How are we here?

Discussion in 'Bad Dog Cafe' started by boneyguy, Oct 29, 2013.

  1. boneyguy

    boneyguy Doctor of Teleocity

    Age:
    61
    Posts:
    11,746
    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2007
    Location:
    victoria b.c. CANADA
    Thanks and +1 on Kelnet and Bucko....smart people.....and others too of course.

    Yes, we've been to the brink and back a few times...most often, I'm afraid, thanks to me probably.:lol:

    It's wild the shifting directions things take in a thread that lasts awhile. I was hoping for a bit of an interesting tussle of ideas but I would never have predicted all this.

    The mods have shown some amazing restraint and patience that has lead to it's life span and I'd like to acknowledge that.


    Yeah, lots of factors. In biology they have a concept called 'requisite variety'. One way to express what it means is the organism that has the greatest variety of behaviours will dominate it's environment. I think that observation goes a long way to explaining how we're still here. It also explains how one small child can be in charge of two parents.
     
    Last edited: Nov 2, 2013
  2. P Thought

    P Thought Poster Extraordinaire Silver Supporter

    Posts:
    9,471
    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2009
    Location:
    Plundertown (Gasville) OR
    Truer words were never chased through the parking lot. You been in my classroom, I see.
     
    Last edited: Nov 2, 2013
  3. garytelecastor

    garytelecastor Poster Extraordinaire

    Posts:
    9,400
    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2006
    Location:
    On the Bayou in da Tundra
    I think I should have worded that better. In most cases when people hear the word spiritual they think religion.
    I wasn't speaking about faith, I was speaking of the fact that our thought processes are carried out in the material but they are in fact spiritual (w/o material form or substance) in their application.
    Gravity is spiritual, air is spiritual, force is spiritual, almost all of human endeavors revolve around the spiritual, and again, I am not talking religion, I am talking about the fundamental meaning of the word spiritual.
    Emotions are spiritual. You can't pour yourself a shot of love (Man that is a title to a song if ever I heard one), or fear, or hate, or pain, or happiness. They all exist in the spiritual sense.

    So for everyone, that thought I was talking about religion, I wasn't.
     
  4. J-man

    J-man Doctor of Teleocity Ad Free Member

    Posts:
    16,921
    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2004
    Location:
    North Wales
    Admin Post
    I don't think "spirituality" is the right word. "Abstract" or "Intangible" seem to fit a bit better. Though, even thoughts have some physical properties.

    "Spirituality" has a whole lot of connotations that you yourself have said you don't mean.

    Just because something can't be touched, it isn't necessarily spiritual. Air isn't.. it's a gas, its components can be transformed into liquid, etc..
     
  5. garytelecastor

    garytelecastor Poster Extraordinaire

    Posts:
    9,400
    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2006
    Location:
    On the Bayou in da Tundra
    Fair enough, J-man, which is the reason I wrote the second post. I was just trying to say that I wasn't referring to religion or things that are part of the whole realm of faith. I was using:
    "Of, relating to, consisting of, or having the nature of spirit; not tangible or material."
    As an adjective the word is also used to mean " 8. pertaining to the mind or intellect."
    "4. having a mind or emotions of a high and delicately refined quality."
    "3. conscious, incorporeal being, as opposed to matter. "
    As I said in the post, I chose my words poorly and wanted BigDaddy to know that I was sorry for the mix-up.
    What came to mind is the example of a study I read that talked about the various responses in the animal kingdom to loss as related to either mate or offspring. There was very little mourning or concern when compared with human reaction. We place a high value on our thought, actions, and interactions with emotion. This is not all inclusive. Many animal hierarchy place great importance on family structure, such as the elephant or dolphin. These groups will actually mourn loss.
    And in the psych world the word spiritual is used to describe these areas.
    And while it is true that air is a gas, when in it's composite state it is neither touchable nor visual. We can see it's effect, but we don't see the actual molecules that make up the resultant gas. In a non-assisted state as a human, air is unseeable and utouchable.
    I am not really certain as to what you are referring to when you state that thought has physical properties. The brain works like a computer in a lot of ways. But thought processes usually involve the CNS and action potentials. The directive to carry out a given action is sent out in a from of impulse that travels the CNS until it reaches the ultimate goal and the physical action is initiated. In this instance, the action potential or charge can be pretty much compared to an electrical charge and it's pathway that of an extension cord. The cord exists to carry the charge and of or by itself is inanimate. The CNS is the same. It is just that we have such efficient wiring that even the smallest of movements begin before birth, and we rarely think about the whole step by step process that causes us to move. But the thoughts and their resultant action are ethereal. If we sat in a chair by ourselves for 20 years and never moved or interacted in the world around us in any way, our brain and CNS would not spontaneously begin to act on their own. They react to the inter workings and commands of the ego.

    "The English word spirit (from Latin spiritus "breath") has many differing meanings and connotations, most of them relating to a non-corporeal substance contrasted with the material body. The word spirit is often used metaphysically to refer to the consciousness or personality."
     
    Last edited: Nov 3, 2013
  6. 1955

    1955 Poster Extraordinaire

    Posts:
    9,940
    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2010
    Location:
    .
    This is not related to anyone's post, just thought it was funny.
    image-1363149111.jpg
     
  7. Jupiter

    Jupiter Telefied Silver Supporter

    Posts:
    23,953
    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2010
    Location:
    Osaka, Japan
    I can touch air. Just sayin'.
     
  8. BigDaddyLH

    BigDaddyLH Telefied Ad Free Member

    Posts:
    49,752
    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2009
    Location:
    Kelowna, BC, Canuckistan
    Thanks, Gary, your reply #345 clarifies your intention.

    I'll believe you when you say "And in the psych world the word spiritual is used to describe these areas", but I'm uncomfortable with the use of spiritual in those cases, and I bet a religious person would be, too, but for reasons of appropriation.

    We are complex systems, but our cells obey biology, our molecules obey chemistry and ultimately our matter obeys physics.
     
  9. mapadofu

    mapadofu TDPRI Member

    Posts:
    45
    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2011
    Location:
    Northern VA
    Boneyguy,
    Stephen Pinker's ideas on "intuitive physics" might be relevant to what you were thinking a few pages ago.
     
    Last edited: Nov 4, 2013
  10. boneyguy

    boneyguy Doctor of Teleocity

    Age:
    61
    Posts:
    11,746
    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2007
    Location:
    victoria b.c. CANADA
    Thanks. I appreciate the link.

    I'm aware of Pinker but I don’t think I’ve read this before. It's interesting that most of what he said corresponds quite nicely with my own thinking. He even addresses the importance of making some necessary distinctions between living and non-living 'objects' in a similar way. I don't know how Pinker is regarded in the science community at large but I have a strong hunch.

    Which brings up another thought…it's interesting to me how we very often give authority to only certain people to have insightful, reasonable and interesting ideas. Some of the most interesting and insightful ideas I’ve been presented with have been generated by people who don't have the credentials apparently necessary to be able to do that.

    For me, I don't claim that all my ideas are original but for the most part it's all my own thinking that brought me to many of my ideas. I know I didn’t get there first and that reassures me actually. I get a kick out of that frankly. And in some vain, ego satisfying way, it's always an added bonus to see that at least some of my thinking corresponds to the thoughts of someone with 'credentials’.

    In my opinion the so called 'right brain' is what's missing in a lot of endeavours. Well, more accurately the balanced interplay of left and right brain. The right brain runs by a different sort of logic...but it's definitely logical within the contexts it likes to play in. Looking at it's behavours from within the rules and restrictions of another context makes it look not so logical however. Again it's always about context. Always.

    I like this at the end of the Pinker article. To me the predicament he describes in the quote below is elementary and obvious. I realized this a long time ago. The real problem to my mind is the unwillingness or inability for many representatives of many schools of ‘knowing’ to realize they themselves are represented in what’s written below.

    “According to a saying, if you give a boy a hammer, the whole world becomes a nail. If you give a species an elementary grasp of psychology, biology, and mechanics, then for better and worse, the whole world becomes a society, a zoo, and a machine.”

    In other words a high degree of uncertainty about 'how things work and what we think we know' is very reasonable and indicative of a balanced approach toward 'knowing'.


    This is why I argue for multiple ways of ‘knowing’. A singular way of 'knowing' just doesn't interest me and doesn't represent what I personally hold to be how this universe works nor how best to describe how it works. And context is always paramount.
     
    Last edited: Nov 4, 2013
  11. backporch guy

    backporch guy Tele-Afflicted

    Posts:
    1,637
    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2011
    Location:
    new iberia, la 70563
    It goes back to brains and opposable thumbs. We were able to think enough to fashion tools from sticks and rocks, those we could kill food with and those we could dig in the ground with. We learned that certain plants were good to eat, and learned to cultivate those plants. We learned that certain animals could be domesticated, and learned to harness their power. We evolved and learned to survive using things other than our teeth and claws, and instinct, which were puny compared to the other animals we had to compete with for survival.
     
  12. boneyguy

    boneyguy Doctor of Teleocity

    Age:
    61
    Posts:
    11,746
    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2007
    Location:
    victoria b.c. CANADA
    I don't even remember what I was originally looking at on YT but I came across this and it just seemed so obviously relevant to almost everything that we've touched upon in this thread that I had to post it. I've always enjoyed the passion he speaks with. That makes him easy to listen to for me.


     
IMPORTANT: Treat everyone here with respect, no matter how difficult!
No sex, drug, political, religion or hate discussion permitted here.


  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.