Evolution and fun stuff

[Vibecrewangel]

Kahl -
A bit out of your realm I guess.

If eyes can see lanterns can see is about energy being energy. You seem to be either a literalist or you have tried to read the suttras without any base knowledge.

Buddhism and quantum physicas are very similar. That is what I was directing you too when it comes to the structure and creation of the universe.

[kahljorn]

heh.
He was talking about perceptions as far as I know, "When you close your eyes do you still see? You see the darkness or the light beyond your eyelids, so is it your eyes that see? No it's your mind. In the same manner when you light a lantern in the dark is it the lantern that sees for you?" This was after about 20 lines of dialogue in which his little friends tried to figure out what the answer was. Then that guy cried about it because he wasn't a good little monk(or whatever that B word they use, boddhivista, no, bramaproaviaoo something like that).
I think it was the Diamond sutta now that I think about it.

[Paul138]

Originally Posted by FS

I always prefer to believe that the Egyptian head god masturbated and thus ejaculated the universe.

Funny thing is that there's a lot of fucking in Egyptian culture. The earth is supposedly in constant sexual intercourse with the sky, Ra returns to the sky every day through Nut's (goddess of the sky, which remember is constantly being fucked) vagina, Isis (mother of the gods) took sperm from Osiris' corpse and gave birth to Horus, first ruler of united Egypt. So, the whole thing is generally fucked-up.

You can find it here at http://socsci.colorado.edu/LAB/GODS/, and if you look closer at hiyroglyphics (guessed spelling), you could find plenty of dicks and pussies. Sorry, no examples.

[Vibecrewangel]

And that if Eyes see Lanterns could see. LANTERNS COULD SEE.

and

"When you close your eyes do you still see? You see the darkness or the light beyond your eyelids, so is it your eyes that see? No it's your mind. In the same manner when you light a lantern in the dark is it the lantern that sees for you?"

Not quite the same statement.......

The eyes show you things. The lantern shows you things. The mind can still perceive without the eyes or the lanterns. Thus, it is the mind that truly "sees" or understands.

[kahljorn]

One isnt even a statement, one is a question. And they are actually the exact same thing, "If eyes can see then lanterns can see". Then, "You see the darkness or the light beyond your eyelids, so is it your eyes that see? No it's your mind".

No it's your mind.
If eyes could see lanterns can see.
No it's your mind.
In the same manner when you light a lantern in the dark is it the lantern that sees for you?
No it's your mind

EDIT: "It's the part where he's talking about how the EYEs don't see it's the MIND. And that if Eyes see Lanterns could see. LANTERNS COULD SEE."

[Vibecrewangel]

"If eyes can see then lanterns can see".

Um...the point is eyes don't see. Neither do lanterns. Only the mind sees.

Perhaps you are not wording it well. It seems you are saying the meaning is "eyes do see, so lanterns see as well."

Maybe it is because you are trying to reverse the logic. However, if you understood the basics of Buddhism, you would "see" that you can't revese the logic.

[Immortal Goat]

Originally Posted by VinceZeb

No creationist crap.... man, you are open minded and well educated!

How does not believing in Creationism make him un-educated, Vinth? Tell me, where do you get that conclusion?

[kahljorn]

He was mostly trying to indicate I said "Creationalism" or something instead of "Creationism"

[Immortal Goat]

I myself am agnostic, and I believe that the earth was created in this way.

Cosmic dust began to swirl and clump together, eventually getting big enough to have its own gravitational pull. This pulled more dust and rocks toward it and eventually it became the general size of the earth as it is today. This mass circled the sun, gaining sunlight, while the pull of the earth created a layer of air around it, keeping in moisture. Bacteria grew, and became small animals and plants, which then grew into larger animals and plants. Monkeys were born, and from a select breed of apes, came the first homo-sapiens. Then, man created God to explain all the wonderful natural events that brought them to this state, and there were wars between men following different gods, and people lost their lives over the senselessness of defending something with no proof, and humanity has sucked forevermore.

[Preechr]

You've all got it all wrong.

Aliens selectively bred existing Earth Monkeys into Humans. They did this really quickly, so that's why you'll never find a missing link. I'm not sure why they did that, but I do know that they are still watching over us... waiting... They also cannot see you if you wear a hat made of metal or aluminum foil.

The ancient pictures of that Egyptian Goddess that they named that horrible Streisand flick after look just like an alien from Close Encounters...

*runs away screaming*

[The_Rorschach]

"How does not believing in Creationism make him un-educated, Vinth?"

Because by doing so, one is being dogmatic. Once one totally dismisses a premise -Without having first reached a verifiable solution- as having no pertinent value at all, they have shown themselves to be close-minded and intolerant, hence not very well educated.

[kahljorn]

It's really simple Vibe. First off, I was halfway quoting the way Buddha himself originally said it. So yea. Besides that it's not reverse logic, negatives and positives are irrelevant when the final statement is, "NO, ITS THE MIND THAT SEES". It could be phrased anyway. Like, Hi, I'm a girl, no im a guy." "hi im not a girl, Im a boy". see?

[kahljorn]

And roachy, it's not so much that I'm decidedly against creationist thoughts, it's just... well, quite frankly the CREATIONISM VERSUS EVOLUTION debate gets tiring. I wanted specific theories and philosophies I was attempting to learn. I did not want Christians and Catholics filling my attempt at learning with, GOD CREATED MAN IN SEVEN DAYS AND SO IT WAS. Maybe later I'll make a creationist thread. Someday.



IMMORTAL GOAT:
That's kind of how I think, except I add the addition of stating a universal truth of "Selfishness", or "Accumulation" depending on how you would like to see it, as applied to Gravity.

[kellychaos]

I think I would credit (at least the origin of) formal logic and biological classification more so to Aristotle.

[Vibecrewangel]

It's the part where he's talking about how the EYEs don't see it's the MIND. And that if Eyes see Lanterns could see. LANTERNS COULD SEE.

Not only did you leave out critical parts of the language that makes up the sutra, but the part you put in capitals "LANTERNS COULD SEE" makes it appear that you completely missed the point about the mind and felt that LANTERNS COULD SEE.

Seeing as how I haven't gotten into the sutras yet (I'm more interested in how Buddhism relates to math and science), I was only going on what you posted.

Then

And they are actually the exact same thing, "If eyes can see then lanterns can see". Then, "You see the darkness or the light beyond your eyelids, so is it your eyes that see? No it's your mind".

They are not the same if you don't know the context in which they both were used.

"If eyes can see then lanterns can see". And exactly how could anyone unfamilliar with the sutra possibly know the part about the mind? Taken alone this has a totally different meaning.

Language and context are very important when you are trying to make a point.

Do you "see" what I mean?

[Sethomas]

Because by doing so, one is being dogmatic. Once one totally dismisses a premise -Without having first reached a verifiable solution- as having no pertinent value at all, they have shown themselves to be close-minded and intolerant, hence not very well educated.

Thank you for the baseless and completely worthless assumption. I believe I remember you saying that you once believed in evolution, but after a long and arduous process of reason you switched to Creationism. Why is it impossible for you to attribute that same process to those that don't agree with you? Here you equate evolutionism with being dogmatic. That's presumptuous, rediculous, and hypocritical. The Creationist school of thought exists solely because of preconceived religious indoctrination. Among scientists, there is no ongoing debate whether or not evolution is true; the objective mountain of evidence leaves no room but to conclude that evolution is an absolute fact.

Your suggestion that it is ignorant to believe in evolution without an exhausting look at Creationism can be equated with the idea that geocentrism should be taught "just in case it's right".

[Zhukov]

I think I would credit (at least the origin of) formal logic and biological classification more so to Aristotle.

I'm listening.

Cosmic dust began to swirl....

This mass circled the sun, gaining sunlight...

What the heck? Immortal Goat, your view is pretty much a creationist story in itself.


Kahljorn: These laws of Dialectics sound more complicated than they actually are, but I will still have problems expressing them.

QUANTITY INTO QUALITY: This law states that the processes of change are not gradual, they are not even. Periods of relatively gradual or slight change mingle with periods of enormously rapid change - change which cannot be measured in terms of quantity but only in terms of quality.

Take for example a kettle of water. You can measure ("quantify") the water in terms of temperature, water from a tap is about ten degrees - and the change takes place as you heat the water, the water gets warmer - 10 to 20 to 30 degrees etc.

At some stage the measuring of the water from quantity, shifts to quality - the water turns into steam. As the water turns to steam, we you can no longer measure the water in terms of quantity (degrees) but you measure it in terms of quality (steam - not water).

A mate of mine gave me this 'example': As a lions penis becomes more erect, you measure it in terms of centimetres (this is quantity), if it gets bigger and bigger, it explodes, and you no longer measure it in centimetres, you measure it in terms of being exploded (quality).


Next is NEGATION OF THE NEGATION: this simply means the passing away of one thing is transformed into another.

Take for example, ahem, society. the law of the negation of the negation simply states that as one system comes into existence, it forces another system to pass away (like Feudalism was negated to Capitalism which will be negated to Communism) . But that doesn't mean that the second system is permanent or unchangeable. That second system itself becomes negated as a result of the further developments and processes of change in society.

Death, as well is an example. When you die you are negated by a corpse, which is negated by a skeleton which in turn is negated by a pile of dust and so on.


INTERPENETRATION OF OPPOSITE: This law states that processes of change take place because of contradictions - because of the conflicts between the different elements that are embodied in all natural and social processes.

The 'quantum theory' is an example of Interpenetration of Opposite. Quanyum theory is based on the concept of energy having a dual character - that for some purposes, according to some experiments, energy exists in the form of waves, like electromagnetic energy. But for other purposes energy manifests itself as particles. In other words, it is quite accepted among scientists that matter and energy can actually exist in two different forms at one and the same time - on the one hand as a kind of intangible wave, on the other hand as a particle with a definite 'quantum' (amount) of energy embodied in it.

Therefore the basis of the quantum theory in modern physics is contradiction.

There are many other contradictions known to science. Electromagnetic energy is set in motion through the effect of positive and negative forces on each other. Magnetism depends on the existence of a north pole and a south pole. These things cannot exist separately. They exist and operate precisely because of the contradictory forces being embodied in one and the same system.

Every society today consists of different contradictory elements joined together in one system, which makes it impossible for any society, any country, to remain stable or unchanged.

[Sethomas]

Magnetism depends on the existence of a north pole and a south pole. These things cannot exist separately.

Actually, there was a phase of the big bang characterized by the creation of magnetic monopoles. They're much too large to be detected by conventional experiments (roughly a millimeter), but people are still looking for them.

[AChimp]

Seth

Yeah, I was just going to say that. In theory, monopole magnets can exist, but no one has been able to find them or make them. The person who does will be very famous.

[Preechr]

Originally Posted by Zhukov

What the heck? Immortal Goat, your view is pretty much a creationist story in itself.

He may argue, but you are right. That ties back into The_Rorschach's observation. To study the formation of the universe from the perspective of physics, you eventually arrive at the dead end of "why?" That is the limitation of physical science, the study of "how." "Chaos" was actually perfect order. The only reasonable explanation for the original action that set off the chain of events we've come to know and love and call the Universe was what we refer to as "The Prime Mover."

That, and the aliens...

[Zhukov]

Monopoles? I'll have to look into that. :/

And the Big bang is also just another creation story.

[Vibecrewangel]

They are all the same story. Just change the names/descriptions......the concept remains the same.

[kahljorn]

""If eyes can see then lanterns can see". And exactly how could anyone unfamilliar with the sutra possibly know the part about the mind? Taken alone this has a totally different meaning.

Language and context are very important when you are trying to make a point."

Fortunately in this day and age we have something called a paragraph, I know it's new and all, but all the cool kids are doin git! It involves sentences, more than one, clumped together. Why? Who knows. The sentences have nothing to do with eachother, they are random spurts of thought directed towards confusing and confusing people more.
Capitol letters? By God. Nobody has ever used those for sarcasm or some kind of joke before. Thank God we've resolved that issue. LANTERS CAN SEE.

"Jesus Christ reanactment there. It's the part where he's talking about how the EYEs don't see it's the MIND. And that if Eyes see Lanterns could see. LANTERNS COULD SEE."
"He was talking about perceptions as far as I know"
""When you close your eyes do you still see? You see the darkness or the light beyond your eyelids, so is it your eyes that see? No it's your mind. In the same manner when you light a lantern in the dark is it the lantern that sees for you?""

that is in chronological order, i think the problem is I left it open ended. You know, like a puzzle, where it takes imagination and the brains of a three year old to figure out that the blue star doesn't fit into the Red Square spot. Or the flinestone phone doesn't call betsy if you call fred. I apologize. It's my fault.

Maybe I should outline my statements though. The mind Sees.
Not the Eyes.
The eyes do not see.
Let's suppose I said if the eyes could see, so could a lantern. Good thing I used the word if. Also a good thing I previously indicated that it is the mind that sees.
So let's show this mathmatically.
Seeing=mind. We'll call this S=M. Then there's Eyes=(crossthroughtheequalsign)see. then there Eyes=lantern. That's right. The eyes and the lantern fall under the same category. Seeing as how the eyes don't see, as stated, then the lantern(as being equal to the eyes) do not see as well. eye+lantern=confusing you. Mind=Perceptions. Perceptions. I think I said that word. Didn't I. I didn't use a paragraph this whole time. I hope it confuses you.

You can continue this pointless debate if you want, I'll even say you were right by arguing to agree.

[Preechr]

In a general sense, yes. They all have a beginning and assume and end... but so does everything! If you want to make it interesting and unusual, you have factor in the alien angle. Aliens are NOT good. Or, I guess, God.... I suppose we are all just wanting some outside force to control us and provide us with motivation. The alternative is disturbing, but probably more practical.

You cannot change anything, and the only thing you can ever hope to have any success at all in influencing would be your own mind. Is that a limitation? I don't think so. Y'see, the aliens are trying to teach us to think communally, like bees, but we are way too hung up on individuality to listen to them. Often, they find themselves yelling to be heard. That's why you wear your special hat.

I call it Super-Tao. Works for me.

[kahljorn]

Meow. Thinking even one thought "Changes" things, it adds to the pool of conceptual grief and perile. Which seems entirely Irrelevant.