If you believe you exist because of what you do, then every moment you are unrealized.
Where does luck factor into metaphysical law? Luck in the original sense was a personal trait as the Norse understood it. A way the world behaved around you because of the way you were, the person you are. That is the original concept behind luck. It had nothing to do with randomness originally.
So luck was more like karma. The original sense, yes. Or is it like waves in a pond that attract the attention of gators?
Well, let’s look at the holographic model of the universe. The laws of physics are fairly linear, cause and effect, but this linear function of the physical world doesn’t really explain anything about our personal experience of the world. What allows a hologram to be recorded on the film is a pattern of interference set up in the blank beam.
We create a pattern of interference in our reception of the energy of light and sound, any stimuli. This might be the most elemental definition of knowledge. The interference that arises between physical energy and our personal bodies / brains/ minds.
What would be the difference between knowledge and instinct?
Lack of thought.
What is this difference between human knowledge and human instinct?
Lack of thought.
What do you define thought as?
The mind is not engaged, something else takes over. They have brain activity in order to sort the light you receive. Your nervous system must selectively register parts of the incoming light, thus it interferes with the light. We can’t perceive infra-red light. That part is completely blocked. The same goes for all other possible stimuli.
What part of us does need knowledge? And do we consciously create knowledge? Do we just decide we know things? What do we need knowledge for?
We need to be able to “foresee” sequence so we have evolved to recognize patterns. Otherwise, we couldn’t drive on the freeway. Knowledge is in patterns. Trying to cook on a hotplate while driving a car, both are skills, But our knowledge, which isn’t directly linked to skills, would tell us that trying to do that is bad. And we learn to adapt skill to new situations not through mastery of that skill, but knowledge of that skill.
Knowledge arises from the inherent structure of the world around us. Skill doesn’t have this correlation. You can have skill in things that have nothing to do with a “real world” situation.
Ah! Knowledge is emergent! Yes, knowledge is an emergent awareness of the world.
The skill becomes instinct. The knowledge transcends instinct. This is why the skilful piano player can find ways to express things in piano music that are not taught in learning how to play. Knowledge wouldn’t be held strictly by individuals or even any specific species. It would be an imprinted awareness in all of life. Humanity has even historically gained knowledge from other species, even imparted it to other species, like the language vocabulary developed by dogs.
If knowledge is the result of a mediated apprehension, then maybe we should define knowledge in terms of a process instead of some static thing. If stimuli are the elements, what brings about their synthesis into useful perception? The synthesis is inherent in the composition of presence behind the stimuli. The structure of the human mind isn’t accidental.
The potential for events exists prior to the actualization of events, and creation is an event, and skill differs in that it’s just participation in a process. One can be skilled and lacking in understanding.
What is the force that unites impressions into experience? The same force that gave rise to the entity that could arrive at this impression, and readiness is innate in existence
What is readiness? Positive adaption.
Your thoughts are welcome. Be well friends.