Do we interact with everything?

[s1eep]

I theorize that we interact with everything, even the simplest natures, but we do not recognize these natures for themselves; rather we progress from their actions, or their substance, which had a hand in the progression which led to the current day, with the current matter, energies and universe. Thus any simple mechanic of a human, can be simplified to the cause of another nature; maybe imagining abstract concepts, combining two things together in an image to represent something else (different to the words we use which restrict everything to singles), is related to something very simple in nature, such as energy, or energy and matter. It's more a query than a theory, I'm not sure of myself, but. I'm wondering if everything is interacted with through complex algorithms in nature, as if everything had a greater awareness; what leads me to believe this is that I can imagine abstract imagery in my head that can apply to something intelligible, and there is beauty/ugliness to be found in the combination of things together, without the division of those things into individuals.

[Phi for All]

I theorize that we interact with everything, even the simplest natures,

 

Let's do something different here, if you don't mind.

 

Let's take your OP step by step and have you clarify what you mean, so we don't get so many posts berating you for not being clear and tossing words like salad. For instance, I don't know why you pluralized "natures". Normally, this would tell me you're talking in terms of inherent features, but that doesn't make much sense. And if you're talking about the collective phenomena we see around us, then again the plural is confusing.

 

What do you really mean by using "natures"?

but we do not recognize these natures for themselves; rather we progress from their actions, or their substance, which had a hand in the progression which led to the current day, with the current matter, energies and universe.

 

Is this just saying, "We adapt to what happens in the natural world"?

[s1eep]

 

Let's do something different here, if you don't mind.

 

Let's take your OP step by step and have you clarify what you mean, so we don't get so many posts berating you for not being clear and tossing words like salad. For instance, I don't know why you pluralized "natures". Normally, this would tell me you're talking in terms of inherent features, but that doesn't make much sense. And if you're talking about the collective phenomena we see around us, then again the plural is confusing.

 

What do you really mean by using "natures"?

 

Is this just saying, "We adapt to what happens in the natural world"?

the basic or inherent features, character, or qualities of something.

"helping them to realize the nature of their problems"

synonyms: essence, inherent/basic/essential characteristics,inherent/basic/essential qualities, inherent/basic/essential attributes,inherent/basic/essential features, sum and substance, character,identity, complexion

It's not only saying that.

You should critique the semantics of the writing, as well as individual parts, for now, I have to repeat myself in a different way, and knowing you, you'll end up saying, in the future, "you're repeating yourself"; again, I imagine, there are times where this has happened in the past, you're ignoring the idea being explained and moving on because it doesn't correlate with your dictionary. There are things you don't have words for, such as a scientist believing he should commit himself to science, then, here I have a religion, "Science-commitment-ism"; I clearly meant, 'everythingS', it's a word that I mean to imply, something that is an everything more so than it is itself; I do not consider myself a human, I consider myself nature, I am one of the everythingS; hearts and minds, males and females, energy and matter; insects, anything, everything, but none as their selves, them as them.

Edited October 4, 2014 by s1eep

[Phi for All]

Thus any simple mechanic of a human, can be simplified to the cause of another nature;

 

I think if you explain the difference between a complex "mechanic of a human" and a "simple mechanic of a human", it will help me get the concept you're explaining. Also, are you saying that these "mechanics" are the source of other features in the universe?

maybe imagining abstract concepts, combining two things together in an image to represent something else (different to the words we use which restrict everything to singles), is related to something very simple in nature, such as energy, or energy and matter.

 

I would question the idea that our words lock us into a single definition. Your posts even here show that the words you use can mean completely different things to different readers.

 

I know you're probably not saying that abstract concepts are the combining of two things together in an image to represent something else, but it looks like it. Maybe "two or more things"? There are multiple types of abstractions, and I'm unclear which type you're referencing. And some abstractions are designed to take multiple instances and combine them into a single concept, which disagrees with what you're claiming. If I use the word "house" as a compressed abstraction, it represents as many different images as there are people who hear the word.

[s1eep]

 

I think if you explain the difference between a complex "mechanic of a human" and a "simple mechanic of a human", it will help me get the concept you're explaining. Also, are you saying that these "mechanics" are the source of other features in the universe?

An atom perhaps, we are made of atoms, is there something in our make-up or psyche, I'm not too formalized with scientific definitions for things, that is atom relative? Are we an advanced/progressed/evolved kind of atom, as well as other things?

 

Are there times where I act more like an atom than a human, or even act atom-like?

 

I'd like to add I rarely post in the science sections and I am always hanging around once a few months in the philosophy and religion boards.

 

Another way to explain; I know some other natural things aren't conscious, but can I imagine them somehow to be conscious, so it's relative, and this is some kind of above-this-nature bonding.

Edited October 4, 2014 by s1eep

[Phi for All]

An atom perhaps, we are made of atoms, is there something in our make-up or psyche, I'm not too formalized with scientific definitions for things, that is atom relative? Are we an advanced/progressed/evolved kind of atom, as well as other things?

 

Are there times where I act more like an atom than a human, or even act atom-like?

 

An atom is the smallest part of any element that still retains all the properties of that element, so there will be varying percentages of those elements present in anything. We don't differ that much from other animals at that level, or even plants. So an atom has only those properties its element has, whether it's hydrogen, carbon, or whatever.

 

I don't think that's going to help your idea. Is there anything about a grain of sand that's inherently relative to a castle made from sand?

[s1eep]

 

An atom is the smallest part of any element that still retains all the properties of that element, so there will be varying percentages of those elements present in anything. We don't differ that much from other animals at that level, or even plants. So an atom has only those properties its element has, whether it's hydrogen, carbon, or whatever.

 

I don't think that's going to help your idea. Is there anything about a grain of sand that's inherently relative to a castle made from sand?

Technology is made through the destruction of natural resource; but yeah, it still applies, when someone tried to break down your house, they wouldn't have much trouble because it was like sand; it still retains interpersonal characteristics; when in combination with other things; knowing a consciousness is as, well, able, as it is, then I suggest that we have evolved to greater control these interpersonal characteristics of everything, enough to survive with our own personal characteristics, and when I say "we", I mean right back to our very genesis, when we, or what I associate also with the forces which led to our current state, were fish the sea, water in the clouds, and so on. Natural resource seems to be the perfect harmony---destruction is nature, also, it's our expression or ego in nature, but any wise man knows too much destruction is not beneficent. Our own relations to natural resources will be more heart-warming and intellectually stimulating than those made between technology and natural resources.

Edited October 4, 2014 by s1eep

[Phi for All]

Technology is made through the destruction of natural resource; but yeah, it still applies, when someone tried to break down your house, they wouldn't have much trouble because it was like sand; it still retains interpersonal characteristics; when in combination with other things; knowing a consciousness is as, well, able, as it is, then I suggest that we have evolved to greater control these interpersonal characteristics of everything, enough to survive with our own personal characteristics, and when I say "we", I mean right back to our very genesis, when we, or what I associate also with the forces which led to our current state, were fish the sea, water in the clouds, and so on. Natural resource seems to be the perfect harmony---destruction is nature, also, it's our expression or ego in nature, but any wise man knows too much destruction is not beneficent. Our own relations to natural resources will be more heart-warming and intellectually stimulating than those made between technology and natural resources.

 

I had hoped to take this step by step, but you keep bringing up more and more concepts that need correcting, and I just don't have the time to deconstruct each sentence. I was willing to do it with the OP, but each response just takes me further out into the weeds.

 

Your idea that technology destroys natural resources is just so bizarre, like you're trying to argue that we should never have started making tools, which would leave us pretty much back in the trees with the other apes. I get the feeling that's what you're arguing for, and your cynicism seems misplaced and hypocritical, considering that you're using an intellect honed by tens of thousands of years to type on a computer that was only made possible by changing (not destroying) one resource into another.

 

I'll try to get back to this, but we're probably not compatible in this; you keep referring to "our current state" in the negative, and I think we're in the most marvelous time our species has EVER known.

[s1eep]

 

I had hoped to take this step by step, but you keep bringing up more and more concepts that need correcting, and I just don't have the time to deconstruct each sentence. I was willing to do it with the OP, but each response just takes me further out into the weeds.

 

Your idea that technology destroys natural resources is just so bizarre, like you're trying to argue that we should never have started making tools, which would leave us pretty much back in the trees with the other apes. I get the feeling that's what you're arguing for, and your cynicism seems misplaced and hypocritical, considering that you're using an intellect honed by tens of thousands of years to type on a computer that was only made possible by changing (not destroying) one resource into another.

 

I'll try to get back to this, but we're probably not compatible in this; you keep referring to "our current state" in the negative, and I think we're in the most marvelous time our species has EVER known.

Okay, noted.

 

However, your opinion and enjoyment is not enough to support technology or as I called it "the destruction of natural resource", now, I also mentioned that destruction of natural resources was also natural---this means, we can destroy Earth-bound resources, and use them for our own needs and wants but be balanced with the Earth itself, what is to be considered, rational good living on Earth; we can harmonize with our environment by making tools, correct, or using what we were born with as tools, our body and senses, our reproductive organs and creative ability, also correct. If the advancement of technology leads to the end of the world, then we did not accomplish what the natural resources would have in their untouched (to any major degree) state; there is the fact that I'm more human than you, because my mind is attracted to things it should be, I'm interested in and devoted to the prosperity of the Earth and the future children of humanity; if I am, which I am, then if I want to advance, then, I can see that you're not really the same as me, this advancement, you might claim that "I'm dreaming of", or have already reached that conclusion, is real if I want it to be, the possibility is there for a prosperous Earth and to support future children. I am wise in knowing children are born, and combining this with the rest of life I know, I have aged, I know the sleuth of the universe, I'm in awe at the memories of many experiences of nature, the imagery of thought.

 

I don't think humans would be as stupid civilization-less as you think, and don't think animals are anyway, they find harmony in the chaos in nature, plus, if we didn't create civilization, and the Earth lasted for billions of years, it wouldn't be different or more enlightening in the future, for life?

Edited October 4, 2014 by s1eep

[/backslash/]

Isn't the advancement of civilisation and the creation of technology a natural process? Ants and termites engineer their environments in much the same way we do, and that isn't considered 'unnatural'. Besides, most animals do live in primitive social systems.

How are you more human than anyone else? Your comments above don't make much sense, no offence.

[s1eep]

Isn't the advancement of civilisation and the creation of technology a natural process? Ants and termites engineer their environments in much the same way we do, and that isn't considered 'unnatural'. Besides, most animals do live in primitive social systems.

How are you more human than anyone else? Your comments above don't make much sense, no offence.

Because I'm not destroying, natural resources, or close natural resources, collectively, the Earth, or being the cause of future children's suffering with my actions, beliefs or personality. We need these to survive. Go ahead and argue reasons why 'survival is not our objective', 'there is no good', but I've said this before, if you are unable to eat, you will die, so do "you" truly deserve an opinion if you cannot live properly under the concept of you? You even believe if you lived life knowing only yourself, you wouldn't know anything...

 

Scientists often revel in the beauty of the universe, but insult the livelihoods of animals, calling them stupider.

 

Children have wild dreams of technological advancement and space exploration, but the reality is much different. As I said in a different thread, world dies and some humans in bunkers on Mars, not universal civilization. Why allow imaginative stupidity dictate real things, why not show people the real imagery, the real predictions of what life will be like for us in the future following what NASA or academicians believe?

Edited October 4, 2014 by s1eep

[Phi for All]

Because I'm not destroying, natural resources, or close natural resources, collectively, the Earth, or being the cause of future children's suffering with my actions, beliefs or personality. We need these to survive. Go ahead and argue reasons why 'survival is not our objective', 'there is no good', but I've said this before, if you are unable to eat, you will die, so do "you" truly deserve an opinion if you cannot live properly under the concept of you? You even believe if you lived life knowing only yourself, you wouldn't know anything...

 

Scientists often revel in the beauty of the universe, but insult the livelihoods of animals, calling them stupider.

 

Children have wild dreams of technological advancement and space exploration, but the reality is much different. As I said in a different thread, world dies and some humans in bunkers on Mars, not universal civilization. Why allow imaginative stupidity dictate real things, why not show people the real imagery, the real predictions of what life will be like for us in the future following what NASA or academicians believe?

 

Your explanation above is so narrow that it makes your generalizations about human life on Earth seem trite and unsophisticated. I don't know anyone serious about science who insult animals the way you say, yet you use the blanket term "scientists", implying all of them. The beauty of the universe includes the biology of all life. I can't believe you've been here this long and can still say things like this. It's like you haven't learned anything because of your own narrow, cynical views.

 

I don't know how to discuss this with you anymore. You accuse everyone else, yet you remain pure within your condemnation. And since you never seem to take anyone else's explanations on board, you've resorted to soapboxing about "our current state". For me, discussion requires a little more open-mindedness. I've tried to understand where you're coming from, but I've failed.

[s1eep]

 

Your explanation above is so narrow that it makes your generalizations about human life on Earth seem trite and unsophisticated. I don't know anyone serious about science who insult animals the way you say, yet you use the blanket term "scientists", implying all of them. The beauty of the universe includes the biology of all life. I can't believe you've been here this long and can still say things like this. It's like you haven't learned anything because of your own narrow, cynical views.

 

I don't know how to discuss this with you anymore. You accuse everyone else, yet you remain pure within your condemnation. And since you never seem to take anyone else's explanations on board, you've resorted to soapboxing about "our current state". For me, discussion requires a little more open-mindedness. I've tried to understand where you're coming from, but I've failed.

Everything I have said supports my case; the 'soap-boxing' was in response to a question. Like you, he didn't understand, but managed to ask a non-relative question of his own. My response was a bit off-topic, but it was all in support of my case against someone's inefficiency, stupidity created by stupidity.

 

Can you provide me with a description, preferably in imagery (you can try and paint me a picture using words, metaphorically), of how our 'sophisticated' civilization and space exploration regime will be like in 1000 years at the current rate? My guess is no where near what it's made out to be by the general population.

 

You have repeated yourself, "I don't know what you're saying", isn't this soap-boxing in a way? You're just expressing your beliefs and implying you have greater intelligence or wisdom than I have; rote-egoism; you don't understand and you feel the need to tell everyone that you don't understand, you even criticized me for a mistake that was inevitable because of how conversation works (he didn't understand remember; so I couldn't reply on topic, I had to go off-topic to meet his level of understanding; he is the one who brought his education up---what he was taught). Again, you want others to not understand like you, you're ignoring what I've said completely, and you're drifting off into your own judgement of me, this is the epitome of preaching and 'soap-boxing'.

 

People are apt to work things out, people who try to work out what I'm saying may do that. A picture can say a thousand words, it can also say a thousand pictures, a sound can refer to any picture or moment. There is no reason to "give-up" reading anything, which is what is being promoted here, "giving-up", not trying hard to make sense out of things, instead of rationalizing with the person, rationalizing with the words alone, as if the person has a tranquil word-based imagination; doesn't literally envision what he thinks with any clarity. I can understand what I mean, but I cannot explain it in a way that is enlightening or definite enough for you, in your language, but I can explain it using imagery to myself or those under me/those who know me, or by utilizing the natural wordless world.

Edited October 4, 2014 by s1eep

[Sensei]

I theorize that we interact with everything, even the simplest natures,

 

Without any doubt.

Your body has temperature 36.6 C inside (23-24 C on skin) while ambient temperature of room is ~20 C

so we're heating air molecules that surround us (and taking away our energy, cooling us down).

As a result we need to eat more in winter, than we have to in summer, to sustain the same temperature.

[Fuzzwood]

Because I'm not destroying, natural resources, or close natural resources, collectively, the Earth, or being the cause of future children's suffering with my actions, beliefs or personality. We need these to survive. Go ahead and argue reasons why 'survival is not our objective', 'there is no good', but I've said this before, if you are unable to eat, you will die, so do "you" truly deserve an opinion if you cannot live properly under the concept of you? You even believe if you lived life knowing only yourself, you wouldn't know anything...

Do you eat on a daily basis? Then you are destroying the natural resource that is food.

 

 

Scientists often revel in the beauty of the universe, but insult the livelihoods of animals, calling them stupider.

Nice generalization you have going there. I thank you for your insult. You are an animal too.

 

Children have wild dreams of technological advancement and space exploration, but the reality is much different. As I said in a different thread, world dies and some humans in bunkers on Mars, not universal civilization. Why allow imaginative stupidity dictate real things, why not show people the real imagery, the real predictions of what life will be like for us in the future following what NASA or academicians believe?

What predictions are you talking about?

[s1eep]

Do you eat on a daily basis? Then you are destroying the natural resource that is food.

 

 

Nice generalization you have going there. I thank you for your insult. You are an animal too.

 

What predictions are you talking about?

The health of and scenario that our species and environment will be in, in 1000 years, under NASA and academia.

[Strange]

Because I'm not destroying, natural resources

 

You are using technology, which means (according to you) you are contributing to "the destruction of natural resource".

[Fuzzwood]

The health of and scenario that our species and environment will be in, in 1000 years, under NASA and academia.

Ok let me rephrase that last question: what makes you think such predictions exist or that there is any data out there to base predictions with any kind of statistical significance on? Jokes aside, we cannot accurately predict next week's weather, let alone something that might happen in a millennium.

[s1eep]

 

You are using technology, which means (according to you) you are contributing to "the destruction of natural resource".

Okay, yes, I'll agree but I'm also an educated man and I try hard to not go over the top; plus, I try very hard in support of movement in favour of the prosperity of Earth and humanity, especially children.

 

Then describe for me the, what "World War III" is to war, but what, your description, is to human ideology.

 

We often use very simple abstract imagery to represent complex events or concepts in our minds; I'm just wandering, in short, what's the common abstraction to describe the space exploration and advancement ideology?

 

Simply populate, explore space?

Edited October 4, 2014 by s1eep

[Strange]

Okay, yes, I'll agree but I'm also an educated man and I try hard to not go over the top; plus, I try very hard in support of movement in favour of the prosperity of Earth and humanity, especially children.

 

You seem to be very proud of your own abilities and behaviour while criticising everybody else.

[s1eep]

 

You seem to be very proud of your own abilities and behaviour while criticising everybody else.

I see my own beauty as well as the universes beauty.

[Strange]

I see my own beauty as well as the universes beauty.

 

But not everybody else's.

 

That is the impression you give anyway: everyone else is stupid, everyone else is destroying resources, etc.

Edited October 5, 2014 by Strange

[s1eep]

 

But not everybody else's.

 

That is the impression you give anyway: everyone else is stupid, everyone else is destroying resources, etc.

Well I mean to come across as firmly in support of the world, and ruthless in this belief.

 

Be sure that I don't have hateful thoughts about you---hate, is not in the air. You throw the word 'crackpot' around, and expect people to be okay with it, now it's your turn to accept the same fate.

 

I agree, I was being a bit aggressive, and I'm not setting a good example myself, I waste, and so on, but what makes me stand out from you, is that I have a genuinely beneficent for humanity and Earth cause.

Edited October 5, 2014 by s1eep

[Strange]

What makes me stand out from you, is that I have a genuinely beneficent for humanity and Earth cause.

 

There you go again. Why do you assume I (and others) don't have a similar beneficent attitude? This just makes you sound arrogant and self-aggrandizing.

[s1eep]

 

There you go again. Why do you assume I (and others) don't have a similar beneficent attitude? This just makes you sound arrogant and self-aggrandizing.

But I'm assured it's beneficent, what I believe in, a less human-orientated technology world, go ahead and stream out the technology if it's in support of the prosperity of Earth.

 

I'm only going to be here for the rest of the day so I'm just going to throw one bit of wisdom at you...

 

Think of it like we're betting on horses, I think the Earth is the best horse for humanity and it will take humanity further then travelling to and from any other planet could, and thus win the race.

Edited October 5, 2014 by s1eep