virtuality crap

7/24/2019 Virtuality Crap

1/16

Batraghor Tshathoqqua

Nico's new note is stylish fluff, I will be interested when there is actual content.

Zurvan Goshayeshi

i agree with the sentiments behind nico's claims moreso than yours. While I agree with a lot of stuff i

agree with you, it is simply not practical in a larger scale.

i want to get more into laurelle and such


Sentiments are not the basis of a sound philosophy.

Zurvan Goshayeshi

the issue is that your philosophy kind of occludes the possibility of speaking outside sentiment/passions

it has a lot of contradictions like that


That isn't contradiction, it's consistency.

It doesn't occlude the possibility of speaking with consistency or passions that are aware of such

Zurvan Goshayeshi

i think that's the function of empirical science

but there are uestions that science cannot !alidate
https://www.facebook.com/strangefungushttps://www.facebook.com/recursivecatsinalldirectionshttps://www.facebook.com/strangefungushttps://www.facebook.com/recursivecatsinalldirectionshttps://www.facebook.com/strangefungushttps://www.facebook.com/recursivecatsinalldirectionshttps://www.facebook.com/strangefungushttps://www.facebook.com/recursivecatsinalldirectionshttps://www.facebook.com/strangefungushttps://www.facebook.com/recursivecatsinalldirectionshttps://www.facebook.com/strangefungushttps://www.facebook.com/recursivecatsinalldirectionshttps://www.facebook.com/recursivecatsinalldirectionshttps://www.facebook.com/strangefungushttps://www.facebook.com/recursivecatsinalldirectionshttps://www.facebook.com/strangefungushttps://www.facebook.com/recursivecatsinalldirectionshttps://www.facebook.com/strangefungus


2/16


"mpirical science has refused to re!olutioni#e itself based on its own findings

Zurvan Goshayeshi

i think !irtuality is kinda unfounded and leads to more scientific uestions, it $ust can't be !alidated

hence my point about derrida


%errida is contradictory to himself.

Zurvan Goshayeshi

derrida isn't perfect either, but as a neuroscientist with a background in philosophy of mind and

neurophilosophy, i can't take deleu#e's ontology seriously on a more basic le!el

it still lea!es a lot of doubts and holes


The point is that you cannot reconcile science with %errida.

%eleu#e can be, howe!er.

Zurvan Goshayeshi

some aspects of deleu#e can be reconciled with science

but not the whole of it

also they're both anti&essentialists

so that kind of... already pre!ents the possibility of full reconcilation
https://www.facebook.com/strangefungushttps://www.facebook.com/recursivecatsinalldirectionshttps://www.facebook.com/strangefungushttps://www.facebook.com/recursivecatsinalldirectionshttps://www.facebook.com/strangefungushttps://www.facebook.com/recursivecatsinalldirectionshttps://www.facebook.com/recursivecatsinalldirectionshttps://www.facebook.com/recursivecatsinalldirectionshttps://www.facebook.com/strangefungushttps://www.facebook.com/recursivecatsinalldirectionshttps://www.facebook.com/strangefungushttps://www.facebook.com/recursivecatsinalldirectionshttps://www.facebook.com/strangefungushttps://www.facebook.com/recursivecatsinalldirectionshttps://www.facebook.com/strangefungushttps://www.facebook.com/recursivecatsinalldirections


3/16


Scientific inuiry has no use for essences, false.

There is no obstacle between %eleu#e's theories and science, but %errida is simply totally

irreconciliable.

Zurvan Goshayeshi

there are obstacles...

for eample, !irtuality is unfalsifiable

plane of immanence is unfalsifiable too

well maybe not in the future for plane of immanence

but !irtuality definitely is unfalsifiable


(lane of immanence is consistent with scientific findings. The plane of consistency or pure differencesets the stage of the empirical, meanwhile the )ristotelian ontology continues to presume the static and

we continue to think in its ways like manipulating the corpse of a dead god. It's possible to think of

essences in %eleu#e in a certain way, if you really want to, though it does not possess the same nature

as in being ontology, it is gone into in that paper I put into the (ost *eft !s. (ost +ight called aterial

Theory of Signs.


-it is present in

Zurvan Goshayeshi

eah, I agree with you on plane of immanence.
https://www.facebook.com/strangefungushttps://www.facebook.com/recursivecatsinalldirectionshttps://www.facebook.com/strangefungushttps://www.facebook.com/strangefungushttps://www.facebook.com/recursivecatsinalldirectionshttps://www.facebook.com/recursivecatsinalldirectionshttps://www.facebook.com/strangefungushttps://www.facebook.com/strangefungushttps://www.facebook.com/recursivecatsinalldirectionshttps://www.facebook.com/strangefungushttps://www.facebook.com/strangefungushttps://www.facebook.com/recursivecatsinalldirectionshttps://www.facebook.com/strangefungushttps://www.facebook.com/strangefungushttps://www.facebook.com/recursivecatsinalldirections


4/16

owe!er, !irtuality is definitely more nebulous of a claim.

0sing the analogy of desktop and so forth does not gi!e !alidity to its eistence or whate!er.

I ha!e no idea how to conceptuali#e such an intimate eperiential realm that supposedly beaks out of

representationalism dogma but still seems to resemble it in many ways.

*ike I don't see how this 1surface1 is posited.

2ringing up technical $argon like the surfaces and so forth to add !alidity to the claims is not how

science works.

That's not to say I dismiss it though. It's more like I am skeptical/suspicious.

There are ways to test (lane of Immanence with the eperiments Seth +ussell mentiond.

Not sure about !irtuality.


That's a !ery simple introductory eample. 3irtuality is more inherent in the sense of the faciality of

phenomena, indeed the surface. I can eplain it uite simply on a more immediate le!el. 4ne percei!es

!isually through light, for eample, but one only percei!es the wa!elength of light as it reflects, but this

is only a mode of percei!ing, it is only a way of seeing, a surface.

Zurvan Goshayeshi

5aciality is $ust the mirror face eperiment.


Well, it applies to all senses, etc

Zurvan Goshayeshi

That is not a defense.

That is $ust description.
https://www.facebook.com/strangefungushttps://www.facebook.com/recursivecatsinalldirectionshttps://www.facebook.com/strangefungushttps://www.facebook.com/recursivecatsinalldirectionshttps://www.facebook.com/recursivecatsinalldirectionshttps://www.facebook.com/strangefungushttps://www.facebook.com/recursivecatsinalldirectionshttps://www.facebook.com/strangefungushttps://www.facebook.com/strangefungushttps://www.facebook.com/recursivecatsinalldirectionshttps://www.facebook.com/strangefungushttps://www.facebook.com/recursivecatsinalldirections


5/16

4f one possibility out of many others.


It's scientific hence why it is a description. So your alternati!e is that sight is actually some kind of

fundamental reality6

It's merely a mode.

Zurvan Goshayeshi

Saying it's merely a mode doesn't answer anything.


What kind of answer do you think you will recei!e6

Zurvan Goshayeshi

ow does this mode relate to the reality we interact with in daily basis6 Why can I not see your mode6


Why do you think you would need to see the mode that isn't contingent within the same causal factors6

Zurvan Goshayeshi

What I am saying, is if you belie!e !irtuality to be internal, then it's $ust representationalism. If you are

an eternalist, then that's $ust !oynich.
https://www.facebook.com/strangefungushttps://www.facebook.com/recursivecatsinalldirectionshttps://www.facebook.com/strangefungushttps://www.facebook.com/recursivecatsinalldirectionshttps://www.facebook.com/strangefungushttps://www.facebook.com/recursivecatsinalldirectionshttps://www.facebook.com/strangefungushttps://www.facebook.com/recursivecatsinalldirectionshttps://www.facebook.com/strangefungushttps://www.facebook.com/recursivecatsinalldirectionshttps://www.facebook.com/strangefungushttps://www.facebook.com/recursivecatsinalldirectionshttps://www.facebook.com/strangefungushttps://www.facebook.com/strangefungushttps://www.facebook.com/recursivecatsinalldirectionshttps://www.facebook.com/strangefungushttps://www.facebook.com/recursivecatsinalldirectionshttps://www.facebook.com/strangefungushttps://www.facebook.com/recursivecatsinalldirections


6/16


*et me think for a second in those terms, since I usually don't look at it as eternalism !s. internalism.

I really don't think it makes sense to use either term, because e!erything is internal to the plane of

immanence.

)nything called representationalism would be problematic because it would be representing some kind

of identity when difference is infinitely di!isible

Zurvan Goshayeshi

e!erything is internal is paneperientialism

that is, that matter has an inner mental life or something

it being concurrent...


No, I am neutralist, it is not matter or mental

These are only modalities.

Zurvan Goshayeshi

i don't see how e!erything can be internal

i was going on a tangent

science cannot falsify that

which is my point

it is highly dubious

i don't see how it is infraempirical either, it's rationalistic

1e!erything is internal to the plane of immanence1 ow do you posit such a thing6

2y what reason do you proceed to such a claim6 4b!iously there isnothing infraempirical there

it's a rationalistic claim
https://www.facebook.com/strangefungushttps://www.facebook.com/recursivecatsinalldirectionshttps://www.facebook.com/strangefungushttps://www.facebook.com/recursivecatsinalldirectionshttps://www.facebook.com/recursivecatsinalldirectionshttps://www.facebook.com/strangefungushttps://www.facebook.com/recursivecatsinalldirectionshttps://www.facebook.com/strangefungushttps://www.facebook.com/recursivecatsinalldirectionshttps://www.facebook.com/strangefungushttps://www.facebook.com/recursivecatsinalldirections


7/16

an inference, deduction, or induction


0nless you ha!e obser!ed something eternal to the interconnectedness of causal phenomena, there is

nothing eternal to it.

It's immediate.

Zurvan Goshayeshi

$ust because it is interconnect does not mean the world is eperienced as internal modes

it does not necessarily entail that


The problem is there is no e!idence to the contrary that denies immediate phenomenology !ital to all

empiricism, there is no need to shoot yourself in the foot

The burden of proof is on the counterclaim

Zurvan Goshayeshi

my point was, the mode of percei!ing is a fluff term, saying it's $ust a mode while paradoically

claiming !irtuality is inherent in surface of phenomena is begging the uestion

it's $ust representationalism, you e!en claimed it to be inherent


ode is not a fluff term, it implies the lack of a singular way of understanding characteristic of 2eing

ontology
https://www.facebook.com/strangefungushttps://www.facebook.com/recursivecatsinalldirectionshttps://www.facebook.com/strangefungushttps://www.facebook.com/recursivecatsinalldirectionshttps://www.facebook.com/strangefungushttps://www.facebook.com/strangefungushttps://www.facebook.com/recursivecatsinalldirectionshttps://www.facebook.com/strangefungushttps://www.facebook.com/recursivecatsinalldirectionshttps://www.facebook.com/strangefungushttps://www.facebook.com/strangefungushttps://www.facebook.com/recursivecatsinalldirectionshttps://www.facebook.com/strangefungushttps://www.facebook.com/recursivecatsinalldirectionshttps://www.facebook.com/strangefungus


8/16

Zurvan Goshayeshi

that still does not eplain how !isual percept relates to the neural machinery

is !irtuality $ust in the brain, because that is representationalism, and using new terms like surface

seems to $ust sophism to gi!e the impression of bringing in a new dialectic


y !iew is anti&dialectic.

It's not representationalism in the slightest.

%ialectic is a construct based on the idea that two identities are interacting

there are none.

Zurvan Goshayeshi

saying stuff like ualia being on a different scale and it being a surface effect doesn't answer anything

about its relation


The $ob of philosophy of science is to )7740NT for the data not to do science, duh

*et me get my labcoat bro

Zurvan Goshayeshi

it's unfalsifiable for one, it doesn't say anything on its ontological characteristics, etc
https://www.facebook.com/recursivecatsinalldirectionshttps://www.facebook.com/strangefungushttps://www.facebook.com/recursivecatsinalldirectionshttps://www.facebook.com/strangefungushttps://www.facebook.com/recursivecatsinalldirectionshttps://www.facebook.com/strangefungushttps://www.facebook.com/recursivecatsinalldirectionshttps://www.facebook.com/strangefungushttps://www.facebook.com/recursivecatsinalldirectionshttps://www.facebook.com/strangefungushttps://www.facebook.com/recursivecatsinalldirectionshttps://www.facebook.com/recursivecatsinalldirectionshttps://www.facebook.com/strangefungushttps://www.facebook.com/recursivecatsinalldirectionshttps://www.facebook.com/strangefungushttps://www.facebook.com/recursivecatsinalldirections


9/16


10/16

content of the eperience itself and how does it relate to the supposedly colorless world6


No answer is going to satisfy you I think

Zurvan Goshayeshi

there are senses we can ne!er eperience

like electroreception


I'm not dismissing the importance of scientific research into this.

Into any endea!or

Zurvan Goshayeshi

laurelle argues that plane of immanence always in!ol!es a splitting, and i forget what the implication

is, but i think it's that whole non&philosophy approach he has

Zurvan Goshayeshi

1let's say we look at a mirror together, you see the mirror as blue and with different reflection and i see

it as red with different reflection. 4f course, we agree difference is constituti!e and foundational, but

my uestion is how can our different percepts eist side by side simultaneously. Where and what is the

content of the eperience itself and how does it relate to the supposedly colorless world6 1

https://www.facebook.com/strangefungushttps://www.facebook.com/recursivecatsinalldirectionshttps://www.facebook.com/strangefungushttps://www.facebook.com/recursivecatsinalldirectionshttps://www.facebook.com/recursivecatsinalldirectionshttps://www.facebook.com/strangefungushttps://www.facebook.com/strangefungushttps://www.facebook.com/recursivecatsinalldirectionshttps://www.facebook.com/recursivecatsinalldirectionshttps://www.facebook.com/strangefungushttps://www.facebook.com/recursivecatsinalldirectionshttps://www.facebook.com/strangefungushttps://www.facebook.com/strangefungushttps://www.facebook.com/recursivecatsinalldirectionshttps://www.facebook.com/strangefungushttps://www.facebook.com/recursivecatsinalldirectionshttps://www.facebook.com/recursivecatsinalldirectionshttps://www.facebook.com/strangefungus


11/16

%ifference is always splitting, %eleu#e wouldn't deny that

I $ust responded to that bro

why repaste6

Zurvan Goshayeshi

i thought you missed it my bad

e!en at the smooth infiniteness of plane of immanence6

there is no body without organs then

that is a thought without image


The splitting is what the body without organs is dude.

%ifference differs from itself, it is pure consistency

Identity cannot do this.

Zurvan Goshayeshi

what i think is plane of immanence has depth

the thing is you do a good $ob !iewing things hori#ontally

but not so much !ertically

because e!en with a stream of difference

you ha!e to eplain how we simultaneously see different images simulatneously in the mirrorbecause if difference is constituti!e and foundation, within the simulanteity or one flow of reality, you

must eplain the different ualia

https://www.facebook.com/recursivecatsinalldirectionshttps://www.facebook.com/strangefungushttps://www.facebook.com/recursivecatsinalldirectionshttps://www.facebook.com/strangefungushttps://www.facebook.com/strangefungushttps://www.facebook.com/recursivecatsinalldirectionshttps://www.facebook.com/strangefungushttps://www.facebook.com/recursivecatsinalldirectionshttps://www.facebook.com/recursivecatsinalldirectionshttps://www.facebook.com/strangefungushttps://www.facebook.com/recursivecatsinalldirectionshttps://www.facebook.com/strangefungus


12/16

That wouldn't be in contradiction to plane of immanence, it's $ust a matter of eplaining causal

differences in affects

Zurvan Goshayeshi

but there is a fundamental difference in eplaining this affect

in the sense the same language of the surface affects or affects we see in physical sciences doesn't work

here

it's like eplaining the affects in 2odyworld

where did all of those eperiences occur

i'm not trying to spatiali#e eperiential content, $ust saying how it's mysterious and !irtuality doesn't

eplain it


There are different kinds of becoming, we co!ered this before, sympathetic communion. It's only a

conseuence of interrelation, the only proceeding answer is another kind of interrelation because

becoming is infinite and has no final answers.

Zurvan Goshayeshi

you don't get what i'm saying

i know that is a differen tkind of becoming

but it has one characteristic no other kind of becoming has

it is pri!ate


It's only as pri!ate as a campfire occurring at one point of a field and not e!erywhere else on earth.
https://www.facebook.com/recursivecatsinalldirectionshttps://www.facebook.com/strangefungushttps://www.facebook.com/recursivecatsinalldirectionshttps://www.facebook.com/strangefungushttps://www.facebook.com/recursivecatsinalldirectionshttps://www.facebook.com/strangefungushttps://www.facebook.com/recursivecatsinalldirectionshttps://www.facebook.com/strangefungushttps://www.facebook.com/recursivecatsinalldirectionshttps://www.facebook.com/recursivecatsinalldirectionshttps://www.facebook.com/strangefungushttps://www.facebook.com/recursivecatsinalldirectionshttps://www.facebook.com/strangefungus


13/16

Zurvan Goshayeshi

but you $ust said e!erything is internal

so maybe it's not pri!ate6

see the issue


It is internal but it is not intelligence

Zurvan Goshayeshi

it could be !irtuality is on a continuum with e!erything else


There is no reason for it to bridge

Zurvan Goshayeshi

or that it is fragmented

ob!iously within physical li!e there is a continuum of difference, a transference of states of constant

becoming, constant no!elty

bodies being connected, splintering

but the issue is with !irtuality

what i am saying is there is !iable reason to think !irtuality could be !ery much the same

or not, idk

!irtuality is a nebulous postulation

i agree plane of immanece and difference is constituti!e and foundational makes more sense though

and is consistent
https://www.facebook.com/recursivecatsinalldirectionshttps://www.facebook.com/strangefungushttps://www.facebook.com/recursivecatsinalldirectionshttps://www.facebook.com/strangefungushttps://www.facebook.com/recursivecatsinalldirectionshttps://www.facebook.com/recursivecatsinalldirectionshttps://www.facebook.com/strangefungushttps://www.facebook.com/recursivecatsinalldirectionshttps://www.facebook.com/strangefungushttps://www.facebook.com/recursivecatsinalldirectionshttps://www.facebook.com/strangefungushttps://www.facebook.com/recursivecatsinalldirectionshttps://www.facebook.com/strangefungushttps://www.facebook.com/recursivecatsinalldirections


14/16

but i see that issue is formulating !irtuality

in formulating-


I feel like we are continuously coming back to the hard problem lol I feel like it is $ust not as significant

to me, but I understand your concern, we should research more

Zurvan Goshayeshi

!irtuality can be more like the akashic records or an indi!idual computer harddri!e

idk

or anything in between or we

w/e-

that's what i'm saying


I use 4ckham's +a#or so that's not a worry to me, but you are right, it could be something like that for

all we know, but I distrust the fanciful ideas outright

Zurvan Goshayeshi

idk, it's pretty significant to me because it has some pretty big implications and it's where the main

claims of buddhist and e!en daoist practice come in, the elements that people consider superstitiousoutright and dismiss, which makes it more into a feel&good medicine then

ockam's ra#or doesn't work in serious scholarly philosophy

it's like the bad aspect of analytic philosophy

i can $ust use ockam's ra#or and be an eliminati!ist

idk, i'm $ust going to focus on other stuff
https://www.facebook.com/strangefungushttps://www.facebook.com/recursivecatsinalldirectionshttps://www.facebook.com/strangefungushttps://www.facebook.com/recursivecatsinalldirectionshttps://www.facebook.com/recursivecatsinalldirectionshttps://www.facebook.com/strangefungushttps://www.facebook.com/recursivecatsinalldirectionshttps://www.facebook.com/strangefungushttps://www.facebook.com/strangefungushttps://www.facebook.com/recursivecatsinalldirectionshttps://www.facebook.com/strangefungushttps://www.facebook.com/recursivecatsinalldirections


15/16

i do think metaphysics is important, but it should lay off ethics and practical stuff in day&to&day affairs


To me eliminati!ism is not entirely at odds with difference, etc. the main difference is that eperience is

not the same as folk psychology

Zurvan Goshayeshi

like, if !irtuality were to be more 1fanciful1 it could gi!e more incenti!e for compassion and reform

societies in beneficial way or whatnot

in eliminati!ism, there is no eperiential content at all

$ust brain acti!ity, so it is at odd

hence, we come back to nico


)nd my !iew is that it's all difference not e!en brain acti!ity proper

Zurvan Goshayeshi

uh

i agree, it's all difference... i agree difference is constituti!e and foundational. I $ust ha!e $ustified

suspicion on the way !irtuality is posited, that's it

i mean we agree there, but it doesn't say that much ecept we will in!ariably come to more relations


I will read more about !irtuality and see if I can find a better answer or if we together 9or me alone: can

formulate an ad$ustment
https://www.facebook.com/strangefungushttps://www.facebook.com/recursivecatsinalldirectionshttps://www.facebook.com/strangefungushttps://www.facebook.com/recursivecatsinalldirectionshttps://www.facebook.com/strangefungushttps://www.facebook.com/strangefungushttps://www.facebook.com/recursivecatsinalldirectionshttps://www.facebook.com/strangefungushttps://www.facebook.com/recursivecatsinalldirectionshttps://www.facebook.com/strangefungushttps://www.facebook.com/strangefungushttps://www.facebook.com/recursivecatsinalldirectionshttps://www.facebook.com/strangefungushttps://www.facebook.com/recursivecatsinalldirectionshttps://www.facebook.com/strangefungus


16/16

virtuality crap

Documents