Dr. David Skrbina, Unabomber, Panpsychism and Jesus |510|

#61
It isn't wrong. You could also say the fundamental reality is composed of English Peas and you wouldn't be wrong. But would it be useful? The usefulness of the label we apply to the "fundamental substance" depends in part upon how many steps we have to take to relate that label to everything else.

The dichotomy of Dualism vs. Monism:
For ages people have had the notion that this present reality is nested within another larger reality and this is the basis of dualism - the two realms: the earthly and the spiritual or the physical and the metaphysical. But there is an issue with this dualism. If the other realm is so completely different and separate from our own as to never interact with us then we might as well consider it to not exist. But if it does interact with our realm and if there is any regularity or pattern to the nature of this interaction then the interaction occurs according to some type of rules. And if the interaction follows regular rules then we can simply expand our definitions of the rules of this realm to include that realm. This means we can eventually expand our science and technology to make use of the rules encompassing both realms. At its core Materialism is really about the belief that reality follows rigid rules so if the "Spiritual realm" also follows rules, then it could in theory be folded under the tent of materialism.

Another way people have arrived at Monism as being the superior ontology is this: at some point we realize the definitions and boundaries are arbitrarily assigned based upon what is most useful in achieving a goal. Nothing exists independently but it always exists within a larger context. You could think of it as zoom level. We could theoretically zoom out forever and see everything as connected - one big thing. When we realize that boundaries are arbitrarily assigned or assigned by choice, then we start playing with boundaries around our own identities. Meditation and psychedelics and various other experiences can help us dissolve mentally imposed boundaries and see everything as One and this is often called the "oceanic" experience.

So it seems that Oneness is the ultimate reality, but we find our selves in a world where it isn't useful to focus on this most of the time, and we can't really talk about Oneness because words have definitions which are boundaries which break things up into pieces. Oneness is like the black hole at the center of being. We can use words and metaphors to orbit around it. We can see its effects, but we can't see it directly. If we stop talking/judging/using/desiring/acting, then we fall into it. Since it is the unification of all polarities then it is paradoxical and paradoxical metaphors are used to describe it. A shimmering darkness. An empty fullness. A humming silence. It is eternal life and ego death. etc.

This Oneness cannot be described. One of the ten commandments is to not make a graven image of it because to try to imagine it at all is to be deceived about what it is. But nevertheless we will make a graven image and try to talk about it.

Oneness alone is a completely useless concept. It is only useful when contrasted with our present apparent condition of separateness which often inspires love and compassion and it is also useful to dissolve mental stress contained within mental structures built of words and boundaries.

So the fundamental base reality is Oneness, which is completely useless to us because we can't talk or think about it. So we can assign any word to it and it will be correct. We can call it consciousness or mind or material or just "The Word" or "English Peas" or "Golden Calf".

As soon as we label the Oneness with a word, any word, then everything else is implied. As soon as you apply a word to it, then you have to define that word, and then you have to define the definition of the definition and then you have to define the definition of the definition and so on in infinite regress until the whole universe is described and everything is then composed of words.

How ironic that "Thou shalt not make any graven image..." was engraved upon stone and that those words themselves would be worshipped. And as Moses came down from the mountain he found they had made a golden calf to worship and so he threw down the stone tablets shattering them which is exactly what Words do to the Oneness. He made them grind up the golden calf to a powder and spread it over the water and made the people drink it. This is a representation through story of the black hole of Oneness and the inability to apply words or thought to it without the infinite regress fracturing everything and grinding the Oneness to powder which ultimately composes us.

So you can say "The fundamental reality is Consciousness" and that might be useful in some respects. You could say this is a dream within a dream or a simulation within a simulation. There's nothing wrong with it. But it causes a problem in other respects - for one because we can't talk without causing problems - but also because most people agree that consciousness exists on a spectrum of complexity and the further away we get from our level of consciousness (either up or down in complexity) the more difficult it is for us to relate to it and so it begins to lose its meaning. Also, the materialists have issues with this because consciousness is complex and in some ways mediated by and dependent upon material so how can something complex with prerequisites be the fundamental thing? Our understanding of consciousness also requires an object or context to be conscious of.

I think it is more useful to say that this paradox is true: Reality is fundamentally One and it is shattered into irreducible complexity. And any attempt to describe a fundamental substance of reality will be 100% accurate in some ways and it will fail in other ways, and so we can only do this in order to provide some kind of use in a limited context.

So my preferred label to apply to the fundamental substance is: PATTERN because it seems to provide the shortest most efficient definitional path to everything else. Pattern implies similarity/difference/choice. This is the fundamental Trinity. Since choice is required to set boundaries which compose the pattern, you can still consider this to be an expression of idealism. But since it is not called idealism and since it sounds objective and implies regularity or rules then it can appeal to the materialists who prefer regularity and solidity. Choice also implies a goal which implies a time lag between goal origination and goal fulfillment and also implies a frustration inherent in all creation and also implies power imbalances which result in everything from food chain to politics and evil.
I would make yet another step further and claim that the prime ground of all-that-is is even deeper than the Oneness. It is the Noneness. The Nihiverse. The Void and the Abyss. The Zeroth-Person-Perspective, the Not-Yet-State of Not-Yet-Existence.

I'm struggling for many months to write a concise summary of my meontology - the study of Not-(Yet-)Being, if someone if not familiar with this rare term. It is the hardest thing to write about, so wish me luck.
 
#62
I like these thoughts. Perhaps consciousness is the awareness of patterns in an otherwise never ending kaleidoscope of awareness.
Yes. It is nested patterns within patterns. Feedback loops within feedback loops. If everything is ONE then polarities are only temporary or contextual and all beginnings and endings must wrap around and meet.

To be aware is not merely the passive act of observing some object, but it is also an act of choice about where to assign boundaries which creates the pattern that is observed.

Choice exists on the same spectrum of complexity as consciousness. At its very simplest, choice appears as pure randomness. But with the feedback loop, choice complexifies as the environment complexifies and goals evolve.

In many simulated realities such as Minecraft, a random seed number is used to generate the features of the world. That is not unlike our world. From Similarity/Difference we get all of mathematics and from math we get computable and non-computable spaces because as in chaos theory tiny variances in initial conditions can completely change results. So the "seed" that generated this reality was random, but it complexified into nested sets of goals which upon fulfillment leave behind structure which both creates opportunity for new types of goals and also frustrates by placing a barrier to obtaining those goals. And round and round it goes. The Wheel of Karma.

How else would we dream and not know that we are dreaming?
To know, to use, to create are all different ways of looking at the same thing. Knowledge is power. Technology and knowledge are interwoven. For anything to exist at all there must be a division between known and unknown which is like the voltage potential on the terminals of the power source. This division is an expression of frustration a lack of power and a desire for power. The desire to know is inseparable from the desire for power and to know is also to create because observation is an act of choosing boundaries.

Likewise, how is it that we think our waking life is something more than a dream state? I know, some speak of lucid dreaming, but what if lucid living is possible as well, and how could you truly define the difference?
Well put!
 
#63
I would make yet another step further and claim that the prime ground of all-that-is is even deeper than the Oneness. It is the Noneness. The Nihiverse. The Void and the Abyss. The Zeroth-Person-Perspective, the Not-Yet-State of Not-Yet-Existence.

I'm struggling for many months to write a concise summary of my meontology - the study of Not-(Yet-)Being, if someone if not familiar with this rare term. It is the hardest thing to write about, so wish me luck.
Yes if there is nothing else for comparison, then there is no way to tell a difference between Oneness and Nothingness. If the transistor has no arbitrarily assigned voltage threshold it cannot produce a 1 or a 0. Only when we assign a threshold value for voltage does the transistor start making 1's or 0's.

You are struggling to write about it because Oneness or Noneness is impossible to write about just like you can't directly see a black hole, but can only see the accretion disk and the warping of spacetime around it. If you try to write about it you can only talk in paradoxical metaphors.

Good luck!
 
#64
Yes. It is nested patterns within patterns. Feedback loops within feedback loops. If everything is ONE then polarities are only temporary or contextual and all beginnings and endings must wrap around and meet.

To be aware is not merely the passive act of observing some object, but it is also an act of choice about where to assign boundaries which creates the pattern that is observed.

Choice exists on the same spectrum of complexity as consciousness. At its very simplest, choice appears as pure randomness. But with the feedback loop, choice complexifies as the environment complexifies and goals evolve.

In many simulated realities such as Minecraft, a random seed number is used to generate the features of the world. That is not unlike our world. From Similarity/Difference we get all of mathematics and from math we get computable and non-computable spaces because as in chaos theory tiny variances in initial conditions can completely change results. So the "seed" that generated this reality was random, but it complexified into nested sets of goals which upon fulfillment leave behind structure which both creates opportunity for new types of goals and also frustrates by placing a barrier to obtaining those goals. And round and round it goes. The Wheel of Karma.



To know, to use, to create are all different ways of looking at the same thing. Knowledge is power. Technology and knowledge are interwoven. For anything to exist at all there must be a division between known and unknown which is like the voltage potential on the terminals of the power source. This division is an expression of frustration a lack of power and a desire for power. The desire to know is inseparable from the desire for power and to know is also to create because observation is an act of choosing boundaries.



Well put!
These are fascinating thoughts! I think of them in context of both, the difficulties I experience in waking life, as well as the barriers exposed in lucid dreams. If one is adept at lucid dreaming, oddly enough, there still seems to exist some kind of physics, despite one’s “powers.” I think this is similar to waking life, in many respects.
 
#65
It isn't wrong. You could also say the fundamental reality is composed of English Peas and you wouldn't be wrong. But would it be useful? The usefulness of the label we apply to the "fundamental substance" depends in part upon how many steps we have to take to relate that label to everything else.

The dichotomy of Dualism vs. Monism:
For ages people have had the notion that this present reality is nested within another larger reality and this is the basis of dualism - the two realms: the earthly and the spiritual or the physical and the metaphysical. But there is an issue with this dualism. If the other realm is so completely different and separate from our own as to never interact with us then we might as well consider it to not exist. But if it does interact with our realm and if there is any regularity or pattern to the nature of this interaction then the interaction occurs according to some type of rules. And if the interaction follows regular rules then we can simply expand our definitions of the rules of this realm to include that realm. This means we can eventually expand our science and technology to make use of the rules encompassing both realms. At its core Materialism is really about the belief that reality follows rigid rules so if the "Spiritual realm" also follows rules, then it could in theory be folded under the tent of materialism.

Another way people have arrived at Monism as being the superior ontology is this: at some point we realize the definitions and boundaries are arbitrarily assigned based upon what is most useful in achieving a goal. Nothing exists independently but it always exists within a larger context. You could think of it as zoom level. We could theoretically zoom out forever and see everything as connected - one big thing. When we realize that boundaries are arbitrarily assigned or assigned by choice, then we start playing with boundaries around our own identities. Meditation and psychedelics and various other experiences can help us dissolve mentally imposed boundaries and see everything as One and this is often called the "oceanic" experience.

So it seems that Oneness is the ultimate reality, but we find our selves in a world where it isn't useful to focus on this most of the time, and we can't really talk about Oneness because words have definitions which are boundaries which break things up into pieces. Oneness is like the black hole at the center of being. We can use words and metaphors to orbit around it. We can see its effects, but we can't see it directly. If we stop talking/judging/using/desiring/acting, then we fall into it. Since it is the unification of all polarities then it is paradoxical and paradoxical metaphors are used to describe it. A shimmering darkness. An empty fullness. A humming silence. It is eternal life and ego death. etc.

This Oneness cannot be described. One of the ten commandments is to not make a graven image of it because to try to imagine it at all is to be deceived about what it is. But nevertheless we will make a graven image and try to talk about it.

Oneness alone is a completely useless concept. It is only useful when contrasted with our present apparent condition of separateness which often inspires love and compassion and it is also useful to dissolve mental stress contained within mental structures built of words and boundaries.

So the fundamental base reality is Oneness, which is completely useless to us because we can't talk or think about it. So we can assign any word to it and it will be correct. We can call it consciousness or mind or material or just "The Word" or "English Peas" or "Golden Calf".

As soon as we label the Oneness with a word, any word, then everything else is implied. As soon as you apply a word to it, then you have to define that word, and then you have to define the definition of the definition and then you have to define the definition of the definition and so on in infinite regress until the whole universe is described and everything is then composed of words.

How ironic that "Thou shalt not make any graven image..." was engraved upon stone and that those words themselves would be worshipped. And as Moses came down from the mountain he found they had made a golden calf to worship and so he threw down the stone tablets shattering them which is exactly what Words do to the Oneness. He made them grind up the golden calf to a powder and spread it over the water and made the people drink it. This is a representation through story of the black hole of Oneness and the inability to apply words or thought to it without the infinite regress fracturing everything and grinding the Oneness to powder which ultimately composes us.

So you can say "The fundamental reality is Consciousness" and that might be useful in some respects. You could say this is a dream within a dream or a simulation within a simulation. There's nothing wrong with it. But it causes a problem in other respects - for one because we can't talk without causing problems - but also because most people agree that consciousness exists on a spectrum of complexity and the further away we get from our level of consciousness (either up or down in complexity) the more difficult it is for us to relate to it and so it begins to lose its meaning. Also, the materialists have issues with this because consciousness is complex and in some ways mediated by and dependent upon material so how can something complex with prerequisites be the fundamental thing? Our understanding of consciousness also requires an object or context to be conscious of.

I think it is more useful to say that this paradox is true: Reality is fundamentally One and it is shattered into irreducible complexity. And any attempt to describe a fundamental substance of reality will be 100% accurate in some ways and it will fail in other ways, and so we can only do this in order to provide some kind of use in a limited context.

So my preferred label to apply to the fundamental substance is: PATTERN because it seems to provide the shortest most efficient definitional path to everything else. Pattern implies similarity/difference/choice. This is the fundamental Trinity. Since choice is required to set boundaries which compose the pattern, you can still consider this to be an expression of idealism. But since it is not called idealism and since it sounds objective and implies regularity or rules then it can appeal to the materialists who prefer regularity and solidity. Choice also implies a goal which implies a time lag between goal origination and goal fulfillment and also implies a frustration inherent in all creation and also implies power imbalances which result in everything from food chain to politics and evil.
I get it, but can't deal with it. Like I said, philosophy is not my thing. My caveman simplicity can go this far - I want to talk to a woman. I'm interested in her ears. I want to make love to her. I'm interested in, well, other other parts. It's still all the same woman and regardless of what kind of interaction I want to have with her, I'm interested in the whole woman, but different interactions emphasize different sections of her body. That's how I see reality. Monist? Dualist? I don't care. I'm enjoying a fine woman's company either way.
 
#66
These are fascinating thoughts! I think of them in context of both, the difficulties I experience in waking life, as well as the barriers exposed in lucid dreams. If one is adept at lucid dreaming, oddly enough, there still seems to exist some kind of physics, despite one’s “powers.” I think this is similar to waking life, in many respects.
Ever try meditating in a lucid dream? Like focus on your breath rising and falling in the solar plexus region?
 
#67
I get it, but can't deal with it. Like I said, philosophy is not my thing. My caveman simplicity can go this far - I want to talk to a woman. I'm interested in her ears. I want to make love to her. I'm interested in, well, other other parts. It's still all the same woman and regardless of what kind of interaction I want to have with her, I'm interested in the whole woman, but different interactions emphasize different sections of her body. That's how I see reality. Monist? Dualist? I don't care. I'm enjoying a fine woman's company either way.
It all comes back to "1's" and "0's" ...so to speak...
 
#69
I get it, but can't deal with it. Like I said, philosophy is not my thing. My caveman simplicity can go this far - I want to talk to a woman. I'm interested in her ears. I want to make love to her. I'm interested in, well, other other parts. It's still all the same woman and regardless of what kind of interaction I want to have with her, I'm interested in the whole woman, but different interactions emphasize different sections of her body. That's how I see reality. Monist? Dualist? I don't care. I'm enjoying a fine woman's company either way.
I like women as well, and enjoy a good hump! Nevertheless, I still contemplate the universe and my place in it.
 
#70
I would make yet another step further and claim that the prime ground of all-that-is is even deeper than the Oneness. It is the Noneness. The Nihiverse. The Void and the Abyss. The Zeroth-Person-Perspective, the Not-Yet-State of Not-Yet-Existence.

I'm struggling for many months to write a concise summary of my meontology - the study of Not-(Yet-)Being, if someone if not familiar with this rare term. It is the hardest thing to write about, so wish me luck.
If you want to write about it from an ontological perspective, work at TJ Maxx for a year. You will have plenty of evidence for meontology from experience. If you want to really understand the Nihiverse on another level, get a job at The Home Depot or Lowes for three months and rent a room from a recreational therapist that has a Fat Tiffany for a daughter. Eternally, the Fat Tiffany will need the temperature of the abode to never be more than 55 degrees Fahrenheit, because this species has an excessive amount of blubber due to the frequent consumption of El Toro Tamales. Furthermore, one must wade through rivers of refuse left about the habitat because this creature must swim in garbage to thrive. Ironically enough, the Fat Tiffany needs a constant flow of Coke Zero through its gills to live, but nevertheless, only continues to gain wait over time.
 

Alex

Administrator
#71
It isn't wrong. You could also say the fundamental reality is composed of English Peas and you wouldn't be wrong. But would it be useful? The usefulness of the label we apply to the "fundamental substance" depends in part upon how many steps we have to take to relate that label to everything else.

The dichotomy of Dualism vs. Monism:
For ages people have had the notion that this present reality is nested within another larger reality and this is the basis of dualism - the two realms: the earthly and the spiritual or the physical and the metaphysical. But there is an issue with this dualism. If the other realm is so completely different and separate from our own as to never interact with us then we might as well consider it to not exist. But if it does interact with our realm and if there is any regularity or pattern to the nature of this interaction then the interaction occurs according to some type of rules. And if the interaction follows regular rules then we can simply expand our definitions of the rules of this realm to include that realm. This means we can eventually expand our science and technology to make use of the rules encompassing both realms. At its core Materialism is really about the belief that reality follows rigid rules so if the "Spiritual realm" also follows rules, then it could in theory be folded under the tent of materialism.

Another way people have arrived at Monism as being the superior ontology is this: at some point we realize the definitions and boundaries are arbitrarily assigned based upon what is most useful in achieving a goal. Nothing exists independently but it always exists within a larger context. You could think of it as zoom level. We could theoretically zoom out forever and see everything as connected - one big thing. When we realize that boundaries are arbitrarily assigned or assigned by choice, then we start playing with boundaries around our own identities. Meditation and psychedelics and various other experiences can help us dissolve mentally imposed boundaries and see everything as One and this is often called the "oceanic" experience.

So it seems that Oneness is the ultimate reality, but we find our selves in a world where it isn't useful to focus on this most of the time, and we can't really talk about Oneness because words have definitions which are boundaries which break things up into pieces. Oneness is like the black hole at the center of being. We can use words and metaphors to orbit around it. We can see its effects, but we can't see it directly. If we stop talking/judging/using/desiring/acting, then we fall into it. Since it is the unification of all polarities then it is paradoxical and paradoxical metaphors are used to describe it. A shimmering darkness. An empty fullness. A humming silence. It is eternal life and ego death. etc.

This Oneness cannot be described. One of the ten commandments is to not make a graven image of it because to try to imagine it at all is to be deceived about what it is. But nevertheless we will make a graven image and try to talk about it.

Oneness alone is a completely useless concept. It is only useful when contrasted with our present apparent condition of separateness which often inspires love and compassion and it is also useful to dissolve mental stress contained within mental structures built of words and boundaries.

So the fundamental base reality is Oneness, which is completely useless to us because we can't talk or think about it. So we can assign any word to it and it will be correct. We can call it consciousness or mind or material or just "The Word" or "English Peas" or "Golden Calf".

As soon as we label the Oneness with a word, any word, then everything else is implied. As soon as you apply a word to it, then you have to define that word, and then you have to define the definition of the definition and then you have to define the definition of the definition and so on in infinite regress until the whole universe is described and everything is then composed of words.

How ironic that "Thou shalt not make any graven image..." was engraved upon stone and that those words themselves would be worshipped. And as Moses came down from the mountain he found they had made a golden calf to worship and so he threw down the stone tablets shattering them which is exactly what Words do to the Oneness. He made them grind up the golden calf to a powder and spread it over the water and made the people drink it. This is a representation through story of the black hole of Oneness and the inability to apply words or thought to it without the infinite regress fracturing everything and grinding the Oneness to powder which ultimately composes us.

So you can say "The fundamental reality is Consciousness" and that might be useful in some respects. You could say this is a dream within a dream or a simulation within a simulation. There's nothing wrong with it. But it causes a problem in other respects - for one because we can't talk without causing problems - but also because most people agree that consciousness exists on a spectrum of complexity and the further away we get from our level of consciousness (either up or down in complexity) the more difficult it is for us to relate to it and so it begins to lose its meaning. Also, the materialists have issues with this because consciousness is complex and in some ways mediated by and dependent upon material so how can something complex with prerequisites be the fundamental thing? Our understanding of consciousness also requires an object or context to be conscious of.

I think it is more useful to say that this paradox is true: Reality is fundamentally One and it is shattered into irreducible complexity. And any attempt to describe a fundamental substance of reality will be 100% accurate in some ways and it will fail in other ways, and so we can only do this in order to provide some kind of use in a limited context.

So my preferred label to apply to the fundamental substance is: PATTERN because it seems to provide the shortest most efficient definitional path to everything else. Pattern implies similarity/difference/choice. This is the fundamental Trinity. Since choice is required to set boundaries which compose the pattern, you can still consider this to be an expression of idealism. But since it is not called idealism and since it sounds objective and implies regularity or rules then it can appeal to the materialists who prefer regularity and solidity. Choice also implies a goal which implies a time lag between goal origination and goal fulfillment and also implies a frustration inherent in all creation and also implies power imbalances which result in everything from food chain to politics and evil.
excellent. thx for posting this.
 
#73
Maybe it's time for Alex to take his Josephus theories down this particular rabbit hole.
I don’t know whether or not to thank you Jack. Let’s just say I went down the rabbit hole. I listened to both of the reflections episodes and also the public negotiations episode. I can’t say I believe any of it, but everything they’re saying is based in love and good will. Meaning, even if they were broadcasting it into nothingness, it’s still positivity. Conversely, I do believe the universe is omni-consciousness-connected, and therefore i believe it impossible to broadcast into nothingness.
 
#74
My problem with the "theory of evolution" is that it presupposes some kind of "progress" of living beings, when this kind of progress is entirely not demonstrable. For example, a tree can live for thousands of years and produce all kinds of offspring, but a human, if lucky, can push past 80? That is only one perspective of evolution in terms of length of life. I am sure there are countless other interpretations based upon complexity of living systems and so forth, but in reality, these so called "complexities" are only interpretive juxtapositions made by anthropomorphic assholes.
Thinker Man ( and I Mean that sincerely BTW) I somehow think your on to something there however I could not get the full meaning out. INTERPRETIVE JUXTAPOSITIONS?
I don't see where you've analyzed/identified the problem. Mind you evolutional theory is full of problems , assumtions ( I would no more defend it then fat taco eating girl)
In so far as BK it looks to me he equates Meaning with Evolution. Which to me is just kicking the can down the road ( but him on the other hand I would defend). Perhaps there's more then meets the eye.
 
Last edited:
#75
Thinker Man ( and I Mean that sincerely BTW) I somehow think your on to something there however I could not get the full meaning out. INTERPRETIVE JUXTAPOSITIONS?
I don't see where you've analyzed/identified the problem. Mind you evolutional theory is full of problems , assumtions ( I would no more defend it then fat taco eating girl)
In so far as BK it looks to me he equates Meaning with Evolution. Which to me is just kicking the can down the road ( but him on the other hand I would defend). Perhaps there's more then meets the eye.
HAHA, man, you got me rolling about the "fat taco eating girl"! She was an example of survival of the normalest. I think that is a better theory than "evolution." Usually, outstanding individuals are usurped by tamale devouring, sexually ambiguous, bowl hair cut wearing, social justice whales!
 
#77
Evolution is neither progress nor meaning in it's rawest form. It is simply "adaptation" through genetic selection. Some person eating as many tacos as possible doesn't exhibit some better or more enlightened meaning by evolving to digest their tacos more effectively in the future. It just ensures their offspring doesn't die of bad food.
 
#78
Evolution is neither progress nor meaning in it's rawest form. It is simply "adaptation" through genetic selection. Some person eating as many tacos as possible doesn't exhibit some better or more enlightened meaning by evolving to digest their tacos more effectively in the future. It just ensures their offspring doesn't die of bad food.
Don't forget, it also keeps plumbers in business!
 
#79
Taco girl does shine a chile on one particular issue in regards to Evolution. Why does she even exist at all? When she should have been , according to E theory , been eliminated long ago, perhaps drown in a sea of Zero Coke.
But yes Evolutuional theory does not actually address meaning other then to regard it as illusion, fodder for the masses. And does seem to be used by the Idealists, therefore creating a vacuum ( open for correction here).
Humanity demands meaning/value, hence should be included as a basic. Is-ness/consciousness/Meaning(value) - these qualities not actually being separate-able.
In other words, if any one quality does not exist they all cease to exist.
 
#80
My problem with the "theory of evolution" is that it presupposes some kind of "progress" of living beings, when this kind of progress is entirely not demonstrable. For example, a tree can live for thousands of years and produce all kinds of offspring, but a human, if lucky, can push past 80?
The TOE doesn't assume a teleology or a "progress" towards what we might think we desire (e.g. long life). The theory is that an organism will adapt to a niche in such a way as to successfully reproduce. If the niche doesn't change, then neither does the organism (e.g. crocodiles being an estimated 200 million years old as a species). If the niche changes, then the organism must adapt in such a way as to continue to reproduce. Long life past the reproductive age would not necessarily benefit the human species as the old folks would be eating up the resources. And a longer reproductive age would not necessarily benefit the human species as genetic disorders and difficulty with childbirth increases with age.

I do however think like Kastrup that there could be room for teleology in evolution. Mutation is a random process and random processes are a surface of the mechanism upon which Will might act. So perhaps the organisms in a species all desire something... perhaps their collective desires make the random mutation more likely to occur that results in that desire being fulfilled. So the owl's ancestors over many generations wanted to see in the dark so this made them more likely to acquire mutations that made their eyes bigger... something like that. Similar to the way RNG experiments have shown the ability for intention to slightly influence them.
 
Top