I believe on some level or another life is inherently conflicting and contradictory. And yet since we do exists (or some variant of "I think and therefore I am", etc) perhaps in an attempt to remain functionally sane most of us simply choose to find whatever it is that 'works for us' (whether it be science, religion, spirituality, worldly pursuits, beauty, love, relationships, etc) and to seek some sort of comfort, solace, absolution and deliverance with a particular 'object' that we hold with dear reverence in our mind's eye. Yet there is a sense that nothing really gives us genuine permanent satisfaction for an indefinite period of time.. It seems like even the greatest things (such as the most perfect loving relationship, the ultimate spiritual experience, the highest most beautiful aspects of life and light, etc) and most profound experiences are in the end nothing more than mere arbitrary placeholders that diverge to infinite regress in a self-similar self-referential circular manner.. The restless mind always seeks to find something to do.. We want what we want until we achieve it and then the mind (being the racing and restless nature that it is) compels us to move on to the next goal or objective in life and to experience new stimulating experiences and makes us appear like the hedonistic slaves that we really are.. Seldom do we even stop to emotionally relish our recent achievements! Naturally over time we adapt and become desensitized to what we are familiar with or what we see or do everyday.. Eventually and inevitably we derive less and less enjoyment and pleasure from whatever activities that used to make us happy and when marginal utility reaches zero we automatically seek out other newer, different, or more exotic ideals, believes, experiences, relationships, etc.. Likewise, and at the same time, these "other experiences" (insert whatever it is you try to refrain from indulging in..) only become more attractive over time when the rarity or "forbidden" status gains an irresistible appeal over us... So if there is not any one 'thing' (one emotional state, one belief, one relationship, one significant other, etc) that can provide us with ultimate everlasting happiness achieved in but a single moment.. then what is it all about? Is it about finding an equilibriumized balancing-point in the optimization of the different aspects of life? Why do we humans seek unity and yet crave diversity at the same time? We want to dedicate our entire lives to one belief, or cause (science, religion, career, etc) and/or to one person (soulmate, perfect love, marriage, happily ever after, etc) and yet even when/if we actually get what we want... over time it never seems to be psychologically "enough".. Even for those of us who say we want the truth, in reality we always wish for more, we want something better than what actually IS. Thus we make rules just to break them, we build walls just to tear them down, but yet without rules and without this 'structure' we'd all simply go insane! How can we re-normalize these irreconcilable and seemingly intractable and divergent compulsions? What happened to that fountain where supposedly you drink once and never again become thirsty? or is the cyclical satisfaction of desires intrinsically meaningful in and of itself?
There is something about human nature that is inherently hypocritical, contradictory, paradoxical and full of strife, turmoil, confusion and conflict.. almost like these things are ingrained into the very fabric of our flawed existence.. I could give plenty of examples, stories, analogies and allegories but being that this is a dating site forum I'll stick to something most here can related better with.... I can certainty attest to the fact that the male gender values physical feminine beauty (to distinguish from inner beauty of personality) to the extent of forsaking and marginalizing nearly everything else.. We are instinctively hardwired to equate physical attractiveness (aesthetic symmetrical features, etc) to 'value' and equity in a relationship, etc and any guy who doesn't agree with me is simply fooling himself.. You can run but you can not hide from who you really are.. In today's society we are constantly bombarded with the subliminal and all too politically/socially correct message of "beauty is in the eye of the beholder".. but no amount of this collective self-brainwashing really changes anything.. Objective physical beauty is just as valued as it ever was.. beauty does matter, and despite what we'd like to fool ourselves into believing.. love (chemistry and romance) is not an "equal opportunity" type of thing.. we judge a book by its contents and its cover. - this works both ways for both genders. Regardless of our leanings towards science or religion, the act of falling in love/lust exists in a realm and domain of its own right, outside of both the strictly logical and the supremely spiritual.
There is a myth that men only want sex and women (being the supposedly fairer gender) really just want 'love'.. This stereotype and sweeping generalization is not even remotely accurate. Both genders want the softer more gentle and loving aspects of a relationship (though it is true that estrogen infused women are much inclined to it than their testosterone pumped counterparts..) as well as the more direct, primitive, primal and lustful acts of physical intimacy.. (in fact in many sexual ways the two genders are much more similar than they are different..) So in essence women want 'sex' just as much as men do (and for the same pleasurable reasons) but just in a different superficially surface way. Likewise they are as swayed by beauty (or rather 'handsomeness') as are men hypnotized by an alluring specimen of the opposite gender. This is nothing "wrong" with this, but it becomes rather awkward when we try to deny it or the more demure individuals pretend it doesn't even matter. Another thing is a lot of the profiles of woman on here have remarks that they want to find a Christian (or religious) "leader".. And its not just on an online site, this happens in 'real life' all the time as well.. Women like competitive ambitious men (just like men like graceful elegant looking woman) regardless of what ideology they prescribe to. Here the worldly leader has been recast-ed and transmutated into a spiritual leader, but its nothing more than simply two sides of the one same coin.. Likewise Godly righteous men on here still would like (all else being equal) to find the prettiest face that they can have. Secular or nonsecular I think this just goes to show that the underlying nature of the human condition does not and cannot (and probably should not) really change on a fundamental level.. (or.. what about the fallacy that if we 'love' someone we would/should never 'cheat' on them? what exactly does 'love' have to do with 'sex'? sure biologically they are simply different means to the same end but qualitatively the corresponding neural correlates of consciousness are entirely different and different layers/regions of the brain are responsible for these different emotions, so if we take them as isolated components then there is no trouble, but when we mistakenly believe love correlates with sex and try to incorporate them as one entangled entity that is when all the problems crop up..)
Intuitively we all know what we want (or rather what/who we can obtain).. We all know what qualities we have and what we can get/trade with that purchasing power (as unromantic as it sounds, too much of life does follow an equation/economics..) Ultimately what makes any relationship work in the long term is core compatibility in areas that matter the most, and complementary or supplementary traits, and personality attributes in other areas where being "opposite" is attractive. This can be as simple or as complex as we each want to make it, but I think in the end it reduces down to "compatibility threshold".. People usually end up with others of similar social economical backgrounds, similar physical attractiveness levels, similar intellect, and personality.. We want someone like us, someone we can relate to and empathize with.. someone who makes us truly happy. So then perhaps in the end it all boils down to a search problem, in the sense that even qualities and essences as seemingly 'high and noble" as the ethereal, enchanting and ineffable experiences of "true love" can be reduced to a mere "search problem".. and in a sense that IS what everyone here is hoping to accomplish right? to search (or rather to find and to enjoy) someone 'right' for them?! After all, everything else that we do in life all sums up to this same teleological means to an end - the enjoyment of the different impressions of pleasures of life itself..
And yet in another sense it is truly all very vague, gray, arbitrary and 'random'.. Who we meet (regardless of whether it is online, offline, etc) and who we end up with is largely a function of luck, chance, timing, geographical location and our own social circles/realms.. There are SO many people in this world that there simply HAS to be tens of thousands (perhaps even more) of other people 'out there' somewhere .. who if we would have met under the right circumstances a friendship, or even lasting lifelong relationship could have formed.. So the 'potentiality' is functionally limitless.. As idealistic as it is to envision some sort of hypothetical or abstract theoretical 'archetype' of the 'perfect relationship' or the 'one' for us.. eventually 'potentiality' has to give way to something more 'concrete and tangible' .. we have to 'settle down' with someone 'good enough' that just so happens to be the physical (or near equivalent) embodiment of the man or woman of our dreams.. We need it (him/her) to be 'someone', to be actualized and real so that we can be beheld at last..
And yet (and yet) it is never really about that actual "person" either, is it? Our judgment and evaluation of relationships are always in retrospect and done 'after the fact'.. When it doesn't work out we console ourselves by pretending to know that all along "it wasn't meant to be anyway".. And when it does work out we say "I told you so" like appealing to some dyadic anthropic principle.. Even in cases where we fall in love and stay in love what happens if our partner dies in a tragic accident or is consumed by a fatal illness? Sure we'd mourn the loss and need time to heal and come to terms with everything.. but eventually as a human being and as part of life and nature we'd 'move on' and find something else to replace that aspect of our lives that was abruptly taken away from us.. we'd find another human being to love us and fulfill our physical and emotional needs and wants.. this is all a part of life, and living and being alive ... This is natural and appropriate and acceptable, but yet it goes to show not only the fragility and impermanence of life but also its arbitrariness in that no one person is ever irreplaceable.. not to society, not to our communities, and not even to the one we hold closest and most dear to our hearts. In every sense of the analysis we are just mere numbers, statistics, labels, placeholders, instantiations and convenient physical approximations and representations of other people's projections and ideals - and vice versa. It is difficult enough to make sense of beauty, love, sex, romance, life, etc even when one reduces the problem down to a mere 'biological' level - it becomes altogether impossible to deal with when one tacks on superfluous fluffy layers of rhetorical extensions such as the whole biblical "virginity", "no divorce", "til death do us part", and "afterlife" concepts.. So what happens when a spouse dies and the other one remarries and has more children, how does one sort out the family relationships in 'heaven' or who is who's wife/husband - or is it too 'resolved' by a magical wand waving by the invisible hand of God as well?
So you see, it really isn't ever about any one particular person (or as special or as distinct as romantic partners or star crossed lovers would be predisposed to hastily make such lofty and flowery proclamations..) but it is about our own needs, wants, and desires being met, and so we simply attempt to foray out there to find someone that can be that particular expression for us and it is a relationship of mutual symbiosis and limbic resonance, physiological regulation, etc... We want to fall in love with the process (or ideal) of falling in love much more so than actually being with any one person.. they are simply a projection and representation of all that we want and hope for.. and yet we need someone to fit that role, and when we grow emotionally attached and codependent on them we think to ourselves that this person is the most special person in the world.. so here too there is a paradox between subjective and objective reality, in essence when we are in love (or infatuation) we often can't see things quite clearly. And yet seeing 'clearly' is often boring.. we live and die for an emotion, for the way things, people, and relationships make us feel about ourselves, others and the world. The only thing is that feeling doesn't last forever. Human nature is fickle.
But does getting who we really want (or who is really good for us) make us perpetually satisfied and happy? We are flawed and yet we try to be perfect!? The divorce rate is 50%+ and yet everyone goes into a marriage thinking it will last, thinking it is exactly what they want.. probably very few newlywed couples stop to think that there is a 50% chance THEY will be another statistic - I guess this shows how naive most people really are.. After a lifetime of being together and seeing one another each and everyday, doesn't the sweetest intimacy lose its fragrance? it's almost inevitable that even 'soulmates' eventually need their own space to pursue their own hobbies, interests, etc..? It seems like people often set themselves up for failure and disappointment, and yet what better alternatives or options are there? We can't have the sweet without the bitter, the good without the bad!
The irony is if life is not really about adhering to any steadfast rule (whether biblical, societal, moral, or even self-imposed) or structure and instead should be about just doing whatever it is that makes us the most happiest at that particular point in time.. this would be all fine and dandy if it wasn't the for reality of the fact that at one or more of these all inclusive 'points in time' we just so happen to also want to give ourselves completely to one person, one relationship, one emotional state of being.. and yet it doesn't last forever because at other juxtaposed and different discrete "points in time" we often want something very different or something else totally altogether.. and when we try to unify these as one concept they contradict and our coveted worldviews fracture and break apart.. We cannot simply enumerate, rank, prioritize, hierarchize or standardize/normalize all the distinct qualitative feelings in life.. Yet society, culture, and many institutions and religions keep telling us that we SHOULD be able to.
It seems like there is no real way to re-normalize, unify, reconcile or come to terms with all the different, distinct and divergent (often conflicting and contradictory) experiences, emotions, sensations, qualia, wants, needs, desires, etc in life.. And yet here we are.. existing in a largely arbitrary, relativistic, and senseless world where not only are we perpetually flawed but to add to that flaw we (perhaps incorrectly) believe we can become more perfect.. and so perhaps the only thing that is real and unchanging is this paradox of life that we find in ourselves and in all of the totality of existence. In a universe that is seemingly governed by logic perhaps it is actually 'contradiction' (the impossible, magic, miracle, abracadabra, the unknown, etc) that gives rise to 'existence' at all!?
I read your whole post (had to run to the dictionary a few times). It is possible for the mind to become so strong and for the �Intellect� to gain so much power � that you become disconnected from your very soul. The organic computer in your head gathers empirical data and tries to make sense of it using more data garnered from some other outside source it deems usable.
Sort of like the character of Data in the TV show Star Trek � Next Generation. Data wants to know what it �feels� like to be a human but will never feel because he has no Soul. You on the other hand have a Soul. Where is my proof?
You are not going to find it in the readings of Bacon, Locke, Berkeley, Hume, or Mill, who basically said that if you can not taste it, see it, hear it or touch it � it does not exist.
I find so many issues in your tome � that I disagree with � that space here does not allow me to comment on all of them. These are just a few:
You wrote -�Yet there is a sense that nothing really gives us genuine permanent satisfaction for an indefinite period of time..�
If that is what you want and expect from life then you should have stayed in the womb sucking on your thumb. Life is a struggle and is not always comfortable. A butterfly will never emerge from it's cocoon if it does not struggle which forces blood into it's wings and transforms it into a beautiful Creation. Life is a daily process of starting everything over again � renewing and energizing everything that is meaningful to you. Life is work. The only way anything is going to �last forever� is by maintaining it constantly (I have a huge supply of duct tape in case of an emergency).
You wrote- �...mere arbitrary placeholders that diverge to infinite regress in a self-similar self-referential circular manner.. �
Aren't you also using Circular Reasoning yourself? Also sort of a long route to a short conclusion...eh?
You wrote - �The irony is if life is not really about adhering to any steadfast rule (whether biblical, societal, moral, or even self-imposed) or structure and instead should be about just doing whatever it is that makes us the most happiest at that particular point in time.. �
Boy, you're on the wrong site if you really believe that! That same kind of relativistic thinking where there are no Absolute Truths is what has this world in such turmoil. It made those terrorist happy to kill thousands of innocent people. Is that a "good" thing?
Ilikeualot, you do bring up some good points and perhaps if you had condensed your post your point of view might have gotten across better. I don't think you are going to have much luck in finding anyone on this site. You might try something like MeandYouin Jihad.com or AnythingGoesBaby.com
Sorry, my sarcasm is not becoming, but I hope I am getting something across to that analytical brain of yours. There are Universal Truths. Jesus did exist. Many other sources other than The Bible prove that. Jesus was either � a liar � delusional � a madman � a conspirator � or who He Said He Was. He pretty much had to be one of those. Now, Empirically (no gut feeling or �sense�) would thousands of people over so many years continue to die to protect a conspiracy or for a madman's ravings. No, Jesus was who He said He was when He said I Am The Son Of The LIVING GOD.
I know your organic empirical brain has difficulties wrapping itself around that but your life depends on you trying.
You have a wonderfully constructed mind and a articulate (yet perhaps too analytical) nature. Try to connect with your soul more. Message me if you want to talk more or we could continue here if you like.
I love you man! You're my kind of guy � always searching and asking questions. I know a really Good Book for you to read.
Peace � Love
"I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father but through Me." John 14:6
We are often unprepared for Truth, which is why Truth is revealed to us progressively. --Chip Brogden
It seems like you wanted a reply to your (whatever you want to call it)?
Ultimately what does any of us really know other than �what we are told� and the sensory inputs and bombardments of raw sense data from an external reality? The whole of science and the scientific method of inquiry takes the �a priori� assumption of there being an external and independent reality as a necessary prerequisite to empirical observation. Yet the entire premise of there being an �external reality� rests on the a �leap of blind faith� � once we assume a dichotomy of duality then we are placed with the burden of �explaining it away� using other models, frameworks, and definitions structured and created out of these initial axioms and such, it is a lot like begging the question. So indeed it is at its core nothing more than mere circular reasoning.. How is it that we can actually empirically �know� from a first person perspective whether or not anything actually exists �out there� beyond our immediate sense data aka �the world as we know it to be�. Though in the end if it is not a difference that makes a difference (or if the difference is unperceivable or ultimately unknowable) then is the whole subjective vs objective thing anything more than mere abstract analytic overlays arising out of our own misuse of empty rhetoric?
What exactly is a �soul� anyway? By soul do you mean �mind� and by mind do you mean to say �brain�? The raw �feels� that you are alluding to correspond to the epiphenomenon of higher order emergent properties arising out of the pattern intricacies of complex systems of organization, or the �what-it-is-likeness� to feel or experience first-hand subjectively the ineffable essence of a particular sensation or distinct �impression of pleasure�; or the micro-canonical-qualia of metaphysics and Eastern nonduality and Advaita. It is also known in other realms and disciplines as the �hard problem of consciousness�, the �mind-body paradox�, it is also called the NCC problem (neural correlates of consciousness), and physicist might refer to it as the fire-in-the-equations � but regardless of anything else, a rose by any other name is just as sweet, we are all taking about the one same thing here..
Reality is analytically self-contained; self-mirroring, and self referential. If there were something outside reality that were real enough to affect or influence reality, it would be inside reality, and this contradiction invalidates any supposition of an external reality. In other words, reality comprises a "closed descriptive manifold" from which no essential predicate is omitted, and which thus contains no critical gap that leaves any essential aspect of structure unexplained. Reality is a syndiffeonic relation in that these "difference-in-sameness" subsists locally as perceived dualistic and embodied entities but when taken as a (global) nonlocal holistic entity become ultimately nondual in essence. (Syndiffeonesis here simply means that any assertion to the effect that two things are different implies that they are reductively the same.)
Many scientists trained in the current paradigm believe that consciousness is an epiphenomenon of material evolution. Quantum mechanics has produced strong evidence that it is wrong. It may even be that consciousness is a more basic aspect of reality than matter and energy or space and time. For example, in the delayed-choice experiment (vs classical two-slit experiment), one can decide, after the fact, whether a photon behaved as a wave or as a particle. This demonstrates the fact that elementary phenomena like photons do not exist as localized particles or waves until they register by impacting upon a receptor. If quanta do not exist until they register as effects on a receptor, and we have no way of knowing of them until evidence of their effects is received in our consciousness via a chain of quanta and receptors, how are we to know whether they exist or not, without the presence of consciousness? The Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics requires that a moving elementary particle has no localized form until it impacts upon a receptor. And information is carried from the object to the observer by a series of sources, particles, and receptors. But what is the final receptor? If it is a physical structure, it is by definition made of elementary particles, and if the energy of the incoming quanta is absorbed by physical particles, how can we account for the image of the object of observation that arises in consciousness? Thus the quest for the first receptor becomes an infinite regression in time and space. But time and space are finite in the physical world and there is, therefore, a "bottom" to physical phenomena, the infinite regress or descent is impossible, and we have a logical contradiction. The only conclusion is that the final receptor and the images it perceives are not composed of quanta of matter and energy but of something else altogether..
Yet what is this "something else"? The information paradox is that the Quantum Mechanics wave function or state vector of a system encodes all the information that can ever be known about that system. If this is so, then what possibly fixes the values of its constituent (micro)qualia? If quantum mechanics is a true theory of the world, then the wave function of a system contains all the information about the system's physical state - position, momentum, energy, etc. So the assumption that this fundamental physical principle is true entails there is no additional information that could ever be extracted from the wave function by means of the appropriate mathematical operator to specify the values of all the different textures of its qualia..
Today's theorists' key notions (of a field, string, brane, etc) are defined purely mathematically anyway. When you get down to it "matter" doesn't exists except for the ratios, constants, and probabilistic and mathematical equations and formulas that define the invisible boundaries and properties of the so-called physical world.. Using the word "physical" doesn't add anything of substance. Its invocation is essentially empty rhetoric. "Physicality" is nothing but a mere redundant abstraction concept and overlay and has no substantial in and of itself!
So there are still definitely a lot of embarrassing gaping holes in our modern models of reality.. Yet it would be remiss to recant all the progress that mankind has made thus far simply because we still haven�t �figured it all out� or formulated an ultimate theory of everything or empirically observed the �god particle� in laboratory experiments, etc..
A lot of phenomenon can already be satisfactorily and vigorously explained in detail. Almost everything can be summed and reduced down to some cosmic anthropic principle, giving way to the laws of thermodynamics and that itself can be used to derive the whole of evolutionary Darwinism (natural selection, genetic drift, and all the facts, theories and laws of darwinistic evolution and all the intricacies and implications thereof) and the micro and macro biological disciplines that it entails. So yes Archimedes, I am all too well aware of this �struggle for existence� that you were referring to.. The irony was not lost on me. It is only ever through this epic struggle that we carve out the terrains of what human interaction and all the higher order things like beauty, love, lust, jealousy, identity, each and every human (or animal or lifeform in general) action, behavior, believe and emotion and raw experience can be derived from very simplistic 'a priori' initial starting points.
This "survival" and "struggle of existence" is the one underlying force and motive of all life. All the other motives, drives, emotions and feelings can be derived from this first-final 'a priori' axiom of existence and in fact it can be argued everything else is basically different manifestations and expressions of this one force of nature. Everything else from our ideals of beauty and love, to artistic works by the masters, to academic studies and disciplines of language, science, to the political arena and law and medicine, to warfare and militarism, to industry and production, to our tradition and culture and different religions they are arise out of this singular seemingly too simple concept our �struggle of existence� and all serve evolutionary adaptation survival functions and mechanisms.
"Good" and "Evil" are nothing more than our �modes of perceptions� enabling us to perceiving them as they are, which itself is due to our �modes of survival� (the predominant mode that helps us best survive given our unique environment) brought about in this epic "struggle of/for existence". People steal when they believe the returns outweigh the potential risks of getting caught. Society is held together by the fact that we each as individual perceive that we can get more out of life by abiding by a �social contract� and cooperating rather than "lone wolf" every man for himself "mode of survival". When things get bad enough and states believe they can fare better by going it along rather than sticking together as an "United States" you will see Texas, etc start to announce they will secede from the union and no longer support the tent cities in California, etc al. The larger the organization unit level the higher the EROEI (energy returned on energy invested) that is needed to prop up and maintain that unit level of system/organization. Another example: Love and sex both exists as different sides of the same evolutionary coin, they are different means, tactics, strategies of achieving he one same goal: survival. If you understand the energy, entropy and the laws of thermodynamics you will see all this is pretty self explanatory stuff..
Yet in the end it changes very little, in the sense that understanding these things don't really resolve anything or tell me what I didn't already know by and through experience. Knowing what causes hunger (the biological and neural-chemical reactions, etc) doesn't make anyone less hungry. Understanding that 'love' is just a neural correlate of consciousness that evolved to aid the survival of our species doesn't really make heartache any less painful, or reciprocated love any less enjoyable and meaningful..
So this brings me back to my original point, as humans we want different things, even things that contradict and conflict one another.. (a husband may want to stay faithful to his wife yet be swayed by the beauty of other women, or the other way around) The result of these meme�s battling it out for dominance in our mind forms the higher-order qualia sensations of confusion, turmoil, conflict, etc.. The reptilian, limbic, and neocortex layers and regions of our triune brain will never reconcile, the lion won�t lay down with the lame, and alpha will never sit next to omega; it is simply an inescapable part of human nature itself. �Will power� is never enough for us to do what is right, there has to be another motivation. The only way to �resolve� this is to forget about it, and we do that by overwhelming it with something else..
Thanks for the offer about private messaging you but I�m not on here to met men, and if it was a pen pal that I wanted I�d go to a pen pal site.
If you want to continue this discussion you are going to have to stop using so many words to say something that could be said with just a few words �dichotomy of duality� (I swear that's a Jazz Group). I assume you read Descarte � he answered your first paragraph (�I think therefore I am�).
Second paragraph � (neural correlates of consciousness) You can't get any more clinical then that. Everyone has a Separate Reality that is unique to them. It is formed from their beliefs, history, life experiences and so on. Your reality is that we evolved from a mixture of chemicals and water and electricity and somewhere along the way developed �consciousness�. What you believe makes Scientologists seem like rational people. You can't seem to break away from the linear thinking that has you spiraling out of control trying to stabilize your brain.
You wrote: �The information paradox is that the Quantum Mechanics wave function or state vector of a system encodes all the information that can ever be known about that system.�
You are trying to discuss something that our language has no words for. Q Mechanics (Math) is the only way of �explaining� Q Physics. The very concept of the duality of matter and energy should make you think of God.
You wrote: Almost everything can be summed and reduced down to some cosmic anthropic principle, giving way to the laws of thermodynamics and that itself can be used to derive the whole of evolutionary Darwinism (natural selection, genetic drift, and all the facts, theories and laws of darwinistic evolution and all the intricacies and implications thereof) and the micro and macro biological disciplines that it entails.
The Laws of Thermodynamics contradict evilution. Especially the Second Law which says that a system over time will break down and become less complex (heat loss). Evilution says the opposite. It says that a system (animals) become more complex over time.
You wrote: �This "survival" and "struggle of existence" is the one underlying force and motive of all life.�
Explain why a bird was found burnt to death in a forest fire with it's wings in a bowl shape and when it was moved � little chicks were found under her. This bird's �survival instinct� according to you was wacky (or should I say �Her dichotomy of duality dichotomized her to death�). I suppose that someone who jumps on a grenade to save the lives of those around him has their �neural correlates of consciousness dichotomizing their duality�.
You wrote: "Good" and "Evil" are nothing more than our �modes of perceptions� Again with the relativistic thinking. There are Absolute Truths!
You wrote: �Love and sex both exists as different sides of the same evolutionary coin, they are different means, tactics, strategies of achieving he one same goal: survival. If you understand the energy, entropy and the laws of thermodynamics you will see all this is pretty self explanatory stuff.�
.Once more with Thermodynamics. We were told to be fruitful and multiply. Good luck with that line on a woman on this site.
You wrote: �Yet in the end it changes very little, in the sense that understanding these things don't really resolve anything or tell me what I didn't already know by and through experience.�
So you are saying that you know everything and need no one else to teach you anything. A closed mind suffocates.
You wrote: �Understanding that 'love' is just a neural correlate of consciousness that evolved to aid the survival of our species doesn't really make heartache any less painful, or reciprocated love any less enjoyable and meaningful.�
Wow! May I use that line? That must really work well with the ladies. You can't get any colder than that.
You wrote: �the lion won�t lay down with the lame, and alpha will never sit next to omega�
That is very poetic. Have you heard of a Worm Hole? Theoretically with space � time being able to bend and the possibility of P-branes � Alpha could meet Omega and I have seen Lions laying with Sheep.
This debate I believe will go on until my head explodes. If you would have used the word supercalifragilisticexpialidocious I swear my head would have hemorrhaged. I wish you luck in your quest for a suitable receptor of your verbose verbiage. I will pray with my neural dichotomy or whatever for you, but I won't be continuing with this thread. It was interesting though.
I had to rethink my last post here.Before I was saved I did not know that I needed Jesus as my personel savior.Like are you a follower of christ?Is jesus your savior?Jesus being god the laws of nature do not apply to him.They only apply to us.Keep your answer so we all can understand.Do not try to speak above us but at are level.That is what Jesus did.
When you throw these great scientfic statements at people it is over the normal persons head.You seem to be a real smart guy.
Soloman the wisest man ever always spoke so the common person could understand.
I am a normal guy,so talk to me like that.All those scientific terms are over my head. 2 or 3 paragraphs will be ok.
I am asking about your relationship with Jesus.Are you looking for Jesus? Likealot what church are you attending?Do you attend?
Do you want me to pray with you?:prayingf:
Please keep your answer short and easy for a dummy like me.:ROFL: Humor me,ok.
The second law is of thermodynamics tells us that entropy has a larger value after some process takes place than it had before.
Consider the Sun�s role as a low-entropy source. For that energy to be of any use to us at all,it must be provided in a low-entropy form. Any energy supply in thermal equilibrium is useless. Luckily for us, the Sun is a hotspot in an otherwise cold background.
Plants make use of this low-entropy energy in their photosynthesis,thereby reducing their own entropy. Then we take advantage of the plants to reduce ours, either by eating them or by eating something that eats them.
Our individual decrease in entropy (or increase in order - if that's what some want to call it..) comes directly from the expense of the increase in entropy (decrease in order or increase in 'randomness') of a long chain of sources that ultimately go back to the sun (or the moment of the big bang if one wants to trace it back to the very beginning).. There is nothing about the laws of evolution that violates the laws of thermodynamics, a local decrease of entropy at the expense of an increase in entropy globally in an isolated system is perfectly acceptable and does not contradict.
Evolution doesn't always produce organisms that 'behave' in their own best interest. In fact that is the whole beauty of evolution, by producing more than could possibly survive it is this cosmic anthropic principle giving rise to the darwinistic "struggle for existence" through a process of natural selection and iterative evolution that "designs" ever more complex creatures into existence. If it wasn't for "random mutations" there would be no evolution at all whatsoever.. Lacking an "intelligent creator" , it is only by nature's own random mutations over successive generations and the passing down of that genetic information by the more successful of the members of a species (through sexual or asexual reproduction) that incrementally builds the structure of any species. For every mutation that benefits the gene pool there are orders of magnitude more that don't help at all. Unfortunately these die off and are cast aside by natural selection. (ie. A male ejacu1ate contains billions of sperm yet only one can impr1gnate a female and lead to creation of new life..so even in the bedroom there is natural selection at work) Nature doesn't know and cannot distinguish which changes are good or bad, mutations occur at random, but when coupled with natural selection and competition this "anthropic" principle (compare to the economic notion of the "invisible hand of adam smith") naturally "decides" which changes are beneficial and over many successive generations and incremental iterations a species is made more complex and more "fit" for its environment..
Also, the fact that evolution produces species that act in their own self interest is just a broader extension of the principle of natural selection itself.. This is the whole foundational basis of modern capitalistically society and the free market concept.. Companies all act in their own self interest and those that are efficient enough or successful enough rise to the top and displace and weed out the less competitive companies.. Without this "struggle for existence" (or constant change as some people seem to like to call it) we simply fall back and stagnate and dieoff.. Another example is viruses.. they are tiny packets of informational memes (the deadly ebola virus is just composed of seven protein molecules) that act in their own 'self interest' (even though they are thousands of times smaller than a single bacteria and don't have a 'brain' of any sort) and also this is empirical evidence of the fact and law of evolution at work that can be witnessed with microscopes in laboratories as sometimes these viruses evolve and mutate on the order of hours and days..
Evolution dictates that the more intelligent of species have on average succeeded in surviving better.. This does not mean that every member of a successful species survive (or behave) well.. this also has nothing to do with the fallacy of believing survival and self-interest means literally 'individual self interest'.. It is not as simplistic as that kind of thinking.. Mother nature is more subtle, complex and far more intricate than linear thinking of lesser men. A bird was found burnt to death in a forest fire with it's wings in a bowl shape and when it was moved � little chicks were found under her. This bird's evolved maternal instinct kicked in because she was hardwired to "know" (by iterative natural selections, just as viruses 'know') from a genetic cost benefit analysis it was better that she sacrificed herself and to have her progeny live on to reproduce in her image than for her to save herself at the expense of abandoning her offspring.. Likewise, the one of the likely reasons the homo sapien species displaced the Neanderthals 50,000 years ago was perhaps due to our species ability to interact socially and thinking in abstract concepts such as a group, tribe, or "society".. often times the good of the many override the good of the few.. and species that do not have this evolved trait will be less competitive in the environment compared to those that have it.. so eventually the former dies out and becomes extinct.
You are correct, Much of life seems to be a paradox. Even male female relationships. Men and women are the same but at the same time they are totally opposite. The one absolute in life is Jesus. In fact every question you may ever have has the same answer. And the answer to every question is Jesus.
Now, you may know what I'm talking about or you may need supernatural revelation. I do not see allot of bible quotation on your post. and I wonder the importance of your trinity circle graph matching Jesus with Dracula (on ur profile)
Here is a bible verse speaking of Christians,
"as we look not to the things that are seen but to the things that are unseen. For the things that are seen are transient, but the things that are unseen are eternal."
2Cr 4:18
You might at first believe this means we can look at things not seen with the naked eye. But having eyes and ears and not being able to see these things is very much like those the bible describes as
"always learning and never able to arrive at a knowledge of the truth. 2 Timothy 3:6-8
