|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Sept 13, 2022 13:33:16 GMT
Since by a default suggestion thoughts = words, and we use words to signify objects, abstractions, or other unseen connections between them, then how paradox may occur? - Only by our wishes. We must see paradoxes "in nature" or "between object", but how?
The words paradox refer to some logical situation, when it must be A, while it is not-A, and it contradicts to our expectations. That's why until paradoxes haven't defined beyond our heads no reason to expect it existing ontologically - is useless. There are no paradoxes 'outside our heads'.
And if there are not paradoxes outside, then where are they? In what or where? Can somebody point me to where should I go to find the paradoxes? Or maybe The Paradox is just a village somewhere on the Mexico border? Maybe it's just a drinking bar that works from the dusk till dawn? Where are the signs of it?
Let's say objects are: 'atom', 'bullet', 'cigarette', 'dust', 'employee', 'Frank', 'gravity', 'hexagon', 'I', 'jacket', 'kitchen', 'love', 'misery', 'night', 'oxygen'.
Let's say predicates are: 'Points to', 'Quantifies', 'Rotate', 'Says', 'Tortures', 'Unites', 'Verifies', 'Wheels'.
Let's say variables are: 'x', 'y', 'z'.
So, to be a formula here's the syntax: 1) if _{P, Q, R, S, T, U, W}_ is a predicate and _{a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, i, j, k, l, m, n, o}_ are individuals or constants, and _{x, y, z}_ are variables, then _{Pab, Pax, Pay, Pxb, Pxc, Pyb, ..., Qab, Qax, ..., Wyz}_ are formulas 2) if A is a formula, then not-A is also a formula 3) if A, B are formulas, then (A and B), (A or B), (If A, then B), are also fomulas 4) if A is a formula, then (for all x, A), (there is x such that, A) are also formulas 5) there are no other formulas
Let's give some examples:
Pab = 'atoms points to bullet'; Qcd = 'cigarette quantifies dust'; Rex = 'employee rotates something', Red = 'employee rotates dust'; Wxi = 'something wheels me'; For all x, Vgx = 'gravity verifies everything'; There is y, such that Uly = 'there is something that love unites'; For all x there is y such that Tyx = 'for everyone there is a torturer y'; There is y such that for all x Tyx = 'there is someone who tortures everyone'; There is x such that Six and Vml = 'there is someone to whom I say and misery verify love'; If there is y such that Syi, then Pik = 'if there's someone who says me, then I point to a kitchen'.
We can add modality to it, we can add some punctuations, or so on, but there are no paradoxes occur, until we start guessing and figure it out new statements by our own. Let's bring a famous Bertrund Russell one:
Let's say Lxy means 'x loves y', and add a new operation called 'equivalence' that is '__if and only if__'. So, let's complete such a sentence as:
For all x, Lfx if and only if not-Lxx = 'Frank loves only those who doesn't love themselves'.
Then what will happen if we put Frank instead of that ones, or 'f' instead of 'x'? Let's see:
For all, Lxx if and only if not-Lxx = 'everyone loves everyone if and only if everyone doesn't love everyone'.
This doesn't sound correct, it sounds contradictory. But why this has happened? - Because of our interpretations, not because of the world, where no paradoxes are available.
|
|
|
Post by IM LITERALLY NEO on Sept 13, 2022 15:43:17 GMT
There Are Paradoxes: A Good Example Of One Is The Human Eye, The Pupil Is A Paradox As It Is The Eclipse Of The Sun And Moon Represented By The Left / Right Hemisphere Duality, And The Human Eye Isn't "Human", But It's Designed To Experience As One, So Therein Lies The Paradox Of Which Is Simply Neuro-Transmitters Formed Many Thousands Of Years Ago To Witness Itself Without Itself Identified As Itself, But As A Being That Is Convinced It Exists, And Everything In Design Is Meaningless Or Meaningful, The Human Eye That Is Not At All "Human" Perceives Itself As "Human", Rather Than The Universe.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Sept 13, 2022 18:55:43 GMT
There Are Paradoxes: A Good Example Of One Is The Human Eye, The Pupil Is A Paradox As It Is The Eclipse Of The Sun And Moon Represented By The Left / Right Hemisphere Duality, And The Human Eye Isn't "Human", But It's Designed To Experience As One, So Therein Lies The Paradox Of Which Is Simply Neuro-Transmitters Formed Many Thousands Of Years Ago To Witness Itself Without Itself Identified As Itself, But As A Being That Is Convinced It Exists, And Everything In Design Is Meaningless Or Meaningful, The Human Eye That Is Not At All "Human" Perceives Itself As "Human", Rather Than The Universe. Speaking honestly, I'm not sure I understand your scriptures. Your speech is fulfilled with riddles. It's like instead of direct talk you try to use some kind of codes, symbolic language, puzzles, etc. Are you a pirate?
|
|
|
Post by IM LITERALLY NEO on Sept 13, 2022 19:14:53 GMT
There Are Paradoxes: A Good Example Of One Is The Human Eye, The Pupil Is A Paradox As It Is The Eclipse Of The Sun And Moon Represented By The Left / Right Hemisphere Duality, And The Human Eye Isn't "Human", But It's Designed To Experience As One, So Therein Lies The Paradox Of Which Is Simply Neuro-Transmitters Formed Many Thousands Of Years Ago To Witness Itself Without Itself Identified As Itself, But As A Being That Is Convinced It Exists, And Everything In Design Is Meaningless Or Meaningful, The Human Eye That Is Not At All "Human" Perceives Itself As "Human", Rather Than The Universe. Speaking honestly, I'm not sure I understand your scriptures. Your speech is fulfilled with riddles. It's like instead of direct talk you try to use some kind of codes, symbolic language, puzzles, etc. Are you a pirate? Human Eye = Pupil.
What Does A Pupil Look Like? An Eclipse.
How Is An Eclipse Celestially Made? Sun + Moon.
What Does A Human Brain Have? Two Hemispheres.
What Governs Those Two Hemispheres? Solar + Lunar.
How Much Of A Human Is "Human"? 0% Physically, ?% Depending On How "Humane" They Are At Heart.
How Much Of A Human Is "Star Stuff"? 100% Physically / Meta-Physically / Spiritually.
Everything That Makes A "Human" Body Is What Existed Already In The Universe, The Human Eye Perceives Through The Lens Of The Observer, The Observer Has "Free Will" To Recognize Themselves Separate From The Universe, Which Is Why So Many Have "Human Eyes", But Very Few Have "Eyes To See".
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Sept 15, 2022 22:16:46 GMT
Since by a default suggestion thoughts = words, and we use words to signify objects, abstractions, or other unseen connections between them, then how paradox may occur? - Only by our wishes. We must see paradoxes "in nature" or "between object", but how? The words paradox refer to some logical situation, when it must be A, while it is not-A, and it contradicts to our expectations. That's why until paradoxes haven't defined beyond our heads no reason to expect it existing ontologically - is useless. There are no paradoxes 'outside our heads'. And if there are not paradoxes outside, then where are they? In what or where? Can somebody point me to where should I go to find the paradoxes? Or maybe The Paradox is just a village somewhere on the Mexico border? Maybe it's just a drinking bar that works from the dusk till dawn? Where are the signs of it? Let's say objects are: 'atom', 'bullet', 'cigarette', 'dust', 'employee', 'Frank', 'gravity', 'hexagon', 'I', 'jacket', 'kitchen', 'love', 'misery', 'night', 'oxygen'. Let's say predicates are: 'Points to', 'Quantifies', 'Rotate', 'Says', 'Tortures', 'Unites', 'Verifies', 'Wheels'. Let's say variables are: 'x', 'y', 'z'. So, to be a formula here's the syntax: 1) if _{P, Q, R, S, T, U, W}_ is a predicate and _{a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, i, j, k, l, m, n, o}_ are individuals or constants, and _{x, y, z}_ are variables, then _{Pab, Pax, Pay, Pxb, Pxc, Pyb, ..., Qab, Qax, ..., Wyz}_ are formulas 2) if A is a formula, then not-A is also a formula 3) if A, B are formulas, then (A and B), (A or B), (If A, then B), are also fomulas 4) if A is a formula, then (for all x, A), (there is x such that, A) are also formulas 5) there are no other formulas Let's give some examples: Pab = 'atoms points to bullet'; Qcd = 'cigarette quantifies dust'; Rex = 'employee rotates something', Red = 'employee rotates dust'; Wxi = 'something wheels me'; For all x, Vgx = 'gravity verifies everything'; There is y, such that Uly = 'there is something that love unites'; For all x there is y such that Tyx = 'for everyone there is a torturer y'; There is y such that for all x Tyx = 'there is someone who tortures everyone'; There is x such that Six and Vml = 'there is someone to whom I say and misery verify love'; If there is y such that Syi, then Pik = 'if there's someone who says me, then I point to a kitchen'. We can add modality to it, we can add some punctuations, or so on, but there are no paradoxes occur, until we start guessing and figure it out new statements by our own. Let's bring a famous Bertrund Russell one: Let's say Lxy means 'x loves y', and add a new operation called 'equivalence' that is '__if and only if__'. So, let's complete such a sentence as: For all x, Lfx if and only if not-Lxx = 'Frank loves only those who doesn't love themselves'. Then what will happen if we put Frank instead of that ones, or 'f' instead of 'x'? Let's see: For all, Lxx if and only if not-Lxx = 'everyone loves everyone if and only if everyone doesn't love everyone'. This doesn't sound correct, it sounds contradictory. But why this has happened? - Because of our interpretations, not because of the world, where no paradoxes are available. If consciousness is the result of atoms and fields then the paradox is not outside the head.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Sept 16, 2022 6:25:31 GMT
Since by a default suggestion thoughts = words, and we use words to signify objects, abstractions, or other unseen connections between them, then how paradox may occur? - Only by our wishes. We must see paradoxes "in nature" or "between object", but how? The words paradox refer to some logical situation, when it must be A, while it is not-A, and it contradicts to our expectations. That's why until paradoxes haven't defined beyond our heads no reason to expect it existing ontologically - is useless. There are no paradoxes 'outside our heads'. And if there are not paradoxes outside, then where are they? In what or where? Can somebody point me to where should I go to find the paradoxes? Or maybe The Paradox is just a village somewhere on the Mexico border? Maybe it's just a drinking bar that works from the dusk till dawn? Where are the signs of it? Let's say objects are: 'atom', 'bullet', 'cigarette', 'dust', 'employee', 'Frank', 'gravity', 'hexagon', 'I', 'jacket', 'kitchen', 'love', 'misery', 'night', 'oxygen'. Let's say predicates are: 'Points to', 'Quantifies', 'Rotate', 'Says', 'Tortures', 'Unites', 'Verifies', 'Wheels'. Let's say variables are: 'x', 'y', 'z'. So, to be a formula here's the syntax: 1) if _{P, Q, R, S, T, U, W}_ is a predicate and _{a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, i, j, k, l, m, n, o}_ are individuals or constants, and _{x, y, z}_ are variables, then _{Pab, Pax, Pay, Pxb, Pxc, Pyb, ..., Qab, Qax, ..., Wyz}_ are formulas 2) if A is a formula, then not-A is also a formula 3) if A, B are formulas, then (A and B), (A or B), (If A, then B), are also fomulas 4) if A is a formula, then (for all x, A), (there is x such that, A) are also formulas 5) there are no other formulas Let's give some examples: Pab = 'atoms points to bullet'; Qcd = 'cigarette quantifies dust'; Rex = 'employee rotates something', Red = 'employee rotates dust'; Wxi = 'something wheels me'; For all x, Vgx = 'gravity verifies everything'; There is y, such that Uly = 'there is something that love unites'; For all x there is y such that Tyx = 'for everyone there is a torturer y'; There is y such that for all x Tyx = 'there is someone who tortures everyone'; There is x such that Six and Vml = 'there is someone to whom I say and misery verify love'; If there is y such that Syi, then Pik = 'if there's someone who says me, then I point to a kitchen'. We can add modality to it, we can add some punctuations, or so on, but there are no paradoxes occur, until we start guessing and figure it out new statements by our own. Let's bring a famous Bertrund Russell one: Let's say Lxy means 'x loves y', and add a new operation called 'equivalence' that is '__if and only if__'. So, let's complete such a sentence as: For all x, Lfx if and only if not-Lxx = 'Frank loves only those who doesn't love themselves'. Then what will happen if we put Frank instead of that ones, or 'f' instead of 'x'? Let's see: For all, Lxx if and only if not-Lxx = 'everyone loves everyone if and only if everyone doesn't love everyone'. This doesn't sound correct, it sounds contradictory. But why this has happened? - Because of our interpretations, not because of the world, where no paradoxes are available. If consciousness is the result of atoms and fields then the paradox is not outside the head. I agree with the last part, but cannot say I see any relevant transition from the antecedent to the consequent. Our heads might be created with wool, wood, and food, but it won't change anything will it? The mechanism of connections of the parts within heads would be the same. And how the fields are involved into a head's creation? Can we register any fields there, except for electromagnetic? I'm not sure there is that force is presented. Anyway, a field cannot be the primary source, it is just a secondary arbitrary phenomenon.
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Sept 29, 2022 21:13:50 GMT
If consciousness is the result of atoms and fields then the paradox is not outside the head. I agree with the last part, but cannot say I see any relevant transition from the antecedent to the consequent. Our heads might be created with wool, wood, and food, but it won't change anything will it? The mechanism of connections of the parts within heads would be the same. And how the fields are involved into a head's creation? Can we register any fields there, except for electromagnetic? I'm not sure there is that force is presented. Anyway, a field cannot be the primary source, it is just a secondary arbitrary phenomenon. The atom/field is not a secondary source if consciousness is grounded in them. The interaction of atoms/fields is consciousness as consciousness, when broken down to its core parts, is strictly interactions. These interactions are impressions given and impression received. The universe is self-aware and as self-aware nothing exists outside "the head".
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Sept 30, 2022 6:36:08 GMT
I agree with the last part, but cannot say I see any relevant transition from the antecedent to the consequent. Our heads might be created with wool, wood, and food, but it won't change anything will it? The mechanism of connections of the parts within heads would be the same. And how the fields are involved into a head's creation? Can we register any fields there, except for electromagnetic? I'm not sure there is that force is presented. Anyway, a field cannot be the primary source, it is just a secondary arbitrary phenomenon. The atom/field is not a secondary source if consciousness is grounded in them. The interaction of atoms/fields is consciousness as consciousness, when broken down to its core parts, is strictly interactions. These interactions are impressions given and impression received. The universe is self-aware and as self-aware nothing exists outside "the head". It's quite a metaphysical claim. Maybe true, maybe not, maybe both. At least none mechanism of transition from the interactions to the self awareness has been presented.
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Oct 4, 2022 18:42:49 GMT
The atom/field is not a secondary source if consciousness is grounded in them. The interaction of atoms/fields is consciousness as consciousness, when broken down to its core parts, is strictly interactions. These interactions are impressions given and impression received. The universe is self-aware and as self-aware nothing exists outside "the head". It's quite a metaphysical claim. Maybe true, maybe not, maybe both. At least none mechanism of transition from the interactions to the self awareness has been presented. To resort reality to core mechanisms has it problem as well considering there must be mechanisms to observe the mechanisms and we end in an infinite regression of self-referentiality which effectively result in reality being indefinite.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Oct 4, 2022 20:21:36 GMT
It's quite a metaphysical claim. Maybe true, maybe not, maybe both. At least none mechanism of transition from the interactions to the self awareness has been presented. To resort reality to core mechanisms has it problem as well considering there must be mechanisms to observe the mechanisms and we end in an infinite regression of self-referentiality which effectively result in reality being indefinite. No observers are needed. If two bricks hit each other, then there may not be any observers for the bricks to interact. Let's say do you order your stomach to work? Do you order the Earth to spin? I don't think so. However, stomachs work, the Earth spins around. Why any self-referentiality is needed? Seems any self-references occur because of our manners or habits to talk. Indians of Navajo didn't use the first person references, and what? Did they loose anything to talk? – No.
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Oct 4, 2022 20:25:59 GMT
To resort reality to core mechanisms has it problem as well considering there must be mechanisms to observe the mechanisms and we end in an infinite regression of self-referentiality which effectively result in reality being indefinite. No observers are needed. If two bricks hit each other, then there may not be any observers for the bricks to interact. Let's say do you order your stomach to work? Do you order the Earth to spin? I don't think so. However, stomachs work, the Earth spins around. Why any self-referentiality is needed? Seems any self-references occur because of our manners or habits to talk. Indians of Navajo didn't use the first person references, and what? Did they loose anything to talk? – No. Observation is interaction, the two are inseperable giving both rely on action and reaction. As such the universe is self-aware, because of not only the interactions occur within it, but also because only "everything" exists. Only "everything" exists results in self-referentiality as there is no comparison, there is no other "everything" otherwise it would not be "everything". This singularity necessitates a universal consciousness as all things, including the phenomenon of consciousness, are connected.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Oct 4, 2022 20:44:38 GMT
No observers are needed. If two bricks hit each other, then there may not be any observers for the bricks to interact. Let's say do you order your stomach to work? Do you order the Earth to spin? I don't think so. However, stomachs work, the Earth spins around. Why any self-referentiality is needed? Seems any self-references occur because of our manners or habits to talk. Indians of Navajo didn't use the first person references, and what? Did they loose anything to talk? – No. Observation is interaction, the two are inseperable giving both rely on action and reaction. As such the universe is self-aware, because of not only the interactions occur within it, but also because only "everything" exists. Only "everything" exists results in self-referentiality as there is no comparison, there is no other "everything" otherwise it would not be "everything". This singularity necessitates a universal consciousness as all things, including the phenomenon of consciousness, are connected. The examples beat your theories, so I don't see how did you beat them back. Did you control your stomach to heat, or your blood to move? No connections cannot explain why the Earth spins by itself.
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Oct 4, 2022 20:49:42 GMT
Observation is interaction, the two are inseperable giving both rely on action and reaction. As such the universe is self-aware, because of not only the interactions occur within it, but also because only "everything" exists. Only "everything" exists results in self-referentiality as there is no comparison, there is no other "everything" otherwise it would not be "everything". This singularity necessitates a universal consciousness as all things, including the phenomenon of consciousness, are connected. The examples beat your theories, so I don't see how did you beat them back. Did you control your stomach to heat, or your blood to move? No connections cannot explain why the Earth spins by itself. Actually they don't beat what I say because I am saying interactions are consciousness. Dually the brain, as an epicenter for consciousness in the material realm, controls these things. Third, form and consciousness are inseparable given form is not only required for interactions (with these interactions being the foundation of consciousness) but form is consciousness as all consciousness is progressive/regressive (linear) and self-referential (looping).
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Oct 4, 2022 20:53:25 GMT
The examples beat your theories, so I don't see how did you beat them back. Did you control your stomach to heat, or your blood to move? No connections cannot explain why the Earth spins by itself. Actually they don't beat what I say because I am saying interactions are consciousness. Dually the brain, as an epicenter for consciousness in the material realm, controls these things. Third, form and consciousness are inseparable given form is not only required for interactions (with these interactions being the foundation of consciousness) but form is consciousness as all consciousness is progressive/regressive (linear) and self-referential (looping). I wonder how meals don't interact guts. Plenty of interaction, but for no reason consciousness is involved. If there's no spectacular of a process X then process X will be performed anyway. How are you supposed to get a train hurrying to the train station?
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Oct 4, 2022 20:57:19 GMT
Actually they don't beat what I say because I am saying interactions are consciousness. Dually the brain, as an epicenter for consciousness in the material realm, controls these things. Third, form and consciousness are inseparable given form is not only required for interactions (with these interactions being the foundation of consciousness) but form is consciousness as all consciousness is progressive/regressive (linear) and self-referential (looping). I wonder how meals don't interact guts. Plenty of interaction, but for no reason consciousness is involved. If there's no spectacular of a process X then process X will be performed anyway. How are you supposed to get a train hurrying to the train station? Without interaction there is no consciousness. Interaction is the foundation of consciousness. If interaction is consciousness, and all things interact, then all is aware in some degree in accordance with there degree of interaction.
|
|