WritersBeat.com
 

Go Back   WritersBeat.com > General Discussion > The Intellectual Table

The Intellectual Table Discussions on political topics, social issues, current affairs, etc.


Stray thought on post-modernism

Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #1  
Old 01-09-2017, 10:41 PM
bluewpc's Avatar
bluewpc (Offline)
Dedicated Writer
Official Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 208
Thanks: 2
Thanks 27
Default Stray thought on post-modernism


The postmodern problem lies in the space between subject and object. The object is indifferent to the subject but not vice versa. In addition the subject is in possession of the Logos to which the object is almost completely defenseless. Contrast this between two subjects each of which makes certain demands of recognition that can be enforced violently if necessary. Even still the inanimate object does have some protections and that seems to be that while it can be modified, one element fused into another or decayed into another, which seems to be part of the postmodernist program, the fluidity of identity, and the flattening of the animate into the inanimate through the denial of objectivity, it remains itself in those morphologies. Which is to say that U-238 always decays into TH234 or that atoms are always comprised of protons and neutrons.

Interestingly enough though is the attempted division, through mechanical amputation, of form from function suggesting an unconscious tendency towards a technocratic future. A gun cannot be divided from what it does. Even if the firing pin is removed and it ceases to be able to function it fails to change the intentionality of its creation, whatsoever that intention might be. Likewise a woman who hacks off her breasts and excavates her uterus remains a woman because her identity is not reliant on those single parts. Function is removed, not intentionality. To substantially alter biological or mechanical intentionality means making modifications at such a level as would require the scrapping of the entire system, killing or recycling the object or person.

Make no mistake. The denial of self is resistance to teleological realities that contradict the infantile wish for omnipotent self-determination and autonomy.

I think its worth mentioning, as I have yet to see it stated elsewhere, that the deconstruction of identity is not simply the linguistic gymnastics it was a century ago when it was limited by technological factors. Today we stand at the precipice of a technological revolution which would allow for the deconstruction of the human body. We've already seen this in surgical reassignment and to be sure this is only scratching the surface in the urge to become a unique entity, which identity fluidity already presupposes, without predicate or antecessor more and more moving towards the delusion of the increate. Except that this elides the subatomic nature of reality thus in order to become truly unique one must be constituted of particles which are truly unique or one must consume the universe until all is contained within the consumer cum everything, as a whole, thus unique. It is power hunger at the most fundamental ontological level, the desire to become the conscious master of both the animate and inanimate.

Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 01-10-2017, 10:07 AM
Cityboy (Offline)
Verbosity Pales
Official Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 4,305
Thanks: 19
Thanks 130
Default

Deep stuff. Find a tavern and enjoy a brew and a laugh.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 01-10-2017, 12:29 PM
PickleBottom's Avatar
PickleBottom (Offline)
Heartbreaking Writer of Staggering Genius
Official Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,884
Thanks: 1,181
Thanks 359
Default

Yes, interesting thought.

Classification is contextual, a matter of subject (else it does not work), even on a Fuzzy Logic level the classification will be difficult w.r.t. particles as self, as are consuming atoms that were consumed by our parent generation, and their parent generation etc, which ultimately resided in stars, which ultimately were clumps of matter, which ultimately were seeded through a bang - thus the consumption of the Universe.

But if we take a relative point of view, a self, and we take a relative feeling, a relative moment etc and we can classify, albeit fleetingly in some cases and more absolutely in others.
__________________
If you have an apple and I have an apple and we exchange these apples then you and I will still each have one apple. But if you have an idea and I have an idea and we exchange these ideas, then each of us will have two ideas
-George Bernard Shaw
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 01-16-2017, 01:24 AM
eripiomundus (Offline)
Noteworthy
Official Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 293
Thanks: 8
Thanks 74
Default

Originally Posted by bluewpc View Post
The postmodern problem lies in the space between subject and object. The object is indifferent to the subject but not vice versa. In addition the subject is in possession of the Logos to which the object is almost completely defenseless. Contrast this between two subjects each of which makes certain demands of recognition that can be enforced violently if necessary. Even still the inanimate object does have some protections and that seems to be that while it can be modified, one element fused into another or decayed into another, which seems to be part of the postmodernist program, the fluidity of identity, and the flattening of the animate into the inanimate through the denial of objectivity, it remains itself in those morphologies. Which is to say that U-238 always decays into TH234 or that atoms are always comprised of protons and neutrons.

Interestingly enough though is the attempted division, through mechanical amputation, of form from function suggesting an unconscious tendency towards a technocratic future. A gun cannot be divided from what it does. Even if the firing pin is removed and it ceases to be able to function it fails to change the intentionality of its creation, whatsoever that intention might be. Likewise a woman who hacks off her breasts and excavates her uterus remains a woman because her identity is not reliant on those single parts. Function is removed, not intentionality. To substantially alter biological or mechanical intentionality means making modifications at such a level as would require the scrapping of the entire system, killing or recycling the object or person.

Make no mistake. The denial of self is resistance to teleological realities that contradict the infantile wish for omnipotent self-determination and autonomy.

I think its worth mentioning, as I have yet to see it stated elsewhere, that the deconstruction of identity is not simply the linguistic gymnastics it was a century ago when it was limited by technological factors. Today we stand at the precipice of a technological revolution which would allow for the deconstruction of the human body. We've already seen this in surgical reassignment and to be sure this is only scratching the surface in the urge to become a unique entity, which identity fluidity already presupposes, without predicate or antecessor more and more moving towards the delusion of the increate. Except that this elides the subatomic nature of reality thus in order to become truly unique one must be constituted of particles which are truly unique or one must consume the universe until all is contained within the consumer cum everything, as a whole, thus unique. It is power hunger at the most fundamental ontological level, the desire to become the conscious master of both the animate and inanimate.
There is only the illusion of individuality in all but the entire universe taken as an individual. Rationale: an atom has forces (gravity, strong/weak atomic forces, electromagnetic). These attributes cannot be divorced from the atom without destroying it - an atom without gravitation is not an atom.

Since the forces, especially the gravitational force, extend beyond the boundaries of the atom's electron orbitals and interact with other atoms and their attendant forces, and since forces are inalienable parts of the atom, there is no real separation between atoms - since all their forces intermingle.

If there is no real separation between atoms, there is only one thing: the entirety of existence. The deconstruction of this singularity occurs only within our minds via the neuro-dendritic differentiation of sensory stimuli. It is useful to survival to divide and isolate - it enables us to recognise an apple, for instance, among the remainder of the visual field's stimuli.

How many of you reading this can describe a particular weed next to the footpath on your way to work yesterday? My guess is none, unless something peculiar brought it to your attention. But you saw one, no doubt. It was an undivided part of the visual field. A part that your mind had not singled out for isolated attention. It was as one with the entirety of existence because you had not internally circumscribed it.

Consciousness entails the isolation of something that was theretofore part of an undifferentiated background, a background it remains a part of in every place except your head.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 01-16-2017, 11:06 AM
brianpatrick's Avatar
brianpatrick (Offline)
Verbosity Pales
Official Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Arizona
Posts: 3,311
Thanks: 306
Thanks 709
Default

Originally Posted by eripiomundus View Post



Consciousness entails the isolation of something that was theretofore part of an undifferentiated background, a background it remains a part of in every place except your head.

This^^^
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 01-16-2017, 02:36 PM
bluewpc's Avatar
bluewpc (Offline)
Dedicated Writer
Official Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 208
Thanks: 2
Thanks 27
Default

Brian I'm moving your comments in russia to this thread. Better suited:


It's very simple. The map is not the territory, and it never will be, at least not in any way we will ever be able to imagine from the place we are now. The best answer to the the question: 'what comes next?', is: I don't know. Because analysis (scientific, political, cultural, historical, mathematical, scientific, spiritual, esoteric, et al) is just system building, and systems are just maps. Yes, they are helpful in our day to day lives, but none (or all) are the full picture; from here, we can't see the whole picture. That is why we are competitive, nationalistic, patriotic, self-serving, violent, and I would add, neurotic, nervous, uncomfortable, disconnected from one another, vengeful, jealous, hateful, greedy, and all kinds of other words I'm sure you can imagine.

Language is also an incomplete system, so there is no language for what is really happening, even if one or more of us knew what reality was. Brilliant artists and philosophers can point at it, or a portion or attribute of it, but that's all. Even if the truth could be understood, it couldn't be conveyed in a meaningful way with our current set of tools. As our tools get more advanced and complex, we get no closer to it. The belief that we are getting closer to the truth fuels the seeking, but also creates more of the same useless complexity, division, competitiveness, etc.

This way of thinking can be easily dismissed by many many maps as the suicide question, or silly misdirection, or defeatism, or gobbledy-gook, and hocus-pocus. Some theists would say that it points to a God or creator, but none of these answers explain fully what is happening.

We are part of something that is moving in an unquantifiable way. If an oppressive system tries to stamp it out or hold it down it will still keep moving. Yes, we can kill and bind and lay a dragnet over what we think it is that's the problem, but the flowers will always pop-up and defy our attempts.

Name one oppressive system that worked? I mean, that is still working? Hell, name ANY system in history that has not failed. And as we get more technologically advanced, they work for shorter and shorter amounts of time.

So, enjoy the movement.

Furthermore, this perspective allows for a much more enjoyable experience of reality. It is by no means some enlightenment, as 'enlightenment' is only another concept dreamt-up by our desire to organize possibilities and systems, and our inability to fully understand what the few who've expressed such ideas honestly, were talking about. In history, there've been a few handfuls of individuals that have tried to communicate these ideas, but what we've done is just distort and misunderstand what was being communicated.

When Jesus (reportedly) said: blessed are the meek... this is what he was talking about. When Nietzsche called this 'slave mentality' it was obvious he didn't understand it. Just like when the New Testament was given to the people, they proceeded to fuck up its meanings, and use it to further self-serving agendas. Historically, I mean. 'I love your Christ, your Christians not so much.'

I'm not just picking on Christians; all other forms of organization are equally guilty. That's not to say they are less, or stupid, but just not interested in looking harder—they don't WANT to know. It would negate all of their life's works and commitments.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 01-16-2017, 03:53 PM
bluewpc's Avatar
bluewpc (Offline)
Dedicated Writer
Official Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 208
Thanks: 2
Thanks 27
Default

@mundus can't snatch away the world here bud

There is only the illusion of individuality in all but the entire universe taken as an individual. Rationale: an atom has forces (gravity, strong/weak atomic forces, electromagnetic). These attributes cannot be divorced from the atom without destroying it - an atom without gravitation is not an atom.

You're overlooking a lot here. For starters baryonic matter is not only not the only matter in the universe it is actually a tiny fraction of the universe's mass most of which does not interact with electromagnetism.

Another part that you're missing is that mass is imparted by entanglement in the Higgs Boson field, its why light moves at the speed of light, it has no mass and thus no ability to stop. It also has weird properties like not experiencing time so that the moment of its creation is simultaneous with its destruction from its perspective and exhibits both particle and wave characteristics.

Herein lies one problem with this part of your argument is that there is universal agreement among observers upon mechanical processes. So if you and I are both counting ants in an anthill and allowing that are counts are both accurate we will come up with the same number. If we independently time the decay of uranium we will measure the same rates using the same tools.

So with differentiation we have consciousness and that changes our perceptions except that we all experience more or less the same psychological phenomena, a category of perception that the inanimate does not have access too. And then on top of the foudnation of psychological commonality, true across species insofar as that all species exhibit common behavior within the species, is that the individual again differentiates into camps of say gender or inclination or political affiliation at least in the case of humans. The point being is that the differentiation process creates groups which has to be approached as subsets of an ontological reality, subsets which are not in most cases bridgeable. Take interspecies procreation a human cannot mate with a dog and have offspring let alone viable offspring. The evolutionary (the biological specific term for differentiation) progression has created species (another biological category) which are incapable of interacting with other species on ceratain communicable levels. You don't expect a hippo to be able to communicate with a parrot nor a seal to understand American politics nor a Floridian to understand South Dakota politics (at least not at first). Neither one is interested in the other. A hyena interacts with an antelope by eating it. The same hyena interacts with a lion through competition. The experience of the individual is subjective but only on a certain strata of existence. The processes that are antecedent to it do not lose their reality nor are things transcendent to our own experience lose their own reality because of our inability to access it.

Since the forces, especially the gravitational force, extend beyond the boundaries of the atom's electron orbitals and interact with other atoms and their attendant forces, and since forces are inalienable parts of the atom, there is no real separation between atoms - since all their forces intermingle.

Except again here we have differentiation. Sof or instance even though you're aware of the common origin of say iron and lead you cannot treat them the same way. You don't smelt iron in a leadworks. You don't take lead pills. So even on the level of the inanimate the reality of their existence cannot be discounted or ignored.

Now carry your logic to the individual which you say doesn't exist. Well that's madness and demonstrable even within this conversation. Obviously you and I have differentiated within the species to an extent that we disagree on the fundamental nature of how to deal with each other. So let's try this out within a few scenarios. Let's try applying this logic to the defense in a murder trial. The defense could reasonbly argue that the accused could not have murdered the duchess anymore than the executioner could murder the accused. In fact if individuality is an illusion than the judge might as well be charged for the murder and the attorney be the victim. This is of course preposterous but without identity, which the individual is dependent on, there can be no differentiation. So when you say there is no individuality what you're really saying is differentiation stops at the human or at the biological but that doesn't make any sense. There are clear demonstrable differences between human beings and you can't explain it away as an illusion because it is something you have to deal with. I mean anyone who has been rejected by a girl or been excluded by a group or been to a place where no one speaks their language cannot help but be painfully aware of their individuality.


If there is no real separation between atoms, there is only one thing: the entirety of existence. The deconstruction of this singularity occurs only within our minds via the neuro-dendritic differentiation of sensory stimuli. It is useful to survival to divide and isolate - it enables us to recognise an apple, for instance, among the remainder of the visual field's stimuli.

Now here is a thing separate from your above argument. The universe as a whole. Now the universe is a whole but its made up of constiutent parts. The problem is, is that the parts don't seem to be necessary for its existence and in fact the term universe is simply a description of totality and so it isnt dependent on anything except containing all that is. You can have a truck but without an engine it isn't going to perform the function of a truck. You can have a turtle but without a liver the turtle cannot function as a turtle. Now you can have a universe with trucks and turtles and men but it continues to function as the universe if they suddenly blip out of existence. The universe does not cease to be the universe because it contains or lacks certain configurations of atoms but at the same time this fact does not negate anything's existence, nor lessens theirvalue. I say lessen because you cannot lessen value on the cosmic or transcendentalist scale, either you have value or you don't and the finite lifespan of the object cannot come into play in its valuation.

So another problem we arise to at this point is you're trying to explode human consciousness into the infinite which because of its finitude it cannot do. Likewise if you try to divide it back into its pure mathematical origins it breaks down and the logical implication of your argument is that the singularity is in no way different than the human mind which is of course ludicrous because consciousness is an emergent property. As is time. JT Fraser in Of Time Passion and Knowledge outlined the evolution of time (I took the quote off of wikipedia but I would highly recommend reading the book as well The Genesis and Evolution of Time by the same):

The theory of time as conflict - nested hierarchy of unresolvable conflicts. These nested levels represent qualitatively different temporalities, for both time and the perception of time have evolved. In one sense, time is physically different from what it was when the universe first came into being.
atemporal - blank sheet of paper, objects travelling at speed of light, black hole/Big Bang, causation has no meaning
prototemporal - fragmented shaft of an arrow, particle-waves travelling at less than speed of light, instants may be specified only statistically, probabilistic causation joins prototemporal events
eotemporal - shaft of an arrow, countable and orderable without a preferred direction, nowless time, physical matter, time orientable but not time oriented, deterministic causation joins eotemporal events
biotemporal - short arrow, future, past, present,limited temporal horizons, organic present, simultaneities of necessity, organic intentionality directed toward concrete goals and serving the continuity of the organism's life, multiple and final causation, rigid programming gives way to dynamic programming
nootemporal - long straight arrow, "You'll come to me out of the long ago", intentionality directed towards concrete or symbolic goals, serving continued integrity of the self, human actions are connected through symbolic causes known as ideas, the possibility of choice among ideas and corresponding actions is known as human freedom, ideas can produce responses to imaginary challenges
sociotemporal - A society is a group of people with a family of conflicts that defines them and distinguishes them from other societies. man has capacity to change social institutions in response to symbolic causes

How many of you reading this can describe a particular weed next to the footpath on your way to work yesterday? My guess is none, unless something peculiar brought it to your attention. But you saw one, no doubt. It was an undivided part of the visual field. A part that your mind had not singled out for isolated attention. It was as one with the entirety of existence because you had not internally circumscribed it.

Now here is the other problem with this. Is that you're taking a rather well understood psychological phenomenon and trying to argue that it represents an aspect of the nondifferentiation of existence. Except we know that the brain filters out unimportant objects because in the older parts of our brain were always searching for danger. So we ignore the blade of grass but we notice the color red or we notice sudden movements. So that argument doesn't hold water. Not least beacuse of which the blade of grass stands apart from the concrete from which it sprouts and the dog that walks over it and the bird the flies above it. The idea that somehow the blade of grass would slip into nonexistence without are witnessing it is solipsism and I think a misinterpretation of the Zeno effect.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 01-16-2017, 07:00 PM
bluewpc's Avatar
bluewpc (Offline)
Dedicated Writer
Official Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 208
Thanks: 2
Thanks 27
Default

@brian

It's very simple. The map is not the territory, and it never will be, at least not in any way we will ever be able to imagine from the place we are now. The best answer to the the question: 'what comes next?', is: I don't know. Because analysis (scientific, political, cultural, historical, mathematical, scientific, spiritual, esoteric, et al) is just system building, and systems are just maps. Yes, they are helpful in our day to day lives, but none (or all) are the full picture; from here, we can't see the whole picture.

Predictions upon the future aside what we do know we know with admirable exactness. Take the sciences. They provide an enormous wealth of information about our world. There is scarcely a subject that you can think of that someone hasn't written exhaustively about. Yes no field is really ever complete but that doesn't mean we don't know anything. Look at computers. We know exactly how they work and how to build them. We know approximately when a species migrates and why. We know why the tides come in and go out and why the stars move. If I'm grounding this in the purely physical its because we are extraordinarily adept at manipulating it. Do we have mastery? No. But we are rapidly approaching it. Consider it from a geological perspective. From that standpoint mankind no more than glances at a problem than it solves it. Look how many diseases have been eradicated through vaccination, look how fast modern technology has propagated itself around the world, our orbit as well.
The protest that there are limits to our knowledge and thus the pursuit of it is futile comes off as disingenuous not least of all because it requries you to ignore the leviathan of human endeavor and accomplishment. I was at the Free Library of Philadelphia I think two years ago and I was walking through the galleries and I remember being in awe of the collection of knowledge. More knowledge than any one man could learn in a lifetime.

That is why we are competitive, nationalistic, patriotic, self-serving, violent, and I would add, neurotic, nervous, uncomfortable, disconnected from one another, vengeful, jealous, hateful, greedy, and all kinds of other words I'm sure you can imagine.
This is a non-sequitor and you're putting the carriage before the horse. Because men without systems are still neurotic and violent and jealous and hateful and greedy. It is not the system that creates evil men it is evil men who create evil men. And I want to apply this line to your third paragraph. Because how can oppressive regime exist without people? A regime is made up of individuals whose collective action creates the regime. Without men there is no regime pure and simple.


Language is also an incomplete system, so there is no language for what is really happening, even if one or more of us knew what reality was. Brilliant artists and philosophers can point at it, or a portion or attribute of it, but that's all. Even if the truth could be understood, it couldn't be conveyed in a meaningful way with our current set of tools. As our tools get more advanced and complex, we get no closer to it. The belief that we are getting closer to the truth fuels the seeking, but also creates more of the same useless complexity, division, competitiveness, etc.
I've got to disagree with you here. Language has limitations but be honest when was the last time you encountered one. Aren't failures of communication rather not a deficiency of the language itself but rather a deficiency in the speaker? Or a lack of skill? Oratory is a skill and listening is a skill and willingness to engage is a skill. If you have two sides who can bridge their differences through talk, and there are many examples of that, then isn't that proof enough that like any tool it can be used for good or ill? If I'm coming to a discussion and the foundation of my argument is that we can know nothing then I'm not coming in good faith. I'm not open to learn anything in fact I'm trying to strip knowledge away from others which is one of the worst things you can do. And besides if you know nothing then you can't know that you don't know nothing.


This way of thinking can be easily dismissed by many many maps as the suicide question, or silly misdirection, or defeatism, or gobbledy-gook, and hocus-pocus. Some theists would say that it points to a God or creator, but none of these answers explain fully what is happening.

We are part of something that is moving in an unquantifiable way. If an oppressive system tries to stamp it out or hold it down it will still keep moving. Yes, we can kill and bind and lay a dragnet over what we think it is that's the problem, but the flowers will always pop-up and defy our attempts.

Name one oppressive system that worked? I mean, that is still working? Hell, name ANY system in history that has not failed. And as we get more technologically advanced, they work for shorter and shorter amounts of time.

So, enjoy the movement.
Well American democracy has lasted several centuries now. The European monarchies lasted thousands of years before adopting democracy. The Egyptian empire lasted somewhere to the tune of three millennia and the Western Roman Republic lasted 450 years before turning into the Roman Empire that lasted more than half a millennium and that's not counting the Byzantine Empire. So yes we can make systems that last I don't know where you're getting the idea that we can't. And while yes the empires fail but the people go on. The fall of the Roman Empire didn't mean the extermination of the Roman people. They're still around. Hell even the Hibernians are still around and you ought know what the English tried to stamp them out.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 01-16-2017, 08:38 PM
eripiomundus (Offline)
Noteworthy
Official Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 293
Thanks: 8
Thanks 74
Default

Originally Posted by bluewpc View Post
@mundus can't snatch away the world here bud

You're overlooking a lot here. For starters baryonic matter is not only not the only matter in the universe it is actually a tiny fraction of the universe's mass most of which does not interact with electromagnetism.
I'm not missing anything really, except having taken the time to formulate a thoroughly encompassing explanation, for which I apologise. Dark matter is still amenable to gravitation, no?

Another part that you're missing is that mass is imparted by entanglement in the Higgs Boson field, its why light moves at the speed of light, it has no mass and thus no ability to stop. It also has weird properties like not experiencing time so that the moment of its creation is simultaneous with its destruction from its perspective and exhibits both particle and wave characteristics.
Light doesn't experience time? Perhaps I don't know my physics as well as you, but doesn't it take light eight minutes or so to travel from the sun to the earth? How does mass affect my argument? It doesn't factor as far as I can see. Light/wave duality has nothing to do with what I said either. No offense, but you seem to have a pretty discursive manner of argument. I'm having some trouble following your meaning - maybe it's me?

Herein lies one problem with this part of your argument is that there is universal agreement among observers upon mechanical processes. So if you and I are both counting ants in an anthill and allowing that are counts are both accurate we will come up with the same number. If we independently time the decay of uranium we will measure the same rates using the same tools.
I don't see how universal agreement, if there could ever be such a thing (I maintain that there can't) factors into what I said. Count all the ants and atoms and decay you like - atomic forces will still be intermingled and therefore effectively inseperable.

So with differentiation we have consciousness and that changes our perceptions except that we all experience more or less the same psychological phenomena, a category of perception that the inanimate does not have access too. And then on top of the foudnation of psychological commonality, true across species insofar as that all species exhibit common behavior within the species, is that the individual again differentiates into camps of say gender or inclination or political affiliation at least in the case of humans.
The point being is that the differentiation process creates groups which has to be approached as subsets of an ontological reality, subsets which are not in most cases bridgeable. Take interspecies procreation a human cannot mate with a dog and have offspring let alone viable offspring. The evolutionary (the biological specific term for differentiation) progression has created species (another biological category) which are incapable of interacting with other species on ceratain communicable levels. You don't expect a hippo to be able to communicate with a parrot nor a seal to understand American politics nor a Floridian to understand South Dakota politics (at least not at first). Neither one is interested in the other. A hyena interacts with an antelope by eating it. The same hyena interacts with a lion through competition. The experience of the individual is subjective but only on a certain strata of existence. The processes that are antecedent to it do not lose their reality nor are things transcendent to our own experience lose their own reality because of our inability to access it.
I'm not sure the exact point you're making: that subjectivity is universal? That there is no perception, only "apperception"? If so, sure, but that doesn't mean anything I said earlier is in any way dismissable.

Except again here we have differentiation. Sof or instance even though you're aware of the common origin of say iron and lead you cannot treat them the same way. You don't smelt iron in a leadworks. You don't take lead pills. So even on the level of the inanimate the reality of their existence cannot be discounted or ignored.
This is a fair point. The properties of external existence exist regardless of our conscious intervention. However, to each of us, personally and subjectively, the properties were once part of a background homogeny prior to our conscious circumscription of them. Prior to making an internal division we treated lead and iron as indifferently as we treated other indiscriminate earth. Even now that we treat them as seperate entities: some of their atomic forces are still inextricably intermingled. Hence they are not, at every level, separate, and therefore belong to a universal "thing".

Now carry your logic to the individual which you say doesn't exist. Well that's madness and demonstrable even within this conversation. Obviously you and I have differentiated within the species to an extent that we disagree on the fundamental nature of how to deal with each other. So let's try this out within a few scenarios. Let's try applying this logic to the defense in a murder trial. The defense could reasonbly argue that the accused could not have murdered the duchess anymore than the executioner could murder the accused. In fact if individuality is an illusion than the judge might as well be charged for the murder and the attorney be the victim. This is of course preposterous but without identity, which the individual is dependent on, there can be no differentiation. So when you say there is no individuality what you're really saying is differentiation stops at the human or at the biological but that doesn't make any sense. There are clear demonstrable differences between human beings and you can't explain it away as an illusion because it is something you have to deal with. I mean anyone who has been rejected by a girl or been excluded by a group or been to a place where no one speaks their language cannot help but be painfully aware of their individuality.
I'm not saying we don't experience separation as if it is real. We obviously do, and if we didn't it would be to our detriment - differentiating the world allows for differential responsivity, and subtley in response aides in survival. Humans, being more manifold in differentiation than any other animal, have gainfully employed it to their obvious benefit.

Now here is a thing separate from your above argument. The universe as a whole.
I said, in the opening lines of the same post, that the universe as a whole is the only true individual thing.

So another problem we arise to at this point is you're trying to explode human consciousness into the infinite which because of its finitude it cannot do.
No, I'm trying to do no such thing. You've read more into what I said than what I said.

As is time. JT Fraser in Of Time Passion and Knowledge outlined the evolution of time (I took the quote off of wikipedia but I would highly recommend reading the book as well The Genesis and Evolution of Time by the same):
Time is the measurement of change relative to change. As you say: it's an emergent concept. No more.

The theory of time as conflict - nested hierarchy of unresolvable conflicts. These nested levels represent qualitatively different temporalities, for both time and the perception of time have evolved. In one sense, time is physically different from what it was when the universe first came into being.
atemporal - blank sheet of paper, objects travelling at speed of light, black hole/Big Bang, causation has no meaning
prototemporal - fragmented shaft of an arrow, particle-waves travelling at less than speed of light, instants may be specified only statistically, probabilistic causation joins prototemporal events
eotemporal - shaft of an arrow, countable and orderable without a preferred direction, nowless time, physical matter, time orientable but not time oriented, deterministic causation joins eotemporal events
biotemporal - short arrow, future, past, present,limited temporal horizons, organic present, simultaneities of necessity, organic intentionality directed toward concrete goals and serving the continuity of the organism's life, multiple and final causation, rigid programming gives way to dynamic programming
nootemporal - long straight arrow, "You'll come to me out of the long ago", intentionality directed towards concrete or symbolic goals, serving continued integrity of the self, human actions are connected through symbolic causes known as ideas, the possibility of choice among ideas and corresponding actions is known as human freedom, ideas can produce responses to imaginary challenges
sociotemporal - A society is a group of people with a family of conflicts that defines them and distinguishes them from other societies. man has capacity to change social institutions in response to symbolic causes
Again, this is highly discursive. This paragraph has no relevance (that I can find) to what I said, so I'm not sure what I can say to it.

Now here is the other problem with this. Is that you're taking a rather well understood psychological phenomenon and trying to argue that it represents an aspect of the nondifferentiation of existence.
No, I'm not. I'm saying that at one level - the intermingling of atomic forces - separation is not possible. That being the case, how can anything truly be separate? Yes, different configurations of fundamental quanta obtain to different properties, but that does not dissolve their underlying inseperability. As for the consciousness part: I am not saying our consciousness is the means by which the properties of nature are forged. Nature is, at every given mement, what it is, in all its subtlety and manifold complexity. Consciousness only divides the world for the individual consciousness. An animal that is not conscious does not know it is separate, for instance. A caveman was not conscious of the difference between lead and iron, to use your earlier example.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 01-16-2017, 11:13 PM
bluewpc's Avatar
bluewpc (Offline)
Dedicated Writer
Official Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 208
Thanks: 2
Thanks 27
Default

I'm not missing anything really, except having taken the time to formulate a thoroughly encompassing explanation, for which I apologize. Dark matter is still amenable to gravitation, no? Light doesn't experience time? Perhaps I don't know my physics as well as you, but doesn't it take light eight minutes or so to travel from the sun to the earth? How does mass affect my argument? It doesn't factor as far as I can see. Light/wave duality has nothing to do with what I said either. No offense, but you seem to have a pretty discursive manner of argument. I'm having some trouble following your meaning - maybe it's me?

@eripiodmus Yes dark matter interacts with gravity. And yes light from light's perspective operates in that manner, light from our perspective moves at c. It blew my mind too. And no offense taken I was building a case and I think I worded it badly. So apologies on that and I'm going to try again.
First overarching thrust of my argument is that individuality is real on every level.

So the response goes, your original post your response to me in italics, then my original response in bold, and then my second response.

Next I will formulate your argument to make sure that I understand what you are saying. Your argument is that the four primal forces of electromagnetism, gravity, and the weak and strong nuclear force, their governance over matter renders individuality an illusion because they always link all of matter. They create an cosmic web where every particle is always interacting with every other particle.


There is only the illusion of individuality in all but the entire universe taken as an individual. Rationale: an atom has forces (gravity, strong/weak atomic forces, electromagnetic). These attributes cannot be divorced from the atom without destroying it - an atom without gravitation is not an atom.

You say this: I don't see how universal agreement, if there could ever be such a thing (I maintain that there can't) factors into what I said. Count all the ants and atoms and decay you like - atomic forces will still be intermingled and therefore effectively inseparable.

I'm not sure the exact point you're making: that subjectivity is universal? That there is no perception, only "apperception"? If so, sure, but that doesn't mean anything I said earlier is in any way dismissable.

You're overlooking a lot here. For starters baryonic matter is not only not the only matter in the universe it is actually a tiny fraction of the universe's mass most of which does not interact with electromagnetism.

Another part that you're missing is that mass is imparted by entanglement in the Higgs Boson field, its why light moves at the speed of light, it has no mass and thus no ability to stop. It also has weird properties like not experiencing time so that the moment of its creation is simultaneous with its destruction from its perspective and exhibits both particle and wave characteristics.

Herein lies one problem with this part of your argument is that there is universal agreement among observers upon mechanical processes. So if you and I are both counting ants in an anthill and allowing that are counts are both accurate we will come up with the same number. If we independently time the decay of uranium we will measure the same rates using the same tools.


What I am saying here is that individuality is extant at both the atomic and subatomic levels and finds expression in noninteracting types of matter. Dark matter, dark energy, baryonic matter and with it light. Now in addition to this of the four forces, electromagnetism, weak and strong nuclear force only gravity acts on all matter. The weak force is responsible for radioactive decay. The strong force binds quarks and then atoms together.

To answer your question about subjectivity being universal. I'm not arguing that. I am saying that between subjective perceptions there can be objective conclusions. Hence the evocation of the rate of radioactive decay which is always constant and measurable.

I then carry this differentiation of distinct types of noninteracting matter into the biological realm and then draw a distinction between that and the human sociopolitical realm:

So with differentiation we have consciousness and that changes our perceptions except that we all experience more or less the same psychological phenomena, a category of perception that the inanimate does not have access too. And then on top of the foundation of psychological commonality, true across species insofar as that all species exhibit common behavior within the species, is that the individual again differentiates into camps of say gender or inclination or political affiliation at least in the case of humans.

The point being is that the differentiation process creates groups which has to be approached as subsets of an ontological reality, subsets which are not in most cases bridgeable. Take interspecies procreation a human cannot mate with a dog and have offspring let alone viable offspring. The evolutionary (the biological specific term for differentiation) progression has created species (another biological category) which are incapable of interacting with other species on certain communicable levels. You don't expect a hippo to be able to communicate with a parrot nor a seal to understand American politics nor a Floridian to understand South Dakota politics (at least not at first). Neither one is interested in the other. A hyena interacts with an antelope by eating it. The same hyena interacts with a lion through competition. The experience of the individual is subjective but only on a certain strata of existence. The processes that are antecedent to it do not lose their reality nor are things transcendent to our own experience lose their own reality because of our inability to access it.


To summarize I'm pointing out that while living matter is interactable it can only interact on certain levels with A other living things and B nonliving things. So what you're seeing is differentiation of interaction within a single type of matter and that each mode living and nonliving offers certain levels of interaction.

Since the forces, especially the gravitational force, extend beyond the boundaries of the atom's electron orbitals and interact with other atoms and their attendant forces, and since forces are inalienable parts of the atom, there is no real separation between atoms - since all their forces intermingle.

This is a fair point. The properties of external existence exist regardless of our conscious intervention. However, to each of us, personally and subjectively, the properties were once part of a background homogeny prior to our conscious circumscription of them. Prior to making an internal division we treated lead and iron as indifferently as we treated other indiscriminate earth 1. Even now that we treat them as seperate entities: some of their atomic forces are still inextricably intermingled. Hence they are not, at every level, separate, and therefore belong to a universal "thing".
I'm not saying we don't experience separation as if it is real. We obviously do, and if we didn't it would be to our detriment - differentiating the world allows for differential responsivity, and subtley in response aides in survival. Humans, being more manifold in differentiation than any other animal, have gainfully employed it to their obvious benefit.


Except again here we have differentiation. So for instance even though you're aware of the common origin of say iron and lead you cannot treat them the same way. You don't smelt iron in a leadworks. You don't take lead pills. So even on the level of the inanimate the reality of their existence cannot be discounted or ignored.

Now carry your logic to the individual which you say doesn't exist. Well that's madness and demonstrable even within this conversation. Obviously you and I have differentiated within the species to an extent that we disagree on the fundamental nature of how to deal with each other. So let's try this out within a few scenarios. Let's try applying this logic to the defense in a murder trial. The defense could reasonably argue that the accused could not have murdered the duchess anymore than the executioner could murder the accused. In fact if individuality is an illusion than the judge might as well be charged for the murder and the attorney be the victim. This is of course preposterous but without identity, which the individual is dependent on, there can be no differentiation. So when you say there is no individuality what you're really saying is differentiation stops at the human or at the biological but that doesn't make any sense. There are clear demonstrable differences between human beings and you can't explain it away as an illusion because it is something you have to deal with. I mean anyone who has been rejected by a girl or been excluded by a group or been to a place where no one speaks their language cannot help but be painfully aware of their individuality.


Here is my conclusion of the case wherein I am arguing that despite a common origin and the ability to interact there have arisen systems sufficiently separate from another to be considered distinct. A good way to put it would be my ability to interact and communicate with you does not constitute us a single entity or consciousness which is really the crux of the issue. Is my consciousness the same as yours? Obviously not. And you say you aren't arguing that it is but nevertheless it is an inevitable consequence of there being no individuality. If it were in fact so than all systems would be interchangeable but you're saying you're not arguing so try and clarify that for me because maybe I'm not understanding you properly.

1. I would like to know the time frame from which you're making this statement. Are you speaking from the human perspective or the nonanimate perspective. It isn't clear.



If there is no real separation between atoms, there is only one thing: the entirety of existence. The deconstruction of this singularity occurs only within our minds via the neuro-dendritic differentiation of sensory stimuli. It is useful to survival to divide and isolate - it enables us to recognize an apple, for instance, among the remainder of the visual field's stimuli.
I said, in the opening lines of the same post, that the universe as a whole is the only true individual thing.

No, I'm trying to do no such thing. You've read more into what I said than what I said.

Now here is a thing separate from your above argument. The universe as a whole. Now the universe is a whole but its made up of constituent parts. The problem is, is that the parts don't seem to be necessary for its existence and in fact the term universe is simply a description of totality and so it isnt dependent on anything except containing all that is. You can have a truck but without an engine it isn't going to perform the function of a truck. You can have a turtle but without a liver the turtle cannot function as a turtle. Now you can have a universe with trucks and turtles and men but it continues to function as the universe if they suddenly blip out of existence. The universe does not cease to be the universe because it contains or lacks certain configurations of atoms but at the same time this fact does not negate anything's existence, nor lessens theirvalue. I say lessen because you cannot lessen value on the cosmic or transcendentalist scale, either you have value or you don't and the finite lifespan of the object cannot come into play in its valuation.

So another problem we arise to at this point is you're trying to explode human consciousness into the infinite which because of its finitude it cannot do. Likewise if you try to divide it back into its pure mathematical origins it breaks down and the logical implication of your argument is that the singularity is in no way different than the human mind which is of course ludicrous because consciousness is an emergent property. As is time. JT Fraser in Of Time Passion and Knowledge outlined the evolution of time (I took the quote off of wikipedia but I would highly recommend reading the book as well The Genesis and Evolution of Time by the same):

The theory of time as conflict - nested hierarchy of unresolvable conflicts. These nested levels represent qualitatively different temporalities, for both time and the perception of time have evolved. In one sense, time is physically different from what it was when the universe first came into being.
atemporal - blank sheet of paper, objects travelling at speed of light, black hole/Big Bang, causation has no meaning
prototemporal - fragmented shaft of an arrow, particle-waves travelling at less than speed of light, instants may be specified only statistically, probabilistic causation joins prototemporal events
eotemporal - shaft of an arrow, countable and orderable without a preferred direction, nowless time, physical matter, time orientable but not time oriented, deterministic causation joins eotemporal events
biotemporal - short arrow, future, past, present,limited temporal horizons, organic present, simultaneities of necessity, organic intentionality directed toward concrete goals and serving the continuity of the organism's life, multiple and final causation, rigid programming gives way to dynamic programming
nootemporal - long straight arrow, "You'll come to me out of the long ago", intentionality directed towards concrete or symbolic goals, serving continued integrity of the self, human actions are connected through symbolic causes known as ideas, the possibility of choice among ideas and corresponding actions is known as human freedom, ideas can produce responses to imaginary challenges
sociotemporal - A society is a group of people with a family of conflicts that defines them and distinguishes them from other societies. man has capacity to change social institutions in response to symbolic causes


Here I'm not even going to lie I'm getting into hard deconstructive semantics with you. What do we mean by the universe? If we don't know what all is contained in the universe how can we possibly pretend to know what the universe is. Heres the definition: All matter and energy, including the earth, the galaxies, and the contents of intergalactic space, regarded as a whole.

But since information can be lost in a black hole does the universe cease to be the universe because it no longer has everything? Or is everything a coherent concept on that kind of a scale? Can the totality increase or decrease and still have claim to represent everything? Did the singularity decay into only this reality? Are there other realities?

I'm sorry but I'm throwing back this post-modern crap at you because I'm tired of seeing it. Ah whatever.

Lastly one note before I sign off because its 3 in the morning that I didn't notice the first time. You say this: It is useful to survival to divide and isolate - it enables us to recognize an apple, for instance, among the remainder of the visual field's stimuli.

This is not division. This is framing and that is unconscious.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame_problem

As for JT Fraser....yeah I really just wanted to share him because nobody reads him and they should. *Shakes fist*

http://www.sciencealert.com/stephen-...mation-paradox
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 01-18-2017, 06:43 AM
Mohican's Avatar
Mohican (Offline)
Tall Poppy
Administration
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Not quite back of beyond
Posts: 3,522
Thanks: 307
Thanks 597
Default

Do toasted cheese sammiches (Yes, I know, sandwich) go as well with WordSoup as they do with tomato soup?
__________________
If you surrender a civilization to avoid social disapproval, you should know that all of history will curse you for your cowardliness - Alice Teller

If John of Patmos would browse the internet today for half an hour, I don't know if the Book of Revelations would be entirely different or entirely the same.

Last edited by Mohican; 01-18-2017 at 10:26 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 01-18-2017, 09:13 AM
brianpatrick's Avatar
brianpatrick (Offline)
Verbosity Pales
Official Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Arizona
Posts: 3,311
Thanks: 306
Thanks 709
Default

Sandwich. And no, they don't.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 01-18-2017, 10:27 AM
Mohican's Avatar
Mohican (Offline)
Tall Poppy
Administration
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Not quite back of beyond
Posts: 3,522
Thanks: 307
Thanks 597
Default

Wrong level of acidity?
__________________
If you surrender a civilization to avoid social disapproval, you should know that all of history will curse you for your cowardliness - Alice Teller

If John of Patmos would browse the internet today for half an hour, I don't know if the Book of Revelations would be entirely different or entirely the same.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 01-20-2017, 01:42 AM
eripiomundus (Offline)
Noteworthy
Official Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 293
Thanks: 8
Thanks 74
Default

Sorry it’s taken a while to reply to this. I started the following day but had to leave before I finished.
Originally Posted by bluewpc View Post
@eripiodmus Yes dark matter interacts with gravity. And yes light from light's perspective operates in that manner, light from our perspective moves at c. It blew my mind too. And no offense taken I was building a case and I think I worded it badly. So apologies on that and I'm going to try again.
First overarching thrust of my argument is that individuality is real on every level.

So the response goes, your original post your response to me in italics, then my original response in bold, and then my second response.

Next I will formulate your argument to make sure that I understand what you are saying. Your argument is that the four primal forces of electromagnetism, gravity, and the weak and strong nuclear force, their governance over matter renders individuality an illusion because they always link all of matter. They create an cosmic web where every particle is always interacting with every other particle.
Ok. I accept your rephrasing, but it is one of two points I made. The second, for the sake of clarification, is: consciousness entails the internal division of undifferentiated external data, and given that (at at least one level) the universe is inseparable, it might be argued that the division thus created exists only in subjective consciousness and nowhere else. I concede that these internal divisions reflect objective differences in the configuration of quanta, but configuration does not confer differentiation: a wall has no quality above and beyond bricks and mortar other than the special configuration thereof. A wall is only semantically more than its constituent parts – that is to say, we labelled it differently but might otherwise have referred to it as “a partition constructed of bricks and mortar”. I’m not sure I’m being very clear about this, to be honest. I’m trying to say that the underlying insperability of quantum materials is impervious to alterations in the configuration of those materials. Therefore any conceptual category conceived in reference to differences in quantum configuration (ie. a wall) exists only within the conceptualising apperatus – the brain.

What I am saying here is that individuality is extant at both the atomic and subatomic levels and finds expression in noninteracting types of matter. Dark matter, dark energy, baryonic matter and with it light. Now in addition to this of the four forces, electromagnetism, weak and strong nuclear force only gravity acts on all matter. The weak force is responsible for radioactive decay. The strong force binds quarks and then atoms together.
Gravitation is all that is needed for my argument to hold.

To answer your question about subjectivity being universal. I'm not arguing that. I am saying that between subjective perceptions there can be objective conclusions. Hence the evocation of the rate of radioactive decay which is always constant and measurable.
I don't think so. For there to be true objectivity between different conscious observers they each have to share perfect apperceptive accord, and this is impossible (especially when you factor in irresolvable differences in an observer's spatial position). While radioactive decay may be static, we each process the data derived from it apperceptively, so at the level of human subjectivity (which is all we can ever truly experience), rather than at the conceptual level (which may produce the semblance of coincident objectivity), radioactive decay is not constant in every way.

But aside from the difficulties arising from conscious subjectivity, no two things can ever be perfectly the same due to the impossibility of spatial coincidence: two radio-isotopes may decay at the same rate, but they'll do so in different places. If measurable values differ between two objects/events (and spatial orientation always will), there is no perfect sameness, no objectivity. I acknowledge that this is taking reason out of the realm of practicality, and it would be absurd to treat the world as if no two things are alike: in mathematics one can only combine like terms, and if two apples are not the same in every way we can't technically call them "two" - but on a practical level it is useful to say there are "two apples" just as it is useful to treat radioactive decay as if it is a constant.

I then carry this differentiation of distinct types of noninteracting matter into the biological realm and then draw a distinction between that and the human sociopolitical realm:

So with differentiation we have consciousness and that changes our perceptions except that we all experience more or less the same psychological phenomena, a category of perception that the inanimate does not have access too. And then on top of the foundation of psychological commonality, true across species insofar as that all species exhibit common behavior within the species, is that the individual again differentiates into camps of say gender or inclination or political affiliation at least in the case of humans.

The point being is that the differentiation process creates groups which has to be approached as subsets of an ontological reality, subsets which are not in most cases bridgeable. Take interspecies procreation a human cannot mate with a dog and have offspring let alone viable offspring. The evolutionary (the biological specific term for differentiation) progression has created species (another biological category) which are incapable of interacting with other species on certain communicable levels. You don't expect a hippo to be able to communicate with a parrot nor a seal to understand American politics nor a Floridian to understand South Dakota politics (at least not at first). Neither one is interested in the other. A hyena interacts with an antelope by eating it. The same hyena interacts with a lion through competition. The experience of the individual is subjective but only on a certain strata of existence. The processes that are antecedent to it do not lose their reality nor are things transcendent to our own experience lose their own reality because of our inability to access it.


To summarize I'm pointing out that while living matter is interactable it can only interact on certain levels with A other living things and B nonliving things. So what you're seeing is differentiation of interaction within a single type of matter and that each mode living and nonliving offers certain levels of interaction.
This is an interesting topic. I'm tempted to use the brain as my example, but I think I can explain it easier with the eye: the eye has cones and rods. I intend only to deal with daytime vision, so we'll be dealing with the cones. Three types of cones exist. Each have different photoreceptors that deal with different wavelengths of light: red, green, and blue. What is interesting about the eye is that it takes incoming light and differentiates it. Say we have a constant light source, which is to say the eye is fixed on a certain scene, say a building. All manner of light is striking the retina. Not just red blue and green, but more than likely something approaching the entire light spectrum. The range and amplitude of the light reaching the eye is constant, but the eye essentially divides it into red, blue, green, and "other" and ignores the latter. The division occurs within the eye, but the light source incoming to the eye is always as complex and complete as it ever was and ever will be. The full spectrum of light is part of what, in my original post, I called the "undifferentiated background", while the red, green and blue light is internally differentiated.

What you are calling "differentiation of interaction" is processed through these types of apparatus. The differences you refer to pertain to differences in the internal processing of sensory data, suggesting (to me at least) that the differences we percieve in the external world are actually internal.
Here is my conclusion of the case wherein I am arguing that despite a common origin and the ability to interact there have arisen systems sufficiently separate from another to be considered distinct. A good way to put it would be my ability to interact and communicate with you does not constitute us a single entity or consciousness which is really the crux of the issue. Is my consciousness the same as yours? Obviously not. And you say you aren't arguing that it is but nevertheless it is an inevitable consequence of there being no individuality.
A good point. I'm saying that separation is an illusion, and that the illusion is the product of our intenal apparatus (brain/sensory apparatus/etc). Just as with any convincing illusion, our subjective experience of it is compelling - we think it is real. Your consciousness thinks itself separate just as mine does, but when all the fundamental bits (the quanta) that culminate in our conciousnesses are not seperate at every level, how can our consciousnesses be?

If it were in fact so than all systems would be interchangeable but you're saying you're not arguing so try and clarify that for me because maybe I'm not understanding you properly.
I think the thing you're missing is configuration. In a rubics cube the parts are all connected to one another, and yet the faces may wear a plethora of different configurations. Within what I'll call the "singular universe" the sub-sub-atomic constituents may arrange themselves in different ways that give forth different properties. The "systems" you speak of are just different configurations of constituent parts within the singularity.

I am aware of the paradox in what I just said: any talk of constituents with reference to a singularity is self-defeating. A singularity has no constituents. It is entire. But one cannot talk about a singularity without destroying it – for all reference to its attributes divides what aught to be a whole thing into parts. This is the reason some religions are reluctant to “name” their God – to name something it must first be consciously divided from what else it belongs to. To name God therefore is to circumscribe what is supposed to be an all-encompassing thing, and to deconstruct the nature of it by doing so.

1. I would like to know the time frame from which you're making this statement. Are you speaking from the human perspective or the nonanimate perspective. It isn't clear.

Here I'm not even going to lie I'm getting into hard deconstructive semantics with you. What do we mean by the universe? If we don't know what all is contained in the universe how can we possibly pretend to know what the universe is. Heres the definition: All matter and energy, including the earth, the galaxies, and the contents of intergalactic space, regarded as a whole.
Sure. All things known and unknown throughout all space and time constitute the universe.

But since information can be lost in a black hole does the universe cease to be the universe because it no longer has everything? Or is everything a coherent concept on that kind of a scale? Can the totality increase or decrease and still have claim to represent everything? Did the singularity decay into only this reality? Are there other realities?
What is lost in a black hole is information pertaining to configuration. The constituent energies persist – I guess? Who really knows? I would think that there being a black hole “within” the universe cannot negate the existence of the universe since the black hole is but an attribute, a subset, of the universal set.

Lastly one note before I sign off because its 3 in the morning that I didn't notice the first time. You say this: It is useful to survival to divide and isolate - it enables us to recognize an apple, for instance, among the remainder of the visual field's stimuli.

This is not division. This is framing and that is unconscious.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame_problem
I’m not going to read that – Partly because I have some brain damage and reading gives me a headache, and partly because I think you’re wrong. For the brain to recognise an apple it must have some prior neuro-dendritic impression of apples in general. This operates as a kind of filter: if object X falls within the parameters of memory set Y, then it is an apple, else it is not. There is clear division at play here. Either the object is an apple or it isn’t – an obvious binary division.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 02-01-2017, 09:37 AM
Mohican's Avatar
Mohican (Offline)
Tall Poppy
Administration
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Not quite back of beyond
Posts: 3,522
Thanks: 307
Thanks 597
Default

A stray thought from Julius Evola against modernism

My principles are only those that, before the French Revolution, every well-born person considered sane and normal - Julius Evola
__________________
If you surrender a civilization to avoid social disapproval, you should know that all of history will curse you for your cowardliness - Alice Teller

If John of Patmos would browse the internet today for half an hour, I don't know if the Book of Revelations would be entirely different or entirely the same.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 02-14-2017, 06:20 PM
bluewpc's Avatar
bluewpc (Offline)
Dedicated Writer
Official Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 208
Thanks: 2
Thanks 27
Default

@eripomundus sorry for my own late reply and I hope you're still abouts. I was talking to a friend of mine who's a physicist and the argument we got into was the nature of truth and out of it came my supposition that there is a difference between objective fact and truth. My words were that fact (more accurately probability) begins at the quantum level but that truth begins with man.

Its something I'm going to be developing as the year goes by. I don't really have an answer just yet but I want to think this through.

Sorry I'm actually fairly drunk at the moment but my friend corrected me in regards to lost information and i'll relate what he said here:


They certainly can and do lead to things that belong in the same category, but the devil is the details so to speak. the scientific nihilist seems more prone to utopian ideology akin to the communists and fascists whereas the postmodernist regresses man to an ape nature (see post-truth) and is fundamentally susceptible to baseless philosophy and lacks reason. too much reason can turn man into a machine and that isn't good either.

and as such, they produce very different fruits. as the bush hippie jew said, ye shall know them their fruits.

as far as i can tell, the fruits of pm are social instability, confusing language, and overall stupidity. some good literature and film though.

science on the other hand... well... we know them all too well

and i am of course not denying subjective perception. i am simply saying that it is ultimately subjugated but the thing we call the objective reality, for there are facts which exist outside of your perception which exist whether you perceive them or not (some new-age hippie assholes, like "The Secret", like to claim that QM suggests otherwise which is an utter lie). I would love it if it was the other way around, but just like the energy in the atom was present long before we discovered it's laws, so must the universe eventually reach a state of maximum entropy and die. This fact is completely independent of your perception of it (in fact you'll be long dead when it happens). now our knowledge of these "facts" is subject to change according to a set of very sharply defined self-consistent rules, which by design minimize the influence of the subjective on the said fact.

this is essentially a distillation of the concept of god. omnipotent, omnipresent, and so forth.

but as peterson and many many others like to point out, this god doesn't tell you what to do which is the problem that we face. grounding it in darwinism is a good place to go with it.



Sam
and the whole information loss in a black hole thing has been a something people have been arguing about for awihle. it has to do with entropy

but your example of a character isn't exactly what is meant by "information" in science

information in content of physics means something like being able to turn back the clock and extract some observable quantity

like imagine a stream of photons leaving the sun, and then bouncing off your face before shooting off into space

if you could "catch" those photons a billion kilometers away, you could, hypothetically, reconstruct an image of your face from them given their measured intensity, wavelength, time they hit your detector, etc...

thus, the "information" was not lost

but there are process by which information is actually lost

(in fact all process)

because eventually those photons would be so far away, you would literally no longer be able to reconstruct your face from them

and this is what happens when things go into a black hole

(this is actually another way to describe entropy)

entropy is also a measure of "information loss"

and this information loss happens because eventually you arrive at a point where you cannot distinguished structure in the arrangement of the photons from pure randomness

THAT is what entropy is

a measure of how close a system is to being indistinguishable from pure randomness
Reply With Quote
Reply

  WritersBeat.com > General Discussion > The Intellectual Table


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
How do I post? HoiLei Introductions 0 08-13-2010 12:20 PM
Creep World (WIP) MalReynolds Fiction 20 12-09-2009 03:52 AM
[Fantasy]The Dark Forest Novel [WIP] Desmond Tiny Fiction 1 12-02-2006 09:15 AM


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 08:32 AM.

vBulletin, Copyright © 2000-2006, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.