|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Dec 10, 2021 0:02:14 GMT
If all is composed of atoms then awareness is composed of atoms thus atoms are aware of themselves. This is a circle thus necessitating consciousness as having form.
|
|
|
|
Post by joustos on Dec 10, 2021 15:50:57 GMT
If all is composed of atoms then awareness is composed of atoms thus atoms are aware of themselves. This is a circle thus necessitating consciousness as having form. You deduce the self-conciouness of atoms from a questionable major premise. In fact, this premise implies that atoms are composed of atoms. Speaking of atoms, as scientists do, I would say that any atom is composed of proton(s) and electron(s). The electrons are, like planets, constantly moving around the nucleus, and thus they constitute an electric current -- at least until they interlock/bond with other atoms. The human body has (neural) electrical currents which, I believe, are necessary for and are responsible for consciouness, as when we see or hear something,etc. (Self-consciousness is more complicated.) Anyway, it is not easy to determine whether it is brain-atoms that become conscious when we experience colors,tones, etc. Can atoms in a free state (not parts of a body) become conscious in any form at all? |
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Dec 10, 2021 17:53:02 GMT
If atoms can be aware of themselves, I guess it supposes the atoms to be complex. If atoms are complex, they are no atoms anymore.
|
|
|
|
Post by thesageofmainstreet on Dec 10, 2021 21:37:50 GMT
If atoms can be aware of themselves, I guess it supposes the atoms to be complex. If atoms are complex, they are no atoms anymore. Personifying inanimate objects is an insult to intelligence. The true criticism of these fantasies realizes that what is hated is the opposite of what is focused on. The true motives of those with silly ideas are hidden by the way they indirectly position what they pretend to be talking about. So whoever came up with this nonsense is really saying that the intelligent are just lucky recipients of active atoms and should not take any pride in their brainpower any more than a driver should feel he himself is personally strong because of his car's horsepower. |
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Dec 10, 2021 21:50:04 GMT
If atoms can be aware of themselves, I guess it supposes the atoms to be complex. If atoms are complex, they are no atoms anymore. Personifying inanimate objects is an insult to intelligence. The true criticism of these fantasies realizes that what is hated is the opposite of what is focused on. The true motives of those with silly ideas are hidden by the way they indirectly position what they pretend to be talking about. So whoever came up with this nonsense is really saying that the intelligent are just lucky recipients of active atoms and should not take any pride in their brainpower any more than a driver should feel he himself is personally strong because of his car's horsepower. Era of robots is near. Lucky atoms... that's true. It sounds as an advertisement. Eat those wacko atoms, and become stronger, than your car!.. A man is not just a sum of atoms. An Ancient Greek philosopher Anaxagoras said that the noos (i.e. the intelligence, the mind) has no limits, because there is no areas the noos can't be |
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Dec 16, 2021 20:05:21 GMT
If all is composed of atoms then awareness is composed of atoms thus atoms are aware of themselves. This is a circle thus necessitating consciousness as having form. You deduce the self-conciouness of atoms from a questionable major premise. In fact, this premise implies that atoms are composed of atoms. Speaking of atoms, as scientists do, I would say that any atom is composed of proton(s) and electron(s). The electrons are, like planets, constantly moving around the nucleus, and thus they constitute an electric current -- at least until they interlock/bond with other atoms. The human body has (neural) electrical currents which, I believe, are necessary for and are responsible for consciouness, as when we see or hear something,etc. (Self-consciousness is more complicated.) Anyway, it is not easy to determine whether it is brain-atoms that become conscious when we experience colors,tones, etc. Can atoms in a free state (not parts of a body) become conscious in any form at all? The atom is composed of itself as a particle is composed of particles. The atom as an irreducible entity however negates this. But a paradox occurs as the atom being reduced to a further atom necessitates no reduction happening at all given the atom is present across each reductive phase. Replace atoms with particles. Particles are composed of particles, it is a regression. A particle is composed of points, the point as part of the particle is composed of further points with each point being a "part" of the particle/point thus a "particle". A point is synonymous to a particle. The foundation of the argument is that the fundamental phenomenon a phenomenon is reduced to necessitates it as conscious. This consciousness of the fundamental phenomenon is grounded in the fact that this phenomenon results in consciousness and this same consciousness is studying the fundamental phenomenon it is grounded in. Fundamental phenomenon results in consciousness with consciousness aware of the fundamental phenomenon thus the fundamental phenomenon is reflecting upon itself. This reflection is consciousness thus the fundamental phenomenon is self aware. |
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Dec 16, 2021 20:13:42 GMT
If atoms can be aware of themselves, I guess it supposes the atoms to be complex. If atoms are complex, they are no atoms anymore. Personifying inanimate objects is an insult to intelligence. The true criticism of these fantasies realizes that what is hated is the opposite of what is focused on. The true motives of those with silly ideas are hidden by the way they indirectly position what they pretend to be talking about. So whoever came up with this nonsense is really saying that the intelligent are just lucky recipients of active atoms and should not take any pride in their brainpower any more than a driver should feel he himself is personally strong because of his car's horsepower. 1. Given consciousness is grounded in a fundamental phenomenon the fundamental phenomenon is studying itself when a conscious entity is studying said fundamental phenomenon. Fundamental phenomenon --> Consciousness --> Fundamental phenomenon. It is a self reflective loop. 2. Given the totality of being exists only as the totality of being the totality of being reflects upon itself thus is self aware. Being through being is reflection, reflection is awareness, all of being has some degree of awareness. 3. Given all being is conditioned by a context and this conditioning through context applies to intelligence, intelligence is conditioned. The context one is born into determines intelligence. Even self-will is determined by a context as certain contexts result in not just the expression of will but how it is expressed. So yes, they "should not take any pride in their brainpower". |
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Dec 16, 2021 20:19:43 GMT
B-Students Jealous of A-StudentsPersonifying inanimate objects is an insult to intelligence. The true criticism of these fantasies realizes that what is hated is the opposite of what is focused on. The true motives of those with silly ideas are hidden by the way they indirectly position what they pretend to be talking about. So whoever came up with this nonsense is really saying that the intelligent are just lucky recipients of active atoms and should not take any pride in their brainpower any more than a driver should feel he himself is personally strong because of his car's horsepower. Era of robots is near. Lucky atoms... that's true. It sounds as an advertisement. Eat those wacko atoms, and become stronger, than your car!.. A man is not just a sum of atoms. An Ancient Greek philosopher Anaxagoras said that the noos (i.e. the intelligence, the mind) has no limits, because there is no areas the noos can't be1. Intelligence begins with a simple point given what is observed behind a thought or series of thoughts is nothing. Nothingness is a point. As a simple point the nature of intelligence begins with a particle given a particle can be viewed in certain respects as synonymous to a point (this is considering a particle is composed of points with each respective point upon further examination being composed of further particles which in turn are points; this is a continuum). 2. A sum of atoms relatively speaking is another atom from a distance; this is in the respect atoms, as "parts" of something, are synonymous to particles in certain respects. 3. Particles/atoms underlying particles/atoms make the particle/atom as omnipresent. |
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Dec 16, 2021 20:27:49 GMT
If atoms can be aware of themselves, I guess it supposes the atoms to be complex. If atoms are complex, they are no atoms anymore. 1. This is like saying 1 does not exist anymore because 1+1=2; 2 is a complex 1, as there is 1 number 2 and this 2 is dually composed of 1, thus necessitating 1 as not only complex but still 1 given this relationship of 1+1=2 allows 1 to exist. Atoms can still be complex and still be atoms. Given the atom is implied as "irreducible entity" the atom exists through further atoms thus necessitating the underlying nature of atom as 1 thing existing in multiple states. 1 thing may still be complex given it exists through itself in multiple states; these multiple states necessitate the 1 thing as superpositioned. 1 exists as many much in the same manner the 1 atom exists as many atoms where the 1 is reflected. 2. Dually this is assuming intelligence is limited to complexity. Complexity results in intelligence, but this intelligence is grounded in a single phenomenon of "relations" (given complexity is relation) therefore intelligence is dually simple. 3. Atoms result in complexity, complexity studies atoms thus what composes complexity is studying itself. Complexity is awareness as complexity results from self reflection. The relation of atoms results in complexity thus intelligence, this complexity is the atom mirroring itself through another atom. The mirroring of atoms results in the single phenomenon of "atom" as ever present; intelligence begins with a single point. ****Atom can be replaced with the term particle for this discussion; particle may be a more accurate definition. |
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Dec 17, 2021 14:20:16 GMT
If atoms can be aware of themselves, I guess it supposes the atoms to be complex. If atoms are complex, they are no atoms anymore. 1. This is like saying 1 does not exist anymore because 1+1=2; 2 is a complex 1, as there is 1 number 2 and this 2 is dually composed of 1, thus necessitating 1 as not only complex but still 1 given this relationship of 1+1=2 allows 1 to exist. Atoms can still be complex and still be atoms. Given the atom is implied as "irreducible entity" the atom exists through further atoms thus necessitating the underlying nature of atom as 1 thing existing in multiple states. 1 thing may still be complex given it exists through itself in multiple states; these multiple states necessitate the 1 thing as superpositioned. 1 exists as many much in the same manner the 1 atom exists as many atoms where the 1 is reflected. 2. Dually this is assuming intelligence is limited to complexity. Complexity results in intelligence, but this intelligence is grounded in a single phenomenon of "relations" (given complexity is relation) therefore intelligence is dually simple. 3. Atoms result in complexity, complexity studies atoms thus what composes complexity is studying itself. Complexity is awareness as complexity results from self reflection. The relation of atoms results in complexity thus intelligence, this complexity is the atom mirroring itself through another atom. The mirroring of atoms results in the single phenomenon of "atom" as ever present; intelligence begins with a single point. ****Atom can be replaced with the term particle for this discussion; particle may be a more accurate definition. Can't say I got how an atom can stay as an atom while being complex?? To be an atom is to not be a complex. Atomic structures are structures with no further complexity. Leibniz wanted us to believe in kinda atoms called monads. So, what you're saying are not atoms, but monads. How Leibniz explains such a paradox for monads to not be complexed while being plain? By the next:
1) monads are plain; 2) there's nothing complex in them;
3) no monads have parts;
4) any deity has to have something to be presented in being;
5) that something is at least a propery or an attribute;
6) any two monads should have different properties, or else those monads be the same;
7) monads can change itself by some inner potential: it is possible, because monads can change from within endlessly... ... n) briefly, monads must have all the possible variables withinThe last thesis isn't only Leibniz's, it's also a Plato's (Parmenides, chapter II, the 2nd discussion). |
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Jan 6, 2022 20:02:37 GMT
1. This is like saying 1 does not exist anymore because 1+1=2; 2 is a complex 1, as there is 1 number 2 and this 2 is dually composed of 1, thus necessitating 1 as not only complex but still 1 given this relationship of 1+1=2 allows 1 to exist. Atoms can still be complex and still be atoms. Given the atom is implied as "irreducible entity" the atom exists through further atoms thus necessitating the underlying nature of atom as 1 thing existing in multiple states. 1 thing may still be complex given it exists through itself in multiple states; these multiple states necessitate the 1 thing as superpositioned. 1 exists as many much in the same manner the 1 atom exists as many atoms where the 1 is reflected. 2. Dually this is assuming intelligence is limited to complexity. Complexity results in intelligence, but this intelligence is grounded in a single phenomenon of "relations" (given complexity is relation) therefore intelligence is dually simple. 3. Atoms result in complexity, complexity studies atoms thus what composes complexity is studying itself. Complexity is awareness as complexity results from self reflection. The relation of atoms results in complexity thus intelligence, this complexity is the atom mirroring itself through another atom. The mirroring of atoms results in the single phenomenon of "atom" as ever present; intelligence begins with a single point. ****Atom can be replaced with the term particle for this discussion; particle may be a more accurate definition. Can't say I got how an atom can stay as an atom while being complex?? To be an atom is to not be a complex. Atomic structures are structures with no further complexity. Leibniz wanted us to believe in kinda atoms called monads. So, what you're saying are not atoms, but monads. How Leibniz explains such a paradox for monads to not be complexed while being plain? By the next:
1) monads are plain; 2) there's nothing complex in them;
3) no monads have parts;
4) any deity has to have something to be presented in being;
5) that something is at least a propery or an attribute;
6) any two monads should have different properties, or else those monads be the same;
7) monads can change itself by some inner potential: it is possible, because monads can change from within endlessly... ... n) briefly, monads must have all the possible variables withinThe last thesis isn't only Leibniz's, it's also a Plato's (Parmenides, chapter II, the 2nd discussion). 1. The irreducibility of an atom can only be observed where one irreducible is existing relative to another irreducible thus necessitating a relationship. Given what is irreducible cannot occur except through a relationship to another irreducible then the simplicity of the atom is grounded in complexity.
2. A monad changing positions is a monad changing given position defines said monad. The monad existing in one position then another is the monad as complex. The continual reduction of the monad from one time and space to another is the monad as being constantly present across all times and spaces.
3. Monads have parts given their positions are contexts which define said monad; the position of the monad is part of the monad.
|
|
