Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
... (cut for space but I am studying your post)...
I'm sorry, but I think I've forgotten exactly what it is that I didn't comment on. Can you give me the post #s you want me to comment on?
Sorry. I thought I'd posted this before but it has either gone down a black hole or I posted it on the wrong thread.
#750 p 75. In fact I'll repost it here.
While wishing to avoid sounding like someone who listens to an exposition of relativity and asks: 'So it's like the universe is full of rubber?' This sound very much like the point where Mystic and I got to before we parted company.
He was talking about 'god' and I was talking about 'nature' and, while we agreed that there was consciousness, there was a question of labelling it 'god' which he wanted to do, because it was so big and creative.
While accepting that argument as credible, I demurred at his wishing to label it 'god' because any such consciousness would have to have, as you say:A high-level form of qualitative awareness that includes at least enough conceptual resources to conceive of possible futures.
The way I put it was having forward - planning ability. That is, not only concieving of possible futures but acting to bring one (or more) about. If not, how it it deserving of the label 'god'?
I pointed up, as evidence that this was not neccessary to explain our consciousness, something like your animal consciousness example and then tracing it all the way back via bugs and plants (1) to, arguably, the molecular, atomic and sub atomic operations of matter. And whether that is forward - planning consciousness is far from clear.
Quote:
One interesting question that no one here has asked yet: Could this unconscious phenomenal chaos possibly serve as a foundation for objective morality?
As you say - I question (and what one doubts should not be taken as a given) whether this working of matter has "any abstract capacity for anticipating possible futures" and if not, could it bring about animal and thus, our, consciusness?
If one accepts the evidence of evolution I have to say: 'certainly', since there is a valid case for morality being based originally on our evolved instincts. This is back on plebian reasoning again, not philosophy, but it does seem to link up with what you were saying in philosophic terms above.
I do look over what Mystic says and I have to say - maybe it's bias on my part - that it looks like someone with a god - belief in his head trying to push the 'who made it all then' argument for god on us. It sounds like the ol' gap for god argument from ignorance and the leap of faith of theist argument.
(postulate a First cause. call it 'god'.............(leap)........ the Bible tells us about God)
I'll get back to your previous post. now.
(1) you said: "I would say that plants have no consciousness, even though there is a certain biological sense in which they are "aware" of the world insofar as their physiology requires input/output relations with the world. I certainly do not believe that rocks or atoms are conscious; I'd say they are not even a little bit conscious." In everyday terms, this is true, just as rocks and squirrels are not considered atheists. Yet, there seems doubt on your part where the cut off point is and I'd agree. There is none as it is essentially, factually, and evolutionarily - speaking, the same phenomenon. It is only when it get to dogs, chimps and elephants that we see anything like thinking or problem - solving and ours of course looks very different. But is it?
I really do hope to get a bit further on this as it's where Mystic and I got bogged down before and, if it's me talking bilge don't hesitate to say so. I believe you will be fair.
As you say - I question (and what one doubts should not be taken as a given) whether this working of matter has "any abstract capacity for anticipating possible futures" and if not, could it bring about animal and thus, our, consciusness?
I'm not sure exactly what you wanted me to comment on in your last post (which I did recognize from before). It seems like you and I are on the same page, so far as I can tell. I will, however, make a brief comment on the quote I've included above.
I don't think that air molecules, light rays, rocks, or plants, have any abstract capacity for anticipating possible futures, which is one of the reasons I say that these things are not conscious. Yet we literally "are what we eat" (and breathe, and otherwise absorb) so we are literally composed of air, light, rocks, and plants - and yet we are conscious. The puzzle, once again, is to give some credible account of how all of these unconscious elements manage to compose a conscious being.
Mystic goes straight to a primordial consciousness in order to account for this. As I understand him, he is saying that we are conscious because God is conscious, and God instills consciousness in us at birth. Despite his efforts to sound scientific, his theory is not scientific. But he is not alone. Nobody (including me) has a credible scientific theory of consciousness yet.
I've argued that consciousness is essentially a kind of "feeling." There is something it is like to feel pain. There is something it is like to want a hamburger. There is something it is like to expect that a baseball will fall to earth if I throw it in the air. There is something it is like to believe that 5 is bigger than 2, and this feeling is tied in certain key ways to our expection that adding five apples to 8 apples will yield more apples than adding just two apples. In other words, I don't draw any fundamental distinction between "feelings" (or emotions) and "intellect." Intelligence is a "way of feeling" that goes hand-in-hand with other ways of feeling. Consciousness is a "way of feeling" that goes hand-in-hand with various ways of feeling that we call "intelligent." Dogs are intelligent to some degree, so I would say they are conscious to some degree.
All intelligent beings are composed of some qualia that no rock or tree is composed of. This is because the qualia associated with intelligence are not simple qualia; they are high-level compositions of more basic qualia - many of which are what we would call raw "emotions" or "sensations." The world is not primordially conscious (which is to say: the qualia that are necessarily associated with all conscious beings are not fundamental), but the world is "driven toward" consciousness given the nature of the qualia that are fundamental (i.e., certain raw, low-level "feelings" that are primordially (non-temporally) actualized.
Being "primordially actualized" means that they are not limited to any specific time or place (no particular material body), but they have always already been actualized at some some time and place. There was never a time when the world existed, but there was no actualized "desire." (To me it seems that some brute-level version of the general feeling that we know as "desire" seems like the most logical candidate for primordial qualia, but I'm certain open to other suggestions - perhaps "existential discomfort" or "existential fear"? - Perhaps it is not "fear of the Lord" that gives life, but the Lord's fear that does so )
Whatever this primordial qualia is, I would say that it is the ontological essence of what we commonly call "energy." This is one of the areas in which Mystic and I might roughly agree. The primordial qualia is equivalent to "MC^2." This does not mean that any sort of actualized entity literally travels at C^2. This is not a reading on anyone's speedometer. It is a conversion formula that mathematically relates two different qualitative realms - perhaps the realm of the irrational (Heisenberg's Uncertainty) and the realm of the rational (what Wolfgang Pauli called "statistical causality") .
If this all sounds impossibly mystical or esoteric, I would remind you of my distinction between "non-conscious" and "unconscious." The existence of consciousness means that it is logically incoherent to say that the world is "non-conscious" - it must be "unconscious" insofar as "unconscious" refers to the built-in logical potential-for-consciousness. If you can think of a better option for dealing, theoretically, with the unconscious than primordial qualia/energy, then I'd love to hear your alternatives.
Keep in mind this is metaphysics, not physics (at least for now). A couple of years ago I tried to discuss this qualia/energy concept in the MySpace Theoretical Physics group, and they got really pissed off. One guy started foaming at the mouth and ranted for a whole page hurling the most vile insults he could think of - basically telling me that I was nothing but a miserable boil on humanities' A55 and no one would ever love me. In other words, until I have a quantifiable/testable formulation of this idea, it is not science. But I still say it is consistent with science, and that's all I'm trying to maintain at this point.
Maybe theres a lingering resistance to the big bang. Their must have been resistance as the Big bang was a happening.
The physical result is an acute evolving sense in conflict with entropy.
The conscious physically representing resistance in conscious persistence in preservation of energy contrary to the always present molecular disorder from day 1.
When you think about the brute level feeling, the objective in origin is a body reliant on conservation of energy. Therefore ...it would be logical in the anti-entropy origin in description of emerging consciousness in the universe. The brute level feeling would be "objective energy conservation" higher organizational perimeters in existence would then come about in proportion to balance in anti entropy resistance and continued un-avoidable molecular dis order. ultimate organization being the end productThe anti -entropy conscious an emergence of resistance from day 1.
With above we can have a brute level feeling , with a logical origin ...consistant with organizing
I'm in a rush today...if this is a no go ...super...wanted to get it down.
Maybe theres a lingering resistance to the big bang. Their must have been resistance as the Big bang was a happening.
The physical result is an acute evolving sense in conflict with entropy.
The conscious physically representing resistance in conscious persistence in preservation of energy contrary to the always present molecular disorder from day 1.
When you think about the brute level feeling, the objective in origin is a body reliant on conservation of energy. Therefore ...it would be logical in the anti-entropy origin in description of emerging consciousness in the universe. The brute level feeling would be "objective energy conservation" There would be allowance for expenditure in perceived higher organizational perimeters in existence.
With above we can have a brute level feeling , with a logical origin .
I'm in a rush today...if this is a no go ...super...wanted to get it down.
Do u know what entropy is.....ok so The on going and continued molecular disorder in the universe is called entropy...so if I am sick and I eat an orange and feel better the molecular disorder is greater due to the greater value in energy degradation in my decomposition of the orange..thus the universe has become further disordered....thats how things are
So I am thinking the entropy in the universe would have an always increasing rate...if it has a rate of disorder it must be ...just thinking restricted to that rate.....resistance
Thats what I'm thinking I can call....anti-entropy. As well the BB did not happen moments before the BB....why...there must have been resistance to event...
I'm calling it anti-entropy as it is the opposite of universe initiative
So...we are energy loosing energy since the day we are born
So is the universe...
Maybe the birth or emergence of conscious or unconscious is reflecting a relationship with above..suggested anti-entropy and entropy balance.the lingering resistance to initial BB...anti-entropy.The mind being a highly complex evolvement of the relationship between these two suggested balancing force's. Organization would then be a product of anti-entropy...
So the asymmetrical business would be a broad picture of human existance... man does not have a scientific explanation for all this so its good to give a shot at it... .I think I verbalized better in above post. anyway just ducted back quick to see whats up...gotta go
I'm not sure exactly what you wanted me to comment on in your last post (which I did recognize from before). It seems like you and I are on the same page, so far as I can tell. I will, however, make a brief comment on the quote I've included above.
I don't think that air molecules, light rays, rocks, or plants, have any abstract capacity for anticipating possible futures, which is one of the reasons I say that these things are not conscious. Yet we literally "are what we eat" (and breathe, and otherwise absorb) so we are literally composed of air, light, rocks, and plants - and yet we are conscious. The puzzle, once again, is to give some credible account of how all of these unconscious elements manage to compose a conscious being.
Mystic goes straight to a primordial consciousness in order to account for this. As I understand him, he is saying that we are conscious because God is conscious, and God instills consciousness in us at birth. Despite his efforts to sound scientific, his theory is not scientific. But he is not alone. Nobody (including me) has a credible scientific theory of consciousness yet.
Sorry GW . . . I not only posit the level of being that consciousness resides in . . . the molecular vibratory "speed"(as in frequency) of energy . . . E = MC^2. But I also posit the mechanism for transforming our life energy into that state . . . composite neuronal activity in resonance. It doesn't get too much more scientific than that. God is Life and what is instilled at birth is the "seed" of consciousness life (vibrational energy signature in the substrate) . . . providing the primordial qualia of Love you are struggling to find and justify.
Quote:
I've argued that consciousness is essentially a kind of "feeling."
Duh . . . you mean like Love?
Quote:
There is something it is like to feel pain. There is something it is like to want a hamburger. There is something it is like to expect that a baseball will fall to earth if I throw it in the air. There is something it is like to believe that 5 is bigger than 2, and this feeling is tied in certain key ways to our expection that adding five apples to 8 apples will yield more apples than adding just two apples. In other words, I don't draw any fundamental distinction between "feelings" (or emotions) and "intellect." Intelligence is a "way of feeling" that goes hand-in-hand with other ways of feeling. Consciousness is a "way of feeling" that goes hand-in-hand with various ways of feeling that we call "intelligent." Dogs are intelligent to some degree, so I would say they are conscious to some degree.
All life is conscious to some degree.
Quote:
All intelligent beings are composed of some qualia that no rock or tree is composed of. This is because the qualia associated with intelligence are not simple qualia; they are high-level compositions of more basic qualia - many of which are what we would call raw "emotions" or "sensations." The world is not primordially conscious (which is to say: the qualia that are necessarily associated with all conscious beings are not fundamental), but the world is "driven toward" consciousness given the nature of the qualia that are fundamental (i.e., certain raw, low-level "feelings" that are primordially (non-temporally) actualized.
Being "primordially actualized" means that they are not limited to any specific time or place (no particular material body), but they have always already been actualized at some some time and place. There was never a time when the world existed, but there was no actualized "desire." (To me it seems that some brute-level version of the general feeling that we know as "desire" seems like the most logical candidate for primordial qualia, but I'm certain open to other suggestions - perhaps "existential discomfort" or "existential fear"? - Perhaps it is not "fear of the Lord" that gives life, but the Lord's fear that does so )
I repeat . . . the "feeling" you are searching for is Love and it is given to all life by life's Father, God. This also means, btw . . that a tree is conscious to some degree (being alive unlike a rock).
Quote:
Whatever this primordial qualia is, I would say that it is the ontological essence of what we commonly call "energy." This is one of the areas in which Mystic and I might roughly agree. The primordial qualia is equivalent to "MC^2." This does not mean that any sort of actualized entity literally travels at C^2. This is not a reading on anyone's speedometer.
This is part of the confusion of using simplistic analogies to present generic ideas. The "speed" referred to by me is not "transportational" . . it is vibrational . . . as in "molecular state of "substance" . . . in this case composite consciousness.
Quote:
It is a conversion formula that mathematically relates two different qualitative realms - perhaps the realm of the irrational (Heisenberg's Uncertainty) and the realm of the rational (what Wolfgang Pauli called "statistical causality") .
IActually, it is a change of state equation indicating a different level of being from our sublight "materialistic" one.
Quote:
If this all sounds impossibly mystical or esoteric, I would remind you of my distinction between "non-conscious" and "unconscious." The existence of consciousness means that it is logically incoherent to say that the world is "non-conscious" - it must be "unconscious" insofar as "unconscious" refers to the built-in logical potential-for-consciousness.
Get this Arequipa???
Quote:
If you can think of a better option for dealing, theoretically, with the unconscious than primordial qualia/energy, then I'd love to hear your alternatives.
Did I say Love???
Quote:
Keep in mind this is metaphysics, not physics (at least for now). A couple of years ago I tried to discuss this qualia/energy concept in the MySpace Theoretical Physics group, and they got really pissed off. One guy started foaming at the mouth and ranted for a whole page hurling the most vile insults he could think of - basically telling me that I was nothing but a miserable boil on humanities' A55 and no one would ever love me. In other words, until I have a quantifiable/testable formulation of this idea, it is not science. But I still say it is consistent with science, and that's all I'm trying to maintain at this point.
This is a limitation of our current technological capabilities . . . a measurement problem. If we cannot measure or quantify consciousness energy . . . testable formulation will not be possible.
Last edited by MysticPhD; 01-24-2011 at 04:20 PM..
Sorry GW . . . I not only posit the level of being that consciousness resides in . . . the molecular vibratory "speed"(as in frequency) of energy . . . E = MC^2. But I also posit the mechanism for transforming our life energy into that state . . . composite neuronal activity in resonance. It doesn't get too much more scientific than that. God is Life and what is instilled at birth is the "seed" of consciousness life (vibrational energy signature in the substrate) . . . .
The vibrational frequency of any physical system is proportional to the energy contained within the system. Thus, for any given system, if you are going to change the frequency, you will need to either add or subtract energy. Physicists are extremely good at measuring changes in energy, and accounting for the overall conservation of energy (where it came from and where it went). The same can be said for detecting and measuring the degree of vibrational resonance. The idea of tying life and/or consciousness to vibrational energy is not new, and various people, including experimental physicists, have tried to measure the changes that such theories predict. (I am even somewhat sympathetic to the concept myself. It sure would make my own theory far more plausible if some quantifiable connection could be found.) But so far as I know, there is nothing in the literature of science that confirms the vibratory relationship that you are talking about. If you can reference some scientific sources supporting your view, I will be happy to take a look.
Sorry GW . . . I not only posit the level of being that consciousness resides in . . . the molecular vibratory "speed"(as in frequency) of energy . . . E = MC^2. But I also posit the mechanism for transforming our life energy into that state . . . composite neuronal activity in resonance. It doesn't get too much more scientific than that. God is Life and what is instilled at birth is the "seed" of consciousness life (vibrational energy signature in the substrate) . . . providing the primordial qualia of Love you are struggling to find and justify. Duh . . . you mean like Love?All life is conscious to some degree. I repeat . . . the "feeling" you are searching for is Love and it is given to all life by life's Father, God. This also means, btw . . that a tree is conscious to some degree (being alive unlike a rock). This is part of the confusion of using simplistic analogies to present generic ideas. The "speed" referred to by me is not "transportational" . . it is vibrational . . . as in "molecular state of "substance" . . . in this case composite consciousness. IActually, it is a change of state equation indicating a different level of being from our sublight "materialistic" one. Get this Arequipa???Did I say Love???This is a limitation of our current technological capabilities . . . a measurement problem. If we cannot measure or quantify consciousness energy . . . testable formulation will not be possible.
So...just trying to figure a few things out..not trying to be problematic...
Where we have a "vibrational energy signature in the substrate" when I look at a beautiful sunset or starry night for example, I may perceive consciously the wonder and appreciation for creation. Its the neuronal activity in resonance which is allowing for the conscious appreciation.
What underlies the basis for creation in appreciation is specific.... to my conscious experience......not the sunset in of itself ...it is not "life-God". Although the event is in consequence or a product of the creation, how can the appreciation exist where the subjects (sun-stars) are in an "apparent" indifference to the qualia product ?
Also...just wondering..If the God in all (did some reading on the interesting
subject) approach is in view, the quantities or forms of resonance in vibration would not be specific to life . Although we have a thought.. consistent with the requirement of some form of consciousness to be particular only to life forms.
A pebble...in this regard would be a non-player. A non-player , contrary to its participation , contribution and necessity in totality.
I'm not trying to suggest a pebble has a form of consciousness, but a constitution which would not be contrary to something that was made in the same creation by the same God. As well hold conformity
Maybe, I'm being too fussy but the manifestation of consciousness in "principal" should be, in my thinking abundant in virtually everything we can
understand to be ...within the universe. Does that make sense..? Part of my thinking here is how "partly" I arrived at my previous thought re the origin in a "conforming sense" to consciousness. The abundance of "something" in a starry night lends appreciation in perception
in relating an agreeable connection. I think the abundance is a constricting balance in the management of...chaos. Anti-entropy. An intended or reflected balance in the Source.
Ultimate balance...ultimate reason...ultimate love..resulting in inevitable emergence of consciousness. So, I don't ultimately disagree with the comment , re brain activity ect, simply commenting on the over all construction of all that is with reference to consciousness which I think is key
Where we have a "vibrational energy signature in the substrate" when I look at a beautiful sunset or starry night for example, I may perceive consciously the wonder and appreciation for creation. Its the neuronal activity in resonance which is allowing for the conscious appreciation.
I rarely understand much of what you say, do to some odd sentence structuring, but here I think you are touching upon a key concept that brings me, once again, back to a variation of the original OP. (For my own purposes I will re-write the OP slightly and say: "Science and philosophy have much better answers than "God did it.") I'm not convinced that a full theory of mind will be purely scientific; it will most likely be a philosophical theory that is consistent with science, but will have to go beyond science in certain crucial ways.
If I understand correctly, you are pointing to a possible resonance between the "vibrational energy signature" of a sunset, and the neural activity in your brain, such that you have an aesthetic appreciation of the sunset, but it is the resonance - not purely the brain itself, or the sunset itself - that constitutes the feeling of appreciation. Resonance is a form of relationship, and thus requires a minimum of two entities. A single entity can vibrate all by itself, but it cannot resonate unless there is at least one other entity with which it is in synch. If this is what you are saying, then I agree.
In my own philosophical writing, I typically make some reference to John Dewey at this point, since he emphasized that consciousness in not just "in the brain" or "in the external world" but in the brain/world interaction. In "From Chaos to Qualia" I refer specifically to qualia in this respect. The "redness of red" in your appreciation of the sunset is not strictly "in you head" or in the sunset. In fact, it is not "in" anything at all, except the World as a whole. The quale just is the World-process that begins in the world and ends in your head. (I borrow that last bit of phrasing from Riccardo Manzotti.)
I suspect that science, in itself, cannot give us a full explanation of "the redness of red" (or the "blueness" of a particular Blue Hue) because some of the subjective aspects of qualia simply cannot be understood in purely rational terms. What science hopefully can do, however, is find empirical support for a theory positing the nature of the brain/world resonance. I think, however, that the word 'resonance' could be misleading if you take it too literally. I don't think we will look in the visual cortex and find molecules literally vibrating in resonance with molecules in the external scenery. (Sure, by pure statistical probability there will always be some common frequencies, but I doubt that these will explain the visual sensations of red.)
To understand the sort of mind/world resonance constituting the qualitative feel of appreciating a sunset will require a metaphorical re-conception of the concept of resonance. I'm guessing that this will require an understanding of how "resonance" can exist between radically different kinds of dynamic patterns (including patterns of light in the sunset, neural firing patterns in the visual cortex, neural firing patterns in the hippocampus (memory), as well as larger social/historical patterns relating to intersubjectivity, language, and the biological/evolutionary roots or our emotional and cognitive capacities. It seems impossible to pull all of this together - and perhaps it is - but the wonderful thing about a good scientific theory is that "putting wildly different things together" is exactly what a good theory does. A good theory pulls together and organizes a variety of phenomena that seemed completely unrelated to people who tried to think about stuff prior to the theory. This is what science does surprisingly well, and it is what religious beliefs tend not to do at all - except for the ever-present fall-back disclaimer that "God did it."
And, although I know that Mystic will want to kick my butt again, this is why I keep pounding away that the emergent patterns found in dynamical systems. Patterns in models are abstract/mathematical, but if a model is good, then it, too, is in a sort of "resonance" with reality. We measure the "resonance" of an abstract model is by how well it allows us to make predictions and discover new - previously unsuspected - connections between seemingly unrelated phenomena. This, again, is what science does, and what "God did it" does not do. I am obsessed with dynamical patterns because I strongly suspect that they will be the key to our understanding of the mind/world resonance constituting qualitative experience. What I'm still missing is the Rosetta Stone that gives us a way to translate the wildly different patterns of different physical systems into a "common language" allowing us to see the resonance as a form of resonance. (And here is where ya'll say "Yeah, sure. And good luck with that.")
I rarely understand much of what you say, do to some odd sentence structuring, but here I think you are touching upon a key concept that brings me, once again, back to a variation of the original OP. (For my own purposes I will re-write the OP slightly and say: "Science and philosophy have much better answers than "God did it.") I'm not convinced that a full theory of mind will be purely scientific; it will most likely be a philosophical theory that is consistent with science, but will have to go beyond science in certain crucial ways.
If I understand correctly, you are pointing to a possible resonance between the "vibrational energy signature" of a sunset, and the neural activity in your brain, such that you have an aesthetic appreciation of the sunset, but it is the resonance - not purely the brain itself, or the sunset itself - that constitutes the feeling of appreciation. Resonance is a form of relationship, and thus requires a minimum of two entities. A single entity can vibrate all by itself, but it cannot resonate unless there is at least one other entity with which it is in synch. If this is what you are saying, then I agree.
In my own philosophical writing, I typically make some reference to John Dewey at this point, since he emphasized that consciousness in not just "in the brain" or "in the external world" but in the brain/world interaction. In "From Chaos to Qualia" I refer specifically to qualia in this respect. The "redness of red" in your appreciation of the sunset is not strictly "in you head" or in the sunset. In fact, it is not "in" anything at all, except the World as a whole. The quale just is the World-process that begins in the world and ends in your head. (I borrow that last bit of phrasing from Riccardo Manzotti.)
I suspect that science, in itself, cannot give us a full explanation of "the redness of red" (or the "blueness" of a particular Blue Hue) because some of the subjective aspects of qualia simply cannot be understood in purely rational terms. What science hopefully can do, however, is find empirical support for a theory positing the nature of the brain/world resonance. I think, however, that the word 'resonance' could be misleading if you take it too literally. I don't think we will look in the visual cortex and find molecules literally vibrating in resonance with molecules in the external scenery. (Sure, by pure statistical probability there will always be some common frequencies, but I doubt that these will explain the visual sensations of red.)
To understand the sort of mind/world resonance constituting the qualitative feel of appreciating a sunset will require a metaphorical re-conception of the concept of resonance. I'm guessing that this will require an understanding of how "resonance" can exist between radically different kinds of dynamic patterns (including patterns of light in the sunset, neural firing patterns in the visual cortex, neural firing patterns in the hippocampus (memory), as well as larger social/historical patterns relating to intersubjectivity, language, and the biological/evolutionary roots or our emotional and cognitive capacities. It seems impossible to pull all of this together - and perhaps it is - but the wonderful thing about a good scientific theory is that "putting wildly different things together" is exactly what a good theory does. A good theory pulls together and organizes a variety of phenomena that seemed completely unrelated to people who tried to think about stuff prior to the theory. This is what science does surprisingly well, and it is what religious beliefs tend not to do at all - except for the ever-present fall-back disclaimer that "God did it."
And, although I know that Mystic will want to kick my butt again, this is why I keep pounding away that the emergent patterns found in dynamical systems. Patterns in models are abstract/mathematical, but if a model is good, then it, too, is in a sort of "resonance" with reality. We measure the "resonance" of an abstract model is by how well it allows us to make predictions and discover new - previously unsuspected - connections between seemingly unrelated phenomena. This, again, is what science does, and what "God did it" does not do. I am obsessed with dynamical patterns because I strongly suspect that they will be the key to our understanding of the mind/world resonance constituting qualitative experience. What I'm still missing is the Rosetta Stone that gives us a way to translate the wildly different patterns of different physical systems into a "common language" allowing us to see the resonance as a form of resonance. (And here is where ya'll say "Yeah, sure. And good luck with that.")
I'm going to say a couple of things here. This is not the first time there is a suggestion of confusion directed my way...
It just so happens that last night, I got an email from brother.....
He is ...head of Science dept PHD at a major University.......we talked 2.5 hours on teleph until 1:30 my time
I went through this this thread with him....and he has NO trouble understanding my efforts. As well this has happened before Gaylenwoof and I have had it
I completely understand above post...ok
As well mystics....ok
Often I need dictionary but take alot of time to make sure I am getting the picture....ok
In the quote above ....I was applying Mystics formula he introduces re consciousness and applying to a sunset....Where "Mystic Formula" sunset
I have completely had it with this
I have ZERO against anyone but the way.......
you asked for an opinion on that idea......I'm not giving it because all I will get is.............IGNORED OR WHAT ARE YOU SAYING
I fully regret this forum...Thankyou for your reply and good bye...Edit this is NOT a thread stopping arguement....please continue and I will go back to checking the CD location buisness which is what or how I found this site.............
BTW last edit.....he liked the idea of the concept in lingering resistance that I thought of
Last edited by Blue Hue; 01-26-2011 at 09:13 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
)
) .
