h a l f b a k e r yReformatted to fit your screen.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
I just got done reading two crazy books: 'A View from Nowhere' and 'Infinity and the Mind'. Nagel attempts to cover the bases of Objectivity. Rucker tries to prove that mathematical infinities prove the existence of infinity in the Mindscape. Theirs are valiant efforts, and very complete. I think these
ideas can go further, however. I think Objectivity and Infinity can be the basis for a very positive movement amongst people. It is essentially very easy to understand these two things, but ultimately, their usefulness may lend to a fully capable spiritual human being (i.e. mass produced enlightenment (i.e. enlightenment need only be achieved through a thorough dedication to conceptualizing the infinitude of objective states)).
This is an idea to form a unified religion based on the understanding that all consciousness is basically equal, and this understanding is uniquely arrived at through the powers of human objectivity. It is a scientific religion, because objective states can be measured in the laboratory.
Infinite Objectivity is the new Meditation for the Buddhists.
Prayer for the Christians.
Laying and Praying for the Muslims. Temple for the Jews.
The idea is that, through the power of the human mind to objectively comprehend the universe, and to objectively realize a true consistency of consciousnesses (that is, all consciousnesses are basically the same), we can experience a fully realized identity with every conscious entity and thrive spiritually from said identity. It is an identity that can be arrived at solely through the powers of objective thought and our ability to repeatedly, if not infinitly, stand back from our surroundings and put them in a single set.
What happens when you stand back from your surroundings an infinite number of times over? You achieve the only rarely achieved goal of this religion: to free the mind entirely from the prison of subjective thought and arrive at Grand Objective Distinguishablilty.
[link]
|
| |
<pedant>
Sp: mathematical |
|
| |
Sp: Theirs (about the only posessive word not posessed of an apostrophe.)
</pedant> |
|
| |
Wow, I think this is a very well written idea (who am I to judge, I am dutch) and a very beautifull concept. I find so many flaws in it that I think it is better that I go and sleep on it and get back to you later. I do know enough to give you my bun though. |
|
| |
Consider Ayn Rand' work as being involved in a process of building subjectivity. It is nothing but a joke. |
|
| |
To be a purely objective creature one must live the life of a social isolate from birth, perhaps raised by wolves, where the relationship between one's body and the world is not mediated by the mind, but by the hand to the mouth. |
|
| |
The possession of mind, which is imparted to the individual by society, imprisons us in a subjective existence. |
|
| |
//based on the understanding that all consciousness is basically equal// but consciousness is an illusion. |
|
| |
Sounds rather like systematic theololgy, itself which is an oxymoron. The work of Alvin Plantinga might interest you. |
|
| |
Beats my Sack Religion idea all to Hell.
[+] Books sound
interesting. If I ever get done with
Halfbakery, I may read them. |
|
| |
//The idea is that, through the power of the human mind
to objectively comprehend the universe, and to
objectively realize a true consistency of consciousnesses
(that is, all consciousnesses are basically the same), we
can experience a fully realized identity with every
conscious entity and thrive spiritually from said identity. It
is an identity that can be arrived at solely through the
powers of objective thought and our ability to repeatedly,
if not infinitly, stand back from our surroundings and put
them in a single set.// |
|
| |
I'm OK up to the first comma, and a few words beyond
that. |
|
| |
I'm fairly happy with "objectively comprehend the
universe" (though some would quibble). |
|
| |
Then there's this bit: //objectively realize a true
consistency of consciousnesses (that is, all
consciousnesses are basically the same)// I'm not sure
that all consciousnesses are basically the same, because
'basically the same' means nothing and everything. The
same in what way? Nor I am happy with "objectively" used
in this context (without further clarification). |
|
| |
Then there's // fully realized identity with every conscious
entity and thrive spiritually from said identity// Does this
mean that we appreciate that all consciousnesses are
'basically the same'? If so, see above. I don't know either
what 'thrive spiritually' means, unless it's equivalent to 'be
happy', and I'm not sure that a realization of a common
consciousness will necessarily make all people happy. |
|
| |
As for: // It is an identity that can be arrived at solely
through the powers of objective thought// Again, this is
really just a restatement of what has been hypothesized in
the foregoing sentences, and I'm not at all sure about it. |
|
| |
And then: // our ability to repeatedly, if not infinitly,
stand back from our surroundings and put them in a single
set//. How can we stand back from our surroundings even
once? And what does it mean to put them in a single set? |
|
| |
Sorry, but I really don't get along with this kind of stuff.
None of the wording is precise and none of the
assumptions are solid, and I don't think it says anything. |
|
| |
If I can extract any meaning from it, it's something like "All
folks are basically the same; maybe some non-human folks
are also basically the same; so we can all be happy about
that.", only it's written a bit more mystically. |
|
| |
eww. and it's really boring too. |
|
| |
I think consciousnesses are massively unequal. Also, I am angry at the prospect of yet another belief system co-opting scientific terminology to hide its irrationality. [-] |
|
| |
Have you thought about making a belief system out of dividing by zero, where you achieve infinity by decreasing your consciousness to zero, then dividing? |
|
| |
so with increasing distance and scope all problems of human existence disappear into the cosmic mysteries which when viewed at an all encompassing view are simply noise in a quantum equilibrium and the mathematics of infinities. That's got to make being decisive a serious problem. "one lump or two? hmm, I'll consult the vastness of all things known and unknown................".
also it should be recognized that it fails the critical "will it get chicks to go to bed with you" so it is very unlikely to get any traction with the popular culture. |
|
| |
// a belief system out of dividing by zero, where you achieve infinity by decreasing your consciousness to zero, then dividing? // |
|
| |
Yes, we tried that one time, but it gave us a terrible headache. |
|
| |
If you could somehow divide consciousness by zero, you wouldn't even need it be reduced to zero itself in order to reach Infinity. |
|
| |
I suppose it would just be simpler for me to say "humans who achieve greater objective states are actually manifesting a closer approximation of infinity in their mind, and this may be a measurable way to encourage the spiritual experience, since Infinity and God are basically the same thing, right?" |
|
| |
oops.. sorry the edits took so long there, [csea]. Thankya. |
|
| |
Also, [pocmloc] //consciousness is an illusion// how so? How can it be? Who is being decieved? Deception is a conscious art requiring both victim and perpetrator. Or so I thougt. I could be wrong. |
|
| |
Lot's of stuff has been said... I'm sorry you are bored, [WcW]. I'm going to look up these recommended works at some point and [MB], your analysis is basically exact. ha! No, but seriously, you pretty much have the idea right: "thinking about the sameness of consciousness makes us happy". Or does it? Pretty sure this is the halfbakery I could be wrong. |
|
| |
It's the union of Reason and God, folks! We can stop praying and start being objective because objectivity alone leads to Infinity and subsequently God as we have ever properly conceived the deity! I know this isn't going to help my case... |
|
| |
// "humans who achieve greater objective states are
actually manifesting a closer approximation of infinity in
their mind, and this may be a measurable way to
encourage the spiritual experience, since Infinity and God
are basically the same thing, right?"// |
|
| |
No no no no. Again with the words already. |
|
| |
Can you explain, straightforwardly:
a) "greater objective states"
b) "manifesting a closer approximation of infinity"
c) what is the connection between (a) and (b)
d) what is a 'spiritual experience, and why does it need
encouraging?
e) why are infinity and god (only one of which has been
shown to exist) basically the same thing? |
|
| |
The problem is that this sort of thing is just too damn easy
to do. I can say, for example: |
|
| |
"The ultimate depths of introspection take one through
the self, inwards toward the centre and outward to a
greater level of objectivity which, in turn, allows one to
understand the self in a cycle of deepening realization." |
|
| |
I think that says as much as your idea says. The problem is
that I spent about 5 seconds thinking about my "deep"
statement, and I have absolutely no knowledge of
anything which relevant to it. Yet I can write something
which is, I think, just as meaningful as yours. |
|
| |
Oooh.. I like it. Out throught the indoor, good stuff, MB. |
|
| |
"The myth of introspection is that it allows a greater
objectivity, as though an arrow plunging to the centre of
an apple continues through the other side to leave the
apple open behind it. The truth is that introspection is
nothing but the compounding and resonating of internal
noise to the point where it appears to be, but is not, a
signal from some external reality." |
|
| |
You see the idea? Any amount of this stuff can be
generated by a soulless molecular biologist in two minutes
with a few glasses of wine in him. At least that's what I
think, objectively. |
|
| |
//only one of which has been shown to exist//
I'm not
sure LEJ Brouwer would agree that *either* of them has been
shown to exist. |
|
| |
Ah, [mouseposture]'s "Exclusion Principle". |
|
| |
(That's the one where you get pushed out into the Outer Darkness, and then we slam the fire exit behind you). |
|
| |
//"The ultimate depths of introspection take one through the self, inwards toward the centre and outward to a greater level of objectivity which, in turn, allows one to understand the self in a cycle of deepening realization."//
Hit it right on the head. I would only insert the words 'other than' before the second 'the self' in that statement. |
|
| |
//Oooh.. I like it. Out throught the indoor//
It's more like a Klein bottle really. : ]} |
|
| |
In through the in door, then, but no out. |
|
| |
//It's more like a Klein bottle really.//
What?! I was
promised the Outer Darkness, and here I am, still on the
inside/outside with [8th_of_7]. |
|
| |
We're already on the inside.
We gotta go further in to get out. |
|
| |