Go Back   David Icke's Official Forums > Main Forums > The Matrix / Nature of Reality

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 13-05-2009, 04:55 PM   #21
mephibosheth
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Road to God's Eternal Palace
Posts: 1,268
Likes: 2 (1 Post)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by measle_weasel View Post
If it had no meaning, then nothing would exist. All things that exist have some meaning, if they did not, there would have been no reason for them to have come into existence, thus they wouldnt have.
Meaning isn't causality. Meaning isn't purpose either.

Meaning is a relationship between a concept and a symbol. It is a form of representation that transfers information.

Every existing thing exhausts itself in its existing; that is, it does not 'represent' something else that it isn't. Hence, there is no meaning in mere existence. Meaning has to be imposed by a being that creates a connection between things (or concepts of things).


Quote:
Originally Posted by measle_weasel View Post
You assume all meaning is placed on things after they come to exist, and never before. What suggests that all things are subjective, and nothing is objective?
All meaning IS placed on things 'after' they exist by beings that already exist. Meaning only exists in the minds of semiotic beings.

But that is not related to whether 'all things are subjective'. Meaning is subjective. The existence of things, insofar as they are not dependent on any act of cognition by an existing being, is objective. Thus, we make up meanings left, right, and center, as is our nature, but we can't 'make up' the fact that we exist, that the world is as it is, and things are as they are.


Quote:
Originally Posted by measle_weasel View Post
A monumental assumption, to say the least.
It's the position of the OP and the many-worlds metaphysics. That's the power of the model--that all possible worlds exist simultaneously, and not 'in serial' or stretched out in time, as time does not apply to the complete body of possible worlds (ie, of possibility itself) but only to particular manifestations of individual worlds (ie, timespace is a fundamental parameter that defines a particular world).


Quote:
Originally Posted by measle_weasel View Post
And I cant make a pick, because neither choice makes logical, nor intuitive, sense. Both come from a deterministic, nihilistic perspective, neither of which I espouse, nor seen any substantial evidence to support.
'Nothing has meaning' and 'all meanings are fully expressed' are equivalent. If all meanings are expressed then no one meaning has priority, and hence, all meanings are equal; this is equivalent to there being no meanings at all. FUll or empty, it doesn't make any difference.

But it isn't a matter of you choosing. That's just how things are. Semiotic beings impose meaning on the world. There is no 'inherent meaning' in anything. The very concept is non-sensical. So when you ask what the meaning of the world is, the answer is, 'whatever you want it to be'. Because there is no such thing as inherent meaning, beings such as ourselves are free to create any meaning we want and apply that as liberally as we please.

8)
__________________

"Say NO to the Police Consciousness"


Overgrow the government

Not NAU, not EVER!
mephibosheth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-05-2009, 08:08 PM   #22
2013
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: within
Posts: 4,285
Likes: 2 (2 Posts)
Default

check out JB Priestleys time plays .I saw a bbc play based on one of the stories in 1983 . Always struck a chord with me .Would like to watch them again .
Quote:
The 'Time Plays' are a series of dramas written by British author J. B. Priestley written during the 1930s and 40s. They are so called because each plays with a different concept of time. In each play an alternative theory of time becomes the central metaphor or theatrical device of the play, the characters' lives being affected by how they react to the unusual temporal landscape they encounter.

The Time Plays are usually thought of as including Dangerous Corner, in which a group of characters' dark secrets are wiped out when the play returns to the beginning at the fall of the curtain; Time and the Conways, which explores J. W. Dunne's theory of simultaneous time expounded in the book An Experiment with Time; I Have Been Here Before, which is inspired by P. D. Ouspensky's theory of eternal recurrence from A New Model of the Universe; Johnson Over Jordan, in which a man encounters a series of trials in the afterlife and, most famously, An Inspector Calls in which a family undergo a police investigation into a suicide they discover has not happened yet.

Of all the theories of time employed in the plays Priestley professed only to believe in one: that of J. W. Dunne. Although still popular with audiences and although many still undergo revivals regularly in the UK, critical opinion remains divided about their literary worth and the validity, or not, of the use of the time theories as theatrical devices,
Time and the conways was one of the plays , might be worth checking the book by J.W. Dunne as well considering the palys were written in the 30's and 40's .A strange transitional time i feel .Perhaps as the OP stated a point were we made a choice between war and peace
Quote:
The play emerged out of Priestley's reading of J. W. Dunne's book An Experiment with Time in which Dunne posits that all Time is happening simultaneously; i.e., that past, present, future are one and that linear Time is only the way in which human consciousness is able to perceive this.

Priestley uses the idea to show how human beings experience loss, failure and the death of their dreams but also how, if they could experience reality in its transcendent nature, they might find a way out. The idea is not dissimilar to that presented by Mysticism and Religion that if human beings could understand the transcendent nature of their existence the need for greed and conflict would come to an end.
__________________
Tell the Truth and Shame The Devil
we are the ones we have been waiting for
100 monkeys cant be wrong
2013 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-05-2009, 11:39 PM   #23
measle_weasel
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 8,804
Likes: 2 (2 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mephibosheth View Post
Meaning isn't causality. Meaning isn't purpose either.

Meaning is a relationship between a concept and a symbol. It is a form of representation that transfers information.

Every existing thing exhausts itself in its existing; that is, it does not 'represent' something else that it isn't. Hence, there is no meaning in mere existence. Meaning has to be imposed by a being that creates a connection between things (or concepts of things).

A cause imparts meaning to whatever effect it has as long as there was an intent behind the original action that led up to the current effect. A purpose, based on an intent, to do something arises before any action is taken, before anything causes an effect, and if something has a purpose, it has meaning. Thus its very easy to see how intrinsic meaning can be placed on existence, if you consider the possibility that there was an intent behind the structure of all that we know and think is possible, ie, existence. Although, if someone was coming from a materialistic point of view, and believed only what is readily observable and imaginable to be possible, I can see how someone could think that meaning can only have extrinsic value. Seems like quite a limiting and narrow philosophy, to me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mephibosheth View Post
All meaning IS placed on things 'after' they exist by beings that already exist.
If such is not an assumption, and is an absolute fact as you seem to be implying, then please, put forth an irrefutable argument that totally dismisses any and all possibility that meaning might arise before some thing comes into existence.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mephibosheth View Post
Meaning only exists in the minds of semiotic beings.
Again, an assumption spoken as fact that can never be proven.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mephibosheth View Post
But that is not related to whether 'all things are subjective'. Meaning is subjective.
Meaning and subjectivity are quite related. Meaning applied after something is created, extrinsic meaning, is subjective. Meaning that is applied prior to somethings creation, intrinsic meaning, is not. Both are also very closely related to intent and purpose.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mephibosheth View Post
It's the position of the OP and the many-worlds metaphysics. That's the power of the model--that all possible worlds exist simultaneously, and not 'in serial' or stretched out in time, as time does not apply to the complete body of possible worlds (ie, of possibility itself) but only to particular manifestations of individual worlds (ie, timespace is a fundamental parameter that defines a particular world).
Youre right, it is the position of the OP and others. That does not stop it from being a monumental assumption upon which vast arguments, which are inherently flawed due to their foundation being an assumption, have been built. Unfortunately, those who put all their faith in such an assumption dont seem to realize, or simply go into denial about, that thats all their belief is; an assumption based on a model of reality that MIGHT be correct, but more likely is just another flawed attempt to cram the infinite into a nice and tidy, finite box, so it will become more palatable for the finite minds who are incapable of accepting that there are some things that cannot be understood, and are inherently unknowable... such as the infinite.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mephibosheth View Post
'Nothing has meaning' and 'all meanings are fully expressed' are equivalent. If all meanings are expressed then no one meaning has priority, and hence, all meanings are equal; this is equivalent to there being no meanings at all. FUll or empty, it doesn't make any difference.
All meaning can never be fully "expressed", as if it were, all things would be known. Though there is no "all" in something that is infinitely large, as an "all" implies a totality, something an infinitely large object does not have, as if it did, it would be finite. This is only, of course, if you believe in an infinitely large reality and beyond. If you believe in a finite reality that just loops around on itself endlessly, then indeed, existence would be meaningless. What a depressing model of reality.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mephibosheth View Post
But it isn't a matter of you choosing. That's just how things are.
Again, based on a materialistic, deterministic, and nihilistic model of reality, yes, that might be how things are.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mephibosheth View Post
Semiotic beings impose meaning on the world. There is no 'inherent meaning' in anything. The very concept is non-sensical
Something is usually only "non-sensical" to someone if that something goes against what they already believe to be undeniably true, and are unwilling to consider that their own current hypothesis might be incorrect, or incomplete, probably out of the fear of having to face that they were wrong, for whatever reason people fear being wrong. Probably an ego thing.
__________________
"Words have the power to both destroy, and heal. When words are both true and kind, they can change our world" -Buddha
"There is no way to peace. Peace is the way" -Gandhi

Everyone knows the world is full of stupid people

Knowledge, what is it? Do you have it?
measle_weasel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-05-2009, 01:45 AM   #24
mephibosheth
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Road to God's Eternal Palace
Posts: 1,268
Likes: 2 (1 Post)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by measle_weasel View Post
Something is usually only "non-sensical" to someone if that something goes against what they already believe to be undeniably true, and are unwilling to consider that their own current hypothesis might be incorrect, or incomplete, probably out of the fear of having to face that they were wrong, for whatever reason people fear being wrong.
Well, in this case, I mean 'nonsensical' to indicate that the idea of 'inherent meaning' or value is vacuous. There is no meaning to the concept of inherent meaning. At best it is a trivial relationship, like identity. But I'll see if I can flesh that out a bit more after looking at your last post in more detail.

8)
__________________

"Say NO to the Police Consciousness"


Overgrow the government

Not NAU, not EVER!
mephibosheth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-05-2009, 02:06 AM   #25
measle_weasel
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 8,804
Likes: 2 (2 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mephibosheth View Post
Well, in this case, I mean 'nonsensical' to indicate that the idea of 'inherent meaning' or value is vacuous. There is no meaning to the concept of inherent meaning. At best it is a trivial relationship, like identity. But I'll see if I can flesh that out a bit more after looking at your last post in more detail.
Just because you cant see what the meaning might be, does not mean that it has none. You cant see over the horizon, but you dont assume that there is nothing over it, do you?
__________________
"Words have the power to both destroy, and heal. When words are both true and kind, they can change our world" -Buddha
"There is no way to peace. Peace is the way" -Gandhi

Everyone knows the world is full of stupid people

Knowledge, what is it? Do you have it?
measle_weasel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-05-2009, 02:34 AM   #26
mephibosheth
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Road to God's Eternal Palace
Posts: 1,268
Likes: 2 (1 Post)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by measle_weasel View Post
A cause imparts meaning to whatever effect it has as long as there was an intent behind the original action that led up to the current effect.
This falls apart as soon as you choose a frame of reference.

Meaning is not and cannot be, absolute. Even though I intend to sink the 8-ball with my shot, the meaning of the event of the 8-ball dropping in the pocket is different for each and every individual agent that perceives it (and nothing at all for the 8-ball itself).

The meaning of the event is always something added to the event in retrospect. It is an interpretation of the event. When do people ask 'what does it mean??' Only after they experience something. And then they go back, review the experience, and attribute meaning to it according to whatever standard of value (frame of reference) they wish to adopt at the time.

Consider art. An artist may have an 'intent' in creating a sculpture, but that intent does not and cannot affix itself to the ontological reality of the sculpture. That intent isn't a part of the essence of the created thing, which exists indepedently of the artist. As soon as another person comes along and interprets the sculpture in their own unique way, that intent is dissolved. And there is no grounds for asserting that only the artist's intent, and hence, meaning, is the 'correct' one.



Quote:
Originally Posted by measle_weasel View Post
A purpose, based on an intent, to do something arises before any action is taken, before anything causes an effect, and if something has a purpose, it has meaning.
To project a purpose is to give meaning to a series of actions. Sure. But that only works in relation to that purpose, and hence, in relation to the agent that proposes that purpose. The meaning of the same series of actions in relation to some other agent or the world at large is not necessarily the same.

It's all about managing multiple perspectives and frames of reference. Meaning is inherently subjective. We can share meanings, of course, if we choose to agree on the same frame of reference and standard of meaning-attribution. But there is no intrinsic meaning to any series of events outside of such an attribution by a semiotic agent.



Quote:
Originally Posted by measle_weasel View Post
Thus its very easy to see how intrinsic meaning can be placed on existence, if you consider the possibility that there was an intent behind the structure of all that we know and think is possible, ie, existence.
To postulate that 'all we know' has meaning is to postulate that there is one final and absolute frame of reference, and hence, one agency that attributes meaning to 'all we know' that is not opposed by any other agency, including our own.

The fact that there is no absolute frame of reference seems to be a fact of physics.

Moreover, even if we accept an absolute frame of reference, that still does not give events 'instrinsic meaning'. Meaning requires an agency to attribute it. Events that occur outside either the perception (and interpretation) or volition of an agency cannot be said to have any meaning. Quite simply, 'meaning' cannot exist in and of itself.

And as far as assumptions go, assuming that there is a final frame of reference that defines an absolute agency that atttributes meaning fully to each and every particle of existence is a rather spectacular one.



Quote:
Originally Posted by measle_weasel View Post
If such is not an assumption, and is an absolute fact as you seem to be implying, then please, put forth an irrefutable argument that totally dismisses any and all possibility that meaning might arise before some thing comes into existence.
If we create meaning for an event before it happens, that meaning is only relevant in the mind of the being that creates it.

I will concede, however, that we can attribute meaning to non-existent outcomes. This is something we do all the time, when making plans and imagining options.



Quote:
Originally Posted by measle_weasel View Post
Again, [that meaning only exists in the minds of semiotic beings is] an assumption spoken as fact that can never be proven.
It is easy to demonstrate if you understand what meaning is and how it works. It requires an agent that is putting itself in a relationship to some series of events or objects. Outside of the mind of such an agent the concept of 'meaning' loses all coherency. What does 'meaning' mean without reference to a semiotic (meaning-creating) agent? Nothing.



Quote:
Originally Posted by measle_weasel View Post
Meaning and subjectivity are quite related. Meaning applied after something is created, extrinsic meaning, is subjective. Meaning that is applied prior to somethings creation, intrinsic meaning, is not. Both are also very closely related to intent and purpose.
Applying meaning before or after a thing happens is what you are calling 'extrinsic' meaning attribution. They are not different at all as far as the process of assigning meaning goes.

To have 'intrinsic meaning' requires that an event or object posseses meaning objectively outside the frame of reference of any particular semiotic agent. It requires meaning to inhere in the thing in and of itself. But again, this actually doesn't make any sense. Meaning is a relationship. A thing in-itself isn't part of a relationship, since it is considered as it is in-itself.

'The sun exploded.'

In itself, such an event has absolutely no meaning.

But to beings that might be affected, it could have any number of possible meanings. And all of them will be valid, as they all reflect interpretations of the event, the fact of the sun exploding.



Quote:
Originally Posted by measle_weasel View Post
those who put all their faith in such an assumption dont seem to realize, or simply go into denial about, that thats all their belief is; an assumption based on a model of reality that MIGHT be correct, but more likely is just another flawed attempt to cram the infinite into a nice and tidy, finite box, so it will become more palatable for the finite minds who are incapable of accepting that there are some things that cannot be understood, and are inherently unknowable
If that's the case, then so is assuming the opposite--that there is some absolute frame of reference that absolutely imparts meaning to each and every particle in existence. Another attempt to cram reality into a nice neat little box, perhaps?



Quote:
Originally Posted by measle_weasel View Post
Though there is no "all" in something that is infinitely large, as an "all" implies a totality, something an infinitely large object does not have, as if it did, it would be finite.
No, an infinite thing is the only true totality, because it cannot be bounded by anything, and hence, is not dependent on any other thing. The infinite is the Absolute, a perfect singularity.



Quote:
Originally Posted by measle_weasel View Post
This is only, of course, if you believe in an infinitely large reality and beyond. If you believe in a finite reality that just loops around on itself endlessly, then indeed, existence would be meaningless. What a depressing model of reality.
I don't see any meaning in an 'infinte' reality that continues indefinitely with no beginning and no end either. By definition such a reality cannot have any meaning at all, because it represents a series of events that is never complete. Only in a finite, repeating and completing series of events might you find a determinate meaning uniting all events, i.e. a teleological structure. But again, that depends on the large assumption that there is an absolute frame of reference.



Quote:
Originally Posted by measle_weasel
Just because you cant see what the meaning might be, does not mean that it has none.
I covered the answer to this above--there is no absolute frame of reference that can establish one single 'correct' meaning for any given event or object.

At the very least, it is incumbent on anyone who wishes to defend that position to demonstrate that there is and can be such an absolute frame of reference. And again, even if that is established, intrinsic meaning is still nonsensical.

8)
__________________

"Say NO to the Police Consciousness"


Overgrow the government

Not NAU, not EVER!
mephibosheth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-05-2009, 03:49 AM   #27
measle_weasel
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 8,804
Likes: 2 (2 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mephibosheth View Post
This falls apart as soon as you choose a frame of reference.

Meaning is not and cannot be, absolute. Even though I intend to sink the 8-ball with my shot, the meaning of the event of the 8-ball dropping in the pocket is different for each and every individual agent that perceives it (and nothing at all for the 8-ball itself).

The meaning of the event is always something added to the event in retrospect. It is an interpretation of the event. When do people ask 'what does it mean??' Only after they experience something. And then they go back, review the experience, and attribute meaning to it according to whatever standard of value (frame of reference) they wish to adopt at the time.

Consider art. An artist may have an 'intent' in creating a sculpture, but that intent does not and cannot affix itself to the ontological reality of the sculpture. That intent isn't a part of the essence of the created thing, which exists indepedently of the artist. As soon as another person comes along and interprets the sculpture in their own unique way, that intent is dissolved. And there is no grounds for asserting that only the artist's intent, and hence, meaning, is the 'correct' one.

To project a purpose is to give meaning to a series of actions. Sure. But that only works in relation to that purpose, and hence, in relation to the agent that proposes that purpose. The meaning of the same series of actions in relation to some other agent or the world at large is not necessarily the same.

It's all about managing multiple perspectives and frames of reference. Meaning is inherently subjective. We can share meanings, of course, if we choose to agree on the same frame of reference and standard of meaning-attribution. But there is no intrinsic meaning to any series of events outside of such an attribution by a semiotic agent.

To postulate that 'all we know' has meaning is to postulate that there is one final and absolute frame of reference, and hence, one agency that attributes meaning to 'all we know' that is not opposed by any other agency, including our own.

The fact that there is no absolute frame of reference seems to be a fact of physics.

Moreover, even if we accept an absolute frame of reference, that still does not give events 'instrinsic meaning'. Meaning requires an agency to attribute it. Events that occur outside either the perception (and interpretation) or volition of an agency cannot be said to have any meaning. Quite simply, 'meaning' cannot exist in and of itself.

And as far as assumptions go, assuming that there is a final frame of reference that defines an absolute agency that atttributes meaning fully to each and every particle of existence is a rather spectacular one.

If we create meaning for an event before it happens, that meaning is only relevant in the mind of the being that creates it.

I will concede, however, that we can attribute meaning to non-existent outcomes. This is something we do all the time, when making plans and imagining options.

It is easy to demonstrate if you understand what meaning is and how it works. It requires an agent that is putting itself in a relationship to some series of events or objects. Outside of the mind of such an agent the concept of 'meaning' loses all coherency. What does 'meaning' mean without reference to a semiotic (meaning-creating) agent? Nothing.

Applying meaning before or after a thing happens is what you are calling 'extrinsic' meaning attribution. They are not different at all as far as the process of assigning meaning goes.

To have 'intrinsic meaning' requires that an event or object posseses meaning objectively outside the frame of reference of any particular semiotic agent. It requires meaning to inhere in the thing in and of itself. But again, this actually doesn't make any sense. Meaning is a relationship. A thing in-itself isn't part of a relationship, since it is considered as it is in-itself.

'The sun exploded.'

In itself, such an event has absolutely no meaning.

But to beings that might be affected, it could have any number of possible meanings. And all of them will be valid, as they all reflect interpretations of the event, the fact of the sun exploding.

If that's the case, then so is assuming the opposite--that there is some absolute frame of reference that absolutely imparts meaning to each and every particle in existence. Another attempt to cram reality into a nice neat little box, perhaps?
After some confusion, I believe that we are not on the same page regarding what "meaning" is defined as. I seem to be using "meaning" as equivalent to "the purpose of", and you seem to be using "meaning" as equivalent to "the significance of". If thats the case, then things make a lot more sense now. I dont see anything to disagree with in the above quote, if you considered "meaning" to mean significance, as I suspect you did.

The significance of something is probably always subjective. I cant think of something that would have the same significance to all people who experienced it. Though the purpose of something, which is what I think I was generally thinking of when I said "meaning", I believe can be both intrinsic/inherent, and extrinsic/acquired. Such as a screw driver... its intrinsic purpose is to tighten screws... but it can also have the extrinsic purpose of stabbing someone in prison, even though it was not made specifically for that.
__________________
"Words have the power to both destroy, and heal. When words are both true and kind, they can change our world" -Buddha
"There is no way to peace. Peace is the way" -Gandhi

Everyone knows the world is full of stupid people

Knowledge, what is it? Do you have it?

Last edited by measle_weasel; 14-05-2009 at 04:00 AM.
measle_weasel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-05-2009, 04:15 AM   #28
measle_weasel
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 8,804
Likes: 2 (2 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mephibosheth View Post
No, an infinite thing is the only true totality, because it cannot be bounded by anything, and hence, is not dependent on any other thing. The infinite is the Absolute, a perfect singularity.
Well I disagree, but the case I make in the quote this quote is in reference too, is pretty much my whole argument. I still think it is profound and sound, though short and to the point.

A totality implies something is countable; has a sum total. But as you say, the infinitely large is unbounded. Without being bound, how could it have a totality? Something that is unending has no sum total. If it did have a total, it would have to at some point end, thus making it finite.
__________________
"Words have the power to both destroy, and heal. When words are both true and kind, they can change our world" -Buddha
"There is no way to peace. Peace is the way" -Gandhi

Everyone knows the world is full of stupid people

Knowledge, what is it? Do you have it?
measle_weasel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-05-2009, 06:50 PM   #29
mephibosheth
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Road to God's Eternal Palace
Posts: 1,268
Likes: 2 (1 Post)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by measle_weasel View Post
The significance of something is probably always subjective. I cant think of something that would have the same significance to all people who experienced it. Though the purpose of something, which is what I think I was generally thinking of when I said "meaning", I believe can be both intrinsic/inherent, and extrinsic/acquired. Such as a screw driver... its intrinsic purpose is to tighten screws... but it can also have the extrinsic purpose of stabbing someone in prison, even though it was not made specifically for that.
Purpose still requires a frame of reference to make sense of it.

If you regard the screwdriver in-itself, there is no purpose to be found in it. It is nothing more than metal and plastic shaped in a certain way. The intent of the creator of the tool is not imparted to the essence of the tool once it exists. It isn't part of it's ontological make-up, as it were.

To give it purpose, to make it a tool and not just a finely shaped bit of metal, requires an agency that is external to the screwdriver, who manipulates it in some way to achieve a goal that the agency projects for itself.

Just as with signification, there is no absolute purpose for any object. As your own example shows, the screwdriver can be employed to many diverse purposes, each defined by the agent that weilds the screwdriver purposefully.

Again, consider art. Art is another product of human ingenuity, like the screwdriver. And often the work of art might be intended to have a purpose or is created for a specific purpose. But as soon as it is loosed on the world, it frees itself of the purpose and presents itself as a bare facticity for conative agents to use or not use according to their own purposes.

To have an intrinsic purpose would mean that the object has a purpose in and of itself. But this doesn't make any sense, especially if we are talking about tools created by human beings. The cause of the creation of the tool may have been the satisfaction of some purpose in the mind of its creator, but that purpose is fulfilled upon the creation and use of the tool by the creator. It is not stamped on the tool itself, which now exists independently of the creator--and his original intentions.

Another way of putting it is that objects only have purposes attached to them insofar as they are being actively used by some conative agent in a particular way.

So to suggest that reality itself has a purpose, it is necessary to show that all of reality is actively being manipulated to accomplish some specific end, and that there is only one agency that is actively creating and maintaining reality in relation to that end.


Quote:
Originally Posted by measle_weasel View Post
A totality implies something is countable; has a sum total. But as you say, the infinitely large is unbounded. Without being bound, how could it have a totality? Something that is unending has no sum total. If it did have a total, it would have to at some point end, thus making it finite.
'Totality' to mean 'whole' here. An infinite series is a complete unit, a perfect whole, for the reasons I listed above. It is an absolute that one cannot escape from nor oppose to anything else. Because the series is unending, the forward motion of 'counting' each portion thereof is equivalent to a state of absolute rest, in which only one thing exists.

Infinite time and the infinite present are the same thing. Thus, the Absolute is a whole. No finite thing within reality is a true whole because no finite thing in reality has an independent existence from reality. Each thing is connected to every other thing through a chain of causes, and no thing arises spontaneously. All the more so if we take the multiple worlds view, where every possible thing already exists, and thus, not only is every existing thing in this world connected, but also every possible world is also similarly connected, as there wouldn't be Possible World B' without Possible World B.

So each finite thing is a mere part--a part of the true whole, which is the totality of Reality (the sum of all possible parts). The number of its parts cannot be counted, so we call it infinite. But since it is infinite in this sense, it admits of no penetration of any other existence, because it contains all possibles. Thus it is perfectly isolated and independent, a true Unit.

8)
__________________

"Say NO to the Police Consciousness"


Overgrow the government

Not NAU, not EVER!
mephibosheth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-05-2009, 06:52 PM   #30
mephibosheth
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Road to God's Eternal Palace
Posts: 1,268
Likes: 2 (1 Post)
Default

Reality is the hole in the middle of a zer0.
__________________

"Say NO to the Police Consciousness"


Overgrow the government

Not NAU, not EVER!
mephibosheth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-05-2009, 01:32 AM   #31
measle_weasel
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 8,804
Likes: 2 (2 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mephibosheth View Post
Purpose still requires a frame of reference to make sense of it.

If you regard the screwdriver in-itself, there is no purpose to be found in it. It is nothing more than metal and plastic shaped in a certain way. The intent of the creator of the tool is not imparted to the essence of the tool once it exists. It isn't part of it's ontological make-up, as it were.

To give it purpose, to make it a tool and not just a finely shaped bit of metal, requires an agency that is external to the screwdriver, who manipulates it in some way to achieve a goal that the agency projects for itself.

Just as with signification, there is no absolute purpose for any object. As your own example shows, the screwdriver can be employed to many diverse purposes, each defined by the agent that weilds the screwdriver purposefully.

Again, consider art. Art is another product of human ingenuity, like the screwdriver. And often the work of art might be intended to have a purpose or is created for a specific purpose. But as soon as it is loosed on the world, it frees itself of the purpose and presents itself as a bare facticity for conative agents to use or not use according to their own purposes.

To have an intrinsic purpose would mean that the object has a purpose in and of itself. But this doesn't make any sense, especially if we are talking about tools created by human beings. The cause of the creation of the tool may have been the satisfaction of some purpose in the mind of its creator, but that purpose is fulfilled upon the creation and use of the tool by the creator. It is not stamped on the tool itself, which now exists independently of the creator--and his original intentions.
Thats your way of looking at it, and your particular definition of intrinsic purpose. My definition of an intrinsic purpose, is the original intended purpose for the object in question. That intrinsic purpose is not changed by someone else using the object in a different way, but an extrinsic purpose is attached to it, in which might presist, or might not. Regardless though, all things created with intent have an original purpose.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mephibosheth View Post
Another way of putting it is that objects only have purposes attached to them insofar as they are being actively used by some conative agent in a particular way.
Again, thats one way to look at it. But I look at somethings inherent purpose being presistant.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mephibosheth View Post
So to suggest that reality itself has a purpose, it is necessary to show that all of reality is actively being manipulated to accomplish some specific end, and that there is only one agency that is actively creating and maintaining reality in relation to that end.
No, to suggest only requires an idea and some creative thinking. To prove such a thing might require what youve said. Though Im not claiming my ideas are absolute truths, I only posit them as possibilities, which you can accept, or reject. Though saying that something suggested is absolutely impossible, that requires you to prove such, otherwise its just an opinion thats falsely stated as fact.


Quote:
Originally Posted by mephibosheth View Post
'Totality' to mean 'whole' here. An infinite series is a complete unit, a perfect whole, for the reasons I listed above. It is an absolute that one cannot escape from nor oppose to anything else. because the series is unending, the forward motion of 'counting' each portion thereof is equivalent to a state of absolute rest, in which only one thing exists.

Infinite time and the infinite present are the same thing. Thus, the Absolute is a whole. No finite thing within reality is a true whole because no finite thing in reality has an independent existence from reality. Each thing is connected to every other thing through a chain of causes, and no thing arises spontaneously. All the more so if we take the multiple worlds view, where every possible thing already exists, and thus, not only is every existing thing in this world connected, but also every possible world is also similarly connected, as there wouldn't be Possible World B' without Possible World B.

So each finite thing is a mere part--a part of the true whole, which is the totality of Reality (the sum of all possible parts). The number of its parts cannot be counted, so we call it infinite. But since it is infinite in this sense, it admits of no penetration of any other existence, because it contains all possibles. Thus it is perfectly isolated and independent, a true Unit.
My point is that there is no "whole", "totality", "all", "complete unit", etc, in an infinitely large object. All attempts at defining something infinitely large, always compress the true concept into something more palatable for the finite mind. We, with finite minds, cannot really understand such a thing, and to the normal person, such a concept is uncomfortable, as it just doesnt compute beyond a certain point, if at all. Its truly a breakthrough when someone does begin to understand the vague concept that reality has no "whole", because it is greater than any "whole", both in a physical and numerical sense, and in a spiritual sense.

Im not sure I can adaquately explain this concept to a materialist, though. By nature, a materialist automatically rejects anything that has no certain link to it; anything that seems like a nebulous idea that cannot readily be proven by empirical means. Nothing I say will be perfect; full proof. No argument ever is, especially when word mincing comes into play, as I can see it most likely will over what the word "whole" means, and why it should mean what it does.

Any concept that is infinite, can only be done justice by an equally interminable "definition" (I put that in quotes, because to define is to limit, something in which the unlimited cannot be). "All", "whole", whatever word that expresses an "everything", is obsolete terminology when dealing with infinitely large concepts. Only finite things and the infinitely small has a totality, such as the total ammount of fractional numbers inbetween 1 and 2. Though the infinitely large, I maintain, has no totality, because it is beyond such inherently finite concepts.
__________________
"Words have the power to both destroy, and heal. When words are both true and kind, they can change our world" -Buddha
"There is no way to peace. Peace is the way" -Gandhi

Everyone knows the world is full of stupid people

Knowledge, what is it? Do you have it?
measle_weasel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-05-2009, 01:37 AM   #32
measle_weasel
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 8,804
Likes: 2 (2 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mephibosheth View Post
Reality is the hole in the middle of a zer0.
And whats beyond the boundries of the zero? The area within that 0 may in fact have unlimited possibility (no smallest unit of distance between two points), thus being infinite in the sense of the small, but it is obviously bounded, making it of finite material, and not infinite in the sense of scale (which would require that there be no largest unit of distance).
__________________
"Words have the power to both destroy, and heal. When words are both true and kind, they can change our world" -Buddha
"There is no way to peace. Peace is the way" -Gandhi

Everyone knows the world is full of stupid people

Knowledge, what is it? Do you have it?
measle_weasel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-08-2010, 04:56 PM   #33
gm991
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 2
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Wow, this thread changed my entire worldview and personal belief system.

gm991 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-08-2010, 06:18 PM   #34
guuna
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Kent. UK
Posts: 5,710
Likes: 1 (1 Post)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by squiffel View Post
In this short thread. I will attempt to explain true reincarnation and the nature of the universe.


You may have seen this Symbol. It is a Dragon eating his own Tail. It is the ancient symbol for time. It represents Infinite time, where time begins, ends, and continues all at the same point.

What we live in, is named Infinite time. Meaning that time has already begun, finished and continued down every path. Every possible scenario that could be carried out in time, has already done so. Every possible dimension that could exist, has already existed and is currently in existence. All at the same moment.

The time in which we are experiencing at this present moment, has already been concluded, in every possible direction that it could occur. In one dimension, we all die of a nuclear world war III, in another we all live prosporous lives and man kind reaches out into the stars after conquering human suffering. It has already happened, and it will happen again.

We do not have the power to alter or change time, our brains only offer us the opportunity to chose the destiny that we witness. We pick and chose every moment, which dimension we head down in our finite lives. Bare in mind, that you are not altering the universe in anyway, you are not changing what will occur, you are merely chosing between the events you wish to witness in this life. Because every senario has has a different ending, and every moment leads to a different dimension. You will go through this life again, following a different path, and a different ending. Infact you will do this same tedious shit for eternity, and forget you were here each time you arrive back, because time is infinite and the soul is eternal.

Time is infinite and always repeating, as so, our lives are infinite and always repeating. Death is an illusion of the linearity of time travel, but in our universe, such linearitys do not exisit, and therefore death does not exisit other then in the constructs of our mind. That being said, dont rush to die :-P Who knows, time might actually be finite. Haha

By Lyndon Nadel
I'd love to skip this mucky bit i'm in now and transcend to an alternate reality where i'm a wealthy jet-setting playboy.
__________________
Everything will be OK in the end. If it aint OK, it aint the end.
guuna is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-08-2010, 06:28 AM   #35
energi
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 3,528
Likes: 1 (1 Post)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by logic unfolded View Post
For a long time I've believed that we are all one. and this one, or 'all that is' is choosing to fragment its consciousness, in order to experience all that is to be experienced. This makes sense from if you view the universe as a sort of galactic computer. If there was a beginning, and you found you were self aware, what would you do to pass the time? you'd want to learn, to develop, to evolve and of course create. So we are fractured parts of 'all that is', experiencing itself and all there is. We, like the universe are evolving and creating. I believe all there is consciousness, and consciousness forms our psychical reality. That is what I've always thought from a young age...

I also believe in reincarnation, multiple dimensions, time being an illusion, and life after death (which I believe is reconnecting to the source or 'all that is'.

The earth is a school and we are all pupils. And there are likely many other schools in the universe which their own form of psychical pupils at different stages of progression. Some more advanced some less advanced than us...

Anyone believe anything similar? Is there a religion my beliefs most closely relate to? What if anything could I all myself? Apart from part of all that is, that's chosen to forget its true eternal validity, and part of the whole, while spending time here on earth! :P
Yup..

But why can't we do physical magic or think away walls? I'm perfectly aware of my fake surroundings and the fact that the walls in my house are nothing but slowly vibrating atoms (found in different materials, thus we have layers vibrating at various speeds). I can ingest some hallucinogenic adrug and SEE them disappear or change shape - but they still don't phase out to the point where I can walk through them.

Since consciousness creates/forms/dictates reality, one should be able to walk through a wall if being conscious of it all. Right?
energi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-08-2010, 04:10 PM   #36
energi
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 3,528
Likes: 1 (1 Post)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by torus View Post
Give Stuart Wilde's latest offering "Grace, Gaia, and the End of Days" a read.
Gonna check that one out
energi is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 09:05 PM.


Shoutbox provided by vBShout (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.