|
Post by laughter on Mar 8, 2018 7:01:52 GMT -5
Well that's the thingy about equations and models .. yes, someone probly does.. And even a philosopher/scientist/mathematician would agree with you that the navigation of the whole isn't up to the individual starlings. All they have to do (which is implicit in the model), is not crash into each other. They would say that the beautiful order of of the cloud emerges from the apparent chaos of the constantly and rapidly changing individual paths. This is very similar to their idea of the origins of consciousness. Tesla said something to the effect that science has relied so much on mathematics in lieu of experimentation that it has been completely divorced from nature and the object of it's investigation. Yeah, but science without math isn't really science.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 8, 2018 7:57:33 GMT -5
Some critters work collectively to support the group, like bees and ants. I don't believe there's some kind of biological communication going on, so it must be happening on another level. It makes me wonder if they are somehow self aware as a collective, and this somehow translates into individual self awareness. I've talked about the starling clouds before. I don't know how it's done, but it's not choreographed by bird brains. Wonderbeauty: Beautiful. I've never met a single person not impressed by a good murmuration! There are quite a few studies on the different kinds of "swarms" that take place in nature. We've only got grackles here, so nothing quite as spectacular (or graceful) as the starlings, but I have had the pleasure of being under and in swarming schools of fish several times. Do you have to try to be this cool?
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 8, 2018 14:40:49 GMT -5
You know that suffering has happened to you! It's on the short list of things you can't not know. If it is an unknown as to whether other humans are suffering, I don't understand why you are talking about their suffering. Are you perhaps trying to resolve your own suffering that you do know about? I'm talking about suffering because I know beings suffer, it's not something I can't know. First of all, if somebody tells you they are suffering, it's a pretty good bet they are. Secondly, it's an excellent bet that all human adults have experienced suffering. What I've been talking about is whether infants and animals suffer. Neither of them experience life the way you do and neither can tell you about their experience. You project your own experience onto them and assume. In the broader sense, the discussion is about illusions and how resistant we are to seeing through them.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 8, 2018 14:50:08 GMT -5
Well, for now the point is simply that life has to be found sufficiently interesting to keep us alive. The lack of interest in engaging, and lack of desire to engage is a lack of vitality. Perhaps particularly in babies and children and young people, this lack is a form of suffering because of their youthfulness. It is basically chronic depression. I'm not talking about a lack of interest in engaging or a lack of desire to engage. In the experiments in question, the infants were not given the opportunity to engage. Is this the meaning of "he said/she said"? That's all on you, Andrew. You don't listen to what I say and I constantly have to correct you.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Mar 8, 2018 15:24:48 GMT -5
If it is an unknown as to whether other humans are suffering, I don't understand why you are talking about their suffering. Are you perhaps trying to resolve your own suffering that you do know about? I'm talking about suffering because I know beings suffer, it's not something I can't know. First of all, if somebody tells you they are suffering, it's a pretty good bet they are. Secondly, it's an excellent bet that all human adults have experienced suffering. What I've been talking about is whether infants and animals suffer. Neither of them experience life the way you do and neither can tell you about their experience. You project your own experience onto them and assume. In the broader sense, the discussion is about illusions and how resistant we are to seeing through them. If someone tells me they are suffering, I would also tend to accept their word for it, and I would agree that human adults know suffering. But, I also don't need someone to tell me they are suffering, to consider it a good bet that they are suffering. If an adult, or a baby, or an animal is screaming, then it is a good bet that they are suffering. In fact, I would say it is a given that babies and animals are suffering if they are screaming because they don't act, or lie. There is a slight potential of an adult human lying or acting, so in terms of skepticism, that would apply more to adults than babies/animals. So quite honestly, if I know an adult human to be suffering, I am more likely to be projecting in that circumstance, than if I know a baby or animal to be suffering.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Mar 8, 2018 15:26:25 GMT -5
The lack of interest in engaging, and lack of desire to engage is a lack of vitality. Perhaps particularly in babies and children and young people, this lack is a form of suffering because of their youthfulness. It is basically chronic depression. I'm not talking about a lack of interest in engaging or a lack of desire to engage. In the experiments in question, the infants were not given the opportunity to engage. Is this the meaning of "he said/she said"? That's all on you, Andrew. You don't listen to what I say and I constantly have to correct you. Well Enigma, I would say that the lack of opportunity to engage would result in chronic depression. In the interests of the thread, I won't engage with the second paragraph, and will do my best to stick to the point.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 8, 2018 15:43:06 GMT -5
@ Andrew & Enigma (and to all other members), I am going to share an observation with you guys. You (A&E) both have been away from the forum and we didn't have any 'he said she said' issues here for quite a while. Suddenly you both came back and immediately we had the old 'he said she said' problem again. So it was kinda obvious that one of you guys or both of you guys must be the source of it. I've been watching this carefully and here's what I've found out: You (A) have to pay attention to Enigma's definitions. You go with the dictionary meanings as most others here. Enigma doesn't. But he doesn't tell you that right from the beginning. So either you find out that he has very unusual definitions for very common terms or you get sucked into a 'he said she said' conversation where after a while you usually don't even know anymore what you've actually been discussing. (At the moment, I am leaning towards E being the actual source of the confusion) So my suggestion to everyone posting here, get clear about your definitions right at the beginning of a conversation and you'll save yourself and others a lot of time, unnecessary trouble and frustration. If someone doesn't have clear definitions, point that out. If they can't give you clear definitions or don't use them consistently, point that out. If they still can't get their act together, give them the benefit of the doubt and offer to agree to disagree. If they decline that offer, disengage. That's the only way we get rid of this 'he said she said' nonsense and keep this a high quality forum. This is just meant as a general suggestion, not a new rule. No one will get banned for engaging in 'he said she said' stuff. But if it is taking over an entire thread (as happened here), I'm going to point that out from now on. R I'm not sure I'm going to get clear on definitions if the definitions change, but I'll try and be less noisy. My definitions don't change, though perhaps your understanding of them does. Also, none of us use the dictionary definitions for many of the words we use in a spiritual context. Most of us use them the way many of the teachers have, as that's where the word usage came from. And I don't think any of us has to take responsibility for the difficulty of using concepts to talk about spiritual ideas. I've suggested before that we try to lighten up and be a little flexible.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 8, 2018 15:57:05 GMT -5
I don't see a context in which everything has consciousness. Okay. I assume that's true for Awareness, Intelligence and Aliveness too...? You don't want to assign this kind of intrinsic 'quality' to everything. I will agree with Reefs that there is a powerful experience that cannot be denied in which you come to know that all things have this intrinsic 'quality'. I'm putting this word in parenthesis because for me, the word 'quality' doesn't fit very well. It's not like 'redness' or 'hotness', I don't know it as an overtly sensory quality. It is more a quality known and felt intuitively. But now in which case, now you have the problem in which consciousness is ONLY associated with physical structure. So a human has consciousness because of their biology, a rock has no consciousness because it does not have the biology. You see that, right? Yes. If you look up biology in the dictionary, the distinction will be clear between a rock and a toad. However, not quite so clear between a toad and a daffodil. Is one conscious and one not? I don't know. My sense is that we have arbitrarily set the boundaries for what is conscious and experiences, and those terms may not apply to the kind of consciousness/experience a daffodil has. Inert matter isn't even in the conscious/alive/intelligent ball park, unless you want to radically redefine those words.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 8, 2018 16:05:36 GMT -5
No, it doesn't. It means there's some level of objectivity to our physiological requirements. These physiological requirements make themselves known, and are addressed, through 'suffering'. Suffer with a headache, take a pill. Suffer with mental arguments...question your beliefs. Suffer through intense thirst, have a drink. Our physiology demands that we address suffering in some way. We are naturally drawn to wellbeing and being at ease. I don't suffer from physiological requirements. I eat when I'm hungry, drink when I'm thirsty, sleep when I'm tired. What I've been trying to say is suffering is not an inevitable consequence of certain bodily sensations. There's really nothing objective about suffering.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 8, 2018 17:16:36 GMT -5
I believe the infant is not subjectively suffering. I don't know anything about that by observing how it acts, even if it's video evidence. Okay so practically speaking you see the baby screaming. Do you believe or know that the baby is in some level of distress? Do you then have the thought 'I believe the infant is not suffering'? What happens internally when you see a baby in distress? Where does the thought that the baby might not be experiencing fit in?For me what happens is...'I see the baby screaming, I know the baby is in distress, I know the baby is suffering (because distress is suffering). Then I start weighing up options on how to act. I start weighing up options on how to act. The thought that the baby might not be experiencing doesn't fit in. What did I say that gave you that impression? What terms did I fail to define well? ...Experiencing?...Baby?
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Mar 8, 2018 17:18:11 GMT -5
I'm not sure I'm going to get clear on definitions if the definitions change, but I'll try and be less noisy. My definitions don't change, though perhaps your understanding of them does. Also, none of us use the dictionary definitions for many of the words we use in a spiritual context. Most of us use them the way many of the teachers have, as that's where the word usage came from. And I don't think any of us has to take responsibility for the difficulty of using concepts to talk about spiritual ideas. I've suggested before that we try to lighten up and be a little flexible. well in the spirit of that, I've said several times...and still do...that I don't have a problem with your definition of suffering within a certain context. Up until quite recently, folks in general have somewhat seen the cause of their distress and problems as external to them. Your definition of suffering invites folks to look at the structures of their own mind in order to look at how we create our own experience. I think that's a good thing. But...I also don't think we should lose sight of the context in which that definition is useful.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 8, 2018 17:18:25 GMT -5
Do you mean to say you would continue to feel hurt for a while even after you find out the betrayal never happened?? No, I mean the hurt goes dormant again until we create a new trigger, which gives the feeling the opportunity to say all that it wants to say. This is what happens in counselling sometimes...though I don't believe it works very effectively, because the feeling is contrived in that context. Unfortunately, we have to work through emotional wounds as they happen in actual life experience. So the feeling is still there somewhere? It hasn't had it's say yet?
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 8, 2018 17:20:35 GMT -5
No, the absence of engagement with life. The infant can't crawl to the nearest pub and chat it up with the locals. You're with me on that, right? I addressed this above I believe. Addressed what? The pub crawling issue?
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Mar 8, 2018 17:21:57 GMT -5
Okay. I assume that's true for Awareness, Intelligence and Aliveness too...? You don't want to assign this kind of intrinsic 'quality' to everything. I will agree with Reefs that there is a powerful experience that cannot be denied in which you come to know that all things have this intrinsic 'quality'. I'm putting this word in parenthesis because for me, the word 'quality' doesn't fit very well. It's not like 'redness' or 'hotness', I don't know it as an overtly sensory quality. It is more a quality known and felt intuitively. But now in which case, now you have the problem in which consciousness is ONLY associated with physical structure. So a human has consciousness because of their biology, a rock has no consciousness because it does not have the biology. You see that, right? Yes. If you look up biology in the dictionary, the distinction will be clear between a rock and a toad. However, not quite so clear between a toad and a daffodil. Is one conscious and one not? I don't know. My sense is that we have arbitrarily set the boundaries for what is conscious and experiences, and those terms may not apply to the kind of consciousness/experience a daffodil has. Inert matter isn't even in the conscious/alive/intelligent ball park, unless you want to radically redefine those words. Right, so whether something has consciousness is a consequence of their particular physical structure. I talk about the difference between AI bots and humans in that context, so don't have a problem with this idea. But....it can also be seen that consciousness is more fundamental, and that the quality of consciousness is being conscious. Consciousness is conscious of appearances. Appearances are known.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Mar 8, 2018 17:23:14 GMT -5
These physiological requirements make themselves known, and are addressed, through 'suffering'. Suffer with a headache, take a pill. Suffer with mental arguments...question your beliefs. Suffer through intense thirst, have a drink. Our physiology demands that we address suffering in some way. We are naturally drawn to wellbeing and being at ease. I don't suffer from physiological requirements. I eat when I'm hungry, drink when I'm thirsty, sleep when I'm tired. What I've been trying to say is suffering is not an inevitable consequence of certain bodily sensations. There's really nothing objective about suffering. well you suffer from physiological requirements if those requirements aren't being met. That's the point of suffering, it tells us to take action in some way (this might be internal or external action).
|
|