Guessedworker wrote:
James,
Just as a matter of interest - and imagination, of course - can you, from your holy man’s vantage point atop the mountain, parse a couple of possible elements, beside Time-Entropy, that engage to give Being.
This, of course, is a “relation” question rather than a “ground” question, and maybe you are a “ground” thinker, in which case forget it. Or, by way of an analogy, which is not an attack on the whole of Western civilisation, consider the combination of atmosphere and two other elements (an aerofoil wing and motive power) which give flight.
This comment appeared in entry 'The Ontology of Mind: The Gödelian Argument' on 09/02/10, 11:11 PM. (go to entry to post a reply)
Guessedworker wrote:
Grimoire,
I often find a lack of substance in your replies, but this was better:
the import of Godel’s theorem is that consciousness is superior to logic
I would insert instinct and experience for consciousness, over which hangs a large black cloud most times. And what follows is also relevant.
And mathematics are ultimately how we understand the cosmos and everything in it.
Ultimately is an interesting word, and your knowledge-definition in terms of matter and energy is also very interesting. There are, I believe, six definable disciplines by which men endeavour to know the nature of what is, and these are, in no particular order, science, mathematics, philosophy, metaphysics, religion, psychology. In our utilisation of these, logic is complemented by instinct and experience, and also by faith. Within their respective fields of action each is “ultimate”. One may not consider the fields equal, but the local superiority of the method is undeniable.
This, obviously, was the purport of my Nullabor analogy. I am not going to grace your portrayal of it as an attack on the whole of Western civilisation with a reply. It is tiresome, Grim, and you need to change tack. If you don’t understand the specificity or breadth of someone’s engagement, or if aspects of it seem to conflict with what you know yourself, don’t jump to argumentationally convenient conclusions. Ask instead.
This comment appeared in entry 'The Ontology of Mind: The Gödelian Argument' on 09/02/10, 10:37 PM. (go to entry to post a reply)
Guessedworker wrote:
Desmond,
What is the alternative to mate selection? Institutional Rapism?
This comment appeared in entry 'The Ontology of Mind: The Gödelian Argument' on 09/02/10, 09:59 PM. (go to entry to post a reply)
Desmond Jones wrote:
Now, if you want a real question along his lines, here it is: why are beatific states recorded among so many populations when no fitness gain appears to attach to them?
Mate-selection does indeed favour intelligence in males.
Well, knock me down with a feather. You’ve changed your view. Sexual selection it is. LOL
This comment appeared in entry 'The Ontology of Mind: The Gödelian Argument' on 09/02/10, 09:06 PM. (go to entry to post a reply)
Raymond Bradly wrote:
It’s just strange how Germany is treated like they were the only nation to ever have waged war. There is no problem when any other nation waves its flag, whether its England or any other once regular war-of-conquest waging nation.
This comment appeared in entry 'Jews: jewish hand-wringing at recent high' on 09/02/10, 09:02 PM. (go to entry to post a reply)
James Bowery wrote:
What if you cut the Gödelian knot?
BEING: I am.
TIME: What am I? I am nothing.
An ontology of mind founded on imaginary logic.
This comment appeared in entry 'The Ontology of Mind: The Gödelian Argument' on 09/02/10, 08:45 PM. (go to entry to post a reply)
Guessedworker wrote:
Notus,
How do you mean that logic can be used to relativise all these things?
This is one for Grim who has, as you know, already used Godel to selectively disqualify opinions other than his own.
I was under the impression that Dawkins and Dennett both supported this idea and even went so far as to say that agency was just a user illusion (i.e. there is no agency).
The word agency is chosen with care, and the word inspiritation with the same care. They are different words describing different propositions. They shouldn’t be mixed. It is certain that Dawkins and Dennet understand the necessity for the choice-element in evolution and are not referring to that when they make their case for mechanism, if that is what they do.
The reality - and I stress the word reality - of human agency may be that it has no more intensity than that of any organism possessing two cognitive systems ... a cat or dog, say. Or it may have more, Man being a three-system organism. How much does evolution require, that’s the point?
I have put forward the idea that the illusion of there being a conscious entity in the mind/body is created through an act of ascription which is itself evolved. In other words, the illusion of the conscious self offers the non-illusory fitness gain of amplifying personal interest.
non-mechanicity today and freeness tomorrow.
Can’t wait to see that one.
Logic and math only command the world of abstract landscapes into which true knowledge of our world must find its home. I would not be so presumptuous as to suggest that the requirements of these abstract landscapes are sufficient to necessitate the exquisiteness of life, far from it.
Quite so. It won’t change anything in the real landscape if logic and maths cannot accommodate our knowledge and experience of it. There is something preposterous but also sad, even faintly touching, in the never-say-die, don’t-know-your-own-limits endeavours of the thinking mind not just to reason, calculate, and model everything - that much is inevitable - but to hold everything to its own account, as if it presumes itself the sole arbiter of truth and worth rather than the life of which it is so small a part.
If its premises are true and its logic is sound then how could its conclusion not follow?
Yet Godel counters such ringing endorsement of “conclusions”, no?
Also for Desmond:
How, then, was an organ [the brain] developed so far beyond the needs of its possessor?
Here we are speaking only of the intellectual function. One could add the amplifications to the emotional function potentially consequent upon or, at least, subsequent to intellectual development (for example, the higher emotions pertaining to faith, conscience and altruism, which are associated with the pre-frontal cortex). But I think the question is a stand-alone one about intellect, really. And then what level of intellect? Are we saying that the intellectual function of an average Sub-Saharan African is “developed so far beyond the needs of the organism”? Surely not. We are really only talking about high intellect, aren’t we?
And now we run into group selection issues, because the presence of intellectual creativity among cold-climate populations is adaptive for the whole group. So development “so far beyond the needs of the organism” is always true at the individual level, but not at the group level. “Creative IQ” in the group is perquisite to cold-climate survival. And what do we find? Mate-selection does indeed favour intelligence in males.
Was Wallace simply unaware of group selection?
Now, if you want a real question along his lines, here it is: why are beatific states recorded among so many populations when no fitness gain appears to attach to them?
This comment appeared in entry 'The Ontology of Mind: The Gödelian Argument' on 09/02/10, 08:14 PM. (go to entry to post a reply)
PF wrote:
Leon wrote:
and then be sure to pay for something else (as conservative as possible) and sneak into the Machete theater.
LOL Leon! Sweet idea. I never realized it but once you get past the teenage kid who takes the ticket, you can see whatever movie you want!! Amazing!! The only problem is that they might have different start times…
This comment appeared in entry 'Machete Ex Machina' on 09/02/10, 06:32 PM. (go to entry to post a reply)
PF wrote:
Notus wrote:
Allow me to revise what I said earlier, in order to bundle together separate Turing machines into a single Turing machine there has to be a mechanistic order of some kind that coordinates their activity. From a neuroscience perspective I would imagine that this order is biochemical, which most academics (neuroscientists included) casually assume to be mechanistic because classical dynamics is believed to be mechanistic.
Its fascinating to me that the Turing machine is that wieldable as an analytical device. I knew it must have had some special meaning because otherwise it wouldnt occupy such a high place in theory.
I really lack the mind that can oversee the various angles of this discussion and synthesize them into a comment. All I have is some knowledge of neural systems, and an intuitive feeling for what GW has written above - in my imaginary universe, the ‘should-be’ conclusions drawn by the logical order of things are always overturned by a deeper inquiry.
I wonder if the Platonic structures of reality which you allude to above, actually obtain outside our own analyses of reality, and I wonder the extent to which they may be artifacts introduced by our own perception of things. Nietzsche has pointed out for example that numbers don’t actually exist anywhere in the world. What do you think of that Notus?
This comment appeared in entry 'The Ontology of Mind: The Gödelian Argument' on 09/02/10, 06:28 PM. (go to entry to post a reply)
John wrote:
“Protest is good.
But putting the film on Pirate Bay is even better.
Hit them in the pockets.
Pirate the film, put it on the torrents and ensure that it doesnt make a profit.
Thats the real revolution Hollywood fears. ”
With this film, as Hollywood has a gargantuan socio-political engineering budget and makes many films with a political prescriptionist message that won’t hurt them a bit. They would probably even make more from IP prosecutions than if the downloaders had bought the film.
This comment appeared in entry 'Machete Ex Machina' on 09/02/10, 03:30 PM. (go to entry to post a reply)
Notus Wind wrote:
PF,
Allow me to revise what I said earlier, in order to bundle together separate Turing machines into a single Turing machine there has to be a mechanistic order of some kind that coordinates their activity. From a neuroscience perspective I would imagine that this order is biochemical, which most academics (neuroscientists included) casually assume to be mechanistic because classical dynamics is believed to be mechanistic.
This comment appeared in entry 'The Ontology of Mind: The Gödelian Argument' on 09/02/10, 02:42 PM. (go to entry to post a reply)
Notus Wind wrote:
Grimoire,
Thank you for giving such an impassioned defense of these ideas to Leon. I didn’t have the energy to do so yesterday because at the time of his comment I was still busily revising the main entry (for the hundredth time it seemed).
GW,
I can’t answer because I don’t know it.
I don’t mean to intrude but I think Desmond is referring to one of the many questions that Alfred Wallace posed in the article that I linked to earlier in our conversation. Specifically, he got into this thread through the following question of Wallace: “How, then, was an organ [the brain] developed so far beyond the needs of its possessor?”
This comment appeared in entry 'The Ontology of Mind: The Gödelian Argument' on 09/02/10, 02:31 PM. (go to entry to post a reply)
Notus Wind wrote:
Leon,
I just thought I’d make you aware that Grimoire had quite the response to you over at my ontology thread.
I’m considering three overlapping avenues: returning to grad school to do the doctorate...trying to get into talk radio...laying the groundwork for an American nationalist...organization.
Wow, you seem like a man with diverse talents! I hope you make the right decision.
Although I am in great physical condition, for some reason I don’t have the constitution to deal with quite as many people in my everyday life as yourself. Aside from close friends, family, and colleagues I was born a recluse and an academic; the fact that I have to leave my cave and attend professional meetings (every now and then) continues to irritate me. Unfortunately, I didn’t realize this path as soon as I should have because of my practical and antitheoretical Anglo-American upbringing. But I discovered that it’s never too late to make the right decision.
This comment appeared in entry 'If at first you don't succeed' on 09/02/10, 02:22 PM. (go to entry to post a reply)
Buzz Killer wrote:
Protest is good.
But putting the film on Pirate Bay is even better.
Hit them in the pockets.
Pirate the film, put it on the torrents and ensure that it doesnt make a profit.
Thats the real revolution Hollywood fears.
This comment appeared in entry 'Machete Ex Machina' on 09/02/10, 02:13 PM. (go to entry to post a reply)
Leon Haller wrote:
Grimoire,
I am honored that you should have directed such a lengthy and sophisticated comment to me. Whether I merit such attention has not been established.
I do not have time until the weekend to do justice to you in a response, even assuming I can fully understand the substance of either your comment or the original post of Notus Wind, about neither of which am I optimistic. I hope this thread lasts that long.
The following paragraph of mine comes from another recent thread; it seems to be somewhat in part in the spirit of your argument:
[BTW, Randy, although I am perfectly willing to venture into sociobiological discussions of racial phenomena where important and appropriate, I am frankly more interested in the political struggle (and its moral justifications) actually to save our race - because it is primarily past political choices which have imperiled our race - than I am in rarefied, scientific and overly impersonal explanations for our plight. If you are interested in learning more about the issues pertaining to white survival I feel it incumbent to warn you against falling into the Darwinian theory ‘abyss’, in which humans are seen to be mere gene replicators, or some such nonsense, stripped of all their agency and capacity for moral choice. Our race is being herded into extinction as a result of perfectly conscious, deliberate acts of racial/legal aggression and attendant false-justificatory propaganda. What we need to do is uncover and disprove that propaganda, and then change our politics and laws from white race-destroying to race-affirming. Whether it is necessary or useful to translate our clear moral and political agenda into obscurantist, scientistic terminology is a matter I leave for the volkisch community to determine, though my stance is public and unwavering.]
This comment appeared in entry 'The Ontology of Mind: The Gödelian Argument' on 09/02/10, 02:04 PM. (go to entry to post a reply)
GoyAmongYou wrote:
Posted by Graham_Lister on July 22, 2010, 08:17 PM | #
Arab guilty of rape after consensual sex with Jew
LOL
Ladies und Gentile-männer of the Jury,
I was brain-molested by the media run by a bunch of Jews!
They pretended to be just like me; I’m a victim your Honour.Gosh, I wish I could get away with stuff like that =p
This comment appeared in entry 'I nose who you are' on 09/02/10, 02:01 PM. (go to entry to post a reply)
Thorn wrote:
.“Then a certain Eternal Grad Student rushed in, per the dictates of his personality, hot-headed and unfunny - the Scrooby of the ontological discussion world.”
I’m not dumping on him. In the immortal words of Tupac, I’ve got nothing but love for him. Everybody here has a personality and that is Scroob’s personality. I think he can take it.
Briefly:
Hot-headed? No doubt, but under the circumstances anyone who doesn’t get a bit hot-headed when discussing the ongoing genocide of the white-race isn’t normal.
Unfunny? One thing for sure is Scrooby is NOT—repeat NOT—unfunny.
This comment appeared in entry 'The Ontology of Mind: The Gödelian Argument' on 09/02/10, 01:56 PM. (go to entry to post a reply)
Leon Haller wrote:
Reginald, Randy, one,
I completely support white racial/political separatism. I also totally support any measure that will increase white birthrates. Randy is obviously correct that these objectives are not mutually exclusive.
I recognize the non-existence of the white ethny. duh. I was simply responding to Randy’s query about why WNs view miscegenation with greater revulsion than white non-reproduction.
This comment appeared in entry 'If at first you don't succeed' on 09/02/10, 01:52 PM. (go to entry to post a reply)
Al Birah wrote:
The only race that spread around entire world. I never saw any white Jews.
This comment appeared in entry 'Are Jews White?' on 09/02/10, 01:42 PM. (go to entry to post a reply)
Leon Haller wrote:
Gudmund,
Thanks for the encouragement. My occasional fits of pique are really directed at myself. I’ve made many mistakes in how I have conducted my professional life, though it was never clear that they were such at the relevant times. The macro-mistake was getting comfortable in where I was at, and just drifting - which, with the passage of years, I’ve come to judge as a dereliction of my racial duties, as, whether you or anyone else will credit me or not, I understood the essence of our people’s plight long before the advent of the internet, whose knowledge sharing and exfoliating aspect has immeasurably increased the sum of racial awareness among our people (this, however, returns me to a deep fear I’ve implicitly expressed in other threads, in which you, too, have been a participant: viz, that we may be reaching our upper limit of converts at our present state of knowledge or polemical persuasiveness; that is, that most persons whose innate psyches predispose them to perceive racial truths easily may have been reached, given the ease of knowledge acquisition through the web ... how I remember nearly two decades ago making a special trip to UCLA’s library to get help in finding the mail address of the little racialist magazine, Instauration - which I never would have heard of if William F. Buckley, Jr., in his Zionistic attack on the alleged anti-Semitism of conservative writer Joe Sobran, hadn’t mentioned Joe’s earlier faint praise of it ...).
I’m now in the process (as I mentioned in passing in an earlier comment on this thread) of deciding whether I shouldn’t transition to a fulltime activist life. By that I mean, I’m considering three overlapping avenues: returning to grad school to do the doctorate some of my college profs had encouraged me to do long ago, which would then give me serious standing to publish in both academic journals of the Right, such as there are, as well as learned periodicals; trying to get into talk radio (with a friend - we’re both pretty funny and passionate and knowledgeable and unintimidated - with good voices and demeanors, we’ve both been told independently by media producers); laying the groundwork for an American nationalist (not WN - that can come in future decades, when our people are more receptive) political activist and social networking organization.
Or I can take a new business job I’m mulling, which would increase my working hours, and money, and then confine my WN contributions to comments as I do here.
If I stay in biz, it’s goodbye serious WN advancement, permanently (until I retire). The dilemma is that I have the personal and intellectual qualities, I think, really to contribute to our cause in a big way,if I so choose. I’m not some socially inept WPower retread, without good credentials, skills or contacts. I think I could equal most of the big name conservative radio guys, while offering a format calculated to drive listeners still further to the Right - not because I’m special, but simply because the big shots aren’t that bright, or even all that entertaining, with the exception of Michael Savage. (Why is Glenn Beck big? Why??! Not funny, not original, not bright, not learned, nothing but “right place and time"). And my idea for a nationalist org, which I came up with 15 damn years ago, but did nothing towards, could catch on (esp if I could combine its theme with radio, as I have already thought out).
Anyway, thanks again for your comment.
This comment appeared in entry 'If at first you don't succeed' on 09/02/10, 01:39 PM. (go to entry to post a reply)
danielj wrote:
It is not for nothing the Church set an anathema against Galileo., his work upended and demolished the human paradigm for living existent for a millennia
Not really.
They did it because Galileo was a real asshole.
This comment appeared in entry 'The Ontology of Mind: The Gödelian Argument' on 09/02/10, 12:48 PM. (go to entry to post a reply)
danielj wrote:
Daniel, are you sure you want to join in and dump on Scrooby?
I’m not dumping on him. In the immortal words of Tupac, I’ve got nothing but love for him. Everybody here has a personality and that is Scroob’s personality. I think he can take it.
I ain’t sensitive and I’m not going to be sensitive to anybody else’s sensitivities.
This comment appeared in entry 'The Ontology of Mind: The Gödelian Argument' on 09/02/10, 12:45 PM. (go to entry to post a reply)
qwery wrote:
That was nicely put, Notus. I’d suggest reading Krylov’s “The Cat and the Cook”, as mentioned to PF before. The old fabulist will tell all.
Have you posted before as “asdf”?
This comment appeared in entry 'The Ontology of Mind: The Gödelian Argument' on 09/02/10, 12:43 PM. (go to entry to post a reply)
Mark Dawson wrote:
I agree with Englander.
the anti white chosenite brigade of hollywood have done it again. as with inglorious basterds, its the hero’s that look savage and scary.
ill be cheering for the bad guys!
This comment appeared in entry 'Machete Ex Machina' on 09/02/10, 10:49 AM. (go to entry to post a reply)
Leon Haller wrote:
The great mass of people have interests contrary to theirs and if they could but be made aware of this fact, their awakening would endow a pro-White movement with untold strength. Our largest problem is people like the conservatives in America and their equivalents in Europe who divert the energy of large numbers of disaffected Whites into the causes of impotent controlled opposition (i.e., Tea Party in America, ‘culturist’ rather than racialist nationalism in Europe, etc). Since we lack the ability (funds, ‘legitimacy’, etc) to organize on a mass-scale like they can, GT and Maguire’s idea of from-the-bottom-up political organization is the only approach which makes sense. (Gudmund)
I don’t disagree. But I stand my ground. Whites as a race are simply more ethical than other races, and this translates into greater concern for the ‘feelings’ of others, as well as greater vulnerability to race-based guilt-mongering. Even many whites who agree with us (that importing diversity is undesirable) are ashamed of their feelings, and certainly think it immoral for us to organize to advance our EGI, even if the cost is national suicide. Hence my oft-stated belief in the vital importance of establishing the morality of WN, which for me in the American context, means reconciling WN with Christianity.
This comment appeared in entry 'None dare call it White genocide' on 09/02/10, 10:35 AM. (go to entry to post a reply)
Leon Haller wrote:
It is murder in that the driving force is Jewish and most non-Jews disapprove of what’s going on. You know more about that than most people. Still, I suppose you don’t like the idea of expelling Jews. And you keep insisting that part of the problem is our collective deathwish. Talking like that makes you a suicidal accessory to the Jews. It is suicidal to accept the suicidal thesis. In your place, I think the Japanese would have no qualms expelling the Jews. That is because they have no collective deathwish.
More seriously, I don’t think you are suicidal at all. I think you want to be respectable, avoid any harshness to the poor Jews, and avoid too much blame to yourself. In fact, you are the same as everyone else. Other people are not suicidal either. (Armor)
________________________________________
I’m not altogether sure of what your criticisms are of me from the above, except that I am too soft on Jews. The latter may be true, as I am influenced by my having a large number of Jewish friends, including many racial conservatives among them (I also have a large number of anti-Semite friends). On the other hand, if you read everything I write, I’m pretty blunt (including with the aforesaid Jewish friends) about the damage Jews have done to the US and the West. But unlike the majority here, I do hold out the possibility that more Jews could be converted to Occidentalism, especially as the overall racial situation continues to deteriorate. Jews may aggress against white EGI, but non-whites have no love for Jews at all. I sense the possibility of a mutually beneficial alliance.
As for the suicidal stuff, you are sadly wrong (believe me, I wish it were otherwise). Maybe “suicide” is too strong, too intentional. But “apathetic” is on the mark. I know at least three things. In 2000 white Americans could have voted for Pat Buchanan, but didn’t. OK, too little info, desire to beat Gore, whatever. But in 2002 (I think), the French had the chance to vote for LePen. THERE WAS ABSOLUTELY NO EXCUSE NOT TO. Less than a fifth of the electorate did so, despite the clear evidence of France being colonized by savages. How can you explain that? Murder? “Cannibalism”? Nonsense!!
The French majority felt that accepting mass l’immigration sauvage was better than voting pour le raciste. I call that suicide (ditto the non-BNP vote this year in UK).
You, and those WNs in agreement with you, just can’t deal with the fact that our race has degenerated into one basically of morons and lickspittles; in a word, losers. I’m trying to preserve our blood purity and territorial sovereignty in the hope that, centuries hence, our race will have sloughed off the snakeskin of liberalism, and returned to its ancient greatness. But we need to survive this period of degeneracy if that is ever going to happen.
Oh, and I am respectable - and WN will only succeed when its public face likewise becomes respectable. We tried the skinhead approach in the past. For all the tough guy rants, it failed.
This comment appeared in entry 'None dare call it White genocide' on 09/02/10, 10:27 AM. (go to entry to post a reply)
Leon Haller wrote:
Posted by heartfelt on August 28, 2010, 04:15 PM | #
I’m with Leon @ August 26, 2010, 07:01 PM, on doing rather than theorising. On the issue of political organisation, revolution, and liberation war, I think Whites need to look into their soul and ask themselves, would you be willing to organise and mobilise as a people and if forced to do so commit extreme actions in defence of your family, your people, your country? Are you man enough and clear-eyed enough to overcome the intellectual and moral qualms about standing up in the real world? For White people, this is all it comes down to!!! That’s it. We are not in a difficult dilemma here, folks. Once you accept the moral necessity of revolution and its attendant behaviours, then the process simply becomes a question of, How? Where? When?
__________________________________
Sorry I missed this. So many threads, I lose track of where I am.
I definitely agree on the ‘primacy of the practical’, which is not said to disparage the more intellectual among us. My ‘practical’ understanding is perhaps more evolutionary than heartfelt’s revolutionary attitude, however. I suspect there almost certainly will come a time when some white men, somewhere, will have to fight for racial survival (and I’m not talking about merely those in an American prison). But before we reach that point, both of desperation as well as supreme possibility, all of us in our various capacities will have had to have done a lot of groundwork, at least if something broadly racially constructive can be expected to issue from such struggle.
What I’ve suggested in recent weeks re: “WN emigration/conquest” is an example of this. It’s very easy to get overly enthusiastic when one is sounding off amongst his kameraden in cyber-beerhalls like MR. But later one awakens, the music is silent, and the dawn is grey. At that point one has to think of the gritty details of implementing one’s proposals. Thus, for example, my emphasis on language familiarity when considering WN emigration. Because with language familiarity come much greater professional opportunities - and that tethering of our race-survivalist strategies to the ordinary business of life is what will turn idealistic aspirations into real, if always somewhat messier than planned, achievements.
This comment appeared in entry 'None dare call it White genocide' on 09/02/10, 09:58 AM. (go to entry to post a reply)
Leon Haller wrote:
A small suggestion to American viewers. You should see this movie, just to ramp up your anger at Hollywood and the PC regime generally. But try to see it at a multiplex, and then be sure to pay for something else (as conservative as possible) and sneak into the Machete theater.
I viewed Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ once, but by ticket stubb I probably saw it 10 or 11 times ... Always view your dollars as cultural votes.
This comment appeared in entry 'Machete Ex Machina' on 09/02/10, 09:09 AM. (go to entry to post a reply)
Guessedworker wrote:
Desmond,
You won’t answer it, Wallace’s question, because you can’t.
I can’t answer because I don’t know it.
This comment appeared in entry 'The Ontology of Mind: The Gödelian Argument' on 09/02/10, 08:19 AM. (go to entry to post a reply)
Grimoire wrote:
GuessedWorker:
Your analogy regarding Godel, etc. and Nullabor has no bearing or pertinence to your following propositions.
What you term ‘Aboriginal Understanding’ is as inapt and unconnected as you could possibly make it. What you term ‘Aboriginal Understanding” is the sum of knowledge of ourselves and the Cosmos in direct line from the first Western World civilization, - the ‘Hellene’ , and all that followed, to today and the future, should Western Civilization continues to exist.Although you may not like it, - it is unfortunate you do not begin to understand that the imagined contradiction between “applications of tools for thought models and technology’” and “ life and living well” only exists in the perplexed and confused mind.
As for Godel, and my reliance on him. Godel’s model is only one pertinent area of finding among many consistent findings both mathematically and logically true.. Godels theorem has been verified. sanctioned and is a paradigm. Furthermore his model is consistent and confirmation with what Western man has always thought, in contrast to those who claim a model where human is a machine, and all thought outside of this wrong, etc. a sorry panoply which explains fully the present state we are in....a society facing extinction As to the irrelevance to ‘applications of tools for thought models and technology”, you do yourself disservice here. Godel, and the school of thought from which he contributes and springs - are the architects of all modern technology and cosmology.
Godel is not a academy philosopher, but a physicist, mathematician and logician. Godels work was taken up by likewise physicists and logicians.... in contrast to tabloids and media of certain other ‘great’ thinkers.... who contribute little but materialist syllogisms that degrade and trivialize the organic whole of European civilization in the name of an almost pathological and illogical reductionism.
Also, you are in luck, for I will answer your question to Notus.
Considering the matter of mechanicity, can Godel be interpreted to have anything to say about the characteristics of conscious states, since the claim of mechanicity that, for example, I endeavour to make relates not to mind per se but is one characteristic of ordinary waking consciousness - or the “fall” or “maya” or “exile”, according to your poison (or opium)?
The import of Godel’s theorem is that consciousness is superior to logic - and logic is the tool that empirically reveals what the smallest child knows.... as well as the bricks from which the universe is constructed and understood. For logic is in essence conceptual mathematics, there is no distinction. And mathematics are ultimately how we understand the cosmos and everything in it.
Taken to it’s logical end. It suggests we already know, and have always known, the truth of existence.
This comment appeared in entry 'The Ontology of Mind: The Gödelian Argument' on 09/02/10, 08:02 AM. (go to entry to post a reply)
Grimoire wrote:
@Leon Haller
I do not believe it true any of this is above your cognitive level, merely outside your area of familiarity.
As for your second point, I think it is vital you understand the absolutely crucial nature of this question. Psychics, Logics and Cosmology are the extreme and leading edge of human knowledge and understanding of the Cosmos and itself. The knowledge thereof ultimately determine not only the questions we ask concerning existence, but the interpretation of the answers we derive - to directly how we live, survive or die as a human social organism.It is not for nothing the Church set an anathema against Galileo., his work upended and demolished the human paradigm for living existent for a millennia. It was one of the vital tipping points which led to the reformation, the renaissance and all that followed. It was a essential impetus of a complete revolution in our shared understanding of our place in the cosmos.
Roughly, at this point in history Western Civilization began to out-evolve all and any civilizations known to man.We stand now at the precipice of an even more perilous and crucial abyss in human history.
How did we get to this point in such a short period of time, while our knowledge was outstripping even ourselves, leaving what we where further behind in 45 years than the distance we left any other civilization behind in 500 years following the reformation?As the Russians say, “A fish rots from the head down”.
The European civil wars of the last century began not in the back-room of the British Foreign Office - the germ really started with Newton - with the realization that civil society and independent academic research could potentially outstrip the ability of the ruling elite to create and manage public perceptions of man’s place in the cosmos. This was a grave threat to the powers that be, and they decided it necessary to plan to remain the powers that be. Newton himself was one the key proponents of this managing, centralization and shaping of knowledge for social consumption, irrespective of truth and provenance.
In this century, the essential contest has been between the mechanistic/ determinists view of the universe and man, and the open-inquiry/ non-determinist point of view, which as PF puts it, continually questions what ‘is’ is.... in the holistic sense, without violence or prejudice to the scope of rational inquiry or the matrix of man as observer and knower - while the mechanistic/ determinist view, (abetted by the hebrew code of ethics we inherit from the OT and it’s actors and the idea of a chosen who inherits all through but nothing but acts of duplicity, and sees all contrary elements as obstacles to be liquidated.)The facts are there to be seen by any who honestly investigate the matter, although no effort has been spared to disguise the paradox.....the mechanistic/ determinist zeitgeist is not only completely sterile and wholly derivative in terms of adding to the sum of our knowledge and the powers of our understanding.... but is engaged entirely in a subliminal war against the sum of our knowledge and powers of understanding unless it serves it’s purposes.
A trite yet neon example is the war of Darwinism aka ‘Dawkins’ ( a prima facie example}, against Religion, (which is nothing but a war against the private conscious seeing the Church as a weak link to millions of consciousnesses). Although no sane or uninterested person could argue the Church is infallible and not without primitive qualities and lust of power..... the Church with all it’s faults has been the primal guarantor of a civil society based on the gens or family versus the politics of power based solely on an elite who control the perception of society. And the family is atom of the race - all race.
So, what can rediscovery or unearthing of the suppressed Physics mean to you? By this, the mathematical cosmology of Leibniz, Quantum Mechanics of Heisenberg and Godel’s Incompleteness theorem?
What does this have to do with bringing European and World Civilization back from irreversible extinction ?
Because it’s implication is that your belief in ‘essense’, in inner truth, your belief in yourself, your personal world of the extended family, religion, tradition and that your civilization was built on it’s first day on principles that are echoes and reflections of the Cosmos. You are correct and you have always possessed truth, and we cannot understand anything much less the workings of the Universe without you who has always done his part, without how you think, for the manner of which you think, the manner in which you have raised a family and build your houses , villages, cities and nations.... is the same manner to which the secrets of the Cosmos are revealed.
Now, contrast a Western civilization whose understanding of the Cosmos reflects this truth....against the prevailing determinist/materialism.
You are nothing but machines. Machines exist to serve. Everything you think, your society, your faith, your families, towns , nations are little but accretions and discharges of genes. Therefore there is no inherent fault in using and discarding you in the same manner as one would utilize any other object - solely based on utility. Therefore there is no moral or imperative reason to favor you over any other, such as a a hottentot, who is unburdened by many incorrect, inconvenient ideas. All things are at root random and by implication uncontrollable and unknowable except in terms of utility.
Which society that serves under these two schools would have a demographic problem? Which society would be extinguished in favor of a society of deserving helots and slaves? Which society could be said to evolve progressively and which could be said to devolve bilaterally?
It does not take super powers of intelligence to see there is nothing wrong with the body of European civilization, It’s potential is completely intact. The disease is in the mind. It is psychological and it threatens to kill the body which sustains it.
The fish rots from the head down.What would happen if the Academy, with it’s scholars and pronouncements of (sic) free inquiry, confirmed the essence of our existence instead of defining it as without essence, founded on illusion, and relative to a nest of insects? Which places higher value on the lesbian or Dinka than on the people who built the worlds civilization?
This is what we are talking about here. Stay with it. Read about it. It may ultimately provide more answers than you will find anywhere else.
This comment appeared in entry 'The Ontology of Mind: The Gödelian Argument' on 09/02/10, 06:19 AM. (go to entry to post a reply)
Randy Garver wrote:
one: “You can breed all you want, but without geographic racial separation, racial destruction is inevitable. You can’t achieve racial preservation by increasing birth rates in a multiracial society. “
WNs have expressed an interest in separation for a number of reasons which I’m not attempting to debate here, but from a purely mathematical standpoint, I’m not sure your claim is quite accurate.
A recent Pew study reported 9% of white marriages in 2008 were inter-ethnic. This would seem to translate to 4.5% of potential white breeding pairs. Roughly guessing a fecundity parity between inter and intra-racial marriages containing at least one white partner, the white-white birthrate wouldn’t seem to have to increase much to make up for potential white births lost to miscegenation.
one: “Separation must be our top priority.”
I imagine you could pursue both strategies simultaneously. Plus, you’d be able to achieve demonstrable results in under a year.
This comment appeared in entry 'If at first you don't succeed' on 09/02/10, 04:28 AM. (go to entry to post a reply)
Notus Wind wrote:
GW,
You are right that it was unfair of me to exploit the tension between essence and the machine, based merely on you having inadvertently placed two innocent and unassuming word-symbols next to one another (I don‘t know how you managed to do that, btw, without tumbling to the obvious).
[laughs]
Yes, I’ve taken great pains to be as careful as possible.
...some folk will certainly seize upon said supremacy to relativise evolution, if not science, if not the entire Anglo-American intellectual tradition.
How do you mean that logic can be used to relativise all these things? I certainly don’t feel that way and I’ve been using these tools for quite a while now.
About the latter we can say that there must be agency for evolutionary selection to operate, and to succeed and fail. No evolutionist worth his salt would assert that the mind is just a machine.
Oh really! I was under the impression that Dawkins and Dennett both supported this idea and even went so far as to say that agency was just a user illusion (i.e. there is no agency). Unfortunately, I don’t have a reference on hand for this claim but I am quite sure that it’s true.
A human spirit with the full possibility of will and creativity goes well beyond that.
We’re getting there, non-mechanicity today and freeness tomorrow.
The point I am making is the same one as the rest of my comment, namely that logic has its place in the scheme of things, among models and in machines. It does not command over life. Instinct and experience have the prerogative there.
This has to be the heart of your complaint, that logic and math do not command over life.
But I am not saying that they do.
Logic and math only command the world of abstract landscapes into which true knowledge of our world must find its home. I would not be so presumptuous as to suggest that the requirements of these abstract landscapes are sufficient to necessitate the exquisiteness of life, far from it.
These considerations aside, I would remind you that I am only presenting a rather vanilla deductive argument. If its premises are true and its logic is sound then how could its conclusion not follow?
This comment appeared in entry 'The Ontology of Mind: The Gödelian Argument' on 09/02/10, 03:56 AM. (go to entry to post a reply)
Thorn wrote:
Daniel, are you sure you want to join in and dump on Scrooby?
This comment appeared in entry 'The Ontology of Mind: The Gödelian Argument' on 09/02/10, 03:28 AM. (go to entry to post a reply)
Thorn wrote:
Here’s a question for you, are people cryptic because their minds are woolly, their character insecure, or their ideas weak?
Hm. Let’s ask Sðren.
ROFL.......... Don’t hold your breath waiting for a coherent answer.
This comment appeared in entry 'The Ontology of Mind: The Gödelian Argument' on 09/02/10, 03:18 AM. (go to entry to post a reply)