Indeed, he's obviously not referring to wise folk who avoid grandiose conceptual schemes to conquer Nature intellectually and remake the essence of it in their own image.Who is he [Nietzsche] talking about, I wonder? He is certainly not referring to wise folk.
What is said here does not seem to conform to what was said earlier… hence I question.David: Nature is your very own self. So what is there to be threatened by? What is there to cope with?
Inwardly? Sure, but that too would necessarily require something ‘external’ to it; there is absolutely no other way, so discovering it “directly†holds little meaning except being a poetical or emotional expression, and each one would have his own unique twist to discovering it “directlyâ€, (if there is such a thing); and how the hell can I actually know that about another in its completeness?"Transmission beyond words" means that enlightened understanding is beyond conventional language and can only be discovered inwardly and directly by the individual, if Nature so chooses.
May be, but not unless a “sage†considers Nature as ONLY an “external†force, acting UPON a sage or anything else for that matter, which is an incomplete understanding in my opinion. All is necessarily caused, but that which is caused, is also the creator and sustainer of causalty, and hence are necessarily dependant on each other for existence to BE what it is.It is a transmission directly from Nature, which can sometimes be triggered by the words or actions of a sage.
Yes, that would be silly, but in my opinion what is really silly or rather emotional is this poetic expression of an imaginary “formlessness†that cannot logically exist “inside†or even “outside†of form-full-ness, for that is all that there is. One can deny that in any which way one likes to, but there is no escape ultimately.Robert: What does 'don't know' mean to you, Mr. Toast?
David: Hopefully, it means the sublime awareness of the formlessness of Nature, the understanding that it possesses no "thing" (or form) by which it can be known. I certainly hope it doesn't mean flat-out ignorance. That would be silly.
What ‘reality’? What is there to KNOW about something that isn’t a thing to begin with?David: Why do you put quotes around "don't know?
Nat: Because it's a quote. From Bodhidharma, traditional founder of Zen
David: Are you saying, then, that he didn't know reality at all?
The point is that you cannot escape creating 'same old' meaning in any pointing or refusing to point. To our mind there never exists something as total meaninglessness. This leads to the challenge to become as meaningful - mindful - as possible. To become clear, as much as ones capacity allows for, remains the most worthy thing left to do when everything else is being said and done.Unidian wrote:Mu means mu, David, so take your conceptual paws off me before I call the police.
It means "beyond the ability of language to express meaningfully." It points to ineffability.
Are you referring to free will choice, or are you referring to a more poetic sense of the word?Sapius wrote:There is choice being made even at the quantum level or even beyond in my opinion,
An effect of a previous cause is also a cause of a future effect, but that does not alter its requirement to follow immutable laws dependent on infinite conditions of infinite levels of magnitude - making the laws appear mutable. Sets of conditions undetectable to humans but detectable to quantum particles can cause a change in outcome from a different set of conditions undetectable to humans but detectable to quantum particles, even when the sets of conditions that are detectable to humans are identical. This gives the appearance of choice. I believe it is acceptable to use the word choice in this case as it is far less verbose - as long as the underlying mechanics are understood.Sapius wrote:There is choice being made even at the quantum level or even beyond in my opinion, simply because of infinite number of probabilities of infinite number of variables open to existence (Totality), which not only dependents on “conditionality†but also creates it as well,
Absolutely. Even in denying meaningfulness, one is affirming the meaning of it.Diebert van Rhijn wrote:The point is that you cannot escape creating 'same old' meaning in any pointing or refusing to point. To our mind there never exists something as total meaninglessness. This leads to the challenge to become as meaningful - mindful - as possible. To become clear, as much as ones capacity allows for, remains the most worthy thing left to do when everything else is being said and done.Unidian wrote:Mu means mu, David, so take your conceptual paws off me before I call the police.
It means "beyond the ability of language to express meaningfully." It points to ineffability.
And THEY are?I believe it is acceptable to use the word choice in this case as it is far less verbose - as long as the underlying mechanics are understood.
It's quite hard to distinguish ineffability from ignorance. It's hard enough for other people to make that distinction when observing the ineffable one but the real hard question is how one knows for oneself if one is being ineffable in some original Zen way or one is just effing oneself and everyone else with it.Unidian wrote:Why not become ineffable?
As my EZboard profile states, "I am ineffable, but people still keep telling me to go eff myself."
I guess you might have missed this part in my earlier post.Elizabeth: That all things are caused, even if we don't know what the specific cause is.
However, no disrespect, but I do not require your approval of how I should or shouldn’t see causality, nor do I require that you see it as I do. But if you need a better explanation of what I mean, then I think Pye can do justice to what I imply by free will, and its real implications, irrelevant of how that too is caused.Sap: All is necessarily caused, but that which is caused, is also the creator and sustainer of casualty, and hence are necessarily dependant on each other for existence to BE what it is.
That reminds me of a movie - ‘Being there’ (I think) – Peter Sellers.Diebert: There's that famous verse in Proverbs : "Even a fool, when he keeps silent, is considered wise". Beats old man Tzu anytime when it comes to human psychology and its multi-colored camouflaging.
Yeah,'argument from axiom'-it's not half bad.Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:That all things are caused, even if we don't know what the specific cause is.
edit to add - and we know that all things are caused or else there would not be any laws of physics. We would instead have "guidelines of physics" or "suggestions of physics" or some such.
Great film. The film Forest Gump tried but failed to emulate.Sapius wrote:That reminds me of a movie - ‘Being there’ (I think) – Peter Sellers.Diebert: There's that famous verse in Proverbs : "Even a fool, when he keeps silent, is considered wise". Beats old man Tzu anytime when it comes to human psychology and its multi-colored camouflaging.
Well, in 'Being there', the point was not if he was a fool or not, but generally speaking, others interpret the words he spoke in his own simplicity in the context of being a gardener, by attaching the label of “wisdom†to it since they could not really relate to what he actually meant. That character was essentially silent so to speak, but others make a mountain of a molehill out of their own sense of wonder, from what little he spoke.But was Chancie really a fool? Don't forget the final scene!
If two sets of conditions undetectable to humans result in two different outcomes that are detectable, what determines which set of conditions occur? Apply this to your own experience. Are you a branch simply floating and coasting in an ocean of laws that you have no say in? You are not, though this may be your perception.Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:An effect of a previous cause is also a cause of a future effect, but that does not alter its requirement to follow immutable laws dependent on infinite conditions of infinite levels of magnitude - making the laws appear mutable. Sets of conditions undetectable to humans but detectable to quantum particles can cause a change in outcome from a different set of conditions undetectable to humans but detectable to quantum particles, even when the sets of conditions that are detectable to humans are identical. This gives the appearance of choice. I believe it is acceptable to use the word choice in this case as it is far less verbose - as long as the underlying mechanics are understood.
Without a doubt.Sapius wrote:Dave,
Well, in 'Being there', the point was not if he was a fool or not, but generally speaking, others interpret the words he spoke in his own simplicity in the context of being a gardener, by attaching the label of “wisdom†to it since they could not really relate to what he actually meant. That character was essentially silent so to speak, but others make a mountain of a molehill out of their own sense of wonder, from what little he spoke.But was Chancie really a fool? Don't forget the final scene!
Essentially, I understand that Peter Sellers was quite an eccentric guy actually, and considered most people around him to be fools who would fall for anything, and was quite disappointed that people did not take him seriously; but him being quite superstitious and all, who could really have. But I think he was a brilliant guy however.
No… even a fool, when he keeps silent, is considered wise.So as Deibert said, the silent fool is considered wise.
Forest Gump was a more successful, and more shameless, rip-off of Gomer Pyle. "Gee, Lieutenant Dan!" "Go-o-o-lly, Seargeant Carter."The film Forest Gump tried but failed to emulate.
Perhaps you missed this part of my earlier post:Sapius wrote:I guess you might have missed this part in my earlier post.
Sap: All is necessarily caused, but that which is caused, is also the creator and sustainer of casualty, and hence are necessarily dependant on each other for existence to BE what it is.
Now that we have come full circle, are you going to answer my question, or do you consider me too lowly of a lifeform for you to answer directly, and so you defer to Pye to answer for you?Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:An effect of a previous cause is also a cause of a future effect, but that does not alter its requirement to follow immutable laws dependent on infinite conditions of infinite levels of magnitude - making the laws appear mutable. Sets of conditions undetectable to humans but detectable to quantum particles can cause a change in outcome from a different set of conditions undetectable to humans but detectable to quantum particles, even when the sets of conditions that are detectable to humans are identical.
I did not say that you were required to attain my approval, and I do not expect you to require that I understand things the way you do. I had enough respect for your mind to inquire further of your beliefs, and to share my beliefs with you, but if you do not consider my understanding worth your time or effort, neither will I waste my time and effort on trying to understand you. No disrespect, of course.Sapius wrote:no disrespect, but I do not require your approval of how I should or shouldn’t see causality, nor do I require that you see it as I do.
I considered my meaning implicit in the further above response to Sapius, which is why I did not see the need to add this until he specifically asked.Ataraxia wrote:Yeah,'argument from axiom'-it's not half bad.
Then i take a squizz at Godels Incompleteness Therom and descend further into madness :(
Okay, on one evening, I leave my dinner on the coffee table while I go to answer the phone. I return 3 minutes later, and eat my dinner. On another evening, I leave an identical dinner on the same coffee table with the house in an identical condition for 3 minutes while I go answer the phone. This time the outcome is different - my dinner is missing. I can not detect for sure that on the second occasion the dog ate my dinner (although I can piece together evidence and assume this is the case). I can not detect if the dog was sleeping more soundly on the first occasion, or had a different level of hunger - but I know that the sets of circumstances that were undetectable to me were different. It was only the sets of circumstances that were detectable to me that were identical. The outcome of 2 sets of circumstances that were identical to my perception were detectably different. The detectably different outcomes leads me to reasonably assume that there was something different about the circumstances that was not detectable to me, as evidenced by the different outcomes.divine focus wrote:If two sets of conditions undetectable to humans result in two different outcomes that are detectable, what determines which set of conditions occur? Apply this to your own experience.
we see that objects tend to fall down on a large celestial mass up to a certain point until it passes the atmosphere or goes beyond its gravitational pull such as the moon. We see that all objects fall on earth at the same speed and only the structure of the object can influence updraft to make it come down slower, not because of its mass but because of uplift. These are atleast some evidence of some sort of gravitational pull. Evolution is nothing of the sort, more like children digging random bones and arbitrarily and foolishly placing them in nonexistent lineages without any sheer rational reason to put them in such specific lineages.Shahrazad wrote:How and when can you see gravity?too bad we can SEE and FEEL gravity,
yeah, and back then they didn't do archeology or genetics or have microscopes or know much about reproductive mechanisms. Sooo it was nothing but empty theorizing and mental masterbation. This 'deduction' that they did about evolution is as superficial, superstitious, nonscientific, religious, as Galen's 4 humours!! Anyone can deduce what ever the hell they want to kingdom come, but the facts don't support it.Unidian wrote:The ancient Greeks invented science. They created it - namely Thales and his student Anaximander. BTW, Anaximander is most likely the ancient Greek who Dan was referring to - he deduced that man must have evolved from simpler life forms almost 25 centuries before Darwin finally established it. RTFM, as they say.
divine focus, thanks for pointing out the weaselish nature of Unidian et al, when it comes to the myth of evolution. You're absolutely correct that this post of mine you've quoted is the only important material on this thread with regards to evolution, as it quite clearly points to its major flaw. However, as any rational, cynical and sharp-witted mind would quickly see, the weaselish nature of Unidian et al, discourages them from answering my main objection, they wholeheartedly ignored it as if it never existed, but tried to prove me wrong by continuing frivolous discussions about Ancient Greeks and the like. Until the weasels Unidian et al, make an attempt to answer this objection, their credibility and honesty is totally nonexistent.divine focus wrote:Someone, please reply to something in here:
All other replies are beside the point of his post.Faust13 wrote:speciation hasn't been proven at all, because it is impossible. Each species has its own limited gene pool, and can only produce its own species. Any variance or differing traits are still part of the species, so a taller human is still a human, etc... There's no dog with wings, or hairless monkeys that resemble hairless humans. So natural selection can't progress anything because all these traits still propogate the same species. Evolution would have to rely on nothing but random mutations that need to be so alien as to help propogate a different species, such as a cow with a giraffe's neck. Then, these mutations need to have successive mutations in order to bring about a larger change, such as a cow's neck becoming longer and longer. This is not only extremely rare, but physically impossible. These preliminary mutations aren't even advantageous for natural selection to work on them, nor would they necessarily always turn out properly in the new generation. If an ape is to become a human, it would have to somehow be born bipedal and start walking bipedally, and conceiving bipedal apes. If evolution has a starting point, then these preliminary changes should be seen today, as random mutations don't take millions of years to happen, because they aren't based on natural selection. We should be able to see monkeys being born bipedal, or hairless, which would then begin the process of natural selection if these traits are even advantageous, then they would be passed on. BUT, there's more problems. These apes will still mate with apes, and it's not possible to make an entirely new species while you're conceiving with the same one all the time. A hairless monkey would still be a monkey, there would be no reason for it to speciate and not be able to reproduce with monkeys anymore.
Alas we see that no physical mutation has any beneficial effects for animals or humans, nor do they turn humans into another species. If humans can evolve, then we should see kids who are sometimes born with 3 arms, to be able to live and use their arms productively, but this is the opposite. Most physical mutations even reduce fertility and increase chances of miscarriage such as Down's Syndrome.
I suggest you go back to page 23 and see my response to your simplistic and ignorant "speciation" arguments before saying stuff like this again.Faust13 wrote:divine focus, thanks for pointing out the weaselish nature of Unidian et al, when it comes to the myth of evolution. You're absolutely correct that this post of mine you've quoted is the only important material on this thread with regards to evolution, as it quite clearly points to its major flaw. However, as any rational, cynical and sharp-witted mind would quickly see, the weaselish nature of Unidian et al, discourages them from answering my main objection, they wholeheartedly ignored it as if it never existed, but tried to prove me wrong by continuing frivolous discussions about Ancient Greeks and the like. Until the weasels Unidian et al, make an attempt to answer this objection, their credibility and honesty is totally nonexistent.
Hahahaa… too lowly of a life form? You have no idea how lowly I think of myself, and how incompetent in actually explaining my views.Now that we have come full circle, are you going to answer my question, or do you consider me too lowly of a lifeform for you to answer directly, and so you defer to Pye to answer for you?
From - ‘Is our future already determined?’
Dan: This is not a complicated issue. Yes, our futures are determined but we can never know in exactly what way, so we have fate and mystery all rolled into one.
Sap: Yes, we can never know for sure, but that does not mean that cause and effect in it self is not free, free to create incalculable diversities, imposed and created by its own nature. It is a very subtle point, but in my opinion the crux of the understanding lies in there.
Cause and effect is so complexly diverse that it can actually “say no†to a given situation, other wise such diversities wouldn’t be possible. If there were no possibilities of diversities, then there would be nothing except one cause producing the same effect over and over again, since the effect would be its own cause, or nothing at all (in other words), which also does not seem probable. Freedom in diversities also proves that there was no time when just a single cause existed. Any speck that exists is not a result of innumerable causes, but is cumulatively innumerable causes itself, since from the perspective of Totality all is a single effect, but we just experience it as effect's (form our perspective), for all that there is, is now, and that just is.
My thinking too is governed by cause and effect, but isn’t my thinking itself cause and effect? And it can cause me, which is no more than a cumulative, say a bundle of cause and effect, to say ‘no’. (Unless one believes that “I†am absolutely nothing whatsoever, not even as a form or appearance, which would be absolutely illogical.); thereby creating yet another situation that leads to diversity without breaking its own rhythm or law as such.
Although governed by cause and effect, the future of no particular thing is actually determined, not more than the immediate cumulative effects, which is actually just a single effect as far as Totality is concerned since there is no future as such for it, although experienced by us as a result of innumerable causes from our perspective.
Unless and until we don’t comprehend this from both the perspectives without any contradictions, since it is all actually only ONE with no without, we can keep discussing free will form either perspective indefinitely.
Just to give a simple example, keeping in mind all the possible and probable uncertainties that I may or may not be aware of, I am also logically aware that I can, and could, and will, not make a single post on this forum for the next 24 hours, and although I am governed by cause and effect, cause and effect can say no although it could do otherwise, that is post within 24 hours. In this, one can see that what it eventually does was not necessarily the only possible result it could achieve, (freedom), showing the capability of its diverse possibilities, but what it did achieve could not have been otherwise, hence not violating its own nature at its core.
If this is not clear enough, it is only my shortcoming at explaining it, but not how I actually comprehend it, without any contradictions. I am never confused as to my responsibilities or morality, cause and effect makes me responsible and moral, dictated by my logic that is based on cause and effect, and indeed it is that itself.
Cause and effect itself is free by nature, and we are nothing more or less than that.
Your views?
Pye: Our futures will be determined, just as with every convergent moment of the present they are determined now. A misapplication/misunderstanding of determinism, from my point of view, is that determinism is somehow already determined, so to speak, when clearly this is not so. Determinism -- like causation -- when fully perceived, leads inevitably to the thought of infinity.
What is determined is determined in every moment of every convergence, and every convergence is living in time, rather than living out its time. And every convergence will never fully equal every other one, ad infinitum.
Our smallest slices of cause/effect awareness also tell us of this infinity, too. Predictability, probability, do not rule it out either. They also point the way
