Finally found a discussion on the problem of emergence for determinism. This has been bugging me for a while because I was wondering if it was even a valid question. Thanks guys.

@MrMashyker

3 жыл бұрын

You can try checking out The Conway’s Game of Life on KZread. It’s incredible how much complexity can arise from simple rules

@fushumang1716

3 жыл бұрын

Conway came up with the rules, so it is also an emergent property. Also, it is not simple, there are borders and there is something to start with. Not to mention, there has to be motion.

I am pretty sure that Robert does not a believe in simplistic deterministic chains of causation to explain every complex phenomenon, but he does a FANTASTIC job at demanding a clear explanation of the differences in the examples presented (those "controlled" by ideas and/or algorithms and those governed by physical and chemical rules (H2O example). I look forward to more discussions/conversations like this.

WTH..? I feel like stuttering too.. I think my best course of action is to re-watch this interview immediately to see which direction it flew over my head..

@REDPUMPERNICKEL

Жыл бұрын

Can you locate any of your thoughts in space? No, because thoughts are abstract entities and as such have no location. Once you think about the movement of an object as distinct from the existence of an object you will be well on your way to getting what he's saying.

Interesting, wouldn't this imply that from the moment of the big bang, everything is the result of random chance through emergent complexification..? But then if we look at time as an inherent continuum that is tied into the mechanism of emergence, in retrospect, doesn't it become a predestined inevitability, rather than random chance..?

@SpiritualPsychotherapyServices

3 жыл бұрын

🐟 08. KARMA (ACTION & REACTION): The Sanskrit word “karma” originates from the verbal root “kṛ” (pronounced “kri”), via the genitive “karman”, meaning work, ACTION, or deed. Every thought, word or deed produces an equal and opposite REACTION, in the strictest sense of the phrase, and not in any capricious fashion. When junk “foods” are consumed, one's health is damaged to the degree that one eats such things, no more and certainly no less. When we deliberately hurt another living creature, we are often burdened with feelings of guilt, and so on and so forth. The so-called “LAW of karma” is misunderstood to be a mechanism of divine retribution, by practically all who study spirituality, especially Eastern religious traditions and so-called “new age” teachings. Such persons mistakenly believe that if one performs a supposedly “good” deed, that one will receive a similarly “good” reaction, either within one's lifetime or in a future lifetime (since they invariably believe also in the reincarnation of an individual soul [“ātman”, in Sanskrit]). Read the following chapter to properly understand the concept of reincarnation. In one sense, there can not be a good result from a good action because (apart from the fact that good and bad are relative) there is no such thing as a separate event. The whole space-time-energy-matter creation is one massive event, that is to say, a single evolutionary process. It is truly IMPOSSIBLE to delineate any cause from its subsequent event. One cannot rightly assert that a particular cause is the same as its effect, and neither can one claim that a cause is entirely separate from its effect. How is it possible to separate the event of one’s birth from what took place immediately before it and immediately after it? Clearly, it is not possible to define, to any degree of certainty, the precise yoctosecond at which point the birth process begins and at which point it concludes. Karma/action operates solely on an ever-forward-moving trajectory - a chain of causation - known as “dependent origination” in Buddhistic terms (“pratītyasamutpāda”, in Sanskrit). Every distinct yet inseparable motion/action, from the initial explosion (the so-called “Big Bang”) to the ultimate implosion (the so-called “Big Crunch”) could not have been OTHERWISE, given the circumstances, including so-called “miracles”, such as Lord Jesus walking on a sea of water or Lord Krishna lifting an entire hill with His little finger. That is assuming, of course, that those two historic figures actually existed and that those two events occurred, which is unprovable (though don't say as much to a religious fanatic!). The concept of a “tit for tat” law of causation, especially over more than one lifetime, is not only unverifiable, it is downright absurd. If a man murders a million persons using a nuclear weapon, will he subsequently be killed by a million atomic bombs? That's unlikely in the EXTREME - only a veritable dunce could possibly believe such utter nonsense. Regrettably, a large proportion of the populace accept such fallacies. Supposing that this fairytale scenario was accurate, what would be the eternal benefit of a person being subject to a million deaths by atomic weaponry? It's not as though he will recall his dastardly deed in subsequent lifetimes, in order to repent for his sinful action. There is no need to further explore this line of reasoning because it is absolutely ludicrous, apart from the fact that the popular conception reincarnation itself is also both unverifiable and illogical (see the next chapter of “F.I.S.H” for a more accurate understanding of reincarnation). Because physicists now know that even seemingly-solid objects are composed (almost) entirely of empty space, every subatomic particle in our universe can be packed into an inordinately-dense ball of energy (although the most widely-accepted scientific theory claims that the universe arose from literally nothing). That superlatively-focused singularity became this space-time-energy-matter universe, and whatever occurred afterwards was DESTINED to happen, just as the result of the explosion of a bomb can be predicted beforehand (assuming one has all the relevant data surrounding the event, such as the precise strength of the weapon, the force of impact, atmospheric conditions, et cetera). Simple logic dictates that every motion or thought which has occurred in this universe was FULLY dependent on every motion or thought that preceded it, all the way back to the initial creative spark (the “Big Bang”, which is purported to have given rise to measurable space-time and to energy and matter). A simplistic analogy is of a long row of dominos falling one upon the next, and so on and so forth (read Chapter 11). A more fitting analogy is the Mandelbrot set, which features complex patterns within patterns ad infinitum, or a seed which branches into an extraordinarily intricate tree above the soil, and simultaneously, into an extremely complex root system underground, including aerial prop roots which hang from the branches, as in some figs. Just see what an incredibly complex universe has arisen from the original ball of energy! The popular notion of retributive karma has no scientific support whatsoever, and ought to be rejected by any intelligent, discriminating person. The term “karmic debt” is often used to express this totally contrived and utterly disingenuous concept of action and reaction. Despite what most everyone believes, “determinism” or “predestination” is IRREFUTABLE, as plainly demonstrated in Chapter 11 of this “Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity”. Causation is merely the mechanism used by the Supreme to play-out the preordained story of the universe. The convoluted conceptions of karma found in Indian and Chinese philosophical systems (i.e. the notions of “right action”, “skilful means”, “unwholesome action”, “action in inaction”, “inaction in action”, etcetera), presuppose freedom of volition, and therefore are unhelpful for those who are trying to comprehend life as it is, that is, those who aspire to the HIGHEST levels of spiritual understanding and realization. “For here the saying holds true, 'One sows and another reaps.' I sent you to reap that for which you did not labour. Others have laboured, and you have entered into their labour.” Lord Jesus Christ, Divine Incarnation, St. John 4:37-38. “Instant Karma's gonna get you, Gonna knock you right on the head. You better get yourself together, Pretty soon you're gonna be dead.” John Lennon, English Singer-Songwriter.

@LeftBoot

3 жыл бұрын

People forget that Big Bang is also a theory. Red shift is still being debated today.

@SpiritualPsychotherapyServices

3 жыл бұрын

@@LeftBoot To read the remaining twenty-nine chapters of “A Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity”, which are the most authoritative, accurate and complete spiritual precepts extant, Email: prophet4god@icloud.com with the acronym “FISH” in the subject field. 🐟 “The gateway to KNOWLEDGE is ignorance”. 🤓

I had to back up several times in this one because I got caught up in my thoughts about it. And I've already watched it before. That has to be a pretty good level of interesting. Thanks, Robert, for these videos.

"The idea is not a physical thing, it is only realized by a physical thing" - Thinking in this other way around makes much more sense. I love Ellis...

@mikel4879

3 жыл бұрын

Satyavan / The process of creating an idea is a material thing. A material thing can create a non-existing entity exactly like a material object that blocks the light and create a shadow. Is a shadow a material thing ? No, it isn't, even if you can "see" the shadow by comparing it with the light. It is the same thing with the notion of "idea". A material proces can artificially create an atribute ( = idea ) that doesn't exist in reality. In other words a material thing can project nothing = has the capacity to function at "idle" and that "idle" function to create nothing ( nothing=no material thing ).

@FreeMind320

2 жыл бұрын

@@mikel4879 A material object cannot create a shadow without the light. Similarly the brain intercepts the idea, does not create it. We then mistake its shadow for the idea itself.

@mikel4879

2 жыл бұрын

Satyavan / Stop writing stupidities. Light is a material dynamic. A shadow is nothing because a shadow doesn't exist materially. / And, no. You're wrong. You don't understand what I mean. Any idea is "created" only if a specific material "scafold" exists and it is "created" by that material scafold. That "scafold" is a material brain-like structure. A non-existent ideating "thing" , like an "idea", is "created" only if a material process takes place in the material brain-like structure. The material process of creating any idea uses what you, the material being, have at hand in your brain. If your brain is empty of the scafolding material, then it can't "create" any idea at all. For example the one minute old, one hour old, etc, newborn can't create any idea. In the same way, animals with less evolved scafolding material structures in their brains=less conscious brain material structures, can "create" less "evolved" ( materially non-existent ) "ideas". I hope you understand what I mean here. Your head is too full of philosophy and old voodoo metaphisics and that's the reason you can't distinguish the clear line between what's truly real and what doesn't exist at all.

@FreeMind320

2 жыл бұрын

@@mikel4879 You seem to be new in the subject since it is clear that you never thought about these issues seriously. Please google a bit about the philosophy of mind, especially about the so called "hard problem of consciousness" and then get back here. Your arguments will appear thought through a little bit better. 😉

@mikel4879

2 жыл бұрын

Satyavan / At my level I don't need any philosophy at all for anything. I know what consciousness is in real terms and I know how to create full artificial consciousness. I know because I've already done it. I know how the material peroceses of the biological brain create the material functions called consciousness, ideas, etc. You don't! From the way you write about it, you don't know and don't understand anything correctly; if you did, at least for a second, you wouldn't write such stupidities. I am amazed that you don't even realize the enormity of the stupidities you write here ( on the subject of consciousness ). To me, your practical understanding of this subject is at the level of an undeveloped mind of a kid. You don't know what you're talking about, and the fact that you still think that philosophy is a help in understanding consciousness in reality, proves even more that you're in completely mental darkness on the subject of consciousness. So, as a consequence, my opinion is that you find a kid with an undeveloped mind like yours to exchange texts because you don't have the capacity to understand the meaning of my writing. You bore me to death with your ignorance, and when I am bored by somebody's ignorance ( = stupidity ), my patience reaches a maximum limit of tolerance. / My arguments are not for you, square head! I know if somebody is an ignorant from his first text; so, I never bother to write my texts for the ignorant. I write to ignorants with my goal that the proper people read my texts. If I was sure that my texts were read only by ignorants, I would have never bother to write at all. My texts are intended only for the best, and for the ones that are truly talented in the subject. The ignorants are just a vehicle for my texts to get to the right destination of the smart and talented ones.

Another great video with Professor Ellis. Clear thinking in double dosage.

Physical things are simply detailed concepts. Characterizing ideas as non-physical isn't dualism when physical objects are correctly understood.

@TehNetherlands

3 жыл бұрын

Yes, I agree. I believe the further one is removed (vertically) from the emergent phenomenon one is attempting to consider, the more fuzzy the description will become. Describing fluid dynamics in terms of elementary particles would be a complete mess, but a sufficiently capable entity should still be able to derive an accurate impression.

@REDPUMPERNICKEL

Жыл бұрын

Paraphrasing, movement is to idea as matter is to existence.

Ellis's computer analogy makes it clear that the different levels are abstractions. These exists only in the mind of the computer analyst and are the tools used to enable them to understand the system.

@jozsefnemeth935

2 жыл бұрын

The electrons cannot take authorship of their own level which facilitates and for the above level that they don't understand, represent, hold,, contain.

10:55 "The Logic is still the thing that is driving everything." The "abstract entity" or "logic" is not material (i.e. immaterial). And, logic is the product of only Mind / Consciousness / Intelligence.

I've been suggesting this "property dualism" for a while now. A conceptual realm exists simultaneously with the material realm. It could even be said that the conceptual realm is more sturdy in it's Truth claims than the material realm as it not subject to changing conditions over time and does not need constant testing and refinement of theory as knowledge of the material realm necessitates. Not all can be known from a conceptualist or materialist approach.

@REDPUMPERNICKEL

Жыл бұрын

"A conceptual realm exists simultaneously with the material realm." Are they not identical merely appearing different according to perspective?

@ronpaulrevered

Жыл бұрын

@@REDPUMPERNICKEL I think there can be some interplay between realms, like if you wanted to test a mathematical theory that is said to conform to reality, but often completely distinct, like a geometrical Truth regarding multiple dimension that doesn't conform to what we can see or experience in our reality, although the methods by which the Truth is found is valid.

@REDPUMPERNICKEL

Жыл бұрын

@@ronpaulrevered I must sleep now. ttyl

That’s a killer question. Hard to wrap your head around

The beautiful moves in sports EMERGE from the basic rules of the games. That's why strategies in chess are exclusively to chess, and can't be applied to checkers nor to basketball.

"George, ... ultimately physics can explain everything..." *George laughs*

@pikiwiki

3 жыл бұрын

I like George

@waerlogauk

3 жыл бұрын

Physics does not explain everything but it does cause everything.

@YudisDwikoMusic

3 жыл бұрын

That laugh's coming from someone who has deep understanding of science and physics lol

I wish Ellis had explained the distinction he's making between "causes" and "realizes." If "realizing' just means "representing" or "manifesting," then I don't see how he can say that the top level determines the bottom level. Why should any level by the driving force in the absence of causation?

@jozsefnemeth935

2 жыл бұрын

Good question Maybe the macroscopic upper layer is the top dog by its size, the lower layer gets absorbed in statistics. Atoms cannot hold , bring about a story, consciousness , but they facilitate it. It s mystery. Reducing purpose, meaning, story, personality to inanimate matter without anybody behind the curtain is unthinkable, contradicts the scientific model of substance. If there is God behind the curtain that is fine because he can take authorship. Matter cannot according to our textbooks.

In the end, people realize that Plato is more difficult to comprehend than Aristotle despite even uneducated people could normally claim that they understand Plato while academic professionals might shy away from saying that they understand Aristotle...I have been puzzled by the question "how could Aristotle get Plato so wrong while they lived in the same monastery for years as student and teacher.....didn't they talk to each other daily?"....What has become really sad is that most nowadays scientists do not know either Plato or Aristotle (although they often pretend knowing both of them), and I guess, nowadays philosophers are even worse since none of them know either of those two guys at all after they have joined forces with scientists in fiercely demolishing metaphysics starting from early last century or late 19th century.....

@peterdesmidt8742

3 жыл бұрын

I agree. Aristotle's 3rd Man argument does not count against Plato's theory, since Plato does not hold that in order to understand something that it has to be understood via something else. Aristotle's view that form is inherent in each individual (but nowhere else) doesn't explain how we can group two different entities under the same concept.

@rondai4019

3 жыл бұрын

@@peterdesmidt8742 [form is inherent in each individual (but nowhere else) ]...that's pretty much what nowadays scientific mind would suppose...

@PhokenKuul

3 жыл бұрын

This. As witnessed by Carl Sagan's reading list being rife with philosophers, especially Plato, and yet Sagan's most famous student, NDGT, badmouthing philosophy as useless and a waste of time. Ridiculous.

This is superb!

We have to understand non-duality.

@dongshengdi773

3 жыл бұрын

CONSCIOUSNESS IS A FUNDAMENTAL BUILDING BLOCK OF NATURE: non-duality of nature. The universe exists Both as physical and spiritual or metaphysical in nature. ie. body and mind. … The connection between consciousness and quantum mechanics. There is No objective reality. Physical matter only exists when it is observed after the wave function collapses. "The observer gives the world the power to come into being, through the very act of giving meaning to that world; in brief, No consciousness; no communicating community to establish meaning? Then no world!" - Physicist John Wheeler …

Love this discussion

I have the feeling that the very beginning preposition if true " If we knew every thing about the state of the universe at any given point" it would become absurdly clear that at this point in time we had no idea of all the things we needed to know of, in the first place, to be able to even possibly know every thing about any given state of the universe !

@REDPUMPERNICKEL

Жыл бұрын

We would have to be the god of god to know that much.

His hypothesis is based on the very first sentence : "let's assume we knew everything..." Already an error, but I see the rest of his argumentation is taken straight from the Catholic Church. Somehow a divine entity is planting ideas in our heads, which is something ethereal and not really just information resulted through causality...

Great talk. As I understand it the topic is whether consciousness is causal or epiphenomenal (though Ellis prefers the term realization rather than causation). Ellis strongly believes it is causal and Kuhn is trying to get to the bottom of it (and not necessarilly against it, as it was implied in some prior comments here). Like Ellis, I strongly believe consciousness is causal - exactly how we feel it to be in our everyday life.

@caricue

3 жыл бұрын

Hanna Elias, I really think that there is something amiss in the wiring of the brains of determinists. They can sit there with a straight face and say that Shakespeare's plays were there at the big bang waiting for the laws of physics to produce them after 13 billion years of particle interactions. This is mysticism of the highest order.

@limonina1000

3 жыл бұрын

@@caricue I agree. I think that when you examine the matter thoroughly - causal consciousness is much more level-headed than epiphenomenal one. The latter being very lacking and even self-contradicting.

@caricue

3 жыл бұрын

@@limonina1000 I have to update my previous comment about brain anomalies. I stumbled upon the real answer some time ago, but since it is so contrary to my own nature, it did not come to mind until later. I have spent my whole life working toward being personally responsible for whatever I did. I actually went too far and started to suffer from stress issues, so now I am more forgiving of myself, especially if I wasn't really aware of doing anything wrong at the time. Apparently, most other people are not like this at all, and go through life trying everything to avoid being blamed for the things they knowingly do. I've reluctantly concluded that this is the real motivation for the mental gymnastics of hard determinists. They will say that mindless particles make all your decisions. They will say that you are just a computer and following your programming. They will deny the self, consciousness or anything they have to in order to "protect" themselves from blame. I hate to look at people this way, but what else could warp people's mental faculties so thoroughly?

@caricue

3 жыл бұрын

@@realitycheck1231 I have to admit that while I'm not that much into traditional religion, I think you hit the nail on the head in your first paragraph. I might phrase it a little differently, but the idea is the same; egotism is a defense mechanism for a deep seated fear of guilt and blame. "Fear leads to the Dark Side" as a diminutive green guy said so succinctly.

@REDPUMPERNICKEL

Жыл бұрын

He said thoughts are physically implemented. I agree. Me, I say neural discharge frequencies (which are abstract) are the means by which analogies (which are thoughts (which are also abstract)) are encoded. When the neural discharge frequency tickles a muscle fiber the muscle is caused to move. The thought and neural discharge frequency are the same 'thing'. See?

It seems they are talking about slightly different things/perspectives. They are both correct!

@REDPUMPERNICKEL

Жыл бұрын

My six is your nine when you see it from the opposite side of the desk. Clockwise is counterclockwise on the back side of a clock. The outside surface of a solid sphere is also its inside surface. Perspective is indeed important.

I love this bloke

In order to describe the emergent physics of water in terms of its constituent elements you'd necessarily have to simulate the interactions between those elements. Likewise, in order to describe the emergent properties of a brain in terms of its constituent elements you'd have to simulate all of those elements. There is a certain level of abstraction at which emergent phenomenon make sense. However, the further you are distanced 'vertically' from this level, the more fuzzy the concepts related to that level are. For instance, human psychology makes sense at a certain high level of abstraction, but becomes far more fuzzy when considered in terms of electrical activity inside the brain. It becomes orders of magnitude more fuzzy at the level of elementary particles. So really, while Lawrence's argument holds water (ha), at least in principle, both his and George's position are not nuanced enough to capture the full scope of what is implied. One could simulate elementary particles and end up with a brain, but in order to actually make sense of that brain one would necessarily have to reason at a different level. In other words, a simulation could be ran of the brain in question, but in order to actually predict the psychology of the brain involved merely by looking at the level of elementary particles, one would have to be able to make sense of the immense chaos and fuzziness responsible for the higher-level functions. Yet, given unlimited resources, I'm convinced such a thing should be possible, at least in principle. Though in order to actually describe the psychology in terms that make sense to use mere mortals, one would necessarily have to give a description at a higher level of abstraction.

@TehNetherlands

3 жыл бұрын

@@realitycheck1231 The idea itself is conceptualized inside a material brain. Put in other words: imagine if an idea is written down, and then all people die. The idea now only exists in written form. In a way, it is just an arrangement of atoms. If an idea can only be conceptualized by materialistic beings, then doesn't this dependency suggest that it is fundamentally materialistic, even though it does require mental processes 'stacked' on top of the physical substrate of the brain to actually work with those ideas? Another way to frame it is to ask yourself if geometric objects like spheres are real, or whether they're simply a mental representation of some idealized physical structures. After all, perfect spheres do not appear to exist in nature. This gets into the area of philosophy.

@REDPUMPERNICKEL

Жыл бұрын

@@TehNetherlands "even though it does require mental processes " Process is the keyword. What is process? Process is lots of little movements involving small material existents. Process is an abstract notion yet processes 'exist'. Movement is to thought as matter is to substrate.

When every low-energy critically-interesting thing that mainstream physics fails to explain credibly reduces down to one extremely simple and geometrically-concrete idea for quantizing gravity onto massless particles, it naturally creates a strong tension many must deny.

@REDPUMPERNICKEL

Жыл бұрын

If everything is understood what will physicists do for work? Does the cure for cancer lie only in the future because so many make a living from the battle?

8:47 to 9:36 to 9:54... Beautiful. Coherent idea is to consciousness as that theoretical island of stability for super-heavy elements is to nuclear physics. ... And, here we are.

@mediocrates3416

3 жыл бұрын

Or; perhaps more obviously in this place than most others, here "i am". No offense and, feel free.

It seems like there’s a self referencing cycle happening in his causation, emergence, realization cycle. If this could be formally mapped to the examples discussed, the debates would end because of Gödel’s work.

@REDPUMPERNICKEL

Жыл бұрын

The debates would continue because there would always be contradictions struggling to be resolved.

emergence is easier to describe using living processes, such as what is life? and the answer is the example of emergence

Hmm.. are the top level, source of emergence, or logic of various algorithms in the analogy, similar to archetypes?

@REDPUMPERNICKEL

Жыл бұрын

Yes, insofar as they are all abstract notions.

Strong emergence is simply the reason why physicists and biologists should just calm down and listen a bit more to philosophers and epistemologists before thinking they are going to bring major breakthrough because they are scientists.

How did the “program” organize itself?

@REDPUMPERNICKEL

Жыл бұрын

In the same way this sentence did. There were inputs, processing and outputs which are the very words you are right now reading.

@davidjohnston710

Жыл бұрын

@@REDPUMPERNICKEL Really? Sentences write themselves too? The words and meanings just came out of nothing, ex-nihilo? The letters formed themselves, all 26 of them uniquely shaped? Sorry, but I think a sentient conscious human with intelligence had something to do with it.

@REDPUMPERNICKEL

Жыл бұрын

@@davidjohnston710 It might be easier to grasp the truth of the assertion by discussing spoken sentences. From where do our words come when we speak them in the form of a sentence? Are we consciously choosing each word or do the words simply manifest like ghosts in our imagination? It's not magic and the words do not come ex-nihilo. They come from our unconscious (all those brain processes that underlie thought but that are not participating in the being conscious process at the moment). Writing is a bit different because there's time to evaluate each word as it occurs, accepting or rejecting according to how well it serves the purpose of one's growing sentence. We seek help from a thesaurus when our unconscious fails to provide the 'right' word, one that fits, that best contributes to the meaning one is striving to assemble. (And sometimes we emit sub optimal expressions because we're in a hurry or tired or lazy or bullshitting). Sometimes when we resume after a sleep we discover unconscious processing has produced an altered understanding or new idea or new perspective. Sometimes writing causes one to discover errors in one's thinking. I'm sure this is part of why I spend time writing utoob comments (to say nothing of the education I sometimes get from commenters who have thought more deeply on a topic).

@davidjohnston710

Жыл бұрын

@@REDPUMPERNICKEL I have observed all that you are saying. There are unconscious (maybe better “unaware”) processes happening, wherein we may rehearse and refine our phrases and speech, something we may want to say later, or be prepared to say in certain situations. My point about programming or writing is that it doesn’t emerge in a vacuum, but emerges from a consciousness that has intention and purpose. A writer can scribble words on paper in gibberish sentences all day, but without an intention and meaning to convey, this would be useless. There is an intelligence behind every creation of any complexity. Atheists typically don’t like to hear this; they prefer that something disprove their negative hypothesis that God or Source doesn’t exist. If you can show them proof of a creator or invisible conscious intelligence, well, that would be proof indeed!!! To be fair, maybe they are just persons of integrity who want to be absolutely sure that they speak and believe in truth, so not to mislead anyone. And maybe they wear blinders intentionally so that they can’t see the intelligent design right in their face. Some may be reacting to traditional notions of a wrathful or punishing God, that was socialized into them at an earlier age, and they rebel because they have done things that would cause guilt and conviction, if that notion of God were true. I think the experiences of many NDEers tends to discount that portrayal of God. It’s more closely tied to new notions in quantum physics and energy. Yes, there is an invisible (to us) realm of the universe. We have only scratched the surface.

@REDPUMPERNICKEL

Жыл бұрын

@@davidjohnston710 "My point about programming or writing is that it doesn’t emerge in a vacuum, but emerges from a consciousness that has intention and purpose." You may have observed all that I said but your above quoted sentence tells me that you have not understood my comment. Perhaps you will if you read again more slowly. I don't have an hypothesis about gods existence. I simply don't believe such things exist. I don't believe because no evidence convinced me. What evidence convinced you? You talk of typical atheists but how many do you know that you assert what's typical of them? Or is your statement parroting community opinion? I believe events are the consequence of the *nature* of the participants and their circumstance. I appreciate the logic in Ockham's razor. It seems that you do not. Can you shout aloud, "I don't believe in God" without fear, even though you believe God monitors your thoughts and would know that you don't mean it? Go ahead, shout, "I don't believe in God". Did you do it? My neighbor wouldn't. This confused me because he professed to have faith. Perhaps he didn't have enough faith or maybe he just had trust issues. Whereas I can shout , "I don't believe in God" without fear (unless I'm near a rampaging mob of religious crazies) because I don't believe gods exist. Happy New Year!

Robert really gave him the business!

If "wet" has never been experienced, how can it be predicted, regardless of the knowledge about the constituent parts of H2O?

@Quidisi

3 жыл бұрын

I agree with you... "wet" is a sensation. I've held liquid mercury (dumb, I know) and it does not feel wet. I think he really meant to say, from the hydrogen and oxygen gas molecules, can you predict that their bonding would result in a "Liquid" state.

@lukeskywalker7461

3 жыл бұрын

@@Quidisiagreed

@REDPUMPERNICKEL

Жыл бұрын

Is wet pavement a sensation?

Would it be possible to play chess in a universe with different laws of physics?

@REDPUMPERNICKEL

Жыл бұрын

That depends.

I can understand George Ellis because I studied a bit of programming.

@REDPUMPERNICKEL

Жыл бұрын

Did you ever play with logic chips?

Causation, emergence, realization, only one needed some outside help?

The big bang caused me to type this.

@REDPUMPERNICKEL

Жыл бұрын

The big bang caused you. What caused the big bang caused you. What caused the cause of the big bang caused you... ad infinitum.

Why would consciousness not be an emergent property?

@philochristos

3 жыл бұрын

It sounds to me like Ellis thinks consciousness IS an emergent property. The problem Lawrence seems to be raising is that if consciousness is an emergent property, then that would lead to epiphenomenalism since the direction of causation is always bottom up, but Ellis is trying to explain how it can be top down on emergentism. He's saying the relationship isn't causal, but "realizable" or something like that.

@MidnightEDJK

3 жыл бұрын

@@philochristos appreciate the reply. I need to think on it and I'll get back to you :)

@projectmalus

3 жыл бұрын

If consciousness comes from outside a closed universe, then it wouldn't be strong emergence (edit: yes it would be strong emergence). It brings the question of energy doing work into focus...is this a zero energy uni or what? Is it water sloshing in a bucket or a sentient jellyfish moving in dark stuff? What's information, is it fractal so that the uni really is that jellyfish?? Are there objects and is the universe an object, and do objects emerge and from what? If information is fractal then the answer is all around us ready to interpret which might be weak emergence.

@SandipChitale

3 жыл бұрын

Exactly. I have never seen a consciousness in absence of physical brain that is functioning normally. But I have seen brains without consciousness. A brain under anesthesia does not produce consciousness.

Whole night I watched start without sleep. Actually my logic do not stop twinkle stars. I see many stars moving fast than light travel. Stars in sky are moving like vehicles travelling travelling every minute faster than light travel. My eyes saw destination of stars before star gets. Light Is not fast. Our eyes sees fast than light travel. My house is not saying me you are my owner's. So sad.

@SpiritualPsychotherapyServices

3 жыл бұрын

You'd have better spent the whole night studying ENGLISH, Ujjwal. ;)

@ujjwalbhattarai8670

3 жыл бұрын

@@SpiritualPsychotherapyServices From my birth I'm listening my own language. I try to write in english I appreciate myself.

Kudos -- SUDOKU

Often enough what happens at the highest levels depends entirely on denying what happens at lower levels.

Nothing can the Grimace. That doesn't mean the Grimace is invulnerable to emotions. Think Outside The Box.

Chaos Theory says no long term prediction of anything is possible.

@colemanbandy671

3 жыл бұрын

Not really; it just says you would need a computer the size of the entire universe in order to do so. Which, I guess, is impossible. So I guess you’re right. Lol.

@jamesbentonticer4706

3 жыл бұрын

A chaotic system is a system in which it is extreamly difficult to make predictions.

@fortynine3225

3 жыл бұрын

If you have the right info and the right computer you can come up with possibilities but the more of those there are the less accurate predictions will be...which has to do with the fact that you are dealing with the real world so you will always be a bit off and that will get worse the more data you get. So basically you can forget about it (in a ideal situation).

@REDPUMPERNICKEL

Жыл бұрын

Depends on the definition of long term. I felt a disturbance in the force the first time I pondered microseconds as my fingers hovered over the keyboard of my first computer. Billions of cycles wasted while I went to pee.

Suppose you approach a seemingly-concrete idea with an open mind, like say you are stuck being a patent examiner and it's in an application, and the idea becomes a sort of key to explaining so much that it appears overwhelmingly undeniable. That is the kind of "emergence" I am thinking about here.

Great questions- I think you forced Dr Ellis to think a bit and He didn’t appear very sure of his answers. Sounded very much like a dualist trying to separate information into material and non material domains. I think he’s incorrect. I’m of the notion all information is physical and while I don’t think strong emergence is totally correct, due to the randomness of QM, the world is relatively close to that ideal in the macro world.

@jozsefnemeth935

2 жыл бұрын

I think I disagree with you. Information is not physical as it can be copied onto another medium, yet it is never separate from the medium. Information can be nested , packed, encoded into other information. The particular meaning cannot be reduced to a lower layer or taken up a layer. So reality has irreduceable layered structure, which can only be built up bottom up, if the bottom layers are mediators for a source at a higher layer. I don't think you get away without a Designer.

Strong emergence is the opposite of weak emergence.

@REDPUMPERNICKEL

Жыл бұрын

She emerged from the bedroom means the same as she moved out of the bedroom. The pattern emerged means the same as some components came together.

So what i am is just a pattern???

@REDPUMPERNICKEL

Жыл бұрын

No, you are a process (which is of course just a pattern with wings).

Would logical world exist if there was nobody to look at it?

@REDPUMPERNICKEL

Жыл бұрын

Nothing exists if I'm not conscious. Oddly, 'nothing exists' is a contradiction. If by 'exist' you mean matter only then how to account for the existence of pattern, process, thoughts and being conscious which are not material objects?

5:41 :D

He was giving George a hard time. lol

@jensswales

3 жыл бұрын

on the other hand, ive never heard robert stutter more..

@mikel4879

3 жыл бұрын

Haemosu I / No. George was giving himself a hard time full of stupidity.

@SandipChitale

3 жыл бұрын

I don't think so. In fact I thought George started to stumble towards the end when challenged.

@jellojiggle1

3 жыл бұрын

@@SandipChitale I agree he did find it difficult to explain his position, and I was just wanting to know what he meant by 'Strong Emergence' but it seemed the host was more aggressive than I have seen. He will usually just nod his head and give a smile instead of full on challenging the guest.

@mikel4879

3 жыл бұрын

Sandip C / The whole George's train of thoughts is a big "stumble" and a logical fallacy.

Our universe is made up of these elements : 1. Reality is made up of Information, Mathematics everywhere Symbols everywhere . Meaning is subjective , it requires a choice by a conscious being . 2. Causality Loops , Time is an illusion . (All of time) Every moment in time exists all the time . The universe is like a single DVD movie , the beginning , the middle , and the end of the story are all inside the disk . 3. Non-deterministic universe, We have free will because of our consciousness to decide as proven by the modified double-slit experiment (delayed-choice quantum eraser). 4. Cosmic Consciousness , placebo effect, Mind over matter , double-slit experiment . A conscious entity capable of generating information by observing. Matter doesn't exist until we observe it . (Frank Wilczek) 5. Quantized universe , Pixelation (Werner Heisenberg - Matrix Theory) planck length and planck time . 6. E8 Crystal Lattice shape of the fundamental particles in 8 Dimensions , when projected as 4D becomes 2 shapes in different sizes with a Ratio of 0.618 , 7. Golden Ratio and Fibonacci Sequence existing everywhere in the universe from quantum Scale to Celestial Scale . Conclusion: 1. Universal Collective Consciousness or Cosmic Consciousness coined by Dr. Michio Kaku . Our body is a collection of microbes (microbiome) with a single collective consciousness. Electrons and Quarks self-organize into 81 stable atoms to become self-aware into human consciousness . There is no upper limit on the number of atoms and energy to self-organize and become self-aware, therefore the earth could also be conscious (Gaia Hypothesis) 2. Our universe is a code-based Simulation in a super computer in another universe .

Everything in the universe seems to be mathematical because To a person with a hammer, Everything looks like a nail. Mathematics has got nothing to do with the actuality of the world. It pains me to say this because I love Mathematics, but that's how reality is.

@Harmonicaoscillator

3 жыл бұрын

I think your argument relies on a very strange premise: “To a person with a hammer, everything looks like a nail” seems like an oversimplification of what it means to have a hammer. We can clearly identify what pieces of reality are mathematical and what isn’t the same way someone with a hammer knows a tree or a rock isn’t a nail. The statement sounds nice because it mimics adages or metaphors or what have you but it has no basis in reality nor should judgments about the nature of reality be based in it

@soubhikmukherjee6871

3 жыл бұрын

@@Harmonicaoscillator you said that the person knows that trees and woods aren't nails, but that's precisely wrong. My point is that we're hallucinating right now, and you need God consciousness to understand that. And by God I don't mean some Supernatural being, but it's you, it's me, it's the universe,it's infinity. You are me, I'm you, he's the universe, she's me. You are thinking that I've gone bananas but....

@tanjohnny6511

3 жыл бұрын

@@soubhikmukherjee6871 agree,there is a universal mind or conciousness beneath our physical world which our six senses have fool us .spiritual seekers who stilled their mind can know this ultimate reality beyond words or thoughts .its just knowing or bare awareness.no birth or death ,timeless and eternal.the unconditioned.😂

@Harmonicaoscillator

3 жыл бұрын

@@soubhikmukherjee6871 But those two things can both be true. I don’t need to be a hammer who sees only nails to be a part of the infinite interconnectedness of the universe. Is everything you see math? Or do you know better? Because I certainly do

I am Merging different Internet Apps***

Ok..I THINK it registered after watching the interview twice. The argument SEEMS to be that ideas themselves (And logic) have some sort of mysterious non-physical explanation, the FIRST questionable assumption. Everything around us is the result of emergence, that is agreeable. . SO, is there a "Step" within the chain where reality is manifested that requires a non-physical explanation..? Well MAYBE, but it's arguably an unsupportable and certainly a needless assumption..It includes logical flaws within it's own premise..Suggesting in SOME fashion that the immaterial can control the material world..I don't think there's ANY actual or circumstantial evidence that supports this conclusion, is that wrong? ..Conversely, there is a great deal of actual AND circumstantial evidence that particle actions ALONE can account for the ability of the physical brain to plan, Predict, dream, and ACTUALIZE plans in the physical world..Such an idea as presented by this respectable gentleman, doesn't seem to FIT with the scientific method or world view..Peace everyone!

@Bill..N

3 жыл бұрын

Ps: I would argue that it's ALL complex information processing, and THAT is all about particle interactions..

@sentientsimeon7669

3 жыл бұрын

Consciousness collapses the wave function. Backwards causality is a thing. Quantum pairing and Quantum nonlocality is a thing. The standard model is built on the mathematical framework of quantum mechanics. At the base of reality there are four fundamental fluid like fields of energy. They are eternal. All of the material in the universe arises from these fluctuating fields of energy. When entropy has ran its course and everything flattens out, the fields will still be there, becoming Unified. They are Eternal. Given the Eternal state of existence, it is far more likely that a single metaphysical mind arose and that we exist within that mind, then it is that we emerged from a Mindless process through natural selection. You are in the mind of God. It's time you grapple with it. It takes an utter and absolute fool, to the highest degree of foolishness, to know that humans are only aware of 5%, maybe 10%, of reality, and say to themselves that there is no God.

@sentientsimeon7669

3 жыл бұрын

The idea that particle physics can explain everything is a forceful disbelief. Which is exactly what atheism requires.

@sentientsimeon7669

3 жыл бұрын

Yes, there is ample evidence that the immaterial supports the material world. What are mathematical axioms found in reality? What are the fundamental forces and the laws? What is all of this obvious fine-tuning? From where do these immaterial things arise? They are there and the discovery of their source is a metaphysical Endeavor, not a scientific one, because the laws are metaphysical, as is the source. As is written, "all life is of the spirit, flesh and human power account for nothing".

@fortynine3225

3 жыл бұрын

It looks like there is only one universe and we are the only intelligent life in it. So if true it is highly likely that there is something outside which created this universe for us. Get used to the idea....

The most complex chicken-egg scenario I've ever heard. Does reality create us, or do we create reality? All things considered, I believe we create reality, but I'm still not sure if there is a "we". Are you separate from me, or does physicality create an inescapable illusion of separation? I lean toward the idea that we're consciousness filters... A means to experience the robust reality we create in real-time from billions of different perspectives. We're both the creator and the observer.

@REDPUMPERNICKEL

Жыл бұрын

"We're both the creator and the observer." We're both the creator and the created. Except it's culture that creates us. I mean, how conscious could you be if you never learned a language? Language brings with it the concept of the self and it is your self that is conscious.

Life is a slab of marble and we are all artists like Michelangelo. We chip away the negative spaces (greed) and a positive image "emerges". Not only at an individual level. But at a social level as well.

I can’t tell whether this guy was arguing for or against emergence

@williamesselman3102

3 жыл бұрын

Start the video over and watch him giggle when Robert talks about physicists explaining everything.

@SandipChitale

3 жыл бұрын

@@williamesselman3102 What is meant when one says "physicists explaining everything" is really a shorthand for "naturalists and natural sciences explaining everything". Of course like George said evolution is not in physics textbooks, but it is biology text books. But biology, which depends on chemistry and statistical effects(in case of evolution) does not contradict or deny chemistry and then eventually physics in anyway.

@williamesselman3102

3 жыл бұрын

Nature can't explain everything either.

@williamesselman3102

3 жыл бұрын

Naturalists and materialists who believe they can explain reality with nature and material are exactly like children in the floor playing with Legos. You try to tell them all about the grandiose nature of the Lego factory. But they stare at you blankly and to tell you, " no, there is no Lego factory. See? I built this Lego device and with my Lego device I've explained Lego existence with Legos. Now I'm a Lego master". No, no they are not. There's a Lego factory outside of the Lego Universe.

@SandipChitale

3 жыл бұрын

@@williamesselman3102 extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

maybe it comes down to "information" as a none material thing, but this would imply an observer who evaluates it or tries to make sense out of it again... who himslef is an information filtering entity that probably also exists outside the material view... puh - another sleepless night ahead ...

@REDPUMPERNICKEL

Жыл бұрын

Attain a firm understanding of the meaning of 'abstract' and thereafter you should have no trouble finding a deep and dreamless slumber.

Is it emergence, too what Aquinas calls secondary causation? e.g. that Augustus orders a census for his own purposes and thus facilitates God s intent that the Christ borns in Bethlehem, fulfilling the profecies. This is a case similar to the emergence of human will and action but at the highest layer, the history of Salvation. St Luke and early Christians recognise d this and preached it. Actually it may have been instrumental in that Romain's adopted Christianity later on, and linked in some way to the notion of Christian kings who rule from God s intent. The signs of on the sky the meeting of Jupiter and Saturn, also facilitated the wise men to find the King born in Bethlehem.

@REDPUMPERNICKEL

Жыл бұрын

You write gibberish, sadly.

He is literally talking about magic....

@madmax2976

3 жыл бұрын

Something tells me if we ever figure out these big questions, no matter what the explanation is, it'll seem like magic.

@REDPUMPERNICKEL

Жыл бұрын

No, he's only talking about the difference between the abstract and the concrete.

Ideas are not physical?.….hmmm!

@REDPUMPERNICKEL

Жыл бұрын

Distinguish between movement and matter to find your answer.

Thoughts can only go so far Beyond thought, is pure consciousness Pure consciousness is God

@balasrinivas6995

3 жыл бұрын

where you from?

@REDPUMPERNICKEL

Жыл бұрын

Being conscious is a process not a something.

Go read Korzybski and don't piss us off

Chaos, complexity, emergence are very profound ideas for sure. They changed my worldview when I first learnt about them many years ago. But I don't see why these two are arguing. The relationships between the atomic, cellular, organism, ecosystem, language, concept level are (at least in principle) understandable. In the end, everything is 'caused' at the atomic level. A water molecule does what a water molecule does. It doesn't know whether it is inside Einsteins brain or inside an ice cube. But a systems behaviour might be easier to understand and predict based on what is going on at a much higher level. e.g. people will do things for money.

@REDPUMPERNICKEL

Жыл бұрын

"I don't see why these two are arguing" Are they?

The abstract entity that is driving the logic is a logical being. 😇

@REDPUMPERNICKEL

Жыл бұрын

There can be no logic without a substrate with the capacity to support it.

@ultrainstinctgoku2509

Жыл бұрын

@@REDPUMPERNICKEL Incorrect, an ultimate being needs no support. Ultimate. 😇

@REDPUMPERNICKEL

Жыл бұрын

@@ultrainstinctgoku2509 - Something exists or it does not. There is no in between. Thus there is no continuum of being. There are no ends on a non existent continuum thus there are no ends to be occupied. Occupying the end of a continuum is the meaning of ultimate. Thus there cannot be an ultimate being.

@ultrainstinctgoku2509

Жыл бұрын

@@REDPUMPERNICKEL Incorrect. The ends of a continuum, beginning and end, would have to be occupied for a continuum to exist in the first place. Continuum of being?... There is a continuum and an ultimate being occupying the ends of the continuum, sustaining the continuum's existence. If there is no ultimate being sustaining the continuum, then there is no continuum and we can observe it's cycles that appear to recycle constantly over and over. There is no running away from the truth. Logical order of cause and effect. 😇

@REDPUMPERNICKEL

Жыл бұрын

@@ultrainstinctgoku2509 Seems to me you have not understood my previous comment.

The logic is....the binary code

@REDPUMPERNICKEL

Жыл бұрын

The nature of matter exhibits a logic. The nature of neurons does too.

Addicional logic goes found true fundament phisoch inst principles..Principles on phisics is experience proof not brains as he did say.

So - how many angels can stand on............? Three doesn’t exist. Neither does blue. So what?

@REDPUMPERNICKEL

Жыл бұрын

Depends on what you think 'exist' means.

He sayung to himself,... "Ummmm. How am i going to explain this without using the word Creator, consciousness or god.😄

@REDPUMPERNICKEL

Жыл бұрын

Consciousness is responsible for our being and our being is responsible for Consciousness. Everything that has an outside has an inside. They come into existence together.

I'm just glad we don't have to answer to the Grimace when we die. Imagine what that would be like!

@richardlopez2932

3 жыл бұрын

*Those of a certain thinking say that if you're Really Bad when you die, the Grimace uses you like a rag to wipe different sorts of blood out of his asshole. You think you got it bad now? Try being a bloodrag for a disenfranchised fastfood icon: You never know what worse trouble your biggest troubles saved you from.

That idea thing again.. So a idea in the head is physical, a idea on paper is physical but the idea itself is not. I do not know about that..since the idea does not exists on itself..It only exists on paper or in ones head. And when we forget about the idea and the writing is gone the idea itself is also gone which shows that a idea is not non physical. In the physical world everything is connected to the physical. That does not mean that the physical world is all there is. There could be a not physical world in a place where there is no physicality. WE DO NOT KNOW...

@REDPUMPERNICKEL

Жыл бұрын

Once you think about the movement of an object as distinct from the existence of an object you will be well on your way to understanding what he's saying.

first sentence,first error: the belief of physicist... well, its not a religion....and there is no emergence.

@REDPUMPERNICKEL

Жыл бұрын

"there is no emergence" there is only being.

@nalusan

Жыл бұрын

@@REDPUMPERNICKEL....only physics.

@REDPUMPERNICKEL

Жыл бұрын

@@nalusan Being is being. Physics is about being. Although I suspect we may mean the same 'thing'.

It is a law in mathematical statistics that human endeavors are irreducible because they are not members of the formal definition of exponential family ( rolling dice are part of the formal definition of exponential family, so the formal definition of exponential family is HUGE and inclusive ). The consequence of this law, is that human endeavors can never be summarized by formulas or collections of sample points. A common sense interpretation, we can always choose to defeat a given paradigm system used to define us(build a better mouse trap). Physics is by definition a collection of axioms, formulae and data points. We are none of those, what a waste of intellect some people pursue.

I am happy to admit that I am ignorant of many things. Probably, we are all ignorant of something. But it's not good evidence for God.

Does this guy live in the real world 🌎🤔..

@beverleypettit3577

2 жыл бұрын

@Mr B Watson "Did this guy live in the real world?" When you refer to "...this guy", who IS "this guy" ?

@sethball1319

Жыл бұрын

Ellis could be wrong, but nothing he said in this video should inspire someone to write such a ridiculous comment.

i dont know what it is but it sounds dirty.

Professor Ellis is one of those rare persons who seems to have clearly understood that physics is so small that it's bullshit to think of it as being the substance of reality. In fact, science can never ever tell, for example, what's exactly the substance of an electron. All physicists would say is, oh it's made up of leptons, and my question never ends. Science and mathematics are figments of imagination. Reality is a strange loop and we can only grasp its infinite love if we become conscious enough.....

@Quidisi

3 жыл бұрын

I like what you stated. Continuing with my own thoughts... Applying the domain of the empirical (physics) to anything other than pure matter results in a loss of efficacy. It's the reason why physics can empirically validate a proton, but not a haunting. One is constrained matter, the other is capricious mind.

🐟 11. FREE-WILL Vs DETERMINISM: Just as the autonomous beating of one's heart is governed by one's genes (such as the presence of a congenital heart condition), and the present-life conditioning of the heart (such as myocardial infarction as a consequence of the consumption of excessive fats and oils, or heart palpitations due to severe emotional distress), each and EVERY thought and action is governed by our genes and environmental conditioning. This teaching is possibly the most difficult concept for humans to accept, because we refuse to believe that we are not the author of our thoughts and actions. From the appearance of the pseudo-ego (one’s inaccurate conception of oneself) at the age of approximately two and a half, we have been constantly conditioned by our parents, teachers, and society, to believe that we are solely responsible for our thoughts and deeds. This deeply-ingrained belief is EXCRUCIATINGLY difficult to abandon, which is possibly the main reason why there are very few persons extant who are spiritually-enlightened, or at least who are liberated from the five manifestations of mental suffering explained elsewhere in this “Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity”, since suffering (as opposed to pain) is predicated solely upon the erroneous belief in free-will. Free-will is usually defined as the ability for a person to make a conscious decision to do otherwise, that is to say, CHOOSE to have performed an action other than what one has already done, if one had been given the opportunity to do so. To make it perfectly clear, if one, for example, is handed a menu with several dishes listed, one could decide that one dish is equally-desirable as the next dish, and choose either option. If humans truly possessed freedom of will, then logically speaking, a person who adores cats and detests dogs, ought to be able to suddenly switch their preferences at any point in time, or even voluntarily pause the beating of his or her own heart! So, in both of the aforementioned examples, there is a pre-existing preference (at a given point in time) for one particular dish or pet. Even if a person liked cats and dogs EQUALLY, and one was literally forced to choose one over the other, that choice isn’t made freely, but entirely based upon the person’s genetic code plus the individual's up-to-date conditioning. True equality is non-existent in the phenomenal sphere. The most common argument against determinism is that humans (unlike other animals) have the ability to choose what they can do, think or feel. First of all, many species of (higher) mammals also make choices. For instance, a cat can see two birds and choose which one to prey upon, or choose whether or not to play with a ball that is thrown its way, depending on its conditioning (e.g. its mood). That choices are made is indisputable, but those choices are dependent ENTIRELY upon one’s genes and conditioning. There is no third factor involved on the phenomenal plane. On the noumenal level, thoughts and deeds are in accordance with the preordained “Story of Life”. Read previous chapters of “F.I.S.H” to understand how life is merely a dream in the “mind of the Divine” and that human beings are, essentially, that Divinity in the form of dream characters. Chapter 08, specifically, explains how an action performed in the present is the result of a chain of causation, all the way back to the earliest-known event in our apparently-real universe (the so-called “Big Bang” singularity). At this point, it should be noted that according to reputable geneticists, it is possible for genes to mutate during the lifetime of any particular person. However, that phenomenon would be included under the “conditioning” aspect. The genes mutate according to whatever conditioning is imposed upon the human organism. It is simply IMPOSSIBLE for a person to use sheer force of will to change their own genetic code. Essentially, “conditioning” includes everything that acts upon a person from conception. University studies in recent years have demonstrated, by the use of hypnosis and complex experimentation, that CONSCIOUS volition is either unnecessary for a decision to be enacted upon or (in the case of hypnotic testing) that free-will choices are completely superfluous to actions. Because scientific research into free-will is a recent phenomenon, it is recommended that the reader search online for the latest findings. If any particular volitional act was not caused by the preceding thoughts and actions, then the only alternative explanation would be due to RANDOMNESS. Many quantum physicists claim that subatomic particles can randomly move in space, but true randomness cannot occur in a deterministic universe. Just as the typical person believes that two motor vehicles colliding together was the result of pure chance (therefore the term “accident”), quantum physicists are unable to see that the seeming randomness of quantum particles are, in fact, somehow determined by each and every preceding action which led-up to the act in question. It is a known scientific fact that a random number generator cannot exist, since no computational machine or software program is able to make the decision to generate a number at “random”. We did not choose which deoxyribonucleic acid our biological parents bequeathed to us, and most all the conditions to which we were exposed throughout our lives, yet we somehow believe that we are fully-autonomous beings, with the ability to feel, think and behave as we desire. The truth is, we cannot know for certain what even our next thought will be. Do we DECIDE to choose our thoughts and deeds? Not likely. Does an infant choose to learn how to walk or to begin speaking, or does it just happen automatically, according to nature? Obviously, the toddler begins to walk and to speak according to its genes (some children are far more intelligent and verbose, and more agile than others, depending on their genetic code) and according to all the conditions to which he or she has been exposed so far (some parents begin speaking to their kids even while they are in the womb, or expose their offspring to highly-intellectual dialogues whilst still in the cradle). Even those decisions/choices that we seem to make are entirely predicated upon our genes and conditioning, and cannot be free in any sense of the word. To claim that one is the ULTIMATE creator of one’s thoughts and actions is tantamount to believing that one created one’s very being. If a computer program or artificially-intelligent robot considered itself to be the cause of its activity, it would seem absurd to the average person. Yet, that is precisely what virtually every person who has ever lived mistakenly believes of their own thoughts and deeds. The IMPRESSION that we have free-will can be considered a “Gift of Life” or “God’s Grace”, otherwise, we may be resentful of our lack of free-will, since, unlike other creatures, we humans have the intelligence to comprehend our own existence. Even an enlightened sage, who has fully realized that he is not the author of his thoughts and actions, is not conscious of his lack of volition at every moment of his day. At best, he may recall his lack of freedom during those times where suffering (as opposed to mere pain) begins to creep-in to the mind or intellect. Many, if not most scientists, particularly academic philosophers and physicists, accept determinism to be the most logical and reasonable alternative to free-will, but it seems, at least anecdotally, that they rarely (if ever) live their lives conscious of the fact that their daily actions are fated. When a person blames another person for his or her actions, it is akin to blaming the penultimate domino in a row of dominoes for doing what it did to fell the final domino, when in actual fact, the ultimate cause of the final domino falling was the INITIAL domino which fell. If anyone is to blame for anything, surely it is the Person who created everything. Who then, is that Supreme Creator? That thou art (“tat tvam asi”, in Sanskrit). Read Chapter 08 for a succinct, yet accurate, explanation for this chain of causation, and Chapter 05 to understand the Primal Self. Therefore, EVERY action, including seemingly-heinous deeds, is ultimately in alignment with the predestined “Story of Life” (or, for those who are attached to a theistic viewpoint, “God's Perfect Will”), since nothing could have happened differently, given the circumstances. That does not mean that a person ought to deliberately perform criminal acts and use his lack of free-will to justify his actions. If, however, he does, in fact, blame his dastardly deeds on a lack of personal freedom, that blame too was destined, just as any consequences were destined. Unfortunately, very few crimes are punished in so-called “first-world” societies, which helps to explain why the “Westernized” nations are morally bankrupt. When did you last hear of an adulterous couple being put to death for their sin, for example? Never, I would posit. Cont...

@SpiritualPsychotherapyServices

3 жыл бұрын

In recent times, in many (if not most) jurisdictions, courts of law have given leeway to those convicted criminals whose crimes were shown to have been committed whilst the person in question was temporarily or permanently insane. The judge or jury has determined that those criminals were not responsible for their actions due to their mental state at the time. Of course, according to the postulations in this teaching, every action, whether criminal or not, is enacted without freedom of volition, which is practically the same thing. So then, how should any particular criminal be punished for his unwilling crime? That question is adequately answered in the following chapter, but suffice to say, each case ought to be judged on an individual basis. In the case of a person who has an obvious neurological disease, he may be incarcerated in a mental hospital, whilst a person who SEEMS to have sufficient control over his or her actions may be deemed necessary to be imprisoned in a regular jail, or some other form of penitence, depending on the severity of the crime. That explains why this “Wisdom Teaching” was traditionally reserved for students of high-calibre. It requires an unusually wise and intelligent person to understand that, despite everything being preordained, to blame one's lack of free-will for criminal actions and expecting NOT to be punished for them is unbeneficial to a peaceful society. Even today, with easy access to knowledge and information, few persons will come to hear this teaching, and fewer still will realize it, and integrate it into their daily lives. Obviously, that too is a consequence of destiny. Everything is permissible but not everything is BENEFICIAL. One can eat junk “food” but that is not going to benefit one’s physiology in any way (unless, of course, it enables one to temporarily survive a famine). We can murder our enemy, but we may not escape being punished by the local judicial system. Therefore, lack of free-will is not to be used as an excuse for immoral behaviour or for negligence of one's societal duties. To assume that free-will suddenly and INEXPLICABLY appeared on this planet at the birth of the first Homo sapiens, is the height of presumption. This assumption alone is sufficient cause for the notion of free-will to be critically-questioned, what to speak of the wealth of evidence provided in the preceding paragraphs. One day, humanity will come to see the obvious truth of its lack of freedom of volition. “The Lord dwelleth in the hearts of all beings, causing all to behave as if seated on a machine, under His illusory spell.” Lord Śri Krishna, “Bhagavad-gītā”, 18:61. “To be, or not to be, that is the question.” *********** “All the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players.” William Shakespeare, English Playwright. “Free will is an illusion. Our wills are simply not of our own making.” Samuel Benjamin “Sam” Harris, American Neuroscientist and Philosopher. “We ought to regard the present state of the universe as the effect of its antecedent state and as the cause of the state that is to follow. An intelligence knowing all the forces acting in nature at a given instant, as well as the momentary positions of all things in the universe, would be able to comprehend in one single formula the motions of the largest bodies as well as the lightest atoms in the world, provided that its intellect were sufficiently powerful to subject all data to analysis; to it nothing would be uncertain, the future as well as the past would be present to its eyes. The perfection that the human mind has been able to give to astronomy affords but a feeble outline of such an intelligence.” Pierre Simon de Laplace, French Polymath.

@SpiritualPsychotherapyServices

3 жыл бұрын

@@makomichael, control exists but there is no individual controller, except the Source of All.

@SpiritualPsychotherapyServices

3 жыл бұрын

@@makomichael, it's a mystery to those who do not KNOW. ;)

@madmax2976

3 жыл бұрын

@@SpiritualPsychotherapyServices "One day, humanity will come to see the obvious truth of its lack of freedom of volition" Including the lack of freedom to be convinced by anything that you've just stated. Imagine your own realization that, if this understanding is accurate, you had no freedom to post it or not, and no one you intended as the audience has the freedom to per persuaded by it - or not. A self-described pointless exercise.

@SpiritualPsychotherapyServices

3 жыл бұрын

@@madmax2976 irrelevant. 👆

Sex is dangerous.

A mechanism in the brain that someone came up with I guess that means God which is Jesus Christ.

It would be ridiculous to consider a giraffe only in terms of water, carbohydrates and trace minerals. Emergence is a thing.

@TehNetherlands

3 жыл бұрын

To consider it, yes. But the main barrier is that humans are limited in their processing capacity. The question you should ask yourself is whether it might be possible, at least in principle, for a sufficiently advanced intelligence to conceptualize a giraffe based on an entirely subatomic description. I would say yes, even though the descriptions of higher order processes would be extremely fuzzy. Imagine describing the function of its nose in terms of subatomic interactions. It would just be a cloud of information.

@REDPUMPERNICKEL

Жыл бұрын

@@TehNetherlands I must agree. Understanding means being able to make predictions. The more understanding the better the predictions. I am fascinated by the broken bits of holographic plates that show the same image as the original whole plate but the smaller the piece the more fuzzy the image. But if a sufficiently advanced intelligence can build a whole plate then there's no reason for the higher order processes to appear fuzzy. I think.

Gearge F. R. Ellis = a person who doesn't know what the heck he's talking about. He is completely lost when tries to understand the true dynamics of true reality.

@elir7184

3 жыл бұрын

Ok, lets hear the truth mike i. Im ready for it

@mikel4879

3 жыл бұрын

Eli R / Get a pen and paper and some popcorn. Then study hard the real entropic dynamics and you'll find the whole truth. What ? You can't ? So what do you want ? Do you want everything for free, lazy shlob ?

@madmax2976

3 жыл бұрын

@@mikel4879 Well, that's one way to avoid putting your money where your mouth is.

@mikel4879

3 жыл бұрын

madmelgibsonmax / Like I care about the square heads out there... All I do it is my own way and not the way you want. You're another lazy shlob who wants everything for free.