Unraveling Reality: Exploring the Enigma of Consciousness
What truly is the nature of reality? Where does our consciousness originate? Despite our perceived expertise in these "hard problems," our language often falls short, merely scratching the surface of understanding.
Who are we? We are a diverse and global collective, primarily conducting live interviews through Clubhouse. Our shared passion for learning has led us to form a community dedicated to exploring a wide range of topics, including the science of life, theoretical science, metaphysics, and philosophy.
Delving into Science and Non-duality
Join us at : Clubhouse: @PhilosophyBabble ( code - YOUTUBABBLE )
Understanding that how your mind and consciousness understand language in reality and what are other meaning of your language models in true present reality without distorsion of emotional memory, intellectually without any minds illution, and the other dimentions in reality and understanding both hemisphere of brain where one is your and other is the agent of outside conciousness, is true science where all science and Spiritualism is corelation, start practicing meditation to go deeper in your intelligence core self
Philosophy should stay out of true Scientific endeavour. We are biological mechanisms just like any other living entity out there. Empirical neuroscience science says that. Philosophy is all about pure speculation.....
Whatever anything is including you we seem to ignore that it all exists in on somewhere , as god asks of Adam trying to hide in the garden “where are you”? Really?
What good is simulated intelligence coming out of a nihilistic meaningless number crunching warehouse full of energy consuming chips? The number of the Beast! The final computation after the entire universe is converted to processing to enrich some egotistical sociopath who wants more always more money control power and of course worship and adoration .
Utterly delighted to see and hear my two favorite contemporary authors in dialogue, Iain McGilchrist and Mark Solms. I’d been hoping for such a conversation for the past 5 years. Thank you!
"NO ONE HERE HEARD WHAT WAS SAID SO NO ONE HERE SAID WHAT WAS HEARD...." ~ 'AIY ON THE QUESTION OF IS SPIRIT MIND OR IS SPIRIT THE SOURCE OF MIND AS MIND IS THE SOURCE OF MATTER? AFTER @Kastrup SAID SPIRIT AND OR MIND ARE ONE WITHOUT DISTINCTION @Rinpoche SAID RESPECTFULLY THE WEST (SCIENCE, PHILOSOPHY, RELIGIION) MAY NOT HAVE A VOCABULARY DISTINCTION HOWEVER THE EAST (IF NOT SCIENCE OR PHILOSOPHY THEN RELIGION) HAS A VOCABULARY DISTINCTION FOR SPIRIT BEING FEELINGS VERSUS MIND BEING THOUGHTS .... THE SOURCE OF MATTER, MIND OR SPPIRIT AND CONSCIOUSNESS ALL QUESTION HOW MATTER INVOLVES MIND AND OR SPIRIT KNOWN AS 'THE HARD PROBLEM OF CONSCIOUSNES' .... WHAT WE DO NOT KNOW WE PASS BY IN SILENCE. @Wittgenstein "HE NEVER SAID ALL OF THIS HOWEVER ALL OF THIS IS WHAT I HEARD...." ~ 'AIY, NU | HR For more information or interview contact: babylundun722@gmail.com OR pipittman19@gmail.com
really should be talking with alan wallace who is meditating 14h a day now and has done the maths education background covering maxwell relativity and quantum physics, spent some time working in the lab under the pioneer of quantum optics.
If it wasn't for archetypes Charles Dickens would have died broke. I wish I had a $ for everytime I've asked myself why I'm me, and not someone else. Most of my problems would be solved. Fascinating conversation. Thanks.
I am a physicist and I will explain why scientific knowledge refutes the idea that consciousness is generated solely by the brain; this leads us to conclude that our mental experiences cannot be purely physical/biological. The brain operates in a fragmentary manner, with many separate processes happening simultaneously. I prove that such fragmentary structure implies that brain processes are not a sufficient condition for the existence of consciousness; therefore, something else must be involved-something indivisible and non-physical, which we often refer to as the soul. (in my youtube channel you can find a video with more detailed explanations). Emergent properties are often thought of as arising from complex systems (like the brain). However, I argue that these properties are subjective cognitive constructs that depend on the level of abstraction we choose to analyze and describe the system. Since these descriptions are mind-dependent, consciousness, being implied by these cognitive contructs, cannot itself be an emergent property. Preliminary considerations: the concept of set refers to something that has an intrinsically conceptual and subjective nature and implies the arbitrary choice of determining which elements are to be included in the set; what can exist objectively are only the individual elements. Defining a set is like drawing an imaginary line to separate some elements from others. This line doesn't exist physically; it’s a mental construct. The same applies to sequences of processes-they are abstract concepts created by our minds. Mental experiences are necessary for the existence of subjectivity/arbitrariness and cognitive constructs; Therefore, mental experience itself cannot be just a cognitive construct. Obviously we can conceive the concept of consciousness, but the concept of consciousness is not actual consciousness; We can talk about consciousness or about pain, but merely talking about it isn’t the same as experiencing it. (With the word consciousness I do not refer to self-awareness, but to the property of being conscious= having a mental experiences such as sensations, emotions, thoughts, memories and even dreams) From the above considerations it follows that only indivisible elements may exist objectively and independently of consciousness, and consequently the only logically coherent and significant statement is that consciousness exists as a property of an indivisible element. Furthermore, this indivisible entity must interact globally with brain processes because there is a well-known correlation between brain processes and consciousness. However, this indivisible entity cannot be physical, since according to the laws of physics, there is no physical entity with such properties. The soul is the missing element that interprets globally the distinct elementary physical processes occurring at separate points in the brain as a unified mental experience. Clarifications The brain itself doesn't exist as a completely mind-independent entity. The concept of the brain is based on separating a group of quantum particles from everything else, which is a subjective process, not dictated purely by the laws of physics. Actually there is a continuous exchange of molecules with the blood and when and how such molecules start and stop being part of the brain is decided arbitrarily. An example may clarify this point: the concept of nation. Nation is not a physical entity and does not refer to a mind-independent entity because it is just a set of arbitrarily chosen people. The same goes for the brain. Brain processes consist of many parallel sequences of ordinary elementary physical processes occurring at separate points. There is no direct connection between the separate points in the brain and such connections are just a subjective abstractions used to approximately describe sequences of many distinct physical processes. Indeed, considering consciousness as a property of an entire sequence of elementary processes implies the arbitrary definition of the entire sequence; the entire sequence as a whole (and therefore every function/property/capacity attributed to the brain) is a subjective abstraction that does not refer to any mind-independendent reality. Physicalism/naturalism is based on the belief that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain. However, an emergent property is defined as a property that is possessed by a set of elements that its individual components do not possess; my arguments prove that this definition implies that emergent properties are only subjective cognitive constructs and therefore, consciousness cannot be an emergent property. Actually, emergent properties are just simplified and approximate descriptions or subjective classifications of underlying physical processes or properties, which are described directly by the fundamental laws of physics alone, without involving any emergent properties (arbitrariness/subjectivity is involved when more than one option/description is possible). An approximate description is only an abstract idea, and no actual entity exists per se corresponding to that approximate description, simply because an actual entity is exactly what it is and not an approximation of itself. What physically exists are the underlying physical processes. Emergence is nothing more than a cognitive construct that is applied to physical phenomena, and cognition itself can only come from a mind; thus emergence can never explain mental experience as, by itself, it implies mental experience. Conclusions My approach is based on scientific knowledge of the brain's physical processes. My arguments show that physicalism is incompatible with the very foundations of scientific knowledge because current scientific understanding excludes the possibility that brain processes alone can account for the existence of consciousness. An indivisible non-physical element must exist as a necessary condition for the existence of consciousness because mental experiences are linked to many distinct physical processes occurring at different points; it is therefore necessary for all these distinct processes to be interpreted collectively by a mind-independent element, and a mind-independent element can only be intrinsically indivisible because it cannot depend on subjectivity. This indivisible element cannot be physical because the laws of physics do not describe any physical entity with the required properties. Marco Biagini
The easiest explanation to me isn't mysterious. But like all these theories, we can't really test them. We must logically infer without inventing supernatural elements. We emerge downstream, of and from the Quantum field. The whole universe does. We are small parts way downstream. We are in it's natural flow. Always. The human has not five, but six senses. They work the same. The sixth one is for sharing a light sensation in the frequency of emotion. The endocrine, intestinal system, central nervous system is our antenna between these two. It's why religious folk think something is magical when they get together and share emotions and they feel the increase. That's like everyone feeling something really loudly. You are bathed in it. Imagine a voice humming and it is soft. Imagine many voices humming together and it is louder. Same thing just emotional frequency. It helps us know what choices to make. This would have been an evolutionary aid to help the fragile, tribal group to sense danger as well as joy. Like big meerkats. We see the same thing happen when protesters get together and amp up to doing insane things they would not have done on their own. Same field. We just don't look at it. We use it by amping up and sharing an intense emotion in close proximity. We share some mental, limited to emotional, connection with other people. We don't share memories. Our brains all exist in close proximity, within the cosmos of cycles and cause and effect. That emotional channel can transfer more than just emotions. Anecdotal story - When I was nine, I heard. "Larry's Dead" in my mind while sneaking out of the house. He was my eleven year old brother. In a few minutes I found him and he had passed. How did I hear that? Theory - We connect in that field and my young mind would have somehow sensed the loss. The passing would have taken a few minutes and he would likely have been intensely thinking of me or wishing he had help to get out of what he put himself into. He had time to pass, painfully. (Years later it is still hurts) We were close in an abusive home. Anyway, I believe the actual words came from my memory, while the knowledge can only have come through the quantum field between brains. I didn't do anything mystical. I sensed a loss in an emotional field, and my brain filled in the details. I think this needs to be considered. Humans have six senses, and the one that comes in through the mind or feelings seems magical because it doesn't use our basic five senses. I think we use eyes, ears, mouth, touch, nose and central nervous system as our interface. Five for the physical world we evolved in to, one for the quantum field we are always within and in fact are products of.
seems there is some fundamental difference between Iain and Mark. it's highlighted to me how science, contrary to its widely perceived role, can be quite limiting in an understanding of reality - however many wonderful avenues it goes down.
you’re right. Iain and Mark do have some fundamental differences in their perspectives. It’s through these kinds of interdisciplinary discussions that we can achieve a more holistic view.
Fight fire wit fire wit ther conspiracies cuz ther3 conspiracing dont makr shit to me there weak n very harmful n threaful n i play into the gamr of compound n i make hard sharp punches in word causing therr brain to go fuckin crazy n thrrr brwin wit grt a migrain ther beatin there self chockin for air with me 3ven touchin them now im invisibly fuckin shit up lolol
U can do watever u want watever remix of mixes n cuts u want edit in section ur construction a movie being s consecutor n cut the frames into different bit n part n reassembling n deassembing recompile decompile reconstruct and instruct breakdown up down downward upward u wanna brrak down word in the most singular term n counter balancr ur result u dont wanna go overboard to high in result n u down wanna go to harah wit ur word u might burt someone feeling to bad wit ur wotd causing offensivrness the truth hurt bad but it cause a person into wantin to change therr life regardless of the matter in resulting ways in th3 manner of ptsical matter or into a falsi narritve calculatin your way it a result of possibilities or impossibility n that means all the same word that make u0 a theory
it's a matter of interpretation. This is an interdisciplinary discourse among respected colleagues, driven by their passion for the subject. Would you prefer a discussion that is simply pleasing, or one that seeks the honest truth through passionate and thoughtful discourse?
@@curiousmind9287 I have great respect for Mark and his contributions to this conversation, and he enjoys the discourse. Please keep your opinions respectful if you have nothing nice to say.
AdaM👈 of phats 👌 3trisex69minD ☯️BooTie🎀 The Tails of Orion's 4🪱kin🪱 for🪞rapH ShAron TriB3SS3DirX . 🥚👈tiP iS NairLaSaiF 👈 Cisturn💤 tuA piC ♍️ 🥭OgNam iS A BoT or Tree SeikColeenGi 🪜 Carl Gustavvatsup Jung, warned Ya'll abot the Hitler Spirit 👍 Ezekiel 36:26 “A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh.” H👉🪜German HarT 👅 👈 staG deR ❤️🔥 VenisoN👈 turn end poinT tuA tunnelS☯️SlawNF aGaiN 👈 pHalhs Anatomy 🪱Nu🍑Yok 🪱 Srink iS uP SaraHHarA💤end 🎀 BooTie 👉Tome🔔Lee🍀Buddy 🪱 Appendix🙃tibMegan 🥚 piC Muders pEarL🙃7jewd AsSoBeR LovV3🙃3Mal 🥖HpAol SunArU 👈 Gotcha die wRiTe ✍️🏻Köder 🪱🎣 tuA Decipher En Glish babelledad 👌 Ya'll No33aM iS inn ✌️PieCeS☯️SacAid 👈 ImManuel Kant Ya'll think for your SOUTH 👈naM or Dixie LannD waS under 🍀Clavver Remember🪞RedMeMer Jeremiah🪞HaiMereJ Zechariah🪞Hair A jc EZ DiNaS'ehBreWWerdHe'SamiB VOLTAIRE Cann indeed flood die WORD WAR🎨 Art He TypeSSeqiT gentileSSelitmap 🌽hEar 🌽Uroc 🌽booK 👈 Buch 📖 iS on pHiR33RiiQ Aron🪞merA🙃Vjew Marc🙃Cjew🙃WarCCroW
The creator choses you as the mind to deliver the message the problem is that once the message is put on the public view only 1% understand it the 99% for some reason remains sceptic incapable to understand the message / if we take Mosses & Jesus, we find the same predicament twice what happened to Socrates is no different than what happened to Mosses which is the same that happened to Jesus. Jesus was ok however his duty of transmitted the message failed same with Jesus & Mosses. Even Brennus had the same problem with the Roman city in 390 BC/ how to open the minds of the 99% remains a question & no answer of how to.🤔🌎🤳
there is one thing you can do stop using social media you tube computers all technology out the window. Junk Facebook X and the lot/ However there is a reason for the ☯ In reality your minds are a smart phone 📱 however you do not have a user's manual neither understand how it works your senses are not developed to perceived and uses as it should / Technology is just the mirror IMAGE of the potential you have that you are not aware of it. Think of the 1776/1789/ Soviet Union, in 1776 you ignore the consequences same as Soviet Union once it happens you experience the consequences when is gone you understand what happen. technology is the same to have your mind understand what it can do you need the smart phone the mirror image same as AI once understood you no longer needed it. 🌎🤳🤔
I took Dr Solms' free online course and recommend it. His philosophical views are grounded in real science and a modern understanding of how the brain works, that people like Carl Jung didn't know about. The first concept to understand is "subjectivity." This is one of the first things a newborn baby has to learn - what is me, and what is outside of me? The other key understanding is that the feeling of being yourself, of existing and having an unchanging point of view, comes from the brain stem, not the cortex. This is where AI goes wrong. They think that "consciousness" somehow arises from the processing of language in the cortex. But other animals have the same kind of subjective consciousness and it has nothing to do with language or thinking with words. Lately I've been interested in studies of brain cell organoids. At some point the inter-neuron communications have to give rise to this phenomenon.
In my late 60's and a major part of my life has been reflecting on my numerous (to me) mystical experiences starting as a child. I cannot imagine how disturbing it must be like to have a single mystical experience when a senior human is so mentally well-established.
"Dialogue is a way of observing, collectively, how hidden values and intentions can control our behavior, and how unnoticed cultural differences can clash without our realizing what is occurring. It can therefore be seen as an arena in which collective learning takes place and out of which a sense of increased harmony, fellowship and creativity can arise." ~ David Bohm
This needs more study. When I listen to someone else talk, the output of someone else's brain gets fed into the input of my brain for further processing and evaluation, according to my own world view. I don't believe in panpsychism and Chalmers is too kooky for me. However, all the thoughts you think are your own are based on things that came from outside of you, and in that sense, the whole universe does exist in you, or your brain.
“Wholeness is a kind of attitude or approach to the whole of life. If we can have a coherent approach to reality then reality will respond coherently to us.” ~ David Bohm
“Your question is the most difficult in the world. It is not a question I can answer simply with yes or no. I am not an Atheist. I do not know if I can define myself as a Pantheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. May I not reply with a parable? The human mind, no matter how highly trained, cannot grasp the universe. We are in the position of a little child, entering a huge library whose walls are covered to the ceiling with books in many different tongues. The child knows that someone must have written those books. It does not know who or how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child notes a definite plan in the arrangement of the books, a mysterious order, which it does not comprehend, but only dimly suspects. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of the human mind, even the greatest and most cultured, toward God. We see a universe marvelously arranged, obeying certain laws, but we understand the laws only dimly. Our limited minds cannot grasp the mysterious force that sways the constellations. I am fascinated by Spinoza's Pantheism. I admire even more his contributions to modern thought. Spinoza is the greatest of modern philosophers, because he is the first philosopher who deals with the soul and the body as one, not as two separate things.” ~ Albert Einstein
“We die to each other daily. What we know of other people is only our memory of the moments during which we knew them. And they have changed since then. To pretend that they and we are the same is a useful and convenient social convention which must sometimes be broken. We must also remember that at every meeting we are meeting a stranger.” ~ T.S. Eliot
Oh God, hence the reason why academics struggle to get past day two of a silent meditation retreat. So pleased universities fund their insanity for all their pragmatism has been all but useless for my health conditions. What is behind the breath when you are aware that it has stopped?
Thanks for your perspective. It's true that academics often find meditation challenging and that practical research applications don't always meet everyone's needs. Your question about awareness beyond the breath is profound and highlights the depth of mindfulness practice. Appreciate your thoughts!
Let's further explore how redefining fundamentality around 0D instead of higher dimensions could revolutionize physics and beyond: Quantum Gravity and Unification: A primary motivation has been resolving the incompatibilities between quantum theory and general relativity. Theories that derive 4D spacetime from more fundamental 0D network nodes could accomplish this: - Loop Quantum Gravity's spin networks providing a discrete 0D substrate from which geometry and gravity holographically emerge. - String/M-theory with vibrating 0D strings as the ultimate realities, dimensions arising as compactifications. - Causal Set approaches modeling spacetime as a discrete order of 0D event nodes and causal links. Unifying all forces as geometric degrees of freedom in the 0D network could finally achieve Einstein's dream of geometrizing physics. Quantum Foundations and Information: Moving to a 0D primacy framework could resolve many interpretational paradoxes in quantum theory: - The measurement problem by modeling observations as information transfer across the 0D network - Fundamental non-locality by having no underpinning space to be local in initially - The role of the observer by treating perception as information patterns in the 0D physics It could reveal quantum theory as an effective statistical mechanics of information dynamics on the 0D "atoms of reality." Cosmology and the Universe: Deriving our extended dimensions as emergent could shed new light on cosmic origins and structure: - The Big Bang as a holographic projection outwards from an initially compactified 0D seed - Cosmic inflation as rapid 0D network growth generating space quasi-classically - Dark matter/energy as geometrical degrees of the fundamental 0D network condensing our observed dimensions - The cosmological constant problem and naturalness issues resolved by dimensional emergence Universe lifecycle cosmology could arise naturally from the network's discrete evolution. Mathematics and Modeling: Even mathematics may need to be rebuilt from the ground up in a 0D primacy paradigm: - Algebraic topology, category theory, and homotopy mapping the 0D network dynamics - Geometric algebra and non-commutative geometry as the 0D variable structure - Discrete computational frameworks like cellular automata and artificial networks replacing continuum models - Novel logics, computability and complexity theories based on the fundamental 0D algebra From pure mathematics to physical applications, we may need to upgrade our entire conceptual toolbox and language. While unimaginably difficult to develop rigorously, the potential advantages of such a primordial 0D framework in terms of conceptual unification, infinity avoidance, quantum reality, and derivation of all observed phenomena make it an enticing goal for pioneering theorists across disciplines. Every branch of physics and connected fields could be rewritten from the ground up. The sheer ambition and profound impacts on our cosmic comprehension mean every path must be intrepidly explored.
I keep going back to the cns and its contributions to the tool kit that evolved above it, thank you Hyman, Iain, and Mark, as well as those people who, especially Ivy, have presented this to all of us, peace
58:43 Yes. Well needing to drink is not consciousnesness, but a bodily need the motion system is reminded of. The hierarchy and percentages it is accommodated in therefore is irrelevant for explaining consciousness. Seeing the color red is not a light function, but recognizing a plane with that color. Which potentially reminds you of similar experiences like when seeing a rose or a bull fight. Blood or a red cloth. It thus creates a field of interconnected emotions. Which the color itself does not inhibbit. So, the qualia are the memmory of all those emotions. They are not a seperate physics out there. Of course without the senses they could not be experienced. So they are sensory interconnected. Transcendent for experiencing what it is like to be human.
48:46 Experience is not consciousness perse. It creates consciousness. Experience is taking in information, while consciousness is the value evaluation of that or the pattern recognition following from that. Which is a souvereign process.
Consciousness is not merely emergent from experience; it is a fundamental, irreducible aspect of reality that cannot be fully explained by the evaluation and pattern recognition of information.
Yes. But it involves stages of complexity in its evolution. Since we are talking about human consciousness, memory and pattern recognition (also creating hierarchies wherein stages belong, in terms of information type, which are split and still connected to higher levels: we do not have to think about bodily functions, which are independent conscious), are distinctive. This according to my theory of spacetime geometry is due to the shift in observational position between past and future, anabling the creature immagining a different future after that. The world has become virtual. Which clearly sets humans apart from animals. Animate stuff does not have that quality of pattern recognition. It just functions (reacts) within it. That is the difference. Naming it irreducable adds no information to the problem. The fact it expands (adapts differently) does.
@@petervandenengel1208 You're still positing consciousness as emergent, which contradicts your attempt to refute 'irreducibility' while describing consciousness as an evolving phenomenon.
Well, it is emergent. Irreducibillity on its turn does not imply it could not be reduced (in chance distribution) into recognizable patterns, after it evolved which are different. Like for instance Wolfram came to. Although his initial set of conditions selected for the process do not confirm those of spacetime geometry. So reducibillity (simplyfication) is not in conflict with emergence. It does not deny that. It states there are different entanglements at play for which irreducabillity is the wrong statement. They will adapt to given circumstances. Like when the alphabet is irreducible, the words emerging in it, cannot be judged on their place in the alphabet anymore, but their meaning. Which becomes kind of irreducible in a different structure, although words can have at the same time double meanings and different intentions. It is impossible to reduce them into one specific vector.
@@petervandenengel1208 Thank you for your response, but there are several flaws in your argument: Emergent properties arise from complex interactions and exhibit new behaviours not found in the parts alone. Your suggestion that these properties can be easily reduced back to simpler components misrepresents the emergentist view. You argue for the emergent nature of consciousness while dismissing irreducibility. Emergence implies new properties arising from simpler parts, while irreducibility means consciousness cannot be broken down or fully explained by these parts. These concepts are fundamentally incompatible. Your analogy conflates emergent properties with irreducibility. While words (emergent properties) arise from letters (basic components), this does not parallel the fundamental nature of consciousness. If consciousness were truly irreducible, it would not emerge from simpler parts; it would be a basic, indivisible entity. You argue that consciousness adapts and evolves, supporting the idea of emergence. Irreducible properties, however, do not change or adapt because they are constant and fundamental. Irreducibility asserts that consciousness is a basic, indivisible aspect of reality. Dismissing it as uninformative overlooks its fundamental importance in understanding the nature of consciousness. Your argument conflates and misunderstands key concepts of emergence and irreducibility, failing to coherently address the fundamental nature of consciousness.
Mind is also matter ..it works independently...embedded inside the matter.. like all other matter mind also has many branches connected to all feelings , knowledge and actions. .. action reaction interaction is very slow and down to earth in matter made of 5 elements... matter does not mean anything without mind they are two independent entities .. A matter can be very fully equipped with the absence of mind. Matter cannot travel as fast as mind though it is energy driven.. that itself proves mind is not solid like matter.. .mind is volatile in nature.. but very active in the matter as long as matter is strong and energetic..Mind on the other hand is not energy driven . It's independently active ... It's the best example for the C in the Quantum theory. It can even replace light in the theory...or can take a place as C1..
Having spoken to Iain and Mark in conversation individually it is so exciting to see this! I can’t wait to hear this conversation between them and see how they reconcile their perspectives on consciousness
Light is dual -- syntax is dual to semantics -- languages or communication (messages). Syntropy (prediction) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics! "Always two there are" -- Yoda.
@@paulwolf3302 Syntactic information is dual to semantic information -- information is dual. Syntax (objective, absolute) is dual to semantics (subjective, relative) -- languages or communication. If mathematics is a language then it is dual. Syntropy (prediction) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics! Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non teleological physics (entropy) -- physics is dual. Categories (form, syntax) are dual to sets (substance, semantics) -- Category theory. "Only the Sith think in terms of absolutes!" -- Obi Wan Kenobi. "Always two there are" -- Yoda. All messages in a communication system are predicted into existence according to Shannon's information theorem -- a syntropic process, teleological. Making predictions to track targets, goals and objectives is a syntropic process, teleological. Energy is dual to mass -- Einstein. Energy is dual -- potential energy is dual to kinetic energy. Potential information (entropy) is dual to kinetic or real information (syntropy). Synergy or converging energy is dual to energy or diverging energy!
Ivy, your so beautiful! What an Event! Congratulations! Wow! Not a lot of views or whatever, but like Deleuze's "Toward a minor Literature", the Kafka book, or maybe like 'crystals' (re: video) that was first place for sure. I'm mostly into the post-structural French philosophers and Heidegger, and thankyou for the meeting arising the mention of someone I don't know (there was a few others too), of David Chalmers. I'm Australian too. So Great! You should listen to the band "Suede". Their Brilliant. Wow! Your so cool. Thankyou, from, James.
Thank you so much for your kind words and for being a part of our community! I’m thrilled that you enjoyed the episode and found the discussion engaging. Your support means a lot, and I’m grateful for your thoughtful comments. Thanks for the recommendation!
