An essential characteristic that governs the Dao is spontaneity (ziran), the what-is-so-of-itself, the self-so, the unconditioned. The Dao, in turn, governs the cosmos: “The ways of heaven are conditioned by those of the Dao, and the ways of Dao by the Self-so.”

Daoism does embrace creative evolution (the evolving intelligence that permeates the universe). In this c respect, it is similar to the philosophy of Heraclitus (the evolving Lagos), and most recently the Creative Evolution of Henri Bergson.

The Daoists were simply observers, and did not start out with preconceived objectives, e.g., create a metaphysics that makes room for super-forces such as God or the Laws of Nature which govern and determine everything. Their observations were quite straightforward without the gymnastics of most Western philosophers, i.e.:

1) The universe is permeated with intelligence (the Dao)
2) The universe is characterized by Yin/Yang opposites (positives and negatives) that are waves (quantum waves)
3) Opposites (+, -) create energetic motion (Qi) which creates everything else.

The above is the One (Dao/Intelligence) that creates Waves (Yin/Yang) that create Energy Qi) which describes the nature of the universe. It it's very simple, very real, and pretty much explains everything. The universal intelligence (including humans) is an creating, learning, evolving force that learns with memory and creates with intelligence. That's it.

The reason Western philosophy gets so messy and far-fetched is that historical forces insisted on metaphysical philosophers that either had to include God (or else you get burned at the stake) or had to include all powerful and all determining Laws of Nature (science has its own axe to grind). Ideas like "determined free will", "the illusion of free choice", or "selfish genes" are the result of the torturous problem of trying to get a square peg in a round hole.

That's a fine way to look at life. Genetic memories transfer from parent to child. This isn't possible without death. Also, death has the additional function of culling the herd of weaklings - genetic misfits - whose survival would be bad for the herd's overall welfare. All that brings me to the main point - death does have objective meaning. Ironically, the questioner of meaning, life, has no objective meaning. — TheMadFool

A personally do not subscribe to the notion of gene transfer for any number of reasons most of all it merely squishes everything human into a lowly gene and makes genes more human than humans. But beyond this, the theory leaves almost all questions unanswered including how does everything human and life itself spring from a gene?

My preference, and for the reasons Rupert Sheldrake articulates, is for the concept of morphic resonance fields (a type of memory) which are imbued into the universe (holographically) and are hierarchical in nature. One might consider life forms a form of memory characterized by these fields which on one hand are sort of habitual patterns but at the same time are are constantly evolving.

Mindfulness (I practice Tai Chi) is fundamentally a practice of increasing relaxed awareness. Increasng awareness, permits us to make more skillful choices in life, without any assurance of outcome. It can be analogized to navigating while sailing. Relaxation enables us to perform this navigation while minimizing the amount of energy required.

I imagine that there are many modes of practices that can reach relax the mind and increase awareness, Tai Chi suits me while meditation or other practices may suit others. Anything performed in a relaxed manner will increase physical, emotional, and spiritual flow which seems to lead to better overall health while stagnation seems to have the opposite effect.

As far as happiness is concerned, it seems to come in waves and moderate happiness helps mitigate and moderate sadness. In other words, the Middle Way.

For me, there are no Truths. I believe in things always subject to inevitable changes. It is a matter of how much leeway one allows in their own personal thought process. We can willfully try to create some permanence (Truths) but the energy spent on doing this may create problems. However, one can always try and observe for oneself.

I think that it is an interesting observation and something to consider when attempting to create permanence. Allowing flow seems to create healthier environments. But the Buddhist advice is simply that though it is often called (for some reason) Noble Truths . Heck, if Truths, Immobility, and Permanence works for someone, great!

No assumptions anywhere. Just observations. Under inspection everything seems to be constantly changing and evolving, except in one particular situation, when I am asleep and not dreaming. But it's difficult to say 100% that such a state actually exists.

As I said, most people try to create Truths in their minds, even most practicing Buddhists, thus the admonition in the Buddhists writings, which Buddhists often ignore. As for myself, I just allow my mind to evolve mostly via the arts though I do love new philosophical ideas when presented to me, e.g. Bergson and Creative Evolution.

You lose mobility of thought. Truth becomes the unchangeable anchor. Of course, the universe continues to evolve no matter what.

Best not to get involved (in personal thought) with trying to create an immobility (Truth). But if you do try (as most people do), remember the admonition of ancient philosophies (e.g. Buddhism), trying to create permanence leads to unhappiness. I guess that is why it matters.

Whenever you lay down a truth, you always lose something, i.e. movement and evolution of that which is unique, and yes it does matter. Basically, there are no truths so why pretend? Let's just call them agreed conventions or consensus.

Math is merely symbols that are carried by definition and convention. 1+1 had no meaning other than what we apply to it.

In school we are taught that one apple (the teacher displays one) plus one more apple (the teacher displays a second apple) it's equal to TWO apples and then writes it on the blackboard. And that is how convention is taught and that is the purpose of school.

Now, if course, upon inspection, we don't have two apples that are exactly the same but also by convention and practical purposes we are taught that they are the same. A child, refusing to deny individuality and uniqueness, could reasonably shout out that they are different apples and there is only one of each! Such a child is labeled a problem child and is put in special education until the child conforms to convention of society.

And in such a way, truths are developed in different cultures. It is all about consensus. There is no internet truth anywhere.

So, it should relieve the existential angst!? — TheMadFool

One can analogize life and death to a painting that one doesn't like and wishes to do over. One covers the old painting with a layer of white paint and starts again. However, it is not a complete restart. Something was learned in the previous effort. This memory of this evolutionary learning process remains.

That appears to be a teleological claim. Biological mechanisms are unconscious. Only conscious entities can be aware that they are surviving or have functions.

In my opinion consciousness is the only thing that gives anything value or meaning. — Andrew4Handel

Yes, one cannot rely on a consciousness in order to deny it.

I think it is fair to say that no model is off the "beginning" is definitive. You can say the beginning is God (all powerful external intelligence), the Big Bang (something that miraculously evolves into the equivalent of God), or the Dao (intelligence that is embedded in the universe), or a myriad of variations.

Now the question what happens after? Those who believe in all powerful forces, whether God or the Big Bang (again the two are absolutely equivalent) are forced into a position of predetermination or predestination, with some "illusion of choice" thrown in by the all powerful force for some unknown reason. One had to buy into this piece of trickery to buy into determinism or compatibilism. The cause and effect chain had been entirely laid out by an immutable non-evolving force.

With the non-deterministic view, everything is real. Intelligence is real. It was there at the beginning (the Daoist view), we are really making choices, and we are really learning and creating. This is the actual experience of every day life.

So why even bother with determinism or compatibilism? The answer is that those who adhere to these ideas start off with the idea that there must be all powerful forces (God or the Laws of nature) so it is necessary to come up with a philosophy that fits into their desired goal. One can just accept things as they are (an evolving intelligence that makes choices) and eliminate the need to resort to all of these miracles and illusions that are required by the "all powerful force" philosophies all of which have relevant historical, social and political contexts. The cart was put in front of the horse for a reason.

Life=>evolution of consciousness=>creativity+exploration+learning

Death=>opportunity for conscious rebirth=>new canvas for consciousness

As far as compatibilism it's concerned, in the article you linked to, if there is but a singular choice made anywhere at any time, determinism is broken.

but isn't' science based totally on that view? Quantum mechanics may be the exception, is this your "way out"? — FreeEmotion

Science is all about approximations that are practical for all purposes (an idea proposed by John Bell). It is not exact. Never was. Never will bless. Everything, it's quanta and to be absolutely precise in any prediction one must be able To precisely predict the quanta. Physics says this is impossible. This science must live with imprecise measurements that are still usable, which is why Newton's equations are still used even though they yield imprecise results. The results are good enough.

As I mentioned earlier, there is not a scintilla of a scintilla piece of evidence that supports determinism. It is a religion but the adherents of this idea are so enchanted by it, they don't care that there is zero evidence. They might as well swap determinism forces for God. The two are equivalent.

If there were an universe which was inhabited by completely deterministic beings — FreeEmotion

Exactly, precisely what is a "deterministic being"?

I view humans as intelligence. This intelligence makes choices. It is responsible for its choices despite the issue that outcomes are always unknown until they manifest. But there is an intelligence making choices (this is more or less the Bergson model).

Now, compare this to the deterministic model. There is no choice, it is an illusion. There is no responsibility, it is an illusion. There is not even a being, since that must also be an illusion. (Let us put aside for the moment the Miracle that out of nowhere created all these illusions, a Miracle that puts all of Genesis to shame).

So all we have is a universe of entangled quanta spontaneously, by some magic, manifesting all of these illusions (I guess quanta is some sort of god). Exactly what (not who) is responsible for anything? The Big Bang?

Buddhism suggests the Middle Way-moderation. Nothing more or less. Enlightenment, or any such thing is a marketing gimmick for those who wish to turn a very simple and interesting philosophy into a business. Such extremes as you are suggesting will prove my lead to lots of interesting results, but I would suggest simple moderation as a reasonable way to look live a life.

There has been much evolution in understanding the nature of human existence, just not in the mainstream. It takes exploration outside of the common path to begin to understand how much had evolved. In a way, the ancients had it right but their ideas have been remolded and given different shape.

. The problem is to produce a coherent account of that something more. Once that account is formulated, we might find it does all the work, and that it is compatible with determinism and sufficient for our value purposes; in that case, the something more would become the whole of the account of free will.
How is free will possible? Given the tension between causal determination and randomness on the one hand, and valuable agent-hood on the other, how is valuable agenthood possible? — Philosophical Explanations, 1981

Not at all. The universe is filled with habits or repetitive memory that is constantly being refashioned by choices. I may get up around 8 o'clock every day, but not precisely. My mind decides (or an alarm clock that my mind sets) on a slightly different time or maybe very much different time (all within a probabilistic range) which changes the habits.

The thing about determinism is that without a scintilla of evidence of any sort that such a thing exists, there are humans who prefer this description of their life. I find this the most interesting of all. It would be an interesting discussion as to why people choose (for they are surely choosing) this view of their life.

The video also emphasizes the fact the we feel we have free will, which plays an important part in this debate. I am a little puzzled by the fear that a belief in determinism will lead people to stop taking responsibility for their actions. — FreeEmotion

Precisely what would be taking responsibility for anything in a deterministic world? The inanimate quanta? In other words, how does the concept of responsibility arise? If we play the deterministic game, we play it to the hillt. Nothing means anything anymore and every concept magically arises out of quanta.

What about that professor in Colorado who did research--obesity research, I believe--funded by Pepsi or Coca-Cola (I forget which one) that concluded, surprise, soda consumption is not responsible for certain negative health outcomes. I don't remember the exact details, but he got perks from Pepsi or Coca-Cola like staying in expensive hotels, trips to nice vacation destinations, etc. Again, I don't remember the exact details, but I think that that is a fairly accurate outline. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

What goes on in academia lies somewhere at the intersection of pathetically sad, hysterically funny, and dreadfully disgusting. To obsrve what people will do to their own moral ethics for the sake of tenure, which are barely even given out much nowadays. I know a few who refused to bend and buckle to the will of the system, and they were properly hounded out of academia along with anyone who associated with them. I find academic research so distorted that I am surprised that anyone relies on it. It shows you how out of the mainstream I find myself.

And your evidence for this is what? What you're saying sounds exactly like a garden variety conspiracy theory. Why should I believe it isn't? — Reformed Nihilist

Are you seeking an academic study on how academia bends over backwards to please whoever gives it give it money? I'll give it a look and see. Maybe, I'll come up with something.

Lacking, such a study, I'll just have to depend upon my own experiences working with and observing academia. What I've observed, is that above all, academia cherishes those who will continue it's tradition of towing the line. To worship those who bring in the money. That is how one gets the prize of tenure. Those who don't get it (and I know plenty) feel the sense of ultimate freedom and allow themselves the pleasure of letting out their disdain for the institution. It takes a while to get there.

Again, you're free to use whatever method you choose, but I'll take studies over your intuitions. — Reformed Nihilist

Of course you will as well most others. That is why banks and corporations fund these institutions-to ensure their interests are well represented. It's easy to buy academia. Those who don't tow the line (as they did in graduate school) are banished, or worse yet hounded. Academia is a lovely, lowly community. No backbone. Just that cherished promise of tenure.

You're free to choose whatever method you prefer to arrive at your conclusions, however I would personally recommend choosing academically researched, peer reviewed studies over personal intuitions. That's the route I'm going to take on this matter anyways. — Reformed Nihilist

Academic research is all about tenure and keeping the bosses happy. I can't remember the last time I found anything interesting coming out academia. It's the last place I would turn for scholarship. It's all a commercial business and because I hang out with professors, I'm pretty comfortable with this position. In general their opinion of academia is lower than mine because they have to live with it on a day to day basis.

Minimum wage probably has some effect on overall standard of living under certain circumstances, but its overall effect is minor in comparison to monetary policy which more than anything else creates the massive wealth inequality that we are experiencing today. Nothing can overcome the transfer is wealth being engineered by Central Banks worldwide.

I don't think there was any group identity motivating the Belgium and French arming of the Rwandans nor of the neo-conservative desire to invade Iraq. If one wishes to understand what goes on among the elite of the world (who pretty much start all large-scale wars) one only has to follow the money. As a common denominator it is quite common. Actually, I can't think of an instance where it isn't there. Of propagandists will use every tool at their disposal to whip up the armies into a frenzy.

I would suggest that religion offers little of value that can't be acquired otherwise, and there is at least some reason to believe that it underpins some of the worst parts of our nature — Reformed Nihilist

Stalin and Mao didn't seem to be motivated by religion not were their underlings who carried out their mass murders. If you are looking for a common theme across most large scale massacres, it is probably desire for money, land and the power that comes with it. The Belgium and French that armed the Rwandan Hutus and arbitrarily created the Tutsi and Hutu "races" (sort of disgusting) did it for money and natural resources. It's a pretty ugly works when it comes to lust for money but we can't outlaw money or bankers (though we can throw them in jail as they did in Iceland).

Snyder comes in here not as someone denying that beliefs are important, but as resisting that oversimplification. For instance, he says you misunderstand Hitler's radicalism if you think of him as being really, really, really anti-Semitic. He refuses to explain what happens in Lithuania, for instance, by saying that Lithuanians must be more anti-Semitic than other Europeans. Snyder is controversial, but the book is absolutely worth reading. — Srap Tasmaner

Yes, it would be a gross simplification to argue that the Nazis were just very anti-Semitic. They were just thugs with ownership of a massive war machine and were intent on conquering land and people for their own uses. Really, not that much different from the British empire but qualitatively more brutal. Of course, they believed that they could accomplish this which is why they decided on the course of conquest.

To truly have nothing, one must extinguish consciousness sensing. Actually I was once unconscious for a few minutes and there truly was nothing. And then there was something. My mind shut itself down and then reawakened. In this manner the mind created something out of nothing. Pretty extraordinary. In the same way, I guess, we experience nothing and then something when we are asleep and not dreaming and then wake up, unless we are dreaming all the time.

I think logic and proofs are not going to bring anyone any closer to understanding the nature of human experiences. Sometimes I wonder how it every got elevated to that status that it had within academic philosophy. Philosophers, such as Bergson, I don't believe, ever resorted to logic. He simply studied and observed.

You might also want to check out Timothy Snyder's Black Earth which repeatedly explains the events of the Holocaust in terms of the local political situation instead of attributing everything to anti-Semitism. — Srap Tasmaner

The Nazis were pretty indiscriminate in their genocide. 35 million Russians were killed. Why? The Nazis, like the Mongols, were super-large-scale murderers and thieves. They enjoyed having millions of slaves working for them and stealing everyone's natural resources. Europeans in general developed this practice over several centuries though the Nazis refined it using the latest war technology.

Does this discussion presume that one has free choice and can act on their beliefs? If so there is ample evidence that the Nazi's believed that they were a superior race and acted in it to gain Lebensraum for the race by killing 10s of millions of people (it's not as if they were trying to hide and if this).

If we are presuming the materialistic model then I don't have any idea who are what it's acting on anything. The genes are just going mad and doing things I guess. I can't imagine a gene having a belief but maybe they are just little humans and do.

Words and sentences are strictly a string of symbols that may communicate an interesting new idea or not. A paradox of words does not necessarily communicate a paradox of experience. In this case we have a string of words that communicates nothing. The author should have offered more clarity. One lesson in life is that simply because some person had been elevated to some stature by some group of people doesn't mean that every sentence they offer must be cherished. Sometimes humans just love to create idols out of humans.

Socrates could have just as well said: "I never stop learning" but then it may not have seemed so profound. It's a persistent problem with wordy philosophers and philosophies. My own preference is always for clarity in simplicity.

It’s agreed by all that, for each person, there’s a body. That’s what there’s undeniable evidence for. There’s really no evidence that we are anything other than our body. — Michael Ossipoff

Best current evidence is that everything is composed of quanta (non-material) and there is no reason to suppose that mind/body is anything but a continuum. This is about as simple as it can get. In addition, all current evidence is that information (memory) is never lost so they is no reason to supposed so. The simplest model for a universe is a holographic model which avoids the gymnastics of everything magically springing from a brain and genes and magically disappearing upon death.

Dependency on the body is only simple if one embraces the body as the Creator of all things which gets us into the realm of religion.

and the fact that it has been determined as necessary that an immaterial cause is required for material existence — MU

As far as we know, there is no distinction between immaterial and material other than the way the mind perceives it (substantially). It is like trying to draw distinctions between vapor, water, and ice. Fundamentally there isn't any and whichever direction one goes in the spectrum it all remaining the same.

In the same manner, it is possible (probable?) there is no distinction between intelligence, immaterial, and material. It is all part of the spectrum so no need for an external God to explain emergence.

As for the OP, from what I can tell, people embrace the concept of God for hope and for an idea that they can congregate around (socialize). If course, there is a huge industry that can be built around hope including such things as a cure for cancer. Hope is always good business.

So then you can care about your family, your friends, people you are emotionally invested in but not in the nameless, faceless suffering masses that abound in our world? — Cavacava

One can care about faceless and have a connection via empathy, which would be an extrapolation of caring. A good question would be (and highly metaphysical) is why some people have more or less empathy and caring than others. It can be explained using a spiritual, transcendental life model where the memory form is constantly learning through multiple physical lives but almost impossible (without resorting to magic) with the typical materialistic gene model where emotions of all sorts spring out of no where. However, as a basis for an academic probation paper, such a metaphysical approach would be treacherous. Even Bergson dared not go there.

Your thesis rests on the proposition that "caring" is an emotion. If you can show this you have a paper.

To answer your question, once must first dispose of scientific time which is merely synchronizing movements of physical clocks for measurement purposes, and inspect time for what it actually is, as we experience it in our lives. Time is psychological and is a manifestation of our mind (not to be confused with the brain) as it compares memories slowly morphing from one state to another and prepares for possible actions in the future.

If one fully introspects time for what it is, one can view time as entangled with consciousness (memories). Without this there is simply quantum stuff out there that is changing wave form but absolutely no sense of time. It has no beginning, had no end, and cannot be destroyed. As an addendum, conscious itself cannot be destroyed as it is embued into these wave forms.

Conceivably relatively soon after death.

But, of course, before long, there can't any longer be that much detail in the person's perception or experience. — Michael Ossipoff

This depends upon one's concept of the mind, which I perceive as memory embedded in a holographic universe. The brain within this access scenario is just acting as a reference/reconstruction generator of external memory (what is out there). What is perceived as private memory still exists, possibly as a personal dreamlike condition not dependent upon a brain.

As for Hamlet, the soliloquy refers to another type of state of being which he analogizes sleep, death, and dreams where the fear of what we may dream in sleep it's what keeps us going in life. A rather interesting point v of view which dovetails my own speculations about the nature of dreams.

To die, to sleep--
No more--and by a sleep to say we end
The heartache, and the thousand natural shocks
That flesh is heir to. 'Tis a consummation
Devoutly to be wished. To die, to sleep--
To sleep--perchance to dream: ay, there's the rub,
For in that sleep of death what dreams may come
Read more at http://www.monologuearchive.com/s/shakespeare_001.html#EYFeVJLzEaboUmLM.99

What it's particularly interesting about dreams is that the mind switches from a state of qualitatively perceived space and a psychologically felt time (duration) into a state of internal images which have a completely different sense of space and duration.

This might be understood from a holographic model of reality (when awake) where the mind via the brain is acting as a reconstruction wave generator illuminating the image "out there" (not in the brain) in a shared holographic universe. In a dream state, the mind used a different reference wave turns toward personal memory (also existing in an external holographic form) and reconstructs images based upon internal memory possibly to solve some problem or to visit a different form of existence.

I would speculate that the dream state is very close to what it may seem like after death. This is similar to Hamlet's speculation about death.

(b)The freedom of alternative choice which consists in the supposed ability of the agent to choose among alternative possibilities of action and

And this is precisely what is happening in life. We have habits and skills and senses. We continually observe and make judgements of possible modes of action and then, depending upon our skills, we make a choice in a particular direction. We then observe results, learn, and continue the cycle. The human experience is about exploring, creating, and learning and this is the mode by which we do it.