GENIUS FORUMS

Dan Rowden wrote:It's a simple problem: define intelligence. It is a relative value/thing? Define Nature: it is a relative value/thing?

etc etc.....

Thinking 101 chaps.

Intelligence is a relative term. I agree with you. Basically one compares a person's abilities to those of the majority. In this context, intelligence is a human property. We run into a problem when we use the word out of its proper context and try to apply to other things.

A side note regarding definitions:

A definition always has this relation: "Part-Whole" relation.
A definition tries to capture the essence of some "Whole" by it "Parts". Said a bit differently, a definition attempts to express a "Thing" by its "Properties".


Take for example the word car and its definition. (Car="Whole", definition="tires, engine, steering, etc."=Parts)

An interesting question: Can you teach a man about X only by giving him X's definition? Plato asked a similar version of this question.

In other word's, given some/all the "Parts" of a "Whole", can a man who doesn't know the "Whole" learn it from the "Parts" at hand?

Example: I have a puzzle consisting of 20 pieces. If I show you each piece by itself, can you tell me what the whole puzzle will look like? How about if I show you only 12 pieces?

Analogy: A piece is to the puzzle, as a part is to the whole.


Bottom line:
A definition is useless to the person who does not know a-priori some/all of the terms/things involved in the definition. Even if the person knows all the "Parts", it does not follow s/he knows the "Whole".

Lets not ask for definitions but point to the "Thing/Whole" to be defined so that everyone can see it for them self. A picture is worth a thousand words.

Dan,

The problem is not so simple as defining "intelligence" and "Nature". We can define these however we want. However we want our terms to be useful... otherwise they are just... useless tautological "absolute truths" with no meaning.

skipair wrote:David, would you call the causal process "nature", and if so, is nature only a principle?

Yes, the causal process comprises the body of Nature. There is nowhere in Nature where the causal process isn't happening. If a thing exists, it is automatically part of the causal mix.

We can think of causality as a timeless principle for practical purposes, but strictly speaking it isn't one. There is no added "principle" over and above the normal coming together of things to produce other things that we see all around us. Things interacting with other things to produce new things is all there is.

So Nature isn't a principle as such. It is the fullness of reality all around us. It is literally everything and yet nothing.

-

Neil Melnyk wrote:DQ: Because the causal process, through sheer blind chance, has made me very conscious and intelligent.

Evolution doesn't crawl or fly or growl or swim, but nonetheless it is responsible for the creation of creatures who can do these things. In the same way, the process of cause and effect is the creator of all things, while being none of these things itself.

Neil: Evolution is a process that acts on matter to reshape it. The analogy doesn't work at all.

Evolution isn't a process. It is an abstract principle which describes the way in which species change and turn into new species.

DQ: No, again, it's a case of using tautological truth to strip away delusions - in this instance, the deluded belief that Nature is conscious and has purpose.

Neil: How can you use a tautological truth to strip away delusions?! Tautological truth doesn't interact with reality, it is simply abstractly defined. At best it models reality, but never governs it.

Evolution is a tautological truth, an abstract principle, and yet you are happy to say that it is something which interacts with reality.

How can you use a tautological truth to strip away delusions?!

Because delusions are conceptual in nature and arise out of faulty thinking. Truth is the means by which these faults can be ironed out.

-

causality is an illusion seen from the human perspective

Neil,

The problem is not so simple as defining "intelligence" and "Nature". We can define these however we want. However we want our terms to be useful... otherwise they are just... useless tautological "absolute truths" with no meaning.

So you don't care if someone makes a true statement about the intelligence of Nature, unless Nature and intelligence have both been defined in such a way that this statement is useful? You aren't leaving much room for useless questions with obvious answers.

(An analogy: repeatedly asking if God exists, and redefining the terms each time, until the desired answer is reached, because only one answer is useful enough. In the end, no one has any idea what has just been proved.)

average wrote:causality is an illusion seen from the human perspective

Does that explain why your arguments are always so ineffectual? :)

David Quinn wrote:We can think of causality as a timeless principle for practical purposes, but strictly speaking it isn't one. There is no added "principle" over and above the normal coming together of things to produce other things that we see all around us. Things interacting with other things to produce new things is all there is.

So Nature isn't a principle as such. It is the fullness of reality all around us. It is literally everything and yet nothing.

-

Yet there does seem to be a director or manager. A parallel is seen in the deep mind, which can manage things from a human experiential perspective. The deep mind also sees itself as the things that it manages, meaning that it doesn't create itself as a distinction. This is much like nature: "Where is it?"

dan rowden your mom is ineffectual.

Killer rebuttal there. How Dan will recover from it, I can't imagine. Truly devastating. I bet Dan is re-evaluating his entire view of life as we speak.

It's a cause and effect running joke....

its running gag, running gag.

not running joke.

jesus

divine focus wrote:

David Quinn wrote:We can think of causality as a timeless principle for practical purposes, but strictly speaking it isn't one. There is no added "principle" over and above the normal coming together of things to produce other things that we see all around us. Things interacting with other things to produce new things is all there is.

So Nature isn't a principle as such. It is the fullness of reality all around us. It is literally everything and yet nothing.

-

Yet there does seem to be a director or manager. A parallel is seen in the deep mind, which can manage things from a human experiential perspective. The deep mind also sees itself as the things that it manages, meaning that it doesn't create itself as a distinction. This is much like nature: "Where is it?"

I'm not sure what you mean by "deep mind", but why do you think there is a cosmic director or manager?

The idea that Nature has to be "managed" rests on the belief that if left on its own Nature would instantly fall apart into random chaos. But there is no reason to think that.

Things only fall into chaos when the causal conditions are ripe, in the same way that things only behave orderly when the causal conditions are ripe. They don't have an inbuilt tendency to fall into chaos. It is causal all the way, whichever way it goes.

-

Things only fall into chaos when the causal conditions are ripe, in the same way that things only behave orderly when the causal conditions are ripe. They don't have an inbuilt tendency to fall into chaos. It is causal all the way, whichever way it goes.

I don't necessarily agree, but even this is a type of order over the apparent order/chaos dichotomy. I don't understand causality in this sense, though, since the top-level order would rely on chaos at the bottom-level. "The core of order can't be chaos," is what I'm trying to say. It's something that can't be perceived mentally, which is why it can appear as chaos.

Steven Coyle wrote:The sage follows Tao, and is one with the Universe.
S/he watches the ten thousand things, takes part in the ten thousand ages.
Beneath the ten thousand things is Tao.
My question: Is Tao a creative principle, underlying and uniting both humans and Nature (?)

The Tao Te Ching proclaims that any attempt at describing 'The Tao' is actually, a limitation of it. It (The Tao) includes creative principles as well as sustaining principles and destructive principles. What Western Man calls "God" the Taoist calls "nature" and does not assign any 'personal' attributes to the Tao.
The ancient alchemists proclaimed that "He or she who cooperates with nature is turned into gold". This is a metaphor ("turned into gold") for enlightenment and liberation.

Western Man has a major tendency to see and describe 'nature' in ways that reflect Western Man's relationship with 'the feminine'. In other words, nature is something that is to be conquered, subjugated and enslaved. Western Man's approach to nature is, for all intents and purposes, profane.

There are no handicapped ramps in nature.... nature is designed to strenghten us. To strenghten us both physically and spiritually. The way that nature accomplishes these tasks is by requiring us to adapt to Nature's fluctuations (See, The Emerald Tablet). In the process of 'adaptation' we are gradually stripped of ego and all of its ridiculous machinations and preferences. As such, 'Nature', to the extent that we cooperate, restores us to our original condition, which in the West can best be described as Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden before the fall or (In the East) the Buddha returning to the palace of sublime pleasures.

The word 'extasy' means "to be outside of one's self". To be free of ego is to experience 'extascy'. The liberation from ego/self is one of the goals of 'nature'. To experience this as 'truth' one must surrender to nature's processes. In much the same way that 'nature' has natural processes for expelling a splinter from our finger so to does nature have processes for extracting the ego from the spirit/consciousness. We can, of course, help the process along and we do so by cooperation. We abandon the destructive 'yang' and embrace the 'dynamic yin'. As such, our actions then have the full power of nature behind them.

The 'Way' (Tao) can only be known by those who surender.

divine focus wrote:

DQ: Things only fall into chaos when the causal conditions are ripe, in the same way that things only behave orderly when the causal conditions are ripe. They don't have an inbuilt tendency to fall into chaos. It is causal all the way, whichever way it goes.

I don't necessarily agree, but even this is a type of order over the apparent order/chaos dichotomy. I don't understand causality in this sense, though, since the top-level order would rely on chaos at the bottom-level. "The core of order can't be chaos," is what I'm trying to say. It's something that can't be perceived mentally, which is why it can appear as chaos.

We can't really speak of causality as being ordered or chaotic. Such terms don't apply. Things simply become chaotic or ordered when the causal circumstances are ripe, and that is the extent of it.

In other words, there is no bottom-line order to the Universe, just as there is no bottom-line chaos. These things are just temporary localized phenomena which appear and disappear within the Whole.

-

Some great information there John.

Thanks.

Steven Coyle wrote:Some great information there John. Thanks.

Thank you, Steven, for your kind words.
John

In other words, there is no bottom-line order to the Universe, just as there is no bottom-line chaos.

I say dualism is the "order" of the totality. The totality of this "order" is that A is not B OR B is not A. The order is this absolute differentiation. Differentiation is the fundamental base of "order". Degrees of sameness, structure and sequentiality stem from this base.

It is just that at the fundamental level only there is no flowing time, so one dualistic component does not follow another but occurs simultaneously, and is thus eternally existing. Everything after this simultaneous eternal occurence is not instant, as the forces continue to create their particular force WITHIN their simultaneous unity, creating a third entity called space, then an infinite range of subsequent layers by being increasingly constrained or bounded - and relative to - all that is already existing. Such boundedness creates order, as it progressively makes what was instant, less and less instantaneous. The first unity created, space, creates causal delay (without any space how could causal interaction not be instantaneous?). All things are simply space within space within space within space...

David Quinn wrote:

divine focus wrote:I don't necessarily agree, but even this is a type of order over the apparent order/chaos dichotomy. I don't understand causality in this sense, though, since the top-level order would rely on chaos at the bottom-level. "The core of order can't be chaos," is what I'm trying to say. It's something that can't be perceived mentally, which is why it can appear as chaos.

We can't really speak of causality as being ordered or chaotic. Such terms don't apply. Things simply become chaotic or ordered when the causal circumstances are ripe, and that is the extent of it.

But what makes those circumstances ripe and not others? It can't be random or arbitrary. If it just is and can't be known, what's the point?

divine focus wrote:

David Quinn wrote:

divine focus wrote:I don't necessarily agree, but even this is a type of order over the apparent order/chaos dichotomy. I don't understand causality in this sense, though, since the top-level order would rely on chaos at the bottom-level. "The core of order can't be chaos," is what I'm trying to say. It's something that can't be perceived mentally, which is why it can appear as chaos.

We can't really speak of causality as being ordered or chaotic. Such terms don't apply. Things simply become chaotic or ordered when the causal circumstances are ripe, and that is the extent of it.

But what makes those circumstances ripe and not others?

Circumstances become ripe when the circumstances are ripe!

In other words, the sorts of causal conditions which produce, say, a localized pocket of order are themselves the product of causal conditions (which, in turn, have been produced by causal conditions as well). And so on back forever.

It can't be random or arbitrary.

It isn't random or arbitrary. As I mentioned above, such terms don't apply to causality.

Things naturally appear or evolve out of what is already there in the Universe. If there is already some order present within a particular set of causal conditions, then it is more likely that further order will be produced in the future from these conditions. But then again, they might lead to chaos.

For example, our ordered civilization currently encourages the creation of more order in the future, but a massive asteroid could easily come along and wipe out civilization in an instant.

If it just is and can't be known, what's the point?

Jettisoning the deluded idea that the Universe is conscious and purposeful doesn't hamper our ability to comprehend what is. Understanding the nature of cause and effect is a truly wonderful thing, and using this understanding to enter into the emptiness of all things is even better!

-

David Quinn wrote:It is indeed the creative principle of all things, but it is infinitely dumb.

-

It is all rather simple.I don't see why man has strived so hard throughout history in attempt to demonstrate 'intelligence'.It creates many more questions than it solves.

If ever there was an application of Occams Razor,then it is on this subject.

John,
Your piece on the Tao above is beautiful and true.
One finds "surrender" of self/ego through being still. Eventually the mind-chatter subsides and one realizes the universal witness, consciousness itself, that which/who IS AWARE... transcending what we are aware of, including all concepts, which all orbit around the illusory concept, "me."

Thanks.
mikiel

mikiel wrote:One finds "surrender" of self/ego through being still. Eventually the mind-chatter subsides and one realizes the universal witness, consciousness itself, that which/who IS AWARE... transcending what we are aware of, including all concepts, which all orbit around the illusory concept, "me."

Thanks.
mikiel

Well said, Mikiel... most excellent.

David Quinn wrote:Circumstances become ripe when the circumstances are ripe!

In other words, the sorts of causal conditions which produce, say, a localized pocket of order are themselves the product of causal conditions (which, in turn, have been produced by causal conditions as well). And so on back forever.

Meaning: it's arbitrary! It may be true in a sense, but something's missing.

If it helps you and others to become "empty" as I think you mean it, then there's value there. But here's how I see causality: There's only one cause, and many effects. The effects begin with the cause, and they "end" with the same cause. The cause produces new effects that all exist simultaneously. What we're doing when we're seeking "Truth" is trying to bring the cause into the effect. We're trying to change the effect, which is our experience, from within the effect. Doing so, individually and collectively, changes all effects everywhere. All effects will have the ability, the blueprint so to speak, to do the same. The cause can "grow" to encompass what it wasn't aware that it was.