The world around us is not merely changing; it is experiencing a quantum leap. This is not a mere evolution but a dramatic transformation, and we are all participants in this grand phenomenon. Some of us are active players, diving headfirst into the unknown, while others are passive witnesses, watching the spectacle unfold. Yet, many continue their daily routines, blissfully unaware of the seismic shifts happening around them.
In my theory of EEQT (Event Enhanced Quantum Theory), these jumps occur at seemingly random, yet precisely timed moments. When the time is ripe, reality takes a leap, and these jumps, theoretically instantaneous, are in truth processes that transcend our material world, touching upon hyper-dimensional realms beyond our comprehension.
The term UFO (Unidentified Flying Object) has evolved into UAP (Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena). These entities are no longer mere flying objects; they are elusive forms that defy our physical understanding. Despite the media's reluctance to embrace the term "hyper-dimensional," the public is gradually being conditioned for the extraordinary revelations that lie ahead.
Or a "form" of a hyper-dimensional origin?
In this rapidly shifting landscape, propelled by the explosion of artificial intelligence, I find myself pondering the union of matter and spirit. Recently, I delved into the works of a kindred spirit, V.V. Varlamov, a professor at the Siberian State Industrial University in Novokuznetsk, Russia. His paper, "On the Union of Matter and Form: Group Theoretical Approach" (Metafizika, 2023), has captivated my mind.
Varlamov begins by exploring the very fabric of our reality: space and time. Are these the fundamental levels of reality, or mere constructs of our perception? He writes:
As I read these profound words, I see a reflection of my own thoughts. Varlamov, a mathematician, weaves his contemplations in the language of Real numbers, Quaternions, Spinors, Twistors, and the Conformal Group, even delving into the enigmatic anti-de Sitter space with its two time-like dimensions. He is, in essence, another version of myself, more mathematical in spirit.“Does spacetime make the fundamental level of reality? First, define what are these ‘space’ and ‘time’ comprising the notion of spacetime. Two different frameworks should be distinguished: aprioristic Kantian understanding of space and time as pure forms of our sensibility and the so-called relativistic view on space and time as the forms of existence of matter. Forms of sensibility versus forms of being. Consciousness versus matter. It seems like we are trapped once again within the eternal duality of spirit and matter - nightmare of a philosopher having to choose between the idealistic and materialistic philosophies. As a matter of fact, this duality is only an illusion caused by the mess of words and concepts, as was noted by Bertrand Russel. These two concepts cannot be deduced empirically but precede any experiment making the ground for all the following constructions. According to Kant, space and time are two pure forms of sensory contemplation and principles of a priori knowledge. They are the first and fundamental attributes of our perception, derived from the integrated sensorial experience of human being. Form of contemplation is just an obscure and strongly curved lens mediating our perception of the world. Hence, defining the space and time concepts from experience makes no sense, while defining them by other means yields anything but not space and not time. Here we come to a very important conclusion: space and time are nothing but forms of human conscious contemplation.”
In this quantum leap, we are bound not just by the physical world but by a tapestry of consciousness that stretches into the hyper-dimensional. As we stand on the brink of this new reality, we must embrace both the matter and the spirit, understanding that they are not opposing forces but facets of a greater whole. The future is here, and it is beyond anything we have ever imagined.
P.S. 24-07-24 13:45 AI at work. My chat with AI today:
Prompt: Can you help me to identify a snake if I give you a photo?Response: Yes, I'd be happy to help you identify a snake. Please go ahead and upload the photo of the snake.Prompt: Here it is:Response: Based on the photo you provided, the snake appears to be a type of garter snake. Garter snakes are non-venomous and common in many parts of North America. They are known for their distinctive pattern, usually consisting of stripes running the length of their bodies.Here's a bit more detail about garter snakes:
- They often have three stripes running down their bodies, which can be yellow, green, or blue.
- They are usually small to medium-sized snakes, typically ranging from 18 to 26 inches long.
- They are often found near water sources such as ponds, streams, or wetlands, but they can also be seen in gardens and urban areas.
If you need more precise identification or if you have any specific concerns, such as whether the snake is venomous or poses a threat, please let me know!
Prompt: Thanks.
Response: You're welcome! If you have any more questions about snakes or anything else, feel free to ask. Stay safe and have a great day!
But it is NOT a garter snake. As Laura has pointed it to me, it is a semi-aquatic European grass snake.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grass_snake. So, use AI, but do not rely on it when taking decisions. Always double check! If it cam misidentify snakes, it can misidentify missiles as well.
Coś co nazywamy "nauką" od samego początku operuje w 'zakłamanym środowisku". To zakłamanie, polega na niepisanej umowie, która mówi, że: "Istnieje obiektywizm".
ReplyDeleteJest to fundament każdej dziedziny nauki. Niestety jest to kruchy i słaby fundament, ponieważ nie ma na to żadnego dowodu.
Przykład:
Jakikolwiek ptak, posiada aparat wzroku oparty na zupełnie innych soczewkach. Tak zwane "rybie oko" w powszechnej nomenklaturze. Zwracam uwagę, że z punktu widzenia ptaka w świecie NIE WYSTĘPUJĄ KĄTY PROSTE I LINIE PROSTE!
Jakkolwiek, pomimo tego, taki ptak,, potrafi operować w tej przestrzeni i to całkiem sprawnie, potrafi złapać mysz w locie.
Kto udowodnił, że LINIE PROSTE ISTNIEJĄ, a nie są jedynie obrazem jaki dostajemy w wyniku takiej a nie innej budowy naszego aparatu wzroku?
Podsumowując. Naukowcy opierają się na złudzeniu, że MOŻNA BYĆ OBIEKTYWNYM w naszej percepcji. Co jest zgubą dla całego naukowego procederu.
I dopóki naukowcy nie zrozumieją, że nasze zmysły są tylko aparatem odbiorczym rzeczywistości i to mocno ograniczonym...nadal będą budować miliony tez, niezliczone ilości teorii a potem będą je obalać.
"OBSERWATOR MA WPŁYW NA OBSERWOWANE ZJAWISKO"
Thank you. Translating into English:
DeleteSomething called 'science' has been operating in a 'hypocritical environment' since its inception. This hypocrisy, relies on an unwritten agreement that states that: “There is objectivity.”
This is the foundation of every field of science. Unfortunately, it is a fragile and weak foundation, because there is no evidence for it.
Example:
Any bird, has an eye apparatus based on completely different lenses. The so-called “fish eye” in common nomenclature. I would like to point out that from the bird's point of view, there are NO RIGHT ANGLES AND RIGHT LINES in the world!
However, in spite of this, such a bird,,, can operate in this space and quite efficiently, can catch a mouse in flight.
Who has proven that RIGHT LINES DO exist, and are not just an image we get as a result of the way our visual apparatus is built, and not otherwise?
To sum up. Scientists rely on the illusion that WE CAN BE OBJECTIVE in our perception. Which is the undoing of the whole scientific procedure.
And until scientists understand that our senses are only a perception apparatus of reality and a severely limited one at that...they will continue to build millions of theses, countless theories and then disprove them.
“THE OBSERVER HAS AN IMPACT ON THE OBSERVED PHENOMENON”.
Nevertheless "straight lines" exists as an IDEA. And in Science ideas are as important as touchable matter. For instance, I first have an IDEA about what to write, and only then I dress my idea into words, and write it down.
"Nevertheless "straight lines" exists as an IDEA. And in Science ideas are as important as touchable matter. For instance, I first have an IDEA about what to write, and only then I dress my idea into words, and write it down."
DeleteTrue...but IDEAS its only DESCRIBE REALITY... it is NOT REALITY.
"
Obecnie jest to o wiele łatwiej zrozumieć, bo mamy wiele przykładów.
DeletePodam jeden przykład, zrozumiały praktycznie dla każdego.
Większość posiada telefon komórkowy czy komputer.
Załóżmy, że interfejs graficzny, czyli, ikonki, napisy, okienka...TO NASZA "RZECZYWISTOŚĆ".
Jakkolwiek, człowiek nieco lepiej zorientowany w programowaniu, zdaje sobie sprawę, że ta "RZECZYWISTOŚĆ" stworzona dla naszej wygody.... NIE ISTNIEJE!!
Pod spodem, znajduje się bowiem KOD, który jest jakimś językiem programowania, który GENERUJE TEN OBRAZ.
A jeszcze niżej, jest KOD BINARNY, jest to jedynie zestaw ZER i JEDYNEK.
I ten kod binarny dopiero można uznać , za "RZECZYWISTOŚĆ"
Dość podobnie działa to w każdym innym obszarze. Tego co widzimy jest OPISEM RZECZYWISTOŚCI... nie jest to RZECZYWISTOŚĆ.
"Rzeczywistość jest prawdopodobnie zbiorem linii, trochę przypominającym zapis obrazu w dziedzinie zwanej holografia.
Dodam, już zupełnie osobiste doświadczenie.
DeleteAby poznać rzeczywistość, niezbędnym jest WYJŚCIE POZA NAWIAS TEJ RZECZYWISTOŚCI.
Kiedy wyjdziesz poza nawias, już wiesz co tam jest.
Tam nie ma "IDEI, tam nie ma "POMYSŁÓW, które ZAPISUJĘ"
Tam nie ma nawet rozgraniczenia pomiędzy odrębnymi bytami.
Oczywiście, człowiek nie może tam zbyt długo przebywać. Bo to się skończy szaleństwem, można na to spojrzeć, ale tylko przez krótką chwilę.
First English translation:
Delete"Nowadays it is much easier to understand, because we have many examples.
Let me give one example, understandable to practically everyone.
Most have a cell phone or computer.
Let's assume that the graphical interface, i.e., icons, captions, windows...THIS IS OUR “THING”.
However, a person slightly better versed in programming, realizes that this “THING” created for our convenience.... DOES NOT EXIST!!!
For underneath, there is a CODE, which is some kind of programming language that GENERATES THIS IMAGE.
And even below that, there is the BINARY CODE, it is just a set of ZERES and ONES.
And this binary code only can be considered , as “REALITY”.
Quite similarly it works in every other area. What we see is a DESCRIPTION of REALITY.... it is not a REALITY.
“Reality is probably a collection of lines, a bit like an image record in the field called holography."
But we should remember that "the computer code" that is behind what we see on the screen, is a creation of a REAL person. That person (computer programmer) lives real life. Nowadays the code can be written by AI, but, again, behind this AI there are real people who designed it to serve (or to control) other real people.
Again:
Delete"I will add, already completely personal experience.
In order to know reality, it is essential to GO BEYOND THE PARENTHESIS OF THIS REALITY.
When you go beyond the parenthesis, you already know what is there.
There is no “IDEAS there, there are no ”IDEAS that I SAVE.”
There is not even a demarcation between separate entities there.
Of course, a person can't stay there too long. Because it will end in madness, one can look at it, but only for a short while."
While this a good personal observation, I notice that in order to go beyond the parenthesis of reality, it is good to know this reality and to know it well, from personal experience.
"But we should remember that "the computer code" that is behind what we see on the screen, is a creation of a REAL person. That person (computer programmer) lives real life. Nowadays the code can be written by AI, but, again, behind this AI there are real people who designed it to serve (or to control) other real people."
DeleteFirst it was example.
When we do extrapolation that example, what we have?
This "reality" its a humans creation???:-)
Yes, yes...but we're talking about the DEFINITION of the word "reality" now.
DeleteSo, I can't do anything more than ask for a definition of "real people"
I won't hide the fact that I'm trying to raise the level of our conversation above the meaningless phrases '"real man"
DeleteDefinitions of terms are always based on definitions of other terms. Finally the circle necessarily closes. Or, we start with arbitrary (so called "evident" primary notions, which are not necessarily evident for everybody). Our definitions are better to be based on examples. Having enough examples we create a "concept". Having enough concepts, we try to construct their definitions.
DeleteIn this case a good example wil be this: I consider YOU as being a real person. I imagine you having two arms and two legs, being well educated, living in Poland, using real computer to write your comments, You are real for me, your comments and replies are real. It is one test of your reality - you respond when being touched! Tables and chairs are usually real, except in dreams, when they are reflections of real ones.
Yes, yes.
DeleteJust like an icon in a graphical interface. You see this icon!
What's more, when you touch it, it does something!!! When you move your finger on the touch screen, it moves exactly like your finger!
This icon IS ALIVE!!! This icon is "REAL"
Someone would think that this icon .... HAS A MIND!!!
Nowadays it becomes sometimes really hard to distinguish a real person from AI. In fact I asked AI if it knows how to distinguish it from a real person. Here is the answer I received:
DeleteResponse Time:
AI: Typically responds almost instantaneously or with minimal delay.
Human: May take varying amounts of time to respond, especially if the conversation involves complex topics or if they are multitasking.
Consistency and Style:
AI: Maintains a consistent tone, style, and level of politeness. Responses may sometimes seem overly formal or perfectly structured.
Human: Likely exhibits a more varied tone and style. They may use slang, exhibit mood changes, or have grammatical errors.
Handling of Complex Questions:
AI: May provide highly detailed and accurate information on a wide range of topics, sometimes lacking personal opinions or emotional insights.
Human: May offer personal opinions, anecdotes, and emotional responses. They might need time to research or think through complex topics.
Understanding of Context:
AI: Sometimes struggles with nuanced context, jokes, sarcasm, or very recent events. May repeat information or miss context-specific subtleties.
Human: Generally better at understanding and responding to nuanced context, humor, and sarcasm. Can recall personal experiences and recent events more accurately.
Empathy and Emotional Intelligence:
AI: Can simulate empathy to an extent but often lacks genuine emotional depth and may use formulaic responses.
Human: Exhibits genuine empathy, emotional depth, and can provide comforting or supportive responses based on their own experiences.
Repetition and Redundancy:
AI: Might occasionally repeat information or provide redundant explanations, especially if the conversation loops or if the AI doesn't fully understand a question.
Human: Less likely to repeat themselves unnecessarily. They may ask for clarification if they don't understand a point.
Creativity and Spontaneity:
AI: Generally less creative and spontaneous in conversation. Responses are based on pre-trained data and algorithms.
Human: Can be more creative, spontaneous, and unpredictable in their responses. They may share unique ideas, humor, and stories.
Personal Experiences:
AI: Lacks personal experiences. Any mention of personal experience is either simulated or based on patterns from training data.
Human: Can share authentic personal experiences, memories, and subjective viewpoints.
Follow-Up Questions:
AI: May sometimes miss follow-up questions or provide responses that are slightly off-topic due to lack of deep understanding.
Human: More likely to ask relevant follow-up questions and stay on topic based on the flow of conversation.
Specificity and Depth:
AI: Responses might be very general or overly detailed without real-world practicality.
Human: Can provide specific advice or insights based on real-life experiences and practical knowledge.
By considering these criteria, you can better assess whether you are conversing with a real person or an AI.
..but I don't understand why you did it??
DeleteI don't talk to anyone else but you, Mr. Arkadiusz:-)
I propose a more interesting experiment. Ask how to distinguish a living being from an inanimate object:-)
DeleteOr how to distinguish a manifestation of consciousness in the form of a human from consciousness itself
Instead, I asked: "Are there any philosophical arguments supporting the idea that some human beings are equipped with something that we usually call "soul"?"
DeleteHere is the answer:
-------------
es, there are several philosophical arguments that support the idea that human beings possess something that can be referred to as a "soul." Here are a few notable ones:
1. Dualism (René Descartes)
Descartes famously posited the distinction between mind and body, asserting that the mind (or soul) is a non-physical substance distinct from the body. His argument includes:
Cogito Ergo Sum: "I think, therefore I am." Descartes argued that the act of thinking is proof of the existence of a non-material self.
Indivisibility: While bodies can be divided, minds cannot. This indivisibility suggests a different kind of existence.
2. Plato's Theory of Forms
Plato believed in the existence of eternal, non-material Forms (or Ideas), of which the soul is a part. Key points include:
Tripartite Soul: Plato divided the soul into three parts: the rational, the spirited, and the appetitive. Each part has a different function and existence beyond the physical body.
Recollection: Plato argued that learning is a process of recollecting knowledge that the soul possessed before birth, implying its pre-existence and immortality.
3. Aristotelian Hylomorphism
Aristotle saw the soul as the form of a living being, an inseparable part of its existence. His arguments are:
Substance and Form: For Aristotle, everything is composed of matter (substance) and form (essence). The soul is the form that makes a body a living being.
Functionality: The soul is what gives life and purpose to a body, suggesting that it's more than just a physical entity.
4. Leibniz's Monadology
Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz proposed that the universe is made up of simple substances known as monads, each with its own perceptions and appetites. In his view:
Indivisibility of Monads: Monads are indivisible, immaterial, and capable of perception, representing a form of soul or spirit within each living being.
Pre-established Harmony: Monads do not interact physically but are harmonized by God, indicating a non-physical essence.
5. Kantian Perspective
Immanuel Kant did not argue for a soul in the traditional sense but provided a framework for its necessity:
Moral Law and Practical Reason: Kant argued that the existence of moral law implies the need for a soul that is free and immortal, as practical reason requires the postulation of God, freedom, and immortality.
Transcendental Idealism: While the soul is not empirically verifiable, it is a necessary concept for understanding human experience and morality.
6. Phenomenological Arguments (Edmund Husserl)
Husserl's phenomenology explores the structures of consciousness and the essence of experiences:
Intentionality: Consciousness is always about something, indicating an intentional aspect that transcends physical processes.
Subjective Experience: The depth of subjective experiences suggests an immaterial aspect to human existence.
7. Contemporary Philosophy of Mind
Modern debates in the philosophy of mind often revisit the idea of a soul through discussions on consciousness and identity:
Qualia and Subjectivity: The subjective quality of experiences (qualia) and the "hard problem" of consciousness (why and how subjective experiences arise from physical processes) suggest that there's more to human beings than just physical matter.
Personal Identity: Questions about what makes someone the same person over time often invoke non-physical aspects like consciousness or soul.
These arguments offer a range of perspectives on the nature of the soul, varying from strictly dualistic views to more integrated approaches that see the soul as an essential aspect of human identity and experience.
------------
I did not inquire any further. Usually, by being clear and persistent, one can get from AI answers that one really needs.
Indeed, but as I mentioned, I am asking what Mr. Arkadiusz thinks.
DeleteSo, how...do we go a little deeper, underwater?
ReplyDeleteWhere the ICON is, it ceases to be an ICON and becomes a "CODE"?
Because if not, we can continue to drift on the surface of "IDOLUM"
ICON is a concept. Code is another CONCEPT. Both are created by human minds and based and human experience. Mind and experience have boundaries created by our genetic material. Our genetic material is another concept that we created based on our experience. Experience is here the primary term. Experience in this World, in this Reality. Our concepts of World and Reality are based on our Experience. We have experiences and we Learn from them. Some less, some more.
Deleteok. I understand
Deletethank you!