Personality Cafe banner

1 - 20 of 20 Posts

·
Banned
Joined
·
178 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Thought is appetizing, and so is complexity. Candy is pretty appetizing too, so have some mental candy.

This thread is meant to provide tiny tidbits of wisdom, through quotes that inspire insight/provoke thinking.

I will also be very happy to find a quote based on a theme, if you request it.

Also feel free to share your mental candy too (personal insights). I have some to share as well.

Give me your thoughts/responses

For starters I have some quotes to hopefully stimulate:

--------------------------------
"Looking into a book is a lot like looking into a mirror, if a fool looks in you can't expect a genius to look out"

"Mans reach can exceed his grasp"

"Life asked death, why do people love me but hate you? and Death answered because I am a beautiful lie, and you are the terrible truth"

( My input is that people are so in love with the concept of life after death, that they fail to grasp the actual concept of death, which is the termination of life rather than a transition from one state to another.

This causes them to cling to the illusion that life can be preserved even the state of death.But the reality is that Death cannot co exist with life as a fundamental principle, so if you're actually dead all aspects of life that people associate it with cannot be maintained. (including identity, consciousness,memory ect.)

The acknowledgement of this reality as a truth is so terrible to people, that they cling to the false concept of life after death. They are ill equipped to face the concept of death as it is because death is easier to face when its characterized as a transitory state called the afterlife rather, than the termination of life. )

**** I have a theory that this narrates the perspective on INTP's as atheist.
_______

Okay, now sample my mental candies.


If the world is composed of a set of principles, where does assimilation end, and divergence begin.

And if the principles affect the universes on the fundamental level, does the separation or integration of these principles as a whole impact the universe on a scale large enough to determine an alternate reality that can be contained within the entirety of the existing universe BASED on their separation alone?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,376 Posts
Okay, now sample my mental candies.


If the world is composed of a set of principles, where does assimilation end, and divergence begin.

And if the principles affect the universes on the fundamental level, does the separation or integration of these principles as a whole impact the universe on a scale large enough to determine an alternate reality that can be contained within the entirety of the existing universe BASED on their separation alone?
Perhaps by ignorance, i'm unable to decipher this. What is the meaning of 'assimilation', 'divergence', 'separation' and 'integration' in this context, exactly? Also, is it referring, directly or indirectly, to the laws of physics or what else?

Anyway, nice thread. I think it has potential.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
4,619 Posts
"Life asked death, why do people love me but hate you? and Death answered because I am a beautiful lie, and you are the terrible truth"

( My input is that people are so in love with the concept of life after death, that they fail to grasp the actual concept of death, which is the termination of life rather than a transition from one state to another.

This causes them to cling to the illusion that life can be preserved even the state of death.But the reality is that Death cannot co exist with life as a fundamental principle, so if you're actually dead all aspects of life that people associate it with cannot be maintained. (including identity, consciousness,memory ect.)

The acknowledgement of this reality as a truth is so terrible to people, that they cling to the false concept of life after death. They are ill equipped to face the concept of death as it is because death is easier to face when its characterized as a transitory state called the afterlife rather, than the termination of life. )

**** I have a theory that this narrates the perspective on INTP's as atheist.
I can remember contemplating this a lot when I was young and still do from time to time. I use to play a mental game with myself, trying to imagine myself stop existing. It was a difficult idea to accept when I was young, that some day I will stop existing (i.e. no life after death). I'm now excepting of the idea, but it it can make me sad. I just have to keep in mind that I won't be around to feel sad after I am gone, so it doesn't matter to me in the long run.

The other mental game (or candy) for me is understanding how I might only be a programmed robot and have no actual "soul." If I am just a bio-chemical entity, why do I have consciousness? Does the fact that I do have consciousness have anything to do with having a soul of some kind?
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
178 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
Perhaps by ignorance, i'm unable to decipher this. What is the meaning of 'assimilation', 'divergence', 'separation' and 'integration' in this context, exactly? Also, is it referring, directly or indirectly, to the laws of physics or what else?

Anyway, nice thread. I think it has potential.
TwT Thanks ! It's not referring to JUST physics though

The assimilation and divergence refers to the various different functional principles active that belong within a collective systematic design, but are only only distinguishable on a different level/basis of organizational classification in the structure of our universe.

For example, we are made of of multiple molecular structures but we ourselves are not molecular structures thus the operational dynamic principals don't occur.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
178 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
I can remember contemplating this a lot when I was young and still do from time to time. I use to play a mental game with myself, trying to imagine myself stop existing. It was a difficult idea to accept when I was young, that some day I will stop existing (i.e. no life after death). I'm now excepting of the idea, but it it can make me sad. I just have to keep in mind that I won't be around to feel sad after I am gone, so it doesn't matter to me in the long run.

The other mental game (or candy) for me is understanding how I might only be a programmed robot and have no actual "soul." If I am just a bio-chemical entity, why do I have consciousness? Does the fact that I do have consciousness have anything to do with having a soul of some kind?
Sounds like a good mental candy 0W0

But a robot implies you have artificial design, which may imply you feel disconnected from people on a singular level, even if you would characterize yourself as alive.

Also, a consciousness may be the closest thing that you identify as a soul, but you might recognize the fact that it does't last forever.

If you don't apply the concept of reincarnation to your existence, meaning that your consciousness was not passed down from one organism to another, but instead spontaneously generated and defines a unique existence within it's own, the concept of who you isn't what body ( which is why you may be feeling like a robot in the context or existence, your origins are artificial) you inhabit, but in the origin of your consciousness which is designated by the historical approximation, which means what you are, which is alive has nothing to do with WHY you are could be completely spontaneous and random, and if its the why that matters in the determination of your identity, and the identity is what determines existence, your existence wont make sense to you.

I know where you're coming from though
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
4,619 Posts
Sounds like a good mental candy 0W0

But a robot implies you have artificial design, which may imply you feel disconnected from people on a singular level, even if you would characterize yourself as alive.

Also, a consciousness may be the closest thing that you identify as a soul, but you might recognize the fact that it does't last forever.

If you don't apply the concept of reincarnation to your existence, meaning that your consciousness was not passed down from one organism to another, but instead spontaneously generated and defines a unique existence within it's own, the concept of who you isn't what body ( which is why you may be feeling like a robot in the context or existence, your origins are artificial) you inhabit, but in the origin of your consciousness which is designated by the historical approximation, which means what you are, which is alive has nothing to do with WHY you are could be completely spontaneous and random, and if its the why that matters in the determination of your identity, and the identity is what determines existence, your existence wont make sense to you.

I know where you're coming from though
Robot was probably a bad description, and I don't feel like a robot. That was just a analogy, asking why am I not just like a robot. Ignoring the source of my existence (artificially created or whatever).

I don't believe in reincarnation unless it can be proven to me to exist.

Why am I a consciousness inside this body looking out through these eyes? Why am I different from a computer programmed to do something similar? If I could exactly duplicate all of my brain's functions and abilities, would this duplicate also have consciousness? If not, why?
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
178 Posts
Discussion Starter #9
Robot was probably a bad description, and I don't feel like a robot. That was just a analogy, asking why am I not just like a robot. Ignoring the source of my existence (artificially created or whatever).

I don't believe in reincarnation unless it can be proven to me to exist.

Why am I a consciousness inside this body looking out through these eyes? Why am I different from a computer programmed to do something similar? If I could exactly duplicate all of my brain's functions and abilities, would this duplicate also have consciousness? If not, why?
I suppose feeling like a robot was a pretty bad depiction on my part. Feel is subjective and I should have made it clear that I was referring to it in an analogous sense, in that a robot was a context depicting the nature of your existence. I got do absorbed into the theme of origins that i began delving into my personal theories, because I thought that they were applicable and what you may have been referring to . Sorry.

But to respond to your questions, the part where I started talking about the origins of existence was meant to serve as a response or a possible explanation to "your question why am I looking out through this body? " ( I'm not sure if cited the same question in my begging post, but it pleases me beyond belief to know that there's someone else who has asked that question.) because it is applicable in the context of the origin of consciousness, and if you can explain why your consciousness originated in that body you could gain a basis to answering said question. Hence the citation of the source of existence.

To respond to your question, how are you different from a computer programmed to do something similar, is the subjective practical STATE of existence you embody. ( Sometimes, you gotta get down and dirty with the subjective to get an answer, and you might have been disregarding the subjective context of your existence there)

Third respond, since it is a hypothetical, I can only respond in a theoretical way. You could duplicate the consciousness, that would produce an exact likeness and form and function but it may not always be guarantied to make the same response you do if presented with the same circumstance. ( and progressively it could create a series of events that would cause it develop differently.) The reason being, not be a part of your consciousness even if it is an exact copy, hence why there'd be a potential to choose to do something you wouldn't, and a probability that it could.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,376 Posts
TwT Thanks ! It's not referring to JUST physics though

The assimilation and divergence refers to the various different functional principles active that belong within a collective systematic design, but are only only distinguishable on a different level/basis of organizational classification in the structure of our universe.

For example, we are made of of multiple molecular structures but we ourselves are not molecular structures thus the operational dynamic principals don't occur.
Uh. I'm confused!

Can you provide definitions for those terms in this context? :laughing:
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
178 Posts
Discussion Starter #11
Uh. I'm confused!

Can you provide definitions for those terms in this context? :laughing:
One principle of chemistry is distinguished the concept alignment right, and each different alignment of it's components determines a different structure and function.

Take that concept and bump it up a notch to the next level of organization. Cells. If you apply the same principle of alignment, does the spacial arrangement of components of a cell body, determine its structure and function change? No, because its structure does change, but it's function doesn't. Since it's function depends on the presence of certain organelles. rather than how they're arranged. They can be arranged in any way they want and it could make a slight change, but whether or not an organelle is present cancels out the potential for a significant function that could make a determinant change in WHAT type of cell it is.

However, if we take the SAME principle, and lets say apply it to the concept of MBTI, you will find that if you arrange the components that make up our types, as in cognitive function (Fe, Si) , you have both a different structure ( hierarchical arrangement of the cognitive functions) and two different functions. ( two different types) Since the principle applies, we have assimilation.

So divergence of said principle ( in this particular instance) begins at the chemical level but ends where the assimilation of the next begins, which is cognitive types. Assimilation ends where divergence begins and it can be interchangeable applicable.


You can do this with any principle , on any level of organization.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
178 Posts
Discussion Starter #12 (Edited)
Mental Candy For the Day

_____

Is anybody so used to being misunderstood by everyone around them, that they'd rather not be understood by anyone at all?

( This is actually kind of a mental caramel to be honest. It's pretty bitter :I )

____

"Terror: Sometimes it is not the face itself, but the malice in which it's expression is revealed to us that we find terrifying"

____

"To some of us, there are ideas of a monsters, and monsters of an idea that keep us company at night. But being preferential to the company of monsters themselves , is like acquiring an unique, albeit expensive taste. If not monitored properly, can become taxing your health."

___
Our senses are the canvas, but our imagination is the portrait. It can depict anything we conceive it to be, but only exists within the limit of its boundaries.

Note: These are all original quotes, please do not steal. And if you are going to quote it, make sure you cite
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
116 Posts
Reading a book equals good listening.
Because you're listening and comprehending everything that the author wants you to know & you're not interrupting them.

You don't need to read a lot of books, have a lot of conversations and be a good listener!
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
178 Posts
Discussion Starter #15
Reading a book equals good listening.
Because you're listening and comprehending everything that the author wants you to know & you're not interrupting them.

You don't need to read a lot of books, have a lot of conversations and be a good listener!
Gonna have to ask you to specify what you mean there. Are you referring to just me in general, or you as in the subjective people reading through these posts?
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
178 Posts
Discussion Starter #18
Perhaps by ignorance, i'm unable to decipher this. What is the meaning of 'assimilation', 'divergence', 'separation' and 'integration' in this context, exactly? Also, is it referring, directly or indirectly, to the laws of physics or what else?

Anyway, nice thread. I think it has potential.
Thankies.

Looking back on this, if you enjoy/have enjoyed it can you please give it a rating? Not necessarily a 5 star, but seeing the one star is kind if discouraging to me.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
21,040 Posts
One principle of chemistry is distinguished the concept alignment right, and each different alignment of it's components determines a different structure and function.

Take that concept and bump it up a notch to the next level of organization. Cells. If you apply the same principle of alignment, does the spacial arrangement of components of a cell body, determine its structure and function change? No, because its structure does change, but it's function doesn't. Since it's function depends on the presence of certain organelles. rather than how they're arranged. They can be arranged in any way they want and it could make a slight change, but whether or not an organelle is present cancels out the potential for a significant function that could make a determinant change in WHAT type of cell it is.

However, if we take the SAME principle, and lets say apply it to the concept of MBTI, you will find that if you arrange the components that make up our types, as in cognitive function (Fe, Si) , you have both a different structure ( hierarchical arrangement of the cognitive functions) and two different functions. ( two different types) Since the principle applies, we have assimilation.

So divergence of said principle ( in this particular instance) begins at the chemical level but ends where the assimilation of the next begins, which is cognitive types. Assimilation ends where divergence begins and it can be interchangeable applicable.


You can do this with any principle , on any level of organization.

I think you're trolling this forum and aren't serious, but I'll call your bluff.....


what is the difference between a principle and a law?

are you suggesting cells (and life) emerged when the "principle of right alignment" "diverged"?

can you explain the "principle of right alignment" and what role it played in the emergence of life?

cells are not the most fundamental unit of life...viruses, arguably, are the most primitive forms of life (though they are not regarded as being alive, per se)...why do you jump from a principle in chemistry that appears to apply to inorganic or even organic molecules to something as complex as a cell?...where is the causal connection that justifies this leap?

more generally, your notions of "assimilation" and "divergence" imply these principles are laws and act as "agents" in the evolution of the universe from particles to molecules to life to cognition...where do these notions come from?...what distinguishes them from simple, random, coincidental repetition of patterns?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
939 Posts
"Life asked death, why do people love me but hate you? and Death answered because I am a beautiful lie, and you are the terrible truth"

( My input is that people are so in love with the concept of life after death, that they fail to grasp the actual concept of death, which is the termination of life rather than a transition from one state to another.

This causes them to cling to the illusion that life can be preserved even the state of death.But the reality is that Death cannot co exist with life as a fundamental principle, so if you're actually dead all aspects of life that people associate it with cannot be maintained. (including identity, consciousness,memory ect.)

The acknowledgement of this reality as a truth is so terrible to people, that they cling to the false concept of life after death. They are ill equipped to face the concept of death as it is because death is easier to face when its characterized as a transitory state called the afterlife rather, than the termination of life. )

**** I have a theory that this narrates the perspective on INTP's as atheist.


Life -- or oblivion after death is just a theory. Yes, the physical evidence of life disappears after death. Does this mean that life after death does or does not exist? We cannot know.

We all see dreams and we all have thoughts. We do not still have physical proof of this (other than our personal subjective experiences of it, or brain waves or patterns on a machine). Does it mean that we do not have thoughts or dreams because we do not have physical, observable evidence of it?

What is a thought? What is consciousness? Where does consciousness originate from? Does conscious disappear after death? What about during unconsciousness or during out of body experiences, where conscious has seemingly left the body? When we dream, where the conscious resides?

These all are questions to ponder about.


I have not seen the outer space, but is not for me to conclude that there is no life in space.
 
1 - 20 of 20 Posts
Top