For the discussion of all things philosophical.
https://canzookia.com/
Not maths. In Philosophy of Mind. You'll find it's pretty standard to make the word more precise if you read any books in that field. So I didn't "formalize" it: instead, Philosophy of Mind uses it stipulatively, meaning "with an arranged exactness," so as to get a complicated discussion or point correct.
So the mind is the object and what intervein between them, so-called matter, is the subject.Nick_A wrote: ↑Thu Dec 17, 2020 5:55 pmProbably the easiest way to describe third force is the example of the seesaw. Imagine two kids plying on a seesaw. The subject or active force is the kid pushing down. Then they switch. The kid who was active force is now the passive force and the other pushing down becomes active force.bahman wrote: ↑Tue Dec 15, 2020 4:35 amWhat is the third force? What do you mean by object and subject?Nick_A wrote: ↑Thu Dec 10, 2020 6:08 am
Emergence is an attribute of third force. You are explaining it through duality or what I know of as subject and object. In the intro It is a way of setting the table. Do you agree with how the relationship between subject and object has changed over time. What is real remains the same but how we interpret it creates our reality.
The third force is the seesaw itself which allows them to act as one from a higher perspective.
Are you familiar with the Platonic triad? God is the GOOD. On the first tier beneath God is the first emanation of the GOOD into the three forms of truth, beauty, and justice. In the GOOD they are ONE while as nous they are three.
The question is if the three forces evolve to become GOD or does the GOOD involve into the three initial three forms? Emanation or emergence is then the process of the quality of being of the higher involving into the lower. Suns emerge from a galaxy
In the world a man as active force (yang) unites with a woman representing passive force (yin) to produce a child or the third force which reconciles them in which the essence of both exist. In traditional marriage the man and woman unite as one by the third force in the sight of higher consciousness
Self-modifying code is a code too.Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Dec 17, 2020 6:48 pmIt's not circular. It's recursive.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-modifying_code
seeds wrote: ↑Fri Dec 18, 2020 6:01 pmThere is also the issue of the difference between “weak” emergence and “strong” emergence.bahman wrote: ↑Sat May 02, 2020 7:27 pm I and Veritas Aequitas have and issue about the definition of emergence. I provide my definition here. Yours also welcome.
Emergence means that a state of matter under some circumstances behaves in a specific way or find a specific property, for example becomes a free agent, or become conscious.
A while back (on a different site) I transcribed a short excerpt from one of Robert Lawrence Kuhn’s interviews with David Chalmers where he (Chalmers) gave an off-the-cuff explanation of the difference between weak and strong emergence:
In defense of the idea of how inexplicable the emergence of consciousness is, I went on to explain how my argument is founded upon the examination of the constituent properties of an electron (as best I can from the literature) and then determining that nothing within its makeup or behavior...“...There’s what we might call weak emergence, which is when you’ve got some kind of complicated processing in matter, maybe some complicated dynamics among a bunch of cells and you get a complex pattern in that matter that you wouldn’t have expected, and phenomena emerge like waves on the water. Somehow from these water molecules all jostling around you get these waves, they come into the shore, you can surf on them - that’s emergent, but it’s not something fundamentally new. If you knew about the fundamental structure of all the molecules, you could ultimately predict there are gonna be these waves, and that’s weak emergence. And that’s what you get in a lot of biology and dynamic systems and so on. The more radical kind of thing is what we might call strong emergence - when something totally new emerges from underlying processes. And that’s what you seem to find, I think, especially, with the case of consciousness...”
(or the makeup and behavior of a vast and correlated gathering of electrons - in the shape of a brain, for example)
...can in any way explain the manifestation (emergence) of a lucid dreamer who can willfully grasp the inner mental fabric of her own personal being and shape it into anything she desires.
And the point is that weak emergence (as described by Chalmers) simply cannot account for such a thing.
_______
What in the world are you talking about when you say that a lucid dream probably has to do with at least 10^25 electrons?
The magnitude of the human brain or some part of the brain, let me guess according to you, dreams are happening in some realm distinct from this.seeds wrote: ↑Sat Dec 19, 2020 6:43 pmseeds wrote: ↑Fri Dec 18, 2020 6:01 pmThere is also the issue of the difference between “weak” emergence and “strong” emergence.bahman wrote: ↑Sat May 02, 2020 7:27 pm I and Veritas Aequitas have and issue about the definition of emergence. I provide my definition here. Yours also welcome.
Emergence means that a state of matter under some circumstances behaves in a specific way or find a specific property, for example becomes a free agent, or become conscious.
A while back (on a different site) I transcribed a short excerpt from one of Robert Lawrence Kuhn’s interviews with David Chalmers where he (Chalmers) gave an off-the-cuff explanation of the difference between weak and strong emergence:
In defense of the idea of how inexplicable the emergence of consciousness is, I went on to explain how my argument is founded upon the examination of the constituent properties of an electron (as best I can from the literature) and then determining that nothing within its makeup or behavior...“...There’s what we might call weak emergence, which is when you’ve got some kind of complicated processing in matter, maybe some complicated dynamics among a bunch of cells and you get a complex pattern in that matter that you wouldn’t have expected, and phenomena emerge like waves on the water. Somehow from these water molecules all jostling around you get these waves, they come into the shore, you can surf on them - that’s emergent, but it’s not something fundamentally new. If you knew about the fundamental structure of all the molecules, you could ultimately predict there are gonna be these waves, and that’s weak emergence. And that’s what you get in a lot of biology and dynamic systems and so on. The more radical kind of thing is what we might call strong emergence - when something totally new emerges from underlying processes. And that’s what you seem to find, I think, especially, with the case of consciousness...”
(or the makeup and behavior of a vast and correlated gathering of electrons - in the shape of a brain, for example)
...can in any way explain the manifestation (emergence) of a lucid dreamer who can willfully grasp the inner mental fabric of her own personal being and shape it into anything she desires.
And the point is that weak emergence (as described by Chalmers) simply cannot account for such a thing.
_______What in the world are you talking about when you say that a lucid dream probably has to do with at least 10^25 electrons?
_______
I draw a distinction between GOD and Creation. God IS while Creation exists. God is the eternal unchanging so doesn’t move. The process of creation occurs within God. The effects of creation are described in the days of creation or its levels of reality. It is a hierarchy in which each day includes the previous days but adds its own unique laws on top. Vegetation would include the being of minerals and Man includes the being of vegetation and animals, within its being.Yes. From the very first verse, Genesis 1:1, the Bible makes it clear that Creation is a creation...as such, it is not "the body of God," and is not God, but is a contingent entity, something that once didn't exist when God did, and could not-exist again. But God is the eternal I AM, the self-existent and eternal One. So right from the start, the Bible is a denial of both Pantheism and Panentheism. "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."
Creation or a kalpa is really the breath of God which occurs within God or the eternal unchanging.Time in Buddhist cosmology is measured in kalpas. Originally, a kalpa was considered to be 4,320,000 years. Buddhist scholars expanded it with a metaphor: rub a one-mile cube of rock once every hundred years with a piece of silk, until the rock is worn away -- and a kalpa still hasn’t passed! During a kalpa, the world comes into being, exists, is destroyed, and a period of emptiness ensues. Then it all starts again.
But is the breath of God eternal even though each cycle or kalpa appears to be distinct? It is like trying to find the beginning and end of a circle. Is the big bang really the beginning of the universe or just a part of a cycle unavailable to our senses?An additional problem is this: scientifically, we can see that the universe is not eternal. It had a commencement point in a singularity prior to the Big Bang, and is declining measurably by way of entropy. This gives us a "clock" by which to reckon how old the universe can possibly be, in extremis, and how long it can possibly last before heat death. If we are off by even a hundred million years (which we have no reason to suppose we are), then it would still present the same problem for Panentheism: namely, that the universe is verifiably NOT eternal.
But if the forms emerge from within the isness of God the demiurge within God create and sustain the will of God expressed as the laws of creation along the levels of reality. God IS. The demiurge or artisans of the universe create the lawful process of existence within the eternal unchangingRight. Instead, God is called "the Creator." So there's no Demiurge.
There is a big difference between conscious contemplation and speculation. Where conscious contemplation invites us to remember; to consciously transcend opinions in pursuit of truth, speculation invites us to forget wholeness and produce idolatryI think it "invites" us not to start speculating, actually. It invites us to withhold judgment until we know more information, so that speculations don't mislead us and carry us away into whimsy.
The two interpretations of matter are yin and yang. whichever is dominant becomes yang and that which is temporarily passive becomes yin. Third force is mind. If it is conscious mind then yin and yang can be reconciled by experiencing them as one from a higher conscious perspective.. If mind is lost in imagination ass is usually the case, then it just supports either yin or yang depending upon circumstancesbahman wrote: ↑Sat Dec 19, 2020 6:20 pmSo the mind is the object and what intervein between them, so-called matter, is the subject.Nick_A wrote: ↑Thu Dec 17, 2020 5:55 pmProbably the easiest way to describe third force is the example of the seesaw. Imagine two kids plying on a seesaw. The subject or active force is the kid pushing down. Then they switch. The kid who was active force is now the passive force and the other pushing down becomes active force.
The third force is the seesaw itself which allows them to act as one from a higher perspective.
Are you familiar with the Platonic triad? God is the GOOD. On the first tier beneath God is the first emanation of the GOOD into the three forms of truth, beauty, and justice. In the GOOD they are ONE while as nous they are three.
The question is if the three forces evolve to become GOD or does the GOOD involve into the three initial three forms? Emanation or emergence is then the process of the quality of being of the higher involving into the lower. Suns emerge from a galaxy
In the world a man as active force (yang) unites with a woman representing passive force (yin) to produce a child or the third force which reconciles them in which the essence of both exist. In traditional marriage the man and woman unite as one by the third force in the sight of higher consciousness
Nick_A wrote: ↑Sun Dec 20, 2020 2:07 amThe two interpretations of matter are yin and yang. whichever is dominant becomes yang and that which is temporarily passive becomes yin. Third force is mind. If it is conscious mind then yin and yang can be reconciled by experiencing them as one from a higher conscious perspective.. If mind is lost in imagination ass is usually the case, then it just supports either yin or yang depending upon circumstancesbahman wrote: ↑Sat Dec 19, 2020 6:20 pmSo the mind is the object and what intervein between them, so-called matter, is the subject.Nick_A wrote: ↑Thu Dec 17, 2020 5:55 pm
Probably the easiest way to describe third force is the example of the seesaw. Imagine two kids plying on a seesaw. The subject or active force is the kid pushing down. Then they switch. The kid who was active force is now the passive force and the other pushing down becomes active force.
The third force is the seesaw itself which allows them to act as one from a higher perspective.
Are you familiar with the Platonic triad? God is the GOOD. On the first tier beneath God is the first emanation of the GOOD into the three forms of truth, beauty, and justice. In the GOOD they are ONE while as nous they are three.
The question is if the three forces evolve to become GOD or does the GOOD involve into the three initial three forms? Emanation or emergence is then the process of the quality of being of the higher involving into the lower. Suns emerge from a galaxy
In the world a man as active force (yang) unites with a woman representing passive force (yin) to produce a child or the third force which reconciles them in which the essence of both exist. In traditional marriage the man and woman unite as one by the third force in the sight of higher consciousness
In Buddhism the koan is used to bypass the normal associative mind to reach conscious contemplation and to reason above associative thought. What is the sound of one hand clapping? Can a person in conscious contemplation experience what it means for nous or the first tier of intelligence to emerge from the ONE in a way that they simultaneosly exist?