Emotion - a false and deadly notion

Some partial backups of posts from the past (Feb, 2004)
Locked
User avatar
Rhett
Posts: 604
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2003 6:31 am
Location: Australia

Emotion - a false and deadly notion

Post by Rhett »

This is an extract from 'Genius News' of a discussion that took place on the 'Genius List' back around mid 2002. It was my first foray on the list. Dan comments are the one's to watch, my views are now radically different to what they were then.


Rhett: I hope that a genius can achieve plenty of happiness whilst honing their awareness of reality...

Dan Rowden: The genius has no need of happiness. He is beyond happiness and unhappiness. Unhappiness arises precisely because of our egotistical desire for happiness.

Greg Shantz: Yes but before you become a genius couldn't feelings of happiness accompany learning about the infinite even thought they will eventually have to go?

Dan Rowden: Sure, that will inevitably occur at times, but Rhett's implication was that it is a good and desirable thing. It isn't. It indicates the continued presence of ego and therefore delusion. But you're right to say that the seeker will feel emotionally empowered, sometimes happy, as a result of certain insights. But, those feelings are a danger to him and he must not rest in them.

Greg Shantz: He must not rest in them, he must continue on the path to overcoming them entirely. But while he is learning about reality without having a full knowledge of it he will still experience emotions. When he has a new insight or works out a problem that has been nagging him he may experience happiness and contentment. An enlightened person is beyond dualities like happiness or unhappiness. But enlightenment is not an emotion; enlightenment is freedom from the unpredictable winds of emotions. Enlightenment is when you see the world clearly without delusion. Emotions are clouded thoughts, enlightenment is a clear mind.

Rhett: When i remove myself from social interaction my emotions fade away and i am neither happy or unhappy. When i engage in social interaction the experience of emotions increases. I seem to be attempting to maximise happiness and minimise unhappiness in a social context through the application of accumulated (and accumulating) wisdom at the core of issues. When i surround myself with seekers they give me space within their world. I avoid being worshipped overtly by them but i do appreciate their thanks for what i share with them. But i have not as yet found people with comparable insight as myself. Thus, there is a hole somewhere in me...

I am searching for a better understanding of the path that will...see me...if i could finish this question i think i would immediately know the answer. Perhaps i'm just trying to work out my best compromise between isolation - integration with society(?).

Leo Bartoli: Dan is referring to a perfect genius so his advice has little practical relevance to all of us here. For all we know, and as i say we may know this intuitively or instinctively, periods of happiness may have a healing effect on the body or the brain helping to eventually bring one closer to perfection of consciousness, just as play may help a young mind develop properly. Of course, to use this as an excuse to indulge without restraint may be counter productive.

Dan Rowden: In strict terms, yes, my point refers to the perfect state of affairs, but to say it has no practical relevance to the imperfect is wrong. One does not require perfection to significantly and meaningfully transcend the egotism of the happiness/unhappiness duality - and therefore samsara and suffering.

Development in this area occurs with any diminution of the force of the ego.

The advice is entirely relevant to the imperfect. Anyway, we're striving the goal of enlightenment and perfection, aren't we? Are you saying it is of no practical help to the seeker to comprehend the nature of that which he is striving for?

Leo Bartoli: No, i was simply saying, or believe i was saying, that the genius in not beyond the need for happiness unless he is perfect. Does that help?

Rhett: Happiness is an emotion and is therefore a real state. Can humans be emotionless? Should humans strive for emotionlessness?

I spent a number of years trying to be emotionless. Why did i try to do this? Perhaps the greatest factor was that it was a self protecting response; I feel that geniuses are more sensitive to people and thus suffer from negative emotions/interactions more than others. Being constantly misunderstood is extremely alienating and dispiriting. I did not fully succeed in being emotionless. Complete isolation may have brought that, but, whilst i am not afraid of isolation, i do not particularly value it. Thus, i chose to accept that i will experience emotions. Simple logic suggests that if i am going to experience emotions then i'll try to maximise the desireable ones and minimise the undesirable ones.

Subhash: Happiness should not be an emotion. It should be a state beyond that.(The Genius would know better !)

Genius is not one who is sensitive to the world as we conceive a sensitive individual to be. He is able see and experience things in the light of eternity. Hence he is not disturbed by the 'leela'(worldly play) and is able to live in 'ananda' undisturbed by the sensual world.

Rhett: I'm quite uninterested in any construct that suggests that all thinking leads to sadness. It seems that many people engaging in this forum believe this. If you're unhappy, how smart is that? Surely a genius can facilitate their life such that they are happy? Why not? I'm amazed that this topic is so contentious. Is it perhaps a common pitfall that has grown into a culture within philosophical circles? I've read widely whilst unconsciously avoiding most of the eastern 'enlightenment' books and western books on philosophy. The common ruts within the debates on this forum have me celebrating my intellectual path. Of course i may simply be ignorant.

When i use the word happiness i mean exactly that. I am not talking about a false or superficial happiness.

Dan Rowden: Thinking necessarily leads to sadness (suffering) because thinking necessarily means a critical examination of one's self-reality and of one's attachments. Whatever the outcome of that examination, it will produce, if authentic, anxiety, which is a form of suffering.

Irena: What makes you think the state of happiness has anything to do with desire or any other form of volitional pressure. Can't it be possible that happiness is the optimal condition for a normal human, aiding digestion for example? and what not?

Why must happiness be characterized additionally as a desire when it is already quite sufficiently described under its accepted definitional term as happiness?

Is the need for food always a desire for food? Isn't it sometimes a pressing need? Ditto for other conditions. Would you say a desire for anger is a typical way to describe what is a very similar condition, emotionally to happiness, in that it is a somewhat elevated state? No, generally we accept anger is a result of certain factors, including biological. So why would happiness be any different? Why do you infer happiness is a weakness?

Dan Rowden: Well, let's get our concepts in order here: happiness is not a desire. Happiness is an emotional state; it is the sublimation of the will to power in the emotional realm. The desire for happiness is a desire. The need for food is a basic biological need. The desire for happiness is an expression of our psychology; specifically, it is a desire of the ego for power.

And it is not weakness but rather delusion. The desire for happiness indicates the egotistical sensation of a lacking that is not based in valid notions of reality.

Irena: I guess you see happiness as a kind of mindless bliss. I see it as a joyful contentment. And I just looked up happy in the dictionary and it says "to be content with one's lot". I would guess to be content with one's lot would mean not to desire anything more or less.

Dan Rowden: Well, yes, I guess I do see it as mindless, because that's basically what it is! Most people don't have the foggiest understanding of their own psychology, so how could their state of happiness really be other than mindless? Happiness, however, is one of those slightly nebulous terms that can refer to a variety of mind states - joy; gladness; contentment etc, so it can be hard to pin down the psychology of happiness per se. What one might say about its nature depends on the way one is defining it. But all these states share certain common properties, so let's se what we can do with it..........

Any desire represents the will to overcome some negative state - that means one is powerless (lacking) in the face of circumstance. The sublimation of any desire is to gain and possess power over the lack of a desired state; it is to gain power over circumstance.

Irena: If the desire for it is desire for power, then I would guess you define happiness as power.

Dan Rowden: It's a form of power, yes. As I said previously, it is power over circumstance and the absence of something. If you conquer your fear of flying you experience happiness at your having conquered this fear. That happiness is an expression of your power over fear. How many unhappy people have you met whose unhappiness expressed their power over something? Happiness is absolutely a feeling of power.

Irena: Well, that's one way to describe being contented - in a position of power.

Dan Rowden: That's right - power over that which made us discontent.

Irena: You are describing a kind of ego gratification which is not happiness but egotism.

Dan Rowden: The desire for happiness is egotism. That feeling of power one experiences, which again is happiness, is egotism. That which stems from ego is necessarily egotism.

Irena: Fine, you are probably right. But assume i know a little about two kinds of ego behaviour. One being egotism the other egoism.

Dan Rowden: Well, I regard that distinction as part of the gibberish of academic psychology. It might have its place somewhere in that great malaise, but not, I would argue, in this discussion.

Ego, Happiness and Samsara:

"Happiness is the transition from one form of suffering to another. Suffering is the transition from one form of happiness to another. Samsara is made of these transitions."

Desire is expressed in the individual because the ego - the concept held in mind of an inherently existent, separate self - has a continual and necessarily unending need to ground itself in reality, to substantiate its existence, to give itself permanence and therefore security (generated by the perception of separation). The ephemeral nature of things, however, constantly steps in to destroy that security and hence desire constantly arises. This is the basis of the forming of attachments. Attachments give a foundation and support to the idea of our existence; they ground us, our egotistical selves, in "reality" and therefore provide security, a concrete sense of being. "Happiness" is that state in which this desire for substance and security is sublimated, in whatever context that might occur. Unhappiness (suffering) is that state where ego feels insubstantial or disconnected from reality in some way (lacking in something it perceives itself as requiring). The desire for happiness may be characterised as the ego's will to security in being.

But happiness only lasts as long as the conditions upon which it is based continue to exist. Therefore happiness is not only, itself, ephemeral, it is dependent upon those continued conditions. Herein lies the beginning of a need for control of one's environment, physically and psychologically. Happiness is a state of such control and therefore, as I said before, a sense and type of power. I don't there's too much need for me to elaborate on the personal and social consequences of that need for control.

The reason the desire for happiness is delusional is that the entire above state of affairs is delusional in that the "ego" conception of self is false (i.e. there is no separate, inherently existent self) and all psychological phenomena that arise with this falsity as their basis, are also necessarily false.

I mean, we can get bogged in terminology and semantic pedantry if we want to, and some of us probably do want to so as to avoid the crux of the issue, but rather than worry about whether we should characterise something as a "need" rather than a "want" and so forth, we should look to the essentials of the issue. We could quite easily characterise the desire for happiness as an essential need of the ego, because, frankly, it is - which is to say it is as natural to the ego as the spreading of roots is to a tree - but the point is the ego itself is not hard-wired into mind whereas certain biological needs like breathing are hard-wired into our biological natures.

We might be stuck with the need to breathe and take water, but we're not stuck with the delusion of the ego or any of the psychological phenomena that emanate from it, the desire for happiness being one of the more prominent ones and also being one of the most significant sources of suffering.

Alex Meyer: But the lack of psychological understanding in "most people" [you spoke of], has nothing to do with the question of happiness being necessarily mindless. Would you disagree that it is possible to feel happiness, and at the same time be aware, and conscious about the psychological implications of that feeling?

I often find that I can recognize a feeling, and because I recognize it, it is easier to control it and sometimes ignore it. I do no longer need to succumb to the feeling. I am not perfect though, and do not always immediately recognize the feeling, but that is irrelevant to the issue of the possibility, that the state of happiness doesn't need to be mindless.

Dan Rowden: Actually, it has everything to do with people being mindless. A psychological phenomenon that is occurring, and is valued, that is happening in an absence of any understanding of its nature, is necessarily mindless. One cannot truly understand the basis of happiness and experience it, for to really understanding happiness is to understand the basis of ego and of Reality itself. If one is experiencing happiness, understanding is necessary absent in the moment that happiness is being experienced.

One can understand happiness and have a memory of the "feeling" but that is not to be in a "happy" state. One cannot be happy and mindful at the same time. Understanding is dependent on the absence of ego; happiness is dependent on its presence. You can't have both, not in any pure sense.

Alex Meyer: Also, mindless happiness will kill any motivation to seek truth. So perhaps happiness should be sold with a warning-label on the package... As David Quinn pointed out in the forum, though, if the will to truth/wisdom is strong enough, mindless happiness will eventually become tiring, and not so mindless after all.

Dan Rowden: Happiness - and the desire for it - is transcended. Till that time, one is still engaging in mindlessness to some degree - namely, the degree to which one experiences happiness.
Edited by: Rhett at: 11/20/03 10:24 am
User avatar
Rhett
Posts: 604
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2003 6:31 am
Location: Australia

Re: Emotion - a false and deadly notion

Post by Rhett »


No responses thus far, perhaps i have hit the jackpot here, perhaps i have hit on the dearest attachment of all?

Let's see if we can get a serious debate going...let's see if people are willing to back up their attachments...

Here is another extract from the 'Genius News'...


EXPUNGING THE EMOTIONS

Why234: It is quite absurd to expunge emotion completely considering that we
are mere mortals, innately gifted with emotions.

David Quinn: Yes, emotions have certainly been given to us by evolution and
they have been useful for our survival in the past. It helps to be emotional
when you want to wipe out the competition. But I contend that not only are
the emotions no longer useful, but that they can be eliminated via a process
of philosophical development. In fact, I contend that we are morally
obligated towards future generations to eliminate them.

Leyla: Yes, we are. But then, nobody would be having sex and there would be
no future generations. Is that the ultimate goal for others from the sages
perspective?

David Quinn: If their primary goal is the survival of wisdom (and it is
highly likely that it would be), then the survival of abstract consciousness
would automatically become an important goal, which means they would have a
vested interest in seeing the human race continue.

Leyla: Friends, Romans, countrymen; lend me your fears: I say again, albeit
somewhat differently, that there are positive emotional states and uses of
emotion--especially toward the goal of enlightenment--just as there are
negative ones.

David Quinn: I agree that, in the beginning stages at least, emotion can be
an important driving force towards enlightenment. A beginner certainly
cannot get anywhere if he isn't consumed by a passion for Truth. But as I've
mentioned elsewhere, there comes a point in a thinker's development where he
begins to pierce the very illusions which trigger the emotions - namely, the
illusions of self-existence.

If you remove all the flammable material from a certain area, then fire can
no longer arise in that area. Similarly, if you remove the illusions of
self-existence from your mind, then emotion can no longer arise - which is a
very liberating experience. It's a bit like the murkiness of an overcast
morning breaking up and clearing to reveal a glorious sunny afternoon.

Leyla: Is there no emotion involved with the experience of this revelation?
Perhaps...elation? Serenity? Exhiliration?

David Quinn: In the earlier stages of the path, there is. When a person
gains genuine insight into the Reality for the first time there is
exhilaration, astonishment and fantastic joy. And sometimes, when the
insight is not quite perfect and the ego's concern for its own security has
been aroused, there can be the reverse - namely, great anxiety and fear. But
all of these emotions begin to fade away over time as the individual
gradually discards the conceptual framework which embeds the ego.

Logothing: Please explain what the illusions of self-existance are.. I am
intrigued.

David Quinn: The belief that one's self ultimately or independently exists,
that it possesses inherent significance and value, that it possesses free
will, that it is anything other than an intangible conceptual construct of
the moment.

This creates other kinds of illusions such as the belief that one came into
existence at some point in the past and will one day disappear again, that
there is life and death, that there are things in the world to overcome and
things to be feared, that fortresses have to be created in order to protect
the self, and so on - which in turn gives rise to the deluded emotions of
anger, pride, guilt, happiness, etc.

JoshuaStone: I am inspired to view it as quite curious the way you
flippantly use the term "perfect." In order for you to use that term the way
you do it would seem that you are privy to what actually is "perfect." So
tell us all, just exactly what in this three-dimensional world is "perfect?"

David Quinn: The word "perfect" can be used in different ways. For example,
we can say that all things are "perfect" in that they are direct
manifestions of Reality. Even flaws in objects are direct manifestations of
Reality and therefore perfect.

In a psychological sense, a person reaches "perfection" when he no longer
experiences delusion. That is to say, all imperfections of thought have
vanished from his mind. Such a person is able to dwell in enlightenment
effortlessly, permanently and without interruption.
Paul
Posts: 32
Joined: Fri Sep 12, 2003 10:26 pm

---

Post by Paul »

Rhett, my dear, what is your view on Artificial Intelligence?
Hywel
Posts: 7
Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2003 1:06 am
Location: Wales, UK

Re: --- Happiness and Emotions

Post by Hywel »

Happiness

Happiness is lack of desire. This can be through contentment with the current situation, and therefore temporary, or through understanding of the nature of happiness, and therefore permanent (while the understanding remains).

Joy isnt really included in this, its just a momentary ego boost in any case, and doesnt last.

Quote:Quote:<hr>No responses thus far, perhaps i have hit the jackpot here, perhaps i have hit on the dearest attachment of all?<hr>

Its the only attachment, and generates all others.

"EXPUNGING THE EMOTIONS" is a good extract, but one part caught my attention, mostly because its an area im confused about myself.

Quote:Quote:<hr>David Quinn: If their primary goal is the survival of wisdom (and it is highly likely that it would be), then the survival of abstract consciousness would automatically become an important goal, which means they would have a vested interest in seeing the human race continue.<hr>

David doesnt seem sure that in a world of people without emotion, their primary goal would be the survival of wisdom. As Paul points out, they might well choose to replace the human race with something altogether more rational. But more than that, why does wisdom dictate that wisdom must survive?

The universe continues as before, with or without it. If it survives, it could hardly be prevented. While its certainly appealing to think of all the people you can help in their own search for wisdom, all the information they need is all around them, and they have to do all the work themselves.

I would certainly help anyone who wished to become wise in any way I could, but as for encouraging wisdom in those who have no interest in it, that seems a step too far.

Perhaps this is because the wisdom I have gained, did not seem motivated by the valueing of wisdom, but rather by the fact that I had/have nothing else to do with my life.
User avatar
Rhett
Posts: 604
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2003 6:31 am
Location: Australia

Re: --- Happiness and Emotions

Post by Rhett »


Hi Hywel,

Happiness is lack of desire. This can be through contentment with the
current situation, and therefore temporary, or through understanding of the
nature of happiness, and therefore permanent (while the understanding
remains).

Whoa there. I agree that the state of happiness is free of desire, but it is
also largely free of thought, so desire can hardly be present. Egotistical
happiness is inherently impermanent, it's nature is to cycle. Once one
understands the nature of happiness, that being power over one's desires -
which derive from that which threatens to compromise one's non-existent
self, one will no longer partake in it.

Joy isnt really included in this, its just a momentary ego boost in any
case, and doesnt last.

Joy, happiness, same thing really, same psychotic process.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
No responses thus far, perhaps i have hit the jackpot here, perhaps i have
hit on the dearest attachment of all?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Its the only attachment, and generates all others.

If you are talking about emotion then i disagree. Even though ego and
emotion are so tightly intertwined, they are not the same. The ego, ie.
'life', is usually the most valued attachment, but not always, examples are
hard to find but kamikaze pilots might be one (suicide bombers don't count
because they usually think they are going to a better life). I think most
people would
still prefer to live even if they knew they were never going to experience
emotion, but they would find it an excruciating choice. After having
experienced emotionlessness for a period of time they might well be very
thankful, depending of course on the way in which their emotions were
prevented from occurring. I have wanted to escape emotion for most of my
life. One either has a will to consciousness and emotionlessness, or the
will to unconsciousness and emotion, they are mutually incompatible.

"EXPUNGING THE EMOTIONS" is a good extract, but one part caught my
attention, mostly because its an area im confused about myself.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Quinn: If their primary goal is the survival of wisdom (and it is
highly likely that it would be), then the survival of abstract consciousness
would automatically become an important goal, which means they would have a
vested interest in seeing the human race continue.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

David doesnt seem sure that in a world of people without emotion, their
primary goal would be the survival of wisdom. As Paul points out, they might
well choose to replace the human race with something altogether more
rational. But more than that, why does wisdom dictate that wisdom must
survive?

It's extremely unlikely that someone would become wise without valuing
wisdom, and if they value wisdom they would naturally value it's survival.
Wisdom encompasses quality reasoning processes, and all good reason points
to an understanding of truth being of more value that other things.

To place another value higher than truth is illogical, because you cannot be
sure that you know the truth of that value, you could well be valuing a
chimera and/or acting quite contrary to what you think you are. I can tell
you that this is actually the case with everyone that doesn't value truth
foremost, which is basically everyone on this planet. They are radically
misguided.

The universe continues as before, with or without it. If it survives, it
could hardly be prevented. While its certainly appealing to think of all the
people you can help in their own search for wisdom, all the information they
need is all around them, and they have to do all the work themselves.

But do they find that good information and have a concept of its worth
without being helped? Very rarely.

I would certainly help anyone who wished to become wise in any way I could,
but as for encouraging wisdom in those who have no interest in it, that
seems a step too far.

Whilst encouraging non-seekers certainly has a high probability of being
problematic, so does doing nothing about the ignorance in this world.

Perhaps this is because the wisdom I have gained, did not seem motivated by
the valueing of wisdom, but rather by the fact that I had/have nothing else
to do with my life.

I suggest you take an active interest in formulating a conscious value
system ASAP. You are basically suggesting that you have a passive, feminine
minded approach to your value system and decisionmaking, almost as if "I am
pursuing wisdom because it's what's in front of me". You have plenty of
other things you could do with your life, so there must be at least a bit of
valuing of wisdom in there somewhere.

Rhett
User avatar
Rhett
Posts: 604
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2003 6:31 am
Location: Australia

Re: ---

Post by Rhett »

Rhett, my dear, what is your view on Artificial Intelligence?

A proper understanding of the nature of cause and effect gives one a wholly different perspective on Artificial Intelligence. Man has been creating AI since the dawn of man, because man is AI. There is no fundamental difference between 'living' things and 'non-living' things, just an endless sea of mechanistic (causal) processes.

Rhett
suergaz

----

Post by suergaz »

Not true rhett, humans are not artificial intelligences. To say there is only artificial intelligence is a most unintelligent thing to say. If you mean to say that all intelligence is created, then I agree, but your words do not show this to be so.
jimhaz
Posts: 141
Joined: Sun Oct 13, 2002 7:28 pm

Re: ----

Post by jimhaz »

Well it could be said that our intellegence is artificial because it is dependent on other humans. Our intelligence would not be what it is if we were isolated from birth.
Media and governments might also be making our intellegence artifical to a degree.

Nah, that is a weak argument, but I'll post it anyway.
birdofhermes
Posts: 90
Joined: Thu Mar 06, 2003 10:34 pm

AI

Post by birdofhermes »

He means to say that intelligence is artificial because he thinks life is artificial. In other words, he does not actually believe that there is any sort of ineffable something called life. In other words, despite the massive complexity of life forms (but all is relative, and it is just an appearance of complexity to our mindset)and the fact of reproduction and growth, we are just big computers, machines. Chemical and electrical processes.

Isn't that what you also believe Suergaz? That is the atheist position.

What in the world can such as you mean by saying intelligence is created?
suergaz

Re: AI

Post by suergaz »

Birdy, how do you know the atheist position when you are not one?! I had thought you would refer to it as an imposition! Rhett is no atheist, he has concrete shoes and we must work to remove them. Life will never have the trappings of a machine. Oscillation has a lot (shall we say an infinity?) to answer for! (forgive such slightness of expresion, in some places its called poetry)
birdofhermes
Posts: 90
Joined: Thu Mar 06, 2003 10:34 pm

atheism

Post by birdofhermes »

Birdy, how do you know the atheist position when you are not one?!
\\\\
Because I have thought about it. Rhett is right, blanket statements without logical (or otherwise) thought processes to back them up are a waste of time. Tell me how I am wrong, that's what I'm saying. The one question I asked, you didn't answer. I said, isn't that your take on things?
========

I had thought you would refer to it as an imposition!

No, not an imposition. Dogma is an imposition. Of course, when the atheists had control ("communist" countries) they were ruder than anything.
\\\\\\\\\\\\\

Rhett is no atheist, he has concrete shoes and we must work to remove them.

what the fuck??
===============
Life will never have the trappings of a machine.

Why the hell not?
====================

Oscillation has a lot (shall we say an infinity?) to answer for! (forgive such slightness of expresion, in some places its called poetry)

Well, who knows what you mean by oscillations, although I tend to agree. Our poetry may be involving very divergent images. Good poetry, in my opinion, is understandable. I do not forgive it.

I honestly don't think you've thought about the atheist position. Either things are alive or they are not. If there is only matter, and that matter started out simple, so to speak, and by random chance collected into proteins, blah, blah, blah, and then the cell wall starts to let some things in and others out, and all the little pumps and gates run on chemical reactions and electrical charges - well isn't it a machine? There is no reason in such a scenario to have any significance to calling something alive.
suergaz

---

Post by suergaz »

Life is no machine and the universe is not one either.

Machines require inventors.
Paul
Posts: 32
Joined: Fri Sep 12, 2003 10:26 pm

Re: ---

Post by Paul »

Bingo.
You're a genius, and I love you.
That doesn't matter, the latter
I mean, but... Soit.
birdofhermes
Posts: 90
Joined: Thu Mar 06, 2003 10:34 pm

atheism

Post by birdofhermes »

There is no talking to you, Suergaz, if refuse to engage in conversation. You answered none of my points. Can it be you have no inkling about them, or have attention deficit disorder?

What is the essence of life?
suergaz

---

Post by suergaz »

Your point you want answered--"what the fuck??"

I mean that Rhett has been sunk by mob rule and can be helped by you even though you are an agnost like he is.


Your point Why the hell not? was already answered.
birdofhermes
Posts: 90
Joined: Thu Mar 06, 2003 10:34 pm

atheism

Post by birdofhermes »

++I mean that Rhett has been sunk by mob rule and can be helped by you even though you are an agnost like he is.

** I doubt I can help him. One has to want help, you know. Besides, you forget, I have only henids to offer.
_________________

Why do you call him an agnost?
_________________

++Your point Why the hell not? was already answered.

No - the question I want answered is, what is Life?

You didn't really answer the why the hell not point. You just said machines require inventors. Yes, it's a fair point, and I acknowledge other minor differences between what we call life forms and what we call machines or computers. But have a little imagination! At bottom, are they different?

The difference, of course, is that men have conceived of a purpose and design for a particular machine and then put it together. As an atheist, you are assuming that all we life forms got ourselves together. No doubt, the ability to renew by reproducing ourselves is a major improvement over rocks. Rocks have their own ways, however.



WolfsonJakk
Posts: 35
Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2001 6:50 pm

--

Post by WolfsonJakk »

Rocks are fluid. It is our limited perception of them that sees them as static objects. Could the same be said about our impressions of life?

Tharan
suergaz

---

Post by suergaz »

Consciousness is the difference bird. We did get ourselves together.

I call Rhett an agnost because he doesn't believe or not believe in god. Like Quinn for instance.
birdofhermes
Posts: 90
Joined: Thu Mar 06, 2003 10:34 pm

atheism

Post by birdofhermes »

++Rocks are fluid. It is our limited perception of them that sees them as static objects. Could the same be said about our impressions of life?

**It could, but how so? I mean, what do you have in mind?
________________

++ Consciousness is the difference bird. We did get ourselves together.

**Worthless conjecture. What do you know about consciousness, its origins, its nature. Does consciousness arise from within the brain only? If you say yes, you are an atheist. If you say we got ourselves together, you must believe that consciousness is no more than chemical reactions in the brain matter. And if you say yes to both of these, then life does not really exist.
________________

++I call Rhett an agnost because he doesn't believe or not believe in god. Like Quinn for instance.

** I agree about Quinn, which is why there is hope for him, but I don't know why you say it about Rhett.
Dave Toast
Posts: 509
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2003 6:22 pm

Re: ---

Post by Dave Toast »

Surely the differences between organic life and machines are pretty self-evident when nouns are used as they were meant to be used i.e. descriptively. The similarities are also apparent but that doesn't make these two things one in the same. Because the similarities between men and women outweigh the differences by a long shot, should we scrap the distinction, a distinction which is self-apparent in spades. A grain of sand is extremely similar to a mountain in many ways, but they are rightly distinguished and designated as being two different things. Machines are machines, life is life.

In the first abstract above, where life is likened to a machine, it could be said that life is like a whole lot of things and the same could be said of machines. For instance, the sun is like an engine, but we call it the sun. The solar system is like clockwork, but we call it the solar system. The earth is like life and a machine, but we call it the earth, or a planet. Fractal geometry is often like organic life in a lot of ways, as are crystals, but they have their own names. Electron are very much like thoughts in certain aspects, sometimes they seem to have a life of their own, but they're called electrons. Life is like a wheel, wheels are like machines, machines are like galaxies, galaxies are like life, life is like a whirlpool, whirlpools are like machines, machines are like evolutionary processes, evolutionary processes are like the universe, the universe is like life and life is like infinity.

On a strictly empirical basis, abstracted, the stuff that machines, life, the universe and everything are made up of is little more than nothing, yet we see such vast distinctions. It's a question of perspective, just like dimensions.

In the second abstract above, where life (and everything else) is likened to AI in it's artificiality, it's just another perspective denying the perspective of life, viewing it from a different angle, another dimension even. All very well and good but the trouble is that in this dimension, life cannot actually be like a machine, nor AI like life, because there is nothing; no life, no machines, no artificiality, no bona fide, no likenesses, no differences, no thing, no nothing. It is therefore completely out of context, the context being demarcation, and therefore contextual abstract nonsense.
Dave Toast
Posts: 509
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2003 6:22 pm

Re: ---

Post by Dave Toast »

Quote:Quote:<hr>Bird: In other words, despite the massive complexity of life forms and the fact of reproduction and growth, we are just big computers, machines. Chemical and electrical processes.

That is the atheist position.<hr>
What is so un-god-like about this Bird?


Quote:Quote:<hr>I honestly don't think you've thought about the atheist position. Either things are alive or they are not. If there is only matter, and that matter started out simple, so to speak, and by random chance collected into proteins, blah, blah, blah, and then the cell wall starts to let some things in and others out, and all the little pumps and gates run on chemical reactions and electrical charges - well isn't it a machine? There is no reason in such a scenario to have any significance to calling something alive.<hr>
I don't see how that makes it a machine and I don't see why this means that the label 'alive' has no significance.

But could you please expand on why you think that alive/not alive relates to atheism?
Locked