St Francis of Assissi told us: " What we're looking for we're looking with", that's consciousness. That was quite a while back. I prefer sentience as that unambiguously refers to a holism which implies we can use it because we're unavoidably part of it. It's the ultimate bottom line of the argument. Alchemy and Holography agree here in that All information about everything is everywhere available or accessible. It also follows from there or that, that a: Reality does not need maps, we do. b: information being everywhere accessible its speed has to be infinite or immediate. That's a bit of a funny one since for that both the close to local, more or less, and the farthest away non-local are adjustable or variable in order to be 'everywhere effective' so we cannot assign it a fixed speed, which makes nonsense of yardstick philosophy. c: since time immemorial communication is a representative fiction or code by which anything called 'objective' or attributed to it is a nonsense. & so space and time don't apply 'everywhere' such that an infinite array or spectrum of radiation is feasible.
adrian Joseph Polanik wrote: > I am Self-Aware - The Collision of Fact and Principle? > > Georges Metanomski wrote: > > >We postulate with Einstein and Popper the Principle of Relativity, > >which underlies epistemology and science since Descartes: > > >**All elements of the human Universe are relative, excepting > >Awareness, its utmost absolute foundation.** > > I've read the post in which you deny postulating a transcendent > Awareness; but, I must say that your language invites just such an > interpretation; particularly, when you capitalize 'Awareness' and speak > about 'the' human Universe. if there is only one human Universe, how > could it be founded by an individual awareness brought forth within that > universe --- a universe into which I am myself thrown, as it were? > > on the other hand, if we are speaking about the everyday awareness that > I have, that you have, that any of us has, what is the significance (if > any) of the capitalization? is there any difference in sense or meaning > between 'awareness' and 'Awareness'? in any case, in what sense is > awareness (or Awareness) the foundation of 'the human Universe'? > > >Corollary 1: Meaningful assertions express relative elements as > >related to others. Thus, nothing can be asserted about Awareness. > > >Corollary 2: Awareness, as the utmost foundation, has no superclass > >and cannot be intensionally defined. Its extensional definition > >encompasses all elements of the Universe. > > even leaving aside your assertion of the paradoxical claim "that nothing > can be asserted about Awareness", in just these few paragraphs, you've > asserted the following about Awareness: > > that it is the absolute foundation of all else; and, that it has made > you aware of this. > > that it has no superclass. > > that it can not be intensionally defined; that it can be extensionally > defined; and, that its extensional definition encompasess 'all elements > of the Universe'. > > that one may give hints about it. > > >Example: Saying "I am aware" posits some element "I" having the > >property "awareness", which contradicts our Principle, as Awareness > >founds and precedes all other elements, including "I". "I" is founded > >in Awareness and not the other way round. > > by asserting or reporting 'I am self-aware', the referent of 'I' reports > its experience of self-awareness; but, it is not at all clear to me how > this fact would contradict your Principle. however, it is clear that, if > there is a contradiction between fact and Principle, the fact alone > survives the collision. > > >One cannot assert anything about Awareness; one can only hint it > >intuitively. Some people get the hint and some not. > > >BTW, whatever "Awareness" may hint, "Self-Awareness" is a tautology. > > only a propositional formula can be a tautology. 'I am self-aware' is > the report of an experiential fact. are you claiming that 'I am > self-aware' is a propositional formula; or, are you using 'tautology' in > some other sense? > > Joe > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
