That’s it?
Trying holding a baby’s mouth shut, you might learn a lesson about the nature of desire.
Or withhold a bottle, or nipple, from a hungry baby, ditto.
Or refuse to pick up a toddler who wants a huge and cuddle, ditto.
Give me an example. I can give you one, but it is a survival mechanism from way back.
The other one is an evolved result of our evolved greater ability to process environmental data more selectively.
Try this:
Well color and sound are added, so what else?
But what about beyond that, like in society. We aren’t born with most of the desires that we have throughout the day. Do you know what it is like to realize that you might have been “brainwashed” into valuing the things and concepts that you currently do. Why value a good job, career success, discovery of knowledge, etc?
I do know. I think it’s something most people go through as they get into their later teen years. They rebel. They want to leave their home indoctrination and create their own path. Some people never get over that feeling and are angry all their lives and have little trust in others. Others figure it out.
2 Likes
Well that’s our human condition. You know how most animals are ready to fend or at least run and hide behind mom, from within minutes to hours. Where as human are born premature and actually finish their gestation outside of the womb, exposing them to the world as it is. That is the secret to human malleability. It’s really a fascinating story that will remain forever hidden from you. At least not until you develop some good faith curiosity.
So far, all I’ve seen, is you defending your conviction, but that conviction doesn’t have any real world facts for you to learn from, or to share, nor to work with.
A couple sentences out of an article isn’t near enough, that’s just the amuse-gueule.
[Although I like the definition I was taught more - “a thoughtfulness for the palate”
but I digress. ]
But they’re still in the same society everyone else is in, like that quote I mentioned earlier said:
“in both situations, the individual with “true understanding” knows there is no reason to feel anything with regards to either situation as they are just random things that occur through particle and waves in reality colliding”
This is just stuff happening, there isn’t a reason to feel this way or that.
Again it’s about what’s true not what you can learn from, share, or work with. True isn’t about feeling better or being happy but what is which you seem to be avoiding.
Like…I really don’t think people grasp how everything they take to be them isn’t them. It’s all something that came from outside of you. Every personality trait, value system, etc. It’s effectively programming. If you drill down enough you’ll find how unreal what you take to be yourself really is.
Like I don’t think you grasp that we are human, that we have lived a few decades, that we have read some Buddhism, some philosophy. We can map what others say onto our expierences. We can feel.
[quote=“inthedarkness, post:188, topic:10083”]
It’s effectively programming. If you drill down enough you’ll find how unreal what you take to be yourself really is.
Yes, it’s reality that does the programming, from the moment you’re born. We experience reality by consensus agreement.
We have “mirror neurons” that recognize certain basic common denominators in our perception of realiity. This is what causes “empathy”, the ability to place yourself in another’s reality and share their experience.
You want to see a deaf baby discovering sound?
Or a colorblind boy discovering a whole new reality.
Or a tough body builder becoming overwhelmed see the world in color.
Programming is a bad analogy
1 Like
You’re right, but I can’t find a substitute term.
Seems to me that Natural Selection is a form of nature doing the programming by selecting for survival traits and techniques.
Natural selection and genetic algorithms are related concepts, but they are not the same thing. Natural selection is a biological process that occurs in nature, while genetic algorithms are a tool used in computer science and optimization.
Natural selection is the process by which certain traits or characteristics become more or less common in a population over time, depending on their fitness or adaptiveness. Traits that are more advantageous for survival and reproduction are more likely to be passed on to future generations, while traits that are less advantageous are more likely to be lost.
But did you consider it beyond what it says? Like what the says by society, how everything that is important to you is more or less “implanted”, no one is born that way after all. The emotional responses you give are what society says you ought to feel. Some don’t feel happy over a gain or sad over a loss, what then? If these aren’t inherent to being human then what?
That’s even more reason to doubt reality then, just to further illustrate this:
And another quote from neuroscience:
""Is consciousness an illusion? According to some emerging neuroscience
theories, consciousness is indeed an illusion.
But that does not mean it does not exist, or that it is not real!
An illusion is something that is not what it appears to be.
Merriam-Webster says an illusion is something that “misleads
intellectually.” A hologram is an illusion because the 3D object you
see is not really “there” (but it was somewhere, e.g. in the original
photography studio; and the holographic plate in front of you is
real).
Consciousness appears to us to have properties that it does not really
have. Consciousness appears to be a seamless, high-fidelity, complete,
and accurate direct experience of the world. And yet countless
psychology experiments and visual illusions demonstrate that
consciousness does not actually have these properties. Consciousness
is fragmented, internally inconsistent, lower resolution, and more
distorted than we think.
Yohan John makes a great point in asking the question “to what is
consciousness an illusion”? The answer to that question is “to
itself”, a circular answer that highlights one of the core paradoxes
of consciousness. Awareness, or self-awareness, presents the feeling
that we are simultaneously and synchronously both the subject and
object of our perception; and yet both roles cannot be logically
simultaneous due simply to the time-lag required to process
information and form a point of view. Who we perceive ourselves to be
is who we were a few hundred milliseconds ago. But hopefully we
haven’t changed much.“”
I have a better quote: “Consciousness is a controlled hallucination.”
Beyond what says? Who says everything important is implanted?
/'lljb 'lib 'ljjb 'Lib 'lib
LJJb "Lab
Even more proof of my point about unreality.
To drive it even further: Reality is not revealed by quantum mechanics » IAI TV
That’s just how it is. You weren’t born with all this stuff inside you after all.
I’m not sure that article addresses the issue.
The idea that reality is reducible to its most fundamental parts still animates much of science, particularly physics and philosophy. The craze with all things quantum is partly animated by this thought: understand quantum mechanics, the way that matter behaves at the smallest level known to us, and you’ve understood everything. But this philosophical impulse - because contrary to belief, it’s not scientific - that the microscopic holds the key to the secrets of the universe, is much older than quantum mechanics.
It goes back at least all the way to the 17th century and the invention of the microscope. Some of the best critiques of reductionism also date from the same century: Size doesn’t matter, the very small is just one realm of reality among many, with no special privilege.
I don’t agree with that. The incontrovertible fact is that in this universe there no other physics but those based on the identified Table of Elements that taught us the mathematical patterns of the most basic constituents of the Universe’s biochemistry such as found on Earth.
[quote=“inthedarkness, post:197, topic:10083”]
That’s just how it is. You weren’t born with all this stuff inside you after all.
[/quote] That’s right, we begin as totally dependent bodies and growing in all respects for another 15-16 years before we are reasonably complex as fully capable organisms.
Human altriciality is driven by postnatal brain growth
Nature Ecology & Evolution (2023)Cite this article
Humans are considered to be altricial (strongly underdeveloped at birth) with respect to other primates, but this observation is driven by the strong postnatal enlargement of human brains. We inferred that the developmental stage of human brains at birth does not differ substantially from that of other fossil hominins.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-023-02262-y
1 Like
The article is about two historical paradigm shifts, when the microscope revealed the very small and when quantum physics revealed another dimension we couldn’t see. Both claimed to reveal the true nature of reality, but the article points out both are just different frames. It’s the idea of a “true nature” that we should question. This is clearly stated in the closing paragraph.
Perhaps, in the vein of Sellars, we should stop looking for a world that we can reduce everything else down to. And perhaps, in the vein of Cavendish, we should accept that nature, or reality, is a complex, multifaceted entity and that the best we can hope for is to establish domains of inquiry (microscopy, quantum physics) that can reveal to us aspects of that multifaced whole but do (and could not) not hold the key to understanding it all at once.
There’s nothing in this that supports your “no feelings” theme. Sorry. It’s pointing out the folly of coming to the question of “what is real” with a philosophy already in mind.
It does agree with you @inthedarkness that we don’t have a solid picture of what reality is, but that’s different than saying we only think what people tell us to think. To me, we have ways to look into what’s real and we have what others before us have found. We use all that to muddle through.
1 Like
It’s more about the unreality of stuff.
But in regards to the feelings how is the quote wrong? It seems to be the case since humans tend to reach to gain and loss the same because society says so. It’s not like in the wild or nature they did that.