User Tag List

First 12345 Last

Results 21 to 30 of 68

  1. #21
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    1,628

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alea_iacta_est View Post
    I built this as a subjective construct, so it is the child of Ni, not Te. It is one interpretation of events among a slew of others, but interesting nonetheless. I have used this subjective construct to explain occurrences after death under specific assumptions that might be through a process called "Reintegration" that is essentially the changing of the point of view from one particular mind, body, and consciousness to the other. (It's reincarnation without the spiritual bullshit).
    Gotcha. In the same way I use the "know everything hypothetically" that I got from internalizing Te ("whatever is, just is") and using it like Ti to make all information equal.

    Think about this: the human brain has physical components to analog everything we understand about the soul--memories, emotion, personal identity, etc. But when your brain "dies," it rots, and the particles redistribute and eventually re-enter the food chain in another individual's brain, what happens? What makes you, you? Using Te there's no concrete answer to what makes a person themself. Internalizing Te I see information as a continuum instead of black-and-white--if you are "you" when you're alive, "death" is just a subjective gauge of when you stop being "you"...and the particles of our brains are recycled over centuries thru food chain so technically we are all "connected" and "the same consciousness" if that makes sense (it probably doesn't...)

  2. #22
    Senior Member Alea_iacta_est's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Socionics
    ILI
    Posts
    1,838

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nihilogen View Post
    Gotcha. In the same way I use the "know everything hypothetically" that I got from internalizing Te ("whatever is, just is") and using it like Ti to make all information equal.

    Think about this: the human brain has physical components to analog everything we understand about the soul--memories, emotion, personal identity, etc. But when your brain "dies," it rots, and the particles redistribute and eventually re-enter the food chain in another individual's brain, what happens? What makes you, you? Using Te there's no concrete answer to what makes a person themself. Internalizing Te I see information as a continuum instead of black-and-white--if you are "you" when you're alive, "death" is just a subjective gauge of when you stop being "you"...and the particles of our brains are recycled over centuries thru food chain so technically we are all "connected" and "the same consciousness" if that makes sense (it probably doesn't...)
    This particular school of thought (if you will) reasons that when our brain rots away and all of our conscious information purges, then the point of view transitions into non-existence (which doesn't exist) where it is then instantly thrown back into existence because of the infinite potential in non-existence to exist (The Non-existence Paradox).

    I understand your reasoning completely, the problem is that there isn't a physical entity for the connection between everything, but it is, in fact, a metaphorical connection through the Non-Existence Paradox (at least in this particular situation).

  3. #23
    Senior Member Alea_iacta_est's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Socionics
    ILI
    Posts
    1,838

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zangetshumody View Post
    In this way spirit is real, because we have an experience of truth; even if later some may declare to have lost this experience as they tie themselves into some peculiar linguistic cul de sac.
    (Took me a minute to figure out what you were talking about in the message, I thought you wanted me to search through the hell-hole called "The God~ Thread")

    The spirit is an abstract concept that is physically incorporeal, so physically it would not be real, but abstractly is an entirely different playing field unfettered by the grounding of present reality.

  4. #24
    Ginkgo
    Guest

    Default

    "Unreal", as opposed to non-real or fictional, implies that reality seems to have come undone. It's "unreal" when we seem to have found the unexpected because our new discovery unravels our prior assumptions about what is. That which is "unreal" seems to be an illusion with an agenda of its own, mingling with the commonplace and familiar. But, since non-reality doesn't exist, the impression of a thing that is literally "unreal" is a delusion. If you believe something is "unreal", then you get the sense that either someone is deceiving you or you're deceiving yourself. That's the only reason this word serves a purpose. To use it is an admission of awe and confusion.

  5. #25
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    18,524

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zangetshumody View Post
    Please explain your definition if you wish, also for contrast, if anyone is capable of defining "unreal" in terms of science/math that would be pretty interesting to me... Any good Teachers assistants around :P ?

    Please may your definition be able cover [through explaining the answer to] the following inspirational query:
    What is unreal love?

    Bonus points for using your creativity to the maximum that your understanding will allow.
    We perceive by making distinctions such as the distinction between real and unreal.

    So the distinction real/unreal enables us to see.

    So it is a mistake to ask the meaning of real alone, or to ask the meaning of unreal alone. It is only together as the distinction real/unreal that makes any sense.

    Real by itself is nonsense, and unreal by itself is nonsense.

  6. #26
    Senior Member Zangetshumody's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Socionics
    ILI
    Posts
    472

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mole View Post
    We perceive by making distinctions such as the distinction between real and unreal.

    So the distinction real/unreal enables us to see.

    So it is a mistake to ask the meaning of real alone, or to ask the meaning of unreal alone. It is only together as the distinction real/unreal that makes any sense.

    Real by itself is nonsense, and unreal by itself is nonsense.
    I agree with your first line.

    I feel the second line is not true: as 'corporeal/unreal' would offer a better distinction that would enable "us to see". And I also feel that distinction need not be expressly included in a person's response or within a constructed definition: as distinction can be implied or tacitly held until such time as it's expression becomes useful (as it may not be pertinent to the discussion at hand).

    Consequently I disagree with the third line.

    With regard to your fourth line;- I feel that "real" by itself is not nonsense, because real attaches weight to everything so that even the unreal is maintained by a "real order" that incorporates everything (as "real" can just mean pertinent).

    The preffix "un" does not just mean deprivation, it also means reversal [The oxford library of Words and phrases III- Word origins].
    In this way one can understand that defining unreal, envelops thinking about the ontology of mind, or a persons general epistemological grounding.

    So mole, do you only believe in a truth derived by some dialectical approach? Does everything a priori (e.g. first principles) and axioms elude you by way of their inherent "nonsense"? [Just because they might be considered before experience (indeed even before the advent of post modernism)?]

    I had hoped everyone might give thought toward where I place the bonus points, because I only place them where they are for good reason!

    Is it so hard to step onto the logos with me and discover the a priori as its forged in your earth? A good explanation of the kind of thinking this exercize might produce is on display in the Elon Musk TED talk where at the end he talks about first principles and how helpful they are... I don't know if I'm allowed to post the link here... but if you just google: Elon Musk TED talk on innovation its quite an interesting watch.
    Last edited by Zangetshumody; 02-17-2014 at 05:13 PM. Reason: added: "or in a constructed definition"+ minor editing
    Escape powerful genjitsu by averting your gaze from the eyes.

  7. #27
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    18,524

    Default Belief and Probe

    Quote Originally Posted by Zangetshumody View Post
    So mole, do you only believe in a truth derived by some dialectical approach? Does everything a priori (e.g. first principles) and axioms elude you by way of their inherent "nonsense"? [Just because they might be considered before experience (indeed even before the advent of post modernism)?]
    Good question, and the answer is yes.

    But rather than believe, I probe.

    And so I probe with, the meaning of my post is its response. This goes counter to the conventional belief that the author (Mole) creates the meaning of my post.

    So I am suggesting you experiment with the idea that you create the meaning of my post - go on, go ahead, feel free to experiment.

    Or another probe might be, we perceive by making distinctions.

    This particular probe has been iterated in a whole explanation of mathematics in, The Laws of Form, by G. Spencer-Brown.

    Another most interesting probe is, the medium is the message.

    Normally we think of the medium a simply a tool to carry the message, but this particular probe says it is the medium itself that is the message.

    And this particular probe has been iterated into into a whole explanation of the history of media, including the one we are using now, in the book, Understanding Media, by Marshall McLuhan.

  8. #28
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    1,628

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alea_iacta_est View Post
    This particular school of thought (if you will) reasons that when our brain rots away and all of our conscious information purges, then the point of view transitions into non-existence (which doesn't exist) where it is then instantly thrown back into existence because of the infinite potential in non-existence to exist (The Non-existence Paradox).
    Rethinking that actually, point of view would transit into non-existence only from the point of view of other people. If you try to define "identity" or "individual" in the most objective way possible you really can't, because what makes you, you, is in fact a series of properties (among infinite properties) elevated subjectively by other individuals to identify you. Objectively, all information is equal, therefore there is no objective personal identity.

    Ergo, personal identity is a fully subjective concept and you are ultimately the only person who can make you, you. That is to say, if a rock thought it were alive, it would be alive, because it thinks it's alive. We say a rock is "dead" because it doesn't have the physical properties of human life necessary for the mutual exchange of information that could pertain to human consciousness. In other words, a dead man could be alive because he said he's alive, even though according to rigid biological standards he is dead and according to humans he no longer is himself.

    So you would actually never transit into non-existence, even after death, hence the metaphorical "collective consciousness."

  9. #29
    Senior Member Alea_iacta_est's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Socionics
    ILI
    Posts
    1,838

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nihilogen View Post
    Rethinking that actually, point of view would transit into non-existence only from the point of view of other people. If you try to define "identity" or "individual" in the most objective way possible you really can't, because what makes you, you, is in fact a series of properties (among infinite properties) elevated subjectively by other individuals to identify you. Objectively, all information is equal, therefore there is no objective personal identity.

    Ergo, personal identity is a fully subjective concept and you are ultimately the only person who can make you, you. That is to say, if a rock thought it were alive, it would be alive, because it thinks it's alive. We say a rock is "dead" because it doesn't have the physical properties of human life necessary for the mutual exchange of information that could pertain to human consciousness. In other words, a dead man could be alive because he said he's alive, even though according to rigid biological standards he is dead and according to humans he no longer is himself.

    So you would actually never transit into non-existence, even after death, hence the metaphorical "collective consciousness."
    The point of view is inherent of all individuals, it is the common experience. When we die, everything about us dies, we are no longer and everything inherent of us is no longer, thus we enter the state of being of non-existence from a subjective and singular viewpoint. When this happens, we reintegrate back into existence from the non-existence paradox, which means the transition would be instantaneous.

    The point of view is subjective in the sense that it is one viewpoint but is also objective in the sense that it is inherent in all individuals in all points in time (because the non-existence paradox occurs outside of existence and can thus make the point of view reintegrate into any time period).

  10. #30
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    1,628

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alea_iacta_est View Post
    The point of view is inherent of all individuals, it is the common experience. When we die, everything about us dies, we are no longer and everything inherent of us is no longer, thus we enter the state of being of non-existence from a subjective and singular viewpoint. When this happens, we reintegrate back into existence from the non-existence paradox, which means the transition would be instantaneous.

    The point of view is subjective in the sense that it is one viewpoint but is also objective in the sense that it is inherent in all individuals in all points in time (because the non-existence paradox occurs outside of existence and can thus make the point of view reintegrate into any time period).
    The problem is that the self is too subjective. We say we are "ourselves" because of thoughts, feelings, sensations, emotions, all things that go on inside of brains that are really physical.

    This does two things: First, it destroys personal identity because everything we associate with consciousness, everything that we elevate higher, is in fact caused by the physical matter of our brains. Second, it means everything we are is actually preserved. Our physical brains may die, and the information about life experiences may be "wiped" or "illegible" due to decay, but all information is equal and connected; hypothetically if you had good enough understanding and technology you could extrapolate a few general background details about a rotting corpse, predict to a microscopic level of detail how the brain decayed, and in effect reconstruct the person's entire experience as they felt it in their brains.

    So the information in their brains that made them "them" is in fact shared with all the rest of the information in their environment.

Similar Threads

  1. What is the best thing someone ever said to you?
    By fidelia in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 07-14-2016, 01:03 AM
  2. [INFP] What is the best way to tell an INFP you love them?
    By demaugustus in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 44
    Last Post: 05-05-2016, 03:20 PM
  3. What is the best part of an Oreo cookie?
    By The Ü™ in forum Home, Garden and Nature
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 02-14-2014, 11:22 AM
  4. What is the craziest bit of technology you have read about in SF?
    By macjoven in forum Science, Technology, and Future Tech
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 01-14-2009, 08:15 PM
  5. What is the best country to live in?
    By JAVO in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 66
    Last Post: 04-28-2008, 05:44 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO