What I Learned About My Own Mind From My Personal Computer

I see parallel functions between my PC and my mind.  So what are we working with?  What I’m seeing is the mind as a computational device.  This is not a new idea but it is my idea arrived at from research and from my personal investigation of my own mind.  The results of that research are arrived at on my own but they do not seem to be particularly original in the world as they have been arrived at in the past and seemingly will be arrived at continuously in the future.  Each of us has a level of curiosity in this regard, some more than others.

For me, the physical world is the superset of all that is manifest and this superset is finite by the moment.   It is the current result of the current computation.  Our perception of the physical universe as smoothly fluid is apparency which can be said to be covered by the phi phenomenon and of beta motion.

If the superset is finite, then the infinite is a subset of  the finite.  The only infinite thing is the irrational computation.  What is infinite about the “I” is its irrational limit resulting in perpetual computations.  There are irrational considerations such as the 22/7ths of π, etc.,.  What is infinite is the computation of irrational numbers.   I see the infinite process of irrational computation and project this onto other considerations such as <em>soul, eternal life as the self, etc.,.</em>

Advertisements

29 thoughts on “What I Learned About My Own Mind From My Personal Computer

  1. That sounds like how I think if i could JUST understand it. I gotta get these terms down better.

    🙂

    Thought exercise:

    Imagine an imaginary number whose first millions lines convert directly into the code of Super Mario. The next million KEEP the first but it is now Super Mario 2. The next million keeps the previous two and runs Super Mario 3

    On ZedBox 5 of course.

    Tried the snow meditation … weird … things … appear …

    • LOL! Don’t they (weird apparitions in the TV Snow) though?!?

      Your million lines of iteration piled on millions more is just the model I am currently operating on and it is, is, uncanny what complexities fall into place for me. Thank you for trying. Really.

      • In Godel’s list of things he believed in, he discussed undiscovered a-priory in vast numbers. Understanding the irrational, a-priory self mathematics of you and I is a subject I have never heard of outside our weird group.

        If the “static-paradox-self” exists mathematically but not in a way that is complete, somehow this living math may think and choose as a being. That jump can be felt, but not clarified in final code. Rafael wrote this which I kept in my wallet a long time:

        “Maybe the truth is not an answer. It’s not even something fixed. Maybe truth is simply our creative contribution to the evolutionary process of this Universe.”

        Other thought experiment: On valences of self:

        Mario’s code for Super Mario 1 also appears in Pi, Phi and the square root of 3 somewhere if we go long enough in each, but not in the same way as it would in his “core irrational paradox” where he evolves every million lines to a new level. Perhaps is is how a being could “be” someone else without being the “real deal.”

        Leaving two Super Mario’s staring at each other feeling exactly the same. One with a core irrational and another as a mere segment. Meat vs Soul…

        • Rafael via KG: “Maybe the truth is not an answer. It’s not even something fixed. Maybe truth is simply our creative contribution to the evolutionary process of this Universe.”

          Chris: Agree. I no longer see truth in any ultimate true sense at all. Rather truth is more of a time sensitive and relatively consistent abstraction. Taken out of time as it used to be, truth is a point found in a calculus. This is not the truth that we yearn for but it is the truth of our existence.

          To the degree that I practice this truth, my tolerance widens.

        • Truth is seeing something as it is and it is also seeing in context; and seeing the requisite conditioning which seems to produce the abstraction that we experience. It is a lot to see. One can ever only hope to see a piece of the truth and endeavor to piece this truth together with many other truths. The larger picture is still a piece of the whole and the smallest piece is still a piece of the whole. Context in our irrational, recursive, and self similar environment is all important. But we can stay on the ball and continue to try and to learn.

        • . . . and consistency is truth? Is there a commutative property at work? Could we correctly state, “Consistency is relative, conditioned and impermanent?” I think so.

        • Hi Vinaire, I think that certainty is to truth what spirituality is to religion. Which is to say that certainty seems to want to package and hold still what is naturally roiling and seething. The universe is dynamic and I think the truth is too. Likewise, religion is an abomination of spirituality and in fact does not resemble spirituality at all. One can be certain of anything but we should be mindful and not let certainty get in the way of our knowledge. (not intentional double talk)

        • KG: Meat vs Soul…

          Chris: A long time ago, when you were posting about this, I never commented on it to the same degree that I considered it . . . But I considered it quite a bit.

          Meat and soul seem to me labels we put on abstractions. That you can put together your very able concept and examples of “Meat vs Soul Paradox” is an exploitation of the weakness in the philosophical theories underpinning both of these labels and also is a demonstration of recursion.

        • KG: Other thought experiment: On valences of self:

          Chris: We do not have to look deeply around us to see the recursion and self-similarity in Nature. Our meat bodies are an obvious example, and I think so are our memories.

        • KG: If the “static-paradox-self” exists mathematically but not in a way that is complete, somehow this living math may think and choose as a being.

          Chris: I no longer worry about nor do I consider “free will vs. determinism” to be a complete argument. Likewise, I don’t consider “creationism vs. evolution” to be a complete argument. Neither of these arguments resolve, not because the people arguing won’t see the truth, but because the arguments are incomplete and therefore flawed, and therefore do not exploit the truth. Looking at these arguments in this way has resolved them for me. I now view them as juvenile arguments, products of us not looking beyond their surface features and allowing paradoxes to stand as somehow valid in our minds. I no longer consider paradoxes to be valid but simply consider that they have exploited the inconsistencies in their underlying arguments, making those underlying arguments irrelevant, in need of further research.

  2. Perhaps these a-priori “selves” are mixes of paradoxes that are linked to such a degree that a self emerges as a “static.” The energy being the dissonance created by the paradoxes and the addition of other paradoxes with raging dissonance.

    Paradox A + Paradox B + Paradox C = A-Priori Self Katageek.

    Paradox A + Paradox + B = Paradox Z = irchristo.

    This is bullshit and I know it. I’m grasping at straws here.

    • I don’t think of your work as bullshit — ever. Sometimes I might categorize the problems that we slave over as bullshit problems. Trying to make a segment of an irrationally long line make sense is bullshit. “Making sense” of irrationality, the true underpinning of this universe, is bullshit as it cannot be done, not because of an inherent flaw in us, but because it is in the inherent nature of Nature. When I give a nod to this statement and model, my anxiety about resolving these problems and life in general drops remarkably.

  3. I edited the OP to fix my careless typos and to change this sentence to read “If the superset is finite, then the infinite is a subset of the finite.” This observation caused me to go back to the beginning of my philosophical assumptions and to begin again.

  4. Hi Guys!
    I´m trying hard to find something meaningful and insightful to contribute here, but truth is I have nothing to add to your thoughts.
    I have to confess………what I really enjoy at this moment is just hangin´ arround with you, so could you please consider that I am in the same room silently watching your exchanges and sharing the same views you share?
    And now that I´ve read all your comments, could you consider I was here since the begining of this thread?

    That will be deeply appreciated.

    Lately I´ve been moving in the direction of not thinking, I mean, my thoughts seem to become less and less important, as if their real purpose was only to provide the energy to move my cog wheel, and sometimes I find myself with nothing to say, just living life like some sort of an animal, my spiritual journey reaching the peak of a mountain from which everything I can see is meat, meat and only meat, and all the origin of my thoughts, when they come, as far as I can see, is meat. But, I´m being honest to myself as to what I´m really seeing………
    Maybe I´m trying to find, if, out of this silence, I can grow a thought which does not come from meat, but so far, weeks go by and nothing happens. Somehow, this is still a journey, and somehow, I still feel kind of enlightened to have reached this far……
    Maybe I´m just trying to say that I´m not afraid anymore to lose everything, to start from real zero.

    Maybe the basic trick that we play on ourselves is this: When we try to look we stop being creative and causative, and that is why we then only see bullshit, otherwise we would create rich meanings in whatever we see and not have any problems, or only the problems we wanted to have, or, getting tired of the problems we wanted, geting the problems we did “not” wanted…………….oh shit!!! I better be silent again……..

    • Rafael: Maybe I´m just trying to say that I´m not afraid anymore to lose everything, to start from real zero.

      Chris: I hear you brother! I really hear you loud and clear!

      These ideas and senses that there is ever any finality to things just doesn’t seem the same to me anymore. And it ‘s great to have you right here in the room with us. No ends, no end phenomenas, no finality. Only the raging irrationality of existence! Zero is a good place a good reference point from which to view.

  5. Chris “These ideas and senses that there is ever any finality to things just doesn’t seem the same to me anymore”

    Rafael: Zero considerations is my favorite point from which to view, the best point to get fresh views and to let intuition flow. I try to get as close to it as I can.
    If anything, it is a point of origin, as close to creation as we can get. Finality has no place in it. Finality is solidity, zero is the home of infinite fluidity, endless posibilities. The raging irrationality of existence fits very well there, logic is way too close to fixedness and solidity.

    I hear you loud and clear too, brother!

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

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