Insert interesting title here

[Minimalist]

Greetings fellow question-askers. I have recently been a mere observer on this forum and have finally made the decision to become an visible participant in the quest for the unknowable. Now I'll cut to the chase. You all intrigue me, or rather your minds do, your perspectives. I am but a learner myself, but I intend to contribute my own databank to the collective here in an exchange for your own, whoever or whatever you may be. All this being said, I shall enjoy seeing your insights and perspectives. Until the next post I decide to make,

- Minimalist (who admittedly is not being very minimalistic at the moment)
- reality Is a wave, fluctuating between equilibrium and disequilibrium, I nor you are exceptions.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

Welcome! As a lurker, I assume you know the routine. Did you bring the offering?

perspectives

Cha-ching!

I intend to contribute my own databank to the collective here in an exchange for your own

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MMzd40i8TfA

- Minimalist (who admittedly is not being very minimalistic at the moment)
- reality Is a wave, fluctuating between equilibrium and disequilibrium, I nor you are exceptions.

Well, I agree with those points so far...

Would you equate minimalism to lowering the bar re: materialism as a means to achieve happiness? (Which is by no means incorrect if indeed materialism is a dead end attempt to own the universe, btw).

 

[The Introvert]

- Minimalist (who admittedly is not being very minimalistic at the moment)
- reality Is a wave, fluctuating between equilibrium and disequilibrium, I nor you are exceptions.

Sounds like me!

You'll fit in here just fine.

Welcome to the forum

 

[Minimalist]

Welcome! As a lurker, I assume you know the routine. Did you bring the offering?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MMzd40i8TfA

Well, I agree with those points so far...

Would you equate minimalism to lowering the bar re: materialism as a means to achieve happiness? (Which is by no means incorrect if indeed materialism is a dead end attempt to own the universe, btw).

In response to your video, here is a simultaneously appropriate and inappropriate answer:
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8ZYrutVyZ-A

Now, as for what I mean by minimalism, well let me begin. What I am referring to when I use that term is reductionism. The process of reducing seemingly complex terms to simple concepts that are applicable to multiple areas of thought. Take example, the concept of equilibrium. It is a theme that I have noticed occurs in disciplines ranging from the chemistry and physics, to economics and even psychology. The existence of very fundamental laws or governing principles seem to be repeatedly verifiable should one choose to accept empiricism as a basis of finding truth. Now that being said, I should address minimalism from a materialistic perspective as well. I do equate minimalism to lowering the bar, but not such that one only attains pleasure from material, rather I seek to minimize the requirements of happiness. Happiness appears to be a state of mind induced by perceived triggering stimuli. If one could control one's perception of stimuli, then that individual could have control over their own happiness. It would make the mind impervious to the environment. I am by no means there yet, but the prospect is intriguing. Key concept: certain ideas have applications that go beyond their initial field of discovery. Relativity does not just apply to physics...

 

[The Introvert]

The process of reducing seemingly complex terms to simple concepts that are applicable to multiple areas of thought.

Like Newspeak?

Take example, the concept of equilibrium. It is a theme that I have noticed
occurs in disciplines ranging from the chemistry and physics, to economics and even psychology. The existence of very fundamental laws or governing principles seem to be repeatedly verifiable should one choose to accept empiricism as a basis of finding truth.

You may find interest reading this (lower half of OP)

Or also this

Through your lurking you may have already found them.

Now that being said, I should address minimalism from a materialistic perspective as well. I do equate minimalism to lowering the bar, but not such that one only attains pleasure from material, rather I seek to minimize the requirements of happiness. Happiness appears to be a state of mind induced by perceived triggering stimuli. If one could control one's perception of stimuli, then that individual could have control over their own happiness. It would make the mind impervious to the environment. I am by no means there yet, but the prospect is intriguing. Key concept: certain ideas have applications that go beyond their initial field of discovery. Relativity does not just apply to physics...

Sounds like you're searching for Enlightenment. There are more than a few good threads here to see what others have to say (consider Milo or the late Snafupants)

To understand the world around you, you must first understand yourself.

 

[Vrecknidj]

It seems odd to welcome former lurkers. That's sometimes what I end up doing anyway, but, it still seems odd.

But then, something like "thanks for revealing yourself" also seems odd.

That's all I've got right now.

 

[Minimalist]

Like Newspeak?

You may find interest reading this (lower half of OP)

Or also this

Through your lurking you may have already found them.

Sounds like you're searching for Enlightenment. There are more than a few good threads here to see what others have to say (consider Milo or the late Snafupants)

To understand the world around you, you must first understand yourself.

I did, in fact find your post interesting and had been pondering something along similar lines before. I see no flaw in your logic. Consciousness is what would limit our existence to that of the tangent line. You would not be incorrect to suggest that i seek enlightenment (as i understand it to be anyway). Thank you for the information, i had not come across it before. I really have not been lurking for long (3 weeks tops which is perhaps enough time for one to absorb an incredible amount of information). I will be around as part of the collective consciousness.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

What I am referring to when I use that term is reductionism.

I do equate minimalism to lowering the bar, but not such that one only attains pleasure from material, rather I seek to minimize the requirements of happiness.

Key concept: certain ideas have applications that go beyond their initial field of discovery. Relativity does not just apply to physics...

Oh snap! Can I take back the welcome?

Spoiler

I thrive on disagreement. We're too similar, but meh... I suppose we'll take you.

But I call the padded spinny chair.

Happiness appears to be a state of mind induced by perceived triggering stimuli. If one could control one's perception of stimuli, then that individual could have control over their own happiness. It would make the mind impervious to the environment. I am by no means there yet, but the prospect is intriguing.

By those criteria I'm closer than I thought...

 

[Minimalist]

By those criteria I'm closer than I thought...

Yes, you may withdraw your welcome though I would venture to guess that you will find more similarities in those you believe to be different then is comfortable. Perhaps I should welcome you. Time Is what separated my joining the forum from yours, and seeing as It is an illusion subject to one's perspective, you and I simultaneously did and did not join this forum. In fact, It is questioning possible that I joined it first. Now, on a more restrictive level, I gather that biology, or perhaps more specifically Darwin's view of it, fascinates you as much as it does myself. (That's without reading many of your posts btw.) Your chart is a visual representation of a common theme evident within this reality that I have observed: the wave. Reality is a wave and we are particles oblivious to the surrounding wave. Surf's up!

- Sanity is insane (look around and see how its working out for everyone); logic is illogical (has it ever been proven?)

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

Perhaps I should welcome you.

Determinism: not a predetermined timeline but all that can happen happening.

Damn. I may be working my way up to my second ever internet marriage proposal...

I wouldn't know you from elsewhere, would I?

 

[The Introvert]

Damn. I may be working my way up to my second ever internet marriage proposal...

Only if I'm allowed to be in the wedding!

You should have waffles at the reception.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

Only if I'm allowed to be in the wedding!

You should have waffles at the reception.

You may qualify as best man material.

I'd be tempted to serve blue waffles at such an event

Spoiler

(@Minimalist I'm normally much more of a simple-minded fool than an intellectual. That should serve as enough contrast ).

 

[Minimalist]

Determinism: not a predetermined timeline but all that can happen happening.

Damn. I may be working my way up to my second ever internet marriage proposal...

I wouldn't know you from elsewhere, would I?

You do know me from elsewhere. I am but one of infinite possibilities. But as far as the physical world is concerned, I find it Improbable yet still tantalizing possible that we have met before... As far as marriage goes, well that depends... I tend not to commit (I'm told that is a nasty habit of INTPs), but engaging in laws and contracts are not beyond my realm of possible expressed behaviors... I do tend to be attracted to the females of my species (I don't know why but I have a taste for that anatomical variety). I inherited genetic coding for male anatomical structures myself. I do not know your genetically encoded anatomical features, but If you match my tastes then you have perked my Interests. If not, then part of this post never happened lol... Carry on!

 

[Minimalist]

Only if I'm allowed to be in the wedding!

You should have waffles at the reception.

Waffles are the first step down the road to Enlightenment.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

You do know me from elsewhere. I am but one of infinite possibilities. But as far as the physical world is concerned, I find it Improbable yet still tantalizing possible that we have met before... I inherited genetic coding for male anatomical structures myself. I do not know your genetically encoded anatomical features, but If you match my tastes then you have perked my Interests. If not, then part of this post never happened lol... Carry on!

You're good, I'll give you that... What's your strategy in an iterated prisoner's dilemma?

Tangential: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6564-scientists-in-touch-with-feminine-side.html

You do know me from elsewhere.

Spoiler

p0wersurge (no additional specifics required if so)
3 weeks, Linux, Safari, electrician
*pelvic thrust*

 

[Etheri]

Welcome. I seem to notice a few interesting and reoccuring themes, please don't limit yourself to lurking!

Take example, the concept of equilibrium. It is a theme that I have noticed occurs in disciplines ranging from the chemistry and physics, to economics and even psychology.

I do equate minimalism to lowering the bar, but not such that one only attains pleasure from material, rather I seek to minimize the requirements of happiness. Happiness appears to be a state of mind induced by perceived triggering stimuli. If one could control one's perception of stimuli, then that individual could have control over their own happiness. It would make the mind impervious to the environment. I am by no means there yet, but the prospect is intriguing. Key concept: certain ideas have applications that go beyond their initial field of discovery. Relativity does not just apply to physics...

I have two questions, one is just a thought, the other a continuous annoyance.

If our universe, the entire universe being all their is, ever reaches a (stable) equilibrium, will it ever lose this balance? If so, how? Would an equilibrium state in which life or conciousness exist be possible?

Spoiler

(My best guess so far is : no, I said no, perhaps, but doubtful and not by any maths I know.)

You -as many others- seem to strive to optimalise happiness. We try to teach ourselves to be happy regardless of the situation, realising happiness is indeed merely a state of mind. However, I do not believe a state of permanent happiness is possible or meaningful (Disequilibrium, you say?). How does one deal with this unhappiness, knowing there is no reason nor logic attached to it, there is just sadness.

I truly believe I have everything I need, not that everything is perfect, but I'm way above the minimum requirements I'd need for happiness. Yet this happiness is not permanent, and sometimes, despite knowing all this, I just want to cry. And whenever that moment comes, I realise I can't even cry for emotional reasons to begin with. So tell me, how does one deal with the realisation that regardless of situation and the happiness, sometimes you'll be unhappy too.

logic is illogical (has it ever been proven?)

One could consider the fact that there is no single logic which is always applicable to reality -so far as we have found- as proof for the flaws in logic. Or perhaps our ideas of logic are just far too simple to be accurate. As far as rigorous proof goes, if you'd logically deduce that logic itself is illogical, how would you be sure your proof holds as you just killed the system?

 

[Minimalist]

You're good, I'll give you that... What's your strategy in an iterated prisoner's dilemma?

Tangential: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6564-scientists-in-touch-with-feminine-side.html

Spoiler

p0wersurge (no additional specifics required if so)
3 weeks, Linux, Safari, electrician
*pelvic thrust*

No on p0wersurge, though the forum is intriguing if that is what you are referring to. I am a literal electrician (yes my occupation is an anomaly for my type, but it was an accident I'm working on repairing...). *returns pelvic thrust* Now as for the dilemma, my strategy on the long term is initial cooperation accompanied by mirroring. I will cooperate until the other fails to do so (assuming a repetitive dilemma and not a one time deal of course).

 

[Minimalist]

If our universe, the entire universe being all their is, ever reaches a (stable) equilibrium, will it ever lose this balance? If so, how? Would an equilibrium state in which life or conciousness exist be possible?

Spoiler

(My best guess so far is : no, I said no, perhaps, but doubtful and not by any maths I know.)

How does one deal with this unhappiness, knowing there is no reason nor logic attached to it, there is just.
So tell me, how does one deal with the realisation that regardless of situation and the happiness, sometimes you'll be unhappy?
As far as rigorous proof goes, if you'd logically deduce that logic itself is illogical, how would you be sure your proof holds as you just killed the system?

I will attempt here to provide my own insights as one of many possible answers to your questions. I shall begin with the equilibrium concept. Technically equilibrium is synonymous with a state of peace. If we look at peace as a state of nothingness, or lack of action (movement), then perhaps permanent equilibrium is possible. If this is ever achieved, I do not believe it could ever be deviated from as lack of movement implies lack of an unbalanced force according to my understanding of our current understanding of Newtonian physics. If the universe in it's entirety ever were to reach a state of complete absolute zero (I would Imagine That This would Mean all Energy Is Converted to Inert Matter), then how could it ever deviate from that state with no energy to do so?

Now on to happiness. Perhaps the aim of the self should be equilibrium and balance of forces rather than permanent happiness (an emotional state based upon reward). I refer here to peace of mind no matter what state of mind; consciousness as becoming aware of and independent of mind. The man we called Buddha claimed to have achieved this state of mind, as have others. Now I'm not advocating for some religion or strange mysticism here, merely a philosophy and the realization that we are all merely computer programs whose programming stems from our genetic encoding. Despite the surface differences in computer programming, programs share a commonality: the presence of an animating force (electricity). Without this force, the program could not be and without the program, the electricity could not superficially differentiate itself. In other words, our animating force is channeled into consciousness limited by our perceiving bodies in order to allow this force the capability to perceive Itself (self awareness). I would like to develop this idea further attempt to keep myself outside the thought box that even intuitives must actively exert effort To avoid being trapped in. I recognize that some of my early posts are still not as perceptive as would be tasteful (they are merely based upon assumption).

Now as for logic, the issue comes with inductive rather than deductive logic. All logic cannot prove or disprove itself, and inductive logic is based upon assumptions. Observing an recurrent event at a high frequency does not guarantee its soundness. I can find no reason to assume an outcome of future event based upon a prior event (of course I still do this for survival reasons, but it's illogical). Anyway, this is all stuff to think about....

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

Now as for the dilemma, my strategy on the long term is initial cooperation accompanied by mirroring. I will cooperate until the other fails to do so (assuming a repetitive dilemma and not a one time deal of course).

So tit for tat with a cooperative assumption. I like.

 

[The Introvert]

So tit for tat with a cooperative assumption. I like.

Isn't it supposed to be the most evolutionarily stable strategy?

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

Isn't it supposed to be the most evolutionarily stable strategy?

Hell if I know... /derail.

 

[Minimalist]

So tit for tat with a cooperative assumption. I like.

Yes, I figure that the psychological principle of reward and punishment need be utilized here.
It is in the best interest of an individual to pursue a course that minimizes their punishment, which at face value would appear to mean deceit. However, when one analyzes the fact that another is involved who has some bearing on your own destiny and therefore may betray you, it is worth noting that a double betrayal works against both individuals and a single betrayal works against one unless that individual returns the favor n the next round. If the individual who Is betrayed does not return the betrayal, then undesirable behavior is rewarded and reinforced.