On 9/6/2012 8:08 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:

On Thursday, September 6, 2012 7:31:25 PM UTC-4, Stephen Paul King wrote:

    On 9/5/2012 11:37 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:

    On Wednesday, September 5, 2012 8:11:39 AM UTC-4, rclough wrote:

        Hi Craig Weinberg
        Exactly.  There may a problem with this, but its seems
        that if mind is everywhere (is inextended, so space is
        I am always part of the mind of God. So saying that-  when I
        look out
        of my eyes, that is actually God looking out- which sounds
        of course weird. Or that there is only one perceiver, that being
        the Supreme Monad, is not illogical.

    I don't think that it sounds any weirder to say that then to say
    that when we look out of our eyes, we can see is the dust from
    the Big Bang. We are the totality-singularity (Supreme Monad or
    everythingness, etc) subdivided as reflected capacities to
    experience. The universe is nothing but a capacity to experience
    and to juxtapose that capacity with itself (which is what
    experience actually is).


    Dear Craig,

        I would only add to your illuminating remark that this
    "capacity" is to both self-observe and other-observe.


    Observation, IMHO, is nothing more that the ability to generate a
    simulation. Only when there is a match between the simulations of
    multiple "reflected capacities to experience" that truth obtains.

I wouldn't call it a simulation as much as a perspective-defined access. We actually see things directly, but what we can see is defined by what we are and in our case, what we are is very complex with many opportunities for contention between levels and self-other symmetries.

I think it is relativity. Just as proximity of a black hole changes actual temporal participation rather than simulates a change, our experience of our life actually changes through direct participation with it. Instead of simulation I would call it local identity or local realism, since there is no non-local identity or global realism.


Hi Craig,

The simulation idea is using an abstraction, it is not the thing itself. The simulation model is a start on a mathematical model of the *content* of Sense. It is not Sense itself.

I think the elephant in the Everything list room is the lack of a clear cut definition of the differences and relations between things and their representations, between the abstract and the concrete, a sign and its referent. Our ideas of Realism needs to be updated. This YouTube video (in 5 parts) is a nice dramatic reading that explains the ideas involved:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AxV3ompeJ-Y <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AxV3ompeJ-Y>




You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to