We are both right actually. This is a akin to a Software Program that processes certain variables, and when the Variables are modified, or new ones are added then the application requires an update, ergo an enhanced form of reasoning. i.e. using conventional 'reason' where applicable, but expanded upon if necessary. Transcendental reasoning perhaps.
This reminds me of a problem that I've been trying to solve to extend my paradigm. Let consciousness be a matrix filled with some abstract data type capable of containing any kind of sensory experience. Now, let this matrix be finite in size because it does not make sense to have infinitely large data structures (except in theory, for things like sets). Now, in order to simplify the concept for visualization, imagine that the matrix only contains color values. So, it is synonymous with a field of view.
Under what mechanism does the data structure "consciousness" change its size in order to contain more or less data from one moment to the next? This is a chaos/order problem because you are extrapolating more data out of less data, and vice versa.
It's actually quite simple if you stop thinking of consciousness as being a structure built of lesser parts. Going back to the field of view analogy, you could treat consciousness as an image hash, then data is never removed or added because consciousness is always a single number. But that's hardly a solution because we know very well that consciousness contains lots of small sensory elements.
Your quote reminds me of this problem because at one moment consciousness could have a size of 1, and then at the next it could have a size of 5000 (in smallest units of sensory experience, if there were a generic data type). There isn't actually enough data in the size 1 consciousness for you to be able to predict or even rationalize how it led to some more complex consciousness with size 5000. However, the move from 1 to 5000 cannot be irrational because of determinism. Simply put, it is rational but unpredictable (at least from your perspective).
I agree. We are both correct.
In general when my thoughts delve into the Quantum World I realize normal reasoning may not apply. You have bizarre phenomena that exists there, e.g. Schrödinger's Cat, a single Photon or Electron occupying two distinct coordinates in 4D Spacetime. Not to mention the Double Slit Experiment which demonstrates the Principle of WP Duality.
Interesting. It never occurs to me to think of such phenomena as bizarre. To me this world is just like a piece of software. If it's theoretically possible for something to happen, I ask myself why it doesn't happen, not how it could be possible. If you treat causal laws as arbitrary, like software logic that can easily be modified, it's an interesting question to ask why the software is written how it is. For example, there's an infinite number of theoretical worlds where there could be unicorns, yet we're in one of the few worlds which do not have them. It almost takes more effort to ensure that unicorns don't exist than it does to just let them. For that reason, I would find it difficult to see something like a unicorn's existence as bizarre. Rather, I'm curious as to why I've never seen one.
Existence is like an ocean, and we're in a floating bubble; a cage. Everything outside of the bubble is said to be impossible, but really, it's only so within the bubble.
If you take earth's rules to heart, then you are thinking in terms of physical objects, your expectations, etc. All I see is data. To have one particle occupy two coordinates of 4D spacetime is no more complicated than to instantiate one particle data object, then put a pointer to it at two different coordinates; it's just software.
With respect to 'reason', and it's augmentation, or modification. In a realm where Chaos may appear to have the upper hand. Crowley referred to this as "reason transcending itself". Which is polite in it's wording since it is not implying that conventional reason be discarded. The original term is preserved with the indication of a higher functioning aspect that we may be for a time oblivious to.
Agreed. I like that quote.
I'd equate "reason" to something like a complicated function, maybe something like a random number generator, but not quite. Then it's likely that we'd never be able to predict the function even theoretically. After all, if it were random enough, we'd effectively need to know every single output of the function in order to approximate it. Since a function doesn't have to have finite inputs (domain) it's quite possible that it might have infinite randomness if there was never repetition. For example, imagine some function whose graph has an infinite number of hills and valleys, but each hill/valley has a different min and max. There's no possible pattern to be found if you look at the entire function. However, if you look at a single hill/valley, it looks like a simple parabola.
That's an interesting concept for an entirely different reason too though. If the function were completely unpredictable then it would be impossible to make an expression for it. In which case, it would also be impossible for the function to be defined. By contradiction, it cannot exist. Meaning that chaos must be predictable from at least some perspective.
This reminds me of the "Imaginary Unit" used in mathematics. A placeholder for an element that does not conform to normal rules but is needed for further calculations, or assessments.
An even more common placeholder would be "0". When is the last time you actually imagined "0"? You can't define it outside of relativity. If you take a black canvas, you can say you have "0" white, and vice versa. But you can never actually have "0". There's always a background and a foreground.
If all brains are made roughly the same, then why do I perceive through my own? What special characteristic places me in this skull?
I do not move throughout the world. The engines do not move the ship, but the universe.
The law of synonyms: my experience is synonymous with my brain, I change my experience to change my brain. so I change the physical with my thoughts.