enough with emptiness and dreams. we need new models.

[Stosh]

The idea of a missing link is a false idea in a way , all individuals that have been in the evolutionary lineage have linked one generation to the next ,,, so existing now proves linkage and a specific link need not be found. Since any in the line are a link , all the links ever found were the missing ones.

The only rule that one need consider valid to accept it is that offspring come from their parents going back to some pre-organic precursor. Not everyone believes this is the case... but its proven well enough for me to be convinced. My vehicle outside is hypothesis and theoretical too , as are the computer screens we all look at, the clothes we wear,.

Abandon the acceptance of some degree of uncertainty and what you end up with is an incapability to function effectively or come to rational conclusions about what will be the outcome of events , or what to do regarding things.

Certainty is a sentiment , it doesnt guarantee that ones idea was correct, but what it does lend is akin to a milestone one can move on from , freeing up ones attention to the next event or subject rather than wallow in an endless pit of doubt. It helps one proceed from the past though the present and into tomorrow cleanly.

Edited December 5, 2012 by Stosh

[Stosh]

Where did you get that idea from? Is that your life plan?

No, its just an idea that popped out of the ether , that might be novel.

and it shares with your idea the prospect of not being marked by genius

simply for its novelty . Does your original idea bless you in some way with an

improved life , I think not... and neither does mine -me.

[Birch]

The idea of a missing link is a false idea in a way , all individuals that have been in the evolutionary lineage have linked one generation to the next ,,, so existing now proves linkage and a specific link need not be found. Since any in the line are a link , all the links ever found were the missing ones.

The only rule that one need consider valid to accept it is that offspring come from their parents going back to some pre-organic precursor. Not everyone believes this is the case... but its proven well enough for me to be convinced. My vehicle outside is hypothesis and theoretical too , as are the computer screens we all look at, the clothes we wear,.

Abandon the acceptance of some degree of uncertainty and what you end up with is an incapability to function effectively or come to rational conclusions about what will be the outcome of events , or what to do regarding things.

Certainty is a sentiment , it doesnt guarantee that ones idea was correct, but what it does lend is akin to a milestone one can move on from , freeing up ones attention to the next event or subject rather than wallow in an endless pit of doubt. It helps one proceed from the past though the present and into tomorrow cleanly.

 

I liked that because of the idea about certainty as sentiment. However, I was under the impression that the act of 'doing science' was about something else, as in 'not certainty' but something of an exploration. I'm thinking if certainty is required for the activities of science then what are the unintended consequences of that?

Just sort of rambling here. No argument in particular.

[ShenLung]

One of the core tenants of the dojo that I occasionally frequent is that "what one is told is soon forgotten. What one learns for one's self endures." This means that in order to achieve real understanding, a student has to "figure it out" for themselves, then they can progress towards mastery without mechanically following the path of previous masters. Each generation becomes more and more adept. The master's task is to assist the student in finding their understanding, not to spoon-feed knowledge to them.

The origin of this teaching philosophy comes from Lao Tzu: The way you can go is not the true way; the tao that can be named is not the true tao. Now the training at this school is extremely physical, rooted in the kyokushin of Mastatsu Oyama (there is a lineage of both spiritual and physical masters here, so some of the old tai jutsu is still being taught).

 

The old models are not irrelevant, as they contain the basis for evolving one's personal understanding. If it is easiest for one to approach understanding of reality from the framework of a holographic matrix, the old models still provide a path to this sort of understanding ... but this understanding must still be gained by the student for themselves, or it has no validity, no power.

 

Perhaps some persons who go out seeking understanding do not have the temperment necessary to develop understanding for themselves. This is not a bad thing; not everyone can be the sage on the mountain. "Not this lifetime, maybe the next" is a quote that comes to mind. For most, it should be enough to be simple, and simply be.

 

Another thing that is taught is this: not all instruction is for every student. If the words that I have written speak to you in a meaningful way, then pehaps they are for you. If they do not, then perhaps next lifetime; don't be concerned about them for now. There should be no easy answers; Easy answers stifle personal growth!

[Marblehead]

The idea of a missing link is a false idea in a way ...

Not just "in a way", it is totally false. There is no missing link. Fossils have been found dating back 3.5 million years to when the first apes (humans) started walking upright. (There was on fossil found dated to approximately 4 million years ago but there wasn't enough bone to establish for sure that the being walked upright.)

 

Evolution is a fact. Now get out of the freakin' trees!

[Stosh]

I liked that because of the idea about certainty as sentiment. However, I was under the impression that the act of 'doing science' was about something else, as in 'not certainty' but something of an exploration. I'm thinking if certainty is required for the activities of science then what are the unintended consequences of that?

Just sort of rambling here. No argument in particular.

Im not really clear on the direction you are going so Ill add a form to the response which you can go with or reject as you see fit.

The activities of science are just the investigations of people trying to suss out the connections between things. If one does an experiment like -look outside to see if ones car is still in the lot - one has essentially done science.

(The implied hypothesis was that if my car was still out there, light would bounce off of it and I could see it , because the behavior of light is predictable as it has been decribed)

The scientific 'community' only accepts conclusions if others can also replicate results -such as , you look out your window and see my car. which means it is really only a process of figuring out that which is objectively true ( it doesnt matter who it is replicating the experiment)

Your experiences are personal and subjective , I dont really know how you feel looking at a flower ,or a birthday cake ,or a water buffalo. I can look at your face to make deductions ,, but I cant replicate the experience and know it as you do.

That is forever yours your own and private.

There are things in science that havent been solved and there are things that have been solved well enough to no longer be held with a high degree of doubt , You know about what gravity is doing , you know that it is quantifiably predictable and you know that ultimately at the most precise explantation of the universe that its not really clear what gravity is or if dark energy is its reverse complement. Scientifically derived knowlege admits to uncertainty but makes a distinction that for a given range of perspectives one can dismiss it.

[Ninjafro]

I highly doubt that the world is a giant computer program. Not to mention atomic interactions on the scale of 6.02x20^23 between molar masses of matter and the even greater number of subatomic interactions on a microscopic scale, a computer simply could handle almost 7 billion autonomic instances of artificial intelligence.

 

People seem to think that computers are these magic things that can do anything, but they're limited. Any algorithm a computer executes is limited by its hardware (and no computer in the world currently would be able to handle the amount of simultaneous loops and processes needed to run a "universe," filled with dynamically acting individuals) and the algorithms used on the software end of things. No algorithm is without computational complexity; each is assigned O(N) form which, even in "efficient" algorithms with have a value of O(N) = N * lg(N). Regardless of the efficiency, accounting for one mole of water (18g) would bring the minimum number of comparisons to O(6.02x10^23) = 6.02x10^23 * lg(6.02x10^23). Even if only 18g of water (and no people or events) existed on Earth, this is a lot to ask of a computer.

 

tl;dr, without some magic computer with a powerlevel of over 9000, the "matrix" couldn't happen.

[Marblehead]

Damn! My coffee cup is empty. Gotta' put more coffee in it.

[Stosh]

Damn! My coffee cup is empty. Gotta' put more coffee in it.

Wouldnt that make the coffee cup useless?

[Marblehead]

Wouldnt that make the coffee cup useless?

Well, (Hehehe) before I put the coffee in it it is still useful beyond limit. However, I have already put the coffee in it so it now has limits on its usefulness and that is that it is holding the coffee that I am drinking.

 

Of course, if there were anyone here with me and they got really pissed off at me they could grab my coffee cup that now has coffee in it and use it to throw coffee in my face so it can even have other usefulnesses even though it has coffee in it.

[Stosh]

If that happened I would say you would be better off with a new model instead

Heidi Klum?

Edited December 6, 2012 by Stosh

[hydrogen]

No, its just an idea that popped out of the ether , that might be novel.

and it shares with your idea the prospect of not being marked by genius

simply for its novelty . Does your original idea bless you in some way with an

improved life , I think not... and neither does mine -me.

 

When a true genius appears, you can know him by this sign: that all the dunces are in a confederacy against him.

 

By the reaction here, I know

[Stosh]

When a true genius appears, you can know him by this sign: that all the dunces are in a confederacy against him.

 

By the reaction here, I know

 

Thats pretty good ,

Then again , then reverse might also be true.

and then- who is who?

[Birch]

Like I said, I wasn't really going anywhere but Stosh said this thing I found interesting:

 

'The scientific 'community' only accepts conclusions if others can also replicate results -such as , you look out your window and see my car. which means it is really only a process of figuring out that which is objectively true ( it doesnt matter who it is replicating the experiment)

Your experiences are personal and subjective'

 

So if I get this right. My experiences are personal and subjective AND if they line up with other people's personal and subjective experiences then the only way we can say they are also 'objectively' true to X degree of certainty IF a set of rules created by a person (who one assumes experienced whatever it was personally and subjectively) for experiencing the experience have been followed? I'm wondering too if the rules here are pre-empting the empirical approach we'd like to say we're talking about when doing science? So anyway, what I'm thinking at this point, following what I understand from what Stosh is saying is that the idea of subjective vs objective as a dichotomy really isn't a dichotomy in the true sense (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dichotomy I went to look it up just in case). And to add, yin/yang theory is also (as far as I understand) not a theory of dichotomy as each has some of the other in it.

[Stosh]

_{Maybe K you want input from elsewhere but Id agree myself that the dichotomy between the two things isnt a perfect cleavage. For one thing the objective world interacts with the subjective perception of it and the subjective perceptions we have get translated into objective realm through our actions.}

_{examples being drug use and construction projects.}

_{Thusly I consider them both to be real ,,,and interactive in various ways}

_{But while I do think physical laws are not subject to our whim ..}

_{our subjective perceptions are fungible and highly unconstrained.}

[deci belle]

I choose to be human, maybe a human in spiritual path, But human first.

 

Complete human being is not what you are, hydrogen. Not until you realize it, that is. Human being is not a title. Human modifies the verb being. Human being is a function arrived at by a process of self-refinement. Human being is not a person.

 

Ego is also not a person. Ego is a function of the individual psychological identity. Originally you did not have this ego-as-identity. Over time you simply have assumed it.

 

Since you have only learned to take yourself as the limited self-identified individual you do as a result of inherited consciousness and habit awareness, you have forgotten what came first. and what came after that.

 

Yes, you are human first, but you don't have a clue as to what that entails. Hence, the need for certain deluded individuals to refine away their corrupted, polluted, deluded human consciousness to the point where they once again see their true mind, their original mind, and no longer take a thief for there own mind.

 

If you are good enough as you are, why do you need to reject the old model of emptiness before you even realize its YOUR OLD MODEL. Only an ignoramus would reject what is inconceivable. That would be the working definition of ignoramus.

 

As you have the arrogance to reject the authentic trace of the spiritual path of which you are completely ignorant instead of boring into this emptiness that you are equally ignorant of, I can only suggest that, yes, you do have a choice to be human …and you ought to get started on achieving its realization and furthermore its fruition in your life.❤

[hydrogen]

As you have the arrogance to reject the authentic trace of the spiritual path of which you are completely ignorant

 

who authentify this authentic spiritual path? I sure didn't put a stamp on it? If you truely belive what you said, then you should know I could go "home" whenever I chose so.

 

I think we're going around circle. You want to go back to who you were before. I do too. But I want more. And I believe there is more and we can be more. Otherwise we wouldn't put ourselve in this human body in the first place? what's the point? Do you really think I want the suffering comes with this human "body", the aging, the pain, and the emotions?

 

I don't. But I figure there must be more than just going home. I don't what it is yet. I'm willing to stick a little longer to find out. At least until my parents die and my kids grow up.

 

Good luck! I'll see you at "home".

[silent thunder]

How I miss you @deci belle

Edited September 10, 2023 by silent thunder