Nature and It's Selves

[Fool]

do you suppose nature can create something that itself doesn't have?

the end is near.

come gather together for the great supper, you have taught me well.


I AM the borg

 

[Willamena]

do you suppose nature can create something that itself doesn't have?

It depends on what you mean. If you mean something not subject to nature, then, by its nature, its nature would be defeated.

 

[Fool]

It depends on what you mean. If you mean something not subject to nature, then, by its nature, its nature would be defeated.

i'm speaking in terms of something that occurs in nature being totally disconnected from nature. similar in "idea", or theory, to those theists believing they were created by god but being distinctly separate from their creating god.

if then nature creates, is it not natural and a potential of nature? can it be exclusively differentiated from nature?

 

[Willamena]

i'm speaking in terms of something that occurs in nature being totally disconnected from nature. similar in "idea", or theory, to those theists believing they were created by god but being distinctly separate from god.

Hmm. "Nature" is so-called because it is the phenomenal things, that is things of the world that are detectable by the senses. Nature has another context, being "not man-made," which stems from the notion that ideas are special, they come to us from elsewhere (or elsewhom), are not detectable by others, and have no physical form. They are the essence of the human. In that sense, the mind is lifted above the natural world to be supernatural (with its connotations of eternity and infinite possibility).

On the other hand, I see mind as an emergent property of the functioning of the body (not just the brain). In this sense, an artistic sense, mind is 'drawn onto' the world using descriptive terms as a paintbrush. The paints are folk-defined 'functions' of an 'operating' mind, and in drawing them, because of their usefulness they become very real. As an example, we routinely make and break promises, befriend, ignore, criticize, encourage, study, design, lead, and imagine, all of which are words that describe behaviors of something more than just a body. The emergent property of mind, brought to life by descriptive folk terms, is greater than the sum of the body-parts.

I would not say that mind is disconnected from nature, and we have even given it a special status as "human nature." The operations that make up the mind are detectable behaviors and notions (else no words would be assigned) and, although we (in the West) do not say they are detectable by the senses, because we recognize only the five, in Eastern cultures the mind, in all its functions, is considered to be a sense. (Not in the sense of "sixth sense," as intuition, but just as the mind.)

 

[Fool]

Hmm. "Nature" is so-called because it is the phenomenal things, that is things of the world that are detectable by the senses. Nature has another context, being "not man-made," which stems from the notion that ideas are special, they come to us from elsewhere (or elsewhom), are not detectable by others, and have no physical form. They are the essence of the human. In that sense, the mind is lifted above the natural world to be supernatural (with its connotations of eternity and infinite possibility).

On the other hand, I see mind as an emergent property of the functioning of the body (not just the brain). In this sense, an artistic sense, mind is 'drawn onto' the world using descriptive terms as a paintbrush. The paints are folk-defined 'functions' of an 'operating' mind, and in drawing them, because of their usefulness they become very real. As an example, we routinely make and break promises, befriend, ignore, criticize, encourage, study, design, lead, and imagine, all of which are words that describe behaviors of something more than just a body. The emergent property of mind, brought to life by descriptive folk terms, is greater than the sum of the body-parts.

I would not say that mind is disconnected from nature, and we have even given it a special status as "human nature." The operations that make up the mind are detectable behaviors and notions (else no words would be assigned) and, although we (in the West) do not say they are detectable by the senses, because we recognize only the five, in Eastern cultures the mind, in all its functions, is considered to be a sense. (Not in the sense of "sixth sense," as intuition, but just as the mind.)

but an exclusive form is not necessary for a mind, consciousness.

so then is nature conscious of what she is doing? or is she just birthing everything from ignorance? even her offspring are smarter than her?


why would mind have to be more natural than nature herself? again isn't the observer trying to differentiate self from what is being observed from within and what self was born into without?

 

[Willamena]

but an exclusive form is not necessary for a mind, consciousness.

so then is nature conscious of what she is doing? or is she just birthing everything from ignorance? even her offspring are smarter than her?


why would mind have to be more natural than nature herself? again isn't the observer trying to differentiate self from what is being observed from within and what self was born into without?

I cannot answer any of these questions as they are posed.

 

[Fool]

I cannot answer any of these questions as they are posed.

you've implied that something is supernatural, is that from a human perspective in relation to something greater than the third density identity you call supernatural?

do you suppose it, what you call supernatural, observes itself as more than nature? or natural?

 

[Willamena]

you've implied that something is supernatural, is that from a human perspective in relation to something greater than the third density identity you call supernatural?

do you suppose it, what you call supernatural, observes itself as more than nature? or natural?

There is but one observer.

So, no.

Edit: Here's me. I observe the world from my perspective, and as that verb demands a subject, I am the observer. Then you might say, "But there are other observers," and my perspective shifts to include a wider field of view; now we have cast the objective observer. Then you might say, "Do you suppose the objective observer observes itself?" and I would say that there is only one observer, whether it be me, you, or the observer cast to give me the objective view. (It's not someone else, it's just me, and I don't view it as other than natural.)

 

[Fool]

There is but one observer.

So, no.

Edit: Here's me. I observe the world from my perspective, and as that verb demands a subject, I am the observer. Then you might say, "But there are other observers," and my perspective shifts to include a wider field of view; now we have cast the objective observer. Then you might say, "Do you suppose the objective observer observes itself?" and I would say that there is only one observer, whether it be me, you, or the observer cast to give me the objective view. (It's not someone else, it's just me, and I don't view it as other than natural.)

https://www.ted.com/talks/anil_seth...cious_reality/transcript?language=en#t-257470

 

[Willamena]

https://www.ted.com/talks/anil_seth...cious_reality/transcript?language=en#t-257470

And...?

Edit: Imagination is the instrument of the artist. Whether it be inks to make a sketch, ideas to make a self-image, or truth to make reality, we are nature's artists.

 

[Fool]

And...?

Edit: Imagination is the instrument of the artist. Whether it be inks to make a sketch, ideas to make a self-image, or truth to make reality, we are nature's artists.

good question.

thank you!!!

 

[Willamena]

good question.

thank you!!!

I don't understand what this has to do with the OP.

 

[Fool]

I don't understand what this has to do with the OP.

if we are hallucinating our reality then obviously most of us are sharing very similar hallucinations, yet we filter all incoming information through our experiential lenses. just like some people who show an attraction to something more than another, or it disturbs/comforts someone.

your analogy prompted another thread, Nature and the Artist.

an artist obviously is someone who creates things from other things, or an artist is like a lense/prism through which nature passes and becomes distorted and projected on to varying forms or actions.

 

[Twilight Hue]

do you suppose nature can create something that itself doesn't have?

the end is near.

come gather together for the great supper, you have taught me well.


I AM the borg

For a very brief moment in time I thought the header was, Nature and its Elves.

Must be the Mandela effect.

 

[Willamena]

if we are hallucinating our reality then obviously most of us are sharing very similar hallucinations, yet we filter all incoming information through our experiential lenses. just like some people who show an attraction to something more than another, or it disturbs/comforts someone.

Which is to say that there is one fixed reality exterior to us. God to us.

your analogy prompted another thread, Nature and the Artist.

an artist obviously is someone who creates things from other things, or an artist is like a lense/prism through which nature passes and becomes distorted and projected on to varying forms or actions.

Yes.

An artist doesn't create something that it doesn't already have. It creates something to express something within. It does this because it recognizes inks, ideas, and truth as its paints.

 

[Willamena]

For a very brief moment in time I thought the header was, Nature and its Elves.

Now THAT would have been a cool conversation.

 

[siti]

do you suppose nature can create something that itself doesn't have?

I think Archytas answered this (in a way) about 400BC. He suggested a thought experiment to prove that the universe in unlimited in extent - imagine you arrived at the edge of a finite universe - would it not still be possible (all other things - like our ability to stretch out a hand - being equal) to stretch out a hand into whatever is beyond that edge and wouldn't the limit to which we could extend it now mark the new edge of the universe? And then we could advance to the new limit and do the same again...ad infinitum.

So nature too, once it creates something new, that new thing becomes part of nature and the limits of nature - and nature's creativity - are extended...and so on...

 

[Fool]

Which is to say that there is one fixed reality exterior to us. God to us.

reality isn't exclusively exterior. this exemplifies the disconnect between the observer and the observed.

 

[Fool]

I think Archytas answered this (in a way) about 400BC. He suggested a thought experiment to prove that the universe in unlimited in extent - imagine you arrived at the edge of a finite universe - would it not still be possible (all other things - like our ability to stretch out a hand - being equal) to stretch out a hand into whatever is beyond that edge and wouldn't the limit to which we could extend it now mark the new edge of the universe? And then we could advance to the new limit and do the same again...ad infinitum.

So nature too, once it creates something new, that new thing becomes part of nature and the limits of nature - and nature's creativity - are extended...and so on...

so then nature is conscious of what it is doing?

and as that consciousness stretches to its limit, that limit becomes the new limitation; until the mind stretches again to it's limitation?

 

[siti]

...so then nature is conscious of what it is doing?

This discussion IS nature being conscious of what it is doing - WE are nature being conscious of what nature is doing...there's no need to make it more (or less) mysterious than it is...and yes - when we probe beyond the edges of our previous understanding of what nature is doing we are stretching our conscious nature to new limits - quite naturally.