Philosophy Now Forum

lancek4 wrote:What would you say of synchonicty? Or deja vu? Or even intution? Do these indicate anything more than electro-chemistry?

chaz wyman wrote:

lancek4 wrote:What would you say of synchonicty? Or deja vu? Or even intution? Do these indicate anything more than electro-chemistry?

These indicate that evolution is a bricoleur and has progressed by luck and flaw. Deja Vu is no more than the brain having to re-use old pathways. Synchronicity is 'selective bias', and intuition is a phrase with a multiplicity of meanings.

lancek4 wrote:

chaz wyman wrote:

lancek4 wrote:What would you say of synchonicty? Or deja vu? Or even intution? Do these indicate anything more than electro-chemistry?

These indicate that evolution is a bricoleur and has progressed by luck and flaw. Deja Vu is no more than the brain having to re-use old pathways. Synchronicity is 'selective bias', and intuition is a phrase with a multiplicity of meanings.

In what sense is luck refered? And flaw? Flawed against what? Would not flawed be good luck?

Luck .. I know what I use the term for, but I don't know how I would apply it here. Can yytou be more specific in example ?

lancek4 wrote:I tend to think of this arena in which you make sense, of evoluation, iof the brain, as like the eye, where it is said the first eyes preceived dark and light and so that specied could discern where prey was. So in this sense could we say our brains are getting better at conceiving the true universe?

chaz wyman wrote:

lancek4 wrote:I tend to think of this arena in which you make sense, of evoluation, iof the brain, as like the eye, where it is said the first eyes preceived dark and light and so that specied could discern where prey was. So in this sense could we say our brains are getting better at conceiving the true universe?

No. The ones that did not see the light continued in the dark and evolved there, others saw from high and other from the low places. Dark ones feel the universe, whilst the sighted see what they are conditioned to see.
None see it all.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:Presumption can be born of ignorance, and ignorance can be born of presumption, both depend upon truth as the deciding factor in their compliance, but the truth is dependent upon perspective for the relative camp, such that from the perspective of humanities desires they deserve to live and shall prevail, but from the perspective of the symbiotic balance that they are born of, without which they would not have ever existed, as it's not really out there, but rather, in here and out there, they are it, and it is they, such is the essence of symbiotic, they may deserve to die and not prevail, if through presumption and ignorance they separate themselves from the symbiosis, then they are expendable, from that perspective, and shall surely die, as the symbiosis is what gives way to their existence.

The absolute truth is all around humanity as a symbiotic relationship of all life. it includes all the preexisting conditions upon which it relies to remain intact. It is the recipe for life, and excluding even the slighted of ingredients, could spell it's spoiling.

Growth is acceptable and expected, but not at the cost of the symbiosis, as balance reigns supreme, of the symbiotic. Growth should only proceed as symbiotic balance allows, as in it, and it alone, humankind can find the absolute truth of their existence.

Of course, symbiotically we are all one, and one is all, but that is not to say that all our wants and desires parallel and support the one, or that they can't derail the growth of the one, or snuff it out completely.

Selfishness, is the ultimate human virus!

lancek4 wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote:Presumption can be born of ignorance, and ignorance can be born of presumption, both depend upon truth as the deciding factor in their compliance, but the truth is dependent upon perspective for the relative camp, such that from the perspective of humanities desires they deserve to live and shall prevail, but from the perspective of the symbiotic balance that they are born of, without which they would not have ever existed, as it's not really out there, but rather, in here and out there, they are it, and it is they, such is the essence of symbiotic, they may deserve to die and not prevail, if through presumption and ignorance they separate themselves from the symbiosis, then they are expendable, from that perspective, and shall surely die, as the symbiosis is what gives way to their existence.

The absolute truth is all around humanity as a symbiotic relationship of all life. it includes all the preexisting conditions upon which it relies to remain intact. It is the recipe for life, and excluding even the slighted of ingredients, could spell it's spoiling.

Growth is acceptable and expected, but not at the cost of the symbiosis, as balance reigns supreme, of the symbiotic. Growth should only proceed as symbiotic balance allows, as in it, and it alone, humankind can find the absolute truth of their existence.

Of course, symbiotically we are all one, and one is all, but that is not to say that all our wants and desires parallel and support the one, or that they can't derail the growth of the one, or snuff it out completely.

Selfishness, is the ultimate human virus!

Yet, if we stick to the evolutionary science, it would seem that such a denial of symbiosis that would detroy us is that element of fear that will make us excel as an adapted specie. Whatever the general idea of fear is present for the era, I am not speaking of individual cultures. Or the individual. It seems contrary to the evidence of history that we would detroy ourselves. No entire group of humans has ever died, but their susrvivors have contributed to the adaptive attibutes which allow for the survival of the specie. To posit that now we have come to a pivotal point in history for our ultimate survival merely makes my point.

lancek4 wrote:

chaz wyman wrote:

lancek4 wrote:I tend to think of this arena in which you make sense, of evoluation, iof the brain, as like the eye, where it is said the first eyes preceived dark and light and so that specied could discern where prey was. So in this sense could we say our brains are getting better at conceiving the true universe?

No. The ones that did not see the light continued in the dark and evolved there, others saw from high and other from the low places. Dark ones feel the universe, whilst the sighted see what they are conditioned to see.
None see it all.

A few points if (dis)agreement and emphasis needed here.

Yet, one could say of the brain that it has evolved in a similar way as the eye, where the eye eveolved to discern gradiations and color and these adaptations are a part of the one species that seems to have dominated our planet: us.

Except that evolution is the consequences of change such that the eye evolved from the utility of its construction and not to its uses. I disagree that we dominate this planet. On what criteria?


Such that the brain in its simple form was merely a centralizing of particular coordinations of basic life, and that humans 'luckily' came about as humans adapting to particular ecological niches that selected behaviors and traits that allowed us to dominate most niches, and adaptation that allows us to adapt to any niche, or at least sufficient niches that leave others prone to being insigificant or obsolete.

And of course that humans like some other living things have found success by NOT specialising to particular niches. We are generalists and not specialists. eg. The Aardvark would not be mush good if the ants dies out.

This, that the brain must have developed accorded to these just so niches that it must be 'precieving' the 'best significance' or what would most be of the true universe in that we seem to be able to survive and thrive 'the best' of all we encounter as forms most similar to us, that is, other life forms.

That would limit the 'universe' as that which we survive in best. This is not the same as the universe.

It would appear then that what ever may be luck for us, or (the other term you used, I can't reference it on my blackbrry here)
"Flaw"
- is only internal to humans and not luck against the rest of existance since what may be 'all' or 'really true' does not seem to matter for our existance. We humans seem to have uspurped the natural selective process unto ourselvesn in that we adapt and survive eventually.

In part yes - but whatever we do, in order to survive we have to thrive. We are thus still at the mercy of nature.

The bottlenecks of humanity do not eliminate humanity, thus it might seems (Nietzsche-esque) that it is only the fear itself that would have us destroy ourselves, but thaty indeed it is such fear that is part of the brain's adaptaion which has brought us this far - not the same constant one, mind you, but the same adaptaional feature that allows us to adapt as a segregated element from nature - and that ironically it will be the same fear that posits a type of hubris or nemesis that says we will destroy ourselves that allows for us to excel.

What are the bottlenecks?


It would seem to use the theory of evolution to argue synchonicity's (and those others) sensibility in that way would argue that what may be 'really true' or 'all' of the universe does not matter,

It is only humanly true - which is all we will ever have, and maybe all we can have. Maybe that is enough?

but exactly, as to effects and apparent evidence, what we think is true at any time might as well be true absolutely.

I think the word 'absolutely' is utterly redundant and hopelessly anthropocentric.
It pretend we can transcend the limits of our own reality - This is a contradiction.


And whether it is or not is of no consequence. The brain might as well be understood as evolving in a way that it is coming to a better or more of the truth of the universe.

That is doubtful. In order for the brain to evolve there needs must be what they tend to call 'evolutionary pressure' from which new and 'better' forms might emerge.