News:

TESTAMONIAL:  "I was still a bit rattled by the spectacular devastation."

Main Menu

I'm making a religion based on Emergence.

Started by Kai, July 04, 2009, 04:57:41 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Thurnez Isa

I have nothing to add... other then I wanna get cremated just to deny those bastard worms their meal
:argh!:
Through me the way to the city of woe, Through me the way to everlasting pain, Through me the way among the lost.
Justice moved my maker on high.
Divine power made me, Wisdom supreme, and Primal love.
Before me nothing was but things eternal, and eternal I endure.
Abandon all hope, you who enter here.

Dante

LMNO

Kai, this really does takes some thought.  I like where you're going with this.

Kai

Quote from: LMNO on August 31, 2009, 03:03:43 PM
Kai, this really does takes some thought.  I like where you're going with this.

I don't think I'd be taking it seriously if I didn't. If this is my religion, that is, if this is truly a central myth supported by ancillary and emotional strategies for social cohesion and personal well being, then I really do need to take it seriously and consider the hard questions. I also like how it challenges and betters the system I already have.



For GA's assertion I have a feeling I need to go reread The Process of Sustaining, especially the part about the delusion of taking without giving.
If there is magic on this planet, it is contained in water. --Loren Eisley, The Immense Journey

Her Royal Majesty's Chief of Insect Genitalia Dissection
Grand Visser of the Six Legged Class
Chanticleer of the Holometabola Clade Church, Diptera Parish

Captain Utopia

Quote from: GA on August 31, 2009, 01:28:17 AM
Quote from: Kai on August 29, 2009, 08:15:29 PM
It's true we can't avoid completely the death of our neural networks, but most of us spend our whole lives in fear of the end. I'm not saying that we should seek out our demises. To do so is foolish, stupid and a misuse of our emergent teleos. Since we can continue, everything points towards continuing. There is a difference between not fearing death, and seeking it out. All life works for its own continuance.

Two points:

1.  I don't think I know anybody who spends their whole life, or even a large portion of it, in fear of the end.  Maybe they do and I just haven't twigged on yet, or it's the kind of thing people keep to themselves (and do a very good job of it.)  Maybe it's because most of the people I know are younger and not yet at the point where worrying about dying is fashionable?  I know I personally am more afraid that I might end up in situation where the most correct option is to kill someone, do so, and then not feel remorse afterwards - which is a highly improbable situation, especially when compared to the certainty of my expiring.  (Unless Quantum Immortality is correct, which would be awesome.)
I guess I interpret "fear of the end", not as a nail-biting terror but anywhere on the spectrum from that towards a simple preference for not "ending", based upon whatever reasons the individual has.

In other words, the background perception and actions required to avoid the end while it is deemed as unnecessary. In those terms you would seem to be both discussing the same thing.

Golden Applesauce

I do respect the fact that you're putting work into this, and holding up the results for criticism, refinement, and potential mockery.

Quote from: Kai on August 31, 2009, 02:20:56 AM
2. I don't respond to argumentum ad absurdum.

If  p -> q and p -> !q, then !p.  Just saying.
Q: How regularly do you hire 8th graders?
A: We have hired a number of FORMER 8th graders.

The Good Reverend Roger

I have two major problems with this entire concept:

1.  Breaking even is a losing strategy, and

2.  Entropy always wins.
" It's just that Depeche Mode were a bunch of optimistic loveburgers."
- TGRR, shaming himself forever, 7/8/2017

"Billy, when I say that ethics is our number one priority and safety is also our number one priority, you should take that to mean exactly what I said. Also quality. That's our number one priority as well. Don't look at me that way, you're in the corporate world now and this is how it works."
- TGRR, raising the bar at work.

Kai

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 31, 2009, 08:28:16 PM
I have two major problems with this entire concept:

1.  Breaking even is a losing strategy, and

2.  Entropy always wins.

1. Breaking even works well enough for long enough, at least within the time scale of this planet within this solar system.

2. Entropy looses often enough.
If there is magic on this planet, it is contained in water. --Loren Eisley, The Immense Journey

Her Royal Majesty's Chief of Insect Genitalia Dissection
Grand Visser of the Six Legged Class
Chanticleer of the Holometabola Clade Church, Diptera Parish

Kai

Quote from: fictionpuss on August 31, 2009, 06:45:47 PM
Quote from: GA on August 31, 2009, 01:28:17 AM
Quote from: Kai on August 29, 2009, 08:15:29 PM
It's true we can't avoid completely the death of our neural networks, but most of us spend our whole lives in fear of the end. I'm not saying that we should seek out our demises. To do so is foolish, stupid and a misuse of our emergent teleos. Since we can continue, everything points towards continuing. There is a difference between not fearing death, and seeking it out. All life works for its own continuance.

Two points:

1.  I don't think I know anybody who spends their whole life, or even a large portion of it, in fear of the end.  Maybe they do and I just haven't twigged on yet, or it's the kind of thing people keep to themselves (and do a very good job of it.)  Maybe it's because most of the people I know are younger and not yet at the point where worrying about dying is fashionable?  I know I personally am more afraid that I might end up in situation where the most correct option is to kill someone, do so, and then not feel remorse afterwards - which is a highly improbable situation, especially when compared to the certainty of my expiring.  (Unless Quantum Immortality is correct, which would be awesome.)
I guess I interpret "fear of the end", not as a nail-biting terror but anywhere on the spectrum from that towards a simple preference for not "ending", based upon whatever reasons the individual has.

In other words, the background perception and actions required to avoid the end while it is deemed as unnecessary. In those terms you would seem to be both discussing the same thing.

You're off, but thanks.

I meant it when I said I needed to go back and read The Process.
If there is magic on this planet, it is contained in water. --Loren Eisley, The Immense Journey

Her Royal Majesty's Chief of Insect Genitalia Dissection
Grand Visser of the Six Legged Class
Chanticleer of the Holometabola Clade Church, Diptera Parish

Kai

Quote from: GA on August 31, 2009, 08:18:51 PM
I do respect the fact that you're putting work into this, and holding up the results for criticism, refinement, and potential mockery.

Quote from: Kai on August 31, 2009, 02:20:56 AM
2. I don't respond to argumentum ad absurdum.

If  p -> q and p -> !q, then !p.  Just saying.

Thanks.

Also, I don't know what you're talking about.
If there is magic on this planet, it is contained in water. --Loren Eisley, The Immense Journey

Her Royal Majesty's Chief of Insect Genitalia Dissection
Grand Visser of the Six Legged Class
Chanticleer of the Holometabola Clade Church, Diptera Parish

The Good Reverend Roger

Quote from: Kai on August 31, 2009, 08:35:23 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 31, 2009, 08:28:16 PM
I have two major problems with this entire concept:

1.  Breaking even is a losing strategy, and

2.  Entropy always wins.

1. Breaking even works well enough for long enough, at least within the time scale of this planet within this solar system.

2. Entropy looses often enough.

1.  Nonsense, unless your religion is designed to cater to the planet itself, rather than life (presumably humans).

2.  Entropy *never* loses, except on a local scale, and then only temporarily.  However, I wasn't really talking about the Earth as a system, but rather the way societies, nations, and people work.
" It's just that Depeche Mode were a bunch of optimistic loveburgers."
- TGRR, shaming himself forever, 7/8/2017

"Billy, when I say that ethics is our number one priority and safety is also our number one priority, you should take that to mean exactly what I said. Also quality. That's our number one priority as well. Don't look at me that way, you're in the corporate world now and this is how it works."
- TGRR, raising the bar at work.

The Good Reverend Roger

" It's just that Depeche Mode were a bunch of optimistic loveburgers."
- TGRR, shaming himself forever, 7/8/2017

"Billy, when I say that ethics is our number one priority and safety is also our number one priority, you should take that to mean exactly what I said. Also quality. That's our number one priority as well. Don't look at me that way, you're in the corporate world now and this is how it works."
- TGRR, raising the bar at work.

Kai

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 31, 2009, 08:38:47 PM
Quote from: Kai on August 31, 2009, 08:35:23 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 31, 2009, 08:28:16 PM
I have two major problems with this entire concept:

1.  Breaking even is a losing strategy, and

2.  Entropy always wins.

1. Breaking even works well enough for long enough, at least within the time scale of this planet within this solar system.

2. Entropy looses often enough.

1.  Nonsense, unless your religion is designed to cater to the planet itself, rather than life (presumably humans).

2.  Entropy *never* loses, except on a local scale, and then only temporarily.  However, I wasn't really talking about the Earth as a system, but rather the way societies, nations, and people work.

One of the property of emergence systems is that the less local the individual parts become and the more different they become the easier it is for the system to fall back to a lower emergence system. Physics seems to be robust enough for immense differences in space and scale, and chemistry is rather robust as well. Biology is a bit more tenuous and consciousness even more so. If consciousness interacting with consciousness leads to sociality, then societies and culture are even more unstable. The further up you get from energy the less stable the system will be due to the dissimilarity and disconnection between the parts.

Too long; didn't read: Social emergence systems end up being quite unstable in nature, which is just something a person has to be aware of and adjust for.

That addresses your final point. The other ones:

1. Clarification: What goes on at the scale of upon this planet, within this system, ie the past 3.5 billion years of life.

2. Entropy (ie returning to the background energy, or whatever it is that quantum fluctuations are made of) is staved off long enough for all this (on the scale of life on this planet). It's enough.
If there is magic on this planet, it is contained in water. --Loren Eisley, The Immense Journey

Her Royal Majesty's Chief of Insect Genitalia Dissection
Grand Visser of the Six Legged Class
Chanticleer of the Holometabola Clade Church, Diptera Parish

The Good Reverend Roger

Quote from: Kai on August 31, 2009, 08:52:32 PM


One of the property of emergence systems is that the less local the individual parts become and the more different they become the easier it is for the system to fall back to a lower emergence system. Physics seems to be robust enough for immense differences in space and scale, and chemistry is rather robust as well. Biology is a bit more tenuous and consciousness even more so. If consciousness interacting with consciousness leads to sociality, then societies and culture are even more unstable. The further up you get from energy the less stable the system will be due to the dissimilarity and disconnection between the parts.

Too long; didn't read: Social emergence systems end up being quite unstable in nature, which is just something a person has to be aware of and adjust for.

That addresses your final point. The other ones:

1. Clarification: What goes on at the scale of upon this planet, within this system, ie the past 3.5 billion years of life.

2. Entropy (ie returning to the background energy, or whatever it is that quantum fluctuations are made of) is staved off long enough for all this (on the scale of life on this planet). It's enough.

Okay, I'm now lost.  Please explain, inside of a paragraph, the central tenets of your religion.  Please keep it simple, because I'm all fucked up on Clonazapam.
" It's just that Depeche Mode were a bunch of optimistic loveburgers."
- TGRR, shaming himself forever, 7/8/2017

"Billy, when I say that ethics is our number one priority and safety is also our number one priority, you should take that to mean exactly what I said. Also quality. That's our number one priority as well. Don't look at me that way, you're in the corporate world now and this is how it works."
- TGRR, raising the bar at work.

Thurnez Isa

unfortunately most of the cool life on this planet has already went extinct
:cry:
Through me the way to the city of woe, Through me the way to everlasting pain, Through me the way among the lost.
Justice moved my maker on high.
Divine power made me, Wisdom supreme, and Primal love.
Before me nothing was but things eternal, and eternal I endure.
Abandon all hope, you who enter here.

Dante

Kai

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 31, 2009, 08:55:07 PM

Okay, I'm now lost.  Please explain, inside of a paragraph, the central tenets of your religion.  Please keep it simple, because I'm all fucked up on Clonazapam.

Dumb hippy shit mixed with good science.
If there is magic on this planet, it is contained in water. --Loren Eisley, The Immense Journey

Her Royal Majesty's Chief of Insect Genitalia Dissection
Grand Visser of the Six Legged Class
Chanticleer of the Holometabola Clade Church, Diptera Parish