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

Magic-Mushrooms-Shop.com
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.

General Interest > Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   MagicBag.co Certified Organic All-In-One Grow Bags, Contam-Resistant All-In-One Grow Bags   North Spore Bulk Substrate

Jump to first unread post Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 |  [ show all ]
Philosophies compared
    #29655396 -

Does anything strike you when considering this list? For me, there are more similarities than differences. There are differences however. They can be partly resolved through consideration of semantics, but once that's done some differences remain.

Cynicism: Autarkeia - The ability to draw satisfaction and direction from your own reasoning rather than from wealth, praise, or the approval of others.

Taoism: Wu Wei - Abandoning artificial striving, rigid morality, and ego-driven desires to live in spontaneous harmony with the underlying order of reality (the Tao)

Stoicism: Eudaimonia through Aretē - Flourishing achieved through moral virtue and living in accordance with nature.

Epicureanism: Ataraxia - Cultivating modest pleasures (Hedone), minimizing unnecessary desires, and eliminating the fear of death and the gods through empirical understanding of the physical world.

Buddhism: Nirvana - Attained by practicing the Noble Eightfold Path to eliminate craving and ignorance by directly seeing the impermanent, empty, and non-self nature of all phenomena.

Existentialism: Authenticity - Navigating the inherent absurdity and lack of objective meaning in the universe by making deliberate, radical choices to define your own values and purpose.

Absurdism: Defiance - Fully accepting the irreconcilable clash between the human desire for purpose and the cold indifference of the universe—refusing to escape through religion ("philosophical suicide") or despair.

Utilitarianism: Utility (Maximizing well-being for the gretest number of people. - Evaluating actions strictly by their consequences, aiming to systematically reduce suffering and increase collective flourish across society.

Pragmatism: Practical Efficacy - Abandoning abstract, metaphysical absolute truths in favor of continuous experimentation, adapting beliefs based on what effectively solves concrete human problems.

Charvaka: Kama - Rejecting the supernatural, karma, and the afterlife entirely, focusing instead on maximizing physical well-being and empirical joy in the immediate, physical world.

Objectivism: Rational Self-Interest - Exercising objective reason as your sole guide to reality, rejecting altruism and mysticism, and living by the principle that man is an end in himself, not a means to the ends of others.

---

Looking at these eleven systems side by side, a few common threads emerge, even though they point toward quite different conclusions about what to actually do.

1. Freedom from external control over the self
Most of these systems locate the "good life" in something internal rather than something granted or imposed from outside. Cynicism's autarkeia, Stoicism's aretē, Existentialism's authenticity, and Objectivism's rational self-interest all insist that satisfaction, virtue, or meaning must be self-generated — not dependent on other people's opinions, external rewards, or inherited authority.

2. Diagnosing a false or distorted view of reality as the root problem
Many treat suffering or dissatisfaction as stemming from misperception rather than circumstance. Buddhism (ignorance and non-self), Epicureanism (fear from misunderstanding nature), Taoism (artificial striving against the Tao), and Charvaka (rejecting supernatural belief) all frame the "cure" as correcting a mistaken picture of the world, after which peace follows more or less automatically.

3. Reducing or reshaping desire rather than satisfying it
Buddhism's elimination of craving, Epicureanism's minimizing of unnecessary desires, Taoism's abandonment of ego-driven wanting, and Stoicism's alignment with nature all treat unchecked desire — not lack of resources — as the core obstacle to flourishing. This is a strikingly consistent move across otherwise unrelated traditions.

4. Acceptance of forces beyond one's control
Stoicism, Taoism, Absurdism, and Buddhism each ask for a kind of surrender — to nature, to the Tao, to the universe's indifference, to impermanence — rather than resistance to it. Even Absurdism's "defiance" is really a refusal to deny an unwelcome truth, which is its own form of acceptance.

5. Anti-dogmatism / rejection of absolutes
Pragmatism, Existentialism, Absurdism, and Charvaka explicitly reject fixed metaphysical truths, inherited moral codes, or supernatural guarantees, favoring instead what can be tested, chosen, or directly experienced.

6. A practical, action-oriented payoff
Nearly all of them are less interested in belief for its own sake than in how to live — Pragmatism's problem-solving, Utilitarianism's consequences, the Eightfold Path's practice, Objectivism's guiding principle — suggesting these are less "theories of the universe" and more operating manuals for conduct.

Where they diverge most sharply
It's worth noting the fault lines too: Utilitarianism is collective and consequentialist while Cynicism, Objectivism, and Existentialism are radically individualist; Buddhism and Taoism dissolve or de-emphasize the self while Objectivism and Existentialism make an assertive self the whole point; and Epicureanism/Charvaka embrace pleasure while Stoicism and Cynicism are comparatively ascetic. So the similarity is less "they agree" and more "they're all responding to the same handful of questions" — the role of desire, the trustworthiness of appearances, and the source of authority over one's own life.


--------------------
rahz

comfort pleasure power love     truth awareness peace I am      I feel      I do     I love  I speak    I see    I know

why there is reality and patterned, law-like consistency at all, rather than noise or non-reality is not a question physics answers. It's a question physics presupposes an answer to in order to provide other answers.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Philosophies compared [Re: Rahz] * 1
    #29655410 -

I think that you listed Cynicism first and explained it as "The ability to draw satisfaction and direction from your own reasoning..." hit a chord with me quite strongly.

I was visiting my youngest grandson (20 months old) in his back yard yesterday and I watched him move fist sized rocks from a pail into the back of a plastic dump truck, and when finished he moved them back into the pail.

During this activity which he began after making me follow him to this spot, he wanted nothing to do with me, neither to help retrieve an errant rock, nor to collaborate with the rock transfer process - after about 6 complete transfers (amazingly the pail had the same net volume as the dump truck) we were called in to dinner but he was so engaged in the activity, of individually moving rocks one by one with his tiny hands from one vessel to the other, and when done, going the other way, that he did not care to stop to go eat. After 3 more complete cycles we picked him up and dealt with the complaints - I took him straight to the washroom and we washed hands together which was a good change of topic. (earlier he was playing with water - seems to love water and rocks!)


This kid is speaking words but not all of them are well formed, yet he can express himself and comprehend what he is told, and there is something symbolic in his pleasure and independent free absorption in the task he set himself moving ~25 individual rocks from one vessel to the other, and then going the other way.

He had satisfaction in this abstract yet concrete task of his own devising apart from the meddling of others. I was too fascinated in how he was using it to refine his manual motor skills to get my camera so I could record it.

in this anecdote I am trying to underscore the primacy of what you are calling cynicism, and to cast it as a developmentally parallel intellectual value.


--------------------
:brainfart: _ :finger:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Philosophies compared [Re: redgreenvines] * 1
    #29655455 -

Interesting thanks.

I think all formal philosophies are derived from "notions" that people tend to have. They may not generally get formalized but they often are strong enough that they become integrated in a personal philosophy.

Not created but discovered and potentially formalized.


--------------------
rahz

comfort pleasure power love     truth awareness peace I am      I feel      I do     I love  I speak    I see    I know

why there is reality and patterned, law-like consistency at all, rather than noise or non-reality is not a question physics answers. It's a question physics presupposes an answer to in order to provide other answers.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Philosophies compared [Re: Rahz]
    #29655587 -

the cynicism description hit me too.

it reminds me of the confidence that appears when I'm not split within myself but integrated

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Philosophies compared [Re: Freedom]
    #29655705 -

that's funny, split within yourself, I feel that way most of the time, but it is groovier when they let go, and allow some flow to happen. each can be how they like but not for more time than natural.

I have been chastising myself for not writing my book and at the same time considering that I have already written it but not yet brought it together. instead I am trying to understand the tying of knots, gardening tricks, zip ties, and cheese cake recipes.

Am I wasting my time or is that what the book is really about.


--------------------
:brainfart: _ :finger:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Philosophies compared [Re: redgreenvines]
    #29655856 -

Thoughts come from curiosity..

The drive to move forward..

The curious mind is made up of every matter in existence..

Why? Because we can sense it!

So we ask why do we have curiosity and why do we have drive?


--------------------
Thank you for your Time...

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Philosophies compared [Re: Rahz]
    #29655918 -

What i felt first was that cynicism doesnt seem initially compatible with Autarkeia.

If cynicism is a sort of distrust of other people's intent. Im not sure how that relates to a sort of satisfaction from personal reasoning over an appeal to peer approval.

I dont see the correlation.


--------------------
I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Philosophies compared [Re: sudly] * 1
    #29655944 -

The modern usage of cynicism is mistrust, but Classical Cynicism is/was a whole philosophical system. It doesn't have fully established metaphysics but complete in all other aspects.

The correlation from antiquity is that human nature was easily corrupted by artificial social conventions (wealth, status) which is where the modern usage stems from. There's an optimistic aspect of Cynicism that has been lost.

There's a notable difference as well between classical understanding of autarky (personal domain) and modern usage of autarky (economic domain).


--------------------
rahz

comfort pleasure power love     truth awareness peace I am      I feel      I do     I love  I speak    I see    I know

why there is reality and patterned, law-like consistency at all, rather than noise or non-reality is not a question physics answers. It's a question physics presupposes an answer to in order to provide other answers.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Philosophies compared [Re: Rahz] * 1
    #29656532 -

It seems fairly superficial in explanation, because the summations are basically what to think about(), or how to look at(), in a way to detach. It's all pointed at thinking rather than the actual doing, and the doing is explained in other practices such as neidan or kundalini yoga for instance, but the anatta stuff is the basis for moving and expanding the awareness that was once fixated on the idea of self, attachments, and in the eyes peering outwardly.

There are minute differences, and they don't explicitly leave an end goal, because the foundation that it provides is truly without form.

You describe the Yin forms, such as the Great Void, which are very useful and in some practices, it is the final dissolution of the drop becoming the ocean. There is no doing for there is no doer.

I personally see them as utility in balance for Yang practices, which require a doing without a doer, a Great Paradox! Maybe in the end, dissolution into the eternal void is unavoidable, but if it happens regardless of what you think about it or how you think about it then what's the point in any of it?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Philosophies compared [Re: teknix]
    #29656538 -

"What's the point" invokes a doer who needs a point, but your reply is overall a fair critique. While I did include the 8 fold path, I was reasonably being overly concise in the descriptions. These philosophies do include an action plan for the most part. They just weren't as pronounced as the goals in the OP. To be fair, I did mention that the means were more diverse than the ends.

But you're right that the doing and the diversity are the juicier bits. When looking at them, meditation/formal debate, individualism/collectivism, practice/spontaneity, etc. I don't primarily see as stark choices but perhaps cultural restrictions that would benefit from further integration. Formal debate is a kind of meditation? Nature often resists the extremes of individualism and collectivism? Spontaneity isn't a prescription for a total lack of discipline? Questions rather than flat statements, but philosophies generally lean in particular directions rather than fully collapse into them.

But as systems, there is often tension that resists such efforts as being too inclusive risks melting central conditions. Perhaps a good example is self/no self. I've mentioned before that I think Buddhism is the most exact in this respect, but I also think there is value in the idea of self which can be usefully "entertained" without strict belief. This can be accounted for with the "two truths doctrine" which holds that both are true but on different levels rather than winner/loser, right/wrong.


--------------------
rahz

comfort pleasure power love     truth awareness peace I am      I feel      I do     I love  I speak    I see    I know

why there is reality and patterned, law-like consistency at all, rather than noise or non-reality is not a question physics answers. It's a question physics presupposes an answer to in order to provide other answers.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Philosophies compared [Re: Rahz] * 2
    #29656555 -

the "self - no self" angle in Buddhism for me is a view with a specific temporal granularity, i.e.
(*) a momentary "no-self" is accurate in terms that compare observe mental content  moment to moment while
(*) the time sequenced "persistent self-like" overall feelings of being present in more social temporal contexts, such as is observed in language and collaboration.

so two truths are embedded in scale of a dimension (time) as well as in perspective, how and when observed.

but also in cases when we are entertained, or entranced, it is easy to hold both truths simultaneously, i.e. in such joyously drunken moments when one truth's beauty has not yet faded, and the next truth is being enjoyed.

[edited - one correction and one addition, but also to mention that the concise overview nature of this thread in a useful binding together of many thought threads]

-Gosia Wlodarczak’s Found in Translation: The Drunken Buddha (2) 2014


--------------------
:brainfart: _ :finger:

Edited by redgreenvines (08/28/26 08:02 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Philosophies compared [Re: Rahz]
    #29656646 -

I never really agreed with the law of the excluded middle, but I'm not entirely sane either!

The evolutions of Anatta, which originated in India through introspection and the idea of atman, which was countered with anatman. Atman being the deepest unchanging self which could be identified with the ultimate reality or Brahman (the substrate in which all else arises). Then the Buddhist come along and challenge the Idea of permanence, claiming that there is no independent self to be found in existence at all.

The idea of anatta didn't really reach the west until the 19th century with such authors as:

David Hume - described the self as a bundle of perceptions rather than a single enduring substance.

Immanuel Kant - distinguished the unity required for experience from the idea of knowing the self as an object.

Friedrich Nietzsche - criticized the grammatical and moral fiction of a unified, autonomous subject.

William James - analyzed the self as layered, changing, and partly constructed.
   
Sigmund Freud - portrayed conscious identity as only one part of a divided psyche.
   
Existentialists such as Sartre and Heidegger - treated the self as a project or activity rather than a fixed essence.

Contemporary psychology and cognitive science often describe the self as an emergent model produced by memory, attention, language, and social interaction.

But I think they all failed to really address Atman, and the anatman arguments aren't necessarily mutually exclusive from atman (in some contexts).

There is consciousness, and there is literally nothing disproving that it isn't the substrate for all existence.

Advaita says:

The personal ego is not the true self, but beneath it is Ātman, which is pure, unchanging consciousness—and Ātman is Brahman.

Buddhist anattā says:

The personal ego is not a permanent self, and there is no need to posit an eternal Ātman behind the changing processes of experience.

While both traditions reject the everyday personality as the ultimate self. Both may describe ordinary identity as constructed, unstable, and bound up with ignorance. This creates a strong surface similarity.

However their conclusions differ:

Advaita: remove mistaken identifications and discover the eternal Self.
   
Buddhism: investigate all proposed selves, including a witnessing consciousness, and find that none exists independently.
   
Advaita: ultimate reality is Brahman.
   
Madhyamaka Buddhism: all phenomena, including consciousness and ultimate reality as a metaphysical substance, are empty of inherent existence.
   
Advaita liberation: realization of “I am Brahman.”
   
Buddhist liberation: release from craving and clinging through insight into impermanence, dependent origination, and non-self—not identification with a universal Self.

Nāgārjuna (A Buddhist Philosopher) would likely object to the idea that  “the true self is pure consciousness” because it merely replaces the ordinary ego with a subtler form of self-clinging. An Advaita philosopher would respond that Buddhism has mistaken the changing contents of awareness for awareness itself and has overlooked the witnessing consciousness that makes experience possible.

There are also some differences among Buddhist schools. Early Buddhism mainly argues against a permanent person or soul. Later Madhyamaka goes further by denying inherent existence to everything. Some Mahāyāna texts use positive language—such as Buddha-nature, luminosity, or “true self”—that can sound Advaitic, but mainstream Buddhist interpretations generally insist that this language does not establish an eternal individual or cosmic substance identical with Brahman.

But all those things are how to look at() or how to think about().

I think the more interesting things are in the doings in practices such as Neidan (atman), Kundalini Yoga (atman or anatman), and Tibetan Buddhism (anatman), which all map a subtle body using differing terminologies pointing at the experiential phenomena, such as Dan Tiens, Nadis or Chakras and those practices are all doing the doings upon the basic foundation of no-self in the sense of the ego, but diverge in the Anatman vs Atman debate.

So where-as Tibetan Buddhism can consistently say:

Subtle energies exist conventionally and can be deliberately transformed, but they do not constitute an eternal self.

A Kundalinī yoga practitioner of Advaita Vedānta could say:

We are awakening the latent Śakti within the subtle body. As kuṇḍalinī rises through the channels and chakras, the limited ego and ordinary identification are purified. The practitioner ultimately realizes that individual consciousness is not separate Brahman, or universal consciousness.

In some traditions, the goal is not to build a separate spirit but to awaken the divine reality already present.

Other tantric or yogic systems place more emphasis on developing a perfected subtle body, liberation from rebirth, or extraordinary longevity.

A Nātha or tantric practitioner could say:

Through awakening kuṇḍalinī and refining the subtle body, the ordinary body is transformed into a perfected or vajra-like body. The practitioner realizes the immortal consciousness underlying embodied existence and may attain freedom from ordinary decay and rebirth.

A Neidan practitioner could say:

We are refining the coarse energies of ordinary life into subtler forms of vitality and spirit. Essence becomes qi, qi becomes spirit, and spirit returns to the Dao. Through this refinement, we cultivate an immortal or perfected spiritual body and recover our original nature.

The differences in the practices are largely just about the Idea about() rather than the existence of the phenomena itself.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Philosophies compared [Re: Rahz]
    #29656658 -

Is awareness self-knowing, or is “self-knowing awareness” a concept appearing within awareness?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Philosophies compared [Re: teknix]
    #29656720 -

The Epicurean model suggests a mortal but tangible self, going as far as to bind the physical and spiritual into a necessary co-creative structure.

I think there is some validity in such views in so much as they are functionally useful. An organizational aspect of our biological existence.

Similar to saying it's useful to distinguish a whirlpool from "just water". And yet a whirlpool eventually dissipates. Where did it go?

And ultimately, that's as real as anything. Reality isn't just "atoms in a void". It's patterned, structure in flux, from which meaning and understanding arises.

There's no "underlying" truth to whirlpools even if we can describe the conditions that cause them. The pattern we experience is the truth rather than only a surface feature of something hidden.

Awareness perceives the bundle of patterns we might call self. Usefulness is evidence that the concept successfully tracks a real pattern within experience.

Self-knowing awareness is a curious feedback loop because it's less about a self and more about the process and the quirks of the bundle. I think still, as long as one can see the self is not just temporary but also in flux while active, that it's okay to consider it both a truth and a concept, within those bounds.

We often get hung up on a moment or unchanging idea of what the self is and that's when it can be either highly useful or/and problematic, depending on whether preferred patterns can be carried or not and whether there is a non-permanent purpose. Even if highly useful, flux and dissipation are still in the cards.

In so much as we do solidify self, it can be seen as dangerous/dysfunctional, or a tradeoff with value. In absence of eternal permanence it doesn't have to be an ultimate contradiction.


--------------------
rahz

comfort pleasure power love     truth awareness peace I am      I feel      I do     I love  I speak    I see    I know

why there is reality and patterned, law-like consistency at all, rather than noise or non-reality is not a question physics answers. It's a question physics presupposes an answer to in order to provide other answers.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Philosophies compared [Re: Rahz]
    #29656749 -

that weaves it all into a fine basket.
you could say philosophy is a form of basket weaving.


--------------------
:brainfart: _ :finger:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Philosophies compared [Re: Rahz]
    #29656784 -

Rahz said:
Awareness perceives the bundle of patterns we might call self. Usefulness is evidence that the concept successfully tracks a real pattern within experience.



That's interesting, so is awareness separate from the bundle of patterns?

Point of clarification...

Are you arguing for the impermanence of the self, or for the impermanence of awareness? If only the former, your argument establishes anatta with respect to the constructed person but doesn't address atman. If the latter, what is the argument that awareness ifself is part of the flux rather than the condition by which the flux is known?

I'm not granting that temporary itself indicates impermanence in the Buddhist sense which also includes conditioned arising, alteration, instability and cessation.

Are you using temporary and impermanent interchangeably?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Philosophies compared [Re: Rahz]
    #29656801 -

Rahz said:
In so much as we do solidify self, it can be seen as dangerous/dysfunctional, or a tradeoff with value. In absence of eternal permanence it doesn't have to be an ultimate contradiction.


Another point of clarification. What is the "self" that is being solidified in this case and what is it in reference to? Self is seemingly being used in different ways so it's difficult for me to track exactly what is being pointed at.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Philosophies compared [Re: redgreenvines]
    #29656815 -

redgreenvines said:
that weaves it all into a fine basket.
you could say philosophy is a form of basket weaving.


Perhaps, but it has to be established first, lol.

Taking liberties in axioms and premises results in leaps of logic.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Philosophies compared [Re: teknix]
    #29656872 -

i think self is a way of perceiving, its made of multiple components, and the solidity or realness of components can appear to be an illusion and become less believable or unbelievable. This changes perception.

This can happen temporarily and its a "oh wow" moment, and it can also be chronic, in which case there's an "oh wow" followed by adaptation/integration of the new perspective (or falling away of old perspective).


the traditional buddhist account describes the first fetter as the falling away of identification with form (thoughts, body, aggregates), but there is still a lingering "I am"

Quote:
"With regard to these five clinging-aggregates, there is nothing I assume to be self or belonging to self, and yet I am not an arahant. With regard to these five clinging-aggregates, 'I am' has not been overcome, although I don't assume that 'I am this.'"

"In the same way, friends, even though a noble disciple has abandoned the five lower fetters, he still has with regard to the five clinging-aggregates a lingering residual 'I am' conceit, an 'I am' desire, an 'I am' obsession. But at a later time he keeps focusing on the phenomena of arising & passing away with regard to the five clinging-aggregates: 'Such is form, such its origin, such its disappearance. Such is feeling... Such is perception... Such are fabrications... Such is consciousness, such its origin, such its disappearance.' As he keeps focusing on the arising & passing away of these five clinging-aggregates, the lingering residual 'I am' conceit, 'I am' desire, 'I am' obsession is fully obliterated."

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.089.than.html



this song came on while writing this and it felt relevent (She'll expose you, when she snows you, she'll tease you and unease you.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Philosophies compared [Re: teknix]
    #29656876 -

On whether awareness is separate from  the "bundle" of patterns, categorically yes, but not fundamentally. Unique but not separate from a physical process.

Awareness itself is part of the flux, as well as the condition by which the flux is known. It arises, alters, and ceases in codependence with conditions.

I take temporary to be essentially as you describe, arising, plateau of function, ceasing.

Self is a reference to various perceptions of function, including but not limited to the perception of function, if there is identity seen in it. A self is a functional reflection for reference and consideration. It is true in so much as it may be an accurate perception of associations and functions, and more easily suggestable that it's also placeholder for our specific manifestation as individuals. Self can also be found in a felt sense of being, grounded somehow in patterns of identity or it's absence. It can be taken to mean all these things or none.

What I mean by solidify is to consider it unchanging. There is utility in that even as flux remains, so long as that identity process remains functional. It is not true in an ontological sense, but it's not pointing to nothing intelligible. It tracks both real individual or bundled functions, and is impermanent, changing and conditioned.

I consider awareness to be a quality of reality but not it's defining feature, except in so much that it's possible. It's the same as saying reality isn't fundamentally made of trees, or exploding stars, or any particular thing.

Of course, these considerations are all things which rise and fall from perception. It seems reasonable for ideas of self and no-self to arise. It is reasonable that ideas of self and no-self contain the potential for tension/cognitive dissonance, but also that it can be lived with artfully to some degree rather than remain primarily as the suffering of cognitive dissonance.


--------------------
rahz

comfort pleasure power love     truth awareness peace I am      I feel      I do     I love  I speak    I see    I know

why there is reality and patterned, law-like consistency at all, rather than noise or non-reality is not a question physics answers. It's a question physics presupposes an answer to in order to provide other answers.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 |  [ show all ]

Shop: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   MagicBag.co Certified Organic All-In-One Grow Bags, Contam-Resistant All-In-One Grow Bags   North Spore Bulk Substrate

General Interest > Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Problems in Philosophy: Knowledge chodamunky 1,165 3 05/03/04 08:38 AM
by TheShroomHermit
* Starting point of a (my) philosophy.
( 1 2 all )		 Xanthas 3,653 25 04/13/06 01:20 PM
by RedNucleus
* The Suck: Strong Causality/Causal Determinism
( 1 2 all )		 Sclorch 2,381 30 12/31/05 01:06 PM
by Sclorch
* Bad Philosophy Is Inconsistent
( 1 2 3 4 all )		 SkorpivoMusterion 8,537 72 02/16/06 07:20 PM
by SkorpivoMusterion
* isn't functionality just a different kind of causality? Malachi 1,016 13 07/21/03 04:18 PM
by Sclorch
* A philosophy degree?
( 1 2 3 all )		 rogue_pixie 7,961 57 11/30/04 05:05 AM
by rogue_pixie
* Craven's crazy druggie philosophy Mystical_Craven 619 1 06/29/02 11:31 AM
by deepr
* Philosophy Links
( 1 2 all )		 Anonymous 6,727 36 05/25/04 09:26 AM
by Deviant

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum
907 topic views. 0 members, 80 guests and 18 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2026 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.031 seconds spending 0.006 seconds on 16 queries.