Maybe

About: from facebook Sciencefact


Tags

  1. physicist
  2. funeral

Comments


Mark de LA says
Also from same source:


Mark de LA says
One thought that occurred one day was that the atoms & molecules of a body continuously excange with the environment & that atoms which once were part of Adolf Hitler, Mao Tse Dung, Joseph Stalin or maybe Jeffrey Dahmer might be resident in our bodies now.


Mark de LA says
seth 2012-11-28 10:00:34 16313
Sounds to me that Aaron Freeman doesn't understand the process of emergence nor that there is a grand difference between the inside of otherness and it's outside.  So it is easy to mock.  Not my favorite kind of thought.
You will need to explain what you mean by emergence. I suspect that Freeman's stuff is comfort for people who have no religious foundation.


Mark de LA says
seth 2012-11-28 10:15:19 16313
I agree with Frantz Fanon ... that was the kind of thing i was talking about in Paradox and Ogtherness.  When my mind meets a contradiction then it will cause me stress, he calls it "cognitive dissonance", which is a term that has been going around for several decades.  Same thing happens with communication between me and you, and i presume you and the rest of the world.  I always look at my internal thought processes as just about the same kind of thing that goes on in the external conversations in our culture ... shades, of course, of the Leviathan.
Just 2 or more beliefs colliding in my book.



Mark de LA says
Did you retract something Seth?  I tried to edit a reply but it disappeared & the system seemed to go haywire?


Mark de LA says
seth 2012-11-28 11:24:53 16313
M 2012-11-28 11:20:59 16313
Did you retract something Seth?  I tried to edit a reply but it disappeared & the system seemed to go haywire?

i was editing my description of emergence, which you had asked about.  try to back up in your browser to recapture it, otherwise it is lost to the bit bucket.
Well, it went to the bitbucket after I read it.  The emergence thingy didn't compute in any universe I have access to.  OTOH, the idea of a mock had some cognitive dissonance to play with. I see three points-of-view on that.  A person who was purely materialistic & not religious - perhaps an atheist would probably find some comfort in Freeman's ideas. A person who was just anti-religious would probably find it mocking.  A person who was religious would probably find it amusing even funny. Your mileage might even find another place to go & point-your-view.
It is all just an amusing tempest peeing in a pisspot for me:


Seth says
seth 2012-11-28 11:24:53 16313
M 2012-11-28 11:20:59 16313
Did you retract something Seth?  I tried to edit a reply but it disappeared & the system seemed to go haywire?

i was editing my description of emergence, which you had asked about.  try to back up in your browser to recapture it, otherwise it is lost to the bit bucket.


Ok ... found it in my clipboard ...

source: my explanagtion of how emergence relates in this context

Emergence in this context has to do with something of value to a particular view emerging in a different plane from a substrata of processes which have no value in that plane.   The usual example of this in mathematics is gliders which emerge from a simple set of rules in Conway's Game of Life.



Mark de LA says
seth 2012-11-28 13:03:24 16313
M 2012-11-28 12:52:26 16313
seth 2012-11-28 12:24:36 16313
M 2012-11-28 11:43:52 16313
M 2012-11-28 11:42:58 16313
source: ...
Seth: my explanation of how emergence relates in this context

Emergence in this context has to do with something of value to a particular view emerging in a different plane from a substrata of processes which have no value in that plane.   The usual example of this in mathematics is gliders which emerge from a simple set of rules in Conway's Game of Life.
... this reminds me of an old ontology statement that the Forum leaders put out to open up something from nothing possibility space discussions.
LEC: ... I invite you consider the possibility of that which is unrecognizable to be related to, the occurring of which , if ever, is only on the other side of that which is recognizable to be related to.
... (to grok being, I think)


 
Well i guess you know there is no sense to that ... at least none that i can tell.  Yet there is sense to the concept of emergence.  So, my take-away from this is that rather than understand emergence, you prefer to mock it.  Which is kewl with me ... i'd rather not delve back into all that now either.  I was just trying to go with Freeman's absurdity and find the bug in it .
Well that is just the point!  There is no sense in what you said nor any relationship to the topic that I can guess & yet I understand what the LEC statement was & means; your continued shoulder chip about mocking notwithstanding.


... well ok then, now that you give me a bit more context ... (err i had originally though you were just quoting an example of gibberish) ... i can grock the LOC quote ... and even, lol, use it against you.   Emergence, you see, is just such a thing that is unrecognizable to you and perchance is on the other side of what this item is related to. 
Well, you are not near the meaning of the statement - perhaps only the syntax of the sentence. The message is about the word being we have been kicking around in the BofNK context. If you cognize something you don't have the being to the thingy. All the things you believe & hold true about yourself including your history & the image in the mirror may be attached to who you are as a self with all the interpretations etc, but are not the truth about your being. Your emergence is just a concept - even if it were to make sense to me which it doesn't really.


Mark de LA says
seth 2012-11-28 12:24:36 16313
M 2012-11-28 11:43:52 16313
M 2012-11-28 11:42:58 16313
source: ...
Seth: my explanation of how emergence relates in this context

Emergence in this context has to do with something of value to a particular view emerging in a different plane from a substrata of processes which have no value in that plane.   The usual example of this in mathematics is gliders which emerge from a simple set of rules in Conway's Game of Life.
... this reminds me of an old ontology statement that the Forum leaders put out to open up something from nothing possibility space discussions.
LEC: ... I invite you consider the possibility of that which is unrecognizable to be related to, the occurring of which , if ever, is only on the other side of that which is recognizable to be related to.
... (to grok being, I think)


 
Well i guess you know there is no sense to that ... at least none that i can tell.  Yet there is sense to the concept of emergence.  So, my take-away from this is that rather than understand emergence, you prefer to mock it.  Which is kewl with me ... i'd rather not delve back into all that now either.  I was just trying to go with Freeman's absurdity and find the bug in it .
Well that is just the point!  There is no sense in what you said nor any relationship to the topic that I can guess & yet I understand what the LEC statement was & means; your continued shoulder chip about mocking notwithstanding.


Mark de LA says
seth 2012-11-28 15:50:32 16313
Incidentally, i should add, that nobody has of yet successfully modeled consciousness ... that i know of ... though i expect several think to themselves that they have.  But modeling consciousness is a very active part of academic philosophy.  You should read some of the books about it, you would get a kick from them ... Chalmers, in particular.
Yep, but I am conscious ... why would I need somebody to talk about that?


Mark de LA says
Consciousness is fun to explore, but like being it is an ontologically slippery thing.


Seth says
M 2012-11-28 11:33:08 16313
seth 2012-11-28 11:24:53 16313
M 2012-11-28 11:20:59 16313
Did you retract something Seth?  I tried to edit a reply but it disappeared & the system seemed to go haywire?

i was editing my description of emergence, which you had asked about.  try to back up in your browser to recapture it, otherwise it is lost to the bit bucket.
Well, it went to the bitbucket after I read it.  The emergence thingy didn't compute in any universe I have access to.  OTOH, the idea of a mock had some cognitive dissonance to play with. I see three points-of-view on that.  A person who was purely materialistic & not religious - perhaps an atheist would probably find some comfort in Freeman's ideas. A person who was just anti-religious would probably find it mocking.  A person who was religious would probably find it amusing even funny. Your mileage might even find another place to go & point-your-view.
It is all just an amusing tempest peeing in a pisspot for me:


Yeah funny stuff.  I'm not so very sure that you have your 3 point-of-view cases correct.  Like i said before ... "nobody will find comfort in Freeman's ideas".  I did find it mocking (but not funny), yet i have just about the same anti-religious attitude that you do, that we got from our childhood, about established religions ... especially, for me, the dogma.  But, yes i agree, a person who is religious would find it funny because it mocks the other side.  A person who is scientific will find it just a stupid confusion of planes. 

Mark de LA says
Seth (above): ... Well i certainly agree with you that emergence is just a concept ... a way of modeling ... in this case consciousness.  David Chalmers discussed this in his book Conscious Mind.  Some people think it is a way to understand consciousness ... nobody thinks it is a way to become conscious of any particular thing.

When an understanding or a consciousness of some "truth about your being" happens along with a strong emotion, then, i believe, you get a satori.  Me, i don't put a lot of trust in my emotions ... as they change from day to day.  So, perhaps i interpret the satori quite different than do you or PR.
... I don't think you can model consciousness. Maybe you can model a conversation about it, but not the thingy itself.  I didn't talk about satori - you just ran your schtick.
I doubt there is any emotion in being conscious of the truth of your own being because then you would be attached to it & there is no attachment in being it just IS.


Mark de LA says
M 2012-11-28 16:44:52 16313
seth 2012-11-28 14:55:08 16313
You know once i made a detail procedure for playing the race card game.  Unfortunately i didn't tag it correctly and/or facebook forgot it.  Oh well.  It was one of my better pieces.  It is really a very reliable procedure and can be seen to be used over and over ... plug it in and watch it grind out.

I don't think the attacks of Rice are racists at all.  They are just partisan.  Twitchy, of course, has a whole deck of race cards which she is very fond of playing wherever race is mentioned. 

What i find strange is that more people have not noticed this "race card" maneuver.  No, i don't expect twitchy or you to recognize that ... but people like Jon Stewart should certainly see it ... mock it ... put it in perspective.  Hmmm ... maybe i should write a script for him and send it in.
Well maybe, CNN has the video: ... it is easy to cry racism & just the accusation is a dagger in itself without any substance behind it. Many on the left do do that!


THis is ok.

Seth says
M 2012-11-28 13:13:25 16313
seth 2012-11-28 13:03:24 16313
M 2012-11-28 12:52:26 16313
seth 2012-11-28 12:24:36 16313
M 2012-11-28 11:43:52 16313
M 2012-11-28 11:42:58 16313
source: ...
Seth: my explanation of how emergence relates in this context

Emergence in this context has to do with something of value to a particular view emerging in a different plane from a substrata of processes which have no value in that plane.   The usual example of this in mathematics is gliders which emerge from a simple set of rules in Conway's Game of Life.
... this reminds me of an old ontology statement that the Forum leaders put out to open up something from nothing possibility space discussions.
LEC: ... I invite you consider the possibility of that which is unrecognizable to be related to, the occurring of which , if ever, is only on the other side of that which is recognizable to be related to.
... (to grok being, I think)


 
Well i guess you know there is no sense to that ... at least none that i can tell.  Yet there is sense to the concept of emergence.  So, my take-away from this is that rather than understand emergence, you prefer to mock it.  Which is kewl with me ... i'd rather not delve back into all that now either.  I was just trying to go with Freeman's absurdity and find the bug in it .
Well that is just the point!  There is no sense in what you said nor any relationship to the topic that I can guess & yet I understand what the LEC statement was & means; your continued shoulder chip about mocking notwithstanding.


... well ok then, now that you give me a bit more context ... (err i had originally though you were just quoting an example of gibberish) ... i can grock the LOC quote ... and even, lol, use it against you.   Emergence, you see, is just such a thing that is unrecognizable to you and perchance is on the other side of what this item is related to. 
Well, you are not near the meaning of the statement - perhaps only the syntax of the sentence. The message is about the word being we have been kicking around in the BofNK context. If you cognize something you don't have the being to the thingy. All the things you believe & hold true about yourself including your history & the image in the mirror may be attached to who you are as a self with all the interpretations etc, but are not the truth about your being. Your emergence is just a concept - even if it were to make sense to me which it doesn't really.


Well i certainly agree with you that emergence is just a concept ... a way of modeling ... in this case consciousness.  David Chalmers discussed this in his book Conscious Mind.  Some people think it is a way to understand consciousness ... nobody thinks it is a way to become conscious of any particular thing.

When an understanding or a consciousness of some "truth about your being" happens along with a strong emotion, then, i believe, you get a satori.  Me, i don't put a lot of trust in my emotions ... as they change from day to day.  So, perhaps i interpret the satori quite different than do you or PR.

Mark de LA says
seth 2012-11-28 13:28:04 16313
M 2012-11-28 12:55:54 16313
I don't get your sensitivity to mocking any more than I get your like of Jon Stewart who mocks just about everything; mostly conservatives.


Well i can recognize mocking when i hear it ... but no i am not particularly sensitive to it in the sense that it gets to me ... except, of course, when i hear it done again and again and just get tired of the same old strategy. The part about it that i dislike is where you need to twist what you mock so totally out of whack that is becomes a lie about the thing.   ... and yes, Jon Stewart, is a master of the genera.  
Funny though I think you have a case of mockitis - seeing mocking everywhere you don't like something said about your beloved Obama.  Nowadays if you say anything against him you are a racist. Mockitis is another form of rwg albeit rather mild.


Seth says
M 2012-11-28 16:06:22 16313
seth 2012-11-28 15:50:32 16313
Incidentally, i should add, that nobody has of yet successfully modeled consciousness ... that i know of ... though i expect several think to themselves that they have.  But modeling consciousness is a very active part of academic philosophy.  You should read some of the books about it, you would get a kick from them ... Chalmers, in particular.
Yep, but I am conscious ... why would I need somebody to talk about that?

Yep, very true indeed.  Sometimes the accusation is justified, sometimes not.  In the case of Rice it was not, imho.  But it doesn't matter whether the source stimulus was actually racist or not, the race-card game progresses just the same. That is all spelled out in my procedure ... i wish i could find it.

Mark de LA says
seth 2012-11-28 15:34:24 16313
M 2012-11-28 14:42:24 16313
Seth (above): ... Well i certainly agree with you that emergence is just a concept ... a way of modeling ... in this case consciousness.  David Chalmers discussed this in his book Conscious Mind.  Some people think it is a way to understand consciousness ... nobody thinks it is a way to become conscious of any particular thing.

When an understanding or a consciousness of some "truth about your being" happens along with a strong emotion, then, i believe, you get a satori.  Me, i don't put a lot of trust in my emotions ... as they change from day to day.  So, perhaps i interpret the satori quite different than do you or PR.
... I don't think you can model consciousness. Maybe you can model a conversation about it, but not the thingy itself.  I didn't talk about satori - you just ran your schtick.
I doubt there is any emotion in being conscious of the truth of your own being because then you would be attached to it & there is no attachment in being it just IS.


Sure you can model consciousness ... but the model is not the consciousness ... anymore than the atomic model of matter is the firmament.  The model intellectually explains ... it does not implement.  I guess that is what you meant when you say "you cannot model consciousness". 

If there is no emotion in being conscious of the truth of your own being, then why peruse it? 

I guess you know that i believe that i can just make up the truth of my being ... and when i get it right, i expect to feel good about it ... or who knows, maybe i will feel it sucks ... but then why would i make up something like that.  It's actually takes courage to be on that edge ... kind of like the courage to be free ... if I am free, then i determine what is right or wrong for me ... no resort to some traditional code of ethics works  ...  when i told GW that, his response was something like ... "yeah, but if you don't choose to be right, then ....".
If you want emotion continue to pack more shit in your self-box. The machinery of self follows the pursuit of pleasure & the avoidance of pain which even includes suicide, masochism and other convoluted ways of making your self right & well protected.  In GW's language & perhaps Anthroposophical world outlooks the Spirit-Self is what we (or I) look for beyond the lower self. They speak of facing the first guardian which is what PR is probably calling self & the truth about it.  The second guardian is more about Being & what you can become.  All sorts of aberrations abound when you confuse the two & get mixed up with drugs & insanity.


Mark de LA says
seth 2012-11-28 14:26:42 16313
M 2012-11-28 13:58:52 16313
seth 2012-11-28 13:28:04 16313
M 2012-11-28 12:55:54 16313
I don't get your sensitivity to mocking any more than I get your like of Jon Stewart who mocks just about everything; mostly conservatives.


Well i can recognize mocking when i hear it ... but no i am not particularly sensitive to it in the sense that it gets to me ... except, of course, when i hear it done again and again and just get tired of the same old strategy. The part about it that i dislike is where you need to twist what you mock so totally out of whack that is becomes a lie about the thing.   ... and yes, Jon Stewart, is a master of the genera.  
Funny though I think you have a case of mockitis - seeing mocking everywhere you don't like something said about your beloved Obama.  Nowadays if you say anything against him you are a racist. Mockitis is another form of rwg albeit rather mild.


Hmmm .... so my recognition of a pattern of humor being used by you and other right wing obama bashers becomes a disease that i have ... .   Kudos on the rwg component of that one .... defend self by trying to defuse the weapon being used against you.  Another example is the so called "race card" ... sombody says something that is racist, they are called out for it, then they accuse the caller outer to have played the "race card".

But extrapolating some made up implications of something to a lie so that it can be easily mocked is a real behavior that lots of people do, and especially you do.  Recognizing that is not my fault or my disease.  But then i have found you in the wrong ... and you are never going to admit it.


Most of your shit doesn't apply to me.  The Race card players: http://twitchy.com/2012/11/20/rep-clyburn-criticism-of-susan-rice-full-of-racial-code-words-msnbcs-wolffe-also-cries-racism/ . DEEP RWG going on now.


Mark de LA says
seth 2012-11-28 17:11:41 16313
M 2012-11-28 16:06:22 16313
seth 2012-11-28 15:50:32 16313
Incidentally, i should add, that nobody has of yet successfully modeled consciousness ... that i know of ... though i expect several think to themselves that they have.  But modeling consciousness is a very active part of academic philosophy.  You should read some of the books about it, you would get a kick from them ... Chalmers, in particular.
Yep, but I am conscious ... why would I need somebody to talk about that?

... well just because it is one of the mysteries of the universe ... explaining those is what we humans do .
You don't need to explain water to a fish.