Home | Community | Message Board |
You are not signed in. Sign In New Account | Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery » |
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.
|
Shop: Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order |
| |||||||
redgreenvines irregular verb Registered: 04/08/04 Posts: 38,066 |
| ||||||
The evidence of life beginning ~4 billion years ago ("The earliest evidence for life on Earth is graphite found to be biogenic in 3.7 billion-year-old metasedimentary rocks discovered in Western Greenland" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ar
Your thought experiment could be, "If we can consciously discover evidence of reality that pre-dates conscious life, then does that prove that consciousness creates reality (after the fact - by discovering historical evidence)". but that's kind of unclever. Evidence is not equal to consciousness.
| |||||||
laughingdog Stranger Registered: 03/14/04 Posts: 4,829 |
| ||||||
...Order & disorder are human concepts or abstractions, not some sort of 'objective' reality.
...An interesting example of their interdependence is an encrypted message: on one level disorder, and on another level order, at the same time. ...Then there is so called "Junk" DNA which hasn't really been totally decrypted, and neither have DNA and genes been totally decrypted. Only recently some genes were found to be switches and not protein recipes. So we actually often can't tell order & disorder apart. Or even understand order. ...In fact ambiguities and paradoxes of all sorts, don't fit into this supposed dichotomy: Pareidolia for example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pa and optical illusions and these are just visual example some verbal ones are called: 'double binds' ...Seems like math, physics, and philosophy often over simplify and distort our experiences, contrary to the notion that they are always closer to "the truth". ...However within math, the decimal places of Pi are both infinite and apparently random. However if everything were random or disordered there would be no oder to contrast it with, and if every thing were ordered there would be no disorder to contrast it with. The no contrast situation (in visual terms) is a gray fog, nothing at all can be distinguished. No dualities. In Chinese terms this is 'Wuji' and the dual states are: Yin and Yang. Thousand of years ago this was already understood. https://www.learnreligions.com/w and https://duckduckgo.com/?q=Wu+chi
| |||||||
sudly Quasar Praiser Registered: 01/05/15 Posts: 11,253 |
| ||||||
Quote: 1. The theory is about meaningful coincidences and it was first introduced by Carl Jung. 2. You haven't defined conscious. To me that means aware of environment like a flower is to the Sun. 3. A) I reject the notion of there being a need to assert an objective reality. B) Your freedom is expansive yet not limitless.
| |||||||
Loaded Shaman Psychophysiologist Registered: 03/02/15 Posts: 8,006 Loc: Now O'Clock Last seen: 30 days, 9 hours |
| ||||||
1. Dictionary.com definition of "Coincidence": a remarkable concurrence of events or circumstances without apparent causal connection.
Consciousness is awareness, regardless of complexity. Objective reality gets murky because metaphysics, which is what the majority of this is about. Jung was close to the right idea but he, like many, had a contradiction regarding the nature of causality in his philosophy. This is a very complex topic because synchronicty starts to involve chance and probability, which are tied to causality, which is determinism, which is my #1 gripe with everything here: premature arguments rationalizing the premise as the conclusion, because there is no rational connection. The "chance", or "probability" of that happening is impossible!" * 2. My Preface: My position is that events, things, objects, etc. IS/ARE. That's it. When you try to describe their interactions using abstracts you start missing the forest for the trees and treating things like math as real when they are in fact nothing more than abstract descriptions, that's it. This is what's known as the Fallacy of Reification, and it truly can't be overstated; treating mental/psychological abstracts such as numbers, distance, and yes even time as having actual causal influence on the unfolding of reality. These are abstracts, not actuals. It's like building a website composed of dead 404 hyperlinks; they go nowhere because they are connected to nothing. To build a broken website would be foolish; yet, this is exactly how the prevailing modern cosmological philosophies on the "laws of nature" operate. This then creates a daisy-chain of clusterfucks that are easier to cut loose than to untie. Synchronicity/chance/probability Notice how even the dictionary has to use the word CAUSAL; that's literally the most important part of my argument for pretty much anything in this entire forum, as I just mentioned above. Coincidence starts to dissolve into the same arguments as chance and probability; I.E. those things are concepts with no grounding in ontological reality. They are all in you/my/our/humans head. They are descriptive, NOT determinative as "causality" implies. Causality is a false and contradictory philosophical premise, which is what I will always be arguing against with all of this shit, and here's exactly why for anyone willing to read all of this: * 3. Meat & Potatoes: Coincidence, examined rationally, is a non-existent agency; a concept, not an actuality in nature, and therefore does not describe how the material reality which is man’s universe actually manifest as “events” or “outcomes”. It's a figment–a concept of man’s mind; a way he organizes his surroundings in order to subdue them in service to his own affirmation, promotion, propagation, and comfort (for individual man is the only rational Standard of Truth,and thus himself is that which must be affirmed by his own concepts). So it's useful, perhaps on an emotional level, in abstractly organizing our lives with respect to choices made on behalf of certain desired outcomes, but it cannot be rationally credited with having any real power–that is, causal power–over any event or series of events. First, it's important to understand that the notion of chance/probability/coincidence can only be developed by observing what has already happened. That is, we cannot come up with ratios or probabilities or any quantifiable units of “chance” or “probability” without having engaged in some study of how objects interact prior to the notion of the “chances” of those interactions occurring or not occurring at some future time, or in what particular manner. And thus, I must admit I find it ironic that the notion of chance/probability/coincidence is developed by observing events in real time, whereby the events–ALL needing to have already happened prior to the “Law of Probability” being created and employed–have in reality absolutely nothing to do with chance/probability/coincidence at all. Chance/probability/coincidence then (and its formal development into a mathematical formula) is entirely irrespective of itself. Yes, I find this irony infinitely amusing. In other words, you can only develop the Law of Probability from what you absolutely know is true, empirically so–from that which renders chance/synchronicity itself utterly irrelevant. The Law of Probability itself therefore has zero to do with probability. And somehow, this seems fatally disconnected, logically speaking. Imagine a law of gravity which has nothing to do with gravity. Or a law of thermodynamics which doesn’t recognize the concept of temperature. Or Einstein’s famous equation, E=MC2, which doesn’t acknowledge energy, or mass, or the speed of light. Puzzling, to say the least. What HAS occurred is mutually exclusive of what MIGHT occur. But that doesn’t stop people from lauding and frantically employing probability as a means of ensuring the advantage. Because once you inject the magic of the great “Sovereign”, Mathematics, somehow that which is purely conceptual, ethereal, and illusory becomes real and empirically causal. By the power of that great scientific deity, the Equation, pure conceptual abstractions are popped into existence from literally nothing at all. And they call people who believe in God mystics. Now, I realize that many of us will think this obvious and simple logic. But when we consider how often our realities are expressed in, and our choices and beliefs guided by, ratios, the “cause and effect” paradigm, actuarial tables, various mathematical renderings of probabilities, gambits and gambles, we can see just how an innocent concept such as “coincidence”, meant to perhaps describe, not govern, is assumed and defined almost subconsciously as having some kind of control; of BEING some kind of existent force of nature; that chance is somehow a legitimate means of knowing or having some kind of real control over the outcome of an event, process, or idea. The ironically titled Law of Probability is often employed as a means of ensuring success in a wide range of endeavors (which is also ironical), from business, to politics, to sports, economics, and financial investments. And this is not necessarily an illegitimate use of the “chance/probability/coincidence” At any rate, in the interest of stripping “chance/probability/coincidence” * If an event occurs, then it, in a manner of speaking, has a 100% chance of occurring. Though, this is really an impossible contradiction in terms—obviously 100% “chance” equals the actual manifestation of the event in reality, at which point chance is moot. This of course renders chance as it pertains to the event entirely irrelevant. Similarly, if an event does not occur, then it, in a manner of speaking, has 0% chance of occurring. But this too is a contradiction in terms. An event which does not occur does not actually exist—that is, an event which does NOT occur–that is, is NOT–is a contradiction in terms. There is no such thing as an absence of a thing. And thus the event is not an event; it's nothing…and so yes, NOTHING, by definition, has ZERO chance of occurring. There is no chance that something which does not exist will ever exist. For existence and non-existence—a thing and the absence of a thing—are mutually exclusive; categorically and infinitely incompatible. Which make chance/probability/coincidence in this case—the 0% chance of an event occurring—not simply irrelevant, but the very concept of chance itself is again moot—is mathematically zero—is absent—is a purely placeholder–when we attempt to apply it to things that are observed to NOT be (again, a contradiction in terms I know—you cannot observe that which is absent—but you understand what I mean). Chance is BLANK. And so, if an event occurs, then chance/probability/coincidence is beside the point. And if the event does not occur then chance/probability/coincidence is similarly rendered beside the point. The very concept then of the Law of Probability has irrelevance and impotence as its singularity, for as soon as an event is observed to be, or it becomes apparent that the event will not be–that is, is NOT–the Law ceases to have any relevancy. Which means that it cannot be said to have ever had any in the first place. The event and the Law of Probability regarding its occurrence are utterly mutually exclusive things. The Law has no actual power; and I might argue that it cannot really be rationally shown, and certainly not proven, to even have any theoretical power, because chance/probability/coincidence and probability and the conceptual constructs which represent them, do not internally acknowledge the existence of chance/probability/coincidence in the first place. My point is that chance/probability/coincidence and real events are mutually exclusive. Events either are—100%–or they are not—0%. And this, again, is utterly exclusive of chance/probability/coincidence&n A 50% chance of happening does not magically become a 100% chance of happening once the event is seen to occur. And a 50% chance of not happening does not magically become a 100% chance of not happening once the event is NOT seen to occur. Once an event does or does not occur, chance becomes entirely irrelevant. It becomes functionally nothing. Chance/probability/coincidence and events have nothing really to do with one another, and so all laws of probability are fundamentally flawed, I would argue. Chance/probability/coincidence has no causal, actual, nor, I submit, even theoretical power. It's an abstraction without a home. Perhaps not entirely useless, but entirely irrelevant, as it can never actually be shown to possess any efficacy, because its development has nothing whatsoever to do with with what it pretends to “effect”, so to speak. Another example which may or may not prove helpful. Suppose a gunsmith designs a rifle which only works 90% of the time. Would we say that the rifle “works”…that is, as its general description? As its foundational essence? A working rifle? No, we wouldn't It's a broken rifle. (For it's a contradiction in terms to declare that a rifle is designed not to work, the gunsmith can qualify it as “working”. If you design something not to work, it’s still not working, even if you intended it to function that way. Further, if it was intentionally designed NOT to do what a rifle is legitimately supposed to do–shoot–then one could rightly call the designer, and thus the design, fundamentally flawed at the level of the very roots of reason.) The fact that it shoots properly 90% of the time does not change the fact that its essence is one of rank dysfunction. For the 10% of the time it does not work, in those instances, it 100% does not work, and thus, negates the idea that it can be labeled, ever, a working rifle…for 90% does not constitute a whole; that is 90% working is NOT working, by definition; and because the 100% dysfunction of the gun when not working must be applied to its essential description. “A working gun” is an absolute concept; it cannot be parsed. If when it does not work it does not work at ALL, then it's not a working gun, no matter that 90% of the time it does work. Because the 100% not working (in the instances it fails) MUST be considered when describing the general nature of the gun. That is, again, it’s a gun which does not actually work. It does not actually do what the person in this example wants it to do, which is work, period. The outcomes of its usage consistently fail, even if only 10%. It consistently fails–and thus failure is a part of its endemic nature–because, again, when it fails, it utterly (that is, 100%) fails. What I am getting at is the inability of one to call “working” a rifle which is designed only to work 90% of the time. “Working” and “not working” are mutually exclusive concepts, and so when describing the overall nature of the rifle we must consider this fact, plus the fact that people who shoot rifles want the ones they buy to WORK. The very idea of a rifle purposely designed to NOT work is irrational on its face. But at any rate, one cannot consider a rifle “working” when 10% of the time it does not work; and further I’m attempting to highlight the irrationality of one seeking out and consistently employing such a gun when the goal is efficacious outcomes commensurate with a working rifle. The Law of Probability is like a rifle that is designed to only work part of the time. That is, to NOT actually work–that is, not a “working” theory–because by its appeal to chance and probability, as opposed to certainty and inevitability, it's NOT going to be effective in gauging the outcome of an event by design, perhaps as much or even more so than it WILL be effective. It's a formula that is specifically designed to NOT do what the user actually wants it to do (guide them to the outcomes and objectives they desire) perhaps up to 99% of the time. It's not a LAW, its a Law of “Chance”, which means the very nature of it as a “law” is on its face an utter contradiction. And so I ask, is there really any means by which we can argue that chance and probability are ever the most rational way to organize our lives, let alone are actual and causal? You can’t call a theory a working theory if a certain percentage of the time it consistently (100%) does not work as an endemic function of its purposed nature. Is it any wonder why so many people are made destitute by gambling addiction and why so many people prefer to cheat in order to beat whatever “system” with which they happen to be engaged? Now, as far as application of the ideas in this essay go, it's important for both atheists and Christians, for instance, scientists and philosophers, mystics and empiricists and rationalists, to remember and understand that material reality IS. Those things that ARE simply ARE. There are no laws which govern their interaction; for how they interact is always rooted in the infinity of their existential IS, which is without beginning or end. And in this case, actual things, which are the roots of these interactions–these events which we hold up to various determinative laws, are not a function of any actual outside theoretical construct, like probability. Therefore, any idea, philosophy, principle, doctrine, creed, model, mechanism, or statement of faith, etc. should provide NO appeal to such a notion. Chance should have no place in legitimate science, philosophy, politics, economics, religion, or even one’s own ambitions, only reason. The infusion of chance into causal explanations of the universe or anything in it, including and especially man and his actions, automatically disqualifies these explanations from any sort of rational consistency…or consistency at all, for that matter.
| |||||||
sudly Quasar Praiser Registered: 01/05/15 Posts: 11,253 |
| ||||||
Tldr
| |||||||
redgreenvines irregular verb Registered: 04/08/04 Posts: 38,066 |
| ||||||
ditto, sorry, was going somewhere then it seemed to attempt to bundle additional topics into what is now porridge and cottage cheese stirred and heavy.
| |||||||
sudly Quasar Praiser Registered: 01/05/15 Posts: 11,253 |
| ||||||
What perspective is the framing from?
| |||||||
laughingdog Stranger Registered: 03/14/04 Posts: 4,829 |
| ||||||
Quote: Perhaps, the non-verbal, & unintended message, is over indulgence in something... But who nose? It may just be porridge and cottage cheese?
| |||||||
|
Shop: Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order |
|
Similar Threads | Poster | Views | Replies | Last post | ||
Entropy, (dis)Order, and Abstraction ( 1 2 all ) |
trendal | 3,393 | 23 | 09/09/16 11:56 PM by BrendanFlock | ||
The ability to conceptualize ( 1 2 all ) |
TrueBrode | 4,053 | 27 | 01/18/04 01:05 PM by jpod | ||
The concept of randomness | Rhizoid | 2,005 | 14 | 07/11/03 07:01 PM by Strumpling | ||
Entropy, the Universe, and the Big Bang ( 1 2 all ) |
OneWhoHasSeen | 2,903 | 31 | 12/16/05 05:29 AM by Seuss | ||
A proposed end to our concept of "family" | Amnesiac | 895 | 7 | 05/28/03 06:53 PM by Amnesiac | ||
Another reason why the concept of the devil is bullshit ( 1 2 all ) |
Learyfan | 3,504 | 34 | 06/09/03 11:19 PM by Adamist | ||
Concept of soul mates ( 1 2 all ) |
cleaner | 3,415 | 28 | 09/02/03 06:33 AM by TrippeeChik | ||
concepts ( 1 2 all ) |
pattern | 2,176 | 20 | 10/14/02 11:01 AM by vaporbrains |
Extra information | ||
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum 619 topic views. 0 members, 10 guests and 24 web crawlers are browsing this forum. [ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ] | ||