Home | Community | Message Board


Kratom Eye
Please support our sponsors.

General Interest >> Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology

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!

Jump to first unread post. Pages: 1
OfflineUrQuattro
Paradigm Shifter

Registered: 02/03/01
Posts: 378
Loc: SFCAUSA
Last seen: 3 years, 2 months
More on Descartes
    #661636 - 06/04/02 01:41 AM (14 years, 6 months ago)

So, i wrote this essay for my philosophy class, in response to reading descartes' first 4 meditations. It is my analysis of his assumptions, and goes on to try to prove or disprove various things.. Lemme know what ya think:


Descartes, in Meditation III, creates the assumption that God is omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent, as well as perfect and benevolent. He then argues his own existence in comparison to this ideal of God, and uses the fact that this idea exists in his mind as a justification for proof of the existence of God. Upon my reading of his writing, I find myself intuitively sensing inconsistencies and forming arguments separate and contrasting with his. My initial response is that, if these assumptions are true, then it must also be true that seemingly individual and separate entities exist, each of which are fundamental parts of God, and if that is true, then all life forms, including humans, are also a fundamental part of God.

Descartes analyzed the state of his own consciousness and came to realize that the mind has infinite potential, and yet, simultaneously, cannot be infinite, for it is always aware of its ability to expand -- meaning then that it is impossible to possess subjective awareness and simultaneously have a state of infinite consciousness. He argues that this prevents the mind from becoming truly infinite. However, in lieu of negating the possibility of attaining infinite awareness, it is possible to extract that upon reaching a state of infinity, all subjective awareness vanishes and is replaced, by definition, with a pure, objective awareness, which can then be thought of as God-consciousness.

The Universe seems to operate in a holographic, or fractal, manner: meaning that each subsection of the whole contains all properties of the ?parent.? This was shown recently by physicists stimulating electrons and observing a response, at varying and arbitrary distances, in particles that have no measurable interaction with the original particle. If the theory holds true, it would apply to every characteristic of reality. It is possible to interpret my own psychological development as a holograph of the overall universe, or simply human history, if I analyze the patterns of progress and regress as plotted on an abstract mathematical curve. So, by incorporating the Holographic Universe theory, not only is every person, animal, rock and atom a fundamental part of God, but are in fact, by holographic existence, God.

As Descartes progressed to what he knows himself to be, a thinking being, he has removed his corporeal body from the equation and reduced himself to pure consciousness. To be valid, this section of argument must be based on human perception of consciousness and reality, since it is impossible to measure or experience consciousness in a species that is unable to express it to us. Humans (and perhaps all biological life), perceive reality based upon electrical signals radiated by the external universe, received by a physical sense, interpreted by the biological brain, and filtered to the subjective mind if deemed, unconsciously, to be important information at the time. A possible demonstration of this is my inability to find a particular object while consciously looking for it, even if it sits in front of me. Though I may look directly at it, my subjective mind does not receive the signal that the search is over, despite the obvious fact that the corporeal body sensed it.

It can then be seen that our physical bodies are nothing more than electrical signals and energy fields: varying vibrations of energy that seemingly account for the great diversity of material in the universe. One example is that, depending on temperature, atoms vibrate at a particular frequency. Change in temperature affects the general physical state of that object, possibly transitioning a liquid from a solid. Due to this nature of existence, it can be realized that there is no true separation between our bodies and the external world: this is simply an ego-based illusion.? Therefore, the entire construct of reality as we know it is simply a manifestation of our conscious mind?s need to find patterns in an ?organized chaos? when in fact our bodies are simply a subjectively aware manifestation of the objective universe, which, due to the laws of survival, perceives itself to be separate and distinct. This relates to the earlier point that the mind is potentially infinite; for if it truly realizes its own nature as an infinite part of an infinite reality, then subjective awareness transitions to a state of objective awareness, instantly removing our perceived separation from the external world.

So, based on Descartes? assumptions that God is all-knowing, universally present, and all-powerful, and my demonstration that those assumptions indicate that there is no true separation between our selves and the universe, it must follow that we are God. Since God includes us and all forms of life, and since Christian teachings tell the human mind that its condition is inherently flawed, while God is perfect in every way, including necessary existence, it must then be said that God is flawed. However, since this directly contradicts what both Descartes and Christianity claim, if these truly are necessary qualities for God, then it must follow that God does not exist. However, if God does not exist, how do I exist? So, either the nature of God is different than assumed, or existence is an illusion.

Since this lack of God?s existence only rests upon the aforementioned assumptions as to the nature of God, and that human consciousness, not currently being infinite, cannot fully comprehend the nature of an infinite being, projecting any qualities of existence onto an infinite God would inherently create mistakes. Descartes states that mistakes and errors occur when one's will extends beyond one's knowledge, creating a false judgment. His will during these meditations was to prove the existence of a particular type of God, an idea he could not fully comprehend, so therefore, any judgement about this God has potential for mistake. Is it not impossible to reliably attribute characteristics created by a temporarily finite consciousness to a figure of an infinite God?? One must therefore rule out any definition of God that awards him those, or any qualities, which are idealized by human will and morality. Each progression of human existence: the smallest generational shift, the largest evolutionary epoch, our balance with nature, and the very ideal of God,? has shifted unendingly in an almost fluidic fashion, leading to the fact that the only stable characteristic of human understanding is its instability.

So, as Descartes' assumptions about the mind and God seem to be in conflict, both cannot be correct in this reality. The pursuit for the error of his reasoning can take a myriad of directions. Are his basic assumptions about his own existence correct? Are his assumptions about the qualities of God comprehensive? Is the relationship he forms, between the mind's idea of infinite perfection and the subsequent necessary existence of God, valid? Close examination of Descartes' writings seems to raise more questions and arguments than it settles.

If it is impossible to objectively know that God is omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent, then what is possible to be known? What then, can God be attributed? Is God even definable? And if so, defined how? By the very nature of the word, God, a connotation appears and involves the idea of a "being" beyond human comprehension. If this is so, then nothing but arrogance is required to project human ideals of abstract qualities onto a concrete, superior being. Of course, with this, the analysis of the meditation would desist, and no questioning or progress could be made. So, as Descartes believed himself to do, I will attempt to remove all basic assumptions and connotations from the neutral word of "God" to the fullest extent of my capability.

The assumption of God as something beyond human comprehension remains implicit to the word itself. Infinity is a concept that has infinitely confounded the greatest intellectual minds. Many objects in objective reality appear infinite: the universe itself, a circle, a fractal. Time is yet another of the most universally experienced infinite concepts. It seems infinite in the ?forward? direction, yet paradoxically, we are aware of a possible initial point: ?The Big Bang.???

One possibility of a being more powerful than human comprehension, an infinite being, is one that could exist as the causal action which spawned reality, and therefore time, as we know it. This requires that God exists outside, or beyond, the "linear" timeline. Since time is a temporal, instead of spatial, dimension of the universe, existence outside time would imply existence beyond the universe itself. Since the universe consists entirely of matter and energy, God would therefore seem to possess neither of these qualities. Additionally, these concepts, of awareness, consciousness, and ego, exist, as I possess them as entities within my subjective mind. Does awareness of an event possess matter or energy? Does thought itself possess any quantity of these substances? If they do not, does the mind? Apparently these entities exist then, beyond what we define as physical reality. So it is possible as well that God is objective consciousness itself.??

I am aware that my mind, while physically bound to reality and the timeline through my corporeal body, does not seem to follow these laws, abstractly. I can conceive of ideas that are not directly observable physically. I can travel through time and relive, with full lucidity, any past experience I choose. I can venture to different worlds, travel through space or alternate realities, and even visualize myself as another mind. Yet, despite this apparent temporal and spatial freedom, ultimately, my mind is limited to my physical existence and my intuitive ability.?

Though some images which appear in my mind, most typically through dreams, may subsequently prove to be premonitions, the mind is generally limited in the forward temporal direction to this particular point in time, which is in constant flux. By existing outside of time, God would then be able to view everything : past, present, and future. Additionally, God would be aware of all events occurring simultaneously at a single point in time. Beyond this, I hesitate to venture, for my personal assumptions and bias toward God appear concretely. I know not how to project any objective emotion or state of consciousness upon such a being. Without another option, the exploration into the nature of God ends at this point; further analysis risks judgemental error as my will extends beyond my knowledge.


--------------------
True wisdom is the knowledge that nothing is impossible except for absolute knowledge.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Anonymous

Re: More on Descartes [Re: UrQuattro]
    #661956 - 06/04/02 07:44 AM (14 years, 6 months ago)

Ur,
AS well thought out as that discourse was, no one will respond with anything but tom foolery.

try and have a Mod move it to Spitiruality Forum, then maybe you will get some answers
-OoD


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinedeviation13
old hand
Registered: 11/21/00
Posts: 927
Last seen: 7 months, 8 hours
Re: More on Descartes [Re: UrQuattro]
    #661968 - 06/04/02 07:52 AM (14 years, 6 months ago)

yeah man... i dont know what kind of response you expect to get in a forum filled with whatever it is this forum is filled with... maybe i will read it someday...


--------------------
-----------------
too busy with living to live
-----------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleSenor_Doobie
Snake Pit Champion
 User Gallery

Registered: 08/12/99
Posts: 21,330
Loc: Wexico
Re: More on Descartes [Re: UrQuattro]
    #662007 - 06/04/02 08:23 AM (14 years, 6 months ago)

It's your call.

If you want me to move it, say the word.


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisiblePapaverS
Madmin Emeritus?

Registered: 06/01/02
Posts: 26,880
Loc: Radio Free Tibet!
Re: More on Descartes [Re: UrQuattro]
    #662085 - 06/04/02 09:10 AM (14 years, 6 months ago)

Cool. I'm lacking the time, and focus, at the moment to give this the serious consideration it deserves, but I'll look at it later and let you know what I think. However, most of what I know of Descartes comes second hand.

I know I'm a newbie (well, now a journeyman), but I'd like to think there's room on this board for the occasional lively discussion of all things serious, silly banter, and funny flame wars. The more diversity, the better, I say!

-- "Everything I've ever said is a lie, including that."

PS: This whole business about "puppets" is seriously messing with my mind, man. I think it's going to take me some time to really figure out what's going on there, but I love it, it's abstract, and challenging. I think I will have to log many more miles here, before I really figure out who's really who, and what their true personality is.


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleSenor_Doobie
Snake Pit Champion
 User Gallery

Registered: 08/12/99
Posts: 21,330
Loc: Wexico
Re: More on Descartes [Re: Papaver]
    #662232 - 06/04/02 10:09 AM (14 years, 6 months ago)

The poster has asked me to move it so I will. It'll be in S&P amongst the crazies. JUST KIDDING.

And um
regarding your signature
I've only been here for four years and I have no idea who anyone is except for those I've met.


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisiblePapaverS
Madmin Emeritus?

Registered: 06/01/02
Posts: 26,880
Loc: Radio Free Tibet!
Re: More on Descartes [Re: UrQuattro]
    #663160 - 06/04/02 08:16 PM (14 years, 6 months ago)

>The Universe seems to operate in a holographic, or fractal, manner: meaning that each subsection of the whole contains all properties of the "parent."

That?s a lot to swallow, especially since I have not read the texts, or other?s critical interpretations of the texts, but I?ll venture to glom onto this fractal/holographic/pattern thing, which I believe to be a post-modern model you are applying over Descartes? text for critical interpretation purposes.

This is more etiology than epistemology or metaphysics, but bear with me here -- maybe we can get a good thread going off of it.

I have become fascinated, of late, by the concept that the entire universe (including all psychological and sociological phenomena) may possibly be explained by the understanding of highly finite, very compact, simple, rules, which when played out over time and space, are responsible for this vast, seemingly chaotic, universe which we perceive. Including, and not limited to, our perceptions themselves -- these perceptual mechanisms being built upon these very same simple rules.

There is a gentleman who?s been working on a book about these rules, Stephen Wolfram (see Wired Magazine 10.06), and I think he may be on to something. He hopefully will publish it soon, as I?d like to see it.

These simple, but complexly unfolding rules, will, I believe, one day help us understand the nearest neighbor fetal differentiation of stem cells, in utero, into separate tissue types, and how this is quite possibly the function of all this so called "junk DNA" -- or amino acid sequences which seem to have no corresponding pattern for known genes.

I believe the genome, when fully understood, will not to be "flat," but in fact, turn out to be layered and comprised of a hierarchical structure which is encoded, evolutionarily, and decoded, biochemically, by a fundamentally simple set of rules, which simply work vertically into a third dimension, if you will.

Anyway, possibly off-topic, but food for thought, or total psycho-drama, you decide, and let me know?


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineUrQuattro
Paradigm Shifter

Registered: 02/03/01
Posts: 378
Loc: SFCAUSA
Last seen: 3 years, 2 months
Re: More on Descartes [Re: Papaver]
    #663389 - 06/04/02 11:31 PM (14 years, 6 months ago)

In reply to:

There is a gentleman who?s been working on a book about these rules, Stephen Wolfram (see Wired Magazine 10.06), and I think he may be on to something. He hopefully will publish it soon, as I?d like to see it.




good news: its already out: "a new kind of science"

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1579550088/103-5843082-0278216

im just waiting for my next paycheck so i can order it....i spent my last 50 bucks of spending money on a few giger items...

i'll respond more to your points later...my mind is nowhere near functional enough to be coherent right now...


--------------------
True wisdom is the knowledge that nothing is impossible except for absolute knowledge.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisiblePapaverS
Madmin Emeritus?

Registered: 06/01/02
Posts: 26,880
Loc: Radio Free Tibet!
Re: More on Descartes [Re: UrQuattro]
    #663691 - 06/05/02 07:41 AM (14 years, 6 months ago)

> good news: its already out: "a new kind of science"

Very cool! That will definitely be on my list of things to buy, but it'll probably be a couple of months, as I'm getting ready to relocate myself...


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Jump to top. Pages: 1

General Interest >> Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Nothing is greater than infinity
( 1 2 3 all )
justAkid 2,617 52 12/11/07 11:20 AM
by daytripper23
* If the universe is infinite
( 1 2 all )
WhiteRabbitt 2,875 35 09/02/06 10:51 AM
by MarkostheGnostic
* Infinite Philosophy
( 1 2 all )
Chronic7 1,750 27 05/26/09 02:00 PM
by Chronic7
* The Holographic Universe- Science and Spirituality
( 1 2 3 all )
gettinjiggywithit 5,077 42 03/17/08 05:25 AM
by 764hero
* Holographic Universe. Life changing read. DarkMushrooom 1,225 16 07/24/03 01:30 AM
by HagbardCeline
* The Holographic Universe Iriebuddha 1,032 4 07/17/06 02:01 PM
by ElectricJW
* Conclusions I've come to after thinking about the holographic universe for a few weeks Cyric 391 3 05/27/09 12:00 PM
by deimya
* Infinite Continuum it stars saddam 1,143 9 08/22/05 02:44 PM
by it stars saddam

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, CosmicJoke, Diploid, DividedQuantum
758 topic views. 0 members, 2 guests and 9 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Toggle Favorite | Print Topic | Stats ]
Search this thread:
Myco Supply
Please support our sponsors.

Copyright 1997-2016 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.11 seconds spending 0.006 seconds on 14 queries.