>Could you define "perpendicular topologies"? You say you don't study >math, so why use mathematical terms (which seems non sensical for a >mathematicians, unless you do a notion of set of topologies with some >scalar products, but then you should give it.
Yeah, I'm not sure if I mean it literally or figuratively. Maybe better to say a pseudo-dualistic, involuted topological continuum? Stephen was filling me in on some of the terminology. I'm looking at a continuum of processes which range from discrete, [dense, public, exterior, generic, a-signifying, literal...at the extreme would be local existential stasis, fixed values, occidentialism (Only Material Matter Matters)] to the compact [diffuse, private, interior, proprietary, signifying, figurative...at the extreme would be non local essential exstasis, orientalism (Anything Can Mean Everything)]. They are perpendicular because it's not as if there is a one to one correspondence between each neuron and a single feeling, feelings are chords of entangled sensorimotive events which extend well beyond the nervous system. Since the duality is polarized in every possible way, I want to make it clear that to us, they appear perfectly opposite in their nature, so I say perpendicular. Topology because it's a continuum with an XY axis (Y being quantitative magnitude of literal scale on the occidental side; size/scale, density, distance, and qualitative magnitude on the oriental side; greatness/significance, intensity, self-referentiality...these aren't an exhaustive list, I'm just throwing out adjectives.). I'm not averse to studying the concepts of mathematics, I'm just limited in how I can make sense of them and how much I want to use them. I'm after more of an F=ma nugget of simplicity than a fully explicated field equation. I want the most elementary possible conception of what the cosmos seems to be. >What do you mean by interior of electromagnetism. The subjective correlate of all phenomena which we consider electromagnetic. It could be more of an ontological interiority - throughput.. I'm saying that energy is a flow of experiences contained by the void of energy - and energy, all energy is change or difference in what is sensed or intended. Negentropy. If there is no change in what something experiences, there is no time. So it makes sense that what we observe in the brain as being alterable with electromagnetism translates as changes in sensorimotor experience. >> Quantum Mechanics is a misinterpretation of atomic quorum sensing. >This seems like non sense. Didn't mean to be inflammatory there. What I mean to say is that the popular layman's understanding of QM as how the microcosm works - the Standard Model of literal particles in a vacuum with strange behaviors, is inside out. What we are actually detecting is particulate moods of sensorimotive events shared by our measuring equipment (including ourselves) and the thing that we think is being measured. >>> Time, space, and gravity are void. Their effects are explained by >> perceptual relativity and sensorimotor electromagnetism. >? Time is just the dialectic of change and the cumulative density of it's own change residue carried forward. Space is just the singularity's way of dividing itself existentially. If you have a universe of one object, there is no space. Space is only the relation of objects to each other. No relation, no space. Perceptual relativity is meta-coherence, how multiple levels and scales of sensorimotor electromagnetic patterns are recapitulated (again cumulative entanglement...retention of pattern through iconicized representation). >> The "speed of light" c is not a speed it's a condition of >> nonlocality or absolute velocity, representing a third state of >> physical relation as the opposite of both stillness and motion. >? Stillness is a state which appears unchanging from the outside, and from the inside the universe is changing infinitely fast. Motion is the state of change relative to other phenomena, the faster you move the more time slows down for you relative to other index phenomena. c is the state of absolute change - being change+non change itself so that it appears non-local from the outside, ubiquitous and absent, and from the inside the cosmos is still. Any better? Craig On Jul 15, 4:39 am, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote: > On 14 Jul 2011, at 14:39, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > > I don't want to talk about inner experience. I want to talk about my > > fundamental reordering of the cosmos, which if it were correct, > > would be staggeringly important and I have not seen anywhere else: > > Mind and body are not merely separate, but perpendicular topologies > > of the same ontological continuum of sense. > > Could you define "perpendicular topologies"? You say you don't study > math, so why use mathematical terms (which seems non sensical for a > mathematicians, unless you do a notion of set of topologies with some > scalar products, but then you should give it. > > > The interior of electromagnetism is sensorimotive, the interior of > > determinism is free will, and the interior of general relativity is > > perception. > > What do you mean by interior of electromagnetism. > > > Quantum Mechanics is a misinterpretation of atomic quorum sensing. > > This seems like non sense. > > > Time, space, and gravity are void. Their effects are explained by > > perceptual relativity and sensorimotor electromagnetism. > > ? > > > The "speed of light" c is not a speed it's a condition of > > nonlocality or absolute velocity, representing a third state of > > physical relation as the opposite of both stillness and motion. > > ? > > > It's not about meticulous logical deduction, it's about grasping the > > largest, broadest description of the cosmos possible which doesn't > > leave anything out. I just want to see if this map flies, and if > > not, why not? > > Anyway, you seem to presuppose some physicalness, and so by the UDA > reasoning, you need a physics and a cognitive science with (very > special) infinities. This seems to make the mind body problem (MB), > and its formulation, artificially more complex, without motivation. > Without an attempt to make things clearer I can hardly add anything. > Perhaps understanding the MB problem in the comp context might help > you to formulate it in some non-comp context. > > Bruno > > http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.