Everything is Made of Energy Stuff

So... if energy is conscious and aware (whatever the heck that means because with the ill, nay, sick non-definition of energy it could be literally anything and one might expect that consciousness and awareness are buzz words of the same nature), and we are an example of that, then wouldn't rocks be an example of energy being not conscious nor aware (unless the ill, nay sick non-definitions of conscious and aware are such as to allow for conscious and aware rocks, i suppose)? If we are arguing from examples, surely that must go both ways, and conversely, in order for it to only go one way the argument must be one that wouldn't rely on examples.

To the second paragraph of Rickie's post #153098 (and only to it from this point on) I would comment that admitting you don't know is something one should do if one doesn't know. At the same time, when I know, let's say, that the earth resembles an ovoid in shape, I am perfectly comfortable saying I know this (and I can show that I do), and, and here comes the crucial bit, while I am open to change my mind as new evidence comes about, I am not just "open to the possibility" of flat-earth geology. My skepticism wouldn't have me stick to a belief despite and against reason but at the same time, it wouldn't let me accept any without reason either, much less when I have plenty of reason to accept an incompatible claim to the one suggested.
Yes, I agree, on the quest of knowledge the blind reliance on one method is irrational. But of course if it happens to be the one and only most reliable method with no other ever showing any remotely comparable merit on any occasion, the reliance on that particular method, be it limited as it might, suddenly becomes very easy to justify. The assumption that we are capable to master all things is not rational and perhaps ultimately false, too, but we are fully aware of that when we employ it as a working assumption. If we assumed the contrary, we would constantly have to ask whether there is anything at all we can master and how would we go about telling masterable and unmasterable things from each other which would make the kind of progress that enables us to write without carving anything into stones and shipping them across the oceans over months rather than milliseconds, simply put, impossible.
Most of us owe their lives and all of us owe their lifestyles to the working assumption that things are within our reach and that we will get them all if only we try hard enough. It is not humble to assume that we cannot, it is cowardly and lazy. We know that there is a lot we don't know and we even know about some of the things we don't know. But to not know everything doesn't mean to not know anything. And we are open to whatever the answers we find shall imply for what we previously had accepted as working assumptions. We aren't open to possibilities, we are open to advancement. Our minds aren't free due to our ignorance, they are trapped instead in the pits of ignorance struggling to climb outand succeeding, one inch at a time, day after day. We acknowledge our ignorance, but we don't accept it - we fight it.

And wouldn't that be a sentiment to tie to or get out of the second line of the code?

Gisteron wrote: So... if energy is conscious and aware (whatever the heck that means because with the ill, nay, sick non-definition of energy it could be literally anything and one might expect that consciousness and awareness are buzz words of the same nature), and we are an example of that, then wouldn't rocks be an example of energy being not conscious nor aware (unless the ill, nay sick non-definitions of conscious and aware are such as to allow for conscious and aware rocks, i suppose)? If we are arguing from examples, surely that must go both ways, and conversely, in order for it to only go one way the argument must be one that wouldn't rely on examples.

If looking for useful definitions, an example might be 'conscious' being self aware, and 'aware' being aware of outside of self. The 'structure' of a rock is simple compared to an animal, and its rate, quantity and variety of change is, as a result, at a different temporal frame. By virtue of its simplicity that rock can last a million years, by virtue of our complexity we collapse near 100.

The problem might be expecting some truth from a practise, when the practise is not about seeking truth primarily but improving the experience of reality to have a better and more rich truth.

Funny thing is we are not really aware of what is outside of self, we are aware of our self interacting with outside which we interpret as outside! But for practical reasons it makes sense to split mental processing into different areas. One example would be to use a three tiered level of;

1. space realm - temporal, spirit
2. mind realm - corporeal representation, spatial
3. abstract realm - mental, emotional

While its all the same system of awareness, it probably uses different circuitry in the brain. Some people might have an ability to integrate visual processing (like in dreams) to different senses to work with such concepts. I dont think anyone is trying to 'define' reality by doing this sort of thing, rather have a greater experience of it or try to refine the experience for some nature of benefit.

I agree though we must stay firmly anchored in the science of reality, and for me Jediism does heavily incorporate science and scientific discovery to shape how we can better experience reality.

Gisteron your feet are firmly planted on the ground and that is a good thing but it keeps you from flying. Let go of your: logic, reason and evidence and soar in the sky once in a while. You'll get a different view of things from up there.

Let go of your: logic, reason and evidence and soar in the sky once in a while. You'll get a different view of things from up there.

People "fly" just fine with logic reason and evidence. There is no lack of wonder, and awe, for those who choose such a path.

People with there "head in the couds" ( as opposed to feet on the ground I guess) have a different view, but just as a guy who has a view from the edge of a cliff from a person jumping off, well, it might help to have a healthy, logical, reasonable, understanding of gravity and that different isnt necessarily the point.

Because you actually wont fly.

I could easily reverse it, and tell you to let go of your nonsense, and get a different view, but that is not the point.

I dont want to change views, nor change your view.

I am seeking clarification on your view, and understanding,so is Gisteron.
'
Ideas should compete, be tested, some weeded out if they dont hold up,etc.

Then, they should change accordingly.

I am less interested in to having my own singular, individual, different view, then I am about having the view that has been tested, peer reviewed, and applicable on a scale wider than my own little world. For which, in all you have presented, thats all it is. Things you choose to believe for no good reason other than it "makes you feel warm and fuzzy."

If I do not proceed from reason, logic, and evidence, then I am simply taking your word for it, and that is preffered ignorance, which isnt flying.

Kind of like planes.

If people did not proceed from logic, reason, and evidence, we wouldnt have flown at all.

To post your OP is fine, but most people, when offered anything are going to attempt to look deeper, and I cant see how thats not a good thing.

Ideas should be discussed, tested, dissected, etc,because that is how we, as a species, have always surpassed our limits and "flown".

Khaos wrote: People "fly" just fine with logic reason and evidence. There is no lack of wonder, and awe, for those who choose such a path.

In fact, there is an case to be made that those who do will often find themselves in a universe even richer with awe, joy, inspiration and beauty for it.

Certainly, because then flying isnt just a metaphor

The dream is damned and deamer too, is dreaming is all that dreamers do.-Chiron

Those that have used logic, reason evidence, etc, have consistently made what was once a dream, a theory, a possible future, and made it manifest for all to use.

“The brain is so powerful that the imagination has allowed us to conceive of any delightful future we choose, pick the most amazing one, and pull the present forward to meet it.”-Jason Silva

Sure, but not only that. You're pointing to the practical reasons wherein the quest for knowledge and the submission to curiosity granted us the power to shape our world such that we have the time to worry about spirituality, the arts and love and not only about how to survive until next dawn. And our mental faculties couldn't receive enough credit and praise for that gift.

But even in theory, something that is good and beautiful is even better and more beautiful when we can know it is also true. With and without the gifts of the critical mind, this world, as cruel and unwelcoming as it may be, still provides us with marvels to stun us around just about every corner and the better we know how they work, the more astounding they become. If all a magical fairy can do is a flower, that makes the flower a petty toy from mother fairy who could do so much better with her magic. But if mere water and light can create a rainbow stretching all across the sky, just imagine what wonders could be expected from a drop of DNA in every flower's cell! And now realize how one of those is true while the other isn't and now the contrast gets even sharper.
No spiritual mumbo-jumbo, much less any fiction can ever compete in beauty with the magnificence of the true universe as it is.

No spiritual mumbo-jumbo, much less any fiction can ever compete in beauty with the magnificence of the true universe as it is.

No doubt.

"Yes, [science is my God] in a sense. I'm comfortable with the unknown, that's the point of science. There are places out there, billions of places out there that we know nothing about. And the fact that we know nothing about them excites me, and I want to go out and find out about them. And that's what science is. So I think if you're not comfortable with the unknown, then it's difficult to be a scientist. So I don't need an answer; I don't need answers to everything. I want to have answers to find." - Brian Cox

If one is truly comfortable with the unknown, then there would be no desire to figure things out.

Science, is in direct contrast to being comfortable with the unknown. Though comfort in itself is a strange angle to take.

Curiosity, is not about being uncomfortable or not.

Need is also a strange word to use.

Want is a great word, and the want to have answers to find means he would be uncomfortable to let things remain unknown.

I think there always be answers to find, and comfort, or discomfort is a poor springboard to discovery.

Want itself is enough.

"Curiosity killed the cat, satisfaction brought him back".