This enlightenment experience is a realization about the nature of the mind which entails recognizing it (in a direct, experiential way) as liminocentrically organized. The overall structure is paradoxical, and so the articulation of this realization will 'transcend' logic - insofar as logic itself is based on the presumption that nested sets are not permitted to loop back on themselves in a non-heirarchical manner. 11
This plate image is a powerful one for me becuase it represents something Greene understood well. His link on the right hand side of this blog is the admission of "cosmological and quantum mechanical readiness," to tackle the cosmological frontier.
While it is has become evident that the perspective I share and the wonders of mathematcial endowment, this basis has pointed me in the direct relationship between, brain matter and mind? Mind and mathematics?
In the West we tend to think of 'enlightenment' itself as an exceptional mental state, outside of (or separate from) ordinary states. But in many of the spiritual traditions of the East, enlightenment is described as, in essence, a 'realization' 9 about the ultimate nature of the mind. Enlightenment is really nothing but the 'ordinary' state, as seen (and experienced) from a somewhat wider perspective, as it were. This is not unlike how the Newtonian frame which describes events in the material world at a HUMAN scale can be conceived as enclosed within a wider frame of explanation that is Einsteinian.
So is there some cosmological embodiment of brain matter, once it has realized the mathmatics, that it will issue from that brain has somehow traversed, all laws of nature and transcended itself away from the curent standards set for itself. Mind, is limited by the brain matter we have?
In this metaphor, when we are seeing the donut as solid object in space, this is like ordinary everyday consciousness. When we see the donut and the hole at its center, this is like a stage of realization in which 'form' is recognized as 'empty'. When we zoom in extremely closely and inspect the 'emptiness' at the center, or zoom out an extreme distance away from the object and the donut seems to disappear and we have only empty space - this is like certain 'objectless' states of awareness that can occur in meditation. But the final goal is not to achieve the undifferentiated state itself; it is to come to the special perspective that allows us to continue to see all three aspects at once - the donut, the whole in the middle, and the space surrounding it - this is like the 'enlightened' state, in this analogy. 10 The innermost and outermost psychological 'space' (which is here a metaphor for 'concentrated attention' and 'diffused attention') are recognized as indeed the same, continuous.
So imagine the eire I could raise when I say that string theory has transcended the current status of mathematics, "brain matter controlled." That any attemtps to side swipe this new emergent quality of mathematics (what is it that has materialized?)and now we see that what lies in the cosmo is not limiteed to cosmlogical endeavors of General Relativity alone, but the deepr significance and recognition of the reductionist views of those same matters around us?
Who is going to argue with this?
I have set the standards well, that brain matters and functions if stood by, have revealled that mathematics is embodied by the brain matter with which we are dealt?
Then how shall any new mathematics form and become the responsive road to recogniton of the physics we have endured by experimentation, to say, that new roads are now to be considered? Our brain status will not allow this, because the brain matter has not be readied for this new transcendance of thinkng. We are limited by the very matters with which we like to deal?
So if string theory is to be considered in context, of the way in which the brain deals, then how could transcendance and twenty first century thinking ever prepare society for this new transcendance and viability for change in the way humanity has always seen?
This is a torus (like a doughnut) on which several circles are located. Unlike on a Euclidean plane, on this surface it is impossible to determine which circle is inside of which, since if you go from the black circle to the blue, to the red, and to the grey, you can continuously come back to the initial black, and likewise if you go from the black to the grey, to the red, and to the blue, you can also come back to the black.
Reichenbach then invites us to consider a 3-dimensional case (spheres instead of circles).
Figure 8 [replaced by our Figure 2] is to be conceived three-dimensionally, the circles being cross-sections of spherical shells in the plane of the drawing. A man is climbing about on the huge spherical surface 1; by measurements with rigid rods he recognizes it as a spherical shell, i.e. he finds the geometry of the surface of a sphere. Since the third dimension is at his disposal, he goes to spherical shell 2. Does the second shell lie inside the first one, or does it enclose the first shell? He can answer this question by measuring 2. Assume that he finds 2 to be the smaller surface; he will say that 2 is situated inside of 1. He goes now to 3 and finds that 3 is as large as 1.
How is this possible? Should 3 not be smaller than 2? ...
He goes on to the next shell and finds that 4 is larger than 3, and thus larger than 1. ... 5 he finds to be as large as 3 and 1.
But here he makes a strange observation. He finds that in 5 everything is familiar to him; he even recognizes his own room which was built into shell 1 at a certain point. This correspondence manifests itself in every detail; ... He is quite dumbfounded since he is certain that he is separated from surface 1 by the intervening shells. He must assume that two identical worlds exist, and that every event on surface 1 happens in an identical manner on surface 5. (Reichenbach 1958, 63-64)
One had to be able to maintain this positon between the inner and outer and a consistent feature of the brains ability to unite, the world outside, with the one inside?
Did we not see the ability of Time variable measures on the basis of how we see earth not mean, that we should place less significance to how Persinger asked the question, and ran contray to Lakoff and Damasio's views? One in which I postulate now too, as evidence of the transcendance needed to incoporate a much more palatable feature of the 21st century.
My evidence is, and although speaking to some ideal of enlightenment, has shown that such graduations needed to see the "Work of Iscap" as a fundmental progression of this new feature of the brain's compacity? This is part of it's evolution.
Oh, I have no views on intelligent design, so any comparisons seen, are coincidence.
Our brains take their input from the rest of our bodies. What our bodies are like and how they function in the world thus structures the very concepts we can use to think. We cannot think just anything - only what our embodied brains permit."
The result is that the pinball follows a random path, deflecting off one pin in each of the four rows of pins, and ending up in one of the cups at the bottom. The various possible paths are shown by the gray lines and one particular path is shown by the red line. We will describe this path using the notation "LRLL" meaning "deflection to the left around the first pin, then deflection right around the pin in the second row, then deflection left around the third and fourth pins".
Melancholia in 1514(the original)
Rafael Núñez and George Lakoff have been able to give an elaborate first answer to the questions: How can advanced mathematics arise from the physical brain and body? Given the very limited mathematical capacity of human brains at birth, how can advanced mathematical ideas be built up using the basic mechanisms of conceptual structure: image-schemas, frames, metaphors, and conceptual blends?
