I thought my deliberate grammatical error made it obvious that I was displaying levity.
But yes I ducked the chicken. Or chickened out over the duck.
On account of the fact that if we are to have a rerun of the Great Vegetarian Debate I would rather not be the instigator.
Scientists find primitive organisms possess cognition
Re: Scientists find primitive organisms possess cognition
“You don’t know it. You just know about it. That is not the same thing.”
Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche to me.
Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche to me.
Re: Scientists find primitive organisms possess cognition
I thought my deliberately ridiculous question made it obvious that I was displaying levity.Simon E. wrote: ↑Fri Jul 13, 2018 6:06 pm I thought my deliberate grammatical error made it obvious that I was displaying levity.
But yes I ducked the chicken. Or chickened out over the duck.
On account of the fact that if we are to have a rerun of the Great Vegetarian Debate I would rather not be the instigator.
There is no suffering to be severed. Ignorance and klesas are indivisible from bodhi. There is no cause of suffering to be abandoned. Since extremes and the false are the Middle and genuine, there is no path to be practiced. Samsara is nirvana. No severance achieved. No suffering nor its cause. No path, no end. There is no transcendent realm; there is only the one true aspect. There is nothing separate from the true aspect.
-Guanding, Perfect and Sudden Contemplation,
-Guanding, Perfect and Sudden Contemplation,
Re: Scientists find primitive organisms possess cognition
I think we are levitating in harmony.
“You don’t know it. You just know about it. That is not the same thing.”
Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche to me.
Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche to me.
Re: Scientists find primitive organisms possess cognition
Ok. There aren’t any “huge implications” because no one actually thinks dietary purity is possible to begin with.
One should not kill any living being, nor cause it to be killed, nor should one incite any other to kill. Do never injure any being, whether strong or weak, in this entire universe!
Re: Scientists find primitive organisms possess cognition
Maybe the huge implications are of a different order.
“You don’t know it. You just know about it. That is not the same thing.”
Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche to me.
Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche to me.
Re: Scientists find primitive organisms possess cognition
I had the idea that was what eating eggs was about.
'Only practice with no gaining idea' ~ Suzuki Roshi
Re: Scientists find primitive organisms possess cognition
Yes, and also scientists LOVE the idea that they will, one day, be able to reverse-engineer, and then manufacture, living organisms. Someone once asked Craig Venter, who is the famous biologist that lead the private team that mapped the genome, if he didn't think there was something wrong with 'playing God'. 'We're not playing', he said.Jesse wrote: ↑Fri Jul 13, 2018 1:58 pmWhat we consider to be 'inorganic' matter, is very easily provable to be able to support life. Scientists have predicted silicon-based life probably exists somewhere in the universe for decades now. If so, it's easily conceivable for living beings to made of matter we consider to be inorganic, while on their planet certain matter we consider organic and alive, may not be so to them.Wayfarer wrote: ↑Fri Jul 13, 2018 9:43 am Worth recalling that the very simplest of organisms are worlds more complex than anything in the inorganic realm. The fundamental attribute of any organism is to seek homeostasis - which nothing in inorganic nature does. I believe that anything living is, on that grounds, ontologically distinct from non-living matter - a view which is almost universally rejected as being ‘vitalist’.
There are also some studies suggesting crystalline life could exist in some form, though it would likely be so alien, and unrelatable we probably wouldn't understand it at all, or even be able to 'gauge' it's intelligence or sentience.
The universe is so big, that thinking the way things are here is the standard format is a bit premature.
'Only practice with no gaining idea' ~ Suzuki Roshi
- PadmaVonSamba
- Posts: 9439
- Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am
Re: Scientists find primitive organisms possess cognition
Yes, but my point is that the organism has a kind of "intentional awareness" of something that exists beyond its own existence, and there is no brain, no sense organs that we usually agree is a requirement for sensory interaction. This is really significant.
If a leaf falls into a stream, the force of a stream will make it move in a certain direction. There's no intention on behalf of the leaf to go swimming. It isn't even the intention of the leaf to fall off the tree. When leaves tilt towards light, this can possibly be attributed to a physical reaction, light causing certain cells to constrict or whatever, resulting in a forced movement of the leaf. So, there are of course plenty of examples where there is specific response to stimuli that can be shown to be purely physiological. But there are things like white blood cells attacking bacteria and viruses, that suggest something more...
.
.
.
EMPTIFUL.
An inward outlook produces outward insight.
An inward outlook produces outward insight.
Re: Scientists find primitive organisms possess cognition
In his book, Guide for the Perplexed, economist and philosopher E F Schumacher [of Small is Beautiful fame] sketches a basic ontology as follows:
As he says, these discontinuities are generally not recognised by science, as science assumes a generally one-dimensional attitude, i.e. there is only one kind of fundamental substance, and it’s material, from which all of the other attributes are derived.
Wikipedia.Schumacher realizes that the terms—life, consciousness and self-consciousness—are subject to misinterpretation so he suggests that the differences can best be expressed as an equation which can be written thus:
'Mineral' = m
'Plant' = m + x
'Animal' = m + x + y
'Human' = m + x + y + z
In his theory, these three factors (x, y and z) represent ontological discontinuities. He argues that the differences can be likened to differences in dimension; and from one perspective it could be argued that only humans have 'real' existence insofar as they possess the three dimensions of life, consciousness and self-consciousness. Schumacher uses this perspective to contrast with the materialistic scientism view, which argues that what is 'real' is inanimate matter, denying the realness of life, consciousness and self-consciousness, despite the fact each individual can verify those phenomena from their own experience.
He directs our attention to the fact that science has generally avoided seriously discussing these discontinuities, because they present such difficulties for strictly materialistic science, and they largely remain mysteries.
The origination of movement in each level is expressed like this:
Cause (Mineral kingdom)
Stimulus (Plant kingdom)
Motive (Animal kingdom)
Will (Humanity)
As he says, these discontinuities are generally not recognised by science, as science assumes a generally one-dimensional attitude, i.e. there is only one kind of fundamental substance, and it’s material, from which all of the other attributes are derived.
'Only practice with no gaining idea' ~ Suzuki Roshi