11 Matching Annotations
  1. Mar 2024
  2. Nov 2023
    1. In the West we talk about how matter—body and brain—might be the necessary conditions for the emergence of the mind. That is the scientists’ assumption. However, there is another hypothesis, which is that consciousness itself is the basic stuff of the universe and that we are the emanation of that consciousness as opposed to the origin or the evolutionary source of it. Of course, to accept that we would have to give up the idea that everything is based on some material property
      • for: materialism Vs panpsychism

      • comment

        • Husserl's phenomenology, especially his views on epoche in his later years lean more towards panpsychism although they are different in a nuanced way.
        • there is direct, pure biological phenomenological experience ,- Epoche may give us a taste of it, interment meditation may go further and the deepest meditation of decades of intense practice may re-immerse us in it.
        • Feral children who grow into feral adults, an extremely rare occurrence, may have an immersive experience of it
        • social conditioning of language bind meaning tightly to our construction and experience of objects in our sensory field
        • it is extremely difficult to disentangle our conditioned meaning with prelinguistic phenomenological experience of reality
        • spiritual awakening or enlightenment would appear to show that it is possible
        • When we attach such strong meaning to ideas, such as to scientific ideas, "material* objects, in spite of their attached, implicit symbolic complexity, appear to have a natural, autonomous and obvious existence.
        • in this way, our conscious constructs become solidified and mistaken for concrete, autonomously existent objects. Consciousness then comes to mistaken variants of consciousness itself with autonomously existent objects
  3. Jun 2022
    1. send off your draft or beta orproposal for feedback. Share this Intermediate Packet with a friend,family member, colleague, or collaborator; tell them that it’s still awork-in-process and ask them to send you their thoughts on it. Thenext time you sit down to work on it again, you’ll have their input andsuggestions to add to the mix of material you’re working with.

      A major benefit of working in public is that it invites immediate feedback (hopefully positive, constructive criticism) from anyone who might be reading it including pre-built audiences, whether this is through social media or in a classroom setting utilizing discussion or social annotation methods.

      This feedback along the way may help to further find flaws in arguments, additional examples of patterns, or links to ideas one may not have considered by themselves.

      Sadly, depending on your reader's context and understanding of your work, there are the attendant dangers of context collapse which may provide or elicit the wrong sorts of feedback, not to mention general abuse.

  4. Dec 2021
    1. If you made embed-able forums for web pages and sites, you could inadvertently boost signups, and boost plugin downloads. It'd be awesome to have a third party host for user profiles linkable to my site and forum. Even if you linked facebook or something, for fast signup, server data, etc...

  5. Sep 2021
    1. Our results cast a rather pessimistic light on dem-ocratic representation in Congress. Although seniorstaffers responsible for advising Representatives andSenators overwhelminglyreport they would like tobase their decisions and recommendations on con-stituent opinion, in practice these staffers have only alimited understanding ofconstituent preferencesacross important policy issues.

      I have not taken a government class in over six years so this article was kind of difficult to read. As the results are stated, I understand how the conclusion came to be, but I do not understand what they mean. How can staffers have any influence on policies if they only have a limited understanding of consituent preferences? I know I'm not totally educated on this topic, but it seems like an important factor after reading this article.

  6. Mar 2021
  7. Sep 2020
  8. Apr 2020
  9. Nov 2019
    1. Figure 16.20

      Should be Fig. 16.5.4. As well as for the subsequent Fig. 16.5.4 (a), Fig. 16.5.4 (b) and Fig. 16.5.4 (c).

      In the same vein, Fig. 16.21 should be replaced by Fig. 16.5.5, and also Fig. 16.5.5 (a), Fig. 16.5.5 (b) and Fig. 16.5.5 (c), as above.

  10. Jul 2019
  11. Nov 2016