The hierarchical structure of the universal mind

[Soul_of_Shu]

News flash from Essentia ... Now apparently we're like 'nuclei' of Mind in The hierarchical structure of the universal mind

[Eugene I]

It's an interesting interpretation of reality but still has a big explanatory gap. A feature of any evolutionary-driven network is a variety of competing structures/relations. Without such variety the evolutionary selection is not possible. We do see this variety on the higher organizational levels. Yet, on the lowest levels we observe amazing consistency and lack of variety - all phenomena on the lowest level follow some very specific and exact patterns and relations (that can be approximated with high quantitative accuracy by equations of the modern physics). There is no evolutional adaptation and variety observed on that lowest level of hierarchy. How can this be explained based on the evolutionary network theory?

[AshvinP]

News flash from Essentia ... Now apparently we're like 'nuclei' of Mind in The hierarchical structure of the universal mind

It's funny how you can spot a flawed and nihilistic ontology simply by the words used. In this case, infinite "independent nuclei". Suffice to say, Cleric has already shown the fundamental flaws in this purely abstract ontology with his Beyond Flat Mal essay. Here we need to go Beyond Infinitely Fragmented Nuclei aka materialist reductionism.

[Hedge90]

It's an interesting interpretation of reality but still has a big explanatory gap. A feature of any evolutionary-driven network is a variety of competing structures/relations. Without such variety the evolutionary selection is not possible. We do see this variety on the higher organizational levels. Yet, on the lowest levels we observe amazing consistency and lack of variety - all phenomena on the lowest level follow some very specific and exact patterns and relations (that can be approximated with high quantitative accuracy by equations of the modern physics). There is no evolutional adaptation and variety observed on that lowest level of hierarchy. How can this be explained based on the evolutionary network theory?

I haven't yet read the article, but my answer to this is that the higher organism that we will unite into may not have formed yet. Most of the various bacteria and microbae making up the human body had to exist before the first human emerged. Keeping with that analogy, we could be at a stage of this process when there is no human yet, but the components are already forming.

[Ben Iscatus]

News flash from Essentia ... Now apparently we're like 'nuclei' of Mind in The hierarchical structure of the universal mind

Thanks, Dana - very interesting article!

[Soul_of_Shu]

News flash from Essentia ... Now apparently we're like 'nuclei' of Mind in The hierarchical structure of the universal mind

It's funny how you can spot a flawed and nihilistic ontology simply by the words used. In this case, infinite "independent nuclei". Suffice to say, Cleric has already shown the fundamental flaws in this purely abstract ontology with his Beyond Flat Mal essay. Here we need to go Beyond Infinitely Fragmented Nuclei aka materialist reductionism.

Somehow even an 'alter' seemed preferable Nevertheless, the One is not other than the Many, nor the Many other than the One, expressing a seeming infinitude of unique inter-being expressions of the Mind's 'I's/eyes

[AshvinP]

News flash from Essentia ... Now apparently we're like 'nuclei' of Mind in The hierarchical structure of the universal mind

It's funny how you can spot a flawed and nihilistic ontology simply by the words used. In this case, infinite "independent nuclei". Suffice to say, Cleric has already shown the fundamental flaws in this purely abstract ontology with his Beyond Flat Mal essay. Here we need to go Beyond Infinitely Fragmented Nuclei aka materialist reductionism.

Somehow even an 'alter' seemed preferable Nevertheless, the One is not other than the Many, nor the Many other than the One, expressing a seeming infinitude of unique inter-being expressions of the Mind's 'I's/eyes

Yes an 'alter' is infinitely more preferable

Since the One is not other than the Many, there is only One essential "I" which we all share. I really don't see how to make sense of the polarity in any other way, let alone avoid the nihilism of infinite "I"s who will either merge into undifferentiated, selfless "consciousness" or remain forever tied to some isolated fragment of the World Content.

[Eugene I]

I haven't yet read the article, but my answer to this is that the higher organism that we will unite into may not have formed yet. Most of the various bacteria and microbae making up the human body had to exist before the first human emerged. Keeping with that analogy, we could be at a stage of this process when there is no human yet, but the components are already forming.

Well, yes, but that's not my point. Even in the world of bacteria there is a huge variety of forms evolutionary competing with each other. But on the level of most basic physical phenomena there is no variety - all of them follow only a single set of mathematical laws. It seem s that there is no evolutionary mechanism on the micro-physical level (unless we assume the multiverse interpretation)

[Ben Iscatus]

I'd be glad to be a cog in a good cause, so long as the good cause respects its cogs.

[Soul_of_Shu]

I'd be glad to be a cog in a good cause, so long as the good cause respects its cogs.

If a cog then an aware one that plays its integral role in ideation's metamorphic process, so 'cog'nize accordingly