LastThursday

What is the conscious experience in idealism really like? There are several different modes that consciousness could be operating in. In summary these could be: Direct. The only thing that exists is what you are directly aware of right now. Talk of anything outside of that is fantasy. Omnipresent. Consciousness extends beyond what you are directly aware of. It is everywhere and potentially infinite. Bubble. Consciousness appears compartmentalised. Each compartment is a world unto itself, maybe even completely disconnected from others pockets of consciousness. Subtle. There are levels of awareness to consciousness, some so subtle they are barely discernable. Let me take each in turn and give me thoughts on each. Direct Consciousness In this mode the entirety of consciousness is just that which you are aware of and nothing more. This is the basis of Solipsism, which says to forget anything that isn't in your awareness, it simply doesn't exist, your awareness is prime. My main unease with this is the problem of persistence and structure. It seems obvious that if you sit and close your eyes stuff doesn't just stop existing, because when you open them again the world reappears. Now, it could be that consciousness has a "memory" and so can effortlessly persist the world even when you are not directly aware of it, but that does presuppose that there is a form of existence which isn't "direct consciousness", a contradiction. It's hard to reconcile persistence of the world with this Direct mode. But it could just be that indirect consciousness isn't necessary, everything in direct consciousness just correlates and fits together so well, there is an illusion of a whole persistent and continuous world "out there". It could be that the entirety of existence is encoded in direct consciousness, like the surface of event horizon of a black hole encoding the contents of its interior. Maybe direct consciousness is a form of hologram, the whole contained within the part? Omnipresent Consciousness This separates consciousness from awareness. Consciousness could be an infinite spread out field, and we just so happen to be aware of one chunk of this field. Then omnipresent consciousness could easily maintain an entire universe, and your particular patch of consciousness is limited like a flashlight illuminating part of a dark room. But then, what is the nature of that consciousness which isn't direct? Why is it I don't have access to it, without taking the effort of illuminating my way through my neighbourhood with my awareness by walking through it (say)? Is that non-aware (indirect) part consciousness churning away just like my aware consciousness is? Could it be that consciousness can take different and incompatible forms, so that my consciousness awareness cannot access those incompatible forms? Does my walking around my neighbourhood in fact "convert" that incompatible consciousness to something compatible, and voila I'm aware of it? Bubble Consciousness Maybe consciousness is plural. There is more than one type of consciousness each of which is more or less separate. This jives with how people experience each other. There is a strong sensation that yes other people are conscious too, and that they can communicate that conscious experience. But try as we might we can't have first-hand access to others' consiousness. Maybe a planet or star is conscious, but we are unable to communicate with it in the right way to check? The question naturally arises then if people inhabit they're own bubble consciousness, then how is it we seem to share a world together and can agree on what is happening in it? How are all those bubble consciousnesses co-ordinated with each other? Is that a super-conscious that does the co-ordination? Subtle Consciousness Maybe consciousness correlates with (my) awareness, but there are subtle fingers of my awareness that stretch out into the universe, keeping the whole shebang hanging together? By subtle I mean "barely aware", but not weak. It would be a form of Omnipresent awareness, but with a peak in awareness precisely where "I am". I imagine it like an infinite web of varying levels of awareness. And by some force this peak of awareness traverses the web, rising and subsiding in the level of awareness as it moves (like a wave). Maybe it isn't subtle awareness as such, but more of a morphing of awareness that happens outside my own immediate bubble? So that it becomes less matched with "my" type of awareness and hence harder for "me" to discern. This subtle web of awareness may even allow "my" awareness to experience other parts of the web without my physical body. Everything is connected?

I think I would take a more goal oriented approach. If a wanted to produce and edit a video, I would have in mind what I wanted to do. I would then go ahead and learn the necessary techniques to allow me to actualise what's in my head as I go. At first it will be inefficient to learn this way, because you're having to take in a lot of new information at the same time as trying to use it. But, in the long run you'll be a lot quicker than just being taught information upfront and then trying to put all that information to use. The great benefit of having a teacher is that they can comprehensively cover a subject. Often when teaching yourself, you won't be aware of big gaps in your knowledge, and you may get stuck in inefficient habits. They may also know tips and tricks to make you more efficient, but you can pick these up yourself over time.

@Princess Arabia consciousness (noun) is exactly the same thing as "conscious of" (verb), they're just two linguistic ways of saying the same thing. Newton says: to every action there is an equal and opposite re-action. But it's not that there are two actions in that phrase, no, it's just one action. It's just that language confuses things.

@Mixcoatl you have to differentiate a stretch of time from an instantaneous moment of change. It's clear that we experience change, so you could say there are qualia for change, it's part of the conscious experience. But time is different, it is an accumulation of change, all those small changes add up to give a sense of a block of time. But where does this block of time exist? Time gets "encoded" into the present moment. Say you go to prove that pitch is a vibration, you break out your microphone and oscilloscope. You play a note and the waveform appears on the oscilloscope. Where is this vibration? It's on the oscilloscope screen. All those small changes accumulate in the oscilloscope itself and you infer that a vibration "happened". It's no different from your own memory of the past, those changes get imprinted in your mind and you infer the passage of time from there - but the recall of the past is always happening now. Time is always constructed, but change is fundamental to consciousness.

@Infinite Tsukuyomi good insight. Falling into the unknown and surrendering yourself to it is a great metaphor for life in general. Thanks for the reminder that I need to do more of this! I'd recommend doing a bungee as well as skydiving, standing on that platform is truly nerve-racking but exhilarating. Here's mine:

I think it's impossible to know the consequences of UBI. I don't think capitalism would allow UBI to ever be an income you can live on, you would still have to work. In the UK at least you can get benefit payments if you're out of work, which UBI would replace ultimately, the difference being that everyone would be eligible, working or not. It could be argued that rich people should not get UBI, because the money for it needs to come from somewhere. But the universal aspect of UBI suggests that anyone and everyone should receive it. I think that's the only way to make it work, but you could have an opt-in system for UBI instead - many would probably not opt-in because it would not make much difference to them. One probable consequence is that working wages will drop all around by the amount of UBI everyone gets. So yes, you'll always have a baseline level of income, but if you choose to work, you're no better off than before UBI, unless it's low paid work. I do think that UBI will help the poorest in society and to uplift them and will have positive repercussions for society in general. Some people will want to continue working, some won't. It could free people up to be more social and get together more often, it may produce a more friendly and cohesive society. It may free people up to follow their passions and be more creative. Ultimately, UBI will give people more choice and hence more freedom to live their lives how they want to.

If it works why change it? A relationship is a dynamic thing always changing. If it stops working then you can find someone else. What causes the most suffering is not fully appreciating the person you're with, but also, not breaking up when should and dragging things out.

It's often better to keep the level of abstraction down by giving examples, anecdotes or telling a story. Because, it's easier for someone to dismiss something they don't understand, either by entrenching their position or by not engaging with your ideas. But that does require more skill on your part. When you know ideas really well, there's a tendency towards abstraction and a belief that your audience understands you.

Interesting stuff. As a thought experiment, how does any sort of asymmetry come about in the first place? Unless the asymmetry has always been present, then a symmetry had to be broken somewhere along the line. What is that mechanism? In terms of the universe as a whole, then you could take the most symmetrical thing possible and start from there. A symmetry is just some attribute that stays the same after some sort of transformation. What is the most symmetrical thing possible? I'd say a complete void: whatever you do to it it stays the same. So to create a baby universe from a void, you have to break some of its symmetries. Note that this is a bit paradoxical, because there are potentially an infinite number of possible symmetries for a void. On the other hand breaking any symmetry here would produce "something" from "nothing". Conversely, the fact that there is anything at all means that original symmetry of the void has been violated. The asymmetry of the Weak force then is a consequence of there being something at all. Those asymmetries could have come about in an infinite number of potential ways, the egg just so happened to crack the way it did, so to speak. However, it doesn't mean that all those symmetry violations are not connected to each other. In some sense a "force" is not separable from the particles it acts on: they form one system. So I would say the Weak force and the particles it acts on have to be taken together. And together they break a symmetry. The question then is not why is the Weak force asymmetric, but more like, is the Weak force asymmetry connected to other asymmetries in nature?

I find that being agreeable in a work environment mostly works. But I have my limits, and can be disagreeable if people behave badly, which they will inevitably. The ideal is to talk through disagreements or bullying, but that's not always possible or even wanted. People do notice however if you stop being agreeable and it can make them feel uncomfortable - which helps them realise their bad behaviour has consequences - especially if you're disagreeable just to certain people. I've found that being disagreeable can sometimes make you more respected, especially amongst men. Work is generally about getting the most out of you for the least amount of recompense. That process can involve a lot of social manipulation to achieve that, including being hostile and being unpleasant. Every work situation is different though. Just realise that in the end you can vote with your feet and leave, you always have that option.

Not much to report. If you have nothing to say, then say nothing right? Saying that, presence is often enough without having to say anything much. I get those moments with friends at times. Are you comfortable enough to just sit with each other in moments of silence? Notice this with you family or with friends, can you just "be" with each other without having to neurotically fill the discomfort of being silent? When you're silent you realise that the discomfort is actually "presence". It's the acknowledgement that there is a living breathing unpredictable animal there right next to you, who chooses to be tame. I use "animal" for emphasis and not to denigrate. The silence temporarily removes the gloss of social politeness and mores: and at a nearly unconscious level makes you take notice of the divinity that you're dealing with. Sitting in silence comfortably means that you trust each other enough, that you can relax, and you re-affirm your commitment to each other. You don't have to constantly be kicking in the sea of noise to stay afloat.

DNA is put together like Lego bricks. There are four kinds of bricks. DNA has a finite length in every cell of your body. It's a digital storage medium, and so it has a finite storage capacity, about 3 Gigabytes for a human. The DNA of every human alive is nearly identical.

Em dashes are fine (mostly). They are used like round brackets to add extra — incidental — information. Except they have a more positive vibe to them than round brackets or where the incidental information is more relevant to the flow of the sentence. You could also use two commas instead, like brackets, if it's less incidental. Sometimes a single em dash is used in place of a semi-colon; which people seem allergic to using nowadays, pity. Sometimes it's even used in place of a colon: which is blasphemy. Mostly, it's a stylistic choice.

I was reverse parking in my garage with a friend as a passenger. I made a perfect turn into the space and said "that's the best parking I ever did!". I then proceeded to scrape my driver's door against a concrete pillar. Moral of the story? Never brag about your driving. Even more moral of the story? ALWAYS pay damn attention.

@integral interesting. Why don't you think it's absurd? And if the answer is clear, are you able to create something from nothing yourself? i.e. if you know how a chair is made, couldn't you make a chair in practice?

If you are triggered by a stupid person, you yourself are stupid. Stupidity is relative, and so we're all stupid to some degree, in the same way we're all intelligent to a degree.

The IT world is vast and constantly changing. You can't know all of it. Most of the technologies I know I've learnt on the job, and every place has its own unique mix of technologies. When you spend 8 hours a day at work learning stuff, you soon master it - even if it's stressful at first. So I've needed to know enough to get my foot in the door, but once I'm in a job I learn everything else. I code outside of work on my own projects, but I do that out of interest rather need, and I've found that that helps keep my skills up too. A lot of what you learn on one technology is transferable to other technologies: programming in PHP has a lot of overlap to programming in Javascript for example. Maybe the Portugese market is more competitive than the UK market, but it's like anything, you choose how much you want to learn. The more you learn the more employable you'll be, that's just capitalism. The stress comes from within, because you don't want to return to hard times.

My agnostic answer is that the above is just a relational equivalence between words: i.e. it is a statement using logic. To say "two things are one", "this is the same as that", and all those sorts of relational statements is just logic. Logic shouldn't be confused with actuality. It could be that in actuality the thing pointed to by the word "God" is the same as the thing pointed to by the word "Love". But you should be clear that "God=love" is a construct of language, not the thing itself. It could well be that in actuality God does not equal Love, but you can't "know" that with logic. At its basic level you can't make something true by stating it as fact (using language). Language and by extension logic, is ridiculously powerful. And the thing behind language (brains) are also super powerful. Our abilities have overflowed our survival needs - that's why we can subjugate nature and create cities. We are free to use language for things that aren't connected to survival - spirituality for one, but also story telling and imagination. Although, it is very difficult to disentangle survival from non-survival. Lots of the things we do seem to not be connected to survival on the surface, but when you drill down they are. Spirituality for example could encourage group cohesion and hence improve survival.

I would disagree with that. It's ok to specialise in certain areas and you can still get work from it. For example, I know backend and database stuff extensively and enough front end to get by, I don't know dev ops hardly, and a small about of cyber security - I have a comfortable job. The point is that most companies hire a mix of people who have strengths in different areas. In general the bigger the company the more specialised you can be. All these IT recruitment adverts that list everything are just typical sales bullshit, no employer in their right mind would expect you to know everything. Of course, you can become a champion IT person if you like, and employers will happily recompense you for your knowledge. But you can let yourself off the hook a bit.

@Anton Rogachevski logic is just a specialised outgrowth of language, and we use language as a glue to relate to one another. You're right in that we have to figure out a lot of things just to stay alive, whether this is done consciously or unconsciously. Logic and language is just the conscious part of that process, which we can co-opt for non-survival purposes.

My favourite is, how do you get something from nothing? Specifically if I were some all powerful entity, how would I do it? Of course it's a completely absurd thing to think about, but fun.

Interesting thought, but it's a paradox. If you had truth why would you need to construct it again? Because its truths not Truth. I was in a poetic mood when I wrote that. Logic relates one set of truths to another set. If I say "God is love" then I'm relating the truth of whatever "God" stands for with the truth of what "love" stands for. Mathematics does the same, relating proofs and derivations to a set of axioms (self evident truths). But, whether we should relate one thing to another is a different question. Logic is a stripped down model of reality at best.

Knowing is the sensation of truth. Truth is what persists. Logic constructs truth from truth.

No. The CV should be an honest and full account of you as a person and your experience. Everything is relevant because the interviewer may want to pick up on things that you don't think are relevant. But, you can de-emphasise less relevant experience by just writing less about it, keep it very brief. For more relevant stuff, you want to write more detail. For example if you were a fork lift driver, then write "fork lift driver for warehouse" and that's it, don't elaborate. If the interviewer is interested in that they will ask you further about it, if not then they haven't wasted time reading about something that isn't relevant.

@Zest4Life I've been on both ends of the hiring process. Believe me when you have to read through 100s of CVs, you instantly have to make a judgement just based on presentation. If there's anything that makes it hard to read, unclear, waffle, too much text, bad layout, bad spelling, inconsistencies, too many pages, it's out. Definitely keep it simple and concise and all the important and recent stuff on one page. On my CV I list all my software skills right at the top, literally a list of acronyms, before I even list the places I've worked at. Anything which makes it easier to take it all in at a glance, is the way to go.