A rooster sits on a rooftop, facing due east.
Said rooftop is shaped like a pyramid, with four sides coming down from its peak.
The sun is rising slowly, with a south easterly wind of approximately 10 mph/km.
The rooster cries, laying an egg precisely at sunrise.
With the information provided to you, what direction does the egg end up rolling off the pyramid-shaped roof: north, south, east, or west?
If you're smart, you should have stopped at the very idea of a rooster laying an egg.
Roosters don't lay eggs.
Hens lay eggs.
Roosters are male birds.
The entire premise of the "question" presented - even though a bunch of seemingly pertinent additional information is provided to help you calculate some scientific, deterministic/probabilistic way of predicting which direction the egg will roll - is irrational.
The definitions contradict reality.
It's an ontological impossibility (a hen is a hen, a rooster is a rooster) before it even leaves the gate.
Roosters don't lay eggs...
...And NOTHING just becomes SOMETHING, out of NOWHERE for NO REASON (looking at you, Scientific Determinists AND Creationists; both guilty of the same irrational premise: DETERMINISM).
My point being: if you allow for even a single CONTRADICTION in your premise, all of the following logic will be flawed...no matter how tempting the story (Big Bang vs Creationism; both entirely IRRATIONAL, and thus can in no way direct us to any sort of Truth (whatever that may be) due to being based on flawed premises, as explained above) you wrap around said logic.
If the root assertion is contradictory, all your math is merely proof of your intellectual fallacy.
If violating reason is a prerequisite for your theory or claim to make any sense, you have no "leg to stand on" regarding claims to the nature of "just what the hell is going on" regarding consciousness, humanity, and our place and function in the universe we observe.
This is a great example because it's so ridiculous after you see "the trick" in the "question". This is because it perfectly illustrates how modern people's minds are conditioned to immediately concern themselves with weighing and calculating (I.E. "cause and effect", I.E. "the laws of physics", I.E. being drunk on the DETERMINISM Kool-Aid) to "find an answer" that's "objective and empirical and thus True" instead of concerning themselves with the ROOT ASSERTION AND CLAIM of the argument at hand.
This cart-before-the-horse bullshit runs rampant in modern "science", which is anything but science at this point in history.
When REASON is used as a sword to cut through bullshit claims, what's left, no matter how improbable, or impossible, must be TRUTH.
Reality, consciousness, and the human experience are a lot "weirder" than I think both past and present paradigms have allowed.
It's the self-induced psychological handicap of accepting CONTRADICTION in our reasoning that poisons the punch, dulls awareness, and stunts not only massive social change - but most importantly, change on the individual level (of which the former is entirely a function of).
"Everyone thinks of changing the world, but no one thinks of changing himself." -Leo Tolstoy
To Progress The Self is to progress everything and everyone that is not Self simply by association and influence; and it starts by no longer tolerating IRRATIONAL PREMISES as explanations for consciousness, the nature of reality, and our place and function in both.
No comments:
Post a Comment