TRUE = FALSE

[Eodnhoj7]

Truth is what you experience or what the group agrees about an experience, truth does not lye outside the self

Then anything beyond human observation requires an observer beyond the human state, as such the universe is self-aware.

Anything that is beyond a conscious subject/organism is unknowable, for the physical world and its energies/objects are utterly meaningless in and of themselves. It is the old saying subject and object stand or fall together, meaning if there is no conscious subject there is no apparent reality if there is no apparent reality/physical world, there could be no consciousness. The universe is self-aware through the consciousness of biological life.

But consciousness cannot be limited to biological life as consciousness is only interactions. Biological life is the result of non-biological matter interacting and vice versa.

[popeye1945]

Then anything beyond human observation requires an observer beyond the human state, as such the universe is self-aware.

Anything that is beyond a conscious subject/organism is unknowable, for the physical world and its energies/objects are utterly meaningless in and of themselves. It is the old saying subject and object stand or fall together, meaning if there is no conscious subject there is no apparent reality if there is no apparent reality/physical world, there could be no consciousness. The universe is self-aware through the consciousness of biological life.

But consciousness cannot be limited to biological life as consciousness is only interactions. Biological life is the result of non-biological matter interacting and vice versa.

Personally, I have never run across anyone claiming that the inanimate world is conscious. Certainly, it does seem that the physical world created life and thus consciousness. I think your entering into an irrational tangent. I could be wrong, it happened to me once back in the sixties but I swore never to be wrong again----lol!!

[CHNOPS]

Anything that is beyond a conscious subject/organism is unknowable, for the physical world and its energies/objects are utterly meaningless in and of themselves. It is the old saying subject and object stand or fall together, meaning if there is no conscious subject there is no apparent reality if there is no apparent reality/physical world, there could be no consciousness. The universe is self-aware through the consciousness of biological life.

But consciousness cannot be limited to biological life as consciousness is only interactions. Biological life is the result of non-biological matter interacting and vice versa.

Personally, I have never run across anyone claiming that the inanimate world is conscious. Certainly, it does seem that the physical world created life and thus consciousness. I think your entering into an irrational tangent. I could be wrong, it happened to me once back in the sixties but I swore never to be wrong again----lol!!

That is because you are being dogmatic here, when you equal "life" with "consciousness".

If something move in a complex way, it seems to you that it has consciousness experience but if it doesnt move in a complex way then it doesnt have it?

Why?

[Eodnhoj7]

Anything that is beyond a conscious subject/organism is unknowable, for the physical world and its energies/objects are utterly meaningless in and of themselves. It is the old saying subject and object stand or fall together, meaning if there is no conscious subject there is no apparent reality if there is no apparent reality/physical world, there could be no consciousness. The universe is self-aware through the consciousness of biological life.

But consciousness cannot be limited to biological life as consciousness is only interactions. Biological life is the result of non-biological matter interacting and vice versa.

Personally, I have never run across anyone claiming that the inanimate world is conscious. Certainly, it does seem that the physical world created life and thus consciousness. I think your entering into an irrational tangent. I could be wrong, it happened to me once back in the sixties but I swore never to be wrong again----lol!!

It would depend on how you define "inanimate". If you define inanimate as an "absence of interactions" then relative reality is not inanimate but rather animate.

[Eodnhoj7]

But consciousness cannot be limited to biological life as consciousness is only interactions. Biological life is the result of non-biological matter interacting and vice versa.

Personally, I have never run across anyone claiming that the inanimate world is conscious. Certainly, it does seem that the physical world created life and thus consciousness. I think your entering into an irrational tangent. I could be wrong, it happened to me once back in the sixties but I swore never to be wrong again----lol!!

That is because you are being dogmatic here, when you equal "life" with "consciousness".

If something move in a complex way, it seems to you that it has consciousness experience but if it doesnt move in a complex way then it doesnt have it?

Why?

What movement isn't complex?

[popeye1945]

Personally, I have never run across anyone claiming that the inanimate world is conscious. Certainly, it does seem that the physical world created life and thus consciousness. I think your entering into an irrational tangent. I could be wrong, it happened to me once back in the sixties but I swore never to be wrong again----lol!!

That is because you are being dogmatic here, when you equal "life" with "consciousness".

If something move in a complex way, it seems to you that it has consciousness experience but if it doesn't move in a complex way then it doesn't have it?

Why?

What movement isn't complex?

Inanimate simply means not animate/not life-like, but certainly one is free to wonder if consciousness at least does not go all the way down just not in the way we are able to recognize. Our senses enable and limit as well. After the introduction of quantum physics in the 1920s nothing is to weird to speculate about, weird is the playing field.

[CHNOPS]

Personally, I have never run across anyone claiming that the inanimate world is conscious. Certainly, it does seem that the physical world created life and thus consciousness. I think your entering into an irrational tangent. I could be wrong, it happened to me once back in the sixties but I swore never to be wrong again----lol!!

That is because you are being dogmatic here, when you equal "life" with "consciousness".

If something move in a complex way, it seems to you that it has consciousness experience but if it doesnt move in a complex way then it doesnt have it?

Why?

What movement isn't complex?

We define "complex" as we want. Arbritrary.

I call "simple movement" to something like a rock, water, seaweeds.

I call "complex movement" to something like worms to humans.


I believe that "all is consciousness". But in a way you may not understand yet.

When we see a seaweed, that "see" is an interaction that it is in that moment. Being a seaweed is something that is not like that.

First person seaweed is more abstract, and time is relative, so, being a seaweed could be just like a fews second.

Is not like being a seaweed feels like "staying dancing with the movement of water, boring and cold". That is what humans see, not what that experience in first person is.

[popeye1945]

That is because you are being dogmatic here, when you equal "life" with "consciousness".

If something move in a complex way, it seems to you that it has consciousness experience but if it doesnt move in a complex way then it doesnt have it?

Why?

What movement isn't complex?

We define "complex" as we want. Arbritrary.

I call "simple movement" to something like a rock, water, seaweeds.

I call "complex movement" to something like worms to humans.

I believe that "all is consciousness". But in a way you may not understand yet.

When we see a seaweed, that "see" is an interaction that it is in that moment. Being a seaweed is something that is not like that.

First person seaweed is more abstract, and time is relative, so, being a seaweed could be just like a few second.

Is not like being a seaweed feels like "staying dancing with the movement of water, boring and cold". That is what humans see, not what that experience in first person is.

Chinops,

"Imagination is more important than knowledge." Einstein

[CHNOPS]

When you have a "knowledge" what you really have is an imagination in your mind.

When you think "2 + 2 = 4", you are imagining that "pattern", that "relationship". You may imagine apples or balls, but you are imagining something that make that relation of "2 + 2 = 4"

So, "Imagination is more important than knowledge." means that is more important learn how to imagine that have imaginations that you obtain from others.


And yes, I agree.

[Eodnhoj7]

That is because you are being dogmatic here, when you equal "life" with "consciousness".

If something move in a complex way, it seems to you that it has consciousness experience but if it doesnt move in a complex way then it doesnt have it?

Why?

What movement isn't complex?

We define "complex" as we want. Arbritrary.

I call "simple movement" to something like a rock, water, seaweeds.

I call "complex movement" to something like worms to humans.


I believe that "all is consciousness". But in a way you may not understand yet.

When we see a seaweed, that "see" is an interaction that it is in that moment. Being a seaweed is something that is not like that.

First person seaweed is more abstract, and time is relative, so, being a seaweed could be just like a fews second.

Is not like being a seaweed feels like "staying dancing with the movement of water, boring and cold". That is what humans see, not what that experience in first person is.

If "complex" is defined as to how we want then contradictory interpretations of it occur and with these contradictions anything goes.

As to your point a paradox ensues:

1. The simplest movements are the convergence and divergence of (a) thing(s), ie one to many and many to one.
2. The most complex movements are the convergence and divergence of (a) thing(s), ie one to many and many to one.
3. Simplicity and complexity equivocate under these qualities.




1. The simplest movement is the seperation of a thing into things, with the thing(s) being a localization of time and space; this can be called branching.
2. The most complex movement is the seperation of a thing into further things,

[Eodnhoj7]

That is because you are being dogmatic here, when you equal "life" with "consciousness".

If something move in a complex way, it seems to you that it has consciousness experience but if it doesn't move in a complex way then it doesn't have it?

Why?

What movement isn't complex?

Inanimate simply means not animate/not life-like, but certainly one is free to wonder if consciousness at least does not go all the way down just not in the way we are able to recognize. Our senses enable and limit as well. After the introduction of quantum physics in the 1920s nothing is to weird to speculate about, weird is the playing field.

True.

[CHNOPS]

What movement isn't complex?

We define "complex" as we want. Arbritrary.

I call "simple movement" to something like a rock, water, seaweeds.

I call "complex movement" to something like worms to humans.


I believe that "all is consciousness". But in a way you may not understand yet.

When we see a seaweed, that "see" is an interaction that it is in that moment. Being a seaweed is something that is not like that.

First person seaweed is more abstract, and time is relative, so, being a seaweed could be just like a fews second.

Is not like being a seaweed feels like "staying dancing with the movement of water, boring and cold". That is what humans see, not what that experience in first person is.

If "complex" is defined as to how we want then contradictory interpretations of it occur and with these contradictions anything goes.

As to your point a paradox ensues:

1. The simplest movements are the convergence and divergence of (a) thing(s), ie one to many and many to one.
2. The most complex movements are the convergence and divergence of (a) thing(s), ie one to many and many to one.
3. Simplicity and complexity equivocate under these qualities.




1. The simplest movement is the seperation of a thing into things, with the thing(s) being a localization of time and space; this can be called branching.
2. The most complex movement is the seperation of a thing into further things,

¿?

You make 2 equal definitions of "simplest movements" and "complex movements" and I dont know why you want to do that.

I dont get what you are reasoning here.

I just give examples:

SIMPLE MOVEMENT: rock, water, seaweeds.

COMPLEX MOVEMENT: worms, dogs, humans.


I think what u are saying is that "all the complex movements are in deep just a separation of a thing into further things, so, there is no difference between a simple movement and a complex movement".

Is that what you are saying?


If yes, that is not ok.


Of course all are movements of atoms, and that apply to rock, seaweed, dogs and humans.


But when you say "dog", you are unifing a millon of atoms, in a particular structure, and talk about that structure as a one thing.

Does the dog separate into further things? NO. At least no while it still a dog...


So, if the simplest movement is union-separation, and it is, then all the movements that are more likely to that, are the one we call "simple movements".

But you arbitrary put that limite of "likely". No the direction (at least if you thing that union-separation is the simplest movement, you may disagree). Just the limit.


Is the ocean more simple than a dog? Yes. Because it movements are more likely to the union-separation. It molecules of hidrogen and oxigen are doing this and that is all what ocean is, that molecules doing just that movement.


The dog have more molecules and in order to stay being dog it maintain a particular structure that DONT SEPARATE.

In water, all separation ocurrs in all the molecules.


So, water is simpler that dog.

[Eodnhoj7]

We define "complex" as we want. Arbritrary.

I call "simple movement" to something like a rock, water, seaweeds.

I call "complex movement" to something like worms to humans.


I believe that "all is consciousness". But in a way you may not understand yet.

When we see a seaweed, that "see" is an interaction that it is in that moment. Being a seaweed is something that is not like that.

First person seaweed is more abstract, and time is relative, so, being a seaweed could be just like a fews second.

Is not like being a seaweed feels like "staying dancing with the movement of water, boring and cold". That is what humans see, not what that experience in first person is.

If "complex" is defined as to how we want then contradictory interpretations of it occur and with these contradictions anything goes.

As to your point a paradox ensues:

1. The simplest movements are the convergence and divergence of (a) thing(s), ie one to many and many to one.
2. The most complex movements are the convergence and divergence of (a) thing(s), ie one to many and many to one.
3. Simplicity and complexity equivocate under these qualities.




1. The simplest movement is the seperation of a thing into things, with the thing(s) being a localization of time and space; this can be called branching.
2. The most complex movement is the seperation of a thing into further things,

¿?

You make 2 equal definitions of "simplest movements" and "complex movements" and I dont know why you want to do that.

I dont get what you are reasoning here.

I just give examples:

SIMPLE MOVEMENT: rock, water, seaweeds.

COMPLEX MOVEMENT: worms, dogs, humans.


I think what u are saying is that "all the complex movements are in deep just a separation of a thing into further things, so, there is no difference between a simple movement and a complex movement".

Is that what you are saying?


If yes, that is not ok.


Of course all are movements of atoms, and that apply to rock, seaweed, dogs and humans.


But when you say "dog", you are unifing a millon of atoms, in a particular structure, and talk about that structure as a one thing.

Does the dog separate into further things? NO. At least no while it still a dog...


So, if the simplest movement is union-separation, and it is, then all the movements that are more likely to that, are the one we call "simple movements".

But you arbitrary put that limite of "likely". No the direction (at least if you thing that union-separation is the simplest movement, you may disagree). Just the limit.


Is the ocean more simple than a dog? Yes. Because it movements are more likely to the union-separation. It molecules of hidrogen and oxigen are doing this and that is all what ocean is, that molecules doing just that movement.


The dog have more molecules and in order to stay being dog it maintain a particular structure that DONT SEPARATE.

In water, all separation ocurrs in all the molecules.


So, water is simpler that dog.

Both simple and complex movements exist through the movements known as convergence and divergence, as such simplicity and complexity are a false dichotomy.

[popeye1945]

There is no such thing as simplicity or complexity in and of functions themselves, it is a reference to the limitations of the human intellect, like most things of nature, they have no real meanings in and of themselves but reference a conscious subject, for in the absence of a conscious subject the physical world is utterly meaningless.

[Eodnhoj7]

There is no such thing as simplicity or complexity in and of functions themselves, it is a reference to the limitations of the human intellect, like most things of nature, they have no real meanings in and of themselves but reference a conscious subject, for in the absence of a conscious subject the physical world is utterly meaningless.

And 'consciousness' is an undefined word open to the Munchhausen trilemma. As such anything can be defined as conscious.