Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Feb 21, 2015 - 08:25am PT
|
What are we evolving towards?
Yes that is the intelligent question that will lead one to the correct answer.
Here they will say there is NO correct answer.
This proves they are ultimately clueless and are the blind leading the blind and just plain ultimately guessing to what we are evolving to .....
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Feb 21, 2015 - 09:20am PT
|
That's plain stupid.
Free will means you can do wrong!
If there's no free will then there's absolutely zero life.
Absolutely nothing (zero) would exist.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Feb 21, 2015 - 09:22am PT
|
"Free will means you can do wrong!" -wb
Thanks for your help in making the point, lol!
.....
About Information Philosopher...
"Information Philosophy (I-Phi) is a new philosophical method grounded in science, especially modern physics, biology, neuroscience, and the science of information."
http://www.informationphilosopher.com/about/
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Feb 21, 2015 - 09:25am PT
|
I'm with you on that one ......
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Seattle, WA
|
|
|
Feb 21, 2015 - 10:36am PT
|
Jgill: And I have always thought that is just wrong!
:-) Me too, John.
Base: I suppose that you have never used an encyclopedia or dictionary.
Only as a novice. I use textbooks, for the most part, and other compilations of theories, data collection, and analyses. If in a hurry, I’ll read journal abstracts from Google Scholar. I like Wiki and use it oftentimes to clarify and articulate a survey. It’s not wiki that I complain about. It’s using a dictionary to make claims about reality that strikes me as misguided.
Healyje: Again, science is not a 'project' of any kind and certainly not what you describe. You are kind of always trying to project some pretty strange attributes onto science. In this case it's just an obfuscated version of painting science as religion. Odd at best.
You’re an idealist, and science has become dogma to you. You seem to have no questions or doubts about it. You accept it in the best light possible. Moreover, given those views, I suspect that you are not a practitioner in the development of scientific knowledge (research and publishing) or an academic who teaches it. The practice of developing science is deeply sociological and political, my friend. (Sure, and so is everything else.) Go and read a few blogs by entry academics trying to make their mark in their fields, dealing with reviewers, responding to direction from editors, and with colleagues who have vested interests in their own journal’s points of views, publications, theories, and research studies.
Reflection does not only come in the variety of “self-reflection.” Reflection is about questioning everything. It is the summa c#m laude of intelligence and knowledge.
Sullly knows.
We are Americans, and we don’t share the language or conventions 1:1 with the Brits. Nor do we share the same rules of social manners with the Europeans (how to handle knives and forks and spoons, for example) or sense of style or philosophies.
Duck: Free will means you can do wrong!
From my limited experience, it’s the “doing" part that I see differently. Doing wrong happens all the time, and we can’t be held completely accountable for doing wrong socially. In Law, what constitutes a legal wrong are three parts: Deed, Consequence, and Mens Rea. For Buddhists, Mens Rea (“intentions”) is the thing that you have the most control over. Behaviors and consequences is not within one’s complete control. The former looks more like “influence,” whereas consequences seem to be forever unknown prior to the fact. It’s my limited experience that holding skillful intentions acts like some kind of spiritual magnet of karma.
|
|
Psilocyborg
climber
|
|
|
Feb 21, 2015 - 11:55am PT
|
Wanting to hold a soul responsible for wrong is a human concept. The soul only learns and builds. Bad things bring about good things, good things bring about bad things. The only way to screw it up is to lock yourself in a room and live the gift of life through your phone or computer screen! :-)
|
|
Psilocyborg
climber
|
|
|
Feb 21, 2015 - 12:00pm PT
|
I enjoyed that article mr PP.
The Squirming Coil of sunset
I keep within my reach
Tried yesterday to get away
And hitchhiked to the beach
I saw Satan on the beach
Trying to catch a ray
He wasn't quite the speed of light
And the squirming coil
It got away
Zen masters are atheists :-)
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Feb 21, 2015 - 12:04pm PT
|
Ultimately Buddhists are impersonalists.
This why you have so many problems.
There always remains right and wrong eternally.
The material world is the indirect reflection of the absolute spiritual world.
The mayavadis and impersonalists always try to go to the cessation of all material activities.
The soul by its true nature is eternally active, with personality, individuality, and with variegatedness.
Thus right and wrong are not only a human construct but eternally existing and active .......
|
|
Psilocyborg
climber
|
|
|
Feb 21, 2015 - 12:06pm PT
|
What are the consequences?
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Feb 21, 2015 - 12:13pm PT
|
Zen masters are atheists
They are soft atheists.
Those that follow Buddha indirectly and unknowingly are theists.
For Buddha was a direct incarnation of God himself but for a certain purpose preached against his own self according to time and circumstance to stop a negative karmic reaction.
Only God himself can do such a thing and simultaneously save ones soul from repeated cycle of birth and death, karmic reactions etc etc ....
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Feb 21, 2015 - 12:19pm PT
|
You’re an idealist, and science has become dogma to you. You seem to have no questions or doubts about it.
Quite the opposite - I'm as far from an idealist as you can get. But you're right, I don't have any questions or doubts about the scientific method whatsoever; but that's not dogma, just a simple recognition and acknowledgement we don't have a better way of understanding the [material] world and universe in which we live.
science is deeply sociological and political, my friend
You confuse academic socio-political culture with science. That is the 'colosseum' much if not most science plays out in, but should not be confused for science.
|
|
Psilocyborg
climber
|
|
|
Feb 21, 2015 - 12:20pm PT
|
Those same structures can be found in any laboratory healyje
|
|
Psilocyborg
climber
|
|
|
Feb 21, 2015 - 12:34pm PT
|
You are playing The Game.
Everyone is playing the game. They always have been and always will be. Participation in a game requires neither consent nor awareness of its existence.
Only when someone has told you about The Game does it become possible to lose, unless you independently create The Game.
The creator of The Game was the first person to realise that he was playing, and was therefore the first person to lose.
Whenever you think about The Game, you lose.
Loss is temporary. As soon as you forget about The Game, you start winning again.
It is possible for people to simultaneously lose The Game.
Causing others to lose The Game more than you is the only way to "win" The Game. Strategies usually involve leaving somekind of permanent reminder for others to see. e.g. answerphone messages, MSN pictures, forum posts, signs, graffiti etc.
Rule 2 can be interpreted in a number of different ways depending on:
When during the thought process of thinking about The Game constitutes loss?
(i) Whenever you think about The Game.
One interpretation is that any thought involving The Game constitutes loss. Therefore, the objective of this version is to forget about The Game. Experienced players can think about, and even discuss, The Game without realising they have lost. Not announcing this loss violates Rule 3. Whether or not a thought is about The Game is hard to define. For example, does thinking about this website count as thinking about The Game?
(ii) Whenever you remember that you are playing The Game.
There is a point at which you realise you are playing The Game without realising this means you have lost. Loss at this point would mean that the objective of this version is to forget that you are playing The Game. It is still possible to not realise that you have lost this version of The Game.
(iii) Whenever you then realise that you have lost.
When you become aware that you should lose, you lose. This version of The Game has seemingly paradoxical properties. The objective is to not realise you have lost. Unfortunately, the rule "Whenever you realise that you have lost, you have lost" does not explain how you lose to new players. However, this version of The Game prevents accidental cheating.
(iv) Whenever you realise you have thought about The Game.
It is possible to realise that you have thought about The Game without realising you have lost. This version still allows accidental cheating but significantly reduces it.
After reading these possibilities, you could well have forgotten that you are always playing The Game. No matter what version of the rules you play, you are playing The Game. You are thinking about The Game. You know you are thinking about The Game. Lose The Game. If you haven't just lost The Game, hopefully you have now. Only a true master could read this whole paragraph without losing The Game.
Do you lose when you are told about The Game by someone who has just lost?
There are 2 possibilities:
i) Yes
In accordance with Rule 2, you lose if you think about The Game (see above), even if this is because you have been told by someone who has just lost. Many people play that you do lose, but that loss does not have to be re-announced. This results in it being beneficial not to be around other players of The Game (in addition to the fact that them losing reminds you of the existence of The Game in the long term). It should be noted that hearing someone else announce their loss does not necessarily cause you to lose as you may not think about The Game.
ii) No
A new rule needs to be added to incorporate immunity if the trigger for rememberance was someone else losing. This rule would also have to take into account messages that are left about The Game.
Can you keep losing?
Some variations allocate a period of time, or "grace period", after losing The Game, during which you cannot lose. This is often based on preventing repetitive or continuous loss.
i) No grace period
Some players would argue that they do not need a grace period to prevent repetitive loss (see habituation). Involving time limits may in fact increase the rate of loss by associating The Game with when in becomes possible to lose again, as well as other time related occurrances.
ii) Grace period, often 10, 20 or 30 minutes long.
Do you need to know what The Game is to be able to lose it?
Another area for confusion is how much you need to know about The Game in order to lose it.
For example, if you have never heard about The Game before, and I lose and say "I just lost The Game" then are you now thinking about The Game even though you have no idea what it is?
Variations:
A player loses 1 point for every loss, and any other players present gain 1 point.
A player loses 1 point for every loss, and the other n players present gain 1/n points.
Loss must be announced.
This is the only rule that can be broken.
You must tell everyone you can that you have lost.
It is possible to explain The Game to someone without realising that you have lost. Whether this counts as cheating or not depends on your interpretation of Rule 2.
Variations:
Upon loss you must explain the rules of The Game to anyone who is unaware of them.
A warning is required before explaining The Game to others.
Every loss must be announced to at least one person.
What do you say when you lose the game?
|
|
Marlow
Sport climber
OSLO
|
|
|
Feb 21, 2015 - 12:38pm PT
|
Of human life the time is a point, and the substance is in a flux, and the perception dull, and the composition of the whole body subject to putrefaction, and the soul a whirl, and fortune hard to divine, and fame a thing devoid of judgement. And, to say all in a word, everything which belongs to the body is a stream, and what belongs to the soul is a dream and vapour, and life is a warfare and a stranger's sojourn, and after-fame is oblivion. What then is that which is able to conduct a man? One thing and only one, the love of wisdom. But this consists in keeping the daemon within a man free from violence and unharmed, superior to pains and pleasures, doing nothing without purpose, nor yet falsely and with hypocrisy, not feeling the need of another man's doing or not doing anything; and besides, accepting all that happens, and all that is allotted, as coming from thence, wherever it is, from whence he himself came; and, finally, waiting for death with a cheerful mind, as being nothing else than a dissolution of the elements of which every living being is compounded. But if there is no harm to the elements themselves in each continually changing into another, why should a man have any apprehension about the change and dissolution of all the elements? For it is according to nature, and nothing is evil which is according to nature.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Feb 21, 2015 - 01:00pm PT
|
Those same structures can be found in any laboratory healyje
And should not be confused for science. It's clearer to me now which forest and which trees are getting confused, particularly in MikeL's instance. I explicitly chose not to participate in academia for what I consider a lot of good reasons; if you don't particularly care for that life then bummer you chose it. But don't confuse it with science itself.
|
|
Psilocyborg
climber
|
|
|
Feb 21, 2015 - 01:58pm PT
|
Good point healyje, and conversly the same for spiritualisms
|
|
jgill
Boulder climber
The high prairie of southern Colorado
|
|
|
Feb 21, 2015 - 04:24pm PT
|
. . . slime molds are self-aware . . .
I haven't watched the videos, but this seems a bit of a stretch. However, I'm always learning things on this thread.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Feb 21, 2015 - 05:41pm PT
|
I haven't watched the videos, but this seems a bit of a stretch. However, I'm always learning things on this thread.
They know where they've already been and can recognize other parts of themselves when they encounter them both of which are essential to their ability to optimize. The study of them has spun off a lot of research relative that optimization.
[Click to View YouTube Video]
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!