I haven’t checked the source. I agree with it, just not sure if Neil said it
I am convinced that the act of thinking logically cannot possibly be natural to the human mind.
And what are we supposed to do with that profundity?
You really shouldn’t set me up with questions like that. It makes it really hard for me to not write something that I would then have turn around, put on my moderator hat and warn myself to not say things like that.
So, . . . you can’t simply explain what kinds of lesson we can pull from that?
Does its applicability, not matter?
What does that quote leave us with?
Except, yeah man, it’s all hopeless, people are idiots.
Where do we start dealing with ourselves?
How do we start dealing with ourselves?
What ideas or inspiration do words like: “thinking logically cannot possibly be natural to the human mind” convey?
We are products of our interactions with this Earth. But logic didn’t come to us naturally? Seriously? What, was it God’s gift to mankind?
Why not something like that, thinking logically is difficult, enough?
(I don’t care how much smarter he is, heck you don’t know if he even said such an odd phrase.) Ravens puzzle through a problem logically. etc. What’s natural, what’s not nature. For what positive purpose has my/our attention been drawn to this gotcha?
I mean the metaphor is all wrong to begin.
Or what about pointing out that purely logical thinking is capable of creating monstrous untruths, and failures? I believe, putting “LOGIC” on such a contrived pedestal demands some cross-examination.
We need more than logic, to make this human experiment function in a healthy manner. [Yes, I’ll define it, in part: Healthy living, it is being capable of inflicting as little damage and hatred as possible, and nurture when we can. and so on.]
Or would you disagree Lausten? Would Neil disagree?
If you are going to try to bait me then don’t expect to respond as if aren’t
? - ? -?
Actually I’m trying to get something constructive out of you!
Why you gotta interpret every tough question as baiting?
Let me try starting at the beginning,
philosophers love making a big deal about quantum weirdness and how it holds the key to unlocking human “potential.” From your posts, especially the talks you share, it seems you share that general conviction and fascination with quantum-woo, (for lack of a better term), that is, we can draw significant conclusions from quantum weirdness that apply to understanding ourselves and mastering our power, or whatever. So your comments are simply a proxy for that community, and my comments are addressed to the entire community, not you specifically.
This isn’t that kind of personal and wish you’d start appreciating that.
Any clarification on how quantum-woo relates, or not, to human consciousness - would be read with much interest.
When I get picky it’s not at you - it’s at the entire community. I don’t know maybe your new to these ideas, then sure they are all flash and bang - but they’ve been around since before the internet, and I’ve read and listened to plenty of it for decades. In younger days it fascinated me, but with the decades and now also our exchanges here at CFI, and the local college professors and club, I’m coming to realize how utterly empty it really is. That is, within the framework of people learning about themselves, in a way that enables them to live calmer, more constructive, pleasant lives.
I point out that the quantum realm, and all our philosophical machinations about it, is as distant from our physical reality, as a tree on Earth is to the observed Universe.
You’ve ghosted that analogy as thought it’s irrelevant. (As you’ve done with other key clarifications I’ve shared over the years)
Still, I think it’s key to understanding our foolishness and this thing I call - getting trapped within our minds (mindscapes).
You tell me you are seeking the Truth out there. I’m pointing out how far down there and removed from our living realm it is, …
Not a wink.
I’m challenging you to offer some rational explanation for what such a conviction stands on.
How much of a difference to the universe does an Earth bound tree make, be it Bristle Cone or a Giant Sequoia?
I’m asking how much can our petty human machination about the fabric of life at the very limits of tininess, were the line between matter and energy becomes so vague, that it barely exists - with stuff popping into existence only to dissolve back into the cosmic soup of background energy, what can that knowledge, (which I’ve already digested pretty throughly), do to inform us about our flesh and blood bodies?
The self-same Body/Brains that create such conflict for our petty, scared and selfish Minds.
Please be clear, I’m are talking about understanding our minds better and our relationship with our selves, meaning the marvelous gadgetry that we can achieve with some aspects of studying the tiny along with mastering a math that can describe it accurately. Is totally beside the point
I don’t know were all your resentment comes from.
I can tell you the source of my resentment - it’s that popular society rather spend time on such empty gratuitous self-indulgent, then doing the hard work of looking within themselves.
You post these talks as though they hold self-evident lessons, I see the same repetitive nonsense that’s been playing for decades, yeah labels change, new “discoveries” are made, in the end it’s same old same old, trying to touch God, you calls it Truth, Write calls it math - to me it’s become blah, blah in the face of the reality that is actually unfolding and that will upend all we know and cut the legs our from all our fantastic billion dollar projects
While looking for infinite potential out there,
Never admitting we never actually learned anything about ourselves.
Sorry, I’m rushed, forcing myself to try to be clear and real - excuse the many typos/errors that probably exist
AT THE EXPENSE OF DEEPLY LEARNING ABOUT THE EARTH BOUND BIOLOGICAL EVOLUTION THAT CREATED OUR BODY.
You didn’t use to do that (baiting), but you have been using leading questions with increasing regularity. This is not something about my reaction to you personally, it’s based in factual understanding of how your comment is constructed. If you look it up and compare your sentence to the examples, your question is textbook.
The answer “you can’t simply explain” is contained in your question, making it NOT a question. Besides, I answered already. There is a limit to how much of this I can ignore without comment. You have far exceeded that limit, for months.
I have no idea where you get that I’m into quantum woo. You want to “address that community” so you use my comments as a springboard to your platform. I’m not “ghosting your analogy”, it’s just not relevant to me.
You apparently aren’t paying attention when I moderate others. Challenging is trolling when it’s done the way you are doing it.
That’s because you take my feedback to be resentment, when it’s not. It’s you who is confused. Again it’s leading, you first assume I have resentment then tell me about. I’ve tried to respond and untangle that, but you pile on more leading statements, about how you interpret my words, instead of discussing the topic at hand, or making attempts to build understanding.
Actually that last comment is off track and belongs to another thread, even if inspired by the previous post.
Let’s get back on point.
That quote
Seems to me that was presenting an invitation for observations.
Okay, I’m observing that to say: “thinking logically cannot possibly be natural,” is a non sequitur.
Understanding the scientific process deserves (needs) a better defense.