Prof Reza Sanaye

1__ Things do NOT exist for playing a role in human beings' lives. 2__" Something to be. " is not unlike a vicious-circle-definition.

This is much closer to existence . . . ..

Being (Existence) is the property that we , human beings , derive from "beings" (=Extants). There are only becoming Haecceities. In other words , Existence is merely one of our own categories of cogitating. Versus , for example , Non-being. Non-being is also another category of human thinking more akin to metaphor.

Problem is we have "beforehand" readymade naming of such-nesses in order to make it as easy as possible for ourselves ( and for others , most of the time ) to not be coerced by the objective world surrounding us to experience absolutely FRESH experiences. Maybe , as Chomskians may so believe , this is because we feel lost in non-conventional non-traditional calling of entities around us. We , then , resort to metaphors to name beings AND this makes entities even much more unnecessarily entangled into each other. This does happen even is science and in very elaborately developed humanities.

Game theory has proven to be of almost no value even in incremental short-term prediction of things under the present pandemic circumstances. Even Vaccine Diplomacy among nations has all but very little proven to be solid evidence for developments in the pandemic symptoms internationally. Game theory's involvement with other traditional methodologies of forecasting has also not brought about much improvement. Quote : {{ Since the Covid-19 pandemic began, we’ve seen pervasive uncertainty manifest in a sudden and massive divergence in macroeconomic projections. For example, in early February, the spread among economic growth forecasts for Q2 in the U.S. was 3.5 percentage points according to FocusEconomics data. By April 29, the most optimistic forecast among the 28 institutions in our weekly coronavirus survey saw the U.S. economy contracting 8.2%. The most pessimistic projected a huge 65.0% contraction — a spread of 56.8 percentage points — with an average of -31.4%. While most institutions expected a rebound in Q3, some saw further declines. And in Q4, although all economists projected growth of some form, forecasts ranged from a minimum of +1.1% and a maximum of +70.0%. The spreads observed in recent weeks are by far the widest recorded since we started covering the U.S. a decade ago. }} Link for the Quote: https://hbr.org/2020/05/why-economic-forecasting-is-so-difficult-in-the-pandemic Shall we possibly resort to Chaosmotics ? Fractals ? Even more of non-linearity ? Else ?

Measurement Probematic cannot be very easily explained away. It cannot be denied , NOR can it possibly be exaggerated\over-emphasized . . . I have ventured to google a bit : An analysis has been performed of the theories and postulates advanced by von Neumann, London and Bauer, and Wigner, concerning the role that consciousness might play in the collapse of the wave function, which has become known as the measurement problem. This reveals that an error may have been made by them in the area of biology and its interface with quantum mechanics when they called for the reduction of any superposition states in the brain through the mind or consciousness. Many years later Wigner changed his mind to reflect a simpler and more realistic objective position which appears to offer a way to resolve this issue. The argument is therefore made that the wave function of any superposed photon state or states is always objectively and stochastically changed within the complex architecture of the eye in a continuous linear process initially for most of the superposed photons, followed by a discontinuous nonlinear collapse process later for any remaining superposed photons, thereby guaranteeing that only final, measured information is presented to the brain, mind or consciousness. An experiment to be conducted in the near future may enable us to simultaneously resolve the measurement problem and also determine if the linear nature of quantum mechanics is violated by the perceptual process. Keywords Consciousness Euglena Linear Measurement problem Nonlinear Objective Retina Rhodopsin molecule Subjective Wave function collapse Link : https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0303264705000237

Dear Comrade ! A dozen terms you MAY not know well here I generally do not buy a Dic for not knowing so many words I mostly google When I wanted to learn Farsi and Arabic for my Islamology studies , however , I bought two huge Dics. You may also ask ME your Qs ( I'v gotten a post"Doc in comparative philosophy) Anyway , many thanks for your eagerness to know more and more Either in the case of immediate (chemical) reactions or in the case of very slow ones , either in the case of a reaction or as regards back-reaction(s) , in any case , you are dealing with some processual event. A human observer cannot determine the beginning and the end of such-nesses . You ask : " A chemical process takes place (ie exists) between the beginning the middle and the end ? " Answer : this-ness of the , say , beginning as contrasted with that-ness of the middle ( or the end ) : All of these are merely anthropomorphic/anthropic standpoints. These are only RE_presentations. We simply cannot arrive at the Presentation(s) {beings} of Beginning/middle/End . . . . We can only name them names . . . . Haecceities are here , there , everywhere , , , , , , In order for us to grasp at their Being , we have to start considering them as "Phenomena" rather than as objects of perception. The Duality deeply rooted in Western methodology of Philosophical/Scientific thinking plainly does not meet our ontological demands here as human observers.

Ah ! Now we two are getting into real cooperation...... I am duty-bound to fully appreciate you for this . . . You enlighten me much as I'll do my best to enlighten you : Reciprocation More thanx for your not circumventing philosophical difficulties , too . . . . . Processual Being is the underlying Existence that manifests itself in the format of instant-to-instant actual (objective) "such-ness" ( = haecceity ) Without that Chaosmotic universe of Ontics underlying , the subjective minds of ours shall NOT be able to perceive. Perception of Being (Existence) is completely differing from perception of beings ( Extants). In the former case , we are dealing with Abstracts(Virtuals) In the latter case , we are perceiving Tangibles Contrary to common view , neither abstraction nor deduction gives rise to beings It is , in fact , abduction that brings true ontology playing on the arena in front of our eyes A burned house is an example very suitably chosen I suppose I am making the claim that Existence is a natural and universal extension of the realization that some things exist, and furthermore that life exists [a truth that defies all logical systems] to perceive the said Existence Let's refer to : https://www.philosophie.fb05.uni-mainz.de/files/2018/09/Metzinger_VR_Phil_2018_frobt-05-00101.pdf INTRODUCTION What are the most promising future directions for an intensified cooperation between the philosophical community and virtual reality research (VR), potentially also including other disciplines like cognitive neuroscience or experimental psychology? The purpose of this contribution is to take a fresh look, from a philosopher’s perspective, at some specific research areas in the field of VR, isolating and highlighting aspects of particular interest from a conceptual and metatheoretical perspective. This article is intended as a source of inspiration for an interdisciplinary audience; if each reader finds just one of the ideas presented below useful, it will have served its purpose. Hence the article was not written as a technical contribution by one philosopher for other philosophers and is not meant as an exhaustive list of philosophical research targets. I simply draw attention to a selection of topics that are, I believe, characterized by an exceptionally high degree of heuristic fecundity. To make these issues accessible to an interdisciplinary readership, I will briefly introduce some central concepts as I go (see Box 1), and sometimes use a more essayistic style. The hope is that these topics, deliberately presented along with a series of concrete examples, can serve as contact points between both disciplines and mark out promising subfields in which VR researchers and the philosophical community could profit from intensified future interaction. I will briefly highlight the theoretical relevance of most examples, along with the potential future benefits of intensified cooperation. Sometimes, I will also try to sketch a specific technological realization that would interestingly constrain philosophical theory formation, open new routes, or constitute the “perfect” or “maximal” VR-experience in a given context. A burnt-down house presents the haecceity as representation of a mind that has either seen the non-burnt house (presentation) or has not. If she has , then Virtuality for her has the implication of more than one suchness( ie , more than one haecceity ) : the burned AND the non-burned house. In case she hasn't , she is only picturing(Re-presenting) the house that has once been // and NOW is not . . . . The difference between (or , rather , amongst) haecceities is , indeed , the Extant-as-perceived : Not in the universe of beings, BUT in the world of Being . .. . . .

And you so "severely" wish to avoid difficulties . . .. . Yes / You DO see the relevance of your post to mine ( and the other way around) . . .

Excuse me // You simply plainly cannot dodge ontological terminology AND speak about Existence @ the same time. Much as you cannot enter into particle physix debates and discussions AND prevent yourself ( and others ) from applying terms such as electrons and positrons and quarks etc etc simply 'cauz you wish to not-take the trouble of getting well-versed in them ,,,,,, Regards REZA

Yes , My Lady ! I am able to see a pool's tiled floor through the water's thickness. I don't see the floor despite the water and reflections; I see it because of them. As a result , if there were no distortions, no ripples of sunlight, if I could see the geometry of the world without the productive processes , then I’d stop to see their existence almost totally . .. .. Conceptuality arises thus from corporeality and results , in its own turn , in the back-and-forth of repercussive EXISTENCE. Being actualizes from virtuality. 🤪🤪

Math is both process and product. I am NOT suggesting that processes do not exist in actuality. Any process is deemed to possess an epi"phenomenological existence prior and exterior to the form of its own expression. Expressivity brings products out of processes. Content is accurately conveyed through expression, which re-presents it at a contextual distance. This facilitates contact, which is described as a reliable exchange of contents transmitted at a reasonable distance from their intended destination (brought over into the realm of Actuality). As a result, content is both the cause and the effect of communicative expression: it is both the external cause and the pledge of authenticity.

Math exists merely in Virtuality. In Actuality , it does not. More broadly speaking , things of the nature of concepts do exist ; however , only in virtuality. Virtuality underlies the cosmos of "actualizations". Math is not unlike virtual particles in modern physics. They do exist and they do not exist. they are not fully actualized the way , say , electrons are. This is because our world can in no way (continue to) exist outside of its own expressions. It is expressivity that brings things into the realm of existence. Otherwise , we shall have a very dry abstract ontology. As a result, we can't necessarily consider all potential beliefs to exist in any sort of psychological universe at the same time. And we can't perceive a mental calculation based on one particular group of perceptions, with the same state space ; as applied to a mental measurement in conjunction with another group of beliefs.

So why was I notified that I was on another thread ?? !! I wrote there is no differences/exceptions in physics for flesh or wood or bones or quick silver or gravestone or whatever . . . .. They cannot NOT obey the same rules . . .

flesh or wood or bones or quick silver or gravestone or whatever . . . .. They cannot NOT obey the same rules . . . Do you believe otherwise ?? !

Very good example !

Merleau-Ponty’s description of the body (le corps) in Phenomenology of Perception was somehow living and carnal. Having taken the analysis of perception as his departure point, Merleau-Ponty was directed to accept that one's own body (le corps propre) not only is a thing, a prospective entity of survey for scientific research, but is also a chronic issue of experience, a component of the perceptual transparency to the world. This ontology of the flesh amounts to the body subject being dislocated or deconstructed. The experience is most likely dispersed in the body orbit ( orbite corporelle ). The self, along with the pre-personal organism, is lived in personal life with the practical purpose 'I will.' Later on in The Visible and the Invisible , Merleau-Ponty takes the pre"personal life of the body as an aspect of the being and the flesh (la chair). He thus stresses the idea that a mind is innate throughout the body that must be taken into account by the study of experience.

The defined circulatory relations amongst mass , force , and acceleration (by Newton) makes it virtually impossible to have any spatiotemporal motion/acceleration set in locally meaningful topological manifold(s). Another confounding parameter is the fact that weight , much more closely hermeneutically interpreted to be force , rather than mass or acceleration , is itself partially recognized by pre-Newtonian systems ( Galilean , Keplerian ) to have nothing in common with incremental propagation of gravitation (force) as waves or something in space. They did not recognize any fixed-point acceleration dealing with propagation of gravity waves. Newton came in half-way and abstracted the facticity of his own system based on a kind of teleological causality. Einstein claimed that he could not discard with causality , as QT does , , , , ,, , ,However , the change of gravity from a Force Status in Newtonian thinking to one of Spacetime differentials of geodesicity in Einsteinian thinking simply resolved fixed-point acceleration. The result is that we are now perplexed as to the quintessence of what leverage a force ought to overcome in order to do a locally defined coordinance of even relative-point motion. As an almost direct result , intelligent people like awaterpon come to fall in doubt as about the feasibility of : According to classical mechanics for a force to lift a mass it should be slightly greater than its weight . My hypothesis is that a human body can lift itself by a force far less than its weight . It is obvious phenomenon that when lifting an object of 60 kg up , it would be extremely hard than lifting one's body " 60 kg" .while standing. This applied to many phenomenon .A body will seem to have inertia far less than its actual mass inertia , moving and walking effortlessly , standing effortlessly , lifting one's body parts easily. In this special case the Newtonian equations doesn't apply , however we could measure the ratio between the force lifting a body and the force lifting an object both body and the object have the same mass.

Maurice Merleau-Ponty says consciousness is spread all across the body . . . .. .

I real real agree with you . . .. .Absolutely right . .. I am a physically handicapped person and I CAN full well understand the depth of this statement of yours . . .Many many thanx for that , Very Dear Joigus . . .. .

Yes , I have I still am not an "in-wolf" . . . . . .. . Older members seem to be . . . . And you : one of the most jesting ones , Sir !!

Very unfortunately , once again you have misread me . . . . .. I said : " ..... of the vegetables losing lots of their natural healthy components by washing them and boiling them and freezing them and slicing them and slow-freezing them and fast-freezing them and blanching them and bleaching them and ,,,, and , , , , , " Or perhaps because nobody here cares for living "green" ...............

I wonder why almost no mention is made of the vegetables losing lots of their natural healthy components by washing them and boiling them and freezing them and slicing them and slow-freezing them and fast-freezing them and blanching them and bleaching them and ,,,, and , , , , ,

Once we start to lie for the GREATER good , many lines of flight appear to us. Things that did not commonly appear GREATER to us , gradually start to seem GREATER. Many autocratic regimes apply this rule to justify their repetitive lies to their own nations [AND TO THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY]. Parents lie to their children for the kids' " good " . Furthermore , we have to spend lots of time deciding whether this issue or that topic is the GRATER good. Means almost always wavering and dithering. In the world of science , cases are not few and far between where peers go for ignoring ( and , thus , indirectly lying to the scientific community as well as to the public ) data + info that do not truly fit in with the " orthodox " science. Another genre of lying. WE HAD BETTER AX THE WHOLE HUE AND CRY BY TAKING A FIRM DECISION TO TELL THE TRUTH . . . . . ..

Very Dear Prometheus ; I'm afraid you ARE doing so. What alternative do I propound ? " more flat architectures " is , of course , one way of calling it. I myself prefer to designate it as more holistic. And I do not hesitate to add that this IS possible. Remember : This does NOT spell that advocating for the Anthropic/Humanizing protocol.