inthemix.com.au: australian dance music | news | reviews | photos | forums | chat | what's on

Kid A · 06-Oct-11, 06:51pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Griggle

Godwin's again. We're on a roll in here lately.

Actually I've been reading a lot of stuff to do with quantum mechanics and the brain lately like David Bohm's Thought as a System.

His concept of thought not being simply a item inside each of our heads but rather something shared by all creatures/objects/stuff on the planet/galaxy/universe making a massive system would suggest (if provable) that we could indeed predict future behaviour of smaller subsets of the entire system so long as you had an understanding of all the other elements of the system.

Are you are of the same school of thought as David Chalmers in his paper (for you Geezah) Facing Up To The Problem Of Consciousness:

Are you arguing in favour of his position that there is in fact a Hard Problem of Consciousness and that even if we understand all the physical elements of the brain?

Essentially as I understand it his argument is that we do in fact have souls and as such we will never be able quantify human thought through physical sciences.

PS Claude I'm just trying to start up a debate. It's been quiet in CAAP lately.

If there is anywhere this discussion doesn't need to go it's towards all things qualia and the hard problem of consciousness.

That's just what Hitler would want.

From my (semi-surface) understand though, Claude's position does not rely on a 'Chalmerian' philosophy of mind. But this is not my place, so I'll shut up.

DJ Squiggle · 06-Oct-11, 07:16pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by claude glass

you might find this article interesting http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...-tansley-smuts

Quote:

Emily said: "You're not a completely peaceful organisation." Lucy came back with the killer line: "I don't think anyone can make an assessment of that, other than the people involved in the actions themselves."

I think this is too often simply used as a copout by hippies. It is the same attitude that produces indignation when a generalisation is used (even one that is true, ie 51% of observations support it). OTOH Politicians avoid answering questions all the time. Sorry, I know I am a bit off-topic.

DJ Squiggle · 06-Oct-11, 07:32pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by claude glass

if you were looking for predictors of the Arab spring you could have found them:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-14841018

"The analysis was carried out retrospectively". Lame.

They also could have shown more than one (retrospective) graph. And the geo-analysis map inexplicably shows lines not locations.

DJ Squiggle · 06-Oct-11, 07:55pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by horst

Squiggle, to be honest I'm glad they didn't overhype the pretty pictures aspect in 'the secret life of chaos' because I think it really detracts from the central idea of self-organization.

It did give me insights (in the ways you describe, so thanks for the URL) but it did hype the pretty pictures (overhype? superoverhype? hypersuperoverhype?). I was suggesting there could have been more illustration rather than pretty pictures. Another example: Turing's matrix of numbers where he pencilled in cow-like dappled regions... it could have been illustrated with CGI. It was the production team's artistic values winning out over science.

It was not educating the general public about science. It propagated mystique which NeWagers will then either dismiss or else hijack to justify beliefs in magic. OTOH I would acknowledge that if the doco got too technical it may have scared general viewers off; the producers may have deliberately chosen instead to inspire people. The eternal trade-off. I just think there was room for more science without compromising "easy-viewing". David Attenborough productions manage it well.

claude glass · 06-Oct-11, 08:27pm

griggle - I'm really coming from the point of view that if we really want to act in our best interests we should be less anthropocentric.

claude glass · 06-Oct-11, 08:30pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by DJ Squiggle

"The analysis was carried out retrospectively". Lame.

Why is it lame? It proves that if you were looking for it you would find it.

Did penicillin exist before it was discovered?

DJ Squiggle · 06-Oct-11, 09:26pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by claude glass

Why is it lame? It proves that if you were looking for it you would find it.

I'm not writing him off, just that, until he starts predicting, there is no evidence of validity. One way to force a prediction into fitting the data is by ruling out data by simply saying something like: "let's ignore opinion pieces" or "let's ignore articles written by authors whose name begins with Q".

There is an amazing site/business called Kaggle which runs competitions for statistical model building and they deliberately leave out half the historical data to make sure there is no fudging. Can can then test the contestant's model on the full data set.

Quote:

Norman Swan: Three million bucks is a lot of money for a prize, that's
fantastic but why don't they just get IBM or KPMG or one of the big
consulting companies to solve the problem?

Nicholas Gruen: A very good question, but the thing is that KPMG and IBM
haven't won any of our competitions yet. KPMG and IBM would often charge
you, I mean with the $3 million budget you'd be OK I guess, but on some of
our lower value prizes it's amazing what you can do but the really
remarkable thing is that it's virtually impossible to predict who is going
to do the best job. People turn up from all sorts of places, students beat
their professors and so on.

Check the interview with Kaggle's Chair, Nicholas Gruen, on Radio National's Health Report (stream/download/transcript).

DJ Squiggle · 06-Oct-11, 09:44pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by claude glass

griggle - I'm really coming from the point of view that if we really want to act in our best interests we should be less anthropocentric.

That's only valid for people who care about the future of humans. It is politically incorrect to say otherwise so you won't hear the psychopaths speak up. Until they are allowed to speak about it, they won't change.

Personally I feel that what you are encouraging leads to a sense of place in this world and ameliorates loneliness but others are addicted to thrills that can distract them instead. That is why there is a fetish with growth. Relative stability is not exciting.

For those that consider the growth fetish a disease it may be useful to approach the diseased (the psychopaths) with compassion but it is pretty hard to be compassionate when your economy is being screwed by bankers or your family has been wiped out mistakenly in a drone attack.

Which reminds me, has anyone read the book by the guy from Q&A, Jon Ronson, The Psychopath Test? (I loved his Death in Santaland doco).

claude glass · 06-Oct-11, 10:17pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by DJ Squiggle

That's only valid for people who care about the future of humans. It is politically incorrect to say otherwise so you won't hear the psychopaths speak up. Until they are allowed to speak about it, they won't change.

Personally I feel that what you are encouraging leads to a sense of place in this world and ameliorates loneliness but others are addicted to thrills that can distract them instead. That is why there is a fetish with growth. Relative stability is not exciting.

No I'm saying something pretty much the opposite of that.

claude glass · 06-Oct-11, 10:26pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by DJ Squiggle

I'm not writing him off, just that, until he starts predicting, there is no evidence of validity. One way to force a prediction into fitting the data is by ruling out data by simply saying something like: "let's ignore opinion pieces" or "let's ignore articles written by authors whose name begins with Q".

There is an amazing site/business called Kaggle which runs competitions for statistical model building and they deliberately leave out half the historical data to make sure there is no fudging. Can can then test the contestant's model on the full data set.

Check the interview with Kaggle's Chair, Nicholas Gruen, on Radio National's Health Report (stream/download/transcript).

Here is a cool book on data and models: http://pne.people.si.umich.edu/vastmachine/index.html

DJ Squiggle · 06-Oct-11, 10:30pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by claude glass

No I'm saying something pretty much the opposite of that.

Care to elaborate?

Griggle · 07-Oct-11, 02:19am

As I understand it, anthropocentrism in relation to Environmental Philosophy is the viewpoint of many climate scientists who feel we are too obsessed with exploiting as many resources as we can and typically they argue that we should instead focus on using less resources.

Some climate scientist argue that a true anthropocentric viewpoint is one that has long-term plans for the future and so the viewpoint has merits and they typically argue that current anthropocentric systems main fault is that they don't typically concern themselves with the long term.

claude glass · 07-Oct-11, 09:08am

We have no special place in the world and it's time we started acting like that. Only then will we still have a place in the world.

twistedbydesign · 07-Oct-11, 12:46pm

Changes in our collective self-image are inevitable, it's just a matter of how much resistance we put up/how much more suffering we cause..

claude glass · 07-Oct-11, 12:49pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by twistedbydesign

Changes in our collective self-image are inevitable, it's just a matter of how much resistance we put up/how much more suffering we cause..

Do you think? Maybe.

twistedbydesign · 07-Oct-11, 01:03pm

I do, it's within everyone's reach and more and more people are not content with the status quo.
Everyone feels an inherent dysfunction, you can pile whatever you want on to it - material goods, knowledge, experience, self pity, violence, greed, hate, love, family, join a cause, rebel against another; whatever role people choose to identify with doesn't quell that feeling and with the exponential acceleration in so many area's it's just a matter of time before resistance against that realisation falters.

Nobody needs to go anywhere else.
We are all, if we only knew it, already there.
If I only knew who in fact I am, I should cease to behave as what I think I am; and if I stopped behaving as what I think I am, I should know who I am.
What in fact I am, if only the Manichee I think I am would allow me to know it, is the reconciliation of yes and no lived out in total acceptance and the blessed experience of Not-Two - Huxley

gravyishot · 07-Oct-11, 01:57pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by twistedbydesign

Everyone feels an inherent dysfunction

Do they?

claude glass · 07-Oct-11, 01:57pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by twistedbydesign

I do, it's within everyone's reach and more and more people are not content with the status quo.
Everyone feels an inherent dysfunction, you can pile whatever you want on to it - material goods, knowledge, experience, self pity, violence, greed, hate, love, family, join a cause, rebel against another; whatever role people choose to identify with doesn't quell that feeling and with the exponential acceleration in so many area's it's just a matter of time before resistance against that realisation falters.

Nobody needs to go anywhere else.
We are all, if we only knew it, already there.
If I only knew who in fact I am, I should cease to behave as what I think I am; and if I stopped behaving as what I think I am, I should know who I am.
What in fact I am, if only the Manichee I think I am would allow me to know it, is the reconciliation of yes and no lived out in total acceptance and the blessed experience of Not-Two - Huxley

yes I agree, but that is still anthropocentrism.

twistedbydesign · 07-Oct-11, 02:01pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by gravyishot

Do they?

Do you?

twistedbydesign · 07-Oct-11, 02:08pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by claude glass

yes I agree, but that is still anthropocentrism.

Is it?
There is no hierarchy in what I'm talking about.
A rock is also the reconciliation of yes and no lived out in total acceptance

gravyishot · 07-Oct-11, 02:10pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by twistedbydesign

Do you?

You tell me. What does this change in our collective self image look like?

claude glass · 07-Oct-11, 02:15pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by twistedbydesign

Is it?
There is no hierarchy in what I'm talking about.
A rock is also the reconciliation of yes and no lived out in total acceptance

ok im with you

twistedbydesign · 07-Oct-11, 02:18pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by gravyishot

You tell me. What does this change in our collective self image look like?

Yes you do feel it.

I don't know what it looks like, that is a strange question.
I imagine it's much less schizophrenic than the current one, but I don't know what that one looks like either.

claude glass · 07-Oct-11, 02:20pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by gravyishot

You tell me. What does this change in our collective self image look like?

not like Gina Rinehart one would hope.

Kid A · 07-Oct-11, 02:26pm

You don't need to construct bullshit metaphysical philosophies and teleological fantasies to say you'd like the rat race to end and for humans to stop being cnts.

http://www4.hmc.edu:8001/humanities/...otes/rorty.gif

Love, Richard

gravyishot · 07-Oct-11, 02:28pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by claude glass

We have no special place in the world and it's time we started acting like that. Only then will we still have a place in the world.

Do we need a place? I no longer understand people's despair that humanity's place in the world (universe) may be coming to an end. It was always going to. If not now, some point in the future. Someone is going to have to witness it. And when they do, they will pass on like billions of other lifeforms and humans have for billions of years. Might as well be me.

On growth, I don't think there's a lifeform that exists that doesn't exploit its advantages. Yeast in a beer bottle eats up all its sugars until it dies. Cyanobacteria ate up all the carbon dioxide and released oxygen that eventually killed it. To justify steering ourselves away from a similar course, we have to be anthropocentric.

Other life, the earth and the universe, will go on without us. We'll be a thin layer in the geological record called the plastocene.

Quote:

Originally Posted by twistedbydesign

Yes you do feel it.

I'm not sure I do.

twistedbydesign · 07-Oct-11, 02:43pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by gravyishot

I'm not sure I do.

Doesn't that hesitation suggest you do?
If you didn't what reason have you for pursuing the life you have beyond the basic needs of existence?
Why have you aimed to create the identity of yourself that you have?
And do you still do things that you feel add value to that identity?

claude glass · 07-Oct-11, 02:48pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by gravyishot

Do we need a place? I no longer understand people's despair that humanity's place in the world (universe) may be coming to an end. It was always going to. If not now, some point in the future. Someone is going to have to witness it. And when they do, they will pass on like billions of other lifeforms and humans have for billions of years. Might as well be me.

On growth, I don't think there's a lifeform that exists that doesn't exploit its advantages. Yeast in a beer bottle eats up all its sugars until it dies. Cyanobacteria ate up all the carbon dioxide and released oxygen that eventually killed it. To justify steering ourselves away from a similar course, we have to be anthropocentric.

Other life, the earth and the universe, will go on without us. We'll be a thin layer in the geological record called the plastocene.

I'm not sure I do.

The anthropocene.

But that's just nihilism and doesn't get us anywhere. With a little bit of humility we can just do things differently (and not self-consciously differently) and then maybe last a few more million years and why not? Something good might happen.

And, actually, bacteria didn't entirely die out, they became chloroplasts.

gravyishot · 07-Oct-11, 03:09pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by claude glass

The anthropocene.

But that's just nihilism and doesn't get us anywhere. With a little bit of humility we can just do things differently (and not self-consciously differently) and then maybe last a few more million years and why not? Something good might happen.

And, actually, bacteria didn't entirely die out, they became chloroplasts.

I don't really think it's nihilistic. I'm not dismissing the notion that people might derive a purpose to their own life.

If you take it as established fact that eventually the sun will run out of hydrogen, then expand and engulfing the planet, then you have to accept that humanity will eventually come to an end. A number of events of any kind could lead up to that happening as well. I would say it is more a form of fatalism.

What it comes down to is a matter of when and why not now?

As you say, something good might happen. You have to think, as humans, we might do something great that justifies us keeping ourselves in existence. If we die out, it really doesn't mean much for life on this planet. Life has survived asteroids, oxygen catastrophes and snowball earth periods, and it will survive us.

gravyishot · 07-Oct-11, 03:12pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by twistedbydesign

Doesn't that hesitation suggest you do?

I would be more worried if I was certain.

Quote:

If you didn't what reason have you for pursuing the life you have beyond the basic needs of existence?
Why have you aimed to create the identity of yourself that you have?
And do you still do things that you feel add value to that identity?

Interesting questions. I'm not sure what the basic needs of existence are, but I see animals deriving pleasure from inane and pointless things as much as you see people do it. I just think we're more technologically gifted at it. Can't answer your other two with any clarity.

twistedbydesign · 07-Oct-11, 03:37pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by gravyishot

I would be more worried if I was certain.

More worried about what?

Quote:

Originally Posted by gravyishot

Interesting questions. I'm not sure what the basic needs of existence are, but I see animals deriving pleasure from inane and pointless things as much as you see people do it. I just think we're more technologically gifted at it. Can't answer your other two with any clarity.

I'd suggest animals derive more pleasure from inane play than we do, even with the tech toys we create for ourselves, which have become part of the self-image we identify with anyway, so much so that people begin to dislike others who hold different brand loyalties than themselves...That's insane.

We all pursue things/relationships and act in a way that we think will assist us in achieving a certain identity, accumulate stuff that conforms to that identity. Constantly topping up the ego's well of wants(which go way beyond material goods) is what drives the growth fetish, and it drives conflict both on an individual and collective level.

So what happens when people stop being so closely aligned with their ego?

claude glass · 07-Oct-11, 03:51pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by gravyishot

Life has survived asteroids, oxygen catastrophes and snowball earth periods, and it will survive us.

Maybe not according to James Hansen:

"The paleoclimate record does not provide a case with a climate forcing of the magnitude and speed that will occur if fossil fuels are all burned. Models are nowhere near the stage at which they can predict reliably when major ice sheet disintegration will begin. Nor can we say how close we are to methane hydrate instability. But these are questions of when, not if. If we burn all the fossil fuels, the ice sheets almost surely will melt entirely, with the final sea level rise about 75 meters (250 feet), with most of that possibly occurring within a time scale of centuries. Methane hydrates are likely to be more extensive and vulnerable now than they were in the early Cenozoic. It is difficult to imagine how the methane clathrates could survive, once the ocean has had time to warm. In that event a PETM-like warming could be added on top of the fossil fuel warming.

After the ice is gone, would Earth proceed to the Venus syndrome, a runaway greenhouse effect that would destroy all life on the planet, perhaps permanently? While that is difficult to say based on present information, I’ve come to conclude that if we burn all reserves of oil, gas, and coal, there is a substantial chance we will initiate the runaway greenhouse. If we also burn the tar sands and tar shale, I believe the Venus syndrome is a dead certainty."

claude glass · 07-Oct-11, 03:58pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by gravyishot

I'm not sure what the basic needs of existence are, but I see animals deriving pleasure from inane and pointless things as much as you see people do it. I just think we're more technologically gifted at it. Can't answer your other two with any clarity.

But I think it's easy to see that we invest an immense amount of energy pursuing a way of life which has a paradoxical end game which is in sight, in clear focus, except for those that have their heads in the sand. And, apparently, we in Australia are winning that pursuit and it doesn't make us all that happy, apparently.

And that is, by and large, because of a self-centred anthropocentric world view.

gravyishot · 07-Oct-11, 03:59pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by twistedbydesign

More worried about what?

I don't know.

Quote:

I'd suggest animals derive more pleasure from inane play than we do, even with the tech toys we create for ourselves, which have become part of the self-image we identify with anyway, so much so that people begin to dislike others who hold different brand loyalties than themselves...That's insane.

Nah, I don't agree with this. People don't dislike others because of brand loyalties. People intrinsically don't like other people, for whatever reason. Cats don't like other cats. Indian Mynas hate other Indian Mynas. You're seeing a violent nature and rationalising the cause. I think violence is actually pretty common across the animal kingdom.

Quote:

We all pursue things/relationships and act in a way that we think will assist us in achieving a certain identity, accumulate stuff that conforms to that identity. Constantly topping up the ego's well of wants(which go way beyond material goods) is what drives the growth fetish, and it drives conflict both on an individual and collective level.

The thing is, the growth fetish is exhibited in all kinds of other living beings, even the simplest. The fact that DNA replicates means that it has to consume resources. It is a dumb chemical compound which by its own nature creates further copies of itself. The very nature of replication implies growth.

Quote:

So what happens when people stop being so closely aligned with their ego?

I'd say little changes.

gravyishot · 07-Oct-11, 04:12pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by claude glass

Maybe not according to James Hansen:

"The paleoclimate record does not provide a case with a climate forcing of the magnitude and speed that will occur if fossil fuels are all burned. Models are nowhere near the stage at which they can predict reliably when major ice sheet disintegration will begin. Nor can we say how close we are to methane hydrate instability. But these are questions of when, not if. If we burn all the fossil fuels, the ice sheets almost surely will melt entirely, with the final sea level rise about 75 meters (250 feet), with most of that possibly occurring within a time scale of centuries. Methane hydrates are likely to be more extensive and vulnerable now than they were in the early Cenozoic. It is difficult to imagine how the methane clathrates could survive, once the ocean has had time to warm. In that event a PETM-like warming could be added on top of the fossil fuel warming.

After the ice is gone, would Earth proceed to the Venus syndrome, a runaway greenhouse effect that would destroy all life on the planet, perhaps permanently? While that is difficult to say based on present information, I’ve come to conclude that if we burn all reserves of oil, gas, and coal, there is a substantial chance we will initiate the runaway greenhouse. If we also burn the tar sands and tar shale, I believe the Venus syndrome is a dead certainty."

A bit fanciful, innit?

claude glass · 07-Oct-11, 04:13pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by gravyishot

The thing is, the growth fetish is exhibited in all kinds of other living beings, even the simplest. The fact that DNA replicates means that it has to consume resources. It is a dumb chemical compound which by its own nature creates further copies of itself. The very nature of replication implies growth.

But the genotype extends beyond the body, like a spiders web is part of a spiders DNA. We extend our genotype, and we can make conscious choices about how to extend it. So DNA is not so dumb.

gravyishot · 07-Oct-11, 04:19pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by claude glass

But the genotype extends beyond the body, like a spiders web is part of a spiders DNA. We extend our genotype, and we can make conscious choices about how to extend it. So DNA is not so dumb.

I meant DNA as it was forged billions of years ago. It's a chemical reaction that started in the Archaean era and kept going. In that time it has consumed tonnes and tonnes of nitrogen, water, methane, phosphate, etc. The same things we're consuming now. Is growth really connected to the ego?

claude glass · 07-Oct-11, 04:35pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by gravyishot

I meant DNA as it was forged billions of years ago. It's a chemical reaction that started in the Archaean era and kept going. In that time it has consumed tonnes and tonnes of nitrogen, water, methane, phosphate, etc. The same things we're consuming now. Is growth really connected to the ego?

A BMW X5 is connected to the ego.

big eddie · 07-Oct-11, 05:08pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by claude glass

A BMW X5 is connected to the arsehole.

fyp

claude glass · 07-Oct-11, 05:24pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by big eddie

fyp

dem growth bones

Kid A · 07-Oct-11, 05:41pm

Incommensurable vocabularies are at war again.

Whether or not the behavior of the current epoch can be explained ('best') in (purely) psychical terms is redundant. It's a separate discourse/vocabulary/conceptual scheme.
People like Gravy may be off-put when other people throw words like 'ego' around to explain certain behaviours etc., but once you move past a correspondence theory of nature/reality it shouldn't matter whether they designate something real, unreal, or how rigorous and 'truthful' they are, what matters is how useful they are.

Just clarifying my own thoughts out loud here, don't mind me.

DJ Squiggle · 07-Oct-11, 05:53pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by DJ Squiggle

Personally I feel that what you are encouraging leads to a sense of place in this world and ameliorates loneliness but others are addicted to thrills that can distract them instead. That is why there is a fetish with growth. Relative stability is not exciting.

Quote:

Originally Posted by claude glass

No I'm saying something pretty much the opposite of that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DJ Squiggle

Care to elaborate?

Quote:

Originally Posted by claude glass

We have no special place in the world and it's time we started acting like that. Only then will we still have a place in the world.

AFAIK then we are still saying the same thing.

gravyishot · 07-Oct-11, 06:22pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by claude glass

A BMW X5 is connected to the ego.

Yeah, but what does that have to do with growth?

I think it's misleading to conflate the selfishness of modernity with ecological/Malthusian catastrophes. Imagine a world without readily available status symbols. If everyone instead drove a Tata, or didn't drive at all, would that change a thing? We'd probably all end up having more children. In fact, in Malthus's time basic needs were barely met, but he still envisioned a situation similar to what we are likely facing now.

Koalas have no status symbols and can eat themselves to death within a closed environment. It is the nature of life to consume and grow.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kid A

People like Gravy may be off-put when other people throw words like 'ego' around to explain certain behaviours etc.

It's one of those words/phrases that appears way too often.

DJ Squiggle · 07-Oct-11, 06:26pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by gravyishot

I would be more worried if I was certain.

Quote:

Originally Posted by twistedbydesign

More worried about what?

Quote:

Originally Posted by gravyishot

I don't know.

http://sixcentpress.files.wordpress....pg?w=460&h=447
http://www.flickr.com/photos/52436205@N05/4833789697/

claude glass · 07-Oct-11, 06:43pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by DJ Squiggle

AFAIK then we are still saying the same thing.

I'm talking about a sense of no-place

DJ Squiggle · 07-Oct-11, 06:53pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by claude glass

I'm talking about a sense of no-place

We still might be agreeing. When I talk about a sense of place "in this world" I mean "in existence". Not on this planet necessarily. I am comfortable with my existence (independent of a gODD) as a manifestation of mathematical equations, as a cell within Gaia, or (at the other end of the scale) as scaffolding for microbial life (90% of our cells are bacteria). I am also comfortable with my afterlife as worm food, or worm shit, or worm farts, or as trace elements, or energy... all contribute to my sense of belonging. Being comfortable with that has helped me overcome my growth fetish and overcome my anthropcentric world view.

Kid A · 07-Oct-11, 07:14pm

Only peasants become worm shit. I'm going to become coal atoms and subsequently a diamond on some royal's finger, cementing my status in the afterlife.

DJ Squiggle · 07-Oct-11, 07:41pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kid A

Only peasants become worm shit. I'm going to become coal atoms and subsequently a diamond on some royal's finger.

In case you don't know - you can pay to be turned into a diamond, prices starting from $2,500. "Miniaturisation Fetish" anyone?

Rupert Murdoch's wife certainly aint "royalty" (check out how she scored her greencard). Marilyn Monroe sang about it and yet Arthur Miller still deluded himself... "great mind": my arse. What is the corollary term for "slut" that applies to the deluded male that falls for it? (I'm not criticising the couples where the contract is understood by both parties... good luck to them).

DJ Squiggle · 07-Oct-11, 07:59pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by gravyishot

I meant DNA as it was forged billions of years ago. It's a chemical reaction that started in the Archaean era and kept going. In that time it has consumed tonnes and tonnes of nitrogen, water, methane, phosphate, etc. The same things we're consuming now. Is growth really connected to the ego?

You can have growth of the mind and of the human body of knowledge/technology without it necessarily being expressed either in shiny toys or pooing babies.

The DNA of our ancestors would have contributed as many of the resources you list as it consumed (if not for the population growth and even that imbalance is temporary). Although matter cannot be created nor destroyed, burning fossil fuels mercillesly does disrespect the meme of organic life.

I'm attached to that meme I admit, and it is folly in the grand scheme of things but hanging out with others sharing that attachment is rewarding (in some hard-wired/coded way).

claude glass · 07-Oct-11, 08:05pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by DJ Squiggle

We still might be agreeing.

Yes I think we might be

Kid A +	06-Oct-11, 06:51pm #201 Private Language
Joined Apr '07 Times thanked < 172 Posts 4,779	Quote: Originally Posted by Griggle Godwin's again. We're on a roll in here lately. Actually I've been reading a lot of stuff to do with quantum mechanics and the brain lately like David Bohm's Thought as a System. His concept of thought not being simply a item inside each of our heads but rather something shared by all creatures/objects/stuff on the planet/galaxy/universe making a massive system would suggest (if provable) that we could indeed predict future behaviour of smaller subsets of the entire system so long as you had an understanding of all the other elements of the system. Are you are of the same school of thought as David Chalmers in his paper (for you Geezah) Facing Up To The Problem Of Consciousness: Are you arguing in favour of his position that there is in fact a Hard Problem of Consciousness and that even if we understand all the physical elements of the brain? Essentially as I understand it his argument is that we do in fact have souls and as such we will never be able quantify human thought through physical sciences. PS Claude I'm just trying to start up a debate. It's been quiet in CAAP lately. If there is anywhere this discussion doesn't need to go it's towards all things qualia and the hard problem of consciousness. That's just what Hitler would want. From my (semi-surface) understand though, Claude's position does not rely on a 'Chalmerian' philosophy of mind. But this is not my place, so I'll shut up. Last edited by Kid A: 06-Oct-11 at 07:11pm
	Be the first<like Quote

DJ Squiggle +	06-Oct-11, 07:16pm #202 intolerance will not be tolerated
Joined Feb '08 Times thanked < 2 Posts 164	Quote: Originally Posted by claude glass you might find this article interesting http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...-tansley-smuts Quote: Emily said: "You're not a completely peaceful organisation." Lucy came back with the killer line: "I don't think anyone can make an assessment of that, other than the people involved in the actions themselves." I think this is too often simply used as a copout by hippies. It is the same attitude that produces indignation when a generalisation is used (even one that is true, ie 51% of observations support it). OTOH Politicians avoid answering questions all the time. Sorry, I know I am a bit off-topic.
	Be the first<like Quote

DJ Squiggle +	06-Oct-11, 07:32pm #203 intolerance will not be tolerated
Joined Feb '08 Times thanked < 2 Posts 164	Quote: Originally Posted by claude glass if you were looking for predictors of the Arab spring you could have found them: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-14841018 "The analysis was carried out retrospectively". Lame. They also could have shown more than one (retrospective) graph. And the geo-analysis map inexplicably shows lines not locations.
	Be the first<like Quote

DJ Squiggle +	06-Oct-11, 07:55pm #204 intolerance will not be tolerated
Joined Feb '08 Times thanked < 2 Posts 164	Quote: Originally Posted by horst Squiggle, to be honest I'm glad they didn't overhype the pretty pictures aspect in 'the secret life of chaos' because I think it really detracts from the central idea of self-organization. It did give me insights (in the ways you describe, so thanks for the URL) but it did hype the pretty pictures (overhype? superoverhype? hypersuperoverhype?). I was suggesting there could have been more illustration rather than pretty pictures. Another example: Turing's matrix of numbers where he pencilled in cow-like dappled regions... it could have been illustrated with CGI. It was the production team's artistic values winning out over science. It was not educating the general public about science. It propagated mystique which NeWagers will then either dismiss or else hijack to justify beliefs in magic. OTOH I would acknowledge that if the doco got too technical it may have scared general viewers off; the producers may have deliberately chosen instead to inspire people. The eternal trade-off. I just think there was room for more science without compromising "easy-viewing". David Attenborough productions manage it well. Last edited by DJ Squiggle: 06-Oct-11 at 08:02pm
	Be the first<like Quote

claude glass +	06-Oct-11, 08:27pm #205 Registered User
Joined Jun '10 Times thanked < 118 Posts 1,471	griggle - I'm really coming from the point of view that if we really want to act in our best interests we should be less anthropocentric.
	Be the first<like Quote

inthemix.com.au: australian dance music | news | reviews | photos | forums | chat | what's on

View AllcloseChatterbox

View AllcloseYour Feed

closeMy Menu

closeStatus

Current Affairs and Politics

The Growth Fetish

Quick Reply

Posting Rules