tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11168555.post4324008121749802274..comments2024-03-28T03:22:24.202-04:00Comments on The Multiverse According to Ben: ISO a non-religious foundation for the process of "taking responsibility"Benhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12743597120529571571noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11168555.post-44026946950839804412023-01-02T07:09:41.809-05:002023-01-02T07:09:41.809-05:00idn gacor<a href="https://trikcasinotergacor.net" rel="nofollow">idn gacor</a><br />Peluang Bisnis Gacorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15537574567579429895noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11168555.post-54067168079323356412008-08-26T14:31:00.000-04:002008-08-26T14:31:00.000-04:00"Removing the obsolete, flawed quasi-religious con..."Removing the obsolete, flawed quasi-religious concepts of blame, shame and so forth from one's inner mental landscape is an important step toward becoming a rational and self-aware, fully-realized person; but, once they are removed, they need to be replaced with something else ... they need to be replaced with a recognition of the mind as a holistic, complex dynamical system; and with a recognition of the role of the deliberative," <BR/><BR/>Yes to the explanation. No to the solution. What assures you that the absence of Blame and Shame will produce the same correcting results. You are naive on that. DonĀ“t you see that when you replace the self centered explanation by a rational explanation in terms of a holistic system you are justifying self indulgence?. If this what you call a fully realized person?. <BR/><BR/>You have to admit that practical realism ( that includes, but not only, the moral responsibility illusion) is an integral part of being human. If you reject the illusion of moral responsibility with their associated feelings, you have not the benefical correction. Or else, do you think that shame and blame was invented by religion and not by evolution for a reinforcing purpose?<BR/><BR/>After all, why you put the boundary between reality and obsolete-flawed-quasi-religious at that?. if we humans ar nothing but temporal configurations of elementary particles by the dynamic of strange attractors, all else is illusory!<BR/><BR/>Fot exzmplee, I read you talking about good felings about your father. That is not rational! that is quasi religious!. Are your feeling in this case an obstacle for a self realized person?. Come on!. you are a brilliant scientist, not a moralist. Please consider the emergent concepts at his own level. No naive reductionism please!. Or else, in the process of reduction, don't give away the displeasing elements!!memetic warriorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11962281728014883353noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11168555.post-28796136702768234552008-08-23T06:21:00.000-04:002008-08-23T06:21:00.000-04:00I am reading through your blog entries trying to f...I am reading through your blog entries trying to find something I disagree with, or haven't said myself, so that I can properly distinguish myself from you. Maybe I should just adopt you as a part of my Digital Identity and have done with it!<BR/><BR/>I suspect the obsolete religious concepts of blame and shame are just the societal reflections of the decision making processes in our individual minds. I can see a great deal of similarity (perhaps unsurprisingly) between the workings of mind and of community. Ethics would seem to be an emergent property in communities, and personal morality is its counter-point in the individual mind. Of course, the two are tightly coupled.<BR/>The decision making process works to help train the subconscious mind, but the community's ethical stance works in a similar way to the mind's internal censor to provide the same sort of training.Pat Parslowhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02506915711552549107noreply@blogger.com