Tree Falling In Forest

(by Dlanorrenrag*)

Tree Falling In Forest:

Broadly, what one takes to be objectively “inanimate” may be considered as consisting in that aspect of ultimate ineffability which is mathematically organized for representing to us physically.

Broadly, what one takes to be subjectively “conscious” may be considered as consisting in that aspect of ultimate ineffability which is mathematically organized for receiving and channeling spiritual will to act, however faintly, subject to choice within parameters availed, in respect of that which is representing physically.

In respect of such definitions, whether a “thing” is considered to represent the interacting presence or causal association of an inanimate or a conscious thing will depend upon its holography — that is, it will depend upon each relative perspective, context, history, and purpose of that which may be considering it.

Every particular thing that we take to be existential, both inanimate and conscious, requires a relating holography. The only thing that may not require a relating holography may be a Holism, being that ultimate ineffability of which all that emerges into particular manifestation or implication is derivative and inferior.

When a device for recording signals is related to a source of signals, it will, upon recording, affect and change the pattern or signal being sensed. As a whole, it would be uncommon to consider such a device itself as being conscious. Yet, under the above definition, an aspect of consciousness would have associated with such device, as it was recording the signal.

In other words, the reason a tree falling in a forest not inhabited by any animal nevertheless makes a “sound” (signal) is because some aspect of consciousness is always present to receive it.

And, other aspects of consciousness, potentially, if talented enough, may later translate, decode, reconstruct, or replay the information recorded in respect of such signal.

Each particular inanimate and each particular consciousness interpenetrate, depending for appreciation and interpretation upon each relating holography.

No particular exists without an inextricable relation to a holography. The holography that I experience as being existential may be somewhat different from the holography that you experience as being existential. While we will have different interpretations about what exists, there will be much of what we each consider to exist that overlaps to touch and concern both of us, in common.

What associates with me as being expressive of an inanimate may overlap in "the ultimate ineffability" in order to associate with some other as being expressive of a consciousness.

For any particular to be "indifferently random" or "empathetically conscious" depends upon locus of relation and context of perspective.

In itself, no particular (that is not a holism-in-itself) is either indifferent or empathetic. Rather, relational locus and context are determinative.

In other words, not even "inanimate things" exist in any particularity in themselves. Rather, they exist only in respect of holography.

To improve our understanding of physical, material things and forces, we will need to bring to bear a better understanding of holography.

Coming better to appreciate holography, we may come better to appreciate a pervasively empathetic aspect of consciousness --- or Will.