Socrates practiced QiGong!

[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 bullshit. 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-ygXAPCS...845f%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-ygXAPCS...845f%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 shit. 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.