I just thought, some of the agreements that go on in society are like:
'I'll turn a blind eye to your exploitation of stuff in the normal range of exploitation, and you'll do the same for me, good fellow..?'

weird isn't it? :)

As to 'agreement', all you have to do is choose your own mode of behaviour, there isn't really any need to agree to anything, is there? — wax

or maybe that is too cynical and simplistic.
There can be all sorts of agreements going on, like an agreement that two entities share certain beliefs, values etc..

Agreements on how two entities will interact in future.etc

I think any idea of society being moral must mean that morality is emergent from individuals in society, so the morality of the society is based upon the morality of its individual members, which comes back to personal responsibility.
Do you take responsibility for any exploitation you might participate in by buying products made using slave labour, for example?

It's a practical emergence of ways of functioning.

An individual or group of individuals might decide their way of functioning is to give away everything they come into ownership, except what they need to survive. This puts them in trouble whenany supply of resources isn't attainable, so they have nothing to fall back on, so either they change their way of behaving, or they end up living on the street, or they die....so that mode of behaving doesn't survive and spread well in society.

An individual or group of individuals might decide that they will behave in a way which exploits all manner of means to obtain what they need and excess too. This might bring them into conflict with other parts of society, if they end up breaking existing laws...this mode of operation, seems to be sustainable to some extent, as there is always the possibility of storing resources, and as long as there is a society to exploit, there may be avenues of obtaining resources.

If the exploitation mod becomes too prevalent in society, then society begins to break down, which leave fewer and fewer avenues for the exploiters to obtain resources.

So there is always an emergent form of behaviour within society, with a play off mainly between the creators of resources, and the exploiters.

There may be various philosophies that individuals or groups, have which lead them to behave in one way or another., though..

Law also emerge to try and sustain the production of resources.

But if it doesn't affect the production of resources, it seems like one society is quite capable of exploiting another society, eg the production of materials, the mining of minerals, in other countries that us slavery....so this makes me think the behaviour of any society is based mainly on what sustains that society, and less based upon some moral philosophy.

'do unto others as you'd have done to you' gets turned into 'you can't do it to me(because you are a poor slave in a foreign country), so I can do it to you'...and I don't have to do anything about it, as I am just following the mode of my own society.

As to 'agreement', all you have to do is choose your own mode of behaviour, there isn't really any need to agree to anything, is there?

I think the best way to try an change people's attitudes, if one thinks they need changing, is to try to get them to see for themselves that a change would be best, and work out their own opinions and stuff for themselves.

I think prescriptive teaching is a bit pointless anyway.

That's why I would ask Christians whether they think causing suffering to animals by using animals for their body parts, if it isn't necessary, is in line with why they became a Christian.

There are many Christians with all sorts of beliefs and motivations, which I don't know about, so all I can do personally is ask them to examine the question for themselves...I can't tell them the answer.

And there will still be Christians in the world who still need to use animals in this way, due to poverty, unusual dietary needs etc...so the word 'unnecessary' is still relevant.

It isn't necessary to use animals for a lot of people.

I believe that only in the eyes of the law can you really own an animal. Other than in the law, you can keep an animal captive, or like a pet. To kill an animal as a sacrifice is like going to your neighbour's house and setting his car on fire, and claiming it is a sacrifice to god....killing an animal is only a sacrifice to the killer of the animal, in that he might lose some of the benefits from keeping it alive.

I think if there is a right way to do things and a wrong way to do things, in the eyes of God, then Jesus would shed light on which way to do things was best.
If animal sacrifice was the incorrect way to go about ridding one's self of sin, and honouring God, then I really think that Jesus would have said something about it.
I mean do any, or many Christians these days think that sacrificing animals achieves anything at all?

I thought I read he said animal sacrifice wasn't necessary any more....not sure where I read that.

I read on wikipedia that the default mode network becomes activated when people stop focusing on tasks and doing stuff, ie it probably becomes active while sitting and meditating.
I would guess and from what I have read, that the default mode network is part of the process of conceptualisation....so focusing on a question like the hand clapping one, gets the default mode network to conceptualise nothingness.....in trying to do this task, which is impossible, all activity is shut down, and all memories, thoughts and other processes in this network are lost, perhaps permanently.
As the person is still inactive, and meditating, then the default mode network must try to fire up again and keep working...but it can't do this on its own, like turning on a switch, it must call upon other parts of the system, and refill the void with information, and processes, like memories.
I'm not sure whether drawing in information from other parts of the mind means that information is lost, permanently or just temporarily....it all sounds quite unpleasant...and back up my intuitive feelings about such koans, that I've had for a while.

Emptiness is quite often experienced by people; people who live in isolation, like the character in Castaway.

My guess is the eastern concept of emptiness is the filling of the void that one has created, the feeling of thoughts and memories that pour in to fill the emptiness.

This is just an idea I had yesterday, but it seems to make sense.

edit: this bit from Shakespeare came to mind:
"Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more;
Or close the wall up with our English dead."

The mind will always try to heal, to fill the breach, and if necessary the breach will be filled with the dead...old memories, feelings that have died in the assault...fill the emptiness, and hold back the enemy of the void.

One has to consider the questions: can animals suffer?
Do you need animals for the food, skin etc that can be derived from them?

If you do not need animals in that way, what is your justification for using them that way, given that raising animals for their harvesting almost always leads to some suffering, and in a lot of cases a huge amount of suffering.

I think there isn't much point in trying to tie in veganism with Christianity, but I think it is a good idea for people in general to question their own actions.

If someone is a Christian; what is their motivation to follow that religion?
Does their reason for following that religion match living a life which causes unnecessary suffering in animals?

Wax I think there is certainly evidence of a black hole in the center of the milky way — Rank Amateur

There is evidence of a highly dense massive object, and I'm sure there is...Sag A*...but as I said, in theory it would be hard to tell the difference between a 'black hole' and an asymptotically collapsing object, just slightly bigger than the theoretical black hole..it would produce similar evidence, like the gasses radiating light as they circle it, and the radiation given off at the poles.

That’s an odd description. You don’t think that neural tissue actually becomes necrotic, I trust. From what I understand the DMN (default mode network) becomes temporarily deactivated. This deactivation can be “presented” to the zen master in, I imagine, a variety of ways. — praxis

no the brain won't actually die as such...this deactivation; has this been measure in fMRI studies?

If part of the brain de-active when presented with questions like this, then how do they reactive?

I'm guessing this is what deactivation means, and the brain/mind, I might guess, reactivated by pouring in maybe old memories from the still active parts of the mind...if that is so, that is not what memories are for, usually, so maybe those memories, as they are used as a healing tool/material, are lost to the person's mind.

Maybe a bad analogy, but imagine a sail from a ship becoming torn and ragged, so the sailor takes some cloth from a less vital sail, and turns it into thread, which he uses to stitch the torn sail together with again. The cannibalised sail cloth is lost forever for its original purpose.

With the healing of a torn mind, using memories and associated feelings, maybe these memories and feelings, that were dormant, in the process of healing become accessible to the Zen practitioner...and creature the illusion of becoming more aware, and experience a change of mental state...also unusual thoughts might come from the process and access to forgotten memories..

it is a different take on it.
Can you answer why questions like the clapping hand are asked within Buddhism?

Well, that was my own take on it. I would ask it to trigger critical thinking. I wouldn't be asking it in the usual way. I would be asking it to give an opportunity to identify a problem with the question itself or to come up with a creative answer which fits. — S

well the question asks what is the sound of x clapping(which involves two hands). The x they ask the question of is 'one hand'...the concept of clapping is invoked which uses both sides of the body, and presumably both sides of the brain are involved.
Trying to contemplate one hand doing this creates a split in the imagination process....a sort of split between left and right...this leads to the mind dying a bit......the mind will try to heal any split that has happened, using any resources at its disposal...which might involve memories and feelings that might have been laying dormant in the person.........it all might lead the person to think something positive has happened, but actually they have died a little.

rhetorical questions are questions that have implied answers, or obvious answers.
the question of the hand clapping doesn't have an answer, so isn't really a rhetorical question imo.

The question is a kōan, and it, I think is asked in order for the person asked to attain a new state of being...not just to get people to think;.

Ah, the sound of a rhetorical question. It's a good example of a loaded question which stumps some people and gets them to think. The wise ones don't get stuck there forever, but learn to solve it and move on. — S

it's a question with no actual answer...a hand can't clap at all on its own, so the sound of something which is impossible doesn't exist, and by getting people's minds to contemplate something which doesn't exist gets them to contemplate nothingness...which leads to the death of some parts of the mind, in my opinion....the reaction of someone's mind to part of its own death may lead someone to think they are having a spiritual experience....there is much death in Buddhism I think, and I speak of it as someone who was sort of interested in it, still am a little....I read a Glimpse of Nothingness twice...there sometimes is the illusion of peace in mind death, but it will only be temporary......
I do wonder about the wisdom that might come from spiritual death experiences...this all sounds very negative, and I don't think Buddhism is all negative; I like the concept of mindfulness for example...there is life in that.

also, the term 'spiritual truths'....are there any spiritual untruths?
If not then the term 'spiritual truths; seems like a bit of a tautological statement...or something.

When one talks about words, we have to examine where words came from.
They came from a tradition of communicating by talking.
Talking came about via the evolutionary development of humans, and their culture/s.
We can theoretically trace our shared origin with chimpanzees, and if you think about how they seem to communicate, they use body language in conjunction with verbal expressing...we could add in other things like scent etc.
So out present use of words emerged from that state.
We can also go further back in history and think about what we and the chimps evolved from; some kind of vole/mouse type species...and look at how they communicate..similarly they make vocal sounds, like squeaks, also body language etc...so we can maybe trace language back to the first cells, and how they came about, which science doesn't have much idea about.
If the origins of the first cells were supernatural, then you can maybe trace back words and language right back to whatever supernatural forces may be; God, or whatever you might believe in..

So I think words are not quite as straightforward as some people think they are, and from what I have argued there does seem to be the potential at least, to be able to express spiritual stuff with words, if words are rooted in the spiritual/supernatural.

As for teaching people how to feel, and think; by doing that you would be trying to separate those two things, and then to get people to think and feel at the same time, rejoin what you might have separated....

So your theory is plausible. Spacez-time deformations can produce mattee??? — TheMadFool

no, I'm not sure if one causes the other, only that they have root causes, and always exist together.

If space-time curvatures cause matter (mass) instead of the other way round (matter causing space-time curvatures) then shouldn't objects be popping into existence around massive objects like stars and blackholes, afterall it's these regions that experience maximum space-time deformations right? — TheMadFool

funny you should mention black holes. I don't believe the mainstream view of them and think that event horizons don't form, but Hawking Radiation is based upon the idea that particles do get created just outside of the event horizon. One falls back in and the other radiates away....this particle creation isn't limited to black holes, but the falling back in, and the radiating away can happen near them.

Space and time aren't "things in themselves," they supervene on matter and its relations. — Terrapin Station

yes, maybe.

But if you could somehow see space-time...but couldn't see matter, could you put it the other way, ie
'matter isn't a thing in itself, it just supervenes on space-time and its relationships' ?

or maybe separating space-time into space and time:
'matter and time aren't things of themselves, they just supervene on space and its relationships'?

just a thought.

Rather, the motion of an object is represented as a fixed curve in the 4D spacetime manifold. — andrewk

yes, that makes sense.

Perhaps of interest, John Wheeler's pithy summary of GR was "Spacetime tells matter how to move; matter tells spacetime how to curve. — Andrew M

yes, I've heard that before...and it was referenced in the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy . :)

but if taken seriously, that implies a causal relationship...which comes first, space-time telling matter how to move, or matter telling space time how to curve?

if there is a non-zero time between that communication then there should be a time delay, and that would mean that curvature was transmitted through the system over time, but that doesn't seem to be the case, as far as I can tell.

If there is instant communication between matter and space-time, then the two don't seem to be linked causally, but might have a common root.

yes, the education doesn't want the stuff it teaches challenged...for obvious reasons.

It leads to science too often being about micro-advances; micro-callenges....which as I said is more akin to research and development, than science.
A few cranks get through with their wacky ideas, and are good enough at the analytical stuff to have their ideas taken seriously...it is these people who advance science, which is all that makes it science...

say there are two system/ways of perceiving reality...P for prescriptive, in that P will only accept stuff which meets it on preconceived view of reality.
And C, for a view of reality which allows for new ways of perceiving reality which may not fit into their original way of perceiving reality and so allow for Change.

I think there are too many P systems in science, and not enough C systems...unfortunately P systems with a bit of C thrown in, do well in the education system, and people with a more balanced P/C ratio don't always do so well.

Change can be scary, so maybe this is often why high P ratio people do well, and society often adopts the P way of perceiving reality, and thinking process.

I think to solve a problem, you have to recognise that there is a problem.

To recognise small problems leads to the solving of small problems.

To recognise big problems, in a meaningful way, allows you to solve big problems.

This means being able to see a complex problem, and how it relates to possible solutions from other areas of thought. Previous and existing area of though are maybe problems that have already been solved, to some extent..

A big idea is the solving of a big problem, and I think creative intuitive thought can usually be better at doing that.

I don't know if we can sort out the influence of intuition and logic. It isn't like ideas come tagged with their content source -- like, "this theory is 55% intuition and 45% logic". Logic and intuition are partners, not distant competitors. — Bitter Crank

let's say you always need some intuition to solve problems. A problem is like unknown territory, in which intuition is analogous to sending out scouts.

To make small advanced you only need information about a short distance to find a solution, with small problems.

A big idea requires more than just micro advantages. Say an army needs to get somewhere. It can get there in small advances, but even then it might end up going down a blind alley.

If the army needed to get to the moon, small advances would never get you there, you'd need to co-opt ideas from many fields to find a way. One solution, in that case would be to build a rocket, which is 'a giant leap' in terms of advancing into unknown territory.

A big idea is like that; connecting different realms of thought into something new, in order to make a big advance.

Could you try again at this? I don't understand it as written. — tim wood

take a planet in this diagram moving at a uniform velocity from left to right.



I would maybe think if mass caused space-time curvature, you'd get the curve represented in a.

and maybe if space-time curvature caused mass; you'd get b.

But from what I have read, we get c.

Which indicates to me that space-time and mass are not causally linked, but that they perhaps have a root cause.

one thing I just remembered reading is that, space-time curvature doesn't behave like..like the sound of a jet as the jet travels along; there is no bunching up of the space-time curve for fast moving objects...I think it is supposed to stretch out ahead of the matter(eg planet|)...this could indicate that the space-time curve and the matter are not directly linked, but have root causes instead, maybe...

I can see why it would seem circular. But I am not trying to make an argument about the objective reality of time or it's attributes. I am positing that time, as a human experience, is structured by our human concept of cause and effect.

As such, the way I exit the circle is by pointing out that humans do actually experience time. We experience this time as a sequence of events, and the proper order of the events is defined by cause and effect.

It follows that within the concept of cause and effect, events have a temporal extension and are discrete. Whether this perception has anything at all to do with objective reality is a different question. — Echarmion

I know what you mean...there obviously does seem to be a cause and effect process going on.eg a tennis player hits a tennis ball, and the ball flies off...but I'm not sure you need to perceive and interpret a process of what looks like cause and effect in order for there to be the experience of time...
If a person was sat in front of a computer monitor and watched random shapes flash up on the screen one after the other, they would perceive time, wouldn't they? Although there doesn't at first glance appear to be any perception of cause and effect.

If events had no time dimension, there would be no time and no change. That was the point of the thought experiment. Since that is not how we see the world, events must have a time dimension. — Echarmion

this seems a bit like circular logic to me, ie:

the arrow of time is based upon the assumption that cause coming before effect, ie a non-zero time delay.

if cause and effect is an event with no time-dimension, then our definition of time is wrong; but the argument isn't presented as the definition of time being wrong, it is presented as there would be no time at all, and no change.

To sum up the argument you presented; time happens because there is a time interval between cause and effect...summed up even further, there is time, because there is time....which isn't an argument at all, really.

If there was not a delay, we'd have a situation reminiscent of Zeno's paradoxes. Every event could be infinitely divided into smaller and smaller constituent events, — Echarmion

that argument seems contradictory..

how could an event that had no time dimension be divided up into time segments?

of course then you have to define what a 'lie' is without recourse to a definition of 'truth'.

Other events are happening in between time 1 and time 2 (thoughts included). You perceive a bunch of sensory information, and your brain structures this by grouping these into "things" and "events". The events are then ordered according to cause-effect relationships, and thus seem to follow another in time. — Echarmion

but why wouldn't cause and effect happen at the same time?
Why would there be any kind of delay in the process?

it seems like or contact with reality is what we experience. And experience is an awareness generated by the processes of perception. What ever those processes of perception are, we can't ever really be sure, as we would have to investigate using our perception via observation.

And as I can't be sure how anyone would interpret my argument, I suppose this is a definition of reality for me...

The O.P.'s premise that we have no free will is demonstrably false.

I have a little test that irrefutably shows that we do have a free will whose only limits are physics and nature. We cannot choose to fly but can chose anything within our natural limitations.

If anyone really believes they have no free will to choose between alternatives, my test will show you that you do. It is quick and simple.

Come one come all. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

but if say you have a choice between 10 options but you use a random number generator to make the decision, then a series of decisions can look like you have free will, but it was all determined by some computer program that produces pseudo random numbers.

I do believe in freewill though...

but a counter argument to my argument could be that the person always had a choice whether to use the pseudo-random number generator or not.

The concept cause and effect represent is time. — Echarmion

but if 'cause' happens at time1, and 'effect' happens at time2, what is happening between those times?
if time1=time2 then how can you say which came first and so how can it represent an arrow of time?

I was wondering how a cup falling off a table generated class objects, but then I forgot that if the table was set up in a field, then someone who was standing near the table, would see the cup falling, but if someone was on the Moon, then they might still see the cup sitting on the table, so when the cup falls off the table you generate more objects, because people further and further away in space see different things...?

I think maybe time's arrow not being about cause and effect it is about some kind of change over time. Maybe it is about the generation of information....I was going to say raising the level of complexity, but maybe complexity is infinite anyway, and so raising it wouldn't mean anything.

So it could be just about the raising of the level of information, but then one has to define what 'information' means....I think if I had an empty box, and then put an orange in it, then the level of information in the box has been raised; if I then put an apple in it, then I have raise it again, even thought the whole affair may be a continuum of complexity, so I haven't increased the level of complexity, or maybe I have, but then the orange and apple already existed outside the box within the whole system anyway.

Maybe information is about class of some system, so we have the class of an orange, and the class of an apple....which reminds me of Hilbert's hotel...if Hilibert's room capacity is doubled then you can put more things into the building, so although you haven't increased the size of the hotel, by putting things in one of the rooms, maybe you have increased the amount of information in the hotel..

This might be origin time's arrow, the creation of more class objects...

the thing in science with cause and effect is time's arrow I guess...cause comes before effect...but how can cause come before effect? How long before effect does cause come? What happens in betweens..

This interesting..I have read about the problem with cause and effect.

If 'cause' and 'effect', are more than intertwined, they are the same thing. A zero time event in history.
Maybe somehow history is made up of a continuum of these zero point events....which is pretty mind boggling...where does that leave time's arrow...in a non zero time progression of a continuum of these events.....times arrow then is not about cause and effect, it must be about something else.