Is Mankind Advanced or Primitive? Compared to/with What? - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

For the discussion of Philosophy. Discuss thought from Socrates to the Enlightenment and beyond!

Moderator: PoFo Agora Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please. Religious topics may be debated in this forum, but those of religious belief who specifically wish to avoid threads being derailed by atheist arguments might prefer to use the Spirituality forum.
#14897788
A problem with thought, no one wants to think about...
Ganeshas Rat wrote:The terms 'Advanced' and 'Primitive' have sense only in the context of comparing with something. Present moment is advanced to medieval age. Present moment is primitive to technological singularity.
Yep, this is my point (learning is remembering). Furthermore, the technological singularity would be an extension of the LIVING singularity called LIFE-THE UNIVERSE-Etc. If and when we achieve a technological singularity, will consciousness call the technological singularity a 'Big Bang,' for lack of a better term and/or understanding of what LIFE is? :lol: Isn't it clear or self-evident that a technological singularity would be the result of consciousness colliding with itself in order to rearrange itself (synergistic regeneration)? If this is the case, does nurture exist? Or is nurture the potential trajectory of nature? Also, if nurture does not exist, and it's simply nature unlocking itself subjectively, wouldn't the lack of free-will reinforce a teleological model of ΩONEΩ ever-expanding consciousness/soul? Here you are in a body you didn't design, speaking a language you didn't create, having thoughts you didn't think (pieces of the whole can only experience fragments of the whole). See, ABC-XYZ moves within this happening called consciousness, but we're limited by existential disposition, and the whole of consciousness without is an infinite movement passing through us. However, we're so involved in IT (because we're IT), participating in the biochemical interplay which occurs within the mind/matter interface, that thought gives us the illusion that we're responsible for IT.

Present moment is advanced to medieval age.
So it's true, binary thinking is a side-effect of a single movement happening right NOW, in the form of thought being aware of a past and potential future happening. However, there's only this present moment, and therefore there's only nature. Nurture, like past and future, is an illusion of this present singularity in motion. Identity operates the same way, it is an illusion abstracted from BEING present. Nurture (as a concept) is simply the rearrangement of nature. Are we not nature unlocking our nature? When you observe phenomena, you collapse the wave. 10101010=quantum coherence. Dialectical interaction is a side-effect of being present. Thought is fragmentary because it's a kind of interference (minus connotation, see physical denotation) pattern. Epistemological 'truth' is a side-effect of ontological/orthogonal[1] inference.

[1]Orthogonal, statistically independent inference abstracted from the interdependent whole.

Does human thought, as a fragmentary system of pattern recognition, favor binary logic because it doesn't need to conceptualize complex networks for its immediate/individual biological survival? Do humans need simulated intelligence (computers, aka technological extensions/manifestations of thought) to help build a sustainable ecosystem for humanity? Can human thought sustain its own nature or is human thought an evolutionary force being driven by the brain and the information it absorbs (can mankind think its way out of its thoughts) through the environment? Is the figure-ground dialectic a human myth, an abstraction of binary logic, can man be separate from nature if he is nature? If the information responsible for human thought does not originate in the brain and is a pattern configuration/tactile retrieval of the vibratory field that flows through existential experience (Reality, all forms of sensation), are we actually intelligent or are we pieces/resources of/for a primordial consciousness which is infinitely aware of everything because it's everything experiencing itself[2]?

[2]The permeation of consciousness projects permutations of itself, perpetually reproducing a multiplicity of vibratory fields which overlap & interweave as 'fabric' in the universe. Consciousness is inseparable from this 'fabric,' and can intrinsically explicate the harmony between vibratory fields, because consciousness happens to be modal-mulitplex pulsation entangled in a multidimensional oscillation. In other-words, consciousness can enter an information 'wave' from any point of vibration, because consciousness is the interplay of a polycentric sensation/perception that is expanding ad infinitum. Thought must be fragmentary because it's an expression of consciousness, thought is enfolded in the unfolding of the universe.

At this point, I'm not sure if mankind is advanced or primitive because what we call 'intelligence' may not not exist. How do I know if I'm intelligent if I'm unable to directly perceive my own thoughts? The thoughts I think I create come from everything else, and thus I'm unable to measure thought. Instead, I measure relative action/motion, let thought run its course, and wait for the biological vessel to return to its source. Can thought, as a fragmentation process, properly represent the whole of consciousness, or does it process a relative and temporary interpretation of reality?

Thus this question
Will Mankind's Future Be Advanced or Primitive?

Is not the right question to ask, because this present moment will project simultaneously our past and future.

What comes first, thought or action?
Who is intelligent?
How can intelligence be democratic?
When will thought understand consciousness?
Why is mankind collectively insane?
Where will consciousness go?
Last edited by RhetoricThug on 19 Mar 2018 23:07, edited 7 times in total.
#14897860
RhetoricThug wrote:How do I know if I'm intelligent if I'm unable to directly perceive my own thoughts? The thoughts I think I create come from everything else, and thus I'm unable to measure thought. Instead, I measure relative action/motion, let thought run its course, and wait for the biological vessel to return to its source.


It's because you think about you, you apply the term 'I' to yourself and find some sense. But it also leads to contradictions.

I suppose to simplify this model. There are events, they happen. Some mass receives input: a set of events. The mass produces output: some another set of events. The intelligence of this mass is inversely equal to the difference between the set of events produced by the mass and the theoretical ideal set of events from the point of view of that mass.

So if you survived a day and still are alive by its end you can conclude that you are at least intelligent enough to survive a day in the world that is constantly changing. It doesn't relate on the fact if you think or not, your thoughts come from inside or somewhere else or even if thoughts simply exist in general sense or not. You continued your existence as a homeostatic thermodynamic system, nicely done.
#14898695
Ganeshas Rat wrote:It's because you think about you, you apply the term 'I' to yourself and find some sense. But it also leads to contradictions.
No. I am you. We're IT.

simplify this model.
That's the problem with thought. It wants to simplify and divide. :lol:
There are events, they happen. Some mass receives input: a set of events. The mass produces output: some another set of events. The intelligence of this mass is inversely equal to the difference between the set of events produced by the mass and the theoretical ideal set of events from the point of view of that mass.
So essentially a verse from Dots and Lines, by Lupe Fiasco:

The soul's gold and they're turning gold into cash
And your reflection is your connection
To more collections of more directions and paths
If your reflection is a mask, then you're reflective of mass
To see yourself just look at me then split your reflection in half

So if you survived a day and still are alive by its end you can conclude that you are at least intelligent enough to survive a day in the world that is constantly changing.
Observable biological processes do this automatically. Again, who or what is intelligent?

It doesn't relate on the fact if you think or not, your thoughts come from inside or somewhere else or even if thoughts simply exist in general sense or not.
So where does thought come from? Is it osmosis? Are you capable of thinking about thinking about thinking, or does consciousness create the thoughts you think through the happening of BEING present? If I take away all the names on this forum and read each post as if it's the universe talking to itself, would it be more clear then that consciousness is a self-organizing process? We define each other, we're all backs and fronts to each other. We and our environment, and all of us and each other are interdependent systems.

You continued your existence as a homeostatic thermodynamic system, nicely done.
This is thought mentally combining concepts to explain something that doesn't need an explanation. Tell me, what will these compressed concepts (homeostatic thermodynamic system) answer? Isn't thought mentally fragmenting this infinite moment so it can communicate with itself a pattern of perception it created? However, we're so involved in IT (because we're IT), participating in the biochemical interplay which occurs within the mind/matter interface, that thought gives us the illusion that we're responsible for IT.

Let's say that a thermodynamic system is a probabilistic pattern of nature, let's say that it's Real... Now, did thought create the thermodynamic system or did it discover it? If it discovered the thermodynamic system and gave it pattern recognition, was thought responsible for any of it?

Let's say that a thermodynamic system is a probabilistic pattern of perception. See, if thought created or abstracted the thermodynamic system from nature, is the thermodynamic system Real?

Ah, but now you see, we have another binary conflict. Again, why is thought fragmented? I want to hear YOUR thoughts, not other people's thoughts. Good luck. :lol:
Last edited by RhetoricThug on 22 Mar 2018 03:09, edited 2 times in total.
#14898708
RhetoricThug wrote:Observable biological processes do this automatically. Again, who or what is intelligent?

The question we need here is: why nerve system exists? What is purpose. The life consists of automata, most of them run without nerve system at all. Virus for example flies in any direction until it hits some obstacle. It either glues to it if it's the cell the virus is designed to infect or not. If it's glued, it injects itself inside or does something else. No need for thinking.

However there are situations when you need that those automatons changed their execution depending on external conditions. For example worms eat soil. It's not quite useful for worms to dig out and eat air. So they have cells at skin that detect humidity, light and other variables and send signals. Signals are summed to produce 0 : no changes or 1 : short the muscles to bend the body into the ground. We with our primitive brains interpret this as "the worm is intellectual enough to differ soil and air".

So the intellect is about changing your inner state based on inputs to improve your chances to exist.
#14898713
Why did you fragment my post and give me late 19th/early 20th century thoughts?
Ganeshas Rat wrote:We with our primitive brains
Compared to/with what? You're interpreting physical systems, physical effects (what about retro-causation?). You're fragmenting relative things. May IT remind you, Life is a simultaneous happening. 1...0...1...0...1...0...1..0...1, pulsation (peek-a-boo) is only possible if it unfolds from a whole rhythm. Shhhhh, can you hear-see-feel IT? Where are you in the flow of things? Where is the flow of things? Take away thought, and you wouldn't be able to abstract 1 or 0.

What is purpose.
Humans invent purpose. Everything must have a purpose, otherwise it wouldn't exist.

Ganeshas Rat wrote:So the intellect is about changing your inner state based on inputs to improve your chances to exist.
:lol: Yes, yes, that's why mankind builds weapons of mass destruction. The intellect is about changing your outer-state to improve your chances to exist. So you see, any individual pretending to be detached from the whole of BEING is a delusional person. In this case, a delusional person's sanity creates collective insanity. We have ONE mind, not 7-8 billion minds. Bye-bye binary paradigm!

The rapes by Hamas, real or imagained are irreleva[…]

@Rugoz You are a fuckin' moralist, Russia coul[…]

Moving on to the next misuse of language that sho[…]

There is no reason to have a state at all unless w[…]