Did we also accept our will From the same phenomena as the death of stars and supernovae

Forums: Science, Space, Will, Meaning, Paradigm
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Today we know that for most of the existing elements, their sequel is in those dying stars and supernovae from almost 5 billion years ago.
Every molecule, every atom comes from the same phenomena.
And what about our will.
It may also be made up of molecules that created the same desires in us ?
And so even though we each have similar desires, each of us has a unique desire.
Is this just too, or does it have a reason and it lies in those phenomena.
And if so, what are the consequences ...
Watch the clip
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RulcDJsBrtQ&feature=youtu.be

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 1,354 • Replies: 11

No top replies

@yovav,

All of this is very hazy and ill-defined. You’re talking about Physics and cosmology in one breath and human emotions (will) in another. They’re highly or even completely unrelated. How you expect a useful answer is beyond me.

Even as a philosophical question it is lacking direction. On top of that, you have other posts that have been answered that have discussed this already.

2 Replies

@Ragman,

Ragman wrote:

All of this is very hazy and ill-defined. You’re talking about Physics and cosmology in one breath and human emotions (will) in another. They’re highly or even completely unrelated. How you expect a useful answer is beyond me.

Even as a philosophical question it is lacking direction. On top of that, you have other posts that have been answered that have discussed this already.

What you are saying here makes sense, but I think I understand what he is saying, which is that humans and our culture have evolved as part of the same cosmos that generate all the elements of the periodic table.

So he's looking for a connection between the formation of life and intelligence in our biological system and species/culture development, and the larger sequences of astronomical events that caused Earth to form and evolve as it has.

1 Reply

@yovav,

yovav wrote:

Today we know that for most of the existing elements, their sequel is in those dying stars and supernovae from almost 5 billion years ago.
Every molecule, every atom comes from the same phenomena.
And what about our will.
It may also be made up of molecules that created the same desires in us ?
And so even though we each have similar desires, each of us has a unique desire.
Is this just too, or does it have a reason and it lies in those phenomena.
And if so, what are the consequences ...
Watch the clip
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RulcDJsBrtQ&feature=youtu.be

There may be other species, maybe even many other species, throughout the universe that have developed different forms of the same fundamental desires that we do, which fit with their particular life situation.

Without specifying what desire(s) you're talking about exactly, it's not possible to contemplate how it could emerge in radically different exoplanets and/or other extra-terrestrial environments/ecosystems.

1 Reply

@Ragman,

And I would say that probably everything is in the eye of the beholder.
Yes, I'm talking about physics and emotions in the same breath.
Is that wrong?
I think we are used to examples that, although they make us orderly and systematic, they keep us out of the box.
I don't think the next paradigm will come from the same concept you consider, but rather from the understanding that there is only desire. And the rest - sequels and results.
And if so. It is precisely in changing our will that we can make material changes.
You may not find any logic in my perception, I can understand that.

1 Reply

@livinglava,

humans and our culture have evolved as part of the same cosmos that generate all the elements of the periodic table.

I think you managed to connect in my direction.
I argue that what we discover as the butterfly effect and such and other connections are not random.
Not only do we find more and more patterns of phenomena and occurrences that succeed in surprising us every time.
But the new thing is that I claim that the same will is the one that directs the reality of our world.
We tend to explore millions of things. It is important. But if the will is the root of reality, there may be a method to upgrade it, perhaps the will, like other materials, is a backlog of molecules that we have not yet been able to decipher.
What is change ourselves?
Take a moment to think about it.
Is this the change of deeds? The actions? The thoughts?
No - it's a change of will.
And thoughts and deeds are merely a history of the will.

0 Replies

@livinglava,

I argue that all the difference between All life forms - Lies in the form of the will

0 Replies

@yovav,

yovav wrote:

And I would say that probably everything is in the eye of the beholder.

It's not. There are thing that people can be wrong about, and they often are.

Quote:

Yes, I'm talking about physics and emotions in the same breath.
Is that wrong?

You have to understand the real causation of both physics and emotions to connect them. You can't just weave together any relationship you can imagine and be right. That's not how truth works.

Quote:

I think we are used to examples that, although they make us orderly and systematic, they keep us out of the box.
I don't think the next paradigm will come from the same concept you consider, but rather from the understanding that there is only desire. And the rest - sequels and results.
And if so. It is precisely in changing our will that we can make material changes.
You may not find any logic in my perception, I can understand that.

There is not only desire. There is the possibility of intent that transcends one or more desires.

E.g. you desire food but you also desire to avoid food you don't like. You have the will to wait until later and thus avoid eating the food you don't want so you can eat the food you do want.

So there is not only desire, and if you reduce everything to desire, what explanation can you give for conscious choices that sacrifice desire for a higher purpose?

1 Reply

@livinglava,

"So there is not only desire, and if you reduce everything to desire, what explanation can you give for conscious choices that sacrifice desire for a higher purpose"?
Listen, a poor person earns NIS 2,500 a month.
Next week he has a wedding.
He buys suit for NIS 2000.
What actually happened?
His desire to receive respect from the guests was greater than the desire to save money.
And all in all, our lives add up.
for what i give more importance.
It depends on my environment and my internal data.
And if we look at the reality in upgraded glass, that is what we see, desires and history of those desires.

1 Reply

@yovav,

yovav wrote:

"So there is not only desire, and if you reduce everything to desire, what explanation can you give for conscious choices that sacrifice desire for a higher purpose"?
Listen, a poor person earns NIS 2,500 a month.
Next week he has a wedding.
He buys suit for NIS 2000.
What actually happened?
His desire to receive respect from the guests was greater than the desire to save money.
And all in all, our lives add up.
for what i give more importance.
It depends on my environment and my internal data.
And if we look at the reality in upgraded glass, that is what we see, desires and history of those desires.

So basically this thread is just about asserting the power of social-culture and the will of the individual to serve social-desire instead of sacrificing desire for the benefit of a greater good?

I agree with you that it's important to recognize that individuals often confuse self-sacrifice to the (collective) desires of others with self-sacrifice to a greater good that transcends desire (individual and social/collective); but that doesn't erase the fact that there is a greater good that transcends desire and also the self-interest of presently-living generations.

Sustainability is about living in a way that makes future life on Earth just as viable as it is now, and/or as viable as it ever was in the past. It's about transcending degeneracy as a paradigm in the long-term existence of humans in tandem with the rest of the planet.

0 Replies

I don't seem to be able to convey the message clearly.
I'll try to illustrate according to a scholar named Kant.
Kant strongly objected that experiences transmitted through an inner sense can serve as the basis for mental science (as experiences mediated by external senses serve as the basis for the natural sciences).
He argued that this was not measurable and was not mathematical analysis.
And so according to Kant psychology can never be a real science.
This blow was devastating for anyone interested in human science. And the practical result of his criticism was the pushing out of psychology from universities for at least a hundred years.
But the evolution of human science has its own clear axis.
In 1879, Wilhelm Wendt founded the first psychological research laboratory in Germany. For the first time, psychology was accepted as an independent scientific field in the academy.
What does this show us?
That new paradigms are rooted as part of the commitment axis of consciousness.
And what is today? How can a topic that seems philosophical to us without the ability of empirical measurement become empirical.
Answer: In changing our tools, those internal tools that are our will. It is our inner essence that is the root of our thoughts and actions that will become a new research laboratory.

1 Reply

@yovav,

yovav wrote:

I don't seem to be able to convey the message clearly.
I'll try to illustrate according to a scholar named Kant.
Kant strongly objected that experiences transmitted through an inner sense can serve as the basis for mental science (as experiences mediated by external senses serve as the basis for the natural sciences).
He argued that this was not measurable and was not mathematical analysis.
And so according to Kant psychology can never be a real science.
This blow was devastating for anyone interested in human science. And the practical result of his criticism was the pushing out of psychology from universities for at least a hundred years.
But the evolution of human science has its own clear axis.
In 1879, Wilhelm Wendt founded the first psychological research laboratory in Germany. For the first time, psychology was accepted as an independent scientific field in the academy.
What does this show us?
That new paradigms are rooted as part of the commitment axis of consciousness.
And what is today? How can a topic that seems philosophical to us without the ability of empirical measurement become empirical.
Answer: In changing our tools, those internal tools that are our will. It is our inner essence that is the root of our thoughts and actions that will become a new research laboratory.

Only it's not a 'new research laboratory,' because Kant and everyone else who has ever done any thinking and/or conscious reflection on internal/spiritual issues has had to operate from within the same laboratory.

When you get to the radically fundamental level of the relationship between consciousness itself and the mind's capacity to know, you can go in practically any direction, so it helps to focus on specific issues so your discussion threads can stay focused while multiple people with different perspective participate in them.

0 Replies

Did we also accept our will From the same phenomena as the death of stars and supernovae

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know