Sauwwlios: Thank you for making the inverse connection. I’ve found it rather helpful in my own understanding of the recurrence and its monumental importance in Nietzsche’s corpus. More later.
This is, of course, the perfect way to go about rebutting The Joker’s take on the Return, his nihilism. To affirm the Return is not to affirm the absolute meaninglessness of existence. Again, on the contrary.
I could not find this thread back - only after 5 minutes it occurred to me that it was in the natural sciences section! Lol.
Yes, facilitates is better, but that still does not say that what is facilitated is a merit. It could also me a detriment.
Thanks again for a good reference. The logic seems so simple: we must propose an object to the will to postulate a will in the first place. What may we propose in general? Power.
It first of all means we have to accept them, as they can’t be seen as transient. It absolutizes the moment.
The Overman then as a person who exists absolutely in each moment - who is not capable of doubt in the sense that Socrates and Christianity substantiated as basically the western conscience.
Christianity is the method of non action.
This eventually led to such deep contemplation and suffering that it caused Nietzsche, who saw the limit of that approach and in that limit found a ground to a course of action.
He could not take that course because of historical and evolutionary reasons, so he took the course of asking people in the future to take it for him. And here we are.
Where the fuck are you anyway WM. I hope you’ve embarked on a successful path of writing. Do publish your works and notify us humble ones here.
Yes, of course. When our valuation increases, we are entirely changed because of it.
It correspondingly appears to be that case that the mindstate of Interest is the expression of the most complete progressive mobilization of monoamines, serotonin, dopamine and noradrenaline. A maximized valuation of each moment would thus indeed literally mean optimized patterns of brain chemistry.
I wonder if we need to periodically run out of, or slack in distributing these monoamines. It seems there really isn’t much reason, teleologically, to have them diminish - is this simply a matter of regeneration? Perhaps simply a matter of nature having no real interest in herself, and leaving herself unfinished -
An opportunity she herself made use of in allowing the emerging of self awareness, which led to humanity, which can be summarized as the will to perfection, so far most comprehensively expressed through symbolic dichotomies like Apollo and Dionysos, around which great orderly structures emerge.
Einsteins frustration was simply this humanity, the will to unity, perfect and complete the world, the burden nature has placed on herself in our form - the burden being this will, not the actual task, as this task may be impossible except through allowing disunity as the foundation of unity, rather than an error that needs to be ironed out.
Cyclical time theory is a non-sensical concept. So is the concept of Eternal Return. It’s based on the non-sensical concept that is infinity.
Finitude in and on itself is conceivable (unlike infinitude which is non-sense.)
But finite universe isn’t because the concept of universe itself is non-sensical.
Everything that makes sense has boundaries i.e. it’s finite.
The concept of universe has no boundaries thus it’s non-sensical.
It makes more sense to say that the universe is infinite than to say that it is finite but this is only because saying the universe is infinite aligns with the fact that the concept is boundless.
Really? Try to conceive something finite. Picture it in your mind. Now tell me: what do you see around it?
For example, I see latters in your post. These are bounded by white space. And white space itself is bounded by other things. And so on.
I don’t know about you but I think that everything has a beginning and an end.
In other words, everything is transient.
Everything comes and everything goes.
What you’re looking for is absolute or infinite boundary.
That’s not finitude.
That’s infinitude masquerading as finitude.
Sure, the letters in my post are bounded by white (or light blue) space, and that space is bounded by other things, and so on. Those things are all finite. But is there a finite number of things? If so, how do you conceive of the outermost things? Are they bounded by “nothing” on one side?
Also, the notion of a finite amount of things in existence relies on the assumption that there is even one discrete “thing” to begin with. Which isn’t the case.
All that is discrete is principle. Whether we call it WtP or Self-valuing or RTA or something else that makes sense, it always speaks of the “being-ness” of being, that about it which is consistent.
In as far as we can speak of discrete, separate objects of existence, we are simply speaking of our own minds proclivity to separate itself from itself.
In a set, there can be a finite amount of objects in that set. But existence is not a set, it is a phenomenon.
::
Rephrasing.
Infinity/finity is a concept based on the idea of discrete quantities of existence-pure. Objects.
In reality, all such objects are appearances, standing out from a deep process that we can not see, the subatomic world, which is interconnected in ways we can not compute yet.
We can not compute them because we make assumptions that aren’t warranted.
Not all "we"s are the same.
James is exempt from the superstitious assumptions inherent in men’s “laws of thought”, even though he basically believes in ghosts… What’s keeping your reply to my refrigerator post, James?
The only kind of “ghostliness” in contemporary physics is that of so-called “dark matter”. There is however no evidence that it interacts with the rest (as James’ ghosts do) or even with itself. It truly seems to be stuff that doesn’t self-value, or many kinds of stuff which are all incompatible with the self-valuing of other things.
I basically agree with what you just said, Fixed.
Seriously?
I have referenced two kinds of “ghosts”. To which are you referring?
And exactly what gives you the impression that you have the slightest notion of what dark matter is about? 
As to your “refrigerator comment”, my effort was merely to reveal that your point was absurd. With your help, that was accomplished. There was no more need to reply.
The kind that can observe things without having the observation affect them.
N. Tyson.
You think refrigerators do fit into our eyes?? :o
Here’s another example which renders your point absurd. Suppose we want to know what a refrigerator looks like in the dark. In order to see what it looks like, we have to cast light on it (if only infrared light; but then we still can’t see it with the naked eye). But if we cast light on it, it’s no longer in the dark! So we cannot know what a refrigerator looks like in the dark. Likewise, we cannot know what an as-yet-unobserved quantum state is like.
I have never referred to that as being a ghost, so that nomenclature attempt is upon you.
Oh gyahd…
Pray that no one hijacks or scrambles your coding.
What I think, since you asked, is that you know too little of that subject to intelligently discuss it. You have your opinions … fine. Keep them. Perhaps attempt debate with someone else.
And btw, even in Jacob’s self-valuing (with which I am not entirely incompatible), there is no reverse causation involved.
Still, you claim that it’s possible to observe things without having the observation affect them. I call that ghostly because a ghost, in much of popular culture, can move through things and yet observe them.
How’s your standing within the scientific community, James?
As I already told you in that other thread, “I never claimed that what happens to the light after it leaves the object changes the object.” (http://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?p=2673851#p2673851)
Jim, can you please address Sauwelios’ points? I would like to see some intelligence from your side.
I know you have it. Others don’t think so but I know you do.
Dont fucking leave me hanging Jimbo.
It isn’t like I owe You any favor. If you would like to inject some intelligence into Sauw’s efforts to make sense out of the nonsense, feel free. Although since your brain breakage, I’m not sure that is possible.
He is trying to support the notion that the observation of an object changes the object. We had this discussion years ago wherein I pointed out exactly where that notion arose and why. It is merely another part of the Quantum Magi mysticism to bemuse the masses. Sauw obviously wants to believe in the magic.
He first proclaimed that because light bounced off of the object into the eye for observation, the object was affected by the observation. Of course, that led to a reverse time issue. He back peddled and tried a couple of more excuses for the belief and is now up to proclaiming that because an observer will shine the light on the object in order to observe it, the observation will affect the object. Of course that is a serious non-sequitur fallacy. The shining of the light is not the observing. The light might have been there anyway, most often it is.
If you want to inject some intellect into any of that, or come up with something more sensible, have at it. But as I said, since your …
James is just a dinosaur (a Platonist).
James, I still claim that because light bounces off of the object into the eye for observation, the object is affected by the observation. This need by no means lead to a reverse time issue. It is indeed not necessary for an observer to shine the light on the object in order to observe it. However, the shining of the light is part of the observing. It is even if it was there to begin with.
Now technically, it’s true that we never see a refrigerator (it never enters our eyes), but only light. The light coming off a refrigerator is different from the light coming off a TV. In both cases, it’s affected by those objects in the collision with them. But action equals minus reaction. The light cannot be affected without it equally affecting those objects. Now on the scale of things we can see with our naked eye, that effect is negligible: those objects won’t look any different from if the light had miraculously not affected them (except that the refrigerator, for instance, would be black instead of white, as I’ve already explained). On a subatomic scale, however, that which is bounced off the quantum objects in order to observe them is of a kind with those objects. It’s like throwing a TV into a TV in order to pinpoint the latter’s location.
I suspect now James confuses two things. Either a visual observation includes the light’s reflection or emission–in which case that reflection or emission is part of the observation–, or it does not. In the former case, we can say we see the refrigerator or the refrigerator light, but only the way it is when affected by the reflection or emission. In the latter case, we can only say we see the light reflected off of the refrigerator or emitted by the refrigerator light. For simplicity’s sake, let’s say we see the light reflected off of the refrigerator. Then the refrigerator is indeed not affected by the observation, but this is because the refrigerator is not observed at all; only the light reflected off of the refrigerator is observed… [Edit: And indeed, the source of the light may have undergone changes in the meantime, for instance the sun during the eight minutes it took the sunlight to travel here.]
Am I making myself clear? Either we say we observe the refrigerator, or we say we observe the light coming from the refrigerator. The refrigerator is affected by its collision with the light. The light is affected both by its collision with the refrigerator and its collision with our eyes. So the observation always affects the object of observation.
You seem to have serious logic issues. Tell us, what if the observer was daydreaming at the time and thus, even though the light entered his eyes, he failed to actually notice what happened - the observation didn’t actually take place? Is the object supposed to still be affected differently than when the observer had his eyes closed? Or differently than when the observer was sick at home that day? Or when there was no observer at all?
Light is light. It doesn’t really matter from where it comes. The TV produces light whereas most objects merely reflect light. The eye doesn’t really care although the mind of an observer might.
Action is negative reaction? The statement doesn’t seem to make sense. A reaction is an action, but an specific kind of action resulting from a prior action. A reaction is the second action in a sequence. There is nothing “minus” or negative about it.
Light certainly affects objects. But we aren’t really talking about light. We are talking about observation which at times requires that light be present and usually light is present even without observation. So observing and light are two different things. At times, light isn’t required at all. Is the object still affected differently merely because someone happened to be standing around and noticed the object? Your position is “yes”, but you will never be able to substantiate that position - because it is nonsense.
So your problem has been one of definition? You didn’t know that ALL “seeing” has never been anything other than receiving the reflected light (and being awake enough to notice it)?
Oh, I’m quite clear on your intent. But the rest of the modern world knows that seeing is merely receiving the reflected light and nothing else. So with that in mind, you have now agree that the object is not actually affected at all by the seeing or observing.
Are you going to now attempt to argue that some people believe that seeing involved the objects themselves entering the eye? And could you possibly ever support such a notion? Without that, you no longer have an argument for your case.