I must admit koans are a terrible teaching tool. They never did anything for me. They can do one thing tough, if you are aware enough, you can notice your thought processes, and more importantly you can notice what is besides them.
When you think about a riddle like the one I wrote here or any other like “What is the sound of one hand clapping?” you can notice what you’re doing. You can also notice that there are no answers to these questions in your mind. Yet, you are trying to solve them with it. Thinking logically is just permuting knowledge you have. If you don’t know something you won’t find the solution. You can only find it with a different mind state, by creating it, out of what seems to be nothing.
Einstein once said that you can’t solve a problem with the same mind that created it. Good enough but how do you do that? Well this is how.
The other day I was trying to fix a bug in the animation system. Namely the monkeyman bug. Now whenever you are “trying” to do something that is a hint that you’re not anywhere close to getting the thing done. So I noticed that I was trying to hear the sound of one hand clapping and I backed off for a couple minutes.
Now it quickly came to me that the whole animation system has some bad logical errors. The bug was just a symptom of the way I programmed it. Now how does Western civilization thinking solve problems? By curing the symptoms. If it is hot, you buy an air conditioner. If it is cold you buy a heater. There is no question why is it hot in the first place? There are no solutions in our culture, you just buy stuff.
The Why question leads to answers that solve REAL problems.
Unfortunately knowing this does not make you automatically do things this way. Most of the time you’ll rationalize why you should think more about the problem because you sense the solution is right around the corner. You never stop to consider that the whole system is false. You must know how to escape from this system. This is the best way I know to explain how to do this.
Think for a couple seconds about what could be the sound of one hand clapping, then notice what you’re doing and bring yourself back to reality. Take a step back. Focus on what is happening right now. Return to the now or try any other metaphor that you like. The thing is you should become aware of the reality right in front of you and when that happens it’s sort of a snap and you feel pressure let go in your brain and sometimes in your eye sockets. It is a physical sensation of release, like coming out of your own head.
Now believe me or not that immediate state you get when that happens is the most powerful state of mind you can ever be in. And I’m not the first one to tell you this, it has been preached for ages. It is sort of a state of nothingness, of just being. You just are. Meaning there are no thoughts.
This blank state is the source of:
- problem solving
- creativity
- thinking out of the box
- relaxing
- happiness
- intuition
- insight
- inspiration
- much more…
99% of people on this planet 99% of the time are in the first state. The state of trying to solve an impossible riddle.
When you are walking down a street thinking about what to do, what to say, where to go, what happened, what will happen, about bullshit… and suddenly a cat runs right in front of your legs. For a moment you just get out of your head and watch the cat running. But quickly you realize it is a cat, it has ears and a tail, it’s black, it’s running, it probably lives here, you start thinking again. You no longer are looking at the cat as it is, you are looking at the cartoon cat you learned from a childrens book at the age of 3 with big letters beneath it C A T. You are looking at the knowledge of the cat you have, you are no longer looking at the real cat that is there.
You, me, most of the time are buried in our thoughts. We are thinking. We are looking at the world through the filter of our knowledge. We see objects instead of just looking and we think about them constantly and don’t consider that we could just let them be and let ourselves be. Some people never in their entire lifetimes enter the state of nothing. They are completely 100% buried in their thought processes. They are eternally stuck in their heads.
Most people don’t listen to you when you’re speaking, they are just thinking what to say next.
The only thing that makes most people snap out of it is something shocking. When they see a leprechaun or when they get hit in the face or when they see Jesus and a penis on one picture. If something is out of their reality, for 1 second they will get out of their heads and stand in awe. That “awe” is just the natural state of being. The shock didn’t make the awe, the shock removed the thoughts.
I consider it natural, cause we are born with it. Children don’t think about stuff they just take everything as it is, experiment with it and learn from it. They are in constant awe. EVERYTHING IS AMAZING! There is no end to questions. No answers can satisfy infinite curiosity. Learning in minutes complex skills is FUN. Playfulness accomplishes everything. At one moment you can be happy at another sad, but there is no rationalization, nothing is better than the other, nothing should be. There are no models in the head.
Everything can be created out of nothing.
We tend to rationalize, objectify and label. Creativity is nowhere to be found there.
But then children slowly get domesticated. They go into public school systems which are places built to deprive people from their natural curiosity and feed them with worthless knowledge. This is reality, this is everything we know about it, stop asking questions and be a good child/worker/consumer/member of society. This takes a long time and most people lose it, they break. And they admit: yes, knowledge is king, I must think about everything because that is rational, this is what is expected from me. I have to know everything, I can’t have my own thoughts because I’m a douche. I have B+ from science I can never invent anything or be creative. Must be good, must be good robot…
If I ask you a question and you respond to me, you’re being a robot.
?
If you’ve ever seen interviews with Marlon Brando watch carefully what he says and how he reacts. Most of the time he completely refuses to answer a question, he does not hear it at all. Instead of answering the interviewers question he will just comment on her beautiful smile. Was that something he did on purpose? When I saw that I instantly knew he practiced meditation. This is just what happens when you are in a state of just being. You’re just curious about stuff, you don’t react in a mechanical way. Watching the world is more important than some silly voices.
Of course I found out from later interviews that he did indeed practice meditation. When I first read some Zen stuff I had no idea what was going on. I am a very intellectual person and I believe that I just need a certain amount of time to understand anything. Usually it wasn’t long with everything I have encountered previously in my life but Zen was just too hard of a nut to crack. For months I was blind. I had countless theories explaining it ranging from spiritual explanations to quantum physics. I was always wrong, I couldn’t answer what is the sound of one hand clapping. It was the ultimate intellectual challenge (if you’re like me consider it a challenge too!). But when it clicked, wow. It is unbelievable, because it is the simplest thing in the world. Literally there can’t be anything simpler. That’s why any kind of thinking about it backfires when you want to understand it.
I wrote the answer to my koan Riddle – will you win the prize or not if you say “I won’t win the prize”?
The answer was: that if you didn’t respond to the riddle you guessed correctly. But silence is also not the answer.
Another paradox?
Koans have only one purpose. To show you that you mustn’t follow.
Now, knowing the answer you would respond by being silent and not writing anything. That is the wrong thing to do, because you’re following.
Following your own thought processes makes you a slave. When you don’t notice that, you get stuck in your reality tunnels. It is a skill to notice bullshit. Because your mind does not see whether a question can be answered or not, it is like a computer, if you give it a task to solve it will try to solve it. That’s why there were many solutions to the riddle. But all of them were wrong because the question itself was whack.
So if you noticed that and wrote that the question is a paradox was it right? No, because you were still trying to give an answer.
So should you not write anything? No, cause somebody already gave that answer and you would be following it.
Should you be like Marlon Brando and don’t consider the question just consider something else like comment on something else or play with your dog instead?
No, if you’re doing what Marlon Brando did, you’re still following.
So you should be yourself? No, because you’re following a concept of yourself.
So do you meditate? No, again you’re following something, in this case a technique, meditation is a technique, not the thing you should be doing.
So you should be completely spontaneous? No, because you can’t be spontaneous by premeditating and thinking about being spontaneous. Again you will be following something.
So where is the answer?! How do you not follow something when everything you do seems to be following!?!? Is it an impossible paradox?!
…now notice that it is your mind that is trying to find the answer to this question…
My mind is doing the same thing right now. Because I am writing about this and I have to think, but I can’t think without following. So I can’t really write the answer to this question.
You can’t solve a problem with the same mind that created it.
You ‘ve got things backwards. Meditation helps you concentrate so your brain can work more efficiently and find an answer to the problem you seek. It cannot solve problems on it’s own.
On another note, meditation allows for creativity, but isn’t necessary to it. People can be creative even without meditation.
“Going to school takes a long time and most people lose it, they break”
If schooling were the reason people aren’t creative, the ancient people of Mesopotamia, Greece and Rome would have made huge creative leaps. And yet, considering their combined efforts for around 1500 years, they have little to show. The real creativity boom is happening today, you just don’t see it cause the information providers aren’t showing it to you.
“If I ask you a question and you respond to me, you’re being a robot.”
If you ask me a question you’re a robot. By an arbitrary rule I just made up. And that you will believe just because I said so.
“The whole riddle thing”
We solved the riddle. It only required logic. No meditation necessary
“When you don’t notice your thought processes, you get stuck in your reality tunnels”
I can work around the system even inside thee system. No reason to exit the system. Though I can, when I want to.
bigbossSNK: OK again I have to ask this question whenever somebody gets too cocky with their reasoning: who are you and what have you done in your life to disprove me so easily? You better answer that because somebody might believe what you are saying and take your side, are you willing to take that responsiblity?
Hihi.. Creativity surrounds us from the beginning. Just look around you. Observe the world that you are a part of. The plants and animals. You are something that has been created ( I’m atheist before someone starts that kind of bullshit, but hey… there is still no answer to our origin), and something that creates other things. YOU are the question, and the answer to it. Therefore, deep inside yourself, you live for yourself. Theres no need to find an answer for a question nobody asked. And theres no need to convert an answer into a question, because it will loose it’s main purpose. To be plain and simple, but punctual. Knowledge and creativity though, are not the same. You can be a dumb piece of shit in your everyday life, but when you look at something (e.g. a piece of wood ), you visualize something else out of that wood (e.g. a wooden statue) just by using your creativity.
That way, you found your way out of the everyday yourself (exit the system), and found yourself in another you. Another system, which is different than the first one, but basically the same. It feels different, so you associate it with different methods of living, different images, sounds, thoughts. But its the same reality you have always been living in. The main point is the state of mind you are in. Who cares about loosing a leg, when you are injected with a kilo of methadone? You don’t realize you even had legs, because it comes naturally…before loosing one of them.
I get into this state occasionally. You just stop thinking for a few minutes and stare into open space. Some people call it ‘daydreaming’ but I’m not really dreaming because there’s nothing going on in my head. Therefore I don’t know what to call it but damn it’s strange.
Boredom is one of the hardest things to overcome. Yet, it is all caused by rational thinking: it’s an infinite loop which you can’t get out of unless you just stop thinking.
E.G:
I work in a shop on saturdays for 7 hours. Whenever my mind is not occupied it goes into a ‘boredom’ state. My mind is nagging me for something to occupy it/challenge it. Literally ANYTHING. I once found myself making mini paper planes out of receipts customers didn’t want.
Having previously experimented with the whole ‘switching off’ thing, I decided to just not think. Because boredom would just loop constantly like the following:
Look at clock > not finishing time > think of something to do > nothing to do > look at clock again
This can be a right bitch to cope with, [i]if you use rational thinking[/i]. But I found NOT looking at the clock constantly and NOT thinking about how bored I was made the 7 hours seem like 7 minutes.
The best thing is that you can switch back and forth between rational thinking and blankness.
The point where I want to get with this is:
You don’t HAVE TO find answers. You don’t need those questions to be answered! Who the hell cares? You have methadone! On the other hand, it is the deepest side of you, who wants to SURVIVE. To survive, you have to find answers to questions, otherwise you will be left behind by people who have those answers and (the main point), they can USE those answers to gain success in their lives and survive.
You lost your leg, you found yourself in a new situation.
Question: How can I live this way?
Although you forget about your problems, the questions are slowly fading away, (exit the system), but you will eventually find yourself face-to-face with the same problem when the juice runs out.
And than, you want to repeat the same process (robot), because you think it’s the meth that gives you a better life. (bad programming)
You realize (if you are conscious enough) that this is even worse than loosing both legs…..
Than you revise the question. How can I live this way? I don’t know, but I still want to LIVE. It’s not the HOW, it’s the WHAT. And from that point, everything starts to get in a new point of view. You feel happy to be alive, although before that, all this was so natural, you didn’t even notice it.
wow, i was slow writing my second part 😀
you were faster teh_ham 😛
To somehow put your reply into my last statement, the example you said:
Work->no work to do->look at clock thing.
You should be happy that you have a job! Damn, I’m loosing mine…..
Wheres that methadone? xD
Deep thoughts, me likes , i think, or do i ? I like to look at beautiful things, look at them , explore them, find out why i like to look at that thing right at that second, why i find it beautiful, and does anybody else see that thing beautiful, does anyone notice it, feels the same about it , thinks the same about it ? You wrote something about getting into a “mindless” state ( kinda, i don’t want to scroll up and quote the exact sentence, don’t ask why, I just don’t , lemme be spontaneous ), where you are just observing and not thinking, but to get to that state you have to be actually thinking about something …
basically we shouldn’t be doing anything, because someone has done that before ? or am i not getting the point ?
deep thoughts, i have to say, again … maybe way to deep for a 18 year old to think about @ 0:40 , maybe not.
Are we slaves ? that just went thru’ my mind … this comment is turning into some kind o’ written down mind flow , things popping up randomly in my brain ( by combining memories /me thinks ) . But if we are slaves, then there ‘s the question of who the f#&@ is the boss ? This question is so hard coded in us, everybody has it somewhere deep in their minds … maybe intentionally, so you start to look for and answer , and you may find the answer to your questions in the Bible, maybe in the scinece, somwhere else, you find something to believe in … we need something to believe in to live, maybe that’s hard coded in us too, seems like our bodies have lots of bugs which needs to be fixed … or are they bugs ? Why are we trying to repair things wich aren’t broken ? … i’ll stop for now as i think the text is getting quite messy , can’t be bothered with propper english at this time – sorry for that, i know some of you will be angry that you have to read such a long, unfriendly looking text … or not . bah
good night
How the fuck do I do anything without following?
And if I’m to do anything with problem solving or creativity or whatever, I’m going to be thinking anyway. The blankness can only help by removing all the thoughts from our mind, so in the few seconds we have before it fills up again, we can focus on one thing very clearly.
Awesome guys! This is it!
:)MoNkEy(: : You are spot on. Rational thinking is a survival function. But once you transcend it you will realize you don’t actually need it.
teh_ham: That’s it. The switching between rational and non-thinking is one of the most powerful things you can do, not to mention that you cannot possibly be bored in this state.
MataGyula: Oh yes, you’re close. Do you think you are a slave?
Once a Zen master asked his students to look at the grass and answer the question: “WHO IS THE MASTER WHO MAKES THE GRASS GREEN?”
lolz…if MM told us everything about this, then ppl will follow it.
“Who are you and what have you done in your life to disprove me so easily?”
I’ve read, understood and processed physics (both relativistic and quantum mechanics). Add to that a keen interest in psychology and neurology, and you’ll see that any kind of philosophical vagueness just evaporates under my light of close scrutiny.
“Are you willing to take that responsibility of others believing what you say?”
That’s the easiest task you can give me. See, I don’t provide any arbitrary – vague claims. What I’m saying is always closely knit to reality.
“WHO IS THE MASTER WHO MAKES THE GRASS GREEN?”
The grass has no master. As all of the physical world it is a self organizing system. There are factors to the grass being green, but it there is no “master”. Apart from that, the same grass that is green for you can easily not be green for someone else. (As in one of you can be colorblind)
Zen masters spoke in an era when our understanding of the world wasn’t very complete. To put it in terms you’ll understand,
both the Zen master and a well informed – rational person today are free when they practice meditation. But, today’s man will be able to find answers where the Zen master of old would claim there is no answer.
sushi: Yes, but I’m telling you not to follow:).
bigbossSNK: You read, you understand, you think. Great, but I’m interested in DOING stuff. Read the title of this blog, it’s not “What I think”. Sorry, but that is reality, not your understanding of philosophy. You are talking about 1:1 correspondence with reality, that is it, what you know and what you can create with it.
You’re completely off the hook with the question btw. You’re following what you think the monk had in mind.
“Read the title of this blog, it’s not “What I think”.Sorry, but that is reality, not your understanding of philosophy.”
Your blog is partly about what you DO and partly about what you think.
You claim people are robots when they respond to your comments, on account of some social or biological programming. That is a claim, not an action. And yet you don’t know what your reader’s social or biological programming is. My programming says I should not respond to your comments, yet I subvert my programming just by answering your comment. I transcend my programming by answering to your posts. That is what I just DID.
I’m not refuting your actions, only some claims that don’t correspond to reality.
“You’re completely off the hook with the question btw. You’re following what you think the monk had in mind.”
No. What the monk had in mind bears no influence to my answer. I deny the physical reality behind the claim, not the mental structure the monk proposed, to which I have no preconceptions other than the very definitions of the words.
If the master has to resort to vague phrasing, and make thinly coated similes to other situations, tell him he needs to define what he’s talking about, or his “wisdom” is only insinuated. If you allow vagueness in your wording, the correctness of your answer becomes probabilistic.
@Michal: I sadly have to disaprove with some of your points. I think it is really helpful to “let go” and live in an animalistic way for at least a short while. How often people say “I wish I were a bird” or anyrthing of the sort, just because animals have no worries. BUT you can be creative, satisfied with your life and everything else you claim you couldnt by thinking all the time.
Our actual society is the perfect example for the wish of the human being to THINK. Its not something we do that leads us to doom. IF thinking would be as meaningless as I read out of your statements, then why are we becoming a “knowledge civilization” ? Why are the buildings and everything we do today WAY better (from all points of view: isolation, architecture -both creative and stable) than anything before? BECAUSE we thought about it and always tried to find better answers to everything we do. Computers would not exist without us thinking. And sure, if you wanna live like an animal and not think, you’d be happy. But you’re life would consist of search for food and sex. Today, this is (at least for the western world where we posess the knowledge and have used it to our advantage) no problem anymore. Anybody can afford food, nobody is gonna have to kill for it and spent hours on the search. Instead, we can use the time to think again and develop better methods to live. And I am 100% sure, no matter what anybody says, that WE live a lot better and happier than anybody before us, anybody that didnt have our knowledge.
Our daily problems today are nothing compared to the problems of others before, where they had to face famine, death, sickness and so on, because they didnt have solutions.
Aristoteles says you can reach a happy life only by using your mind and doing whatever you do USING thought. And I think I agree with him in this.
Cosmin: I’m not saying thinking is that bad, maybe it comes across like that. Thinking is very useful, I agree, I wouldn’t write this post if I wouldn’t think. Thinking is awesome, but not thinking is also awesome. That is the only thing I want you to know.
bigbossSNK: Yes I claim that people are robots, but I also say they can be free from being a robot. I also claim that nothing IS, I’m not actually attached to anything I write or say, I like discussing with you guys because I’m interested how you think, I want to know about your reality tunnels and maybe show you mine.
The monk knows something that you don’t, and you’re not willing to accept that fact. Of course you can claim he is a maniac or is just shitting you but that does not solve the problem. Believe me, I was where you were when I first read about these riddles, you’re still on novice level.
How does anything get done if I sit there like a dumbfuck?
“The monk knows something that you don’t, and you’re not willing to accept that fact.”
I know more than the monk does. Because I make this arbitrary claim that I cannot prove nor will quantify.
Or, rather, because I can provide logical constructs to what I’m saying, who’s validity anyone can examine, rather than relying on some sort of “holier than thou” mysticism.
“Of course you can claim he is a maniac”
I never claimed him a maniac. He would be a maniac if his brain circuits misfired and blended random imaginary elements to his perception of reality. Thinking that reality is a dream isn’t a manic episode because it doesn’t have random elements. It’s a philosophical construct, albeit a wrong one.
“you’re still on novice level.”
LMGDAO. Ok, well, it’s good to know that I can trump your arguments (like my rebuttal to your “reality is an illusion”, to which you still haven’t responded), call out your mistakes and still be a novice. It’s very humbling 😛
“How does anything get done if I sit there like a dumbfuck?”
SplitC, meditation isn’t about just sitting down. It’s about letting go of sensory input to allow the brain to work more efficiently. You are still using the same logical and reasoning brain pathways to find the answer, you just don’t pay any attention to that fact. There have been fMRI studies that prove this. I’ll post a link again, if you’re interested.
“You read, you understand, you think. Great, but I’m interested in DOING stuff. Read the title of this blog, it’s not “What I think”.”
Your response still doesn’t answer my question, imo. I’m interested in doing stuff too, and I don’t see how doing nothing gets things done.
SpiltCoffee: this post is about solving problems. My previous posts are about actually doing stuff. If they seem vague it is because it is hard to explain something that is simple. But I use the stuff I write about everyday and no one can ever disprove me that i’m wrong. How can you disprove years of personal experience?
bigbossSNK: I know more than the monk does. The encyclopedia also knows more than you.
You think you’re better than the monk because you know more and you have better reasoning. You’re the one practicing the “holier than thou” mysticism.
“How can you disprove years of personal experience?”
No one’s disputing facts. Claims that don’t rely on fact, on the other hand, are easy to dispute.
“You think you’re better than the monk because you know more and you have better reasoning”
I didn’t say I was better than the monk. I said my claims rely on facts to substantiate them, his are unfounded and arbitrary.
“You’re the one practicing the “holier than thou” mysticism.”
Mysticism means the belief in realities or truths beyond the present reach of reason. (go to google and type “define: mysticism”). Since my arguments are based on reason they cannot possibly be mysticism.
bigbossSNK: I didn’t say I was better than the monk. I said my claims rely on facts to substantiate them, his are unfounded and arbitrary.
So you claim your reality is better than his.
Since my arguments are based on reason they cannot possibly be mysticism.
Read between the lines, not everything is literal. What I meant is that you think you are holier/better because you can reason based on facts. If you wouldn’t think you are better you would consider the monks point of view, understand it completely and then reject it or accept it. You just disregard it because it doesn’t fit your model of reality.
“So you claim your reality is better than his.”
I don’t consider my reality better or worse than his. I did however note that there is nothing to differentiate his arbitrary positions from anyone else’s. My claims at least correspond to physical reality.
“You just disregard the monk’s opinion because it doesn’t fit your model of reality.”
No. See, in his absolute vagueness, the monk hasn’t made any claims yet. I’m going to reserve disregard for later, when he doesn’t listen to my logical arguments. Right now I’m at indifference with a slight hint of disbelief.
My claims at least correspond to physical reality.
So you think that a reality where you can compare things with a physical or some absolute reality is better than a reality where there is nothing to compare with. I don’t know how to look at this differently, just admit that you think your reality is better and we can move along.
See, in his absolute vagueness, the monk hasn’t made any claims yet.
What if any kind of claim he makes, will lead you away from understanding what he says? So he can’t make a logical claim because that just leads further away from the thing he is teaching.
Look, why are we discussing here? I don’t give a shit if there are logical flaws in what I write, the details don’t matter, the message is important. Do you want to learn something new or do you want to maintain your reality model? You can always go back if you don’t like it.
Off topic: How do you use formatting on this site? I tried using the usual [i]text[/i] method but it doesn’t work.
“just admit that you think your reality is better and we can move along.”
My reality isn’t better, (which is just a vague term). It’s closer an approximation to the physical reality we all live in.
“the details don’t matter, the message is important.”
I agree. I just don’t think there is a message other than “meditation works”
teh_ham: You do it like some text without the spaces.
some text
(I hope this works or I will look like a dumbass.
Crap… Like this:
<i> </i>
“SpiltCoffee: this post is about solving problems. My previous posts are about actually doing stuff. If they seem vague it is because it is hard to explain something that is simple. But I use the stuff I write about everyday and no one can ever disprove me that i’m wrong. How can you disprove years of personal experience?”
Your explanation can be proven wrong. 😛
Michal, your theory is indeed interesting. Yes, people do follow thought patterns, try to solve problems.
But then again, is that a bad thing? People don’t solve problems when they’re high on pot, for example. Or at least, it’s harder to do so. Is this the desirable state of the human mind?
In your previous posts you suggested to “let go” of one’s life. I ask you, do you truly think that is a good idea? If I were to indeed lose control and do whatever I feel like the moment, I would cause much pain to people who, logically, don’t deserve it. I would no doubt land in jail for the rest of my life. Neglecting the fear of consequences, of punishment in the form of prison, what would keep me from murdering people who I hate? From raping and stealing?
archont: But then again, is that a bad thing? People don’t solve problems when they’re high on pot, for example. Or at least, it’s harder to do so. Is this the desirable state of the human mind?
People high on pot solve many great problems like the problem of peace on earth. I’m not joking. I agree that if people only smoked pot or meditated they couldn’t function normally in this society, like calculate taxes. But that is a problem of the system we live in, not the pot. Problems like war, hunger and taxes are artificial. There shouldn’t be any problems in the world, I believe it is possible to transform humanity, like in a 1000 years, so people can just sit around, eat, drink, smoke and have a good time.
Oh, and I don’t smoke if you’re curious about that.
In your previous posts you suggested to “let go” of one’s life. I ask you, do you truly think that is a good idea? If I were to indeed lose control and do whatever I feel like the moment, I would cause much pain to people who, logically, don’t deserve it.
That is a belief you hold, a false one. If you’re a psycho, then yes you will kill people if you let go. But are you? If you are generally a peaceful person, you like yourself and have enough money to live, why would you hurt anybody and how? Sometimes you might say something stupid and hurt somebody, but you’ll find out that people will forgive you when they know you’re just an honest, living in the moment person and paradoxically they’ll like you even more.
The world is not logical. You have to try stuff out. I used to think like you, but no longer.
I smoke pot 😛 And indeed it helped me solve some problems, on the other hand, it caused more problems for me (the fuckin’ police). I’m a peaceful person, but sometimes I would kill some people, who don’t deserve to live in the community. I’m not a psycho, but some people just can’t understand the way of life it should be (pedophiles, rapists, sadists etc.). I would kill those people. Or at least, send them to a deserted island. But than, I would be a person who deserved to die, because i kill people… Paradox huh? Kill in the name of peace. Destroy in the name of creation. This is the crazy world we are living in.
About problem solving. You follow patterns, learn things until they become natural, routine like for you. You don’t think about shifting gears when you drive if you have been driving for years. You don’t, because the movements of shifting are stored in your mind as routine. Yet it is still a problem for people who are newbies in driving, or never seen a car before. When I drive, I don’t think about driving. It just happens.
When I drive, I don’t think about driving. It just happens.
I think routine can be picked up instantly to be natural, but you have to realize its “reality”, as to what functions it can performed. Naturally it takes time to go through the action but thats only physically limiting. After you memorize the routine, you can accept it or you can continue to think about it functions and somehow improve on it.
I think everyone can do this, thus i qualify everyone a genius, but thinking is work and I’m a lazy person.
People high on pot solve many great problems like the problem of peace on earth.
Carl Sagan was an avid pot-smoker.
If you’re a psycho, then yes you will kill people if you let go. But are you?
I won’t answer that in regards to myself, at least not directly. But if you ever studied the mind of a psycho killer, those are the people who, up to the breaking point, lead mundane and average lives. In fact, they are polite, gentle, trying not to say anything that could hurt somebody, trying to restrain themselves from behavior they deem inappropriate. Those people have to exercise their conscious will and effort in order to conform to society more than anybody. More than anyone they have to think about what they’re doing, saying and gesturing, it’s moral and social meanings and consequences. Up until that point, those people are gentle, introverted, some would say boring. But for some, there comes a point where they let go, according to your philosophy. Bombing, shootouts, hostage situations, murders, arsons, rapes.
It’s ironic really, how the most violent and brutal people also happen to be the same people who appear sensitive, caring and harmless.
But that is a problem of the system we live in, not the pot. Problems like war, hunger and taxes are artificial.
Artificial you say? No, they are not. Ever since Cain picked up a stone and struck his brother down, humanity has been in a state of war. Thousands of years of research into tools for taking another man’s life had led to a point where today’s weapons are not only a threat to a specific group, but to the species as a whole. Yet do you see it regressing? Stopping? For I do not. It is in the very nature of man to fight. It is in our instinct to topple the strongest and take his place, dominating, praying on the weaker one. Man did fight with animals, with the elements, with nature, with disease, and when there’s nothing left to fight, man fight himself. You may think that there’s good in man, but our facade of civilization, compassion and benevolent morality crumbles fast in the face of, say, war. You can’t cure the problem of war without changing the human being. It is because deep inside, we aren’t all that good. We are biological machines, programmed to take advantage of the brutal laws of nature.
Can we go back to the philosophical boxing match? This thread’s becoming too mushy for my taste.
Try and change the flow of the discussion back to it. 😛
ximus: I think everyone can do this, thus i qualify everyone a genius, but thinking is work and I’m a lazy person.
Everybody is also lazy, yet some people get things done :). Lazy is just a stupid term for some nasty habits you have, you can change them if you know how.
archont: It’s ironic really, how the most violent and brutal people also happen to be the same people who appear sensitive, caring and harmless.
Yes I agree. That behaviour for me is just creepy. I much prefer people that are honest and don’t restrain themselves from everything. You can’t trust somebody that is being nice to you, why is he/she nice to you? Because he/she is hiding something from you (psycho!).
Maybe I’m not telling you everything, this ‘letting go’ thing seems to confuse you. To state it as shortly as possible: if you have your purpose in life, you know who/what you are (you know yourself and you love yourself) and you have developed proper habits of functioning in this world there isn’t much for you left to do, you can let go and the body will do its own thing in a natural manner, without effort. And you won’t kill or rape anybody I assure you if those assumptions are satisfied.
Artificial you say? No, they are not. Ever since Cain picked up a stone and struck his brother down, humanity has been in a state of war.
Well that’s what I mean by artificial – man-made.
This is why I make computer games, so people can fight over the internet instead of reality.
bigbossSNK: you realize nobody will win that match?
“I qualify everyone who can remember a set of patterns a genius”
Then you don’t have a definition of genius that allows precise communication. Your definition of genius starts from “person of some intelligence”
“People might be nice to me because he/she is hiding something from you (psycho!)”
Preconceptions aplenty. When people are nice to you, most of the time it’s because they ‘ve got the hots for you. That or they want something from you. The psycho probability is too far off to be worth consideration.
“This is why I make computer games, so people can fight over the internet instead of reality.”
Out of all the people who play your game, how many do you think have homicidal tendencies that they manifest in your game to avoid a real manifestation? Give me a percentage. 0.0001%, 0.0000001 %? And besides that, violent video games are factors (albeit small) to violent thoughts. If that’s really your goal, and not a noble afterthought, you’re going about it the wrong way.
“you realize nobody will win the philosophical boxing match?”
Nah, you’re just saying that because I’ve got you on the ropes 😛
bigbossSNK: Thanks for your opinion.
Nah, you’re just saying that because I’ve got you on the ropes
I won’t fall for that cheap trick.
I love philosophical talk, but this is getting too much… SHOW US SOME LINK DEAD!
People who become violent from video games would become violent from any other form of violence. Many kids in Japan had epilepsy from watching agressive cartoons. Some 8 year old dude thought he could fly like Shonguku (or w/e his name is) and jumped out of a window from the 5th level…
I played many agressive games when i was a kid, and still I didn’t kill anyone, and the only time I had to fight was allways self-defense. Although I do have violent thoughts sometimes (hey who hasn’t?), I am not a violent person at all.
The difference between a psycho and a genius is sometimes thinner than a hair. Perfectly normal (?) people turn into psychos from one minute to another because of some happenings around them.
The best way to let go of the steam, and still have fun is by doing sports.
“I played many aggressive games when i was a kid, and still I didn’t kill anyone”
That’s because violent games lead are a factor to violent thoughts. They are a much smaller factor to violent actions.
“The difference between a psycho and a genius is sometimes thinner than a hair”
The two are not mutually exclusive terms. Though uncommon, there’s nothing preventing a person to exist in both groups.
“Perfectly normal (?) people turn into psychos from one minute to another because of some happenings around them.”
Your understanding of psychology befuddles even the keenest mind
“Many kids in Japan had epilepsy from watching agressive cartoons” ??? LOL? What does THAT have to do with violence? First of all, the epilepsy strikes where not by far caused by any violent action shown in those cartoons but the huge number of changing frames and colors. The human brain can only accept so much information. If you play a game at 400 frames per second or such and the colors change quickly, you’ll have an epilepsy strike too. Has nothing to do with violence.
Cosmin Says: I love philosophical talk, but this is getting too much… SHOW US SOME LINK DEAD!
Don’t you have anything else to do?
:)MoNkEy(:: The best way to let go of the steam, and still have fun is by doing sports.
Yeah, that or killing babies.
bigbossSNK:“Perfectly normal (?) people turn into psychos from one minute to another because of some happenings around them.”
Your understanding of psychology befuddles even the keenest mind
What he probably means is that any kind of person considered “normal” when in the right circumstances and right place will turn into a psycho and kill. If I throw you and lock you up in a basement, play death metal all day, kill bunnies in front of you and shout “Die!” and “Kill them all!” for 3 years, you will kill, at least me. There is probably little you can do about it. So who is to blame if a psycho kills somebody? Nature, nurture, himself because he has free will?
Killing babies is a feature that I havent seen implemented in any game. Can someone please tell me I’m wrong?
“After extensive torture you will kill, at least I would”
Your certainty of the future is ill conceived. A staple of psychology when talking about all people is that you forgo 1:1 correspondence between actions and effects. In English, you don’t know what a person’s reaction to a situation is beforehand.
In your example, the tortured person might be a masochist, in which case your conditioning has no effect.
“So who is to blame if a psycho kills somebody?”
For the spirit of clarifying things, I will say that not all psychopaths have homicidal tendencies. Back on track, if a psychopath kills someone, he is the only one to blame. Exactly determining the extend of each parameter’s input to the action is for the courts to decide (through specially appointed psychologists). If his action was the sole fault of his nature, his sentence might be reduced, and he will carry it out in a mental institution.
Well you can’t really say he is solely to blame, since, as we know today, the first year of life forms the soon-to-be personality. Thus nobody is meant to become one thing or another, we’re all planned (at least our social behavior, ignoring here the survival-wish of each) to work in a certain way and we’re the lest to blame for that which we become. Our parents and the society is to blame. Fact.
What Cosmin said. Why not put the parents in jail?
The fact that I am alive here is just because my parents decided to do so and to raise me. It’s not my fault that I exist.
Killing babies is a feature that I havent seen implemented in any game. Can someone please tell me I’m wrong?
There was an old DOS game called Baby. Where babies fell out of a burning house and you would have to catch them. Of course you could not catch them on purpose :).
Haha, that sounds cool XD . I know a flash game where you kill kittens though…
Back to the parental issue… Schillers “The Thieves” (German “Die Räuber”) pretty well contains and discusses this problem (well, mostly in monologues, but they have a very good to follow argumentation). Franz (one of the main characters… the “evil” brother) blames his father for that which he has become and criticizes the fact that his father, even though he says he loved him already before he was born, did surely not love him back then. Matter of fact, he most certainly not even know who he is going to be after he were born so how can he say he loved him? Maybe he didnt even want him.
But if you get a child (willingly or not) you claim to love it and take care of it, so it evolves into something you didnt knew it will. Hmm… lost my line of thought somewhere along the way I guess… anyway… read The Thieves, good book.
“Our parents and the society is to blame.”
Bullshit! Your formative years are important for the path your personality takes, but you are still in physical control of your actions. If you don’t have physical control of your actions and impulses, you will be institutionalized.
“Why not put the parents in jail?”
Because they have no physical control over your actions. If you abandon physical causality for determining blame, everyone and everything becomes liable to a sentence over the crime : all your relatives, neighbors, people who didn’t interfere with your life but could have, no matter how far away.
“The fact that I am alive here is just because my parents decided to do so and to raise me”
Partially true, but this isn’t about you being alive or existing. This is about your PHYSICAL ACTIONS.
“we’re all planned to work in a certain way and we’re the least to blame for that which we become”
That’s just arbitrary. People have genetic and biological inclinations, but their actions aren’t predetermined. They have the freedom to decide what to do in their lives.
Parents teach you the rights and wrongs of life; I.E they pass most of their morals and beliefs to you and you grow up to live by them. That’s why people in the western world believe in money and people in the eastern world believe in Allah.
So basically, parent’s set the foundations for you to live upon (rules which you must abide by) and if you disobeyed them you were punished.
This laxes over time because you grow up and program yourself to do things and conform to things.
Because they have no physical control over your actions.
They have a lot of physical control. Everyone does. What do you think school bullies did? They were stronger than you, so they took control over you.
Although parents do have more reasoning. (Hehe)
Killing babies is a feature that I havent seen implemented in any game. Can someone please tell me I’m wrong?
Simpsons Movie, Bart’s playing a game called Baby Blast in the Church, which Maggie takes from him and plays later.
“After extensive torture you will kill, at least I would”“I qualify everyone who can remember a set of patterns a genius”
Everyone has the potential to be a genius but our upbringing, culture, society, etc.. is different so we have varying levels on intelligence.
Memory helps in understanding the world because everything has a “pattern” but recognizing it is a long process.
So to bring back similar events is similar to Scientific method where each memory is an experiment.
They have a lot of physical control. Everyone does.
No one has “physical control” of a person, nor can they change your emotions, or change your way of thinking. But having it happen repetitively will force you to consider alternatives ways of “thinking”.
Language is a pattern where someone can understand it differently but the idea it communicates is the same. You just need to clarify it.
Typo- just remove “After extensive torture you will kill, at least I would”
I must have deleted what i wrote but under abnormal situations, a normal person thinks differently.
“Although parents do have more reasoning”
That’s also filling in the blank arbitrarily. Again, it depends on the individual parents and the individual child. (You are talking about reasoning, not knowledge over the world)
“Everyone has the potential to be a genius”
I must digress. Not everyone has the genetic makeup to help him become, much less be acknowledged a genius.
I can give you many examples to show you, that you don’t have physical control over yourself at least most of the time. There is a big dissonance between the will and what you can actually do. This is a big part of what I’m writing about here on this blog. Here are some examples:
– a person that is quitting smoking yet goes buys cigarretes and smokes them
– a person that wants to quit his job and become a painter yet never does that and dies as an accountant
– a person that goes bungie jumping, pays good money, rides to the top and decides he will not jump
– a person that is attracted to somebody of the opposite sex, wants to meet them but never does that
– a person wakes up in the morning, he want to get up, he decided to do it, but he falls asleep again
– a person is watching a movie or driving a car late at night, he wants to stay awake yet fails and falls asleep
– somebody walks behind you and frightens you, so you jump up
– a person sitting in the crowd, he does not like what is happening on stage so he does not intend to clap, when the performance is over everyone stands up and claps, the person does that too
– a person is asked by a friend what does he think of her new dress, he thinks it is awful and wants to say that, yet always says “It looks nice”
– you do not intend to kill anyone, you’re not a psycho. One day somebody murders and rapes your wife and children, you go out on a killing spree for revenge.
– etc.etc.
And please don’t think you are beyond that, and you have will power to overcome such situations. I am 100% sure that you have situations in your everyday life were you want to do or say something, yet you do something else instead.
Your examples bear no proof of concept. People CAN choose to control themselves, to stop smoking, meet a girl, disagree to something, say “fuck off” etc. If they don’t do it, most of the time it’s because they are subdued by their biological or social programming.
“I am 100% sure that you have situations in your everyday life were you want to do or say something, yet you do something else instead.”
I still have physical control over my actions. Acting based on some internal programming and having physical control of my body aren’t two different notions, they are one and the same!
Yeh, what Michal said. Kant wrote a lot about the concept of “freedom” in one’s doings. One of his short stories sounds something like this:
-A man is free. Yet every day after work, when he is tired, he does the same thing: He goes home to his wife and to his children. He has the money he would need to leave. And he has the option to go out to a party or chill with buddies or even go out in the open wide world and never come back again. He could live all those dreams he always dreamed about when he was a small child. He could become anything he wants and live adventures. Yet he does none of that. Every evening, he goes home to his wife and children.-
Now, even if that man would be unsatisfied with his job or wife or children, there is almost no way (I say almost because in maybe less than 0,1% of cases one would handle else) that this man would think about just leaving his life behind and starting to act completely different and starting completely new. Even though he has all the freedom in the world and you can’t say he’s starving or whatever, he’d even have the financial support to do whatever the hell he wants. Still he never will. Because, although no “direct” physical thing is hindering him from leaving, nobody is grabbing his arm and saying “you stay here”, there are other traditions and patterns that he got used to and that are 100% part of his life that he will ALWAYS follow.
So no matter if his family and job and whatever all seem to have no influence on his ability to decide what to do in life, it is, if not a physical, then a psychic bound and a normal person will always be bound to those things.
And yeah, you can say “that’s not right, if he really wanted to, he left”, but then you’re just talking about something that doesnt happen in every day life. This is fact. You dont change your life since you are born in a way of thinking and you follow it like a slave your whole life. This goes for every average person (forget geniouses or people that win a million over night or such minoritary exceptions).
So yes, the influence your parents and the society have on you will practically LEAD most of your life. And although they dont FORCE you into not going one way or another, they have already given you the reasons for that which you will decide to do.
Exactly, thanks for the story Cosmin. This is what I’m talking about.
bigbossSNK, what you are saying is that, although I’m not doing the thing I want, I still have freedom.
WHERE THE FUCK IS THAT FREEDOM!? Don’t you see that your wanting and doing are TWO SEPARATE things?
This is hard to admit because it is frightening that your life is governed by external forces. So you rationalyze it. You don’t do the thing you want and then you say “But I COULD do it”. And I CAN do it if I want to. Yet when the situation happens again you will do the exact same thing, repeating the same pattern, and again rationalyzing it and saying the same thing to yourself “I could do it if I really wanted to”. Wake up.
Your life is governed by patterns which you have little and sometimes no control over.
Physical freedom of action is an illusion.
Put your left hand up in the air.
If you did it, you did it because I told you to.
If you didn’t, you didn’t do it because I told you to.
There was no freedom in your choice. Just a pattern that fired in your neurology.
“So yes, the influence your parents and the society have on you will practically LEAD most of your life”
If that’s Kant’s opinion, then he was a seriously dimwitted motherfucker.
Freedom is the ability to physically perform an action or think. HAVING freedom is a superset of EXERCISING freedom. The man in your example has freedom even if he doesn’t exercise it. If you don’t agree with the definition, provide a different one.
People are always subject to some sort of biological or social programming. But it’s introspection that makes the difference between people who transcend those patterns and those who stay locked in them. Your level of introspection and appliance thereof on the physical world is what differentiates you from a social and biological machine.
“Your life is governed by patterns which you have little and sometimes no control over.”
Like everyone else, I too have to deal with social and biological programming. And yet, I am not a social – biological machine, because I use my own introspection as a factor in my taking action.
“If you didn’t raise your hand when I told you, you didn’t do it because I told you to.”
That’s the dumbest thing I’ve heard all day.
You need to understand that if you tell someone to do something in a social gathering, that is social programming. A person will then choose whether or not to be subdued by your social programming. I happen to have a very strong will and a critical mind, so you got the middle finger from me.
How’s that for your “control by talking”TM ?
“There was no freedom in your choice. Just a pattern that fired in your neurology.”
You’re confusing the process of reading your sentence with the process of making a choice over what you wrote. Your uninformed theories convince only the naive.
I don’t think this could get any more complicated
Who or what are your influences bigboss? I doubt you were an ass by birth. 😀
“I doubt you were an ass by birth.”
Of course not. I have to work very hard at that, every single day. 😛
Haha, the ass thing’s funny. ANYWAY…
Kant DID mention by this (but i guess less in the matter that I have) that no man is really free.
BUT just cuz I’m saying this and cuz I also partially believe in it doesn’t deserve u calling me a motherfucker in no indirect way. We’re just talking… chill. I have a feeling this philosophical discussions won’t lead us anywhere, but since I seem to change sides every now and then, I think I’m the lest endangered of being verbally attacked. And if this is true, then you guys are going to start kicking the monitor in eachothers face until this is over.
But, as a remindal HERE, everybody RELAX! Nothing we say can possibly be RIGHT or WRONG, it’s just a point of view and could, somewhere beyond our imagination and reasoning, look totally different then we imagine.
Yeah, NOW… when are Link-Dead news coming?
Yo Cosmin, no disrespect meant for you man (indirect or direct).
I’m just spicing things up a little to keep things rolling. No offense meant, people.
“Nothing we say can possibly be RIGHT or WRONG”
I’d say you were right, but I’d be wrong
Nothing we say can possibly be RIGHT or WRONG, it’s just a point of view and could, somewhere beyond our imagination and reasoning, look totally different then we imagine.
Exactly. No point of view is better than the other. It’s all reality tunnels. Some people thing their reality tunnels are better than others and even start wars over them.
Yeah, NOW… when are Link-Dead news coming?
Haha, when bigbossSNK thinks for 1 second… that may be never :D.
bigbossSNK: so you claim that most people don’t excercize freedom? That’s the stupidest thing I heard today. So they have a pot of gold in front of them, yet they don’t take it.
Why do you think such a phenomen exists like procrastination?
If free will is a fact why do you end up watching TV instead of doing the thing you want. Sometimes that thing is VERY important to you. Why do you need to convince yourself to do things. This is so obvious, I can’t believe I need to discuss it. Why would you ever need to talk to yourself if you had free will and direct control over physical action? Why is it called will POWER?
Will is something that can be brought upon a scale and measured, there can be weak and strong will. Don’t you see something wrong here?
If free will was a fact, it would be just called WILL. And you would do whatever the fuck you want.
It seems to me that you never wanted anything in life and you have never failed to achieve it. Hence you still live in a bubble where you believe you have a potential for greatness, you just need to do it when the time comes, or if you feel like it… but certainly you can do it. That’s what you want to believe right?
A person will then choose whether or not to be subdued by your social programming. I happen to have a very strong will and a critical mind, so you got the middle finger from me.
A strong reaction is not a sign of your strong will, it is just a sign of the same social programming from the other side. It’s like punks try to rebel and differentiate themselves from society, yet they don’t see they just fall into another category of being a social robot.
Holy smokes. This topic has gone wild while i was offline…
Giving middle fingers to people alredy? Nice… I wont even say anything else here.
I wont even say anything else here.
I’m just looking forward for the next Link-dead update.
“No point of view is better than the other. It’s all reality tunnels.”
A reality tunnel is by definition a subset of reality. When you expand your reality tunnel to fit all of reality (1:1 correspondence to reality), it stops being a reality “tunnel”. Hence, there is a way to eradicate reality tunnels, and it is through a 1:1 correspondence to reality.
“So they have a pot of gold in front of them, yet they don’t take it.”
Freedom isn’t a pot of gold. In real life new choices come with risks, which not everyone is willing to take. You ‘re oversimplifying.
“If free will is a fact why do you end up watching TV instead of doing the thing you want.”
I don’t watch TV (as in aimlessly zapping the channels like a drone). If I find a show interesting, I download it (iTunes etc.). Procrastination starts as a choice and can continue to become a habit. It’s not a one way street.
“If free will was a fact, it would be just called WILL.”
The limitations of the English language aren’t enough to justify your theory.
“And you would do whatever the fuck you want.”
The only thing stopping you from doing what you want is a lack of introspection and consequent unwillingness to act.
“It seems to me that you never wanted anything in life and you have never failed to achieve it.”
Your knowledge of me and my achievements is a null set. You are uttering uninformed assumptions.
“Hence you still live in a bubble where you believe you have a potential for greatness”
We ‘ve all had small wishes, plans etc. fall apart. And we all have a POTENTIAL for greatness. The few who dare search for greatness, have already traversed the greatest part of finding it. (I did get myself through college, if that’s what you mean, and am raising money for a doctorate)
“A strong reaction is not a sign of your strong will, it is just a sign of the same social programming from the other side”
Social programming had nothing to do with my decision. I critically examined what you said, and saw that it was not true. Your telling me to raise my hand was a tiny blip in my social programming that I squashed like a mosquito on a hot summer night. Not because any social or biological programming necessitated it, but because I find the annoyance distasteful.
It all goes down to binary.
If you tell me to raise my hand, there are two outcomes. Either I did that, or didn’t do it. Was there really any other choice? I could have raised my right hand, but that is irrelevant. I could have lowered my left hand, however that is also irrelevant. Both would be failures to do the requested action.
Choices are made by logic, programming, experience, state. Have you ever thought about computers? Computers are interesting machines. Their binary assembly code is just as complicated and incomprehensible to an average human as that man’s own mind. The millions of processes going on at one second form, when seen form the lowest level, a web of impulses and code and data that is practically impossible to understand when viewed from the lowest level. But as complicated as it is, is it not predictable? With thousands of tiny jolts of electricity, is the choice of one given switch made logically, predictably, based on previous instructions and data, predetermined? Of course it is. As a programmer you know that the only randomness computers have is the random function. And even that isn’t truly random as well.
We have our, as you portray it, instinctive, robotic reactions. Now if those reactions are logical and predictable, what exactly would a free-will choice look like? The opposite of a logical, robotic choice is randomness. It’s because ANY OTHER algorithm, in fact any algorithm at all, would be just as robotic.
Bah, this has gone on long enough. Lets just get the post count up to 100 and then MM can release some more info about Link-Dead.
archont: Randomness or spontenaeity can occur exactly only when you stop thinking (rationally).
A reality tunnel is by definition a subset of reality. When you expand your reality tunnel to fit all of reality (1:1 correspondence to reality), it stops being a reality “tunnel”. Hence, there is a way to eradicate reality tunnels, and it is through a 1:1 correspondence to reality.
You don’t understand, think for a second, or read a definition: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality_tunnel
Your belief that there is something like “all reality” and that there is a way to find it out and make a 1:1 corresponding function to it is by definition ALSO JUST a reality tunnel.
It is no better or worse than any other. No closer nor farther to the ultimate reality.
I think this is the main point where we disagree, all the rest is irrelevant if you don’t understand this.
For centuries people have been trying to find out what is reality and they invent different tools for it. Mysticism, religion, science, math are all tools to help us find that 1:1 function, so that we know reality as it is. Science is the latest invention to hopefully figure that out. But what scientists do not understand, and you too, is that you cannot look at the world objectively. There is no way to look at the world without seeing it through the subjective filter of our mind. Of course science knows about these limitations that’s why there exists the “scientific method” and other tools which supposedly get us closer to understanding the real reality. But these tools have proved to be insufficient yet again. Just look at quantum mechanics. The wave-particle nature of light. The fact that we observe the light makes it a particle, when we don’t observe it, it behaves like a wave. So scientists concluded that it has a dual nature and many theories spawned from that like probablity and potential state theories. What the fuck? Don’t you see something wrong here?
The scientific method used to understand the world has been proved to not work in the quantum world! That’s all there is to it. If you measure something and it changes when you measure it, that proves that it is not reality that is wierd, it is the scientist that is wierd. We all view the world through our reality tunnels. The scientific method is just a part of the reality tunnel we create, it has no significant meaning. You can as well use mysticism to explain reality. All are human constructs. All are just metaphors, parts of the realities we create in our own heads. All is metaphors. Your belief in an ultimate reality is also a metaphor. We haven’t the slightest idea what that is. We are not even remotely close of knowing what reality is really like. Your head would probably explode if you could see it for 1 second:). Fortunately it isn’t possible so your head can stay on its place.
Your head would probably explode if you could see it for 1 second :).
It would be like looking into forever or dividing by zero.
*poof*
“Your belief that there is something like “all reality” and that there is a way to find it out and make a 1:1 corresponding function to it is by definition ALSO JUST a reality tunnel.”
It’s only a reality tunnel if it limits my understanding of the physical world. Your so called reality “tunnels” can be expanded to further understanding. Even the article you linked to admits so. Why are you unwilling to accept this?
“Just look at quantum mechanics. What is up with the duality of light’s nature? Don’t you see something wrong here?”
Nope. On the atomic level, things operate under different laws (at least with our current formulation of science). It doesn’t cause any confusion to anyone with an understanding of physics.
“The scientific method used to understand the world has been proved to not work in the quantum world”
Quantum physics IS a science. Different laws describe different phenomena (microscopic – macroscopic). No confusion, still science.
“Your belief in an ultimate reality is also a metaphor. We haven’t the slightest idea what that is.”
I’ve explained there is no answer to “what” reality is. It exists without regard for your human concepts.
“All are just metaphors, parts of the realities we create in our own heads”
I’ve been saying this for a while now, but you always seem to sidestep it. Human constructs are only true if they conform to reality. Leprechauns and physics are both human constructs, but science relates to physical reality, leprechauns do not. If you don’t see the difference, you need to reevaluate your position.
“Your head would probably explode if you could see it for 1 second:)”
Cartoon violence, cute
Physical reality is a leprechaun.
(you can quote that some day on wikiquote)
Of course you can expand the reality tunnel but only by adding other reality tunnels. Like I can get to know how you think, how you view the world, I can take another persons view points, a scientists, a priests, a shamans point of view and add them to my reality tunnel. That is all you can do. You cannot escape the limitations of your mind and experience the ultimate reality. Even through the use of tools, because the tools and the interpretations are also just human mind metaphors.
It’s only a reality tunnel if it limits my understanding of the physical world.
Any understanding limits your understanding of the physical world.
If you understand that sentence, you’ll understand my point of view and maybe add it to your reality tunnel.
“(you can quote that some day on wikiquote)”
Wikiquotes are a dime a dozen.
“Of course you can expand the reality tunnel but only by adding other reality tunnels.”
No disagreement there. Our views part ways in that I don’t consider our understanding to be limited just because it relies on representing reality. Your notion that the human brain is unable to understand reality is arbitrary. As such, no reasonable man can accept it, until you provide an example case of inability to understand physical reality.
“If you understand that sentence, you’ll understand my point of view and maybe add it to your reality tunnel.”
I understand your statement, critically examine it and discard it because it doesn’t agree with physical reality.
Your notion that the human brain is unable to understand reality is arbitrary. As such, no reasonable man can accept it, until you provide an example case of inability to understand physical reality.
Any complete theory about an ultimate reality must include the observer of the reality in it. So the theory must include the observer knowing about the ultimate reality in the ultimate reality. So the theory must include the observer knowing about the ultimate reality with an observer in it knowing about the ultimate reality. So the theory must include the observer knowing about the ultimate reality with an observer knowing about the ultimate reality with an observer knowing about the ultimate reality… and to infinity.
Hence it is impossible to create a complete theory about ultimate reality.
In other words there is no way we can ever know what reality really is, because we are an observer inside of it.
“Any complete theory about an ultimate reality must include the observer of the reality in it”
Yep.
“So the theory must include the observer knowing about the ultimate reality in the ultimate reality”
Yep.
“So the theory must include the observer knowing about the ultimate reality with an observer in it knowing about the ultimate reality.”
Nope. The theory has to predict an observer knowing about himself knowing about the theory. And that’s where your recursive example grinds to a halt, rather than derailing infinitely. Humans associate a neuron structure to themselves. They don’t create new neurons whenever they think about themselves or something they know.
“In other words there is no way we can ever know what reality really is, because we are an observer inside of it.”
You are still to provide a valid example of inability to understand physical reality. Your notion of the human brain’s inability to understand physical reality remains arbitrary.
@bigbossSNK: Your problem is that fact that you think reality = physical laws. Sure, here, where we live, the reality consists of rules that cannot be broken. Gravity and so on. But what if these physical rules are totally different somewhere in another time and place? Would that mean that THAT is not real? Just because it doesnt fit to this conception of reality? What if there are places in space, maybe other dimentions, where there is no gravity, or it works totally different? Would that be just “imaginary” ? Well, at the moment, for us, it is because we know nothing of it. But maybe there is such a place. maybe THAT is reality and this here isn’t. We can’t know. Cuz we can’t think of things any different or we dont posess the knowledge we would need to find that place. In theory, that doesnt mean its existance is an impossibility.
“Your problem is that fact that you think reality = physical laws”
No, I never said that. If anything, I said science doesn’t create reality, it only interprets it.
“But what if these physical rules are totally different somewhere in another time and place? Would that be just imaginary?”
If some other place in the universe is governed by other physical laws, we will expand physics to accommodate these other laws. So long as this place you propose has physical existence it will be real.
“In theory, that doesn’t mean its existence is an impossibility.”
I’m not disavowing the possibility of existence of anything. I consider the possibility of it’s existence, but require an associated physical reality to be convinced of it.
Man Michael where are you getting your weed? That’s some powerful shit if it makes you think like this. I think you should cut back on the plant and get back to reality. Reality sucks and part of life is realizing and accepting this fact. Idealization of philosophies doesn’t help pay for the groceries or put gas in your car. Nor does it even help you breathe. If you want to be some self absorbed transcendentalist, there are plenty of Buddhist monasteries around the world. Quit making Link-Dead, get your head shaved, give away all your worldly possessions and go live at one. Frankly I want link dead to be completed since your work is the best 2-D programming and some of the best general programming I have ever seen in gaming. You do this not for money but because you like to make games that stand out with their own purpose of existence to show what a fun game should be like. It’s your show however and you will play puppet master as you see fit.
Quit making Link-Dead, get your head shaved, give away all your worldly possessions and go live at one.
Scary thought…
Quit making Link-Dead,
I bet he’s already done, just holding it out for the hype to go up.
“I bet he’s already done, just holding it out for the hype to go up.”
HAHAHAHAHA.
bigbossSNK: I provided a proof, yet I don’t have to that. If you are a follower of scientific reasoning you should know better than that. If you can’t prove something it does not implicate that it is false.
The inability to disprove the existance of the flying spaghetti monster is the basis for its existance, or at least it is the basis of the whole flying spaghetti monster god parody.
It is you that should provide a proof that we can know what reality is.
treeSkwerral:
The stuff I write about is as close to reality as it can get. It is about how to actually do and create stuff in the real world. As I said somewhere before, I am not a philosopher, I’m interested in practical implications of theories. The things I write about are things that make me do things everyday faster, better and more effortless. So if you want to see Link-dead someday don’t tell me to stop it, cause I’ll stop making it and return to being an average consumer citizen. Reality is not the movie that is being played in front of your eyes.
Reality sucks and part of life is realizing and accepting this fact.
How can reality suck?
If it sucks, there must be someone for it to suck?
Who is that who makes the reality suck?
I bet he’s already done, just holding it out for the hype to go up.
Oops, you got me. The conspiracy is over. OK I’ll have to release it now…
“I provided a proof, yet I don’t have to do that”
I already debunked your “proof”.
“If you can’t prove something it does not implicate that it is false.”
I never said it was false. I said it was arbitrary. The possibility of it’s existence remains, but I need physical evidence to be convinced of it. Until that time, it’s a neuron structure with no correspondence to physical reality.
“It is you that should provide a proof that we can know what reality is.”
It’s called physics and neurology. (just to put things straight, we were talking about humans understanding physical reality (as in representing it 1:1), not about “knowing what reality is”.
OK – understanding physical reality – same thing. I am also not convinced about that idea until you provide me with proof.
It’s called physics and neurology.
So the science about leprachauns is proof for their existence?
“I am also not convinced about that idea until you provide me with proof.”
Sure. Here’s an article about single neurons relating to just one person.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071206222634.htm
If you have any other questions, feel free to ask.
“So the science about leprechauns is proof for their existence?”
I already explained that science does not create reality, it represents it.
Apart from that, sure, you provide me with some scientific evidence of the leprechaun’s existence, and I’ll change their state from arbitrary neuron structure to correspondent neuron structure.
Cool article. Why haven’t they made an artificial brain yet if it is that simple?
What is seeing the Jennifer Aniston? A brain.
Another brain, namely the scientist, is looking at Jennifer Aniston. So they both see Jennifer Aniston, the conclusion – there is a Jennifer Aniston in physical reality. Nothing wrong with that?
Of course. There is no Jennifer Aniston!
Both brains have created a model, an interpretation. That is what a neural network is. It is a map. Unfortunately – the map is not the territory. However detailed it will be, it is not the same thing.
The patient is seeing a map of Neverland. The scientist is also seeing a map of Neverland. So they both see maps. Does that tell us anything about the existence of Neverland itself in reality?
From an article on the same site:
“When you look at something, it’s really vivid and when you close your eyes to imagine it, the image is not so vivid,” said Fried. “So, we were surprised that the brain cells fired at almost the same intensity.”
The same patterns were fired. So we cannot distinguish yet, from a neurological view, if a person is actually seeing something or imagining it. Unless we find out the difference, we can as well assume, that what you are actually seeing right in front of you now is just your imagination.
“Does that tell us anything about the existence of Neverland itself in reality?”
Thanks for making my point for me. Neuron structures are always real as neuron structures, but they are only correct when they correspond to an existent physical reality.
“So we cannot distinguish yet, from a neurological view, if a person is actually seeing something or imagining it”
Don’t take things out of context. From the same study:
“The researchers observed three different types of selective neurons. Some neurons responded during the processing of incoming visual information, but not during imagery. There also were neurons activated only during visual recall, which may be involved in retrieval mechanisms not associated with vision. Finally, some neurons responded selectively during both vision and imagery.”
Even though SOME neurons respond the same to visual stimuli and imagination, not ALL neurons share this behavior. To say that seeing something and imagining it is exactly the same is a denial of physical fact.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2000/11/001120073544.htm
Thanks for making my point for me. Neuron structures are always real as neuron structures, but they are only correct when they correspond to an existent physical reality.
I don’t get it. So does Neverland exist or not?
Sorry I took it out of context. Yet I’m interested what will be the difference when the person is not recalling anything, between a person that is day conscious, a dreamer and a lucid dreamer. Let’s wait for those studies.
Okay, this has gone off too long, and it’s obvious you two will never make peace, so let’s leave it as it is and talk about something else in another post.
“I don’t get it. So does Neverland exist or not?”
It exists as a neuron structure. Since there isn’t any physical reality associated to it, it remains an arbitrary notion. There is a minuscule possibility of it’s existence, but considering the sheer amount of arbitrary notion, I’ll stear away from thinking about non physical notions.
“Let’s wait for those studies.”
Different brain sections are utilized in those states. Dreaming and lucid dreaming use only a subset of awake brain functions. Here’s an article about where dreams originate in the brain.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/09/040913092356.htm
“it’s obvious you two will never make peace, so let’s leave it as it is”
We are not at war. Michal suggested we live in a dream, and I explained why that can’t be. Same goes for our “inability” to understand physical reality.
The purpose of discussion is to reach the truth, as it translates to reality, not just to keep on discussing indefinitely.
It is like the story about Picasso:
A man asked Picasso to paint his wife. Picasso agreed and soon painted her. The man came and looked at the painting and it was all Picasso – green, two noses, eye on the forehead etc.
The man got angry and said
– That’s not my wife! She does not look like that!
– Well how does your wife look like? – said Picasso
The man took out a little photo of his wife from his wallet and showed it:
– This is my wife!
Picasso replyed:
– So your wife is small, rectangular and flat?
Picasso’s claim was that all representations of physical reality are equivalent. I concur without hesitation. My only disagreement was when you introduced a notion as real without there being an originating physical reality.
Hehe, nice story ^^
To get things straight. I do not deny that there is a physical reality (I call it ultimate reality because how do you know it is physical?). So there is something like that. I just claim we will never know what it is, we can only use metaphors to describe it, so yes all representations of the reality are equivalent. Whether it is science or voodoo, it is all the same for me.
“Whether it is science or voodoo, it is all the same for me”
That’s my main point of disagreement. While representations of reality are equivalent, they stop being “representations” of reality when they introduce arbitrary elements. In your voodoo example, their incorporation of neuron structures with no original physical reality denies them the moniker “representation” of reality.
In the neurons article: both scientist and patient see Jennifer Aniston. They see a bunch of neurons light up so the conclusion is – that is Jennifer Aniston.
In voodoo a bunch of dudes get into trance and dance around. What they see are spirits and other wierd stuff. I’m sure they see it as clearly as you see this text right now and they all see the same things (like a ghost Jennifer Aniston). There also must be a neuron structure associated with the thing they see.
Now please explain me what is the difference between both events? And a neurological answer does not satisfy me. You can’t say the voodoo people are high so that some different part of their brain is doing the hallucination. The scientist and patient might also be “high” on air or something and also be hallucinating.
How do you explain stuff like massive hallucinations? Like in Fatima. Several thousand people on several occasions saw the sun change colors and move around. Now if that was not real, why did so many people see it? I think we can reject the possibility that they all were lying or crazy. That’s just too simple. If it was a massive hallucination, then what prevents other people to be hallucinating all the time just like that?
“Now please explain me what is the difference between both events? And a neurological answer does not satisfy me”
Tough. Neurology represents physical fact.
“The scientist and patient might also be “high” on air or something and also be hallucinating.”
If they were high, the fMRIs would have shown it. You can’t be high without an alternation of brain functions that would appear on such a scan.
“How do you explain stuff like mass hallucinations?”
It’s a sociobiological event similar in effect to mass hysteria. People with absolutely nothing wrong with them convince themselves something is wrong with them, and exaggerate over symptoms they don’t have.
So let’s have a hypothetical situation. We have a closed society in which every person is high. Let’s say the tap water or air has some kind of chemical which makes people hallucinate constantly.
Now when the scientists there make a brain scan, what they think is normal and waking functioning of the brain is in fact a hallucinating dream. But of course they have no way to find this out, somebody would have to tell them that it is not norma, like an external observer (us).
So in this society there is a Jennifer Aniston. Or so it seems to these people, because they are hallucinating her. So scientists make a neurology experiment. Patient and scientist sees a picture of Jennifer Aniston, they see some neurons light up and that is proof for the existence of Jennifer Aniston.
Well, for them. We know that there is no Jennifer Aniston, they are just making her up. How can neurology be a basis of of determining what is real and what is not in a hallucinating society? How can they find a 1:1 function if every person has a distorted reality, yet they hallucinate the same things?
“How can they find a 1:1 function if every person has a distorted reality, yet they hallucinate the same things?”
People DON’T hallucinate the same thing, exactly because hallucinations work randomly. The brain randomly connects neurons together and presents them as real. Under exactly the same drug, people have completely different hallucinations. They can have “synchronized” hallucinations only by convincing themselves of this later on (which of course is false).
I am talking about a hypothetical situation where all people hallucinate the same thing. Of course these people will say exactly the same thing as you do. I think Dick’s Ubik was about this, don’t remember for sure though.
And don’t tell me it is not possible, I provided the Fatima example.
“I am talking about a hypothetical situation where all people hallucinate the same thing”
Which isn’t possible due to the nature of hallucinations.
“And don’t tell me it is not possible, I provided the Fatima example.”
Your Fatima example isn’t an example of mass hallucinations. Mass hallucinations is an arbitrary term coined by the media, not a scientific term.
“How can someone tell if he is constantly hallucinating or functioning in a 1:1 sensory interpretation of physical reality?”
A hallucination is a sensory perception without a physical cause (other than the brain’s circuitry). This sensory perception is as real a perception as any for this person. You can distinguish between a hallucination and physical input either by logic (e.g. hearing music in vacuum) or by utilizing the sensory perception barrier. Which means that hallucinations limit themselves to one sensory organ (visual, auditory, etc) and don’t manifest themselves beyond that. So, if you think you see Aniston in front of you, touch her and talk to her and you’ll know whether she’s a hallucination or not.
Your Fatima example isn’t an example of mass hallucinations.
So people were really seeing a sun dancing around?
So, if you think you see Aniston in front of you, touch her and talk to her and you’ll know whether she’s a hallucination or not.
I’d sure do that. But if I dream I also can talk and touch her. It doesn’t mean anything.
Logic is the only way to find out, but don’t mistake logic with sensory perception or scientific reasoning which is based on theories about the world we hallucinate about.
And btw. if you say:
People DON’T hallucinate the same thing
It’s the same as a mental patient saying: But I am NOT crazy!
“So people were really seeing a sun dancing around?”
Some people might have had a hallucination, which was turned to mass and common belief by naive and impressionable religious zealots.
“But if I dream I can talk and touch her just as well”
Then that’s a dream, not a hallucination. Choose what you think reality is (a dream, a hallucination, an illusion, a yellow scarf) and stick with it. I already explained why it’s not a hallucination.
“Logic is the only way to find out, but don’t mistake logic with sensory perception”
No comment.
“Don’t mistake logic for scientific reasoning which is based on theories about the world we hallucinate about.
Logic is a part of science. I already explained why reality isn’t a hallucination (sensory compartmentalization).
“Your claim that people DON’T hallucinate the same thing is the same as a mental patient saying: But I am NOT crazy!”
Unfortunately for your simile, a mental patient’s claims don’t correspond to reality. People DON’T hallucinate the same thing because there is nothing to prevent randomness in their hallucinations. Without direct neuron stimulation through neuron electrodes, people’s hallucinations are random.
bigbossSNK: Your inability to discuss hypothetical situations is something wrong (you can’t think about them without pointing out something from your percieved reality model). Do you have some disorder like autism? Because if that’s the case, this discussion is kind of pointless. Or are you just afraid of the results of the hypothesies?
Anyway, talking is abstract. Some things you just have to experience. Like the dynamic nature of… everything. Including yout thoughts and all your certainties. It’s like a neuron network suddenly looking back at itself and saying “Whoaaa! WTF have I been doing, that doesn’t make any sense!”. This can’t happen by intellectualizing. I hope you understand this some day, until then, I wish you luck.
“Your inability to discuss hypothetical situations is something wrong”
Dude, I already said I’ve been at your point of view in the past. But I chose my point of view after that, cause mine ‘s better. Neener, neener, neener. And by “Neener, neener, neener” I mean I have a greater degree of correspondance to reality. 😛
“Do you have some disorder like autism?”
Yes, it’s called following a water tight thought line. Juxtapose that to your vague inconsistencies.
“Whoaaa! WTF have I been doing, that doesn’t make any sense!”
WARNING! A HUGE SHOCK IS APPROACHING. People can be successful without this new age bullshit of “reality tunnels” and lack thereof
“I hope you understand you just have to experience some things, until then, I wish you luck.”
You continue to make uninformed remarks over what other people have experienced, even though you clearly can have no knowledge of the topic. I was really hoping you ‘d put up a decent fight before you reverted to the “indescribable” , but I guess you’ve got to work on Link-dead sometime 😛
I don’t know where to start so I give you the message of a long and analytical post:
You’re an absolute idiot.
Wow MM. This helped me realy. it made me clear up the big mess in my brains. and order almost everything. thanks for this most usefull stuff (for me then) of all your posts! keep it up.
ps you should be a psychologist or however its called :P.
i wanna have your babies…
How do you come up with so much material to blog with?…
nothing…
sadf asd fzxcv zxfasdf as234 23 asdf asd…
4n0wop5v65yzsp9f
ÿ åáëàí…
Éà åïëàí…
|-Quote———————-|
|When will it be released? |
| |
|When it’s done. |
__________________________|
When will it’s done ?
hi
r9bcgaamvcyqi8i2
good luck
hi
r9bcgaamvcyqi8i2
good luck
Buy Viagra, Buy Viagra , Webmaster – this is a best site Buy Levitra, Buy Levitra , Hello from USA =) kjhdsf98734kj5hjkdshfkjh
Очень понравился ваш блог! Подписался на rss. Буду регулярно читать.
Painna