I can only observe that your conception of philosophy, and its purpose, differs markedly from my own. Perhaps even “radically”, not just “markedly”…
I fully agree with that.
It’s important to deal with reliable facts first, before disecting theories to fit our experience.
We have to at the same time remember that we often just have speculation to work with.
Others have experienced that the mind can change reality. I believe we can change reality with our mind in small ways. How much we can depends on the health of the mind, time and repitition.
I can share more testimonies of others and perhaps some theories to back it up if it is so wished.
It stands in analogy and akin to quantum entanglement, gravity and space folding. This can be found with a simple search if we type in the correct questions.
Sure, it is natural people have different ideas on the world, existence and philosophical aims. So how are yours different from mine in detail?
No need for detail, I don’t think. I define philosophy, for my own use, and in my own terms, as serious and considered thought about whatever idea it is focussed on. The flexibility of this definition seems to meet my needs much better than other, more defined and “detailed” suggestions. Its flexibility means it is more widely applicable. Much more widely.
IMO, this flexibility is a good and useful thing. Others may disagree…
Thank you for sharing your own philosophical methodology. I think it is a good and respectful way to do philosophy.
I try to avoid arguing with someone’s opinion on something in philosophical discussions, because opinions cannot be true or false, like feelings or emotional expressions. They are just psychological state of someone, which can be rational or irrational with no truth values. That was the point in my post.
My philosophical methodology tend to be interpreting abstract concepts into the simplest, clearest, easiest and understandable way from the real human life examples, whilst trying to invent new concepts if useful for understanding more obscure concepts such as “when-ness” in time perception.
That’s right – “lead to action”. Actions lead to change in the world. Actions are triggered by signals from the external environment. The mind acts merely as an intermediary. Without signals from the external environment, there’s nothing to analyze – and there will be no action. The mind is merely a signal-processing mechanism that sorts them to increase the effectiveness of the body’s subsequent response.
I don’t really know what you all are talking about anymore, it’s not creationism. Only the spirit (what is subjective) can do the job of choosing. That is fundamental.
The mind, consciousness, those are really more complicated issues beyond the fundamentals that creationism sets out. But they must be consistent with creationism, or else they are wrong.
In my opinion consciousness, the mind, it’s about an efficient organization in regards to zero, creatio ex nihilo.
There is a theory in mathematics which rewrites the symbol zero, so that you get a new symbol that is a rewrite of zero, and then combinations of the zero and that rewritten symbol. Rewriting, I believe that is like on a harddisk some information is presented as magnetism, while on a dvd the same information is represented as pits on a disk. So it is same information, but different. The symbol zero is rewritten to obtain a new symbol. And so by this rewrite logic you can eventually obtain the number 1, and all the rest of the numbers, and all the other sorts of numbers, and all the mathematical operators as well. And then a further rule is added, ex nihilo, nihil fit, which means from nothing comes nothing. So that the totality of the universe must always be nothing. As for example, an action has an equal and opposite reaction, signifying a totality of zero.
This theory has a default truth value, because of it’s efficiency. Although of course it must also be proven, but it is a default guess because of it being the most efficient theory, deriving all from zero.
So then you get an ordering of mathematical structures in respect to zero, the efficient steps away from the single zero symbol.
And then the obvious theory is that the universe, the DNA system, and the human mind, all have this same basic mathematical ordering. And then these scientists demonstrate the symmetry between biology and physics, like that there are 4 parameters mass, time space and charge, and that there are 4 basic amino acids, 64 elements of dirac, and 64 codons etc. Which numbers represent efficient steps in the ordering in respect to zero.
The DNA system is already an information processing system, an incipient mind, and the human mind is also a zero based universal system. Which would explain why it is so easy to model the universe in the mind, just by looking at stuff, because they both have the same fundamental mathematical ordering.
And then there is also some organization in terms of decision-making processes in the mind, and there the subjective spirit chooses which way things in the mind end up.
Which all just says these issues like the mind and consciousness are supercomplex, and we can’t really get very much certainty yet about how that all works. But in contrast creationism, the basic logic of fact and opinion, the fundamentals, that knowledge is very certain.
Facts are for historians and scientists. Philosophy tends go beyond them asking for the analytic questions such as what are the grounds, validities or evidences for the facts making sense, being true or credible.
1 Like
Thanks!
I think I prefer to discuss opinions. They can be true or false, of course. Sometimes because they are correct opinions, other times by coincidence. Simpler ideas, the ones closer to verifiable ‘fact’, are too easy. Even an AI can/could reach a meaningful and useful conclusion about them, a lot of the time.
1 Like