In the spiritual view of myself and many, the "randomness" is an illusion. All stems from the unseen forces at all times. The energy moves from the invisible realm into the physical realm. It is very causal, just in a different way than you perceive cause. So free will does not say that humans are the root cause in the religious perspective. That is the problem with a scientific or atheist view in assessing this information. You are limited to only seeing the physical pieces, and therefore cannot comprehend what any spiritual religious person can. You must distort the true believer view, and due to your own blind-spot, say the human is the cause. All believers know where our power comes from.
Spiritual/religious people understand all the dynamics have been set into play. And that our choices within those dynamics are sacred. Any "Source" or God does not make the choices. We make them on the Source's behalf. We are a necessary part of the process, and that will is highly regarded--what a wonderful evolution of these forces that has brought us to this. There are many levels of life, and energy, but to the human level and choice, we're it.
Interesting theory. How is this theory more valid than any other theory?
It includes elements that are ineffable and ambiguous. Maybe it's just dimethaltryptamine or an emergence of electrical activity in your brain. An alternative theory is that consciousness is just a product of the deterministic system of the brain. An arrangement of matter that fortunately is aware of it's self. That is what the evidence supports. There is no evidence of a source or first cause or anything except homo sapien folk lore.
You can believe that if you want. I just think it's a terrible meme. Whenever you have a free-will you have causal attribution errors that cause pain and suffering. Imagine you are riding your bicycle and your shoelace gets caught in your pedals. You look down briefly to untangle it and run into someone's cat, injuring it. The person who's cat you hit is very upset emotionally and uses their perspective of causal attribution to blame you entirely. I hear people screaming all the time, treating each other horribly. I can barely stand it. I despise any meme that encourages people to blame other people so readily. It's not even minor things. When people go really off, when they snap. Everyone comes down on them, hard. It doesn't make any sense.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Interesting theory. How is this theory more valid than any other theory?
It includes elements that are ineffable and ambiguous. Maybe it's just dimethaltryptamine or an emergence of electrical activity in your brain. An alternative theory is that consciousness is just a product of the deterministic system of the brain. An arrangement of matter that fortunately is aware of it's self. That is what the evidence supports. There is no evidence of a source or first cause or anything except homo sapien folk lore.
You can believe that if you want. I just think it's a terrible meme. Whenever you have a free-will you have causal attribution errors that cause pain and suffering. Imagine you are riding your bicycle and your shoelace gets caught in your pedals. You look down briefly to untangle it and run into someone's cat, injuring it. The person who's cat you hit is very upset emotionally and uses their perspective of causal attribution to blame you entirely. I hear people screaming all the time, treating each other horribly. I can barely stand it. I despise any meme that encourages people to blame other people so readily. It's not even minor things. When people go really off, when they snap. Everyone comes down on them, hard. It doesn't make any sense.
The point is when you are viewing free will as flawed, it is because you are looking at it from a flawed perspective. You start with the human cause, which is YOUR view. Great--it's just not the religious or spiritual free-will you are critiquing. You look at cause from a time perspective, not understanding the role of the universal Source at ALL times. It didn't start at the beginning of time at the beginning of the universe. It begins in each thought, word and deed--it is cause itself, to the effects we see. The universal Source of....everything....precedes.....everything.
I can understand the human need to break things down so that we can understand it. That is about our level of understanding. It is not about understanding the reality of what we assess, which cannot be broken from the whole and put in a false, inaccurate vacuum.
You said a long time ago, science is accurate over time. That's a great idea, however, the future you are banking on is much as a symbolic myth as Santa Claus and ... well, any other myth. Therefore science is as much a matter of faith right now as any system. Because we set up a theory that makes time, and the future real, doesn't make it so. It'll be real when we arrive in the future. that far off place where science will finally hold "true". The problem is, it doesn't exist.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
The point is when you are viewing free will as flawed, it is because you are looking at it from a flawed perspective. You start with the human cause, which is YOUR view. Great--it's just not the religious or spiritual free-will you are critiquing. You look at cause from a time perspective, not understanding the role of the universal Source at ALL times. It didn't start at the beginning of time at the beginning of the universe. It begins in each thought, word and deed--it is cause itself, to the effects we see. The universal Source of....everything....precedes.....everything.
I can understand the human need to break things down so that we can understand it. That is about our level of understanding. It is not about understanding the reality of what we assess, which cannot be broken from the whole and put in a false, inaccurate vacuum.
You said a long time ago, science is accurate over time. That's a great idea, however, the future you are banking on is much as a symbolic myth as Santa Claus and ... well, any other myth. Therefore science is as much a matter of faith right now as any system. Because we set up a theory that makes time, and the future real, doesn't make it so. It'll be real when we arrive in the future. that far off place where science will finally hold "true". The problem is, it doesn't exist.
The only thing I am "banking" on is what is known. I'm not tossing out theories like free-will and "the source". In the absence of those theories, you'll have what I have.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
The only thing I am "banking" on is what is known. I'm not tossing out theories like free-will and "the source". In the absence of those theories, you'll have what I have.
I totally support you banking on what you know.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
It's a descriptor for certain adaptive traits of humans at the interaction ontological level. Thus, it's cause, is the human brain. The trillions of robot nerve cells that such traits as intelligence emerge from.
Intelligence can't "emerge" from a picture of a brain. Essentially that is what you are saying. Intelligence comes from the living.
Our environment - our external infrastructure, from town planning to roads and running water - are effects caused by what Althusser called a lived ideology. Ideology is more than abstract concepts in words, it's all around us, in the very structure of our surroundings and the way we interact with our environment to survive. Our beliefs are structured in our surroundings. For example, roads and seafaring routes mean expansion and control, as well as communication. This belief in the interdependence of community and environment has likely been the way since the agricultural revolution, if not before. It's certainly promoted in fascist literature, more than in other discourses.
But I've a question: if lived ideology is something that can be challenged via revolutionary change, and if theoretically we could re-organise our sense of environment and community, would you see it as social evolution, as something natural? For example, it's incorrect to say that the progression from feudalism to capitalism, or from agriculture to industrialism (which utterly altered environments), was something unavoidable. The dominant classes might try and naturalise these developments in pseudo-Darwinian or organic lingo, but there was always a conflict of interests more complex and unpredictable than some kind of model of game theory might suggest.
To deny the will is to descend into a dangerous nihilism that only accepts the most vulgar of data. One denies many of the essentialist premises of individualist humanism, and applauds what is promoted as the inevitability of fascism.
Vulgar data: Karl Rove gave a couple of interviews this morning...
Apparently "the world" is an abstraction.
I'd love to play monkey and weasel with you on this, but I have to go to work.
I just happen to know the Earth is what it is.
Have a good night.
Oh, the Earth is what it is. It's our perceptions of this world that aren't realistic or real and since we see everything through our perceptions, it's all abstracted.
Remember the infamous old Einstein article you, Ahnimus and myself talked about one night awhile back?
"Our psychological experience contains, in colorful succession, sense experiences, memory pictures of them, images, and feelings. In contrast to psychology, physics treats directly only of sense experiences and of the "understanding" of their connection ; but even the concept of the "real external world" of everyday thinking rests exclusively on sense impressions.
...in our thinking (which determines our expectation), we attribute to this concept of the bodily object a significance, which is to a high degree independent of the sense impressions which originally give rise to it. This is what we mean when we attribute to the bodily object "a real existence." The justification of such a setting rests exclusively on the fact that, by means of such concepts and mental relations between them, we are able to orient ourselves in the labyrinth of sense impressions. These notions and relations, although free mental creations, appear to us as stronger and more unalterable than the individual sense experience itself, the character of which as anything other than the result of an illusion or hallucination is never completely guaranteed. On the other hand, these concepts and relations, and indeed the postulation of real objects and, generally speaking, of the existence of "the real world," have justification only in so far as they are connected with sense impressions between which they form a mental connection."
Have a good night at work, gue.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Oh, the Earth is what it is. It's our perceptions of this world that aren't realistic or real and since we see everything through our perceptions, it's all abstracted.
Remember the infamous old Einstein article you, Ahnimus and myself talked about one night awhile back?
"Our psychological experience contains, in colorful succession, sense experiences, memory pictures of them, images, and feelings. In contrast to psychology, physics treats directly only of sense experiences and of the "understanding" of their connection ; but even the concept of the "real external world" of everyday thinking rests exclusively on sense impressions.
...in our thinking (which determines our expectation), we attribute to this concept of the bodily object a significance, which is to a high degree independent of the sense impressions which originally give rise to it. This is what we mean when we attribute to the bodily object "a real existence." The justification of such a setting rests exclusively on the fact that, by means of such concepts and mental relations between them, we are able to orient ourselves in the labyrinth of sense impressions. These notions and relations, although free mental creations, appear to us as stronger and more unalterable than the individual sense experience itself, the character of which as anything other than the result of an illusion or hallucination is never completely guaranteed. On the other hand, these concepts and relations, and indeed the postulation of real objects and, generally speaking, of the existence of "the real world," have justification only in so far as they are connected with sense impressions between which they form a mental connection."
Have a good night at work, gue.
It's not abstracted to me. The way I see abstractions and figuratives is that they are mental tools that allow us to think and express things in different ways. The tools don't change the reality of life and death. In fact, to your way of thinking on the environmental variable, it would figure that we hone our "thinking tools" to the environment in which we are in.
Thanks, I'll try to have fun at work. I have a little more time than I knew.
It's not abstracted to me. The way I see abstractions and figuratives is that they are mental tools that allow us to think and express things in different ways. The tools don't change the reality of life and death. In fact, to your way of thinking on the environmental variable, it would figure that we hone our "thinking tools" to the environment in which we are in.
Thanks, I'll try to have fun at work. I have a little more time than I knew.
Again, we're back to things like language, and wherein we were conditioned with concepts and ideas that we took as being reality. And really they are just ideas. We have no idea how the physical world appears on any level, because we continue to see it through the screen of our thinking and underlying conditioned impressions.
That's why I'll stick with the view from outside the box--the view from those who have delved into the inner worlds and come to understand how our inner filters distort, how such distortions affect our view of reality and, how to see around such distortions thereby having a clearer ability to comprehend what is real.
And frankly, when it comes down to it, the secret knowledge sects that have carried the secrets of the universe through the ages are in basic agreement. It's all an illusion.
Back to our choice of environment...what do we choose--books, conversations, etc: one's that perpetuate illusions and our egoistic ideas of being "right"? Or ones that reveal truths?
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
In fact, to your way of thinking on the environmental variable, it would figure that we hone our "thinking tools" to the environment in which we are in.
When one does so, one finds deeper and deeper degrees of doing so, until one comes to the illusion of reality as we know it.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Again, we're back to things like language, and wherein we were conditioned with concepts and ideas that we took as being reality. And really they are just ideas. We have no idea how the physical world appears on any level, because we continue to see it through the screen of our thinking and underlying conditioned impressions.
That's why I'll stick with the view from outside the box--the view from those who have delved into the inner worlds and come to understand how our inner filters distort, how such distortions affect our view of reality and, how to see around such distortions thereby having a clearer ability to comprehend what is real.
And frankly, when it comes down to it, the secret knowledge sects that have carried the secrets of the universe through the ages are in basic agreement. It's all an illusion.
Back to our choice of environment...what do we choose--books, conversations, etc: one's that perpetuate illusions and our egoistic ideas of being "right"? Or ones that reveal truths?
Well, okay, maybe you don't have the "tools". You have, er...um, wings. "Thinking wings." How's that?
You said: "In fact, to your way of thinking on the environmental variable, it would figure that we hone our "thinking tools" to the environment in which we are in."
Some people do hone their "thinking tools" to the environment, and as they do so, they find that there are many many layers beneath the surface regarding just what the "environment" is. Eventually, in addressing adapting to the universe, one peels back layer upon layer of what we view as the environment, until one gets to the part where the universe as we know it is a construct in our psyches--an illusion.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
You said: "In fact, to your way of thinking on the environmental variable, it would figure that we hone our "thinking tools" to the environment in which we are in."
Some people do hone their "thinking tools" to the environment, and as they do so, they find that there are many many layers beneath the surface regarding just what the "environment" is. Eventually, in addressing adapting to the universe, one peels back layer upon layer of what we view as the environment, until one gets to the part where the universe as we know it is a construct in our psyches--an illusion.
I disagree that life is an illusion. That sounds like abstracts in overdrive.
Or, more than likely just an overactive imagination.
Comments
Interesting theory. How is this theory more valid than any other theory?
It includes elements that are ineffable and ambiguous. Maybe it's just dimethaltryptamine or an emergence of electrical activity in your brain. An alternative theory is that consciousness is just a product of the deterministic system of the brain. An arrangement of matter that fortunately is aware of it's self. That is what the evidence supports. There is no evidence of a source or first cause or anything except homo sapien folk lore.
You can believe that if you want. I just think it's a terrible meme. Whenever you have a free-will you have causal attribution errors that cause pain and suffering. Imagine you are riding your bicycle and your shoelace gets caught in your pedals. You look down briefly to untangle it and run into someone's cat, injuring it. The person who's cat you hit is very upset emotionally and uses their perspective of causal attribution to blame you entirely. I hear people screaming all the time, treating each other horribly. I can barely stand it. I despise any meme that encourages people to blame other people so readily. It's not even minor things. When people go really off, when they snap. Everyone comes down on them, hard. It doesn't make any sense.
I can understand the human need to break things down so that we can understand it. That is about our level of understanding. It is not about understanding the reality of what we assess, which cannot be broken from the whole and put in a false, inaccurate vacuum.
You said a long time ago, science is accurate over time. That's a great idea, however, the future you are banking on is much as a symbolic myth as Santa Claus and ... well, any other myth. Therefore science is as much a matter of faith right now as any system. Because we set up a theory that makes time, and the future real, doesn't make it so. It'll be real when we arrive in the future. that far off place where science will finally hold "true". The problem is, it doesn't exist.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
The only thing I am "banking" on is what is known. I'm not tossing out theories like free-will and "the source". In the absence of those theories, you'll have what I have.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Discuss.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
Intelligence can't "emerge" from a picture of a brain. Essentially that is what you are saying. Intelligence comes from the living.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
Vulgar data: Karl Rove gave a couple of interviews this morning...
Apparently "the world" is an abstraction.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
I'd love to play monkey and weasel with you on this, but I have to go to work.
I just happen to know the Earth is what it is.
Have a good night.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
Remember the infamous old Einstein article you, Ahnimus and myself talked about one night awhile back?
"Our psychological experience contains, in colorful succession, sense experiences, memory pictures of them, images, and feelings. In contrast to psychology, physics treats directly only of sense experiences and of the "understanding" of their connection ; but even the concept of the "real external world" of everyday thinking rests exclusively on sense impressions.
...in our thinking (which determines our expectation), we attribute to this concept of the bodily object a significance, which is to a high degree independent of the sense impressions which originally give rise to it. This is what we mean when we attribute to the bodily object "a real existence." The justification of such a setting rests exclusively on the fact that, by means of such concepts and mental relations between them, we are able to orient ourselves in the labyrinth of sense impressions. These notions and relations, although free mental creations, appear to us as stronger and more unalterable than the individual sense experience itself, the character of which as anything other than the result of an illusion or hallucination is never completely guaranteed. On the other hand, these concepts and relations, and indeed the postulation of real objects and, generally speaking, of the existence of "the real world," have justification only in so far as they are connected with sense impressions between which they form a mental connection."
Have a good night at work, gue.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
It's not abstracted to me. The way I see abstractions and figuratives is that they are mental tools that allow us to think and express things in different ways. The tools don't change the reality of life and death. In fact, to your way of thinking on the environmental variable, it would figure that we hone our "thinking tools" to the environment in which we are in.
Thanks, I'll try to have fun at work. I have a little more time than I knew.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
That's why I'll stick with the view from outside the box--the view from those who have delved into the inner worlds and come to understand how our inner filters distort, how such distortions affect our view of reality and, how to see around such distortions thereby having a clearer ability to comprehend what is real.
And frankly, when it comes down to it, the secret knowledge sects that have carried the secrets of the universe through the ages are in basic agreement. It's all an illusion.
Back to our choice of environment...what do we choose--books, conversations, etc: one's that perpetuate illusions and our egoistic ideas of being "right"? Or ones that reveal truths?
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Well, okay, maybe you don't have the "tools". You have, er...um, wings. "Thinking wings." How's that?
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
I have no idea what you're stating, as usual.
Sounds kind of escapist, though.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
Some people do hone their "thinking tools" to the environment, and as they do so, they find that there are many many layers beneath the surface regarding just what the "environment" is. Eventually, in addressing adapting to the universe, one peels back layer upon layer of what we view as the environment, until one gets to the part where the universe as we know it is a construct in our psyches--an illusion.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
I disagree that life is an illusion. That sounds like abstracts in overdrive.
Or, more than likely just an overactive imagination.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.