My documentaries, the documentaries that I recommend

0 Replies

Revisiting identity with Solaris 2002:

0 Replies

This is important and this guy needs to be celebrated more:

0 Replies

This one has 1 year already but was worth reviewing as it speaks about the "ruliade" the domain of rules or formal systems...I had a couple of things to say on its youtube page, I will skip them here.

0 Replies

@Albuquerque,

Quote:

Convoluted self deception starts by letting yourself believe that you can fully fight self deception.
The reward is moral high ground normally but it can have many other justifications...

The thing about intelligence as it deals with increasing amounts of information entropy is that often it leads to stupidity in an exponentiated scale...thus the problem of self deception is Russian doll, an onion, an origami in the brain!

So given that, the smart move is to not bother trying, since it’s futile anyway?

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Well you have your God I have my Universal monistic Order..whatever must be will be! I see myself as a character in a movie...might as well laugh upon myself and enjoy the ride.

1 Reply

@Albuquerque,

Absolutely. I think we are all Don Quixotes, we tilt at windmills most of our lives, the lucky ones just live to realize it and laugh.

Or maybe Buzz Lightyear, 'To infinity and beyond!'.

0 Replies

My city Coimbra, a serious walk through!

0 Replies

The idea of fundamental works within a frame of reference where time works and where causation works.
If you put the frame of reference above or beyond spacetime you go straight to correlation and drop causation and with it you also drop the concept of "more fundamental"...if the point was to state that experiencing, that experiences are a necessary part of Reality, there is nothing new there, it is obvious.
But there is no control, no command, no will, no autonomy, no subject, JUST the Experiences themselves, the phenomenology is itself the Ontology.
Moreover all domains we consider now not fundamental, they all become fundamental...the holistic take is that you could not subtract one bit of information to Reality, not one atom, not 1 nano second of silence, not any matrix of rationals and any form of embodied cognition.
The structural point here I am trying to make is that you either drop the concept of FUNDAMENTAL for being redundant or get down to Earth and take the world as we classically see it within spacetime. In this Consciousness is a necessary but not special part of the Set of all domains of Reality...a rock experiences the Sun eat everyday in some odd form but to call that consciousness is just stretching the concept to be the centre of the "ruliade" and make everything spin around it... not that much different of what Aristotle got with its Earth centric Cosmological model...you can do that with any concept you pick and stick at the centre.

0 Replies

A couple of remarks:

Jordan Peterson narrative of self healing and personal responsibility is highly dependent on the belief Free Will is a viable concept not an illusion and for that matter I think he is wrong, he makes the typical American dream tall tale recipe for success...on the other hand in the same vain you are dependent on the same belief, and you have to contend with Natural Selection and the way it shaped societies to work the way they do, the way it shaped tribalism to work in all its forms. Your position by default believes progress against the rule of the jungle is possible and not an illusion so you are not that different from J. Peterson. Both of you are Nietzschean superman optimists...
Given I am not prone to indulge myself in such high dosages of fantasy I am thus left in a very cynical very nihilistic stance not agreeing with none of you...I guess I am what you might call a chronic pessimist!

1 Reply

@Albuquerque,

Quote:

Jordan Peterson narrative of self healing and personal responsibility is highly dependent on the belief Free Will is a viable concept not an illusion and for that matter I think he is wrong, he makes the typical American dream tall tale recipe for success...on the other hand in the same vain you are dependent on the same belief, and you have to contend with Natural Selection and the way it shaped how societies work the way they do, the way it shaped tribalism to work in all its forms. Your position by default believes progress against the rule of the jungle is possible and not an illusion so you are not that different from J. Peterson. Both of you are Nietzschean superman optimists...
Given I am not prone to indulge myself in such high dosages of fantasy I am thus left in a very cynical very nihilistic stance not agreeing with none of you...I guess I am what you might call a chronic pessimist!

So would you agree that there is a fundamental flaw in the founding documents of the United States in that all men are not created equal?

I know you aren’t American but I don’t know the appropriate document to refer to in your country. Curious: Do you know if your country’s laws explicitly assume all men ARE created equal?

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

There are many questions underlying the very one you are posing...
Everyone is unique so clearly and literally not all persons are created equal...
On the other hand seen from above the difference between an Einstein and an idiot is probably negligible...

...Nature teach us that diversity is good and thus that when you take an holistic look into an ecosystem "Bios" of all kinds have niches where they can thrive...in human societal ecosystems its the same...nothing is unimportant even sociopaths and psychopaths serve the purpose of keeping society alert and not dumbified beyond repair...everything serves a purpose even when that purpose is not clearly evident.

Case in point I believe in equity not equality. I believe everyone should be given a shot...eventually everything marches to its rightful place...

Personally I don't think any place is better then any other, that is a problem of group identity and perception...

No matter if you are a cleaner or a lecturer at some University. IMO everything that exists is absolutely equally necessary, IMO nothing is contingent. In that sense no matter how different, everything is equally important. That does not mean that things do not have an order...birds fly, bears run, dogs bark...they are all different, they are all necessary, and thus they are all legitimate!

1 Reply

@Albuquerque,

Amen to all that brother. Reeks of design doesn’t it? Smile

2 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Not really no.
Design does not have a place in an enclosed loop.

Odd thing is if you want completeness and perfection you better off dropping the very idea of "origin", of gradual progressive importance, back to the source.

There is not really no point in time which is the source...not even the Big Bang or for those who believe in the Multiverse or God or whatever, the same point can be made.

I like to think about fractals a lot...in them the concept of bigger or smaller falls moot. As does the before and after...

Lets say I would grant existence to your God for a second for the purpose of debating a deeper point, wouldn't the Set of that God and the Universe make an yet bigger set then God? What would you call that? And how would you go about the legitimacy of dividing it absolutely...

The idea of "creation" is an anthropomorphised artefact of living within spacetime...I don't even believe in "imagination" as whatever comes about must first be potentially possible...if you go outside spacetime it exists already...

Again REAL Completeness implies all things are already and forever...
You think when you make a painting or write a poem you own it? No...it owns you!

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

...ya know I am a very lazy very put down in my corner person...I barely make an effort to express my thoughts in some degree of detail such that they are amenable to common sense. The thing is I don't need to play Sabine policing to go after 10.000 years of narrative building...Its cracking all over the place...I don't have to move one finger...just wait.

1 Reply

@Albuquerque,

Quote:

I like to think about fractals a lot...in them the concept of bigger or smaller falls moot.

I don’t think that’s a legitimate comparison to the reality we observe. Fractals are complex looking, one could even say infinitely complex, but they are only graphical representations of a very simple mathematical formula performed over and over ad infinitum: Zn+1 = Zn2 + C…
There truly is no creativity there.

But what we see here is a completely different story. For example, the symbols in DNA, or the objects they address - proteins. Their complexity is impressive but that is nothing compared with the mind boggling functional cleverness in their unique to each ones' design. We can’t yet do that kind of design even with the examples in front of us to work with. We can’t even figure out how a protein folds with complete accuracy. The level of knowledge required to conceive of a protein from scratch is even more unimaginable, and that’s even if you take the physical universe as a naturally occurring given.

Now if you can show me some fractals that start self replicating, talking with each other and sending spacecraft to neighboring planets I’d be impressed.

Quote:

Let’s say I would grant existence to your God for a second for the purpose of debating a deeper point, wouldn't the Set of that God and the Universe make a yet bigger set than God? What would you call that? And how would you go about the legitimacy of dividing it absolutely...

Not sure I understand the question. If I answer literally, I’d call that 'God and his creation'.

Or are you asking about the ever popular 'problem of infinite regress', aka, where did God come from? I have already confessed that I do not know that. But as I answer most of the time, if I find a watch buried in the sand in the desert, I know darn well there is a watch maker somewhere, even if I have no idea who he is.

1 Reply

@Albuquerque,

Quote:

Its cracking all over the place...I don't have to move one finger...just wait.

It is. I am. Eagerly.

2 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Unless you failed to notice, fractals are everywhere in Nature, from galaxies, to trees, to flowers, or your lungs just to cite just a few.

Second you did not touch my point about why should you divide the Realm of what IS, all that it is REAL, between creator and created...again complexity is not solved by appealing to something vastly more complex...

...as for the origins of life, lets go the hard way to concede you half a point, who told you panspermia is not a true possibility? And if you happen to think 13.5 billions years is not enough, how about a solution in which an X number of Universes spurs consecutively until they form gradually the level of complexity needed to satisfy your probability optimum number? Penrose Conformal Cyclic Cosmology comes to mind just as an example...

If I ever had to appeal to design I rather point to "Aliens" then to a very vague, very opaque, very unascertainable word such as God...the concept of God is not stable enough as far as I've seen it debate all my life and unlike your friends around the place I took the time to watch endless Metaphysical debates...I respect Metaphysics...I've not seen any satisfying self coherent concept of God ever! Not saying this to piss you off my friend...I gave it a fair shot with impartiality and nop it does not make sense!

As you know over the last decade I've extensively wrote about why I think that is the case. Now we have a point in common along with the best of best Metaphysicians and that is "Ultimism", but not your human like figure of God...Order? Yes! God? No!

0 Replies

@Leadfoot,

...You know given your inclination for God I am not sure you wouldn't "hate" me far more then you do the likes of Famerman if you knew me...the difference is that he has no good arguments against God other then "I have not seen him so far"...not my case..in a Metaphysical open public debate, face to face, no time to pull stuff from the Internet, just wit, I would be the dangerous one not them, who barely know what Philosophy stands for...

0 Replies

@Leadfoot,

...in any case we can fluidly debate it right here right now if you are willing and have the patience to disentangle such a hard topic.

Lets thus start with definitions. Give me yours and start with the attributes of God. We shall proceed from there.

1 Reply

My documentaries, the documentaries that I recommend

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know