God and time and space

[Kharakov]

The magic of bean is Thou Fart.

 

[Horatio Parker]

I suspect the experience of being a human being being human is as variable as snowflakes. And, as with snowflakes, a degree of symmetry -- a degree of predictability.

And yet there is enough unity and intelligibility to distinguish people from snowflakes.

You and I may have different visceral reactions to the same event. But the character of experience of empathy, beauty, and truth seen should be at least nearly the same.

Of course. If all people are different and yet still be people why cannot experience of beauty be simultaneously universal and individual.

One of these is the singularity of being. Just one you. One Ever-changing now and ever changing place. Yet we do feel different from that person we were at half our age.

This feeling, I think, is what the brain does in our kind of primate.

Absolutely. Many if not all of these concepts are wrapped up in our psychology, our own being is only partially revealed to us.

 

[Juma]

What ever you feel, you do not require evidence to know that you feel that. Others may not know what you feel, they require evidence to know what you feel.


https://www.google.ca/?gfe_rd=cr&ei=8UG8VIf9FuqrmALhx4HQBg&gws_rd=ssl#q=Qualia

If people share their experiences and agree that they are the same, that's evidence, no? Multiple people feeling their shared experiences are equal are equal.

1) How can we obvserve what another person subjective experience?

2) even if we feel similar then this because our bodies are similar and that is simply bevause we are all related. There is nothing eternal about that.

 

[George S]

1) mirror neurons

2) No, we self-concepts are not eternal but, perhaps, the concept of being a self-concept has been established as a valid concept timelessly.

 

[Horatio Parker]

If people share their experiences and agree that they are the same, that's evidence, no? Multiple people feeling their shared experiences are equal are equal.

1) How can we obvserve what another person subjective experience?

2) even if we feel similar then this because our bodies are similar and that is simply bevause we are all related. There is nothing eternal about that.

Fine, we're all related, whatever. You keep dicking around with the terms. The understanding remains the same: we have the same experiences. We know this because we communicate about them and have been doing so for a long time. Accept it.

One of the qualities that people have reported and studied and written about through the ages relating to these experiences is timelessness. Now that's obviously not eternity in an empirical sense. Maybe it's the same timelessness as in dreams, or similar. It's an interpretation of experience, a quality or property sensed, that's happened to many people for a long time.

 

[Juma]

1) How can we obvserve what another person subjective experience?

2) even if we feel similar then this because our bodies are similar and that is simply bevause we are all related. There is nothing eternal about that.

Fine, we're all related, whatever. You keep dicking around with the terms. The understanding remains the same: we have the same experiences. We know this because we communicate about them and have been doing so for a long time. Accept it.

No. Since we cannot communicate the feeling. We can only communicate how it relates to other stuff, how it behaves etc. Not the feeling in it self.
What we can commincate is also rather obviously things that depends on how our neurosystem works and thus dependends on how our DNA.
Thus this simililarity you speak of is just a result of us being related.
Accept that not because I tell you to but when you realize that it is true.

One of the qualities that people have reported and studied and written about through the ages relating to these experiences is timelessness. Now that's obviously not eternity in an empirical sense. Maybe it's the same timelessness as in dreams, or similar. It's an interpretation of experience, a quality or property sensed, that's happened to many people for a long time.

And thus has nothing to do with a real, ex corporate, timelessness. Then we agree about that, nice.

 

[Horatio Parker]

No. Since we cannot communicate the feeling. We can only communicate how it relates to other stuff, how it behaves etc. Not the feeling in it self.
What we can commincate is also rather obviously things that depends on how our neurosystem works and thus dependends on how our DNA.
Thus this simililarity you speak of is just a result of us being related.
Accept that not because I tell you to but when you realize that it is true.

Ridiculous. Everything we communicate about is limited in the same way. So no communication ever happens, because we don't communicate essence, we communicate descriptions.

Are you seriously trying to suggest to me that you have never understood someone's feelings and no one has ever understood yours? That your feelings, all of them are totally unique to you and you alone?

And thus has nothing to do with a real, ex corporate, timelessness. Then we agree about that, nice.

Never said it did. But I would say that a psychic concept of eternity is real.

 

[Juma]

Ridiculous. Everything we communicate about is limited in the same way. So no communication ever happens, because we don't communicate essence, we communicate descriptions.

Are you seriously trying to suggest to me that you have never understood someone's feelings and no one has ever understood yours? That your feelings, all of them are totally unique to you and you alone?

Of course they are. My feelings can only be felt by me an yours can only be felt by you.
"Understanding feelings" means that I can understand your reaktions because I have similar reaktions because I am the same type of creature as you. We are related and thus can understand each other. We share a common protocol.

And thus has nothing to do with a real, ex corporate, timelessness. Then we agree about that, nice.

Never said it did. But I would say that a psychic concept of eternity is real.

Why "psychic"? Isnt "a concept of eternity" enough? Why would you want to call it psychic?

 

[Kharakov]

Never said it did. But I would say that a psychic concept of eternity is real.

Why "psychic"? Isnt "a concept of eternity" enough? Why would you want to call it psychic?

I wonder too. Eternal concepts could be passed psychically from mind to mind, which would be convenient, instead of having to go through them again and again.

 

[Horatio Parker]

Of course they are. My feelings can only be felt by me an yours can only be felt by you.
"Understanding feelings" means that I can understand your reaktions because I have similar reaktions because I am the same type of creature as you. We are related and thus can understand each other. We share a common protocol.

More semantic games. "We are related and thus can understand each other." is enough for my purposes.

Why "psychic"? Isnt "a concept of eternity" enough? Why would you want to call it psychic?

Concept is enough, but it doesn't convey the importance or influence that such ideas can have. Psychic indicates that the true nature of the idea, while unknown, nevertheless plays a significant role in the life of the mind. We don't know what enlightenment is or its signicance, but as emotional beings we know that it is a highly desirable state and it influences our lives.

 

[Horatio Parker]

I wonder too. Eternal concepts could be passed psychically from mind to mind, which would be convenient, instead of having to go through them again and again.

It comes from Jung. He had a patient who described her emotional problems as a snake in her belly. He naturally thought she was crazy, but over the course of treatment he realized that that was her intuitive way of describing her psychological situation. The snake was real to her, not as a flesh and blood snake but as an embodiment or symbol of her problems.

The feeling that communicates a sense of eternity, who knows what it really is. Yet these ideas play an important part in our lives.

 

[Speakpigeon]

How would we know that exactly?

I would agree with you only that we know (I certainly know but I can only assume that other people do as well) the things we happen to have in mind (and only at the moment we have them): pain is my favourite example, but beauty when I have the impression of beauty is just as good an example; colours; feelings; so many other things we may not even have names for them. However, it does not follow that the pain I experience today is identical to the something else I have the impression of remembering also as pain. The thing is, what I experience now is the memory of something I take to be pain, not pain itself (which is fortunate since memory of pain is already unpleasant enough). So, how could I possibly know that the two are the same sort of things? Same for beauty. I think that what matters is that we believe (not know) they are the same. This is good enough for practical purposes. This also explains behaviours. Now, if we move away from the requirement of knowing, and look at our beliefs, it is also interesting that the things we believe are beautiful in the material world, say a flower, are actually never identical. So we have to assume for it to work at all that people somehow code for beauty. So, presumably, we not only know beauty as the immediate impression of beauty, but we also probably have some reference inside our brain, whatever this is exactly. This doesn't seem to be much different from how computers work. They have certain codes that stand for certain things in the material world. What the computer knows is the code. So we may have what amount to a code inside our brains that stands for beauty. However, if we assume that this code can only have come to my brain through the material processes of the material world, we have no good reason to claim that the code in my brain is really identical to the one in your brain, let alone that of Plato. All that is needed is that we somehow believe we broadly understand what other people say. If so, contrary to your claim that there is such a thing as Beauty, somehow identically and magically accessible to each of us as to Plato, we may only have access to particular codes in our brains standing for particular experiences individually determined by our body and our environment as we move through life. We are naturally very easily fooled by the uniqueness of our individual experience of our own personal beauty code so that we tend to take it for some sort of absolute, or universal. But there is no evidence for this. The only evidence is beauty as we may experience it now, probably just a code. And then a very interesting system of beliefs whereby we work out a model of what we think is the real world, which we then take for the real world itself.
EB

Do you require evidence to know if you have experienced beauty?

Any impression is evidence of itself and as such I assume you must know it. So I guess you must know any impression you may have. However, I don't know whether an impression you had you would call beauty would be the same impression I would have I would call beauty.

If you want to insist talking of beauty as something we share then I guess you would need to provide evidence to convince me we somehow share it and even so I would still not know that this would be true.

So basically you are equivocating the impression you may have in the privacy of your mind and that you call beauty and something that we would somehow share and which for this reason could not be in anybody's mind in particular. The first one you know it, the second you don't, and therefore, yes, you would need some evidence. Then, it a matter of whether the evidence seems compelling to you. Yet, even if it seems compelling, you would still no know whether sharing really takes place, at least unless some new kind of evidence suddenly turns up.

Similarly, when others speak or write of their experiences with beauty, do you believe them?

Not necessarily, no. There is really no good reason to believe what other people say. Sometimes I will, often I won't. And when I do, it is still not the case that I know we are really talking about the same thing.

I'm not concerned with the mechanics of beauty, codes, genes or neurons, I'm talking about the mind. Call it subjective if you like. We can discuss subjective things on an abstract level, can't we?

Well, my explanation was addressing both the subjective and the objective aspects of the issue. We can discuss things on an abstract level if we want to no problem. What we would have difficulty doing would be make sure we have the same subjective, and concrete, impression of beauty. So instead we talk usually about some abstraction. However, in this case, knowledge of beauty will elude us. We will be talking about an abstraction that we would believe, to a certain degree, exists somehow somewhere. I don't see any good reason to accept that we would know this abstraction. We may know the impression of thinking about this abstraction, even an impression of having this abstraction in mind, like any idea, yet we would still not know the abstraction itself just as, presumably, my idea of a cat is not any actual cat.
EB

 

[Horatio Parker]

Similarly, when others speak or write of their experiences with beauty, do you believe them?

Not necessarily, no. There is really no good reason to believe what other people say. Sometimes I will, often I won't. And when I do, it is still not the case that I know we are really talking about the same thing.

Since you are an intelligent articulate person capable of abstract thinking, I suggest you have invested a great deal of belief in what others have told you.

We can discuss things on an abstract level if we want to no problem. What we would have difficulty doing would be make sure we have the same subjective, and concrete, impression of beauty. So instead we talk usually about some abstraction. However, in this case, knowledge of beauty will elude us. We will be talking about an abstraction that we would believe, to a certain degree, exists somehow somewhere. I don't see any good reason to accept that we would know this abstraction. We may know the impression of thinking about this abstraction, even an impression of having this abstraction in mind, like any idea, yet we would still not know the abstraction itself just as, presumably, my idea of a cat is not any actual cat.
EB

You're stating the obvious. Because an argument can be made that beauty is an experience that people have in common, it doesn't follow that that sharing or understanding is easy, automatic, identical, quantifiable or known with absolute certainty. Yet it does exist and we can discuss, compare and achieve understandings about it.

 

[Juma]

More semantic games. "We are related and thus can understand each other." is enough for my purposes.

Why "psychic"? Isnt "a concept of eternity" enough? Why would you want to call it psychic?

Concept is enough, but it doesn't convey the importance or influence that such ideas can have. Psychic indicates that the true nature of the idea, while unknown, nevertheless plays a significant role in the life of the mind. We don't know what enlightenment is or its signicance, but as emotional beings we know that it is a highly desirable state and it influences our lives.

Sorry. But this is so much baloney. I believe you think that you say something but you really do not.
You are content of being totally vague because it "conveys the importance or influence".
You find fitting to utter empty vaguenesses such as "The life of the mind" and "enlightenment".

For me psychic is mind reading, fortune tellers, psi-researchers and other charlatans.

 

[Horatio Parker]

Concept is enough, but it doesn't convey the importance or influence that such ideas can have. Psychic indicates that the true nature of the idea, while unknown, nevertheless plays a significant role in the life of the mind. We don't know what enlightenment is or its signicance, but as emotional beings we know that it is a highly desirable state and it influences our lives.

Sorry. But this is so much baloney. I believe you think that you say something but you really do not.
You are content of being totally vague because it "conveys the importance or influence".
You find fitting to utter empty vaguenesses such as "The life of the mind" and "enlightenment".

I'm not surprised, since getting you to admit that experiences of beauty even exist was like pulling teeth.

For me psychic is mind reading, fortune tellers, psi-researchers and other charlatans.

Ah yes the familiar safe ground of denying the supernatural, even when no is arguing for it. Gitcher straw men here!

 

[Juma]

Sorry. But this is so much baloney. I believe you think that you say something but you really do not.
You are content of being totally vague because it "conveys the importance or influence".
You find fitting to utter empty vaguenesses such as "The life of the mind" and "enlightenment".

I'm not surprised, since getting you to admit that experiences of beauty even exist was like pulling teeth.

What? That is a direct lie.

For me psychic is mind reading, fortune tellers, psi-researchers and other charlatans.

Ah yes the familiar safe ground of denying the supernatural, even when no is arguing for it. Gitcher straw men here!

Strawmen? It was you that used "psychic". If you dont want to be attacted for such matters then get your act together and use a concise vocabulary that matches your intent.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Not necessarily, no. There is really no good reason to believe what other people say. Sometimes I will, often I won't. And when I do, it is still not the case that I know we are really talking about the same thing.

Since you are an intelligent articulate person capable of abstract thinking, I suggest you have invested a great deal of belief in what others have told you.

I don't think so.

We can discuss things on an abstract level if we want to no problem. What we would have difficulty doing would be make sure we have the same subjective, and concrete, impression of beauty. So instead we talk usually about some abstraction. However, in this case, knowledge of beauty will elude us. We will be talking about an abstraction that we would believe, to a certain degree, exists somehow somewhere. I don't see any good reason to accept that we would know this abstraction. We may know the impression of thinking about this abstraction, even an impression of having this abstraction in mind, like any idea, yet we would still not know the abstraction itself just as, presumably, my idea of a cat is not any actual cat.

You're stating the obvious.

Excellent. It's better to state the obvious and be right than be wrong.

Because an argument can be made that beauty is an experience that people have in common, ...

An argument can be made that beauty is an experience that people have in common? A bad argument you mean?

... it doesn't follow that that sharing or understanding is easy, automatic, identical, quantifiable or known with absolute certainty.

I was rather suggesting that sharing is not possible, certainly not as far as I know.

Yet it does exist and we can discuss, compare and achieve understandings about it.

Do we? I don't think we do.

Never mind.
EB

 

[Togo]

Strawmen? It was you that used "psychic". If you dont want to be attacted for such matters then get your act together and use a concise vocabulary that matches your intent.

Is there perhaps a confusion between 'psychic' and 'psychological'?

 

[Kharakov]

Strawmen? It was you that used "psychic". If you dont want to be attacted for such matters then get your act together and use a concise vocabulary that matches your intent.

Is there perhaps a confusion between 'psychic' and 'psychological'?

A stray from the context of what was said. Horatio used psychic in the more classic sense of "of the mind", instead of the sense of mind interacting with reality "wirelessly" (without a wired nervous system).

 

[Juma]

Is there perhaps a confusion between 'psychic' and 'psychological'?

A stray from the context of what was said. Horatio used psychic in the more classic sense of "of the mind", instead of the sense of mind interacting with reality "wirelessly" (without a wired nervous system).

Are you sure? For he began talking about "eternal beauty" which to me is clearly belongs to the "wireless" way of dedcribing things...