Foundation of all Axioms the Axioms of Consciousness

[c172]

I'm entering the Axiom of the Cheese Toast Bagel. A set of events that will culminate in the start of the  Wonderfully Full Belly Axiom.

[Edwardo Piet]

Consciousness consists of two components:
1.The Observed (U)
2.The Observer (I)

False. Same thing conceptualized differently. The experience is the experiencer; the internal observation is the internal observer.

1.The observed (U) is a 4 Dimensional (4D) object.(This is the totality of all sensations and actions. Consider music it must span time as such the whole experience is 4D)
2.The 4D Object observed has finite boundaries in Space and Time.
3.U being a 4D object can be broken down into component 4D objects.

The four dimensions are a phenomenonal(ogical) experience/experiencer to/as the observed/observer. Your dualism needs to become monist both for reasons of simplicity and accuracy.

Axioms of I
1.Ability to observe U

Again, the "I" and "U" is the same thing experienced from two different precepts.

2.Feelings

...are merely physiologically synchronised with thoughts. What's your point?

3.Free will

...is either obvious or nonexistent depending on which version of it.

4.Curiosity and playful behaviour

...is rewarding and fun.

[Cyberman]

It started good with the music and dancing, but the rest was a bit of a letdown...

Jesus the musical?

Don't tell me Lloyd-Webber's off his meds again.

[bennyboy]

Why is this page more than 2 posts long?

Post 1: a bunch of drivel
Post 2: "Hey, that's a bunch of drivel!"

/thread

[fdesilva]

Yes but the reflected light is a set of events in your brain.
Events as defined here
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime

No, the reflected light triggers a set of events in your brain after it meets your eyes.

Yes the reflected light triggers a set of events in the brain via eyes etc.

Now these events at any given instant are responsible for the experience of seeing the tree.

This experience of seeing  consist of 2 components at every instant
1. "U" The Tree
2. "I" the thing looking at it.

If "I" does not exist then there can be no experience.

For anything to exist it must exist at every instant.

Thus for "I" to exist at all it must exist at every instant.

If "I" exist in an instant then it will essentially be making a connection with the multitude of events making "U" at that instant.

Alternatively if you think its seeing the tree one event at a time, it will never see a whole tree as it can never know more than a single event.

[fdesilva]

Consciousness consists of two components:
1.The Observed (U)
2.The Observer (I)

False. Same thing conceptualized differently. The experience is the experiencer; the internal observation is the internal observer.

What do you say false? This is presented as an axiom. When you look at a tree you do not feel to be one thing with the tree?
I would think not. Despite the fact that the events making the tree are in your brain you do not feel to be one and the same thing as the tree.

[The Grand Nudger]

An axiom that assumes the accuracy of the contents of such an experience is far too pregnant to be called an axiom.  May as well just stop the conversation there.  If you know that you aren't "one with the tree" or that your experience of locality is strictly representative....purely because of your experiential point of view...becauseyou take such experiences to be axiomatic...why not simply employ -that- on whatever else it is you believe?  No argument required.  Whatever you experience, you ascribe accuracy to the contents of that experience axiomatically.

The events making the tree are most definitely not in your brain, unless you have a gaping hole in your head. Big enough to fit a sapling. Unless, ofc, the experience is what counts, if you ascribe accuracy axiomatically. In which case you most assuredly -are- "one with the tree-of-your-mind" and do experience that locally as a part of yourself. You just aren't used to describing it as such.

This shit is unworkable.

[Jesster]

For anything to exist it must exist at every instant.

I was sort of following you until here. What are you smoking?

[fdesilva]

For anything to exist it must exist at every instant.

I was sort of following you until here. What are you smoking?

Everything that exist has a starting point in time and an end point in time. In between these 2 events it must exist at every instant.

[fdesilva]

An axiom that assumes the accuracy of the contents of such an experience is far too pregnant to be called an axiom.  May as well just stop the conversation there.  If you know that you aren't "one with the tree" or that your experience of locality is strictly representative....purely because of your experiential point of view...becauseyou take such experiences to be axiomatic...why not simply employ -that- on whatever else it is you believe?  No argument required.  Whatever you experience, you ascribe accuracy to the contents of that experience axiomatically.

The events making the tree are most definitely not in your brain, unless you have a gaping hole in your head.  Big enough to fit a sapling.  Unless, ofc, the experience is what counts, if you ascribe accuracy axiomatically.  In which case you most assuredly -are- "one with the tree-of-your-mind" and do experience that locally as a part of yourself.  You just aren't used to describing it as such.  

This shit is unworkable.

The events making the tree in your experience. There is a tree out side your body. Light from that tree creates events in your eyes and subsequently from your eyes via nerves in your brain. Now these last set of events is the tree you see. You see a representation of the real tree out there never the real tree itself.