Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Oct 24, 2022 9:42 pm
CHNOPS wrote: ↑Tue Oct 18, 2022 4:43 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Oct 17, 2022 10:19 pm
What movement isn't complex?
We define "complex" as we want. Arbritrary.
I call "simple movement" to something like a rock, water, seaweeds.
I call "complex movement" to something like worms to humans.
I believe that "all is consciousness". But in a way you may not understand yet.
When we see a seaweed, that "see" is an interaction that it is in that moment. Being a seaweed is something that is not like that.
First person seaweed is more abstract, and time is relative, so, being a seaweed could be just like a fews second.
Is not like being a seaweed feels like "staying dancing with the movement of water, boring and cold". That is what humans see, not what that experience in first person is.
If "complex" is defined as to how we want then contradictory interpretations of it occur and with these contradictions anything goes.
As to your point a paradox ensues:
1. The simplest movements are the convergence and divergence of (a) thing(s), ie one to many and many to one.
2. The most complex movements are the convergence and divergence of (a) thing(s), ie one to many and many to one.
3. Simplicity and complexity equivocate under these qualities.
1. The simplest movement is the seperation of a thing into things, with the thing(s) being a localization of time and space; this can be called branching.
2. The most complex movement is the seperation of a thing into further things,
¿?
You make 2 equal definitions of "simplest movements" and "complex movements" and I dont know why you want to do that.
I dont get what you are reasoning here.
I just give examples:
SIMPLE MOVEMENT: rock, water, seaweeds.
COMPLEX MOVEMENT: worms, dogs, humans.
I think what u are saying is that "all the complex movements are in deep just a separation of a thing into further things, so, there is no difference between a simple movement and a complex movement".
Is that what you are saying?
If yes, that is not ok.
Of course all are movements of atoms, and that apply to rock, seaweed, dogs and humans.
But when you say "dog", you are unifing a millon of atoms, in a particular structure, and talk about that structure as a one thing.
Does the dog separate into further things? NO. At least no while it still a dog...
So, if the simplest movement is union-separation, and it is, then all the movements that are more likely to that, are the one we call "simple movements".
But you arbitrary put that limite of "likely". No the direction (at least if you thing that union-separation is the simplest movement, you may disagree). Just the limit.
Is the ocean more simple than a dog? Yes. Because it movements are more likely to the union-separation. It molecules of hidrogen and oxigen are doing this and that is all what ocean is, that molecules doing just that movement.
The dog have more molecules and in order to stay being dog it maintain a particular structure that DONT SEPARATE.
In water, all separation ocurrs in all the molecules.
So, water is simpler that dog.