In my humble opinion, modern psychology is far too soft for making any kind of confident conclusions. Rather, I propose "competition" as a focus for study of social behavior. Check out my web site. I think you'll find that competition provides a more hard-science feel in studying social interactions.
I guess to sum it up...pervasive communications is commoditizing us...Marx predicted technology would commoditize us physically...I feel communications technology might be commoditizing us emotionally/spiritually/mentally.
I think you're making an excellent point. However, I think your fears are unfounded. Only that which was essentially mechanical to begin with can be automated. But are we exclusively mechanical? I don't think so. Only thought is mechanical, so what happens if you manage to stop thinking? That's what all this automation is doing for us. It is giving us more free to time spend in contemplation of reality. There has been no other time in recorded history when so many people were able to concentrate on understanding themselves. Sometimes I catch glimpses of the future and I'm impatient!:-)
Do you think I actually believe anything I read on SlashDot? Sheesh. What makes SlashDot interesting is the breadth of opinions, not the accuracy of opinions. If I want accuracy then I do the research myself!
But seriously, why is it that these religions are so static, when the world around shows that evolution and change are the only constants.
In my humble opinion, this is because religion encompasses the most challenging topics. Just answering the eternal questions for oneself is challenging. Developing a credible and scrupulous new religion is damn hard. Yet, I don't think it's impossible and I encourage everyone to try. Who knows, you might be the next Buddha or Mohammed or Christ.
I used to be an anonymous coward but then God spoke to me and I saw the truth. Nothing was ever the same after that. Wow, man, what a rush.:-)
Did I say that I agree with Alan Watts or Ken Wilber? How do you find the writings of Ramana Maharshi? And who implied that the heart has anything to do with logic?
All I said was that there were differences between the religions, which is true.
I propose that all these "differences" are correct ways of answering the same problem from different points of view. That's why I posted in the first place. Doesn't anyone try to apply careful abstraction and meticulous analysis to what all these saints said and wrote? Or will we always be forced to "respect each others' differences" (agree to disagree)?
My heart tells me that we are one in spirit. Why not one in mind, also?
Wow, I'm astonished to hear something like that from a Buddhist. Clearly dogmatism still runs rampant in both camps (Buddhism and Christanity). Is ignorance dualistic?
hidden by the King of the Nagas "until the world was ready."
The world has actually *improved* since then?:-) Actually, there is a surprising amount of commonality between Buddha, Christ, Mohammed, and others. The best book I've run across that compares these is Cosmic Consciousness by Richard M Bucke, M.D., even though it was written about 100 years ago.
For Schroedinger's cat that means, the alpha or beta particle is the "observer", because it already turns the possibility to radiate into a fact (and the scintillation counter does the rest).
Well, sure, I'm not saying that human beings are the only observers in the universe. At least the scintillation counter is an observer in the case of Schroedinger's cat. What is interesting is that we *can* act as observers in the quantum sense. In other words, you *can* be the observer that collapses the wave-function.
The observer mystery is a common myth about QM, and comes from the problem to understand the wave-particle dualism. Things can show particle or wave behaviour, and when you force them to show particle behaviour, the wave function collapses.
Science is a matter of retreating from error. How do you know that a particular experiment will always have the same result? Science just gives us *theories*. How do you know the results of any experiment until you observe them? Strictly speaking, most of what we "know" are just theories. The rest are contradictions and tautologies.
All these theories are very nice but will they shed any light on the observer?
In Quantum Physics, the observation is what causes probability waves to collapse. Without observation, they don't collapse. It's like there is this gigantic mystery in the center of quantum physics and everyone seems to just tries to avoid it.
So what can we say about the observer? It has something to do with being alive. Dead people don't observe much (as far as we can tell:-). Also, while anything that can be an object of attention is not the observer, some observers seem able to resolve things more clearly than others. In other words, if you practice observation then you become a better observer, meaning you are able to pick up very subtle signals on your central nervous system. So where do good observers hang out?
All observers basically want two things. They want to observe beauty and they don't want to die. You'll find good observers at the top of any organization. But the best observers will probably spend a lot of time contemplating the mechanics of observation.
... predicts the arrival of Kalki, the final Avatar of Vishnu, in CE 1999, and describes how he will rule over the Universe for a period of 108 years starting in 2003, before returning to his abode, Vaikunta. Preceding his arrival, "the world will be full of calamities and situations will be changing every instant".
&
Kalki Avatar, for Hindus, is the avatar for this coming age or Yuga, and is synonymous with Krishna. Hindus expect an avatar -- they have the doctrine of avatars who come cyclically, age after age. In the West Jesus is seen as a 'one-off' event: God made flesh, who came specifically for a particular group. In fact, there has never been an age without an avatar. Hindus await a reincarnation of Krishna.
Maitreya overshadowed Krishna, so as far as Hindus are concerned, Maitreya is Kalki Avatar, the avatar for this coming age, the "age of righteousness", which indeed it will be.
It is the age in which for the first time on a mass scale the spiritual essence of humanity demonstrates; in which humanity realizes, experiences itself, as one, and therefore creates structures which will demonstrate that oneness. It will also see itself not only as one but as whole, intrinsically part of its environment. There will come a time when humanity will see that humanity, God, and nature are one and the same; there is no separation between any of these. That sense of wholeness, eventually, humanity en masse will know, not just as an intellectual idea but as direct experience.
Krishna, or Kalki Avatar, comes at the end of this "dark age", Kali Yuga. Though not everyone would agree that Kali Yuga, the "dark age", has ended, the great Teacher, Sai Baba, in south India, has said that the dark age is over; Swami Premananda has said the same thing; my Master has confirmed that it is now ending. So it is now possible for Kalki Avatar, "the rider on the White Horse", to come.
&
As the anonymous author of a French work on the Tarot and Hermeticism prophesied in 1967:
Since it is a question of the work of the fusion of revelation and knowledge, of spirituality and intellectuality, it is a matter throughout of the fusion of the Avatar principle with the Buddha principle.... On the historical plane the Maitreya Buddha and the Kalki Avatar will be one. . . . He will not merely teach the way of salvation, but he will advance the course of this way; he will not be solely a witness of the divine and spiritual world, but he will make human beings into authentic witnesses of this world; he will not simply explain the profound meaning of revelation, but he will bring human beings themselves to attain to the illuminating experience of revelation, . . . bringing human beings to first-hand experience of the source itself of all revelation ever received from above by mankind, as also of all essential truth ever conceived by mankind.... It will not be popularity and general acclaim which will characterize the work of the Avatar, but rather the fusion of spirituality and intellectuality, no matter whether this pleases or not. . . . He will be the guide in the transformation of potential schizophrenic madness into the wisdom of the harmony of the two worlds and of their experience. He will be the example and living model of realization of the Arcanum which occupies us. . . . Logic becomes transformed into formal logic -- passing through the intermediary stage of 'organic logic' -- into 'moral logic'. . . . His intellectuality -- his 'horse's head' -- will be moved solely by revelation from above. Like the horse, it will be directed by the Rider. This is the Arcanum at work on the historical plane.
It's too bad people go around writing books like this without actually figuring what the next evolutionary step actually is. The libraries are filled with books that "set up a sequel." I'm sick of it. I want to know what's actually going to happen. I don't mind fiction but can't there be some correspondance to reality?
You want to feel good, all the time or at least whenever you want.
Let me tell you a secret. This wont come as a surprise to many of you: How you feel is not random. You are programmed to feel good in specific situations and you are programmed to feel like shit in other situations. This is where being a programmer comes in handy. You already know how to program computers so why not re-program yourself?
This is a *major* advantage when it comes to girls (or guys). In relationships, people always complain that the other person wont change. But what if you are willing to change? You're going to be in *high* demand. Let me tell you, this is what is most attractive: the ability to change yourself dynamically, on the fly. That's where it's at big time! And as a programmer, you have a huge head start because you already know programming.
It's one thing to talk about. But how can something like this be verified? If words are used then we quickly run up against Godel's incompleteness theorem: Words cannot be used to describe something truly non-conceptual. But are we limited only to words?
What is left over after we eliminate concepts & words from our experience? Surely there is light, direct perception, intensity, and concentration. Still, I'm getting lost because I have started using words again. Maybe the way out is to use paradox?
Fortunately, quantum physics offers a suggestion: Heisenberg's uncertainty principle limits the precision to which position and momentum can be known for any object. But what if you attempt to measure the position and momentum of your own mind? Doesn't the uncertainty principle only apply to *separate* observers?
Surely, you should be able to do this because you are yourself, right?
Quality programmers are hard to find exactly because our leading programmers keep raising expectations. Ten years ago, even a superstar programmer isn't going to be able to set up a national bookstore because the web infrastructure just isn't available yet. It's somewhat similar to athletic inflation in the Olympics. Today's runners just run faster than runners 50 years ago. We know more about how to train (& have better drugs:-). And computers give even more leverage because reuse of talent (good code) is relatively easy.
So can we keep getting smarter forever without a paradigm shift? We have been through the industrial revolution and now we're in the information revolution. What's next? Or more fundementally, what is intelligence?
I think what people call intelligence has a lot to do with the ability to concentrate. Are chronically distracted people intelligent? I've spoken to people who can't hold a conversation for 10 seconds! In other words, I don't think it's really important what you choose concentrate on, but if you can concentrate you'll probably be considered intelligent. After all, I think that people who concentrate a lot literally perceive more clearly.
Hypothetically, let's say you are a superstar programmer but then you see that the competition is getting too strong. You're no longer going to be able to bring in the big bucks. Let's say that another field opens up. If you can apply your skill in concentration to the new field then you'll be able to pick it up faster than anyone else. So, I don't think fundementally smart people need to worry about making money. They'll always be on top because they can perceive quicker and more clearly where the top is. However, let's imagine life speeds up a lot more and that paradigm shifts that used to take a generation now happen more often; Internet time reduced by another order of magnitude.
Might competition itself be made an object of concentration? Can the behavior of an ultimate competitor be boiled down into a simple description or diagram? If so, what would that mean?
Maybe I'm an idealist, but I think that everyone could have more wealth (be more satisfied) if folks were meticulous about avoiding the destruction of wealth. What really bugs me is when I'm having a good time and someone else barges in and does something stupid. "Gee, you've written such a nice piece of software. How about if I sell it and give you.05%? I want to build a new castle so I'll need my fair share (50%)." What's Gates going to do with all his money?
To sum it up:
Concentration is like abstract intelligence.
People should try to learn how to compete more optimally, not just within their chosen field but in general.
Slashdot Mirror
While not widely know (yet), a study of competition induces a compete map of the brain's mirror neurons. Hint: check out my web site.
I can't think of any questions, just: I love you!
In my humble opinion, modern psychology is far too soft for making any kind of confident conclusions. Rather, I propose "competition" as a focus for study of social behavior. Check out my web site. I think you'll find that competition provides a more hard-science feel in studying social interactions.
I think you're making an excellent point. However, I think your fears are unfounded. Only that which was essentially mechanical to begin with can be automated. But are we exclusively mechanical? I don't think so. Only thought is mechanical, so what happens if you manage to stop thinking? That's what all this automation is doing for us. It is giving us more free to time spend in contemplation of reality. There has been no other time in recorded history when so many people were able to concentrate on understanding themselves. Sometimes I catch glimpses of the future and I'm impatient! :-)
Cooperation
Coopitition
Copitortion
Cooptimizortion
Coopitron
Compicoop
Compitition
Do you think I actually believe anything I read on SlashDot? Sheesh. What makes SlashDot interesting is the breadth of opinions, not the accuracy of opinions. If I want accuracy then I do the research myself!
Agreed!
In my humble opinion, this is because religion encompasses the most challenging topics. Just answering the eternal questions for oneself is challenging. Developing a credible and scrupulous new religion is damn hard. Yet, I don't think it's impossible and I encourage everyone to try. Who knows, you might be the next Buddha or Mohammed or Christ.
I used to be an anonymous coward but then God spoke to me and I saw the truth. Nothing was ever the same after that. Wow, man, what a rush. :-)
Did I say that I agree with Alan Watts or Ken Wilber? How do you find the writings of Ramana Maharshi? And who implied that the heart has anything to do with logic?
I propose that all these "differences" are correct ways of answering the same problem from different points of view. That's why I posted in the first place. Doesn't anyone try to apply careful abstraction and meticulous analysis to what all these saints said and wrote? Or will we always be forced to "respect each others' differences" (agree to disagree)?
My heart tells me that we are one in spirit. Why not one in mind, also?
Wow, I'm astonished to hear something like that from a Buddhist. Clearly dogmatism still runs rampant in both camps (Buddhism and Christanity). Is ignorance dualistic?
The world has actually *improved* since then? :-) Actually, there is a surprising amount of commonality between Buddha, Christ, Mohammed, and others. The best book I've run across that compares these is Cosmic Consciousness by Richard M Bucke, M.D., even though it was written about 100 years ago.
Check it out!
Well, sure, I'm not saying that human beings are the only observers in the universe. At least the scintillation counter is an observer in the case of Schroedinger's cat. What is interesting is that we *can* act as observers in the quantum sense. In other words, you *can* be the observer that collapses the wave-function.
The observer mystery is a common myth about QM, and comes from the problem to understand the wave-particle dualism. Things can show particle or wave behaviour, and when you force them to show particle behaviour, the wave function collapses.
Science is a matter of retreating from error. How do you know that a particular experiment will always have the same result? Science just gives us *theories*. How do you know the results of any experiment until you observe them? Strictly speaking, most of what we "know" are just theories. The rest are contradictions and tautologies.
In Quantum Physics, the observation is what causes probability waves to collapse. Without observation, they don't collapse. It's like there is this gigantic mystery in the center of quantum physics and everyone seems to just tries to avoid it.
So what can we say about the observer? It has something to do with being alive. Dead people don't observe much (as far as we can tell :-). Also, while anything that can be an object of attention is not the observer, some observers seem able to resolve things more clearly than others. In other words, if you practice observation then you become a better observer, meaning you are able to pick up very subtle signals on your central nervous system. So where do good observers hang out?
All observers basically want two things. They want to observe beauty and they don't want to die. You'll find good observers at the top of any organization. But the best observers will probably spend a lot of time contemplating the mechanics of observation.
&
Kalki Avatar, for Hindus, is the avatar for this coming age or Yuga, and is synonymous with Krishna. Hindus expect an avatar -- they have the doctrine of avatars who come cyclically, age after age. In the West Jesus is seen as a 'one-off' event: God made flesh, who came specifically for a particular group. In fact, there has never been an age without an avatar. Hindus await a reincarnation of Krishna.
Maitreya overshadowed Krishna, so as far as Hindus are concerned, Maitreya is Kalki Avatar, the avatar for this coming age, the "age of righteousness", which indeed it will be.
It is the age in which for the first time on a mass scale the spiritual essence of humanity demonstrates; in which humanity realizes, experiences itself, as one, and therefore creates structures which will demonstrate that oneness. It will also see itself not only as one but as whole, intrinsically part of its environment. There will come a time when humanity will see that humanity, God, and nature are one and the same; there is no separation between any of these. That sense of wholeness, eventually, humanity en masse will know, not just as an intellectual idea but as direct experience.
Krishna, or Kalki Avatar, comes at the end of this "dark age", Kali Yuga. Though not everyone would agree that Kali Yuga, the "dark age", has ended, the great Teacher, Sai Baba, in south India, has said that the dark age is over; Swami Premananda has said the same thing; my Master has confirmed that it is now ending. So it is now possible for Kalki Avatar, "the rider on the White Horse", to come.
&
As the anonymous author of a French work on the Tarot and Hermeticism prophesied in 1967:
Since it is a question of the work of the fusion of revelation and knowledge, of spirituality and intellectuality, it is a matter throughout of the fusion of the Avatar principle with the Buddha principle.... On the historical plane the Maitreya Buddha and the Kalki Avatar will be one. . . . He will not merely teach the way of salvation, but he will advance the course of this way; he will not be solely a witness of the divine and spiritual world, but he will make human beings into authentic witnesses of this world; he will not simply explain the profound meaning of revelation, but he will bring human beings themselves to attain to the illuminating experience of revelation, . . . bringing human beings to first-hand experience of the source itself of all revelation ever received from above by mankind, as also of all essential truth ever conceived by mankind.... It will not be popularity and general acclaim which will characterize the work of the Avatar, but rather the fusion of spirituality and intellectuality, no matter whether this pleases or not. . . . He will be the guide in the transformation of potential schizophrenic madness into the wisdom of the harmony of the two worlds and of their experience. He will be the example and living model of realization of the Arcanum which occupies us. . . . Logic becomes transformed into formal logic -- passing through the intermediary stage of 'organic logic' -- into 'moral logic'. . . . His intellectuality -- his 'horse's head' -- will be moved solely by revelation from above. Like the horse, it will be directed by the Rider. This is the Arcanum at work on the historical plane.
It's too bad people go around writing books like this without actually figuring what the next evolutionary step actually is. The libraries are filled with books that "set up a sequel." I'm sick of it. I want to know what's actually going to happen. I don't mind fiction but can't there be some correspondance to reality?
Let me tell you a secret. This wont come as a surprise to many of you: How you feel is not random. You are programmed to feel good in specific situations and you are programmed to feel like shit in other situations. This is where being a programmer comes in handy. You already know how to program computers so why not re-program yourself?
This is a *major* advantage when it comes to girls (or guys). In relationships, people always complain that the other person wont change. But what if you are willing to change? You're going to be in *high* demand. Let me tell you, this is what is most attractive: the ability to change yourself dynamically, on the fly. That's where it's at big time! And as a programmer, you have a huge head start because you already know programming.
Our mass media is just the obvious outcome of supply and demand. Vote with your pocketbook.
What is left over after we eliminate concepts & words from our experience? Surely there is light, direct perception, intensity, and concentration. Still, I'm getting lost because I have started using words again. Maybe the way out is to use paradox?
Fortunately, quantum physics offers a suggestion: Heisenberg's uncertainty principle limits the precision to which position and momentum can be known for any object. But what if you attempt to measure the position and momentum of your own mind? Doesn't the uncertainty principle only apply to *separate* observers?
Surely, you should be able to do this because you are yourself, right?
So can we keep getting smarter forever without a paradigm shift? We have been through the industrial revolution and now we're in the information revolution. What's next? Or more fundementally, what is intelligence?
I think what people call intelligence has a lot to do with the ability to concentrate. Are chronically distracted people intelligent? I've spoken to people who can't hold a conversation for 10 seconds! In other words, I don't think it's really important what you choose concentrate on, but if you can concentrate you'll probably be considered intelligent. After all, I think that people who concentrate a lot literally perceive more clearly.
Hypothetically, let's say you are a superstar programmer but then you see that the competition is getting too strong. You're no longer going to be able to bring in the big bucks. Let's say that another field opens up. If you can apply your skill in concentration to the new field then you'll be able to pick it up faster than anyone else. So, I don't think fundementally smart people need to worry about making money. They'll always be on top because they can perceive quicker and more clearly where the top is. However, let's imagine life speeds up a lot more and that paradigm shifts that used to take a generation now happen more often; Internet time reduced by another order of magnitude.
Might competition itself be made an object of concentration? Can the behavior of an ultimate competitor be boiled down into a simple description or diagram? If so, what would that mean?
Maybe I'm an idealist, but I think that everyone could have more wealth (be more satisfied) if folks were meticulous about avoiding the destruction of wealth. What really bugs me is when I'm having a good time and someone else barges in and does something stupid. "Gee, you've written such a nice piece of software. How about if I sell it and give you .05%? I want to build a new castle so I'll need my fair share (50%)." What's Gates going to do with all his money?
To sum it up: