The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Just Curious  (Read 8648 times)

Offline namaan

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 195
    • View Profile
Just Curious
« on: 28/04/2006 19:38:51 »
This is from a handout in my philosophy class:


Awareness = 1- (Unique Responses / Total Responses)

This formula is based on the assumption that in any question asked, if all the people give the same answer, then the answer is generally agreed upon and the responders are well aware of the information needed to correctly answer the question.  Exceptions will be mentioned.  If the number of unique perspectives to an answer of a particular question is greater than one, then the certainty of the answer deviates more and more as the number of unique perspectives increase.  A huge amount of unique perspectives resembles general disarray when it comes to having the information required to correctly answer a given question.  The specific answers are of no importance, just the number of unique perspectives to an answer, and the greater the number of responders the more effective the reading.  Any question can be asked, but as will soon be seen, the most significant are the ones that require knowledge of the Absolute to correctly answer them.  An interesting question is what if there is only one responder.  In such a case, regardless of whether the person is correct or incorrect, there is only one unique perspective.  Thus A = 1-(1/1) = 0.  This is intriguing, what could this mean?  Essentially, this is saying that without anyone to compare oneself to, how could one assign themselves an absolute character?  This is like a person considering themselves to be strong while there being no one who can be considered to be weak.  Humans being social creatures build a relative personality or Self based on their immediate environment.  So it can be said that one is not aware of the concept of awareness thus one certainly cannot be aware; therefore A=0.  Another possible measurement might be the efficiency of a system, Es = (Total Responses) / (Total # of People in System).  The awareness equation depends on the comprehension of the concepts of the Relative and the Absolute, if one wishes for an accurate reading.  The following are scenarios of potentially incorrect readings:

1)   A Fascist System: This is the most obvious because in such a scenario, a person's perspective on any given topic would almost solely depend on the perspective of the whole of the fascist system.  Thus, in such a situation, the awareness level would be extremely high even though, in actuality, the awareness level is extremely low with almost no thought process.  This is especially true when considering the forceful discouragement of self-development enforced in such a system.

2)   A system encouraging of self-development: It is not possible to be certain of such a system's existence in the present.  It certainly isn't the Euro-American System, at least not completely. However, following the assumption that such an ideal system does in fact exist; what could cause an incorrect reading?  Bluntly put, the correct answer to the question asked must require knowledge of the Absolute, lest it be a reading neither timeless nor of any significant/absolute value.  A lack of understanding of the Relative and the Absolute may be complemented by the question of why it is favorable to attain a reading of absolute value over a reading of relative value.  Thus the Relative and the Absolute must be discussed.

From these two examples, it can be seen that in order to attain an accurate reading, both the System and the question must be carefully considered.  To refine this, it can be said that both the System and the question are human creations and are thus relative.  So again, it is a matter of understanding the Relative and the Absolute.

   First, from The Art of War, the concept of Tao is introduced.  Tao, in its most quintessential sense and the way I perceive it to be, is the Nature of Things.  It is the natural flow of things, it is logical fate.  It is a very interesting concept that can be readily used to attempt to understand equally interesting concepts of the Relative and the Absolute.

   In the book it has been said time and time again that the skilled must know Tao.  For one to say such a thing implies an incomplete understanding of Tao.  From the manner in which it's applied in the book; Tao is defined such that the process of knowing Tao cannot be applied to the Relative.  As intellectually significant as the Sun Tzu is, its lack of comprehension of the Relative and the Absolute offers an incomplete understanding of Tao and its applications.

   The Tao of driving a car is the series of events, situations, objects and such synonyms relating to driving a car.  To simply state "The Tao of driving a car" neither implies the knowledge in such an act nor the cognitive process in anyway.  To say that one knows the Tao of driving a car essentially translates to one knows the series of events, situations, objects and such synonyms relating to driving a car.  Such a statement neither makes any logical sense nor provides for a logical possibility.  If such a statement were possible, it would mean that a person knowing the Tao of driving a car would always find favorable accommodations; whether it is consistently avoiding an imminent car crash or consistently avoiding traffic jams.  How can such a possibility be logically true when in fact driving a car clearly depends on and can be effected by so many factors not explicitly agreed upon as relating to driving a car?      Things such as a bridge blowing up while driving over it or a terrorist attack having occurred near the vicinity of a route that is commonly taken have apparently nothing to do with the condition of driving a car and yet can have profound implications on the quality/favorability of the drive.  Thus such a statement makes no logical sense because the process of identifying events, situations, objects and related synonyms that describe a particular condition (such as driving a car) is purely subjective.  The reason that such a statement doesn�t provide for a logical possibility is because provided that a persons knows the Tao of driving a car that essentially means every situation thrown at them can be turned into their favor while driving a car.  However, no matter how much concentration a human being can possibly put into driving a car, it is still impossible for them to know of an imminent bridge collapse and/or an imminent terrorist attack; either of which are beyond their control and would be quite unfavorable to anyone, possibly resulting in injury or death.

   Thus it can be seen that the condition of driving a car is related to and can be affected by many unpredictable external factors.   So from this example it can be seen that the condition of driving a car is relative.  Now the statement can be made that it is not possible to know the Tao of something that is merely relative without knowing the Tao of the Absolute.  From the equation which calculates awareness level, it can be gathered that since it is clearly (practically speaking) impossible for an awareness level to equal 1 (due to the fact that for such a case to be possible, it would mean that everyone in the system being tested knows the Absolute and thus knows all the Relative) an absolute cannot be agreed upon and so is not known.  Therefore, if the Absolute is not known, it is not possible to know the Tao of the Absolute, thus it is not possible to know the Tao of the Relative.

   Since the Tao of, well, anything cannot be known, (or it can be said, more generally and to the point, one cannot know Tao) whether being Tao of the Relative or Tao of the Absolute, what can be done with these three concepts?  Well the cognitive process that I generally follow consists of observation > analization > comprehension.  I refer to comprehension as the "holy grail".  The complete cognitive process may be observe > analyze > comprehend > know, but since the impossibility of knowing the Relative has been derived, it has been excluded in the general cognitive process.

   Observation is the curiosity of children.
   Analization is the quality of a growing child.
   Comprehension is a fully grown adult human.

Comprehension is about the greatest achievement that any normal human can attempt to achieve.  Thus the "holy grail".  So it can be said that it is possible to comprehend Tao of the Relative but not know it, thus implying the possibility of comprehending Tao of the Absolute, yet now knowing it.

   Certain supposed contradictions need to be addressed.  If Tao of the Absolute cannot be known, then one can argue that they know that if they drop an object on earth, it will most certainly fall towards the ground.  How can such an apparent contradiction be accounted for?  When looking at any scientific field or any such fields of work, one can find many variable constants.  Some examples are the speed of light, the acceleration of gravity, and the universal gas constant.  These are, thus, obviously things not of a single whole, but rather part of a larger whole, that indeed is absolute.  What does this mean?  When one considers the implied singular meaning of the Absolute, it has a connotation of a single whole, something well beyond our comprehension and in the realm of knowing, that is both single and infinite; as may be derived from its sense of self-sustenance and independence.  This concept seems contradictory when concepts such as gravity are concerned.  It is true that gravity is an absolute, but not the kind when the word absolute is used by itself.  When the concept of absolution is applied to the concept of gravity, the sense of a single whole is lost.  In such a case gravity is part of a single whole rather that being a single whole from without it self.  In other words, the concept of gravity is a specific component absolute of a single whole absolute, as though being part of a huge web of component absolutes comprising the single whole absolute.  Examples of other component absolutes may include weak force, strong force, electromagnetic force, matter and time (if it exists).  Since one knows that when an object is dropped off from the ground beneath, it will certainly fall downwards (due to the component absolute gravity), one may conclude that they know the Tao of a component absolute, namely gravity, all the while recognizing their inability to know the Tao of the single whole absolute.  This concept logically entails that certain aspects of a relative condition, based on component absolutes can in fact be known but it is not at all an exact science.  Since the identification of a relative condition is purely subjective, it is not possible for any component absolute to entail any objective array of relative conditions that maybe specific to the component absolute.

   Consider the following.  A person throws a ball in the air; such a condition is relative because the result of such a situation can be affected by an infinite number of random events.  However, based on the component absolute gravity, the constant pull of everything towards the earth is guaranteed.  Thus even if an atomic bomb explodes right underneath the person and the ball the instant of the throw, it can still be known for a fact that all the pieces of the person and the ball will fall back to earth because such a condition, although may itself be a complement to another relative one, is based on a component absolute.  In summary, the Absolute cannot be known; therefore the Relative cannot be made known unless they are based on a component absolute.

   Tao is the Nature of Things.  The Absolute is the single whole.  To know Tao is to know the Absolute, the concepts are one in the same.  One cannot know Tao, just as one cannot know the Absolute.  One can comprehend Tao, just as one can comprehend the Absolute.  The Absolute is single, static, and whole, Tao is everywhere, moving and creating a natural flow; it's the natural flow of things.  The two work together to form the very vision before each and every one of us.

   To know the Absolute or Tao is to be ultimate, but to comprehend them is to be elite.  To comprehend the Absolute is to walk just below the Heavens; to comprehend Tao is to walk well above the immediate.  Thus comprehension; the "holy grail".

   So the concept of logical fate is introduced.  Quintessentially, logical fate is just a derivation of Tao.  So what is fate?  It may generally be agreed upon that fate (assuming one believes in the concept apparently) is simply a series of events that are bound to happen and can also be stated as predetermined fate to be more specific.  So logical fate, as one may assume, is a logical interpretation of the concept of fate.  If Tao is the natural flow of things, then Tao quite literally IS the fate of everyone.  Through an understanding of Tao however, it has already been determined that it�s possible to observe, analyze and comprehend Tao.  That being the case, it is possible, using the recently adopted relationship, to state that it is also possible to observe, analyze and comprehend fate.  So logical fate essentially means the fate that is revealed to one who can comprehend Tao. Thus although Tao is the fate of the uncomprehending, (thus the uncomprehending are fated to forever delve in the Relative) comprehending Tao allows one to comprehend fate, (and so the concept of logical fate) and also enables one to effectively change fate through comprehension.

   The most direct description of logical fate is this: Tao is the natural flow of things, if one comprehends Tao then one comprehends the natural flow of things which may otherwise be referred to as fate, or what is fated to occur in the nature flow of things.  Thus when one is able to comprehend the natural flow of things, they may begin to direct themselves to flow with Tao rather then against it, to reduce friction and become steadfast.  This is changing fate, or during a state of comprehension of Tao and as I would call it, logical fate; to limit the Relative and to push oneself towards the Absolute.  What greater purpose can a human have?


I'm simply curious what anyone here thinks about this, if anything at all.
« Last Edit: 23/07/2006 04:07:00 by hddd12345678910 »


 

Offline namaan

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 195
    • View Profile
Re: Just Curious
« Reply #1 on: 01/05/2006 21:50:37 »
hehe, I'm just curious, is no one responding because of how extremely stupid my post seems, or because it's too long to read or some other reason?  Again...just curious
 

Offline neilep

  • Withdrawnmist
  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 20602
  • Thanked: 8 times
    • View Profile
Re: Just Curious
« Reply #2 on: 01/05/2006 22:24:19 »
quote:
Originally posted by hddd12345678910

hehe, I'm just curious, is no one responding because of how extremely stupid my post seems, or because it's too long to read or some other reason?  Again...just curious



Don't be offended by the lack of response...for me..it's just too long to digest right now !!....... Hey !!.at least I'm honest enough to tell you that....plus...sometimes patience is required here....as it seems you may be experiencing that already  !!..:)

Men are the same as women, just inside out !
« Last Edit: 01/05/2006 22:24:54 by neilep »
 

another_someone

  • Guest
Re: Just Curious
« Reply #3 on: 01/05/2006 22:29:07 »
I have tried to read through your post.

As you point out, it is long, but as if often the case with long questions, they are long because they have not been well thought out.  It is very difficult to know exactly what the core of your question is.  There are a lot of vague assertions, which I assume we are expected to accept as given.

A clearer enumeration of the assumptions you are making, and some evidence to show that those assumptions are both the minimum that can be made, and that they can be backed by some evidence, would be useful.

You state Analization is the quality of a growing child, as if analysis was something that was not done by adults.

You state Comprehension is a fully grown adult human, yet you do not clarify what you mean by comprehension.  It is not clear anywhere in your question how you are using the word comprehension.  In linguistic terms, it is easy to talk about comprehension, but then children are capable of comprehending a great deal of language.

You state Tao, in its most quintessential sense and the way I perceive it to be, is the Nature of Things.  While this kind of idea might make sense in some old philosophies that assume that all objects, whether animate or inanimate, have an innate spirit or soul, but make less sense in the more modern sceptical philosophies.  You would have to say what you mean by the nature of a thing?  Is this some spiritual concept, or is it merely another way of referring to the laws that describe the behaviour of an object (e.g. gravity, inertia, thermodynamics, etc.)?

This is then further complicated by you apparent venture into the political arena.  It then becomes a little confusing as to whether your analysis is of the physical world (as in the mechanics of driving a motor car), or the socio-political sphere (as in how people in a society might respond to a particular questionnaire).

These are just a few of the ambiguities that make the question very difficult to fathom.

There may well be a valid question in there somewhere, but I think you probably need to think clearly how to express that question in fact, I suspect that if you do manage to simplify your question, you might get at least half way to finding an answer to it.





George
« Last Edit: 01/05/2006 22:31:03 by another_someone »
 

Offline namaan

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 195
    • View Profile
Re: Just Curious
« Reply #4 on: 05/05/2006 00:03:08 »
Sorry, I must not have been clear in stating it the first timeI never said I wrote this, and so I frankly am as perplexed as you are.  And neither did I ask any question; like the title of this post, I was just curious what, if anything, was your or anyone elses opinion on this short paper.  

If you wish to look for a question to answer, thatd be great, but I had no specific intention in posting this.  I just found it to be interesting enough to post it and see what kind of response it gets.

:D
 

Offline namaan

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 195
    • View Profile
Re: Just Curious
« Reply #5 on: 05/05/2006 16:27:11 »
By the way, I think that the part where it states:

Observation is the curiosity of children.
Analization is the quality of a growing child.
Comprehension is a fully grown adult human.

is just supposed to be a little poetic insert, not really part of the argument.  Even if it is part of the argument, I don't think that its true meaning is at all meant to be superficially obvious.
 

Offline namaan

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 195
    • View Profile
Re: Just Curious
« Reply #6 on: 05/05/2006 16:48:08 »
Sorry for not putting this in the previous post, but I also read the Art of War and in it they give a description of what Tao is.  I think that its more-or-less just what you stated:
quote:

the laws that describe the behavior of an object (e.g. gravity, inertia, thermodynamics, etc.)


I think its pretty clearly explained in the example of the car, its like looking at a coffee maker and knowing that the Tao of the water in the coffee maker is to become steam because of the added heat, go up and mix  with the coffee and then drip down into the glass jar.  Not a complicated concept, just a very overwhelming one to take in.
« Last Edit: 05/05/2006 19:15:33 by hddd12345678910 »
 

Offline Karen W.

  • Moderator
  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *****
  • Posts: 31653
  • Thanked: 5 times
  • "come fly with me"
    • View Profile
Re: Just Curious
« Reply #7 on: 22/07/2006 23:42:17 »
The paper was very hard to read as the print was so  dang tiny, my eyes are blurred from the strain.

    What I took from this is that there are many things and truths that we know to be absolute: ie gravity ect. But there are things of the spiritual nature that we will never understand as we observe and cannot know the relative to say they are absoulute, perhaps dealing with creation itself or the like! There are sections which made me feel as they were trying to say we needed to come to an understanding of these things, which I believe is more spiritaul within our selves.  Kind of self evolution, spitual awareness kind of thing!

   I personally believe that someday when I have reached a place before my God that that is when we will all have the knowledge of absolute! Until then we are all observers and and analizers of what we see and come to know as absolue truths, we will not reach the plane of comprehension you spoke of until we have evolved spiritually in another place and time, ie after death and resurrection.  I may be way off and totally in the dark, but that is what I take from it after reading 4 times.

   Would be nice if it was larger font for all of us old foggies with bad eyesight my friend. I would rather it take more space and be easier to read.....Karen
« Last Edit: 22/07/2006 23:46:06 by Karen W. »
 

Offline namaan

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 195
    • View Profile
Re: Just Curious
« Reply #8 on: 23/07/2006 04:12:55 »
Sorry about the small print, I assumed everyone was just gonna copy and paste it to MS word or something.  

Certainly, I agree that it is not a walk in the park to attempt to achieve the level of comprehension.  I do not, however, believe it to be impossible.  

Anyway, just as a thought, what do you think about the formula that is initially mentioned?
 

Offline Karen W.

  • Moderator
  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *****
  • Posts: 31653
  • Thanked: 5 times
  • "come fly with me"
    • View Profile
Re: Just Curious
« Reply #9 on: 23/07/2006 06:24:02 »
I will try to give you my responce in the morning as My thoughts are many late in the evening and I will need to read your paper again to make sure I give you a response that is appropriate for what I feel your formula suggests. I just read it again, and believe a fresh look in the morning will be the way for me to answer your question!   Till tomorrow then!nite...Karen
 

Offline heikki

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 56
    • View Profile
Re: Just Curious
« Reply #10 on: 23/07/2006 08:28:05 »
quote:
Originally posted by hddd12345678910

This is from a handout in my philosophy class:

I'm simply curious what anyone here thinks about this, if anything at all.



:)

Hi, longnumber participant.

I read your text that it seems that it basic is Tao-philosophy from China. China has this Tao-philosophy has been thousands year and today it has also comes to europe and usa, mainly with books The tao of poof and The te of piglet. Mainly these books are not old-tao-style but times changed.

My thought is that human-kind has develope many philosophy and religion from it's lifetime and sometime one need these mind-life-philosophy thoughts to go on, but still must remember that nature-life is part of us and we are part of it, and we must live peace and together with us and with nature and do clearly-minted somethings. If we things that some kind of Tao, God, or etc control our life-flowing or our thoughts, ( i mean that what we done from day by day) then we loose that what hmm. rain and wind has allways.

Good luck and happy life forward to your life.

br.H.


  :)
 

Offline roarer

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 40
    • View Profile
Re: Just Curious
« Reply #11 on: 29/07/2006 09:22:46 »
I usually write a handwritten draft and type the contents out on a floppy prior to responding to a question like this. However this time I am doing it spontaneously..straight on the response box.
I shall address the question of fate.
Fate is defined in the Oxford dictionary as quote "Power thought to control all events..person's destiny" end quote
My conclusion is that the quality (whether good or bad) of that fate (which is more important than that fate itself) is commensurate with the level of WISDOM that particular person has. So for example if that person's wisdom is flawed...his/her fate would be much dimmer than say another who would have a much better quality of wisdom.
So the conclusion must be that there is no such thing as luck.....only the existance of wisdom
 

Offline roarer

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 40
    • View Profile
Re: Just Curious
« Reply #12 on: 29/07/2006 09:22:46 »
I usually write a handwritten draft and type the contents out on a floppy prior to responding to a question like this. However this time I am doing it spontaneously..straight on the response box.
I shall address the question of fate.
Fate is defined in the Oxford dictionary as quote "Power thought to control all events..person's destiny" end quote
My conclusion is that the quality (whether good or bad) of that fate (which is more important than that fate itself) is commensurate with the level of WISDOM that particular person has. So for example if that person's wisdom is flawed...his/her fate would be much dimmer than say another who would have a much better quality of wisdom.
So the conclusion must be that there is no such thing as luck.....only the existance of wisdom
 

Offline Karen W.

  • Moderator
  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *****
  • Posts: 31653
  • Thanked: 5 times
  • "come fly with me"
    • View Profile
Re: Just Curious
« Reply #13 on: 07/08/2006 06:15:51 »
Hello Hddd:
 I am so sorry I forgot to finnish my answer for you. so here goes, better late then ever!

I agree with the formula and think it would be an acceptable way to judge or check to make sure questions are being interpreted the way the Questioner is intending them to be understood. So by using this formula you would be trying to find out if all of the responders have been taught the same truths or have the same basic belief or foundations and understandings from their own life experience to have come up with the same absolute. Perhaps I might go as far as to say, with all the different beliefs in religion and philosophy, in different peoples lives that perhaps with many of the same responses it might indicate  knowledge of one absolute or one truth! One might say the Creator or God!

It therefore makes sense that many different responses or answers  to a question or an answer would mean that perhaps that the question was not posed by a person having the knowledge of the absolute before posing said question. I also feel in my understanding that the responders may have each come to a knowledge of a different absolute, or no absolute, according to what they have come to know or believe in their hearts and lives. Perhaps different life experiences led them to different truths and perhaps left them with out the knowledge of any absolute truth or one that would differ from the others! I think it also shows that evreyone interprets questions differently alot of times, but some times we all share some of the same truths bringing us to the same conclusion of absolute, and other times our own truths bring us to a different conclusion of absolute,therfore the basis for many different philosophies!

I may be full of hot air, but that is what I took from your formula, and like it says, there are no wrong answers! This for me was a very difficult question that required alot of thought at least on my part, and I am not sure about my response being what you were looking for, But there it is!!



Karen
« Last Edit: 07/08/2006 06:26:14 by Karen W. »
 

Offline namaan

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 195
    • View Profile
Re: Just Curious
« Reply #14 on: 11/08/2006 16:58:53 »
Sorry for the delay in response, but anyway, your responses were more than welcome, and I appreciate your deep thought into the consideration of the formula.  

The interesting thing that I got from this paper is that while there is such a thing as fate, it only affects those who allow themselves to be affected by it.  In other words, those who choose to dwelve in the stream of the relative rather than go on shore and watch the stream pass by from an absolute standpoint are the ones that are stuck in the stream of fate.  But it may not be necessary to stay on shore; the trip to the shore I believe is just meant as a way of gaining a more absolute perspective on our situation in life.

So far as the forumla is concerned, my understanding is that the closer the output of the formula is to one, the more people in society take the time to gain an absolute perspective on their situation in life.  Such a perspective helps us to see similarties between us and other humans rather than differences; to become aware of our collective humanity.  This is the sign of a healthy society.

It would be interesting if someone were to conduct a dynamic pole in order to test this formula.
« Last Edit: 11/08/2006 17:03:24 by hddd12345678910 »
 

Offline Karen W.

  • Moderator
  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *****
  • Posts: 31653
  • Thanked: 5 times
  • "come fly with me"
    • View Profile
Re: Just Curious
« Reply #15 on: 12/08/2006 20:08:36 »
Yes it would and you should take hold of your own challenge and do just that!!! It was a Pleasure hddd12345678910!

Karen
 

Offline namaan

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 195
    • View Profile
Re: Just Curious
« Reply #16 on: 15/08/2006 18:27:52 »
The idea of conducting a pole has passed my mind several times.  Although I have a website, it doesn't get a lot of traffic and it's actually for my dad's ribbon business.  On top of that, the type of pole that I am talking about would have to be completely dynamic.  In other words, the pole starts out by asking some question pretaining to some absolute knowledge but does not contain any choices.  The first polester to answer the question would be the person to create the first choice.  And every consequtive person to respond to the pole would either choose from one of the previous choices created by past polesters or create a new choice if don't agree with any of the other answers.  In the end all you whould have to do is divide the number of choices that are available by the number of people who took part in the poll and subtract this value from 1.  This will give you the level of awareness of society.  So if anyone wants to take up this challenge, you can try to follow this algorithm I just laid out.

Maybe I might be able to run such a pole at my college, I'll let you know if I do.

http://www.ribbonbazaar.com
 

Offline Karen W.

  • Moderator
  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *****
  • Posts: 31653
  • Thanked: 5 times
  • "come fly with me"
    • View Profile
Re: Just Curious
« Reply #17 on: 10/09/2006 13:48:49 »
Its out of my league but Would like to see any results you get if anyone picks up the torch!

Karen
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: Just Curious
« Reply #17 on: 10/09/2006 13:48:49 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums