What are the 3 greatest insights you've discovered in your life?

Quote from 124nic8 : Everyone probably has what they consider to be revelations about life. I'm asking what you consider to be the top 3 which you have discovered either on your own or by reading others' work. And I'm asking about Earthly pragmatism, not mere beliefs which make you feel good such as Jesus loving you. I'll start: 1. Man developed a belief in god to relieve his anxiety over not understanding the physical world. This anxiety was a key motivator for his survival since he survived by his wits instead of physical strength or speed. IOW, he needed to understand his world to survive yet not be debilitated by the anxiety of not understanding the things which were beyond his comprehension. 2. Sex gives organisms a survival advantage both by providing an error correction mechanism and adaptability. The higher the complexity of the organism, the more critical that any errors in reproduction be minor. 3. In the conflict between acting in self-interest and altruism, there is a happy middle ground which consists of enlighted self-interest; essentially the recognition that in most cases harming the interests of others harms your own interests in the longer term. And generally, being motivated by enlightened self-interest is the best that can be expected from anyone. In general, these are a synthesis of many things I have learned over the years and did not come from any single text. Anyway, I am hoping to learn others' insights, which is the motivation of this thread.

I'm really taken aback by the number of people who think the idea of a God, regardless of how they feel about organized religion, is some sort of crazy talk. A creator, architect, designer that exists outside of our plane of reality seems perfectly reasonable.


If sex were so critical, why don't all organisms employ it as a means of reproduction? Asexual reproduction is wildly successful in nature for hundreds of millions of years.

I agree with your third bullet. The other two...not so much.

Quote from Slvrshot : I'm really taken aback by the number of people who think the idea of a God, regardless of how they feel about organized religion, is some sort of crazy talk. A creator, architect, designer that exists outside of our plane of reality seems perfectly reasonable.

"Seems perfectly reasonable" is not a high standard for evidence of the nature of reality.

Quote : If sex were so critical, why don't all organisms employ it as a means of reproduction? Asexual reproduction is wildly successful in nature for hundreds of millions of years.

For very simple organisms. As I mentioned, relatively error free copying becomes more critical as the complexity increases.

Quote : I agree with your third bullet. The other two...not so much.

Did I miss your contribution?

So, I've thought about this for a couple of days, and I think these are the most important to me.

1. Ideas are competing for survival and we are pawns and proxies in that struggle.

2. The physical world is a theater of perception and my physical body exists solely to move my organs of perception within that theater.

3. Ignorance is the state of being that mankind fears more than any other, and we will construct all manner of false certitudes to shield the mind from that dread void.

Quote from skiman : So, I've thought about this for a couple of days, and I think these are the most important to me. 1. Ideas are competing for survival and we are pawns and proxies in that struggle.

If we are the pawns, who/what is the manipulator?

Quote : 2. The physical world is a theater of perception and my physical body exists solely to move my organs of perception within that theater.

"Theater" seems to imply a script. Is that what you meant to imply? A script written by a manipulator....

Quote : 3. Ignorance is the state of being that mankind fears more than any other, and we will construct all manner of false certitudes to shield the mind from that dread void.

Perhaps ignorance of life's meaning. Other than that, it seems there are greater fears, such as profound loss, ie. a loved one or one's life; considering what people will do to save it.

If ignorance were the greatest fear, wouldn't people be constantly pursuing knowledge to the exclusion of most every other activity?

Quote from 124nic8 : If we are the pawns, who/what is the manipulator?

We are our own motivators, driven by self preservation, but in service to ideas. To lay out the analogy: Genes are to individual organisms as ideas are to individual minds. Over time, the best ideas are more likely to be propagated and to survive through the more likely survival of the proxies.

Quote from 124nic8 : "Theater" seems to imply a script. Is that what you meant to imply? A script written by a manipulator....

No, I meant it in the broader sense of a "place" where things may be witnessed. Museum or observatory may serve just as well. Most of us, most of the time, gather most of our input from the experience of what we believe to be a shared physical world, but the truths of a dreamscape or of a constructed virtual reality are just as meaningful. Our bodies exist solely to carry our consciousness from physical place to physical place to gather input. They are not "who" we are and in many ways are an archaic means of facilitating perception.

This is why I haven't left my house in 14 years. (j/k)

Quote from 124nic8 : Perhaps ignorance of life's meaning. Other than that, it seems there are greater fears, such as profound loss, ie. a loved one or one's life; considering what people will do to save it. If ignorance were the greatest fear, wouldn't people be constantly pursuing knowledge to the exclusion of most every other activity?

Gathering knowledge is great, but even the most successful knowledge gatherers end up with question marks. Dogma is a shield against this uncertainty. Though this is perhaps most obvious WRT the "big" questions, I find that it's a defense that is employed even in the most mundane circumstances. People cling to the dogma of natural rights in the same way that a child won't consider foods other than chicken nuggets. Not only is there an answer, but the answer is already known.

When you talk about losing one's life or even losing a loved one, we're really talking about a fear of change, of uncertainty. We don't know that either even truly means. We don't know how it will impact our lives, but we are very afraid of that unknown. Whether we fear the cessation of existence or that our lives will not be as worthwhile without a beloved companion, we are worried about the difference between the reality we know now, and whatever it may be afterward.

1. moderation - don't go for too little or too much of anything
2. sleep - don't be lazy (aka sleep in), but don't use an alarm every morning either
3. prices depend on what people are willing to pay, not on what it costs to make

Quote from joer316 : sorry your ideas are automatically invalid because you expressed them each in one sentence (according to nic)

Nah, with enough time and pressure even the broadest concepts can become diamonds.

Quote from skiman : We are our own motivators, driven by self preservation, but in service to ideas. To lay out the analogy: Genes are to individual organisms as ideas are to individual minds. Over time, the best ideas are more likely to be propagated and to survive through the more likely survival of the proxies.

What about ideas that don't give a survival advantage?

This seems true only if you define "best ideas" as those which enable the proxy to better survive.

Quote : No, I meant it in the broader sense of a "place" where things may be witnessed. Museum or observatory may serve just as well. Most of us, most of the time, gather most of our input from the experience of what we believe to be a shared physical world, but the truths of a dreamscape or of a constructed virtual reality are just as meaningful. Our bodies exist solely to carry our consciousness from physical place to physical place to gather input. They are not "who" we are and in many ways are an archaic means of facilitating perception. This is why I haven't left my house in 14 years. (j/k)

So watching TV is just as "meaningful" as real life human interaction and physical experience? Or is that reserved for some total imersion technology that doesn't exist yet?

Quote : Gathering knowledge is great, but even the most successful knowledge gatherers end up with question marks. Dogma is a shield against this uncertainty. Though this is perhaps most obvious WRT the "big" questions, I find that it's a defense that is employed even in the most mundane circumstances. People cling to the dogma of natural rights in the same way that a child won't consider foods other than chicken nuggets. Not only is there an answer, but the answer is already known. When you talk about losing one's life or even losing a loved one, we're really talking about a fear of change, of uncertainty. We don't know that either even truly means. We don't know how it will impact our lives, but we are very afraid of that unknown. Whether we fear the cessation of existence or that our lives will not be as worthwhile without a beloved companion, we are worried about the difference between the reality we know now, and whatever it may be afterward.

Have to disagree that people don't at least have an idea what profound loss is like.

If only that they can extrapolate from lesser loss and/or observe the experiences of others.

It really seems like you're projecting your experience of being a deep thinker on others when the vast majority really aren't.

But I agree that people cling to the dogma of faith as a shield against the anxiety of the unknown and not understood. That's basically my insight #1.

1. There is only one person you can trust 100% and it is yourself, everyone else is a lower percentage
2. Learn a new skill everyday cause one day it will come in handy
3. Beauty and value ( as in $ ) are always in the eye of the beholder

Quote from skiman : We are our own motivators, driven by self preservation, but in service to ideas. To lay out the analogy: Genes are to individual organisms as ideas are to individual minds. Over time, the best ideas are more likely to be propagated and to survive through the more likely survival of the proxies.

Is this necessarily a more worthwhile goal/pursuit for humans than simply existing? Ideas are after all dependent on our motivations.

Quote : No, I meant it in the broader sense of a "place" where things may be witnessed. Museum or observatory may serve just as well. Most of us, most of the time, gather most of our input from the experience of what we believe to be a shared physical world, but the truths of a dreamscape or of a constructed virtual reality are just as meaningful.

How so when they can't be shown?

Quote : Our bodies exist solely to carry our consciousness from physical place to physical place to gather input. They are not "who" we are and in many ways are an archaic means of facilitating perception. Gathering knowledge is great, but even the most successful knowledge gatherers end up with question marks. Dogma is a shield against this uncertainty. Though this is perhaps most obvious WRT the "big" questions, I find that it's a defense that is employed even in the most mundane circumstances. People cling to the dogma of natural rights in the same way that a child won't consider foods other than chicken nuggets. Not only is there an answer, but the answer is already known. When you talk about losing one's life or even losing a loved one, we're really talking about a fear of change, of uncertainty. We don't know that either even truly means. We don't know how it will impact our lives, but we are very afraid of that unknown. Whether we fear the cessation of existence or that our lives will not be as worthwhile without a beloved companion, we are worried about the difference between the reality we know now, and whatever it may be afterward.

Surely the loss of one's own life is meaningful beyond just the certainty of death.

Quote from 124nic8 : What about ideas that don't give a survival advantage? This seems true only if you define "best ideas" as those which enable the proxy to better survive.

What skiman's talking about is the analogy of ideas to genes. Just as we can be seen as "propagating" the latter, sufficiently advanced social organisms can also be seen as "propagating" the former (albeit through very different mechanisms). Dawkins wrote about this in the selfish gene, where the "meme" was coined.

Like all analogies, that comparison makes sense in some aspects and not in others.

Quote : So watching TV is just as "meaningful" as real life human interaction and physical experience? Or is that reserved for some total imersion technology that doesn't exist yet?

Yes, it's certainly as meaningful to the person as any other thought process.

For example, all we really know individually of reality is our transient perceptions or memories thereof. I would say the the memory of eating food yesterday is the same type of meaningful as the memory of watching TV.

Quote from 124nic8 : What about ideas that don't give a survival advantage? This seems true only if you define "best ideas" as those which enable the proxy to better survive.

Sure, advantage can only apply to that which is under pressure. Not all genes are advantageous in all environments and the same is true for ideas.

It seems to me that there is no better arbiter of value than the crucible of evolution. That which survives is better, as evidenced by the fact of survival.

Quote from 124nic8 : So watching TV is just as "meaningful" as real life human interaction and physical experience? Or is that reserved for some total imersion technology that doesn't exist yet?

Well, human interaction is just one kind of experience, with the purpose of connecting one mind to another. Technology does continually make it easier to connect and may someday allow virtual connections that are as real as any physical connection. But that's not strictly what I was speaking about. It seems to me that people have a false conception that the body is the self. It's not. The body is just the machinery that the consciousness drives around the physical world. For most of us that machinery includes arms, legs, feet and hands. Others may navigate the physical world on wheels or cheetah blades. We already use technology to aid and enhance that mobility, and it seems inevitable that we will eventually be able to transcend traditional mobility.

The other side of what I mention is the mind's existing ability to transcend the physical world. We have self-contained experiences while our bodies lie dormant. We journey, laugh, cry and love all without benefit of external, physical input. Those events are as meaningful as any other event.

TV, on the other hand, is not an experiential device. It just conducts information. Which is fine, I just mean to differentiate observation from experience.

Quote from 124nic8 : Have to disagree that people don't at least have an idea what profound loss is like. If only that they can extrapolate from lesser loss and/or observe the experiences of others. It really seems like you're projecting your experience of being a deep thinker on others when the vast majority really aren't. But I agree that people cling to the dogma of faith as a shield against the anxiety of the unknown and not understood. That's basically my insight #1.

I don't know if it's deep, but I don't mean to imply that most other people share this "insight." A thing can be true without most people recognizing or articulating that truth. I think that if more people understood the situation they would be able to address the fear of uncertainty, set aside dogma, and reexamine their beliefs. Instead we have millions of people slaughtered over thousands of years of human history all for the sake of irrational "certainties" that are created to stave off the fearsome question mark.

Quote from agent00f : Is this necessarily a more worthwhile goal/pursuit for humans than simply existing? Ideas are after all dependent on our motivations.

No, I wouldn't characterize it as a goal or pursuit, or as worthwhile. As conscious beings, our relationship to ideas is more primal than that. To paraphrase a fiery shrub, "it is that it is."

Quote from agent00f : How so when they can't be shown?

Do you mean shown to others? I think that meaning is a decidedly internalized function. We can't show what something means to us in any definitive way. It seems to me that there is no difference in the ability to share these experiences with others. In "a dream" we perceive others sharing experiences, just as we may perceive the same sharing of experiences in what each of us thinks of as the "real world." We can also describe our perceptions in one world to the inhabitants of the other world.

I don't want to get too hung up on dreams. What I was getting at is that our minds define meaning independent of any physical reality. Our bodies' interaction with the physical world is the least of our experiences. Our "reality" is a product of our perceptions, and our fascinating brains can create perception without need of those clunky external sensors.

Quote from agent00f : Surely the loss of one's own life is meaningful beyond just the certainty of death.

How so? Aren't people simply afraid of not existing, of the end of awareness? So much human creative energy has been devoted to inventing irrational alternatives to the cessation of existence that I have to see this as the core fear from which all others are derived. So much human energy is devoted to proposing and defending alternative outcomes, it's hard to conceive of a world in which most of us could comfortable acknowledging an unknown ending.

Quote from skiman : No, I wouldn't characterize it as a goal or pursuit, or as worthwhile. As conscious beings, our relationship to ideas is more primal than that. To paraphrase a fiery shrub, "it is that it is."

But as conscious being, we also choose what to do with ideas.

Quote : Do you mean shown to others? I think that meaning is a decidedly internalized function. We can't show what something means to us in any definitive way. It seems to me that there is no difference in the ability to share these experiences with others. In "a dream" we perceive others sharing experiences, just as we may perceive the same sharing of experiences in what each of us thinks of as the "real world." We can also describe our perceptions in one world to the inhabitants of the other world.

You use the worth "truth" in this part of the comment. Do you mean the same objective truth as as the rest of the comment?

Quote : I don't want to get too hung up on dreams. What I was getting at is that our minds define meaning independent of any physical reality. Our bodies' interaction with the physical world is the least of our experiences. Our "reality" is a product of our perceptions, and our fascinating brains can create perception without need of those clunky external sensors.

Surely reality is not the same thing as individual perception.

Quote : How so? Aren't people simply afraid of not existing, of the end of awareness?

Maybe, maybe not. I'm just pointing out that there are practical concerns connected dying independent of emotions.

Quote : So much human creative energy has been devoted to inventing irrational alternatives to the cessation of existence that I have to see this as the core fear from which all others are derived. So much human energy is devoted to proposing and defending alternative outcomes, it's hard to conceive of a world in which most of us could comfortable acknowledging an unknown ending.

I don't see how the irrational explanations are inherently connected to death. People create irrational explanations for everything and death is just a common and significant thing.