A world without humans? Arte

[Ahmed]

If the imaginary leads us to our loss, it is because it unfolds within limits and in a very precise direction; what could save us is only this same imagination, provided that it makes a leap towards an outside.

[sen-no-sen]

If the imaginary leads us to our loss, it is because it unfolds within limits and in a very precise direction; what could save us is only this same imagination, provided that it makes a leap towards an outside.

It would be necessary to define this outside precisely so as not to fall into yet another romanticized vision.
One of the most terrible evils of humanity was precisely caused by a dichotomy between the ideal thought and reality lived, communism was a terrible example of it, and transhumanism is likely to take the same path.
Paradoxically, a world close to the ideal would consist of an extremely rational conception of the world * based on the driving principles of our universe, anti-idealism in short.

* A rational conception of the world absolutely does not exclude wonder, because the universe if it is well understood presents possibilities which surpass any idealism.

[Janic]

Hello
yesterday on the 5th, in it is in the air, a debate on the transition from the movable animal to that of being sensitive, finally recognized and of our profound ignorance on it for the rest of the animal population which we let's be part; Neuroscience does not provide an answer on a sector deliberately not studied and which poses a problem on the behavior to adopt towards the rest of the living world and of which a small part of ecology is the spokesperson.

[Obamot]

Hop there!

Is it really as decided in the current state Sen_No_Sen, I do not have the feeling.

We are rather going towards gray and accepted areas, between the various disciplines, right?

First of all, I believe that this "outside" is already superbly explicit in its intrinsic self-description to be self-sufficient, right?

Then, as such and from what I understand however, there is nothing in the state which would allow to say that its understanding would be "completely"of the order of the imagination. And if indeed that would be the case - but it would be necessary to prove its existence, and that science cannot * - in the state the most advanced university chairs admit the coexistence of what is of the order of the scientist, with what would emerge from this "outside" (insofar as it would be done seriously) and as it defines itself.

Regarding biological and biochemical interactions, there are already tangible and converging clues, which even physicians observe in their patients on a daily basis. It is that the mores, one damn evolved in the matter: the doctors even going so far as to encourage the affected patients, to resort to marginal methods (the clown making laugh the children having a positive impact on their recovery, etc. ). A friend of mine is on the way to stabilizing type 1 diabetes at a "normal" level through prayer and the use of acupuncture (even though I am in the practice of prevention, rather down to earth. , and therefore anthropotechnically reserved - but not obtuse, I encouraged him in his approach - in the face of such practices: I can only note certain facts.)

Finally, and it might be better if it were so, we should keep a very broad spirit of openness, otherwise we will start the "famous" witch hunt again!

* or rather if, it sometimes has indications of interactions and more and more frequently - this is why scientists are more and more careful when it comes to being categorical - since they can and have been able to demonstrate it under certain conditions, by noting changes in the state of the series of experiences (I no longer remember the circumstances very well, but we had already talked about it quite seriously in this forum. The conditioning of experiment experimenters influenced the results of the experiment itself, or something ...) As much as certain experiments (described as esoteric at the time) and carried out by Russians, at the time of the Soviet bloc, who had obtained results by putting fresh leaves from trees in two separate drawers and showing positive intentions towards one and nothing towards the other. The one that had no "moral support" wasted away much faster than the other (I would have to find that, but it must go back to the sixties.). Last but not least, the new placebo / nocebo approach (which I talk about regularly here, and which is quite serious and scientific, and which has hardly any more to do with what we thought of the exclusively psychosomatic...)

PS: Well, are we off to a hundred page thread there?

[sen-no-sen]

Obamot wrote:

We are rather going towards gray and accepted areas, between the various disciplines, right?

When I mentioned rationality, I thought of the strict definition of this term ie based on reason.
Reason based on the study of reality, and not on the desires of one or the other.
The contemporary definition of rationality rather refers to the idea of ​​reductionism.
Many phenomena considered to be paranormal are placed in the "irrational" category, while irrationality is rather to be defined as being an erroneous, mystifying or empirical understanding of reality.
Precognition for example can be explained rationally, even if we do not have the current scientific means to fully demonstrate the phenomenon.

In Switzerland, many CHUs use "coupeurs de feu" (healers) to stop burns, and this with a success rate equaling or even exceeding standard techniques, so it is a fact whether we like it or not. scientists!

[Ahmed]

This outside should be defined precisely, so as not to fall into yet another romanticized vision.

Utopias offer an attractive canvas, but which only covers the appearance and justification of new dominances. This kind of adventure seems to me totally devoid of interest and the "revolution" a lure.

An "outside" first assumes an awareness of hierarchical dominance and the resulting damage at all levels and therefore the renunciation of "systems", however ingenious they may be.

What can be defined is just the method of staying away as much as possible (?) From this kind of thing ...
Then, it would be a matter of collectively determining the most acceptable compromises, to meet everyone's needs ...
Something quite prosaic, after all, but which could lead to interesting forms of society, as we see sketches in the examples already cited (Chiapas, Greece ...).

[sen-no-sen]

Utopias offer an attractive canvas, but which only covers the appearance and justification of new dominances. This kind of adventure seems to me totally devoid of interest and the "revolution" a lure.

Hannah Arendt defined utopians as individuals who could not distinguish between reality and fiction.
Utopia is a design with a finalist character, it constitutes a goal which, to be achieved requires all possible sacrifices.
The revolution, meanwhile, only allows a change of dominant ... hard lasts!

An "outside" first assumes an awareness of hierarchical dominance and the resulting damage at all levels and therefore the renunciation of "systems", however ingenious they may be.

To reach such a goal, it will be necessary to have an extremely deep understanding of the mechanisms at work in nature.
And even if a "new grid" of this kind is of gold and already available, its diffusion and its worldwide accomplishment can only be achieved at the stage of super-civilization, apart from we are still far, very far from such development!

[Ahmed]

Hence my expression; "suppose first" ...

[Christophe]

A video which has just been released and which is causing a buzz:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wy7Q6wazD_E

[f6gia_88]

Hey, it's been 3 years since this film was broadcast on ARTE, and despite a certain accuracy, there are lots of inconsistencies ... You just have to look at what's going on in Chernobyl , wild animals reclaim the space and reproduce despite the radiation.