Philosophy Now Forum

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Oct 06, 2018 8:58 am DontAskMe's brain seem to have been ossified

I have a brain ???

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Sat Oct 06, 2018 11:52 am I have a brain ???

You do. You just don't know how to use it. That is where learning comes handy

I wonder, Timeseeker, why do you think that everything happens in a brain?. So if its all neuronal activity then where is this brain occurring? In my head? But how could it be? I thought my body was just in my brain?

Ramu wrote: ↑Sat Oct 06, 2018 3:51 pm I wonder, Timeseeker, why do you think that everything happens in a brain?. So if its all neuronal activity then where is this brain occurring? In my head? But how could it be? I thought my body was just in my brain?

I wonder, Dontaskme (aka Ramu), why do you see/make divisions and then deny that such divisions exist?

Ramu wrote: ↑Sat Oct 06, 2018 3:51 pm I wonder, Timeseeker, why do you think that everything happens in a brain?. So if its all neuronal activity then where is this brain occurring? In my head? But how could it be? I thought my body was just in my brain?

I see that you have tripped over the mind-body problem. See this link for a couple of (Platonistic) ideas on how to get around it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind–body_problem

I don't think that everything happens in a brain. I think PERCEPTION (and therefore - the experience) of "everything", including "knowledge" happens in a brain, so until you begin perceiving without your brain - I think my argument is safe and sound.

That is not to say that I claim I understand how brains or minds work. I don't. But I build Artificial Intelligence for a living and so I can speak about my own mind as if it is the mind of the machines I build. And it gets me by

Lacewing wrote: ↑Sat Oct 06, 2018 4:06 pm why do you see/make divisions and then deny that such divisions exist?

Because to coin a phrase..ONE coin must have two sides. So on the human mind level which is just an aspect of consciousness, inseparable from it, a differentiation appears within consciousness when one wants to conclude what's absolute true and exists absolutely and what isn't.

The sense of separation is duality (mental activity)aka(relative).... but its only one side of the coin.

To understand the true absolute nature of nondual reality, all dualities of the mind must collapse. You cannot have illusion on the one hand and something else on the other.

Consciousness is nondual - it isn't separate from what consciousness is being conscious of ...aka (reflection)..the apparent dual within the non-dual.

No one and everyone knows this..its a direct experience to itself.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Sat Oct 06, 2018 6:55 pm

Lacewing wrote: ↑Sat Oct 06, 2018 4:06 pm why do you see/make divisions and then deny that such divisions exist?

Because to coin a phrase..ONE coin must have two sides. So on the human mind level which is just an aspect of consciousness, inseparable from it, a differentiation appears within consciousness when one wants to conclude what's absolute true and exists absolutely and what isn't.

The sense of separation is duality (mental activity)aka(relative).... but its only one side of the coin.

To understand the true absolute nature of nondual reality, all dualities of the mind must collapse. You cannot have illusion on the one hand and something else on the other.

Consciousness is nondual - it isn't separate from what consciousness is being conscious of ...aka (reflection)..the apparent dual within the non-dual.

No one and everyone knows this..its a direct experience to itself.

How do you know it is a coin?
What if it is a dice with 6 sides?

What is if it is a lottery? With 49! (factorial) different sides?

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Sat Oct 06, 2018 7:13 pm

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Sat Oct 06, 2018 6:55 pm

Lacewing wrote: ↑Sat Oct 06, 2018 4:06 pm why do you see/make divisions and then deny that such divisions exist?

ONE coin must have two sides. So on the human mind level which is just an aspect of consciousness, inseparable from it, a differentiation appears within consciousness when one wants to conclude what's absolute true and exists absolutely and what isn't.

What if it is a dice with 6 sides?

What is if it is a lottery? With 49! (factorial) different sides?

This is similar to what I was thinking.

We make-up the rules for the divisions we make-up, even when we claim we're not making it up.

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Sat Oct 06, 2018 8:32 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Oct 06, 2018 8:21 am Using the above model, each individual member must strive to increase his/her own competence so that they can align with oneness as team, in this case Team Humanity.

I have a challenge for you-three. Before you solve the the problems of Team Humanity, try and solve the problems for Team Atla-Veritas Aequitas-DontAskMe. If the three of you can't seem to come to any agreement what are the chances that 7.5 billion people can get it right?

What you are practically doing is bashing the other two over the head until they submit to your argument. Which is what wars are at social scale

Try another strategy - try to reach consensus. Agree on something. ANYTHING!
Refer to Aumann's agreement theorem ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aumann%27 ... nt_theorem )

Nah, it's a bad idea trying to agree with me. Though I dislike Buddhism for various reasons (especially dislike their denial of their own selfish roots and magical thinking), and would prefer an augmented, non-delusional Advaita, I would still gladly accept the Buddhist model when it could be implemented worldwide.

But I've run countless simulations about the future of humanity in my head, processing more information than you could handle btw, and I don't think at all that there is much realistic chance to make it. And to try to make it, I would actually propose extremely drastic, partially inhuman measures. Which is why it's best for everyone to just ignore what I say; and I'm not seriously debating either.

Besides you show your idiocy again by implying that for example coming to a consensus with Dontaskme is a needed step for anything.

Oh and thanks for the magical entropy-karma you gave me. You are very kind and predictable.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Sat Oct 06, 2018 11:52 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Oct 06, 2018 8:58 am DontAskMe's brain seem to have been ossified

I have a brain ???

That is the point, your brain is ossified to the degree that you [empirical] do not even acknowledge you [E] have an empirical brain.

Something is very wrong when you do not acknowledge a reality [regardless of whatever] that is verifiable by Science. This is a matter of simple induction and inference.
Such avoidance is learned and forcing 'stupidity' on oneself.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Sat Oct 06, 2018 8:35 pm

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Sat Oct 06, 2018 7:13 pm

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Sat Oct 06, 2018 6:55 pm
ONE coin must have two sides. So on the human mind level which is just an aspect of consciousness, inseparable from it, a differentiation appears within consciousness when one wants to conclude what's absolute true and exists absolutely and what isn't.

What if it is a dice with 6 sides?

What is if it is a lottery? With 49! (factorial) different sides?

This is similar to what I was thinking.

We make-up the rules for the divisions we make-up, even when we claim we're not making it up.

Only the mind makes things up...everything else is uncreated.

On the human level, there is only 'direct experience' from the 'first person perspective'

The mind can conjure up all sorts of ideas about itself, via knowledge, but knowledge will never be IT.

Direct experience has never seen a mind,the mind is a known concept (knowledge)

'knowledge' informs the illusory nature of reality.

IT is this ever unfolding mystery even to itself.

.

When it is seen there is no ''perceiver'' only ''perceiving'' . . . this is auspicious seeing.

What can be perceived experientially is energetic ''abundance'' (the limitless, the absolute, the impersonal) NOT ''insufficiency'' (the limited, the relative, the personal).

Emptiness of mind is fullness of Being. Fullness of Being is Emptiness of mind. (Mind thrives on these conceptual bon bons.)

Mind simply has to come out from behind whatever mental, emotional, intellectual, psychological barrier its hiding behind and accept it exists as ''mind activity'' not as a separate independent entity. But of course mind will do no such thing. Mind rarely does the simple thing, preferring complicated avoidance to simple acceptance.

Awakeness is essential Silence, so whatever is speaking, whatever is heard, is ''mind activity''. That inner voice inside us is NOT awakeness speaking, NOT the guru within, NOT the voice of god, NOT the cosmos speaking. (Only mind.)

Meaning whatever ''difficulties'' arise, they are of mind's making, arising out of its relationship to ''awakeness''.

Mind wants to sustain its version of awakeness?

Mind may try to usurp awakeness, ignore awakeness, or integrate awakeness. But of all possibilities, beware mind reconstructing itself as . . . ''awakened mind''.


There is no such (separate) entity.

.

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Oct 06, 2018 10:17 pm But I've run countless simulations about the future of humanity in my head, processing more information than you could handle btw,

Oh, you mean like this? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monte_Carlo_method
Or like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modeling_and_simulation

I am sure you will forgive me if I don't trust your mental calculations: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insensiti ... ample_size

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Oct 06, 2018 10:17 pm Besides you show your idiocy again by implying that for example coming to a consensus with Dontaskme is a needed step for anything.

And you show your ignorance further by failing to distinguish between the general and the particular.
Consensus - whether at social, scientific or individual scale is the platform on which SOCIAL stability is built.

And so agreeing with anybody (even Dontaskme) is an empirical DEMONSTRATION that you actually have the ability to find common ground (even though you admit that agreeing with you is a bad idea).

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Oct 06, 2018 10:17 pm Oh and thanks for the magical entropy-karma you gave me. You are very kind and predictable.

My pleasure. I am not a contrarian - so trying to agree with me is a worth-while strategy.

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Sun Oct 07, 2018 8:11 am And you show your ignorance further by failing to distinguish between the general and the particular.
Consensus - whether at social, scientific or individual scale is the platform on which SOCIAL stability is built.

And so agreeing with anybody (even Dontaskme) is an empirical DEMONSTRATION that you actually have the ability to find common ground (even though you admit that agreeing with you is a bad idea).

Again you fail to see that by building consesnsus with stupid, insane, manic idiots, of which there are many, we won't save humanity and beat Entropy the Antichrist; we would probably just be catapulted back to the Middle Ages and you might end up executed for your atheistic herecy even before the inevitable nuclear holocaust.

Pretty much everything you write shows such a lack of understanding about humans, that is only characterisic to some personality disorders. But there are many idiots on this forum who will be impressed.

Atla wrote: ↑Sun Oct 07, 2018 1:17 pm Again you fail to see that by building consesnsus with stupid, insane, manic idiots, of which there are many,

Weasel words ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_word ).

Can you put an exact number on 'many'? Can you contrast that number to the number of sane, non-manic, non-idiots with which we can build consensus. With which we HAVE built consensus (you know - this thing called SOCIETY).

Because as far as I have done the math and as far as I have encountered and interacted with humans (and having been a police officer for 15 years I have met the scum of society)- there are far more good people to build consensus with than your cynicism lets you believe.

Do you think all these social institutions (hospitals, universities, governments, police, fire brigades, schools etc.) could ever exist without consensus and co-operation?

Atla wrote: ↑Sun Oct 07, 2018 1:17 pm we won't save humanity and beat Entropy the Antichrist; we would probably just be catapulted back to the Middle Ages and you might end up executed for your atheistic herecy even before the inevitable nuclear holocaust.

And yet SOCIETY keeps getting better and better for everyone. https://ourworldindata.org

Atla wrote: ↑Sun Oct 07, 2018 1:17 pm Pretty much everything you write shows such a lack of understanding about humans, that is only characterisic to some personality disorders. But there are many idiots on this forum who will be impressed.

Is that true, or is it a projection? You sound excessively pessimistic in the face of contradictory evidence. Perhaps you think all humans are like YOU?

Maybe you do have a personality disorder. How about this one? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depressiv ... y_disorder

People with depressive personality disorder have a generally gloomy outlook on life, themselves, the past and the future. They are plagued by issues developing and maintaining relationships. In addition, studies have found that people with depressive personality disorder are more likely to seek psychotherapy than people with Axis I depression spectra diagnoses.

* Usual mood is dominated by dejection, gloominess, cheerlessness, joylessness and unhappines. CHECK
* Is pessimistic CHECK
* Is negativistic, critical and judgmental toward others CHECK

Or maybe this one: http://www.halcyon.com/jmashmun/npd/traits.html you tick many boxes there too. That may explain your distrust in other humans, presumably because you think you are the paragon of human intellect?

I understand humans just fine That's why I carry a smile, a polite attitude, willingness to listen and empathise, willingness to teach and learn, and willingness to build consensus in the name of progress.
I also carry a gun for the assholes who don't. I've only had to use my gun twice in 20 years. You are good at statistics. Do the math.

What I do understand about you is that you distrust humans.