Evolution and fun stuff
 

No creationilism crap, it just irritates me. Anybody have any thoughts or theories on evolution of conceptions or the universe?

Or any other kind of theory or philosophy. Either would be interesting.

There's this one theory that's called solipsism in which... oh fuck it. I can't be bothered to explain things to manifestations of my own mind.

No creationist crap.... man, you are open minded and well educated!

If evolution is correct, I must say I am the peak of sexual evolution! :)

Really, really dumb.

The Thread, or Vince?



Dialectical Materialism anyone?

He can make up new words, too. "creationilism". :lol

"In these times of darkness when the hordes are so uneducated, they can barely understand multi-syllabic phrases like, 'Clean my shoes better, Marissa, or I'll report you to the IRS!' or dialectical materialism. Isn't it great to have a patronizing voice on the radio?"

:)

One theory that deals with evolution I've always liked...

Ever read Mothman Prophecies? It has theories about paranormal activity. All phonominal entities (like a haunted house) can be explained as residual energy that leaks out of human minds and takes form in our spectrum of energy (thought projections that the Tibetians call tulpas), meaning these entities live in a superspectrum not seen by humans or scientific instruments.

For example, a house is inhabited by a writer who is trying to finish off a long saga of some fictious character, lets say Uberman, who flys around and does blah blah. When he leaves, there are ghost sightings of a man who can fly around and do blah blah blah. What if the author focused so much on Uberman that he brought a tulpa into existence?

The point is that tulpas have put a lot of influence on human evolution intellectually. They've made us wonder about greater forces in the universe and have expanded our imaginations to upper limits. Tulpas are a normal condition for the planet because they been around forever. Mothman has been seen on cave paintings.

Anyway that's it in a nutshell. If you want to know the whole thing or want good reading I suggest Mothman Prophecies, which is much better than the movie.

lol.
Leave it to some fuckwit to take attempting to start a normal conversation into a, "Haha I'm smarter than you my dick is flaccid but look at me tell you you spell wrong". I hope you hang yourself with a yoyooo. I posted that at like 3 am, sorry if my spelling wasn't righteous enough for you.

Thanks for the Mothman thing, I've been looking for stuff to read :( that's why I posted this :( yay.

The reason I didn't want creationism stuff was because I get tired of ye olde Creationism versus Evolution. There's nothing to creationism to discuss, go ahead and try to discuss it with a Christian. It's all, "The bible did those so God did", not, "The flower ate a chocolate dyke and upon this came the woes of our humanity".
And I never claimed to be open minded.

To continue, I didn't necessarily intend on discussing the credibility of the evolution of humanity, because that would end up in some lame debate about how we apeared from smoke. Even the biology and geography of Earth's Evolution isn't particularly exciting, most of that is a given(you can't deny there's a giant fucking mountain in front of you. Well you can. But you wouldn't get much credit for it).

I was more interested in evolution of THOUGHT or the UNIVERSE, how it grows and begins. Mostly thought.

The coarse objectives of the "Standard" forms of evolution may be discussed, but I know it will end up in a splurge of rhetorical Darwin material.
On that note, there have been found in, what i remember to be, Spain that is recognized as the, "Missing-link" for Darwins theory of evolution(Dinosaurs to Birds). In other words, a REPTILE was found with feathers, and a creature with a skeletal frame similar to a bird was found wingless and with Reptilian qualities.

As for Human evolution I can't see how a person could deny it happened. I don't really see how a person could deny any of it happened really. I mean shit, go raise a family by a Toxic waste dump and see what happens. Eat alot of food and you get fat. Trite almost irrelevant examples but still proof things from the outside world can affect the human body, and readily dismissed.

That's my speech for the day.

Why, yes.

Is Dialetic Materialism something like, "Your eyes were bigger than your stomach"?

where can i get good reference for Dialetic Materialism? I am curious.



Currently i am a Deist (I believe in God but that he can only be approached through science and reason) http://www.religioustolerance.org/deism.htm

Next week i think i am going to be a Nihlist or Agnostic

Because Agnosticism is easy to defend.

You should make up some crazy religion, that's what I did. Everybody calls me stupid for it, but I get to call myself Jesus Christ.

Yeah, more or less.

I'm cool like that :(

I'm reading Hegel's Phenemology, but I always forget the site so I spend like half the day finding it and either get bored and give up or when I finally do find it I stop reading after a paragraph or two :(

Do the drugs help?

yes :(

We should all worship Eris - of all the gods, she's clearly the best lay.

I always prefer to believe that the Egyptian head god masturbated and thus ejaculated the universe.

kahl, keep calling yourself Jesus Christ, and you can call yourself hellbound.

If you want to read something about creationism, read "Tornado in a Junkyard". GREAT book.

Evolution
 

Khal -

Take a look at some of the Buddhist websites. There is a lot of intersting information on the how and why of the universe. Much of Buddhist thought is based on that subject.

Nothing is real ... my brain is creating my whole reality ... the mind is a powerful thing ... and I'm worrying myself sick just thinking about it. :/

Here is what looks to be a comprehensive source for anyone interested in Dialectical Materalism:

http://www.marxist.com/science/diale...terialism.html

It's from Reason in Revolt by Ted Grant and Alan Woods, and it's Marxist, so take it or leave it. I personaly haven't finished reading it..... so, my grasp on the matter comes from more simple means, and will probably be overshadowed by more inteligent people on this board, or anybody that happens to read the link. :/



Dialectical Materialism is the study of change (dialectics) in the real world (materialism).

Materialism is the idea that matter is the essence of all reality,
and that matter creates mind, and not vice versa. In other words, thought and all the things that are said to derive from thought(artistic ideas, scientific ideas, ideas of law, politics, morality etc) are in fact derived from the material world. Teh 'mind', ie, thought and thought processes, is a product of the brain; and the brain itself, and therefore ideas, arose at a certain stage in the development of living matter. It is a product of the material world.

"Life is not determined by consciousness, but consciousness by life"
- Karl Marx

A materialist therefore seeks an explanation not only for ideas, but for material phenomena themselves, in terms of material causes and not in terms of supernatural intervention by 'God' and the like.

The opposite of materialism is 'idealism', which I personaly generalise as religion and stuff....


Dialectics is quite simply the logic of motion. Not inertia and what not, but constant change. We all know that things don't stand still, they change.

The form of logic standing in contradiction to Dialectics is the well named 'Formal Logic'.

Formal logic is based on what is known as the 'law of identity', which says that 'A' equals 'A' - ie that things are what they are, and that they stand in definite relationships to each other. There are other derivative laws based on the law of identity; for example, if 'A' equals 'A', it follows that 'A' cannot equal 'B', or 'C'. The development of mathematics and basic arithmetic, for example, was based on formal logic. 1 + 1 = 2, and not 3. And in the same way, the method of formal logic was also the basis for the development of mechanics, of chemistry, of biology, etc.

In the 18th century the biologist Linnaeus developed a system of classification for all known plants and animals. Linnaeus divided all living things into classes, into orders, into families, in the order of primates, in the family of hominids, in the genus of homo, and represents the species homo sapiens. The Linnaean system of classification is based on formal logic.

An exaple of formal logic in chemistry is Dalton's atomic theory.
Dalton's theory was based on the idea that matter is made up of atoms, and that each type of atom is completely separate and peculiar to itself - that its shape and weight is peculiar to that particular element and to none other.

There are, however, limitations to the method of formal logic. It is a useful everyday method, and it gives us useful approximations for identifying things. the Linnaean system of classification is still useful - but since the work of Charles Darwin in particular we can also see the weaknesses in that system. Darwin's work provided a systematic basis for the theory of evolution, which for the first time said it is possible for one species to be transformed into another species.

Before Darwin it was thought that the number of species on the planet was exactly the same as the number of species created by God in the first six days on the job - except, of course, for those destroyed by the big flood - and that those species had survived unchanged over the millennia. But Darwin produced the idea of species changing, an idea that most people are aware of.

What applies in the field of biology applies also in the field of chemistry. Chemists became aware, by the late 19th century, that it was possible for one atomic element to become transformed into another. (Sorry, I don't know anything about this practice.)

Whereas the formal logician will say that 'A' = 'A', the dialectician will say that 'A' does not necessarily equal 'A'. Or to take a practical example that Trotsky uses in his writings, one pound of sugar will not be precisely equal to another pound of sugar. It is a good enough approximation if you want to buy sugar in a shop, but if you look at it more carefully you will see that it's actually wrong.

There are no absolute or fixed categories, either in nature or in society.

Dialectics, however, does not place on the universe a process of even or gradual change. This is where the dialectic laws of: 'Quantity into Quality', 'Negation of the Negation' and 'Interpenetration of Opposite' come into play. Which, if anybody rally cares about or wants to know about, i will try to explain.

Dialectical Materialism can also be seen by some as "common-fucking-sense" - nothing is fixed and nothing remains unchanged



I hope I helped with my view, I'm a bloody marxist so I should probably know it by heart. :/

I've read some Buddhism, it makes me laugh so hard. Especially the diamond and heart suttas, I forget which one exactly. But one of their primary things is like Detachment from material objects and the such, and in the sutta it's all, AND HIS GEM RUBIED RINGS SHOWN WITH A BRIGHT LIGHT AS HE POINTED TO THE PLACE THAT HE WAS POINTING.
:( Jesus Christ reanactment there. It's the part where he's talking about how the EYEs don't see it's the MIND. And that if Eyes see Lanterns could see. LANTERNS COULD SEE.

"kahl, keep calling yourself Jesus Christ, and you can call yourself hellbound"
MAYBE YOU"RE HELLBOUND FOR NOT ACCEPTING ME INTO YOUR HEART, HEATHEEN.


ZHUKOV:
Go ahead and splain more, I'd read that site now buti have to goto a friends house soon, but I'll be sure to read it later.

LOL
 

Kahl -
A bit out of your realm I guess.

If eyes can see lanterns can see is about energy being energy. You seem to be either a literalist or you have tried to read the suttras without any base knowledge.

Buddhism and quantum physicas are very similar. That is what I was directing you too when it comes to the structure and creation of the universe.

heh.
He was talking about perceptions as far as I know, "When you close your eyes do you still see? You see the darkness or the light beyond your eyelids, so is it your eyes that see? No it's your mind. In the same manner when you light a lantern in the dark is it the lantern that sees for you?" This was after about 20 lines of dialogue in which his little friends tried to figure out what the answer was. Then that guy cried about it because he wasn't a good little monk(or whatever that B word they use, boddhivista, no, bramaproaviaoo something like that).
I think it was the Diamond sutta now that I think about it.

Funny thing is that there's a lot of fucking in Egyptian culture. The earth is supposedly in constant sexual intercourse with the sky, Ra returns to the sky every day through Nut's (goddess of the sky, which remember is constantly being fucked) vagina, Isis (mother of the gods) took sperm from Osiris' corpse and gave birth to Horus, first ruler of united Egypt. So, the whole thing is generally fucked-up.

You can find it here at http://socsci.colorado.edu/LAB/GODS/, and if you look closer at hiyroglyphics (guessed spelling), you could find plenty of dicks and pussies. Sorry, no examples.

Lanterns
 

and

Not quite the same statement.......

The eyes show you things. The lantern shows you things. The mind can still perceive without the eyes or the lanterns. Thus, it is the mind that truly "sees" or understands.

One isnt even a statement, one is a question. And they are actually the exact same thing, "If eyes can see then lanterns can see". Then, "You see the darkness or the light beyond your eyelids, so is it your eyes that see? No it's your mind".

No it's your mind.
If eyes could see lanterns can see.
No it's your mind.
In the same manner when you light a lantern in the dark is it the lantern that sees for you?
No it's your mind

EDIT: "It's the part where he's talking about how the EYEs don't see it's the MIND. And that if Eyes see Lanterns could see. LANTERNS COULD SEE."

Eyes
 

Um...the point is eyes don't see. Neither do lanterns. Only the mind sees.

Perhaps you are not wording it well. It seems you are saying the meaning is "eyes do see, so lanterns see as well."

Maybe it is because you are trying to reverse the logic. However, if you understood the basics of Buddhism, you would "see" that you can't revese the logic.

How does not believing in Creationism make him un-educated, Vinth? Tell me, where do you get that conclusion?

He was mostly trying to indicate I said "Creationalism" or something instead of "Creationism"

I myself am agnostic, and I believe that the earth was created in this way.

Cosmic dust began to swirl and clump together, eventually getting big enough to have its own gravitational pull. This pulled more dust and rocks toward it and eventually it became the general size of the earth as it is today. This mass circled the sun, gaining sunlight, while the pull of the earth created a layer of air around it, keeping in moisture. Bacteria grew, and became small animals and plants, which then grew into larger animals and plants. Monkeys were born, and from a select breed of apes, came the first homo-sapiens. Then, man created God to explain all the wonderful natural events that brought them to this state, and there were wars between men following different gods, and people lost their lives over the senselessness of defending something with no proof, and humanity has sucked forevermore.

You've all got it all wrong.

Aliens selectively bred existing Earth Monkeys into Humans. They did this really quickly, so that's why you'll never find a missing link. I'm not sure why they did that, but I do know that they are still watching over us... waiting... They also cannot see you if you wear a hat made of metal or aluminum foil.

The ancient pictures of that Egyptian Goddess that they named that horrible Streisand flick after look just like an alien from Close Encounters...

*runs away screaming*

"How does not believing in Creationism make him un-educated, Vinth?"

Because by doing so, one is being dogmatic. Once one totally dismisses a premise -Without having first reached a verifiable solution- as having no pertinent value at all, they have shown themselves to be close-minded and intolerant, hence not very well educated.

It's really simple Vibe. First off, I was halfway quoting the way Buddha himself originally said it. So yea. Besides that it's not reverse logic, negatives and positives are irrelevant when the final statement is, "NO, ITS THE MIND THAT SEES". It could be phrased anyway. Like, Hi, I'm a girl, no im a guy." "hi im not a girl, Im a boy". see?

And roachy, it's not so much that I'm decidedly against creationist thoughts, it's just... well, quite frankly the CREATIONISM VERSUS EVOLUTION debate gets tiring. I wanted specific theories and philosophies I was attempting to learn. I did not want Christians and Catholics filling my attempt at learning with, GOD CREATED MAN IN SEVEN DAYS AND SO IT WAS. Maybe later I'll make a creationist thread. Someday.



IMMORTAL GOAT:
That's kind of how I think, except I add the addition of stating a universal truth of "Selfishness", or "Accumulation" depending on how you would like to see it, as applied to Gravity.

I think I would credit (at least the origin of) formal logic and biological classification more so to Aristotle.

Lanterns
 

Not only did you leave out critical parts of the language that makes up the sutra, but the part you put in capitals "LANTERNS COULD SEE" makes it appear that you completely missed the point about the mind and felt that LANTERNS COULD SEE.

Seeing as how I haven't gotten into the sutras yet (I'm more interested in how Buddhism relates to math and science), I was only going on what you posted.

Then

They are not the same if you don't know the context in which they both were used.

"If eyes can see then lanterns can see". And exactly how could anyone unfamilliar with the sutra possibly know the part about the mind? Taken alone this has a totally different meaning.

Language and context are very important when you are trying to make a point.

Do you "see" what I mean?

Because by doing so, one is being dogmatic. Once one totally dismisses a premise -Without having first reached a verifiable solution- as having no pertinent value at all, they have shown themselves to be close-minded and intolerant, hence not very well educated.

Thank you for the baseless and completely worthless assumption. I believe I remember you saying that you once believed in evolution, but after a long and arduous process of reason you switched to Creationism. Why is it impossible for you to attribute that same process to those that don't agree with you? Here you equate evolutionism with being dogmatic. That's presumptuous, rediculous, and hypocritical. The Creationist school of thought exists solely because of preconceived religious indoctrination. Among scientists, there is no ongoing debate whether or not evolution is true; the objective mountain of evidence leaves no room but to conclude that evolution is an absolute fact.

Your suggestion that it is ignorant to believe in evolution without an exhausting look at Creationism can be equated with the idea that geocentrism should be taught "just in case it's right".

I'm listening. :)


What the heck? Immortal Goat, your view is pretty much a creationist story in itself.


Kahljorn: These laws of Dialectics sound more complicated than they actually are, but I will still have problems expressing them.

QUANTITY INTO QUALITY: This law states that the processes of change are not gradual, they are not even. Periods of relatively gradual or slight change mingle with periods of enormously rapid change - change which cannot be measured in terms of quantity but only in terms of quality.

Take for example a kettle of water. You can measure ("quantify") the water in terms of temperature, water from a tap is about ten degrees - and the change takes place as you heat the water, the water gets warmer - 10 to 20 to 30 degrees etc.

At some stage the measuring of the water from quantity, shifts to quality - the water turns into steam. As the water turns to steam, we you can no longer measure the water in terms of quantity (degrees) but you measure it in terms of quality (steam - not water).

A mate of mine gave me this 'example': As a lions penis becomes more erect, you measure it in terms of centimetres (this is quantity), if it gets bigger and bigger, it explodes, and you no longer measure it in centimetres, you measure it in terms of being exploded (quality).


Next is NEGATION OF THE NEGATION: this simply means the passing away of one thing is transformed into another.

Take for example, ahem, society. the law of the negation of the negation simply states that as one system comes into existence, it forces another system to pass away (like Feudalism was negated to Capitalism which will be negated to Communism) . But that doesn't mean that the second system is permanent or unchangeable. That second system itself becomes negated as a result of the further developments and processes of change in society.

Death, as well is an example. When you die you are negated by a corpse, which is negated by a skeleton which in turn is negated by a pile of dust and so on.


INTERPENETRATION OF OPPOSITE: This law states that processes of change take place because of contradictions - because of the conflicts between the different elements that are embodied in all natural and social processes.

The 'quantum theory' is an example of Interpenetration of Opposite. Quanyum theory is based on the concept of energy having a dual character - that for some purposes, according to some experiments, energy exists in the form of waves, like electromagnetic energy. But for other purposes energy manifests itself as particles. In other words, it is quite accepted among scientists that matter and energy can actually exist in two different forms at one and the same time - on the one hand as a kind of intangible wave, on the other hand as a particle with a definite 'quantum' (amount) of energy embodied in it.

Therefore the basis of the quantum theory in modern physics is contradiction.

There are many other contradictions known to science. Electromagnetic energy is set in motion through the effect of positive and negative forces on each other. Magnetism depends on the existence of a north pole and a south pole. These things cannot exist separately. They exist and operate precisely because of the contradictory forces being embodied in one and the same system.

Every society today consists of different contradictory elements joined together in one system, which makes it impossible for any society, any country, to remain stable or unchanged.

:)

Magnetism depends on the existence of a north pole and a south pole. These things cannot exist separately.

Actually, there was a phase of the big bang characterized by the creation of magnetic monopoles. They're much too large to be detected by conventional experiments (roughly a millimeter), but people are still looking for them.

:love Seth

Yeah, I was just going to say that. In theory, monopole magnets can exist, but no one has been able to find them or make them. The person who does will be very famous. ;)

He may argue, but you are right. That ties back into The_Rorschach's observation. To study the formation of the universe from the perspective of physics, you eventually arrive at the dead end of "why?" That is the limitation of physical science, the study of "how." "Chaos" was actually perfect order. The only reasonable explanation for the original action that set off the chain of events we've come to know and love and call the Universe was what we refer to as "The Prime Mover."

That, and the aliens...

Monopoles? I'll have to look into that. :/

And the Big bang is also just another creation story.

LOL
 

They are all the same story. Just change the names/descriptions......the concept remains the same.

""If eyes can see then lanterns can see". And exactly how could anyone unfamilliar with the sutra possibly know the part about the mind? Taken alone this has a totally different meaning.

Language and context are very important when you are trying to make a point."

Fortunately in this day and age we have something called a paragraph, I know it's new and all, but all the cool kids are doin git! It involves sentences, more than one, clumped together. Why? Who knows. The sentences have nothing to do with eachother, they are random spurts of thought directed towards confusing and confusing people more.
Capitol letters? By God. Nobody has ever used those for sarcasm or some kind of joke before. Thank God we've resolved that issue. LANTERS CAN SEE.

"Jesus Christ reanactment there. It's the part where he's talking about how the EYEs don't see it's the MIND. And that if Eyes see Lanterns could see. LANTERNS COULD SEE."
"He was talking about perceptions as far as I know"
""When you close your eyes do you still see? You see the darkness or the light beyond your eyelids, so is it your eyes that see? No it's your mind. In the same manner when you light a lantern in the dark is it the lantern that sees for you?""

that is in chronological order, i think the problem is I left it open ended. You know, like a puzzle, where it takes imagination and the brains of a three year old to figure out that the blue star doesn't fit into the Red Square spot. Or the flinestone phone doesn't call betsy if you call fred. I apologize. It's my fault.

Maybe I should outline my statements though. The mind Sees.
Not the Eyes.
The eyes do not see.
Let's suppose I said if the eyes could see, so could a lantern. Good thing I used the word if. Also a good thing I previously indicated that it is the mind that sees.
So let's show this mathmatically.
Seeing=mind. We'll call this S=M. Then there's Eyes=(crossthroughtheequalsign)see. then there Eyes=lantern. That's right. The eyes and the lantern fall under the same category. Seeing as how the eyes don't see, as stated, then the lantern(as being equal to the eyes) do not see as well. eye+lantern=confusing you. Mind=Perceptions. Perceptions. I think I said that word. Didn't I. I didn't use a paragraph this whole time. I hope it confuses you.

You can continue this pointless debate if you want, I'll even say you were right by arguing to agree.

In a general sense, yes. They all have a beginning and assume and end... but so does everything! If you want to make it interesting and unusual, you have factor in the alien angle. Aliens are NOT good. Or, I guess, God.... I suppose we are all just wanting some outside force to control us and provide us with motivation. The alternative is disturbing, but probably more practical.

You cannot change anything, and the only thing you can ever hope to have any success at all in influencing would be your own mind. Is that a limitation? I don't think so. Y'see, the aliens are trying to teach us to think communally, like bees, but we are way too hung up on individuality to listen to them. Often, they find themselves yelling to be heard. That's why you wear your special hat.

I call it Super-Tao. Works for me.

Meow. Thinking even one thought "Changes" things, it adds to the pool of conceptual grief and perile. Which seems entirely Irrelevant.

Lanterns
 

Kahl - your inital post left out the "chronological order". And because of that the caps did not come of as sarcasm.
In your second post you put in the order, but did not clairfy that what you meant about the lanterns was sarcasm.
But if you notice, after your second post I understood the sutra just not you.




Well, seeing as how your sentences were random, with missing context and chronological order, you succeeded in your goal.

"QUANTITY INTO QUALITY"
My understand would be as, a smillion pounds of crappy ass rocks sits under ground for a long time. A smillion years later it compresses and becomes gold or diamonds.
A bunch of useless molecules and atoms floating around space gather together to create a star. Same with a planet.

"NEGATION OF THE NEGATION"
That one has really easy examples, the life and birth of every single thing in this universe(including thoughts and ideas). Stars and all. Stars turn to nebulas, which someday get turned into stars again. the cycle of birth and rebirth and squeezed somewhere between the death part.

"INTERPENETRATION OF OPPOSITE"
Yea, another easy one. Evolution is exactly that, evolution occurs in a few ways, by adjusting to the enviroment, or by killing off any rivals. As seen in the Neandrothal(sp?) and Homosapien pasts.
Static electricity may be another? Friction of two objects. Gravity. Especially in the case of the moon, which isn't necessarily so decisive as some of the others in matters of co-existence, but without the moon there would be no tide (and the axis would be all fucked up, which correlates again to change the seasons, which fucks us over) and without that there'd be bad things.
The ECOSYSTEM is a more complicated thing, that also involves the second law thingi you stated. In fact it even has the first squeezed in there. Now that I think about it all of the things are all three, if you twist it enough. Twisty twist.
I'm pretty fucked up right now, sorry if I don't make sense or I missed details.

Blah
 

Kahl -

Regardless, we clearly came to the same conclusion about the sutra.


What I find supremely interesting is that that sutra is very close to scientific truth.
The eyes actually do not see. They transmit data to the brain. The brain then interprets the data as images. In essence, it is the brain that "sees". So close it is scary.
The buddhist view of energy and the universe is also very similar to math/physics.

I find it fascinating.

Vibe, again, I will post the first statement ever made.

"Jesus Christ reanactment there. It's the part where he's talking about how the EYEs don't see it's the MIND. And that if Eyes see Lanterns could see. LANTERNS COULD SEE."

Then you got the sutta real good, so good I got gooded by your goodness, remember when you were all:

"A bit out of your realm I guess. If eyes can see lanterns can see is about energy being energy. You seem to be either a literalist or you have tried to read the suttras without any base knowledge."

THAT WAS GOOD, E=mc2 Fantastic laura davis. Tastic.

Immediatly after this post, I responded. How great for you.

"He was talking about perceptions as far as I know"

Good ol perceptions.

"When you close your eyes do you still see? You see the darkness or the light beyond your eyelids, so is it your eyes that see? No it's your mind. In the same manner when you light a lantern in the dark is it the lantern that sees for you?"

Good ol Buddhist style scripture.

"The eyes show you things. The lantern shows you things. The mind can still perceive without the eyes or the lanterns. Thus, it is the mind that truly "sees" or understands."

OMG, THE MIND TRULY SEES? WHAT THE FUCK, I DIDN"T SAY THAT A POST BEFORE YOU AT ALL. FOR REALS. I NEVER DID. I SWEAR I DIDNT.


"per·cep·tion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (pr-spshn)
n.
The process, act, or faculty of perceiving.
The effect or product of perceiving.
Psychology.
Recognition and interpretation of sensory stimuli based chiefly on memory.
The neurological processes by which such recognition and interpretation are effected.

Insight, intuition, or knowledge gained by perceiving.
The capacity for such insight. "

As seen in dictionary.com

I also find it sadly ironic:

"Not only did you leave out critical parts of the language that makes up the sutra"
"Seeing as how I haven't gotten into the sutras yet "
And you say it's out of my realm? :lol that's great vibe, really. Not only do you know the Critical parts of the Suttas but you know them without even reading them.

Read it, seriously. Guess what I was doing just there, I was practically quoting the buddha himself(notice the part where I said AND HE SAID, indicating the buddha. Isn't language great. We have pronouns), just in a slightly shorter fashion. Do you think in the suttas he comes out and says, "The mind sees".
Fuck no. What the hell, go read it. He questions them, baits them, to see if they can figure it out themselves, to try to inspire and teach, that's how the buddha worked, he was almost a prankster. I even gave you a shortcut with the mind part, he didn't even mention that till A-grown-man-crying later.

I won't respond to you anymore on this topic unless you talk remotely intelligently :( I promise t his time :(

I feel like a calander/preschool teacher today.

LMAO

Get over yourself.


Looks like a bunch of random sentences to me. This is where you left out critical parts. And I took it out of context because well.....there is no context. After you added the rest of the text I could see what you meant. But at the start it wasn't clear.

LOL
 

Besides, as I said a couple of posts ago, we clearly came to the same conclusion on the sutra.

Personally I like koans better than sutras. More thought provoking.

fin

Anyhoo, like I said in the beginning......if you are interested in the theory and the philosophy behind the universe it's out there.

http://www.tased.edu.au/tasonline/su...ond-Sutra.html
I found you this. It's not so bad. It leaves out alot of the stuff out of the one I read, of course the posibilities are there for the one I read to be embelished a bit. Im gonna try to find the lantern one though. It's so irritating. You can at least see the guy cry in that one.

Sutra
 

LMAO yet again......

and I found this is the The Surangama Sutra. Both more convoluted and more direct.


I'll try to read the one you posted after lunch.

Oh - and I want to see a grown monk cry!

yea that's the one. i think they are like mini-sutras as part of a big sutra called the Lotus Sutra. The Sidhuti guy cries in the Diamond one.
Is the one you found the one where he has Ruby rings on too? and they shine with a great light, and people are blinded?

"Thank you for the baseless and completely worthless assumption."

Quite welcome.

"I believe I remember you saying that you once believed in evolution, but after a long and arduous process of reason you switched to Creationism."

No, I was a staunch Irish Protestant the first day I came to the Mock, and have never ceased to embrace my sola scriptorum-based belief system.

As both you and Kahl seemed to have both misinterpreted what I have said, allow me to reiterate: I was clarifying someone else's statement, not offering a value judgement. I see no profit in such debates, and do not participate in them any longer. Creationists put their faith in God, Evolutionists believe in Science - Faith and belief would have no value if their proponants could be so easily swayed, therefore debate over the issue is ineffectual at best.

Sutra
 

Not sure. I just did a search for the lantern text. I'll probably start reading them soon.......beginning with that one

I'm still more into the philosophy, but the sutras seem interesting. A good argument will always pique my interest. So um thanks. Thanks a lot for adding to my load of stuff to read.

...and was he a furry little midget? The One Ring, right?

GEEZ!!! You are both very smart, educated people! Neither of you is an actual Buddhist, yet you've argued the finer points of a relatively insignificant Buddhist subscript for days now!!! If there were ever a more picture perfect example of brain-abuse I've yet to see it...........................................


garflinagkle

Yea, I love doing this thing. Where I go, *learning*. *learning*. *learning* it's great. *learning* Wow I just read something hindu, some zen now? Some tao? OMG I COULD LIKE LEARN JUDISM, WHY WOULD I WANT TO DO THAT? SOCRATES,Plato, I must be insane :( I'm an unclassified poser :O
hehe, I said in the begining I've only read it a few times, and I wasn't sure which sutra it was.

And that's ok because you repeated your alien crap quite a few times, and nobody laughed or cared. Not even God(or in your case the aliens).

http://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/lotus/lot27.htm
I found that one. THat's the most irritating buddhist thing I've ever read. it's all repetitive. I hate that. I'm trying to find the version of that thing siginota sutra that i used to have right now, it's on a website somewhere, a nice site that has Taoism Zen Buddhism and Tibetan, and I think some other crap too.

And the Script was about perceptions :( and i think it includes other things. Which if irrelevant would do a wonderful thing to your opinion.

I mixed those paragraphs up so bad, everyone will be confused.

I'd just say that their little flame war has convoluted metaphysical philosophy into such an abstraction that it's pointless and stupid. And Kahl, you can't compress stones into gold. Gold was formed by fusion under high pressure in the stellar core of early star systems. It was left behind when the early stars became nubulae, thus eventually was picked up in the gas clouds that were to become the planets.

Ror, I could have sworn I remember you arguing on the old boards something about how the nature of amino acids makes it highly unlikely that proteins could arise in nature. Perhaps I'm thinking of someone else. I could have a dandy time arguing how sola scriptura is asinine, but even if one embraces such a belief system there's nothing preventing one from adapting his interpretation of scripture, namely the Hexameron, by understanding the WHY and FOR WHOM-type questions that may be posed on the bible. I'm versed well enough in Christian faith to know that it can accomodate scientific reason perfectly well, and I fail to understand the appeal of any tennent of faith that stands in stark contrast to the obvious truth. And don't tell me that the fossil record was planted by God or Satan to test our faith.

Roach:
"I see no profit in such debates, and do not participate in them any longer. Creationists put their faith in God, Evolutionists believe in Science - Faith and belief would have no value if their proponants could be so easily swayed, therefore debate over the issue is ineffectual at best"

Yea, that's actually what i was trying to say.

"well, quite frankly the CREATIONISM VERSUS EVOLUTION debate gets tiring. I wanted specific theories and philosophies I was attempting to learn. I did not want Christians and Catholics filling my attempt at learning with, GOD CREATED MAN IN SEVEN DAYS AND SO IT WAS."

"And Kahl, you can't compress stones into gold. Gold was formed by fusion under high pressure in the stellar core of early star systems."

high pressure doesn't equal compression? Diamonds are made under compression, right? And other factors, like water and volcanic activity, but I don't study Geology.

:tear .........Nobody gets me.

*gets over it*

I'm actually only confused by the fact that ya'll's tedious argument never answered the only question it produced:

Who says the mind is seeing anything? Are your eyes and lanterns the tools of your mind, or could it be reversed? Is the object of your sight a tool as well, or is the reason for your sight the object of the excercise, forcing all things involved, eyes, minds, lanterns and apples into slavery?

yes, that was three questions. I'm lazy, and I have a history here of being misunderstood.

In conclusion: What? NO appreciation for the alien angle? At All? I mean, it had EVERYTHING! Babra Streisand, even!

Personally I think it's interchangable, Preechr. In some odd fucking way, an apple and a lantern have a "form of perception".

Other than that, being a greedy self-righteous human I'd have to say it's our minds, cause we're great and so enlightened. But then you have the idea that even if you had no mind(were dead, or insane, or in candyland) the lantern would still be there. Still lighting the room. So i dont know what that means, other then it's underlying purpose is it's form of perception, and that by using the lantern to light the room the lantern is achieving it's purpose, thusly using the user by implementaion factors.
Maybe it's a combination of Perceptions, a melding of sorts, CO OPERATION, it's a love-hate relationship.

Which do you think is more better-er.

EDIT: I forgot to mention, if you were dead or in Candyland your perception would be changed to a so called "Dilusion" or whatever else may be. So seeing as a changed perception occured, it's kind of difficult to argue the relevancy of the teapot still steaming.

It's great to talk about stupid shit :(

I tend to be pragmatic, which means now I'm sleepy.

Take one item from the equation, and you have nothing left. This would indicate they (eyes, mind, lantern and lobster) all have the same value, or are all the same thing in a practical sense. That's why it's so shameful to spend hours looking at the underwear models in the JC Penny catalog.

I would say they have a "place in" perception, rather than a "form of" perception.

So, is having one's eyes closed the same as looking at porn or the face of God?

If you have a mind like mine, you can always see porn on your eyelids. MY PERCEPTIONS ARE THAT GRAND, SIR.

I like the equality thing. Dirt=people=shinyfacesintheair=literacy=otherthing sthatgo wipwambleeem

Yargh
 

Actually Preecher - I do consider myself a Buddhist. Well, a Buddhist/agnostic. I'm still coming to terms with the second part. I haven't read the sutras yet because I believe that much like the bible, the stories are not as important as the concept.
I've only just started to study Buddhism, however the view I have had of life and the universe since I was a child very closely matches Buddhist philosophy.

Seth - I don't think either of us argued it on a metaphysical level at all. We were arguing the way the wording was in the posts. Think of it like this. If I said and HE said eat my BODY and drink my BLOOD. And they ate His BODY and drank His BLOOD. ATE HIS BODY AND DRANK HIS BLOOD.

Does this come off as the way the story actually goes or does it come off as a strange canablistic concept? From the tone of Kahls first post I thought (s)he was laughing at the sutra because (s)he thought that lanterns can see. I didn't get the sarcasm.


I think it is more about understanding. But that is on the next tier. I'll have to read the sutra to see if it is a step or if it ends there.





Not tools, constructs.

YAY
 

Preecher has groked it!!!!

I'm really serious all the time, I could understand how you could make that mistake.

LOL
 

Oh yeah well....EAT MY BODY!



















wow....that sounded perverted......

I'm chaste. I don't do that.

LOL
 

Well you're no fun......

i know, I'm serious. All the time.

Eyes
 

Actually you would still have everything left.

I almost wish I knew what that was a response to :(

well they're both wrong.

everything, being the set of ALL things, minus one thing is not equivalent to the set of all things but one, nor is it equivalent to the empty set. :|

LOL
 

Ziggy - All depends on how you look at it. Even if you take it away it still exists, so you still technically have everything.

Even if you destroy it the energy still exists, so.......


Like I said. Buddhist thought is more like physics.

if you take it away, I certainly no longer have it!

LOL
 

But you as an individual do not truly exist. You are part of the whole. Energy yourself and all.

part of is not the same as all of. else set theory would be meaningless. also, cash registers couldn't operate. :|

LOL
 

And this is why I think language has destroyed the world.

You'd prefer the instrumental version?

LOL
 

YES.......and a quantum cash register while you are at it.

Something tells me you understand the concept Ziggy. If so, have you ever tried putting it into words? No wonder Buddha cried.....language is inadaquate.


Energy is all that exists. ("All" not having a numeric value)

Energy is both singular and infinite. (Buddhist/quantum physics - singular has no numeric value)

Whatever form or forms energy takes, it is still energy. It still exists. It is not part of the whole as Ziggy pointed out. It is the whole in a form or forms.

Therefore, even if you take away a destroy the form, the energy still exists.



I shouldn't take diet pills......I get all ramble-y......even in type.

INFINITY MINUS ONE. OH YEA? INFINITY TIMES TWWOOO.

Talked to some really stupid buddhists tonight, and realized they aren't what they are chalked up to be.

I would ask them a question about the universe or the nature of the mind or spirit, and they would be like, "I DONT KNOW BECAUSE IM NOT ENLIGHTENED". All of them. Only one person shared his thoughts, out of about 20.
If you ask them what they think enlightenment is, they say they don't know because they aren't enlightened. So they sit around spouting shit about enlightenment and karma all day, how do they know it's true they aren't enlightened. They are incapable of thinking for themselves. It's sad. They are whipped by Nirvana, lol.

They apparently don't understand the point of their own beliefs. More people who choose an answer because they don't want to ask questions.

LMAO
 

Kahl - That is some funny shit......

I know! I know! If you have a set of ALL things, and you take out one thing, you're left with a set of SOME things! Will I pass first grade after all?

Infinity minus one :(

But it's still an infinite set. What makes that better defined?

A complete set != infinity.

What the fuck does it matter. If you are discussing an infinite set and you take one away, it is still an infinite set. Why? because it's fucking infinite you jack asses. If you took it away, it would have never been a part of the infinite set, it would have never been born, never even existed. The thought of it's oneness being subtracted from it would be simply impossible, because it is now zero, nothing, nil, squat, non-existant, empty, not anything, non being, nihility, nonentity, naught.. it's not even something to put words to, it's simply oblivious. Maybe that's too complicated to follow? Damn words.
If you're talking about ownership, you're a dumbass, go color somewhere else.

Actually, has any dumbass mathematician tried to 'define' infinity up to now, or are they still content with using it without going all philosophical about it?

Re: Godel

OMG DID YOU JUST SEND ME AN EMAIL :P :P

I'm sorry I won't have sex with you :(



Besides that, there's nothing that has been more abused than Godel's theorem in modern mathematics. Axiomatic logic does not dictate that a set of all things equals infinity, and thusly there is no fallacy in my ALL/SOME assumption above. It's a matter of context.

Also, Godel did not define infinity to the best of my knowledge.

I meant using Godel's thereom in our way of thinking about infinity. I don't think he did specifically address the topic, although it may be implied. Here is a link that can explain it better than I can: :(

LINK