Archive for plato

Road to ruin

Posted in Cosmos with tags , , , , , , , on October 13, 2010 by ellocogringo


Mr Ted>why can’t you just study the behaviour of the plant on its own without cluttering the experiment with earth, air, fire [heat] and water?

Plato>In classical thought, the four elements Earth, Water, Air, and Fire

Frost>Two roads diverged in a yellow wood, And sorry I could not travel both

eLG>Plato forgot to tell Aristotle earth, wind, fire and water come from Aether

At this point in history we took the wrong road.

This is the problem people. Everything since plato is wrong. Everything. Nothing is salvageable. Nothing. W e must go back to this point in history and start thinking outside the box.  Am I the only one that can see this?

“Perceiving What Others Do Not Perceive” – Mary Somerville


The three legged stool

Posted in The Minds with tags , , , , , , , , on June 17, 2010 by ellocogringo


Plato’s Mobile Centering 4

I have a logical dilema.  I know that we have two cognitive minds.  It is entirely possible with this model that nothing external to me exists, so that the entire universe is an elaborate hoax set up to trick me.  Somehow, that doesn’t sound reasonable.  In ref to secret 1 & 2,  I’m not happy with what he says, but it does say “it ain’t real” in terms an idiot can understand. in finding fault which I agree with, he speaks of electrical signals. if you’re going to think of it in those terms, the brain is chemical, the “signals” are the effect, not the cause. I was thinking of stripping the sound off, and overlaying my own or just strip the sound off period.

as to how the hell do we get from ourselves as inclusions in the universe to local objects with internal sensing and interpretation equipment?

aye, there’s the rub. In my model, which is truth to me and speculation to you, there are 3 things in play. right mind, left mind and reality. We have two ways of looking at the world. through the tunnel of mainstream physics electrons/space describes “what’s out there”. a totally inadequate view. It is our interpretation of our perception of the electron and the perception of space yields the normal dual interpretation that space is the aggregate and accumulate sum of the electrons. But this is only our perception of “what’s out there”. the same is true for every tunnel I’ve looked through. So……you could say that our perception of ourself in relation to our perception of society is not SOCIETY. IE it is inside the skull. A little disambiguation is in order. So anytime a “dual” view of anything is presented, I wonder where the other element is. If you say intrinsic/extrinsic for instance, It seems to me like a three legged stool with one leg missing. If you intend extrinsic to mean right mind (our perception of what’s out there)., that leaves unanswered “what’s out there?” (that’s where I’m at) If you intend it to mean “what’s out there” that causes me to wonder what happened to your right mind. Genetic defect, amputation, or idiot? for whatever reason it ain’t working. we have to be looking through a tunnel unless we can fit the universe inside the skull, in which case we can make up our own rules. as to “one mind”, this is speculation only, which i tend to agree with, leaves unanswered the question “what is the quantum mind?” I have two hits on the molecule. not inconsistent. If true, there is a tiny bit of mind in each molecule which in the aggregate would make up the “one mind” so they are the same. BUT the one mind and the quantum mind are only inside the skull merely being our perception of “what’s out there” looked at through the mind tunnel. at this scale we would be about half way between the quantum mind and the one mind. The mind analyzes “what’s out there” in two modes which would fully explain everything I have seen. In this case the endpoints set by the tunnel are artifacts, and MAY not reflect reality. whether the universe is infinite or not depends on this and the best we can hope for is “the universe is infinite, as far as we can tell” I don’t think this “one mind” gives a shit what this semi-mini mind thinks about it. The brain itself perceives and interprets in exactly the same way, with the output determined by worldview. why should intrinsic/extrinsic be any different? so we’re back to the yin/yang wars.

Or…. an alternative interpretation, I could be full of shit, I am crazy, don’t you know?


Posted in Society with tags , , , , , , , , , , on June 1, 2010 by ellocogringo



Plato’s Cave

“Plato imagines a group of people who have lived chained in a cave all of their lives, facing a blank wall. The people watch shadows projected on the wall by things passing in front of a fire behind them, and begin to ascribe forms to these shadows. According to Plato, the shadows are as close as the prisoners get to seeing reality. He then explains how the philosopher is like a prisoner who is freed from the cave and comes to understand that the shadows on the wall are not constitutive of reality at all, as he can perceive the true form of reality rather than the mere shadows seen by the prisoners.” – Wikipedia

Impressive dude, specially when you consider that his p-truth was that the elements were earth, wind, fire and water. How many p-truths have there been since then? 118 as of last count, and I’m sure there will be more. The present periodic table is not TRUTH, it is only the most recent p-truth. (best answer to date) Throughout history every TRUTH has proven to be an n-truth, and always will be I suspect.

As to the cave; in reality that is all we can see, the shadows on the wall. Like radio waves, there is something there but we can’t see it. Yet the radio works. Like vectors (vibrations) in the 4th dimension. There is SOMETHING there but we can’t see it. Yet the universe exists.

The Scientific Method precludes us ever finding out.

I’m not putting down reductionist thinking. I’m putting down the “Scientific Method”, (using reductionist thinking to seek truth) reductionist thinking is not appropriate for creativity. You’ve got to go outside the box to find new “truths”. I use reductionist thinking almost exclusively. DNA control, for instance. Then here come epigenitics, OK, reset my algorithm and move on. Only if i am interested in something do I switch. Like trying to figure out why other people are dumb. Or what can be done to help my grandson (genetic problem) I am not interested what conventional truth is in these cases. Conventional wisdom says nothing can be done. I must go outside the box. And anytime I go outside the box I find BS triumphant. Most scientists are idiots. I have pointed out to you the only ones I have found that were not. And I’ve been looking for 6 months. Disappointing. Basically I think that people operate at three levels; scientist, engineer, technician. At the scientist level you have people like da Vinci, Einstein, Heisenburg, Hawkings, Plato, etc. At the engineer level are the people capable of understanding the scientist who can translate his concepts into action. At the techinician level are the people who can understand the problems involved and impliment effective action. These three groups comprise, at most, 10% of the population, the rest being idiots and assholes. BUT THIS IS A CHOICE. Anyone can operate at whichever level they wish. An asshole chooses his own material goal over his emotional well being, The idiot doesn’t care.