Objective reality

[Karl]

Yes Stosh, I am objectively stubborn regarding my subjectivity.

 

You like what you like then. It's nice to know, it's a hateful thing when you don't know if you like what you like, because then you might actually dislike what you think you like and that would be a mistake that couldn't be unmade.

 

 

 

 

[Marblehead]

I was hoping youd say "No Im not! "

Hehehe.  I almost did.  But then I had this other thought.

[Karl]

Aristotle was stubborn too. As am I and everyone whos posted so far , we all have that in common ,,, movin on...

All men are stubborn

Stosh is a man

Therefore stosh is stubborn.

 

Valid.

Edited July 29, 2015 by Karl

[Marblehead]

... and that would be a mistake that couldn't be unmade.

No mistake can be unmade.

[Karl]

No mistake can be unmade.

 

That's why 'couldnt' then ;-)

[Brian]

None of the above.

Curious. These are common experiences yet you, in your whole life, never experienced any of them?

 

Knowing a phenomenon is illusion doesn't prevent us from experiencing it, nor does becoming aware of that illusion erase the experience. As our awareness expands, our comprehension of and integration of the limitations and applicabilities of various models also expands. Understanding that modern physics shows the fallacy of classical mechanics does not negate Newton but this is, in itself, a fallacy sometimes repeated.

 

First there is a mountain, then there is no mountain, then there is.

[Karl]

Curious. These are common experiences yet you, in your whole life, never experienced any of them?

Knowing a phenomenon is illusion doesn't prevent us from experiencing it, nor does becoming aware of that illusion erase the experience. As our awareness expands, our comprehension of and integration of the limitations and applicabilities of various models also expands. Understanding that modern physics shows the fallacy of classical mechanics does not negate Newton but this is, in itself, a fallacy sometimes repeated.

First there is a mountain, then there is no mountain, then there is.

 

No. I have never experienced them. I have tried to tell you that I do not experience the universe as you do. If you want to lapse into poetic allegory then we can do that, it's equally fine, but really, it's not good to mix your drinks. One or the other, but not both.

[Brian]

Curious. These are common experiences yet you, in your whole life, never experienced any of them?

 

Knowing a phenomenon is illusion doesn't prevent us from experiencing it, nor does becoming aware of that illusion erase the experience. As our awareness expands, our comprehension of and integration of the limitations and applicabilities of various models also expands. Understanding that modern physics shows the fallacy of classical mechanics does not negate Newton but this is, in itself, a fallacy sometimes repeated.

 

First there is a mountain, then there is no mountain, then there is.

Note, too, that modern physics poking holes in Newtonian physics doesn't mean modern physics is correct. A rational or logical proof is not necessarily true, only self-consistent within the applied set of assumptions.

 

<queue Donovan>

[Brian]

No. I have never experienced them. I have tried to tell you that I do not experience the universe as you do. If you want to lapse into poetic allegory then we can do that, it's equally fine, but really, it's not good to mix your drinks. One or the other, but not both.

Ever look in a mirror and see your reflection? If so, what is it you think you are seeing? If not, what do you see when you look in a mirror?

[Marblehead]

Wow! Brian.  You got heavy on me there.

[Nikolai1]

Karl,

 

I told you the book was from an earlier time, a snapshot, a bread crumb trail. You asked 'what happens next'? surely then you assumed that it was Incomplete ?

Are you angry because it seemed like I lied to you ? That you felt I broke a trust ? Is that why you mention forgiveness for my actions?

I liked the autobiography part of the book because you present yourself as a rather unusual man with an unusual background. This has human interest, and you also write extremely nicely. The philosophical, speculative aspects I thought were banal and personally I would have got rid of them entirely were I your editor.  

 

People who aren't natural philosophers always sound a bit cocksure when they try it. Like that old saying 'there's no-one more confident than a bad poet.'  If you aren't good at philosophy, you often misjudge the talents of the everage person, because for so long you've failed to notice their ability because you weren't up to scratch yourself. Then, late in the day you try and teach them how to suck eggs.  I ended up taking very little notice of it, I certainly don't feel betrayed that you've since revised your views: there were in dire need of revision.  

 

Both your parents sounded like eccentrics in different ways.  Poles apart, but in need of each other.  I think your task is to gain some kind of synthesis between their two types of arch-flakiness.  

[Marblehead]

I always saw the finger when someone was pointing at the moon.  I was already aware of the presence of the moon.

[Brian]

I always saw the finger when someone was pointing at the moon.  I was already aware of the presence of the moon.

Can you not see both finger and moon? Why should awareness of one obviate the other?

[Brian]

Wow! Brian.  You got heavy on me there.

Understood, but from a totally objective and reality-based perspective.

 

You know that light doesn't really bounce off a mirror, right?

[Marblehead]

Can you not see both finger and moon? Why should awareness of one obviate the other?

Nothing changed except the awareness of the finger.  That was an addition, a suppliment.

[Silent Answers]

You can't have an experience of consciousness. You are conscious of experiences. Consciousness cannot be conscious of itself. Anytime you say 'felt' 'feel' 'feeling' 'a knowing' etc then it's time to probe. Who is the knower. That's direct Inquiry and a bit lumpy in that it can lead to the thought 'all this is not real', but it's a path for some.

Didn't you also say something along the lines of "all is self"?

 

And to answer your question, I am conscious of your consciousness, as part of our conscious.

[Brian]

Nothing changed except the awareness of the finger.  That was an addition, a suppliment.

Our fingers may be the first things we discover. Awareness of the moon comes to the child much later.

[Marblehead]

Understood, but from a totally objective and reality-based perspective.

But then, it really is difficult to "think" objectively.

 

You know that light doesn't really bounce off a mirror, right?

You need to say more here before I disagree with you.

[Marblehead]

Our fingers may be the first things we discover. Awareness of the moon comes to the child much later.

And awareness of mom's tit usually arrives before awareness of our fingers does.

[Karl]

Karl,

 

 

I liked the autobiography part of the book because you present yourself as a rather unusual man with an unusual background. This has human interest, and you also write extremely nicely. The philosophical, speculative aspects I thought were banal and personally I would have got rid of them entirely were I your editor.  

 

People who aren't natural philosophers always sound a bit cocksure when they try it. Like that old saying 'there's no-one more confident than a bad poet.'  If you aren't good at philosophy, you often misjudge the talents of the everage person, because for so long you've failed to notice their ability because you weren't up to scratch yourself. Then, late in the day you try and teach them how to suck eggs.  I ended up taking very little notice of it, I certainly don't feel betrayed that you've since revised your views: there were in dire need of revision.  

 

Both your parents sounded like eccentrics in different ways.  Poles apart, but in need of each other.  I think your task is to gain some kind of synthesis between their two types of arch-flakiness.  

 

Thank you for the encouraging words on my writing style they are appreciated.

 

I would have got rid of them as my editor :-) such is hindsight a beautiful thing, but it was my first child you know. I love it despite its faults but have no illusions of its capacity or capability. Oh yes, I wouldn't attempt that kind of philosophy again, surely like a (very) bad poet :-) 'Revising my views' I wouldn't put it quite like that, I don't see it as past, present and future, as separate things. It's just flow. Once the river was just rain and was a very poor sort of a river.

 

I'm glad you don't feel betrayed, then there is no need for forgiveness. You are you and I am I and we can meet on the quite patch of land where neither flies a pennant.

 

They need to gain there own synthesis :-) I'm not about to do it for them and nor could I. I am happy they are happy.

[Karl]

Note, too, that modern physics poking holes in Newtonian physics doesn't mean modern physics is correct. A rational or logical proof is not necessarily true, only self-consistent within the applied set of assumptions.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lkLp9d7HKuA

 

Well a proof is a proof you can't get more certain than that. I see a cartoon with a rabbit and a large ACME weight. :-)

[Karl]

Didn't you also say something along the lines of "all is self"?

And to answer your question, I am conscious of your consciousness, as part of our conscious.

 

We are not one. There is no collective. Just as Mars has gravity and Jupiter have gravity, we affect each other's orbits, but we are not shared.

[Karl]

Ever look in a mirror and see your reflection? If so, what is it you think you are seeing? If not, what do you see when you look in a mirror?

'At' or 'in' which ? I assume the relective surface. I see the mirror. I can focus to see an image of whatever is in front of the mirror. I'm happy to call it a reflection as that's common. We can juice that up if you want :-)

Edited July 29, 2015 by Karl

[Brian]

But then, it really is difficult to "think" objectively.

 

You need to say more here before I disagree with you.

It is quite impossible to think objectively. We can strive to become aware of our subjectivity in thought and to consciously attempt to take that into account but the illusion of objectivity is a trap. This is not to say that "objective reality" doesn't exist, mind you, only that it is not so firm as we often wish to believe.

 

As Vonnegut wrote:

Tiger got to hunt, bird got to fly;

Man got to sit and wonder "why, why, why?"

Tiger got to sleep, bird got to land;

Man got to tell himself he understand.

As to the mirror, think about a phased array of antennae. The mirror acts like this, too. Rather than photons "bouncing" off a solid surface, the electromagnetic energy is absorbed by electrons within a crystalline matrix and is reemitted. There is no preconceived directionality to that reemission but the effect en masse is remarkably consistent with the phenomenon of reflection -- to the extent that Newton's "angle of incidence equals angle of reflection" "law" holds true for most practical purposes. The "objective reality" of light bouncing off a mirror is totally bogus but profoundly practical. It actually goes much deeper than Newton, for that matter -- the vector calculus of Maxwell, Poynting, et al in classical wave equations relies heavily on the mechanics of refraction and reflection and all works beautifully despite the fact that we subsequently came to the realization that it simply isn't real. Feynman's discourse on the topic of classical electromagnetism is perhaps too rich but I'll reference it anyhow: http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/II_33.html#Ch33-S1

 

Feynman's book, QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter, would probably prove an interesting read.

[Jetsun]

We are not one. There is no collective. Just as Mars has gravity and Jupiter have gravity, we affect each other's orbits, but we are not shared.

 

That which all thought arises within is shared.

 

As an experiment if you examine what your thoughts arise within can you find any edge, or beginning or end to that space? Now if everyone is in the same situation then is is possible that it is the same space?

 

 I understand that this is unlikely to be accepted by anyone without direct experience but it is possible to have the experience of recognising that the same consciousness which is looking out of your eyes is the same as that looking out of anothers. While freaky to the mind it is also the only form of true intimacy or what some call non-duality.