There are many religions...

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Ahtman**

It is so cute when people try to pretend there is a single definition for something that changes over time and is defined differently by different experts.

**Orkeosaurus**

Wrexasaur wrote:Perception is an acceptance of the non-statement, without regard for "external" matters. When you begin to take into account everything, i.e. feign omnipotence, you loose the ability to have a perception. In other words you trade your view for many, and more often than not... it ends up making no sense at all.

Using constraints and other methods of organization, you can develop an envelope theory that can be applied to many things. Not only beings as we know them, but life as it is. I see no reason why the planet itself could not be classified as a form of sentient life, not omnipresent, but self aware on many counts.

I could go as far to say that the state of self awareness a planet has achieved (without any comparative information as to what a thriving planet would actually constitute), is reflected in the functions of life that take place within. You develop processes of elimination to construe what is and is not fact; this is a natural process of the planet itself, a experiment of constant trial and error. This "natural experiment" does take many forms than can be easily anthropomorphic, as to be understood in a clearer fashion.

Would I consider the planet a form of life? Yeah, why not? Would I consider the universe itself a form of life? Well... I am not sure how accurate a statement like that would actually be. Perhaps a "canvas" for life to take place, but no where near as tangibly "self-aware" as an individual planet; perhaps even entire solar systems if you begin to really think about it.

The "idea" that we are just an infinitely reflected microcosm of the universe (i.e. the simpsons zoom in clip) is a pretty silly one, but entertaining nonetheless. MIB had a good clip like that as well, but the metaphor is lost when you begin to analyze the real-life implications of such a circumstance. There is potential for that activity to exist, no doubt, but the assumption that all life is an imitation of a pre-assumed form, limits us to a very specific view on such an idea.

Rambling on here... the marble is not indicative of containing more marbles. It does however contain (by default) the plausibility of existing in the same form, but in different places. So this "existence" of existence is only lateral persay, whereas the "existence" of existence within itself would be a foregone, or pre-conceived notion.

So is it self-aware by your perception or not?

If you're saying "it's possible for it to have a trait that no one can perceive, ever", I stand by my "non-statement" comment.

**Wrexasaur**

We can percieve black holes yes? By our "standards", the only way to verify the existence of a black hole is by the lack of one, using things that would normally be there to confirm that.

Sure, I would consider the planet self-aware, and I thought my statements made that clear enough. We could talk about what awareness is, and how that is applied in a way that can be seen as self-awareness; which by my view is a little bit silly to begin with.

To be self-aware, all you need to do is say you are aware... not all that much more too it really.

Nothing is imperceptible, ever... that makes no sense really. If you cannot percieve something using various methods, you have no confirmation of it being. By default it would contain possibilities that we are not aware of , and for many reasons. Tree falls in the forest, no one is there, did you hear it? Well... I would assume you did not, because you would be included in that "no one" possibility.

**Orkeosaurus**

You said previously that nature was self aware "not by our own perceptions, by it's own". I assumed you were reffering to yourself when you said "our".

**Wrexasaur**

You are aware of yourself by your own perceptions... I see no reason why this would not be applied in much the same way to the planet itself.

Do I know how you think? Of course not, but I can guess, and I can attempt to understand when you put forth the opportunity to do so.

I am quite sure you just accused me of being arrogant, which is quite funny. Anyway though... moving along. I find this subject matter to be very interesting, especially in the fact that it can be talked about in many different ways. We can verify a lot of information that the planet presents, much as we do for any other statistical analysis. When you consider the complexity of most of earths natural systems, there is intent there by my count. I am not sure where I would place that intent within the individual systems, but I would have much the same response for many of our own endeavors.

Where does the intent to do something come from? Why is it that the courts can decide that one person lacks the ability for intent, whereas someone else in much the same situation has the ability for intent. It is usually very clear that a person is unhinged, no doubt, but where is this line that divides the intentional from the automatic.

**Orkeosaurus**

Wrexasaur wrote:You are aware of yourself by your own perceptions... I see no reason why this would not be applied in much the same way to the planet itself.

Do I know how you think? Of course not, but I can guess, and I can attempt to understand when you put forth the opportunity to do so.

The planet would be aware of itself by it's own perceptions, if it was self-aware.

I don't see how we would then become aware that the planet is perceiving itself, though. As you said, it doesn't exist to us if there's no way we can perceive it.

I am quite sure you just accused me of being arrogant, which is quite funny.

I don't recall having done that.

Anyway though... moving along. I find this subject matter to be very interesting, especially in the fact that it can be talked about in many different ways. We can verify a lot of information that the planet presents, much as we do for any other statistical analysis. When you consider the complexity of most of earths natural systems, there is intent there by my count. I am not sure where I would place that intent within the individual systems, but I would have much the same response for many of our own endeavors.

So you see complexity as proof of self-awareness?

Where does the intent to do something come from? Why is it that the courts can decide that one person lacks the ability for intent, whereas someone else in much the same situation has the ability for intent. It is usually very clear that a person is unhinged, no doubt, but where is this line that divides the intentional from the automatic.

Well, there's a difference between intent as a legal concept and intent in general.

**Wrexasaur**

Orkeosaurus wrote:I don't recall having done that.

My apologies, I misunderstood your internet tone (not that you really had one I suppose... being on the internet and all

)

The planet would be aware of itself by it's own perceptions, if it was self-aware.

I don't see how we would then become aware that the planet is perceiving itself, though. As you said, it doesn't exist to us if there's no way we can perceive it.

We could become aware through many paths. There has been a spiritually practiced anthropomorphic view of the earth for as long as man started to worry if that damn shadow was really trying to eat them. Shinto is a prime example, where you abstractly revere the natural world through perceptions that are distinctly human.

So you see complexity as proof of self-awareness?

Not necessarily. Intricacy could be a sign of awareness though. When you talk about robotics becoming autonomous, are they aware? By our definitions they are becoming more and more aware by the month. You can see clips of autonomous faces that can react to facial expressions with it's own. How different this reaction is to ours, more specifically what actions are taken to portray such reactions is the important question.

Well, there's a difference between intent as a legal concept and intent in general.

I will have to look up the legal definitions of "intent", perhaps you could drop some info on that into the thread though. It seems we are successfully engaged in an entirely new topic

.

**Orkeosaurus**

That's okay. Sorry for coming off as rude.

**frgsinwntr**

Orkeosaurus wrote:That's okay. Sorry for coming off as rude.

Bonus point awarded for good internet manners

**Orkeosaurus**

Wrexasaur wrote:We could become aware through many paths. There has been a spiritually practiced anthropomorphic view of the earth for as long as man started to worry if that damn shadow was really trying to eat them. Shinto is a prime example, where you abstractly revere the natural world through perceptions that are distinctly human.

These religions usually do more than look at the planet as one entity, though. In Shinto you'll have rocks and trees and rivers all with an individual "Kami".

If we're talking about a boulder, we're now talking about something that has a lot less complexity than the natural world as a whole. Also, things like Zeus and Ba'al were ascribed existence by a lot of people. Wouldn't it make sense to believe those traits to be true as well, if it's just popular belief that determines it?

Not necessarily. Intricacy could be a sign of awareness though. When you talk about robotics becoming autonomous, are they aware? By our definitions they are becoming more and more aware by the month. You can see clips of autonomous faces that can react to facial expressions with it's own. How different this reaction is to ours, more specifically what actions are taken to portray such reactions is the important question.

I think basing it on the complexity of facial expressions isn't a particularly useful route to go down.

You can have an intelligent person wearing a mask, or a very detailed set of drawings covering various expressions.

I will have to look up the legal definitions of "intent", perhaps you could drop some info on that into the thread though. It seems we are successfully engaged in an entirely new topic .

I'm no expert on the matter myself, it just seems that the law usually doesn't try and define things outside of a legal context.

**Ahtman**

We could become aware through many paths. There has been a spiritually practiced anthropomorphic view of the earth for as long as man started to worry if that damn shadow was really trying to eat them. Shinto is a prime example, where you abstractly revere the natural world through perceptions that are distinctly human.

Shinto doesn't believe in a self-aware Earth, it believes in a sacred Japan. Japan is not the entirety of the globe. It is also highly infused the spirits of Japanese ancestors. Native Americans also don't go for the self-aware Earth in the same sense you are talking about. When it is referred to as sacred they are talking about very specific areas: The Black Mountains are sacred, Devils Tower was sacred, ect. Mother Earth isn't a hands-across-the-world sort of concept. Now, you do get this from New Age and some neo-Paganism. These indigenous religions were focused on specific areas.

Orkeosaurus wrote:
Wrexasaur wrote:
I will have to look up the legal definitions of "intent", perhaps you could drop some info on that into the thread though. It seems we are successfully engaged in an entirely new topic .
I'm no expert on the matter myself, it just seems that the law usually doesn't try and define things outside of a legal context.

Legal definitions and standard definitions are almost entirely different. Sometimes they have almost nothing in common.

**sebster**

Frazzled wrote:You've never seen idiocracy have you. Mildly entertaining. It'll be that night when you wake up screaming that will turn you into a "get off my lawn!" libertarian.

Have you seen Idiocracy? Because the 'dumb people breeding more' is just a used a bit of short hand used to justify the actual point of the movie, that Mike Judge is really "annoyed at the anti-intellectualism in modern society. The message is spelt out pretty explicitly;

"... And there was a time in this country, a long time ago, when reading wasn't just for fags. And neither was writing. People wrote books and movies -- movies that had stories so you cared about who's ass it was and why it was farting..."

"I know these things aren't easy to do. I'm pretty lazy myself. But you know, sometimes you have to challenge yourself, and do something that matters, cuz if you don't, you'll wind up with a hollow empty feeling inside."

Meanwhile, Panic... you're the bad guy. Your science is very bad (there are lots of reasons for low fertility, and genes are only one, and any attempt to describe 'nature's intent' is ignoring that evolution has no intent) but that is only a small portion of what's wrong with what you're arguing. Vague, pseudo-scientific plans for human progress have a tendency to end really, really badly. To your credit you did recognise that emotional needs in the here and now are more important, but the next step is to realise that emotional needs are ultimately the only thing that ever matters.

**dogma**

Wrexasaur wrote:Where does the intent to do something come from?

First you have to ask yourself if intent, as we understand it, actually exists in a fashion which allows it to be sensibly reduced to another concept or set of concepts.

**Wrexasaur**

What is intent as we understand it though? Perhaps the act of being aware in a situation is all that constitutes intent. This is a pretty complicated subject to be sure though.

Is it enough to get someone to say that they were/are intentional? Is intent simply a construct we use to affirm our own beliefs about others? All in all I do think that intent is very sticky territory, but when you begin to think about it a bit more... wait... only becoming stickier

.

This is an interesting conversation though, and I would like if it could continue a bit further.

**dogma**

Wrexasaur wrote:What is intent as we understand it though? Perhaps the act of being aware in a situation is all that constitutes intent. This is a pretty complicated subject to be sure though.

That's the point of the question. If intent is an irreducible concept, then it is impossible to describe.

Wrexasaur wrote:
Is it enough to get someone to say that they were/are intentional? Is intent simply a construct we use to affirm our own beliefs about others? All in all I do think that intent is very sticky territory, but when you begin to think about it a bit more... wait... only becoming stickier .

This is an interesting conversation though, and I would like if it could continue a bit further.

Without going into neuroscience, or really technical philosophy of mind, there are two broad schools of thought on intent.

1) Actions which are intended are those which has been consciously preconceived.

2) All actions are intended to some degree, with considered actions featuring greater intent.

**Wrexasaur**

dogma wrote:Without going into neuroscience, or really technical philosophy of mind, there are two broad schools of thought on intent.

1) Actions which are intended are those which has been consciously preconceived.

Preconception does play a huge role in this. How do I know that what I am doing is intentional? Does picking up a rock with the thought in mind really have a 'tangible' difference to anyone but me, opposed to just picking up the rock. With athletes, you can see focus being applied to great effect. I would say that their intent was in fact to succeed, without much application to the nuances involved in that. A positive frame of mind, but in many ways one that takes for granted a lot of the technicalities involved with action through applied awareness.

2) All actions are intended to some degree, with considered actions featuring greater intent.

As my last response lightly noted, I would be more of this frame of mind. Intent to survive is a given, it is just that some are better than others. So when you consider the same action throughout a large number of people, you will see a certain amount of intent in excess among certain individuals. What this could mean, is that intent is in fact entirely subjective, but in the long run, all things are intentional (as noted). This does not make us aware of the intent, it just acknowledges that a certain level of intent will always be there; and among some people, you will see a much higher degree of involvement with their actions.

Could being different be an action in itself, or is the need to fit in an intentional action?

**youngblood**

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westboro_Baptist_Church

These guys came to indianapolis yesterday to protest a play. Just reading about them makes me sick.

**dogma**

youngblood wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westboro_Baptist_Church

These guys came to indianapolis yesterday to protest a play. Just reading about them makes me sick.

It was only a matter of time before someone's inner 12-year-old grew up and founded a church.

**generalgrog**

One thing to keep in mind about the westboro baptist church is that they don't represent Christianity as a whole. (and I'm not suggesting you think that either YB :-))
In fact, is has been suggested that their whole agenda is about generating lawsuits. I.E. they cause a confrontation to get people angry, so that they will "induce" a physical reaction from people. The hope is that someone will get angry enough to punch one of the members of the wbc and then generate a moneymaking law suit.
Most of the people in the wbc are family members, they resemble a cult or a gypsy like group.

GG

**youngblood**

GG's right, but it still makes me physically sick a) to see such strong hatred b) to have that as one of the most covered "faces" of who I am supposed to represent and c) to see how freedoms (1st amendment) are pretty abused by them.

"Thank God for IEDS"? Who thinks of that?

**dogma**

Wrexasaur wrote:
Preconception does play a huge role in this. How do I know that what I am doing is intentional? Does picking up a rock with the thought in mind really have a 'tangible' difference to anyone but me, opposed to just picking up the rock.

In terms of neuroscience: yes, in most cases.

Wrexasaur wrote:
With athletes, you can see focus being applied to great effect. I would say that their intent was in fact to succeed, without much application to the nuances involved in that.

That's actually an interesting case, because it overlaps a great deal with memory. When I played football I would usually be able to to recall the majority of what happened during the previous play; including my response to those occurrences. Once the game was over, the memory would usually fade very quickly. I would say that I intended to do most of the things I did during the game, but that my memory of that intent was strictly of the short-term variety.

Wrexasaur wrote:
This does not make us aware of the intent, it just acknowledges that a certain level of intent will always be there; and among some people, you will see a much higher degree of involvement with their actions.

Intent must be consciously manifest in order for it to be intent. I don't know of any school of thought which considers emotions intentional, though most would regard action from emotion in that manner.

The question of intention by degree is usually considered to be one of significance, and corroboration. Significance in the sense that my intent to drink some water from the glass in front of me was realized, and fulfilled in the course of a relatively short period of time. Corroboration in the that I might have 3 separate intentional motives which I seek to fulfill as a result of their own qualities, but also because they lead me to the fulfillment of a 4th intention.

Wrexasaur wrote:
Could being different be an action in itself, or is the need to fit in an intentional action?

In the sense of different from the outside world, or in the sense of being different from the moment before (with respect to the same scalar assumptions as required by intent)?

**Ahtman**

Shuzan held out his short staff and said, "If you call this a short staff, you oppose its reality. If you do not call it a short staff, you ignore the fact. Now what do you wish to call this?"

**dogma**

Therefore, philosophy is dead. Again.

**Wrexasaur**

Yeah, it tends to do that from time to time.

The question of intention by degree is usually considered to be one of significance, and corroboration. Significance in the sense that my intent to drink some water from the glass in front of me was realized, and fulfilled in the course of a relatively short period of time. Corroboration in the that I might have 3 separate intentional motives which I seek to fulfill as a result of their own qualities, but also because they lead me to the fulfillment of a 4th intention.

The idea that intent is reliant on possibility (and in some cases plausibility) is an interesting one to be sure though. We all wear our blinders, and in doing so, often find ourselves seemingly without options. This is not as easily applied to life as some would like to think though.

With a glass of water you can see alternatives to a given action. The most obvious would be to leave the glass, instead of picking it up. By taking the action to pick it up, we are losing the possibility to not pick it up. But in doing so we open up more possibilities, such as accidentally knocking the glass over.

When you start to add more glasses to the equation (sitting at a table with more than one glass, and multiple people) things get much more complicated. Not only can you knock that glass over in trying to pick it up, you can now also knock over other glasses in the process, even spilling water on people besides yourself. Life is not quite so simple as I mentioned, and applying this situation with an amount of reliability to real life is often hit or miss.

So intent, while it is also linked to many other actions, always leads (in one form or another) to a single action. This action may include other reactions, but in essence stands alone in itself.

Hmmmm... Deja vu on that last line

... maybe my brain... ON NOES IT RAN AWAY!!! HEY, GET BACK HERE!!!

**extermikator**

There was a really good story in the papers recently. A guy whose religion is actually jedi was asked to remove his hood when he entered a shopping centre. He said that the hood was part of his religion, and when he was escorted from the premises, he took the company involved to court. His court case is pending, but the defence is good, as there are hundreds of pictures of the might of the god Yoda and Obi-Wan without their hoods.

MC

**Wrexasaur**

Just going to leave this here...

http://www.toplessrobot.com/2009/09/jedi_thrown_out_of_grocery_store.php

THE MAN CAN'T KEEP US DOWN!!!

**Ahtman**

dogma wrote:Therefore, philosophy is dead. Again.

So philosophy kills philosophy? I didn't realize dualism/non-dualism was a non-philosophy area that killed philosophy. We better get on the phone with all those philosophy departments and let them know they are wasting their time.

**Orkeosaurus**

If they haven't figured it out by now, calling them won't change anything.

**dogma**

Ahtman wrote:
So philosophy kills philosophy? I didn't realize dualism/non-dualism was a non-philosophy area that killed philosophy. We better get on the phone with all those philosophy departments and let them know they are wasting their time.

Philosophy kills itself off every few decades or so. Usually over dualism vs. non-dualism. That's where the 'again' comes in.

In hindsight, "Philosophy is dead, long live philosophy." would have been a better response.

**Wrexasaur**

Sometime man... this thing is just too... wait... OH FREAKING CRAP!!! A GIANT EYE!!!