The abstract philosophy of moths to a flame

[utopian]

Wait for night time, reader, and when the sky is dark, turn on an outside light. It may take a little while. But eventually, you will see bugs begin to fly towards your light source. It could be that you only see various bugs that you perhaps cannot identify. If you are lucky, you will see a moth.

 

The moth is renown for flying towards light sources, up to and including, an open flame. In the presence of an open flame, a moth will follow its natural instincts to go towards it, and find itself burned to death as it dives right in. This is common for moths, and other bugs, which are simply following their natural biological programming. And therein lies the philosophical conundrum. 

 

The moth is too unintelligent to comprehend the concept of flame. You might say that bugs have barely the intellectual capacity of plants. The moth only comprehends that it sees something bright, and that it should fly towards it, despite its impending demise. It is the natural biological development of this form of life, that it should kill itself. The concept of flame is apparently too grand for the intellect of the moth. This concept... extrapolates into humanity. 

 

 

 

There are a lot of things I am fascinated by. Lately it has been banking and economics. I love to sit and read and watch as it operates on a global, geopolitical scale. I love to read about its history, and its effects. I like to see how this grand concept eventually works its way down to effect the individual. And then after it is all and said and done, when you finally arrive at the "end user" experience of it all, you often run into the abstract philosophy of the moth and the flame. You find people, going about living their lives within the parameters of these grand concepts, these great works of humanity, completely unaware of them, despite their everyday utilization of them. Many of them go so far as to accuse you of having somewhat lost your mind. It is apparent, these people cannot comprehend the world that goes on around them.

 

 

There are many grand concepts that I do not know much about, but am aware of. The military industrial complex. The pharmaceutical industry. International business. Space exploration. Quantum physics. Higher tier mathematics. If I so chose, I could hunker down and really learn about them. They are not outside my ability to comprehend, or at least, have a general understanding of. 

 

 

But I often look at my fellow humans. I see how little they are able to comprehend. I know that I could attempt to bring to them one of the concepts I like to explore, and they would be lost, as oblivious to what they are seeing as would be a moth to a flame. I see this, and though I feel superior in some regard, I have to wonder, to what concepts am I, perhaps, like a moth to a flame. 

[Donnadogsoth]

If you accept the existence of principles, whether universal physical principles or that of the human mind, then is not everything theoretically within your purview, so long as you can do the experiment and discover it?

 

Consider that the common deficiency laboured under by the common man with regards to understanding principle, is that he is unaware that such things exist.

[green banana]

The military industrial complex. The pharmaceutical industry. International business. Space exploration. Quantum physics. Higher tier mathematics. If I so chose, I could hunker down and really learn about them.

 

I suggest reading a book on biology first. Moths orient themselves during nighttime per an angle to the moon light. When there is an unnatural source of light, they orient towards it. Since the unnatural source is a lot closer, this causes them to fly towards it in an Archimedic spiral, resulting in their early demise. Moths did not adapt to artificial light because it is pretty recent and because the loss of a few moths does not matter that much. 

 

But I often look at my fellow humans. I see how little they are able to comprehend. I know that I could attempt to bring to them one of the concepts I like to explore, and they would be lost, as oblivious to what they are seeing as would be a moth to a flame

 

I highly doubt that.

[utopian]

 

If you accept the existence of principles, whether universal physical principles or that of the human mind, then is not everything theoretically within your purview, so long as you can do the experiment and discover it?

 

Consider that the common deficiency laboured under by the common man with regards to understanding principle, is that he is unaware that such things exist.

 

I am of the belief that universal principles trump (hue) all other principles, and that human minds are subject to them as well. A distant relative of mine has down syndrome. It is fairly obvious that certain things will never be within his purview. While he may still be capable of comprehending things that, say, a dog could not, it is obvious that in the same way, there are things that I am capable of comprehending, that he is not. I myself am normal, although most of my IQ scores test above average. The concepts I am able to comprehend, according to my scores, are outside the realm of the general public's comprehension. Yes, in theory, everything should be within my grasp.

 

But that is just what I am wondering at. The moth cannot comprehend what the dog can. The dog cannot comprehend what my cousin can. None of these can consider, what might be outside of their capability to consider. And so when we get to the part where my cousin cannot comprehend what I can, we think that might be the end, because I am of the standard human intellect. But the moth is not capable of knowing, what he does not know. How can I be certain of what I myself can know? We humans. We have our science and we have followed it all the way through every realm conceivable. And then, in things like quantum physics, we begin to discover things outside of our grasp. Things like matter without mass. Particles that, quite literally, do not exist. And yet they effect our world. I cannot see myself ever comprehending such a thing. 

 

As far as the... (I am trying to avoid possibly offensive language) uninformed? Unquestioning? Laborer, I mean, there is a certain admirable aspect to simply never questioning things too far, in lieu of losing yourself in thought. Even if man did one day explain the entirety of the universe, he would still be human, and it would still behoove him to live life to the fullest, including participation in labor he can be proud of. But then again, this is how people also lose themselves in endeavors which may be harmful to them. Not long ago, I was taking a class on television. I was aghast at just how much of a science it was for the media to be controlling the masses. And this was a low tier media college class. What do they teach at the professor level, I wonder? Could it be that, at the top of this realm, men of higher comprehension are leading men of lower comprehension towards a destructive path? Perhaps having developed media into such a science, professors of this realm are able to lead men to do their bidding... as simply as a moth is led to a flame.

 

 

 

I suggest reading a book on biology first. Moths orient themselves during nighttime per an angle to the moon light. When there is an unnatural source of light, they orient towards it. Since the unnatural source is a lot closer, this causes them to fly towards it in an Archimedic spiral, resulting in their early demise. Moths did not adapt to artificial light because it is pretty recent and because the loss of a few moths does not matter that much. 

 

That is mildly interesting, although I am wondering what this has to do with my post. Has the subject at the heart of the matter of my post eluded you?

 

 

I highly doubt that.

 

Aah. An offense. Apparently, the point of my post has in fact eluded you. Oh, the irony. I am so saturated with irony here, I am wondering if you are even capable of understanding why I am laughing.

[green banana]

Oh, the irony. I am so saturated with irony here, I am wondering if you are even capable of understanding why I am laughing.

 

Watching videos on the New World Order does not make you an expert. What else is the basis of your economic education? 

 

The Dunning–Kruger effect is acognitive bias wherein relatively unskilled individuals suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly assessing their ability to be much higher than is accurate. This bias is attributed to ametacognitive inability of the unskilled to accurately evaluate their own ability level.

 

Does that ring a bell? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

[utopian]

Watching videos on the New World Order does not make you an expert. What else is the basis of your economic education? 

 

Does that ring a bell? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

 

I like how you simply assume my knowledge is limited to videos. And also that this is why you think I am laughing. You are quite the assumptive offense machine arent you? I am aware of the Kruger effect. I could provide plenty of proof on why this is not the case with me. But you have conducted yourself offensively, and in doing so made yourself unworthy of real response.

 

Are you unaware of the non aggression principle? It is quite popular around here, and you seem to have no problem violating it. If I am a fool, then the principle advocates allowing fools to be fools, as it does not concern you. If you feel in your benevolence that you should attempt to inform someone of something, you can do so respectfully. But there is no need to agress. And there is no need for me to truly engage anyone I find offensive. I might do so only if it entertains me.

[neeeel]

I like how you simply assume my knowledge is limited to videos. And also that this is why you think I am laughing. You are quite the assumptive offense machine arent you? I am aware of the Kruger effect. I could provide plenty of proof on why this is not the case with me. But you have conducted yourself offensively, and in doing so made yourself unworthy of real response.

 

Are you unaware of the non aggression principle? It is quite popular around here, and you seem to have no problem violating it. If I am a fool, then the principle advocates allowing fools to be fools, as it does not concern you. If you feel in your benevolence that you should attempt to inform someone of something, you can do so respectfully. But there is no need to agress. And there is no need for me to truly engage anyone I find offensive. I might do so only if it entertains me.

 

 

I am not sure how what green banana said violates the NAP.

[utopian]

You might be surprised what can be done without violating the NAP. I could justify the Federal Reserve, and maybe even government, without violating the NAP.

 

Long story short, he is forcing me to choose between being painted as a fool, or attempting to validate myself to him, which will never be done, as it is not his intent to see it. Even though the very forum upon which we post validates my research. I choose, instead, not to recognize his ability to force me to choose. 

[neeeel]

You might be surprised what can be done without violating the NAP. I could justify the Federal Reserve, and maybe even government, without violating the NAP.

 

Long story short, he is forcing me to choose between being painted as a fool, or attempting to validate myself to him, which will never be done, as it is not his intent to see it. Even though the very forum upon which we post validates my research. I choose, instead, not to recognize his ability to force me to choose. 

 

No, you explicitly accused green banana of violating the NAP . I dont see in his post where he did so

[dayna j.]

You might be surprised what can be done without violating the NAP. I could justify the Federal Reserve, and maybe even government, without violating the NAP.

 

Long story short, he is forcing me to choose between being painted as a fool, or attempting to validate myself to him, which will never be done, as it is not his intent to see it. Even though the very forum upon which we post validates my research. I choose, instead, not to recognize his ability to force me to choose. 

 

Unless his words have projected through the monitor and slapped you in the face, there is no NAP violation or use of force.  This is further evidenced by the fact that you can choose not to respond--if you were truly being forced, it would not be possible to choose not to respond without suffering some kind of substantive repercussion. 

[utopian]

/rubhead

 

Ill tell you what, if you guys really wanna discuss this, we can talk in PM and leave the thread for its original point.

[Magnetic Synthesizer]

I like your poetic approach. Is there any sort of reply you seek?

I see as you are simply entertaining the world through your thread here.

 

As for the NAP issue, using the enviornement to achieve the same as a coercive act without directly coercing, is probably what he is reffering to.

There have been situations where the equivalent of coercion are achieved and that by basic short-sighted and limited purview no one is blamed.

I would be one of the few that will point out everyone involved inheriting blame for the situation as they feed the cogs of the gears.

 

This reminds me of my favorite cognitive function, so lacking, these days and always, in people.

[utopian]

I am, though I am not quite sure I have the words to encompass what I am looking for in an answer.

 

Libertarians have a problem; they expect everyone whos not as fit as they are to accept their predicament and suffer and die if they are unable to support themselves without the state. As we can see today, that doesnt happen. The weak, for whatever reason makes them that way, will grasp at anything to alleviate their problems, even if it means signing up for the state. They are like moths diving into a flame. In their death throws, they reach out for something to save them. The state throws them a lifeline and they cling to it for dear life. But the state, being the state, never pulls them in out of danger. The state leaves them to dangle over the flame, telling them to obey or be cast in. The weak will always obey, faced with such a predicament. And the thing is, you see, the weak always make up the majority of the population. Therefore, in this way, the weak become the majority, who are actually puppets of the state, and therefore the state can always get what its wants through a well manipulated process of democracy. 

 

Considering this, how are people ever to be rid of the corruptions of a state?

 

 

Because these people, like the moths, cannot comprehend the flame they are flying into. They go to work, pay their taxes, live little lives and don't think any more about it. How is anyone supposed to explain to people, what is beyond their comprehension? How do you keep the moth from flying into the flame? 

 

 

Because also, after this is considered, you have to wonder if you, as an average or above average intelligence, are also like a moth to a flame, in some grander scheme. is earth just the ball sitting in the center of god's snowglobe? Is there actually no god, and no intelligently created universe? Are we even conscious, or simply a mass of intimate objects cooperating, by chance, to produce our experience of life? Because maybe, if there are people who are weak enough to willingly sign up for the state, I myself am too weak to even want to know what the answer is to the grander schemes of life. 

 

 

As far as not violating the NAP while justifying the Fed and government, the principle is explained in the idea of the masses willingly giving themselves to it. For those who do not approve, that's too bad, because power can always be consolidated outside of the NAP, that will always have the potential to agress without concern of retaliation. And as we can see today, it always will.

[Troubador]

Of course we are always going to be shaped and molded by large and complex systems, wether that is a natural system like the weather, or man-made like politics. However I do not need to intimately know the totality of all there is to know about weather patterns to know to put a warm coat on in a snowstorm (or even just stay warm indoors).

 

One can still be wise and navigate the world without knowing in punishing detail the complexity of all systems that exist. In fact sometimes truly staggering intellects, despite a vast amount of knowledge can really struggle to navigate practical everyday reality.

 

Sometimes it's the different between intelligence and wisdom: be intelligent and know a tomato is a fruit, but be wise enough not to put one in my fruit salad!

[john cena]

You are absolutely correct, we are all very ignorant. If I were a mathematician, I could say our current knowledge in comparison to all knowledge is effectively zero.

I am with Stefan on most of what he says, yet I can hear the child like quiver in Stef's voice whenever he attempts to disprove God.. It saddens me to see how his abuse has affected his spirituality .I certainly believe there is a God, as it is logically proven. If there is no God, then either 1. Logic is not real, or 2. We do not exist today. How can I say this? First, I know that I exist. Second and more importantly, without cause, there can be no effect. There must be a cause for our universe, and there must be a cause for that cause, regressing to infinity. Yet infinity does not exist, it is merely a concept that we label something as when we cannot comprehend it using logic. Therefore there must either be a finite starting point of "God" somewhere in time, OR logic must exist in some alternate form elsewhere in existence, which I find much more unlikely and useless. What form this God takes, I do not know. Looking at the relative nature of time, personally I think that God may be some form of collective human intelligence, desperately trying to save us from our own demise. We live in a universe with infinite slices of time, interconnected in ways we don't understand at all. Time is fundamentally no different than any of the other three spatial dimensions, the difference is only in how you perceive them. If that's not something to show you how much of a moth you and I are, nothing is. Might we be one of an infinite number of possible scenarios attempting to create the best and most fit end product of intelligence? May human kind itself be the one thing that God can not achieve by sheer will, but the complexity of which requires trial and error over infinite time to ascertain God-like results? May God himself merely be an abstraction of all collective human good striving through time to reach a singularity which they are all knowing and all powerful? These are questions none of us can answer, and if we could answer them, sociopaths and psychopaths would be doing whatever they needed to to get into "heaven". May hell simply mean we let our universe decay into statism and evil for all of eternity, never to be contacted by the God from outside our universe, the creator? Fundamentally the entire point of God in my personal opinion is to separate genuine people from sociopaths just fitting in for self benefit or benefit of their gene set. Stef would fall into this category of pushing his own genetics. His incredibly smart genes will do much better in a free society than a state society for sure. I don't see any other logical reason to pursue anything if you are an atheist, (IE nihilism) outside of personal benefit. I'm not questioning any principle he puts forward here, they are mostly undoubtedly true, but hopefully you get the point. I've drawn many amazing parallels between Christianity (IE the actual teaching of Jesus Christ, not religion or the versions of the bible translated by popes/kings to fit their agenda) and a free society. I expect many comments like "Well you could match any metaphor to the bible really". Yet, is there any other set of morality specifically that so perfectly fits the NAP than the teaching of Jesus Christ who was arguably thousands of years ahead of his time and had a vision not even conceived of at that point? This isn't even getting into how I think that the Old Testament (Once again, not the version translated by tyrant thugs) is basically a societal guide on how to run life when the majority of people are evil, while the new testament is a guide on how to manage society peacefully once evil has subsided to a level combat-able by peaceful means. 

You sound like you have reached the pinnacle of enlightenment possible for secular things, or close to it and you are striving to find out more about reality. I will go against the grain of the forum here, and do something not recommended to most. From my own personal experience, if you are concretely rooted in your principles and very comfortable in your own mind; if you do not feel afraid of the dark, and you have no fear of death, I suggest that you look into psychedelics. For many people, they are just taken as a drug or to get some vague and usually delusional information; however, It's extremely hard to convey to you the point to which individuals like myself  (IQ 140+) and possibly yourself as well can benefit from being able to see directly into the workings of the human mind, and how it processes information. LSD for one example disrupts the visual cortex in a way that allows some to "perceive their own perception". It's extremely hard for me to convey this to you, it's akin of trying to describe a detailed map of earth using words. It's something like your brain breaking the entire world down into mathematical fractal equations that your brain is able to process. This is something directly evident and observable even in photography, but once the disruption in the visual cortex is gone, you are now "blinded" of true reality due to your brain discarding the information about HOW it perceives, as this is not very useful for hunter/gathering. Another example could be you look at a tree. As a sober human, you only care about fruits or animals on the tree for the most part. Your brain discards all of the information not relevant to that. However psychedelics can allow you to track the movement of every single leaf on the tree just as your sober brain could with one or two leafs. You are able to perceive the entirety of the tree at once, not simply a focused aspect of it. You are able to use the entirety of your vision including peripherals as if they were focused like a telescope. I will swear to you that you would be absolutely god damned amazed at the amount of information your brain is constantly discarding, yet you have the brain capacity to be capable of perceiving if you weren't so focused on food/sex/money. The way that this applies to non visual stimuli such as concepts in your head is akin to using a CPU with four cores to render a graphic, versus using a 10,000 core GPU to render it. Things that were impossible to perceive due to time limitations are now possible, and things that may have taken you years to figure out may be instantly an blatantly obvious to you. Now of course this is not a drug inducing these things, as a simple serotonin mimicking molecule has no such capacity to observe. The capacity is fully your own, your brain just isn't wired to do it normally. Also I should say, drugs like this are completely safe if you are not insane. If you are insane, you will most likely hurt yourself or suffer from paranoid terrifying delusions. However I don't expect you to be this type, hence why I tell you this information, but I see importance to list this for others reading. 

You are a moth to the light, most certainly. Humans and the predecessors of humans have always been striving to become smarter and more intelligent, and we always will; yet we will always remain close to infinitely ignorant in the grand scheme of things. 

Do take note than I'm just a twenty year old carbon based lifeform and take these things with a grain of salt.

[john cena]

Email me at [email protected], we can get you schedule to the call in show and you can make your case for God on the show..

I plan on doing that eventually, however my crippling social anxiety leaves my real time argument skills somewhat pathetic, akin to a deer in the headlights. I've had nowhere near the length of time I would need to develop a clear argument for God, and I'm sure Stefan would come up with something to refute me that I would not be able to immediately dismantle in the moment; it took me months to understand the flaw in his reasoning about the logical contradiction of a God being both all knowing and all powerful. That said, one day when my understanding (as well as the field itself) of fundamental quantum physics is where I need it to be, as well as the metaphors I need to convey my message accurately, I will certainly come on the show for this topic. As of now, I am a twenty year old struggling to get by in the world and I would most likely harm the argument I'm trying to convey.. At this moment, my understanding is that we can not know, or ever know. I however am an optimist, and I acknowledge my stance is rooted in this optimism.

 

Now psychedelic use to expand the mind to new frontiers is something I am interested in doing a call on very soon, you might get an email from me here shortly on the subject. 

[Jer]

Everything must have a cause! Oh that's a new one.

 

But but but, what caused God?

 

[john cena]

Everything must have a cause! Oh that's a new one.

 

But but but, what caused God?

 

You're assuming here that I am arguing A. that human intelligence is a proof for god, and B. that got is indeed intelligent. 

 

Define Intelligent:

 

 

 

(of a device, machine, or building) able to vary its state or action in response to varying situations, varying requirements, and past experience.

God in no way needs to fit the definition of intelligent in order for my argument to be valid, this is a strawman.

 

I am simply arguing that either A. Logic and physics models are both fundamentally broken, or B. There is a sole root cause of all other causes, EG God. Intelligence or human existence at all is irrelevant to this. Feel free to show this as a false dichotomy, otherwise I don't see a way to disprove what I'm saying here.

[Armitage]

But I often look at my fellow humans. I see how little they are able to comprehend. I know that I could attempt to bring to them one of the concepts I like to explore, and they would be lost, as oblivious to what they are seeing as would be a moth to a flame. I see this, and though I feel superior in some regard, I have to wonder, to what concepts am I, perhaps, like a moth to a flame. 

You ask a very interesting question. Shortly said, there are a few such concepts, mostly in metaphysics. Know that the universe is mostly plasma physics and mathematics. As long as our ideas are too distant from that, there are bound to be big surprises.

 

However, I assure you, you can know these fundamental concepts and still feel basically poor, ignorant and unsatisfied. They make life more interesting, but not easier at all (sort of like leftist critical theory he he    ). As Donnadogsoth correctly says, when you work with principles, you can understand everything, the question is how and when, not if. I wonder myself, if I knew all important facts about reality and was able to put them forward, what would it be good for? People would benefit a great deal from basic knowledge of rationality and science. What would they make of anything transcendental, when that seems to be utterly foreign to any use, control or mental apprehension?

 

There is a limit to foresight, because applied, lived knowledge changes what we are and this changes the kind of things we appreciate. There is a somewhat wrong way to look at knowledge or ideas as fixed things, this is a very subtle kind of error, which for most would be a great improvement in rigorous thought. But ultimately we know that the universe is energy and energy is motion, a process. All that concepts give us is cyclical development, as we abandon old concepts, stand impoverished for a time and then develop new concepts. I do wonder if we ever gather it all back up and stand in full control and profit of all of our faculties and assets. Or is life this makeshift philosophical pursuit where one is learning alone at breakneck pace without any close support and community?

 

All in all, I believe Stefan has reached a true philosophical nirvana on personal scale. He's like a planet with sustainable civilization on it - not perfect, but pretty good and improving. His life does not suck, he's healthy, wise, has a lot of friends, great wife, great daughter, does a very useful work, continues to grow and gather influence.

Do I realize some obscure and exotic concepts that he doesn't? Sure. But I'm young and my life still sucks and probably will until I carve out a place for myself in the world. The Stefanic idea of living a good life that doesn't suck is almost as obscure to me as the Logos, Demiurge and antahkarana, and these are some pretty obscure concepts.

[Armitage]

God in no way needs to fit the definition of intelligent in order for my argument to be valid, this is a strawman.

I am simply arguing that either A. Logic and physics models are both fundamentally broken, or B. There is a sole root cause of all other causes, EG God. Intelligence or human existence at all is irrelevant to this. Feel free to show this as a false dichotomy, otherwise I don't see a way to disprove what I'm saying here.

I hope you will return to this thread and read this. (after all, philosophical conversations ignore millenia and deaths of the authors)

Congratulations on getting to such degree of comprehension in such a young age. You're very close and on a good way. Close to what, I don't know, I'm not done yet and far from being happy and satisfied, but meanwhile I can tell a good idea from a bad one.  I generally tell people that I'm doing well without drugs, without religion and with a shitload of strenuous meditation. 

 

The metaphors that you look for, I suggest you look more in physics and less in theology. You sense some magnificent concept and God is the best label for it, but it's still just a meaningless label, not connected to any other knowledge that we have.

 

I have come to a conclusion that what you call "God" is simply a singularity of absolute energy and no other discernible parameter. All other physical are convertible or traceable to energy, so there's that.

So how is the diverse, existing world created? Well, it isn't created, as much as projected as a shadow play. If you imagine this "God" or singularity as a standing wave of sorts, then the objective complexity is made through an elaborate partial self-cancellation and partial self-projection within that standing wave, in a very repetitive, fractal or holographic way.

 

So in a sense, the limited universe is an illusion, every manifested particle is traceable to the singularity of infinite energy. Our matter is carved into the great standing wave of energy like empty space fills carvings in a solid wood. It is quite a different way compared to how people view the universe - they think matter is the most solid and energetic thing around, but cosmic rays pass through it like it's a shadow. In that sense, it is a shadow. Or foam on the quantum ocean of untold depths and increasing densities. I'd suggest, If we could only realize it, there is no absolute quantum difference between "real" and "virtual" particles, both are real, but our instruments can only detect particles within a certain range of... particle-ness that is close to their own.