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

[TempleJohn]

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?

:::drools::: Duuuh what?

It appears you and Sunsneezer haven't read my other posts (well), cuz you're projecting all kinds of ideas on me. Let me back it up for you. My original quote:

Figments of your imagination exist.

"Figment" means pieces of matter here (clearly readable from the rest of my original post). Think of them as actual figments. Thick, juicy, figments spread out over the information superhighway in and around our brains. Throw me some more! :::splat:::

 

[Paul2]

TempleJohn, I don't understand your post #641. Can you say the same thing in a different way? More plainly, perhaps, in the interest of communication?

 

[Brainache]

I want to know what happens to a figment when you stop believing in it. Can you put it in a pi?

 

[TempleJohn]

I've been saying the same thing in different words for days now. What is so difficult about this? Mind and matter share the same root "substance", whatever you want to call it, and regardless of whether you're a materialist monist, a neutral monist, an ideal monist, or any other kind of monist. Saying that a process or an object has no substance is nonsensical, a contradictory linguistic construct pretending to avoid the paradox of non-dualism.

And that's the final thing I have to say about that. Let's talk about myth now, cuz that's all we're doing anyway, comparing private myths to shared myths. Or better yet, go out and question your own myths, see if they can fulfill the four functions of mythology as per Campbell.

 

[Sunsneezer]

Are you asking me what the properties of a concept are made of?

Yeah. So, they are made out of brain matter when we know them, and come from input that can all be reduced to a physical phenomenon of matter.

But seriously, do you differentiate between objects and properties on an ontological level, or do these share the same substance?

I guess I did. Properties and relationships in matter are constructions of the mind, which is the result af activity in brain matter. I get that they are the result of a chain of physical reaction that includes matter and perception.

Or are you saying objects are just concepts, and you're an idealist?

No I don't believe this. Objects are objects, and we have the notion of the object in our mind.

Try seeing them as information processes?

Yeah back to the A.I subject! Information processes are made out of matter, too.
Processing and process implies the notion of time. So time is matter too I guess...

ETA: I should know better than discussing fundamental philosophy... I'm way out of my league there. Sorry... I can't resist arguing sometimes. Carry on...

 

[TempleJohn]

I should know better than discussing fundamental philosophy... I'm way out of my league there.

Me too... we're all out of each other's league when discussing metaphysics, cuz it's all just fantasy. I feel sorry for people who only use their imagination for creating barriers instead of bridges. They shut themselves off from synchronicity and communion and so doing consign themselves to the desert island of meaninglessness. When the emptiness becomes overwhelming they turn to the destruction of other people's bridges, convinced that the walls they have built for themselves existed a priori and should exist for everyone else as well. But sooner or later, through some act of grace, all the walls come tumbling down and they are offered redemption.

 

[reeceh7]

The Truth

Here's another way to express Truth:

If one assumes there is truth, one assumes non truth, duh!
But if one proves whatever they were thinking as a truth, how do you know if you were proving a truth or a non truth? How could you ever know because as you've assumed, there's truth and non truth, and they are both provable. This concept has been around in continental philosophy for ages but the scientists won't wise up, what are we proving?

Every concept is subject to this.

How does materialism account for this very apparent unknown?!?!?

Surrender to the VOID!

 

[Brainache]

Here's another way to express Truth:

If one assumes there is truth, one assumes non truth, duh!
But if one proves whatever they were thinking as a truth, how do you know if you were proving a truth or a non truth? How could you ever know because as you've assumed, there's truth and non truth, and they are both provable. This concept has been around in continental philosophy for ages but the scientists won't wise up, what are we proving?

Every concept is subject to this.

How does materialism account for this very apparent unknown?!?!?

Surrender to the VOID!

Thanks, but I prefer to avoid the void and strive for a state of meaninglessnesslessness as per TempleJohn...

 

[TempleJohn]

Hehe... sorry for my rant, none of it was personal as I might as well have written about "me" or "we" as opposed to "they". Thanks for the discussion guys, I'm off to sit in the Sun

 

[Nick227]

What is so difficult about this? Mind and matter share the same root "substance", whatever you want to call it, and regardless of whether you're a materialist monist, a neutral monist, an ideal monist, or any other kind of monist.

Well, in the final sense of monism, I'd say that this is most definitely true. But I don't find it such a useful statement in most philosophy or science. It feels more to me as though you are trying to avoid the simple ramifications of materialism.

Under materialism, consciousness emerges from a physical system, the brain. Finally, we don't know what that physical system is composed of. We don't finally know what anything is composed of. But I don't see that being so relevant really. Consciousness emerges from interractions in the brain's physicality.

I have the impression you are trying to create mystery here.

Saying that a process or an object has no substance is nonsensical, a contradictory linguistic construct pretending to avoid the paradox of non-dualism.

Now, this to me is just not true. I can say that ideas have no substance. How does this try to "avoid the paradox of non-dualism?"

Nick

 

[Philosaur]

I've been saying the same thing in different words for days now. What is so difficult about this? Mind and matter share the same root "substance", whatever you want to call it, and regardless of whether you're a materialist monist, a neutral monist, an ideal monist, or any other kind of monist. Saying that a process or an object has no substance is nonsensical, a contradictory linguistic construct pretending to avoid the paradox of non-dualism.

Hey, you can insist a raven is a writing desk all you want, but it doesn't make it so.

If a process is made of substance, as you claim, then tell me how much running a marathon weighs.

 

[TempleJohn]

Guys, I hope you don't mind, I've had enough of the language games for now. I joined this thread because I'm passionate about turning on people to our innate ability to use our imagination to transcend self/other duality in daily life. But first one must recognize mystery when it stares one in the face. I can't do that for anybody. One must have a mystical experience. So I'm out. Thanks for the dueloges.

There's been a spider in my shower for weeks. Sometimes I sing to him, and sometimes he shares his spider knowledge with me. We're friends.

 

[Nick227]

Guys, I hope you don't mind, I've had enough of the language games for now. I joined this thread because I'm passionate about turning on people to our innate ability to use our imagination to transcend self/other duality in daily life.

Why not just deal with reality? What is motivating you to want to transcend anything? This is the bit I miss. You just want to do your trip and never self-examine.

I mean, encouraging people to live in a fantasy world rather than be real. What's the point? Most people anyway don't have the imaginative capacity to do such a thing. So they just take drugs or use other behaviours to avoid what's in front of them. I find this more real than what you want to do, to be honest. They're owning their junkie position, at least to a degree. Pretending to be a mystic because you do know how to deal with the real world. It's bs. Be honest.

Nick

 

[reeceh7]

Thanks, but I prefer to avoid the void and strive for a state of meaninglessnesslessness as per TempleJohn...

lolol, avoid the void, that hilarious, notice that everywhere is a vacuum, everywhere is a void... empty space, so good luck a- voiding!

 

[reeceh7]

Why not just deal with reality? What is motivating you to want to transcend anything? This is the bit I miss. You just want to do your trip and never self-examine.

I mean, encouraging people to live in a fantasy world rather than be real. What's the point? Most people anyway don't have the imaginative capacity to do such a thing. So they just take drugs or use other behaviours to avoid what's in front of them. I find this more real than what you want to do, to be honest. They're owning their junkie position, at least to a degree. Pretending to be a mystic because you do know how to deal with the real world. It's bs. Be honest.

Nick

who is living a fantasy? people espousing absurd and unprovable theories of reality, or people who see the inherent duality in the separation of subject from object?

materialists are always talking about the "real world", where is this "real" world you can't stop talking about? In books? in the library? beyond our senses/qualia (how do we know its there then)? Its all in your head bro!

 

[dlorde]

materialists are always talking about the "real world", where is this "real" world you can't stop talking about? In books? in the library? beyond our senses/qualia (how do we know its there then)? Its all in your head bro!

.
Where is this 'head' you're talking about? How do we know it's there?

After we came out of the church, we stood talking for some time together of Bishop Berkeley's ingenious sophistry to prove the nonexistence of matter, and that every thing in the universe is merely ideal. I observed, that though we are satisfied his doctrine is not true, it is impossible to refute it. I never shall forget the alacrity with which Johnson answered, striking his foot with mighty force against a large stone, till he rebounded from it -- "I refute it thus."
Boswell: Life

 

[reeceh7]

.
Where is this 'head' you're talking about? How do we know it's there?

Exactly!

 

[Nick227]

who is living a fantasy? people espousing absurd and unprovable theories of reality,

Yup

or people who see the inherent duality in the separation of subject from object?

Subject and object are merely labels applied by certain aspects of brain activity. Sensory awareness of itself does not confer such labels. Thus, the sense of duality is not necessarily permanent!

materialists are always talking about the "real world", where is this "real" world you can't stop talking about? In books? in the library? beyond our senses/qualia (how do we know its there then)? Its all in your head bro!

Well, the brain creates representations, fleeting and transitory bytes of information. And without the brain there would not be consciousness. Yet the world is all around you. I would have thought that fairly obvious.

Nick

 

[PixyMisa]

Figments of your imagination exist.

Reification fallacy.

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?

Argument from ignorance.

This thread seems to have forgotten the first rule of holes.

 

[zooterkin]

Is Bubblefish still off communing with the spirit snake-guides?