Ochlocracy and anacyclose

philosophical debates and companies.
lilian07
I posted 500 messages!
I posted 500 messages!
posts: 534
Registration: 15/11/15, 13:36
x 56

Re: Ochlocracy and anacyclose




by lilian07 » 10/05/18, 11:47

Stephen Hawking could not prove the inexistence of god but on the other hand he showed by the analysis of the constants of the universe that our existence does not need him.
We are therefore confronted each time with pushing back the limits of belief in an existence less and less probable reduced by knowledge.
God in my opinion serves above all to adapt to the evolution of societies always grappling with anxiety by allowing each individual and at each stage of evolution to avoid leaving the question of the why in suspense.
Today the explanation of how things make us push this why to the limits of unreason.
0 x
Ahmed
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 12298
Registration: 25/02/08, 18:54
Location: Burgundy
x 2963

Re: Ochlocracy and anacyclose




by Ahmed » 10/05/18, 12:21

It is however vain to hope that science allows us to understand what is outside its field of action, which already is so vast that it is just as unreasonable to see it fully invested ... : roll:
0 x
"Please don't believe what I'm telling you."
Janic
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 19224
Registration: 29/10/10, 13:27
Location: bourgogne
x 3491

Re: Ochlocracy and anacyclose




by Janic » 10/05/18, 17:46

Stephen Hawking could not prove the inexistence of god but on the other hand he showed by the analysis of the constants of the universe that our existence does not need him.
Indeed, just like a car or fridge owner, no longer needs its inventors, builders, since it works "alone", that is to say having the appearance of a self-organization. But even a small child is able to realize that it was not done by itself, neither by chance, nor by self-organization.
We are therefore confronted each time with pushing back the limits of belief in an existence less and less probable reduced by knowledge. *
Rather, let's say a tiny part of knowledge and it is only material knowledge that is best known and recognized, not all of knowledge.
God in my opinion serves above all to adapt to the evolution of societies always grappling with anxiety by allowing each individual and at each stage of evolution to avoid leaving the question of the why in suspense.
As you point out above "in my opinion" that is to say very subjective as for most of us.
Today the explanation of how things make us push this why to the limits of unreason.

Not quite ! To believe knowing the how of things is as vain as pretending to know their why.
You may cut out menu, menu, a heart (symbol of love), dissect a brain, analyze hormones, it will not tell you what love is made of, precisely, or even why and yet everything the world takes it for granted.
Let us remain humble because our ignorance is much larger than our knowledge! 8)
0 x
"We make science with facts, like making a house with stones: but an accumulation of facts is no more a science than a pile of stones is a house" Henri Poincaré
User avatar
sen-no-sen
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 6856
Registration: 11/06/09, 13:08
Location: High Beaujolais.
x 749

Re: Ochlocracy and anacyclose




by sen-no-sen » 10/05/18, 21:35

lilian07 wrote:God in my opinion serves above all to adapt to the evolution of societies always grappling with anxiety by allowing each individual and at each stage of evolution to avoid leaving the question of the why in suspense.
Today the explanation of how things make us push this why to the limits of unreason.


God is a concept,a guiding thought whose objective is to colonize a maximum of brains in order to create a network of believers.
This network allows the development of a society whose size is correlated to the degree of energy dissipation.
We thus see that all primitive societies - and therefore little dissipative of energy - were animists.
As the development of societies and therefore the growth of energy dissipation (in particular via the appearance of civilization) the number of revered deities to decrease to reach, if necessary, a single god (monotheism ).
In fact, the transition from the belief of several divinities (polytheism) to monotheism (1) is a matter of statistical mechanics: the more a society is extended, the more that society needs to standardize its beliefs in order to limit splits.
So the fact of believing in a single god allows all believers to have the same vision of things, Islam is an excellent example because it is the most monotheistic religion (2).

It is more or less the same with state conglomerates, the EU needs common and standardized standards to facilitate trade within it.


(1) Via phase transitions such as henotheism,the polytheism,the Monolatry etc ...
(2) monotheism is not however an end in itself, because in spite of its capacity to standardize beliefs this one eventually ends up splitting into several parts, this is what is called a schism, which generate branches of beliefs which are subdivide in turn according to an evolutionary principle.
0 x
"Engineering is sometimes about knowing when to stop" Charles De Gaulle.
Janic
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 19224
Registration: 29/10/10, 13:27
Location: bourgogne
x 3491

Re: Ochlocracy and anacyclose




by Janic » 11/05/18, 07:37

sen no sen hello
God is a concept, a guiding thought whose objective is to colonize a maximum of brains in order to create a network of believers.
Superb atheist concept "whose objective is to colonize a maximum of brains in order to create a network of unbelievers". It is interesting to note that the more an individual does not know experimentally a subject the more he has a precise idea in his eyes. It's like football fans in the stands who never go down to the lawn to play, but who have science infused into what they ignore: practice! or like the slayers of homeopathy who refuse to experiment and prefer to stick to an abstract, theoretical, negationist discourse. : Evil:

The very idea of ​​god goes beyond a simple concept that stems from the imaginary towards a concrete representation. While the idea of ​​god is a postulate which goes far beyond a simple abstraction. Thus a fork is the material result of a concept according to a particular intended use. This is called the concretization of a concept.
The idea of ​​god is different in the sense that it does not require any prior concept (which does not mean that trying to conceive this idea in a concrete way, is not in human nature), it simply starts from a statement that the range is not the result of any chance, nor of an indeterminism or even less of a self-organization and therefore that this postulate is well beyond a simple concept and emerges more simply a finding that the effect, the object, is not the cause of itself.
After each, according to their atheist or believing culture, will want to stick to this cause an abstract or concrete discourse in order to give substance to what they consider as a simple intellectual concept or as concrete experience in his life.. and that of others of course.
Everything else is blabla which does not bring anything concrete in the life of each one, by creating a confusion between faith, religion and anti-religion! And our friend Sen no sen makes a materialistic fixette, like many others, on religions which are only systems imagined by humans to serve their interests, which are also material rather than spiritual, most of the time and whose many have obviously been victims! This is not a reason to mix everything up!
0 x
"We make science with facts, like making a house with stones: but an accumulation of facts is no more a science than a pile of stones is a house" Henri Poincaré
User avatar
sen-no-sen
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 6856
Registration: 11/06/09, 13:08
Location: High Beaujolais.
x 749

Re: Ochlocracy and anacyclose




by sen-no-sen » 11/05/18, 10:02

Janic wrote: Superb atheist concept "whose objective is to colonize a maximum of brains in order to create a network of unbelievers". It is interesting to note that the more an individual does not know experimentally a subject the more he has a precise idea in his eyes.


I only took back Ramana Maharshi... which it would be difficult to assert that he would not have had a spiritual experience ...
Quote: God and soul are only mental conceptions.
Disciple: Is God only a mental conception?
RM: Yes, do you think of God during sleep?
D: But sleep is a state of torpor.
RM: If God is real he must always be present, You remain the same during the states of sleep and wakefulness. If God is as true as your Self, God must be present in sleep, as is the Self.
This thought of God arises only in the waking state. Who is thinking right now?
in teaching of Ramana Maharshi.

A neuroscience specialist could not have said it better ... and yet it is difficult to tax Ramana Maharshi unbelieving to the materialist vision!
It is very interesting to note that specialists in the field of deep meditation join in their analysis ( the extra experience), contemporary scientific conceptions* .

The idea of ​​god is different in that it requires no prior concept (...)


This is completely false, you obviously confuse dogmatic postulate and analysis.
Contrary to what you assert, the concept of god requires a host of preliminary notions, starting with the various subjective interpretations linked to our species, our culture and our environment.
This idea does not arise ex nihilo, god is a concept that appears with civilization and the feedback between humans and their artefacts, hence for example your interminable comparisons between fork and other fridge ... : Lol:

To assert that everything to a cause leads to the idea well exposed by Siddhartha Gautama (The Buddha):if god exists who creates god?
If I therefore take your logic from God to necessarily an ascendant who himself had them and those to infinity ... the only way to generate a deist belief is therefore to impose dogmatically (ie without any evidence) l idea that god is a primary thing.

Conversely, contemporary science provides factual elements on the origin of the world, and are well obliged to admit their limitations.
The strategy of religions deists in simply residing in superimposing socio-political notions on a metaphysical framework in order to establish control over individuals.


* Matthieu Ricard co-written with Wolf singer "brain and meditation", dialogue between Buddhism and neuroscience.
0 x
"Engineering is sometimes about knowing when to stop" Charles De Gaulle.
Janic
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 19224
Registration: 29/10/10, 13:27
Location: bourgogne
x 3491

Re: Ochlocracy and anacyclose




by Janic » 11/05/18, 13:17

janic wrote: Superb atheist concept "whose objective is to colonize as many brains as possible in order to create a network of unbelievers". It is interesting to note that the more an individual does not know a subject experimentally, the more he has a precise idea of ​​it in his eyes.
I have only taken Ramana Maharshi ... which it would be difficult to assert that he would not have had a spiritual experience ...
Hence the need to clearly distinguish what emerges from the so-called religious domain, that is to say a system of thought and practice, and what emerges from the spiritual domain which escapes these systems and therefore all the more difficult. to identify.
but as I do not know this Buddha, I have no opinion, nor competence on this one.

Quote: God and soul are only mental conceptions.
Mandatory since like for a computer, we can only design from existing software such as culture. Everything we think of goes through our mental, intellectual and therefore cultural system.

RM: Yes, do you think of God during sleep?
The notion of thinking about god is a concept, there too, as if the thought of god (or what holds him for such) became dependent on the individual, who would decide that this god is subjected to him in some way, but that does not not work like that.

D: But sleep is a state of torpor.
Quite simply torpor or disconnection. The car stored in the garage is disconnected from its driver, as if in sleep, despite all its functionalities (on standby) being present, upon awakening, when starting up.

RM: If God is real he must always be present, You remain the same during the states of sleep and wakefulness. If God is as true as your Self, God must be present in sleep, as is the Self.
There is "truth" in this reflection, which also depends on the belief system adopted. Indeed, to the extent that, in this culture, the very existence of an external entity is not accepted, the reasoning revolves around a concept that this "god" would be, therefore intrinsic in waking as in sleep. It's philosophical discourse which, like all these discourse, has its own logic and coherence, compared to themselves, not absolutely.

This thought of God arises only in the waking state. Who is thinking right now? in the teaching of Ramana Maharshi.
Thought INTELLECTUAL : Yes ! " I think so I am ! Where the individual is the decision maker of what is or is not, according to his own criteria (which are only worth the credit that each one grants to them). Nothing to do with this postulate of an author outside the thought system, philosophy and which is not exactly "in the boot" of our concepts.
A neuroscience specialist could not have said it better ... and yet it is difficult to call Ramana Maharshi an unbeliever to the materialist vision!
Not materialistic in the sense of our Western societies, obviously, but materialistic all the same when the concept of producer and product are intellectually merged by culture precisely and mainly anti-religious.
It is very interesting to note that specialists in the field of deep meditation join in their analysis (experience in addition), contemporary scientific conceptions *
.What designs? (and not the but of ) We can compare this to contemporary scientific medical conceptions of allopathy VS homeopathy. The A rejects H as the Buddha does the concept of god, by choice, by conviction, not by knowledge and experience in this area.
The idea of ​​god is different in that it requires no prior concept (...)
This is totally false, you obviously confuse dogmatic postulate and analysis.
Already the notion of false or true is subjective since it only depends on the criteria chosen by each.
Then a postulate is always dogmatic as evolutionism is vis-à-vis creationism

Dogmatism
3. PHILOS. ,, Proposition which is not obvious by itself, but which one is led to receive because one sees no other principle to which one can attach either a truth which one could not doubt, or an operation or an act the legitimacy of which is not disputed ''
Representation which is implicitly accepted and on which a thought system is based.
Contrary to what you assert, the concept of god requires a host of preliminary notions, starting with the various subjective interpretations linked to our species, our culture and our environment.
Exactly not! These cultural notions are not involved AFTER when the individual seeks an explanation for the experience already lived and which does not belong to the one who is the object of it. Hence these questions about chance, nature, subjectivity, god, etc.
In the religious concepts that are built and therefore justified on these criteria
Except that I am not expressing myself here as a representative of religious systems, but as a defender of personal experimentation.
This idea does not arise ex nihilo, god is a concept that appears with civilization and feedback between humans and their artefacts, hence for example your interminable comparisons between fork and other fridge ....
So it bothers you so much these materialist comparisons because it is not possible for you to metaphycize or scienticize these products.
To affirm that everything to a cause leads to the idea well exposed by Siddhartha Gautama (The Buddha): if god exists who creates god?
Inevitable this one!
The Buddha did not live outside of time and of the civilization of his time when religion was no better, as a dominating system, than in our culture and therefore these words that would not be denied (and who makes it his delights) atheism.
Hence this hyper materialist vision which does not want to consider that a creator is not of the same nature as his product: a painter is not of the same nature as his works, like any creator, and want to reason about the work as we reason about the artist, it's completely useless! Now we believe we know a lot, with the scattered bits of our knowledge, about this world made of matter, even when we ignore everything that is out of it. So we are not a knowledge framework, but of finding that the fridge was not made by itself. But if someone wants to prove the contrary, good luck!
If I therefore take your logic from God to necessarily an ascendant who himself had them and those to infinity ... the only way to generate a deist belief is therefore to impose dogmatically (ie without any evidence) l idea that god is a primary thing.
It's your logic not mine! This reasoning there, it is precisely this materialism (the search for evidence which goes in the direction wanted and expected only) which dominates our minds. Our technical means make us confuse our achievements with everything that escapes matter. So I, like anyone else, am unable to claim to see beyond this matter which is only a tool, an object and therefore we must stop these worthless comparisons. Indeed can the hammer have the slightest idea of ​​what the carpenter who handles it can be? Its role, its function is to drive the nails and to do it well, not to decide what or how is made the one who manipulates it.
The vanity of the hammer is to believe that it is of his own will that he strikes this nail which did not however make him any misery! :?
Conversely, contemporary science provides factual elements on the origin of the world, and are well obliged to admit their limitations.
It is the least we can say and even more to seek and even pretend to know and explain what they are not in a condition to do. " Vanity of vanities and pursuit of the wind »
The strategy of religions deists in simply residing in superimposing socio-political notions on a metaphysical framework in order to establish control over individuals.
I said it again and again: religions are not my cup of tea (even if I don't drink it) in clear I represent nobody other than myself through my own reflections and not in the name any religious or atheist systems. In other words more raw: " religion i don't care And bringing the subject constantly to this point is useless except to confirm a flagrant incompetence on this point.
0 x
"We make science with facts, like making a house with stones: but an accumulation of facts is no more a science than a pile of stones is a house" Henri Poincaré
User avatar
sen-no-sen
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 6856
Registration: 11/06/09, 13:08
Location: High Beaujolais.
x 749

Re: Ochlocracy and anacyclose




by sen-no-sen » 11/05/18, 14:22

Janic wrote:religion i don't care


If you are not interested in religion, why respond to a remark that was not originally addressed to you?


If I had to summarize your one and only argument (!) Is that god exists because a chair or a fridge, a car etc ... were made by a craftsman, worker or other and therefore that the world being material that here therefore logically (sic!) follow the same path. This is the end of the breathtaking demonstration!

Basically you determine existence through your point of view by eluding almost all the observations of reality.
Women are not pregnant, no it is a guy who makes kids and puts them in their womb (via a stork?), There is no self-organization within a mother's body it's wrong.
The trees do not grow alone either, it is certainly a guy (from Monsanto?) Who comes to add dark circles every week ... I call that argumentative nullity and the negation of reality ...

So no need to endlessly use the same pseudo-argument worthy of a book of "catechism for dummies".
I just want you to answer me why the idea of ​​god (x) evolved over time,which is what made it evolve and where this concept comes from.
I have already brought elements of answer above, so if you have the courage try to bring a beginning of counter argument through historical examples.

It is a little too easy to scroll by saying that you do not know such or such religions, because it is the study of religions which makes it possible to understand that God is only a concept.
0 x
"Engineering is sometimes about knowing when to stop" Charles De Gaulle.
Janic
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 19224
Registration: 29/10/10, 13:27
Location: bourgogne
x 3491

Re: Ochlocracy and anacyclose




by Janic » 11/05/18, 18:53

janic wrote: religion i don't care
If you are not interested in religion, why respond to a remark that was not originally addressed to you?

To be exact and complete in my prose I wrote: "[i] I have said it and repeated: religions are not my cup of tea (even if I do not drink it) in clear I do not represent anyone other than myself through my own reflections and not on behalf of any religious or atheist systems. [/ i] "Clearly, religions are the business of religious like war the business of the military or medicine that of doctors and I am not part of any of them.
The original question was not about religion per se, but about "god" and on this last point, only, which I wrote because I studied this point for a few decades and he alone, which does not establish me as a reference, but at least as having really studied the subject (at least a part because who can claim to know enough about this point?) in a specific setting.
If I had to summarize your one and only argument (!) It is that god exists because a chair or a fridge, a car etc ... were made by a craftsman, worker or other and therefore that the world being material that here therefore logically (sic!) follow the same path. This is the end of the breathtaking demonstration!
Almost, but not quite! Do we know any object, any product that has not gone through a designer, then a manufacturer and then a user. If you manage to prove on the contrary, I am willing to go your way.
Basically you determine existence through your point of view by eluding almost all the observations of reality.
The findings of reality, this is what everyone can see and check daily around him, that is to say a world of infinite complexity which owes nothing to chance, no more than a fridge! This is real!
Women are not pregnant, no it is a guy who makes kids and puts them in their belly (via a stork?), There is no self-organization within the body of a mother it's wrong.
Stop your arguments at maternal level and do a little biology and explain how sexual reproduction was done randomly and gradually over a few million years. The specialists are unable to answer it when it is their job, so you or me, it does not weigh heavy in the balance. But the subject has already been seen and reviewed. Reproduction is part of a cycle having had a beginning and therefore not self-organized, like these robots which mass produce objects without apparent human intervention and appear so self-organized, but that would make any industrialist laugh! And my job has been to participate in these automations. : Cheesy: : Cheesy:
The trees do not grow alone either, it is certainly a guy (from Monsanto?) Who comes to add dark circles every week ... I call that argumentative nullity and the negation of reality ...
Same maternal level! When a cycle is initiated, its continuity leaves the appearance of a self-organization which is only an impression, largely already seen and developed elsewhere!
So no need to endlessly use the same pseudo-argument worthy of a book of "catechism for dummies".
Dummies are those who only want to take real arguments as their own speech.
I would just like you to answer me for what reason the idea of ​​god (x) evolved over time, which is what made it evolve and where does this notion come from.
Same thing, it looks like a TJ who repeats his conditioning by his religious hierarchy.
Again the reality of an initial author to all that exists, known and unknown, has nothing to do with these religions in questions which are only systems, not references experimental in the real.
I have already brought elements of answer above, so if you have the courage try to bring a beginning of counter argument through historical examples.
You have only exposed your point of view, and it is your right, to which I have brought mine, which does not determine who is right or wrong, but only expresses opinions. As for any kind of history, history has shown significant fluctuations between these religions for a few thousand years, of which you seem to be an expert. So the examples, you will find thousands, which will lead to nothing other than to show supporters and opponents of this or that point of view.
It is a little too easy to scroll by saying that you do not know such or such religions, because it is the study of religions which makes it possible to understand that God is only a concept.
Exactly no! The study of religions shows that recovering a concept, as you say, gives them enormous power over other men, but it is only a form that allows such domination and humans do not lack d imagination to achieve it. But, you are obsessed with these religions by making references to them that suit you in your detestation of them and you have to find justifications for them. But despite everything I understand your approach because failing to go through a personal experimentation, it remains for you, as for many other subjects, to content yourself with criticizing as if these critics, some of which justified like violence among some, their domination on bodies and minds, etc ... were proving something, when they represent only a limited part of our societies which, even civil, have not done better because we are only dealing humans who risk destroying their planet, not gods.
0 x
"We make science with facts, like making a house with stones: but an accumulation of facts is no more a science than a pile of stones is a house" Henri Poincaré
User avatar
sen-no-sen
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 6856
Registration: 11/06/09, 13:08
Location: High Beaujolais.
x 749

Re: Ochlocracy and anacyclose




by sen-no-sen » 11/05/18, 21:17

Janic wrote:The original question was not about religion per se, but about "god" and on this last point, only, which I wrote because I studied this point for a few decades and he alone, which does not establish me as a reference, but at least as having really studied the subject (at least a part because who can claim to know enough about this point?) in a specific setting.


It seems difficult to me to separate the notion of god and religion (deist if necessary) ... religions are systems of thought induced by societal transformations.
It is for this reason that the number of deities evolves over time, it is a cultural adaptation to the environment.

Do we know any object, any product that has not gone through a designer, then a manufacturer and then a user. If you can prove the contrary, I'm willing to go your way.


By definition, a product is the fruit of a producer, so it's a pretty truism ...
Conversely, we never see the intervention of a creator in the world.
No one even Christ saw God in his works, however everyone is able to see the evolution of the world through the synergies within our universe.
That one calls such correlation in the totality God does not bother me, it is besides a shortcut used traditionally, however this synergy could just as easily be called the tinkerbell or the cosmic teapot ... I prefer to call a cat a cat rather than using terms that have little to do with reality.

The reproduction is part of a cycle having had a beginning and therefore not self-organized, like these robots which mass produce objects without apparent human intervention and therefore seem self-organized, but that would make any industrialist laugh! And my job has been to participate in these automations


I have already explained to you that you are proceeding through coarse analysis errors, namely that a mechanically-invoiced product is historically posterior at the advent of life, it is completely absurd to take the example of a current artifact to extrapolate in the past the appearance of life ...
Robotic systems only ape natural processes, not vice versa.

For the question of the appearance of the universe god does not solve anything, it is simply a concept which plays the role of metaphysical feather duster in order to push the question of origins further ... without ever answering it.

Conversely, our scientific knowledge (see spiritual to resume the presentations of Ramana Maharshi) report a possibility substrate, what we call a wave function in quantum physics.
The Universe can thus be considered as the crystallization of a possibility within a spectrum of possible with limits (?) Unimaginable.
Our existence and our questions about the appearance of all this are therefore elucidable: it is our consciousness and only this one that allows us to affirm that the Universe exists, if consciousnesses did not inhabit this world, no one could then say that this one "Is".
So if the conditions necessary for the appearance of life were not met we would not be there to talk .... cqfd.
As for the supposed tiny chance of seeing such a complex universe appearing, it is again not necessary to invoke a divinity; statistically everything ends up happening an infinite number of times within an infinite time, beyond the Planck's time the notion of time no longer applies .... and it is precisely in this scale that our universe was evolving at the "moment" of the Big Bang.

Again the reality of an initial author to all that exists, known and unknown, has nothing to do with these religions in questions which are only systems, not experimental references in reality.


Except that the said experimental references (which you never describe) do not refer to a watchmaking deity.
Could you also quote specific examples of spiritual experience?
0 x
"Engineering is sometimes about knowing when to stop" Charles De Gaulle.

Back to "Society and Philosophy"

Who is online ?

Users browsing this forum : No registered users and 157 guests