karma

[wegs]

The universe functions by mathematical constants which are not influenced by our behavior and moralities, except in our immediate environment where, "as you sow, so shall you reap" is becoming evident all around us.

Hi Write4U

In response to your reply - we (humans) are part of the universe, though and as such, we are much more than mathematical ''constants.'' I don't think that karma is linked to morality per se, it's more a simple playing out of cause and effect. If karma were strictly about moral goodness etc., then bad things wouldn't happen to good people.

 

[Write4U]

Hi Write4U

In response to your reply - we (humans) are part of the universe, though and as such, we are much more than mathematical ''constants.'' I don't think that karma is linked to morality per se, it's more a simple playing out of cause and effect. If karma were strictly about moral goodness etc., then bad things wouldn't happen to good people.

I totally agree with your post at a *local or interpersonal level*. But you cannot get away from the universal mathematical constants and as humans are but a small part of the universe, our existence has no influence on the universe itself, other than our *closed* system of a small planet (earth) circling a common type star. To the universe our existence is just a probabilistic phenomena. If man disappeared, the universe will continue to function as it has for 13.7 billion years.

IMHO, all spiritual philosophies are psychological in nature, but our brains are a result of universal mathematical constants and impersonal mathematical functions. These fundamental properties of the universe were/are causal to all life (and extinctions), in addition to the creation and destruction (change) of matter itself..

The dark side of human intelligence is the ability to take more than what the earth can comfortably sustain. The result is GW and all its mathematical consequences. As Hellstrom (Hellstrom Chronicle) said "there are but two species on earth which are increasing in numbers. Man because he can manipulate his immediate environment and artificially extend life, and the insect (a much older and simpler organism) which can adapt to anything man can do to our environment, due to its short lifespan (allowing for genetic modification) and their enormous numbers, which increases the probabilistic adaptation to any change in the earth's environments. Insects were here first and may well become the only surviving species on earth as demonstrated their continued existence throughout every calamity which caused the extinction of larger and more complex organisms.

So Karma (cause and effect on living organisms) seems to favor the insect, odd as that conclusion may seem to be.

 

[wegs]

I totally agree with your post at a *local or interpersonal level*. But you cannot get away from the universal mathematical constants and as humans are but a small part of the universe, our existence has no influence on the universe itself, other than our *closed* system of a small planet (earth) circling a common type star. To the universe our existence is just a probabilistic phenomena. If man disappeared, the universe will continue to function as it has for 13.7 billion years.

Not sure karma is entirely objective, though. Are you saying karma is part of the universe's mathematical constants?

IMHO, all spiritual philosophies are psychological in nature, but our brains are a result of universal mathematical constants and impersonal mathematical functions.

Okay, I should have kept reading. lol You answered my above question. This is a very interesting take you have, that you think our brains are a result of mathematical constants.

These fundamental properties of the universe were/are causal to all life (and extinctions), in addition to the creation and destruction (change) of matter itself..

This reminds me of our chat over at the other science site, regarding determinism.

The dark side of human intelligence is the ability to take more than what the earth can comfortably sustain. The result is GW and all its mathematical consequences. As Hellstrom (Hellstrom Chronicle) said "there are but two species on earth which are increasing in numbers. Man because he can manipulate his immediate environment and artificially extend life, and the insect (a much older and simpler organism) which can adapt to anything man can do to our environment, due to its short lifespan (allowing for genetic modification) and their enormous numbers, which increases the probabilistic adaptation to any change in the earth's environments. Insects were here first and may well become the only surviving species on earth as demonstrated their continued existence throughout every calamity which caused the extinction of larger and more complex organisms.

So Karma (cause and effect on living organisms) seems to favor the insect, odd as that conclusion may seem to be.

Do you suppose that the only reason it appears to favor the insect is because the insect doesn't have the psychological makeup, in terms of complexity, as a human? Although, researchers have submitted that insects have the ability to be altruistic. Not sure that has anything to do with karma, though.

 

[Write4U]

Do you suppose that the only reason it appears to favor the insect is because the insect doesn't have the psychological makeup, in terms of complexity, as a human? Although, researchers have submitted that insects have the ability to be altruistic. Not sure that has anything to do with karma, though.

As I understand it, insects don't have the ability to make judgments at all, except for rudimentary mathematical abilities.

I know very little about insects that live solitary lives and basically communicate only to draw a mate, but hive insects have division of labor and probably a more sophisticated form of language and a hive-mind seems an expression of a mathematical system, with reactive abilities.

But insects have no morals, all actions are hardwired, they have no choice at all. One could see that as a perfectly deterministic society, no choices, no morals, no altruism. They must do what they are programmed to do, including self-sacrifice, if necessary.

IMO, a hive is close to being a living computer, consisting of little living robots and with the sole purpose of producing more of its kind, excluding caterpillars which can only eat but not mate, but then metamorphosize into an entirely different and spectacular being that can only mate and die shortly thereafter. An astounding mathematical process.

From Oxford Dictionaries,

met·a·mor·pho·sis; NOUN
1. zoology,
(in an insect or amphibian) the process of transformation from an immature form to an adult form in two or more distinct stages.

And from wiki,

Karma

means action, work or deed; it also refers to the spiritual principle of cause and effect where intent and actions of an individual (cause) influence the future of that individual (effect). Good intent and good deed contribute to good karma and future happiness, while bad intent and bad deed contribute to bad karma and future suffering.

Insects never need ask the question, They are the perfect example of Karma, they must practice what is good for the hive . Maybe that's why they are so successful. But their reward is a short life span, one could say that's bad Karma. And if you look at the much longer life of a queen Termite, that would make you question Karma altogether. T0 spend some 30 years in one spot, unable to move herself and become a throbbing egg laying machine, by the millions, all for the good of the hive. Such a torturous long life is not a good Karma reward . But mathematically it is good Karma for the hive, and they will thrive. A kind of *pay it forward* Karma.

All this pretty well rules out the concept of good and bad karma in context of intent or personal reward, even in the spiritual sense. But, IMO, in the abstract, it satisfies several cosmic mathematical imperatives.

 

[wegs]

As I understand it, insects don't have the ability to make judgments at all, except for rudimentary mathematical abilities.

I know very little about insects that live solitary lives and basically communicate only to draw a mate, but hive insects have division of labor and probably a more sophisticated form of language and a hive-mind seems an expression of a mathematical system, with reactive abilities.

But insects have no morals, all actions are hardwired, they have no choice at all. One could see that as a perfectly deterministic society, no choices, no morals, no altruism. They must do what they are programmed to do, including self-sacrifice, if necessary.

IMO, a hive is close to being a living computer, consisting of little living robots and with the sole purpose of producing more of its kind, excluding caterpillars which can only eat but not mate, but then metamorphosize into an entirely different and spectacular being that can only mate and die shortly thereafter. An astounding mathematical process.

From Oxford Dictionaries,
And from wiki,


Insects never need ask the question, They are the perfect example of Karma, they must practice what is good for the hive . Maybe that's why they are so successful. But their reward is a short life span, one could say that's bad Karma. And if you look at the much longer life of a queen Termite, that would make you question Karma altogether. T0 spend some 30 years in one spot, unable to move herself and become a throbbing egg laying machine, by the millions, all for the good of the hive. Such a torturous long life is not a good Karma reward . But mathematically it is good Karma for the hive, and they will thrive. A kind of *pay it forward* Karma.

All this pretty well rules out the concept of good and bad karma in context of intent or personal reward, even in the spiritual sense. But, IMO, in the abstract, it satisfies several cosmic mathematical imperatives.

Altruism isn't about morals, really, it's an evolutionary mechanism that helps a species to have the best chance of survival. Altruism is nearly an instinctive characteristic that causes members of any species (most species) to look out for others, to sacrifice for the good of the whole. But, it isn't entirely based on pure motives, it is also something that is done in order to preserve a species. If most people look out for one another, chances are humankind will survive.

It coincides with your insect/hive example. Karma needn't be a principle that we tie morality to. As always, you bring about great thinking points, and are thoughtful in your response.

 

[Write4U]

It coincides with your insect/hive example. Karma needn't be a principle that we tie morality to. As always, you bring about great thinking points, and are thoughtful in your response.

Kindred spirits? : )

 

[wegs]

Kindred spirits? : )

Maybe

 

[birch]

This is really insane. What is it that people are not getting? Is the girl who got her feet amputated by going on a faulty amusement park ride deserved that? Was it karma? If you simply note its cause and effect, then yes but to add the connotations of some moral justice behind it is ludicrous. Is a child who got killed in a war deserve that as in karma? Hell no. Are those victims of human trafficking deserve that as in karma? Are all lottery winners deserving of that type of money and have the ability to be responsible? No. Again, its cause and effect as well as others actions affect your life too, not just your own. Ridiculous religionists may attribute all and any outcome as' god's will' or some believe that people deserve everything that happens to them which is a grave insulting sense of justice because it just isnt true. That said, we have the consciousness and some power to enact karma but whether its moral or just will depend on us, otherwise it will be fucked up. Shit happens anyways to the deserving/undeserving just as blessings. So no, people dont always get their just desserts either way. We can try but there are forces as well as factors and variables beyond our control. And if moral karma was inherently part of nature apart from us, then no one would dare do the crap they do because they would know they would never get away with it now or eventually but that isnt the case. We enact that the best we can because we have the consciousness and sense. Nature is rudimentary, detached and mindless on this front.

 

[Write4U]

The scientific term for Karma is *Natural selection*, which is a natural probabilistic function.

 

[wegs]

Nature is rudimentary, detached and mindless on this front.

But, we're not.

And karma isn't at all about ''just desserts.'' That's what many commonly think it's about...''oh, she got karma for being such a gossip.'' That's not what it is. It's little more than reaping what we sow, but this doesn't mean that ''bad things'' can't happen to ''good'' people.

 

[birch]

But, we're not.

And karma isn't at all about ''just desserts.'' That's what many commonly think it's about...''oh, she got karma for being such a gossip.'' That's not what it is. It's little more than reaping what we sow, but this doesn't mean that ''bad things'' can't happen to ''good'' people.

But its more complicated in 'outcome' than that because anything can be manipulated. You can reap what you sow or another can reap what you sow just as well, good or bad. The outcome depends on circumstances, culture, timing, politics, evolution of people around you and their state/values etc.

It is not true that you only get positive back for positive and negative for negative. Life experience proves that isnt the case. It will all depend on what and who you are dealing with at the moment. Some will see it as opportunism for exploitation, vulnerability etc not necessarily engender fairness, friendliness or gratitude.

Realistically if people could simply count on 'reap what you sow' and that were the case, we wouldnt need laws, police, lawyers, judges, militaries, jails and prisons.

Life experience, again, shows that one can only control a fraction of their life in the strictest sense of 'reap what you sow' not only in ones own life but others. More realistically, society 'reaps what it sows' as a whole but who is affected is not always fair. A child does not deserve to he born addicted to drugs or with hiv, abused or in a cancer ward etc just as many adults bear the brunt of negative experiences wrought by others which they did not cause or deserve. This happens all the time which is why there is a saying 'life is not fair' but karma is essentially saying it is. So, in essence, only as society improves their conscience can we hope to have a closer to fair outcome yet still it is what affects the whole. It is simply what goes around can come around and that has no relation to who sowed what as there will be those who reap it in the firing line which were not responsible just as improvements in society which benefit/reap whether they were the sower or not.

 

[birch]

Oh, here is another ugly case.

http://flatheadbeacon.com/2015/09/28/family-reacts-to-justine-winters-pending-release/
http://abcnews.go.com/US/TheLaw/mon...de-sues-slain-womans-family/story?id=11323133

Where is the moral karma in this? Hmm, there isn't one. life is unfair and nature is fucked up. That's the lesson. It's impossible to bring up all examples because there are too many in the world past, present and future. The ugliness, unfairness and human filth doesn't stop just with her but also those in society/public on the divide who supported her, the judge who let her off easy, the dirty lawyers who went after suing the family of the victims etc. And on top of all that, the fact there are people sitting in prison doing more time with lesser offense, in the west and elsewhere, does not matter. again, where is that 'karma'? it's like unicorns, it doesn't exist.

Also, just watch your local fuking news and that's not even counting all the dirty secrets and skeletons people have in their closets that aren't in the news as well as other shit they do or are which isn't in the venue to be prosecuted. It's called human filth and human trash and yes, it exists. and no, there is no such thing as 'karma' with a moral spin on it. as perverted and amoral as nature is, karma can also be reward for shit just as well. those less deserving can even be chosen by nature to breed even more while those who were more deserving perish etc. this place is crazy. it's total bullshit.

 

[Michael 345]

Think of it this way: The upshot of humanity failing to extinction will be that nobody will remain to say we deserved it, and by the time the alien anthropologists arrive, explore, inquire, examine, and eventually conclude that the species has, indeed, amused itself to death↱, it won't matter whether we deserved it or not.

But humanity is no less a part of nature than calcium. Or zircon. Or iridium. What we bring to the Universe is inherent within the Universe.

Think of it this way

When the alien anthropologists arrive they will find calcium, zircon and iridium

They will not find any of the ideas we brought into the Universe

They will find records of our thoughts

Yes

Thoughts themselves

Zip

 

[Michael 345]

The scientific term for Karma is *Natural selection*, which is a natural probabilistic function.

Can you please reference any scientific journal which the statement relates to please?

 

[Write4U]

Can you please reference any scientific journal which the statement relates to please?

OK, let's start with the definition of Karma.

Karma means action, work or deed; it also refers to the spiritual principle of cause and effect where intent and actions of an individual (cause) influence the future of that individual (effect). Good intent and good deed contribute to good karma and future happiness, while bad intent and bad deed contribute to bad karma and future uffering.

IMO, while this may seem to apply to all living things, as evidenced in the evolutionary processes of adaption, refinement, and specialization (iow, survival itself). it is still subject to natural probabilistic functions.

We often use the expression "unintended consequences", which would suggest that intent is not deterministic, but probabilistic, regardless of motive. Hence my response that Karma has a probabilistic aspect or imperative, also known as "natural selection".

 

[Michael 345]

OK, let's start with the definition of Karma. IMO, while this may seem to apply to all living things, as evidenced in the evolutionary processes of adaption, refinement, and specialization (iow, survival itself). it is still subject to natural probabilistic functions.

We often use the expression "unintended consequences", which would suggest that intent is not deterministic, but probabilistic, regardless of motive. Hence my response that Karma has a probabilistic aspect or imperative, also known as "natural selection".

None of which remotely resembles anything scientific

 

[Write4U]

None of which remotely resembles anything scientific

And the spiritual concept of Karma does?
What scientific theory would that be?

 

[Michael 345]

The scientific term for Karma is *Natural selection*, which is a natural probabilistic function.

I am not making any scientific claim about karma

And the spiritual concept of Karma does?

NOTHING

What scientific theory would that be?

Science does not make ANY

theory about Woo

There might be a few Woo investigaters

makeing so called investigations

followed by exaggerated claims

followed by a book

full of impressive sounding terms

most of which are either made up

or twisted in meaning

followed by a whinge about being

ignored by Science

A tired low road unfortunately trodden by to many Phineas Taylor "P. T." Barnumites

 

[Write4U]

I am not making any scientific claim about karma
NOTHING
Science does not make ANY
theory about Woo
There might be a few Woo investigaters
makeing so called investigations
followed by exaggerated claims
followed by a book
full of impressive sounding terms
most of which are either made up
or twisted in meaning
followed by a whinge about being
ignored by Science
A tired low road unfortunately trodden by to many Phineas Taylor "P. T." Barnumites

I'll take that as agreement with my posit.
I just do not use ad hominem to make a point..
But you may want to reread my post more carefully.

p.s. Probability does not mean willy-nilly, there is a range which is influenced by previous action. Thus, in a social context good behavior increases the probability of receiving good behavior in return, but it is never *certain*
Moreover, if you try to divorce spiritualism from science you will find that it cannot be done. The universe functions mathematically, even in the abstract.

This may be of interest https://www.ted.com/talks/siamak_hariri_how_do_you_build_a_sacred_space?

 

[Tiassa]

We often use the expression "unintended consequences", which would suggest that intent is not deterministic, but probabilistic, regardless of motive. Hence my response that Karma has a probabilistic aspect or imperative, also known as "natural selection".

Basic Gardenerian Witchcraft, in this case, "Law of Threes", or "Threefold Law", which only gets sticky if you try to take it literally in a fixed formulaic context. That iteration is straightforward: "What you sew, so also shall you reap, but three times over."

A generally contemporary explanation can be found in Starhawk, The Spiral Dance, 1979. But it's simply a reflection of our instinct, that bad behavior screws things up even worse than its own moment, and good behavior can have positive effects beyond itself.