At 2:30, it says "Act 1 Chapter 12 The Digital & The Spaces Between Part 2" A couple of questions: 1. Chapter 12 of what? 2. Does this video have part 1?
Yes, it does; thanks for asking! All of Act 1 - Chapters 0 - 12 can be found here: th-cam.com/play/PLJKKoGjld9iyYCs0lnAPSGyd3pwJ7cNrd.html This particular chapter's two halves can be found as one here; th-cam.com/video/vL2Dpxjv2mI/w-d-xo.htmlsi=2w0MJsMX01Ncn39c (I always place the complete chapters into their own videos/Full Chapter Playlist once all the parts have gone up.) There is also the audio-only podcast version if you want to catch up that way; th-cam.com/play/PLJKKoGjld9iyiHfe9N27SR4VOxN4tHSuT.html (here are some other streaming services too if you prefer. linktr.ee/InfiniteNow) ...or just check the playlists on our channel page to find them all. 😄 But to answer your first question, This whole project has been a way to crowd-test a book I've worked on over the past 5+ years. It's been a lifelong meditation, but most of what appears in the videos are taken from my second-draft manuscript. The whole piece will be shared across 3 Acts, the first finishing with next month's Chapter 13. It should take around 3 years to finish. Act 1 investigated the physical, Act 2 will be the experiential & Act 3 will investigate the Infinite. The videos have evolved, but the writing and music are reasonably consistent from start to end. Hope you enjoy it!!! P.S. I want you to know that all feedback is welcome. Happy to have everyone along for the ride! ❤
@@InfiniteNow_withSeanCrowley I'm genuinely thrilled for your book. In the meantime rather would you recommend one ot two of your favorite books please?
I'd love to! Trickiest bit is narrowing it down... I suppose I need to make a nod towards two big influences 1) David Bohm - Wholeness & The Implicate Order (feel free to skip over the math heavy bits in the middle, the ending doesn't rely on it) 2) Spinoza - The Ethics You can probably find both as free .pdf's, or even second hand copies online. But if both of those are too heavy (because they are) anything by Carlo Rovelli is beautifully written and very relaxing. ... final bonus shout out - For a quick, easy, but deep audiobook; Merleau Ponty - The World of Perception 🙏
@@InfiniteNow_withSeanCrowley I have read Bohm's 'Thought as a System' and have watched his numerous videos with Krishnamurti. I'm very excited to check out other authors. I have briefly glanced other videos. Can't wait to unpack them and your book recommendations.
Maybe all concepts are . . . surprise! . . . just that, concepts! Nothing more, and nothing less. So let's not mistake any concept for ACTUALLY being out there (or in here) as reality. They're just useful tools to navigate THIS, but they are not IT, just as the map is not the territory. We make the mistake of treating concepts as if they ARE the territory. It's a persistent but hard-to-see-through illusion, like knowing that the Earth is spiraling around the Sun even though it persistently appears that the Sun circles around the Earth, and even then we are imagining where the Sun is when we can't see it. The one concept that makes all the other concepts appear real is the concept (and feeling) of "I am," the most persistent illusion and appearance that feels oh, so real. The feeling of "I amness" creates the world of duality, solidity, realness, inside/outside, before and after, and with that concepts appear concomitant with something "out there," or "in here." But it's all just an illusion created by the grandest illusion of all, that "I am." No concept, theory, or anything put into the symbols called language or math, or any other type of symbols can ever say anything fundamental about this. No matter how many finite pieces of data, info, whatever, that we accumalate, we will never be one millimeter closer to the Absolute Infinite, which is ALL there really is. Reality has no moving parts. All the pieces are a mirage that refer to nothing other than the hallucinatory feeling that "I am." Dualism does not exist but as a mirage. Oh, but what a persistently real feeling that "I am" is. It's a hard, nay, impossible one to crack, at least by the "I am" itself. But it can dissolve. Apparently. Then it's seen it never was. By no one. Lol Till then, one has no choice but to be hoodwinked by the apparent realness of concepts, all held up by the hallucinated feeling that "I am."
All Buddhists know it. The doctrine of Sunyata (which is the lack of inherent essence or independent existence, also annata) as well as the doctrine of dependent arising or dependent origination. Nagarjuna elaborated them in length and in depth eighteen centuries ago.
Vedanta is a different beast. It assumes the existence of a permanent self, the Atman. Buddhists refute such a view. According to the Buddha, the belief in a permanent, unchanging self or soul (Atman) is a misconception that leads to suffering. He taught that all phenomena, including the self, are impermanent, constantly changing, and dependently arising. This means that there is no permanent, unchanging self or soul that can be found. In the Anatta-lakkhana Sutta, the Buddha stated that the five aggregates (form, feeling, perception, mental formations, and consciousness) are not the self, and that clinging to them as a self is a cause of suffering. He emphasized the importance of understanding this concept in order to attain liberation from suffering.
@@_lonelywolf Yes, but this are the phenomena that are the cause of suffering but and not the self that is separate and different from the phenomena. Phenomenas are not the Self (Atma)! Suffering is the outcome of the ignorance of the wrong perception of seeing phenomena as the self; When the perceiver identifies (become) its own perception and with that of what it perceives., an object. When the self perceives limited (impermanent) objects of the phenomena that has to be born and die together with that what it perceives. And so the suffering comes into the process because the self due to its ignorance has to be born to experience hunger, disease, old age and death as the part of that phenomena!... But why does it suffer? And what was Buddha concerned more with, a true nature of the phenomena (mind consciousness) or with, who is the one who perceives it?... And/or with the fact of suffering itself? Om Shanti. 🙏
@@_lonelywolfNitpicking. Ātma --> Paramātma. The experiential soul as texture and tone takes us to what is no experience. The Buddha said liberation is not experience. Buddhism is derived from major Upanishads. You can find differences or find the same. Ātma, as Mrs Rhys Davids points out, was also synonymous with ego. With heart, with manas or hsin. Hence transient. Wittgenstein puts it well in Notebooks where he maintains that the thinking self vorstellende Subjekt is unreal, Wahn - a mania, an illusion - but the will is real... The manas, heart, intentionality - for without the will there is no centre of the world we call the I. In Vedanta there is a word - brahma-nirvāna. So that something and nothing is one and in jīvanmukti as Hegel describes and Zen describes Becoming returns, where samsāra is nirvāna is one : saguna-brahman as contrasted with formlessness nirguna-brahman. Etc. 😊
@@maitreyabadra2267 These questions in Buddhism are considered to be manifestations of the mind, therefore belonging to the realm of Samsara, or Maya in Indian tradition. In fact, all phenomena are empty according to the Buddha, including the mind, or what we like to call consciousness or awareness or the true self or the witness, etc., in the sense that such experience, however you wish to call it or characterize it, lacks intrinsic essence and independent existence. As a matter of fact, nothing could exist independently, not even the self or "pure awareness" or consciousness. Awareness only exists in relation to its objects. Pure awareness or consciousness is a myth and an illusion of the mind. Experientially, only the experience of being conscious or aware OF something exists. Therefore, all phenomena, including the self, consciousness or awareness, must depend on other phenomena and conditions for them to arise and exist. They are unreal in other words because they lack independent existence. I hope this helps.
Dude, this goes beyond staring into the abyss, it’s becoming the abyss… The collective doesn’t even know what it means to be a good human, you want them to contemplate alternative explanations for the true nature of reality?
I think that understanding a little bit about fractals, about illusions and about chaos theory was very helpful for me in understanding emergent and divergent patterns. If you want a great example of a divergent pattern of nothing becoming a thing, I think the phonon is the perfect example. Once you understand what a phonon is, you get a better understanding of what a virtual particle is. When you consider a phonon in the concepts of yin and yang, it is yang acting like yin.
First time watching - simply incredible content. When one becomes this deep, the questions become more difficult to formulate than the answer. I'll be sure to share this with like-minds, and people with some key differences to myself. I usually never comment on videos, but this one deserves so much more attention. You're asking the unanswerable, the paradoxes, and the beauty in them is something akin to figuring everything out, and nothing out, at the same point. Thank you for this. Subscribed. It showcases the paradoxical nature of our finite viewpoints. You are acknowledging the uncertain and you are happy with it being an unknown. Because the unknown is not based on a finite-continuum. This changes my perspective to embrace the uncertainty that awaits and embrace the uncertainty about the now. I no longer need perfection. "I Am". That phrase finally makes sense to me.
I rarely comment on videos myself, so I fully appreciate you sharing this here. And I’m so very pleased it’s resonated with you!! I’ve spent a long time sitting alone with these ideas, so it’s amazing to now be sharing it with folk like yourself! Thanks so much for sharing and the kind words. Hopefully I’ll continue to see you round the comments 🤘
Sean Shawn Saun... either way. Not a computer narration. I was astonished to see a real person. The majority of videos in the class are just the same european or otherwise eastern accented voice that somewhat gets nuance in pronunciation. Subbed for the human.
Yet we're still all careful not to trip going down the stairs because, you know, they are actually there and it does actually hurt if you fall on your ass.
Indeed. There is clearly a truth to the reality that we experience. But if not in any ultimate sense of substance, where in actuality does this “physicality world” arise? The steps are clearly no illusion… so…
Reflection is both key and lock. Unfortunately, the majority of humanity is improperly trained for or incapable of truly, legitimately invoking this very difficult, non-innate technique. 🐲✨🐲✨🐲✨ "Before I start, I must see my end. Destination known, my mind's journey now begins. Upon my chariot, heart and soul's fate revealed. In time, all points converge; hope's strength, resteeled. But to earn final peace at the universe's endless refrain, we must see all in nothingness... before we start again." 🐲✨🐲✨🐲✨ --Diamond Dragons (series)
The basis of all reality is *constraint* . The background of all reality is *ambiguity* . The distinction between "real" and "fictional" is a matter of *degree* - what men call "the real" is, in essence, the *superlative of all fictions* ...
At the level of quarks and below (vacuum energies) it is all undifferentiated energy constantly seeming to seek equilibrium....and when equilibrium IS- boom. All this, again.
This just popped up on my feed and... I'm completely blown away. That was amazing, so rich and layered with meaning, I could feel all sort of new neural pathways firing in my brain. I don't know if you'll see this (don't really comment much) but I want you to know that was an inspiring piece of work. I had been a bit lost for a while, in a hole, have been coming out of it, starting to reengage and this video hit me at the perfect moment, helped to crystalize some strands in the old duders head, so to speak. I'm extremely excited to pour into your other videos and for anything else you produce. Just want to send you some good energy and vibes and to encourage you to keep up the good work. You have a rare gift for speaking eleqountly and with meaning about very complex topics and have a way of weaving this beautiful tapestry of ideas that envelops the mind. Very, very impressive 👏 Thank you sincerely for your efforts
Thank you so much for sharing! And I’m so glad this found a place with you. Your comment definitely does help to get me back up and working on the next piece. So I thank you for that. So you know, the episodes are laid out sequentially, so you may want to start at the beginning (there’s a podcast version too if that helps). But we do dive into some confronting ideas concerning the human condition, so just be warned that there may be some triggering parts. But the point is to ensure a rigorous examination of our metaphysics. So I hope you are all on board for that! Lovely to have you with us for the ride, and be sure to make your self known from time to time. I look forward to hearing your thoughts as you go. Much love!!! ❤️
Some notes: Waves are also multiply realisable - they can be observed independent of media. I think it's probably fair to say that a _particular_ wave is weakly emergent, and dependent on media, because any kind of primitive identification - like pointing at it - will also entail pointing at the media it propagates through. We might think of this as the extensive notion of a wave, in other words: the extension of a wave is weakly emergent. However, for the general wave, I wouldn't say this is strongly emergent exactly. I'd consider this a mathematical object, which I consider a description of structure. Here I think the ontology of attributes is closest to the move to make in this situation - that the media _has_ waviness, but "wave" is intensionally independent of the media; even independent of the particular wave. - Okay, further in, I think maybe a disambiguation between genera and particulars are in order. I think the extensional vs. intensional distinction I outlined earlier could serve in that respect. - There's a whole field of physics called "statistical physics" which is actually dedicated to studying the relationship between macroscopic statistical parameters (think: pressure, temperature, entropy) of some system, and its constituents - the "water-molecules", so to speak. Certain parameters - particularly the ones that come from "classical statistical mechanics" - are actually media-independent, so they actually hold independently of what things actually are, and in modern physics, a theory is said to be "renormalisable" if it can make some macroscopic prediction independently of the microscopic constituents at play. - Due to the above point, I'd suggest they do exist, if only because that we are capable of speaking intelligibly about them, and can say true or false things about both. Value of a variable, and all that. The fact that I can say something true about water in general that's independent of water molecules means that it exists independently of them. However, I can't say anything about some particular water without reference to its molecules (sort of), because doing so would logically imply something must be true of those molecules (even if that's ostensibly just some constraints on their behaviour). - Explanations are generated by people, and people choose to make their propositions based on specific properties. It's because true identification can only be done with definite descriptions - extensional identification of particulars - otherwise in the abstract you lose the detail. It is right to say water molecules comprise water _in general,_ but this is again a structural statement. - At around the 8:25 mark, it seems like the thinking gets rather careless. You raise scepticism between the microscopic/macroscopic duality. Crosstalk between >2 environments seems to me to mean that you think scales can actually vary in more than one dimension? Like, instead of zooming in or out, and talking about how some statistical parameter is a function of its constituents, you would say there is some entire seperate direction of "zooming" we can do that we have to consider to fully characterise a statistical parameter, is that correct? Or do you mean to say that, with only one direction of zooming, we can't just talk about each property as a function of the properties of the constituents at some adjacent scale e.g. the water has a special something, not just because of its molecules, but also because of its atoms, and electrons, etc. ? Because these sorts of theories are called "non-renormalisable" in physics. Thing is, not everything actually needs an account of its constituents to be explained, so I'm inclined to disagree, and paint more of a complex landscape of stuff that cross-talks with many 'environments', and islands of things that have little cross-talking to speak of at all. Also I don't buy the infinite thing. - It's not clear that the neurones are actually digital. You can simulate an algorithm on a computer, which is digital, and you can draw a kind of equivalence between it and what the computer does, but we may want to be careful about conflating it with the actual stuff going on in the brain. The action-potential is continuous, the activation energy is continuous- well modelled as discrete, but not actually discrete - synapse firing starts and stops in a continuous way. Honestly, should it actually be discrete, I doubt it'll have much to do with our first-person phenomenal experience anyway. - Okay, it might be a good idea at this point to give an example of >2 overlapping environments, because I'm really not certain by what you mean here. - All accounts of emergent time I've ever seen seem to miss the fact that whatever is believed to be the substance of time always ends up hiding an ontological dependence _on_ time. I can't say for sure if you do this, since I don't know your position. I'm guessing you might think of the ontological dependencies as "rhizomatic", and that there is no ontological relation between two objects that can be considered "foundational". If this is so, I think you can make this claim (I'll disagree, but you can do it) for substances, but not for particulars. The picture I have in mind is a bipartite notion of foundation, partly dealing with ontology, and partly dealing with epistemology. I think this view knocks out any way of speaking intelligibly, since it seems to me that there are things that are say, multiply realisable, but that fact means nothing in a rhizomatic world. - It may be the case that selves may come in different sizes. Consider two computers: an old one, and a new one. The older computer is larger than the newer, but contains no superfluous elements. What changed was the design. If this is so, at beat you could talk about a "minimal" self, but there may be more than one way to arrange material to obtain a self. - Could you clarify what you mean by "superpositions with the infinite"?
Thanks so much for this. You’ve offered some very well laid out and valid points here, so I look forward to responding soon. I’m currently away on holiday this week, but I have read through it, and I’ll be sure to respond thoroughly once I return! But cheers for taking an interest and sharing your time. Speak soon 🙌🏻
@@InfiniteNow_withSeanCrowley No worries. Let me know if anything I've said needs clarification; I wrote this at 3am, so I wouldn't be surprised. Hope you have a good time.
As a new one to this discourse, I appreciate these interactions, as you and others are clearly committed to delineating the syntax/taxonomy required for greater precision and understanding. Oddly, as early as age 5, I was aware that accepting the concept of infinity required that the largest and smallest of any-thing or any-time had to be essentially equal, as my limited perception could not distinguish their infinity. I expressed it to my parents and others at that age as “I think the biggest thing and smallest thing in the universe must be the same thing”.
@@michaelfoxbrass If you take "smallest" to be negative infinity, you may be interested in studying the axioms of projective geometry, which conforms to your youthful intuitions (I think I was in the same boat as a kid). Unfortunately, infinity ends up behaving differently even under the same set of axioms, so a la Russell, we usually just say it doesn't exist, owing to its contradictory nature.
Wow, not to get too far off the topic and steer my train of thought back into materialism but not only is the wave analogy helping me understand some internal things but it's also helping me understand wave/particle duality. It may not be a 100% sufficient allegory for the phenomena but it sort of "washes" away some preconcieved notions I have had about particle behavior and physics and makes it seem much clearer to me.
That’s great! I’m sure my study of physics has influenced my interpretation of metaphysics, so I guess that’s not too surprising. I found the best thing to get your head around if you want to better understand wave-particle duality is the uncertainty principle. Trying to properly understand that gave me a much more of an intuitive understanding of quantum objects and the problems we face in trying to describe them classically. But we’ll get to that stuff later 😁 Very glad you enjoyed it🙏
@@InfiniteNow_withSeanCrowley Yeah man I am more of a literary type of guy and I feel like I'm an average dude epistemologically walking around a metaphorical genius convention in life right now so I have really been pushing my mind to the max lately. So it's like I am making a bunch of vague approximations of various advanced subjects and then re addressing them over and over again, kind of like dressing then polishing a stone before fitting.
@@InfiniteNow_withSeanCrowley I like to approach learning like I approached athletics when I was in school and I have really been diving deep into some rabbit holes and have walked some labyrinths within the past month. Idk if it means anything to you specifically but I think someone scrolling by will see my word salad-esque comments and draw something positive from them.
A wonderfully eloquent presentation delving into humanity's most profound and complex inquiries into the nature of existence. The elegant use of the word 'emergence' parallels what ancient Eastern philosophy describes as 'duality'-with non-duality being a state beyond experience, as experience itself only occurs in relation to something. Looking forward to watching more of your content! ❤
That’s so much Lexi! Hope you’ve enjoyed the most recent two. The last one especially is worth following through to the end I feel. Either way, very pleased to have you with us! See you round the comments!
Thanks so much 🙏 Especially re the music. I spend a lot of time composing and recording it each month… but when done well, it’s rarely noticed. So it’s always nice to have it mentioned 😄
This is getting close. Well done my man! What’s the next step? To realize that all that is is this present moment. That all “things” including space and time, self (I.e. subject/object) and every perspective and relationship is THIS moment. There are only sense perceptions and thoughts. And look closely enough and you can easily see. Walk into another room, and imagine the table that you no longer see. What is this imagining? The thought. We walk into the other room and see the table “the thought is real”. No, it’s not. It’s still exactly what he same as it would before had someone taken away the table. It is not thought and only thought. Thoughts can only be thoughts. The basic cognitive error, on which the entire illusory world depends is that we think thoughts are the thing thought about. Look closely and see what is a thooght. Can you find time? Can you show me a “before” or a “later”? Can you show me any relationship at all? Or is it all thought? This world, as it appears to you THIS one! THIS ONE, exactly as it appears is what you are! What would it look like without you seeing it? What would it sound like without you? What would it feel like in your absence? What smell? Taste? It wouldn’t. The world is your sense impression and your thought. And there isn’t a you outside of that. Look for the evidence I am wrong. In this moment, where is the one that is seeing the screen? Is hearing the sound? If you seem to find it, what then is looking at THAT? It’s all an illusion. You’re so close too. Look closely man. For yourself. I have no doctrine and no belief on offer. Simply an invitation to look.
👌 Endless abstractions of reality by us as living beings- conceptual or sensory- is still not reality outside of our limited perspective of it, however "real" it seems. Qualia, amiright lads or amiright lads? 👏🤣 It always comes back to the Cave allegory by Plato. Our impressions of reality is still not reality. We experience an abstraction of reality through being alive and taking form.
@starryamity33 yeah I had an epiphany about Cave allegory being inside another Cave allegory and so on to the infinite. But then. Which is the first Cave allegory? Is it inside another Cave allegory? Damn
@@Hyacinth_Rose Exactly and there are so many metaphors referring to this same thing. Turtles all the way down, ouroboros snake eating its own tail as an endless cycle, the question about which started first - the chicken and the egg, the painter painting a painting of a painter painting a painting etc. Row row row your boat, gently down the stream, merrily merrily merrily merrily life is like a dream. Overlapping frames of outcomes, happening all at once based on free will due to percieving and acting upon and therefore clearly having access to choices as to interact with reality directly either in your state of resonance as an individual and in enacting something behaviourally to create specific imagined conditions - hence time doesn't exist because each moment exists and ceases and exists and ceases unto itself. Fractals of consciousness ever-expanding and contracting, separating/splintering/destroying/ending and unifying/merging/creating/beginning. For that matter, life and death are in the same place as to overlap that way too and so the afterlife would likely be on the same plane or something, yet we would likely exist differently when dead as to not percieve whatsoever or percieve differently. Everything is made of energy, after all. The only difference being whether it is just energy alone, or energy taking form through the pre-stated example of actions wherein said energy is applied by somebody for a specific outcome. Even being alive itself is an act that takes energy.
@@Hyacinth_Rose I don’t get to “be” it yet, but what I’m seeing when the fear comes over me is that the entire “Russian doll set” is simply a thought structure that is non-verbal and that means that basically NONE OF THIS IS ACTUALLY HAPPENING. Like, it isn’t real at all. And it sounds cool but it looks terrifying.
They are exactly the same 'thing.' How can they not be when everything arises in within a unified field? The principle of Life needs to be experienced. No flaying about with words and mental constructs can give such an experience. It arises in the way that we move through the field. Once there is an experience of life's unity, everything is then seen as one 'something' as Bohm called it. It's a shame that people become lost in concepts. As the physicist Fred Alan Wolf says; 'The real trick to life is not to be in the know, but to be in The Mystery...'
The journey itself is more important than any given beginning or end. But it's still crucial that individuals recognize that every circle begins WITH its end. Not that the majority of humans will actually accept nor even understand what I just typed, but... it is what it is. #copium 🐲✨🐲✨🐲✨ "Before I start, I must see my end. Destination known, my mind's journey now begins. Upon my chariot, heart and soul's fate revealed. In time, all points converge; hope's strength, resteeled. But to earn final peace at the universe's endless refrain, we must see all in nothingness... before we start again." 🐲✨🐲✨🐲✨ --Diamond Dragons (series)
Reflection is key. 🐲✨🐲✨🐲✨ "Before I start, I must see my end. Destination known, my mind's journey now begins. Upon my chariot, heart and soul's fate revealed. In time, all points converge; hope's strength, resteeled. But to earn final peace at the universe's endless refrain, we must see all in nothingness... before we start again." 🐲✨🐲✨🐲✨ --Diamond Dragons (series)
No one considers how many of the particles on earth are already entangled, by their very nature of coexistence on the same 'material plane' Which means we are all already entangled with each other at the quantum level. What's more DNA itself is normally in a Ball shape, and works as an antenna Then there's the Schumann Resonance, and Morphic Waves... and the temporally retroactive influence of Quantum Wave collapse at point of observation. What's more that would mean we are already a single Superorganism, working like a Galactic Brain in a State of Self Conscious Observation of itself A Singular Plurality
What is this style of video called, where the images are seamlessly changing slightly into something else? I've seen them mostly only on some psytrance videos, but i can't remember the name of this (video) style. Could someone help me out please?
I’m not sure if it even has a name. There are several styles of film making threaded throughout each episode, but if you’re referring to the more animated sections that morph over time, that’s a style of AI movie generation called Flipbook. The reason it looks that way is because the AI has no contextual understanding of the piece as a whole other than the initial text prompt or starting image that you enter. It essentially just references the one frame prior and slightly evolves the next frame in accordance with your instructions. As a result it ends up evolving in all sorts of weird and unexpected ways. But I like it as it feels a little like stop-motion with paint. :) Very fun to use.
Interesting - and amazing graphics. One thing… it’s okay to postulate that consciousness is a product of neural activity - but stating it as being a fact is a little presumptuous- as there is no actual consensus on this matter. Rather make sure to underline that it’s an assumption you’re making. Thanks for a cool video!
Thanks very much- & yes I agree. I do try to be cautious of any definitive claims like that. However, the series is intended to be watched sequentially, and we’ve just spent the last few chapters highlighting the correlations between neural activity and experience, so we have justified some aspects of the claim. But you’re right; we can’t be definitive one way or another as yet (which I think is the point of the essay). But we’ll be spending all next year dissecting the nature of consciousness… so be sure to keep my feet to the fire! 🦶🔥😁
while the video raises some interesting philosophical questions, it ultimately relies on misinterpretations of scientific concepts, analogies that break down under scrutiny, and metaphysical speculation. the core issue is the conflation of our descriptions of reality with reality itself, leading to the conclusion that all identities are merely perspectives on a unified whole. this approach doesn't provide a scientific explanation for consciousness or the nature of time but rather offers a philosophical interpretation that lacks empirical support.
Thanks so much for that response. Very well put, and I hope you continue to keep my feet to the fire!! :) I think in response I’d have to first agree with you that it doesn’t offer a scientific explanation of either time or consciousness, though nor does it claim too. If anything it merely acknowledges the unavoidable nature of the observer, which in itself, turns the tables on the empirical support that you suggest is needed. It is a philosophical interpretation yes, but one that can hopefully inform our relationship with empirical evidence rather than the other way around, as all empirical evidence is shaped by the bounds set by the questions asked of it. But also, I would ask which scientific concepts you think I misinterpreted? Be great to know if I missed something. Cheers again 👍
The smallest droplet of water is called a ‘water hexamer’, and it is the smallest possible cluster where the oxygen atoms not longer sit on a flat plane, and so form a 3D shape. And this can be as small as 16 molecules. 💧 But it’s actually extremely difficult to seperate a single water molecule from the whole. In fact, in was only achieved for the first time relatively recently. Here’s the paper to show how it was done; www.nature.com/articles/am2011196#:~:text=A%20single%20molecule%20of%20water,of%20water%20or%20polar%20compounds. They still refer to it as a “water” molecule, so… you could say one, but I would agree, that’s not really water yet. And considering that there are around 1.5 sextillion molecules in an ordinary water drop, there doesn’t appear to be any magical number as such. But somewhere between sixteen & sextillion is the general vibe 👍
I can't wrap my head around if a chair exists as an object with identity if there's noone to classify as a chair. It seems to me that although it has the potential to be described separately from its environment, as long as the potential isn't realized by entities which build this kind of notions, the chair together with the Universe is just one big inseparated mush.
It doesn’t really. There are no objects. And it doesn’t have to be mush to be non-separate. This is the Nondual ‘appearing’ as distinctions. Humans simply mistake localized distinctions for real separateness. Nothing about the appearance itself changes, it’s just the end of thoughts believing they’re separate.
I agree with @the-absolute-light here; however… this said, the chair does also exist. In that, it exists as much as you or any other “thing” exists. Amid the unified wholeness is the potential for infinite actuality, one of which is you and your appreciation of the chair. But while the existence and non-existence of the chair are both actual in terms of finite truth - the infinite truth is beyond words, categories or objects. We could describe this as being infinitely contradictory or infinitely coherent, but when we do that we only find ourselves back in the world of finite truth. It’s the paradox of perspective.
Exactly… to have a more definitive description we would need to include gravity, as well as a whole school of dynamics. Time being one of the more bewildering components of the equation. But will this ever give us a totalistic description of what a wave is? The point is we can subjectively define a wave in terms of a certain set of parameters, but at what point do we know the wave in and of itself? Where do we stop? And if we don’t stop, what is the wave? Now apply the same series of questions to any emergent phenomena.
Not sure which illustrations you’re after in particular, but the vast majority of what you see I have created myself specifically for the channel. It’s often a mix of AI combined with photoshop edits and traditional video editing-that plus some video collage. I occasionally have the pleasure of collaborating with animators, though that’s usually only for special occasions. I also compose and record all the music for each episode. 👍 But if you would like me to send you some images let me know and I’ll see what I can do :) ❤️
In my view a wave is a solution to an equation of motion and has little to do with stickiness of water or water molecules. It happens to be the case that water surfaces in a gravitational field create the circumstances that the ‘wave’ equation is the proper equation of motion, hence the forming of waves.😮
I think that’s an excellent approach, as it would clearly allow for you to speak about the wave in purely factual terms, but consider how your questions might shapes your answer. If you pose it as a question of measurement then your answer is satisfied in those terms. But a child playing in the ocean doesn’t know a wave in this way, and so could make their own definition factual relative to their perspective, without negating the validity of the more empirical understanding. So if the wave has many different ways of being described, and each definition holds to be true relative to the question, we are left to ask, what is its nature ultimately? If we presume its physical objective nature is ‘what it is’, then where is this “substance” we call wave. If there is none then the definition is still lacking. The equation is valid, the phenomenal experience is valid, the physical relation is valid, but where or what is its essence. And if it has none, what does that mean? Now that’s all well and good for a wave… but we can ask these exact same questions about any object. Is a person just a “solution to an equation” or does a person have a more substantial nature? If not, again, what does that say about what is real? If so, how is it different? 🙏
Hello my friend, been watching your videos and I appreaciate the pedagogy and build-up you use to make your conclusions apparent. But I would like to ask you since you have not been entirely clear on your position - what are your thoughts on analytical idealism? Such as the ideas of Bernardo Kastrup.
Glad you’re enjoying it! But yes you’re right, I haven’t been very upfront, but that’s only because the chapters are an unfolding of thought. So I don’t really intend to lay my stance down until till the very end (so, about 2 years to go 👍). But to give you sneak peak, the closest I’ve found in the literature is probably Spinoza and David Bohm. Both who consider an infinite wholeness beyond any character. And this outlook tends to inform my take on Idealism, which is that it falls short (in my opinion) in its attempt at offering a familiar ontological primitive i.e. mind. I don’t personally think Mind as a category offers much clarity is all. Mostly because we can’t give it an ultimate description of it. If it’s just “what I experience” then that falls significantly short. But any broader a description and “mind” start to showcase characteristics that are rarely associated with it. That said, I really enjoy Kastrup’s work and actually take a bit from it, but where I feel he and others falter is in thinking that Mind is ultimate or even definitive. I agree that the reality we know is shaped via our perspective of it, and that this in itself is a form of finite truth, but I just think “mind” is too limiting a word for the ultimate/infinite truth. But the next two years of chapters are supposed to outlay my justification for that. Though if you rewatch this episode and substitute mind for all examples of emergence, then you might see a hint of where I’m heading. Inside and outside in this case might be the experience of the inner and outer self. But as the video states, that in itself will only be a subjective pluralising, as ultimately all is one. I’ve always intended for Infinite Now to be a book, and these vids are just a way to crowd test my second draft 😄, but feel free to critique my thinking as it all goes to shape that final piece 🤞 What about you? Do you subscribe to Idealism?
@@InfiniteNow_withSeanCrowley That is really awesome that you are putting time and work into a passion like this, it is much appreciated. Now, conjuring the philosophers stone is no easy task and I wish you the best of luck. I am a IT-technician and a Theologian with roots in the protestant tradition by education . I am aslo an initiated mason, so that has some influence on my thinking and interpretation of scripture and reality. I am essentially not very dogmatic when it comes to religion but I would still consider myself a religious person. In my younger years I was very into Alan Watts, and I also had a period in my life where I was experimenting with psychedelics. I am also somewhat also influenced by classical alchemy and kabbalistic thought. Now to my thoughts on Bernardo Kastrup and Mind. I really do think Kastrup has a point when it comes to his idea of dissociation and the transaction of meta-conscious experience from the individual to the infinite upon death. But I don't think he's right about the ultimate reality not being meta-conscious. While the transcendent reality may not have the same meta-consciousness as we do, I firmly believe it is has meta-consciousness. It is just that the perspective is so much wider and deeper that a human could not comprehend where it puts focus and cannot understand what the purpose or goal seems to be in space and time. That being said I am confident - in the words of Alan Watts - that there is not a grain of dust anywhere in the universe that is in the wrong place at the wrong time. It get's lost and then it comes back to itself so to speak. In different finite ways every time since it is infinite. When it comes to Mind I must admit that it is a bit clumsy as an ontology but I cannot deny that the infinite seem to be having one or infinite subjective experiences and perhaps a singular which is transcendent and outside of time and space. In a sense this transcendence is both platonic and ever changing. I believe that there is an inside and an outside to the infinite, it has an anatomy which is fractalized and repeated as patterns in nature. Such as "day" and "night", male and female, sequences of geometrical intricacies such as magnetic fields and Fibonacci frequencies etc. The dividing line of this inside and outside being the event horizon on a toroidal geometry where the singularity is it's center, north and south of this tori corresponding to the relative beginning and end of space-time which may not be static but subject to the uncertainty principle, in other words not necessarily repeating the same motions but still bound by it's nature. So in a sense it is beyond time and space on it's inside while animating it's outside as dissociated avatars and the natural world. I personally believe that consciousness is filtered by the brain and that the field of experience is taking place outside of space-time. I don't know if that makes me an idealist.
@@InfiniteNow_withSeanCrowley That is really awesome that you are putting time and work into a passion like this, it is much appreciated. Now, conjuring the philosophers stone is no easy task and I wish you the best of luck. I am a IT-technician and a Theologian with roots in the protestant tradition by education . I am aslo an initiated mason, so that has some influence on my thinking and interpretation of scripture and reality. I am essentially not very dogmatic when it comes to religion but I would still consider myself a religious person. In my younger years I was very into Alan Watts, and I also had a period in my life where I was experimenting with psychedelics. I am also somewhat also influenced by classical alchemy and kabbalistic thought. Now to my thoughts on Bernardo Kastrup and Mind. I really do think Kastrup has a point when it comes to his idea of dissociation and the transaction of meta-conscious experience from the individual to the infinite upon death. But I don't think he's right about the ultimate reality not being meta-conscious. While the transcendent reality may not have the same meta-consciousness as we do, I firmly believe it is has meta-consciousness. It is just that the perspective is so much wider and deeper that a human could not comprehend where it puts focus and cannot understand what the purpose or goal seems to be in space and time. That being said I am confident - in the words of Alan Watts - that there is not a grain of dust anywhere in the universe that is in the wrong place at the wrong time. It get's lost and then it comes back to itself so to speak. In different finite ways every time since it is infinite. When it comes to Mind I must admit that it is a bit clumsy as an ontology but I cannot deny that the infinite seem to be having one or infinite subjective experiences and perhaps a singular which is transcendent and outside of time and space. In a sense this transcendence is both platonic and ever changing. I believe that there is an inside and an outside to the infinite, it has an anatomy which is fractalized and repeated as patterns in nature. Such as "day" and "night", male and female, sequences of geometrical intricacies such as magnetic fields and Fibonacci frequencies etc. The dividing line of this inside and outside being the event horizon on a toroidal geometry where the singularity is it's center, north and south of this tori corresponding to the relative beginning and end of space-time which may not be static but subject to the uncertainty principle, in other words not necessarily repeating the same motions but still bound by it's nature. So in a sense it is beyond time and space on it's inside while animating it's outside as dissociated avatars and the natural world. I personally believe that consciousness is filtered by the brain and that the field of experience is taking place outside of space-time. I don't know if that makes me an idealist.
No, I don’t think it makes you an outright idealist, I think it makes you (similar to myself) more of a dual aspect monist. Idealism (as I understand it) claims mind to be the fundamental quality of all reality (which is different to a mere dismissal of fundamental materialism). I think it depends on whether you think that the “transcendental reality” ‘is’ the meta- consciousness or ‘has’ a meta consciousness (I think you wrote ‘is’ and ‘has’. Not sure if that was intentional or not). But even so, what do we even mean by consciousness in this context? And how does its quality differ from what we know as consciousness? Perhaps my version of monism is slightly more radical, only because, when I hear people describe a nature of inside and outside, I can’t help but wonder from whose perspective is this inner or outer being considered? I’m not denying the presence of dynamics, and in fact I really enjoyed how you attributed perspectival opposites (like night and day or man and woman) to this ultimate fracture/fractal nature. I think there is something worthwhile in that as a thought. I’ve actually come to a similar interpretation of the “primordial divide” but have only been able to attribute this to the difference between finite and infinite truths (but that might be a chat for next time 😄) But by my limited logic, beyond all framing can only be wholeness. Therefore any dynamic of character must be defined by a perspective, meaning that we must therefore still be within the domain of finite truth. Not sure if you can see anything I’m missing?
I must admit, this one comment has sat a little heavy on my subconscious… let’s see if I can break down what you’re really asking; is the plank scale “meaningless”except as a fundamental barrier to universal finitude?? 🤔 It’s a very interesting thought to ponder on, but I think it can only be considered relatively true, not ultimately true. Partially because of that word “meaning”. Its “meaning” is by definition, that which is only meaningful to us. But is that all it is?? In physics, planks constant (h) is definitely the point where meaningful statements about quanta cease to make sense (due to the uncertainty principle), but those statements/measurements are themselves only ever relative to our frame of relevance. They allow us to meaningfully describe the structure of the universe, but to ask “is that all it is” is to assume the plank limit is a type of thing in and of itself, and that this “thing” has some ultimate character. Whereas ultimately, this is just a character of the universe which becomes meaningful in terms of the questions we ask. It’s real within that context (which is not to say it’s illusion) but it’s not some “thing” that is of its own nature seperate from the whole. I think the point is that the finitude you’re referring to is also relative to our perspectival frame. Emergent structures are real. They do have characteristics specific to themselves, but the question is; what are the characteristics attached to? Is it an ultimate finite something, seperate from the universe, or is that finitude a quality of our question and perspective? The point of the video is not to highlight the quality of objectivity found in the macro world in contrast to sub plankian domains (though it does ask us to consider that) but more to show that this objectivity is only ever relative. But as it also says, thats an idea that will have to be unpacked further 👍 It’s a little convoluted but does this answer your question?
It doesn’t necessarily need a container, though it does require a medium as mjt says. If our pocket of spacetime did turn out to be a closed system (which I personally doubt) then maybe you’d be correct to say that containers are an ultimate requirement for a wave, but I don’t think that’s particularly important for this thought experiment. The wave would ultimately require an endless thread of influences to be what it is. The environment being its outer influence and its “machinery” being its inner. But the point is that waves are not entities seperate from their influences. They are the summed process of these changing relations… and the broader point is that, so is everything else. 👍
And yet, the whole thing is offered as an objective assertion. “Everything is subjective” -objective statement. It asserts that there is no objective reality. Another thing that completely defeats this is the realization that, you can conjure 100 random expectations, beliefs, ideas, etc, and it is possible for any amount of them to be accurate or correct. The more based in reality your imaginings are, the more of them will be correct. The fact that you can be right and accurate just by necessary chance, it shows the least viable way to knowledge, and that it is still viable. It is possible to think something and be right, to see something and be, as far as you are venturing to perceive, accurate in your perception. Our senses are very well understood. Measurements are similar to senses. A thing happens that triggers another thing and so on, and this cascade produces a necessary record of what triggered it. No reality=no sense. Senses are in reality. They are a part of reality. They are a feature afforded by a complex structure, they are possible, a thing that can and does happen. Were they not to happen, they would be a potential thing that could happen. This is all descriptive of the reality of it. Senses can fail. But to make that argument is to necessitate that they ever don’t fail. To say they ever do fail is to say they can be wrong, is to say there is something to sense properly or accurately. Consider the difference: sensing, understanding, interpreting. Humans, like many animals, didn’t evolve to be shit at perceiving their surroundings. They didn’t do everything they did on top of basic survival because they don’t understand what is going on around them. We are not infants in a vat of goo. The issue is that the terms of objectivity and subjectivity themselves are dated, designed by people who didn’t understand the nature of reality, and are used in a highly technical way in science, but very loosely in the layman and philosophical context. Most people look at them as opposites, and most people don’t understand them far enough to realize they are paradoxical, in a self-defeating and contradictory way, not in a way merely counterintuitive or nuanced. There is tendency to what you identify here as subjective. There is external information source, and the information is in operation remotely. Information obeys universal laws. The basis of objective reality as you call it, and as you reject it, is that everything that exists necessarily affects or influences something, and is necessarily affected or influenced by something. This isn’t necessarily the only basis of existence, but this is one. This is similar to certain aspects of what you talk about and what other philosophies begin to talk about. However, it doesn’t erode reality like it is presented here. It accepts/asserts a manifold reality, one I don’t understand why many are so disinclined to understand? The statement is simple: if something affects something, it exists. That’s all you need. There’s no objective or subjective. There’s information, perspective, truth, and reality. Your “subjective experience” exists as contents of your mind. Your mind is contained within reality. Your “subjective experience” is therefore a necessary component of the “objective reality.” It’s a useless distinction in this context. You experience something. So do I. There is commonality and difference there, but what we experience either exists at least as much as we experience, so as to have the effect of causing said experience, or perfectly replicates the experience as “an illusion,” in which case it has the effect of exactly what it would have regardless, and so is just as real. Further, illusions aren’t “unreal,” they are “fake.” One cannot be deceived by something that doesn’t exist. The text you read right now is not text, but pixels on a screen, giving the illusion of text. In this case, the illusion is very real, and conveying a real message. “So then god exists?” Yes. At least as a concept. At least as a word. What is it that fills the books of the storied history of religion? Nothing? Were there nothing, this paragraph would be blank. The books would be empty, the history would be gone. Yet we are a necessary product of that history. The boogeyman exists. The past exists. The future exists. The present exists, and actually, it’s an infinitely thin slice of time between the past and future, and totally arbitrary. It’s as valuable depending on how much of the future and past you perceive it to encompass. Inb4 “time doesn’t exist.” Yet I wrote this and you replied to it. You read “read” before “before.” Time is not a clock. It is not the sun in the sky. It is the space you cannot see that is taken up by motion. It is the length between you and your ancestors and your descendants. There is no utility in measuring the nonexistent. “Time defies our expectations and understanding” =/= “time isn’t existent or real.” Which applies to reality, and all of these topics really. Subjectivity does not imply, it demands, a subject. There is no interpretation without something to interpret. There is no objective thing that cannot be interpreted. “Everything is subjective” yes, if ever; no, if only. Everything can be subjective, but everything is not necessarily subjective. Everything is subjective AND objective. Because the broad definitions of these words are not exclusive and as I said before, are flawed. In science objective is redefined narrowly to be more useful. Then people misunderstand the tension between the two thinking subjective means able to be interpreted or that it is inconsistent. Challenging your stance: From within this lens you present, define the following, explain what they are, how they are similar, and how they are different. If they are not different or do not exist, explain how we can speak of or refer to them. Here they are: -imagination -perception -hallucination -delusion -illusion -misinterpretation -misinformation -psychosis -paraesthesia -intention -responsibility -freedom -determinism -randomness -potential -information -truth -knowledge And really the only four you really need to think about to get the full effect, ask yourself especially, what is the difference between: illusion, delusion, hallucination, and interpretation? How can there be a difference? How can there not be? It’s the common stance afflicting nuphilosiphers “I am intelligent because I rejected a common position I used to hold!” “Behold my superior intellect! I took a spectrum, and I got rid of one side! Huzzah!” Like, you realized you CAN view the world as completely misunderstandable and 100% up for interpretation, and it only takes a total renovation of common knowledge as mental gymnastics to make it work out. Yeah, and the other way works too. You can see the world as totally objective and honestly that takes way less common knowledge renovation and mental gymnastics to workout. But just because you can make it make sense, doesn’t prove it. More accurately, you don’t prove something by just blinding yourself to the other half that is equally justified. To understand something: consider all details, integrate them together. Color exists. It is first possible as a process. It doesn’t occur below a certain size because wavelength and photon volume/density can’t be high enough. Color is not pigment, it is not just light, it is not just your eyes reaction, it is not just your brain’s interpretation. It is necessarily, crucially, all of these things in a tightly calibrated chain. It makes no sense that the brain would assign an arbitrary qualia to that experience. Why is visual data processed where it is, and how it is? Why is your experience of red stored where it is and how it is? Why is it that that structure is never interpreted differently? What dictates this? Your dna? Your dna tells the light what neuron to activate? Surely your genes play a role, but isn’t there necessary information held in the light itself… that triggers the eye the way it does… that relays the message that it does… that is processed how it is… Can’t you see that the reason why light looks how it looks is… because it looks that way? That the brain doesn’t have to do everything to organize itself AND the information that flows in and out of it? The brain certainly participates, but how can ever it be that the stimuli would be sortable were it all arbitrary in the first place? Now we need an entire extra portion of the brain to do all of that. No, the stimuli themselves carry information. That information is used by the brain to store and sort and everything else relevant to this sentence said stimuli. And that’s exactly what you’re perceiving within yourself. It’s why the same color of light triggers the same response in your eye and brain, despite being different sources, different photons. That information. That quality. It is the qualia of the light. Or sound or touch or whatever. Wouldn’t it make more sense that the brain would do as little work possible and work with what it has to organize and represent data? This is all just a distortion of sliding definitions and “it’s complex or hard to define, so it’s nonexistent.“ or “sometimes it doesn’t work properly, so it never works.”
Thank you so much for such a considered response. Very generous of you! Sorry for the slower response though. I find that these larger posts tend to require some proper consideration, but when I finally got around to sitting down with it I realised we were aligned almost entirely. I think the issue is that you assumed that this was a complete outlay of a philosophy, whereas it is only one step (and an early step at that). First, and I think most importantly, I never actually state that everything is subjective. And that’s not the message of the essay at all. Mostly because I have many of the same issues with idealism as you do. The point I’m trying to make finds its home in your first paragraph; that it is possible to think something right, and be, as far as you are willing to perceive, accurate. It’s the “as far as you are willing to perceive” that is important. And from all I read, you seem to entirely understand this. A perspective is accurate from within that finite context, but push much further into any specifics and that which appears actual turns out to be a quality of the perspective that’s being held. This doesn’t negate the existence of reality beyond the perspective, it just places it in context. As you say, no reality, no sense. However the reality we sense may be qualitatively shaped by our translation and interpretation, but as you point out, we don’t so much interact with a world that is outside of us, so much as we are the cross section of that world. We are it as it evolves in time. But due to this, I do take a more controversial stance on one point, so I’ll try and clarify that here. (But I think you make a very similar argument later anyway 😄) As you say, we cannot claim that the senses offer up a perfect reflection of reality-because they make mistakes. However, that would suggest they are partially correct and partially incorrect. This I do deny. So first, in what what way do they actually reflect their surroundings? (Now I wrote this next bit before I read your comments re colour, and I actually think you said it better. But this what I wrote anyway, and you’ll see we eventually come around to the same point in the end.) Take light. We know how a photons wave length influences colour, and how the amount of photons will influence brightness, but nowhere in a photon or a collective of photons exists either colour or brightness. That is a quality of the brains interpretation. Our only other understanding of the photon is our mathematical understanding attained by measurement. But to say that a photon is a mathematical object is an equally incomplete description. Further, the photon is an extrinsic object, not an intrinsic one. It is a part of a whole, not a thing in-and-of-itself. Its identity as a “thing” is entirely found in how we understand it. That said, we do interact with our environment. Even more, we are a reflection of it. And so due to this, I don’t claim that our senses are entrenched in falsity’s, but rather, that the way WE know photons is just how the universe “does photons” from this perspective. Meaning; our senses never make a “mistake”. They are just how the universe does this particular brand of “sensing” in this scenario. Just as in how the universe does “galaxies” or does “gravity”. (This is a similar, but slightly more silly, version of your comment re illusions “existing”.) All I mean is that the senses and illusions are not seperate from the universe, they are just a particular quality of the universe. So any “illusion” will be just as valid, in respect of its finite frame (“as far as you are willing to perceive) as any other experience. My way of saying this is that they are finitely valid, whilst infinitely incomplete. And I would apply this to all the words you put forward for consideration. 👍 each word requires its own subjective world, and context. But the wholeness of ‘what is’ is beyond such words. (P.S. your nuphilosophers comment cracked me up. I couldn’t agree more.) For the most part I think we agree. So I’ll leave you on this… you say “if something affects something, it exists.” And I agree, however, that little word IT, is only standing in for a finite concept. What is, is. “It’s” are shaped by perspective. So for me, it’s not about information… it’s about process. (But then there’s the whole ‘Time’ thing… and that would be another five page ramble so, let’s not open that can just yet 😆) Hope that clears things up. Let me know if you rewatch it and end up with a different take after that. Either way, thanks again and chat soon!!!
What then is there? There appears to be us having this interaction… is this not a part of ‘what is’? If not… this “nothing” seems to be very excited. 🤔
Also if the self is dissolvable it exists as something that can be dissolved. If the self prevents enlightenment, you are either enlightened or prevented from enlightenment by a thing that exists. Crucially the pursuit of enlightenment precludes enlightenment, as wanting to not want is wanting. Buddha was attached to nonattachment.
@@ryder1658 Reflection is key. 🐲✨🐲✨🐲✨ "Before I start, I must see my end. Destination known, my mind's journey now begins. Upon my chariot, heart and soul's fate revealed. In time, all points converge; hope's strength, resteeled. But to earn final peace at the universe's endless refrain, we must see all in nothingness... before we start again." 🐲✨🐲✨🐲✨ --Diamond Dragons (series)
Love it. Yes. 👍 I hint at a similar (but maybe less pointed) sentiment at the end of the next chapter. Again, finitely valid… infinitely incomplete. But well said. 👏
Interesting channel. I would caveat that it's not all relational. There is uniqueness, but rather you can imagine it in the sense of memory or habit. Structure exists for the molecule that does not exist for the atom. Or at least the full expression does not. The same principles may underly both, but the molecule is not the arom, as you point out. I think we agree, I am perhaps nitpicking.
No I think you’re exactly right. There is uniqueness amid the relational process, however it doesn’t seem to be substance based. That doesn’t deny its actuality, it only puts it in context so that we can extend the thinking further from there. But very glad to have you along for the ride. The chapters are sequential, so feel free to drop you thoughts in the comments as the ideas continue to unfold 🙏🙏🙏 always appreciate a back and forth of ideas :)
The objective self... I'm certain that you wouldn't consider these words to be yourself. They might be, at best, directions to find yourself. Would we define 2 as definitively 1 plus 1? Is 3 minus 1 any less correct? There are directions from every number, equal in destination as a universal constant. I might offer you an equation, a possible proof even, but my words could never change the value of 2. I could, perhaps, offer directions from 1 to 2. A variety of numbers I could find directions for. Let's see... Take the final digit of whatever number, however large it is, and subtract it by 2. That's exactly how far away it is from 2 at any given time, so if you subtract that sum from the original number you will reach 2.
Oooh, you're close. Examine what you think is finite. Go into that disillusionment and nihilism, become saturated with it. What do notice? Just be honest with yourself, that is all, brutal honesty, always.
@@Halcy0nSky yes I know but your not getting it. Drop all the words this world has a limit and that is why we are being repressed by Satanist to keep us happy sheep
@@usershilov Shame… as there is a thought in here which, if considered diligently, can pry apart our more material intuitions. But to be fair, it is only the beginning of the thought. 👍 Happy to answer any questions though. Cheers for joining us!
@@InfiniteNow_withSeanCrowley Thanks, I love it here :) I have a different perspective on the role of emergent phenomena in material reality. I don't believe that emergent phenomena contradict materialism or challenge objective reality. Additionally, I disagree with the characterization of bi-directional causality. In my view, the elements of a system dictate its emergent behavior and function. When a system seems to affect an individual element, it's more accurately understood as that element being influenced by the interactions with other surrounding elements, all within the material framework. For example, when we observe a wave, I wouldn't perceive it as the wave affecting the water and molecules rather I would see it as the result of collective molecular motions. The wave emerges from these interactions, and any influence is a reflection of material processes at work. Similarly, while a hydrogen atom exhibits different properties than a collection of loose plasma, both are manifestations of material interactions at different levels of organization. The emergent properties of structured systems don't necessitate a departure from materialism; they highlight the complexity arising from material components. Even when considering top-down causality, such as a person making decisions that impact lower levels (like using tools or particle accelerators), these actions are still grounded in bottom-up material processes. It's material affecting material. This perspective of emergence reinforces my materialistic intuitions. I'm new to philosophy and super passionate about learning more. If you would like to point out any areas I may misunderstand or anything I have said you would disagree with, I'd love any further discussion!
It’s a lot of fun, and it does make for some very original imagery (in contrast to using stock footage as most do), but that said, I am starting to move away from it as the sole source of visuals. All things going to plan and I may be able to hire some of my animation buddies to start working on episodes!! Cheers for sharing your thoughts! Very appreciated. 🙏
Thanks for that monkey. I do try to be technically accurate with all that I say, so I’m happy for the odd criticism here and there to help sharpen the dialogue, but I’m very glad that your taking it for it’s given value as an expression. 🙏🙏 See you round the comments I hope. Sean
4:51 This wave argument is logically nonsensical. The term wave is just a noun form to say water with an added adjective... The word is just describing a state that water is in
Yes, but by equal measure, the water itself only describes the state that molecules are in... molecules are only describing the state that atoms are in. You're correct, but the same argument can be applied to any objective piece of the puzzle. That which underlies the noun in one frame acts as the adjective when considered from a new perspective - and visa versa... seemingly ad infinitum.
"complete and total understanding of..." going to cut you off right there, you just described something that is mathematically impossible. It's not possible to have a complete and total understanding of anything at all.
It’s not so much about them not existing, it’s more to do with understanding in what way they exist. Just because something has a name doesn’t mean it has an objective reality. Take Tuesday for example… it exists, but only relative to us and our subjective interpretation or the world. It’s not imaginary, it’s relative. 👍
You are confusing orders of magnitude with correlation. Molecule is a term used in chemistry. Waves are a universal thing in physics. 'Water' is a macro term used in normal conversation for the substance that, when looked at closely, is made up of the molecule H²O. Water forms waves because of its environment, but not all waves are like this... water just happens to be made of fermionic mass. Light waves do not behave like this, as they are bosonic. To say that a molecule of H²O is different than water is to fundamentally misunderstand what you are saying. Or you are obfuscating on purpose. However, the emergence of waves in water has nothing to do with its structure, oh except for the hydrogen weak polar bonding that makes it a liquid in the first place. Which, now that I think about it, is about its structure completely. The liquid fact, mixed with the environment fact... begs a question. Why aren't the waves bigger or more complex? Well, you see, because it is made of water and water has these properties. Even the multitude of different ice formations is dependent on what it is. What you suggest, when you say that water is mapped molecules, and that waves are mapped water, is that you can't describe water with chemistry alone and you can't describe waves with water alone. That is just fundamentally misleading. Nobody does that except for maybe the craziest of fluid dynamacists. But they have a reason. Any argument you make later that relies on this line of reasoning will then also be flawed, as you can not cross domains with language like that and actually have said anything useful. Chemistry isn't the domain of waves. Of course, chemistry isn't going to tell you about physics. But the physics is most definitely bounded by the shape and energy of the molecules bonds... Even topological defects, spinners, and quasi-particle meta materials emergent qualities arise from very specific chemistries used in very specific physical ways. Like tuning a radio to the correct frequency, the station that broadcasts on that frequency emerges to you. Nothing magical happens. Even boundary layer conditions between two opposing structures can be looked at inverted, where the boundary layer is now the inside of a system, and it has these properties... compartmentalization is important. Describing what you are defining is important. Knowing how to use words... it's important, too.
Ha ha! Love it! Thanks for such a considered response. And I don’t fundamentally disagree with any of your points, though I think your knowledge on these topics might be getting in the way of the thought that’s being offered here. The point is that much of our knowledge is shaped by the language we use. In this case, the language associated with each domain (as you have very clearly pointed out). As you also point out, in practice, we tend to avoid talking “across domains”. Even though, as you also make clear, these are not “separate domains”, but rather, the division is a quality of our language and/or sciences. So, at no point do I claim the existence of anything “magic”. All I deny is any object-specific substance (which aligns with current understanding). I do this by highlighting the interrelated nature of systems (that you point out also) and the perspective-specific language we lean on when explaining emergence. The point is that an epistemological issue stands before the ontological one. So, this is not a physics lesson; it’s a thought experiment, and it needs to be considered as such. For example, “the wave” in this case is just “a water wave,” not “waves” as a category (we could use ‘waves as a category’ to discuss the same idea, but that would get too messy for concept overview). Also, as a thought experiment, I might highlight the bottom-up language used by most science educators (hierarchical separateness of bodies) at one point but only to offer its counter (interdependent wholeness) later. By doing this, we are all forced to ask if one claim was wrong or if they are both right in different contexts (as you suggest). So it's done for a reason. The point is that compartmentalisation is needed for our descriptions and understanding, and in that sense, I agree, it is very important-however, as most physicists will tell you, much of what we discuss is abstraction. The actualities are far more subtle, primarily due to the fact that nature operates as a continuous whole-not a series of parts. And once we see this, our view of the objective world changes from a substance or object-based understanding to a process or relational understanding. But this doesn't take anything away from the science. By this, I mean that we can know water as water, separate from knowing molecules. The quality of wetness, for example, is a quality we attribute to water, not molecules. Likewise, we can know the molecule separately from knowing the atoms. However, both you and I know that this described independence is not reflected by the actuality. Because they ARE each the same thing... right? Their uniqueness is true, but so is their unbounded unity. And in this lies the paradox. Because if each frame is merely a unique perspective of that “same thing”, what is this physicality ultimately? You might say quantum fields; you might say mathematical structures; you might say energy…. though no description holds to be any more ultimate. Only relative to some field. Part one of this essay begins with an investigation into quantum gravity models, which are offered as a potential culprit for this elusive hidden substance. However, I claim that this would be an unfounded declaration of final ground. It’s just another piece of the puzzle, as seen relevant from another perspective. So, what would you suggest is the actual substance of these physical characteristics? I’m not sure if that makes things any more straightforward, but I’m happy for you to pick it apart further. I may even use your comment to help reshape the metaphor, as there’s always room for improvement 👍but for now, that’s the idea. So, thanks again!
I see. I guess my ultimate claim is that the usefulness of one order of magnitude can't be dissolved by not understanding the next order down. The fuzzyness of QM means that classical physics won't ever be complete. This is true, but it is useful for exactly the things that it is useful for. And so doesn't matter. Our experience can't be mapped, think synesthesia... autism, adhd. The quality of one phenomenon can not be defined with material words, as each of us is different. Words exist only to facilitate communicating in agreement. They are not useful for describing things that can not be agreed on (systematic v Solopsistic). However, imprinting happens before a self emerges and must have something to do with the whole process. This means, to me, at least, the self is an 'emergence' of identity through language and imprinted deconstruction. You must use the imprinted child mind to build the language that you then use to deconstruct the child mind and its bias to replace it with the self, which can only be done with language use and immersion in culture. Yes, the use of the word "emergent" has been coopted by bad actors. But that doesn't mean that language can't be good for those things that it is actually good for. But, like you said, words are not us, but they are our outward facing identities. Is it strange then that the least educated tend to be the most likely to scam people? Does the absurdity of existing inside of this type of knowledge acquisition machine diminish any amount of usefulness anyone person can obtain from it? Or does the history of humanity make the idealism of imperialist institutions too real to remove ourselves from? If Plato then ideas, praxis, and logic based pragmatism, if Aristotle then material dialectics, history, and postmodern thinking only. But that fundamentally changes your argument depending on which one you are talking about. Both are useful to me. Because real reality isn't made up of our ideas alone, institutions are. Math and science are not communication languages. They are the agreement that we must start from. The language used to build up those insights and agreements is not the science or the insights. This is why it's so easy to build straw men and nonsequiters.Trying to teach fundamentalism through language defeats the purpose. Objectivity is not inherent, as the world operates as a continuous whole. But objects exist as you point out. That is why definitions matter. But the same problem can be applied to definitions. The closer you look at the boundary, the fuzzier it becomes. Does that make words not useful at all? So identity and self then become useless as well. And society and culture too. This means we should all just operate with a child mind. Right, survival of the fittest.
At 2:30, it says "Act 1 Chapter 12 The Digital & The Spaces Between Part 2"
A couple of questions:
1. Chapter 12 of what?
2. Does this video have part 1?
Yes, it does; thanks for asking!
All of Act 1 - Chapters 0 - 12 can be found here: th-cam.com/play/PLJKKoGjld9iyYCs0lnAPSGyd3pwJ7cNrd.html
This particular chapter's two halves can be found as one here; th-cam.com/video/vL2Dpxjv2mI/w-d-xo.htmlsi=2w0MJsMX01Ncn39c
(I always place the complete chapters into their own videos/Full Chapter Playlist once all the parts have gone up.)
There is also the audio-only podcast version if you want to catch up that way; th-cam.com/play/PLJKKoGjld9iyiHfe9N27SR4VOxN4tHSuT.html
(here are some other streaming services too if you prefer. linktr.ee/InfiniteNow)
...or just check the playlists on our channel page to find them all. 😄
But to answer your first question, This whole project has been a way to crowd-test a book I've worked on over the past 5+ years. It's been a lifelong meditation, but most of what appears in the videos are taken from my second-draft manuscript. The whole piece will be shared across 3 Acts, the first finishing with next month's Chapter 13. It should take around 3 years to finish. Act 1 investigated the physical, Act 2 will be the experiential & Act 3 will investigate the Infinite.
The videos have evolved, but the writing and music are reasonably consistent from start to end. Hope you enjoy it!!!
P.S. I want you to know that all feedback is welcome. Happy to have everyone along for the ride! ❤
@@InfiniteNow_withSeanCrowley I'm genuinely thrilled for your book. In the meantime rather would you recommend one ot two of your favorite books please?
I'd love to! Trickiest bit is narrowing it down... I suppose I need to make a nod towards two big influences
1) David Bohm - Wholeness & The Implicate Order (feel free to skip over the math heavy bits in the middle, the ending doesn't rely on it)
2) Spinoza - The Ethics
You can probably find both as free .pdf's, or even second hand copies online.
But if both of those are too heavy (because they are) anything by Carlo Rovelli is beautifully written and very relaxing.
... final bonus shout out - For a quick, easy, but deep audiobook; Merleau Ponty - The World of Perception 🙏
@@InfiniteNow_withSeanCrowley I have read Bohm's 'Thought as a System' and have watched his numerous videos with Krishnamurti. I'm very excited to check out other authors. I have briefly glanced other videos. Can't wait to unpack them and your book recommendations.
@@lavinnasays That's great. 👍If you've already read Bohm I think W&TIO is his masterpiece. Lookforward to hearing what you think. :)
Maybe all concepts are . . . surprise! . . . just that, concepts! Nothing more, and nothing less. So let's not mistake any concept for ACTUALLY being out there (or in here) as reality. They're just useful tools to navigate THIS, but they are not IT, just as the map is not the territory. We make the mistake of treating concepts as if they ARE the territory.
It's a persistent but hard-to-see-through illusion, like knowing that the Earth is spiraling around the Sun even though it persistently appears that the Sun circles around the Earth, and even then we are imagining where the Sun is when we can't see it.
The one concept that makes all the other concepts appear real is the concept (and feeling) of "I am," the most persistent illusion and appearance that feels oh, so real.
The feeling of "I amness" creates the world of duality, solidity, realness, inside/outside, before and after, and with that concepts appear concomitant with something "out there," or "in here."
But it's all just an illusion created by the grandest illusion of all, that "I am."
No concept, theory, or anything put into the symbols called language or math, or any other type of symbols can ever say anything fundamental about this. No matter how many finite pieces of data, info, whatever, that we accumalate, we will never be one millimeter closer to the Absolute Infinite, which is ALL there really is. Reality has no moving parts. All the pieces are a mirage that refer to nothing other than the hallucinatory feeling that "I am."
Dualism does not exist but as a mirage.
Oh, but what a persistently real feeling that "I am" is. It's a hard, nay, impossible one to crack, at least by the "I am" itself. But it can dissolve. Apparently. Then it's seen it never was. By no one. Lol
Till then, one has no choice but to be hoodwinked by the apparent realness of concepts, all held up by the hallucinated feeling that "I am."
Wow, beautiful! Beautifully said.
The ego is the mother of all logic. It all circles back to the mystery of consciousness
Bravo!
👌
wut
All Buddhists know it. The doctrine of Sunyata (which is the lack of inherent essence or independent existence, also annata) as well as the doctrine of dependent arising or dependent origination. Nagarjuna elaborated them in length and in depth eighteen centuries ago.
Vedanta
Vedanta is a different beast. It assumes the existence of a permanent self, the Atman. Buddhists refute such a view.
According to the Buddha, the belief in a permanent, unchanging self or soul (Atman) is a misconception that leads to suffering. He taught that all phenomena, including the self, are impermanent, constantly changing, and dependently arising. This means that there is no permanent, unchanging self or soul that can be found.
In the Anatta-lakkhana Sutta, the Buddha stated that the five aggregates (form, feeling, perception, mental formations, and consciousness) are not the self, and that clinging to them as a self is a cause of suffering. He emphasized the importance of understanding this concept in order to attain liberation from suffering.
@@_lonelywolf
Yes, but this are the phenomena that are the cause of suffering but and not the self that is separate and different from the phenomena. Phenomenas are not the Self (Atma)! Suffering is the outcome of the ignorance of the wrong perception of seeing phenomena as the self; When the perceiver identifies (become) its own perception and with that of what it perceives., an object. When the self perceives limited (impermanent) objects of the phenomena that has to be born and die together with that what it perceives. And so the suffering comes into the process because the self due to its ignorance has to be born to experience hunger, disease, old age and death as the part of that phenomena!... But why does it suffer? And what was Buddha concerned more with, a true nature of the phenomena (mind consciousness) or with, who is the one who perceives it?... And/or with the fact of suffering itself? Om Shanti. 🙏
@@_lonelywolfNitpicking. Ātma --> Paramātma. The experiential soul as texture and tone takes us to what is no experience. The Buddha said liberation is not experience. Buddhism is derived from major Upanishads. You can find differences or find the same. Ātma, as Mrs Rhys Davids points out, was also synonymous with ego. With heart, with manas or hsin. Hence transient. Wittgenstein puts it well in Notebooks where he maintains that the thinking self vorstellende Subjekt is unreal, Wahn - a mania, an illusion - but the will is real... The manas, heart, intentionality - for without the will there is no centre of the world we call the I. In Vedanta there is a word - brahma-nirvāna. So that something and nothing is one and in jīvanmukti as Hegel describes and Zen describes Becoming returns, where samsāra is nirvāna is one : saguna-brahman as contrasted with formlessness nirguna-brahman. Etc. 😊
@@maitreyabadra2267 These questions in Buddhism are considered to be manifestations of the mind, therefore belonging to the realm of Samsara, or Maya in Indian tradition. In fact, all phenomena are empty according to the Buddha, including the mind, or what we like to call consciousness or awareness or the true self or the witness, etc., in the sense that such experience, however you wish to call it or characterize it, lacks intrinsic essence and independent existence. As a matter of fact, nothing could exist independently, not even the self or "pure awareness" or consciousness. Awareness only exists in relation to its objects. Pure awareness or consciousness is a myth and an illusion of the mind. Experientially, only the experience of being conscious or aware OF something exists. Therefore, all phenomena, including the self, consciousness or awareness, must depend on other phenomena and conditions for them to arise and exist. They are unreal in other words because they lack independent existence. I hope this helps.
Dude, this goes beyond staring into the abyss, it’s becoming the abyss…
The collective doesn’t even know what it means to be a good human, you want them to contemplate alternative explanations for the true nature of reality?
I think we’re ready… in fact, I think we’re hungry for it. Hope ya liked it 🙏🙏🙏
Reality is a timeless, location less, constant, unchanging Unconditional Love
@@Aliens-Are-Our-Friends2027I don't see much unconditional love in infinity. In fact, I don't see any true unconditional love in anything.
@@laaaliiiluuukeep staring into the abyss - it emerges!
@@michaelfoxbrass What emerges is the opposite of love though
I think that understanding a little bit about fractals, about illusions and about chaos theory was very helpful for me in understanding emergent and divergent patterns. If you want a great example of a divergent pattern of nothing becoming a thing, I think the phonon is the perfect example. Once you understand what a phonon is, you get a better understanding of what a virtual particle is. When you consider a phonon in the concepts of yin and yang, it is yang acting like yin.
First time watching - simply incredible content.
When one becomes this deep, the questions become more difficult to formulate than the answer. I'll be sure to share this with like-minds, and people with some key differences to myself. I usually never comment on videos, but this one deserves so much more attention. You're asking the unanswerable, the paradoxes, and the beauty in them is something akin to figuring everything out, and nothing out, at the same point. Thank you for this. Subscribed. It showcases the paradoxical nature of our finite viewpoints.
You are acknowledging the uncertain and you are happy with it being an unknown. Because the unknown is not based on a finite-continuum. This changes my perspective to embrace the uncertainty that awaits and embrace the uncertainty about the now. I no longer need perfection. "I Am". That phrase finally makes sense to me.
I rarely comment on videos myself, so I fully appreciate you sharing this here.
And I’m so very pleased it’s resonated with you!! I’ve spent a long time sitting alone with these ideas, so it’s amazing to now be sharing it with folk like yourself!
Thanks so much for sharing and the kind words. Hopefully I’ll continue to see you round the comments 🤘
Sean Shawn Saun... either way. Not a computer narration. I was astonished to see a real person. The majority of videos in the class are just the same european or otherwise eastern accented voice that somewhat gets nuance in pronunciation. Subbed for the human.
Yes... thumbs up for a real, live person.
Let me offer a very human Thank You to you all 🙏
i don't know about you but i'm alone in my room looking at a computer screen displaying pixels... Did a real human actually appear in your room?
@davidlones365 The video shows our host. Unusual for this class of videos that are many times compu-voice over.
@@AtomkeySinclair i try not to judge the pixels too much for being pixels, whether the face of the human that made them is depicted or not
Yet we're still all careful not to trip going down the stairs because, you know, they are actually there and it does actually hurt if you fall on your ass.
Indeed. There is clearly a truth to the reality that we experience. But if not in any ultimate sense of substance, where in actuality does this “physicality world” arise? The steps are clearly no illusion… so…
Reflection is both key and lock. Unfortunately, the majority of humanity is improperly trained for or incapable of truly, legitimately invoking this very difficult, non-innate technique.
🐲✨🐲✨🐲✨
"Before I start, I must see my end. Destination known, my mind's journey now begins. Upon my chariot, heart and soul's fate revealed. In time, all points converge; hope's strength, resteeled. But to earn final peace at the universe's endless refrain, we must see all in nothingness... before we start again."
🐲✨🐲✨🐲✨
--Diamond Dragons (series)
The basis of all reality is *constraint* . The background of all reality is *ambiguity* . The distinction between "real" and "fictional" is a matter of *degree* - what men call "the real" is, in essence, the *superlative of all fictions* ...
unfortunately we do still have a human body we have to take care of and there is currently nothing we can do about that!
At the level of quarks and below (vacuum energies) it is all undifferentiated energy constantly seeming to seek equilibrium....and when equilibrium IS- boom. All this, again.
Bravo! However… “all this” is not so easily defined at any scale without perspective.
Just found the channel , great videos so far looking forward to your growth.
Thanks for the vote of confidence. Very glad you’re enjoying it!
This just popped up on my feed and... I'm completely blown away. That was amazing, so rich and layered with meaning, I could feel all sort of new neural pathways firing in my brain.
I don't know if you'll see this (don't really comment much) but I want you to know that was an inspiring piece of work. I had been a bit lost for a while, in a hole, have been coming out of it, starting to reengage and this video hit me at the perfect moment, helped to crystalize some strands in the old duders head, so to speak.
I'm extremely excited to pour into your other videos and for anything else you produce. Just want to send you some good energy and vibes and to encourage you to keep up the good work. You have a rare gift for speaking eleqountly and with meaning about very complex topics and have a way of weaving this beautiful tapestry of ideas that envelops the mind.
Very, very impressive 👏 Thank you sincerely for your efforts
Thank you so much for sharing! And I’m so glad this found a place with you. Your comment definitely does help to get me back up and working on the next piece. So I thank you for that.
So you know, the episodes are laid out sequentially, so you may want to start at the beginning (there’s a podcast version too if that helps). But we do dive into some confronting ideas concerning the human condition, so just be warned that there may be some triggering parts. But the point is to ensure a rigorous examination of our metaphysics. So I hope you are all on board for that!
Lovely to have you with us for the ride, and be sure to make your self known from time to time. I look forward to hearing your thoughts as you go. Much love!!! ❤️
I didn't know until I heard your intro but I'm obsessed with infinity too!
Ha! Very chuffed to have played that minor role in your revelation then. ☺️ It’s a fun pool to swim in.
Some notes:
Waves are also multiply realisable - they can be observed independent of media. I think it's probably fair to say that a _particular_ wave is weakly emergent, and dependent on media, because any kind of primitive identification - like pointing at it - will also entail pointing at the media it propagates through. We might think of this as the extensive notion of a wave, in other words: the extension of a wave is weakly emergent. However, for the general wave, I wouldn't say this is strongly emergent exactly. I'd consider this a mathematical object, which I consider a description of structure. Here I think the ontology of attributes is closest to the move to make in this situation - that the media _has_ waviness, but "wave" is intensionally independent of the media; even independent of the particular wave.
- Okay, further in, I think maybe a disambiguation between genera and particulars are in order. I think the extensional vs. intensional distinction I outlined earlier could serve in that respect.
- There's a whole field of physics called "statistical physics" which is actually dedicated to studying the relationship between macroscopic statistical parameters (think: pressure, temperature, entropy) of some system, and its constituents - the "water-molecules", so to speak. Certain parameters - particularly the ones that come from "classical statistical mechanics" - are actually media-independent, so they actually hold independently of what things actually are, and in modern physics, a theory is said to be "renormalisable" if it can make some macroscopic prediction independently of the microscopic constituents at play.
- Due to the above point, I'd suggest they do exist, if only because that we are capable of speaking intelligibly about them, and can say true or false things about both. Value of a variable, and all that. The fact that I can say something true about water in general that's independent of water molecules means that it exists independently of them. However, I can't say anything about some particular water without reference to its molecules (sort of), because doing so would logically imply something must be true of those molecules (even if that's ostensibly just some constraints on their behaviour).
- Explanations are generated by people, and people choose to make their propositions based on specific properties. It's because true identification can only be done with definite descriptions - extensional identification of particulars - otherwise in the abstract you lose the detail. It is right to say water molecules comprise water _in general,_ but this is again a structural statement.
- At around the 8:25 mark, it seems like the thinking gets rather careless. You raise scepticism between the microscopic/macroscopic duality. Crosstalk between >2 environments seems to me to mean that you think scales can actually vary in more than one dimension? Like, instead of zooming in or out, and talking about how some statistical parameter is a function of its constituents, you would say there is some entire seperate direction of "zooming" we can do that we have to consider to fully characterise a statistical parameter, is that correct? Or do you mean to say that, with only one direction of zooming, we can't just talk about each property as a function of the properties of the constituents at some adjacent scale e.g. the water has a special something, not just because of its molecules, but also because of its atoms, and electrons, etc. ? Because these sorts of theories are called "non-renormalisable" in physics. Thing is, not everything actually needs an account of its constituents to be explained, so I'm inclined to disagree, and paint more of a complex landscape of stuff that cross-talks with many 'environments', and islands of things that have little cross-talking to speak of at all. Also I don't buy the infinite thing.
- It's not clear that the neurones are actually digital. You can simulate an algorithm on a computer, which is digital, and you can draw a kind of equivalence between it and what the computer does, but we may want to be careful about conflating it with the actual stuff going on in the brain. The action-potential is continuous, the activation energy is continuous- well modelled as discrete, but not actually discrete - synapse firing starts and stops in a continuous way. Honestly, should it actually be discrete, I doubt it'll have much to do with our first-person phenomenal experience anyway.
- Okay, it might be a good idea at this point to give an example of >2 overlapping environments, because I'm really not certain by what you mean here.
- All accounts of emergent time I've ever seen seem to miss the fact that whatever is believed to be the substance of time always ends up hiding an ontological dependence _on_ time. I can't say for sure if you do this, since I don't know your position. I'm guessing you might think of the ontological dependencies as "rhizomatic", and that there is no ontological relation between two objects that can be considered "foundational". If this is so, I think you can make this claim (I'll disagree, but you can do it) for substances, but not for particulars. The picture I have in mind is a bipartite notion of foundation, partly dealing with ontology, and partly dealing with epistemology. I think this view knocks out any way of speaking intelligibly, since it seems to me that there are things that are say, multiply realisable, but that fact means nothing in a rhizomatic world.
- It may be the case that selves may come in different sizes. Consider two computers: an old one, and a new one. The older computer is larger than the newer, but contains no superfluous elements. What changed was the design. If this is so, at beat you could talk about a "minimal" self, but there may be more than one way to arrange material to obtain a self.
- Could you clarify what you mean by "superpositions with the infinite"?
Thanks so much for this. You’ve offered some very well laid out and valid points here, so I look forward to responding soon.
I’m currently away on holiday this week, but I have read through it, and I’ll be sure to respond thoroughly once I return!
But cheers for taking an interest and sharing your time. Speak soon 🙌🏻
@@InfiniteNow_withSeanCrowley No worries. Let me know if anything I've said needs clarification; I wrote this at 3am, so I wouldn't be surprised.
Hope you have a good time.
As a new one to this discourse, I appreciate these interactions, as you and others are clearly committed to delineating the syntax/taxonomy required for greater precision and understanding.
Oddly, as early as age 5, I was aware that accepting the concept of infinity required that the largest and smallest of any-thing or any-time had to be essentially equal, as my limited perception could not distinguish their infinity. I expressed it to my parents and others at that age as “I think the biggest thing and smallest thing in the universe must be the same thing”.
@@michaelfoxbrass If you take "smallest" to be negative infinity, you may be interested in studying the axioms of projective geometry, which conforms to your youthful intuitions (I think I was in the same boat as a kid). Unfortunately, infinity ends up behaving differently even under the same set of axioms, so a la Russell, we usually just say it doesn't exist, owing to its contradictory nature.
Bookmarked
Wow, not to get too far off the topic and steer my train of thought back into materialism but not only is the wave analogy helping me understand some internal things but it's also helping me understand wave/particle duality. It may not be a 100% sufficient allegory for the phenomena but it sort of "washes" away some preconcieved notions I have had about particle behavior and physics and makes it seem much clearer to me.
That’s great! I’m sure my study of physics has influenced my interpretation of metaphysics, so I guess that’s not too surprising. I found the best thing to get your head around if you want to better understand wave-particle duality is the uncertainty principle. Trying to properly understand that gave me a much more of an intuitive understanding of quantum objects and the problems we face in trying to describe them classically. But we’ll get to that stuff later 😁
Very glad you enjoyed it🙏
@@InfiniteNow_withSeanCrowley Yeah man I am more of a literary type of guy and I feel like I'm an average dude epistemologically walking around a metaphorical genius convention in life right now so I have really been pushing my mind to the max lately.
So it's like I am making a bunch of vague approximations of various advanced subjects and then re addressing them over and over again, kind of like dressing then polishing a stone before fitting.
@@InfiniteNow_withSeanCrowley I like to approach learning like I approached athletics when I was in school and I have really been diving deep into some rabbit holes and have walked some labyrinths within the past month.
Idk if it means anything to you specifically but I think someone scrolling by will see my word salad-esque comments and draw something positive from them.
@@mission.to.aether.1 Good on you! Worth the effort I’d say 👍
A wonderfully eloquent presentation delving into humanity's most profound and complex inquiries into the nature of existence. The elegant use of the word 'emergence' parallels what ancient Eastern philosophy describes as 'duality'-with non-duality being a state beyond experience, as experience itself only occurs in relation to something.
Looking forward to watching more of your content! ❤
That’s so much Lexi! Hope you’ve enjoyed the most recent two. The last one especially is worth following through to the end I feel.
Either way, very pleased to have you with us! See you round the comments!
Thank you for this exhilarating experience, great music
Thanks so much 🙏 Especially re the music. I spend a lot of time composing and recording it each month… but when done well, it’s rarely noticed. So it’s always nice to have it mentioned 😄
Thank you Sean. Finally, somebody really gets it, sort of!
😂 glad we could meet eye to eye on this one… even if it was only sort of. Chat soon!
This is getting close. Well done my man!
What’s the next step? To realize that all that is is this present moment. That all “things” including space and time, self (I.e. subject/object) and every perspective and relationship is THIS moment.
There are only sense perceptions and thoughts. And look closely enough and you can easily see.
Walk into another room, and imagine the table that you no longer see. What is this imagining? The thought. We walk into the other room and see the table “the thought is real”. No, it’s not. It’s still exactly what he same as it would before had someone taken away the table. It is not thought and only thought.
Thoughts can only be thoughts. The basic cognitive error, on which the entire illusory world depends is that we think thoughts are the thing thought about.
Look closely and see what is a thooght. Can you find time? Can you show me a “before” or a “later”? Can you show me any relationship at all? Or is it all thought?
This world, as it appears to you THIS one! THIS ONE, exactly as it appears is what you are!
What would it look like without you seeing it? What would it sound like without you? What would it feel like in your absence? What smell? Taste? It wouldn’t.
The world is your sense impression and your thought. And there isn’t a you outside of that. Look for the evidence I am wrong. In this moment, where is the one that is seeing the screen? Is hearing the sound? If you seem to find it, what then is looking at THAT?
It’s all an illusion. You’re so close too. Look closely man. For yourself. I have no doctrine and no belief on offer. Simply an invitation to look.
👌
Endless abstractions of reality by us as living beings- conceptual or sensory- is still not reality outside of our limited perspective of it, however "real" it seems. Qualia, amiright lads or amiright lads? 👏🤣
It always comes back to the Cave allegory by Plato. Our impressions of reality is still not reality. We experience an abstraction of reality through being alive and taking form.
@@starryamity33 factually you can never know the world outside the qualia, can you?
In your first person experience there is ONLY qualia.
@starryamity33 yeah I had an epiphany about Cave allegory being inside another Cave allegory and so on to the infinite. But then. Which is the first Cave allegory? Is it inside another Cave allegory? Damn
@@Hyacinth_Rose Exactly and there are so many metaphors referring to this same thing. Turtles all the way down, ouroboros snake eating its own tail as an endless cycle, the question about which started first - the chicken and the egg, the painter painting a painting of a painter painting a painting etc. Row row row your boat, gently down the stream, merrily merrily merrily merrily life is like a dream. Overlapping frames of outcomes, happening all at once based on free will due to percieving and acting upon and therefore clearly having access to choices as to interact with reality directly either in your state of resonance as an individual and in enacting something behaviourally to create specific imagined conditions - hence time doesn't exist because each moment exists and ceases and exists and ceases unto itself. Fractals of consciousness ever-expanding and contracting, separating/splintering/destroying/ending and unifying/merging/creating/beginning. For that matter, life and death are in the same place as to overlap that way too and so the afterlife would likely be on the same plane or something, yet we would likely exist differently when dead as to not percieve whatsoever or percieve differently. Everything is made of energy, after all. The only difference being whether it is just energy alone, or energy taking form through the pre-stated example of actions wherein said energy is applied by somebody for a specific outcome. Even being alive itself is an act that takes energy.
@@Hyacinth_Rose I don’t get to “be” it yet, but what I’m seeing when the fear comes over me is that the entire “Russian doll set” is simply a thought structure that is non-verbal and that means that basically NONE OF THIS IS ACTUALLY HAPPENING.
Like, it isn’t real at all. And it sounds cool but it looks terrifying.
They are exactly the same 'thing.' How can they not be when everything arises in within a unified field? The principle of Life needs to be experienced. No flaying about with words and mental constructs can give such an experience. It arises in the way that we move through the field. Once there is an experience of life's unity, everything is then seen as one 'something' as Bohm called it. It's a shame that people become lost in concepts. As the physicist Fred Alan Wolf says; 'The real trick to life is not to be in the know, but to be in The Mystery...'
The journey itself is more important than any given beginning or end. But it's still crucial that individuals recognize that every circle begins WITH its end. Not that the majority of humans will actually accept nor even understand what I just typed, but... it is what it is. #copium
🐲✨🐲✨🐲✨
"Before I start, I must see my end. Destination known, my mind's journey now begins. Upon my chariot, heart and soul's fate revealed. In time, all points converge; hope's strength, resteeled. But to earn final peace at the universe's endless refrain, we must see all in nothingness... before we start again."
🐲✨🐲✨🐲✨
--Diamond Dragons (series)
Well said. And a big thumbs up for the Bohm reference 👍👍👍
Wonderfully wrought.💐
Thanking you wholeheartedly squire 🙏
Reflection is key.
🐲✨🐲✨🐲✨
"Before I start, I must see my end. Destination known, my mind's journey now begins. Upon my chariot, heart and soul's fate revealed. In time, all points converge; hope's strength, resteeled. But to earn final peace at the universe's endless refrain, we must see all in nothingness... before we start again."
🐲✨🐲✨🐲✨
--Diamond Dragons (series)
Beautiful. Well done.
Thank you so much 🙏
Exceptional..
Thanks so much. I’m glad it hit the mark for you 🙏
The irony of crossing the abyss is that as long as you want out, you aren’t ready to leave.
Well said ❤️
No one considers how many of the particles on earth are already entangled, by their very nature of coexistence on the same 'material plane'
Which means we are all already entangled with each other at the quantum level. What's more DNA itself is normally in a Ball shape, and works as an antenna
Then there's the Schumann Resonance, and Morphic Waves... and the temporally retroactive influence of Quantum Wave collapse at point of observation.
What's more that would mean we are already a single Superorganism, working like a Galactic Brain in a State of Self Conscious Observation of itself
A Singular Plurality
Contradictory cohesion!
👏
There’s also the one-electron theory, which states that all electrons are actually one and the same electron bouncing back and forth across time. 🕰️
What is this style of video called, where the images are seamlessly changing slightly into something else? I've seen them mostly only on some psytrance videos, but i can't remember the name of this (video) style. Could someone help me out please?
I’m not sure if it even has a name.
There are several styles of film making threaded throughout each episode, but if you’re referring to the more animated sections that morph over time, that’s a style of AI movie generation called Flipbook. The reason it looks that way is because the AI has no contextual understanding of the piece as a whole other than the initial text prompt or starting image that you enter. It essentially just references the one frame prior and slightly evolves the next frame in accordance with your instructions. As a result it ends up evolving in all sorts of weird and unexpected ways. But I like it as it feels a little like stop-motion with paint. :) Very fun to use.
subscribing right now!
Lovely to have you on board 🙏👍
Interesting - and amazing graphics. One thing… it’s okay to postulate that consciousness is a product of neural activity - but stating it as being a fact is a little presumptuous- as there is no actual consensus on this matter. Rather make sure to underline that it’s an assumption you’re making.
Thanks for a cool video!
Thanks very much- & yes I agree.
I do try to be cautious of any definitive claims like that. However, the series is intended to be watched sequentially, and we’ve just spent the last few chapters highlighting the correlations between neural activity and experience, so we have justified some aspects of the claim. But you’re right; we can’t be definitive one way or another as yet (which I think is the point of the essay). But we’ll be spending all next year dissecting the nature of consciousness… so be sure to keep my feet to the fire! 🦶🔥😁
This video is amazing man. Well done
Thank you 🙏 So pleased it’s hit the mark!
Walter Russell - the secret of light pdf
Jeronimo canty - the book of N pdf
Dan Winter yt channel
🍀
Tldr?
Awesome vid!
Thanks 🙏 glad you’re enjoying it.
while the video raises some interesting philosophical questions, it ultimately relies on misinterpretations of scientific concepts, analogies that break down under scrutiny, and metaphysical speculation. the core issue is the conflation of our descriptions of reality with reality itself, leading to the conclusion that all identities are merely perspectives on a unified whole. this approach doesn't provide a scientific explanation for consciousness or the nature of time but rather offers a philosophical interpretation that lacks empirical support.
Thanks so much for that response. Very well put, and I hope you continue to keep my feet to the fire!! :)
I think in response I’d have to first agree with you that it doesn’t offer a scientific explanation of either time or consciousness, though nor does it claim too. If anything it merely acknowledges the unavoidable nature of the observer, which in itself, turns the tables on the empirical support that you suggest is needed. It is a philosophical interpretation yes, but one that can hopefully inform our relationship with empirical evidence rather than the other way around, as all empirical evidence is shaped by the bounds set by the questions asked of it.
But also, I would ask which scientific concepts you think I misinterpreted? Be great to know if I missed something.
Cheers again 👍
Thank You
You’re very welcome! Come back soon🙏
how many water molecules need be present to qualify as water?
0
@@CinnamonHeat-c9u interesting answer. i'll have to ponder it tomorrow night, pinky
The smallest droplet of water is called a ‘water hexamer’, and it is the smallest possible cluster where the oxygen atoms not longer sit on a flat plane, and so form a 3D shape. And this can be as small as 16 molecules. 💧
But it’s actually extremely difficult to seperate a single water molecule from the whole. In fact, in was only achieved for the first time relatively recently. Here’s the paper to show how it was done; www.nature.com/articles/am2011196#:~:text=A%20single%20molecule%20of%20water,of%20water%20or%20polar%20compounds.
They still refer to it as a “water” molecule, so… you could say one, but I would agree, that’s not really water yet. And considering that there are around 1.5 sextillion molecules in an ordinary water drop, there doesn’t appear to be any magical number as such.
But somewhere between sixteen & sextillion is the general vibe 👍
I can't wrap my head around if a chair exists as an object with identity if there's noone to classify as a chair. It seems to me that although it has the potential to be described separately from its environment, as long as the potential isn't realized by entities which build this kind of notions, the chair together with the Universe is just one big inseparated mush.
It doesn’t really. There are no objects. And it doesn’t have to be mush to be non-separate. This is the Nondual ‘appearing’ as distinctions. Humans simply mistake localized distinctions for real separateness. Nothing about the appearance itself changes, it’s just the end of thoughts believing they’re separate.
I agree with @the-absolute-light here; however… this said, the chair does also exist. In that, it exists as much as you or any other “thing” exists. Amid the unified wholeness is the potential for infinite actuality, one of which is you and your appreciation of the chair.
But while the existence and non-existence of the chair are both actual in terms of finite truth - the infinite truth is beyond words, categories or objects. We could describe this as being infinitely contradictory or infinitely coherent, but when we do that we only find ourselves back in the world of finite truth.
It’s the paradox of perspective.
how can a wave be only the relationship between water and molecules? what about time?
Exactly… to have a more definitive description we would need to include gravity, as well as a whole school of dynamics. Time being one of the more bewildering components of the equation. But will this ever give us a totalistic description of what a wave is? The point is we can subjectively define a wave in terms of a certain set of parameters, but at what point do we know the wave in and of itself? Where do we stop? And if we don’t stop, what is the wave? Now apply the same series of questions to any emergent phenomena.
Where can I find all the beautiful illustrations from this video?
Not sure which illustrations you’re after in particular, but the vast majority of what you see I have created myself specifically for the channel.
It’s often a mix of AI combined with photoshop edits and traditional video editing-that plus some video collage. I occasionally have the pleasure of collaborating with animators, though that’s usually only for special occasions.
I also compose and record all the music for each episode. 👍
But if you would like me to send you some images let me know and I’ll see what I can do :) ❤️
In my view a wave is a solution to an equation of motion and has little to do with stickiness of water or water molecules. It happens to be the case that water surfaces in a gravitational field create the circumstances that the ‘wave’ equation is the proper equation of motion, hence the forming of waves.😮
I think that’s an excellent approach, as it would clearly allow for you to speak about the wave in purely factual terms, but consider how your questions might shapes your answer. If you pose it as a question of measurement then your answer is satisfied in those terms. But a child playing in the ocean doesn’t know a wave in this way, and so could make their own definition factual relative to their perspective, without negating the validity of the more empirical understanding.
So if the wave has many different ways of being described, and each definition holds to be true relative to the question, we are left to ask, what is its nature ultimately?
If we presume its physical objective nature is ‘what it is’, then where is this “substance” we call wave. If there is none then the definition is still lacking. The equation is valid, the phenomenal experience is valid, the physical relation is valid, but where or what is its essence.
And if it has none, what does that mean?
Now that’s all well and good for a wave… but we can ask these exact same questions about any object. Is a person just a “solution to an equation” or does a person have a more substantial nature?
If not, again, what does that say about what is real?
If so, how is it different?
🙏
(Also… sorry for the slow response, there were a few to get through.) 👍👍👍
Hello my friend, been watching your videos and I appreaciate the pedagogy and build-up you use to make your conclusions apparent. But I would like to ask you since you have not been entirely clear on your position - what are your thoughts on analytical idealism? Such as the ideas of Bernardo Kastrup.
Glad you’re enjoying it! But yes you’re right, I haven’t been very upfront, but that’s only because the chapters are an unfolding of thought. So I don’t really intend to lay my stance down until till the very end (so, about 2 years to go 👍).
But to give you sneak peak, the closest I’ve found in the literature is probably Spinoza and David Bohm. Both who consider an infinite wholeness beyond any character. And this outlook tends to inform my take on Idealism, which is that it falls short (in my opinion) in its attempt at offering a familiar ontological primitive i.e. mind.
I don’t personally think Mind as a category offers much clarity is all. Mostly because we can’t give it an ultimate description of it. If it’s just “what I experience” then that falls significantly short. But any broader a description and “mind” start to showcase characteristics that are rarely associated with it.
That said, I really enjoy Kastrup’s work and actually take a bit from it, but where I feel he and others falter is in thinking that Mind is ultimate or even definitive. I agree that the reality we know is shaped via our perspective of it, and that this in itself is a form of finite truth, but I just think “mind” is too limiting a word for the ultimate/infinite truth. But the next two years of chapters are supposed to outlay my justification for that.
Though if you rewatch this episode and substitute mind for all examples of emergence, then you might see a hint of where I’m heading. Inside and outside in this case might be the experience of the inner and outer self. But as the video states, that in itself will only be a subjective pluralising, as ultimately all is one.
I’ve always intended for Infinite Now to be a book, and these vids are just a way to crowd test my second draft 😄, but feel free to critique my thinking as it all goes to shape that final piece 🤞
What about you? Do you subscribe to Idealism?
@@InfiniteNow_withSeanCrowley That is really awesome that you are putting time and work into a passion like this, it is much appreciated. Now, conjuring the philosophers stone is no easy task and I wish you the best of luck.
I am a IT-technician and a Theologian with roots in the protestant tradition by education . I am aslo an initiated mason, so that has some influence on my thinking and interpretation of scripture and reality. I am essentially not very dogmatic when it comes to religion but I would still consider myself a religious person.
In my younger years I was very into Alan Watts, and I also had a period in my life where I was experimenting with psychedelics. I am also somewhat also influenced by classical alchemy and kabbalistic thought.
Now to my thoughts on Bernardo Kastrup and Mind. I really do think Kastrup has a point when it comes to his idea of dissociation and the transaction of meta-conscious experience from the individual to the infinite upon death. But I don't think he's right about the ultimate reality not being meta-conscious. While the transcendent reality may not have the same meta-consciousness as we do, I firmly believe it is has meta-consciousness. It is just that the perspective is so much wider and deeper that a human could not comprehend where it puts focus and cannot understand what the purpose or goal seems to be in space and time.
That being said I am confident - in the words of Alan Watts - that there is not a grain of dust anywhere in the universe that is in the wrong place at the wrong time. It get's lost and then it comes back to itself so to speak. In different finite ways every time since it is infinite.
When it comes to Mind I must admit that it is a bit clumsy as an ontology but I cannot deny that the infinite seem to be having one or infinite subjective experiences and perhaps a singular which is transcendent and outside of time and space. In a sense this transcendence is both platonic and ever changing. I believe that there is an inside and an outside to the infinite, it has an anatomy which is fractalized and repeated as patterns in nature. Such as "day" and "night", male and female, sequences of geometrical intricacies such as magnetic fields and Fibonacci frequencies etc.
The dividing line of this inside and outside being the event horizon on a toroidal geometry where the singularity is it's center, north and south of this tori corresponding to the relative beginning and end of space-time which may not be static but subject to the uncertainty principle, in other words not necessarily repeating the same motions but still bound by it's nature. So in a sense it is beyond time and space on it's inside while animating it's outside as dissociated avatars and the natural world. I personally believe that consciousness is filtered by the brain and that the field of experience is taking place outside of space-time.
I don't know if that makes me an idealist.
The David Attenborough of inner (and the emergent outer) life. Looking forward to more. 🤗
@@InfiniteNow_withSeanCrowley That is really awesome that you are putting time and work into a passion like this, it is much appreciated. Now, conjuring the philosophers stone is no easy task and I wish you the best of luck.
I am a IT-technician and a Theologian with roots in the protestant tradition by education . I am aslo an initiated mason, so that has some influence on my thinking and interpretation of scripture and reality. I am essentially not very dogmatic when it comes to religion but I would still consider myself a religious person.
In my younger years I was very into Alan Watts, and I also had a period in my life where I was experimenting with psychedelics. I am also somewhat also influenced by classical alchemy and kabbalistic thought.
Now to my thoughts on Bernardo Kastrup and Mind. I really do think Kastrup has a point when it comes to his idea of dissociation and the transaction of meta-conscious experience from the individual to the infinite upon death. But I don't think he's right about the ultimate reality not being meta-conscious. While the transcendent reality may not have the same meta-consciousness as we do, I firmly believe it is has meta-consciousness. It is just that the perspective is so much wider and deeper that a human could not comprehend where it puts focus and cannot understand what the purpose or goal seems to be in space and time.
That being said I am confident - in the words of Alan Watts - that there is not a grain of dust anywhere in the universe that is in the wrong place at the wrong time. It get's lost and then it comes back to itself so to speak. In different finite ways every time since it is infinite.
When it comes to Mind I must admit that it is a bit clumsy as an ontology but I cannot deny that the infinite seem to be having one or infinite subjective experiences and perhaps a singular which is transcendent and outside of time and space. In a sense this transcendence is both platonic and ever changing. I believe that there is an inside and an outside to the infinite, it has an anatomy which is fractalized and repeated as patterns in nature. Such as "day" and "night", male and female, sequences of geometrical intricacies such as magnetic fields and Fibonacci frequencies etc.
The dividing line of this inside and outside being the event horizon on a toroidal geometry where the singularity is it's center, north and south of this tori corresponding to the relative beginning and end of space-time which may not be static but subject to the uncertainty principle, in other words not necessarily repeating the same motions but still bound by it's nature. So in a sense it is beyond time and space on it's inside while animating it's outside as dissociated avatars and the natural world. I personally believe that consciousness is filtered by the brain and that the field of experience is taking place outside of space-time.
I don't know if that makes me an idealist.
No, I don’t think it makes you an outright idealist, I think it makes you (similar to myself) more of a dual aspect monist. Idealism (as I understand it) claims mind to be the fundamental quality of all reality (which is different to a mere dismissal of fundamental materialism). I think it depends on whether you think that the “transcendental reality” ‘is’ the meta- consciousness or ‘has’ a meta consciousness (I think you wrote ‘is’ and ‘has’. Not sure if that was intentional or not). But even so, what do we even mean by consciousness in this context? And how does its quality differ from what we know as consciousness?
Perhaps my version of monism is slightly more radical, only because, when I hear people describe a nature of inside and outside, I can’t help but wonder from whose perspective is this inner or outer being considered? I’m not denying the presence of dynamics, and in fact I really enjoyed how you attributed perspectival opposites (like night and day or man and woman) to this ultimate fracture/fractal nature. I think there is something worthwhile in that as a thought. I’ve actually come to a similar interpretation of the “primordial divide” but have only been able to attribute this to the difference between finite and infinite truths (but that might be a chat for next time 😄)
But by my limited logic, beyond all framing can only be wholeness. Therefore any dynamic of character must be defined by a perspective, meaning that we must therefore still be within the domain of finite truth.
Not sure if you can see anything I’m missing?
So the Planck scale is meaningless, except as an emergence of finity?
I must admit, this one comment has sat a little heavy on my subconscious… let’s see if I can break down what you’re really asking; is the plank scale “meaningless”except as a fundamental barrier to universal finitude??
🤔 It’s a very interesting thought to ponder on, but I think it can only be considered relatively true, not ultimately true.
Partially because of that word “meaning”.
Its “meaning” is by definition, that which is only meaningful to us. But is that all it is?? In physics, planks constant (h) is definitely the point where meaningful statements about quanta cease to make sense (due to the uncertainty principle), but those statements/measurements are themselves only ever relative to our frame of relevance. They allow us to meaningfully describe the structure of the universe, but to ask “is that all it is” is to assume the plank limit is a type of thing in and of itself, and that this “thing” has some ultimate character. Whereas ultimately, this is just a character of the universe which becomes meaningful in terms of the questions we ask. It’s real within that context (which is not to say it’s illusion) but it’s not some “thing” that is of its own nature seperate from the whole.
I think the point is that the finitude you’re referring to is also relative to our perspectival frame. Emergent structures are real. They do have characteristics specific to themselves, but the question is; what are the characteristics attached to? Is it an ultimate finite something, seperate from the universe, or is that finitude a quality of our question and perspective?
The point of the video is not to highlight the quality of objectivity found in the macro world in contrast to sub plankian domains (though it does ask us to consider that) but more to show that this objectivity is only ever relative. But as it also says, thats an idea that will have to be unpacked further 👍
It’s a little convoluted but does this answer your question?
A wave needs to be in a container I think , that's how it can be a wave? Idk I'm just kicking my pool a lot to see cool ripples
No, waves exist in "empty" space. No container needed.
It does need a medium. It has one called the aether.
Which is it it doesn't need a container or it has one
It doesn’t necessarily need a container, though it does require a medium as mjt says. If our pocket of spacetime did turn out to be a closed system (which I personally doubt) then maybe you’d be correct to say that containers are an ultimate requirement for a wave, but I don’t think that’s particularly important for this thought experiment.
The wave would ultimately require an endless thread of influences to be what it is. The environment being its outer influence and its “machinery” being its inner. But the point is that waves are not entities seperate from their influences. They are the summed process of these changing relations… and the broader point is that, so is everything else. 👍
Language is just one big poem
Not a virus?
@@TerriblePerfectionI see what you did there
The question isn't "Who AM I?" but "Am I ?"
No questioner, no question
@@TommyEfreeti+1!
Dead😵
The ‘I’ (great or small) is partially knowable via finite perspective… the AM on the other hand is far more elusive.
🙏🙏
🙏🙏
And yet, the whole thing is offered as an objective assertion.
“Everything is subjective” -objective statement. It asserts that there is no objective reality.
Another thing that completely defeats this is the realization that, you can conjure 100 random expectations, beliefs, ideas, etc, and it is possible for any amount of them to be accurate or correct. The more based in reality your imaginings are, the more of them will be correct. The fact that you can be right and accurate just by necessary chance, it shows the least viable way to knowledge, and that it is still viable. It is possible to think something and be right, to see something and be, as far as you are venturing to perceive, accurate in your perception.
Our senses are very well understood. Measurements are similar to senses. A thing happens that triggers another thing and so on, and this cascade produces a necessary record of what triggered it. No reality=no sense. Senses are in reality. They are a part of reality. They are a feature afforded by a complex structure, they are possible, a thing that can and does happen. Were they not to happen, they would be a potential thing that could happen. This is all descriptive of the reality of it. Senses can fail. But to make that argument is to necessitate that they ever don’t fail. To say they ever do fail is to say they can be wrong, is to say there is something to sense properly or accurately. Consider the difference: sensing, understanding, interpreting.
Humans, like many animals, didn’t evolve to be shit at perceiving their surroundings. They didn’t do everything they did on top of basic survival because they don’t understand what is going on around them. We are not infants in a vat of goo.
The issue is that the terms of objectivity and subjectivity themselves are dated, designed by people who didn’t understand the nature of reality, and are used in a highly technical way in science, but very loosely in the layman and philosophical context. Most people look at them as opposites, and most people don’t understand them far enough to realize they are paradoxical, in a self-defeating and contradictory way, not in a way merely counterintuitive or nuanced.
There is tendency to what you identify here as subjective. There is external information source, and the information is in operation remotely. Information obeys universal laws.
The basis of objective reality as you call it, and as you reject it, is that everything that exists necessarily affects or influences something, and is necessarily affected or influenced by something. This isn’t necessarily the only basis of existence, but this is one. This is similar to certain aspects of what you talk about and what other philosophies begin to talk about. However, it doesn’t erode reality like it is presented here. It accepts/asserts a manifold reality, one I don’t understand why many are so disinclined to understand? The statement is simple: if something affects something, it exists.
That’s all you need. There’s no objective or subjective. There’s information, perspective, truth, and reality. Your “subjective experience” exists as contents of your mind. Your mind is contained within reality. Your “subjective experience” is therefore a necessary component of the “objective reality.” It’s a useless distinction in this context. You experience something. So do I. There is commonality and difference there, but what we experience either exists at least as much as we experience, so as to have the effect of causing said experience, or perfectly replicates the experience as “an illusion,” in which case it has the effect of exactly what it would have regardless, and so is just as real. Further, illusions aren’t “unreal,” they are “fake.” One cannot be deceived by something that doesn’t exist. The text you read right now is not text, but pixels on a screen, giving the illusion of text. In this case, the illusion is very real, and conveying a real message.
“So then god exists?” Yes. At least as a concept. At least as a word. What is it that fills the books of the storied history of religion? Nothing? Were there nothing, this paragraph would be blank. The books would be empty, the history would be gone. Yet we are a necessary product of that history. The boogeyman exists. The past exists. The future exists. The present exists, and actually, it’s an infinitely thin slice of time between the past and future, and totally arbitrary. It’s as valuable depending on how much of the future and past you perceive it to encompass.
Inb4 “time doesn’t exist.” Yet I wrote this and you replied to it. You read “read” before “before.” Time is not a clock. It is not the sun in the sky. It is the space you cannot see that is taken up by motion. It is the length between you and your ancestors and your descendants. There is no utility in measuring the nonexistent. “Time defies our expectations and understanding” =/= “time isn’t existent or real.” Which applies to reality, and all of these topics really.
Subjectivity does not imply, it demands, a subject. There is no interpretation without something to interpret. There is no objective thing that cannot be interpreted. “Everything is subjective” yes, if ever; no, if only. Everything can be subjective, but everything is not necessarily subjective. Everything is subjective AND objective. Because the broad definitions of these words are not exclusive and as I said before, are flawed. In science objective is redefined narrowly to be more useful. Then people misunderstand the tension between the two thinking subjective means able to be interpreted or that it is inconsistent.
Challenging your stance:
From within this lens you present, define the following, explain what they are, how they are similar, and how they are different. If they are not different or do not exist, explain how we can speak of or refer to them.
Here they are:
-imagination
-perception
-hallucination
-delusion
-illusion
-misinterpretation
-misinformation
-psychosis
-paraesthesia
-intention
-responsibility
-freedom
-determinism
-randomness
-potential
-information
-truth
-knowledge
And really the only four you really need to think about to get the full effect, ask yourself especially, what is the difference between: illusion, delusion, hallucination, and interpretation? How can there be a difference? How can there not be?
It’s the common stance afflicting nuphilosiphers
“I am intelligent because I rejected a common position I used to hold!”
“Behold my superior intellect! I took a spectrum, and I got rid of one side! Huzzah!”
Like, you realized you CAN view the world as completely misunderstandable and 100% up for interpretation, and it only takes a total renovation of common knowledge as mental gymnastics to make it work out. Yeah, and the other way works too. You can see the world as totally objective and honestly that takes way less common knowledge renovation and mental gymnastics to workout. But just because you can make it make sense, doesn’t prove it. More accurately, you don’t prove something by just blinding yourself to the other half that is equally justified.
To understand something: consider all details, integrate them together.
Color exists. It is first possible as a process. It doesn’t occur below a certain size because wavelength and photon volume/density can’t be high enough. Color is not pigment, it is not just light, it is not just your eyes reaction, it is not just your brain’s interpretation. It is necessarily, crucially, all of these things in a tightly calibrated chain. It makes no sense that the brain would assign an arbitrary qualia to that experience. Why is visual data processed where it is, and how it is? Why is your experience of red stored where it is and how it is? Why is it that that structure is never interpreted differently? What dictates this? Your dna? Your dna tells the light what neuron to activate? Surely your genes play a role, but isn’t there necessary information held in the light itself… that triggers the eye the way it does… that relays the message that it does… that is processed how it is…
Can’t you see that the reason why light looks how it looks is… because it looks that way? That the brain doesn’t have to do everything to organize itself AND the information that flows in and out of it? The brain certainly participates, but how can ever it be that the stimuli would be sortable were it all arbitrary in the first place? Now we need an entire extra portion of the brain to do all of that. No, the stimuli themselves carry information. That information is used by the brain to store and sort and everything else relevant to this sentence said stimuli. And that’s exactly what you’re perceiving within yourself. It’s why the same color of light triggers the same response in your eye and brain, despite being different sources, different photons. That information. That quality. It is the qualia of the light. Or sound or touch or whatever. Wouldn’t it make more sense that the brain would do as little work possible and work with what it has to organize and represent data?
This is all just a distortion of sliding definitions and “it’s complex or hard to define, so it’s nonexistent.“ or “sometimes it doesn’t work properly, so it never works.”
Thank you so much for such a considered response. Very generous of you! Sorry for the slower response though.
I find that these larger posts tend to require some proper consideration, but when I finally got around to sitting down with it I realised we were aligned almost entirely. I think the issue is that you assumed that this was a complete outlay of a philosophy, whereas it is only one step (and an early step at that).
First, and I think most importantly, I never actually state that everything is subjective. And that’s not the message of the essay at all. Mostly because I have many of the same issues with idealism as you do. The point I’m trying to make finds its home in your first paragraph; that it is possible to think something right, and be, as far as you are willing to perceive, accurate.
It’s the “as far as you are willing to perceive” that is important. And from all I read, you seem to entirely understand this.
A perspective is accurate from within that finite context, but push much further into any specifics and that which appears actual turns out to be a quality of the perspective that’s being held. This doesn’t negate the existence of reality beyond the perspective, it just places it in context. As you say, no reality, no sense.
However the reality we sense may be qualitatively shaped by our translation and interpretation, but as you point out, we don’t so much interact with a world that is outside of us, so much as we are the cross section of that world. We are it as it evolves in time. But due to this, I do take a more controversial stance on one point, so I’ll try and clarify that here. (But I think you make a very similar argument later anyway 😄)
As you say, we cannot claim that the senses offer up a perfect reflection of reality-because they make mistakes. However, that would suggest they are partially correct and partially incorrect.
This I do deny.
So first, in what what way do they actually reflect their surroundings?
(Now I wrote this next bit before I read your comments re colour, and I actually think you said it better. But this what I wrote anyway, and you’ll see we eventually come around to the same point in the end.)
Take light. We know how a photons wave length influences colour, and how the amount of photons will influence brightness, but nowhere in a photon or a collective of photons exists either colour or brightness. That is a quality of the brains interpretation. Our only other understanding of the photon is our mathematical understanding attained by measurement. But to say that a photon is a mathematical object is an equally incomplete description. Further, the photon is an extrinsic object, not an intrinsic one. It is a part of a whole, not a thing in-and-of-itself. Its identity as a “thing” is entirely found in how we understand it.
That said, we do interact with our environment. Even more, we are a reflection of it. And so due to this, I don’t claim that our senses are entrenched in falsity’s, but rather, that the way WE know photons is just how the universe “does photons” from this perspective. Meaning; our senses never make a “mistake”. They are just how the universe does this particular brand of “sensing” in this scenario. Just as in how the universe does “galaxies” or does “gravity”. (This is a similar, but slightly more silly, version of your comment re illusions “existing”.)
All I mean is that the senses and illusions are not seperate from the universe, they are just a particular quality of the universe. So any “illusion” will be just as valid, in respect of its finite frame (“as far as you are willing to perceive) as any other experience.
My way of saying this is that they are finitely valid, whilst infinitely incomplete. And I would apply this to all the words you put forward for consideration. 👍 each word requires its own subjective world, and context. But the wholeness of ‘what is’ is beyond such words. (P.S. your nuphilosophers comment cracked me up. I couldn’t agree more.)
For the most part I think we agree. So I’ll leave you on this… you say “if something affects something, it exists.” And I agree, however, that little word IT, is only standing in for a finite concept. What is, is. “It’s” are shaped by perspective. So for me, it’s not about information… it’s about process.
(But then there’s the whole ‘Time’ thing… and that would be another five page ramble so, let’s not open that can just yet 😆)
Hope that clears things up. Let me know if you rewatch it and end up with a different take after that. Either way, thanks again and chat soon!!!
❤ it
🙏🙏🙏
Beautiful
Very glad you enjoyed it. Hope the other chapters resonate with you too!
What if someone would kick your balls, where does the pain come from?
Watch at 1.5x speed....
You will thank yourself.
There is also an audio-only podcast version if that suits folks too! Thanks for joining in Mark!
There ARE no waves and there ARE no thoughts.
What then is there? There appears to be us having this interaction… is this not a part of ‘what is’? If not… this “nothing” seems to be very excited. 🤔
Also if the self is dissolvable it exists as something that can be dissolved. If the self prevents enlightenment, you are either enlightened or prevented from enlightenment by a thing that exists. Crucially the pursuit of enlightenment precludes enlightenment, as wanting to not want is wanting.
Buddha was attached to nonattachment.
@@ryder1658 Reflection is key.
🐲✨🐲✨🐲✨
"Before I start, I must see my end. Destination known, my mind's journey now begins. Upon my chariot, heart and soul's fate revealed. In time, all points converge; hope's strength, resteeled. But to earn final peace at the universe's endless refrain, we must see all in nothingness... before we start again."
🐲✨🐲✨🐲✨
--Diamond Dragons (series)
Love it. Yes. 👍 I hint at a similar (but maybe less pointed) sentiment at the end of the next chapter.
Again, finitely valid… infinitely incomplete.
But well said. 👏
Interesting channel. I would caveat that it's not all relational. There is uniqueness, but rather you can imagine it in the sense of memory or habit. Structure exists for the molecule that does not exist for the atom. Or at least the full expression does not. The same principles may underly both, but the molecule is not the arom, as you point out.
I think we agree, I am perhaps nitpicking.
No I think you’re exactly right. There is uniqueness amid the relational process, however it doesn’t seem to be substance based. That doesn’t deny its actuality, it only puts it in context so that we can extend the thinking further from there.
But very glad to have you along for the ride. The chapters are sequential, so feel free to drop you thoughts in the comments as the ideas continue to unfold 🙏🙏🙏 always appreciate a back and forth of ideas :)
The objective self... I'm certain that you wouldn't consider these words to be yourself. They might be, at best, directions to find yourself. Would we define 2 as definitively 1 plus 1? Is 3 minus 1 any less correct? There are directions from every number, equal in destination as a universal constant. I might offer you an equation, a possible proof even, but my words could never change the value of 2. I could, perhaps, offer directions from 1 to 2. A variety of numbers I could find directions for. Let's see... Take the final digit of whatever number, however large it is, and subtract it by 2. That's exactly how far away it is from 2 at any given time, so if you subtract that sum from the original number you will reach 2.
Shunyatavaad
🙏
Keep studying brother. Infinity is sad because one day the reality hits you that the world isn't infinite and we are all just..........😢
I guess you never stepped through the glass
Oooh, you're close. Examine what you think is finite. Go into that disillusionment and nihilism, become saturated with it. What do notice? Just be honest with yourself, that is all, brutal honesty, always.
@@deathbydeviceable no I pressed it with a stone until I felt the feeling of completion
@@Halcy0nSky yes I know but your not getting it. Drop all the words this world has a limit and that is why we are being repressed by Satanist to keep us happy sheep
@@Kinglysun876 the all has no limit
Abgrundanziehung isn't a word in german. It's a neologism. At least no one uses it.
Yeah, I wouldn’t think it would come up in day to day conversation very often. 😆
प्रतीत्यसमुत्पाद
Agreed 👍
😢 i think title is click bait this objective reality seems just the same
@@usershilov Shame… as there is a thought in here which, if considered diligently, can pry apart our more material intuitions. But to be fair, it is only the beginning of the thought. 👍 Happy to answer any questions though.
Cheers for joining us!
@@InfiniteNow_withSeanCrowley Thanks, I love it here :)
I have a different perspective on the role of emergent phenomena in material reality. I don't believe that emergent phenomena contradict materialism or challenge objective reality.
Additionally, I disagree with the characterization of bi-directional causality. In my view, the elements of a system dictate its emergent behavior and function. When a system seems to affect an individual element, it's more accurately understood as that element being influenced by the interactions with other surrounding elements, all within the material framework.
For example, when we observe a wave, I wouldn't perceive it as the wave affecting the water and molecules rather I would see it as the result of collective molecular motions. The wave emerges from these interactions, and any influence is a reflection of material processes at work.
Similarly, while a hydrogen atom exhibits different properties than a collection of loose plasma, both are manifestations of material interactions at different levels of organization. The emergent properties of structured systems don't necessitate a departure from materialism; they highlight the complexity arising from material components.
Even when considering top-down causality, such as a person making decisions that impact lower levels (like using tools or particle accelerators), these actions are still grounded in bottom-up material processes. It's material affecting material. This perspective of emergence reinforces my materialistic intuitions.
I'm new to philosophy and super passionate about learning more. If you would like to point out any areas I may misunderstand or anything I have said you would disagree with, I'd love any further discussion!
THE WAVE IS NOT THERE!
ITS ONLY “APPARENT”.
It’s simply not there. Not in the ocean and not in the quantum.
Sighs contemplatively.
Very pleased to hear it 🙏🙏🙏
🙏🙋♀️🪞🙋♀️
🙏😄🪞🌏
Don’t use Ai. It hits the eyes wrong. Strains em.
It’s a lot of fun, and it does make for some very original imagery (in contrast to using stock footage as most do), but that said, I am starting to move away from it as the sole source of visuals. All things going to plan and I may be able to hire some of my animation buddies to start working on episodes!! Cheers for sharing your thoughts! Very appreciated. 🙏
Y’all are critiqueing this too hard. Take it as an art-piece, not a philosophy textbook
Thanks for that monkey. I do try to be technically accurate with all that I say, so I’m happy for the odd criticism here and there to help sharpen the dialogue, but I’m very glad that your taking it for it’s given value as an expression. 🙏🙏 See you round the comments I hope.
Sean
4:51 This wave argument is logically nonsensical. The term wave is just a noun form to say water with an added adjective... The word is just describing a state that water is in
Yes, but by equal measure, the water itself only describes the state that molecules are in... molecules are only describing the state that atoms are in. You're correct, but the same argument can be applied to any objective piece of the puzzle. That which underlies the noun in one frame acts as the adjective when considered from a new perspective - and visa versa... seemingly ad infinitum.
Thank you.
"complete and total understanding of..." going to cut you off right there, you just described something that is mathematically impossible. It's not possible to have a complete and total understanding of anything at all.
I agree. And that’s somewhat the point of the essay. 👍
Humans... they name things and then say they don't exist. Really? 😀
It’s not so much about them not existing, it’s more to do with understanding in what way they exist. Just because something has a name doesn’t mean it has an objective reality. Take Tuesday for example… it exists, but only relative to us and our subjective interpretation or the world. It’s not imaginary, it’s relative. 👍
❤️
You are confusing orders of magnitude with correlation. Molecule is a term used in chemistry. Waves are a universal thing in physics. 'Water' is a macro term used in normal conversation for the substance that, when looked at closely, is made up of the molecule H²O. Water forms waves because of its environment, but not all waves are like this... water just happens to be made of fermionic mass. Light waves do not behave like this, as they are bosonic. To say that a molecule of H²O is different than water is to fundamentally misunderstand what you are saying. Or you are obfuscating on purpose. However, the emergence of waves in water has nothing to do with its structure, oh except for the hydrogen weak polar bonding that makes it a liquid in the first place. Which, now that I think about it, is about its structure completely. The liquid fact, mixed with the environment fact... begs a question. Why aren't the waves bigger or more complex? Well, you see, because it is made of water and water has these properties. Even the multitude of different ice formations is dependent on what it is. What you suggest, when you say that water is mapped molecules, and that waves are mapped water, is that you can't describe water with chemistry alone and you can't describe waves with water alone. That is just fundamentally misleading. Nobody does that except for maybe the craziest of fluid dynamacists. But they have a reason. Any argument you make later that relies on this line of reasoning will then also be flawed, as you can not cross domains with language like that and actually have said anything useful. Chemistry isn't the domain of waves. Of course, chemistry isn't going to tell you about physics. But the physics is most definitely bounded by the shape and energy of the molecules bonds... Even topological defects, spinners, and quasi-particle meta materials emergent qualities arise from very specific chemistries used in very specific physical ways. Like tuning a radio to the correct frequency, the station that broadcasts on that frequency emerges to you. Nothing magical happens. Even boundary layer conditions between two opposing structures can be looked at inverted, where the boundary layer is now the inside of a system, and it has these properties... compartmentalization is important. Describing what you are defining is important. Knowing how to use words... it's important, too.
Ha ha! Love it! Thanks for such a considered response. And I don’t fundamentally disagree with any of your points, though I think your knowledge on these topics might be getting in the way of the thought that’s being offered here.
The point is that much of our knowledge is shaped by the language we use. In this case, the language associated with each domain (as you have very clearly pointed out). As you also point out, in practice, we tend to avoid talking “across domains”. Even though, as you also make clear, these are not “separate domains”, but rather, the division is a quality of our language and/or sciences.
So, at no point do I claim the existence of anything “magic”. All I deny is any object-specific substance (which aligns with current understanding). I do this by highlighting the interrelated nature of systems (that you point out also) and the perspective-specific language we lean on when explaining emergence.
The point is that an epistemological issue stands before the ontological one.
So, this is not a physics lesson; it’s a thought experiment, and it needs to be considered as such. For example, “the wave” in this case is just “a water wave,” not “waves” as a category (we could use ‘waves as a category’ to discuss the same idea, but that would get too messy for concept overview).
Also, as a thought experiment, I might highlight the bottom-up language used by most science educators (hierarchical separateness of bodies) at one point but only to offer its counter (interdependent wholeness) later. By doing this, we are all forced to ask if one claim was wrong or if they are both right in different contexts (as you suggest). So it's done for a reason.
The point is that compartmentalisation is needed for our descriptions and understanding, and in that sense, I agree, it is very important-however, as most physicists will tell you, much of what we discuss is abstraction. The actualities are far more subtle, primarily due to the fact that nature operates as a continuous whole-not a series of parts. And once we see this, our view of the objective world changes from a substance or object-based understanding to a process or relational understanding. But this doesn't take anything away from the science.
By this, I mean that we can know water as water, separate from knowing molecules. The quality of wetness, for example, is a quality we attribute to water, not molecules. Likewise, we can know the molecule separately from knowing the atoms. However, both you and I know that this described independence is not reflected by the actuality. Because they ARE each the same thing... right? Their uniqueness is true, but so is their unbounded unity. And in this lies the paradox.
Because if each frame is merely a unique perspective of that “same thing”, what is this physicality ultimately? You might say quantum fields; you might say mathematical structures; you might say energy…. though no description holds to be any more ultimate. Only relative to some field.
Part one of this essay begins with an investigation into quantum gravity models, which are offered as a potential culprit for this elusive hidden substance. However, I claim that this would be an unfounded declaration of final ground. It’s just another piece of the puzzle, as seen relevant from another perspective. So, what would you suggest is the actual substance of these physical characteristics?
I’m not sure if that makes things any more straightforward, but I’m happy for you to pick it apart further. I may even use your comment to help reshape the metaphor, as there’s always room for improvement 👍but for now, that’s the idea.
So, thanks again!
I see. I guess my ultimate claim is that the usefulness of one order of magnitude can't be dissolved by not understanding the next order down. The fuzzyness of QM means that classical physics won't ever be complete. This is true, but it is useful for exactly the things that it is useful for. And so doesn't matter. Our experience can't be mapped, think synesthesia... autism, adhd. The quality of one phenomenon can not be defined with material words, as each of us is different. Words exist only to facilitate communicating in agreement. They are not useful for describing things that can not be agreed on (systematic v Solopsistic). However, imprinting happens before a self emerges and must have something to do with the whole process. This means, to me, at least, the self is an 'emergence' of identity through language and imprinted deconstruction. You must use the imprinted child mind to build the language that you then use to deconstruct the child mind and its bias to replace it with the self, which can only be done with language use and immersion in culture. Yes, the use of the word "emergent" has been coopted by bad actors. But that doesn't mean that language can't be good for those things that it is actually good for. But, like you said, words are not us, but they are our outward facing identities. Is it strange then that the least educated tend to be the most likely to scam people? Does the absurdity of existing inside of this type of knowledge acquisition machine diminish any amount of usefulness anyone person can obtain from it? Or does the history of humanity make the idealism of imperialist institutions too real to remove ourselves from? If Plato then ideas, praxis, and logic based pragmatism, if Aristotle then material dialectics, history, and postmodern thinking only. But that fundamentally changes your argument depending on which one you are talking about. Both are useful to me. Because real reality isn't made up of our ideas alone, institutions are. Math and science are not communication languages. They are the agreement that we must start from. The language used to build up those insights and agreements is not the science or the insights. This is why it's so easy to build straw men and nonsequiters.Trying to teach fundamentalism through language defeats the purpose. Objectivity is not inherent, as the world operates as a continuous whole. But objects exist as you point out. That is why definitions matter. But the same problem can be applied to definitions. The closer you look at the boundary, the fuzzier it becomes. Does that make words not useful at all? So identity and self then become useless as well. And society and culture too. This means we should all just operate with a child mind. Right, survival of the fittest.
Bro what
No. The answer is no.
Good to know 👍
Useless background music is too loud, thumb down.
Note taken… I do compose all the music for what it’s worth, but I’ll be sure to keep it turned down next time 👍
@@InfiniteNow_withSeanCrowley
I liked the music :)
…great job on the video 🤍
nevermind a waste of time
Another valid perspective 👍
this is my content. Stolen. Hacked. From my computer
You’ve been writing too have you Amanda? That’s great, love to see it when it’s up. 👍
Beautiful
So glad you liked it. Hope you enjoy the rest of the story as it unfolds 🤞