The Devil is determinism and God is free will and you are both.

[birdup.snaildown]

How does randomness allow for free will?

Randomness in a deterministic model of the universe might instead allow for multiple branching universes?

I still see this as determinism.

We have no control over randomness.

 

[Buzz Lightbeer]

That is indeed a great question, because randomness doesn't explain the immense complexity of what we perceive as 'free will', but maybe it's just not us fully understanding.
I only laid the opposite connection, no randomness => universe is deterministic.
But even that only counts when we assume that all life is essentially just a composition of molecules, which may be kinda strong... Who knows!

I don't know about infinite parallel universes, when counting that it probably becomes more of a matter of definition, because it's not determined which 'universe' you end up in. Ultimately it doesn't matter, but it's fun to think about.

 

[birdup.snaildown]

If there are infinite multiple universes you would exists in many of them simultaneously. Determinism might ensure that all possibilities play out. Say each big bang is different. In that first moment, all possibilities occur. Over billions of years even the slightest difference results in a different you. We happen to be in the universe we are in (and we happen to be who we are) because of billions of years of cause and effect.

I've never understood how free will fits into quantum theory and/or how it would be possible to traverse universes by making decisions.

The whole Schrodinger's cat thing (and the split whatever experiment, I can't think of the name) suggest there might be multiple universes but they don't seem to imply free will...? Although as you said quantum theory is very difficult to understand.

I'm not sure I believe the multiverse is infinite. I believe in infinity but there doesn't need to be infinite concurrent branching universes for infinity to exist. If time is infinite, there can be a finite number of branches occuring at any moment and there will still be infinite branches.

 

[Buzz Lightbeer]

But we only (seemingly) experience one brother, so if we end up in one universe based on whatever choices we (and the whole universe) make, we perceive that action as non-deterministic, and in principle it is, because it wasn't pre-determined.
If it would play out somewhere else, that doesn't matter because it never falls into the realms of our perception. The more I think about it, the more of a non-problem it is anyway.

 

[birdup.snaildown]

Aren't you assuming a linear deterministic model?
I don't see why there can't be non-linear / branching determinism.

There might be multiple versions of us.
This version of us only experiences one but perhaps this version (of us) was predetermined to experience this universe?

What I don't get is why assume that decision making plays a part in the branches?

If every possibility will play out after the big bang(s), that doesn't imply that we can travel from one possibility to another does it?

Not sure what I'm missing here.

The more I think about it, the more of a non-problem it is anyway.

Agreed. Whether or not free will exists is totally irrelevant, but the illusion of free will (whether or not you believe in it) can be maddening in either direction... Like you said, it's fun to think about anyway.

 

[Buzz Lightbeer]

Okay I think I understand what you're trying to say. Honestly, and not to intentionally disagree with you, I think it's a little far out there no? We would like assume there is true randomness but everything plays out anyway, so you have infinite timelines, and somehow you would always experience a reality based on pre-determinization. But this introduces like a whole consciousness/life centric view to the universe which I don't like at all, since the randomness manifests itself everywhere, not only in living beings. It would be like every living thing ever was given like a very complex 'seed' on which his reality at every decision point (and after infinite decision points already) is decided, I can't agree sadly..

 

[ovenbakedskittles]

I think you are perhaps focusing too much on alternatives to science in the same way that people focus too much on science. I think there needs to be a balance, rather than saying it is black and white and we need one or the other.

At the end of the day, you are typing on a computer. What efforts have you made to stop using fossil fuels? Do you have solar panels on the roof of your house? If you don't have solar panels, do you at least drive an electric car?

I know a lot of people who insist we don't need science, but they continue to consume mass-produced products like the rest of us... and they use mobile phones and computers...

Life without science is not something I want. Solar panels and electric cars come from science. Like I said, the solution to scientific problems is scientific. Unless you want to live like an Amish person. Hand washing clothes is hard. Churning butter and grinding grain sucks. Honestly I've never done any of these things, but I'm pretty sure that sort of lifestyle is not for me. Have you tried to live without science?

Over the past couple of years, I've gotten into growing my own fruits and vegetables which I find quite rewarding... but even that requires science to do properly. Science isn't all modern technology. Over tens of thousands of years, through trial and error, we worked out how to cultivate food. This is science. I suspect you are talking about modern science when you say science?

The modern world is good and bad. Don't throw out the baby with the bath water... Speaking of babies, I don't know many people who chose to bypass medical science when it comes to birth. I have one friend who had her second child in her house with no medical staff present. She is what I would call a hardcore hippy. Her decisions to "go natural" stressed out everyone in her family, but at the end of the day her baby is safe. She does, however, feed her family a strict vegan only diet. Science can prove that this sort of diet can be problematic, but (like you) she doesn't subscribe to science so she makes no effort to ensure that her family consumes adequate levels of B12 and omega-3 fatty acids.



You agree there should be a balance. Right?



There are so many situations that require science. It seems like what you're saying is you would receive chemotherapy to treat cancer and that you will continue to live an unnatural life and consume the wrong things that might contribute to cancer. Val Kilmer (an actor) recently beat throat cancer caused by smoking tobacco. Initially he said he wanted to beat it naturally. His family convinced him to do radiation therapy and have surgery. He is now cancer free, but he doesn't attribute his success in that department to medical science. Instead, he believes that he beat it with prayer. This (I think) is a dangerous thing to promote. I'm not saying you are promoting it. It sounds like if you did the same thing you would assume that science helped you more than prayer?



You are being inconsistent with broad statements like this. If science is not necessary, why not stop using it?

...

There are two other things I'd like to respond to. I'll start with "the ancients".

There have definitely been enlightened periods of history and I wouldn't describe the modern western world as particularly enlightened when it comes to spirituality. It is sad that people hate God and religion so much... but, widespread religion didn't always exist and primitive life wasn't all the great. Ignoring illuminated periods like Ancient Greece, most of history has been a nightmare. I don't think people were ignorant, but life was hard without science. Just look at historical infanticide rates. It wasn't uncommon for 50% of children to be killed upon birth because their lives couldn't be sustained. There were different methods for this. In the Inuit world, they would stuff infants mouths with leaves (so they couldn't hear them scream) and leave them to freeze to death in the tundra. Sometimes they would throw them into the ocean.



I don't know who "they" are? You mentioned Egypt which was one of the most technologically advanced civilizations in history.

You're being very selective, I think... and what you're describing (with astronomical patterns) is science isn't it?



Race relations have improved in the modern world. Slavery was commonplace throughout most of history.

War has also improved, hasn't it?



There is some truth to this. There is some truth to most of what you've said throughout this thread. But I think you might underestimate how much the modern world knows in the same way that people underestimate how much the ancients knew.

I would never suggest that "they" were dim-witted animals, but I'd much rather live in this century than any other century.

People have a tendency to romanticize ancient/primitive cultures. Native American culture (for example) is spiritual but it wasn't peaceful. I'd much rather live a modern Western existence than live in a Native American tribe pre-colonization, especially if I happened to be a woman or a homosexual.

...

Finally, politics.



Again, very broad statements. In order for politics to not be necessary, we'd either have to scrap the idea of government or we'd all have to agree with each other. Without science and politics, the western world wouldn't be able to intervene charitably in other countries. Since boats and planes are created through science, we wouldn't be aware of the suffering in Africa or human rights violations in Syria. The only solution to mass starvation and overpopulation is science. This unavoidably involves politics.

I'd just like to point out again that I agree with many of the things you've said. I am making efforts to get myself off the grid and produce my own food. I'm also planning to move out to the country in the next couple of years and live a simpler life that is less focused on technology. We spend too much time on the internet. We spend too much time looking at screens. But I don't want to detach completely.

It's all about finding the right balance.

We are in a situation now to where we have to accept and utilize the contributions of advanced technological science in order to survive. We weren’t taught any other way to live. Parents give 5 year old children their own iPhones for their birthdays and then get mad at them when they start using it too much or become addicted to them.

These things are an excessive disturbance upon society and create more problems than solutions. They might make it seem like it’s helping but yet there’s an underlying detrimental effect that shows that it’s not a natural way to live and tips the scale over a little more to dehumanization and addiction patterns and too much dependence on machines and devaluing the potentials of the human mind and intuition.

Either way the prospect of inventing things that you think my help the environment is insignificant to realizing the powers of our minds and the restitution of emotional states that were damaged because of trauma. If you let the trauma linger then not very many people are gonna want to go about those steps to help the environment and buy electric cars and stuff like that. And then scientists and environmentalists will complain that there is just not enough people doing it. The same way that doctors say that people just don’t want to eat healthy foods or take their medication and they shrug their shoulders and act like there’s nothing they can do about it because it’s outside of their field of study.

We need to put the emotional and spiritual first is what I’m saying. Then things will fall into place and we will be willing to do all the things that different factions society is angry at people for not doing. That’s why I say politics is useless as well but yet we are forced into a situation where we have to accept that as our reality in order to integrate it later on. So you are right that we need balance. But the problem is that the side that is imbalanced in the technological and the scientific sense is the side that have been put in places of power and authority so that they have more opportunities to influence the public with their secular outlooks and trying to rationalize god and spirituality and rendering it useless and mythological and superstitious and act like it’s only something that dumb people believe.

Now the time is coming where people will start to be aware of that and that’s why there is this pushback of alternative solutions that scientists are scared of and think is dangerous for society. When they are the ones who created the conditions for these pushbacks themselves! Just like what you said about science causing cancer and global warming. Science is not as great as you think and you seem to have some of that fear that mainstream academics have by saying that what Val Kilmer said is dangerous. Scientists and doctors become arrogant with their academic knowledge and impose that on society and that’s why people like Val Kilmer say things like that. The resistance on the scientists side just makes the other side stronger and you will have more people saying how they were saved by prayer. Not saying either one is right or wrong here but you have to be aware of the dichotomy and the conflict to understand why certain individuals choose to resist scientific aid entirely.

Me on the other hand, I feel that if I was in a life or death situation and my family and the doctors are telling me I should get treatment then I would be forced into a situation where I would have to accept that help because then I would be giving into fear and resistance towards the other side and make them stronger. However that doesn’t negate the fact that the very conditions of the scenario are actually caused by a disempowered society that doesn’t understand god and doesn’t understand emotions. And the scientific community is contributing in that disempowering process.

Even if I were to be healed by the advanced scientific methods the emotional source of the illness will still remain and affect my life in some other way that might be more severe to the point where even the doctors machines won’t help and scientific observation and experimentation and conjecture won’t help.

And we live in a society where if you don’t accept medical help then people think you’re crazy or something. But the family of that hippy lady is stuck in a state of disempowerment to where they feel like they have to abide by the standards of the scientific medical community because they feel like there is no other way. And that idea is propagated by the scientific community to cause more fear to the public so that they have to rely on science to alleviate that fear or insecurity. But like you said. The baby came out fine so their fear was invalid and they weren’t operating under logic.

And yes I’m mainly talking about the modern western world when I mention science and I am aware that the methods that the ancients used is technically considered science and technically considered technological but like you said, there needs to be balance and the ancients provided a perfect example for that. It’s the modern western world that fell into the trap of excessively relying more and more on advancing technology to the point where human minds are gonna be considered useless and it will be machines that rule the planet instead. The more we rely on machines the more we turn off our minds. That’s not balance and our society is built on that and heading towards that reality. It’s not a good thing like they are trying to make it seem like. They try to make us feel like human capabilities are worthless and that machines are the future and that machines are far more superior in figuring out things and that machines are what’s gonna fix society but they are worshipping technology like a god the same way Christians worship god himself. Both of them have their goods and bads but the science community is what’s in power right now and we are forced to accept it even though they are leaning more towards a deterministic society that is trying to eradicate our free will and disconnect us from the spiritual.

And I used the wrong term regarding race. I meant racism and racial tensions between certain groups especially in America. Tensions are rising instead of getting better. There’s little attempts to try and satisfy the other groups but yet the underlying emotional problems prevents them from reaching any true common ground to where both sides are happy. Anyone who disagrees with that is living under a facade and given the illusion that most people are tolerant and non discriminatory. Most people are unaware of their racism because they suppress the aspects of themselves that they don’t want to be associated with. But the side that’s being discriminated against has so much anger and frustration with the current system that they fight it like it’s an actual physical problem. The more they fight the more each side gets stronger.

The only way to fix these problems is through turning on our minds and realizing our power and acknowledging the immense power of the spiritual nature of the universe. We have had science for generations and they have not really helped much as far as alleviating trauma and unresolved emotional issues and alleviating conflict and tensions and war efforts within society and politics which is what really matters. It does the opposite of that and provides atomic bombs that can kill and harm a devastating amount of people in a very short amount of time. That is the society we live in. There is no balance there. There is no logic there. Only fear and insecurity and pride and unresolved traumas from childhood and perpetual cycles of trauma that inject themselves into positions of power in society and influence the masses to follow down the same road they are going down. These people have no real appreciation or acknowledgment for the power of what we call god and the Devine. They reject it and cringe at the mention of it and get loads of people to do the same thing.

People can follow science if they want to but eventually they will have to realize that they are indulging in a false sense of security and a false sense of reality that can convince you that it is the real reality very easily and strategically and appeal to your need to be a sane rational person who follows logic and intellect more so than the emotions. There is other forces and energies that we are not aware of that go right under the nose of scientists and influences and their resistance to spiritual phenomena and propositions of spiritual objectivity makes those forces and energies stronger and they find themselves having conflicts with certain group such such as religion and spiritual teachers and alternative care takers and doctors. It is just a reflection of their own subconscious and their own fears and they have to transcend that inner turmoil in order for the conflict to resolve itself.

 

[birdup.snaildown]

the randomness manifests itself everywhere, not only in living beings... decision point

Again, I'm not sure why we are calling them "decision points" particularly when you note that there is "true randomness" in everything including non-sentient objects that are presumably incapable of decision making? Unless you think cells and grains of sand and drops of water are making decisions, the branching can't be a result of sentience. Right?

I don't believe in free will because I've never heard a compelling argument for it and decisions are demonstrably influenced by environment, but I don't steadfastly disbelieve in decision making either.

It would be like every living thing ever was given like a very complex 'seed' on which his reality at every decision point (and after infinite decision points already) is decided, I can't agree sadly..

I don't necessarily believe in a multi-verse with infinite variations of myself. I'm not sure I even really believe in multiple versions of myself. I think maybe people like to think of their decisions creating universes and themselves being infinite because of ego. Given the butterfly effect, any slight variation at the time of the big bang would cause massive variation billions of years later. Whenever I see the multi-verse represented in science fiction, there are potential realities that don't make sense. There doesn't need to be infinite versions of me in order for there to be infinite multiverses.

Zero point nine recurring repeats the number 9 infinitely. There doesn't need to be the number 8 for infinity to exist.

0.9 recurring is in some ways infinite, but it also equals one.

We are in a situation now to where we have to accept and utilize the contributions of advanced technological science in order to survive.

I don't think that's true. What about Amish people? If you really wanted to shed technology, you could start to detach. I don't think people want to detach completely from modern technology, like the Amish. I certainly don't want to. Do you?

Either way the prospect of inventing things that you think my help the environment is insignificant to realizing the powers of our minds and the restitution of emotional states that were damaged because of trauma. If you let the trauma linger then not very many people are gonna want to go about those steps to help the environment and buy electric cars and stuff like that.

They're two different things, though. The power of our minds isn't enough to reverse climate change, particularly when none of us (you included) are willing to let go of the things that are damaging the environment in the first place... Like I said, electric cars are technological. This is a scientific solution to a scientific problem.

Now the time is coming where people will start to be aware of that and that’s why there is this pushback of alternative solutions that scientists are scared of and think is dangerous for society. When they are the ones who created the conditions for these pushbacks themselves! Just like what you said about science causing cancer and global warming. Science is not as great as you think and you seem to have some of that fear that mainstream academics have by saying that what Val Kilmer said is dangerous. Scientists and doctors become arrogant with their academic knowledge and impose that on society and that’s why people like Val Kilmer say things like that. The resistance on the scientists side just makes the other side stronger and you will have more people saying how they were saved by prayer. Not saying either one is right or wrong here but you have to be aware of the dichotomy and the conflict to understand why certain individuals choose to resist scientific aid entirely.

I don't have any fear. I didn't say what Kilmer said was dangerous. I don't care if more people chose not to treat themselves medically and die from cancer because the world is over-populated and I don't believe in sustaining an over-populated planet because we can't bear to let anyone die. It would be quite easy to prove that prayer doesn't cure cancer. All you'd have to do is compare the death rates between a fundamental religious group with a group whose faith lies in medical science. I'm certain the latter would be more successful in beating cancer, because (while I agree that spirituality and empowerment is important) I don't believe that it can magically cure everything. If you have HIV and you pray instead of taking anti-virals, you're probably not going to last very long.

Me on the other hand, I feel that if I was in a life or death situation and my family and the doctors are telling me I should get treatment then I would be forced into a situation where I would have to accept that help

That's the second time now you've said that you can't help but do as the Romans do. It seems like a bit of a weak excuse to me? If you truly believe that medical science is not the solution to cancer, go down another route... I don't believe that you truly believe prayer cures cancer and I don't believe that Val Kilmer truly believes this either... I also don't believe that you truly desire a life without science and technology.

But like you said. The baby came out fine so their fear was invalid and they weren’t operating under logic.

With all due respect, you don't appear to be operating under logic? I don't mean any offense but what you're saying essentially is if you play Russian roulette and don't blow your brains out, your fear of bullets before pulling the trigger was irrational?

My friend was taking a risk birthing her child without medical experts on hand. The fact that she gambled and won doesn't imply anything about the odds. If you sit down at a roulette table and put a million dollars down on 27 red, you might win but winning doesn't change the odds.

And yes I’m mainly talking about the modern western world when I mention science and I am aware that the methods that the ancients used is technically considered science and technically considered technological but like you said, there needs to be balance and the ancients provided a perfect example for that. It’s the modern western world that fell into the trap of excessively relying more and more on advancing technology to the point where human minds are gonna be considered useless and it will be machines that rule the planet instead. The more we rely on machines the more we turn off our minds. That’s not balance and our society is built on that and heading towards that reality. It’s not a good thing like they are trying to make it seem like.

I'm not sure you can sensibly divide the world into western/other when it comes to technology. Asia is pretty technological. Almost the entire world is. Very few people, when given the opportunity, chose to live in a non-technological world. For example, there is nothing stopping Aboriginal Australians living the way they used to live before the British arrived.

As for "the ancients", you're talking about very particular periods of history. Right?

And I used the wrong term regarding race. I meant racism and racial tensions between certain groups especially in America. Tensions are rising instead of getting better. There’s little attempts to try and satisfy the other groups but yet the underlying emotional problems prevents them from reaching any true common ground to where both sides are happy. Anyone who disagrees with that is living under a facade and given the illusion that most people are tolerant and non discriminatory. Most people are unaware of their racism because they suppress the aspects of themselves that they don’t want to be associated with. But the side that’s being discriminated against has so much anger and frustration with the current system that they fight it like it’s an actual physical problem. The more they fight the more each side gets stronger.

Things are getting worse and better. Movements like BLM falsely push the narrative that things are getting worse. I agree with you that the more we fight, the more we divide ourselves. But "the side that's getting discriminated against" in the US (minorities) surely have more rights and are treated better by the general public than they were a couple of centuries ago. I don't know how you could possibly argue otherwise.

You seem to have a bit of a depressive, self-hating perspective of modern man. It is not a perspective I share with you. If I was African American I'd rather live in this decade than any other decade. Everything is getting better all the time.

The only way to fix these problems is through turning on our minds and realizing our power and acknowledging the immense power of the spiritual nature of the universe. We have had science for generations and they have not really helped much as far as alleviating trauma and unresolved emotional issues and alleviating conflict and tensions and war efforts within society and politics which is what really matters. It does the opposite of that and provides atomic bombs that can kill and harm a devastating amount of people in a very short amount of time.

Wars don't last as long as they used to and they kill a much smaller percentage of the population these days. You said you were mainly talking about the Western world before. We haven't had a major war in the western world for decades. Compare that with history when everyone was slaughtering each other constantly.

If we were killing ourselves in record numbers, we wouldn't be massively over-populated.

Politics and technology have been instrumental in our enlightenment. We are too engrossed in both, definitely, and we neglect our spiritual side. But you keep saying that everything is fixed by empowerment and spirituality. You said you agree we need a balance but (at the same time) you seem to oscillate between balance and putting everything on 27 red.

There either needs to be a balance or there doesn't.

You either want to live without technology or you don't.

I'm still not sure where you stand.

People can follow science if they want to

Can't we do both?
Do we need to choose?

 

[Buzz Lightbeer]

Again, I'm not sure why we are calling them "decision points" particularly when you note that there is "true randomness" in everything including non-sentient objects that are presumably incapable of decision making? Unless you think cells and grains of sand and drops of water are making decisions, the branching can't be a result of sentience. Right?

I '''''claim''''' that consciousness and true free will is a combination of universe causality + immense conscious complexity arising out of the fact that true randomness exists. How, I don't know, I remember someone telling me something similar, and that theories like it exist. Whether or not randomness on a quantum level is real, that I don't know of course, but if it is, it's all over the universe. Actually, I'm not claiming anything, I was just introducing randomness in the equation because to me it seems important in any discussion about determinism, nevermind the devil.

I don't know man, I just think that what you were saying (all timelines get played out, and we are pre-destined to perceive one of them by some strange laws) is just some random theory with seemingly many flaws in it's logic, but of course I can't disprove anything, that's the whole point. I call 'em decision points, as in branching points btw, points where something 'random' (probably on a quantum level) happens. I'm just going along with the branching thing you know, I think it's possible but not pre-determined. Not that it makes much sense to me either way.
Slippery territory for me, my physics knowledge is non-existent so it'll be hard to bs my way of this

 

[birdup.snaildown]

Fair enough. Yeah of course it is just some random theory and I'm sure it's (very) flawed. I don't believe in it. Nobody knows how reality works or whether or not free will exists. I'm just speculating. At the end of the day, we're both quantum noobs comparing half-baked theories on a drug forum. I still don't understand any argument against determinism, but it's entirely possible the universe isn't deterministic at all. Maybe this is all a dream.

I understand what you mean by decision points now, but I still don't get why randomness and determinism are mutually exclusive.

How Randomness Can Arise From Determinism | Quanta Magazine

Playing with a simple bean machine illustrates how deterministic laws can produce probabilistic, random-seeming behavior.

www.quantamagazine.org

If you run a random number generator an infinite number of times, you will produce all possible outcomes. This is what I mean by branching / non-linear determinism.

 

[Buzz Lightbeer]

Yes I agree
Good article btw! But they don't assume true randomness, only the perception of events that is random, so not too relevant in the discussion
I used 'true randomness' a lot throughout this, I don't think I can give a good definition, but I think it's intuitive enough.

 

[birdup.snaildown]

I understand what you mean by true randomness, but I am (regardless) predetermined to blindly insist that I disagree!

 

[ovenbakedskittles]

Again, I'm not sure why we are calling them "decision points" particularly when you note that there is "true randomness" in everything including non-sentient objects that are presumably incapable of decision making? Unless you think cells and grains of sand and drops of water are making decisions, the branching can't be a result of sentience. Right?

I don't believe in free will because I've never heard a compelling argument for it and decisions are demonstrably influenced by environment, but I don't steadfastly disbelieve in decision making either.




I don't necessarily believe in a multi-verse with infinite variations of myself. I'm not sure I even really believe in multiple versions of myself. I think maybe people like to think of their decisions creating universes and themselves being infinite because of ego. Given the butterfly effect, any slight variation at the time of the big bang would cause massive variation billions of years later. Whenever I see the multi-verse represented in science fiction, there are potential realities that don't make sense. There doesn't need to be infinite versions of me in order for there to be infinite multiverses.

Zero point nine recurring repeats the number 9 infinitely. There doesn't need to be the number 8 for infinity to exist.

0.9 recurring is in some ways infinite, but it also equals one.



I don't think that's true. What about Amish people? If you really wanted to shed technology, you could start to detach. I don't think people want to detach completely from modern technology, like the Amish. I certainly don't want to. Do you?



They're two different things, though. The power of our minds isn't enough to reverse climate change, particularly when none of us (you included) are willing to let go of the things that are damaging the environment in the first place... Like I said, electric cars are technological. This is a scientific solution to a scientific problem.



I don't have any fear. I didn't say what Kilmer said was dangerous. I don't care if more people chose not to treat themselves medically and die from cancer because the world is over-populated and I don't believe in sustaining an over-populated planet because we can't bear to let anyone die. It would be quite easy to prove that prayer doesn't cure cancer. All you'd have to do is compare the death rates between a fundamental religious group with a group whose faith lies in medical science. I'm certain the latter would be more successful in beating cancer, because (while I agree that spirituality and empowerment is important) I don't believe that it can magically cure everything. If you have HIV and you pray instead of taking anti-virals, you're probably not going to last very long.



That's the second time now you've said that you can't help but do as the Romans do. It seems like a bit of a weak excuse to me? If you truly believe that medical science is not the solution to cancer, go down another route... I don't believe that you truly believe prayer cures cancer and I don't believe that Val Kilmer truly believes this either... I also don't believe that you truly desire a life without science and technology.



With all due respect, you don't appear to be operating under logic? I don't mean any offense but what you're saying essentially is if you play Russian roulette and don't blow your brains out, your fear of bullets before pulling the trigger was irrational?

My friend was taking a risk birthing her child without medical experts on hand. The fact that she gambled and won doesn't imply anything about the odds. If you sit down at a roulette table and put a million dollars down on 27 red, you might win but winning doesn't change the odds.



I'm not sure you can sensibly divide the world into western/other when it comes to technology. Asia is pretty technological. Almost the entire world is. Very few people, when given the opportunity, chose to live in a non-technological world. For example, there is nothing stopping Aboriginal Australians living the way they used to live before the British arrived.

As for "the ancients", you're talking about very particular periods of history. Right?



Things are getting worse and better. Movements like BLM falsely push the narrative that things are getting worse. I agree with you that the more we fight, the more we divide ourselves. But "the side that's getting discriminated against" in the US (minorities) surely have more rights and are treated better by the general public than they were a couple of centuries ago. I don't know how you could possibly argue otherwise.

You seem to have a bit of a depressive, self-hating perspective of modern man. It is not a perspective I share with you. If I was African American I'd rather live in this decade than any other decade. Everything is getting better all the time.



Wars don't last as long as they used to and they kill a much smaller percentage of the population these days. You said you were mainly talking about the Western world before. We haven't had a major war in the western world for decades. Compare that with history when everyone was slaughtering each other constantly.

If we were killing ourselves in record numbers, we wouldn't be massively over-populated.

Politics and technology have been instrumental in our enlightenment. We are too engrossed in both, definitely, and we neglect our spiritual side. But you keep saying that everything is fixed by empowerment and spirituality. You said you agree we need a balance but (at the same time) you seem to oscillate between balance and putting everything on 27 red.

There either needs to be a balance or there doesn't.

You either want to live without technology or you don't.

I'm still not sure where you stand.



Can't we do both?
Do we need to choose?

The Amish are un-enlightened due to their religious beliefs and traditions. Not saying they are dumb or anything. Certain groups have their reasons for doing things.

It’s not just the simple act of detaching ourselves from technology that is gonna save us. I apologize if I made it seem like that’s what I was proposing. I am saying we are in a situation where most people in general are socialized into abiding by the standards and regulations that were put in place by modern structures and institutions that mainly operate under scientific and technological protocol. Therefore they don’t have any frame of reference or model for any alternative ways of living that are more natural and organic.

The only reason why science and technology as we know it today is so prominent in society is because there were certain ideologies that were perpetuated to fit a particular agenda or biased point of view and there were certain figures that rose to power and reverence to distribute those ideologies to the public. It is not because it is the best solution for maintaining a healthy and intelligent society.

Sure there are good things about modern technology that I really enjoy and that I’m really attached to but that doesn’t mean that those things are particularly healthy or the most beneficial way to go about progressing society. I don’t have to disengage myself from technology to be aware of its incompetence and it’s inability to resolve emotional issues. I don’t feel the need to do that. I was born into a society that didn’t teach any other way of living so now I have to empower my mind so that I won’t feel the need to attach myself to these frivolous things. It will just happen naturally. This idea that we have some type of obligation to detach ourselves from things that hurt us stems from religion.

And you think that metaphysical energies are separate from scientific advancements and solutions because you separate them in your mind. You don’t realize that the spiritual is actually what created the physical in the first place. Or maybe you do but are not aware of it enough to where you are willing to implement that concept into your life. Our minds, thoughts and beliefs is actually what creates the reality in front of us. Anything that science creates ultimately stems from this fundamental aspect of reality and consciousness. So if we were to realize that fundamental aspect as a society and become aware of its profound potentials, we could actually manifest and create more positive experiences on a societal level. On a greater scale. Beyond a degree that we ever could have imagined.

But the problem is that if you keep telling yourself that the power of our minds isn’t enough to do this or that then that will be your reality and you will fulfill that belief and reinforce that in your mind and you won’t achieve anything other than what you are willing to believe. And that’s exactly what scientists get you to believe. That things are just too big for your mind and that’s how they disempower and dehumanize you and devalue your potential as a human being.

You don’t have faith in yourself or in your own mind to go about the process of exercising your mind to that extent to where you can create phenomenal changes in your society. They want you to believe that they are the only ones who can do that.

And none of us are willing to let go of the things that are damaging the environment because their unresolved traumas are weighing them down and they are not able to think clearly or become motivated enough to do so. That is why I say it is more important to figure out and resolve the cause of our resistant behaviors rather than fixating on physical emblems or concepts or external solutions that seem good on paper but will only lead to dead ends once we are faced with a more severe societal problem.

It is more effective to find the source of why we are so resistant to change instead of suppressing it and going against the grain and pretending like it’s not there. Once we do that we will just naturally feel like doing good things like helping the environment and we will do so with greater motivation and diligence and determination. And our minds will be so clear that we will be able to think of better solutions at a much faster rate and will benefit everyone and provide compromises for everyone’s opinion. Everything will be more easier and the physical reality will become much more malleable and easier to influence and easier to navigate across and it will start to look less solid and dense and fixed the way see it now. The only reason why reality looks like that now is because our beliefs are solid and dense and fixed so consequently our reality has to follow suit.

That is how the mind creates reality and the metaphysical creates the physical. That is how we will be able to change our circumstances no matter how big or how far away or how dire they might seem to us. Not through little physical jumps. It is not impossible. You just do not have enough faith in yourself or in the powers of your own mind as well as the powers of the universe and it’s magical quality that we have turned ourselves off to. You have sold your faith away to physical things and concepts and outlooks and authority and external efforts. Even if you might have some sort of interest in the spiritual nature of things anyway. But even if that is so I still get the feeling that you don’t truly believe in its power and it’s capabilities to heal humanity and you are not aware of its influence and it’s importance on our everyday endeavors in our modern society.

I never said that prayer can cure cancer. I was simply pointing out that what Val Kilmer said is the result of scientific arrogance imposing their methods on society as a whole through the established structure and protocol and regulations. There’s no need to conduct such an experiment. It would be a waste of time and I do not subscribe to that simplistic religious idea of prayer.

BLM is a politicized faction of the current paradigm that I don’t particularly agree with. The African Americans that are truly aware of their history and truly aware of their circumstances actually do not associate with BLM on the grounds that they do not see it as an authentic movement of liberation that is dedicated to true authentic concerns for the black community. I don’t argue the fact that blacks have a lot more rights nowadays but they still have to deal with institutional racism and attitudes of white privilege and outlooks that are imbedded in us on a deep subconscious and psychological level which is present in a lot more people than you might think including yourself. The deep psychological and emotional disturbances are what we need to focus on. It’s not about obtaining certain rights or certain inclusions. These are just gestures and little facades that are implemented to give off the illusion that we are progressing and make it seem like our society is truly concerned but it is not enough for true genuine reparation and freedom and tolerance.

I don’t think it’s an excuse to say that if my life depended on it then I would accept science. You seem to be contradicting yourself. You say we need balance of both oppositions and I agree with you and that’s why I say that I must utilize these certain things that come from science in order to maintain a lifestyle that I am more familiar with and was socialized into. Later we will be able to integrate both science and spirituality so that they merge into one so we can experience true objective reality. But you are making it seem like by me saying that then I am contradicting myself because I don’t choose one or the other. It doesn’t make sense if you think about it and you make it seem like just because I am proposing alternative solution that I think are more effective then that means I am obligated to wholeheartedly subscribe to these alternative solutions in order for you to take me seriously or see me as a credible person. I don’t agree with that way of thinking and I think that was something that was taught to you by your parents or mainstream scientists or something. I am my own person and I am not obligated to just entirely reject the current system just because I am aware of its barbaric and unimaginative and closed-minded faults and defects. To me that is a little more one-sided on your part rather than providing balance.

You don’t know where I stand because you don’t know what true authenticity looks like. You have never come across a person who has actually weighed out the balances on both sides to see what is authentically true and useful for them. And whenever you did you probably thought they were just crazy or inconsistent or confused. Sure I tend to lean more towards the spiritual side in certain situations but that’s because I can see the underlying properties of how our society is structured and the underlying properties of how people behave in that structure and I don’t necessarily agree with this attitude of thinking we just have to put more of our faith in science and go against the grain of our unconscious emotions to perform these philanthropic actions or doing things to help the environment like you expect us to do. All of those things just look like a distraction so that people don’t have to deal with their underlying feelings. There are deeper internal problems that we need to be more aware of in order to exert that kind of energy to make real, true progress for humanity. We have to make that the priority. For decades the priority has been to rely on scientists and philanthropists and to go to our jobs and go to school and stuff and to make really small leaps of progression that happen very slowly over many years. If we become aware of our spiritual nature, we can achieve these things at a much faster rate and much more effectively and long lasting and genuinely.

And yeah I can be cynical sometimes too but that’s nothing compared to people in control who just see the organic human mind as useless trash that are just meant to merge with machines in order to reach maximum efficiency. That’s nothing compared to the large amounts of slaughtered animals and constantly being killed by robotic slaves of commercialism. That’s nothing compared to the destruction of rain forests that have been around for thousands and thousands of years for the sake of arrogant and spoiled needs for paper and other appliances.

I have a good reason to be cynical. At least I am proposing alternative methods and outlooks that are centered more on empowering the human species and helping them realize that they can achieve more than they think. That they can achieve more than what science has led them to believe and that they have the ability to turn society around as a regular person without a PhD or becoming president or something like that. At least I’m encouraging people that they don’t have to feel powerless to the current paradigm and they don’t have to submit to the outlooks and attitudes and models and opinions of large institutions and governments and political factions and media and other forms of control. The people who justify war and slaughtering animals and cutting down trees are the real cynics.

 

[birdup.snaildown]

I don't have time to read your whole post now, but I like what I've seen so far. I will read it and respond in a bit more depth at another date. In the meantime, I'd like to clarify something.

This idea that we have some type of obligation to detach ourselves from things that hurt us stems from religion.

I was talking to you about detaching from science because you made a couple of comments that seemed to indicate that science is unnecessary... like this one.

Science is not necessary.

 

[ovenbakedskittles]

I don't have time to read your whole post now, but I like what I've seen so far. I will read it and respond in a bit more depth at another date. In the meantime, I'd like to clarify something.



I was talking to you about detaching from science because you made a couple of comments that seemed to indicate that science is unnecessary... like this one.

Yes... science isn’t necessary and in the future we will realize that and get rid of these modern concepts entirely and realize the true objective reality of societal dilemmas and illnesses. That’s not me saying that we shouldn’t utilize it right now and completely disengage from it.

The social collective has to evolve their minds first before we can progress and integrate and form a better system. That new system will be more spirituality based. Not science based.

 

[birdup.snaildown]

Yes... science isn’t necessary and in the future we will realize that and get rid of these modern concepts entirely and realize the true objective reality of societal dilemmas and illnesses. That’s not me saying that we shouldn’t utilize it right now and completely disengage from it.

Okay, I still don't understand you.
Why use technology today if it isn't necessary in the future?

Can you describe this future to me?

Just to be clear you don't think we will keep some kind of sustainable tech in said future?
You're talking about us abolishing science completely (in the future)?

 

[ovenbakedskittles]

Okay, I still don't understand you.
Why use technology today if it isn't necessary in the future?

Can you describe this future to me?

Just to be clear you don't think we will keep some kind of sustainable tech in said future?
You're talking about us abolishing science completely (in the future)?

We don’t need to use it today but we choose to use it because this is what we are most familiar with. That’s not a bad thing. My point is that in order to progress and evolve and transcend these social dilemmas then we would have to eventually outgrow science and introduce a new way of living that is more natural and organic and spiritual and mature. Less arrogant and pretentious and not so based on fake authoritarian stature.

It will be a future of becoming whole with ourselves and becoming more integrated and more in touch with our true authentic selves. There will be no television or soda and no slaughtering animals for mass consuming purposes. We will be aware of the harm we are causing to our society and the harm we are causing to our own minds and bodies. We will be aware of the things we have been desensitized too and be more inclined to love one another and take others as ourselves.

All of the brainwashing will cease and we will be in a state of total free will and relief and bliss. We will have learned the lessons of yesterday and we will be able to know what our purpose is for coming into this life and we will be inclined to follow that path with no resistance or hesitation or doubt.

There won’t be any depression or anxiety or schizophrenia or any kind of mental illness and we will have many talents and abilities. We will be able to see things more clearly and be more energetic and motivated to do good things. We will be more productive and we will be more connected to eachother and we will be more in touch with our emotions and heal from our trauma. There will be no racism or hate. We will be able to cultivate the powers of the mind and surpass the technological devices that we use everyday. At that point there won’t be any need to use them and we can just rely on our intellect and it’s ability to contain a vast amount of information that can be accessible to us at any moment.

There won’t be any teachers or authoritarian figures or role models or idols because we will already be empowered enough to know what is right from wrong and what is real or fake and how to go about things in the most beneficial way. At that point we won’t need scientists or politicians either. Everybody will be on equal grounds and we will just intuitively know the right thing to do at the right time.

We will develop psychic abilities to where we can communicate telepathically even if we are on the other side of the world. So we won’t need telephones or cell phones or anything like that. There will be no internet no Facebook or instagram or any type of social media. There won’t even be blue light. We will be in contact with aliens and angels and we will truly know what God is after all of these years of wondering and contemplating and philosophizing. We will be able to travel through the universe at the speed of light and everything will just feel more alive and exciting and happy. We will be reunited with dead relatives and ancestors. There will be no line between life or death and it will all be one thing. We will feel like we are on acid all the time and we won’t feel the need to argue with anybody or cause harm to anybody and we won’t act off of animal instincts. There will be no fear or superstition or religion and no war.

There will be no laws instigated and no police because we will not feel like harming others. There will be no addiction or harmful drugs like coke and meth. There won’t even be alcohol. Everyone will be vegetarian because we would not be able to bring ourselves to eat an animal. And this is coming from someone who eats meat all the time. But I know the truth and that is the society we will eventually live in.

 

[birdup.snaildown]

Sounds like you're describing Christian heaven. My problem with heaven is it's boring.

state of total free will and bliss... reunited with dead relatives and ancestors...

I want my maternal grandfather (and Hitler) to stay dead. Can you chose not to be reunited?

no television or soda... no addiction or harmful drugs like coke and meth. There won’t even be alcohol...

This future sounds awful.

There's a lot of very specific stuff here. Why do you believe this is what the future will be like? I mean, obviously television won't exist forever... but it will probably be replaced with something else. Same with coke and meth. Hopefully there will be new tech and new drugs rather than no tech and no drugs.

We will feel like we are on acid all the time

I don't wanna be on acid all the time!

How far in the future are we talking about here?

I don't think this is going to happen in the next millennium. If the human race survives that long, we will branch off into different colonies throughout space. It's unlikely that all of these branches will develop in the same direction.

Maybe there will be some weird cult of space hippies that do what you're saying, but I can't see it happening across the board.

 

[Gormur]

I think we're going to use more technology in the future. I just wanted to say that it's true, we don't need technology. I guess technology to some might mean whatever is relatively new to their society, but for me it's everything from the wheel to a watch rather than just the latest technology

 

[birdup.snaildown]

we don't need technology. I guess technology to some might mean whatever is relatively new to their society, but for me it's everything from the wheel to a watch rather than just the latest technology

Aren't you on a computer right now?

I guess it depends on what you mean by "need". We don't need tech to live, but we need it to live the lifestyles we live. You guys aren't the first people that have said anti-tech stuff to me. I know a lot of hippies, but they all drive cars.