yeah
Ok also this
This is not only an issue for Science to realize, but all of society. Positive Potential-to-Affect, PtA, is a higher ability (“potential”) to affect or produce effect. Negative PtA is a lower ability to affect. Thus if anything is to be produced, it is easier to do with positive potential.
If something is to grow, it requires the potential to cause that effect, or Potential-to-Affect. Due to this, a positive endeavor has a greater potential to grow than a negative endeavor. But also because of entropy, it requires more potential to grow more positive than it does to grow more negative.
A positive endeavor uses its higher potential to produce more affect and also to hold onto it. A negative endeavor uses what potential it has to give away its potential and thus has less to hold onto. Then having less potential disallows the negative endeavor to affect as much change as before. But the positive endeavor has more potential with which to affect more change than before.
You can think of it in terms of a conservative bank and a liberal bank. The purpose of the conservative bank is to gain more money (influence, wealth, and/or potential). The liberal bank serves the purpose of giving away money or reducing potential.
The conservative bank has a greater task to face than the liberal bank and thus requires more people to handle more transactions. But because it is keeping money rather than giving it away, it has the money with which to pay its employees. The conservative bank not only requires more, but also can afford more, thus it grows to its maximum potential by acquiring more “mass”.
The liberal bank has the opposite concern. It takes very little to give away money and thus needs very few employees. But also because it is giving away money rather than holding onto it, it can only afford very few employees. The liberal bank accomplishes its maximum negative potential by maintaining low “mass”.
If the conservative bank grows too large in it mass, it will begin to have the entropy problem involving size but it can stabilize and still pay everyone, thus be anentropic at a large size.
If the liberal bank grows too large, it simply runs out of funds with which to keep its employees, its “mass”. And thus due to the lack of potential being maintained, the liberal bank stabilizes and becomes anentropic at a small size.
Potential has a bottom. But it doesn’t have a top.
<img src=[/img]
Physical subatomic particles do that exact same thing on their own terms. A positive potential particle becomes anentropic at a larger size than a negative particle. The negative particle, in order to achieve lower potential, must give away its affectance. And the positive particle so as to achieve its higher potential, must hold onto its affectance.
Thus in the universe, one should expect to find small negative particles and large positive particles. And they do. Of course by altering the ambient environment sufficiently, either type of particle can be caused to become similar to its anti-particle. The differences in potential that cause this effect are minuscule. But within the same environment, a positive particle will always be stable and anentropic at a larger size than a negative particle because the positive particle is maintaining it potential-to-affect in the positive direction.
In society when it comes to positive and negative issues, the rules, morals, and ethics and the consequences they bring, are formed by these same principles. Stability is the issue for the society as a whole. When it comes to emotions and the mind, these same concerns hold true.
The universe provides structure automatically. One need not create artificial designs such as to compete against it. Let negative things be small and fleeting. And let positive things slowly accumulate. And learning to discern the difference in those is a positive.
The tools, thoughts, people, and methods that help to discern positive from negative are what a positive society accumulates and is what “positive” means.
[/quote]
" />
Actually I do have a further observation: Regarding “harmony with ones environment” - it seems that this harmony would be created out of that momentum - that one in fact harmonizes ones environment to oneself, rather than oneself to ones environment.
Excellent. It may seem obvious, but the beauty is in the method whereby this almost self-evident truth is reached. In VO terms I would have to say this: Every self-valuing in the universe values only what is available to value, but by drawing these particular values from what is available, it cultivates what is around it to increasingly embody that value. That makes sense but slightly stretches the definitions. This is good.
If you will allow another question: can you give a short RM definition of the difference between electromagnetic and gravitational force?
Send this user a private message Visit this user’s website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Edit this post Delete this post Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
01-08-2013, 10:11 AM (This post was last modified: 01-08-2013 10:18 AM by JSS.) Post: #5
JSS Offline
Moderator
Posts: 287
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 5
RE: Rational Metaphysics: An Introduction and a Beginning
(01-08-2013 09:09 AM)Fixed Cross Wrote:
can you give a short RM definition of the difference between electromagnetic and gravitational force?
That is pretty easy, although not obvious to scientists.
Firstly, “force” is an after-effect, an aberrant effect that does not actually exist except via perception. In reality, particles “migrate” due to aggregation and dissemination of their internal affectance (“energy”). There is nothing actually pushing or pulling them any in direction. They simply have cause to grow toward one direction and shrink from the other direction. They are always reforming their constituents, their “affectance” and are actually only the center of the congestion involved. It is much like a crowd of people shifting while the individual people are coming and going from the scene. The “particle” is merely the congestion, not the people themselves. And thus when the center of congestion shifts, it is perceived that the “particle” has shifted, when in reality, merely more people got involved on one side as others left the other side.
But then the issue of EM versus gravity is even simpler. Gravity is simply randomized EM to the point that the total average EM over a portion of space is zero, but on a much, much smaller scale there is nothing but EM “wavelets” buzzing around.
There is actually only one “field”; “Affectance”, the altering of potential-to-affect, PtA.
That field is described simply in each of its differential forms;
- PtA - the steady state or “instantaneous value”
- The changing and 1st derivative of that state, “PtA/dt”
- The 2nd derivative of that state, “Pta/(dt^2)”
- Every higher derivative is also included to infinity resulting in an “infinite series” that accurately and perfectly describes literally every point in space with a single equation.
That equation is then placed into a tensor matrix so as to describe literally any and all of space regardless of its content. Nothing else can ever exist.
A computer program has been developed to demonstrate that in fact, particles will form in positive, negative, and neutral charges without having to be told to do so. And those particles do in fact behave exactly as Science has noted subatomic particles to behave. No prior assumptions, principles, or observations from Science were required other than to note the exact similarity.
An additional note is that the mysteries of “Electroweak force” and “Strong force” are also easily seen as to their exact cause and are in fact, merely aberrant effects also, not separate entities, “forces” or “gods”.
(01-08-2013 09:09 AM)Fixed Cross Wrote:
It may seem obvious, but the beauty is in the method whereby this almost self-evident truth is reached. In VO terms I would have to say this: Every self-valuing in the universe values only what is available to value, but by drawing these particular values from what is available, it cultivates what is around it to increasingly embody that value. That makes sense but slightly stretches the definitions.
That is exactly true, but I don’t think it “stretches” any definitions.
Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
01-08-2013, 11:16 AM (This post was last modified: 01-08-2013 11:17 AM by Fixed Cross.) Post: #6
Fixed Cross Offline
Neophyte
Posts: 466
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 8
Warning Level: 0%
RE: Rational Metaphysics: An Introduction and a Beginning
" Gravity is simply randomized EM to the point that the total average EM over a portion of space is zero "
I suspected as much. So what is E=mc² ? - mass times the second derivative of the max potential of change? The consequences are wonderful, as we can so explain all ‘supernatural powers’ that humans have been seen to have exerted - one needs only to de-randomize a small portion of ones mass to be able to exert an enormous electromagnetic energy - and let that in turn work on mass, to restructure, ‘heal’ (or destroy).
If one manages to manipulate ones whole electric field, would it be possible magnetize oneself so as to levitate against the field of the Earth?
One logical way to cause this de-randomization would be breath. Consciously, directionally breathing connects the intention with the physical body. All the rest to which it comes down is method.
Send this user a private message Visit this user’s website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Edit this post Delete this post Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
01-08-2013, 12:15 PM Post: #7
Fixed Cross Offline
Neophyte
Posts: 466
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 8
Warning Level: 0%
RE: Rational Metaphysics: An Introduction and a Beginning
I am not always sober in my assessments. But I am quite driven to find an explanation for the phenomena I have experienced and witnessed. The idea that mass is collapsed energy implies that it can be de-collapsed, exploded. And this is what every kundalini-yogi and tai chi master will confirm. To move mass with intentional, directional breath creates surges of electrical energy.
Send this user a private message Visit this user’s website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Edit this post Delete this post Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
01-08-2013, 03:21 PM (This post was last modified: 01-08-2013 03:22 PM by JSS.) Post: #8
JSS Offline
Moderator
Posts: 287
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 5
RE: Rational Metaphysics: An Introduction and a Beginning
The Mind and the Physical universe have analogous ontologies. What is true in principle for one is true in principle for the other. Both have their own “energy” and “matter” (hence the statements, “This doesn’t matter to me” as well as “all objects are formed of matter”). In both cases, their matter is formed from their energy. Each is a metaphor for the other and by mixing these metaphors, one creates mysticism, often used by religions and magicians.
I try to not mix my metaphors. Wink
Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
01-08-2013, 05:04 PM (This post was last modified: 01-08-2013 05:21 PM by JSS.) Post: #9
JSS Offline
Moderator
Posts: 287
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 5
RE: Rational Metaphysics: An Introduction and a Beginning
.
This is a very good example of the utilization of RM within physics;
Quote:
Doppler cooling, which is usually accompanied by a magnetic trapping force to give a magneto-optical trap, is by far the most common method of laser cooling. It is used to cool low density gases down to the Doppler cooling limit, which for Rubidium 85 is around 150 microkelvin. As Doppler cooling requires a very particular energy level structure, known as a closed optical loop, the method is limited to a small handful of elements.
In Doppler cooling, the frequency of light is tuned slightly below an electronic transition in the atom. Because the light is detuned to the “red” (i.e., at lower frequency) of the transition, the atoms will absorb more photons if they move towards the light source, due to the Doppler effect. Thus if one applies light from two opposite directions, the atoms will always scatter more photons from the laser beam pointing opposite to their direction of motion. In each scattering event the atom loses a momentum equal to the momentum of the photon. If the atom, which is now in the excited state, then emits a photon spontaneously, it will be kicked by the same amount of momentum, but in a random direction. Since the initial momentum loss was opposite to the direction of motion, while the subsequent momentum gain was in a random direction, the overall result of the absorption and emission process is to reduce the speed of the atom (provided its initial speed was larger than the recoil speed from scattering a single photon). If the absorption and emission are repeated many times, the average speed, and therefore the kinetic energy of the atom will be reduced. Since the temperature of a group of atoms is a measure of the average random internal kinetic energy, this is equivalent to cooling the atoms.
wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser_cooling
[flash(0,0)]http://www.youtube.com/v/drnq_6ffTbo[/flash]
Societies have been having this done to them for thousands of years, “heated and cooled” by design. The exact principles are identical to that of physics.
.
[/quote]
Fixed Cross Offline
Neophyte
Posts: 466
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 8
Warning Level: 0%
RE: Rational Metaphysics: An Introduction and a Beginning
That’s a very educative and entertaining video. I’m happy to know how this works. Remarkably simple, and value ontology is even more naturally applicable here than I thought it would be.
In VO terms then: the atom can only value photons of (frequency-)value that is interpretable in terms of it’s (frequential) self-value.
On the question of mind and matter - since they are both ultimately made of the same affectance, I would say that there is a limited validity to approaching them as separate ontologies, even though I see that it’s necessary when we do approach them as ‘mind’ and ‘matter’ - per definition different systems of definition.
So I will take your answer as a careful ‘no’, and respect that. But for the record, from experience I know that mass can be ‘exploded’ into energy though intent and occult method. I also think that there is nothing implicit in RM that forbids this – even though, if no RM explanation of the methods is available, it is not to be considered actively possible either.
What I - and every neuropsychologist with me - would be interested in is the connection of thought to action, and conversely of matter to thought. How does the brain ‘contain’ the mind?
RE: Rational Metaphysics: An Introduction and a Beginning
Also - can you explain E=mc^2 in terms of RM? Is c then not the maximum rate of change?
This is at least the idea I’ve had since I was first confronted with the formula - that the speed of light is like the ‘edge’ or ‘border’ of the universe - the limit implicit in it’s physicality so to speak.
Send this user a private message Visit this user’s website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Edit this post Delete this post Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
01-10-2013, 06:51 AM (This post was last modified: 01-10-2013 04:31 PM by JSS.) Post: #12
JSS Offline
Moderator
Posts: 287
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 5
RE: Rational Metaphysics: An Introduction and a Beginning
(01-10-2013 04:20 AM)Fixed Cross Wrote:
On the question of mind and matter - since they are both ultimately made of the same affectance, I would say that there is a limited validity to approaching them as separate ontologies, even though I see that it’s necessary when we do approach them as ‘mind’ and ‘matter’ - per definition different systems of definition.
A different ontology can be formed for the identical reality. An ontological distinction is merely made by the choice of defined concepts to use as the elements of understanding. The distinction between the materialist and the spiritualist is merely one of a different choice in how to explain the same reality. Although due to that difference, both using the same words for different things, and presumptions being made along the route of building higher understandings of complex things, each ontology comes to a different conclusion concerning several issues and thus each declares the other to be “wrong”.
Because the attempt to explain the mind and its psychological concerns in terms of electric potentials gets extremely complex, I prefer to simply form a different ontological set of elements. The mind deals, for example, with hope and threat. But try to explain every use within the mind of hope and threat in terms of electric potentials. The wording and thought chains get very cumbersome for even the slightest common concern. It would be like trying to explain why your wife got upset about the toilet seat being up in terms of sub-nuclear physics. Confused
(01-10-2013 04:20 AM)Fixed Cross Wrote:
But for the record, from experience I know that mass can be ‘exploded’ into energy though intent and occult method.
Can you demonstrate that?
RM is about clarifying, not mystifying. As VO should be as well.
(01-10-2013 04:20 AM)Fixed Cross Wrote:
What I - and every neuropsychologist with me - would be interested in is the connection of thought to action, and conversely of matter to thought. How does the brain ‘contain’ the mind?
Fundamentally, it is analogous to software and hardware. The software is the functioning of the hardware and the mind is the functioning of the neurological system. And realize that “software” and “hardware” are merely two separate ontologies used to understand the same device. Why don’t they use sub nuclear physics as their ontology?? Dodgy
The hardware responds to software issues and the software responds to hardware issues, because they are the same device. When the interconnectivity starts getting too complex and information dependent, you stop talking about the hardware involved and use a software model. And you stop talking about the brain and start talking about the mind. If the neurologist doesn’t understand the mind it is probably because he is still trying to use a neurological ontology in the same way that a materialist tries to use a material ontology while trying to explain complex and sophisticated interactions that would be best explained with a spiritual ontology.
The materialist attempts to over simply the complexity of the system, as often does the spiritualist. The neurologist or psychiatrist does the same. They generally need a good psychologist (well… if they can find one).
In RM, all things become clarified, which inherently removes mystery. Relatively magical things can be done, but they are never magical to the one who understands them (regardless of the ontology).
(01-10-2013 04:28 AM)Fixed Cross Wrote:
Also - can you explain E=mc^2 in terms of RM? Is c then not the maximum rate of change?
This is at least the idea I’ve had since I was first confronted with the formula - that the speed of light is like the ‘edge’ or ‘border’ of the universe - the limit implicit in it’s physicality so to speak.
Well several issues arise in that question;
A) Those are physics terms, not far more precise RM terms.
B) The terms “mass” and “energy” are not well defined in physics and “energy”, “vacuum”, and “temperature” are all actively being redefined as we speak.
C) The equation is actually merely the first portion of an infinite series wherein the other terms are insignificant.
D) RM (or more specifically AO) uses different units of measure than contemporary physics for different defined entities. And thus a “Rosetta Stone” is required to translate between contemporary physics measurements and those of RM.
In RM, that equation would be saying something like this;
“The total affectance within a congestion of affectance is equal to the congestion’s amount of reluctance to accelerate times the speed of affect squared.”
In RM, a “mass particle” is merely a congestion of affectance. And no mass particle has definite bounds. The congestion that defines the particle has merely a chosen degree of congestion as its defined border. Thus the amount of congestion within it is somewhat a matter of choice as to where you want to draw the line between what is the particle and what isn’t. But the term “mass” is more related to the amount of inertia that particle has due to that congestion. So the equation is actually relating the inertia to the total affectance content within an arbitrarily chosen border.
What the equation reveals for physicists, is that the speed of affects is related to the congestion’s reluctance to move. RM knows that as obvious from the very beginning even before a particle is ever formed.
Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
01-11-2013, 06:15 AM (This post was last modified: 01-11-2013 06:35 AM by Fixed Cross.) Post: #13
Fixed Cross Offline
Neophyte
Posts: 466
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 8
Warning Level: 0%
RE: Rational Metaphysics: An Introduction and a Beginning
I can not demonstrate it no. I can at best link you to a short clip (the only video on the page). We see these things differently, I realize, but I can simply not dismiss my experience in order to fit inside a world view of someone else. I am certain you would not ask me to do this.
When I am using your method to explain things that I experience, I am not mystifying. I am in fact clarifying. I respect your preference to keep realms separately, but you will agree that there has to be a connection between all separate ontologies, as all is part of the same.
Does RM contain definitions of the transitions from matter-ontology to mind (hopes&threats)-ontology?
Send this user a private message Visit this user’s website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Edit this post Delete this post Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
01-11-2013, 06:21 AM (This post was last modified: 01-11-2013 06:22 AM by Fixed Cross.) Post: #14
Fixed Cross Offline
Neophyte
Posts: 466
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 8
Warning Level: 0%
RE: Rational Metaphysics: An Introduction and a Beginning
On the video - the bit that matters is the people with the swords stuck through their cheeks. Unfortunately I only edited the trailer, and I have no idea what the director did with the rest of the material, but the thing that struck me as bizarre then was that when they withdrew the swords from their cheeks, the wounds were instantly healed. This was in fact the reason why I did not want to edit the whole film - it was way too intense and bizarre. This whole crucifixion festival alone was enough to strain my nerves.
Send this user a private message Visit this user’s website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Edit this post Delete this post Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
01-11-2013, 06:32 AM (This post was last modified: 01-11-2013 06:36 AM by Fixed Cross.) Post: #15
Fixed Cross Offline
Neophyte
Posts: 466
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 8
Warning Level: 0%
RE: Rational Metaphysics: An Introduction and a Beginning
Value ontology serves very usefully to explain the mind and matter in equal terms - value. Be these values hopes and threats, or frequencies, or something altogether different. We may be opposed here, in that I would rather see it as mystification when one keeps what I see as different layers of the same ontology, separate as categorically different ontological realms.
I am particularly interested in the connections between one and the next layer. I realize that this is where the least is known, by anyone. Neither scientists nor yogis claim to know how this works. The yogis insist that it works and do not seek an explanation the scientist usually evades the matter, otherwise he would have to explain it.
But please do consider this something of my personal interest, not an indication of where I think the RM thread should be heading. I can very well understand that you do not see merit in discussing areas where you have not acquired absolute certainty yet. But in fact you did already provide me with a great deal to work with here - the definition of the difference between matter and energy is quite brilliant.
Send this user a private message Visit this user’s website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Edit this post Delete this post Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
01-11-2013, 12:12 PM (This post was last modified: 01-11-2013 01:22 PM by JSS.) Post: #16
JSS Offline
Moderator
Posts: 287
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 5
RE: Rational Metaphysics: An Introduction and a Beginning
(01-11-2013 06:15 AM)Fixed Cross Wrote:
I can not demonstrate it no. I can at best link you to a short clip (the only video on the page). We see these things differently, I realize, but I can simply not dismiss my experience in order to fit inside a world view of someone else. I am certain you would not ask me to do this.
What “experience” and have you directly seen anything “supernatural”/“magical”?
(01-11-2013 06:15 AM)Fixed Cross Wrote:
I respect your preference to keep realms separately, but you will agree that there has to be a connection between all separate ontologies, as all is part of the same.
That’s true. There is only one reality for every ontology to be describing.
(01-11-2013 06:15 AM)Fixed Cross Wrote:
Does RM contain definitions of the transitions from matter-ontology to mind (hopes&threats)-ontology?
Certainly. But they are almost exactly the same as hardware to software translations.
(01-11-2013 06:21 AM)Fixed Cross Wrote:
On the video - the bit that matters is the people with the swords stuck through their cheeks. Unfortunately I only edited the trailer, and I have no idea what the director did with the rest of the material, but the thing that struck me as bizarre then was that when they withdrew the swords from their cheeks, the wounds were instantly healed. This was in fact the reason why I did not want to edit the whole film - it was way too intense and bizarre. This whole crucifixion festival alone was enough to strain my nerves.
Why did you believe a FILM wherein someone seemed to have “instantly healed”?
(01-11-2013 06:32 AM)Fixed Cross Wrote:
Value ontology serves very usefully to explain the mind and matter in equal terms - value. Be these values hopes and threats, or frequencies, or something altogether different. We may be opposed here, in that I would rather see it as mystification when one keeps what I see as different layers of the same ontology, separate as categorically different ontological realms.
Such is done ONLY for sake of simplification. If you would develop VO in detail and further, you would end up having to do the same thing. As it is, when you explain that a proton “values itself”, you are implying a consciousness and conscious will. Does VO explain the difference or just state that consciousness is something different, and thus a “willed valuation” is different than a “non-willed valuing”.
(01-11-2013 06:15 AM)Fixed Cross Wrote:
I am particularly interested in the connections between one and the next layer. I realize that this is where the least is known, by anyone.
I wouldn’t say that it is particularly unknown. It is just a whole lot of details that end up merely putting you back where you were with the additional understanding as to why it seemed strange/mysterious before. After that point, you end up sounding like everyone else as if you didn’t really know when in fact, you can tell that there is just too many details to go through. Hardware and software people have this same issue.
(01-11-2013 06:15 AM)Fixed Cross Wrote:
Neither scientists nor yogis claim to know how this works.
I claim to know how it works (and what parts don’t), regardless of whether scientists or yogis do or don’t. And I am not alone in that. It stays a “mystery” merely because of the complexity in trying to get someone to see the connections between what THEY thought was separate entities that were in fact not really separate at all. That is exactly what magic is all about; “unseen influence/connections” and “presumed connections/distinctions that weren’t really there”.
(01-11-2013 06:15 AM)Fixed Cross Wrote:
the definition of the difference between matter and energy is quite brilliant.
Thanks. It kind of tickled me a little when I stated it that way. Blush
Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
01-14-2013, 03:11 AM (This post was last modified: 01-14-2013 03:13 AM by Fixed Cross.) Post: #17
Fixed Cross Offline
Neophyte
Posts: 466
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 8
Warning Level: 0%
RE: Rational Metaphysics: An Introduction and a Beginning
I have also never witnessed the interior of the sun directly, or the continent South America. But this video that I edited, I saw the raw material. I did not want to know it. The guy asked me to edit the whole thing but I declined. it just did not fit in my - life. Consider spending a month or three racing through material of people tormenting themselves, being crucified for fun, etc. Regardless of their recovery, that’s just not okay, a strain on my emotions. It did cost me the chance to work and live in Spain, which is too bad.
Anyway – given your definition, I would not call such things supernatural. Naturally, all things that occur within nature have an explanation in terms of nature. As ever, there are ‘‘miracles’’, which only means, events occurring by laws we are not aware of yet.
I can see how to a great extent the analogy hardware-software applies. However, nature did of course not divide itself categorically. Unlike with computers, it is a continuum, so there must be some possibility for the software, the mind/conscious intent, to address the hardware directly. It is logical that this requires intricate knowledge of both software and hardware.
Quote:
It stays a “mystery” merely because of the complexity in trying to get someone to see the connections between what THEY thought was separate entities that were in fact not really separate at all.
Exactly.
Send this user a private message Visit this user’s website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Edit this post Delete this post Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
01-15-2013, 06:58 AM (This post was last modified: 01-15-2013 08:45 AM by JSS.) Post: #18
JSS Offline
Moderator
Posts: 287
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 5
RE: Rational Metaphysics: An Introduction and a Beginning
(01-14-2013 03:11 AM)Fixed Cross Wrote:
I have also never witnessed the interior of the sun directly, or the continent South America.
There is a big difference between the easily believable things proposed and the hard to believe things that are proposed. The more difficult to believe, the more evidence is required and the more the mediator between the event and the person is to be suspect.
(01-14-2013 03:11 AM)Fixed Cross Wrote:
As ever, there are ‘‘miracles’’, which only means, events occurring by laws we are not aware of yet.
Or complexities that we did not imagine. New “laws” are not required.
(01-14-2013 03:11 AM)Fixed Cross Wrote:
I can see how to a great extent the analogy hardware-software applies. However, nature did of course not divide itself categorically. Unlike with computers, it is a continuum, so there must be some possibility for the software, the mind/conscious intent, to address the hardware directly. It is logical that this requires intricate knowledge of both software and hardware.
Realize that nature had no need for “understanding”. It is by our need for understanding that WE create ontologies that serve our chosen purpose. When things seem too complex, we divide them into categories for the sake of independent study; physics, medicine, sociology, chemistry,…
Hardware and software merely represent two reasonably distinct fields of study even though they are always intertwined and really the same item.
The brain and the mind are very similar. They are merely distinct areas of study for us. There is no physical distinction in the item being studied, rather merely the ontology being used so as to more easily see relationships.
Quote:
It stays a “mystery” merely because of the complexity in trying to get someone to see the connections between what THEY thought was separate entities that were in fact not really separate at all.
An example of merely an ontological distinction that causes a great deal of philosophical futile debate;
What is called “an idea” is said to be “stored in memory” (such as the idea of a perfect circle). But what is hardly ever realized by anyone in the field or not, is that the “idea” IS the particular arrangement of memory, it is not merely “stored” in memory. Thus many people argue about “where is the idea itself??? And how does the mind operate with it?”
The mind operates with ideas merely by calling up the memory arrangement that IS that idea. The idea is NOT a separate entity from the arrangement itself.
If merely the memory arrangement were taken from one brain and put into another, the second mind would instantly contain the “idea”. The idea of a perfect circle (or any mathematical concept) is established merely by the brain arranging its memory mechanism into a order that is to represent the concept. There is nothing else there.
But obviously there is a distinction in ontology. When working with a brain, one does not think in terms of “an idea sitting at this location in the brain”. That person thinks in terms of “memory configurations being set in this particular fashion”. Yet the two are actually identical, merely different words that led people to believe in many arguments and mysteries.
An additional issue relating to this is the ontological difference between modern Science and Religion. In Religion, an “angel” is merely what modern Science calls “an idea”. They are identical, but merely a different word used in two different ontologies. The notion of angels having wings is merely conveying the notion that ideas carry or “fly” from place to place. Angels can be very powerful - the notion that ideas can be very powerful. Angels must “earn their wings”, meaning that an idea must prove its worth in order to be propagated.
Of course the Christians, in this anti-Christian age are immediately accused of trying to deceive and making up fantasies. But who is really making things up? The notion of angles and the meaning of the word is thousands of years old, hardly an invention of the Christians. There is an understandable difference in ancient ontology and modern Science ontology and the associated words. But they hardly ever actually conflict.
Do angels exist? For those who understand, “you wouldn’t even be able to ask the question if they didn’t”.
Do words exist? … same response.
Those who fail to understand and promote extended misunderstandings (as is very common in modern Science) are the ones inventing mysteries and falsely accusing." />
dope.
i.imgur.com/ZHzWC9E.mp4
i.imgur.com/pCC4C27.mp4
Fixed Cross Offline
Neophyte
Posts: 466
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 8
Warning Level: 0%
RE: Rational Metaphysics: An Introduction and a Beginning
I have no problems so far.
Only if you think that “infinity” is a set value can you have a problem with this.
But I would appreciate an explanation on “tensor analysis”.
Send this user a private message Visit this user’s website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Edit this post Delete this post Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
02-08-2013, 03:04 AM (This post was last modified: 02-08-2013 03:04 AM by JSS.) Post: #22
JSS Offline
Moderator
Posts: 287
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 5
RE: Rational Metaphysics: An Introduction and a Beginning
Infinity is a relative quantity to other infinities.
Divide two lines infinitely, a 1 meter line and a 2 meter line.
Both have an infinite number of points, yet one has twice as many as the other.
Actually I really didn’t expect many people to have trouble with the cardinalities of infinity issue. It’s the tensor analysis that gets hairy. But at least no one has to go through relativity mind games.
Value Response Ontology
04-20-2013, 07:52 AM (This post was last modified: 04-20-2013 07:55 AM by JSS.) Post: #1
JSS Offline
Moderator
Posts: 287
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 5
Value Response Ontology
FC’s Value Ontology could be perhaps better named “Value Response Ontology”, VRO. As such, a common misunderstanding could be readily resolved.
If an object has consciousness, its values are based on conscious perception, “Value Conscious Ontology” (a subset of VRO) but if it has no consciousness, its values are based on inherent filtering responses that cause the object to be sustained over time, rather than the conscious choices that a conscious being uses to accomplish the same goal.
As VRO, it becomes identical (or at least almost) to that of RM:Affectance Ontology, RM:AO. With the exacting definitions that RM requires, it becomes RM:VRO and becomes irrefutable.
Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
04-20-2013, 09:59 AM Post: #2
pezer Offline
Pothead Saruman
Posts: 800
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 8
RE: Value Response Ontology
I don’t see what prevents VCO and conscious choice from co-existing.
Science is found in the question “how do you know?”
Send this user a private message Visit this user’s website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
04-20-2013, 10:17 AM Post: #3
Q Offline
5151
Posts: 469
Joined: Jun 2012
Reputation: 5
RE: Value Response Ontology
I do.
The OP singlehandedly cleared up some stuff that had me confused. Nice.
How bout getting off all these antibiotics?
How bout stopping eating when I’m full up?
Send this user an email Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
04-20-2013, 10:26 AM Post: #4
pezer Offline
Pothead Saruman
Posts: 800
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 8
RE: Value Response Ontology
Will someone point it out? Or are your elephants more sacred than mine?
Science is found in the question “how do you know?”
Send this user a private message Visit this user’s website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
04-20-2013, 10:49 AM (This post was last modified: 04-20-2013 10:51 AM by JSS.) Post: #5
JSS Offline
Moderator
Posts: 287
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 5
RE: Value Response Ontology
(04-20-2013 09:59 AM)pezer Wrote:
I don’t see what prevents VCO and conscious choice from co-existing.
The general concept is that things respond in accord to their own values.
A common first impression is that VO is claiming that inanimate objects have a value system and that implies a consciousness of some kind. The denial and argumentation begins.
If VO was named “Value Conscious Ontology”, VCO, it would skirt that argument and imply that it is only referring to conscious entities.
But the basic concept actually extends beyond merely the conscious beings (which is why I accepted it from the start). The problem is that most people are not metaphysicists in even the slightest way, and for them, a distinction is needed so as to avoid the apparent incorrectness of the proposal.
If Value Response Ontology is proposed, VRO, it is clear that we are talking about responses which might or might not be of a conscious nature. So when anyone asks of the need for consciousness in order to have “values”, it is easy enough to merely explain that within all responses, there are two types; conscious and unconscious.
The ontology strictly involving the conscious variety could be called “VCO”, forming a Value Conscious Ontology. But literally all existing things must actually have a response which inherently values themselves, even unconscious things. That happens to be a provable fact. Thus merely by naming it “VRO”, “Value Response Ontology”, it includes truly all existence, not merely conscious entities. And the fact of that gets a chance to be presented before total rejection sets in on a false presumption of the ridiculous notion that all entities have consciousness.
Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
04-20-2013, 11:30 AM Post: #6
Q Offline
5151
Posts: 469
Joined: Jun 2012
Reputation: 5
RE: Value Response Ontology
(04-20-2013 10:26 AM)pezer Wrote:
Will someone point it out? Or are your elephants more sacred than mine?
Was trying to put it into words but JSS got it.
I couldn’t see how, say a rock, was involved in VO because to me it sounded like a very cerebral thing.
How bout getting off all these antibiotics?
How bout stopping eating when I’m full up?
Send this user an email Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
04-20-2013, 12:00 PM (This post was last modified: 04-20-2013 12:00 PM by pezer.) Post: #7
pezer Offline
Pothead Saruman
Posts: 800
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 8
RE: Value Response Ontology
But that’s, in fact, part of it. Value Ontology raises the question with proper fear: What is the similitude between consciousness and a rock?
I could say chemistry; but smell, taste, gaze, touch and sound all explain it better.
Science is found in the question “how do you know?”
Send this user a private message Visit this user’s website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
04-21-2013, 12:25 AM (This post was last modified: 04-21-2013 12:25 AM by JSS.) Post: #8
JSS Offline
Moderator
Posts: 287
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 5
RE: Value Response Ontology
Consciousness requires remote recognition. But the point is to propose something that is not immediately rejected, not to inspire argumentation. What is or isn’t conscious would still be an issue to address and no matter which is decided, VRO wouldn’t be proven wrong and rejected.
When I talk about Rational Metaphysics, I use two words that very many people have issue with before even considering what the subject might actually be. “Rational” is associated with Espinoza, who said a few things that I could agree with but quite a few that I couldn’t, and “Metaphysics” is associated with a great many all too imaginative flakes inventing every kind of nonsense so as to seem mysterious (much like modern quantum physics). So a better title could probably have been found, just not by me.
Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
04-21-2013, 02:47 AM (This post was last modified: 04-21-2013 02:48 AM by pezer.) Post: #9
pezer Offline
Pothead Saruman
Posts: 800
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 8
RE: Value Response Ontology
You worry too much. I rarely pay attention to your terms and definitions. That is, I see the things you mention and immediately check your style for evidence of it, I don’t look at the terms or definitions very long.
"What is or isn’t conscious would still be an issue to address . . . "
I feel like I addressed it, and you just strolled on by, warning about not addressing it.
Science is found in the question “how do you know?”
Send this user a private message Visit this user’s website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
04-21-2013, 07:10 AM (This post was last modified: 04-21-2013 08:00 AM by Fixed Cross.) Post: #10
Fixed Cross Offline
Neophyte
Posts: 466
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 8
Warning Level: 0%
RE: Value Response Ontology
It is evidently much more difficult for the general thinker to understand my reasoning than I held for possible (the Math Fun thread revealed this to me) so I can see the strategic merit that you are presenting. That is not a yes, but not a no either. Some things need to be taken care of for this to become an asset.
(04-20-2013 07:52 AM)JSS Wrote:
FC’s Value Ontology could be perhaps better named “Value Response Ontology”, VRO. As such, a common misunderstanding could be readily resolved.
If an object has consciousness, its values are based on conscious perception,
Later on you correct or clarify this. As you say it here, it is error. Conscious perception is based on values. Remote recognition is an extended, evolved form of value-response.
Make sure that your modeling does not allow for the suggestion that values derive from consciousness.
Quote:
“Value Conscious Ontology” (a subset of VRO) but if it has no consciousness, its values are based on inherent filtering responses that cause the object to be sustained over time, rather than the conscious choices that a conscious being uses to accomplish the same goal.
This is dangerous terrain. Conscious choices are, as seen through the lens of VO, not essentially different from unconscious choices. There is a great deal more processing involved. But the chooser is still utterly bound to what he is, a particular standard for value.
VO begins with the subject (affecter/affected), where RM begins with the circumstance (affecting).
–
Not all objects are self-valuings. They are however all composed of self-valuings. This is of the essence. VO ‘ranks’ between the active and the passive rather than between the conscious and the unconscious. Consciousness derives from self-valuing. But a subject does not have to be conscious to self-value. It does have to self-value to be a subject. You can wear a rock down from a diameter of a meter to a diameter of a centimeter. It still is “a rock”. It’s not a self-valuing, its essence is not tied to any particularity except that it is made of a certain type of elements. It’s not itself an entity.
04-21-2013, 08:53 AM (This post was last modified: 04-21-2013 08:55 AM by JSS.) Post: #11
JSS Offline
Moderator
Posts: 287
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 5
RE: Value Response Ontology
So you are saying that if your consciousness was turned off, your values would not change at all? Bein unconscious a painting would still be pleasurable experience? A rainbow? The site of a murder would have the same meaning?
I can see that my post on Clarity was notably unclear (thus to whom would I be actually writing a book?).
Send this user a private message Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
04-21-2013, 02:40 PM Post: #12
pezer Offline
Pothead Saruman
Posts: 800
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 8
RE: Value Response Ontology
Worry not JSS, we are not readers but welders. Your book would be probably quite good as your ideas stand.
As regards unconscious in proximity to stimuli, well there are different terms of valuing in each circumstance. I like how Fixed Cross approaches the gap: consciousness is an effect of networks of valuing. Clarity can stand, but we claim it to be categorically dependent on the self-valuing subject who makes things clear, or for whom things are made clear.
Or, to put it my way, what I just said only makes sense because I am saying it and you are reading it. By itself, it doesn’t even exist.
Science is found in the question “how do you know?”
Send this user a private message Visit this user’s website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user Quote this message in a reply Quote this post Report this post to a moderator
04-22-2013, 09:37 AM (This post was last modified: 04-22-2013 09:37 AM by Fixed Cross.) Post: #13
Fixed Cross Offline
Neophyte
Posts: 466
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 8
Warning Level: 0%
RE: Value Response Ontology
(04-21-2013 08:53 AM)JSS Wrote:
So you are saying that if your consciousness was turned off, your values would not change at all? Bein unconscious a painting would still be pleasurable experience? A rainbow? The site of a murder would have the same meaning?
What do you mean? How can I exist if my consciousness is turned off?
This is a false hypothetical. I am not an unconscious being. Thus my values are related to my consciousness, as they are related to me.
Quote:
I can see that my post on Clarity was notably unclear (thus to whom would I be actually writing a book?).
If not for those like me who have not yet have had the fortune of reading your thoughts, then for the scientist thirsty for reason, or if all that is too lowly, do it for Apollo.