Author Topic: Argument for Set (4/20/2019)  (Read 97 times)

Xepera maSet

  • Too Serious / Not Serious Enough
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 2066
  • Total likes: 2120
  • Mephistopheles of the Southern Deserts
    • View Profile
    • My Book on Setianism
Argument for Set (4/20/2019)
« on: April 20, 2019, 04:21:36 pm »
1.  We can scientifically confirm the mind/consciousness can go against nature and has different properties from it. Consciousness is also more certain than matter and the latter is known only through the former.

2.  We  can  scientifically confirm  the  higher  consciousness  of humans  arose  across  the  species,  exponentially, in  a  close amount  of  time,  and  ~100,000+  years  after  we  have  already evolved  as  a  physiological  species (Upper Paleolithic Revolution / UPR)

3.  Humans have a teleological "best path", both in self actualization (Maslow and co.) and in the fields which create the physical body (Burr and co.)

4. Nature  does  not work  the  way the  UPR occurred.

5. Something  unnatural  and  against  natural  cannot  rise  from Nature.

6. Something mindless and impersonal like nature cannot assign teleology.

7. Therefore,  there  is  something conscious and separate  from  Nature responsible  for  higher  consciousness  that gave  it  to  humans  (and maybe  others), and this seems to have been with purpose (teleology).

Working overtime to uncover
the mysteries of existence
(as described by Onyx)

I have come into being like Set,
the Separator who contends against Osiris for Eternity.



Liu

Re: Argument for Set (4/20/2019)
« Reply #1 on: April 20, 2019, 05:39:02 pm »
I'm not familiar with Maslow nor with Burr, could you provide some summary of the parts of their teachings you are referring to?

Also, some parts of your argument might profit from examples, especially the beginning of the 1st and the whole 4th point - neither of which convinces me as is.
A source for the 2nd point might also be beneficial.
« Last Edit: April 20, 2019, 05:41:09 pm by Liu »

Xepera maSet

  • Too Serious / Not Serious Enough
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 2066
  • Total likes: 2120
  • Mephistopheles of the Southern Deserts
    • View Profile
    • My Book on Setianism
Re: Argument for Set (4/20/2019)
« Reply #2 on: April 20, 2019, 06:14:44 pm »
Maslow is a psychologist who came up with the hierarchy of needs, following on ideas from people such as Jung on Self Actualization. He showed that the course "best" for humanity was that of self actualization, which is more or less equivalent to initiation on the LHP. I have a detailed article in TIS4 if your interested (or my book if you happen to have it).

Burr is the individual who proved the physical body is created and dictated by "life fields". Instead of something in the body, there is essentially an electromagnetic blueprint the body follows. This can even predict things like illness before symptoms. Again, in TIS3 this time onyx and I have an article on this, also appendixed in my book :)

For 1 we can simply illustate. Matter takes up space but minds do not. Matter is accessible to others but mind is not. Matter lacks "aboutness" which mind has. Matter is objective and mind subjective.

For 4:

The Early Upper Paleolithic Beyond Western Europe by Brantingham, Kuhn, and Kerry

Impossible Coincidence: A Single-Species Model for the Origins of Modern Human Behavior in Europe by P. Mellars

On the Nature of Transitions: The Middle to Upper Paleolithic and the Neolithic Revolution by O. Bar-Yosef


Working overtime to uncover
the mysteries of existence
(as described by Onyx)

I have come into being like Set,
the Separator who contends against Osiris for Eternity.



Liu

Re: Argument for Set (4/20/2019)
« Reply #3 on: April 20, 2019, 06:28:40 pm »
Thanks for the reading recommendations! Really need to read TIS4 (and the previous issues...). Also gonna take a look at the book/papers you mentioned.

Livefields are still something physical and exist in all species, so I'm not sure what's the point of them for the argument?
Also, I know pretty much nothing about them, but I would suspect they are created by the physical body and allow predictions of its future behaviour in so far as they give a more detailed picture of it, but don't necessarily cause it. Well, gonna read your article on them before asking more questions.

idgo

Re: Argument for Set (4/20/2019)
« Reply #4 on: April 25, 2019, 03:53:46 am »
1.  We can scientifically confirm the mind/consciousness can go against nature and has different properties from it. Consciousness is also more certain than matter and the latter is known only through the former.

For what rigorous and scientific definition of  the term "nature" does this hold true?

Quote
2.  We  can  scientifically confirm  the  higher  consciousness  of humans  arose  across  the  species,  exponentially, in  a  close amount  of  time,  and  ~100,000+  years  after  we  have  already evolved  as  a  physiological  species (Upper Paleolithic Revolution / UPR)

For what definition of "higher consciousness" is this the case? Perhaps it's buried deep within a paper that you recommended, but you're better acquainted with that body of work than I, so I'm sure you'll have an easy time extracting the relevant definition.

For any non-tautological (ie, other than "higher consciousness is higher because humans have it so what humans have is higher") definition of "higher consciousness" you might choose, I'd wager that I can produce an example of an animal or computer program which demonstrates its traits.

Quote
4. Nature  does  not work  the  way the  UPR occurred.
For a definition of "nature" as "everything that happens in the observable universe except the UPR", certainly. However, Occam's razor suggests that a definition of "nature" as "everything that happens in the observable universe" without the extra caveats to eliminate some observed phenomena would be preferable.


Liu

Re: Argument for Set (4/20/2019)
« Reply #5 on: May 14, 2019, 07:16:59 pm »
Finallly I got around reading at least a major chunk of the paper by Mellars you recommended (sorry for taking so long).

Well, from how I understand it, the paper says:
There first was some humans with culture in Africa.
Culture there spread fairly slowly.
Much later some humans moved to Europe.
At the same time, the same culture found in Africa also spread in Europe, and quite a bit faster than it did in Africa.
There they also encountered some Neanderthals and probably had some cultural exchange with them.

What would be the "unnatural" thing about this?