finishedman
Patron with Honors
I can't find a question in your post so I can't answer it.
post #576
I can't find a question in your post so I can't answer it.
You are espousing a belief system or whatever you want to call it on this board.
Wrong. There is no system of mine, and never shall be one. "System" is not the word for it. A system implies a method or technique or a new way of thinking to be applied in order to bring about a transformation in your way of life. What I am saying is outside the field of systems; it is simply a description of the way we are functioning deprived of the divisive nature of thought.
I read your post and I had a question related to what your were saying, i.e. that the human mind was equivalent to an electronic computer. Your ignoring my direct question about the topic you originated and telling me to ask the folks in the field of AI is a TOTAL COP OUT.
You get upset when I don't answer your question, then get upset when I do. Maybe you should not ask questions. Or ask unconditionally and don’t whine about it.
I am having a dialogue with you and I don't know anyone in the AI field.
Dialogue? Sounds like you're just trying to make an ass out of me and gather some fans. When you say something to someone, he will say that that is your point of view. But he does not realize that his also is a point of view. So, how can there be any communication between those two people who have different points of view? The whole purpose of the conversation or dialogue is only to convert the other man to your point of view. If you have no point of view, there is no way he can convince or convert you to his point of view. So this dialogue is between two points of view and there is no way you can reconcile them.
..you will not gain many if any converts to your way of thinking
Perfect, that's the whole idea. Remember when I posted this: "Supposing I tell you "This is the way," -- then where are you? You experience what I tell you. This knowledge you are going to use and create a state of being and think that you have experienced Reality or that you have experienced truth. But that is not Reality, that is not the truth." Come on your lagging, catch up.
Interestingly, this guy (Finishedman) is against anything abstract, yet he is using abstract concepts, such as, “survival.” He is using thought yet denies all thought. He is self-contradictory. He is like a logic circuit that is trying to invalidate logic. Anyway, thanks for providing me the background for his thoughts.
Yes, any theory must start with postulates (assumptions). It is the examination of those assumptions, which leads to more fundamental postulates and an improvement of the theory. When discussing a theory I would rather discuss the fundamental assumptions or postulates to get anywhere.
FM has a theory. The fundamental assumptions of that theory seem to be, “Only concrete reality (that depends on five major senses) is valid. Any abstraction derived from that concrete reality is invalid.” But the interesting part of this theory is that it turns around and violates its own fundamental assumption by speaking of “survival.” So, in essence, we don’t even have a theory here. We simply have some fixed ideas that are not based on any kind of principle.
Beyond the perception of what is concrete, is the perception of the abstract in the form of PATTERNS. Perception of abstraction goes deeper by recognition of patterns within patterns within patterns. This is obvious in mathematics. This perception of abstract ideas cannot be denied as FM is selectively trying to do.
If FM thinks that my conclusion is incorrect, I would welcome the statement of his fundamental assumptions or postulates, and a justification for them. Otherwise, I shall be ignoring all his posts from now on. FM seems to be in a preaching mode, and I have been preached enough.
"If an electrical charge is moved, the effects on another charge do not appear instantaneously. The first charge feels a reaction force, picking up momentum, but the second charge feels nothing until the influence, traveling at the speed of light, reaches it and gives it the momentum. Where is the momentum before the second charge moves? By the law of conservation of momentum it must be somewhere. Physicists have found it of "great utility for the analysis of forces" to think of it as being in the field."
"The fact that the electromagnetic field can possess momentum and energy makes it very real... a particle makes a field, and a field acts on another particle, and the field has such familiar properties as energy content and momentum, just as particles can have".
Quoted from Field (physics):
My interpretation:
An electrical field is most intense (concentrated) near or at the “electrical charge.” It requires force to move an electrical charge in this field. The reaction to this applied force moves through the electrical field at the speed of light. One may conclude then that an electrical field is spread throughout space providing a medium for an electrical disturbance to travel. This disturbance travels at the speed of light. This reaction force at the electrical charge would be perceived as inertia.
But what is "electrical"? At this point I would simply explain it as some sort of "condition in space."
.
.... I feel so lucky that Internet came about in my lifetime, and also this ESMB and its wonderful members.
Thank you, every one of you, for being there.
.
Assuming you agree so far ….. Look at thought, if you will for a moment, as a protective mechanism. Try to be very honest with yourself here or at least pretend to feel in a sense that it is the constant utilization of thought that gives continuity to a sort of separate self and that this state of affairs is very much inside of you attempting to give essence to what you actually are(not you only, Vinaire, but even myself and all others). Now, can you catch a glimpse of the possibility that this activity isolates one from the totality of nature, which cannot be separated from him?
So the situation here is that it may be difficult for us to accept that we are not separate from the totality of things that we call nature -- that every form of life is also part of this nature. When I use the word nature, I use it in the general sense; it's not that I have a general insight into nature that others don't have. You are not separate from nature; nature means the world around you. All the species that we have on this planet are integral parts of what we call nature; it cannot be separated from that. But unfortunately, through our thinking we have succeeded in separating ourselves, and through the help of this knowledge we continue to maintain the continuity of the knowledge, and that is the reason why we have invented all this integrity -- becoming one with nature, and all that kind of thing -- and we are not going to succeed, because we don't understand and realize that what it is that separates us from the totality of things is the thought. And the thought cannot be used to bring about an integral unity. Basically, we are all integrally united, and unfortunately, through our thinking, we have separated ourselves, and we are acting from this point of separateness, and it is this that is responsible for the chaos in our personal life, for the chaos in the world around us.
Vinaire ... Please consider these words without attaching them to me. You are free to distort, garble, or criticize them. Simply interpret them however you please while remembering that the realm out there where words, knowledge and thoughts dwell is like the air we breathe. They belong to everybody equally and each one is at liberty to pick and choose from them that which they want to utilize at that moment without fear of how they come across to others (especially if we see the intentions as for the sake of knowledge and not as knowledge used for the sake of self aggrandized power over others:
We use thoughts, from the realm of knowledge available to us, to achieve a goal, to accomplish, to attain a goal; whether it is material or spiritual, it really doesn't matter. So we need this to achieve our goals. So if you don't want a thing, there is no thinking at all. Whether you want this material goal or spiritual goal, or whether you want to be an enlightened man, or a spiritual-man, or whether you want to run away with the most beautiful girl living next door to you, the society may condemn such a thing, but basically the instrument which you use to achieve your goal and act to achieve your goal is only through the help of thought.
Assuming you agree so far ….. Look at thought, if you will for a moment, as a protective mechanism...
...
Vin - In my post #582 about 24 hours ago, I asked 4 questions of Finishedman and I was able to get the answers I was lookding for. Two of the questions are very important in understanding where he is coming from.
First, he does not consider his thoughts to be a philosophy or a belief system but says he is only describing human function so I now refer to his agenda as "Description of Human Function." Second, he says he does not care whether readers of his posts agree with him or not. He keeps endlessly repeating the tenets of his system in the knowledge that his readers will file what he is saying into their memories and then per his "Descriptiion of Human Function" he believes that what is in the person's memory will eventually become their reality.
Now that I know how he defines his tenets and why he uses TR 3 so strongly and has no interest in TR 4, I am not irritated by his writings. I am "flat" on FM! Let him write all he wants! His writings will attract people or repel people on the basis of their merits and that is OK. That's what this Board is about.
lkwdblds
Highly praised ingenuity and cleverness still springs from thinking, which is essentially a protective mechanism. The mind has invented convictions, beliefs, opinions, involvements, system, practices, values, attitudes, obsession etc. and violence to protect what it regards as its best interests. There is no good or bad in this sense. Don't you see? All these bad, brutal, terrible people, who should have been eliminated long ago, are thriving and successful. Don't think that you can get off this merry-go-round, or that by pretending to be spiritually or intellectually superior you are avoiding any complicity. You are the world; you are that.
You say you are irritated when listening to certain persons
You are incapable of listening to or figuring out anyone . You are interpreting and translating, distorting. It is you who you are hearing.
You are the medium of my expression. I respond to you; I have nothing of my own. The expression of what is here occurs because of you, not me. That medium -- you -- is corrupt. The medium is only interested in maintaining its own continuity for its own purposes. You are not doing the same thing you claim I am doing? Yes, Ok I am doing it too. Jousting or whatever. So anything that happens there is already dead.
My interest is not to knock off what others have said (that is too easy), but to knock off what I am saying. More precisely, I am trying to stop what you are making out of what I am saying. This is why my talking sounds contradictory to others. I am forced by the nature of your listening to always negate the first statement with another statement. Then the second statement is negated by a third, and so on. My aim is not some comfy dialectical thesis, but the total negation of everything that can be expressed. Anything you try to make out of my statements is not it.
You sense a freshness, a living quality to what is being compared here. That is so, but this cannot be used for anything. It cannot be repeated. It is worthless. All you can do with it is to try to organize it, thus destroying any life it may have had in it. No individual can be helped by such things. They only help those who would live by the gullibility of others.
What is there is only a movement to capture the essence of life, nothing else. All the rest is speculation.