructions and damages to innocent people?

To people like Nietzsche and Jung, "God" can be understood, psychologically, as one's supreme guiding principle. — Vaskane

An interesting point.

Also an important reason as to why atheism and theism share the same starting point: they come out of the same psychological drives. — Vaskane

Who were the first people started atheism and theism? When you say they share the same starting point, does it mean in time, or on the ideas of ground?

You say when you are blocked off from the world you are mindless? You say when you are blocked off from the world and mindless you don't see or hear anything? — ucarr

You said you know the mind very well. So I asked you what is your mind? You said, what you see is your mind. I said that cannot be true, because if you closed your eyes and blocked your ears, then you don't see, and you can't hear. Does it mean that you become a mindless when you closed your eyes and blocked your ears? So, what you see and hear cannot be your mind itself. What is your mind that you claimed to know?

When you do see and hear things, it's because you have a mind in contact with the world? — ucarr

What you were saying here seems to be a Circular Fallacy. The evidence used to support your statement is just a repetition of the statement itself.

Tachyon is a hypothetical object which is in the domain of a fiction.
— Corvus
It is a hypothetical object in the domain of science. Can't help it if the fiction folks are the ones that latched onto it.
The particle is lumped onto various headings of 'exotic matter' (including various virtual particles), and exotic matter is seemingly a hard requirement for time travel. — noAxioms

What is exactly the 'exact matter' including various virtual particles?

None of this rewinds reality, but actual retro-causal (or FTL) information transfer opens things up to paradoxes. — noAxioms

So does it not prove that the whole story is just a fiction itself?

Yet another thread about time. I was thinking yesterday of a very vague idea that I'd like opinions on. So then if we took a "snapshot" of this very moment with it's totality, that being: The position of every single object, cell and et cetera. And had the ability to manipulate matter in such a way that we can reposition new "environmental" circumstances into the ones that we have snapshotted, would that not be considered time travel? If anybody ever has watched "Watchmen" and know of Dr.manhattan I ask this question as regarding his fictional abilities. Those being the ability to manipulate a surrounding environment to a total extent, whatever that may be. — unintelligiblekai

The OP seems to have already taken into account of time travel is a fiction, but asked how it could be possible even hypothetically. Shouldn't how one could change the past events follow after fictitious successful time travel has been achieved, rather than before the travel? Have you achieved fictitious time travel into the past or future in actuality?

Davu, calm and unperturbed by Jabari’s vehemence, took a long time to respond, saying finally, “It’s no good my talking to you directly. That is my mind. You have your own mind. When it sees the world directly, or sees the world through a story, you must learn to listen when you hear it talking to itself.” — ucarr

A story that you hear, or the world you see is not your mind itself. You seem to be misunderstanding the content of your perception with your mind. It is like saying the coffee in the mug is as same as the mug.

When you say "the mind", it must have a referent that "the mind" is referring to. But if you say the stories that your hear, and the world you see is "the mind itself", it just doesn't make sense. Because when you closed your eyes or bloked your ears, you lose all your mind. You don't see or hear anything. You become a mindless. Do you? Really?

Ok, let's suppose that is the case. How does it explain your mind and the body problems?

Democritus did not know what an atom was, he just identified a general concept he was able to intuit using a word. — Pantagruel

Does it mean that Democritus made up a word for atom for something he didn't know what he identified with or intuit about? In that case isn't the word atom vacuous?

In the case of God, who personified with what object? There must had been an object or existence for the personification. Would it be a fair inference?

But dispensing with the idea of god (the ultimate consciousness) because of the failings of a few fallible humans is throwing out one big baby with some very dirty bathwater. — Pantagruel

But do we know what "God" is?

If it walks like a duck and squawks like a duck it must be a duck. — ucarr

The new born pup lost its bitch getting born, but the little girl took the dying whelp to her bed and her warm stomach. Next morning the pup squealed from under the covers vivid with life and a new, two-legged mother. — ucarr

What do they have anything to do with the knowledge of your mind?

Physics mathematically allows for tachyons, which can 'go backwards' in time, but nobody has ever found a tachyon or other necessary exotic matter such as things with negative mass and such. — noAxioms

Tachyon is a hypothetical object which is in the domain of a fiction.

I suppose in the end it would matter how it works, before we go about presuming the properties and possible interpretations of the thing. — noAxioms

In Modal Logic, when you say X is possible, it implies that X was possible in real sense. For example,
X = I can order wine instead of beer.
X =I can have pizza instead of sandwich or McDonald.
X = I can read Hume instead of Kant. These are all possible options that can happen in real life. It is just a matter of one's choice, hence legitimate ground for being premises for further discussions.

But if X = I can walk on the planet Jupiter, or I can fly faster than light. then it would be rejected by most people unless there were some explanations on how that would be possible, because there is no logical ground or scientific possibilities for that statement to make sense on their own out of blue. Therefore it is not fit for being a premise for any intelligible discussions.

The blind flower girl touched the little tramp’s face carefully, telling him his day would be a good one. She knew this she explained by telling him she could see his smile. Puzzled, he asked her, “How do you know I’m smiling? You’ve never seen a smile.” Smiling, she said, “Here at the flower stand I see smiles because I perceive with eyes forever closed.” — ucarr

It seems to be your futile tactics to revert back to some poetic nonsense, when you have no idea what you were even asking about.

Are you claiming, then a blind man has no mind?
— Corvus

You’re driving in your car. You suddenly stop at a green lit intersection where you see a blind man in dark glasses slowly making his way through the crosswalk. Do you conclude the blind man has no mind? — ucarr

I was asking you the questions, and you are supposed to give your answers.
You are not supposed to answer questions with your questions.

:cool: :ok:

Apart from my mind, where is my… perception? — ucarr

So, if you are watching TV comedy show, then is the TV comedy show your mind?
If you close your eyes, then you see nothing but darkness. Is the darkness your mind?
Are you claiming, then a blind man has no mind?

When I awoke this morning, looking up through my concave skylight, I saw a palette of swirling, subtle grays hovering like thought-balloons with glowing, white cracks of lightning.

As I leaned over the side of the bed and looked down I saw my black leather slippers with roasted- cashew feet slipping into them. — ucarr

That sounds like your visual perception. Are you sure it is the existence of your mind itself?

You’re claiming the mind cannot perceive itself?

Must I conclude you’ve never examined your own thoughts? — ucarr

So, you are claiming that you can perceive the mind.
What is the shape and colour of your mind?

The "If" part needs backing proofs with evidence before the whole sentence could be accepted as a meaningful statement.
— Corvus
We were deliberately ignoring all that, since the possibility of this as described isn't there at all. — noAxioms

Come to think of it, what prevents you from trying to prove the assumption? Wouldn't it be actually an interesting attempt, and all the emanating arguments from the proofs (if it were possible to come to some sort of proofs with evidences) would be more exciting? :D

But Orchid doesn't mind. To Orchid, death just means a course of nature.

The "If" part needs backing proofs with evidence before the whole sentence could be accepted as a meaningful statement.
— Corvus
We were deliberately ignoring all that, since the possibility of this as described isn't there at all. — noAxioms

Sure. The point is not a criticism or condemnation by any means. It is just to clarify the statement is unsupported in any meaningful manner without proofs and evidences, hence all the following arguments would be just speculative conjectures.

Because of the fact the premise "IF" describes the possible physical and empirical events, and also the conclusion part is soley dependent on the premise, it should have given even brief explanations how the IF part could be possible, for it to be accepted as a valid assumption for the further arguments.

“It is disgraceful for a philosopher to say: the good and the beautiful are one; if he adds 'also the true', one ought to beat him. Truth is ugly. We possess art lest we perish of the truth.”
― Friedrich Nietzsche, The Will to Power

If they were to time travel (at some time after this present time), then they would alter the past and present as we know it. — Luke

The "If" part needs backing proofs with evidence before the whole sentence could be accepted as a meaningful statement.

The core issue of this conversation is articulation of the structure of connection linking mind with matter in the mode of Deacon’s theme: that mind emerged from matter. This clause declares the interweave connecting matter and mind. — ucarr

If you really asked me about this issue from my own perspectives, then mind is not something emerged from matter. You could say that, but then you will find much problem explicating further for the connection.

From my view, mind is a property of a living body. You seem to think that mind is a necessarily emerged existence from body. No that is not the case. A dead body has no mind. A chair has no mind. Waveform has no mind. A living human has mind.

Hence mind is a mental substance which is a property of a living intelligent agent with biological body. Then you might ask "Can A.I. Robot has mind?" No, they are designed to carry out certain tasks for human needs. They don't have mind as per se, but they can be intelligent because they are able to carry out the jobs humans do. Mind is a property of a living body with a totality of mental functions and events.

Can substance be a property? According to Bolzano in his Theory of Science, of course it can. A substance can be an object. An object can be a property of another object.

n your stance, you declare a hard boundary between material substance and mental substance. Your job now is to articulate with maximum precision of detail the structure wherein brain, albeit being a precondition of mind, nonetheless inhabits a structure featuring a hard partitioning of brain from mind. Per your stance as a hard-boundary dualist, you must explain a structure wherein the hard-partitioning (like parallellism) of brain/mind at the same time features brain as a precondition for mind. — ucarr

This is a thread for you to understand, explicate and defend "absential materialism". It is not for "to articulate with maximum precision of detail the structure wherein brain, albeit being a precondition of mind,"

I have mentioned "dualism" only because of your misunderstandings, in order to clarify that my position is not an idealism or immaterialism.

However, if it is the Cartesian dualism you are interested in, it is rather easy to defend. Since mind is different substance from matter, you can say, you simply have no mental capacity to perceive the mind itself.

By nature, mind is invisible entity with no extension, shape and weight, hence you cannot explain the connection between mind and body either in scientific terms. For you to conceive mind, you must be in possession of the super consciousness to be able to do so, but I suspect that you are.

If you are deeply interested in the Cartesian dualism, I would advise you to open a new thread for it.

Deacon makes it clear beyond doubt he endorses bottom-up causation from the material to the absentially material i.e., towards mind and its intentions. — ucarr

In that case, it sounds like the terminology "absential materialism" is incoherent.

the external world , whose origin growth and structure we have been, throughout this book, investigating, is the Mirror of the Mind and the Map of Knowledge in one...In an immediate and direct way, the mind can never know itself it can only know itself through the mediation of an external world, know that what it sees in the external world is its own reflection. (Collingwood, Speculum Mentis) — Pantagruel

Exactly. — Pantagruel

:cool: :up:

Mind can do a lot more than knowing the world. It hopes, imagines, feels, desires, plans, anticipates, criticises, reflects, remembers and reasons .... etc etc. It is a synthesis of the whole mental events and operations in totality.

3. The external world is, by definition, “external,” which is outside our minds.

Therefore:

4. Because everything we know exists in our minds, we can not have any knowledge about the external world.

I’m no logician, so it wouldn’t surprise me if I’ve somehow bungled the argument and I welcome anyone’s help in formulating it correctly. However, if this argument essentially satisfies the skeptic’s point, then it seems that the skeptic is contradicting him/herself by making a claim about the external world. — Thales

The definition "external", which is outside of our minds itself is inside our minds because it is a definition formed of a sentence, and the words "external" and "outside" are both concept, which are all internal to us. Hence, claiming that they are outside of us is incorrect.

We know the external world as representations to our mind. We know both the representations and external world to us, because they are conceivable and accessible via perception and interactions.

…I have never denied the existence of brain for the precondition of mind.
— Corvus

As a favor to me, can you respond to this post by talking about the operations of mind as they relate to brain as a precondition of mind? Immediately below I’ve quoted Wayfarer in order to explain why I’m asking this favor of you. — ucarr

It seems undeniable that the gap between actions and intentionality is meaning. Meaning is purely conceptual and logical.  If I see rain coming down, then I will close the window.

The perception of rain coming down, generated meaning that it might come into the room, and make things get wet and ruined, if the window was left open.  It is also a logic in inductive reasoning .  Hence there are causal chain effects in the process.

Seeing the rain coming down -> Noticing the window was open -> Reasoning that the rain will get into the room if the window was left open, and make the books get wet and ruined (inductive reasoning) ->  Closed the window (physical action).
Therefore the meaning combined with the reasoning caused the physical action.

However, Deacon's theory seems to be interpreting the actions via some sort of interactions between the physical objects via the physical causes and even physical meanings :roll: . 

The waveform as physical phenomenon is a fog of mass-energy in the mode of a mathematically determined cloud of probability describing the range of possible positions of an elementary particle. An apt physicalization of a fog of mass-energy is a gravitational field. When two gravitational fields interact, they generate meaning physically. Meaning, a narrative about a narrative, in its physical manifestation, is absential materialism. Meaning is about-ness signified in a language.

The physical generation of meaning via interacting gravitational fields suggests a bounded infinity of fate within a specified universe as bounded by interacting gravitational fields. If collapse to black hole density is possible in such a universe, then what will happen phenomenally_historically is pre-determined by said black hole density. Infinite gravity seems to mean that what can happen must happen. — ucarr

This is a contradictory view, and I feel that this is an incorrect explanation of his Absential materialism. Your claim seems to have gone this way.

1. Material things cannot think.
2. But they interact with other material things. (the waveforms, gravities, the writings with no meanings themselves ... etc)
3. Therefore material things create physical meanings. ==> FALSE, A poor logic and contradiction. :roll:

How can non-thinking things create meanings? What on earth is physical meaning?

All meaning is mental and conceptual in nature.  The material existence doesn't know anything about meaning.  They just behave as according to the laws of physics. Material objects don't care about the cause and effect either. They just exist, interact and change according to the rules. Humans observe and notice the interactions, changes and operations, and make inferences, reasoning, and set up the rules and laws in conceptual manner.

Thinking that the physical objects create the physical meanings when they interact with each other creating some visible or noticeable events and changes sounds like panpsychism or superstitious totem ideas.

Please bear in mind that all meanings are mental, logical and conceptual, viz NON MATERIAL and NON PHYSICAL even if they are the product of the physical brain.

But isn't beauty in the eyes of beholder? Or is there such a thing as universally objective beauty?