Pokaż wiadomości

Ta sekcja pozwala Ci zobaczyć wszystkie wiadomości wysłane przez tego użytkownika. Zwróć uwagę, że możesz widzieć tylko wiadomości wysłane w działach do których masz aktualnie dostęp.


Wiadomości - cckeiser

Strony: 1 [2] 3 4 5
16
Forum in English / Re: "There are no answers. There are only Cho
« dnia: Czerwiec 08, 2005, 03:25:33 am »
I just found this. I thought others here would also find it interesting. Much of Dr. Fred Alan Wolf's writings fit very nicely with Poly-Solipsism.

http://www.fredalanwolf.com/page5.htm

Cytuj
Question:   Do we project reality?

Answer:   The evidence of physiology seems to indicate so. It tells us that our memories alter our perceptions and hence color our senses of the putative objective world. Hence the world we see appears according to our expectations. A change in expectations leads to a different view of the world. Since we can't get beyond our subjective views, we can never really determine what is absolutely "out there." Classical neurophysiology would say that our minds play tricks on us and in some sense distort the "true" objectivity of the world. The quantum neurophysiology returns to the shamanic or magical view that there is no "out there" until it's perceived. Both views suggest we must project in order to perceive.

Dr Fred Alan Wolf.


17
Forum in English / Re: Zen and Poly-Solipsism! ;O)
« dnia: Czerwiec 01, 2005, 04:40:43 am »
Cytuj

What would Buddhism deny for example?
Or on what have thought specially when you wrote this?


http://hjem.get2net.dk/civet-cat/zen-writings/huang-po.htm
Cytuj
Worldly people grasp worldliness; Dharma students grasp Mind.  If they let go of both worldliness and Mind, they can encounter real Dharma.  Dwelling without worldliness is easy; dwelling without mind is difficult.  People fear dwelling without mind and fear failure in their attempts to do so because they think that they would have nothing to hold onto.  However, Original Emptiness is not emptiness but genuine Dharmadhatu.

Since time without beginning, the nature of Awakened Mind and Emptiness has consisted of the same, absolute non-duality of no birth or death, no existence or non-existence, no purity or impurity, no movement or stillness, no young or old, no inside or outside, no shape and form, no sound and color.  Neither striving nor searching, one should not use intellect to understand nor words to express Awakened Mind.  One should not think that it is a place or things, name or form.  One should not think that it is a place or things, name or form.  Only then is it realized that all Buddhas, Bodhisattvas and sentient beings possess the same natural state of great Nirvana.





18
Forum in English / Re: superconciousness
« dnia: Maj 31, 2005, 06:33:51 am »
Cytuj
Hmm... nicely said ::)

But that won't stop us! We'll kick the machines into pure insanity by, let's see... by making them watch 'The Simpsons' mixed with weather forecasts for Zimbabwe for 150 yrs straight... Noone can take that ::)


I have a better idea, and it will work much faster.
Just make it read Poly-Solipsism six times!! ;o)

19
Forum in English / Zen and Poly-Solipsism! ;O)
« dnia: Maj 31, 2005, 06:29:38 am »
You are going to love this!

As it turns out Poly-Solipsism is fundamentally very similar to Buddhism. I did not know that when the concept came to me. Before writing Poly-Solipsism I really did not know anything much about Buddhism or Zen beyond " What is the sound of one hand clapping?"
That was about it, and it didn't mean anything to me back then.
It seems with Poly-Solipsism I accidently rediscovered the fundamentals of Buddhist philosophy.
There are a few differences, but those few differences turn out to be very important. They allow for Individuality in the One Consciousness that Buddhism would deny you.

20
Forum in English / Re: superconciousness
« dnia: Maj 30, 2005, 07:48:22 pm »
"We are not Rational creatures, we are Rationalizing creatures."

It is not a rational, logical, and intelligent mind that distinguishes man. It is our insanity. Insanity is our Muse and our creative genius. It is our insanity that allows us to dream and then create that which did not previously exist.
We can build a Thinking machine and endow it with logic and artificial intelligence, but unless we can drive it insane it will never dream.

21
Forum in English / Re: superconciousness
« dnia: Maj 30, 2005, 07:00:41 pm »
Cytuj
Has anyone ever heard of the "Collective Superunconscious" theory?


It is called The Singularity.

The idea started here:
http://www.ugcs.caltech.edu/~phoenix/vinge/vinge-sing.html

22
Forum in English / Re: "There are no answers. There are only Cho
« dnia: Kwiecień 28, 2005, 06:37:05 am »
Cytuj

Maybe a read something wrong, a word or so.
But it looked like he want to stop posting.
I tried to stop that with this post, you know.
Even if he don't want to.

Discussion about Poly-Solipsism is interesting, still since my german-teacher has signed as one.


Hi SoGo

It is not that I really want to stop posting here. It is that I feel almost compelled to stop posting, not only here, but on all my previous discussion boards. With all the e-mail discussions I am now involved in I simply do not have the free time I once did. Besides, I seem to be getting the same questions over and over, and repeating the same answers over and over.
I really do like this board and respect Terminus and all the posters here, but I also feel like I am cheating a bit by posting Poly-Solipsism on a Solaris discussion board. I never really intended to do so. I was only trying to contact Lem to discuss his philosophy in writing Solaris, as I saw a great similarity to my concept of The Singularity.
I have extended an invitation, if he accepts he does, if not, than he doesn't. I am now beyond caring.

The only reason I continue here is because I keep receiving request form this board, and visitors to my web site from this board.
Someone from this forum just visited my web site. That is why I am here now, and frankly the only time I visit here anymore. When someone shows an interest in Poly-Solipsism by visiting my web site I follow the link to oblige them, and show them the courtesy of replying to their requests.

But as long as the board administrator does not mind, and there is still interest in my continuing to post here I will oblige as time allows. But the only time I remember to stop by is when someone from here pays me a visit. I check my web site stats about once a day, otherwise I am concentrating on my e-mail discussions.

And since you have expressed an interest I will try to stop by more often.

Thanks Sogo

Chuck

23
Forum in English / Re: "There are no answers. There are only Cho
« dnia: Kwiecień 23, 2005, 06:51:15 am »
I just received this from one of my e-mail discussions. Considering my last post, I thought everyone here would find it as amusing as I did!

Cytuj

Q: There's another remarkable statement he makes. It is in a discussion of the reality of the episode. He says, that is all there is in reality, what you felt.

CC: Uh-huh. Yea, he, don Juan's a very sophisticated thinker, really, it's not easy to come to grips with him. You see, I had tried various times to wrestle with him intellectually and he always comes the victor, you know. He's very artful. He posed once the idea to me that the whole, the totality of the universe is just perception. It's how we perceive things. And there are no facts, only interpretations. And those are nearly, I'm merely paraphrasing him as close as I can. And perhaps he's right, the facts are nothing else but interpretations that our brain makes of stimuli. So that such whatever I felt was, of course, the important thing.

From an INTERVIEW WITH CARLOS CASTANEDA, author of THE TEACHINGS OF DON JUAN: A YAQUI WAY OF KNOWLEDGE, by Theodore Ros


Now there was a smart guy!! ;)

24
Forum in English / Re: "There are no answers. There are only Cho
« dnia: Kwiecień 22, 2005, 06:12:03 am »
Greetings Peskanov

I really should be replying to a heated discussion on The Singularity I am having by e-mail with a mathematician, but since you have been interested enough to visit my web site several times over the past few days, I feel obliged to reply to your posts here.
I was going to abandon this forum and restrict my future discussions to e-mail only, but there are still a few here that are  interested in continuing, so I will attempt to continue to reply here as time allows.


Yes, I have been compared to Berkeley before, and also to Idealism and Conceptualism before, among many other "isms." Though there are many similarities,  none of them quite fit perfectly. The only philosophy I have found so far to fit Poly-Solipsism to a tee, is Poly-Solipsism itself.  Even the philosophy introduced in the "What the Bleep do we Know" movie is not quite exactly Poly-Solipsism. Everything that is in that movie is contained in Poly-Solipsism, but no all of Poly-Solipsism is in the movie. The movie leaves many questions unanswered.
The movie is not done very well by the way, but the Philosophy is great!

I do appreciate your views on what you believe Lem thinks, but I still maintain only Lem can speak for Lem. Thank you anyway.

Most of the rest of your posts discuss the pov's of other "isms" and your own pov about varius subjects. They are all choices. Everyone you mentioned, and everyone here, including yourself, and including myself, have made a choice as to how we wish to view Reality. We each have chosen how we wish our Reality to work. We, the human species, have been doing this very same thing for millenniums. We continue to this day to argue over our different perceptions and over who is right. We will never agree until we recognize we really do not exist in the very same universe.
Reread all that you have written. Are these not your choices as to what you wish to believe, and how you wish your universe to work?
You know you are right. You know this is how it really is, and it just could not work any other way.
Everyone else believes the vary same thing about their choices.
I know I am right. I know that Poly-Solipsism is the absolute Truth, and this is how reality really works. It just couldn't work any other way.
So what happens now? We each call each other delusional, crazy, whacked, nuts, Insane!
No, Poly-Solipsism tells us no one is delusional, we all are just illusional.
We each select and create the Reality we wish to exist in.

Several times you state " I think( this)" or "I don't Think (this)." That is exactly what Poly-Solipsism tells us we do; We Think.

There is only The Singularity. All else is Philosophy.
There are no answers. There are only Choices.

Warmest Regards

Chuck

25
Forum in English / Poly-Solipsism Goes Hollywood! :)
« dnia: Kwiecień 21, 2005, 05:07:06 am »
Hi All! :)


I have been receiving e-mails from my readers exclaiming my philosophy of Poly-Solipsism has "Gone Hollywood!"
I had to check it out, so I bought the "What the Bleep do We Know" dvd. They were pretty much correct. The movie is very close to Poly-Solipsism, but not completely. I take the concepts they have introduced to its definitive conclusion.
We are The Singularity.
There are no answers. There are only Choices.

They have a web site at www.whatthebleep.com

Enjoy!!

PS
Sorry, but I have been very busy answering e-mails the past few weeks, and find I have very little time anymore to visit all my discussion boards.

You can always e-mail me if you have any questions on Poly-Solipsism.
This forum really should be for discussing Lem, and not Poly-Solipsism.

Thank you for your interest though.

Chuck

26
Forum in English / Re: "There are no answers. There are only Cho
« dnia: Marzec 31, 2005, 07:14:41 am »
Cytuj
Conclusion: All is possible what is possible.Aii is truth what is truth.All is real what is real.All is right what is right. And all is wrong what is wrong.
Who can add something?


That is what we do. We "add something".

The Problem of Individuality in a One Consciousness Singularity.


Why are there individual minds or egos? How did a Singularity of One Consciousness evolve to be composed of the Many?
I gave this question considerable thought after I traced all of existence back to the First Container: The Singularity. If we start out with "A" Singularity, how did we acquire our individual egos? It gave me some pause until I realized I was attempting to conceptualize The Infinite and Unbound Singularity as a finite spacetime object. There is no correlation between The Singularity and anything that exists within our perceptions of Universe.

It was while contemplating its Unbound nature that lead me to finally comprehend the infinite degrees of freedom of The Singularity.
It was one of those "Duh!" moments when you realize the answer has been staring you right in the face all along. The Singularity was never "A" Singularity. It is not an Object, it has always been Infinite and "Unbound"!
The Singularity has always been a Multiplicity. We are the Infinite degrees of freedom of The Singularity.
To understand this a little better lets consider our spacetime Universe. We say we have height, depth, width, and time. We call them Dimensions but this is a misnomer. There is only one "Dimension;" the Universe, but it has four "degrees of freedom" to exist in. Actually, the last time I checked, the Theorist tell us our Universe has 11 degrees of freedom, but we are only aware of the four.
If they have not done so, I would add consciousness to the list of degrees of freedom of our Universe. We often overlook the very tool we use to study it with.

If we conjure up a mental image of our Universe we can start with a point and then expand that point to include all the degrees of freedom we can mentally envision. In this way we can ‘see' our physical Universe is but one "dimension": the point we started with, but for our physical Universe to exist as we know it, we have to allow it the ‘degrees of freedom' it requires.
When viewed this way it becomes apparent there is only one dimension of Universe, but it needs to have all its degrees of freedom for it to exist.
Remove any one of these degrees of freedom and the Universe would not exist at all, and if the Universe does not exist, none of the other degrees of freedom could exist. Our Universe is dependent on all of them entangling together to give our Reality the freedom it requires to exist.

It is the same for what we call our minds, our individuality. It is because of the way we view Consciousness that leads to our confusion. We only perceive the ‘dimension' of consciousness we are aware of; our own. In trying to consider consciousness from the point of view of an Infinite and Unbound Singularity, we must remember The Singularity has no end, and therefore does not exists as an ‘is' and is always in a state of Potential existence. Such a state would entail continual change in its own consciousness. Evolving, as it were, in an attempt to fulfill its own potential. But since it is an infinity with no end, it never can.
I believe to understand Consciousness we must do so from point of view of The Singularity, and not from inside the Universe, which can only give us a partial view, sort of the end results, and not the whole perspective, where we can only view it the same way we view any one of the spacetime ‘degrees of freedom' when we call it ‘a dimension.' It is not a separate entity existing by itself. It cannot exist in isolation just as Height cannot exist in isolation.
Without all other degrees of freedom entangled together, any single one in isolation has no meaning. We can perceive it separately, but it cannot exist separately.

Our minds and not separate entities existing isolated from all others. Just as Height cannot exist without all the other degrees of freedom, a single mind cannot exist without all other minds entangling to give the One Consciousness the Infinite degrees of freedom it requires to exist.

There is only One Consciousness, but with infinite degrees of Freedom. Our minds are the degrees of freedom of The One Consciousness. And each of our minds provides another, and different, degree of freedom to The Singularity.
The Singularity is Consciousness, and what each mind envisions; what each mind can imagine; what each mind can create; what each mind believes, adds potential to our degrees of freedom.
It is only our own egotistical nature that presumes one intellect is superior to any other. All are of equal importance to The Singularity, and none would have any meaning without all the others.

That is why I say we are not ‘part' of The Singularity, and we are no ‘in' The Singularity. We are the Infinite degrees of freedom of The Singularity. We are the Consciousness of The Singularity, and The Singularity is our Consciousness.
We are The Singularity.



C.C.Keiser
11/30/04

27
Forum in English / Re: "There are no answers. There are only Cho
« dnia: Marzec 18, 2005, 05:01:22 am »
Cytuj
I don`t think that philosophy operates arguments , serious what is more. The Universe won`t be without people. The example is a computer in front of you , it won`t be a computer without user but a heap of plastics,metals and glass.We are the possessers of the ideas of things , not a single thing can be itself without us even the Universe.



http://panentheism.blogharbor.com/

28
Forum in English / Re: "There are no answers. There are only Cho
« dnia: Marzec 01, 2005, 06:14:10 am »
Cytuj
Last week I had an interesting discussion with my German-Teacher.

cckeiser perhaps it will make you hapier if I say he is a poly-solipsist too.

But he said something which may is interesting for this forum.
I asked him (the poli-solipsist) what consciousness is.
He said it is all we can put in speech.
The mind before the universe, got it speech?
Or was it unconsciousness?


"It is all we can put in speech."

Yes, I like that, and I think I would like your teacher. You may send him a link to my web site and my e-mail address if you like. I am always interested in talking "shop" with another Poly-Solipsist.
By the way, I see they are now calling it Quantum Solipsism! Different name, but pretty much the same philosophy! Quantum Solipsism is based on the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-copenhagen/
Refuted:
http://www.benbest.com/science/quantum.html


I believe Terminus is taking the word "speech" too literally where it is meant more philosophically. Just as in the question "Does the Universe exist if we are not looking?" That "looking" is not to be taken literally, but philosophically.

To understand the geist of your Teachers statement we must understand what is "Speech," and everything that is required to become speech. "It is -all we can put in -speech."

29
Forum in English / Re: "There are no answers. There are only Cho
« dnia: Marzec 01, 2005, 05:40:20 am »
It is the same for what we call our minds, our individuality. It is because of the way we view Consciousness that leads to our confusion. We only perceive the ‘dimension' of consciousness we are aware of; our own. In trying to consider consciousness from the point of view of an Infinite and Unbound Singularity, we must remember The Singularity has no end, and therefore does not exists as an ‘is' and is always in a state of Potential existence. Such a state would entail continual change in its own consciousness. Evolving, as it were, in an attempt to fulfill its own potential. But since it is an infinity with no end, it never can.
I believe to understand Consciousness we must do so from point of view of The Singularity, and not from inside the Universe, which can only give us a partial view, sort of the end results, and not the whole perspective, where we can only view it the same way we view any one of the spacetime ‘degrees of freedom' when we call it ‘a dimension.' It is not a separate entity existing by itself. It cannot exist in isolation just as Height cannot exist in isolation.
Without all other degrees of freedom entangled together, any single one in isolation has no meaning. We can perceive it separately, but it cannot exist separately.

Our minds and not separate entities existing isolated from all others. Just as Height cannot exist without all the other degrees of freedom, a single mind cannot exist without all other minds entangling to give the One Consciousness the Infinite degrees of freedom it requires to exist.

There is only One Consciousness, but with infinite degrees of Freedom. Our minds are the degrees of freedom of The One Consciousness. And each of our minds provides another, and different, degree of freedom to The Singularity.
It is only our own egotistical nature that presumes one intellect is superior to any other. All are of equal importance to The Singularity, and none would have any meaning without all the others.

That is why I say we are not ‘part' of The Singularity, and we are no ‘in' The Singularity. We are the Infinite degrees of freedom of The Singularity. We are the Consciousness of The Singularity, and The Singularity is our Consciousness.
We are The Singularity.


30
Forum in English / Re: "There are no answers. There are only Cho
« dnia: Marzec 01, 2005, 05:38:54 am »
Cytuj
"I got a question, aimed at Poly-Solipsism.  
Is the grade of the scale of Intellect (My Theory is: Intellect is Experiences + Knowledge or: The Mass of Information and the Skill to use it) depending in your theory?
 
I mean, perhaps there is a Golem IV or so in future.  
Would he have a higher range in Poly-Solipsism? "

Sorry for being ununderstanderable.

I think we can put every thing in a "scale of the intellect".
Everything is in this scale, a stone nearly at zero, a cow higher, a human higher than both.

My question is confusing myself now, so lets forget it.


Hi SoGo

I do make mention of this in The Play.

The main argument against Solipsism itself; as Terminus pointed out in a previous post, is the problem of "Other Minds."
Poly-Solipsism negates that objection by admitting a Multiplicity. But that then leaves the problem of Individuality in a One Consciousness Singularity.

Why are there individual minds or egos? How did a Singularity of One Consciousness evolve to be composed of the Many?
I gave this question considerable thought after I traced all of existence back to the First Container: The Singularity. If we start out with "A" Singularity, how did we acquire our individual egos? It gave me some pause until I realized I was attempting to conceptualize The Infinite and Unbound Singularity as a finite spacetime object. There is no correlation between The Singularity and anything that exists within our perceptions of Universe.

It was while contemplating its Unbound nature that lead me to finally comprehend the infinite degrees of freedom of The Singularity.
It was one of those "Duh!" moments when you realize the answer has been staring you right in the face all along. The Singularity was never "A" Singularity. It is not an Object, it has always been Infinite and "Unbound"!
The Singularity has always been a Multiplicity. We are the Infinite degrees of freedom of The Singularity.
To understand this a little better lets consider our spacetime Universe. We say we have height, depth, width, and time. We call them Dimensions but this is a misnomer. There is only one "Dimension;" the Universe, but it has four "degrees of freedom" to exist in. Actually, the last time I checked, the Theorist tell us our Universe has 11 degrees of freedom, but we are only aware of the four.
If they have not done so, I would add consciousness to the list of degrees of freedom of our Universe. We often overlook the very tool we use to study it with.

If we conjure up a mental image of our Universe we can start with a point and then expand that point to include all the degrees of freedom we can mentally envision. In this way we can ‘see' our physical Universe is but one "dimension": the point we started with, but for our physical Universe to exist as we know it, we have to allow it the ‘degrees of freedom' it requires.
When viewed this way it becomes apparent there is only one dimension of Universe, but it needs to have all its degrees of freedom for it to exist.
Remove any one of these degrees of freedom and the Universe would not exist at all, and if the Universe does not exist, none of the other degrees of freedom could exist. Our Universe is dependent on all of them entangling together to give our Reality the freedom it requires to exist.

continued in next post.

Strony: 1 [2] 3 4 5