I fear our usual semantic difficulties here. What is the "intent" of the wind? Of the sun? And is our perception of these things not also subject to interpretation?The Esmer wrote:meaning = intent, no? intent = driving force, no? to discern the intent one can merely observe it, without interpreting it.(the wind? the sun?) perceive = observe = discover.
Is it possible to percieve something without interpreting it? And what?The Esmer wrote:Interpreting requires thought, an action, while perceiving requires only awareness.
Can you be aware of something without interpreting it? And what?The Esmer wrote:Awareness also does not require thought, nor does it require perception.
The Esmer wrote:Awareness in a void has nothing to perceive, as perceive is defined as an action, and before action is non-action, which cannot be defined as the act of not acting. the non-action before the act of perception is awareness.
Would awareness perceive the void?
Do we intend to be aware? (Still having that problem with intent). Perception and interpretation are inextricably intertwined.The Esmer wrote:Awareness is a state, but is also an action, an act of intent. Another seeming paradox. Awareness only requires intent, or a driving force, and energy. It is an important, nay crucial, distinction between regarding intent as a force, and intent as a thought. A thought is an interpretation. The same distinction must be made between regarding perception as an act of awareness, and as a result of interpretation. Perception is an act of awareness, while interpretation is an act of perception, not the result of perception, in this case.
Interpretation requires a value, I can accept. A shared value though? An "un-shared" value would (does) permit interpretation just as easily, surely?The Esmer wrote:An interpretation requires a shared value, and as we have no shared value to interpret the intent of the universe, we can only observe it, without interpreting it, hence "pure perception", or "direct observation", or "intial discovery", the exact single moment that perception occurs, before interpretation.
Have to think about this one...The Esmer wrote:Intent requires energy, and also is considered energy, since it itself is a "driving force". This is considered a "paradox", or better yet, "The Paradox". Energy requires intent requires energy. Irreducible complexity, or as I prefer, Irreducible Residue, the last verifiable components of Reality are energy and intent, which are of and is the same.
[/quote]The Esmer wrote:Regarding command to live, you are forced to live, and as such must oppose that force to die. You cannot decide to live, you can only decide to die. Saying you decide to live only means that you have decided not to die. Death is also a command that is not dependent upon your will, for it is the natural order of life, and you will die one day despite your best effort to avoid it. Left unhindered, beyond your will, you must live, and you must die, because life itself commands it so.
That, I think I can live with...but I'll have to consider it.

--A