Section 70 (last updated 4.21.2021)
mind universe
as the form of the ultimate mind of ideas
(Add to neurological system)
The idea that the universe is a “mind” does not have to be grandiose in the sense of being a “huge super massive” mind that the whole universe is, but rather the mind is particularly the rational component in the whole, the particular that is the universal. This is our thesis we are trying to prove to demonstrate that the universe is a rational organism, that we take the whole as inseparable from the parts, this is our presumption.
The nature of ethics is perhaps the most complicated explanation
This is the form of ethical relation, protoplasm, (example of scaring old lady causing swallowing fly) Amy action done butterflies effect into the affect of other action.
It is a common fact that Neurotransmitters exchange information, but what this actually means, and what information is being transmitted in the brain other than the primitive idea that there is triggering of stimulus from the environment, remains rather vague. Modern neurology states (explain what they empirical say of how neurones operate of dopamine, serotonin emotion etc. That a chemical association is seen to characterize experiences. For example, Being horny triggers dopamine. This suggests that experiences on some level are externally received inwardly so as to trigger chemical responses, like a pizza entering the oven to form the crust, or the penis enter the vagina during intercourse to fertilize the ovaries. These exchanges occur between two external factors coming together forming an internal component arising externally out of one to yet being an entity of external relation.
does not explain the experience whole that encompasses the external factors to form yet more external entities. The encompassing nature acting as the whole whereby each external relation is part, is called internal because nothing is outside of that but is only being done by self identical principle. The terms external and internal relations are confusing to the mind unskilled in philosophy, and even to advanced thinkers because with the ideas we cannot help but think that what is internal is devised inside what is external.
The term external really means exo like exoskeleton, it is an expression, example, experience etc. Whereas internal is innate, inherent, innermore, intimate, intermediate, integrated, involuntary, integral, ingrained etc. It is that which things happen for and is therefore the whole of the happening as its own will. And so whatever kind of externalizations comes out of it as external relations ultimately makes its way back to the self identical form which geometrically is spherical.
The experience as whole must exhibit a universal form that remains the unity of external relations contradictorily coming together. Without some form that allows for differences to come together in some consistent harmony, it is not clear why the differences do not cancel each other out so as to annihilate the relation altogether. Without some universally encompassing whole, there is no reason why two parts different be related in the first instance, what purpose for their relation be for other than the knowledge of what their whole may exhibit. And it is the whole of the relation that in the first place commits the difference for the curiosity of what the unity may be like. The whole of the experience includes the agent as part of the experience that aims to derive knowledge of it.
The consciousness that aims to derive knowledge of its experience is phenomenologically involved as the part in the experience that aims to derive knowledge of the experience. Which by being one part the consciousness is contradicted by all the details of the experience that appear to be the differences constituting it as the knowing part of the experience. The consciousness in the experience is what all the differences are for which it being the difference of them all, is identical to the differences of the relation. The information being transmitted in the neurological system of the consciousness is the whole experience that it finds itself as the participating part that knows.
The information being transmitted in the mind are atoms, but the atoms hold the mind that the experiences being transmitted in it. What is being transmitted in my mind are the very experiences that contain me as the mind that transmits such experiences. ( the atom being the spherical substrate of an event). The world of experience is the idea transmitted, its transmission is the continuity of its existence. Behind the scenes, under the surface, we say that there is an abstract continuation of logical nodes as the building block for the course of experience. The existence of sense experience as we know it is being continually built by the abstract logical activity of reason.
We are in the events that are the events in us.
Classically “The Vitruvian Man” by Leonardo da Vinci is so simply ingenious because it intuitively glimpses the fact that man and his experience are objectively the same form, not that each are separate entities externally “on” one another. But that the physical manifestation of man is in the form of his ideal. It has become a accustom to cringe at a philosophical science claiming to be an idealism because this is viewed as an attempt to spew whatever theoretical speculation the mind can conjure up and claim that to be “hard” science. What this naive opinion misses is the fact that the nature of reality may perhaps be itself ideal, which in that sense idealism is no longer some imaginative theoretical framework but the logically grasping of the actually concrete condition of substance.
Modern psychology, which is the contemporary study of mind, is proud of itself with the invention of the concept “stimulus” arrogantly flaunting it as sign of expertise about the mind. Stimulus defines activities that invoke specific response in the mental organ. This concept is taken to be the “concrete” depictions of the actual relation between the mind and environment. The stimulus egregiously describes the most primitive nature of the mind, that it bears a set of corresponding reactions to the operations of environment. It limits the operations of mind to a set of passive mechanical responses to the presupposed, but not yet explained, operations of the nature.
So far we describe that the information the mind neurologically transmits is the very form of the world that the mind operates in. This alone however does not explain the function of this. Why are the very same experiences of the mind being transmitted in the mind of those experiences, answers precisely to the question of continuity. The continuity of thought involves this cycle of the thought and the being in the thought. My experiences being neurological transmitted is the very continuity of thought in the void, it is the creation of future reality. My thoughts passing into the void constructs my physical reality. This is occurring at the atomic level, the building black of reality itself.
So far as there is a separation between neuro-transmitter receptors means that their gab whereby the electrical impulses transmits is the world.
In the neurotransmitters process there is something more fundamental occurring than the snythesization of chemical compounds like gaba, adrenaline etc. There is also a quantum occurrence of building the structure of reality that cannot be empirically directly detected. We know that DNA is made out of molecules. But what makes molecules are atoms.
Explain how the thought being the function of the mind operates in the logic underpinning the quantum realm, where there atoms are made to structure objects.
Every organism and process in nature bears no distinction between its rational form and its physical manifestation. That the actions of the cat are in complete accord with its thought. It is only in the human being that the function of thinking before you act, and acting before you think, can take place. But even so this is only some partial function of self-consciousness. It remains the case that what we take to be involuntary operations like the functioning of our bodies and the so called voluntary ability of reflective thinking, are not actually separate at all. (Alan watts), but that reflection is that part that remains observing the indivisible unity.
The connection of the brain with the environment
DNA
DNA is a sequence of spacetime that is deeper than just being the make up in you making you out to be the thing that you are. When a technological tool focuses enough into an aspect in your body, at a certain level, the distinction between what makes you out to be an individual component in your environment, as opposed your environment which is something external from your body being an aspect internal within it.
Where your body begins and where the environment ends develop a blurred line at the subatomic level, such that what we view as events in time become objects in space, and what we view as objects in space, become events of time in those greater object having a superposition to them. The sequencing of all events connected with each other as objects is the entire “gnome” of nature, which includes the laws of physics as behaviour in one dimension, as the opposed to the laws of chemistry operating at another dimension, as opposed to biology, operating at a lower dimension than both, with the one being less than the second, and the second being less than the number minus itself, which is any greater number, results in a lesser one, as for example, 5-2= 3, which is less than 5 but greater than 2, it is a dimensional measure.
DNA-enzyme interaction
when we are looking at a strand of spacetime, we do not see it as an abstract theoretical object, but rather that it has a real place somewhere in space. It can be accessed via any dimensional framework, whether it is through the biological abs it looks like some kind of protein disclosed by a membrane, or whether it is chemical, I.e, interaction of substances causing physical reaction, or whether via purely physical manners , the most abstract of the bunch, physics deals with the motion of substance stripped away from any perceptually recognizable characteristics, it’s most primairy science being geometry, which is the motion of generation, and not merely locomotion, that motion that simultaneously causes the object to be a figure or a shape rather than the mere shape itself changing position or orientation in the plain. . the idea of the fabric of spacetime, or that spacetime is some kind of “fabric” is an image created by Einstein to explains a more homogeneous dimension that is implicit in the one observable as just space, and the non observable time.
Blood supply of brain
Translucent skin means it’s fairly see through. in a way. … Skin is partially transparent, but not see through. adjective. (of a substance) allowing light, but not detailed shapes, to pass through; semi-transparent. ‘her beautiful translucent skin‘
Skin is translucent in that at the molecular level the environment and what we understand as internal organs interact at a DNA and bacteria level. The skin only protects against macroscopic objects not microscopic. This is to show that the body and environment is more connected than we think. The center of the brain is outside in its conception of the environment.
The notion of the Big Bang as an explosion is a general misreading of the theory. The Big Bang is better understood as an emergence. It is an infinite emeragnce of abrupt changes.
Big Bang as abstraction of a universal neurological transmission of an idea in the universe as the idea from the ultimate mind.
The Big Bang is a modern cosmogony. The Big Bang a partially true intuitive inclination concerning the beginning of the universe that the universe as the state of nature known to our understanding initiates by a Bang, an electric impulse or explosion. But this fact does not explain origin because that requires the cause of the beginning, which because this model relies on empirical methods strictly in conjunction with ontologically blind mathematical knowledge, the moment prior to the expansion from the singularity, or the so called “Bang” is not proven to be a source of anything. It is proven that the universe expanded into being from a very high dense and temperature state, but this only tells us features of the universe but not what the structure is.
The Big Bang is commonly called a cosmological model, but am adequate cosmology must explain the form of the structure of the universe and not merely an instant of it. Moreover this lack of explanation into the form of the universe results the theory to lack in the other necessary feature required for a theory to be cosmological, that is, the fate of the universe is said to be dictated by the laws of probability and chance, which is often used to answer the question of form. The logical problem arises when the theoretical model aims to derive form from the feature of the content it proposes to be the cause. In this way, we have the following logical problem: first, the question of origination is ascribed to a mechanical effect of hyperactive expansion at the beginning. Second, this expansion is attributed as possessing the inherent form of probability and chance which is not only said to dictate the fate of the expansion but also serves as explanation for why it took place in the first instance.
The Big Bang inductively assumes that any known event so far as being some process possess some fate towards some end because it had some start. And since the start is already presupposed from the fact that there is something already happening and the occurrence of some event means that it has some finish, the finish being as undetermined as the start because the point is to explain the reason for the process happening. He Big Bang begs the question by presupposing from what it certainly knows, that there is process happening, and what it certainly does not know, why the process is happening, as the answer that the start and the purpose of the process is as underdetermined as to why the process is taking place. When the start is taken from the fact that there is an end because of some already happening process, the end is therefore seen as fate, which is the development of events beyond some control. In this way the Big Bang theory looses the last necessary feature in order for a model to be considered adequately cosmological by ontological standards, that the Big Bang possess no comprehensive explanation of the evolution of the universe.
Probability and chance are functions of some beginning and end, and not the beginning and end functions of some probability because the fact that there is a beginning and end of some occurring end is itself the first principle that is not probabilistic. Probability is a form of some form of its cause and cannot be a principle of its own explanation as its very explanation is contradiction to its definition because it is certainty of it being that form where equally contradictory events can plausibly take place. For to say that either this or that can happen just determined that happening.
The Big Bang commonly used to explain the history of the universe is really an abstraction. It is an abstraction of an initiation of an idea in the ultimate mind of the universe as organism. This is why we cannot recall what is before the Big Bang because it is prior to the happening of the idea such that the consciousness part of it as idea theoretically did not originate.
The human mind characterizes in the mind of the universe the idea that is aware of itself as an idea. the present is that part of the universe that is aware of itself- as the common saying goes- “be in the present” or “live in the present moment”. This is analogously like physically one of your neurone knows it is a neurone. Our common inclination is to think that this self knowledge would constitute the neuron to operate inverse to its whole. But this is our own subjective impulse because the neuron belongs to a system, a species, likewise man is only individual as the individuality of the species.
In the Big Bang theory the singularity is seen as that which initiates the beginning of the universe and powers its duration. But this is only half true. For the singularity by definition being the function that takes an infinite value, is not at the beginning only towards some end, but also the end whereby the beginning is being actualized. The inverse of the Big Bang is also true, that the universe began by a universe and heading into a singularity. This is because the universe is the adventure of an idea. This is true physical form of the universe.
The universe as organism exhibits a form akin to a plasma ball. Like our own neurological system, which is an advanced representation of the idea that the mind has about itself, its electrical transmissions are the connective relations that form thoughts. The universe is a transmission between one singularity to itself. The singularity being a quantum form exhibits itself as more than one happening occurring at the same time. It is at two different places at the same time. This property is the spectrum of the beginning of the universe as an idea towards the finish of the idea, which being connected by the same singularity it is the same mind.
The ion exemplifies how this form can look like.
an atom or molecule with a net electric charge due to the loss or gain of one or more electrons.
An ion (/ˈaɪən, -ɒn/) is an atom or molecule that has a non-zero net electrical charge (its total number of electrons is not equal to its total number of protons).
An atom contains charged particles namely protons(positively charged) and electrons(-vely charged). Generally they are equal in number resulting in the total/net electric charge of 0. But, electrons can be lost and gained and that decreases and increases -ve charge in the atom resp. When that happens, you have an ion.
In order for electrons to be gained and lost and this imbalance is held by a centre (the grey in the above illustration) that allows for the imbalance. This explains what it means for the same thing to be at two different times, for the centre (grey) remains as the same thing, a potential of being at two different times, and the two different times that are different (the red) are different at the same time because they are connected by the same thing. The way this operates as mind is that the singularity remains a centre blackhole and extends into many different points, the galaxies, while it remains at the centre of each difference, each galaxy has black hole. Each universe in one sense is an idea extending into the abyss of the singularity.
Infinity is the future
The direction the universe is into infinity but this has a very precise meaning. (Put here problems with infinity that its not many uncountable things). The man in his experience and the experience in the mind has the form of infinite tunnelling. Like mirror reflecting itself, but unlike it whereas it is whatever appearance of the nitro, the infinity reflection is all the potentiality of the mind, the whole of the experiences being neurologically transmitted, the form the tunnel of infinity whereby dictating the evolutionary direction of the universe.
Infinite tunnelling
This describes the scientific idea of a wormhole, or is more imaginatively speculated by the depiction of the “rabbit hole”
The path towards the singularity
The eye of god, this depiction is more fictitious because it shows the quantitative way the universe is leading to the singularity, the black hole, but it does not show the qualitative actuality of this form. The singularity having no particular location is not determined by some large scale aggregate position in the universe. The present of the evolution in the universe, the point of the singularity where the whole universe results in and onto the continuum to the future, is the mind of the human being, where there, the potentialities of thought provide qualitative probabilities exponentially more than the established reality of the universe.
Probability is a function of potentiality, the latter being the form, the former being the content. Potentiality describes the nature of the specific idea ordinated by thought, which exhibits itself as an extended set of differentiated possibilities.
Ordinal
Probability explains the structure of the ordination of the idea as measured by the ratio of the favorable cases to the whole number of potential cases.
Probability on its own only says that, given the nature of quality, there is quantitative relation between two amounts showing the number of times one value contains and is contained within the other. This is the definition of ratio.
Probability is the quantity measure of potentiality, the latter being the quality of the former. Possibility is the of ratio of form. The ratio of form concerns in what sense certain variables said to be “most likely possible” adopt motion towards the center whereas “less likely possible” constitute motion away from the center?
The “center” here is standard of singularity, which is the abstraction of individuation as process whereby universal element is appropriated as particular variations of itself. Each variation stands in relation on hierarchical spectrum judged by which version appropriates each as each appropriates the whole. The most likely possible characterizing the center involves the individuality that appropriates each individuality as each of those individualities appropriate the whole in some manner.
The Fibonacci number constitute the bare nature of what we mean by hierarchy, which is explained by how quality governs quantity. Fibonacci sequence, and characterized by the fact that every number after the first two is the sum of the two preceding ones:
The fundamental function of the numbers 0 and 1 as nominal numbers describe the ordinal and cardinal numbers. Nominal also known as categorical function to identify what is merely supposed but not explained the given nature of numbers as ordinal and cardinal. 0 and 1 are the form of numbers. Every number after 1 exhibits the form of 1 value no matter of the quantitative variations disclosed by that totality, whether we say 1,100,1000,10000 etc., all these have at least the value of 1, they are as numbers identified as 1 and only 1 number. And 0 describes the form of non-value, no matter attached to what number, 0 is the negative of that number.
Totality is determinable by the value shared by the count and rank of some definite quantitative measurability. First, nominal function of 1 explains the ordinal numbers. For example, the number 10 is 1 value of 10 variables each of each is 1 value of certain other variables. 10 is 1 entity of 10 entities each of which bear other entities. 10 as ordinal is 1 value of 10x 1 other values (10×1=10). The ordinal function of number is not cardinal because it does not yet concern the count of the quantitative variation disclosed by the same value. For example, 10 as ordinal is not the same as cardinal because the quantities disclosed by 10 as value when countable would add up to exceed way beyond 10; 1+2+3+4+5+6+7+8+9+10= 55. 10 is ordinal when it discloses only the order of the series as 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10. This is identifiable because of the nominal fact that 10 is 1 value discloses the order of the series by limiting the duration of the series as 1 through 10.
The nominal function provides the qualitative merit of ordinal numbers by describing the rank of the numbers disclosed by 10 where 1 is furthest away and 10 is closest. The value of order is the function to determine which is closest and furthest away from the limit set as the disclosure of the series. Second, nominal function of 0 explain the cardinal numbers. In ascertaining the nominal nature of the cardinal function of “how many?” we are now not only asking for the numerable because how something is numerable is explained by the order of the series, and why because the order of the series is determinable by the nominal factor of 1 value to each group of quantitative measures. The cardinal question concerns how numbers so far as having the ordinal function of being 1 value, are capable of being related with other numbers of the same ordinal value.
the difference between ordinal and cardinal is that they are different forms of the same content. Think of the ordinal as the analogue and the cardinal the digital. The capacity for cardinal numbers to be countable. 0 is nominal because what it is as 1 in value is the negation of 1 value. (find here where you talk about 0 as the function of space in arithmetic, where number can go to be added or subtracted).
why we can even have a negative series of number on the x and y axis’s is precisely due to the fact that what 0 is as 1 value is that it is the negation of 1 value. This is why we can have -1 whose sole function is the deduction of 1. The value of -1 is still 1 even if the content of that 1 value is the negation of value, 0. This is why 0 is the origin of the x and y axis’s. It is the center, which is the potential whereby any value is countable and able to be related with other values.
Cardinal is used to count or indicate how many. Ordinal numbers are words that represent rank and order in a set.