Transagglomerativism

This is the main board for discussing philosophy - formal, informal and in between.

Moderator: Only_Humean

Forum rules
Forum Philosophy

Transagglomerativism

Postby Amorphos » Wed Apr 12, 2017 4:38 pm

Transagglomerativism

Here meaning both:
Agglomerative - clustered together but not coherent
Ineradicable - not able to be destroyed or rooted out

Let us begin the inquiry…
If no origins? There is just a collection of things, and each thing is one such collection of things. There is no creation, no duality, no causality, no order, but merely the appearance of such things which when you look deeply into them they disappear.

Hotel Morpheus
Like ‘hotel California’ [the eagles song] and Hillbert’s infinite hotel, but here instead of looking for the fundamentals and origins, I am going the opposite direction. So in this theory there are no origins, duality itself does not exist, there are no fundamentals to anything, and instead there are only collections.

In the beginning was a collection but before that was also a collection, there are only ever collections. The facets of collections cannot be exact, as there are no specific distinctions, but there remains a ‘collection’ because there are no words to define what a collection is without that meaning there is a selection of parts and/or functions composing a set.

Time; the room divider. In the hotel you can walk from one room to another, but outside of linear time you are in each room at once [like Einstein’s all-time]. equally so you are transposed upon the rooms, and people move between your different appearances and different rooms in ‘your collection’ as you do theirs.

Death; in the collection of all things, there will always be the collection of all things and you will always be part of the collection. When your body dies, that means you have moved into another room, and the faculties of the previous format have changed. The body is now another room in another hotel or setup of the collective.

Multiverse and eternal returns; when you die you will simply find yourself in another hotel and another world. There isn’t just one infinite hotel [not that a collection is infinite nor finite], but instead each iteration of one hotel is itself a hotel.

Thought and material; Every facet of thought is transeunt [a mental act causing effects outside of the mind], because every room in the hotel are the same, so every thought and thing are parts of collections ~ the same. There is no mental/material duality.

Perspectivism; an object is the same as a mental iteration of thought, the difference is only in the perspective taken upon a given thing. A thought can be seen as an object or some objects, even though to your mind it is not an object but a facet of mind. Same goes for an idea or concept, they are the same as objects and have physical counterparts, and yet are more akin to a thought. Hence math can change physics and said physics work according to maths/patterns even though it [math] doesn’t ‘exist’.
There is no singular; you never get one thing, no matter what you observe or deem to exist, that same thing will be something else with respect to the perspective taken. Ideas and meanings are the same, look deeply and by observing one thing you will find you are observing more than one thing ~ no matter how deep you go. you will always be able to connect any given thing to further iterations of and onto the further collective. Keep going and you just keep going.

The Tao; can there be rhyme or reason to all of this? Well not in a linear fashion no, but there is always the collective which is not a set of aleph omega set of all sets. There are no aleph’s. a collection of collections [what this all is] will always be a collection of collections. To me that in itself speaks of some undetectable manner of movements between things. like one flower pops up in a field, and many flowers arrive, and then there are no flowers. This to me is akin to a visual poetry depending on how you look at it, ~ which is kind of what the Tao is about in my humble opinion. Where you get collections in which their many aspects interrelate [because they are all collections] like e.g. the masculine and feminine, flowers and buses, then that will always self organize but in an organic fashion. Ergo in each thing there is a way [Tao], and each collection of things will find ways. Its all in the way the whole thing communicates.

This particular instance of the collection appears to have fundamentals like said feminine/masculine dichotomy, and everything does work by virtue of being opposites, where the positions or arrangement of the scales denote informational values, which in turn says what something is or at least appears to be. Thing is, that’s just a perspective, the physics is merely there to substantiate the current organization of the collection. Again these things are simply the mechanism and means to wit the collective moves. Just observe them and they will soon become a collection again and not individual objects. A better way to see physics is instead of objects, there are appearances, and objects are just one view or perspective presenting an appearance. At the same time remembering that everything is communicating, so if an object like e.g. a bullet comes flying towards your head, that is going to change the relative positions of the rooms and occupants and you will die/move to a different shape of the collection.
The truth is naked,
Once it is written it is lost.
Genius is the result of the entire product of man.
The cosmic insignificance of humanity, shows the cosmic insignificance of a universe without humanity.
the fully painted picture, reveals an empty canvas
User avatar
Amorphos
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7048
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 9:49 pm
Location: infinity

Re: Transagglomerativism

Postby encode_decode » Thu May 04, 2017 10:37 am

@ Amorphos - I have a number questions for you. I am not certain whether I am able to make a point in further posts without the answers.

If I am to maintain a plausible conversation with you on the subject of Transagglomerativism then I have a few points to make and questions to ask you. The beginning view, from what I see, falls upon being able to return to the concept of there being only collections as you mention.

I will quote what I perceive to be the beginning view:

Amorphos wrote:So in this theory there are no origins, duality itself does not exist, there are no fundamentals to anything, and instead there are only collections.

So let us begin by quoting:

Amorphos wrote:Let us begin the inquiry…
If no origins? There is just a collection of things, and each thing is one such collection of things. There is no creation, no duality, no causality, no order, but merely the appearance of such things which when you look deeply into them they disappear.

Could you elaborate on each thing being a collection of things: What I mean is this: What about a point? Would that not be a collection of things?

I am talking about the indivisible point.

Here it seems that there is a possibility for at least one thing not being able to be a collection. This is obviously a language thing but nonetheless worthy of a short response.

The indivisible point as you have somewhat pointed out is in opposition with the notion of Hilbert's paradox of the Grand Hotel which illustrates a counter-intuitive property of infinite sets.

When you look deeply into the appearance of such things they disappear - would you say this has something to do with the indivisible point?

There are only ever collections if we remove the indivisible point.

< < < ABOUT A QUARTER OF THE WAY THERE > > >

Another curiosity is this:

Amorphos wrote:Time; the room divider. In the hotel you can walk from one room to another, but outside of linear time you are in each room at once [like Einstein’s all-time]. equally so you are transposed upon the rooms, and people move between your different appearances and different rooms in ‘your collection’ as you do theirs.

What kind of time are we talking about? Are we referring to space/time or time that has been manufactured through motion over a distance which again indicates space but is dependent on motion.

What is space? If time can be talked about separately to space then what is time? If motion is something that generates time then what is distance?

It seems to me that collections are not discrete sets but dependent sets; dependent sets require "things" all the way down to the indivisible point but the indivisible point would be invisible(non-existent) would it not? So that would mean that nothing exists when using the notion of dependent sets.

Amorphos wrote:Multiverse and eternal returns; when you die you will simply find yourself in another hotel and another world. There isn’t just one infinite hotel [not that a collection is infinite nor finite], but instead each iteration of one hotel is itself a hotel.

Then there is entropy which would place the substrate in many rooms and you are still able to be in another room. So you/I is much like the indivisible point because the you/I part of the person must be indivisible. Something to consider at least.

Amorphos wrote:There is no mental/material duality.

It is a real brain-stopper to even consider this but I am not scared.

Amorphos wrote:Same goes for an idea or concept, they are the same as objects and have physical counterparts, and yet are more akin to a thought. Hence math can change physics and said physics work according to maths/patterns even though it [math] doesn’t ‘exist’.

Does the thought really exist given that the math is a product of thought and thought can be thought to be a product of patterns?

Amorphos wrote:There is no singular; you never get one thing, no matter what you observe or deem to exist, that same thing will be something else with respect to the perspective taken.

Right up to the point when you consider the indivisible point . . .

:lol:

The indivisible point is a product of the said patterns that become thought and hence becomes a mathematical construct - constructed of what?

How can you construct something that is indivisible given that it can not be broken down into any set of things to construct it with in the first place?

What is the first place in the previous question?

< < < HALF WAY THERE > > >

Now I am ready to lose my sanity - maybe it has already happened.

Amorphos wrote:Its all in the way the whole thing communicates.

I think you are on to something here.

Amorphos wrote:Thing is, that’s just a perspective, the physics is merely there to substantiate the current organization of the collection. Again these things are simply the mechanism and means to wit the collective moves. Just observe them and they will soon become a collection again and not individual objects

So is a perspective a collection of indivisible points that the mind puts into collections? Akin to a hierarchy - and if the indivisible point has no substance, what of the perspective?

Amorphos wrote:A better way to see physics is instead of objects, there are appearances, and objects are just one view or perspective presenting an appearance. At the same time remembering that everything is communicating, so if an object like e.g. a bullet comes flying towards your head, that is going to change the relative positions of the rooms and occupants and you will die/move to a different shape of the collection.

Again you are on to something.

Now regarding your thesis: from a personal perspective you make some interesting points, even if some of them might become indivisible. Some would say that you have reached a "point" of enlightenment.

:-k

Amorphos wrote:Let us begin the inquiry…
If no origins? There is just a collection of things, and each thing is one such collection of things. There is no creation, no duality, no causality, no order, but merely the appearance of such things which when you look deeply into them they disappear.

Is the origin just a collection of indivisible points?

And last but not least:

Transagglomerativism

Here meaning both:
Agglomerative - clustered together but not coherent
Ineradicable - not able to be destroyed or rooted out

I can imagine an infinite collection of indivisible points each of which are not able to be destroyed or rooted out and are clustered together but not coherent - because the said points are not able to be destroyed or rooted out and are Agglomerative they rely on communication.

< < < ABOUT THREE QUARTERS OF THE WAY THERE > > >

Is Transagglomerativism just another form of Pointism or is it a small collection made up of Pointism and Communication?

What is communication?

](*,)

Mathwise for good measure but not necessary to the above conversation:

Are subsets of linearly dependent sets linearly dependent?

Discrete sets? Not necessarily pertinent but:

WolframMathWorld wrote:A set S is discrete in a larger topological space X if every point x in S has a neighborhood U such that S intersection U={x}. The points of S are then said to be isolated (Krantz 1999, p. 63). Typically, a discrete set is either finite or countably infinite. For example, the set of integers is discrete on the real line. Another example of an infinite discrete set is the set {1/n for all integers n>1}. On any reasonable space, a finite set is discrete. A set is discrete if it has the discrete topology, that is, if every subset is open.

In the case of a subset S, as in the examples above, one uses the relative topology on S. Sometimes a discrete set is also closed. Then there cannot be any accumulation points of a discrete set. On a compact set such as the sphere, a closed discrete set must be finite because of this.

Troubling. If there are an infinite amount of indivisible points then communication is necessary to form collections(sets). Figments of our imagination if you will.

Aside from mathematical implications, with a bit of luck and providing I am understanding some of what you are talking about let us return to the concept of there being only collections as you mention.

:-k
- Mind is an ever changing dimension that is bound to reality, logic and emotion. (2017) -

But the point remains that you can't get at that meaning before grasping the surface meaning, which is to say there is always meaning.(gib - 2017)
User avatar
encode_decode
Thinker
 
Posts: 915
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 4:07 pm
Location: Metaspace

Re: Transagglomerativism

Postby Amorphos » Fri May 05, 2017 7:57 pm

that's a big bite back there mate :P
hmm perhaps I should try doing things in smaller servings doh.

Could you elaborate on each thing being a collection of things: What I mean is this: What about a point? Would that not be a collection of things?


When you look for a point, there comes a point, when it disappears!

- seek to observe at the smallest scale then after a point it is no longer possible to see [to observe with relativity happening]. equally, after the atomic scale, the quantum is in Metaspace [generally in metaposition [superposition in physics]], and is not spatially located.

There can be no exact points damn them to hell lol.

I am talking about the indivisible point.


Oh! :) Having no information, if it is anything other than mathematic it would be a metaposition perhaps. Come to think of it, this may be why quantum superposition is is unlocated. Nice one!
- still a collection though, because all physical info has also a version of itself in superposition.

What kind of time are we talking about? Are we referring to space/time or time that has been manufactured through motion over a distance which again indicates space but is dependent on motion.


What is space? If time can be talked about separately to space then what is time? If motion is something that generates time then what is distance?


This is answered better here…
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=192798

Does the thought really exist given that the math is a product of thought and thought can be thought to be a product of patterns?


Imagine the stone [blender goo] as feminine too, info is doing a thang to her. That’s what I am saying, the world is literally shaping the stone, and when it does that the wole reality of that exists, the stage the actors and the story. Every element is doing something to that thang.

I’m stopping there for now to catch a breath lols.

_
The truth is naked,
Once it is written it is lost.
Genius is the result of the entire product of man.
The cosmic insignificance of humanity, shows the cosmic insignificance of a universe without humanity.
the fully painted picture, reveals an empty canvas
User avatar
Amorphos
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7048
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 9:49 pm
Location: infinity

Re: Transagglomerativism

Postby encode_decode » Fri May 05, 2017 8:49 pm

@ Amorphos - have you heard of a Chronon? It is a proposed quantum of time - it is discrete and indivisible. Rather interesting notion.

Amorphos wrote:When you look for a point, there comes a point, when it disappears!

Time disappears - I like it. I am kidding of course but if I consider time to be indivisible and discrete and the go with your concept of disappearing points then time must also disappear.

Amorphos wrote:There can be no exact points damn them to hell lol.

DAMN THEM TO HELL.

Amorphos wrote:Oh! :) Having no information, if it is anything other than mathematic it would be a metaposition perhaps. Come to think of it, this may be why quantum superposition is is unlocated. Nice one!
- still a collection though, because all physical info has also a version of itself in superposition.

I actually believe there is quite a problem with time - we have to manufacture it to even talk about these things - but that should not affect your theory because like I said we must return to your collections.

:-k

I will need a little more time to digest A time door - it took me a while to digest this thread - I still have indigestion.

:lol:

But I am wondering whether we are in fact taking a step to everywhere at the moment.

Amorphos wrote:Imagine the stone [blender goo] as feminine too, info is doing a thang to her. That’s what I am saying, the world is literally shaping the stone, and when it does that the whole reality of that exists, the stage the actors and the story. Every element is doing something to that thang.

I believe you are correct.

Now for something really strange:

    The road away from the source is the road back to the source - the road is not a two way street though. The road is an every-way street. It holds up if communication over the collections takes place - collections being a part of the ultimate collection. You try to locate one point and you are in fact locating every point. I think this is right - I wouldn't quote me though. I am just adding a little more fuel to the fire.
Your post does however give me more food for thought regarding the original post.

Terminator wrote:I'll be back

:-k
- Mind is an ever changing dimension that is bound to reality, logic and emotion. (2017) -

But the point remains that you can't get at that meaning before grasping the surface meaning, which is to say there is always meaning.(gib - 2017)
User avatar
encode_decode
Thinker
 
Posts: 915
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 4:07 pm
Location: Metaspace

Re: Transagglomerativism

Postby Amorphos » Wed May 10, 2017 2:13 am

The road away from the source is the road back to the source - the road is not a two way street though. The road is an every-way street. It holds up if communication over the collections takes place - collections being a part of the ultimate collection. You try to locate one point and you are in fact locating every point. I think this is right - I wouldn't quote me though. I am just adding a little more fuel to the fire.


Indeed. Consider that every direction is forwards [reverse is just going forwards but facing the other way], ergo the road would indeed only go one way.

I don’t know if there is an ‘ultimate collection’, an alpha-omega would for me yield no movement ~ being full and whathaveyou. Same with points.

Thinking about your silent minds thread, I have to wonder if there is a silent mind in the emptiness. A statelessness of mind [and of everything]. …but without that being a fundamental? Hmm Buddhists would possibly concur.
The truth is naked,
Once it is written it is lost.
Genius is the result of the entire product of man.
The cosmic insignificance of humanity, shows the cosmic insignificance of a universe without humanity.
the fully painted picture, reveals an empty canvas
User avatar
Amorphos
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7048
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 9:49 pm
Location: infinity

Re: Transagglomerativism

Postby encode_decode » Thu Jun 01, 2017 6:13 am

Dimensionality versus the lack of dimensionality - that is the question.

Amorphos wrote:
The road away from the source is the road back to the source - the road is not a two way street though. The road is an every-way street. It holds up if communication over the collections takes place - collections being a part of the ultimate collection. You try to locate one point and you are in fact locating every point. I think this is right - I wouldn't quote me though. I am just adding a little more fuel to the fire.


Indeed. Consider that every direction is forwards [reverse is just going forwards but facing the other way], ergo the road would indeed only go one way.

I don’t know if there is an ‘ultimate collection’, an alpha-omega would for me yield no movement ~ being full and whathaveyou. Same with points.

Thinking about your silent minds thread, I have to wonder if there is a silent mind in the emptiness. A statelessness of mind [and of everything]. …but without that being a fundamental? Hmm Buddhists would possibly concur.

I kind of considered every direction as forwards in the "time door" thread - upon traveling that road then, maybe we live an imprint in our wake. I think there is a way to yield movement in the alpha-omega - removing displacement from one area to give to another area - this would be the illusion of randomness. I believe there exists a silent mind in the infinite/emptiness as you say A statelessness of mind [and of everything]. For there to be a fundamental there must be a contrasting non-fundamental(huh, back to the duality).

The Chronon might have a use after all but your disappearing principle might have to come into play to validate it.

I wanted to pop in to say that I have nearly acquired enough dimensional information to continue with this conversation - curse the dimensions.

:|
- Mind is an ever changing dimension that is bound to reality, logic and emotion. (2017) -

But the point remains that you can't get at that meaning before grasping the surface meaning, which is to say there is always meaning.(gib - 2017)
User avatar
encode_decode
Thinker
 
Posts: 915
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 4:07 pm
Location: Metaspace

Re: Transagglomerativism

Postby Amorphos » Thu Jun 01, 2017 6:25 pm

I kind of considered every direction as forwards in the "time door" thread - upon traveling that road then, maybe we live an imprint in our wake. I think there is a way to yield movement in the alpha-omega - removing displacement from one area to give to another area - this would be the illusion of randomness. I believe there exists a silent mind in the infinite/emptiness as you say A statelessness of mind [and of everything]. For there to be a fundamental there must be a contrasting non-fundamental(huh, back to the duality).


If it were a movement between alpha and omega ~ like a slide rule or something, there would be no agent of change to that. Can we really look at reality and say it contains no element of change? That to me is akin to saying there is no element of difference. In both cases there patently is.

When we consider reality as an entire entity X, we then have to cast our notions into and across it. An infinity if we throw difference and cardinailty into, is no longer an infinity. So reality is not an infinity and cannot be an infinity with cardinality, so it is the result of those two thing put together.

Ergo we exist in a rolling changing world.

- an eternity would be the same. Its the same reality X.
The truth is naked,
Once it is written it is lost.
Genius is the result of the entire product of man.
The cosmic insignificance of humanity, shows the cosmic insignificance of a universe without humanity.
the fully painted picture, reveals an empty canvas
User avatar
Amorphos
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7048
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 9:49 pm
Location: infinity

Re: Transagglomerativism

Postby encode_decode » Fri Jun 02, 2017 4:14 pm

Amorphos

:)

Amorphos wrote:
I kind of considered every direction as forwards in the "time door" thread - upon traveling that road then, maybe we live an imprint in our wake. I think there is a way to yield movement in the alpha-omega - removing displacement from one area to give to another area - this would be the illusion of randomness. I believe there exists a silent mind in the infinite/emptiness as you say A statelessness of mind [and of everything]. For there to be a fundamental there must be a contrasting non-fundamental(huh, back to the duality).


If it were a movement between alpha and omega ~ like a slide rule or something, there would be no agent of change to that. Can we really look at reality and say it contains no element of change? That to me is akin to saying there is no element of difference. In both cases there patently is.

When we consider reality as an entire entity X, we then have to cast our notions into and across it. An infinity if we throw difference and cardinailty into, is no longer an infinity. So reality is not an infinity and cannot be an infinity with cardinality, so it is the result of those two thing put together.

Ergo we exist in a rolling changing world.

- an eternity would be the same. Its the same reality X.

No we can not look at reality and say it contains no element of change. For years I have noticed the similarities between different versions of reality. I was not saying that exactly but I can see how you would arrive at that from what I said.

Do the similarities point us in the direction of the truth of the matter?

Would not a bubbling of reality include the notion of change? If we were to use calculus then maybe the answer is yes. What kind of calculus would we have to use to arrive at an answer. A special kind I suspect - one that we would have to invent.

Bayes' theorem expresses: With the Bayesian probability interpretation the theorem expresses how a subjective degree of belief should rationally change to account for availability of related evidence.

By thinking heuristically it is possible to glean related information from different sets of beliefs that are similar enough to hint at the truth.

Heuristics are the starting point and Bayesian probability interpretation can help us to hone in on truths that are probable due to apparent relations.

Forget using notation of any sort though - I think words are without any doubt enough to point us in the right direction - by considering the words I have written about heuristics and Bayes' theorem we can arrive at something simple:

    Make some guesses independently - see which of those guesses are similar - filter out the bad guesses for later(for re-consideration) - make more guesses based on the previously guessed information - filter out the bad guesses for later - eventually arriving at the truth.

Is it this simple - not quite - and not yet . . . but . . .

I will provide an example based on your definition:

Transagglomerativism

Here meaning both:

    Agglomerative - clustered together but not coherent
    Ineradicable - not able to be destroyed or rooted out

Clustered together but not coherent gives me an idea that particles can form groups over x interval of time and that stay together for x interval of time and then over x interval of time break apart from the mentioned group.

Not able to be destroyed or rooted out gives me an idea that the particles themselves are not able to be destroyed but are able to change their location and re-configure into new groups.

So Transagglomerativism then becomes to me a philosophy of constant change involving morphing sets - the properties of the sets are in constant change.

But that is just a guess . . .
- Mind is an ever changing dimension that is bound to reality, logic and emotion. (2017) -

But the point remains that you can't get at that meaning before grasping the surface meaning, which is to say there is always meaning.(gib - 2017)
User avatar
encode_decode
Thinker
 
Posts: 915
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 4:07 pm
Location: Metaspace

Re: Transagglomerativism

Postby Amorphos » Fri Jun 02, 2017 11:33 pm

Would not a bubbling of reality include the notion of change? If we were to use calculus then maybe the answer is yes. What kind of calculus would we have to use to arrive at an answer. A special kind I suspect - one that we would have to invent.


Quite a thought! Thing is what we have is a thing which can manufacture - let us say, both the objects and the principles thereof [which denote their behaviors]. It is the thing which makes the law, which makes the thing/device, which can make laws [govt] by itself. A maker and breaker of laws = change?

funny how that sounds like us and how we think lol
Last edited by Amorphos on Fri Jun 02, 2017 11:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.
The truth is naked,
Once it is written it is lost.
Genius is the result of the entire product of man.
The cosmic insignificance of humanity, shows the cosmic insignificance of a universe without humanity.
the fully painted picture, reveals an empty canvas
User avatar
Amorphos
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7048
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 9:49 pm
Location: infinity

Re: Transagglomerativism

Postby Amorphos » Fri Jun 02, 2017 11:34 pm

dp
The truth is naked,
Once it is written it is lost.
Genius is the result of the entire product of man.
The cosmic insignificance of humanity, shows the cosmic insignificance of a universe without humanity.
the fully painted picture, reveals an empty canvas
User avatar
Amorphos
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7048
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 9:49 pm
Location: infinity

Re: Transagglomerativism

Postby encode_decode » Sat Jun 03, 2017 2:02 am

Amorphos - does free will exist in this theory?

Amorphos wrote:Quite a thought! Thing is what we have is a thing which can manufacture - let us say, both the objects and the principles thereof [which denote their behaviors]. It is the thing which makes the law, which makes the thing/device, which can make laws [govt] by itself. A maker and breaker of laws = change?

I think I understand what you mean.

Amorphos wrote:funny how that sounds like us and how we think lol

Indeed it is.

:)

Amorphos wrote:Let us begin the inquiry…
If no origins? There is just a collection of things, and each thing is one such collection of things. There is no creation, no duality, no causality, no order, but merely the appearance of such things which when you look deeply into them they disappear.

So the collections are the clusters that you speak of? I am guessing that no part of the collection is able to be destroyed. Are we talking an infinite amount of outcomes?

Amorphos wrote:Hotel Morpheus
Like ‘hotel California’ [the eagles song] and Hillbert’s infinite hotel, but here instead of looking for the fundamentals and origins, I am going the opposite direction. So in this theory there are no origins, duality itself does not exist, there are no fundamentals to anything, and instead there are only collections.

With the appearance of such things from the previous paragraph - we are moving from one preset existence into another. Are we given the opportunity to think or is that more like a video playing back? Which presents itself as the mind.

:-k

I must say this is opening up parts of my mind I have not used for a while - so bear with me . . .
- Mind is an ever changing dimension that is bound to reality, logic and emotion. (2017) -

But the point remains that you can't get at that meaning before grasping the surface meaning, which is to say there is always meaning.(gib - 2017)
User avatar
encode_decode
Thinker
 
Posts: 915
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 4:07 pm
Location: Metaspace


Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], gib