|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Aug 17, 2024 16:02:22 GMT -5
Chanced on this. Haven't read it in full yet, decided to park it here. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Aug 20, 2024 6:45:38 GMT -5
I encountered this by chance. It's fairly interesting, free will from the perspective of physics, and neuroscience. It's very pertinent concerning our present conversation, the relationship between the ~individual~, the person, and All That Is. ZD seems to maintain there isn't an individual in any sense, except, there's obviously a body. So, a word that hasn't come up lately, non-volition. Is the ~individual~ non-volitionary in every sense? sdp maintains, and has always maintained, the only choice ~we~ have is where to place our attention. ZD has adamantly maintained over the years, we can't even do that, that even in ATA-T, there is no doer, doing it, it's merely the way All That Is, is ising (my words). I saw a ten minute version of this. I'll watch again to see what I missed. Neil's friend Chuck, is very smart (unless he is prepped for their Q & A episodes), he grasps the gist pretty quickly, asks good questions, sums up, I've seen a fair number of their Q & As.
|
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Aug 22, 2024 10:33:28 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Aug 22, 2024 20:27:52 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Aug 23, 2024 14:06:07 GMT -5
I believe that science is a physical identity gestalt, as a man and a cell are, just in another space of assumptions. From this perspective, science can discover and prove the existence of the nonphysical reality, similarly to how a man or a cell can. Science, and any of its domains can only hypothesize the existence or the non-existence of the nonphysical reality, and act accordingly, as we people do. Science, as anything else, creates its only reality according to its beliefs and expectations. Science is a physical manifestation of a nonphysical entity.
|
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Aug 24, 2024 6:45:27 GMT -5
|
|
roscod
Junior Member
Posts: 53
|
Post by roscod on Sept 10, 2024 18:42:25 GMT -5
Sapolsky needs to formulate his idea into a testable hypothesis and then do the experiments. if it is testable, repeatable and the results can be used in a predictive manner, then there is a scientific basis for his idea. Otherwise it is just another opinion, albeit an interesting opinion and controversial, for many. My personal opinion is that it is far too simplistic. Firstly, my understanding is that humans are unable to map, let alone comprehend and understand, all the molecular functions of single-celled organism. One single celled organism defeats our intellect. The mapping aspect may have changed with the introduction of AI, though I haven't checked of late  To say that everything is predetermined when our knowledge base for doing so is so meagre and compromised seems a little bit foolish. A simple example would be does Sapolsky's idea account for the mutations at the genetic level that give rise to new characteristics and features in organisms? The wear and tear on DNA, and where it will emerge, would be hard to predict. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 10, 2024 20:25:54 GMT -5
Sapolsky needs to formulate his idea into a testable hypothesis and then do the experiments. if it is testable, repeatable and the results can be used in a predictive manner, then there is a scientific basis for his idea. Otherwise it is just another opinion, albeit an interesting opinion and controversial, for many. My personal opinion is that it is far too simplistic. Firstly, my understanding is that humans are unable to map, let alone comprehend and understand, all the molecular functions of single-celled organism. One single celled organism defeats our intellect. The mapping aspect may have changed with the introduction of AI, though I haven't checked of late To say that everything is predetermined when our knowledge base for doing so is so meagre and compromised seems a little bit foolish. A simple example would be does Sapolsky's idea account for the mutations at the genetic level that give rise to new characteristics and features in organisms? The wear and tear on DNA, and where it will emerge, would be hard to predict. "We are machines, Sapolsky argues, exceptional in our ability to perceive our own experiences and feel emotions about them. It is pointless to hate a machine for its failures." (The Stanford scientist, from the link). ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ It's commonly accepted that 90% of our thoughts, feelings and actions arise out of our unconscious, unconscious brain processing. Sapolsky ups that to 100%. There is a topic that has been much discussed here in the past, volition. Many people here are inclined to say we have no volition. This comes up with the description, separate volitional person. Many if not most here are in agreement that there is no separate volitional person, no SVP. I'll set aside separate and person, focus on volition. The others here do not agree with Sapolsky, in the way he means no volition, or we have no free will, everything we do or think or feel is determined. There isn't a person that can have a free will. Everything connected to the so-called person, is the movement of the Whole of All That Is. If that's incorrect, someone will correct me. For sdp, Sapolsky makes the case for my interpretation of no volition. I've debated the others thoroughly on this matter. When we say yes we couldn't have said no, when we say no we couldn't have said yes. That's my position, with one caveat. We have the possibility of placing our attention where we wish to, and or our awareness where we wish to. All future possibilities unfold from that. So I agree, apart from the caveat, we have no free will. But we have two vastly different interpretation grids pulled down over the fact of no volition, no free will. We are not just a body responding as a part of the flow of the whole. The so-called person is a network of associations via neural connections that number in every brain more than all the stars in all the galaxies, trillions. Sensations via the five senses flow into those pathways like water flowing down tributaries to the Mississippi River. Only this description concerning how the brain works, which is essentially Sapolsky's view, explains the events on earth. The neural structure of each individual brain cannot be discounted. I could mention headlines of the last week and months and the last couple of years. |
|
roscod
Junior Member
Posts: 53
|
Post by roscod on Sept 10, 2024 20:43:40 GMT -5
Maybe Sapolsky should read Ouspensky Something I need to consider is the scale at which his idea is implemented. According to the article, social conditioning is a significant part of his argument and on the gross level this is a fair call. The evidence is irrefutable in that regard, but there are plenty of exceptions. And does that translate directly to the machine level of functioning in the body? I agree attention is the loop hole. One of the interesting ideas coming through in neuroscience and psychology is embodied consciousness. The brain has been considered the seat of all our conscious, unconscious and volitional actions, but more and more evidence is mounting to show this is not the case. Living, being aware of oneself and responding to the environment is a whole body experience. The brain in a jar is dead in the water as a concept. It doesn't work like that. Our brains and the trillions of neural connections are only part of the story. |
|
|
|
Post by melvin on Sept 10, 2024 20:43:50 GMT -5
AI: The search for understanding and evidence of the Absolute, or ultimate reality, is a profound and enduring quest that has captivated scientists, philosophers, and spiritual seekers throughout history. While science primarily focuses on investigating the physical world through empirical observation and experimentation, the concept of the Absolute often transcends the boundaries of empirical inquiry and enters the realm of metaphysics and spirituality.
It is important to acknowledge that science and spirituality are two distinct yet complementary ways of exploring the nature of reality. While science seeks to uncover the underlying mechanisms and patterns of the natural world, spirituality delves into deeper questions about the meaning of existence, consciousness, and the ultimate source of all phenomena.
In recent years, there has been a growing interest in exploring the intersection between science and spirituality, particularly in fields such as quantum physics, consciousness studies, and cosmology. Some scientific theories and discoveries have challenged conventional notions of reality and opened up new possibilities for understanding the nature of the universe and our place within it.
While science may not provide direct proof of the Absolute in the traditional sense, it can offer valuable insights and perspectives that enrich our understanding of the mysteries of existence. By remaining open-minded, curious, and contemplative, we can cultivate a deeper appreciation for the interconnectedness of science and spirituality and the profound questions that unite them.
|
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 13, 2024 10:36:04 GMT -5
"The immanence is called "Shekinah" in Kabbalah, also known as the feminine presence of God in existence. There would be no Immanence of God if the emanations or sefiroth of the original, divine world did not unfold into existence. But for the Transcendent to become something, and therefore, to become Immanent, it needs to withdraw from a dimension less point (dot) to create a void within which the relative (time-space) universe could manifest." From Paths on the Tree of Wisdom, a Course in 21st Century Kabbalah 2024 by Mike Bais, pg 24
This conception of creation was formed by Kabbalist Isaac Luria who lived 1534-1572. Note that it exactly parallels the Big Bang, 350 years previous to Einstein, the Big Bang derived from Relativity and shown by observations. I consider that not a coincidence.
|
|
To say that everything is predetermined when our knowledge base for doing so is so meagre and compromised seems a little bit foolish. A simple example would be does Sapolsky's idea account for the mutations at the genetic level that give rise to new characteristics and features in organisms? The wear and tear on DNA, and where it will emerge, would be hard to predict.