The Forum Site - Join the conversation
"Post-digestive- nuggets"
On July 01, 2021 Erimitus


More Pics


The mind of God, Antarctica
Joined: Jun 2009

My Stats
Age: 78
Gender: M
Location: The mind of God

Antarctica
Posts: 16489
PLS: ? 21.76
Joined:: Jun 12, 2009
Reputation: 1653

 
ProfileJournalFriendsPostsPics

Post digestive nuggets
TFS Journal
Turtles
January 05, 2018 @ 05:47:58 pm

Turtles all the way down

An assertion is made and then supported

Each supportive factor (of course) has to be supported and then each of those has to be supported (ad infinitum),

So we (or I) pick a point (pretty much randomly) in the infinite regression as a base that needs no support.

The only certainty is that I AM THAT I AM. [1] After that it is no more than a probability estimate.

I AM an individuated unit of consciousness. Some people call it a soul. I do not have a soul, I AM a soul. I have a body. I am not my body. My body and its environment is created by my mind.

At this point I run into a (the) paradox. I am not my mind. I have a mind.

My mind created my reality. The question to ask is what created my mind.

(I have to have [X] in order to have [Y] and I have to have [Y] in order to have [X]. The solution to this problem may be obvious to every-(one) [2] but …but I find it paradoxical. Am I consciousness? Is consciousness my mind? I know that it seems to be kind of Gnostic but is the individuated unit of consciousness that I AM must (or may) be a part of a larger conscious. And …and at this point I AM just repeating so I will stop. If you (the reader) have gotten this far thanks….

What do you think? Yeah I know, thoughts. But where do your thought come from? But …but …but where did your mind come from? (and I ramble on) [3]


________________________________________

[1]<<a Burning Bush>> (actually I have seen a burning bush but it did not say anything. But you never know. And …and I suspect that the word But is the most used word on TFS.

[2] I AM the ONE (an individuated unit of consciousness). It is only speculation but there are other ONE’s. In order to differentiate I call other ONE’s OTHER. (i.e., other than the ONE.


[3] I have not edited this post and apologize for inconsistencies. And ...and what was in those brownies I just ate?

0
Quote | Reply


Eaglebauer

Moderator
New Post! January 05, 2018 @ 08:07:28 pm
0
The paradox is predicated on the assumption that the premise <My mind created my reality> is a given. Is that given? Once again, we find ourselves stuck in the Sysiphean hamster wheel of wrestling over reality being objective versus subjective.

It would appear that at least at its surface, the paradox is alleviated by allowing for objectivity, but the infinite regress only moves at that point from your mind to that same objective reality...to wit: If we agree that your reality is objective and independent of your mind, it allays the question of needing x for y...reality can be reality independent of conceptual molding...but it doesn't solve the question of where that reality came from or what "created" it. The prime mover theory came from this same problem and was a lazy attempt at explaining away the fact that our thought is not capable of really grasping the infinite, and since we only understand things through causality, we cannot let ourselves rest thinking that something just always was and ever shall be.

Like a purely objective reality.

So we say that it's God and yell at the ceiling on Sunday...world without end, amen, amen.

I think I may have only opened more questions.


Erimitus

New Post! January 05, 2018 @ 11:21:58 pm
0
@Eaglebauer Said

The paradox is predicated on the assumption that the premise <My mind created my reality> is a given. Is that given? Once again, we find ourselves stuck in the Sysiphean hamster wheel of wrestling over reality being objective versus subjective.

It would appear that at least at its surface, the paradox is alleviated by allowing for objectivity, but the infinite regress only moves at that point from your mind to that same objective reality...to wit: If we agree that your reality is objective and independent of your mind, it allays the question of needing x for y...reality can be reality independent of conceptual molding...but it doesn't solve the question of where that reality came from or what "created" it. The prime mover theory came from this same problem and was a lazy attempt at explaining away the fact that our thought is not capable of really grasping the infinite, and since we only understand things through causality, we cannot let ourselves rest thinking that something just always was and ever shall be.

Like a purely objective reality.

So we say that it's God and yell at the ceiling on Sunday...world without end, amen, amen.

I think I may have only opened more questions.


E: If I understand correctly [1] you adhere to the standard almost universally accepted bottom up model.
There is a smallest possible particle. This particle would have to be a tetrahedron [2] .And the tetrahedron would have to be one Planck length on each side.
These basic particles combine in specific ways as geometric fractals and trillions and trillions and trillions of these particles eventually form a sub atomic particle that leads to an atom, a molecule and a physical unit of matter.

________________________________________

[1] (…and there is always a first time)

[2] (a tetrahedron is the smallest possible three dimensional entity)

[3] I do not know why it is the smallest possible interval but I accept it because an accredited accreditor with advanced degrees in esoteric and pompous sounding subjects says it is true.

[4] Admittedly out side the box thinking.

[5] There was a forest fire an no living thing survived


Erimitus

New Post! January 05, 2018 @ 11:23:12 pm
0
By the way...Thank you for responding to my post…


Eagle: The paradox is predicated on the assumption that the premise <My mind created my reality> is a given.

E: Yes it is a given.

E: That which I experience is a virtual reality (a hologram) created by my mind. I consider this indisputable. I Am, I experience and that which I experience was created. In this model the creator is my mind and that which I experience is my reality.

Eagle: Is that given? Once again, we find ourselves stuck in the Sysiphean hamster wheel of wrestling over reality being objective versus subjective.

E: And once again sysiphean futility rears it ugly head.

E: I was thinking more like a Catch-22 (similar to a continuous feedback loop.

E: In this model I am not denying that there nothing other than my consciousness. What I am suggesting that if there is it cannot be known in its entirety. Some of it (I calling the Absolute) …some of it is perceptible and when that which is perceptible is being perceived is an object. Objects may be things (inanimate) or beings (animate sentient entities) and here I am call a being (and all beings are sentient) …and here I am calling a being an individuated unit of consciousness.

E: The subjective is a certainty.

E: The objective has a high probability.

E: The mind creates my reality; both physical and non-physical but …but my mind as the creator either created it-self, or is neither physical nor non-physical. Your basic mind-body problem.


Erimitus

New Post! January 05, 2018 @ 11:24:22 pm
0
Eagle: It would appear that at least at its surface, the paradox is alleviated by allowing for objectivity.

E: I believe that you are referring to the standard bottom up model.

Here comes the But…

But …if we use the tree that falls in the forest, that tree will not make a sound in my reality because I am not there to hear it. If we take it one step further [4] and there are no sentient entities there [5] then there is no sound at all and …and there no tree and no forest. The tree and forest do not exist independent of perception (each observer perceives the forest in a slightly different way depending on (but not limited to) species specific and culturally specific perception (bias). There is no forest, there is no tree, there is no forest until it is being observed. This model solves the wave-particle paradox of the double slit experiment. There is no particle until it is observed; only a probability wave.

Eagle: But…

Eagle: the infinite regress only moves at that point from your mind to that same objective reality.

E: Hmmm… I do not understand.

E: That which exists in my reality only exists when I perceive it. An object in my reality only exists when I perceive it. My objective reality does not exist when I am not perceiving it.

E: An analogy that may help explain. I use to play a computer game called world of warcraft. In this virtual reality a tree only exists when I am looking at it. And …and if no ONE in the game is looking at that tree the tree does not exist. The virtual reality (hologram) that my mind creates for consciousness to experience does not exist in my realty when I am not experiencing it.


Eagle: If we agree that your reality is objective and independent of your mind, it allays the question of needing x for y

E: My reality (that which I experience) is the object the individuated unit of consciousness that I AM. This reality is a virtual reality. It is the map not the territory. I never directly experience the territory. The territory does not even exist in my reality when the I AM is not experiencing it. And …and this is the point where it gets weird …the territory does not exist at all when no sentient entity is experiencing it. The territory is no more than a probability wave until it is experience.

E: Ok, I admit that I am having considerable difficulty explaining this.

Eagle: ...reality can be reality independent of conceptual molding...

E: you may be correct. (Here comes another but) …but in this proposition no (object) exists independent of perception. There is something but it is not an object. And maybe (I am still working on this one) and maybe there is no existence independent of consciousness at all. The only existence is consciousness.

Eagle: but

Eagle: it doesn't solve the question of where that reality came from or what "created" it.

E: No yet anyway but I have not abandoned all hope. I will have to think on it a whole great big lot more before I can answer the question. The question is not answerable in my current belief system.

Eagle: The prime mover theory came from this same problem and was a lazy attempt at explaining away the fact that our thought is not capable of really grasping the infinite, and since we only understand things through causality, we cannot let ourselves rest thinking that something just always was and ever shall be.

E: It may be necessary to abandon causality. Blasphemy it the current determinist almost religious western cultural belief system.

Eagle: Like a purely objective reality.

E: Maybe Maybe not. Still working on it and I can post no more on the subject until I think on it some more. Your questions and comments are of considerable help. I appreciate them.

Eagle: So we say that it's God and yell at the ceiling on Sunday...world without end, amen, amen.

E: I thought that I was the only one who did that.


Erimitus

New Post! January 05, 2018 @ 11:27:32 pm
0
I wandered of topic in the middle of my post. Sometimes I do that in the middle of a sentence. I find focus limiting; you can see the forest for the trees when you focus. And of course there is only a forest when I am experiencing it.


chaski

Stalker

New Post! January 06, 2018 @ 02:15:08 am
0
Perhaps your are a group of atoms...

These atoms, at some point in time, for some reason per chance combined into a group of compounds...

Which in turn formed into assorted proteins and other stuff...

Which are formed into bodily tissues (skin, muscle, fat, veins, etc)...

At some point you were born into this physical world...

Due to a strange and wondrous coincidence of nature, the you that was born contained a central nervous system which (more or less) operates on electro-chemical reactions, that use oxygen, sugars and probably some other stuff as fuel...

And for some undetermined reason this central nervous system uses proteins and/or amino acids (and possibly other stuff) to "record" stimulus that your body encounters...

This bio-electric-chemical system allows you to "think"...

Thus enters the problem: You actually think that you are more than you are and thus ponder (think more) on the where/what/why of it...

Which gives you a headache, so you start drinking Tequila...

Oh...

Wait...

That was me not you...

My bad...

A... never mind....carry on...


Willi

New Post! January 06, 2018 @ 02:20:54 am
0
My mind created my reality. The question to ask is what created my mind.

You.


Erimitus

New Post! January 06, 2018 @ 02:49:49 am
0
@chaski Said

Perhaps your are a group of atoms...

These atoms, at some point in time, for some reason per chance combined into a group of compounds...

Which in turn formed into assorted proteins and other stuff...

Which are formed into bodily tissues (skin, muscle, fat, veins, etc)...

At some point you were born into this physical world...

Due to a strange and wondrous coincidence of nature, the you that was born contained a central nervous system which (more or less) operates on electro-chemical reactions, that use oxygen, sugars and probably some other stuff as fuel...

And for some undetermined reason this central nervous system uses proteins and/or amino acids (and possibly other stuff) to "record" stimulus that your body encounters...

This bio-electric-chemical system allows you to "think"...

Thus enters the problem: You actually think that you are more than you are and thus ponder (think more) on the where/what/why of it...

Which gives you a headache, so you start drinking Tequila...

Oh...

Wait...

That was me not you...

My bad...

A... never mind....carry on...


A whole great big lot of ifs. It could take up to 13.8 billion years for that to happen.


Erimitus

New Post! January 06, 2018 @ 03:05:08 am
0
@Willi Said

My mind created my reality. The question to ask is what created my mind.

You.



The individuated unit of consciousness that I AM created a mind that creates my reality. That makes sense.

Untimely consciousness created every-thing and every-non-thing.

I have to change my lexicon ever so slightly in order to bring it into a closer alignment with the common tongue.

1. That which is perceivable is a potential object
2. That which is perceivable, when it is being perceived is an object.
(this is the change)
3. An object is a thing.
4. There are two kinds of things.
5. There are inanimate things
6. There are animate things
7. Animate things are beings.
8. Beings are sentient.

So now (with this change) every-[thing] whether it is animate or inanimate (i.e., a being) was created by consciousness. Actually that is more complicated but it is consistent with the usual use to the word thing.

I don't know. Maybe I should change it back. What do you think?


chaski

Stalker

New Post! January 06, 2018 @ 03:13:26 am
0
@Erimitus Said

A whole great big lot of ifs. It could take up to 13.8 billion years for that to happen.


Then again, perhaps you are the only mind...and you have invented all of this to occupy yourself.

Oh...wait...that would be me again....


Willi

New Post! January 06, 2018 @ 03:22:19 am
0
@Erimitus Said



I don't know. Maybe I should change it back. What do you think?


an object is perceived
can I perceive myself
AM I an object


What is an object again?


Erimitus

New Post! January 06, 2018 @ 03:29:10 am
0
@chaski Said

Then again, perhaps you are the only mind...and you have invented all of this to occupy yourself.

Oh...wait...that would be me again....



I cannot argue against solipsism. And if I am the only consciousness there would be little point in arguing because there would be no one to argue with.

I believe that there is a high probability that you exist and that you are a fellow individuated unit of consciousness. I can think of no way to test this theory so it will have to remain a hypothesis.


chaski

Stalker

New Post! January 06, 2018 @ 03:34:30 am
0
@Erimitus Said

I can think of no way to test this theory...



I've got it!

You and I meet... somewhere...anywhere.... you sign a legal document absolving me of any liability or criminal wrong doing (we might need witnesses)...

I then smash your little toe (just one, you choose)... with a hammer...

I bet you will then believe in the existence of at least one of us... and strongly suspect the other also exists.

Its a test...sort of...





Erimitus

New Post! January 06, 2018 @ 03:35:32 am
0
We could use a computer as an analogy.

Mind is a CPU

There is input of data from the senses and from memory

The computer screen is the virtual reality that is experienced by consciousness.

Consciousness created the mind (computer) and the computer creates a reality for consciousness to experience.

Pages: 1 2 · >>
Quote | Reply