They say that the things you buy represent the time you’ve spent earning the amount of money it takes to pay for them.
For me, yes the things I buy to live, do do that. But living is also an expenditure of the time you have to live.
Thinking is time spent observing infinity.
If buying things, by the money you have earned, by the time you have spent earning it, supports you living – then you have time to think.
I don’t think this all means nothing, and getting to this point is precisely the reason why I think this.
The will to survive has taken us on an extraordinary journey, in the physical sense and in the conscious sense.
Consciousness being an extension of the physical self, which is itself physically created, however we cannot comprehend it, because it is comprehension.
Just because we cannot recognise consciousness as a physical manifestation, doesn’t mean that it does not exist in the same way that a molecule of blood does. Ok consciousness is not an element of the universe but it is created by elements, in the same way that light is created from combustion, electromagnetism and other reactions.
Thought is an energy by product of neurotransmitters and physical pathways in the brain. Thought can be determined by deducing the possible outcomes of the energy created in a brain under specific controls. Background information is required in order to understand the structure of that persons brain given the environment that they have developed in. But I’m sure presumptions can be made in order to predict quite an accurate outcome.
An analogy that might go some way to support this idea is that within our bodies similar processes are occurring all the time that we give no such regard to as we do thought. For example heat generation through the process of respiration. This is a biproduct of mitochondrial activity in our cells which escapes into the outside world. It is not of physical essence.
Back to my original thought…
An explanation of human consciousness often reverts back to religion, or a creator. Which works pretty well from a survival perspective because it creates, or provides purpose for morality and also fear. Diminishing the harsh animalistic natures that only consider the basic needs of the body. Thus encouraging an environment where the collective recognise their potential. The idea of a creator keeps the animalistic instincts at bay during this period of growth. But that is all it is doing, keeping them at bay, which quite frankly means that there is not a creator of the kind we imagine because otherwise why would this diminished attitude towards individual survival have come about?
The predicament we now find ourselves in is that the very thing that has softened our attitude to others…created our consciousness…is also the thing that continuously demonstrates itself to be the rational or ‘logic’ for a return to our animalistic instincts.
This observation quite clearly solidifies the belief that religion is a product of consciousness, consciousness is a product of survival; and when a product of consciousness fails to do what it was created to do, the consciousness attacks and adjusts its understanding of survival.
The problem we have is that the development of conscious beliefs occur over varying lengths of time and are isolated to various collective groups which means that the attack or shift in belief systems do not occur simultaneously amongst all peoples.
Under this premise it is easy to comprehend how irreconcilable wars are triggered if one group of conscious thought is at a different stage to another’s
So therefore I do not despair at the loss of a benevolent creator, because there was no such thing. In fact I live in hope that we are collectively moving towards a greater understanding of the purpose of survival. The will to survive is beauty itself and I don’t mind being part of that process, for whatever reason. It’s surely out of my control.
Continued discussion on reverse predictability (see previous blog ‘entropy and the singularity’). Shared entropy that exists between the possible microscopic configurations of combined …
Source: Entropy and Time
The pomp of courts, and pride of kings,
I prize above all earthly things;
I love my country, but my king,
Above all men his praise I’ll sing.
The royal banners are display’d,
And may success the standard aid:
I fain would banish far from hence
The Rights of Man and Common Sense.
Destruction to that odious name,
The plague of princes, Thomas Paine,
Defeat and ruin seize the cause
Of France, her liberty, and laws.
Reason is an analogy of the concept of the ‘unmoved mover’, but with the beauty of revealing it’s not unmoved at all.
It’s just that the ‘unmoved’ and the ‘moved’ cannot coexist because they are opposites. Each is the thing that the other is not, but both can know the difference.
And so it is not true that the ‘unmoved mover’ does not exist, or indeed that it is unmoved. It is just unmoved to the degree that the moved has moved.
If we are therefore able to recognise the ‘moved’ then this demonstrates a change or divergence from the opposite equilibrium of the unmoved and the moved. Knowing then that what moved is categorically what the ‘unmoved’ is not, the ‘unmoved’ is also known.
And it’s not knowing this that is existence; it’s knowing the reason – that is existence.
That was me trying to learn the answer
I never found the answer
I was shown the answer
But I didn’t want that answer
Why was there only one answer?
If the answer already exists then why bother!?
Why ask a question if it has already been answered, and dictate that is the only answer!
That’s not learning how to think, it’s programming to know.