I don't understand why people would want to "live for the moment". Don't they care about the future?
Short sighted SOBS! :P
Jk, but still...can anyone please explain what this means because I'm a little confused.
Printable View
I don't understand why people would want to "live for the moment". Don't they care about the future?
Short sighted SOBS! :P
Jk, but still...can anyone please explain what this means because I'm a little confused.
Living for the moment is appreciating and enjoying the time you have. Stopping and smelling the roses and all that good stuff. Like James Dean said, "Dream as if you'll live forever, live as if you'll die today."
It leads me to the conclusion that, given the history of the physical universe, where chaos appears to settle into ordered systems, everything must therefore be connected at the most fundamental level through very complex relationships that we just don't have the capacity as individuals who live for 80 years, to detect. It's easy from where we sit to logically accept the idea that there are random events because we see things happen everyday that don't seem to be linked, but that doesn't mean the link doesn't exist. All I'm really saying is that someone who suspects that two elements, forces or events may have some kind of relationship is probably infinitely more right than someone who precludes the idea of a relationship by assuming that one can't exist.Quote:
Originally Posted by three and four
As for what's going on? Well, I don't really know, I'm not ready to surrender to any particular answer yet. Maybe if I wanted to be facetious I could say that I suspect I would be infinitely more right if I said I think I am you, you are me, and we're all part of the same 'thing', than if I said we were disconnected and utterly separate. If that's vague enough. I think it's safe to say, as Dawkins would, that what's going on is weirder than we can suppose.
--
MrBeelzy, a few things - first, I want to nip any semantical disagreements in the bud right from the outset; rather than intuiting, it might be more reasonable for me to say 'suspect'. Intuit would imply I'm talking about something separate from observation, while using the word 'suspect' makes it easier to see my point without going into the relationship I see between observation and intuition... which I will do anyway, but I'm just being clear about what I meant.
Take the example of Newton watching an apple fall; he sees the apple fall - actually observes only the apple - but he intuits that a force is acting on that apple. Science isn't really built on observation, but really built on time-tested intuition about what those observations mean. For example, the theory of relativity isn't as true as the observations that it serves to help us understand. Really, science understands the theory is just a placeholder. Theory and intuition are synonymous in the sense that they are both beliefs requiring trust in certain preconditions to be true. If I'm making any sense, let me know. So, I did mean intuit, but it would have been easier for me to just say suspect... which is another interesting thing to think about; language. Oh man, don't get me started on language.
And, this goes to your last paragraph asking:
"If more often than not when people intuit patterns they are right, then why do we see the prevalence of post hoc, correlation implies causation and other such logical fallacies?"
To really make my point I'd have to come up with some kind of Drake's Equation to show the virtually unlimited number causal relationships that may exist (and of course then compare it to the few that we think might be there, and perhaps aren't, and the even fewer that we seem to have discerned, but may not understand completely), and I'm way to lazy to do that - but we're sort of arguing two different things anyway. I think.
I'm not saying that the relationship that people suspect exists are necessarily right, but that suspecting a relationship may exist is infinitely more accurate than presuming one doesn't. Not sure if this analogy holds any water but if you imagine you're walking around in a dark room, if you leave room for possibilities in your world view, this is like walking with your arms in front of you, and if you preclude possibilities by assuming they can't exist, then this is like thinking you have no need to walk with your arms in front of you, come what may. Sort of how I see it anyway.
Let me know what you think.
Hello Timothy Paradox,Quote:
Originally Posted by Timothy Paradox
You might want to check out chapter 1 of Stephen LaBerge's Exploring the World of Lucid Dreaming (if you don't have it - get it!).
Just a few pages into the book there is an exercise called "Your present state of consciousness". It's as simple as it is effective, and concerns focusing on your surroundings, one sense at a time. As you do this, you let go of the usual buzz that goes on in your mind and that distracts from... the present moment.
Arguably, if we want to facilitate become lucid in our dreams we have to cultivate our waking awareness of the present moment. More awareness = more lucidity.
Doing this in dreams works and leads to lucid dreaming. I'm wondering how far we can push it in waking life, if WL is some sort of dream...
The present moment is all there is...
SynapseSnap,
It’s funny you should mention the time when people thought the world was flat, as I often think about that. I recently read a biography of Amerigo Vespucci, which goes into some detail about how people understood the world back in those days. As explorers started to cross the Atlantic and come back to tell the tale, the idea of a flat world started to fall apart.
The idea that we live on a sphere must have been very difficult to accept for a lot of people. Imagine having spent all your life thinking that the world was flat (it sure looks that way from our viewpoint) and then suddenly have a bunch of sailors tell you it’s not.
What I also read in this book is that even though the explorers believed, then experienced, the world as spherical, everybody still thought that if you traveled too far south, you’d fall off! Even Columbus believed this. The fist navigators to reach the shores of Brazil could not understand why they had not fallen off the planet.
I’m guessing that a lot of people chose to cling to their flat-world belief system despite growing, then overwhelming evidence that it was wrong. Such a fundamental paradigm shift can’t be easy to tackle – intellectually, emotionally, and even psychologically. After all, it’s so much more comfortable to stay within the bounds of what we have been taught and what the majority believes.
My point is this: when it comes to understanding the nature of consciousness, I strongly suspect that we will have to go through a similarly radical paradigm shift in order to understand what is really going on. “We are the universe becoming aware of itself”, as Carl Sagan said, makes sense to me (and this possibly overlaps with your notion that "I am you and you are me", to misquote you...).
Are we able to understand what is really going on? (by the way, it is Sir Arthur Eddington you are quoting, not Richard Dawkins (although no doubt Dawkins agrees)). I suspect that our present abilities are probably too limited to give us the whole big picture, but I’m certain that we are able, today, to develop a better understanding than the one which is generally held (even though it might take a while for the rest of humanity to agree. After all, the first person to emit the theory that the world was spherical, Aristarchus of Samos, was born in... 310 BC).
three and four
Since consciousness is all we will ever have and all we will ever know, expanding it makes good sense. :)
... and all there ever was, and all there ever will be...Quote:
Originally Posted by Who I Am
:D
I'm glad we agree!
Let me try this again.Quote:
Originally Posted by three and four
I believe reason is the best tool we have available for dealing with physical reality. I also believe that, by its very nature, it prevents us from being in the moment. It is a function - a function that draws on experience (past) and makes predictions (future). Reason and knowledge are not the same thing, though they do work together and both do divert us from the moment. Dealing with, manipulating and exploiting physical reality is not the same thing as experiencing it. I argue that experience is often (usually) hindered by both reason and knowledge.
Let me give a more complex example, but one that has directly led to these observations in myself. Let's say I'm enjoying a concert of the Detroit Symphony Orchestra. What can I experience while I'm sitting there listening?
I can be totally diverted by the "monkey voice" and miss most of what is going on. This could go in a zillion directions - being distracted by the lady in front of me with the blue hair and too much perfume and cursing her silently, thinking about how my stomach is a bit upset by having made the mistake of going to Mexican Village and eating an entire Arizonian combo before the show, etc.
I can be totally diverted by reason and knowledge, too. As a musician, I can sit there and disassemble what I'm listening to, recognizing key center changes, harmonic and rhythmic conventions and voice leading. I can be awed by the flawless intonation and locked vibrato of the string sections. I can be awed as well by the director's choices in the "mix" and flow of the performance. I can recall other times I've heard the piece performed and anticipate what is coming. I can ponder why the DSO sounds so much better in Orchestra Hall than they ever did even under Antol Dorati at Ford Auditorium.
Or, if I can shut down reason as well, I can be utterly immersed in the beauty and majesty of that transient experience. I can allow the music to play my emotions rather than my cerebral processes. Without reflection, anticipation or translation, I'm then able to invest all I am in experiencing the moment as fully as humanly possible.
Rather than visualizing that square of yours, draw one and then try experiencing it without the analysis. That's what I'm talking about.
Can you remember the joy and magic of experiencing new things as a child? What has changed since then?
One of my favorite meditation exercises is to meditate on the present moment.Quote:
Originally Posted by three and four
Consciousness is like the edge of a sword.
I do that all the time. What I was trying to say is that I dislike people who only enjoy themselves and totally ignore the past or future.
Quote:
Originally Posted by three and four
Why would you dislike people who enjoy themselves... You are aware that you're going to die, aren't you? Isn't happiness the point of life, or at least something we want? I wish I could enjoy every moment of life. You can't change the past or the future, so why not just live in the moment and be happy about it.
You can change the future...
And I DO wanna be happy, but not at the cost of other people. If everybody thought like you, our planet would have been destroyed decades ago.
So, you don't care about anything, do you? Selfishness...tss.
Oh and by the way... Helping to secure a bright future for everybody makes me happy.
People who say you should only care about the 'now' are either weak or lazy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bonsay
How can you change the future?
Would there be a problem if the world was destroyed, everybody would be happy about it.
By doing something...Ever heard of causality? :lol:
And also - speak for yourself. Not everybody is THAT short-sighted, self-centered and careless.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bonsay
Do you think you're "tricking" the future by doing something?
I don't know why you think that happiness would destroy the world, or that wishing happiness is short-sighted, self-centered or careless.
Also why does your sig say the opposite of what you said above "I dislike people who only enjoy themselves and totally ignore the past or future.".
Cause -> consequense.
You polluting the world by thinking only about yourself -> world goes to hell
You helping the world (and being happy) -> we survive.
Causality for beginners.
What is happiness for you? Doing whatever you want?
Do you consider people who protect the enviroment and human rights stupid and unhappy?
About the sig: I never said that, it's a quote from Mr. Linderman, a fictional villain. I personally believe that it is possible to be happy BY trying to do good things for the world.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bonsay
Well I was only regarding your first post. That was careless of me. I misunderstood what you said and totaly messed up everything by "thinking out loud". So I'm not what the above posts might seem to make me.
Personaly a lot of things would make me happy. Making other people happy along with everything else you mentioned about human rights and conserving the world etc. etc.
I meant living in the moment as in being aware in a meditational sort of way, the way others are talking about. Mostly I wanted to talk about the future-past thing. Sorry for the inconvenience.
Also that isn't changing the future. The causality for beginners thing.
:p no problem, misunderstandings happen often on the internet. :P
By the way, do you believe the future is fixed? Because I think it changes with every choice we make. I mean, if you'd travel to the future now (let's say 6 months) and take a look around, then go back, do something, and then travel 'back to the future'...wouldn't the future look different then?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bonsay
I believe that changing the future is just an illusion. Future the way I look at it doesn't really exist. The part when we say, what will happen if I do this, is the illusion part. When you look at the past you see the former future. There is only one past so there is only one future. Disregarding the quantum stuff, the effects of which I sadly(or gladly? :P) don't feel.
In this scenario you assume that traveling to the past is possible. If you went to the future, if it's predetermined, the thing you would then do in the past would already be a part of the future you were in before. If you went further back then there would either be a paradox, or a "new universe" because of the quantum stuff. I don't know that exactly, it's too much for me at the moment. If you know..please tell :P
I believe that travelling to the past would not create a paradox, but create an alternate timeline instead. Or maybe, this alterative timeline already exists. Perhaps that is the 5th dimension. If you had done something different at a point in the past, the present would look different..Maybe you DID do something different, creating a timeline parralel with ours...
Because there is an infinite amount of thing that could be different it would also make sense if there was an infinite amount of dimensions...
Blabla no one can prove anything yet :)
Just a theory, or no, a hypothesis.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bonsay
Hey, I’m glad you two made up! :) (I was worried there for a second).
Would you say that arguments due to misunderstanding cause us to slip out of being in the moment? ;)
About the future: for some very strange reason (maybe due to "quantum stuff") I have this notion that the future is at the same time a field of infinite possibilities and yet also totally pre-determined. Go figure...
I checked around and I think that time travel would be travel into other parallel universes. So paradoxes wouldn't exist. But is this actual time travel then :P? Wouldn't that mean that you could end up in a giant cookie parallel universe?Quote:
Originally Posted by Timothy Paradox
Also someone who wants to make a time machine?
Woa that vid is awesome!
The ones in the related videos sections are better actually. I posted a crappy one.