The origin of mankind

[Junko]

Brahma. This universe we live in was originally created by him. Other gods create other universes.

 

Lower ranked Devas (working under the command of this god) created the first humans out of

trees:

 

 

 

 

My personal observation and insight as a result of practicing in the natural environment and living as a hermit.

 

I have seen Brahma once while meditating on top of a mountain. His emanation during tha particular experience was a divine being wearing a long gown and having also a long white beard, radiating an enormous amount of Qi. He was sitting on some sort of 'cloud' and numerous devas/angels were coming back and forth from his position, presumibly executing his commands, which for this particular god is the power of creation. He surely has accumulated an incredibly amount of good karma in order to be reborn as a god. The devas that were under his command descended to this physical plane and delivered the creating Qi to elementals who have the task of maintaining the natural balance of this planet. How funny is that humans have the ability to destroy all of it for the sake of greed, lust and delusion. If they could see with their own eyes how much has their Science and Technology deviated from the truth they wouldn't behave the way they do: destroying the natural harmony of this wonderful blue planet.

This is great! I see it myself a tree expressing human body,human parts and human actions.But I also see this kind of phenomenon in rocks,clouds and smoke.I am not talking about sculpture.Really made 100％ by nature.....a face in the rock in the cloud and in the smoke!Certainly nature expresse this we human rules this planet.

[Wu Ming Jen]

Perhaps our reality is not as material as we think, and it becomes manifested from the Dao, rather than evolves physically over millions of years. The closer we inspect this reality, the more evidence is manifested for it having a material origin...just another illusion. New species appear all the time out of nowhere. What is the origin of mankind? Perhaps, the immaterial.

That is awesome. 

[vonkrankenhaus]

The reason Russel is talking about God.

 

He understands that Gravity and Magnetism is YinYang.

 

Which means gravity is not physical, but an interaction, movement, change.

 

This cannot be held up in hand, nor seen with device.

 

Only effects on physical things are observed as "thing".

 

 

 

 

 

 

-VonKrankenhaus

[Karl]

This is incorrect. Quoting the article Buddhism and Modern Science:

 

 

 

Alice A. Bailey's A Treatise on Cosmic Fire (a book highly influential in Theosophist circles) echoes this in the introduction:

 

All True, but then Buddha wasn't advocating Buddhism as I understand it, instead it was a group after his death that created the organised religion. Objectivism was, from the ground up, a philosophy which requires no religious adherence. There is no church to join or set of practices to carry out.

[Karl]

Please define the word "net" for me, Karl -- in your own words.

 

A lattice made of rope or some other kind of flexible material.

[dust]

A lattice made of rope or some other kind of flexible material.

 

He said "in your own words". All those words were invented by other people.

[Cheshire Cat]

[Brian]

A lattice made of rope or some other kind of flexible material.

This what you mean by "lattice"?

[lat-is]

noun

1.

a structure of crossed wooden or metal strips usually arranged to form a diagonal pattern of open spaces between the strips.

 

 

What about inflexible materials?

[Brian]

 

He said "in your own words". All those words were invented by other people.

I'm OK with using ordinary words -- I'm trying to get to the underlying understanding.

[Karl]

This what you mean by "lattice"?[lat-is] noun1.a structure of crossed wooden or metal strips usually arranged to form a diagonal pattern of open spaces between the strips.What about inflexible materials?

I wouldn't class inflexible materials as a net. I thought about all the kinds of net. Net curtain, fishing net, hair net, net work, Internet etc. None were inflexible, rope best described the kind of traditional materials used and easily led to incorporation in the concept of networks/internet.

 

You want me to define 'lattice' ? That 'structure of crossed wooden/metal strips arranged to form a diagonal pattern' is good enough for what we are attempting I think.

 

I've learned not to go too general. I did an exercise to define a sandwich in which I ended up trying to incorporate every kind of sandwich from metallic to bodily. It was better when I stuck to the genus of food. Here, for net, I could have begun with the genus 'structure' but lattice seemed to have that property.

 

I could refine it now to 'a flexible structure in the form of a lattice traditionally made from rope'

Edited March 17, 2016 by Karl

[Brian]

What about a structure in which the nodes are connected by metal rings? By a series of metal rings? By metal rods with rings on the ends?

[Karl]

What about a structure in which the nodes are connected by metal rings? By a series of metal rings? By metal rods with rings on the ends?

Does a structure necessarily have nodes ? I wouldn't particularly recognise that as a net. Certainly as a network.

 

One of the reasons I suggested that you define fields was because of your wider knowledge of these things. The thing about a definition is that it must be easily understood by someone of average intelligence otherwise it's useless. It can be added to of course by mathematical formula etc, but that specialises it.

Edited March 17, 2016 by Karl

[dust]

I'm OK with using ordinary words -- I'm trying to get to the underlying understanding.

 

I was only being silly. Though now I think about it, I would be kinda curious to read or hear words/languages invented by individuals and how they varied between people.

[Karl]

I was only being silly. Though now I think about it, I would be kinda curious to read or hear words/languages invented by individuals and how they varied between people.

 

You should talk to my younger brother, he invented his own language at school. I used to translate for the teachers.

It's quite a lot of fun to invent words.

[Zhongyongdaoist]

I was only being silly. Though now I think about it, I would be kinda curious to read or hear words/languages invented by individuals and how they varied between people.

 

It's called "idioglossia" and is a well know phenomena, most common among twins:

 

Idioglossia on Wikipedia

[Stosh]

It's extreme realism. In that entities are a kind of poor facimile of a perfect form. That they contain an intrinsic concept of that form that is transmitted to the person viewing it.

Realism is very similar.

That's Plato for you (and to a slightly lesser extent Aristotle ).

That's why I said Michael wasn't an objectivist.

Have to add that 'BS' isn't a good argument against it :-)

B S , IS one of them there perfect form intrinsic concepts that you cant interact with, like numbers. Its a perfect form that exists as a perfect concept only and has been transmitted to me, the person viewing it.

And I think this is a good argument, because you cant prove that its not without refuting platonic realism..

[Karl]

B S , IS one of them there perfect form intrinsic concepts that you cant interact with, like numbers. Its a perfect form that exists as a perfect concept only and has been transmitted to me, the person viewing it.

And I think this is a good argument, because you cant prove that its not without refuting platonic realism..

 

So your saying that the bullshitness of bullshit has been intrinsically transmitted to you as a way to refute platonic realism ?

 

Problem is that you are now using the fallacy of a stolen concept in order to disprove platonic realism. Rather than refute it, you have unwittingly argued for it. :-)

 

But it made me laugh, so even though it's a bad logical argument, it was still funny :-) Damn those platonists with their caves, shadows, candles and forms.

[Stosh]

So your saying that the bullshitness of bullshit has been intrinsically transmitted to you as a way to refute platonic realism ? Problem is that you are now using the fallacy of a stolen concept in order to disprove platonic realism. Rather than refute it, you have unwittingly argued for it. :-) But it made me laugh, so even though it's a bad logical argument, it was still funny :-) Damn those platonists with their caves, shadows, candles and forms.

Close Karl,

Im arguing that if the concept is the reality , then my concept that its BS would have to be the reality. If actual reality is whats real and I call that platonic thing  BS, its still really BS. I win!! .. Platonic realism was discounted in western philosophy thousands of years ago Its unprovable.   Sure Im perhaps borrowing the concept, but one has to make a proof in the realm that supports something which could be construed as evidence. I cant prove that this whole world is fake from here because all my evidence would be considered fake. 

As far as we can determine from here, the specific  white horse , exists in some way , even if its transient , the perfect horse abstract is inferred. I have seen platos cup and plato's table, but I have not seen his cupness and tableness.

All the idea does is create a duplicate universe exactly like the one we are in. The white of the horse I see is an abstract too , so the white horse of normal perception is exactly like its platonicly real horse. 

Edited March 18, 2016 by Stosh

[Karl]

Close Karl,

Im arguing that if the concept is the reality , then my concept that its BS would have to be the reality. If actual reality is whats real and I call that platonic thing  BS, its still really BS. I win!! .. Platonic realism was discounted in western philosophy thousands of years ago Its unprovable.   Sure Im perhaps borrowing the concept, but one has to make a proof in the realm that supports something which could be construed as evidence. I cant prove that this whole world is fake from here because all my evidence would be considered fake. 

As far as we can determine from here, the specific  white horse , exists in some way , even if its transient , the perfect horse abstract is inferred. I have seen platos cup and plato's table, but I have not seen his cupness and tableness.

 

Yes, you borrowed the concept and you have also committed a second fallacy of an appeal to authority in both qualitative and quantitative senses (by western philosophy and thousand of years ago). However, if it was discounted, then what argument was used ? :-)

 

If you are going to refute an argument, you must know on what grounds you refute it. It's not acceptable to say that you refute it by standing on the platform by which you are attempting to refute it, it's not acceptable to suggest that Western philosophers-no matter how genius-are proof of a refutation, and it's certainly not acceptable to use the temporal argument to substantiate your view.

 

The one thing you said was that it wasn't provable :-). And this is true because it is up to the platonists to prove that their theory of perfect forms is true and not yours to disprove beyond that. Then you must apply that to your own theories like a bright sword. Cut, cut, slash.

[Marblehead]

Did Y'all know that the DNA of the human animal is approximately 50% identical to that of a banana?

[Karl]

Did Y'all know that the DNA of the human animal is approximately 50% identical to that of a banana?

 

Well, I often feel like a banana.

[Stosh]

Yes, you borrowed the concept and you have also committed a second fallacy of an appeal to authority in both qualitative and quantitative senses (by western philosophy and thousand of years ago). However, if it was discounted, then what argument was used ? :-) If you are going to refute an argument, you must know on what grounds you refute it. It's not acceptable to say that you refute it by standing on the platform by which you are attempting to refute it, it's not acceptable to suggest that Western philosophers-no matter how genius-are proof of a refutation, and it's certainly not acceptable to use the temporal argument to substantiate your view. The one thing you said was that it wasn't provable :-). And this is true because it is up to the platonists to prove that their theory of perfect forms is true and not yours to disprove beyond that. Then you must apply that to your own theories like a bright sword. Cut, cut, slash.

I did supply my arguments , I just didnt preface them as, ' these are my arguments' The cup thing and the horse thing have already been expounded , I assumed you were familiar with them and didnt have to elaborate.

Plato postulates the abstracts are real and the material is just a shadow of the true reality. So he is postulating that there is a more real reality,, a SECOND reality. well the second reality of a horse has to have some form to distinguish it from the perfect table, So it must have characters like color. The perfect white horse is white the perfect tick is on the perfect horse and so on. This is a Duplication of the reality we know ,but saying this other is real but we cant see it. 

So when the guy says he saw plato's cup, but not its cupness, he's saying that from in this world you cant prove the abstraction. 

Eventually  philosophy moved on, to regard that the specific item was perfectly whatever it was, and dumped the waste of time envisioning a duplicate universe. 

Personally, I take the practical stance that discovering something to be moot, or useless,  or a waste of time, to be sufficient 'proof' !  

Like anyone else, once theyve determined something to be a waste of time , they stop, its very handy to accept this standard as a logical proof. 

 

f you want to argue the valiidity of tsomething you consider a waste of time thats an error in judgement IMO  

Edited March 18, 2016 by Stosh

[Junko]

Hello readers! If I could get your attentions. What if a human around kindergarten age or elementary school student asks exactly the same question like my thead,how would you tell him or her one by one.....I think that makes us more easier to see whole picture.

[Stosh]

What of, origin of mankind? bananas or fake universes..

Edited March 18, 2016 by Stosh

[Karl]

I did supply my arguments , I just didnt preface them as, ' these are my arguments' The cup thing and the horse thing have already been expounded , I assumed you were familiar with them and didnt have to elaborate.

Plato postulates the abstracts are real and the material is just a shadow of the true reality. So he is postulating that there is a more real reality,, a SECOND reality. well the second reality of a horse has to have some form to distinguish it from the perfect table, So it must have characters like color. The perfect white horse is white the perfect tick is on the perfect horse and so on. This is a Duplication of the reality we know ,but saying this other is real but we cant see it. 

So when the guy says he saw plato's cup, but not its cupness, he's saying that from in this world you cant prove the abstraction. 

Eventually  philosophy moved on, to regard that the specific item was perfectly whatever it was, and dumped the waste of time envisioning a duplicate universe. 

Personally, I take the practical stance that discovering something to be moot, or useless,  or a waste of time, to be sufficient 'proof' !  

Like anyone else, once theyve determined something to be a waste of time , they stop, its very handy to accept this standard as a logical proof. 

 

f you want to argue the valiidity of tsomething you consider a waste of time thats an error in judgement IMO  

 

Infinite regression then. I will go along with that. It's pretty much the same positive argument against the creation of the universe by some omnipotent being. That isn't a surprise, as that's where Neo platonists took the idea of a heaven.

 

I think it's just a good exercise. Sometimes it exposes internal conceptualisation which are weak which I enjoy discovering in myself.