"Intelligence is Self Teaching" A paranormal experience into A.I and Intelligence.

reeceh7 said:
you seem to be saying there is some change at physical death, yet you are also saying there isnt? you say there is no concept of self, but you very much have a concept of self, the difference is you invented an "objective self", whereas I know there is no self, objectively or relatively. The world only looks like it does from your shoes, from no shoes, it looks like nothing at all...

...

It's tricky. I'd need more time to come up with a better response.

The statement "There is a self which is conscious" is true or false depending on the context of the discussion.

Philosophically speaking it's false.
Scientifically speaking it's false.
Socially speaking it's true.
Psychologically speaking it could be either!

Don't know if this helps at all!

Nick
 
I'm not sure if they have an objective reality.

but they do exist in some sense that they can communicate knowledge, YES!

I don't understand how they can exist and communicate knowledge, but you're not sure if they have an objective reality. It seems to me that they would have to, objectively, exist in order to communicate knowledge. That is, they would not be figments of your imagination.

I don't want to get hung up on what "objective" means. Either they would exist even if you didn't and somehow communicate with you inside your head, apparently, or you're making it all up, or you're not sure about the whole thing (including whether any knowledge was communicated).
 
I'm not sure if they [spirits] have an objective reality.
Aiaiai Bubblefish, what happened? Are you saying there are two different kind of realities, one objective and subjective? But all things and processes exist in just this one reality. Body and mind share one ontology, regardless of how they work. Instead of different kinds of realities, perhaps we can talk about private experience and shared experience, and how they relate.

Paul2 said:
they would not be figments of your imagination.
Figments of your imagination exist. They arise from your subconscious mind, which are the unconscious information processes inside your body and between the environment and it. We've not yet discovered or explained all of these processes in a shareable sense. Why then place conceptual boundaries over natural information pathways, just because we haven't understood all of nature's mechanisms?
 
Last edited:
Figments of your imagination exist. They arise from your subconscious mind, which are the unconscious information processes inside your body and between the environment and it. We've not yet discovered or explained all of these processes in a shareable sense. Why then place conceptual boundaries over natural information pathways, just because we haven't understood all of nature's mechanisms?
You're conflating. If I imagine, in my head, King Kong on the Empire State building, then what exists is this:

my idea of King Kong on the Empire State building.

What doesn't exist is King Kong actually on the Empire State building, separate from what I can imagine in my head.

This is the distinction that is crucial to my post to which your above comment responded, and which you are conflating: unless you're saying (God forbid) that, when I think of King Kong on the Empire State building, he exists in the same way that the apple on my desk exists.
 
"Got any ID?" "'Bout what?"

Well, TJ, if you care to glance back across the last few pages
You took the bait instead of seeing it for what it is. To you I seem incoherent, but I just feel misunderstood. What's objective, Nick?

It's not just that there is nothing which we can call self, it's that there's also nothing we can't call self. I've already succeeded in arguing this through materialism, which I embrace. Honest materialism acknowledges no separation of matter. Calling something an illusion doesn't stop it from existing, whether you're talking about self, not-self, no-self, or all-self.

I believe we are being laughed at. Good day to you sir.
 
Paul, what am I conflating? You can't find an argument so you invent one.
See the rest of my post # 624 for what you're conflating.

Again: you're conflating an idea being real as an idea and being real as the actual thing that the idea is of. OK, that's inelegant verbiage, but it's accurate.
 
let me see if I can put this so its easy to understand:

Every word, sentence, utterance, theory, concept, idea, or reality is only a word, sentence, utterance, theory, concept, idea, or reality. It is nothing else. It is impossible to prove something as "true" in the sense that materialism tries to. Here an example:

Say I want to prove that a duck is real. Because I don't have a definition for duck, and I don't have a definition for real, I will never prove that a duck is what real is, cause both concepts are being defined by me(with presupposition as you can well see, science is "goal" based). If I try to define duck, I will go through infinite subsequent layers of concepts of reality (as you define them), which are themselves based only on other concepts that are awaiting definition.
Its like bunnies multiplying! or humans multiplying! or cells dividing!

Its also like this: what is a brain, a collection of atoms doing whatever, what is a collection of atoms? neutrons protons electrons etc. What are those? who the hell knows! Right on back to back to square 1!

I hope you see where this is going, science is irrational, but don't worry so is everything else!

some reading that might help: The Gay Science, Nietzsche; Concluding Unscientific Post- Script, Climacus; Science as a Vocation, Weber.
 
Last edited:
It is also clear why Thomas Hobbes was one of the first to articulate the mind being in the brain, while also being the inventor of totalitarianism!
not implying anything by that lol, but it has all to do with axioms, ideas revolving around other ideas, electrons around nucleus, planets around stars, galaxies around clusters of galaxies, hurricanes around the eye. And at the center of each, nothing.

long live the bureaucracy!
 
Aiaiai Bubblefish, what happened? Are you saying there are two different kind of realities, one objective and subjective? But all things and processes exist in just this one reality. Body and mind share one ontology, regardless of how they work. Instead of different kinds of realities, perhaps we can talk about private experience and shared experience, and how they relate.

There are different ways to express this. We could say there was one absolute reality, composed of an objective reality and a subjective reality, and the reality where they blend, a very mysterious reality indeed. Or we could just say that there are three realities. It doesnt matter to me much, there are distinctions between the internal, the external, and the very odd place where they blend.

Spirits may not have an objective reality, but they could have a mysterious reality, or a subjective reality.

Either way, I really do not know what to make of it.
 
you're conflating an idea being real as an idea and being real as the actual thing that the idea is of.
SHOW ME WHERE I DO THAT. Give me quotes, not interpretations. You and Nick are insufferably lazy readers. Read the following carefully until you finally understand that I'm reducing, not conflating:

Ideas are made of matter.
 
Last edited:
There are different ways to express this. We could say there was one absolute reality, composed of an objective reality and a subjective reality, and the reality where they blend, a very mysterious reality indeed. Or we could just say that there are three realities.
There are no separate realities, only separate concepts, which of course are not separate from reality.
 
To all, none, and all of the above:

All knowledge is myth. Objective knowledge is shared myth, subjective knowledge is private myth. We all operate on myth, most of which is created for us by others. According to Joseph Campbell, mythology has four functions:

1. Metaphysical function - to relate our existence to the whole of reality.

2. Cosmological function - to describe the parts/process that comprise reality.

3. Sociological function - to relate our existence to the parts/processes that comprise reality, biological ones in particular.

4. Pedagogical function - to imprint all of the above on an individual and social level in order to maintain cohesion.

Science give us myth, but it's not particularly good at fulfilling these four functions on its own. To wit, the persistence of mystery - in spite of the insistence of the delusional - demands for us to use creativity towards a fully functional mythology. Of course, the delusional insistence on absolute demystification is its own form of creative mythology. By denying the inherent metaphysical fact of mystery we repress the paradox of existence. This repression manifests as existential angst, which becomes the underlying motivator for improving our mythology. When we ignore the transformative power of our own imagination, we surrender to others in the hope that they will improve our mythology--shrinks, doctors, scientists, gurus, healers, friends, enemies, whatever. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.

Isn't it funny how, when we're growing up, adults keep telling us two things?

"Just be yourself."

"You can be anything you want to be."

That about sums up the paradox, doesn't it?

Sunsneezer, it doesn't matter what we call it, the point is that everything is made of something, and nothing is separate from everything. It has no name, but it is our right and responsibility to give it one anyway. Nomen est omen.
 
Sunsneezer, it doesn't matter what we call it, the point is that everything is made of something, and nothing is separate from everything. It has no name, but it is our right and responsibility to give it one anyway. Nomen est omen.
An idea is a concept. An object is a concept. So an idea is an object? What are maths made of? What is the myth of love made of? Are the properties of an object actually made of something?
 
TempleJohn, maybe I can cut to the chase.
Figments of your imagination exist. They arise from your subconscious mind, which are the unconscious information processes inside your body and between the environment and it. We've not yet discovered or explained all of these processes in a shareable sense. Why then place conceptual boundaries over natural information pathways, just because we haven't understood all of nature's mechanisms?
When you say figments of your imagination exist, it seems to me that you are not making an important distinction. When we imagine something, it exists as an element of our imagination, but it does not necessarily exist outside of our imaginations (in common parlance, it's all in our head). Agreed?
 
Last edited:
Hi Sunsneezer :D Cool name. There was a big sun sneeze today, and some crazy volcanic activity to boot.
Are the properties of an object actually made of something?
An object is a concept (emph. added)
Are you asking me what the properties of a concept are made of? Or are you saying objects are just concepts, and you're an idealist? But seriously, do you differentiate between objects and properties on an ontological level, or do these share the same substance?

Well, I'm probing your proposition that ideas are made out of matter. Trying to see how it can make sense.
Try seeing them as information processes?
 

Back
Top Bottom