GENIUS FORUMS

Marcothay, The issues you are discussing have less to do with physics and more to do with theories (philosophy) of knowledge. While physicists may not be aware (or are not interested) in these matters, there are whole bookshelves on the philosophy of science in any decent library. One interesting bo...

Because many of them are basing their reasoning on the wrong axiom that this physical Universe can exist independently from any Observers Realism: Science attempts to describe objects in and of themselves, regardless of observers. Positivism: Science is an attempt to give a coherent causal theories...

To fold this back onto your original post: Gurdjieff's concept of self and soul is closely related to the Freudian ego. We're not born with it, or not much, and the average person barely develops the construct. Which doesn't prevent that person from developing egotism however. It's like the amount ...

Which leads me to the claim that there's no essential difference between your concept of locus and how ego functions. This is because naming things, the process of observing and identifying lies at the core or the beginning of control. The name-giver equals the 'central figure' which is the power o...

If the ego would be like a car on a busy highway, the kid in the back behind his toy wheel would be like this 'false belief' but the locus in this case is a moving part of the engine. Which meta-locus observes the locus observing after all? That the locus needs to have a meta observer is unjustifie...

Knowledge is the process of establishing relations: causal or otherwise. This requires classification of perceptions into similar groups which are then represented by words. Analogies (models) work when direct perception is not possible, or is inadequate. This is the sort of knowledge on which scien...

The goal of self observation is to create a center, a locus that does not get swept in the whirlwind of feedback loops that form a human being. Perhaps, Gurdjieff refers to this center as the self or soul; we are born without a self and most do not develop it. Development of this locus gives an obje...

So the only real objection is to the randomness issue. The choice is between QM with randomness or QM with unknowlables, with noumena if you will. However, there is absolutely no sound scientific reason to reject randomness (only personal prejudice, as in Einstein's case), and plenty of sound scien...

Bohm interpretation posits entities which are in principle unknowable From http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-bohm/ As Bell (1987, page 201) has written, referring to Bohmian mechanics and similar theories, Absurdly, such theories are known as ‘hidden variable’ theories. Absurdly, for there it is...

Pye wrote:Here is your simplified definition of ego: one's sense of self. Even the most conscious amongst us knows this does not "go away." It becomes . . . adjusted.

Perhaps a better definition is "The sense of self". One's sense of self is kind of problematic due to the
'one'.

But why would Maestro think "identification" would imply an identifier but a 'belief' would not imply a believer even more strongly? Identification with something seems to me to imply an identity, while belief (or knowledge) is an overlay on reality by the mind. It is simply the way it (m...

I read a fairly decent simplified definition of ego as simply “identification with form - the interconnected web of physical, cognitive and emotional forms. Any thoughts? But it (implicitly) posits as if there were a central entity that identifies. My definition Ego: Belief in a central controller ...

Question: Enlightenment is usually touted as the greatest of all achievements, as self perfection as the highest aim of humanity, the ultimate goal of every search, but you make it seem almost pointless at times. JM: Well, I wouldn't want to give the impression that it's almost pointless. It's perfe...

Dan Rowden wrote:Victor has a wife and 130 kids, to be taken into account in this discussion.

It seems darn impossible to have 130 kids with one wife.

I have read what others have to say about the matter, and the link which so smugly posted is one of the first any web search on the matter will reveal. You only know something if you can explain it clearly to another person. Giving references and making vague statements is not it (although this happ...

Indeed, all the answers are out there somewhere, no doubt already mulled over by smart philosophers. No need to think or clarify your thoughts.

To aid your understanding, think about it this way. Suppose Universe is wholly deterministic. Are you therefore lacking in free will because you are subject to the control of the laws of nature? Ah, but why ' subject '? You aren't merely a splinter of wood floating on the ocean's surface, being bat...

No, I want the structures that infuse and control humans, both internally and externally, to be more sanely, consciously and intelligently engineered. I want them to be more consistent and less contradictory. I want them to fit the human form more comfortably and naturally so that they lead to more...

Think outside your box. Follow the link I gave you, for starters. Why can we not investigate this question,with precise definitions and a clear logical thought process without hiding behind dense philosophical articles? Setting aside any theorem, can you describe a way in which, freedom of choice a...

If so then he is saying the difference between living and non living is consciousness and unconsciousness. But then that is simply redefining living as conscious and non-living as unconscious, it does not address the question: At which point does the freedom arise? The crux of the free will theorem ...

vicdan wrote:

maestro wrote:What is agency? Is it the soul?

No.

Then?

in short, it's a fuzzy value.

Huh?

Math talk. Math helps if you are serious about philosophy.

Agency is a fuzzy value?

vicdan wrote:As to life vs. non-life -- I think that possession of free will is contingent upon agency,

What is agency? Is it the soul?

which in turn dependent upon one's ability to interact with the world.

Do not non living things interact with the world?

in short, it's a fuzzy value.

Huh?

This theorem simply proves that if you are an idiot who rests free will on non-determinism (i.e. if you believe in libertarian free will), then you must accept that quantum entities are as free-willed as you are. Of course any decent philosophy student could tell you that defining free will through...

But now, we live, and now, we are free: free to choose our future, free to embrace the existential void, lacking in any higher meaning or purpose or justice, and fill it with ourselves, our strength and will -- and also free to flee from it, to cower in its presence, whimpering for protection, fill...

Dave and Dan,
According to Jed he does not obstruct the universe by doing deliberate actions.

Your stance on his interaction with the girl seems to moralistic and preachy. I believe his response would be: this is how the universe played out the interaction, what is there to be so uptight about it.