Re: encyclopedias.
"An encyclopedia (also spelled encyclopaedia or encyclopædia) is a type of reference work, a compendium holding a summary of information from either all branches of knowledge or a particular branch of knowledge."-Wikipedia.
Re: information. "Information is any kind of event that affects the state of a dynamical system. In its most restricted technical sense, it is an ordered sequence of symbols. As a concept, however, information has many meanings.[1] Moreover, the concept of information is closely related to notions of constraint, communication, control, data, form, instruction, knowledge, meaning, mental stimulus, pattern, perception, and representation."-Wikipedia.
Typically, trying to define something can lead to endless philosophical speculation of ever increasing complexity with no guarantee that the speculation is approaching an accurate description of the thing that is supposedly defined. Bertrand Russell said (in one of his books) to the effect that the philosophy espoused in that particular book was not useful on a day to day level. That means, it does not work...and does not really describe reality...since reality also contains the day to day activities to which Russell admitted his work did not explain.
Any perceived object can contain an infinite amount of information..since it can be regarded from infinite perspectives and it could be regarded as containing an infinite number of parts...the nature of which could be endlessly described...and the different descriptions could be endlessly compared and argued over.
Anything can generate an endless stream of information which can appear as meaningless static or be shaped into an idea of an object or thing by an observer. Out of an infinite sea of information apparently finite things appear in the mind of the observer...walking on a path that has the infinite chaos of the unknown on one side and the apparent solidity of the known on the other.
Defining things in terms of other definitions is endlessly recursive and generates noise. The meaning or definition of something is always going to be a personal interpretation, open to dispute by observers seeking to promote their view of the definition. The definition of something is the thing itself, not a description of it.
Things exist within the perception of the observer. The substance of the perception is a combination of the observer and the object of thought. The connection is the knowing of something. The perception can generate infinite complexity if the nature of separation is considered and recursive processes entered into. Infinite simplicity...the identification of what exists...the knowing of all things...the integral connection between them...the maintainer of all systems...contains the possibility for apparent separation and consequent unknowns, but is of the nature of infinite knowing and connection. This is verifiable through analysis of what knowing is by any node or entity that can conceive of the question.
The nature of ourselves is what defines the things around us in our minds. To summarise information requires that the nature of information is known. Imageofreality (talk) 02:01, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
How can fiction tell the truth?
The meaning of things is their identity. The true meaning of things is the actuality of them. Making a conscious effort creates the impression of the mind, apparently causing external effects in the world. Any external effects are illustrations of the thoughts of the observer: to understand what is occurring in apparently empirical phenomena is to see them as part of a language.
Complexity indicates misunderstanding.
Diversity is unitary. All things are unitary. Separation stems from it, but is a misapprehension.
Any concepts that do not recognise truth are false.
Diversity is a dialog.
Thought is a series of impressions of sensory phenomena. Hallucinatory. Analytical reasoning will select sensory data to create a narrative. An endless series of comments on a misapprehended data stream is a reductive and endlessly repeating cycle.
Evolution, being a process, will never reach a conclusion.
Degrees of knowledge are relativistic: the same as degrees of ignorance.
The truth is not secret. It is everything. It is not limited by understanding.
How can the endless procession of lives understand meaning?
The impressions a mind is aware of, whether or not it knows they are real, are part of its fabric.
Its material state and its internal dialog are made of the impressions it creates.
The impressions of a mind are its substance also.
The ideas it holds govern its dialog both internally and with what appears externally.
Forming the concept of complete understanding bypasses evolutionary processes and time-based logic.
Complete understanding is simply total receptivity: the overcoming of concepts of selfish negation.
A change of state may appear to occur, but that is from the misapprehension of a limited perspective.
A mind seeing itself as separate from an unknown environment chooses that form of limitation.
Contained in every aspect of a story's narrative is possibility, and the answer to every question.
Imageofreality (talk) 15:35, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Is conciousness a chemical process? No it isn't.
Not exclusively anyway. There are some contradictions inherent in a purely physical view of consciousness that get swept under the metaphysical carpet.If the mind was a machine limited to its apparent physical space within a brain how would it be able to model itself within that limited system? That is, it would have to be able to hold an image of how it works that is effectively the same thing as the brain itself within itself, and observe it at the same time. That would be an accurate description of actual "thought". That would be saying that it can hold more information than it could contain if it were purely a physical object.
If the brain was purely the matter within its physical space that must mean that all the sensory input it recieved was an image within itself...so all the possible information that a brain could be aware of would be stored within itself. The appearance of computers ,planets, star systems etc are all modelled within the physical brain. For these models to appear real (the basis of empirical science)they have to actually work...if you analyse a microchip or microbe with an electron microscope that whole process is imaged within the brain of the observer according to a purely physical brain model. So, even if the observer does not know how these things work or even what they are these devices appear to hold a functioning existence reproduced within their mind to the finest possible detail.
This suggests that part of the awareness or intelligence or thought of an entity considering its surroundings is contained within its surroundings, since its surroundings are inescapeably bound up with its own mind. The perceptual trick which causes confusion is that sensory input appears to describe an external reality deemed to be different in nature to the substance of the observers mind.
The main contradiction of the "physical" brain model is that its sensory input appears to describe a physical material external world, but at the same time following this logic the external world including the observer's self image is located within a few cubic inches of brain. So much for detached scientific observation.
What appear to be physical systems that "think" are probably by-products of consciousness that actually limit awareness. Sure the cross between butchery and alchemy that is neuroscience can throw a few switches and watch the lights flicker a bit, but give all the monkeys in the world all the typewriters and they'll never come up with Shakespeare. 9 February 2011 (UTC) Imageofreality (talk) 22:47, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Compassion is the highest form of intelligence, uniting disparate elements by unselfishly realising truth. Ego based reason generates language without communication. Perceiving nature as brutally competitive is a reflection of a brutal mindset. The narrative a character finds itself in may appear real but be fictional: the best guess is still a guess...and incomplete science is just that.
Complexity is created by the observer. Infinite data streams and associated recursive arguments are caused by the conception of an external material world the nature of which will appear to be unknown. If the observer dismantles the apparatus that causes this artifact-the notion of separation and the creation of limited awareness-the underlying field of awareness is not obscured. Being perfect connection, it is not subject to division but allows infinite diversity and associated limited systems and concepts of ego and ideation to exist. There is only one truth, but it contains all the possiblility for apparent error and falsehood. There is no theory. There is no observation or complexity or accumulated libraries of opinion, just the simple potential for all these to come into being. Inspiration is unitary and simple and not bound by logic or language. Inhabiting a limited perspective causes infinite and endlessly recursive argument, like the appearance of a universe from a singularity.
The dearly held axioms are just part of the story. Claims to rationality and the consequent reliance on learned behaviours depend on an underlying medium that can represent... ..all the thoughts and all the impressions of reality. It is of the nature of everything, but allows the appearance of diversity and consequent limited subjective concepts. Apparent exchanges of information or communication will be reductive, unless their context is acknowledged. Transmitting or translating of information within a limited system would appear to degrade the signal. Limited systems would not function without a containing system that has no limitations. The signal or message is not the complete meaning of a concept, or language. The meaning of the message is the understanding of where it came from, what caused its existence. All experiences function as a language. The meaning of everything is already known: the unknown is a dependant system created by the concept of limitation. The knowing is the material of existence. The intelligence of compassion is the realization that conceiving of separation and differences hide meaning. Understanding the similarity in all things is the only meaningful conclusion of rationality. Creating an unending dialogue based on limited data is a commentary on subjectivity and is not rational. This is an aspect of you. The existing of a shared concept or absolute abstract between minds or within a mind relies on... ..a universal continuum. It would not be possible to communicate anything otherwise, or for anything to exist. The translation of information from one to another, or the apparent translation of an object in space or time... ...is the same. If the goal is freedom, it must be known what freedom is. Freedom is not being trapped by recursive or limiting thought processes or adherance to axioms. You have always been free to transcend the weary repetition of conditioned behaviour. There are no temporal rules that govern what you are. The instantaneous and eternal inspiration that is your true nature has always existed. It is transformed by your imagination.
https://minusthirteenstreet.wordpress.com
All views are incomplete except the view the view that views are incomplete.
A disputative arguer operating in a non-constructive mode will seek to confirm what it already knows by comparing its environment and perceived arguments to a set of rules that define the structure of its way of thinking: its ego.
It feels that to think, it proves its own existence. It does not: it proves a system of reasoning appears to define itself. That thinking is a limit. Breaking a limit is what transformation is. It is creation.
Perfect realism acknowledges that reality does not obey rules, it appears to create them in the mind of the observer. The creating of rules can appear to govern or codify thoughts. Rules of incomplete logic are superimposed on the mind, the mind exists without the rules.
Arguments that depend on the passage of time are incomplete, since as time passes the argument evolves. The argument at any point is a provisional truth, the way it functions is absolute truth.
The destructive proponent causes misunderstanding by reference to incomplete rules as a method of thinking or proof. It reinforces a system of thought that does not realise truth, but justifies its own existence. The psychology of a mind based on that mistakes self-interest for truth.
Truth requires no proof: it is the actuality of existence. All other superimpositions are subjective.
Relying on an incomplete body of knowledge upon which to base a view is subjectivity. The knowledge appears real for a time and then is modified. It reflects the changes in the environment. It is part of the environment. The thinking is not the knowledge, but the tendency to create knowledge.
Truth allows the evolution of arguments to occur. The argument does not arrive at truth. Truth is the reality of existence, not a description of it.
The incomplete body of knowledge is anything not acknowledging the unknown aspect of existence or its own incompleteness if it is incomplete.
All time dependant reasoning is incomplete. Its conclusion is its stopping.
All reasoning dependant on established rules or verified by a body of literature, to be completed in a non existing future are subjective and have only a localised relevance. The reasoning based thereon will be error generating and require an infinite progression of reasons to explain itself.