Demystifying Quantum Physics

[godnotgod]

I understand what you're getting at to an extent, but I don't see the purpose in defining it as "intelligence". I certainly don't read that in the interpretations of the Tao te Ching that I use.

Which ones?

Have you read much Chuangzi?

I am familiar with his writings to some extent, yes.

 

[Straw Dog]

It's not the fault of children that they are being lied to. It's the fault of men. The minds of children are pure. They just see without judgment. Those of men are poisoned by notions of right and wrong, yours and mine, us and them, etc., which become the springboard for their divisiveness and wars and cruelty toward one another.

The minds of children are egocentric. Are you saying that I am wrong? Is our disagreement necessarily a poison?

Such is the current state of the world. Yeshu also said:

'There is a way which seems right to man which ends in death.'

The pure mind of a child is known as innocency. As J. Krishnamurti explains:

"...an innocent mind is one that is not caught in the psychological structure of society, and is therefore free of conflict; it is not weighed down by remembrances of things past - which is not a state of amnesia; it is no longer held in technique, though technique is necessary."

In short, the mind of innocency does not see the world as an object apart; it sees it as oneself.

It sees the world as an extention of one's fantasy life.

 

[godnotgod]

Ants are a good example of complexity giving rise to what seems like intelligence in mass numbers when an ant by itself would be o,f no use and would probably die. Same thing for individual cells of organisms.

My second answer is billions of years of chemical and biological evolution.

Still no answer as to how non-physical consciousness arises from the physical world.

 

[Straw Dog]

I am familiar with his writings to some extent, yes.

I consider Laozi to be secondary and supplemental to the writings of Zhuangzi, whom presents a much more comprehensive philosophical Taoism. Recent scholarship strongly indicates that Zhuangzi's school arose even before the Tao te Ching was written.

 

[godnotgod]

It sees the world as an extention of one's fantasy life.

Now you're talking about the world of men, who superimpose their fantasy notions upon the natural world, with enormous conflict as the result. Men take their fantasies seriously. Children still retain the sense of creative play. Therein lies the difference.

 

[godnotgod]

I consider Laozi to be secondary and supplemental to the writings of Zhuangzi, whom presents a much more comprehensive philosophical Taoism. Recent scholarship strongly indicates that Zhuangzi's school arose even before the Tao te Ching was written.

If you think there is a difference, then you don't understand either.

So, which are the translations of the Tao te Ching you are reading?

 

[Straw Dog]

Now you're talking about the world of men, who superimpose their fantasy notions upon the natural world, with enormous conflict as the result. Men take their fantasies seriously. Children still retain the sense of creative play.

Fair enough. We can combine the curious creativity of a child with the wisdom that comes from mature mindfulness.

Although... How many children do you know? They can take their fantasies pretty seriously.

 

[Straw Dog]

If you think there is a difference, then you don't understand either.

They're compatible. Anything in opposition is actually complementary.

Are there any differences between anything? If not, then why bother debating?

In some ways, everything is the same.
In some ways, everything is somewhat similar and somewhat different.
In other ways, everything is different and unique.

 

[godnotgod]

The minds of children are egocentric. Are you saying that I am wrong? Is our disagreement necessarily a poison?

I am referring to notions of morality as the source of poison, notions which involve the passing of judgment as good or evil, and the actions taken as a result. Children originally do not possess a moral mentality. Morality is part of our social indoctrination.

 

[godnotgod]

They're compatible. Anything in opposition is actually complementary.

Are there any differences between anything? If not, then why bother debating?

In some ways, everything is the same.
In some ways, everything is somewhat similar and somewhat different.
In other ways, everything is different and unique.

What I meant is that the Tao is not about Lao tse's view or Chuang Tzu's view, or the fact that you see a significant difference upon which you deem one more important than the other; it is about the Tao. So if anything, Lao tse is closer to the heart of Tao in giving us only what is necessary, it's essence.

 

[Straw Dog]

I am referring to notions of morality as the source of poison, notions which involve the passing of judgment as good or evil, and the actions taken as a result. Children originally do not possess a moral mentality. Morality is part of our social indoctrination.

Oh, I see. I don't know that morality has to necessarily be defined in terms of good vs. evil. I also see morality as most rationally determined and implemented within the personal microcosm rather than as something to be forced unnaturally upon others. It is a means for self-regulation and social intelligence.

We do agree that it is wise to suspend judgment and observe with impartiality for the vast majority of experience. However, it is also wise to pass judgment and take action whenever necessary. The true wisdom is knowing when it is necessary.

 

[godnotgod]

Fair enough. We can combine the curious creativity of a child with the wisdom that comes from mature mindfulness.

Although... How many children do you know? They can take their fantasies pretty seriously.

Which is the beginning of their loss of innocency, and their connection with the true nature of Reality. We mustn't leave out the fact that their egocentricity is constantly nurtured by adults, although some of it is part of their survival mechanism. But the mind of innocency is beyond both. Men who realize they've lost touch with it go on spiritual quests to re-discover it. Those who are successful can transform their egocentricity into loving compassion for the suffering of others.

I recall a short story:

Chinese Hell: A huge banquet hall with a sumptuous feast, but everyone is starving because the chopsticks are too long.

Chinese Heaven: Same scene, but the guests are feeding each other.

 

[godnotgod]

Oh, I see. I don't know that morality has to necessarily be defined in terms of good vs. evil. I also see morality as most rationally determined and implemented within the personal microcosm rather than as something to be forced unnaturally upon others. It is a means for self-regulation and social intelligence.

Yes, it's what became the Social Contract Theory. But it is only an indoctrinated, artificial mechanism, and not part of our original nature. The interlude between wars is not real peace. What I am saying is that, man in touch with his true nature is naturally peaceful. He is directed from within by Tao, not from without by imposed law.

You say you have a copy of the Tao te Ching. What does it say about morality?

We do agree that it is wise to suspend judgment and observe with impartiality for the vast majority of experience. However, it is also wise to pass judgment and take action whenever necessary. The true wisdom is knowing when it is necessary.

Do you recall Lao tse saying: "The honest man I believe; the liar I also believe."? What do you think is meant?

 

[Straw Dog]

Which is the beginning of their loss of innocency, and their connection with the true nature of Reality. We mustn't leave out the fact that their egocentricity is constantly nurtured by adults, although some of it is part of their survival mechanism. But the mind of innocency is beyond both. Men who realize they've lost touch with it go on spiritual quests to re-discover it. Those who are successful can transform their egocentricity into loving compassion for the suffering of others.

I recall a short story:

Chinese Hell: A huge banquet hall with a sumptuous feast, but everyone is starving because the chopsticks are too long.

Chinese Heaven: Same scene, but the guests are feeding each other.

Nice.

We both probably agree more than we disagree about practical philosophy. The only real differences involve how much we're willing to believe in speculative metaphysics. I know just enough about quantum physics to know that reality is so highly complex and dynamic that it is ultimately beyond my limited comprehension. Enter humility. I just can't take that leap of faith involved to believe that consciousness is the ground of all being. In fact, I consider it to be philosophical suicide.

 

[Straw Dog]

Yes, it's what became the Social Contract Theory. But it is only an indoctrinated, artificial mechanism, and not part of our original nature. The interlude between wars is not real peace. What I am saying is that, man in touch with his true nature is naturally peaceful. He is directed from within by Tao, not from without by imposed law.

You say you have a copy of the Tao te Ching. What does it say about morality?

Do you recall Lao tse saying: "The honest man I believe; the liar I also believe."? What do you think is meant?

Artificial culture is still, technically, natural. I don't believe in following convention blindly or for its own sake, but it can still be a useful means for necessary purposes. I also grow tired of the bureaucracy and hypocrisy imposed by an increasingly complex rule of law. However, I don't deny the utility of civility nor call for a return to some naive primitivism. I simply seek to better harmonize the cultural with the natural, or rather the artificial nature with the primal nature.

 

[idav]

Still no answer as to how non-physical consciousness arises from the physical world.

I gave an answer that it developed to be, a far cry from saying consciousness is default. And consciousness isnt non-physical.

 

[godnotgod]

Artificial culture is still, technically, natural. I don't believe in following convention blindly or for its own sake, but it can still be a useful means for necessary purposes. I also grow tired of the bureaucracy and hypocrisy imposed by an increasingly complex rule of law. However, I don't deny the utility of civility nor call for a return to some naive primitivism. I simply seek to better harmonize the cultural with the natural, or rather the artificial nature with the primal nature.

Well the Buddhists have told us all along that the rub is desire, or craving. It is summed up in the aphorism:

"We have one eye on the goal and one eye on the path, rather than both eyes on the path"

An awakened mind free of craving is in no need of artificial controls. Freedom, not free will, is the point, and when one is free, one naturally knows what to do, what not to do. IOW, we incorrectly learn certain behaviors because there is reward or punishment attached, making such artificial controls conditioned ones. We don't follow the rules because we necessarily understand that they are right. Mere obedience does not mean you understand its meaning. More laws do not necessarily mean more justice, as you pointed out. And when law becomes too rigid, too brutal, there is revolution, because the people have nothing left to lose. i have read about a certain Chinese Dynasty which collapsed due to such laws. The new Emperor made it a point to impose few laws. As I understand it, this period was China's Golden Age.

Once the rule of Law becomes too rigid, too brutal, it is no longer possible to harmonize the two. One has become poison. This is one of the points of Buddhistic thought: that which has become corrupt cannot become enlightened. No matter how much you polish a ceramic tile, it will not become a mirror.
*****


GONZALO
In my kingdom I’d do everything differently from the way it’s usually done. I wouldn’t allow any commerce. There’d be no officials or administrators. There’d be no schooling or literature. There’d be no riches, no poverty, and no servants—none. No contracts or inheritance laws; no division of the land into private farms, no metal-working, agriculture, or vineyards.
There’d be no work. Men would have nothing to do, and women also—but they’d be innocent and pure. There’d be no kingship—

SEBASTIAN
He wants to be king in a place with no kingship.

ANTONIO
Yes, he’s getting a bit confused.

GONZALO
Everything would be produced without labor, and would be shared by all. There’d be no treason, crimes, or weapons. Nature would produce its harvests in abundance, to feed my innocent people.

SEBASTIAN
There’d be no marriage?

ANTONIO
No. Everyone would have nothing to do. They’d all be whores and slackers.

GONZALO
I would with such perfection govern, sir,
T' excel the Golden Age.
*****

from: The Tempest, by Shakespearre

 

[godnotgod]

I gave an answer that it developed to be, a far cry from saying consciousness is default. And consciousness isnt non-physical.

It's one thing to merely say 'it developed to be', and quite another to demonstrate how this occurred.

What is the physical component of consciousness? Has it been captured and brought to a lab for analysis yet? Perhaps it tastes like chicken?

 

[godnotgod]

Nice.

We both probably agree more than we disagree about practical philosophy. The only real differences involve how much we're willing to believe in speculative metaphysics. I know just enough about quantum physics to know that reality is so highly complex and dynamic that it is ultimately beyond my limited comprehension. Enter humility. I just can't take that leap of faith involved to believe that consciousness is the ground of all being. In fact, I consider it to be philosophical suicide.

Philosophy is speculation about the nature of Reality. At some point it must come to an end. The ground of being is not a doctrine that you believe or disbelieve in; it is Reality itself that one experiences directly. You don't need to 'leap' anywhere. The ground of being is right where you are at this very moment. You just need to awaken to that fact. It's like a fish suddenly sensing the presence of the sea all around and inside of it, prior to which it had no inkling as to its presence, partly due to it having been present from the very beginning, and partly due, in our case, to our social indoctrination against such ideas which keeps us spiritually asleep.

 

[idav]

It's one thing to merely say 'it developed to be', and quite another to demonstrate how this occurred.

What is the physical component of consciousness? Has it been captured and brought to a lab for analysis yet? Perhaps it tastes like chicken?

I answered that too, it ocurred via billions of years of chemical and biological evolution. The earth can be seen as a single system as can the universe, however individual pockets of awareness doesnt make the earth conscious as a whole, animals are special in that regard. There is no component of consciousness. Data can be stored in various mediums like a record player and a needle or a electromagnetic force holding data for ghosts.