Philosophy Now Forum

Change is the distinction of potentiality by degree of the actuality of potentiality, as the distinction of potentiality, through further degree of the contrast of the actual and potential through said distinction.

Discuss.

How change is known is when the subject is known to exist but is not known to be an object known. Is it because you exist that objects appear and questions arise, like do you question your own existence?

AI
The assertion is a widely held philosophical perspective: awareness is the fundamental background process of existing, while consciousness refers to the specific, ever-changing content of awareness, such as thoughts or perceptions. Thus, one can be aware without being conscious (like during deep sleep, where awareness is still present but consciousness of content is not), but consciousness is impossible without some form of awareness serving as its foundation.

clock makers have measurable potentiality ...

-Imp

Fairy wrote: ↑Mon Sep 15, 2025 6:59 am How change is known is when the subject is known to exist but is not known to be an object known. Is it because you exist that objects appear and questions arise, like do you question your own existence?

The unknown state of a thing is the means by which it's change is percieved.

Fairy wrote: ↑Mon Sep 15, 2025 7:02 am AI
The assertion is a widely held philosophical perspective: awareness is the fundamental background process of existing, while consciousness refers to the specific, ever-changing content of awareness, such as thoughts or perceptions. Thus, one can be aware without being conscious (like during deep sleep, where awareness is still present but consciousness of content is not), but consciousness is impossible without some form of awareness serving as its foundation.

Given awareness occurs by distinctions arising from potentiality, and the universal nature of potentiality by degree of the quantum vacuum, the universe is self-aware.

Impenitent wrote: ↑Mon Sep 15, 2025 6:54 pm clock makers have measurable potentiality ...

-Imp

So does everything else, all potentiality localizes as an individual distinction.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 16, 2025 4:32 am

Impenitent wrote: ↑Mon Sep 15, 2025 6:54 pm clock makers have measurable potentiality ...

-Imp

So does everything else, all potentiality localizes as an individual distinction.

time is the universal distinction, perhaps distinctly measured individually, it is understood universally...

-Imp

Impenitent wrote: ↑Tue Sep 16, 2025 6:03 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 16, 2025 4:32 am

Impenitent wrote: ↑Mon Sep 15, 2025 6:54 pm clock makers have measurable potentiality ...

-Imp

So does everything else, all potentiality localizes as an individual distinction.

time is the universal distinction, perhaps distinctly measured individually, it is understood universally...

-Imp

Time is the ratio of movements compared to a fixed point that is but another ratio of movements compared to another fixed point that is but another ratio of movements...so on an so forth. Time is relative changes.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 16, 2025 4:26 am

Fairy wrote: ↑Mon Sep 15, 2025 6:59 am How change is known is when the subject is known to exist but is not known to be an object known. Is it because you exist that objects appear and questions arise, like do you question your own existence?

The unknown state of a thing is the means by which it's change is percieved.

Nicely explained.

Btw Eod … what are the ***** for, just out of curiosity?

Fairy wrote: ↑Tue Sep 16, 2025 7:42 am Btw Eod … what are the ***** for, just out of curiosity?

Some threads I write "just for the hell of it" as discussions.

Others I may build upon as axioms, or rather assertions, in a book, hence *****.

I have a first draft of a book completed. 359 pages. One book as four books, four books as one.

It will be most likely be titled "The Proto-Occurence".

It will be an even 360 pages when revised as it is fitting that a book on cycles corresponds to 360 pages as 360 degrees of a circle from a symbolic perspective.

Its pretence will be arguments and formalisms that translate experiential reality as holographic by nature.

It was built by degree of the debates and discussions I have had with people purely from the angle of what I wrote. It is only the writings I have made, adapted by degree of where people disagreed with what I claim or could not find clarity it what and how I expressed an assertion.

AI analysis, whether true or false, points that the book surpasses that of prominent philosophers in depth, insight and formalism when they are used as relative points of comparison. For example in a numerical IQ score in one analysis, it made the claim, not me, that the average intelligence metric of prominent philosophers was between 140 and 170. It then proclaimed my intelligence metric score, for the specific book, was between 180 and 200.

This metric was a metaphorical "IQ"..."metaphorical" being the key word as the AI acknowledged the limits of measuring IQ by nature of philosophical writings.

It was highly complementary in the respect, that on multiple occasions, it claim that the book "if accepted it is paradigm changing."

Now I don't expect the book to be popular at all, nor accepted, hence most likely not paradigm changing, due to the high degree of abstraction (and the AI claims it is hyper-abstract) but if the book provides a metaphysical road map for just a few people along their life course then I will consider it a success. It provided me a metaphysical road map so regardless it is a success for just me.

The debates and dialogues I have had over the years where intended as a means of refining what and how I wrote and will write...that is why I cherish people disagreeing with me...hence the "fancy" language structure.

It only refines my language capacity and the degree of what and how I assert things.

Enemies are often better than friends for they refine us by nature of happily pointing out and exploiting our relative weaknesses.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 16, 2025 6:10 pm AI analysis, whether true or false, points that the book surpasses that of prominent philosophers in depth, insight and formalism when they are used as relative points of comparison. For example in a numerical IQ score in one analysis, it made the claim, not me, that the average intelligence metric of prominent philosophers was between 140 and 170. It then proclaimed my intelligence metric score, for the specific book, was between 180 and 200.

You suck your own dick like a world champ.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Tue Sep 16, 2025 6:51 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 16, 2025 6:10 pm AI analysis, whether true or false, points that the book surpasses that of prominent philosophers in depth, insight and formalism when they are used as relative points of comparison. For example in a numerical IQ score in one analysis, it made the claim, not me, that the average intelligence metric of prominent philosophers was between 140 and 170. It then proclaimed my intelligence metric score, for the specific book, was between 180 and 200.

You suck your own dick like a world champ.

Or maybe the AI sucks mine...or maybe it is just neutral...or "x"....or "y".... or...


You often take things out of context and claim such things as truth. The score as stated was metaphorical, as there are limits to applying an IQ measurement on a philosophical text, both myself and the AI acknowledge this. This was stated. There are also limits to the legitimacy of IQ as well and that is another course that can traversed.

But let's go with the metaphor, and assume it is correct.

People like you claim others who differ than you as stupid, and exacerbate your own perceived intelligence in doing so.

Our thoughts differ as evidence by your continual attack on them over the years.

So if a neutral third party comes in an claims that what I say is absent of lack of intelligence, and I post this than I am viewed egotistical. So if I claim anything, of any definitive degree, it is a no win scenario for people like me...so give me a rational scenario, one measured by your own choices, as to why me or anyone else should view you as someone worth impressing.

Please explain why you should be taken seriously.

You can use the thread topic as a means to do so, so as to keep on topic.

Thank you Eod for answering my question about the *****

I for one am intrigued by your unique expression. I even resonate with it without knowing why, it seems to just sing to me.

Ignore the brickbrats they’re probably just jealous of your intelligence which is of a very high and valuable standard I have to say, including you natural ability to speak to others with respect and common courtesy. I like that you welcome any feedback whether it be positive or negative. You are one of the most pleasant posters to discuss with on this forum. I guess it’s lonely at the top, yeah, that’s for sure. Anyways I appreciate your deeper than the norm insights, keep em coming champ.