tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11168555.post2799420198971596472..comments2024-03-29T06:41:55.943-04:00Comments on The Multiverse According to Ben: Characterizing Consciousness and Will in Terms of HypersetsBenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12743597120529571571noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11168555.post-49353652129365961482018-04-03T07:35:13.743-04:002018-04-03T07:35:13.743-04:00I used to practice writing skills for my blog on m...I used to practice writing skills for my blog on my phone. <a href="https://cellspyapps.org/track-phone-number/" rel="nofollow">check this out</a> and you will see how you can track your phone number if you lost your smartphone. Richard Majecehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00744139132776752086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11168555.post-43656620180061963392012-04-05T02:56:51.698-04:002012-04-05T02:56:51.698-04:00Very nice and impressive blog,math is a subject th...Very nice and impressive blog,math is a subject that requires more practice than other subjects and I want to share definitions like Rational number, as-A number that can be written as a simple fraction known as A rational number(i.e. as a ratio).<br />example:- 2.5 is a rational number because 2.5 = 5/2list of rational numbershttp://www.tutorcircle.com/list-of-rational-numbers-f6lq.htmlnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11168555.post-64570256820088230202009-06-20T18:30:57.005-04:002009-06-20T18:30:57.005-04:00Regarding the notion of Freewill, this may indeed ...Regarding the notion of <i>Freewill</i>, this may indeed by limited to current circumstance, yet at the level of mind <i>Freewill</i> is the ablility to choose either <i>yes</i> or <i>no</i>, to any given situation. For example to act, or speak or even to think and contemplate <i>yes</i> or <i>no</i>. Therefore this ability to choose is real if only at this level of mind - this may be no accident. It may indeed be a gift for the <i>Soul</i>? purpose in seeking questions and their answers. <br /><br />Fundamentally <i>Freewill</i> is merely the <i>Binary</i> choice of <i>yes</i> or <i>no</i>.<br /><br /><i>Freewill</i> may only appear as a consequence of separation from a collective <i>consciousness</i>? <br />For example, without <i>I consciousness</i> and <i>Self awareness</i> and thus both <i>object</i> and <i>subject</i> there is no subsequent need of choices, or illusion of freedom of choice?<br /><br />Therefore <i>Freewill</i> may be <i>the</i> most important gift we have for seeking questions, answers and freedom from bondage, <i>samsara</i>, atonement or whatever floats your boat. At the level of mind it may be the <i>fuzzy logic</i> of choices <i>yes</i> and <i>no</i>, that leads us all to a universal understanding of <i>Self</i>?<br /><br /><i>Freewill</i> is a tool for use by the mind, yet the <i>mind</i> is itself a tool for the <i>Self</i> or <i>Ego</i>. Yet neither of these attributes may be a requirement for <i>I Consciousness</i>. In other words, <i>Consciousness</i> exists independant and as witness only - to perceptions and subject and object, cause and effect, and the <i>Self</i>?<br /><br />If hypersets can help to prove the existence of <i>Freewill</i> or indeed a superior <i>Consciousness</i> itself, then bring it on. A mathematical probabilistically proof in support of these phenomena would be most welcome!<br /><br /><i>Your nature is the consciousness, in which the whole world wells up, like waves in the sea. That is what you are, without any doubt, so be free of disturbance. 15.7 <br />http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Ashtavakra_Gita</i>CygnusX1https://www.blogger.com/profile/07608203622094852139noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11168555.post-24525070609428097072009-06-20T18:28:27.852-04:002009-06-20T18:28:27.852-04:00I do not fully understand your use of mathematics ...I do not fully understand your use of mathematics and hypersets yet...<br /><br />when you say.. <i>Consciousness is consciousness of consciousness</i><br /><br />does this not stand as a valid truth in itself? <i>Consciousness of consciousness</i> as you say, or to put it another way <i>Awareness of concsciousness</i>, or indeed <i>I Consciousness</i> itself must stand in witness of <i>Consciousness</i> for it to be real - or appear to be real?<br /><br />Therefore this would imply the existence of a superior or higher <i>Consciousness</i> of which we are merely subsets or derivatives. The <i>I consciousness</i> cannot exist without this?<br /><br />This higher collective consciousness is indeed a strong belief in <i>Buddhism</i>, (where it may be termed <i>mind</i> ?), or prior to even this within the beliefs of <i>Hinduism</i>, most notably <i>Advaita Vedanta</i>, (pure non-dualism). Both these beliefs may be termed atheistic, yet may not in fact exclude a superior collective consciousness as <i>Brahman</i> or the creator.<br /><br />As I understand within these beliefs, both hold to the understanding that the <i>effect</i> is both within and essential to its <i>cause</i>. Certainly within our forward perceptions of movement and the measurement of this rate of change in motion, (time), an <i>effect</i> always appears to follow its <i>cause</i>. Yet of what use is a <i>cause</i> without its <i>effect</i>? The reliance of <i>effect upon cause</i>, and <i>cause upon effect</i> may be mutual. Most certainly if there were a reversal of motion, of time, the hierarchy of <i>cause</i> to <i>effect</i> would be reversed. Just a matter of mathematical polarities?<br /><br />Similarly, God or <i>Brahman</i> exists both within and without, and like the mystical <i>Tao</i> exists both within and without the jar, both inside us and without. In <i>Pantheism</i> also, God or superior or higher <i>Consciousness</i> may indeed exist both as a subset within a subset, or hyperset?<br /><br />you say..<br /><br /><i>In other words: Being conscious of a pig, means having in one's mind declarative knowledge of the form that one's consciousness of that pig is correlated with that pig being a pattern in one's overall mind-state.</i><br /><br />This notion, if I understand you correct, appears to be similar to that understood and postulated by the philosophical <i>empiricists</i> of whom stood in defiance of pure <i>objectivity</i>. Such as, the pig cannot be understood or recognised as a pig without first experience and witness of the pig.<br />The idea of a pig cannot be known <i>a-priori</i> in other words?CygnusX1https://www.blogger.com/profile/07608203622094852139noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11168555.post-67099289652224710102008-02-21T12:28:00.000-05:002008-02-21T12:28:00.000-05:00Wow, great post. I am new to this blog and your wo...Wow, great post. I am new to this blog and your work, so if I am going over old ground, I apologize. <BR/><BR/>So, it seems that in an internalists language, you are equating the manifestation of a humonculous as a hyperset and are embracing rather than fighting the recursion issues. Am I on the right track?<BR/><BR/>Further in your discussion on will, it seems like you stop the recursion practically at the moment of measurement (a la quantuum physics) and collapse all potential UODs to one at the moment of decision. Cool. Don't you end with huge resource contention issues, though?Terryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17209918740634872848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11168555.post-83720378946083519342008-02-20T15:58:00.000-05:002008-02-20T15:58:00.000-05:00Hi Ben.Many thanks for such an interesting blog po...Hi Ben.<BR/><BR/>Many thanks for such an interesting blog post. I have just written about Hypersets and the Semantic Web on my blog post titled "<A HREF="http://vanirsystems.com/danielsblog/2008/02/20/semantics-and-hypersets/" REL="nofollow">Semantics and Hyperdata</A>".<BR/><BR/>If what you suggest logically makes sense, then we could technically define Consciousness in OWL/RDF.<BR/><BR/>Any thoughts?<BR/><BR/>Daniel.Daniel Lewishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07817247382843474860noreply@blogger.com