Omniscience, Omnipotence, and Free Will

[timtofly]

His only basis is that we cannot control where we come from, nor our thoughts. He completely leaves out the ability to reason out our thoughts and actions, yet he thinks there needs to be more positive actions.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

Looks like dr. Harris may be onto something after all:

His is surely a bounded soul who has never felt the brooding wings of a Fate overshadow the world, never looked beyond the circle of persons, collectivities and forces, never been conscious of the still thought or the assured movement of a Presence in things determining their march. On the other hand it is the sign of a defect in the thought or a void of courage and clearness in the temperament to be overwhelmed by Fate or hidden Presence and reduced to a discouraged acquiescence,—as if the Power in things nullified or rendered superfluous and abortive the same Power in myself. Fate and free-will are only two movements of one indivisible energy. My will is the first instrument of my Fate, Fate a Will that manifests itself in the irresistible subconscious intention of the world.
.....................
A saying of Napoleon’s is pregnant of the true truth of this matter. Questioned why, since he talked continually of fate, he thought it worth while to be always thinking and planning, he answered with just reason, “Because it is still Fate who wills that I should plan.” This is the truth. There is a Will or Force in the world that determines the result of my actions as part of the great whole; there is a Will in me that determines, concealed by my thought and personal choice, the part that I shall take in determining the whole. It is this that my mind seizes on and calls my will. But I and mine are masks.

 

[CYSQUATCH9]

But are you in control of that will? That is the problem with the free will debate. The most common description of free will is that you are in control, you are the author...That is just a scientifically inaccurate statement.

The argument that there is something beyond our comprehension, pulling our strings or coaxing/guiding us into our "fate" is a non-sequitur. There are facts to be understood about our behavior/intentions/motives, and there is nothing to be understood about something beyond our understanding. It is just another faith. And even if we do come to understand it, Sams argument is that it still doesnt get you free will because you are not in control of that ethereal puppet-master.

I do not like any argument involving fate. Its exactly like the gods miracle arguments, it acknowledges the hits and not the misses. 150 people die in a train wreck, one little girl lives..."LOOK AT GODS MIRACLE". What about the 149 people that just died? What about the people that have a terrible fate? Its the same ridiculous argument as the modern conservative "pull yourself up by the bootstraps" mantra; as if it works every time. What about all of the people who fought like hell against those bootstraps and failed? Yet knew the entire time that their fate was a positive one. The lottery comes to mind.

There is just a failure of thought when it comes to fate in my opinion. Its an expression of exceptionalism. Fate is really just a description of the past whenever you get to where ever you wind up.

There is no real way to defend free will without jumping over to the god debate.(whatever it may be) Here it was said to be a void; and recently by Mr. Mechanical as something beyond our understanding...which honestly is fine, but those who push back there must understand. You are providing knowledge and insight into something that you provide zero evidence for. That is just not how science works, and not how humans work in any situation other than the "spiritual". And science is just the truth that we know about the world.

I look at my own experience when it comes to free will. There are days when I really want to work out and I just cant do it. I am just not motivated. Do I have a weak free will? I am in great shape, I am well read, I do alot of the things in life that I want to. The majority of people are completely out of control of their thoughts and actions. Mindlessly texting while driving or compulsively eating, or having in-compassionate political views that they themselves dont even understand. I look around and I dont see anyone with free will. Even alot of people who have success will say things like "I had a great teacher that came along at the right time or I zigged when others zagged"... that implies luck, not will.

We all really just need something to blame, we all need to know that something is in control. Its all gonna be alright in the end. I think that is just BS. I wouldnt act like ancient man. Why should I think like ancient man?

 

[Kyriakos]

^ No one can possibly see/know if others have "free-will". One may only convince oneself that he has this ability to see, but that would be a fallacy once more (and a rather self-destructive one in my view).

In the end, obviously, one can only be aware of his own self and consciousness, to some degree. The others are understood through observation and abtraction, but never through an equally cognitive way, since their mental worlds simply are not part of any observer of theirs. Just becase a pupil is told to write the number "1", and another pupil writes the same when told, does not mean they both view the number, the act of writing it, or anything else related to this in the same way. Most simply do not even bother with such issues, but to bother with them and then form a wrong view is (sadly) potentially far more damaging than to have never had bothered at all, in my view.

 

[CYSQUATCH9]

I honestly dont know how to respond to that.

You grossly misrepresent relativity and individual experience in a way that promotes a spooky reality.

In what way is it sad or damaging? Which, if I may point out to you, is a flawed relative viewpoint.

I understand what you are saying as this. The only way to truly understand something is to know all possible thoughts about it. Every ones POV. Every ones cognition. Words come to mind. Exceptionalism, Anthropic principle, Platonism...

Its clear that we have different modes of thinking, which is okay man, I appreciate that. But science is a verb, it is the act of explaining the truth about the world. I see zero substance in the counter-arguments and a vain effort to hold onto ancient modes of thinking. Why?

Just because Platos cave allegory lines up with modern interpretations of the flat nature of the universe, doesnt mean we should believe we live in a cave. It means we need more science to explain away the faulty reasoning.

Every single quote pertaining to the video I linked is the result of not watching the entire video or not understanding it. He directly speaks to what timtofly posted. Sam Harris owns a website called reason.org yet you say "He completely leaves out the ability to reason out our thoughts and actions, yet he thinks there needs to be more positive actions." LOL man c'mon, more misrepresentation to suit your disagreement. Thus the nature of online interaction.

Here is a funny video, think of it as a palate cleanser for the discussion

Link to video.

 

[Kyriakos]

I did note that in my view it is dangerous to have opinions that (from my POV) seem to potentially lead to quite alarming mental outcomes. I did not use that term so as to attack you, in fact i used it because i wanted to note that sometimes thoughts are very far from harmless to the thinker, and may even lead to very harmful results for him (many great thinkers pretty much self-destructed, the lists of that are endless).

You mentioned science. What is often understood as "science" is what can be studied mostly in a way which can be theoretically perfectly communicable to others. This is very obviously a premise of science, for if it could not be communicated then it would fade away. But human science does not really go that far as to actually present the phenomenon known as human mental life as something one can simply present an overall view of and then proceed to dissect it neatly into sectors which too can be further analysed.

As some famous scientist once said: "everything should be made as simple as possible but not simpler". In my view the possibility of examining to any conclusive degree the complexity of the human mind is merely something existing at a point a bit after our own border with this infinity we call our human consciousness, thought, and ultimately also scientific knowledge. It is, perhaps, a bit like a small child who owns a pencil, and has discovered an impressive painting in the living room of his house. The child might try to reproduce the lines of the painting, and be sad when it fails to do so to a degree deemed as crucial. The painting, though, without the child knowing it, is not just a toy to pit one's abilities against, but the masterpiece of a different kind of consciousness, in this example that of a famous artist. Likewise, we may try to create elegant or complicated, or both, theories about how our own mental world operates. In the end that is also part of our own journey into that very mental world, and a traveler should never think that the path he is walking in is formed merely by his extending shadow onto the seemingly motionless ground, where countless lives carry on their work, as oblivious of himself as he is of them.

 

[timtofly]

The reason that I said that is because that is free will to me. The ability to reason out one's thoughts and the actions related. I never said he does not reason. Both you and Sam Harris are still looking at free will as one's ability to author or motivate their own will. I think that we all agree that it is hard to manage one's will. If ones makes a choice and then fails to carry that out, they have already passed the free will category and are just procrastinating or making up excuses why one cannot carry out a decision. So if he says there is no free will, to me that means we cannot reason anything out and make decisions at all.

The inability to motivate or control one's will sidesteps the issue that one can make choices at all. Humans usually don't even bother to make them. That goes against the grain of humanity, which is usually to just sit back and watch life happen. The path of least resistance.

There seems to be three parts to a person: The body, the person (one's own will/conscious), and a third part that no one really knows anything about, and that is the part we cannot control, and the source of our thoughts and the way they are presented to us. Call it the uncontrollable brain, or spirit, or whatever else one's wants to call it. Even Sam Harris recognizes it's there, because he states that we cannot control our thoughts. "They appear out of no where."

If we can reason out our thoughts and act upon those decisions in a positive or negative way, we are in fact reigning in our unruly will and getting it to go in a direction that it may not normally take.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

But are you in control of that will? That is the problem with the free will debate. The most common description of free will is that you are in control, you are the author...That is just a scientifically inaccurate statement.

I believe I said that before. We have limited free will. So we are both controling and authors only in limited part.

The argument that there is something beyond our comprehension, pulling our strings or coaxing/guiding us into our "fate" is a non-sequitur. There are facts to be understood about our behavior/intentions/motives, and there is nothing to be understood about something beyond our understanding. It is just another faith. And even if we do come to understand it, Sams argument is that it still doesnt get you free will because you are not in control of that ethereal puppet-master..

I actualy didnt mean permanently beyond comprehension. I meant yet uknown reality not unknowable.
Than Sams argument is based on premise that this larger reality is something outside of ourselves. I tend to see it as that it is in fact our higher self, our true self. "I and my Father are one." When your will and Gods will becomes one you are another God. Can there be in sense more free will than that of a God?

I do not like any argument involving fate. Its exactly like the gods miracle arguments, it acknowledges the hits and not the misses. 150 people die in a train wreck, one little girl lives..."LOOK AT GODS MIRACLE". What about the 149 people that just died? What about the people that have a terrible fate? Its the same ridiculous argument as the modern conservative "pull yourself up by the bootstraps" mantra; as if it works every time. What about all of the people who fought like hell against those bootstraps and failed? Yet knew the entire time that their fate was a positive one. The lottery comes to mind.

Providence is not just that that saves ones life but also that which snatch it away.
Complex is this world and what we call fate is usually outcome of many opposing forces worked out and projected into ones life.

There is just a failure of thought when it comes to fate in my opinion. Its an expression of exceptionalism. Fate is really just a description of the past whenever you get to where ever you wind up.

Failure is in not recognising the limitation of thought and expecting from intelectual discourse or scientific discovery the whole of truth.

There is no real way to defend free will without jumping over to the god debate.(whatever it may be) Here it was said to be a void; and recently by Mr. Mechanical as something beyond our understanding...which honestly is fine, but those who push back there must understand. You are providing knowledge and insight into something that you provide zero evidence for. That is just not how science works, and not how humans work in any situation other than the "spiritual". And science is just the truth that we know about the world.

What do you need evidence for? Its self-evident that this world is full of intelligence outside of that of the human intelect. Human intelect is but a fraction of this wider intelligence and doesnt encompass it.

I look at my own experience when it comes to free will. There are days when I really want to work out and I just cant do it. I am just not motivated. Do I have a weak free will? I am in great shape, I am well read, I do alot of the things in life that I want to. The majority of people are completely out of control of their thoughts and actions. Mindlessly texting while driving or compulsively eating, or having in-compassionate political views that they themselves dont even understand. I look around and I dont see anyone with free will. Even alot of people who have success will say things like "I had a great teacher that came along at the right time or I zigged when others zagged"... that implies luck, not will.

Again we are part and manifestations of some greater will.

We all really just need something to blame, we all need to know that something is in control. Its all gonna be alright in the end. I think that is just BS. I wouldnt act like ancient man. Why should I think like ancient man?

Becouse the ancient man had a wisdom? Yes, everything is going to be all right. That is wisdom. Wisdom is also in accepting that it may not be all right in the way I would deem it best for myself....

 

[Gatsby]

What do you need evidence for? Its self-evident that this world is full of intelligence outside of that of the human intelect. Human intelect is but a fraction of this wider intelligence and doesnt encompass it.

What do you mean by "intelligence"? The more I look at human intelligence (which is, let's face it, the template we use to assess all other intelligences be they animal or spiritual), the more it appears to have an illusory quality to it. It seems to work in accordance with the same mechanisms as the evolutionary process itself, e.g. trial and error, habituation, natural selection etc.

I saw a comment on another forum today which talked of "a God who may well just be an echo-chamber for our own insecurities". It seems to me like this talk of wider intelligence is a shout into that same echo chamber.

 

[Gary Childress]

A theological question.

The Bible says:

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."

But this implies God predestined Jesus' death. Wouldn't that be contrary to the Christian doctrine of free will? Did God force Pontius Pilates' hand? And Judas' too? What's more, Jesus knew that Judas would betray him. Did Jesus/ his Dad 'make' Judas betray him?

Or more generally, are the concepts of free will and an omniscient creator compatible? And since omniscience implies predestination, can God be omnipotent if he can't change what is predestined?

Great questions Gatsby! Not being much of a theologian, my guess is that omniscience perhaps need not necessarily conflict with free will in the sense above. (Assuming there is a God) suppose God knows the future? And suppose the future is not predetermined? Since none of us presumably knows the first thing about the ultimate metaphysics of reality how can we say for sure that God's knowledge of the future precludes the ability of us to choose. For example, in a more limited sense I know my dog will come sit beside me when I am eating breakfast tomorrow because he knows I may throw him a scrap. But my knowledge of my dog's future behavior doesn't seem to mean that my dog is not free to do something else if he wanted to. Granted God is never surprised by future events but does that mean s/he must therefore limit our ability to act in order to maintain the ability to see the future? Perhaps the future is both not predetermined and God knows what will happen. In other words, are we so knowledgeable about the physical universe that we know for sure that omniscience and free will are incompatible?

 

[warpus]

What do you mean by "intelligence"? The more I look at human intelligence (which is, let's face it, the template we use to assess all other intelligences be they animal or spiritual), the more it appears to have an illusory quality to it. It seems to work in accordance with the same mechanisms as the evolutionary process itself, e.g. trial and error, habituation, natural selection etc.

I believe that's because our brains are essentially incredibly complex pattern recognition machines.

 

[JohannaK]

Schopenhauer defines intelligence as merely an organ of the person, the person being fundamentally his character which manifests through the will and its actions.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

What do you mean by "intelligence"? The more I look at human intelligence (which is, let's face it, the template we use to assess all other intelligences be they animal or spiritual), the more it appears to have an illusory quality to it. It seems to work in accordance with the same mechanisms as the evolutionary process itself, e.g. trial and error, habituation, natural selection etc.

The observable wider intelligence I am refering to is that which is apparent in different natural laws, evolved capacities of different species and functioning of physical bodies.

We dont live in chaos. In many ways and to a great extent we live in harmonious enviroment which is essential basis for development and evolution. Chaos may not be sign of intelligence but harmony is.
Look at capacity of the spider to make webs to catch its pray. Firstly spider is not flying creature but is specialised in catching such animals. Its not the spider which developed this capacity which requires knowledge spider cant have but intelligence behind evolution which is aware both capacity of flying and its limitations.
Any physical body is complex construct of which the actual possesor of the body (particular specie) has only limited control of. Sure birds can consciously fly and upon seeing some food resource they can instinctively follow it. But what about all the other very intelligent bodily processes as digestion, blood circulation, etc. Its all subconscious but very intelligent. So again this points out to wider intelligence.


What you call illusory quality may be just natural limitation. Simply this human intelligence we are possesors of is meant only for certain particular purposes. It seems to me that it present limitations are actually possible openings to new dimensions of future human consciousness and intelligence.

Trial and error doesnt disaprove workings of some wider intelligence just like trying new hairstyle doesnt mean that your past hair cut was all wrong...

I saw a comment on another forum today which talked of "a God who may well just be an echo-chamber for our own insecurities". It seems to me like this talk of wider intelligence is a shout into that same echo chamber.

First of all whats the basis of insecurity in the purely material world? None. Can there be insecure stone or piece of rock? The reason and possibility of insecurity can come to play only as part of something which we could term security and of which it is perversion. The existence of insecurity then again points out to something intelligent (since on emotional level insecurity has a reason;e.g. lack of knowledge, fear of uknown) and subtler then gross physical level.
God can easily be echo-chamber for our insecurities but it cant be just that...

 

[Kyriakos]

Schopenhauer defines intelligence as merely an organ of the person, the person being fundamentally his character which manifests through the will and its actions.

"Talent is being able to hit targets no one else can hit.
Genius is being able to hit targets no one else can see"

My favorite Schopenhauer quote. He was surely to a great degree about defining the person through his thinking and intelligence. I haven't read a lot of his work, but the purely philosophical one was always written in a nice style- unlike with Nietzsche who often produces extravagant tones, and also tries (not with a fortunate result most of the time, despite the nice rope-centered parable in his most famous book) to be an author/poet which he never was good at. Nietzsche, however, was also a very important thinker, just a bit more to the mad/shadowfighting side in my view, which became rapidly more evident in his end, sadly.

 

[Gatsby]

The observable wider intelligence I am refering to is that which is apparent in different natural laws, evolved capacities of different species and functioning of physical bodies.

We dont live in chaos. In many ways and to a great extent we live in harmonious enviroment which is essential basis for development and evolution. Chaos may not be sign of intelligence but harmony is.

Is this observable wider intelligence actually out there in the universe, or is it an illusion created by the fact that we have evolved within the universe and are thus adapted to it?

I guess it is true that we don't live in chaos, but then what is chaos? To me "chaos" is a very subjective term like "bad"; often when people use these terms what they really mean is "that which goes against my/our interests". If the universe were in utter chaos then we wouldn't be here anyway as we ourselves are products and systems of 'order', so why should we marvel at the apparent order and harmony of the universe? I say apparent because the only part of this universe which could be considered even vaguely "harmonious" to humans is this tiny speck of a planet at this particular instance in geological time.

Look at capacity of the spider to make webs to catch its pray. Firstly spider is not flying creature but is specialised in catching such animals. Its not the spider which developed this capacity which requires knowledge spider cant have but intelligence behind evolution which is aware both capacity of flying and its limitations.

Who says knowledge is required? Spiders developed such capacities as a result of a series of unintended consequences (i.e. in an incremental way over a long period of time in response to changing circumstances), much as electric eels developed the capacity to deliver huge electric shocks and box jellyfish developed the ability to poison large mammals to death.

Any physical body is complex construct of which the actual possesor of the body (particular specie) has only limited control of. Sure birds can consciously fly and upon seeing some food resource they can instinctively follow it. But what about all the other very intelligent bodily processes as digestion, blood circulation, etc. Its all subconscious but very intelligent. So again this points out to wider intelligence.

The possessor you speak of is an illusion: what has happened is that the species is actually a super-organism which has evolved such that its constituent micro-organisms can work together to survive and procreate. Again such super-organisms (including humans) have evolved over a very long period of time through a blind process of adaptation and unintended consequences. These bodily processes are only "intelligent" insofar as they conform with our interests.

What you call illusory quality may be just natural limitation. Simply this human intelligence we are possesors of is meant only for certain particular purposes. It seems to me that it present limitations are actually possible openings to new dimensions of future human consciousness and intelligence.

That could be true, but it doesn't change the fact that we still use human intelligence as the template for assessing all other intelligences (whether hypothesized or actual). Just because you can imagine a different kind of intelligence - without scrutinizing that imagined intelligence too closely, I might add - it doesn't mean that such an intelligence can or must exist.

To what extent is intelligence something which can *only* exist in the context of limitation? Intelligence is an adaptive response to a dynamic environment, and like the concept of self the wider you make an intelligence the less meaningful that intelligence becomes.

Trial and error doesnt disaprove workings of some wider intelligence just like trying new hairstyle doesnt mean that your past hair cut was all wrong...

Trial and error strongly suggests that notions of omniscience or higher-order intelligence are fallacious, otherwise why would trial and error be necessary? What I am saying is that what we call "intelligence" is actually built on a vast foundation of trial-and-error, and is therefore ultimately 'blind' and unintelligent in nature even though its (also 'blind') capacities for increasing complexity and adaptability appear to suggest otherwise.

First of all whats the basis of insecurity in the purely material world? None. Can there be insecure stone or piece of rock? The reason and possibility of insecurity can come to play only as part of something which we could term security and of which it is perversion. The existence of insecurity then again points out to something intelligent (since on emotional level insecurity has a reason;e.g. lack of knowledge, fear of uknown) and subtler then gross physical level.
God can easily be echo-chamber for our insecurities but it cant be just that...

The basis of insecurity arises from the fact that humans aspire to personal survival, significance and satisfaction in a universe which doesn't care one little bit about any of these things. Our desires to survive death and seek out a Cosmic Alpha Male in God are examples of the blind unintended consequences that characterise the evolution-adaptation process: in this case, the combination of ancient instincts for survival and hierarchy have been amplified by increasing cognitive capacity so that now we seek to satisfy those instincts in contexts which don't really make sense. The emotional reason for our insecurity is that deep down we have a nagging fear that all this is true.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

Is this observable wider intelligence actually out there in the universe, or is it an illusion created by the fact that we have evolved within the universe and are thus adapted to it?

But how can you speak of evolution as if it isnt an intelligent, harmonious proces? Where is that intelligence and harmony coming from? Can there be intelligence without consciousness? I doubt it. Intelligent design is all around only the consciousness isnt apparent. The fact that there is no consciousness and that it starts only from certain stage is the biggest illusion.

I guess it is true that we don't live in chaos, but then what is chaos? To me "chaos" is a very subjective term like "bad"; often when people use these terms what they really mean is "that which goes against my/our interests". If the universe were in utter chaos then we wouldn't be here anyway as we ourselves are products and systems of 'order', so why should we marvel at the apparent order and harmony of the universe? I say apparent because the only part of this universe which could be considered even vaguely "harmonious" to humans is this tiny speck of a planet at this particular instance in geological time.

This is not really matter of what is suitable to humans at all. If there was no harmony on material level(no physical laws/ order). There wouldnt be even any galaxy or sun and planets. So you can marvel if you wish that the impossible has happened. God has created Ungod. Inconscience has produced consciousness. Infinite is limited.

Who says knowledge is required? Spiders developed such capacities as a result of a series of unintended consequences (i.e. in an incremental way over a long period of time in response to changing circumstances), much as electric eels developed the capacity to deliver huge electric shocks and box jellyfish developed the ability to poison large mammals to death.

No spider developed anything. Every single capacity of a spider is result of something behind its existence. Spider is only a term for surface reality which is represented by simple nervous system which spider itself has no idea that it has it.

The possessor you speak of is an illusion: what has happened is that the species is actually a super-organism which has evolved such that its constituent micro-organisms can work together to survive and procreate. Again such super-organisms (including humans) have evolved over a very long period of time through a blind process of adaptation and unintended consequences. These bodily processes are only "intelligent" insofar as they conform with our interests.

What are these "our interest"? Human nature is only a fraction of Nature and the human interests quite often go against the interests of Nature. Our bodily processes are not controled by human nature but are part of Nature.

That could be true, but it doesn't change the fact that we still use human intelligence as the template for assessing all other intelligences (whether hypothesized or actual). Just because you can imagine a different kind of intelligence - without scrutinizing that imagined intelligence too closely, I might add - it doesn't mean that such an intelligence can or must exist.

I havent been using much imagination so far but mainly power of observation.

To what extent is intelligence something which can *only* exist in the context of limitation? Intelligence is an adaptive response to a dynamic environment, and like the concept of self the wider you make an intelligence the less meaningful that intelligence becomes.

That certainly how it may look from limited human pov....

Trial and error strongly suggests that notions of omniscience or higher-order intelligence are fallacious, otherwise why would trial and error be necessary? What I am saying is that what we call "intelligence" is actually built on a vast foundation of trial-and-error, and is therefore ultimately 'blind' and unintelligent in nature even though its (also 'blind') capacities for increasing complexity and adaptability appear to suggest otherwise.

Again judged from purely human way of thinking which is confortable in thinking in straight lines mainly we comprehend workings of Nature as "trial and error" but isnt it possible that these dynamics are much more complex then that? As you said before:"we still use human intelligence as the template for assessing all other intelligences..."

The basis of insecurity arises from the fact that humans aspire to personal survival, significance and satisfaction in a universe which doesn't care one little bit about any of these things. Our desires to survive death and seek out a Cosmic Alpha Male in God are examples of the blind unintended consequences that characterise the evolution-adaptation process: in this case, the combination of ancient instincts for survival and hierarchy have been amplified by increasing cognitive capacity so that now we seek to satisfy those instincts in contexts which don't really make sense. The emotional reason for our insecurity is that deep down we have a nagging fear that all this is true.

I am not following. How do you explain the actual existence of insecurity in human psychology if there is no apparent reason that it should exist at all? Why should there be possibility of insecurity in the universe "which doesnt care one little bit about any of these things"? Why would humans care for these things if their enviroment doesnt unless you bring into picture third element: secret Intelligence?

 

[JohannaK]

Insecurity comes from the conflict between human interests and universal tendency. We could define the human interests as an instinct of eternal self-preservation. That is to aspire to individual and global preservation, to manage to live as much as possible as individuals and to manage to exist as long as possible (ideally, for ever) as a species. Meanwhile everything in the universe works on cycles. Everything is born, lives and dies (planets are created, exist, and cease to, etc.), and it is in the human interest to subvert this natural course of things. From the knowledge the its intent is to oppose nature is from where insecurity stems.

That is what I understand Gatsby is trying to say.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

Insecurity comes from the conflict between human interests and universal tendency. We could define the human interests as an instinct of eternal self-preservation. That is to aspire to individual and global preservation, to manage to live as much as possible as individuals and to manage to exist as long as possible (ideally, for ever) as a species. Meanwhile everything in the universe works on cycles. Everything is born, lives and dies (planets are created, exist, and cease to, etc.), and it is in the human interest to subvert this natural course of things. From the knowledge the its intent is to oppose nature is from where insecurity stems.

That is what I understand Gatsby is trying to say.

And my point is that these are in conflict only apparently. Human interest through struggle emerges out of universal tendency not uncompromised but illumined. This can be explained only by intelligent design and existence of secret Intelligence. If there was non on this issue then there couldnt be any conflict between human interest and universal tendency at all. For how could human beings aspire to brake away from their substance? Into what?

 

[Gary Childress]

Schopenhauer defines intelligence as merely an organ of the person, the person being fundamentally his character which manifests through the will and its actions.

When you here use the word "intelligence" are you referring to what is often termed sentience? or are you referring to "intelligence" in the sense that some sentient beings possess more "intelligence" than others?

"Talent is being able to hit targets no one else can hit.
Genius is being able to hit targets no one else can see"

Heidegger made the famous quip that "fish are the last ones to discover water". So genius in a fish might be the ability to see water? My question is, what exactly is this "water" Heidegger was referring to. Or what exactly is this target no one else can see? Does anyone have any ideas what these things may be? Presumably these are not just cute little things that can be said to make one appear smart?

 

[Kyriakos]

^I did not know of that guote by Heidegger (since i have read only a few pages of his work anyway ). I suppose he might mean any of these two things, or a combination of them:

1) One often cannot grasp the basics of his existence (such as a fish grasping water which is all it knows as an environment anyway) due to having nothing to contrast them to.

2) Given low enough ability to examine something, and a high enough complexity of the object of potential examination, discovering it at all is bound to take a lot of time or have other difficulties.

I wouldn't say i like that quote by Heidegger, though. I recall another one of his: "It is through discussing that what the discussion was about/why it took place, becomes evident". A bit of a near-platitude i guess, but it means that if people want to discuss there is always some reason even if that reason is not readily conscious as the one they had in mind when they started discussing.