Socrates practiced QiGong!

[RenDaHai]

'Socrates habitually practiced this: he would stand in one fixed position, all day and all night, from early dawn until the next sunrise, open-eyed, motionless, in his very tracks and with face and eyes riveted to the same spot in deep meditation, as if his mind and soul had been, as it were, withdrawn from his body. His temperance also is said to have been so great, that he lived almost the whole of his life with health unimpaired. Even amid the havoc of that plague which, at the beginning of the Peloponnesian War, devastated Athens, by temperance and abstemious habits he is said to have avoided the ill-effects of indulgence and retained physical vigour.' --- Aulus Gellius, Attic Nights

Certainly this practice will sound familiar to many of us. I can't imagine any of you have not heard of Socrates but even if you have not, rest assured his influence on your life has been great. Of most renown of all the ancients, second perhaps only to Pythagoras, the first man to call himself a philosopher (Pythagoras who incidentally was vegetarian and believed in reincarnation, even that he could remember his past lives).

Its just awesome to find these little things sometimes.... It thought I would share it with you all.

A practice then that has been valued by the wisest across all the ancient world. Well then, we would be foolish to dismiss it.

[David Jamieson]

Socrates encouraged knowing the physical limits of the self and building the body to great strength and to test your mettle.
Now the only issue is...did he really exist outside of Plato's writings and others who came after and read or studied Plato and Aristotle.
he probably did. It would have been great if he actually wrote something, but legend has it, he was against the use of writing for remembering things. He though that the alphabet rotted the mind and made us stupid. lol. Carry that forward eh?

Love me a little SPA time. ;)

[RenDaHai]

It would have been great if he actually wrote something, but legend has it, he was against the use of writing for remembering things. He though that the alphabet rotted the mind and made us stupid. lol. Carry that forward eh?

Hehe, its a good point.

But of course he is still right..... Memory.... it is everything. Think about matter.... Utterly deterministic. One look at its inertia, its movement, and we can deduce where it has been. But organised matter, organic? It has free reign over choice. Why? Memory. We have memory.... Think of a headache, an hour is bearable but the same headache over a week? Unbearable. Nothing has changed in the instantaneous sensation, only the memory of its duration. Memory modifies everything. It exponentially increases sensations. The fact we recognise objects is due to memory, what conditions our decisions is memory. Memory is the very bridge between time and space, between mind and matter. Of course Socrates thought it was important. The more events you sum into consciousness the greater your wisdom. Memory is everything. A large measure of the ills of society are the things with short memory.... like politics.

Everything we create these days are devices of convenience.... By reducing our memory we reduce our possible action over things and so reduce our measure of free will. Perhaps we will become unconscious automatons, and our convenience devices will be our downfall and the alphabet will indeed rot our minds!

[RenDaHai]

I have always been interested in the Spartans, their training progression, and skill sets. As much is unknown about them as is known about them and the best we can do is guess as to what their training requirements were. Perhaps Nei Gung was one of them.

Perhaps, though the Spartans were very harsh in comparison to the Athenians.

All I know of their life is in Plutarchs 'Parallel Lives'. We can't know how true an account this is.

Lycurges was the lawgiver of Sparta, and this is a short account of the laws (all from Plutarch);


The Laws of the spartans were forbidden to be written down, so that everyone might learn them by heart.

The Spartan Kings were the successors of Hercules.

They were communist. The land of Sparta was divided equally among them.

Gold and silver were abolished. The currency was a heavy and ugly piece of iron. So heavy that it could not be hoarded or stolen or traded in secret. It could not be used to purchase foreign luxuries. They took away from wealth the property of being coveted. Wealth obtained no honour or respect.

Superfluous arts and products were banned, so spartan industry excelled at making useful things only. The furniture even could only be smoothed by the saw.

All the men were not allowed to eat at home but had to eat communally and the same food. So no-one rich could make use of their wealth.

Walking at night they were forbidden lamps, so they may learn to march in the dark.

They were forbidden from making war often with the same enemy, lest they should inadvertently instruct them in the art of war.

The women were trained in running and wrestling that they might bear stronger children.

They would meet their wives in dark rooms and after making love would return to the barracks and sleep on wooden planks. Some had children without ever seeing their wife. Marriages were arranged with a view to strong children and wives were shared if it was thought another man could produce a strong child.

Children were the property of the community and were everyones responsibility.

When a boy was born it was submitted to judgement, if weak it was thrown into a deep chasm, it not being in the public interest to bring it up.

New borns were bathed in wine not water, it was thought to make them strong.

At seven children were removed to military schools. The strongest was made captain and the others had to submit to his command.

At 12 they were forbidden normal clothes and given just one cloak to suit all seasons.

The boys were given almost no food and were encouraged to steal it. If they were caught they were whipped severely, not for stealing, but for stealing clumsily enough to be caught. On story relates to a boy having stolen a fox, he hid it under his cloak where it tore out his bowls with his teeth and claws. The boy made no noise so as not to be discovered stealing, and died there on the spot silent.

In battle food was more and rules relaxed so that the spartans were the only men on earth to whom war was a vacation.

They banned foreigners from their country so they could not be infected with bad habits.

All manual work was done by their slaves, free time was spent training.

[David Jamieson]

All is mind. - Buddha

he got that right for sure!

[SoCo KungFu]

Hehe, its a good point.

But of course he is still right..... Memory.... it is everything. Think about matter.... Utterly deterministic. One look at its inertia, its movement, and we can deduce where it has been. But organised matter, organic? It has free reign over choice. Why? Memory. We have memory.... Think of a headache, an hour is bearable but the same headache over a week? Unbearable. Nothing has changed in the instantaneous sensation, only the memory of its duration. Memory modifies everything. It exponentially increases sensations. The fact we recognise objects is due to memory, what conditions our decisions is memory. Memory is the very bridge between time and space, between mind and matter. Of course Socrates thought it was important. The more events you sum into consciousness the greater your wisdom. Memory is everything. A large measure of the ills of society are the things with short memory.... like politics.

Everything we create these days are devices of convenience.... By reducing our memory we reduce our possible action over things and so reduce our measure of free will. Perhaps we will become unconscious automatons, and our convenience devices will be our downfall and the alphabet will indeed rot our minds!

Incoherent rambling scale 1-10; your level is... Deepak Chopra...

[Syn7]

Saw that one coming.


I was going to comment on the inertia thing, but I lost the will go there.

[RenDaHai]

I was going to comment on the inertia thing, but I lost the will go there.

Really, what about 'inertia' confuses you?

[wenshu]

Everything we create these days are devices of convenience.... By reducing our memory we reduce our possible action over things and so reduce our measure of free will. Perhaps we will become unconscious automatons, and our convenience devices will be our downfall and the alphabet will indeed rot our minds!

An argument has emerged recently that 'devices of convenience' remove the need to remember phone numbers, social graphs and other superfluous drains on our active short term memory and reasoning. The resulting surplus of cognitive capacity can then be focused on the really important things like self indulgent pseudo philosophy.

[RenDaHai]

An argument has emerged recently that 'devices of convenience' remove the need to remember phone numbers, social graphs and other superfluous drains on our active short term memory and reasoning. The resulting surplus of cognitive capacity can then be focused on the really important things like self indulgent pseudo philosophy.

Really? Well I'd like to read that argument, it would be a good one to laugh at. Imagine at its extreme no one ever learns their discipline, they just get very good at interpreting wikipedia?

You are correct though that self indulgent pseudo-philosophy is certainly one of the really important things. Imagine again a world where only the 'professional' philosophers were allowed to philosophise? Or a world where people cannot gratify their desire to philosophy by discussing it in public forums, or indeed have no desire to philosophy.

[Syn7]

One look at its inertia, its movement, and we can deduce where it has been.



It's just that there are a ton of caveats to such a statement. Know what I'm sayin...

[RenDaHai]

It's just that there are a ton of caveats to such a statement. Know what I'm sayin...

Yes, yes there are. But given as its the qigong section of a kung fu forum, I was not expecting to be subject to much rigour. That and i was on my 5th night cap while writing :)

I'll clarify;

Inertia as momentum; p=mv, since v is a vector quantity knowing an objects momentum we have some information as to the direction it is moving in and hence may be able to deduce something of where it has come from.

Inertia as a quality of matter being 'inert', i.e will not make spontaneous movements but rather will keep doing as its doing unless acted on by an external force.

As opposed to organised or 'organic' matter which stores energy up to be released in decisive actions. Its actions can not be deduced so simply from its immediate influences since you must also sum the influences from its entire memory.

Hence memory being the major factor contributing to the 'free will' of an organic in the initial comment. As opposed to the 'determinism' of inert matter.

[Syn7]

Yes, yes there are. But given as its the qigong section of a kung fu forum, I was not expecting to be subject to much rigour. That and i was on my 5th night cap while writing :)

I'll clarify;

Inertia as momentum; p=mv, since v is a vector quantity knowing an objects momentum we have some information as to the direction it is moving in and hence may be able to deduce something of where it has come from.

Inertia as a quality of matter being 'inert', i.e will not make spontaneous movements but rather will keep doing as its doing unless acted on by an external force.

As opposed to organised or 'organic' matter which stores energy up to be released in decisive actions. Its actions can not be deduced so simply from its immediate influences since you must also sum the influences from its entire memory.

Hence memory being the major factor contributing to 'free will' in the initial comment.



Yeah, I'm just sayin... If you build a robot to kick a ball in a vacuum at a specific angle and velocity, we can narrow down it's path with incredible accuracy and precision. Large body cruising through space, not so easy. I'm amazed at how well it's done though. So many unknown variables. Were there any external forces we aren't aware of, were their any collisions, was there a change in mass etc etc... We know momentum is conserved, but we can't always account for everything. Still, with a **** ton of observation, you can partially piece together an amazing puzzle. But I have too much to say about this topic to write it all out.


Anyways. how do you know you have free will? That is not a given, IMO.

[RenDaHai]

Quite so, we can't account for everything, but we can (on a classical scale) assume at no point did the matter do something spontaneous and if it did undergo changes in its momentum they were due to external forces, as opposed to internal decisions.

Free will, well certainly if I could give a positive proof of that I would be quite celebrated. But my reasoning is this; Within our concrete experience we feel we have free will. It would be very strange to deny your own concrete experience in favour of determinism based on an incomplete physics (our physics is awesome, but it is simultaneously feeble in comparison to what is left to learn). By concrete experience I mean the actual representation of consciousness you yourself experience.

[Syn7]

Quite so, we can't account for everything, but we can (on a classical scale) assume at no point did the matter do something spontaneous and if it did undergo changes in its momentum they were due to external forces, as opposed to internal decisions.

Free will, well certainly if I could give a positive proof of that I would be quite celebrated. But my reasoning is this; Within our concrete experience we feel we have free will. It would be very strange to deny your own concrete experience in favour of determinism based on an incomplete physics (our physics is awesome, but it is simultaneously feeble in comparison to what is left to learn). By concrete experience I mean the actual representation of consciousness you yourself experience.

Ok, but how do you know that organic matter makes spontaneous "decisions" due to no external forces? Immediate or otherwise.

[RenDaHai]

Ok, but how do you know that organic matter makes spontaneous "decisions" due to no external forces? Immediate or otherwise.

Well that is very much the key difference between organised and inert matter. External forces may be involved, but the laws of inert matter are broken. Are the reactions still equal and opposite in the case of organic matter? They are delayed and the level of reaction is no longer determined and calculable. Stimulus-response is very different from action-reaction. On being struck all matter will react out of necessity. But a stimulus will not evoke a necessary response.... If a spider lands on your hand right now, you may not do anything, or you may completely freak out. Even if it were predictable it is still a spontaneous release of energy, there is no input of energy from the spider, the trigger to explosive action is from the nervous system.

Organic matter gathers energy. This energy is then stored. Then there is a complex and highly coordinated control mechanism for releasing this energy.

This is completely unlike inert matter. There is energy stored in inert matter but it is not gathered. There is no coordinated system of release.

In the case of photosynthesis how can I avoid calling it 'purposeful' gathering of energy?

Think of even a simple admittedly scripted action, you see a fly and you swat it. Its not the same as a billiard ball colliding with another billiard ball where energy is conserved. But IS it reducible to many many billiard ball collisions on a tiny scale? Well the phenomenon of 'memory' makes this calculation incomprehensible. The only way you could do it is to create a computer that lives through and experiences those exact same memories from the same perspective over the same time, but that computer would just be the ACTUAL person. SO it can't be simplified. But we ARE that person, we can simply ask ourselves. What do you feel?

[SoCo KungFu]

Yes, yes there are. But given as its the qigong section of a kung fu forum, I was not expecting to be subject to much rigour. That and i was on my 5th night cap while writing :)

I'll clarify;

Inertia as momentum; p=mv, since v is a vector quantity knowing an objects momentum we have some information as to the direction it is moving in and hence may be able to deduce something of where it has come from.

Inertia as a quality of matter being 'inert', i.e will not make spontaneous movements but rather will keep doing as its doing unless acted on by an external force.

As opposed to organised or 'organic' matter which stores energy up to be released in decisive actions. Its actions can not be deduced so simply from its immediate influences since you must also sum the influences from its entire memory.

Hence memory being the major factor contributing to the 'free will' of an organic in the initial comment. As opposed to the 'determinism' of inert matter.

Inertia is not the same thing as momentum. Nor is energy either of the previous two. Organic matter isn't called organic because its organised dinkus. Its matter based in carbon chemistry. ALL matter is organised for that...matter. You also butchered kinetic vs potential energy.

Does carbon dioxide have free will? Because translating that nonsense up above, this is what you get.

[SoCo KungFu]

Well that is very much the key difference between organised and inert matter.
All matter is organised dinkus


External forces may be involved, but the laws of inert matter are broken.
Nonsensical statement. Don't use words when you don't know their meaning. It makes you look stupid.


Are the reactions still equal and opposite in the case of organic matter?
Wrong terminology. You're thinking of force. Yes, force is still equal and opposite. Reactions being reversible depends on the chemicals involved and the reaction we are talking about.


They are delayed and the level of reaction is no longer determined and calculable.
A freshman chemistry course calls your bull****. Organic chemistry, you may have heard of it...


Stimulus-response is very different from action-reaction. On being struck all matter will react out of necessity. But a stimulus will not evoke a necessary response....
By definition a response is a reaction dipweed. Seriously, stop using words if you don't know their meaning. By the way, in philosophy when something is defined as necessary, then it must occur following the antecedent. Therefore, a stimuli will always, 100% without fail, invoke a necessary response.


If a spider lands on your hand right now, you may not do anything, or you may completely freak out. Even if it were predictable it is still a spontaneous release of energy, there is no input of energy from the spider, the trigger to explosive action is from the nervous system.
Not even going to bother with this bit of stupid.


Organic matter gathers energy.
All matter can "gather energy." See, that big orange thing in the sky...


This energy is then stored.
Poor choice of wording.


Then there is a complex and highly coordinated control mechanism for releasing this energy.
Not really, its no different than any other.


This is completely unlike inert matter. There is energy stored in inert matter but it is not gathered. There is no coordinated system of release.
More nonsensical rambling. The next sunny day, wait until about 1pm then stick your face on the hood of your car. Then get back to us.


In the case of photosynthesis how can I avoid calling it 'purposeful' gathering of energy?
Transfer of electrons...just like all chemical reactions.


Think of even a simple admittedly scripted action, you see a fly and you swat it. Its not the same as a billiard ball colliding with another billiard ball where energy is conserved.
Actually, it is. Moreover, all energy is conserved. You know, that's that whole law you keep butchering.


But IS it reducible to many many billiard ball collisions on a tiny scale? Well the phenomenon of 'memory' makes this calculation incomprehensible. The only way you could do it is to create a computer that lives through and experiences those exact same memories from the same perspective over the same time, but that computer would just be the ACTUAL person. SO it can't be simplified. But we ARE that person, we can simply ask ourselves. What do you feel?Incoherent statement full of words which meaning have no fit in this context. Basically, total nonsense. Go home Chopra, you're drunk.

[Syn7]

Organic matter gathers energy. This energy is then stored. Then there is a complex and highly coordinated control mechanism for releasing this energy.

This is completely unlike inert matter. There is energy stored in inert matter but it is not gathered. There is no coordinated system of release.

In the case of photosynthesis how can I avoid calling it 'purposeful' gathering of energy?

Think of even a simple admittedly scripted action, you see a fly and you swat it. Its not the same as a billiard ball colliding with another billiard ball where energy is conserved. But IS it reducible to many many billiard ball collisions on a tiny scale? Well the phenomenon of 'memory' makes this calculation incomprehensible. The only way you could do it is to create a computer that lives through and experiences those exact same memories from the same perspective over the same time, but that computer would just be the ACTUAL person. SO it can't be simplified. But we ARE that person, we can simply ask ourselves. What do you feel?

What about a solar power autonomous rover? It gathers energy with purpose, it stores that energy and then uses it to react based on sensory input. This is a system that we designed, but why couldn't that happen by chance in nature? Is that machine more than a bunch of elements organized in specific way that happens to be able to function?

And would such a computer be you? It's not you, it's a computer. Unless it is exactly like you and occupies the same space as you, it's not you. But that's kind of, you know, out there. That's not what I'm trying to get at. I still think your arguments are based on the assumption that we have a free will that I'm not convinces is real. I'm not convinced it isn't either. I don't know. I'm not really willing to make any leaps beyond that.

[PalmStriker]

:) http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_Gz-ygXAPCSw/SwTEbOIFnfI/AAAAAAAAAI4/Bui6mxe4A8k/s1600/468e87b3g6e3e1e06845f%26690.jpg

[RenDaHai]

What about a solar power autonomous rover? It gathers energy with purpose, it stores that energy and then uses it to react based on sensory input. This is a system that we designed, but why couldn't that happen by chance in nature? Is that machine more than a bunch of elements organized in specific way that happens to be able to function?

And would such a computer be you? It's not you, it's a computer. Unless it is exactly like you and occupies the same space as you, it's not you. But that's kind of, you know, out there. That's not what I'm trying to get at. I still think your arguments are based on the assumption that we have a free will that I'm not convinces is real. I'm not convinced it isn't either. I don't know. I'm not really willing to make any leaps beyond that.


Absolutely, I can't prove free will. But the assumption of free will seems to me a safer one than assuming no free will since it is based on concrete experience of consciousness and since there now certainly no way to prove either way. You quite right to be doubtful.

As to the solar rover, well yes. But we organic creatures made it, and it cannot reproduce itself. Organic life I suppose one could argue IS a natural machine, so it has happened. But there is a definite division between the way organic and inert matter operates. Of course there is. The question I suppose is that is it just a complicated natural machine or are there other emergent factors that could not appear in a robot? No one knows. Yet. Still, well worth contemplating.

My target is not to convince you that free will exists, but that the question is exceedingly difficult and may even be insoluble. If it is an insoluble problem, then each and every conscious individual is just as well informed as everyone else and the problem becomes one of what you feel. If you are a scientist then not deciding either way may be the best option. But for a lot of people I think it is fair to choose based on their experience.

[RenDaHai]

:) http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_Gz-ygXAPCSw/SwTEbOIFnfI/AAAAAAAAAI4/Bui6mxe4A8k/s1600/468e87b3g6e3e1e06845f%26690.jpg

Awesome picture.

Socrates, through Plato, has surely had the largest impact on western civilisation any man can possibly have. I just love the idea that 2400 years ago Socrates used to do the same thing and that this practice has a history in western culture as well as eastern.

[RenDaHai]

@SoCo,

Ahahaha, so much frustration you have!

Please go ahead and tackle my description of inertia in the way I described above. The idea of inertia as resistance to change I also described and was essential to my point. Matter can't choose to move, it must be acted on by an external force. Because an object has inertia it is resistant to change, so when we measure its momentum we know it has not chosen that momentum but rather that momentum can tell us information about where it has come from and what happened to it.

All matter is ordered. How could it be otherwise? Disorder is not a thing unto itself. Never the less a symmetrical lattice is clearly a very different type of order to, say, DNA. The idea of two base types of order is not unique to this post.

'Energy is stored' is the shortest way to describe the phenomenon, and more than suitable in this case. Ahaha, so the hood of a car STORES energy does it? Think about it. Does it then keep that energy for the next day in some way? Can it release it in a months time? Like the chemical energy stored in life forms?

A nervous system is no different from any other what? From a rock?

When I say a man swatting a fly is not the same as a billiard ball collision, i'm not talking about the impact of the swat on the fly, I'm talking about the perception of the fly that evokes a response to swat it. For example you could make a choice NOT to swat the fly. A billiard ball being struck has no option but to react in a predetermined way. This type of choice and perception does not occur in inert matter but does in life forms. It is pertinent to the question of free will.

Instead of picking everything out of context why not read the point as a whole and respond to it? This is a kung fu forum, not a science one. The ideas I have raised are not foolish, they have been raised by many before me.

Lets talk in a casual way, don't try to tie me up with unnecessary pedantry, try instead to understand the underlying notion. There is really no need to resort to insults, it does not strengthen your position.

[Syn7]

The question I suppose is that is it just a complicated natural machine or are there other emergent factors that could not appear in a robot?

This is what I've been getting at. I'm inclined to lean toward the former as the latter just seems significantly less likely to me.


Isn't saying free will exists because we feel consciousness a lil bit anecdotal. A christian will tell you jesus is real because they feel it. Not enough. How do you know you have free will? You don't know, you believe. That is a leap of faith of sorts. Anything you build on that leap has shaky foundations at best. I try not to speculate on speculative derivatives of previous speculations. Know what I'm sayin? Try, being a key word in that statement. Sometimes we all do it without being aware we do it in that moment. And because we are a curious people, it can be fun to speculate, but let's keep it in context and label it for what it is. We're just bull****ting, lol. And it will continue to be such until repeatable, measurable observations give us some more concrete conclusions. And those conclusions will still always be subject to scrutiny and adjustment as our knowledge increases.

[RenDaHai]

This is what I've been getting at. I'm inclined to lean toward the former as the latter just seems significantly less likely to me.


Isn't saying free will exists because we feel consciousness a lil bit anecdotal. A christian will tell you jesus is real because they feel it. Not enough. How do you know you have free will? You don't know, you believe. That is a leap of faith of sorts. Anything you build on that leap has shaky foundations at best. I try not to speculate on speculative derivatives of previous speculations. Know what I'm sayin? Try, being a key word in that statement. Sometimes we all do it without being aware we do it in that moment. And because we are a curious people, it can be fun to speculate, but let's keep it in context and label it for what it is. We're just bull****ting, lol. And it will continue to be such until repeatable, measurable observations give us some more concrete conclusions. And those conclusions will still always be subject to scrutiny and adjustment as our knowledge increases.

Well, yes of course, this is as the ancients would say 'talking about things above the sky and below the earth' that is well outside of our ability to know. We can't know, but it is a good exercise to contemplate it.

'I don't know' is the best answer. Saying either of the choices is a leap of faith. But I would say free will is the lesser leap of faith. Determinism relies on a physics which is a simplified model of reality which is incomplete and understanding of it is given to you by your consciousness anyway. To explain things by determinism won't we have to rely on some concept of randomness which is acausal anyway and also incomprehensible? Believing in free will is not quite the same as in Jesus, it is 'testable' by yourself, you can exercise choice often and you can share the experience of it with a vast number of people throughout history who have also exercised it and written about it. I know these are not admissible tests, but it is still more than you can do with Jesus.

Does it matter? Would a firm belief in determinism change your view towards ethics or other disciplines? I don't know but I suppose the utility of the belief can be evaluated. Maybe if we can never KNOW the answer, perhaps we can determine whether it is more useful to incline one way or the other, but thats a big question in itself.

[Matthew]

'Socrates habitually practiced this: he would stand in one fixed position, all day and all night, from early dawn until the next sunrise, open-eyed, motionless, in his very tracks and with face and eyes riveted to the same spot in deep meditation, as if his mind and soul had been, as it were, withdrawn from his body. His temperance also is said to have been so great, that he lived almost the whole of his life with health unimpaired. Even amid the havoc of that plague which, at the beginning of the Peloponnesian War, devastated Athens, by temperance and abstemious habits he is said to have avoided the ill-effects of indulgence and retained physical vigour.' --- Aulus Gellius, Attic Nights

Great! Thank you for sharing this. I believe he also had seen several wars as a participant himself - though I'm not a great historian.

Shaolin Master Dejian has commented that many shaolin masters in the past practiced only Xu Zhuang (shaolin's most foundational standing practice) and yet attained high levels of martial skill (wugong).


Of most renown of all the ancients, second perhaps only to Pythagoras, the first man to call himself a philosopher (Pythagoras who incidentally was vegetarian and believed in reincarnation, even that he could remember his past lives).

Wonderful - I just posted a bit about Ovid's recollections of Pythagoras and the emphasis on a vegetarian/meat-free diet (in Shaolin thread).

Amazing that Pythagoras/Ovid and some other ancients described eating meat as as impious and as that which savage beasts do.

Perhaps more relevant to this thread, and to Neigong - Ovid also said that eating meat "defiles ones body."

This seems in line with Shaolin teachings on Qi as described by accomplished Shaolin Xu Zhuang/internal practitioners per their own internal observations (and lineage experience).



Its just awesome to find these little things sometimes.... It thought I would share it with you all.

A practice then that has been valued by the wisest across all the ancient world. Well then, we would be foolish to dismiss it.

Indeed - thanks for sharing.

[PalmStriker]

Awesome picture.

Socrates, through Plato, has surely had the largest impact on western civilisation any man can possibly have. I just love the idea that 2400 years ago Socrates used to do the same thing and that this practice has a history in western culture as well as eastern. :) The reason I posted this picture is that it very much resembles the horse stance practiced throughout the Kungfu styles. Would one be better off spending the same amount of time in daily practice in this meditative stance or the traditional horse stance of medium low posture?

[Syn7]

'I don't know' is the best answer. Saying either of the choices is a leap of faith. But I would say free will is the lesser leap of faith. Determinism relies on a physics which is a simplified model of reality which is incomplete and understanding of it is given to you by your consciousness anyway.

See, right there... you justified why one was less likely by simply implying the other is more likely. What is that?



Believing in free will is not quite the same as in Jesus, it is 'testable' by yourself, you can exercise choice often and you can share the experience of it with a vast number of people throughout history who have also exercised it and written about it. I know these are not admissible tests, but it is still more than you can do with Jesus.

I firm believer in Jesus would say the same thing. They would say knowledge of Jesus is "testable" within oneself and many have exercised such faith in groups and continue to share that through every possible medium. How is that different? Besides, argumentum ad numerum is a logical fallacy. That being said, you could argue that any observations are invalid until you can prove the observer actually exists, but that's ... inconvenient. In order to maintain sanity, I assume I am real, regardless of how the process is played out that makes me feel like I have choice.



Does it matter? Would a firm belief in determinism change your view towards ethics or other disciplines? I don't know but I suppose the utility of the belief can be evaluated. Maybe if we can never KNOW the answer, perhaps we can determine whether it is more useful to incline one way or the other, but that's a big question in itself.

I dunno. I guess if believing in something you can't substantiate keeps you from doing bad things. Sure. Whatever works I guess. But what I think is more ethical and moral is to make an honest assessment of the world around you always aware and willing to admit what you KNOW and don't.

[Syn7]

Indeed

It would be more foolish to assume validity because it was attributed to a famous name many generations(in some cases many centuries) later. And even if it could be shown with relative certainty that it was indeed a practice by such individuals, we must keep in mind that the 'ancients', while showing real wisdom at times, also did some really dumb ****. Old does not = good. Some of the most brilliant minds were more often wrong than right.

Thinking critically > romanticizing

I have a ton of respect for the accomplishments of the ancient Greeks, but I think we need to keep it in context. Whether Pythagoras was even a real person(not a given) or not, some of what is attributed to him is wonderful, much of what is attributed to him is ridiculous.

[Faux Newbie]

The problem with saying that, by being conscious of choosing, we are conscious of free will(tm) is that, for that to hold, we would have to be unaware of past experiences and preferences that lead us to that choice, since those would be textbook determinism. All that remains are choices that have no precedent, which is not many of our choices.

[RenDaHai]

See, right there... you justified why one was less likely by simply implying the other is more likely. What is that?


Because one of them is second hand knowledge. Certain results of Physics (at the scale required for the argument) are known only through the lens of a machine, because they are beyond the threshold of our perception, a machine which we built and who's results are modified already by what they were built to register and what our theory expected.

Where as Consciousness is known first hand.

You see? Now with exceptional evidence one can override ones own senses, of course. However, that evidence is no way near at this point.

You are correct that 'I don't know' is the best answer. My Choosing to believe in it is an opinion. But there are a lot of people who take determinism as a given these days, and I think its nice to pay attention to the other side of the argument. Thats all.



I firm believer in Jesus would say the same thing. They would say knowledge of Jesus is "testable" within oneself and many have exercised such faith in groups and continue to share that through every possible medium. .

I don't quite see how but I'll take your word for it, I don't really have so much experience with these groups.



I dunno. I guess if believing in something you can't substantiate keeps you from doing bad things. Sure. Whatever works I guess. But what I think is more ethical and moral is to make an honest assessment of the world around you always aware and willing to admit what you KNOW and don't.

I wish everyone did. I would not try to enforce this opinion. But it does seems sometimes that determinism is taken as a given. As such its nice to look at this perspective. Especially here in England, perhaps stateside its different.


I mean, you said before you would lean towards determinism, why is that?

[RenDaHai]

The problem with saying that, by being conscious of choosing, we are conscious of free will(tm) is that, for that to hold, we would have to be unaware of past experiences and preferences that lead us to that choice, since those would be textbook determinism. All that remains are choices that have no precedent, which is not many of our choices.

Well you are correct. So I can't know, its a preference of belief. That is why earlier I was trying to show how memory is such a huge factor in this debate and a lot of people ignore it. That is what makes it (possibly always) incalculable. And the vast majority of time humans run on pre-made scripts of behaviour, which is to our advantage. But then of the many creative things humans do free will seems to me to manifest. How could we bring knowledge from the unknown into the known without this leap of creativity?

What if choice is the 'mobility' of memory, the minds ability to move across its memories and land on ones suitable to the current decision. And it is in THIS movement that exists free will?

Our mind does not just experience the mathematical instant. It is constantly scanning its past and anticipating its future. This fluid movement of it across its own memories seems to me to be intertwined with free will.

But of course, I don't know, I just like to believe in it.

[Faux Newbie]

Well you are correct. So I can't know, its a preference of belief. That is why earlier I was trying to show how memory is such a huge factor in this debate and a lot of people ignore it. That is what makes it (possibly always) incalculable. And the vast majority of time humans run on pre-made scripts of behaviour, which is to our advantage. But then of the many creative things humans do free will seems to me to manifest. How could we bring knowledge from the unknown into the known without this leap of creativity?

What if choice is the 'mobility' of memory, the minds ability to move across its memories and land on ones suitable to the current decision. And it is in THIS movement that exists free will?

Our mind does not just experience the mathematical instant. It is constantly scanning its past and anticipating its future. This fluid movement of it across its own memories seems to me to be intertwined with free will.

But of course, I don't know, I just like to believe in it.

Towards the end of the thread below, there is a study showing that the brain sometimes just does things to be random (gross oversimplification on my part here), so, one could make the case that even sometimes when people do something completely new, it may be deterministic as well.

The question is, did I choose to post this at all?:D

EDIT: forgot to add a link, it's the "living in a material world" thread on OT.

[Syn7]

Because one of them is second hand knowledge. Certain results of Physics (at the scale required for the argument) are known only through the lens of a machine, because they are beyond the threshold of our perception, a machine which we built and who's results are modified already by what they were built to register and what our theory expected.

Not sure what you mean here. I use my meter to measure resistance in a circuit, yeah of course it's not going to measure something else. I expect to measure resistance and that's what I get. I don't see that as limited so much as useful for it's purpose. A mass spectrometer is no different. In the sciences we come up with an idea for whatever reason, look for evidence, then spend the rest of the time trying to prove it wrong. An oversimplification of the process, I know, but you see what I'm getting at.


Where as Consciousness is known first hand.

You see? Now with exceptional evidence one can override ones own senses, of course. However, that evidence is no way near at this point.

You are correct that 'I don't know' is the best answer. My Choosing to believe in it is an opinion. But there are a lot of people who take determinism as a given these days, and I think its nice to pay attention to the other side of the argument. Thats all.


I think it's wrong to make conclusive statements without adequate proof, and that goes for all sides of any argument. I also recognize that incomplete views can be stepping stones to greater understanding. We see that in science all the time. But as far as consciousness is concerned, first hand is only relevant when it's true. I mean, how many examples can we point out where first hand experience was shown to be biased or just plain wrong, especially in the context it is sometimes used to justify certain positions. And to use consciousness of consciousness as a justification for the existence of consciousness just seems kinda... circular. Ya know. This is a weird topic.



I wish everyone did. I would not try to enforce this opinion. But it does seems sometimes that determinism is taken as a given. As such its nice to look at this perspective. Especially here in England, perhaps stateside its different.


I mean, you said before you would lean towards determinism, why is that?


That's a good question. It fits with my world view, I guess. But ultimately I also completely admit that I don't know. But I'll give it some thought and let you know. I'm just the type who sees patterns. In the past this has caused me to make ridiculous speculations, but as I get older I have found it to be quite useful when properly harnessed.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Stillness is a hallmark of pretty much every religion and philosophy of the ancients, ex:
Be Still and know that I AM God.
Psalm 46:10

[Faux Newbie]

To take it one step further (and relate it to qigong), stillness in the Chinese tradition is seen as insufficient on its own. In Taoism, stillness is just a way to quiet oneself so that one can see the Tao for what it is. In Buddhism, stillness is a necessary prerequisite to observe the illusion of the self and the world. In Confucianism, stillness is merely a tool to then act out specific virtues.

In each case, they are part of a discipline in which contemplation and action are the goals, not quietude on its own, and in which there are specific practical goals and steps.

In the Western case, Christianity, even meditative prayer, came to differ vastly in the latter portion, as there is a division between seeing the wonder of Christ versus enacting it (except for a few fringe portions of Christianity where the goal is not seen as unachievable), whereas in Buddhism, Taoism, and Confucianism, the specific goal is to enact the traits of their sages, even expand on them. Also, in the East, meditation was a part of all practitioners lives to some degree, whereas in Christianity, it came to be a mostly monastic tradition.

[sanjuro_ronin]

To take it one step further (and relate it to qigong), stillness in the Chinese tradition is seen as insufficient on its own. In Taoism, stillness is just a way to quiet oneself so that one can see the Tao for what it is. In Buddhism, stillness is a necessary prerequisite to observe the illusion of the self and the world. In Confucianism, stillness is merely a tool to then act out specific virtues.

In each case, they are part of a discipline in which contemplation and action are the goals, not quietude on its own, and in which there are specific practical goals and steps.

In the Western case, Christianity, even meditative prayer, came to differ vastly in the latter portion, as there is a division between seeing the wonder of Christ versus enacting it (except for a few fringe portions of Christianity where the goal is not seen as unachievable), whereas in Buddhism, Taoism, and Confucianism, the specific goal is to enact the traits of their sages, even expand on them. Also, in the East, meditation was a part of all practitioners lives to some degree, whereas in Christianity, it came to be a mostly monastic tradition.

There are many differences between Christianity and eastern religions BUT in regards to THIS discussion the key difference is that Eastern view is "self-centered" ( You can do it yourself) and Christianity is "other-centered" ( you can't do it without God because that is the purpose of your existence - to be in a relationship with God which will make you "a god" ie: your true state).

[RenDaHai]

Towards the end of the thread below, there is a study showing that the brain sometimes just does things to be random (gross oversimplification on my part here), so, one could make the case that even sometimes when people do something completely new, it may be deterministic as well.

The question is, did I choose to post this at all?:D

Yes, the paper wasn't free so I could only read the abstract.

This is just the interpretation of the study. It appears they did indeed find indeterminism in their results, but instead of assigning it to being inconclusive or evidence for free will they decided to assign it to being random and therefore evidence for mechanism. The study looked a bit simple but I would have to read the whole thing.

But lets take that, the idea of being random. What is true random?? Isn't it, like free will, seemingly acausal? You assume it is caused but we don't know the cause, hidden variables? Uncertainty? Inexplicable randomness? Can we judge by looking at the distribution?

Lets look at radioactive decay. Individual decays are seemingly unpredictable, never the less over many decays a definite half life emerges. What implication does this have for the individual decay? A probability? The half life is a definite result despite a multiplicity of random events.... Does this kind of randomness preclude freedom? Are there hidden variables that could influence the result of random events on a macro scale? I don't know.

Randomness itself is somewhat incomprehensible and it strikes me it is not a freedom killer.

[Faux Newbie]

There are many differences between Christianity and eastern religions BUT in regards to THIS discussion the key difference is that Eastern view is "self-centered" ( You can do it yourself) and Christianity is "other-centered" ( you can't do it without God because that is the purpose of your existence - to be in a relationship with God which will make you "a god" ie: your true state).

I would disagree on one level. In Buddhism, self is an illusion, and enlightenment cannot be achieved through ignorance of that outside of the self. In short, samsara and nirvana are one thing, nirvana is simply the eradication of ideas of self that prevent a real understanding of things. In Taoism, the phenomenon of the real world must be observed and experienced in order to become a sage, and in Confucianism, Confucius and Xunzi are in agreement that observing the virtue of others is a vital lesson for the path. None suggest that you can do it on your own, and cite the entire world as well as texts and practices as necessary or helpful. Even Chan, which does not promote dependency on texts, still sees their usefulness, and samsara as an essential element toward enlightenment.

In the case of Christian meditation, I would be interested in how they determine that what they see as God is not their own ego. This is an honest question, I have not seen a lot on this specific topic in reference to Christian meditation, but in Chan, one famous scholar and monk was clear in stating that quiet meditation, of all meditation, is most prone to confusing the ego with progress, and so ends each meditation of his own with "that was not the enlightenment I was seeking". If there is such a focus on avoiding confusion of the ego with God, I could see value there, but if not, then this could easily be self centered in a way none of the Eastern traditions are (on paper, of course!)

[Faux Newbie]

Yes, the paper wasn't free so I could only read the abstract.

This is just the interpretation of the study. It appears they did indeed find indeterminism in their results, but instead of assigning it to being inconclusive or evidence for free will they decided to assign it to being random and therefore evidence for mechanism. The study looked a bit simple but I would have to read the whole thing.

But lets take that, the idea of being random. What is true random?? Isn't it, like free will, seemingly acausal? You assume it is caused but we don't know the cause, hidden variables? Uncertainty? Inexplicable randomness? Can we judge by looking at the distribution?

Lets look at radioactive decay. Individual decays are seemingly unpredictable, never the less over many decays a definite half life emerges. What implication does this have for the individual decay? A probability? The half life is a definite result despite a multiplicity of random events.... Does this kind of randomness preclude freedom? Are there hidden variables that could influence the result of random events on a macro scale? I don't know.

Randomness itself is somewhat incomprehensible and it strikes me it is not a freedom killer.

Choice caused by a random synaptic flare would be caused, and thus deterministic, by an element outside of what we would normally call consciousness.

[sanjuro_ronin]

I would disagree on one level. In Buddhism, self is an illusion, and enlightenment cannot be achieved through ignorance of that outside of the self. In short, samsara and nirvana are one thing, nirvana is simply the eradication of ideas of self that prevent a real understanding of things. In Taoism, the phenomenon of the real world must be observed and experienced in order to become a sage, and in Confucianism, Confucius and Xunzi are in agreement that observing the virtue of others is a vital lesson for the path. None suggest that you can do it on your own, and cite the entire world as well as texts and practices as necessary or helpful. Even Chan, which does not promote dependency on texts, still sees their usefulness, and samsara as an essential element toward enlightenment.

In the case of Christian meditation, I would be interested in how they determine that what they see as God is not their own ego. This is an honest question, I have not seen a lot on this specific topic in reference to Christian meditation, but in Chan, one famous scholar and monk was clear in stating that quiet meditation, of all meditation, is most prone to confusing the ego with progress, and so ends each meditation of his own with "that was not the enlightenment I was seeking". If there is such a focus on avoiding confusion of the ego with God, I could see value there, but if not, then this could easily be self centered in a way none of the Eastern traditions are (on paper, of course!)

Yes in Buddhisim self is an illusion BUT to get to that point the SELF must be prioritized, one must become selfish to be selfless.

Prayer isn't really meditation per say, it is other centered, it is allowing God to come into Us and being One with Him while realizing He is the one doing it, not Us.
The voice of Christ is unmistakable and undeniable (though it can be rejected), not I said VOICE not voices, there is only ONE voice and He is Christ.
How do we know it is not US but God, not our ego but God?
Believe me, you know, it is a voice that lays your spirit bare like a red hot blade.
He sees through you and all you are.
That is why repentance is so hard for so many because true repentance means baring the full weight and pain of our sins against others, against self and against God.
Most would rather end up in "hell".

[Faux Newbie]

Yes in Buddhisim self is an illusion BUT to get to that point the SELF must be prioritized, one must become selfish to be selfless.

This is at odds with sutras and most established practices. Monks who never left the temple to practice benevolence were generally denigrated by the major Buddhist proponents. Additionally, Christianity has no defense against the same sort of accusation, since there is definitely reward, and that that reward is sought by many.


Prayer isn't really meditation per say, it is other centered, it is allowing God to come into Us and being One with Him while realizing He is the one doing it, not Us.

That depends on the prayer, and again, without a defined means to prevent one's own ego from being involved, that seems like a huge factor.

I understand this is the distinction between proper prayer and ego based, but that is no different than applying the same idea to Buddhism, Taoism, or Confucianism, when all three emphasize that one's place in a much larger context is the key.



That is why repentance is so hard for so many because true repentance means baring the full weight and pain of our sins against others, against self and against God.
Most would rather end up in "hell".

This is not so different that Buddhism or Taoism, knowing samsara, one realizes that harming others for one's own benefit is foolish, seeing one's own actions as foolish is not easy. In Taoism, seeing what we want for being based in ignorant preferences is not easy for most. Still, there HAS to be a practice to avoid basing these judgments on ego, imo. I would imagine moreso when one's eternal place in heaven is at stake. I understand that one is not expected to be Christ, but I also think one is supposed to meet him halfway is my point.

[RenDaHai]

Choice caused by a random synaptic flare would be caused, and thus deterministic, by an element outside of what we would normally call consciousness.

But IS randomness deterministic? Assuming no hidden variables, then randomness is, well, a kind of free.

[Faux Newbie]

But IS randomness deterministic? Assuming no hidden variables, then randomness is, well, a kind of free.

If randomness is imposed on you, then you are not making a free choice, random events are forcing your hand.

A random event that occurs to me is, itself, random, but my response may be determined by it, and thus, not random at all.

[sanjuro_ronin]

This is at odds with sutras and most established practices. Monks who never left the temple to practice benevolence were generally denigrated by the major Buddhist proponents. Additionally, Christianity has no defense against the same sort of accusation, since there is definitely reward, and that that reward is sought by many.


The "reward" you speak of is given freely not earned "so that no man may boast". The moment we do something to get a reward, the intent has forever tainted the act.


That depends on the prayer, and again, without a defined means to prevent one's own ego from being involved, that seems like a huge factor.
No, not really.
Remember that prayer is OTHER centered not self centered and when one is in communion with Christ ( actual oneness) there is no ego because one isn't "like we are now".




This is not so different that Buddhism or Taoism, knowing samsara, one realizes that harming others for one's own benefit is foolish, seeing one's own actions as foolish is not easy. In Taoism, seeing what we want for being based in ignorant preferences is not easy for most. Still, there HAS to be a practice to avoid basing these judgments on ego, imo. I would imagine moreso when one's eternal place in heaven is at stake. I understand that one is not expected to be Christ, but I also think one is supposed to meet him halfway is my point.

The gift of God's grace is an unmerited gift, nothing we do makes us merit it.
There is no ego when you realize that you can't do anything to merit His grace and that He has done EVERYTHING for you already.
Heaven isn't what is at stake, that is just an end destination, it is return to Man perfect state of relationship with God that is at stake BUT the price for that has already been paid, by the Son of God.
Because any action we would do would be with the intent to "get something" then those actions will never be good enough, the intent is tainted, it is full of EGO.

[Faux Newbie]

The "reward" you speak of is given freely not earned "so that no man may boast". The moment we do something to get a reward, the intent has forever tainted the act.


No, not really.
Remember that prayer is OTHER centered not self centered and when one is in communion with Christ ( actual oneness) there is no ego because one isn't "like we are now".





The gift of God's grace is an unmerited gift, nothing we do makes us merit it.
There is no ego when you realize that you can't do anything to merit His grace and that He has done EVERYTHING for you already.
Heaven isn't what is at stake, that is just an end destination, it is return to Man perfect state of relationship with God that is at stake BUT the price for that has already been paid, by the Son of God.
Because any action we would do would be with the intent to "get something" then those actions will never be good enough, the intent is tainted, it is full of EGO.

But isn't what you are arguing, in effect, correct Christian prayer vs. incorrect Buddhist/Taoist/Confucian contemplation and enaction? None of those traditions claim you can do anything on your own without outside help.

Again, Confucius and Mencius specifically call seeing the merit of others one of the greatest teachings.

Buddhist meditation almost immediately seeks to focus on practices that erode the sense of an isolated self.

Taoism is entirely based on observing the world, not merely the self.

The starting point in all three traditions is quieting the mind so that one can see what is beyond yourself. In all three, it is assumed that one can hardly give an accurate representation of the self without seeing its place in the world, and, once one sees that, there is no need to define it, as defining it gives it a false existence as a discrete entity.

I do not know of any Buddhist scholars who would refer to Buddhism as self based.

[sanjuro_ronin]

But isn't what you are arguing, in effect, correct Christian prayer vs. incorrect Buddhist/Taoist/Confucian contemplation and enaction? None of those traditions claim you can do anything on your own without outside help.

Again, Confucius and Mencius specifically call seeing the merit of others one of the greatest teachings.

Buddhist meditation almost immediately seeks to focus on practices that erode the sense of an isolated self.

Taoism is entirely based on observing the world, not the self.

The starting point in all three traditions is quieting the mind so that one can see what is beyond yourself.

I do not know of any Buddhist scholars who would refer to Buddhism as self based.

Differences do not = correct/incorrect.

The central tenets of Buddhism is the denial of self, yes?
Deny wants and you deny suffering, no suffering and you get satori/nirvana ( cliff notes version, I know), to deny self and ego.
How is it done though?
You do it yourself since there is no deity or outside force to help you, is there?

[Faux Newbie]

Differences do not = correct/incorrect.

The central tenets of Buddhism is the denial of self, yes?
Deny wants and you deny suffering, no suffering and you get satori/nirvana ( cliff notes version, I know), to deny self and ego.
How is it done though?
You do it yourself since there is no deity or outside force to help you, is there?

Your last point is incorrect. There are the three jewels, the lessons of the Buddha as examples, the community of Buddhists, and the teachings of enlightened beings.

Further, the key to the four noble truths is one can end suffering by ending desire based in ignorance. To understand one's own ignorance requires knowledge of samsara and cause and effect. Which again, are outside what we are calling the self.

Buddhism's goal, for many, is escaping samsara. However, how this is done is by total engagement in it, the quality of that engagement, and having one's consciousness opened by an observation and understanding of it. Without samsara, it cannot be done, therefore the self cannot, on its own, do it.

Even expedient means is an act of samsara, cause and effect. All Buddhist practices are based in samsara. Still the mind allows observation, observation reveals flaws and events and their repercussions, observation causes contemplation, contemplation causes action, action causes effects, effects cause more effects which cause disruptions to stillness which causes contemplation of the aftermath which causes refined action which leads to positive choices which leads to less negative complications which leads to less disruption of stillness which leads to deeper stillness which leads to...

The entire process is engaged with things beyond the self. Even meditations and contemplations always reinforce this.

[Faux Newbie]

To use the Taoist example, the Tao is always approached, one merely comes closer to it. One can only do this by engagement with the world. Even so-called non-action, in order to do it, requires long contemplation and practice at acting. To do this, one is utterly dependent on things outside the self.

[Faux Newbie]

And to make clear, I am not in disagreement on what constitutes a genuine acceptance of God, I merely do not find the "Self/other" distinction to be true, and I do find that, without some ways for those pursuing a path to distinguish ego from non-ego, ego is a real problem, as much for Christianity as anyone else.

[RenDaHai]

If randomness is imposed on you, then you are not making a free choice, random events are forcing your hand.

A random event that occurs to me is, itself, random, but my response may be determined by it, and thus, not random at all.

But randomness is not a good answer. Randomness can mean 1. hidden variables we don't know or 2. True randomness. In the event of 1 then our free will could be the hidden variable here and yet appear as randomness. 2. True randomness, but what is that anyway? Its AS mysterious as free will.

[David Jamieson]

Guys, guys.

Life is just a bunch of stuff that happens.
While it's happening, it's worth our while to not be asses.

:D

[Faux Newbie]

Guys, guys.

Life is just a bunch of stuff that happens.
While it's happening, it's worth our while to not be asses.

:D

Is it worth our while, or are we generally inclined to not be asses until delusions set in that cause us to seek benefit in being asses or not be asses?:D

[Syn7]

Do any of you really believe that selflessness exists? Aren't all acts selfish in nature?

Cool to see you weigh in SR.

[Faux Newbie]

Do any of you really believe that selflessness exists? Aren't all acts selfish in nature?


I don't see this as the case. I do not think people do things solely out of selfish goals. Members of species often do things that aid the survival of the whole, but as individuals, that is not necessarily their goal, just a result. Just because the result is positive does not mean the motivation was for that result.

[Syn7]

Wouldn't all acts of self be defined as selfish though? I may buy you a gift because I feel you will enjoy it, but that primary motivation would be that I feel good about you feeling good. Selfish, no?

One thing I'm pretty sure about is that there is no such thing as a purely selfless act whereas I do feel there are purely selfish acts. As for what that mix would be if it's both, I dunno.

[RenDaHai]

If we think of the Taijitu, the Yin and Yang symbol, we see that the opposite extremes do not ever separate, they always contain the seed of the other.

I suppose it must depend how we define selfishness, it seems to me the category could be very large. Do we mean it to be things which lack the consideration of others? Or things that benefit you mainly? Or only? Or even slightly?

Surely dying for a child for example has a larger element of the selfless about it?

If an act has both selfish and selfless elements, then surely we must sum them and see which is greater (not that this is easy)? It would be strange to define a mainly selfish act as selfish if we also described a mainly selfless act as selfish, it would not be even.

[Faux Newbie]

Wouldn't all acts of self be defined as selfish though? I may buy you a gift because I feel you will enjoy it, but that primary motivation would be that I feel good about you feeling good. Selfish, no?

If that were the motivation. I don't see it that way. The effort in choosing entails that you actually care about how I feel, if your example were true, you would probably focus more on buying gifts for people you better know how to buy the perfect gift for, instead you selected me. I am honored!


One thing I'm pretty sure about is that there is no such thing as a purely selfless act whereas I do feel there are purely selfish acts. As for what that mix would be if it's both, I dunno.

How I view it is this: we view selfishness as irrespective of the cost to others, not simply for the self. The term definitely has that negative connotation in how we use it.

If I wish to do a thing, but would not do it if it cost others, then selfishness has little to do with it.

Likewise, if a thing makes me happy and harms no one, then my happiness will make me better to be around. I don't see this as similar to how we define selfishness, since we do not define it as being for the self, but ONLY for the self regardless of the cost to others.

If what I choose to do for myself is always predicated by not harming others, then, based on how we actually define selfish, I am not selfish. In fact, how I define myself intrinsically takes into account the reality of others and the belief that my desires should not affect them unduly. Even Buddhism would say that if I do a thing that harms no one, myself included, and it makes me a better person, than it is good. Buddhism does not say that you are someone that peace should not come to, but that you are part of everything, and equally deserving of peace.

"(of a person, action, or motive) lacking consideration for others; concerned chiefly with one's own personal profit or pleasure." That is a fair definition of how we use that term. Not simply "for one's self" but lacking a concern for others in regards to what one does for the self.

[Faux Newbie]

If we think of the Taijitu, the Yin and Yang symbol, we see that the opposite extremes do not ever separate, they always contain the seed of the other.

Agreed. Discrete separation does not occur.


I suppose it must depend how we define selfishness, it seems to me the category could be very large. Do we mean it to be things which lack the consideration of others? Or things that benefit you mainly? Or only? Or even slightly?

I think the normal definition entails not caring about the effect on others. So it doesn't mean not enjoying things, but seeing how enjoyment is based in ignorance if the cost falls on others.


Surely dying for a child for example has a larger element of the selfless about it?

This is actually a good example. Some might say it is a selfish way to continue yourself, except for the fact that what you identify as self is being wiped out by the act. It is much easier to make an argument for selflessness in this case than to make one for selfishness, which requires motivations so subtle that they could also be used to argue for selflessness on a lot of other issues.

[Faux Newbie]

To clarify some of the argument regarding Christianity and meditation and prayer (and meditative prayer), it is not my view that it is automatically ego driven, but that, in my experience, Sanjuro is among the handful of Christians I have met for whom any attempt to divest ego from a sense of God is made, and a great many others are clearly ego driven. My point has more to do with what I see as a lack of a tradition on dealing with this, and how this, in my opinion, muddies any definition based on not relying on personal judgment and the self for Christianity compared to other traditions.

In my opinion, neither Eastern or Western views are self based in their ideal expression, but outside of that, I see the Eastern traditions having more fail safes to prevent abuse by those who are selfish, with the exception of state run Confucianism.

[Syn7]

Oh ok. I don't mean a complete lack of consideration for others. I just mean it as in rooted in self interest. I would put dying for a child in that category. You want your child to live.

But no, I dot think all acts are purely motivated by self interest w/o regard for others. That would suck.


Still, I can think of acts that are purely rooted in self interest w/o any consideration for any other, but I can't think of any examples on the opposite side of that spectrum. People do crazy unreasonable **** with ZERO regard for any other, but nobody ever acts of pure selflessness. And I'm talking about single isolated acts, not the totality of one persons acts. I would be inclined to believe that everyone has at least once done a nice thing for another person. Unless you are completely alone, I guess.

[Faux Newbie]

Oh ok. I don't mean a complete lack of consideration for others. I just mean it as in rooted in self interest. I would put dying for a child in that category. You want your child to live.

But no, I dot think all acts are purely motivated by self interest w/o regard for others. That would suck.


Still, I can think of acts that are purely rooted in self interest w/o any consideration for any other, but I can't think of any examples on the opposite side of that spectrum. People do crazy unreasonable **** with ZERO regard for any other, but nobody ever acts of pure selflessness. And I'm talking about single isolated acts, not the totality of one persons acts. I would be inclined to believe that everyone has at least once done a nice thing for another person. Unless you are completely alone, I guess.

The problem is, doing good things does make people feel good. I'm not sure that's why people do it, though. I think that is the least reliable motivation for doing it. But I think it is hard to argue, because we are working with different definitions of selfish and selfless, so it's difficult to come to common ground, but that's okay, it's interesting to discuss.

I can also think of one personal example of a person doing, for years, something very good for others, that was always a bittersweet thing for the person doing it. I know it had more to do with feeling it should be done than benefit for him.

The case of giving your life for your, or a child, is one example where it gets really hard to count on the assertion that it is out of self interest. You are literally choosing to die. Your are extinguishing your self. This seems to me to be stretching any definition of self interest.

[Syn7]

The problem is, doing good things does make people feel good. I'm not sure that's why people do it, though. I think that is the least reliable motivation for doing it. But I think it is hard to argue, because we are working with different definitions of selfish and selfless, so it's difficult to come to common ground, but that's okay, it's interesting to discuss.

I can also think of one personal example of a person doing, for years, something very good for others, that was always a bittersweet thing for the person doing it. I know it had more to do with feeling it should be done than benefit for him.

The case of giving your life for your, or a child, is one example where it gets really hard to count on the assertion that it is out of self interest. You are literally choosing to die. Your are extinguishing your self. This seems to me to be stretching any definition of self interest.

But that's assuming that dying can never be of self interest. To some people, family is more important than themselves. Still self interest, no? It's what they want. Yeah, maybe there is part of them that doesn't want to die, of course, but there is also a part of them that does want to die if it saves whoever it is that they care so much for.

There can be motivations outside of feeling good about it.

Bittersweet implies there was some sweet, no?

Lol, I'm not trying to be difficult, I also find it to be an interesting topic for discussion.

If you take all definitions of selfish into account, I'm inclined to think you're right. At least in that not all acts are selfish in nature. I'm still having trouble with thinking of anything purely selfless though. But I'm sure we can all rattle off some things that are completely selfish. Certain horrific crimes, some suicides, right down to just being a douchebag and not sharing you candy with your brother or whatever.

[Faux Newbie]

But that's assuming that dying can never be of self interest. To some people, family is more important than themselves. Still self interest, no? It's what they want. Yeah, maybe there is part of them that doesn't want to die, of course, but there is also a part of them that does want to die if it saves whoever it is that they care so much for.

I'm thinking they more likely choose to die than want to in most cases. It's one that could be interpreted different ways, I suppose.


There can be motivations outside of feeling good about it.

Bittersweet implies there was some sweet, no?

True, but I don't think that was the reason he took part in that activity, it was merely a side bonus, not the motivation.


Lol, I'm not trying to be difficult, I also find it to be an interesting topic for discussion.

You aren't being difficult at all, no problems.


If you take all definitions of selfish into account, I'm inclined to think you're right. At least in that not all acts are selfish in nature. I'm still having trouble with thinking of anything purely selfless though. But I'm sure we can all rattle off some things that are completely selfish. Certain horrific crimes, some suicides, right down to just being a douchebag and not sharing you candy with your brother or whatever.

I think where I make a distinction is the presence of a positive experience in the action does not necessarily make the motivation to receive that experience. So for those doing such things for the benefits, yes, some self interest is at play, for those who are not, then no, even though they experience that, since it is not their motivation, merely experiencing that is not part of they why they did it.

[Syn7]

I'm thinking they more likely choose to die than want to in most cases. It's one that could be interpreted different ways, I suppose.


I think where I make a distinction is the presence of a positive experience in the action does not necessarily make the motivation to receive that experience. So for those doing such things for the benefits, yes, some self interest is at play, for those who are not, then no, even though they experience that, since it is not their motivation, merely experiencing that is not part of they why they did it.


Wanting to save the child, I meant.

A positive outcome or some gratifying knowledge that you have done good has to play into the motivation don't you think? Even if it isn't the prime motivation.

[sanjuro_ronin]

And to make clear, I am not in disagreement on what constitutes a genuine acceptance of God, I merely do not find the "Self/other" distinction to be true, and I do find that, without some ways for those pursuing a path to distinguish ego from non-ego, ego is a real problem, as much for Christianity as anyone else.

EGO is THE problem in Christianity - Pride goeth before the fall.
The story of Adam and Eve is one of pride, of trying to be God, of being selfish and ego driven and the contrast ( that at times is lost on people, especially Christians) is that Christ that was God, that was all the Adam and Eve wanted to be, gave it all up to be human !
The example we have in Christianity is of a person that was God and gave it up to be human so that humans could have the chance to return to a relationship that would make them "like God".
In terms of self/selflessness/selfishness the way Christianity sees it is that our true natural state is one of other-centred love and there is no place for ego or self in it since we are relational beings.

[SoCo KungFu]

@SoCo,

Ahahaha, so much frustration you have!
Incorrect. Boredom. The word you are looking for, is boredom.


Please go ahead and tackle my description of inertia in the way I described above. The idea of inertia as resistance to change I also described and was essential to my point. Matter can't choose to move, it must be acted on by an external force. Because an object has inertia it is resistant to change, so when we measure its momentum we know it has not chosen that momentum but rather that momentum can tell us information about where it has come from and what happened to it.
Just because you can use a dictionary, doesn't mean you know what these words mean. You don't understand the underlying concepts you are attempting to invoke, its fairly obvious.


All matter is ordered. How could it be otherwise?
Exactly, and in 2 sentences you have contradicted everything you have previously said in this thread. So can we close this idiotic discussion now? Mods?


Ahaha, so the hood of a car STORES energy does it?
Yes, it does numbnuts. Heat (thermal energy), you may have heard of it. Seriously, you are like talking to a 5 year old. Just stop. So since you don't understand energy, its conservation, or the various forms it may be found in, I see no reason for this thread to continue. Its quite obvious you were either drunk, or you just simply have no idea what you are talking about.


Think about it. Does it then keep that energy for the next day in some way?
Depends how cold it is outside. Did you not go to school as a child?


Can it release it in a months time?
See above, but not likely. If you knew what the hell you are saying, you'd answer this yourself. Do you even know what cold actually is?


Like the chemical energy stored in life forms?
Yes, energy release in our chemical processes is ultimately, the same as in non-organic reactions. Its all about breaking bonds. You know, its those pesky physical laws of nature. There don't discriminate between non/organic chemistry.


A nervous system is no different from any other what? From a rock?
In the context of this discussion, yes. Matter is matter. Its just atoms. Nice try at either forgetting your own point, or way to fail at building a strawman.


When I say a man swatting a fly is not the same as a billiard ball collision, i'm not talking about the impact of the swat on the fly, I'm talking about the perception of the fly that evokes a response to swat it. For example you could make a choice NOT to swat the fly. A billiard ball being struck has no option but to react in a predetermined way. This type of choice and perception does not occur in inert matter but does in life forms. It is pertinent to the question of free will.
You're not even keeping your own point of references straight in your own response here. I know what you are trying to say, but I don't think you do. I'll let you figure it out, not worth my time. I'm not getting paid to lecture you.


Instead of picking everything out of context why not read the point as a whole and respond to it? This is a kung fu forum, not a science one. The ideas I have raised are not foolish, they have been raised by many before me.
When you have a context from which to frame, we can return to this discussion. As yet, you have not established any. The only thing you have done is shown that you should probably steer clear from topics you aren't well versed in.


Lets talk in a casual way, don't try to tie me up with unnecessary pedantry, try instead to understand the underlying notion. There is really no need to resort to insults, it does not strengthen your position.
Oh I am keeping it casual. I don't think you'd follow if I went technical. But casual doesn't mean you can butcher the concept. There's a difference between lay understanding, and bat **** stupid. You've gone guano.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Watch the tone guys, keep it civil and no insults, got it?

[Faux Newbie]

EGO is THE problem in Christianity - Pride goeth before the fall.
The story of Adam and Eve is one of pride, of trying to be God, of being selfish and ego driven and the contrast ( that at times is lost on people, especially Christians) is that Christ that was God, that was all the Adam and Eve wanted to be, gave it all up to be human !
The example we have in Christianity is of a person that was God and gave it up to be human so that humans could have the chance to return to a relationship that would make them "like God".
In terms of self/selflessness/selfishness the way Christianity sees it is that our true natural state is one of other-centred love and there is no place for ego or self in it since we are relational beings.

And see, this and the people who work hard to live that way (like yourself) are the ONLY reason I am not just rabidly anti-Christian.

The person I spoke of vaguely with Syn above was my father, a Catholic. At four years old, he, his parents, and a family friend, were in a car accident. His father and the family friend were killed right then and there. On a stretcher in the hospital, he remembered his mother being declared dead numerous times. She ended up living. (She was badass in a way most martial artists will never be, and scary as hell!)

When he retired, he spent volunteer time with dying kids at the local hospital, watching movies with them, doing fun stuff with them. A kid would die, he would do the same with the next one. He NEVER talked about it, people didn't realize how much he did, but he was around dying kids for a decade, who knows how many. Part of why was because he knew how hard times sometimes make it hard to have a childhood, people make you into a survivor but forget to make you a kid.

Conversely, in Catholic school, my best friend's parents divorced(GASP!), and the priest and the nuns basically made an environment where he and I were targeted (me for being friends with him), I would not call it bullied because we fought harder and better than the kids who were emboldened by this, until all they had was words, but they all believed (and many still believe) that they were on God's side. Hell, I had one guy tell me in adulthood that that behavior was important to make us good people! (At the time, his only job was as a calender model, lol). My friend later became a fullback in college ball.

Likewise, when my best friend died some years back, whose parents were Christian, but not their children or their children's friends, there were two services, one in one state, one back in our home town. The first one, the minister was fine, thoughtful to some extent, but still reinterpreting a man's life who they didn't know in terms of the minister's own belief system and approach to it. Slightly tacky, but not worse than that. The second one reinterpreted his life in terms of needing forgiveness how that guy saw it, for things that don't even need forgiveness. For my friends parents alone, I kept my silence, as did others. There was no shortage of people ready to beat the tar out of that guy. I know full well when I go, despite neither I nor my wife being religious, she will be approached with the same crap, because that's how it always is, which ****es me off to no end.

I have known far more bad Christians than good, and I think I've known more good Christians than most Christians. I've also dealt with a good number of Buddhists, but far less really bad ones (though two come to mind). I really think there is a more developed mechanism in Buddhism for preventing ego from restricting morality, I think the development of it is historically demonstrable, and I think that, as someone who has to deal with a majority of Christians, I would be a fool to ignore it.

That said, this in no way has a bearing on your personal faith, but in regards to a vast majority of Christians, I would be naive to believe that it is not ego based.

My view is not that the idea of Christianity is wrongheaded, but that established checks to make sure that ego doesn't creep into one's relationship with God are lacking, imo. Being a Buddhist master entails a certain risk of ego, but the attraction for those with ego is way higher to be on a contact basis and on the side of an omnipotent being than of being the most egoless being. It's game theory, one can excuse way more behaviors than the other and entails way more power, and Buddhism just has more practical exercises to try to minimize it and way more agency to call someone on being a bad Buddhist.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Do any of you really believe that selflessness exists? Aren't all acts selfish in nature?

.

True selflesness can exist to a degree BUT I don't think that there can be absolute selflessness in our current human state. I goal to strive for, yes but one that can be accomplished without help? no.
Why?
Because if you try to be selfless, you must ask yourself WHY?
Why are you trying to be selfless?
There are many answers of course BUT most of them, if you look deep enough, are selfish.
As a parent I have an unconditional love of my two girls. I love them no matter what they do or say.
That love is selfless because while I want and need them to love me back, MY love is not based on IF they love me back or anything else other than the fact that they are my girls.
But note the "MY girls".
There is an element of selfish there, of ego and that is that I love them because they are MINE.

[sanjuro_ronin]

And see, this and the people who work hard to live that way (like yourself) are the ONLY reason I am not just rabidly anti-Christian.

The person I spoke of vaguely with Syn above was my father, a Catholic. At four years old, he, his parents, and a family friend, were in a car accident. His father and the family friend were killed right then and there. On a stretcher in the hospital, he remembered his mother being declared dead numerous times. She ended up living. (She was badass in a way most martial artists will never be, and scary as hell!)

When he retired, he spent volunteer time with dying kids at the local hospital, watching movies with them, doing fun stuff with them. A kid would die, he would do the same with the next one. He NEVER talked about it, people didn't realize how much he did, but he was around dying kids for a decade, who knows how many. Part of why was because he knew how hard times sometimes make it hard to have a childhood, people make you into a survivor but forget to make you a kid.

Conversely, in Catholic school, my best friend's parents divorced(GASP!), and the priest and the nuns basically made an environment where he and I were targeted (me for being friends with him), I would not call it bullied because we fought harder and better than the kids who were emboldened by this, until all they had was words, but they all believed (and many still believe) that they were on God's side. Hell, I had one guy tell me in adulthood that that behavior was important to make us good people! (At the time, his only job was as a calender model, lol). My friend later became a fullback in college ball.

Likewise, when my best friend died some years back, whose parents were Christian, but not their children or their children's friends, there were two services, one in one state, one back in our home town. The first one, the minister was fine, thoughtful to some extent, but still reinterpreting a man's life who they didn't know in terms of the minister's own belief system and approach to it. Slightly tacky, but not worse than that. The second one reinterpreted his life in terms of needing forgiveness how that guy saw it, for things that don't even need forgiveness. For my friends parents alone, I kept my silence, as did others. There was no shortage of people ready to beat the tar out of that guy. I know full well when I go, despite neither I nor my wife being religious, she will be approached with the same crap, because that's how it always is, which ****es me off to no end.

I have known far more bad Christians than good, and I think I've known more good Christians than most Christians. I've also dealt with a good number of Buddhists, but far less really bad ones (though two come to mind). I really think there is a more developed mechanism in Buddhism for preventing ego from restricting morality, I think the development of it is historically demonstrable, and I think that, as someone who has to deal with a majority of Christians, I would be a fool to ignore it.

That said, this in no way has a bearing on your personal faith, but in regards to a vast majority of Christians, I would be naive to believe that it is not ego based.

My view is not that the idea of Christianity is wrongheaded, but that established checks to make sure that ego doesn't creep into one's relationship with God are lacking, imo. Being a Buddhist master entails a certain risk of ego, but the attraction for those with ego is way higher to be on a contact basis and on the side of an omnipotent being than of being the most egoless being. It's game theory, one can excuse way more behaviors than the other and entails way more power, and Buddhism just has more practical exercises to try to minimize it and way more agency to call someone on being a bad Buddhist.

Here is the thing my friend,
You will find more bad people in Christianity than perhaps any other religion and many of them won't even hide it.
Why?
Two reasons:
One- Christianity states that we all need redeeming, none of us are good and that there is a cure for that and that cure is Christ IF you allow Him to change you, because of that you find lots of people that know they need help in Christianity.
Two- You will also find lots of aholes that believe that acting like an sanctimonious ass is OK because they are "saved" and in the "One True Faith" and that somehow make sit ok to be an ass.
Those people are evidence of NOT TOO much Christ BUT NOT ENOUGH Christ, those people that THINK they are "there" are the ones furthest from Him.
There are NO checks "established" for the Ego in Christianity because it is ALL about Choice:
Judaims says Obey the Law
Islam says Submit to Allah
Christianity says Choose.
If you choose Christ AND allow Him to "work" in you then HE will fix you and He will be the "checks" on your Ego BUT to do that you must give yourself to Him 100% and very few can do that all the time and that is why it is and always will be a work in progress with Christians and those that think they are the closest to the end are the one that are the ****hest.

[Faux Newbie]

Here is the thing my friend,
You will find more bad people in Christianity than perhaps any other religion and many of them won't even hide it.
Why?
Two reasons:
One- Christianity states that we all need redeeming, none of us are good and that there is a cure for that and that cure is Christ IF you allow Him to change you, because of that you find lots of people that know they need help in Christianity.
Two- You will also find lots of aholes that believe that acting like an sanctimonious ass is OK because they are "saved" and in the "One True Faith" and that somehow make sit ok to be an ass.
Those people are evidence of NOT TOO much Christ BUT NOT ENOUGH Christ, those people that THINK they are "there" are the ones furthest from Him.
There are NO checks "established" for the Ego in Christianity because it is ALL about Choice:
Judaims says Obey the Law
Islam says Submit to Allah
Christianity says Choose.
If you choose Christ AND allow Him to "work" in you then HE will fix you and He will be the "checks" on your Ego BUT to do that you must give yourself to Him 100% and very few can do that all the time and that is why it is and always will be a work in progress with Christians and those that think they are the closest to the end are the one that are the ****hest.

Buddhism is in the middle on that. It says don't do evil, do good.

Still, I think Christianity could at least use a certification course for non-arsehood or something.:D

[SoCo KungFu]

Do any of you really believe that selflessness exists? Aren't all acts selfish in nature?

Cool to see you weigh in SR.

Group selection. This entire thread can be distilled down to evolutionary game theory and neurobiology, even RenDaHai's incoherent fits of verbal vomit.

[Faux Newbie]

Group selection. This entire thread can be distilled down to evolutionary game theory and neurobiology.

I can totally agree on this. One important point is that the individual may not have any knowledge of the evolutionary advantage, and often doesn't.

[RenDaHai]

@SoCo,

Ahaha, Clearly I have stepped onto your 'territory', you think you are the only one with 'specialist' knowledge of science and as a result you want to be consulted every-time it is talked about, even so much as you want to deny me and have me stopped for talking about it. A very very bad aspect of behaviour.

Clearly you want to show you are knowledgable about science, yet you can't even see there is a difference to the way energy is stored by a leaf to be used at a later date and energy simply absorbed by a piece of metal. Instead of talking about the difference you have simply insulted me. When I asked a rhetorical question 'Can it release it in a months time?' You actually thought I was asking the question????? I was demonstrating the difference.

If you do indeed possess some qualification (it doesn't matter to me, you have every right to talk about it whether you do or not) I assure you your tutor would be ashamed of you reading your responses to this thread.

I pointed out clearly there is a difference in the type of order between a symmetrical lattice and DNA, instead of talking about it (which a sicentist would have done) you have blanked it and taken my words out of context.

If you know what I am trying to say, then answer that don't just insult.

I don't even know how to correspond with you, you are quite unreasonable.

[wenshu]

Imagine at its extreme no one ever learns their discipline

So reading Plato is a discipline now? Look I don't expect you to understand but the subtext of the argument is efficiency. Specifically the efficiency of executive function.


they just get very good at interpreting wikipedia?

The technical jargon is 'critical thinking'. Considering how desperately you're signaling the pursuit of a liberal arts education you should probably be able to make that distinction. Or maybe the grad student teaching your intro philosophy seminar was too busy chasing coed tail (I hear that's the perk of a career in liberal arts academia) to cover that section.

Now if I may,

You spent half a dozen years immersed in Chinese buddhist philosophy and you come back to start studying Plato & Socrates? **** on my tits has no one told you about Thales, Empodocles, Anaxagoras, Anaximander, Parmenides, Heraclitus?

http://s2.quickmeme.com/img/4b/4b1cc8ee52b73a908a400e9a83b4e130687c64e1e49a8e3c8a 1a3e238e43bbad.jpg

The pre-Socratics are the closest you'll ever come to a western analogue to Eastern philosophy, sheeeeeeeeit give any pre-Socratic philosopher a Chinese name and you would hardly be able to tell the difference.


"Anaximander of Miletus, the first philosophical author of the ancients, writes exactly as one expects a typical philosopher to write when alienating demands have not yet robbed him of his innocence and naivete. That is to say, in graven stylized letters, sentence after sentence the witness to fresh illumination, each the expression of time spent in sublime meditation. Each single thought and its form is a milestone upon the path to the highest wisdom. Thus, with lapidary impressiveness, Anaximander says upon one occasion, "Where the source of things is, to that place they must also pass away, according to necessity, for they must pay penance and be judged for their injustices, in accordance with the ordinance of time."

http://i.imgur.com/NnCHEiU.jpg

Enigmatic proclamation of a true pessimist, oracular legend over the boundary stone of Greek philosophy: how shall we interpret you?

The only serious moralist of our century in Parergis (Vol. II, Chapter 12) charges us with a similar reflection.

"The proper measure with which to judge any and all human beings is that they are really creatures who should not exist at all and who are doing penance for their lives by their manifold sufferings and their death. What could we expect of such creatures? Are we not all sinners under sentence of death? We do penance for having been born, first by living and then by dying."
http://31.media.tumblr.com/cf13998070df2c4eb54b40eadedfd84f/tumblr_mn0b7tYVbV1sr7k1oo1_1280.jpg

A man who can read such a lesson in the physiognomy of our common human lot, who can recognize the basic poor quality of any and all human life in the very fact that not one of us will bear close scrutiny (although our era, infected with the biographical plague, seems to think quite different and statelier thoughts as to the dignity of man), a man who, like Schopenhauer, has heard upon the heights of India's clear air the holy word of the moral value of existence - such a man will find it difficult to keep from indulging in a highly anthropomorphic metaphor. He will extract that melancholy doctrine from its application to human life and project it unto the general quality of all existence. It may not be logical, but it certainly is human, to view now, together with Anaximander, all coming-to-be as though it were an illegitimate emancipation from eternal being, a wrong for which destruction is the only penance. Everything that has ever come-to-be again passes away, whether we think of human life or of water or of hot and cold. Wherever definite qualities are perceivable, we can prophesy, upon the basis of enormously extensive experience, the passing away of these qualities. Never, in other words, can a being which possesses definite qualities or consists of such be the origin or first principle of things. That which truly is, concludes Anaximander, cannot possess definite characteristics, or it would come-to-be and pass away like all the other things. In order that coming-to-be shall not cease, primal being must be indefinite. The immortality and everlastingness of primal being does not lie in its infinitude or its inexhaustibility, as the commentators of Anaximander generally assume, but in the fact that it is devoid of definite qualities that would lead to its passing. Hence its name, the indefinite. Thus named, the primal being is superior to that which comes to be, insuring thereby eternity and the unimpeded course of coming-to-be. This ultimate unity of the indefinite, the womb of all things, can, it is true, be designated by human speech only as a negative, as something to which the existent world of coming-to-be can give no predicate. We may look upon it as the equal of the Kantian ding an sich.

Now anyone who can quarrel as to what sort of primal stuff this could have been, whether an intermediate substance between air and water or perhaps between air and fire, has certainly not understood our philosopher at all. This is equally true of those who ask themselves seriously whether Anaximander thought of his primal substance as perhaps a mixture of all existent materials. Instead, we must direct our glance to that lapidary sentence which we cited earlier, to the place where we may learn that Anaximander was no longer dealing with the question of the origin of this world in a purely physical way. Rather, when he saw in the multiplicity of things that have come-to-be a sum of injustices that must be expiated, he grasped with bold fingers the tangle of the profoundest problem in ethics. He was the first Greek to do so. How can anything pass away which has a right to be? Whence that restless, ceaseless coming-into-being and giving birth, whence that grimace of painful disfiguration on the countenance of nature, whence the neverending dirge in all the realms of existence? From this world of injustice, of insolent apostasy from the primeval oneness of all things, Anaximander flees into a metaphysical fortress from which he leans out, letting his gaze sweep the horizon.

At last, after long pensive silence, he puts a question to all creatures: What is your existence worth? And if it is worthless, why are you here? Your guilt, I see, causes you to tarry in your existence with your death, you have to expiate it. Look how your earth is withering, how your seas are diminishing and drying up; the seashell on the mountain top can show you how much has dried up already. Even now, fire is destroying your world; some day it will go up in fumes and smoke. But ever and anew, another such world of ephemerality will construct itself. Who is there that could redeem you from the curse of coming-to-be?

http://i.imgur.com/hvlAuFu.jpg

A man who poses questions such as these, whose thinking in its upward flight kept breaking all empirical ropes, catching, instead, at superlunary ones-such a man very likely does not welcome an ordinary mode of living. We can easily credit the tradition that he walked the earth clad in an especially dignified garment and displayed a truly tragic pride in his gestures and customs of daily living. He lived as he wrote; he spoke as solemnly as he dressed; he lifted his hands and placed his feet as though this existence were a tragic drama into which he had been born to play a hero. In all these things, he was the great model for Empedocles. His fellow citizens elected him to lead a colony of emigrants. Perhaps they were glad to honor him and get rid of him at the same time. His thought, too, emigrated and founded colonies. In Ephesus and in Elea, people could not rid themselves of it, and if they could not make up their minds to remain where it left them, they also knew that they h ad been led there by it, and that it was from there they would travel on without it.

Thales demonstrated the need to simplify the realm of the many, to reduce it to the mere unfolding or masking of the one and only existent quality, water. Anaximander takes two steps beyond him. For the first, he asks himself: How is the many possible if there is such a thing as the eternal one? And he takes his answer from the self-contradictory, self-consuming and negating character of the many. Its existence becomes for him a moral phenomenon. It is not justified, but expiates itself forever through its passing.

But then he sees another question: Why hasn't all that came-to-be passed away long since, since a whole eternity of time has passed? Whence the ever-renewed stream of coming-to-be? And from this question he can save himself only by a mystic possibility: eternal coming-to-be can have its origin only in eternal being; the conditions for the fall from being to coming-to-be in injustice are forever the same; the constellation of things is such that no end can be envisaged for the emergence of individual creatures from the womb of the indefinite. Here Anaximander stopped, which means he remained in the deep shadows which lie like gigantic ghosts upon the mountains of this world view. The closer men wanted to get to the problem of how the definite could ever fall from the indefinite, the ephemeral from the eternal, the unjust from the just, the deeper grew the night."

TLDR; because nietzsche

[RenDaHai]

Now if I may,

You spent half a dozen years immersed in Chinese buddhist philosophy and you come back to start studying Plato & Socrates? **** on my tits has no one told you about Thales, Empodocles, Anaxagoras, Anaximander, Parmenides, Heraclitus?

You know what Wenshu, for the first time, ever, I completely agree with you! That is excellent excellent advice! Thank you.

The Pre-Socratics in my mind have a much closer affinity to the Eastern thought. Reading fragments of Parmenides (his poem as opposed to the dialogue) and the other pre-socratics completely inspired me towards the greeks. But once my interest had been whetted....with Plato we have a large corpus as opposed to just fragments or reading about their lives in Diogenes.

[wenshu]

http://i.imgur.com/WTpPBpV.png

[Faux Newbie]

So reading Plato is a discipline now? Look I don't expect you to understand but the subtext of the argument is efficiency. Specifically the efficiency of executive function.



The technical jargon is 'critical thinking'. Considering how desperately you're signaling the pursuit of a liberal arts education you should probably be able to make that distinction. Or maybe the grad student teaching your intro philosophy seminar was too busy chasing coed tail (I hear that's the perk of a career in liberal arts academia) to cover that section.

Now if I may,

You spent half a dozen years immersed in Chinese buddhist philosophy and you come back to start studying Plato & Socrates? **** on my tits has no one told you about Thales, Empodocles, Anaxagoras, Anaximander, Parmenides, Heraclitus?

http://s2.quickmeme.com/img/4b/4b1cc8ee52b73a908a400e9a83b4e130687c64e1e49a8e3c8a 1a3e238e43bbad.jpg

The pre-Socratics are the closest you'll ever come to a western analogue to Eastern philosophy, sheeeeeeeeit give any pre-Socratic philosopher a Chinese name and you would hardly be able to tell the difference.


"Anaximander of Miletus, the first philosophical author of the ancients, writes exactly as one expects a typical philosopher to write when alienating demands have not yet robbed him of his innocence and naivete. That is to say, in graven stylized letters, sentence after sentence the witness to fresh illumination, each the expression of time spent in sublime meditation. Each single thought and its form is a milestone upon the path to the highest wisdom. Thus, with lapidary impressiveness, Anaximander says upon one occasion, "Where the source of things is, to that place they must also pass away, according to necessity, for they must pay penance and be judged for their injustices, in accordance with the ordinance of time."

http://i.imgur.com/NnCHEiU.jpg

Enigmatic proclamation of a true pessimist, oracular legend over the boundary stone of Greek philosophy: how shall we interpret you?

The only serious moralist of our century in Parergis (Vol. II, Chapter 12) charges us with a similar reflection.

"The proper measure with which to judge any and all human beings is that they are really creatures who should not exist at all and who are doing penance for their lives by their manifold sufferings and their death. What could we expect of such creatures? Are we not all sinners under sentence of death? We do penance for having been born, first by living and then by dying."
http://31.media.tumblr.com/cf13998070df2c4eb54b40eadedfd84f/tumblr_mn0b7tYVbV1sr7k1oo1_1280.jpg

A man who can read such a lesson in the physiognomy of our common human lot, who can recognize the basic poor quality of any and all human life in the very fact that not one of us will bear close scrutiny (although our era, infected with the biographical plague, seems to think quite different and statelier thoughts as to the dignity of man), a man who, like Schopenhauer, has heard upon the heights of India's clear air the holy word of the moral value of existence - such a man will find it difficult to keep from indulging in a highly anthropomorphic metaphor. He will extract that melancholy doctrine from its application to human life and project it unto the general quality of all existence. It may not be logical, but it certainly is human, to view now, together with Anaximander, all coming-to-be as though it were an illegitimate emancipation from eternal being, a wrong for which destruction is the only penance. Everything that has ever come-to-be again passes away, whether we think of human life or of water or of hot and cold. Wherever definite qualities are perceivable, we can prophesy, upon the basis of enormously extensive experience, the passing away of these qualities. Never, in other words, can a being which possesses definite qualities or consists of such be the origin or first principle of things. That which truly is, concludes Anaximander, cannot possess definite characteristics, or it would come-to-be and pass away like all the other things. In order that coming-to-be shall not cease, primal being must be indefinite. The immortality and everlastingness of primal being does not lie in its infinitude or its inexhaustibility, as the commentators of Anaximander generally assume, but in the fact that it is devoid of definite qualities that would lead to its passing. Hence its name, the indefinite. Thus named, the primal being is superior to that which comes to be, insuring thereby eternity and the unimpeded course of coming-to-be. This ultimate unity of the indefinite, the womb of all things, can, it is true, be designated by human speech only as a negative, as something to which the existent world of coming-to-be can give no predicate. We may look upon it as the equal of the Kantian ding an sich.

Now anyone who can quarrel as to what sort of primal stuff this could have been, whether an intermediate substance between air and water or perhaps between air and fire, has certainly not understood our philosopher at all. This is equally true of those who ask themselves seriously whether Anaximander thought of his primal substance as perhaps a mixture of all existent materials. Instead, we must direct our glance to that lapidary sentence which we cited earlier, to the place where we may learn that Anaximander was no longer dealing with the question of the origin of this world in a purely physical way. Rather, when he saw in the multiplicity of things that have come-to-be a sum of injustices that must be expiated, he grasped with bold fingers the tangle of the profoundest problem in ethics. He was the first Greek to do so. How can anything pass away which has a right to be? Whence that restless, ceaseless coming-into-being and giving birth, whence that grimace of painful disfiguration on the countenance of nature, whence the neverending dirge in all the realms of existence? From this world of injustice, of insolent apostasy from the primeval oneness of all things, Anaximander flees into a metaphysical fortress from which he leans out, letting his gaze sweep the horizon.

At last, after long pensive silence, he puts a question to all creatures: What is your existence worth? And if it is worthless, why are you here? Your guilt, I see, causes you to tarry in your existence with your death, you have to expiate it. Look how your earth is withering, how your seas are diminishing and drying up; the seashell on the mountain top can show you how much has dried up already. Even now, fire is destroying your world; some day it will go up in fumes and smoke. But ever and anew, another such world of ephemerality will construct itself. Who is there that could redeem you from the curse of coming-to-be?

http://i.imgur.com/hvlAuFu.jpg

A man who poses questions such as these, whose thinking in its upward flight kept breaking all empirical ropes, catching, instead, at superlunary ones-such a man very likely does not welcome an ordinary mode of living. We can easily credit the tradition that he walked the earth clad in an especially dignified garment and displayed a truly tragic pride in his gestures and customs of daily living. He lived as he wrote; he spoke as solemnly as he dressed; he lifted his hands and placed his feet as though this existence were a tragic drama into which he had been born to play a hero. In all these things, he was the great model for Empedocles. His fellow citizens elected him to lead a colony of emigrants. Perhaps they were glad to honor him and get rid of him at the same time. His thought, too, emigrated and founded colonies. In Ephesus and in Elea, people could not rid themselves of it, and if they could not make up their minds to remain where it left them, they also knew that they h ad been led there by it, and that it was from there they would travel on without it.

Thales demonstrated the need to simplify the realm of the many, to reduce it to the mere unfolding or masking of the one and only existent quality, water. Anaximander takes two steps beyond him. For the first, he asks himself: How is the many possible if there is such a thing as the eternal one? And he takes his answer from the self-contradictory, self-consuming and negating character of the many. Its existence becomes for him a moral phenomenon. It is not justified, but expiates itself forever through its passing.

But then he sees another question: Why hasn't all that came-to-be passed away long since, since a whole eternity of time has passed? Whence the ever-renewed stream of coming-to-be? And from this question he can save himself only by a mystic possibility: eternal coming-to-be can have its origin only in eternal being; the conditions for the fall from being to coming-to-be in injustice are forever the same; the constellation of things is such that no end can be envisaged for the emergence of individual creatures from the womb of the indefinite. Here Anaximander stopped, which means he remained in the deep shadows which lie like gigantic ghosts upon the mountains of this world view. The closer men wanted to get to the problem of how the definite could ever fall from the indefinite, the ephemeral from the eternal, the unjust from the just, the deeper grew the night."

TLDR; because nietzsche

No. You are clearly mistaken. :D

[rett2]

Very interesting reading in this thread, thanks.

Here's a science brain-teaser you might enjoy. It's related to thread topics. Solve any way you want except scrolling down to look at the answer in a later post (honour system).

Below are three images that in their own ways have been groundbreaking in the history of 20th century science.

In terms of ideas brought up in the discussion between RenDeHai and SoCo, which two images belong together (and which doesn't fit). There are two reasonable answers, so if you get both, kudos!

http://www.iucr.org/__data/assets/image/0017/19214/4_4.jpg
http://www.maplesoft.com/view.aspx?SI=4902/dnabessel_2.gif
http://plus.maths.org/content/sites/plus.maths.org/files/news/2011/Chemnobel/zn-mg-hodiffraction.jpg

[RenDaHai]

@Rett,

These are all diffraction patterns. Used to determine structure.

In terms of the argument earlier, The first represents simple 'geometric' order, the second (DNA) represents the helical structure, shall we say some 'vital' order, the third is something strange.... a form of intermediate?

Links between them? The first and last are inorganic, the second is organic (crystal, quasicrystal) vs (DNA). But also the first is simple and predictable but the next two represent something more mysterious underneath it in that they are aperiodic and can I suppose use this property to contain information (Crystal) vs (Quasicrystal, DNA).

[SoCo KungFu]

@SoCo,

Ahaha, Clearly I have stepped onto your 'territory', you think you are the only one with 'specialist' knowledge of science and as a result you want to be consulted every-time it is talked about, even so much as you want to deny me and have me stopped for talking about it. A very very bad aspect of behaviour.
Consulted? Do you see me picking apart posts by Sanjuro or Syn when they talk physics/engineering? Or Wenshu et. al. when they go philosophical? No dipweed, you don't. I tear apart arguments when they are blatantly stupid, such as your own. And like an idiot you go on all butt hurt about the evil professional trying to clam up the lay speak... Literally; you, Marathon Matt (when he gets all anti evolutionary science), HardWork108 (long since banned) and HSKWarrior are the only ones I stab into. Of all the people here. That should tell you something. Such as, the idiots need to talk less and read more.


Clearly you want to show you are knowledgable about science, yet you can't even see there is a difference to the way energy is stored by a leaf to be used at a later date and energy simply absorbed by a piece of metal. Instead of talking about the difference you have simply insulted me. When I asked a rhetorical question 'Can it release it in a months time?' You actually thought I was asking the question????? I was demonstrating the difference.
Rhetoric is the purview of those knowledgeable on said subject of question. Something of which you have demonstrated are in great want. You are not allowed rhetorical power here. I was not answering, I was correcting.


If you do indeed possess some qualification (it doesn't matter to me, you have every right to talk about it whether you do or not) I assure you your tutor would be ashamed of you reading your responses to this thread.
Do you know the difference between ad hominem and a simple insult? This is ad hominem. On the other hand, my responses to you, up til now, have been straight old fashioned insult. I'll let you google the difference.


I pointed out clearly there is a difference in the type of order between a symmetrical lattice and DNA, instead of talking about it (which a sicentist would have done) you have blanked it and taken my words out of context.
Clearly? Anything but. You haven't made one "clear" post in this entire thread. You have repeatedly butchered and misrepresented the fundamental concepts you are now attempting to portray. I ignored this part because I was tired of correcting you.


If you know what I am trying to say, then answer that don't just insult.
I already have, multiple times, before you even brought up the question in fact. That's the difference between you and I. I have an actual understanding of the fundamentals. You decided to skip horse stance and jump right into *******izing everything from crystalline structure to x-ray crystalography to biochem. Everything I have responded to you with are basics. Basics which, if you had a grasp of, this entire thread would likely not have been made. At the very least, you wouldn't have made this ridiculous part of your post. You want me to lecture you on modern atomic orbital theory? Energetic and charge of electrons and how that dictates reactive site of an atom? Kinetics and thermodynamics of chemical reaction? How these concepts ultimately dictate (macro)molecular structure? My fee is around $4500 for a 5 month term. Less than what a university would charge you for what would otherwise be 2 to 2.5 years of an undergrad degree. I didn't spend years (and money) getting this education so I can give it all away for free. Consider my butchering of your post a gift. I'm letting you know what you don't know. Go empty your **** cup and try again in a few years bub. I've been giving you drops this whole time, you've simply yet to catch on.


I don't even know how to correspond with you, you are quite unreasonable.
Oh the ironing

[sanjuro_ronin]

gentlemen, for the last time, be civil please.

[SoCo KungFu]

Here's a science brain-teaser you might enjoy. It's related to thread topics. Solve any way you want except scrolling down to look at the answer in a later post (honour system).

1. Xray crystallography
2. Xray crystallography
3. Electron diffraction patterning

conversely

1. Zinc (obviously inorganic)
2. DNA (obviously organic)
3. Quasicrystal (Inorganic)

A better question would be why are these 3 similar (this is ultimately the root of my problem with this thread actually). Heck, one is even part of the compound making up another. (and its not the one most are probably thinking)

See this thread is indicative of a greater problem in modern thought. More and more these questions are being stripped away from the monopoly of philosophical thought, and are more and more answerable by science. All this nonsense being spewed in this thread by a certain individual can be, if not explained, conceptualized into a hypothesis under scientific conditions. But lay persons decry this because it quickly leaves the scope of their understanding. The solution isn't to dumb down the talk. The solution is for those individuals to get up to speed or get left behind. And this is why I don't stay up late at night in internal debate on the basis of consciousness.

It also demonstrates here the danger in misuse of term. Its quite clear that RDH doesn't understand the basics in play. He is continually incorrectly interpreting contrasts such as organic/inorg and conflating them with a/periodic (the latter he is at least getting part right) and other notions such as using the mathematical concept of order and conflating it with pseudophilosophical disorder. This is not all that different than when TGY used to berate individuals for mixing concepts of TCM and mainstream western med when trying to talk health/medicine. It is equally inappropriate. Stick to one or the other, bringing in both simply drags both down in the mud of inaccuracy.

[RenDaHai]

I already have, multiple times, before you even brought up the question in fact. That's the difference between you and I. I have an actual understanding of the fundamentals. You decided to skip horse stance and jump right into *******izing everything from crystalline structure to x-ray crystalography to biochem. Everything I have responded to you with are basics. Basics which, if you had a grasp of, this entire thread would likely not have been made. At the very least, you wouldn't have made this ridiculous part of your post. You want me to lecture you on modern atomic orbital theory? Energetic and charge of electrons and how that dictates reactive site of an atom? Kinetics and thermodynamics of chemical reaction? How these concepts ultimately dictate (macro)molecular structure?

If you look from the beginning of this post; I add a reference I stumbled upon because I thought it was fun and interesting, about socrates standing still. It is interesting, you don't need qualifications to appreciate it. Then I talked about memory, because it is interesting. Seemingly inert matter does not have memory like life forms do, The causal chain is simpler without memory. A lot of people don't consider this when they think of determinism.

I don't go into detail on the fundamentals because I don't need to, not because I have no appreciation of them. We exist within a threshold of consciousness where we cannot perceive directly a lot of the things you want to talk about. You don't need to talk about macro molecular structure to experience memory or to notice the difference in organisation between a leaf and a rock. That is why I don't start with them. We can talk about them in a purely conceptual and intuitive way. This way includes everyone.

[RenDaHai]

It also demonstrates here the danger in misuse of term.

I actually agree with you. But that was your initial confusion. I was specifically not using technical language but normal vague language. When most people say 'Organic' they mean living matter, they don't mean Methane, Hydrocarbons and Organic chemistry. When most people say inertia they are not thinking of Newtons first law very specifically. If we start enforcing this kind of terminology in idle speech we will never get anything said and there will be contradictions between disciplines.

[wenshu]

If you look from the beginning of this post; I add a reference I stumbled upon because I thought it was fun and interesting, about socrates standing still. It is interesting, you don't need qualifications to appreciate it. Then I talked about memory, because it is interesting. Seemingly inert matter does not have memory like life forms do, The causal chain is simpler without memory. A lot of people don't consider this when they think of determinism.

You start out good but then you double down on the 'stoned college student reconciles metaphysics and the scientific method' rhetorical strategy.

[rett2]

1. Zinc (obviously inorganic)


Zinc? You think that's zinc? Zinc is an hcp metal. Do you think that looks like a single-species trigonal unit cell? What axis are you looking along?

It’s cubic viewed along [111] the threefold symmetry axis. This is the zinc-blende structure, a cubic unit cell of zinc sulphide. It's also one of the most basic reference structures. It's probably the threefold symmetry that threw you off (three... hexagonal.... easy mistake to make). Happens to sophmores typically.

Still, thanks for your answer. Parts of this thread have been very interesting and stimulating.

[SoCo KungFu]

Zinc? You think that's zinc? Zinc is an hcp metal. Do you think that looks like a single-species trigonal unit cell? What axis are you looking along?

It’s cubic viewed along [111] the threefold symmetry axis. This is the zinc-blende structure, a cubic unit cell of zinc sulphide. It's also one of the most basic reference structures. It's probably the threefold symmetry that threw you off (three... hexagonal.... easy mistake to make). Happens to sophmores typically.

Still, thanks for your answer. Parts of this thread have been very interesting and stimulating.

Yes and no. I really just didn't care to go into the detail at this point. ZnS is the most common natural form of Zn, is it not? Wee fun quiz, its been years since I looked at this stuff actually. I'm a biologist, my association with chem is supplementary. Don't give away which element is comprised in another of your images. That'd be no fun for others.

[Faux Newbie]

To be honest, I do think it is the case that memory does affect judgment and causality, I only differ in that I don't think it reduces determinism, but adds elements to causal chains that define it in other ways. Although the object in memory is not "real" (though the electrical impulses and sections of the brain that contain that judgment are real), it is treated as real and may thus be acted upon. We think the bad girlfriend from years past will be fun for one more go, we convince ourselves it will be fine based on old memories, and next thing we know, we have seventy texts a day and a goat's head nailed to our door.

[wenshu]

Zinc? You think that's zinc? Zinc is an hcp metal. Do you think that looks like a single-species trigonal unit cell? What axis are you looking along?

It’s cubic viewed along [111] the threefold symmetry axis. This is the zinc-blende structure, a cubic unit cell of zinc sulphide. It's also one of the most basic reference structures. It's probably the threefold symmetry that threw you off (three... hexagonal.... easy mistake to make). Happens to sophmores typically.

congratulations

is there a prize for stumping SoCo?

[rett2]

Yes and no. I really just didn't care to go into the detail at this point. ZnS is the most common natural form of Zn, is it not? Wee fun quiz, its been years since I looked at this stuff actually. I'm a biologist, my association with chem is supplementary. Don't give away which element is comprised in another of your images. That'd be no fun for others.

You didn't care to go into detail. I see. You consider it ok to speak generally and not worry about distinguishing between basic terms and getting too technical.

Well I agree. It's totally okay to do that. We can have a much more interesting discussion that way. I'm looking forward.

[SoCo KungFu]

Since we're getting into pictures. Crystal, memory, pretty images oh myyy...

This is the subject of exactly 1 paragraph in a cell biol text I own which is comprised of over 1200 pages. Its implicated in long term potentiation, and thus, related to behavioral memory.

8841

[wenshu]

To be honest, I do think it is the case that memory does affect judgment and causality, I only differ in that I don't think it reduces determinism, but adds elements to causal chains that define it in other ways. Although the object in memory is not "real" (though the electrical impulses and sections of the brain that contain that judgment are real), it is treated as real and may thus be acted upon. We think the bad girlfriend from years past will be fun for one more go, we convince ourselves it will be fine based on old memories, and next thing we know, we have seventy texts a day and a goat's head nailed to our door.

The problem is that your approach seems to assume that all agency is conscious agency. What about subconscious agency? If it is influenced by memory, how?

[SoCo KungFu]

You didn't care to go into detail. I see. You consider it ok to speak generally and not worry about distinguishing between basic terms and getting too technical.

Well I agree. It's totally okay to do that. We can have a much more interesting discussion that way. I'm looking forward.


Yes and no.

You are bordering closely to the realm of strawman. Check yourself

[Faux Newbie]

The problem is that your approach seems to assume that all agency is conscious agency. What about subconscious agency? If it is influenced by memory, how?

That's a good point. To which I have no answer, since I don't know the link between memory and the subconscious. Interesting.

One issue I would say in relation is that, since we equate free will with conscious decision, I'm not sure that the agency of the subconscious mind can be considered free will, instead of just another cause causing effect on the conscious mind and determining choices.

[SoCo KungFu]

congratulations

is there a prize for stumping SoCo?

He gets one freeby. Which he potentially already used up, haven't decided on that one yet.

[RenDaHai]

8842

Beautiful...

[wenshu]

That's a good point. To which I have no answer, since I don't know the link between memory and the subconscious. Interesting.

One issue I would say in relation is that, since we equate free will with conscious decision, I'm not sure that the agency of the subconscious mind can be considered free will, instead of just another cause causing effect on the conscious mind and determining choices.

And since we can't quantify consciousness we can't determine the degree to which the unconscious influences the conscious (I'm willing to bet its close to 90%). The unconscious is likely where behavioral conditioning is expressed (if it is 'expressed' at any level of consciousness at all) and that could be considered memory.

A man buys a nice car, not because he likes nice cars but because he knows women like nice cars. Conscious agency in a complex casual chain driven by the subconscious expression of a biological drive, mitigated by behavioral conditioning (memory?).

Memory conditions unfreewill.

QED *****ES

[wenshu]

He gets one freeby. Which he potentially already used up, haven't decided on that one yet.

I think he lucked out that this segment of "What the Bleep Does 人大海 Know" happened to center on his area of professional expertise.

I can play too,

In the programming language of your choice write a function that takes an NxN array and rotates it 90 degrees clockwise.

[Faux Newbie]

And since we can't quantify consciousness we can't determine the degree to which the unconscious influences the conscious (I'm willing to bet its close to 90%). The unconscious is likely where behavioral conditioning is expressed (if it is 'expressed' at any level of consciousness at all) and that could be considered memory.

A man buys a nice car, not because he likes nice cars but because he knows women like nice cars. Conscious agency in a complex casual chain driven by the subconscious expression of a biological drive, mitigated by behavioral conditioning (memory?).

Memory conditions unfreewill.

QED *****ES

I would agree. Even what memory comes up may be driven by unconscious processes.

We are robots that poop. In Japan, they are already replacing us with robots that poop cute animals.

[Faux Newbie]

In the programming language of your choice write a function that takes an NxN array and rotates it 90 degrees clockwise.

I really hate you guys. Can't a guy just meditate without involving chemistry and programming?:D

[SoCo KungFu]

I think he lucked out that this segment of "What the Bleep Does 人大海 Know" happened to center on his area of professional expertise.

I can play too,

In the programming language of your choice write a function that takes an NxN array and rotates it 90 degrees clockwise.

Possibly, given the entire 3 posts of this individual's existence are directed toward yours truly (should I be blushing?)

That said, this is the process. I "cross train" in chemistry and physics and logic and philosophy [I don't consider logic and phi to be the same; personally (and I guess this could be another thread) I consider all the above to be subsets of logic, but anyways] and math (well to be fair math is the MMA to my kung fu, aka it makes me its b!tch). Its just that chem is the medium for which the laws of physics express themselves biologically. I'm not a professional chemist by any stretch. Which sort of puts to task the ludicrous notion that laypersons cannot engage a subject at its technical level.

The only programming language I am vaguely familiar with is one section of c++ years ago. **** you unfreewill! **** you! I did finally manage to apply enough math to crank out a basic dynamic state bioenergetics model. Granted it wasn't really programming, more an interpretive language.

[wenshu]

I would agree. Even what memory comes up may be driven by unconscious processes.

We are robots that poop. In Japan, they are already replacing us with robots that poop cute animals.

Yes, so how exactly does the subconscious utilize memory when it's ordering the conscious mind to ****, eat and ****?

The behavioral conditioning = memory is a conflation of declarative memory / procedural memory / hardwired behaviors. Neuro-biologically we know almost as little about memory as we do about consciousness.

[wenshu]

I "cross train" in chemistry and physics and logic and philosophy [I don't consider logic and phi to be the same; personally (and I guess this could be another thread) I consider all the above to be subsets of logic, but anyways] and math (well to be fair math is the MMA to my kung fu, aka it makes me its b!tch).

Modern analytical philosophy and computer science can both be reduced to mathematical logic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambda_calculus

[Faux Newbie]

Yes, so how exactly does the subconscious utilize memory when it's ordering the conscious mind to ****, eat and ****?

Dictate what to f, what to eat, and what one reads while one does the latter?


The behavioral conditioning = memory is a conflation of declarative memory / procedural memory / hardwired behaviors. Neuro-biologically we know almost as little about memory as we do about consciousness.

I don't think he was saying behavioral conditioning=memory. I think his assertion is that memory can shape decision making, but maybe I misread.

[RenDaHai]

In my very first post on memory (the drunk one) I mentioned the sensation of a pain.

The 'duration' of the sensation is going to dictate how it affects your action.

Similarly if a memory is represented to my consciousness, the longer I focus on it, the longer I hold it in mind the more different aspects it will have. This means that any power it has over my action is going to be variable with the duration it is represented. This adds another level of complication to this problem.

What I was alluding to is that 'free will', if it exists, may have something to do with the way time is represented to the consciousness

[wenshu]

Dictate what to f, what to eat, and what one reads while one does the latter?

As I was trying to point out, those are all choices that can very easily be determined by behavioral conditioning.


I don't think he was saying behavioral conditioning=memory. I think his assertion is that memory can shape decision making, but maybe I misread.

I was referring to the conflation of the two in my arguments.

[SoCo KungFu]

I don't think we know enough about memory or consciousness to determine where each intersects into a concept such as "free will." Other than to say, this issue can probably be dealt with without invoking either. In the very post above, RDH eliminates the point he previously brought up, because in this way of defining the context of free will, it is not a thing at all, but an illusion of a thing.

On the matter of subconscious processing and memory. This is where we have to become more specific in our wording. Its unfortunate that TGY isn't around, because he would be the one most able to weigh in here. Particularly on autonomic vs somatic neural functioning. However, on the point of behavioral conditioning. Behavioral conditioning is not equivalent to memory. Learned memory (which is a bit redundant in wording) is merely one point of behavioral conditioning. A great deal of our behavior is predetermined before we ever begin gathering knowledge. This is by way of our genetics and epigenetics. For example, sociopathy depending on the physiological cause, can dictate both our memory (by limiting our experienced stimuli; such as in the case of empathy and oxytocin receptor polymorphism) and our behavior both based and not based on said memory [in other words, not only will they not empathize and behave accordingly due to learned feelings of hurt/joy/whatever but they will also not empathize instinctually (whatever the hell "instinct" actually is neurologically, or rather what things it is comprised of, since its a combination of multiple primitive neurochemical processes)]. This is of course dependent on there being an evolutionary basis for empathy in our genes. I believe there is enough evidence to suggest there is and it is not limited to humans. Epigenetically, we see enough with rodent parental care studies to illustrate how this can impact lifelong behavior such as social activity, mating, parental care, cooperation, etc. Of course, again, this is dependent upon one accepting that these chemical pathways are evolutionarily conserved up through to us humans. And again, at this point it is becoming borderline ludicrous to argue otherwise, I feel.

[wenshu]

On the matter of subconscious processing and memory. This is where we have to become more specific in our wording. Its unfortunate that TGY isn't around, because he would be the one most able to weigh in here. Particularly on autonomic vs somatic neural functioning. However, on the point of behavioral conditioning. Behavioral conditioning is not equivalent to memory. Learned memory (which is a bit redundant in wording) is merely one point of behavioral conditioning. A great deal of our behavior is predetermined before we ever begin gathering knowledge. This is by way of our genetics and epigenetics.

I purposely didn't mention behavioral genetics because any philosophical conversation about consciousness, memory & freedom of the will can never reach any reasonable level of precision and clarity whereas genetics has a relatively precise degree of objective empirical observation at its disposal. In other words I think this is a conversation that needs to stay muddled; keep your demands for scientific rigor and technical precision out of this. If I was going to add behavioral genetics I would just call it Instinct? Or is a tangent on the technical relationship between a genetic behavior and a biological drive necessary now to come to a consensus on an acceptable generalization?

In any case if I found myself to have improperly conflated behavioral conditioning with memory earlier then I do not think we can reasonably assume the exact nature and degree of the interface between the subconscious and nervous system function. Autonomic function is easily observed but we don't have those same tools at our disposal to measure consciousness/subconsciousness itself. We can only speculate about the interface between one entity which we can observe with a startling degree of technical precision and another that we know exists but can only kinda sorta vaguely speculate about.

The problem is architectural. We know how most of the pieces work we just don't understand how they work together to produce a result that we don't even have a clear definition for in the first place. So we are reduced to the coarse generalizations of cursory Philosophy of the Mind which is inherently antagonistic to the method that produces any objective empirical data we can generate about physiology. It feels similar to the distinctive cognitive dissonance produced when you see someone try to awkwardly apply modern western cultural heuristics to traditional eastern cultures.

Its already such a muddled topic, scientific rigor will just add more confusion.

[rett2]

@Rett,

These are all diffraction patterns. Used to determine structure.

In terms of the argument earlier, The first represents simple 'geometric' order, the second (DNA) represents the helical structure, shall we say some 'vital' order, the third is something strange.... a form of intermediate?

Links between them? The first and last are inorganic, the second is organic (crystal, quasicrystal) vs (DNA). But also the first is simple and predictable but the next two represent something more mysterious underneath it in that they are aperiodic and can I suppose use this property to contain information (Crystal) vs (Quasicrystal, DNA).

These are exactly the answers I was thinking of. I really like this idea of aperiodic crystals being able to carry information. It's like you need a combination of two things: a regular backbone to hang things up on, and varying (within set limits) content at sites along the backbone. This is similar to information-bearing electronic signals and, I believe is fundamental to our awareness of reality. Most of our nervous system’s activity has to run on autopilot to keep us alive (hence no awareness) but changes and innovations reach the light of awareness (shifting sensory data, learning, volition).

Do we have free will? Of course we do. Free will exists, at least it is as real as anything else in our world. Saying so may incur the "mockery [of the] bankrupts of rationalism" as Erwin Schrödinger describes them, but I think it's blatantly obvious. Free will is how we experience reality, and as such it is just as real as my coffee-maker. At an ultimate level they're both "just atoms", but that level doesn't help us live our lives. We live according to meaning. To me, that assembly of atoms is a coffee maker, and to all of us, people have free will.

Those who claim free will is an illusion don't live according to that idea. They still believe people are responsible for their actions, at least they act as if they believe it.

[rett2]

The problem is architectural. We know how most of the pieces work we just don't understand how they work together to produce a result that we don't even have a clear definition for in the first place. So we are reduced to the coarse generalizations of cursory Philosophy of the Mind which is inherently antagonistic to the method that produces any objective empirical data we can generate about physiology. It feels similar to the distinctive cognitive dissonance produced when you see someone try to awkwardly apply modern western cultural heuristics to traditional eastern cultures.

Its already such a muddled topic, scientific rigor will just add more confusion.

I have the greatest respect for both science and for introspective practices. As far as I'm concerned they are equally valid ways of approaching an ultimately unfathomable reality, but they have different purposes. Science does not erode, damage or take away anything from introspective practice. What science can do is take away social capital from religious or philosophical figures who base their power or status on dogmas about how the world is constructed.

Determining structures by X-ray crystallography involves processes where electromagnatic radation is viewed as quantized particles (the generation of x-rays) and as waves (diffraction). Both are useful approximations, but the underlying reality is unfathomable to use. We can't picture the wave function (unsquared), as it is inamenable to our intuition. By analogy, I suggest that experience as we perceive it, and the models of experimental science are also equally valid ways of viewing reality that do not contradict one another. However that goes both ways. Meditators can't tell scientists what physical reality is composed of and how it works, and scientists cannot tell meditators what life means. (Not just meditators, but any thinking person in the arts and humanities or anyone just engaged with the quandries of life.)

Even if science measures the brain waves of meditators, or learns to model a human being down to tiniest level, it will never touch meaning and experience. As Schrödinger observed, physical models exclude experience at the outset.

[rett2]

I don't think we know enough about memory or consciousness to determine where each intersects into a concept such as "free will." Other than to say, this issue can probably be dealt with without invoking either. In the very post above, RDH eliminates the point he previously brought up, because in this way of defining the context of free will, it is not a thing at all, but an illusion of a thing.

On the matter of subconscious processing and memory. This is where we have to become more specific in our wording. Its unfortunate that TGY isn't around, because he would be the one most able to weigh in here. Particularly on autonomic vs somatic neural functioning. However, on the point of behavioral conditioning. Behavioral conditioning is not equivalent to memory. Learned memory (which is a bit redundant in wording) is merely one point of behavioral conditioning. A great deal of our behavior is predetermined before we ever begin gathering knowledge. This is by way of our genetics and epigenetics. For example, sociopathy depending on the physiological cause, can dictate both our memory (by limiting our experienced stimuli; such as in the case of empathy and oxytocin receptor polymorphism) and our behavior both based and not based on said memory [in other words, not only will they not empathize and behave accordingly due to learned feelings of hurt/joy/whatever but they will also not empathize instinctually (whatever the hell "instinct" actually is neurologically, or rather what things it is comprised of, since its a combination of multiple primitive neurochemical processes)]. This is of course dependent on there being an evolutionary basis for empathy in our genes. I believe there is enough evidence to suggest there is and it is not limited to humans. Epigenetically, we see enough with rodent parental care studies to illustrate how this can impact lifelong behavior such as social activity, mating, parental care, cooperation, etc. Of course, again, this is dependent upon one accepting that these chemical pathways are evolutionarily conserved up through to us humans. And again, at this point it is becoming borderline ludicrous to argue otherwise, I feel.

How does neurobiology explain such intangible things as arrogance and a need to build up one's self esteem by insulting others, and by pedantically quibbling over words?

[rett2]

In my very first post on memory (the drunk one) I mentioned the sensation of a pain.

The 'duration' of the sensation is going to dictate how it affects your action.

Similarly if a memory is represented to my consciousness, the longer I focus on it, the longer I hold it in mind the more different aspects it will have. This means that any power it has over my action is going to be variable with the duration it is represented. This adds another level of complication to this problem.

What I was alluding to is that 'free will', if it exists, may have something to do with the way time is represented to the consciousness

I'm not sure how much bearing this has, but there's definitely an ideational side to how we react to sensations, such as of pain. It's not that our reactions are necessarily affected in a certain way. (That may not be what you were implying either)

People with chronic pain can apparently be helped immensely by mindfulness training, for example. They can change their reactions (I don't mean chemical reactions, in case anyone's waiting to pounce) and not build up painful thoughts about life being meaningless, there's nothing worthwhile life to live for and stuff like that. I believe even the pain itself can be reduced.

For example a classic and very powerful TV documentary https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PEJGPuPFIvc

[RenDaHai]

I'm not sure how much bearing this has, but there's definitely an ideational side to how we react to sensations, such as of pain. It's not that our reactions are necessarily affected in a certain way. (That may not be what you were implying either)


Absolutely.

What I am implying though is to think about the nature of time itself and how we experience it as opposed to how we model it;

When you watch a movie, you are not seeing movement. It is an illusion. You are seeing 24 static moments placed next to each other and your mind does the rest. There is an infinite difference between this and actual movement. People think of time as pixelated, but what if its not? What if its moments are overlapping and interpenetrating? We model processes based on instantaneous moments but this is an approximation to make things comprehensible. Its the gap between moments that is interesting. An interaction while its happening, not before and after. What if time itself is heterogeneous, non uniform? I think there is still plenty of room for mysteries....

[RenDaHai]

Even if science measures the brain waves of meditators, or learns to model a human being down to tiniest level, it will never touch meaning and experience. As Schrödinger observed, physical models exclude experience at the outset.

There is a wonderful myth the ancients had about the golden age of man. Its a kind of surviving idea they had of man before civilisation, they knew they were primitive in ways but yet they envied them:

And they dwelt naked, and mostly in the open air, for the temperature of their seasons was mild; and they had no beds, but lay on soft couches of grass, which grew plentifully out of the earth. Such was the life of man in the days of Cronos, Socrates; the character of our present life, which is said to be under Zeus, you know from your own experience. Can you, and will you, determine which of them you deem the happier? Suppose that the children of Cronos, having this boundless leisure, and the power of holding intercourse, not only with men, but with the animals of creation, had used all these advantages with a view to philosophy, conversing with the animals as well as with one another, and learning of every nature which was gifted with any special power, and was able to contribute some special experience to the store of wisdom, there would be no difficulty in deciding that they would be a thousand times happier than the men of our own day.
('The Statesman' c.350 Bc)

I love this idea he thinks that by conversing with animals of their different experiences he could gain wisdom and so be happier. It think this legend preserves what they felt at the time, that the way of civilised society somewhat deprived them of intuition, something they mourned the loss of. In the first post of this thread, I think that is what Socrates is doing when he stands still, reconnecting with his nature.

[MarathonTmatt]

I love this idea he thinks that by conversing with animals of their different experiences he could gain wisdom and so be happier. It think this legend preserves what they felt at the time, that the way of civilised society somewhat deprived them of intuition, something they mourned the loss of. In the first post of this thread, I think that is what Socrates is doing when he stands still, reconnecting with his nature.

I like that you brought this point up. There was a time when I spent a lot of time outside in nature, more so than now. It wasn't too uncommon for me to hike to different places and then sit or stand on boulders, rocks, ledges, etc. for hours at a time in stillness. (This is actually how I used to shake off stress from work instead of doing drugs or going to a bar like I've seen so many other people do.) I saw a lot of hawks and eagles fly overhead this way. This is a good way to observe nature "in action". I even had a deer walk right up to me one time, it was right in my space, looking me up and down for like 5 minutes. When you slow down, and your heartbeat is less erratic and you are removed from the noise of car horns and people swearing at each other, and the television, there really is a difference.

Tom Brown Wilderness Survival interview: parts 1 and 3. In part 3 (2nd link) he goes more into getting in tune with the rythms of nature:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XcdedGuXFa0&feature=player_detailpage

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xhYKlHWsUiA&feature=player_detailpage

[rett2]

Absolutely.

What I am implying though is to think about the nature of time itself and how we experience it as opposed to how we model it;

When you watch a movie, you are not seeing movement. It is an illusion. You are seeing 24 static moments placed next to each other and your mind does the rest. There is an infinite difference between this and actual movement. People think of time as pixelated, but what if its not? What if its moments are overlapping and interpenetrating? We model processes based on instantaneous moments but this is an approximation to make things comprehensible. Its the gap between moments that is interesting. An interaction while its happening, not before and after. What if time itself is heterogeneous, non uniform? I think there is still plenty of room for mysteries....

In relation to this, I find it interesting how differently one can perceive a piece of music if one just listens, compared to if one watches the digital timer ticking away as it plays. Music unfolds in time according to its own pacings, while laying a raster over it surprisingly deflates it, as well as setting up anticipations that clash with the music's anticipations. For example, it's ending in 15 seconds... like a countdown to a rocket launch. The slow ebbing out of the music is thrashed by the quantized countdown.

[David Jamieson]

Frigging intellectual arguments...

Lovely.

Hey, quit making fun of Zinc.

Zinc + Copper = Brass.

Stay Brassy.

[wenshu]

Frigging intellectual arguments...

Lovely.

Hey, quit making fun of Zinc.

Zinc + Copper = Brass.

Stay Brassy.

Hey that's pretty good jimmersahn, signature worthy if you're into that sort of thing.

[wenshu]

I have the greatest respect for both science and for introspective practices. As far as I'm concerned they are equally valid ways of approaching an ultimately unfathomable reality, but they have different purposes. Science does not erode, damage or take away anything from introspective practice. What science can do is take away social capital from religious or philosophical figures who base their power or status on dogmas about how the world is constructed.

Determining structures by X-ray crystallography involves processes where electromagnatic radation is viewed as quantized particles (the generation of x-rays) and as waves (diffraction). Both are useful approximations, but the underlying reality is unfathomable to use. We can't picture the wave function (unsquared), as it is inamenable to our intuition. By analogy, I suggest that experience as we perceive it, and the models of experimental science are also equally valid ways of viewing reality that do not contradict one another. However that goes both ways. Meditators can't tell scientists what physical reality is composed of and how it works, and scientists cannot tell meditators what life means. (Not just meditators, but any thinking person in the arts and humanities or anyone just engaged with the quandries of life.)

Even if science measures the brain waves of meditators, or learns to model a human being down to tiniest level, it will never touch meaning and experience.

#truthfacts

Is the question to the meditator "What life means?" or should we start from something more immediately practical? The structure, composition, type and duration of thoughts. Science can't observe my mind, but I can. It just so happens that these observations are useless and cannot be aggregated into a meaningful model. This is irrelevant to the practitioner because the purpose initially is the physio-neurological adaptation that results from rigorous disciplining of the attention.


As Schrödinger observed, physical models exclude experience at the outset.

Schrodinger made quite a few startling observations about the very topics at hand. What is Life mentions aperiodic crystals + genetics, consciousness, and free will vs determinism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_Is_Life%3F


...living matter, while not eluding the "laws of physics" as established up to date, is likely to involve "other laws of physics" hitherto unknown, which however, once they have been revealed, will form just as integral a part of science as the former.

The only possible alternative is simply to keep to the immediate experience that consciousness is a singular of which the plural is unknown; that there is only one thing and that what seems to be a plurality is merely a series of different aspects of this one thing...

[rett2]

#truthfacts

Is the question to the meditator "What life means?" or should we start from something more immediately practical? The structure, composition, type and duration of thoughts. Science can't observe my mind, but I can. It just so happens that these observations are useless and cannot be aggregated into a meaningful model. This is irrelevant to the practitioner because the purpose initially is the physio-neurological adaptation that results from rigorous disciplining of the attention.

Yeah I agree, thanks for clarifying.

Meaning is something we ascribe to life. It's not an answer, like 42. It's about values, about firmly resolving to realize those values in practice, and about taking concrete steps to realize these values. Introspective practices like you describe can help us do this, even if our values are worldly things like family or meaningful work (including science) or many other things.

Often we have mental or emotional obstructions that prevent us from clarifying our values and putting them into action. I have many such obstructions. Meditative practices, or even just some of the "tricks" that meditation teachers give you for handling the mind, can help reduce the power these obstructions have over us.

If we decide we value something like ending suffering (the Buddhist goal) then I believe it would be very difficult to do this without rigorously applying an introspective practice. And then, just as you say, it's more important to work the practice, not search for theoretical answers.



Schrodinger made quite a few startling observations about the very topics at hand. What is Life mentions aperiodic crystals + genetics, consciousness, and free will vs determinism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_Is_Life%3F

Yeah he's an interesting figure. A quantitative natural scientist on par with Einstein, and also a pantheist who took inspiration from the Upanishads.

[Syn7]

Does anyone here think there is no benefit to the body and mind from doing something like yoga?

Despite my lack of belief in the so called spiritual connection, I do find many of these practices to be beneficial to my overall well being.

[David Jamieson]

Does anyone here think there is no benefit to the body and mind from doing something like yoga?

Despite my lack of belief in the so called spiritual connection, I do find many of these practices to be beneficial to my overall well being.

Yeah, the spiritual aspect I leave out as well. However, that's because of my own ignorance really having never had a spiritual experience per se.
I do find meditation and yoga and kung fu practice to be physically and mentally refreshing though.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Does anyone here think there is no benefit to the body and mind from doing something like yoga?

Despite my lack of belief in the so called spiritual connection, I do find many of these practices to be beneficial to my overall well being.

I find yoga over rated or perhaps over "indulged" as a fad.

[Syn7]

I find yoga over rated or perhaps over "indulged" as a fad.

Yeah, when I said yoga I wondered if that comment was coming. I mean yoga the concept, not the self indulgent douchebag non gluten vegan electric car phenomenon that surrounds it in our culture. Same with kung fu. There is the fad then there is the good stuff. You can wear jammies and play studio warrior or you can actually train for real.

When criticizing tai chi(the more esoteric aspects), some people have asked me that if it wasn't as advertised then why do people who do it seem better off and live longer. My answer is that anyone doing fully extended movements covering most muscle groups while focusing their breath and mind will find benefit in that. I honestly don't think that the specific movements in any form have to be done as is. It's just that people are doing physical activity in such a manner that injury is far less likely yet physical enough to have a noticeable benefit. Know what I mean? The guy who walks 2 km everyday has a better chance at living a longer life with less injury than the guy eating chips watching reality tv. There is nothing mystical about that.

Why should it surprise people that western cultures of old had also realized that exercise like this can be a good thing?

Anyone who has tried it knows that stretching feels great and has many health benefits. The more muscle groups you target, the better you feel. Within reason, that is. I don't know where that line of diminishing returns lies, but I do know that I haven't found it myself. I always feel like I could stretch more, focus more.

[MarathonTmatt]

It's just that people are doing physical activity in such a manner that injury is far less likely yet physical enough to have a noticeable benefit. Know what I mean? The guy who walks 2 km everyday has a better chance at living a longer life with less injury than the guy eating chips watching reality tv. There is nothing mystical about that.


I like this post. You are totally right. Years ago at my old job (my full time job I had straight out of high school for 7-8 years), things could get repetitive there everyday. Everybody did a lot of overtime and it was physical work. Not as hard as construction or something like that, but still manual labor. And in retail (produce dept.- the fruit and veggie section at a very busy location and popular grocery chain) customers/ etc. can in fact get under people's skin sometimes. I would notice that several older guys I knew in the Meat dept. had surgery around their shoulder blades (rotator cuffs?) because of repetitive labor cutting meats over X number of years. Even one kid my age, and he was a hard-working tough kid from El Salvador, had to go to the hospital and get his spine injected with fluid at one point. (some of those produce boxes can be sort of/ kind of heavy, like potatos, and again there is the every-day repetition and overtime.) And in the retail, it is all about these merchants making capital (revenue- a profit.) They will cut corners in terms of when work-space and even workers is concerned, even when profits are going up and up, experiencing exponential growth each year. My old manager who hired me always complained that when the location opened, part of the space that was from the old grocery store at the same location was leased to a Wine and Spirits shop, instead of using the much-needed space for the grocery chain, because money talks. And sometimes it is that one customer that can make or break your day. When stocking up the sales floor, one is the perfect target for someone in a bad mood to unleash their frustrations upon. I always think back that when I was younger, and my mother was cleaning the house, say, the bathroom, and my brothers and I would run around and be obnoxious she would give us a piece of her mind and we would be banished to go outside. Yet if one is plugging away doing their work in a retail environment and someone is in a real bad mood, we have to kiss these people's butts or we lose our job. It just doesn't make any sense (well, I understand why, the company wants the customer coming back again and again to spend their money).

Anyway, like I touched on in an earlier post, I did a lot of hiking in the woods, working out, even trained for and ran the Boston Marathon to deal with stress, and to strengthen myself without limit. One of the people I worked with was a middle-aged martial artist who turned me on to the arts- he spent 3 years in China and the whole thing, he was really my first coach. I would work on my "single whip" technique while stacking bananas (pluck the stem from the box and palm it on the display case.) Soon I went out and found other teachers as well, one in Tai Chi Quan and the other in Long Fist (Hua Quan). Oh yeah, and I eventually did have the opportunity to "grow" with this company, the grocery chain, but in the end I wasn't interested in "moving up." Although there were plenty of good times at this job, a lot of people I worked with just drank I think, and if they had 2 jobs, were coke-heads for sure.

But yes- people who work out smart are likely to live longer than those who do not. For a western example, look at Jack Lelane.

[MarathonTmatt]

Millencolin- No Cigar:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5_Ta0oXRtxo&feature=player_detailpage

Rancid- Cktails:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ljMbG1RoHRc&feature=player_detailpage

Down By Law- No Equalizer:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7P5b-s5hs7Q&feature=player_detailpage

Bouncing Souls- Kid:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A8Dlxcwf6G8&feature=player_detailpage

Dropkick Murphys- Get Up:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDSMYIPiVyw&feature=player_detailpage

Rancid- the 11th Hour:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bmZjPtXYs_Y&feature=player_detailpage

Voodoo Glow Skulls- Delinquent Song:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tWTtWYzpZ0Y&feature=player_detailpage

Bouncing Souls- Say Anything:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XoumjTyyFuk&feature=player_detailpage

Bombshell Rocks- 1.80 Down:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6XTi6qpu3dA&feature=player_detailpage

A little song playlist to go w/ the mood.... an why not...

[Jimbo]

Even if someone who exercises does not live longer than one who doesn't exercise, I would say that, at least from a physical (and to a degree, mental) perspective, the overall quality of their lives will be better. Of course, there are many other factors as well, such as heredity, environment, other habits, etc. I knew of some old Chinese masters and practitioners overseas who ostensibly practiced and/or taught for health, but had some unhealthy habits, including smoking, heavy drinking, crap diet, etc. From a physical health standpoint, oftentimes the Taiji/qigong guys seemed the worst. Many Taiji/qigong practitioners claimed it's undesirable and low-level to sweat during practice, and so would invest as little effort as possible into it. Some would say that physical exertion will use up your chi and shorten your life. I guess they never heard of 'use it or lose it'.

To be fair, there are very good Taiji practitioners, but like anything else, the quality varies widely. The very easy forms of Taiji could indeed benefit people who are already old and not used to exercise. However, for one who is reasonably healthy and not old, the benefits would be limited, unless the person simply enjoys it for its own sake.

[MarathonTmatt]

Even if someone who exercises does not live longer than one who doesn't exercise, I would say that, at least from a physical (and to a degree, mental) perspective, the overall quality of their lives will be better. Of course, there are many other factors as well, such as heredity, environment, other habits, etc. I knew of some old Chinese masters and practitioners overseas who ostensibly practiced and/or taught for health, but had some unhealthy habits, including smoking, heavy drinking, crap diet, etc. From a physical health standpoint, oftentimes the Taiji/qigong guys seemed the worst. Many Taiji/qigong practitioners claimed it's undesirable and low-level to sweat during practice, and so would invest as little effort as possible into it. Some would say that physical exertion will use up your chi and shorten your life. I guess they never heard of 'use it or lose it'.

To be fair, there are very good Taiji practitioners, but like anything else, the quality varies widely. The very easy forms of Taiji could indeed benefit people who are already old and not used to exercise. However, for one who is reasonably healthy and not old, the benefits would be limited, unless the person simply enjoys it for its own sake.

Yeah, that is odd. I have always thought that the more you sweat/work-out, the better the benefits and results. I just had a killer training session last night at home. Can't wait to go back to class. Use it or lose it for sure. The first time I did a Tai Chi Push Hands class for a full hour, my legs felt like they ran a half-marathon- besides learning some forms and applications, proper body mechanics, that is the biggest lesson I have taken away from tai chi so far- rooting and redirecting. Long Fist is great too- so many leg/kicking drills, stance work, kickboxing combinations, fully extended body mechanics, applications and forms (traditional fighting forms and strength building) to learn. Oh yeah and the sparring is great conditioning too- I notice if I don't stay on top of sparring the more out of breathe I may be after sparring.

Yes sir, I would have to agree with you, from your tone of writing- I don't see how physical exertion could use up one's chi and shorten one's life. I believe just the other day, the thread started by Bawang about weight-lifting, YouKnowWho posted an old saying in Chinese- "own the weight, don't let the weight own you." I think from my experience so far (not just in the arts but life in general) that this is correct- if you own your hard-work and exercise, and not be defeated by it, you will only "bank" more vitality and strength. I remember reading a Japanese study that said people with more grip strength lived longer. Physical exercise definitely has it's benefits. But to be fair, so does standing meditation. "Train both as needed." I'm sure that someone with PTSD, if they ever took up practicing standing postures, could benefit from some of it's therapeutic affects, as could "adrenaline junkies", stuff like that. Maybe you could say that training standing postures is like being out in the woods- you have to slow everything down to observe what's going on, re-align yourself to a new environment. And then you can take those observation skills back with you and use them in everyday life.

[MarathonTmatt]

Awesome picture.

Socrates, through Plato, has surely had the largest impact on western civilisation any man can possibly have. I just love the idea that 2400 years ago Socrates used to do the same thing and that this practice has a history in western culture as well as eastern.

Where did Plato learn his stuff from? Did he not visit Egypt? That is what I remember hearing- a lot of Greek philosophy came out of older concepts from Egypt, as did the Judaic Bible, thus Christian Bible. Is not the Christian god Jesus really a re-interpretation of the older Egyptian god Horus, where we get the English word "hours" from (24 hours in a day.) Horus moved across the sky in 12 steps (Jesus' 12 disciples- representations of the 12 signs of the zodiac.) At 12 noon Horus is "the most high." He was in battle with his brother Set, who ruled the night. That's why it gets dark at sun-set. Horus was also born the same time of the year as Jesus, and died on a cross (which is really a symbolic interpretation of a constellation in the night sky.) I'm sure there are more paralelles. At a much later date the Bible was edited and edited again, and eventually people took a more literal interpretation of the Bible, to dis-enchant them from a more indigenous worldview/ thought process. Look up Astrotheology.

[MarathonTmatt]

Here is an article someone wrote about Plato and Egypt. The author asserts Plato studied in Egypt for 13 years under the Horite priesthood:

http://college-ethics.blogspot.com/2010/01/plato-and-ancient-egypt.html

Here is part of a video, not from it's original upload but I can't find the original, in 3 parts. It talks about the Egyptian deity Horus, as well as other deities, including Jesus Christ, which share similarities in "the greatest story ever told." The video also goes in to the importance of the Sun in the ancient world, the winter solstice (December 25), zodiac, spring equinox, horizon points, and the constellation "the southern cross":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=Hg2nB5mrZbE

[Faux Newbie]

I think the thing that often gets forgotten is that, in Chinese meditation, regardless the tradition, meditation is seen as incapable of giving full benefits on its own. Yoking the ox (harnessing the mind) is only of value if what one uses the harnessed mind to understand is of value. You do not reach enlightenment/the Tao/the virtue of a Confucian sage by meditation or postures. One can be a calm monster, but the act of being a monster will create repercussions that limit the calm one can achieve.

[wenshu]

Ok, now this is an example of exactly the kind of bleeding edge theoretical science that casues an awkward dissonance between my conspiratorial sense of creativity informed by subjective value judgements of eastern martial and religious disciplines and my skeptical scientific instincts (well, rapidly aging web hacker instincts).

http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/20140017222508.shtml


The theory under review, known as "orchestrated objective reduction" (Orch OR), was put forward by Penrose and Hameroff in the mid-1990s. It proposes that quantum vibrational computations in microtubules (major components of a cell's structural skeleton) are "orchestrated" (Orch) by synaptic inputs and memory, and terminated by Penrose's "objective reduction" (OR).

Orch OR was harshly criticized from its inception, as the brain was considered too "warm, wet, and noisy" for such seemingly delicate quantum processes. However, recent research has now shown warm quantum coherence in plant photosynthesis, bird brain navigation, and brain microtubules. In particular, the discovery of warm temperature quantum vibrations in microtubules by a research group led by Anirban Bandyopadhyay in Japan, goes a long way to corroborating Penrose and Hameroff's original theory. Penrose says his and Hameroff's new paper updates the evidence and clarifies Orch OR quantum bits as helical pathways in microtubule lattices.

Even the site name ScienceAGogo contributes to the sense that this is complete b.s. Until you review the academics involved.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Penrose

http://www.quantumconsciousness.org/documents/CUniverse1.pdf


Orch OR suggests that there is a connection between the brain’s biomolecular processes
and the basic structure of the universe.

Here's the researcher whose work is mentioned as something of a validation in the review of the admittedly nutty sounding Orch OR theory. Now I'm still skeptical (I think I saw Chopra's name pop up in association) but his c.v. looks flawless to me.

http://www.anirbanlab.co.nr/

[wenshu]

I think the thing that often gets forgotten is that, in Chinese meditation, regardless the tradition, meditation is seen as incapable of giving full benefits on its own. Yoking the ox (harnessing the mind) is only of value if what one uses the harnessed mind to understand is of value. You do not reach enlightenment/the Tao/the virtue of a Confucian sage by meditation or postures. One can be a calm monster, but the act of being a monster will create repercussions that limit the calm one can achieve.

There are as many paths to sagehood as there are definitions of sage.

[rett2]

Very interesting thanks.

OK so speaking of crystals, lattice structures, semiperiodicity... here's another picture for the "quiz"

9036

[RenDaHai]

@ Wenshu,

Fascinating stuff, thanks for posting.

@ Rett,

I suppose this diagram goes with the others from the previous question. Where previously we had DNA as this incredibly stable form of information storing with microtubules we have a self organising structure that (according to this Orch-OR theory) can actually exhibit consciousness. This makes it the top of the hierarchy so far!

(The image is of a microtubule containing tubulin subunits, each of which capable of being closed or open [white and black respectively]. The ability remain undecided, without being reduced to a definite state by the action of the environment allows long enough for the objective reduction [OR] to come into force. I suppose the structure facilitates this)

[rett2]

Yes! top of the hierarchy so far, and I also thinks it's cool that (if correct) the local interactions essentially mean that it functions as a cellular automata (like Conway's game of life) to perform computation. Of course this is still at the level of Hamaroff's (and others’) pre-Orch OR work with the microtubules.

Here's an interesting interview with Hamaroff. The interviewer Nikola Danaylev also does a great job.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YpUVot-4GPM

Towards the end he speculates a bit about stuff like qi, out of body experiences (as a clinical anaesthesiologist he's been present when people have them), psi phenomena, rebirth (Socrates believed in rebirth) and other stuff that tends to make me skeptical especially when connected with quantum mechanics. But who knows? The whole interview is quite thought provoking.

[rett2]

Here's the researcher whose work is mentioned as something of a validation in the review of the admittedly nutty sounding Orch OR theory. Now I'm still skeptical (I think I saw Chopra's name pop up in association) but his c.v. looks flawless to me.

http://www.anirbanlab.co.nr/

Whether Orch OR turns out to be right or not, its basic premise seems like the least nutty attempt to relate awareness and physicality


Precursors of consciousness have always been in the universe; biology evolved a mechanism to convert conscious precursors to actual consciousness. This is the view implied by Whitehead (1929; 1933) and taken in the Penrose-Hameroff theory of 'orchestrated objective reduction' ('Orch OR'). Precursors of consciousness, presumably with proto-experiential qualities, are proposed to exist as the potential ingredients of actual consciousness, the physical basis of these proto-conscious elements not necessarily being part of our current theories of the laws of the universe (Penrose and Hameroff, 1995; Hameroff and Penrose, 1996a; 1996b).

[wenshu]

with microtubules we have a self organising structure that (according to this Orch-OR theory) can actually exhibit consciousness.

I think you're mistaking the trees for the forest.

Illustrates the problem I have been trying to point out, forum displays of deep technical concepts and theories are exciting validation but its far to easy to muddle things with half assed assumptions.

If I was to focus on an oversimplification of ORCH OR it would be that each brain cell is in fact a brain per se. Think of a microprocessor where each transistor is itself another microprocessor (turtles all the way down). Unfortunately this doesn't account for process and integration.


2.3. Consciousness and dendritic integration
Neuronal integration is commonly approximated as linear summation of dendritic/somatic membrane potentials (Fig. 2a). However actual integration is not passive, actively involving complex processing [44–46]. Dendritic–somatic membranes generate local field potentials (‘LFPs’) that give rise to the electro-encephalogram (EEG), including coher- ent gamma synchrony, the best measurable neural correlate of consciousness (‘NCC’ [47,48]). Anesthetic molecules selectively erase consciousness, acting on post-synaptic dendrites and soma, with little or no effects on axonal fir- ing capabilities. Arguably, dendritic/somatic integration is most closely related to consciousness, with axonal firings serving to convey outputs of conscious (or non-conscious) processes to control behavior. But even complex, active integration in Hodgkin–Huxley neurons would, apart from an entirely probabilistic (random) input, be completely algorithmic and deterministic, leaving no apparent place for a free will aspect of consciousness.


3.2. Microtubule information processing
After Sherrington’s broad observation in 1957 about the cytoskeleton as a cellular nervous system, Atema [65] proposed that tubulin conformational changes propagate as signals along microtubules. Hameroff and Watt [66] sug- gested that distinct tubulin dipoles and conformational states—mechanical changes in protein shape—could represent information, with MT lattices acting as two-dimensional Boolean switching matrices with input/output computa- tion occurring via MAPs. MT information processing has also been viewed in the context of cellular (‘molecular’) automata (‘microtubule automata’) in which tubulin dipole and conformational states interact with neighbor tubulin states in hexagonal MT lattices by dipole couplings, synchronized by biomolecular coherence as proposed by Fröhlich [67–71].

[RenDaHai]

I think you're mistaking the trees for the forest.

Illustrates the problem I have been trying to point out, forum displays of deep technical concepts and theories are exciting validation but its far to easy to muddle things with half assed assumptions.

If I was to focus on an oversimplification of ORCH OR it would be that each brain cell is in fact a brain per se. Think of a microprocessor where each transistor is itself another microprocessor (turtles all the way down). Unfortunately this doesn't account for process and integration.


Yeah, thrashing out Quantum physics on a kung fu forum is probably going to get embarrassing quickly. Still we can talk about some of the more well known concepts a little bit.

The paper is interdisciplinary, I suppose depending on your area of interest you will see the concept framed in those terms.

One of the themes in the paper you posted was that a moment conscious like experience or proto-consciousness is achieved during the process of objective-reduction (OR) of a wave-function right? Now, the way I understand it is this won't happen if the wave-function is reduced because of interaction with the environment. In order to reach the threshold where OR occurs a certain minimum amount of time is required. So the wave-function must be somehow isolated from the environment for at least this amount of time, to remain in a kind of quantum limbo of undecidedness. It is in the nature of the structure of these microtubules and tubulin that allows for this to happen. The mechanism I confess I didn't get, something about quantum entanglement of pi-electrons?

So in these kind of structures we are getting access to whatever the non-computable process is that decides the objective reduction. {They mentioned something about quantum gravity coming into play above planck scale geometry but that is quite far beyond my understanding, PlanckLength:Proton::Human:MilkyWay :eek:}

So these microtubules seem to represent the spark of consciousness being as they are able to orchestrate objective reduction.

Its the physics of the Orch-OR process I am interested in. If either of you have a good grasp on the physics here I have a lot of questions I'd like to ask about it.

In the meantime I'll stick with Aristotle, more my level....

[wenshu]

Quite possibly. The paper is quite interdisciplinary, I suppose depending on your area of interest you will see the concept framed in those terms.

One of the themes in the paper you posted was that a moment conscious like experience or proto-consciousness is achieved during the process of objective-reduction (OR) of a wave-function right? Now, the way I understand it is this won't happen if the wave-function is reduced because of interaction with the environment. In order to reach the threshold where OR occurs a certain minimum amount of time is required. So the wave-function must be somehow isolated from the environment for at least this amount of time, to remain in a kind of quantum limbo of undecidedness. It is in the nature of the structure of these microtubules and tubulin that allows for this to happen. The mechanism I confess I didn't get, something about quantum entanglement of pi-electrons?

So in these kind of structures we are getting access to whatever the non-computable process is that decides the objective reduction. {They mentioned something about quantum gravity coming into play above planck scale geometry but that is quite far beyond my understanding, PlanckLength:Proton::Human:MilkyWay :eek:}

So these microtubules seem to represent the spark of consciousness being as they are able to orchestrate objective reduction.

Its the physics of the Orch-OR process I am interested in. If either of you have a good grasp on the physics here I have a lot of questions I'd like to ask about it.

In the meantime I'll stick with Aristotle, more my level....

Quantum mechanics is impressive but Orchestrated Objective-Reduction takes a giant dump on Aristotle's face, philosophically speaking of course.


The Penrose–Lucas argument states that, because humans are capable of knowing the truth of Gödel-unprovable statements, human thought is necessarily non-computable.[23]

In 1931, mathematician and logician Kurt Gödel proved that any effectively generated theory capable of proving basic arithmetic cannot be both consistent and complete. Furthermore, he showed that any such theory also including a statement of its own consistency is inconsistent. A key element of the proof is the use of Gödel numbering to construct a "Gödel sentence" for the theory, which encodes a statement of its own incompleteness, e.g. "This theory can't assert the truth of this statement." This statement is either true but unprovable (incompleteness) or false and provable (inconsistency). An analogous statement has been used to show that humans are subject to the same limits as machines.[24]

However, in his first book on consciousness, The Emperor's New Mind (1989), Penrose made Gödel's theorem the basis of what quickly became an intensely controversial claim.[23] He argued that while a formal proof system cannot prove its own inconsistency, Gödel-unprovable results are provable by human mathematicians. He takes this disparity to mean that human mathematicians are not describable as formal proof systems, and are therefore running a non-computable algorithm.

The wiki page offers an effective abstract of the physical model as well:


Orch-OR posits that consciousness is based on non-computable quantum processing performed by qubits formed collectively on the microtubules of the cells, a process significantly amplified in the neurons.[4] The qubits are based on oscillating dipoles forming superposed resonance rings in helical pathways throughout microtubule lattices. The oscillations are either electric, due to charge separation from London forces, or most favorably magnetic, due to electron spin — and possibly also due to nuclear spins (which can remain isolated for longer periods of time), and occur in gigahertz, megahertz and kilohertz frequency ranges.[1][5] The orchestration refers to the hypothetical process by which connective proteins, such as microtubule-associated proteins (MAPs), influence or orchestrate the state reduction of the qubits by modifying the spacetime-separation of their superimposed states.[6] The later is based on Penrose's objective collapse theory for interpreting quantum mechanics, which postulates the existence of an objective threshold governing the collapse of quantum-states, related to the difference of the space-time curvature of these states in the fine scale structure of the universe.[7]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orchestrated_objective_reduction

[wenshu]

Precursors of consciousness have always been in the universe; biology evolved a mechanism to convert conscious precursors to actual consciousness. This is the view implied by Whitehead (1929; 1933) and taken in the Penrose-Hameroff theory of 'orchestrated objective reduction' ('Orch OR'). Precursors of consciousness, presumably with proto-experiential qualities, are proposed to exist as the potential ingredients of actual consciousness, the physical basis of these proto-conscious elements not necessarily being part of our current theories of the laws of the universe (Penrose and Hameroff, 1995; Hameroff and Penrose, 1996a; 1996b).

I don't know where I read this earlier either in the paper or a wikihole, but the idea that consciousness is a fundamental physical law or structure of the universe (like gravity or electromagnetism) and the human brain evolved to take advantage of it. The precursor of consciousness is the Big Bang.

[wenshu]

I couldn't find anything about Empedocles or any of the other pre Socratics practicing breathing and stretching and I'm not about to bust out ****ing diogenes.

[RenDaHai]

I couldn't find anything about Empedocles or any of the other pre Socratics practicing breathing and stretching and I'm not about to bust out ****ing diogenes.

I'm sure theres not much, there are a few references to Socrates acting strangely like this.

They talked about Gymnastics a lot, it would be interesting to know exactly what they meant by 'Gymnastics' and what practices this entailed. I am sure there were many divisions. If there were any more qigong like exercises I'm sure it would be considered part of gymnastics.

I mean, the Academy was a Gymnasium right? In one of the dialogues Socrates refers to Gymnastics and Medicine as the two crafts of taking care of the body, where as Cosmetics and Pastry Baking were their illusory counterparts, flattery, looking like they were good for you but not really (medicine of the time seemed to involve prescribing diet as a major component).

There seems to be only one treatise on ancient Gymnastics, 'Gymnasticus' by Plilostratus, but its a lot later than Socrates (c. 220 A.D). I can't seem to find a free translation.

[rett2]

I don't know where I read this earlier either in the paper or a wikihole, but the idea that consciousness is a fundamental physical law or structure of the universe (like gravity or electromagnetism) and the human brain evolved to take advantage of it. The precursor of consciousness is the Big Bang.

As I understand it that's not the idea being expressed there. They are talking not about the "ultimate" precurser of consciousness in the universe, but about proto-conscious events, blips of qualia, precursors in the plural. These are occuring all the time, everywhere that a superposition is resolved. But they are weak and disordered and add up at best to a kind of static. Only through orchestration do these become intense and form patterns that can resemble our sophisticated sensory perceptions, not to mention conscious cognitive activity. (Like going from a dim staticky tv picture to a bright coherent picture)

[rett2]

Penrose runs through the basics of the physics during around the second quarter of this presentation (and here and there in the rest):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M5XYf1GJBhg&index=14&list=WL