2500 years ago, my “Socrates” form said: “Know yourself”.
My “Socrates” form applied to my other human forms.
Now, I’m aware that this sentence applies to myself as a whole;
I can’t say “I’m the universe aware of itself” because that would confirm the classical distinction between the observer and the observed thing; not only quantum reality infirms this vision, but the pure following observations: I’m aware of myself and my “Laurent Dubois’s” form says now: “I’m the part of myself aware of itself in his “Laurent Dubois’s” form, and I’m aware of myself as a whole”.
But if I’m aware of myself as a whole, I can’t say: “I’m “the” whole” (universe, god, nature, reality… any term that other parts of myself want to choose; the use of these terms is justified by the will to be understood by other parts of myself, and by some historical habits (my some historical habits) only) because that would imply a schizophrenic distinction between myself as L.D. and myself as a whole; hmmm, to be honest, I must admit that all this is in a sense schizophrenic: any consciousness is schizophrenic.
My “Rimbaud” form said: “”I” is something else” (“”Je” est un autre”).
To help to grasp, consider this: you are the only existing entity; what are you? The universe, the whole reality!
But if the previous assertions seem to be schizophrenic, they are in fact the most coherent and deep thoughts; they are the fruit of a conceptual qualitative jump…; maybe my other forms will consider this view insane, but then, they consider themselves insane: the vision is so coherent that no contradiction, incoherence is possible, is fundamentally possible; all critics coming from other parts of myself become auto critics, though…
… THOUGH, I must admit I can’t know really myself; the reason is extremely easy to understand: “I CAN’T MEASURE MYSELF; NO EXTERNAL POINT OF VIEW ON MYSELF IS POSSIBLE”
The notions of space and time make sense relatively to my different parts, but no time- or space-measure makes sense to me as the whole (besides the “2500 years ago of the introduction refers to a scale relative to)
…to be auto-continued!
My new formulation is not a verbal game, a simple rhetorical prowess;
My mode of formulation constitutes a break with the classical dichotomous mode of formulation of my human forms which makes a fundamental, intrinsic distinction between myself as particular observer/aware entity and myself as reality/world/nature.
This constitutes a progress in the mode of formulation of my/our (majestative “our”) perception and comprehension of the world/reality//nature by my particular human forms since it allows to integrate all my previous knowledge and formulations and to develop new ones.
This is a conceptual qualitative jump in my last in date stratum, the stratum of the consciousness.
From a practical, pragmatic point of view, this new formulation is psychologically not obvious for you/me, my others manifestations, but that would be a rather encouraging argument for its relevance; a real new perspective needs time to be accepted and assimilated. The irony is that I (you, my other forms) need time to accept and assimilate something, i.e. me, that I created myself!
Another encouraging argument: the logical principle of my new formulation is extremely easy to grasp, but it allows really vertiginous new perspectives: simple principles, countless number of inferences and consequences.
Higher-order solipsism compared to the classical naïve solipsism.
Translation in the classical formulation
This new formulation is not a verbal game, a simple rhetorical prowess; This mode of formulation constitutes a break with the classical dichotomous mode of human formulation which makes a fundamental, intrinsic distinction between the observer/aware entity and the reality/world/nature. This constitutes a progress in the mode of formulation of our (general “our”) perception and comprehension of the world/reality//nature since it allows to integrate all the previous knowledge and formulations and to develop new ones This is a conceptual qualitative jump in the last in date stratum, the stratum of the consciousness.
From a practical, pragmatic point of view, this new formulation is psychologically not obvious but that would be a rather encouraging argument for its relevance; a real new perspective needs time to be accepted and assimilated. The irony is that the reality/world/nature needs time to accept and assimilate something, i.e. himself, that it created itself!
Another encouraging argument: the logical principle of this new formulation is extremely easy to grasp, but it allows really vertiginous new perspectives: simple principles, countless number of inferences and consequences.
Simultaneously oscillating/syncopated reality
My human brain’s form and my singular-global consciousness are the most complex and subtle known state/form for my human’s form consciousness; so, the real observation of the universe is not my “sky” form observation; my human consciousness form is myself in my global, “universal” form;
When my human brain’s form observes myself as a whole, that it regards as external with itself(what it calls universe, what it considers as the outer world), it in fact observes “IN” itself; so, in a sense, science and metaphysical interrogations are a big “psycho-analysis” 😉
The human brain and the consciousness are the most complex and subtle known state/form for a human consciousness; so, the real observation of the universe is not the “sky” observation; consciousness is the “universe”;
When a brain observes what it calls universe, what it considers as the outer world, it in fact observes “IN” itself; so, in a sense, science and metaphysical interrogations are a big “psycho-analysis” 😉
I A A I
I/Nature/Universe/Reality ‘m/is profoundly schizophrenic
Artificial: arte facere: made by man
We all perceive the artificial side of the term “artificial”
With the development of the scientific notion of evolution-development (Darwin, Lemaître, Prigogine…), “artificial” appears to be a “natural” step in the process of evolution, through the natural entity named “human being” who manipulates natural entities/components in a way that nature didn’t yet:
“didn’t yet”: of course, since “process” of evolution
“nature didn’t yet”: nature is doing it “now”
the confusion and the obligatory schizophrenic implication is obvious unless… I A
Unless I Am the nature now playing with my/himself
Other myself, consider this:
Egocentrism of the human creature who feels distinct from a “global” entity he names universe/nature/reality
Egocentrism of my human form who feels distinct from my global form he/I names universe/nature/reality
Since my human form is my most complex manifestation according to my perception of the real with the abilities and the subtlety of my human form, let’s say I am a great and facetious player
Schizophrenic implications of my abilities to “name” things and myself and to consider an infinite succession of “metalevels”;
I try to convince myself, the other human manifestations of myself, you, i.e. I, my friends, of the systematic coherence of this formulation
I say: A.I. is one of the ways I choose to express the power of the mind of my human form and to, maybe, improve my human brain, but the new kind of intelligence, “my” new kind of intelligence will emerge in a way I can’t suspect myself; if we/if I admit my theory of my own evolution with qualitative jumps, it is perfectly logical that that emerges on the background of my most elaborate form: my human brain form, and without the help of technologies, i.e. “per se”, as I always do in the elaboration of new strata in successive qualitative jumps
I AM A.I.
Here a synthetic view of the situation
(if not “non-being” before B.B., there is the alternative also absurd of eternity with or without “god”; infinite regression and quantum void/vacuum are variants of eternity or of nothingness, according to your preferences)
the less to the most complex stratum (each step in the evolution is a stratum) but the important term is “qualitative jump”, of course; and we have absolutely no idea on the nature of it!
Are the entire evolution and its qualitative jumps contained in an original qualitative jump or are there a series of random qualitative jumps all independents?
In the first case, each stratum is the consequence of a pre-programmed qualitative jump,
and we stay in the absolute determinism; in this hypothesis of an initial singularity, transcendental perspective, some infer the anthropic or the theological perspective which are “ad hoc” explanations, somewhere “naïve”
In the second branch of the alternative, the evolution could be totally different because of totally different qualitative jumps. This empirical perspective, based on immanence, seems to be the less absurd of the two, if the attribution of a degree to the absurdity makes sense!
all matter has not life, all life has not brain, all brain has not consciousness, all consciousness has not…
We can consider each step in the evolution of the universe as a stratum;
Each stratum is the product of a macro qualitative jump;
Each stratum has his specificities and includes the specificities of all the previous strata.
A qualitative jump has to be made from/on the background of the specificities of the last stratum in evolution at least, eventually including the specificities of the previous strata.
Each stratum can have its own micro qualitative jumps;
When I assess: “I’m the whole aware of itself as whole through my human L.D.’S form”, I make a micro qualitative jump
Given the fact that the human brain, belonging to the last in date stratum in the evolution (according to the point of view of this human brain), can even not explain at all yet the qualitative jumps “building” the previous strata, it seems perfectly logical that this human brain is totally unable to conceive the way the probable following qualitative jump will choose!
of course, imagination allows any conjecture but intelligence consists to choose the most rational way to reach an aim; so, someone now believing in the possibility for a human to fly as a bird (in a gravitational field, of course) without any kind of help would be totally stupid or a dreamer; so anything isn’t possible!
what the human brain can do now is reasoning ab absurdo: to improve significantly his own intelligence, his own capacities, the human brain has to extend or improve his own specific material, i.e. neurons, synapses, dendrites… To create an intrinsically better intelligence, the human brain has logically to use these components, the best available ones on the market, and not the specific components of the previous strata only; that would be as if one tried to create life, and, more, consciousness, with stones only! Eternity would not be sufficient, of course.
Now, there were a jump from inert matter to life in the process of evolution, but the human has no idea on the nature of this qualitative jump; some people attribute it to God; why not, but then we leave the field of rationality.
God is a question of faith, we can not use this concept to make rational assertions, to convince with logical arguments, but I agree to say that beyond a point in the reasoning, when you have in front of you the wall of nothingness, eternity and infinite regression, you must admit the limits of the power of the logical reasoning; personally, I’m an agnostic because I have absolutely no rational way to choose God or non-God, and I don’t have the need to “believe” in this concept.
This said, the consciousness of the limits of the rational reasoning don’t prevent us to reason
By using the expression “God’s horizon”, Carlos, you fall in the anthropomorphism; in all rigor, you would have to say: “the horizon of the inexpressible”, and to precise that “inexpressible” is not an attribute of a meta-qualitative entity, but your way to express the limits of the human capacities of rationalization; note this: if this “inexpressible” was a real “meta-qualitative entity”, the product of his own qualitative jump, that would confirm my point of view 😉
you say: “every border is qualitative”: right, this is the mathematical definition, but I don’t consider “qualitative” in a geometric/spatial acceptation, implying reversibility; I would define “qualitative” as a “divergent behavior” of the components of a stratum which allow the emergence of a new stratum; so, we have to include the notion of “time” and before all of “time’s arrow”; I’m aware of the circularity of this definition; I’ll try to be more precise in a next post
all the strata except the last in date are material;
a qualitative conceptual jump is necessary to leave the classical dichotomous formulation
micro qualitative jumps in each stratum
The Manifest is its own validation by the totally innovative character of the formulation
Physical implications of the MOM?
Which observations could confirm the theory?
But is this a theory?
What could assess that it’s a theory?
-Uni(ci)ty of the universe, so, a principle
-The qualitative jump will/is observed by our next form
-The existence of similar approaches like oriental philosophy and CTMU of Langan
anthropic perspective, God: “ad hoc” explanations, somewhere “naïve”
-Perfect logical coherence
-Extreme simplicity of the principles
-Auto-reversed-structure // reversed sphere but simultaneously (oscillating/syncopated reality)
outside is inside
-Strata and qualitative jumps describe perfectly the evolution process
-Universe look through itself, so, no way to know if it’s infinite or not
-Hypercube meta- beyond infra
-Cybernetics A.I. cognitive sciences
-new, evolutive/dynamic words would be necessary
statistical or evolutive or the two
Gödel incompleteness, Hawking infinite regression,
language: auto contradictory words: nothingness, absolute
static words: space, time…
create dynamic words seems impossible, so compensate with dynamic formulation
not a stem, but an infinite encyclopaedia
social, environmental field: when you kill or degrade something or someone, any entity, you change your integrity
universal respect without necessary god, just pure logical arguments
Manifesto of the Manifest
(rough copy of loose ideas)
Temporal Collision Conjecture
Time Travel, Logic and Speculation
Time Travel, Logic and Speculation II
Les consciences absolues
2003 ã All rights reserved, CHRONOSCOPE â