Member 2961
2 entries
3289 views

 RSS
UK
Immortal since Sep 8, 2011
Uplinks: 0, Generation 3

JamieJohnJamesJenkinson
Video Artist studying at the Royal College of Art, London
  • Affiliated
  •  /  
  • Invited
  •  /  
  • Descended
  • Recently commented on
    From JJJJ
    Knowing the Shown
    Now playing SpaceCollective
    Where forward thinking terrestrials share ideas and information about the state of the species, their planet and the universe, living the lives of science fiction. Introduction
    Featuring Powers of Ten by Charles and Ray Eames, based on an idea by Kees Boeke.
    From JJJJ's personal cargo

    What do we know?
    To know or believe anything, is to go back to the initial principle of perception, and to take reality as physical fact. Though it is within this area of study, that scientists, physicists and theorists are deciphering the root of perception, and questioning if what is seen, is reality as we know it.

    If you were to measure a distance with an inaccurate ruler, you would have an inaccurate view of space. Then with the evolution of sense, our toolbox of perception is limited to the five senses, and with this, information could be missed - that assuming reality is factual to begin with. As science gave new, measurable proofs to the unknown, reality ventured away from the mystical, and settled logically in the answers of reason. Though the prolific eye of science, now delving into the microcosm of multiple dimensions, seems to be looping back to original, more fantastic theories.

    An interesting, seemingly incredible concept, is the measurement problem, where an atom is only measurable, only exists in its reality state, if it is viewed by a conscious mind. And as atoms are the building blocks for all reality, everything is created, solely for the purpose of perception within the viewer. Answering the question, if a tree falls and no one is around to hear it, does it make any sound? If perception is taken from the location, then not only is there no sound, but there is no tree, no location; though the tree still falls. To view the space of the pre fallen tree, the idea of the tree exists in consciousness, and so to a viewing of the post fallen tree - though the event has not taken place in a perceived reality - the tree will be prone, as consciousness is a combined perception. And with this idea of a whole consciousness, aspects of a higher being, nature, god and living space become more apparent as science decodes the process of reality. The Hadron Collider for example; its failed attempts have been diagnosed as nature itself, where living space can prevent events in the knowledge of their future repercussions. Here is the notion of an immeasurable consciousness, that not only affects, but creates and shapes reality.

    In the controversial experiments of Japanese Professor, Dr. Masaru Emoto, the effect of love and hate are seen physically in the crystallisation of water. Where water spoken to lovingly produces perfect, symmetrical ice crystals when frozen; equally the crystals spoken to with hatred produce sporadic, inconcise patterns. Though this phenomena in traditional science seems inconceivable, taken in relation to evolution, and the development of understanding, negative and positive vibrations could be the impact of relevant feelings expelled through consciousness stemming from a rudimentary repel or attract nature in the early stages of life. This then questions our effect on the world, and how thought can influence reality.

    Now if reality is created around consciousness, through the rules of reality in relation to perception, what is to say that reality is not created simply to coincide with reason, to create an infinite universe if one looks far enough; or produce millennia’s of history and background, so to suit logic and rules. As in reality there cannot be nothingness, cannot be timelessness; consciousness accounts for this upon arrival.

    Theoretically, a quantum physicist lives in a very different world than a tribesman. Though this could be more than just theory. Separate created realities, inside the same combined consciousness. Where all religions and beliefs are factual, inside each separate consciousness, shared inside the reality whole. Linked in space and time, though separate in history and future. For some the world is around 4.5 billion years old, yet to others it is a mere 6,000. These could both be correct… I am not religious, my reality is based on logic and science. Though if time, space, matter, do not exist outside consciousness, before the mind had been evolved, none of this existed; though space and time must exist as to evolve the mind. This paradox questions the idea of time, space, and consciousness. Where consciousness started, creating reality; logic creates history, as a by-product of the future; and time as a by-product of the present, and the perception of reality itself. In this sense, consciousness may not have even begun yet, and this reality could be the process of history through perception, where time is relevant to create logical meaning to the future.

    We can only know what perception allows us, and in the search for answers, theories seem to be our closest vision. Whether who or how, these are the questions that have altered and created entire new worlds and beliefs, plausible in the desire for clarity, in the never ending search for the real.

    Sun, Sep 18, 2011  Permanent link

      RSS for this post
    2 comments
      Promote (2)
      
      Add to favorites
    Create synapse
     
    Comments:


    Phyllotaxis     Tue, Sep 20, 2011  Permanent link
    I believe any reader finding your interesting questions worthy of further thought, including the author, will find the following link a powerful articulation of the very elements of human perception.

    This is not light reading. It is not for the timid, casual thinker.
    I wager you are neither, so I share this with you:

    Some Preliminary Observations
    Concerning Praxeology Instead
    of an Introduction


    everything is in a ceaseless flux, says Heraclitus; there is no permanent being; all is change and becoming. It must be left to metaphysical speculation to deal with the problems whether this proposition can be borne out from the point of view of a superhuman intelligence and furthermore whether it is possible for a human mind to think of change without implying the concept of a substratum that, while it changes, remains in some regard and sense constant in the succession of its various states. For epistemology, the theory of human knowledge, there is certainly something that it cannot help considering as permanent, viz., the logical and praxeological structure of the human mind, on the one hand, and the power of the human senses, on the other hand. Fully aware of the fact that human nature as it is in this epoch of cosmic changes in which we are living is neither something that existed from the very beginning of all things nor something that will remain forever, epistemology must look upon it as if it were unchanging. The natural sciences may try to go further and to study the problems of evolution. But epistemology is a branch—or rather, the basis—of the sciences of man. It deals with one aspect of the nature of man as he emerged from the aeons of cosmic becoming and as he is in this period of the history of the universe. It does not deal with thinking, perceiving and knowing in general, but with human thinking, perceiving and knowing. For epistemology there is something that it must take as unchanging, viz., the logical and praxeological structure of the human mind.

    One must not confuse knowledge with mysticism. The mystic may say that "shadow and sunlight are the same."[1] Knowledge starts from the clear distinction between A and non-A.

    We know that there were ages of cosmic history in which there did not exist beings of the kind we call Homo sapiens, and we are free to assume that there will be again ages in which this species will not exist. But it is vain for us to speculate about the conditions of beings that are, in the logical and praxeological structure of their minds and in the power of their senses, essentially different from man as we know him and as we are ourselves. Nietzsche's concept of a superman is devoid of any epistemological meaning.


    The pages that follow include the following chapters:

    1. The Permanent Substratum of Epistemology (p. 1)
    2. On Action (p. 2)
    3. On Economics (p. 3)
    4. The Starting Point of Praxeological Thinking (p. 4)
    5. The Reality of the External World (p. 6)
    6. Causality and Teleology (p. 6)
    7. The Category of Action (p. 8)
    8. The Sciences of Human Action (p. 9)



    Chapter 1: The Human Mind


    1. The Logical Structure of the Human Mind (p. 11)
    2. A Hypothesis about the Origin of the A Priori Categories (p. 14)
    3. The A Priori (p. 17)
    4. The A Priori Representation of Reality (p. 19)
    5. Induction (p. 21)
    6. The Paradox of Probability Empiricism (p. 27)
    7. Materialism (p. 28)
    8. The Absurdity of Any Materialistic Philosophy (p. 30)



    Chapter 2: The Activistic Basis of Knowledge


    1. Man and Action (p. 34)
    2. Finality (p. 36)
    3. Valuation (p. 37)
    4. The Chimera of Unified Science (p. 38)
    5. The Two Branches of the Sciences of Human Action (p. 41)
    6. The Logical Character of Praxeology (p. 44)
    7. The Logical Character of History (p. 45)
    8. The Thymological Method (p. 46)



    Chapter 3: Necessity and Volition


    1. The Infinite (p. 52)
    2. The Ultimate Given (p. 53)
    3. Statistics (p. 55)
    4. Free Will (p. 57)
    5. Inevitability (p. 59)



    Chapter 4: Certainty and Uncertainty



    1. The Problem of Quantitative Definiteness (p. 62)
    2. Certain Knowledge (p. 63)
    3. The Uncertainty of the Future (p. 64)
    4. Quantification and Understanding in Acting and in History (p. 66)
    5. The Precariousness of Forecasting in Human Affairs (p. 66)
    6. Economic Prediction and the Trend Doctrine (p. 67)
    7. Decision-Making (p. 69)
    8. Confirmation and Refutability (p. 69)
    9. The Examination of Praxeological Theorems (p. 70)



    Chapter 5: On Some Popular Errors Concerning the Scope

    and Method of Economics

    1. The Research Fable (p. 73)
    2. The Study of Motives (p. 74)
    3. Theory and Practice (p. 77)
    4. The Pitfalls of Hypostatization (p. 78)
    5. On the Rejection of Methodological Individualism (p. 80)
    6. The Approach of Macroeconomics (p. 83)
    7. Reality and Play (p. 87)
    8. Misinterpretation of the Climate of Opinion (p. 90)
    9. The Belief in the Omnipotence of Thought (p. 91)
    10. The Concept of a Perfect System of Government (p. 94)
    11. The Behavioral Sciences (p. 101)

    Chapter 6: Further Implications of the Neglect of Economic Thinking

    1. The Zoological Approach to Human Problems (p. 104)
    2. The Approach of the "Social Sciences" (p. 105)
    3. The Approach of Economics (p. 105)
    4. A Remark about Legal Terminology (p. 109)
    5. The Sovereignty of the Consumers (p. 112)

    Chapter 7: The Epistemological Roots of Monism

    1. The Nonexperimental Character of Monism (p. 115)
    2. The Historical Setting of Positivism (p. 118)
    3. The Case of the Natural Sciences (p. 119)
    4. The Case of the Sciences of Human Action (p. 120)
    5. The Fallacies of Positivism (p. 122)

    Chapter 8: Positivism and the Crisis of Western Civilization

    1. The Misinterpretation of the Universe (p. 125)
    2. The Misinterpretation of the Human Condition (p. 126)
    3. The Cult of Science (p. 128)
    4. The Epistemological Support of Totalitarianism (p. 129)
    5. The Consequences (p. 132)
    syncopath     Mon, Sep 26, 2011  Permanent link
    i suspect you may enjoy this quote-collage .. ))
     
          Cancel