The Unity between Applied Science and Wisdom

Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.
User avatar
Ryan Rudolph
Posts: 2490
Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2006 10:32 am
Location: British Columbia, Canada

The Unity between Applied Science and Wisdom

Post by Ryan Rudolph »

The UNITY Between Applied Science and Wisdom.

First of all – allow me to define applied science as an analysis of any specialized part of the totality, which can be used in the everyday world to give birth to desirable outcomes within civilization. And even though empirical knowledge is limited due to the fact that we are dealing with appearances, it is essential if we are to manipulate reality in any meaningful/desirable way. Now, I would even argue that wisdom is applied science to a degree because it is an empirical analysis of the behavior of the self directed inward to bring about a positive change – namely sanity.

Now sometimes Kevin and David suggest that it is an absolute truth that empirical matters are uncertain, which is used to keep wisdom at the top of the totem poll. However, most of the psychological insight gained through the senses is done through the empirical filter of reality as well. So where are we to draw the line between applied science and wisdom? There is no clear line to me. Moreover, We cannot talk about the self, fear, pleasure, and sexual desire without observing the nature of how empirical entities interact and behave relative to each other. Again, we are relying on the empirical to guide us. Now wisdom is beneficial for individuals who have the temperament to learn – but after one reaches such a state of emptiness, I hope the journey is not over.

To me, even the sanest man among us is still incredibly flawed. He has a faulty memory only capable of retaining small amounts of specialized information, his physical body is prone to all sorts of illnesses, and he is predisposed to all sorts of ailments, which all affect the quality of his consciousness. Even the wisest among us are quite inferior compared to what is actually possible. The reality is that we don’t know what is possible for a sentient being – we have no idea how future technology will be used to enhance the mind and body of human beings. Each one of us should be living for the future beings of the world – we should admit our relative inferiority compared to what is possible, and invest our time and energy into cultivating a world that can give birth to superior beings than ourselves.

Now, if we hold this value as ultimate, wisdom then takes its equal place with the other applied sciences, which have the potential to tweak the genome/glands/brains of humans. You see, many times mathematical geniuses are often quite dull psychologically, while psychological geniuses are often quite dull mathematically. Causal chance doesn’t seem capable of bringing about a genuine polymath in all the applied sciences very often. Such a man is even more rare than a sage because he is a sage and a polymath of the other applied sciences combined. This is the type of man that we should be concerned with giving birth to in the future. And wisdom will not do it alone. Wisdom combined with the other applied sciences such as genetics, neurology, computer science, robotics, electronics, endocrinology, nanotechnology, anatomy, physiology, mathematics, physics, chemistry, cell biology, mechanical engineering – all combined together to form some useful pragmatic theories on how to unite organic material with technology...

Personally I want the best, and if I can’t be the best myself, then I'll humbly do what is in my ability (despite my limitations) to give birth to the future best.

This is why I believe wisdom and applied science both have their value. Wisdom is beneficial in the here and now to help spiritual seekers gain clarity to the best of their ability, whereas applied science through the vision of the enlightened mind can be used to give birth to future beings far superior than ourselves.

Surely, this is an honest endeavor for any spiritual man.
User avatar
Nick
Posts: 1677
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2005 8:39 pm
Location: Detroit, Michigan

Re: The Unity between Applied Science and Wisdom

Post by Nick »

I think that once one become's aware of his infinite nature and the immensity of it in each and every moment, it is highly unlikely for him to want to play in a sand box amongst other scientists at that point. This isn't to say he has no interests in science, it's just not interesting enough for him to sacrifice himself to.

I think the way things are going right now, there is a possibility things could play out fairly descently assuming nuclear/biological war doesn't take everybody out. As I see it, technology is advancing at a pretty descent pace and AI should reach a point where it can tackle scientific inquiry much more efficiently and accurately than humans. Although science is just the tip of the iceberg, eventually all manual tasks could be performed by AI, making human accomplishment a thing of the past. The species will either become so depressed/bored that vast populations would commit suicide or they might hook themselves up to a virutal reality machine where they are stimulated with different forms of pleasure for an indefinite amount of time. I think we are already witnessing this on a smaller scale. So now that the vast majority of the population is bascially sidelined because there's nothing left to stimulate their egos, who does that leave left? Enter the age of the sage. The wise will have the most advanced technology imaginable at their finger tips to do as they please without any disruption from the rest of humanity.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: The Unity between Applied Science and Wisdom

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Nick Treklis wrote:The species will either become so depressed/bored that vast populations would commit suicide or they might hook themselves up to a virtual reality machine where they are stimulated with different forms of pleasure for an indefinite amount of time. I think we are already witnessing this on a smaller scale. So now that the vast majority of the population is bascially sidelined because there's nothing left to stimulate their egos, who does that leave left?
There's no way you can be sure this hasn't already happened before on a large scale. Because the simulated virtual reality might have been perceived as so limited over time that more complex, intricate scenarios were uploaded, involving memory impairment, pain sensation, death, torture - living any life you ever dreamed of wanting to live before switching to a next pattern.

Because of this empirical matters remain always uncertain, better not to put too much faith or trust in them.
The wise will have the most advanced technology imaginable at their finger tips to do as they please without any disruption from the rest of humanity.
So they're wise because they have overcome boredom in the face of lack of any stimulation or challenge? This is hard to picture, for example: what could please this wise person? He could be pleased in exactly the same way and a lot easier in the virtual reality machine with the rest of humanity, perhaps in his private program that makes him believe he cannot be disrupted by the rest anymore.

And I don't see why the AI you describe couldn't be wise in way more effective and unrestrained manner than a pitiful human. Away with you!
Steven Coyle

Re: The Unity between Applied Science and Wisdom

Post by Steven Coyle »

Diebert rents the Matrix & uploads DOOM! to his arcade.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: The Unity between Applied Science and Wisdom

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Steven Coyle wrote:Diebert rents the Matrix & uploads DOOM! to his arcade.
Ah, but those damned inevitable sequels!

Grand Theft Auto IV is the must have now so I heard. So much desire for the low life portrayed in high definition.
Steven Coyle

Re: The Unity between Applied Science and Wisdom

Post by Steven Coyle »

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:
Steven Coyle wrote:Diebert rents the Matrix & uploads DOOM! to his arcade.
Ah, but those damned inevitable sequels!

Grand Theft Auto IV is the must have now so I heard. So much desire for the low life portrayed in high definition.
Much to be said for upgrading analog to digital... Star wars, IE. Firefox >>> BLAM!
Macintosh?

;-)
User avatar
Nick
Posts: 1677
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2005 8:39 pm
Location: Detroit, Michigan

Re: The Unity between Applied Science and Wisdom

Post by Nick »

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:
Nick Treklis wrote:The species will either become so depressed/bored that vast populations would commit suicide or they might hook themselves up to a virtual reality machine where they are stimulated with different forms of pleasure for an indefinite amount of time. I think we are already witnessing this on a smaller scale. So now that the vast majority of the population is basically sidelined because there's nothing left to stimulate their egos, who does that leave left?
There's no way you can be sure this hasn't already happened before on a large scale. Because the simulated virtual reality might have been perceived as so limited over time that more complex, intricate scenarios were uploaded, involving memory impairment, pain sensation, death, torture - living any life you ever dreamed of wanting to live before switching to a next pattern.

Because of this empirical matters remain always uncertain, better not to put too much faith or trust in them.
I don't understand the relevance of what you said here in relation to my post. I'm not betting or banking on any one thing happening. Just exploring some unintended consequences that will result in the benefit of wise men.
Diebert van Rhijn wrote:
The wise will have the most advanced technology imaginable at their finger tips to do as they please without any disruption from the rest of humanity.
So they're wise because they have overcome boredom in the face of lack of any stimulation or challenge?
No. The wise are wise because they understand their true nature which results in little to no importance placed on ego stimulation. Boredom, among other things never becomes a problem for the sage.
Diebert van Rhijn wrote:This is hard to picture, for example: what could please this wise person? He could be pleased in exactly the same way and a lot easier in the virtual reality machine with the rest of humanity, perhaps in his private program that makes him believe he cannot be disrupted by the rest anymore.
Being given an optimal environment to expand his wisdom no doubt. Why would a sage consciously lock himself away in a virtual reality machine instead of working with other sages with the aid of all the technology at their disposal?
Diebert van Rhijn wrote:And I don't see why the AI you describe couldn't be wise in way more effective and unrestrained manner than a pitiful human. Away with you!
I didn't say they couldn't, but I find it unlikely that the unconscious masses would intentionally design AI to be truly wise, especially since the masses have no idea what true wisdom is. If AI were to even reach the level of average human intelligence chances are they still wouldn't have sagely potential. If anything AI would most likely only be developed to the point of being able to perform limited tasks with extreme efficiency and accuracy. The goal of giving AI consciousness beyond a rudimentary level doesn't seem like something humanity would be interested in since the point is for AI to serve humanity, not become synthetic equals. Consciousness would only hamper their abilities to serve humanity at the optimum level.

If anything, humans will most likely merge their bodies with the most advanced technology resulting in the evolution of a bio-mechanical species, blurring the line between man and machine. Still, no amount of advancement in technology will increase the masse's collective consciousness unless they consciously go about achieving it in the first place. So in theory they will eventually become too bored with life to go on since there wont be much left in the "real world" to stimulate their egos, leading to a mass suicide or life in virtual bubble's where one's pleasure centers of the brain and ego are stimulated to the point where they become numb to it. Once they become numb they could just erase their memories back to a point where they had not yet experienced any stimulation so it all feels brand new to them again. This of course could go on indefinitely, so I'm sure the wise would just turn them off. No point in wasting energy right?
User avatar
Ryan Rudolph
Posts: 2490
Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2006 10:32 am
Location: British Columbia, Canada

Re: The Unity between Applied Science and Wisdom

Post by Ryan Rudolph »

Nick,
I think the way things are going right now, there is a possibility things could play out fairly descently assuming nuclear/biological war doesn't take everybody out. As I see it, technology is advancing at a pretty descent pace and AI should reach a point where it can tackle scientific inquiry much more efficiently and accurately than humans. Although science is just the tip of the iceberg, eventually all manual tasks could be performed by AI, making human accomplishment a thing of the past.
Why would we want AI to do everything for us? It seems to me that what makes life worthwhile is the fact that there is limitation in this world, and as a consequence there is the possibility of overcoming that limitation through inquiry, research, experimentation and diligence. All applied science is aimed at overcoming limitation, but to passively pass on that responsibility to AI seems like we’re giving up a huge part of our masculine spirit and drive.

The QRS philosophy has a way of creating contentment, as one becomes incredibly self-satisfied with emptiness alone. However, this seems like a fairly feminine tendency to me. Generally speaking, women are much more content than Men, and that is why men create the most amazing things, and are able to become truly rational, while women are content cooking, cleaning, doing laundry and going to Bingo every week. The beauty of masculinity is discontentment directed into overcoming challenges and limitation. And even the most feeble dullard has this treasure to occupy himself.

Whether one is building a log cabin, restoring a damaged vehicle, fixing a computer, engineering a space shuttle, creating a computer program, devising a healthy nutritional guide, mapping the human genone and so on. It is exactly the same impulse. The masculine discontentment impulse directed into perfecting or overcoming some limitation.

Causality gives humanity a chaotic and indifferent world in which masculinity must shape, perfect, and alter it to ones own desires, and that is one of the beauties of existence. The fact that man can use the world as his canvas and paint his art and science through whatever discontentment arises. Why would we want to give this treasure over to AI? It seems to me that emptiness gives the false illusion that one has found the holy grail of experience, and that the journey is over. However, it doesn’t have to stop at emptiness, one can keep inquiring and keep exploring the vastness of the totality.

Even the most limited scientists are masculine in a sense, as they observe a limitation that they’re clever enough to overcome given enough research, experimentation, trial and error, diligence and discipline. Would you also have AI to explore and conquer space for us as well? What enjoyment would there be out of such an existence?

Have you ever walked on the beach for hours, and discovered a unique look off spot with an incredible view? Have you ever watched a documentary that illustrated a part of reality that up until that point had remained hidden from you? Have you ever discovered particular casual reasons as to why your limited, and yearned to manipulate future humans as a means to prevent such an imperfection? It seems to me that Inquiry, self-discovery, discontentment, and relentless drive to keep trucking in the face of limitation and handicap is what makes men truly masculine…
Elizabeth Isabelle
Posts: 3771
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 11:35 am

Re: The Unity between Applied Science and Wisdom

Post by Elizabeth Isabelle »

Ryan Rudolph wrote:Why would we want AI to do everything for us? It seems to me that what makes life worthwhile is the fact that there is limitation in this world, and as a consequence there is the possibility of overcoming that limitation through inquiry, research, experimentation and diligence.
Women are prone to wanting something that seems outside of current limitations. There will always be limitations, and women are likely to tell you what they are. There will still be plenty to overcome.
User avatar
Nick
Posts: 1677
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2005 8:39 pm
Location: Detroit, Michigan

Re: The Unity between Applied Science and Wisdom

Post by Nick »

Ryan Rudolph wrote:Why would we want AI to do everything for us? It seems to me that what makes life worthwhile is the fact that there is limitation in this world, and as a consequence there is the possibility of overcoming that limitation through inquiry, research, experimentation and diligence. All applied science is aimed at overcoming limitation, but to passively pass on that responsibility to AI seems like we’re giving up a huge part of our masculine spirit and drive.
My aim is to rise above both the masculine and the feminine and achieve perfect enlightenment. If AI can assist me in the process why should I let an egotistical desire like accomplishment stop me?
Ryan Rudolph wrote:The QRS philosophy has a way of creating contentment, as one becomes incredibly self-satisfied with emptiness alone. However, this seems like a fairly feminine tendency to me. Generally speaking, women are much more content than Men, and that is why men create the most amazing things, and are able to become truly rational, while women are content cooking, cleaning, doing laundry and going to Bingo every week. The beauty of masculinity is discontentment directed into overcoming challenges and limitation. And even the most feeble dullard has this treasure to occupy himself.
“The one who never changes is either the wisest of the wise, or the dullest of the dull.” - Confucius
Ryan Rudolph wrote:Whether one is building a log cabin, restoring a damaged vehicle, fixing a computer, engineering a space shuttle, creating a computer program, devising a healthy nutritional guide, mapping the human genone and so on. It is exactly the same impulse. The masculine discontentment impulse directed into perfecting or overcoming some limitation.
If someone desires to continue scientific inquiry after achieving enlightenment then all the best to them. I still consider myself competitive and even enjoy certain types of inquiry, I just don’t like to immerse myself in worldly matters to the point that it diminishes my ability to maintain a certain level of consciousness. Most things are just too damn boring to give more than a moment's worth of time.
Ryan Rudolph wrote:Causality gives humanity a chaotic and indifferent world in which masculinity must shape, perfect, and alter it to ones own desires, and that is one of the beauties of existence. The fact that man can use the world as his canvas and paint his art and science through whatever discontentment arises. Why would we want to give this treasure over to AI? It seems to me that emptiness gives the false illusion that one has found the holy grail of experience, and that the journey is over. However, it doesn’t have to stop at emptiness, one can keep inquiring and keep exploring the vastness of the totality.
If discovery and inquiry is what you want most out of life then enlightenment will not me of much assistance to you. The masculine mindset must be abandoned along with every other egotistical mindset if one is to achieve perfect enlightenment.
Ryan Rudolph wrote:Even the most limited scientists are masculine in a sense, as they observe a limitation that they’re clever enough to overcome given enough research, experimentation, trial and error, diligence and discipline. Would you also have AI to explore and conquer space for us as well? What enjoyment would there be out of such an existence?
One who is enlightened no longer needs an egotistical sense of accomplishment to cope with life because there’s not enough ego there to support such delusions.
Ryan Rudolph wrote:Have you ever walked on the beach for hours, and discovered a unique look off spot with an incredible view? Have you ever watched a documentary that illustrated a part of reality that up until that point had remained hidden from you? Have you ever discovered particular casual reasons as to why your limited, and yearned to manipulate future humans as a means to prevent such an imperfection? It seems to me that Inquiry, self-discovery, discontentment, and relentless drive to keep trucking in the face of limitation and handicap is what makes men truly masculine…
Masculine yes, wise no.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: The Unity between Applied Science and Wisdom

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Hi Nick,
Nick Treklis wrote: I'm not betting or banking on any one thing happening. Just exploring some unintended consequences that will result in the benefit of wise men.
Of course, and I tried to explore with you. One aspect of your "virtual reality" scenario that I found interesting is the possibility it's already happened long ago. Not only because of the empirical uncertainty it implies but I'd like to take it now one step further: our symbolic representation of reality with words, images, ideas, rituals, signs, gestures forms already a VR layer. And perhaps not one, but several stacked. Each one another abstraction to dwell in or at times to traverse.

Looked at it this way, a computer simulation to hook up to is just another floor built on Babel's tower.
The wise are wise because they understand their true nature which results in little to no importance placed on ego stimulation.
To me that doesn't mean much. Importance is a form of stimulation; one is stimulated to find importance. There's not really an ego to stimulate either as if it's some mental clitoris. Identity and self arise through each activity, as illusion not to be believed.
Diebert van Rhijn wrote: Being given an optimal environment to expand his wisdom no doubt. Why would a sage consciously lock himself away in a virtual reality machine instead of working with other sages with the aid of all the technology at their disposal?
Could you give an example of things that could be achieved with this technology that isn't already available in unlimited forms of VR?

Perhaps space travel? Spreading wisdom throughout the galaxy? If it's wanted there, of course.
Diebert van Rhijn wrote: The goal of giving AI consciousness beyond a rudimentary level doesn't seem like something humanity would be interested in since the point is for AI to serve humanity, not become synthetic equals. Consciousness would only hamper their abilities to serve humanity at the optimum level.
In what way does consciousness hamper the ability to server humanity?

Here's another goal to achieve for the undisturbed wise in your scenario: designing an AI with advanced consciousness and wisdom. Give it ability to spread through nanobot technology and launch space probes.
Once they become numb they could just erase their memories back to a point where they had not yet experienced any stimulation so it all feels brand new to them again. This of course could go on indefinitely, so I'm sure the wise would just turn them off. No point in wasting energy right?
Right. Before their hands or pinchers would reach for the power button they might have this flash of doubt - what if somewhere a tentacle of light is hovering above another switch that could turn off a whole different order of simulation - one that contains the wise?
User avatar
Nick
Posts: 1677
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2005 8:39 pm
Location: Detroit, Michigan

Re: The Unity between Applied Science and Wisdom

Post by Nick »

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:One aspect of your "virtual reality" scenario that I found interesting is the possibility it's already happened long ago. Not only because of the empirical uncertainty it implies but I'd like to take it now one step further: our symbolic representation of reality with words, images, ideas, rituals, signs, gestures forms already a VR layer. And perhaps not one, but several stacked. Each one another abstraction to dwell in or at times to traverse.
Looked at it this way, a computer simulation to hook up to is just another floor built on Babel's tower.
That’s a possibility, but my scenario involves people consciously placing themselves in a virtual world tailored to their exact specifications. If I am in fact living inside of a computer program I didn’t consciously decide to enter it, unless I wanted to play a cruel joke on myself. Even if this is a computer simulation of some kind we have no choice but to treat it as the fundamental simulation from which all others arise because we are not aware of anything more fundamental than this one.
Diebert van Rhijn wrote:
The wise are wise because they understand their true nature which results in little to no importance placed on ego stimulation.
To me that doesn't mean much. Importance is a form of stimulation; one is stimulated to find importance. There's not really an ego to stimulate either as if it's some mental clitoris. Identity and self arise through each activity, as illusion not to be believed.
I think egos are very much like a clitoris or any sensitive body part. It needs to be stroked, and when stimulated to a certain point can produce emotions on par with orgasm. The difference between the wise and the average human is that they wont fret when the environment fails to produce enough of the stimulation their ego’s desire. One can operate as an individual without beliving in the ego's existence.
Diebert van Rhijn wrote:
Being given an optimal environment to expand his wisdom no doubt. Why would a sage consciously lock himself away in a virtual reality machine instead of working with other sages with the aid of all the technology at their disposal?
Could you give an example of things that could be achieved with this technology that isn't already available in unlimited forms of VR?
Perhaps space travel? Spreading wisdom throughout the galaxy? If it's wanted there, of course.
I don’t understand the question. Could you rephrase it?
Diebert van Rhijn wrote:
The goal of giving AI consciousness beyond a rudimentary level doesn't seem like something humanity would be interested in since the point is for AI to serve humanity, not become synthetic equals. Consciousness would only hamper their abilities to serve humanity at the optimum level.
In what way does consciousness hamper the ability to server humanity?
I don’t know any humans that would want to spend their lives doing all the things other people don’t want to do for nothing in return. So why would a robot?
Diebert van Rhijn wrote:Here's another goal to achieve for the undisturbed wise in your scenario: designing an AI with advanced consciousness and wisdom. Give it ability to spread through nanobot technology and launch space probes.
Another possibility, but unlikely because I don’t see humans and AI evolving as two separate species. I think AI will only be allowed to develop to a point where it can serve humanity without becoming conscious enough to develop an ego. At that point I think humans would rather implement the new technologies directly into their own bodies as opposed to create an entirely new type of being from scratch, resulting in a mixed species, e.g. bio-mechanical beings.
Diebert van Rhijn wrote:Right. Before their hands or pichers would reach for the power button they might have this flash of doubt - what if somewhere a tentacle of light is hoovering above another switch that could turn of a whole different order of simuation - one that contains the wise?
I double dog dare them to.
mikiel
Posts: 588
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2007 9:27 am

Re: The Unity between Applied Science and Wisdom

Post by mikiel »

This thread seems to fit my sense of balance very well, half amateur scientist (one who "loves" science, not a pro... 'cept for my "BS" in behavioral psych) and half mystic/visionary with a solid background in philosophy.

First, I don't see AI as ever going beyond "programing" including constantly updated programing through feedback inputs.
Consciousness transcends mere thinking and in-form-ation gathering, tho the latter is the strong suit of science.

DvR wrote:
"If someone desires to continue scientific inquiry after achieving enlightenment then all the best to them. I still consider myself competitive and even enjoy certain types of inquiry, I just don’t like to immerse myself in worldly matters to the point that it diminishes my ability to maintain a certain level of consciousness. Most things are just too damn boring to give more than a moment's worth of time."

My deepest interest in science continues to be cosmology. I simply can hardly understand how anyone can not be interested in cosmos as a whole... the "origin" (or not), dynamics and destiny of the whole ball-o-wax. Mystics contemplate and see visions of (even have epiphanies in the conscious presence of) "Kosmos", the One Being Whose body is the whole cosmos. (I am happy with "the nameless One... but Ken Wilber popularized "the conscious Kosmos.")

All my life, as both a mystic and a scientist I have beheld (in vision and in study) the awesome unity of "all there is", both manifest and the transcendental nature of the One Consciousness ItSelf.

As a scientist, I early on found the "Bang/Crunch" model to accurately describe my lifelong visions. But the model had problems. "Not enough matter" to fulfill the cosmic critical density required for a gravitational reversal of the "Bang" and begin the implosive "Crunch" half of the two phase cycle.
But now science is finding the missing matter. Ignoring the "mysterious dark matter" theory (for now), NASA's Chandra Observatory (in space) is now discovering more and more of the missing matter, which previously simply didn't emit or reflect detectable light. Now we are able to "see" scientifically the matter we could not before, and this will make the oscillating cosmology "work" as a viable model.
The "entropy problem" is another... way technical, but I have a clear answer. Nothing is lost. Duh! ("Matter and energy can neither be created or destroyed, but only change form.") And even atomically dispersed hydrogen (single atoms in deep space) will be pulled back into the primordial Ball by the above mentioned cosmic gravitational net (critical mass density including the *not actually missing* but still not all detected matter.

Well, I've gone on enough for an opening post here. I really "resonate with" the topic! (Is that a "feminine phrase?... I really don't give a shit. Testosterone is *not* one of the four known cosmic forces!)
Thanks for the inspiration to "share"... (ditto!)
mikiel
ps: Cosmology is hardly "applied science." I took the liberty of expressing my science/wisdom interest anyway.
Last edited by mikiel on Thu May 15, 2008 11:40 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Ryan Rudolph
Posts: 2490
Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2006 10:32 am
Location: British Columbia, Canada

Re: The Unity between Applied Science and Wisdom

Post by Ryan Rudolph »

Nick,
One who is enlightened no longer needs an egotistical sense of accomplishment to cope with life because there’s not enough ego there to support such delusions.
It isn’t about coping, it is about using ones intellectual talent for pragmatic purposes, if one has that talent, or if one has the drive to build new talents.
If discovery and inquiry is what you want most out of life then enlightenment will not me of much assistance to you. The masculine mindset must be abandoned along with every other egotistical mindset if one is to achieve perfect enlightenment.
I maintain that the two are not mutually exclusive. You are mistaken when you say that the masculine mindset must be abandoned. If that was the case, then we would have to go back to being hunters and gatherers, spending the majority of our daylight hours searching for food. We would have to give up all our technology. Moreover, Enlightenment does not mean giving up everything worldly, and being totally useless. It is a suicidal philosophy, it leaves one with no relationship to the world of pragmatics. One can be perfectly enlightened and still work with others in the world. In a sense, a great vision has more reality than the concept of enlightenment itself. A vision is what causes ones entire trajectory through life.

A trajectory or vision for humanity is always fuelled by passion, and men cannot be free from the passions.

Here is another example: Diogenes lived in a barrel as an outsider for most of his life, but my question is what alternative impact would he have had on the youth of the city if he had taught with Plato in his school? Diogenes making the stand to be an outsider is an egotistical act in my opinion. It is a weird territory because by Diogenes renouncing status and worldiness, he achieves a new sort of status in his own mind, an elitist attitude that makes him believe that he is heading down the most supreme path there is. Moreover, By denying everything, he thinks he has achieved the ultimate act of honesty, but that is all relative in a sense. Every life is relative. It all depends on what you value. Moreover, the truth is that he probably didn’t have the patience, discipline or robustness of character to teach a body of knowledge to students everyday, and so he achieved greatness through living in a barrel, you get the drift? We are caused to seek greatness in whatever capacity our characters are suited for.

In a sense, the vision a thinker adopts as his relationship to reality maps his entire trajectory through reality independent of reality itself. That is why we should question the causal implications of our current vision.
“The one who never changes is either the wisest of the wise, or the dullest of the dull.” – Confucius
What I liked about Einstein is that he kept asking unconventional empirical questions throughout his entire life, and kept returning to them decades later, while trying different types of analysis to solve the corundums he had created through questioning. Such commitment lead to the manipulation of the atom, and the technological achievements that followed.

Einstein was a cross between a sage and a scientist in my opinion. He was the ultimate specimen. The future of the species should be to engineer humans who are a cross between sagehood and empirical talent.
My aim is to rise above both the masculine and the feminine and achieve perfect enlightenment. If AI can assist me in the process why should I let an egotistical desire like accomplishment stop me?
One can renounce accomplishment until it no longer matters in an egotistical sense, but continue working towards accomplishments simply because one is interested in the subject matter or one feels that the area of science is important to the future of the species.

In my view, it is about having a greater vision for the world besides a world of useless sages dependent on complicated technology that they have no idea of how to fix, or how to explain the mechanics of. We should be creating technology that allows science to be understood easier by all – and allows people outside the academic sphere to experiment on their own. We should be striving to be polymaths and sages simultaneously.

I maintain that the mind of genius should stretch into all areas of thought.
User avatar
Ryan Rudolph
Posts: 2490
Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2006 10:32 am
Location: British Columbia, Canada

Re: The Unity between Applied Science and Wisdom

Post by Ryan Rudolph »

Elizabeth,
Women are prone to wanting something that seems outside of current limitations. There will always be limitations, and women are likely to tell you what they are. There will still be plenty to overcome
.

Yes, I actually agree with you. However, it has mostly been the masculinized women who ironically lead the feminist movement - they had the desire to overcome limitation, Moreover these Masculinized women were able to compete with the boys as independents, while playing in the business world with them because they had similar intellects, ambitious drives, and emotional intelligence to survive in an economic environment.

Moreover, the masculine woman is on a higher plane than the content mediocre house wife, but most likely even the masculine woman in the business world are not enlightened either. She is usually more emotionally stable and productive than the average male, but not supremely masculine.
Steven Coyle

Re: The Unity between Applied Science and Wisdom

Post by Steven Coyle »

There must be a formula for teaching one to become a polymath after contact with the Source has been made...

Weininger utilized the term "Universal Genius.." - describing the theoretical principle of being able to teach oneself nearly anything, as the mind had become universal in scope. I know from experience that in the realm of spirituality, 'emptiness' enables correlation to become causation. With enough knowledge, I don't see why absorbing a text for a few hours during the day then allowing Nature to teach (through causation) wouldn't present itself as a viable formula... Any thoughts/ideas?

(breaks a pencil)
mikiel
Posts: 588
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2007 9:27 am

Re: The Unity between Applied Science and Wisdom

Post by mikiel »

Steven Coyle wrote:There must be a formula for teaching one to become a polymath after contact with the Source has been made...

Weininger utilized the term "Universal Genius.." - describing the theoretical principle of being able to teach oneself nearly anything, as the mind had become universal in scope. I know from experience that in the realm of spirituality, 'emptiness' enables correlation to become causation. With enough knowledge, I don't see why absorbing a text for a few hours during the day then allowing Nature to teach (through causation) wouldn't present itself as a viable formula... Any thoughts/ideas?

(breaks a pencil)
No Steven, there is no formula. For genius, polymath or otherwise, or for "contact with the Source."

And ..."Universal Genius.." - describing the theoretical principle of being able to teach oneself nearly anything"... is pure myth with no possible reality for an individual being omniscient. (What is meant by the hedge, "nearly?") Just all about Earth, or textbook learning or would this level of omniscience include all life everwhere and all details about the whole universe in minutely detailed "fact?"
Totally without a base in reality, for an individual.

I'm interested in what you mean by the following:
"I know from experience that in the realm of spirituality, 'emptiness' enables correlation to become causation."

Also wondering how you see the balance of "absorbing a text for a few hours during the day" as background for the direct *knowing* of "allowing Nature to teach" ... ("through causation" seems a superfluous concept in this context.)
I first "see" directly "what is" without egoic filters, then study how the vision revealed directly by nature/cosmos fits with current theories and philosophies.

The linear mind wants "formulae" for genius and enlightenment.
Recipies are great for fine quisine, and formulae are essential in chemistry, but it does not transfer to the unique individual polymath (guided by inspiriation and interests) or the enlightenment, which depends on the*grace* of surrender of the illusion of personal identity. "Just let it all go"... could be considered a formula for such surrender, but it takes real, direct experience in the real world, not just "the right words."
(Likewise, "Be still and know that I am God." Sure thing... got it. Just be still... OK.)

My interests in life (and they ar many) have all been satisfied (an ongoing project) by laser-like focus of interest and inquiry, whether spiritually or in the scientific community... i.e., study.

mikiel
Isaac
Posts: 76
Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2008 7:49 am

Re: The Unity between Applied Science and Wisdom

Post by Isaac »

Nick Treklis wrote:If someone desires to continue scientific inquiry after achieving enlightenment then all the best to them. I still consider myself competitive and even enjoy certain types of inquiry, I just don’t like to immerse myself in worldly matters to the point that it diminishes my ability to maintain a certain level of consciousness. Most things are just too damn boring to give more than a moment's worth of time.
Is science just too damn boring for you? If so, I suggest that you and Britney Spears have more in common than you think.
User avatar
Nick
Posts: 1677
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2005 8:39 pm
Location: Detroit, Michigan

Re: The Unity between Applied Science and Wisdom

Post by Nick »

Ryan Rudolph wrote: It isn’t about coping, it is about using ones intellectual talent for pragmatic purposes, if one has that talent, or if one has the drive to build new talents.
If one has the talent and drive to accomplish something then so be it, but that's not what this is about. You're getting upset with the idea of AI replacing humans as the discoverer's of the latest and greatest science has to offer because your ego wants to take the credit. It's pretty evident in the way that you described it as handing over a "treasure" to AI.
Ryan Rudolph wrote:I maintain that the two are not mutually exclusive. You are mistaken when you say that the masculine mindset must be abandoned. If that was the case, then we would have to go back to being hunters and gatherers, spending the majority of our daylight hours searching for food. We would have to give up all our technology. Moreover, Enlightenment does not mean giving up everything worldly, and being totally useless. It is a suicidal philosophy, it leaves one with no relationship to the world of pragmatics. One can be perfectly enlightened and still work with others in the world. In a sense, a great vision has more reality than the concept of enlightenment itself. A vision is what causes ones entire trajectory through life.
This has nothing to do with anything I've said. How does anything I've said imply an enlightened individual ought to go back to being hunters and gatherers? I'm certain I said exactly the opposite, which is using AI and other forms of technology to shape the universe as one sees fit.
Ryan Rudolph wrote:A trajectory or vision for humanity is always fuelled by passion, and men cannot be free from the passions.
How did you come to this conclusion?
Ryan Rudolph wrote:Here is another example: Diogenes lived in a barrel as an outsider for most of his life, but my question is what alternative impact would he have had on the youth of the city if he had taught with Plato in his school? Diogenes making the stand to be an outsider is an egotistical act in my opinion. It is a weird territory because by Diogenes renouncing status and worldiness, he achieves a new sort of status in his own mind, an elitist attitude that makes him believe that he is heading down the most supreme path there is. Moreover, By denying everything, he thinks he has achieved the ultimate act of honesty, but that is all relative in a sense. Every life is relative. It all depends on what you value. Moreover, the truth is that he probably didn’t have the patience, discipline or robustness of character to teach a body of knowledge to students everyday, and so he achieved greatness through living in a barrel, you get the drift? We are caused to seek greatness in whatever capacity our characters are suited for.
Actually I'm pretty sure I've read some where that Diogenes did teach philosophy to a number of students, and if he didn't that doesn't mean anything except that he sought greatness in a different capacity in realtion to Plato's as you described.
Ryan Rudolph wrote:What I liked about Einstein is that he kept asking unconventional empirical questions throughout his entire life, and kept returning to them decades later, while trying different types of analysis to solve the corundums he had created through questioning. Such commitment lead to the manipulation of the atom, and the technological achievements that followed.

Einstein was a cross between a sage and a scientist in my opinion. He was the ultimate specimen. The future of the species should be to engineer humans who are a cross between sagehood and empirical talent.
Eienstein was eternally inquisitive and had a talent for mathematics and science, but a sage he was not.
Ryan Rudolph wrote:One can renounce accomplishment until it no longer matters in an egotistical sense, but continue working towards accomplishments simply because one is interested in the subject matter or one feels that the area of science is important to the future of the species.

In my view, it is about having a greater vision for the world besides a world of useless sages dependent on complicated technology that they have no idea of how to fix, or how to explain the mechanics of. We should be creating technology that allows science to be understood easier by all - and allows people outside the academic sphere to experiment on their own. We should be striving to be polymaths and sages simultaneously.

I maintain that the mind of genius should stretch into all areas of thought.
I have no problems if a sage wants to study the sciences, but it's just plain ridiculous to deny AI the opportunity the same task if it can perform it better than a human mind can. Do you realize how much time and effort scientists have to put into developing working formulas that could fill up an entire chalk board? These aren't things that are developed over night. I could never imagine myself or any enlightened individual commiting themselves to studying such infinitely small abstractions of Nature. I'm just as interested in technological and scientific development as the next person and I'm not discouraging anyone from becoming a scientist, I'm just being practical if I was in a situation where AI could perform something better than me.
User avatar
Ryan Rudolph
Posts: 2490
Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2006 10:32 am
Location: British Columbia, Canada

Re: The Unity between Applied Science and Wisdom

Post by Ryan Rudolph »

Nick,
If one has the talent and drive to accomplish something then so be it, but that's not what this is about. You're getting upset with the idea of AI replacing humans as the discoverer's of the latest and greatest science has to offer because your ego wants to take the credit. It's pretty evident in the way that you described it as handing over a "treasure" to AI.
Using the word treasure was only to contrast what I interpreted as your total brushing off of empirical science, you seemed to undervalue its importance as far as human talent is concerned. I interpreted your reasoning as something along the lines of, ‘Because I don’t personally have the talent, empirical science is unimportant, and should be done by robots”. Moreover, if I was correct, then that could actually be interpreted as your ego not wanting to acknowledge something as valuable if you don’t personally have the talent for it.
How did you come to this conclusion?
Simply reflect on your own motives. It is passion that drives one to value enlightenment/wisdom. I have heard Kevin and David suggest that they are simply caused to value enlightenment, but what is this magical cause? Can one isolate it? I maintain that such a value is rooted in the passions, in dislikes and likes. Preferences are rooted in passion. Transcending all emotional motivation is impossible in my opinion. And if one could, then one would end up behaving like a desireless zombie - similar to someone with a frontal lobotomy - basically indifferent if men are wise or deluded. In essence, without the passions, men would be comparable to rocks or carrots – to steal Kevin’s comparison.

It doesn’t matter how ‘enlightened’ one is, there are certain responses that are unavoidable – for instance: if an old elderly woman tried to get intimate with you, you’d feel disgusted, or if a tedious person got in your face, and talked about nonsense for 20 minutes straight, you’d feel bored, irritated, and you’d feel propelled to escape – those are the passions controlling ones actions. Passions are still operating, only with more subtlety.
Eienstein was eternally inquisitive and had a talent for mathematics and science, but a sage he was not.
Einstein did have some fairly profound quotes, it is difficult to judge just how unconscious he was, although his emotions weren’t as refined as they could be, he seemed to be much more rational that most humans. Charles Darwin was of a similar spirit, but he was a bit more hardened emotionally.

One of my favorites by Einstein is when he said, God does not play dice. In my interpretation, he is basically defending the universal law of causality in a time when newcomers in quantum mechanics were suggesting that the universe does not behave according to predicable laws.
I have no problems if a sage wants to study the sciences, but it's just plain ridiculous to deny AI the opportunity the same task if it can perform it better than a human mind can. Do you realize how much time and effort scientists have to put into developing working formulas that could fill up an entire chalk board? These aren't things that are developed over night. I could never imagine myself or any enlightened individual commiting themselves to studying such infinitely small abstractions of Nature. I'm just as interested in technological and scientific development as the next person and I'm not discouraging anyone from becoming a scientist, I'm just being practical if I was in a situation where AI could perform something better than me.
I have no objections to your reasoning there, just as long as you’re not suggesting that humans should give up all empirical responsibilities to A.I. I maintain that one can still reap subtle satisfaction from new empirical discoveries and realizing new relationships in the totality.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: The Unity between Applied Science and Wisdom

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Nick Treklis wrote:Even if this is a computer simulation of some kind we have no choice but to treat it as the fundamental simulation from which all others arise because we are not aware of anything more fundamental than this one.
Exactly right, you'd treat it as a 'fundamental' or absolute because there's no awareness of anything more fundamental or absolute. What would happen if you'd become aware of such thing? Would it perhaps change ones perspective on the possibilities of 'computer simulations'?

Why would a sage consciously lock himself away in a virtual reality machine instead of working with other sages with the aid of all the technology at their disposal?
Could you give an example of things that could be achieved with this technology that isn't already available in unlimited forms of VR?
I don’t understand the question. Could you rephrase it?
The moment a sufficient complex ('unlimited') instance of VR would be created, what is there left to work on outside that VR? What kind of stuff would the sage work on and for what purpose? It would be always easier to achieve anything inside the VR with an unlimited range of possibilities, assuming the VR is vast enough in scope.

Or in other words: what would make the average person chose the VR and the wise go for a life outside the VR. What reasoning is behind the choice not to engage in VR themselves?
Diebert van Rhijn wrote: I don’t know any humans that would want to spend their lives doing all the things other people don’t want to do for nothing in return. So why would a robot?
The conscious robot could build simpler robots, restricted version of themselves. Perhaps if they'd lack morals there's no limit to what they could create to do the work. If they'd be superior they could even enslave humans to do the work. They might be cheaper to maintain than an advanced robot.
Diebert van Rhijn wrote:Right. Before their hands or pichers would reach for the power button they might have this flash of doubt - what if somewhere a tentacle of light is hoovering above another switch that could turn of a whole different order of simuation - one that contains the wise?
I double dog dare them to.
*Click*
User avatar
Nick
Posts: 1677
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2005 8:39 pm
Location: Detroit, Michigan

Re: The Unity between Applied Science and Wisdom

Post by Nick »

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:Exactly right, you'd treat it as a 'fundamental' or absolute because there's no awareness of anything more fundamental or absolute. What would happen if you'd become aware of such thing? Would it perhaps change ones perspective on the possibilities of 'computer simulations'?
For me personally it would be an interesting bit of information, but ultimately it doesn't change anything. I can't really speak for anyone else, but I'd assume some people would do more than just change their perspective on the possibilities of computer simulations.
Diebert van Rhijn wrote:The moment a sufficient complex ('unlimited') instance of VR would be created, what is there left to work on outside that VR? What kind of stuff would the sage work on and for what purpose? It would be always easier to achieve anything inside the VR with an unlimited range of possibilities, assuming the VR is vast enough in scope.

Or in other words: what would make the average person chose the VR and the wise go for a life outside the VR. What reasoning is behind the choice not to engage in VR themselves?
Personally, I'd just like to operate within the most fundamental construction in my awareness for safety reasons. ;-)
Diebert van Rhijn wrote:The conscious robot could build simpler robots, restricted version of themselves. Perhaps if they'd lack morals there's no limit to what they could create to do the work. If they'd be superior they could even enslave humans to do the work. They might be cheaper to maintain than an advanced robot.
Consciusness is conscoiusness is consciousness, doesn't matter if a human, a robot or anything else posesses it. All that matters is the degree of consciousness. With that said the "superior robots" would either destroy us or leave us alone. Humans are rather fragile in comparison to machines, and an egoless robot would be much more likely to follow your orders exactly as you gave them.
Steven Coyle

Re: The Unity between Applied Science and Wisdom

Post by Steven Coyle »

mikiel,
No Steven, there is no formula. For genius, polymath or otherwise, or for "contact with the Source."
If enlightenment is genius, then there's a formula.
And ..."Universal Genius.." - describing the theoretical principle of being able to teach oneself nearly anything"... is pure myth with no possible reality for an individual being omniscient. (What is meant by the hedge, "nearly?") Just all about Earth, or textbook learning or would this level of omniscience include all life everwhere and all details about the whole universe in minutely detailed "fact?"
Totally without a base in reality, for an individual.
Well, Not so much knowing everything. as knowing the self to be everything.
I'm interested in what you mean by the following:
"I know from experience that in the realm of spirituality, 'emptiness' enables correlation to become causation."
1 + 1 = 2 (or, 'I' + 'I' = 'I') Not so much "I!" as eye. Cause ('I') Effect ('X')
Also wondering how you see the balance of "absorbing a text for a few hours during the day" as background for the direct *knowing* of "allowing Nature to teach" ... ("through causation" seems a superfluous concept in this context.)
I first "see" directly "what is" without egoic filters, then study how the vision revealed directly by nature/cosmos fits with current theories and philosophies.
Yes, without egoic filters. Yes. Knowing that All is me.. I obtain relativity of light, through imagination and will. Instead of 'tracing' ("I am that"), I'll 'trace' & 'draw'. "I AM" to Art...
The linear mind wants "formulae" for genius and enlightenment.
Recipies are great for fine quisine, and formulae are essential in chemistry, but it does not transfer to the unique individual polymath (guided by inspiriation and interests) or the enlightenment, which depends on the*grace* of surrender of the illusion of personal identity. "Just let it all go"... could be considered a formula for such surrender, but it takes real, direct experience in the real world, not just "the right words."
(Likewise, "Be still and know that I am God." Sure thing... got it. Just be still... OK.)
No, linear mind receives formula (causation or koan), non-linear mind creates essence ('inspiration'). Though, linear mind also knows that one event follows another. So after absorbing a book, one could ask Nature a question about it!
User avatar
Nick
Posts: 1677
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2005 8:39 pm
Location: Detroit, Michigan

Re: The Unity between Applied Science and Wisdom

Post by Nick »

Ryan Rudolph wrote:Simply reflect on your own motives. It is passion that drives one to value enlightenment/wisdom. I have heard Kevin and David suggest that they are simply caused to value enlightenment, but what is this magical cause? Can one isolate it? I maintain that such a value is rooted in the passions, in dislikes and likes. Preferences are rooted in passion. Transcending all emotional motivation is impossible in my opinion. And if one could, then one would end up behaving like a desireless zombie - similar to someone with a frontal lobotomy - basically indifferent if men are wise or deluded. In essence, without the passions, men would be comparable to rocks or carrots – to steal Kevin’s comparison.

It doesn’t matter how ‘enlightened’ one is, there are certain responses that are unavoidable – for instance: if an old elderly woman tried to get intimate with you, you’d feel disgusted, or if a tedious person got in your face, and talked about nonsense for 20 minutes straight, you’d feel bored, irritated, and you’d feel propelled to escape – those are the passions controlling ones actions. Passions are still operating, only with more subtlety.
I define interest and passion as two different things. For instance, one might be very interested in enlightenment and Absolute Truth, whereas another person might be extremely passionate about involving themselves with women on a sexual and emotional level. Having experienced both of these I can say that interest and passion are experienced in very different ways. Interest is a result of a consciously decided purpose, passion is a result of one's unconscious desires. Certain passions may lead to a genuine interest in something, but that doesn't mean passion can not be abandoned for any given amount of time. So even though a man might have no passion, he might have many interests, meaning it is not at all accurate to say he would behave like a rock
Ryan Rudolph wrote:I have no objections to your reasoning there, just as long as you’re not suggesting that humans should give up all empirical responsibilities to A.I. I maintain that one can still reap subtle satisfaction from new empirical discoveries and realizing new relationships in the totality.
That's impossible Ryan, a conscious being couldn't give up empirical studies if they tried. I undertake new empirical studies all the time. Such as watching the leaves on a tree as the wind blows through them, observing a thunder storm unfold, watching humans interact with eachother, or sitting on a beach at night listening to the waves crash against the shore while I observe the night sky.
User avatar
Ryan Rudolph
Posts: 2490
Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2006 10:32 am
Location: British Columbia, Canada

Re: The Unity between Applied Science and Wisdom

Post by Ryan Rudolph »

Nick,
I define interest and passion as two different things. For instance, one might be very interested in enlightenment and Absolute Truth, whereas another person might be extremely passionate about involving themselves with women on a sexual and emotional level. Having experienced both of these I can say that interest and passion are experienced in very different ways. Interest is a result of a consciously decided purpose, passion is a result of one's unconscious desires. Certain passions may lead to a genuine interest in something, but that doesn't mean passion can not be abandoned for any given amount of time. So even though a man might have no passion, he might have many interests, meaning it is not at all accurate to say he would behave like a rock.
But even with interest, there are subtle passions operating, meaning that there are subtle preferences for future outcomes. And with interest as a consciously decided purpose as you say, that conscious decision is still governed by subtle passions. Actually, a decision cannot be made without emotional preferences.

For instance: From previous discussions, I know that you favor libertarian political philosophy over Socialist/liberal philosophy, and like myself, I would say you have an emotional preference between the two. And that passion is fuelled by your concepts of justice as it relates to taxation, inflation, economic stability and so on. Now I maintain that subtle passions are not evil as long as they are directed into intelligent things, rather than unintelligent things. For instance: Debating morality with a certain amount of subtle passionate interest is much better use of the soul than blindly watching reruns of old game shows from the 70s.

So like it or not, the passions are still necessary for any sort of interest, both wise or unwise.
That's impossible Ryan, a conscious being couldn't give up empirical studies if they tried. I undertake new empirical studies all the time. Such as watching the leaves on a tree as the wind blows through them, observing a thunder storm unfold, watching humans interact with eachother, or sitting on a beach at night listening to the waves crash against the shore while I observe the night sky.
Yes indeed I agree, but my major point is with the applied empirical studies, where one engineers a model, and then uses that model for some pragmatic purpose to make life better for humanity in some way. For instance: Currently, a small number of intellectuals are trying to create scientific models to engineer A.I, but not as a means for A.I to do all the work for us in the future, only as a means to enhance human life and consciousness.
Locked