Antigravity mouse droppings

[Nephew Twiddleton]

Lit up a cigarette this morning and when I went to go flick it, I noticed a strange sight indeed.

There, hovering over the ashtray, was a mouse dropping. At least that's what my eyes told me it was. Naturally, I've never seen an antigravity mouse dropping or could even conceive of the physics behind it, cool scientific discovery though it would be, so I decided to investigate it further, without even thinking. So I stood up from the chair and immediately saw that the antigravity mouse dropping was actually nothing more than the expended tip of a match that got wedged between two cigarettes, and that my original vantage point offered me incorrect information. By changing my perspective on it, I was able to determine what it was. Problem solved.

I did what anyone else would do. Instead of sticking with the original assumption, I automatically satisfied my wtf? with closer scrutiny. Naturally, of course, this sort of thing would only be undertaken with something on such a small scale. It's when the assumptions become more complex, more rooted, more traditional, that people have a hard time looking at it in a different perspective. Applied to the AGMD, I could have concluded even still that a flying mouse saw fit to use the match to wipe its butt, or that it actually was a hovering turd that just happened to have a match attached to it, giving it the illusion of not hovering at all. Perhaps it's the match that kept the AGMD from floating up to the ceiling. But of course, it's still just a burnt out match, no matter what I happen to call it.

Or Kill Me.

[Triple Zero]

The point is, if it had looked like Jesus, some people would have disagreed.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

The point is, if it had looked like Jesus, some people would have disagreed.

But I don't know what Jesus looked like, other than a member of Generation X circa 1993.

[Ob_Portu]

Wrong.

The flying turd (probably a mutant) turned into a match because you didn't BELIEVE.

Murderer.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

Wrong.

The flying turd (probably a mutant) turned into a match because you didn't BELIEVE.

Murderer.

What I believe about it ultimately doesn't matter and doesn't change what it is. It's either a floating mouse turd (AGMD^TM), or it's a match, or it's a third thing I haven't thought of. what I think of it doesn't change its nature. It either means I'm right, I'm way off or, I don't have enough info to make a proper analysis. What's important is that if I think it's one thing that makes no sense, but it's definitely that from where I see it, it's only proper to see if from another perspective to get a better idea of what is actually going on.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

Also I was hoping this would spark some discussion.

[Ob_Portu]

I guess my sticking point is that part of it's reality lives in your mind. Kinda like stuffed animals have personalities that live in the minds of the young..

that's if you don't buy the whole inanimate having consciousness theory, if you you do, that's a whole nother kettle..

[Nephew Twiddleton]

I guess my sticking point is that part of it's reality lives in your mind. Kinda like stuffed animals have personalities that live in the minds of the young..

that's if you don't buy the whole inanimate having consciousness theory, if you you do, that's a whole nother kettle..

I guess what I'm getting at is that I saw something that didn't jive with the world as I understand it, so my automatic reaction was to take a closer look to see what it actually was. It didn't occur to me that it was a match, because I never really bothered to scrutinize used matches. Actually, I usually use lighters, so even more so something I wouldn't notice. But because my initial analysis made no sense, I unconsciously decided to solve what it was, rather than accept it was an AGMD or just say, "eh, it doesn't fucking matter what it is. I'm busy smoking." But these are exactly the reactions people have to similar conundrums in different contexts. Anyone else would have automatically changed their perspective to find out what the AGMD was. Why don't they apply that to other conundrums instead of coming up with an answer and sticking to it regardless of all other information and perspectives?

This obviously lends itself to the discussion of religion, but can really be applied to anything. Politics, economics, culture, whatever people dogmatically stick to.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

that's if you don't buy the whole inanimate having consciousness theory, if you you do, that's a whole nother kettle..

Also, as for this, I know an inanimate object is just that, but it doesn't stop me from having some sort of emotional attachment and relationship to it. I feel bad if it is broken, and I am happy when it is fulfilling its purpose. For example, I name all of my guitars, I ascribe personalities and quirks to them, and I would consider their individual destructions a death. That doesn't make them conscious living things, except to me, but even then, those consciousnesses are only an extension of my own.

[Ob_Portu]

I really did get your point.

I was riffing off the fact that "recalibrate sensory apparatus and formulate new theory" while an interesting app is not the only one you could have used.

on a side not: I did like the post.

[Ob_Portu]

So sure?? really?

that's weird.

Objects retain information. affect reality individually.

they don't have nervous systems, true, so the natures of their "minds" are different, for sure. But to write them off as non-concious is a little..egocentric/species centric. From my egos view any way. No offense meant.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

well, I guess it depends on how you describe consciousness. Say, I'm playing with Fuckin' A (so named because the A string is always the one to break). I consider it male, and it has its quirks which I would think of as a personality. But that is only expressed when I am playing it. When it's just in a case or on the holder, it's just a piece of wood with 6 strands of nickel and a couple of magnets. He is happy when he's hanging from my shoulders and plugged into my pedalboard (which also has a name and a personality even though it is a collective), and he laughs at me when that A string breaks and shout "Fuckin' A!!!!"

Fuckin' A is a red BC Rich Warlock Bronze series in case you were wondering.

[Don Coyote]

So sure?? really?

that's weird.

Objects retain information. affect reality individually.

they don't have nervous systems, true, so the natures of their "minds" are different, for sure. But to write them off as non-concious is a little..egocentric/species centric. From my egos view any way. No offense meant.

The bigger question or more important one is, "will the fact that this non-living object has a consciousness change the way to I act towards it?" It's like arguing whether or not you and I and Dok Blight all see "green" the same way or not. As long as we all point to something and agree it is in fact "green" everything else is just mental masturbation.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

To riff further, and go into the topic of religion and politics, a god is a personality that you ascribe to a part or a totality of existence. Say you worship the sun god. That's a consciousness you ascribe to the sun, and that personality is both real and superior to your own. Cool, but here you go. Say we're in the future and living on a colonized planet. Does the sun god rule over that star too, or is that a different sun god? Or, in the nearer future and you worship the planet you live on. Here that would be Gaea. But say you lived on Mars. Do you then worship Mars or a vaguer idea of an Earth deity. If you live on Titan, do you worship a moon deity or is it an Earth deity.

Politically speaking, you consider that a country has a personality (and they do). So is that Uncle Sam or Lady Liberty if you're an American? And what is that personality like? Does it change with administration, congress or both? DOes it really reflect the general mood of the people? And if so, is the government the personality after all or is it just the voters? Maybe it's just the media? Maybe you can look at Uncle Sam as the god of government and Lady Liberty as the goddess of the people, and a goddess of sovereignty who determines who gets the title of Uncle Sam.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

So sure?? really?

that's weird.

Objects retain information. affect reality individually.

they don't have nervous systems, true, so the natures of their "minds" are different, for sure. But to write them off as non-concious is a little..egocentric/species centric. From my egos view any way. No offense meant.

The bigger question or more important one is, "will the fact that this non-living object has a consciousness change the way to I act towards it?" It's like arguing whether or not you and I and Dok Blight all see "green" the same way or not. As long as we all point to something and agree it is in fact "green" everything else is just mental masturbation.

Ok, this is an interesting point. Does Fuckin' A have an individual existence that when I am taken out of the equation, is still the same, or is it just, "That's one of Dok Blight's guitars." You could smash it, and that would piss me off and make me demand that you compensate me for the damage. But say it wasn't my guitar, or anyone else's and you determined that it was a piece of crap because the A string keeps breaking. What do you do with it? I keep changing the A string because it's my guitar and I like it despite its faults, and I have a lot of fond memories with it. But you just met him and find him wanting.