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
irrelevant),
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).
Craig
Dear Craig,
I would only add to your illuminating remark that this
"capacity" is to both self-observe and other-observe.
Agreed!
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.
Craig
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>
--
Onward!
Stephen
http://webpages.charter.net/stephenk1/Outlaw/Outlaw.html
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" 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/everything-list?hl=en.
