It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Corporeal vs "Spiritual" Knowledge - Whose Real is More Real

page: 1
4

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 08:22 AM
link   
So, what is real? The ultimate question for the Metaphysicist. Not so much "What is Reality?" - also a powerful mystery in its own right - but "What is actual as one looks out, reaches out around oneself?". Science has its own well known dogmas, but I want to focus on the dogmas of the more contrary subsets of Metaphysics - those philosophies that declare that

  • Corporeal perception is primordial - creates corporeal reality for the perceiving consciousness
  • Corporeal reality is a lie, a construct
  • Corporeal reality is an illusion that must be viewed as such
  • Corporeal reality is fully deferential to enlightened individual/collective corporeal perception


With this being the true nature of corporeal reality, the human experience of post-corporeal (spiritual) reality - in these adventurous philosophies - must therefore adhere to the following:

  • The "real" is fully revealed for what it has always been
  • The veil of faulty human perception is lifted forever
  • Oneness with the singular whole of reality erases all ignorance for the post-corporeal human being
  • No more deceptions - the "real" has nowhere to hide


I'm sure that there are delineations and narrower specifics that I've missed here, but it's not as if I'm addressing people that lack a deep understanding of the subject being presented. Fill in your own specifics if you must, but remain within the subset of widely held basic philosophies that assert that the corporeal realm is where the default deception exists for the human being if you want to discuss this topic within the confines of this specific thread. And if this is not your view, then perhaps this discussion is not a valuable use of your time and intellect.


*Concerning thread hijackers; These people will do what they do, but I'm hoping for a deep examination of the topic here. It's been shown that these types focus on certain board members from time to time, and for a range of reasons - I would imagine. Since I've drawn my own percentage of their focus in recent months when initiating a thread, all I can say is please try to ignore these folks, as this question seems to address the core essence of what can ever be known by the human being about itself and the reality that it exists within. What is plausible when examining the authentic, the dependable and the true - an essential advanced debate for serious intellects that are devoted to seeking real answers to the largest and most enduring questions. Let the hijackers have their fun, and we can simply ignore the bandwidth they grind up with their foolishness. Thanks.


Now that the obvious caveats have been taken care of, the question is:

Which is LESS based on human perception - and therefore more concretely related to a pure and disinterested "real" - the human experience of Corporeal Existence or Post-Corporeal Existence?

Statements are okay, but most effective is a presentation based on logical inference, implication, and/or ramification in association with what can be asserted as highly plausible due to the same rigid criteria in established application. Also, please provide reference links if basing your assertion on anyone else's work.

I have my own notions, but I have several appointments this morning, so I'll check back in later to see what some of you have offered. Keep in mind that this is an acknowledged universal concern, and regardless of what you believe, the jury hasn't even been sent into deliberation on a verdict yet.

This isn't an issue of ideology, and faith is not a tool that is available for use in this examination. The question pertains to the comparative level of human perception that exists (one physical state to the other), and how that comparison affects the relative capacity for the human being to trust what it experiences (again, one physical state compared to the other) as being real and authentic in a larger, more comprehensive definition of "real" than merely an individual perception delusion.




posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 09:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by NorEaster

Which is LESS based on human perception - and therefore more concretely related to a pure and disinterested "real" - the human experience of Corporeal Existence or Post-Corporeal Existence?

This isn't an issue of ideology, and faith is not a tool that is available for use in this examination. The question pertains to the comparative level of human perception that exists (one physical state to the other), and how that comparison affects the relative capacity for the human being to trust what it experiences (again, one physical state compared to the other) as being real and authentic in a larger, more comprehensive definition of "real" than merely an individual perception delusion.


Both are based on perception. The corporeal being based on what is perceived by the five senses, which themselves are merely tools with limitations. The Post-Corporeal being based on what we what we are told about the 'true' nature of what is real, and then filtered through our 'heart', or gut instinct as to whether or not it rings true.

It could be argued that the corporeal is the most real, for no matter what your belief system, (most) everyone agrees that a spade is just a spade. An object in the corporeal world is percieved as it is no matter what you believe the ultimate truth is. An animal, who may perceive the object (e.g the spade) slightly differently purely due to the differences in anatomy of their senses can still be trained to recognise the spade. And this will also be what you yourself also recognise as the spade, differing perceptions aside.

The post-corporeal is all merely conjecture, no matter how strongly you feel your version to be true. People can have the most 'real' experiences within the belief system of thier version of post-corporeal reality, but someone with a completely different experience can have an experience that is just as 'real', thus validating their beliefs.

What is real can be thought of as that whch is true. But the very nature of truth implies that their can only be one version. New Age beliifs (which I lean toward) like to break things down in terms energy, which in itself is supported somewhat through science. But most traditional belief systems don't go down this route mainly due to their antiquity and unwillingness to embrace new information. But even this is mainly just a theory as to 'what is most likely'.

Therefore as much as it pains me to say, the corporeal world is the most 'real' for we can measure it and see it and touch it. And if it indeed flows from the the collective creative power of our consciousness, it is still the most real for it is a reality that is shared by all, therefore suggesting that it is a relatity that we have all agreed upon subconsciously.

Ultimately I guess you have to ask is what is a better representation of 'Real'. A lie shared by all, or different attempts at the Truth as seen through an individuals intellectual and cultural filters. For all lies hold some measure of truth, but the truth can hold no lies. If we are all one, then the shared lie of corporeal reality can indeed tell us everything we need to know about ourselves, if indeed it is a lie at all.



posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 10:13 AM
link   
in truth only freedom is, so what is real is what is free, what is free most out of same positive mean prevail since only what is absolutely free exist, but only what is relatively free but absolutely right is true

from this stance u can get how a free self being could b more true then god existence, so all gods existence since god existence is through all gods existence freedom
but only if the being is the constant reality of its absolute right
then that being human kind is true

what does it mean being right?

right is not out of wrong but right is out of objective truth

truth is known from its conception being always freedom superiority sense end to positive facts

what is out of that is always free right, since truth is freedom value so out of freedom is free right

what is out of free is free relative for sure

only truth freedom exist which then say that gods have no right to exist

only what is out of objective truth free superiority exist bc it is then relative true

u must b true before existing at least relatively

but when u r relative fact existing then u cant b god or any god powers on all objective existence done in absolute terms of its realities

which prove that gods are evil for sure so it is all fake and forced, nothing of them nor about nor relative to, it is all faked they are evil and enjoy it together each of its own different pleasure in pretending existing through creations life



posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 01:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by 1littlewolf

Originally posted by NorEaster

Which is LESS based on human perception - and therefore more concretely related to a pure and disinterested "real" - the human experience of Corporeal Existence or Post-Corporeal Existence?

This isn't an issue of ideology, and faith is not a tool that is available for use in this examination. The question pertains to the comparative level of human perception that exists (one physical state to the other), and how that comparison affects the relative capacity for the human being to trust what it experiences (again, one physical state compared to the other) as being real and authentic in a larger, more comprehensive definition of "real" than merely an individual perception delusion.


Both are based on perception. The corporeal being based on what is perceived by the five senses, which themselves are merely tools with limitations. The Post-Corporeal being based on what we what we are told about the 'true' nature of what is real, and then filtered through our 'heart', or gut instinct as to whether or not it rings true.

It could be argued that the corporeal is the most real, for no matter what your belief system, (most) everyone agrees that a spade is just a spade. An object in the corporeal world is percieved as it is no matter what you believe the ultimate truth is. An animal, who may perceive the object (e.g the spade) slightly differently purely due to the differences in anatomy of their senses can still be trained to recognise the spade. And this will also be what you yourself also recognise as the spade, differing perceptions aside.

The post-corporeal is all merely conjecture, no matter how strongly you feel your version to be true. People can have the most 'real' experiences within the belief system of thier version of post-corporeal reality, but someone with a completely different experience can have an experience that is just as 'real', thus validating their beliefs.

What is real can be thought of as that whch is true. But the very nature of truth implies that their can only be one version. New Age beliifs (which I lean toward) like to break things down in terms energy, which in itself is supported somewhat through science. But most traditional belief systems don't go down this route mainly due to their antiquity and unwillingness to embrace new information. But even this is mainly just a theory as to 'what is most likely'.

Therefore as much as it pains me to say, the corporeal world is the most 'real' for we can measure it and see it and touch it. And if it indeed flows from the the collective creative power of our consciousness, it is still the most real for it is a reality that is shared by all, therefore suggesting that it is a relatity that we have all agreed upon subconsciously.

Ultimately I guess you have to ask is what is a better representation of 'Real'. A lie shared by all, or different attempts at the Truth as seen through an individuals intellectual and cultural filters. For all lies hold some measure of truth, but the truth can hold no lies. If we are all one, then the shared lie of corporeal reality can indeed tell us everything we need to know about ourselves, if indeed it is a lie at all.


I have to admit that this is a really good overview of the issue at hand.

As perception beings, we might easily fall victim to extraordinary delusional experiences if not for the immediately tangible bits and scattered pieces (If I don't eat, then I'll be hungry, that surface is hard, we smell something that we agree is simmering pot roast, we're eating something that we agree is pot roast) that anchor each of us enough for a functional society (comprised of many of us experiencing a significant percentage of similarly depicted/described reality) can form and survive intact. It's even stable enough that we can, and have become good at, replicating what we perceive with acknowledged representations of these perceptions that are widely accepted as relatively accurate. This suggests that the corporeal realm is largely based on an indifferent manifestation of reality - sharable and describable by a vast majority of the perception-centric beings that inhabit that realm.

What is actual will (at the very least) cause general agreement between perceivers, even if each precise perception can't possibly be 100% verified or standardized. When I play my guitar, everyone who sees me knows that it is an electric guitar that was - at one time - sold by the Fender company. Also, everyone who hears me can agree with me on the composition of the notes and rests to the point where they can actually build a surprisingly accurate musical structure to support the notes and rests that I'm playing. If corporeal reality was actually a perception illusion, that wouldn't be possible unless I had previously established reality itself for my band mates.

- out of room



posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 01:47 PM
link   
So, where does that put the "Matrix - It's All An Illusion" notion. Even in the movie, no one actually offered a tangible idea concerning how such a perception illusion could actually be stabilized to the degree that blue (the color) could have a strict RGB 0;0;255 standard that can be immediately replicated every time by a clothing manufacturer, paint manufacturer, or whomever it is that perceives that blue and wants that very specific hue of blue for his/her own use. Sure, it makes for a great philosophy debate in a Cambridge pub, but when these deft and convincing debaters, then, go to the bar for last call, is anyone really doubting that they're buying a nightcapper with the money they have in their pocket? No. Not a single one of them. In fact, it's as real as anything can possibly be - even as mundane and trite as it may sound in this sort of discussion.



posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 02:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by NorEaster
So, where does that put the "Matrix - It's All An Illusion" notion. Even in the movie, no one actually offered a tangible idea concerning how such a perception illusion could actually be stabilized to the degree that blue (the color) could have a strict RGB 0;0;255 standard that can be immediately replicated every time by a clothing manufacturer, paint manufacturer, or whomever it is that perceives that blue and wants that very specific hue of blue for his/her own use. Sure, it makes for a great philosophy debate in a Cambridge pub, but when these deft and convincing debaters, then, go to the bar for last call, is anyone really doubting that they're buying a nightcapper with the money they have in their pocket? No. Not a single one of them. In fact, it's as real as anything can possibly be - even as mundane and trite as it may sound in this sort of discussion.


I've studied this topic extensively and it is one of my favorite subjects, second only to its more esoteric cousin, spirituality. My conclusion is that they are all equally valid realities. Even if we were to determine that one is "fake" and one is "real", all we have to do is point back to our perception and validate even a "fake" reality.

The implicit and explicit realities are one and the same. Just as a bat can hear a broader scope of frequencies than a human, we can experience a broader scope of reality than (perhaps) a cockroach. It's your spirit (or intellect, if you wish) that determines what is real and ours say that whatever we perceive to be real, is real. No matter how it is perceived.

For the sake of being parsimonious, I'll stop there but, in a nutshell, I believe reality is both shared and personal and whether those realities overlap or not, none are more or less real than the other.



posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 03:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by cuervo

Originally posted by NorEaster
So, where does that put the "Matrix - It's All An Illusion" notion. Even in the movie, no one actually offered a tangible idea concerning how such a perception illusion could actually be stabilized to the degree that blue (the color) could have a strict RGB 0;0;255 standard that can be immediately replicated every time by a clothing manufacturer, paint manufacturer, or whomever it is that perceives that blue and wants that very specific hue of blue for his/her own use. Sure, it makes for a great philosophy debate in a Cambridge pub, but when these deft and convincing debaters, then, go to the bar for last call, is anyone really doubting that they're buying a nightcapper with the money they have in their pocket? No. Not a single one of them. In fact, it's as real as anything can possibly be - even as mundane and trite as it may sound in this sort of discussion.


I've studied this topic extensively and it is one of my favorite subjects, second only to its more esoteric cousin, spirituality. My conclusion is that they are all equally valid realities. Even if we were to determine that one is "fake" and one is "real", all we have to do is point back to our perception and validate even a "fake" reality.

The implicit and explicit realities are one and the same. Just as a bat can hear a broader scope of frequencies than a human, we can experience a broader scope of reality than (perhaps) a cockroach. It's your spirit (or intellect, if you wish) that determines what is real and ours say that whatever we perceive to be real, is real. No matter how it is perceived.

For the sake of being parsimonious, I'll stop there but, in a nutshell, I believe reality is both shared and personal and whether those realities overlap or not, none are more or less real than the other.


Okay, while I can agree with the notion of equal validity between perception/reality experiences once human beings have been freed of the corporeal anchors, but when confronting the scope of shared perception that exists within the corporeal realm, I have to point out two issues:

  • The magnitude of the effort to maintain any artificial construct that would provide such a comprehensive experience platform
  • The inherent value of such an effort, regardless of how wonderfully it sews up all the mysteries for those who insist that such an artificial platform has been developed and implemented


Everything else in developing reality seeks the path of least resistance - given the effort under way, of course. In fact, the only violation of this existential tenet is this perception matrix infrastructure that must exist if all individual corporeal reality perceptions are siloed to the degree where they can be considered completely unique and individual, with varying areas of overlap, as you suggest. Maybe the overlaps are much more comprehensive than some want to accept, with these overlaps appearing where all human perception bumps into definitive slabs of concrete reality - as fleeting as everything obviously is within the corporeal realm.

Once death has freed us of these reality anchors, then we'll discover what real perception as reality is all about, but until then, I defy anyone to dismiss the need to take a dump on the basis of it being simply part of a perception illusion.



posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 03:59 PM
link   
reply to post by NorEaster
 


I am more of a layman when it comes to metaphysics, but the topic interests me greatly.

I'm reminded of Plato's Theory of Forms where he states that there are no universals or Forms, only momentary portrayals of the Form under different circumstances. He claims that these ideas, however abstract, are more real than the material world defined by our senses. There are cats, but there is no The Cat whereas The Cat is the ideal cat; Plato's Form. The idea of it exists, but the Form doesn't (unless on some metaphysical domain). Even numbers are not numbers, but are irrational uncountable numbers as put forth in Cantor's diagonal argument..

So every unit of measure must be something agreed upon collectively by clever humans before it can be defined for the purpose of answering the question: “What is that?". What is more real: the idea of the rock, or the rock I hold in my hand? I'm still having trouble grasping the concept and believing if this is indeed a decent argument for reality, or merely a solution to a language problem.

If I, like Plato, was to believe the idea of the rock was more real than a rock in my hand, where would that fall in your corporeal vs. post-corporeal problem? If an idea is post-corporeal, it would seem that the post-corporeal existence is still based on human perception and I don't think I can fathom separating the two.



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 01:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by NorEaster

Everything else in developing reality seeks the path of least resistance - given the effort under way, of course. In fact, the only violation of this existential tenet is this perception matrix infrastructure that must exist if all individual corporeal reality perceptions are siloed to the degree where they can be considered completely unique and individual, with varying areas of overlap, as you suggest. Maybe the overlaps are much more comprehensive than some want to accept, with these overlaps appearing where all human perception bumps into definitive slabs of concrete reality - as fleeting as everything obviously is within the corporeal realm.

Once death has freed us of these reality anchors, then we'll discover what real perception as reality is all about, but until then, I defy anyone to dismiss the need to take a dump on the basis of it being simply part of a perception illusion.



I see what you are saying now. Out of the varying realities in the material side (what I like to call "MeatSpace"), some have got to be more real than others. If we were of a hive consciousness on this plane, I'd agree as the degree of reality would be based on a consensus. However, my perceived personal reality does not become more validated just because others jump on board with it.

As far as effort being involved in creating some "matrix" or what-not, we don't actually know if that's not the path of the least resistance. It may be easier to construct reality in a fashion we are not accustomed when we are on the flip-side.

All I know is that, the more that is revealed to me, the less urgent it all seems. These aren't our first nor last rodeos.
edit on 7-12-2011 by Cuervo because: coffee...



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 04:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by NiNjABackflip
reply to post by NorEaster
 


If I, like Plato, was to believe the idea of the rock was more real than a rock in my hand, where would that fall in your corporeal vs. post-corporeal problem? If an idea is post-corporeal, it would seem that the post-corporeal existence is still based on human perception and I don't think I can fathom separating the two.


It would seem to me that post-corporeal existence would be freed of "reality anchors" that corporeal existence constantly presents to the human perceiver. The translation of the experience of encountering one of these reality anchors is what you're presenting as "the idea of the rock", and whether Plato agrees or not, that reality anchor (the rock in your hand) is AS real as the conscious translation of the experience of encountering that rock by your mind - regardless of how you've translated that encounter. The difference is that your translation belongs to you alone (hell, you launched it into physical existence by the specific mechanizations that you're brain employed on behalf of that active determination) and the actual mass of molecules that comprises the rock belong to the effort of material survival that is that rock (as a contributing aspect of the material whole that contains both you and that rock). In essence, that rock - since you did not create that rock as a direct result of having encountered it and translated that encounter - serves (for you, anyway) as a reality anchor while your material (corporeal) self encounters it, and provides you with the idea (the translation of that experience) of the rock.

This is called experiencing and/or learning, and only the corporeal brain can actually accept accept unique externally supplied information and then apply that new information to its own locally managed residual information (memory) to create any form of translation of the experience of having encountered that unique externally supplied information. In fact, this is why the corporeal brain developed. Well, one of many reasons, I guess. Raw corporeal survival, since each new encounter with a reality anchor (a rock, a predator, or even another perception-addled human being) is best managed if there is applicable information stored to suggest a proper course of response directly associated with such an encounter.

Plato was pretty bright, but he did suffer from a tendency to narrowly focus on specifics while ignoring the broader context that contains and accurately defines that set of specifics. His "rocks" seemed to always exist in a virtual vacuum.



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 04:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cuervo

Originally posted by NorEaster

Everything else in developing reality seeks the path of least resistance - given the effort under way, of course. In fact, the only violation of this existential tenet is this perception matrix infrastructure that must exist if all individual corporeal reality perceptions are siloed to the degree where they can be considered completely unique and individual, with varying areas of overlap, as you suggest. Maybe the overlaps are much more comprehensive than some want to accept, with these overlaps appearing where all human perception bumps into definitive slabs of concrete reality - as fleeting as everything obviously is within the corporeal realm.

Once death has freed us of these reality anchors, then we'll discover what real perception as reality is all about, but until then, I defy anyone to dismiss the need to take a dump on the basis of it being simply part of a perception illusion.



I see what you are saying now. Out of the varying realities in the material side (what I like to call "MeatSpace"), some have got to be more real than others. If we were of a hive consciousness on this plane, I'd agree as the degree of reality would be based on a consensus. However, my perceived personal reality does not become more validated just because others jump on board with it.

As far as effort being involved in creating some "matrix" or what-not, we don't actually know if that's not the path of the least resistance. It may be easier to construct reality in a fashion we are not accustomed when we are on the flip-side.

All I know is that, the more that is revealed to me, the less urgent it all seems. These aren't our first nor last rodeos.
edit on 7-12-2011 by Cuervo because: coffee...


The creation of a "matrix" would require an uber-consciousness (relative to our own anyway) and even if you embraced that notion, you'd still be stranded when presented with the requirement for that uber-consciousness to have some sense of what is real and how it fits into that reality. If you ignore that very simple staple - the establishment of self-identity for the aware, conscious mind - you're tossing the entire concern (that being the best hope that we, as aware, conscious minds that are also in need of reliable self-identity can ever establish a "real" that is not of our own making) to the side and handing the issue off to the tender mercies of a benevolent ignorance (if there is such a thing).

You see, claiming that we're under the direct dominion of a superior intellect (by way of a massive matrix confine) doesn't erase the need to establish what can be known about the human being's capacity to determine reality from an affected translation. That need to determine where the anchors are - or even if they can ever be perceived at all - is primordial for the self-aware intellect, regardless of where that intellect exists within an existential pecking order. The question is much larger and more pervasive than any matrix construct. After all, the designers or such a matrix have to deal with that very same question. If they are self-aware and conscious, then they're perception-addled too. You can't have one set of qualities without being affected by the other set.

Oh, and when I refer to existential paths of least resistance, I'm referring to very primitive avenues of response and causal reaction. Stuff that exists well below the level of intellectual initiation or rumination. The kind of responses that we don't generally notice at our epitome level of physical existence and experience. Building a massive matrix confine - regardless of the intention - isn't an existential path of least resistance. Replication of a progressive solution - in its most primordial expression possible - is an example of an existential path of least resistance. "It works, so do it again." As simple as that.
edit on 12/7/2011 by NorEaster because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 10:26 PM
link   
with reference to cosmology, the basic function of the universe is the dissipation of information (energy) via entropy.

considering the conditions commonly accepted for the "big bang", after the initial perturbation of the singularity, and before the formation of the first massive particles, there was a very brief period of time in which occurred a complex interaction and transformation of energetic potentials. this resulted in the condensation (reverse entropy) of energy into matter.

as a general rule, a kinetic or mechanical interaction between bodies can be described as syntax. similarly a field exchange of potentials between distant bodies can be described as semantic.

it appears that entropy, then, involves both syntactics and semantics. however, WRT my example about the big bang, it could be said that the universe was "understanding" or "imagining" prior to its material existence.

therefore, the IDEA of the thing supersedes the thing.



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 02:55 AM
link   
reply to post by tgidkp
 


it is not an idea or imagination, it is more what prove how freedom is the truth, while freedom move first is always the end of its most superior move right, like what is the most superior is the least constant positive, and that what freedom know relatively from unconsciously moving it and b it, this is from truth not the universal ideas, universe is not the object truth to think by itself when i think that even the object truth never think or need to b aware of any
objective perspective is the reason of absolute freedom sense, knowing that before is more and u were not before is knowing that u r only free totally out of all since all is absolutely, so u r that positive end perfection of object truth applied for ur free way end which is the second of ur move only, but then each free true move of u is another wayend positive

so the universe is symbolizing objective existence right for its free wayend positive, simply



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 08:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by tgidkp
with reference to cosmology, the basic function of the universe is the dissipation of information (energy) via entropy.

considering the conditions commonly accepted for the "big bang", after the initial perturbation of the singularity, and before the formation of the first massive particles, there was a very brief period of time in which occurred a complex interaction and transformation of energetic potentials. this resulted in the condensation (reverse entropy) of energy into matter.



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 11:43 PM
link   
reply to post by NorEaster
 


i certainly cannot deny that i (nor anyone else) really have no clue at all about which is the primordial primary.

i think that you are being far too strict in what you require of an "idea"....and of the necessary directionality of causality in the universe. i am certainly not a cheerleader of the "all are one" dogma. i am a true and unapologetic believer in dualism.

however, you forced me to choose... and that is what i chose and why.

there are plenty of observed examples of legitimate (not just spooky, arbitrary, or vague) cases of emergence, particularly in the field of physics there is the concept of the "protectorate". also, superconductors, mono-atomic elements, and plasmas. in each of these cases, the whole system is qualitatively distinct from its fractionated parts. while in the strictest sense, the potentials (ideas) within these systems are dependent upon their constituent parts, there is an abrupt bifurcation at a critical limit of the system at which the novel behavior of the system is truly (truly) novel (as in, independent of the system altogether).

it is often suggested (but of course, not proven) that the nature of causality in these cases is future->backward, or teleological. which, i am sure, is something that you reject altogether. and thats okay.

a related physical concept, used often in chaos and fuzzy fractal analysis, is that of the "strange attractor". it is my favorite pet interest at the moment. the basic idea is that for any fractal system for which there is no well-defined edge or boundary, there is an apparency of randomness and disorder in the localized motions of the curve.

this suggests a noise input to the system. and noise, by definition, cannot have any regularity to it. however, there is a scale-invariant self-similarity in deviations in the motions from the mean-value. the range of this scale-invariance is across the entire system (universal, if you will). so, the disorder and randomness are not generated by noise. they are generated by chaos. and regularity within the chaos is dictated by the "strange attractor".

this effect is completely observational. the only "leap of faith" that is required in this explanation is with the strange attractor itself.

so, here is a great example of a completely disembodied and AT PRIMARY CAUSE "idea". what is really great about it is that this concept is already revolutionizing perspectives not only in quantum physics but also in the chemistry and biology of self-organizing systems.


so, in summary, your requirements of an idea are too strict and, dare i say, not well founded in observational reality.


where, exactly, is the bootstrap of the system you propose? how the hell does that thing get off the ground?!





posted on Dec, 9 2011 @ 07:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by tgidkp
reply to post by NorEaster
 


i certainly cannot deny that i (nor anyone else) really have no clue at all about which is the primordial primary.

i think that you are being far too strict in what you require of an "idea"....and of the necessary directionality of causality in the universe. i am certainly not a cheerleader of the "all are one" dogma. i am a true and unapologetic believer in dualism.


If you're not going to be strict when employing a specific term (like idea, which definitely suggests a consciously aware mind's involvement in the emergence of that idea) within an examination like this, then why even bother with the examination. Poetry and the stuff of scripture is free to do what it wants with terminology, but not a serious examination. Semantics have no authority over any aspect of a serious examination.


however, you forced me to choose... and that is what i chose and why.

there are plenty of observed examples of legitimate (not just spooky, arbitrary, or vague) cases of emergence, particularly in the field of physics there is the concept of the "protectorate". also, superconductors, mono-atomic elements, and plasmas. in each of these cases, the whole system is qualitatively distinct from its fractionated parts. while in the strictest sense, the potentials (ideas) within these systems are dependent upon their constituent parts, there is an abrupt bifurcation at a critical limit of the system at which the novel behavior of the system is truly (truly) novel (as in, independent of the system altogether).


There's a very plausible view that material existence isn't what we've declared it to be at its indivisible unit level. I've already suggested plenty about the nature of this view on this board, and I don't want to get sidetracked by that sort of digression here, but the very novelty that you refer to is building evidence that the science of physics will suffer a serious blow once the empirical indications have built to a point were patchwork repair theories (like future->backward causality) won't serve to explain the anomalies even to the degree that they "succeed" at the moment.


it is often suggested (but of course, not proven) that the nature of causality in these cases is future->backward, or teleological. which, i am sure, is something that you reject altogether. and thats okay.


Like I said, this is yet another plug-the-leak assertion, and while it may save a few careers, it's built solely on the dogged insistence that the decades of particle-physics-as-nonsecular-dogma hasn't been based on a deep misunderstanding of the nature of human perception as it applies to determining the true nature of what insists to be true and actual. Causality exists, and it's obvious that it is determinant when you examine the material world, but the actual physical nature of what we've declared to be material, and the actual factors that allow and/or limit the range of progressive potential per "material" manifestation, has yet to be accurately determined. And the proof is the need to radically reinvent the nature of causality itself in service of defending that established error against the powerful challenges that extremely primitive levels of "material" behavior (quantum mechanics) have presented since we've become capable of perceiving that quantum level of physical reality.

Hell, if you have the facts, you shouldn't have to invent multiverses or future->backward causality in order to allow your facts to survive intact.

I can outa room again. I'll look at the rest of your post in the next post.



posted on Dec, 9 2011 @ 07:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by tgidkp
reply to post by NorEaster
 


a related physical concept, used often in chaos and fuzzy fractal analysis, is that of the "strange attractor". it is my favorite pet interest at the moment. the basic idea is that for any fractal system for which there is no well-defined edge or boundary, there is an apparency of randomness and disorder in the localized motions of the curve.

this suggests a noise input to the system. and noise, by definition, cannot have any regularity to it. however, there is a scale-invariant self-similarity in deviations in the motions from the mean-value. the range of this scale-invariance is across the entire system (universal, if you will). so, the disorder and randomness are not generated by noise. they are generated by chaos. and regularity within the chaos is dictated by the "strange attractor".

this effect is completely observational. the only "leap of faith" that is required in this explanation is with the strange attractor itself.


Well, that's a pretty big leap of faith, especially that "strange attractor" character that is needed for the theory to work. Also, what does any of this have to do with reality anchors that exist to aid perception versus free-reign 100% perception with no "overlapping" perception reality anchors?

Hell we could box it out within a thread based solely on the nature of "idea", but the truth is that meandering digression doesn't serve either examinations (neither the one you're trying to build here, not the one I presented in the opening post).


so, here is a great example of a completely disembodied and AT PRIMARY CAUSE "idea". what is really great about it is that this concept is already revolutionizing perspectives not only in quantum physics but also in the chemistry and biology of self-organizing systems.

so, in summary, your requirements of an idea are too strict and, dare i say, not well founded in observational reality.

where, exactly, is the bootstrap of the system you propose? how the hell does that thing get off the ground?!



sigh.....

Observation is perception, and perception is 100% subjective. Unless one knows and can work off "reality anchors" - present only within the corporeal realm - then all bets are off concerning observation. Why is it that I seem to be the only one here that sees the importance of that one extremely simple fact? Observational reality is an oxymoron. Like Military Intelligence.

I've repeatedly laid out the beginnings of the system I propose. I've been more than specific in how I understand all systems to be based - the corporeal, the non-corporeal, and the foundational system that rests beneath the two. Do a quick post search on me and challenge me within your own thread on that topic. I'll indulge you there, but this thread has its own point to make, and that point concerns the capacity for the human being to determine disinterested reality within the corporeal and post-corporeal realms, and which provides the best chance of any objective information for the perceiving mind.

Sorry, just trying to keep on subject here.



new topics

top topics



 
4

log in

join