Stoic notice
Broken Brain Boy
Broken Brain Boy,
why must thou bubble & boil
over bogus hocus pocus?
Perhaps that dumb-phone made you lose thy focus? Poor Broken Brain Boy typing on his brain toy, stoically replies through the scrying screen.The Medium is the messageBesoeker wrote:Perhaps the same thing - just more highly developed. Do you really believe that? Nature was around before any humans were there to define any laws that nature had to comply with. So we have supernatural powers of intellect that defy the laws of nature? Is that what you are claiming? Really? Do you mean beyond the laws of nature? Fine if you do. I don't. I don't think anything supernatural exists. For sure there are some things we are not (yet) able to explain.
Yes, perhaps all conscious creatures exist through the act of evolutionary differentiation, and the first cause or cosmogenesis is our universal or primordial consciousness. Of course, if we are one highly developed variation of the original consciousness, what stimulated and structured our unparalleled intellect? Once again, statistically, we are the naturally occurring anomaly, and we are the only creatures on planet Earth that can define and intelligently redesign nature. See, we define the laws of nature, we exploit the laws of nature, and we defy the laws of nature. If we couldn't defy the laws of nature, we'd be static savages living inside our natural habitat
(yes, we're adaptive, so are many other creatures). Instead, we evolved away from the natural order of things and restructured it around our human intellect. Thus I am claiming that humans are SUPER-natural creatures.
Yes, that much is self evident. If you want to call the process by which we do that supernatural, fine. I have no illusions that it is.
A closed loop which, like a servo,uses feedback. That's one of the fundamental mechanisms for learning. And it doesn't just work with humans.
Can you give an example of any one law of nature that we violate to survive?
I'm sure, from the above, you will have worked out that I profoundly disagree with that.
And, BTW, I responded to your comments not one of which appears to reference that "magic" three.
Your first mistake- saying you have no illusions.
"To know yet to think that one does not know is best; Not to know yet to think that one knows will lead to difficulty." -Lao Tzu. The wisdom in Tzu's quote: The human condition involves paradox.
"How wonderful that we have met with a paradox. Now we have some hope of making progress." - Niels Bohr.
The Earth as one organism or system may be one biological feedback-loop (inside of the cosmic feedback-loop) , I never said that this loop exclusively concerns human cognition. Actually, now that I think about it, I wrote something about servomechanism in a poem-
Synergy of energy
Servomechanism & astral ecology
Working parts of the total sum To give one example of how we violate the laws of nature in order to survive, I must consider different interpretations of the Laws of Nature.
Laws of Nature are to be distinguished both from Scientific Laws and from Natural Laws. Neither Natural Laws, as invoked in legal or ethical theories, nor Scientific Laws, which some researchers consider to be scientists' attempts to state or approximate the Laws of Nature, will be discussed in this article. Instead, it explores issues in contemporary metaphysics.
Within metaphysics, there are two competing theories of Laws of Nature. On one account, the Regularity Theory, Laws of Nature are statements of the uniformities or regularities in the world; they are mere descriptions of the way the world is. On the other account, the Necessitarian Theory, Laws of Nature are the "principles" which govern the natural phenomena of the world. That is, the natural world "obeys" the Laws of Nature. This seemingly innocuous difference marks one of the most profound gulfs within contemporary philosophy, and has quite unexpected, and wide-ranging, implications.
Some of these implications involve accidental truths, false existentials, the correspondence theory of truth, and the concept of free will. Perhaps the most important implication of each theory is whether the universe is a cosmic coincidence or driven by specific, eternal laws of nature. Each side takes a different stance on each of these issues, and to adopt either theory is to give up one or more strong beliefs about the nature of the world. http://www.iep.utm.edu/lawofnat/For this exercise I will bypass the scientific and physical laws of nature. I think we violate the natural law through the practice of intensive animal farming (industrial/factory farming). In-fact, without ecological sustainability (natural laws) I think we're violating our own nature by ignoring the consequence of mass-production.
So, In-toto you disagree with this idea-
Through conscious extension of human cognition, 3 is a magic number, because you believe consciousnes is a product/byproduct of evolutionary materialism and science will eventually solve all our problems and you think I'm using the word magic to fill in a blank, right? Well, that's fine, I'm not here to be right or wrong, I'm here to challenge how you think. After-all,
more than 99.9 percent of the electromagnetic spectrum cannot be observed by the naked eye.
jakell wrote:Ah well, it was just a personal request.
Next time you have a personal request, use the PM feature.
Food-for-thought (as you reread my posts).On a given body, to generate and superinduce a new nature or new natures is the work and aim of human power. Of a given nature to discover the form, or true specific difference, or nature-engendering nature, or source of emanation (for these are the terms which come nearest to a description of the thing), is the work and aim of human knowledge. Subordinate to these primary works are two others that are secondary and of inferior mark: to the former, the transformation of concrete bodies, so far as this is possible; to the latter, the discovery, in every case of generation and motion, of the latent process carried on from the manifest efficient and the manifest material to the form which is engendered; and in like manner the discovery of the latent configuration of bodies at rest and not in motion.
Bacon, Francis, Lisa Jardine, and Michael Silverthorne. "Aphorisms." The New Organon. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2000. N. pag. Print. Natural Religion
The Spirit that knows Spirit is consciousness of itself and is present to itself in objective form; it is; and is at the same time being that is for itself.
God as Light
Spirit as the essence that is self-consciousness- or the self-conscious Being that is all truth and knows all reality as its own self- is, to begin with, only its Notion in contrast to the actuality which it gives itself in the movement of its consciousness. And this Notion is, as contrasted with the daylight of this explicit development, the night of its essence; as contrasted with the outer existence of its moments as independent shapes, it is the creative secret of its birth. This secret has its revelation within itself; for the existence of its moments has its necessity in this Notion, because this Notion is self-knowing Spirit and therefore has in its essence the moment of being consciousness, and of presenting itself objectively. This is the pure 'I', which in its externalization has within itself as universal object the certainty of its own self, or, in other words, this object is for the 'I' the penetration of all thought and all reality.
The Artificer
Spirit, therefore, here appears, as an artificer, and its action whereby it produces itself as object but without having yet grasped the thought of itself is an instinctive operation, like the building of a honeycomb by bees.
The first form, because it is immediate, is the abstract form of the Understanding, and the work is not yet in its own self filled with Spirit. The crystals of pyramids and obelisks, simple combinations of straight lines with plane surfaces and equal proportions of parts, in which the incommensurability of the round is destroyed, these are the works of this artificer of rigid form. On account of the merely abstract intelligibleness of the form, the significance of the work is not in the work itself, is not the spiritual self. Thus either the works receive Spirit into them only as an alien, departed spirit that has forsaken its living saturation with reality and, being itself dead, takes up its abode in this lifeless crystal; or they have an external relation to Spirit as something which is itself there externally and not as Spirit- they are related to it as to the dawning light, which casts its significance on the them.
The division from which the artificer-spirit starts- the in-itself which becomes the material it fashions, and the being for-self which is the aspect of self-consciousness at work- this division has become objective to it in its work. Its further further efforts must aim at getting rid of this division of soul and body: to clothe and give shape to soul in its own self, and to endow body with soul. The two aspects, in being brought closer to each other, retain the specific character of Spirit as ideally conceived and as its enveloping husk; Spirit's unity with itself contains this antithesis of individuality and universality. Since the work, in the coming-together of its aspects, comes closer to itself, this at the same time produces another result, viz. that the work comes closer to self-consciousness performing it and that the latter, in the work, comes to know itself as it is in its truth. But in this way, the work at first constitutes only the abstract aspect of the activity of Spirit, which does not yet know the content of this activity within itself, but in its work, which is a Thing. The artificer himself, Spirit in its entirety, has not yet appeared, but is the still inner, hidden essence which, as an entity, is present only as divided into active self-consciousness and the object it has produced.
Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich, Arnold V. Miller, and J. N. Findlay. Phenomenology of Spirit. Oxford: Clarendon, 1977. Print.
Will and Representation
Now all this rests on the fundamental distinction between dogmatic and critical or transcendental philosophy. He who wishes to be clear about this, and to realize it by means of an example, can do so quite briefly if he reads, as a specimen of dogmatic philosophy, an essay by Leibniz, entitled De Rerum Originatione Radicali, printed for the first time in the edition of Leibniz's philosophical works by Erdmann, vol i, p. 147. Here the origin and excellent nature of the world are demonstrated a priori so thoroughly in the realistic dogmatic manner with the aid of ontological and cosmological proofs, and on the ground of the veritates aeternae. It is admitted once, by the way, that experience shows the very opposite of the excellence of the world here demonstrated, whereupon experience is then told that it does not understand anything about it, and ought to hold its tongue when philosophy has spoken a priori. With Kant the critical philosophy appeared as the opponent of this entire method. It makes its problem just those veritates aeternae that serve as the foundation of every such dogmatic structure, investigates their origin, and then finds this to be in man's head. Here they spring from the forms properly belonging to it, which it carries in itself for the purpose of perceiving and apprehending an objective world. Thus here in the brain is the quarry furnishing the material for that proud, dogmatic structure. Now because the critical philosophy, in order to reach this result, had to go beyond the veritates aeternae, on which all previous dogmatism was based, so as to make these truths themselves the subject of investigation, it became transcendental philosophy. From this it follows also that the objective world as we know it does not belong to the true being of things-in-themselves, but is its mere phenomenon, conditioned by those very forms that lie a priori in the human intellect (i.e., brain); hence the world cannot contain anything but phenomena.
It is true that Kant did not arrive at the knowledge that the phenomenon is the world as representation and that the thing-in-itself is will. He showed however, that the phenomenal world is conditioned just as much by the subject as by the object, and by isolating the most universal forms of its phenomenon, i.e., of the representation, he demonstrated that we know these forms and survey them according to their whole constitutional nature not only by starting from the object, but just as well by starting from the subject, since they are really the limit between object and subject and are common to both. He concluded that, by pursuing this limit, we do not penetrate into the inner nature of the object or the subject, and consequently that we never know the essential nature of the world, namely the thing-in-itself.
Schopenhauer, Arthur, and E. F. J. Payne. The World as Will and Representation. New York: Dover Publications, 1966. Print. Vico's Axioms
Another property of the human mind is that, when people can form no idea of distant and unfamiliar things, they judge them by what is present and familiar.
This axiom indicates the inexhaustible source of all the erroneous views which entire nations and all scholars have entertained concerning the beginnings of civilization. For when nations first became aware of their origins, and scholars first studied them, they judged them according to the enlightenment, refinement, and magnificence of their age, when in fact by their very nature these origins must have been small, crude, and obscure.
Philosophy considers people as they should be, and hence is useful only to a few who want to live in the republic of Plato, rather than sink into the dregs of Romulus.
When people cannot know truth, they strive to follow what is certain and defined. In this way, even if their intellect cannot be satisfied by abstract knowledge, scienza, at least their will may repose in common knowledge, coscienza.
Since human judgement is by nature uncertain, it gains certainty from our common sense about what is necessary and useful to humankind; and necessity and utility are the two sources of the natural law of nations.
Vico, Giambattista. New Science: Principles of the New Science concerning the Common Nature of Nations. London: Penguin, 1999. Print. 
We'd get the same result.
). 
- By wat0n
- By litwin