On Friday, November 1, 2013 11:27:19 PM UTC-4, cdemorsella wrote: > > > > > > *From:* everyth...@googlegroups.com <javascript:> [mailto: > everyth...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>] *On Behalf Of *Craig Weinberg > *Sent:* Friday, November 01, 2013 1:45 PM > *To:* everyth...@googlegroups.com <javascript:> > *Subject:* Re: Douglas Hofstadter Article > > > > > > On Friday, November 1, 2013 4:20:45 PM UTC-4, JohnM wrote: > > liz wrote (Oct. 24) to Craig: > > *What are inorganic atoms? Or rather (since I suspect all atoms are > inorganic), what are organic atoms?* > > > > What are 'atoms'? > > (IMO models of our ignorance (oops: knowledge) about a portion of the > unknowable infinite explained during the latest some centuries of human > development 'science'. > > JM > > > > > I agree that atomic theory is not automatically a description of 'what > is', but I would say that an atom represents the smallest body part, or the > smallest sense organ that can be detected (indirectly) by our public facing > sense organs. > > Beneath that level of scale, I propose that the organs and bodies > themselves no longer cohere to our inspection, and are revealed > increasingly to adhere within the inspection itself. This adhesion vs > cohesion ratio begins to be seen at the atomic level, as 'electrons' > represent interatomic adhesion rather than cohesive bodies/shells/orbitals. > > Molecules are only made of atoms in the sense that words are spelled with > letters. The molecular word-ness is not only an emergent property of the > letters (it is that also, as syllables are atoms of words and letters are > atoms of syllables), but the meaning of the world is not emergent, it is > divergent, from the top-down. The sense of the word can also be seen to > radiate (figuratively) from the center-out. Atoms build molecules, cells > build molecules, and molecular expression is fulfilled as both cellular > activity and atomic activity. It all fits together (because it is all > divergent from pansensitivity (*another neologism that I might like = > holosemiotics). > > Does that sound conceivable? > > > > >> The sense of the word can also be seen to radiate (figuratively) from > the center-out. > > > > From the experiential perspective certainly – speaking from the > perspective of my own experience of my unfolding experiencing. I would > agree this is the normal state of our being… we sense the world radiating > from and being arrayed around our observational foci. However other states > of mind are possible – and have been chronicled throughout the ages -- in > which the normal everyday sense of being becomes stretched out, > transformed, unveiled… and an endless stream of words seeking to describe > that which is ineffable. Self-transcendental accounts from many times and > places attempt to describe a state of being that is very unlike the > quotidian state of self-identity that characterizes our conscious lives. >
Sure, I agree. I think that every state of being reflects its connection with other states of being in a multivalent way. Sense is self-transcendent and self transparent. Every metaphor refers not only to the particular example, and to the sense that they have in common, but also to the sense that all metaphors have. A metaphor is an instruction manual on how to make metaphors. That is literally what it means to be self-evident, and that is what sense is and what it does - it its own nature to make itself evident, evident. It's pre-computational, as is every computer program a stored product of inputs for the purpose of producing a sensible output. > > How do you think this self-aware, self-conscious, and intelligent (at > least a little) point of view that we experience as ourselves comes to be? > It seems to spring up eternally in us… always there (when we are in a > normal conscious state). > I think that it comes to be just as prismatic diffraction comes to be - by masking the absolute. Our local spring is not only eternally in us, it is eternity itself. There is simply nothing that is not made of 100% experience...even if it is an experience on one layer of a gap or delay of experience on another. > It seems to experience reality unfolding in real time – though we know > that is an illusion > It's not an illusion. The illusion is that real time is what a clock measures. I think that time makes more sense as memory and repetition within a topology of experienced significance. There are no illusions, only conflicts among layers or inertial frames of experience. An illusion is an expectation from one channel that does not translate into another. An optical illusion does not show that vision is illusion, it shows how vision presents its own blueprints within the presentation itself. It shows that there is no objective perspective, only relatively more popular perspectives. Basically, the reason why clocks don't slow down during a car crash is because a car crash is not significant for the substances being used to run the clock. It's not that the clock is so much more precise (although in a narrow measure it is), it's that human awareness is so much more sensitive to multiple layers of awareness. We have a larger, more flexible and customized 'now' than do inanimate objects. > – and that by the time we experience perception – and it seems the > perception of arriving at a decision -- our physical brain has done all > kinds of processing ahead of & before our perceptual moment. > That's what it looks like when you look at it from the bottom up. From that perspective, we can't exist anyhow, so what is being processed as a chain reaction in the brain is not what we are perceiving, it is just the four dimensional slice of what is actually trans-dimensional. > > > How does our experiential sense of self arise in our brain mind in the > first place? Isn’t this the crux? > It doesn't. No more than a TV show arises in the circuits or pixels of a TV set. Our experiential self arises by diverging from the totality through attenuation of sensitivity. Our experience is a spacetime bubble in the feeling of eternity. Thanks, Craig > Cheers, > > Chris > > Craig > > > > On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 9:46 PM, LizR <liz...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 25 October 2013 14:31, Craig Weinberg <whats...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Looking at natural presences, like atoms or galaxies, the scope of their > persistence is well beyond any human relation so they do deserve the > benefit of the doubt. We have no reason to believe that they were assembled > by anything other than themselves. The fact that we are made of atoms and > atoms are made from stars is another point in their favor, whereas no > living organism that we have encountered is made of inorganic atoms, or of > pure mathematics, or can survive by consuming only inorganic atoms or > mathematics. > > > > What are inorganic atoms? Or rather (since I suspect all atoms are > inorganic), what are organic atoms? > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>. > To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com<javascript:> > . > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
