The messenger always dies!Metazoan wrote:Hi ..nameless..,
Having fun baiting the realists, eh? ;-)
Watch out when they reach for their ice-picks.
That's how I see it, just asking you your Perspective.From my perspective, it isn't possible to avoid anything. Anything that is possible, is. Anything that is not possible, isn't...nameless.. wrote:... Could I have avoided not reading it (yet?)? *__-
There simply isn't any room left for free will.
That seems to me to be the only scientifically and philosophically defensable theory. 'Free-will' exists as a notion/thought that we had no option but to perceive! (Religiously, 'belief' in 'free-will' is the 'sin' of Pride!)
True. I often repeat the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics "Consciousness is the ground of all being!"My question was aimed at working out how you thought it all got off the ground. If I take what you say as given, it does hold together but it does seem to presuppose thought/consciousness rather than predict thought/consciousness.
I use this 'interpretation' among many, is that this one, alone, converges with the 'findings' of various divergent fields of inquiry.
Also, many folks can relate to something said by 'science' as opposed to the collected experiences of millennia of mystics. There are many constipated minds!
All that said, the evidence of 'Consciousness' seems Universal. What is perceived to exist (everything that exists), that is not Consciously perceived by a Conscious Perspective (us)?
There is no evidence to the contrary.
Where does the thought/consciousness come from?
Bad question! (slaps nose with newspaper!)
All 'thoughts' of 'comming from' exist within/as Consciousness. All 'thoughts' are grounded in Consciousness.
Consciousness has no context, whereby it can be defined/described.
Everything that Consciousness perceives has context.
That is why it can 'be' (exist/perceived), rather than not 'be' (not exist, not perceived).
All 'whowhatwherewhenwhy' exist as thought, a 'subset' (unit of perception, a 'moment', a 'percept'), a feature that has context, of the 'Complete Set' (Consciousness/ God/ 'Self!'!/ Nature/ the Universe... whatever works for ya), which is non-contextual.
All propositions/truths are falsifiable in that all are contextual.
Truth is not falsifiable!
"The complete Universe (Truth/Reality/existence/Mind/God/Self/Tao/Brahman..… or any feature perceived herein) can be defined/described as the synchronous sum-total of all Perspectives!" - Book of Fudd
So, I'd bet a dollar on Copenhagen, since there seems to be no viable alternative, and connect the dots from Here. So far, they all fit together so nicely, simply... a true ToA!
If by "me' you refer to 'Self!'! The 'Self!' of which the egoic/thought (ego is thought) construct of 'self' is but one feature of the all inclusive 'Self!'!I once thought I had come up with a ToE, mainly due to it starting from absolutely nothing and ending up with me.
All Knowledge is 'Self!' Knowledge!
Well, a bigger 'everything' perceived then 'yesterday'.On closer examination I realised that that was only the tiniest part of what may be possible and was staggered to see just how monumentally huge 'everything' is.
Nevertheless I am now content that I have some idea how I got here.
Are they related? Being 'content', and having "some idea how I got here"?
The thing that would worry me here is that sounds very much like the definition of empirical...nameless.. wrote:I 'derived' it from my own perceptions, experiences, practices, disciplines from many "disparate areas of experience";
If we define 'empirical' as that which is perceived.
That is how we all Know. That is the only way to Know, Conscious perception.
'Knowledge' is "that which is perceived!"
If that fits into your understanding of 'empirical' then that works for me.
I do understand that the common definition is something different and obsolete.
Causality is also no longer what it once was. 'Cause and effect' is a crude way of saying "two mutually arising features (Perspectives) of the same event!"That would suggest the absence of a theory and then the difficulty of getting around the problem of correlation not proving causation.
There is no 'causation', there is no 'time' (other than as a 'thought').
Not anything is ever 'created', nor can be!
That which Is, is 'perceived'!
One feature of Consciousness is 'thought'.Without a reason for there to be consciousness why does consciousness exist?
In/as 'thought' exists 'reason'.
That is what 'existence' is!How does consciousness exist without being perceived?
Existence is a moment of 'Self!' Knowledge!
All us little (Planck sized!!) Perspectives uniquely perceiving that feature of the One Reality toward which we are 'pointed'.
Reality is a synchrony of moments of 'Self! Knowledge'!
('Time', the notions of linearity and motion, exists, along with the egoic 'self' construct, as 'thought'.)
If I take consciousness for granted then all's well and I don't need anything else to explain my existence.
If you ever find any evidence of 'not' Consciousness, I'm all ears.
But, it won't happen.
It is not possible! *__-
As i said, there are many 'reasons' for consciousness. lots of Perpectives. The 'Ultimate Reason' is the sum-total of all the 'reasons' that are reasoned (perceived by Perspectives). All together, they remain perceived (Consciously! *__- ) features (among many) of the One Reality.But unless consciousness has some intrinsic reason for existing, then I start with nothing and nothing ever exists.
This theory accounts for all 'explanations', is all inclusive, Universally!That is the bit I have failed to grasp from what you have said.
In my view consciousness needs an explanation or your theory cannot be complete.
An initial look at your reasoning would appear to force you to deny the possibility of examining consciousness but I am missing why that reasoning is required.
Never deny the examination of anything, this is philosophy fer Dog's sake!
I follow all the neuro and bio and silicon and philosophic and physics and noetic and most of the cutting edge of the study of Consciousness.
The ToE still holds true, and the predictive power, so far, is 100%!
There is yet to be a 'breakthrough' of Knowledge to refute what I offer. All is accounted for, so far.
You seem to be well on the way to finding out for yourself!Personally, I have consciousness pinned out on a dissecting table like a dead frog. Unfortunately again I disastrously underestimated how big it was and now I kinda wish I hadn't started. My point is that you may wish to review your ideas on the effability of consciousness.
Keep disecting your mist, every bit that you can catch! *__-
Love to follow your progress!
The end result is, of course, clearly predicted in the ToE!