What is universal? (e.g. norms) ~ psychology
°●°○°○°○○°○°
Why would we suppose that other people have the same subjective experience of being alive/aware as we do?
°○°○°○○°○°○°
I have read some responses herein and although I admire philosophy to a sophisticated degree, keeping things simple challenges things far better.
What is normal, per se, is how we encounter both what registers as conscious ergo subconsciously.
There is such a thing. If we want to define what that thing is, it can be whatever defines any particularly universal axoim. (i.e. norm) Such is the supposition through langauge.
What we see as art strikes me as good definition. Defining art through language requires sensory input. The object vs the irony
We all see the same thing but have different definitions if subconsciously processing the thing. What is art fundamentally proves our sensory experience reaches beyond what is normal.
Though only normal comes to us as homeostasis. A state in which we govern ourselves and is accepted either through equilibrium or static epistemological (univseral) ends.
My point is once we account for as normal, what is abstract can also (in my proof) account for as art. We recommend what is universally adept, as though we live our lives mechanically before realizing it manually, we have control. We have control over what conventional wisdom otherwise dictates, unless we deviate from it. This is all philosophically computational.
- Marco
°●●°●•●•○•○°○•
[Not me:]
No. Your awareness is determined by your cognitive horizon - that horizon is represented as the amount of information your mind can use while constructing it's image of the world around you.
Depending on if your horizon is large or small, you'll be able to interpret more or less of a timescale regarding your situation. What that means is people with large horizons can understand how events from today and yesterday, will impact tomorrow. Its an improvement on your ability to predict which changes how you'd act today as a result.
On a closing note - if you lack a cognitive horizon, you are unable to consider the world around you. You become a surface for others to implant their perspectives on to yours, adjusting your reality to their benefit. People in this situation are "unconscious" while awake.
°•○●•••○•°°
[Not me:]
Because we all wear the same systemic headset.
What have Plato, Kant, Whitehead, Hoffman and every other philosopher got in common? They all use the systemic eye; a set of a’ priori systemic modes to see.
Within every human being is a set of a’ priori modes. The set allows us to systemise and thus synthesise our positions in reality. It also allows us to structure our thoughts and by extension, languages. More importantly, the set also gives systemic agency to consciousness.
Allow me to give you a quick rundown of some of the modes.
Once again: the mind employs a set of a’ priori modes to systemically align and thus, synthesise with the order and symmetry of things.
Adding is an obvious mode to most. You can’t add up what I am about to relay without it. We can’t add up the variables of evolution without it. It’s not just there for adding up the pennies in your purse. Gödel used adding to figure out that our mathematical models don’t add up and so on. You employ it to engage the fields you enter. Adding is a monumental mode. You can’t speak if you can’t add.
Categorisation is another mode. We categorically define the world we are of. I categorise adding as a mode of thought. We move in and out of categories continuously. Your mind has ran through many categories just reading what you have read. Without our ability to categorise or add, we are blind to the world around us.
Identification is another mode. Identify the structure of the cell. Identify our root on the evolutionary ladder. Identify categorisation as a mode. We don’t seem to be able to identify our own nature as human, in a fixed way. Just can’t ground the predicate. The premise is loose at best and we can identify with that. It all adds up.
Configuration is another mode. When things don’t figure, it’s because the mind hasn’t combined with the correct configuration. All knowledge is built around combinational configurations. When something doesn’t figure, it is because we haven’t yet combined with the correct configuration.
Unification is another mode. To unify what we are searching for. To add it up and unify it. To unify around the correct configuration and add it up.
There are many more modes. Considered together as a constellation set; as a concatenation of modes, the mind can be seen as a systemic tool. A tool prior to ego and experience. A tool for systemising and synthesising its place in the order of things as I said. Once again, you are employing them right now as you engage with me.
This set is in everyone. It is a universal set and thought is impossible without it. Language by extension is impossible without it. Just try and read my words or engage in any verse without them. Try reading my words without adding. Try reading them without the mode of categorisation.
From a phenomenological perspective, this set is what we are until we know more because it is this set that allows us to abstract and see that appearances are not what things are. It is this set that allows us to see that the body has no fixed predicate so it is a loose idea at best.
In essence, we are a set of systemic modes floating in an ocean of dissipating variables and until we can say more we are that.
Again, this set is responsible for all knowledge structures. Science and philosophy are impossible without the systemic lens/eye. Kant employed them to ground his categories. Einstein employed them to ground his perspective and so forth. One ring to rule them all. One eye to systemise it all. Debunking me involves engaging the modes so there’s no getting out of the box.
Embodying this set; meditating on this set: holding them as a fixed set that work in conjunction of one another, places you in the eye of consciousness in a systemic manner. The refinement of this set will take us further into it; into the true self.
Evolution is an inward journey. There is no out here. We need to refine and embody this set before we look to find it ourselves in deeper realms.
Perhaps consciousness is just an emergent novelty of the brain: an epiphenomenalistic fluke of evolution if you will, but either way, it’s a set. A systemic set and consciousness is flat without it.
Yap.
°●°●°°●○°°●°●°●°
[Not me:]
See Plato's dialogue on "Protagoras", on objective truth.
[End].
No comments:
Post a Comment