Ah, ok. I don't think Terx is talking physics - specifically as the followup relates to Aimee's objections regarding dopamine and her lived experience. So I do not think that use of the term in its contemporary physics context is super on target. Now, that term does get used in a sort of overarching-personal-philosophy context, and it is more at home there. I think that's closer to how he means it. He can disabuse me of that notion if he desires, and my assertion to where it fits would still stand.
Humanity is a lot of things. Our power over what we are is not absent, but it is limited. I've heard a stoner-utterance "we only die because we accept it." Well, that's ********. There's plenty of evidence of people not accepting death being greeted by it anyhow. But, then, I guess one can address how they define self. As we drift older, the people that I see that seem worthy of emulation do seem to put less of theirself inside their physical being. More of their "self" is broader, less specialized. But w/e. How does duality play it. I'm not an expert, but a lot of our decision making is yes/no. A lot of our complicated decision making, even that containing combinations and nuance is a series of rapid fire yes/no to different combinations. Is this true? No. Is it's opposite true? No. Is it true if I mix it with this other thing? No. How about if I mix it with these three other things? Maybe. What changed, then? This? No. This other thing? No. This third thing? Maybe. Should I be kind or should I self-protect? Should this I give or should that I take? Is this person cooperating or are they going to assault me? Are they infectious or are they healthy? It goes on and on. Heaven and Hell. Stasis and Change. Yin and Yang. Logic and emotion. All these concepts bleed over, they aren't binary. But they are dualistic.
Ok, this thread already started from an unusual place, and I think it is getting even more unusual still.
Not a problem, just pointing it out.
Regarding intentions, well; actually, I think you are
half right; indeed, I don't think a precise care with the physics coherence of it all was the top priority; in that much, I agree with you, at least until he sets us straight on his intentions.
But he does tries to bind things to physical reality; he claims to be handling science, and specifically denies magic, while talking about particles as "protons" and "electrons" guiding biology in terms of psychological/mythical terminology, like "life force", or "thanatos and eros".
So, I can't help but to see that as mysthical philosophy appropriating scientific knowledge, at least until better clarification. Thus, that's why I asked him how can he reconcile his approach with rigorous congruence, without undue anthropocentrism.
About the nature of reality, well; seems to me that you arrived to dualism through analysis; specifically, you postulated a quantized version of questions/"decision making", that admits only yes/no answers.
I would challenge this postulate. To use your examples:
"Is this person cooperating or are they going to assault me?" What if he is cooperating, but inadvertedly, through error, his action and up harming you; so a sincere act of cooperation results in involuntary assault? If he wants to assault you, but involuntarily helps you, for example, by delaying you for a moment more suited to your goals than the one in which you intended to act?
Are they infectious or are they healthy? What if he is healthy but infectious, like Typhoid Mary (carriers in general)?
These are scenarios in which the reality if the situation is a blur between the opposing states. This seems to be the way nature functions; with the line between states of being demonstrating fluidity, are least at any level we can reasonably influence.
I don't see duality in nature, at all. It is a traditional way to frame ideas - this, I agree with - but I feel that mentality is reductionist, an artefact of antiquated thinking.
But that's me! I could be wrong.
Hello
@FredLC , where have you been hiding? It is nice to see you posting.
Thanks. I actually had a day off today; while I was taking coconut with vodka and baking in the sun, I decided to enter CFC to get a feel of the international perception of the COVID-19 pandemic, and ended up reading this thread.
Strange thread, and strange way I got here.
Regards
.
Inadvertent assault rather than cooperating, healthy but deadly. Both play upon the bleed over in the original language terms. They weren't intended to be binary! We certainly aren't omniscient, our thoughts are not 100% accurate representations of the universe they seek to describe. Yet we are beings that exist within a frame.
