4 ms·

Ontology! Since my earliest memories, my mind continuously wanders off to questions like, 'what is the nature of... things? What is the substance of... substanc

by Agamus 4y ago

Ontology! Since my earliest memories, my mind continuously wanders off to questions like, 'what is the nature of... things? What is the substance of... substance? What qualities of a thing can I think away, and still allow the thing part of it to remain behind?' For the longest time, as a kid, I was under the impression that it was the same for everyone, and that figuring these things out was what everyone was busy working on - the purpose of human life. I never slowed down - still working on it with nearly every daydreaming moment I have.

SemanticStrengh 4y ago
That's a very chairwise comment https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fXW-QjBsruE&t=180s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fXW-QjBsruE&t=180s
- Agamus 4y ago
  Thanks for the link! The content of this video is pretty close to the perpetual internal dialogue happening between me and all of my selves. I eventually wrote a book about my findings thus far.
  - SemanticStrengh 4y ago
    you might find my last * point interesting about the thesis for multiple selves: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31204611&p=2#31213841 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31204611&p=2#31213841 however the fact there is no criterion for delineating the soul to a volume of matter makes me strongly believe that the rational belief is that we are living a sandboxed illusion and that there is only one decentralized being in the universe. We are the same soul talking to itselfs via the prisms of siloeds lifes, and when you hurt someone, you do in fact, hurt yourself. related: https://youtu.be/h6fcK_fRYaI https://youtu.be/h6fcK_fRYaI
    - Agamus 4y ago
      I like this - a new perspective. I sense this is compatible, but I lean toward Heraclitus, in that I see (the illusion of) order manifesting from decentralized flux - e.g., quantum fluctuations in empty space. Our best bet to understanding this is quantum field theory, which makes much of my own book redundant, (except the half of it concerning the consequent metaethics). The unity of fields could overlap with your perspective on a cosmic scale. I want to believe, but I suspect that most 'thinking humans' still (erroneously) subscribe to the general idea of individuation: material atomism and the assumption of individual, existing parts. We have a long, long way to go - the work of metaphysicians has not yet begun, and even scientists are still making the same error in the face of their own evidence (think: the phlogistonistic 'string' theory). Wittgenstein was correct to note that most questions in philosophy have not been sensible questions. The underlying reason is that they have assumed individuation, as a core axiom - a vulnerability in the bare-metal layer. We have assumed this because it is contrary to our observations and (most of) our common experience to do otherwise; it took hard science to demonstrate alternatives, and only 'recently'. Am I right to say that we both seem firmly planted in a paradigm beyond individuation - even as your view unifies the 'everything' into an individual? Methinks we have different lenses gazing upon the same essence. My recent scribblings and bibblings are on 'cosmic significance', which may bridge our two compatible views. One question I have is, assuming quantum field theory, and assuming consciousness is a very natural 'thing' in the cosmos, how, if at all, are these associated? The possibility that they are seems more and more reasonable to me, even required, but in ways that I suspect will rightly never match the criterion of the scientific method (at least in my lifetime). I try to maintain a solid sobriety when dabbling in metaphysics, but these questions persist, and seem reasonable. While I'm sure there are many professionals working on these questions - I'm also sure it is quite clear that I not a professional. However, my mind is quite professional at wandering off into these topics, to return to OP's question!
  - SemanticStrengh 4y ago
    Is there a link to your book?
    - Agamus 4y ago
      Not officially launched, but the beta is here: http://www.katabane.com/mt/table.html http://www.katabane.com/mt/table.html
      - SemanticStrengh 4y ago
        nice :)

by Agamus 4y ago

SemanticStrengh 4y ago

That's a very chairwise comment https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fXW-QjBsruE&t=180s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fXW-QjBsruE&t=180s

Agamus 4y ago
Thanks for the link! The content of this video is pretty close to the perpetual internal dialogue happening between me and all of my selves. I eventually wrote a book about my findings thus far.
- SemanticStrengh 4y ago
  you might find my last * point interesting about the thesis for multiple selves: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31204611&p=2#31213841 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31204611&p=2#31213841 however the fact there is no criterion for delineating the soul to a volume of matter makes me strongly believe that the rational belief is that we are living a sandboxed illusion and that there is only one decentralized being in the universe. We are the same soul talking to itselfs via the prisms of siloeds lifes, and when you hurt someone, you do in fact, hurt yourself. related: https://youtu.be/h6fcK_fRYaI https://youtu.be/h6fcK_fRYaI
  - Agamus 4y ago
    I like this - a new perspective. I sense this is compatible, but I lean toward Heraclitus, in that I see (the illusion of) order manifesting from decentralized flux - e.g., quantum fluctuations in empty space. Our best bet to understanding this is quantum field theory, which makes much of my own book redundant, (except the half of it concerning the consequent metaethics). The unity of fields could overlap with your perspective on a cosmic scale. I want to believe, but I suspect that most 'thinking humans' still (erroneously) subscribe to the general idea of individuation: material atomism and the assumption of individual, existing parts. We have a long, long way to go - the work of metaphysicians has not yet begun, and even scientists are still making the same error in the face of their own evidence (think: the phlogistonistic 'string' theory). Wittgenstein was correct to note that most questions in philosophy have not been sensible questions. The underlying reason is that they have assumed individuation, as a core axiom - a vulnerability in the bare-metal layer. We have assumed this because it is contrary to our observations and (most of) our common experience to do otherwise; it took hard science to demonstrate alternatives, and only 'recently'. Am I right to say that we both seem firmly planted in a paradigm beyond individuation - even as your view unifies the 'everything' into an individual? Methinks we have different lenses gazing upon the same essence. My recent scribblings and bibblings are on 'cosmic significance', which may bridge our two compatible views. One question I have is, assuming quantum field theory, and assuming consciousness is a very natural 'thing' in the cosmos, how, if at all, are these associated? The possibility that they are seems more and more reasonable to me, even required, but in ways that I suspect will rightly never match the criterion of the scientific method (at least in my lifetime). I try to maintain a solid sobriety when dabbling in metaphysics, but these questions persist, and seem reasonable. While I'm sure there are many professionals working on these questions - I'm also sure it is quite clear that I not a professional. However, my mind is quite professional at wandering off into these topics, to return to OP's question!
- SemanticStrengh 4y ago
  Is there a link to your book?
  - Agamus 4y ago
    Not officially launched, but the beta is here: http://www.katabane.com/mt/table.html http://www.katabane.com/mt/table.html
    - SemanticStrengh 4y ago
      nice :)