Black Holes & Other Metaphors
About: fuzzy wuzzy - brian koberlein
A massive spinning charge. <- charge is the nonintuitive property but Wikipedia helps. Why is there any cause for symmetry? Is there threefold symmetry in charge?
Tags
- black holes
- spinning
- mass
- charge
Comments
Mark de LA says
seth 2014-09-07 11:16:58 17744
source: end of your article
In physics we refer to that complexity as the physical information of a system. According to quantum theory, physical information is never lost, but according to general relativity and the no-hair theorem, physical information that enters a black hole is lost forever. This contradiction is known as the black hole information paradox, or sometimes the firewall paradox. Now you might think that the easy answer is just to presume the no-hair theorem is wrong.
But it’s not that simple, and if we started exploring that paradox, things would get a bit hairy.
... 
. first time i heard about this theory that "physical information is never lost" ... but i have heard that "physical information that enters a black hole is lost forever" ... er, at least to this universe. So perhaps there are multiple universes ... that would seem to resolve the paradox ... no?
It might be interesting to note that separate minds, unlinked by honest communication, are like black holes to each other.
. first time i heard about this theory that "physical information is never lost" ... but i have heard that "physical information that enters a black hole is lost forever" ... er, at least to this universe. So perhaps there are multiple universes ... that would seem to resolve the paradox ... no?It might be interesting to note that separate minds, unlinked by honest communication, are like black holes to each other.
You do realize that nobody will ever experience a black hole, don't you? It is all concept & imagination & speculation. The assumption that things way way far away act & behave the same way as those close or those way way under a microscope is unscientific. It keeps some occupied & employed & makes for some nice mathematics & even some good hi-tech though.
Mark de LA says
The Wikipedia on the Scientific Method is good enough for me. There are some fundamental assumptions about our current material world that I do not hold. The one I mentioned above re laws of physics apply equally all over the Universe & that the Laws today have always been the same.
Seth says
actually this is not your normal forbidden error. once i navigated to the image on the corax.com server, it then appeared even here. Now supposing that you didnt change something in the meanwhile ... i conclude that they return an error if your are browsing from a domain other than corax. In other words thay are trying to prevent people from quoting their images out of the context of corax.com.
seth 2014-09-08 09:05:40 17744
actually this is not your normal forbidden error. once i navigated to the image on the corax.com server, it then appeared even here. Now supposing that you didnt change something in the meanwhile ... i conclude that they return an error if your are browsing from a domain other than corax. In other words thay are trying to prevent people from quoting their images out of the context of corax.com.
Seth says
Well your point is kind of contractual. Direct a good telescope into the sky at the right time and angle an you should be able yourself to experience the effects of these alleged black holes.
I totally agree that things very very small and things very large or far away do not act like the normal stuff we experience. But nonetheless our theories of what is happening in those domains are getting more and more accurate as our civilication progresses. Remember how the Earth used to be flat earlier this millineum?
M 2014-09-08 08:35:32 17744
seth 2014-09-08 08:10:56 17744
well if the scientific method is not approximately as i have described it above, then i have no idea what it could be. cosmology creates theories to be tested by experience ... just like any other branch of science.
good point though, how we come up with the theories is art and imagination.
good point
though, how we come up with the theories is art and imagination. You wrote or at least read a paper on the scientific method. What are it's principles? How do you know when you have it. How do you test Cosmology - big subject. Then too you ignored my main objection repeated:
M(above): ... You do realize that nobody will ever experience a black hole, don't you? It is all concept & imagination & speculation. The assumption that things way way far away act & behave the same way as those close or those way way under a microscope is unscientific.
...
Well your point is kind of contractual. Direct a good telescope into the sky at the right time and angle an you should be able yourself to experience the effects of these alleged black holes.
I totally agree that things very very small and things very large or far away do not act like the normal stuff we experience. But nonetheless our theories of what is happening in those domains are getting more and more accurate as our civilication progresses. Remember how the Earth used to be flat earlier this millineum?
Mark de LA says
seth 2014-09-08 08:10:56 17744
well if the scientific method is not approximately as i have described it above, then i have no idea what it could be. cosmology creates theories to be tested by experience ... just like any other branch of science.
good point though, how we come up with the theories is art and imagination.
good point
though, how we come up with the theories is art and imagination. You wrote or at least read a paper on the scientific method. What are it's principles? How do you know when you have it. How do you test Cosmology - big subject. Then too you ignored my main objection repeated:
M(above): ... You do realize that nobody will ever experience a black hole, don't
you? It is all concept & imagination & speculation. The
assumption that things way way far away act & behave the same way as
those close or those way way under a microscope is unscientific.
...
Seth says
Well these things start with experienced measurements and then get extrapolated by mathematics and assumptions to yield theories that then get tested by experiencing more measurements. That kind of just is the scientific method. But hey i totally agree, cosmology currently has more extrapolation and assumptions than experience, not anything to emote over yet
.
i was just tripping on the private/public nature of black holes as an analogy to our human private/public experiences: the information flow is the same.
M 2014-09-08 07:25:59 17744
seth 2014-09-07 11:16:58 17744
source: end of your article
In physics we refer to that complexity as the physical information of a system. According to quantum theory, physical information is never lost, but according to general relativity and the no-hair theorem, physical information that enters a black hole is lost forever. This contradiction is known as the black hole information paradox, or sometimes the firewall paradox. Now you might think that the easy answer is just to presume the no-hair theorem is wrong.
But it’s not that simple, and if we started exploring that paradox, things would get a bit hairy.
... . first time i heard about this theory that "physical information is never lost" ... but i have heard that "physical information that enters a black hole is lost forever" ... er, at least to this universe. So perhaps there are multiple universes ... that would seem to resolve the paradox ... no?
It might be interesting to note that separate minds, unlinked by honest communication, are like black holes to each other.
. first time i heard about this theory that "physical information is never lost" ... but i have heard that "physical information that enters a black hole is lost forever" ... er, at least to this universe. So perhaps there are multiple universes ... that would seem to resolve the paradox ... no?It might be interesting to note that separate minds, unlinked by honest communication, are like black holes to each other.
You do realize that nobody will ever experience a black hole, don't you? It is all concept & imagination & speculation. The assumption that things way way far away act & behave the same way as those close or those way way under a microscope is unscientific. It keeps some occupied & employed & makes for some nice mathematics & even some good hi-tech though.
Well these things start with experienced measurements and then get extrapolated by mathematics and assumptions to yield theories that then get tested by experiencing more measurements. That kind of just is the scientific method. But hey i totally agree, cosmology currently has more extrapolation and assumptions than experience, not anything to emote over yet
.i was just tripping on the private/public nature of black holes as an analogy to our human private/public experiences: the information flow is the same.
Mark de LA says
seth 2014-09-08 08:24:57 17744
When you vance on the link Art! above do you not see the page on it & the picture?
Seth says
yes i agree ... and have even heard others ... even scientists ... question the assumption that physics is the same everywhere and at every scale.
M 2014-09-08 08:42:57 17744
The Wikipedia on the Scientific Method is good enough for me. There are some fundamental assumptions about our current material world that I do not hold. The one I mentioned above re laws of physics apply equally all over the Universe & that the Laws today have always been the same.
yes i agree ... and have even heard others ... even scientists ... question the assumption that physics is the same everywhere and at every scale.
Seth says
yeah ... and now i can also report that a private browsing window will restore the error message ...
seth 2014-09-08 09:27:22 17744
actually this is not your normal forbidden error. once i navigated to the image on the corax.com server, it then appeared even here. Now supposing that you didnt change something in the meanwhile ... i conclude that they return an error if your are browsing from a domain other than corax. In other words thay are trying to prevent people from quoting their images out of the context of corax.com.
seth 2014-09-08 09:05:40 17744
actually this is not your normal forbidden error. once i navigated to the image on the corax.com server, it then appeared even here. Now supposing that you didnt change something in the meanwhile ... i conclude that they return an error if your are browsing from a domain other than corax. In other words thay are trying to prevent people from quoting their images out of the context of corax.com. yeah ... and now i can also report that a private browsing window will restore the error message ...
Seth says
yeah i need to study cross ratio ... part of CFR's geometry that i could do, but did not understand why it worked.
M 2014-09-08 08:49:48 17744
M 2014-09-08 08:42:57 17744
The Wikipedia on the Scientific Method is good enough for me. There are some fundamental assumptions about our current material world that I do not hold. The one I mentioned above re laws of physics apply equally all over the Universe & that the Laws today have always been the same.
One fun thought is to study projective geometry & learn that that which appears from one point of view to be a circle may look like a hyperbola from another & yet some things like cross ratio persist over different points of view.
yeah i need to study cross ratio ... part of CFR's geometry that i could do, but did not understand why it worked.
Mark de LA says
The link http://www.corax.com/tarot/cards/index.html?art
doesn't work for you? How do you do local browsing on the internet?
IDK?
http://www.eli-lsmerchantile.com/blog/2013/03/15/Art-Key-14-Thoth-Deck-Tarot-Path-of-Samek.aspx
Anyway maybe do google thoth tarot card art & chase it. Taro Trump XIV is not really the subject of this item.
doesn't work for you? How do you do local browsing on the internet?
IDK?
http://www.eli-lsmerchantile.com/blog/2013/03/15/Art-Key-14-Thoth-Deck-Tarot-Path-of-Samek.aspx
Anyway maybe do google thoth tarot card art & chase it. Taro Trump XIV is not really the subject of this item.
Mark de LA says
seth 2014-09-08 08:54:51 17744
Well your point is kind of contractual. Direct a good telescope into the sky at the right time and angle an you should be able yourself to experience the effects of these alleged black holes.
I totally agree that things very very small and things very large or far away do not act like the normal stuff we experience. But nonetheless our theories of what is happening in those domains are getting more and more accurate as our civilication progresses. Remember how the Earth used to be flat earlier this millineum?
M 2014-09-08 08:35:32 17744
seth 2014-09-08 08:10:56 17744
well if the scientific method is not approximately as i have described it above, then i have no idea what it could be. cosmology creates theories to be tested by experience ... just like any other branch of science.
good point though, how we come up with the theories is art and imagination.
good point
though, how we come up with the theories is art and imagination. You wrote or at least read a paper on the scientific method. What are it's principles? How do you know when you have it. How do you test Cosmology - big subject. Then too you ignored my main objection repeated:
M(above): ... You do realize that nobody will ever experience a black hole, don't you? It is all concept & imagination & speculation. The assumption that things way way far away act & behave the same way as those close or those way way under a microscope is unscientific.
...
Well your point is kind of contractual. Direct a good telescope into the sky at the right time and angle an you should be able yourself to experience the effects of these alleged black holes.
I totally agree that things very very small and things very large or far away do not act like the normal stuff we experience. But nonetheless our theories of what is happening in those domains are getting more and more accurate as our civilication progresses. Remember how the Earth used to be flat earlier this millineum?
I don't know what you mean by the bolded sentence. The explanation of what Hawking & others call a black hole is not necessarily what is happening that you can experience here on earth - hence my original bolded statement above. Science should not be consensus by your flat Earth comment about a previous consensus long ago.
Seth says
Well i meant "private browsing window", not "local browsing" ... sorry for the switched term. We recently discussed private browsing windows here.
These allow a person to see something on the Internet outside of the
context of theeir prior browsing history. Try it yourself, and you
should be able to see what i reported. If someone who has never
nagigated to corax.com sees that image the way you projected it from
fastblogit, they will not see the image but will get that Forbidden
error.
Anyway it appears for me now since i did navigate to the images over there from the url www.corax.com/tarot/cards/
Anyway it appears for me now since i did navigate to the images over there from the url www.corax.com/tarot/cards/
Mark de LA says
seth 2014-09-08 09:47:32 17744
Well i meant "private browsing window", not "local browsing" ... sorry for the switched term. We recently discussed private browsing windows here. These allow a person to see something on the Internet outside of the context of theeir prior browsing history. Try it yourself, and you should be able to see what i reported. If someone who has never nagigated to corax.com sees that image the way you projected it from fastblogit, they will not see the image but will get that Forbidden error.
Anyway it appears for me now since i did navigate to the images over there from the url www.corax.com/tarot/cards/
Anyway it appears for me now since i did navigate to the images over there from the url www.corax.com/tarot/cards/
Hmmm... must be a feature of the 
rte function. I mostly use Chrome which calls theirs incognito browsing.
rte function. I mostly use Chrome which calls theirs incognito browsing.
Seth says
nope has absolutely nothing to do with the rte function. it has to do with the way the HTML <img> tag works with the way the corax.com server works. You see the server knows what domain you are coming from when you request an an image ... and it can decide for whatever reason it chooses to return the image or not to return the image. Me thinks this is something that they programed to happen over there at corax quite intentionally ... but maybe their policy and their programmers were a bit confused about it.
M 2014-09-08 09:58:24 17744
seth 2014-09-08 09:47:32 17744
Well i meant "private browsing window", not "local browsing" ... sorry for the switched term. We recently discussed private browsing windows here. These allow a person to see something on the Internet outside of the context of theeir prior browsing history. Try it yourself, and you should be able to see what i reported. If someone who has never nagigated to corax.com sees that image the way you projected it from fastblogit, they will not see the image but will get that Forbidden error.
Anyway it appears for me now since i did navigate to the images over there from the url www.corax.com/tarot/cards/
Anyway it appears for me now since i did navigate to the images over there from the url www.corax.com/tarot/cards/
Hmmm... must be a feature of the rte function. I mostly use Chrome which calls theirs incognito browsing.
rte function. I mostly use Chrome which calls theirs incognito browsing. nope has absolutely nothing to do with the rte function. it has to do with the way the HTML <img> tag works with the way the corax.com server works. You see the server knows what domain you are coming from when you request an an image ... and it can decide for whatever reason it chooses to return the image or not to return the image. Me thinks this is something that they programed to happen over there at corax quite intentionally ... but maybe their policy and their programmers were a bit confused about it.
Mark de LA says
In other news Stephen Hawking says:
http://news.yahoo.com/stephen-hawking-god-particle-could-163109712.html
http://news.yahoo.com/stephen-hawking-god-particle-could-163109712.html
Stephen Hawking: God particle could wipe out the universe
Seth says
source: mark
Just another story with the appearance of science
Just another story with the appearance of science
well the science part comes in when the story is tested against experience. but yes, sans the test it remains just a story. mathematics is that way too, no?
Seth says
that must have been weird. I don't have experiences like that. So you relied on the stories the technology was telling you. Right?
M 2014-09-08 10:36:35 17744
My experience of navigating the Inland Sea of Japan at night was that some light houses had occulting signals for some periods of time. I could make a story about that too - just as good as yours or Stephen's.
that must have been weird. I don't have experiences like that. So you relied on the stories the technology was telling you. Right?
Mark de LA says
seth 2014-09-08 10:44:20 17744
source: mark
Just another story with the appearance of science
Just another story with the appearance of science
well the science part comes in when the story is tested against experience. but yes, sans the test it remains just a story. mathematics is that way too, no?
Mathematics is NOT that way at all! Mathematics is a description language etc. As long as a mathematician does not confuse extra dimensions with his mathematical notation he is on solid ground ( or at least on planet Earth). When he extrapolates to multi-dimensions beyond 3 or 4 he is in a conceptual-imaginary world of Stephen Hawking.
Then too the prestige of academia + the politics of getting funding for job security in academia and private institutions + the politics of the same including crony capitalism can distort science & the scientific method well beyond recognition. Case in point is global warming 9919 & others. Recently Algore's prediction of no ice in the arctic expired. New stories need to be created for the now climate change field of doggles. Observations -> model - model predictions - failure -> invent new memes & schemes to tax & control the population (the political part of the theory) & go back ... repeat ..
Then too the prestige of academia + the politics of getting funding for job security in academia and private institutions + the politics of the same including crony capitalism can distort science & the scientific method well beyond recognition. Case in point is global warming 9919 & others. Recently Algore's prediction of no ice in the arctic expired. New stories need to be created for the now climate change field of doggles. Observations -> model - model predictions - failure -> invent new memes & schemes to tax & control the population (the political part of the theory) & go back ... repeat ..
Mark de LA says
seth 2014-09-08 10:47:21 17744
that must have been weird. I don't have experiences like that. So you relied on the stories the technology was telling you. Right?
M 2014-09-08 10:36:35 17744
My experience of navigating the Inland Sea of Japan at night was that some light houses had occulting signals for some periods of time. I could make a story about that too - just as good as yours or Stephen's.
that must have been weird. I don't have experiences like that. So you relied on the stories the technology was telling you. Right? Nope I had reality - maps, descriptions of each light house properties etc & dead reckoning - navigation in the real world & real experience of the world.
Mark de LA says
seth 2014-09-08 10:21:14 17744
hmmm ... a lot of confusion going on here.
If the only thing that counts for you as "experiencing a black hole" is having your body being swallowed by one, well then your statement "nobody will ever experience a black hole" is true ... or at least they will never live to tell of their experience. But i count experiencing effects of things as experience of those things themselves. Hence measuring the light occulted by these holes, for me, counts as experiencing the holes. If i exclude all effects of things from my actual experience, i am not sure that there will be any experiences left to report to you.
M 2014-09-08 09:39:01 17744
seth 2014-09-08 08:54:51 17744
Well your point is kind of contractual. Direct a good telescope into the sky at the right time and angle an you should be able yourself to experience the effects of these alleged black holes.
I totally agree that things very very small and things very large or far away do not act like the normal stuff we experience. But nonetheless our theories of what is happening in those domains are getting more and more accurate as our civilication progresses. Remember how the Earth used to be flat earlier this millineum?
M 2014-09-08 08:35:32 17744
seth 2014-09-08 08:10:56 17744
well if the scientific method is not approximately as i have described it above, then i have no idea what it could be. cosmology creates theories to be tested by experience ... just like any other branch of science.
good point though, how we come up with the theories is art and imagination.
good point
though, how we come up with the theories is art and imagination. You wrote or at least read a paper on the scientific method. What are it's principles? How do you know when you have it. How do you test Cosmology - big subject. Then too you ignored my main objection repeated:
M(above): ... You do realize that nobody will ever experience a black hole, don't you? It is all concept & imagination & speculation. The assumption that things way way far away act & behave the same way as those close or those way way under a microscope is unscientific.
...
Well your point is kind of contractual. Direct a good telescope into the sky at the right time and angle an you should be able yourself to experience the effects of these alleged black holes.
I totally agree that things very very small and things very large or far away do not act like the normal stuff we experience. But nonetheless our theories of what is happening in those domains are getting more and more accurate as our civilication progresses. Remember how the Earth used to be flat earlier this millineum?
I don't know what you mean by the bolded sentence. The explanation of what Hawking & others call a black hole is not necessarily what is happening that you can experience here on earth - hence my original bolded statement above. Science should not be consensus by your flat Earth comment about a previous consensus long ago.
hmmm ... a lot of confusion going on here
.If the only thing that counts for you as "experiencing a black hole" is having your body being swallowed by one, well then your statement "nobody will ever experience a black hole" is true ... or at least they will never live to tell of their experience. But i count experiencing effects of things as experience of those things themselves. Hence measuring the light occulted by these holes, for me, counts as experiencing the holes. If i exclude all effects of things from my actual experience, i am not sure that there will be any experiences left to report to you.
Just another story with the appearance of science ... go see what else Hawking is speculating on.
Mark de LA says
My experience of navigating the Inland Sea of Japan at night was that some light houses had occulting signals for some periods of time. I could make a story about that too - just as good as yours or Stephen's.
Mark de LA says
seth 2014-09-20 12:10:44 17744
hmmm .... apparently you have a different conception of what counts for experience. To me everything is somehow indirect ... everything .... just some things are more indirect than others. Seems to me you have drawn your binary line in a different place than have I and the scientific community.
choy 2014-09-20 11:57:43 17744
seth 2014-09-20 11:38:20 17744
So apparently we can experience black holes.
source: CBS news
A team of astronomers has made a rare find in a dwarf galaxy some 50 million light years away. NASA says they discovered that the tiny galaxy M60-UCD1 contains a supermassive black hole.
A team of astronomers has made a rare find in a dwarf galaxy some 50 million light years away. NASA says they discovered that the tiny galaxy M60-UCD1 contains a supermassive black hole.
So apparently we can experience black holes.
Interesting story, instruments were all Earthbound. Bad conclusion by Seth.
hmmm .... apparently you have a different conception of what counts for experience. To me everything is somehow indirect ... everything .... just some things are more indirect than others. Seems to me you have drawn your binary line in a different place than have I and the scientific community.
Yep, any story will do. Any explanation can be munged with any other one to yield the wonderful experience that someone gets when he thinks he knows something. The black hole theory came about because of the original calculations by so-called scientists for the energy in the Universe was missing something. I prefer my own experience of black holes described above.
Seth says
Mark de LA says
Personally, when I lived in the DC area I experienced some black holes, but they seem in my memory to have been somewhat pinkish in some places. I think there may have been some rotating involved as well.
PML
PML
Seth says
Note i did not say we experienced the concept of a black hole ... i said we experienced it ... indirectly by there being no light from that area of a galaxy. Now sure the explanation of it is just a story, ... at best a reasoned extrapolation from actual experience ... but that wasn't what i was calling to your attention. I was calling to your attention the data itself ... look through a high powered instrument at that galaxy and see that there is a huge black object with no light comming from it. Perhaps be amazed at it ... i am ... but if you doubt the experience, go find a scope and look for yourself.
Again, all experience is indirect, all i can do is trust the experience i get and the information i get from others that i trust. I don't see any option to that except perhaps to play some authority game.
Einaianiging 2014-09-20 13:31:03 17744
There is a difference between an experience of a black hole & an experience of the concept, theory, mathematics, artist's conception, diagrams etc. of a black hole. If you don't know that there are similarly situated experiences to be had of volcanoes which exist on Earth. Visit Hawaii. Even there you have to stop at some point, unless you are inclined to follow Empodocles & join yourself to the Earth, & realize that you are just experiencing other concepts, past experience of heat, pictures, National Geographic TV programs, etc.
Note i did not say we experienced the concept of a black hole ... i said we experienced it ... indirectly by there being no light from that area of a galaxy. Now sure the explanation of it is just a story, ... at best a reasoned extrapolation from actual experience ... but that wasn't what i was calling to your attention. I was calling to your attention the data itself ... look through a high powered instrument at that galaxy and see that there is a huge black object with no light comming from it. Perhaps be amazed at it ... i am ... but if you doubt the experience, go find a scope and look for yourself.
Again, all experience is indirect, all i can do is trust the experience i get and the information i get from others that i trust. I don't see any option to that except perhaps to play some authority game.
Mark de LA says
seth 2014-09-20 15:56:11 17744
Note i did not say we experienced the concept of a black hole ... i said we experienced it ... indirectly by there being no light from that area of a galaxy. Now sure the explanation of it is just a story, ... at best a reasoned extrapolation from actual experience ... but that wasn't what i was calling to your attention. I was calling to your attention the data itself ... look through a high powered instrument at that galaxy and see that there is a huge black object with no light comming from it. Perhaps be amazed at it ... i am ... but if you doubt the experience, go find a scope and look for yourself.
Again, all experience is indirect, all i can do is trust the experience i get and the information i get from others that i trust. I don't see any option to that except perhaps to play some authority game.
Einaianiging 2014-09-20 13:31:03 17744
There is a difference between an experience of a black hole & an experience of the concept, theory, mathematics, artist's conception, diagrams etc. of a black hole. If you don't know that there are similarly situated experiences to be had of volcanoes which exist on Earth. Visit Hawaii. Even there you have to stop at some point, unless you are inclined to follow Empodocles & join yourself to the Earth, & realize that you are just experiencing other concepts, past experience of heat, pictures, National Geographic TV programs, etc.
Note i did not say we experienced the concept of a black hole ... i said we experienced it ... indirectly by there being no light from that area of a galaxy. Now sure the explanation of it is just a story, ... at best a reasoned extrapolation from actual experience ... but that wasn't what i was calling to your attention. I was calling to your attention the data itself ... look through a high powered instrument at that galaxy and see that there is a huge black object with no light comming from it. Perhaps be amazed at it ... i am ... but if you doubt the experience, go find a scope and look for yourself.
Again, all experience is indirect, all i can do is trust the experience i get and the information i get from others that i trust. I don't see any option to that except perhaps to play some authority game.
Nope! You just experienced the data. All experience is NOT indirect! Dualism is your schtick.
Einaianiging says
There is a difference between an experience of a black hole & an experience of the concept, theory, mathematics, artist's conception, diagrams etc. of a black hole. If you don't know that there are similarly situated experiences to be had of volcanoes which exist on Earth. Visit Hawaii. Even there you have to stop at some point, unless you are inclined to follow Empodocles & join yourself to the Earth, & realize that you are just experiencing other concepts, past experience of heat, pictures, National Geographic TV programs, etc.
Seth says
source: mark
All experience is NOT indirect!
All experience is NOT indirect!
Well break it down to examples. Give me a example where experience is direct, and where it is indirect. We need to get specific.
Incidentally I think a good argument can be made for all emotions being direct.
Incidentally I think a good argument can be made for all emotions being direct.
Mark de LA says
seth 2014-09-21 11:02:35 17744
source: mark
All experience is NOT indirect!
All experience is NOT indirect!
Well break it down to examples. Give me a example where experience is direct, and where it is indirect. We need to get specific.
Incidentally I think a good argument can be made for all emotions being direct.
Incidentally I think a good argument can be made for all emotions being direct.
I've said this before. As you make a distinction within your sensory perception of something your experience is of your making the distinction. This is not to be confused with PR's direct experience thingy which latter subject is more along the lines of experiencing the thruth, being or essence of something or some subject.
Seth says
yes, absolutely ... i agree.
Einai 2014-09-22 09:27:48 17744
seth 2014-09-22 09:23:15 17744
well i trust my own eyes too as far as they go ... but for things that i cannot see, i have learned to also trust others eyes. building trust is a long and sometimes difficult process ... but an important one for building a life ... and for building a society. it seems you have lost your trust in some parts of our society ... that is understandable, i've lost a lot of trust in parts of it too. the funny part, just between us, is that it seems we still trust ... but just different parts. And, no i do not trust the Media$ at all. What i do trust is where i can perceive people honestly communicating. I still notice a lot of that.
on a daily basis i am confronted with the fallibility of my own awareness ... and my own consciousness. That is the primary reason i reach out to that which i can trust outside myself ... i call it a knack that i cherish when i can do it ... so no, i do not glorify my own consciousness as the ultimate judgement ... and no again, i do not rely on an amorphous thingy instead ... rather, er, i rely on that which i have learned to trust.
Einai 2014-09-22 08:56:54 17744
I haven't a clue about you, but I trust my own consciousness & judgment rather some amorphous thingy called society which is contorted by Media$ or science that needs 52 different excuses for why Global Warming isn't happening. Your results, as always, are different.
well i trust my own eyes too as far as they go ... but for things that i cannot see, i have learned to also trust others eyes. building trust is a long and sometimes difficult process ... but an important one for building a life ... and for building a society. it seems you have lost your trust in some parts of our society ... that is understandable, i've lost a lot of trust in parts of it too. the funny part, just between us, is that it seems we still trust ... but just different parts
. And, no i do not trust the Media$ at all. What i do trust is where i can perceive people honestly communicating. I still notice a lot of that.on a daily basis i am confronted with the fallibility of my own awareness ... and my own consciousness. That is the primary reason i reach out to that which i can trust outside myself ... i call it a knack that i cherish when i can do it ... so no, i do not glorify my own consciousness as the ultimate judgement ... and no again, i do not rely on an amorphous thingy instead ... rather, er, i rely on that which i have learned to trust.
Yep, trust is something different from consciousness & experience. Trust is something one grants to another & can take away as well. I suspect it has nothing to do with truth & is not inherent in things themselves.
yes, absolutely
... i agree.
Seth says
Well i can identify lots of steps between something happening and my awareness of that thing happening. I call that indirect, watch the video.
An indirection also happens when our society learns of something happening in the natural world. Just like we can trust our own eyes (or not), so too we can trust (or not) the channel through which we acquire public knowledge.
Your "distinction" compresses the channel down to just a simple binary event ... sorry that is not what i find in my experience.
But if your thinking will not acknowledge this indirection, so be it.
choy 2014-09-21 17:04:29 17744
seth 2014-09-21 16:26:58 17744
source: mark
As you make a distinction within your sensory perception of something [,] your experience is of your making the distinction.
As you make a distinction within your sensory perception of something [,] your experience is of your making the distinction.
... yep, it is indirect. (NOPE!) Something caused an effect in your sensory channel and then you experienced the effect of that effect. Of if you want to focus on a different spot in your being, you could say that you experienced something effected by something, effected by something else, which was effected by some light hitting your sensory retina ... we could carry that just as far as you like. But you never do experience the original cause. All sensory experiences are indirect like this.
Now in the case of the M60-UCD1 black hole, some human experienced some light, via his instruments, which was emitted millions of years ago. I have posted a picture of the light pattern above for even you to experience. When that experience got to me, it was quite indirect indeed. But how indirect it was, is just a matter of degree and frame of reference.
Incidentally, it is harder to identify the indirection when it comes to emotion ... and maybe clairvoyance. but, i am with you there, that should be a separate train of thought.
Now in the case of the M60-UCD1 black hole, some human experienced some light, via his instruments, which was emitted millions of years ago. I have posted a picture of the light pattern above for even you to experience. When that experience got to me, it was quite indirect indeed. But how indirect it was, is just a matter of degree and frame of reference.
Incidentally, it is harder to identify the indirection when it comes to emotion ... and maybe clairvoyance. but, i am with you there, that should be a separate train of thought.
Try making a distinction of something without there being something there mental or physical. Moreover ponder how you could just have sensory input without something there. The making of the distinction does the job. The senses reveal to your consciousness that something exists. What it is depends upon your focus & your consciousness neither of which is indirect. A black hole is a concept imagined to explain some phenomena through a telescope.
An indirection also happens when our society learns of something happening in the natural world. Just like we can trust our own eyes (or not), so too we can trust (or not) the channel through which we acquire public knowledge.
Your "distinction" compresses the channel down to just a simple binary event ... sorry that is not what i find in my experience.
But if your thinking will not acknowledge this indirection, so be it.
Mark de LA says
seth 2014-09-21 16:26:58 17744
source: mark
As you make a distinction within your sensory perception of something [,] your experience is of your making the distinction.
As you make a distinction within your sensory perception of something [,] your experience is of your making the distinction.
... yep, it is indirect. (NOPE!) Something caused an effect in your sensory channel and then you experienced the effect of that effect. Of if you want to focus on a different spot in your being, you could say that you experienced something effected by something, effected by something else, which was effected by some light hitting your sensory retina ... we could carry that just as far as you like. But you never do experience the original cause. All sensory experiences are indirect like this.
Now in the case of the M60-UCD1 black hole, some human experienced some light, via his instruments, which was emitted millions of years ago. I have posted a picture of the light pattern above for even you to experience. When that experience got to me, it was quite indirect indeed. But how indirect it was, is just a matter of degree and frame of reference.
Incidentally, it is harder to identify the indirection when it comes to emotion ... and maybe clairvoyance. but, i am with you there, that should be a separate train of thought.
Now in the case of the M60-UCD1 black hole, some human experienced some light, via his instruments, which was emitted millions of years ago. I have posted a picture of the light pattern above for even you to experience. When that experience got to me, it was quite indirect indeed. But how indirect it was, is just a matter of degree and frame of reference.
Incidentally, it is harder to identify the indirection when it comes to emotion ... and maybe clairvoyance. but, i am with you there, that should be a separate train of thought.
Try making a distinction of something without there being something there mental or physical. Moreover ponder how you could just have sensory input without something there. The making of the distinction does the job. The senses reveal to your consciousness that something exists. What it is depends upon your focus & your consciousness neither of which is indirect. A black hole is a concept imagined to explain some phenomena through a telescope.
Mark de LA says
Yep, your experience is the story above about how you experience. Experience your story, enjoy it, it is your story & you are sticking to it.
I've seen a TV series that is just as satisfying:
(*)
BTW, what story do you have about how consciousness is made or what it is?
I've seen a TV series that is just as satisfying:
BTW, what story do you have about how consciousness is made or what it is?
Mark de LA says
I haven't a clue about you, but I trust my own consciousness & judgment rather some amorphous thingy called society which is contorted by Media$ or science that needs 52 different excuses for why Global Warming isn't happening. Your results, as always, are different.
Mark de LA says
seth 2014-09-22 09:23:15 17744
well i trust my own eyes too as far as they go ... but for things that i cannot see, i have learned to also trust others eyes. building trust is a long and sometimes difficult process ... but an important one for building a life ... and for building a society. it seems you have lost your trust in some parts of our society ... that is understandable, i've lost a lot of trust in parts of it too. the funny part, just between us, is that it seems we still trust ... but just different parts. And, no i do not trust the Media$ at all. What i do trust is where i can perceive people honestly communicating. I still notice a lot of that.
on a daily basis i am confronted with the fallibility of my own awareness ... and my own consciousness. That is the primary reason i reach out to that which i can trust outside myself ... i call it a knack that i cherish when i can do it ... so no, i do not glorify my own consciousness as the ultimate judgement ... and no again, i do not rely on an amorphous thingy instead ... rather, er, i rely on that which i have learned to trust.
Einai 2014-09-22 08:56:54 17744
I haven't a clue about you, but I trust my own consciousness & judgment rather some amorphous thingy called society which is contorted by Media$ or science that needs 52 different excuses for why Global Warming isn't happening. Your results, as always, are different.
well i trust my own eyes too as far as they go ... but for things that i cannot see, i have learned to also trust others eyes. building trust is a long and sometimes difficult process ... but an important one for building a life ... and for building a society. it seems you have lost your trust in some parts of our society ... that is understandable, i've lost a lot of trust in parts of it too. the funny part, just between us, is that it seems we still trust ... but just different parts
. And, no i do not trust the Media$ at all. What i do trust is where i can perceive people honestly communicating. I still notice a lot of that.on a daily basis i am confronted with the fallibility of my own awareness ... and my own consciousness. That is the primary reason i reach out to that which i can trust outside myself ... i call it a knack that i cherish when i can do it ... so no, i do not glorify my own consciousness as the ultimate judgement ... and no again, i do not rely on an amorphous thingy instead ... rather, er, i rely on that which i have learned to trust.
Yep, trust is something different from consciousness & experience. Trust is something one grants to another & can take away as well. I suspect it has nothing to do with truth & is not inherent in things themselves.
Mark de LA says
So then you are in your own personal black hole, eh?
Mark de LA says
seth 2014-09-22 10:46:43 17744
well yes, that is why i try to learn to use others perceptions and try to learn which ones i can trust ... just to compensate for "my own personal black hole". i propose we actually are stronger working together. Have you not noticed?
well yes, that is why i try to learn to use others perceptions and try to learn which ones i can trust ... just to compensate for "my own personal black hole"
. i propose we actually are stronger working together. Have you not noticed? Depends upon what you are talking about. The "We" of the Federal government is a joke.
Mark de LA says
seth 2014-09-22 12:40:18 17744
yep a lot of it is ... and yet a lot of it, i suspect, even you would sourly miss were it to just go away.
Einai 2014-09-22 12:23:57 17744
seth 2014-09-22 10:46:43 17744
well yes, that is why i try to learn to use others perceptions and try to learn which ones i can trust ... just to compensate for "my own personal black hole". i propose we actually are stronger working together. Have you not noticed?
well yes, that is why i try to learn to use others perceptions and try to learn which ones i can trust ... just to compensate for "my own personal black hole"
. i propose we actually are stronger working together. Have you not noticed? Depends upon what you are talking about. The "We" of the Federal government is a joke.
yep a lot of it is ... and yet a lot of it, i suspect, even you would sourly miss were it to just go away.
Yep, it is mostly the Obama administration that is the biggest part of the joke. Both sides of Congress & some of the judiciary.
But then, who's counting.
But then, who's counting.
See Also
- Thought Of Black Holes with 3 viewings related by tag "black holes".