GENIUS FORUMS

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 (?)

It is indeed the creative principle of all things, but it is infinitely dumb.

-

The Tao is "infinitely dumb?" What does that mean?

Good answer.

Wisdom grows in its absence of form.

Philosophaster wrote:The Tao is "infinitely dumb?" What does that mean?

Good question. Is the dumbest human smarter than the Tao?

Well, certainly the universe is intelligent in the sense that it has a certain number of eyes, ears, and brains - namely ours, and those of whatever other conscious beings may exist. Beyond that, the question revolves largely around how we choose to define "intelligence." I am fairly sympathetic to some forms of panpsychism which suggest that the universe as a whole is infused with information, and that this implies a basic universal "awareness" of some sort - although surely one distinctly different from that of humans and without and of the complex survival-oriented bells and whistles a brain provides. I do not find much basis for the fanciful view that the Universe is "intelligent" in any sense that would closely or even remotely mimic human intelligence.

Philosophaster wrote:The Tao is "infinitely dumb?" What does that mean?

Cause and effect is blind and has no purpose.

-

The universe is at least as intelligent as you or I. We are both part of it.

The distinction between nature and humans is arbitrary. You are as much nature as nature is you.

We are mere parts of Nature. We aren't equivalent to Nature itself.

Even though Nature is infinitely dumb, it can occasionally generate, through sheer chance, little pockets of consciousness and intelligence, as in the case of ourselves. We could say that it is Nature becoming conscious and intelligent through these little pockets, but in an overall sense Nature still remains infinitely dumb. It is so dumb that it doesn't even care whether it is conscious or not.

-

David Quinn wrote:

Philosophaster wrote:The Tao is "infinitely dumb?" What does that mean?

Cause and effect is blind and has no purpose.

How do you know this if you are part of the infinitely dumb, blind and aimless chain of cause and effect? ... the return to metaphysics.

Neil Melnyk wrote:

David Quinn wrote:

Philosophaster wrote:The Tao is "infinitely dumb?" What does that mean?

Cause and effect is blind and has no purpose.

How do you know this if you are part of the infinitely dumb, blind and aimless chain of cause and effect?

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.

... the return to metaphysics.

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.

-

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

David Quinn wrote: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.

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

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.

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.

The Tao is not only a creative principle, it is Reality itself. To fully understand the Taoist metaphysics, one must contemplate upon the Tai Chi Tu; that symbol within which is embodied the very nature of the Tao. By ‘nature’, I mean the two self-inhering elements which constitute the one Absolute Entity or Being, and the one inviolable unifying principle which binds the two together. The sine curve separating the two hemispheres signifies the non-regressive cycling that occurs between the two elements, and the complementary coloured dots in each of the hemisphere signifies its interdependence on the other elements. The one (The Tao) becomes two (the yin (space) and the yang (time)), the two become three (matter, energy and motion), and the three become the ten thousand things (all relative entities). Now, the two elements (space and time) do not appose one another as is generally believed, but are complements, for that they complete one another in the unity that is The Toa (Reality), and have no existence independent of one another.

Neil wrote:Evolution is a process that acts on matter to reshape it.

With that being said, I'm not left feeling at all confident that you understand natural selection.

When sudden extreme climate conditions weed out certain members of a species and favor others due to their unique qualities - that's evolution. In other words, like David said, there is no 'thing' with arms and legs called evolution acting on matter. Matter acts on matter. Causes produce effects.

When sudden extreme climate conditions weed out certain members of a species and favor others due to their unique qualities - that's evolution.

To be pedantic, that is Natural Selection, which is a part of evolutionary theory - thats the part of evolution one could say is causes progressive complexity of some species.

Evolution is through gradual changes to form bought about by the environment (whether that environment is significantly changing or not, actually), and if one is realistic, by the creature itself over time (Lamarckian evolution) - there are always two opposing causes, and both change relative to each other.

David Quinn wrote:We are mere parts of Nature. We aren't equivalent to Nature itself.

Even though Nature is infinitely dumb, it can occasionally generate, through sheer chance, little pockets of consciousness and intelligence, as in the case of ourselves. We could say that it is Nature becoming conscious and intelligent through these little pockets, but in an overall sense Nature still remains infinitely dumb. It is so dumb that it doesn't even care whether it is conscious or not.

-

This is an unobjective view of nature. If nature is infinite, and it is infinitely dumb, what hope do we have? How can we be smarter or wiser than nature if we're "parts" of it's infinite dimness? What's the point of this forum?

Okay, the prime denizens of this messageboard are Nature-is-dumbists. Fine, but that doesn't prove Nature is dumb. Only that the denizens here are Nature-is-dumbists. That is where their logic leads them, and it mainly proves the limitation of logic, where logic comes to the wall.

I'm not a Nature-is-dumbist.

How can we be smarter or wiser than nature if we're "parts" of it's infinite dimness

Davids right about this. Nature, as a whole, has no use for concepts - you are just applying human purpose driven concepts where they don't apply. You are applying a top down perspective (creation as a complete thing by some ultimate entity), when things are created from a bottom up perspective (creation from simplicity via relativity of such simplicity).

I'm not a Nature-is-dumbist.

What that actually means is that you deep down you don't really believe in evolution.

Jamesh wrote:Davids right about this. Nature, as a whole, has no use for concepts - you are just applying human purpose driven concepts where they don't apply. You are applying a top down perspective (creation as a complete thing by some ultimate entity), when things are created from a bottom up perspective (creation from simplicity via relativity of such simplicity).

I'm applying knowledge gained from observation of experience. If rational thought doesn't apply, why does anything else in experience apply? In terms of creation of self, the bottom-up perspective is a very powerless and enslaved point of view. It's based on separation, individual things doing their own thing, coming together by chance (i.e., magically) to produce a separate entity that is you who can then realize he is in the midst of chaos. Deep logic tells you there is no magic.

What that actually means is that you deep down you don't really believe in evolution.

...as it's described in "The Theory."

Jamesh wrote:Davids right about this. Nature, as a whole, has no use for concepts - you are just applying human purpose driven concepts where they don't apply. You are applying a top down perspective (creation as a complete thing by some ultimate entity), when things are created from a bottom up perspective (creation from simplicity via relativity of such simplicity).

Lol David's whole philosophy is about applying human purpose driven concepts where they don't apply... (aka metaphysics, trying to harness "everything" or "absolutes").

What that actually means is that you deep down you don't really believe in evolution.

Wrong.

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.

David Quinn wrote:

Philosophaster wrote:The Tao is "infinitely dumb?" What does that mean?

Cause and effect is blind and has no purpose.

-

That depends on how one looks at it. I could very well see ‘nature’ striving to be via its creativity seen through a thing-to-thing interactivity, which makes ‘nature’ simply a descriptive word that points to our experiences of observing such… appearances - process.

A creative principle itself could be no dumber than it could be intelligent, after all, the principle is ingrained in things, without which there is no “nature” to speak of, so how dumb or intelligent can one consider a mere process? Especially if being as dumb as it is said to be, it created us; I wonder if that was a dumb act?

If any thing, nature could neither be dumb nor intelligent for it is merely a process sensed by a thing-to-thing sensual interactivity itself. Only things like us can place in on a pedestal or in a pot, through our filters of sentience. That some hidden or underlying “force” is driving things is a result of our observation of… appearances; a miscalculated and a deluded thought at that, which leads our ego by the nose in search of some… Ultimate "Reality"… beyond what “Ultimately” (already) IS.

I see the “blindness” of causality as neither dumb nor intelligent; unless I’m blind. As for purpose, that does not thereby apply to begin with.