Convictions About our True Nature

True Nature and Convictions

Many questions arise when contemplating the supposed “true nature” of humanity. First and foremost: what is a “true nature”? Secondly: what is the psychological factors involved in this search?

MAN'S TRUE NATURE IS A FALSE NATURE

An interesting paradox to consider.

In my observations, when discussing man’s “true nature” specifically, it seems most people often contrast the “true” nature of man against the actual nature of man, or what man should do vs. what he does do. In my conversations with others, many enforce the idea that we should be something else, something other than what we are; for instance, that it is our true nature to exist as divine spirits despite nature proving the opposite, that we are constructs in a holographic reality despite the absence of any evidence, or that we are simply organic machines despite our mind urging us it isn’t so. Presupposing that man is not his ideas, we find these seemingly different conceptions are in fact the same, insofar as they are each conceptions of man’s true nature.

If this is the case – if man should be, according to man, not what nature is currently presenting, but an interpretation of it – we will find that every supposed “true nature” is, paradoxically, a false nature, being that each conception is an interpretation of "what is the case", and not "what is the case" itself. What is the case, what occurs, what happens, what goes on, is, by nature, perceivable, but always inconceivable, it is not words; there is never a direct 1-to-1 ratio between world and word. (At this moment, it would be correct to point out that my words here are also a conception, and therefore not truth, allowing us the power to regard or disregard what is written).

WHY SO PARADOXICAL?

Man, in his language, seems prone to paradox when language is taken at its word, whenever he has a sense of conviction or over-confidence in an ideal. We seem to me a paradoxical animal. What is presented to the senses always precedes what is produced from the mind; and therefore, our actual nature and true nature are one and the same, and who ever asks the question “what is my true nature?” is always the answer. Essentially, by committing the very act of asking the question he is giving himself the answer by being the answer. How is it that he almost betrays himself by conceiving differently?

Conceivably, there may perhaps be some underlying psychological factor, most likely a sort of desire or a will to conviction of some kind, where man paradoxically invents a “true nature” for himself to mentally rest his feet upon, lest he falls into a pit of nihilism. I think we can see this in any general metaphysical outlook, whether it be physics, quantum mechanics, religion, mysticism and so on, and is inescapable, and therefore necessary, as thinking beings. Whatever outlook is chosen, whether it satisfies mind or heart or both, is a matter of personal taste, and objectively irrelevant and a non-issue, but each time it satiates a desire of some sort, permitting ourselves to live our lives with a sense of mental security, or at the very least a foundation to stand on.

MORE CONCEPTIONS

Psychologically, it appears we do need a sense of faith, insofar as each of us seek and promotes faith in whatever ideal outlook we adopt into our personal cultures. It is almost as if conviction is necessary part of being a human, especially ironic in those who are convicted in maintaining they have no conviction. There seems to be no actual line between conviction and non-conviction, faith and unfaith, between stability of character and caprice. We are human after all.

Seeing it this way we may notice that seemingly opposite conceptions, both supposed “truths” – atheism vs. theism for example – can be reconciled by realizing that they are both conceptions, both falsities in the sense that they cannot by nature be the same as what they are talking about, both conceptions of God, both conceptions of a “true nature”, both ideas to which one adheres to, proselytizes about, and is confidently certain about. This is apparent in any debate where there are opposing sides. There is no essential differences between factions save for perhaps their choice in language and the intent behind their rhetoric.

So here is the question:

Is humanity’s true nature best described as what we conceive we are? or what is already the case?

Is it a question even worth considering?

reply to post by NiNjABackflip


It's like you've got all the pieces to the puzzle but you can't put it together. The nature of man is what we are to become - what we are to evolve into; and what that is is faithful children of our God.

Very NICE thread btw - really good thinking in some parts.

Originally posted by Bleeeeep
reply to post by NiNjABackflip

 

It's like you've got all the pieces to the puzzle but you can't put it together. The nature of man is what we are to become - what we are to evolve into; and what that is is faithful children of our God.

Hmmm.... But what happens as we take control over our own evolution?

Is the nature of man to control it's own evolution?( well at least until an asteroid or something wipes us all out)

Our true nature is what the outside world made us become, what it forces us to do, mixed with what our inside world chooses to do, which can affect the outside world. A mixture of determinism and free will, realism and idealism.

reply to post by PhotonEffect


I suppose you're referring only to the physical evolution of the body, and not to the spiritual evolution of the soul (whereby we gain faith by practice of faith). If that is your question (the physical manipulation of the body) then all I could tell you is that you cannot take the keys to the kingdom of heaven - try, and you will most likely end up like the tower of babel or the garden of eden or etc etc.

As for the spiritual evolution, you're free to practice faith - and as the OP suggests, that's essentially all you're really doing anyway. Cogito ergo sum?

reply to post by ImaFungi


I don't think this forum is ready for determinism. lol

They need to feel like they're in control - instead of just witnessing.

I think the statements as to the true nature of humanity in this thread are interesting, as they kind of corroborate my claim that despite all of their differences, they are essentially the same insofar as they are mere opinions. Although they can vary in intelligibility and rationality, they are both instances of humans thinking about themselves, which is neither right or wrong, but necessary.

reply to post by Bleeeeep


erm... You assumed I mean determinism as in of your choice, which I didnt. I mean in that the earth is determined to orbit the sun, and the moon the earth. And although this is tricky because there is choice involved, once your parents choose to have 'relations' and you won the race, you were determined to have the genetic make up you have. I do believe you choose what you want to eat for lunch, though it is determined that there are currently a finite orientations of possible meals.

reply to post by NiNjABackflip


I think it is completely up to our judgement how we ought to live our lives, and it is completely up to us to determine whether what we do is for better or for worse, for ourselves first and foremost, and for all. I dont believe murder is objectively absolutely wrong, but (I have no desire to kill someone, more trying to make a point) even if people do have this desire to kill people, they usually sacrifice these urges, of their true nature and concept of their happiness, because a long time ago humans made laws that say, you will be happier, and we all will be happier and live better, if we dont kill each other. Objectively we can see that law and order, has led to human progression. Is human progression good? That is up to humans to determine the better or for worse, what one is missing out on, what one desires, and why?

Originally posted by ImaFungi
reply to post by Bleeeeep

 

I mean in that the earth is determined to orbit the sun, and the moon the earth.

What would you speculate determined the parameters by which orbits were determined?

And although this is tricky because there is choice involved, once your parents choose to have 'relations' and you won the race, you were determined to have the genetic make up you have.

What determines the essence of our being? Genetically (physically) I can understand why the physical "I" was determined by my parents. But what about the non-physical "I"? Some people may refer to this non-physical being as the soul (or spirit). Whatever it is that makes me me beyond the physical; whatever it is that makes my experience of experience my own--> what determines THAT? Why am I the product of "my parents" and not another set of human beings?

The answer to this question is what I believe will bridge the gap between science and spirit

reply to post by ImaFungi

I think it is completely up to our judgement how we ought to live our lives, and it is completely up to us to determine whether what we do is for better or for worse, for ourselves first and foremost, and for all. I dont believe murder is objectively absolutely wrong, but (I have no desire to kill someone, more trying to make a point) even if people do have this desire to kill people, they usually sacrifice these urges, of their true nature and concept of their happiness, because a long time ago humans made laws that say, you will be happier, and we all will be happier and live better, if we dont kill each other. Objectively we can see that law and order, has led to human progression. Is human progression good? That is up to humans to determine the better or for worse, what one is missing out on, what one desires, and why?

I think you make a good point. Murder becomes wrong with the use of rationality and reason. When murder becomes wrong, it is not because it is absolutely wrong, but because it is rationally wrong. We know we don't want to be murdered, so we can infer that others also do not want to be murdered. It's like a rational inference becomes a mystical bond between us and others, a divine commandment.

reply to post by NiNjABackflip


Yes well its like 'running trials/experiments'. A civilization where murder is not allowed, may objectively fare better then its opposite counterpart. There fore the decision to not murder, and have a community that does not murder each other, (if life is valued, if human progression is valued, if quality of life is valued) seems to be 'the right' decision. So it 'semi' becomes an absolute because we can imagine that the best chosen scenario for any entities living in a communal society would be to not kill one another and to not be in constant fear of being killed. That may be entirely wrong, it may be great fun to live in a society where killing is legal, seems like that society is nature itself.

Originally posted by PhotonEffect


What would you speculate determined the parameters by which orbits were determined?

The most fundamental quality of the universe, whether it is subatomic quanta, or fields. And the fact that if a variety of different types of quanta were created they would interact in different ways. Order is 'comparable differences falling into place'. Think of all material as numbers, or atoms at least, 1, 2,3,4,5,6,7, those are all different 'types' of atoms. Nature is more complicated because its 3-d, and multiple physical variables allow for complex interactions. But the number thing is important because if you look at the table of atoms, they are arranged in an order of the quantity of their constituents, protons, neutrons, electrons. Different interactions create different levels of stability. Different qualities of atoms, interact with atoms in specific ways, because those rules are inherently transcribed unto their physical existence. So once seemingly infinite amount of numbers were created (quanta), they were forced to interact with one another, based on their inherent value and the qualitative meaning of that value. So this is why the orbit is exactly as it is. Because when this universe of quanta and fields and space was created, the physical computations could not have turned out another way, because depending on how much freedom was in the moment before the burst, or begging, right when it was created, 'if nothing could control or tamper with the outcome from there', it was on its own, to fall into order.

What determines the essence of our being? Genetically (physically) I can understand why the physical "I" was determined by my parents. But what about the non-physical "I"? Some people may refer to this non-physical being as the soul (or spirit). Whatever it is that makes me me beyond the physical; whatever it is that makes my experience of experience my own--> what determines THAT? Why am I the product of "my parents" and not another set of human beings?

The answer to this question is what I believe will bridge the gap between science and spirit

Because you are the identity of a specific orientation of matter, that could only come about, if what came about came about. Imagine observing a dandelion when it has the white fluff in a field, and we see the wind blow and the seeds scatter, a seed lands in a field and begins to grow a flower, that flower is exactly that flower, if that flower had an identity or awareness it could ask the same thing you asked, my answer would be I am exactly me and you are you and a dog is a dog and a fish is a fish because of probability and chance, the rolling of die.
You are not defined by anything other then the seed of your parents, 'you' would not be, are nothing, without the interaction of your parents, just as that exact flower in the field would not exist, if its parent flower was destroyed.

So I dont really believe in soul or spiritual side. Your mind is a product of 'needing to be something'. You can think whatever you want whenever you want, or think of many other things in many other ways, but from existing in your environment, and dealing with what youve dealt with in life, and dealing with how you choose to perceive what youve dealt with, dealing with your limitations, dealing with your imagination, your desire, you have constructed a personality, a you, but it is completely created, do you think if when you were born you were sent to slums of africa, or tossed in a forest to be raised by wolves, you would think and feel the same way?

Originally posted by ImaFungi
The most fundamental quality of the universe, whether it is subatomic quanta, or fields. And the fact that if a variety of different types of quanta were created they would interact in different ways.

But more fundamentally than that, what do you speculate determines the "laws of interaction"?

Because let's face it, our universe, its construct, and all matter within it, is determined by interactions. We can have quanta, but without their interaction, we have nothing. And if we are to consider the constants of our universe as being "fine tuned" than these interactions seem to abide by very specific laws. Certain interactions create this, and certain interactions create that. And it all seems to have order and purpose. Otherwise we would have a very dead universe that was an infinite amount of useless blob, or nothing at all.

Order is 'comparable differences falling into place'.

This to me is an abstract definition, and I can't say I understand it that way.
Or perhaps it's a fancy way of saying- order is patterned arrangement; sequence; systematic grouping, organization etc...

So once seemingly infinite amount of numbers were created (quanta), they were forced to interact with one another, based on their inherent value and the qualitative meaning of that value.

Do you have a theory of what determined these "inherent values"? By which specific interactions will occur and give rise to a material universe such as ours? Seems like current science is comfortable shoving that into the Inflation theory, without directly addressing it.

So this is why the orbit is exactly as it is. Because when this universe of quanta and fields and space was created, the physical computations could not have turned out another way, because depending on how much freedom was in the moment before the burst, or begging, right when it was created, 'if nothing could control or tamper with the outcome from there', it was on its own, to fall into order.

So if the physical computations that determined the rules of interaction could not have happened in any other way, do you then discount string theory?

Because you are the identity of a specific orientation of matter, that could only come about, if what came about came about.

Ok, but all humans are the result of the same orientation of matter. Like the dandelions. Except your flowers have no sense of identity that we know of. Humans, as the dandelion, can not be created in any other way; other than by the interactions that created us. You've only addressed the physical part of identity.

my answer would be I am exactly me and you are you and a dog is a dog and a fish is a fish because of probability and chance, the rolling of die.

So then- is the probability of becoming any one of those the same? What was your chance of becoming a fish, instead of ImaFungi? What then determined the number of sides on that die?

You are not defined by anything other then the seed of your parents, 'you' would not be, are nothing, without the interaction of your parents, just as that exact flower in the field would not exist, if its parent flower was destroyed.

Hmm. Seems to contradict the probability theory. If my parents never met, but say my mom had relations with another man, could/would I still be me, but in a different body you think? I have a twin sister. Was the probability of me being her the same as it was for me being me?

you have constructed a personality, a you, but it is completely created, do you think if when you were born you were sent to slums of africa, or tossed in a forest to be raised by wolves, you would think and feel the same way?

I have to respectfully disagree. Personality; identity; or composition of being, I would argue, are determined much earlier in life, perhaps as early as in the womb. We can see this in very young children. But by what you say, all newborns, toddlers, adolescents should have the same personality or "non-personality", before they begin to create their own.. However, I will argue that a clear distinction can be made very early on; before one, as you say, could "construct their own personality". A 1 year old will already possess its own sense of being- no assembly required...

Originally posted by PhotonEffect

But more fundamentally than that, what do you speculate determines the "laws of interaction"?

Because let's face it, our universe, its construct, and all matter within it, is determined by interactions. We can have quanta, but without their interaction, we have nothing. And if we are to consider the constants of our universe as being "fine tuned" than these interactions seem to abide by very specific laws. Certain interactions create this, and certain interactions create that. And it all seems to have order and purpose. Otherwise we would have a very dead universe that was an infinite amount of useless blob, or nothing at all.

What determines the laws of interaction. Circumstance. In my number example its like saying what determines 1 to be 1 and 5 to be 5? 5 is inherently 5. It is 5 ones. We can imagine 5 being 5 local 1s like pointing to a grouping of 5 trees, or we can imagine an object like a ball equaling 1, 1 gram lead ball for example, compared to a 5 gram lead ball. The interaction between 5 and 1 is different from the interaction between 5 and 6. This is inherent qualities of quantities. The universe consists of quanta of different qualities. When they interact in different manners, under different environmental circumstances, different things occur. For example there are a finite type of atoms as far as we know. but under different physical circumstances they can interact to create many different things. So I am saying, the inherent existence of something, dictates what something is, and how it will interact with something else.

You say 'we can have quanta but without their interactions we have nothing'. I dont know why the something that existed couldnt exist as itself without interacting with itself.

This to me is an abstract definition, and I can't say I understand it that way.
Or perhaps it's a fancy way of saying- order is patterned arrangement; sequence; systematic grouping, organization etc...

Well I meant it like the numbers. Qualities interacting with one another, their physical existence has real physical meaning, as in greater mass, greater velocity, greater angular momentum, greater number of electrons, a certain number of electrons and nuclei that allow it to interact a certain unique way with other atoms. Its like putting different substances in a jar, water, oil, molasses, etc, if youve ever seen that, the substances inherently have differences, and the realm of the universe exists as it does, which allows/forces the inherent substances to interact as they do. Would it make sense if the ground was made of atmosphere and there was a thick layer of dirt above our heads? What would physically have to be true about the manifold of the universe and the quality of matter, that that would be possible?

Do you have a theory of what determined these "inherent values"? By which specific interactions will occur and give rise to a material universe such as ours? Seems like current science is comfortable shoving that into the Inflation theory, without directly addressing it..

My theory is that there was no choice. Something existed and it was inherently someway, which forced something to happen, and then its been cause and effect always, forever, ever since, ever still, and ever more.

So if the physical computations that determined the rules of interaction could not have happened in any other way, do you then discount string theory? .

I dont know much about string theory. I have heard some theories of it like the idea of multiverse. Some aspects I believe your referencing to, state that there was random probability and non determinism in the earliest earliest stages. But hm, I dont know, ill stick by my thought for now, and say that exactly whatever happened before the universe began beginning to exist as it now does, caused the beginning to be exactly as it was. If there was something in those moments that could have occurred differently, I dont know what it could have been?

Ok, but all humans are the result of the same orientation of matter. Like the dandelions. Except your flowers have no sense of identity that we know of. Humans, as the dandelion, can not be created in any other way; other than by the interactions that created us. You've only addressed the physical part of identity.

Identity is very much attached to the physical is it not? What do you mean the dandelion can not be created in any other way? How many ways are there for a human to be created? Human creation being sperm fertilizing egg, as dandelion creation is seed being fertilized in soil.

Originally posted by PhotonEffect


So then- is the probability of becoming any one of those the same? What was your chance of becoming a fish, instead of ImaFungi? What then determined the number of sides on that die?

No, Identity is not primary, it is secondary. You, your identity, and physicality, would not have existed, if not for the exact circumstances regarding your parents down to the fertilization. There is no chance of me becoming any of those things because "I' only exist in the context of exactly me, what I am , who I am.

Now if you want to get weird, I can say 'I' am an illusion. And this is where the new age stuff comes in, where people say "I am god, I am the universe, I am everything, we are all one", Because our physicality is primary, or all that objectively exists is material nature, and we are as much nature as everything else, or identity is just a subjective creation, it is meaningless and an illusion. We are really a force and function of nature, which happens to have been given the tools to create a 'self' and concept of personality and identity. Really you are the same as a fish, and a dog, and a lion, because these are all combinations of material that have twisted into formation as nature, you just happen to be the identity of you, and a lion was born. I am the same nature as you, the same material. I have a body as you do, and a mind, and heart, its just that I am me and you are you. So in this sense, the identity is just a fleeting mechanism of control and being, it is an expression, it is a tool, it is necessary for being, but it is not primary, it needed to be created and formed, it is amazing. Im real tired so I dont endorse or back any of these things im saying... But yea, I think identity is like the dandelion, a dandelion is born, imagine it had awareness, "hey, I exist, im a dandelion... I wonder if I could have been a dog or human...oh no, im about to die...im deaaaaa"....end of that specific orientation and manifestation of identity.

Hmm. Seems to contradict the probability theory. If my parents never met, but say my mom had relations with another man, could/would I still be me, but in a different body you think? I have a twin sister. Was the probability of me being her the same as it was for me being me?

No, you couldnt exist unless exactly what happened happened, because you are the exact result of exactly what happened. No, your sister is the result of a chemical reaction and biological event, that resulted in a mass of material capable of producing an identity (like the dandelion minus the production of awareness of identity) your sister is her physicality, and her identity is a product of the historical chain of events, as yours is yours. You couldnt have been your sister, as the dandelion we are viewing that grew in the field, couldnt have been the seed that grew into a dandelion a mile away from the same parent flower ( it could have, if the wind took seed material that way instead of where it did, but the physical identity would remain)

I have to respectfully disagree. Personality; identity; or composition of being, I would argue, are determined much earlier in life, perhaps as early as in the womb. We can see this in very young children. But by what you say, all newborns, toddlers, adolescents should have the same personality or "non-personality", before they begin to create their own.. However, I will argue that a clear distinction can be made very early on; before one, as you say, could "construct their own personality". A 1 year old will already possess its own sense of being- no assembly required...

I respectfully disagree. I agree parts may be the same, the same will in ones mind, and strive, and certain characteristics, but other things will be different. And if anything those characteristics may be dis positioned or determined by genetics, chemical balances, physical structure of the body, health, and a number of intricate and complex things like the utilization of imagination, desires, response to emotions, attention to detail, intrigue in areas of knowledge and learning. You cannot deny the role an environment may play in the development of identity, im sorry, im not saying 100%, but certainly has its significance.


I do not 'identify' with the identity I was when I was 6 years old, and like wise when I was 16. I do not have the same thoughts, ideas, outlook, in look, behavior, beliefs, atoms making up my body, I rarely if ever dwell in memories from my past. So what do you make of this, that the nature of identity seems to be so malleable?

I think the nature of humanity is unique to each person. From birth till death we acquire memories and experiences that evolve our personalities. The more information we accumulate, the more our perception of the world around us changes. Therefore, each persons viewpoint on the nature of their humanity is totally unique to each individual. Just a thought.