I probably agree all that Craig. On Mar 28, 1:53 pm, Craig Weinberg <[email protected]> wrote: > What you are talking about is really is the main thrust of what I am > working on - Multisense Realism. To paraphrase Robert Anton Wilson, > everything is real in some sense, unreal in some sense, both real and > unreal in some sense, and neither real nor unreal in some sense. By > mapping out the broadest categories and seeing the symmetries between > them, I think we can actually get a much more accurate and inclusive > model of consciousness and cosmos than we are currently working with. > > In doing this, I see that all of the weirdness that we see in quantum > mechanics suggest that what we are looking at is a Cheshire Cat and > not a meat and fur cat. They are the signs and signals matter uses to > perceive itself, not matter itself. We are using objects in the world > of our body as our only trusted instruments and then mistaking their > feelings and meanings for other, smaller objects. > > Once we change our interpretation of the lowest level (which doesn't > require any adjustment to the math) of the exterior realism of the > cosmos so that it is a most common sense realism of the interior of > the cosmos, then we can begin to build a model of how our own rich > interiority arises. In my understanding, interior realism is very much > the opposite of exterior realism in every way, so that as matter seems > to build assemblies of fragments from the bottom up, pscyhe seems to > divide multiplicities of wholeness (gestalts) from the top down as > well. It is subtractive rather than additive, making sense connections > by cutting through obstructions and revealing an underlying wholeness > which was 'there' already (discovered as well as invented). > > Exterior realism is half as multiplexed as interior realism, with an > unambiguous arrow of time (which looks like 'collapsed wave functions' > at the 'classical limit). It is a black and white sense of the > universe which reflects only the most common bands of sense from the > shared inner states of all phenomena which our body interacts with. > Interior realism, in keeping with the metaphor, is a full spectrum > color sense of the universe which has deeper, and more subtle > awareness, but the deeper it is, the more private and ineffable it > becomes as it reaches for indivisible wholeness itself. To recover > externally viable sense from the innermost esoteric layers requires > figurative encapsulation - archetypes, metaphors, symbols, words, > formulas, math...loose ranges along the continuum from most subjective > and ambiguous to most objective and empirical. > > Craig > > On Mar 28, 4:42 am, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > We know bacteria engage in a lot of activity we often regard > > as ;special to human consciousness' (short article here > > -http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/03/120327215704.htm?utm_sou...). > > It's not that long since we were completely unaware of this > > 'world' (revealed through the 'magic' of glass). One view of vacuum > > is that it is full yet statistically empty in our addressing of it. > > We have problems in our use of words like 'things' and 'stuff' > > Carlos. I once seemed stuck in endless consideration of social > > construction and the reification of social facts - god knows > > sociologists can be very boring! We label our accounting devices as > > quarks, strings or whatever - such only having meaning in language and > > that language has the chance to be right or dumb. Information strikes > > me as a thing in some circumstances - like clues in a detective > > investigation - or even if I raise a glass in salute to you Carlos and > > you never know. But neither of these has to be a thing in the sense > > my dog (Maxwell) is - and of course he has a rather different place in > > my affections than a rock in the garden. Maxwell's nose-based > > information world is very different from ours - he will have read 30 > > or so 'dog newspapers' before I get him to his favourite field in half > > an hour's time. Yet we walk the same path. I would love to know as > > he knows, but the odd glance of joy from him is enough. He is now > > strutting about the house in apparent huff as I'm running late this > > morning. Fuck knows what our various bacteria are 'thinking'. > > One can end up in phenomenology and the separation of ideas and > > thought and Heidegger's need to find clearing in which trees in bloom > > have to be grounded in real experience for us to remember they have > > 'backs'. Not much use if you can't work out Nazis are evil. I > > sometimes call Max 'Clerk' but he doesn't get it. He's just wandered > > past flashing his dog smile, has a Platonic affair with our female > > cat, both more real than the grin of the Cheshire Cat - yet again this > > is labelling the real. Even the mythical Cheshire Cat is "real" in > > what we mean by it, but if I start stroking one I've gone mad. > > And so the vacuum is a Cheshire Cat and yet it makes more sense to be > > going looking for the vacuum than the myth because of our suspicions > > on its reality being realer than that of the mythical. A glass isn't > > empty until we drain it of air. At that point it's emptier than it > > was before in our shorthand language, but is only emptier of air. So > > is what's left a thing? Or full of them? Smarter cookies than us > > play in this void to us and find Casimir effects we then label as real > > because we can do the trick again (or at least someone with the > > special knowledge can). > > We structure reality. Some of the ways we do this are intelligent, > > others, like economics and politics, unbearably stupid. In terms of > > the empty at the same time missing, we have spent most of our time as > > a species making myths on the concept (the absent yet all encompassing > > god etc.). God isn't real and yet might be -as might be the time we > > see the vacuum rather than detect what travels in it - what hidden > > information effects may spur us to search? Even they may be 'real'. > > > On Mar 27, 1:34 pm, einseele <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Hello Neil > > > > I'll take your final statement... we are missing something > > > > May be the missing something is part of the structure itself and it is > > > the leif motive of science. > > > She looks for the missing something > > > > IMO I agree with the "missing" part of the idea, but I certainly doubt > > > about the "thing". > > > > The vacuum idea has its fundamentals, somewhere must be a vacuum, but > > > also in that same instance there is a "missing" idea which contradicts > > > the vacuum itself. > > > > Should not be bad to install a concept which is at the same time empty > > > and missing .... ? > > > > carlos > > > > On 26 mar, 19:21, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > I tend to prefer the likes of dark matter to fixed belief in blue and > > > > white rabbit gods Craig - but you are right that much more is > > > > speculative than we credit and we are missing something. > > > > > On Mar 26, 4:01 pm, Craig Weinberg <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > On Mar 26, 9:59 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > A singularity of your 'everythingness' is electron. > > > > > > An electron is a part of the universe. The singularity can only be the > > > > > entire universe. > > > > > > > The richness of material world begun from fluctuation - > > > > > > - polarization of primordial vacuum . > > > > > > Fluctuation in what way? Emptiness regularly becoming emptiness? What > > > > > could it mean for a vacuum to have any properties whatsoever? > > > > > > > ==. > > > > > > Why electron is responsible for fluctuations in a vacuum? > > > > > > Because an electron has its own m mass and q charge. > > > > > > But (according to QED) by interaction with vacuum electron’s > > > > > > mass and charge becomes infinite ( electron is hidden in vacuum > > > > > > and we say he is virtual particle – antiparticle - antielectron – > > > > > > positron) > > > > > > To me it's much more likely to be a just-so story to plug the > > > > > equations. The equations don't take sense into account so they are > > > > > probably wrongly interpreted and we have to make up all kinds of > > > > > science fiction to save the model. > > > > > > If an electron is responsible for fluctuations in a vacuum then the > > > > > fluctuations are in the electron, not in the vacuum. The vacuum is > > > > > empty. There's nothing there to fluctuate. Virtual particle is just a > > > > > name for the fact that we don't understand what is going on and wish > > > > > for a deus ex particulus to save ourselves from the reality of having > > > > > to start over from scratch and reinterpret all of physics. It's just > > > > > stubborn sentimentality but now it it metastasizing into fanciful > > > > > delusions. > > > > > > > And when we see the 'fluctuations' of vacuum it means electron > > > > > > appears from vacuum, electron again acquire its usual mass and > > > > > > charge. > > > > > > Mass and charge are probably semantic conditions arising from sense > > > > > relationships within matter and across space. The electron itself may > > > > > not even be real. As far as I know electrons have only been studied > > > > > using instruments made of matter, so electrons, photons, the whole > > > > > Standard Model could be nothing more than shared atomic moods and > > > > > motives (which look like particles, waves, images, rays, twinkles, > > > > > signs and symbols, depending on what perceptual inertial frame the > > > > > observation is grounded in). > > > > > > I think that it is extremely likely that at present, our worldview is > > > > > in the last gasp of post Enlightenment modeling - a Dark Ages for > > > > > understanding awareness which has pathologized our science and > > > > > culture. As long as we look for emptiness and absence to find our > > > > > origins, we will only be able to find evidence of meaningless > > > > > mechanism and convince ourselves of our own non-existence. > > ... > > read more »
-- 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.
