how the world really REALLY works (w/ no solutions)

in response to darb's recent thread, i figured i'd offer some of my own views on the way the world works. unlike darb though, i offer no solutions. i will state my opinions and what i think could possibly happen, but solutions suggest there is a problem and whether there is or not is part of the debate. once we all agree on what exactly the problems are, then we can discuss solutions. until then i'll omit them.

the following are some of the key aspects that we must all consider when we think about how the world actually works. we have to come to some understanding of these concepts before we can discuss the major problems within said world. these concepts are:
  • the nature of the universe - materialism, idealism, dualism, pluralism, etc.
  • cognition - how do we actually think
  • morality
  • free will vs determinism
the first two can be seen as overarching concepts that are at the basis of our existence. the second two bring into focus humanity and our actual role in our existence. now if anyone is interested in this stuff i am more than welcome to continue chatting on the subjects above. i would suggest that we go in some order and start with the nature of the universe.
«13

Comments

  • btw, i will also tie in causality with cognition since that seems to be the best place to fit it in. and once we get through these topics we can discuss actual cultural significance.
  • personally, i've always struggled with my own opinion of the nature of the universe. it seems to me that physical objects are just taken for granted and that their actual existence is highly debatable.

    although i cannot say for certainty what i believe to be the actual nature of the universe, i tend to lean towards immanuel kant's theory of transcendental idealism. he posits that our existence pretty much is all in the mind except for what he calls 'things in themselves'. these 'things in themselves' exist outside of our minds and can, for all intents and purposes, be explained as the 'material things' outside of us. however, kant argues that it is fundamentally impossible for us to have any comprehension of these 'things in themselves' because the only way we are able to even remotely perceive them is through our own cognitive reasoning and therefore we cannot observe them as they actually are outside of our minds - i.e. how they are in themselves.

    furthermore, kant argues that the concepts of time and causality are also parts of the mind. he puts forth a long and complicated argument which i will omit here, but generally speaking he argues that the mind has to be the origin of time and causality because otherwise it would not be able to make sense of the outside world.

    the reason this point is so important in understanding how the world works is that at a fundamental level, our worlds are almost the exact opposite of what they seem to be.
  • i'm trying to keep these short(ish) so as to not deter people from reading them, but as a result i might be glossing over some important points. if someone needs clarification please ask.

    as you can probably see, the above has kind of led us towards the concept of cognition.

    at the most basic level, it is usually understood that there are a few factors involved when we are discussing our understanding of things. there are ideas, there is sense perception, and there is our actual cognitive workings of our mind. as mentioned above, there are also the concepts of time and causality.

    now in reference to ideas, it is strongly debated as to their origins. personally, i am of the camp that ideas exist outside the mind as well as inside the mind. they are not relegated to minds alone. to argue that they are is to argue a materialistic world and personally i just don't buy that claim. if anyone actually feels this way i can take a break and go on a tangent about this in more detail.

    the reason that this point is important about understanding our world is that the fact that ideas may or may not originate from within us, and in high likelihood they originated from outside of us (that is to say if they even had a beginning in the first place). some might posit god in here as kind of like the keeper of consciousness. personally, i find it easier to leave him out of the matter since it just makes things more unnecessarily complicated.
  • thanks constanza.
  • costanza wrote: »
    Id def ban you for this if i could (temp), you should delete this imo
  • Actually, this thread is the antithesis of "suck". But philosophy is not my "thing" beyond the most basic premises. I have always liked the Wiccan philosophy of, "do what you will, but do no harm". Coming from my Roman Catholic upbringing, I am either extremely progressive, or doomed to Hell. Bring the rungood, Lord . . .

    Also, I am certain that Schroedinger's cat is STILL pissed about the box . . .
  • I actually am enjoying these threads for one simple reason...while there is a whole lot of fucked up mixed in with shit loads of crazy, there are some very well written and intelligent points/posts by most members I find interesting. It's nice to see that that we aren't all just a bunch of degens and that most posters actually think and explore ideas outside poker. Makes you all alot more human and not just avatars and screen names, aside from that I have not the foggiest clue where this will end or if it will even slightly resemble the OP that triggered it all when it's finished.

    Barring it being locked, at least we can change our board to something interesting if poker ever goes tits up, we already have enough content to spark a new forum....
  • darbday wrote: »
    Id def ban you for this if i could (temp), you should delete this imo

    cool story bro
  • costanza wrote: »
    cool story bro
    more forum cliches?

    snap fold pre!
  • I have a degree in philosophy but TL:DR
  • jdAA88 wrote: »
    I have a degree in philosophy but TL:DR
    can't call yourself a philosophy major without studying JiddhuKrishnamurti imo.
  • darbday wrote: »
    can't call yourself a philosophy major without studying JiddhuKrishnamurti imo.

    Again . . . perspective is key. Your bias is clear.
  • Milo wrote: »
    Again . . . perspective is key. Your bias is clear.
    hes the only one i can find where the only thing he teaches is to have no bias, not even towards him...so you may actually be right but i can't tell.

    edit: oh bruce lee teaches that only too, but hes JKs student so...
  • What the hell does Harry Potter have to do with this?
  • jdAA88 wrote: »
    I have a degree in philosophy but TL:DR

    This I was wondering, after reading what seemed to be some truly educated writings on page 1 of the first thread.
  • darbday wrote: »
    can't call yourself a philosophy major without studying JiddhuKrishnamurti imo.

    The degree doesn't count?
  • jontm wrote: »
    This I was wondering, after reading what seemed to be some truly educated writings on page 1 of the first thread.
    wrong poker jah
  • jontm wrote: »
    The degree doesn't count?
    student/teachers teaching student/teachers teaching student/teachers.....

    this is why the 10 commandments come from high up top a mountain and from gods hand not moses brain and mouth

    there has to be something separate to infuse the intelligence...we can't teach ourselves smarter.
  • Ok. Does Pokerjah have a background then? cuase his shit seemed to have some context.
    Is there anyway to go in some what of a straight line on this? It seems wasteful to throw out so much info without completing a single thought. You are going to need to construct a TLDR cliffs that does this me thinks....
  • darbday wrote: »
    student/teachers teaching student/teachers teaching student/teachers.....

    this is why the 10 commandments come from high up top a mountain and from gods hand not moses brain and mouth

    there has to be something separate to infuse the intelligence...we can't teach ourselves smarter.

    Ah. Finally something I can make sense of. Yes, we can teach ourselves smarter You would agree that in many cases, the student out performed the master intime, found the holes in the teachings, but not until he himself had been taught the fundamentals?

    You didnt just infuse your concepts from nothing, it was the writtings and teachings of others that led to the development of your ideas.
  • Einstein discovered things nobody could teach him, but not until someone had taught him the basics first.
  • jontm wrote: »
    Ah. Finally something I can make sense of. Yes, we can teach ourselves smarter
    See this depends on your definition of 'smarter' which is a word and defintion humans created themselves.

    For example if we were 'dumb' how does a dumb population become smart. Someone says we you just continue to learn and teach the kids what you learn...but can a dumb person learn and teach? Can a dumb society learn and teach? We assume we don't have to deal with that question becase we WERE dumb but are smart now? How did we get smart? For the last 2000 years the answer was Moses brought us the 10 commandments. They are the only intelligence needed

    You would agree that in many cases, the student out performed the master intime, found the holes in the teachings, but not until he himself had been taught the fundamentals.
    Yes but we are still deciding what 'smart' is here. What if throwing away the fundamentals and teachings is true intelligence? We can learn to shoot and arrow straight but is that intelligence? Who is smart enough to know?


    There are many ways to go about this, but I will point out Bruce Lee talked a lot about fundamentals. And basically taught only in terms of them. When you get down to roots and fundamentals you inevitably get into yin and yang.
  • jontm wrote: »
    Einstein discovered things nobody could teach him, but not until someone had taught him the basics first.
    We aren't even sure yet that he discovered something, or if he just shed conditioning he was bred with.

    Also what I am going to suggest is his thoery's on relatively are relative themselves...meaning they are both true and not true. Then we are going to show some mathematician that went crazy because their ultimate beliefs kept flip flopping back and forth and they couldn't keep a mathematical grip on reality

    nash is one such person, shown in the movie a beautiful mind, and he came up with the theory that is the model for the peaceful world, which is also the model we use to shove in pokerz.

    220px-John_Forbes_Nash,_Jr._by_Peter_Badge.jpg
  • Here again we go back to philosophy and that science/constants can only unravell how and why but not who. That's why I liked hang to dry's second law and the refresher article I read on it. Time, space, thoughts, civilization etc...who wound the clock?

    Bruce Lee only teaching fundamentals is sorta the same point I'm making. I guess my question is at what point in time would we have to "fix the world".

    The commandments are an excellent example of philosophy controlling our beliefs, the question is did a higher being give them to Moses or did Moses level everybody by tank presenting them, or did a higher power inspire his thoughts?

    Obviously the commandments were to guide those adapting to "free will" and minimize the damage done on the way. But I don't think "though shall not eat unclean meats" was in the Ten, yet clearly at the time these rules were thought of, technology didn't prevent parasites in the forbidden foods, yet many consume them safely today. I'm a simpleton, because I have no need to break things down to their purest form if I can get the jist without really needing to know more.

    I believe Einstien had some sort of saying about never memorizing more things than needed uf they are already written down?
  • jontm wrote: »
    Here again we go back to philosophy and that science/constants can only unravell how and why but not who. That's why I liked hang to dry's second law and the refresher article I read on it. Time, space, thoughts, civilization etc...who wound the clock?
    Tao will tell you that it can never be 'not wound'

    Bruce Lee only teaching fundamentals is sorta the same point I'm making. I guess my question is at what point in time would we have to "fix the world".
    This is a strange question if you don't believe in time.
    The commandments are an excellent example of philosophy controlling our beliefs, the question is did a higher being give them to Moses or did Moses level everybody by tank presenting them, or did a higher power inspire his thoughts?
    Yes. The best way to see it though, or the furthest factual understanding we can have, is that no powerful or uplifting belief can happen in this way, without a separate entity instilling it. Moses could not have come back and said 'hey Ive got the 10 most important rules and I came up with them' That is humans cannot enlighten themselves, because they are impure to start with. Impure cannot make impure pure.
    Obviously the commandments were to guide those adapting to "free will" and minimize the damage done on the way.
    This we will come back to as well, but I think you are suggesting free will was newish at that time?
    But I don't think "though shall not eat unclean meats" was in the Ten, yet clearly at the time these rules were thought of, technology didn't prevent parasites in the forbidden foods, yet many consume them safely today. I'm a simpleton, because I have no need to break things down to their purest form if I can get the jist without really needing to know more.
    breaking things down further and further will equal looking at things from a more and more holistic view.
    I believe Einstien had some sort of saying about never memorizing more things than needed uf they are already written down?
    Not sure what you are refering to (I wouldn't know), but its reminds me of people getting together in a study sessions with study game, flash cards, practice test, etc. all studying things they already know. Its a waste of time and just a way to feel smarter before the test.
  • You might be typing and I've already gone way over in staying out of this, so I'll try to bow out again with this; there maybe things wrong with the world and there may be a way to fix it, but as long as man has free will, there will never be universal idea to make it happen.

    Only the architect of the universe himself could ever make this happen, but obviously has seen no reason as of yet to do so and may never as long as we exsist. Our energy may be usable or unusable when we return to "nothing" and maybe we rejoin the grand design in ways we can't even phantom. I personally know when I find the answer to this or don't, it will remain between a higher power and whatever energy I am made of
  • jontm wrote: »
    You might be typing and I've already gone way over in staying out of this, so I'll try to bow out again with this; there maybe things wrong with the world and there may be a way to fix it, but as long as man has free will, there will never be universal idea to make it happen.
    So we will separate the reality of the world from the spiritual solutions to our existence. There are people starving, in human trafficking, giant wars, financial exploitation etc. The movement of school and education, has taught us to believe this cannot be fixed. I will not argue hard against anyones religion. But I will argue we can fix this world, and that thinking we can't is actually a belief instill in you by democracy and education, capitalism etc.

    The universal idea is nash's find that the ultimate way to play a game is to serve yourself as well as the whole. This way you aren't the richest dude amongst nuclear destruction. But we don't accept this, because we say well what if my neighbor doesn't subscribe to this though.

    Just want to reiterate we watched a movie by russell crowe on nash because of this understanding: The universal idea is nash's find that the ultimate way to play a game is to serve yourself as well as the whole.

    its genius and it fuels poker and game theory.

    The truth is we are a whole and everything we learn teaches us we are individuals. You cannot save yourself, we are a whole. The good AND the bad. And I'm positive Jesus would agree.
    jontm wrote: »
    Only the architect of the universe himself could ever make this happen, but obviously has seen no reason as of yet to do so and may never as long as we exsist.
    yes this assumes we are separate from each other, and separate from the architect. It assume their is an architect (and sounds like matrix propaganda). Is the matrix a made up idea coming from one individual, or does it spawn from the same place and understanding that every thing else does? Is the story of the matrix separate from the universe and its parts? The universe created the author and the story?
    Our energy may be usable or unusable when we return to "nothing" and maybe we rejoin the grand design in ways we can't even phantom. I personally know when I find the answer to this or don't, it will remain between a higher power and whatever energy I am made of
    We will break down some belief maybe before we get to here.
  • I don't disbelieve in "time", or whatever mechanics you would relate it to. I believe that energy moves constantly and the 3 laws cover this. I know that time maybe just a perception, but it serves me no purpose to see it or understand it another way, it's just wasted mental energy.

    I also don't disbelieve that we are all interconnected, I think we will evolve more and more to understanding this, but it maybe thousands of year's before this happens. Technology may speed this along, a single "inspired" break through or intervention I can't see coming could be a game changer. I'll conform and just roll along as it happens. The fact that we are all thousands of miles apart and having this conversation almost real time is proof enough that we our boundaries are always shrinking. I don't believe in six degrees of seperation, FB and linkin and everything else had chopped that in half.

    We use blue tooth and wifi and voice recognition to broadcast thoughts to each other, how far away are we really from cutting out those middle men?

    As far as a matrix idea goes, again I don't try to over complicate. There are definite connections, a web of you will between all things, or more so a movement of energy, matter, gases etc...it very complex and yes I believe by design. That everything just started from nothing is a concept I am incapable of grasping and the further things get broken down, the more of a living machine like model I tend to view the universe and everything in it as. Simplified, but I think you get me.

    Gotta crash, but this has been mentally stimulating at least. Carry on.
  • I concur

    funny-Leonardo-DiCaprio-concur.jpg
This discussion has been closed.