Who is going to hell? An argument for the Bible, Religion and God.

[Repugnant Abomination]

Originally Posted by Dent

Apologies mr Repug, philosophy lives.

Originally Posted by Dent

I want to exit this world positive on the felicific calculus.
Does reductive physicalism entail monistic idealism?
Does reductive physicalism entail monistic idealism?
Does reductive physicalism entail monistic idealism?
Does reductive physicalism entail monistic idealism?

Thoughts please, It's going to take a long time to understand the history of all the concepts, how they came about and why they became unfavourable.
Do you have any good arguements against reductive physicalism? is there any "element of reality" not captured by the "universal wave equation"
and if there is no such thing as wave function collapse, what for identity? ~10^100 splits by the time you finish a sentence, fuck.

I want to nail some definitions, can we tone down on the eastern spice?

Dang. I'll get back to you on this. And yes, let's nail down some definitions.

[Dent]

translated by Stephen Mitchell (1988)
We join spokes together in a wheel,
but it is the center hole
that makes the wagon move.

We shape clay into a pot,
but it is the emptiness inside
that holds whatever we want.

We hammer wood for a house,
but it is the inner space
that makes it livable.

We work with being
but non-being is what we use.
Why Does Anything Exist?

[Mr. Blonde]

Originally Posted by Repugnant Abomination

That's really interesting. I assume you mean continuously walking in a circle with short steps? Maybe I should try that. Have you noticed any changed or benefits in your every day life? 10 minutes a day consistently for a year is impressive. I really need to get back to this.

Sitting in zazen, complete silence, not moving (usually in the mornings before anything else) is the ten minutes.

"Moving" meditation isn't doing anything with walking in circles. I mean that when I'm moving around doing things during the day, I simply don't think about anything unless I have to. If I am driving, I focus intently on driving and my surroundings and nothing else, supported by counting my breath. Same with cleaning dishes, doing laundry, eating, working, buying groceries, etc -- I am practice vipassana meditation, all the time. Noticing every thing I can sense (sights and sounds are the two biggest ones, although I am developing my taste and smell better) as much as possible, becoming aware of them, but not reacting to them. When I find myself "thinking" unnecessarily (which is most thinking imo), I acknowledge to myself what my brain was thinking about and return to my breath. Jakusho-Kwong Roshi calls this "Breath Sweeps Mind", and wrote a book about it.

Basically by focusing on my breath all day I can stay focused and complete my various tasks one-by-one without being distracted by thoughts or what other people are doing, which usually lead to anxiety, stress or other distractions. I try to keep a blank mind at all times by constantly counting my breaths in different ways, unless I am called upon to think. I can still access my thoughts when I want to, but most of the time I don't want to, because I have found pleasure in having a blank, but concentrated mind. I try not to "think" unless I have to or want to for some philosophic or creative reason --- just focus on the breath. I took it to this extreme because of how tormented my thoughts were and just couldn't live like that anymore.

That sounds pretty sweet, actually. Do you think the weed and mushrooms are necessary to see the beauty that has been right in front of you, or does it simply enhance it? If the former, what do you think has led you to being able to see and appreciate it when before you couldn't?

They probably aren't necessary, but something about ingesting psilocybin mushrooms in particular (and to a lesser degree, LSD) seems to form (or re-jump-start) a neurochemical bond between your consciousness and the nature from which you evolved from. The first time I went hiking after taking a cap I saw a ladybug on the ground and it was one of the most beautiful things I had ever seen. Not in a trippy, "whoooaaa" man, way --- rather, I realized that it was a bright red jewel complex jewel of consciousness, no matter how small, that had taken millions of years to develop, and I was seeing it with the eyes of Adam, so to speak. I had been around so many ladybugs they had become commonplace. It's like seeing everything with new eyes, eyes of intense appreciation for the beauty that is around us constantly, that we have become dull to. Cleansing the doors of perception.

The tree which moves some to tears of joy is in the eyes of others only a green thing that stands in the way. Some see nature all ridicule and deformity... and some scarce see nature at all. But to the eyes of the man of imagination, nature is imagination itself.

~William Blake

Same with trees, flowers, other insects, etc. The mushrooms helped me viscerally feel the biological connection with Nature --- fellow life. It's difficult to explain without experiencing it, but it is quite beautiful for one who loves nature. Others I have heard reported being scared, as if nature was "creeping towards them". I did not experience this --- I felt more welcomed, as if my feet were perfectly at home on the soil, surrounded by nature. I had actually never felt more at home in my life. Also of interest -- certain plants and trees are much more striking than others. There is some mountain stalk plant here with a seed-pod that bursts opens and then just stands, dead, and those are absolutely beautiful on mushrooms. I can't explain why. It's really all about extremely intense detail -- and STILLNESS. The stillness you experience on mushrooms in nature, it's almost like three-dimensional vision becomes amplified.

Another interesting part --- If one truly opens up to Nature and forms that connection over several shroom experiences (even microdosing, a couple stems or one cap, very safe), the "connection" seems to stay with you (although it does diminish over time). Nature looks amazing to me all the time, I appreciate trees more, insects, everything. It's all life, we are all related. We know this academically, but again, this is about FEELING it.


What was REALLY interesting, that first time I was tripping in nature, was after marvelling in my own veritable Eden for about a half hour, I stumbled upon a large communications tower and was literally shocked at how ugly and "out-of-place" it seemed. Those phone towers that you see everywhere, looked, to me, like some sort of menacing alien structure, something that the Borg may have built and put on this planet of otherwise organic beauty. It was shocking how industrially fearful I was of such a commonplace item in the landscape.

Do you ever get frustrated reading about Taoism? I know by definition it is undefinable, and the second you start trying to put it into words you've lost it, but sometimes I feel like it's being vague and esoteric just for the sake of being so. Admittedly that's just my mind wanting definitive, concrete answers, but still. I think more broadly the esoteric nature of some Eastern philosophy and religion is what simultaneously attracts some people and turns others away. The attraction comes from a kind of mystical legitimacy that has been lost with Western religion due to its politicized nature and dumbing down. But that same mysticism makes it seem unknowable to others who are looking for something more straight forward.

I lean towards mysticism in general, mostly, again, because of my drug and near-death/simulated death experiences. I feel like I understand Taoism pretty well --- particularly the line "You cannot KNOW it, but you can BE it, at ease, in your own life". I just accept that I am part of a natural process, no different from any other animal and followed the instructions of how "The Master" acts for about 4-6 months straight, because, again, I was literally doing nothing else with my life except miserably trying to get over my ex and put my life back together. I don't think I can explain Taoism, but if you follow the "directions", as it were in the book for an extended period of time, I think you begin to understand more gradually.

I'll answer the rest later. I'm really tired. I really enjoy having this discussion with you, however, and am glad we are meeting on common, adult ground.

[Mr. Blonde]

Originally Posted by Dent

Apologies mr Repug, philosophy lives.
I want to exit this world positive on the felicific calculus.
Does reductive physicalism entail monistic idealism?
Does reductive physicalism entail monistic idealism?
Does reductive physicalism entail monistic idealism?
Does reductive physicalism entail monistic idealism?

Thoughts please, It's going to take a long time to understand the history of all the concepts, how they came about and why they became unfavourable.
Do you have any good arguements against reductive physicalism? is there any "element of reality" not captured by the "universal wave equation"
and if there is no such thing as wave function collapse, what for identity? ~10^100 splits by the time you finish a sentence, fuck.
And what is emergence and why do top physicists think qualia could be an emergent property of a turing machine? Ahh!

I want to nail some definitions, can we tone down on the eastern spice?

I know you're going to hate this, and I promise I'm not trying to sound condescending, but as long as you remain trapped in the cage of the human construct of language and the compulsion to "define" everything in some sort of logical framework, the further lost you will become. Your sentences and explanations will simply lead to more complex sentences and explanations, until you hit a wall, which you inevitably will. Language (guttural flapping of flesh in complex patterns) created by sentient apes simply cannot encapsulate the sheer magnitude, inexplicability, and ineffability of existence itself.

I realized something like this last year and my life has never been the same since, it went like:

Everything humans deem important to themselves (including the existentialist notion of ascribing meaning to one's own life with the intent to evade the more depressing, if not more realistic philosophies of absurdism and nihilism) exists within an entirely human-created framework of existence/language, which is really a form of tautology, or at best, circular logic.

How can we truly objectively quantify meaning if humanity is so deeply subjectively buried within a framework that its own species has created and deems to be the truth of the universe, when the reality is that we are likely an anomaly, and indeed, probably an accident waiting to be corrected? The framework inside which we operate has been crafted by blind evolutionary and cultural forces for hundreds of thousands of years, the more deeply-ingrained portions of it, for millions -- it is not a fundamental truth, merely a species-comfortable medium which most can operate under unquestioningly, and, indeed, sanely, for the alternative appears to offer nothing but the fate of Tantalus.

shit

After writing that was when I started to look seriously to the East.


In Zen, teachers assign students koans to try and break from this logical restriction and understand something without using a logical process, which is an extraordinarily alien concept to the Western mind. Examples of such are:

Kyogen said: `Zen is like a man hanging in a tree by his teeth over a precipice. His hands grasp no branch, his feet rest on no limb, and under the three another person asks him: `Why does Bodhidharma come to China from India?'
`If the man in tree does not answer, he fails; and if he does answer, he falls and loses his life. Now what shall he do?'

Mumon's Comment: In such a predicament the most talented eloquence is no use. If you have memorized all the sutras, you cannot use them. When you can give the right answer, even though your past road was one of death, you open up a new road of life. But if you cannot answer, you should ages hence and the future Buddha, Maitreya.

Kyogen is truly a fool
Spreading that ego-killing poison
That closes his pupils' mouths
And lets their tears stream from their dead eyes

When Buddha was in Grdhrakuta mountain he turned a flower in his fingers and held in before his listeners. Every one was silent. Only Maha-Kashapa smiled at this revelation, although he tried to control the lines of his face.
Buddha said: `I have the eye of the true teaching, the heart of Nirvana, the true aspect of non-form, and the ineffable stride of Dharma. It is not expressed by words, but especially transmitted beyond teaching. This teaching I have given to Maha-Kashapa.'

Mumon's Comment: Golden-faced Guatama thought he could cheat anyone. He made the good listeners as bad, and sold dog meat under the sign of mutton. And he himself thought it was wonderful. What if all the audience had laughed together? How could he have transmitted the teaching? And again, if Maha-Kashapa had not smiled, how could he have transmitted the teaching? If he says that realization can be transmitted, he is like the city slicker that cheats the country dub, and if he says it cannot be transmitted, why does he approve of Maha-Kashapa?

At the turning of a flower
His diguise was exposed.
No one is heaven or earth can surpass
Maha-Kashapa's wrinkled face.

The Zen master Hakuin was praised by his neighbours as one living a pure life.

A beautiful Japanese girl whose parents owned a food store lived near him. Suddenly, without any warning, her parents discovered she was with child.

This made her parents angry. She would not confess who the man was, but after much harassment at last named Hakuin.

In great anger the parent went to the master. "Is that so?" was all he would say.

After the child was born it was brought to Hakuin. By this time he had lost his reputation, which did not trouble him, but he took very good care of the child. He obtained milk from his neighbours and everything else he needed.

A year later the girl-mother could stand it no longer. She told her parents the truth - the real father of the child was a young man who worked in the fishmarket.

The mother and father of the girl at once went to Hakuin to ask forgiveness, to apologize at length, and to get the child back.

Hakuin was willing. In yielding the child, all he said was: "Is that so?"

Tokusan went to the dining room from the meditation hall holding his bowl. Seppo was on duty cooking. When he met Tokusan he said: `The dinner drum is not yet beaten. Where are you going with your bowl?'
So Tokusan returned to his room.

Seppo told Ganto about this. Ganto said: `Old Tokusan did not understand the ultimate truth.'

Tokusan heard of this remark and asked Ganto to come to him. `I have heard,' he said, `you are not approving my Zen.' Ganto admitted this indirectly. Tokusan said nothing.

The next day Tokusan delivered an entirely different kind of lecture to the monks. Ganto laughed and clapped his hands, saying: `I see our old man understands the ultimate truth indeed. None in China can surpass him.'

Mumon's Comment: Speaking about ultimate truth, both Ganto and Tokusan did not even dream it. After all, they are dummies.

Whoever understands the first truth
Should understand the ultimate truth.
The last and first,
Are they not the same?

A monk asked Tozan when he was weighing some flax: `What is Buddha?'
Tozan said: `This flax weighs three pounds.'

Mumon's Comment: Old Tozan's Zen is like a clam. The minute the shell opens you see the whole inside. However, I want to ask you: Do you see the real Tozan?

Three pounds of flax in front of your nose,
Close enough, and mind is still closer.
Whoever talks about affirmation and negation
Lives in the right and wrong region.

Or, my personal favorite right now:

There was an old woman in China who had supported a monk for over twenty years. She had built a little hut for him and fed him while he was meditating. Finally she wondered just what progress he had made in all this time.

To find out, she obtained the help of a girl rich in desire. “Go and embrace him,” she told her, “and then ask him suddenly: ‘What now?’”

The girl called upon the monk and without much ado caressed him, asking him what he was going to do about it.

“An old tree grows on a cold rock in winter,” replied the monk somewhat poetically. “Nowhere is there any warmth.”

The girl returned and related what he had said.

“To think I fed that fellow for twenty years!” exclaimed the old woman in anger. “He showed no consideration for your needs, no disposition to explain your condition. He need not have responded to passion, but at least he should have evidenced some compassion.”

She at once went to the hut of the monk and burned it down.

These are not mere jibberish, as they may appear. But what are we to make of them?

[Mr. Blonde]

That's interesting. So you find morality the end, whereas I think of it more as a means to an end. I suppose the two are inseparable for me. Can you expand on your position a little?

The more I try to refine my morality and ethics, namely by viewing other humans as equal to (or, in the Taoist sense, greater than) myself, the happier and more fulfilling my life becomes. I can't remember the last time I told a lie, even a white lie, and when I have, I usually immediately confess to it. I am constantly conscious of my behavior around others, and try to gauge how what I am saying or doing may be affecting them. In terms of judgments of "good" and "bad", I very much steer clear of such judgments whenever possible. If someone is not harming another person with their behavior, there is no need for me to judge or interefere at all. It's none of my business, and at that point, I'm no longer focusing on my own behavior.

I agree about the word God being loaded. That said, taking your terminology of a pervasive consciousness, could I just swap out the word consciousness and replace it with God and mean the same thing? Forget everyone else's definitions of God. To you, are the two synonymous? Are you basically describing Pantheism? I've thought a lot about that...I think if I were to go in that direction though I'd lean more towards Panentheism, which is subtly different, but the difference between the two means everything, in my opinion.

Consciousness/God may be all that there is, simply in myriad form, as to be invisible to us. Consciousness and God are likely the same thing, but who knows. Either way, while I do believe that an all-encompassing Consciousness would a vested interest in it's sub-consciousnessses (every being in the universe), I believe it to be ineffable and thus beyond the point of really speculating about from a utilitarian point of view. Maybe it has interests in human affairs, maybe not. You are familiar with Hinduism --- the basics of which are that Reality is a kind of dream which the Godhead has injected itself into, for purposes of drama. Why would it want to interfere with its own game, giving the show away, so to speak? What if it has amnesia?

The Dream Of Life - Alan Watts - YouTube

The Dream Of Life - Alan Watts - YouTube

Our scientists and philosophers may find more and more about it as time goes on, but do you ever think we will reach a point where we'll just understand everything about it? I think examining one's OWN consciousness, through meditation, is the best way of coming to terms with these kinds of questions. The Buddha repeated this endlessly "Just meditate", only to be continually assailed with questions that can apparently only be answered on an individual level through introspective insight (again, because of the limits of human language).

It does seem to get to the heart of something profoundly human. To me the question is always is this innate, or did it develop? It's almost impossible for us to understand it must have felt for early man to look up at the sky at night. Terrifying and awe-inspiring, I would think.

I believe that all beings likely have a form of spirituality, although it may arise in infinitely varying degrees, depending on their evolutionary history.

You've mentioned Naturalism a lot. Shinto is obviously Japan-centric, but have you looked into it at all? It seems like what you're doing is merging the idea of universe-consciousness with Naturalist spirituality, which is interesting.

I don't know much about Shinto, other than being a religion in Japan. I will look into it. I guess if I were to over simplify, I would do so like this: Conscious beings clearly arise from Nature, Nature clearly arises from the Universe (if the two are not inseparable, as philosophers like Marcus Aurelius believed). The real question is --- Is the universe conscious? Is Nature? The uniform experiences of people who have partaken of Ayahuasca, despite being from completely different racial, cultural, and sociological backgrounds, seems to suggest that it is. Why is it so difficult to believe that Nature, having produced rational, conscious beings such as humans, would be unable to do the same with plants? The only possible answer I can think of is human arrogance and hubris.

I love Greek Mythology. Any examples?

Ever since I was a child I always wondered why the greek gods didn't actually act like gods at all, but rather, a lot of the time, like dickhead humans with powers. I think there's something to that.


Jesus, I need to take a fucking Lorazepam, this is getting heavy.

[f3lix]

BOLIEVE!

[Dent]

Eastern spice, can we deal with the millions of claims you're making? slowly and one at a time? we are dealing with contested terms "I don't think that means what you think it means"


"The more I try to refine my morality and ethics, namely by viewing other humans as equal to (or, in the Taoist sense, greater than) myself, the happier and more fulfilling my life becomes"
"If someone is not harming another person with their behavior"

Are you speciesist? what are you classing as a person here? do we classify personhood?

"Our scientists and philosophers may find more and more about it as time goes on, but do you ever think we will reach a point where we'll just understand everything about it?"
I haven't ruled this out.

"Language (guttural flapping of flesh in complex patterns) created by sentient apes simply cannot encapsulate the sheer magnitude, inexplicability, and ineffability of existence itself. "
how do you know?

"The real question is --- Is the universe conscious? Is Nature?"
No the real question is "why is there something instead of nothing"
or maybe
What is ultimately there?
What is it like?


"trapped in the cage of the human construct of language and the compulsion to "define" everything in some sort of logical framework, the further lost you will become."
*sigh*

[Dent]

Moore's Open Question - YouTube

And I declared that the dead,
who had already died,
are happier than the living,
who are still alive.
But better than both
is the one who has never been born,
who has not seen the evil
that is done under the sun.
Ecclesiastes 4:2-3

[Mr. Blonde]

I don't like to argue these days, as it only causes suffering usually, which is my prime concern, but I do have a deep desire to help you understand my mindset, that it may bring you at least some peace in what I see as a very turbulent mind. I truly hope you read this entire post.

In 100 years, we all be dead, and in 500, most of us may as well have never existed, completely forgotten in history.

Ponder this often. I also recommend the thought exercise of vividly imagining yourself on your death bed, about to make your own, inevitable, final exit.

If true human organic immortality is out of the question, isn't leaving a legacy the next best thing? Go out into the world and make that legacy. You are free to do whatever you want. I truly believe with a mind like yours, you should be writing, out in the public sphere, going to Consciousness Conventions, "getting in the shit", as it were. That's how you will make the biggest impact on the world. Not on some backwater internet forum that started as a porn site, desperately trying to convince borderline strangers that your particular views of consciousness are correct.

Originally Posted by Dent

"I don't think that means what you think it means"

. As long as we are repeating catchphrases --- everyone is the hero in their own story. I cannot emphasize the importance of this seemingly simple-minded quote enough. Your dislike of Yudkowski's self-described "Savior mentality" ironically sprouts from the same tendency. Simply getting on a soapbox and saying "Ha, I'm pretty sure you are just misunderstanding that, bud", ultimately just causes the discussion to go in circles.

Are you speciesist? what are you classing as a person here? do we classify personhood?

I don't know how how you and others do, I have chosen to independently define my own morality in dealing with other beings.

I try to view all conscious beings, no mater their degree of sentience, as "persons". I'm trying very hard to become a vegetarian, although it is difficult with my preexisting dietary conditions. I have been killing insects my entire life --- now I simply capture them and let them free elsewhere. I am currently fundamentally unable to even kill gnats and flies . On this small level, I only kill beings on accident --- driving, running, walking, instinctively scratching an itch etc.

In terms of humans/persons and animals, I try to treat them with the same level of respect and decency as if they were an absolute equal. I look past all the other layers and see a conscious being, and try my best to treat them with the respect and niceties I would want to be extended to myself. That is all.


"Our scientists and philosophers may find more and more about it as time goes on, but do you ever think we will reach a point where we'll just understand everything about it?"
----

I haven't ruled this out.

Always a wise choice to never rule anything out. But I refer to the Seneca quote from the other day, about there always being more mystery to unfold.

"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

You can search an entire lifetime and still only uncover a small bit more than what we knew before. Any PHD student knows this. What i'm curious about is --- what part of you is it that seems to absolutely refuse to accept that you may possibly not understand the entire Universe before you die? If that is not your goal behind your obsessive search for knowledge, then what is?

I am asking this as a serious question, friend to friend.

"Language (guttural flapping of flesh in complex patterns) created by sentient apes simply cannot encapsulate the sheer magnitude, inexplicability, and ineffability of existence itself."

how do you know?

I don't "know" anything really, other than how absurd existence itself is. I do know that other hypothetical forms of communication, which may already exist in other beings that were born in the Cosmos billions of years before Earth coalesced, or perhaps on a future timeline of Earth, are possible. I would certainly suspect that telepathy, or telepathic mathematical language would be much more likely a culprit to explain the universe rather than our shoddy guttural transcriptions of the energy pulses in our brains (thoughts). Don't you ever speculate about intelligences greater than Man? Forgive the accusation, but you seem like a very stringent Universal anthropocentrist.

No the real question is "why is there something instead of nothing"

Here you and I agree 100%. It's rather amazing that something exists rather than nothing, and, not only that --- that "something" has produced conscious, rational beings that are capable of exploring and questioning (and for some, driving themselves mad obsessing over such "why's"). Existence is spectacular.

That book I mentioned the other day, where Dan Harris interviews the likes of Eckhart Tolle and Deepak Chopra skeptically (and very critically), has a quote in it from Deepak Chopra that I surprisingly found myself agreeing with, given my background with Chopra's standard unintelligibility:

Originally Posted by Deepak Chopra

The fact that you exist is a highly statistically improbable event, and if you are not perpetually surprised by the fact that you exist, you do not deserve to be here.

I actually have to take anxiety medication at this point in my life simply because of how truly amazed it is that not only I, but we, the Earth, and everything else DOES EXIST versus not. But I have no self-delusions that make me think that I'm going to be the one to "figure it all out" or that I even have to. Based on the sheer number of variables involved alone, I have since given up thinking I can take the universe head-on. Perhaps our supercomputers will have a much better chance, but what then? I am reminded of one of my favorite short stories.... The Nine Billion Names of God - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

or maybe
What is ultimately there?
What is it like?

I had not realize you had become so interested in Metaphysics, as I'm sure you know those are the two questions central to the branch of knowledge's existence. They are, indeed, interesting questions, and VERY fun to speculate about, but I try not to take them too seriously. People much smarter than you and I have been tackling these questions with relatively little progress for centuries. I picked this book up a bit ago, although I haven't started yet --- you may be interested in it. IMMANUAL KANT - Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics

Originally Posted by Mr. Blonde

trapped in the cage of the human construct of language and the compulsion to "define" everything in some sort of logical framework, the further lost you will become."

Originally Posted by Dent

*sigh*

I'm going to ignore that sigh, having been guilty of issuing it myself many, many times in the past, but I wish you didn't think so intellectually poorly of me to send one my direction. Linguistics is astounding, miraculous -- we have come from egg-stealing rodents to be able to create complex verbal and material symbols to explain so much --- yet fundamentally, limited. HUGELY limited, as we can only talk about what we know and experience, and one look into the night sky or a book on quantum physics tells us that it isn't very much.

Originally Posted by Ludwig Wittgenstein

The limits of my language are the limits of my mind. All I know is what I have words for.

[Mr. Blonde]

If you will allow me some speculation, honestly coming from the depths of my sympathy for you (which is great):

You're here, Dent. You exist. You don't know why, and that sort of pisses you off. You figure that if you are here, you deserve a right to know why, or at least to know as much about the system within which you reside as you possibly can. This is an extraordinarily noble pursuit that most people do not have the drive, courage, or intellect to take up. I actually admire you a lot, as the direction you have taken with material scientists explanations and speculations about consciousness much further than I myself am currently intellectually able to keep up with.


I think that's your biggest "problem" (do not mean it in a negative light) right now, actually. You're outgrowing your pond of people who you can communicate your ideas to because, quite frankly, they are just too advanced for me. I can't speak for Repug and others. But if you're going to continue down this road, I only urge that you take it to a professional level, and surround yourself with minds that are as advanced as you are, so that you can communicate with people "on your level".


Alternatively, you could always just say "fuck it", and use that big ole' brain of yours to live the most enjoyable life you possibly can here on your short time on Earth. Perhaps even use that brain to apply to practical world situations, such as poverty, anti-war efforts, and starvation. I'm sure I don't have to remind you how many innocent children are needlessly dying of hunger and thirst right now on Planet Earth.

I respect you a lot, and am not your enemy. I leave you with two quotes:

Originally Posted by F. Scott Fitzgerald

The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function.

Originally Posted by Buddha

This existence of ours is as transient as autumn clouds. To watch the birth and death of beings is ike looking at the movements of a dance. A lifetime is a flash of lighting in the sky. rushing by, like a torrent down a steep mountain

(forgive the Eastern spice)

[Mr. Blonde]

DP

[Dent]

Ian Dury/There ain't half been some clever bastards - YouTube

Ian Dury/There ain't half been some clever bastards - YouTube

Not I!

Originally Posted by Mr. Blonde

In 100 years, we all be dead, and in 500, most of us may as well have never existed, completely forgotten in history.

Being dead in a hundred years isn't scary considering some of the alternatives
Eternal inflation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Quantum Ethics? Suffering in the Multiverse

Is ontology a good place to start?
Zero Ontology
Zero looks attractive

[Mr. Blonde]

I didn't say anything about it being scary. Moreso to question how you're spending the time you do have, now. And now is all there ever is.

[Dent]

Beenie Man - Who Am I (Zim Zimma) - YouTube

Beenie Man - Who Am I (Zim Zimma) - YouTube

Edit :
I want to know what this means, is that the explanatory gap?

[Mr. Blonde]

Originally Posted by Dent

I want to know what this means, is that the explanatory gap?

Desire is the cause of all suffering.

[Repugnant Abomination]

I'm at a coffee shop right now on my iPad so I can't respond in full yet, but I wanted to just say how great this discussion has been so far. It's surreal to read the above posts given both of your past positions, though I guess it shouldn't be since my thinking has changed so much too. Reading Blonde's new stuff feels like I had a pupil who suddenly became the master.

Hopefully I'll have a substantial reply by tonight or tomorrow. In the meantime I need to processing what has already been said.

[Mr. Blonde]

You were definitely a huge inspiration on the philosophical end. After getting majorly schooled (and embarrassed) by you on this board a few times I really started to realize my gaping lack of deep philosophical knowledge. In hindsight, I was basically just cherry-picking philosophical quotes to support my stance on atheism.

After Life subsequently schooled me even worse, I decided it might be a good time to shut my goddamn mouth and open my mind (and ears) a bit more. I'm actually very indebted to you.

ID's constant calling me out all the goddamn time helped a lot too, in his own strange way -- although it INFURIATED me at the time

[Dent]

“I don't know if God exists, but it would be better for His reputation if He didn't.”

― Jules Renard
"Desire is the cause of all suffering."
What if I desire no suffering?
Thoughts on Moore's open question?

[Mr. Blonde]

Originally Posted by Dent

“I don't know if God exists, but it would be better for His reputation if He didn't.”

This line of reasoning becomes less bothersome once you stop trying to "humanize" the concept of God, but humans, of course, have a tendency to "humanize" everything. This world could be a paradise, God or no God, were it not for the egoic/selfish behavior of human beings. We are a LARGE community of equal beings, all permitted to pursue lives of liberty, happiness, and health -- and with worldwide communication, we are becoming ever more aware of this uniformity. But we do not act like a community of equals. We act like isolated, scared little bits of "me me me" vs. the World.

When you see a deer, you say "Hey, look at that deer!". You don't say "Hey! That's Deer A5681.23!!!

What if I desire no suffering?

I apologize, but human life is suffering. You just choose not to accept and to fight against it, which creates more suffering. We all suffer, and of course we wish we didn't. But when has there not been suffering on Earth? When has there not been death? It has, quite literally, always been the case. You may as well desire the sky to be bright green, or for all water to taste like Sprite. Wishing for something to be other than how it is creates suffering. Of course, we can (and should) work to change that, to decrease suffering.

But that's not what you're doing. You're just complaining about reality.

Originally Posted by Thomas Merton

“The more you try to avoid suffering, the more you suffer, because smaller and more insignificant things begin to torture you, in proportion to your fear of being hurt. The one who does most to avoid suffering is, in the end, the one who suffers most.”

The Hedonistic Imperative is interesting, and I have mentioned elsewhere that it is a worthy goal, but it is nonetheless a fact that your desire to live a suffering-free life at a time when such a reality does not exist is only causing more psychological suffering for you. And that sucks, because I really don't like to see beings suffer more than their lot.

Thoughts on Moore's open question?

I watched the video but it is difficult to take the narrator seriously with the amount of exaggerated dramatism in his voice.

The only thoughts I have on Moore's open Question is that it appears to be kind of an intellectual thought experiment, meant for almost painful entertainment, such as licking a wound on the top of your mouth, or fiddling with a tooth that is about to fall off.

The content is meaningless to me, because I am coming from a different perspective from you. I don't believe in a uniform "good" and "evil", I am a proponent of nonjudgment and acceptance.

When people see some things as beautiful,
other things become ugly.
When people see some things as good,
other things become bad

- Lao Tzu

Practically speaking, as human beings are the only being we know of capable of judging "good" from "bad" and "right" from "wrong", the distinctions are utterly meaningless. I refer you back to what I wrote before:

Everything humans deem important to themselves (including the existentialist notion of ascribing meaning to one's own life with the intent to evade the more depressing, if not more realistic philosophies of absurdism and nihilism) exists within an entirely human-created framework of existence/language, which is really a form of tautology, or at best, circular logic.

How can we truly objectively quantify meaning right and wrong if humanity is so deeply subjectively buried within a framework that its own species has created and deems to be the truth of the universe, when the reality is that we are likely an anomaly, and indeed, probably an accident waiting to be corrected probably not the intellectual center of existence? The framework inside which we operate has been crafted by blind evolutionary and cultural forces for hundreds of thousands of years, the more deeply-ingrained portions of it, for millions -- it is not a fundamental truth, merely a species-comfortable medium which most can operate under unquestioningly, and, indeed, sanely, for the alternative appears to offer nothing but the fate of Tantalus.

shit

Basically, everything you experience is structured in a "yes/no" logical framework of human bias, and when something (like consciousness, or ethics, or God) does not fit into that definitive "yes/no" logical framework, it creates more suffering.



You are still looking elsewhere, to other people, for answers about what is good and bad. If you are honest with yourself, you don't have to worry about what is good or bad. Just do as you will, preferably according to the Golden Rule, and don't worry about what other people are doing. Just focus on what you are doing. This life of yours is your experience, and within the parameters of "what is", you may experience it any way you wish.

By redirecting your brain to certain avenues, you could actually GREATLY decrease your self-created suffering and create a life of almost pure pleasure. That's what you want, isn't it? To be in a state of pure physical pleasure as much as possible?

It will take work (all things worth doing do), but it's possible I suppose. I mean fuck, look at this guy's Instagram. Why not make your life like that? Who is going to stop you?




Speaking of not worrying about what other people are doing, I'm going to finish going about my day. I've got a lot to do. I hope you have been taking what I've been writing seriously, however, because I spent a lot of time and effort doing this pretty much specifically for you.

[Dent]

Originally Posted by Mr. Blonde

But when has there not been suffering on Earth? When has there not been death? It has, quite literally, always been the case. You may as well desire the sky to be bright green, or for all water to taste like Sprite.

Phanerozoic - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Originally Posted by Mr. Blonde

Of course, we can (and should) work to change that, to decrease suffering.

But that's not what you're doing.

Yes it is.

Originally Posted by Mr. Blonde

That's what you want, isn't it? To be in a state of pure physical pleasure as much as possible?

That's not the main aim of a negative utilitarian

Originally Posted by Karl Popper

"I believe that there is, from the ethical point of view, no symmetry between suffering and happiness, or between pain and pleasure. Both the greatest happiness principle of the Utilitarians and Kant's principle, "Promote other people's happiness...", seem to me (at least in their formulations) fundamentally wrong in this point, which is, however, not one for rational argument....In my opinion...human suffering makes a direct moral appeal for help, while there is no similar call to increase the happiness of a man who is doing well anyway."
(The Open Society and Its Enemies, 1952)

Originally Posted by Blondie

but it is nonetheless a fact that your desire to live a suffering-free life at a time when such a reality does not exist is only causing more psychological suffering for you. And that sucks, because I really don't like to see beings suffer more than their lot.

Trying to minimize suffering doesn't cause psychological suffering.

Originally Posted by Blondie

Basically, everything you experience is structured in a "yes/no" logical framework of human bias, and when something (like consciousness, or ethics, or God) does not fit into that definitive "yes/no" logical framework, it creates more suffering.

I think I found one thing where we might disagree, I think think there are objective values.
"the pleasure-pain axis discloses the universe's inbuilt metric of value. "

Naturalized Telepathy & the Hive Mind - David Pearce - YouTube

Naturalized Telepathy & the Hive Mind - David Pearce - YouTube

The Point of View of the Universe: Hardback: Katarzyna de Lazari-Ra Peter Singer- Oxford University Press

Originally Posted by Book

What does the idea of taking 'the point of view of the universe' tell us about ethics? The great nineteenth-century utilitarian Henry Sidgwick used this metaphor to present what he took to be a self-evident moral truth: the good of one individual is of no more importance than the good of any other. Ethical judgments, he held, are objective truths that we can know by reason. The ethical axioms he took to be self-evident provide a foundation for utilitarianism. He supplements this foundation with an argument that nothing except states of consciousness have ultimate value, which led him to hold that pleasure is the only thing that is intrinsically good.

Originally Posted by blonderection

It will take work (all things worth doing do), but it's possible I suppose. I mean fuck, look at this guy's Instagram. Why not make your life like that? Who is going to stop you?

Do you think his existence decreases the amount of suffering in the world? If we just wanted pleasure we could wirehead.
He's a faggot, I prefer celibate philosophers.
By suffering I mean involuntary suffering*

When you see a deer, you say "Hey, look at that deer!". You don't say "Hey! That's Deer A5681.23!!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calf_269

Here is another thing that I would like your thoughts on
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_individualism

Originally Posted by thewikilinkrightabove

Open individualism is the view in the philosophy of personal identity, according to which there exists only one numerically identical subject, which is everyone at all times.[1] It is a theoretical solution for the question of personal identity, being contrasted with empty individualism, the view that personal identities correspond to a fixed pattern that instantaneously disappears with the passage of time, and with closed individualism, the common view that personal identities are particular to subjects and yet survive time.

[Mr. Blonde]

I'm seem to noticing a trend here.

When you want to be taken seriously, you post a lot of links, images, and videos -- many of which are not really tied together in any sort of logical framework that makes it easy for the reader to understand. I'm sure it makes perfect sense in your head, but you seem to have no interest in genuinely communicating with the reader.

On the other hand, when posters spend time and effort to seriously reply to your questions and posts, and in return, make statements and questions to you, you post one-sentence answers that don't really contribute to the discussion at all, or silly, mocking youtube songs (usually from arrogant skeptics or scientists with horrible English accents)or derail otherwise positive discussions with posts like the "Calf 269" one above.

Then you return to your own original need for intellectual validation by continually lording your superior knowledge of contemporary philosophy, almost entirely based around what appears to be worshipping David Pearce, expecting others to give you attention and take you seriously.



It might not seem like a big deal to you but I value my free time a lot, and prefer to spend it expanding my mind and learning new things --- not having links thrown at me and having my end of the discussion mostly ignored. This is one of the reasons I left Nubblies in the first place --- to devote my time and attention to something that is actually productive.


So, how do you look at Nubblies, Dent? As a virtual playground where you can linkdump all day and expect others to be as interested in watching those videos as you are? Or are you here for friendly, sincere, mind-opening intellectual discussion?

Because if it's the former, I'm sorry, we really don't have anything to talk about, and it won't be that difficult for me to ignore most of your posts, having experienced this "Boy Who Cried Wolf" phenomenon too many times on subjects that interest me greatly.


I will say it again, much more clearly so you will understand: YOU ARE SMART AS FUCK. I WOULD LOVE TO SEE YOU SPEND YOUR TIME POSITIVELY APPLYING YOUR BRAIN TO THIS WORLD, RATHER THAN JUST READING AND WATCHING SHIT ONLINE AND BEING INCONSIDERATE.

You're so far advanced on the neoconsciousness movement and transhumanism that I can't keep up, and if you can't tell, it's rather frustrating. I would prefer you took that attitude of trying to teach some of us, rather than assuming that we will "catch up" to you out of our own self-interest.

Thank you for your time -- I appreciate it when others spend it hearing what I have to say. I would love to hear more of what you have to say, your thoughts, rather than just being a philosophical fanboy.


I would hope that you don't respond in some sort of nonchalant, "hiding behind the internet", "U butthurt bro?" way, because that would be far too predictable at this point.

[Mr. Blonde]

Also, when I edit posts, it is usually for typos or coding correction, rarely do I add large chunks of information/new questions to my posts during an edit, as you do.

I usually only read a post once, and fully, so I would kindly request that if you have additions you wait to post until you have completely finished it, or that you make a new post for the sake of posterity.


Also may I make a request to the mods for a David Pearce emoticon, please?

[Mr. Blonde]

Originally Posted by Dent

Here is another thing that I would like your thoughts on
Open individualism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Very interesting and concise view that encompasses much of Eastern philosophical thought. The main concept of Hinduism is, put bluntly, that everything we experience is just the dream of "It", pure consciousness, and we are inside of that dream. This is why so much of Eastern thought talks of "waking up". Indeed, the very thing that sparked my curiosity in Eastern philosophy was when Buddha said "Remember me as the one who woke up."

Woke up from what???

I often think about how similar the Eastern mind is to the concept of Solipism in this way, but instead it would not be one individual (human) imagining all of existence in its head, but rather that we are all potentially fragments of one single consciousness expressing ourselves differently. Effectively, it is possible that every-thing and every-one is simply the Godhead or Consciousness or The Universe or Ultimate Ground of Being, whatever you want to call it, experiencing itself in infinite, myriad forms, forever.

Which is a mindfuck.

But it does change the concept of Death from something to be feared, to something to be grateful for, no?

It is a very difficult concept for many to wrap their minds around, I think, because of how strongly attached to our personal identities most people are, especially when we are young. I would also wager that only those who have had their personality collapse or have decided to abandon their personal identity for some reason would even be able to fully comprehend the idea as a serious possibility. Those who lean towards the mystical or shamanistic experiences, people who lose children or spouses are some of these people.

If you didn't watch this video I posted before, you definitely should now. It deals directly with the question you are asking, and Alan Watts is even referenced in the Wiki article you posted. It is >4 minutes, and when I first heard this speech I was awestruck. Even if it's not true, it is an extraordinarily fascinating thought-experiment. If you were God, and eternal, wouldn't you get bored? (Assuming an ultimate consciousness is capable of such an emotion). How would you alleviate that boredom? What, really, is there to do throughout eternal existence? And wouldn't that significantly alter your view on death?

The Dream Of Life - Alan Watts - YouTube

The Dream Of Life - Alan Watts - YouTube

What are your thoughts on it?

[Dent]

First thank you for your response, taking your time to comment on my thoughts is flattering. For the most part, I use Nubblies as backup storage to refer to; I do not expect anyone to take the time to take interest and respond to my babble, I agree that nothing I have said is coherent, I am learning.
I’ve said many times that I am full of doubt, I’m well aware that this type of discussion has been taking place in slightly different forms for thousands of years, my desultory approach spikes your accusation of “superior knowledge of contemporary philosophy”.

In my questions to Repug I ask "what for identity?” I do not have a sense of an enduring metaphysical ego, described as empty individualism in the link.
You say, "We act like isolated, scared little bits of "me me me" vs. the World." this is closed individualism and it is not something I have entertained as long as I can remember.

You'll have seen the Hitchens cancer clip "I'm not as I was" unlike the closed individualists I don't see myself as being the same person I was ten years ago, or even one second ago.
This does not mean that I do not plan and try to take into account the needs of my "future self" but it does mean that I do not see "my" future self as being any different from any other future self.
I see all future selves deserving the same consideration, which I believe to be possible by taking a "view from nowhere" and considering all third person states.

This approach is different to the shallow form of hedonism you seem to think I hold, can you agree that if I “desired” pleasure then cranial self-stimulation would be the answer? In addition, that it is not an evolutionary stable position just as yachting around the world with 10 women at your side is not, I believe mr yacht-money is causing far more harm than the pleasure he is experiences, and even if he were harming to create greater pleasure, it's not worth it.

How else to respond to statements like “But when has there not been suffering on Earth?” responding with a Wikipedia link is better than an incredulous stare, or a sigh, but in hindsight maybe not the best approach. I thought you knew that from my view there hasn’t always been suffering on earth.

You have accused me of being a Luddite with my views on asteroid defence, I think the Buddhist approach to eliminating suffering is similar to that of the Luddite, and there is nothing to gain from accepting suffering, fatalism might be a better word for it.

I don’t know what you meant by the “deer abc” thing, the calf link was to show that some people do treat sentients as sentients without categorising.

Can we take a break for a little while to give Repug some time to catch up and extract what he sees as the differences between our views? It hasn’t taken long and we’ve attempted enough philosophy to guarantee making some howlers. I have trouble following what you’re saying, I’m trying to fit it with western concepts that I’ve read about and it doesn’t always work, not that I think it’s likely the Buddhist approach is coherent.

I’m not against argument so long as we try and stick with the second definition, on that here’s my only ctrl-c ctrl-v .
2. a reason or set of reasons given in support of an idea, action or theory.

[Repugnant Abomination]

Okay. So I read everything I had missed. Let's pump the brakes for a minute here. Blonde was right to point out Dent is mainly responding with single sentences (until his last post) and youtube videos that nobody wants to watch. But I want to take it a step further. Obviously there are a lot of very sophisticated ideas being tossed around right now, scientific and philosophical. But without clearly defined definitions it can get messy. We need to be disciplined if we're going to continue forward. Otherwise it's really just bullshitting.

I propose we start back at the beginning and move forward, slowly and deliberating, only once we've come to an agreement. Step by step. The reason is this: When someone throws out a proposition it is built up on so many conclusions and assumptions by that person that the other person who is intended to digest the idea has to do so blindly, basically. Only by starting at the beginning -- the very beginning -- can we mutually understand each other on a foundational level.

I apologize for not answering specific questions directed at me, or elaborating much further. But I feel overwhelmed and need to try and get this to a manageable place first. That said, I do have a few general comments.

I find myself oddly positioned somewhere between the two of you. I'm not comfortable with a purely empirical world view, nor am I comfortable or confident enough in any world view to fully embrace a specific view like Blonde seemingly has. Or, to quote Blonde quoting Hawthorne, "He can neither believe, nor be comfortable in his unbelief; and he is too honest and courageous not to try to do one or the other." So on the one hand I relate to Dent feeling dissatisfied, and on the other I relate to Blonde's abstract Eastern philosophy; however, I suspect both positions might be on shakier ground than either of you realize, which is why I've suggested we start at the beginning. I'll begin.

Please do not jump ahead or get carried away with where you want to go. In order for this to work we have to be strict with ourselves.

We begin where we have to, with epistemology, the branch of philosophy dedicated to the scope and nature of knowledge itself. How do we know what's real and what's not? What is fact and what is truth? That is epistemology's concern. This is where we have to start.

Epistemology is broken into two main branches: Rationalism and Empiricism. In philosophy, empiricism is generally a theory of knowledge focusing on the role of experience, especially experience based on perceptual observations by the senses. Rationalism is the view that "regards reason as the chief source and test of knowledge" or "any view appealing to reason as a source of knowledge or justification". More formally, rationalism is defined as a methodology or a theory "in which the criterion of the truth is not sensory but intellectual and deductive".

There is also Idealism and Constructivism, but I won't go into them right now. Let's focus on Rationalism and Empiricism before we move on.

For a long time I was a strict Empiricist, which led to my fervent Atheism. I believed the only truth we could have was testable and therefore falsifiable. I wasn't concerned with anything else. The problem I came to realize with this view was that it was extremely limited, because there are abstract ideas that can't be falsified the same way a scientific hypothesis can be. If that is the case, it would mean that truth can and only can be measured in a test tube. Anything that can't be cannot be true by definition. I no longer agree with this.

So let's start here. At the beginning. Now that I've defined the two main branches of epistemology where do you two stand? Is the only way we can truly know things through sense experience or can we rely on our intellect to come to non-observable truths?