Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="GGWP" data-source="post: 45000" data-attributes="member: 93">xD and so the pendulum swings the other way, twojei. I think you are starting to comprehend what I was saying, but I would not take Krishnamurti&#039;s words as gospel (he is just another dude with an opinion, even he says that he is no guru).The mind does shape the human world, in my opinion Krishnamurti takes the rationalist sentiment too far (it looks as if his cheater detection mechanism massively backfired and shot him into depressive stupor after he realized that mysticism was not getting him the results he wanted). Our minds are &#039;engineered&#039; to extract only certain features from existence that are beneficial for our continued survival, and certain concepts can only be rationalized by humans due to our unique brains. Take a chair for instance. No other animal would understand that a chair is a chair, but for humans it is a chair because neural patterns have spread and established reality consensus. Humans could extend this positivist sentiment and delineate that a chair is a collection of atoms which are themselves a combination of quarks or wavelengths, but the truth is that &#039;quarks&#039;, &#039;atoms&#039; and &#039;wavelengths&#039; don&#039;t exist in nature. These are hominid terms with the teleological aim to &#039;conquer&#039; and &#039;understand&#039; and further &#039;utilize&#039;. An atom is thus not a grounded reality inasmuch as it is a neural pattern (a model or image of the world spread between people) that has spread and established a self-reinforcing reality consensus among most humans. We have learned to &#039;separate&#039; an atom from its environment (which would otherwise be a benign construct). The bedrock of so-called empirical reality rests on the ability to parse objects in a way that is only intuitive for humans and thus is inseparable from human subjectivity. What Krishnamurti is now preaching is radical atheism which attempts to establish &#039;objective reality&#039; when such a construct is not something humans can comprehend. What this really stands for is intellectual imperialism related to radical nihilism.There is a massive issue with this line of thinking in that humans invented machines in the first place, so where does a human get off on assessing itself as machine-like? Rationalist mind-virus.A subjective opinion dressed up as dogma. Stimulus and response are human teleological concepts. Everything is &#039;unitary&#039; inasmuch as the ability for humans to parse individual objects from a natural canvas is inbuilt into cognition for survival. Multiplicity is a pattern that only certain organisms can detect because it benefits survival.So again, we loop back around. Religion is not &#039;false&#039; or &#039;deceitful&#039;, it&#039;s an alternative reality consensus that produces different effects. In a true and naturally selected sense, atheism produces greater &#039;fruits&#039; than religiosity in modern environments, therefore it is selected for as reality consensus. By sheer process of elimination the only things that exist are those that can survive and reproduce more efficiently, but some atheists take this to mean that religion is &#039;worthless&#039; or &#039;non-existent&#039; and science is somehow &#039;true and objective&#039;, which is non-sequitur and stems from this same intellectual imperialism. There is a negative connotation here, but I would like to express that I think it&#039;s more symbiotic - you subscribe to this reality consensus and get to reap its bared fruits. Atheism and rationalism are the most profitable ideologies of today, but they do not always have to be.Some of my favourite philosophers on this topic are Whitehead, Bergson and Kant.A great paper on this topic comes from Hoffman et al. - <a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.3758/s13423-015-0890-8" target="_blank">https://link.springer.com/article/10.3758/s13423-015-0890-8</a></blockquote>

[QUOTE="GGWP, post: 45000, member: 93"] xD and so the pendulum swings the other way, twojei. I think you are starting to comprehend what I was saying, but I would not take Krishnamurti's words as gospel (he is just another dude with an opinion, even he says that he is no guru). The mind does shape the human world, in my opinion Krishnamurti takes the rationalist sentiment too far (it looks as if his cheater detection mechanism massively backfired and shot him into depressive stupor after he realized that mysticism was not getting him the results he wanted). Our minds are 'engineered' to extract only certain features from existence that are beneficial for our continued survival, and certain concepts can only be rationalized by humans due to our unique brains. Take a chair for instance. No other animal would understand that a chair is a chair, but for humans it is a chair because neural patterns have spread and established reality consensus. Humans could extend this positivist sentiment and delineate that a chair is a collection of atoms which are themselves a combination of quarks or wavelengths, but the truth is that 'quarks', 'atoms' and 'wavelengths' don't exist in nature. These are hominid terms with the teleological aim to 'conquer' and 'understand' and further 'utilize'. An atom is thus not a grounded reality inasmuch as it is a neural pattern (a model or image of the world spread between people) that has spread and established a self-reinforcing reality consensus among most humans. We have learned to 'separate' an atom from its environment (which would otherwise be a benign construct). The bedrock of so-called empirical reality rests on the ability to parse objects in a way that is only intuitive for humans and thus is inseparable from human subjectivity. What Krishnamurti is now preaching is radical atheism which attempts to establish 'objective reality' when such a construct is not something humans can comprehend. What this really stands for is intellectual imperialism related to radical nihilism. There is a massive issue with this line of thinking in that humans invented machines in the first place, so where does a human get off on assessing itself as machine-like? Rationalist mind-virus. A subjective opinion dressed up as dogma. Stimulus and response are human teleological concepts. Everything is 'unitary' inasmuch as the ability for humans to parse individual objects from a natural canvas is inbuilt into cognition for survival. Multiplicity is a pattern that only certain organisms can detect because it benefits survival. So again, we loop back around. Religion is not 'false' or 'deceitful', it's an alternative reality consensus that produces different effects. In a true and naturally selected sense, atheism produces greater 'fruits' than religiosity in modern environments, therefore it is selected for as reality consensus. By sheer process of elimination the only things that exist are those that can survive and reproduce more efficiently, but some atheists take this to mean that religion is 'worthless' or 'non-existent' and science is somehow 'true and objective', which is non-sequitur and stems from this same intellectual imperialism. There is a negative connotation here, but I would like to express that I think it's more symbiotic - you subscribe to this reality consensus and get to reap its bared fruits. Atheism and rationalism are the most profitable ideologies of today, but they do not always have to be. Some of my favourite philosophers on this topic are Whitehead, Bergson and Kant. A great paper on this topic comes from Hoffman et al. - [URL]https://link.springer.com/article/10.3758/s13423-015-0890-8[/URL] [/QUOTE]

Name

Verification

Layout Options

Color Schemes

Reply to thread