For the context of the following comments and to reply, please click on the DATE/TIME above them.
brmckay – “@Write4U #161
Some thoughts and questions:
– What is the nature of awareness? (in it’s uncompounded sense)*
– How is uncompounded awareness different than uncompounded mathematical function?
Write4U – “It depends on your interpretation of ‘awareness’. Is a computer aware? Yes, but not in an abstract sense, it is purely packets of information being transported via the mathematical function. In that sense, one might say the computer is Pseudo-intelligent.“
– If mathematical function is latent, why not awareness? (This by the way, pretty much equates to the Sanskrit terms Prakriti and Purusha?)”
Write4U – “I submit that the term awareness has two application; One, a pure Metaphysical mathematical connectivity. Two, a Self-Awareness which is not purely mathematical, but also has Motive, and Emotional issues.“
– In “truth” (as in Infinitude of Singularity), are not mathematical function and awareness non-differentiated?
– Theistically, Brahman and Atman are about as neutral and non-anthropomorphic as it gets. Brahman being, entirety-centric, and Atman, human-centric non-differentiation. They in turn are not different, one from the other and equate to “truth”.
– To remain an atheistic humanist, must one continue the tradition of anthropomorphizing God? (it would seem so from your arguments)
Write4U – “I hope I can be more objective than that. I truly appreciate the deep insights contained in those works. A lot of them seem to understand the difficulty of presenting common symbols in their formalization of their scripture. I don’t dismiss scripture. I say they are mathematically incorrect, even as the metaphorical message is valid.“
(Emphasis was added by me.)
I still have not understood your rational for excluding experience (i.e.sentience) and it’s various by-products from “reality”.
Is it because the mathematical function cannot interpret experience? Please forgive me if you have already covered this; I am fast reaching the limits of my comprehension. Can the mathematical function interpret it’s own implicit and explicit existence?
Your conclusion about the royal flush anecdote of course, only indicates a preferred frame of reference. It does not actually remove Purusha from the equation.
Write4U – “Perhaps, but the fact remained that all potentials in my environment placed me at that table, at that time, sitting in that seat, drawing a once in a century hand. But it had nothing to do with me, as a personal favor from a higher Sentience. I was merely the lucky final selections of all potentials which resulted in my extraordinary position? It was a Function of Natural Selection , another timeless property of the wholeness.“
(Note: I have highlighted a distracting anthropomorphic imposition.)
Are “the Function of Natural Selection” and the “Mathematical Function” both latent characteristics of “truth” along with “potential”? The pantheon is growing. Are they real? If so, why not a “function” of Self awareness?
Write4U – “I submit that the Implication, which forms and emerges out of all the potentials present at that space/time coordinate in a chronological order along the timeline which is created during the transition of potential to function which is causal to expression in physical reality. To make happen what in fact does happen. The dreamlike image of what is ‘determined’ to become reality, The Implicate.
To me this sounds a like a mathematical function, not the function of a god as anyone has expressed before.”
To me the overall effect demonstrated by what has emerged, suggests quite clearly God. Though not “a god”
Write4U – “My point is the Potential Condition exhibits the exact same creative abilities of any god, but it does so only from the dynamics of transmission of fundamental packets of information, through an efficient mathematical function, which always and timelessly existed in pure abstract qualities of the wholeness. They are simply the laws of nature of infinity (or something profound like that), but for these functions to be able to emerge simultaneously with the change, they must have been latent abilities of the pre-existing condition, made visible to us in a limited range of observable detail as reality. There are particles penetrating through steel as if it doesn’t even exist.
IMO, the scientific quest for ‘knowledge about’ has just begun, whereas the spiritual quest for ‘personal relationship with’ seems to have stagnated for lack of unexplainable (holy) miracles, which otherwise might have reinforced your belief in a sentient personal relationship to God (whatever that may mean).
I challenge all Theists to actually create a holographic image of God inside your mind. How does this mental image appear to you in human terms. Close your eyes and ‘see’ God. What do you see[?]”.
(Emphasis added by me.)
I won’t be able to help you with this exercise. For me, It represents a “straw man” type of scenario.
The understanding that I work from, and have been trying to convey here, is that ideas and mental images are always finite and relative. The personal sense of “self” (or ego), is also an abstraction. An idea. Finite and relative.
I would say that the goal of knowing “truth” cannot be approached from within the limitation of the body/mind complex. I would also say that the body/mind complex is not a “true” limitation.
You would say that through the mathematical function we can understand the “real”, but must relegate our “experience” (i.e. sentience), to some other place than the “real”. As I understand you, It (i.e. experience), is not included in the “universe”.
I would say that experience is “real” and that the Universe (i.e. Wholeness) includes our “personal sense of self”, our actions and thoughts, just as it includes the phenomena of light and the motion of stars.
Since the infinitude of the origin, is ever present and eternal, it can only be through it’s own nature that it may be known.
The difference between our views is that you emphasize a limited and abstracted understanding of the parts via mathematical description.
I emphasize experience of original nature via Self realization.
I’m wondering what Bohm would say? Or, Krishnamurti?
Write4U – “Please forgive if this may sound intrusive, but I promise to respect the image, (any image) from volunteers, with an sincere effort to compare it in my own mirror neural network to something I can identify with and at least empathize with.
Which I believe I have already demonstrated in my viewpoints on Deism.“
* (Note: One could substitute Self for “awareness” aka Purusha. This, for me, makes the analogy more accurate and versatile. But these are just words after all. Go with whatever gives you the sense of it.)
Write4U – “But a self caused sentient (aware) causaility, seems ‘highly improbable’ to me, IMO. By the law of Heirarchical orders, Potential would have to have existed before the self caused mathematical causality, could have ‘Become into Being’.
That seems pure logic to me.“
Unless “Potential” is a root characteristic of “Awareness” as it is “Experience” or “Function”.
My definition of God is simply, all of it. And we have both said something similar:
Write4U: “They are simply the laws of nature of infinity (or something profound like that)”
brmckay: “The emergent characteristics of infinitude.”