Expanding Upon Wittgenstein's Ideas!

In "Tractatus Logico", Wittgenstein claims the world as a totality; the occurences in the world being the sum of that totality, while our thoughts are of sense and the pictures we form in speculation being the process of a fact-based directional influence; similar to the concept of a "moral compass", but replacing what is moral with what is factual. Therein lies, in summary, a man that does not create a personal theory of how ideas are formed, but uses this physical world and the metaphysical process of understanding this physical world in conjunction inorder to cross-reference and cross-examine the two to which form concepts & pictures that are relative to the contents and principles of the physical world.

After reading this, my mind's been over-heating from thinking on overdrive. My most profound theory, "Mind Sentience", not only encompasses the heart of Wittgenstein's aforementioned theory, but it expands upon it. Taking all of Tractatus in account, I will be demonstrating how the thoughts we have are indeed the sum of the world's totality, as well as expounding on a concept which Wittgenstein had not. This would be my theory, "Mind Sentience"; it elaborates on how thoughts mutate, change and expand like any other physical life form that is not related to the objects surrounding them. A rock does not mutate, change or expand. If you cut a tree down, it was sentient before being cut down, but when you take away the system, the source is eliminated; like chopping a person into pieces may allow a sick mind to have special door stoppers, thus the tree becomes an object when used for paper, logs, et cetera. If you break a rock, it remains non-sentient. When you kill life, it withers. When you kill object, the components which make up the object remain appropiate to its intrinsic form; when you kill life, it reacts to the elimination of its source, as if life slowly drains out of it before it becomes an object.

"Mind Sentience" can be explained in one simple analogy; game theory. In the creation of a game, we have the world created in the game, and the computer chip which uses information to project our personal implementations into a world that is virtually real. The computer chip (the sum) creates the gaming world (the totality). As I said before, the universe is alive on the inside (inside the computer chip; and no this is beyond the concept of matrix), and object on the outside (the gaming world). Like objects in real life, in games we are able to live through objects as much as through experience -- in fact, the object creates the experience, while the code creates the object.

It is said that the brain is the system which creates the person -- by the logic of my theory, it would render the brain as a processor, rather than the main system; the main system would actually be the DNA strand. When an amnesia occurs during a head injury, it's not because the brain creates the identity, it's because the brain processes the code of the DNA strand, which is what actually creates the identity. Without the DNA strand, we would be a physical pile of absurdity. The brain channels that information, it does not create that information.

I really hope for someone to discuss this with me, for this theory is the heart of my passion towards philosophy. It's also going to be my future, when I bring my philosophies to the real world. I am shaking from the amount of energy I have towards this. It's the key to not only the speculative nature of philosophy, but understanding the faculties of truth which encompass the depiction created when information is translated into thought.


There is a moderator here which goes by Wittgenstein, you are my most anticipated one to discuss with. I am desperate to discuss this theory, so that this flower flourishes properly. I have much more to share. This is only the summary.

Fascinating, but belongs in Off Topic. ='[.]'=

I find the proposition interesting but I'm not sure what you mean by DNA being the main system. How does DNA function in relation to cognizance, belief, etc. In your vision by what adaptive process does it control and\or respond to change? If it is just a physiological instruction set then it would arguably be little more than an base set of controls could hardly be viewed as the "main system" for anything beyond bare existence while all of the higher functions are controlled by other anatomical systems. Take for example a blue print which serves a reference for construction of a building. While the builders reference the blueprint in constructing the building, the blue print itself does not control the construction. In this regards it is a directive reference point but not the main system for construction. It does not adapt to changing needs during the construction process and the information on it remains unaltered as result of the building process. It may however be altered by the Architect in order to facilitate changing needs based upon the construction experience but it in and of itself is not adaptive. Indeed in this regards even the humble blue print would actually seem to be more dynamic than DNA unless you suppose some undetectable change which is happening to (inside?) DNA based on input through an unknown system of exchange which it might receive from any number of the other physiological systems. Perhaps you can expound a bit on how you envision that DNA functions as the "main system".

"

Pavshaus wrote:

I find the proposition interesting but I'm not sure what you mean by DNA being the main system. How does DNA function in relation to cognizance, belief, etc. In your vision by what adaptive process does it control and\or respond to change? If it is just a physiological instruction set then it would arguably be little more than an base set of controls could hardly be viewed as the "main system" for anything beyond bare existence while all of the higher functions are controlled by other anatomical systems. Take for example a blue print which serves a reference for construction of a building. While the builders reference the blueprint in constructing the building, the blue print itself does not control the construction. In this regards it is a directive reference point but not the main system for construction. It does not adapt to changing needs during the construction process and the information on it remains unaltered as result of the building process. It may however be altered by the Architect in order to facilitate changing needs based upon the construction experience but it in and of itself is not adaptive. Indeed in this regards even the humble blue print would actually seem to be more dynamic than DNA unless you suppose some undetectable change which is happening to (inside?) DNA based on input through an unknown system of exchange which it might receive from any number of the other physiological systems. Perhaps you can expound a bit on how you envision that DNA functions as the "main system".

The DNA strand is one of my more "hypothetical" questions, than a profound theory anchored down by profound conclusions with practical measures. The reason why I posed the question, was because when information simply is projected, as you said, there's no "infrastructure", just the concept of the "infrastructure". When we look at the DNA strand, it's the concept, but here's where my question stands; if the brain is the "main system", then why does the brain have the wiring, while the DNA is more externally focused then the brain (in life, we can establish that everything has a "heart", "beginning", "core" of some sort), therefore the brain is a servant-like instrument, and not the heart of the system. The DNA strand is what creates the illusion of "life", as it completes the "human" with personas, physical appearance and potential proportion. If we take out the DNA strand, the brain is useless. If we take out the brain, the DNA strand is not useless in that it still serves its purpose in what it does. The brain is what comes next, so to speak. I'm asking what is the "core" to ourselves? I highly doubt the brain is the "core". The DNA strand, like the computer chip, is encoded -- this information projects itself into a physical form. Without object, we could not experience this world like we physically do. Objects allow for an experience to occur in a controlled system where reactions, principles and laws perpetuate naturally.

Relevant.

"

Relevant.

Carl Jung also works with my other theories, which can be tied to my theories that are similar to Wittgenstein's, as they both tie the objectivity to subjectivity.

The question is, what exactly makes the two relevant to you? Are you alluding to something?

"

IExiledOtherExilesToBeTheExile wrote:

"

Relevant.

Carl Jung also works with my other theories, which can be tied to my theories that are similar to Wittgenstein's, as they both tie the objectivity to subjectivity.

The question is, what exactly makes the two relevant to you? Are you alluding to something?

Truthfully, I don't understand the question. I skimmed through your op and found some vague similarities to Carl Jung's theories which would ultimately explain what I thought on the subject, but it appears skimming through isn't going to cut it this time. If you could simplify and summarize what you want to talk about I may be more inclined to bring up better talking points. Otherwise, I'll just have to read it word for word later and respond accordingly.

"

Magnetic_n0rth wrote:

Otherwise, I'll just have to read it word for word later and respond accordingly.

This would be best, I wouldn't mind waiting until you have your own mind wrapped around it, and we can understand what you personally want to know.

"

Also, the analogy of humans being relative to computer science doesn't work. Computer science being relative to humans however does make sense. Just a thought.

It's a mutual relationship between the two. What encompasses computer science is not the practice of computer science. There's a difference. The intricacies can be mutually examined whether we refer to either or as the former/latter.

"

IExiledOtherExilesToBeTheExile wrote:

"

Pavshaus wrote:

I find the proposition interesting but I'm not sure what you mean by DNA being the main system. How does DNA function in relation to cognizance, belief, etc. In your vision by what adaptive process does it control and\or respond to change? If it is just a physiological instruction set then it would arguably be little more than an base set of controls could hardly be viewed as the "main system" for anything beyond bare existence while all of the higher functions are controlled by other anatomical systems. Take for example a blue print which serves a reference for construction of a building. While the builders reference the blueprint in constructing the building, the blue print itself does not control the construction. In this regards it is a directive reference point but not the main system for construction. It does not adapt to changing needs during the construction process and the information on it remains unaltered as result of the building process. It may however be altered by the Architect in order to facilitate changing needs based upon the construction experience but it in and of itself is not adaptive. Indeed in this regards even the humble blue print would actually seem to be more dynamic than DNA unless you suppose some undetectable change which is happening to (inside?) DNA based on input through an unknown system of exchange which it might receive from any number of the other physiological systems. Perhaps you can expound a bit on how you envision that DNA functions as the "main system".

The DNA strand is one of my more "hypothetical" questions, than a profound theory anchored down by profound conclusions with practical measures. The reason why I posed the question, was because when information simply is projected, as you said, there's no "infrastructure", just the concept of the "infrastructure". When we look at the DNA strand, it's the concept, but here's where my question stands; if the brain is the "main system", then why does the brain have the wiring, while the DNA is more externally focused then the brain (in life, we can establish that everything has a "heart", "beginning", "core" of some sort), therefore the brain is a servant-like instrument, and not the heart of the system. The DNA strand is what creates the illusion of "life", as it completes the "human" with personas, physical appearance and potential proportion. If we take out the DNA strand, the brain is useless. If we take out the brain, the DNA strand is not useless in that it still serves its purpose in what it does. The brain is what comes next, so to speak. I'm asking what is the "core" to ourselves? I highly doubt the brain is the "core". The DNA strand, like the computer chip, is encoded -- this information projects itself into a physical form. Without object, we could not experience this world like we physically do. Objects allow for an experience to occur in a controlled system where reactions, principles and laws perpetuate naturally.

I think you may have bound yourself too tightly to the concept that the human "core" as you say is tied to a physical component. I would tend to think it is not. The human core to me is more due to the human psyche than to any physical system or component.

"

Pavshaus wrote:

I think you may have bound yourself too tightly to the concept that the human "core" as you say is tied to a physical component. I would tend to think it is not. The human core to me is more due to the human psyche than to any physical system or component.

It's true that all that is physical came from the metaphysical, but from what I have observed, and so as others, there has to be a "core" physical inorder to initiate the "core" metaphysical, similar to how there is the monitor, and the tower to a computer (two cores; one external the other internal), thus a computer chip is only able to exist in the "metaphysical" (the intricacies which created our physical structure, the organs, the blood, the impulses, the bone, the skin, the brain, et cetera), and the "physical" (the result of the intracacies). Therefore, the world does come from a metaphysical "core", but if it wishes to transform into the physical, it will need a physical "structural core", the DNA strand, to successfully transpose itself; the same way sound needs "instruments" externally, while internally the brain grants auditory ability -- without the two, the metaphysical remains as a spacial temporal ocean.