Nature and anti-nature

[dimreepr]

2 minutes ago, Area54 said:

No. A pound or two of acceptance and understanding. An ounce or two of hostility.

Revenge is never balanced...

[Phi for All]

2 hours ago, requirer said:

It seems that we have a different perception of reality and that this debate won't lead anywhere. In my understanding of your terminology, "I lose"

I can't call it debate when we aren't really using the same definitions. I wanted to simply discuss your ideas anyway, to remove the concept of win/lose. I always assume people come to a science discussion forum to get the science perspective. It is, after all, the least biased by definition, the most current, also by definition, and has been tested for accuracy by the world's most rigorous skeptics on a daily basis for hundreds of years. This is the same science that lets us calculate when and how hard to (in essence) throw a dart from Earth in a straight line that will eventually hit a Mars-sized dartboard after all the spacetime curvature had been accounted for.

Can we peel this conversation back to where I felt the need to correct? You claimed that thought and consciousness were life in their own right. I told you how that idea violated the standard definitions, and asked you to support it. Instead, you asked me to "prove" something I'd said, which was that we don't know if thought and consciousness can exist outside the body. 

So, can you support the idea that thought and consciousness have life of their own?

 

49 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Hey, me too... I've learned a lot since then...

QFT.

[requirer]

1 hour ago, Phi for All said:

I can't call it debate when we aren't really using the same definitions. I wanted to simply discuss your ideas anyway, to remove the concept of win/lose. I always assume people come to a science discussion forum to get the science perspective. It is, after all, the least biased by definition, the most current, also by definition, and has been tested for accuracy by the world's most rigorous skeptics on a daily basis for hundreds of years. This is the same science that lets us calculate when and how hard to (in essence) throw a dart from Earth in a straight line that will eventually hit a Mars-sized dartboard after all the spacetime curvature had been accounted for.

Can we peel this conversation back to where I felt the need to correct? You claimed that thought and consciousness were life in their own right. I told you how that idea violated the standard definitions, and asked you to support it. Instead, you asked me to "prove" something I'd said, which was that we don't know if thought and consciousness can exist outside the body. 

So, can you support the idea that thought and consciousness have life of their own?

 

QFT.

No, not that it can fall under the category of rigorous, testable methods by which it could be verified. It is not a "five sense" thing. And I understand that my claims are bordering traditional reasoning, and I will have to stop my futile attempts for that reason

"Meditation's impact on the brain": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r3neFV38TJQ

[Phi for All]

2 hours ago, requirer said:

No, not that it can fall under the category of rigorous, testable methods by which it could be verified.

But all I'm using is part of a standard definition of life to state that life requires a reasonably stable environment, and that would NOT be the case if consciousness were divorced from the body. Thought requires chemical transference, which requires water, which requires a mechanism of distribution, which is also not possible absent our bodies. Thought and consciousness don't fit the definition of life, so I question why you think they are "life by their own right".

I'd still like a reply to that, or for you to amend your concept to take my reasoned response into consideration. Equally, I'm completely willing to listen to an explanation of why you think your definition of life is more helpful, and why anti-nature is a better way to explain what we observe happening with various phenomena in the natural universe.

[beecee]

Just been reading through this thread and I find some imo, excellent advice and replies to the OP. I havn't much to add, except that science and the scientific methodology is a discipline in eternal progress, as has been expressed by others, and that philosophical questions sometimes are not really relevant, or ever will be answered to the satisfaction of philosophers. In effect science asks and explains how...philosophers ask why. For the OP, a short 7.5 minute video that I believe may help.....https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q1lL-hXO27Q and that I have shown many times.

Other than that, my own non professional, amateurish views seem to align with the following answers.........

On 3/6/2021 at 12:41 AM, Phi for All said:

By what definition? They seem more like emergent properties of high intelligence. They can't live independently from the body as far as we know.

 

 

On 3/6/2021 at 7:18 AM, Phi for All said:

I can provide evidence that thought as we define it currently ceases upon death. I can point to the current definitions of life and show that "thought" and "consciousness" don't qualify. There is no evidence to support that either are separate entities, or have a life independent of their host. I can support the statement with a myriad of sources.

There's no mathematical proof, and I wouldn't trust a philosophical one. Proof isn't really a scientific concept. Best current explanation is as good as it gets.

 

On 3/6/2021 at 7:23 AM, Phi for All said:

If you don't understand something, you should ask questions instead of making stuff up. Using your own personal definitions is NOT science, and is, quite frankly, ignorant behavior. Why are you choosing "something that makes more sense to me" over "accumulated human knowledge"?

 

23 hours ago, Phi for All said:

Science has accumulated a great deal of trustworthy knowledge, but most of it isn't "fixed". That's why a theory is the strongest explanation there is, because it's always being updated with the latest information. It may seem rigid to you, but that's mostly because definitions are much more important in science than almost anywhere else. It sounds like you have some misunderstandings about science. Welcome to the forums, I hope you gain something from discussion.

 

 

7 hours ago, Area54 said:

It is, perhaps, a pleasant thought. Unforunately belief in what lacks significant evidence is a form of self deception.

You doubtless detect a measure of seeming hostility in replies from other members. Rather than hostility this is more in the way of frustration at yet another new member arriving with the same tired ideas to challenge science, thinking they have arrived at something original and penetrating. You have not.

There is, however, a great oppotunity for you, through dialogue on this site, to gain improved insights into the nature of reality. To do that you will have to open your mind and cast aside your ill informed notion of the nature of science. I hope you make the right decision.

 

6 hours ago, Area54 said:

Science is under attack by segments of society who seem to glorify ignorance and sneer at the educated. I think such an attack on one of the cornerstones of civilisation merits an ounce or two of hostility.

All highlights by me. With the last quote, I'm rather pleased to be seen as the exception, in that my conventional formal education is non existent beyond high school and what we call in Australia, the Intermediate certificate of the fifties and very early sixties, and then appropriate trade certificates in Fitting, Machining and Welding. My always great interests in science, saw me keep up with general progress and revelations through reputable reading and forums such as this.

I can offer nothing to the author of the OP of any real value, other then what I believe to be some of the wise, science based answers you have been given by others.

[Phi for All]

2 hours ago, requirer said:

It is not a "five sense" thing.

Five senses isn't even a thing.

 

3 hours ago, requirer said:

And I understand that my claims are bordering traditional reasoning, and I will have to stop my futile attempts for that reason

No disrespect, but you stopped your attempts after a few requests for clarification and some replies that pointed out discrepancies with observed phenomena, which you either ignored or claimed represented some kind of religious dogma. The martyr card isn't playable at this point in time.

[requirer]

1 hour ago, Phi for All said:

But all I'm using is part of a standard definition of life to state that life requires a reasonably stable environment, and that would NOT be the case if consciousness were divorced from the body. Thought requires chemical transference, which requires water, which requires a mechanism of distribution, which is also not possible absent our bodies. Thought and consciousness don't fit the definition of life, so I question why you think they are "life by their own right".

I'd still like a reply to that, or for you to amend your concept to take my reasoned response into consideration. Equally, I'm completely willing to listen to an explanation of why you think your definition of life is more helpful, and why anti-nature is a better way to explain what we observe happening with various phenomena in the natural universe.

 

43 minutes ago, beecee said:

Just been reading through this thread and I find some imo, excellent advice and replies to the OP. I havn't much to add, except that science and the scientific methodology is a discipline in eternal progress, as has been expressed by others, and that philosophical questions sometimes are not really relevant, or ever will be answered to the satisfaction of philosophers. In effect science asks and explains how...philosophers ask why. For the OP, a short 7.5 minute video that I believe may help.....https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q1lL-hXO27Q and that I have shown many times.

Other than that, my own non professional, amateurish views seem to align with the following answers.........

 

 

 

 

 

 

All highlights by me. With the last quote, I'm rather pleased to be seen as the exception, in that my conventional formal education is non existent beyond high school and what we call in Australia, the Intermediate certificate of the fifties and very early sixties, and then appropriate trade certificates in Fitting, Machining and Welding. My always great interests in science, saw me keep up with general progress and revelations through reputable reading and forums such as this.

I can offer nothing to the author of the OP of any real value, other then what I believe to be some of the wise, science based answers you have been given by others.

Anti-nature was the product of my incapability to cope with life. Not that I have impediments in basic tasks of life, but the very essence of life, our inexplicable instinctive curiosity, our bitter primitivity, our bias towards materialism and our utter aimlessness and lack of complete focus, all show lack of self-esteem. Always fitting life into our own understanding, as if the universe is governed by human understanding! As if life wouldn't be possible was it not for our "science"... Yes, you're making abstract concepts and cannot even discern them from your own tendencies and nature. You're identifying yourself with your notions and preferences under the guise of science. Do away with science and life is still there. Life doesn't need science or technology to have its natural way. And where did this come up? I could not accept the general "control-oriented" consensus. If you are both interested for something more, have this  https://www.martinus.dk/en/frontpage/index.html

[zapatos]

1 hour ago, requirer said:

...lack of complete focus, all show lack of self-esteem.

Can you explain what you mean by this? Focus is very much a function of how the brain works. I don't see how you can possibly suggest that lack of focus is strictly a self-esteem problem. One of the symptoms of COVID is lack of focus. Surely having COVID is not a self-esteem issue.

[beecee]

3 hours ago, requirer said:

Anti-nature was the product of my incapability to cope with life.

I'm sorry to hear that.

3 hours ago, requirer said:

 as if the universe is governed by human understanding! As if life wouldn't be possible was it not for our "science"... Yes, you're making abstract concepts and cannot even discern them from your own tendencies and nature. You're identifying yourself with your notions and preferences under the guise of science.

I understand that the universe does not give a stuff, about some life existing on a fart arse little blue orb, orbiting a yellow dwarf star, in the outer arm of an average spiral galaxy, consisting of 400 billion other stars, most with planets orbiting them, in an observable universe  of countless other galaxies, and immeasurable distances and size. Your philosophy has fails fails on that score.

3 hours ago, requirer said:

 As if life wouldn't be possible was it not for our "science"...  Do away with science and life is still there. Life doesn't need science or technology to have its natural way. 

Certainly life would exist without science, but what sort of life would it be? We'd still be swinging in the trees. Science is seen in organized thinking as we evolve,  and improving our lot.

 

3 hours ago, requirer said:

 I could not accept the general "control-oriented" consensus. If you are both interested for something more, have this  https://www.martinus.dk/en/frontpage/index.html

I view your link as philosophical as distinct from scientific. I'll make a deal with you....you see how your life eventuates without science of any description, and I'll see how mine eventuates without such philosophical concepts. That doesn't mean of course that I will disregard any of the worthwhile conventional principals that most adhere to in any civilised society.

Edited March 7, 2021 by beecee

[requirer]

10 hours ago, zapatos said:

Can you explain what you mean by this? Focus is very much a function of how the brain works. I don't see how you can possibly suggest that lack of focus is strictly a self-esteem problem. One of the symptoms of COVID is lack of focus. Surely having COVID is not a self-esteem issue.

It can be seen as such. But I did not mean individual focus. Humanity is falling apart in numerous ways even with all the understanding and advancement we have accomplished. COVID is one such problem. A responsible civilization does not allow such "accidents" to be. Just no, thank you.

12 hours ago, requirer said:

 

Anti-nature was the product of my incapability to cope with life. Not that I have impediments in basic tasks of life, but the very essence of life, our inexplicable instinctive curiosity, our bitter primitivity, our bias towards materialism and our utter aimlessness and lack of complete focus, all show lack of self-esteem. Always fitting life into our own understanding, as if the universe is governed by human understanding! As if life wouldn't be possible was it not for our "science"... Yes, you're making abstract concepts and cannot even discern them from your own tendencies and nature. You're identifying yourself with your notions and preferences under the guise of science. Do away with science and life is still there. Life doesn't need science or technology to have its natural way. And where did this come up? I could not accept the general "control-oriented" consensus. If you are both interested for something more, have this  https://www.martinus.dk/en/frontpage/index.html

To be clear here, I did not intend to dismiss human understanding as redundant or inferior in any way, I only wanted to state that in my opinion mainstream science has a very unripe approach towards life and it doesn't really serve the wellbeing of the whole. Not that all scientists are anti-humans and against natural principles. It's that the abusers have the upper hand in what we think as an "intellectual civilization" in which we live. As long as we will tend to go against everything thanks to our arrogance and delusions of supremacy, we will have problems that do not at all go along with what we imagine ourselves to be.

[dimreepr]

1 hour ago, requirer said:

It can be seen as such. But I did not mean individual focus. Humanity is falling apart in numerous ways even with all the understanding and advancement we have accomplished. COVID is one such problem. A responsible civilization does not allow such "accidents" to be. Just no, thank you.

I get what you're trying to say, but it's not science's/scientists fault the world's in the shitter; it's people (politico) like you, who willfully ignor the evidence; for instance COVID-19 wouldn't be such an issue if a/ the advice given by science, to prepare for a pandemic b/ the advice given by science, after the advice previously given was ignored, to wear masks/PPE and avoid contact.

A little understanding goes a long way... 😉

14 hours ago, requirer said:

Anti-nature was the product of my incapability to cope with life.

Yet nature is the answer to your problem, I'm not a stranger to the urge to die (I even tried once); when you're at your lowest and you wake up the next day the only choice is up. 

I'm not making light of mental issue's and I know "It's easy for me to say", but we have a choice to not be sad; meditation for instance is a choice to be content in that moment. A little learning and acceptance and understanding, it's possible to extend that moment for life. 

Being eternally sad is no more possible than being eternally happy; what is possible is to accept both for what they are.

[dimreepr]

Science doesn't have all the answer's, but it does have some...😉

[requirer]

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

I get what you're trying to say, but it's not science's/scientists fault the world's in the shitter; it's people (politico) like you, who willfully ignor the evidence; for instance COVID-19 wouldn't be such an issue if a/ the advice given by science, to prepare for a pandemic b/ the advice given by science, after the advice previously given was ignored, to wear masks/PPE and avoid contact.

A little understanding goes a long way... 😉

Yet nature is the answer to your problem, I'm not a stranger to the urge to die (I even tried once); when you're at your lowest and you wake up the next day the only choice is up. 

I'm not making light of mental issue's and I know "It's easy for me to say", but we have a choice to not be sad; meditation for instance is a choice to be content in that moment. A little learning and acceptance and understanding, it's possible to extend that moment for life. 

Being eternally sad is no more possible than being eternally happy; what is possible is to accept both for what they are.

Once you cross a certain threshold there's no more thinking within the evidence spectrum, you observe the creative principle and that this principle can be used for both good and bad things. Whether you will call this a mental, psychological or spiritual thing depends on your own discernment. Until then you will be receiving outside information that will not live up to a standardized organization of assessment forever. Frauds, manipulations, lies, promises, it's all within this scope of life many still consider a "game". It's a force, it's influencing us, weary or not. Masses are not easy to keep awake, especially when they do not want to take care even for themselves appropriately. Fear isn't generally agreed upon to be a weak spot for mind control. You don't hear this observation from the "global information system" where "experts" get to think instead of those who still give their authority over to questionable personnel. And from here on you will probably have doubt. Morality certainly isn't their priority. And there are countless sources of information which are accessible even now, all it takes is interest, openness to a different point of view. That does not mean you have to take everything for granted. I am not even sure with myself what is ok and what is not, it's a chaotic world and experiences are so individualized that the strongest way of communication becomes that which imposes upon you. Hardly anyone questions where did the unintuitive mess we're living come from

Edited March 7, 2021 by requirer

[dimreepr]

2 minutes ago, requirer said:

Once you cross a certain threshold there's no more thinking within the evidence spectrum, you observe the creative principle and that this principle can be used for both good and bad things. Whether you will call this a mental, psychological or spiritual thing depends on your own discernment. Until then you will be receiving outside information that will not live up to a standardized organization of assessment forever. Frauds, manipulations, lies, promises, it's all within this scope of life many still consider a "game". It's a force

It's bollox is what it is...

[requirer]

On 3/7/2021 at 3:10 PM, dimreepr said:

It's bollox is what it is...

From the sense of duty, I'll also give this: https://www.alliesofhumanity.org/

React as you will

[dimreepr]

10 minutes ago, requirer said:

React as you will

Thanks, I'll try...

[iNow]

20 minutes ago, requirer said:

From the sense of duty, I'll also give this: <garbage url removed>

React as you will

You misspelled doody 

[Phi for All]

On 3/6/2021 at 3:55 PM, requirer said:

Anti-nature was the product of my incapability to cope with life.

You're alive, so you're completely capable of coping with life.

On 3/6/2021 at 3:55 PM, requirer said:

Not that I have impediments in basic tasks of life, but the very essence of life, our inexplicable instinctive curiosity, our bitter primitivity, our bias towards materialism and our utter aimlessness and lack of complete focus, all show lack of self-esteem.

Our curiosity has nothing to do with instincts, and everything to do with higher intelligence, so it's completely explicable. 

Our "bitter primitivity" is a default for ALL animals. It's only our higher intelligence that helps us see where our primitive behavior doesn't serve as well in certain situations. It's something a reasoning human has to work with daily, trying to decide if it's better in this situation to compete for resources or cooperate for a better outcome. 

Our bias towards materialism is born from our superior use of tools, which is another aspect of higher intelligence. Greed for wealth is one thing, but our desire to have "things" is usually because those things are useful, and having more of them is better than having less. 

I disagree that the whole species is "aimless". I question a need for "complete focus" on our part as well. There are enough of us that we can focus on many different things. And as for humans lacking self-esteem as a whole, I think it misses the mark by quite a bit. We're a species in a unique set of circumstances, where we have animal behavior that has traditionally served us well, but we lack many of the pressures those behaviors were evolved for. We don't hunt and gather anymore, humans are specialized to an astonishing degree, and our communications have global consequences now. We're at war with the notions of what is different/dangerous and what is different/advantageous. Cooperation is thousands of times more beneficial than competition, but competing for resources is a basic trait that's hard to resist.

We have plenty of aim, but I would imagine we aren't aimed at what YOU think is important. YOU have chosen to reframe and redefine everything, which makes things seem even more  disjointed. I think if you gave mainstream science another try, you'd discover LOTS of studies to interest you, and a lot less pushback from those like you who want to make the world a better place.

 

[requirer]

2 hours ago, Phi for All said:

You're alive, so you're completely capable of coping with life.

Our curiosity has nothing to do with instincts, and everything to do with higher intelligence, so it's completely explicable. 

Our "bitter primitivity" is a default for ALL animals. It's only our higher intelligence that helps us see where our primitive behavior doesn't serve as well in certain situations. It's something a reasoning human has to work with daily, trying to decide if it's better in this situation to compete for resources or cooperate for a better outcome. 

Our bias towards materialism is born from our superior use of tools, which is another aspect of higher intelligence. Greed for wealth is one thing, but our desire to have "things" is usually because those things are useful, and having more of them is better than having less. 

I disagree that the whole species is "aimless". I question a need for "complete focus" on our part as well. There are enough of us that we can focus on many different things. And as for humans lacking self-esteem as a whole, I think it misses the mark by quite a bit. We're a species in a unique set of circumstances, where we have animal behavior that has traditionally served us well, but we lack many of the pressures those behaviors were evolved for. We don't hunt and gather anymore, humans are specialized to an astonishing degree, and our communications have global consequences now. We're at war with the notions of what is different/dangerous and what is different/advantageous. Cooperation is thousands of times more beneficial than competition, but competing for resources is a basic trait that's hard to resist.

We have plenty of aim, but I would imagine we aren't aimed at what YOU think is important. YOU have chosen to reframe and redefine everything, which makes things seem even more  disjointed. I think if you gave mainstream science another try, you'd discover LOTS of studies to interest you, and a lot less pushback from those like you who want to make the world a better place.

 

I'm a purist, but honestly you've got a point

[Phi for All]

6 minutes ago, requirer said:

I'm a purist, but honestly you've got a point

Purism is well-defined as an art movement, but poorly defined as a philosophy. I'm leery these days of broad, subjectively-defined labels that don't serve us as well as we assume they do. I make conservative and liberal choices every day, but resist painting myself as one way or the other.

Most purists don't realize how fragile and restrictive their worldview is, and see only the beauty of simplicity. A purist might claim that eating the plant a medicine came from is a better approach than taking the medicine, because the plant is the "pure" source. But in actuality, modern medicine removes the impurities and things you don't need from the plant to produce a more effective medicine (taking ephedrine as an antihistamine is far more effective than chewing on a bunch of ma huang stems).

You have a misconception about science, that it's trying to control or take over the natural world. What science does is make sure the conclusions we reach are carefully and reasonably considered, and they ABSOLUTELY MUST agree with observations made in the natural world. In this case, "natural" means no magic, no deities breaking physical laws, only what we observe happening. IOW, science is a bunch of descriptions of nature that we've refined to such a degree that we're able to predict the future based on the present and past. Theory gives us this predictive power.

As far as human "nature" is concerned, we're still figuring that out. Cooking our food led to bipedal locomotion, and gave us smaller jaws so we had more room in our heads for brains, and more time to dig around with tools. It led us to armed warfare, but it also put us on a par with better-armed predators and gave us a fighting chance. We didn't have fur to keep us warm and we figured out how to use the fur from animals we ate instead. In fact, we took the disadvantage and turned it around: we could run down an animal with fur because they'd get TOO hot, and eventually drop from heat prostration. Because of the amazing things we can do that other animals can't, humans are often perceived as anti-natural, or outside of nature, but I assure you, we're very much a part of it. In fact, I would go so far as to say viewing humans as "unnatural" is dangerous, and could give some permission to consider us as above the rest of life on the planet. 

[beecee]

Damn, damn damn!! That deserves more then one like. We need to change the rules!!

19 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

. I make conservative and liberal choices every day, but resist painting myself as one way or the other.

Among many great conclusions of fact in an excellent post, the above stands out.

[studiot]

I like that last paragraph as well, even if it is only half true.

+1 phi

[Phi for All]

21 minutes ago, studiot said:

I like that last paragraph as well, even if it is only half true.

I left SO much of that evolutionary path out for brevity's sake, but I think it was good information. I'm counting on you to keep me accurate. 

I think requirer is probably wicked smart and had limited resources for asking questions about things they didn't understand. Smart folks who don't get good explanations start piecing together what they think they know, and that approach is seductive since it makes perfect sense, but only to you.