My whole body is saying yes! And I’m smiling - the kind of smile that knows no barriers and the path ahead. That comes from within. Thank you for this.
If the purpose is to save humanity, doesn't that reek of human supremacy? There's no objective other reality than the reality we have. If anything needs saving it is other species but there's no objective reason to do so. Though I personally hate it, the world is playing out exactly as it should (though "should" implies some planned trajectory, so it isn't the proper word), given evolution and given the laws of nature. Humans may think they can somehow alter the laws of nature by willing some specific trajectory, but the evidence of the past shows that is an illusion.
That's not to say that those who thing something should be done shouldn't continue their quest to do so. They will do what their developed brains (which wasn't planned) decides they will do. They can't do anything else (because of physics). That may have some impact, but probably won't, in that it may influence the development of others' brains enough that the trajectory of human actions may change.
The world is what it is. How could it be anything else?
Perhaps you could give some hints. I watched his Ted talk but didn't hear anything concrete, just some notion of a knowisphere that he thinks is emerging and the odd idea of humans guiding the evolution of the earth [even though humans are part of it].
It could be anything else because humanity came along with a new capacity, free will, that could be used for good or bad. Read the chapter "Evil from Cosmic Risk," in my favorite book, "The Universe is a Green Dragon." Humanity was created so the universe could have a way to appreciate itself, but it took a risk in creating a species that could destroy itself.
How does this free will get used? How does it fire the neurons one wants to fire? What is the energy source? As far as I can tell, there is no such thing as free will unless we choose to definite it as making a choice when there are multiple choices technically possible, even if we can't make other than the choice we did.
Humans (and all creatures) are made up of atoms. Our neurons operate according to the laws of physics, firing in response to some input. The way they fire depends on how our brain developed, which is the result of multiple physical things that happened in the past. See https://mikekrobertsnz.substack.com/p/still-holding-out-for-free-will for some thoughts, with a link to further notes.
Of course, some do believe that humans are special, completely different from other creatures, even those that share most of the same genes. For them, there is some special essence to each of us which operates on a different plane of existence and which can override any built in tendencies that go with the brains that have developed inside our heads. Somehow.
I didn't understand "not operating on extinct" but whether we have free will depends on one's definition of "free will." Robert Sapolsky has a great book about free will (defined as some force controlled by "us" which can fire neurons independently of their normal firing sequence, as determined by physics), called "Determined." There doesn't appear to be any evidence of that free will, so it becomes a leap of faith. Humans evolved from other apes, no great leap needed.
You need more education. Too many opinions without enough understanding. Are you living with any great apes, reading books together, and having philosophical conversations? It only has validity to tackle complex subjects with contrary opinions if you know the field you are speaking about and you don't know the one I am coming from.
Telling someone they need more education is not a good start to a discussion.
Since you don't really explain the field you're coming from (I've asked numerous questions above without getting much detail from you) I can't comment on why you think I don't know what I'm talking about.
Of course I'm not living with non-human apes who are reading books with me. Perhaps you could explain why you think that would be a requirement for my opinions to have validity?
Robert Sapolsky isn't the first scientist to explain why we can't have free will, and he does it well, but, really, unless one believes in a non-physical part of our world, that can somehow affect the physical part, it's hard to see how free will got evolved from our ancestor species into our species.
It depends on ‘what you think’, and why. Is it conducive to our life-purpose, which blesses our worlds by replenishing our environment, or, like some, pollutes-and-depletes our environment by consumerism? The ‘why’ is vital, for it reveals whether our thinking is motivated by our intuitive-vision, or by reactive-emotions subject to ungodly worldly-conditions allowed to disorient our minds.
It all boils down to whether or not we know the life-purpose of our minds and emotions; the human-capacities we freely inhabit, and are solely responsible for what finds expression through them. Surely that’s plain enough to see! We’re all part of a larger system, so yes, it does matter what you think, and why, because it is directly related to the well-being of our worlds.
Everyone, according to the Lord’s Prayer, is a child-of-God, affirmed by the first line: -- “Our Father …” Unfortunately, his teachings have been misunderstood, and turned into a religion, the likes of which Jesus exposed as hypocrisy, misleading sincere believers from knowing the truth of God, and our heavenly purpose. “The Lord’s Prayer” is now given lip-service by many, but embodied, and lived by few, if any.
You give voice to our need to unite, in agreement, about what could, and should happen in an ‘ideal’ world. Well, let’s then recognise that by embodying, and living “The Lord’s Prayer”, that is precisely what we’ll have: -- “Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven”; God’s benign dominion shaping and replenishing our environment, instead of humanity’s wilful consumerism polluting-and-poisoning it contrary to God’s pleasure.
But our free will made it possible for us to destroy ourselves, so how to get us thinking along those fundamental lines of caring and cooperation that would have been nature's way, like all the other animals who don't hurt our home? One thing, and it's an essential thing, is to see the lay of the land. Yes, "let's recognize" it. Then, how to get us dealing collectively with a system running on the wrong ideas is the question for us now.
I wrote a lot of science and Engineering stuff as Jim H. White but now write as Jesuis Laplume on such things as Who we really are and Why we are here.
You are like me, with the truth of our potential as humans, that should be understood by all, gnawing at you. However, I take some issue with how you see the set-up.
Your website starts with this: "While the universe is about truth, love, and abundance, society does not agree that we are lovable. Rather, it tries very hard to keep us fearful so that others can easily control us, for their benefit, not ours."
What is the "it" that society is, as if there's an organized force of resistance in what would be a black and white world? However, society is us, and in society there are certain beliefs but not any organized force to get the world to do anything.
Also, I'd adjust the idea that "the universe is within God and that Divinity is of incredible proportions." I'd say the universe is god -- it's the awesomeness of everything without any figurehead.
My whole body is saying yes! And I’m smiling - the kind of smile that knows no barriers and the path ahead. That comes from within. Thank you for this.
Thanks so much for the postings you made of the Anne Baring video, and for the heartwarming comment!
No, thank you! I think your thoughts, insight and perspective is brilliant. So thank you for taking the time to post 🥰🙏
thank you for the Anne Baring reminders...and here's to you, keeping up the beat!
Great post! Much to think about. 🙏
Your message has never wavered, it’s just become more impactful and important.
Thanks for the Anne Baring clip. Needed wisdom!
If the purpose is to save humanity, doesn't that reek of human supremacy? There's no objective other reality than the reality we have. If anything needs saving it is other species but there's no objective reason to do so. Though I personally hate it, the world is playing out exactly as it should (though "should" implies some planned trajectory, so it isn't the proper word), given evolution and given the laws of nature. Humans may think they can somehow alter the laws of nature by willing some specific trajectory, but the evidence of the past shows that is an illusion.
That's not to say that those who thing something should be done shouldn't continue their quest to do so. They will do what their developed brains (which wasn't planned) decides they will do. They can't do anything else (because of physics). That may have some impact, but probably won't, in that it may influence the development of others' brains enough that the trajectory of human actions may change.
The world is what it is. How could it be anything else?
Read up on Brian Swimme. You are missing knowledge about a whole other track of scientific evolutionary explanation.
Perhaps you could give some hints. I watched his Ted talk but didn't hear anything concrete, just some notion of a knowisphere that he thinks is emerging and the odd idea of humans guiding the evolution of the earth [even though humans are part of it].
It could be anything else because humanity came along with a new capacity, free will, that could be used for good or bad. Read the chapter "Evil from Cosmic Risk," in my favorite book, "The Universe is a Green Dragon." Humanity was created so the universe could have a way to appreciate itself, but it took a risk in creating a species that could destroy itself.
How does this free will get used? How does it fire the neurons one wants to fire? What is the energy source? As far as I can tell, there is no such thing as free will unless we choose to definite it as making a choice when there are multiple choices technically possible, even if we can't make other than the choice we did.
Humans (and all creatures) are made up of atoms. Our neurons operate according to the laws of physics, firing in response to some input. The way they fire depends on how our brain developed, which is the result of multiple physical things that happened in the past. See https://mikekrobertsnz.substack.com/p/still-holding-out-for-free-will for some thoughts, with a link to further notes.
Of course, some do believe that humans are special, completely different from other creatures, even those that share most of the same genes. For them, there is some special essence to each of us which operates on a different plane of existence and which can override any built in tendencies that go with the brains that have developed inside our heads. Somehow.
The universe took a leap to create humans, the only species not operating on extinct, but has free will.
I didn't understand "not operating on extinct" but whether we have free will depends on one's definition of "free will." Robert Sapolsky has a great book about free will (defined as some force controlled by "us" which can fire neurons independently of their normal firing sequence, as determined by physics), called "Determined." There doesn't appear to be any evidence of that free will, so it becomes a leap of faith. Humans evolved from other apes, no great leap needed.
The awesome leap was from instinct to the capacity to choose.
All creatures make choices. Those choices are determined by the make up of their neurons. Nothing else, or nothing else for which there is evidence.
You need more education. Too many opinions without enough understanding. Are you living with any great apes, reading books together, and having philosophical conversations? It only has validity to tackle complex subjects with contrary opinions if you know the field you are speaking about and you don't know the one I am coming from.
Telling someone they need more education is not a good start to a discussion.
Since you don't really explain the field you're coming from (I've asked numerous questions above without getting much detail from you) I can't comment on why you think I don't know what I'm talking about.
Of course I'm not living with non-human apes who are reading books with me. Perhaps you could explain why you think that would be a requirement for my opinions to have validity?
Robert Sapolsky isn't the first scientist to explain why we can't have free will, and he does it well, but, really, unless one believes in a non-physical part of our world, that can somehow affect the physical part, it's hard to see how free will got evolved from our ancestor species into our species.
Dear Sue,
It depends on ‘what you think’, and why. Is it conducive to our life-purpose, which blesses our worlds by replenishing our environment, or, like some, pollutes-and-depletes our environment by consumerism? The ‘why’ is vital, for it reveals whether our thinking is motivated by our intuitive-vision, or by reactive-emotions subject to ungodly worldly-conditions allowed to disorient our minds.
It all boils down to whether or not we know the life-purpose of our minds and emotions; the human-capacities we freely inhabit, and are solely responsible for what finds expression through them. Surely that’s plain enough to see! We’re all part of a larger system, so yes, it does matter what you think, and why, because it is directly related to the well-being of our worlds.
Everyone, according to the Lord’s Prayer, is a child-of-God, affirmed by the first line: -- “Our Father …” Unfortunately, his teachings have been misunderstood, and turned into a religion, the likes of which Jesus exposed as hypocrisy, misleading sincere believers from knowing the truth of God, and our heavenly purpose. “The Lord’s Prayer” is now given lip-service by many, but embodied, and lived by few, if any.
You give voice to our need to unite, in agreement, about what could, and should happen in an ‘ideal’ world. Well, let’s then recognise that by embodying, and living “The Lord’s Prayer”, that is precisely what we’ll have: -- “Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven”; God’s benign dominion shaping and replenishing our environment, instead of humanity’s wilful consumerism polluting-and-poisoning it contrary to God’s pleasure.
But our free will made it possible for us to destroy ourselves, so how to get us thinking along those fundamental lines of caring and cooperation that would have been nature's way, like all the other animals who don't hurt our home? One thing, and it's an essential thing, is to see the lay of the land. Yes, "let's recognize" it. Then, how to get us dealing collectively with a system running on the wrong ideas is the question for us now.
I have a mini-book out entitled "You Matter in this Information Universe"
It is intentionally upsetting in that it provides a non-conventional view of this universe and our place as humans within it.
My new website is at: https://jesuislaplumecdnisbn.com
I wrote a lot of science and Engineering stuff as Jim H. White but now write as Jesuis Laplume on such things as Who we really are and Why we are here.
You are like me, with the truth of our potential as humans, that should be understood by all, gnawing at you. However, I take some issue with how you see the set-up.
Your website starts with this: "While the universe is about truth, love, and abundance, society does not agree that we are lovable. Rather, it tries very hard to keep us fearful so that others can easily control us, for their benefit, not ours."
What is the "it" that society is, as if there's an organized force of resistance in what would be a black and white world? However, society is us, and in society there are certain beliefs but not any organized force to get the world to do anything.
Also, I'd adjust the idea that "the universe is within God and that Divinity is of incredible proportions." I'd say the universe is god -- it's the awesomeness of everything without any figurehead.
Sue, I love your piece! I got the same memo, so count me in!
You were on the list without asking. I've enjoyed our interactions and I know we are on the same page!