|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Sept 8, 2022 21:37:12 GMT
1. There is a picture of a waterfall.
2. As a picture of a waterfall the picture is not a waterfall.
3. The picture, however, is dependent upon an existing waterfall.
4. As dependent upon the existing waterfall it cannot exist without the waterfall thus is connected to it.
5. As connected to the waterfall it is the waterfall as connection is equivocation.
6. The picture is both a waterfall and not a waterfall.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Sept 10, 2022 16:02:49 GMT
First of all, what you see on a picture is your problem.  |
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Sept 10, 2022 22:21:13 GMT
First of all, what you see on a picture is your problem. And multiple things can be seen, including just an ink lot. One thing can mean multiple things. |
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Sept 11, 2022 11:46:19 GMT
First of all, what you see on a picture is your problem. And multiple things can be seen, including just an ink lot. One thing can mean multiple things. Then after watching a waterfall it accidentally turns into an ink. You cannot see a waterfall in the picture. |
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Sept 11, 2022 22:15:22 GMT
And multiple things can be seen, including just an ink lot. One thing can mean multiple things. Then after watching a waterfall it accidentally turns into an ink. You cannot see a waterfall in the picture. Then it is not a picture of a waterfall if a waterfall is not seen. |
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Sept 12, 2022 6:23:52 GMT
Then after watching a waterfall it accidentally turns into an ink. You cannot see a waterfall in the picture. Then it is not a picture of a waterfall if a waterfall is not seen. Hah, but this is where a paradox is hiding: it doesn't really matter which picture is it, because one is able to see Mona Lisa, Niagara, or a triangle in anything according to Rorschach. |
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Sept 15, 2022 21:25:00 GMT
Then it is not a picture of a waterfall if a waterfall is not seen. Hah, but this is where a paradox is hiding: it doesn't really matter which picture is it, because one is able to see Mona Lisa, Niagara, or a triangle in anything according to Rorschach. Yet the inkblot, as reflecting many things, cannot exist without that which it reflects. |
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Sept 16, 2022 6:45:05 GMT
Hah, but this is where a paradox is hiding: it doesn't really matter which picture is it, because one is able to see Mona Lisa, Niagara, or a triangle in anything according to Rorschach. Yet the inkblot, as reflecting many things, cannot exist without that which it reflects. Can't say I agree here. I think it depends on how to view your argument. Seems for you there might be no observers, while even without their presence something, however, will be seen. Even if this view was true it wouldn't change the fact that for something to exist no observers were needed. If a Rorschach's example had, let's say, 3 interpretations, then for the example to exist there wouldn't be any observer to make it be. |
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Sept 29, 2022 21:20:26 GMT
Yet the inkblot, as reflecting many things, cannot exist without that which it reflects. Can't say I agree here. I think it depends on how to view your argument. Seems for you there might be no observers, while even without their presence something, however, will be seen. Even if this view was true it wouldn't change the fact that for something to exist no observers were needed. If a Rorschach's example had, let's say, 3 interpretations, then for the example to exist there wouldn't be any observer to make it be. Reflection is pattern repetition, pattern repetition is form. Consciousness in its repetition (circularity) and progression (linearism) is inseparable from form. Form is consciousness and as such observation is inseparable from reality. There is nothing that exists outside of consciousness if the universe is aware of itself. As such, all things existing through consciousness, things may have a multitude of meanings because of the multitude of relationships. For example a rain drop has a different relationship grass than the deer, the grass has multiple relationships (meanings) relative to the multitude of contexts through which it exists. |
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Oct 1, 2022 12:34:19 GMT
Can't say I agree here. I think it depends on how to view your argument. Seems for you there might be no observers, while even without their presence something, however, will be seen. Even if this view was true it wouldn't change the fact that for something to exist no observers were needed. If a Rorschach's example had, let's say, 3 interpretations, then for the example to exist there wouldn't be any observer to make it be. Reflection is pattern repetition, pattern repetition is form. Consciousness in its repetition (circularity) and progression (linearism) is inseparable from form. Form is consciousness and as such observation is inseparable from reality. There is nothing that exists outside of consciousness if the universe is aware of itself. As such, all things existing through consciousness, things may have a multitude of meanings because of the multitude of relationships. For example a rain drop has a different relationship grass than the deer, the grass has multiple relationships (meanings) relative to the multitude of contexts through which it exists. I don't think that the universe is aware of itself. It's not impossible, but not necessary. Maybe there's no need for it to have it, or maybe there's some more advanced forms of it (like for some people the aliens from the outer space are seemed to be super intelligent), who knows. Consciousness is just one of possible things in something we used to call the reality or the universe. We don't know what is outside for sure. Until anyone has reached out-consciousness level of observation there are no certain way to be absolutely positive about those theories. Human mind is narrow and limited. We are just apes, aren't we? |
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Oct 4, 2022 18:57:09 GMT
Reflection is pattern repetition, pattern repetition is form. Consciousness in its repetition (circularity) and progression (linearism) is inseparable from form. Form is consciousness and as such observation is inseparable from reality. There is nothing that exists outside of consciousness if the universe is aware of itself. As such, all things existing through consciousness, things may have a multitude of meanings because of the multitude of relationships. For example a rain drop has a different relationship grass than the deer, the grass has multiple relationships (meanings) relative to the multitude of contexts through which it exists. I don't think that the universe is aware of itself. It's not impossible, but not necessary. Maybe there's no need for it to have it, or maybe there's some more advanced forms of it (like for some people the aliens from the outer space are seemed to be super intelligent), who knows. Consciousness is just one of possible things in something we used to call the reality or the universe. We don't know what is outside for sure. Until anyone has reached out-consciousness level of observation there are no certain way to be absolutely positive about those theories. Human mind is narrow and limited. We are just apes, aren't we? Anything outside of consciousness is not existent as consciousness, in its foundations, is strictly reflection as actions giving and receiving impressions. To speak of anything outside of consciousness is to observe a pattern first and foremost; this pattern is action and reaction and as such in saying "we cannot observe things (ie things being actions and reactions) outside of consciousness" is to observe that there are actions/reactions. In other words in saying things exist outside of consciousness is paradoxical as we are categorizing actions and reactions thus resulting in the unobservable as a thing which we observe. |
|
