Being, cause, experience & Change


new

Basically this just defines some relationships
which we know can obtain.   It says that
  1. A being can cause a change
  2. A being can experience a change
  3. A being can experience, a beign causing a change.
I am sure  we can find ample examples of those  three  3 things.
.
.

.
.
.
This should be recognized
as a application
of the relatonships above.

In the domain of #change, (sequence same thing)
the relationship between subject and object
can be called #controls
or it can just as easily be called #causes
or #vibrates
or …

In the domain of #thought and #information,
the relationship between subject and object
is frequently called #informs
or …

In any case my #conjecture  is …
 

The relationship between subject and object is not #manifested,
unless or until it is #recognized by an #observer.

seth
… or in other words,  the relationship is not completed until it is recognized by an observer

… or in other words,  #IdoNotThink  an #observer can honestly #think a relationship #exists
… er, until he observes it.

tag #subject #object #awareness 

Comments



Notice my last bolded statement is #necessarily true null

it is interesting to consider the special case where the #observer is the #subject 

What is the fear of being controlled called?


Conversation forked to thought 23994

good question … see fork for answer.

Just because you write things in the form that you do not mean the properties/specs are associative xor commutative xor transitivenull


neither.  

in the case here {B experiences→ causes→ Change}
does not imply that
{B causes→ experiences→ Change}
or any other such implication.

But if you notice such a associateve or  commutative or transitive relationship obtaining  … please let me know … for that would be a discovery.


arrow going to the shaft of another arrow makes no sense normally – you have an and meaning ? you have 
experiences-causes undefined – assuming SVO ontology

well relationships are just as tangable  thingeys as are thineys themsleves … so recognizing that they can themself be objects of a relationship follows directly and makes perfect sense.  My example above is one such case.  Do you need more ? … the examples are vast and undeniable.

A person can certainly experience another person causing a change.   You moved your coffee cup to your mouth … you caused that change … i watched you do it … i experienced you causing a change.

It is really that simple. 


Hence NOT SVO.  Everything is an object like pebbles on a beach. Anyway munging verbs and nouns together not my thingy.  A relationship is not much of a distinction anyway – no action.

well physical objects are not the only kind of thingey that can be the object of a SVO relationship.  Any thingey at all can the the subject and the object of such.  And since relationships themselves are thingeys, they are just as good as any other.   Nons and verbs are parts of spech.  Usually speach represents relationships.   But there is no unbreakable corrolation between a corpula of a relationship and a verb in speach. 

In this case i represented all actions in one symbol and called it “change” … so that we can study how changes are related to other things like causes and beings and their experiences.


Warm & fuzzy munged altogether .  
Fuzzy-wuzzy was a bear.
Fuzzy-wuzzy had no hair.
Fuzzy-wuzzy wasn’t fuzzy
Was he?
(*) describes my feelings on what you represented null
xor 

You take yourself too seriously – #ShoveItUpYourAss