Community > General Religion Chat

Topic: Subconcious Mind as Link to "Higher Self"
splendidlife Joined Fri 03/21/08 Posts: 1171	Sat 09/27/08 03:01 PM
Sky: Umm... An analogy of an analogy is streching it a little too thin for me. laugh The only thing I can think of that would work for "collective all knowing" would be something like "the combined knowledge of all the submariners". Remember, the "ocean" is the "physical universe" - which is nothing but a cosmological stimulus-response mechanism. And a stimulus-response mechanism cannot "make decisions". It can only respond to stimuli. What if the combined knowledge was comprised of ALL life (not just Submariners)? Every drop of water, diatom, plankton, sponge, jellyfish, seahorse, shark and whale would contribute. What if this "physical" realm also contained all knowledge?

splendidlife Joined Fri 03/21/08 Posts: 1171	Sat 09/27/08 03:03 PM
sky: Your statement of "lack of decision will also create a path" is the perfect example of this. If you do not make a decision, you are not "cause", you are "effect", simply because the "decision" is made by "something other than you" - thus, "other-determinism". Is not lack of decision... a decision?

splendidlife Joined Fri 03/21/08 Posts: 1171	Sat 09/27/08 03:07 PM
sky: Again I'm hanging up on "the wisdom of the collective". But in any case, if you accept that "decision = cause" then "the wisdom of the collective" is immaterial. The decision is the cause. What happens after that is effect. So in that sense I guess whatever "the wisdom of the collective" is, it could be made available via the decision that it is/will be available. What if each individual decision (or lack there of) contributes to the collective wisdom as time moves ahead?

SkyHook5652 Joined Sat 08/23/08 Posts: 4063	Sat 09/27/08 03:33 PM
Sky: Umm... An analogy of an analogy is streching it a little too thin for me. laugh The only thing I can think of that would work for "collective all knowing" would be something like "the combined knowledge of all the submariners". Remember, the "ocean" is the "physical universe" - which is nothing but a cosmological stimulus-response mechanism. And a stimulus-response mechanism cannot "make decisions". It can only respond to stimuli. What if the combined knowledge was comprised of ALL life (not just Submariners)? Every drop of water, diatom, plankton, sponge, jellyfish, seahorse, shark and whale would contribute. What if this "physical" realm also contained all knowledge? Well if you're defining "combined knowledge" as "ALL life" then that's your definition. Personally I don't see any way to use that definition to evaluate anything or come to any conclusion. For me, it only adds confusion into the theory as opposed to simplifying it or resolving some part of it.

SkyHook5652 Joined Sat 08/23/08 Posts: 4063	Sat 09/27/08 03:41 PM
sky: Your statement of "lack of decision will also create a path" is the perfect example of this. If you do not make a decision, you are not "cause", you are "effect", simply because the "decision" is made by "something other than you" - thus, "other-determinism". Is not lack of decision... a decision? Cute - but that's just a "semantic trick". A non-decision is not a decision. Unless you're talking about "a decision not to decide", which means there are two separate decisions. 1) no decision 2) To not make a decision regarding #1 And still, there is no decision involved in #1

SkyHook5652 Joined Sat 08/23/08 Posts: 4063	Sat 09/27/08 03:49 PM
sky: Again I'm hanging up on "the wisdom of the collective". But in any case, if you accept that "decision = cause" then "the wisdom of the collective" is immaterial. The decision is the cause. What happens after that is effect. So in that sense I guess whatever "the wisdom of the collective" is, it could be made available via the decision that it is/will be available. What if each individual decision (or lack there of) contributes to the collective wisdom as time moves ahead? Again, it depends on how you define "collective wisdom". If a datum has to be agreed upon by all members of the "collective" in order for it to become part of the "collective wisdom", then it has to be admitted that the results of some decisions may not be agreed upon by all members of the collective. However, if a dataum does not have to be agreed upon by the entire collective in order to become part of the "collective wisdom", then yes, the collective wisdom is, by definition, the aggregate information that results from all decsions by all members of the collective.

splendidlife Joined Fri 03/21/08 Posts: 1171	Sat 09/27/08 04:05 PM
Sky: Umm... An analogy of an analogy is streching it a little too thin for me. laugh The only thing I can think of that would work for "collective all knowing" would be something like "the combined knowledge of all the submariners". Remember, the "ocean" is the "physical universe" - which is nothing but a cosmological stimulus-response mechanism. And a stimulus-response mechanism cannot "make decisions". It can only respond to stimuli. What if the combined knowledge was comprised of ALL life (not just Submariners)? Every drop of water, diatom, plankton, sponge, jellyfish, seahorse, shark and whale would contribute. What if this "physical" realm also contained all knowledge? Well if you're defining "combined knowledge" as "ALL life" then that's your definition. Personally I don't see any way to use that definition to evaluate anything or come to any conclusion. For me, it only adds confusion into the theory as opposed to simplifying it or resolving some part of it. Does not always adding to it allow for acknowledgment of infinite possibility? The moment I think I have something resolved... is the moment I realize that my head is right back up in that dark corner I like to call... my dark corner.

splendidlife Joined Fri 03/21/08 Posts: 1171	Sat 09/27/08 04:06 PM
sky: Your statement of "lack of decision will also create a path" is the perfect example of this. If you do not make a decision, you are not "cause", you are "effect", simply because the "decision" is made by "something other than you" - thus, "other-determinism". Is not lack of decision... a decision? Cute - but that's just a "semantic trick". A non-decision is not a decision. Unless you're talking about "a decision not to decide", which means there are two separate decisions. 1) no decision 2) To not make a decision regarding #1 And still, there is no decision involved in #1 #2

splendidlife Joined Fri 03/21/08 Posts: 1171	Sat 09/27/08 04:12 PM Edited by splendidlife on Sat 09/27/08 04:19 PM
sky: Again I'm hanging up on "the wisdom of the collective". But in any case, if you accept that "decision = cause" then "the wisdom of the collective" is immaterial. The decision is the cause. What happens after that is effect. So in that sense I guess whatever "the wisdom of the collective" is, it could be made available via the decision that it is/will be available. What if each individual decision (or lack there of) contributes to the collective wisdom as time moves ahead? Again, it depends on how you define "collective wisdom". If a datum has to be agreed upon by all members of the "collective" in order for it to become part of the "collective wisdom", then it has to be admitted that the results of some decisions may not be agreed upon by all members of the collective. However, if a dataum does not have to be agreed upon by the entire collective in order to become part of the "collective wisdom", then yes, the collective wisdom is, by definition, the aggregate information that results from all decsions by all members of the collective. If "Collective Wisdom" is added to as time moves ahead... How could it be defined (its always evolving)?

splendidlife Joined Fri 03/21/08 Posts: 1171	Sat 09/27/08 04:16 PM Edited by splendidlife on Sat 09/27/08 04:19 PM
Sky: if a dataum does not have to be agreed upon by the entire collective in order to become part of the "collective wisdom", then yes, the collective wisdom is, by definition, the aggregate information that results from all decsions by all members of the collective. Indeed... Agreement could never be held on to. Every single new decision would add to the collective.

SkyHook5652 Joined Sat 08/23/08 Posts: 4063	Sat 09/27/08 04:43 PM
Sky: Umm... An analogy of an analogy is streching it a little too thin for me. laugh The only thing I can think of that would work for "collective all knowing" would be something like "the combined knowledge of all the submariners". Remember, the "ocean" is the "physical universe" - which is nothing but a cosmological stimulus-response mechanism. And a stimulus-response mechanism cannot "make decisions". It can only respond to stimuli. What if the combined knowledge was comprised of ALL life (not just Submariners)? Every drop of water, diatom, plankton, sponge, jellyfish, seahorse, shark and whale would contribute. What if this "physical" realm also contained all knowledge? Well if you're defining "combined knowledge" as "ALL life" then that's your definition. Personally I don't see any way to use that definition to evaluate anything or come to any conclusion. For me, it only adds confusion into the theory as opposed to simplifying it or resolving some part of it. Does not always adding to it allow for acknowledgment of infinite possibility? Yes, and that's pretty much my point. Instead of cutting down on the number of variables - to simplify the theory and thus make it easier to understand - "infinite possibilities" is the exact antithesis of that: there are no constants at all - everything is a variable.

SkyHook5652 Joined Sat 08/23/08 Posts: 4063	Sat 09/27/08 04:45 PM
sky: Again I'm hanging up on "the wisdom of the collective". But in any case, if you accept that "decision = cause" then "the wisdom of the collective" is immaterial. The decision is the cause. What happens after that is effect. So in that sense I guess whatever "the wisdom of the collective" is, it could be made available via the decision that it is/will be available. What if each individual decision (or lack there of) contributes to the collective wisdom as time moves ahead? Again, it depends on how you define "collective wisdom". If a datum has to be agreed upon by all members of the "collective" in order for it to become part of the "collective wisdom", then it has to be admitted that the results of some decisions may not be agreed upon by all members of the collective. However, if a dataum does not have to be agreed upon by the entire collective in order to become part of the "collective wisdom", then yes, the collective wisdom is, by definition, the aggregate information that results from all decsions by all members of the collective. If "Collective Wisdom" is added to as time moves ahead... How could it be defined (its always evolving)? If the term "collective wisdom" has no definition, then what are we talking about?

SkyHook5652 Joined Sat 08/23/08 Posts: 4063	Sat 09/27/08 04:49 PM Edited by SkyHook5652 on Sat 09/27/08 04:49 PM
Sky: if a dataum does not have to be agreed upon by the entire collective in order to become part of the "collective wisdom", then yes, the collective wisdom is, by definition, the aggregate information that results from all decsions by all members of the collective. Indeed... Agreement could never be held on to. Every single new decision would add to the collective. Ok. Now what that means is that some of the "collective wisdom" is known to me and some of it is not. Well, that part which is not known to me is of no use to me at all. I can't evaluate it. I can't understand it. I can even see it. It is literally useless to me, and so I have no reason to include it in a theory whose purpose is to help me understand something.

splendidlife Joined Fri 03/21/08 Posts: 1171	Sat 09/27/08 06:21 PM
Sky: Umm... An analogy of an analogy is streching it a little too thin for me. laugh The only thing I can think of that would work for "collective all knowing" would be something like "the combined knowledge of all the submariners". Remember, the "ocean" is the "physical universe" - which is nothing but a cosmological stimulus-response mechanism. And a stimulus-response mechanism cannot "make decisions". It can only respond to stimuli. What if the combined knowledge was comprised of ALL life (not just Submariners)? Every drop of water, diatom, plankton, sponge, jellyfish, seahorse, shark and whale would contribute. What if this "physical" realm also contained all knowledge? Well if you're defining "combined knowledge" as "ALL life" then that's your definition. Personally I don't see any way to use that definition to evaluate anything or come to any conclusion. For me, it only adds confusion into the theory as opposed to simplifying it or resolving some part of it. Does not always adding to it allow for acknowledgment of infinite possibility? Yes, and that's pretty much my point. Instead of cutting down on the number of variables - to simplify the theory and thus make it easier to understand - "infinite possibilities" is the exact antithesis of that: there are no constants at all - everything is a variable. Yes... Infinite Possibility... THE space in which any brilliant discovery can be made.

splendidlife Joined Fri 03/21/08 Posts: 1171	Sat 09/27/08 06:33 PM
sky: Again I'm hanging up on "the wisdom of the collective". But in any case, if you accept that "decision = cause" then "the wisdom of the collective" is immaterial. The decision is the cause. What happens after that is effect. So in that sense I guess whatever "the wisdom of the collective" is, it could be made available via the decision that it is/will be available. What if each individual decision (or lack there of) contributes to the collective wisdom as time moves ahead? Again, it depends on how you define "collective wisdom". If a datum has to be agreed upon by all members of the "collective" in order for it to become part of the "collective wisdom", then it has to be admitted that the results of some decisions may not be agreed upon by all members of the collective. However, if a dataum does not have to be agreed upon by the entire collective in order to become part of the "collective wisdom", then yes, the collective wisdom is, by definition, the aggregate information that results from all decsions by all members of the collective. If "Collective Wisdom" is added to as time moves ahead... How could it be defined (its always evolving)? If the term "collective wisdom" has no definition, then what are we talking about? Something that is always evolving can be defined as such... But, how could it be possible to refine the definition to the point of breaking it down into every single variable... ...if the variables are continuously morphing? (I know... its probably getting obnoxious by now)

splendidlife Joined Fri 03/21/08 Posts: 1171	Sat 09/27/08 06:38 PM
Sky: if a dataum does not have to be agreed upon by the entire collective in order to become part of the "collective wisdom", then yes, the collective wisdom is, by definition, the aggregate information that results from all decsions by all members of the collective. Indeed... Agreement could never be held on to. Every single new decision would add to the collective. Ok. Now what that means is that some of the "collective wisdom" is known to me and some of it is not. Well, that part which is not known to me is of no use to me at all. I can't evaluate it. I can't understand it. I can even see it. It is literally useless to me, and so I have no reason to include it in a theory whose purpose is to help me understand something. Perhaps it IS known to you, but can not be grasped analytically. Perhaps this knowledge is intrinsic...

SkyHook5652 Joined Sat 08/23/08 Posts: 4063	Sun 09/28/08 09:18 AM Edited by SkyHook5652 on Sun 09/28/08 09:21 AM
Sky: if a dataum does not have to be agreed upon by the entire collective in order to become part of the "collective wisdom", then yes, the collective wisdom is, by definition, the aggregate information that results from all decsions by all members of the collective. Indeed... Agreement could never be held on to. Every single new decision would add to the collective. Ok. Now what that means is that some of the "collective wisdom" is known to me and some of it is not. Well, that part which is not known to me is of no use to me at all. I can't evaluate it. I can't understand it. I can even see it. It is literally useless to me, and so I have no reason to include it in a theory whose purpose is to help me understand something. Perhaps it IS known to you, but can not be grasped analytically. Perhaps this knowledge is intrinsic... We must be talking about two different things when we use the word "knowledge". When I use the word, I mean this: "knowledge - familiarity, awareness or understanding gained through experience or study". By that definition, knowledge cannot be intrinsic. If it "can not be grasped analytically" it cannot be considered knowledge by that defintion. So what is your definition of "knowledge" as you used it there?

SkyHook5652 Joined Sat 08/23/08 Posts: 4063	Sun 09/28/08 09:37 AM Edited by SkyHook5652 on Sun 09/28/08 09:42 AM
sky: Again I'm hanging up on "the wisdom of the collective". But in any case, if you accept that "decision = cause" then "the wisdom of the collective" is immaterial. The decision is the cause. What happens after that is effect. So in that sense I guess whatever "the wisdom of the collective" is, it could be made available via the decision that it is/will be available. What if each individual decision (or lack there of) contributes to the collective wisdom as time moves ahead? Again, it depends on how you define "collective wisdom". If a datum has to be agreed upon by all members of the "collective" in order for it to become part of the "collective wisdom", then it has to be admitted that the results of some decisions may not be agreed upon by all members of the collective. However, if a dataum does not have to be agreed upon by the entire collective in order to become part of the "collective wisdom", then yes, the collective wisdom is, by definition, the aggregate information that results from all decsions by all members of the collective. If "Collective Wisdom" is added to as time moves ahead... How could it be defined (its always evolving)? If the term "collective wisdom" has no definition, then what are we talking about? Something that is always evolving can be defined as such... But, how could it be possible to refine the definition to the point of breaking it down into every single variable... ...if the variables are continuously morphing? (I know... its probably getting obnoxious by now) Again, that’s exactly my point. You can’t break it down into every single variable. So if you’re trying to come up with a stable set of “laws” or “rules” that govern an area, a constantly changing set of variables is useless as a foundation. You can only end up with a constantly changing set of laws/rules. Now if you’re proposing that the whole of all things has no stable foundation of laws or rules, then ok, that’s one theory. I personally have no interest in pursuing that theory because it doesn’t help me accomplish what I want to accomplish.

splendidlife Joined Fri 03/21/08 Posts: 1171	Sun 09/28/08 09:53 AM
Sky: if a dataum does not have to be agreed upon by the entire collective in order to become part of the "collective wisdom", then yes, the collective wisdom is, by definition, the aggregate information that results from all decsions by all members of the collective. Indeed... Agreement could never be held on to. Every single new decision would add to the collective. Ok. Now what that means is that some of the "collective wisdom" is known to me and some of it is not. Well, that part which is not known to me is of no use to me at all. I can't evaluate it. I can't understand it. I can even see it. It is literally useless to me, and so I have no reason to include it in a theory whose purpose is to help me understand something. Perhaps it IS known to you, but can not be grasped analytically. Perhaps this knowledge is intrinsic... We must be talking about two different things when we use the word "knowledge". When I use the word, I mean this: "knowledge - familiarity, awareness or understanding gained through experience or study". By that definition, knowledge cannot be intrinsic. If it "can not be grasped analytically" it cannot be considered knowledge by that defintion. So what is your definition of "knowledge" as you used it there? My mistake... I was equating Knowledge with Wisdom. Check this out: http://www.knowledgetowisdom.org/basic_arg.htm

splendidlife Joined Fri 03/21/08 Posts: 1171	Sun 09/28/08 09:55 AM
sky: Again I'm hanging up on "the wisdom of the collective". But in any case, if you accept that "decision = cause" then "the wisdom of the collective" is immaterial. The decision is the cause. What happens after that is effect. So in that sense I guess whatever "the wisdom of the collective" is, it could be made available via the decision that it is/will be available. What if each individual decision (or lack there of) contributes to the collective wisdom as time moves ahead? Again, it depends on how you define "collective wisdom". If a datum has to be agreed upon by all members of the "collective" in order for it to become part of the "collective wisdom", then it has to be admitted that the results of some decisions may not be agreed upon by all members of the collective. However, if a dataum does not have to be agreed upon by the entire collective in order to become part of the "collective wisdom", then yes, the collective wisdom is, by definition, the aggregate information that results from all decsions by all members of the collective. If "Collective Wisdom" is added to as time moves ahead... How could it be defined (its always evolving)? If the term "collective wisdom" has no definition, then what are we talking about? Something that is always evolving can be defined as such... But, how could it be possible to refine the definition to the point of breaking it down into every single variable... ...if the variables are continuously morphing? (I know... its probably getting obnoxious by now) Again, that’s exactly my point. You can’t break it down into every single variable. So if you’re trying to come up with a stable set of “laws” or “rules” that govern an area, a constantly changing set of variables is useless as a foundation. You can only end up with a constantly changing set of laws/rules. Now if you’re proposing that the whole of all things has no stable foundation of laws or rules, then ok, that’s one theory. I personally have no interest in pursuing that theory because it doesn’t help me accomplish what I want to accomplish. Yeah, but... Isn't that what life is... A constantly changing set of variables?