[MD] Computers vs. Brains

[Ham Priday]

Says Krimel:


> Here is an example of Hamish making the idiotic sound
> profound. "Ultimate reality" is a meaningless concept.
> Perhaps that is what attracts you to it. It can mean whatever
> you like.

I disagree.  We are ALL attracted to ultimate reality; it is the source of 
Value.
Therefore, ultimate reality cannot be a meaningless concept.

> Locus is not a power. It doesn't have a power. There is no
> power in locus nor a power of locus. I have no idea why
> you think the term potentiality can be applied to "ultimate
> reality".

I disagree.  Localization is the placement of human beings and objects in 
space and time.  It's a function of differentiated existence whereby the 
universe is an ordered system.  Since nothing can come from nothing, the 
ordered universe has a primary source, the power or potentiality of which is 
to actuate and configure experiential existence.

> Whatever "ultimate reality" is must be beyond mere
> potential. "Absolute sensibility" is another fantasy term.
> Would that be something like Dr. Manhattan? Any term
> derived from the root "sense" must refer to some organ of
> sensation. No organ of sensation or combination of such
> organs can absorb all of the properties of any sensible thing.
> That would just be a waste of processing power.

I disagree.  Ultimate reality (Essence) is the potentiality to negate Being 
as the appearance of otherness, thereby actualizing existence.  Nothing else 
has that power -- not value or energy or quantum physics or a divinity.

> Talking about sensibility without the possibility of something
> to sense it is just gibberish.
>
> And you whine about Nihilists. Without brains or sensing
> creatures what you have left is Death.

You've just demonstrated the kind of reasoning that makes me whine about 
nihilists.

Again, you (and Arlo) have a very limited, materialistic notion of 
sensibility which is a major part of our "communication" problems.  Absolute 
Sensibility does not require neurons and receptors to "receive" sensory 
information.  In Essence there is no otherness.  Sensibility and its 
"object" are one; Subjectivity and its Value are one.  Because this 
epistemology is beyond human understanding, I make no attempt to describe it 
in causal terms but only as a metaphysical concept.  I know my inability to 
provide a definitive explanation in existential terms annoys you both.  But 
if you can't accept the concept, what do you achieve (other than venting 
your spleen) by attacking it?

I respectfully suggest that you broaden your philosophical perspective and 
consider a metaphysical theory on its own merits for a change.  You may be 
surprised at how effectively this can resolve your circular debates about 
parsing Quality to account for reality.

Essentially speaking,
Ham