Uncategorized

:)

Why is it?

Physical Explanation: It is because the computer architecture makes it so.

Phenomenological Explanation: It is because it looks like a human face.

 

Advertisements
Standard

17 thoughts on “:)

  1. why wouldn’t it be? why is there only one explanation? why does ๐Ÿ™‚ have two dots? Because humans have two eyes. That’s an explanation. Another explanation is that that is how my screen works. Why can’t both be explanatory?

    • I’ve laid my cards on the table already and said my concern is corporate exploitation; how you think you’ve explained it, but really you’ve got a grip on a level which is just a derivative of a substrate. And that substrate is a derivative (it takes awhile to get to raw hardware).

      Think of advertising where they have drawn a connection between traumatic TV show content and a greater susceptibility to products shown during ads. You pull this lever that connects to your substrate and suddenly you feel the utterly voluntary urge to hand over money for products, because you are derived from a relatively invisible, subpersonal thing that largely or fully renders the something that is you – and they’re working out how to control it. This level of understanding you describe only assists this level of exploitation, because it avoids thinking there is anything outside of ones experience influencing how one experiences. Why does it have two dots? Because eyes have two dots. Why did I buy X product? Because I wanted to.

      I’d prefer to be wrong. It’d be far easier. Basically I just argue it not because we couldn’t just float along with such explanations (ignoring the corporate factor, I think we could), but because I don’t want to welcome in such manipulation, with all the distorted, stressed lives (think of eating disorders, worker suicides…) being further fine tuned to be even more stressed to produce even more income every year. Affirming these ‘believe in yourself’ sorts of understandings, to me, feels like being a hundred years back and affirming smoking cigarettes (ie, affirming the surface appearance and ignoring the medical substrate of the matter).

      In the end I understand approaching it like this undermines some cherished feelings about the self and losing the positivism derived from those feelings. On the other hand if I’m wrong about the whole substrate thing, then that’s not an issue at all, is it?

  2. I have no particular cherished feelings about the self. Half the time or more I’m a Buddhist and I don’t believe I have one. However I do wonder — if you have no self and the corporations have no selves and it’s just a bunch of quantum fields flying around creating illusions then your statement “corporations control people” and “it would be better if they didn’t” are both false also.

    • No, at that level there is no ‘false’. It all is as it is.

      I mean, what, you appeal to nihilism as your way of affirming your meaning?? Either the ๐Ÿ™‚ is a face or screw it, it all doesn’t matter? It’s like holding a gun to your own head as your argument that others should agree. Sure, my sympathies are there, but its an abuse of those sympathies. And the thing we are talking about doesn’t care if you pull the trigger. Be apathetic, it croons, give up, pull the trigger – keep doing the job we assigned you, but yes, give up on anything unless its absolutely affirming of the :)! But here’s a product that says it all matters – buy, then work some more so you can buy again the feeling the ๐Ÿ™‚ is a face. We’ll sell you mario lands full of smiling faces!

      But in the end why couldn’t the no self me implore the no self you to heed the danger to us and the no self others? Why, what’s going to stop me? It doesn’t make sense is your answer? Or more exactly, it don’t align with the ๐Ÿ™‚ and that’s why it doesn’t make sense? Because everything has to align with the ๐Ÿ™‚ in order to somehow work, sure!

      Surely even a half time Buddhist has emptied his cup more than this? Poured out the idea that your Darwinistic survival or lack there of relies on your ๐Ÿ™‚ level of thinking being affirmed?

      The way I’d prefer to be shot down now is that we are talking a fascist control system, rather than true Darwinistic extinction (wars conducted by the regime over resources don’t count as true extinction level events, o/c. Umm, unless nuclear, probably). I grant there’s an ambiguity in ‘mere’ massive, excruciatingly efficient fascism compared to true extinction.

      But if we take that facism as a kind of extinction, and if no self me implores no self others to heed the danger and they do AND (bear with me!) as a result they avoid extinction while others who didn’t heed it don’t, how was your idea ‘it’s all false’ relevant?

      Is it “But without ๐Ÿ™‚ thinking, there is no point in going on!”? You know, if it was something classic, like “I will not sacrifice my first born over this, I’d rather go extinct!”, I’d get it. But a preserving a “:)”????

    • Do you acknowledge you could somehow be seeing it wrong? As I’ve already said, I’d prefer if the model I’m describing was wrong and inapplicable. So I’m pretty open to being wrong myself. You?

      But I donโ€™t think the locution โ€œno self meโ€ means anything โ€” at least to me.

      And yet if someone presented a ball and a robot to you that called out sounds that sounded like ‘Throw the ball to me’, would you question the use of the word ‘me’ then? I think you’d just throw the ball.

      Why are we so keen to anthropomorphize, but not the opposite? There’s more than one use of ‘me’, you’d want to make sure you’re using the same use as the other person, otherwise it’s just saying a strawman doesn’t mean anything to you.

  3. would you be open to putting forward your thought in consecutive order with definitions? I’d love to read it. I don’t know what you mean by different kinds of me and different kinds of no self. I just thought if you have no self the it follows there’s nothing to worry about, and certainly not corporate control. That is if people are just interactions of quantum fields they can’t be treated fairly or unfairly. And if everybody was like the robot in your example (including you and including me) then there would be no reason to protect ourselves or people we care about. That’s what I’ve been trying to say in different ways in our discussions. But I’m sure I have not grasped what you’re driving at 100%.

    • Well, something I forgot to pull up on is that I was attempting to speak using your own terms – you’d said “I have no particular cherished feelings about the self. Half the time or more Iโ€™m a Buddhist and I donโ€™t believe I have one.”. Isn’t that basically saying “(half the time) I have no self”? Is there a contradiction between “I” and “no self” in what you said? I thought I understood you and was speaking in the same way as you.

      The way I understood you to define it, “I” becomes a pointer to a specific organism or a specific cloud of quantum fields. No more. Just because we’re at the level where we are referring to clouds of quantum fields, doesn’t mean everything disappears in a puff of logic. There are still things to refer to, and “I” is still a way of referring to a specific cloud. That’s how I understood you – am I way off in my understanding of you?

      If I’m way off, well dang – perhaps you could tell me what you meant by saying “(half the time) I have no self”, unless I’ve used up too much of your time already in which case double dang! But I understand (we all only have so much time to assign to various activities, of course)

      But if I do understand reasonably accurately….

      That is if people are just interactions of quantum fields they canโ€™t be treated fairly or unfairly. And if everybody was like the robot in your example (including you and including me) then there would be no reason to protect ourselves or people we care about. Thatโ€™s what Iโ€™ve been trying to say in different ways in our discussions.

      I understand you have. But if I take you at your word you don’t feel you have a self ~half the time, you most likely have to cross roads or drive a car at some point. At the points you have no self, do you not care about crossing the road safely because you’re just a quantum field and have no reason to care – you just plow ahead even if a bus is coming? When driving and no self, do you have no care about the red light because everyone’s a robot including you and there’s no reason to care about the red light?

      I doubt you do. I’d suggest there is ‘no self’ survivalism. The quantum cloud has a configuration in such a way that it avoids certain other quantum clouds which if they were to impact on it, would disrupt its current configuration (beyond the configurations ability to use sub configurations to restore or largely restore the main configuration patter (beyond ability to heal))

      Does that seem to suggest that you do navigate the ‘no self’ world, based on what we’d call reason?

      To me, the idea of a quantum cloud that has a configuration that on approach to where other quantum clouds are intersecting its path at high speed, it stops its movement – that all seems fairly straight forward. Whether the quantum cloud in question is what we’d call a self driving car or what we’d call a human being.

      So do you think we already navigate the ‘no self’ worlds dangers? If so, I’m just proposing another danger, that hides beneath the ๐Ÿ™‚ thinking. If not, well, I gave a shot at describing it and I guess I’ll have to pause and consider my terms.

  4. what’s the danger? and to whom is it a danger? can there be a danger for quantum fields? seems like they just are — they can’t be saved and they can’t be in danger. so if you feel like you are living in a world in which there is danger then it strikes me you feel you are living in a world that is more than just quantum fields.

    • Or I’m a configuration of quantum fields and that configuration, causally, leads it to actions that are attempts to avoid things that would disrupt that configuration. Ie, a ‘danger’. Which I had described already. So what you think I’m feeling isn’t what I’m feeling, if you’ll take my word for it – it’d just be your own feeling that you were certain I shared. Are you a dualist or dualist inclined, Eric?

      I get your argumentative approach, but to me it’s based on an absence. To you ‘danger’ is something other than just quantum fields…it just is that, to you, right? Yet if I were to say you owe me fifty bucks every week and that just is, you would question that, or just dismiss my claim out of hand. Far from seeming to have the most merit in the world as a claim simply by saying ‘it just is’, it’d seem to have the least merit in the world to you.

      But here you are, saying a notion of danger means we are living in a world that is more than just quantum fields. It just is. ‘Danger’ just seems not set in the natural world because…it just is? How does your claim seem to carry huge amounts of merit rather than feel naked?

      Does is seem fair to call it naked – where, if I use the word ‘danger’, that’s all the evidence needed to say there’s this world which is apart from quantum fields? To me, it seems pretty naked.

      If someone is making a naked claim and insist even if its naked that doesn’t mean they have to be forced into accepting some other claim of how things are, that’s fair in terms of discussion. It might be a naked claim and wrong, but the other claim (mine) might be wrong, for example. When two people argue, doesn’t mean either of them is necessarily right.

    • I think humans speak in massive, massive simplifications. ‘Danger’ may as well be the tip of an iceberg, with quantum fields being the bottom of it, far beneath the surface, in the deep dark far out of sight. I mean, Pratchett was way ahead on that already “we are trying to understand the fundamental workings of the universe via a language devised for telling one another when the best fruit is.”

      I’m trying to discuss the fundamental workings with a language made for best fruit talk – I’m just gunna sound like an idiot, largely!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s