THANKS FOR WATCHING! If you enjoyed the content, please like and share this video, subscribe to the channel, and turn on notifications for future updates. :)
Thank you and very interesting presentation from Hyman Schipper. Some questions to arise: My definitions of consciousness follow that of Thomas Nagel, the "what its like to be a bat" i.e phenomenology - so what I don't understand is how could people consider PanENtheism or PanSPYchism to be a solution to the problem of consciousness and phenomenology. The Ayn Sof doesn't fulfill any criteria that is "phenomenological consciousness" but utterly transcendent, without even time or space - how could an undifferentiated, oneness "DO" anything ? How can an indefinable, indefinite, undifferentiated, apophatic, oneness "simple unity" ontology "decide" , "choose" or "do" anything ??? Sounds like this is all projection of human consciousness attributes, presupposing time & space. How can a Tzimzum be chosen, decided or willed ? All this talk of "He creates", "He withdraws" "He Tzimzums" Presuppose time & space - even if taken metaphorically "in the language of man" - doesn't this appear incoherent ? The analogies of frozen cup containing water sound great, but these are quite easily understood in hylomorphic Aristotilian terms and material cause, formal cause, efficient cause, and the final causes. (actually a brilliant system that still applicable today - although personally like the work of Alicia Juarrero on dynamic complexity) So if this "Ayn Sof" undifferentiated light doesn't "choose, decide and manifest" what appear to be analogies of executive functions of the mind, the only other option is necessary modal creation. In essence, The Ayin Sof flow, necessarily must contract and Tzimzum via modal logical necessity. Since choosing, deciding and willing, presuppose time and limited conscious minds with executive functions such as deciding between possibilities. A necessary Tzimzum from the Ayin Sof (Contraction becomes a necessary feature of reality) then the Deity becomes something more like an impersonal principle, something like Stephen Wolfam's Ruliad or the Neoplatonist cosmogeny or David Deutch Mathematical reality or versions of Sir Roger Penrose Platonism. If Hyman Schipper wants to engage in this discussion, happy to continue and can email me on transformations@live.co.uk Likewise - I don't see how Kabbalah or other metaphysical framework solves mind-body problem without kicking can down the road. In this example, we end up with a problem of how "The One" becomes/Emanates/Constricts into "The Many". - instead of mind-body problem we and up with the "One-Many" problem. No issue with the fractal nature discussed in Indra-net or Hitkalelut [Intermingling] - this can be similar to W.V.Quines network of interconnected ideas or mathematical Platonism of David Deutch or the Ruliad of Stephen Wolfam (numerous examples, just name dropping a few) - the issue here is these network like fractals and holograms are reductionist frameworks, something like infinite realm of algorithms. ....but dont see how these explain phenomenal consciousness and mind-body problem. I find the above ESPECIALLY true when discussing the Mandelbrot set - which is remarkably simple algorithm, deterministic topography and reductionist. (I'm not criticizing reductionism, its very useful) The idea that every thought contains a fractal of all thoughts and consciousness may sound like mystical illumination - but this needs some verification without beginning to sound absurd. Its not like whilst i'm writing this now, within my consciousness exists all of Arabic, Chinese, Hebrew and some 7,000 other languages and every experience conceivable in all of history and the future........*** Although, I do "get it" that in some respects, my capacity to write this does depend on and is contingent on tens of thousands of previous minds (millions ?) as in the very language and culture has been created in the cauldron of some 100,000 years of human culture AND previous evolutionary ancestors. (particularly the last 12,000 yrs since agricultural revolution) ......I mean for a hunter gatherer in the Savanah 20,000 yrs ago, this essay is probably meaningless symbols - or even someone 500yrs ago. {I have mentioned some ideas that have been around for >2,300yrs, so not completely alien such as Aristotilian causes} Once again, thanks for an interesting talk. *** I pretty much know *my* phenomenology consciousness cannot contain fractals of hologram of the whole when confronted by utter and astonishing humility opening a book on some area that is completely sealed - such as computer coding language (I have no computer coding knowledge) or trying to figure out mathematics completely beyond by pay grade.
Ein Sof is utterly beyond comprehension, transcending all paradoxes. A concept that parallels this is Unbound Telesis in Christopher Langan's CTMU theory. The CTMU wikis, particularly their FAQs, address many common questions and explain how Unbound Telesis resolves numerous philosophical quandaries. Ein Sof Ohr, the infinite light, emanates from Ein Sof and represents divine self-knowledge. Through this reflective light, all creation occurs. When discussing these ideas, we encounter 'aporia', a Greek term used by Socrates and explored in Aristotle's Metaphysics to describe moments where language fails to convey meaning. If rationalism begins from a priori principles and empiricism from a tabula rasa, then metaphysical discourse must navigate the perplexity posed by aporia. Asking, "How does an undifferentiated one 'do' anything?" imposes human concepts of causality and constraint on the unbounded. The mental tension from such paradoxes highlights the limits of our understanding, showing that the infinite cannot be fully grasped by finite minds. An example of what this is not can be seen in the argument, "I cannot fathom computer programming language, thus how could it possibly be the case that my mind contains the whole in some holographic sense?" This is primarily an empirical inquiry. It is based on the individual's personal experience and observation of their inability to understand computer programming, leading to skepticism about the mind's capacity to contain complex, holistic knowledge. Our response to this is as follows: "Consider the intelligibility of complex systems, such as computer programming languages. Although you may not consciously understand how to program, you manage intricate bodily functions without thinking. This distinction between understanding and being suggests that your existence involves a holographic interaction with the whole-it's about how you think, not what you think." This response indeed touches on an aporetic approach. It acknowledges the perplexity and boundary of understanding, emphasizing the difference between conscious knowledge and intrinsic being. It suggests that while we may not fully comprehend certain systems through rational or empirical means, our existence and interaction with these systems transcend these limitations, aligning with the essence of aporia. Let’s use a diagram to illustrate consciousness. Imagine a stack representing transcended consciousness: the deeper into the column, the more transcended consciousness. An inverted stack represents individuated consciousness: the bottom is the least individuated, and the top is the most. Individuated consciousness is inversely proportional to transcended consciousness. However, transcended consciousness, even when individualized, recognizes its unity with the whole, maintaining individuality without the illusion of separation (ie it’s not ignorant). Rotate this diagram 90 degrees, placing individuated consciousness on the left and transcended consciousness on the right. Introduce an new vertical axis for agency or will, distinguishing the bottom pole: chaotic (growing entropy) and the top pole: coherent (increasing efficiency) will. Now, visualize an XY axis system: - The +x +y quadrant represents transcended awareness with coherent will (knowledge). - The +x -y quadrant represents transcended awareness with chaotic will (intuition). - The -x +y quadrant represents individuated awareness with coherent will (understanding). - The -x -y quadrant represents individuated awareness with chaotic will (ego subjected to emotions). Now to address your “can’t fathom programming” question: Understanding resides in the -x +y quadrant, representing individuated awareness and coherent will. You are a 'part of the whole' that 'contains the whole' as you fluidly exist on the XY grid. If Ein Sof Ohr encompasses every possible topological permutation on this grid, then you embody both potential and actualized forms. In this sense, everything is an expression and resolution within this holistic system. The extent to which you are bound reflects the clarity of the whole, similar to how a smaller piece of holographic film yields a blurrier, yet complete, image of the entire whole. This helps us understand how a rock can be considered conscious. It lies at 0 on the x-axis, representing neither transcended nor individuated consciousness, and is bound and undifferentiated. Low on the -y axis, it is shaped by many chaotic forces. In this way, matter is crystallized consciousness, emerging in high entropy environments where competing forces create a stable, static state.
In the textbooks of Kabbalah you find the seeds and many of the developments of most modern intelligent thought. You also find the more complete stories and analogies of most other religions. Kabbalah is upstream.
Thank you very much for bringing to light and establishing the points of intersection between Kabbalah, Advaita Vedanta, Science and Philosophy. The only observation that is a question concerns the hypothetical possibility that if the Non-Local Mind Theory is right, just as the brain being a receiving device for Universal Consciousness, AI, which is another device, may or may not be a receptacle for Universal Consciousness considering that H. P. Blavatsky stated that there is no mathematical point in the Universe that is not Conscious.
But why did god have to use all this spirit science to create the universe why not just do it straight away isn’t he omnipotent? Sounds to me like a elaborate fairytale story humans told each other to cure their boredom when they had too much spare time…
THANKS FOR WATCHING!
If you enjoyed the content, please like and share this video, subscribe to the channel, and turn on notifications for future updates. :)
Excellent. Please explain how anaesthesia seems to extinguish consciousness.
Thank you and very interesting presentation from Hyman Schipper.
Some questions to arise:
My definitions of consciousness follow that of Thomas Nagel, the "what its like to be a bat" i.e phenomenology - so what I don't understand is how could people consider PanENtheism or PanSPYchism to be a solution to the problem of consciousness and phenomenology.
The Ayn Sof doesn't fulfill any criteria that is "phenomenological consciousness" but utterly transcendent, without even time or space - how could an undifferentiated, oneness "DO" anything ?
How can an indefinable, indefinite, undifferentiated, apophatic, oneness "simple unity" ontology "decide" , "choose" or "do" anything ???
Sounds like this is all projection of human consciousness attributes, presupposing time & space.
How can a Tzimzum be chosen, decided or willed ?
All this talk of
"He creates",
"He withdraws"
"He Tzimzums"
Presuppose time & space - even if taken metaphorically "in the language of man" - doesn't this appear incoherent ?
The analogies of frozen cup containing water sound great, but these are quite easily understood in hylomorphic Aristotilian terms and material cause, formal cause, efficient cause, and the final causes. (actually a brilliant system that still applicable today - although personally like the work of Alicia Juarrero on dynamic complexity)
So if this "Ayn Sof" undifferentiated light doesn't "choose, decide and manifest" what appear to be analogies of executive functions of the mind, the only other option is necessary modal creation.
In essence, The Ayin Sof flow, necessarily must contract and Tzimzum via modal logical necessity.
Since choosing, deciding and willing, presuppose time and limited conscious minds with executive functions such as deciding between possibilities.
A necessary Tzimzum from the Ayin Sof (Contraction becomes a necessary feature of reality) then the Deity becomes something more like an impersonal principle, something like Stephen Wolfam's Ruliad or the Neoplatonist cosmogeny or David Deutch Mathematical reality or versions of Sir Roger Penrose Platonism.
If Hyman Schipper wants to engage in this discussion, happy to continue and can email me on transformations@live.co.uk
Likewise - I don't see how Kabbalah or other metaphysical framework solves mind-body problem without kicking can down the road.
In this example, we end up with a problem of how "The One" becomes/Emanates/Constricts into "The Many". - instead of mind-body problem we and up with the "One-Many" problem.
No issue with the fractal nature discussed in Indra-net or Hitkalelut [Intermingling] - this can be similar to W.V.Quines network of interconnected ideas or mathematical Platonism of David Deutch or the Ruliad of Stephen Wolfam (numerous examples, just name dropping a few) - the issue here is these network like fractals and holograms are reductionist frameworks, something like infinite realm of algorithms.
....but dont see how these explain phenomenal consciousness and mind-body problem.
I find the above ESPECIALLY true when discussing the Mandelbrot set - which is remarkably simple algorithm, deterministic topography and reductionist. (I'm not criticizing reductionism, its very useful)
The idea that every thought contains a fractal of all thoughts and consciousness may sound like mystical illumination - but this needs some verification without beginning to sound absurd. Its not like whilst i'm writing this now, within my consciousness exists all of Arabic, Chinese, Hebrew and some 7,000 other languages and every experience conceivable in all of history and the future........***
Although, I do "get it" that in some respects, my capacity to write this does depend on and is contingent on tens of thousands of previous minds (millions ?) as in the very language and culture has been created in the cauldron of some 100,000 years of human culture AND previous evolutionary ancestors. (particularly the last 12,000 yrs since agricultural revolution)
......I mean for a hunter gatherer in the Savanah 20,000 yrs ago, this essay is probably meaningless symbols - or even someone 500yrs ago. {I have mentioned some ideas that have been around for >2,300yrs, so not completely alien such as Aristotilian causes}
Once again, thanks for an interesting talk.
*** I pretty much know *my* phenomenology consciousness cannot contain fractals of hologram of the whole when confronted by utter and astonishing humility opening a book on some area that is completely sealed - such as computer coding language (I have no computer coding knowledge) or trying to figure out mathematics completely beyond by pay grade.
Thanks for the wonderful comment. I'll definitely share this with Hy and get his feedback!
Ein Sof is utterly beyond comprehension, transcending all paradoxes. A concept that parallels this is Unbound Telesis in Christopher Langan's CTMU theory. The CTMU wikis, particularly their FAQs, address many common questions and explain how Unbound Telesis resolves numerous philosophical quandaries.
Ein Sof Ohr, the infinite light, emanates from Ein Sof and represents divine self-knowledge. Through this reflective light, all creation occurs.
When discussing these ideas, we encounter 'aporia', a Greek term used by Socrates and explored in Aristotle's Metaphysics to describe moments where language fails to convey meaning. If rationalism begins from a priori principles and empiricism from a tabula rasa, then metaphysical discourse must navigate the perplexity posed by aporia. Asking, "How does an undifferentiated one 'do' anything?" imposes human concepts of causality and constraint on the unbounded. The mental tension from such paradoxes highlights the limits of our understanding, showing that the infinite cannot be fully grasped by finite minds.
An example of what this is not can be seen in the argument, "I cannot fathom computer programming language, thus how could it possibly be the case that my mind contains the whole in some holographic sense?" This is primarily an empirical inquiry. It is based on the individual's personal experience and observation of their inability to understand computer programming, leading to skepticism about the mind's capacity to contain complex, holistic knowledge.
Our response to this is as follows:
"Consider the intelligibility of complex systems, such as computer programming languages. Although you may not consciously understand how to program, you manage intricate bodily functions without thinking. This distinction between understanding and being suggests that your existence involves a holographic interaction with the whole-it's about how you think, not what you think."
This response indeed touches on an aporetic approach. It acknowledges the perplexity and boundary of understanding, emphasizing the difference between conscious knowledge and intrinsic being. It suggests that while we may not fully comprehend certain systems through rational or empirical means, our existence and interaction with these systems transcend these limitations, aligning with the essence of aporia.
Let’s use a diagram to illustrate consciousness. Imagine a stack representing transcended consciousness: the deeper into the column, the more transcended consciousness. An inverted stack represents individuated consciousness: the bottom is the least individuated, and the top is the most. Individuated consciousness is inversely proportional to transcended consciousness. However, transcended consciousness, even when individualized, recognizes its unity with the whole, maintaining individuality without the illusion of separation (ie it’s not ignorant).
Rotate this diagram 90 degrees, placing individuated consciousness on the left and transcended consciousness on the right. Introduce an new vertical axis for agency or will, distinguishing the bottom pole: chaotic (growing entropy) and the top pole: coherent (increasing efficiency) will.
Now, visualize an XY axis system:
- The +x +y quadrant represents transcended awareness with coherent will (knowledge).
- The +x -y quadrant represents transcended awareness with chaotic will (intuition).
- The -x +y quadrant represents individuated awareness with coherent will (understanding).
- The -x -y quadrant represents individuated awareness with chaotic will (ego subjected to emotions).
Now to address your “can’t fathom programming” question: Understanding resides in the -x +y quadrant, representing individuated awareness and coherent will. You are a 'part of the whole' that 'contains the whole' as you fluidly exist on the XY grid. If Ein Sof Ohr encompasses every possible topological permutation on this grid, then you embody both potential and actualized forms. In this sense, everything is an expression and resolution within this holistic system. The extent to which you are bound reflects the clarity of the whole, similar to how a smaller piece of holographic film yields a blurrier, yet complete, image of the entire whole.
This helps us understand how a rock can be considered conscious. It lies at 0 on the x-axis, representing neither transcended nor individuated consciousness, and is bound and undifferentiated. Low on the -y axis, it is shaped by many chaotic forces. In this way, matter is crystallized consciousness, emerging in high entropy environments where competing forces create a stable, static state.
In the textbooks of Kabbalah you find the seeds and many of the developments of most modern intelligent thought.
You also find the more complete stories and analogies of most other religions.
Kabbalah is upstream.
I look forward to exploring it in greater detail!
Thank you very much for bringing to light and establishing the points of intersection between Kabbalah, Advaita Vedanta, Science and Philosophy. The only observation that is a question concerns the hypothetical possibility that if the Non-Local Mind Theory is right, just as the brain being a receiving device for Universal Consciousness, AI, which is another device, may or may not be a receptacle for Universal Consciousness considering that H. P. Blavatsky stated that there is no mathematical point in the Universe that is not Conscious.
Thank you!
But why did god have to use all this spirit science to create the universe why not just do it straight away isn’t he omnipotent? Sounds to me like a elaborate fairytale story humans told each other to cure their boredom when they had too much spare time…