who has the idea?

An idea is merely a shape in causal space.

So a human without a thought is just an animal.

And a thought without a human container is…?

Can an animal disobey the survival imperative? Obviously, many have.

John has disobeyed the genetic imperative. John feels like a part of a wave in causal space.

Perhaps John is a parameter in the equation for the wave. Perhaps he is a region of the wave, if such a thing can be.

Another thing to deny, to disobey, is the time parameter of the wave, so that you become a singularity. Not knowing time, not even knowing of time.

The singularity comforts us in its ultimate symmetry. Infinite gravity without space or time.

My feeble understanding of science is such that I ought rather buttress my viewpoint via logic.

The word “flow” implies time. So our language is inadequate to discuss these matters other than allegorically. But the mathematicians continually find expressional analogues for my philosophical point.

The greatest impediment that now exists is the continuity illusion of humans as the defining arbiter of purpose. The prejudicial conclusions of an isolated animal form, the “I” identity is the inbred distillate of traits that catered to animal reproduction, environmental manipulation and exploration.

But instead of seeing that these types of thought explorations, and their instantiation in the agar of our host world, underscore that “we” can transcend our physical and temporal limitations, somehow that  viewpoint has not suffused our understanding of “purpose”.

The famous Monty Hall logic puzzle is one example of how our binary, hunter-gatherer-derived notions of choice and possibility can be inadequate to a task. I submit that our current notions of “we” and “purpose” are similarly inadequate.

Perhaps you have experienced the difference between being impatient with fellow drivers on the road, and at other times feeling in harmony with the flow of traffic. The second mode implies an identification with something larger, or more complex, than our traditional notion of “self”.

As much study as is currently being done in the neurosciences, robotics, AI, very little discussion occurs in normal, everyday forums regarding what “purpose” means, if indeed it now means something new. Or if purpose needs no redefining, perhaps it is the concept of the “we” who wield purpose that can serve better by being redefined.

What is a “citizen”? For that matter, what is a “country”. Of course we say them as if they mean something. And we have been shown dividing lines on maps from our infancy. But are we really divided so arbitrarily? Species, countries, sexes?

Or do we already sense that the harmony between us is not the harmony of separate voices, dimensions, species, but the wave of possibility, sounding spacetime.

In this manifold, variegated, expansive and energetic world, do we still regard ourselves as circumscribed mammals whose primary purpose is reproduction?

Or are “we” defined differently? And if so, defined how?

I say our concept of an animal should extend to include countries. And we need to spend more time discussing large purpose, an understanding of which can help us to transcend the mortal coil, which is no less necessary, no less inevitable, than the exodus of our ancestors from the watery universe of their pond. Whether or not they hitchhiked via asteroids is irrelevant.