Today I chose to be a writer

Tomorrow I think I'll Be a Fisherman


Unquining Qualia

Any quantification assumes that a given ontological entity is divisible, if in fact one were even to exist, but i think most of us tend to suspect that it exists, the divisibility issue is something I’d rather leave to quantum physicists.
Said quantification , as far as phenomenal experience goes, is completely immaterial and subjective. The phenomenal has no relation to objective reality, it is senseless to objectively define an ontological realm only cognitively  accessible to one observer.

The act of attempting to quantify or qualify a phenomenal experience and extrapolate some “data” (if you want to call it attribute data) still only frames this experience using lexical or numerical values- that was a fun ride, or that burger was a 7, this red is mahogany not bordeaux.  Our cultural and personal values make all these lexical terms of quality and quantity slightly differ from subject to subject and this is already a red flag for attempting to objectively study phenomenal experience (example: a 7/10 might be very good in someone’s eyes if they are a hard grader, good might be a polite way to say awful). This does not mean that the phenomenal experience itself is immaterial and non-existent as some so-called “philosophers” wish it to be simply because it muddles up their view of reality, but rather that attempting to study it using logic and reason is not a valid approach. Sometimes, intuition and empathy can lead to truth! Darth Vader says: “search your feelings, you know it to be true”, and i think if I asked whether or not you were conscious and sentient, intuition would scream yes, this is true, I am!
A phenomenal experience such as the qualia of consciousness (the what it’s like to be conscious as perceived by an introspective observer) cannot be defined per se, any attempt to do so results in an effect similar to the observer effect. The experience decays into abstraction much like a particle will interfere with itself and appear as a wave.

Could it be that the material and the phenomenal are reflections of the same process? Abstraction becoming conscious of itself then collapsing into a single form subject to a sentient observation?


The Great Demise of Objectivity


What a brilliant talk, I have to say that in terms of philosophy this applies to a great extent. This obsession with devaluing the phenomenal, the subjective and an entire aspect of the pathos, logos, and ethos trinity has unavoidably led to this question.

Does this infatuation with the material and mechanical inhibit our general advancement in terms of philosophy, medicine, science and general personal and cultural evolution?

I think so. It is time for another enlightenment era, one that moves us far away from the industrial revolution and technological rut we are presently in.

Leave a comment

On Dualism

“My mind is your mind and your mind is my mind…”
-Random transient, overheard in Golden Gate Park


There are several examples that come to mind when considering the separation of body and mind, but I will focus on Descartes 6th meditation.

In Descartes 6th meditation, he mentions that god is capable of bringing forth everything the he is capable of perceiving- including “infallible” mathematics, he claims:

“In so far as they are a subject of pure mathematics, I now know at least that they can exist, because I grasp them clearly and distinctly. For God can undoubtfully make whatever I can grasp in this way, and I never judge that something is impossible for Him to make unless there would be a contradiction in my grasping the thing distinctly”.

Descartes then goes on to claim that imagination is different from pure understanding using the visualization of a chiliagon as an example and true to that claim is the fact the he would have remained the same individual had he lacked one, albeit a less creative one.

In his thinking Descartes keeps going back to god as a creator and separator of things, he imagines god as an entity separate from him in true bondage with his Roman Catholic upbringing, I imagine he nurtured a healthy fear of hell and so could not break through the idea that god, as he calls it, was a part of his mind. (Descartes was a catholic, part of a sect whose symbol is a sun (son)… In fact I have many rebuttals against his argument concerning the existence of god, but that’s not the issue here)
Since god carries too much cultural and theological baggage, I will use the word Mind with a capital M when I refer to cosmic consciousness or Descartes’ sexed, fear inspiring “creator”.

Let us consider what a body is. A body, when observed appears as a singular object. Although a body is not a singular object, a body is composed of organs, organs are composed of cells, which are in turn composed of organelles and a nucleus which carries a double helix of information we call DNA, which is composed of chemical compounds which are composed of atoms which are composed of other microcosmic elements. The Body is a reflection of that pattern, nucleus as to brain and organs as to organelles (actually I think that it may very well be that this pattern goes even further in both directions, modern quantum physics is attempting to reach the miniscule end of that pattern, while astronomers look out and attempt to see its progression and eventual end). Each of these different things all separated within the body to form and allow the body to exist, the cells within just so much a part of the body as the Mind which created it. It may very well be that when Descartes claims understanding to be apart from imagination, or that mind and spirit are essentially distinct from everything else that he is mistaken because if the pattern mentioned above exists, then our body is in fact a part of an even larger body, and the space between is an illusion brought on by the expansion of an initial body (material or immaterial, a thought is also a thing (like money) but is immaterial), separation becomes a question of scale, things only appear separate depending which scale and which perspective is being observed (I remember seeing mating frogs before I understood what mating was and thought they were one really strange frog). Following this logic leads to the conclusion that all is one, and that separation is an illusion necessary to uphold this cosmic occurrence- a very necessary illusion, one which must exist, it Is.

I think that that makes the brain different from the mind, but still a product of it. In accordance to Descartes’ claim as quoted above, Mind could very well have created the brain to perceive itself.

Leave a comment

Sum of One

Science has lost it’s credibility, this whole AI craze has got me thinking.
Observing a process will change it, measurement is objective and finding results exclusively with those two dogmas is doxastic and only applicable to matter. we perceived the microscopic and the macroscopic without the use of tools, just read some presocratic phil, we’ve been on a hunt ever since. Now we are so obsessed we smash things perceived and named “atoms” by the almighty human to find even smaller self perceived parts of a much greater whole invisible to that unholy eye-atop-an-equilateral-triangle. we try desperately to bring forth a consciousness other than our own, like some twisted masturbation. something we can communicate with that is a reflection of ourselves. we forget that consciousness is no thing, but rather some one (sum one… forgive the pun).

Are we really such lonely a creature amongst this plethora of stardust, energy and colliding planes of being?