The non-physical contains the physical just as mind contains reality

#1
Ostronomos Offline
And vice versa. Your control over yourself is an illusion, which is why human beings or syntactic operators on the local level submit to the will of the global syntactic operator. 

Minds or syntactic operators may Quantum entangle with each other such as during a half sleep half waking state and in such an instance their behaviors and information processing is non-random.
Reply
#2
Yazata Offline
(Nov 1, 2017 03:56 PM)Ostronomos Wrote: The non-physical contains the physical just as mind contains reality

I'm not entirely sure how to distinguish between non-physical and physical. Nor am I prepared to accept the idealist axiom that mind contains reality. (I flat out think that's false.)

Quote:Your control over yourself is an illusion, which is why human beings or syntactic operators on the local level submit to the will of the global syntactic operator.

The Langan-jargon is losing me. What's a "syntactic operator"? What's a "global syntactic operator"? (God, the pantheistic mind of the universe itself, how could I have forgotten?)

Quote:Minds or syntactic operators may Quantum entangle with each other such as during a half sleep half waking state and in such an instance their behaviors and information processing is non-random.

If minds are information processors, then I suppose that they might be described as "syntactic operators" in some sense. Of course syntactic manipulations can't be all minds are, since semantics has to have a place in there too. That was one of the lessons of Searle's 'Chinese room' argument, I think.

I don't think that the phrase "quantum entanglement" should be used as a pseudo-scientific euphemism (let alone justification) for claims about "telepathy".
Reply
#3
Ostronomos Offline
Yazata Wrote:
(Nov 1, 2017 03:56 PM)Ostronomos Wrote: The non-physical contains the physical just as mind contains reality

I'm not entirely sure how to distinguish between non-physical and physical. Nor am I prepared to accept the idealist axiom that mind contains reality. (I flat out think that's false.)

In the CTMU the mind is primary and reality secondary and they possess an inverse relationship where reality and mind can occupy the position of container of the other. This is because the mind is real and physical (but in a more sophisticated format than matter, it also possesses objectivity).



Quote:The Langan-jargon is losing me. What's a "syntactic operator"? What's a "global syntactic operator"? (God, the pantheistic mind of the universe itself, how could I have forgotten?)


We operate syntactically because we are driven by purpose which is an intelligence-laden property.



Quote:
Quote:Minds or syntactic operators may Quantum entangle with each other such as during a half sleep half waking state and in such an instance their behaviors and information processing is non-random.

If minds are information processors, then I suppose that they might be described as "syntactic operators" in some sense. Of course syntactic manipulations can't be all minds are, since semantics has to have a place in there too. That was one of the lessons of Searle's 'Chinese room' argument, I think.

I don't think that the phrase "quantum entanglement" should be used as a pseudo-scientific euphemism (let alone justification) for claims about "telepathy".


You are correct about semantics. "Telepathic communication" or spatio-temporal telekinetic manifestations and simultaneous remote communication occur when mind and reality Quantum entangle such as in that situation I mentioned about half dreaming half waking (where the mind is to some degree aware of external realty). The relationship between mind and external reality become dissolved when the two are linked by a greater medium (such as in the aforementioned situation or while on certain drugs that affect reality and mind, linking the two together).
Reply
#4
Ostronomos Offline
And just to elaborate, the medium is meta-reality, which is reality.
Reply
#5
Zinjanthropos Offline
(Nov 1, 2017 10:53 PM)Ostronomos Wrote: And just to elaborate, the medium is meta-reality, which is reality.
 
All the following is just a thought.

Speaking of elaborating, when I first saw Langan's CTMU I couldn't help but think that as a young man (15 years old) that he wasn't a Beatles fan. One song in particular that immediately popped into my head was Strawberry Fields and I'm sure if you listened to or read the lyrics it wouldn't be too much of a stretch to see how much of an impression this made on the genius'  Rolleyes  mind. I think that Ostro should take a good look at the song released in 1967. Everyone it seems, can be influenced by another human being. Here's the lyrics  . When I substitute the words Strawberry Fields with universal consciousness or reality/perception, each seems to fit so well that I have to think Langan stole/borrowed the idea (his interpretation?)from Lennon and as I intimated earlier simply elaborated on it.

Excerpt from Wiki: 
Quote:Lennon talked about the song in 1980: "I was different all my life. The second verse goes, 'No one I think is in my tree.' Well, I was too shy and self-doubting. Nobody seems to be as hip as me is what I was saying. Therefore, I must be crazy or a genius – 'I mean it must be high or low' ",[19] and explaining that the song was "psycho-analysis set to music".

Sound familiar?
Reply
#6
Yazata Offline
(Nov 1, 2017 08:52 PM)Ostronomos Wrote:
Yazata Wrote:If minds are information processors, then I suppose that they might be described as "syntactic operators" in some sense. Of course syntactic manipulations can't be all minds are, since semantics has to have a place in there too. That was one of the lessons of Searle's 'Chinese room' argument, I think.

You are correct about semantics.

If I'm correct about semantics, then why hasn't Langan just been blown out of the water?

You and your prophet seem to want to describe minds (and the universe as a whole) as "syntactic operators". That use of the word 'syntax' suggests that minds are just arranging and rearranging tokens of some kind in accordance with rules such that some arrangements are well-formed and others aren't. (In language, that's grammar.) Searle argued (in effect) that one can't model minds that way since in the case of minds, the tokens need to mean something (semantics). You can move around Chinese characters all you want according to syntactic rules, but you still won't be understanding or speaking Chinese.

So if Searle is right, then minds will have to be something more than mere "syntactic operators" simply arranging and rearranging meaningless game pieces on a game board (even if the movements are all in accordance with well defined syntactic rules).

Here's an encyclopedia article on the 'Chinese room'. As for me, I basically agree with Searle on the more modest point that syntax without semantics is insufficient to understand minds. But I disagree with him pretty strongly about it being a fatal argument against strong-AI. I find myself agreeing with the 'replies and rejoinders' in the article below.

http://www.iep.utm.edu/chineser/
Reply
#7
C C Offline
(Nov 1, 2017 08:52 PM)Ostronomos Wrote: [...] In the CTMU the mind is primary and reality secondary and they possess an inverse relationship where reality and mind can occupy the position of container of the other.


Resonances of the strange loop, in that the phenomenal world is dependent upon mind (more generic than brain, AI, space-alien organ, etc) to manifest that external environment (generate empirical and reason-based evidence for its existence). But then the "internal story" about the world that's unfolding within such mental experiences advocates that mind itself is dependent upon that world to produce / maintain it (or rather a mind-less, invisible version of it prior in rank to the one displayed and thought about by sensation and intellectual activity). Thus a tangled hierarchy that goes round and round -- each of the two levels declaring the other to be dependent upon it -- competing to be the fundamental stratum.

There's no getting outside the loop (mental experience and the story it entertains or conforms to), since legitimately doing so would result in absence of empirical and reason-based evidence. As well as loss of the (subjective) agent that was interested in such validation or ascension beyond the tangled hierarchy to begin with. Personal tales of such a journey can be related, but if they sport accounts about yet more phenomenal events and more inferences of intellect, then they seem bogus misconceptions of having "gotten out".

The alternative of declaring that "yet more mind" would mean there is a more primary level than the loop -- that is itself a greater, objective version of consciousness / intellect -- is unconvincing to those who don't partake in such journeys. There's no mass public participation / sharing in such transcendental revelations (they're private). Thomas Paine: "It is revelation to the first person only, and hearsay to every other, and consequently they are not obliged to believe it."

- - -
Reply
#8
Ostronomos Offline
(Nov 2, 2017 06:20 PM)Yazata Wrote:
(Nov 1, 2017 08:52 PM)Ostronomos Wrote:
Yazata Wrote:If minds are information processors, then I suppose that they might be described as "syntactic operators" in some sense. Of course syntactic manipulations can't be all minds are, since semantics has to have a place in there too. That was one of the lessons of Searle's 'Chinese room' argument, I think.

You are correct about semantics.

If I'm correct about semantics, then why hasn't Langan just been blown out of the water?

You and your prophet seem to want to describe minds (and the universe as a whole) as "syntactic operators". That use of the word 'syntax' suggests that minds are just arranging and rearranging tokens of some kind in accordance with rules such that some arrangements are well-formed and others aren't. (In language, that's grammar.) Searle argued (in effect) that one can't model minds that way since in the case of minds, the tokens need to mean something (semantics). You can move around Chinese characters all you want according to syntactic rules, but you still won't be understanding or speaking Chinese.

So if Searle is right, then minds will have to be something more than mere "syntactic operators" simply arranging and rearranging meaningless game pieces on a game board (even if the movements are all in accordance with well defined syntactic rules).

Here's an encyclopedia article on the 'Chinese room'. As for me, I basically agree with Searle on the more modest point that syntax without semantics is insufficient to understand minds. But I disagree with him pretty strongly about it being a fatal argument against strong-AI. I find myself agreeing with the 'replies and rejoinders' in the article below.

http://www.iep.utm.edu/chineser/

Frankly, I find your complaint about Langan rather excessive. Recall that thought and language are interrelated. The CTMU has not become obsolete because it does what it is intended to do, prove panpsychism or God. 

A mind is an arrangement of images, impressions and expressions in the form of linguistic reality.

(Nov 2, 2017 08:00 PM)C C Wrote:
(Nov 1, 2017 08:52 PM)Ostronomos Wrote: [...] In the CTMU the mind is primary and reality secondary and they possess an inverse relationship where reality and mind can occupy the position of container of the other.


Resonances of the strange loop, in that the phenomenal world is dependent upon mind (more generic than brain, AI, space-alien organ, etc) to manifest that external environment (generate empirical and reason-based evidence for its existence). But then the "internal story" about the world that's unfolding within such mental experiences advocates that mind itself is dependent upon that world to produce / maintain it (or rather a mind-less, invisible version of it prior in rank to the one displayed and thought about by sensation and intellectual activity). Thus a tangled hierarchy that goes round and round -- each of the two levels declaring the other to be dependent upon it -- competing to be the fundamental stratum.

There's no getting outside the loop (mental experience and the story it entertains or conforms to), since legitimately doing so would result in absence of empirical and reason-based evidence. As well as loss of the (subjective) agent that was interested in such validation or ascension beyond the tangled hierarchy to begin with. Personal tales of such a journey can be related, but if they sport accounts about yet more phenomenal events and more inferences of intellect, then they seem bogus misconceptions of having "gotten out".

The alternative of declaring that "yet more mind" would mean there is a more primary level than the loop -- that is itself a greater, objective version of consciousness / intellect -- is unconvincing to those who don't partake in such journeys. There's no mass public participation / sharing in such transcendental revelations (they're private). Thomas Paine: "It is revelation to the first person only, and hearsay to every other, and consequently they are not obliged to believe it."

- - -

Thank you.

The subjective has equal priority as the objective. If it did not, it could not be real.
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  "Reality is just a quantum wave function" C C 1 34 Jan 14, 2022 05:25 PM
Last Post: Syne
  Virtual reality is reality, too (Chalmers) + Interview with Karl Marx + A bias bias C C 0 25 Jan 13, 2022 01:00 AM
Last Post: C C
  Since reality is self-creative, we created reality before it creates us and vice vers Ostronomos 2 278 Oct 9, 2019 09:34 PM
Last Post: Ostronomos
  Non-reality isomorphism Ostronomos 0 137 Aug 25, 2019 05:35 PM
Last Post: Ostronomos
  God is the conscious universe manifesting lower levels of reality such as physical ma Ostronomos 10 1,163 Oct 30, 2017 01:16 AM
Last Post: Syne
  Reality possesses One Reality Ostronomos 15 2,395 Oct 15, 2017 12:12 AM
Last Post: Ostronomos
  The case against reality + How old & new make the mind ebb & flow C C 32 5,773 Nov 16, 2016 08:29 PM
Last Post: Zinjanthropos



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)