Member 420
242 entries
2071417 views

 RSS
Project moderator:
Polytopia

Contributor to projects:
The great enhancement debate
The Total Library
Every act of rebellion expresses a nostalgia for innocence and an appeal to the essence of being. (Albert Camus)
  • Affiliated
  •  /  
  • Invited
  •  /  
  • Descended
  • Wildcat’s favorites
    From Xarene
    Human Document...
    From Xaos
    It is not Gods that we...
    From TheLuxuryofProtest
    Deep Learning in the City...
    From Rourke
    The 3D Additivist Manifesto
    From syncopath
    Simplicity
    Recently commented on
    From Benjamin Ross Hayden
    AGOPHOBIA (2013) - Film
    From Wildcat
    Tilting at windmills or...
    From Wildcat
    The jest of Onann pt. 1(...
    From syncopath
    Simplicity
    From Wildcat
    Some nothings are like...
    Wildcat’s projects
    Polytopia
    The human species is rapidly and indisputably moving towards the technological singularity. The cadence of the flow of information and innovation in...

    The Total Library
    Text that redefines...

    The great enhancement debate
    What will happen when for the first time in ages different human species will inhabit the earth at the same time? The day may be upon us when people...
    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 Wildcat's personal cargo

    Tensor Field Consciousness
    The problem of course “is” the word “IS”
    If “is” “is not” then what “is”?
    “Is” “is” the problem of being
    Let me state at the onset that I believe there “is” no “is”
    So the statement consciousness “is”.. “is” meaningless



    To state that a Tensor Field “is” a vector that varies from point to point “is” meaningless
    What we may state, “is” that a tensor field reflects the condition of being conscious in a state that varies from point to point.
    On the same token, consciousness varies from point to point, without at any point being in a state of “is.”
    Variation, variation, variation
    What … self-reflection?

    Topological structures of 3D tensor fields

    See Single Cell 001 Small 240.avi

    (part of the "Ultrashorts" project)

    5 comments
      Promote (5)
      
      Add to favorites (1)
    Synapses (6)
     
    Comments:


    aeonbeat     Fri, Jan 25, 2008  Permanent link
    "it" is, because it "is", if it weren't it wouldn't be

    if you say, "if it is, then it's not" like a typical nihilist, i may just agree since it's the same interpretation on most global level, just naming it differently. the only problem with nihilists is that they deny everything they actually decide to do, like it's not something they intentionally do. yet everything happens as it has to, since it didn't happen in any other way so far. in other words denying the light is not cool. actually it's uncool and without it there wouldn't be no light. you always need opposite pressure in order to exist outside of the whole. there's something more than thought, more than feeling good or bad, more than experiencing and feeling. it's existing. but yet again, you need to experience somehow yourself. the reflection of yourself, you as god. beware of spiritual materialism! ;)
    Spaceweaver     Sun, Jan 27, 2008  Permanent link
    Without 'consciousness is...' we cannot even say 'consciousness varies....' . Identity and difference are codependent concepts. Erase one, the other is eliminated. I would suggest using 'is' as 'is' in parenthesis, which means 'is' is ~is, i.e a relation of indefinite approximation of similarity, an incomplete affinity, a mindful identity (or difference).
    Robokku     Tue, Jan 29, 2008  Permanent link
    We can keep "is" - we must; I'm with Spaceweaver - but the risk is (there, I said it) in habitually treating it as strict identity. Like "circle". We know that there are lots of circular things in the world, don't we? However, there are relatively few occasions when we need to remember that that's shorthand for something more true and less convenient.

    "Is" - mistakenly assumed exactness of identity - can be much more dangerous.
    Wildcat     Tue, Jan 29, 2008  Permanent link
    Let me start by acknowledging that I agree both with Spaceweaver and with you Robokku, we need the word “is”, with it I am a great admirer of the concept of approximation, as you say (if I understood you correctly) a bicycle is an approximation to a bicycle and “is” is actually shorthand for: “a bicycle is an approximation to a bicycle”.
    And yes it is truer, more accurate, and less convenient. And here is the great conundrum, at the cost of loosing the depth or simplicity of reality we change/ forget the original meaning, that of approximation. In practice I have no problem using the term “is”, however I never forget that it is for communicative convenience only. When being comes into play (and “is” reflects on being) I find that the language is insufficient, that is where consciousness comes into play and where my PP (personal philosophy) implies that the term “is” “is” in fact a non-existent.

    to Spaceweaver: I like a mindful identity, as well as an incomplete affinity, however i do think this does not suffice in front of the habits we have of misrepresenting language into absolutes. hence the question to my mind remains the same.
    maybe we should determine certain terms (consciousness comes to mind) to which the term "is" cannot be applied.
    alborz     Tue, Jan 29, 2008  Permanent link
    I'm enjoying this conversation. I invite you guys to expound further on the dictionary project once the project pages go up. Or here until then.

    Let me see if I can hang. Here's my thought: "That is a bicycle" isn't a problematic statement since "a" tells us that we mean "an example of bicycle." I also don't necessarily see a problem with "consciousness is" either, since naming what consiousness is doesn't necessarily prevent it from being other things as well. Likewise, if we were to use strange and pretentious language like "This is bicycle" then we still wouldn't be in trouble (assuming we were in fact talking about a bicycle and not an elephant), since whatever we'd be talking about (whether an example of a bicycle or a definition of one) would not exclude variations on bicycle"ness". (As Robokku points out.)

    Like Wildcat says, the issue is our understanding of the word.
     
          Cancel