+ Reply to Thread
Page 58 of 58 FirstFirst ... 8 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58
Results 571 to 576 of 576

Thread: Interesting Sites

  1. #571
    jlockest is offline Expert Twelever Sapphire jlockest is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,661

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hayward View Post
    ...but what Plato hadn't catered for in his Theory of Forms was the effect of being 'n' layers down - so your reality is a shadow (fine), but also the thing casting the shadow is a shadow in its own right...

  2. #572
    hayward's Avatar
    hayward is offline Good Twelever Aquamarine hayward is an unknown quantity at this point
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    934

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jlockest View Post
    ...but what Plato hadn't catered for in his Theory of Forms was the effect of being 'n' layers down - so your reality is a shadow (fine), but also the thing casting the shadow is a shadow in its own right...
    There could be shadows casting shadows upon shadows but it wouldn't really effect the general premise of Plato's idea- that there is a "point zero" source (The Good as he calls it) and an impending reality within the cause of that source.

    We could then get into how Plato's allegory really seems to be an argument for a Causal Principle with his Theory of Forms being about the existence of archetypes (the general immaterial states of form- 'essential' / we often erroneously refer to as 'platonic') in advance of their designation (and our understanding of them) into material form; while they, themselves, descend or emerge from the "One".

  3. #573
    jlockest is offline Expert Twelever Sapphire jlockest is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,661

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hayward View Post
    There could be shadows casting shadows upon shadows but it wouldn't really effect the general premise of Plato's idea- that there is a "point zero" source (The Good as he calls it) and an impending reality within the cause of that source.

    We could then get into how Plato's allegory really seems to be an argument for a Causal Principle with his Theory of Forms being about the existence of archetypes (the general immaterial states of form- 'essential' / we often erroneously refer to as 'platonic') in advance of their designation (and our understanding of them) into material form; while they, themselves, descend or emerge from the "One".
    I think you're missing the point again H. IMHO Plato was saying that our forms are a poor 'imitation' of the original form - and like 'sacred geometry', he was saying that our forms were a view, an aspect, of the single point.
    BUT what I'm saying is that it doesn't have to be anything of the sort - we could all be in a VR created by a snotty nosed 4,000 year old school kid with 24 eyes and 8 arms and a brain in his bum, and this reality is then a reflection of that entity's imagination - but even worse - that entity may be the product of the imagination of an entity that doesn't have physical form at all and that entity....so which of the realities is then a reflection of the mind of G_d? All? None?

  4. #574
    hayward's Avatar
    hayward is offline Good Twelever Aquamarine hayward is an unknown quantity at this point
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    934

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jlockest View Post
    I think you're missing the point again H. IMHO Plato was saying that our forms are a poor 'imitation' of the original form - and like 'sacred geometry', he was saying that our forms were a view, an aspect, of the single point.
    BUT what I'm saying is that it doesn't have to be anything of the sort - we could all be in a VR created by a snotty nosed 4,000 year old school kid with 24 eyes and 8 arms and a brain in his bum, and this reality is then a reflection of that entity's imagination - but even worse - that entity may be the product of the imagination of an entity that doesn't have physical form at all and that entity....so which of the realities is then a reflection of the mind of G_d? All? None?
    I'm not missing your point J, I get your idea. But even if we were living in the snotty-nosed -kid's version of reality, based on the Causal Principle of Plato's allegory, we would find each version to be descending in order, under the umbrella of singularity or 'unity'. So one reality would be from the mind of the snotty-nosed kid, which would exist in the imagination of the entity without physical form, etc., which would all exist within the mind of G_d.

  5. #575
    jlockest is offline Expert Twelever Sapphire jlockest is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,661

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hayward View Post
    I'm not missing your point J, I get your idea. But even if we were living in the snotty-nosed -kid's version of reality, based on the Causal Principle of Plato's allegory, we would find each version to be descending in order, under the umbrella of singularity or 'unity'. So one reality would be from the mind of the snotty-nosed kid, which would exist in the imagination of the entity without physical form, etc., which would all exist within the mind of G_d.
    I'm not certain that follows. In my own imagination and in that of what would appear to be all of humanity, things can exist that have no substance in this reality. They are not shadows of things that 'are' but of things that may be. So, Tolkien's Orcs aren't 'real', but I could populate VR with Orcs as the world is populated by humans - and then those Orcs may have imaginations that create other 'quackquackquackquackquackquackquackquack' creatures that have no bearing to their reality.
    There is no hierarchy - a VR could be Westworld - and in Westworld they create a mediaeval setting and in the medieval setting someone dreams up space exploration - so in order which came first? A VR could leap to any point - no sequence - the only limit being the imagination of that reality's creator.
    I'm then not certain either, that something in the mind of a created thing has to exist as a thing in the mind of the creator. What I think I mean by that is, man will soon develop AI. Man will create things that use AI - but that intelligence may then go off at a tangent to man's - does that mean that man planned the AI to do that or was even aware that that was going to occur?
    I agree that ALL the creations would still exist in the mind of G_d, but I don't see you get any closer to G_d by stepping back through the creations in time order. The shadows don't reflect the mind of G_d, just of the creator of that reality.

  6. #576
    hayward's Avatar
    hayward is offline Good Twelever Aquamarine hayward is an unknown quantity at this point
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    934

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jlockest View Post
    I'm not certain that follows. In my own imagination and in that of what would appear to be all of humanity, things can exist that have no substance in this reality. They are not shadows of things that 'are' but of things that may be. So, Tolkien's Orcs aren't 'real', but I could populate VR with Orcs as the world is populated by humans - and then those Orcs may have imaginations that create other 'quackquackquackquackquackquackquackquack' creatures that have no bearing to their reality.
    There is no hierarchy - a VR could be Westworld - and in Westworld they create a mediaeval setting and in the medieval setting someone dreams up space exploration - so in order which came first? A VR could leap to any point - no sequence - the only limit being the imagination of that reality's creator.
    I'm then not certain either, that something in the mind of a created thing has to exist as a thing in the mind of the creator. What I think I mean by that is, man will soon develop AI. Man will create things that use AI - but that intelligence may then go off at a tangent to man's - does that mean that man planned the AI to do that or was even aware that that was going to occur?
    I agree that ALL the creations would still exist in the mind of G_d, but I don't see you get any closer to G_d by stepping back through the creations in time order. The shadows don't reflect the mind of G_d, just of the creator of that reality.
    If I'm following you correctly, then I think the question is: does what occurs in the imagination of the created (or imagined) have to be credited to an act taking place within the imagination of the creator as well? I would think not. Perhaps the thing imagined into VR has been thought up to engage autonomously with its own degree of imagination or awareness, such as will be the case when we design a successful version of AI? Therefore, what might result as an effect of its own behavior will no longer be the direct result of our doing, but only indirectly by our instance of designing it. However, quite possibly, there will hallmarks of our own nature imprinted onto the nature of that AI.

    Interestingly though, since AI will be modeled off of our forms of behavior and awareness, as a result it seems we will inadvertently come into closer contact with identifying those things which comprise our own consciousness. In other words, getting to know ourselves better by understanding how another being we replicated emerges. For example, right now the leading scientists in the field of cognitive evolution have come out of the field of robotics; since theirs is the field which directly benefits from its study. The question for me is: isn't there a way we might benefit directly from such reflection? Anyway, AI will initially be a shadow of human consciousness. But after time, might AI develop and evolve autonomously? If successful, I would think yes.

    Does this mean that there would then be a hierarchy between minds? Not at all. Consciousness is consciousness. Whether it comes out of the mind of the creator or the mind of the imagined, why should one be placed before the other, right?

    But then, might we then consider that AI has become somewhat closer to our state of mind since we at that point would both be able to share in the general experience of consciousness? Maybe? If so, shouldn't this also mean we might also be more closely involved with the state of mind of our "creator" if we are able to share in the experience of consciousness?

    I think the problem with Plato's model is that it accounts for a structure of things in a linear fashion, but it doesn't really account for a non-linear model. Or does it?

+ Reply to Thread
Page 58 of 58 FirstFirst ... 8 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts