Home | Community | Message Board

World Seed Supply
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: North Spore Bulk Substrate   Myyco.com Isolated Cubensis Liquid Culture For Sale   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   OlympusMyco.com Olympus Myco Sterilized Grain Bag for Spawn

Jump to first unread post Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | Next >  [ show all ]
Offlinezzripz
Stranger


Registered: 12/23/08
Posts: 8,292
Loc: Manchester, UK
Last seen: 4 years, 10 months
Re: complexity [Re: naykid]
    #21552276 - 04/15/15 05:57 PM (9 years, 1 month ago)

it was a clumsy way --using language can be clumsy--of saying that

OK, we think. That is a fact. Most of the time words and images are flowing by in our minds, right? Same for me you most people if not all

However we also feel. Now IF we think that feeling is somehow apart from us, ie we objectify it, we are dissociating our thinking from these deeper processes of being

You've heard that poem by William Blake right?

'To see a World in a Grain of Sand
And a Heaven in a Wild Flower,
Hold Infinity in the palm of your hand
And Eternity in an hour.'


If you have had psychedelic experience you must know what he means? ALSo when 'sober' you can experience these deeper states

but if we impose thinking on them and begin dividing up, eg ''infinite' versus 'infinity'' etc is when conceptual thinking obscures the experience of the mystery which is feeling

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblenaykid
computers.suck
Registered: 05/06/14
Posts: 167
Re: complexity [Re: zzripz]
    #21552461 - 04/15/15 06:42 PM (9 years, 1 month ago)

Feelings apart from us? I'm not sure, feeling culminates into being (experiencing the self/body/mind) doesn't it? I don't think feeling could be anything but subjective?

Objectifying it only serves to communicate it or for examination, or am I missing something?

LSD and DMT both lead me to get a sense of what infinity is, like a glimpse at the unlimitedness of whats constantly happening. I don't think it can be experienced as a whole since I think that would break our limited perceptions if it was even possible. I'm really not sure what we all are trying to get at here, but it's an interesting discussion.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezzripz
Stranger


Registered: 12/23/08
Posts: 8,292
Loc: Manchester, UK
Last seen: 4 years, 10 months
Re: complexity [Re: naykid]
    #21553856 - 04/16/15 02:43 AM (9 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

Feelings apart from us? I'm not sure, feeling culminates into being (experiencing the self/body/mind) doesn't it? I don't think feeling could be anything but subjective?

Objectifying it only serves to communicate it or for examination, or am I missing something?




example, especially young males in this culture are fearful of expressing emotions. Not only to their family and friends, but even to themselves, because they have been trained to think it is 'unmanly' to do so. So, in effect, they are suppressing feeling. In the 'upper classes' they also have a term for suppressing emotions, feelings, called 'the stiff upper lip'

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblenaykid
computers.suck
Registered: 05/06/14
Posts: 167
Re: complexity [Re: zzripz]
    #21554350 - 04/16/15 08:10 AM (9 years, 1 month ago)

But they are still feeling whether they try to ignore it or not, which results in their being/reactions.

Edited by naykid (04/16/15 08:18 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezzripz
Stranger


Registered: 12/23/08
Posts: 8,292
Loc: Manchester, UK
Last seen: 4 years, 10 months
Re: complexity [Re: naykid]
    #21554915 - 04/16/15 11:31 AM (9 years, 1 month ago)

yes true. BUT their repression of how they feel can ACTUALLY be a cause of many of them harming themselves, including killing themselves. So this is very serious!

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblenaykid
computers.suck
Registered: 05/06/14
Posts: 167
Re: complexity [Re: zzripz]
    #21554976 - 04/16/15 11:49 AM (9 years, 1 month ago)

I would agree completely, that's why they should express their feelings and be honest in most instances, excluding situations where someone could get harmed or be put in danger as a result of that honesty, including other criteria, it's good finding balance and trying to remove selfishness/ego from the equation when it's not necessary since it is that which is usually the initial reason for suppressing feelings.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleKurt
Thinker, blinker, writer, typer.

Registered: 11/26/14
Posts: 1,688
Re: complexity [Re: zzripz]
    #21555589 - 04/16/15 02:19 PM (9 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

zzripz said:
Quote:

concept (n.) Look up concept at Dictionary.com
    1550s, from Medieval Latin conceptum "draft, abstract," in classical Latin "(a thing) conceived," from concep-, past participle stem of concipere "to take in" (see conceive). In some 16c. cases a refashioning of conceit (perhaps to avoid negative connotations).




hence the conceptualizing-thinking mind which tends to abstract and divide up eg 'finite' 'in-finite'-- cannot think about that which it cannot conceive but it can experience 'it'




A definition is not indicative that a phenomenal thing or experience behind a term exists. That unicorns have a definition, (a horse with a horn) does not mean that unicorns exist. This is not to mention that some notions are not even very close in their conception to even ostensibly being a thing or experience.

For example you can talk about "number" and come to common terms about it, but you can't experience number as a thing. I would say infinity is like that, but furthermore, you can't even think of it like counting, or like conceiving dimensions, because "it" only goes through them.

What I mean by that though is it not formally incoherent, meaning you can't even sufficiently begin to think of "it". But it? This mentalism is not to indicate that anything which questions a formal or conceptual cognition, becomes a discrete experience of things,  infinite or whatever "it" may be.

Deconstructing any concept in general does not necessarily bring you to a phenomenon or experience of any particular thing.

So to the subject, I would say its not that infinite being, or anything else is being systematically oppressed by either society or our usual mental engagements. Conceptuality is empty.

I would add that aside from formal definitions, "feeling" is too broad a concept to just assume to corresponds with discrete sensory experience. You can say "I feel happy" and this is not necessarily at all referring to any discrete experience. You can say "I feel the pen in my hand", and this is referring to a specific thing. It is easy to confuse these two ideas of feelings, because while the signification is empty of content in itself (formally or conceptually) it is probably something accompanied by discrete sensory experiences.

Maybe you find this is accompanied by certain discrete experiences, like maybe you did some yoga, or ate a good meal, and feeling happy may well be the symbolic aggregate of many discrete feelings, (and those eating a good meal and doing yoga feelings could be similarly constituted) but a discrete experience is not designated at all in saying you feel "happy", in your mood or emotional state.

I'd say that probably you can meditate or take some psychoactive aids, and stop mentally or cognitively identifying with many finite conceptions of the world, which opens things up a bit. You can probably have an experience that things are not "finite" even, though I'd say there is no discrete referent in that experience. (To the subject of infinity)

I would say that feeling may come into that previously occupied cognitive space. But there is not necessarily anything repressed, or bursting forth under ordinary common sense cognitions, just because these cognitions may well be formally questioned, or in experience be pulled away.


Edited by Kurt (04/16/15 03:51 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezzripz
Stranger


Registered: 12/23/08
Posts: 8,292
Loc: Manchester, UK
Last seen: 4 years, 10 months
Re: complexity [Re: Kurt]
    #21555992 - 04/16/15 03:47 PM (9 years, 1 month ago)

but what I see you doing is using words like you do which try and explain away feeling. Feeling is feeling. experience is experience

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleKurt
Thinker, blinker, writer, typer.

Registered: 11/26/14
Posts: 1,688
Re: complexity [Re: zzripz]
    #21556354 - 04/16/15 05:22 PM (9 years, 1 month ago)

Zzripsz, sorry if I am not being clear enough. What I am saying is if you cease or strip away formal or conceptual thinking, this doesn't mean feeling or something (or whatever you covertly signified as "it") just automatically comes to occupy a corresponding mental space. That is my experience anyway.

I was also speaking to an ostensible conception of infinity, in response to Nekkid; and I should have clarified that. I think when we think of infinity we might think of something coming to occupy " whatever" space we conceive, like water fills a bucket. I think that this idea of filling a bucket can be said to be derivative of a generally formalistic conception, which I suspect is finite. Perhaps we think of questioning or pulling away the finite form (the bucket) here, but something as such is possibly being taken for granted that way. I would possibly have more to say about this.

To tie this back to the subject of the thread, I would also say I think the suggested problematic of infinity is a quite good analogy, or indeed possibly a specific assumption behind complexity, that needs to be appropriately considered.

I think complexity, being a modern notion, rests on the suggestion of a finite material analysis of objects extended in space and time, and in that way, being filled with substance. This is the formal suggestion of physical "things" in the modern sense. This space time is usually conceived as infinite, at least formally so, as extending beyond any extensional object that may be recognized in its plane. This infinite extention leads to a confusion of the dimension with what phenomenally occurs in it (as for instance we can think of both a phenomenon as well as a formal dimension as equivocally "infinite".)

I think by taking this formal "intuition" of infinity for granted complexity theorists are vesting an empirical assumption of material substance, namely a polemic of questioning formal assumptions in general. In other empiricists in general vest in an idea (dubject to its own methodological formalities,conditions of experiment, etc) that no prior intuition is necessary to conceive substance, since all phenomena are equally and essentially material, namely reducible to the accidental interaction of atoms or particles in a void, a concept which (by some conception I would suggest) fills "whatever" we refer to via "whatever" sensory experience lays bear.

I believe complexity theorists are trying to have things both ways, assuming the view that matter happens to fill forms by ostensible accident, or in "whatever' form (the thingness of matter) as well as in forms which are intuitive to us.

I would agree that a formalized conjecture of material analysis is often too strict in its manner of dictating the formal field of phenomenal occurences, but I don't think loosening this up just floods the world, like it frees some new universal or infinitely projecting (or for that "matter" formally coherent) phenomenon of complexity...or reformed concept of material "it-ness".

If I put it in a word my friend, I'd say what I am doing or advocating is emptying buckets, (and I am not sure of the extent this indicates the volume I seem to end up writing).

Edited by Kurt (04/16/15 06:57 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblenaykid
computers.suck
Registered: 05/06/14
Posts: 167
Re: complexity [Re: Kurt]
    #21556399 - 04/16/15 05:38 PM (9 years, 1 month ago)

Well said Kurt, it seems like even trying to explain infinity is always going to end in futility since the existence/nonexistence (it'd have to be both right?) of it is almost by definition incomprehensible in every way no matter how you go about thinking of it.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleFerdinando
Male

Registered: 11/15/09
Posts: 3,876
Re: complexity [Re: naykid]
    #21558879 - 04/17/15 08:43 AM (9 years, 1 month ago)

choice is more simple than nothing


--------------------
with our love with our love we could save the world

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblenaykid
computers.suck
Registered: 05/06/14
Posts: 167
Re: complexity [Re: Ferdinando]
    #21559040 - 04/17/15 09:38 AM (9 years, 1 month ago)

What does that even mean? simplicity is only an opinion.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisiblehTx
(:
Male User Gallery


Registered: 03/27/13
Posts: 5,724
Loc: Space-time
Re: complexity [Re: naykid]
    #21559557 - 04/17/15 12:30 PM (9 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

naykid said:
Well said Kurt, it seems like even trying to explain infinity is always going to end in futility since the existence/nonexistence (it'd have to be both right?) of it is almost by definition incomprehensible in every way no matter how you go about thinking of it.



Nothingness (nonexistence) is NOT the same as infinity which is existence.

Nothingness is just that, and it doesn't exist in any universe.


--------------------
zen by age ten times six hundred lifetimes
Light up the darkness.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblenaykid
computers.suck
Registered: 05/06/14
Posts: 167
Re: complexity [Re: hTx]
    #21559578 - 04/17/15 12:37 PM (9 years, 1 month ago)

I thought infinity encompasses everything, possible and impossible doesn't it? Maybe I'm attributing the wrong properties to it, rather then it just being endlessly vast.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisiblehTx
(:
Male User Gallery


Registered: 03/27/13
Posts: 5,724
Loc: Space-time
Re: complexity [Re: naykid]
    #21559590 - 04/17/15 12:41 PM (9 years, 1 month ago)

Infinity implies something rather than nothing.

Otherwise it would be called nothing.


--------------------
zen by age ten times six hundred lifetimes
Light up the darkness.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisiblehTx
(:
Male User Gallery


Registered: 03/27/13
Posts: 5,724
Loc: Space-time
Re: complexity [Re: hTx]
    #21559621 - 04/17/15 12:53 PM (9 years, 1 month ago)

Even in a vacuum or what we refer to as 'empty space', there is something (space-time, higgs field, dark matter)
It may be very uniform and simple however, it isnt nothing.
This is why i believe we should rewrite our understanding of zero (which implies nothing as obtainable or existent) to align with what is current in physics..which is to say zero can represent infinity and still work.


--------------------
zen by age ten times six hundred lifetimes
Light up the darkness.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleegoproctor
egoproctor
Male User Gallery


Registered: 10/07/14
Posts: 147
Loc: Ningbo, China
Re: complexity [Re: hTx]
    #21559737 - 04/17/15 01:27 PM (9 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

hTx said:
Even in a vacuum or what we refer to as 'empty space', there is something (space-time, higgs field, dark matter)
It may be very uniform and simple however, it isnt nothing.
This is why i believe we should rewrite our understanding of zero (which implies nothing as obtainable or existent) to align with what is current in physics..which is to say zero can represent infinity and still work.





On that I can agree. I was asked that question by a friend. How do we empirically prove the existence and functionality of zero. Our entire mode of thought, as it pertains to mathematics and science, but philosophically with sentient thought, revolves around but does not intersect directly with 0. Is it fair to call it a useful and unproven axiom?  Like a point? 

When I was given this question it bothered me greatly. I am not a mathematician, but philosopher I can be.  My mind quickly moved to magnetism and duality. Magnetic forces attract or repel, depending on the alignment of the fields. I then thought about 0 and "infinity" and realized it is, to me, perceptually similar, in that zero, from my perspective, represents infinite compression while "infinity" represents infinite expansion. 

Then I asked what would happen if I was able to put "infinity" inside 0.  How does this dualistic system of thought work when the two forces are combined in such a way that they cancel eachother out?    How does our perception of this experience alter when we look at a point, which has no width or breadth, only infinite height, yet a line is infinite points touching in non-existent dimensional spaces, so the entirety of space-time as we perceive it should just be a single point containing infinite sets of vibration intersections.

Anyway, it's 3:20 AM in China and I need sleep. I don't feel completely coherent and I have to commentate a kickboxing tournament and several MMA fights for Chinese and Hong Kong Television tomorrow, so I won't be free to respond for several hours to a couple of days.


Oh. And there was something else about the increasing complexity of our ability to define our perception of the universe, not necessarily reorganize it...  But I lost the thread of thought to a need to sleep.


--------------------
"-" egoproctor

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleKurt
Thinker, blinker, writer, typer.

Registered: 11/26/14
Posts: 1,688
Re: complexity [Re: hTx]
    #21559866 - 04/17/15 02:16 PM (9 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

hTx said:
Infinity implies something rather than nothing.

Otherwise it would be called nothing.




Hey HTX,

We were already discussing a bit about how speaking of a concept of something doesn't imply the existence of a thing.

For example, look how many bad ontological arguments are presumed circularly by definitions. 

Clearly the concept of a unicorn, or of a number, or a god doesn't imply existence.

What an inquiry into the implied existence of "something" indicates, is that the way something is being formally conceived and taken for granted, is somehow found questionable. I had suggested infinity is impossible to formally conceive, or on that basis observe.

Arguably (as Kant properly said) you can't predicate or "know" existence itself. That would be a principled response. You can question the provisions of what is found to exist in earlier thinking or preconceptions.

In sum, I would say the existence of infinity is something to philosophically question somewhat like the existence of number, or god. (Somewhat analogously)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDividedQuantumM
Outer Head
Male User Gallery

Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,885
Re: complexity [Re: hTx]
    #21559878 - 04/17/15 02:18 PM (9 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

hTx said:
Nothingness (nonexistence) is NOT the same as infinity which is existence.

Nothingness is just that, and it doesn't exist in any universe.





"What is called Nothingness is to be found only in time and in speech."  --Leonardo da Vinci


--------------------
Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDividedQuantumM
Outer Head
Male User Gallery

Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,885
Re: complexity [Re: egoproctor]
    #21559881 - 04/17/15 02:19 PM (9 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

egoproctor said:
Quote:

hTx said:
Even in a vacuum or what we refer to as 'empty space', there is something (space-time, higgs field, dark matter)
It may be very uniform and simple however, it isnt nothing.
This is why i believe we should rewrite our understanding of zero (which implies nothing as obtainable or existent) to align with what is current in physics..which is to say zero can represent infinity and still work.





On that I can agree. I was asked that question by a friend. How do we empirically prove the existence and functionality of zero. Our entire mode of thought, as it pertains to mathematics and science, but philosophically with sentient thought, revolves around but does not intersect directly with 0. Is it fair to call it a useful and unproven axiom?  Like a point? 

When I was given this question it bothered me greatly. I am not a mathematician, but philosopher I can be.  My mind quickly moved to magnetism and duality. Magnetic forces attract or repel, depending on the alignment of the fields. I then thought about 0 and "infinity" and realized it is, to me, perceptually similar, in that zero, from my perspective, represents infinite compression while "infinity" represents infinite expansion. 

Then I asked what would happen if I was able to put "infinity" inside 0.  How does this dualistic system of thought work when the two forces are combined in such a way that they cancel eachother out?    How does our perception of this experience alter when we look at a point, which has no width or breadth, only infinite height, yet a line is infinite points touching in non-existent dimensional spaces, so the entirety of space-time as we perceive it should just be a single point containing infinite sets of vibration intersections.

Anyway, it's 3:20 AM in China and I need sleep. I don't feel completely coherent and I have to commentate a kickboxing tournament and several MMA fights for Chinese and Hong Kong Television tomorrow, so I won't be free to respond for several hours to a couple of days.


Oh. And there was something else about the increasing complexity of our ability to define our perception of the universe, not necessarily reorganize it...  But I lost the thread of thought to a need to sleep.




Egoproctor, given the depth of your ideas I urge you to research Cantor's Transfinite Sets.  You may find some answers there.


--------------------
Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | Next >  [ show all ]

Shop: North Spore Bulk Substrate   Myyco.com Isolated Cubensis Liquid Culture For Sale   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   OlympusMyco.com Olympus Myco Sterilized Grain Bag for Spawn


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* The ability to conceptualize
( 1 2 all )
TrueBrode 4,055 27 01/18/04 01:05 PM
by jpod
* Conceptual thinking. *DELETED* dorkus 1,326 1 05/01/06 12:43 PM
by TheQueen
* Conceptual Evolution And Physical Evolution fireworks_godS 3,325 15 04/19/05 06:33 PM
by entiformatie
* Implications of the Big Bang Origin and Fate of the Universe
( 1 2 3 all )
Source 6,635 41 09/07/04 11:01 PM
by gettinjiggywithit
* The concept of randomness Rhizoid 2,009 14 07/11/03 07:01 PM
by Strumpling
* Begining To See What Certain Concepts Mean Twirling 852 12 09/08/04 03:12 AM
by thelion
* A proposed end to our concept of "family" Amnesiac 895 7 05/28/03 06:53 PM
by Amnesiac
* Concepts unimaginable to humans Rizn 648 1 08/28/07 04:45 PM
by Huehuecoyotl

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum
4,484 topic views. 0 members, 5 guests and 12 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.026 seconds spending 0.009 seconds on 14 queries.