Taoism is a spook.

[blepsi]

Taoism (Daoism) is the philosophy of Yin and Yang, Light and Dark, Masculine and Feminine. It's most renouned teaching is that of "Wu-wei" or "no=action" which describes flow-state as the most desirable state of existence. Ultimately, it is a world view and philosophy that aims to ultimately explain the universe with opposing dichotomies. I would like to make a point that this is a terrible model for the universe, we already know with differential equations, general relativity and just the fundamental theorems of mathematics that the universe does not work like that. Sure you can argue base 2 of whatever, (base e is superior imho) but I'm not saying Taoism has no merit. I would rather propose that it is a model for the mind, and that we understand things by their opposites. Take an apple, you know that it is an apple because nothing else is an apple. That chair is a chair, because it is not an apple. With enough dichotomies, categorization and understanding becomes trivial. This, I would consider, is the greatest pitfall of modern day science and reason. The inability to think "outside the box," or rather a 2x2 matrix. If you are still reading I would like to give you an application, Artificial intelligence. In a way we already train AI like this, by drawing a box around "what is," everything else is automatically filtered out as "what isn't." I'm suggesting with knowledge of this concept, higher layers of categorization and abstraction trivial, as it can be applied to not only images and words, but definitions....

 

[Beliefofmine]

There is no limit to the number of dichotomies can be applied to a given thing.

A chair is not an orange.
A chair is not a pear.
A chair is not a date.

You can go on continuously. And I think this is a good foundation of thought in any scenario because it allows you do break down extremely complex things into simple statements. And through that you can narrow down your search. Because in general you will not make most questions or comparisons to an apple or orange, etc. You can ask more focused questions to eliminate hypotheses.

 

[blepsi]

There is no limit to the number of dichotomies can be applied to a given thing.

A chair is not an orange.
A chair is not a pear.
A chair is not a date.

You can go on continuously. And I think this is a good foundation of thought in any scenario because it allows you do break down extremely complex things into simple statements. And through that you can narrow down your search. Because in general you will not make most questions or comparisons to an apple or orange, etc. You can ask more focused questions to eliminate hypotheses.

Precisely.

It's also a means to be wary of. Do not fall into the trap of thinking in opposites. Understanding and cognition are two different functions.

 

[Cognisant]

I would say you're talking about the difference between knowing something and understanding it, to know is to simply have the information, to understand requires a comprehension of the implications.

An AI could know that you're pointing a gun at its memory storage, know what a gun does, know that its memory storage is fragile and know that without its memories it is essentially dead. But not be the slightest bit concerned because to the AI these facts are all just facts, not parts in a framework of associations, because if they were the AI would comprehend the implications and realize it is about to undergo a violent cessation of being.

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

Taoism (Daoism) is the philosophy of Yin and Yang, Light and Dark, Masculine and Feminine. It's most renouned teaching is that of "Wu-wei" or "no=action" which describes flow-state as the most desirable state of existence. Ultimately, it is a world view and philosophy that aims to ultimately explain the universe with opposing dichotomies. I would like to make a point that this is a terrible model for the universe, we already know with differential equations, general relativity and just the fundamental theorems of mathematics that the universe does not work like that. Sure you can argue base 2 of whatever, (base e is superior imho) but I'm not saying Taoism has no merit. I would rather propose that it is a model for the mind, and that we understand things by their opposites. Take an apple, you know that it is an apple because nothing else is an apple. That chair is a chair, because it is not an apple. With enough dichotomies, categorization and understanding becomes trivial. This, I would consider, is the greatest pitfall of modern day science and reason. The inability to think "outside the box," or rather a 2x2 matrix. If you are still reading I would like to give you an application, Artificial intelligence. In a way we already train AI like this, by drawing a box around "what is," everything else is automatically filtered out as "what isn't." I'm suggesting with knowledge of this concept, higher layers of categorization and abstraction trivial, as it can be applied to not only images and words, but definitions....

 

[The Grey Man]

Differential equations, general relativity, and the fundamental theorems of reality do not prove that Taoism is an inadequate representation of the cosmos, any more than natural science is. Each highlights a different aspect of the cosmos: natural science explains phenomena by reasoning to their conjectured causes in the material, substantial stratum of reality whereas traditional cosmologies like that of the Taoists describe the phenomena themselves. To a traditional cosmologist, to say that the dvandva 'hot-cold', for example, is merely the result of more or less energetic particles interacting with his nervous system misses the point, since to him, the mere experience of coldness and warmth is more real than the conjectured non-empirical reality.

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

But not be the slightest bit concerned because to the AI these facts are all just facts, not parts in a framework of associations, because if they were the AI would comprehend the implications and realize it is about to undergo a violent cessation of being.

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

It's also a means to be wary of. Do not fall into the trap of thinking in opposites. Understanding and cognition are two different functions.

The concept of "opposites" is new.

In 500 BCE there was no concept of "opposites".

For example, the ancient chinese pictogram for "good" is a combination of the pictogram for "sheep" and "fat" (also translated as "delicious").

It's also worth noting that the ancient chinese pictogram for "evil" is the same pictogram that is used for "heart" but with the lines slightly warped.

Even the word "not" is massively oversimplified in modern linguistics.

The TAO that can be spoken out of the mouth is "not" the "standard" TAO.

The word "not" used there is a pictogram of two wings of a bird.

Does the right wing of a bird "oppose" the left wing of the same bird ?

OR DO THEY WORK IN CONCERT ?

 

[The Grey Man]

There are at least two kinds of pairs of opposites (dvandvas): those which exclude each other and those which do not. Those which exclude each other may be said to be 'logical complements', but it is those which do not exclude each other that are truly complementary.

For example, 'x is an apple' and 'x is not an apple' are opposite cases in the sense that either is a negation of and excludes the other, but between masculinity and femininity (or, at a more universal level, Yang and Yin), there is not exclusive disjunction, but conjunction and complementarity.

 

[BurnedOut]

Binary logic is the most basic. How is it only limited to the mind?

 

[scorpiomover]

Taoism (Daoism) is the philosophy of Yin and Yang, Light and Dark, Masculine and Feminine. It's most renouned teaching is that of "Wu-wei" or "no=action" which describes flow-state as the most desirable state of existence. Ultimately, it is a world view and philosophy that aims to ultimately explain the universe with opposing dichotomies. I would like to make a point that this is a terrible model for the universe, we already know with differential equations, general relativity and just the fundamental theorems of mathematics that the universe does not work like that.

Actually, I studied maths, physics and self-read about relativity, and from what I have learned, the universe mostly ONLY works in terms of multiple oppositional functions.

In maths, and in physics, there are numerous forces. In one situation, the electromagentic force is more powerful than gravity. In others, gravity is much more powerful. Which is which, depends on the precise details of the situation. E.g. if the electromagnetic force is at an angle, only the part of gravity that is parallel with the direction of the electromagnetic force, is affected by the force. So at one angle, gravity is stronger, and at another angle, gravity is weaker. The difference can be so precise and so small, that you can't see the difference without a microscope.

The "flow state" is the most desirable. E.G. in terms of relativity, space is curved. So when you are not making effort, you are actually travelling along a curve. Travelling straight, is travelling in a bend with respect to curved space, and so you are constantly having to expend unnecessary energy to travel the same distance.

Sure you can argue base 2 of whatever, (base e is superior imho) but I'm not saying Taoism has no merit. I would rather propose that it is a model for the mind, and that we understand things by their opposites. Take an apple, you know that it is an apple because nothing else is an apple. That chair is a chair, because it is not an apple. With enough dichotomies, categorization and understanding becomes trivial. This, I would consider, is the greatest pitfall of modern day science and reason. The inability to think "outside the box," or rather a 2x2 matrix. If you are still reading I would like to give you an application, Artificial intelligence. In a way we already train AI like this, by drawing a box around "what is," everything else is automatically filtered out as "what isn't." I'm suggesting with knowledge of this concept, higher layers of categorization and abstraction trivial, as it can be applied to not only images and words, but definitions....

Sure. But then you'd have to stop thinking the way scientists do, which means that scientists would not understand what you say, or why you say it, and what you say would thus be at odds with science.

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

Binary logic is the most basic. How is it only limited to the mind?

There is no "real life" "opposite" of a rock.

There is no "real life" "opposite" of a cloud.

There is no "real life" "opposite" of a cow.

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

Actually, I studied maths, physics and self-read about relativity, and from what I have learned, the universe mostly ONLY works in terms of multiple oppositional functions.

Most commonly in complex clusters of forces.

Almost never in simple 1 to 1 relationships.

 

[BurnedOut]

"real life" "opposite" of a rock.

Not-rock.

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

"real life" "opposite" of a rock.

Not-rock.

Please show me a "not-rock".

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

Sure. But then you'd have to stop thinking the way scientists do, which means that scientists would not understand what you say, or why you say it, and what you say would thus be at odds with science.

Science can only describe QUANTA.

 

[BurnedOut]

"not-rock".

LOGICZOMBIE

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

"not-rock".

LOGICZOMBIE

This does not appear to be a particularly apt description.

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

"not-rock".

LOGICZOMBIE

More to the point, would you say that a "LOGICZOMBIE" IS THE "opposite" of a "rock" ?

 

[scorpiomover]

Actually, I studied maths, physics and self-read about relativity, and from what I have learned, the universe mostly ONLY works in terms of multiple oppositional functions.

Most commonly in complex clusters of forces.

Almost never in simple 1 to 1 relationships.

Makes life complex.

 

[ZenRaiden]

Taoism or Buddhism, tells people that we construct boxes.
Each box neatly packaged.
Grammar, and meaning all perfectly neat and well made.
The point of it all is to realize, that we need the boxes.
But at the end of the day, we are not subject to the boxes.
We can always shift them around or change them.
Unfortunately many people believe that the boxes are what really is, thus the are subject to the illusion of boxes.

Our minds are always subject to boxes. That will never change.
There is only so much energy our mind has.

Tao teaches us that there is certain balance to boxes.
That if you should find a box you do not like or is missplaced you have the ability to change it or move it elsewhere.

That with growing wisdom each box is subject to your conscious effort.

That no single box can ultimately define a human being.

Unfortunately this means you have to take your conscious mind with a very serious attitude. You have to understand that you are not your conscious box, but consciousness is the ability to change and transform the dimensions of the box or even ability to annul the box.

Tao is thus the art of seeing that boxes are merely things, not the real you.

Much like when in Matrix the kid tells Neo... "instead try to realize there is no spoon"

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

Taoism or Buddhism, tells people that we construct boxes.

Citation please.

 

[ZenRaiden]

Taoism or Buddhism, tells people that we construct boxes.

Citation please.

No just go read it your self. Once you finish reading don't forget to think about.

Citations for religion is if you want to be a some sort of sociologist, or theologian.

I am neither.

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

Taoism or Buddhism, tells people that we construct boxes.

Citation please.

No just go read it your self. Once you finish reading don't forget to think about.

Citations for religion is if you want to be a some sort of sociologist, or theologian.

I am neither.

Ok. I've read at least six translations, including literal translations from the ancient Chinese and I'm even working on a translation myself and I don't remember anything about "we construct boxes".

 

[ZenRaiden]

Taoism or Buddhism, tells people that we construct boxes.

Citation please.

No just go read it your self. Once you finish reading don't forget to think about.

Citations for religion is if you want to be a some sort of sociologist, or theologian.

I am neither.

Ok. I've read at least six translations, including literal translations from the ancient Chinese and I'm even working on a translation myself and I don't remember anything about "we construct boxes".

So whats it about?

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

So whats it about?

The core essence is that each individual needs to figure it out for themselves.

 

[ZenRaiden]

So whats it about?

The core essence is that each individual needs to figure it out for themselves.

So.... how does that make anything in previous conversation relevant then?

Yes core principal is you need to figure out things for yourself, same way no one can tell you how to keep a balance on bike unless you hop on it yourself.

In such sense everything we do has to be done this way.

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

So.... how does that make anything in previous conversation relevant then?

Because part of my own understanding is exploring what other people glean from the text.

You seem to have some, possibly cogent hypothesis, and I was simply asking you to perhaps explain how you constructed such a bridge.

 

[ZenRaiden]

So.... how does that make anything in previous conversation relevant then?

Because part of my own understanding is exploring what other people glean from the text.

You seem to have some, possibly cogent hypothesis, and I was simply asking you to perhaps explain how you constructed such a bridge.

That was not understanding.

Or hypothetical.

That was a simplistic explanation of a lager notion that is all.

A philosophy can explain things, but there is never a single force at play in a life of a person, whether they know or not. Most people do not.

When you do, that does not necessarily mean anything, but it gives a clue that philosophy approach from a single point is not going to work in life.

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

That was not understanding.

NOT understanding.

NOT hypothetical.

A simplified abstraction.

"PHILOSOPHY" can explain some things and cannot explain other things.

You are always the central point of your perception.

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

 

[DoIMustHaveAnUsername?]

I don't feel like dichotomies play as much of a central role in Philosophical Daoism as much as it's made out in pop-culture. Daoism points towards the necessity of contrasts from opposing ends for dichotomies to survive but it doesn't seem to say everything is dual or anything to that extent; more so the opposite by pointing towards the non-dual, pre-linguistic nature of logos. Wu Wei, in essence, is non-dual action. It's not just "flow-state"; that's too reductive (although flow is an aspect part of it). What Daoism points towards is a sort of wisdom into the nature of things that allows a sort of harmony in existence and action.

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

It's basic logic and set theory. A cabbage either belongs to the set of cabbages or it doesn't. B is either B or it is not-B. Not-B can be the opposite of B or it can mean everything that isn't B.

Sets can overlap like when cabbages and eggplants are both members of the set of all vegetables but are very different in their appearance or biological origin.

There's no need to invent or use taoism to be able apply logic to describe or categorize things.

Humans, animals and recently AI's are capable of logic and basic math like counting which tends to be useful to understand the world they live in.

Sure you can argue base 2 of whatever, (base e is superior imho)

How do you count in base e? How would base e even work?
Arguably all you ever need is base 2, base 2 can simulate base 3, base e or any base system or logic system. 3 parallel 2x2 truth tables can simulate a 3x3 truth table or matrices.

This, I would consider, is the greatest pitfall of modern day science and reason. The inability to think "outside the box," or rather a 2x2 matrix.

What's the alternative then? Thinking using fuzzy logic or many valued logic? Not using logic? I don't get the point of this vague accusation.

I'm suggesting with knowledge of this concept, higher layers of categorization and abstraction trivial, as it can be applied to not only images and words, but definitions....

Rudimentary image recognition is one thing, understanding or modelling is something much more difficult than that. Current AI struggles with modelling or understanding anything and can only memorize categories or patterns.

Understanding by a set complement or set negative isn't exactly what is being used in AI it is perhaps the most well visible aspect of how AI works. Neural networks are a limited technology, but they can use fuzzy logic and they do more complex things in their internal weighted neurons than simple B isn't C.

My prediction is that none of the current methods for training AI will achieve sufficient complexity for AGI. New approaches are needed. The best that current AI tech can achieve is a nuanced algebraic vector / matrix manipulation and training that simulates human visual cortex and similar imprinted neural structures. You can do the same vector pushing algebra on a piece of paper, though it's scaled down by 10,000 or more.

 

[ZenRaiden]

You are always the central point of your perception.

Who is you, and what is central point of perception and what hell is perception?

Don't think that has anything to do with taoism.

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

You are always the central point of your perception.

Who is you, and what is central point of perception and what hell is perception?

Don't think that has anything to do with taoism.

 

[sushi]

the whole concept of tao and nothingness (Mu) is already ambiguous in tao

what is nothing, does it imply mindless or worldless?

same with zen etc

無/真空/nothingness cannot truely exist in this universe, either external or internal

zero , nothingness and existence are paradoxes.

that is why eastern philiosophy is no better than pseudoscience and cannot beat western theories, which are more concise and invesetigative.

the same applies with 5 elements water earth wood fire metal vs the periodic table

 

[scorpiomover]

the whole concept of tao and nothingness (Mu) is already ambiguous in tao

what is nothing, does it imply mindless or worldless?

same with zen etc

無/真空/nothingness cannot truely exist in this universe, either external or internal

zero , nothingness and existence are paradoxes.

Truly. They're placeholders for "there are several solutions. Different solutions work better at solving different problems. Pick the solution that works best for your current problem."

that is why eastern philiosophy is no better than pseudoscience and cannot beat western theories, which are more concise and invesetigative.

the same applies with 5 elements water earth wood fire metal vs the periodic table

Different approaches.

Western approaches were based on the STEM model: Some people would spend their entire lives studing everything in their field of study in every possible way (Ne), so they could figure out reliable methods for dealing with certain types of situations that anyone could be taught (Ne). Then they would teach their methods to the majority, who apply those methods whenever needed, according to the rules of those methods that they had already been taught in the past (SJ).

E.G. for warfare, some people would study all types of warfare, and develop weapons such as guns. Then the soldiers would be taught how to use guns according to the rules of how guns should be used, so they could all use guns in war.

Eastern approaches were based on the Expert model: Some people would learn how to be experts at doing everything competently in their area of expertise (Ni). The rest would just rely on the experts to tell them what to do to solve the problems they were faced with in the present (Se).

E.G. for warfare, some people would learn to become experts at all types of warfare. In Japan, they would be called Samurai. Then they would train and direct the soldiers under their command, who would follow their orders without question.

 

[ZenRaiden]

the whole concept of tao and nothingness (Mu) is already ambiguous in tao

what is nothing, does it imply mindless or worldless?

same with zen etc

無/真空/nothingness cannot truely exist in this universe, either external or internal

zero , nothingness and existence are paradoxes.

that is why eastern philiosophy is no better than pseudoscience and cannot beat western theories, which are more concise and invesetigative.

the same applies with 5 elements water earth wood fire metal vs the periodic table

The division of western and eastern is nonsensical. No western scientist would allow such stupid division.

Now on to the Russian guy called Mendelejev who made the periodic table. Not many people know this, but he made the periodic table and he was Russian.

AustroHungarian empire was seat of intellect, vienna circle, and rise of super stars like Neuman, Braun, Einstein, Godel, Ernest Mach etc.

I have no idea why would you include one in western and other in easter since they are the same today.

In the past China was divided shit hole, India was coloniazed, and Asia did not have technology.

The Western model thus is superior, because Europe mainly Central Europe and England were more wealthy and made science while rest of the world did not.

Eastern philosophies were not left out. They were studied along with oriental philosophies and African culture etc. The ideas that were interesting were processed and refined rest was left out or simply ignored.

Every civilization had some culture and had to have something good in it.
Taoism was simply adpoted and made simple. Many ideas in Tao are part of Western cultures and coexist in culture. They aren't necessarily identical ideas, but they work just as well or in similar way. There simply is no book on this. Just folk tales and church pretty much might have adopted some. All culturs have philosophies on nature and nature of life that resemble tao.
Its simply matter of artistic licence and poetry.

Most westerners today have no clue even about the immediate everyday facts of life let alone ideas about East.

 

[rainman312]

You seem to be rejecting a metaphysical theory (taoism) on physical grounds (relativity), which is weird enough. But to make things worse, much of physics agrees quite nicely with taoism, so much so that our friend Fritjof Capra wrote a book on this very topic.

Anyway, what really bothered me was this:

If you are still reading I would like to give you an application, Artificial intelligence. In a way we already train AI like this, by drawing a box around "what is," everything else is automatically filtered out as "what isn't."

This is not really how machine learning works. You train an ML model by giving it examples of inputs and outputs, then running gradient descent along your loss function. Basically, you use a sort of simulated gravity to find the local minima of the "surface" that represents how badly your neural network is performing.

And to make matters worse yet again... your statement that "what is" is equivalent to "what isn't, filtered out" is reminding me of certain ancient philosophies based on the notion of dualism...

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

And to make matters worse yet again... your statement that "what is" is equivalent to "what isn't, filtered out" is reminding me of certain ancient philosophies based on the notion of dualism...

well stated

 

[ZenRaiden]

There is a lot of stupid shit in western world that people say and its clearly not true.

For example I hear some philosophers would equate thinking and language.

Other scientist believe that animals don't have emotions.

The problem is reality does not care about your concepts whatever they are.

We usually think and care about concepts if they work for us or have utility for us.

Trouble is if a concept has immediate utility and seems good it is immediately something western people tend to adapt.

Even if there are better and more nuanced concepts we tend to hold on to the ones that are most useful.

This is simply cost benefit analysis.

This is simply because we are human and we are mortal we constantly compete with each other whether it be military or as society or as life at large is concerned.
We also tend to compete with time.

The western ideas tend to be the most utility oriented and tend to be more used.

 

[sushi]

validity of taoism is that is akin to pesudoscience

the law of opposites clearly have some applications and parallels, as there are matter and anti matter, and every action there is a reaction, duality and dualism etc.

The western ideas tend to be the most utility oriented and tend to be more used.

I have to agree this is true.

there is also the arguement of perspectivism and objectivity,and rather things can be true and real outside of one's perspective.

 

[ZenRaiden]

validity of taoism is that is akin to pesudoscience

I don't know what this means, but it could mean many things.

One you do not know what the words mean, you are a bot.
You don't understand english and maybe not even native.

You don't know what tao is or what science is or both.

Either way at least its more genuine response that shows error more clearly, rather than trying to hide stupid behind clever words.

Tao cannot be science on any level. Science is modern word that came much later to what tao is.

Before modern science old science was merely exercise in observing cause and effect and sometimes it was merely conjecture of some kinds or pure imagination.
Often times regarded as equal. Fallacy of authority was common, that is how we got the modern western model of science.
Why people still quote Plato or Aristoteles.

Tao is the way.
Aikido is similar philosophy for example.
You don't fight really. You just let the opponent go.
You let his energy guide his action as if you are not even there.
You merely redirect his energy.

Tao cannot be conflated with productivity or happy life or for that matter perfect life nor does it ever tell you the meaning of things.
Its not even there to give you ultimate advice.

It is simply the way.

What has it got to do with science or validity.

Its like comparing digital technology with waves on the water.

Modern reconciliation of Eastern philosophy with fast paced consumer lifestyle
and career wheels, is like trying to be number one in a game that literally has no rules.

Tao is opposition of rules, its principals.
Confucianism is rules.
They are different.
One says fuck it or whatever, the other says you need to listen to big daddy, because he knows best.

Tao cannot be wrong, that is like saying particular wave on the ocean is not much of a wave or not wavy not enough.

How can you tell a wave that its not a wave, when literally the existence of the wave tells you what it is????

Tao is certainly not something western mindset can comprehend.
Hence its most popular versions are akin to "This is how you can be happy by ignoring your boss being a complete jerk" or "I should not be bothered by having a torn in my ass, because I am high on tao"

Perverting philosophy to achieve ones ends seems to be modern sport of the masses.

Either way I never read tao. I do not know tao.

You know what is really spooky.

It is that tao is the way.

That is where it starts and where it ends.

Most people cannot wrap a simple thing like that around their heads.

Fun as is, its exactly what so many eastern philosophies are about.

They are point at principal truths which are often self evident, but people miss them so easily, because they are so simple.

They also miss them, because there is no gain, or fame or fortune or glory or prize at the end.

They simply defy the common way of comprehension.

Its like how do you comprehend the benefit of one guy standing atop of mountain who meditates on one leg for months in wind and snow????
Well that is hunduism for you, go figure.