Philosophy Now Forum

In the given context, "the fold" makes no sense...

Let us talk about belief.

Retards are not my concern and you are quickly exposing yourself as being one.
Do what your companions have done and simply put me on "ignore". It saves me a lot of effort.

Now, why would I do that? I love bullys. They're tasty little snacks in my boredom. Ready to venture down off of the porch yet? You need a little more rope?

C'mon... rittle guy, it's ok.

Mark Question wrote:what if some fanatical believer of some sort tells you that his "brackround" for all assumptions, prophecies, absolute truths or whatever he likes or have to call them, is his gods world that preceded the consciousness of its independency form all assumptions or perspectives and heretical retards? rhetorically doing it so semanticproof freedom-story that those retarded escapers needs some outside the square box-thinking? nimby saves us?

Declarations are easy, and reality cannot be escaped with delusions.
In the end we are all dependent on this past, how accurately we perceive and interpret it determines our future and how well we cope with the ongoing present.

Of course the system needs retards, ti prefers them and so it protects them form this natural consequence, whereas in nature they would be fodder for the superior.
This is what I am fighting against...this sheltering that makes of stupidity a virtue.

Don't get me wrong, I am not here to save the world, as I like it as it is.....I see the present situation as an environmental factor I must analyze so as to preserve what I consider most precious to me...if someone benefits in the process is a bonus.
I seek challenges to my perspective to hone it and sharpen my eyes...unfortunately most find inventive ways of avoiding me, returning to their complacent delusions of common "self-evident" truths, or I am forced to deal with sub-standard attacks, going over the same ground, offering me nothing mroe than boredom or, at most, frustration.

Mark Question wrote:and what if I tell you that i am gay girl in damascus studying biology and the only proof I literally have is words, then will you literally believe me?

Nope.
Words are easy, and so they are easily faked...acts are more honest.
If you have a theory it must refer back to actions, in other words existence...given that existence is interactivity.

Don't tell me about love, and its all bracing power, with that doe-eyed passivity of a love-stricken romantic fool who is addicted to its comforting embrace, show me it in action.
If you cannot then it must be due to other reasons....like your stupidity or some chemical madness the brain goes through when certain hormones flood it and make mush out of its reasoning.

If greed is manmade then show me a human system where it is not present, show me an animal society with no greed, then analyze the reasons why. There is no perceptible individual greed, although the hive as a collective exhibits greed in relation to other organisms and hives and/or collectives, in bee hives, so is that your ideal state?
Do you people wish or dream of a human race similar to a termite mound?
If so say it!!! Admit it!!!

If not, explore your own ideals and see where they lead. Do not focus on the benefits, see the costs.
Is a mindless drone your ideal man? He is loyal, hard-working, tolerant, complacent, a harmonious agent, harmless....but he is also mindless, an automaton, weak, dependent, stupid.

Mark Question wrote:am i even a homo sapiens, a wise guy!? what about my biology books and heideggers archaeological pattern diggings in my bookshelf? i once read a book, where some guy was talking about those pre-socratic naturephilosophers with their "nature", "reality" and "all" doing the same as he was inventing in his book. he cooked big juicy phenomenon with hint of logic quite a tasty way. sounds whole new branch of philosophy to me, like those french did it in kitchen with garlic. freedom fries and all. le big-hug to them!

Can't help you with a direction.

I offer my perspective, for self-serving reasons: ego and arrogance being two of them.
What you do with it I could not care less about, unless you offer me something I can use and I can benefit from: like a succinct, cogent and unemotional and rational challenge....in other words something not based on the same old post-modern, Judeo-Christian, secular humanistic (Marxist), progressive hypocrisies.

It's odd that modern day progressives shy away from their Marxist brethren.
Like those retards proposing that Utopian Venus Project. It's Marxism, but given the historical baggage and the Pavlovian reactions the word evokes, they cloud it ion a star trek universe kind of garment.
Christian doctrine, with another new mask.

Got to hand it to the Jews...they have a talent for bullshit.
Who else could have turned a genetic disadvantage into a mimetic advantage?
Who else could have tureen slavery into mastery?
Who else could have sold nihilism and self-extinction, with a smile and a positive spin promising a more real reality?

They infected Rome by morphing into Christianity and Islam...now it is infecting the world by morphing, once more, into a more universal humanism.
Same shit, same self-hatred and anti-nature perspective...only it now comes with a green thumb and a spiritual awakening, now called enlightenment or modernity or progress.

creativesoul wrote: Now, why would I do that? I love bullys. They're tasty little snacks in my boredom. Ready to venture down off of the porch yet? You need a little more rope?

This too is a common response.
Do you know what's funny, little boy?
It's that you are the real bully here, or a mere representation of it given that you have no mind and no will of your own, and I only come to put you in your place.
Your ilk is infecting the world with its "popular" populist message of pretended mirth and seductive mindless hope!!!
You are part of a stronger force, drowning the world in its disease; you are a majority and your power is found in numbers.

I like the insertion of "boredom", it makes you all the more dull. It offers you that way out, that justification you cannot offer yourself in any other way. It explains you to your ilk and retains the delusion of grandeur. Next you'll ell me how much I make you laugh; how I entertain you.
When you will find my hard to deal with, you will make it into a joke to rpetend that you can crack me, but you choose not to.

Bullies, boy? I know bullies and you and your ilk are it.
Who else would spew the same shit, as if it were certain and foregone conclusions, with the backing of an authority figure, which you simply wish to emulate and follow?

creativesoul wrote:C'mon... rittle guy, it's ok.

A....are....are you sure?....'cause I'm a bit scared, mister.

creativesoul wrote:In the given context, "the fold" makes no sense...

I'm surprised someone as adept in linguistics, as you pretend to be, would be so confused by a simple dictionary definition, helped with no less than a thesaurus reference.

creativesoul wrote:Let us talk about belief.

Shall we...
I'm sensing the confidence of a boy who thinks he is treading in his habitual grounds.

Will you put me in my place, dear boy, for the benefit of the herd you aspire to lead or to ascend the ranks within?
Do you wish to be liked or respected in their mediocre midst?
Do you aspire to make a name for yourself?
Have I not gotten off your porch, boy? Have I not dragged you out of your "civilized" enclosure, your barn, little sheep?
Have I not given you a rope? Now you use it to catch this dog, and you hang it in the name of "decency" boy. .

At this point you are a bit apprehensive, wondering if you should find an excuse like "you aren't worth it" to turn tail and save face.
Buuuut, something urges you forward...that damn testosterone.....your balls are tingling...while you pretend to be above it all.
Off the porch boy; you come out of that barn.

Do you know what you are, little mind?
A young ram, who wishes to face down that alien entity in the fold, in the herd, wanting to make a name for itself amongst those he wants to be like.
He wants to be noticed by the bitches.
A black sheep, perhaps, but a sheep no less.

Yes, I bet that to the sheep a wolf is a "bully"...but what a moralistic title humans invent to protect weaklings....explains a lot about you and your kind, no little boy?

There are no bullies in the wild, boy; there are only the weak and the strong.

Are you the defender of weakness, because you associate your self with it so much?
Are you the great avenger, the resentiment finding its mad hero?


Mmmmm, this is gonna be tasty....
Tell me about belief...then tell me about faith.

I hope you aren't in a hurry....'cause I mean to savor you, little lamb.
I'm gonna take my time and do it nice and slow.

Come out and play...

Satyr wrote:Declarations are easy, and reality cannot be escaped with delusions.

i take your word for it. and what kind of relations would be there in axiomatically self-evidental theory of nature, between words like "reality", "delusion", "nature", "god", if not axiomatically self-evidental?

delusions of common "self-evident" truths

like common axioms "scientifical proofs proofs science", "exis­tence exists", "creator of all created all", "believable is believable",..?

Words are easy, and so they are easily faked...acts are more honest.
If you have a theory it must refer back to actions, in other words existence...

thank you for those words. act, actions, existence..easy words? are writing, talking and thinking acts? are we refering back to words, in other words..?

Mark Question wrote:

Satyr wrote:Declarations are easy, and reality cannot be escaped with delusions.

i take your word for it. and what kind of relations would be there in axiomatically self-evidental theory of nature, between words like "reality", "delusion", "nature", "god", if not axiomatically self-evidental?

Words are symbols of simplified generalizations: abstractions constructed by using a priori methods - evolved as the most successful - integrated within models in with sensual input.

I think of the a priori concepts like space/time (really one and the same, as space is the projection of temporal possibilities) as an evolved mental three dimensional grid, upon which the mind applies, by interpreting - that is by making static through this process of simplification/generalization - simplifying/generalizing, the abstractions it creates continuously using sensual input.
Given that reality is fluid, this process is continuous and requires constant updates.

The mind experiences change, indirectly, by juxtaposing one abstraction with the next, discerning divergences between the two. This is what it calls "change" or "movement".
The duration between the construction of one abstraction and the next determines what man calls "time". It is strictly a standard based on biological metabolic rates, or the rate the synaptic nerves can manage to process the information into coherent models.
Since no matter how fast the given brain is - some are faster than others - what is perceived is always obsolete...ergo Heidegger refers to consciousness as a looking back.
Obviously not only are minds different in the amount of information they can process, at any given time, but the organism is different in the amount of sensual input it's sense organs are sensitive to.

The absolute, like God, thing, particle, here, now, one... is what is absent. It is the missing static state in a fluid reality.
The mind experiences this absence as need/suffering....the latter being need reaching a degree where the mind cannot tolerate it. It is overwhelmed by the sensation.

Schopenhauer refers to pleasure as being a negative concept, and I agree, as suffering or need, is the very experience of existing, making any dogma promising an end to need/suffering a nihilistic one, as it is anti-life and anti-existence...or at least the numbing of the mind to existing, like in meditation.

Extreme asceticism is an expression of this nihilism....it is mostly a dissatisfaction with the world, as it is. Most forms of idealism are expressions of it, as well. They offer "corrections" to the very circumstances that make life possible, or that evolved a consciousness to then confront it.
The Hellenic variant of asceticism is more proper, as it uses asceticism as a means to an end...not as an end in itself. Ascetic from the Greek askisis.
Asceticism
in this type of self-denial the mind trains itself to endure more need/suffering, increasing its tolerance levels and so its potential for pleasure or a neutral state. To achieve this habituation a mind must endure stress.
"What does not kill me...."

Mark Question wrote:like common axioms "scientifical proofs proofs science", "exis­tence exists", "creator of all created all", "believable is believable",..?

Modern day science has become institutionalized. It rarely, if ever, diverts from the socially and culturally acceptable parameters, asking questions in a way that predisposes a particular outcome. This is natural as much of science today depends on grants and a scientist must think of his family and his career before veering off course.

The very idea of a beginning to the universe is a preposterous assumption, as it assumes what there is no evidence for...a beginning, and then asks for a reply, leaving the door open to christian dogmatism and the creationist crap to enter in the irrational gap.
Steven Pinker has written a book on how modern science is liberally biased or how it takes certain suppositions as self-evident, like: The Ghost in the Machine - the idea that whatever you see hides an inner immutable core that is running things; The Noble Savage - the idea that man is inherently good and it is civilization that makes him evil; Tabula Rasa - the idea that man, and no other creature, enters life clean and innocent, with no predispositions and no nature. A man awaiting training or a soul awaiting to be written upon.

Take mathematics.
This is a language that presupposes its own logic and then challenges all to adhere to it.
It begins with simple binary logic, directly reflecting how the brain works or how the synapses works (on/off): 1/0
The one is a presupposition as there is no evidence of a one anywhere...in fact the concept is so ambiguous, abstract, that it can be applied to anything and everything. As a logical outcrop its negation is presumed, as well.
Once you accept these metaphors, these simplified/generalizations, then the logic of 1+1=2 follows.
One is always equal to itself as it is an abstraction and so it must be a tautology with itself. But apply it outside the mind and nothing is ever the same. When you say "tree" and then a minute later you point to the same tree and repeat "tree' you re not referring to the same phenomenon, as the tree itself has altered in some way. You are really referring to the simplified/generalization, which posits that the tree is part of the same continuum you call that particular tree, because you are holding it in memory.
The tree itself is never the same, just as you are not the same you you were a year ago or a minute ago or whatever time-measurement you choose to use.

Mark Question wrote:thank you for those words. act, actions, existence..easy words? are writing, talking and thinking acts? are we refering back to words, in other words..?

Yes, the mind is always referring back to its own abstractions.
But what separates the delusion from the more real, you might ask.

Keeping what I said earlier in mind, the mind is delusional when it begins to lose contact with reality. In other words when its abstractions contain less and less reference points to the world, or to put it in yet another way, when its mental models contain less and less sensual input.
The mind now turns or self-referential, and this is what many memes attempt to do.
This is solipsism if not for the fact that much of this self-referencing is in relation to abstractions given to it from an external source, an authority.

Of course in most cases this solipsism is partial or selective.
I call this compartmentalization.

Christians exhibit this phenomenon clearly. They can show the deepest skepticism and the most impeccable reasoning when they are buying a house, taking nobody's word on anything, but they revert back to their childishness when it comes to God. There they fall head over heals for what promises them a bigger return than what they are investing.
In mot cases they are right, for they lack character and intelligence so they are not giving up much for the promise of eternal life at the side of an omnipotent omniscient God.
God being a compensation for everything their intuitively know they lack in themselves.

Same goes for many modern progressives. They preach non-discrimination yet can be the most discriminating in all other areas except the one they've been trained not to....or a woman might talk about how looks are superficial and inner beauty is what truly matters, and then show the highest level of impressionability to sensual input, like a tall dark and handsome man or a big shiny car.

In these cases we witness how mimetic effects still cannot overcome genetic predispositions.
It's all a game of cards.

Labial fold... I mean Satyr,

Yer wunna them there for-chooon tellers, aintcha? I mean, dag-nabbit, yer words... they uh... well... er... they match up to my kinda thinkin' sumpin' terrible. Amazin' I tell ya. Kinda reminds me of me 'ole buddy Will. Aw, he's dead now, but he could do the very same thangs that you do. Readin' minds, and tellin' for-choons an' all, I mean.

Alright Satyr,

Do you believe reality is as you say?

Whilst I pretty much agree with what you say I think you need to change your metaphor on the synapses as they are not 'on' and 'off' as they have a constant activation state.

Would you equate the speed of processing with ability to think? As computers process very fast but do not appear to think?

I thought science was very much opposed to a beginning but the evidence just keeps pointing to it?

Why could reality not be 'static' and this 'fluidity' the effect of how we sense?

creativesoul wrote:Alright Satyr,

Oh goody....
The interrogation style....also known as the Socratic method.
I hope you are up for the task, boy, I hate wasting my time.

But one rule, my great lamb-asting avenger, I'll give you all the rope you want, if you offer me tiny bits of string.

Quid pro quo, dear boy, quid pro quo.

creativesoul wrote:Do you believe reality is as you say?

I believe reality is most probably, in its present state, as I say.
More precisely what I describe is closest to the fact than any other perspective I've come across.
How it will be in a billion years, I do not know.
I can use the present state, as far as I can perceive it, to project a more probable future and a most probable past but my awareness is contained in what I cal "my perceptual event horizon" and so it has its limits.
I create models which approximate reality, just as an artist creates works that approximate his subject matter. The best proof of a theory's precision is its, relatively speaking, application.

Oh dear, have I burst a bubble, there boy? Were you hoping I was more forceful and certain and absolute?
Where will you tie the rope now?
Shall I hang you with it?

A genius it is said, without implying that I am one of course, is the one who is more timeless in his thinking. Memory is associated with genius.
The simpleton, not implying that you are one of course, is more timefull, if you will. That is to say that the retarded mind is like an animal's, living more in the moment, in comparison to a human's.
you see, my boy, humans suffer more because they are aware of more. They think about the past and the future, whereas animals only think in the moment.

Ironically this is the state the liberals/progressives and the New Agers wish to promote as an enlightened state of being.
Essentially it is a self-induced retardation. I'm sure you, of all people, can best appreciate this.

The forces of nature are said to have fragmented since the theoretical Big Bang, so I suspect that entropy implies that this will continue for some indefinite period of time.
A theory, dear boy, is not a dogma, it is a theory; one which tries to remain true for longer periods of time by incorporating more details into its models and projections.
In this, like with everything else in nature, survival of the fittest applies.

Superior/Inferior, never omnipotent or omniscient or perfect or absolute.
Natural selection all the way, dear boy.
are you inferior or superior? We shall see, no, dear BOY?

--------------

creativesoul wrote:Labial fold... I mean Satyr,

Yer wunna them there for-chooon tellers, aintcha? I mean, dag-nabbit, yer words... they uh... well... er... they match up to my kinda thinkin' sumpin' terrible. Amazin' I tell ya. Kinda reminds me of me 'ole buddy Will. Aw, he's dead now, but he could do the very same thangs that you do. Readin' minds, and tellin' for-choons an' all, I mean.

You com'on out and play, little man, and we'll deal with your handicaps later.
I enjoy your play. It will make my "hanging" all the more fun.

Little boy, because I have experience with your kind, I will be gravely disappointed if in the future you decide to prematurely declare victory, to give yourself a way out, or you decide I am no longer "entertaining" or far too "boring", for the very same reason.
I know how premature ejaculation works and little boys, inexperienced with life, tend to cum before it is time.
I think you've cum already...just thinking of me dangling on your rope...the one I will give to you freely.

So, little boy, of undecided natural age, I hope you will follow through and hang this ol' dog up high for all your kin to see for miles around, ya hear?
I want you to make an example of me, as a warning to all those that may pass by wanting to disturb your quiet little dull get-together here.

More than that, boy, I want you to make me suffer beforehand.

All I ask in return is this....

----------------------------------------------------
Now my turn, black mut-ton....
Quid Pro Quo...

Age?
Sex?
Location?

It's part of a survey.

Little girls should stay out of discussions involving boys.

Arising_princess wrote: Would you equate the speed of processing with ability to think?

Thinking is the totality of synaptic activities collected and processed by a central agency, which makes sense of it...orders it, combines it, and then uses it to construct models.
In its rudimentary form a thought is an energy pulse flowing, - notice the similarity to reality - through synaptic switches (on/off). This is the source of binary logic, which all language, including math, is based on and this is what produces dichotomies. From this on/off mechanism, caused by a biochemical energy pulse which is triggered by a sensual stimulation, we get I/You, Good/Bad, Edible/Inedible, Something/Nothing.
The speed and the direction this energy pulse takes, triggers thoughts, as thoughts are collective synaptic activities.
Thoughts are abstractions perceived in succession.

Arising_princess wrote:As computers process very fast but do not appear to think?

Yes, well maybe the term "sophistication" should enter your vocabulary.

Arising_princess wrote:I thought science was very much opposed to a beginning but the evidence just keeps pointing to it?

Really?
Where?

How you ask the question often determines what answers you receive. Science is infected with monism, because the entire modern culture is infected with Judeo-Christianity, and Parmenedian crap.

But if you wish to retain this model of thinking then you can imagine it, in your girly way, like a balloon pinched at its end.
The pinch represents the closest point to the absolute we come, and depending on the perspective one can think of it as either a Big bang or a Big Crunch.
Entropy, you see, is both increasing and decreasing simultaneously - making the Big Bang not a singularity but an ongoing event which we are flowing away from - but we only experience entropy because only in that "direction" is the resisting nature of consciousness possible...being that consciousness and the life that spurred it is really an ordering in reaction to entropy (disordering).
the mind cannot make sens eof any other flow....so the other dimensions are always baffling, and certain ones are inconceivable: like the direction towards decreasing entropy or towards the Big Crunch.

All of this is, of course, is a human way of understanding reality; an artistic expression of it.
Mine.

Arising_princess wrote:Why could reality not be 'static' and this 'fluidity' the effect of how we sense?

Because there would be no need to sense what is never changing.
What use would consciousness have in a universe that is not changing? What would perfection change into?
Why perceive at all?
If, little girl, our senses are fooling us, then why do we evolve senses at all? Is life a big farce?
Some would say that it is.

The perfect, the immutable, would have no reason to think, as thinking implies a necessity. If this Godhead is bored or it seeks self-knowledge then this contradicts its perfection.
I do not agree with Spinoza. Another Jew offering an adaptation to the same old nihilistic bullshit.
The tactic of simply baptizing the active perfect is easy...but given that we are manifestations of this activity, then we feel why we act and we know what urges us to do so.
This is need.
Do you feel perfect, sweetie? If not then how can a part of the universe be imperfect while the "whole" remains perfect?
The concept of a "whole" it itself problematic. One, essentially, projects himself "outside" the universe to establish wholeness. But what lies "outside" existence if not non-existence, using the old dichotomies?
There is no action without a need, for need is the conscious experience of reality, of existence.

But, little girl, we do not, perceive flow, we only perceive change, by juxtaposing one abstraction to the next, in the flow of consciousness.
The brain fills in the gaps, deducing that in between one moment and the next, between one abstraction and the next, reality did not stop and then start up again.

Goaturder wrote:Little girls should stay out of discussions involving boys.

I like talking with kids.

Goaturder wrote:Thinking is the totality of synaptic activities collected and processed by a central agency, which makes sense of it...orders it, combines it, and then uses it to construct models. ...

I'd have thought this was 'thoughting' not thinking? As thinking is the 'reapplication' of the representations of thought to itself, commonly in the form of language or voice. By "central agency" you mean what, the CNS? As I think the endochrine system is also involved in 'thinking' the way we do.

Goaturder wrote:In its rudimentary form a thought is an energy pulse flowing, - notice the similarity to reality - through synaptic switches (on/off). This is the source of binary logic, which all language, including math, is based on and this is what produces dichotomies. From this on/off mechanism, caused by a biochemical energy pulse which is triggered by a sensual stimulation, we get I/You, Good/Bad, Edible/Inedible, Something/Nothing.
The speed and the direction this energy pulse takes, triggers thoughts, as thoughts are collective synaptic activities.

Maybe but how are you having a "similarity to reality" as I thought you said we can only have metaphorical abstractions?

If reality is particles then it'll be reality that provides the binaries not our system? Hence colour is particles of different sizes of which four are needed to produce your pulse and the 'flow' is in our heads not reality.

Your synaptic switches have a constant state of activation regardless of sensory input, why is this not the base of consciousness?

Goaturder wrote:Yes, well maybe the term "sophistication" should enter your vocabulary.

Maybe, so we are just more sophisticated computers? You think consciousness will arise from more sophisticated didgital processing?

Goaturder wrote:Really?
Where?
What is pointing to it is human prejudice.
How you ask the question often determines what answers you receive. Science is infected with monism, because the entire modern culture is infected with Judeo-Christianity. ...

Its only been what? The last fifty years that the big-bang model has been accepted.

Goaturder wrote:... But if you wish to retain this model of thinking then you can imagine it, in your girly way, like a balloon pinched at its end.
The pinch represents the closest point to the absolute we come, and depending on the perspective one can think of it as either a Big bang or a Big Crunch.
Entropy, you see, is both increasing and decreasing simultaneously - making the Big Bang not a singularity but an ongoing event which we are flowing away from - but we only experience entropy because only in that "direction" is the resisting nature of consciousness possible...being that consciousness and the life that spurred it is really an ordering in reaction to entropy (disordering).
the mind cannot make sens eof any other flow....so the other dimensions are always baffling, and certain ones are inconceivable: like the direction towards decreasing entropy or towards the Big Crunch.

Again maybe, but this model has no 'big crunch' anymore.

Goaturder wrote:Because there would be no need to sense what is never changing. ...

Not if 'reality' is not what we perceive but a simulation of some kind with reality being the 'simulator'. So 'spacetime' is actually a static entity that we cannot perceive.

Goaturder wrote:What use would consciousness have in a universe that is not changing?
Why perceive at all? ...

What do you mean by 'consciousness' as the vegetable kingdom, et al appear to be doing just fine. Also, I thought that this 'change' was created by us making differences?

Goaturder wrote:If, little girl, our senses are fooling us, then why do we evolve senses at all? ...

I don't say they are 'fooling' us, just that they may not be perceiving 'reality'.

Goaturder wrote:The perfect, the immutable, would have no reason to think, as thinking implies a necessity. If this Godhead is bored or it seeks self-knowledge then this contradicts its perfection. ...

What 'godhead'? If there is then why do you think its calculating us or even this reality? It could all just be a temporary by-product of an initialization process. A glitch even.

Goaturder wrote:The tactic of simply baptizing the active perfect is easy...but given that we are manifestations of this activity, then we feel why we act and we know what urges us to do so.
This is need.
There is no action without a need, for need is the conscious experience of reality, of existence. ...

You'll have to explain more simply as it sounds like you are saying the old hippy phrase that we are the Universe looking at itself or we are manifestations of a 'god' looking at itself? As though there is a purpose out there?

Goaturder wrote:But little girl, we do not, perceive flow, we only perceive change, by juxtaposing one abstraction to the next, in the flow of consciousness.
The brain fills in the gaps, deducing that in between one moment and the next, between one abstraction and the next, reality did not stop and then start up again.

How do you know its a 'flow' then? And what 'gaps' can there be that we need to fill?

Arousing_Princess wrote:I like talking with kids.

Oh sweetie, I drop a toy and you play with it.
Bend at the knees, not the back.

Now you are even copying my methods. That's what girls always do.

Arousing_Princess wrote: I'd have thought this was 'thoughting' not thinking? As thinking is the 'reapplication' of the representations of thought to itself, commonly in the form of language or voice. By "central agency" you mean what, the CNS? As I think the endochrine system is also involved in 'thinking' the way we do.

Princess, consciousness precedes self-consciousness.

The "reapplication" is thinking about thinking which is what self-consciousness is all about.

Arousing_Princess wrote:Maybe but how are you having a "similarity to reality" as I thought you said we can only have metaphorical abstractions?

The process, sweetums...the process. Consciousness is produces by fluidity, reflecting the overall fluidity of reality. A biochemical impulse streaming through the brain. To make sense of it the brain fabricated static models...like snapshots, it then juxtaposes, trying to imitate reality, in a stream, like in a movie projector.

Arousing_Princess wrote: If reality is particles then it'll be reality that provides the binaries not our system?

No girly, reality has no particles....the mind freezes the wave into a point. this is what simplification and generalization is. It arbitrarily cuts it from the past and the future, eliminating its Becoming, so as to fabricate a Being.

Arousing_Princess wrote:Hence colour is particles of different sizes of which four are needed to produce your pulse and the 'flow' is in our heads not reality.

Color like all characteristics are interpretations of variations in rate of flow, as there is no uniformity in reality.
Hardness indicates a slower rate of flow, for example. Like how your skull is thick and hard.
Color is not produced by sizes, sweetie, as size indicates a thing...they are produces by different rates of activity...vibrations. The brain translates them in the way it has evolved to translate them.

Arousing_Princess wrote:Your synaptic switches have a constant state of activation regardless of sensory input, why is this not the base of consciousness?

They do within a particular time-frame, retard.
Duration is consistent in our species because we share DNA, but it is not really, since there are divergences within the model. Slight, but enough to create more or less intelligent minds within an overall average intelligence.
Synaptic speeds are also a product of the energy impulses speed, which is more constant. How the results of this impulse streaming through the brain is processed is not a constant, given that old age affects it and genetics determine its potential high end and low end.

Arousing_Princess wrote:Maybe, so we are just more sophisticated computers? You think consciousness will arise from more sophisticated didgital processing?

Ddi you think humans invented this tools by accident, or is it that they reflect the methods humans use to understand and make sense of the world?
If it troubles you to think of the human brain as a more sophisticated "computer" then I suggest you move to the religious sub-forum and post your inanities there.

Man's tools are extensions of his nature. Civilization, turd, is a continuation of how particular genetic strands interacted with particular natural environments.
No invention is unique, in the sense that it totally usurps what already exists. All invention is a product of combining what already exists in a new way.

Arousing_Princess wrote:Again maybe, but this model has no 'big crunch' anymore.

but it does, retard, because the Big Bang is the Big Crunch perceived from an opposite direction.

Arousing_Princess wrote:Not if 'reality' is not what we perceive but a simulation of some kind with reality being the 'simulator'. So 'spacetime' is actually a static entity that we cannot perceive.

Princess, time is a measurement of change...produced by this juxtaposition of abstractions...and space is the projection of its possibilities.
If they are static they are because they are human concepts, meant to make sense of a fluid environment.

The point, for instance, or the notion of a here or a now, are human ones., They make no sense outside human understanding.
They can be infinitely divided because they are human artifices. The fact that they can be infinitely divided means that they attempt to symbolize, using a static concept, a fluid environment which lacks all static states.

Arousing_Princess wrote:What do you mean by 'consciousness' as the vegetable kingdom, et al appear to be doing just fine. Also, I thought that this 'change' was created by us making differences?

The focus of the mind upon an object/objective - both being projections of the absent absolute, s I call it, is what the Will is.
That plants can do so, means that they have some primitive form of Will. They are, after all, alive...but only slightly less than you, as you are almost in a state of catatonic decay...I call your ilk "zombies" or the "living dead" or the "brain dead".

See, even here art, as in zombie movies, comes to represent a real phenomenon with a symbolism.

Arousing_Princess wrote:I don't say they are 'fooling' us, just that they may not be perceiving 'reality'.

They are not, woman!
I said that.
They perceive "reality" after the fact.
They perceive a reality which has ceased to be, and then only partially and simplistically.
The advantage of intelligence, which you will never come to appreciate, is that it projects with accuracy, by taking the given, what has been, and extrapolating what will be, from the pattern it finds there.
Intelligence is about pattern recognition and projection, using the imagination.

This is why it is funny when retards, like you, use the term "projection" as an insult.
We are ALL projecting...but some with more precision and effectiveness than others.

Arousing_Princess wrote:What 'godhead'?

The one you fantasize about in your womanly wet-dreams.

Arousing_Princess wrote:If there is then why do you think its calculating us or even this reality? It could all just be a temporary by-product of an initialization process. A glitch even.

First of all, I was imitating your kind's mindset...as I do not believe in God...and second, stop watchnig sci-fi movies, and in particular The Matrix...and if you do stop confusing it with the real world.

Arousing_Princess wrote:You'll have to explain more simply as it sounds like you are saying the old hippy phrase that we are the Universe looking at itself or we are manifestations of a 'god' looking at itself?

Only difference, sweetie, is that I take on Kazantzakis' viewpoint and I consider God, the ideal which is still imperfect, weak and needy...because He is a projection of the human mind.
He is what we strive for, not what is...and then only those who dislike existence. God is a nihilistic concept. It aims ab absolution and a final end...an end to reincarnation as well.

Little girl, life affirmation is the embracing of life's cost and life's ephemeral nature.
To do otherwise would be to fall into the category of what Nietzsche called the resentful.

One embraces need/suffering as a necessary byproduct of consciousness, and of self-consciousness more so.
You might increase your tolerance to need/suffering using the ascetic practices, but you do not wish for the cessation, as this would make you obsolete and your life a big joke.

Arousing_Princess wrote: As though there is a purpose out there?

Turd, you give it purpose.

Arousing_Princess wrote:How do you know its a 'flow' then? And what 'gaps' can there be that we need to fill?

You seem to have trouble comprehending...as usual.
In time, this most feminine trait, will make you boring and frustrating to deal with.

I've provided the answer, yet, as usual, you ask the same fuckin' question.
Did I say there were gaps in reality or in human consciousness?
How did i explain that one deduces that between one abstraction and the next reality does not cease?
Turd, if I see a man, and a decade later I run into him again, do I assume that he did not exist in the interval, or do i take the similarities, ad to it my experience with life and with human life, in particular, and deduce that he lived during the period that I was not aware of him?

Satyr wrote:

Mark Question wrote:what kind of relations would be there in axiomatically self-evidental theory of nature, between words like "reality", "delusion", "nature", "god", if not axiomatically self-evidental?

Words

thank you for those words, again. i quess i cant thank you enough. your answer was again almost absolute, when we are comparing your model of nature to itself. but what about if we could have more than one "better than others"-models to compare? could we reach to think, if not see, any metalevels also in comparison about different models, from the model that we are looking girls, nature and all its questions now? like all natures asphalt concrete highways to its pollution factories, power plants and all.

Mark Question wrote:like common axioms "scientifical proofs proofs science", "exis­tence exists", "creator of all created all", "believable is believable",..?

how modern science is liberally biased or how it takes certain suppositions as self-evident

so, is there any certain suppositions as self-evident or referring back to its own abstractions, in the model that you like to talk and refer?

Mark Question wrote:thank you for those words. act, actions, existence..easy words? are writing, talking and thinking acts? are we refering back to words, in other words..?

Yes, the mind is always referring back to its own abstractions.
But what separates the delusion from the more real, you might ask.

Keeping what I said earlier in mind, the mind is delusional when it begins to lose contact with reality. In other words when its abstractions contain less and less reference points to the world, or to put it in yet another way, when its mental models contain less and less sensual input.
The mind now turns or self-referential, and this is what many memes attempt to do.
This is solipsism if not for the fact that much of this self-referencing is in relation to abstractions given to it from an external source, an authority.

Of course in most cases this solipsism is partial or selective.
I call this compartmentalization.

Christians exhibit this phenomenon clearly. They can show the deepest skepticism and the most impeccable reasoning when they are buying a house, taking nobody's word on anything, but they revert back to their childishness when it comes to God. There they fall head over heals for what promises them a bigger return than what they are investing.
In mot cases they are right, for they lack character and intelligence so they are not giving up much for the promise of eternal life at the side of an omnipotent omniscient God.
God being a compensation for everything their intuitively know they lack in themselves.

Same goes for many modern progressives.

sounds like you have metamodelled more than one models quite a experienced way? do also solipsists, naturalists or conservative christians like it if we say that we are talking also their models? and what about our own models? maybe liberal christian could use those same sentences of yours to criticise all others? lets google a bit about modern sciences conservatism:
"some of the common psychological factors linked to political conservatism include:
Fear and aggression
Dogmatism and intolerance of ambiguity
Uncertainty avoidance
Need for cognitive closure
Terror management"
http://berkeley.edu/news/media/releases ... tics.shtml
and i tought that you need to be conservative life loving autistic to do some serious science without falling a sleep!

ps. i almost forgot. my turn to drop a name: descartes cogito ergo sum - there is i that think, therefore there is i that think! thats a good starting point to build some coherent model man! maybe he should have started from whole nature itself? there is natural thinking, therefore nature is!? but what went wrong with descartes from the beginning and why he didnt die sooner? was there something in those words he used? or did he just forgot to think secretly in public places? you know those faces when you are talking aloud to yourself about philosophy or even less important subjects of daily life.